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++

RESTRICTION SUMMARY: AP CLIENTS ONLY

SHOTLIST:

ASSOCIATED PRESS - AP CLIENTS ONLY

Washington - 2 May 2018

1. SOUNDBITE (English): Chad Day, Associated Press Writer:

"What we've now learned is that in March, during a meeting between special counsel Robert Mueller's prosecutors and President Donald Trump's lawyers, the Muellar team actually kind of floated or broached the subject of possibly subpoena--subpoenaing the president and compelling him to testify as part of the Russian probe."

ASSOCIATED PRESS - AP CLIENTS ONLY

Bejing - 30 January 2008

2. FILE: Former FBI Director Robert Mueller at news conference (partly coves soundbite)

POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY

++NIGHT SHOT++

Washington - 28 April 2018

3. US President Donald Trump walking across White House lawn (partly coves soundbite)

ASSOCIATED PRESS - AP CLIENTS ONLY

Washington - 2 May 2018

4. SOUNDBITE (English): Chad Day, Associated Press Writer:

"So these have been ongoing negotiations where they're trying to secure an interview with the president where they can question him about a number of different topics. And this is all part of, not only an investigation into Russian election interference and possible coordination with the Trump campaign but also whether or not the President obstructed justice in any way through his firing of Jim Comey and some of the conversations that and actions that he took regarding the firing of Michael Flynn. And then also pressure that he exerted on Attorney General Jeff Sessions."

ASSOCIATED PRESS - AP CLIENTS ONLY

New York - 29 April 2011

5. Various STILLS former Trump attorney John Dowd (partly covers soundbite)

ASSOCIATED PRESS - AP CLIENTS ONLY

Washington - 2 May 2018

6. SOUNDBITE (English): Chad Day, Associated Press Writer:

"So John Dowd is actually President Donald Trump's former personal attorney. He was on his legal team and leading the legal team. He was the key person in the negotiations between the president's legal team and an Muller's team. But then he resigned last month. Now what we're learning though is that a meeting that occurred in earlier in March when he was still leading this legal team, that's what this whole subpoena issue came up where there was a conversation where they were trying to negotiate the terms of the interview and Mueller's team basically said well you know we could at some point try to compel the President's testimony."

ASSOCIATED PRESS - AP CLIENTS ONLY

New York - 12 January 2017

7. Rudy Giuliani talks to reporters in the lobby of Trump Tower (partly coves soundbite)

ASSOCIATED PRESS - AP CLIENTS ONLY

Washington - 2 May 2018

8. SOUNDBITE (English): Chad Day, Associated Press Writer:

"Right now we're in a little bit of a reset on President Donald Trump's legal team because recently you know Dowd left and they brought in Rudy Giuliani they also brought in two really seasoned former federal prosecutors, Marty and Jane Raskin out of Florida. And so, we're not it's not exactly clear what this kind of what kind of impact this would have on the negotiations currently. I think what why this is important is that any time something like this becomes public it really fires up the president and as we've seen over the last few days and few weeks he has really upped his attacks on the special counsel and the Justice Department at large."

9. SOUNDBITE (English): Chad Day, Associated Press Writer:

"Even if there was a subpoena issued, that doesn't necessarily mean that Trump would actually have to do, to answer any questions. What what would happen is that either they would try to go to court to get the subpoena quashed or they could go into the grand jury room and basically take the Fifth the entire time. Everybody has the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination and they cannot compel you to testify against yourself."

POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY

Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan - 28 April 2018

10. Trump steps off Air Force One, waves (partly coves soundbite)

STORYLINE:

The special counsel leading the Russia investigation raised the prospect in March of issuing a grand jury subpoena for President Donald Trump, his former attorney said, confirming that investigators have floated the extraordinary idea of forcing a sitting president to testify under oath.

Attorney John Dowd told The Associated Press on Tuesday that special counsel Robert Mueller's team broached the subject during a meeting with Trump's legal team while they were negotiating the terms of a possible interview with the president.

AP reporter Chad Day says Trump's legal team is in the midst of a reset.

"We're not it's not exactly clear what this kind of what kind of impact this would have on the negotiations currently. I think what why this is important is that any time something like this becomes public it really fires up the president and as we've seen over the last few days and few weeks he has really upped his attacks on the special counsel and the Justice Department at large," Day said.

It was not immediately clear in what context the possibility of a subpoena was raised or how serious Mueller's prosecutors were about the move. Mueller is probing not only Russian election interference and possible coordination with Trump associates but possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

Trump lashed out against the investigation in a familiar fashion Wednesday, saying on Twitter: "There was no Collusion (it is a Hoax) and there is no Obstruction of Justice (that is a setup & trap)."

Even if Mueller's team decided to subpoena Trump as part of the investigation, he could still fight it in court or refuse to answer questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination.

===========================================================

Clients are reminded:

(i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: info@aparchive.com

(ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service

(iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory.

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