Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s first public statement on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office.

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

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

I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.

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

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

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

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view — that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

 
…

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s first public statement on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office.

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

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

I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.

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

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

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

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view — that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

 
…

President Donald Trump warned Wednesday the “consequences will be devastating” if Alabama Republican Roy Moore, whose 2017 U.S. Senate campaign was battered by allegations of long-ago sexual harassment of teenagers, seeks the seat again in 2020.

Moore lost in the once-reliably red state in a 2017 special election amid the sexual misconduct allegations, which he denied. He told The Associated Press earlier this month he is considering another campaign next year.

Trump, who backed Moore in 2017 despite the allegations, tweeted “I have NOTHING against Roy Moore,” but warned that “Roy Moore cannot win.” He adds that if Democrat Doug Jones retains the seat in 2020 “many of the incredible gains that we have made during my Presidency may be lost.”

Trump’s comments come as national Republicans have tried to keep Moore out of the race.

Moore’s nomination could have national repercussions, allowing Democrats to accuse the GOP of ignoring the #MeToo movement and coddling a man accused of sexual misconduct. Moore says he expects to announce a decision in mid-June.

Republicans control the U.S. Senate 53-47 and view defeating Jones as a top priority. Jones, 65, is considered the most endangered Democratic incumbent facing re-election in 2020, a year when several GOP senators are vulnerable and control of the chamber will be at stake.

Jones defeated Moore in 2017 by 22,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast in a special election to fill the seat previously held by Jeff Sessions, who became Trump’s attorney general.
…

President Donald Trump warned Wednesday the “consequences will be devastating” if Alabama Republican Roy Moore, whose 2017 U.S. Senate campaign was battered by allegations of long-ago sexual harassment of teenagers, seeks the seat again in 2020.

Moore lost in the once-reliably red state in a 2017 special election amid the sexual misconduct allegations, which he denied. He told The Associated Press earlier this month he is considering another campaign next year.

Trump, who backed Moore in 2017 despite the allegations, tweeted “I have NOTHING against Roy Moore,” but warned that “Roy Moore cannot win.” He adds that if Democrat Doug Jones retains the seat in 2020 “many of the incredible gains that we have made during my Presidency may be lost.”

Trump’s comments come as national Republicans have tried to keep Moore out of the race.

Moore’s nomination could have national repercussions, allowing Democrats to accuse the GOP of ignoring the #MeToo movement and coddling a man accused of sexual misconduct. Moore says he expects to announce a decision in mid-June.

Republicans control the U.S. Senate 53-47 and view defeating Jones as a top priority. Jones, 65, is considered the most endangered Democratic incumbent facing re-election in 2020, a year when several GOP senators are vulnerable and control of the chamber will be at stake.

Jones defeated Moore in 2017 by 22,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast in a special election to fill the seat previously held by Jeff Sessions, who became Trump’s attorney general.
…

Special counsel Robert Mueller reiterated Wednesday that charging President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice was not an option his office could consider under Justice Department guidelines, as he announced the closure of his office after concluding in late March a 22-month investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by Trump. 

Explaining his decision not to recommend formal charges against Trump despite uncovering nearly a dozen instances of possible obstruction of justice, Mueller cited a long-standing Justice Department legal opinion that says a sitting president can’t be indicted. 

“The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy,” Mueller said in his first public remarks since his appointment as special counsel more than two years ago. “Charging the president with a crime, therefore, was not an option we could consider.”  

WATCH: Mueller on indicting a sitting president

The special counsel added that his decision not to charge Trump was informed in part by the Justice Department’s view that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” an apparent reference to the impeachment process by Congress. 

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

However, Mueller said that while his investigators had found “insufficient evidence” to charge Trump with a “broader conspiracy” during the election, he repeated what he wrote in his final report about the investigation that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.” ​

WATCH: Mueller on returning to private life

Mueller concluded in the 448-page confidential report to Attorney General William Barr that he found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and Moscow.  As to whether Trump criminally obstructed the investigation, the special counsel wrote that while he could not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, he could not exonerate the president either. 

That left it to the attorney general, who, in a controversial decision made in consultation with senior Justice Department officials, determined that Trump could not be charged with obstruction based on the evidence uncovered by Mueller. Barr said he made the determination irrespective of the Justice Department policy against charging a sitting president, even though the policy had played a prominent role in Mueller’s decision not to bring charges.  

Barr’s decision outraged Democrats, who have accused the attorney general of misrepresenting Mueller’s conclusions and had been pressing for the special counsel to testify before Congress. While not ruling out a congressional appearance, Mueller said, to the disappointment of many Democrats, that he would not go beyond the report if he were to testify.  

