Transcripts For KNTV NBC News Special Report Mueller Testifies 20240714

Want to listen to. Apple making it easier to transfer data between phones. The Cupertino Company has a new feature allowing you to transfer almost everything wirelessly. All you need is to connect both phones to a wifi network, select transfer from your iphone option. Those apps are the only thing that dont actually transfer. So android by the way has had a similar feature for years now. New this morning, you can customize your own doughnut. Krispy kreme is opening its first store you can have it your way. Pick your bow nut, glazes, toppings and drizzle flavors and also a doughnut ice cream sandwiches. The new store opened yesterday in concord, north carolina. Not concord, bay area, and check out the line of people that were standing in tripledigit temperatures just to order, do a little dance waiting for that special doughnut. Moving from breakfast to your snack, how about a wine and cheezit combo in one big old box there . The brainchild of a wine maker, house wine, and of course cheezits. The new product rolls out tomorrow. It will cost you a bit more than your average no frills cheezit box, 25 bucks. Looks like it goes with the picnic shirt we showed earlier. Making it all fancy with your little cheezit box and wine. We need to talk. We need a jet. If youve got a jet, anythings fancy. You save so much money. Thats how do you it. There you go. Small. Big, thats how do you it. All right, big numbers when it comes to the temperatures today. Yes, wait until you see the sevenday forecast. Its not looking good for the weekend. Wah, wah. Look at this amazing shot, looking from san bruno mountain. I just wanted to start you off with something cool looking because our numbers look hot. Headed to martinez, its 61 when you walk out the door, but then those temperatures crank up. We go from 61 to 90 by 1 00 this afternoon. Its going to be hot and check out that sevenday forecast at the bottom of the screen. Cupertino reaching the upper 80s, while gilroy tops out at 96 degrees today. Were getting ready for the garlic festival this weekend. Its going to be up to 98 degrees in danville, while oakland is up to 78 degrees. For Half Moon Bay check that out, 62, while palo alto is warming it up to 86 degrees and the outer sunset 64 degrees today and for the north bay, 92 novato and 99 in ukiah, so very close to tripledigits but with the cool air you might want to head out to the giants game today and its going to be an early afternoon game at first pitch at 12 45 its going to reach into the low 70s. Sunshine, thats probably going to feel a lot hotter at oracle park with that sun beating down on you. Be prepared with short sleeves and pollen floating through the air. A moderate amount of tree and grass pollen present as we enjoy the mostly sunny skies and the cooler morning temperatures but its going to reach into the upper 90s today. It comes down just a couple of degrees for the end of the week, but then ramping back up for the weekend. Tripledigits for saturday and sunday, and then well bring it down early next week, while San Francisco sees some minor changes over the next several days. Its still going to stay in the 60s and 70s there. Mike, you have multiple updates for oakland. Distracting you from the tripledigits. Typical backup is forming a couple minutes earlier than we thought it might. A couple cash lanes that were not normally blocked so a different flow but overall the net zero gain, about the same as we typically see overall getting there and crossing the bay. No problems through contra costa county. We still have the two issues there, oakland we have that earlier crash and truck fire there, which isnt as big as it sounds, just over on the shoulder there and westbound 80 denton onramp is affected by this fallen tree. Well track that but no slowing shows up on the sensors if neither of those are your exits an easy drive. Well check out milpitas. Back to you. 5 20. Coming up in ten minutes were waiting the highly anticipated testimony from Robert Mueller. A live look inside the hearing room. You can see the journalists and aides already set up. Its supposed to start promptly at 5 30. But first, breaking news, we are following this out of puerto rico where the governor is reportedly caving to pressure by thousands of protesters and reportedly expected to resign. His possible successor, coming up. And too close for comfort an a bison charges after a little girl in yellow stone. Were freezing this video because of what happens next. Very terrifying. The full video is coming up next. Youre watching today in the bay. Breaking news from puerto rico the governor is reportedly set to resign sometime today. Many have been taking to the streets demanding the governors resignation after someone leaked his offensive text and online chats. So far theres no clear successor because the person who would be next in line also resigned after those chats became public. Today the united kingdoms outgoing Prime Minister theresa may is set to give her resignation to the queen. She spoke this morning in front of parliament, giving Boris Johnson her backing saying he would bring a bright future. Johnson will be britains next Prime Minister after being elected leader of his Ruling Conservative Party by 66 of eligible voters. Hes expected to be sworn in later today. He led the original Brexit Movement and now has just two months to resolve one of the most divisive controversies to hit Great Britain it is 5 24 right now. Oakland Police Say Two people are under arrest after a standoff in the Oakland Hills last night. It happened near the corner of stanford street and keller avenue. You could see nbc bay area sky ranger overhead. Police arrested one man after a chase. They say he was armed. A second man apparently wriggled his way underneath a home. He tried to hide, but eventually police found him, and he was later arrested. One man is now under arrest after a shooting at Six Flags Hurricane Harbor in concord two weeks ago. Donald simms shot another man after an argument quickly escalated in the parking lot on july 13th. The victim was rushed to the hospital but survived his injuries. In oakland, a new school is shining a clear light on the homeless crisis there. Oaklands Homeless Population has soared nearly 50 over the last two years. That gives oakland a higher per capita Homeless Population than San Francisco. The everyone counts report found oakland has more than 4,000 homeless people. Mayor libby schaaf says the city plans to open a sixth Cabin Community later this year near the border of chinatown and jack london air. San jose Police Say One alleged bank robbers putting around didnt pay off. He robbed two banks and tried to hang out at a miniature golf course. This happened across the street from the oak ridge mall. Police say they were investigating the robbery at a wells fargo when another nearby location was robbed. Officers identified the suspects car and found it at golfland, about half a block away from the second location. Those enjoying a round of golf say that they were left in shock. Were just playing golf and then the next thing we knew, it was like everybody has to get out. We had the full American Experience here. This is what the rest of the world thinks happens every day here. So police found him in the arcade. Its not clear what he was actually doing there. 5 26. This is a really scary moment that was caught on camera in Yellowstone National park. We need to warn you here, this video you may find disturbing. A bison suddenly charges, knocking a 9yearold girl off of her feet. Loong at it right here, tossing her into the air. Oh my gosh. Scary situation right there. Oh my goodness. This happened on monday while the florida girl was visiting the park with her family. Park Officials Say that girl is going to be okay. So far, no citations have been issued. That incident is under investigation. The National Park service is now telling advisers to stay at least 25 yards from bison, elk, deer and moose. That is heartbreaking to see that. Thats whats happening for you here on today in the bay. Our local coverage is ending for the morning so we can bring you live uninterrupted coverage of todays mueller testimony. A live look in washington. Expect todays hearing to last several hours. After the break, lester holt, Savannah Guthrie and chuck todd will be hosting. For updates head to nbcbayarea. Com. Introducing togos new hot chicken sandwiches. The brewpub chicken with grilled chicken, crispy smokehouse bacon, and fresh avocado. The new buffalo chicken with franks redhot wings sauce. Or the tangy barbecue chicken with chipotle mayo. The new hot chicken trio at togos. How far would you go for a togo . Committee. I am joining with lester holt and our chairman, jerry nadler. Hes sitting down and getting ready to start this hearing. Fair to say a reluctant witness this morning. He is. That leads to a bigger challenge for democrats in particular. They want him to narrate the story. Narrate, give us the audio version of your book and tell us a story and dont bore us. Is it the story or the sound byte they are looking for . I think theyre looking for him to help confirm the story. It will be different ways that goes. There is mueller. Hes not the most dynamic story. We have not heard a lot of his voice. He came out several weeks ago and gave a brief statement that the report speaks for itself. His voice is not familiar to a lot of americans. Well hear several hours of it. Neil, on this issue hes being forced to testify here today. He came out when he made his nineminute statement, please dont call me. My report is my testimony, you are barking up the wrong tree. Hes going to sit down and answer the questions before him. Hes not reaching out to make this good for democrats or republicans. Mueller said the entire time has been not in the public eye, hes been in the public eye a couple of times to correct the record. On the date of the trump tower meeting perhaps we have a protester inside the room. Somebody wants to question him early. That happens on this type of profiling hearing on capitol hill. There is always an outburst. They have not been gavelled in. I have to say the chief defendant sit ting in the front row. Jim jordan is on judiciary. Hes a defender and a frequent fox news. Freedom caucus, the house of republicans who are dead set against it. Mr. Mueller is not taking his seat yet but hell be sworn in here shortly. Hell give an opening remark. Judiciary committee will come to order. We welcome everyone to todays hearing on oversight of the report on the investigation into russia interference of the 2016 president ial election. I will now recognize myself for a brief Opening Statement. Director mueller, thank you for being here. I want to say just a few words about our themes today, responsibility, integrity and accountability. Your career is a model of responsibility. You are a decorated marine officer. You awarded the purple heart and the bronze star in vietnam. You served the senior role at the department of justice and the immediate after math of ner 9 11, you served as director of the fbi. Two years ago you returned to Public Service to lead the investigation into russia interference of the 2016 elections. You conducted that investigation with remarkable integrity. For 22 months, you never commented in public about your work even when you were subjected and grossly, unfair attacks. Your indictment spoke for you in astonishing details. Over the course of your investigation, you obtained criminal indictments against 37 people. You secured his department Campaign Manager and his personal lawyer and adviser among others. In the Paul Manaforts case. You recovered as much as 42 million. Taxpayers approaches zero. And in your report, accountability as well. In volume one, you find that the russian government attacked our 2016 elections quote, in a sweeping and systematic fashion, the attack is designed to benefit the Trump Campaign. Volume two, walk us through ten incidents of possible obstruction. President attempted to exert undo influence over your investigation. The president s behavior included, public attacks on the investigation and non efforts to control it and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate. Among the most shocking of these incidents, President Trump ordered his White House Council to have you fired and then to lie and deny that it did not happen. He ordered his former Campaign Manager to convince to recuse attorney general to step in and limit your work. He attempted to prevent witnesses from cooperating with your investigation. Although the departments policy barred you from indicting the president from this conduct. You made clear that hes not exonerated. Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes. In this nation and not even the president is above the law. Which brings me to this committees work, responsibility, integrity and accountability, these are the marks by which we serve on this committee will be measured as well. Director mueller, we have a responsibility to address the evidence that you have uncovered. You recognize as much when you say quote the constitution requires the process other than the criminal Justice System to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing, that process begins with the work of this committee. Well follow your example director mueller, well act with integrity. Well follow the facts with a lead. Well consider all of appropriate remedies. Well make our recommendations to the house when our work c conclud concludes. Well do this work because there must be accountability of the conduct describing your report especially as it relates to the president. Thank you director mueller, we look forward to your testimony. It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member, mr. Collins for his Opening Statement. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you mr. Mueller for being here. For two years leading up to the Mueller Report and the three months in, americans were first told what to expect and what to believe. Conclusion we are told was in plain sight even when the special counsel did not find it. General barr provided to every american, we read no american conspired interference. We are here to ask serious questions about mr. Muellers work and well do that. Today marks the end of mr. Muellers investigation that closed in april. The burden of proof remains extremely high. We are told this investigati began as an inquiry whether russia meddle into our 2016 elections. Mr. Muller, uconn colludedd the did. Mr. Mueller concluded he did not. His family or advisers did not. The report concludes no one in the president s campaign colluded or collaborated or conspire with the president. The president assumes his guilt while he knew the extent of his presidency. The president s attitude towards the investigation was negative. The president did not use authority to close the investigation. He asked his lawyer and disqualify mr. Mueller from the job, but he did not shut down the investigation. The president knew he was innocent. Those are the facts of the Mueller Report. Russia meddle into the 2016 elections. Nothing we hear today will change those facts. One element of the story remains, the beginning of the fbi investigation. I look forward to mr. Muellers testimony of what he found during his review and in addition Inspector General continues to review how gossips could be used against a private citizen, a president. Those results will be released and well need to learn from them to ensure government and Law Enforcement power will never again used in a private citizen or a political candidate. The origins and conclusion of the Mueller Investigation is the same thing, what it means to be an american. Everybody has their voice. Every american enjoys the presumption of innocence and guarantee of due process. If we carry anything away today, it must be we increase our electio elections. Finally, we must agree that the opportunity calls here is too high. The months we have spent investigating failed to contribute to the growing job market, instead we have gotten stuck and paralyzed this committee in this house. Here is a side note. Every week i leave my family and kids, the most important thing to me to come to this place because i believe this place is a place where we can do things and help people. Six and a half years ago, i came here to work, we accomplished a lot in those first six years on a bipartisan bases with many of my friends across the isle sitting here today. This year because of the majoritys dislikes of this president and this investigation caused us to accomplish nothing but talk about the problems of our country while our border is on fire and crisis and Everything Else is stopped. This hearing is long overdue. We had proofs for months. What we need today is to let that truth bring us confidence and i hope mr. Chairman, closure with that, i yield back. Thank you mr. Collins. I will now introduce todays witness. Robert mueller served as director of fbi since 2001 to 2013. He served as special counsel of the department of justice sis overseeing the investigation into russia interference of the 2016 election. He received his ba from university. Mr. Mueller is accompanied by aaron zebley on the investigation. We welcome our our witness and we thank you for participating in todays hearing. If you will please rise, i will begin to swear you in. Would you raise your right hand please . Do you swear of the testimony you are about to give is true to the best of your knowledge and belief, so help you god. Let the record show it is affirmative and thank you and be seated. Your written statement will be entered in the record and its entirety. I ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. Director mueller, you may begin. Good morning chairman nadler. And member collins and members of the committee. As you know in may of 2017, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel. I under took that role because i believe that it was of paramount interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the president ial election. As the acting attorney general said at the time, the appointment was necessary in order for the American People to have full confidence in the outcome. My staff and i carried out this assignment with that critical objective in mind to work quietly and thoroughly and with integrity so the public would have full confidence in the outcome. The order pointed me as special counsel and directed our office to investigate russian interference in the 2016 president ial election. This included investigating any lengths or coordinations between the russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. It also included investigating efforts to interfere with our obstruct or investigation. Throughout the investigation, i continually stress two things of the teams we have assembled. First, we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible andits was in the publics interest for our investigation to be complete but not to last a day longer than it was necessary. Second, the investigation needed to be conducted fairly and with absolute integrity. Our team would not leak or take other actions that could compromise the integrity of our work. All decisions were made based on the facts and the law. During the course of our investigation we charge more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes including 12 officers of the russian military. 7 defendants have been convicted or pled guilty. Other charges we brought remained pending today. For those matters, i stretch that the indictment contain contains and every defendant is presumed innocence unless proven guilty. The report says set forth the results of our work and the reason of our charging and decisions. The attorney general later made the report largely public. As you know i made a few limited remarks about our report when we closed the special counsels office in may of this year. There were certain points of emphasis. Our investigation found the russian interference in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspire with russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address collusion which was not a legal term rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign taking part in a conspiracy and it was not. Third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators wof critical importance. Obstruction strengthen the core of our justice to find the truth and wrongdoers accountable. Volume two, we investigated a series of actions by the president towards the investigation. Based on Justice Department policies and principles of fairness, we decided not to make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and remains our decision today. Let me say further word about my appearance today. It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited. First, public testimony could affect several ongoing matters. Some of these matters, court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings. And consistent with long standing Justice Department policies, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter. Second, the Justice Department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and decisions. Ongoing matters of the Justice Department and deliberations within our office. These are Justice Department privileges that i will respect. The department has released a letter discussing the restrictions on my testimony. I therefore will not be able to answer questions of certain areas that i know of public interest. For example, i am unable to address initial opening of the fbi russia investigation which occurred months before my appointment or the socalled steele dossier, these are matters subjected of ongoing reviews by the department, any questions directed to the fbi or one of the Justice Department. As i explain when we close the special Councils Office in may. Our report finds analysis and decisions that we made. We conducted an extensive investigation over two years. In writing the report, we stated the results of our investigation with precision. We scrutinize every word. I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way. On may 29th, the report is my testimony and i will stay within that text. As i stated in may i will not comment on the actions of the attorney general or of congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor. I intend to adhere to that role and to the departments standards that governance. I am joined by deputy special counsel mr. Aaron zebley. Mr. Zebley was responsible for the daytoday oversight of the investigations conducted by our office. Now i also want to again say thank you to the attorneys, the fbi agents and analysts and professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals who spent nearly two years working on this matter were of the highest integrity. Let me say one more thing over the course of my career, i have seen a number of challenges who are democracy, the russian government efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As i said on may 29th, this deserves the attention of every american. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you, well proceed under the five minutes rule of question. The president repeatedly claim your report found of no obstruction and complete exonerated him. Thats not what your report says, is it . Krcorrect. Thats not what the report says. Volume two on the screen, you wrote if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state, based on the facts we are unable to read that judgment, does that say there is no obstruction . No. You are unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct . At the out set determined that we when it came to the president s culpability we needed to go forward only after taking to account of the olc opinion that indicated that the president , a sitting president cant be indicted. So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice. Thats correct. What about total exoneration, did you actually totally exonerated the president . No. Your report states that it did not exonerate the president. It does. Your investigation actually found quote multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting Law Enforcement investigation including the russia interference, is that correct correct . Correct. Can you explain what that findings mean so the American People can understand it . The finding indicates that the president was not excalpated for the acts that he committed. You were talking about incidents where the president used his official power to exert undo influences over your investigation, is that right . Thats correct. On page 7, volume two, you wrote the president became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction of justice inquiry, the president engaged in and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation, so President Trump effort to exert undoi undoing after hes aware that hes being investigated . I stick with the language that you have in front of you. Which is . On page 7, volume 2. Is it correct that uconn collud you concluded that ps. Can you repete the question . Is it correct that y you concluded, if the president committed the crime, you could not state that in your report here today . I would say the statement would be you would not indict because under olc opinion, a sitting president cant be indicted. You could not state that because of a oac opinion. Yes, with some guide. Under doj, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct . True. Did any senior white house officials refused to be investigated by your team . I dont believe so. I have to look at it but i am not certain if thats the case. Did the president requested to be interviewed by you and your team . Yes. Is it true that you tried to secure an interview with the president . Yes. Is it true that you and your team advise the president s lawyer that an interview with the president is vital to our investigation . Yes. Is it true that you also stated that it is in the interest of the presidency and the public for an interview to take place . Yes. The president refused to sit for an interview by you and your team . True. Did you also ask him to provide written answers to questions on the ten possible episodes of obstruction of justice Crimes Involving him . Yes. Did he provide any answers . I would to check on that. Director mueller we are grateful you are here explaining your investigation and findings. Your work is vitally important to this committee and the American People because no one is above the law. Now i recognize the gentleman from georgia. We are moving of the fiveminute rule. I have several questions. I want to lay out some foundation. In your press conference, your testimony in your office would not go beyond your report. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance in congress, do you standby that statement . Yes. In may of 2019, have you conducted any additional interviews or new information in your role as special counsel . In the wake of the report . Since the closing of the office in may of 2019 . And the question was . Have you conducted any new interviews or new witnesses . No. You can confirm you are no longer special counsel . I am no longer special counsel. Was your investigation stopped or hindered . No. Were you or your Team Provided any questions by members of Congress Ahead of the hearing today . No. Your report included 19 lawyers and 40 fbi agenerats an analysts. 40 fbi agents and 19 lawyers and forensic and analysts . Yes. Is it true that you issued 2800 subpoenas, and executed 500 warrants and 50 pin registers. That went a little fast for me. In your report, you did a lot of work, correct . Yes, that i agree. A lot of subpoenas. Yes. Search warrants. All right, a lot of search warrants. You are very thorough. Yes. You listed it out in your report, correct . Yes. Is it true that the evidence gathered during your investigation given the questions that you just answered, is it true the investigation gathered establish the president did not involved in the investigation . We found insufficient evidence of president s culpability that would be a yes . Pardon . Those close to him voinvolve in the computer hacking or the president otherwise unlawful relationship i will leave the answer to our report. So it is a yes. Is it true your investigation did not establish members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the election. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Although your report states collusion is not so specific offense and you said that this morning, a term of our criminal law conspiracy is in the context essentially anonymous terms. You have to repeat that for me. Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of in the federal law, conspiracy is. Yes. In tcollusion and conspiracy essential essentially. On page one of your report as you wrote, collusion is son mouse with conspiracy. You said on your may 29th conference that you choose your words carefully. Are you testifying Something Different than what your report states . No what i am asking is you can give me the citation, i can look at the citation and evaluate whether it is. Let me clarify. You stated in the report. I stated your report back to you and you said that collusion conspiracy were not synonmous terms. As definedd now you said you chose your words carefully, are ucoyou contradicting your report right now. Not when i read it. So you will change your answer to yes then. If you look at the language. I am reading your report sir. It is a yes or no. Page 180, volume 1. This is from your report. I will leave it with the report. The report says. Hopefully out of your own report we could put to bed collusion of conspiracy. Did you look at other countries investigated in our interference. What other countries . I discuss other matters. That i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Director mueller as you heard from the chairman we are mostly going to talk about obstruction of justice today but the investigation of russias attack that started your investigation is why evidence of possible on str obstruction is serious. To what extent the government interfere in the 2016 election. Could you repeat that . At the particular of what it came to the computer crimes and the government was indicated. The russian government interfered in the 2016 president ial election and sweeping in systematic fashion. You describe in your report that the Trump Campaign chairman, manafort, shared with a russian operative, kilimnik, who win votes in western states. Is that correct . Yes. Correct. They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign for winning democratic votes in mid western states months before that meeting, manafort caused internal data to be shared with kilimnik and the sharing continued with some periods of time after the meeting, is that accurate . Accurate. Our investigation found manafort briefed kilimnik on the state of the Trump Campaign and manafort planned to win the election. It also includes discussions of battleground states which manafort identified as michigan and wisconsin and pennsylvania. Thats correct. Did your investigation determined who requested the polling data to be shared with kilimnik . Well, i would direct you to the report. Thats what we have in the report in regards to that particular. We dont have the redacted version. That may be a reason why we should get that for volume one. How could the russian government use this Campaign Data to further sweeping and systematic interference of the 2016 . Thats a little bit of o our pass. Fair enough. Did your investigation find that the russian government would benefit from one of the candidates winning . Yes. Which candidate would that be . Well, it would be trump. Now the Trump Campaign was not rueluctant to take russian hel help. Was the investigation determination, what was the investigation determination regarding the frequency of which the Trump Campaign made contact with the russian government . Well, i would have to refer to the report on that. We went through and counted 126 contacts between russians or their agents and Campaign Officials and associates. Did that sound about right . I cant say i understand the statistic and believe it. I understand the statistics. I appreciate you being here on the report. From your testimony and report, i think the American People have learned several things. First, the russians wanted trump to win. Second, the russians went on a sweeping and influenced campaign. The russians hacked the dnc and they got the democratic game plan for the election. Russian Campaign Chairman met with russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data, polling and messaging in the battleground states. So while the russians were buying ads and creating propaganda to influence the outcome of the elections, they were armed with inside information that they had stolen to hacking from the dnc and they had been given by the Trump Campaign chairman mr. Manafort, my colleagues will probe the efforts under taken to keep this information from becoming public. I think it is important for the American People to understand the gravity of the under line problem that your report uncovered. With that mr. Chairman, i would yield back. Good morning director, if you will let me summarize your Opening Statement. You said on the issue of conspiracy, the special counsel determined the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the elections. Is that fair . Yes, sir. Now explaining the special counsel did not make a traditional prosecution decision, the report on the bottom of page 2, volume 2, reads as follows. The evidence we obtained of the president s actions and intent presents difficult issues prevent us from determining no criminal conduct occur while this report did not conclude that the president committed the crime but it did not also exonerate him. I read that correctly . Yes. You said the special counsel team operated under and followed by Justice Department policies and principles, which doj policies or principles set forth a Legal Standard that a person is not exonerated when a criminal conduct is not determined . Can you repeat the last part of the question . What does that language come from director . I am sorry, go ahead. Can you give me an example other than donald trump where the Justice Department determined the investigative person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined . I cant but this is unique. Time is short, i got five minutes. Lets leave it that you cant find it. It does not exist. The special counsels job nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trumps innocence, it is not in any of the documents and it is not in your appointment order or special counsels regulations or the Justice Manuel or the principle of prosecution. Nowhere did those words appear together because respectfully, it was not the special counsels job to exonerate him. The bedrock principle of our Justice System is the presumption of innocence. Everyone is entitled to it and including the sitting president. Prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it. Now director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that i cant find and you said does not exist anywhere in the Department Policies and you used it to write a report. The first line of your report, the very first line of your report says and as you read this morning authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution decisions reached by the special counsel. Thats the first word of your record, correct . Right. Here is the problem, director, the special counsel did not do that. On volume 1, you did. On volume 2, with obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decisi decision, you made no decision, you told us this morning and in your report that you told us no information. It clearly says, write a confidential report about decisions reached. Nowhere in here does it say write a report about decisions that were not reached. You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that were not reached, about potential crimes that were not charged or decided and respectfully by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions of prosecutors not offering extra analysis of potential crimes that are not charged. Americans need to know this as they listen to the democrats and socialists on the other side of the isle as they do dramatic readings from this report. Volume two of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a Legal Standard that does not exist at the Justice Department and written in violation of every doj. I agree with the chairman this morning when he said donald trump is not above the law. Hes not. But he damn sure should not be below the law which is where volume two of this report puts in. Thank you mr. Chairman. Director mueller, good morning. Your exchange with the general lady from california demonstrates what is at stakes. The Trump Campaign manafort was passing Sensitive Information to a russian operative. There were so many other ways russia subverted our democracy. Volume o1, i cant think of a serious need to investigate. I am going to ask you questions of obstruction of justice as it relates to volume 2. Page 12 of volume 2. You state we determined there were sufficient factuals and legal bases to further investigate potential obstruction of justice involving the president. Is that correct . Yes. Page 12, volume 2. Which portion of that page . That is we determine that there was a sufficient factual and legal bases to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the president , is that correct . Yes. Your report also describes 10 separate incidents possible of obstruction of justice that were investigated by you and your team, is that correct . Yes. The table of contents is a good guide of some of the octobe it reigns the president s efforts and the president s further effort to have the attorney general to take over the investigation. The president s orders mcgahn to deny that the president tried to fire the special counsel and many others, is that correct . Yes. I direct you now to what you wrote, director mueller, the president s pattern of kconduct as a whole shed lights on the nature of the president s act and inferences that could be drawn of his intent. When you talk about the president s pattern of conduct that concludes 10 possible acts of obstruction that you investigated, is that correct . That would conclude the 10 possible acts of obstruction. I direct you to the report of how it is characterized. For each of those ten potential instances of obstruction of justice, you analyzed three elements. Obstruction act, and corrupt intent, is that correct . Yes. You wrote on page 178, volume 2 of corrupt intent. Actions by the president to end a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability could cons substitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct, is that correct . Yes. To the screen again, with the evidence you did find, is it true on page 76 of volume 2 that the evidence does indicate a thorough fbi investigation would uncover feedbacks uncover facts of the campaign that the president could have understood to be crimes that would give rise to legal and personal and legal concerns. Yes, i rely on the language of the report. Is that relevant to potential obstruction of justice . Yes. You further elaborate on page 157, obstruction of justice could be motivated by desire to protect noncriminal person of interests or to avoid personal embarrassment, is that correct . I have on the screen. Can you repeat the question now that i have the language on the screen . Is it correct as you further elaborate obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests to protect against investigations where under lying criminal liability can you read the last question . The last question on the screen is asking you if thats correct . Yes. Okay. Does the conviction of obstruction of justice results potentially of a lot of years of time in jail . Yes. Again, can you repeat the question just to make sure that i have it accurate . Does obstruction of justice warrants a lot of time in jail if you were convicted . Yes. