U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Report On The Investigation Into
Russian Interference In The
2016 Presidential Election
Volume I of II
Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III
Submitted Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c)
Washington, D.C.
March 2019
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)


 
 


 




 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
TABLE OF CONTENTS – VOLUME I
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I .......................................................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME I............................................................................................... 4
I. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION ................................................................................. 11
II. RUSSIAN “ACTIVE MEASURES” SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN ..................................................... 14
A. Structure of the Internet Research Agency ................................................................. 15
B. Funding and Oversight from Concord and Prigozhin ................................................. 16
C. The IRA Targets U.S. Elections .................................................................................. 19
1. The IRA Ramps Up U.S. Operations As Early As 2014 ...................................... 19
2. U.S. Operations Through IRA-Controlled Social Media Accounts ..................... 22
3. U.S. Operations Through Facebook...................................................................... 24
4. U.S. Operations Through Twitter ......................................................................... 26
a. Individualized Accounts................................................................................... 26
b. IRA Botnet Activities ...................................................................................... 28
5. U.S. Operations Involving Political Rallies .......................................................... 29
6. Targeting and Recruitment of U.S. Persons .......................................................... 31
7. Interactions and Contacts with the Trump Campaign ........................................... 33
a. Trump Campaign Promotion of IRA Political Materials................................. 33
b. Contact with Trump Campaign Officials in Connection to Rallies ................. 35
III. RUSSIAN HACKING AND DUMPING OPERATIONS ..................................................................... 36
A. GRU Hacking Directed at the Clinton Campaign ....................................................... 36
1. GRU Units Target the Clinton Campaign ............................................................. 36
2. Intrusions into the DCCC and DNC Networks ..................................................... 38
a. Initial Access.................................................................................................... 38
b. Implantation of Malware on DCCC and DNC Networks ................................ 38
c. Theft of Documents from DNC and DCCC Networks .................................... 40
B. Dissemination of the Hacked Materials ...................................................................... 41
1. DCLeaks ............................................................................................................... 41
2. Guccifer 2.0........................................................................................................... 42
3. Use of WikiLeaks ................................................................................................. 44
a. WikiLeaks’s Expressed Opposition Toward the Clinton Campaign ............... 44
b. WikiLeaks’s First Contact with Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks ........................... 45
i

 


 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
c. The GRU’s Transfer of Stolen Materials to WikiLeaks .................................. 45
d. WikiLeaks Statements Dissembling About the Source of Stolen
Materials ........................................................................................................ 48
C. Additional GRU Cyber Operations ............................................................................. 49
1. Summer and Fall 2016 Operations Targeting Democrat-Linked Victims............ 49
2. Intrusions Targeting the Administration of U.S. Elections ................................... 50
D. Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials .................................. 51
1. HOM
.............................................................................................. 51
a. Background ...................................................................................................... 51
b. Contacts with the Campaign about WikiLeaks ................................................ 52
c.
.................... 54
Harm to Ongoing Matter
d. WikiLeaks’s October 7, 2016 Release of Stolen Podesta Emails .................... 58
e. Donald Trump Jr. Interaction with WikiLeaks ................................................ 59
2. Other Potential Campaign Interest in Russian Hacked Materials ......................... 61
a. Henry Oknyansky (a/k/a Henry Greenberg) .................................................... 61
b. Campaign Efforts to Obtain Deleted Clinton Emails ...................................... 62
IV. RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT LINKS TO AND CONTACTS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN................ 66
A. Campaign Period (September 2015 – November 8, 2016) ......................................... 66
1. Trump Tower Moscow Project ............................................................................. 67
a. Trump Tower Moscow Venture with the Crocus Group (2013-2014) ............ 67
b. Communications with I.C. Expert Investment Company and Giorgi
Rtskhiladze (Summer and Fall 2015) ............................................................ 69
c. Letter of Intent and Contacts to Russian Government (October 2015-
January 2016) ................................................................................................ 70
i. Trump Signs the Letter of Intent on behalf of the Trump Organization .... 70
ii. Post-LOI Contacts with Individuals in Russia ......................................... 72
d. Discussions about Russia Travel by Michael Cohen or Candidate Trump
(December 2015-June 2016) ......................................................................... 76
i. Sater’s Overtures to Cohen to Travel to Russia ........................................ 76
ii. Candidate Trump’s Opportunities to Travel to Russia ............................ 78
2. George Papadopoulos ........................................................................................... 80
a. Origins of Campaign Work .............................................................................. 81
b. Initial Russia-Related Contacts ........................................................................ 82
c. March 31 Foreign Policy Team Meeting ......................................................... 85
ii



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
d. George Papadopoulos Learns That Russia Has “Dirt” in the Form of
Clinton Emails ............................................................................................... 86
e. Russia-Related Communications With The Campaign .................................... 89
f. Trump Campaign Knowledge of “Dirt” ........................................................... 93
g. Additional George Papadopoulos Contact ....................................................... 94
Carter Page............................................................................................................ 95
a. Background ...................................................................................................... 96
b. Origins of and Early Campaign Work ............................................................. 97
c. Carter Page’s July 2016 Trip To Moscow ........................................................ 98
d. Later Campaign Work and Removal from the Campaign ............................. 102
Dimitri Simes and the Center for the National Interest ...................................... 103
a. CNI and Dimitri Simes Connect with the Trump Campaign ......................... 103
b. National Interest Hosts a Foreign Policy Speech at the Mayflower Hotel
..................................................................................................................... 105
c. Jeff Sessions’s Post-Speech Interactions with CNI ....................................... 107
d. Jared Kushner’s Continuing Contacts with Simes......................................... 108
June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump Tower ............................................................... 110
a. Setting Up the June 9 Meeting ....................................................................... 110
i. Outreach to Donald Trump Jr. ................................................................. 110
ii. Awareness of the Meeting Within the Campaign ................................... 114
b. The Events of June 9, 2016............................................................................ 116
i. Arrangements for the Meeting ................................................................ 116
ii. Conduct of the Meeting.......................................................................... 117
c. Post-June 9 Events ......................................................................................... 120
Events at the Republican National Convention .................................................. 123
a. Ambassador Kislyak’s Encounters with Senator Sessions and J.D.
Gordon the Week of the RNC ..................................................................... 123
b. Change to Republican Party Platform............................................................ 124
Post-Convention Contacts with Kislyak ............................................................. 127
a.
Ambassador Kislyak Invites J.D. Gordon to Breakfast at the
Ambassador’s Residence ............................................................................. 127
b. Senator Sessions’s September 2016 Meeting with Ambassador Kislyak ...... 127
Paul Manafort...................................................................................................... 129
a. Paul Manafort’s Ties to Russia and Ukraine.................................................. 131
iii

