US. Department of Justice


electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities.


Below we describe the evidentiary considerations underpinning statements about the
results of our investigation and the Special Counsel’s charging decisions, and we then provide an
overview of the two volumes of our report.

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel’s Office found to be
supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out
the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other
instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with
confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events
occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there
was no evidence of those facts.

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing,
the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting
Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has
frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific
offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal
criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability
was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the
factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”#a term that appears
in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion,
“coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood
coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express~between the Trump Campaign and the
Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking
actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term
coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the
Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.


The report on our investigation consists of two volumes:

Volume 1 describes the factual results of the Special Counsel’s investigation of Russia’s
interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign.
SectionI describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian

Next Page_0010