Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority

Template:Chief Commissioner of CIAA Nepal

The Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) (देवनागरी: अख्तियार दुरुपयोग अनुसन्धान आयोग) is an apex constitutional body for corruption control for the Government of Nepal. Constitution of Nepal has empowered CIAA to investigate and probe cases against the persons holding any public office and their associates who are indulged in the abuse of authority by way of corruption.[1]

Hon. Navin Kumar Ghimire is the Chief Commissioner of the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA).

Corruption within the oversight agency[edit]

Commissioner Raj Narayan Pathak resigned on February 15, 2019 after news reports of corruption surfaced. He is said to have taken 8.7 million rupees as bribe to settle corruption claim in Nepal Engineering College.[2] There have been other instances of employees and commissioners using the oversight agency as a tool for their own benefit.

See also[edit]

  • Commissioners of Nepal

References[edit]

  • ^ “CIAA Official Website”..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ “Raj Narayan Pathak resigns after news reports of corruption surfaces. He is said to have 8.7 million rupees as bribe to settle corruption claim in Nepal Engineering College”. Onlinekhabar. Retrieved 15 February 2019.

  • Aeroflot Flight 1492

    Aviation accident in Moscow on 5 May 2019

    Aeroflot Flight 1492 was a scheduled passenger flight from Moscow–Sheremetyevo to Murmansk, Russia. On 5 May 2019, the Sukhoi Superjet 100 aircraft operating the flight was climbing after take-off when it was struck by lightning. The radio and other equipment failed, and the flight crew made an emergency landing at Sheremetyevo. Flight 1492 bounced on landing and touched down hard, causing the undercarriage to collapse and a fire to erupt, which quickly engulfed the rear of the aircraft. Forty-one of the 78 occupants died, as they were unable to evacuate in time.

    Contents

    • 1 Aircraft
    • 2 Accident
    • 3 Victims
    • 4 Investigation
    • 5 Aftermath
    • 6 See also
    • 7 References
    • 8 External links

    Aircraft[edit]

    The aircraft was a Russian-manufactured Sukhoi Superjet 100 with the registration RA-89098 and MSN (manufacturer’s serial number) 95135, which first flew in 2017.[1] It was delivered to Aeroflot on 27 September 2017.[2]

    Accident[edit]

    Flight 1492 took off from Sheremetyevo International Airport for Murmansk Airport on 5 May 2019 at 18:02 local time (15:02 UTC). The aircraft was struck by lightning while climbing through 6,900 ft (2,100 m). The strike caused some of the aircraft’s electronic equipment to malfunction, including the autopilot and radio, and the flight crew were unable to maintain two-way communication with air traffic control. The strike was reported via a distress call to controllers at Sheremetyevo Airport with pilots stating; “Requesting return. 1492, lost radio contact and the plane is burning in lightning.”[3] At the time, cumulonimbus clouds were observed in the vicinity of the airport with a base of 6,000 ft (1,800 m).[4]

    The aircraft stopped its climb at flight level 100 (approx. 10,000 ft or 3,000 m above sea level) and came around to land at Sheremetyevo. It overshot the approach path, completed a circle and inititiated a second approach for runway 24L.[1] The transponder code was changed to 7600 (to indicate radio failure) at 15:11 UTC and subsequently to 7700 (emergency) at 15:25 UTC, while Flight 1492 was on final approach.[5] The aircraft bounced on landing, and after the fourth touchdown, the landing gear collapsed and a fire erupted, which quickly engulfed the wings, rear fuselage and empennage. The aircraft slid down the runway, veered to the left and came to a standstill on the grass between two adjoining taxiways, about 27 minutes after take-off.[1] [6]

    An evacuation was carried out from the front passenger doors and their slides were deployed. Aeroflot claims the evacuation took 55 seconds, though video shows the slides still in use 70 seconds after their deployment.[7] The rear half of the aircraft was destroyed by the fire, which was extinguished about 45 minutes after landing.[4][8][9] Of the five crew and 73 passengers, there were 37 survivors; 41 occupants, including one crew member, died.[10] Forty of the victims were Russian and one was American.[11][12]

    During the evacuation, passengers were seen carrying hand luggage down the evacuation slides, leading to speculation that passengers retrieving their luggage delayed the evacuation.[13][14][7][15] According to TASS’s law enforcement source, the majority of passengers in the tail end of the aircraft had practically no chance of rescue, many of them did not even have time to unfasten their seat belts. He added that those passengers from the tail section of the aircraft who managed to escape had moved to the front of the aircraft even before it stopped, and that he had no confirmation that retrieval of luggage had slowed the evacuation.[16] Speculation that the observed retrieval of luggage caused an evacuation delay was also refuted by witnesses.[17][18][19][15]

    Victims[edit]

    The accident killed 41 people (40 passengers and 1 flight attendant). 26 of them were residents of the Murmansk region.[20] In addition to the 40 Russian victims, one US citizen was killed.[21]

    Investigation[edit]

    The Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) opened an investigation into the accident. The French BEA is participating as representative of the state of design of the aircraft engine and EASA will offer technical advice to BEA.[22][23] On 6 May 2019, the IAC said in a press release that both flight recorders had been recovered. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) was found in satisfactory condition, but the flight data recorder (FDR) casing was damaged by exposure to extremely high temperatures and IAC specialists were working to extract the data.[4] BBC News reported the investigation is considering the possibility of pilot error in view of several non-standard features of the flight, including the landing.[24]

    A criminal investigation was opened into a fatal “violation of the rules of safe movement and exploitation of air transport”. The Investigative Committee said on 6 May it was considering insufficient skill of the pilots, dispatchers and those who performed the technical inspection of the plane, along with mechanical problems and poor weather, as a possible cause of the accident.[25] A high-ranking law enforcement source told Lenta.ru that experts would examine the actions of Sheremetyevo’s fire and rescue service. The source said air traffic control were late with raising the alarm and fire engines had not left the fire station at the time of the accident. Only two of the six available engines were involved within the first six minutes and they were not filled with foam, which is more effective against a fuel-fed fire than water. Experts will have to answer more than 50 questions.[26]

    Aftermath[edit]

    On 6 May 2019, Aeroflot announced that they would compensate surviving passengers and the families of the deceased. One million rubles (US $17141) were to be paid to passengers that did not require hospitalization, two million rubles (US $34282) to passengers who were hospitalized and five million rubles (US $85704) were to be paid to families.[27]

    On 5 May, a petition to ground Superjet 100 during the investigation was created on Change.org. By May 8, it was signed by 140,000 people and Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov commented that the decision should be taken by “competent aviation authorities” and not by citizens who sign petitions on the portal.[28][29] The Ministry of Transport of Russia decided against grounding the Superjet 100, stating there was no obvious sign of a design flaw.[24] Aeroflot cancelled approximately 50 Superjet flights in the week following the accident. Kommersant cited industry sources as saying the Superjet 100 had lower dispatch reliability than Airbus and Boeing aircraft in the airline’s fleet historically and attributed a rise in cancellations to “increased safety measures” at Aeroflot while the accident is investigated.[30][31]

    On 6 May, Russian regional carrier Yamal Airlines announced that it was cancelling its remaining order of 10 Sukhoi Superjet 100s because of high maintenance costs. At the time, Yamal was the second largest Superjet operator in Russia after Aeroflot with 15 aircraft in its fleet.[32][relevant? – discuss]

    On 15 May, Mexican low cost airline Interjet announced that it is selling 20 Sukhoi Superjet because, due to its size, it is no longer profitable to operate them in Mexico.[33] Interjet was the biggest Sukhoi Superjet 100 operator outside Russia with 22 aircraft in its fleet.[34][relevant? – discuss]

    See also[edit]

    • 2010s portal
    • Aviation portal
    • Disasters portal
    • Death portal
    • Moscow portal
    • 2012 Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet crash
    • 2019 in aviation
    • 2019 in Russia
    • Aeroflot accidents and incidents
    • List of accidents and incidents involving airliners by location#Russia
    • List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft

    References[edit]

  • ^ a b c “Aircraft accident Sukhoi Superjet 100-95B RA-89098 Moskva-Sheremetyevo Airport (SVO)”. Aviation Safety Network. 8 May 2019..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ “RA-89098 Aeroflot – Russian Airlines Sukhoi Superjet 100”. www.planespotters.net. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  • ^ News, A. B. C. “Crashed Russian plane communication leaks: ‘The plane is burning in lightning'”. ABC News. Retrieved 13 May 2019.
  • ^ a b c Hradecky, Simon (6 May 2019). “Accident: Aeroflot SU95 at Moscow on May 5th 2019, aircraft bursts into flames during rollout and burns down”. The Aviation Herald. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
  • ^ @flightradar24 (6 May 2019). “Flightradar24 tweet regarding squawk codes of SU1492” (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  • ^ “41 Confirmed Dead After Russian Aeroflot Plane Lands With Fire On Board”. The New Times. 5 May 2019. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  • ^ a b Kaminski-Morrow, David (9 May 2019). “ANALYSIS: Superjet fire puts focus on evacuation threat”. Flightglobal.com.
  • ^ “Aeroflot indicates Superjet engines caught fire on landing”. Flight Global. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
  • ^ {{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48174169 |title=Aeroflot plane crash: Russia jet ‘struck by lightning’ |work=BBC News |access-date=6 May 2019
  • ^ Troianovski, Anton; Fritz, Angela; Ferris-Rotman, Amie (5 May 2019). “Russian passenger jet catches fire on runway in Moscow, killing 41 people”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
  • ^ “41 жертва трагедии в аэропорту Шереметьево 05.05.2019” [41 victims of the tragedy at Sheremetevo Airport 05/05/2019]. Komsomolskaya Pravda (in Russian). Retrieved 15 May 2019.
  • ^ Kramer, Andrew E. (5 May 2019). “Aeroflot Plane Makes Fiery Emergency Landing in Russia, Killing 41”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
  • ^ “Were lives lost at the cost of carry-ons in Aeroflot plane crash that killed 41?”. USA TODAY.
  • ^ Mzezewa, Tariro (6 May 2019). “In the Event of an Emergency, Leave Your Luggage on the Plane. Really”. Retrieved 14 May 2019 – via NYTimes.com.
  • ^ a b “What We Know About the Deadly Aeroflot Superjet Crash Landing”. The Moscow Times. 6 May 2019. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  • ^ “Данные о проблемах с эвакуацией из SSJ-100 из-за ручной клади не подтвердились”. TASS (in Russian). 11 May 2019. Retrieved 11 May 2019.
  • ^ “ТАСС: версия о спасении багажа из сгоревшего SSJ-100 ценой жизней людей не подтвердилась”. NEWSru.com (in Russian). 11 May 2019. Retrieved 11 May 2019.
  • ^ “«Я снял, как горел наш самолёт»: пассажир Sukhoi Superjet 100 рассказал о смертельном рейсе” [”I shot movie while our plane was burning”: a passenger of the Sukhoi Superjet 100 told about the deadly flight] (in Russian). 14 May 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
  • ^ “”Я смотрел в иллюминатор и думал: мы сейчас взорвемся или нет?”” [”I looked out the window and thought: are we going to explode or not?”]. Сибирь. Реалии (in Russian). Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  • ^ “«Мама, мы взлетаем»: как один полет прервал жизнь пассажиров SSJ-100”. Газета.Ru.
  • ^ “Jeremy Brooks of New Mexico ID’d as American killed in Russia plane crash”. ABC11 Raleigh-Durham. 6 May 2019.
  • ^ “Франция включилась в расследование ЧП с SSJ100 как разработчик двигателя”. РИА Новости. 14 May 2019.
  • ^ BEA. “Accident to the Sukhoi RRJ95 registered RA-89098 and operated by Aeroflot on 05/05/2019 at Moscow [Investigation led by MAK / Russia]”. BEA – Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la sécurité de l’aviation civile.
  • ^ a b “Aeroflot plane crash: Pilot error theory probed”. BBC. 7 May 2019. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
  • ^ Luhn, Alec (7 May 2019). “Russia to investigate whether pilot error caused fiery emergency landing that killed 37”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  • ^ “Раскрыты ошибки спасателей при тушении SSJ-100”. Lenta.ru. Retrieved 14 May 2019.
  • ^ “Aeroflot to pay compensation to all passengers, victim’s families after plane crash”. TASS (in Russian). Retrieved 13 May 2019.
  • ^ “Песков: приостановить эксплуатацию Sukhoi Superjet могут только авиационные органы”. ТАСС.
  • ^ “Петицию за запрет полетов SSJ 100 подписали больше 130 000 человек – Общество”. Forbes.ru. 7 May 2019.
  • ^ “SSJ 100 придержали на земле” – via Kommersant.
  • ^ “Russia’s Aeroflot Cancels Dozens of Flights Following Tragic Plane Crash”. The Moscow Times. 13 May 2019. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  • ^ “Russian Airline Cancels Sukhoi Superjet Order After Fatal Crash Landing – Reports”. The Moscow Times. 6 May 2019. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  • ^ Cartera, Sara (15 May 2019). “Interjet venderá 20 aviones Sukhoi”. El Universal. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  • ^ “Sukhoi not-so-super jet. What is SSJ-100 crashed in Sheremetyevo?”. Crime Russia. Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  • External links[edit]

    • RRJ-95B RA-89098 05.05.2019 – Interstate Aviation Committee – Russian version
    • Aeroflot news releases
      • Passenger list and survivor list
      • Aeroflot confirms engine fire on flight SU1492 Moscow–Murmansk 5 May 2019
    • Flightradar24 data regarding Aeroflot flight 1492
    • Full video


    Journal of Investigative Dermatology

    The Journal of Investigative Dermatology is a peer-reviewed medical journal covering dermatology. It is published by Elsevier and the editor-in-chief is Mark C. Udey (Washington University).

    Abstracting and indexing[edit]

    The journal is abstracted and indexed in:

    • Biological Abstracts[1]
    • BIOSIS Previews[2]
    • CAB Abstracts[3]
    • Chemical Abstracts Service[4]
    • Current Contents/Clinical Medicine[2]
    • Current Contents/Life Sciences[2]
    • EBSCO databases[5]
    • Embase/Excerpta Medica[6]
    • Global Health
    • Index Medicus/MEDLINE/PubMed[7]
    • PASCAL
    • Science Citation Index[2]

    According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2017 impact factor of 6.448.[8]

    References[edit]

  • ^ “Biological Abstracts – Journal List”. Intellectual Property & Science. Clarivate Analytics. Retrieved 2018-12-22..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ a b c d “Master Journal List”. Intellectual Property & Science. Clarivate Analytics. Retrieved 2018-12-22.
  • ^ “Serials cited”. CAB Abstracts. CABI. Retrieved 2018-12-22.
  • ^ “CAS Source Index”. Chemical Abstracts Service. American Chemical Society. Retrieved 2018-12-22.
  • ^ “Journal of Investigative Dermatology”. MIAR: Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals. University of Barcelona. Retrieved 2018-12-22.
  • ^ “Embase Coverage”. Embase. Elsevier. Retrieved 2018-12-22.
  • ^ “Journal of Investigative Dermatology”. NLM Catalog. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved 2018-12-22.
  • ^ “Journal of Investigative Dermatology”. 2017 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Science ed.). Clarivate Analytics. 2018.
  • External links[edit]

    Official website


    Disappearance of Susan Powell

    Susan Cox Powell (October 16, 1981 – c. December 6, 2009) is an American missing person from West Valley City, Utah. Her disappearance and presumed murder, as well as the subsequent investigation and events, garnered significant media attention.

    On December 14, 2009, Susan’s husband, Joshua “Josh” Powell, was named a person of interest in the investigation into her disappearance. However, Joshua was never charged; on February 5, 2012, Joshua killed himself and the couple’s two young sons, Charles Joshua Powell (b. January 19, 2005) and Braden Timothy Powell (b. January 2, 2007) in a murder–suicide after custody of the boys had been awarded to Susan’s parents, Charles and Judy Cox. According to State-provided visitation supervisor Elizabeth Griffin-Hall, Joshua told his sons, “I’ve got a surprise for you,” as they walked up the driveway towards the house.[1] Once Joshua and his two sons were inside, Joshua locked the door, barring Griffin-Hall from entering, where he attacked both boys with a hatchet. The house was in flames soon after 911 calls were made by Griffin-Hall.

    On May 21, 2013, West Valley City police closed their active investigation into Susan’s disappearance, stating that they believed Joshua murdered her and that his brother Michael had assisted him in concealing her body.[2] Since then, there are ongoing calls to have Susan legally declared dead.[3]

    Contents

    • 1 Background
    • 2 Disappearance
    • 3 Investigation
    • 4 Developments in 2010–2012
    • 5 Death of Joshua Powell and sons
    • 6 Aftermath
    • 7 In the media
    • 8 See also
    • 9 References
    • 10 External links

    Background[edit]

    Joshua and Susan Powell with their sons Charles and Braden

    Joshua Powell was born on January 20, 1976, to Steven and Terrica Powell in Puyallup, Washington. Joshua’s parents had a dysfunctional marriage, caused in large part by Steven’s disaffection with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church). According to divorce filings by Terrica in 1992, Steven shared pornography with Joshua and his two male siblings, and refused to teach or enforce limits on certain behaviors. As a teenager, Joshua allegedly killed gerbils belonging to one of his sisters and threatened his mother with a butcher knife. He also attempted suicide on at least one occasion.[4]

    By 1998, Joshua was living in Seattle as a student at the University of Washington. It was during this period that Powell began his first relationship with a young woman named Catherine Terry Everett, who he met at a local LDS ward. After the two moved into an apartment together, Joshua became possessive towards Catherine. “He would have restrictions and limitations on what I could and couldn’t do when it came to my family,” she later recalled. “If I was going to go visit them, he had to come too. I couldn’t go by myself.” When Catherine visited a friend in Utah without Joshua, she decided not to return to Seattle and broke up with him over the phone.[5][6]

    Joshua met Susan Cox, a classmate at his LDS Institute of Religion course, during a dinner party at his Tacoma apartment in November 2000. The two began a relationship and eventually married at the Portland Oregon Temple in April 2001. Joshua had a bachelor’s degree in business and worked for a number of different companies over the years,[7] while Susan, a trained cosmetologist, took up a job with Wells Fargo Investments after the family’s relocation to West Valley City, Utah, a suburb of Salt Lake City. The Powells went on to have two sons: Charles, born in 2005, and Braden, born in 2007.

    For a brief period following their wedding, Joshua and Susan lived at Steven Powell’s home in South Hill, Washington. Initially unbeknownst to Susan, her father-in-law Steven had developed an obsessive infatuation with her, which was only inflamed by their close proximity. Steven followed Susan around the house with a camcorder, used a small mirror to spy on her while she used the bathroom, stole her underwear from her laundry, read her adult journals, and even posted love songs online under a pseudonym.[8] In 2003, Steven confessed his amorous feelings to a stunned Susan, who rejected him; the encounter was inadvertently captured by Steven’s camcorder microphone. The Powells moved out-of-state soon after, partly so Susan could distance herself from Steven.[9]

    Susan’s journal entries and email correspondence indicated the presence of marital discord.[10] There was tension with Joshua over his refusal to attend LDS services with Susan and their children, and over his continued contact with Steven despite his father’s ongoing advances towards Susan.[11] Susan’s friends also pointed to Joshua’s extravagant spending habits and to his “extremely controlling” behavior towards his wife. Joshua filed for bankruptcy in 2007, declaring over $200,000 in debts.[12] Susan recorded a video in July 2008 surveying property damage she attributed to Joshua, and wrote a secret will that included the statements, “I want it documented that there is extreme turmoil in our marriage” and, “If I die, it may not be an accident, even if it looks like one.”[13]

    Disappearance[edit]

    On the morning of December 6, 2009, Susan, Charles and Braden attended church services at the Hunter 36th Ward. A neighbor visited them at home in the afternoon, leaving about 5:00 p.m.

    At first, the entire Powell family was reported missing on December 7 by relatives.[14] Joshua’s mother Terrica and sister Jennifer Graves went looking for the family at their house shortly after being informed that the children had not been dropped off at daycare that morning. They called the police when they failed to make contact with Joshua and Susan. The police broke into the house, fearing that they might be victims of carbon monoxide poisoning. They found no one inside, but noticed two box fans blowing on a wet spot on a carpet in the house.[15] Susan did not show up at her job on December 7; her purse, wallet, and identification were all found at the house. Her cell phone was later found in the family’s only vehicle, a minivan, that Joshua had been using.[16]

    Later that day, at about 5:00 p.m., Joshua returned home with the two boys and was taken to the police station for questioning. He claimed he had left Susan sleeping at home shortly after midnight on December 7, and had taken his boys on a camping trip to Simpson Springs in western Utah.[15] Police visited Simpson Springs on December 10, but found no evidence of the campsite that Joshua had described.[17] They also found it suspicious that Joshua would take his young boys out camping after midnight when he was scheduled to go to work at his job just hours later. Joshua had not told his boss that he would not be coming into work that day, and explained to police it was because he had thought it was Sunday rather than Monday.[18]

    Investigation[edit]

    Upon searching the Powell residence on December 9,[17] investigators found traces of Susan’s blood on the floor, life insurance policies on Susan for US$1.5 million, and a handwritten letter from Susan expressing fear for her life.[19] DNA test results, released in 2013, matched one blood sample with Susan, while another sample was determined to have come from an “unknown male contributor”.[20]

    In August 2012, West Valley City police released documents showing that Joshua took actions that were regarded as highly suspicious following Susan’s disappearance. He “did not appear to be concerned about her welfare” when first questioned by police; liquidated her retirement accounts; cancelled her regularly scheduled chiropractic sessions; withdrew his children from daycare; and spoke to coworkers about how to hide a body in an abandoned mineshaft in the western Utah desert.[21]

    Police interviewed the family’s eldest son, Charlie,[22] who confirmed that the camping trip Joshua described took place;[23] however, unlike his father, he stated that Susan had gone with them and she did not return.[19] Weeks after her disappearance, a teacher reported that Charlie had claimed that his mother was dead.[19] Furthermore, Susan’s parents, Chuck and Judy Cox, claimed that while at daycare several months after the disappearance, Braden drew a picture of a van with three people in it, and told carers that “Mommy was in the trunk”.[24]

    Investigators informed the media that they planned to question Joshua again,[25] and subpoenaed all footage and interviews (aired and unaired) of Joshua from local television stations.[26] On December 14, Joshua retained an attorney in connection with the investigation,[17] and police said that he grew increasingly uncooperative.[23][27] A few days later, he took his sons to Puyallup to stay with Steven for the holidays. By December 24, Joshua was considered a person of interest in the investigation.[28] On January 6, he returned with his brother Michael to pack the family’s belongings, indicating he was moving permanently to Puyallup.[29]

    Developments in 2010–2012[edit]

    West Valley City, UtahSouth Hill, Washington The Powells lived in West Valley City, Utah when Susan disappeared in 2009. Joshua Powell killed himself and their children Charles and Braden Powell in South Hill, Washington in 2012.

    In Puyallup, Joshua occupied a home with his two sons, his father Steven,[17][30] his brothers Michael and Jonathan, and his sister, Alina. Joshua indicated that he would rent out his house in Utah.[31] It was reported that he returned to Puyallup after he had lost his job.[32]

    Soon afterwards, the website SusanPowell.org was established. Described as “the official website of Susan Powell,” the site’s anonymous entries defended Joshua as the victim of a smear campaign by Susan’s family, his sister Jennifer, and the LDS Church.[33] Additional posts also speculated that Susan’s disappearance was connected to that of Steven Koecher, a Salt Lake Tribune journalist who vanished the same week as Susan, and that the two had run off to Brazil together.[34] Joshua and Steven were widely believed to have written these posts.[35] In late 2010, both men claimed that Susan had abandoned her family due to mental illness and that she had left with another man. Susan’s family rejected these claims as being “unsupported” by any evidence.[30]

    Investigators’ scrutiny extended to Steven Powell upon learning from a family friend that he had been obsessed with his son’s wife. Computer images seized from Steven’s house in 2010 turned up 4,500 images of Susan taken without her knowledge, including close-ups of specific body parts.[36][37] Police also turned their attention to Michael Powell after learning that he had sold his 1997 Ford Taurus to a wrecking yard in Pendleton, Oregon shortly after Susan’s disappearance, and had later ordered satellite images of the lot. When police found the car, a sniffer dog indicated that a human body had been in the trunk.[38]

    On September 14, 2011, Utah authorities discovered a possible gravesite while searching Topaz Mountain, a desert area near Nephi that Joshua had frequented as a campsite.[23] There were signs of recent soil disturbance and shoveling, but after digging a few feet down, police were unable to find any remains, in spite of careful sifting of the soil. Federal anthropologists also ruled out the possibility of the site being an ancient burial ground. Police continued to examine the site for a time, but offered no explanation as to why they previously announced the finding of remains when none had actually been confirmed. Authorities said they were following a scent detected by their sniffer dogs.[39]

    Relationships between and within the Powell and Cox families became increasingly hostile. After a police raid in their home in 2011, both Joshua and Steven spoke to major news outlets regarding journals that Susan had allegedly written about the relationship between Steven and herself. Steven claimed that he and Susan had been falling in love prior to her disappearance, and he cited the content of the journals (written when Susan was a teenager) as evidence to support his theory that she was mentally unstable and could have run away with another man. A judge issued a permanent injunction forbidding Joshua and Steven from publishing any material from Susan’s journals, ordering the pair to either return or destroy any journals already published.[40]

    On September 22, Steven was arrested on charges of voyeurism and child pornography after police found evidence that he had secretly videotaped numerous women and young girls, including Susan. John Long, assistant Attorney General for Washington State, said that Joshua was a “subject” in the child pornography investigation.[41] A friend of Steven claimed that he was preoccupied with pornography and “was hung up on [Susan] sexually”.[37] Chuck Cox filed for custody of Susan’s children the day after Steven was arrested. A Washington court eventually granted Cox temporary custody of the boys,[42] ruling that Joshua would have to move out of Steven’s home if he wanted to regain custody. Joshua rented a house in South Hill, Washington, but authorities later alleged that he had never actually moved into that house, merely making it appear as if he had satisfied the court’s instructions while continuing to reside at Steven’s home.[43]

    In late September 2011, Joshua’s sister Jennifer stated that she believed Joshua was “responsible for his wife Susan Powell’s disappearance”.[44] His other sister Alina had also been suspicious of him as well; however, she later withdrew her suspicions and felt that Joshua had been unduly harassed by the investigation.[45] By this time, West Valley City had spent more than half a million dollars on the case. On September 28, Mayor Mike Winder indicated that he felt that the case was worth the expense, stating, “We feel that we are getting to that tipping point where we have more hot evidence than we have had in the past two years”, and that the case was moving forward.[46]

    In late 2011, Joshua underwent a series of court-ordered evaluations in Washington. The evaluations by James Manley determined that Joshua had adequate parenting skills, a steady employment history and no criminal record or history of domestic violence. However, Manley also raised issues concerning the ongoing criminal investigations, Joshua’s failure to admit normal personal shortcomings, his overbearing behavior with his sons, and his persistent defensiveness and paranoia (attributed to the police and media attention in conjunction with underlying narcissistic traits). The initial recommendation was for Joshua to have visitation with his sons several times a week, supervised by a social worker.[7]

    In the last week of January 2012, Utah police discovered about 400 images of simulated child pornography, bestiality and incest on Joshua’s computer. The images, while not illegal due to their being in a hand-drawn, or cartoonish 3-D format, were cause for “great concern” to Manley, particularly given Joshua’s earlier denial of possessing any such material. Joshua was recommended to receive a more thorough psychosexual evaluation and polygraph test, but Manley suggested no change in the visitation schedule with the Powell boys.[7] Meanwhile, Michael established a Google Sites page which claimed that Susan’s parents were abusing and neglecting the boys in collusion with child welfare authorities, and that West Valley City police had both mishandled the investigation into Susan’s disappearance and were harassing Joshua. Lawyers for the Cox family disputed the allegations, and Google removed the site after a few days due to terms of use violations.[47]

    Death of Joshua Powell and sons[edit]

    On February 5, 2012, social worker Elizabeth Griffin Hall called 911 after bringing Charlie and Braden to a supervised visit at Joshua’s house in South Hill, Washington. Hall, who was supposed to monitor the visit between Joshua and the boys, said that he grabbed them and would not let her in the door.[48] Soon thereafter, the house exploded, killing Joshua and the two children. Local authorities treated the case as a double murder-suicide,[49] saying that the act appeared to have been deliberate.[50]

    When authorities notified Steven, who was in jail, he “didn’t seem very upset by the news, but was angry towards authorities who notified him”.[51] Two weeks later, Steven invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions about the Susan Powell case. Cox and others have stated they believe that Steven knew what actually happened to Susan.[52] Steven was convicted of voyeurism charges in May 2012 in a trial which largely skirted the issue of Susan’s case.[53]

    After a relatively brief investigation, officials confirmed that the explosion had been deliberately planned. The official cause of death for Joshua and the two boys was determined to be carbon monoxide poisoning, though the coroner also noted that both children had significant chopping injuries on the head and neck. A hatchet was recovered near Joshua’s body, and investigators believe that he attacked the boys with it before being overwhelmed by smoke and fumes.[54] The fire investigation also found two five-gallon cans of gasoline on the premises, as well as evidence that gasoline had been spread throughout the house.

    Friends and relatives of Joshua told authorities that he had contacted them by email minutes before the incident to say goodbye. Some of them, including his pastor, received instructions about finding his money and shutting off his utilities.[55] Records also showed that he had withdrawn $7,000 from his bank account and had donated his children’s toys and books to local charities the day before the incident.[56] Joshua named Michael as the main beneficiary of his life insurance policy.[2]

    Charles and Braden are buried at Woodbine Cemetery, which also contains a memorial for their mother. Joshua’s remains were cremated.

    Aftermath[edit]

    On February 11, 2013, approximately one year after the death of Joshua and his sons, Michael took his own life in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where he had moved for graduate school. He jumped from the roof of a parking garage.[57] Police had questioned Michael several times in 2012 after discovering his abandoned Ford Taurus at the Oregon wrecking yard; Michael was “evasive” about why he left the car at that location.[2] Utah authorities have since said they believe that Joshua and Michael were accomplices in the murder of Susan.[2]

    In a February 2013 interview, Manley, who had conducted the 2011-2012 evaluations of Joshua for Washington authorities, acknowledged his suspicions that Joshua was involved in his wife’s disappearance. However, he did not mention these suspicions in his report because they were beyond the scope of his duties and because Joshua had not been charged with any wrongdoing.[58]

    On May 21, 2013, West Valley City police announced that they had closed the active investigation into Susan’s disappearance.[59]

    Joshua’s sister Jennifer wrote a memoir with co-author Emily Clawson about the Powell family’s tumultuous history. The memoir was published in June 2013 as A Light In Dark Places. Jennifer was inspired to write the book, she says, “to help other people to recognize abuse in either their own relationships or relationships around them, because it’s not always completely apparent.”

    In March 2015, Chuck Cox won a protracted court battle with Joshua’s mother, Terrica, and his sister, Alina, over control of Susan’s estate. Terrica and Alina had sought to have Susan declared legally dead to collect life insurance, but Cox ultimately gained full control of the estate.[60]

    Steven Powell was released from prison on July 11, 2017, after serving a total of seven years following his voyeurism and child pornography convictions.[61] Steven died of natural causes on Monday, July 23, 2018 in Tacoma, Washington.[62]

    Susan remains a missing person, but given the fates of her sons, it is widely believed that she was murdered by her husband. There are calls as of March 2018[update] to have her declared dead, with the cause being homicide.[3]

    In the media[edit]

    In October 2018, Crime Junkie podcast covered the case in one of its episodes entitled, “Murdered: The Powell Family.” [63]

    Dave Cawley, a reporter for a news radio station in Salt Lake City, Utah, began a podcast on the Susan Powell case in November of 2018. [64] The podcast, titled “Cold,” offers evidence and information from the case that has never before been made public, such as voice and video recordings, interviews, and more.

    In December 2018, the Investigation Discovery channel premiered an 85-minute documentary entitled “Susan Powell: An ID Murder Mystery”.[65]

    A new documentary entitled “The Disappearance of Susan Cox Powell” premiered on Oxygen in May 2019. The two-night special was touted to be the “definitive” account of the investigation, revealing Steven Powell’s never-before-seen videos that were seized by police when he was arrested. The documentary included interviews with many who have never spoken out publicly, including Josh Powell’s sister, Alina.[66]

    See also[edit]

    • List of people who disappeared

    References[edit]

  • ^ Chris Cuomo, Harry Phillips and Colleen Curry “Josh Powell told sons he had ‘surprise’ for them, social worker” ABC News, February 9th, 2012
  • ^ a b c d “Susan Powell’s husband and his brother likely killed Utah mom: police”. New York Daily News. Associated Press. Retrieved 5 January 2014..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ a b Nate Carlisle (December 5, 2014). “Newest Susan Powell legal fight: When to declare her dead”. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 1 March 2018.
  • ^ Adams, Brooke (10 February 2012). “Divorce documents shed light on Josh Powell’s troubles”. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 29 March 2019.
  • ^ Cawley, Dave (14 November 2018). “Cold Podcast Ep 1: To All the Girls I’ve Loved Before”. KSL-TV. Retrieved 29 March 2019.
  • ^ “Cold: Josh Powell’s ex-girlfriend speaks for the first time”. MyNorthwest.com. 14 November 2018. Retrieved 29 March 2019.
  • ^ a b c Mulick, Stacey (2012). Psychologist’s report on Josh Powell released, Feb 2012, accessed 22 Aug 2015
  • ^ “Strange Twist in Susan Powell Case: Father-in-Law’s Love Songs”. Inside Edition. CBS Television Distribution. Inside Edition Inc. 31 August 2011. Archived from the original on 4 May 2017. Retrieved 8 May 2016.
  • ^ Cawley, Dave (21 November 2018). “Cold Podcast Ep 2: Wake Up Little Susie”. KSL-TV. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
  • ^ Rogers, Melinda (28 April 2012). “In her own words: Susan Cox Powell wrote of fear in emails”. The Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on 16 January 2018. Retrieved 15 January 2014.
  • ^ Cawley, Dave (14 November 2018). “Cold Podcast Episode 3: Faith and Finances”. KSL-TV. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
  • ^ Adams B. and McFarland S. “Susan Powell case: Police take DNA from missing West Valley City woman’s husband.” Archived 2012-03-31 at the Wayback Machine Salt Lake Tribune December 6, 2009. Accessed January 15, 2014.
  • ^ Vedder, Tracy. “Chilling video Susan Powell made before disappearance released”. KOMO News. komonews.com. Archived from the original on 22 May 2013. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
  • ^ Bergreen, Jason (December 8, 2011). “West Valley City police looking for missing woman”. The Salt Lake Tribune. Archived from the original on December 13, 2009. Retrieved December 12, 2009.
  • ^ a b “Detailed timeline of events surrounding Josh Powell, Susan Cox Powell”. Deseret News. February 5, 2011.
  • ^ “Desperate Search for Missing Mom in Utah”. CBS News. December 12, 2009.
  • ^ a b c d “Timeline of Susan Powell’s disappearance”. Fox 13. Archived from the original on December 18, 2009.
  • ^ https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2012/04/experts_josh_powell_could_have.html
  • ^ a b c “Court documents: Susan Powell’s blood, hand-written note expressing fear were found in Utah home”. MSNBC. Associated Press. Archived from the original on March 30, 2012.
  • ^ “West Valley City photos, documents relating to the Susan Powell case” (PDF). KSL. May 23, 2013.
  • ^ Reavy, Pat (2012). Josh Powell’s odd behavior on police radar from the beginning, documents show, KSL.com Aug 7, 2015; URL accessed 22 Aug 2015
  • ^ “Utah Mom’s Disappearance ‘Suspicious,’ Police Say”. Fox News. December 11, 2009.
  • ^ a b c Dobner, Jennifer (September 14, 2011). “Police: Humans remains found in search for mom”. Yahoo News. Associated Press. Retrieved September 14, 2011.
  • ^ “Josh Powell, sons died of carbon monoxide poisoning”. MyNorthwest.com. February 7, 2012.
  • ^ “Police to Question Husband of Missing Utah Mom Again”. Fox News. December 14, 2009.
  • ^ Carlisle, Nathan (December 19, 2009). “Missing mom case: Cops subpoena TV interviews with Susan Powell’s husband”. Salt Late Tribune. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2009.
  • ^ Fletcher, Lisa; Netter, Sarah (December 16, 2009). “Husband Named Person of Interest in Susan Powell Disappearance”. ABC News. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
  • ^ Reavy, Pat (December 24, 2009). “Powell took his time getting home, neighbor says”. Deseret News. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
  • ^ “The Susan Powell timeline”. Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
  • ^ a b Winch, Graham (February 7, 2012). “Timeline: The Powell family saga”. HLNTV.com. Retrieved February 7, 2012.
  • ^ Carlson, Brian (March 1, 2010). “Josh Powell returns to Utah”. KTVX. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
  • ^ Whitehurst, Lindsay (January 11, 2010). “Powell keeps mum, continues packing to leave Utah”. Salt Lake City Tribune. Archived from the original on October 6, 2012. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
  • ^ Anonymous (archived) “Mormons Mobilize Against The Powell Family”
  • ^ Anonymous, “Utah’s Parallel Disappearances: Susan Powell and Steven Koecher (archived)”, dated December 8, 2010, URL retrieved February 7, 2012.
  • ^ Hunsaker, Brent (June 2, 2010). “Josh Powell leaving Mormonism”. ABC 4 News.
  • ^ Curry, Colleen (7 December 2012). “Stephen Powell Took Thousands of Images of In-Law Susan Powell”. ABC News. Archived from the original on 12 May 2017. Retrieved 26 January 2015.
  • ^ a b Nudd, Tim (September 26, 2011). “Susan Powell’s Father-in-Law Was Obsessed With Her, Says Friend”. People.com. Retrieved October 5, 2011.
  • ^ Cawley, Dave (31 January 2019). “Cold Podcast Ep 13: 4theKidzz”. KSL-TV. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
  • ^ “Police: ’50–50′ Chance Powell’s Remains Could Be Found”. KIRO-TV. September 16, 2011. Archived from the original on February 9, 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2012.
  • ^ Curry, Colleen (September 23, 2011). “Susan Powell’s Dad-in-Law Took Naked Photos of Young Girls: Police”. ABC News. Retrieved September 25, 2011.
  • ^ Silverman, Stephen M. (September 28, 2011). “Josh Powell Now Subject of Child-Porn Investigation”. People.com. Retrieved October 5, 2011.
  • ^ Adams, Brooke (2011). “Photo of Powell ‘noose’; More porn allegations emerge”. Salt Lake Tribune, September 29, 2011; URL accessed October 5, 2011.
  • ^ Merryman, Kathleen (February 14, 2012). “Investigators: Josh Powell used house in South Hill area as ruse”. The News Tribune.
  • ^ KOMO Staff (2011). “Sister: Children should be kept away from Josh Powell”, September 28, 2011; URL retrieved October 5, 2011.
  • ^ Boudreau, Abbie; Curry, Colleen (February 9, 2012). “Josh Powell Was Victim, His Sister Claims”. ABC News.
  • ^ “Susan Powell case is at a “tipping point””. ABC News 4. September 28, 2011. Retrieved September 29, 2011.
  • ^ Rogers, Melinda (January 31, 2012). “Website supporting Josh Powell launches as custody case nears”. www.sltrib.com.
  • ^ MyNorthwest.com staff (February 8, 2012). “Chilling 911 calls from Powell home explosion released”. MyNorthwest.com. Retrieved February 8, 2012.
  • ^ “3 die in Powell home explosion, family says”. KSL.com. February 5, 2012. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
  • ^ “US father Josh Powell blows himself up with two young children”. The Guardian. London. Associated Press. February 6, 2012. Retrieved February 6, 2012. […] police said he appeared to intentionally blow up a house with all three inside […] Ed Troyer, the county sheriff’s spokesman, said emails that Powell sent authorities seemed to confirm that Powell planned the deadly blast. Troyer didn’t elaborate on the contents of the emails, but said they make police believe “this is intentional, this is planned”.
  • ^ “Blast Kills Missing Woman’s Husband, 2 Sons (PHOTOS)”. Huffington Post. February 5, 2012.
  • ^ “Josh Powell’s Dad Takes the Fifth”. ABC News. Feb 15, 2012.
  • ^ “Steve Powell convicted of voyeurism charges”. ABC Local. 16 May 2012. Retrieved 26 January 2015.
  • ^ KOMO Staff & news services (February 6, 2012). “Autopsies: Powell children suffered ‘chop injuries'”. Retrieved February 6, 2012. Seven-year-old Charles Powell and 5-year-old Braden Powell died of carbon monoxide poisoning, but an autopsy also showed that both boys were attacked by a hatchet, according to the Pierce County Medical Examiner. […] While it wasn’t the official cause of death, the medical examiner’s report showed that both boys had significant “chopping injuries” to the head and neck.
  • ^ KOMO Staff & news services (February 6, 2012). “Autopsies: Powell children suffered ‘chop injuries'”. Retrieved February 6, 2012. […] Troyer said that minutes before the fire, Powell sent emails to several people saying, “I’m sorry. Goodbye.” To others, including his cousins and pastor, he sent longer emails, with instructions such as where to find his money and how to shut off his utilities.
  • ^ “Police piecing together timeline of Powell’s movements before explosion”. kirotv.com. February 10, 2012. Archived from the original on February 14, 2012. Retrieved February 16, 2012.
  • ^ Adams, Brooke. “Josh Powell’s brother, Michael Powell, commits suicide in Minneapolis”. Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 5 January 2014.
  • ^ Honda, Kirk (2013). An Interview with Josh Powell’s Psychologist, July 12, 2013; URL accessed 03 September 2015
  • ^ Carlisle, Nate. “Susan Powell case closed, files open”. Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 5 January 2014.
  • ^ Winslow, Ben (2015). Susan Cox Powell estate battle is settled March 26, 2015; URL accessed 03 September 2015
  • ^ “Josh Powell’s father sentenced; says son was ‘innocent man’ up until day he died”. fox13now.com. 22 August 2015.
  • ^ “Steven Powell, father-in-law of missing Utah woman, dies”. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
  • ^ “MURDERED: The Powell Family”. Crime Junkie Podcast. 2018-10-01. Retrieved 2019-03-13.
  • ^ https://thecoldpodcast.com/
  • ^ “Susan Powell: An ID Murder Mystery | Watch Full Episodes & More!”. Investigation Discovery. Retrieved 2018-12-21.
  • ^ “A New Twist in The Disappearance of Susan Cox Powell?”. E! Online. 2019-03-25. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
  • External links[edit]

    • Susan Ann Powell at Find a Grave
    • Susan Cox Powell Foundation
    • Susan Powell timeline Salt Lake Tribune
    • West Valley and Pierce County Malfeasance website set up by Alina Powell which asserts innocence of Joshua and Steven Powell


    Thoughtful Investigations

    This article is about the book by Wittgenstein. For other uses of Philosophical Investigation or Philosophical Investigations, see Philosophical Investigations (disambiguation).

