Impeachment de Donald Trump. De la Résolution 660 aux (...)

Impeachment de Donald Trump. Affaire ukrainienne. Textes et (...)

Impeachment de Donald Trump. Affaire russe. Textes et (...)

Impeachment de Donald Trump. Affaire russe. Textes et (...)

Impeachment de Donald Trump. Affaire russe. Textes et (...)

Impeachment de Donald Trump. Affaire russe. Textes et documents (III).

29. La Maison-Blanche critique politiquement et juridiquement le procureur spécial Robert Mueller.

Tel est le sens d’une lettre adressée le 19 avril 2019 au ministre de la Justice Bill Barr par le conseiller juridique de la Maison-Blanche, Emmet Flood, à propos du rapport de Robert Mueller. Révélée par la presse le 2 mai 2019, cette lettre consiste en une critique du caractère « politique » de la conclusion du procureur spécial Mueller ayant consisté à dire qu’il « n’exonérait » pas Donald Trump d’une obstruction à la justice. « Les assertions [du procureur Mueller] ne peuvent être comprises que comme des déclarations politiques, émanant de personnes (procureurs) qui, dans notre système politique, ne sont pas supposées être politiques dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions. Le renversement du fardeau de la preuve, intégré sciemment dans la conclusion [du procureur Mueller], montre que son équipe et lui ont manqué à leur devoir d’agir à titre de procureurs et seulement à titre de procureurs ». Pour la Maison-Blanche, le procureur spécial Mueller n’avait qu’une alternative : poursuivre Donald Trump et expliquer pourquoi, ou ne pas le poursuivre et expliquer pourquoi.

Lettre du juriste-conseil de la Maison-Blanche à William Barr 19 Avril 2019 by Pascal Mbongo on Scribd

30. Démission du n° 2 du Département de la Justice, Rod Rosenstein.

Le 29 avril 2019, Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, a présenté sa démission à Donald Trump (document ci-après). Cette démission attendue (voir infra n° 16) prend effet le 11 mai 2019, le temps pour son successeur désigné par Donald Trump, Jeffrey Rosen (ministre adjoint des Transports), d’être confirmé par le Sénat.

« Je vous suis reconnaissant, écrit Rod Rosenstein, de l’occasion que vous m’avez donnée de servir, de la courtoisie et de l’humour dont vous avez souvent fait preuve dans nos conversations personnelles, et des objectifs que vous avez fixés dans votre discours inaugural, à savoir le patriotisme, l’unité, la sécurité, l’éducation et la prospérité, parce qu’« une nation existe pour servir ses citoyens. » Le ministère de la Justice poursuit ces objectifs tout en fonctionnant conformément à l’État de droit. L’État de droit est le fondement de l’Amérique. Il garantit notre liberté, permet à nos citoyens de s’épanouir et permet à notre pays de servir de modèle de liberté et de justice pour tous ».

Lettre de démission de Rod Rosenstein by Pascal Mbongo on Scribd

31. Audition de l’US Attorney General William Barr par le Comité judiciaire du Sénat le 1er mai 2019.

M. Barr a préparé dans cette perspective une déclaration liminaire qu’il a publiée le 30 avril (texte ci-après). Ce document a cependant été moins commenté le 30 avril que la révélation par le Washington Post de ce que le procureur spécial Robert Mueller avait écrit en mars à l’US Attorney General William Barr afin de lui faire remarquer que le résumé fait de son rapport par M. Barr (voir infra n° 22) « ne saisissait pas pleinement le contexte, la nature et le fond » de son rapport en ce qui concerne une possible obstruction à la justice du président Donald Trump (texte ci-après). « La lettre et un appel téléphonique subséquent entre les deux hommes, écrit le Washington Post, révèlent à quel point ces collègues et amis de longue date n’étaient pas d’accord alors qu’ils s’occupaient de la lourde tâche juridique et politique d’enquêter sur le président ». Rudy Giuliani, sur CNN, a fait remarquer que « [Robert] Mueller aurait dû prendre une décision et ne pas se plaindre ou se formaliser maintenant qu’il n’a pas été décrit correctement ». Cette critique de R. Giuliani est de même nature que celle ressortant de la lettre adressée le 19 avril 2019 au ministre de la Justice Bill Barr par le conseiller juridique de la Maison-Blanche, Emmet Flood (voir infra n° 29).

