Pdf download senate russia report volume 2

MUELLER REPORT VOLUME 2: IN PLAIN ENGLISH

Who am I and why did I make this version of the Mueller report?

I am an academic scientist: a professor (now emerita) at a medical school. Part of my day job is to develop curricula that make complex scientific concepts accessible to high school students. One of the biggest barriers to understanding professional language is the ‘embedded concept’ that lurks in a statement and makes the whole thing  inaccessible to the normal reader. So when I first saw the Mueller report I knew we were dealing with an obvious, but huge, problem: All the footnotes, examples and most of all the legal language construction might be critical to a professional appraisal of the material, but would make it impenetrable for most readers. I have to say I barely got through the executive summary, which I had understood to have been written for a lay person like me. No! Fail!!!. So I decided to do something about it to make it readable for normal human beings.

What I did to make this document:

First I downloaded a .pdf version of the report from this website: www.cronistalascolonias.com.ar Then I exported the .pdf version into a Word document for Mac (version ).

 I went through it and took out all the footnotes and references in the text.

Next I looked at the document sentence by sentence. I retained Mueller’s overall construction of the document, and the headings he had created. In most cases I retained the construction of the paragraphs, although I sometimes moved sentences around to streamline the narrative, taking care not to disrupt the overall meaning. I put the evidence sections into the present tense, because this does make it much easier to read.  I also  simplified the sentence structure and sometimes moved clauses around to make the sentences more fluid. Where possible I retained his wording. When I substituted a word I made sure I wasn’t altering the meaning of the sentence or editorializing. The formatting (use of bullet points etc) is mine.

The most challenging part was the final section in which Mueller presents his legal argument to counter the President’s counsel, who claims that Article II protects the President from even being investigated for obstruction of justice. I am not a lawyer so I found it all a bit of a slog, and in the end I contented myself with just summarizing the arguments, which I thought would be adequate for a lay person to read. After all it is thoroughly covered in the original document. But if you feel I have made any major errors or there are glaring omissions I’d be grateful if you’d let me know.

It’s hard to have a meaningful discussion that isn’t based on evidence, and since we clearly need to have that discussion I hope this will help. If your time is severely limited just focus on the Executive Summary, which encapsulates the rest.

With best wishes

Karina Meiri, Boston 6th June,  

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME II

Beginning in , the President’s actions towards the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia's interference in the election raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice. Our jurisdiction covers these matters, as well as potentially obstructive acts related to the Special Counsel's investigation itself. This Volume summarizes our obstruction-of-justice investigation of the President.

We first describe the considerations that guided the investigation, and then provide an overview of it:

First: While it is traditional to either initiate a prosecution or decline to prosecute, we did not follow this tradition for the following reason: The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted or criminally prosecuted because it would undermine the executive branches’ capacity to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. Since the Special Counsel is an attorney in the Department of Justice and works within the framework of Special Counsel regulations, we accepted the OLC's legal conclusion. We also recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would potentially interfere with other constitutional processes for addressing misconduct.

Second, Because no charges could be brought, it did not seem fair to take an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. Ordinarily, an individual who believes he has been wrongly accused can attempt to clear his name through a speedy and public trial. If a prosecutor judges that a crime has been committed but no charges will be brought, there is no opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator. The fairness concerns are heightened in the case of a sitting President, since even an internal report could have extensive consequences: preserving the secrecy of a sealed indictment would be difficult, and if it became public the President's ability to govern would be undermined.

Third the OLC opinion recognizes that even though the President cannot be indicted, a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. Then, if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted. But the President does not have immunity after he leaves office. We therefore undertook a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

Fourth, if, after a thorough investigation of the facts, we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. However, based on the facts and the legal standards applied, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME II

Our obstruction-of-justice inquiry focused on a series of actions by the President related to the Russian-interference investigations. These included the President's conduct towards the law enforcement officials overseeing the investigations, and towards witnesses to relevant events.