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Let me begin by reading the special counsels regulation by which you were appointed. At the conclusion of the special counsels work, he or she shall provide the attorney general of a report explaining the prosecution or decisions reached by the special counsel. Is that correct . Yes. Okay, now a regulation uses the word shall provide, does it mean the individual is in fact obligated to provide whats being demanded by the regularatiregulation of the statue meaning it did not have any wiggle room. I have to read the statue. I just read it to you. I am trying to find that citation congressman. Director could you speak directly into the microphone, please . Yes, thank you. Volume two i am sorry. Volume two, page one says we determine not the make a traditional judgment, right at the beginning. Now, since you decided under it has olc opinion that you could not prosecute a sitting president meaning President Trump, why are we having all of this investigation of President Trump if the other side is talking about when you knew that you were not going to prosecute him . You dont know where the investigation is going to lie and olcs opinion itself says that you continue the investigation even though you are not going to indict the president. Okay. Well, if you are not going to indict the president then you just continue fishing and thats my observation. My time is limited. I am sure you can indict other people but not the sitting president , right . Thats true. There are 182 pages of raw evidence including hundreds of references to 302 which were interviewed by the fbi for individuals that never been cross examined and did not comply of the special counsels regulation to explain the decisions reached, correct . Where are you reading from on that . I am reading from my question. Could you repeat it . 182 pages of raw materials, hundreds of references of 302s were never been crossed examined and did not comply of the regulation to explain the prosecution decisions reached . This is one of those areas which i decline to discuss. Okay. I would direct you to the report itself. Okay. Well, i looked at 182 pages of it. Let me switch gear. Now while i recognize that the independent counsels statue which can a star operated is different from the special counsel statue, he and a number of occasions in his report stated that the president clintons action may have risen to impeach and recognizing that it is up to the house of representatives to determine what conduct is impeachable. You never used the term raising to impeachable kconduct. Is it true that there is nothing in volume two of the report that says that the president may have reached in an impeachable conduct . Seriously kept center of our investigation, our mandate and our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct. Our mandate goes to what developing new report into the attorney general. With all due respect, it seems to me that there very a couple of statements that you made that said that this is not for me to decide, the implication is this is for this committee to decide. Now you did use the word impeachable conduct like started, there was no statue to prevent you from using the word impeachable conduct and i go back to what mr. Ratliff says and thats even the president is proven until guilty. Thank you mr. Chair. First i would like to read a statement that mr. Nadler said about your career, it is a model of rectitude and i thank you. Based on your investigation, how did President Trump react to your appointment . I sent you the report where that is stated. When sessions told the president that a special counsel had been appointed, the president slumped back in his chair and said quote this is terrible, this is the end of my presidency, i am f ked. Did the attorney general session told you about that talk . I am not certain of the person who originally said that quote. Sessions apparently said it and one of his aides had in his notes, too. He was not pleased of the special counsel because of your outstanding reputation. The attorney jones recused himself from the investigation because of his role of the 2016 campaign, is that not correct . Recusal means he could not be involved in the investigation . Yes. You know mr. Sessions and mr. Rosenstein became i sessions following the rules and professional advise of the department of justice when he recuse himself from the department . Yes. The president repeatedly s his displeasure of the recusal . Yes, based on what is written on the report. T. The president s reaction of the recusal noted in the report, mr. Bannon recalled that the president was mad and he screamed at mcgahn of how weak sessions was. Did you recall that in the report . Yes, thats in the report. Attorney jesessions was not involved in the investigation, the president tried to get the attorney general unrecused himself after you were appointed special counsel, was that correct . Yes. The president called the sessions at home and asked that he would unrecuse himself, was that true . It is true. Was not the first time the president asked him to unrecuse himself, was it . Yes. I know of two occasions. Sessions recalled the president pulled him aside to speak alone and set for him to do this unrecuse act, correct . Correct. A few days after flynn lying for agents and cooperate with the investigation, trump asked to speak to sessions alone if the oval office and asked sessions to unrecuse himself, true . Refer to the report on that. Did you know at any point that the president expressed anger on sessions . I have to pass on that. The president said, you were supposed to protect me and words to that effect. Correct. Is the attorney general supposed to be attorney general of the United States of america or for the president . The United States of america. You wrote your report that the president repeatedly sought sessions to unrecuse himself . Rely on the report. I am not going to speculate, if he obviously took over attorney general, he would have greater latitude in his actions and enables him to do things otherwise he could not. On page 113, you said the want to thank you mr. Mueller, it is clear from your report and the evidence that the president wanted former attorney general sessions to violate the Justice Department ethic rules by taking over the investigation and interfering in it to protect himself and his campaign. Your findings is so important because in america no body is above the law. Thank you, i yield back. Director, my democrat colleagues were disappointed in your report. They were expecting you to Say Something along the line of here is why President Trump deserves to be impeached butmuch as ken r did wrote about president clinton about 20 years ago. The strategy had to change. The American People just did not read it. And this hearing today is their last best hope to build up some sort of ground swell across america to impeach President Trump. Thats what this is all about today. Now a few questions. On page 103, of volume 2, of your report when discussing the june 2016 trump tower meeting, you referenced quote, the firm that produce steel reporting, the name of that firm was fusion gps, is that correct . You are on page 103 . Yes, 103, volume 2. When you are talking about the firm that produced the steel reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was fusion gps, was that correct . I am not familiar i am not familiar with that. It is not a trick question. Now fusion gps produced the Opposition Research document widely known as the steele dossier and the owner of fusion gps is someone named Glenn Simpson. This is outside of my purview. Glenn simpson was never mentioned in the 448page Mueller Report. As i said it is outside of my purview and handled by others. He was not. 448 pages and the owner of fusion gps did the steele dossier started all this, hes not mentioned in there. Let me move on. At the same time fusion gps was working to collect Opposition Research on donald trump from foreign sources on behalf of the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National committee, it also was representing a russian based company which had been sanctioned by the u. S. Government, are you aware of that . Yes, it is outside of my purview. One of the key players and i will go to Something Different. One of the key players in the june 2016 trump tower meeting was nathalia. She had been working with Glenn Simpson and fusion gps since at least early 2014, are you aware of that . Thats outside my purview. You did not mention that or her connections to Glenn Simpson at fusion gps in your report at all. Let me move on. Now nbc news as reported the following quote russian lawyer, veselnitskaya, she brought information, you did not include that in the report. It is a matter being handled by others at the department of justice. Our report spending 14 pages discussing the 2016 trump tower, it would be fair to say that you spent significant resources investigating that meeting . I refer you to the report. Okay. And President Trump was not at the meeting . No. You were aware of that . In contrast of the reaction of the Trump Campaign, we know the Clinton Campaign did pay to gather dirt with Foreign Government, your report did fno mention a thing about fusion gps connection with russia. Can you see from neglecting to mention fusion gps and Glenn Simpson involvement to focus on a brief meeting at the trump tower that produced nothing to ignoring the Clintons Campaign own ties to fusion gps while some view your report as a one sided attack on the president . I will tell you it is still outside of my purview. Note finally, things left out of the report tends to be favorable to the president. My time has expired. Thank you, director mueller. Your investigation found that President Trump directed white House Counsel dan mcgahn to fire you, is that correct . True. And the president claims that he wanted to fire you because you had close conflict of interest, is that correct . True. You had no conflict of interest that requires your removal . Correct. Dan mcgahn advised the president that asserted conflict were in his words i refer to the report. On page 85 of volume 2 speaks to that. Direct dire you had no c around may 23rd, 2017, the president quote, mcgahn to complain to Deputy Rosenstein about this conflict, telling the president that it would look like still trying to meddle in the investigation and knocking out mueller would be another fact used to be claimed of obstruction of justice. Generally so. Directed the mueller, the white House Counsel told the president that if he tried to remove that could be another bases to a ledge that the president was obstructing justice, correct . Thats correct, yes. Now i would like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justice. On tuesday congressman, do you have a citation . Yes. Volume 2, page 81 and 82. I would like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justice. On tuesday june 13, 2017, the president dictated a statement stating he had quote, no intentions of firing you, correct . Correct. The following day june 14th, the media reported for the first time that you were investigating the president for obstruction of justice, correct . Correct. And then after learning for the first time that he was under investigation the very next day, the president quote issued a series of tweets acknowledging the kpexistence of obstruction the investigation and criticizing it, is that correct . Generally so. Two days later, the president called mcgahn at home from camp david on a saturday to talk about you, is that correct . Correct. What was significant about that first weekend phone call that mcgahn took from President Trump . I am going to ask you to rely on what we wrote about those . Well, you wrote in your report that on page 85, volume 2 that on saturday june 17th, 2017, the president called mcgahn at home to have the special counsel removed. Now didhe president call don mcgahn more than once that day . Well i think it was two calls. On page 85 of your report, you wrote quote, on the first call, mcgahn recalled that the president said Something Like you got to do this, correct . Correct. Don mcgahn called Rod Rosenstein to fire him, is that correct . There was a continuous vo involvement of don mcgahn responding to the president. He did not want to put himself in the middle of that. He did not want to have a role in asking the attorney general to fire the special counsel, correct . I will refer to the report and the way it is characterized in the report. Volume pa, page 285. He did not want to have a role in firing the attorney general. So at this point, i will yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller, first, let me ask you a unanimous consent mr. Chairman to submit this article of Robert Mueller unmasked for the record. Now, mr. Mueller who wrote the nineminute comment you read at your may 29th press conference . I am not going to get into that. Okay. So thats what i thought. You didnt write it. About comey where when comey called, you drop everything you were doing and you had dinner with your wife and daughter and comey called and you dropped everything and go. At least bob mueller will be standing on the tracks with me. You and james comey had been good friends or were good friends for many years, correct . We were business associates. We both started off in the Justice Department. You were good friends, you can Work Together and not be friends but you and comey were friends. We were friends. Thats my question. Thank you for getting to the answer. Before you were pointed as special counsel, had you talk to james comey in the proceeding six months . No. When you were appointed as special counsel, was President Trump firing of comey something you investigated of obstruction of justice . Thats internal deliberations of the justice deputy. Department. It goes to your credibility. It is relevant and it is always material. That goes for you, too. You are a witness before us. When you talk to President Trump the day when you were appointed as special counsel, you were talking about fbi director position again. Did he mention the firing of james comey . No, i did not as a candidate. Did he mention the firing in james comey in your discussion with him . I dont remember. If he did, you could been a fact witness as to the president s comment and state of mind on firing james comey. I suppose thats possible. So most prosecutors want to make sure there is no appearance of propriety. You hired a bunch of people that did not like the president. You did not know before he was hired . I am sorry . You didnt know before he was hired for your team . Know what . Peter struk hated trump. You did not know that . When i did find out, i asked swiftly to have him removed. When did you learn of the ongoing affair that he had was lisa page . About the same time. Did i order anybody to investigate the deletion of all of their texts off of their government phones . Once we found that peter strzok was may i finish . Well, you did not answer my question. Did you order an investigation in decliniciletion of reformatt their phones . Regardless of collusion or conspiracy, you did not find evidence of any agreement among the Trump Campaign officials, or collusion, correct . Correct. You noted in the report that an element of any of those obstructions you referenced requires a corrupt state of mind . Corrupt intent. Right. If somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from russia to affect the election and they see the big Justice Department with people that hate that person coming after them and a special counsel appointed who hires dozens or more people that hate that person, and he knows hes innocent. Hes not corruptly acting in order to see the justices done. What hes doing is not obstruction justice. Hes pursuing justice and the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuated injusti injustice. The gentlemans time is expired. I take your question. The gentleman from florida. Director mueller i would like to get back to your findings covering june of 2017, there was a bomb shell article that reported the president of the United States was personally under investigation for obstruction of justice and you said in your report, news of the obstruction investigation prompted the president to call mcgahn and seek to have the special counsel removed. You wrote about multiple calls from the president to white House Counsel mcgahn. Mcgahn recalls that the president was more direct, call rod, tell rod that mueller has conflicts and cant be the special counsel. Mcgahn recalled the president and telling him mueller has to go. Call me back when you do it. Director mueller, did mcgahn understand what the president ordered him to do . In the report it says mcgahn understood the president to be saying that the special counsel had to be removed. On page 86, mechancgahn considee president s request fto be an inflection point. Mcgahn decided he had to resign. He took action to prepare the resign, is that correct . I will direct you to the report. That day he went to the white house and quoting the report you said he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter. Thats directly from tr report. Before he resigns, he called the president s chief of staff, did you recall what mcgahn told him . Whatever he said will appear on the report. It says on page 87, previously called him, mcgahn said the president asked him to do crazy expletive. In other words, crazy stuff. The white houses counsel thought that the president s request is completely out of bound. He said the president asked him to do something crazy. It was wrong. He was prepared to resign over it. Now, these are extraordinary troubling events but you found white House Counsel mcgahn to be a credible witness, is that correct . Correct. Director mueller, the most important question i have for you today is why. Director mueller, why did the president of the United States want you fired . I cant answer that question. Well, on page 89 in your report on volume 2, substantial evidence indicates that the president s attempts to remove the special counsel were linked to the special counsels oversight of investigations that involves the president s conduct and most immediately to report that the president was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice. Closed quote. Director mueller, you found evidence as you lay out in your report that the president wanted to fire you because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice, is that correct . Thats what it says on the report. I standby on the report. Director mueller, that should not happen in america. No president should be able to escape investigations by abusing his power. Thats what you testify to in your report. The president ordered you fired. The white House Counsel knew it was wrong. The president knew it was wrong. In your report says he should not make those calls to mcgahn but the president did it anyway. Anyone else who interfered with the criminal investigation like yours, would be arrested and indicted on charges of obstruction of justice. Director mueller, you determined that you were barred from indicting a sitting president , we already talked about that today. That is exactly why this committee must hold the president accountable. I yield back. The gentleman yields back, the gentle lady from alabama. Director mueller you said in response to two different lines of questioning that you refer of this discussion, i would refer you to the report in the way it was characterized in the report. Importantly the president never said fire mueller or in the investigati investigation, one does not necessitate the other. Mcgahn did not resign, he stuck around a year and a half. It was not until april 18th that the attorney general released the report to congress and the public. When you submitted your report to the attorney general, did you deliver a redacted version of the report so he would be able to release it to congress and the public without delay, pursuant to his announcement of his intention to do so during his confirmation hearing . I am not going to engage in d discussions of what happened after the production of the report . Have the attorney general asked you to provide the redaction of the report . We worked on the redaction together. I am not going to get into details. Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to the public or congress . Thats not in my purview. Why did you not take a similar action so congress can view this material . We had a process that we were operating on with the attorney generals office. You aare you aware of any aty generals going to court to release the material . I am not aware of that being done. The attorney general released special counsel report with minimal redaction to the public. Did you write the report with the expectation that it would be released publicly . No, we did not have the expectation. We write the report understanding that it was demanded by a statue and would go to the attorney general for further review. And pursuant to the special counsel regulation, who is the only party resulting from the special counsel investigation . With regard to the president or generally . Generally. Attorney general. Attorney general barr, he made it clear to intend to release the report to the public. Did you remember how much of your report had been written at that point . Do not. Were there significant changes in tones and substance that the report would be made available to congress . I cant get into that. William barr, senator Kamala Harris asked mr. Barr if he looked at all the under lining evidence that the special team gathered, he stated he did not. Did you review all the under line evidence gathered in your investigation. It came through the special counsels office. Yes. Did any member of your team read all the under lines gathered . Substantial amount of work was done. My point is there was no one member of the team that looked at everything. Thats what i am trying to get out. An investigation is comprehensive as yours, it is normal that different members of the team would have different sets of documents and if anyone would review all of the under line. How many of the approximately 500 interviews conducted by the special conference did you attend personally . Very few. On 2019, march 27, you wrote a letter to the general complaining of letter of your report. It did not fully capture the context and nature of substance of this offices work and conclusions. We communicated that concern in the morning of march 20th. There is critical aspect of our investigation, who wrote that letter . Well, i cant get into who wrote it . But you signed it . What i will say is the letter stands for itself. Why did you write a formal letter since you called the attorney general to express those concerns . I cant get into that. Did you authorize the letter to the media or was it leaked . I have no knowledge on either. You went nearly two years without a leak, why was this letter leaked . Well, i cant get into it. Was this letter written and leaked for the express purpose of changing the narrative of the conclusion of your report and was anything in attorney general barrs letter referred to principle conclusion inaccurate . Can he answer the question, please . You may answer the question. Was anything in attorney general barrs letter reached the conclusion inaccurate . I am not going to get into it. The gentle lady in california. Thank you, mr. Chair. As you know we are focusing on five obstruction opepisodes today. I would like to ask you of the second of those obstruction episodes. It begins on page 113, have yum 2. The New York Times reported the president ordered mcgahn to have the department of justice fire you. Is that correct . Correct. That story is related to the events you testified here today. The president calls to mcgahn to have you remove, is that correct . After the news broke did the president go on tv and deny the story . Did not know. The president said fake news, fake news, typical New York Times, end story. Correct. You found evidence. Did the president s personal lawyer do something the following day in response to that news report . I refer to coverage of this in the report. On page 114, the president s personal counsel called mcgahns attorney and said the president wanted mcgahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the special counsel. Did mcgahn do what the president asked . I refer you to the report. Communicating through his personal attorney, mcgahn refused baa refus refused because he said the times story is accurate that the president wanted the special counsel removed. Is that right . I believe it is but i refer you to the report. He told the president that hes not going to lie. Is that right . True. Did the president drop the issue . I refer to the write up of this in the report . Next the president told the make a false denial , is that correct . Thats correct. On page 113, the president directed po right turter to tel to create a record to make it clear that the president never directed mcgahn to fire you, is that correct . Thats as it is stated in the report. You found quote,the presiden wanted mcgahn to write a letter for our file, correct . Correct. The president is asking his white houses counsel don mcgahn to create a record that can believed to be untrue while you were in the midst of investigating the president for obstruction of justice. Generally krcorrect. Mr. Mcgahn was an important witness, was he . Yes. Did the president tell porter to threaten mcgahn if he did not create the denial . I advise you to the report. The president said if he does not write a letter then maybe i will have to get rid of him. Yes. Did porter deliver that threat . I again refer you to the discussion found on page 115. Okay, but the president still did not give up, did he . So the president told mcgahn directly to deny that the president told him to have you fired, can you tell me exactly what happened . I cant beyond whats on the report. On page 116, it says the president met him in the oval office. The president began the Oval Office Meeting by telling mcgahn the new york sometimtimes storyt look good and mechanic gain needed neemcgahn need to correct it. It is in the report. Mr. Mueller, thank you for your investigation uncovering this undisturbing evidence. It is clear to me if anyone else ordered a witness to create a false record and cover up acts that are subject of a Law Enforcement investigation, that person would be facing criminal charges. I yield back my time. Gentle lady yields back, gentleman from ohio. In that interview with mr. N nipson denies and falsely stated. He omitted three times he lied to the fbi and you did not charge him with the crime. Why not . Did you say 193 . Volume 193. He lied three times, why didnt you charge him with the crime . I cant get into internal deliberations with regards to who or what would or would not be lets remember this, lets remember this in 2016, the fbi did somet that probably they havent done before they spied on two american citizens associated with a president ial campaign. George papadapoulos and page. As part of the reason they were ableo get the report. With mr. Papadapoulos, they used human resources. From the moment george joined the Trump Campaign, all these people around the world starting to swirl around you. Meeting in rome, london, all kind of places. The fbi even sent a lady posing as somebody else, even dispatched her to london to spy on mr. Papadapoulos. In one of these meetings hes talk oog to a foreign diplomat, said, russians have dirt on clintons. That diplomat then contacts the fbi, the fbi opened an investigation based on the fact. You pointed this out on page 1 of the report. The opening investigation, based on that piece of information, diplomat tells papadapoulos, tells russians have dirt on clinton. What im wondering is, who told papadapoulos, how did he find out . I cant get into it. Yes, you can. Page 192. You told us. Joseph nipson. Joseph nipsons the guy who told papadapoulos who lives in rome and london. This is the guy who told george hes the guy who starts it all and when the fbi interviews him, he lies three times and yet you dont charge him with a crime. You charge rick gates for false statements. You charge Paul Manafort with false statements. You charge Michael Flynn with false statements. But the guy who put the country through this whole saga starts it off three years we lived this now, he lies, and you guys dont charge him. Im curious as to why . Well, i cant get into it and its obvious we cant get into charging decisions. When the fbi interviewed him in february, the fbi interviews him in february, when the special counsel interviewed nipson, did he lie to you guys, too. Cant get into that. Did you interview nipson . Cant get into that. Western intelligence or eastern sxwel jones. Cant get into that. Lot of things you cant get into. You can charge them, you can charge all kind of people around the president with false statements, but the guy who launches everything the guy who puts this whole story in motion you cant charge him. I think thats amazing im not certain i agree with your characterization. Im reading from your report. Nipson told papadapoulos, he tells the diplomat. Here we are three years later, july 2019, the country has been put through this and the central figure who launches it all lies to it and you dont hunt him down and interview him again and you dont charge him with a crime. Heres the good news the president was falsely accused of conspiracy. The fbi does a tenmonth investigati investigation. James comey said they had nothing. You did 22month, you find no conspiracy. The democrats want to keep investigatin investigating. They want to keep going. Maybe a better course of action, maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusations started. Maybe go back and figure out why joseph nipson was lying to the fbi. Heres the good news heres the good news thats exactly what bill barr is doing and thank goodness for that. Thats exactly what attorney general are doing. Theyre going to figure out why were threeyear time for the gentleman has expired. In a moment, well take a very brief fiveminute break. First, i ask everyone in the room to remain seated and quiet while the witness exits the room. I also want to announce to those in the audience you may not be guaranteed your seat if you leave the hearing room at this time. Were about an hour and 20 minutes into Robert Muellers testimony before this the house committee, largely staying within the lines as we thought he would. But there were some moment and lets put it to the panel here. The democrats were hoping that this would be a compelling movie version of 446report that mueller and his team put together. Have we seen that before . We havent. The movie with the best actor the lead person here has the fewest words spoken and the problem here is youre basically the narrative that democrats were hoping that bob mueller would telling, hes telling him, thats true. Yes, thats correct. I wrote it down, narrative nightmare for the democrats. I stick with the language i have in front of you. Or whatever was said is in the report. He has no interest in helping to provide the democrats cant be surprised by this, they had to subpoena his testimony today. He said, i wont say anything beyond the report, please dont call me to come and testify. They should have been prepared. They were prepared. Jerry nadler was the most effective in his opening questions and answers because he laid out the facts that the president said that he was exonerated. Is that true . No. We have that exchange as he kind of took what the president s narrative has been. Here it is. The report did not conclude that he didnt obstruction of justice. Is that correct . That is correct. What about total exoneration, did you actually totally exonerate the president in. No. In fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president in. It does. Your report actually found quote multiple act by the president capable of exerting undue influence including the russian influence and the obstruction investigation . Is that correct . Thats correct. Director mueller, can you explain what that finding means so the American People can understand it . Well, the finding indicates that the president was not the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed. Thats one of the earlier exchanges. That does frame it. The problem is, this witness suddenly is reluctant not only did he actually seek guidance from the Justice Department in that letter which in