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

Mueller was appointed special counsel for the Russia investigation after Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. He told reporters that he was resigning from the Justice Department to return to private life.

Before his appointment, Mueller, a former FBI director, served as a partner at the WilmerHale law firm in Washington.   

In his statement, Mueller sought to play down reported friction with the attorney general over the manner in which the report was released to Congress and the public.  

Barr initially sent a four-page summary of the report’s principal conclusions to Congress, followed by a redacted version of the full report last month. The Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee later voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to release the full report along with the underlying evidence used to prepare it.  

Mueller said that while he asked the attorney general to release “certain portions of the report” to Congress early on, he did “not question the attorney general’s good faith” in deciding to make the entire report public at a later date.  

In a statement, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said, “Mr. Mueller explicitly said that he has nothing to add beyond the report, and therefore, does not plan to testify before Congress.” 

“The report was clear — there was no collusion, no conspiracy — and the Department of Justice confirmed there was no obstruction. Special counsel Mueller also stated that Attorney General Barr acted in good faith in his handling of the report,” Sanders said. “After two years, the special counsel is moving on with his life, and everyone else should do the same.”  

In a tweet after Mueller’s statement, Trump wrote: “Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in a our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you. ” 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., responded to Mueller’s remarks, saying, “It falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoings of President Trump — and we will do so.” 

In his remarks Wednesday, Mueller emphasized that “there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election” by Russia. He called it a “concerted attack on our political system.” 

“That allegation deserves the attention of every American,” he said. 
…

Special counsel Robert Mueller reiterated Wednesday that charging President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice was not an option his office could consider under Justice Department guidelines, as he announced the closure of his office after concluding in late March a 22-month investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible obstruction of justice by Trump. 

Explaining his decision not to recommend formal charges against Trump despite uncovering nearly a dozen instances of possible obstruction of justice, Mueller cited a long-standing Justice Department legal opinion that says a sitting president can’t be indicted. 

“The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that department policy,” Mueller said in his first public remarks since his appointment as special counsel more than two years ago. “Charging the president with a crime, therefore, was not an option we could consider.”  

WATCH: Mueller on indicting a sitting president

The special counsel added that his decision not to charge Trump was informed in part by the Justice Department’s view that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” an apparent reference to the impeachment process by Congress. 

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

However, Mueller said that while his investigators had found “insufficient evidence” to charge Trump with a “broader conspiracy” during the election, he repeated what he wrote in his final report about the investigation that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.” ​

WATCH: Mueller on returning to private life

Mueller concluded in the 448-page confidential report to Attorney General William Barr that he found insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and Moscow.  As to whether Trump criminally obstructed the investigation, the special counsel wrote that while he could not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, he could not exonerate the president either. 

That left it to the attorney general, who, in a controversial decision made in consultation with senior Justice Department officials, determined that Trump could not be charged with obstruction based on the evidence uncovered by Mueller. Barr said he made the determination irrespective of the Justice Department policy against charging a sitting president, even though the policy had played a prominent role in Mueller’s decision not to bring charges.  

Barr’s decision outraged Democrats, who have accused the attorney general of misrepresenting Mueller’s conclusions and had been pressing for the special counsel to testify before Congress. While not ruling out a congressional appearance, Mueller said, to the disappointment of many Democrats, that he would not go beyond the report if he were to testify.  

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

Mueller was appointed special counsel for the Russia investigation after Trump fired then-FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. He told reporters that he was resigning from the Justice Department to return to private life.

Before his appointment, Mueller, a former FBI director, served as a partner at the WilmerHale law firm in Washington.   

In his statement, Mueller sought to play down reported friction with the attorney general over the manner in which the report was released to Congress and the public.  

Barr initially sent a four-page summary of the report’s principal conclusions to Congress, followed by a redacted version of the full report last month. The Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee later voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress for failing to release the full report along with the underlying evidence used to prepare it.  

Mueller said that while he asked the attorney general to release “certain portions of the report” to Congress early on, he did “not question the attorney general’s good faith” in deciding to make the entire report public at a later date.  

In a statement, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said, “Mr. Mueller explicitly said that he has nothing to add beyond the report, and therefore, does not plan to testify before Congress.” 

“The report was clear — there was no collusion, no conspiracy — and the Department of Justice confirmed there was no obstruction. Special counsel Mueller also stated that Attorney General Barr acted in good faith in his handling of the report,” Sanders said. “After two years, the special counsel is moving on with his life, and everyone else should do the same.”  

In a tweet after Mueller’s statement, Trump wrote: “Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in a our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you. ” 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., responded to Mueller’s remarks, saying, “It falls to Congress to respond to the crimes, lies and other wrongdoings of President Trump — and we will do so.” 