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

The key issues and events we examined include the following:

1.   The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump. After WikiLeaks releases hacked Democratic Party emails, Trump publicly expresses skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks. At the same time he and other Campaign officials are privately seeking information about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. Trump also denies having any business in or connections to Russia, even though the Trump Organization had pursued a licensing deal for Trump Tower Moscow as late as June After the election, the President expresses concerns to his advisors that reports of Russia's election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election

2.   Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael www.cronistalascolonias.com.ar mid-January , incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn lies to the Vice President, other administration officials, and FBI agents about his talks with Russian Ambassador Kislyak about Russia' s response to U.S. sanctions. On January 27, the day after the President is told about Flynn’s lies, he invites FBI Director Comey to a private dinner at the White House and tells Comey he needs loyalty. On February 14, the day after the President requests Flynn's resignation, he tells an outside advisor, "Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over." The advisor disagrees and says the investigations will continue.

Later that afternoon, the President clears the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey. Referring to the FBI's investigation of Flynn, the President says, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Shortly after speaking privately to Comey, the President asks Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal letter stating that he had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. Since McFarland does not know whether that is true, she declines. The White House Counsel's Office attorney also thinks the request looks like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered.

3.   The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation. ln February , Attorney General Jeff Sessions begins to assess whether his role in the Trump Campaign means he should recuse himself from campaign-­related investigations. The President tells White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing. After Sessions announces his recusal on March 2, the President, expressing anger at the decision, tells advisors he should have an Attorney General who would protect him. That weekend, the President takes Sessions aside and urges him to "unrecuse."

Later in March, Comey publicly testifies to congress that the FBI is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the presidential election, including any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. In the following days, the President asks the Director of National Intelligence and leaders of the CIA and NSA to publicly dispel the notion that he has any connection to the Russian election-interference efforts. The President also twice calls Comey directly, despite McGahn’s advice to avoid direct contacts with the Department of Justice. Comey had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President asks Comey to announce it publicly and "lift the cloud" of the Russia investigation.

4.   The President's termination of www.cronistalascolonias.com.ar May 3, in a congressional hearing, Comey declines to say whether the President is personally under investigation. Within days the President decides to terminate him. The termination letter is written to be released publicly and the President insists it states that Comey has informed him he is not under investigation. On the day of the firing, the White House maintains that Comey has been terminated because the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General consider he mishandled the Hillary Clinton email investigation. In fact the President had decided to fire Comey before hearing from the Department of Justice. The day after the firing, the President tells Russian officials he has "faced great pressure because of Russia," which has been “taken off” by firing Comey. The next day, the President acknowledges in a television interview that he had been going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice's recommendation and that when he "decided to just do it," he was thinking that "this thing with Trump and Russia is a made- up story." Asked whether he is angry with Comey about the Russia investigation, the President replies, "As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," adding that firing Comey "might even lengthen out the investigation."

5.   The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove www.cronistalascolonias.com.ar May 17, , the Acting Attorney General appoints a Special Counsel to conduct the Russia investigation and related matters. The President reacts to news by telling advisors that it is "the end of his presidency" and demands that Sessions resign. Sessions submits his resignation, but the President ultimately does not accept it. The President tells aides that the Special Counsel has conflicts of interest and should not serve. The President's advisors tell him these conflicts have already been considered by the Department of Justice as meritless.

On June 14 the media reports that following Comey's firing the Special Counsel's Office is investigating whether the President has obstructed justice, calling it "a major turning point ". The President reacts with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel's investigation. On June 17 the President calls McGahn at home and directs him to tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel has conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn does not comply, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regards a potential ‘Saturday Night Massacre’.

6.  Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's www.cronistalascolonias.com.ar days after directing McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President makes another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation: On June 19 he meets one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and dictates a message for him to deliver to Sessions - that Sessions should publicly announce that the investigation is "very unfair" to the President, the President has done nothing wrong, and that Sessions plans to meet with the Special Counsel and "let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections." Lewandowski says he understands what the President wants Sessions to do.