the last 24 hours which couhe could not do. Hes not a very assertive witness. He hasnt pushed back by republicans questioning. I think the part of the issue is mueller and and another part of the issue is the questioning by the dems. I think it started off right with nadler a series of speeches. And yes, no questions. Importantly, the next set of questions really have to be the attorney general barr said you could have reached a conclusion about whether or not obstruction was met here. Im not going to get into that. Isnt that how hes going to respond. Its very hard given the fact that the attorney general cant. Have republicans been effectively undermining mueller and the credibility of his investigation . My answer is no. These attacks have landed flat. This whole idea he hasnt investigated the origins in 2016 i dont know if thats really actually going to move the needle in any real way. To your point the democrats are asking yes, no questions. When they ask for the narrative, what happened with don mcgadget to get you fired . He said i refer you to the report. Democrats would advertise this as the bringing to life of the Mueller Report. Robert mueller doesnt appear to be onboard with that strategy. Hes not pushing back against the republican attacks. So, neal, you know better, unless Robert Mueller said that is not correct, thats not what i wrote, thats not the law he has to say that rather than refer to the report. I agree with you. Should democrats treat mueller a bit with a bit more skepticism . Right now the decision was made, hes a marine and a patriot and this Great American hero, but theres a lot of failures here, he failed to get to man ji an fort to flip, fail to get the president to sit down. Why didnt you subpoena the president . They dont want to treat him with part of it is a view among the democrats the report itself is so damming dont you have to attack the author of the report, when you see this, important to have him answer the barr question which barr said he could. Thats the job. Lets get answer. Remember, mueller remembered it from the outset he doesnt want this to go a day further. Did you get everything you needed. I have to say this, mr. Mueller, if you believe the single most important aspect of this report is the sweeping aspect of the russian interference youre doing yourself a disservice by not being expounding on the importance and urgency of this report. Theres no urgency coming from mr. Mueller. Therefore, savannah, i dont w know how this leads to step two, impeachment. You covered director mueller for many, many years, pete, whats your take on how he es testifying this morning . Well, i think despite Robert Mueller being the strictly the prosecutor he knows full well what role the democrats want him to play here. Hes clearly reluctant to do it. The second point is, this is not the same Robert Mueller that we saw in his 88 appearances before congress in the past. He last testified before congress six years ago when just as he was concluding his time as the fbi director, he turns 75 in few weeks. Its fair to say, the years have clearly taken a toll on the bob mueller we used to see, i think thats affected his about to answer the questions. I will say one thing, interesting the republicans just asked once and didnt pursue this whole idea of what has been one of the most controversial parts of this report, where it said that were not saying that donald trump obstructed justice because we decided we not even sa were not exonerating him either and he was asked about that today, since when is that the job of the prosecutor to say somebody wasnt exonerated . He was asked about that once. Asked repeatedly by one of the members today and his only answer was this is a unique situation. He didnt really give a stirring defense of his decision to make a Statement Like that. That the president was not exonerated, which is more than just a simple declaration were not going to prosecute. I want to go to kacey hunt. Where does impeachment go, whats the buzz youre hearing already about this hearing . Reporter well, i think you captured it well in your conversation about it. I was just sitting in the room and if anything, the fact that Robert Mueller the person is seems like a smaller figure perhaps than we anticipated he would be after so much buildup, so much drama over the last two years, its even more evident in the room, his answers sound very quiet. The emotion and the forcefulness is coming from members of the congress, many of whom it feels like theyre yelling at him in some ways. So, from that perspective i think the initial sense its harder to make a case when you dont have such compelling, forceful testimony from mueller. Now, nadlers initial question and answer was very and you said that already very important because it yield a very straightforward headline when the president talks about as he does repeatedly claims no collusion, no obstruction, total exoneration. Here you have a very straightforward representatiuta. Thats something that democrats are already planning on seizing on. I also think to petes point right there about the question about his role to no particular time exonerate the president , Robert Mueller seemed to have Something Else to say there but he was cut off by mr. Ratcliffe, the republican. Mueller didnt interject himself into that exchange. Theyre about to get started again. Its very clear, though as he was forceful hes doing exactly what he said, staying within the framework of that report. Absolutely. He did not reach out to answer that question when he was asked about controversial decision to say, i wrote exonerate, but nor did the next questioner who was a democrat reach out and say, let me give you a chance to respond to these allegations against you. Savannah, they had this planned. On the democratic side, all the way through the last of how they want to narrate this report. I agree no one has shown the ability well have to ask our lit gator on our set. You have your plan and then you have to be presence in the moment and seize the opportunity. You have to be dynamic, you cant be reading your prescripted answers. Attorney general william barr can make announcements about the correctness or incorrectness, then why cant Robert Mueller. Hes the attorney general would be the response. Lets quickly check in with Hallie Jackson right now. Is the president watching or not . Hes watching coverage, retweeting commentators and news anchor. Calling this a disaster for democrats. The president s engaged. Seizing on these moments where the mueller said no conspiracy. Lets listen in. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller, congressman addressed his request to mcgahn to fire you. Representative bass talked about the request to deny the fact that the president made that request, i wanted to pick up where they left off. Where the president s personal lawyer, in fact, there was evidence that the president s personal lawyer was alarmed at the prospect of meeting with mr. Mcgahn to discuss mcgahns denial of the the New York Times report of trying to fire you, correct . Correct. In fact, the president s counsel was so alarmed by the prospect of the president s meeting with mcgahn that he called mr. Mcgahns counsel and said that mcgahn could not resign no matter what happened in the oval office that day, correct . Correct. So, its accurate to say that the president knew that he was asking mcgahn to deny facts that mcgahn, quote, had repeatedly said were accurate unquote, isnt that correct . Correct. Your investigation also found, quote, by the time of the Oval Office Meeting with the president the president was aware, one, that mcgahn did not think the story was false. Two, did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying in fact mcgahn believed to be true. The president nevertheless persisted and asked mcgahn to repudiate facts that mcgahn had repeatedly said were accurate, isnt that correct . I i believe thats on 119. True. Force mcgahn to Say Something that mcgahn did not believe to be true. Thats accurate. I want to reference you to a slide and its on page 120. And it says, substantial evidence indicates that and repeatedly urging mcgahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the special counsel terminated, the president acted for the purpose of influencing mcgahns account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the president s conduct towards the investigation. Accurate. Can you explain what you meant there . I leave it as it appears in the report. So its fair to say the president tried to profekt himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an Ongoing Investigation . I would say thats generally the summary. Would you say that that action the president tried to hamper the investigation by asking the staff to falsify records ill have to refer you to the report for review of that episode. Thank you. Also, the president s attempt to get mcgahn to create a false written record were related to mr. Trumps concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry, correct . I believe that to be true. In fact at same Oval Office Meeting, did the president also mcgahn why he told, quote, special counsels Office Investigators that the president told him to have you removed, end quote. What was the question, sir . Let me go to the next one the president criticized mcgahn for telling your office about the july 2017 event when he told mcgahn to have you removed, correct . Correct. In other words, the president was criticizing his white House Counsel for telling Law Enforcement officials what he believed to be the truth. I cant go back to the text of the report. Well, let me go a little bit further, would it have been a crime if mr. Mcgahn had lied about the president ordering him to fire you . I dont want to speculate. Okay, you charged multiple People Associated with the president for lying to you during your investigation . That is accurate. The president also complained that his staff were taken notes during the meeting about firing mcgahn, is that correct . Thats what the report says. Yeah, the report. In fact, its completely appropriate for the president s staff especially his counsel to take notes during a meeting, correct . I rely on the wording of the report. Well, thank you, director mueller, for your investigation into whether the president obstructed justice and then to create a false record about it. Its clearly any other person who engaged in such conduct would be charged with a crime. Well continue our investigation, well hold the president accountable because no one is above the law. Gentleman from florida. Director mueller, can you state with confidence that the steele dossier wasnt part of the as i said in the Opening Statement, part of the building of the case was predated may by at least ten months. Manaforts alleged crimes tax evasion, you had no problem charging him. When senator cornyn asked the direct question i asked you, the attorney general, im quoting, no, i cant state that with confidence. Thats one of the areas im reviewing. Im concerned about it and i dont think its entirely speculative. It must have some factual basis. Now, Christopher Steeles report is referenced in your report, steele reported to the fbi that Russian Foreign ministry figures told him that im quoting, intensive evidence of conspiracy between the Trump Campaign team and the kremlin. Heres my question, did russians really tell that to Christopher Steele or did he make it up or lie to the fbi. Let me back up a second, as i said earlier with regard to the steele thats beyond my purview. Thats exactly your purview. Heres why, either steele made this whole thing up and there were never any russians telling them of this vast criminal conspiracy or the russians lied to steele. That would be precisely your purview. You stated in your opening the organizing principle was to investigate russias interference. You charged him with lying. You say nothing about this in report. Meanwhile, your director, you write 3500 words about the june 9 meeting between the Trump Campaign and russian lawyer. You write on page 103 of your report that the president s legal team suggested, quote, the meeting might have been a setup. By individuals working with the firm that produced the steele reporting. Im going to ask you a very easy question, director mueller, on the weekend on june 9th who did the russian lawyer meeting with more frequently the Trump Campaign whats missing higher is the fact that is under investigation elsewhered in the Justice Department and if i can finish, sir, consequently its not within my purview, the department of justice and the fbi to be responsive on questions on this particular issue. Its absurd to suggest that an operative for the democrats was meeting with this russian lawyer the day before and the day after the trump tower meeting. Thats not something you referenced. Do you have any basis as you sit here today that steele was lying . As i said before, ill say againing its not purview spurv others are investigate zmrg its not your purview that whether or not Glenn Simpson was meeting with the russians the day before or day before. I look at Inspector General report, states, trumps not ever going to be president , right . Right. Strzok replied, no. Well stop it. In the Inspector Generals report, attorney number 2, attorney number 2, page 419 replied, hell no. Attorney general 2 in the Inspector Generals both worked on your team, didnt they . Pardon me. They both worked on your team. I heard strzok. The question was . Peter strzok worked for me for a period of time. Heres what im noticing, when People Associated with trump lied you threw the book at them, when Christopher Steele lied, nothing. When simpson met with russians, nothing. When the Trump Campaign met with russians, reason why theres a time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Jeffries is recognized. The crime of obstruction of justice has three elements, true. True. The first element is an obstructive act . Correct. An obstructive act could include taking an action that could delay or interfere with an Ongoing Investigation as set forth in volume two of your report, true . Im sorry could you again repeat the question . An obstructive act could include an act or interfere with an Ongoing Investigation . Thats true. Trump took steps to terminate the special counsel . Correct. Does ordering the determination of the head of criminal investigation constitute an obstruction act . I refer you to the report. Let me refer you to page 87 and 88 of volume 2. Where you conclude, on abinstructive act of an investigation in any grand jury proceedings, correct . Correct. Thank you. Thank you. The second element of obstruction of justice is the presence of an obstructive act in connection with an official proceeding, true . True. Does the special counsels criminal investigation into the potential wrongdoing of donald trump constitute an official proceeding . Thats an area i can get into. Okay, President Trump tweeted on june 16th, 2017, quote, i am being investigated for firing the fbi director by the man who told me to fire the fbi director, witch hunt. The june 16th tweet, cited on page 89 in volume 2 constitutes a public acknowledgment by President Trump he was under criminal investigation, correct . I think generally correct. One day later, on saturday, june 17th, President Trump called white House Counsel don mcgahn at home and directed him to fire the special counsel, true . I believe to be true. I think i may have stated in response to questions that is correct. President trump told don mcgahn, quote, mueller has to go, close quote, correct . Correct. Your report found on 89, volume 2, substantial evidence by june 17 he knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who can present any crime to a grand jury . True . True. The third element of the crime of obstruction of justice is corrupt intent, true . True. Corrupt intent exists if the president acted to obstruct the proceeding or protecting his own interests . Thats generally corrt. The only thing i would say were going through the three elements of the proof of obstruction of justice charges. When the fact of the matter is, we got excuse me just one second. Mr. Mueller, let me move on, upon learning about the appointment of special counsel, donald trump stated to the attorney general, oh, my god, oh, this is tend of my presidency. Is that correct . Correct. Is it fair to that President Trump viewed the special counsel investigation adverse to his conduct . True. Where do you have that quote . Page 90, volume 2. Theres evidence that the president knew he should not have made those calls to mcgahn, closed quote. Yes, thats accurate. The investigation found substantial evidence that the President Trump repeatedly urged don mcgahn to have the special counsel terminated, correct . Correct. When the president ordered don mack began to fire the special counsel and then lied about it, one, the president obstructed an official act and did so with corrupt intent . This is the United States of america, no one is above the law. No one, the president must be held accountable one way or the other. Let me just say, if i might, i dont subscribe necessarily to your, the way you analyze that. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller. Hi. I want to start by thank iin you for your service. You earned a bronze star, purple heart and other accommodations. You served as an assistant attorney here. Assistant attorney general for Dojs Criminal Division and fbi director. So thank you. I appreciate that. Having reviewed your biography, it puzzles me you handled your duties in this case the way you did. The report contradicts what you taught young attorneys at the department of justice, including every defendant is treated fairly. The prosecutor by listening the ten factual situations and not reaching a conclusion, you unfairly shifted the burden of proof to the president proving his innocence. Denying him legal forum to do so. You noted eight times in your report that you had a legal duty under the regulations to either prosecute or decline charges. Despite this, you disregarded that duty. As a former prosecutor im also troubled by your legal analysis. You discuss ten patterns involving alleged obstruction and then you failed to separately apply the elements of the applicable statutes. I read the case law, and i have to tell you, just looking at the flynn matter, for example, the four statutes that you cited for possible obstruction, when i look at those concerning the flynn matter, 1503 is an applicable, not a grand jury and director comey wasnt an officer of the court. Section 1505, criminalizes act that would obstruct or impede administrative proceedings. The department of justice criminal resource manual said that the fbi investigation is not a pending proceeding. Threats, force to tamper with a witness, general flynn at the time was not a witness and certainly director comey was n a witness. 1512 c2 talks about tampering with a record, as joe biden described the statute as being debated on the senate floor, he called this is a statute criminalizing document shredding. Theres nothing in your report that alleges that the president destroyed any evidence. So, what i have to ask you and what i think people are working around in this hearing is, let me lay a little foundation, the applicable rule, the prosecutor has reasonable probability to bring a charge, is that correct . Generally accurate. And the regulations concerning your job as special counsel states that your job is to provide the attorney general with a confidential report describing the prosecution. You declined prosecuting President Trump or any associated with his campaign buzz there was insufficient evidence. Is that fair . Fair. Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice . We did not make that calculation. How could you not have made the calculation . Opinion. The opinion. Indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president. One of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there. Okay, but let me stop you, you made the decision on the russian interference. You couldnt have indicted the president on that and you made the decision on that. But when it came to obstruction you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick i would not agree to that characterization at all. What we did is to provide the attorney general in the formal memo our understandings of the case. They were declined and that one case where the president cant be charged with a crime. Okay, but the could you charge the president with a crime after he left office . Yes. You believe that he committed you believe you could charge the president with obstruction of justice . Yes. The prosecutor cannot bring a charge against a sitting president nonetheless can continue the investigation to see if there are any other persons who might be drawn into the conspiracy. Time of the gentleman is expired. The gentleman from rhode island. Director, as you know, were specifically focusing on five separate obstruction episodes here today. Id like you to ask you about the third episode. Entighted the president s effort to curtail the special counsels investigation. By curtail, you mean limit, correct . Correct. My colleagues have walked you through being fired. Corey lewandoski, the president s former Campaign Manager, did he have any formal position in this Trump Administration . I dont believe so. Your report describes an incident in the oval office involving lewandoski on june 19, 2017, is that correct. Im sorry, whats the criation. Page 91. Of the second volume . Yes. Meeting in the oval office between mr. Lewandowski and the president. Two days after the president called don mcgahn at home to fire you. Is that correct. Correct. After he refused to follow the order to fire you, the president came up with a new plan, to go around government aides to try and limit your investigation, what did the president tell mr. Lewandowski to do . Did you and your team see this handwritten message . Im not going to get into what we may or may not have include zmrd directed sessions to give a public speech that he planned to meet with the special prosecutor to explain this is a very unfair unless the prosecutor moved forward with meddling of future elections. Yes, it is. Mr. Lewandowski a private citizen was instructed to deliver a message from the president to the attorney general to limit your investigation, correct . Correct. At this time, sessions was still recuse from oversight of your investigation, correct . Im sorry, can you repeat. The attorney general was recused yes. Okay, if the attorney general had followed through with the president s press, mr. Mueller, it would have effectively ended your investigation, correct . True. Page 97, i quote, taken together the president s directive that sessions was being instructed to tell the special counsel to end the ex t existing investigating of the president. Generally true. An unsuccessful attempt to obstruct is still a crime, is that correct . Thats correct. Mr. Lun dow skye tried to meet with the attorney general, true . True. Not a public log of the meeting the president raised the issue again with mr. Lewandowski. So, immediately following the meeting with the president lewandowski asked mr. Dearborn to deliver the staff and he refused to deliver it because he didnt feel comfortable, correct. Correct. Two days after the white House Counsel don mcgahn refused to carry out the president s order to fire you, he directed a private citizen to tell the attorney general of the United States to limit your investigation into future elections, effectively ending your investigation into the 2016 Trump Campaign, is that correct . Im not going to adopt your characterization. The facts laid out in the report are accurate. You write on page 99, 97, substantial evidence indicates that the president s effort to have sessions limit the scope of the special counsels investigation to future elections interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the president and his campaign conduct, is that correct . Generally. Mr. Mueller, you have seen the letter, 1,000 former republican and democratic prosecutors have read your report, anyone else other than the president would have been charged with obstruction of justice. Do you agree with that conclusion . The prosecutors thank you, mr. Chairman. Over here. Mr. Mueller, you guys, your team wrote in the report, quote, top of page 2, volume 1, also on page 173, you said that you come to the conclusion, quote, that investigation didnt establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government with election interference activity, is that accurate . Thats accurate. Im curious, when did you personally come to that conclusion . Can you remind me which paragraph youre referring to page 2, volume 1. Okay, and exactly which paragraph are you looking investigation did not establish of course, i see it. My question is, when did you personally reach that conclusion . We were ongoing for two years. Ongoing. You wrote it at some point during that twoyear period. At some point you had to come to the conclusion that i dont think theres not a conspiracy going on, there was no conspiracy between this president and im not talking about the rest of the team, im talking about this president and the russian and developing a criminal case, you get pieces of information, witnesses and the like, as you make your case, and when you make a decision on a particular case depends on a number of factors. I cant say specifically that we reached a decision on a particular defendant at a particular point in time. But it was some time well before you wrote the report, fair enough . You wrote the report dealing with a whole myriads of issues. With regard to the president , i dont find anything here, fair enough . Im not certain i do agree with that. There are various aspects of a development of an sure, thats my point. Various aspects that happen, somewhere along the pike you come to the conclusion theres no there there for this defendant. I cant speak you cant say when. Fair enough. Im asking the sworn witness. Mr. Mueller, evidence suggest on may 10th, six days before the attorney general appointed you special counsel, mr. Rosenstein called and mentioned you the appointment of special counsel. You had a discussion of that, is that true . May 10, 2017. I dont have any i dont have any knowledge of that occurring. You dont have any knowledge or you dont recall. I dont have any knowledge. Are you questioning that . Well, i just find it intriguing. Theres evidence that suggest that phone call called and thats what was said. Evidence on may 12th, 2017, you met with mr. Rosenstein in person, did you discuss the appointment of a special counsel. Dont allow you me to give you the answer. It has to do with special counsel and whether you discussed that with mr. Rosenstein. On may 13th, four days you were appointed special counsel you met with former attorney general sessions and rosenstein and you spoke about the special counsel, do you remember that. Offhand, no. On may 16th the day you were before appointed special counsel you met with the president and Rod Rosenstein, do you remember having that meeting. Yes. And did you discuss at any time in that meeting mr. Comeys termination . No. Did you discuss at any time in that meeting the potential appointment of a special counsel, not necessarily you but in general terms . I cant get into discussions on that. How many times did you speak with mr. Rosenstein before you got appointed . I dont know. How many times did you speak with mr. Comey about any investigation investigations prior to may 17th . Zero. Zero. Zero. My time has expired. The time of the gentleman has expired. Director mueller going back to the president s obstruction via Corey Lewandowski it was referenced that 1,000 former prosecutors served under republican and democratic administrations, with 12,000 years of federal service, wrote a letter regarding the president s conduct. Are you familiar with that letter. Yes. Some of the individuals that signed that letter, are people you worked with, correct . Quite possibly, right. People you respect . Yes. All of this conduct trying to control and impede the conduct by the president by leveraging his authority over others similar to the conduct charged against Public Officials and people in powerful positions, are they wrong . They have a different case. You want to sign that letter, director mueller. They have a different case. Director mueller, thank you for your service. Because i have a seat on the Intelligence Committee, i have questions later on. I yield to my colleague from california, mr. Lieu. Thank you for your long service for our country. Id like to now turn to the elements of obstruction of justice as applied to the president s attempts to curtail your investigation. First element of obstruction of justice requires an obstructive act, correct. Correct. Page 97 of volume 2 of your report. You wrote there on page 97, quote, sessions was being instructed to tell the special counsel to end the existing investigation into the president unquote. Thats the report . Correct. That would be evidence of an obstructive act because it would naturally obstruct your investigation, correct . Correct. Lets turn now to the second element of the crime of obstruction of justice. Again, im going to direct you to page 97, same page of volume 2. You wrote quote, by the time the president s initial oneonone meeting with lewandowski existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the special counsel that was in the report. Correct. A grand jury investigation is an official proceeding, correct. Well, yes. Id like to now to turn the final element of obstruction of justice. On that same page, page 97, intent section on that page. Would you be willing to read the first sentence. And that was starting with ub stan shl evidence. Indicates that the president. Ill read the first sentence. Substantial evidence indicates that the president s effort to have sessions limit the scope of the special counsels investigation to future election interference was to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the president s and his campaigns conduct, unquote. Thats in the report. Yes, thats in the report to indicate whats happened in the paragraphs that we have been discuss zmrg to recap, we have heard today that the president ordered former white House Counsel don mcgahn to fire you, the president ordered don mcgahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail, the president ordered Corey Lewandowski the tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that, he, stop investigating the president. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met. Id like to ask you, the reason again that you did not indict donald trump is because of opinion that you cant indict a sitting president , is that correct . Thats correct. The fact that the orders by the president were not carried out is thats not a defense to obstruction of justice, because the statute itself is quite broad. If you have endeavor or attempt to obstruct of justice thats also on instruction of justice. Based on the evidence we have heard today, reasonable person could conclude that at least three crimes of obstruction of justice by the president occurred. Were going to hear about two additional crimes. The witness tamperings of paul many afort im going through the elem t elements with you doesnt mean i subscribe what youre trying to prove through those element and the time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from california thank you, mr. Chairman. Mueller, over here. Thanks for joining us today. You had discussions with Rod Rosenstein about your appointment as special counsel, correct . If you say so, i have no reason to dispute that. You met with the president on the 16th with Rod Rosenstein present. On the 17th you formally appointed as special counsel, were you meeting with the president on 16th with knowledge that you were under consideration as special counsel. I dont believe i was under consideration for counsel. I had served two terms as fbi director. The answer is no . The answer is no. Described your office as a team of Additional Information coming to light theres a growing concern that political bias caused facts to be omitted from your report to cast the president unfairly. John dowd, the president s lawyer leaves a message with Michael Flynns lawyer, edited version in your report makes it appear he was asking for confidential information. Except that the judge in the flynn case ordered the entire transcript released. My question is, why did you edit the transcript to hide that part of the message . I am not certain i would agree with your characterization you omitted it. You omitted the portion without giving up any confidential information. Im going to go further in terms of discussing. Well, lets go on. You discussed Paul Manafort, quote, russian ukrainian political consultant and a longtime employee of paul m manafort, we learned from news articles that he was actually a u. S. State Department Intelligence source, nowhere in the report is he so identified. I dont necessarily credit what youre saying occurred. Were you awear that he was im not going to go into the ins and outs in the course of our investigation. Pardon. Did you interview constantine . I cant go into our investigation moves. Thats the basis of your report. Again, the problem were having is, we have to rely on your report for an accurate reflection of the evidence and were starting to find out thats true. Your report famously links Russian Internet troll farms with the interference. Yet, no evidence to produce this claim. Why did you suggest russia was responsible for the troll farms while in court you havent been able to produce any evidence to support that . Im not going to get further into that than i already have. You have left the impression through your report it was the russian government behind the troll farms. When you called upon to provide actual ed in court you fail to do so . Well, again, dispute your characterization of what occurred in that proceeding. In fact, the judge considered Holding Prosecutors in criminal contempt, only after your press conference the next day after you made the distinction between the russian government and the russian troll farms. Did that have anything to do with holding your office in c contem contempt . What was the question. Did your may 29th press conference did have any to do with the previous day the judge threatened to hold your prosecutors in contempt for misrepresenting evidence . No. Now, the fundamental problem is, we got the take your word, your team faithfully accurate, completely described all of the underlying evidence in the Mueller Report and were finding more and more instances where this isnt the case. Its starting to look like desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the president you made a political case instead. I dont think you reviewed a report thats as thorough, as fair, as consistent as the report that we have in front of us. Why time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from maryland is recognize zbld director mueller, fourth episode of obstruction of justice. In the form of witness tampering. Urging witnesses not to cooperate with Law Enforcement. Witness tampering is a felony punishable by 20 years in prison. You found the president engaged in efforts, quote, to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation, is that right . Thats correct. You have a citation. Now, one of the witnesses was Michael Cohen, the president s personal personal lawyer, who ultimately pled guilty to Campaign Violations based on secret hush money payments to women the president knew and also to lying to congress about the 1 billionrump ter al. After the fbi searched cohens home, the president called him up personally, he said, to check in and told him to, quote, hang in there and stay strong. Is that right. Do you remember finding that . If its in the report as stated, yes, it is right. Yes, actually in the report are a series of calls made by other friends of the president. One reached out to say that he was with the boston maralago and the president said he loves you. His name is redacted. Another redacted friend called to say the boss loves you. And a third redacted friend called to say everyone