Thank you. Volume 2, page 76, correct . Ill leave the answer to our report. So thats a yes . Is it true your investigation did not establish that any members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in election interference activity, volume 1, page 2. Volume 1, page 73 . Yes. Thank you. Although your Report States collusion is not a specific offense and you said that this morning or a term of our in federal criminal law and experience is, in the colloquial context are collusion and experience essentially synonymous terms. Youre going to have to row peat that for me. Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. Conspiracy is. In the colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct . No. If no on page 180 of volume 1 of your report you wrote collusion is largely synonymous of conspiracy and that crime is set forth in the general conspiracy statute. You said at your May 29th Press Conference and here today you choose your words carefully. Are you sitting here today testifying Something Different than what your Report States . Well, what im asking is if you can give me citation i can look at the citation and evaluate what it is. Well, let me just clarify. You stated in your report i just stated your report back to you. And you said that collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms. Your answer was no. Thats correct. In that page 180 volume one of your report it said collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth. Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now . Not when i read it. So you would change your answer to yes, then . No. If you look at the language im reading your report, sir. Is it or a yes or no answer. Page 180, volume 1. This is from your report. Correct. And i leave it with the report. So the report says, yes, they are synonymous. Hopefully and finally out of your own report we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy. One last question were going through. Did you ever look into other countries investigated in the russian interference into our election . Were other countries investigated or found knowledge that they have interfered in our election . I will not discuss other matters. With that i yield back. Gentlemen yields back. As you heard from the chairman were mostly going to talk about Obstruction Of Justice today, but the investigation of russias attack that started your investigation is why evidence of possible obstruction is serious. To what extent did the russian government interfere in the 2016 president ial election . Could you repeat that, miami . To what extent did the russian government interfere in the 2016 president ial election . Well, particularly when i came to Computer Crimes and the like the government was implicated. So you wrote in volume 1 that the russian government interfered in the 2016 president ial election in sweeping and systematic fashion. You also described in your report that the then Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared with a russian operative kilimnik the Campaign Strategy for winning democratic votes in midwestern states and internal Pollingidate Ow of the campaign. Isnt that correct . Correct. They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and manaforts strat aenl for winning democrat votes in midwestern states. Months before that Meeting Manafort had caused internal data to be shared with culikili and the sharing continued for some period of time after their august meeting. Thats correct. In fact your investigation found manafort briefed kilimnik on the state of Trumps Campaign and manaforts plan to win the election and that also included discussion of Battleground States which manafort identified as michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania. Isnt that correct . Thats correct. Did your investigation determine who requested the polling data to be shared with kilimnik . Well, i would direct you to the report. Thats what we have the report with regard to that particular issue. We dont have the redacted version. That maybe is another reason why we should get that for volume 1. Based on your investigation, how could the russian government have used this campaign polling data to further its sweeping and systematic interference in the 2016 president ial election . Thats a little bit out of our path. Fair enough. Did your investigation find that the russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning . Yes. And which candidate would that be . Well, it would be trump. Correct. Now, the Trump Campaign wasnt exactly reluctant to take russian help. You wrote it expected it would benefit electorally from Information Stolen and released through russian efforts. Isnt that correct . Thats correct. Now, what was the investigates determination regarding the frequency with which the Trump Campaign made contact with the russian government . Well, i would have to refer you to the report on that. Well, we went through and we counted 126 contacts between russians agents and Trump Campaign officials or their associates. So would that sound about right . I cant say i understand the statistic. I understand the statistic. Mr. Mueller, i appreciate you being here and your report. From your testimony and the report i think the American People have learned several things. First, the russians wanted trump to win. Second, the russians went on a sweeping cyber influence campaign. The russians hacked the dnc and they got the democratic game plan for the election. Russian Campaign Chairmen 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 election, they were armed with inside information that they had stolen through hacking from the dnc and that they had been given by the Trump Campaign chairman mr. Manafort. My colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this