    Philosophical Investigations (German: Philosophische Untersuchungen) is a work by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. It was first published posthumously in 1953. Wittgenstein discusses numerous problems and puzzles in the fields of semantics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of psychology, philosophy of action, and philosophy of mind, putting forth the view that conceptual confusions surrounding language use are at the root of most philosophical problems. Wittgenstein alleges that the problems are traceable to a set of related assumptions about the nature of language, which themselves presuppose a particular conception of the essence of language. This conception is considered and ultimately rejected for being too general; that is, as an essentialist account of the nature of language it is simply too narrow to be able to account for the variety of things we do with language. This view can be seen to contradict or discard much of what he argued in his earlier work Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921).

    Philosophical Investigations is highly influential. Within the analytic tradition, the book is considered by many as being one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century, and it continues to influence contemporary philosophers, especially those studying mind and language.

    Wittgenstein begins the book with a quotation from Augustine of Hippo, whom he cites as a proponent of the generalized and limited conception that he then summarizes:

    The individual words in language name objects—sentences are combinations of such names. In this picture of language we find the roots of the following idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the word. It is the object for which the word stands.

    He then sets out throughout the rest of the book to demonstrate the limitations of this conception, including, he argues, with many traditional philosophical puzzles and confusions that arise as a result of this limited picture.[1]

    Contents

    • 1 The text
      • 1.1 Editions and referencing
      • 1.2 Method and presentation
    • 2 Language, meaning, and use
      • 2.1 Meaning is use
      • 2.2 Meaning and definition
      • 2.3 Family resemblances
      • 2.4 Language-games
      • 2.5 Rules
    • 3 Private language
      • 3.1 Wittgenstein’s beetle
      • 3.2 Kripke’s account
    • 4 Mind
      • 4.1 Wittgenstein and behaviorism
      • 4.2 Seeing that vs. seeing as
    • 5 Relation to the Tractatus
    • 6 Criticism
    • 7 See also
    • 8 Notes
    • 9 Citations
    • 10 References
    • 11 External links

    The text[edit]

    Editions and referencing[edit]

    Philosophical Investigations was not ready for publication when Wittgenstein died in 1951. G. E. M. Anscombe translated Wittgenstein’s manuscript into English, and it was first published in 1953. There are multiple editions of Philosophical Investigations with the popular third edition and 50th anniversary edition having been edited by Anscombe:

    • First Edition: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1953.
    • Second Edition: Blackwell Publishers, 1958.
    • Third Edition: Prentice Hall, 1973 (.mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}ISBN 0-02-428810-1).
    • 50th Anniversary Edition: Blackwell Publishers, 2001 (ISBN 0-631-23127-7). This edition includes the original German text in addition to the English translation.[2]
    • Fourth Edition: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009 (ISBN 1405159286).

    The text is divided into two parts, consisting of what Wittgenstein calls, in the preface, Bemerkungen, translated by Anscombe as “remarks”.[3] In the first part, these remarks are rarely more than a paragraph long and are numbered sequentially. In the second part, the remarks are longer and numbered using Roman numerals. In the index, remarks from the first part are referenced by their number rather than page; however, references from the second part are cited by page number. The comparatively unusual nature of the second part is due to the fact that it comprises notes that Wittgenstein may have intended to re-incorporate into the first part. Subsequent to his death it was published as a “Part II” in the first, second and third editions. However, in light of continuing uncertainty about Wittgenstein’s intentions regarding this material, the fourth edition (2009) re-titles “Part I” as “Philosophical Investigations” proper, and “Part II” as “Philosophy of Psychology – A Fragment.”

    In standard references, a small letter following a page, section, or proposition number indicates a paragraph.[4]

    Method and presentation[edit]

    Philosophical Investigations is unique in its approach to philosophy.[citation needed] A typical philosophical text presents a philosophical problem, summarizes and critiques various alternative approaches to solving it, presents its approach, and then argues in favour of that approach. In contrast, Wittgenstein’s book treats philosophy as an activity, rather along the lines of Socrates’s famous method of maieutics; he has the reader work through various problems, participating actively in the investigation. Rather than presenting a philosophical problem and its solution, Wittgenstein engages in a dialogue, where he provides a language-game (a more or less ordinary use of the words in question), that describes how one might be inclined to think about it, and then shows why that inclination suffers from conceptual confusion. The following is an excerpt from the first entry in the book that exemplifies this method:

    …think of the following use of language: I send someone shopping. I give him a slip marked ‘five red apples’. He takes the slip to the shopkeeper, who opens the drawer marked ‘apples’, then he looks up the word ‘red’ in a table and finds a colour sample opposite it; then he says the series of cardinal numbers—I assume that he knows them by heart—up to the word ‘five’ and for each number he takes an apple of the same colour as the sample out of the drawer.—It is in this and similar ways that one operates with words—”But how does he know where and how he is to look up the word ‘red’ and what he is to do with the word ‘five’?” Well, I assume that he acts as I have described. Explanations come to an end somewhere.—But what is the meaning of the word ‘five’? No such thing was in question here, only how the word ‘five’ is used.[5]

    This example is typical of the book’s style. We can see each of the steps in Wittgenstein’s method:

    • The reader is presented with a use of language: someone is sent shopping with an order on a slip.
    • Wittgenstein supplies the response of one or more imagined interlocutors. He may put these statements in quotes to distinguish them from his own: “But how does he know where and how he is to look up the word ‘red’ and what he is to do with the word ‘five’?” Or Wittgenstein may indicate such a response by beginning with a long dash, as he does before the question above: —But what is the meaning of the word ‘five’?
    • Wittgenstein shows why the reaction was misguided, but not unnatural: No such thing was in question here, only how the word ‘five’ is used.

    Through such language-games, Wittgenstein attempts to get the reader to come to certain difficult philosophical conclusions independently; he does not directy argue in favor of theories.[6]

    Language, meaning, and use[edit]

    The Investigations deals largely with the difficulties of language and meaning. Wittgenstein viewed the tools of language as being fundamentally simple,[7][non-primary source needed] and he believed that philosophers had obscured this simplicity by misusing language and by asking meaningless questions. He attempted in the Investigations to make things clear: “Der Fliege den Ausweg aus dem Fliegenglas zeigen”—to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle.[8]

    Meaning is use[edit]

    See also: Picture theory of language

    A common summary of his argument is that meaning is use. According to the use theory of meaning, the words are not defined by reference to the objects they designate, nor by the mental representations one might associate with them, but by how they are used. For example, this means there is no need to postulate that there is something called good that exists independently of any good deed.[9] If this is an anthropological perspective, then it can be said that it contrasts with Platonic realism[10] and with Gottlob Frege’s notions of sense and reference.[11] This argument has been labeled by some authors as “anthropological holism”.[12]

    Section 43 in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations reads: “For a large class of cases—though not for all—in which we employ the word “meaning” it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.” This suggests that in quite an early section of the book, Wittgenstein may think that meaning cannot be so easily glossed as how the word is used.

    Meaning and definition[edit]

    Wittgenstein rejects a variety of ways of thinking about what the meaning of a word is, or how meanings can be identified. He shows how, in each case, the meaning of the word presupposes our ability to use it. He first asks the reader to perform a thought experiment: to come up with a definition of the word “game”.[13] While this may at first seem a simple task, he then goes on to lead us through the problems with each of the possible definitions of the word “game”. Any definition that focuses on amusement leaves us unsatisfied since the feelings experienced by a world class chess player are very different from those of a circle of children playing Duck Duck Goose. Any definition that focuses on competition will fail to explain the game of catch, or the game of solitaire. And a definition of the word “game” that focuses on rules will fall on similar difficulties.

    The essential point of this exercise is often missed. Wittgenstein’s point is not that it is impossible to define “game”, but that even if we don’t have a definition, we can still use the word successfully.[14] Everybody understands what we mean when we talk about playing a game, and we can even clearly identify and correct inaccurate uses of the word, all without reference to any definition that consists of necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of the concept of a game. The German word for “game”, “Spiele/Spiel”, has a different sense than in English; the meaning of “Spiele” also extends to the concept of “play” and “playing.” This German sense of the word may help readers better understand Wittgenstein’s context in the remarks regarding games.

    Wittgenstein argues that definitions emerge from what he termed “forms of life”, roughly the culture and society in which they are used. Wittgenstein stresses the social aspects of cognition; to see how language works for most cases, we have to see how it functions in a specific social situation.[citation needed] It is this emphasis on becoming attentive to the social backdrop against which language is rendered intelligible that explains Wittgenstein’s elliptical comment that “If a lion could talk, we could not understand him.” However, in proposing the thought experiment involving the fictional character, Robinson Crusoe, a captain shipwrecked on a desolate island with no other inhabitant, Wittgenstein shows that language is not in all cases a social phenomenon (although, they are for most cases); instead the criterion for a language is grounded in a set of interrelated normative activities: teaching, explanations, techniques and criteria of correctness. In short, it is essential that a language is shareable, but this does not imply that for a language to function that it is in fact already shared.[15]

    Wittgenstein rejects the idea that ostensive definitions can provide us with the meaning of a word. For Wittgenstein, the thing that the word stands for does not give the meaning of the word. Wittgenstein argues for this making a series of moves to show that to understand an ostensive definition presupposes an understanding of the way the word being defined is used.[16][non-primary source needed] So, for instance, there is no difference between pointing to a piece of paper, to its colour, or to its shape; but understanding the difference is crucial to using the paper in an ostensive definition of a shape or of a colour.

    Family resemblances[edit]

    Why is it that we are sure a particular activity—e.g. Olympic target shooting—is a game while a similar activity—e.g. military sharp shooting—is not?[citation needed] Wittgenstein’s explanation is tied up with an important analogy. How do we recognize that two people we know are related to one another? We may see similar height, weight, eye color, hair, nose, mouth, patterns of speech, social or political views, mannerisms, body structure, last names, etc. If we see enough matches we say we’ve noticed a family resemblance.[17] It is perhaps important to note that this is not always a conscious process—generally we don’t catalog various similarities until we reach a certain threshold, we just intuitively see the resemblances. Wittgenstein suggests that the same is true of language. We are all familiar (i.e. socially) with enough things which are games and enough things which are not games that we can categorize new activities as either games or not.

    This brings us back to Wittgenstein’s reliance on indirect communication, and his reliance on thought-experiments. Some philosophical confusions come about because we aren’t able to see family resemblances. We’ve made a mistake in understanding the vague and intuitive rules that language uses, and have thereby tied ourselves up in philosophical knots. He suggests that an attempt to untangle these knots requires more than simple deductive arguments pointing out the problems with some particular position. Instead, Wittgenstein’s larger goal is to try to divert us from our philosophical problems long enough to become aware of our intuitive ability to see the family resemblances.

    Language-games[edit]

    Wittgenstein develops this discussion of games into the key notion of a language-game. Wittgenstein introduces the term using simple examples,[18] but intends it to be used for the many ways in which we use language.[19] The central component of language games is that they are uses of language, and language is used in multifarious ways. For example, in one language-game, a word might be used to stand for (or refer to) an object, but in another the same word might be used for giving orders, or for asking questions, and so on. The famous example is the meaning of the word “game”. We speak of various kinds of games: board games, betting games, sports, “war games”. These are all different uses of the word “games”. Wittgenstein also gives the example of “Water!”, which can be used as an exclamation, an order, a request, or as an answer to a question. The meaning of the word depends on the language-game within which it is being used. Another way Wittgenstein puts the point is that the word “water” has no meaning apart from its use within a language-game. One might use the word as an order to have someone else bring you a glass of water. But it can also be used to warn someone that the water has been poisoned. One might even use the word as code by members of a secret society.

    Wittgenstein does not limit the application of his concept of language games to word-meaning. He also applies it to sentence-meaning. For example, the sentence “Moses did not exist” (§79) can mean various things. Wittgenstein argues that independently of use the sentence does not yet ‘say’ anything. It is ‘meaningless’ in the sense of not being significant for a particular purpose. It only acquires significance if we fix it within some context of use. Thus, it fails to say anything because the sentence as such does not yet determine some particular use. The sentence is only meaningful when it is used to say something. For instance, it can be used so as to say that no person or historical figure fits the set of descriptions attributed to the person that goes by the name of “Moses”. But it can also mean that the leader of the Israelites was not called Moses. Or that there cannot have been anyone who accomplished all that the Bible relates of Moses, etc. What the sentence means thus depends on its context of use.

    Rules[edit]

    One general characteristic of games that Wittgenstein considers in detail is the way in which they consist in following rules. Rules constitute a family, rather than a class that can be explicitly defined.[20] As a consequence, it is not possible to provide a definitive account of what it is to follow a rule. Indeed, he argues that any course of action can be made out to accord with some particular rule, and that therefore a rule cannot be used to explain an action.[21] Rather, that one is following a rule or not is to be decided by looking to see if the actions conform to the expectations in the particular form of life in which one is involved. Following a rule is a social activity.

    Private language[edit]

    Main article: Private language argument

    Wittgenstein also ponders the possibility of a language that talks about those things that are known only to the user, whose content is inherently private. The usual example is that of a language in which one names one’s sensations and other subjective experiences, such that the meaning of the term is decided by the individual alone. For example, the individual names a particular sensation, on some occasion, ‘S’, and intends to use that word to refer to that sensation.[22] Such a language Wittgenstein calls a private language.

    Wittgenstein presents several perspectives on the topic. One point he makes is that it is incoherent to talk of knowing that one is in some particular mental state.[23] Whereas others can learn of my pain, for example, I simply have my own pain; it follows that one does not know of one’s own pain, one simply has a pain. For Wittgenstein, this is a grammatical point, part of the way in which the language-game involving the word “pain” is played.[24]

    Although Wittgenstein certainly argues that the notion of private language is incoherent, because of the way in which the text is presented the exact nature of the argument is disputed. First, he argues that a private language is not really a language at all. This point is intimately connected with a variety of other themes in his later works, especially his investigations of “meaning”. For Wittgenstein, there is no single, coherent “sample” or “object” that we can call “meaning”. Rather, the supposition that there are such things is the source of many philosophical confusions. Meaning is a complicated phenomenon that is woven into the fabric of our lives. A good first approximation of Wittgenstein’s point is that meaning is a social event; meaning happens between language users. As a consequence, it makes no sense to talk about a private language, with words that mean something in the absence of other users of the language.

    Wittgenstein also argues that one couldn’t possibly use the words of a private language.[25] He invites the reader to consider a case in which someone decides that each time she has a particular sensation she will place a sign S in a diary. Wittgenstein points out that in such a case one could have no criteria for the correctness of one’s use of S. Again, several examples are considered. One is that perhaps using S involves mentally consulting a table of sensations, to check that one has associated S correctly; but in this case, how could the mental table be checked for its correctness? It is “[a]s if someone were to buy several copies of the morning paper to assure himself that what it said was true”, as Wittgenstein puts it.[26] One common interpretation of the argument is that while one may have direct or privileged access to one’s current mental states, there is no such infallible access to identifying previous mental states that one had in the past. That is, the only way to check to see if one has applied the symbol S correctly to a certain mental state is to introspect and determine whether the current sensation is identical to the sensation previously associated with S. And while identifying one’s current mental state of remembering may be infallible, whether one remembered correctly is not infallible. Thus, for a language to be used at all it must have some public criterion of identity.

    Often, what is widely regarded as a deep philosophical problem will vanish, argues Wittgenstein, and eventually be seen as a confusion about the significance of the words that philosophers use to frame such problems and questions. It is only in this way that it is interesting to talk about something like a “private language” — i.e., it is helpful to see how the “problem” results from a misunderstanding.

    To sum up: Wittgenstein asserts that, if something is a language, it cannot be (logically) private; and if something is private, it is not (and cannot be) a language.

    Wittgenstein’s beetle[edit]

    Another point that Wittgenstein makes against the possibility of a private language involves the beetle-in-a-box thought experiment.[27] He asks the reader to imagine that each person has a box, inside which is something that everyone intends to refer to with the word “beetle”. Further, suppose that no one can look inside another’s box, and each claims to know what a “beetle” is only by examining their own box. Wittgenstein suggests that, in such a situation, the word “beetle” could not be the name of a thing, because supposing that each person has something completely different in their boxes (or nothing at all) does not change the meaning of the word; the beetle as a private object “drops out of consideration as irrelevant”.[27] Thus, Wittgenstein argues, if we can talk about something, then it is not private, in the sense considered. And, contrapositively, if we consider something to be indeed private, it follows that we cannot talk about it.

    Kripke’s account[edit]

    The discussion of private languages was revitalized in 1982 with the publication of Saul Kripke’s book Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language.[28] In this work, Kripke uses Wittgenstein’s text to develop a particular type of skepticism about rules that stresses the communal nature of language-use as grounding meaning.[29] Critics of Kripke’s version of Wittgenstein have facetiously referred to it as “Kripkenstein,”[30] scholars such as Gordon Baker,[31] Peter Hacker,[31] Colin McGinn,[32] and John McDowell[33] seeing it as a radical misinterpretation of Wittgenstein’s text. Other philosophers – such as Martin Kusch – have defended Kripke’s views.[34]

    Mind[edit]

    Wittgenstein’s investigations of language lead to several issues concerning the mind. His key target of criticism is any form of extreme mentalism that posits mental states that are entirely unconnected to the subject’s environment. For Wittgenstein, thought is inevitably tied to language, which is inherently social; therefore, there is no ‘inner’ space in which thoughts can occur. Part of Wittgenstein’s credo is captured in the following proclamation: “An ‘inner process’ stands in need of outward criteria.”[35] This follows primarily from his conclusions about private languages: similarly, a private mental state (a sensation of pain, for example) cannot be adequately discussed without public criteria for identifying it.

    According to Wittgenstein, those who insist that consciousness (or any other apparently subjective mental state) is conceptually unconnected to the external world are mistaken. Wittgenstein explicitly criticizes so-called conceivability arguments: “Could one imagine a stone’s having consciousness? And if anyone can do so—why should that not merely prove that such image-mongery is of no interest to us?”[36] He considers and rejects the following reply as well:

    “But if I suppose that someone is in pain, then I am simply supposing that he has just the same as I have so often had.” — That gets us no further. It is as if I were to say: “You surely know what ‘It is 5 o’clock here’ means; so you also know what ‘It’s 5 o’clock on the sun’ means. It means simply that it is just the same there as it is here when it is 5 o’clock.” — The explanation by means of identity does not work here.[37]

    Thus, according to Wittgenstein, mental states are intimately connected to a subject’s environment, especially their linguistic environment, and conceivability or imaginability. Arguments that claim otherwise are misguided. Wittgenstein has also said that “language is inherent and transcendental”, which is also not difficult to understand, since we can only comprehend and explain transcendental affairs through language.

    Wittgenstein and behaviorism[edit]

    From his remarks on the importance of public, observable behavior (as opposed to private experiences), it may seem that Wittgenstein is simply a behaviorist—one who thinks that mental states are nothing over and above certain behavior. However, Wittgenstein resists such a characterization; he writes (considering what an objector might say):

    “Are you not really a behaviourist in disguise? Aren’t you at bottom really saying that everything except human behaviour is a fiction?” — If I do speak of a fiction, then it is of a grammatical fiction.[38]

    Clearly, Wittgenstein did not want to be a behaviorist, nor did he want to be a cognitivist or a phenomenologist. He is, of course, primarily concerned with facts of linguistic usage. However, some argue that Wittgenstein is basically a behaviorist because he considers facts about language use as all there is. Such a claim is controversial, since it is explicitly opposed in the Investigations.[39][40]

    Seeing that vs. seeing as[edit]

    The duck-rabbit, made famous by Wittgenstein

    In addition to ambiguous sentences, Wittgenstein discussed figures that can be seen and understood in two different ways. Often one can see something in a straightforward way — seeing that it is a rabbit, perhaps. But, at other times, one notices a particular aspect — seeing it as something.

    An example Wittgenstein uses is the “duckrabbit”, an ambiguous image that can be seen as either a duck or a rabbit.[41] When one looks at the duck-rabbit and sees a rabbit, one is not interpreting the picture as a rabbit, but rather reporting what one sees. One just sees the picture as a rabbit. But what occurs when one sees it first as a duck, then as a rabbit? As the gnomic remarks in the Investigations indicate, Wittgenstein isn’t sure. However, he is sure that it could not be the case that the external world stays the same while an ‘internal’ cognitive change takes place.

    Relation to the Tractatus[edit]

    According to the standard reading, in the Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein repudiates many of his own earlier views, expressed in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. The Tractatus, as Bertrand Russell saw it (though Wittgenstein took strong exception to Russell’s reading), had been an attempt to set out a logically perfect language, building on Russell’s own work. In the years between the two works Wittgenstein came to reject the idea that underpinned logical atomism, that there were ultimate “simples” from which a language should, or even could, be constructed.

    In remark #23 of Philosophical Investigations he points out that the practice of human language is more complex than the simplified views of language that have been held by those who seek to explain or simulate human language by means of a formal system. It would be a disastrous mistake, according to Wittgenstein, to see language as being in any way analogous to formal logic.

    Besides stressing the Investigations’ opposition to the Tractatus, there are critical approaches which have argued that there is much more continuity and similarity between the two works than supposed. One of these is the New Wittgenstein approach.

    Norman Malcolm credits Piero Sraffa with providing Wittgenstein with the conceptual break that founded the Philosophical Investigations, by means of a rude gesture on Sraffa’s part:[42]

    “Wittgenstein was insisting that a proposition and that which it describes must have the same ‘logical form’, the same ‘logical multiplicity’, Sraffa made a gesture, familiar to Neapolitans as meaning something like disgust or contempt, of brushing the underneath of his chin with an outward sweep of the finger-tips of one hand. And he asked: ‘What is the logical form of that?'”

    The preface itself, dated January 1945, credits Sraffa for the “most consequential ideas” of the book.[43]

    Criticism[edit]

    Bertrand Russell made the following comment on the Philosophical Investigations in his book My Philosophical Development:

    I have not found in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations anything that seemed to me interesting and I do not understand why a whole school finds important wisdom in its pages. Psychologically this is surprising. The earlier Wittgenstein, whom I knew intimately, was a man addicted to passionately intense thinking, profoundly aware of difficult problems of which I, like him, felt the importance, and possessed (or at least so I thought) of true philosophical genius. The later Wittgenstein, on the contrary, seems to have grown tired of serious thinking and to have invented a doctrine which would make such an activity unnecessary. I do not for one moment believe that the doctrine which has these lazy consequences is true. I realize, however, that I have an overpoweringly strong bias against it, for, if it is true, philosophy is, at best, a slight help to lexicographers, and at worst, an idle tea-table amusement.[44]

    Ernest Gellner wrote the book Words and Things, in which he was fiercely critical of the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, J. L. Austin, Gilbert Ryle, Antony Flew, P. F. Strawson and many others. Ryle refused to have the book reviewed in the philosophical journal Mind (which he edited), and Bertrand Russell (who had written an approving foreword) protested in a letter to The Times. A response from Ryle and a lengthy correspondence ensued.[45]

    See also[edit]

    • Philosophy portal
    • Prior’s tonk

    Notes[edit]

    • Remarks in Part I of Investigations are preceded by the symbol “§”. Remarks in Part II are referenced by their Roman numeral or their page number in the third edition.

    Citations[edit]

  • ^ Stern, David G. (2004). Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. p. 1.
  • ^ In 2009 Blackwell published the fourth edition (ISBN 978-1-4051-5929-6). The first two editions (1953 and 1958) were Anscombe’s text; in the anniversary edition (2001), P. M. S. Hacker and J. Schulte are also credited as translators. The fourth edition (2009) was presented as a revision by Hacker and Schulte, crediting Anscombe, Hacker, and Schulte as translators.
  • ^ Wittgenstein (1953), Preface. (All citations will be from Wittgenstein (1953), unless otherwise noted.)
  • ^ Symposia: Symposium sobre información y comunicación, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, 1963, p. 238
  • ^ §1.
  • ^ Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, paragraphs 7, 109
  • ^ §97 quotation: .mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 40px}.mw-parser-output .templatequote .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;padding-left:1.6em;margin-top:0}

    the order of possibilities, which must be common to both world and thought… must be utterly simple.

  • ^ §309; the original English translation used the word “shew” for “show.”
  • ^ §77
  • ^ Sedley, D.N. (2003). Plato’s Cratylus (7th ed.). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
  • ^ Jesús Padilla Gálvez Philosophical Anthropology: Wittgenstein’s Perspective, p.18
  • ^ Nicholas Bunnin, Jiyuan Yu (2008) The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, entry for anthropological holism p.34
  • ^ See §3.
  • ^ See §66 (Wittgenstein. PI. Blackwell Publishers, 2001).
  • ^ (II, xi), p.190
  • ^ See §26–34.
  • ^ See §66-§71.
  • ^ See §7.
  • ^ §23
  • ^ §54
  • ^ See §201.
  • ^ §243
  • ^ §246
  • ^ §248
  • ^ §256
  • ^ §265
  • ^ a b §293
  • ^ Kripke, Saul. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Basil Blackwell Publishing, 1982.
  • ^ Stern 2004:2–7
  • ^ Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins (June 2011). “Kripkenstein and the Cleverly Disguised Mules”. Analytic Philosophy. 52 (2): 88 – via Springer Nature.
  • ^ a b Gordon Baker; Peter Hacker (March 1984). “On Misunderstanding Wittgenstein: Kripke’s Private Language Argument”. Synthese. 58 (3): 407–450 – via Springer Nature.
  • ^ Jane Heal (July 1986). “Wittgenstein, Kripke and Meaning: Review of “Wittgenstein on Meaning” by Colin McGinn”. The Philosophical Quarterly. 36 (144): 412, 414, 416–418. JSTOR 2220196.
  • ^ John McDowell (March 1984). “Wittgenstein on Following a Rule”. Synthese. 58 (3): 328–333, 336–338, 342–344 – via Springer Nature.
  • ^ Martin Kusch (2006). A Sceptical Guide to Meaning and Rules: Defending Kripke’s Wittgenstein. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. ISBN 978-0773531666.
  • ^ §580.
  • ^ §390
  • ^ §350
  • ^ §307
  • ^ John W. Cook (28 January 1994). Wittgenstein’s Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-521-46019-4.
  • ^ Soren Overgaard (4 July 2013). Wittgenstein and Other Minds: Rethinking Subjectivity and Intersubjectivity with Wittgenstein, Levinas, and Husserl. Routledge. pp. 18–20. ISBN 978-1-135-19808-4.
  • ^ Part II, §xi
  • ^ Norman Malcolm. Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir. pp. 58–59.
  • ^ Pier Luigi Porta (2012). “Piero Sraffa’s Early Views on Classical Political Economy,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(6), 1357-1383.
  • ^ Russell, Bertrand (1959). My Philosophical Development. New York: Allen & Unwin. pp. 216–217. ISBN 0041920155.
  • ^ T. P. Uschanov, The Strange Death of Ordinary Language Philosophy. The controversy has been described by the writer Ved Mehta in Fly and the Fly Bottle (1963).
  • References[edit]

    • Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2001) [1953]. Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-23127-7.
    • Kripke, Saul (1982). Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Basil Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-13521-9.

    External links[edit]

    • The first 100 remarks from Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations with Commentary by Lois Shawver.
    • Wittgenstein’s Beetle – description of the thought experiment from Philosophy Online.
    • As The Hammer Strikes in Fillip


    Mueller Report

    Report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller

    The redacted version of the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election was released to the public by the Department of Justice on April 18, 2019

    President of the United States
    Incumbent

    Presidency

    • Transition
    • Inauguration
    • Timeline
    • Executive actions
      • proclamations
      • pardons
    • Polls
    • Protests
      • Efforts to impeach
    • Trips
      • 2017
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • international
    • Summits
      • Riyadh
      • Singapore
      • Helsinki
      • Hanoi

    Appointments

    • Cabinet
      • formation
    • Ambassadors
    • Federal judges
      • Gorsuch
      • Kavanaugh
      • Supreme Court candidates
    • U.S. Attorneys
    • Dismissals
      • Comey

    Policies

    • Economy
      • tax cuts
      • tariffs
      • China trade war
    • Environment
      • Paris withdrawal
    • Foreign policy
      • Iran
      • Jerusalem
    • Immigration
      • family separation
      • national emergency
      • travel ban
      • wall
    • Social issues
      • cannabis
    • Space

    Presidential campaigns

    • 2000
      • primaries
    • 2016
      • election
      • primaries
      • endorsements
      • rallies
      • convention
      • debates
      • Never Trump
        • people
      • sexual misconduct allegations
        • Access Hollywood tape
      • wiretapping allegations
        • Spygate
    • 2020
      • election
      • primaries
      • endorsements

    Controversies involving Russia

    • Business projects in Russia
    • Election interference
      • timeline
    • Associates’ links with Russian officials
    • Steele dossier
    • Trump Tower meeting
    • Classified information disclosure
    • Special Counsel investigation

    Business and personal

    • Business career
      • The Trump Organization
      • The Apprentice
      • wealth
      • tax returns
    • Books
    • Eponyms
    • Family
    • Foundation
    • Health
    • Honors
    • Legal affairs
      • Stormy Daniels scandal
    • Racial views
    • Residences
    • Social media
    • Veracity of statements

    • v
    • t
    • e

    The Mueller Report, formally titled Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, is the official report documenting the findings and conclusions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of conspiracy or coordination between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia, and allegations of obstruction of justice. The report was submitted to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019,[1] and a redacted version of the 448-page report was publicly released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 18, 2019. It is divided into two volumes.

    Volume I of the report concluded that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election did occur “in sweeping and systematic fashion” and “violated U.S. criminal law”.[2][3][4] It listed two methods by which Russia attempted to influence the election: firstly, a social media campaign by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) which supported the Trump presidential campaign, attacked the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and aimed to “amplify political and social discord”,[5][6][7] and secondly, Russian intelligence GRU conducting computer hacking and strategic releasing of damaging material from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations.[8][9][10] The report identified links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,[11] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[12] However, the investigation did not establish that the campaign “coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities”, and did not pursue any charges under conspiracy statutes and statutes governing foreign agents, with the exception of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates who were found guilty of criminal offenses stemming from their prior lobbying work for the Ukrainian Party of Regions.[12][13]

    Volume II of the report addressed obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime.[14][15][16] It also refrained from charging him because investigators abided by an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president cannot stand trial,[17][18][19] and feared that charges would affect Trump’s governing and possibly preempt impeachment.[15][18][20] Meanwhile, investigators felt it would be unfair to accuse Trump of a crime without charges and without a trial in which he could clear his name.[17][18][21] As such, the investigation “does not conclude that the President committed a crime”; however, “it also does not exonerate him”.[6][22] This was because investigators were not confident that Trump was innocent after examining his intent and actions.[23][24][25][26] The report describes ten episodes where Trump could potentially have obstructed justice while president and one before he was elected,[27][28] noting he privately tried to “control the investigation” in multiple ways, but mostly failed to influence the investigation because his subordinates or associates refused to carry out his instructions.[29][30][31] The Special Counsel’s office also concluded that Congress can decide whether Trump obstructed justice,[15] as Congress has the authority to take action against a president[32][33] in reference to potential impeachment proceedings.[34][35]

    On March 24, Barr described the conclusions of the report to Congress in his letter, stating: “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”,[36][37] further stating that “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”.[38][39] On March 27, Mueller privately wrote to Barr, stating that the March 24 Barr letter “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of [the special counsel’s] office’s work and conclusions […] There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of [the] investigation”. Mueller requested Barr release the Mueller Report’s introductions and executive summaries ahead of the report; Barr declined. Justice Department officials reportedly described a March 28 call where Mueller expressed to Barr concerns about public misunderstandings of the obstruction investigation due to media coverage.[40] On May 1, Barr testified that he “didn’t exonerate” Trump on obstruction;[41] and that neither he nor Rosenstein had reviewed the underlying evidence in the report.[42].mw-parser-output .toclimit-2 .toclevel-1 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-3 .toclevel-2 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-4 .toclevel-3 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-5 .toclevel-4 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-6 .toclevel-5 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-7 .toclevel-6 ul{display:none}

    Contents

    • 1 Background
      • 1.1 Impetus for investigation
      • 1.2 Scope and mandate
      • 1.3 Proceedings of investigation
    • 2 Findings
      • 2.1 Volume I
        • 2.1.1 Russian interference
          • 2.1.1.1 Social media campaign
          • 2.1.1.2 Hacking and release of material
        • 2.1.2 Conspiracy or coordination
      • 2.2 Volume II
        • 2.2.1 Trump’s reaction to Mueller appointment
        • 2.2.2 Obstruction of justice
        • 2.2.3 Episodes of alleged obstruction
          • 2.2.3.1 Trump campaign’s response to Russian support
          • 2.2.3.2 President’s conduct in Michael Flynn investigation
          • 2.2.3.3 President’s reaction to the FBI’s Russia investigation being publicized
          • 2.2.3.4 Dismissal of James Comey
          • 2.2.3.5 President’s efforts to remove the special counsel
          • 2.2.3.6 President’s efforts to curtail the Special Counsel investigation
          • 2.2.3.7 President’s efforts to prevent disclosures about Trump Tower meeting
          • 2.2.3.8 President’s efforts to have Attorney General control investigation
          • 2.2.3.9 President orders McGahn to deny reports
          • 2.2.3.10 President’s pressuring of Flynn, Manafort, and “redacted name”
          • 2.2.3.11 President’s pressuring of Michael Cohen
      • 2.3 Appendices
    • 3 Events before public release
      • 3.1 Barr letter
      • 3.2 Barr testimony of April 9 and 10
      • 3.3 Barr press conference
    • 4 Public release of redacted report
      • 4.1 Redacted report findings compared to Barr letter
      • 4.2 Redacted report findings compared to Barr press conference
      • 4.3 Analysis of redactions
      • 4.4 Analysis of press coverage of the investigation
      • 4.5 False and misleading public statements by the Trump administration
      • 4.6 Other findings
    • 5 Reactions
      • 5.1 President Donald Trump
      • 5.2 Trump’s personal lawyers
      • 5.3 Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
      • 5.4 Special Counsel Robert Mueller
      • 5.5 Other Justice Department officials
      • 5.6 Democrats
      • 5.7 Republicans
      • 5.8 Commentators
      • 5.9 Polling
    • 6 Subsequent actions by Congress
      • 6.1 Barr testimony of May 1
      • 6.2 Potential contempt of Congress charges
    • 7 Possible future releases
    • 8 See also
    • 9 Notes
    • 10 References
    • 11 External links

    Background[edit]

    .mw-parser-output .tmulti .thumbinner{display:flex;flex-direction:column}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .trow{display:flex;flex-direction:row;clear:left;flex-wrap:wrap;width:100%;box-sizing:border-box}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{margin:1px;float:left}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .theader{clear:both;font-weight:bold;text-align:center;align-self:center;background-color:transparent;width:100%}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .thumbcaption{text-align:left;background-color:transparent}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .text-align-left{text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .text-align-right{text-align:right}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .text-align-center{text-align:center}@media all and (max-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .tmulti .thumbinner{width:100%!important;box-sizing:border-box;max-width:none!important;align-items:center}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .trow{justify-content:center}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .tsingle{float:none!important;max-width:100%!important;box-sizing:border-box;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .tmulti .thumbcaption{text-align:center}}The order from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, dated May 17, 2017, appointing a special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections[43]The letter from United States Attorney General William Barr dated March 22, 2019, notifying leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees about the conclusion of the investigation
    Main article: Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)

    Impetus for investigation[edit]

    Further information: Dismissal of James Comey

    On May 9, 2017, President Donald Trump dismissed the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, who had been leading an ongoing Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into links between Trump associates and Russian officials.[44][45] This investigation began in July 2016 due to information[which?] on foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos of the Trump campaign.[46][47]

    Over 130 Democratic lawmakers of the United States Congress called for a special counsel to be appointed in reaction to Comey’s firing.[48] CNN reported that within eight days of Comey’s dismissal, an FBI investigation on Trump for obstruction of justice was opened by the acting FBI Director at the time, Andrew McCabe, who cited multiple reasons including Comey’s firing.[49] After McCabe was later fired from the FBI, he confirmed that he had opened the obstruction investigation, and gave additional reasons for its launch.[50]

    Play media Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announcing his recusal of the Special Counsel investigation in March 2017

    Eight days after Comey’s dismissal, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller, under 28 CFR § 600.1, as special counsel to take over and expand an existing FBI counterintelligence investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, as well as the FBI investigation into links between Trump associates and Russian officials that Comey was leading.[45][51][52] The special counsel also took over the FBI investigation into whether President Trump obstructed justice with Comey.[49] Rosenstein’s authority to appoint Mueller arose due to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ March 2017 recusal of himself from investigations into the Trump campaign.[45][52][53]

    Scope and mandate[edit]

    According to its authorizing document,[43] which was signed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on May 17, 2017, the investigation’s scope included allegations that there were links or coordination between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Russian government[54][55] as well as “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.[43] The authorizing document also included “any other matters within the scope of 28 CFR § 600.4(a)”;[43] enabling the special counsel “to investigate and prosecute” any attempts to interfere with its investigation, “such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses”.[56]

    Proceedings of investigation[edit]

    Further information: Criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)

    The Special Counsel investigation ran from May 17, 2017, to March 22, 2019, and resulted in thirty-four indictments, including against several former members of the Trump campaign and many of which are still being tried. The investigation issued over 2,800 subpoenas, executed almost 500 search warrants, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.[57]

    The Mueller Report included references to 14 criminal investigations that were referred to other offices, 12 of which were completely redacted in the April 18 release. The other two related to Michael Cohen and Gregory Craig, cases that were already public.[58]

    Findings[edit]

    The report was completed and submitted by March 22, 2019.[1]

    Volume I[edit]

    Volume I starts on page 1 of the report and focuses on Russian interference and allegations of conspiracy.[59]

    Russian interference[edit]
    Further information: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

    The Mueller Report found that the Russian government “interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion” and “violated U.S. criminal law”.[3][4][60] The report relayed two methods by which Russia attempted to influence the election.[61][62]

    Social media campaign[edit]

    The first method of Russian interference was done through the Internet Research Agency (IRA), waging “a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”[6] The IRA also sought to “provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States”.[5][63]

    By February 2016, internal IRA documents showed an order to support the candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, while IRA members were to “use any opportunity to criticize” Hillary Clinton and the rest of the candidates.[64] From June 2016, the IRA organized election rallies in the U.S. “often promoting” Trump’s campaign while “opposing” Clinton’s campaign.[65] The IRA posed as Americans, hiding their Russian background, while asking Trump campaign members for campaign buttons, flyers, and posters for the rallies.[66] The Mueller Report detailed that the IRA spent $100,000 for over 3,500 Facebook advertisements, which included anti-Clinton and pro-Trump advertisements.[66]

    The report lists IRA-created groups on Facebook to include “purported conservative groups” (e.g. ‘Tea Party News’), “purported Black social justice groups” (e.g. ‘Blacktivist’) “LGBTQ groups” (e.g. ‘LGBT United’), “and religious groups” (e.g. ‘United Muslims of America’).[66] The IRA Twitter accounts included @TEN_GOP (claiming to be related to the Tennessee Republican Party), @jenn_abrams, and @Pamela_Moore13 (both claimed to be Trump supporters and both had 70,000 followers).[67] Several Trump campaign members (Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Brad Parscale, and Michael Flynn) linked or reposted material from the IRA’s @TEN_GOP Twitter account listed above. Other people who responded to IRA social media accounts include Michael McFaul, Sean Hannity, Roger Stone, and Michael G. Flynn (Michael Flynn’s son).[68]

    Hacking and release of material[edit]

    The second method of Russian interference saw the Russian intelligence service, the GRU, hacking into email accounts owned by volunteers and employees of the Clinton presidential campaign, including that of campaign chairman John Podesta, and also hacking into “the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)”. As a result, the GRU obtained hundreds of thousands of hacked documents, and the GRU proceeded by arranging releases of damaging hacked material via the WikiLeaks organization and also GRU’s personas “DCLeaks” and “Guccifer 2.0”.[10][8][9]

    Conspiracy or coordination[edit]

    To establish whether a crime was committed by members of the Trump campaign with regard to Russian interference, investigators “applied the framework of conspiracy law”, and not the concept of “collusion”, because 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.”[69][70] They also investigated if members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russia, using the definition of “coordination” as having “an agreement – tacit or express – between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.” Investigators further elaborated that merely having “two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests” was not enough to establish coordination.[71][72]

    The investigation found there were numerous contacts between Trump campaign advisors and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, before and after the election, but the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy.[73] The New York Times estimated as many as 140 contacts between “Mr. Trump and his associates and Russian nationals and WikiLeaks or their intermediaries” in the report.[74]

    The special counsel identified two methods the Russian government tried to communicate with the Trump campaign. “The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and members of the Trump Campaign. […] First, on multiple occasions, members and surrogates of the Trump Campaign promoted – typically by linking, retweeting, or similar methods of reposting – pro-Trump or anti-Clinton content published by the IRA through IRA-controlled social media accounts. Additionally, in a few instances, IRA employees represented themselves as U.S. persons to communicate with members of the Trump Campaign in an effort to seek assistance and coordination on IRA-organized political rallies inside the United States”, the report states.[60]

    Secondly, the report details a meeting at Trump Tower in June 2016. The intent of the meeting was to exchange “dirt” on the Clinton campaign. There was speculation that Trump Jr. told his father. However, the special counsel could not find any evidence that he did.[60] The office declined to pursue charges for two reasons: the office “did not obtain admissible evidence” that would meet the burden of proof principle beyond a reasonable doubt that the campaign officials acted with general knowledge about the illegality of their conduct; secondly, the office expected difficulty in valuing the promised information that “exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation” of $2,000 for a criminal violation and $25,000 for a felony punishment.[75]

    Volume II[edit]

    Volume II starts on page 208 of the report and details potential instances of obstruction of justice.[76][77][78]

    Trump’s reaction to Mueller appointment[edit]

    According to the report, upon learning that Mueller had been appointed as Special Counsel, Trump said “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked”, to Jeff Sessions when they were having a meeting in the Oval Office.[79][80] “You were supposed to protect me”, Sessions recalled Trump telling him. “Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me”, Trump later said, according to Sessions and Jody Hunt, Sessions’ then-chief of staff.[80]

    Obstruction of justice[edit]

    Regarding obstruction of justice, the report stated that the investigation “did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference”, but investigators wrote that obstruction of justice could still occur “regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong”.[81][82]