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
 
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
i. Oleg Deripaska Consulting Work ......................................................... 131
ii. Political Consulting Work ..................................................................... 132
iii. Konstantin Kilimnik .............................................................................. 132
b. Contacts during Paul Manafort’s Time with the Trump Campaign .............. 134
i. Paul Manafort Joins the Campaign ......................................................... 134
ii. Paul Manafort’s Campaign-Period Contacts.......................................... 135
iii. Paul Manafort’s Two Campaign-Period Meetings with Konstantin
Kilimnik in the United States ................................................................ 138
c. Post-Resignation Activities............................................................................ 141
B. Post-Election and Transition-Period Contacts .......................................................... 144
1. Immediate Post-Election Activity ....................................................................... 144
a. Outreach from the Russian Government ........................................................ 145
b. High-Level Encouragement of Contacts through Alternative Channels ....... 146
2. Kirill Dmitriev’s Transition-Era Outreach to the Incoming Administration ...... 147
a. Background .................................................................................................... 147
b. Kirill Dmitriev’s Post-Election Contacts With
the Incoming
Administration ............................................................................................. 149
c. Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev Meet in the Seychelles ................................ 151
i. George Nader and Erik Prince Arrange Seychelles Meeting with
Dmitriev ................................................................................................. 151
ii. The Seychelles Meetings........................................................................ 153
iii. Erik Prince’s Meeting with Steve Bannon after the Seychelles Trip .... 155
d. Kirill Dmitriev’s Post-Election Contact with Rick Gerson Regarding
U.S.-Russia Relations.................................................................................. 156
3. Ambassador Kislyak’s Meeting with Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn in
Trump Tower Following the Election................................................................. 159
4. Jared Kushner’s Meeting with Sergey Gorkov................................................... 161
5. Petr Aven’s Outreach Efforts to the Transition Team ........................................ 163
6. Carter Page Contact with Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich ............. 166
7. Contacts With and Through Michael T. Flynn ................................................... 167
a. United Nations Vote on Israeli Settlements ................................................... 167
b. U.S. Sanctions Against Russia....................................................................... 168
V. PROSECUTION AND DECLINATION DECISIONS ........................................................................ 174
A. Russian “Active Measures” Social Media Campaign............................................... 174
iv

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 



 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
B. Russian Hacking and Dumping Operations .............................................................. 175
1. Section 1030 Computer-Intrusion Conspiracy.................................................... 175
a. Background .................................................................................................... 175 
b. Charging Decision As to
....... 176
............................. 179
Investigative Technique
Harm to Ongoing Matter
2. Potential Section 1030 Violation By
.
Personal Privacy
C. Russian Government Outreach and Contacts ............................................................. 180
1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion............................................. 180
2. Potential Coordination: Foreign Agent Statutes (FARA and 18 U.S.C. § 951) . 181
a. Governing Law............................................................................................... 181
b. Application..................................................................................................... 182
3. Campaign Finance .............................................................................................. 183
a. Overview Of Governing Law......................................................................... 184
b. Application to June 9 Trump Tower Meeting ................................................ 185
i. Thing-of-Value Element ......................................................................... 186
ii. Willfulness ............................................................................................. 187
iii. Difficulties in Valuing Promised Information ...................................... 188
c. Application to WikiLeaks
................................................... 188
i. Questions Over
....................................................................... 189
HOM
Investigative Technique
Harm to Ongoing Matter
ii. Willfulness ............................................................................................. 190
iii. Constitutional Considerations ................................................................ 190
iv. Analysis HOM
.................................................................... 190
4. False Statements and Obstruction of the Investigation ....................................... 191
a. Overview Of Governing Law......................................................................... 191
b. Application to Certain Individuals ................................................................. 192
i. George Papadopoulos .............................................................................. 192
ii. Personal Privacy
............................................................................. 194
iii. Michael Flynn ....................................................................................... 194
iv. Michael Cohen ...................................................................................... 195
v. HOM
.............................................................................. 196
vi. Jeff Sessions ........................................................................................... 197
vii. Others Interviewed During the Investigation ....................................... 198
v
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)











































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I
This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which
states that, “[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he . . . shall provide the Attorney
General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special
Counsel] reached.”
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and
systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In
June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that
Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials—hacks
that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month.
Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in
October and November.
In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks’s first release of stolen documents, a foreign
government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy
advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign
government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that
it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July
31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign
were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.
That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government “directed
recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including US political
organizations,” and, “[t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election
process.” After the election, in late December 2016, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia
for having interfered in the election. By early 2017, several congressional committees were
examining Russia’s interference in the election.
Within the Executive Branch, these investigatory efforts ultimately led to the May 2017
appointment of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. The order appointing the Special Counsel
authorized him to investigate “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016
presidential election,” including any links or coordination between the Russian government and
individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a
Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.
Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence
service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers
working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also
identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although
the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump
presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit
1



















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities.
* * *
Below we describe the evidentiary considerations underpinning statements about the
results of our investigation and the Special Counsel’s charging decisions, and we then provide an
overview of the two volumes of our report.
The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel’s Office found to be
supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out
the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other
instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with
confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events
occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there
was no evidence of those facts.
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing,
the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting
Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has
frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific
offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal
criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability
was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the
factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears
in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities.
Like collusion,
“coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood
coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the
Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking
actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term
coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the
Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
* * *
The report on our investigation consists of two volumes:
Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel’s investigation of Russia’s
interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign.
Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian
2













U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special
Counsel’s charging decisions.
Volume II addresses the President’s actions towards the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s
interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the
Special Counsel’s investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations
that guided that investigation.
3





















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME I
RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN
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 IRA was based in St. Petersburg,
Russia, and received funding from Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Prigozhin and companies he
controlled. Prigozhin is widely reported to have ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin,
Harm to Ongoing Matter
In mid-2014, the IRA sent employees to the United States on an intelligence-gathering
mission with instructions Harm to Ongoing Matter
The IRA later used social media accounts and interest groups to sow discord in the U.S.
political system through what it termed “information warfare.” 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.
The IRA’s operation also included the purchase of political advertisements on social media in the
names of U.S. persons and entities, as well as the staging of political rallies inside the United
States. To organize those rallies, IRA employees posed as U.S. grassroots entities and persons and
made contact with Trump supporters and Trump Campaign officials in the United States. The
investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the
IRA. Section II of this report details the Office’s investigation of the Russian social media
campaign.
RUSSIAN HACKING OPERATIONS
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.
4



The presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign” or “Campaign”)
showed interest in WikiLeaks’s releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage
candidate Clinton. Beginning in June 2016, Harm to Ongoing Matter
forecast to


































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
senior Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate
Clinton. WikiLeaks’s first release came in July 2016. Around the same time, candidate Trump
announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server
used by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (he later said that he was speaking sarcastically).
WikiLeaks began releasing
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Podesta’s stolen emails on October 7, 2016, less than one hour after a U.S. media outlet released
video considered damaging to candidate Trump. Section III of this Report details the Office’s
investigation into the Russian hacking operations, as well as other efforts by Trump Campaign
supporters to obtain Clinton-related emails.
RUSSIAN CONTACTS WITH THE CAMPAIGN
The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of
contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.
The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring
or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation
established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and
worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from
information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
election interference activities.
The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the
Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign
officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking
improved U.S.-Russian relations. Section IV of this Report details the contacts between Russia
and the Trump Campaign during the campaign and transition periods, the most salient of which
are summarized below in chronological order.
2015. Some of the earliest contacts were made in connection with a Trump Organization
real-estate project in Russia known as Trump Tower Moscow. Candidate Trump signed a Letter
of Intent for Trump Tower Moscow by November 2015, and in January 2016 Trump Organization
executive Michael Cohen emailed and spoke about the project with the office of Russian
government press secretary Dmitry Peskov. The Trump Organization pursued the project through
at least June 2016, including by considering travel to Russia by Cohen and candidate Trump.
Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos made early contact
with Joseph Mifsud, a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to
Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told
Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands
5




