One month later on July 19, in another private meeting with Lewandowski, the President asks about the status of his message to have Sessions limit the Special Counsel investigation to future election interference. Lewandowski tells the President that the message will be delivered soon. Hours later, in an interview with the New York Times, the President publicly criticizes Sessions, and then issues a series of tweets making it clear that Sessions’ job is in jeopardy. Lewandowski does not want to deliver the President's message personally, so he asks senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it instead. Dearborn is uncomfortable with the task and does not follow through.

7.   Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence. In the summer of , the President learns that media outlets are asking questions about the June 9, Trump Tower meeting between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." The President directs aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, because they will not leak, and to limit the number of lawyers with access to them. The President also edits a press statement on behalf of Trump Jr. by deleting the line that the meeting was with "an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign", saying instead that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. The President's personal lawyer answers press questions about the President's involvement in Trump Jr.'s statement with repeated denials that the President has played any role.

8.   Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the www.cronistalascolonias.com.ar early summer , the President calls Sessions at home and again asks him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions does not. In October, the President meets privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asks him to "take [a] look" at investigating Clinton. In December , shortly after Flynn pleads guilty and pursues a cooperation agreement, the President meets with Sessions in the Oval Office again. According to notes taken by a senior advisor, he suggests that if Sessions unrecuses and takes back supervision of the Russia investigation, he will be a "hero." The President tells Sessions, "I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly." In response, Sessions volunteers that he had never seen anything " improper" in the campaign and tells the President there is a "whole new leadership team" in place. He does not unrecuse.

9.   Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed. In early , the press reports that in June the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacts by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record that he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn tells those officials that the media reports are in fact accurate. The President then meets with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressures him to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the President also asks McGahn why he told the Special Counsel about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refuses to back away from what he remembered happening, perceiving the President is testing his mettle.

 Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, (redacted).When Flynn begins cooperating with the government and withdraws from a joint defense agreement with the President, the President's personal counsel leaves a message for Flynn' s attorneys reminding them of the President's warm feelings towards Flynn, which "still remains" and asks for a "heads up" if Flynn knows "information that implicates the President." When Flynn's counsel reiterates that Flynn can no longer share information, the President's personal counsel says he will make sure that the President knows that Flynn's actions reflect "hostility" towards him.

 During Manafort's prosecution, the President praises Manafort in public while the jury is deliberating, says that Manafort is being treated unfairly, and declines to rule out a pardon. After Manafort is convicted, the President calls him "a brave man" for refusing to "break" and says that "flipping almost ought to be outlawed” (redacted).

 Conduct involving Michael Cohen. The President praises Michael Cohen when he falsely minimizes the President's involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project, but then castigates him when he becomes a cooperating witness: From September to June , Cohen pursues the Trump Tower Moscow project, briefing candidate Trump on it numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal. In 20l7, Cohen lies to Congress, stating that he only briefed Trump on the project three times and never discussed travel to Russia with him. Cohen says that this was a "party line" developed to minimize the President's connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony, Cohen has extensive discussions with the President's personal counsel, who says that Cohen should "stay on message" and not contradict the President. After the FBI searches Cohen's home and office in April , the President says publicly that Cohen will not "flip," contacts him directly to tell him to "stay strong," and privately passes messages of support to him. Cohen also discusses pardons with the President's personal counsel and believes that if he stays on message he will be taken care of. But after Cohen begins cooperating with the government in the summer of , the President publicly criticizes him, calling him a "rat" and suggests that his family members had committed crimes.

Overarching factual issues:

While we did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts, we can make several general statements about the President's conduct:

First, several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of­ justice cases.

• Because, the investigation concerns the President, some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, are lawful within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below.
• At the same time, because the President is head of the Executive Branch he is uniquely and powerfully able to influence official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses, all of which are relevant to this analysis.
• However, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.
• But, although obstruction statutes do not require a crime to have been committed, the absence of evidence of a crime affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires us to consider of other possible motives for his conduct.
• Many of the President's acts were done in public, including discouraging witnesses to cooperate with the government and suggesting the possibility of possible future pardons. This is unusual, but public acts are not legally excluded from the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of the public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same.

