אין כל חדש האט געשריבן:קהל עדתינו האט געשריבן:איך זעה דא אז זיי האבן נישט קיין פרוף בעיאנד ריזענעבל דאוט, וויאזוי פארשטייסטו עס? קען זיין איך פארשטיי עס נישט גוט
לשיטתך איז גענוג די ערשטע פאראגראף
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. Over the course of the investigation, the
Special Counsel?s of?ce engaged in discussions with certain Department of?cials regarding many
of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel?s obstruction investigation. After
reviewing the Special Counsel?s ?nal report on these issues; consulting with Department of?cials,
including the Of?ce 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 suf?cient to establish that
the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made Without
regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and
criminal prosecution of a sitting president.2
נאר וואס דען?
היות מולער'ס באריכט אינהאלט די פאלגענדע
The Special Counsel
therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct
constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated,
the report sets out
evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as
?dif?cult issues? of law and fact concerning whether the President?s actions and intent could be
viewed as obstruction.
מוז בארר קומען מיט די פאלגענדע הסברים
In making this determination, 'we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that ?the
evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to
Russian election interference,? and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence
bears upon the President?s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and
sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a suf?cient nexus to
a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President?s actions, many of which took
place in public View, the report identi?es no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive
conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent,
each of which, under the Department?s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging
decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-
justice offense.