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
of emails. One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a
representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from
the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of
information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout that period of time and for several months
thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting
between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place.
Summer 2016. Russian outreach to the Trump Campaign continued into the summer of
2016, as candidate Trump was becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for President. On
June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald
Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver what the email
proposing the meeting had described as “official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary.” The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as “part of Russia and its
government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The written communications setting up the meeting
showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist
candidate Trump’s electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer’s presentation did not provide such
information.
Days after the June 9 meeting, on June 14, 2016, a cybersecurity firm and the DNC
announced that Russian government hackers had infiltrated the DNC and obtained access to
opposition research on candidate Trump, among other documents.
In July 2016, Campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page traveled in his personal capacity
to Moscow and gave the keynote address at the New Economic School. Page had lived and worked
in Russia between 2003 and 2007. After returning to the United States, Page became acquainted
with at least two Russian intelligence officers, one of whom was later charged in 2015 with
conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of Russia. Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow and his
advocacy for pro-Russian foreign policy drew media attention. The Campaign then distanced itself
from Page and, by late September 2016, removed him from the Campaign.
July 2016 was also the month WikiLeaks first released emails stolen by the GRU from the
DNC. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks posted thousands of internal DNC documents revealing
information about the Clinton Campaign. Within days, there was public reporting that U.S.
intelligence agencies had “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of
emails and documents from the DNC. And within a week of the release, a foreign government
informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the
Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign. 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.
Separately, on August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York
City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties
to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for
Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel’s Office was a “backdoor” way for
Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate
Trump’s assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the
6






















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Trump Campaign and Manafort’s strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states.
Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik,
and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting.
Fall 2016. On October 7, 2016, the media released video of candidate Trump speaking in
graphic terms about women years earlier, which was considered damaging to his candidacy. Less
than an hour later, WikiLeaks made its second release: thousands of John Podesta’s emails that
had been stolen by the GRU in late March 2016. The FBI and other U.S. government institutions
were at the time continuing their investigation of suspected Russian government efforts to interfere
in the presidential election. That same day, October 7, the Department of Homeland Security and
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint public statement “that the Russian
Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions,
including from US political organizations.” Those “thefts” and the “disclosures” of the hacked
materials through online platforms such as WikiLeaks, the statement continued, “are intended to
interfere with the US election process.”
Post-2016 Election. Immediately after the November 8 election, Russian government
officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new
administration. The most senior levels of the Russian government encouraged these efforts. The
Russian Embassy made contact hours after the election to congratulate the President-Elect and to
arrange a call with President Putin. Several Russian businessmen picked up the effort from there.
Kirill Dmitriev, the chief executive officer of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, was among
the Russians who tried to make contact with the incoming administration. In early December, a
business associate steered Dmitriev to Erik Prince, a supporter of the Trump Campaign and an
associate of senior Trump advisor Steve Bannon. Dmitriev and Prince later met face-to-face in
January 2017 in the Seychelles and discussed U.S.-Russia relations. During the same period,
another business associate introduced Dmitriev to a friend of Jared Kushner who had not served
on the Campaign or the Transition Team. Dmitriev and Kushner’s friend collaborated on a short
written reconciliation plan for the United States and Russia, which Dmitriev implied had been
cleared through Putin. The friend gave that proposal to Kushner before the inauguration, and
Kushner later gave copies to Bannon and incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
On December 29, 2016, then-President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for having
interfered in the election. Incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn called Russian
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and asked Russia not to escalate the situation in response to the
sanctions. The following day, Putin announced that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in
response to the sanctions at that time. Hours later, President-Elect Trump tweeted, “Great move
on delay (by V. Putin).” The next day, on December 31, 2016, Kislyak called Flynn and told him
the request had been received at the highest levels and Russia had chosen not to retaliate as a result
of Flynn’s request.
* * *
On January 6, 2017, members of the intelligence community briefed President-Elect Trump
on a joint assessment—drafted and coordinated among the Central Intelligence Agency, FBI, and
7














































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
National Security Agency—that concluded with high confidence that Russia had intervened in the
election through a variety of means to assist Trump’s candidacy and harm Clinton’s. A
declassified version of the assessment was publicly released that same day.
Between mid-January 2017 and early February 2017, three congressional committees—the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence (SSCI), and the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC)—announced that they would
conduct inquiries, or had already been conducting inquiries, into Russian interference in the
election. Then-FBI Director James Comey later confirmed to Congress the existence of the FBI’s
investigation into Russian interference that had begun before the election. On March 20, 2017, in
open-session testimony before HPSCI, Comey stated:
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part
of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts
to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the
nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and
the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the
campaign and Russia’s efforts. . . . As with any counterintelligence investigation,
this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
The investigation continued under then-Director Comey for the next seven weeks until May 9,
2017, when President Trump fired Comey as FBI Director—an action which is analyzed in
Volume II of the report.
On May 17, 2017, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed the Special Counsel
and authorized him to conduct the investigation that Comey had confirmed in his congressional
testimony, as well as matters arising directly from the investigation, and any other matters within
the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a), which generally covers efforts to interfere with or obstruct the
investigation.
President Trump reacted negatively to the Special Counsel’s appointment. He told advisors
that it was the end of his presidency, sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions
unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counsel removed, and engaged in
efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it,
including through public and private contacts with potential witnesses. Those and related actions
are described and analyzed in Volume II of the report.
* * *
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S CHARGING DECISIONS
In reaching the charging decisions described in Volume I of the report, the Office
determined whether the conduct it found amounted to a violation of federal criminal law
chargeable under the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See Justice Manual § 9-27.000 et seq.
(2018). The standard set forth in the Justice Manual is whether the conduct constitutes a crime; if
so, whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction;
8


























































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
and whether prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest that could not be adequately
served by prosecution elsewhere or through non-criminal alternatives. See Justice Manual § 9-
27.220.
Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office’s charging decisions,
which contain three main components.
First, the Office determined that Russia’s two principal interference operations in the 2016
U.S. presidential election—the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations—
violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media
campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States by
undermining through deceptive acts the work of federal agencies charged with regulating foreign
influence in U.S. elections, as well as related counts of identity theft. See United States v. Internet
Research Agency, et al., No. 18-cr-32 (D.D.C.). Separately, Russian intelligence officers who
carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts of
individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign conspired to violate, among other federal laws,
the federal computer-intrusion statute, and they have been so charged. See United States v.
Netyksho, et al., No. 18-cr-215 (D.D.C.). Harm to Ongoing Matter
Personal Privacy
Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to
the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was
not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to
charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian
principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks’s releases of hacked
materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. Further, the evidence
was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with
representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump
Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated
individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian
election interference. The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false-
statements statute. Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about
his interactions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. George
Papadopoulos, a foreign policy advisor during the campaign period, pleaded guilty to lying to
investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with Joseph Mifsud, the
professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of
thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to
making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project.

