Why was Trump let off during Russia probe? Nine-page memo offers new insight
The decision to clear Trump of charges was met with severe criticism
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Donald Trump was not prosecuted following the Russia investigation because his actions did not amount to obstruction of justice, according to a new memo released by the US Justice Department on Wednesday.
The nine-page memo, which was prepared by two senior Justice Department officials for then-attorney general William Barr, offered a legal analysis on whether Mr Trump had criminally obstructed the probe into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Special counsel Robert Mueller had released a 448-page report outlining the results of his inquiry where he documented Russia's interference in the 2016 elections to sow discord in the US and boost Mr Trump's chances of winning over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.
Mr Barr had in 2019 announced to Congress that Trump’s conduct, including firing the FBI director, did not amount to breaking the law.
Mr Barr’s decision to clear the former president of charges was met with severe backlash from the opposition, with Democrats and former justice department attorneys accusing him of protecting his boss.
While parts of the memo had been previously made public, some portions which were earlier retracted by the Justice Department offer details about how two senior officials arrived at their decision to clear Mr Trump of charges.
Ed O'Callaghan and Steven Engel were unpersuaded that any of Mr Trump’s actions were intended to illegally derail the investigation, the new details showed.
Last week, a federal appeals court in Washington ordered the release of the previously improperly redacted memo after Citizens “or Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a government watchdog group, sued to challenge the redactions.
“The memo presents a breathtakingly generous view of the law and facts for Donald Trump,” CREW said in a statement.
“Among many other problems, it is premised on the fact that there was no underlying criminal conduct, which is not what Mueller found, and waives its hand at there being no exact precedent to compare it to.”
The special counsel in his report had detailed numerous contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russians, but after reading the report, the former attorney general decided to make his own decision and sought inputs from the two senior officials.
The memo also mentioned that charging Mr Trump with obstruction would be problematic because the entire first section of Mr Mueller’s report did not find sufficient evidence to prove illegal collaboration between his campaign and Russia.
“Given that conclusion, the evidence does not establish a crime or criminal conspiracy involving the President toward which any obstruction or attempted obstruction by the President was directed,” the memo concludes.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments