Robert Mueller resigns as special counsel, addresses Russia report

Special counsel Robert Mueller has just thrown fire on the simmering Trump-Russia investigation, finally breaking his silence.

The man tasked with investigating Russia’s meddling in the US presidential election has resigned in spectacular circumstances, hitting Donald Trump on his way out the door and sparking new calls for the President’s impeachment.

Special counsel Robert Mueller broke a two-year silence on his investigation overnight, saying he believed he was constitutionally barred from charging US President Donald Trump with a crime and emphasised his report did not exonerate the President.

Having detailed at least 10 possible acts of obstruction by Mr Trump, Mr Mueller said it was not possible to say the US leader committed no crime.

He emphasised he was bound by the longstanding policy that a sitting president could not be charged with a crime, saying it was now up to Congress, by its impeachment powers, to pursue the issue.

“Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” the former FBI director said in Washington DC.

Special counsel Robert Mueller speaks on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election in Washington, DC. Picture: AFP

“If we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mr Mueller said.

RELATED: Top Dems have called for impeachment proceedings to begin

“We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime.”

It didn’t take long for Mr Trump to respond, tweeting minutes after the press conference: “Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.”

Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2019

US REACTS

The United States was rocked by Mr Mueller’s speech, with the responses generally divided into two sections: those who oppose the President denouncing him and his supporters defending him.

Mr Mueller “basically” said his office would have charged Mr Trump had he not been president, legal analyst Andrew Napolitano told the Fox Business Network.

“This is even stronger than the language in his report,” Mr Napolitano said.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said, “After two years, the special counsel is moving on with his life, and everyone else should do the same.”

What Robert Mueller basically did was return an impeachment referral. Now it is up to Congress to hold this president accountable.

We need to start impeachment proceedings. It's our constitutional obligation.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) May 29, 2019

Robert Mueller’s statement makes it clear: Congress has a legal and moral obligation to begin impeachment proceedings immediately.

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) May 29, 2019

Mueller confirmed today that Russia engaged in multiple systematic efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

In a rebuke of Barr, he also made clear that because of DOJ policy it is left to Congress—not the Attorney General—to evaluate the president’s misconduct.

And we will. pic.twitter.com/FAYSQxFbHp

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) May 29, 2019

CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT

House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler said Mr Mueller’s comments made clear the responsibility was now with Congress “to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump”.

In a statement, Mr Nadler, whose committee could launch impeachment proceedings, said Mr Mueller confirmed for the public he “did not exonerate” Mr Trump of obstruction of justice.

“Although Department of Justice policy prevented the special counsel from bringing criminal charges against the President, the special counsel has clearly demonstrated that President Trump is lying about the special counsel’s findings, lying about the testimony of key witnesses in the special counsel’s report, and is lying in saying that the special counsel found no obstruction and no collusion,” he said.

“Given that special counsel Mueller was unable to pursue criminal charges against the President, it falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoing of President Trump — and we will do so. No one, not even the president of the United States, is above the law.”

Mr Nadler was supported by many other senior Democrats, including 2020 presidential hopefuls Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump. Picture: AFP

Mueller also confirmed three central points: he did not exonerate the President of obstruction, obstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of our justice system, and the Constitution points to Congress to take action to hold the President accountable. https://t.co/w61a8rRQeK

— (((Rep. Nadler))) (@RepJerryNadler) May 29, 2019

The ball is in our court, Congress. https://t.co/idpQo1xItH

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 29, 2019

Mueller’s statement makes clear what those who have read his report know: It is an impeachment referral, and it’s up to Congress to act. They should.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) May 29, 2019

RELUCTANT TO TESTIFY

Mr Mueller also said he wasn’t ruling out testifying before Congress but is serving notice he does not intend to go beyond what has already been revealed in his report.

Mr Mueller said he and the special counsel team chose their words carefully in the report and “the work speaks for itself”.

He added the report was his “testimony” and he “would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress”.

The statement came amid demands for Mr Mueller to testify on Capitol Hill about his findings and tension with Attorney-General William Barr.

He said beyond what he said in his public statement and in his written work he didn’t believe it was “appropriate” for him “to speak further about the investigation”.

“We will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President,” he said. “I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter.

“I am making that decision myself — no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.”

Mr Mueller’s report revealed Mr Trump tried to seize control of the Russia probe and force Mr Mueller’s removal to stop him from investigating potential obstruction of justice by the Republican president. Mr Trump has called the investigation a “witch hunt”.

Special counsel Robert Mueller said he was bound the Justice Department policy, which does not allow charging a sitting president with a crime. Picture: AFP

LEAVING HIS POST

Mr Mueller is leaving the Justice Department now he’s concluded his Russia investigation, announcing his resignation so he can “return to private life”.

Mr Mueller has been on the Justice Department’s payroll since he formally concluded his probe in March. Last month, Mr Barr publicly released a redacted version of his Russia report.

It’s unclear what Mr Mueller has been doing at the Justice Department since, though the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee has been negotiating with his office in an attempt to secure his public testimony before Congress. So far, no deal has been made.

Mr Mueller was rarely seen and never heard from as he conducted the Russia investigation in secrecy after being named to lead it on May 17, 2017.

His appointment stunned Mr Trump who, White House witnesses told investigators, numerous times sought ways to undermine or fire Mr Mueller.

Mr Mueller wrapped up the 10-minute, nationally televised remarks by reiterating what he called “the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election”.

“That allegation deserves the attention of every American,” he said.

FULL MUELLER STATEMENT

Two years ago, the acting Attorney-General asked me to serve as special counsel, and he created the special counsel’s office.

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or co-ordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney-General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the special counsel’s office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.

I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organisation WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.

These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me special counsel authorised us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney-General apprised of the progress of our work.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view — that too is prohibited.

The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a president makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarised in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.

And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination — one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney-General — as required by Department regulations.

The Attorney-General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney-General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney-General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney-General’s good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself — no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the special counsel’s office, were of the highest integrity.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you.