information from becoming public, but i think its important for the American People to understand the gravity of the underlying problem that your report uncovered. And with that, mr. Chairman, i would yield back. Good morning, director. If youll let me quickly summarize your Opening Statement this morning. You said in volume 1 on the issue of conspiracy the Special Counsel determined that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. And then in volume 2 for reasons you explain the Special Counsel did not make a determination on whether there was an Obstruction Of Justice crime committed by the president , is that fair . Yes, sir. Now, explain the Special Counsel did not make what you call a traditional declamation or decision. On it report on the bottom of page 2, volume 2 reads as follows. It presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining no criminal conduct occurred. While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. Now, i read that correctly . Yes. All right, your report and today you said at all times the it was guided by Justice Department principles. So which doj policy or principle sets forth a Legal Standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined . Can you repeat the last part of that question . Yeah. Which doj policy or principle sets forth a Legal Standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined . Where does that language come from, director . Where is the doj policy that says that . Let me make it easier. Is there can you give me an champ other than donald trump where the Justice Department determined an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined . I cannot, but this is unique well, time is short. Ive got five minutes. Lets just leave it at you cant find it because ill tell you why. It doesnt exist. The Special Counsels job nowhere does it say you are to conclusively determine Donald Trumps innocence or that the Special Counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. Its not in any of the documents, not in your point order, the olc opinion, not in the justice manual and not in the principles of federal prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully, director, it was not the Special Counsels job to conclusively determine Donald Trumps innocence or to exonerate him because the Bedrock Principle of our Justice System is a Presumption Of Innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it including sitting president s. And because there is a Presumption Of Innocence 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 doesnt exist anywhere in the Department Policies and you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says as you read this morning, it authorizes the Special Counsel to provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or Declamation Decisions reached by the Special Counsel. Thats the very first word of your report, right . Thats correct. Heres the problem, director, the Special Counsel didnt do that. On volume 1, you did. On volume 2 with respect to potential obstruck of justice the Special Counsel made neither a Prosecution Decision nor a declamation decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning and in your report you made no determination where so respectfully, director, you didnt follow the Special Counsel regulations. It clearly says write a confidential report about decisions reached. Nowhere in here does it say write a report about decisions that werent reached. You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that werent reached, about potential crimes that werent charged or decided. And respectfully, respectfully by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that arent charged, so americans need to know this as they listen to the democrats and socialists on the other sides of the aisle as they do dramatic raeeadings from thi report. That volume 2 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 it was written in violation of every doj principle about extra prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman this morning when he said donald trump is not above the law. Hes not, but he damn sure shouldnt be below the law which is where volume 2 of this report puts him. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director mueller, good morning. Your exchange with the gentle lady from california demonstrates what is at stake. The Trump Campaign chair, Paul Manafort, was passing Sensitive Information and polling data to a russian operative. And there was so many other ways russia subverted our democracy. Together with the evidence in volume 1 i cannot think of a more serious need to investigate. So now im going to ask you some questions about Obstruction Of Justice as it relates to volume 2. On page 12 of volume 2 you state, we determined that there were sufficient, factual and legal basis to further investigate potential Obstruction Of Justice issues involving the president. Is that correct . Do you have the citation, maam . Page 12, volume 2. And which portion of that page . That is, we determined there was a sufficient, factual, and legal basis to further investigate potential Obstruction Of Justice issues involving the president. Is that correct . Yes. Your report also describes at least ten separate instances of possible Obstruction Of Justice that were investigated by you and your team. Is that correct . Yes. In fact, the Table Of Contents serves as a very good guide of some of the acts of that Obstruction Of Justice that you investigated, and put it up on the screen. On page 157 of volume 2 you describe those acts and they range from the president s effort to curtail the Special Counsels investigation, the president s further efforts to have the Attorney General take over the investigation. The president