    On obstruction of justice, the report “does not conclude that the President committed a crime, [and] it also does not exonerate him”. Since the special counsel’s office had decided “not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment”, they “did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct”. The report “does not conclude that the president committed a crime”,[6] as investigators decided “not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes”.[14][32][15] Investigators did not charge Trump with a crime, for two main reasons: Firstly, the investigation abided by DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion written in 2000 that a sitting president cannot be indicted, a stance taken from the start of the investigation.[17][18][83] Secondly, investigators did not want to charge Trump because a federal criminal charge would hinder a sitting president’s “capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct”,[84] with a footnote reference to impeachment.[85] Even if charges were recommended in a secret memo or a charging document sealed until Trump’s presidency ended, the information could still be leaked.[15][18][60] In addition, the special counsel’s office rejected the alternative option of accusing Trump of committing a crime without bringing a charge. Investigators felt that this alternative option would be unfair to Trump, as there would be no trial in which Trump could clear his own name.[17][18][29]

    The special counsel’s office did not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice because they were not confident that Trump was clearly innocent, after examining “evidence [they] obtained about the President’s actions and intent”.[23][24][25][34] The report noted that once Trump was aware that he was personally being investigated for obstruction of justice, he started “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.”[29] However, President Trump’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.” This prevented further obstruction of justice charges “against the President’s aides and associates beyond those already filed”.[86][29][30][87]

    The report notes that Congress has the authority to decide if Trump obstructed justice, and then take further action if obstruction occurred, with investigators writing: “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.” This phrase was interpreted as a possible reference to Congress potentially initiating impeachment proceedings against President Trump.[15][29][32][34][88]

    Episodes of alleged obstruction[edit]

    Some sources such as FactCheck.org, PBS NewsHour, and The New York Times describe the report as detailing eleven episodes where Trump could have possibly obstructed justice; one episode as a presidential candidate or president-elect, and ten episodes while Trump was president:[27][28][89]

    Attorney General William Barr stated that there are ten episodes of potential obstruction.[90] Other sources such as The Washington Post and The Hill also report ten episodes; both omit the episode when Trump was a presidential candidate or president-elect.[23][91] CBS News counts ten episodes, omitting the one involving Corey Lewandowski.[92]

    Quinta Jurecic, the managing editor of Lawfare, created a chart to simplify and summarize Mueller’s analysis of these episodes in the report. Jurecic does not analyze the episode that occurred when Trump was a presidential candidate or president-elect.[93]

    Trump campaign’s response to Russian support [edit]

    The report states the first possible obstruction case during the 2016 presidential campaign, when questions “arose about the Russian government’s apparent support for candidate Trump”. The report states that while Trump was publicly skeptical Russia had released emails from Democratic officials, Trump and his aides were also trying to obtain information about “any further planned WikiLeaks releases”.[94][92] According to the report, shortly after a WikiLeaks release,[which?] Rick Gates, then Deputy Campaign Chairman, was going to LaGuardia Airport with Trump when Trump took a phone call. After the call, “candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming”.[95][27] The report also notes that Trump consistently said that he had no business connections to Russia, despite his company trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. “After the election, the President expressed concerns to advisors that reports of Russia’s election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election”.[96][92][97]

    President’s conduct in Michael Flynn investigation [edit]
    Further information: Michael Flynn § Dismissal and investigation

    The report outlines Michael Flynn’s, Trump’s first national security advisor, contact with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, shortly after the Obama Administration imposed sanctions against Russia on December 29, 2016.[98][99] Later that day, K. T. McFarland, “who was slated to become the Deputy National Security Advisor … talked by phone about what, if anything, Flynn should communicate to Kislyak about the sanctions”.[100] The report details that based on those conversations, “McFarland informed Flynn that incoming Administration officials at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to escalate the situation”. Former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus “recalled that McFarland may have mentioned at the meeting that the sanctions situation could be ‘cooled down’ and not escalated”.[101][102] Priebus recalls that President-Elect Trump viewed the sanctions “as an attempt by the Obama Administration to embarrass him by delegitimizing his election”.[103][102] Later that evening, Flynn called Kislyak and requested how Russia should respond to the newly-placed U.S. sanctions: “only in a reciprocal manner, without escalating the situation”.[104][105][106] Afterwards, Flynn briefed McFarland on the call. Flynn said that the Russian response to the sanctions “was not going to be escalatory because Russia wanted a good relationship with the Trump Administration”.[107][106] On December 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia “would not take retaliatory measures in response to the sanctions at that time and would instead “plan . . . further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration”.[108] Trump responded to the news by tweeting “Great move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart!”[108][109] The report details that Trump was warned by Don McGahn and Priebus to not discuss about the Russian investigation with Comey, but Trump did so anyway.[110]

    President’s reaction to the FBI’s Russia investigation being publicized [edit]

    After Trump learned that his then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions planned to recuse himself from the Special Counsel investigation, Trump sought to prevent Session’s move. “After Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at Sessions for the decision and then privately asked Sessions to “unrecuse”.[111][23][112] On May 20, Comey publicly disclosed the FBI’s Russia investigation.[113] “In the days that followed, the President contacted Comey and other intelligence agency leaders and asked them to push back publicly on the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort in order to ‘lift the cloud’ of the ongoing investigation”, the report says.[114][115]

    Dismissal of James Comey [edit]
    Further information: Dismissal of James Comey

    “In the week leading up to Comey’s May 3, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, the President told Don McGahn that it would be the last straw if Comey did not set the record straight and publicly announce that the President was not under investigation, despite repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement,” the report states.[116][117] Trump told his aides that he was going to fire Comey on May 5, and did so on May 9. The report notes that Trump fired Comey before he received a recommendation by the Justice Department. “Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President’s repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement”, the report reads.[116][118] Trump boasted about the firing of Comey to the Russian foreign minister and U.S. Ambassador of Russia in an Oval Office meeting in May 2017, saying: “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off”.[119]

    President’s efforts to remove the special counsel [edit]

    When Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Special Counsel investigation, the report notes that Trump said something along the lines of: “that it was the end of his presidency and that Attorney General Sessions had failed to protect him and should resign. Sessions submitted his resignation, which the President ultimately did not accept”.[120][121] The report notes that on June 14, 2017, “the press reported that the President was being personally investigated for obstruction of justice and the President responded with a series of tweets criticizing the Special Counsel’s investigation”.[122][118] The following weekend, Trump called McGahn and “directed him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest”.[123] McGahn did not act on the request “for fear of being seen as triggering another Saturday Night Massacre and instead prepared to resign”, which McGahn did.[124][123]

    President’s efforts to curtail the Special Counsel investigation [edit]

    On June 19, 2017, two days after Trump tried have to Don McGahn fire the special counsel, Trump went to Sessions. Trump had a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office with Corey Lewandowski, former Trump campaign manager who was not working for the government. Trump wanted Lewandowski to deliver a message to Sessions that would “have had the effect of limiting the Russia investigation to future election interference only”.[125][126] The report relays that Trump told Lewandowski “that Sessions was weak and that if the President had known about the likelihood of recusal in advance, he would not have appointed Sessions”.[127][128] Trump dictated the following message meant for Sessions, and Lewandoski noted it down: “I know that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS . .. is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn’t have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn’t done anything wrong. I was on the campaign w/ him for nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact b/c I was there. He didn’t do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history”.[129][130] The message goes on in which Sessions would meet with the Special Counsel and limit its jurisdiction to future election interference. “Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the United States. I am going to meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future elections”.[131][130] Trump reportedly said that “if Sessions delivered that statement he would be the ‘most popular guy in the country.'”[132] Lewandowski arranged a meeting with Sessions, but it was cancelled “due to a last minute conflict”.[133]

    On July 19, 2017, Trump again met Lewandowski in the Oval Office, and inquired if Lewandowski passed the message to Sessions. Lewandowski replied that it would be done soon. The report continues: “Lewandowski recalled that the President told him that if Sessions did not meet with him, Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired”.[134][135] Immediately after this second meeting, Lewandowski passed the message to White House official Rick Dearborn to relay to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and chose not to not pass the message, although the report quotes Dearborn as telling Lewandoski that he had “handled the situation”.[136][27][34][137]

    President’s efforts to prevent disclosures about Trump Tower meeting [edit]
    Further information: Trump Tower meeting

    The report cites three different occasions between June 29 and July 9, 2017, when Trump directed Hope Hicks, former White House Communications Director, and others to not disclose information about the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. These requests were directed to the press and could have constituted obstructive only if Trump “sought to withhold information from or mislead congressional investigations or the Special Counsel”.[126][138] The Special Counsel could not find any evidence to establish that Trump intended on preventing the Special Counsel or Congress from obtaining the emails or information referring to meeting.[139][140] Rick Gates, then Deputy Campaign Chairman, recalled that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Jared Kusnher, Ivanka Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, were meeting.[141] The purpose of the meeting was to exchange “dirt” on the Clinton presidential campaign. Gates testified that Trump Jr. announced at a regular planned meeting that he “had a lead on negative information about the Clinton Foundation”.[142][143][144] Gates recalled Manafort saying at the meeting that the Trump Tower meeting “likely would not yield vital information and they should be careful”.[141][145] The Special Counsel found Manafort to be correct, as the “dirt” was information regarding the Ziff brothers doing tax evasion and money laundering in Russia and “donated the illegal profits to the DNC or the Clinton Campaign”.[146][126] There was speculation that Trump Jr. told his father. However, the Special Counsel could not find any evidence that he did.[60][144]

    The office declined to pursue charges for two reasons: the office “did not obtain admissible evidence” that would meet the burden of proof principle beyond a reasonable doubt that the campaign officials acted with general knowledge about the illegality of their conduct; secondly, the office expected difficulty in valuing the promised information that “exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation” of $2,000 for a criminal violation and $25,000 for a felony punishment.[147][75]

    President’s efforts to have Attorney General control investigation [edit]

    The report notes that between 2017–2018, Trump tried to convince Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal over the Special Counsel investigation. Trump also tried to convince Sessions to launch an investigation into Hillary Clinton and prosecute her.[126] “On multiple occasions in 2017, the President spoke with Sessions about reversing his recusal so that he could take over the Russia investigation and begin an investigation of Hillary Clinton … There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President’s conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that could restrict its scope. […] A reasonable inference from those statements and the President’s action is that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation”.[115][148][126]

    President orders McGahn to deny reports [edit]

    After the news broke out in late January 2018, that Trump ordered Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller in June 2017, Trump pressured McGahn to deny the reports. “After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel,” the report reads.[149][118] Trump told then-White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter to tell McGahn to create a record that makes clear Trump never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel. “Porter thought the matter should be handled by the White House communications office, but the President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file ‘for our records’ and wanted something beyond a press statement to demonstrate that the reporting was inaccurate. The President referred to McGahn as a ‘lying bastard’ and said that he wanted a record from him”.[150][126] Porter recalled Trump “saying something to the effect of “If he doesn’t write a letter, then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him”.[151][126]

    President’s pressuring of Flynn, Manafort, and “redacted name” [edit]

    The report details that Trump took actions “directed at possible witnesses in the Special Counsel’s investigation”.[152][118] The report notes that actions taken by Trump and his counsel “could have had the potential to affect Flynn’s decision to cooperate, as well as the extent of that cooperation. Because of privilege issues, however, we could not determine whether the President was personally involved in or knew about the specific message his counsel delivered to Flynn’s counsel”.[153][154] For Manafort, the report details by saying: “With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential to influence Manafort’s decision whether to cooperate with the government”.[155][154]

    President’s pressuring of Michael Cohen [edit]
    Further information: Michael Cohen (lawyer) § Federal investigations

    The final instance of potential obstruction concerns Michael Cohen, a former personal lawyer of Trump’s. “There is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen’s information would shed adverse light on the President’s campaign-period conduct and statements”, the report states.[156][157] The report continues by detailing that Trump encouraged Cohen to “stay strong”: “After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not “flip” and privately passes messages of support to him”.[158][92] However, the report notes that when Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, Trump publicly criticized him: “Cohen also discussed pardons with the President’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message, he would get a pardon or the President would do “something else” to make the investigation end. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a “rat”, and suggested that his family members had committed crimes”.[158][159]

    Appendices[edit]

    Four appendices were included in the report:

    • Appendix A: Order 3915-2017 from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointing a special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[160][43]
    • Appendix B: Glossary of terms used in the report containing “names and brief descriptions of individuals and entities referenced in the two volumes of [the] report”.[161]
    • Appendix C: President Trump’s written answers to the special counsel.[162]
    • Appendix D: Special counsel’s office transferred, referred, and completed cases.[163]

    Events before public release[edit]

    The report was submitted by the special counsel to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019.[1] Barr assumed oversight of the investigation on February 14, 2019, after being approved by the Senate and sworn in as Attorney General.[164][165] Barr had been previously critical of the investigation before Trump announced his intent to nominate Barr for Attorney General on December 7, 2018.[166][167][168] Barr’s predecessor, Jeff Sessions, resigned on November 7, 2018, writing that it was at Trump’s request.[169][170][171]

    Barr letter[edit]

    The letter from Attorney General William Barr (known as the Barr letter) on March 24, 2019, to leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees describing the principal conclusions of the special counsel’s investigation.[61]
    Main article: Barr letter
    See also: § Mueller Report findings compared to Barr letter

    On March 24, 2019, Attorney General Barr sent Congress a four-page letter describing the special counsel’s conclusions regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and obstruction of justice.[61] Barr relayed two ways in which Russia interfered in the election: firstly, “disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord”; and secondly, hacking computers for emails from the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign and Democratic Party organizations.[61][62] Barr also quoted the report that the “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”.[172]

    On obstruction of justice, Barr wrote that the special counsel “did not draw a conclusion” on obstruction[173][174] and that “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”.[175] Barr continued: “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”.[176][177]

    On Barr’s decision to clear him on obstruction, Trump said in late April 2019 that Barr read the Mueller Report “and he made a decision right on the spot. No obstruction”.[178][179]

    After the release of the Barr Letter, media commentators pointed out that in June 2018, prior to joining the Trump administration, Barr sent an unsolicited 19-page memo to the Department of Justice and White House attorneys asserting that Mueller’s investigation of President Trump for obstruction is “legally insupportable”,[180][181][182][183] and “fatally misconceived”.[184][185][186] Barr also discussed the memo with some of Trump’s attorneys.

    On March 27, 2019, Mueller wrote to Barr discussing the Barr letter. This was first reported on April 30, 2019. Mueller thought that the Barr letter “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of the findings of the special counsel investigation that he led. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation”. Mueller also requested Barr release the Mueller Report’s introductions and executive summaries.[40][187][188]

    On March 28, 2019, Mueller, in a call to Barr, reportedly expressed concerns about public misunderstandings of the obstruction investigation due to media coverage.[40] On April 30, 2019, a spokeswoman from the Justice Department described the March 28 call between Mueller and Barr: “the Special Counsel emphasized that nothing in the Attorney General’s March 24 letter was inaccurate or misleading. But, he expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the Special Counsel’s obstruction analysis”. Although they discussed whether more context could be provided via Barr releasing more of the report, Barr “ultimately determined that it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion”.[40][189]

    On March 29, 2019, Barr sent a subsequent letter to Congress in which he said that his March 24 letter was not a summary of the Mueller Report[190], but merely presented the report’s principal conclusions. Barr also wrote that he would be volunteering to testify before Congress in early May.[40]

    Barr testimony of April 9 and 10[edit]

    On April 9, Attorney General Barr appeared in a congressional hearing before the House. There, Representative Charlie Crist described media reports that “members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the [Mueller] report’s findings”. Crist asked Barr: “Do you know what they are referencing with that?”, Barr replied: “No, I don’t. I think – I think – I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view, I was not interested in putting out summaries”.[191][192]

    On April 10, Attorney General Barr appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee. There, Senator Chris Van Hollen asked Barr regarding obstruction: “Did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?” Barr replied: “I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.”[191][192]

    Barr press conference[edit]

    On April 18, Attorney General Barr held a press conference discussing the report 90 minutes before it was released to Congress and the public.[193] The press conference discussed redacted portions, and “ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.”[194][177]

    Barr gave the following elaboration on his decision that the evidence was insufficient to warrant an obstruction of justice charge for Trump: “Although the deputy attorney general [Rod Rosenstein] and I disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the special counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the special counsel in reaching our conclusion”.[91]

    Barr also mentioned that Trump’s legal team received the redacted version of the report earlier in the week, adding that the president’s lawyers “were not permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions”.[177][195]

    In the press conference, Barr asked that people look into the context, stating that President Trump “faced an unprecedented situation […] federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office and the conduct of some of his associates. […] There was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability”, even though there was, according to Barr, “no collusion”. Barr continued that there was “substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks”.[196][197][198]

    Also in the press conference, Barr said that he had asked Mueller “whether or not [Mueller] was taking the position that he would have found a crime but for the existence of the OLC opinion” that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Barr continued that Mueller “made it very clear, several times, that he was not taking a position – he was not saying but for the OLC opinion he would have found a crime”.[199]

    Some, including Chris Wallace of Fox News, observed that Barr appeared to behave more as Trump’s defense attorney than as an attorney general in this press conference.[200][201][202][203][how?]

    Following the Barr press conference, The New York Times noted that Barr wrote a 19-page memo to the Justice Department while not working for the government, in which he criticized this investigation for “proposing an unprecedented expansion of obstruction laws” that would result in “grave consequences” for the institution of the presidency. The New York Times continued that Barr had an “untrammeled view of executive power”, and that the 2018 Barr memo “turned out to be an accurate road map to Mr. Barr’s handling of the Mueller report”.[204]

    Public release of redacted report[edit]

    On April 18, 2019, a redacted version of the special counsel’s report was released to Congress and the public. About one-eighth of the lines are redacted.[194][205][206] The report is 448 pages long across two volumes and four appendices. It contains about 200,000 words and over 1100 footnotes. About 11% of the text is redacted.[207] 40% of the pages had at least one redaction,[208] and there were over 900 redacted text blocks in all.[209][210]

    Barr described the four kinds of redactions in the released report: “harm to ongoing matter” (HOM) in white, “personal privacy” (PP) in green, “investigative technique” (IT) in yellow, and “grand jury” material in red.[211] Of those, only the grand jury redactions are required by law due to 6(e) of United States criminal procedure.[212][213][214] Barr characterized the report as being “lightly redacted”.[77]

    Redacted report findings compared to Barr letter [edit]

    After the release of the redacted report, the Barr letter was criticized as a deliberate mischaracterization of the Mueller Report and its conclusions.[71][215][35][216] Numerous legal analysts accused Barr of glossing over the report, identifying significant discrepancies between Barr’s characterizations of its contents and the report’s actual findings, while others called for Barr’s resignation.[217][218][219][220] The New York Times reported instances in which the Barr letter omitted information and quoted sentence fragments out of context in ways that significantly altered the findings in the report, including:[71]

    • Omission of language that indicated Trump could be subject to indictment after leaving office, inaccurately suggesting that Trump was “totally exonerated”.[221][222][223]
    • A sentence fragment described only one possible motive for Trump to obstruct justice, while the Mueller Report listed multiple possible motives.
    • Omission of words and a full sentence that twice suggested there was knowing and complicit behavior between the Trump campaign and Russians that stopped short of direct coordination, which may constitute conspiracy.

    CNN wrote that while Barr in his letter took it upon himself to deliver a ruling on whether Trump had committed obstruction, the redacted report indicates that Mueller intended that decision to be made by Congress, not Barr.[224]

    Numerous other political and legal analysts, including Bob Woodward[225] and Brian Williams,[226] observed significant differences in what Barr said about Mueller’s findings in his March 24 summary letter, and in his April 18 press conference, compared to what the Mueller Report actually found. This commentary included a comparison of Barr to Baghdad Bob, calling him “Baghdad Bill”.[226][217][227][228]

    Barr wrote that his letter provided “the principal conclusions” of the Mueller Report. Ryan Goodman, a professor at the New York University School of Law and co-editor of Just Security, observed that in 1989 Barr also wrote a letter which he stated contained “the principal conclusions” of a controversial legal opinion he worked on as head of the OLC. Barr declined to provide the full opinion to Congress, but it was later subpoenaed and released to the public, showing that the summary letter did not fully disclose the principal conclusions.[229][230]

    Redacted report findings compared to Barr press conference[edit]

    In the Barr press conference on April 18, prior to the release of the redacted report, Barr said that “the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation”. However, Factcheck.org describes that this was “contradicted in the report”, which stated that Trump had attacked the investigation in public, tried to control the investigation in private, and encouraged witnesses not to cooperate both in public and private. Factcheck.org also describes the report as saying that President Trump did not fully cooperate for interview requests by investigators, then in written responses answered that he did not remember to over 30 questions, while other answers were “incomplete or imprecise”. Investigators protested that the written responses denied them the opportunity to ask follow-up questions, but Trump denied another request for an interview.[27]

    Also the Barr press conference on April 18, Barr said that “Special Counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision [on obstruction by Trump] to Congress”. The Washington Post described that “the report does not say Mueller intended to leave obstruction-related decisions to Barr”, and instead “uses suggestive language about Congress’s role”, that Congress can subject President Trump to obstruction laws, and made a reference to not wanting to preempt impeachment.[35]

    Analysis of redactions[edit]

    Attributes of the report’s text, and its redactions in particular, received significant news coverage and was a noted talking point.[207] Redactions were concentrated on areas about Russian government interference in the elections.[208] The four types of redactions had the following statistics:

    • “Harm to ongoing matter” – over 400 redactions and about 45% of the redacted text overall.[210][209]
    • “Personal privacy” – an estimated 5–7% of the redactions.[209]
    • “Investigative technique” – an estimated 8–10% of the redactions.[209][210]
    • “Grand jury” – over 300 redactions and about 38% of the redacted text overall.[209]

    Analysis of press coverage of the investigation[edit]

    The Associated Press and Slate observed that the Mueller Report mostly corroborated press coverage of the investigation. Kyle Pope, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, remarked that “The media looks a lot stronger today than it did before the release of this report,” asserting that Mueller’s report absolved the media of its coverage of the investigation, the fairness, accuracy, and objectivity of which was repeatedly derided by President Trump and his allies as “fake news” and a part of a concerted “Witch-Hunt”.[231][232] The Washington Post stated that the report “offered a rich portrait of Trump’s efforts as president to undermine the investigation and mislead the public”.[233]

    The Washington Post reported that while some press reports on the investigation proved wrong, or at least were not confirmed by the Mueller Report, “the Mueller report was by and large an affirmation of the mainstream media’s investigative reporting. Almost all the big stories were confirmed in the report”. Notable reports that were not confirmed to be true by the report included:[234]

    • Trump had “directed” Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.
    • Cohen was in Prague in 2016.
    • Russian Alfa Bank server was communicating with a Trump Organization server.
    • Paul Manafort secretly met with Julian Assange.
    • The 2016 Republican platform eased its policy on Ukraine at the behest of Trump or Russia.

    False and misleading public statements by the Trump administration[edit]

    Politifact published a list of eight notable public assertions Trump and his administration made that the Mueller Report showed to be false or misleading:[235]

    • Mueller had conflicts of interest and was turned down to become FBI director.[236]
    • Trump asserted he hadn’t thought about firing Mueller.[237]
    • Press secretary Sarah Sanders asserted that Trump fired James Comey because “countless” FBI agents told her they had lost faith in him.[238]
    • Sanders asserted that a DOJ internal review had prompted Comey’s firing.[239]
    • Sanders claimed Trump “certainly didn’t dictate” a statement by Donald Trump Jr. regarding the Trump Tower meeting.[240]
    • Trump asserted that the Steele dossier triggered the initial FBI investigation and the investigation “was a plan by those who lost the election”.[235][241]
    • Trump’s repeated assertions that he had no business involvement in Russia.[242]
    • Trump claimed Comey sought a dinner with him when actually Trump invited Comey for dinner.[243]

    Vox reported that the Mueller Report showed Sanders and her predecessor, Sean Spicer, made false statements about the circumstances surrounding the firings of Comey and Michael Flynn.[244]

    The Mueller Report showed that despite assertions by Hope Hicks and Jason Miller in September 2016 that Carter Page never had any involvement with the campaign, Page actually produced work for the campaign, traveled with Trump to a campaign speech and “Chief policy adviser Sam Clovis expressed appreciation for Page’s work and praised his work to other Campaign officials”.[245][246][247]

    Other findings[edit]

    The Mueller Report devoted over a dozen pages to refute an argument made by Trump’s attorneys, and by Barr before he joined the Trump administration, that it was impossible for Trump to obstruct the investigation, regardless of his intentions, due to his presidential authority[which?] to oversee federal law enforcement – an interpretation that some legal scholars characterized as dubious because it suggests a president is above the law.[248][249][250]

    The report confirmed significant aspects of reporting, primarily by The Wall Street Journal, of efforts by Republican activist Peter Smith to locate deleted Clinton emails, including his communications about it with Michael Flynn and campaign co-chair Sam Clovis, as well as Flynn’s actions to spearhead the effort at Trump’s repeated requests. In at least one email to an undisclosed list of recipients, Smith claimed to know WikiLeak’s schedule about releasing the Clinton emails, writing there was a “tug-of-war going on within WikiLeaks over its planned releases in the next few days”, and that WikiLeaks “has maintained that it will save its best revelations for last, under the theory this allows little time for response prior to the U.S. election November 8.”[251][252] In a document Smith circulated to recruit and fundraise, he listed multiple members of the Trump campaign, including Flynn and Clovis, as well as Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway.[why?]

    The report confirmed significant parts of reporting regarding a January 2017 meeting in Seychelles between Erik Prince, George Nader, and Putin confidant Kirill Dmitriev, among others. Despite Prince’s prior congressional testimony that he had no role in the Trump campaign or transition, the report found that Nader had represented Prince to Dmitriev as “designated by Steve [Bannon] to meet you! I know him and he is very very well connected and trusted by the New Team”.[253][254] The Mueller Report stated, “According to Nader, Prince had led him to believe that Bannon was aware of Prince’s upcoming meeting with Dmitriev, and Prince acknowledged that it was fair for Nader to think that Prince would pass information on to the Transition Team. Bannon, however, told the Office that Prince did not tell him in advance about his meeting with Dmitriev”.[255][254] Prince testified to the House Intelligence Committee that “I didn’t fly there to meet any Russian guy”,[256] although the Mueller Report found that he and Nader made significant preparations to meet Dmitriev.[257][258] Although Prince had previously characterized a second meeting between him and Dmitriev in a bar as a chance encounter of no consequence,[256] the Mueller Report found the meeting was actually pre-arranged after Prince had learned from communications back home that Russia had positioned an aircraft carrier off Libya and he wanted to convey that the United States would not accept any Russian involvement in Libya.[254] House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff announced on April 30, 2019 that he was sending a criminal referral to the Justice Department alleging Prince had provided false testimony to the committee.[259][260]

    The special counsel sought to interview Trump for more than a year, advising his attorneys that “it is in the interest of the Presidency and the public for an interview to take place” and offering “numerous accommodations to aid the President’s preparation and avoid surprise”.[261][262] Trump’s attorneys resisted these requests, which the special counsel accepted written responses to questions.[263] The Mueller Report stated that Trump asserted more than thirty times that he could not remember information that had been asked, and that other answers were “incomplete or imprecise”.[264][265] The special counsel considered subpoenaing Trump’s testimony but decided against it because it would likely result in protracted constitutional litigation that would delay conclusion of the investigation, and because investigators had by then acquired information they sought by other means.[266][267]

    The Mueller Report elaborated on earlier reporting regarding communications between Felix Sater and Michael Cohen during 2015–2016 to pursue construction of Trump Tower Moscow, at a time Trump denied any business involvement in Russia.[92] The report found that Sater, a former Trump business associate, asserted to Cohen that he had Russian contacts who could gain Vladimir Putin’s support for the project, adding “I think I can get Putin to [praise Trump’s business acumen] at the Trump Moscow press conference”, and “We can own this election. Michael my next steps are very sensitive with Putin’s very very close people, we can pull this off”.[268][269] The report also found that Cohen had discussed particulars of the project with Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr.[270][271] According to Cohen, he did not consider the political import of the Trump Moscow project to the 2016 U.S. presidential election at the time. Cohen also did not recall candidate Trump or anyone affiliated with the Trump Campaign discussing the political implications of the Trump Tower Moscow project with him. However, Cohen recalled conversations with Trump in which the candidate suggested that his campaign would be a significant “infomercial” for Trump-branded properties”.[272][13]

    The Mueller Report did not conclude Cohen had been in Prague, as had been described in the Steele dossier and reported by the McClatchy Company, citing his testimony to investigators.[273][234]

    Reactions[edit]

    See also: Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019)

    President Donald Trump[edit]

    On March 25, when the Barr letter had been released but not the report itself, President Trump said of the special counsel’s findings, “It’s one hundred percent the way it should have been”. He further commented on the investigation, its potential origins, and its witnesses: “There are a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things”, adding that they would need to be “looked at”.[a][274]

    Play media President Trump’s reaction to the Mueller Report

    Upon the release of the redacted report on April 18, Trump commented:

    .mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 40px}.mw-parser-output .templatequote .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;padding-left:1.6em;margin-top:0}

    It was called, “No collusion. No obstruction.” I’m having a good day. There never was, by the way, and there never will be. And we do have to get to the bottom of these things, I will say. […] This should never happen to another president again, this hoax.[b][275][276]

    The president sent several tweets about the news, including one that mimicked promotional material for the television series Game of Thrones, featuring Trump turning his back, surrounded in mist, superimposed with the words “No collusion. No obstruction. For the haters and the radical left Democrats – .mw-parser-output .smallcaps{font-variant:small-caps}Game Over.”[277] HBO, owners of the rights to the series, commented that they “prefer our intellectual property not be used for political purposes”. Trump had posted similar pictures on Twitter and Instagram on previous occasions, which HBO criticized.[278][279][280]

    On April 19, Trump labeled the report “crazy”, and argued that some of the quotes attributed to him were “total bullshit”, “fabricated and totally untrue”. Calling for a new counter-investigation, he tweeted: “It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason.”[281][282][283] He posted similar tweets in the following days.[284][285]

    On April 23, Trump told the press, “The Mueller Report was great. It could not have been better. It said, ‘No obstruction. No collusion.'” He also said of the investigation, “I don’t believe our country should allow this ever to happen again. This will never happen again. We cannot let it ever happen again.” He went on to insinuate that “treasonous acts” were performed against him from “very high up” in the Obama administration.[c][286]

    On April 24, Trump attacked the report’s writers as “Angry Democrats and Trump Haters”, tweeting: “If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Legal experts responded that Trump had misunderstood the Constitution, as impeachment is constitutionally within Congress’ abilities and responsibilities and not the within that of the courts.[287]

    On April 25, Trump denied the report’s claim that he ordered former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller. He tweeted:

    As has been incorrectly reported by the Fake News Media, I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so. If I wanted to fire Mueller, I didn’t need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself. Nevertheless, Mueller was NOT fired and was respectfully allowed to finish his work on what I, and many others, say was an illegal investigation (there was no crime), headed by a Trump hater who was highly conflicted, and a group of 18 VERY ANGRY Democrats. DRAIN THE SWAMP![288][289]

    On April 26, speaking to the National Rifle Association (NRA), Trump said, “They tried for a coup; didn’t work out so well. And I didn’t need a gun for that one, did I? All was taking place at the highest levels in Washington, D.C. […] Corruption at the highest level. A disgrace. Spying, surveillance, trying for an overthrow – and we caught ’em, we caught ’em. Who would have thought in our country? But it’s called […] ‘draining the swamp’.”[290][291]

    Trump’s personal lawyers[edit]

    Trump’s lawyers said in a statement: “After a 17-month investigation, testimony from some 500 witnesses, the issuance of 2,800 subpoenas, the execution of nearly 500 search warrants, early morning raids, the examination of more than 1.4 million pages of documents, and the unprecedented cooperation of the President, it is clear there was no criminal wrongdoing…This vindication of the President is an important step forward for the country and a strong reminder that this type of abuse must never be permitted to occur again.”[292][293]

    It has been reported since July 2018, that Trump’s personal lawyers are creating a “counter report” to contest the special counsel’s findings on obstruction of justice.[294] According to Rudy Giuliani, they are finalizing the report and putting finishing touches.[295] Giuliani has said that the counter report is about 45 pages long and consists of two sections.[296] Giuliani told The Daily Beast in an interview that the contents were: the legitimacy of the Special Counsel investigation due to alleged conflict of interests surrounding Mueller, and alleged coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia including obstruction of justice.[297] Originally, according to Trump, the counter report was 87 pages long: “It has been incorrectly reported that Rudy Giuliani and others will not be doing a counter to the Mueller Report. That is Fake News.[d] Already 87 pages done, but obviously cannot complete until we see the final Witch Hunt Report”.[299][300]

    Since the public release of the Mueller Report, Giuliani has suggested that they might not release the report for now: “There’s probably a point at which we will use it. Right now we think the public debate is playing out about as well as it can. Why confuse it – it raises a lot of issues that maybe we didn’t have to respond to”, Giuliani said.[301]

    On April 21, Giuliani accused that the special counsel’s team “came close to torturing people”, and described a lawyer on the special counsel’s team as a “hitman”. Giuliani also stated: “There’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians. It depends on where it came from”.[302] Also on April 21, Giuliani falsely stated that “nothing was denied” by the Trump administration to investigators (Factcheck.org notes that the report stated Trump refused interviews). Giuliani additionally falsely stated that “you read that” Don McGahn “gave three different versions” of his conversation with Trump regarding firing Mueller (Factcheck.org also notes that the report stated McGahn only gave one version, and that Trump gave another version).[303]

    Trump attorney Emmet Flood mocked the Mueller Report as “part ‘truth commission’ report and part law school exam paper”.[304]

    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein[edit]

    On April 11, 2019, in his first interview since the conclusion of the Special Counsel he appointed, with The Wall Street Journal, Rosenstein defended Attorney General Barr’s handling of the conclusions of the Special Counsel investigation.[305] “He’s being as forthcoming as he can, and so this notion that he’s trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre”, Rosenstein said.[306] Rosenstein also supported Barr’s four-page letter by saying: “It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said, ‘I’m not going to give you the report.'” What he said is, ‘Look, it’s going to take a while to process the report. In the meantime, people really want to know what’s in it. I’m going to give you the top-line conclusions.’ That’s all he was trying to do”.[307]

    On April 25, 2019, Rosenstein spoke at the Armenian Bar Association’s Public Servants Dinner in New York City.[308] Rosenstein said that as a result of the investigation, there was now “overwhelming evidence that Russian operatives hacked American computers and defrauded American citizens, and that is only the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive Russian strategy to influence elections, promote social discord, and undermine America, just like they do in many other countries […] our nation is safer, elections are more secure, and citizens are better informed about covert foreign influence schemes.”[309][310]

    Rosenstein discussed the result of the special counsel investigation, saying that he did agree to oversee it correctly and to its completion, but: “I did not promise to report all results to the public, because grand jury investigations are ex parte proceedings. It is not our job to render conclusive factual findings. We just decide whether it is appropriate to file criminal charges”.[310] However, according to Rosenstein, “not everybody was happy with [his] decision”, as he went on to cite politicians who “need to evaluate everything in terms of the immediate political impact”, and the media.[311][312] Rosenstein reserved particular criticism for the media as “mercenary critics” who “launch ad hominem attacks unrestricted by truth or morality. They make threats, spread fake stories, and even attack your relatives. […] A republic that endures is not governed by the news cycle. Some of the nonsense that passes for breaking news today would not be worth the paper was printed on, if anybody bothered to print it.”[308][5] Rosenstein further said: “In politics – as in journalism – the rules of evidence do not apply.”[313]

    Rosenstein criticized the Obama administration for failing to “publicize the full story” about the methods and the “broader strategy” of Russian interference in the American elections.[308][314] Rosenstein also criticized members of the FBI for disclosing classified material, and criticized James Comey’s conduct for announcing the counterintelligence investigation while Comey was still FBI Director and alleging that “that the president pressured [Comey] to close the investigation” after Comey was fired.[308][315][313]

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller[edit]

    After the Special Counsel concluded its investigation on March 22, Barr sent Congress a four-page letter about the Special Counsel’s conclusions on March 24. On April 30, it was reported Mueller sent a letter to Barr on March 27, that expressed concerns about his four-page letter to Congress.[316][317] Barr called Mueller to express his concerns about the letter and its contents.[318]

    “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions”, Mueller said in his letter to Barr. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations”.[40]

    Other Justice Department officials[edit]

    On April 25, The Washington Post published a report quoting an anonymous “senior Justice Department official”. The official said that the “special counsel never decided whether [obstruction of justice] is a prosecutable case [against Trump], so there’s no conflict between the attorney general’s decision that it’s not [prosecutable] and the special counsel’s report”. Regarding obstruction of justice, the official said: “All the attorney general was deciding was whether this was a prosecutable offense, and we don’t bring criminal charges at the department unless we believe we can prove them beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury”. Regarding the President’s efforts to curtail the Special Counsel investigation in the episode involving Corey Lewandowski, the official said it would be hard to justify a prosecution because the obstruction relies on multiple people in a chain all doing something” and that it was “a very attenuated chain”, exacerbated “given that the note isn’t even an order”. The official alluded to the belief that prosecutors would not be able to prove that Trump had wanted to shut down the investigation with corrupt intent, because according to the official, there was no underlying crime to cover up.[319]

    Democrats[edit]

    Congressional Democratic leaders called on Mueller to publicly testify before Congress, renewing demands for the entire report to be released and raising concern over the President’s conduct detailed in the report. House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler announced he would issue a subpoena for the full report after the Justice Department released a redacted version. Democrats also criticized what they say were “orchestrated attempts” by the Trump administration to control the narrative surrounding the report’s April 18 release.[320] Nadler issued the subpoena on April 19.[321] A DOJ spokesperson called Nadler’s subpoena “premature and unnecessary”, citing that the publicly released version of the report had “minimal redactions” and that Barr had already made arrangements for Nadler and other lawmakers to review a version with fewer redactions.[322][323] On the May 1 deadline of the subpoena, the DOJ rejected it as “not legitimate oversight” and that “the requests in the subpoena are overbroad and extraordinarily burdensome”, adding that grand jury material cannot be released without a court order.[324]

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released a joint statement saying “Special Counsel Mueller’s report paints a disturbing picture of a president who has been weaving a web of deceit, lies, and improper behavior and acting as if the law doesn’t apply to him”. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin stated “The Special Counsel’s findings paint a very different picture than what the President and his Attorney General would have the American people believe”, and called the details of the Russian contacts with the Trump campaign and Trump’s efforts to impede the investigation “troubling”.[325]

    Senator and 2020 United States presidential election candidate Elizabeth Warren, citing the “severity” of the “misconduct” detailed in the report, called for the House to initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump, the first 2020 election candidate to do so post-report.[326] Senator Cory Booker, also a 2020 candidate, tweeted out a searchable version of the report, as the Justice.gov version of the report is not able to be searched digitally.[327] He also called for the full release of the report, stating in an earlier tweet: “The American people deserve the truth. Not spin from a Trump appointee. Release Mueller’s full report now”.[328] Notably, the Department of Justice updated the report to a searchable version on April 22.[329][330]

    Republicans[edit]

    Most Republican lawmakers had no immediate comments on the report due to the report coming out during Congress’ spring recess.[331] House Republican leaders viewed the report as vindication of President Trump and signaled that lawmakers should move on. On April 18, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy stated “Nothing we saw today changes the underlying results of the 22-month-long Mueller investigation that ultimately found no collusion”.[332] House Minority Whip Steve Scalise tweeted “Democrats owe the American people an apology”, along with a statement declaring the probe to be dead. Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, the Ranking Member on the House Oversight Committee, stated “They do want people who launched this investigation, on a false premise, they do want them held accountable”, referring to retaliatory sentiment among Trump supporters about the origin of the Russia investigation, specifically the Steele dossier. “You can’t have the FBI using one party’s opposition research document to launch an investigation and spy on the other party’s campaign. We know that took place and we do need to get to the bottom of that because it’s never supposed to happen in this country”, Jordan added.[333] However, the House Intelligence Committee, then controlled by Republicans, released in 2017 a report that stated that the Russia investigation had not started from information in the Steele dossier, but from information that the FBI received on George Papadopoulos.[334]

    On April 19, Utah Senator Mitt Romney wrote in a statement on Twitter that he was “sickened” and “appalled” by the findings in the report, and said reading the report was a “sobering revelation of how far we have strayed from the aspirations and the principles of the founders”.[335] Romney later expounded on his comments in a press release by saying “It is good news that there was insufficient evidence to charge the President of the United States with having conspired with a foreign adversary or with having obstructed justice. The alternative would have taken us through a wrenching process with the potential for constitutional crisis. The business of government can move on”.[336][337][338]

    On April 28, Senator Lindsey Graham, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Face The Nation; “I don’t care what they talked about. He didn’t do anything. The point is the president did not impede Mueller from doing his investigation…I don’t care what happened between him and Don McGahn”, Graham continued: “Here’s what I care about: Was Mueller allowed to do his job? And the answer is yes”.[339]

    On May 1, Senator Lindsey Graham falsely stated that on “obstruction of justice, Mr. Mueller left it to Mr. Barr to decide after two years, and all this time. He said, ‘Mr. Barr, you decide'”. Mueller had not asked Barr to make the decision, and Barr later said that he had not talked directly to Mueller about making that decision. Graham also falsely stated that the special counsel investigation “concluded there was no collusion”, even when collusion was not addressed in the Mueller Report (criminal conspiracy was).[340]

    Commentators[edit]

    After the release of the report, media commentators again pointed out that in 2018, Barr, before rejoining government work, had authored an unsolicited memo to the Justice Department describing investigation into potential obstruction of justice by Trump was “fatally misconceived” and “overly aggressive”,[224][341][342] and also noted that the Barr memo argued that a president could not be charged for acts of presidential power, such as firing officials.[343] NPR’s Ron Elving, in referring to the memo, described that “we got the word on” the result on obstruction “early” because “Barr had already authored a 19-page explanation for why a president could not be charged with obstruction of justice – suggesting pointedly that Mueller should not even be thinking about it”.[344]

    Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, who has been among Trump’s staunchest defenders in some cases,[345][346] gave the report an “incomplete” on the conclusion of obstruction of justice, “C+” on legal analysis, and a “B+” on factual analysis, in an interview with Fox News.[347] Dershowitz also gave the media coverage of the report an “F”; “Even with grade inflation, I just think the media comes off awful, terrible, for the most part. I think we are seeing an elimination of the distinction between the editorial page and the news pages in some of the leading media in the country, and that’s a shame. Walter Cronkite could not get a job in the media today”, Dershowitz said.[348]

    Fordham University law professor Jed Shugerman opined in the New York Times that: “The report’s very high standard for legal conclusions for criminal charges was explicitly proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. So the report did not establish crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. But it did show a preponderance of conspiracy and coordination”. In Shugerman’s view, the preponderance of evidence standard is “relevant for counterintelligence and general parlance about facts, and closer to the proper standard for impeachment”. He continues: “By the preponderance of evidence standard, the report contains ample evidence to establish conspiracy and coordination with the Russian government, sometimes through intermediaries, other times through a Russian spy”. The Starr Report on President Clinton, which was organized as an “impeachment referral, not a prosecution decision”, applied a lower standard of “substantial and credible information” more like the preponderance of the evidence standard. The Mueller Report explained that the ability to conclude using the criminal proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard was “materially impaired” by lies by individuals associated with the Trump campaign and deletion of e-mails, among other factors.[349]

    Former Deputy Attorney General and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates remarked, “I’ve personally prosecuted obstruction cases on far, far less evidence than this, and yes, I believe if [Trump] were not the president of the United States, he would likely be indicted on obstruction”.[350]

    Polling[edit]

    A public opinion poll by Reuters and Ipsos conducted between the afternoon of April 18, 2019 and the morning of April 19 found that 37 percent of adults in the United States approved of Trump’s performance in office, down from 40 percent in a similar poll conducted on April 15 and matching the lowest level of the year. The approval rating was also down from 43 percent in a poll conducted shortly after the Attorney General’s summary was released on March 22.[351] Among the respondents that said they were familiar with the Mueller Report, 70 percent said the report had not changed their view of Trump or Russia’s involvement in the U.S. presidential race and 15 percent said they had learned something that changed their view of Trump or the Russia investigation.[352]

    A poll by The Washington Post and ABC News conducted between April 22–25, after the Mueller Report was released, found that 51% of respondents believed the investigation was fair; 53% said that it did not clear Trump of all wrongdoing; 58% said that Trump lied about matters that were investigated; 56% said that impeachment should not proceed; and support for impeachment is at a new low of 37%.[353] A plurality of 47% said Trump tried to obstruct justice.[354]

    Subsequent actions by Congress[edit]

    Since the release of the report, Congressional committees have been wanting more answers about the process and findings of the Special Counsel investigation.