Harm to Ongoing
Matter
And in February 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that
9




































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications
with Konstantin Kilimnik about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine.
* * *
The Office investigated several other events that have been publicly reported to involve
potential Russia-related contacts. For example, the investigation established that interactions
between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials both at the candidate’s April
2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and during the week of the Republican National
Convention were brief, public, and non-substantive. And the investigation did not establish that
one Campaign official’s efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing
assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. The
investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September
2016 at Sessions’s Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential
campaign.
The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete
picture of the activities undertaken by subjects of the investigation. Some individuals invoked
their Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination and were not, in the Office’s
judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other
witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be
members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies. See, e.g., Justice
Manual §§ 9-13.400, 13.410. Some of the information obtained via court process, moreover, was
presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or
“taint”) team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes
provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false-statements charges
described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as
well—numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United
States.
Further, the Office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct
we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant
communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature
encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In
such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to
contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared
inconsistent with other known facts.
Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office
believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps,
the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional
light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.
10


















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
I. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION
On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein—then serving as Acting
Attorney General for the Russia investigation following the recusal of former Attorney General
Jeff Sessions on March 2, 2016—appointed the Special Counsel “to investigate Russian
interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters.” Office of the Deputy Att’y
Gen., Order No. 3915-2017, Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference
with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters, May 17, 2017) (“Appointment Order”).
Relying on “the authority vested” in the Acting Attorney General, “including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509,
510, and 515,” the Acting Attorney General ordered the appointment of a Special Counsel “in
order to discharge [the Acting Attorney General’s] responsibility to provide supervision and
management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” Appointment Order
(introduction). “The Special Counsel,” the Order stated, “is authorized to conduct the investigation
confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017,” including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
Appointment Order ¶ (b). Section 600.4 affords the Special Counsel “the authority to investigate
and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the
Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence,
and intimidation of witnesses.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). The authority to investigate “any matters
that arose . . . directly from the investigation,” Appointment Order ¶ (b)(ii), covers similar crimes
that may have occurred during the course of the FBI’s confirmed investigation before the Special
Counsel’s appointment. “If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate,” the
Order further provided, “the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from
the investigation of these matters.” Id. ¶ (c). Finally, the Acting Attorney General made applicable
“Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” Id. ¶ (d).
The Acting Attorney General further clarified the scope of the Special Counsel’s
investigatory authority in two subsequent memoranda. A memorandum dated August 2, 2017,
explained that the Appointment Order had been “worded categorically in order to permit its public
release without confirming specific investigations involving specific individuals.”
It then
confirmed that the Special Counsel had been authorized since his appointment to investigate
allegations that three Trump campaign officials—Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and George
Papadopoulos—“committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials
with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.”
The memorandum also confirmed the Special Counsel’s authority to investigate certain other
matters, including two additional sets of allegations involving Manafort (crimes arising from
payments he received from the Ukrainian government and crimes arising from his receipt of loans
11




























U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
from a bank whose CEO was then seeking a position in the Trump Administration); allegations
that Papadopoulos committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli
government; and four sets of allegations involving Michael Flynn, the former National Security
Advisor to President Trump.
On October 20, 2017, the Acting Attorney General confirmed in a memorandum the
Special Counsel’s investigative authority as to several individuals and entities. First, “as part of a
full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016
presidential election,” the Special Counsel was authorized to investigate “the pertinent activities
of Michael Cohen, Richard Gates,Personal Privacy

, Roger Stone, and

PP

” “Confirmation of the authorization to investigate such individuals,” the memorandum
stressed, “does not suggest that the Special Counsel has made a determination that any of them has
committed a crime.” Second, with respect to Michael Cohen, the memorandum recognized the
Special Counsel’s authority to investigate “leads relate[d] to Cohen’s establishment and use of
Essential Consultants LLC to, inter alia, receive funds from Russian-backed entities.” Third, the
memorandum memorialized the Special Counsel’s authority to investigate individuals and entities
who were possibly engaged in “jointly undertaken activity” with existing subjects of the
investigation, including Paul Manafort. Finally, the memorandum described an FBI investigation
opened before the Special Counsel’s appointment into “allegations that [then-Attorney General
Jeff Sessions] made false statements to the United States Senate[,]” and confirmed the Special
Counsel’s authority to investigate that matter.
The Special Counsel structured the investigation in view of his power and authority “to
exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.” 28 C.F.R.
§ 600.6. Like a U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Special Counsel’s Office considered a range of
classified and unclassified information available to the FBI in the course of the Office’s Russia
investigation, and the Office structured that work around evidence for possible use in prosecutions
of federal crimes (assuming that one or more crimes were identified that warranted prosecution).
There was substantial evidence immediately available to the Special Counsel at the inception of
the investigation in May 2017 because the FBI had, by that time, already investigated Russian
election interference for nearly 10 months. The Special Counsel’s Office exercised its judgment
regarding what to investigate and did not, for instance, investigate every public report of a contact
between the Trump Campaign and Russian-affiliated individuals and entities.
The Office has concluded its investigation into links and coordination between the Russian
government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Certain proceedings associated
with the Office’s work remain ongoing. After consultation with the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General, the Office has transferred responsibility for those remaining issues to other components
of the Department of Justice and FBI. Appendix D lists those transfers.
Two district courts confirmed the breadth of the Special Counsel’s authority to investigate
Russia election interference and links and/or coordination with the Trump Campaign. See United
States v. Manafort, 312 F. Supp. 3d 60, 79-83 (D.D.C. 2018); United States v. Manafort, 321 F.
Supp. 3d 640, 650-655 (E.D. Va. 2018). In the course of conducting that investigation, the Office
periodically identified evidence of potential criminal activity that was outside the scope of the
Special Counsel’s authority established by the Acting Attorney General. After consultation with
12






























































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office referred that evidence to appropriate law
enforcement authorities, principally other components of the Department of Justice and to the FBI.
Appendix D summarizes those referrals.
* * *
To carry out the investigation and prosecution of the matters assigned to him, the Special
Counsel assembled a team that at its high point included 19 attorneys—five of whom joined the
Office from private practice and 14 on detail or assigned from other Department of Justice
components. These attorneys were assisted by a filter team of Department lawyers and FBI
personnel who screened materials obtained via court process for privileged information before
turning those materials over to investigators; a support staff of three paralegals on detail from the
Department’s Antitrust Division; and an administrative staff of nine responsible for budget,
finance, purchasing, human resources, records, facilities, security, information technology, and
administrative support. The Special Counsel attorneys and support staff were co-located with and
worked alongside approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, a
paralegal, and professional staff assigned by the FBI to assist the Special Counsel’s investigation.
Those “assigned” FBI employees remained under FBI supervision at all times; the matters on
which they assisted were supervised by the Special Counsel.1
During its investigation the Office issued more than 2,800 subpoenas under the auspices of
a grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia; executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants;
obtained more than 230 orders for communications records under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d); obtained
almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers; made 13 requests to foreign governments
pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties; and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses,
including almost 80 before a grand jury.
* * *
From its inception, the Office recognized that its investigation could identify foreign
intelligence and counterintelligence information relevant to the FBI’s broader national security
mission. FBI personnel who assisted the Office established procedures to identify and convey
such information to the FBI. The FBI’s Counterintelligence Division met with the Office regularly
for that purpose for most of the Office’s tenure. For more than the past year, the FBI also
embedded personnel at the Office who did not work on the Special Counsel’s investigation, but
whose purpose was to review the results of the investigation and to send—in writing—summaries
of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to FBIHQ and FBI Field Offices.
Those communications and other correspondence between the Office and the FBI contain
information derived from the investigation, not all of which is contained in this Volume. This
Volume is a summary. It contains, in the Office’s judgment, that information necessary to account
for the Special Counsel’s prosecution and declination decisions and to describe the investigation’s
main factual results.
1 FBI personnel assigned to the Special Counsel’s Office were required to adhere to all applicable
federal law and all Department and FBI regulations, guidelines, and policies. An FBI attorney worked on
FBI-related matters for the Office, such as FBI compliance with all FBI policies and procedures, including
the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG). That FBI attorney worked under FBI
legal supervision, not the Special Counsel’s supervision.
13

















