The committee will come to order. That objection, the chairs authorized to declare recess at any time. We welcome everyone to todays hearing and lessons from the Mueller Report part two bipartisan perspective. I will not recognize myself in Opening Statements. Last week we heard from two former United States attorneys who described President Trumps repeated efforts to undermine special counsel muellers investigation of russias interference in the 2016 election. We also heard from president nixons former white House Counsel who told us that the actions by this administration were substantially similar to the measures that nixon and the admin efficient took to undermine the watergate administration. There is one important difference. The special counselor mueller was investigating a different kind of break in. The target was similar to that in watergate. The burglar was a hostile foreign nation. The crime was carried out through a hacking operation that still hundreds of thousands of documents. Rather than the contents of a single space. And the hacked documents were used extensively to affect the outcome of the election. Todays hearing will be focusing on special counselor muellers investigation of what russia did to our democracy in 2016. And then russia is still trying to do to our democracy today. This is the second in a series of hearings the mind to unpack the Mueller Reports we can discuss its implications , grant legislation and make other recommendations for the house. As necessary. We have called this a hearing for bipartisan perspective not only to reflect the makeup of our witness panel, but because it should be brought consensus across the political spectrum that we can allow for nations to interfere in our democratic selfgovernment. They should also be brought consensus that if a political candidate accept help from a foreign nation and even welcomes this attack on our democracy, that candidate is fundamentally but trade the variance and institutions that he or she must swear an oath to protect. To be clear, the question before us is not merely whether Campaign Officials committed a crime, and they take a meeting with foreign officials to discuss quote dirt on an opponent. But the federal law prohibiting a candidate from publicly encouraging hacking operations from a foreign adversary. The question before us comes down to what we as american citizens are willing to accept from our leaders. Nearly 2 years ago, the fbi director Christopher Ray announced that the fbi was setting up a foreign, was setting up a Foreign Influence Task force designed to combat both foreign influence operations post quote including quote covert actions by Foreign Governments to influence u. S. Political sentiment. The fbi explained that the goal of these influence operations is to spread this information, so discord, and ultimately undermine confidence in our Democratic Institutions and values. I cannot imagine that a Single Member of this committee would disagree that these operations are poisonous to our democracy and must be disrupted and dismantled. To the fullest extent of the law. In fact in our hearing last week i was struck by a common theme in the remarks of some of our republican colleagues. They acknowledged we were attacked by a foreign adversary. They acknowledged that our election systems are not secure. And they acknowledged that Congress Must respond to these threats without delay. With the urge to stop talking about the findings in the Mueller Report, we cannot simply forget that the president s 2016 Election Campaign encouraged russias actions both privately and publicly. Our nations intelligence officials have made clear that russia may do the very same things in the next election. Or perhaps worse. Other hostile adversaries may try as well. Last week, to the alarm of americans across the political spectrum, likely to the alarm of the men and women in the Law Enforcement and intelligence communities while working to prevent these attacks, President Trump stated in an interview, that he would be willing to accept information about a political opponent from a foreign adversary such as russia or china. First, when asked whether political candidates who were approached by Foreign Governments with this kind of information should call the fbi, resident trump responded quote you do not call the fbi, give me a break. We informed that some of the fbi director says that is what should happen, he responded, the fbi director is wrong. The next question was not confusing. President trump was asked what his campaign would do if a foreign adversary like russia or china quote offered you information on an opponent. He was asked quote should they accept it . Or should they call the fbi . The president responded that maybe you do both. And went on to say, i think i would want to hear it. And they have information, i think i would take it. This time around the situation is even more alarming. The president was a private citizen during the 2016 campaign. He now sits at the head of all of our nations intelligence and Law Enforcement agencies. He is provided with our nations must sensitive secrets on a daily basis. He has sworn an oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Even with the benefit of all that guidance, and even with all of the authority and responsibility has been granted. The president has said he is open to receiving information from a foreign adversary. In fact, by stating publicly that he would accept help from a Foreign Government he may well have encouraged more foreign influence operations against our democracy. We heard some relevant testimony about this in the hicks interview yesterday and we will be releasing that transcript soon. The president s willingness to again welcome prohibited foreign assistance now with a full understanding that the law prohibits it, is indeed shocking. The president may be willing to describe the lessons of the Mueller Report but we are not. With the 2020 election looming, we must act immediately to respond to the ongoing foreign threats we face as well as the president s apparent willingness to accept them. I will look forward to todays political discussion into learning every lesson we can so that this a very recent sorry history is not repeated. It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins. For his Opening Statement. Thank you mr. Chairman, you know the title of the hearing as we said, lessons, bipartisan perspective i think we will have a chance to hear this but i do have a concern that i want to bring up, at the beginning and is procedural issue, the chairman has every right to have and im glad he has listened to us. We would like to talk about that, but with our side was asked and we were asked what is the hearing schedule we were told that we would get another rerun of obstruction in fact that was his late as monday night at 9 pm we were told it was going to be all about last week again. On obstruction, which is look, it is up to the chairman to do whatever he wants to do and we respect that but to actually have a good, so we could get appropriate witnesses, our witness is going to be, we are happy to have him here but it is something that we were caught unaware about and i think it is something that if we can go forward at least ineligible heads up would affect all because i think foreign interference in the election systems are something that we need to discuss and we would talk about that with those that are out there but it should come up in the hearing which we actually have asked for and you are not going to allow us to forget the rest of it so do not worry about that i am sure. As we go forward today though, the special counsel finishes investigation and i know americans, no one on the Trump Campaign it conspired with the russians that was great news for american and i thought it would be great news to all americans to my surprise, not really surprised it wasnt. Democrats are not only disappointed and angry, angry at the president was not a russian asset it seems imagine disliking a president so much that you wish you were a foreign agent. That is where the other party is today. Despite the Mueller Reports confusions, conclusions, that came to democrats disparate, democrats spent two years telling the mueller team the best of the best, but since they didnt like the outcome, democrats now had to redo the Mueller Investigation. They launched their mueller do over when the chairman sent documents requested to 81 individuals and entities contacted to the present. We would call that the 81 investigation as i call it. It was quickly abandoned in favor of plan b, plan b was democrat when he factored a fight with the attorney general. They issued a subpoena directing the attorney general to violate the law. The producing grand materials to congas on the presently the attorney general declined to break the law. Rather than engage in traditional combination assess the chairman how the attorney general and contempt in record time on flimsy ground. Even their own witnesses admitted the subpoena was asking for illegal things. The democrats, to the chairman learned . The democrats overplayed her hand again with plan c. When they subpoena testimony and documents from former white House Counsel don mcgann. The democrats subpoena began knowing every president since at least the 1970s including president clinton and obama, claimed immunity over congressional testimony from close president ial advisors, the trumpet ministration like clinton and obama went immunity over mcganns testimony and mcgann did not appear. When plans a through c a failed to accomplish anything we decided to go in for the heavy artillery for plan d. What was plan d. Was it mueller himself. No. That would have made too much sense. Was at the pivot, it was a pivot to focus on the actual findings of wrongdoing in the Mueller Report related to foreign interference, that wouldve been productive. How do we focus on real issues facing america with the border crisis we do not do, know that wouldve been too compassionate. Instead, plan d was john dean. Yes, the convicted felon from watergate scandal who spent 40 years telling everyone who, everything, that anything he did was them anything that happens now is worse than watergate. The columbia journalism review read the headline, democrats dean hearing, washington post, comments karen said, no friend of the Trump Administration by the way said, perhaps the best thing that could be said about the hearing is that no one repeated assent quite like the one we saw from representative last month in that same room when he ate from a bucket of chicken, the fact that democrats believe the American Public would be energized by john dean who has none and has done nothing. And that desperation actually showed last week, when after the dean hearing and at least one member of the committee scolded him and ignoring the dean hearing, not showing it enough. I hope that john dean hearing was an end to the circus. But because no matter how many times we relive the findings of the report, the conclusions will not magically change. Instead we are ignoring more pressing issues but as i said last week our actions expose our real priorities. So what hearing to be included for this week . Mueller report part two, bipartisan perspective, we know that we are here to discuss, given the majoritys action and preparing for this hearing and the notice that we were given, i feel that once again we were turning this committee into another circus. The attorney general made the Mueller Report public two months ago we can all read it for ourselves, weve had some wonderful dramatic readings in here over the past week or two and even yesterday in the hicks interview, and we all know what it says. The lessons of the Mueller Report is no consider us to be. Everyone in my generation growing up, they realize that the Summer Season was a Summer Season was after all the shows and run the whole season it was time for rebounds, but tomorrow is the official start of summer, it is time for rerun season. Yesterdays episode was hicks, todays episode is before us. So with that mr. Chairman without further ado, let the show began. Thank you mr. Collins, i will not introduce todays witnesses. Cordero is robert yates senior following general counsel for new american security. And an adjunct professor of law at georgetown university. She is also the cofounder of checks and balances and organizations of conservative and libertarian lawyers dedicated to core constitutional principles and the rule of law. Ms. Cordero received the bachelors degree from Columbia University and her jd from american university. Richard hayes and, is just professor of law and Political Science at the university of california Irvine School of law. From 2001 to 2010 professor hayes served as coeditor of the peerreviewed publications election law journal. He has authored more than 100 articles. He received his bachelors degree from the university of california berkeley and his jdm a and phd from ucla. Alina cova is the director of the product and global democracy and emerging technology and a fellow in the foreignpolicy Programs Center on United States and europe and Security Strategy team at they bring things institution. She is also an adjunct professor of European Studies at the school of advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins university. She received a bachelors degree from every university and a doctorate from the university of california at berkeley. Is a james monroe distinguished professor of law and appall Research Professor of law at the university of Virginia School of law. Before becoming professor, he clerked for judge Lawrence Silverman of the u. S. Court of appeals to the District Of Columbia circuit and for Supreme CourtJustice Clarence thomas. He received his bachelors degree from Stanford University and his jp from yale law school. Well, distinguished witnesses and we thank you for participating in todays hearing. If you would please rise i would begin by swearing you in. Raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct, to the best of your knowledge information and beliefs so help you god . Thank you, let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you. Please note, that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly i ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you stay within that time there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow you have one minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red it signals your five minutes has expired. Mr. Cordero you may began. Thank you mr. Chairman, mr. Ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to support the committees efforts to bring Greater Public awareness to the information and special counselor muellers report, the written statement ive submitted focuses on the National Security aspect in volume 1 of the report, including the special counsels exposure of a sustained, systematic intelligence operation by the government of russia to interfere in the 2016 election, why foreign influence matters and lessons we can draw from the report. My reinstatement also discusses how the chain of events surrounding the reports release negatively affected public understanding of the reports facts and findings. The russian governments activities to influence the 2016 president ial campaign was a foreign intelligence operation involving two main efforts. The first was a social media operation intended to influence American Public opinion. The effort was successful in reaching millions of americans through social media engagement, falls online personas and add purchases. The second part involved computer hacking to steal and then release information from the Democratic Party campaign apparatus. There was a corollary to the social media operation which often gets overlooked. Russian online operatives caused real unsuspecting americans to gather for political purposes, pretending to be grassroots activists. These operatives made virtual contact with and interacted with Trump Campaign supporters and Campaign Officials, they organized rallies including pro trump rallies in new york, florida and pennsylvania. The russians released hacks, stolen information in two ways, through fake online personas, dc links and through a surrogate wiki link. As discussed in my written statement much of the information regarding wikileaks is redacted in the report, and given the harm that wiki links has caused u. S. National security for approximately a decade, we should all be able to agree that regardless of meeting a criminal standard for prosecution, it is unacceptable in the disqualifying for a u. S. Political campaign to willingly accept information and consider crafting a Public Relations strategy around leaked information from wikileaks or any Similar Organization that in the words of secretary pompeo when he was the cia director quote walks like a Hostile Intelligence Service and talks like a Hostile Intelligence Service, the russian activities to influence u. S. Democratic institutions and pit americans against each other are ongoing. Foreign influence when conducted behind the scenes class the policy debate and impacts decisions about americans while crowding out the voice of americans. Foreign Intelligence Service conducting activities abroad know they are violating the domestic law of the country they target but they do not care. Setting aside legality for a moment, it is simply, its something cannot be that it is acceptable for an american Political Campaign to accept foreign assistance in order to win an election. We have not done a good enough job explaining to the American Public like foreign influence matters. If we allow foreign interest to invade our thinking regarding our choice of candidate, to invade our Media Outlets by releasing stolen information without understanding where it is coming from, and to possibly invade our Voter Registration and election infrastructure we are not making decisions for ourselves. We cannot allow foreign interest to influence how americans look at each other, how we speak to each other, how we interact with each other online. Foreign involvement in our elections undermines our democracy. Members of congress have a duty, to ensure that the government is protecting americans from foreign influence. We are only 18 months away from the next election, my written statement includes examples of the types of legislative steps that Congress Needs to take. On the leadership front however, the duty is rooted in members of the oath of office and allegiance to the constitution. The evidence in volume one of the special counsels report, in addition to recent public statements made by the president and his most senior advisors, cannot be ignored. One cannot faithfully defend the constitution and be open to receiving foreign assistance to win an election at the same time and take action to actively thwart the federal investigation into those foreign influence efforts. The oath in those acts are incompatible. They should be of great concern to this body which carries its own constitutional responsibility. We cannot write off what transpired in 2016. Right now, today, there is no whole of Government Strategy to counter foreign influence in elections. No president ial leadership, to secure our elections. Though legislation passed by congress to address Election Security or foreign influence. Instead, we have deflection, and apathy, and inaction. We cannot ignore the information in the special counsels report. We cannot not care. We have to care. And we have to act. Have to raise our expectations. Protecting americans from foreign interference in our democracy needs to begin here. Protecting our constitutional system of checks and balances needs to begin here. Protecting our shared values, our free elections and our american interests needs to begin here. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ranking member collins and members of the judiciary committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to speak about the matter that is among my greatest concerns i have had in 25 years of researching and teaching about American Election law and Campaign Finance issues. The potential for continued illegal foreign interference in United States elections in the United States president ill advised encouragement of Foreign Government meddling. From Founding FathersGeorge Washington and alexander hamilton, the Supreme Court justices John Paul Stevens and Justice Brett cavanaugh, American Leadership recognizes the hostile foreign nations with as Justice Stevens put it, no basic investment in the well being of the country, attempt to interfere in American Elections in order to manipulate an elections outcome or to curry favor with the winner. Justice cavanaugh and the 2011 case, how that United States has a compelling interest in democratic selfgovernment. This unanimous opinion upheld the ban on foreign contributions and extended tours in American Elections and the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling without even issuing its own opinion. Indeed until President Trump came along, there was broad bipartisan consensus that worn interference in American Elections undermines the idea that we the people and not outsiders with interests adverse to United States get to choose american leaders. In the wake of unprecedented russian interference in the 2016 president ial elections and in the light of statement made last week by President Trump that he saw quote nothing wrong with taking valuable information from a Foreign Government about an election from the 2020 elections is what considering with current prohibits when it comes to foreign interference in elections, and with what steps they can and should take with consistent with the First Amendment to ensure continued american selfgovernment. Volume 1 of the Mueller Report revealed the agents of the russian government and military did three things they engaged in a social Media Campaign to provoke an amplified social discord and eventually to support his favored candidate trump, they stole emails from officials and released them through wikileaks and other sources and a quote targeted individuals and entities involved in the ministration of elections including state board of elections and voting machine companies. The department of justice charged 13 individuals with entities affiliated with the Russian Military with crimes related to these activities. We will never know the extent to which these Russian Military activities in the outcome of 2016 elections but there is no question to their attempt. There is no question that foreign powers will attempt to interview again, it should be a wakeup call for all americans, three congressional permits will be increased Cyber Security funding, extending the foreign expenditure prohibition and disclosure on Online Advertising and requiring campaigns to report contacts from foreign agents. The President Trump not only has failed to support these bipartisan measures, he has actually encouraged foreign meddling. In the 2016 election, russian operatives targeted Hillary Clintons personal offices for proximally five hours after trump remarkably encouraged the russian government to find clintons suppose a 30,000 missing emails from her time as secretary of state. As a 2020 elections, trump even more outrageously told abc news is George Stephanopoulos he saw nothing wrong with taking quote Opposition Research about an opponent from the government. As explained in the Mueller Report, this is illegal. The report cited that federal Election Commission authority for the view that Opposition Research counts as a thing of value under federal law. The report stated quote a foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided results and information to a campaign could exert a greater affect in an election and a greater tendency to and grade the candidate than a gift of money or tangible things of value. While some may question whether american Campaign Officials understood that a foreign donation or Opposition Research to a campaign was illegal in 2016, everyone, including the president is now i noticed that for 2020 this conduct is illegal. And yet the president statements appear to be another invitation to Foreign Governments to provide valuable information on his opponents. Legal or not, Foreign Government interference in American Elections undermines our democracy and self government. While it was the russian Government Supporting the republican candidate in 2016, it could well be russia or another country supporting a democrat in 2020 or beyond. The goal of the russians is to format a discord, something that every american regardless of Political Party should be worried. Thank you for the opportunity to present these views and i welcome your questions. Thank you, thank you. It is a real honor and privilege to address you here today in this critical issue concerning our democracy. When you for inviting me to speak. I submitted my written testimony for the record which focuses on russias intent toward democracy in particular the United States. Russias Political Warfare against the west. And why these actions should be of deep concern to all of us here in United States and elsewhere. First a quick caveat, throughout my comments i referred to russia as a shorthand to revert to the authoritarian regime of president Vladimir Putin and in no way do i refer to the russian people who are indeed the primary victims of the kremlins repressive regime, by now it should be clear to all of us that russia is engaged in a Political Warfare against western democracy. As it accurately stated in the Mueller Investigation report, its better intent is to undermine trust in our Democratic Institutions, values and principles. Which the kremlin sees as a threat to its own authoritarian model of control. The kremlins influence is a 21stcentury adaptation of soviet era active measures. Which includes digital disinformation campaigns, cyber warfare, political infiltration and the use of corruption to influence democratic politics. To date, the report the investigations related indictments from february 2018 and july 2018 against Internet Research agencies, socalled troll farm and the Russian Military intelligence, the dr you provide the most competence of assessment of the continuing and evolving russian threat. Today i will focus my comments primarily on the Information Operations that the russian government carried out against the United States mainly because this is an area we continue to lag behind in addressing this critical threat. The Mueller Report , and which has been sustained by independent reporting, clearly shows the russias Information Operations were highly adapted in the political context of the United States. While it a well thought out Strategic Plan and involved direction from russian intelligence. There were also incredibly effective infiltrating American Media while also talking about debate. The Main Objective was to undermine trust in our democratic process. The nature of that attack of my colleagues have already stated involved three interrelated parts. And Information Operation led by the ira, a cyber hack and leak operation carried by the Russian Military intelligence, and an infiltration operation of the Trump Campaign. The Information Operations began as early as 2014. A full two years before our president ial election. They resembled a Marketing Campaign using the tools provided by social media platforms. In brief, they proceeded in four phases. An initial phase of building a network of online accounts by impersonating american individuals particularly on facebook, by 2015, the second phase involves Building Audience growth and creating pages of content that were not necessarily political or even divisive but simply meant to build increasing attention to ira control pages and accounts. By 2016, the ira turned exquisitely to the u. S. Elections with the goal of undermining the Clinton Campaign and amplifying social division. It was not until the late spring of 2015, 2016, a few months before president ial elections that fall the return to active promotion of candidate donald trump. By the end of the 2016 elections, the ira had the ability to reach as many as 126 Million People on facebook and 124 million on twitter. The ira was a part of a larger interference project funded by the russian oligarchy called, due to the extent of the nature of the reduction of the Mueller Report we still do not know the full scope of the command structure, how far into the kremlin the decisionmaking process reached and how the project continues to be funded today. The russian operation against the United States does not stand alone. If its and to a much broader pattern of russian nonkinetic activities, first and foremost in the former soviet countries most notably, ukraine. Russian influence operations also do not focus on isolated events. They do not stop when the ballot ox closes. Rather taking it as a whole, they are the core of a political strategy honed in europe ceased and deployed against the west. To weaken Democratic Institutions and slow discord in our societies. In my written testimony i provide multiple examples of how the russian government has, at least since 2004, intervened and interfered in ukraines democratic processes and how it continues since the 2016 election to interfere in the democratic societies of our allies in europe. It is particularly concerning the many european foreign Political Parties have formal cooperation agreements with the kremlins united russia party. Including the ruling party in italy called the league, and the Austrian Freedom Party which has been tool recent a Coalition Government with the centerright in australia, that is the operation targeting the United States resident election may have been the most prominent case of russian Political Warfare but has not been the last nor will it be. That is because so far we have fallen behind in addressing this threat. In particular the United States has fallen behind the european allies in opposing costs that would deter russia from carrying out future attacks of this nature in the Upcoming Elections and other medical moments of concern to the russian federation. Whereas military strikes are much more readily felt and influence operations are not clearly felt by American People and other citizens and democratic society. Yet over time they are a slow drip that starts to burrow a hole in the delicate political contract between our institutions and our citizens undermining democratic discourse and undermining the democratic process. The lack of consequences imposed on russia for its attack on the United States sends a very clear message to other authoritarian regimes. That they currently have an open door to further destabilize our democracy. We should not and cannot let this stand, thank you. Thank you, i hope i pronounce your name correctly, you did. Good morning. Members of the judiciary committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in todays hearings, i want to underscore the, my views do not represent the institution that i work for, i have four points today, im going to be discussing the obstruction charges or the obstruction out of the report part two, not part one. First i want to emphasize the president s have broad constitutional powers over the Justice Department. Including the fbi and for that matter, special councils that is their constitutional job just as it is yours to make laws it is theirs to execute the laws. It is a mistake fundamental dis mistake to view president ial involvement and decisions as if that were ipso facto sinister interference. In doj matters. Second, the Mueller Report does not demonstrate that the president committed obstruction of justice because the obstruction statutes do not apply to his official acts and even if they did we do not have a clear proof that he committed obstruction of justice. Without more, the removal of james comay and the attempted removal of Robert Mueller does not constitute a crime. Third, contrary to the doj i believe president s may be prosecuted while in office i do not believe they had deserve any immunity unlike you, they do not have immunity in the constitution, you have a privilege for rest and you have a speech and debate clause, there is no such provision for president s that is obviously contrary to what the doj says some of the doj is not likely to listen to me. Theyre more likely to listen to their own opinions but i think the doj is wrong about that, and then fourth and finally the category of impeachable offenses is incredibly broad. You are free to impeach the president whether he or if he didnt abuse his power, you can impeach him for that reason, you can also impeach him if you think he violated the cause of the appropriations clause. So let me talk about president s and prosecution. First, the constitution makes the president the constitutional executor of the laws. As hamilton wrote during the washington administration. President s principal power is the power over law execution. As is recognized not only by hamilton on multiple occasions but by James Madison and of course George Washington, George Washington supervised american prosecutors, he told them whom to prosecute and he told them who not to prosecute. His successors did the same. John adams would read the newspaper every morning and identifies judicious writings and send them to his prosecutors now there was a sedition act that arguably was unconstitutional and likely was unconstitutional but the point is that john adams was reading the paper and asking prosecutors to prosecute individuals. Thomas jefferson supervised prosecution as well, he was heavily involved in the prosecution of his former Vice President , aaron burr. They did is all without statutory one. Second point is that the Mueller Report i think assumes too quickly that the obstruction statutes apply to the official acts of government officials including the president. I think that is a mistake, the obstruction statutes are written in broad terms. That if you apply the obstruction statutes to the president they apply no less to the department. It means that every Department Official is involved in and influencing an investigation in which they satisfy the act, the only question is whether they acted for a corrupt motive which means that it is possible that Robert Mueller and his aides committed obstruction of justice, if they acted out of a corrupt motive i think that is a reading of the statute, i do not think it is mean to apply to the other official that i would not read it to apply to Robert Mueller or for that matter the president. Independent of that reading, the president has constitutional authorities over law execution that i just mentioned it is a mistake to read the obstruction statute written in general terms as if it applied to the president , there are many Supreme Court cases that choose not to read general statutes with general applicability as if they apply to the president with fear that it would show the president unconstitutional conduct. And i think that, the court very likely apply that rule to the obstruction statutes that it might show the president s supervision of the department. So for instance, if Bernie Sanders wins the next election and chris ray is the fbi director and Bernie Sanders believes that chris ray is misusing resources and dragging out an investigation, i think it is entirely permissible for Bernie Sanders to fire chris ray, i do not think there should be an investigation merely because he did so and i think that was the mistake at the outset i do not know who authorized the investigation of obstruction but i think it was a mistake. You cant infer an improper motive from the president involvement. Let me end with this point, the obstruction report of Robert Mueller says the president can get involved in the prosecution if he has political or policy motives, not if he has personal motives. Everyone understands the president had both motives or could have had both motives when he chose to fire comay, the personal motive wouldve been i dont want him to investigate me, the politics or, policy reason what event hes not, he is impeding my ability to conduct myself in this Important Office. Anyone who is Important Office knows that with their ability to carry out that office is impeded by an investigation and if that is the reason it is not corrupt and is perfectly fine, the report says as much, so once you understand that, and the report does say this, in the footnote in the text, you can see why it is really difficult to show that the president s motive was actual corruption i see that i am over and i welcome questions. Thank you, i will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. You said essentially something that we have heard a lot of people say that the president s certain constitutional powers and that, by exercising those powers he cant commit obstruction of justice, he can fire someone for whatever reason he wants, is that correct . Is not quite what i believe, i think you couldve gotten that from my downgraded comments but if you look at the testimony, my view is we ought not to read a general statute as if it covers the president. Just like we ought not to read it to cover Robert Mueller and if it does cover the president a raises difficult constitutional questions. A member of congress has the absolute constitutional right to vote forward against the bill but if you voted for or against the bill because someone gave him a bribe of 50,000 that would be a crime. Yes. The president has the right to fire somebody but if he fired someone to do anything else within his constitutional power would improper reason like someone gave him a bribe or because for any other improper reason, you would agree that that would be illegal. Chairman as you know, the bribery statute are about official conduct it is hard to read a bribery statute as if it did not reach official conduct whereas is obstruction statutes are not quintessentially about official conduct everybody is covered by it and it is easier to read a bribery statute if it covered official action because two bribe someone in an official capacity involved. Some cover officials and others dont . Some clearly do because they say as much, some have the deep implication that they do pretty thank you, and your testimony you are cofounder of checks and balances, and organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers who dedicated to Core Principles and upholding the rule of law, as a conservative with expertise in National Security law, why did you find the president s Statement Last week about his willingness to accept Opposition Research so concerning . First of all, in terms of the president s responsibilities as president , he is responsible for overseeing the National Security of the United States. He has the commander in chief responsibilities. Receiving foreign assistance has been recognized throughout the entire history of the country as something that is counter and undermines the constitution. He has an oath that he is defending the constitution. There is no way that a president can or any official, can willingly receive and indicate a willingness to receive foreign assistance. Which we have not only constitutional principles that cut against receiving foreign assistance, warn about foreign influence over our democracy and congress has passed statutes that tried to provide transparency and get at the issue and uncover potential foreign influence. On a Democratic Institutions and on congress so his being willing to receive that foreign assistance, i think it is incompatible with his role. It is likely a plausible that the president s Statement Last week, may encourage russia or other Foreign Governments to engage in the same type of influence operations against our democracy in the next election . Of course they are paying attention and listening to everything that the president and his advisors and members of this body say, so when he or anyone else indicates a willingness to receive foreign assistance, that is not just a signal, that is an invitation from a National Securities perspective to russian intelligence and any other Intelligent Services out there that want to try to find a way to influence our democratic processes. Thank you. You have explained why providing Opposition Research to a Political Campaign count of the campaign contribution, for a thing of value, for purposes of Campaign Finance law, in fact, dont campaigns often pay a great deal of money for Opposition Research . I should correct you, the use, the sale of Opposition Research or polling data has been found by the federal Election Commission to count as a thing of value for the purposes of the Campaign Finance laws giving it inkind if its value is over the value that is allowed as a contribution can be illegal that has been recognized by the fec. A so if a Foreign Government provides Opposition Research to a campaigns for free, that can constitute a significant in kind donation . Yes and the mueller noted it could be worth much more than some kind of dollar value contribution. Thank you, you have also explained that u. S. Law prohibits any Foreign National form computing and contributing to national campaigns, you described the decision that judge cavanagh wrote in 2011 upholding the ban on foreign election contributions, is it fair to say that in the opinion, no, Justice Cavanagh described the u. S. As having a compelling interest in preventing foreign influence in u. S. Elections . Yes, he recognized interest in democratic selfgovernment and the Supreme Court thought the opposition was so obvious that it affirmed his decision and did not even schedule a hearing on the case. Did anybody in the court or Supreme Court disagree . No. Thank you, though i disagree with you on many other points on the full agreement with your argument, you said the constitution does not grant the president quote any sort of privileges or immunities, would you agree then, that white house advisors cannot claim their quote absolutely immune on quote providing testified for congress, based on a theory that they act as the president s alter egos . I will tell you what i tell my class, i agree with you 110 but i think unfortunately it is administrations for the past several decades have claimed this privilege and congress has been unable to stop them. So i agree with you that people who work for the president should be forced to testify before congress. Except for when you can establish executive privilege . I assume. A i do not want to talk about executive privilege but i am on the record of saying i do not believe there is an executive privilege. Certainly not vis viss congress. My time is expired, the gentleman, Ranking Member, mr. Collins. Thank you, a couple things that are concerning, when i think this committee, we like to talk about the symptoms and not get a disease i disagree with the three democratic witnesses, this is what we should be doing, we should not be having to hear from you that it should be, we have built in queue that we could be having a hearing on i am glad you are here today but you dont need to be here we are like hypochondriacs talking about symptoms and whether there are cures that we can begin working on. We appreciate you being here but it is absolutely adding nothing to getting anything done. As we go forward, which concerns me because it is very obvious from the Opening Statement here that mr. Chairman we were under again, the understanding this was to be an obstruction hearing and is late and we have emails from to state this, is late as nine on monday night. Which could have you know again, better discussion of what you are wanting to discuss and we can also be hypochondriacs and talk about the symptoms when we could schedule even a markup to deal with bills that are actually in the queue. So i have a few questions here, that we look at one, and i would like to ask each witness quickly, when were you first contacted by the Committee Just to talk about todays hearings . I dont remember the date, i think i talked to staff. When were you asked about appearing today . One week, two weeks, whatever. At least may be a week ago, im sorry i do never member the date. A just general is fine. Saturday evening. Monday. I believe thursday or friday of last week. Okay. You know, again i think this is an issue and as a committee can Work Together on many things but i think the concern is that we have unfortunately hostile on everything, and this is not the way this one should be, it is very frustrating for us on one side, preparing for one thing, and for us, not even finding out you were going to be the ones testifying until really basically tuesday morning, and after we were told what was going to be happening, they called you. This is a problem, mr. Chairman, we need to not have this as we go forward. One of the aspects that was an interesting issue, maintaining secrecy of classified information, with a foreign or domestic . Would you like to, would you consider that problematic . I dont know if the memo was classified, but of course it was, it certainly was problematic. We have confirmed with the special counsel and the investigation, the underlying problem, it is certainly, the former director did not have evidence of conspiracy, that came out in the Mueller Report. So, he leaked documents that helped spark the special counsels investigation. Discussing obstruction, in doing so, could that leak cost you obstruction of justice . Mr. Comey was a private citizen when he leaked the memos, if he leaked them for personal reasons, under the special counsels report, that would be corrupt. If on the other hand, he did it out of public interest, it wouldnt be, which of course is the problem of trying to figure out whether something is corrupt or not, but for this pattern you suggested but also for the president. The problem you just said, it is exactly the same thing as it was discussed in the Mueller Report, and how this ended up after it was passed on by the special counsel, given to the attorney general and the Deputy Attorney general who said it did not have a corrupt motive. And also that they took no counsel from their own department that they took that into consideration, there is nothing there to charge. The special counsel and his report spent a great deal of time writing to the file, what is your view of this episode . It is determined by whether the president bought that mccann was trying to get a false memo. The president has forgotten things in the past, there is an episode where the president asked to withdraw a document from the u. S. Trade agreement, he gets it on his desk, and they it back. He forgets that he asks for it because he asks for it again. People are forgetful, it is quite possible that the president didnt realize that he asked don mcgahn and special counsel, Robert Mueller fired. This is a bill that could have gone toward obstruction, and if not obstruction, the election and the interference that we talked about before. Im glad they can elaborate on that beautifully, we have already begun the process, we could have had a markup today, instead, we are having a rerun, and from my perspective, something that we could participate in a different way, our witnesses here and an excellent opportunity to do that, but not in a way that it was done for us, and in the future, i hope that we can communicate better. Mrs. Jacksonlee. Thank you for holding this hearing. This is the job that is the response ability for the United States congress, i wanted to say thank you to the witnesses for their presence here, i want to be as close to my questioning time, and mr. Saikrishna prakash, let me thank you for your presence here today. I wanted to just pick up on the executive privilege. My understanding of what you just said was that executive privilege should not be rendered as it relates to congress. Is that correct . That is exactly right, im not sure there is executive privilege at all, by the court or congress. I appreciate that, we had a witness yesterday, mrs. Hicks, and i believe it is insert media that there was a significant amount of executive privilege, so you would characterize, you would raise questions about that. I think that representative, my view is a minority viewpoint, it does not help the department of justice or the president s office, that is true for republican and democrat. And i would think that the exercise of my executive privilege so extensively yesterday was an abuse of the rights of congress. Thank you for your addition to that for the record. Let me ask you this question, in the report, they talked about the idea of the involvement of russia, and let me just read this to you, first they talked about a russian entity known as the Internet Research agency carried out a social Media Campaign that say a president ial candidate, donald trump and hillary clinton, political and social discord in the United States, targeted operation that by early 2016, the favorite candidate, trump, and the intelligent director of the russian army conducted a computer operated, operations against entities in the Clinton Campaign, and released documents. How damaging, troublesome, dangerous is that . As the special counsel has said come in the report and in his remarks that he gave at the Justice Department, this was a systematic, intelligent operation against the United States, against the democrats, and i would emphasize, according to current u. S. Intelligence statements by Intelligence Community leaders, this is an ongoing issue, it is not just limited to the past, it wasnt just 2016, it is ongoing. How dangerous is it an reflection of 2016 to have president ial candidates and or their operatives willingly and excitingly engaging with the accident, i mentioned the intelligence agencies, obviously some of them were indicted, but how dangerous is that . Well, it is inconceivable that a president ial candidate would be willing to receive information that the campaign had reason to know was coming from russian Government Supported efforts. In other words, the work that is laid out in the special counsels report has a variety of different examples of how the campaign knew it was coming, it would have been more understandable had the campaign been able to say, we didnt understand, but instead, there is a particular reference to Deputy Campaign chairman, gates, where he told the special counsel that they were going to create a press strategy around the wikileaks releases. And there is a history of information. Thank you, quickly, based on your knowledge, can the lines between coordination of campaign become blurry, this is based on the relationship in the campaigns of 2016, in particular the Trump Campaign. I dont understand the question. Questions about campaigns coordinate with outside entities often arise in the context of rules governing super pacs and independent expenditures, based on your knowledge, and the lines regarding what counts as coordination between the campaign and outside group often becomes blurry. And, in that instance, would you look back on the 2016 with trump, election, and see the difficulty and what the Trump Campaign was doing and its dangerousness . In terms of the coronation with super pacs, i think there is a general problem across both sides of the aisle with coronation with campaigns and outside groups that support them, what is especially different with the Trump Campaign was the potential for coordination with a foreign entity, which is not something we normally see. Should that be reported immediately . I think it certainly would be Good Practice to report any attempt, and to speak to the campaign general counsel and alert them, who was don mcgahn at the time, and alert them, there was an approach by a foreign entity to try to enter the campaign. Thank you. I think the gentleman from ohio. Mr. Steven chabot . Just a couple of points, first of all, this didnt happen under President Trumps watch, this happened under president obamas watch, it was the Obama Administration that saw this happening and had evidence of it, knew it was going on, yet did nothing. Secondly, relative to what was done wrong, whether there was collusion with the russians, a lot of us, including myself reserved our judgment until the Mueller Report came in, lets not forget, the Mueller Report ultimately indicated that there was no collusion between donald trump or his campaign with russia. Secondly, the attorney general concluded that there was no obstruction of justice. Yet, here we are again in another hearing relative to a matter which is essentially already been decided. We are wasting our time, we are chasing our tails, it is taxpayer money that is paying for all of this. It is really a false impeachment because really, as the hardcore, hate trump democrat base despises this president , wants him impeached, the democrats refused to move forward on impeachment because they know that will blow up in their face politically. We are hearing really about nothing. Last week, john dean, yesterday, hope hicks, who are we going to have next week . Anybodys guess. In the meantime, there are significant real issues that are being ignored by this committee and this congress, for example, last month alone, 145,000 Illegal Immigrants came into this country, and one month , were rapidly becoming a vast International Territory between mexico and canada. I need to attribute that to our committee scholar, tom mcclintock, who used that definition yesterday, and i think it is a good one, although it is unfortunate. Another issue, weve got a 22 trillion debt hanging over our heads, this is a committee that could pay us something i have introduced, that is a balanced budget amendment, balance the budget, but we are not doing that. We got 70,000 people that died of opioid addictions last year, are we devoting any attention to that . Certainly not enough. Maybe we ought to be focusing on some of those real issues that really matter, just a suggestion. Professor Saikrishna Prakash, let me ask you this, this committee has spent a lot of time on this Mueller Report, democrats of this committee and in the media have demoted the narrative that not only has the president obstructed justice in the mueller investigator but the president is now allegedly obstructing congress. And just last week, democrats approved a resolution that authorizes a lawsuit against attorney general william barr, and don mcgahn, to enforce a subpoena on democrats, how do you assess the merits on such a lawsuit . Representative, i guess i am on record when i say i believe the president shouldnt be able to invoke on congress, as you know the courts have essentially required the congress and president negotiate over these things, and have been only reluctantly thereafter intervened. So you think it is likely they are going to fail in the courts . I dont know if they are going to fail or not, i dont know what the courts are going to say, but i do know that they seem to want to have