Orders Don 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 conduct as a whole sheds light on the nature of the president s act and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. Does that mean you have to investigate all of his conduct to ascertain true moat intensive. No. And when you talk about the president s pattern of conduct that include the ten possible acts of obstruction that you investigated, is that correct . When you talk about the president s pattern of conduct that would include the ten possible acts of obstruction that you investigated, correct . I direct you to the report for how that is characterized. Let me go to the screen again. For each of those ten potential instances of Obstruction Of Justice, you analyze three elements of the chemoof Obstruction Of Justice. An instructive act, a nexus between the act and official proceeding and corrupt intent, is that correct . Yes. You wrote on page 178, volume 2 of your report about corrupt intent, actions by the president to end a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability will constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct. Is that correct . Yes. To the screen again. Even with the evidence you did find is it true as you found on page 6 of volume 2 the evidence does note a thorough investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally that the president could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to legal, personal or political concerns . I rely on the language of the report. Is that relevant to potential Obstruction Of Justice . Is that relevant to potential Obstruction Of Justice . You further elaborate on page 157 Obstruction Of Justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability fall into a gray area or to avoid personal embarrassment. Is that correct . 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 Director Desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, is that true . And is it true the impact pardon . Can you read the last question . The last question was i wasnt certain i got it accurate. The last question was the language on the screen asking you if thats correct. Yes. Okay. Theres a conviction of Obstruction Of Justice result potentially in a lot of years of time in jail . Yes. Well, again, can you repeat the question just to make sure that i have it accurate . Does obstruction of Justice Warrant a lot of time in jail if you were convicted . Yes. The time of the gentle lady has expired. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Let me begin by reading the spence counsel regulations by which you were appointed. It reads, quote, at the conclusion of the Special Counsels work he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or Declamation Decisions reached by the Special Counsel. Is that correct . Yes, sir. Okay, now when a regulation uses the words, shall provide does it mean the individual is in fact obligated to provide whats in the statute, meaning you dont have any wiggle room, right . Id have to look more closely at the statute. I just read it to you. Okay, now volume 2, page 1. Your report boldly states we determine not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. Is that correct . I tried to find that citation, congressman. Director, could you speak more directly into the microphone, please . Yes. Thank you. Its volume 2 page one. It said we determine not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. Thats right in the beginning. Now, since you decided under the olc opinion you couldnt prosecute a sitting president , meaning President Trump, why do we have all of this investigation of President Trump that the other side is talking about when you knew that you werent going to prosecute him . Well, we dont know where the investigation is going to lie, and olc opinion itself says that you can continue the investigation even though you are not going to indict the president. Okay. Well, if youre not going to indict the president then you just continue fishing. And thats you know, thats my observation. My time is limited. Sure you can indict other people, but you cant indict the sitting president. Right . Thats true. Okay, now there are 182 pages in broad evidentiary material including hundreds of references to 302 for individuals who have never been cross examined and which did not comply with the Special Counsels governing regulation to explain the prosecution or Declamation Decisions reached, correct . Where are you reading from on that . Im reading from my question. Then could you repeat it . Okay. If i have 182 pages of raw evidentiary material to hundreds of references to 302s which never have been cross examined and didnt comply to complain the Declamation Decisions reached. This is one of those areas which i decline to discuss. Okay, then let and direct you to the report itself. Okay. Well, i looked at 182 pages of it. You know, let me switch gears. Mr. Shavott and i were on this committee during the clinton impeachment. While i recognize the independent counsel statute under which kenneth star operated is different from the Special Counsel statute, he on a number of occasions in his report stated that president clintons actions may have risen to Impeachable Conduct, recognizing that it is up to the House Of Representatives to determine what conduct is impeachable. You never used the term raising to Impeachable Conduct for any of the ten instances that the gentleman from texas did. Is it true that theres nothing in volume 2 of the report that says that the president may have engaged in Impeachable Conduct . Well, we have kept in the center of our investigation the our mandate. And our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct mc and our mandate goes to developing the report and giving the report