The Attorney General Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:
I write to notify you pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(a)(3) that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has concluded his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters. In addition to this notification, the Special Counsel regulations require that I provide you with "a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General" or acting Attorney General "concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued." 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(a)(3). There were no such instances during the Special Counsel's investigation.
Mueller was appointed under Justice Department regulations created in 1999, during the Clinton administration. Many of the provisions in the rules are designed to address perceived flaws in a law that was previously used to appoint independent counsels. Congress let the law expire that year amidst widespread criticism of the sprawling investigation that covered matters ranging from President Bill Clinton's Whitewater investment to his sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Mueller wrapping up his probe is what many had expected, but implicit here in the letter is something very significant: there are no plans for further indictments, such as a conspiracy case linking Trump campaign officials and Russia. While Mueller plans no further indictments, it's unclear how much assurance that offers to individuals who may have been the subject of inquiries that Mueller spun off to other prosecutors.
Critics of Mueller's investigation have accused him of exceeding the scope of the Russia-related mission he was tasked with in May 2017. However, Mueller's team has insisted all the issues they've pursued and all the cases they've filed are within the authority they were given by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Some aspects of what Rosenstein permitted Mueller to pursue remain secret, but could be revealed if the bulk of his report is made public.
This is one of the most major pieces of news in Barr's brief letter. There had been speculation and suspicion that Rosenstein may have rejected some indictments, arrests or other actions Mueller wanted to take. But Barr now says that never happened. This will undermine suggestions that political pressure cut short Mueller's probe.
The Special Counsel has submitted to me today a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions" he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). I am reviewing the report and anticipate that I may be in a position to advise you of the Special Counsel's principal conclusions as soon as this weekend.
Another unexpected element of Barr's letter is this near-promise to put out the central findings of Mueller's report very soon, perhaps within the next 48 hours. Doing so could alleviate some of the suspense as well as the intense pressure to obtain leaks from the report as a more thorough review takes place.
Separately, I intend to consult with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department's long-standing practices and policies. I remain committed to as much transparency as possible, and I will keep you informed as to the status of my review.
Despite recent efforts to reframe the 1999 regulations as promoting transparency, that really was not their thrust. One of the major criticisms of the independent counsel law was that it resulted in mammoth reports cataloging a variety of claims that were never part of any criminal case. The regulations called for concise reports in part to assuage such concerns. Barr saying he'll consider the regulations is a nod to that, but overall the letter and the process Barr plans to follow sound likely to result in fairly broad disclosure.
This phrase encapsulates two impulses that are in some tension at the moment. For decades, the Justice Department has generally abided by a policy of not publicly airing derogatory information about people not ultimately charged with a crime. Rosenstein and many other DOJ officials were critical of FBI Director James Comey for doing that in his press conference about Hillary Clinton's emails. On the other hand, the Justice Department has made exceptions in high-profile and politically contentious cases, including its probe into the IRS's handling of conservative non-profit groups.
This promise echoes Barr's commitment at his January 15 confirmation hearing to "provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law." But many judgment calls remain about how to deal with mentions of specific individuals and information Mueller obtained through grand juries, which are supposed to operate in secret. Barr is expected to lean in favor of disclosure, especially in light of the 420-0 House vote last week to make Mueller's report public, but Congress may ultimately have to subpoena some of the information in a bid to get the whole report.
Finally, the Special Counsel regulations provide that "the Attorney General may determine that public release of this notification "would be in the public interest." 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.