you folks negotiate with the president first before this dispute. My executive privilege, i happen to believe it is right, but it is just my personal opinion. Many of the acts of alleged obstruction involve the president exercising his article two authority, as you mentioned, can you explain the difficulty in finding corrupt intent to obstruct justice when the president is carrying out his article 2 powers . If the president thinks to himself, im having a difficult time interacting with foreign leaders because they cant take me seriously and they are worried about how long i will be around, that is not a corrupt motive, the Mueller Report says as much. If you think he is solely focused on his own personal reputation, that would be a corrupt motive. Thank you, im almost out of time, relative to the president s power to remove executive branch officials, do you believe that the president committed a crime when he fired james comey . Absolutely not. Okay, your time has expired, yield back. Thank you, mr. Chair. I have noticed some constituents of mine from my zip code, let alone my district here, and im so happy they are here. They get to see what i have to put up with week after week. Colleagues who come here and say that the Mueller Report, which they obviously havent read, says no collusion. Ive read the report. Collusion is not even mentioned in the Mueller Report, the issue was conspiracy. Number two, the Mueller Reports that no obstruction, the Mueller Report did not say that, is that if we can find that the president didnt commit a crime, we would say that. We did not in any way exonerate him from committing obstruction of justice. And we are here also the attorney general said that. Would you hold him out of order . We have hearings about nothing. Hearings about nothing . Hearings about the russians interfering with our election that is in the Mueller Report, that is the first half of it, and tells us that the russians interfere with our elections and we are having hearings about nothing . This is not reality. This is the judiciary committee. And it is sad. The russians did interview, you said that the russians did interfere, and you said it would be miss qualifying that there was conflict with the oath of office that the president takes to be fully executed the laws of our country, and taking foreign information on election, which President Trump said he would do. If this committee gets into an impeachment inquiry, do you think these are areas that should be looked into . Yes. If this committee were to initiate an impeachment inquiry, there is a variety of things they could look into, one of the most important would be the matters discussed in volume 2 of the report, i think the special counsels report lays out at a minimum 4 to 6 acts of potential obstruction that the committee could continue. The second, probably most important thing that is in the report that the committee would want to look at is the prior campaign willingness to receive foreign assistance, to be the beneficiary of a foreign intelligence operation, and almost more significantly, current statements indicating a current and future willingness to take that assistance. Thank you, you said that the Mueller Report said Opposition Research was illegal. The Mueller Report cited that taking Opposition Research from a foreign nation would be illegal, is that correct . Im looking at the report on page 184, 185, then it talks about going onto 186, federal Election Commission ruling. So, Opposition Research counts as a thing of value, and from that, the report concludes that excepting it can be considered illegal, but there is no judicial decision, that issue never came to a court. But that is what federal Election Commission authorities upholds. If we have an impeachment inquiry, congress can take that into consideration, is that not true . Yes. If the Mueller Report said, that taking Opposition Research is of something of value, and illegal to take, if President Trump read it, would you presume as professor Saikrishna Prakash said, maybe he just forgot that he read that, or did he not read it because he obviously doesnt understand it. I dont know what the president reads or doesnt read, but i can tell you that the latter part of your answer is the most voluminous, what he doesnt read. Pramila jayapal, the Russian Military was definitely involved in this, right . With that have had to have come from pollutant . It is correct to say that we know from the report there was a Russian Military intelligence that was involved, my understanding from how the russian state functions, that there are proxies that do the bidding of the kremlin, it is likely there was a guiding principle sent to various proxy agents, including carrying out the operation in the United States. We dont know because of various reductions, but very likely, he was well aware of what was happening. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you mr. Chairman, professor Saikrishna Prakash, you got a law degree from yale, and you are a professor at the university of virginia. That is pretty impressive. And your focus is on the constitution, is that right . Yes. All right, about 12 weeks ago, the attorney general of the United States testified in front of the senate, and the attorney general said some interesting things, first of all, there was a failure of leadership, talking about the origins of the trump investigation. There was a failure of leadership from the fbi, you certainly know that is true. Everybody has been fired, demoted, or left by the Justice Department, and you said spying occurred twice, third, you said there was a basis for his concern for the spying that took place, namely it wasnt properly predicated. And finally, you used two terms that should frighten every american citizen, unauthorized surveillance and political surveillance. Are you troubled by or concerned by some of the things that the attorney general raised in his testimony a few weeks back in front of the senate . I dont know, i wasnt here to talk about that, but of course i think everybody should be troubled by the prospect that the tools of the investigation might be turned against the opponents. Of course, if this administration did this to the democratic nominee, i would be troubled by that as well. The question is whether it was adequately predicated. Let me give you a couple things we do know, he told us a few interesting things about the analysis in this dossier, specifically he told us that he had informed the fbi that the Clinton Campaign paid for the dossier, second he told us that Christopher Steele was bias against the president , so much so that he had conveyed to the fbi that he was desperate to stop trump from getting elected. Third, he told him that gps worked with him to put this dossier together, who was directly hired by the Clinton Campaign. And fourth, he told his wife that he worked for gps. When we went to the court, they didnt convey any of those important facts to the court. Does that trouble you . Yes, it does. Do you care to elaborate . If the polarities had been reversed, i think other people would be quite disturbed by the sequence of events, that is to say, if the administration had started this in part of a dossier paid for by political operatives, i think the other party would be quite upset. I think it merits investigation as to why this investigation, why this surveillance are spying , if you will, began. A statement made by democratic senator, chuck schumer, talking about trump and the Intelligence Community, then the highest ranking democrat in the United States, Congress Said this, when you mess with the Intelligence Committee, they have six ways of getting back to you. Does that statement trouble you when you think about how our constitutional system and unelected bureaucrats are supposed to answer to elected officials, elected by we the people, does that trouble you, professor . It does, in my written testimony, there are portions that suggest that any involvement by the president in the Ongoing Investigation is improper, and i think that is a mistake, i dont think it is possible to say that all such involvement is impermissible, i think it is a mistake to threaten the sitting president with a use of resources as the needs of retaliation. Last time i checked, peter struck never had his name on the ballot, in my time in congress, their name was never on the ballot, how about this statement. How about when he wrote to the attorney general of the United States, we know all too well, if they can do it to a president , imagine what they can do to you and i. That is what scares me the most. I believe more evidence points to it, this is what the attorney general and the u. S. Attorney are now looking into. If they can do this to the president of the United States, they can do it to anyone in this country, that is what i believe, professor, this committee should be primarily focused on. Think about the president , falsely confused with the interference into the election. Do we continue to investigate something Robert Mueller spent 22 months on and came back with no conspiracy . Frankly, it wasnt just 22 months, because we asked james comey this question, and he said 10 months after the fbis investigation, they had zero evidence. After 32 months, zero evidence, and yet, this committee wants to continue down that road versus maybe looking into how this whole thing began in the first place. There was a question in there somewhere, professor. I wouldnt presume to tell this committee what they should do, but i support the investigation as to why this whole process began. Thank you. I want to remind the gentleman that the investigation was not predicated as well as not predicated on the dossier, but on the observation i dont think i said that. I didnt ask whether it was predicated. I am responding to what you just said. You are not responding because im in the middle of saying something. I would remind the gentleman of three things, one, the investigation was predicated on the incident with george, two, the fisa court was informed in the memo that the information in the dossier was unreliable and came from a source that was paid for by the Clinton Campaign. And i recognize the young lady from california. Thank you. My inquiry is this, is the chairman going to rebut every republican who is asking questions or making statements in the remainder of this hearing . No, not everyone. Thank you mr. Chairman. I have some questions but i do want to address the issue that was just raised, i do think it is important to note footnote 465, that basically says that the Foreign Government conveyed information to the u. S. Government that really was the origin of this investigation. And, i will also say this, i dont know how many people other than myself have read the entire fisa application that was provided to the congress, but i did. And, they provided not only the fisa application but all of the underlying evidence that was provided to the court. I started reading it at 9 00 in the morning, and i ended up canceling my entire day because it took me until 5 00. I would suggest to members that it would be advisable to do so before suggesting that there was improprieties. Now to the questions that i have. We talked a lot about volume 2 of the report, there are concerning matters there certainly. But, i am concerned about some of the report, much of it is redacted, as we know, and i look forward to seeing the reductions in the underlying evidence that there was a substantial number of contact between the russian government and the Trump Campaign, and i have been involved in campaigns and ive never seen anything like this. As we configure in the report, it talks about 170 contacts between the russian government 28 meetings between the russians and the Trump Campaign. If you take a look at indictments and other publicly available information. I think you can identify 272 contacts between the russians and 38 meetings. That is just weird. I have never seen anything like that in any campaign i have ever been involved in, and im just wondering, you are an expert on russian affairs, that wouldnt happen without the russian government, because that is a high profile risk for putin to interfere with that could lead to ramifications. If im wrong, you will tell me. Wouldnt that have to be a product of a strategy by the russian government . Absolutely, ever since testament, what comes out very clearly in the Mueller Investigation, and additional independent reporting, and from our own Intelligence Committee, there was a strategic intent to infiltrate Trump Campaign. I want to talk about one of the things i just cant get out of my mind, the campaign chairman, mr. Manafort, and he has an excuse, hes trying to cozy up to his former sugar daddy in the ukraine, but he gave sensitive internal polling data, not once, but multiple times. And he had his assistance do the same. Two operatives, russian operatives, and at the same time, the Russian Military was buying ads and doing a Propaganda Campaign to influence the electorate in those same states to benefit trump. It strikes me that having that kind of internal polling data, as a show of good faith is unusual, i dont know if professor hansen, if you have a familiarity in the running campaign, to say that would be an odd thing to do. On the campaign side, i am not on the campaign side, i am on the law side. Can anybody . Carrie cordero . We dont have an election manager here, but it strikes me, i have been involved in many campaigns, ive never seen anything like that. Has anyone of you taken a look at the rule that Russian Military played in supporting thirdparty candidates through their social media efforts . Have you looked at that . In the United States specifically . I have not seen other evidence, namely because it is very difficult to do, we need information, and that is why the Mueller Report is the most comprehensive research on that matter. There were thousands of tweets, really aimed at millennials and African American voters, urging them to support the Green Party Candidate in criticizing the candidacy of hillary clinton. Finally. I will say that my colleague, jackson lee talked about a press strategy with the wiki leaks release, was the wiki leaks effort coordinated with russia in your judgment . It is correct, the russian agents did coordinate the release of the stolen information with wiki leaks, it also seems clear from the Mueller Investigation, the members of the campaign were eager to publicize that information when it came out. My time has expired mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, the gentleman from texas, in the Mueller Report, special counsel mueller details what he calls a sweeping and systematic effort to influence the 2016 election by the russian government, those details are largely set forth in two separate indictments, one identified 12 Russian Hackers and 13 russian individuals and three organizations part of the Internet Research agency, some of the witnesses including less Carrie Cordero provided an accurate summary of that. Mrs. Carrie cordero, did the special counsel find that that sweeping and systematic effort by the russian government influence our election, the special counsel found that began before or after Donald Trumps entry into the 2016 president ial field . The indictment and information in the report, in particular the, the indictment of the russian Intelligence Officers indicate that the russian influence effort predated, so it went back thank you. So the answer is before he entered the field. Let me ask you, on october 21, 2016, the Obama Justice department submitted a fisa application to surveilling Trump Campaign associate named carter page, as a part of that application, Deputy Attorney general signed a verified application that included the now infamous unverified, uncorroborated dossier, which specifically states that there was a quote, welldeveloped conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and the russian government. Did the special counsel find that there was a welldeveloped conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and the russian government . So, the special counsel analyzed conspiracy under criminal conspiracy law. So, under criminal conspiracy law, the special counsel did not find that there was an implicit agreement between the campaign. I appreciate that, no conspiracy. So, professor richard hasen, i agree with you you talk about the goal of the russians, the discord into the american republic. And despite the fact that the special counsel found that nobody of this campaign conspired, colluded, or was successful in any way in meddling between the election, our country just endured a two year investigation to determine whether or not the president of the United States was part of a treasonous conspiracy with a foreign adversary to steal an election. An investigation was started by the Obama Administration, who started an investigation into a conspiracy that the special counsel has now conclusively and unequivocally established never existed. To talk about the Lessons Learned from the Mueller Report, lets talk about those lessons and the factors that contributed to russias success. One of the factors that contributed to russias success was the Obama Administration opening of the probe into the Trump Campaign using foreign counterintelligence spine powers to investigate a conspiracy that the special counsel conclusively determined did not exist. Another factor was the Obama Administrations Intelligence Community assessment, which was used to tell the American People that not only did russia interfere in the election but did so because Vladimir Putin was trying to get donald trump elected. Another factor was the one i just mentioned, the Obama Administrations use of fisa warrants obtained through verified applications based on the unverified dossier, which the doj and fbi knew to be an uncorroborated Clinton CampaignOpposition Research document, that might have contributed to russias success. Of course, we have the Obama Administration officials, some now under investigation, or leaking information, perhaps classified information, falsely depicting the trump, russia collusion conspiracy that never existed. Im just wondering when my colleagues are going to start asking questions about why Robert Mueller had 60 peoples working