AG Written Statement for the Record by Pascal Mbongo on Scribd

Lettre de Robert Mueller à William Barr_27 Mars 2019 by Pascal Mbongo on Scribd

32. Donald Trump a commis des entraves à la justice : déclaration publique de plus de 400 anciens procureurs fédéraux et anciens hauts fonctionnaires du Département de la justice
Le 6 mai 2019, le site d’information Medium a publié un document peu banal : une tribune signée par plus de 400 « anciens procureurs fédéraux » (en réalité aussi bien d’anciens procureurs fédéraux que d’anciens fonctionnaires du Département de la Justice). Les signataires font valoir que le rapport Mueller décrit plusieurs actes qui remplissent les critères pour une inculpation fédérale d’une personne physique ou morale pour entrave à la justice. Le département de la justice n’aurait-il pas eu pour doctrine qu’un président en exercice ne peut être inculpé ni poursuivi, font-ils remarquer, Donald Trump aurait dû être inculpé sur plusieurs chefs d’entrave à la justice leur paraissant manifestes dans le rapport Mueller.

Enquête Mueller_ Déclaration d'anciens procureurs fédéraux_6 mai 2019 by Pascal Mbongo on Scribd

33. Déclaration du procureur spécial Robert Mueller : 29 mai 2019

Le procureur spécial a fait une déclaration publique le 29 mai 2019 à Washington, DC, à propos de son enquête. Il a annoncé à cette occasion qu’il quittait cette fonction de procureur spécial afin de retourner à la vie privée.

Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III Makes Statement on Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election Washington, DC Wednesday, May 29, 2019.

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.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning 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 used 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 interfere in the election.

These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

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. 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.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two 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.

The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them :

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other – about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.

The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you.

Lire ICI et

34. Interview de l’US Attorney General William Barr sur l’enquête russe : CBS, 30 mai 2019

Dans une interview diffusée par CBS le 30 mai 2019, l’US Attorney General William Barr a été interrogé longuement sur l’enquête russe du procureur spécial Mueller. Le point le plus remarquable dans cette interview porte sur la question de savoir si le procureur spécial était ou non empêché de conclure à l’existence d’indices graves et concordants d’une obstruction à la justice commise par Donald Trump, président des États-Unis. Robert Mueller avait répondu qu’un procureur spécial étant sous la dépendance du Département de la Justice, il était tenu par la doctrine constitutionnelle de ce ministère selon laquelle un président en exercice ne pouvait être poursuivi pénalement et donc pas inculpé par un Grand Jury. Par voie de conséquence, il ne pouvait imputer à Donald Trump la commission d’une infraction alors que l’intéressé n’aurait pas été en situation de s’en défendre devant un tribunal. D’où le fait pour son rapport d’avoir dit qu’il ne pouvait ni conclure à la commission d’une infraction, ni conclure à l’inverse. « Il serait injuste d’accuser potentiellement quelqu’un d’un crime quand il ne peut y avoir de résolution judiciaire de l’accusation réelle », avait dit Robert Mueller. C’est ce point que William Barr conteste en faisant valoir que la doctrine du Département d’État sur l’immunité pénale du président en exercice n’interdisait pas au procureur spécial de conclure qu’il avait des charges suffisantes pour une action pénale mais que cette action pénale était empêchée par la Constitution telle qu’interprétée par le Département d’État.

35. Auditions de l’ancien procureur spécial Robert Mueller par deux commissions de la Chambre des représentants : 24 juillet 2019.

L’on trouvera ici les déclarations liminaires faites par Robert Mueller devant chacune des deux commissions de la Chambre des représentants qui l’ont auditionné.

House Judiciary Committee

Good morning Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins and members of the Committee.

As you know, in May 2017, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel. I undertook that role because I believed that it was of paramount interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the presidential election.

As the Acting Attorney General said at the time, the appointment was "necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome."

My staff and I carried out this assignment with that critical objective in mind : to work quietly, thoroughly, and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome.