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
II. RUSSIAN “ACTIVE MEASURES” SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN
The first form of Russian election influence came principally from the Internet Research
Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and
companies he controlled, including Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord
Catering (collectively “Concord”).2 The IRA conducted social media operations targeted at large
U.S. audiences with the goal of sowing discord in the U.S. political system.3 These operations
constituted “active measures” (активные мероприятия), a term that typically refers to operations
conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing the course of international affairs.4
The IRA and its employees began operations targeting the United States as early as 2014.
Using fictitious U.S. personas, IRA employees operated social media accounts and group pages
designed to attract U.S. audiences. These groups and accounts, which addressed divisive U.S.
political and social issues, falsely claimed to be controlled by U.S. activists. Over time, these
social media accounts became a means to reach large U.S. audiences. IRA employees travelled to
the United States in mid-2014 on an intelligence-gathering mission to obtain information and
photographs for use in their social media posts.
IRA employees posted derogatory information about a number of candidates in the 2016
U.S. presidential election. By early to mid-2016, IRA operations included supporting the Trump
Campaign and disparaging candidate Hillary Clinton. The IRA made various expenditures to carry
out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S.
persons and entities. Some IRA employees, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their
Russian association, communicated electronically with individuals associated with the Trump
Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities, including the
staging of political rallies.5 The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons
knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.
By the end of the 2016 U.S. election, the IRA had the ability to reach millions of U.S.
persons through their social media accounts. Multiple IRA-controlled Facebook groups and
2 The Office is aware of reports that other Russian entities engaged in similar active measures
operations targeting the United States. Some evidence collected by the Office corroborates those reports,
and the Office has shared that evidence with other offices in the Department of Justice and FBI.
3
see also SM-2230634, serial 44 (analysis). The FBI case number cited here, and other FBI case numbers
identified in the report, should be treated as law enforcement sensitive given the context. The report contains
additional law enforcement sensitive information.
Harm to Ongoing Matter
4 As discussed in Part V below, the active measures investigation has resulted in criminal charges
against 13 individual Russian nationals and three Russian entities, principally for conspiracy to defraud the
United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. See Volume I, Section V.A, infra; Indictment, United States
v. Internet Research Agency, et al., 1:18-cr-32 (D.D.C. Feb. 16, 2018), Doc. 1 (“Internet Research Agency
Indictment”).
5 Internet Research Agency Indictment ¶¶ 52, 54, 55(a), 56, 74; Harm to Ongoing
Matter
14






















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Instagram accounts had hundreds of thousands of U.S. participants. IRA-controlled Twitter
accounts separately had tens of thousands of followers, including multiple U.S. political figures
who retweeted IRA-created content. In November 2017, a Facebook representative testified that
Facebook had identified 470 IRA-controlled Facebook accounts that collectively made 80,000
posts between January 2015 and August 2017. Facebook estimated the IRA reached as many as
126 million persons through its Facebook accounts.6 In January 2018, Twitter announced that it
had identified 3,814 IRA-controlled Twitter accounts and notified approximately 1.4 million
people Twitter believed may have been in contact with an IRA-controlled account.7
A. Structure of the Internet Research Agency
8
10
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing
Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
















The organization quickly grew.
11
12
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
The growth of the organization also led to a more detailed organizational structure.
Harm to Ongoing Matter
6 Social Media Influence in the 2016 U.S. Election, Hearing Before the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, 115th Cong. 13 (11/1/17) (testimony of Colin Stretch, General Counsel of Facebook) (“We
estimate that roughly 29 million people were served content in their News Feeds directly from the IRA’s
80,000 posts over the two years. Posts from these Pages were also shared, liked, and followed by people on
Facebook, and, as a result, three times more people may have been exposed to a story that originated from
the Russian operation. Our best estimate is that approximately 126 million people may have been served
content from a Page associated with the IRA at some point during the two-year period.”). The Facebook
representative also testified that Facebook had identified 170 Instagram accounts that posted approximately
120,000 pieces of content during that time. Facebook did not offer an estimate of the audience reached via
Instagram.
7 Twitter, Update on Twitter’s Review of the 2016 US Election (Jan. 31, 2018).
8 See SM-2230634, serial 92.
9 Harm to Ongoing Matter


10 Harm to Ongoing Matter

11 See SM-2230634, serial 86 Harm to Ongoing Matter


12 Harm to Ongoing Matter
15





















As early as the spring of 2014, the IRA began to hide its funding and activities.
16


















U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
3
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Two individuals headed the IRA’s management: its general director, Mikhail Bystrov, and
its executive director, Mikhail Burchik. Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter

14
15
Harm to Ongoing Matter
The IRA’s U.S. operations are part of a larger set of interlocking operations known as
“Project Lakhta,”
7
18
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
B. Funding and Oversight from Concord and Prigozhin
Until at least February 2018, Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and two Concord companies
funded the IRA. Prigozhin is a wealthy Russian businessman who served as the head of Concord.


13 Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter

14 See, e.g., SM-2230634, serials 9, 113 & 180
.


15 Harm to Ongoing Matter






16
See SM-2230634, serials
131 & 204.


17 Harm to Ongoing Matter


18 Harm to Ongoing Matter

Harm to Ongoing Matter
16
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Prigozhin was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department in December 2016,19
20
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
1 Numerous media
sources have reported on Prigozhin’s ties to Putin, and the two have appeared together in public
photographs.22
23 Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter






4
5
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter











Harm to Ongoing Matter

























19 U.S. Treasury Department, “Treasury Sanctions Individuals and Entities in Connection with
Russia’s Occupation of Crimea and the Conflict in Ukraine” (Dec. 20, 2016).
21
20 Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
22 See, e.g., Neil MacFarquhar, Yevgeny Prigozhin, Russian Oligarch Indicted by U.S., Is Known
as “Putin’s Cook”, New York Times (Feb. 16, 2018).
23 Harm to Ongoing Matter


24 Harm to Ongoing Matter



25
see also SM-
2230634, serial 113
Harm to Ongoing Matter
HOM
17
































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
26
27
28
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
26
27
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
28 The term “troll” refers to internet users—in this context, paid operatives—who post inflammatory
or otherwise disruptive content on social media or other websites.
18
U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
IRA employees were aware that Prigozhin was involved in the IRA’s U.S. operations,
29
Harm to Ongoing Matter
30 In May
2016, IRA employees, claiming to be U.S. social activists and administrators of Facebook groups,
recruited U.S. persons to hold signs (including one in front of the White House) that read “Happy
55th Birthday Dear Boss,” as an homage to Prigozhin (whose 55th birthday was on June 1, 2016).31
32
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
C. The IRA Targets U.S. Elections
1. The IRA Ramps Up U.S. Operations As Early As 2014
The IRA’s U.S. operations sought to influence public opinion through online media and
forums. By the spring of 2014, the IRA began to consolidate U.S. operations within a single
general department, known internally as the “Translator” (Переводчик) department.
Harm to Ongoing Matter


IRA subdivided the Translator Department into different
responsibilities, ranging from operations on different social media platforms to analytics to
29
See SM-2230634,
serials 131 & 204.
Investigative Technique
30 See SM-2230634, serial 156.
31 Internet Research Agency Indictment ¶ 12(b); see also 5/26/16 Facebook Messages, ID
1479936895656747 (United Muslims of America) & Personal Privacy

32
see also SM-2230634, serial 189.
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter




.
Harm to Ongoing Matter



















19















U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
graphics and IT.
33
34
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to
Ongoing Matter
33 Harm to Ongoing Matter
See SM-2230634, serial 205.