to the Attorney General. With due respect it seems to me theres a couple of statements that you made that says this is not for me to decide and the implication is it is for this committee to decide. Now, you did use the word Impeachable Conduct like starr did. There was no statute to prevent you from using the word Impeachable Conduct. And i go back to what mr. Radcliffe said, and that is that the even the president is innocent until proven guilty. My time is up. The gentleman from tennessee. Thank you, mr. Chair. First id like to restate what mr. Nadler said about your career. Its a model of rectitude and i thank you. Based upon your investigation, how did President Trump react to yourpotomy as Special Counsel . Again, ill send you the report where that is stated. Well, theres a quote from your report 78 of your report, volume 2 which reads when sessions told the president that a Special Counsel had been appointed the president slumped back in his chair and said, quote, oh, my god, this is terrible, theeis is the end of presidency, im fd, unquote. Did Attorney General sessions tell you about that little talk . Director, please speak into the microphone. Sure. My appaologies. Im not sure of the person who originally copied that quote. Well, sessions apparently said that and one of his aides. He apparently wasnt pleased with the Special Counsel and particularly you with your outstanding reputation. Prior to your appointment the Attorney General recused himself from the investigation because of his role in the 2016 campaign. Is that not correct . Correct. Recusal means the Attorney General cannot be involved in the investigation. Thats the effect of recusal, yes. In fact another trump appointee, mr. Rosenstein became in charge of it, is that correct . Yes. Wasnt Attorney General sessions following the rules and professional advice of the department of justice ethic folks when he recused himself from the investigation . Yes. And yet the president repeatedly expressed his disploegser to recuse himself from oversight of that investigation . Is that not correct . Thats accurate based on whats Written In The Report. And the president s reaction to the recusal as noted in the report, mr. Bannon recalled that the president was mad was mad as bannon had ever seen him and he screamed at mcgahn about how weak sessions was. Do you recall that from the report . Thats in the report, yes. Despite knowing Attorney General sessions were nauz supposed to be involved n investigation the president still tried to get the Attorney General to enrecuse himself after you were appointed Special Counsel. Is that correct . Yes. In fact your investigation found at some point after your appointment the president , quote, called sessions at his home and asked if he would recuse himself. Is not not true . Its true. It wasnt the first time the president asked esessions to unrecuse himself, was it . I know of two occasions. Sessions recalled the president pulled him aside to speak alone and suggested he should do this unrecuseal act, correct . Correct. And then when michael flynn, a few days after flynn entered a guilty plea after lying to federal agents and indicated his intent to cooperate with that investigation, trump asked to speak to sessions alone again in the oval office and again asked sessions to unrecuse himself, true . Ill refer you to the report on that. Do you know of any point where the president personally expressed anger or frustrations at sessions . Id have to pass on that. You called and i think it said on page 78, volume 2 the president told sessions you were supposed to protect me, you were supposed to protect me or words to that effect. Correct. And is the Attorney General supposed to be the attorney general of the United States of america or a consigliere for the president . The United States of america. Thank you, sir. In fact you wrote your report the president repeatedly sought sessions to unrecuse himself so sessions could supervise the investigation in a way that would restrict its scope, is that correct . Rely on the report how could sessions have restricted the scope of your investigation . Well, im not going to speculate. Quite obviously if he took over as Attorney General he would have greater latitude in his actions that would enable him to do things that otherwise he could not. On page 113 you said that the president believed an unrecused Attorney General could play a protective role and shield the president from an ongoing investigation. I want to thank you, dr. Mueller, for a life of reckitude and service to our country. Its clear from the report and the evidence that the president wanted the former attorney general sessions to violate the Ethics Department rules by taking over your investigation and improperly interfering with it to protect himself and his campaign. Your findings are so important because in america nobody is above the law. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, gentleman. The gentleman from ohio. Thank you. Director mueller, my democratic colleagues were very disappointed in your report. They were expecting you to Say Something along the lines of here is why President Trump deserves to be impeached. As much as ken starr did relative to president clinton. Now they allege theres plenty of evidence but the American People didnt read it. And this hearing today is their last best hope to build up some sort of ground phel across america to impeach President Trump. Thats what this really 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 produced steel reporting, unquote, the name of that firm was fusion gps, is that correct . And youre on page 103 . 