In his remarks Wednesday, Mueller emphasized that “there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election” by Russia. He called it a “concerted attack on our political system.” 

“That allegation deserves the attention of every American,” he said. 
…

The next U.S. presidential election is not until November 2020, but Republican President Donald Trump and the leading Democrat trying to oust him, former Vice President Joe Biden, are launching rhetorical slingshots at each other with gusto.

Trump, in Japan for a four-day state visit, played golf with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, watched a sumo wrestling match and met Emperor Naruhito, but his mind strayed little from his re-election effort in throwing jabs at Biden, leading in U.S. political surveys over two dozen other Democratic presidential contenders.

For decades, U.S. presidents have generally refrained from political attacks on their opponents back home while they were overseas on diplomatic missions, and in turn, their political foes have not attacked them while they were on foreign soil.

But from Tokyo, Trump assailed “Sleepy Joe Biden” for his role as a senator in the 1994 passage of legislation that stiffened penalties for crimes that had the effect of sending more African-American defendants to prison for lengthy terms. 

“That was a dark period in American History, but has Sleepy Joe apologized? No!” Trump said on Twitter. 

He also tweeted:

Trump said he “also smiled” when North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “called Swampman Joe Biden a low IQ individual, & worse,” suggesting that “Perhaps that’s sending me a signal?” that Kim preferred him in the White House, not Biden. At one point, Trump misspelled the former vice president’s name as “Bidan.”

Asked at a news conference about Kim’s assessment of Biden’s intelligence, Trump responded, “Well, Kim Jong Un made a statement that Joe Biden is a low IQ individual. He probably is, based on his record. I think I agree with him on that,” an attack that some lawmakers in the U.S. said was uncalled for on a fellow American, especially coming on the Memorial Day holiday honoring the country’s war dead. 

Biden’s campaign waited to respond until minutes after Trump landed back in Washington on Tuesday afternoon. 

“The president’s comments are beneath the dignity of the office,” a Biden spokeswoman said. “To be on foreign soil, on Memorial Day, and to side repeatedly with a murderous dictator against a fellow American and former vice president speaks for itself. And it’s part of a pattern embracing autocrats at the expense of our institutions — whether taking [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s word at face value in Helsinki or exchanging ‘love letters’ with Kim Jong Un.”

A Biden campaign official said the delayed timing of the statement was intentional, with the former vice president wanting to respect “the sacred purpose of Memorial Day, remembering those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.”
…

The next U.S. presidential election is not until November 2020, but Republican President Donald Trump and the leading Democrat trying to oust him, former Vice President Joe Biden, are launching rhetorical slingshots at each other with gusto.

Trump, in Japan for a four-day state visit, played golf with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, watched a sumo wrestling match and met Emperor Naruhito, but his mind strayed little from his re-election effort in throwing jabs at Biden, leading in U.S. political surveys over two dozen other Democratic presidential contenders.

For decades, U.S. presidents have generally refrained from political attacks on their opponents back home while they were overseas on diplomatic missions, and in turn, their political foes have not attacked them while they were on foreign soil.

But from Tokyo, Trump assailed “Sleepy Joe Biden” for his role as a senator in the 1994 passage of legislation that stiffened penalties for crimes that had the effect of sending more African-American defendants to prison for lengthy terms. 

“That was a dark period in American History, but has Sleepy Joe apologized? No!” Trump said on Twitter. 

He also tweeted:

Trump said he “also smiled” when North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “called Swampman Joe Biden a low IQ individual, & worse,” suggesting that “Perhaps that’s sending me a signal?” that Kim preferred him in the White House, not Biden. At one point, Trump misspelled the former vice president’s name as “Bidan.”

Asked at a news conference about Kim’s assessment of Biden’s intelligence, Trump responded, “Well, Kim Jong Un made a statement that Joe Biden is a low IQ individual. He probably is, based on his record. I think I agree with him on that,” an attack that some lawmakers in the U.S. said was uncalled for on a fellow American, especially coming on the Memorial Day holiday honoring the country’s war dead. 

Biden’s campaign waited to respond until minutes after Trump landed back in Washington on Tuesday afternoon. 

“The president’s comments are beneath the dignity of the office,” a Biden spokeswoman said. “To be on foreign soil, on Memorial Day, and to side repeatedly with a murderous dictator against a fellow American and former vice president speaks for itself. And it’s part of a pattern embracing autocrats at the expense of our institutions — whether taking [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s word at face value in Helsinki or exchanging ‘love letters’ with Kim Jong Un.”

A Biden campaign official said the delayed timing of the statement was intentional, with the former vice president wanting to respect “the sacred purpose of Memorial Day, remembering those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.”
…