around the clock for 2 years, asking questions about President Trump and a conspiracy that never existed, instead of spending some of that time asking about president obama and how all of this got started. Im done. Gentlemen, your time has expired, it is time for the question. What was the question . I dont know. I will take a pass, thank you. I want to say thank you to the witnesses for appearing here today. And professor Saikrishna Prakash, you are the james monroe distinguished professor of law at the university of georgia, having before that, served as a clerk for the court of appeals of the federal court dc circuit, and also having joined the ranks of those distinguished persons who have had the honor of serving as a United StatesSupreme Court law clerk, is that correct . For the record, i am a cavalier, naughty bulldog. Okay. Im not going to hold that against you. The point im making, you have a distinguished career and you majored in Political Science and economics at the university of, at Stanford University. And you obtained your law degree, and you teach constitutional law and Foreign Relations law to Young Students now, do you not . Yes. And you have read part one of the Mueller Report, have you not . I am sad to say that i have not. But, you heard a little bit about it, havent you . Yes, representative. And you understand that the mueller part x the case that the Trump Campaign knew about russian attempts to help it win the campaign. I want him to have his full time, im not trying to stop his time, but this brings up an interesting point, about our notification of this hearing and the purpose of this hearing, our witnesses stated upfront, he was here because we were supposed to do part two. I want your time completely. But, it should be at least understood, going from my earlier statements today, this was not communicated mr. Chairman. And i think it is unfair to the witness to comment on a part of the report that he was not brought here to comment on. If we want to do this, fine, im not trying to stop his time, but this is something that needs to be addressed as we go forward. That was not intended to be a point of order. Fine. The witness may answer the question to the best of his ability. Is the chairman not going to engage me on this . This is not fair. Representative, i am not on a position to comment on what part one said. I will rephrase my question to you, professor, you would admit that it would be wrong for a president ial campaign to accept offers of foreign assistance. I wish to be on the record of saying, i am opposed to foreign assistance, both for a republican nominee and democratic nominee, it is sad to say reclaiming my time, he would also agree with me that it is wrong for a president to say that he would accept help for his reelection from a Foreign Government. That is wrong, isnt it . I think it is wrong to say it and it is wrong to do it. You would condemn it . I am happy to use the word, i condemn it. All right, going on to professor Carrie Cordero, in your experience as a National Security lawyer, would it be reasonable to open an investigation such as the russian influence investigation when a Foreign Government reports to the authorities that a Trump Campaign official has stated that he has information that russia has dirt that it wants to share with the Trump Campaign. Do you think that serves as an adequate basis to open an investigation . Yes, there are guidelines for domestic operations for the fbi, and they have to follow those deadlines, there has to be a predication, they have to have information and information from a reliable Foreign Government. Which justifies opening a counterintelligence investigation. And that information came to the attention of the u. S. Authority on july 26, excuse me, on may 6, 2016. And it was not until october of 2016 that the federal authorities were made aware of the dossier, so are you aware of the fact that the investigation, the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump Campaign activities began prior to the dossier of being revealed to the federal authorities . I have to say, i think, im only able to go on information that is in the report and is publicly available, it is not altogether clear exactly when which investigation were opened. I would argue with you that it is clear, in the report, in the Mueller Report, that the steele dossier came to their attention after the information came from the Foreign Government that George Papadopoulos was going around in a drunken fit, talking about russians having information, dirt on hillary clinton. And with that, i will yield back. I dont think that the report indicates that the steele dossier was the basis of the investigation. Everything that is apparent from the report, from the russian intelligence agencies, there is substantial information that would have justified opening this counterintelligence investigation, and in my judgment, it would have been a dereliction of duty for them not to investigate. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman, are you going to subpoena Robert Mueller . I yield to you to answer. Im not going to answer that at this time. We are here in part two of lessons from the Mueller Report, and so im wondering, how we are going to learn the lessons during part one of lessons, we brought in john dean to reexamine the nixon impeachment, perhaps during part two we will get to the impeachment of andrew johnson. Maybe the folks can teach us some lessons, for the witnesses so we dont have to individually go through. Here is the question, raise your hand if you would answer this in the affirmative, to any witnesses here have personal knowledge regarding the truth or falsity of a single material fact of the Mueller Report . Just raise your hand so i can figure out who to ask the question two. So, the record can reflect no witnesses have raised their hand, no witnesses of any personal knowledge of any fact in the report. No witnesses last week. I will yield to the chairman. I would remind the gentleman that there is an ongoing controversy, if the white house is asserting the right to prohibit the testimony of any weakness with regards to anything that happened. I fully understand and appreciate that. I want to respond to the assertion. The person over whom the white house can assert no privilege is Robert Mueller. If you have the power to subpoena Robert Mueller, you have used subpoena power extensively in this committee and you wont subpoena the person who wrote the report, then this hearing should not be entitled lessons from the Mueller Report, it should be entitled hot picks from the Mueller Report, because we are getting people who have no knowledge of the fact, no information as to the underlying information, they are just reading it and offering their analysis. I think there is a far more radical issue that our committee should be addressing. We are upwards of 5500 people arriving every day on the southern border, and this committee asked the jurisdiction to reform the asylum laws, to secure the border, to make changes to ensure that we have a country that is protected and a rule of law that is maintained. Fortunately, one of our witnesses is somewhat of an expert on this subject. That is not in order. Im sorry. Did somebody say a point of order . The committee will be in order. Mrs. Carrie cordero, you are somewhat of an expert with what goes on at our border, arent you . And for 2014, at georgetown, you wrote an essay entitled, breaking the mexican cartel, a key for Homeland Security challenge. Im going to interrupt and say this hearing is about part one of the Mueller Investigation. I wish it was about the Mueller Report. I really wish it was. The gentleman will suspend, the gentleman will proceed. But, is it necessary to secure our southern border, eliminate the presence of dangerous cartels in our city, reduce americans contribution to the drug trade and resulting violence and play our role in restoring the mexican citizenry to free the society from daily terror. Is it your impression, since you wrote this in 2013, that the circumstances on the southern border have gotten better or worse . Excuse me, since this is not, this has nothing to do with part one or volume 1, or volume 2 of the Mueller Report. Or anything conceivably within this hearing, the witness may or may not reply, it is at her discretion. I am happy to respond. I thought that was an issue that needed attention, it was not in the beginning of the Obama Administration something that i think did get sufficient attention, there clearly is a changed circumstance, we are in 2019 now, there is clearly a humanitarian problem on the southern border that needs to be addressed. What you will not find in that article is any mention of a wall as a response to that challenge, nor any encouragement of the use of emergency authorities. I understand that, but you recognized the crisis, you recognize that it is worse, and i acknowledge that the wall maybe something that divides us, but ensuring that weve got the supplemental appropriation in place to make sure people arent dying at the border and reducing the terror that you write about the time of the gentleman has expired. You take my time, impose on it, and restrict it. It is no wonder witnesses dont want to come in and testify on this committee. I would be happy to come back and talk about Homeland Security at some other time. And we might invite you back. Is the other side permitted to impugn the character and badger of witnesses . Nobody is permitted to impugn the character and badger of witnesses. Thank you, i would like to answer mr. Gates question, how are we going to learn the lessons of the Mueller Report . How are we going to learn from people with personal knowledge . The answer to that is, we have material witnesses, people that are the subjects of the Mueller Report, unfortunately we havent been able to do that, and you know that is the truth because this administration has tried to exercise immunity that doesnt exist, and it has prevented us from holding the kind of hearings that you claim that you desire. So yesterday, the committee saw continuation of that when hope hicks came in, she has mentioned over 100 times, about her time in the white house, but instead, there is this blanket immunity claim, over her and every other white house employee, that is nothing short of stonewalling our efforts, which perhaps we can Work Together and convince the administration and the president that it is in the best interest of the American People to hear from people, a panel of them from the imagination who can respond to questions. Will the denman yield . I will not. We cant hold hearings with material witnesses, it is obstruction plain and simple, yesterday ms. Hicks could not even answer whether she told the truth to the mueller team because the president lawyers objected to the question. This committee must be allowed to continue its work and have witnesses who can answer the question, i look forward to working with you to implore the president to stop using this nonexistent blanket immunity. I will not, i have work to do. The Mueller Report, professor richard hasen, the Mueller Report details contacts between the Trump Campaign and the russians, i want to focus on the orchestration of the meeting at the trump tower, on page 10, on june 9, 2016, senior representatives met in the trump tower, expecting to receive derogatory information about hillary clinton. Then it goes on to quote, the prosecutor of russia met this morning, and in the meeting, offered some official documents and information that would incriminate hillary in her dealings with russia, it would be very useful to your father. This is very highlevel and Sensitive Information, but it is part of russia and its Government Support for mr. Trump. That was in the Mueller Report. Then we heard the president say last week, i think you might want to listen, there isnt anything wrong with listening, someone called from the country of norway, we have information on your opponent, i think we would want to hear it. The president denied it was interference. If they had information, i would take it. If i thought there was something wrong, i would go to the fbi. That prompted last week, that prompted the following statement from the chair of the fcc say, let me make clear to the American Public, and Anyone Running for Public Office, it is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign connection with the u. S. Election. Anyone who solicits or accepts foreign assistance risks being on the wrong end of the foreign investigation, any Political Campaign that receives an offer of a donation from a foreign source shall report that offer to the fbi. Professor hanson, the statute seems to be right on the mark. To the mueller team go far enough in exploring this . I believe they did not come in particular, one of the basis on which it decided to decline to prosecute any trump Campaign Officials of the trump tower meeting was lack of evidence of willfulness, in order for this kind of crime, you have to know that you are violating the law, if the report says that donald trump junior has failed to voluntarily speak to mueller, and mueller did not subpoena him before a grand jury to answer questions under oath about what he knew at the time, i think that was a mistake and it could have come out differently had he done so. After the president s comments, you tweeted, that is not the point, the point is, it is wrong, it is immoral, and contrary to u. S. National security interests and for a sitting president , it violates his oath of office, that is a strong reaction, can you share why you believe accepting foreign help violates the oath of office . Because it is a foundational issue that goes back to what the founders say it goes back to, the mention of a foreign influence, we could go back in my statement, i cite in my written statement, eyesight to washingtons farewell address that warns of foreign interference. So, that is my view, my view is stated in the statement that i made there, that it is contrary to a president who is supposed to adhere and have an oath to the constitution, and i would add that is why the information in volume, the obstruction discussion is so important because it matters what the allegations of obstruction are about. As the report lays out, a series of potentially obstructive acts that the president took to derail the special counsels investigation, and the special counsels investigation was about Russian Foreign interference. So the very act that is described, what was he obstructing . He perhaps thought that he was obstructing potential inquiry into matters that would affect him or his inner circle personally. But, what he was obstructing was the federal government investigation into russian interference. Thank you very much. Your time has expired, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. Johnson . Im sorry, the gentleman from california, mr. Mcclintock. Thank you, i want to touch on something, the Ranking Member mentioned, james comey has admitted to leaking classified at vi documents to a University Professor in order to influence an investigation, under what circumstances could you use your microphone a little . Mic . I heard the question. If mr. Comey, his motive was to get back at the president , that would be under Mueller Report an improper motive, a corrupt motive and hed be guilty of obstruction of justice. If on the other hand he wanted to make sure something bad didnt happen to the Ongoing Investigation, that wouldnt be obstruction of justice. Under what circumstances would that be a crime . To me i dont know enough about that to comment. Obviously some people find it very suspicious but i dont know enough about it to comment. According to the Senate Judiciary committee mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating secretary clinton. That was long before fbi agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of fbi leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while fbi agents are still hard at work trying to gather facts. Could these actions constitute obstruction of justice . I dont know, representative. If in fact the investigators prejudged the merits of that investigation before it was complete it would be a grievous error. The five socalled immunity agreements granted clinton and staffe staffers. Fox news has reported cameretta use li utilized a bleach bit to destroy emails. Established in a system that illegally transferred classified and top secret information to clintons private server. Why were these five people given immunity from prosecution . In almost every criminal case immunity is only granted after a witness delivered a proffer. Yet no one clinton included was ever prosecuted. Laptops of samuelson and mills after they received immunity. Why would the fbi erase or demolish computers are classified information contained therefore. It appears the bureau itself committed crimes. But theres more. According to a senior fbi source, quote mills was allowed to sit in on the interview of clinton as her lawyer. Thats absurd. Someone who is supposedly cooperating against the target of an investigation being permitted to sit by the target as counsel violates any semblance of ethical responsibility, end quote. What are your thoughts . Im just not prepared to discuss that investigation. I will say that under the does it trouble you as an attorney . As someone who believes in the rule of law, does it trouble you . I find many aspects of that investigation troubling. I will add that the special counsels definition of obstruction makes it possible that cooperating with the prosecutor for the wrong reasons is itself obstruction because its influencing an investigation and doing so for a corrupt purpose. For instance if you decide to cooperate with the prosecutor solely to save your own skin, that is a corrupt purpose because its personal. Youve committed a crime which i think suggest that is the special counsels definition is to broad. In the early 1960s the fbi under j. Edgar hoover conducted extensive wiretaps and surveillance of dr. Martin luther king, jr. If kennedy called hoover and said this is nonsense, knock it off, would that have constituted obstruction of justice . No, sir. I wrote before the election that the next president could fire mr. Comey. I wrote that with