knows the boss has your back. Do you remember that . Generally, yes. And cohen said following the repeat of these messages, im quoting here page 147, volume 2, he believed he had the support of the white house if he continued to toe the party line. And he determined to stay on message and be part of the team. Thats page 147. Do you remember generally finding that . Generally, yes. Well, and robert costello, a lawyer close to the president s legal team, emailed cohen to say, quote, you are loved, they are in our corner, sleep well tonight, and you have friends in high places. And thats up on the screen, page 147. You remember reporting that . I see that. Okay. Now, when the news first broke that cohen had arranged payoffs to stormy daniels, cohen faithfully stuck to this party line. He said that publicly that neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump Campaign was a party to the transaction and neither reimbursed him. Trumps personal attorney at that point quick lip texted cohen to say, quote, client says thank you for what you do. Mr. Mueller, who is the capital c client thanking cohen for what he does. I cant speak to that. Okay. The assumption, the context suggests very strongly that its President Trump. I cant speak to that. Okay. Cohen later broke and pled guilty to Campaign Finance offenses and admitted fully they were made, quote, at the direction of candidate trump. Do you remember that . Yes. After cohens guilty plea, the president suddenly changed his tune toward mr. Cohen, didnt he . I would say, i rely on whats in the report. Well, he made the suggestion that cohen family members had committed crimes. He targeted cohens fatherinlaw and repeatedly suggested that he had committed crimes, right . Generally accurate. On page 154, you give a powerful summary of these changing dynamics and you said, im happy to have you read it or im happy to do it, if not. I have it in front of me. Would you like to read it . I would. I would be happy to have you read it. The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference that the president used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get cohen not to cooperate and then turn to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or to undermine cohens credibility once cohen began cooperating. I believe thats accurate. And in my view, if anyone else in america engaged in these actions, they would have been charged with witness tampering. We must enforce the principle in congress that you emphasized to well in the very last sentence of your report, which is that in america, no person is so high as to be above the law. I yield back, mr. Chairman. The gentlemen yields back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just recently, mr. Mueller, you said mr. Lew was asking you questions. And mr. Lews question, i quote, the reason you didnt indict the president is because of the olc opinion. And you answered, that is correct. But that is not what you said in the report and its not what you told attorney general barr. And in fact, in a joint statement that you released with doj on may 29th, after your press conference, your Office Issued a joint statement with the department of justice that said, the attorney general has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that but for the olc opinion, he would have found the president obstructed justice. The special counsels report, in his statement today, made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other, whether the president committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements. So mr. Miller, do you stand by your joint statement with doj that you issued on may 29th, as you sit here today . I would have to look at it more closely before i said i agree with it. Well, so you know, my conclusion is that what you told mr. Lew really contradicts what you said in the report. And specifically, what you said apparently repeatedly to attorney general barr, and then you issued a joint statement on may 29th, saying that the attorney general has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirm that he was not saying but for the olc report, that he would have found the president obstructed justice. So i would just say theres a conflict. I do have some more questions. Mr. Mueller, theres been a lot of talk today about firing the special counsel and curtailing the investigation. Were you ever fired, mr. Mueller . From the was i ever what . Were you ever fired as special counsel, mr. Mueller . Not that i no. No. Were you allowed to complete your investigation unencumbered . Yes. And in fact, you resigned as special counsel when you closed up the office in late may 2019, that correct . Thats correct. Thank you. Mr. Mueller, on april 18th, the attorney general held a press conference in conjunction with the public release of your report. Did attorney general barr say anything inaccurate, either in his press conference or his march 24th letter to congress summarizing the principle conclusions of your report . Well, what you are not mentioning is the letter we sent on march 27th to mr. Barr that raised some issues. And that letter speaks for itsel itself. But then i dont see how you could that could be, since ag barrs letter detailed the principle conclusions of your report and you have said before that there wasnt anything inaccurate. In fact, you had this joint statement. But let me go on to another question. Mr. Mueller, rather than purely relying on the evidence provided by witnesses and documents, i think you relied a lot on media. I would like to know how many times you cited the Washington Post in your report. How many time i what . Cited the Washington Post in your report. I do not have knowledge of that figure, but i well, thats i dont have knowledge of that figure. I counted about 60 times. How many times did you cite the New York Times . Again, i have no idea. I counted about 75 times. How many times did you cite fox news . I as with the other two, i have no idea. About 25 times. Ive got to say, it looks like volume 2 is mostly regurgitated press stories. Honestly, theres almost nothing in volume 2 that i couldnt already hear or know simply by having a 50 cable news subscription. However, your investigation cost the american taxpayers 25 million. Mr. Mueller, you cited media reports nearly 200 times in your report. Then in a footnote, a small footnote, number 7, page 15 of volume 2 of your report, you wrote, i quote, this section summarizes and cites various news stories, not for the truth of the information contained in the stories, but rather to place candidate trumps response to those stories in context. Since nobody but lawyers reads footnotes, are you concerned that the American Public took the embedded news stories time of the gentle lady has expired. The gentlelady from washington. Can mr. Mueller answer the question . No. No, were running short on time. I said the gentlelady from washington. Thank you. Director mueller, lets turn to the fifth of the obstruction episodes in your report. And that is the evidence of whether President Trump engaged in witness tampering with Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort, whose foreign ties were critical to your investigation into russias interference in our elections. And this starts at volume 2, page 123. Your office got indictments against manafort and trump deputy Campaign Manager rick gates in two different jurisdictions, correct . Correct. And your office found that after a grand jury indicted them, manafort told gates not to plead guilty to any charges, because, quote, he had talked to the president , the president s personal counsel, and they were going to take care of us. Is that correct . Thats accurate. And according to your report, one day after manaforts conviction on eight felony charges, quote, the president said that flipping was not fair and almost ought to be outlawed. Is that correct . Im aware of that. In this context, director mueller, what does it mean to flip . Have somebody cooperate in a criminal investigation. And how essential is that cooperation to any efforts to combat crime . Im not going to go beyond that characterizing that effort. Thank you. In your report, you concluded that President Trump and his personal counsel, Rudy Giuliani, quote, made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for manafort while also making it clear that the president did not want manafort to flip and cooperate with the government, end quote. Is that correct . Correct. And as you stated earlier, witness tampering can be shown where someone, with an improper motive encourages another person not to cooperate with Law Enforcement. Is that correct . Correct. Now, on page 123 of volume 2, you also discuss the president s motive. And you say that as Court Proceedings move forward against manafort, President Trump, quote, discussed with aides whether and in what way manafort might be cooperating and whether manafort knew any information that would be harmful to the president. Is that correct . And that was a quote from . From page 123, volume 2. I have it, yes. And when someone tries to stop another person from working with Law Enforcement and they do it because theyre worried about what that person would say, it seems clear, from what you wrote, that this is a classic definition of witness tampering. Mr. Manafort did eventually decide to cooperate with your office and he entered into a plea agreement, but then he broke that agreement. Can you describe what he did that caused you to tell the court that the agreement was off . I would refer you to the Court Proceedings on that issue. So in page on page 127 of volume 2, you told the court that mr. Manafort lied about a number of matters that were material to the investigation and you said that manaforts lawyers also, quote, regularly briefed the president s lawyers on topics discussed and the information that manafort had provided in interviews with the special counsels office. Does that sound right . And the source of that is thats page 127, volume 2. Thats a direct quote. If its from the report, yes, i support it. And two days after you told the court that manafort broke his plea agreement by lying repeatedly, did mr. Trump tell the press that mr. Manafort was, quote, very brave because he did not flip . If its in the report, i support it, as it is set forth. Thank you. Director mueller, in your report, you make a very serious conclusion about the evidence regarding the president s involvement with the manafort criminal proceedings. Let me read to you from your report. Evidence concerning the president s conduct toward manafort indicates that the president intended to encourage manafort to not cooperate with the government. It is clear that the president both publicly and privately discouraged mr. Manaforts cooperation or flipping while also dangling the promise of a pardon, if he stayed loyal and did not share what he knew about the president. Anyone else who did these things would be prosecuted for them. We must ensure that no one is above the law. And i thank you for being here, director mueller. I yield back. Gentlemen from pennsylvania. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller. Mr. Mueller, im over here, im sorry. Mr. Mueller, are you familiar with the nowexpired independent counsel statute . Its a statute under which ken starr was appointed. That ken starr did what . Im sorry. Are you familiar with the independent counsel statute. Are you talking about the one were operating under now or the previous under which ken starr was appointed. Im not that familiar with that, but i would be happy to take your question. Well, the Clinton Administration allowed the independent counsel statute to expire after ken starrs investigation. The final report requirement was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. Even president clintons ag, janet reno, expressed concerns about the final report requirement. And ill quote ag reno. She said, on one hand, the American People have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. Or on the other hand, the report requirement cuts against many of the northeast basic traditions and practices of american Law Enforcement. Under our system, we presume innocence and we value privacy. We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most cases, be made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution, not in a lengthy and detailed report filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute. The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a targets dirty laundry, and it also creates yet another incentive for an independent counsel to overinvestigate in order to justify his or her tenure and to avoid criticism that the independent counsel may have left a stone unturned. Again, mr. Mueller, those are ag renos words. Didnt you the exactly what ag reno feared . Didnt you publish a lengthy report, unfairly airing the targets dirty laundry without recommending charges . I disagree with that. Did any of your witnesses have the chance to be crossexamined . Can i finish my answer . Very quickly. I operate under the current statute, not the original statute, so i am most familiar with the current statute, not older statutes. Did any of the witnesses have a chance to be crossexamined . Did any of the witnesses of our investigation . Yes. Im not going to answer that. Did you allow the people mentioned in your report to challenge how they were characterized . Im not going to get into okay. Given that ag barr stated multiple times during his confirmation hearing that he would make as much of a report public as possible, did you write your report knowing that it would likely be shared with the public . No. Did knowing that the report could and likely would be made public alter the contents in which you included . I cant speak to that. Despite the expectations that your report would be released to the public, you left out significant exculpatory evidence, in other words, evidence favorable to the president , correct . Actually, i would disagree with you. I think we strove to put into the report exculpatory got into that with you, where you said there was evidence you left out. Well, you make a choice as to what goes into a isnt it true, mr. Mueller, that on page one, of volume 2, you state, when youre quoting the statute, that you had an obligation to either prosecute or not prosecute . Well, generally, that is the case. Although most cases are not done in the context of the president. And in this case, you made a decision not to prosecute, correct . No, we made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not. So essentially, what your report did was everything that ag reno warned against. I cant agree with that characterization. Well, what you did was you compiled a nearly 450 you compiled nearly 450 pages of the very worst information you gathered against the target of your investigation, what happens to be the president of the United States, and you did this knowing that you were not going to recommend charges and that the report would be made public. Not true. Mr. Mueller, as a former officer in the United States jag corps, i prosecuted nearly 100 terrorists in a baghdad courtroom. I crossexamined the butcher of fallujah in defense of our navy s. E. A. L. S. As a civilian, i was elected a magisterial district judge in pennsylvania so im very well versed in the american legal system. The drafting and the publication of some of the information in this report without an indictment, without prosecution, frankly flies in the face of american justice. And i find those facts and this entire process unamerican. I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, jim jordan. Mr. Director mueller, the third fisa renewal happens a month after youre named special counsel. What role did your office play in the third fisa renewal of carter page . Not going to talk to that. Time of the gentlemen is expired. The gentle lady from florida. Director mueller, a couple of my colleagues, right here, wanted to talk to you or ask you about lies, so lets talk about lies. According to your report, page nine, volume one, witnessed lied to your office and to congress. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of russia interference, according to your report. Other than the individuals who pled guilty to crimes based on their lying to you and your team, did other witnesses lie to you . I think there are probably a spectrum of witnesses in terms of those who are not telling the full truth and those who are outright liars. Thank you very much. Outright liars. It is fair to say then, that there were limits on what evidence was available to your investigation of both russia election interference and obstruction of justice . Thats true and its usually the case. And that lies by Trump Campaign officials and Administration Officials impeded your investigation. I would generally agree with that. Thank you so much, director mueller. You will be hearing more from me in the next hearing, so i yield the balance of my time to mr. Kariya. Thank you. Mr. Mueller, first of all, let me welcome you. Thank you for your service to our country. Youre a hero, a vietnam war vet, wounded war vet, we wont forget your service to our country. Thank you, sir. I may begin because of time limits, we have gone in depth on only five possible episodes of obstruction. There are so much more. And i would want the focus on another section of obstruction, which is the president s conduct concerning Michael Flynn, the president S National Security adviser. In early 27, the white House Counsel and the president were informed that mr. Flynn had lied to government authorities about his communications with the Russian Ambassador during the Trump Campaign and transition. Is this correct . Correct. If a hostile nation knows that a u. S. Official has lied publicly, that can be used to blackmail that government official, correct . Im not going to speak to that. I dont disagree with it, necessarily, but im not going to speak to anymore to that issue. Thank you very much, sir. Flynn resigned on february 16th, 2016, and the very next day when the president was having lunch with new jersey governor chris christie, did the president say, open quotes, now that we fired flynn, the russia thing is over, closed quote . Is that correct . Correct. And is it true that christie responded by saying, open quotes, no way, and this russia thing is far from over, closed quote . Thats the way we have it in the report. Thank you. And after the president met with christie, later that same day, the president arranged to meet with then fbi director james comey, alone in the oval office, correct . Correct, particularly if you have the citation to the page 39, 40, volume 2. Thank you very much. And according to comey, the president told him, i hope open quote, i hope you can see your way to clear, to letting this thing go, to letting flynn go. Hes a good guy and i hope you can let it go, closed quote. Page 40, volume 2. Accurate. What did comey understand the president to be asking . Im not going to get into what was in mr. Comeys mind. Comey understood this to be a direction because of the president s position and the circumstances of the onetoone meeting, page 40, volume 2. Well, i understand its in the report and i support it, as to being in the report. Thank you, sir. Even though the president publicly denied telling comey to drop the investigation, you found, open quote, substantial evidence corroborating comeys account over the president s. Is this correct . This is correct. The president fired comey on may 9th. Is that correct, sir . I believe thats the accurate date. Thats page 77, volume 2. You found substantial evidence that the catalyst for the president s firing of comey was comeys, open quote, unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation. Im not going to delve more into the details of what happened. If its in the report, im supportive, because its already been reviewed appropriately and appears in the report. And thats page 75, volume 2. Thank you. And in fact, the very next day, the president told the Russian Foreign minister, open quote, i just fired the head of the fbi. He was crazy, a real nut job, i face great pressure because of russia. Thats taken off. Im not under investigation, closed quote. Is that correct . Thats what was written in the report, yes. Time of the gentlemen is expired. Thank you, sir. The gentlemen from virginia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller, weve heard a lot about what youre not going to talk about today, so lets talk about something that you should be able to talk about, the law itself. The underlying obstruction statute and your creative legal analysis of the statutes in volume 2. Particularly, your interpretation of 18usc 1512c. Section 1512c is an obstruction of justice created for auditing financial companies. As you write on page 154 of volume 2, this provision was added as a floor amendment in the senate and explained as closing a certain loophole with respect to document shredding. And to read the statute, whoever corruptly alters, mutilates, or concealed a record document or other object with the intent to do so with the intent to impair the objects integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall be fined under the statute for 20 years or both. Your analysis of the statute proposes to give clause c2 in isolation, reading it as a freestanding all encompassing provision, prohibiting any act if done with an improper motive. And secondly, your analysis of the statute to apply proposes to apply this sweeping prohibition to lawful acts taken by Public Officials, exercising their discretionary powers. If those acts influence a proceeding. So mr. Mueller, i would ask you, in analyzing the obstruction, you state that you recognized that the department of justice and the courts have not definitively resolved these issues, correct . Correct. You would agree that not everyone in the Justice Department agreed with your legal theory of the obstruction of justice statutes, correct . Well, im not going to be involved in the discussion on that at this juncture. In fact, the attorney general himself disagrees with your interpretation of the law, correct . Ill leave that to the attorney general to identify. And you would agree that prosecutors sometimes incorrectly apply the law, correct . I would have to agree with that one. And members of your legal team, in fact, have had convictions overturned, because they were based on an incorrect legal theory, correct . I dont know to what you were in trying cases, not every one of those cases. One of your top prosecutors, andrew wiseman, obtained a conviction against arthur anderson, lower court, which was subsequently overturned in a Unanimous Supreme Court decision that rejected the legal theory advanced by wiseman, correct . Well, im not going to get into let me read from that may i just finish . May i just finish my answer . To say that im not going to get involved in a discussion on that. Ly refer you to that citation that you gave me at the outset for the lengthy discussion on what we talk about. It was already put into report. And unanimously reversing mr. Wiseman, when he said, indeed, its striking how little culpability the instructions required. The jury told that even if a petition honestlily said it was lawful, the jury could convict. The destructions deluded the meaning of corruptly such that it covered innocent conduct. Let me just say let me move on. I have limited time. Im concerned about the implications of your theory for overcriminalizing conduct by Public Officials and private citizen ace like. So to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is, i want to ask you about a few examples. On october 11th, 2015, during the fbi investigation into Hillary Clintons use of a private email server, president obama said, i dont think it posed a National Security problem and he later said, i can tell you that this is not a situation in which americaS National Security was endangered. Assuming for a moment that his comments did influence the investigation, couldnt president obama be charged under your interpretation with obstruction of justice . Well, again, i would refer you to the report. Let me say about andrew wiseman, hes one of the more talented attorneys that we have onboard. He has run a number of i have very limited time. In august 2015, a very senior doj official called fbi Deputy Director Andrew Mccabe expressing concern that fbi agents were still openly pursuing the clinton probe. The doj official was apparently very pissed off, quote unquote. Mccabe questioned this official, asking me, are you telling me i need to shut down an investigation, to which the official replied of course not. This seems to be a clear example of somebody in the executive branch attempting to alter an fbi investigation. So couldnt that person be charged with obstruction as long as a prosecutor could come up with a potentially corrupt motive . I refer you to our lengthy dissertation on exactly those issues that appears in the at the end of the report. Mr. Mueller, i would argue that it says above the Supreme Court, equal justice time of the gentlemen has expired. Our intent was our intent was to conclude this hearing in three hours. Given the break, that would bring us to 11 40. We will be asking our remaining democratic members to voluntarily limit their time so we can complete our work as close to that time frame as possible. I recognize the gentle lady from pennsylvania. Thank you, director mueller. I want to ask you some questions about the president s statements regarding advanced knowledge of the wikileaks dumps. So the president refused to sit down with your investigators for an inperson interview, correct . Correct. So the only answers we have to questions from the president are contained in appendix c to your report. Thats correct. So looking at appendix c on page 5, you asked the president over a dozen questions about whether he had knowledge that you asked those questions . Yeah. Okay, in february of this year, mr. Trumps personal attorney, Michael Cohen, testified to congress under oath that, quote, mr. Trump knew from roger stone in advance about the wikileaks dr o emails, end quote. Thats a matter of Public Record, isnt it . Well, are you referring to the report or some other Public Record . Ts was testimony before congress, by mr. Cohen. Do you know if he told i am not familiar with explicitly familiar with what he testified to before congress. Okay. Lets look at an event described on page 18 of volume 2 of your report. Now according to and were going to put it up in a slide wing. According to deputy Campaign Manager rick gates, in the summer of 2016, he and candidate trump were on the way to an airport shortly after wikileaks released its first set of stolen emails, and gates told your investigators that candidate trump was on a phone call and when the call ended, trump told gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming, end quote. Du do you recall that from the report . If its in the report, i support it. Okay, and thats on page 18 of volume 2. Now on page 77 of volume 2, your report also stated, quote, in addition, some witnesses said that trump privately sought information about future wikileaks releases, end quote. Is that correct . Correct. In appendix c, where the president did answer some written questions, he said, quote, i do not recall discussing wikileaks with him nor do i recall being aware of mr. Stone having discussed wikileaks with individuals associated with my campaign, end quote. Is that correct . If its from the report, it is correct. Okay. So is it fair to say the president denied ever discussing wikileaks with mr. Stone and denied being aware that anyone associated with his campaign discussed wikileaks with stone . Im sorry. Could you repeat that one . Is it fair, then, that the president denied knowledge of himself or anyone else discussing wikileaks dumps with mr. Stone . Yes. Yes. Okay. And with that, i would yield back. Thank you, maam. Thank you, mr. Chair. Mr. Mueller, over here. Mr. Mueller, did you, indeed, interfere for the fbi director job one day before you were appointed as special counsel . Membership understanding is i was not applying for the job. I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job, which triggered the interview youre talking about. So you dont recall on may 16th, 2017, that you interviewed with the president regarding the fbi director job . I interviewed with the president and regarding the fbi director job . It was about the job, but not about me applying for the job. So your statement here today is that you didnt interview to apply for the fbi director job . Thats correct. So did you tell the Vice President that the fbi director position would be the one job that you would come back for . I dont recall that one. You dont recall that . No. Okay. Given your 22 months of investigation, tens of millions dollars spent and millions of documents reviewed, did you obtain any evidence at all that any American Voter changed their vote as a result of Russian Election interference. Im not going to speak to that. You cant speak to that, after 22 months of investigation, theres not any evidence in that document before us that any voter changed their vote because of their interference . And im asking you based on all of the documents that you reviewed. That was outside our purview. Russian meddling was outside your purview . The impact of that meddling was undertaken by other agencies. Okay. You stated in your Opening Statement that you would not get into the details of the steele dossier. However, multiple times in volume 2 on page 23, 27, and 28, you mentioned the unverified allegations. How long did it take you to reach the conclusion that it was unverified . Im not going to speak to that. Its actually in your report, multiple times that its unverified and youre telling me that youre not willing to tell us how you came to the conclusion that it was unverified . True. When did you become aware that the unverified steele dossier was included in the fisa application to spy on carter page . Im sorry, what was the question . When did you become aware that the unverified steele dossier was intended was included in the fisa application to spy on carter page . Im not going to speak to that. Your team interviewed Christopher Steele. Is that correct . Not going to get into that. I said at you cant tell this committee as to whether or not you interviewed Christopher Steele in a 22month investigation with 18 lawyers . As i said at the outset, that is one of those one of the investigations that is being handled by others in the department of justice. But youre here testifying about this investigation today. And i am asking you directly, did any members of your team or did you interview Christopher Steele in the course of your investigation. And i am not going to answer that question, sir. You had two years to investigate. Not once did you consider it worthy to investigate how an unverified document that was paid for by a political opponent was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition Political Campaign . Did you do any investigation i do not accept your characterization of what occurred. What would be your characterization . Im not going to speak anymore to it. So youre not going to speak anymore to it, but youre not going to agree with my characterization . Is that correct . Yes. The fisa application makes reference to source one who was Christopher Steele, the author of the steele dossier. The fisa application says nothing sources ones reason for conducting the research into candidate ones russia, based on sources one previous reporting history with fbi, whereby source one provided reliable information to the fbi. The fbi believes source ones reporting herein to be credible. Do you believe the fbis representation that source ones reporting was credible to be accurate . Im not going to answer that. So youre not going to respond to any of the questions regarding Christopher Steele or your interviews with him . Well, as i said at the outset this morning, that was one of the investigations that i could not speak to. Well, i dont understand how if you interviewed an individual in the purview of this investigation that youre testifying to us today that you closed that investigation, how thats not within your purview to tell us about that investigation and who you interviewed. I have nothing to add. Well, i can guarantee that the American People want to know. And im very hopeful and glad that ag barr is looking into this and the Inspector General is looking into this, because youre unwilling to answer the questions of the American People as it relates to t vehe very ba of this investigation into the president and the very basis of this individual who you did interview, youre just refusing to answer those questions. Cant the president fire the fbi director at any time without reason under article i of the constitution . Yes. Article ii . Yes. Thats correct. Cant he fire you as special counsel at any time without any reason. I believe that to be the case. Well, hold on one second. You said without any reason. I know the special counsel can be produced more than 1. 