103, thats correct, volume 2. When you talk about the firm that produced the steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that is fusion gps, is that correct . Im not familiar with that. Its not a trick question. It was fusion gps. Now, fusion gps produced the Opposition Research document widely known as the steele dossier. And the owner of fusion gpa was someone named glen simpson, are you familiar with thats outside my purview. Okay. Glen simpson was never mentioned in the 448page mueller report, was it. As i said its outside my purview and being Handledinate Departme in the department by others. He was not. The owner of fusion gps that did the steele dossier that started all this, hes not mentioned in there. Let me move on. At the same time fusion gaps 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 . Its outside my purview. Thank you. One of the key players in the june 2016 Trump Tower Meeting was natalia who you described in your report as a russian attorney who advocated for the repeal of the magnitsky act. Shed been working with none other Than Glen Simpson and fusion gps since at least early 2014. Are you aware of that . Thats out sside my purview. You didnt mention glen simpson or fusion gps in your report at all. Nbc news has reported the following, quote, russian lawyer nutallia v nutallia first brought from nup other Than Glen Simpson the fusion gps owner. You didnt include that in your report. I assume thats being handled by others at the department of justice. Thank you. Now your report spends 14 pages discussing the june 9, 2016, Trump Tower Meeting. It would be fair to say, with td it not you spent significant resources investigating that meeting . I would refer you to the report. And President Trump wasnt at the meeting . No, he was not. Thank you. In stark contruast to the actios of the Trump Campaign we know the Clinton Campaign did pay fusion gps to gather dirt on the Trump Campaign with persons associated with foreign governments. But your report doesnt mention a thing about fusion gps in it, and you didnt investigate fusion gps connections to russia. So let me just ask you this. Can you see that from neglecting to mention glen simpson and fusion gps involvement with the Clinton Campaign to focusing on a brief meeting at the trump tower that produced nothing to ignoring thaClinton Campaigns own ties to fusion gps, why some view your report as a pretty onesided attack on the president . Ill tell you its still outside my purview. All right, and i would just note finally i guess its by chance and convince the nings left out of the report tended to be favorable to the president. My time has expired. Thank you. Director mueller, id like to get us back on track here. Your investigation found that President Trump directed White House Counsel Don Mcgahn to fire you. Isnt that correct . True. And the president claimed he wanted to fire you because you had supposed conflicts of interests, isnt that correct . True. Now, you had no conflicts of interests that required your removal. Isnt that a fact . Correct. And in fact don mcgahn advised the president that the asserted conflicts were, in his words, silly and not real conflicts, isnt that true sph. I refer to the report on that episode. Well, page 85 of volume 2 speaks to that. And also director mueller, doj ethics officials confirmed that you had no conflicts that would prevent you from serving as Special Counsel. Isnt that correct . Thats correct. But despite don mcgahn and department of justice guidance around may 23, 2017, the president , quote, Prodded Mcgahn to complain to Deputy Attorney general rosenstein about these supposed conflicts of interest, correct . Correct. And mcgahn declined to call rosenstein or rosenstein, im sorry, telling the president that it would look like still trying to meddle in the investigation and Knocking Out Mueller would be another fact truz used to claim Obstruction Of Justice. Generally so, yes. In other words the president told the counsel if he tried to remove you that could be the basis to allege that the president was obstructing justice, correct . That is generally correct, yes. Now, id like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justice. Im sorry, congressman, do you have a citation . Yes. Volume 2, page 81 and 82. Thank you. Now, id like to review after the president was warned about obstructing justice. Its true that on tuesday june 13, 2017, the president dictated a Press Statement stating he had, quote, no intention of firing you, correct . Correct. But the following day june 14th, the media reported for the first time that you were investigating the president for obstructing 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 existence of the Obstruction Investigation and criticizing it, isnt that correct . I believe so. And then on saturday, june 17th, two days later the president Called Don Mcgahn At Home from camp david on a saturday to talk about you. Isnt that correct . Correct. What was the significant what was significant about that first Weekend Phone Call that don mcgahn took from President Trump . Well, im going to ask you to rely on what we wrote about that. Well, you wrote in your report that on page 85, volume 2 on saturday june 17, 2017, the president called Mcgahn At Home to have the Special Counsel removed. Now, did the 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 about, quote, youve got to do this, youve got to call rod, correct . Yes. And your investigation found that don mcgan was perturbed to use your words by the president s request to call rod ros ros rosenstein to fire him, isnt that correct . There was a continuous involvement of don mcgahn in responding to the president. And he did not want to put himself in the middle of that. He did not want to have a role enasking the Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel. Correct . I would again refer you to the report and