34 See SM-2230634, serial 204 Harm to Ongoing Matter
20
























U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
35
36
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter












37
Harm to Ongoing Matter
IRA employees also traveled to the United States on intelligence-gathering missions. In
June 2014, four IRA employees applied to the U.S. Department of State to enter the United States,
while lying about the purpose of their trip and claiming to be four friends who had met at a party.38
Ultimately, two IRA employees—Anna Bogacheva and Aleksandra Krylova—received visas and
entered the United States on June 4, 2014.
Prior to traveling, Krylova and Bogacheva compiled itineraries and instructions for the trip.
9
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
35 Harm to Ongoing Matter



36 Harm to Ongoing Matter


37 Harm to Ongoing Matter



38 See SM-2230634, serials 150 & 172
.


39 Harm to Ongoing Matter

Harm to Ongoing Matter
21
















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
41
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
40
2. U.S. Operations Through IRA-Controlled Social Media Accounts
Dozens of IRA employees were responsible for operating accounts and personas on
different U.S. social media platforms. The IRA referred to employees assigned to operate the
social media accounts as “specialists.”42 Starting as early as 2014, the IRA’s U.S. operations
included social media specialists focusing on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.43 The IRA later
added specialists who operated on Tumblr and Instagram accounts.44
Initially, the IRA created social media accounts that pretended to be the personal accounts
of U.S. persons.45 By early 2015, the IRA began to create larger social media groups or public
social media pages that claimed (falsely) to be affiliated with U.S. political and grassroots
organizations. In certain cases, the IRA created accounts that mimicked real U.S. organizations.
For example, one IRA-controlled Twitter account, @TEN_GOP, purported to be connected to the
Tennessee Republican Party.46 More commonly, the IRA created accounts in the names of
fictitious U.S. organizations and grassroots groups and used these accounts to pose as anti-
immigration groups, Tea Party activists, Black Lives Matter protestors, and other U.S. social and
political activists.
The IRA closely monitored the activity of its social media accounts.
Harm to Ongoing Matter
40
41
42
43
.
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter


44 See, e.g., SM-2230634, serial 179 Harm to Ongoing Matter
45 See, e.g., Facebook ID 100011390466802 (Alex Anderson); Facebook ID 100009626173204
(Andrea Hansen); Facebook ID 100009728618427 (Gary Williams); Facebook ID 100013640043337
(Lakisha Richardson).
46 The account claimed to be the “Unofficial Twitter of Tennessee Republicans” and made posts
that appeared to be endorsements of the state political party. See, e.g., @TEN_GOP, 4/3/16 Tweet
(“Tennessee GOP backs @realDonaldTrump period #makeAmericagreatagain #tngop #tennessee #gop”).
22










































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
7
8
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
By February 2016, internal IRA documents referred to support for the Trump Campaign
and opposition to candidate Clinton.49 For example,
directions to IRA
operators
“Main idea: Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary [Clinton] and the rest (except
Sanders and Trump - we support them).”50 Harm to Ongoing Matter
HOM
Harm to Ongoing Matter
The focus
HOM
on the U.S. presidential campaign continued throughout 2016. In HOM 2016
internal
reviewing the IRA-controlled Facebook group “Secured Borders,” the
47
48 See, e.g., SM-2230634 serial 131
.
Harm to Ongoing Matter
HOM
49 The IRA posted content about the Clinton candidacy before Clinton officially announced her
presidential campaign. IRA-controlled social media accounts criticized Clinton’s record as Secretary of
State and promoted various critiques of her candidacy. The IRA also used other techniques.
See SM-2230634, serial 70.


50 Harm to Ongoing Matter

Harm to Ongoing Matter
23




















Many IRA operations used Facebook accounts created and operated by its specialists.



















U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
author criticized the “lower number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton” and reminded
the Facebook specialist “it is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton.”51
IRA employees also acknowledged that their work focused on influencing the U.S.
presidential election.
. 52
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
3. U.S. Operations Through Facebook
Harm to Ongoing Matter











53
Harm to Ongoing Matter
4 IRA Facebook groups active
during the 2016 campaign covered a range of political issues and included purported conservative
Harm to Ongoing Matter
51 Harm to Ongoing Matter
52
53
54
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
24















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
groups (with names such as “Being Patriotic,” “Stop All Immigrants,” “Secured Borders,” and
“Tea Party News”), purported Black social justice groups (“Black Matters,” “Blacktivist,” and
“Don’t Shoot Us”), LGBTQ groups (“LGBT United”), and religious groups (“United Muslims of
America”).
Throughout 2016, IRA accounts published an increasing number of materials supporting
the Trump Campaign and opposing the Clinton Campaign. For example, on May 31, 2016, the
operational account “Matt Skiber” began to privately message dozens of pro-Trump Facebook
groups asking them to help plan a “pro-Trump rally near Trump Tower.”55
To reach larger U.S. audiences, the IRA purchased advertisements from Facebook that
promoted the IRA groups on the newsfeeds of U.S. audience members. According to Facebook,
the IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements, and the expenditures totaled approximately
$100,000.56
During the U.S. presidential campaign, many IRA-purchased advertisements explicitly
supported or opposed a presidential candidate or promoted U.S. rallies organized by the IRA
(discussed below). As early as March 2016, the IRA purchased advertisements that overtly
opposed the Clinton Campaign. For example, on March 18, 2016, the IRA purchased an
advertisement depicting candidate Clinton and a caption that read in part, “If one day God lets
this liar enter the White House as a president – that day would be a real national tragedy.”57
Similarly, on April 6, 2016, the IRA purchased advertisements for its account “Black Matters”
calling for a “flashmob” of U.S. persons to “take a photo with #HillaryClintonForPrison2016 or
#nohillary2016.”58
IRA-purchased advertisements featuring Clinton were, with very few
exceptions, negative.59
IRA-purchased advertisements referencing candidate Trump largely supported his
campaign. The first known IRA advertisement explicitly endorsing the Trump Campaign was
purchased on April 19, 2016. The IRA bought an advertisement for its Instagram account “Tea
Party News” asking U.S. persons to help them “make a patriotic team of young Trump supporters”
by uploading photos with the hashtag “#KIDS4TRUMP.”60 In subsequent months, the IRA
purchased dozens of advertisements supporting the Trump Campaign, predominantly through the
Facebook groups “Being Patriotic,” “Stop All Invaders,” and “Secured Borders.”
55 5/31/16 Facebook Message, ID 100009922908461 (Matt Skiber) to ID
5/31/16 Facebook Message, ID 100009922908461 (Matt Skiber) to ID
PP
Personal Privacy
56 Social Media Influence in the 2016 U.S. Election, Hearing Before the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, 115th Cong. 13 (11/1/17) (testimony of Colin Stretch, General Counsel of Facebook).
57 3/18/16 Facebook Advertisement ID 6045505152575.
58 4/6/16 Facebook Advertisement ID 6043740225319.
59 See SM-2230634, serial 213 (documenting politically-oriented advertisements from the larger
set provided by Facebook).
60 4/19/16 Facebook Advertisement ID 6045151094235.
25




















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Collectively, the IRA’s social media accounts reached tens of millions of U.S. persons.
Individual IRA social media accounts attracted hundreds of thousands of followers. For example,
at the time they were deactivated by Facebook in mid-2017, the IRA’s “United Muslims of
America” Facebook group had over 300,000 followers, the “Don’t Shoot Us” Facebook group had
over 250,000 followers, the “Being Patriotic” Facebook group had over 200,000 followers, and
the “Secured Borders” Facebook group had over 130,000 followers.61 According to Facebook, in
total the IRA-controlled accounts made over 80,000 posts before their deactivation in August 2017,
and these posts reached at least 29 million U.S persons and “may have reached an estimated 126
million people.”62
4. U.S. Operations Through Twitter

