" Almost four years after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Committee has now
published the bipartisan results of its investigation of the Russian government's election
interference and efforts- to aid Donald Trump's candidacy. The Committee's work product is
voluminous, fact-oriented, and essential reading for all Americans. But the Committee has not.
sought to dra:w overarching conclusions about its investigation, opting instead to let the reader
determine the significance of these events. These additional views provide necessary context for
the reader regarding (1) the Trump Campaign's cooperation with Russia; (2) investigative
limitations; and (3) significant ongoing concerns.

The Committee's bipartisan Report unambiguously shows that members of the
Trump Campaign cooperated _with Russian efforts to get Trump elected. It recounts efforts by
Trump and his team to obtain dirt on their opponent from operatives acting on behalf of the
Russian government. It reveals the extraordinary lengths by which Trump and his associates
actively_sought to enable the Russian interference operation by amplifying its electoral impact
and rewarding its perpetrators - even after being warned of its Russian origins. And it presents,
for the first time, concerning evidence that the head of the Trump Campaign was directly
connected to the Russian meddling through his communications with an individual found to be a
Russian intelligence officer.

These are stubborn facts that cannot be ignored. They build on the Committee's
bipartisan findings in Volume 2 and Volume 4 that show an extensive Kremlin-directed effort to
covertly help candidate Trump in 2016, and they speak to a willingness by a major party
candidate and his associates, in the face of a foreign adversary's assault on the political integrity
of the United States, to welcome that foreign threat in exchange for advancing their own selfinterest.

The Committee's bipartisan Report found that Paul Manafort, while he was
Chairman of the Trump Campaign, was secretly communicating with a Russian intelligence
officer with whom he discussed Campaign strategy and repeatedly shared internal Campaign
polling data. This took place while the Russian intelligence operation to assist Trump was
ongoing. Further, Manafort took steps to hide these communications and repeatedly lied to
federal investigators, and his deputy on the Campa~gn destroyed evidence of communications
with the Russian intelligence officer. The Committee obtained some information suggesting that
the Russian intelligence officer, with whom Manafort had a longstanding relationship, may have
been connected to the GRU's hack-and-leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election. This is
what collusion looks like.

The Committee's bipartisan Report found that a member of the Trump Campaign's
foreign policy advisory team was provided with advance notice of the Russian plot to
anonymously release hacked emails that would damage Trump's oppone:qt, and the Report found that it is implausible that this information was. not passed to the Campaign. The advance notice
of a forthcoming covert Russian intervention on Trump's behalf came from an individual linked
to the Russian government, and took place in April 2016, prior to any public awareness of the
Russian meddling effort. No authorities were notified.

The Committee's bipartisan Report found that Russia's goal in its unprecedented
hack-and-leak operation against the United States in 2016, among other motives, was to assist
the Trump Campaign. Candidate Trump and his Campaign responded to that threat by
embracing, encouraging, and exploiting the Russian effort. Trump solicited inside information
in advance of WikiLeaks's· expected releases of stolen information, even after public reports
widely attributed the activity to Russia, so as to maximi:~;e his electoral benefit. The Campaign
crafted a strategy around these anticipated releases to amplify the dissemination and promotion
of the stolen documents. Even after the US. governmentfornially announced the hack-and-leak
campaign as a Russian government effort, Trump's embrace of the stolen documents and his
efforts to minimize the attribution to Russia only continued. The Committee's Report clearly
shows that Trump and his Campaign were not mere bystanders in this attack - they were active
participants. They coordinated their activities with the releases of the hacked Russian data,
magnified the effects of a known Russian campaign, and welcomed the mutual benefit from the
Russian activity.

Additionally, the Committee's bipartisan Report shows that, at the June 9, 2016
meeting in Trump Tower, senior members of the Campaign sought, explicitly, to receive
derogatory information for electoral benefit from a Russian lawyer known to have ties to the
Russian government, with the understanding that the information was part of "Russia and its
government's support for Mr. Trump." Prior to and during that meeting, members ofthe Trump
Campaign's leadership clearly stated their desire to receive the promised derogatory Russian
information, and ultimately they also clearly expressed their displeasure that the Russian
information that was presented was not sufficiently damaging. That the Campaign leadership's
desire to coordinate with Russia failed in this particular instance is hardly exculpatory; instead, it
is emblematic of the leadership's mindset, intent and willingness. to work with Russia in hopes of
influencing the U.S. election to their benefit. The Committee's investigation found that the
Russian lawyer that the Campaign leadership met with in Trump Tower, and one of her
colleagues who also participated in the meeting, both have significant and concerning ties to
Russian intelligence.

