Full text in Spanish of the conclusions of the public prosecutor on the report of the Russian plot | international


US attorney general William Barr delivered his conclusions to Congress this Sunday on the report prepared by special prosecutor Robert Mueller. Here you can read the complete translation of the four sheets:

Dear President (Lindsey) Graham, President (Jerrold) Nadler, Congressman (Dianne) Feinstein and Congressman (Doug) Collins – Judicial Committee of the House of Representatives

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday 22 March 2019, I am writing today to inform you of the main conclusions reached by Special Prosecutor Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you of the state of my initial review of the prepared report.

The report of the special prosecutor

Last Friday, the special prosecutor handed me "a confidential report explaining the prosecution or rejection decisions" that he reached, as requested by the 28th RFC 600.8 (c). This report is entitled "Report on Russian Interrogation in the 2016 Presidential Election". Although my review is still ongoing, I believe it is in the public interest to describe the report and summarize the main conclusions reached by the special prosecutor and the results of his investigations.

The report explains that the special prosecutor and his staff have thoroughly investigated allegations that members of Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign and others associated with him conspired with the Russian government in efforts to interfere in the US presidential election. of 2016, or tried to hinder related investigations. In the report, the special prosecutor notes that, to complete his investigation, he hired 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of about 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other professionals. The special prosecutor issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, performed 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for record of communications, issued about 50 orders authorizing the use of call records, made 13 requests for evidence to foreign governments and interviewed about 500 witnesses.

The special prosecutor obtained a series of accusations and accusations from individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, which were all publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the special prosecutor also referred other matters to other offices for action. The report does not recommend any other charges, nor has the special prosecutor obtained any sealed charges that must be made public. The following are the main conclusions of the report of the special prosecutor.

Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election

The special prosecutor's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the special prosecutor's investigation into the interference of Russia in the US presidential election in 2016. The report highlights Russia's attempts to influence the election and the documentary crimes committed by associated persons to the Russian government in connection with those attempts. The report also explains that a first consideration for the special prosecutor's investigation was whether an American – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – would join the Russian conspiracy to influence the elections, which would have been a federal crime. The Special Prosecutor's investigations did not detect that Trump's campaign or anyone associated with it was conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its effort to influence the US presidential election in 2016. As the report states: "[La] The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated the Russian government in their activities to interfere in the elections ". *

The special prosecutor's investigation finds that there were two major Russian attempts to influence the 2016 elections. The first concerned attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to provoke disinformation and conduct carried out operations in social networks in the United States to sow social disagreement, possibly with the goal of interfering in the elections. As mentioned above, the special prosecutor found that no American or someone officially associated or associated with the Trump campaign conspired or consciously coordinated with the IRA in their efforts, although the special prosecutor filed a criminal complaint against a series of Russian citizens and entities of that country in relation to these activities.

The second element has to do with the Russian government's attempts to carry out IT hacking operations designed to collect and disseminate information that would influence the elections. The special prosecutor found that Russian government actors had successful access to computers and received e-mails from people affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations who publicly disclosed these materials through various intermediaries, including Wikileaks. Based on these activities, the special prosecutor filed a complaint against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack computers in the United States in order to influence the presidential election. But as mentioned above, the

The special prosecutor did not discover that Trump's campaign, or someone associated with it, conspired or coordinated the Russian government in these attempts, despite multiple offers from individuals associated with Russia to help in the campaign.

* In assessing potential charges of conspiracy, the special prosecutor also assessed whether members of Trump's campaign "coordinated" with Russia's interference activities in the elections. The special prosecutor called the "coordination" an "agreement – expressed or not – between the Trump campaign and the Russian government for electoral interference".

Obstruction of justice

The second part of the report deals with a series of actions by the president – most of whom have been the subject of public relations – that the special prosecutor has investigated as possible cases of obstruction of justice. After conducting a thorough and objective investigation of these issues, the special prosecutor evaluated whether to evaluate the conduct according to the Department's standards. [de Justicia] that refer to prosecution or denial decisions, but ultimately decided not to carry out a traditional prosecution process. Therefore, the special prosecutor did not draw a conclusion – in one way or another – that the conduct examined constituted an obstacle to justice. Instead, for each of the relevant actions examined, the report presents evidence on both sides of the issue and leaves unanswered what the prosecutor considers to be "difficult questions", in fact and in law, regarding the actions and the intention of the president could be seen as an obstacle. The special prosecutor states that "even if this report does not conclude that the president has committed a crime, he does not exonerate him either."

The special prosecutor's decision to describe the facts of his investigation of the obstruction without coming to legal conclusions makes him the Attorney General who determines whether the behavior described in the report constitutes a crime. During the investigation, the Special Prosecutor's Office discussed with some Justice Department officials about various legal and factual issues related to the investigation of the obstruction. After examining the final report of the special prosecutor on these issues; consultancy with departmental officials, including the legal advice office; and applying the principle of the federal prosecutor's office that guides our imputation decisions, Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I came to the conclusion that the evidence obtained during the special prosecutor's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the president committed a crime of obstruction of justice. Our decision was made without taking into account, nor is it based on the constitutional considerations surrounding the accusation and the criminal proceedings of an incumbent president.

In making this decision, we note that the special prosecutor acknowledged that "the evidence does not show us that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to interference in the Russian elections" and that, although it is not decisive, the absence of such evidence is related to the president's attempt regarding the obstruction. In general terms, to be convinced of the obstruction of justice, the government should demonstrate, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a person, acting with corrupt intentions, has participated in an obstructive conduct with a sufficient connection to a procedure pending or contemplated. In cataloging the president's actions, many of which have been conducted in public, the report does not identify actions that, in our opinion, constitute an obstructive conduct that had a connection with a pending or contemplated procedure and were conducted with corrupt intent. . According to the principles of the federal prosecutor's office who lead the charges, it would be necessary to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a crime of obstruction of justice was committed.

Review of the state of the department

The relevant regulations provide that the report of the special prosecutor constitutes a "confidential report" for the attorney general. See Special Legal Office, 64 fed. reg. (9 July 1999). However, as I said before, I am aware of the public interest in this matter. For this reason, my goal and intention is to disclose as many reports as possible of the special prosecutor in accordance with applicable law, regulations and policies.

Based on my conversations with the special prosecutor and in my initial review, it is clear that the report contains material that is or may be subject to federal criminal procedure 6 (e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of related information. with a "subject (s) who present themselves before a grand jury". Fed. R. Crim. P. 6 (e) (2) (B). Rule 6 (e) generally limits the disclosure of certain information of the grand jury to an investigation and a criminal charge. Disclosure of the material 6 (e) beyond the strict limits set in the rule is a crime under certain circumstances. See, for example, 18 U.S.C. 401 (3). This restriction protects the integrity of the grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used exclusively for the criminal justice function for which they are intended.

Taking these restrictions into account, the timing for the report processing depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6 (e) information contained in the report as soon as possible. Separately, I must also identify any information that may affect other ongoing issues, including those that the special prosecutor referred to other offices. As soon as the process is finished, I will be able to move quickly in determining what can be published in the light of the laws, regulations and policies of the Department.

As I noted in my first notification, the special attorney's regulations stipulate that "the attorney general may determine that public disclosure of" communications to the respective commissions "would be in the public interest". 28 C.F.R. 600.9 (c). So I decided, and I'll divulge this letter to the public after delivering it.


William P. Barr

General Attorney

* Translation of the El País team to Washington



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.