    On April 18, 2019, Jerry Nadler sent Robert Mueller a letter requesting his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee “as soon as possible – but, in any event, no later than May 23, 2019”.[355][356]

    On April 22, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Don McGahn and any relating documents related to the committee’s investigation into obstruction of justice.[357] The subpoena calls for the documents by May 7, and for McGahn to testify by May 21.[358] On April 23, 2019, The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration plans to fight McGahn’s subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee.[359] McGahn is expected to testify about President Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Special Counsel, which McGahn was ordered to do but refused and resign.[360] The Trump administration is expected to exercise executive privilege on parts of McGahn’s testimony. Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, said “Executive privilege is always an option, it’s always on the table. But Don McGahn has already talked under oath for 30 hours. And this is just presidential harassment”, Conway told Jake Tapper, adding that it is Trump’s “right” to use executive privilege.[361] The Associated Press described Trump’s response to post-Mueller congressional investigations as ‘Just say no’ and ‘Resist on every legal front’, noting that Trump on April 24 had declared: “We’re fighting all the subpoenas. […] I thought after two years we’d be finished with it. No, now the House goes and starts subpoenaing.”[362]

    On April 26, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee announced that Attorney General William Barr is to testify on May 2, regarding the Special Counsel investigation, its findings, allegations of obstruction of justice, and allegations of spying on the Trump Campaign.[363] Barr’s testimony before the House comes just a day after Barr is set to testify before the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee on the same topics.[364]

    On April 28, 2019, it was reported that Barr might not show up to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on the special counsel and its findings.[365] According to Barr, he was displeased about the format of the testimony he is expected to give.[366] Jerry Nadler, head of the House Judiciary Committee, said: “The witness [Barr] is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period,” Nadler told CNN. On the prospect of Barr not showing up, Nadler stated: “Then we will have to subpoena him, and we will have to use whatever means we can to enforce the subpoena”.[366] On April 29, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that if Barr did not show up, he would be “obstructing Congress”. “The Attorney General of the United States is not the president’s personal lawyer, and he should act as the attorney general of the United States and honor his responsibilities”, Pelosi said.[367] Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said “The Attorney General agreed to appear before Congress. Therefore, Members of Congress should be the ones doing the questioning. He remains happy to engage with Members on their questions regarding the Mueller report”.[368]

    On May 2, when Barr was to testify before the committee, Barr did not show up.[369] The House Judiciary Committee threatened to hold Barr in contempt if he did not provide a un-redacted report of the Special Counsel’s by Wednesday, May 2. The report was not provided.[369] Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, specifically Democratic Representative of Tennessee Steve Cohen, mocked Barr for not showing up, calling him “Chicken Barr”. Cohen also brought a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken and a chicken prop.[370]

    Barr testimony of May 1[edit]

    On May 1, Attorney General Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Barr said he “didn’t exonerate” Trump on obstruction as that was not the role of the Justice Department.[41] Barr explained his decision that there was not enough evidence for Trump to be charged with obstruction by citing that the president did not commit an underlying crime related to Russia.[41]

    Senator and former California attorney general Kamala Harris questioned why neither Barr nor Rosenstein reviewed the underlying evidence in the report. “We accepted the statements in the report as the factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate, we accepted it as accurate,” Barr said. He asserted this approach was common DOJ practice.[42][371] Harris also asked Barr if Rosenstein had been cleared by ethics officials to be involved in the decision to not charge Trump of obstruction, given that Rosenstein was a witness to the investigation regarding James Comey’s firing. Barr with the help of his aides concluded by saying “He was the acting attorney general on the Mueller investigation…I’m informed that before I arrived, he had been cleared by the ethics officials.”[372][373]

    Regarding “the situation of the President, who has constitutional authority to supervise proceedings, if in fact a proceeding was not well founded, if it was a groundless proceeding, if it was based on false allegations, the President does not have to sit there, constitutionally, and allow it to run its course,” Barr said. Barr continued by saying “The President could terminate that proceeding, and it would not be a corrupt intent, because he was being falsely accused.[41][374] Barr later said that Trump “knew [the accusations against him] were false. And he felt this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents and was hampering his ability to govern. That is not a corrupt motive for replacing an independent counsel”.[375]

    Politico described the statements above as “Barr’s expansive view of presidential authority to meddle in investigations”.[376] New York Magazine argued against Barr’s “perverse conclusion” because first, “Trump could not possibly know that an investigation was unfounded”; second, “Mueller did not say Trump was innocent”; and third, “Trump’s obstruction was quite possibly one of the reasons Mueller failed to establish underlying crimes”.[377]

    Also in his testimony, Barr falsely said: “The evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians […] and accused of being treasonous. […] Two years of his administration have been dominated by allegations that have now been proven false”. However, the Mueller Report does not address collusion. On the topic of allegations being “proven false”, the Mueller Report described receiving from some Trump campaign officials false, incomplete or declined testimony (the latter due to the Fifth Amendment), resulting in investigators having an incomplete picture of what had really occurred. The Mueller Report “cannot rule out the possibility” that information then unavailable to investigators would have presented different findings.[340]

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi commented on Barr’s testimony and accused Barr of lying before Congress. “What is deadly serious about it is the attorney general of the United States of America is not telling the truth to the Congress of the United States. That’s a crime,” Pelosi told reporters. “He lied to Congress. If anybody else did that, it would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law,” Pelosi said. Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec responded to Pelosi’s remarks and said that a “baseless attack on the Attorney General is reckless, irresponsible and false.”[378] According to CNBC, Pelosi’s remarks were talking about Barr’s comments in his April 9 testimony. Representative Charlie Crist: “Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter. … Do you know what they are referencing with that?” Barr: “No, I don’t. I think I think, I suspect that they probably wanted more put out, but in my view I was not interested in putting out summaries.”[378][379]

    Potential contempt of Congress charges[edit]

    On May 3, 2019, Nadler informed Barr that a subpoena had been issued giving him until May 6, 2019, to release the full Mueller Report.[380][381] If Barr does not comply, the House Judiciary Committee will vote to bring criminal charges related to Contempt of Congress.[381][382][383] A law issued in 1857 gives Congress the power to issue criminal charges for this matter.[384]

    Possible future releases[edit]

    A less-redacted version of the report “with all redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information”, which is required to be redacted by federal law,[212][213][214] is expected to be available two weeks after the initial public release, to “a bipartisan group of leaders from several Congressional committees”.[194][385][386]

    On April 19, 2019, House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler issued a subpoena for the fully unredacted report.[387] A DOJ spokesperson called Nadler’s subpoena “premature and unnecessary”, citing that the publicly released version of the report had “minimal redactions” and that Barr had already made arrangements for Nadler and other lawmakers to review a version with fewer redactions.[322][323]

    See also[edit]

    • Cyberwarfare by Russia

    Notes[edit]

  • ^ Full remarks: “It’s lasted a long time; we’re glad it’s over. It’s one hundred percent the way it should have been. I wish it could have gone a lot sooner, a lot quicker. There are a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things, very bad things – I would say treasonous things – against our country. And hopefully the people that have done such harm to our country – we’ve gone through a period of really bad things happening – those people will certainly be looked at. I’ve been looking at them for a long time, and I’m saying, ‘Why haven’t they been looked at?’ They lied to Congress, many of them, you know who they are; they’ve done so many evil things. I will tell you, I love this country, I love this country as much as I can love anything – ‘my family, my country, my God’. But what they did, it was a false narrative, it was a terrible thing. We can never let this happen to another president again. I can tell you that, I say it very strongly. Very few people I know could’ve handled it. We can never, ever let this happen to another president again.”[274]
  • ^ Full relevant remarks: “I also want to thank two great congressmen for being here, and if we had room we would’ve had a lot more: Phil Roe and James Baird. Thank you very much.” (Applause.) “Thank you, fellas. You’re welcome. And they’re having a good day – I’m having a good day, too.” (Laughter.) “It was called, ‘No collusion. No obstruction.'” (Applause.) “I’m having a good day. There never was, by the way, and there never will be. And we do have to get to the bottom of these things, I will say. And this should never happen – I say this in front of my friends, Wounded Warriors; and I just call them ‘warriors’, ’cause we just shook hands, and they look great; they look so good, so beautiful. But I say it in front of my friends: This should never happen to another president again, this hoax. It should never happen to another president again. Thank you.”[275][276]
  • ^ Full remarks:
    Reporter #1: “Some Democrats, sir, are still talking about impeachment. What’s your response to that?”
    Trump: “I don’t think they’re talking about impeachment. We have the greatest economy we’ve ever had, our country’s in incredible shape. They and others created a fraud on our country with this ridiculous witch hunt, where it was proven very strongly, ‘No collusion. No obstruction. No nothing.’ We are doing so well, we’ve never probably had a time of prosperity like this. It’s been great.” (To a reporter:) “Go ahead.”
    Reporter #2: “Sir, do you think the people who launched the investigation into your campaign [are guilty] of treasonous acts?”
    Trump: “Yeah.”
    Reporter #2: “How high up do you think it went?”
    Trump: “I think it went very high up. I think what happened is a disgrace. I don’t believe our country should allow this ever to happen again. This will never happen again. We cannot let it ever happen again. It went very high up, and it started fairly low, but with instructions from the high-up. This should never happen to a president again. We can’t allow that to take place.”
    Reporter #2: “Do you think it reached the West Wing of the Obama White House?”
    Trump: “I don’t want to say that, but I think you know the answer.”
    Reporter #3: “Mr. President, the report says while you did not commit a crime, it says that you specifically – ”
    Trump: “Who said what?”
    Reporter #3: “While the Mueller Report says, according to the Barr letter, while you didn’t – ”
    Trump: “The Mueller Report was great. It could not have been better. It said, ‘No obstruction. No collusion.’ It could not have been better.”[286]
  • ^ President Trump was referring to an article in The Atlantic, titled “The White House Has No Plan for Confronting the Mueller Report”, published on December 6, 2018.[298]
  • References[edit]

  • ^ a b c Breuninger, Kevin (March 22, 2019). “Mueller Probe Ends: Special counsel submits Russia report to Attorney General William Barr”. CNBC. Retrieved April 18, 2019..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 1: “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”
  • ^ a b Inskeep, Steve; Detrow, Scott; Johnson, Carrie; Davis, Susan; Greene, David. “Redacted Mueller Report Released; Congress, Trump React”. NPR. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ a b “The Mueller Report”. YaleGlobal Online. MacMillan Center.
  • ^ a b c 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”
  • ^ a b c d “Main points of Mueller report”. Agence France-Presse. April 18, 2019. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Newcomer, Eric (April 19, 2019). “Mueller’s Reminder That Silicon Valley Isn’t Ready for the Next Election”. Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ a b Mackey, Robert; Risen, James; Aaronson, Trevor (April 18, 2019). “Annotating special counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report”. The Intercept. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ a b Dunleavy, Jerry (April 18, 2019). “Mueller says Russia’s GRU stole Clinton, DNC emails and gave them to WikiLeaks”. Washington Examiner. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ a b 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. I, 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.”
  • ^ a b Mueller 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.”
  • ^ a b Mosk, Matthew (April 18, 2019). “Here’s what we know about: Collusion”. ABC News. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ a b Barrett, Devlin; Zapotosky, Matt (April 17, 2019). “Mueller report lays out obstruction evidence against the president”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e f Strohm, Chris (April 19, 2019). “Mueller’s Signal on Obstruction: Congress Should Take On Trump”. Bloomberg News. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 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.”
  • ^ a b c d Day, Chad; Gresko, Jessica (April 19, 2019). “How Mueller made his no-call on Trump and obstruction”. Associated Press. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e f Gajanan, Mahita (April 18, 2019). “Despite Evidence, Robert Mueller Would Not Say Whether Trump Obstructed Justice. Here’s Why”. Time. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ 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, pp. 1–2: “[…] 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. 7: “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
  • ^ a b c d Blake, Aaron (April 18, 2019). “The 10 Trump actions Mueller spotlighted for potential obstruction”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ a b Chalfant, Morgan (April 18, 2019). “Mueller on obstruction: Evidence prevents ‘conclusively determining no criminal conduct occurred'”. The Hill. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ a b Woodward, Calvin; Yen, Hope (April 20, 2019). “AP Fact Check: Trump team’s distortions on Mueller report”. AP News. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ 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.”
  • ^ a b c d e Farley, Robert; Robertson, Lori; Gore, D’Angelo; Spencer, Saranac Hale; Fichera, Angelo; McDonald, Jessica (April 19, 2019). “What the Mueller Report Says About Obstruction”. FactCheck.org. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ a b Desjardins, Lisa; Alcindor, Yamiche (April 18, 2019). “11 moments Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice”. PBS NewsHour. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e Schmidt, Michael; Savage, Charlie (April 18, 2019). “Mueller Left Open the Door to Charging Trump After He Leaves Office”. The New York Times. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ a b Fabian, Jordan (April 18, 2019). “Mueller report shows how Trump aides sought to protect him and themselves”. The Hill. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ 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.”
  • ^ a b c Mascaro, Lisa (April 19, 2019). “Mueller drops obstruction dilemma on Congress”. Associated Press. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ 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.”
  • ^ a b c d “Mueller report: Eight things we only just learned”. BBC News. April 18, 2019. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Rizzo, Salvador (April 19, 2019). “What Attorney General Barr said vs. what the Mueller report said”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Barr 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.”
  • ^ Blake, Aaron (March 25, 2019). “Your big questions about the Mueller report, answered”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Barr 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.”
  • ^ “The key findings from the Justice Department summary of Mueller’s report”. CBS News. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e f Barrett, Devlin; Zapotosky, Matt (April 30, 2019). “Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe”. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d Day, Chad. “Key takeaways from AG Barr’s testimony, Mueller’s letter”. Associated Press. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Analysis | Barr’s conclusions are undercut by his lack of familiarity with details of Mueller’s probe”. Washington Post.
  • ^ a b c d e Rosenstein, Rod (May 17, 2017). “Order No. 3915-2017: Appointment of Special Counsel”. United States Department of Justice. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  • ^ Krieg, Gregory (May 12, 2017). “Is this a constitutional crisis? ‘Still no’ but…” CNN. Retrieved May 12, 2017.
  • ^ a b c Parks, Miles; Farrington, Dana; Taylor, Jessica (May 15, 2017). “The James Comey Saga, In Timeline Form”. NPR. Retrieved March 24, 2019.
  • ^ Emmons, Alex; Aaronson, Trevor (February 2, 2018). “Nunes memo accidentally confirms the legitimacy of the FBI’s investigation”. The Intercept. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
  • ^ Yen, Hope; Woodward, Calvin; Tucker, Eric (April 1, 2019). “AP Fact Check: Trump’s exaggerations about the Russia probe”. Associated Press. Retrieved April 2, 2019.
  • ^ “How Every Lawmaker Has Reacted to Comey’s Firing So Far”. The New York Times. May 10, 2017. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
  • ^ a b Brown, Pamela; Herb, Jeremy (December 6, 2018). “The frantic scramble before Mueller got the job”. CNN. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
  • ^ Pelley, Scott (February 17, 2019). “Andrew McCabe: The full 60 Minutes interview”. CBS News. Archived from the original on February 19, 2019. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
  • ^ Williams, Pete; Dilanian, Ken (May 18, 2017). “Special counsel will take over FBI Russia campaign interference investigation”. NBC News. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ a b Taylor, Jessica; Johnson, Carrie. “Former FBI Director Mueller Appointed As Special Counsel To Oversee Russia Probe”. NPR. Retrieved March 24, 2019.
  • ^ “Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Trump campaign investigations”. CBS News. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Mazzetti, Mark; Benner, Katie (March 24, 2019). “Mueller Finds No Trump-Russia Conspiracy but Stops Short of Exonerating President on Obstruction of Justice”. The New York Times. Retrieved March 24, 2019.
  • ^ Budryk, Zack (March 24, 2019). “Trump Jr.: ‘Collusion truthers’ need to be ‘held accountable’ after Mueller report”. The Hill. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
  • ^ “28 CFR § 600.4 – Jurisdiction”. Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Cornell Law School. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  • ^ Rossman, Sean (March 24, 2019). “Nearly 500 witnesses, 675 days: The Mueller investigation by the numbers”. USA Today. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Gregorian, Dareh (April 18, 2019). “Mueller mystery: What are the other 12 criminal referrals?”. NBC News. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2: “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’.”
  • ^ a b c d e Gregorian, Dareh; Ainsley, Julia (April 18, 2019). “Mueller report found Trump directed White House lawyer to ‘do crazy s—“. NBC News. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d Barr, William (March 24, 2019). “Letter to House and Senate Judiciary Committees” (PDF). United States Department of Justice. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report”. The New York Times. March 24, 2019. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ Harris, Shane; Nakashima, Ellen; Timberg, Craig (April 18, 2019). “Through email leaks and propaganda, Russians sought to elect Trump, Mueller finds”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Thomsen, Jacqueline (April 18, 2019). “Mueller: Russia sought to help Trump win but did not collude with campaign”. The Hill. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  • ^ Lindstrom, Natasha (April 18, 2019). “Why Pittsburgh is mentioned in the Mueller report”. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Broderick, Ryan (April 18, 2019). “Here’s Everything The Mueller Report Says About How Russian Trolls Used Social Media”. Buzzfeed News. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  • ^ Prohov, Jennifer. “Fake Tennessee GOP Twitter account cited as example in Mueller report”. WBIR. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  • ^ Kiely, Eugene; Robertson, Lori (April 24, 2019). “Kushner Distorts Scope of Russia Interference”. Factcheck.org. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  • ^ Morais, Betsy (April 18, 2019). “Collusion by any other name”. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2: “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.”
  • ^ a b c Savage, Charlie (April 20, 2019). “How Barr’s Excerpts Compare to the Mueller Report’s Findings”. The New York Times. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 2: “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 Mueller Report: Excerpts and Analysis”. The New York Times. April 18, 2019. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ The Editorial Board (April 19, 2019). “The Mueller Report and the Danger Facing American Democracy”. The New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ a b Hamilton, Colby (April 18, 2019). “Mueller Considered Prosecuting Trump Tower Meeting Participants: Report”. New York Law Journal. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ Zapotosky, Matt; Leonnig, Carol D.; Helderman, Rosalind S.; Barrett, Devlin (April 17, 2019). “Mueller report will be lightly redacted, revealing detailed look at obstruction of justice investigation”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 17, 2019.
  • ^ a b Axelrod, Tal (April 17, 2019). “DOJ plans to release ‘lightly redacted’ version of Mueller report Thursday: WaPo”. The Hill . Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ LaFraniere, Sharon (April 17, 2019). “The Mueller Report Will Be Released on Thursday. Here’s a Guide”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ Gibson, Ginger; Chiacu, Doina (April 18, 2019). “Trump curses Mueller appointment: ‘This is the end of my presidency'”. Reuters. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ a b Gibson, Ginger (April 18, 2019). “Mueller report provides intimate scenes from the Trump White House”. Reuters. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 157: “Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong.”
  • ^ Chris, Strohm; McLaughlin, David (April 18, 2019). “Mueller Spells Out Trump’s ‘Multiple Acts’ to Undermine Russia Probe”. Bloomberg News. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Kilgore, Ed (April 18, 2019). “On Obstruction of Justice, Mueller Punted to Congress and the Court of Public Opinion”. New York. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 1: “Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And 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.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 1: “Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. OLC Op. at 255 (‘Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President’s term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment’).”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 158: “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. Corney did not end the investigation of Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn’s prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President’s order. Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President’s message to Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President’s direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President’s multiple demands that he do so. Consistent with that pattern, the evidence we obtained would not support potential obstruction charges against the President’s aides and associates beyond those already filed.”
  • ^ Pramuk, Jacob (April 18, 2019). “Trump barely disrupted Russia investigation, Mueller report says”. CNBC. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Dennis, Steven; Strohm, Chris; McLaughlin, David (April 18, 2019). “Top Takeaways From the Mueller Report”. Bloomberg News. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Schmidt, Michael S.; Haberman, Maggie (April 18, 2019). “The Episodes of Potential Obstruction of Justice by Trump in the Mueller Report”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Pramuk, Jacob (April 18, 2019). “Mueller report recounts 10 episodes involving Trump and questions of obstruction”. CNBC. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ a b Homan, Timothy R. (April 18, 2019). “Here are the 10 ‘episodes’ Mueller probed for potential obstruction by Trump”. The Hill. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e Rahn, Will (April 19, 2019). “The 10 times Trump may have obstructed justice, according to Mueller”. CBS News. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Jurecic, Quinta (April 21, 2019). “Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map”. Lawfare. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 15: “Trump also expressed skepticism that Russia had hacked the emails at the same time as he and other Campaign advisors privately sought information about any further planned WikiLeaks releases.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 54: “According to Gates, by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks. Harm to Ongoing Matter while Trump and Gates were driving to LaGuardia Airport. Harm to Ongoing Matter, shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 15: “After the election, when questions persisted about possible links between Russia and the Trump Campaign, the President-Elect continued to deny any connections to Russia and privately expressed concerns that reports of Russian election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election.”
  • ^ Carlisle, Madeleine; Paschal, Olivia (April 18, 2019). “Read Robert Mueller’s Written Summaries of His Russia Report”. The Atlantic. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Sanger, David E. (December 29, 2016). “Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Pramuk, Jacob (December 29, 2016). “US unveils retribution for Russia over election hacking allegations”. CNBC. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 25: “Flynn, who was in the Dominican Republic at the time, and K.T. McFarland, who was slated to become the Deputy National Security Advisor and was at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida with the President-Elect and other senior staff, talked by phone about what, if anything, Flynn should communicate to Kislyak about the sanctions.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 25: “Incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus recalled that McFarland may have mentioned at the meeting that the sanctions situation could be ‘cooled down’ and not escalated.”
  • ^ a b Kiely, Eugene (April 19, 2019). “What the Mueller Report Says About Russian Contacts”. FactCheck.org. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 25: “Priebus recalled that the President-Elect viewed the sanctions as an attempt by the Obama Administration to embarrass him by delegitimizing his election.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 25: “Immediately after discussing the sanctions with McFarland on December 29, 2016, Flynn called Kislyak and requested that Russia respond to the sanctions only in a reciprocal manner, without escalating the situation.”
  • ^ Lynch, Sarah N. (December 2, 2017). “Flynn pleads guilty to lying on Russia, cooperates with U.S. probe”. Reuters. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Mueller report findings: Mueller rejects argument that Trump is shielded from obstruction laws”. The Washington Post. April 18, 2019. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol II, p. 25: After the call, Flynn briefed McFarland on its substance. Flynn told McFarland that the Russian response to the sanctions was not going to be escalatory because Russia wanted a good relationship with the Trump Administration.
  • ^ a b Mueller Report, vol II, pp. 25–26: “On December 30, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the sanctions at that time and would instead ‘plan … further steps to restore Russian-US relations based on the policies of the Trump Administration.’ Following that announcement, the President-Elect tweeted, ‘Great move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart!'”
  • ^ Smilowitz, Elliot (December 30, 2016). “Trump praises ‘very smart’ Putin on sanctions response”. The Hill. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Prignano, Christina (April 18, 2019). “These are the 10 ‘episodes’ Mueller looked at in his obstruction investigation”. The Boston Globe. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 48: “In early March 2017, the President learned that Sessions was considering recusing from the Russia investigation and tried to prevent the recusal. After Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at Sessions for the decision and then privately asked Sessions to ‘unrecuse’.”
  • ^ Paschal, Madeleine Carlisle, Olivia (April 18, 2019). “Read Robert Mueller’s Written Summaries of His Russia Report”. The Atlantic. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Borger, Julian; Ackerman, Spencer (March 20, 2017). “Trump-Russia collusion is being investigated by FBI, Comey confirms”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 48: “In the days that followed, the President contacted Comey and other intelligence agency leaders and asked them to push back publicly on the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort in order to ‘lift the cloud’ of the ongoing investigation.”
  • ^ a b Schaul, Kevin; Uhrmacher, Kevin; Blake, Aaron (April 18, 2019). “The 10 areas where Mueller investigated Trump for obstruction”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ a b Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 75: “Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Corney was Corney’s unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President’s repeated requests that Corney make such an announcement. In the week leading up to Corney’s May 3, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, the President told McGahn that it would be the last straw if Corney did not set the record straight and publicly announce that the President was not under investigation.”
  • ^ Quinn, Melissa (April 18, 2019). “10 times Trump might have obstructed justice”. Washington Examiner. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d Reklaitis, Victor (April 18, 2019). “Mueller report: These are the 10 episodes of Trump’s potential obstruction of justice”. MarketWatch. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Taylor, Jessica (May 19, 2017). “Report: Trump Told Russians He Fired ‘Nut Job’ Comey Because Of Investigation”. NPR. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Montoya-Galvez, Camilo (April 19, 2019). “”I’m f**ked”: Trump lambasted Sessions, kept resignation letter after Mueller appointment”. CBS News. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 77: “The Acting Attorney General appointed a Special Counsel on May 17, 2017, prompting the President to state that it was the end of his presidency and that Attorney General Sessions had failed to protect him and should resign. Sessions submitted his resignation, which the President ultimately did not accept.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, pp. 77–78: “On June 14, 2017, the press reported that the President was being personally investigated for obstruction of justice and the President responded with a series of tweets criticizing the Special Counsel’s investigation.”
  • ^ a b Becket, Stefan; Watson, Kathryn; Rahn, Will; Montoya-Galvez, Camilo; Segers, Grace (April 18, 2019). “Mueller report outlines Trump’s attempts to assert control over Russia probe”. CBS News. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 78: “That weekend, the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of interest. McGahn did not carry out the instruction for fear of being seen as triggering another Saturday Night Massacre and instead prepared to resign. McGahn ultimately did not quit and the President did not follow up with McGahn on his request to have the Special Counsel removed.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 90: “Two days after the President directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one with Corey Lewandowski in the Oval Office and dictated a message to be delivered to Attorney General Sessions that would have had the effect of limiting the Russia investigation to future election interference only.”
  • ^ a b c d e f g “Here’s what we know about obstruction of justice”. ABC News. April 19, 2019. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 91: “During the June 19 meeting, Lewandowski recalled that, after some small talk, the President brought up Sessions and criticized his recusal from the Russia investigation.605 The President told Lewandowski that Sessions was weak and that if the President had known about the likelihood of recusal in advance, he would not have appointed Sessions.”
  • ^ O’Connell, Dylan (April 19, 2019). “Let’s Collude with Reality for a Moment – Trump Obstructed Justice”. Medium. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 91: “I know that I recused myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS . .. is being treated very unfairly. He shouldn’t have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel b/c he hasn’t done anything wrong. I was on the campaign w/ him for nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact b/c I was there. He didn’t do anything wrong except he ran the greatest campaign in American history.”
  • ^ a b Schreckinger, Ben. “Breaking down the 140 pages detailing how Trump fought Mueller”. Politico. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 91: “Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the United States. I am going to meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future election.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 92: “The President said that if Sessions delivered that statement he would be the ‘most popular guy in the country’. Lewandowski told the President he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 91: “Lewandowski wanted to pass the message to Sessions in person rather than over the phone. He did not want to meet at the Department of Justice because he did not want a public log of his visit and did not want Sessions to have an advantage over him by meeting on what Lewandowski described as Sessions’s turf. Lewandowski called Sessions and arranged a meeting for the following evening at Lewandowski’s office, but Sessions had to cancel due to a last minute conflict.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 93: “President raised his previous request and asked if Lewandowski had talked to Sessions. Lewandowski told the President that the message would be delivered soon. Lewandowski recalled that the President told him that if Sessions did not meet with him, Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired.”
  • ^ “Fact check: What Trump associates told the public vs. what they told Mueller”. www.nbc-2.com. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, pp. 91–92: “On July 19, 2017, the President again met with Lewandowski alone in the Oval Office. […] the President raised his previous request and asked if Lewandowski had talked to Sessions. Lewandowski told the President that the message would be delivered soon. Lewandowski recalled that the President told him that if Sessions did not meet with him, Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired.
    Immediately following the meeting with the President, Lewandowski saw Dearborn in the anteroom outside the Oval Office and gave him a typewritten version of the message the President had dictated to be delivered to Sessions. Lewandowski told Dearborn that the notes were the message they had discussed, but Dearborn did not recall whether Lewandowski said the message was from the President. The message ‘definitely raised an eyebrow’ for Dearborn, and he recalled not wanting to ask where it came from or think further about doing anything with it. Dearborn also said that being asked to serve as a messenger to Sessions made him uncomfortable. He recalled later telling Lewandowski that he had handled the situation, but he did not actually follow through with delivering the message to Sessions, and he did not keep a copy of the typewritten notes Lewandowski had given him.”
  • ^ Pace, Julie (April 19, 2019). “Analysis: Mueller paints a damning portrait of the president”. Associated Press. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ “Mueller report highlights: Read the top moments from the 448-page report”. ABC News. April 19, 2019. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 106: “Each of these efforts by the President involved his communications team and was directed at the press. They would amount to obstructive acts only if the President, by taking these actions, sought to withhold information from or mislead congressional investigators or the Special Counsel.”
  • ^ Mordok, Jeff (April 18, 2019). “Trump misleading public on Trump Tower meeting is not obstruction: Mueller report”. The Washington Times. Retrieved April 22, 2019 – via AP News.
  • ^ a b Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 115: “Gates recalled that the meeting was attended by Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Paul Manafort, Hope Hicks, and, joining late, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. According to Gates, Manafort warned the group that the meeting likely would not yield vital information and they should be careful. Hicks denied any knowledge of the June 9 meeting before 2017, and Kushner did not recall if the planned June 9 meeting came up at all earlier that week.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 15: “Rick Gates, who was the deputy campaign chairman, stated during interviews with the Office that in the days before June 9, 2016 Trump Jr. announced at a regular morning meeting of senior campaign staff and Trump family members that he had a lead on negative information about the Clinton Foundation.”
  • ^ Chuck, Elizabeth (April 18, 2019). “What the Mueller report says about Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr”. NBC News. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ a b Larson, Erik; Bloomberg (April 20, 2019). “Why the Infamous Trump Tower Meeting Didn’t Take Down Trump”. Fortune. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Raymond, Adam K. (April 18, 2019). “What Mueller Found Out About the Trump Tower Meeting”. Intelligencer. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, pp. 117–118: “Goldstone recalled that Trump Jr. invited Veselnitskaya to begin but did not say anything about the subject of the meeting. Participants agreed that Veselnitskaya stated that the Ziff brothers had broken Russian laws and had donated their profits to the DNC or the Clinton Campaign. She asserted that the Ziff brothers had engaged in tax evasion and money laundering in both the United States and Russia, (redacted).”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 188: “The Office would also encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised documents and information exceeds the $2,000 threshold for a criminal violation, as well as the $25,000 threshold for felony punishment. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1). The type of evidence commonly used to establish the value of non-monetary contributions-such as pricing the contribution on a commercial market or determining the upstream acquisition cost or the cost of distribution-would likely be unavailable or ineffective in this factual setting.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, pp. 112–113: “On multiple occasions in 2017, the President spoke with Sessions about reversing his recusal so that he could take over the Russia investigation and begin an investigation and prosecution of Hillary Clinton. … There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President’s conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope. … A reasonable inference from those statements and the President’s actions is that the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation. For example, in early summer 2017, Sessions recalled the President asking him to unrecuse, but Sessions did not take it as a directive. When the President raised the issue again in December 2017, the President said, as recorded by Porter, ‘Not telling you to do anything. … I’m not going to get involved. I’m not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly.’ The duration of the President’s efforts-which spanned from March 2017 to August 2018 – and the fact that the President repeatedly criticized Sessions in public and in private for failing to tell the President that he would have to recuse is relevant to assessing whether the President’s efforts to have Sessions unrecuse could qualify as obstructive acts.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 113: “After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides, sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special Counsel.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 115: “Porter thought the matter should be handled by the White House communications office, but the President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file ‘for our records’ and wanted something beyond a press statement to demonstrate that the reporting was inaccurate. The President referred to McGahn as a ‘lying bastard’ and said that he wanted a record from him.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, pp. 115–116: “Porter recalled the President saying something to the effect of, ‘If he doesn’t write a letter, then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him.'”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 120: “In addition to the interactions with McGahn described above, the President has taken other actions directed at possible witnesses in the Special Counsel’s investigation, including Flynn, Manafort, HOM and as described in the next section, Cohen.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 131: “Because of privilege issues, however, we could not determine whether the President was personally involved in or knew about the specific message his counsel delivered to Flynn’s counsel.”
  • ^ a b Barber, C. Ryan (April 18, 2019). “Mueller Says ‘Some Evidence’ Suggests Trump Tried to Influence Manafort Jury”. National Law Journal. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 131: “With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the President’s actions had the potential to influence Manafort’s decision whether to cooperate with the government.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 155: “Intent. In analyzing the President’s intent in his actions towards Cohen as a potential witness, there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen’s information would shed adverse light on the President’s campaign-period conduct and statements.”
  • ^ Jansen, Bart (April 19, 2019). “Trump repeatedly tried to impede the Russia probe, Mueller report said. Was it obstruction?”. USA Today. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ a b Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 6: “After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not ‘flip’, contacted him directly to tell him to ‘stay strong’, and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message, he would get a pardon or the President would do ‘something else’ to make the investigation end. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in July 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a ‘rat’, and suggested that his family members had committed crimes.”
  • ^ NPR Staff (April 18, 2019). “Highlights From The Mueller Report, Annotated”. NPR. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, Appendix A, p. A-1: “Order No. 3915-2017. Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters”.
  • ^ Mueller Report, Appendix B, p. B-1: “The following glossary contains names and brief descriptions of individuals and entities referenced in the two volumes of this report. It is not intended to be comprehensive and is intended only to assist a reader in the reading the rest of the report.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, Appendix C, p. C-1: “The President provided written responses through his personal counsel to questions submitted to him by the Special Counsel’s Office. We first explain the process that led to the submission of written questions and then attach the President’s responses.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, Appendix D, p. D-1: “Special Counsel’s Office Transferred, Referred, and Completed Cases. This appendix identifies matters transferred or referred by the Special Counsel’s Office, as well as cases prosecuted by the Office that are now completed.”
  • ^ Ewing, Philip (February 14, 2019). “Attorney General William Barr Swears Oath Of Office After Senate Confirmation”. NPR. Retrieved March 28, 2019.
  • ^ Breuninger, Kevin (February 14, 2019). “Senate confirms Trump’s attorney general pick William Barr, who will now oversee Mueller probe”. CNBC. Retrieved March 28, 2019.
  • ^ Blake, Aaron (January 15, 2019). “Barr confirms he shared his Mueller memo with lots of people around Trump”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Sommer, Will (June 17, 2017). “Trump allies hit Mueller on relationship with Comey”. The Hill. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Faulders, Katherine; Karl, Jonathan; Turner, Trish (December 7, 2018). “Trump announces he’ll nominate William Barr as next attorney general”. ABC News. Retrieved March 28, 2019.
  • ^ “Jeff Sessions’ resignation letter to President Trump”.
  • ^ “Jeff Sessions forced out as attorney general”. CBS News. November 7, 2018. Retrieved March 28, 2019.
  • ^ Barrett, Devlin; Zapotosky, Matt; Dawsey, Josh (November 7, 2018). “Jeff Sessions forced out as attorney general”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 18, 2018. Retrieved November 19, 2018.
  • ^ Cotter, Sean. “DOJ: Trump campaign didn’t collude with Russians”. bostonherald.com. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ Johnson, Kevin; Jansen, Bart; Phillips, Kristine (March 24, 2019). “Mueller report: Investigation found no evidence Trump conspired with Russia, leaves obstruction question open”. USA Today. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ Gurman, Sadie (March 25, 2019). “Mueller Told Barr Weeks Ago He Wouldn’t Reach Conclusion on Obstruction Charge”. The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ “Read Attorney General William Barr’s Summary of the Mueller Report”. The New York Times. March 24, 2019. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Calia, Mike; El-Bawab, Nadine (April 17, 2019). “Attorney General William Barr will hold a press conference to discuss Mueller report at 9:30 am ET Thursday”. CNBC. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ a b c “Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question open”. American Bar Association. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ “The 45 most outrageous lines from Donald Trump’s rambling interview with Sean Hannity”. CNN. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ Zurcher, Anthony. “William Barr: Five questions for US attorney general”. BBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ Reporter, Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court. “Barr sent or discussed controversial memo with Trump lawyers”. CNN.
  • ^ Chalfant, Morgan; Lillis, Mike. “Questions mount over Mueller, Barr and obstruction”. The Hill. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ Blake, Aaron. “The fastest way to Trump’s heart (and an administration job): Say what he wants to hear, publicly”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ Jansen, Bart; Phillips, Kristine. “Congressional Democrats question AG William Barr’s decision that Trump didn’t obstruct justice”. USA Today. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ Berenson, Tessa. “Robert Mueller’s Work Is Done. What Happens Next Is Up to William Barr”. Time. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  • ^ Elving, Ron. “Mueller Report Release Will Likely Escalate Tensions Between Trump And Congress”. NPR. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  • ^ Watkins, Eli. “Barr authored memo last year ruling out obstruction of justice”. CNN. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
  • ^ Williams, Pete (April 30, 2019). “A frustrated Mueller told AG Barr his short summary of the special counsel report caused confusion”. NBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ “Special Counsel Mueller’s letter to Attorney General Barr”. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Daniels, Jeff (April 30, 2019). “Mueller criticized attorney general summary of special counsel report”. CNBC. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ “AG Barr letter” (PDF). March 29, 2019. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  • ^ a b Cillizza, Chris. “William Barr is in deep trouble”. CNN. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ a b Bump, Philip. “The evolution of the obstruction of justice dispute between Barr and Mueller”. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ Strohm, Chris. “Trump-Friendly Spin on Mueller Report Puts Heat on DOJ’s Barr”. Bloomberg News. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Pramuk, Jacob (April 18, 2019). “Mueller report recounts 10 episodes involving Trump and questions of obstruction”. CNBC. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ “Barr says 10 ‘episodes’ of Trump potential obstruction probed; AG disagreed with Mueller legal theory”. NBC News. April 18, 2019. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ Lynch, Sarah; Sullivan, Andy. “In unflattering detail, Mueller report reveals Trump actions to impede inquiry”. Reuters. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ “Barr frames release of Mueller report in Trump’s language”. CNN. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Tucker, Eric. “Barr deepens critics’ concerns in handling of Mueller report”. Associated Press. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Manchester, Julia (April 18, 2019). “Informal Trump adviser calls Barr ‘one of the finest lawyers this country has ever produced'”. The Hill. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Sang, Lucia Suarez (April 18, 2019). “AG Barr seemed more like counselor to Trump than attorney general, was ‘making a case for the president:’ Chris Wallace”. Fox News. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Zapotosky, Matt; Dawsey, Josh (April 18, 2019). “Barr under fire for news conference that was a boon for Trump, and often featured one of his preferred terms”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Litman, Harry (April 18, 2019). “The most important day in the Mueller probe was deeply upsetting”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Leonhardt, David (April 19, 2019). “A Nixonian Attorney General”. The New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Landler, Mark; Benner, Katie. “Barr’s Defense of Trump Rewards the President With the Attorney General He Wanted”. The New York Times. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
  • ^ “Special Counsel’s Office”. United States Department of Justice. October 16, 2017. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ “The Mueller Report by the Numbers”. The Wall Street Journal. April 18, 2019. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ a b “How to make music out of the Mueller report redactions”. The World. Public Radio International. April 19, 2019. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ a b Chang, Alvin; Zarracina, Javier (April 19, 2019). “The Mueller report redactions, explained in 4 charts”. Vox. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e Lai, K.K. Rebecca; Watkins, Derek; Yourish, Karen (April 19, 2019). “See Which Sections of the Mueller Report Were Redacted”. The New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ a b c Harding, Luke (April 20, 2019). “What’s missing? The clues to Barr’s 1,000 Mueller report redactions”. The Guardian. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Stieb, Matt (April 18, 2019). “The Most Redacted Sections of the Mueller Report”. Intelligencer. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ a b Barrett, Devlin (April 7, 2019). “Scrutiny and suspicion as Mueller report undergoes redaction”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 19, 2019. Under the federal rules of criminal procedure, government officials are not allowed to share material from grand jury proceedings.
  • ^ a b “Rule 6. The Grand Jury”. Legal Information Institute (LII). Cornell Law School. November 30, 2011. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Federal Grand Jury Secrecy: Legal Principles and Implications for Congressional Oversight” (PDF). Federation of American Scientists. January 10, 2019. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Denning, Steve (April 19, 2019). “How Attorney General Barr Misled America”. Forbes. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Eliason, Randall D. (April 19, 2019). “William Barr’s incredibly misleading words”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ a b Mariotti, Renato (April 19, 2019). “The Obstruction Case Against Trump that Barr Tried to Hide”. Politico. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Cohen, Marshall (April 19, 2019). “4 times Barr twisted and cherry-picked Mueller’s report”. CNN. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Katyal, Neal; Geltzer, Joshua A. (April 19, 2019). “Perspective – Barr tried to exonerate Trump. That’s not how the special counsel rules work”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Risen, James (April 19, 2019). “William Barr Misled Everyone About the Mueller Report. Now Democrats Are Calling for His Resignation”. The Intercept. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Benen, Steve (April 19, 2019). “The latest in a series of ‘Mission Accomplished’ moments for Trump”. MSNBC. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Bernstein, Jonathan (April 22, 2019). “Opinion: Congress will pick up where Mueller left off”. Newsday. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Buncombe, Andrew (April 18, 2019). “Mueller report: Trump leaves town claiming victory and with Democrats scrambling to respond”. The Independent. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Don McGahn could decide Trump’s political fate”. CNN. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  • ^ Hall, Colby (April 19, 2019). “Bob Woodward: AG Barr Will Be Remembered for the Deception and Misrepresentation of the Mueller Report”. Mediaite. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ a b DePaolo, Joe (April 19, 2019). “MSNBC’s Brian Williams on AG Barr: I Wouldn’t Be Surprised if People Starting Calling Him ‘Baghdad Bill'”. Mediaite. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Auber, Tamar (April 19, 2019). “MSNBC’s Wallace, Heilemann Run a Scathing Fact-Check on AG Barr: ‘He Just Lies'”. Mediaite. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Feldman, Josh (April 19, 2019). “Former Federal Prosecutor on CNN: Barr’s ‘Credibility and Independence are in the Trash'”. Mediaite. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Goodman, Ryan (April 15, 2019). “Barr’s Playbook: He Misled Congress When Omitting Parts of Justice Dep’t Memo in 1989”. Just Security.
  • ^ Bump, Philip (April 15, 2019). “Analysis | The 1989 precedent that raises questions about how Barr will redact the Mueller report”. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Bauder, David (April 20, 2019). “Fake news? Mueller isn’t buying it”. Associated Press. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Peters, Justin (April 19, 2019). “The Other Thing the Mueller Report Proved: Journalists Were Right”. Slate Magazine. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Helderman, Rosalind (April 22, 2019). “Inside the special counsel’s long hunt to uncover whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ a b Blake, Aaron (April 22, 2019). “What the media got right – and wrong – about the Mueller report”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ a b Valverde, Miriam (April 19, 2019). “8 times the Mueller report shows Trump, White House spread false or misleading claim”. PolitiFact. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 80: The President Asserts that the Special Counsel has Conflicts of Interest

    In the days following the Special Counsel’s appointment, the President repeatedly told advisors, including Priebus, Bannon, and McGahn, that Special Counsel Mueller had conflicts of interest. The President cited as conflicts that Mueller had interviewed for the FBI Director position shortly before being appointed as Special Counsel, that he had worked for a law firm that represented people affiliated with the President, and that Mueller had disputed certain fees relating to his membership in a Trump golf course in Northern Virginia. The President’s advisors pushed back on his assertion of conflicts, telling the President they did not count as true conflicts.