the way it was characterized in the report. Thank you. At volume 2, page 85 it states that he didnt want to have the Attorney General he didnt want to have a role in trying to fire the Attorney General. So at this point i would yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller well, first let me ask your unanimous consent, mr. Chairman, to submit this article, Robert Mueller unmasked for it record. Without objection. Now, mr. Mueller, who wrote the nine minutes comments you read at your May 29th Press Conference . Im not going to get into that. Okay, so thats what i thought. You didnt write it. A 2013 piece about comey said basically when comey called you dropped everything you were doing, gave examples, you were having dinner with your wife and daughter. Comey calls you, drop everything and go. The article quoted comey as saying if a train were coming down the track and i quote, at least bob mueller would be standing on the trackwise me. You and james comey have 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. Now, before you were appointed as Special Counsel had you talked to james comey in the preceding six months . No. When you were appointed as Special Counsel, was President Trumps firing of comey something you anticipated investigating potentially Obstruction Of Justice . I cant get into that. Internal deliberations in the Justice Department. Actually it goes to your credibility. Maybe youve been away from the courtroom for a while. Credibility is always relevant and always material. That goes for you too. Youre a witness before us. When you talked to President Trump the day you happen appointed or you were appointed Special Counsel, you were talking to him about the fbi Director Position again. Did he mention the firing of james comey . Not as a candidate. Did he mention the firing of james comey in your discussion with him . I cannot remember. Pardon . I cannot remember and dont believe so. You dont remember. But if you did, you could be a fact witness as to the president s comments and State Of Mind on firing james comey. I suppose thats possible. So most prosecutors would try to make sure theres no appearance of impropriety. But in your case you hired a bunch of people that did not like the president. Now, let me ask you when did you first learn of peter strucks animus towards donald trump . In the summer of 2017. You didnt know before he was hired . Im sorry . You didnt know before he was hired for your team . Know what . Peter struck hated trump. You didnt know that before he was made part of your team, is that what youre saying . I did not know that. And when i did find out, i acted swiftly to have him reassigned. Well, theres some discussion how swift that was. But when did you learn of the ongoing affair he was having with lisa page . About the same time. Okay. Did you ever order anybody to investigate the deletion of all of their texts off of their Government Phones . Once we found that peter struck was the author of may i finish . Well, youre not answering my question. Did you order an investigation into the deletion and reformatting of their Government Phones . No, there was an Ig Investigation ongoing. Listen, regarding collusion or conspiracy you didnt find evidence of any agreement, and im quoting you among any Trump Campaign officials or russian officials to interfere with our election, correct . Correct. So you also note in our report that an element of any of those obstruction you referenced requires a corrupt State Of Mind. Corrupt intent, correct. Right. And if somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from russia to affect the election and they seek the big Justice Department with people who hate that person coming after them and then a Special Counsel appointed who hires a dozen or more people that hate that person and he knows hes innocent, hes not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done. What hes doing is not obstructing justice. He is pursuing justice. And the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuted injustice. The time has expired. The witness may answer the question. Gentleman from florida. Director mueller id like to get back to your findings covering june of 2017. There was a bauchombshell artic that the president of the United States was personally under investigation for Obstruction Of Justice. And you said in your report on page 90, volume 2 and i quote, news of the Obstruction Investigation prompted the president to call mcgahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed, closed quote. And then in your report you wrote about multiple calls from the president to White House Counsel Don Mcgahn. And regarding the second call you wrote and i quote, mcgahn recalled that the president was more direct. Saying Something Like call rob, Tell Rob Mueller has conflicts and cant be the Special Counsel. Mcgahn recalled the president telling him mueller has to go and call me back when you do it. Director mueller, did mcgahn understand what the president was ordering him to do . I direct you to what weve Written In The Report in terms of characterizing his feelings. And in the report it says, quote, mcgahn understood the president to be saying that the Special Counsel had to be removed. You also said on page 86 that, quote, mcgahn considered the president s request to be an Inflection Point and he wanted to hit the brakes and he felt trapped. And mcgahn decided he had to resign. Mcgahn took action to prepare to resign, isnt that correct . I direct you again to the report. And in fact that very day he went to the white house and in the report you said, quote, he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter, closed quote. That is directly from the report. It is. And before he resigned, however, heel called the president