senator clinton in mind. When John Deutsche served under clinton he was negotiated on a plea deal with prosecutors. President clinton pardoned him. Was that obstruction of justice . I dont believe so, sir. Thank you very much. Skre mgentlemans time has e. The gentle lady from california ms. Bass. Thank you. The Mueller Report documents more than 170 contacts between individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and russian nationals or people acting on their behalf. You can see from this slide in the word cloud those are many of the described the russian nationals who has been in contact with the campaign. One of the most direct interactions between russian officials and the campaign occurred at a meeting on june 9th in trump tower. On june 3rd, Robert Goldstone emailed donald trump jr. Telling him that a high ranking russian prosecutor offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate hillary in her dealings with russia and would be very useful to your father. Within minutes donald trump jr. Responded, quote, if its what you say it is, i love it, especially later in the summer. From a Counter Intelligence perspective, how significant is it for a Foreign Government to reach out to an american president ial campaign and offer to help work against that candidates opponent . Do you think this happens often with president ial campaigns . And from a Counter Intelligence perspective, are political candidates or current elected officials the usual targets of such elected activities by foreign powers . I dont have any reason to think this is a normal occurrence with respect to a campaign. What the Mueller Report shows is that the russians were crawling all over this campaign. They were everywhere. What the information you just quoted demonstrates is that the members affiliated with the Trump Campaign were knowledgeable and willing about russian efforts to support their campaign. That email is but one example. Is this a typical tactic, do you know, by the russian government in its efforts to acquire human intelligence or compromising information . Do you know of other examples around the world where they might have used the same tactics . Well, we certainly know. Its been well documented. The russian influence efforts to effect democratic processes are in europe, Eastern Europe, western europe. Their goal is to try to implement these democracies in a way that suits their interests. Thats what i tried to get at in my written statement as well, is that when a foreign entity are trying to influence other countries, what theyre trying to do is influence them in a way that is in their interest, not ours. How is it in their interest that trump be elected as president and what has happened since hes been in office that would have been in their interest . Theres one piece of the report that describes that an individual who was affiliated with a Nongovernmental Organization actually was working on a sort of new plan for how u. S. russia relations would take place. So there is information in the report that indicates that there were various ways that the russians were going at this. The effort then changed over time to actively support the Trump Campaign. So before i run out of time would you like to continue to respond . A few comments. One, it is i would say part of normal russian intelligence operations to try to infiltrate and penetrate Political Parties and campaigns. We have seen this happen for decades now across Eastern Europe and western europe. In many ways the efforts in the United States are part of a much broader pattern that has continued to this day and continues today. Regarding the russian intent, the russian intent is never benign. It is not a benign offer of help when an adversarial regime approaches a Political Campaign with potential information related to anything. That should be very clear to everyones minds. One thing i will note regarding why it would be in the russian interest, theres one specific incident also known in the report elsewhere during the Rnc Convention in which we know there was a line changed regarding u. S. Support for ukraine. Of course it is in the russian interest to see less support for ukraine and theres one specific example of how it would have been in the russian interest to support the republican candidate donald trump. I yield back my time. The gentleman from pennsylvania. Not here. Gentleman from virginia, mr. Klein. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. This hearing today is about partisan perspectives. The reading from the Mueller Report, although the investigation established that the russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome and the campaign would benefit, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. What im hearing from my colleagues is a desperate effort to dig through the couch cushions trying to find anything they might be able to use to prolong the narrative and establish that they cant help but push hearings on impeachment under the guise of oversight. So i am disappointed, mr. Chairman, in the way the witnesses and the minority have essentially been whipsawed. As to whether this hearing is on volume one or volume two, i would have like to have heard more about russian interference and what can be done to prevent it because i think thats a real issue. Ms. Cordero, is russia still engaged in election interference . According to the most recent information that ive seen from the u. S. Intelligence community which is in the best position to assess it, their re are activit to interfere in our elections going forward. There was evidence in the 2018 election. I havent seen anything that says that its stopped. We have seen significant interference in the president ial campaign of emanuel macron in 2017. Weve seen a russian attack of the German Parliament also in that year and later. So these efforts continue just in the recent european parliamentary election which you referred to that happened this past may. The european institutions issued a statement saying there was significant russian disinformation that targeted those european elections. Our european allies are far ahead because of Political Leadership in the commission in getting ahead of this threat. We are a decentralized system. Those decisions are made at the state, the local, the county level when it comes to machinery and the lack of standardization, the inability of a foreign entity to hack into on a broad, broad scale u. S. Systems is an attribu attribute, correct . Certainly our system is decentralized so perhaps there is an argument that that decentralization has a benefit. I am concerned, though. There is a federal responsibility particularly out of the department of Homeland Security to help state and local agencies make sure they have the best information, the best techniques, the best advice to be able to secure our elections. And i am concerned that the administration particularly with its attention to dhs is not prioritizing that assistance they can provide to state and locals. And i would agree that some help is appropriate. Removal of that state and local authority to a federal level is probably endangering that system or making it more susceptible to foreign interference. Would you not agree . If we were to remove that state and local responsibility. Congressman, ill have to think about that. Im not aware of proposals that actually would change that elections be administered at the state and local level. Many of the provisions in hr1 did go in the way of federalizing state and local elections. This majority democrat leadership is in the process of trying to remove much of that authority. I yield back. Mr. Jeffreys . It is Never Acceptable for a u. S. President ial campaign to welcome assistance from a hostile foreign power, is that correct . In my judgment, yes. But that is exactly what the Trump Campaign did in 2016, true . Yes. And you believe that accept ing and welcoming that assistance from russia is disqualifying, right . Yes. What exactly did you mean by disqualifying . What i mean is that i dont think it should be and this is in the judgment of the American Public, but there should be a legitimate candidacy of a candidate that is willingly willing to receive openly willing to receive information from a Hostile Intelligence Service. And you make this political judgment as a conservative libertarian, right . As a conservative lawyer. As a National Security lawyer. Thank you. I think you detailed that russia is a hostile foreign power . Yes. They targeted the election in 2016 . That is correct. Manaforts work in the ypast ukraine cast a shadow on his work in the 2016 campaign, is that right . I believe so, yes. Thats in part because of his association with russian oligarchs, is that correct . And his previous undeclared work as an agent of a Foreign Government, yes. Manaforts russian and ukrainian contacts all had ties to putin, is that right . I wouldnt go as far to say all of them. Certainly some are suspected to have ties to the kremlin although we dont know if specifically those ties were to the russian president. While manaforts time leading the Trump Campaign, he stayed in touch with some of these contacts through an individual named Konstantin Kilimnik is that right . That is my understanding of the report, yes. Criminkilimnik is a long tim associate of manafort . Yes. Kilimnik had ties to russian intelligence, is that correct . According to the report, yes. Yes. And is it fair to say that Campaign Polling data is a thing of value . I will say that i am not o expert on that particular issue. During the fall of 2016 after that meeting, russian operatives then engaged in malignant social media activity and influence peddling in michigan, wisconsin and pennsylvania. They did. The Mueller Report concludes, i believe, that the Trump Campaign welcomed russias interference and attack on our democracy, right . Correct. And donald trump won michigan, wisconsin and pennsylvania on his way to the presidency. Yes. The last republican to win all three states was Ronald Reagan in 1984, is that true . I will take your word for it. Seems to me theres a cloud of illegitimate si that continues to hang over 1600 pennsylvania avenue and that patriotic americans have a responsibility to try to figure out what the heck happened in terms of the malignant tumor that seems to have been embedded in that 2016 campaign. What did the president know regular order. When did he know it . Regular order. And Information Operations against the United States and other allied democracies. I do believe that it should be up to this legislative body to seek more information related to that kind of interference in our democracy which is corroding the future stability of our Democratic Institutions. Thank you. The gentlemans time has expired. The gentleman from north dakota, mr. Armstrong. Thank you, chairman. When were discussing and i appreciate you coming. Weve asked you to be here so im going to ask questions of you of what youre here to testify for. Are you talking about volume one or volume two . Volume two. A prosecutor is saying we cannot exonerate somebody. I think its unfushl for prosecutors to say anything. They either indict or they dont. I think the Mueller Report says not only can you not indict or prosecutor a president , you cant conclude that the president committed a crime. There was really no bar on mr. Mueller coming to a legal conclusion. I believe he was told this by the attorney general. Nonetheless, mr. Mueller decided not to reach a legal conclusion about whether or not the president committed obstruction of justice. That can reflect two things. One, it perhaps reflects his unwillingness to say that to cast a cloud over the president. It could also reflect his uncertainty as to whether or not the president actually ob stu l obstructed justice. Are you familiar with the clear statement rule . Yes, i am. Kind of give us some background on how that analysis applies to the report. Theres many clear statements rules that the koucourts apply one of them is that statutes that are written in broad terms, sometimes the courts conclude they are not going to read them to apply to the president. Another case involving franklin versus massachusetts, the court said the apa doesnt apply to the president. Again they were concerned with separation of powers. The interest is more palpable here because if you read the obstruction statute as applying to the supervisory role of the president youre making every intervention into potential obstruction of justice because one can always say the president s corrupt because you dont really know why the president is intervening. We were talking about executive privilege and immun y immunity. It brings up a better point and weve done this several times today whether its volume one, volume two as were speaking up here. Volume two fouone found no cons no coordination. Collusion is different because collusion is not a legal term. Collusion is a laypersons term. I think it needs to be abundantly clear there was no coordination, no conspiracy. We talk about privilege and immunity which are two Different Things when the president is exercising his authority versus regarding separation of powers. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. With that i yield to my friend from florida. Thank the gentleman for yielding. Youve been critical of James Clapper in the past, havent you . I dont think so. Is there something specific youre referring to . Yeah. Im looking at the essay i referenced earlier where you wrote the director of National IntelligenceJames Clapper devoted only three short paragraphs to mexico in his annual unclassified world wide threat assessment. His understated assessment appears to be at odds with other high ranking u. S. Government statements and actions which indicate far more grave circumstances. It seems as though there is at least one case where you are critical of mr. Clappers assessment of intelligence, is that accurate . In that 2013 i think it was law review article they pointed out they had only used a short amount of the world wide threat statement to address border issues. It appears as though he hasnt gotten past some of his misassessments. Thank you for holding this hearing. No foreign adversary of the United States interferes with American Elections. When i think of the brave men and women who have served our country and given their lives in defense of our systdemocracy it seems to them we owe it to them do to to do our part and quickly pass stro legislation preventing this from ever happening again. The conclusion of the Mueller Report after detailed investigation is that the russian government supinterferen the 2016 president ial election in sweeping and systemic fashion and thats a quote. President trump has said he would be open to receiving foreign help in the next election, but hes also repeatedly disparaged the minute a men and women in the Intelligence Community. In the examples of that, there are so many. It absolutely helps russian interests to hear a u. S. President seemingly not take seriously or not believe the findings of his own administrations intelligence agencies, yes. That suits russias aims because it suggests that the u. S. President does not believe or take seriously the findings of the Intelligence Community which clearly implicate the russian government and mr. Putin himself in an attack on the United States. Thank you. You wrote recently that attorney general barrs allegations about spying on the Trump Campaign and his announcement of an investigation into how the fbis investigation got started has put agents who were following existing rules in an untenable position if the need arises to conduct similar investigations in the next election. You wrote that the current environment may create a Chilling Effect on agents who may be reluctant to open investigations on certain individuals based on the rhetoric coming from the president or the attorney general and otherwise to aggressively investigate foreign influences on Political Campaigns or electoral processes. Can you exmain why thereplaiexp . Thats the perspective that i bring to this issue. So what im concerned about is because the attorney general has said that he questions the origins of the investigation, that he is then calling into question how agents are authorized and feel empowered to conduct their counter je eer intelligence responsibility. What i hope his review does, u. S. Attorney durhams review does is make it beneficial to look at policies and procedures. If the attorney general doesnt agree with approval to open these investigations, then it is within his prerogative to change them. Whats unfair to the investigators and the intelligence analysts doing this work is to have rules that exist and then disparage them from following them. Since the origins of the trump russia investigation have been discussed by some of my colleagues, i just want to point people to volume one, page 89. This will answer their question. On may 6 th, 2016, George Papadopoulos told a foreign diplomat footnote 65 continues the Foreign Government that is the government for whom that diplomat worked conveyed this information to the u. S. Government on july 26th, 2016, a few days after wikileaks release of clinton related emails. The fbi opened its investigation of potential coordination between russia and the Trump Campaign a few days later based on this information. No mystery about how it started. Its right in the Mueller Report. Read it. I think the finding of volume one by the special counsels report that there was not evidence of a criminal conspiracy, it really shows the limits of applying criminal law so what is a National Security or Counter Intelligence investigation and problem. And so they needed to they were tasked with conducting a criminal investigation so they applied criminal law. But that is different and should not be mutually exclusive from conducting what is a valid Counter Intelligence investigation. The goal of which might be to eventually have a prosecution or maybe not. But the goal of which is to uncover the underlying National Security threat. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Biggs. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield some time to the gentleman from florida, mr. Gates. Can we get the word cloud with kilimniks name displayed back up . Reclaiming my time. Point of order. Im looking at the clock. Thank you. Now i yield back to mr. Gates. Im sorry. You just controlled the time. I didnt realize you were here. Ive got work to do here on mr. Biggs time. This is this word cloud with the name prominently in the middle Konstantin Kilimnik. I enter into the record a piece on the hill by john solomon entitled key figure that the Mueller Report identifies was a state Department Intel source. Without objection. In this reporting by john solomon there is demonstrable evidence that kilimnik was actually meeting with u. S. State Department Officials in kiev to give us intel on the russians. This is the first major factual error of the Mueller Report because if you cant delineate correctly between the people collecting intelligence from russia and people collecting intelligence for the United States, it would seem to be a departure from the necessary factual basis to proceed. I am intrigued at the title of this hearing. I represented ngos and other institutions. I was the Senate President in arizona for four years and majority leader for one. Ive sat on this committee now for 2 1 2 years. And i just i find it intriguing whats happened today. Ive not seen hearings conducted in this fashion before. Whether it be at the international level, state level and actually the other committees i sit on, the subcommittees. In fact, i was a subcommittee chairman for the last two years. This has been intriguing to me to watch the evolution of the process in some ways. But i will say this. None of these witnesses has any fact. Theyre not witnesses to any material fact. Theyre providing impressions and ideas about what they read in the Mueller Report. Thats okay. Thats fine. But i think ms. Cordero said that no one should be a beneficiary of foreign operations, no Political Campaign should be a beneficiary of foreign operatives. Professor said Opposition Research from foreign operatives would be illegal. In 2016 the Clinton Campaign used a connected law firm to pay fusion gps. Steel is a british citizen, a foreign operative in some ways. Steel was working at that time as an fbi informant for the Obama Justice department and representing oleg deripaska. Thats what was going on there. Hillary Clintons Campaign manager robbie mook boasted about accepting dirt on donald trump furnished by mr. Steel, probably sourced by criminally linked associates. That would be illegal. That would be wrong. That is something that you can gather from the Mueller Report. But were not discussing that. But i think we should. I also think we ought to give more than an hour and 20 minutes to review our witnesses testimony instead of popping it up to us at the last minute with a change of topic. Im out of time and i yield back. I wanted to respond to that if i could. Point of order. There was no question for any of these witnesses. I was always permitted witnesses to answer the last question. But there was no question. And to make a comment on relevant the witness may proceed. Parliamentary inquiry then . Under what rule, mr. Chairman, are we operating . Ill solve this. Just give me the time. The witness may proceed. I just wanted to respond to a characterization that i said that Opposition Research from a foreign source is illegal. Thats not what i said. I said the contribution this would be illegal. Paying market rates is not illegal. I point you to footnote 17 of my written report which quotes from the Republican HousePermanent Select Committee on intelligence which wrote under current federal law fon reigners are prohibited from making donations to campaigns in the United States. However, it is not illegal to contract with a foreign person or foreign entity for as much ass this was made in the context of the steel dossier. I thank the witness for clarifying that point. Gentleman from california. Professor, you earlier stated you believed that special counsel mueller did not go far enough in exploring violations of federal election laws. I agree with you. Under the federal Election Campaign act its illegal for a person to solicit, accept or rereceiver receive a donation. Lets talk about whthe Infamous Trump tower meeting. On june 16 a document was sent to donald trump jr. It goes to say this is high level and Sensitive Information but as part of russia and its Government Support for mr. Trump. A few minutes later donald trump jr. Replied, if its what you say, i love it, especially later in the summer. That could be read as soliciting a thing of value from a foreign power, correct . Yes. And when that information came to light well before the Mueller Report, i said that the next step needs to be an investigation. Donald trump jr. And others in the meeting need to be under oath to figure out what exactly they knew about the state of the law, what they thought they were getting and that could potentially be a criminal Campaign Finance violation. In fact, you believe it was not a good idea for the mueller team to not have had donald trump jr. Testify before the grand jury, correct . Exactly. You believe it would be appropriate then for congress to put donald trump jr. Under oath and ask him questions about that meeting, correct . Absolutely. We now have a recent tv interview the president gave. He says you want that kind of interference in our elections. What the president described could also be criminal conduct, a violation of federal Election Campaign laws, correct. So if you take what he said seriously as a solicitation, then it is potentially a violation of Campaign Finance law, yes. There is no norway exception to a Campaign Finance law, right . Even if its from a friendly ally, you cant take a Campaign Donation from a friendly ally, isnt that right . The statute prohibits accepting anything of value from a Foreign Government, hostile or friendly, or from a foreign entity like a Political Party or a campaign and from a foreign individual. Thank you. Professor, id like to talk to you a little bit about absolute immunity. The Trump Administration has engaged in unprecedented obstruction of congresss attempts to get information on behalf of the American People. We want to know why is the Trump Administration currently suing to eliminate Health Care Coverage for americans with preexisting conditions . We cant get that information. We want information on why wilbur ross lied regarding the u. S. Census. Cant get that information. Specific to the Mueller Report, we interviewed hope hicks yesterday. We cant get don mcgahn in. With both of those witnesses, the white house is exerting what they call absolute immunity preventing hope hicks from testifying about anything related to her time at the white house including something as simple as where was your office located. So they were not asserting executive privilege, which you said you believe doesnt exist as a matter of law under the constitution. I would assume that this broader thing called absolute immunity, you would also agree is something that is not within the constitution. Could you talk about that . Be happy to, representative. As you know, the past several administrations have claimed that people who arent subject to advice and consent and who were in the white house dont have to testify. So the bush administration, the Obama Administration, now the Trump Administration are taking the same line. And what is your view of absolute immunity . I dont believe they have an immunity. I dont believe they had it during the Obama Administration. I dont believe they have it now. Thank you. Today youre the minority witness, the republicans called ou to testify today, is that right . Yes. So let me conclude. You earlier said the russians were crawling all over the Trump Campaign and the trump Campaign Officials knew about russia interference. Based on your work in National Security, it would be a dereliction of duty, wouldnt it, for our fbi Law Enforcement not to have investigated that as a Counter Intelligence issue and to try to do what they can including surveillance to figure out exactly what happened so that volume one of the Mueller Report. Absolutely. First of all, they absolutely had a duty to investigate russian interference. When they received reliable reporting and other facts that justified opening Counter Intelligence investigation to find out whether there were ties to the Trump Campaign, they had a responsibility to do that. Counter intelligence investigations start one place. They dont necessarily end up where one might expect them to go. Theyre not a criminal investigation where the outcome is to determine whether or not to prosecute someone. Their goal is to correct the foreign intelligence information to protect the United States and to be able to counter those efforts. So i havent seen anything in the Public Record including in the report that indicates that there was any ill will or malfeasance in the use of investigative techniques to conduct this investigation. The gentleman yields back. In light of a statement made by our friend in tennessee earlier about using the word collusion and not reading the report, i would like to enter into the record multiple pages of not only tweets but stories and articles mousing the word collusion saying collusion found in plain sight. Were not going to be lectured to. I will be happy to not object to the inclusion in the record of the truthful information that collusion was in plain sight. Without objection. And be wrong. Thats pretty good. Okay. The gentleman from maryland is recognized. Thank you plrmr. Chair. Mr. Biggs and other colleagues chide us for having law witnesses instead of fact witnesses tooz which is absolutely astauounding given tt they understand that the administration has blocked all witnesses from coming and invented a completely fanciful new doctrine of immunity. If they would work with us to get these fact witnesses and have them actually testify, then we would not have to simply rely on the reading of the Mueller Report. Lets talk about the reading of the Mueller Report quickly before our colleagues return today with the absurd and discredited mantra of no collusion and no obstruction. If you read the record, if you get to just page two in the report. You dont have to read the whole thing. Get to page two and youll see special counsel mueller says we dont address the issue of collusion. Its a legal concept in the antitrust field, but its not criminal law. Thats a matter of everybodys opinion. 157 contacts between members of the Trump Campaign and russian nationals and their agents. I think could lead people to say there was collusion. But that is a matter of opinion, and everybody can have their own opinion on it. To come out and say mueller found no collusion is absurd. Secondly, no obstruction flies in the face of ten episodes of president ial obstruction of justice. Probably three of four that would be prosecutable but for the policy the president cant be indicted. Thats why special counsel mueller had a press conference to clarify that the reason that the president was not indicted had a lot to do with the fact that theres a department of Justice Policy that you dont indict a sitting president. Now, miss polyakova, let me come to you. I think it is scandalous and outrageous and dangerous that the president would say in the wake of special counsel muellers finding that there was sweeping and system ammic efforts by russia to destabilize the elections and control the outcome that he would gladly accept Opposition Research from russia or other Foreign Governments. What effect do you think this will have on russia that the president made that statement even in the wake of the special counsels report . I believe it sends a clear signal theres still an open door for continued interference in the elections, not just to russia but other state and nonstate actors who would seek to do so. Thank you. Miss cordero, what does it mean to a country like russia that cant compete with america and cant compete with the real ideals and organizing principals of our democracy. What does it mean to them to be able to use the internet to destabilize our elections if they feel theres an open door given to them at the highest levels of government . The report shows the russian Intelligence Services used our Technology Platforms to spread disinformation. They pretended to be individuals who were grass roots activists. They actually set up tried to organize rallies and real world events so it was the virtual real world spilling into the physical world. And so they used the Technology Platforms and what the Senate Intelligences investigation into this has shown is that the companies have provided some information but i think we still dont have a full picture of the way that russian as an Intelligence Service and other Hostile Intelligence Services are using u. S. Technology platforms. Thank you. Professor hasen, Foreign Governments are forbidden to interfere if our campaigns by making contributions, as you pointed out, they could sell information at market rates if they go into the business of doing Opposition Research, but if they give it to a campaign and the campaign accepts, its an illegal foreign contribution in a decision where it was upheld against foreign contributions in our elections. What can be done legislatively to deal with a political actor who says he would break the law in this way by welcoming foreign assistance in the course of a federal election . Well, there can be civil complaints filed with the federal Election Commission. If were talking about the sitting president , we run into issues on whether or not the president can be brought up on charges while hes president. For anyone else, showing willfulness of trying to solicit something of value, and i think of value is worth over 25,000. Were talking about someone potentially committing a felony. Is there is there regular order. Regular order. Proceed under regular order. Is there anything more that is indicated to be done legislatively or do you think youve essentially done anything. Point of order. Well recognize point of order when the gentleman is done. Thats not when you recognize point of order. Ignore the antics. Its not antics when you do the rules. We had a ruling from the chair. Point of order. The chair said i could complete the question. The gentleman will state his point of order. Point of order under clause 2 j of rule 11, the gentlemans time has exceeded his time under the five minute rule. Its been the practice here to be flexible with the five minutes on both sides and always to allow someone to answer the question if you want im the gentlemans time has expired. The witness may answer the question. He had asked the question. He was answering another one. He had answered the previously question and was he was answering. It was a new question. The gentleman may answer the question he was answering. Im getting ready to appeal this. Going to bring everybody back. All right. Well the gentlemans time has expired. The gentle lady from washington is recognized. Thank you. Why dont you quickly respond to the question, but it is my time so be quick. The quick answer is yes, including a law that would require campaigns to disclose foreign contacts would be a very good place to start. Thank you. Mr. Cordero, you in your testimony said something that was important. You said and this was your written testimony, you said we have not done a good enough job explaining to the American Public why foreign influence matters. Can you tell me quickly and anybody that might be watching your top three reasons for why foreign influence matters . It matters because it affects the decisions we make about how we selfgovern. It goes to the heart of our democracy. So in order for the to receive if theres foreign influence, then it affects how we interact with each other. If were the recipients of online disinformation from a Hostile Intelligence Service, that affects a society how we deal with each other. Another example is if we are if there is foreign interference in candidates, that disturbance, who sits here in this body, it affects who we elect as candidates. So these are just a couple examples. Ive explained more in the written statement. It goes to the heart of our democracy and the ability of us to selfgovern in a way that is in our american interests and not in a foreign countrys interest. You also stated that the early reporting and reaction to the report was skewed as a result of specific actions taken by the attorney general. And i wanted to give you a chance to explain that and then i have a question for you about the attorney general and his role. Sure. As congress is aware, the attorney general issued a short summary letter that was sent to congress before the release of the actual report. That letter did not explain what the special counsel actually did with respect to obstruction. In other words, the letter gave a misimpression to the public which lasted for weeks. Even among those of us who follow this stuff fairly closely. Left a misimpression that perhaps the reason the special counsel didnt make a charging decision was because the evidence was insufficient. What did the special counsel do when he heard the attorney generals reaction or explanation of what was in the report . Immediately the we now know the special counsel sent a letter and the summaries which are prepared in the report which are short summaries the public can read. He asked him to reveal them publicly. The attorney general did not do so. And for weeks said he didnt have the information he needed to redact. The public was denied of that information and, in fact, misled about what was in the report. Who was the attorney general supposed to represent, miss cordero. They have an oath to the constitution of the United States. Is it the personal attorney for the President Trump . No. And in the role of the chief Law Enforcement officer for the American Public, if an attorney general attempts to skew the perception of the Mueller Report, would you consider in a broad constitutional sense that that is ongoing obstruction of justice . Im not willing to say the attorney general, id have to think if the attorney general obstructed justice. What ive said and ill say here is that the attorney generals letter of march 27th was misleading. The special counsel did not make a finding on obstruction because the special counsel felt constrained by department of justice legal opinion and instead, the special counsel laid out a lengthy factual recitation of potentially obstructive acts, and if you read to the very last page of the special counsels report, specifically says that no man is above the law. No person is above the law. Thank you. Were doing a lot of these hearings because were trying to reeducate the public about what was in the report. As the Mueller Report explains, federal Campaign Finance laws prohibit Foreign Nationals from donating to or making expenditures on behalf of u. S. Political campaigns and u. S. Candidates are prohibiting from soliciting or accepting a thing of value in connection with an election. Professor hasen, the answer to this may be obvious. What are some of the reasons we have the rules against Foreign Nationals contributing to u. S. Elections . Well, i know better than to quote Justice Stephens who said she we shouldnt allow people who have no basic investment in the country to influence who our leaders are. That they could be trying to manipulate the outcome of the election or trying to curry favor with whoever is in office. And if we believe in democratic selfgovernment, then these laws are absolutely necessary. In other words, we could have a president thats not responding to the people of the country but in fact to a Foreign Government and we could have a president that actually wasnt elected by the people of the country in terms of where the money for those Campaign Contributions came . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back the gentle lady from florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you to all our witnesses for joining us today. You know, i do believe that the United States of america has the most powerful and most capable and most prepared leader military, and that we have the most talented Law Enforcement, and intelligence officials. And i believe that they are prepared to deal with any attack. Cyber or otherwise against our country. But my biggest fear now which i did not have prior to 2016 was the president of the United States is absolutely nothing about it. As a matter of fact, we all know know that the president said to mac days ago, but have information. I think i take it. You said earlier that russians intent was never benign. We have had a lot of passion and consent. I wish my republican colleagues were more concerned. Anyway, you said earlier russians intent is never benign. Could you please elaborate on exactly what you meant . They see themselves as engaged. It is not recommended for. The intention towards United States seek to undermine u. S. Legitimacy on the stage. To disable it as a democracy. To broadly try to split the alliance. Switching to it intrusion, in addition to hacking into the server, they also targeted individuals and entities involved in the administration of election. The report states that victims included u. S. State and local entities. State boards of election. Even if russia was not able to change the totality, what are the types of damage that can be done if a hostile adversary gains access to systems. I agree with you. There was no evidence the manipulative. That could cause terrible. Going to both and the names have been removed. The addresses have been changed. There was really a danger when you start missing. These are all statewide database. You start messing with those databases. We do not have procedures as to how to handle that kind of massive problem. uyou. The data like this also be used by other russian actors to aid in their campaign. For example by targeting particular types of voters. Potential yes. Is it fair to say that a hostile Foreign Government in this case, russia, potentially has access to a weapon last millions of americans personal data . I do not know the full scope of the information. That would be a intelligence question. Given what we know from the Mueller Report regarding the probes of 21 states, i would think that they do have the information and they will be able to obtain various constituents in the United States. I would just make it clear, they do not need that. Have opensource access to michael targeting data via our social media platforms. Do you believe that congress has done enough in the house and the senate. I understand the grim reaper is in the center. Do you think we have done enough to secure our elections going into 2020 . I do not think they have passed legislation that. I laid out in my written statement a variety of steps that i think congress could take with respect to religion security legislation involving the administration of elections. Updating commission reporting requirements regarding foreign countries. Expanding him more clearly defining the scope of prohibited activity. I think there is potential requirements we can put our social Media Companies for them to have to inform the Intelligence Committees about evidence of this information and intelligence activities there is another platform. Update the Intelligence Committee should have more obligation to inform congress about evidence or other countries elections interference. Future disinformation of foreign influence off efforts. Think there was a lot more that congress could do. The young lady from georgia. Mr. Chairman. Thank you each and everyone of you who are here today. Testimony is extremely important for us getting to the truth. Really appreciate you being here. A number of proposed measures have been introduced in the house and the senate that would require political candidates to file reports with the federal Election Commission. If a Foreign National trust to offer help to a campaign, other proposals would prohibit campaigns from sharing certain types of information with Foreign Nationals. Others would require transparency in online political ads. Can you provide some overall impressions about whether or not a reporting requirement would be helpful and could be tailored to capture the kind of form context. I do support a duty to report law. That will require president ial campaigns and congressional campaigns to report contact. Potentially for Foreign Nationals. If these reports are filed in a timely manner, that would allow people to ask followup questions and figure out what is going on. I also think we need much greater funding and attention on Cyber Security in the states. We will meet federal leadership even though these elections being on the state level. Especially in counties that we know. Cyber security is a real problem. We actually need to pass the honest ads at that would require the same rules that apply to ads on television and radio would apply to online ads. It turns out that many of the advertisements that the russian government pays for social media were not covered by current federal laws and were not illegal. That is a problem. It would have been illegal if they appeared on television or radio. There was a lot that needs to be done. Let me ask you another followup question. What about requiring transparency in online as. Is there any reason you can think of not to do this . We have certain transparency rules. It applies to some ads that are online. I certainly think that the upside of doing so would allow people to know who is the ultimate source to sway them a certain way. The social media platform social and they cannot do them so. The kind of procedures to put in place or not letting people know who was behind the ads so congressional transparency legislation is very much needed. Do you think these types of measures were crime reports a certain form contact prohibiting sharing information with Foreign Nationals and transparency and online as. Without help prevent russian influence campaigns going forward. It would be important but not a sufficient first. If campaigns are required to file a report if they are approached by four National Effort to help the campaign, would that be a significantly helpful counterintelligence tool . All of the reforms you described are important and congress should be taking these up. I think they will also have their limits. I think there is two parts. There is more congress can do to make clear what is allowed and what is not alone. What has to be reported. There is a 2nd base. We have to remember these are intelligence operations. The foreign intelligence agencies that are engaged in them are going to adjust and they will try to find ways to get around it. I think these are important reforms. I hope that congress will pursue them. We also need to recognize the limitations of them which is why it is important that we have candidates that have their eyes open. About not receiving and being willing to receive that type of information. The agencies will be coming at them. You coauthored a report for the Atlanta Council that describes the measures for the union taken into combat this campaign. You wrote that the United States is lagging behind. What are some of the key lessons that we can learn what appears to be working in europe . The u. S. Is lagging behind addressing the information with depression threat was emanating from countries like russia and other actors. Some of the key stuff that our congress have taken establish a Interagency Group that has a mandate to establish policies. This Information Operation against the homeland. Is not clear who in the u. S. Government actually owns the information when you place a portfolio. There was no highlevel position above. They have the mandate to carry out any service response. Secondly most european governments including the commission have established a Rapid Response response test for. To be able to understand when the taxes are necessary. What level of the response should be and how those countries should continue to build resilience against the operation. We have not taken any of the steps so far. The gentleman from colorado. I know we are nearing the conclusion of this hearing. I will keep my questions brief. I want to make sure i pronounce that correct. Just a couple of quick yes no questions. You are a distinguished professor of law. I will let others decide. In the written testimony you identified yourself that way. Easyjet university of virginia. Yes i do. You are a witness for the minority. Yes. By that i mean the Republican Caucus of the committee has asked you to come. That is great. You submitted written testimony. And on page 13 of your written testimony, these are your words. I believe the president has committed offenses back then beyond the constitution of the United States. Yes i said that. You are referring to President Trump. In that portion yes. My comments went to the prior summer presents. Your written testimony that you submitted to the committee for purposes of this hearing after being requested to appear by the minority in which you say i believe that the president has committed impeachable offenses back to be on the constitution. Those are your words and not mine. I yelled back my time. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. The russian president ordered his government to engage in a systemic and orchestrated cyber attack. Volume number 1 of the special counsel report tells us that the russian attack of the purpose of undermining our democracy by helping the candidate most favorable. It worked. This was the most successful russian attack against United States in our history. America is still at risk to this day. Current administration has done little to nothing to prevent further attacks. Rather than demand answers from president vladimir pugh, the administration accepts denials. They brought the resident invite them. I was shocked but not surprised in a recent meeting interview, the president said of course they would accept negative information about his opponent in the next election even if the debt was provided by Foreign Government. He said you do not call the fbi. Give me a break. The American People still have questions. What lessons can we learn from 2016. What are the different ways that russia attacked us. Know about this as it was happened. I can we stop this from happening again. Wanted to thank you for bringing up these important issues. Leading the way to address them in this congress. I want to take the witnesses for being here today. You saw recently that the chair of the federal Elections Commission me some specific comments. After the president of the interview. In your opinion, how unusual was it for the chair jerome is such a statement . I cannot think of another instance in which the issued a Statement Like this. A far as i know it is unprecedented. Also, what more do you think ms. To be done to make it Crystal Clear that Anyone Running for Public Office should under no circumstances receive anything of value from a foreign adversary . At this point, father congressional legislation would be in order to further define terms that there could be no ambiguity about what is illegal. To provide transparency so that we would know when there could be potential contacts between american campaigns and agents of Foreign Government. Several investigations have been conducted. In your expert opinion, should the department of justice be doing right now to prevent interference in the 2020 election. I would imagine that the Justice Department is continuing the fbi which is counterintelligence. We are all working collaboratively to cover persistent efforts that are attempting to interfere with our upcoming election. I think that is consistent with what current Election Officials have said. As i mentioned earlier, a prior investigations, i hope the part of that review includes clarity so that counterintelligence investigators if they didnt come upon information suggesting there was a threat to National Security to a Current Campaign between now and 2020 that they have clear rules of the road so they feel empowered to be able to fulfill their part. He said it residence the russian interference despite being told the opposite by his own intelligence agency. Is this troubling . If so why . It is the definitive assessment of u. S. Intelligence committee as well documented in the report that there was a russian government intelligence operation directed at the 2016 campaign. That is for me intelligence perspective indisputable. As the commander in chief and the individual who has executive responsibility to protect the country, it is deeply concerning that the president legitimately does not believe that assessment. The gentleman yelled back. The young lady from arizona. Thank you mr. Chairman. I would like to yield how much time he would like. A few minutes. I do appreciate them admitting he did not know what was going on. I appreciate you saying that. You were given by having to go to the fiveminute rounds. I want to give you a moment. Thats in the context my statement. They have exceeded their constitutional powers. If you believe starting the war was unconstitutional, that is on impeachable offense. My statement applied to all the past president s and not just this one. The particular one only referred to this one. My point is that Congress Needs to move beyond partisanship. Members all take it. On the scope of executive privilege. Singling out one statement and using it against one present with one of my testimony. I think it is interesting as well. That is another topic for another day. I think we look at this point forward again. It is just an interesting time that we have people telling us what we should be doing. Is that we are hearing that we should be marking up but we are not doing that. That goes back to the chairman. With that i go back to the young lady from arizona. As i have said before, this is very frustrating to me. My constituents want me to work on real issues. Not do something that the special counsel is investigated for two years. I do not really understand what my colleagues think they will get father out of this. That is all i can imagine. Originally we were supposed to be here talking about obstruction of justice. Now the democrats have moved to russia. I really do not understand what i believe is of session over the subject. Right here in the report, page 173 is one place where says. Is says the investigation did not establish that the campaign conspired with the russian government in its election interference activities. This is after two years. 2800 subpoenas. 40 different fbi agents. 19 attorneys. Somehow, we are going to rehash all this. Some people want to influence the 2020 election. I would like to talk about the obstruction of justice part. My question is with mr. Picasso. In your view professor, what is your view of the special counsels decision not to make any determination one where the other on obstruction of justice. It seems all to me that a prosecutor who is it supposed to charge somebody does it or they do not. You think it is odd as well . There is no opinion preventing the special counsel from deciding whether the president committed obstruction. There is not one when he wrote the report. Is fully capable of making that determination. Is fully capable of saying i think there is enough evidence to suggest there is a go to convention. Or there is some evidence but not enough to go forward with the prosecution. There is nothing that prevents that. I think he was told this and you decided to keep the report as is. Thank you professor. Also want to remind everybody that is watching by the joint special counsel and doj statement on the role of the opinions. Im going to read it so i do not get it wrong. The attorney general has stated that the special counsel affirmed he was not saying that for the opinion he would have found the present obstructed justice. If that is the answer that my democratic colleagues get for why he did not prosecute, there was a joint statement made by both of them saying that was not the reason. Again, im very short on time. One of the other questions. Do you think that there needs to be an underlying crime in order to prove there was corrupt intent for obstruction of justice . I am not a scholar. I do not think there needs to be a underlying crime. It becomes less likely that the person who influenced or affected investigation is did so with the corrupt intent. The time has expired. One of our witnesses as to catch a plane. Thanks to the committee for their views. The committee will take a five minute break at this point. Only five minutes and not six. The committee is in recess