A number of IRA employees assigned to the Translator Department served as Twitter
specialists.
63
Harm to Ongoing Matter
The IRA’s Twitter operations involved two strategies. First, IRA specialists operated
certain Twitter accounts to create individual U.S. personas, Harm to Ongoing Matter
4 Separately, the IRA operated a network of automated Twitter accounts

(commonly referred to as a bot network) that enabled the IRA to amplify existing content
on Twitter.
a. Individualized Accounts
65
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
61 See Facebook ID 1479936895656747 (United Muslims of America); Facebook ID
1157233400960126 (Don’t Shoot); Facebook ID 1601685693432389 (Being Patriotic); Facebook ID
757183957716200 (Secured Borders). Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
62 Social Media Influence in the 2016 U.S. Election, Hearing Before the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, 115th Cong. 13 (11/1/17) (testimony of Colin Stretch, General Counsel of Facebook).
63
64
65
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
26












































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Harm to Ongoing Matter
66
The IRA operated individualized Twitter accounts similar to the operation of its Facebook
accounts, by continuously posting original content to the accounts while also communicating with
U.S. Twitter users directly (through public tweeting or Twitter’s private messaging).
The IRA used many of these accounts to attempt to influence U.S. audiences on the
election.
Individualized accounts used to influence the U.S. presidential election included
@TEN_GOP (described above); @jenn_abrams (claiming to be a Virginian Trump supporter with
70,000 followers); @Pamela_Moore13 (claiming to be a Texan Trump supporter with 70,000
followers); and @America_1st_ (an anti-immigration persona with 24,000 followers).67 In May
2016, the IRA created the Twitter account @march_for_trump, which promoted IRA-organized
rallies in support of the Trump Campaign (described below).68
Harm to Ongoing Matter





9
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Using these accounts and others, the IRA provoked reactions from users and the media. Multiple
IRA-posted tweets gained popularity.70 U.S. media outlets also quoted tweets from IRA-controlled
accounts and attributed them to the reactions of real U.S. persons.71 Similarly, numerous high-
66 Harm to Ongoing Matter
67 Other individualized accounts included @MissouriNewsUS (an account with 3,800 followers
that posted pro-Sanders and anti-Clinton material).
68 See @march_for_trump, 5/30/16 Tweet (first post from account).
69 Harm to Ongoing Matter
70 For example, one IRA account tweeted, “To those people, who hate the Confederate flag. Did
you know that the flag and the war wasn’t about slavery, it was all about money.” The tweet received over
40,000 responses. @Jenn_Abrams 4/24/17 (2:37 p.m.) Tweet.
71 Josephine Lukito & Chris Wells, Most Major Outlets Have Used Russian Tweets as Sources for
Partisan Opinion: Study, Columbia Journalism Review (Mar. 8, 2018); see also Twitter Steps Up to Explain
#NewYorkValues to Ted Cruz, Washington Post (Jan. 15, 2016) (citing IRA tweet); People Are Slamming
the CIA for Claiming Russia Tried to Help Donald Trump, U.S. News & World Report (Dec. 12, 2016).
27















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
profile U.S. persons, including former Ambassador Michael McFaul,72 Roger Stone,73 Sean
Hannity,74 and Michael Flynn Jr.,75 retweeted or responded to tweets posted to these IRA-
controlled accounts. Multiple individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign also promoted IRA
tweets (discussed below).
b. IRA Botnet Activities
Harm to Ongoing Matter

6










7
Harm to Ongoing Matter



78
Harm to Ongoing Matter
In January 2018, Twitter publicly identified 3,814 Twitter accounts associated with the
IRA.79 According to Twitter, in the ten weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election, these
accounts posted approximately 175,993 tweets, “approximately 8.4% of which were election-
72 @McFaul 4/30/16 Tweet (responding to tweet by @Jenn_Abrams).
73 @RogerJStoneJr 5/30/16 Tweet (retweeting @Pamela_Moore13); @RogerJStoneJr 4/26/16
Tweet (same).
74 @seanhannity 6/21/17 Tweet (retweeting @Pamela_Moore13).
75 @mflynnJR 6/22/17 Tweet (“RT @Jenn_Abrams: This is what happens when you add the voice
over of an old documentary about mental illness onto video of SJWs. . .”).
76 A botnet refers to a network of private computers or accounts controlled as a group to send
specific automated messages. On the Twitter network, botnets can be used to promote and republish
(“retweet”) specific tweets or hashtags in order for them to gain larger audiences.
77
78
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
79 Eli Rosenberg, Twitter to Tell 677,000 Users they Were Had by the Russians. Some Signs Show
the Problem Continues, Washington Post (Jan. 19, 2019).
28

























































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
related.”80 Twitter also announced that it had notified approximately 1.4 million people who
Twitter believed may have been in contact with an IRA-controlled account.81
5. U.S. Operations Involving Political Rallies
The IRA organized and promoted political rallies inside the United States while posing as
U.S. grassroots activists. First, the IRA used one of its preexisting social media personas
(Facebook groups and Twitter accounts, for example) to announce and promote the event. The
IRA then sent a large number of direct messages to followers of its social media account asking
them to attend the event. From those who responded with interest in attending, the IRA then sought
a U.S. person to serve as the event’s coordinator. In most cases, the IRA account operator would
tell the U.S. person that they personally could not attend the event due to some preexisting conflict
or because they were somewhere else in the United States.82 The IRA then further promoted the
event by contacting U.S. media about the event and directing them to speak with the coordinator.83
After the event, the IRA posted videos and photographs of the event to the IRA’s social media
accounts.84
The Office identified dozens of U.S. rallies organized by the IRA. The earliest evidence of
a rally was a “confederate rally” in November 2015.85 The IRA continued to organize rallies even
after the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The attendance at rallies varied. Some rallies appear to
have drawn few (if any) participants, while others drew hundreds. The reach and success of these
rallies was closely monitored Harm to Ongoing Matter
80 Twitter, “Update on Twitter’s Review of the 2016 US Election” (updated Jan. 31, 2018). Twitter
also reported identifying 50,258 automated accounts connected to the Russian government, which tweeted
more than a million times in the ten weeks before the election.
81 Twitter, “Update on Twitter’s Review of the 2016 US Election” (updated Jan. 31, 2018).
82 8/20/16 Facebook Message, ID 100009922908461 (Matt Skiber) to ID
.
83 See, e.g., 7/21/16 Email, joshmilton024@gmail.com to
; 7/21/16 Email,
joshmilton024@gmail.com to
PP
PP
Personal Privacy
84 @march_for_trump 6/25/16 Tweet (posting photos from rally outside Trump Tower).
85 Instagram ID 2228012168 (Stand For Freedom) 11/3/15 Post (“Good evening buds! Well I am
planning to organize a confederate rally [. . .] in Houston on the 14 of November and I want more people
to attend.”).
29


