Special counsel Robert Mueller, breaking a two-year silence on his investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, says charging a president with a crime was "not an option" his team could consider in the Russia investigation.

Mueller says that he was bound by long-standing Justice Department opinions that say a president can't be indicted while in office.

In his first public comments in the probe, Mueller said on Wednesday "it would be unfair" to potentially accuse someone of a crime when the person couldn't stand trial to defend himself.

Mueller's comments echoed the findings in his public report.

Mueller's report revealed that US President Donald Trump tried to seize control of the Russia probe and force Mueller's removal to stop him from investigating potential obstruction of justice by the Republican president.

Trump has called the investigation a "witch hunt."

POOL

Washington, DC - 29 May 2019

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Robert Mueller, Special Counsel:

SOUNDBITE (English) Robert Mueller, Special Counsel:

"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 coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. Now I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I'm speaking out today because our investigation is complete. The attorney general has made the report on our investigation largely public. We are formally closing the special counsel's office and as well, I'm resigning from the Department of Justice to return 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 use 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 organization 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 influence an election. These indictments contain allegations and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. 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 and 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 authorized 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 and as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so. We did not however make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume 2 of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long standing 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."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Donald Trump's campaign "conspired or coordinated" with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election but reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice, Attorney General William Barr declared. That brought a hearty claim of vindication from Trump but set the stage for new rounds of political and legal fighting.

Trump cheered the Sunday outcome but also laid bare his resentment after two years of investigations that have shadowed his administration. "It's a shame that our country has had to go through this. To be honest, it's a shame that your president has had to go through this," he said.

Democrats pointed out that Mueller found evidence for and against obstruction and demanded to see his full report. They insisted that even the summary by the president's attorney general hardly put him in the clear.

Mueller's conclusions, summarized by Barr in a four-page letter to Congress, represented a victory for Trump on a key question that has hung over his presidency from the start: Did his campaign work with Russia to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton? That was further good news for the president on top of the Justice Department's earlier announcement that Mueller had wrapped his investigation without new indictments. The resolution also could deflate the hopes of Democrats in Congress and on the 2020 campaign trail that incriminating findings from Mueller would hobble the president's agenda and re-election bid.

But while Mueller was categorical in ruling out criminal collusion, he was more circumspect on presidential obstruction of justice. Despite Trump's claim of total exoneration, Mueller did not draw a conclusion one way or the other on whether he sought to stifle the Russia investigation through his actions including the firing of former FBI director James Comey.

According to Barr's summary, Mueller set out "evidence on both sides of the question" and stated that "while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Barr, who was nominated by Trump in December, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller in May 2017 and oversaw much of his work, went further in Trump's favor.

The attorney general said he and Rosenstein had determined that Mueller's evidence was insufficient to prove in court that Trump had committed obstruction of justice to hamper the probe. Barr has previously voiced a broad view of presidential powers, and in an unsolicited memo last June he cast doubt on whether the president could have obstructed justice through acts — like firing his FBI director — that he was legally empowered to take.

Barr said their decision was based on the evidence uncovered by Mueller and not affected by Justice Department legal opinions that say a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Washington, D.C. - 24 March 2019

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"So perhaps the most significant finding out of the special counsel's report today is that special counsel  Mueller did not find any evidence of criminal conspiracy between anyone associated with the Trump campaign and Russia. That is there's no quote unquote collusion that is prosecutable in any way between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. And that is the question that has been hovering over this investigation from the start. So that's a big victory for the president. it's a really unequivocal victory. The other interesting finding of note is on the question of whether the President obstructed justice. And here it's a little bit more complicated. In this particular aspect than the investigation the special counsel did not reach a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the President obstructed justice. Instead, according to Attorney General Barr who summarized these findings,  Mueller presented evidence on both sides of the ledger for these different episodes involving Trump's behavior that were examined, and then did not reach a conclusion one way or the other. However Barr said that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had reached their own conclusion based on Mueller's evidence and determined that it was insufficient to establish obstruction of justice."