4 million pages of information and allowed over 40 witnesses who were directly affiliated with the white house or his campaign. Your report acknowledges on page 61, volume 2, that a volume of evidence exists of the president telling many people privately, quote, the president was concerned about the impact of the Russian Investigation on his ability to govern and to address important Foreign Relations issues and even matters of National Security. And on page 174 of volume 2, your report also acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held, quote, the president s removal powers are at their zenneth with respect to principle officers. That is, officers who must be appointed by the president and who report to him directly. The president s exclusive and ill limitable power of removal of those principle officers furthers the president s ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed, unquote. And that would even include the attorney general. Look, in spite of all of no w the nothing was curtailed and the investigation continued unencumbered for 22 long months. As you finally concluded in volume i, the evidence, quote, did not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian Election interference, unquote. And testifiehe evidence, quote,t establish that the president or those close to him were involved in any russian conspiracies or had an unlawful relationship with any russian official, unquote. Over those 22 long months that your investigation dragged along, the president became increasingly frustrated as many of the American People did with its effects on our country and his ability to govern. He vented about this to his lawyer and his Close Associates and he even shared his frustrations, as we all know, on twitter. But while the president s social media accounts might have influenced some in the media or the opinion of some of the American People, none of those audiences were targeted or witnesses in your investigation. The president never affected anybodys testimony, he never demanded to end the investigation or demanded that you be terminated and he never misled congress, the doj, or the special counsel. Those, sir, are undisputed facts. There will be a lot of discussion, i pred. Today and great frustration throughout the country about the fact that you wouldnt answer any questions here about the origins of this whole charade, which was the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, now proven to be totally bogus, even though it is listed and splemand specificall referenced in your report. But as our hearing is concluding, well apparently get no comment from you on that. There is one reason you were called by the democrat majority. Our president s just want political cover. They desperately wanted you today to tell them they should impeach the president. But the one thing you have said very clearly today is that your report is complete and thorough and you completely agree with and stand by its recommendations and all of its content. Is that right . True. Mr. Mueller, one last important question. Your report does not recommend impeachment, does it . Im not going to talk about recommendations. It does not conclude that impeachment would be appropriate here . Im not going to talk about that, about that issue. Thats one of the many things you wouldnt talk about today, but i think we can all draw our own conclusions. I do thank you for your service to the country and im glad this charade will come to an end soon and we can get back to the important issues of this committee. With that i yield back. The gentlemen yields back. I want to announce that our intent was to conclude this hearing at around 11 45. All of the republican members have now asked their questions, but we have a few remaining democratic members. They will be limiting their questions, so with director muellers indulgence, we expect to finish within 15 minutes. The gentlelady from georgia is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, to director mueller. Your investigation of the attack on our democracy and obstruction of justice were extraordinarily productive. In under two years, you charged at least 37 people or entities with crimes. You convicted seven individuals, five of whom were top Trump Campaign or white house aides. Charges remain pending against more than to dozen russian persons or entities and against others. Now, let me start with those five Trump Campaign or administration aides that you convicted. Would you agree with me that they are Paul Manafort, President Trumps Campaign Manager, rick gates, President Trumps deputy Campaign Manager, Michael Flynn, President Trumps former National Security adviser, Michael Cohen, the president s personal attorney. George papadopoulos, President Trumps former Campaign Foreign policy adviser . Correct . Correct. And a sixth trump associate will face trial later this year, correct . And that person would be roger stone. Correct . Correct. Thank you. Im not certain what you said about stone, but he is in anot cou system, as i indicated before. Exactly. Hes still under investigation. And i dont want to discuss correct. Thank you. And there are many other charges as well, correct . Correct. So, sir, i just want to thank you so much in my limited time today for your team, the work that you did, and your dedication. In less than two years, your team was able to uncover an incredible amount of information related to russias attack on our elections and to obstruction of justice. And there is still more that we have to learn. Despite facing unfair attacks by the president and even here today, your work has been substantiative and fair. The work has laid the Critical Foundation for our investigation and for that i thank you. I thank you. And with that, i yield back the balance of my time. The gentle lady yields back. The gentlemen from arizona. Thank you. Director mueller, im disappointed that some have questioned your motives throughout this process. And i want to take a moment to remind the American People of who you are and your Exemplary Service to our country. You are a marine, you served in vietnam and earned a bronze star and a purple heart, correct . Correct. Which president appointed you to become the United States attorney for massachusetts . Which senator . Which president . Oh, which president . I think that was president bush. According to my notes, it was president Ronald Reagan had the honor to do so. My mistake under Whose Administration did you serve as the assistant attorney general in charge of the Dojs Criminal Division . Under which president . Yeah. That would be george bush i. That is correct. President george h. W. Bush. After that, you took a job at a Prestigious Law Firm and after only a couple of years, you did something extraordinary. You left that lucrative position to reenter Public Service, prosecuting homicides here in washington, d. C. , is that correct . Correct. When you were named director of the fbi, which president first appointed you . Bush. And the Senate Confirmed you with a vote of 980, correct . Surprising. And you were sworn in as director just one week before the september 11th attacks. True. You helped to protect this nation against another attack. You did such an outstanding job that when your tenyear term expired, the Senate Unanimously voted to exthe end your term for another two years, correct . True. When you were asked in 2017 to take the job as special counsel, the president had just fired fbi director james comey. The Justice Department and the fbi were in turmoil. You must have known there would be an extraordinary challenge. Why did you accept . Im not going to get into that. Thats a little bit off track. It was a challenge, period. Some people have attacked the political motivations of your team, even suggested your investigation was a witch hunt. When you considered people to join your team, did you ever even once ask about their political affiliation . Never once. In your entire career as a Law Enforcement official, have you ever made a hiring decision based upon a persons political affiliation . No. If i might just interject. The capabilities that we have shown in the report thats been discussed here was a result of a team of agents and lawyers who were absolutely exemplary and were hired because of the value they could contribute to getting the job done and getting it done expeditiously. Sir, youre a patriot. Its clear to me in reading your report and listening to your testimony today, you acted fairly and with restraint. There were circumstances that you could have filed charges against other people mentioned in the report, but you declined. Not every prosecutor does that, certainly not one on a witch hunt. The attacks made against you and your team intensified because your report is damning, and i believe you did uncover substantial evidence of high crimes and misdemeanor. Let me also Say Something else that you were right about. The only remedy for this situation is for congress to take action. I yield back. The gentlemen yields back. The gentle lady from pennsylvania. Good morning, director mueller. Madeleine dean. Gotcha sorry. Thank you. Thank you. I wanted to ask you about public confusion connected with attorney general barrs release of your report. I will be quoting your march 27th letter. Sir, in that letter, and at several other times, did you convey to the attorney general that the, quote, introductions and executive summaries of our twovolume report accurately summarized this offices work and conclusions, end quote . I would have to say that the letter itself speaks for itself. And those were your words in that letter . Continuie ining with your letteu wrote to the attorney general that the summary letter that the department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24th did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this offices work and conclusions, end quote. Is that correct . Again, i rely on the letter itself or its terms. Thank you. What was it about the reports context, nature, substance, that the attorney generals letter did not capture . I think we captured that in our march 27th responsive letter. And this is from the 27th letter. What were some of the specifics that you thought im directing to the letter itself. Okay. You finished that letter by saying, there is now public confusion about critical aspects as a result of our investigation. Could you tell us specifically some of the public confusion you identified . Not generally. Again, i would go back to the letter and the letter speaks for itself. And could attorney general barr have avoided public confusion if he had released your summaries and executive introduction and summaries . I dont feel comfortable speculating on that. Shifting to may 30th, the attorney general in an interview with cbs news said that you could have reached quote, you could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity, end quote, on the part of the president. Did the attorney general or his staff ever tell you that he thought that you should make a decision on whether the president engaged in criminal activity . Im not going to speak to what the attorney general was thinking or saying. If the attorney general has directed you or ordered you to make a decision on whether the president engaged in criminal activity, would you have so done . I cant answer that question in a vacuum. Director mueller, again win thank you for being here. I agree with your march 27th letter. There was public confusion and the president took full advantage of that confusion by falsely claiming your report found no obstruction of justice. Let us be clear. Your report did not exonerate the president. Instead, it provided substantial evidence of obstruction of justice, leaving congress to do its duty. We shall not shrink from that duty. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, i have a point of inquiry, over on your left. The gentlemen will say his point of inquiry. Was the point of this hearing to get mr. Mueller to recommend impeachment . That is not a fair point of inquiry. The gentle lady from florida is recognized. Mr. Chairman, wait a minute. Director mueller mr. Chairman the gentle lady from florida is recognized. Thank you so much for coming here. Youre a patriot. I want to refer you now to volume 2, page 158. You wrote that, quote, the president s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. Is that right . That is accurate and that is what we found. And youre basically referring to senior advisers who disobeyed the president s orders, like white House Counsel don mcgahn, former trump Campaign Manager, Corey Lewandowski, is that right . Well, we have not specified the persons. Well, in page 158, white House Counsel don mcgahn, quote, did not tell the acting attorney general that the special counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the president s orders. You also explained that an attempt to obstruct justice does not have to succeed to be a crime, right . True. Simply attempting to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct . Yes. So even though the president s aides refused to carry out his orders to interfere with your investigation, that is not a defense to obstruction of justice by this president , is it . Im not going to speculate. So to reiterate, simply trying to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct . Yes. And you say that the president s efforts to influence the investigation were, quote, mostly unsuccessful. And thats because not all of his efforts were unsuccessful, right . Youre reading into what i what we have written in the report. I was going to ask you if you could just tell me which ones you had in mind as successful when you wrote that sentence . Im going to pass on that. Yeah. Director mueller, today we have talked a lot about the separate acts by this president , but you also wrote in your report that, quote, the overall pattern of the president s conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the president s acts and the inferences can be drawn about his intent, correct . Accurate recitation from the report. Right. And on page 158 again, i think its important for everyone to note that the president s conduct had a significant change when he realized that it was that the investigations were conducted to investigate his obstruction act. So in other words, when the American People are deciding whether the president committed obstruction of justice, they need to look at all of the president s conduct and overall pattern of behavior. Is that correct . I dont disagree. Thank you. Dr. Mueller director mueller, doctor, also. Ill designate that, too. I have certainly made up my mind about whether what we have reviewed today meets the elements of obstruction, including whether there was corrupt intent and what is clear is that anyone else, including some members of congress would have been charged with crimes for these acts. We would not have allowed this behavior from any of the previous 44 s. We should not allow it now or for the future to protect our democracy and, yes, we will continue to investigate, because as you clearly state at the end of your report, no one is above the law. I yield back my time. The gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from texas. Director mueller, you wrote in yort that you, quote, determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, end quote. Was that in part because of a opiniondy the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting president cant be charged with a crime . Yes. Director mueller, at your may 29th, 2019, press conference, you explained that, quote, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal Justice System to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing, end quote. That process other than the criminal Justice System for accusing a president of wrongdoing, is that impeachment . Im not going to comment on that. In your report, you also wrote that you did not want to, quote, potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing president ial misconduct, end quote. For the nonlawyers in the room, what did you mean by, quote, potentially preempt constitutional processes . Im not going to try to explain that. That actually is coming from page 1 of volume ii, in the footnote is the reference to this. What are those constitutional processes . I think i heard you mention at least one. Impeachment, correct . Im not going to comment. Okay. That is one of the constitutional processes listed in the report in the footnote in volume ii. Your report documents the many ways the president sought to interfere with your investigation and you state in your report, on page 10, volume ii, that with a interfering with a congressional inquiry or investigation with corrupt intent can also constitute obstruction of justice. True. Well, the president has told us that he intends to fight all the subpoenas. His continued efforts to interfere with investigations of his potential misconduct certainly reinforce the importance of the process the constitution requires to, quote, formally cute a sitting president of wrongdoing, as you cited in the report. And this hearing has been very helpful to this committee, as it exercises its constitutional duty to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president. I agree with you, director mueller, that we all have a vital role in holding this president accountable for his actions. More than that, i believe we in congress have a duty to demand accountability and safeguard one of our nations highest principles, that no one is above the law. From everything that i have heard you say here today, its clear that anyone else would have been prosecuted based on the evidence available in your report. It now falls on us to hold President Trump accountable. Thank you for being here. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Chairman, gentle lady yields back. Personal privilege. I want to thank the chairman. We did get in our time. We both did get in time. Our side got our five minutes in. Also, mr. Mueller, thank you for being here. And i join the chairman in thank you for being here. Thank you. Mr. Mueller, we direct you for attending todays hearing. Before we conclude, i ask everyone to please remain seated and quiet while the witness exits the room. Robert mueller in the hot seat for about three and a half hours. And i think it is accurate to call it a hot seat. It got heated at moments. If democrats were looking for a pristine 10 to 15second sound bite that made the point they want to make, it probably didnt happen. Savannah guthrie with me. But some points were eventually brought out over the difficult questioning. Yeah. When the democrats were asked why, why would they put Robert Mueller on the witness stand, why did he come before congress when hes issued this report, they said, because you needed to have this report come alive, because the movie will be better than the book, that it would capture and captivate americans attention and focus them on the issues here. And to our panel, i ask the question, is it mission accomplished, if that was the goal . If that was the goal, its a complete failure on that front. Look, i think on substance, democrats got what they wanted. They got him to confirm that he didnt make a charge because of the Justice Department memo. He confirmed that you can still indict him on these charges after he leaves office. And he seemed to confirm the idea that under any other circumstance, he likely would have filed some charges. So they got some substance of what they wanted him but he provided such, what do you call it . Uncomfortable clarity. As they were using him for clarity, hed somehow fog it up. In how he would do certain things. So look, on the ioptics, this w disaster. But he directly refuted the president s notion that thats what i mean, on substance, they got what they wanted, but if they were looking for this dramatic moment that would capture the imagination and remember, house judiciary members do believe they should start impeachment. If thats what bob mueller thought needed to be done, he didnt do anything today to help advance that cause, if he believes that is where this should head. Its interesting, he really only got fired up in defending weismann and torhe other member of the team in charges from politics. And in defending himself, saying as 25 years as a prosecutor, he never once asked anybody on his team what their political affiliation was. So thats the only team where he really pushed back hard against republicans, who were at times really yelling at him and mischaracterizing the facts, frequently mischaracterizing the facts. There was nobody checking that, either. Thats another problem here. Why didnt the democrats then jump in . A lot of crazy stuff to be out there. They did not do any fact check in realtime of what the republicans, in many cases were positing, which was not accurate. But what mueller did do is, he sat there as the democrats tried to summarized, and in summarizing saying, were he not the president , he would have been indicted. But the attempted firing of mueller and the special counsel or interference with an investigation is enough for obstruction, it doesnt have to succeed to be obstruction. But that is them making the case, not the key witness. And neal katyal, were sitting four places down, but i was following your tweets during this. And you seized on that exchange between congressman ted lou and Robert Mueller. I want to play that and get your thoughts on it. Here it is. So to recap what weve heard, and we have heard today that the president ordered former white House Counsel don mcgahn to fire you. The president ordered don mcgahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail. And now we hear that the president ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that he, you, would stop investigating the president. Able reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met and i would like to ask you again that the reason you did not indict donald trump is because of the olc opinion that states you cannot indict a sitting president , correct . That is correct. And he it again a few minutes ago, and just to be clear, what youre hearing there is he was ready to charge, except for that. The central democrat narrative throughout the hearing today has been, look, if you just read the report, it outlines ten instances of crimes, that would have been charged for anyone else, a thousand former federal prosecutors said so, and it took a long time, really an hour and a half before we got to representative lou, and actually that story telling to come out. But it came out, in theory, in a devastating way for the president. Sure, i agree with you that the democrats were not the Story Tellers today. They were writing a russian novel when you need an Instagram Story or Something Like that. But at the end of the day, i thought they got that across. And even with someone who was so reluctant he was so afraid to even use the word impeachment. He was like he who shall not be named. Cant even use the word. Referred to the constitution, and then youre like, is there another remedy . Like veronica escobar, he said, i mentioned in my report. He was very hesitant. He was not reaching out to help any of these lawmakers in their questioning. He did not defend himself against some pretty serious allegations and an impugning of his twoyear investigation, whether it be his lawyers, although he did defend some of his lawyers, but the tactic, the prosecutorial decisions. He did not take the bait. He did not defend them. You can question whether or not that was a good decision. The steele dossier. Didnt go there. But at the same time, it wasnt like he was reaching out to help the democrats. They would lay out these facts and he would say, thats not my im not agreeing with your characterization. And i think what you see is a true prosecutor. Because thats what you do with the Justice Department. You dont go and try to defend your reputation or whatever. You let the work speak for itself. And if theres any motif of the three and a half hours of testimony, its, im letting the work speak for itself. But neal, going back to the initial question savannah asked me, what was the point of todays hearing . Is it to get to impeachment . I think it was to lay the case. And if you think about it substantively, as you were before, i think they have laid out the case that if this were any other person, they wouldnt be not just a free person, theyd be in jail. And now the question is, would you really want the president of the United States to be this person. As we go to you, people have seized upon, rightly so, this exchange between congressman lou and mueller, where he seems to say, or acknowledge that, you know, this olc opinion is the reason that trump wasnt indicted. But in other parts of the testimony, hes asked, was there sufficient evidence to convict the president . And he said, we didnt make that calculation. So did the democrats get it as clean as they wanted to . This notion that but for this department of justice opinion that says you cant indict a sitting president , this president would be charged with a crime . This is one of the trickiest parts of the special counsels report, because heres what theyre saying, because of the Justice Department policy that says that a president cant be indicted, we marshaled all of these facts, but then we never decided whether any of those facts constituted a crime. So in other words, hes saying, heres what we didnt do. This is what the report says. We didnt say, here are the facts. They would constitute a crime, but were not charging the president , because we cant. Thats not what it says. What it says is, here are the facts. Maybe they constitute a crime. Maybe they dont, but were not even going to go there, because we cant. And he said, were doing it for several reasons, because of the policy about indicting a president , because of a matter of fairness. You cant accuse someone of a crime, but then not charge them, because you denied them the opportunity to defend themselves in court, opportunity, witnesses and so forth. So for both constitutional reasons and fairness reasons, the report says the office never concluded whether these actions constitute a criminal act. And that is a sort of tough thing to get your head around about the report that and the other part of it which came out today about the report also saying very controversially, but were not going to say the president didnt commit a crime, because we dont have enough evidence to go either way on that. And that led to a question today about, well, you said on obstruction that there was no crime, but you didnt im sorry, on the coordination with the russian meddling, you said there wasnt a crime, but you didnt do that on obstruction. And of course, the report says that on the question of collusion, there is not sufficient evidence to even get to the first base, much less to make the whole trip around the bases to home plate. Right. And also on that first issue of whether or not there was collusion, that concerns not just the president whos in these unique circumstances where he cannot be charged with a crime, but also concerns other regular individuals who could. So, of course, in that situation, mueller and his team could analyze whether or not a crime was committed. And they did. Lets listen to Ranking Member collins speaking right outside the hearing room. And now we just have Robert Mueller take home. But the fact that Robert Mueller says that he does not important the president , does that leave you a responsibility to keep investigating. It was very interesting how he wouldnt explain that, and also when we actually talked to him about that, something unique history to never have a prosecutor to try to that was never the job to begin with. But what he also said is he didnt have enough to find him guilty either. And you still believe the president exonerates the president . I think the report says exactly what the report says, there was no conspiracy and no collusion and people can read that. Do you think this changes the mind i think the process for impeachment was already going down. We saw that among the public, theyre getting tired of this, theyre seeing nothing new and know there was nothing there. I think that did not help this narrative. I think it might have hurt it. I think we can finally put a period here. And now instead of saying, maybe if we can actually have a period and get back to the business that this committee is supposed to be doing, instead of talking about problems, actually involving them. I think that happened today. The Ranking Member, doug collins in the hallway. We should kind of reset where we are. That was the end. Weve seen the judiciary hearing. Now theres the intel hearing. Theyll be in the same room. That starts ive lost track of time, probably about 20 minutes. I think it was a halfhour break is what we were looking at. And by the way, thats going to be a different story. Weve been talking about the president s behavior. This is the crime. The next set will be outlining the crime that russia committed. And i wonder how much learning has gone over the last three and a half hours, if well see a different handling of this. First of all, its a different committee, a much Smaller Committee. 22 members, pretty much evenly divided, congressman adam schiff is the chair. But also, this is what was asserted in the report. That russia systemically attacked our elections. And there have been multiple russians indicted. They have not been arrested, because they are beyond the reach of the law. But they have been indicted with specific crimes of both using social media, fake bots that went out and created rallies, created false persona throughout this campaign to try to influence the election in favor of donald trump and against Hillary Clinton, if not to elect donald trump, to weaken Hillary Clinton if she was, as the conventional wisdom was elected. The conventional wisdom in moscow and around the country is she was the favorite to win the election. So that this was a prudent plot by his military intelligence. And operated through the Internet Research agency in st. Petersburg, very cleverly through social media and also to, you know, influence the hacking that was done and very systemically and strategically dumped by wikileaks at key moments. The podesta emails. Two or three days before the debate. That is whats going to be outlined. Can we briefly talk about the elephant in the room and that is his performance as a witness. He was halting at times, he had trouble following the line of questioning. And remember, this is an individual we have built up as 10 feet tall for the democrats built him up to about 25 feet tall. He was a doctor they gave him a ph. D at the end. Were listening to the words and reacting to the words, but how much is his demeanor as a witness . How much is that going to influence where all of this goes . I think a lot. I think a great deal. He didnt push back effectively against the republicans false statements in many case and he seemed to contradict some of the democratic assertions, which were simply repeating his own report. He didnt seem to own his own report. Neal, you talked about some of these points that democrats scored. To a certain extent, yes, they were able to create a record. For example, jerry nadler, chairman right at the top saying, does this report exonerate, and he says no. So it creates a record. If you were litigating this case, you would be happy to have that in your transcript. But in terms of the political question, and the reason why they said its not just enough to have the report. We have to have Robert Mueller in the flesh, making this breathing life into this report and giving a compelling narrative, then this issue about performance does seem salient. But theres a way that it can cut the other way, too. As a litigator, sometimes you actually want to have a reluctant, halting witness, because that isnt a fire breather, someone whos just trying to do their job. And i think that really came across today. Mueller wasnt playing for one team or the other team. He was measuring his words quite carefully. And when says and deviates from his report and says to representativeou and affectiskse reason you didnt indict donald trump is because of the memo, is that correct . Yes. The reason. And mueller was careful throughout the day to not use certain words or not be accused of any sort of favoritism, but there he did do something. So i think that demeanor, while initially, our take right now is, oh, its not a madefortv moment, it might turn out longterm to be lets bring in Barbara Mcquade into the conversation, nbnews legal contributor and former attorney general in michigan. And barbara, how would you handle mueller going forward, as a prosecutor, having seen how he would perform in this hearing, how would you handle him in the next one . I think we have seen it, as he is reluctant to take sides, but he will answer yes or no questions. I think the democrats did a good job of laying out the facts of the case. There are several episodes of coordination with russia that i think can come out and can be really powerful, talking about sharing of polling data with konstantin kilimnik, the trump tower meeting for obtaining dirt on Hillary Clinton. The coordination and communication with wikileaks about dumps of stolen emails. Those are really shocking stories. And i think if the democrats just explain the facts in a narrative form and get Robert Mueller just to agree with whats in his report, that can go a long way. I think we are far too concerned about the opinions and legal analysis of Robert Mueller, because after all, he was looking at violations of criminal statutes, which doesnt apply to a president. Instead, we should be concerned about the facts, because those could constitute the kind of remedy that congress can impose, which is impeachment. I found it interesting that democrats tried, at least a couple of times twob get him to say his own words, read directly from the report and he declined. I dont know if that was a sense of not wanting to provide he knew what they were doing for. A sound bite. He made this decision, he is not going to be a Television Ad and hes not going to be that. And i think, and i take neals point, it helps him with credibility. The fact is, we are living in this 21st century new type of asymmetrical media warfare that were in. You have a Propaganda Machine on the right. Thats what it is. Its a fullfledged Propaganda Machine on the right, that the democrats havent figured out how to combat very well. And i think they took the trump bait, meaning, they saidworke o youre good at tv spectacle, were going to make a tv spectacle. They need to go back to just being and this goes to the larger issue, have they fumbled the entire accountable measure they were supposed to be on. One way of thinking about it, theyve always thought about this in political terms, and instead, they could have thought of it as rule of law terms, as a president thats not complying with our basic foundational laws and come whatever the consequences may be to their political fortunes, the right thing to do is to have hearings. This is why i compared this to this iraq vote. Theyre making political decisions right now, not thinking about the irony is, this could come back and haunt them politically, down the road if the conventional wisdom flips. So does this increase or decrease the pressure on nancy pelosi now to let them recast their hearings, their inquiry as an official impeachment inquiry, which might strengthen their hands. Maybe we need to hold that thought until the hearings complete. Were only at halftime. Well hear on the first part of the report, which goes to this central question about whether russia meddled in our election. The actual crime. The actual attack, one might say, against our country and our democracy. Lets go to Hallie Jackson whos covering it from the white house and has a statement from the president s personal lawyer. Reporter jay sekulow, who is telling our team just moments ago that this hearing so far, first half of it, as you know, we are in halftime, exposes what sekulow, the president s attorney outside the white house describes as troubling deficiencies in the special counsels investigation. Going on in the course of this lengthy statement to assert that he believes that the American People know that this is now a case closed as it relates to the special counsel investigation. That is the first bit of reaction were getting from the president s team. The performance of Robert Mueller and the substance of what mueller is talking about. The president , by the way, we know is watching this. We know he has been watching the coverage over on a different cable network. Hes been doing so from inside the residence, not in the west wing of the white house. He doesnt have any Public Events until later this afternoon. His aides have been talking about a couple of things. Pointing to the idea that Robert Mueller elaborated on the idea that President Trump did not, there was not sufficient evidence to find his campaign c conspired with the russians. Unsurprisingly, that has been an area that allies of the president have hoped to highlight, in essence. There have been a couple of folks who have also pointed to the performance, to the line of questioning from both congressman jim jordan and Louie Gohmert as well, talking about the origins of the russia investigation. That has resonated in some conservative circles. There has also been a lot of discussion inside those circles about the performance of mueller himself, with some friends of the president , some allies publicly coming out and questioning how mueller has been doing. One person close to the president has told us that mueller appeared tired, questioning how he might be able to handle the next half of this hearing. This is something that allies of the president have already keyed in on as well here, to the point that you two have been discussing. Keep in mind, for President Trump, this is really the culmination of what has been hanging over his white house for two plus years of his administration, almost since the day he took office. This has been a shadow overhis building here for President Trump and people around him, theres a sense that theyve been here and done this. And that is the line that you are hearing from those allies just this afternoon. All right. Hallie, thank you so much. Its 12 30 in the east, 9 30 out west. And we are awaiting the second portion of this testimony by former fbi director, former special counsel, Robert Mueller. He will go before the House Intelligence Committee in the same room. This is a big room on capitol hill that can accommodate all of the interest. Its a Smaller Committee and our expectation is that this portion of his testimony will cover the part of the report that has to do with russian interference hour election and the question of whether or not President Trump or any members of his campaign conspired with, collude is sort of the colloquial term that got thrown around, but conspiracy was the legal issue that was analyzed by Robert Mueller and his staff. They concluded there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with russia. But dreenandrea, if you look ine report, what you will see, and i assume what will come out, were many, many contacts and attempts to get in contact with the Trump Campaign by the russians and the report states that the Trump Campaign was in some cases very receptive to that. Dozen skps and dozens of atts by top officials, were talking about Paul Manafort and others who were in touch with the russians. A word about this committee, because up until a couple of years ago, this committee was always 50 50, bipartisan, really working together. And devin nunes during the transition, who is then the chair, if you recall, the republican chair of the committee, went rogue, went to the white house, was working with the trump people, and mike flynn, the National Security who was indicted and pleaded guilty. And so, when that happened with nunes, he had to temporarily recuse himself, but this divided and really became toxic with this committee. And theres a lot of after effects. This is not the Intelligence Committee that ive covered for decades. But in fairness, the republicans on this committee arent like the republicans on the judiciary. Youve got people like will hurd, who himself is a former cia officer, takes this very seriously. The members on this so i would actually expect this to be more substantiative on both sides of the aisle. And ill remind you, when you read part i of the Mueller Report, which is what were going to hear about, the conspiracy aspect, the reason not to bring charges, in many of the cases because they thought the lea waw was weak, not becau their case was weak. They said the law needed to be modernized. And neal, that was my takeaway from reading it. It was to me a directive to congress, hey, you need to modern Campaign Finance laws for the 21st century. I 100 agree with that. And its a crime that congress hasnt in the wake of this. That was supposed to be the purpose of what it was all about. That the statutes werent built to cover the conduct that they investigated. 