  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 82: “On June 9, 2017, the Special Counsel’s Office informed the White House Counsel’s Office that investigators intended to interview intelligence community officials who had allegedly been asked by the President to push back against the Russia investigation. On Monday, June 12, 2017, Christopher Ruddy, the chief executive of Newsmax Media and a longtime friend of the President’s, met at the White House with Priebus and Bannon. Ruddy recalled that they told him the President was strongly considering firing the Special Counsel and that he would do so precipitously, without vetting the decision through Administration officials. Ruddy asked Priebus if Ruddy could talk publicly about the discussion they had about the Special Counsel, and Priebus said he could. Priebus told Ruddy he hoped another blow up like the one that followed the termination of Corney did not happen. Later that day, Ruddy stated in a televised interview that the President was ‘considering perhaps terminating the Special Counsel’ based on purported conflicts of interest. Ruddy later told another news outlet that ‘Trump is definitely considering’ terminating the Special Counsel and ‘it’s not something that’s being dismissed.’ Ruddy’s comments led to extensive coverage in the media that the President was considering firing the Special Counsel.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, pp. 71–72: “That same morning, on May 10, 2017, the President called McCabe. According to a memorandum McCabe wrote following the call, the President asked McCabe to come over to the White House to discuss whether the President should visit FBI headquarters and make a speech to employees. The President said he had received ‘hundreds’ of messages from FBI employees indicating their support for terminating Comey. The President also told McCabe that Comey should not have been permitted to travel back to Washington, D.C. on the FBI’s airplane after he had been terminated and that he did not want Comey ‘in the building again’, even to collect his belongings. When McCabe met with the President that afternoon, the President, without prompting, told McCabe that people in the FBI loved the President, estimated that at least 80% of the FBI had voted for him, and asked McCabe who he had voted for in the 2016 presidential election.

    In the afternoon of May 10, 2017, deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders spoke to the President about his decision to fire Comey and then spoke to reporters in a televised press conference. Sanders told reporters that the President, the Department of Justice, and bipartisan members of Congress had lost confidence in Comey, ‘[a]nd most importantly, the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their director. Accordingly, the President accepted the recommendation of his Deputy Attorney General to remove James Comey from his position.’ In response to questions from reporters, Sanders said that Rosenstein decided ‘on his own’ to review Comey’s performance and that Rosenstein decided ‘on his own’ to come to the President on Monday, May 8 to express his concerns about Comey. When a reporter indicated that the ‘vast majority’ of FBI agents supported Corney, Sanders said, ‘Look, we’ve heard from countless members of the FBI that say very different things.’ Following the press conference, Sanders spoke to the President, who told her she did a good job and did not point out any inaccuracies in her comments. Sanders told this Office that her reference to hearing from ‘countless members of the FBI’ was a ‘slip of the tongue’. She also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made ‘in the heat of the moment’ that was not founded on anything.”

  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, pp. 72–73: “Also on May 10, 2017, Sessions and Rosenstein each spoke to McGahn and expressed concern that the White House was creating a narrative that Rosenstein had initiated the decision to fire Comey. The White House Counsel’s Office agreed that it was factually wrong to say that the Department of Justice had initiated Comey’s termination, and McGahn asked attorneys in the White House Counsel’s Office to work with the press office to correct the narrative.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 105: “After consulting with the President on the issue, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told the media that the President ‘certainly didn’t dictate’ the statement, but that ‘he weighed in, offered suggestions like any father would do.’ Several months later, the President’s personal counsel stated in a private communication to the Special Counsel’s Office that ‘the President dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article on behalf of his son, Donald Trump, Jr.’ The President later told the press that it was ‘irrelevant’ whether he dictated the statement and said, ‘It’s a statement to the New York Times … That’s not a statement to a high tribunal of judges.'”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 6: “On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 134: “The President’s conduct involving Michael Cohen spans the full period of our investigation. During the campaign, Cohen pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization. Cohen briefed candidate Trump on the project numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal. After the media began questioning Trump’s connections to Russia, Cohen promoted a ‘party line’ that publicly distanced Trump from Russia and asserted he had no business there. Cohen continued to adhere to that party line in 2017, when Congress asked him to provide documents and testimony in its Russia investigation. In an attempt to minimize the President’s connections to Russia, Cohen submitted a letter to Congress falsely stating that he only briefed Trump on the Trump Tower Moscow project three times, that he did not consider asking Trump to travel to Russia, that Cohen had not received a response to an outreach he made to the Russian government, and that the project ended in January 2016, before the first Republican caucus or primary. While working on the congressional statement, Cohen had extensive discussions with the President’s personal counsel, who, according to Cohen, said that Cohen should not contradict the President and should keep the statement short and ‘tight’. After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not ‘flip’ and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message, he would get a pardon or the President would do ‘something else’ to make the investigation end. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in July 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a ‘rat’, and suggested his family members had committed crimes.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, pp. 33–36: “Also on January 27, the President called FBI Director Comey and invited him to dinner that evening. Priebus recalled that before the dinner, he told the President something like, ‘don’t talk about Russia, whatever you do,’ and the President promised he would not talk about Russia at the dinner. McGahn had previously advised the President that he should not communicate directly with the Department of Justice to avoid the perception or reality of political interference in law enforcement. When Bannon learned about the President’s planned dinner with Comey, he suggested that he or Priebus also attend, but the President stated that he wanted to dine with Comey alone. Comey said that when he arrived for the dinner that evening, he was surprised and concerned to see that no one else had been invited.

    Comey provided an account of the dinner in a contemporaneous memo, an interview with this Office, and congressional testimony. According to Comey’s account of the dinner, the President repeatedly brought up Comey’s future, asking whether he wanted to stay on as FBI director. Because the President had previously said he wanted Comey to stay on as FBI director, Comey interpreted the President’s comments as an effort to create a patronage relationship by having Comey ask for his job. The President also brought up the Steele reporting that Comey had raised in the January 6, 2017, briefing and stated that he was thinking about ordering the FBI to investigate the allegations to prove they were false. Comey responded that the President should think carefully about issuing such an order because it could create a narrative that the FBI was investigating him personally, which was incorrect. Later in the dinner, the President brought up Flynn and said, ‘the guy has serious judgment issues.’ Comey did not comment on Flynn and the President did not acknowledge any FBI interest in or contact with Flynn.

    According to Comey’s account, at one point during the dinner the President stated, ‘I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.’ Comey did not respond and the conversation moved on to other topics, but the President returned to the subject of Comey’s job at the end of the dinner and repeated, ‘I need loyalty.’ Comey responded, ‘You will always get honesty from me.’ The President said, ‘That’s what I want, honest loyalty.’ Comey said, ‘You will get that from me.’

    After Comey’s account of the dinner became public, the President and his advisors disputed that he had asked for Comey’s loyalty. The President also indicated that he had not invited Comey to dinner, telling a reporter that he thought Comey had ‘asked for the dinner’ because ‘he wanted to stay on.’ But substantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account of the dinner invitation and the request for loyalty. The President’s Daily Diary confirms that the President ‘extend[ed] a dinner invitation’ to Comey on January 27. With respect to the substance of the dinner conversation, Comey documented the President’s request for loyalty in a memorandum he began drafting the night of the dinner; senior FBI officials recall that Comey told them about the loyalty request shortly after the dinner occurred; and Comey described the request while under oath in congressional proceedings and in a subsequent interview with investigators subject to penalties for lying under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Comey’s memory of the details of the dinner, including that the President requested loyalty, has remained consistent throughout.”

  • ^ Lind, Dara (April 18, 2019). “7 times the Mueller report caught Sean Spicer and Sarah Sanders lying to press”. Vox Media. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 98: “In May 2016, Page prepared an outline of an energy policy speech for the Campaign and then traveled to Bismarck, North Dakota, to watch the candidate deliver the speech. Chief policy advisor Sam Clovis expressed appreciation for Page’s work and praised his work to other Campaign officials.”
  • ^ Brice-Saddler, Michael; Alemany, Jacqueline (April 19, 2019). “Here’s what Trump and his associates said at the time. Now, read what the Mueller report tells us”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Neidig, Harper (September 24, 2016). “Trump camp backs away from adviser suspected of Kremlin ties”. The Hill. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Schmidt, Michael S.; Savage, Charlie (April 18, 2019). “Mueller Rejects View That Presidents Can’t Obstruct Justice”. The New York Times.
  • ^ Savage, Charlie (April 23, 2019). “Did Trump Obstruct Justice? Mueller Didn’t Say, but Left a Trail to the Answer”. The New York Times.
  • ^ “A president can’t obstruct justice? That’s not quite right, legal scholars say”. The Washington Post.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 62: “Smith continued to send emails to an undisclosed recipient list about Clinton’s deleted emails until shortly before the election. For example, on October 28, 2016, Smith wrote that there was a ‘tug-of-war going on within WikiLeaks over its planned releases in the next few days,’ and that WikiLeaks ‘has maintained that it will save its best revelations for last, under the theory this allows little time for response prior to the U.S. election November 8.'”
  • ^ Nguyen, Tina (April 18, 2019). “Mueller Report: Trump Was Obsessed With Finding Clinton’s Missing E-mails”. Vanity Fair. Condé Nast. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 153: “Nader wrote to Dmitriev, ‘This guy [Prince] is designated by Steve [Bannon] to meet you! I know him and he is very very well connected and trusted by the New Team. His sister is now a Minister of Education.”
  • ^ a b c Harris, Demirjian; Shane, Karoun (April 19, 2019). “Congressional Democrats examine Erik Prince’s statements on 2017 Seychelles meeting for possible perjury”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 153: “According to Nader, Prince had led him to believe that Bannon was aware of Prince’s upcoming meeting with Dmitriev, and Prince acknowledged that it was fair for Nader to think that Prince would pass information on to the Transition Team. Bannon, however, told the Office that Prince did not tell him in advance about his meeting with Dmitriev.”
  • ^ a b Mosk, Matthew; Reevell, Patrick; Meek, James Gordon (May 24, 2018). “Putin ally suggests Seychelles meeting more than chance encounter”. ABC News. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 151.
  • ^ Jones, Sarah (April 18, 2019). “Mueller Report Offers More Evidence That Erik Prince Lied to Congress”. Intelligencer.
  • ^ Singman, Brooke (April 30, 2019). “Schiff says he’ll send a criminal referral to DOJ for Erik Prince over alleged false statements to Congress”. Fox News.
  • ^ John Wagner and Karoun Demirjian (April 30, 2019). “Democrats accuse Trump ally Erik Prince of lying to Congress, refer case to Justice Dept. for possible prosecution”. WashingtonPost.com. Retrieved April 30, 2019.CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)
  • ^ Mueller Report, Appendix C, p. C-1: “We additionally stated that “it is in the interest of the Presidency and the public for an interview to take place” and offered ‘numerous accommodations to aid the President’s preparation and avoid surprise’.”
  • ^ Dowd, Kathy Ehrich (April 18, 2019). “President Trump Told Mueller He Was Just Joking When He Asked Russia to Hack Hillary Clinton”. Time. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Wang, Christine (September 4, 2018). “Special counsel will accept written answers from Trump about Russia”. CNBC. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, Appendix C, p. C-1: “We received the President’s written responses in late November 2018. In December 2018, we informed counsel of the insufficiency of those responses in several respects. We noted, among other things, that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he ‘does not recall’ or ‘remember’ or have an ‘independent recollection’ of information called for by the questions. Other answers were ‘incomplete or imprecise’. The written responses, we informed counsel, ‘demonstrate the inadequacy of the written format, as we have had no opportunity to ask followup questions that would ensure complete answers and potentially refresh your client’s recollection or clarify the extent or nature of his lack of recollection’. We again requested an in-person interview, limited to certain topics, advising the President’s counsel that ‘[t]his is the President’s opportunity to voluntarily provide us with information for us to evaluate in the context of all of the evidence we have gathered.’ The President declined.”
  • ^ Haslett, Cheyenne; Bruggeman, Lucien (May 1, 2019). “5 key takeaways from special counsel Robert Mueller’s report”. ABC News. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, Appendix C, p. C-2: “Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for his testimony. We viewed the written answers to be inadequate. But at that point, our investigation had made significant progress and had produced substantial evidence for our report. We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in finishing our investigation, against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report. As explained in Volume II, Section H.B., we determined that the substantial quantity of information we had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility, which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation.”
  • ^ Herb, Jeremy (April 18, 2019). “Mueller thought Trump’s written answers were ‘inadequate'”. CNN.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 72: “I think I can get Putin to say that at the Trump Moscow press conference. If he says it we own this election. America’s most difficult adversary agreeing that Donald is a good guy to negotiate … We can own this election. Michael my next steps are very sensitive with Putin’s very, very close people, we can pull this off. Michael let’s go. 2 boys from Brooklyn getting a USA president elected. This is good, really good.”
  • ^ Gormley, Michael (April 20, 2019). “Felix Sater, ex-Long Islander, mentioned 104 times in Mueller report”. Newsday. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 69: “Cohen also discussed the Trump Moscow project with Ivanka Trump as to design elements (such as possible architects to use for the project) and Donald J. Trump Jr. (about his experience in Moscow and possible involvement in the project) during the fall of 2015.”
  • ^ Ballhaus, Rebecca (April 18, 2019). “Mueller Report Reveals Extent of Trump’s Involvement in Russia Tower Plans”. The Wall Street Journal.
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. I, p. 72: “According to Cohen, he did not consider the political import of the Trump Moscow project to the 2016 U.S. presidential election at the time. Cohen also did not recall candidate Trump or anyone affiliated with the Trump Campaign discussing the political implications of the Trump Moscow project with him. However, Cohen recalled conversations with Trump in which the candidate suggested that his campaign would be a significant ‘infomercial’ for Trump-branded properties.”
  • ^ Mueller Report, vol. II, p. 139.
  • ^ a b Arter, Melanie (March 25, 2019). “Trump: ‘We Can Never, Ever Let This Happen to Another President Again'”. CNSNews.com. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ a b Vazquez, Maegan (April 18, 2019). “Trump declares he is having a ‘good day’ as redacted Mueller report is released”. CNN. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ a b Egan, Lauren (April 18, 2019). “Trump reaction to Mueller report release: ‘I’m having a good day'”. NBC News. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ Trump, Donald [@realDonaldTrump] (April 18, 2019). “…” (Tweet). Retrieved April 19, 2019 – via Twitter. (image)
  • ^ Anapol, Avery (April 18, 2019). “Trump declares ‘Game Over’ on Mueller investigation with ‘Game of Thrones’ image”. The Hill. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ Deerwester, Jayme (April 18, 2019). “Trump channels ‘Game of Thrones’ yet again with Mueller report tweet; HBO, fans respond”. USA Today. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ Breuninger, Kevin (April 18, 2019). “HBO wants Trump to stop making ‘Game of Thrones’-style tweets, ‘though we can understand the enthusiasm'”. CNBC. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Herbert, Geoff (April 19, 2019). “President Trump says some of Mueller report is ‘total bulls—t'”. syracuse.com. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Fabian, Jordan; Samuels, Brett (April 19, 2019). “Trump frustrated with aides who talked to Mueller”. The Hill. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^
    • Trump, Donald [@realDonaldTrump] (April 19, 2019). “Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue. Watch out for people that take so-called ‘notes’, when the notes never existed until needed. Because I never…” (Tweet). Retrieved April 20, 2019 – via Twitter.
    • Trump, Donald [@realDonaldTrump] (April 19, 2019). “…agreed to testify, it was not necessary for me to respond to statements made in the ‘Report’ about me, some of which are total bullshit & only given to make the other person look good (or me to look bad). This was an Illegally Started Hoax that never should have happened, a…” (Tweet). Retrieved April 20, 2019 – via Twitter.
    • Trump, Donald [@realDonaldTrump] (April 19, 2019). “….big, fat, waste of time, energy and money – $30,000,000 to be exact. It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason. This should never happen again!” (Tweet). Retrieved April 20, 2019 – via Twitter.
  • ^ Haring, Bruce (April 20, 2019). “President Donald Trump Tweetstorm – The Saturday Edition”. Deadline. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  • ^ Watkins, Eli (April 22, 2019). “Fact checking Trump’s claims that Mueller did not interview people ‘closest’ to him and his campaign”. CNN. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  • ^ a b Hains, Tim (April 24, 2019). “Trump: ‘The Mueller Report Was Great, It Could Not Have Been Better'”. RealClearPolitics. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Wagner, John (April 24, 2019). “Trump says he would ask Supreme Court to intervene if Democrats move to impeach him”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  • ^ Rowland, Geoffrey (April 25, 2019). “Trump denies ordering McGahn to oust Mueller”. TheHill. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ Smith, Allan (April 25, 2019). “Trump claims he never told McGahn to fire Mueller, but they say otherwise”. NBC News. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ Hicks, Nolan; Fredericks, Bob (April 26, 2019). “Trump says Dems ‘tried for a coup’ in fiery NRA speech”. New York Post. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  • ^ “Trump jokes ‘I didn’t need a gun’ to stop ‘coup'”. CNN. April 26, 2019. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  • ^ Shaw, Adam (April 18, 2019). “Trump declares victory as Mueller report drops: ‘No collusion, no obstruction'”. Fox News. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Smith-Schoenwalder, Cecelia (April 18, 2019). “Trump, Lawyers Declare ‘Total Victory’ After Mueller Report Release”. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Jackson, David (July 30, 2018). “Rudy Giuliani says Donald Trump team preparing report to counter Robert Mueller”. USA Today. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Singman, Brooke (April 17, 2019). “Trump legal team prepares Mueller counter-report, focusing on obstruction allegations”. Fox News. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Halaschak, Zachary (April 19, 2019). “Giuliani: Counter report coming probably next week”. Washington Examiner. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Suebsaeng, Asawin; Markay, Lachlan (August 30, 2018). “Rudy Giuliani Is Putting Together a ‘Counter-Report’ to Question Robert Mueller’s ‘Legitimacy'”. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Plott, Elaina (December 6, 2018). “The White House Has No Plan for Confronting the Mueller Report”. The Atlantic. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Trump, Donald J. [@realDonaldTrump] (December 7, 2018). “It has been incorrectly reported that Rudy Giuliani and others will not be doing a counter to the Mueller Report. That is Fake News. Already 87 pages done, but obviously cannot complete until we see the final Witch Hunt Report” (Tweet). Retrieved April 23, 2019 – via Twitter.
  • ^ Wagner, John; Barrett, Delvin (December 7, 2018). “Trump promises a ‘major Counter Report’ to rebut Mueller’s findings”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Lim, Naomi (April 21, 2019). “Rudy Giuliani: We don’t need to release Mueller counter-report right now”. Washington Examiner. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Bekiempis, Victoria; Pengelly, Martin (April 21, 2019). “Giuliani rails against Mueller report as Democrats mull Trump impeachment”. The Guardian. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Kiely, Eugene; Robertson, Lori; Farley, Robert (April 22, 2019). “Giuliani’s Obstruction Distortions”. Factcheck.org. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/02/white-house-lawyer-mueller-report-1299251
  • ^ Gurman, Sadie (April 11, 2019). “Rod Rosenstein Defends Justice Department Handling of Mueller Report”. The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  • ^ Itkowitz and Zapotosky, Colby and Matt (April 11, 2019). “Rosenstein defends Barr’s handling of Mueller report”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  • ^ Breuninger, Kevin (April 12, 2019). “Rod Rosenstein backs AG William Barr’s handling of Mueller report”. CNBC. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  • ^ a b c d “Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the Armenian Bar Association’s Public Servants Dinner”. Justice.gov. April 25, 2019. Retrieved April 27, 2019. At my confirmation hearing in March 2017, a Republican Senator asked me to make a commitment. He said: ‘You’re going to be in charge of this [Russia] investigation. I want you to look me in the eye and tell me that you’ll do it right, that you’ll take it to its conclusion and you’ll report [your results] to the American people.’ I did pledge to do it right and take it to the appropriate conclusion. I did not promise to report all results to the public, because grand jury investigations are ex parte proceedings. It is not our job to render conclusive factual findings. We just decide whether it is appropriate to file criminal charges. Some critical decisions about the Russia investigation were made before I got there. The previous Administration chose not to publicize the full story about Russian computer hackers and social media trolls, and how they relate to a broader strategy to undermine America. The FBI disclosed classified evidence about the investigation to ranking legislators and their staffers. Someone selectively leaked details to the news media. The FBI Director announced at a congressional hearing that there was a counterintelligence investigation that might result in criminal charges. Then the former FBI Director alleged that the President pressured him to close the investigation, and the President denied that the conversation occurred. […] But the bottom line is, there was overwhelming evidence that Russian operatives hacked American computers and defrauded American citizens, and that is only the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive Russian strategy to influence elections, promote social discord, and undermine America, just like they do in many other countries. […] Today, our nation is safer, elections are more secure, and citizens are better informed about covert foreign influence schemes. But not everybody was happy with my decision, in case you did not notice. It is important to keep a sense of humor in Washington. You just need to accept that politicians need to evaluate everything in terms of the immediate political impact. Then there are the mercenary critics, who get paid to express passionate opinions about any topic, often with little or no information. They do not just express disagreement. They launch ad hominem attacks unrestricted by truth or morality. They make threats, spread fake stories, and even attack your relatives. I saw one of the professional provocateurs at a holiday party. He said, ‘I’m sorry that I’m making your life miserable.’ And I said, ‘You do your job, and I’ll do mine.’ His job is to entertain and motivate partisans, so he can keep making money. My job is to enforce the law in a non-partisan way; that is the whole point of the oath of office. In our Department, we disregard the mercenary critics and focus on the things that matter. As Goethe said, ‘Things that matter most must never be at the mercy of things that matter least.’ A republic that endures is not governed by the news cycle. Some of the nonsense that passes for breaking news today would not be worth the paper was printed on, if anybody bothered to print it. It quickly fades away. The principles are what abide. […] If lawyers cannot prove our case in court, then what we believe is irrelevant. But in politics, belief is the whole ball game. In politics – as in journalism – the rules of evidence do not apply. That is not a critique. It is just an observation.
  • ^ Tucker, Eric (April 26, 2019). “Nearing end of his tenure, Rosenstein hits back at critics”. Associated Press. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
  • ^ a b “Rod Rosenstein shares his thinking about the Mueller investigation”. CBS News. April 26, 2019. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
  • ^ Gurman, Sadie (April 26, 2019). “Rosenstein Takes Aim at Critics, Defends Role in Mueller Investigation”. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
  • ^ Neuhauser, Alan (April 26, 2019). “Rod Rosenstein Takes Aim at Obama, Media”. US News. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
  • ^ a b Benner, Katie (April 26, 2019). “Rosenstein Assails Obama Administration, Comey and Journalists in Defending Handling of Russia Inquiry”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  • ^ Edelman, Adam (April 26, 2019). “Rosenstein speaks out to defend Russia probe, rip Obama administration”. NBC News. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  • ^ DeMarche, Edmund (April 26, 2019). “Rosenstein slams Obama administration for choosing ‘not to publicize full story’ of Russia hacking”. Fox News. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  • ^ “Mueller Letter To Barr”. apps.npr.org. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  • ^ Mazzetti, Mark; Schmidt, Michael S. (April 30, 2019). “Mueller Objected to Barr’s Description of Russia Investigation’s Findings on Trump”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ Jarrett, Laura; Sullivan, Kate (May 1, 2019). “Mueller expressed misgivings to Barr about 4-page letter”. CNN. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ Parker, Ashley; Helderman, Rosalind; Zapotosky, Matt (April 25, 2019). “Stymied by aides, Trump sought out loyalist to curtail special counsel – and drew Mueller’s glare”. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
  • ^ Foran, Clare; Rogers, Alex (April 18, 2019). “Key Democrat says he will issue subpoena for full Mueller report”. CNN. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Rogers, Alex (April 19, 2019). “Mueller report: Judiciary Democrat Jerry Nadler issues subpoena for full report”. CNN. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ a b Chalfant, Morgan (April 19, 2019). “DOJ: Dem subpoena for Mueller report is ‘premature and unnecessary'”. The Hill. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ a b Herridge, Catherine (April 19, 2019). “DOJ calls Nadler subpoena for full Mueller report ‘premature and unnecessary'”. Fox News. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Anapol, Avery (May 1, 2019). “Nadler threatens contempt citation against Barr”. The Hill.
  • ^ Calder, Rich; Feis, Aaron (April 18, 2019). “Republicans, Democrats split on what Mueller report means”. New York Post. Retrieved April 19, 2019.
  • ^ Segers, Grace (April 19, 2019). “Elizabeth Warren calls on Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump”. CBS News. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Booker, Cory [@CoryBooker] (April 18, 2019). “The Trump administration posted an unsearchable pdf of the Mueller report so it would be harder for you to read. We made it easier. Here’s a searchable version: www.scribd.com/document/406729844/Mueller-Report …” (Tweet). Retrieved April 20, 2019 – via Twitter. (link)
  • ^ Budryk, Zack (April 18, 2019). “Booker tweets out searchable version of Mueller report to counter White House”. The Hill. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Johnson, Duff (April 23, 2019). “DoJ reposts the Mueller Report”. PDF Association. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Seward, Zachary M. (April 23, 2019). “The official PDF of the Mueller report has been updated in a subtle but important way”. Quartz. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Baker, Peter; Fandos, Nicholas (April 19, 2019). “Reaction to Mueller Report Divides Along Partisan Lines”. The New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Thomas, Susan; Mazzilli, Meredith; Oatis, Jonathan (April 18, 2019). “Instant View: Reaction to Mueller’s report on Russia’s role in 2016…” Reuters. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ Dorman, Sam (April 20, 2019). “Jim Jordan: American people want accountability for people who started Russia investigation”. Fox News. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Yen, Hope; Woodward, Calvin; Tucker, Eric (April 1, 2019). “AP Fact Check: Trump’s exaggerations about the Russia probe”. Associated Press. Retrieved April 2, 2019.
  • ^ Carney, Jordain (April 19, 2019). “Romney ‘sickened’ by Trump’s behavior in Mueller report”. The Hill. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ “Senator Romney’s Statement on Mueller Report | Senator Mitt Romney”. www.romney.senate.gov (Press release). Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Casiano, Louis (April 20, 2019). “Huckabee lashes out at Trump critic Romney: ‘Makes me sick’ you could have been POTUS”. Fox News. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Knowles, David (April 20, 2019). “Romney ‘sickened’ by Trump administration ‘dishonesty’ exposed by Mueller report”. MSN. Retrieved April 20, 2019.
  • ^ Burke, Michael (April 28, 2019). “Graham: ‘I don’t care’ if Trump told McGahn to fire Mueller”. TheHill. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ a b Yen, Hope. “AP FACT CHECK: Trump, Barr distort Mueller report findings”. Associated Press. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Allsop, Jon. “How the press changed its tune on William Barr”. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  • ^ Gregorian, Dareh. “Who is Attorney General William Barr?”. NBC News. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
  • ^ Farrell, Greg; Schoenberg, Tom (April 20, 2019). “Presidential power gets a booster shot no matter Mueller’s view”. Bloomberg News. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  • ^ Elving, Ron. “The Tell-All Book That Could Trump Them All: The Mueller Report”. NPR. Retrieved April 28, 2019.
  • ^ Mandery, Evan (May 11, 2018). “‘What Happened to Alan Dershowitz?'”. Politico. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  • ^ Dershowitz, Alan (November 28, 2017). “When Politics Is Criminalized”. The New York Times. Retrieved December 2, 2017.
  • ^ Hains, Tim (April 21, 2019). “Dershowitz: Media Gets ‘F’ Grade On Mueller Coverage, CNN Chose To Trust Avenatti Over Me”. Real Clear Politics. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ O’Reilly, Andrew (April 21, 2019). “Dershowitz gives media an ‘F’, says CNN chose Avenatti over him”. Fox News. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Shugerman, Jed (April 25, 2019). “The Trump Campaign Conspired With the Russians. Mueller Proved It”. The New York Times. Retrieved April 27, 2019.
  • ^ Auber, Tamar (April 29, 2019). “Fox News’ Napolitano Stands by Mueller Report Assessment: Shows ‘Classic Obstruction of Justice'”. Mediaite. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Kahn, Chris (April 19, 2019). “Trump approval drops 3 points to 2019 low after release of Mueller report: Reuters/Ipsos poll”. Reuters. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Stein, Letitia; Reid, Tim (April 19, 2019). “Stridently divided, Mueller report strengthen resolves on both sides”. Trust.org. Reuters. Retrieved April 21, 2019.
  • ^ Langer, Gary (April 26, 2019). “Most Americans believe Congress shouldn’t impeach Trump: Poll”. ABC News. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  • ^ “Majority of Americans oppose impeaching Trump, though most say he lied to U.S. public”. The Washington Post. April 26, 2019. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Breuninger, Kevin (April 18, 2019). “House Judiciary Chair calls Mueller to testify after AG’s press conference”. CNBC. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Perticone, Joe (April 18, 2019). “Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have officially requested Mueller testify before Congress”. Business Insider. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Higgins, Tucker (April 22, 2019). “House Judiciary Committee issues subpoena to former White House counsel Don McGahn”. CNBC. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Basu, Zachary (April 22, 2019). “House Judiciary Committee subpoenas Don McGahn”. Axios. Retrieved April 22, 2019.
  • ^ Desiderio, Andrew (April 22, 2019). “Democrats subpoena ex-White House counsel Don McGahn”. Politico. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ Dawsey, Josh; Costa, Robert; Helderman, Rosalind S. (April 23, 2019). “White House plans to fight House subpoena of former counsel Donald McGahn for testimony on Mueller report”. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • ^ Cole, Devan (April 28, 2019). “Conway says Trump’s use of executive privilege to prevent McGahn from complying with House subpoena ‘is always an option'”. CNN. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ Lemire, Jonathan; Tucker, Eric (April 25, 2019). “Trump forms battle plan for post-Mueller probes: Just say no”. Associated Press. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  • ^ Byrnes, Jesse (April 25, 2019). “Barr to testify before House panel next week on Mueller report”. The Hill. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  • ^ Byrnes, Jesse (April 25, 2019). “Republican senators request briefing on DOJ ‘spying’ probe”. The Hill. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  • ^ Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (April 28, 2019). “Barr Threatens Not to Testify Before House, but Democrats May Subpoena Him”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ a b CNN, Manu Raju, Jeremy Herb and Laura Jarrett (May 1, 2019). “Barr’s appearance at House hearing now in doubt because of dispute with Democrats”. CNN. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ Budryk, Zack (April 29, 2019). “Pelosi: Barr will be ‘obstructing Congress’ if he does not appear before House Judiciary”. TheHill. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ Singman, Brooke (April 29, 2019). “Trump officials clash with Congress over hearing demands”. Fox News. Retrieved April 30, 2019.
  • ^ a b Fandos, Nicholas (May 2, 2019). “Pelosi Accuses Barr of Law-Breaking as Democrats’ War With Attorney General Boils Over”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  • ^ “Congressman shades Attorney General Barr by bringing bucket of KFC and chicken statue to the hearing Barr skipped”. www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  • ^ Beavers, Olivia (May 1, 2019). “Barr says he didn’t review underlying evidence of Mueller report before making obstruction call”. TheHill.
  • ^ “William Barr testifies on the Mueller report: Live updates”. www.cnn.com. May 1, 2019. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ “Harris grills Barr about Rod Rosenstein’s dual roles as investigation supervisor and witness”. www.cnn.com. May 1, 2019. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Sullivan, Kate (May 2, 2019). “Clinton: Barr’s argument for the President being able to fire investigators is ‘the road to tyranny'”. CNN. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Sakelaris, Nicholas; Haynes, Danielle. “AG William Barr defends handling of Mueller report at Senate hearing”. United Press International. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Cheney, Kyle; Desiderio, Andrew (May 1, 2019). “The Barr-Mueller breakup: AG works to discredit special counsel”. Politico. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Chait, Jonathan (May 1, 2019). “Barr: It’s Not Obstruction of Justice If the Obstruction Works”. New York. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ a b Pramuk, Jacob (May 2, 2019). “Nancy Pelosi accuses William Barr of committing a crime”. www.cnbc.com. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ Qiu, Linda (May 1, 2019). “6 Evasive or Inaccurate Statements in Barr’s Senate Testimony”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 2, 2019.
  • ^ https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/democrats-threaten-contempt-for-barr-over-mueller-report
  • ^ a b https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nadler-offers-doj-counter-offer-to-view-redacted-mueller-report/
  • ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/03/contempt-congress-william-barr-democrats/3647317002/
  • ^ https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/03/nadler-barr-in-contempt-1300548
  • ^ Act of January 24, 1857, Ch. 19, sec. 1, 11 Stat. 155.
  • ^ Polantz, Katelyn (April 18, 2019). “Justice Dept. to release two versions of redacted Mueller report”. CNN. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ “The Latest: Top lawmakers will see less redacted report”. Associated Press. April 18, 2019. Retrieved April 18, 2019.
  • ^ Shabad, Rebecca (April 19, 2019). “House Judiciary Chairman Nadler subpoenas full, unredacted Mueller report”. NBC News. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  • External links[edit]

    • Mueller Report, redacted version publicly released April 18, 2019:
      • Justice.gov downloadable, searchable PDF
      • New York Times; Scribd; Archive.org
      • Audio from Audible (free registration needed)
    • Letter from Attorney General William Barr to leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees of the principal conclusions of the Mueller investigation (March 24, 2019)
    • Official Website of the United States Department of Justice: Office of Special Counsel
    • Litigation Documents Related to the Mueller Investigation via Lawfare
    • Index to the Mueller report: browse hundreds of Names and Topics, from Clinton emails to Putin to GRU to IRA to Trump Moscow Tower, which are alphabetized and shown next to the statements in which they appear. Click the link preceding every statement to go to the exact paragraph in the report. prepared by WhoSaidSo.org


    Bureau of National Investigations

    The Bureau of National Investigations(BNI) is the internal intelligence agency of Ghana.[1] The BNI is an integral part of the National Security Council which oversees matters of the counterintelligence and internal security of Ghana.[1] The BNI has investigative jurisdiction to arrest or detain and interrogate over a wide range of criminal offenses.[1]

    Among the duties of the Bureau of National Investigations are dealing with organized crime and financial crime, espionage, sabotage, terrorism, hijacking, piracy, drug trafficking and providing intelligence to counter threats to Ghana’s national security[1] and also perform such other functions as may be directed by the President or the Council.[2] The BNI is legally a creature of, The Security and Intelligence Agencies Act (Act 526) 1996, having been continued in existence by Section 10 of that Act.[1] The BNI has undisclosed offices in all the ten regions of Ghana .[1]

    Organization[edit]

    The Bureau of National Investigations, previously known as the “Special Branch,” is a counterintelligence and internal security agency, composed of civilian personnel whose role is to establish close surveillance over opponents of the Republic of Ghana and the Government of Ghana.[3] The BNI has power to interrogate and detain people whom they suspect of subversion without trial indefinitely, on grounds of national security of the Republic of Ghana. The BNI has overriding statutory authority over other security services

    References[edit]

    Sources[edit]

  • ^ a b c d e f The Security and Intelligence Agencies Act (Act 526) 1996, Ghana.
  • ^ “Functions Of The Intelligence Agencies”. laws.ghanalegal.com..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ Ghana: Information on the Bureau of National Investigations and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID)

  • Hillsborough catastrophe

    Incident which occurred during the FA Cup semi-final match in 1989

    The Hillsborough disaster was a fatal crush of people during an FA Cup semi-final football match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England, on 15 April 1989. With 96 fatalities and 766 injuries, it remains the worst disaster in British sporting history.[1] The crush occurred in the two standing-only central pens in the Leppings Lane stand, allocated to Liverpool supporters. Shortly before kick-off, in an attempt to ease overcrowding outside the entrance turnstiles, the police match commander, chief superintendent David Duckenfield, ordered exit gate C to be opened, leading to an influx of even more supporters to the already overcrowded central pens.[2]

    In the days and weeks following the disaster, police fed false stories to the press suggesting that hooliganism and drunkenness by Liverpool supporters were the root causes of the disaster. Blaming of Liverpool fans persisted even after the Taylor Report of 1990, which found that the main cause of the disaster was a failure of control by South Yorkshire Police (SYP).[3] Following the Taylor report, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) ruled there was no evidence to justify prosecution of any individuals or institutions.[3] The disaster also led to a number of safety improvements in the largest English football grounds, notably the elimination of fenced standing terraces in favour of all-seater stadiums in the top two tiers of English football.[4][5]

    The first coroner’s inquests into the Hillsborough disaster, completed in 1991, ruled all deaths that occurred that day to be accidental.[6] Families strongly rejected the original coroner’s findings,[3] and their fight to have the matter re-opened persisted, despite Lord Justice Stuart-Smith concluding in 1997 there was no justification for a new inquiry.[3] Private prosecutions brought by the Hillsborough Families Support Group against Duckenfield and his deputy Bernard Murray failed in 2000.[3]

    In 2009, a Hillsborough Independent Panel was formed to review all evidence.[3][7] Reporting in 2012, it confirmed Taylor’s 1990 criticisms, while also revealing new details about the extent of police efforts to shift blame onto fans, the role of other emergency services, and the error of the first coroner’s inquests.[7][8][9][10] The panel’s report resulted in the previous findings of accidental death being quashed, and the creation of new coroner’s inquests. It also produced two criminal investigations led by police in 2012: Operation Resolve to look into the causes of the disaster, and by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to examine actions by police in the aftermath.[11]

    The second coroner’s inquests were held from 1 April 2014 to 26 April 2016.[12] They ruled that the supporters were unlawfully killed due to grossly negligent failures by police and ambulance services to fulfil their duty of care to the supporters.[2][3] The inquests also found that the design of the stadium contributed to the crush, and that supporters were not to blame for the dangerous conditions.[12] Public anger over the actions of his force during the second inquests led the SYP chief constable David Crompton to be suspended following the verdict.[13] In June 2017, six people were charged with various offences including manslaughter by gross negligence, misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice for their actions during and after the disaster. The Crown Prosecution Service subsequently dropped all charges against one of the defendants.

    .mw-parser-output .toclimit-2 .toclevel-1 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-3 .toclevel-2 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-4 .toclevel-3 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-5 .toclevel-4 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-6 .toclevel-5 ul,.mw-parser-output .toclimit-7 .toclevel-6 ul{display:none}

    Contents

    • 1 Before the disaster
      • 1.1 Venue
        • 1.1.1 Previous incidents
      • 1.2 Yorkshire police command changes
    • 2 Disaster
      • 2.1 Build-up
      • 2.2 Timeline
      • 2.3 Crush
        • 2.3.1 SYMAS response to the crush
      • 2.4 Reactions
      • 2.5 Disaster appeal fund
      • 2.6 Effect on survivors
    • 3 Victims
      • 3.1 Ages
    • 4 1989–1991 coroner’s hearing
    • 5 Taylor Inquiry
      • 5.1 Police control
      • 5.2 Behaviour of fans
      • 5.3 Emergency response
      • 5.4 Police evasion
      • 5.5 Effect on stadiums in Britain
    • 6 Stuart-Smith scrutiny
    • 7 Hillsborough Independent Panel
      • 7.1 History
      • 7.2 Findings
      • 7.3 Effects
    • 8 Second coroner’s hearing
      • 8.1 Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation
      • 8.2 ‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’ report
    • 9 Criminal and civil cases
      • 9.1 Prosecutions
      • 9.2 Psychiatric injury and other litigation
    • 10 Memorials
      • 10.1 Permanent memorials
      • 10.2 Memorial ceremonies
      • 10.3 10th anniversary
      • 10.4 20th anniversary
      • 10.5 Other tributes
    • 11 Controversies
      • 11.1 Media portrayal
        • 11.1.1 The Sun
        • 11.1.2 The Times
        • 11.1.3 FHM
        • 11.1.4 The Spectator
      • 11.2 EastEnders
      • 11.3 Charles Itandje
      • 11.4 Jeremy Hunt
      • 11.5 Fans’ chants
      • 11.6 Oliver Popplewell
      • 11.7 David Crompton
      • 11.8 Civil servant
      • 11.9 Steven Cohen
      • 11.10 Bernard Ingham
      • 11.11 Topman
    • 12 Radio, television and theatre
      • 12.1 1989: After Dark
      • 12.2 1996 drama
      • 12.3 2009 The Reunion
      • 12.4 2014/2016 documentary
      • 12.5 Stage plays
    • 13 References
    • 14 Further reading
    • 15 External links

    Before the disaster

    The West Stand of Sheffield Wednesday’s Hillsborough Stadium, where the disaster unfolded, seen two years later in 1991.