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"So the letter today from the attorney general, it's a four page letter, it marks the conclusion, the real end conclusion of the special counsel's investigation. We  expect to hear more details of what the special counsel found in coming days and weeks."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

3 . SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"The major investigation that concerns the president right now is taking place in New York City. That's an investigation into hush money payments that were made to two women, one a former Playboy model, the other a porn star, who both say they had sex with the president about a decade before he was elected. And both received money during the campaign effectively to not come forward with their allegations. Prosecutors in New York City, in southern district of New York, are investigating whether that's a campaign finance violation. The president's been implicated in wrongdoing by his former lawyer Michael Cohen. It's not yet clear what's going to happen with that investigation."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"I think the main takeaway actually is going to be how unsatisfied Democrats are. This is a four page summary of what appears to be a very lengthy, very detailed report from the special counsel. And there is a suggestion in this letter that the special counsel did find evidence in at least some of the episodes he examined of potential obstruction of justice and simply did not reach a conclusion. So if you're a Democrat on Capitol Hill right now, you want access to all of the special counsel's work and you want the American public to see all of the evidence he gathered and his underlying report.  And so we can expect going forward, that is going to be the next big legal front is this fight between Congress and the Justice Department over how much of Muller's two years of work the public has to see. Especially because on the question of obstruction, it's clear that Mueller did indicate that there's a there there. He just didn't reach a conclusion one way or the other so that's given hope to Democrats that they want to see more."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"The regulations actually do not stipulate that the report is made public. That's a judgment call. It's what the regulations actually mandate is that a confidential report is delivered by the special counsel to the attorney general, who oversees his work. So in this case that would be Mueller to Barr.  And then it is possible that a document could be made public. But you have to imagine, and we know this for sure in this case, that this is a document that concerns grand jury information, perhaps classified information. That's a complicated process to scrub that document of any potential issues, executive privilege issues. And that's going to take some time."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"It is important to take stock of this moment that this is a pretty significant victory in terms of this collusion, or no collusion finding I should say, between the president and Russia and the special counsel according to Barr was pretty unequivocal about that. And so the president, we can expect him to rightfully claim victory and based on what we know from the special counsel's findings, that perhaps seems justified on that front. However there is a reference that is interesting and that is multiple offers from people connected to Russia,  Russian associates two individuals associated with the Trump campaign, offering help. We suspect that's a reference to the Trump Tower meeting that took place in June 2016 between Donald Trump Jr. and a Kremlin connected lawyer. He took that meeting with the expectation of receiving dirt on Hillary Clinton that could be used in weaponized during the campaign. We also know that a former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos had a meeting in London where he learned from a professor that Russia had dirt on Clinton in the form of thousands of stolen e-mails. So we suspect that Mueller's making reference to that, the fact that there are these multiple overtures of help from people connected to Russia. But there's no evidence or no allegation even that either of those two sides worked together. And that's a significant conclusion."

Washington, D.C. - 11 November 2018

7. Still - Donald Trump Jr. (Partly covers Soundbite #6)

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

Washington, D.C. - 24 March 2019

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"As it relates to the question of collusion, we do have a definitive answer from the special counsel and ostensibly endorsed by the attorney general that there was no collusion. We've heard that from the president for the last two years. That is the central finding and take away from this four page summary that there was indeed no collusion, no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign on one hand and the criminal in the Kremlin on the other to get Trump elected."

++BLACK FRAMES BETWEEN SOUNDBITES++

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Eric Tucker, The Associated Press:

"It is possible that House Democrats could come up with a different conclusion on the on the collusion question. It's not clear how readily embraced by the American public. That would be because the special counsel is regarded as the ultimate arbiter of, with subpoena power, evidence, ability to criminally prosecute, so he's regarded as the final voice. So it's not clear whether the American public will accept if  Mueller says no collusion and House Democrats say otherwise."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

Attorney General William Barr says special counsel Robert Mueller's report recounts 10 episodes involving President Donald Trump that were investigated as potential acts of criminal obstruction of justice.

Barr says Mueller did not reach a "prosecutorial judgment" and that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded the evidence was not sufficient to establish the president committed an offense.

Barr spoke Thursday at a news conference with reporters.

While Mueller drew no conclusion about whether President Donald Trump had obstructed justice in the investigation, Barr said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein personally had concluded that while Trump was "frustrated and angry" about the Mueller probe, nothing the president did rose to the level of an "obstruction-of-justice offense."

POOL

Washington - 18 April 2019

1. Side shot of US Attorney General William

2. SOUNDBITE (English): William Barr, US Attorney General:

"Finally the special counsel investigated a number of links or contacts between the Trump campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. After reviewing these contacts, the special counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russian-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign. So that's the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those efforts. After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the special counsel's report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the president could amount to obstruction of the special counsel's investigation. As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the special counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts 10 episodes involving the president and discusses potential legal theories for connecting those activities to the elements of an obstruction offense. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other department lawyers, the deputy attorney general and I concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. Although the deputy attorney general and I disagreed with some of the special counsel's legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the special counsel's legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusions. In assessing the president's actions discussed in the report it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office and sought to perform his responsibilities as president, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the president's personal culpability. Yet as he said from the beginning there was in fact no collusion. And as the special counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless the White House fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the president took no act that in fact deprived the special counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of noncorrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the president had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation."

3. Side shot of Barr