21st century. But also, chuck, tlaheres ao in the report about how all of this obstruction made it hard for them to get the evidence they needed to prove it. Some of the republican questioning seemed to question the whole notion of whether the ira, the Internet Research agency, was working with the government. They were planting those seeds during questioning. I dont think youre going to have that. I think youre going to have republicans on this committee agree that they were working with the russian government. A different style of republican questioning. Let me bring robert engle. What are the facts, as you know it, as theyre laid out in this report . Reporter well, frankly, if you were listening to the first half of the testimony, it will be very difficult to know what the facts were. I think that what we heard for the last several hours was completely confusing. You were hearing it presented in very partisan ways. The special investigator, or former special investigator, seemed not to know always what his answers were, not to hear the question. The you were listening to this and hoping that you were going to get a clear, dramatic narrative on how the russians interfered in the elections and how the president tried to slow down or even stop that investigation, which is laid out quite clearly in muellers written report, you certainly didnt get it in the last several hours. Now, we may hear for specificallies aboy specifics pant what russia did do, because that seems to be less controversial, less political in a domestic sense in the United States, but if the past performance is a judge of what were going to see, i think were going to leave the American People even more confusing of about what happened in 2016 than they may have been earlier. What we do know, according to my own reporting, according to numerous media reports, numerous intelligence agencies is that the russians, the russian government through key oligarchs did influence the u. S. Elections. They sent out a Massive Media campaign to try to sway voters, in favor of President Trump, to try to divide and confuse voters, particularly over emotional and racial issues in the United States. They hacked into democratic emails, stole those emails and weaponized them to try to hurt Hillary Clinton. So there is a dramatic narrative. There is a spy story. This is perhaps the greatest intelligence operation that russia has conducted nft last century, but you havent heard it today. Lets go over to kasie hunt. Shes only hill for us. I assume any moment were going to see director mueller walk back into that room. What are you hearing . What are democrats on the hill saying about how the morning has gone so far . Reporter well, savannah, so far, its hard to get a sense that this has changed the game up here on capitol hill in my meaningful way. Although i will say that to what richard was just talking about, we still have yet to get to the portion of the program where they walk very carefully through what the report lays out about russias interference in our election. I mean, thats going to be the focus of this afternoon so if that becomes very clear through the course of Intelligence Committee questioning, i think theres still an open question about how this all plays out in the end. But the reality is that democrats got the most compelling headlines out of this right off the bat and then there was a struggle back and forth to get mr. Mueller, the former special counsel to say anything beyond yoees or no. I mean, we know he had told the committee in advance that he wasnt going to read from the report. And the great question here for how politically this moves forward, whether or not democrats are willing to launch impeachment proceedings depends on how this is perceived by the American Public and how in democrats words they actually do watch this movie. And mr. Mueller was a very reluctant cast member. Didnt seem to want to give democrats what they wanted on that front so, so far, what weve heard in the hallways, i have spoken to several different members and have been speaking with aides on background as well, the sense is this is likely to leave us where we started, a significant number of democrats supporting impeachment proceedings, but not necessarily a bunch of clear new compelling reasons for there to be a dramatic shift here. Obviously, theyre going to watch how the polling data unfolds and what happens this afternoon. But i think as we stand here at the noon hour, thats how things are initially shaping up. Now, again, as you and your panel have been talking about, were going to hear from the Intelligence Committee here led by adam schiff, coming up in just a few minutes. We happy mueller will sit down for that. Its a much Smaller Committee, only 22 members. And again, a very different focus heading into this afternoon, savannah. Lester. All right, kasie, sit tight there. Andrea . I wanted to say, the whole issue of russias attacks on our election, which was linked to the president elect and actually to the candidate donald trump and then to the president elect donald trump by john brennan, by, you know, general clapper and all of the others and of course, the fbi director comey, that is what poisoned the whole relationship between the president , the incoming president and the intelligence community. And hes been fighting this ever since. Defending Vladimir Putin, saying, well, he denies it. After all, we saw what happened in helsinki, we were all there. So this has really created a toxic situation between the president and the director of national intelligence, dan coats, whose job may well now be on the line. So theres a bigger context here for the aftereffect for the way donald trump used intelligence gathering, but with the unanimous decision of all the intelligence agencies that russia attacked the election and thats what led to this whole investigation. But when the intelligence officials came in and said, hey, look, it was russia, they meddled in our election, donald trump heard them saying to him, somehow, this casts into question the legitimacy of his election. Whether it did or didnt, that appears thats how he heard it and that changed everything. Thats how he heard it. Hes personalized everything. And in fairness, none of us can crawl inside his head and know whether hes acting this way because hes guilty of something or hes vain and he doesnt like the idea he didnt do it on his own. And the fact of the matter is or could be neither of those. Is because the president so regularly misleads us in what he says, we dont know and we cant crawl in his head and Robert Mueller never interviewed him, so Robert Mueller does not know. But chuck, we have one pretty good clue. Which is that he fires comey and says the reason hes firing comey, initially, is because comey was unfair to Hillary Clinton. I mean, come on then, only, in response to lesters questioning later on did he say, oh, no, it was because of the russia thing if youre. If youre up and up, you know your story and its your first story. Not your second or your third. Let me bring in mimi rocah. One of the things we havent talked a lot about is the notion that mueller apparently thinks that the president could be indicted after he leaves office. How would that work . Well, that was a very striking moment. I think it was a republican actually that asked the question and didnt quite get the answer that he expected when mueller said he could be indicted. I think the question actually was, could you indict the president , not just any president , which is pretty specific. The way it would work, and look, all of this issue about mueller staying very neutral and the report being very neutral and sort of coming down the middle, its actually going to work to the benefit of any future prosecutor who does want to try to bring a prosecution. It will be, you know, basically inheritance of a file, a case file with facts, not the conclusion of someone saying, you should indict. If there is a future prosecutor that wants to take up that indictment, they can just do it in a way that is less political, less controversial. Because it seems like mueller just essentially put that over the president s head today. Well, he did. And its important, and again, i think its important that it wasnt mueller volunteering it. It was sort of in response to a republican asking him in a skeptical way and mueller saying, you know, yes, i could. And he again kind of doubled down on it in response to another republican who said, well, bill barr said that the olc memo didnt have anything to do with why you didnt indict. And thats when mueller, i thought, doubled down the most on saying that the olc memo was the reason he didnt indict. But the neutrality, the lack of conclusion, if you will by mueller about whether he would indict, his refusal to say it in the terms that we all are sort of yearning to hear of it, i would not have indicted but for the olc memo, that will help a future prosecutor who does want to bring the charges. Its interesting to watch the things he bites on and the things he doesnt bite on. Certainly some inconsistencies. But in fairness to him, i dont believe he was ever asked, pointblank, the but for question. But for this olc opinion, would you have indicted the president . Ted lou asked ted lou came close, but never asked it if that but for formulation that would have left absolutely no doubt, right, mimi . Did you hear it any other way . I think thats right. I think ted lou came the closest, but i think the democrats sort of knew that they werent necessarily going to get the answer from mueller. And so thats why it actually came out when republicans were trying to rely on bill barrs statement that, in fact, you know, it wasnt the olc memo. And i think it became pretty clear, the gap between mueller and barr, again, without mueller explicitly saying it. And i think if people pore over the transcript, theres going to be a Little Something in there for everybody. Because there are other places where he states that they never even did the analysis of whether or not they could charge him with obstruction because of that olc opinion. They didnt even make the conclusion. So i guess everybody can debate about it from here on how. I think youre going to be seeing in the hours to come if not already the clear delineation of the separate universes that a lot of america you know what . The questions that House Republicans ask will be what you heart in primetime on one cable channel. And will youll hear in a lot of commentary. What he did push back was a suggestion from several republicans that inappropriate to even continue the investigation because the president could not be indicted under those guidelines. And thats in the memo, as well, in the report. He said, notwithstanding this olc guidance, he said, the olc does envision that you do an investigation to create and preserve a factual record either for impeachment, hep doesnt use that record, the constitutional process that might be relevant or for a subsequent prosecution after aroun official is out of office. Neal, heres what i dont understand, why do democrats feel comfortable with letting mueller get away with basically saying, im not going to talk about my conversations with barr . Whats the legislative branch supposed to do if theyre not . Its poor oversight responsibility. Even if you dont want to get into the actual details, at least ask the question. Barr took office, did anything about your investigation change. Did he do anything . Should they force him to do this. Hes under subpoena. Should they at least be saying, should we take this in closed session . Absolutely. You want to be deferential, and of course mueller will be to all of that. But to force him to answer those simple questions that seemed to be totally off. They even asked him about the letter that his office sent to attorney general barr after the initial conclusions that barr released, wherein mueller complained because of the picture you provided, people have not having a clear understanding of the nature and substance of our work. But when asked today, well, what exactly bothered you about what barr did . He said, i dont want to talk about that. And to chucks point. No one said, well, why not. Sorry. Theres probably a lot of things you dont want to talk about, but youre here under subpoena, mr. Mueller. He said the letter speaks for itself. But the all right didnt speak for itself. The letter did not identify the reasons that he felt that what barr said left people with misimpressions about the nature and substance he should have been asked whether barr mischaracterized the conclusions of the report. Well be back chairman schiff is already in his seat and the rest of the members and were waiting for william barr to come back out for his second round of questioning. This should go a couple of hours and start momentarily. Let me bring in Pete Williams right now. Pete, what are the Big Questions that we need to hear or maybe the answers the questions and answers we need to hear in this next session . This is the session about the russian meddling, of course. And i think one thing that we may hear about is that there was an fbi intelligence investigation that predated muellers appointment and many members of congress have wanted to know, well, whatever happened to that . What did the fbi do . What can be learned from that, separate from the Mueller Report . And theres a question about whether hell be able to go into that or not. Now, of course, what the report says is that they found insufficient evidence, that either the president or members of his campaign or people who were working for him after the inauguration were cooperating with the russians. And by the way, you all have talked a lot about whether theres been a sufficient connection that all of the russians that did both the computer hacking and the phony social media were all working for the russian government. The report seems to go out of its way to say that the hacking operation was one thing and that the phony Media Campaign was another. And that they werent necessarily both connected directly to the russian government. All they say is that the oligarch who was in charge of the one was a close friend of putin, whereas the other was carried out by actual members of the russian military. So theyve said theres a connection to both, but they sort of have gone out of the way in the report to say, one was private and one was definitely carried out by the russian government. So that may be another line of questioning that members are going to want to know about in this second round here. And then, just the other thing is, why and this came out a little bit in the first hearing, why were you able to reach a conclusion on part i, where you say the evidence wasnt sufficient, but you didnt do that on part ii . Was there a difference in the way you analyzed the two questions . And of course, its mr. Mueller were waiting for here, as the next session appears to be getting close. One of the questions certainly would have to be, if Paul Manafort did share critical polling data, which is never done, unprecedented, from a National Campaign with the russians about those midwestern states, the three states, michigan, wisconsin, and pennsylvania, as well as minnesota, the states that decided the elections, well, why dont we know more about this . And the result is that that manafort withdrew his agreement and essentially didnt fully cooperate. And that is another area of obstruction. I was going to say, thats where the two volumes of the report potentially come together. The notion that Paul Manafort, having been dangled a pardon, if you believe some of the inferences in the report by the president decide not to cooperate, therefore doesnt say and doesnt tell the prosecutors why it is he would have given this polling data, then i think that is what brings those two strands together. I think Barbara Mcquade wants to weigh in here. Barbara . Yeah, i think the polling data is one of the most significant parts of Robert Muellers findings with regard to the russia cooperation. You know, he says, there were identified gaps in our investigation that was caused by people who lied to us, who provided incomplete information, who deleted communications and used encrypted apps. This is one of the areas he was never able to get his arms around. And so in this way, it may be that some members of the Trump Campaign actually were successful in obstructing the investigation. I live in michigan. President trump won there by 10,000 votes. And that was one of the states where polling data was shared with russians. Russians who we know were flooding the zone with propaganda. And even if people didnt vote for trump, they might have stayed home from voting for hillary. Robert mueller now back in the room about to take his seat, same room that he spent three and a half hours in testifying before the Judiciary Committee. This is the intel committee, a smaller group, 22 members. And they will go two hours. And once again, the cameras surrounding Robert Mueller. And one has to wonder if the tone of the questioning is going to change on both sides. If there were huddles over this last 30 or 40 minutes to kind of rethinking strategy and how they would try to approach it. I think nunes and some of those republicans are going to be fairly tough, but they may not be shouting at him. There was some criticism online that they were very they were aggressive. And abusive. And if youre a democrat, i think at this point occupant madefortv moment. You want one, somewhere here. And this is where we could hear from the second person that has been sworn in here, his longtime chief of staff, first name, aaron zebley. Why didnt we hear because he was not sworn in. And heres you may hear calling the hearing into orde order. At the outset and on behalf of my colleagues, i want to thank you special counsel mueller for a lifetime of service to the country. Your report for those who have taken the time to study it is methodical and it is devastating. Where it tells the story of a foreign adversarys sweeping and systemic intervention in a close u. S. President ial election. That should be enough to deserve the attention of every american, as you well point out. But your report tells another story, as well. The story of the 2016 election is also a story about disloyalty to country, about greed, and about lies. Your investigation determined that the Trump Campaign, including donald trump himself knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built russian meddling into their strategy, and used it. Disloyalty to country. Those are strong words bulb how else are we to describe a president ial campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. So not a provable crime in any event, but i think maybe something worse. A crime is the violation of law written by congress, but disloyalty to country violates the very oath of citizenship, our devotion to a core principle on which our nation was founded that we, the people and not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide who governs us. This is also a story about money, about greed and corruption, about the leadership of a campaign willing to compromise the nations interests, not only to win, but to make money at the same time. About a Campaign Chairman indebted to prorussian interests who tried to use his position to clear his debts and make millions. About a National Security adviser using his position to make money from still other foreign interests, and about a candidate trying to make more money than all of them put together through a real estate project that to him was worth a fortune. Hundreds of millions of dollars and the realization of a lifelong ambition, a trump tower in the heart of moscow. A candidate who, in fact, viewed his whole campaign as the greatest infomercial in history. Donald trump and his senior staff were not alone in their desire to use the election to make money. For russia, too, there was a powerful financial motive. Putin wanted relief from u. S. Economic sanctions imposed in the wake of russias invasion of ukraine and over human rights violations. The secret trump tower meeting between the russians and senior Campaign Officials was about sanctions. Theecret conversations between flynn and the Russian Ambassador were about sanctions. Trump and his team wanted more money for themselves and the russians wanted more money for themselves and for their oligarchs. But the story doesnt end here, eith either, for your report also tells a story about lies, lots of lies. Lies about a gleaming tower in moscow and lies about talks with the kremlin. Lies about the firing of fbi director james comey and lies about efforts to fire you, director mueller, and lies cover it up. Lies about secret negotiations with the russians over sanctions and lies about wikileaks. Lies about polling data and lies about hush money payments. Lies about meetings in the seychelles to set up secret back channels and lies about a secret meeting in new york trump tower. Lies to the fbi, lies to your money, and lies to this committe committee. Lies to obstruct an investigation into the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history. That is where your report ends, director mueller, with a scheme to cover up, obstruct, and deceive every bit as systemic and pervasive as the Russian Disinformation Campaign itself, but far more pernicious since this rot came from within. Even now, after 448 pages and two volumes, the deception continues. The president and his acolytes say your report found no collusion, though your report explicitly declined to address that question, since collusion can involve both criminal and noncriminal conduct. Your report laid out multiple offers of russian help to the Trump Campaign, the campaigns acceptance of that help, and other acts in furtherance of russian help. To most americans, that is the very definition of collusion, whether it is a crime or not. They say your report found no evidence of obstruction, though you outline numerous actions by the president intended to obstruct the investigation. They say the president has been fully exonerated, though you specifically declare you could not exonerate him. In fact, they say your whole investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt, that the russians didnt interfere hoin r election, that its all a terrible hoax. The real crime, they say, is not that the russians intervened to help donald trump, but that the fbi had the temerity to investigate it when they did. And worst of all, worse than all the lies and the greed, is the disloyalty to country. For that, too, continues. When asked if the russians intervene again, will you take their help, mr. President . Why n why not was the essence of his answer. Everyone does it. No, mr. President , they dont. Not the in the america envisioned by jefferson, madison, and hamilton, not for those who believe in the idea that lincoln labored until his dying day to preserve. The idea animating our Great National experiment, so unique then, so precious still, that our government is chosen by our people, through our franchise, and not by some hostile foreign power. This is what is at stake. Our next election. And the one after that. For generations to come. This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . May is a cc test, is this ok . Understand you brought this conspiracy in the spring of 2016, when fusion gps funded by the dnc and the hillary Clinton Campaign started developing the steele dossier. Out landish accusations that trump and his associates were russian agents. Others spread these to partisan reporters and top officials in numerous government agencies, including the fbi, the department of justice, and the state department. Among other things, the fbi used dossier allegations to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump Campaign. Despiteing despite acknowledging dossier allegations as being salacious and unverified, former director james comey briefed those allegations to president obama and president elect trump. Those briefings conveniently leaked to the press, resulting in the publication of the dossier and launching thousands of false press stories based on the word of a foreign exspy, one who admitted he was desperate that donald trump lose the election and who was eventually fired as an fbi source for leaking to the press. After comey, himself, was fired by his own admission, he leaked derogatory information on President Trump to the press for the specific purpose and successfully so of engineering the appointment of a special counsel that sits here before us today. The fbi investigation was marred the frk biin fbi investigation was marred by further abuses. Said deals information to the fbi even after the fbi fired steel. The entire investigation was open based not on intelligence but a tip from a foreign politician about a conversation involving joseph. Hes a maltese diplomat. The democrats have argued for nearly three years that evidence of collusion is hissen judden j around the corner. Like the loch ness monster they insist its there even though no one can find it. Democrats on this Committee Said they had more than circumstantial ed of collusion but couldnt reveal it yet. Mr. Mueller was soon appointed and they said he would find the collusion. Then when no collusion was found and mr. Muellers indictment, the democrats said we find it in this final report. When there was no collusion in the report we were told attorney general barr was hiding it. When it was clear that barr wasnt hiding anything, we were told it would be revealed through a hearing with mr. Mueller himself. Now that mr. Mueller is here, they are explaining that the collusion has actually been in his report all along. Hidden in plain sight. Theyre right. There is collusion in plain sight. Solution between russia and the Democratic Party. The democrats colluded with russian sources to dev be steel dossier and russian lawyer colluded with the dossier key architect. Todays hearing is not about getting information at all. They said they want to bring the Mueller Report to life and create a Television Moment plu ploys like having mr. Mueller recite passages of his own report. Thats a strange argument to make about a report thats public. The russia investigation was never about finding the truth. Its also been a simple, media operation by their own account. They need to put on hold to indulge the political fantasies of people who believed it was their destiny to serve Hillary Clintons administration. Its time for the curtain to close on the russia hoax, the Conspiracy Theory is dead. At some point i would argue well have to get back to work. Until then i yield back the balance of my time. I know we got a late start director mueller. The hearing will be structured as follows. Each member will have five minutes to ask questions beginning with chair and Ranking Member. After each member asked their question, they will be afforded an additional five minutes followed by the chair with additional five questions. Ranking member and the chair will not be permitted to delegate or yield final round of questions to any other member. After six members of majority and six members of the minority concludesed, well take a five or ten minute break that we understand you requested before resuming with congressman swalwell starting his round of questions. Special counsel mueller is accompanied by aaron zebley. He had daytoday oversight of the special counsel eets investigation. They resigned at the end of may 2019 when the special counsels office was closed. Both mr. Mueller and mr. Zebley will be available to answer questions today and will be sworn in consistent with the rules of the house and the committee. Mr. Mueller, mr. Zebleys appearance is in keeping with practice of current or former department of justice and fbi personnel regarding open and closed investigative matters. As this hearing is under oath and before we begin your testimony, mr. Mueller and mr. Zebley please rise and raise your right hands to be sworn. Do you wear or affirm the testimony youre about the give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. The record will reflect that the witness es have been duly sworn. Ranking member. Thank you. I want to clarify this is highly unusual for mr. Zebley to be sworn in. Were here to ask director mueller questions. Hes here with counsel. Our side will not be directing any questions to mr. Zebley and we have concerns about his prior representation of hillary Clinton Campaign aide. I want to avoid that concern that we do have. Well not be addressing any questions to mr. Zebley today. I thank the Ranking Member. I realize as probably do mr. Zebley theres an angry man down the street who is not happy about you being here today. Its up to this committee and not anyone else and you are wac as a private citizen and members may direct their questions to whoever they choose. With that director mueller, you are recognized for any opening remarks youd like to make. Good afternoon, chairman schiff, Ranking Member nunes and members of the committee. I testified this morning before the house Judiciary Committee. I asked the Opening Statement i made to that committee be incorinkor incorporate rated to this committee. I understand that. You are interested in understanding the counter int intelligence of our invest gaigs. Let me say how we handled the potential impact of our investigation on Counter Intelligence matters. As we explain in our report, the special counsel regulations effectively gave me the role of United States attorney. As a result we structured our investigation around evidence for possible use in prosecution of federal crimes. We did not reach what you would call Counter Intelligence conclusions. We set up processes to identify and pass Counter Intelligence information onto the fbi. Members briefed the fbi about Counter Intelligence information. In addition, there were agents and analysts from the fbi who were not on our team but whose job it was to identify Counter Intelligence information in our files and to disseminate that information to the fbi. I want to reiterate a few points that i made this morning. Im not making any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence in any pending case. Its unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation and given my role as a prosecutor, theres reasons why my testimony will be limited. It limits the information to protect the fairness of the proceedings. It would be inappropriate for me to comment that would affect an ongoing manner. The Justice Department has asserted privileges concerning investigative privileges and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department and deliberations within our office. I will not answer questions that i know are of public interest. Im unable to answer questions about the opening of the russia investigation which occurred months before my appointment or matters related to the steel dossier. These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. The report contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. As i stated in may, i also would not comment on the actions of the attorney general or of congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor and intend to adhere to that role and the standards of that department. Finally, over the course of my career, ive seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The russian governments efforts to interfere in our election is about the most serious. I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by mr. Luie. He said you didnt charge the president because of the olc opinion. Thats not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and i said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. With that im ready to answer questions. During the course of this russian interference the russians made out reach to the Trump Campaign, did they not . That occurred over the course yeah, that occurred. Its also clear from your report that during that russian outreach to the Trump Campaign no one associated with the Trump Campaign ever called the fbi to report it, am i right . I dont know that for sure. In fact, the Campaign Welcomed the russian help, did they not . I think in the report indications that occurred. Yes. President s son said when he was approached about dirt on Hillary Clinton that the Trump Campaign would love it. That is generally what was said, yes. The president himself called on the russians to hack hillarys emails . There was statement by the president in those general lines. Numerous times during the campaign the president praised the releases of the russian hacked emails through wikileaks . That did occur. Apart from the russians wanting to help trump win, several individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were also trying to make money during the campaign and transition, is that correct . That is true. Paul manafort was trying to make money or achieve Debt Forgiveness from a Russian Oligarch. Generally that is accurate. Michael flynn was trying to make money from turkey. True. Donald trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in moscow . To the extent youre talking about the hotel in moscow. Yes. Yes. When your investigation looked into these matters, numerous Trump Associates lied to your team, grand jury and to congress . A number of persons that we interview interviewed turns out they did lie. Mike flynn lie . He was convicted of lying. George papadopoulos convicted of lying. True. Paul manafort convicted of lying. True. Paul manafort went so far as to encourage other people the lie. That is accurate. Rick gates lied. That is accurate. Michael cohen was indicted for lying. True. He lied to stay on message with the president . Allegedly by him. When donald trump called your investigation a witch hunt, that was also false, was it not in. Id like to think so, yes. Your investigation is not a witch hunt. It is not a witch hunt. The president said the russian interference was a hoax. That was false, wasnt it . True. You said publicly it was false. He did say publicly that it was false, yes. He said it to putin. That im not familiar with. The president said he had no business dealings with russia, that was false, one it . Im not going to go into the details of the report but along those lines. When the president said he had no business dealings with russian, he was seeking to build a trump tower moscow in. I think there were questions when this was accomplished. You will consider a billion dollar deal to build a tower in moscow to be business dealings, wouldnt you director mueller . Absolutely. Your investigation found evidence that russia wanted to help trump win the election, right in. I think generally that would