    Venue

    Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, the home of Sheffield Wednesday, was selected by the Football Association (FA) as a neutral venue to host the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest football clubs. Kick-off was scheduled for 3:00 pm on 15 April, and fans were advised to take up positions 15 minutes beforehand.[14]

    At the time of the disaster, most English football stadiums had high steel fencing between the spectators and the playing field in response to both friendly and hostile pitch invasions. Hooliganism had affected the sport for some years, and was particularly virulent in England.[15] From 1974, when these security standards were put in place, crushes occurred in several English stadiums.[16]

    A report by Eastwood & Partners for a safety certificate for the stadium in 1978 concluded that although it failed to meet the recommendations of the Green Guide, a guide to safety at sports grounds, the consequences were minor. It emphasised the general situation at Hillsborough was satisfactory compared with most grounds.[9]:67

    Risks associated with confining fans in pens were highlighted by the Committee of Inquiry into Crowd Safety at Sports Grounds (the Popplewell inquiry) after the Bradford City stadium fire in May 1985. It made recommendations on the safety of crowds penned within fences,[17] including that “all exit gates should be manned at all times … and capable of being opened immediately from the inside by anyone in an emergency”.[18]

    Previous incidents

    Hillsborough hosted five FA Cup semi-finals in the 1980s. A crush occurred at the Leppings Lane end of the ground during the 1981 semi-final between Tottenham Hotspur and Wolverhampton Wanderers after hundreds more spectators were permitted to enter the terrace than could safely be accommodated, resulting in 38 injuries, including broken arms, legs and ribs.[19] Police believed there had been a real chance of fatalities had swift action not been taken, and recommended the club reduce its capacity. In a post-match briefing to discuss the incident, Sheffield Wednesday chairman Bert McGee remarked: “Bollocks—no one would have been killed”.[20][21] The incident nonetheless prompted Sheffield Wednesday to alter the layout at the Leppings Lane end, dividing the terrace into three separate pens to restrict sideways movement.[9] This 1981 change and other later changes to the stadium invalidated the stadium’s safety certificate. The safety certificate was never renewed and the stated capacity of the stadium was never changed.[9][22] The terrace was divided into five pens when the club was promoted to the First Division in 1984, and a crush barrier near the access tunnel was removed in 1986 to improve the flow of fans entering and exiting the central enclosure.

    After the crush in 1981, Hillsborough was not chosen to host an FA Cup semi-final for six years until 1987.[9] Serious overcrowding was observed at the 1987 quarter-final between Sheffield Wednesday and Coventry City[23] and again during the semi-final between Coventry City and Leeds United at Hillsborough.[24] Leeds were assigned the Leppings Lane end. A Leeds fan described disorganisation at the turnstiles and no steward or police direction inside the stadium, resulting in the crowd in one enclosure becoming so compressed he was at times unable to raise and clap his hands.[24] Other accounts told of fans having to be pulled to safety from above.[9]

    Liverpool and Nottingham Forest met in the semi-final at Hillsborough in 1988, and fans reported crushing at the Leppings Lane end. Liverpool lodged a complaint before the match in 1989. One supporter wrote to the Football Association and Minister for Sport complaining, “The whole area was packed solid to the point where it was impossible to move and where I, and others around me, felt considerable concern for personal safety”.[25]

    Yorkshire police command changes

    Police presence at the previous year’s FA Cup semi-final (also between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest and also at Hillsborough Stadium) had been overseen by Chief Superintendent Brian L. Mole.[26] Mole had supervised numerous police deployments at the stadium in the past. In October 1988 a probationary PC in Mole’s F division, South Yorkshire was handcuffed, photographed, and stripped by fellow officers in a fake robbery, as a hazing prank. Four officers resigned and seven were disciplined over the incident. Chief Superintendent Mole himself was to be transferred to the Barnsley division for “career development reasons”. The transfer was to be done with immediate effect on 27 March 1989.[27]

    Meanwhile, Hillsborough was accepted as the FA Cup semi-final venue on 20 March 1989 by the Football Association.[26] The first planning meeting for the semi-final took place on 22 March and was attended by newly promoted Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, not by Mole. No known minutes exist of this meeting.[27] Although Mole could have been assigned the semi-final match’s planning despite his transfer, that was not done. This left planning for the semi-final match to Duckenfield, who had never commanded a sell-out football match before, and who had “very little, if any” training or personal experience in how to do so.[28]

    Disaster

    Leppings Lane was the sole access point for Liverpool supporters. The approach has been described as a “bottleneck” in which attendees had to fill two sides of the stadium.[29]

    Build-up

    As is common at domestic matches in England, opposing supporters were segregated. Nottingham Forest supporters were allocated the South Stands and Spion Kop[a] on the east end, with a combined capacity of 29,800, reached by 60 turnstiles spaced along two sides of the ground. Liverpool supporters were allocated the North and West ends (Leppings Lane), holding 24,256 fans, reached by 23 turnstiles from a narrow concourse. Turnstiles numbered 1 to 10, 10 in all, provided access to 9,700 seats in the North Stand; a further 6 turnstiles (numbered 11 to 16) provided access to 4,456 seats in the upper tier of the West Stand. Finally, 7 turnstiles (lettered A to G) provided access to 10,100 standing places in the lower tier of the West Stand. Although Liverpool had more supporters, Nottingham Forest was allocated the larger area, to avoid the approach routes of rival fans crossing. As a result of the stadium layout and segregation policy, turnstiles that would normally have been used to enter the North Stand from the east were off-limits and all Liverpool supporters had to converge on a single entrance at Leppings Lane. On match day, radio and television advised fans without tickets not to attend. Rather than establishing crowd safety as the priority, clubs, local authorities and the police viewed their roles and responsibilities through the ‘lens of hooliganism’.[30]

    Timeline

    Three chartered trains transported Liverpool supporters to Sheffield for a match fixture[b] in 1988, but only one such train ran in 1989. The 350 passengers arrived on the grounds about 2:20 pm.[31] Many supporters wished to enjoy the day and were in no hurry to enter the stadium too early. Some supporters were delayed by roadworks while crossing the Pennines on the M62 motorway which resulted in minor traffic congestion. Between 2:30 pm and 2:40 pm, there was a build-up of supporters outside the turnstiles facing Leppings Lane, eager to enter the stadium before the game began.[32] At 2:46 pm, the BBC’s football commentator John Motson had already noticed the imbalance of distribution of people in the Leppings Lane pens. While rehearsing for the match off-air, he suggested a nearby cameraman look as well.[33] “There’s gaps, you know, in parts of the ground. Well, if you look at the Liverpool end, to the right of the goal, there’s hardly anybody on those steps…that’s it. Look down there.”[33]

    Outside the stadium, a bottleneck developed with more fans arriving than could be safely filtered through the turnstiles before 3:00 pm. People presenting tickets at the wrong turnstiles and those who had been refused entry could not leave because of the crowd behind them but remained as an obstruction. Fans outside could hear cheering as the teams came on the pitch ten minutes before the match started, and as the match kicked off, but could not gain entrance. A police constable radioed control requesting that the game be delayed, as it had been two years before, to ensure the safe passage of supporters into the ground. The request to delay the start of the match by 20 minutes was declined.[34][35]

    With an estimated 5,000 fans trying to enter through the turnstiles and increasing safety concerns, the police, to avoid fatalities outside the ground, opened a large exit gate (Gate C) that ordinarily permitted the free flow of supporters departing the stadium. Two further gates (A and B) were subsequently opened to relieve pressure. After an initial rush, thousands of supporters entered the stadium “steadily at a fast walk”.[36]

    The scene outside the ground as the disaster began

    Crush

    BBC television cameras were at the ground to record the game for Match of the Day. As the disaster unfolded, the events were relayed live to the Saturday sports show, Grandstand. In Ireland, RTÉ also showed the disaster unfolding, as it was covering the match live through its programme Sports Stadium.

    When the gates were opened, thousands of fans entered a narrow tunnel leading to the rear of the terrace into two overcrowded central pens (pens 3 and 4), creating pressure at the front. Hundreds of people were pressed against one another and the fencing by the weight of the crowd behind them.[37] People entering were unaware of the problems at the fence; police or stewards usually stood at the entrance to the tunnel and, when the central pens reached capacity, directed fans to the side pens, but on this occasion, for reasons not fully explained, they did not.[38] A BBC TV news report conjectured that if police had positioned two police horses correctly, they would have acted as breakwaters directing many fans into side pens, but on this occasion, it was not done.

    The match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest began as scheduled at 3:00 pm. Fans were still streaming into pens 3 and 4 from the rear entrance tunnel as the match began. For some time, problems at the front of the Liverpool central goal pens went largely unnoticed except by those inside it, and by a few police at that end of the pitch. Liverpool’s goalkeeper, Bruce Grobbelaar, reported fans from behind him pleading to him for help as the situation worsened.[34] The police at first attempted to stop fans from spilling out of the pens, some believing this to be a pitch invasion. At approximately 3:05 pm in match action, Peter Beardsley kicked a shot which struck Nottingham Forest’s goal bar. Possibly connected to the excitement, a surge in pen 3 caused one of its metal crush barriers to give way,[38] thrusting people forward on top of one another, and into the pen’s front fences.

    South Yorkshire Police Superintendent Greenwood (the ground commander) realised the situation, and ran on the field to gain referee Ray Lewis’s attention. Lewis stopped the match at 3:05:30[39] as fans climbed the fence in an effort to escape the crush and went onto the track. By this time, a small gate in the fence had been forced open and some fans escaped via this route, as others continued to climb over the fencing. Other fans were pulled to safety by fans in the West Stand above the Leppings Lane terrace. The intensity of the crush broke more crush barriers on the terraces. Holes in the perimeter fencing were made by fans desperately attempting to rescue others.[38]

    The crowd in the Leppings Lane Stand overspilled onto the pitch, where the many injured and traumatised fans who had climbed to safety congregated.[38] Football players from both teams were ushered to their respective dressing rooms, and told that there would be a 30-minute postponement.[34] Those still trapped in the pens were packed so tightly that many victims died of compressive asphyxia while standing. Meanwhile, on the pitch, police, stewards and members of the St John Ambulance service were overwhelmed. Many uninjured fans assisted the injured; several attempted CPR and others tore down advertising hoardings to use as stretchers.[38] Chief Superintendent John Nesbit of South Yorkshire Police later briefed Michael Shersby MP that leaving the rescue to the fans was a deliberate strategy, and is quoted as saying “We let the fans help so that they would not take out their frustration on the police” at a Police Federation conference.[40]

    Liverpool fans desperately try to climb the fence onto the safety of the pitch while being stopped by the police.

    As events unfolded, some police officers were still deployed making a cordon three-quarters of the way down the pitch to prevent Liverpool supporters reaching the opposing supporters. Without public address announcements to explain the situation, many Nottingham Forest fans on the other end were chanting for their team and whistled their anger at what they saw as a pitch invasion, incensing some of the Liverpool supporters. Some fans tried to break through the cordon simply to ferry injured fans to waiting ambulances on the Nottingham Forest end but were forcibly turned back.

    SYMAS response to the crush

    The agreed upon protocol for the South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service (SYMAS) was that ambulances were to queue at the entrance to the gymnasium, termed the casualty reception point, or CRP.[41]:145 Any individuals within the stadium in need of medical attention were to be delivered expeditiously by police and paramedics to the CRP.[41]:142

    The system of ferrying injured from any location within the stadium to the CRP required a formal declaration to be made by those in charge for it to take effect.[41]:137,138 As this declaration was not immediately performed, confusion reigned over those attempting to administer aid on the pitch. This confusion migrated to the first responders waiting in ambulances at the CRP, a location which quickly deteriorated into an ambulance parking lot.[41]:143 Some crews were hesitant to leave their vehicles, unsure of whether patients were coming to them, or vice versa.[41]:138–140 Others who did leave their vehicles were then faced with the obstacles inherent in placing distance between oneself and one’s equipment. As the Panel explained in their report:

    “The equipment was no use on the ambulance vehicle when critical early resuscitation was taking place some distance away on the pitch, behind the Leppings Lane end and in the gymnasium. Some ambulance crew did take equipment when they left their vehicle, but there was no systematic direction to do so, not all did, and none initially had been given any information about the situation inside the stadium.”[41]:146

    A total of 42 ambulances arrived at the stadium.[41]:149 Out of this number, two managed of their own accord to make their way onto the pitch — while a third ambulance made its way onto the pitch at the direction of DCAO Hopkins, who felt its visibility might allay crowd concerns.[41]:149[42][43][44][45] The remaining 39 ambulances were collectively able to transport approximately 149 people to either Northern General Hospital, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, or Barnsley Hospital for treatment.[41]:149

    The adverse comments of two doctors regarding the emergency response appeared in the media. Their views were not “the maverick view from a disaffected minority but the considered opinion of the majority of professionals present from the outset”.[46]

    Reactions

    Condolences flooded in from across the world, led by the Queen. Other messages came from Pope John Paul II, US President George H. W. Bush, and the chief executive of Juventus (fans of Liverpool and Juventus were involved in the Heysel Stadium disaster) amongst many others.[47]

    Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Home Secretary Douglas Hurd visited Hillsborough the day after the disaster and met survivors.[48] Anfield Stadium was opened on the Sunday to allow fans to pay tribute to the dead. Thousands of fans visited and the stadium filled with flowers, scarves and other tributes.[47] In the following days more than 200,000 people visited the “shrine” inside the stadium.[49] The following Sunday, a link of football scarves spanning the 1.6 kilometres (0.99 mi) distance across Stanley Park from Goodison Park to Anfield was created, with the final scarf in position at 3:06 pm.[50] Elsewhere on the same day, a silence–opened with an air-raid siren at three o’clock–was held in central Nottingham with the colours of Forest, Liverpool and Wednesday adorning Nottingham Council House.[50]

    At Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral, a requiem mass attended by 3,000 people was held by the Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool, Derek Worlock. The first reading was read by Liverpool goalkeeper Bruce Grobbelaar. Liverpool players Ronnie Whelan, Steve Nicol, and former manager Joe Fagan carried the communion bread and wine.[51] David Sheppard, the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, on holiday on the Scottish island of Barra on the day of the disaster, was airlifted by RAF helicopter to attend.

    The FA chief executive Graham Kelly, who had attended the match, said the FA would conduct an inquiry into what had happened. Speaking after the disaster, Kelly backed all-seater stadiums, saying “We must move fans away from the ritual of standing on terraces”.[48] Standing on terraces and the use of perimeter fencing around the pitch, the use of CCTV, the timing of football matches and policing of sporting events were factors for a subsequent inquiry to consider.[52]

    UEFA President Jacques Georges caused controversy by describing the Liverpool supporters as “beasts”,[53] wrongly suggesting that hooliganism was the cause of the disaster, which had occurred less than four years after the Heysel Stadium disaster. His remarks led to Liverpool F.C. calling for his resignation, but he apologised on discovering hooliganism was not the cause.[53]

    At the 1989 FA Cup Final between Liverpool and local rivals Everton, held just five weeks after the Hillsborough disaster, the players from both participating teams wore black armbands as a gesture of respect to the victims,[54] with a minute’s silence also observed.

    During the final match of the 1988–89 English Football League season, contested on 26 May 1989 between Liverpool and second-place Arsenal, the Arsenal players presented flowers to fans in different parts of Anfield in memory of those who had died in the Hillsborough disaster.[55][56]

    Disaster appeal fund

    A disaster appeal fund was set up with donations of £500,000 from the Government, £100,000 from Liverpool F.C. and £25,000 each from the cities of Liverpool, Sheffield and Nottingham.[48] Liverpool donated the share of the money they would have received for the game.[47] Within days donations had passed £1 million,[49] swelled by donations from individuals, schools and businesses.[57] Other fund raising activities included a Factory Records benefit concert and several fundraising football matches. Bradford City and Lincoln City, the teams involved in the Bradford City stadium fire, met for the first time since the 1985 disaster in a game which raised £25,000. When the appeal closed the following year, it had raised over £12 million.[58] Much of the money went to victims and relatives of those involved in the disaster and provided funds for a college course to improve the hospital phase of emergency care.[59]

    In May 1989, a charity version of the Gerry and the Pacemakers song “Ferry Cross the Mersey” was released in aid of those affected. The song featured Liverpool musicians Paul McCartney, Gerry Marsden (of the Pacemakers), Holly Johnson, and the Christians, and was produced by Stock Aitken Waterman. It entered the UK Singles Chart at number 1 on 20 May, remaining at the top for a total of three weeks.[60] Although Gerry and the Pacemakers’ earlier hit “You’ll Never Walk Alone” had stronger ties to Liverpool FC, it was not used because it had recently been rerecorded for the Bradford City stadium fire appeal.[61][62]

    Effect on survivors

    By the disaster’s 10th anniversary in 1999, at least three people who survived were known to have committed suicide. Another survivor had spent eight years in psychiatric care. There were cases of alcoholism, drug abuse, and collapsed marriages involving people who had witnessed the events. The lingering effects of the disaster were seen as a cause, or contributary factor, in all of these.[63]

    The Memorial to the fatalities of the Hillsborough disaster at Hillsborough Stadium

    Victims

    A total of 96 people died as a result of injuries incurred during the disaster. Ninety-four persons, aged from 10 to 67 years old, died on the day, either at the stadium, in the ambulances, or shortly after arrival at hospital.[64] A total of 766 people were reported to have suffered injuries, although less than half required hospital treatment. The less seriously injured survivors who did not live in the Sheffield area were advised to seek treatment for their injuries at hospitals nearer to their homes.[65] On 19 April, the death toll reached 95 when 14-year-old Lee Nicol died in hospital after his life support machine was switched off.[66][67] The death toll reached 96 in March 1993, when artificial feeding and hydration were withdrawn from 22-year-old Tony Bland after nearly four years, during which time he had remained in a persistent vegetative state showing no sign of improvement. This followed a legal challenge in the High Court by his family to have his treatment withdrawn, a landmark challenge which succeeded in November 1992.

    Andrew Devine, aged 22 at the time of the disaster, suffered similar injuries to Tony Bland and was also diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. In March 1997—just before the eighth anniversary of the disaster—it was reported he had emerged from the condition and was able to communicate using a touch-sensitive pad, and he had been showing signs of awareness of his surroundings for up to three years before. He is still alive as of 2015[update].[68]

    Two sisters, three pairs of brothers, and a father and son were among those who died,[64] as were two men about to become fathers for the first time: 25-year-old Steven Brown of Wrexham[69] and 30-year-old Peter Thompson of Widnes.[70] Jon-Paul Gilhooley, aged 10, was the youngest person to die. His cousin, Steven Gerrard, then aged 8, went on to become Liverpool F.C.’s captain. Gerrard has said the disaster inspired him to lead the team he supported as a boy and become a top professional football player.[71] The oldest person to die at Hillsborough was 67-year-old Gerard Baron, an older brother of the already-deceased (in 1971) Liverpool player Kevin Baron.

    Stephen Whittle is considered by some to be the 97th victim of Hillsborough, as due to work commitments, he had sold his ticket to a friend (whom he and his family chose not to identify), who then died in the disaster; the resulting feeling of survivor guilt is believed to be the main reason for his suicide in February 2011.[72]

    The majority of victims that lost their lives were from Liverpool (37) and Greater Merseyside (20). A further 20 were from counties adjacent to Merseyside. An additional 3 victims came from Sheffield with 2 more living in counties adjacent to South Yorkshire. The remaining 14 victims lived in other parts of England.

    Ages

    Of those who died, 78 were aged under 30, 38 of whom were under 20, and all but three of the victims were aged under 50.[73]

    1989–1991 coroner’s hearing

    Inquests into the deaths were opened and adjourned immediately after the disaster.

    Resumed on 19 November 1990,[46] they proved to be controversial. South Yorkshire coroner Dr Stefan Popper limited the main inquests to events up to 3:15 pm on the day of the disaster – nine minutes after the match was halted and the crowd spilled onto the pitch. Popper said this was because the victims were either dead, or brain dead, by 3:15 pm. The decision angered the families, many of whom felt the inquests were unable to consider the response of the police and other emergency services after that time.[74] The inquests returned verdicts of accidental death on 26 March 1991, much to the dismay of the bereaved families, who had been hoping for a verdict of unlawful killing or an open verdict, and for manslaughter charges to be brought against the officers who had been present at the disaster. Trevor Hicks, whose two daughters had been killed, described the verdicts as ‘lawful’ but ‘immoral’.[75]

    Popper’s decision regarding the cut-off time was subsequently endorsed by the Divisional Court who considered it to have been justified in the light of the medical evidence available to him.[76] Relatives later failed to have the inquests reopened to allow more scrutiny of police actions and closer examination of the circumstances of individual cases.

    Families believed that Popper was ‘too close’ to the police. After the verdicts Barry Devonside, who had lost his son, witnessed Popper hosting a celebration party with police officers.[77]

    One of the individual cases where the circumstances of death were not fully resolved was that of Kevin Williams, the fifteen-year-old son of Anne Williams. Anne Williams, who died in 2013, rejected the coroner’s decision that the Hillsborough victims, including her son, had died before 3:15 pm, citing witness statements that described him showing signs of life at 4:00 pm. She unsuccessfully appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in 2009.[78] The Hillsborough Independent Panel considered the available evidence and stated that “the initial pathologist’s opinion appeared definitive, but further authoritative opinions raised significant doubts about the accuracy of that initial opinion.”[9]:313

    Popper had excluded the witness evidence of two qualified Merseyside doctors (Drs Ashton and Phillips) who had been inside the stadium on the day and who had been critical of the chaotic emergency response.[79] The views of both were dismissed by the Taylor report. They both gave evidence at the 2016 Warrington inquests.[80] Phillips, stated that the exclusion of their evidence was a ‘serious error of judgement’ by Popper. He expressed that he ‘could not fathom why he didn’t call us, other than he specifically did not want to hear our evidence, in which case the first inquests were coloured and flawed before they even started’.[81]

    Ashton and Phillips were not the only doctors present at the disaster not to be called to give evidence to the Popper inquests. The only one called was the Sheffield Wednesday club doctor.[82]

    Taylor Inquiry

    Main article: Taylor Report

    After the disaster, Lord Justice Taylor was appointed to conduct an inquiry into the events. The Taylor Inquiry sat for a total of 31 days (between 15 May and 29 June 1989) and published two reports: an interim report (1 August 1989) which laid out the events of the day and immediate conclusions,[83] and the final report (19 January 1990) which outlined general recommendations on football ground safety. This became known as the Taylor Report.

    Taylor concluded that policing on the day “broke down” and “the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control”.[84] Attention was focused on the decision to open the secondary gates; moreover, the kick-off should have been delayed, as had been done at other venues and matches.

    Sheffield Wednesday was also criticised for the inadequate number of turnstiles at the Leppings Lane end and the poor quality of the crush barriers on the terraces, “respects in which failure by the Club contributed to this disaster”.[85]

    Police control

    Taylor found there was “no provision” for controlling the entry of spectators into the turnstile area. He dismissed the claim by senior police officers that they had no reason to anticipate problems, since congestion had occurred at both the 1987 and 1988 semi-finals.[86] He said that “the Operational Order and police tactics on the day failed to provide for controlling a concentrated arrival of large numbers should that occur in a short period. That it might so occur was foreseeable”.[87] The failure by the police to give the order to direct fans to empty areas of the stadium, was described by Taylor as “a blunder of the first magnitude”.[88]

    There was no means for calculating when individual enclosures had reached capacity. A police officer ordinarily made a visual assessment before guiding fans to other pens.[89] However, on the day of the disaster, “by 2.52 pm when gate C was opened, pens 3 and 4 were over-full […] to allow any more into those pens was likely to cause injuries; to allow in a large stream was courting disaster”.[90]

    The report noted that the official capacity of the central pens was 2,200, that the Health and Safety Executive found this should have been reduced to 1,693 due to crush barriers and perimeter gates,[91] but actually an estimated 3,000 people were in the pens around 3:00 pm. The report said “When spectators first appeared on the track, the immediate assumption in the control room was that a pitch invasion was threatened. This was unlikely at the beginning of a match. It became still less likely when those on the track made no move towards the pitch. … [T]here was no effective leadership either from control or on the pitch to harness and organise rescue efforts. No orders were given for officers to enter the tunnel and relieve pressure”.[92] Further that: “The anxiety to protect the sanctity of the pitch has caused insufficient attention to be paid to the risk of a crush due to overcrowding”.[93]

    Lord Taylor regarded spectator allocation as irrelevant to the disaster. “I do not consider choice of ends was causative of the disaster. Had it been reversed, the disaster could well have occurred in a similar manner but to Nottingham supporters”.[84]

    Lord Taylor noted with regard to the performance of the senior police officers in command that “…neither their handling of the problems on the day nor their account of it in evidence showed the qualities of leadership to be expected of their rank” [84]

    Behaviour of fans

    Lord Taylor concluded that the behaviour of Liverpool fans, including accusations of drunkenness, were secondary factors, and said that most fans were: “not drunk, nor even the worse for drink”. He concluded that this formed an exacerbating factor[32] but that police, seeking to rationalise their loss of control, overestimated the element of drunkenness in the crowd.[94]

    The report dismissed the theory, put forward by South Yorkshire Police, that fans attempting to gain entry without tickets or with forged tickets were contributing factors.[86]

    Emergency response

    Taylor concluded that in responding to the disaster there had been no fault on the part of the emergency services (St Johns Ambulance, South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service and fire brigade).[95]

    Police evasion

    Taylor concluded his criticism of South Yorkshire Police by describing senior officers in command as “defensive and evasive witnesses” who refused to accept any responsibility for error: “In all some 65 police officers gave oral evidence at the Inquiry. Sadly I must report that for the most part the quality of their evidence was in inverse proportion to their rank”.[84] Further stating: “South Yorkshire Police were not prepared to concede they were in any respect at fault in what occurred. … [T]he police case was to blame the fans for being late and drunk, and to blame the Club for failing to monitor the pens. … Such an unrealistic approach gives cause for anxiety as to whether lessons have been learnt”.[96]

    Effect on stadiums in Britain

    The Den, opened in 1993, became the first new stadium fully compliant with the safety recommendations of the Taylor Report.

    The Taylor Report had a deep impact on safety standards for stadiums in the UK. Perimeter and lateral fencing was removed and many top stadiums were converted to all-seated.[97] Purpose-built stadiums for Premier League and most Football League teams since the report are all-seater.[98] Chester City F.C.’s Deva Stadium was the first English football stadium to fulfil the safety recommendations of the Taylor Report, with Millwall F.C.’s The Den being the first new stadium to be built that fulfilled the recommendations.

    In July 1992, the government announced a relaxation of the regulation for the lower two English leagues (known now as League One and League Two). The Football Spectators Act does not cover Scotland, but the Scottish Premier League chose to make all-seater stadiums a requirement of league membership.[99] In England and Wales all-seating is a requirement of the Premier League[100] and of the Football League for clubs who have been present in the Championship for more than three seasons.[101]
    Several campaigns have attempted to get the government to relax the regulation and allow standing areas to return to Premiership and Championship grounds.[102]

    Stuart-Smith scrutiny

    In May 1997, when the Labour Party came into office, Home Secretary Jack Straw ordered an investigation. It was performed by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith.[103] The appointment of Stuart-Smith was not without controversy. At a meeting in Liverpool with relatives of those involved in Hillsborough in October 1997, he flippantly remarked “Have you got a few of your people or are they like the Liverpool fans, turn up at the last minute?”[103] He later apologised for his remark, saying it was not intended to offend.[103] The terms of reference of his inquiry were limited to “new evidence”, that is “…evidence which was not available or was not presented to the previous inquiries, courts or authorities.”[103] Therefore, evidence such as witness statements which had been altered were classed as inadmissible.
    When he presented his report in February 1998, he concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a new inquiry into the disaster. In paragraph 5 of his summary, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith said:

    I have come to the clear conclusion that there is no basis upon which there should be a further Judicial Inquiry or a reopening of Lord Taylor’s Inquiry. There is no basis for a renewed application to the Divisional Court or for the Attorney General to exercise his powers under the Coroners Act 1988. I do not consider that there is any material which should be put before the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Police Complaints Authority which might cause them to reconsider the decisions they have already taken. Nor do I consider that there is any justification for setting up any further inquiry into the performance of the emergency and hospital services. I have considered the circumstances in which alterations were made to some of the self-written statements of South Yorkshire Police officers, but I do not consider that there is any occasion for any further investigation.[104]

    Importantly, Stuart-Smith’s report supported the coroner’s assertion that evidence after 3.15 pm was inadmissible as “that by 3.15 pm the principal cause of death, that is, the crushing, was over.”[105] This was controversial as the subsequent response of the police and emergency services would not be scrutinised. Announcing the report to the House of Commons, Home Secretary Jack Straw backed Stuart-Smith’s findings and said that “I do not believe that a further inquiry could or would uncover significant new evidence or provide any relief for the distress of those who have been bereaved.”[105] However the determination by Stuart-Smith was heavily criticised by the Justice Minister, Lord Falconer, who stated “I am absolutely sure that Sir Murray Stuart-Smith came completely to the wrong conclusion”.[106] Falconer added: “It made the families in the Hillsborough disaster feel after one establishment cover-up, here was another.”[106]

    Hillsborough Independent Panel

    The Hillsborough Independent Panel was instituted in 2009 by the British government to investigate the Hillsborough disaster, to oversee the disclosure of documents about the disaster and its aftermath and to produce a report. On 12 September 2012, it published its report and simultaneously launched a website containing 450,000 pages of material[107] collated from 85 organisations and individuals[108] over two years.[109]

    History

    In the years after the disaster, the Hillsborough Family Support Group, had campaigned for the release of all relevant documents into the public domain. After the disaster’s 20th anniversary in April 2009, supported by the Culture secretary, Andy Burnham, and Minister of State for Justice, Maria Eagle, the government asked the Home Office and Department of Culture, Media and Sport to investigate the best way for this information to be made public.[110] In April 2009, the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced she had requested secret files concerning the disaster be made public.[111]

    In December 2009, Home Secretary Alan Johnson said the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s remit would be to oversee “full public disclosure of relevant government and local information within the limited constraints set out in the disclosure protocol” and “consult with the Hillsborough families to ensure that the views of those most affected by the disaster are taken into account”.[110] An archive of all relevant documentation would be created and a report produced within two years explaining the work of the panel and its conclusions.

    The panel was chaired by James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool. Other members were:[112]

    • Raju Bhatt, human rights lawyer
    • Christine Gifford, expert in the field of access to information
    • Katy Jones, investigative journalist
    • Bill Kirkup, Associate Chief Medical Officer in the Department of Health (United Kingdom)
    • Paul Leighton, former Deputy Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
    • Professor Phil Scraton, expert in criminology
    • Peter Sissons, broadcaster (media)
    • Sarah Tyacke, formerly Chief Executive of the National Archives

    Findings

    On 12 September 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel[113] concluded that no Liverpool fans were responsible in any way for the disaster,[114] and that its main cause was a “lack of police control”. Crowd safety was “compromised at every level” and overcrowding issues had been recorded two years earlier. The panel concluded that “up to 41” of the 96 who perished might have survived had the emergency services’ reactions and co-ordination been improved.[115] The number is based on post-mortem examinations which found some victims may have had heart, lung or blood circulation function for some time after being removed from the crush. The report stated that placing fans who were “merely unconscious” on their backs rather than in the recovery position, would have resulted in their deaths due to airway obstruction.[116] Their report was in 395 pages and delivered 153 key findings.

    The findings concluded that 164 witness statements had been altered. Of those statements, 116 were amended to remove or change negative comments about South Yorkshire Police. South Yorkshire Police had performed blood alcohol tests on the victims, some of them children, and ran computer checks on the national police database in an attempt to “impugn their reputation”.[117] The report concluded that the then Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam, Irvine Patnick, passed inaccurate and untrue information from the police to the press.[118][119]

    The panel noted that, despite being dismissed by the Taylor Report, the idea that alcohol contributed to the disaster proved remarkably durable. Documents disclosed confirm that repeated attempts were made to find supporting evidence for alcohol being a factor, and that available evidence was significantly misinterpreted. It noted “The weight placed on alcohol in the face of objective evidence of a pattern of consumption modest for a leisure event was inappropriate. It has since fuelled persistent and unsustainable assertions about drunken fan behaviour”.[120]

    The evidence it released online, included altered police reports.[121]

    Effects

    Subsequent apologies were released by Prime Minister David Cameron on behalf of the government,[122] Ed Miliband on behalf of the opposition,[123] Sheffield Wednesday Football Club, South Yorkshire Police, and former editor of The Sun, Kelvin MacKenzie, who apologised for making false accusations under the headline “The Truth”.[124] MacKenzie said he should have written a headline that read “The Lies”, although this apology was widely discredited by the Hillsborough Family Support Group and Liverpool fans, as it was seen to be “shifting the blame once again.”[124]

    After publication, the Hillsborough Families Support Group called for new inquests for the victims.[125] They also called for prosecutions for unlawful killing, corporate manslaughter and perversion of the course of justice in respect of the actions of the police both in causing the disaster and covering up their actions; and in respect of Sheffield Wednesday FC, Sheffield Council and the Football Association for their various responsibilities for providing, certifying and selecting the stadium for the fatal event.[126]

    Calls were made for the resignation of police officers involved in the cover-up, and for Sheffield Wednesday, the police and the Football Association to admit their blame.[127][128][129][130] Calls were also made for Sir Dave Richards to resign as chairman of the Premier League and give up his knighthood as a result of his conduct at Sheffield Wednesday at the time of the disaster.[131] The Home Secretary called for investigations into law-breaking and promised resources to investigate individual or systematic issues.[132]

    On 23 October 2012, Norman Bettison resigned with immediate effect as Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, after Maria Eagle MP on the floor of the House and protected by Parliamentary privilege, accused him of boasting about concocting a story that all the Liverpool fans were drunk and police were afraid they were going to break down the gates and decided to open them.[133][134][135] Bettison denied the claim, and other allegations about his conduct, saying: “Fans’ behaviour, to the extent that it was relevant at all, made the job of the police, in the crush outside Leppings Lane turnstiles, harder than it needed to be. But it didn’t cause the disaster any more than the sunny day that encouraged people to linger outside the stadium as kick off approached. I held those views then, I hold them now. I have never, since hearing the Taylor evidence unfold, offered any other interpretation in public or private.”[136] Merseyside Police Authority confirmed that Bettison would receive an £83,000 pension, unless convicted of a criminal offence. Hillsborough families called for the payments to be frozen during the IPCC investigation.[137] In the same 22 October House of Commons debate, Stephen Mosley MP alleged West Midlands police pressured witnesses—both police and civilians—to change their statements.[138] Maria Eagle confirmed her understanding that WMP actions in this respect would be the subject of IPCC scrutiny.[133]

    Second coroner’s hearing

    Following an application on 19 December 2012 by the Attorney General Dominic Grieve, the High Court quashed the verdicts in the original inquests and ordered fresh inquests to be held.[139] Sir John Goldring was appointed as Assistant Coroner for South Yorkshire (East) and West Yorkshire (West) to conduct those inquests. The inquests hearings started on Monday 31 March 2014 at Warrington. Transcripts of the proceedings and evidence that was produced during the hearings were published at the Hillsborough Inquests official website.[140] On 6 April 2016, the nine jurors were sent out to consider their verdicts. These were formally given to the inquests at 11:00 on 26 April 2016.[141] The jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing in respect of all 96 victims (by majority verdict of 7–2).[142][143] Upon receiving the April 2016 verdict, Hillsborough Family Support Group chair Margaret Aspinall, whose 18-year-old son James was killed in the disaster, said:

    “Let’s be honest about this – people were against us. We had the media against us, as well as the establishment. Everything was against us. The only people that weren’t against us was our own city. That’s why I am so grateful to my city and so proud of my city. They always believed in us.[144][145][146]

    On the day after the verdicts were reached the Home Secretary, Theresa May, made a statement to Parliament which included the verdicts of the jury to the fourteen questions they had been asked regarding the roles of South Yorkshire police, the South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service, Sheffield Wednesday football club and Hillsborough stadium’s engineers and two specific questions specific relating to the time and cause of death for each of the dead. In addition to the “unlawful killing” verdict, the jury concluded that “errors or omissions” by police commanding officers, Sheffield Wednesday, the ambulance service and the design and certification of the stadium had all “caused or contributed” to the deaths, but that the behaviour of football supporters had not. In all but one case, the jury recorded the time of death as later than the 3.15 pm cut-off point adopted by the coroner at the original inquests.[147]

    Prime Minister David Cameron also responded to the April 2016 verdict by saying that it represented a “long overdue” but “landmark moment in the quest for justice”, adding “All families and survivors now have official confirmation of what they always knew was the case, that the Liverpool fans were utterly blameless in the disaster that unfolded at Hillsborough.”[148] The Labour Party described the handling of the Hillsborough disaster as the “greatest miscarriage of justice of our times”, with Labour MPs Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram calling for accountability and the prosecution of those responsible.[149][150] Liberal Democrat MP John Pugh called for David Cameron to make a formal apology in the House of Commons to the families of those killed at Hillsborough and to the city of Liverpool as a whole.[148]

    Echoing his 2012 expression of regret [151] former Home Secretary Jack Straw apologised to the families for the failures of his 1997 review of the disaster.[152]

    Kelvin MacKenzie, who wrote the now-infamous “The Truth” front page for the Sun, said that although he was “duped” into publishing his story, that his “heart goes out” to the families of those affected, saying that “It’s quite clear today the fans had nothing to do with it”. However, MacKenzie did not accept any personal responsibility for the story.[153][154]

    During the inquests, Maxwell Groome – a police constable at the time of the disaster – made allegations of a high-level “conspiracy” by Freemasons to shift blame for the disaster onto Superintendent Roger Marshall, also that junior officers were pressured into changing their statements after the disaster, and told not to write their accounts in their official police pocketbooks.[155] Groome also claimed that match commander Duckenfield was a member of the “highly influential” Dole lodge in Sheffield (the same lodge as Brian Mole, his predecessor.[156]) Coroner Sir John Goldring warned the jury that there was “not a shred of evidence” that any Masonic meeting actually took place, or that those named were all Freemasons,[157] advising the jury to cast aside “gossip and hearsay”.[158] During the inquests, Duckenfield confirmed that he became a Freemason in 1975 and became Worshipful Master of his local lodge in 1990, a year after the disaster; following this revelation, Freemasons were forbidden to take part in the IPCC investigation and Operation Resolve as civilian investigators to prevent any perceived bias.[159][160][161]

    Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation

    Following the inquests verdicts, South Yorkshire police announced it would refer the actions of its officers to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).[162] West Yorkshire Police announced it would refer its Chief Constable, Norman Bettison, to the IPCC in mid-September. Bettison had been one of a number of police officers who were accused of manipulating evidence by the Hillsborough Independent Panel.[163] In early October, Bettison announced his retirement, becoming the first senior figure to step down since publication of the panel’s report.[164][165][166]

    The IPCC announced on 12 October 2012 that it would investigate the failure of the police to declare a major incident, failure to close the tunnel to the stands which led to overcrowded pens despite evidence it had been closed in such circumstances in the past; changes made to the statements of police officers; actions which misled Parliament and the media; shortcomings of previous investigations; and the role played by Norman Bettison.

    By 22 October 2012, the names of at least 1,444 serving and former police officers had been referred to the IPCC investigation. In its announcement, the IPCC praised the tenacity of the Hillsborough families’ campaign for truth and justice.[167][168][169][170][171] On 16 October 2012, the Attorney General announced in Parliament he had applied to have the original inquests verdicts quashed, arguing it proceeded on a false basis and evidence now to hand required this exceptional step.[172]

    On 12 July 2013, it was reported that the IPCC had found that in addition to the now 164 police statements known to have been altered, a further 55 police officers had changed their statements. Deborah Glass, deputy chair of the IPCC said, “We know the people who have contacted us are the tip of the iceberg.” That was after the IPCC’s Hillsborough Contact team had received 230 pieces of correspondence since October 2012.[173]

    The IPCC is also investigating the actions of West Midlands Police, who in 1989 had been tasked with investigating South Yorkshire Police’s conduct for both the original inquests and also the Taylor independent inquiry.[174][175]

    In April 2016, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would consider bringing charges against both individuals and corporate bodies once the criminal investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission – Operation Resolve – had been completed.[176]

    ‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’ report

    Commissioned by the Home Secretary Theresa May, a report was published on 1 November 2017 by the Right Reverend James Jones titled The patronising disposition of unaccountable power : A report to ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated.[77]

    Criminal and civil cases

    Prosecutions

    In February 2000, a private prosecution was brought against Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield and another officer, Bernard Murray. The prosecution argued that the crush was “foreseeable” hence the defendants were “grossly negligent”.[3] Prosecutor Alun Jones told the court that Duckenfield gave the order to open the gates so that hundreds of fans could be herded on to the already crowded terraces at the stadium. Jones stated that minutes after the disaster, Duckenfield “deceitfully and dishonestly” told senior FA officials that the supporters had forced the gate open. Duckenfield admitted he had lied in certain statements regarding the causes of the disaster. The prosecution ended on 24 July 2000, when Murray was acquitted and the jury was unable to reach a verdict in the case of Duckenfield. On 26 July 2000, the judge refused the prosecution’s application for a re-trial of Duckenfield.[3]

    Police disciplinary charges were abandoned when Duckenfield retired on health grounds and, because he was unavailable, it was decided it would be unfair to proceed with disciplinary charges against Bernard Murray. Duckenfield took medical retirement on a full police pension.[177][178][179]

    Home Secretary Theresa May announced on 18 December 2012 that a new police enquiry would be initiated to examine the possibility of charging agencies other than the police over the Hillsborough deaths.[180] The enquiry was headed by former Durham Chief Constable Jon Stoddart. Now it is headed by Assistant Commissioner Rob Beckley.[181]

    On 28 June 2017, it was announced that six people were to be charged with offences in relation to the disaster. Former Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, in charge of the match, faces 95 counts of manslaughter by gross negligence. He faces no charge in respect of the death of Tony Bland, who died four years after the disaster. Former Chief Inspector Sir Norman Bettinson faces four counts of misconduct in public office. Former Sheffield Wednesday F.C. Club Secretary Graham Mackrell faces a charge of breaching the Safety at Sports Ground Act 1975. Solicitor Peter Metcalf, former Chief Superintendent Donald Denton and former Detective Chief Inspector Alan Foster were all charged with perverting the course of justice.[182][183]

    On 9 August, all except Duckenfield appeared at Warrington Magistrates Court. Mackrell pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. No formal pleas were taken from the other four defendants. All five were bailed to appear at the Crown Court on 6 September. Duckenfield was not required to appear as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) needed to apply to the High Court to lift a court order before he can be prosecuted on the manslaughter charges.[184] On 29 June 2018, a ruling was made that Duckenfield would be prosecuted on the manslaughter charges.[185]

    In December 2017, it was announced that a police officer and a farrier would not be prosecuted over allegations that they fabricated a story about a police horse being burned with cigarettes at Hillsborough. Although there was enough evidence to charge the farrier with perverting the course of justice, it was felt not to be in the public interest to charge him. There was insufficient evidence against the police officer to charge him with the offence.[186]

    On 21 August 2018, it was announced that all charges against Bettison were being dropped as the CPS felt that there was insufficient evidence to have a realistic chance of a conviction. The death of two witnesses and contradictions in the evidence of others was cited as part of the reason for the decision. Representatives of the 96 victims of the disaster stated that they would be asking for an independent review of the decision under the Right to Review Scheme.[187]

    On 10 September 2018, at a trial preparation hearing at Preston Crown Court, Duckenfield pleaded not guilty to all 95 charges against him. Mackrell pleaded not guilty to the two charges against him. A provisional trial date of 14 January 2019 was set.[188] The trial started on 14 January 2019 at Preston Crown Court, Lancashire before Mr Justice Openshaw. It is expected to last for three or four months.[189]

    On 13 March, it was reported that Duckenfield would not be called to give evidence in his defence. It was also reported that the jury would be directed to find Mackrell not guilty on the charge of contravening the stadium’s safety certificate due to a lack of evidence.[190] On 3 April, the jury returned with a guilty verdict against Mackrell on a health and safety charge and was unable to reach a verdict on Duckenfield.[191]

    Psychiatric injury and other litigation

    Various negligence cases were brought against the police by spectators who had been at the ground but had not been in the pens, and by people who watched the incident unfolding on television (or heard about it on the radio). A case, Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 A.C. 310, was eventually appealed to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and was an important milestone in the law of claims of secondary victims for negligently inflicted psychiatric injury. It was held that claimants who watched the disaster on television/listened on radio were not ‘proximal’ and their claims were rejected.