Second, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives:

• The first phase covered the period from the President’s first interactions with Comey through his firing of Comey. During that time, the President had been told repeatedly he was not personally under investigation. After Comey was fired and the Special Counsel appointed, the President became aware that he was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry.
• The second phase then followed: At that point, the President publicly attacked the investigation, made non-public efforts to control it, and made efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.

The totality of the evidence will inform judgments about the President' s motives during each phase.

STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES

The President's counsel raised statutory and constitutional objections to the investigation. We concluded that none of those legal objections prevent us investigating the facts.

Statutory defenses. Several statutes could apply here. But consistent with the DOJ’s usual interpretations, no statute justifies narrowing the investigation to cover only conduct that affects the availability of evidence. In fact, some statutes are specifically concerned with pending grand jury, judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings, while others are concerned with hindering communications about a federal crime to law enforcement and witness tampering.

Constitutional www.cronistalascolonias.com.ar recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not. definitively resolved objections related to the President’s status as head of the Executive Branch. However, both the DOJ and the President's personal counsel agree that the President can be investigated for obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury because that conduct does not concern his constitutional authority. The question is whether the President exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, can constitute obstruction of justice.

The Supreme Court has decided that a President is not permitted to use his Article II powers corruptly. "Corruptly" means with the intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, in a manner inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others; it must be clearly demonstrated. Corruptly also means obstructing justice to shield himself from criminal punishment, avoid financial liability, or prevent personal embarrassment. None of this should interfere with the President fulfilling his constitutional duty - on the contrary it aligns with his duty to faithfully execute the law. Finally, if a criminal investigation into President's conduct is justified, examining his motives for corruption should not hamper him fulfilling his duties.

Congress is authorized to protect official proceedings, such as those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source. Our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no-one is above the law indicates that in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice Congress has the authority to prohibit the President's corrupt use of his authority. We therefore concluded that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to a President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office.

CONCLUSION

Because we did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. If we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment we would need to resolve the difficult issues about the President's actions and intent the evidence presents. At the same time, if, after a thorough investigation of the facts, we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

This section of the report details the evidence we obtained. We first provide an overview of how Russia became an issue in the presidential campaign, and how candidate Trump responded. We then turn to the key events that we investigated.

We summarize the evidence we found and then analyze it in the context of the three statutory elements of obstruction-of-justice:

• the obstructive act
• the connection (nexus) to an outcome (proceeding)
•  intent

Consistent with our jurisdiction, we gathered evidence relevant to each of these elements and analyzed it for each episode, while refraining from reaching ultimate conclusions about whether crimes were committed, for the reasons explained above.

A. THE CAMPAIGN'S RESPONSE TO REPORTS ABOUT RUSSIAN SUPPORT FOR TRUMP

During the campaign, the media raised questions about a possible connection between the Trump Campaign and Russia. The questions intensified after WikiLeaks released politically damaging Democratic Party emails that were reported to have been hacked by Russia. Trump responded by denying any business involvement in Russia - even though the Trump Organization had pursued a business project in Russia as late as June Trump also expressed skepticism that Russia had hacked the emails at the same time as he and other Campaign advisors privately sought information about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. After the election questions persisted about possible links between the Trump Campaign and Russia, and the President-Elect continued to deny any connections to Russia. Privately he expressed concerns that reports of Russian election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election.

1.     Press Reports Allege Links Between the Trump Campaign and Russia

On June 16, , Donald Trump declares his candidacy for President. By early , he has distinguished himself among Republican candidates by speaking of closer ties with Russia, saying he would get along well with Russian President Vladimir Putin, questioning whether the NATO alliance is obsolete, and praising Putin as a "strong leader”. Russian political analysts and commentators perceive Trump as favorable to Russia.