be accurate. Russia informed Campaign Officials of that . Im not certain to what conversation youre referring to. Through an intermediary that informed papadopoulos they would ep he help can the release of stolen emails. Accurate. Russia commit crimes to help trump. Youre talk about the computer crimes charged in our case. Absolutely. Trump Campaign Officials built their messaging strategy around those stolen documents . Generally thats true. Then they lied to cover it up. Thats true. Thank you. Youd agree that the frk bi the worlds most capable Law Enforcement agency. I would say, yes. The fbi claims the Counter Intelligence investigation of the Trump Campaign began on july 31st, 2016, but in fact it began before that. In june 2016 before the investigation officially opened, Trump Campaign associates carter page and stephen miller, a Current Trump adviser were invited to attend a symposium in july 2016. Your Office Investigate who is responsible for inviting these Trump Associated to this symposi symposium. Your investigators failed to interview an american citizen who helped organize the event and incited carter page to it. Is that correct . Can you repeat the question . Whether or not you interviewed stephen who organized. In those areas im going to stay away from. The first trump associate to be investigated was general flynn. Many of the allegations against him stem from false media reports that he had an affair with a cambridge academic and she was a local spy. Some of these allegations were made public in a 2017 article written by british intelligence. Your report fails to reveal how or why andrew and hi collaborator richard deerlove, former head of mi6 spread these allegations. Im not going to get into those matters to which you refer. You had a team of 19 lawyer, 40 agents and unlimited budget. I would not say we had an unlimited budget. Lets continue with the opening of the investigation on july 31st, 2016. The investigation was not open based on an official product but based on a rumor. Your report describes him blandsly as a representative of a Foreign Government. He was a long time australian politician. Not a military or intelligence official who had previously arranged a 25 million donation to the Clinton Foundation and has previous ties to deerlove. Downer conveys a rumor he heard about a conversation between papadopoulos and joseph. James comey has publicly called him a russian agent yet your report does not refer as a russian agent. Theres a photo of his standing next to Boris Johnson. What were trying to figure out is our nato allies or Boris Johnson has been compromised. Sdo y do you stand by the report . I stand by the report and that which is not in the report. I want to return to mr. Downer. He denied that papadopoulos mentioned anything to him about Hillary Clintons emails. He denies mentioning them to papadopoulos in the first place. How does the fbi know to continuely ask papadopoulos about clintons emails for the rest of 2016. Is truth is he waltzed in and out of the United States in 2016. The u. S. Media could find him. The Italian Press found him and hes a supposed russian agent at the epicenter of the collusion conspiracy. Hes the guy that knows about Hillary Clintons emails but the fbi failed to question him for a half a year after officially opening the investigation. Once mifsud was questioned he made false statements to the fbi. You declined to charge him. Is that correct . You did not indied mct mr. Mifs . Im not going to speak to that. Time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Hines. Thank you for your lifetime of service and thank you for your perceatience today. Your statement opens with two statements of remarkable clarity and power. The first statement is not acknowledged by the president of the United States. That is quote the russian government interfered in the 2016 president ial election in sweeping and systematic fashion. The second statement remains controversial among members of this body. I report the russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump Presidency and work to secure that outcome. Do i have that statement, right in. I believe so. This attack involved two operations. First a social media disinformation campaign. The targeted campaign that spread false information on places like twitter and facebook, is that correct . Thats correct. Facebook estimated as per your report the russian fake images reached 126 Million People. Is that correct . I believe thats the sum that we record. Director, who did the russian social Media Campaign ultimately intend to benefit . Hillary clinton or donald trump. Donald trump. The second operation let me say there were instances where Hillary Clinton was subject to much the same behavior. The second operation in the russian attack was the scheme of what we call the hack and dump to steal and release hundreds of thousands of emails from the Democratic Party from the Clinton Campaign. Is that a fair summary . That is. Did your investigation find the releases of the hacked emails were strategically timed to maximize impact on the election . Id have to refer you to our report on that question. Page 36. The release of the documents designed in time to interfere with the u. S. 2016 president ial election. Mr. Mueller, which president ial candidate was russias hacking and dumping operation designed to benefit . Hillary clinton or donald trump . Mr. Trump. Mr. Mueller, is it possible this sweeping and systematic effort by russia had an effect on the outcome of the president ial election in. Those issues have been investigated by other entities. 126 million facebook impressions, fake rallies, attacks on Hillary Clintons health. Would you rule it might have had some effect on the election . Im not going to speculate. Mr. Mueller, your report describes a third avenue of attempted russia interference. Thats the numerous links and contacts between the Trump Campaign and individuals tied to the russian government, is that correct in. Could you repeat. Your report describes a third avenue of russian interference. Thats the links and contacts between the Trump Campaign and individuals tied to are russian government . Yes. Lets bring up slide one which is about George Papadopoulos and it reads on may 6th, 2016, ten days after that meeting with mifsud that the Trump Campaign received information from the russian government it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. Thats exactly what happened two months later, is it not . I can speak to the excerpt as being accurate from the report but not the second half of your question. The second half refer to page 6 is on july 22nd,wikileaks, th appeared. This is the wikileaks posting of those emails. I cant find it quickly. Please continue. Okay. Just to be clear, before the public or the fbi ever knew the russians previewed for a Trump Campaign official, George Papadopoulos, that they had stolen emails that they could release anonymously to help donald trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Is that correct . Im not going to speak to that. Rather than report this contact with joseph mifsud, rather than report that to the fbi that i think most of my con sti constituents would do, papadopoulos lied about his contact. Thats true. We have an election coming up in 2020. If a campaign receives an offer of dirt from a foreign individual or government, generally speaking, should that Campaign Report those contacts . Should be. Depending on the circumstances a crime. I will yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Conway. Thank you. Mr. Mueller, did anyone ask you to excludes anything from your report that you thought should be in the report . I dont think so but its not a small report. No one asked you specifically to excludes something . No. I yields balance of my time. Good afternoon. In your may press conference, you made it pretty clear you wanted the special counsel report to speak for itself. You said at your press conference that was the offices final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. You spent the last few hours of your life from democrats trying to get you to answer all kinds of hypotheticals about the president and i expect it may continue for the next few hours of your life. I think youve stayed pretty much true to what your intent and desire was. I guess regardless of that, the special counsels office is closed and it has no continuing jurisdiction or authority. What would be your authority or jurisdiction for adding new conclusions or determinations to the special counsels written report . As the latter, i dont know or expect changes and conclusions that we included in our report. You address one of the issues i needed to from your testimony this money which some construed as a change to the written report. You talked about the exchange you had with congressman lui. I wrote it down a little different. I want to ask you about it. I recorded that he asked you quote, the reason you did not indict donald trump is because of the olc opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president to which you responded that is correct. That response is inconsistent, youll agree, with your written report. I want to be clear that not your intent to change your written report. It is your intent to clarify the record today . As i started today, this afternoon and added either a footnote or end note, what i wanted to clarify is the fact we did not make any determination with regard to culpability. Thank you for clarifying the record. A stated point was to ensure a full and thorough investigation to interfere in the 2016 election. As part of that investigation, what determination did the special Counsel Office make about whether the steel dossier was part of the russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 president ial election . Again, when it comes to mr. Steel, i defer to the president of justice. I want to find out if russia interfered with our election by providing false information through sources to Christopher Steele about a trump conspiracy that you determined didnt exist. Well, im not going to discuss the issues with regard to mr. Steele. In terms of portrayal of conspiracy, we returned two indictments in the computer crimes arena. One gru and another active measures in which we lay out in detail what occurred in those two rather large conspiracies. I agree with respect to that. Why this is important is, an application and three renewal applications were submitted by the United States government to spy or surveil on Trump Campaign Carter Associates or carter page and on all four o caccasions th United States government presented the steele dossier with respect to that. There was a well developed conspiracy of cooperation between the Trump Campaign and the russian government. The special counsel investigation didnt establish any conspiracy, correct . What i can tell you is the events that you are characterizing here, now, is part of another matter that is being handled by the department of justice . You did not establish any conspiracy, much less a well developed one . Again, i pass on answering that question. The special counsel did not charge carter page with anything in. Special counsel did not. My time is expired. I yield back. Director mueller id like to turn your attention to the june 9th, 2016 trump tower meeting. Its part of an email exchange. The email exchange led to the now infamous june 9th, 2016 meeting. The email from the publicist to donald trump junior reads in part. The crown prosecutor of russia offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate hillary and her dealings with russia and is a part of russia and its Government Support of mr. Trump. In this email, donald trump junior is being told that the russian government wants to pass along information which would hurt Hillary Clinton and help donald trump. Is that correct . Thats correct. Trumps junior response is slide three. He said and i quote, if its what you say, i love it especially later in the summer. Then donald junior invited Senior Campaign official Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner to the meeting, did he not . He did. This email exchange is evidence of an offer of illegal assistance, is it not in. I cannot adopt that characterization. Isnt it against the law for a president ial campaign to accept anything of value from a Foreign Government . Generally speaking, yes. Generally the cases are unique. You say in page 184 in volume one the federal Campaign Finance law broadly prohibits foreign nationals from making contribution, et cetera. You say that foreign nationals may not make a contribution or donation of money or anything of value. It said in the report it. Thank you. When donald trump junior and the others got to the june 9th meeting they raelealize they dit have the dirt. In fact, they got upset about that. Did they not . Generally yes. You say trump junior asked what are we doing here . What do they have on clinton . They said its a waste of time. I believe its in the report along the lines you specified. Top Trump Campaign officials learned that russia wanted to help Donald Trumps koom pain by giving him dirt on his opponent. Trump junior said love it. They held a meeting to try to get said russian help but disappointed because the dirt wasnt as good as they hoped. To the next step, did anyone to your knowledge in the Trump Campaign, ever tell the fbi of this offer . I dont believe so. Did trump junior seau they received an offer of help . Thats about all ill say on this aspect. Wouldnt it be true if they reported it to the fbi or anyone in the campaign you would have uncovered. I would hope, yes. Sir, is it not the responsibility of Political Campaigns to inform the fbi if they receive information from a Foreign Government . I would think that is something they would and should do. Not only did the campaign not tell the fbi, they thought to hide the existence of the june 9th meeting for over year. Is that not correct in. On the general characterization, i would question it. If youre referring to Later Initiative from the media then what im suggesting is youve said in volume two page five the president directed aide to not disclose the emails setting up the june 9th meeting. Thats accurate. Given this illegal assistance by russian, you chose you did not charge donald trump junior or any of the senior officials with conspiracy, is that right . Correct. Other individual, youre talking about the attendees . Right. Dont you think American People would be concerned that these three senior Campaign Officials sought foreign help and dont you think its important we dont set a precedent . I cant accept that characterization. I think it seems like a betrayal of American Values to me that someone with not being criminal is unethical and wrong and we would not want to set a precedent. Thank you, sir. Mr. Turner. I have your Opening Statement. You indicate that pursuant to Justice Department regulations that you submitted a confidential report to the attorney general at the conclusion of the investigation. Id like you to confirm that the report was to the attorney genera general. Yes. S you threw over board collusion because it was not a legal term. You would not concludes because its not legal term. Depends on how you want to use the word. If youre talking about in a criminal statute arena, you cant because of some really much more accurately described as conspiracy. You didnt put it in your conclusion. Thats right. I want to talk about you powers and authorities. You were given powers and authorities that reside in the attorney general. The attorney general has no ability to give you powers and authority greater than the powers and authority of the attorney general, correct . That is correct. Mr. Mueller, i want to focus on one word in your report. Its the second to the last word in the report. Its exonerate. The report states accordingly while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him. In the judiciary hearing in your prior testimony you agreed with mr. Radcliff that exonerate is not a legal term. Its not a legal test for this. I have a question, does the attorney general have the power or authority to exonerate . What im putting up is the United States code. Its where the attorney general gets his power. We went to your law school because i went to case western and i thought maybe your law school teaches it differently. We got the criminal law textbook from your law school. Nowhere is there a process or description on exonerate. Theres no office of exoneration. Theres no certificate. Would you agree with me that the attorney general does not have the power to exonerate . Im going to pass on that. Why . Because it embroils us in a legal discussion. Im not prepared to do a legal discussion in that arena. You would not disagree when i say that there is no place that the attorney general has the power to exonerate and hes not been given that authority. I take your question. The one thing i guess is that the attorney general probably knows that he cant exonerate either. Thats the part that kind of confuses me. If the attorney general doesnt have the power dpexonerate then you dont have power to exonerate. This is the part that i dont understand. If your report is to the attorney general and the attorney general doesnt have the power to exonerate and he does not and he knows that you do not have that power. You dont have to tell him youre not exonerating the president. He knows this already. That kind of changes the context. No. We included in the report for exactly that reason. He may not know it and he should know it. You believe that bill barr believes theres an office of exoneration . Thats not what i said. I believe he know. I dont believe you put that in there for mr. Barr. I believe you put that in there for what im about to say. Trump could not be exonerated of trying to obstruct the investigation it. That statement is correct in that no one can be exonerated. The reporter wrote this, this reporter cant be exonerated. You cant be exonerated. In our criminal Justice System, there is no power or authority to exonerate. This is my concern. This is the headline on all of the news channels while you were testifying today. Mueller, trump was not exonerated. Mr. Mueller, what you know is this cant say mueller exonerated trump. You dont have the power or authority to exonerate him. You have no more power to declare him exonerated than the power to declare him anderson cooper. Since no one has the power, the president pardons, he doesnt exonerate. Courts and juries declare not guilty. The statement about exoneration is misleading and meaning less and colors this investigation. One word out of the entire portion and its a meaningless word that has no legal meaning. The time of the gentleman has expired. I yields back. Mr. Carson. Thank you. I want to look more closely, sir, at the Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort. I believe who betrayed our country and tried to use his position to make more money. Lets focus on the betrayal and greed. Is that right, sir . Correct. In addition to the june 9th meeting just discussed, manafort met several times with man named kleminik. Correct. Mr. Manafort didnt just meet with him, he shared private Trump Campaign polling information with this man linked to russian intelligence, is that right, sir . That is correct. In turn, the information was shared with a Russian Oligarch tied to vladmir putin, is that right in. Allegedly. Meeting with him wasnt enough. Sharing internal polling information wasnt enough. Mr. Manafort went so far as the offer this Russian Oligarch tied to putin a private briefing on the campaign. Is that right . Yes. He discussed strategy on four battleground state, michigan, wiscons wisconsin, pennsylvania and minnesota, did he not, sir . Thats reflected in the report as the items you listed previously. Director mueller, based on your decades of years of experience with the fbi, would you agree it creates a National Security risk when they share private polling information, private political strategy related to winning the votes of American People and private information about battleground states with a foreign adversary. Is that the question, sir . Yes, sir. Im not going to speculate along those lines. Anything beyond that is not part of that which i would support. I think it does, sir. I think it shows a lack of patriotism from the very people seeking the highest office in land. Manafort didnt share this information in exchange for nothing, did he sir . I cant answer that question without knowing more about the question. Its clear you hoped he would be paid back money in return for the passage of private Campaign Information . That is true. Director mueller, as my colleague will discuss later, greed corrupted. Would you agree that the sharing of private Campaign Information in exchange for money represents a particularly kind of corruption, one that presents a National Security risk for our country, sir . Im not going to opine on that. I dont have the expertise. Would you agree that manaforts contacts with russians close to vladimir pun t putin and exchange for money left him vulnerable. I think so. That would be the case. Would you agree these acts demonstrated a betrayal of the Democratic Values our country rests on. I cant agree with that. I it. That its not true but u wi yes, sir. Director mueller, well, i can tell you that in my years of acommittee, i know enough to say yes, trading political secrets for money with a foreign adversary can corrupt and leave you opened to blackmail, it certainly this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Report says volume 1 page 5, i just want to be clear that open to doubt is how the Committee Democrats described this finding in their minority views of the 2018 report. And it kind of flies in the face of what you have in your report. So is it accurate to also to say the investigation found no documentary evidence that George Papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the Trump Campaign about joseph masoouds claims on candidate clinton . Let me turn that ovec id like to ask you, sir. This is your report. Thats what im basing this on. Could you repeat the question . The investigation found no documentary evidence that George Papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with thehe trump it campaign about joseph mifsuds claims that the russians had dirt on candidate clinton . I believe appears in the report its accurate. Okay. In the report it says no documentary evidence thatvide papadopoulos shared this information with the n campaignt its inaccurate to concludes byp the time of the june 9, 2016 trump tower meeting, quote, the campaign was already likely on notice via George Papadopoulos a contact with russian agents that rush shsia had damaging informa on ytrumps opponent. Inaccurate its i direct you to the report. I appreciate that because the democrats jumped to this incorrect conclusion in their minority views which contradicts what you have in your report. Im concerned about a number of st statements id like tow to of clarify. Aats number have made statement that i haveco concerns ncwith. A member of this Committee Said President Trump was a russian agent after t youreepres report publicly released. That statement is not supported by your isreport, correct . That is accurate. Implying manafort concludesed. Because your report does not mention finding evidence that manafort met with assange, that would mean you found nowo evide of this meeting. Is that assumption correct . Im not sure i agree with that. You makemp no mention of it your report, would you agree with that . Yes, i would agree with that. Mr. Mueller, does your report contain any evidence that President Trump was mr. Repenr the russian system as a member ofof this committee once claime . What i can speak to is evidence we picked up. I think thats accurate. At thank you. I appreciate that. Lets go for a second. Did you ask the department of justice tosc expand the scope o the special counsels mandate related to august 2nd, 2017 scoping memoranda . I could not answer that. Anno did you ever make a request t to m expand the offices mandatt at all . Generally, yes. Was that ever denied . Ge im not going to speak to that. It goes to internal to deliberations. Im just trying to understand processes expanding the scope in come from theg acting attorney general or rosenstein or from youu or can it come from either . Im not going to discuss any other alternatives. Thank you, mr. Mueller. I think i can say without fear of contradiction that youre the greatest patriot in this room today. I want to thank you for being ig here. Thank you. You said in your report and im y going to quibble with you words that the russian at intervention was sweeping and systematic. I would quibble with that because i dont think it was just anbl intervention. I think it wasth anin invasion. I dont think it was just sweeping and systematic. I think service sinister and scheming. Having said that, one of my th colleagues earlier here referred to this russian intervention as a hoax. T. Id like to get your comment on that. On page 26, youre talk about th Internet Research agency and how tens of millions of u. S. Persons became engagewith the posts that they made. There were some 80,000 posts on facebook that facebook itself fa admitted that 126 Million People have probably seen the posts p that were put up by the Internet Research agency. That they had 3800 twitter accounts and800 had designed m than 175,000 tweets that probably reached 1. 4 Million People. The Internet Research agency was spending about 1. 25 million a month on all of this social media in the United States in what i would call an invasion ih our country. An would you agree that it was not a hoax that the russians were engaged in trying to impact our election . Absolutely. It was not a hoax. The indictments we returned against the russians, two different ones were substantial in their scope using it again. We have underplayed to a certain extent that aspect of our invs. Ga investigation that has andv would have long term damage to the United States that we need to move quickly to address. Thank you for that. Id like to drill down on that r bit more. The Internet Research agency started in 2014 by sending overs staff to start looking at where they wanted to engage. There are many that suggest ands imug interested in your opinioe as to whether or not russia is presently in the United States looking for ways to impact the 2020 election . I cant speak to that. Ou that woultd be d be in levels o classification. Of tten times we edgngage in these hearings, we forget the force for the trees. Most americans have not read it. We read it. If fbi director yesterday said he hadnt read it, which was a little discouraging. On behalf ofbut the American People, i want to give you 1 39o to tell the American People what you would like to glean from this report. Well, we spent substantial time sensuring the integrity oi the report. Understanding it would be a living message to those who come after us. I its also a signal, a flag to o those off white house have some responsibility in this area and to exercise those responsibilities swiftly and ie dont let this problem continue to linger as it has over so many years. All right. You didnt take the whole amount of time. Ill yield the rest of my time to the i chairman. I think the gentle lady for yielding. I wanted to ask you about conspiracy. Generally it requires an offer of something illegal, acceptanct of that offer and furtherance of it, is that correct . Correct. Don junior was made aware the russians were offering dirt . I dont know that for sure but one would assume. F when you say that you would love too get that help, that would constitute acceptance of the offer . Its a wide open request. O it would be evidence of an ta acceptance in you say when n somebody offers you something eb illegal you sayod i would love , that would be considered evidence of w acceptance. I stay away from addressing u one particular or two particular situations. This particular situation, ill have to continue in a bit. Ill yield to mr. Stewart. Mr. Mueller, its been a long day. Thank you for being here. T. A series of important questions for you. Before i do that, i want to take a moment to emphasize something my friend mr. Toucher had said. I prevent no person is above the law. In many times recently they had not even the president , which i think is blazingly obvious to most of zblus im having a little problem hearing, sir. Is this better . That is better, thank you. I want you to know i agree with that statement no person is above the law. There is another principle we have to defend. That is the prem shun of innocen presumption of innocence, i believe you agree with this. I have to be honest with you. Going on three years innocent people have been accused of serious crimes, including teasons, accusations made here disrupted and in some cases destroyed by false accusations for which there is absolutely no basis other than some people desperately wish that it was so. But your report is very clear. No evidence of conspiracy, no evidence of coordination, an believe we owe it to these people who have been falsely accused, including the president and his family, to make that very clear. Mr. Mueller, the credibility of your report is based on the integrity of how it is handled and theres something that i think bothers me and other americans. Im holding here in my hand a binder of 25 examples of leaks that occurred from the special counsels office from those who associated with you dating back to as early as a few weeks after your inception and the beginning of your work and continuing up to just a few months ago. All of these all of them have one thing in common. They were designed to weaken or to embarrass the president. Every single one. Never was it leaked that you had found no evidence of collusion. Never was it leaked that the steele dossier was a complete fantasy nor that it was funded by the hillary Clinton Campaign. I could go on and on. Mr. Mueller, are you aware of anybody from your team having given advanced knowledge of the raid on roger stones home to any person or the press, including cnn . Im not going to talk about specifics. I will mention talk for a moment about persons who become involved in an investigation. This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Of an investigation is that so those persons who are disrupted as a result of the i appreciate that but i do have a series of questions. With the result of that investigation. Thank you. And youre right, it is a cloud, and its an unfair cloud for dozens of people but to my point, are you aware of anyone providing information to the media regarding the raid on roger stones home, including cnn . Im not going to speak to that. Okay. Mr. Mueller, you sent a letter dated march 27th to attorney general barr in which you claimed the attorney generals memo to congress did not fully this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . 24th letter to congress had misrepresented the findings of your report . No. Sir, given these examples as well as others, you must have realized the leaks were coming from someone associated with the this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Doesnt tall, is that correct. I dont know, specifically. It clearly doesnt. I just want as the american this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Thi is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Ts this is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . S this is a cc test, is thisthi this is a cc test, is this ok . Ts this is a cc test, is this ok . H this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . Thi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othis this is a cc test, is this ok . T this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is thi this is a cc test, is this this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . T this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is thisthis this is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . I this is a cc test, is this thi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . I this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This this is a cc test, is th this is a cc test, is this this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . I this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Ts this is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . Ti this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this this is a cc test, is this this is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okth this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . Ts this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . H this is a cc test, is this thi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Ti this is a cc test, is this ok . Ts this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is thisthi this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okth this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okth this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othis this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . Thi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is thisthis this is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this o this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this okth this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . S this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is thisthi this is a cc test, is this ok . Ti this is a cc test, is this ok . Ts this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . H this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is thisthis this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is this o this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . I this is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this o this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . Ti this is a cc test, is this ok . Ti this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this thi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Ti this is a cc test, is this thi this is a cc test, is this ok . T this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is thithis i this is a cc test, is this thi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Thi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this o this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this this this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Ti this is a cc test, is this o this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is thithis this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is this ok . Thi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this this is a cc test, is this ok . Ts this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . T this is a cc test, is this othii this is a cc test, is this ok . Th this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this o this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . I this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this o this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othis this is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Thi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . I this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . S this is a cc test, is this o this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this this this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this o this is a cc test, is this ok . I this is a cc test, is thi this is a cc test, is this ok . H this is a cc test, is ts hi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Ts this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okth this is a cc test, is this ok . T this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . The had said before the Judiciary Committee earlier in the day, suggesting that if not for Justice Department guidelines, that he believed the president could be indicted on obstruction of justice. He clarified that and went back to the original language that is in the report and then ill turn to my panel here, chuck todd, Andrea Mitchell and chuck rosenberg. He seemed a little more willing to engage in this hearing. Today this was a reminder that i actually think democrats did this backwards. Theres a reason Robert Mueller part one was about the crime and part two was about the obstruction. Theres a reason he did one one is number one and one was number two. You got to tell this story to understand the seriousness of the obstruction, you have to understand the seriousness of what happened. I thought already in the first hour this has been ten times more compelling than because with obstruction, as a viewer, and you have to think like an average viewer that may not be following every single detail the way we have been following it, we understand the basis of what the obstruction charges sort of came from, but without understanding the initial crime and detailing that first, i think it makes it even harder to consume the obstruction part of this story and to grasp why that was so serious until you understand the initial crime, and i think already, and, look, we cant tell how many people are still watching and things like that. This part is more compelling and i think would have actually informed the questioning better, more importantly, perhaps, understanding as a viewer better had they basically done this any other order. And he became more animated because this is the thing, even when he did his News Conference a few weeks ago, what he really focuses on is the russian interference. That, to him thats where his passion. Thats a big thing thats been ignored. It was the first thing he mentioned and the last thing he mentioned in that initial statement nine minutes, whatever, that it went and this is what he is focused on. This was, as chuck says, the original crime. And when he was asked about President Trumps comments about wikileaks, you know, i love wikileaks, during the 2016 campaign and his comments to our own katie tour on those days following up any News Conference and those were quoted to him, instead of saying, ill refer you to the report, he said, problematic. He was asked, would those be problematic to you . And he said, problematic is an understatement. And i want to praise for wikileaks. And i want to play a little of what he said to congresswoman speier on the issue. Would you agree that it was not a hoax that the russians were engaged in trying to impact our elections . Absolutely. That was not a hoax. The indictments we returned against the russians, two different ones, were substantial in their scope using the scope word again. And i think one of the we have underplayed, to a certain extent, that aspect of our investigation that has and would have longterm damage to the United States that we need to move quickly to address. That, a response to Jackie Speiers question. Let me bring in chuck rosenberg, nbc news contributor. What stood out to you in this first hour of this hearing . Yeah, so, the movie has been quite faithful to the book, lester. We knew from the report that russian interference was sweeping and systematic. We heard that again today. We knew that the russians believed that they would benefit from a Trump Presidency. It was in the book. Its also in the hearing today. We know that the Trump Campaign welcomed russian assistance, book and movie. Right . And we know that officials connected to the Trump Campaign lied about their interactions with the russians, so theres a constant thread through all of this, and you can argue whether the book is better or the movie is better, but ill tell you this, theyre the same and its good for folks to hear it because this was not an attack on, you know, democrats or republicans. It was an attack on america. And i agree with chuck todd. This is a place where bob mueller has been very strong and entirely consistent. I want to bring in Cynthia Mcfadden right now, who has covered a lot of the russia investigation and cynthia, you know, we hear about wikileaks here, whats the line that this report essentially tries to draw or does draw from the russians on down . Well, you just heard the mr. Mueller say that he considered wikileaks a Foreign Government operation. There has been indictment, as you know, of the of wikileaks. I would like to just go to 30,000 feet for a second because we know that this all happened within a system, a very vulnerable, very frail, election system in this country, 11,000 jurisdictions in the country, and the the system is aging, and weve talked about this before, lester, but this is an opportunity for the members of congress and for the American People to demand that we upgrade this very fragile structure. I mean, its shocking. 