Trump's Russia-friendly statements and policies during the Campaign did not occur
in isolation. The Committee's bipartisan Report shows that, during the campaign, Donald '
Trump and the Trump Organization were pursuing a business deal in Russia. This is a topic
about which the Campaign and its associates misled the public and Congress. The Committee's
Report shows that Trump's outreach to the Kremlin began early and that during the Republican ' '
primary campaign, around the time that Trump authorized pursuit of the Russia deal, Trump
asked for an in-person meeting with Putin. That request was relayed to the Kremlin. The
Committee's Report shows that, during the campaign; Trump was kept up-to-date on the
.progress of the Russia deal and made positive public comments about Putin, in connection with
the campaign, while deal negotiations were ongoing. During the campaign individuals working
for or with the Trump Organization were in contact with the Kremlin regarding the deal and
sought to leverage Trump's positive comments about Putin to advance the deal. A U.S.
intelligence assessment indicates that Putin, who ordered the Russian operation that assisted
Trump in the 2016 election, had a preference for leaders whose business interests made them
more likely to deal with Russia. This made Trump uniquely appealing in Moscow, and the
Committee's investigation found that Kremlin-directed influence efforts worked to undermine
Republican candidates who ran against Trump in the U.S. presidential primary.

There may be some who attempt to minimize the seriousness of Trump's actions, or
the actions of his associates, by arguing that thes.e individuals were motivated simply by selfinterest or self-promotion. This argument overlooks thatwhen self-interest is intertwined with
the goals of a malign Russian influence operation, and when self-foterest promotes the known
Russian effort while also being promote~ by that same Russian effort, then self-interest and
Russia's interest become one and the same. Moreover, this argument misunderstands the deep
counterintelligence vulnerability that is created when those who seek positions of great power, or
proximity to that power, are willing to trade away national security for personal gain. There is
good reason that such individuals are Putin's preferred interlocutors, and there is good reason
why the U.S. security clearance application asks extensively about vulnerabilities that could be
used as leverage, including foreign financial interests.

Candidate Trump's pursuit of private business in Russia during the campaign, and his
Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort's deep financial ties to a Kremlin-aligned Russian.oligarch
during the campaign, are not the only sources of leverage to which Trump and his Campaign
were vulnerable. The Committee's bipartisan Report shows that dt1ring the campaign Trump
maintained personal correspondence with a Russian oligarch and his adult son on topics
including the upcoming U.S. election. The Moscow-based oJigarch and his son, who were
involved in offering the Trump Campaign derogatory information related to the election and who
gave Trump a sizable gift during the Campaign, maintain significant and concerning connections
'not only to Kremlin leadership but also to Russian organized crime. Trump had previously done
business with the oligarch in Moscow. The Committee's Report also shows that prior to and
during the campaign, Trump was informed of alleged compromising tapes of him in Moscow.
These allegations are separate from Christopher Steele's reports, which were not used to support
the Committee's work. The Committee found that the Russian intelligence services clearly
engage in the collection of compromising information for lev~rage, and that there may be
substance to some of the allegations regarding Trump, which leaves open an ongoing concern
about Russian influence operations.

Finally, the Committee's bipartisan Report shows that almost immediately following
Election Day in 2016, the Trump transition responded to Russia's election-'interference not by
supporting punitive action, but rather by holding a series of secretive meetings and
communications with Russian representatives that served to undercut the outgoing
administration's efforts to hold Russia accountable. The transition's openness to this private
Russian outreach prior to taking office, so soon after Russia's interference on Trump's behalf,
combined with Trump publicly questioning Russia's involvement, signaled that there was little intention by the incoming administration to punish Russia for the assistance it had just provided
in its unprecedented attack on American democracy.