Beginning in February and continuing through the summer, the media reports that several Trump campaign advisors appear to have ties to Russia: For example, campaign advisor Michael Flynn was seated next to Vladimir Putin at an RT gala in Moscow in December and also appears regularly on RT as an analyst. Foreign policy advisor Carter Page has ties to a Russian state-run gas company, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort has done work for the "Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.” During the RNC the press raises questions about the Trump Campaign's involvement in changing the Republican platforms stance on giving "weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces."

2.     The Trump Campaign Reacts to WikiLeaks's Release of Hacked Emails

On June 14, , the DNC’s cybersecurity firm posts an announcement that Russian government hackers have infiltrated the DNC's computer and obtained access to documents. On July 22, the day before the DNC, WikiLeaks posts thousands of hacked DNC documents revealing sensitive internal deliberations. Soon after, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager publicly states that the Russia have hacked the DNC emails and arranged their release in order to help candidate Trump. On July 26, the New York Times reports that U.S. "intelligence agencies ha[d] told the White House they now have 'high confidence' that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee.”

Within the Trump Campaign, aides react with enthusiasm to reports of the hacks. (redacted)

discusses with Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release the hacked material. Some witnesses say that Trump himself discusses the possibility of upcoming releases. Michael Cohen (redacted) and recalls that Trump responded, "oh good, alright," and (redacted) spoke to Trump (redacted) Manafort recalls that Trump responded that Manafort should keep (redacted). Rick Gates says that Manafort (redacted) about information and that Manafort instructed status updates on upcoming releases. Around the same time, Gates is driving with Trump to an airport (redacted) and shortly after the call ends, Trump tells Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming (redacted) are discussed within the Campaign, and in the summer of , the Campaign plans a communications strategy based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.

3.     The Trump Campaign Reacts to Allegations That Russia was Seeking to Aid Candidate Trump

In the days that follow WikiLeaks's July 22 release of hacked DNC emails, the Trump Campaign publicly rejects suggestions that Russia is seeking to aid candidate Trump. On July 26, Trump tweets that it is "[c]razy" to suggest that Russia is "dealing with Trump" and that "[f]or the record," he has "ZERO investments in Russia."

In a press conference the next day, July 27, Trump characterizes "this whole thing with Russia" as "a total deflection" that is "farfetched" and " ridiculous." Trump says that it is unproven that Russia has hacked the emails is unproven, but that it would give him "no pause" if Russia has Clinton's emails. Trump adds, "Russia, if you' re listening, I hope you' re able to find the 30, emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." Trump also says that "there's nothing that I can think of that I'd rather do than have Russia friendly as opposed to the way they are right now," and asked whether he would recognize Crimea as Russian territory and consider lifting sanctions, he replies, "We'll be looking at that. Yeah, we'll be looking."

During the press conference, Trump repeats "I have nothing to do with Russia" five times. He states that "the closest [he] came to Russia" was that Russians may have purchased a home or condos from him. He says that after he held the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in he had been interested in working with Russian companies that "wanted to put a lot of money into developments in Russia" but "it never worked out" - "[f]rankly, I didn't want to do it for a couple of different reasons. But we had a major developer . . . that wanted to develop property in Moscow and other places. But we decided not to do it." However, the Trump Organization has actually been pursuing a building project in Moscow - the Trump Tower Moscow project ­ from approximately September and will continue through June Trump is regularly updated on developments, including possible trips to Moscow with Michael Cohen to promote and finalize the deal.

After the press conference Cohen speaks with Trump about his denials which he regards as untrue. But Trump doesn’t consider Trump Tower Moscow a deal yet and says, "Why mention it if it is not a deal?" At around the same time, campaign advisors respond to Trump’s disavowals by developing a "party line" that Trump has no business with Russia and no connections to Russia. The Trump Campaign also seeks to distance itself from Russian contacts. For example, in August foreign policy advisor J.D. Gordon declines an invitation to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's residence because the timing is "not optimal" in view of media reports about Russian interference.

On August 19 Manafort is asked to resign amid media coverage scrutinizing his ties to a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and links to Russian businesses. And in September Page is also terminated when the media publish stories about his connections to Russia (the press is told he played "no role" in the Campaign).