U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Harm to Ongoing Matter
30














































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
From June 2016 until the end of the presidential campaign,
almost all of the U.S. rallies organized by the IRA focused on the
U.S. election, often promoting the Trump Campaign and opposing
the Clinton Campaign. Pro-Trump rallies included three in New
York; a series of pro-Trump rallies in Florida in August 2016; and a
series of pro-Trump rallies in October 2016 in Pennsylvania. The
Florida rallies drew the attention of the Trump Campaign, which
posted about the Miami rally on candidate Trump’s Facebook
account (as discussed below).86
Many of the same IRA employees who oversaw the IRA’s
87
Harm to Ongoing Matter
social media accounts also conducted the day-to-day recruiting for
political rallies inside the United States.
IRA Poster for Pennsylvania
Rallies organized by the IRA
6. Targeting and Recruitment of U.S. Persons
As early as 2014, the IRA instructed its employees to target U.S. persons who could be
used to advance its operational goals. Initially, recruitment focused on U.S. persons who could
amplify the content posted by the IRA. Harm to Ongoing Matter





. 88
Harm to Ongoing Matter
IRA employees frequently used Investigative Technique
Twitter, Facebook, and

Instagram to contact and recruit U.S. persons who followed the group. The IRA recruited U.S.
persons from across the political spectrum. For example, the IRA targeted the family of
Personal Privacy
and a number of black social justice activists
86 The pro-Trump rallies were organized through multiple Facebook, Twitter, and email accounts.
See, e.g., Facebook ID 100009922908461 (Matt Skiber); Facebook ID 1601685693432389 (Being
Patriotic); Twitter Account @march_for_trump; beingpatriotic@gmail.com. (Rallies were organized in
New York on June 25, 2016; Florida on August 20, 2016; and Pennsylvania on October 2, 2016.)
87
88
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing Matter
31












































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
while posing as a grassroots group called “Black Matters US.”89 In February 2017, the persona
“Black Fist” (purporting to want to teach African-Americans to protect themselves when contacted
by law enforcement) hired a self-defense instructor in New York to offer classes sponsored by
Black Fist. The IRA also recruited moderators of conservative social media groups to promote
IRA-generated content,90 as well as recruited individuals to perform political acts (such as walking
around New York City dressed up as Santa Claus with a Trump mask).
Harm to Ongoing Matter
Harm to Ongoing
Matter













2
Harm to Ongoing Matter
93
94
91
as the IRA’s online audience became larger, the IRA tracked U.S.
organizing rallies to taking pictures with certain political messages). Harm to Ongoing
Matter
95
89 3/11/16 Facebook Advertisement ID 6045078289928, 5/6/16 Facebook Advertisement ID
6051652423528, 10/26/16 Facebook Advertisement ID 6055238604687; 10/27/16 Facebook Message, ID
Pers
& ID 100011698576461 (Taylor Brooks).
onal Privacy

persons with whom they communicated and had successfully tasked (with tasks ranging from
HOM
90 8/19/16 Facebook Message, ID 100009922908461 (Matt Skiber) to ID PP
91 12/8/16 Email, robot@craigslist.org to beingpatriotic@gmail.com (confirming Craigslist
advertisement).
92 8/18-19/16 Twitter DMs, @march_for_trump & PP

93 See, e.g., 11/11-27/16 Facebook Messages, ID 100011698576461 (Taylor Brooks) &
ID
(arranging to pay for plane tickets and for a
bull horn).
94 See, e.g., 9/10/16 Facebook Message,
ID 100009922908461 (Matt Skiber) &
Personal Privacy
ID
(discussing payment for rally supplies); 8/18/16 Twitter DM,
@march_for_trump to
(discussing payment for construction materials).





95 Harm to Ongoing Matter
Personal Privacy
PP
32












































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Harm to Ongoing Matter
7. Interactions and Contacts with the Trump Campaign
The investigation identified two different forms of connections between the IRA and
members of the Trump Campaign. (The investigation identified no similar connections between
the IRA and the Clinton 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.
a. Trump Campaign Promotion of IRA Political Materials
Among the U.S. “leaders of public opinion” targeted by the IRA were various members
and surrogates of the Trump Campaign. In total, Trump Campaign affiliates promoted dozens of
tweets, posts, and other political content created by the IRA.
-
Posts from the IRA-controlled Twitter account @TEN_GOP were cited or retweeted by
multiple Trump Campaign officials and surrogates, including Donald J. Trump Jr.,96 Eric
96 See, e.g., @DonaldJTrumpJr 10/26/16 Tweet (“RT @TEN_GOP: BREAKING Thousands of
names changed on voter rolls in Indiana. Police investigating #VoterFraud. #DrainTheSwamp.”);
@DonaldJTrumpJr 11/2/16 Tweet (“RT @TEN_GOP: BREAKING: #VoterFraud by counting tens of
thousands of ineligible mail in Hillary votes being reported in Broward County, Florida.”);
@DonaldJTrumpJr 11/8/16 Tweet (“RT @TEN_GOP: This vet passed away last month before he could
vote for Trump. Here he is in his #MAGA hat. #voted #ElectionDay.”). Trump Jr. retweeted additional
@TEN_GOP content subsequent to the election.
33


















































U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
Trump,97 Kellyanne Conway,98 Brad Parscale,99 and Michael T. Flynn.100 These posts included
allegations of voter fraud,101 as well as allegations that Secretary Clinton had mishandled
classified information.102
Personal Privacy
- A November 7, 2016 post from the IRA-controlled
Twitter account @Pamela_Moore13 was retweeted by
Donald J. Trump Jr.103
- On September 19, 2017, President Trump’s personal
account @realDonaldTrump responded to a tweet from
the IRA-controlled account @10_gop (the backup
account of @TEN_GOP, which had already been
deactivated by Twitter). The tweet read: “We love you,
Mr. President!”104
IRA employees monitored the reaction of the Trump
Campaign and, later, Trump Administration officials to their
tweets. For example, on August 23, 2016, the IRA-
controlled persona “Matt Skiber” Facebook account sent a
message to a U.S. Tea Party activist, writing that “Mr.
Trump posted about our event in Miami! This is great!”105
The IRA employee included a screenshot of candidate
Trump’s Facebook account, which included a post about the
August 20, 2016 political rallies organized by the IRA.
Screenshot of Trump Facebook
Account (from Matt Skiber)
97 @EricTrump 10/20/16 Tweet (“RT @TEN_GOP: BREAKING Hillary shuts down press
conference when asked about DNC Operatives corruption & #VoterFraud #debatenight #TrumpB”).
98 @KellyannePolls 11/6/16 Tweet (“RT @TEN_GOP: Mother of jailed sailor: ‘Hold Hillary to
same standards as my son on Classified info’ #hillarysemail #WeinerGate.”).
99 @parscale 10/15/16 Tweet (“Thousands of deplorables chanting to the media: ‘Tell The Truth!’
RT if you are also done w/ biased Media! #FridayFeeling”).
100 @GenFlynn 11/7/16 (retweeting @TEN_GOP post that included in part “@realDonaldTrump
& @mike_pence will be our next POTUS & VPOTUS.”).
101 @TEN_GOP 10/11/16 Tweet (“North Carolina finds 2,214 voters over the age of 110!!”).
102 @TEN_GOP 11/6/16 Tweet (“Mother of jailed sailor: ‘Hold Hillary to same standards as my
son on classified info #hillaryemail #WeinerGate.’”).
103 @DonaldJTrumpJr 11/7/16 Tweet (“RT @Pamela_Moore13: Detroit residents speak out against
the failed policies of Obama, Hillary & democrats . . . .”).
104 @realDonaldTrump 9/19/17 (7:33 p.m.) Tweet (“THANK YOU for your support Miami! My
team just shared photos from your TRUMP SIGN WAVING DAY, yesterday! I love you – and there is no
question – TOGETHER, WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”).
105 8/23/16 Facebook Message, ID 100009922908461 (Matt Skiber) to ID PP
34