    Another psychiatric injury claim was brought to the House of Lords, White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 A.C. 455. It was brought by police officers on duty against the Chief Constable who was said to have been vicariously liable for the disaster. Their claims were dismissed and the Alcock decision was upheld. It affirmed the position of the courts once again towards claims of psychiatric injuries of secondary victims.

    A third legal case which resulted from the Hillsborough disaster was Airedale N.H.S. Trust v Bland [1993] A.C. 789, a landmark House of Lords decision in English criminal law, that allowed the life-support machine of Tony Bland, a Hillsborough victim in a persistent vegetative state, to be switched off.

    In April 2016, a private prosecution was launched on behalf of victims’ relatives against both SYP and the West Midlands Police force (who had investigated the actions of SYP), alleging a concerted cover-up designed to shift blame away from the police.[192]

    Memorials

    Permanent memorials

    The Hillsborough memorial at Anfield

    Several memorials have been erected in memory of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.[citation needed]

    • Flames were added either side of the Liverpool F.C. crest in memory of the 96 fans who lost their lives in the Hillsborough disaster.
    • Alongside the Shankly Gates at Anfield, Liverpool’s home stadium.
    • A memorial at Hillsborough stadium, unveiled on the tenth anniversary of the disaster on 15 April 1999, reads: “In memory of the 96 men, women, and children who tragically died and the countless people whose lives were changed forever. FA Cup semi-final Liverpool v Nottingham Forest. 15 April 1989. ‘You’ll never walk alone.'”
    • A memorial stone in the pavement on the south side of Liverpool’s Anglican cathedral.
    • A memorial garden in Hillsborough Park with a ‘You’ll never walk alone’ gateway.
    • A headstone at the junction of Middlewood Road, Leppings Lane and Wadsley Lane, near the ground and by the Sheffield Supertram route.
    • A Hillsborough Memorial Rose Garden in Port Sunlight, Wirral.
    • A memorial rose garden on Sudley Estate in South Liverpool (also known as the APH). Each of the six rose beds has a centre piece of a white standard rosebush, surrounded by red rose bushes, named ‘Liverpool Remember’. There are brass memorial plaques on both sets of gates to the garden, and a sundial inscribed with the words: “Time Marches On But We Will Always Remember”.
    • In the grounds of Crosby Library, to the memory of the 18 football fans from Sefton who lost their lives in the Hillsborough disaster. The memorial, sited in a raised rose bed containing the Liverpool Remembers red rose, is made of black granite. It is inscribed “In loving memory of the 96 football supporters who died at Hillsborough, Sheffield on 15 April 1989. Of those who lost their lives the following young men were from Sefton families.” The memorial was unveiled on 4 October 1991 (two years before the death of Tony Bland) by the Mayor of Sefton, Councillor Syd Whitby. The project was carried out by the Council after consultation with the Sefton Survivors Group.

    The Memorial at Old Haymarket, Liverpool

    • A 7-foot high circular bronze memorial was unveiled in the Old Haymarket district of Liverpool in April 2013. This memorial is inscribed with the words: “Hillsborough Disaster – we will remember them”, and displays the names of the 96 victims who died.
    • An 8 foot high clock, dating from the 1780s, was installed at Liverpool Town Hall in April 2013, with the hands indicating 3:06 (the time at which the match was abandoned).[193] In 2015 it was announced that the clock would now be on public display in the foyer of the Cunard Building.[citation needed]
    • A memorial plaque dedicated to the 96 at Goodison Park in Liverpool, home of local rivals Everton F.C..[194]

    Memorial ceremonies

    The disaster has been acknowledged on 15 April each year by the community in Liverpool and football in general. An annual memorial ceremony is held at Anfield and at a church in Liverpool. The 10th and 20th anniversaries were marked by special services to remember the victims.[195][196]

    From 2007, there was a Hillsborough Memorial service held at Spion Kop, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa annually. The ceremony is held on the Spion Kop Battlefield which gave its name to the Kop Stand at Anfield. There is a permanent memorial to the 96 fans who died, in the form of a bench in view of the battlefield at a nearby lodge. Dean Davis and David Walters, South African Liverpool supporters, are responsible for the service and the bench was commissioned by Guy Prowse in 2008.[197] Following on from, and out of respect for the Hillsborough families decision to conclude official memorials at Anfield as of 2016[update]; there will be no further Memorials held at Spion Kop. The Memorial bench remains at Spion Kop Lodge.

    Bench at Spion Kop, South Africa, acting as a permanent memorial to those killed at Hillsborough.

    In 2014, the FA decided all FA Cup, Premier League, Football League and Football Conference matches played between 11–14 April, would kick-off seven minutes later than originally scheduled with a six-minute delay and a one-minute silence tribute.[198]

    10th anniversary

    In 1999, Anfield was packed with a crowd of around 10,000 people ten years after the disaster.[199] A candle was lit for each of the 96 victims. The clock at the Kop End stood still at 3:06 pm, the time that the referee had blown his whistle in 1989 and a minute’s silence was held, the start signalled by match referee from that day, Ray Lewis. A service led by the Right Reverend James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, was attended by past and present Liverpool players, including Robbie Fowler, Steve McManaman and Alan Hansen. According to the BBC report: “The names of the victims were read from the memorial book and floral tributes were laid at a plaque bearing their names.”[200] A gospel choir performed and the ceremony ended with a rendition of “You’ll Never Walk Alone”. The anniversary was also marked by a minute’s silence at the weekend’s league games and FA Cup semi-finals.

    20th anniversary

    Liverpool fans unfurl a banner displaying the names of the deceased on the 20th anniversary of the disaster

    In 2009, on the 20th anniversary of the disaster, Liverpool’s request that their Champions League quarter-finals return leg, scheduled for 15 April, be played the day before was granted.[201]

    The event was remembered with a ceremony at Anfield attended by over 28,000 people.[202][203] The Kop, Centenary and Main Stands were opened to the public before part of the Anfield Road End was opened to supporters. The memorial service, led by the Bishop of Liverpool began at 14:45 BST and a two-minute silence (observed across Liverpool and in Sheffield and Nottingham, including public transport coming to a stand-still)[204][205] was held at the time of the disaster twenty years earlier, 15:06 BST. Sports Minister Andy Burnham addressed the crowd but was heckled by supporters chanting “Justice for the 96”.[206] The ceremony was attended by survivors of the disaster, families of victims and the Liverpool team, with goalkeeper Pepe Reina leading the team and management staff onto the pitch. Team captain Steven Gerrard and vice-captain Jamie Carragher handed the freedom of the city to the families of all the victims. Candles were lit for each of the 96 people who died. Kenny Dalglish, Liverpool’s manager at the time of the disaster, read a passage from the Bible, “Lamentations of Jeremiah”. The Liverpool manager, Rafael Benítez, set 96 balloons free. The ceremony ended with 96 rings of church bells across the city and a rendition of “You’ll Never Walk Alone”.[207]

    Other services took place at the same time, including at Liverpool’s Anglican and Catholic Cathedrals. After the two minutes’ silence, bells on civic buildings rang out throughout Merseyside.[208]

    A song was released to mark the 20th anniversary, entitled “Fields of Anfield Road” which peaked at No. 14 in the UK charts.[209]

    Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United players showed respect by wearing black armbands during their Champions League matches on 14 and 15 April.

    On 14 May, more than 20,000 people packed Anfield for a match held in memory of the victims. The Liverpool Legends, comprising ex-Liverpool footballers beat the All Stars, captained by actor Ricky Tomlinson, 3–1. The event also raised cash for the Marina Dalglish Appeal which was contributed towards a radiotherapy centre at University Hospital in Aintree.[210][211]

    With the imminent release of police documents relating to events on 15 April 1989, the Hillsborough Family Support Group launched Project 96, a fundraising initiative on 1 August 2009. At least 96 current and former Liverpool footballers are being lined up to raise £96,000 by auctioning a limited edition (of 96) signed photographs.

    On 11 April 2009, Liverpool fans sang “You’ll Never Walk Alone” as a tribute to the upcoming anniversary of the disaster before the home game against Blackburn Rovers (which ended in Liverpool winning 4–0) and was followed by former Liverpool player, Stephen Warnock presenting a memorial wreath to the Kop showing the figure 96 in red flowers.

    Other tributes

    The Hillsborough disaster touched not only Liverpool, but clubs in England and around the world.[212] Supporters of Everton, Liverpool’s traditional local rivals, were affected, many of them having lost friends and family. Supporters laid down flowers and blue and white scarves to show respect for the dead and unity with fellow Merseysiders.

    On 19 April 1989, the Wednesday after the disaster, the European Cup semi-final tie between A.C. Milan and Real Madrid was played. The referee blew his whistle two minutes into the game to stop play and hold a minute’s silence for those who lost their lives at Hillsborough.[213] Halfway through the minute’s silence, the A.C. Milan fans sang Liverpool’s “You’ll Never Walk Alone” as a sign of respect.[214][215] In April 1989, Bradford City and Lincoln City held a friendly match to benefit the victims of Hillsborough. The occasion was the first in which the two teams had met since the 1985 Bradford City stadium fire that had claimed 56 lives at Valley Parade.[216]

    On 30 April 1989, a match organised by Celtic F.C. was played at Celtic Park, Glasgow between the home club and Liverpool, the proceeds going to the Hillsborough fund. Liverpool won the match by four goals to nil.[217]

    As a result of the disaster, Liverpool’s scheduled fixture against Arsenal[b] was delayed from 23 April until the end of the season and eventually decided the league title. At this fixture, Arsenal players brought flowers onto the pitch and presented them to the Liverpool fans around the stadium before the game commenced.

    During a 2011 debate in the House of Commons, the Labour MP for Liverpool Walton, Steve Rotheram, read out a list of the victims and, as a result, the names were entered into Hansard.[218][219]

    Controversies

    Media portrayal

    Initial media coverage – spurred by what Phil Scraton calls in Hillsborough: The Truth “the Heysel factor” and “hooligan hysteria” – began to shift the blame onto the behaviour of the Liverpool fans at the stadium, making it a public order issue.[220] As well as The Sun's 19 April 1989 “The Truth” article (see below) other newspapers published similar allegations; the Daily Star headline on the same day reported “Dead fans robbed by drunk thugs”; the Daily Mail accused the Liverpool fans of being “drunk and violent and their actions were vile”, and The Daily Express ran a story alleging that “Police saw ‘sick spectacle of pilfering from the dying’.” Peter McKay in the Evening Standard wrote that the “catastrophe was caused first and foremost by violent enthusiasm for soccer and in this case the tribal passions of Liverpool supporters [who] literally killed themselves and others to be at the game”[221][222] and published a front-page headline “Police attack ‘vile’ fans” on 18 April 1989, in which police sources blamed the behaviour of a section of Liverpool fans for the disaster.[223]

    In Liverpool local journalist John Williams of the Liverpool Daily Post wrote in an article titled “I Blame the Yobs”[224] that “The gatecrashers wreaked their fatal havoc … Their uncontrolled fanaticism and mass hysteria … literally squeezed the life out of men, women and children … yobbism at its most base … Scouse killed Scouse for no better reason than 22 men were kicking a ball”.[221][222]

    In other regional newspapers, the Manchester Evening News wrote that the “Anfield Army charged on to the terrace behind the goal – many without tickets”, and the Yorkshire Post wrote that the “trampling crush” had been started by “thousands of fans” who were “latecomers … forc[ing] their way into the ground”.[220] The Sheffield Star published similar allegations to The Sun, running the headline “Fans in Drunken Attacks on Police”.[224]

    Many of the more serious allegations – such as stealing from the dead and assault of police officers and rescue workers – appeared on 18 April,[220] although several evening newspapers published on 15 April 1989 also gave inaccurate reporting of the disaster, as these newspapers went to press before the full extent or circumstances of the disaster had been confirmed or even reported. This included the Wolverhampton-based Express & Star, which reported that the match had been cancelled as a result of a “pitch invasion in which many fans were injured”. This article was presumably published before there were any reports that people had been killed.[225] These media reports and others were examined during the 2012 Hillsborough Independent Panel report.[222]

    The Sun
    The false allegations on the front page of The Sun on 19 April 1989

    On 19 April, four days after the disaster, Kelvin MacKenzie, editor of The Sun, ordered “The Truth” as the front-page headline, followed by three sub-headlines: “Some fans picked pockets of victims”, “Some fans urinated on the brave cops” and “Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life”. Mackenzie reportedly spent two hours deciding on which headline to run; his original instinct being for “You Scum” before eventually deciding on “The Truth”.[226]

    The information was provided to the newspaper by Whites News Agency in Sheffield;[227] the newspaper cited claims by police inspector Gordon Sykes, that Liverpool fans had pickpocketed the dead,[228] as well as other claims by unnamed police officers and local Conservative MP Irvine Patnick.[229][230] The Daily Express also carried Patnick’s version, under the headline “Police Accuse Drunken Fans” which gave Patnick’s views, saying he had told Margaret Thatcher, while escorting her on a tour of the ground after the disaster, of the “mayhem caused by drunks” and that policemen told him they were “hampered, harassed, punched and kicked”.[231]

    The story accompanying The Sun headlines claimed “drunken Liverpool fans viciously attacked rescue workers as they tried to revive victims” and “police officers, firemen and ambulance crew were punched, kicked and urinated upon”. A quotation, attributed to an unnamed policeman, claimed a partially unclothed dead girl had been verbally abused, and that Liverpool fans were “openly urinating on us and the bodies of the dead”.[232] In fact many Liverpool fans helped security personnel stretcher away victims and gave first aid to the injured.[233] The Guardian later wrote that “The claim that supporters higher up the Leppings Lane terrace had urinated on police pulling bodies out of the crush appeared to have roots in the fact that those who were dying or sustaining serious injuries suffered compression asphyxia and many involuntarily urinated, vomited and emptied their bowels as they were crushed.”[234]

    In their history of The Sun,[235] Peter Chippendale and Chris Horrie wrote:

    As MacKenzie’s layout was seen by more and more people, a collective shudder ran through the office (but) MacKenzie’s dominance was so total there was nobody left in the organisation who could rein him in except Murdoch. (Everyone in the office) seemed paralysed—”looking like rabbits in the headlights”—as one hack described them. The error staring them in the face was too glaring. It obviously wasn’t a silly mistake; nor was it a simple oversight. Nobody really had any comment on it—they just took one look and went away shaking their heads in wonder at the enormity of it. It was a ‘classic smear’.

    After The Sun's report, the newspaper was boycotted by most newsagents in Liverpool and many readers cancelled their orders and refused to buy it from newsagents; and from then afterwards many in Liverpool refer to The Sun newspaper as The Scum.[236] Some even refuse to say the name or spell it as The S*n. The Hillsborough Justice Campaign organised a less successful national boycott that had some impact on the paper’s sales nationally.[237]

    MacKenzie explained his actions in 1993. Talking to a House of Commons National Heritage Select Committee, he said: “I regret Hillsborough. It was a fundamental mistake. The mistake was I believed what an MP said. It was a Tory MP. If he had not said it and the Chief Superintendent had not agreed with it, we would not have gone with it.”[238] MacKenzie retracted the apology in November 2006, saying he apologised because the newspaper’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, had ordered him to do so, stating: “I was not sorry then and I’m not sorry now”.[239] MacKenzie refused to apologise when appearing on the BBC’s topical Question Time on 11 January 2007.[240]

    The Sun apologised for its treatment of the Hillsborough disaster “without reservation” in a full page opinion piece on 7 July 2004, saying it had “committed the most terrible mistake in its history” by publishing it. The apology angered some Liverpudlians further. The Liverpool Echo called the apology, “shabby” and “an attempt, once again, to exploit the Hillsborough dead”.[241]

    Poster urging the Liverpool public not to purchase The Sun newspaper

    James Murdoch made a full apology for The Sun's coverage when he appeared at a hearing of the House of Commons Select Committee dealing with the News International phone hacking scandal in 2012.[242]

    On 12 September 2012, after the publication of the report exonerating the Liverpool fans, MacKenzie issued the following statement:

    .mw-parser-output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 40px}.mw-parser-output .templatequote .templatequotecite{line-height:1.5em;text-align:left;padding-left:1.6em;margin-top:0}

    Today I offer my profuse apologies to the people of Liverpool for that headline. I too was totally misled. Twenty-three years ago I was handed a piece of copy from a reputable news agency in Sheffield, in which a senior police officer and a senior local MP were making serious allegations against fans in the stadium. I had absolutely no reason to believe that these authority figures would lie and deceive over such a disaster. As the prime minister has made clear, these allegations were wholly untrue and were part of a concerted plot by police officers to discredit the supporters thereby shifting the blame for the tragedy from themselves. It has taken more than two decades, 400,000 documents and a two-year inquiry to discover to my horror that it would have been far more accurate had I written the headline The Lies rather than The Truth. I published in good faith and I am sorry that it was so wrong.[243]

    In response, Trevor Hicks, chairman of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, rejected MacKenzie’s apology as “too little, too late”, calling him “lowlife, clever lowlife, but lowlife”.[244] A press conference held by families of the victims also banned all Sun reporters from entering, with a sign on the door reading “NO ENTRY TO SUN JOURNALISTS”.[245] Sales of The Sun remain poor in Merseyside and a boycott is still practised.[246] In 2004, its average circulation in Liverpool was 12,000 copies a day.[247][248]

    Following the April 2016 verdict of unlawful killing, The Sun and the first print edition of the Times (both owned by News International), did not cover the stories on their front pages, with The Sun relegating the story to pages 8 and 9. An apology appeared on page 10, reiterating previous statements that the 1989 headline had been an error of judgement.[249]

    The coverage was widely condemned on social media, with Twitter users saying that this reflected “Murdoch’s view on Hillsborough”, which was a “smear”, which “now daren’t speak its name”.[249] On the night of the verdict coverage, more than 124,000 tweets used the term The Sun.[250][251][252][253][252][254]

    However, on Sky News, The Sun's Political Editor Tom Newton Dunn defended this decision, saying “I don’t think it should all be about The Sun – it was not us who committed Hillsborough.”[249] Trevor Kavanagh, the political editor at the time of the Hillsborough disaster, said that he was “not sorry at all” about the reporting and supported his former boss Kelvin MacKenzie, claiming that “we were clearly misled about the events and the authorities, including the police, actively concealed the truth”.[245]

    In February 2017, Liverpool F.C. issued a ban on The Sun journalists from entering their grounds in response to the coverage of Hillsborough by the newspaper.[255] Everton F.C. followed in April 2017 on the eve of the 28th anniversary of the disaster after a column by Kelvin MacKenzie concerning Everton footballer Ross Barkley. MacKenzie was suspended as a contributor to the newspaper.[256]

    The Times

    The journalist Edward Pearce was criticised for writing a controversial article in the aftermath of the disaster, at a time when a number of victims’ funerals were taking place. His column in The Sunday Times on 23 April 1989, included the text:

    “For the second time in half a decade a large body of Liverpool supporters has killed people … the shrine in the Anfield goalmouth, the cursing of the police, all the theatricals, come sweetly to a city which is already the world capital of self-pity. There are soapy politicians to make a pet of Liverpool, and Liverpool itself is always standing by to make a pet of itself. ‘Why us? Why are we treated like animals?’ To which the plain answer is that a good and sufficient minority of you behave like animals.”[257]

    Pearce went on reflect that if South Yorkshire Police bore any responsibility, it was “for not realising what brutes they had to handle.”[258]

    Professor Phil Scraton described Pearce’s comments as amongst the “most bigoted and factually inaccurate” published in the wake of the disaster.[259] A number of complaints were made to the Press Council concerning the article, but the Council ruled that it was unable to adjudicate on comment pieces, though the Council noted that tragedy or disaster is not an occasion for writers to exercise gratuitous provocation.[260]

    On 27 April 2016, Times staffers in the sports department expressed their outrage over the paper’s decision to cover 26 April inquest, which ruled that the 96 dead were unlawfully killed, only on an inside spread and the sports pages, with some in the newspaper claiming there was a “mutiny” in the sports department.[261] The Times later tweeted that “We made a mistake with the front page of our first edition, and we fixed it for our second edition.”[262]

    The Times was the only major UK newspaper not to give the story front-page coverage other than fellow News UK-owned Sun.[261][263] Gary Lineker described the incident as “disgusting as it is unsurprising”,[264] and David Walsh, chief sports writer at the Sunday Times, said it was a “shocking misjudgment” to not include this story on the front page.[265] However, insiders dismissed any suggestion that a visit by News UK owner Rupert Murdoch to the Times newsroom on the day of the verdict had anything to do with the editorial decision.[261]

    FHM

    The November 2002 edition of the men’s lifestyle magazine FHM in Australia was swiftly withdrawn from sale soon after its publication, and a public apology made in the Australian and British editions, because it contained jokes mocking the disaster.[266] As a result, Emap Australia, who owned FHM at the time, pledged to make a donation to the families of the victims.[267] Although the original apology was not printed in the magazine as it was not considered “serious enough”,[268] its Australian editor, Geoff Campbell, released a statement: “We deeply regret the photograph captions published in the November issue of the Australian edition of FHM, accompanying an article about the Hillsborough disaster of 1989. The right course of action is to withdraw this edition from sale – which we will be doing. We have been in contact with the Hillsborough Family Support Group and the Hillsborough Justice Campaign to express our deep regret and sincere apologies.”[266] The British edition disassociated itself from the controversy, stating: “FHM Australia has its own editorial team and these captions were written and published without consultation with the UK edition, or any other edition of FHM.”[267]

    The vice-chairman of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, Philip Hammond, said he wanted all football fans to boycott the magazine, saying, “I am going to write to every fanzine in the country – including Liverpool F.C.’s – telling them to ban FHM. People are very upset by it. I think there will be a real boycott.” He added it would be like making jokes about the 2002 Bali bombings, in which eight fewer Australians were killed. The publication was finally discontinued in 2016, for unrelated reasons.[267]

    The Spectator

    The Spectator was criticised for an editorial which appeared in the magazine on 16 October 2004 following the death of British hostage Kenneth John “Ken” Bigley in Iraq, in which it was claimed that the response to Bigley’s killing was fuelled by the fact he was from Liverpool, and went on to criticise the “drunken” fans at Hillsborough and call on them to accept responsibility for their “role” in the disaster:

    The extreme reaction to Mr Bigley’s murder is fed by the fact that he was a Liverpudlian. Liverpool is a handsome city with a tribal sense of community. A combination of economic misfortune—its docks were, fundamentally, on the wrong side of England when Britain entered what is now the European Union—and an excessive predilection for welfarism have created a peculiar, and deeply unattractive, psyche among many Liverpudlians. They see themselves whenever possible as victims, and resent their victim status; yet at the same time they wallow in it. Part of this flawed psychological state is that they cannot accept that they might have made any contribution to their misfortunes, but seek rather to blame someone else for it, thereby deepening their sense of shared tribal grievance against the rest of society. The deaths of more than 50 Liverpool football supporters at Hillsborough in 1989 was undeniably a greater tragedy than the single death, however horrible, of Mr Bigley; but that is no excuse for Liverpool’s failure to acknowledge, even to this day, the part played in the disaster by drunken fans at the back of the crowd who mindlessly tried to fight their way into the ground that Saturday afternoon. The police became a convenient scapegoat, and the Sun newspaper a whipping-boy for daring, albeit in a tasteless fashion, to hint at the wider causes of the incident.[269]

    Although the then-editor Boris Johnson did not write this piece,[270] journalist Simon Heffer alleged he had written the first draft of the article “at Mr Johnson’s request”, and offered to apologise for its publication after it attracted “a furore in the city [of Liverpool]”.[271] Johnson apologised at the time of the article, travelling to Liverpool to do so,[272] and again following the publication of the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel in 2012; however, Johnson’s apology was rejected by Margaret Aspinall, chairperson of the Hillsborough Families Support Group, whose son James, 18, died in the disaster:

    What he has got to understand is that we were speaking the truth for 23 years and apologies have only started to come today from them because of yesterday. It’s too little, too late. It’s fine to apologise afterwards. They just don’t want their names in any more sleaze. No, his apology doesn’t mean a thing to me.[273]

    The Spectator's comments were widely circulated following the April 2016 verdict by the Hillsborough inquest’s second hearing proving unlawful killing of the 96 dead at Hillsborough.[270]

    EastEnders

    In November 2007, the BBC soap opera EastEnders caused controversy when the character Minty Peterson (played by Cliff Parisi) made a reference to the disaster. During the episode car mechanic Minty said: “Five years out of Europe because of Heysel, because they penned you lot in to stop you fighting on the pitch and then what did we end up with? Hillsborough.” This prompted 380 complaints and the BBC apologised, saying that the character was simply reminding another character, former football hooligan Jase Dyer, that the actions of hooligans led to the fencing-in of football fans. Ofcom also received 177 complaints.[274]

    Charles Itandje

    Liverpool goalkeeper Charles Itandje was accused of having shown disrespect towards the Hillsborough victims during the 2009 remembrance ceremony, as he was spotted on camera “smiling and nudging” teammate Damien Plessis. He was suspended from the club for a fortnight and many fans felt he should not play for the club again. He was omitted from the first team squad and never played for the club in any capacity again.[275]

    Jeremy Hunt

    On 28 June 2010, following England’s departure from the 2010 FIFA World Cup competition in South Africa, the UK’s Culture and Sport Secretary Jeremy Hunt praised the England fans for their behaviour during the competition, saying “I mean, not a single arrest for a football-related offence, and the terrible problems that we had in Heysel and Hillsborough in the 1980s seem now to be behind us.” He later apologised and said “I know that fan unrest played no part in the terrible events of April 1989 and I apologise to Liverpool fans and the families of those killed and injured in the Hillsborough disaster if my comments caused any offence.” Margaret Aspinall, chairperson of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, asked for a face to face meeting with Hunt before deciding if she would accept the apology.[276]

    Fans’ chants

    Fans of rival football clubs such as Manchester United[277] have been known to mention the Hillsborough disaster at fixtures[b] to upset Liverpool fans. Following the findings of the Independent Panel in September 2012, Alex Ferguson and two Manchester United fan groups called for an end to the “sick chants”.[278] Leeds United chairman Ken Bates endorsed this call in the club programme and stated, “Leeds have suffered at times with reference to Galatasaray; some of our so-called fans have also been guilty as well, particularly in relation to Munich.” This is a reference to the deaths of eight Manchester United players in the Munich air disaster of 1958.[279]

    Oliver Popplewell

    In October 2011, Sir Oliver Popplewell, who chaired the public inquiry into the 1985 Bradford City stadium fire at Valley Parade that killed 56 people, called on the families of the Hillsborough victims to look at the “quiet dignity and great courage relatives in the West Yorkshire city had shown in the years following the tragedy”. He said: “The citizens of Bradford behaved with quiet dignity and great courage. They did not harbour conspiracy theories. They did not seek endless further inquiries. They buried their dead, comforted the bereaved and succoured the injured. They organised a sensible compensation scheme and moved on. Is there, perhaps, a lesson there for the Hillsborough campaigners?”[280]

    Popplewell was criticised for the comments, including a rebuke from a survivor of the Bradford fire. Labour MP Steve Rotheram, commented: “How insensitive does somebody have to be to write that load of drivel?”[281]

    David Crompton

    A formal complaint was made against David Crompton, South Yorkshire’s chief constable, over internal emails relating to the Hillsborough disaster. In 2013 Crompton sent an email in which he said the families’ “version of certain events has become ‘the truth’ even though it isn’t”. In September, David Crompton had emailed the force’s assistant chief constable Andy Holt and head of media Mark Thompson on 8 September, just four days before the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report was published. The email came to light as the result of a Freedom of Information request. South Yorkshire’s police and crime commissioner Shaun Wright has appointed chief constable Simon Parr of Cambridgeshire Constabulary to head the investigation. Wright said: “The request has been submitted by a firm of solicitors in Liverpool acting on behalf of a number of individuals affected by the event.”[282]

    In March 2016, Crompton announced that he would retire in November. On 26 April 2016, after the inquest jury delivered a verdict affirming all the charges against the police, Crompton “unequivocally accepted” the verdicts, including unlawful killing, said that the police operation at the stadium on the day of the disaster had been “catastrophically wrong”, and apologised unreservedly.[283][284] Following continued criticism of Crompton in the wake of the unlawful killing verdict, South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Alan Billings suspended Crompton from duty on 27 April.[285]

    Civil servant

    Main article: Hillsborough Wikipedia posts

    In June 2014, an unnamed 24-year-old British civil servant was sacked for posting offensive comments about the disaster on Wikipedia.[286]

    Steven Cohen

    In 2009, nearly twenty years to the day after the disaster, Steven Cohen, a presenter on Fox Soccer Channel and Sirius satellite radio in the United States (an Englishman and Chelsea fan), stated on his radio show that Liverpool fans “without tickets” were the “root cause” and “perpetrators” of the disaster. A boycott of advertisers by American Liverpool fans eventually brought about an apology from him.[287][288] Despite this he was replaced as presenter of Fox Football Fone-in. His actions were disowned by Chelsea Football Club and he no longer works as a broadcaster.[289][290]

    Bernard Ingham

    In 1996, Sir Bernard Ingham, former press secretary to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, caused controversy with his comments about the disaster. In a letter addressed to a victim’s parent, Ingham wrote that the disaster was caused by “tanked up yobs”.[291] In another letter written to a Liverpool supporter, also written in 1996, Ingham remarked that people should “shut up about Hillsborough”.[292][293] On the day of the inquest verdict, Ingham refused to apologise or respond to the previous comments he made, telling a reporter, “I have nothing to say.”[292][293] There have since been calls to have Ingham stripped of his knighthood.[294]

    Topman

    In March 2018, British clothing retailer Topman marketed a T-shirt which was interpreted by members of the public, including relatives of Hillsborough victims, as mocking the disaster. The T-shirt was red with white details like a Liverpool shirt, and had the number 96 on the back like a football shirt, with the text “Karma” and “What goes around comes back around”, and a white rose, as associated with Yorkshire. Topman stated that the T-shirt was in reference to a Bob Marley song re-released in 1996 and apologised and withdrew the item.[295]

    Radio, television and theatre

    1989: After Dark

    On 20 May 1989, a week after the disaster, Channel 4’s After Dark programme broadcast a live discussion Football – The Final Whistle? Bereaved parent Eileen Delaney was a guest, along with her husband James. Extracts from what she said can be read here and in Hillsborough – The Truth by Phil Scraton (Mainstream Publishing 2016).

    1996 drama

    Main article: Hillsborough (1996 film)

    A television drama film, based on the disaster and subsequent events, titled simply Hillsborough, was produced by Granada Television. It was highly praised and won the BAFTA Award for Best Single Drama in 1997. Christopher Eccleston, Ricky Tomlinson and Mark Womack were among the cast of the film. It was aired for the first time in 1996, and has been aired four times since then, in 1998, 2009, in September 2012 on the weekend following the release of the findings of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and again on 1 May 2016 on ITV.[296]

    2009 The Reunion

    In 2009 BBC Radio 4 transmitted “The Reunion”: on the 20th anniversary Sue MacGregor brought together a group of people who were involved in the disaster to talk about the events of that day at a time when they were still in the midst of their fight for justice. This programme was repeated at the end of the week in which the Hillsborough inquest found that the 96 Liverpool football died unlawfully. The programme can be heard here.

    2014/2016 documentary

    Main article: Hillsborough (2014 documentary)

    The American sports network ESPN, as part of its 30 for 30 series of sports films (under a new “Soccer Stories” subdivision), aired the documentary Hillsborough as a co-production with the BBC. Directed by Daniel Gordon, the 2-hour film chronicles the disaster, the investigations, and their lingering effects; it also included interviews with survivors, victims’ relatives, police officers and investigators. Hillsborough aired the first time on 15 April 2014, the 25th anniversary of the disaster.[297][298] The documentary was unable to be shown in Great Britain upon initial release due to the 2012 High Court inquest still being in progress. The documentary includes previously unreleased security camera footage from the stadium on the day of the disaster.[299] After the inquest verdict the BBC aired the documentary on 8 May 2016, with additional footage from the inquest, as well as its final verdict.[300]

    Stage plays

    Two British stage plays also dealt with the disaster with different view points:

    • Jonathan Harvey’s Guiding Star showed a father coming to terms with what had happened some years later.
    • Lance Nielsen wrote Waiting For Hillsborough about two Liverpool families waiting for news of their missing loved ones on the day, which leads to discussion of football safety and the culture of blame.[301] Nielsen’s play won him an award at the 1999 Liverpool Arts and Entertainment awards and was highly praised by the Liverpool press.