On October 7, WikiLeaks releases the first set of the emails the GRU has stolen from Clinton Campaign chairman John Podesta. The same day, the federal government announces that "the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations." The government statement directly links the releases on WikiLeaks to Russian hacking with the goal of interfering with the election, and concludes "that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities" based on their "scope and sensitivity."

On October 11, Podesta states publicly that the FBI is investigating Russia's hacking and says that candidate Trump might have known in advance that the hacked emails were going to be released. When Vice Presidential Candidate Mike Pence is asked whether the Trump Campaign is "in cahoots" with WikiLeaks in releasing the damaging emails, he responds "Nothing could be further from the truth."

4.     After the Election, Trump Continues to Deny Any Contacts or Connections with Russia or That Russia Aided his Election

Trump is elected President on November 8. Two days later, Russian officials tell the press that the Russian government has maintained contacts with Trump's "immediate entourage" throughout the campaign. In response, Hope Hicks, who had been the Trump Campaign spokesperson, says, "We are not aware of any campaign representatives that were in touch with any foreign entities before yesterday, when Mr. Trump spoke with many world leaders.” Hicks also denies any contacts between the Campaign and Russia: "It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”

On December 10, the press reports that U.S. intelligence agencies had "concluded that Russia interfered in last month's presidential election to boost Donald Trump's bid for the White House." Reacting to the story the next day, President-Elect Trump says, "I think it's ridiculous. I think it's just another excuse." He continues that no one really knows who was responsible for the hacking, suggesting that the intelligence community has "no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place." The President-Elect also says that Democrats are "putting out" the story of Russian interference "because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics.”

On December 18, Podesta tells the press that the election was "distorted by the Russian intervention" and questions whether Trump Campaign officials had been "in touch with the Russians." The same day, incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus appears on Fox News Sunday and declines to say whether the President-Elect accepts the intelligence community's determination that Russia intervened in the election. When asked about any contact or coordination between the Campaign and Russia, Priebus says, "Even this question is insane. Of course we didn't interface with the Russians.” Priebus adds that "this whole thing is a spin job" and "the real question is, why the Democrats are doing everything they can to delegitimize the outcome of the election?”

On December 29, the Obama Administration announces that it is imposing sanctions and other measures on several Russian individuals and entities in response to the Russian cyber operations aimed at the U.S. election. When first asked about the sanctions, President-Elect Trump says, "I think we ought to get on with our lives" later putting out a statement saying "It's time for our country to move on to bigger and better things," but indicating that he would meet with intelligence community leaders the following week for a briefing on Russian interference.

On January 6, the briefing occurs and is followed by public release of the intelligence community’s assessment that it can conclude with high confidence that (a) Russia had intervened in the election through a variety of means with the goal of harming Clinton's electability and (b) Putin and the Russian government had developed a clear preference for Trump.

Several days later, BuzzFeed publishes an article under the headline "These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia. " The reports are unverified allegations compiled during the campaign by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele about candidate Trump's Russia connections.

In a press conference the next day, the President-Elect calls the release "an absolute disgrace" and says, " I have no dealings with Russia. I have no deals that could happen in Russia, because we've stayed away So I have no deals, I have no loans and I have no dealings. We could make deals in Russia very easily if we wanted to, I just don't want to because I think that would be a conflict." Several advisors recall that the President-Elect views stories about his Russian connections, the Russia investigations, and the intelligence community assessment of Russian interference as a threat to the legitimacy of his electoral victory: For example Hicks says that the President-Elect views the intelligence community assessment as his "Achilles heel" because, even if Russia had no impact on the election, people would think Russia helped him win, taking away from what he has accomplished. Sean Spicer, the first White House communications director, recalls that the President thought the Russia story was developed to undermine the legitimacy of his election. Gates says the President views the Russia investigation as an attack on the legitimacy of his win. And Priebus also recalls that when the intelligence assessment came out, the President-Elect was concerned people would question the legitimacy of his win.

B. THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT CONCERNING THE INVESTIGATION OF MICHAEL FLYNN

Overview