38 states have at least 1 or more jurisdictions where the election machinery theyre operating with is no longer manufactured. At least eight states have systems that, in the entire state, theres no paper backup so if there is an irregularity, it cant be adjudicated fairly. So really, this whole entire hearing could be heard as a way to, you know, motivate congress to appropriate some more money, perhaps, and the American People to vent their outrage that we have done very little since 2016 to protect this vulnerable structure. You know, thats not even including the disinformation concerns. Yeah, cynthia, i want to bring in Richard Engel into the conversation whos covered a lot of this from russia. Richard, some of the seeds of doubt have been planted and some of the questioning about whether this was truly a russian government operation, that the Internet Research agency wasnt working as an agent of the russians. What do we know . So, i think if youre Vladimir Putin and youre watching this right now, youre very comfortable with what is going on. You see half of the members of the house there questioning, trying to put the words into Robert Muellers mouth, almost begging him to tell a compelling story to make this movie better than the book, to convince the American People that something happened and then you have the republicans looking for mistakes, trying to hurt his credibility, trying to trip him up, so if youre russia looking back and you see this division, you see this confusion, i think youre quite convinced that not only did you get away with it, but that there are very few costs to trying to do it again. Going at the Internet Research agency, just as one example, this was the group of hackers, a hacker academy, that was run by a close confidante of Vladimir Putin. He is sometimes known as putins chef, hes a wellknown oligarch, and he used this squad of hackers not only to create false information and propaganda but also in some cases to put people on the ground, to organize protests on american streets, sometimes competing protests, so propaganda operation to sway votes, but also physical disruption operations. These happened. Weve spoken to independent experts who have looked through the Internet Research agency. Weve done stories on it, on nbc nightly news and other this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok a when you have these this incredibly divided debate where some people are trying to drag the story out of a reluctant witness and others trying to say that theres no story there at all. Andrea. And to cynthia and richards point, one of the reasons the most important reason why nothing has been done, i mean, this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is thi a gov that the president of the United States has stood in helsinki and elsewhere, at the g20 in hamburg, initially, and then again in japan, and defended Vladimir Putin against the advice of his own intelligence agencies. You have had acting Homeland Security chiefs. You have had complete turmoil in that department, which was led by jay johnson under obama, and theyve been criticized for not doing enough but they were doing something about it. But you have to have cabinet agencies and National Security advisor and a president of the United States leading this, and as long as you have a National Security advisor, a secretary of state arguably, and other cabinet officials, some in acting capacities for months at a time, youre not going to defend against this and especially at homeland. Thats where its all it all resides. And the president of the United States has to make the decision that this is critical, critical to the infrastructure and he agrees with the russians. What has he acknowledged . I feel like weve heard both versions, that, you know, yes, something happened or no, it didnt happen. Well, he keeps saying he said specifically that, well, you know, in helsinki, he said, well, you know, he was asked, do you agree with your intelligence . He deferred to putin. He said, well, he denied it. And he has consistently signalled that he does not accept the conclusions of the intelligence. I take it a step further. I think the real issue here with this president is he doesnt believe this is a serious issue. He is a i think what weve learned about him is hes transactional in nature. His defense and his rationalization of this is always, well, anybody else would have done it. How many times has he himself almost stepped there . Well, anybody would have taken that meeting. Its Opposition Research. This is politics. I think that, again, we cant crawl inside his head. We dont know whether hes acting this way because he knows he did something wrong or hes acting this way because he believes theres nothing wrong to it. But i think we cant rule out, he doesnt view this as as serious as others do and that is, i think, whats so alarming to so many policymakers because youre like if the president of the United States isnt taking this seriously, then the entire government is hamstrung. Chuck. When i read the report, there was a big, startling number in it that was that 126 Million People, according to facebook, had contact with the russian troll operation, right . They had seen or they had visited the web page, they had interacted in some way. That moment occurred today as well in the movie, in the hearing, but it goes by so quickly, sometimes you have to stop and think about what you just heard. How successful the russians were. 126 million americans represents 39 of our population. 2 out of 5 americans were this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc te, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, i this is a cc test, is this thi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okth this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . I this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . S this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okths this is a cc test, is this ok . This isa cc test, is t this is a cc test, is this this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Ts this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . H this is a cc test, is this othii this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othis this is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this o this is a cc test, is t this is a cc test, is this ok . S this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . S this is a cc test, is this o this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This this is a cc test, is thithi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . Ts this is a cc test, is this okth this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this okthi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this othi this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This i this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this this is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is th this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is thithis this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . I this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is this is a cc test, is this this is a cc test, is this okth this is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc test, is this ok . This is a cc correct . It would be, yes. Generally, any case would be if those kinds of communications are used. For example, you noted that deputy Campaign Manager rick gates, who shared internal Campaign Polling data with the person with ties to russian intelligence at the direction of manafort, that mr. Gates deleted those communications on a daily basis, is that right . I take your word. I say i dont know specifically but if its in the report, then i support it. Thats right, director, its volume 1, page 136. Thank you. In addition to that, other information was inaccessible because your office determined it was protected by attorneyclient privilege, is that correct . That is true. That would include that you do not know whether communications between donald trump and his personal attorneys, jay sekelow, Rudy Giuliani and others discouraged witnesses from talking with the government, is that right . Im not going to talk to that. That would also mean that you cant talk to whether or not pardons were dangled through the president s attorneys because of the shield of attorneyclient privilege. Im not going to discuss that. Did you want to interview donald trump jr. . Im not going to discuss that. Did you subpoena donald trump syrian . Im not going to discuss that. Did you want to interview the president . Yes. Director mueller, on january 1, 2017, through march 2019, donald trump met with Vladimir Putin in person six times, called him ten times, and exchanged four letters with him. Between that time period, how many times did you meet with donald trump . Im not going to get into that. He did not meet with you in person, is that correct . He did not. As a result of lies, deletion of text messages, obstruction and witness tampering, is it fair to say that you were unable to fully assess the scope and scale of russias interference in the 2016 election and trumps role in that interference . Im not certain i would adopt that characterization. In total. Maybe pieces of it that are accurate but not in total. But you did state in volume 1, page 10, that while this report embodies factual and legal determinations, the office believes it to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light, is that correct . That is correct. We dont know what we dont know. Why is it so important that witnesses cooperate and tell the truth in an investigation like this . Because the testimony of the witnesses goes to the heart of just about any criminal case you have. Thank you. And mr. Chairman, i yield back and thank you, director mueller. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller, as special counsel, did you review documents related to the origin of the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump Campaign . On occasion. Was the steele dossier one of those documents that was reviewed . I cant discuss that case. Im just asking a process question. Have you read the steele dossier . And again, im not going to respond to that. You were tasked as special counsel to investigate whether there was collusion between russia and the Trump Campaign associates to interfere with the 2016 election and the fbi, we know, has relevant documents and information related to the opening of the ci investigation. Were you and your team permitted to access all of those documents . And again, i cant get into that investigative what we collected and what were doing with investigation materials. Let me ask it this way. Was there any limitation in your access to documents related to the counterintelligence . Thats such a broad question that i really i have real trouble answering. Did the special counsels office undertake any efforts to investigate and verify or disprove allegations contained in the steele dossier . Again, i cant respond. The reason im asking for the American Public that is watching, its apparent that the steele dossier formed part of the basis to justify the fbis counterintelligence investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. As we know, it was used to obtain a fisa warrant on carter page. This is why im asking these questions. Did your office undertake any efforts to identify steeles sources or sub sources . Again, the same answer. Were these tasks referred to any other agencies . Again, i cant speak to it. Did your office consider whether the russian government used steeles sources to provide steele with disinformation . Again, i cant speak to that. I understand. Im asking these questions just for the record, so thanks for your patience. Shifting gears here. Did any member of the special counsels office staff travel overseas as part of the investigation . Yes, but i cant go further than that. Im going to ask. To which countries . And i cant answer that. Did they meet with Foreign Government officials . Again, its out of our bailiwick. Did they meet with foreign private citizens . Again, same response. Did they seek information about a u. S. Citizen or any u. S. Citizens . Again, territory that i can not go to. Thank you for answering on the record. These are important questions for the American Public and were hopeful that the ig is able to answer these questions. I will yield the balance of my team to the Ranking Member. I thank the gentle lady for yielding. Mr. Mueller, i want to go back to, we started off with joseph, whos at the center of this investigation. He appears in your report. A dozen times or more. Hes at the origin, the p epicenter of this, hes the man who supposedly knows about clintons emails. Youve seen on the screen the democrats have put up all the prosecutions that you made against Trump Campaign officials and others. But im struggling to understand why you didnt indict joseph mifsud, who seems to be the man in the middle of all of this. Well, i think you understand that you can not get into either classified or Law Enforcement information without a rationale for doing it, and i have said on going to be able to say with regard to mr. Mifsud. Were you aware of kathleens involvement that she had met with ms. Steel, the state department official. Again, i cant respond to that question. Its outside my jurisdiction. The carter page fisa warrant was reupped three times. The last time it was reupped was under your watch. So, you did you were you in the approval process of that last time that the carter page warrant was well, i cant speak specifically about that warrant but if you ask are was i in the approval chain, the answer is no. Okay. Very helpful. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Yield back. Mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, special counsel muell mueller, for your testimony and your service to our country. Donald trump, over the years, has surrounded himself with some very shady people. Fe people that lied for him, covered up for him, people that helped him enrich himself. I want to talk specifically about one of those instances thats in your report, specifically lets turn to the trump tower moscow project which you described in your report as, quote, as a, quote, highly lucrative deal for the Trump Organization, is that right . I would have to look at the quote from the report. Sure. If you have it. Sure. Its on volume 2, page 135. Its described as highly lucrative. Okay. I have it. I have it. Thank you, sir. Yeah. No problem. Your office prosecuted Michael Cohen and Michael Cohen was Donald Trumps lawyer for lying to this committee about several aspects of the Trump Organizations pursuit of the trump tower moscow deal, is that right . Thats correct. According to your report, cohen lied to, quote, minimize links between the project and trump, unquote, and to, quote, stick to the party line, unquote, in order not to contradict trumps public message that no connection existed between trump and russia. Is that right . Thats an yes. Thats correct. Now, when youre talking about the party line here, the party line in this case if i could interject one thing i should have said at the outset, if it was in the report and consequently i do believe it to be true. Thank you. The party line in this case, was it the deal ended in january 2016. In other words, they were saying that the deal ended in january 2016 before the republican primaries. In truth, though, the deal extended to june 2016 when donald trump was already the Presumptive Republican nominee, is that correct . Thats correct. The party line was also that cohen discussed the deal with trump only three times when in truth, they discussed it multiple times, is that right . Also true and the basis for and part of the basis for the plea that he that he entered or lied to this entity. Thank you. And thank you for prosecuting that. The party line was also that cohen and trump never discussed traveling to russia during the campaign when in truth, they did discuss it, is that right . Thats accurate. And the party line was that cohen never received a response from the kremlin to his inquiresries about the trump tower moscow deal. In fact, cohen not only received a response from the kremlin to his email but also had a lengthy conversation with a kremlin representative who had a detailed understanding of the project, is that right. If its in the report, that is accurate recitation of that piece of the report. So you had the candidate trump at the time saying he had no business dealings with russia, his lawyer who was lying about it, and then the kremlin who during that time was talking to President Trumps lawyer about the deal, is that right . I cant adopt your characterization. Not only was cohen lying on trumps behalf but so was the kremlin. On august 30, 2017, two days after cohen submitted his false statement to this committee, claiming that he never received a response to his email to the kremlin, Vladimir Putins press secretary told reporters that the kremlin left the email unanswered. That statement by putins press secretary was false, wasnt it . I cant speak to that. Although it was widely reported in the press. Again, i cant speak to that, particularly if it was if it was dependent upon media sources. But it was consistent with the lie that cohen had made to the committee, is that right . Im not certain i can go that far. So, cohen, President Trump, and the kremlin were all telling the same lie. I defer to you on that. Thats i cant get into the details. Special counsel mueller, i want to ask you something thats very important to the nation. Did your investigation evaluate whether President Trump could be vulnerable to blackmail by the russians because the kremlin knew that trump and his associates lied about connections to russia related to the trump tower deal . I cant speak to that. I yield back, chairman. Mr. Hurt. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director mueller, youve been asked many times this afternoon about collusion, obstruction of justice, and impeachment and the steele dossier and i dont think your answers are going to change if i ask you about those questions so im going to ask about a couple of press stories because a lot of what the American People have received about this have been on press stories and some of that has been wrong and some of that some of those press stories have been accurate. On april 13, 2018, mclatchy reported that you had evidence Michael Cohen made a secret trip to prague during the 2016 president ial election. I think he told the one of the committees here in congress that was incorrect. Is that story true . I cant well, i cant go into it. Got you. On october 31, 2016, slate published a report suggesting that a server at trump tower was secretly communicating with Russias Alpha Bank and i quote, akin to what criminal syndicates do. Do you know if that story is true . Do not. Do not. You do not no whether its true. So did you not investigate these allegations which are suggestive of potential trumprussia because i believe its not true does not mean it would not been investigated. It may well have been investigated although my belief at this point is its not true. Good copy. Thank you. As a former cia officer, i want to focus on something i think both sides of the political aisle can agree on, that is, how do we prevent russian intelligence and other adversaries from doing this again . And after overseeing a counterintelligence operations for 12 years as fbi director and then investigating what the russians have done in the 2016 election, youve seen tactics, techniques, and results of russian intelligence operations. Our committee made a recommendation that the fbi should improve its victim notification process when a person, entity or campaign has fallen victim to active measures attack. Would you agree with this with this . It sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. I will tell you, though, that the ability of our intelligence agencies to Work Together in this arena is perhaps more important than that. And adopting whether and im not that familiar with legislation, but whatever legislation will encourage us working together, by us, i mean the fbi, cia, nsa and the rest, it should be pursued aggressively early. Who do you think should be responsible within the federal government to counter disinformation . Im no longer in the federal government. But you have you have had a long career storied career and i dont think theres anybody who better understands the threat that we are facing than you. Do you have an opinion as a former fbi officer . As to . As to who should be the coordinating points within the federal government on how to deal with this situation. I dont want to wade in those waters. Good copy. One of the most striking things in your report is that the Internet Research agency not only undertook a social Media Campaign in the u. S. But they were able to organize political rallies after the election. Our committee issued a report and insight saying that russian active measures are growing with frequency and intensity and including their expanded use of groups such as the ira and these groups pose a significant threat to the United States and our allies in upcoming elections. Would you agree with that . Yes. In fact, one of the other areas that we have to look at, many more companies not companies, many more countries are developing capability to replicate what the russians have done. You you alluded to making sure the other all the elements of the federal government should be working together. Do you have a suggestion on a strategy to do that to counter this disinformation . Not overarching. Is this, in your investigation, did you think that this was a single attempt by the russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest theyll try to do this again. It wasnt a simple attempt. Theyre doing it as they sit here and they expect to do it during the next campaign. Director mueller, i appreciate your time in indulging us here in multiple committees and i yield back to the Ranking Member if he has i yield back to the chairman. Mr. Heck. Director mueller, i would like to go to the motives behind the Trump Campaign encouragement and acceptance of help during the election. Obviously, a clear motivation was to help them in what would turn out to be a very close election, but there was another key motivation, and that was, frankly, the desire to make money. I always try to remember what my dad, who never had the opportunity to go beyond the eighth grade, taught me, which is that i should never, ever underestimate the capacity of some people to cut corners and even more in order to worship and chase the almighty buck. And this is important because i think it, in fact, does go to the heart of why the Trump Campaign was so unrelentingly intent on developing relationships with the kremlin. So lets quickly revisit one financial scheme we just discussed, which was the trump tower in moscow. We indicated earlier that it was a lucrative deal. Trump, in fact, stood in his company to earn many millions of dollars on that deal, did they not, sir . True. And cohen, mr. Cohen, his attorney, testified before this committee that President Trump believed the deal required kremlin approval, is that consistent with what he told you . Im not certain whether its mr. Trump himself or others associated with that enterprise that had discussed the necessity of having the input from the state, meaning the russian government, in order to for it to go forward successfully. Isnt it also true that donald trump viewed his president ial campaign as he told top Campaign Aides that the campaign was an infomercial for the Trump Organization and his properties . Im not familiar with that. Then lets turn to Trump Campaign chair Paul Manafort. Did, in fact, your investigation find any evidence that manafort intended to use his position as Trumps Campaign chair for his own personal financial benefit . Well, i would say there was some indication of that but i wont go further. I think youll find it on page 135 of volume 1. During the transition, trumps soninlaw, Jared Kushner, met with sergei gorkov, the head of a russian owned bank that was under is under u. S. Sanctions. And according to the head of the bank, he met with kushner in his capacity as ceo of Kushner Companies to discuss Business Opportunities. Is that correct, sir . Im not certain. It was im not certain about that, let me just put it that way. It was asserted thusly in your report, volume 1, pages 161 and 162. Your report notes that at the time, Kushner Companies were trying to renegotiate a billion, with a b, a billion dollar lease of their flagship building at 666 fifth avenue, correct . Im not familiar with those financial arrangements. Also on page 162, where Kushner Companies it was asserted had debt obligations coming due on the company. Eric prince, a supporter close to Trump Campaign, an administrative supporter. I was yes. He met during the transition with kiril, which was part of a sanctioned arm that had close ties to Vladimir Putin, correct, sir. Yes. Your investigation determined that mr. Prince had not known nor conducted business with him before trump won the election. I defer to the report on that. Yet it does and yet prince, who had connections to Top Administration Trump Administration officials met with dmitriev during the transition period to discuss Business Opportunities among other things. But it wasnt just trump and his associates who were trying to make money off this deal, nor hide it, nor lie about it. Russia was too. That was the whole point, to gain relief from sanctions which would hugely benefit their incredibly wealthy oligarchs, for example, sanctions relief was discussed at that june 9th meeting in the trump tower, was it not, sir . Yes. But it was not a main subject for discussion. Trump administration National Security advisor designate Michael Flynn also discussed sanctions in a secret conversation with the Russian Ambassador, did he not . Correct. So, to summarize, donald trump, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, erik prince, and others in the trump orbit all tried to use their connections with the Trump Organization to profit from russia, which was openly seeking relief from sanctions, is that true, sir . Im not certain i can adopt what you i will and i would further assert that was not only dangerous, it was unamerican. Greed corrupts. Greed corrupts, and it is a Terrible Foundation for developing American Foreign policy. Mr. Radcliff. Director mueller, given your constraint on what youre able or allowed to answer with respect to counterintelligence matters, or other matters that are currently open and under investigation, youre not going to be able to answer my remaining questions, so i thank you for your courtesies in the answers that you have given to my prior questions and i do thank you for your extraordinary career and record of service and yield the balance of my time to the Ranking Member. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Ratcliffe. And mr. Mueller, let me associate my words with mr. Ratcliffe. Few more questions i want to clean up a little bit about the erik prince meeting. So erik prince testified before this committee that he was surveilled by the u. S. Government and the information from this surveillance was leaked to the press. Did you investigate whether prince was surveilled and whether classified information on him was illegally leaked to the media . Did you say did you or will you . Well, i know you cant. I know youre not i cant discuss either way. Youre not going to join back up in the ranks but did you refer were you aware that, you know, prince has made these allegations that he was surveilled, hes concerned there were leaks about this surveillance. Did you make any referrals about these leaks . I cant get in a discussion on it. Okay. Also want to general flynn, i know you came after the leak of his phone call with the Russian Ambassador. Your time at fbi, it would be a major scandal, wouldnt it, for the leak of the National Security advisor and anyone i cant adopt that hypothesis. Does your report name any people who were acting as u. S. Government informants or sources without disclosing that fact . I cant answer that. Okay. On volume 1, page 133 of your report, you state that kilimnik has ties to russian intelligence. His name came up quite often today. Your report omits to mention that kilimnik has longterm relationships with u. S. Government officials, including our own state department. I cant be i cant get into that. I know its not in the report, but you know, if kilimnik is being used in the report to say that he was possibly some type of russian agent, and i think it is important for this committee to know if kilimnik has ties to our own state department, which it appears that he does. Again, the same territory that im loath to get into. You were asked this earlier about trump attorney john dowd, that pieces of his phone call were omitted from the report. It was, what mr. Dowd called expue exculpatory evidence. Are you concerned im not certain i would agree with that characterization. I think i said that before. Yes. An american citizen from the republic of georgia who your report misidentifies as a russian claims that your report omitted parts of a text message he had with Michael Cohen about stopping the flow of compromising tapes of donald trump. In the omitted portions, he says he did not know what the tapes actually showed. Was that portion of the exchange left out of the report for a reason . No. We got an awful lot into the report. But we did not get every intersection or conversation and the like. So im not familiar with that particular episode youre talking about. Thank you, mr. Mueller, and thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Welch. Director mueller, did you find there was no collusion between the Trump Campaign and russia . Well, we dont use the word collusion. The word we usually use is the not collusion but one of the other terms that fills in when collusion is not used. In any event, the we decided not to use the word collusion inasmuch as it has no relevance to the criminal law arena. The term is conspiracy that you prefer to use . Thats right. Conspiracy. Exactly right. You help me, ill help you, thats an agreement. Thank you. Thank you. And in fact, you had to then make a charging decision after your investigation where unless there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you wouldnt make a charge, correct . Generally, thats the case. But making that decision does not mean your investigation failed to turn up evidence of conspiracy. Absolutely correct. And in fact, ill go through some of the significant findings at your exhaustive investigation made. You found, as i understand it, that from may 2016 until the end of the campaign, Campaign Chairman, mr. Manafort, gave private polling information to russian agents, correct . Correct. Speak into the microphone. I will. My apologies. Thank you. And your investigation found that in june 2016, donald trump jr. Made an arrangement to meet at trump tower along with Jared Kushner and others, expecting to receive dirt on the hillary Clinton Campaign, correct . Correct. And you found in your investigation that on july 27th, candidate trump called on russia to hack Hillary Clintons emails, something that for the first time they they did about hours later, correct . Thats correct. And you also found that on august 2nd, mr. Manafort met with a person tied russian intelligence, mr. Kilimnik and gave him internal campaign strategy, aware that russia was intending to do a misinformation social Media Campaign, correct . Im not certain of the tie there. But the fact of that meeting you agree with . The meeting took place is accurate. And your investigation as i understand it, also found that in late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign, in fact, devised its strategy and messaging around wikileaks releases of materials that were stolen from the