    References

  • ^ Several British stadiums have a stand called “Spion Kop” or “The Kop”. The name, originally that of a hill in South Africa, usually refers to an unusually steep stand.
  • ^ a b c [British] a sports event that takes place on a particular date
  • ^ “1989: Football fans crushed at Hillsborough”. BBC. 15 April 1989. Retrieved 10 May 2016..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ a b Turner, Richard. “Five Hillsborough myths dispelled by inquests jury”. BBC News. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
  • ^ a b c d e f g h i “Hillsborough Disaster: From tragedy to truth”. BBC News. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
  • ^ “The legacy of Hillsborough – how football has changed”. The Telegraph. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
  • ^ Gibson, Owen (12 April 2009). “Out of the ashes of Hillsborough, modern football was born, writes Owen Gibson”. The Guardian. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
  • ^ Gibson, Owen (19 December 2012). “High court quashes Hillsborough inquest verdicts”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 7 August 2016.
  • ^ a b Conn, David (17 April 2009). “Football: David Conn on Hillsborough”. The Guardian. Retrieved 12 September 2012.
  • ^ “Hillsborough papers: Cameron apology over ‘double injustice'”. BBC News. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
  • ^ a b c d e f g Hillsborough Independent Panel (12 September 2012). The Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel (Report). London: The Stationery Office. ISBN 9780102980356. Retrieved 27 April 2016.CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)
  • ^ Gibson, Owen; Conn, David; Siddique, Haroon (12 September 2012). “Hillsborough disaster: David Cameron apologises for ‘double injustice'”. The Guardian. London. Retrieved 12 September 2012.
  • ^ “Independent Police Complaints Commission”. ipcc.gov.uk. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
  • ^ a b Conn, David (26 April 2016). “Hillsborough inquests jury rules 96 victims were unlawfully killed”. The Guardian. London. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  • ^ Dodd, Vikram; Stewart, Heather (27 April 2016). “South Yorkshire police chief suspended after Hillsborough verdict”. The Guardian. London. Retrieved 28 April 2016.
  • ^ “Five Hillsborough Myths Dispelled by Inquests Jury”. BBC News. 28 April 2016. Retrieved 8 March 2017.
  • ^ Lacey, David (15 April 1999). “Before Hillsborough fans were seen as terrace fodder. Now they are customers to be wooed and cosseted”. The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 1 August 2007.
  • ^ “Deaths and Injuries at Major Accidents at British Football Stadiums”. Football Licensing Authority. Archived from the original on 18 April 2009. Retrieved 11 July 2007.
  • ^ Taylor, Daniel (15 September 2012). “How Bradford fire neglect left Hillsborough doomed to disaster”. The Guardian Sports Blog. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
  • ^ Cmd 9710: Committee of Inquiry into Crowd Safety at Sports Grounds Final Report. The Stationery Office, London. 1986. p. 62.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 21.
  • ^ Statement of Witness. Assistant Chief Constable Robert Goslin 14 August 1990.
  • ^ Conn, David (19 September 2012). “Safety failings that contributed to death of 96 Liverpool fans were foreseeable”. The Guardian. Retrieved 22 September 2012.
  • ^ “Sheffield licensing officer from time of Hillsborough disaster still works for council”. Sheffield Star. Retrieved 22 September 2012.
  • ^ Carpente, Steve (19 September 2012). “Sky Blues fans recall Hillsborough choas”. Coventry Observer. Archived from the original on 14 October 2012. Retrieved 22 September 2012.
  • ^ a b Bates, Matthew (12 September 2012). “Hillsborough warning signs were there in 1987”. Coventry Observer. Archived from the original on 15 September 2012. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
  • ^ Ross, Sam (13 September 2012). “David Bernstein makes unreserved apology for Hillsborough disaster”. Metro. Archived from the original on 16 September 2012.
  • ^ a b Hillsborough Independent Panel. “Witness statement of Chief Superintendent Brian Mole, South Yorkshire Police” (PDF).
  • ^ a b Conn, David (7 July 2014). “Hillsborough inquest hears of police commander’s transfer before match”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 6 August 2016.
  • ^ Conn, David (30 June 2014). “Hillsborough police officer in command ‘had little training’ for 1989 FA Cup”. The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 6 August 2016.
  • ^ Conn, David (26 April 2016). “Hillsborough: anatomy of a disaster”. The Guardian.
  • ^ Scraton, P., 2004. 4 Death on the Terraces: The Contexts and Injustices of the 1989 Hillsborough Disaster. Soccer & Society, 5(2), pp.183–200.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 9.
  • ^ a b Taylor (1989), p. 34.
  • ^ a b “BBC Panorama 2013: Hillsborough Disaster. How They Buried the Truth”. YouTube. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  • ^ a b c “Bruce Grobbelaar: I heard the crowd at Hillsborough cry ‘Please help us..'”. Liverpool Echo. 6 April 2009. Retrieved 13 July 2016.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 11.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 12.
  • ^ Conn, David (13 February 2019). “Senior police officer did not step in, Hillsborough trial hears”. The Guardian. Retrieved 13 February 2019.
  • ^ a b c d e “How the Hillsborough disaster happened”. BBC News. 14 April 2009.
  • ^ “Timeline to disaster”. BBC. Retrieved 14 August 2016.
  • ^ Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, Page 360, Section 2.12.161
  • ^ a b c d e f g h i Hillsborough Independent Panel (20 September 2012). “Part 2, Chapter 4: Emergency Response and Aftermath”. The Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel (PDF) (Report). The Stationery Office Ltd. / Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. pp. 131–157. ISBN 9780102980356.
  • ^ ESPN Staff (20 May 2013). “Key Hillsborough Evidence Backed By TV Footage”. ESPN.co.uk. ESPN Sports Media Ltd. Retrieved 5 July 2017.
  • ^ Barlow, Eleanor (3 February 2015). “Ambulanceman’s Struggle to Live with Decisions Made on Pitch at Hillsborough”. Liverpool Echo. Trinity Mirror Merseyside. Retrieved 5 July 2017.
  • ^ Smith, Hayden (20 May 2013). “Hillsborough: New Probe Backs Crucial Evidence”. Metro. Associated Newspapers Limited. Retrieved 5 July 2017.
  • ^ Weston, Alan (29 January 2015). “Ambulances Got ‘Stuck’ As They Tried to Enter Hillsborough Stadium, Inquests Hear”. Liverpool Echo. Trinity Mirror Merseyside. Retrieved 5 July 2017.
  • ^ a b [1][dead link]
  • ^ a b c McCallum, Andrew (17 April 1989). “Grieving fans pay tribute at the Kop”. Glasgow Herald. p. 20.
  • ^ a b c “Police to face inquiry as questions go unanaswered”. Glasgow Herald. Glasgow. 19 April 1989. p. 1″.”
  • ^ a b “Liverpool resists pressure to make decision on FA Cup”. Glasgow Herald. 19 April 1989. p. 2.
  • ^ a b “Soccer rivals united in grief as church bells toll”. New Straits Times. Kuala Lumpur. Reuters. 24 April 1989. Retrieved 9 February 2015.
  • ^ “Thousands unite in grief at cathedral”. Glasgow Herald. 17 April 1989. p. 1.
  • ^ “MPs urge Hurd to introduce safety gates into ‘killer cages'”. Glasgow Herald. 17 April 1989. p. 9.
  • ^ a b “Head of UEFA must quit says club”. Glasgow Herald. 18 April 1989. p. 7.
  • ^ “Liverpool FC’s Top Five FA Cup Finals”. live4liverpool.com. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  • ^ Cowley, Jason (29 March 2009). “The night football was reborn”. The Guardian. London.
  • ^ “Feature: It’s Up For Grabs Now – The 20th Anniversary Of Anfield 1989”. Goal.com. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  • ^ “A random sample of letters from public, schools and clubs reflecting the nature of donations to the disaster appeal fund”. Hillsborough Independent Panel. Retrieved 19 September 2012.
  • ^ Charity fund-raising and the public interest: an Anglo-American legal perspective. Avebury. 1990. p. 127. ISBN 9781856280167.
  • ^ “College course developed with funds from the Hillsborough Disaster Appeal Fund goes from strength to strength”. RCS. Retrieved 17 September 2012.
  • ^ “The Official Charts Company – Ferry Cross The Mersey by Gerry Marsden, Paul McCartney, Holly Johnson, The Christians and Stock Aitken Waterman Search”. The Official Charts Company. 6 May 2013.
  • ^ Davis, Sharon (6 January 2012). 80s Chart-Toppers: Every Chart-Topper Tells a Story. Mainstream Publishing. p. 501. ISBN 9781780574110.
  • ^ du Noyer, Paul (2007). “Subversive Dreamers: Liverpool Songwriting from the Beatles to the Zutons Paul du Noyer”. In Murphy, Michael; Rees-Jones, Deryn (eds.). Writing Liverpool: Essays and Interviews. Liverpool University Press. p. 251. ISBN 9781846310744.
  • ^ “Those who were left behind”. The Guardian. London. 8 May 1999.
  • ^ a b “Hillsborough 96”. Liverpooldailypost.co.uk. 15 April 2009. Archived from the original on 27 September 2011. Retrieved 7 May 2011.
  • ^ “Hillsborough timeline”. The Daily Telegraph. London. 14 April 2009. Retrieved 17 September 2012.
  • ^ “Hillsborough: Brian Reade on the day that changed football forever”. Daily Mirror. UK. 14 April 2009. Retrieved 7 September 2009.
  • ^ Johnson, Mark. “Mum pays tribute to teenage Hillsborough victim Lee Nicol from Smollett Street Bootle”. Bootle Times. Retrieved 7 May 2011.
  • ^ Brace, Matthew (26 March 1997). “Hillsborough survivor ‘awakes'”. The Independent. London. Retrieved 7 May 2011.
  • ^ Kelly, Jo (15 April 2009). “Steven Brown, 25 – Hillsborough 96 – Hillsborough Remembered”. Liverpool Daily Post. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
  • ^ Traynor, Luke (15 April 2009). “Peter Thompson, 30 – Hillsborough 96 – Hillsborough Remembered”. Liverpool Daily Post. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
  • ^ Taylor, Louise (10 April 2009). “Steven Gerrard says death of his cousin at Hillsborough was biggest inspiration”. The Guardian. London. Retrieved 15 April 2011.
  • ^ “Hillsborough’s ’97th victim’ remembered”. The Bolton News. 28 April 2016.
  • ^ “Hillsborough inquests: The 96 who died”. BBC News. 28 March 2014.
  • ^ Conn, David (13 April 2009). “Hillsborough: how stories of disaster police were altered”. The Guardian. London.
  • ^ Shennan, Paddy (26 April 2016). “Timeline of a 27 year fight for the truth after the Hillsborough disaster”. Liverpool Echo.
  • ^ “Judgement of Divisional Court, 5 November 1993 application to quash the Inquest verdicts of six of the Hillsborough victims | Hillsborough Independent Panel”. Hillsborough.independent.gov.uk. 5 November 1993. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
  • ^ a b “‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’ : A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated” (PDF). Assets.publishing.service.gov.uk. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
  • ^ European court blow for mother of Hillsborough victim Liverpool Daily Post, 31 March 2009
  • ^ [2][dead link]
  • ^ Barlow, Eleanor (27 April 2016). “Two doctors who criticised Hillsborough ambulance response speak of “vindication” after inquests”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 5 May 2018.
  • ^ Barlow, Eleanor (27 April 2016). “The two doctors who criticised the Hillsborough ambulance response”. Liverpool Echo.
  • ^ [3][dead link]
  • ^ Taylor, Lord Justice (August 1989). “Hillsborough Stadium Disaster Inquiry – Interim Report” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 June 2013. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
  • ^ a b c d Taylor (1989), p. 49.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 52.
  • ^ a b Taylor (1989), p. 36.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 47.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 40.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 23.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 32.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 24.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 44.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 46.
  • ^ [4][dead link]
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 53.
  • ^ Taylor (1989), p. 50.
  • ^ “A hard lesson to learn”. London: BBC News. 15 April 1999. Retrieved 4 August 2007.
  • ^ “The Architects Journal:Building Study (September 1993)”. Millwall-history.co.uk. Retrieved 7 May 2011.
  • ^ SPL rules
  • ^ Premier League rules
  • ^ Football League rules
  • ^ Stand Up Sit Down – A Choice to Watch Football. Peter Caton 2012. Troubador. ISBN 978-1-78088-177-5 Chapters 23 – 25
  • ^ a b c d “The Stuart Smith Scrutiny – Hillsborough Football Disaster”. Contrast.org. Retrieved 14 September 2012.
  • ^ Stuart-Smith, Murray. Scrutiny of Evidence Relating to the Hillsborough Football Stadium Disaster London, The Stationery Office, 1998.
  • ^ a b “8 May 1998 : Column 941”. Parliament of the United Kingdom. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
  • ^ a b “Hillsborough inquiry by Blair government criticised”. BBC News. 25 October 2011.
  • ^ “Hillsborough Independent Panel”. Hillsborough Independent Panel: Disclosed Material and Report. 2012. Retrieved 27 April 2016. Over 450,000 pages reviewed – Documents and other material from the contributing organisations including reports, minutes of meetings, transcripts, witness statements, letters and memos, records of telephone calls.
  • ^ “Organisations and people whose material has been reviewed”. Hillsborough Independent Panel: Disclosed Material and Report. 2012. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Conn, David (12 September 2012). “Hillsborough panel set to publish report on 1989 disaster”. The Guardian. London. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ a b “Parliamentary business”. Parliament of the United Kingdom. 15 December 2009.
  • ^ “Hillsborough files may be opened”. London: BBC News. 19 April 2009. Retrieved 19 April 2009.
  • ^ “Who are the members of the Hillsborough Independent Panel?”. Liverpool Echo. 12 September 2012.
  • ^ Home Page Hillsborough Independent Report
  • ^ “Page 14 – Hillsborough Independent Panel”. Hillsborough Independent Panel Report. Retrieved 19 January 2013.
  • ^ Gibson, Owen; Conn, David (13 September 2012). “Hillsborough disaster: new inquest likely after damning report”. The Guardian. Retrieved 22 March 2013.
  • ^ Tozer, James (14 September 2012). “41 could have survived stadium crush”. The Advertiser. p. 36.
  • ^ Siddique, Haroon (12 September 2012). “Hillsborough disaster report published”. The Guardian. London.
  • ^ Hillsborough files: Calls to strip Sir Irvine Patnick of knighthood The Scotsman
  • ^ Hillsborough: The Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, pages 350–352.
  • ^ “Page 4 | Home Office”. Hillsborough.independent.gov.uk. 15 April 1989. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
  • ^ “Hillsborough Disaster Report Published – Wednesday 12 September”. The Guardian. 12 September 2012. Retrieved 8 March 2017.
  • ^ “Hillsborough papers: Cameron apology over “double injustice””. BBC News. 12 September 2012. Retrieved 12 September 2012.
  • ^ “Hillsborough statement: Cameron and Miliband apologise”. BBC Democracy Live. BBC. 12 September 2012. Retrieved 12 September 2012.
  • ^ a b “Kelvin MacKenzie offers ‘profuse apologies’ over Hillsborough”. ITV.com. 12 September 2012. Retrieved 12 September 2012.
  • ^ Press Association (17 September 2012). “Hillsborough families demand new inquests be held”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ Gibson, Owen; Conn, David (13 September 2012). “New Hillsborough inquest likely after damning report”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ Press Association (13 September 2012). “Hillsborough families call for FA apology over disaster”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ Conn, David (19 September 2012). “Hillsborough report: FA could face charges, lawyers tell Liverpool fans’ families”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ Conn, David (19 September 2012). “Hillsborough families call for Sheffield Wednesday manslaughter inquiry”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ Gibson, Owen (13 September 2012). “Hillsborough: Sheffield Wednesday and police urged to admit blame”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ Conn, David (19 September 2012). “Premier League chairman must resign, says Hillsborough support group”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ Press Association (17 September 2012). “Hillsborough: home secretary says law-breakers must face investigation”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ a b Eagle, Maria. “22 Oct 2012 : Column 765”. Hansard. UK Parliament. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  • ^ Dodd, Vikram (24 October 2012). “Hillsborough: Norman Bettison resigns from West Yorkshire police”. The Guardian. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  • ^ Conn, David (24 October 2012). “Hillsborough: police chief ‘boasted’ of role in smearing fans”. The Guardian. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  • ^ Holehouse, Matthew (13 September 2012). “Hillsborough: Football fans’ behaviour made police’s job harder, says Sir Norman Bettison”. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 29 April 2016.
  • ^ “Bettison due £83k-a-year pension despite Hillsborough probe”. BBC News. 25 October 2012. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
  • ^ Eagle, Maria. “22 Oct 2012 : Column 735”. Hansard. UK Parliament. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  • ^ “BAILII”. Retrieved 12 November 2015.
  • ^ “Hillsborough Inquests”. Retrieved 12 November 2015.
  • ^ “Hillsborough inquests: Jury reaches decision on unlawful killing question”. BBC News. Retrieved 25 April 2016.
  • ^ “Hillsborough disaster: Fans unlawfully killed”. BBC News. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  • ^ “Hillsborough inquest verdicts quashed by High Court”. BBC News. 19 December 2012. Retrieved 22 December 2012.
  • ^ Siddle, John (26 April 2016). “Margaret Aspinall: I am so grateful to the people of Liverpool”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Kirkby, Dean (26 April 2016). “Tears of joy as inquest jury exonerates the 96 Hillsborough victims”. The Independent. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ “Hillsborough inquests: Reaction to unlawful killing conclusion”. BBC News. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ “Hillsborough – Statement”. Hansard volume 608. UK Parliament. 27 April 2016. pp. Column 1433. Retrieved 7 May 2018.
  • ^ a b Morris, Nigel (26 April 2016). “Hillsborough inquest suggests police ‘should be prosecuted'”. The Independent. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Taylor, Joshua (26 April 2016). “Calls for prosecutions after ‘greatest miscarriage of justice of our times'”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ “Labour Party: ‘Greatest miscarriage of justice of our times'”. ITV News. 26 April 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Prince, Rosa (13 September 2012). “Jack Straw expresses regret over failure of Hillsborough review”. The Telegraph.
  • ^ Taylor, Joshua (29 April 2016). “Jack Straw on 1997 Hillsborough inquiry: ‘I wish I could turn the clock back'”. Liverpool Echo.
  • ^ Taylor, Joshua (27 April 2016). “Kelvin MacKenzie is still blaming other people for S*n’s shameful front page”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Taylor, Joshua (26 April 2016). “Watch ex-S*n editor Kelvin MacKenzie squirm as he’s chased by cameraman”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Conn, David (17 December 2014). “Freemason police officers tried to ‘shift blame’ after Hillsborough disaster, inquest told”. The Guardian. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  • ^ Barlow, Eleanor (17 November 2014). “Hillsborough: David Duckenfield was in same Masons lodge as officer he replaced”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  • ^ Nagesh, Ashitha (26 April 2016). “Hillsborough tragedy: Did the Freemasons influence the Police?”. Metro. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  • ^ Pilling, Kim (26 April 2016). “Did Freemasons influence police over Hillsborough?”. The Scotsman. Johnston Press. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  • ^ Penrose, Justin (13 October 2013). “Hillsborough: Freemason cops banned from working on criminal probe into cover-up”.
  • ^ Kay, Dan (4 January 2016). “Freemasons barred from investigation into alleged Hillsborough ‘cover-up'”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  • ^ Crowcroft, Orlando (8 January 2016). “Hillsborough disaster: Why have freemasons been banned from the 1989 tragedy ‘cover up’ probe?”. International Business Times UK. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  • ^ Laville, Sandra (14 September 2012). “South Yorkshire police to ask IPCC to investigate Hillsborough officers’ conduct”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ “Justice for Hillsborough Victims and Families: What Happens Next?”. International Business Times. 12 September 2012. Retrieved 9 March 2017.
  • ^ Press Association (19 September 2012). “West Yorkshire Chief Constable referred to IPCC”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ Conn, David (5 October 2012). “Hillsborough disaster: Bettison’s role revealed”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ Laville, Sarah (4 October 2012). “Hillsborough tragedy: Norman Bettison to retire after controversy over role”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 October 2012.
  • ^ Gibson, Owen (12 October 2012). “Hillsborough disaster: the new evidence under IPCC investigation”. The Guardian. Retrieved 2 May 2013.
  • ^ Gibson, Owen (12 October 2012). “Hillsborough disaster: watchdog to launch biggest ever inquiry into police”. The Guardian. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  • ^ Conn, David (12 October 2012). “IPCC Hillsborough inquiry is another vindication for families”. The Guardian. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  • ^ “Hillsborough probe ‘to be UK’s biggest into police conduct'”. BBC News. 12 October 2012. Retrieved 12 October 2012.
  • ^ “Hillsborough: 1,444 police names passed to IPCC”. BBC News. 22 October 2012. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
  • ^ “Hillsborough: Application for new inquests”. BBC News. 16 October 2012. Retrieved 16 October 2012.
  • ^ “Hillsborough Investigation Update: Independent Police Complaints Commission” (PDF). ipcc.gov.uk. 11 July 2013. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  • ^ “Hillsborough: 19 people refuse to help IPCC inquiry”. The Guardian. Press Association. 2 June 2016. Retrieved 5 March 2017.
  • ^ “Hillsborough probe finds more police statements changed”. BBC News. 12 July 2013.
  • ^ “Statements from the CPS, IPCC and Operation Resolve following Hillsborough inquests verdict”. Crown Prosecution Service. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  • ^ “Straw backs Hillsborough officer”. BBC News. 6 November 1998. Retrieved 11 September 2006.
  • ^ “Hillsborough police ‘blamed fans'”. BBC News. 13 June 2000. Retrieved 11 September 2006.
  • ^ “Hillsborough jury discharged”. BBC News. 24 July 2000. Retrieved 11 September 2006.
  • ^ Doyle, Mario Ledwith, Jack, (19 December 2012). “Fresh hopes for prosecutions over Hillsborough Disaster as police launch new investigation and High Court quashes accidental death inquest verdicts on 96 fans”. Daily Mail. Retrieved 22 December 2012.
  • ^ “New Hillsborough Investigation Boss Appointed”. BBC News. 5 December 2016. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  • ^ “David Duckenfield faces 95 Hillsborough manslaughter charges”. BBC News Online. Retrieved 28 June 2017.
  • ^ Independent Police Complaints Commission [@IPCCNews] (28 June 2017). “(untitled)” (Tweet). Retrieved 29 June 2017 – via Twitter.
  • ^ “Hillsborough disaster accused appear in court”. BBC News Online. Retrieved 9 August 2017.
  • ^ “Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield can face trial”. Sky News. Retrieved 29 June 2018.
  • ^ “Hillsborough officer not charged over horse burn claims”. BBC News Online. Retrieved 15 December 2017.
  • ^ “Hillsborough charges against Sir Norman Bettison dropped”. BBC News Online. Retrieved 21 August 2018.
  • ^ “Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield denies manslaughter”. BBC News Online. Retrieved 10 September 2018.
  • ^ “Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield appears in court at start of manslaughter trial”. ITV News. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
  • ^ “Hillsborough trial: David Duckenfield ‘will not testify'”. BBC News Online. Retrieved 13 March 2019.
  • ^ “Hillsborough trial: No verdict over David Duckenfield”. BBC News Online. Retrieved 3 April 2019.
  • ^ Halliday, Josh; Bowcott, Owen (28 April 2016). “Hillsborough families to sue police for ‘abuse on industrial scale'”. The Guardian. London. Retrieved 28 April 2016.
  • ^ “Hillsborough memorial clock unveiled at Liverpool Town Hall”. Liverpool Echo. 29 April 2013. Retrieved 5 May 2018.
  • ^ Davies, Helen (5 February 2015). “Everton FC to unveil tribute to Hillsborough 96 ahead of Merseyside derby”. Liverpool Echo.
  • ^ “Uefa to help Liverpool Avoid Hillsborough Clash”. The Guardian. 18 February 2009. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  • ^ “Hillsborough 10 Years On”. BBC.
  • ^ “South African Reds to Hold Memorial”. liverpoolfc.tv. Retrieved 12 March 2017.
  • ^ Staff, FA (21 March 2014). “Football to remember Hillsborough disaster”. The FA. UK. Retrieved 12 April 2014.
  • ^ Jury, Lousie (11 April 1999). “A minute’s silence to remember Hillsborough”. The Independent. UK. Retrieved 15 April 2009.
  • ^ “Plea for Hillsborough justice”. London: BBC News. 15 April 1999. Retrieved 15 April 2009.
  • ^ “Liverpool avoid Hillsborough anniversary clash”. The Independent. London. Reuters. 20 March 2009. Retrieved 2 April 2010.
  • ^ “Reds united in demanding justice”. ESPN Star. 16 April 2009. Archived from the original on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 7 May 2011.
  • ^ “Thousands flock to Anfield as Liverpool marks 20th anniversary of Hillsborough”. Liverpool Echo. 15 April 2009. Retrieved 15 April 2009.
  • ^ “Hundreds mark Hillsborough anniversary in city”. Nottingham Post. 15 April 2009. Retrieved 15 April 2009.
  • ^ “Sheffield’s Hillsborough tribute”. London: BBC News. 15 April 2009. Retrieved 15 April 2009.
  • ^ White, Jim (15 April 2009). “Liverpool fans turn on Andy Burnham”. The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 15 April 2009.
  • ^ “Fans remember Hillsborough”. BBC News. 15 April 2009. Retrieved 15 April 2009.
  • ^ “Southport.TV”. Southport.TV. Retrieved 7 May 2011.
  • ^ “Hillsborough tribute CD released”. London: BBC News. 22 March 2009. Retrieved 19 April 2009.
  • ^ “Kenny’s king as Legends triumph”. Liverpool Echo. 15 May 2009. Retrieved 21 May 2009.
  • ^ “Match marks Hillsborough tragedy”. London: BBC Sport. 15 May 2009. Retrieved 21 May 2009.
  • ^ “Soccer Resumes, Sadly”. The New York Times. 23 April 1989. Retrieved 29 December 2008.
  • ^ “Milan vs Real Madrid”. Retrieved 4 April 2014.
  • ^ Lacey, David (17 April 1999). “Giggs showed that even in a cash-conscious age the game has moments which defy evaluation”. The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 29 December 2008.
  • ^ “Milan vs Real Madrid – Fans Sing You’ll Never Walk Alone”. Retrieved 11 August 2008.
  • ^ “We’ve Met (Bradford) Before”. Redimps.co.uk. Archived from the original on 26 February 2009. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
  • ^ “1989-04-30: Celtic 0–4 Liverpool, Hillsborough Memorial Match”.
  • ^ “MP’s tearful tribute to Hillsborough 96”. BBC News. 17 October 2011. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
  • ^ “Hillsborough debate full transcript: Read everything MPs said in the House of Commons – link to full video now added”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
  • ^ a b c Scraton, Phil (13 May 2011). Hillsborough – The Truth. Mainstream Publishing. pp. 116–118. ISBN 978-1-78057-041-9.
  • ^ a b MacKenzie, Kelvin (29 September 2012). “Hillsborough and me”. The Spectator. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
  • ^ a b c “Chapter 12: Behind the headlines: the origins, promotion and reproduction of unsubstantiated allegations”. The Truth (Report). Hillsborough Independent: Panel Disclosed Material and Report. p. 3. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
  • ^ “Police attack ‘vile’ fans”. London Evening Standard: 1. 18 April 1989.
  • ^ a b “The Immediate Aftermath – The Media Reaction – Hillsborough Football Disaster”. Contrast.org. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
  • ^ Herbert, Ian (28 September 2012). “Is it time to forgive and forget Kelvin Mackenzie and the Sun over the lies they told about Hillsborough?”. The Independent. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  • ^ Scraton (1999), p. 118.
  • ^ “Original ‘copy’ of Hillsborough story filed by White’s news agency” (PDF). News International. Hillsborough Independent Panel: Disclosed Material and Report. 18 April 1989. Retrieved 2 May 2016.
  • ^ “Hillsborough Inquests: ‘Regrets’ over pickpocketing claims”. Liverpool: BBC News. 10 October 2014. Retrieved 1 May 2016.
  • ^ Gibson, Owen; Carter, Helen (18 April 2009). “Hillsborough: 20 years on, Liverpool has still not forgiven the newspaper it calls ‘The Scum'”. The Guardian. London. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
  • ^ “Hillsborough report: Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement in full”. The Telegraph. London. 12 September 2012. Retrieved 12 September 2012.
  • ^ “Police Accuse Drunken Fans” (PDF). Daily Express. London: Northern & Shell. 19 April 1989. Retrieved 12 September 2012.
  • ^ Gibson, Owen (7 July 2004). “What the Sun said 15 years ago”. The Guardian. London. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
  • ^ “Witness: Boycott of The Sun newspaper”. BBC. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
  • ^ Conn, David (26 April 2016). “How the Sun’s ‘truth’ about Hillsborough unravelled”. The Guardian. Retrieved 29 April 2016.
  • ^ Chippendale, Peter; Horrie, Chris (1990). Stick it up your Punter!. Heinemann. ISBN 0 434 12624 1.
  • ^ Gibson, Owen; Carter, Helen (17 April 2009). “Hillsborough: 20 years on, Liverpool has still not forgiven the newspaper it calls ‘The Scum'”. The Guardian.
  • ^ Greenslade, Roy (29 October 2006). “Why is The Sun cutting its price”. The Guardian. London. Retrieved 25 March 2010.
  • ^ Gibson, Owen (7 July 2004). “What the Sun said 15 years ago”. The Guardian. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  • ^ Lister, Sam. “Ex-Sun editor: I was right on Hillsborough”. Liverpool Daily Post. Liverpool Daily Post and Echo. Archived from the original on 4 December 2006. Retrieved 1 December 2006.
  • ^ Conlan, Tara (12 January 2007). “MacKenzie speaks out on Hillsborough comments”. The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 25 March 2010.
  • ^ “The Sun has lost the plot again”. The Liverpool Echo. 7 July 2004. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  • ^ “News International chairman James Murdoch apologises to Liverpool over Sun’s coverage of Hillsborough tragedy”. The Daily Telegraph. London. 10 November 2011. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
  • ^ “Hillsborough files: Reaction to release of government papers”. BBC News. 13 September 2012. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  • ^ “Hillsborough: Kelvin MacKenzie offers ‘profuse apologies to the people of Liverpool'”. The Daily Telegraph. London. 12 September 2012. Retrieved 14 September 2012.
  • ^ a b Allegretti, Aubrey; Harris, Sarah Ann (26 April 2016). “Not Even The Sun Could Have Expected This Level of Anger After Hillsborough Inquest”. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ “Hillsborough: The Sun ‘profoundly sorry’ over false fan conduct reports”, The Daily Telegraph (London), 13 September 2012
  • ^ Burrell, Ian (8 July 2004). “An own goal? Rooney caught in crossfire between ‘The Sun’ and an unforgiving city”. The Independent. London. Retrieved 6 March 2007.
  • ^ George Eaton “The Sun apologises for Hillsborough but it won’t be forgiven”, New Statesman, 13 September 2012
  • ^ a b c Sommers, Jack (27 April 2016). “The Sun Relegates Hillsborough To Page 8, Outrage Ensues”. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Association, Press (27 April 2016). “Sun and Times front pages criticised for ignoring Hillsborough verdict”. The Guardian. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
  • ^ Macdonald, Neil (27 April 2016). “S*n and Times slammed for ignoring Hillsborough on front pages”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
  • ^ a b “Hillsborough: Times admits front page ‘mistake'”. BBC News. 27 April 2016. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
  • ^ York, Chris (26 April 2016). “The Hillsborough Verdict Shows People Still Haven’t Forgiven The Sun Even After 27 Years”. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Taylor, Joshua (26 April 2016). “The S*n hides behind wall of silence after landmark Hillsborough verdicts”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
  • ^ “Liverpool FC ban for Sun journalists over Hillsborough”. BBC News. 10 February 2017. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
  • ^ “Everton join Liverpool in banning Sun journalists over coverage”. The Guardian. 15 April 2017. Retrieved 15 April 2017.
  • ^ Pies and Prejudice: In Search of the North, Stuart Maconie, Random House, 2008, page 67
  • ^ Liverpool – Wondrous Place: From the Cavern to the Capital of Culture, Paul Du Noyer
    Random House, 2012, page 180
  • ^ “No Last Rites: The Denial of Justice and The Promotion of Myth in The Aftermath of The Hillsborough Disaster;” Scraton et al., 1995
  • ^ “Hillsborough Inquiry” Press Commission, 30 July 1989
  • ^ a b c Martinson, Jane (27 April 2016). “Times front page omitting Hillsborough changed after staff revolt”. The Guardian. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ @TheTimes (27 April 2016). “We’ve been criticised today for not having Hillsborough on our first edition front page. This is our response” (Tweet). Retrieved 27 April 2016 – via Twitter.
  • ^ “Hillsborough inquest verdict: the front pages”. The Guardian. 27 April 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Lineker, Gary [@GaryLineker] (27 April 2016). “As disgusting as it is unsurprising. They have no shame” (Tweet). Retrieved 27 April 2016 – via Twitter.
  • ^ Walsh, David [@DavidWalshST] (27 April 2016). “I live in a part of England that receives first edition of The Times. Failure to put Hillsborough on front page a shocking misjudgement” (Tweet). Retrieved 27 April 2016 – via Twitter.
  • ^ a b “FHM Australia, pulled after Hillsborough comments”. Brand Republic. 22 October 2002. Retrieved 7 May 2011.
  • ^ a b c “FHM faces a boycott after Hillsborough ‘joke'”. Press Gazette. 25 October 2002. Archived from the original on 16 June 2011. Retrieved 7 May 2011.
  • ^ Byrne, Ciar (28 October 2002). “FHM bungles Hillsborough apology”. The Guardian. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ “Bigley’s fate”. The Spectator. London: Press Holdings. 16 October 2004. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ a b Doré, Louis (26 April 2016). “The truth about that awful Boris Johnson ‘quote’ on Hillsborough”. indy100. Retrieved 29 April 2016.
  • ^ Heffer, Simon (27 July 2012). “Profoundly flawed, but that won’t stop Teflon Boris’s bid for Dave’s job”. Daily Mail. Retrieved 29 April 2016.
  • ^ “Hillsborough: Boris Johnson apologises for slurs in 2004 Spectator article”. Liverpool Echo. 13 September 2012. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ “Hillsborough papers: Boris Johnson apologises over article”. BBC News. 13 September 2012. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Fitzsimmons, Caitlin (16 November 2007). “EastEnders attracts 1,000 complaints”. The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 18 November 2007.
  • ^ “Club probes Hillsborough ‘insult'”. London: BBC News. 18 April 2009. Retrieved 19 April 2009.
  • ^ “Apology over Hillsborough claims”. BBC News. 28 June 2010.
  • ^ “United fans want to end Hillsborough chants”. ESPN. 15 September 2012.
  • ^ “Manchester United fan groups want end to sick chants”. BBC Sport. 20 September 2012.
  • ^ Bates, Ken (18 September 2012). “Leeds United v Hull City official matchday programme”. Leeds United A.F.C.: 5.
  • ^ Holehouse, Matthew (19 October 2011). “Hillsborough disaster: Sir Oliver Popplewell outrages campaigners with comments”. The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
  • ^ “Former judge tells Hillsborough families to drop ‘conspiracy theories'”. The Guardian. London. Press Association. 19 October 2011. Retrieved 2 November 2012.
  • ^ “Hillsborough disaster: Probe into South Yorkshire police email”. BBC News. 14 June 2013.
  • ^ Thomas, Joe (26 April 2016). “Hillsborough disaster inquests verdict finds Liverpool fans unlawfully killed”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 27 April 2016. The jury at the inquests today delivered a set of damning verdicts placing the responsibility for the disaster directly in the hands of the police, ambulance service and structural engineers who worked on the Leppings Lane end. The nine members of the jury panel also declared that fans played no role in the events that caused the crush on the terraces.
  • ^ “Hillsborough inquests: Jury reaches decision on unlawful killing question”. BBC News. 26 April 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ “South Yorkshire Police chief suspended over Hillsborough”. BBC News. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Tran, Mark (17 June 2014). “Civil servant sacked for offensive Wikipedia edits on Hillsborough”. The Guardian. London. Retrieved 17 June 2014.
  • ^ “Q&A: Fox’s Steven Cohen on the Advertiser Boycott Over His Remarks on Soccer Stadium Deaths”. 24 June 2009. Retrieved 25 October 2015.
  • ^ “Steven Cohen Apologizes For Inaccurate Hillsborough Claims”. World Soccer Talk. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  • ^ “Steven Cohen Blames Liverpool Fans For Hillsborough Disaster”. World Soccer Talk. 20 April 2009. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  • ^ “Flashback: The Hillsborough Disaster and the Fall of Steven Cohen”. World Soccer Talk. 14 April 2014. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  • ^ Bartlett, David (17 January 2013). “Hillsborough mum tells of Sir Bernard Ingham’s “hurtful” letters”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 26 April 2013.
  • ^ a b “Bernard Ingham, who called Liverpool fans ‘tanked up yobs’, still refuses to apologise to Hillsborough families despite inquest findings”. The Belfast Telegraph. 26 April 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ a b Bagot, Martin (26 April 2016). “Ingham STILL refuses to say sorry for blaming Liverpool fans over Hillsborough”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Belger, Tom (27 April 2016). “Petition to strip Bernard Ingham of his knighthood for blaming fans”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  • ^ Thomas, Joe (15 March 2018). “Why the people of Liverpool are totally justified in holding Topman to account”. Liverpool Echo. Retrieved 16 March 2018.
  • ^ “Hillsborough Drama Shown Again on ITV Tonight at 10:20 pm”. itv.com. Retrieved 12 March 2017.
  • ^ Web page for 30 for 30: Hillsborough
  • ^ “When a game turned into a disaster”. The New York Times. 14 April 2014. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
  • ^ Buchholz, Andrew (15 April 2014). “ESPN’s Hillsborough documentary can’t be aired in the United Kingdom thanks to British laws”. Awful Announcing, Bloguin. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
  • ^ “BBC – Hillsborough – Media Centre”. BBC.
  • ^ “Speakers – Lance Nielsen”. London Screenwriters’ Festival. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
  • Further reading

    • Armstrong, Gary. Football Hooligans: Knowing the Score (1998) 361p, focus on Hillsborough
    • Nicholson, Carol E., and B. Roebuck. “The investigation of the Hillsborough disaster by the Health and Safety Executive.” Safety Science 18.4 (1995): 249–259.
    • Scraton, Phil. Hillsborough: The Truth. ISBN 1-84018-156-7.
    • Scraton, Phil. “4 Death on the Terraces: The Contexts and Injustices of the 1989 Hillsborough Disaster.” Soccer & Society 5.2 (2004): 183–200.
    • —; Jemphrey, Ann; Coleman, Sheila. No Last Rights: The Denial of Justice and the Promotion of Myth in the Aftermath of the Hillsborough Disaster. ISBN 0-904517-30-6.
    • —. “Death on the Terraces: The Contexts and Injustices of the 1989 Hillsborough Disaster”. In Darby, Paul; Johnes, Martin; Mellor, Gavin (eds.). Soccer and Disaster: International Perspectives. Sport in the Global Society. ISBN 0-7146-8289-6.
    • Taylor, Rogan, Ward, Andrew and Newburn, Tim. The day of the Hillsborough disaster: a narrative account (Liverpool University Press, 1995)
    • Scrutiny of Evidence Relating to the Hillsborough Football Stadium Disaster (Command Paper); Home Office; ISBN 0-10-138782-2
    • Sports Stadia After Hillsborough: Seminar Papers; RIBA, Sports Council, Owen Luder (Ed.); ISBN 0-947877-72-X
    • Taylor, Rogan; Ward, Andrew; Newburn, Tim. The Day of the Hillsborough Disaster. ISBN 0-85323-199-0.
    • The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, 15 April 1989: Inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor (Cm.: 765); Peter Taylor; ISBN 0-10-107652-5
    • The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster: Inquiry Final Report (Command Paper); Home Office; ISBN 0-10-109622-4
    • Words of tribute: An anthology of 95 poems written after the Hillsborough tragedy, 15 April 1989. ISBN 1-871474-18-3.
    • The Hillsborough Football Disaster: Context & Consequences. ISBN 978-0-9562275-0-8.
    • Bartram, Mike. The Nightmare of Hillsborough. ISBN 978-1-906823-49-8.
    • Bartram, Mike. Justice Call: my Hillsborough poems. ISBN 978-1-906823-28-3.
    • The Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, House of Commons HC581, London, The Stationery Office, 12 September 2012. ISBN 9780102980356
    • Joint Working Party on Ground Safety and Public Order. Ground safety and public order: Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, report of Joint Working Party on Ground Safety and Public Order (Report/Joint Executive on Football Safety);. ISBN 0-901783-73-0.

    External links

    • Hillsborough Independent Panel (includes digital archives of material used for the panel’s inquiry)
    • Hillsborough Family Support Group (HFSG)
    • Hillsborough Justice Campaign (HJC)
    • Liverpool Football Club Hillsborough Memorial
    • HFD – A brief but fact filled reposte of the myths of the hillsborough disaster.
    • Detailed transcript of The Sun newspaper coverage of the Hillsborough disaster.
    • List of archive and library material relating to the disaster held at Sheffield City Council’s Libraries and Archives.
    • Bibliography of over 150 books, journal articles, TV programmes and websites relating to the Disaster and its aftermath produced by Sheffield City Council’s Archives Service.
    • A 20 minute video of the disaster in Windows Media Player format.
    • September 2012 Hillsborough disaster report (7.25 megabytes) (Archive)

    Women’sCompetitionsVenues

    • Bramall Lane
    • Hillsborough
    • Keepmoat Stadium
    • New York Stadium
    • Oakwell
    • Sandygate Road

    Other topics

    • Sheffield & Hallamshire County FA
    • Defunct clubs
    • Defunct competitions
    • Defunct venues
    • The Rules derby
    • Sheffield Rules
    • The Steel City derby
    • Hillsborough disaster

    Related articles

    • 2005–06 UEFA Champions League qualification
    • A.F.C. Liverpool
    • The Boot Room
    • Fenway Sports Group
    • Liverpool F.C. Women
    • Respect 4 All
    • Spice Boys
    • Spion Kop
    • Superleague Formula team
    • 1915 British football betting scandal
    •   Book
    •   Category
    •   Commons
    •   WikiProject
    • Yorkshire portal
    • English football portal
    • Disasters portal
    • 1980s portal


    Fire investigation

    (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

    London Fire Investigation Unit

    Fire investigation, sometimes referred to as origin and cause investigation, is the analysis of fire-related incidents. After firefighters extinguish a fire, an investigation is launched to determine the origin and cause of the fire or explosion. Investigations of such incidents require a systematic approach and knowledge of basic fire science.

    Contents

    • 1 Investigating fires
    • 2 Recommended practices
    • 3 Conducting investigations
    • 4 Spoliation
    • 5 Qualification
    • 6 See also
    • 7 Footnotes
    • 8 References
    • 9 External links

    Investigating fires[edit]

    In common with many forensic disciplines, one of the early tasks of fire investigation is often to determine whether or not a crime has been committed[citation needed]. The difficulty of determining whether arson has occurred arises because fire often destroys the key evidence of its origin. Many fires are caused by defective equipment, such as shorting of faulty electrical circuits. Car fires can be caused by faulty fuel lines, and spontaneous combustion is possible where organic wastes are stored.

    A fire investigator looks at the fire remains, and obtains information to reconstruct the sequence of events leading up to the fire.

    One of the challenging aspects of fire investigation is the multi-disciplinary basis of the investigator’s job. As fires can be caused by or involve many ignition sources and fuels, fire investigators need to know not only the science of fire behavior, but also to have a working understanding of many different areas of study including construction, electricity, human behavior, and mechanical devices. For example, if there is a gas appliance at the origin of the fire, an investigator should know enough about appliances to either include or exclude it as a possible cause of the fire. Fire investigators sometimes work with forensic engineers, such as forensic electrical engineers when examining electrical appliances, household wiring, etc.

    Recommended practices[edit]

    In the United States, fire investigators often refer to NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (National Fire Protection Association).

    Also, Kirk’s Fire Investigation by David J. Icove and Gerald A. Haynes has long been regarded as the primary textbook in the field of fire investigation.[1] It is currently in its 8th edition (published in 2017, .mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}ISBN 978-0134237923).

    Conducting investigations[edit]

    Fire investigators conduct their investigations using a systematic approach utilizing the scientific method, including the following:[2]

    The investigator:

    • Receives the assignment and responsibilities
    • Plans the investigation and assembles tools, equipment, and personnel
    • Examines the scene and collects data
    • Collects, tests, evaluates, and documents evidence
    • Applies the scientific method to analyze the information obtained

    Spoliation[edit]

    Spoliation is the destruction or alteration of evidence through intention or ignorance. The mere act of extinguishing a fire can destroy potential evidence of arson
    or what is also known as an “Incendiary fire.” Firefighters are educated that the stream of their fire hose or the use of a Pike Pole can destroy evidence and efforts are made to do what is required to extinguish the fire, while not destroying clues to the fires’ origin. A fire investigation was once compromised by a fire fighter turning off the knobs on a gas stove in the interests of safety after a house fire was knocked down. In the following investigation the homeowner’s daughter was accused by her father of leaving the stove on after she left the house but there was then no way to accurately determine the position of the burner knobs on the stove. Though there were no criminal issues involved in this fire, this incident of spoliation created a lack of closure for the family and feelings of distrust and animosity within the family members. -FIRE INVESTIGATION by Russell Chandler. Delmar Cengage Learning – Publishers.

    Qualification[edit]

    The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), through a document known as NFPA 1033, Standard for Professional Requirements for Fire Investigator, publishes minimum requirements for the knowledge skills and ability of a fire investigator. Principal among these is a 16-point list of areas in which a fire investigator is required to have education beyond high school level. These 16 topics are:

  • Fire science
  • Fire chemistry
  • Thermodynamics
  • Thermometry
  • Fire dynamics
  • Explosion dynamics
  • Computer fire modeling
  • Fire investigation
  • Fire analysis
  • Fire investigation methodology
  • Fire investigation technology
  • Hazardous materials
  • Failure analysis and analytical tools
  • Fire scene investigators may become certified through the National Association of Fire Investigators (NAFI)or the International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI). Both certification programs rely heavily on the content of NFPA 1033 and NFPA 921. Both also require an application process detailing the investigator’s education, training, and experience, and successfully challenging a written examination. Certificates are valid for a period of 5 years, at which time an investigator must demonstrate continued participation in the field and a minimum amount of continuing education in order to be recertified.

    The National Association of Fire Investigators (NAFI), a professional association of fire and explosion investigators, offer several National Board Certified fire investigation certifications including:

  • Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator (CFEI),
  • Certified Vehicle Fire Investigator (CVFI), and
  • Certified Fire Investigation Instructor (CFII).
  • The International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI), a professional group of fire investigators, grants the following certifications:

  • Certified Fire Investigator (IAAI-CFI) – certified by the ProBoard Fire Service Professional Qualifications System.
  • Fire Investigation Technician (IAAI-FIT)
  • Certified Instructor (IAAI-CI)
  • Evidence Collection Technician (IAAI-ECT)
  • See also[edit]

    • ATF Fire Research Laboratory
    • Fire marshal
    • Fire protection engineer
    • Kirk’s Fire Investigation
    • Women in firefighting
    • Cameron Todd Willingham
    • Kenny Richey

    Footnotes[edit]

  • ^ J.F. Decker and B.L. Ottley, Arson Law and Prosecution, Carolina Academic Press, ISBN 1-59460-590-4, 2009, p. 22.
  • ^ NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations
  • References[edit]

    • National Fire Protection Association (2004). NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (2004 ed.). National Fire Protection Association. ISBN 0-00-653937-8.

    External links[edit]

    • Example of an actual Arson Investigation Report


    Armstrong Investigation

    William Armstrong, who spearheaded the investigation

    The Armstrong Commission, formally the Joint Committee of the Senate and Assembly of the State of New York to Investigate and Examine into the Business and Affairs of Life Insurance Companies Doing Business in the State of New York was an investigation begun in late 1905 when the New York State Legislature initiated an investigation of the life insurance companies operating in New York. It began after an accumulation of complaints by consumers and other insurers, and was catalyzed by rumors that James Hazen Hyde, a vice president and expected next corporate president of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, had charged the expense of an immense costume ball that year to the corporate account.[1]

    Known as “the Armstrong Committee”, the New York Legislature Insurance Investigation Committee of 1905 eventually issued a report highlighting a number of questionable practices. The legislature in New York and several other states adopted many of the recommendations, including a restriction on policies with lengthy deferred payouts, including the 19th century version of tontines.[1] The report also recommended a prohibition on political campaign contributions by such corporations. It is credited with launching the political career of Charles Evans Hughes.[2] It conducted 51 investigatory sessions and its recommendations were incorporated into eight New York State statutes. Numerous other states soon followed suit.[3]

    Contents

    • 1 Background
    • 2 References
    • 3 Sources
    • 4 Further reading

    Background[edit]

    A tontine is an investment plan for raising capital in which each subscriber pays an agreed sum into the fund, and thereafter receives an annuity. As members die, their shares devolve to the other participants, and so the value of each annuity increases. On the death of the last member, the scheme is wound up.[4] After an initial introduction in 1868 in the United States, they soon grew in popularity, to the point that by 1905, two-thirds of the life insurance in the United States was in the form of tontines. Tontine insurance was first developed in the United States by Sheppard Homans, an actuary of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States.[5]

    The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States had grown to be one of the largest insurance companies in the United States, with over $1 billion in assets around 1900. After continued elaborate activities by the executives at the company, allegations of corruption occurred. An investigation by the New York Insurance Department uncovered a series of corrupt practices used by the company. The report came to the conclusion that “A cancer can not be cured by treating the symptoms. Complete mutualization, to be paid for at a price only commensurate with its dividends is, in my opinion, the only sure measure of relief.” The findings led to the creation of the Armstrong Commission, to investigate such practices across the industry. Spearheaded by William Armstrong, a State Senator, the commission began work in 1905.[6]

    References[edit]

  • ^ a b Evolving Financial Markets and International Capital Flows: Britain, the Americas, and Australia, 1865–1914, Lance E. Davis and Robert E. Gallman, p 286
  • ^ Ransom & Sutch 1987, pp. 380.
  • ^ Miller, John W. (October 1982). “Faded History: The 1905 Armstrong Investigation”. CLU Journal. 36: 78–85..mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:”””””””‘””‘”}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration{color:#555}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration span{border-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url(“//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png”)no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center}.mw-parser-output code.cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-right{padding-right:0.2em}
  • ^ Weir, David R. (1989). “Tontines, Public Finance, and Revolution in France and England, 1688-1789”. Journal of Economic History. 49: 95–124. doi:10.1017/s002205070000735x.
  • ^ Ransom & Sutch 1987, pp. 167–168.
  • ^ Skwire, Daniel D. “David Graham Phillips and the Great American Insurance Novel” (PDF). Milliman.
  • Sources[edit]

    • Ransom, Roger L.; Sutch, Richard (June 1987). “Tontine Insurance and the Armstrong Investigation: A Case of Stifled Innovation, 1868-1905”. The Journal of Economic History. 47: 379–390. OCLC 848874732.

    Further reading[edit]

    • Testimony : taken before the Joint Committee of the Senate and Assembly of the State of New York to Investigate and Examine into the Business and Affairs of Life Insurance Companies Doing Business in the State of New York Archive.org link