Laporan Mueller (bahasa Inggeris: Mueller Reportcode: en is deprecated ) atau nama rasminya Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Electioncode: en is deprecated ("Laporan Penyiasatan Terhadap Campurtanggan Rusia dalam Pilihan Raya Presiden 2016"), merupakan laporan rasmi yang mendokumenkan penemuan penyiasatan Peguam Khas yang diketuai oleh Robert Mueller, ke atas usaha Rusia untuk campur tangan dalam pilihan raya Presiden Amerika Syarikat 2016, tuduhan konspirasi atau koordinasi antara kempen presiden Donald Trump dan Rusia, dan tuduhan menghalang keadilan. Laporan tersebut telah dihantarkan dalam bentuk penuhnya ke Peguam NegaraWilliam Barr pada 22 Mac 2019[1] sebelum disunting - laporan akhir sebanyak 448 muka surat diedarkan kepada umum oleh Jabatan Keadilan Amerika Syarikat pada 18 April 2019.
Kandungan
Jilid I
Jilid I laporan tersebut menyimpulkan bahawa campur tangan Rusia dalam pilihan raya Presiden 2016 telah berlaku "dalam cara menyapu dan sistematik" dan "melanggar undang-undang jenayah A.S".[2][3][4] Ia menyenaraikan dua kaedah Rusia mempengaruhi pilihan raya: pertama menerusi kempen media sosial oleh Agensi Penyelidikan Internet (IRA) yang menyokong kempen presiden Trump, menyerang kempen presiden Clinton dan bertujuan untuk "memperkuat perselisihan politik dan sosial".[5][6][7] Kaedah kedua pula perisikan Rusia, GRU, menjalankan penggodaman komputer dan melepaskan bahan yang merosakkan dari kempen Clinton dan Parti Demokrat.[8][9][10] Laporan tersebut mengenalpasti beberapa hubungan antara kempen rasmi Trump dengan individu yang mempunyai kaitan dengan kerajaan Rusia,[11] yang mana beberapa orang yang berkaitan dengan kempen membuat kenyataan palsu dan siasatan dihalang.[12] Namun begitu, siasatan itu tidak menyatakan bahawa kempen itu "telah diselaraskan atau berkomplot dengan kerajaan Rusia dalam aktiviti campur tangan" dan Ia tidak meneruskan apa-apa tuduhan di bawah undang-undang konspirasi dan ketetapan yang mengawal ejen asing, dengan pengecualian kepada Paul Manafort dan Rick Gates yang didapati bersalah atas kesalahan jenayah yang berpunca daripada kerja melobi mereka sebelum ini untuk Parti WilayahUkraine.[12][13]
Jilid II
Jilid II laporan itu membahas halangan keadilan, menyatakannya "manakala laporan ini tidak menyimpulkan bahawa Presiden melakukan jenayah, [dan] ia juga tidak membersihkan namanya."[6][14] Siasatan itu sengaja mengambil pendekatan yang tidak boleh menyebabkan suatu penghakiman bahawa Trump melakukan jenayah,[15][16][17] dan mengelak dari menuduh beliau kerana para penyiasat mematuhi pendapat Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang (OLC) bahawa Presiden tidak boleh dibicarakan,[18][19][20] guasar jika tuduhan akan mempengaruhi pentadbiran Trump,[16][19][21] bimbang dengan isu keadilan jika mereka menuduh Trump melakukan jenayah tanpa sebarang pertuduhan dan tiada perbicaraan.[18][19][22] Peguam Khas tidak juga menyatakan Trump bersalah kerana mereka tidak yakin bahawa beliau tidak bersalah selepas memeriksa niat dan tindakannya.[23][24][25][26] Memandangan peguam khas tidak mencapai kesimpulan mengenainya, "serahkan kepada Peguam Negara untuk menentukan sama ada perlakuan yang diterangkan dalam laporan ini merupakan jenayah," kata Barr dalam suratnya pada 22 Mac.[27][28] "Timbalan Peguam Negara, Rod Rosenstein dan saya telah menyimpulkan bahawa bukti yang diperoleh semasa penyiasatan Peguam Khas adalah tidak mencukupi untuk menuduh Presiden melakukan kesalahan pelanggaran undang-undang."[29][30] Laporan itu menerangkan sepuluh episod di mana Trump berpotensi menghalang keadilan semasa menjadi presiden dan satu sebelum beliau dipilih,[31][32] dan menyatakan dia secara peribadi cuba "mengawal siasatan" dengan pelbagai cara, tetapi kebanyakannya gagal mempengaruhi siasatan kerana pembantunya menolak untuk melaksanakannya arahan.[33][34][35] Pejabat Peguam Khas juga menyimpulkan bahawa Kongres boleh memutuskan samaada Trump menghalang keadilan,[16]dan ia mempunyai kuasa untuk mengambil tindakan terhadapnya[36][37] dengan merujuk kepada prosiding pemecatan yang berpontensi.[38]
^Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 4: The Internet Research Agency (IRA) carried out the earliest Russian interference operations identified by the investigation–a social media campaign designed to provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States [...] The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the U.S. electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Trump and disparaged candidate Clinton
^Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 4: At the same time that the IRA operation began to focus on supporting candidate Trump in early 2016, the Russian government employed a second form of interference: cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The Russian intelligence service known as the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations. In March 2016, the GRU began hacking the email accounts of Clinton Campaign volunteers and employees, including campaign chairman John Podesta. In April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. Around the time that the DNC announced in mid-June 2016 the Russian government's role in hacking its network, the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the fictitious online personas "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0". The GRU later released additional materials through the organization WikiLeaks.
^Mueller Report, vol.1 p. 66: The Office identified multiple contacts – "links", in the words of the Appointment Order – between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.
^ abMueller Report, vol. I, p. 180: the Office's investigation uncovered evidence of numerous links (i.e., contacts) between Trump Campaign officials and individuals having or claiming to have ties to the Russian government. The Office evaluated the contacts under several sets of federal laws, including conspiracy laws and statutes governing foreign agents who operate in the United States. After considering the available evidence, the Office did not pursue charges under these statutes against any of the individuals discussed in Section IV above – with the exception of FARA charges against Paul Manafort and Richard Gates based on their activities on behalf of Ukraine.... several U.S. persons connected to the Campaign made false statements about those contacts and took other steps to obstruct the Office's investigation and those of Congress. This Office has therefore charged some of those individuals with making false statements and obstructing justice.
^"Mueller Report"(PDF). m/s. 2. Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes.
^Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 1: The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of the constitutional separation of powers. [...] this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction.
^Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 1 and p. 2: [...] apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. Footnote: See U.S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf. OLC Op. at 257–258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President). [...] Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern.
^Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 2: [...] a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator. The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar concerns about sealed indictments.
^Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 2: Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, 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.
^Barr's four-page letter p.3 The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.
^Barr's four-page letter p.3 After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
^Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 185: The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. [...] The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation.
^Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 8: With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. [...] The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.
