The Mueller Report: The Comprehensive Findings of the Special Counsel

by Robert S. Mueller III

Hicks recalled again going to the President to urge him that they should be fully transparent about the June 9 meeting, but he again said no, telling Hicks, "You've given a statement. We're done."

The President later told the press that it was "irrelevant" whether he dictated the statement and said, "It's a statement to the New York Times. . . . That's not a statement to a high tribunal of judges."

On at least three occasions between June 29, 2017, and July 9, 2017, the President directed Hicks and others not to publicly disclose information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and a Russian attorney.

From summer 2017 through 2018, the President attempted to have Attorney General Sessions reverse his recusal, take control of the Special Counsel's investigation, and order an investigation of Hillary Clinton.

In early July 2017, the President asked Staff Secretary Rob Porter what he thought of Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand.739 Porter recalled that the President asked him if Brand was good, tough, and "on the team."

Personal loyalty is all that matters to Trump. Integrity, competence and commitment to institutional norms and values are barely, if at all, considered.

the President asked Porter a few times in passing whether he had spoken to Brand, but Porter did not reach out to her because he was uncomfortable with the task.

Yet another example of someone ignoring one of Trump's requests that they do something they are uncomfortable doing.

Sessions issued a press statement that said, "I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in . . . . While I am Attorney General, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations."

On November 7, 2018, the day after the midterm elections, the President replaced Sessions with Sessions's chief of staff as Acting Attorney General.

analyzing

The anlysis of Trumps incessant and obssessive campaign to get Sessions to resign.

The inquiry would not turn on what Attorney General Sessions would actually do if unrecused, but on whether the efforts to reverse his recusal would naturally have had the effect of impeding the Russia investigation.

Frankly, even I am skeptical that Trump's conduct vis a vis Sessions would meet this standard.

A reasonable inference from those statements and the President's actions is that the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation.

After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel.

Repeatedly tries to get White House counsel to lie about Trump's efforts to remlove Sessions. Just business as usual for the Liar-in-Chief.

McGahn refused and insisted his memory of the President's direction to remove the Special Counsel was accurate.

"Fake

Lies, lies and more lies, this time denying press reports thaat he had been pressing McGahn to get the Special Counsel fired over alleged conflicts-of-interest.

On January 26, 2018, the President's personal counsel called McGahn's attorney and said that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel and that he had threatened to quit in protest.

Trump's efforts to persuade McGahn to lie.

The President referred to McGahn as a "lying bastard" and said that he wanted a record from him.799 Porter recalled the President saying something to the effect of, "If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him."

The President then asked, "What about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes."824 McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer" and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing.825 The President said, "I've had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes."

As previously described, see Volume II, Section II.E, supra, substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the President had directed him to have the Special Counsel removed, including the timing and context of the President's directive; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact that the President had been told the conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the Department of Justice, and should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather than brought to McGahn.

Finally, as noted above, the President brought up the Special Counsel investigation in his Oval Office meeting with McGahn and criticized him for telling this Office about the June 17, 2017 events. The President's statements reflect his understanding—and his displeasure—that those events would be part of an obstruction-of-justice inquiry.

On October 27, 2017, a grand jury in the District of Columbia indicted Manafort and former deputy campaign manager Richard Gates on multiple felony counts, and on February 22, 2018, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia indicted Manafort and Gates on additional felony counts.846 The charges in both cases alleged criminal conduct by Manafort that began as early as 2005 and continued through 2018.

"rigged

It's interesting how Trump repeatedly referred to the Mueller investigation as a "witch hunt" and "rigged" yet the final Reporrt concluded that he had committed no indictable crimes with regard to "collusion" and stated no conclusion with redgard too obstruction. Trump must have meant that it was rigged in his favor.

The next day, Giuliani told the Washington Post that the President had asked his lawyers for advice on the possibility of a pardon for Manafort and other aides, and had been counseled against considering a pardon until the investigation concluded.

Those statements, combined with the President's commendation of Manafort for being a "brave man" who "refused to 'break'," suggested that a pardon was a more likely possibility if Manafort continued not to

cooperate with the government.

The President's public statements during the Manafort trial, including during jury deliberations, also had the potential to influence the trial jury.

Evidence concerning the President's conduct towards Manafort indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government.

the evidence supports the inference that the President intended Manafort to believe that he could receive a pardon, which would make cooperation with the government as a means of obtaining a lesser sentence unnecessary.

We also examined the evidence of the President's intent in making public statements about Manafort at the beginning of his trial and when the jury was deliberating. Some evidence supports a conclusion that the President intended, at least in part, to influence the jury.

But there are alternative explanations for the President's comments, including that he genuinely felt sorry for Manafort or that his goal was not to influence the jury but to influence public opinion.

During the campaign, Cohen pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization. Cohen briefed candidate Trump on the project numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal.

In an attempt to minimize the President's connections to Russia, Cohen submitted a letter to Congress falsely stating that he only briefed Trump on the Trump Tower Moscow project three times, that he did not consider asking Trump to travel to Russia, that Cohen had not received a response to an outreach he made to the Russian government, and that the project ended in January 2016, before the first Republican caucus or primary.