The order appointing me as Special Counsel directed our 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. It also included investigating efforts to interfere with, or obstruct, the investigation. Throughout the investigation, I continually stressed two things to the team that we had assembled.

First, we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as possible. It was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete, but not to last a day longer than necessary.

Second, the investigation needed to be conducted fairly and with absolute integrity. Our team would not leak or take other actions that could compromise the integrity of our work. All decisions were made based on the facts and the law.

During the course of our investigation, we charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes, including 12 officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants have been convicted or pled guilty. Certain of the charges we brought remain pending today. For those matters, I stress that the indictments contain allegations, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

In addition to the criminal charges we brought, as required by Justice Department regulations, we submitted a confidential report to the Attorney General at the conclusion of the investigation. The report set forth the results of our work and the reasons for our charging and declination decisions. The Attorney General later made the report largely public.

As you know, I made a few limited remarks about our report when we closed the Special Counsel’s Office in May of this year. There are certain points that bear emphasis.

First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.

Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address "collusion," which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not. Third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable.

Finally, as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the President towards the investigation. Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.

Let me say a further word about my appearance today.

It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited.

First, public testimony could affect several ongoing matters. In some of these matters, court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings. And consistent with longstanding Justice Department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter.

Second, the Justice Department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department, and deliberations within our office. These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect. The Department has released the letter discussing the restrictions on my testimony.

I therefore will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that I know are of public interest. For example, I am unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called "Steele Dossier." These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the Department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department.

As I explained when we closed the Special Counsel’s Office in May, our report contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We conducted an extensive investigation over two years. In writing the report, we stated the results of our investigation with precision. We scrutinized every word.

I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. As I said on May 29 : the report is my testimony. And I will stay within that text.

And as I stated in May, I also will not comment on the actions of the Attorney General or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor, and I intend to adhere to that role and to the Department’s standards that govern it.

I will be joined today by the Deputy Special Counsel, Aaron Zebley. Mr. Zebley has extensive experience as a federal prosecutor and at the FBI, where he served as Chief of Staff. Mr. Zebley was responsible for the day-to-day oversight of the investigations conducted by our Office.

I also want to again say thank you to the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years working on this matter, were of the highest integrity.

And let me say one more thing. Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American.


House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Good afternoon Chairman Schiff, Ranking Member Nunes, and members of the Committee.

I testified this morning before the House Judiciary Committee. I ask that the opening statement I made before that Committee be incorporated into the record here.

I understand that this Committee has a unique jurisdiction, and that you are interested in further understanding the counter-intelligence implications of our investigation.

So let me say a word about how we handled the potential impact of our investigation on counter-intelligence matters.

As we explain in our report, the Special Counsel regulations effectively gave me the role of a U.S. Attorney. As a result, we structured our investigation around evidence for possible use in prosecution of federal crimes. We did not reach what you would call "counter-intelligence conclusions." We did, however, set up processes in the office to identify and pass counter-intelligence information onto the FBI.

Members of our office periodically briefed the FBI about counter-intelligence information. In addition, there were agents and analysts from the FBI who were not on our team, but whose job it was to identify counter-intelligence information in our files and disseminate that information to the FBI.
For these reasons, questions about what the FBI has done with the counter-intelligence information obtained from our investigation should be directed to the FBI.

I also want to reiterate a few points that I made this morning. I am not making any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence in any pending case.

It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited.

First, public testimony could affect several ongoing matters. In some of these matters, court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings. And consistent with longstanding Justice Department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter.

Second, the Justice Department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department, and deliberations within our office. These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect. The Department has released the letter discussing the restrictions on my testimony.

I therefore will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that I know are of public interest. For example, I am unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called "Steele Dossier." These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the Department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department.

Third, as I explained this morning, it is important for me to adhere to what we wrote in our report. The report contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We stated the results of our investigation with precision.

I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today.

And as I stated in May, I also will not comment on the actions of the Attorney General or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor, and I intend to adhere to that role and to the Department’s standards that govern it.

Finally, as I said this morning, over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. I am sure that this Committee agrees.

Mentions légales | Conception et réalisation: Lucien Castex | Plan du site | Accès restreint