s chief of staff, reince priebus, and he called the president s Senior Advisor steve bannon. Do you recall what mcgahn told them . Whatever was said will appear in the report. It is. It is and on page 87, quote, priebus recalled mcgahn said that the president asked him to do crazy expletive. In other words, crazy stuff. The white House Counsel thought that the president s request was completely out of bounds. He said the president asked him to do something crazy. It was wrong, and he was prepared to resign over it. Now, these are extraordinarily troubling events. But you found white House Counsel mcgahn to be a credible witness, isnt 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 in volume 23 you said and i quote, substantial evidence indicates that the president s attempt to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsels oversight of investigations that involve the president s conduct. And most immediately to reports 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, isnt that correct. Thats what it says in the report. And yes i standby the report. Director mueller, that shouldnt happen in america. No president should be able to escape investigation by abusing his power. But thats what you testified 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 it says the president shouldnt have made those calls to mcgahn, but the president did it anyway. He did it anyway. Anyone else who blatantly interfered with a criminal investigation like yours would be arrested and indicted on charges of Obstruction Of Justice. Director mueller, you determined that you were barred from ifditii indicting a sitting president. Weve already talked about that today. That is why this committee must hold this president accountable. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. The gentle lady from alabama. Director mueller, you just said in response to different lines of questionings that you would refer as it relates to this Firing Discussion that i would refer you to the report in the way it was characterized in the report. Importantly, the president never said fire mueller or end the investigation, and one doesnt necessitate the other. And mcgahn in fact did not resign. He stuck around for a year and a half. On march 24th, Attorney General barr informed the committee he had received the Special Counsels report. It will not until april 18th 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 that 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 . Im not going to engage in discussion about what happened after the production of our report. Have the Attorney General asked you to provide a did he ask for you a version with the grand jury material being separated . I cant get into details. Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to congress or to the public . Thats not my purview. Why did you not take a similar action so congress could view this material . We had a process that we were operating on with the Attorney Generals office. Are you aware of any Attorney General going to court to receive similar permission to redact the material . Im not aware of that being done. The Attorney General released a Special Counsels report with minimal redactions to the public and even lesser redacted version to congress. Did you write the report with the expectation that it would be released publicly . No, we did not have an expectation. We wrote the report understanding that it was demanded by a statute and would go to the Attorney General for further further review. And pursuant to the Special Counsel regulations who is the only party that must receive the Charging Decision resulting from the Special Counsels investigation . With regard to the president . Or generally . No, generally. Attorney general. Attorney generals Confirmation Hearing he made it clear that he intended to release your report to the public. Do you recall how much was written at that point . I do not. Was there a change in the tone or the substance made after the announcement that the report would be made available to congress and the public . I cant get into that. During the Senate Testimony of william barr, senator Kamala Harris asked mr. Barr if he had looked at all on the underlying evidence that the Special Counsels team has gathered and he stated he had not. Did you personally review all of the underlying evidence gatored gathered in your investigation . Yes. Did anyone on your team review the evidence as has been recited here today, a substantial amount of work was done. Whether it was search warrants the the there was not one member of the team who looked at everything . Thats what im getting at. An investigation its normal that different members of the team would have would review different sets of documents and few if anyone would have reviewed the underlying thank you, yes. How many of the approximately 500 interviews did you attend personally . Very few. On march 27, 2019, you wrote a letter to the Attorney General essentially complaining about the Media Coverage of your report. You wrote that the Summary Letter released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24 did not capture the nature and substance of this office work and conclusion. We communicated that concern to the morning of march 25th. Who wrote that March 27th Letter . Well, i cant get into what wrote it or the internal but you signed it . But the letter stands for itself. Why did you write a formal letter since you had called the Attorney General to express those concerns . Cant get into that internal deliberations. Did you authorize the release to the media or was it leaked . I have no knowledge on either. Well, 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 attempting to change the narrative about the conclusions of your report and was anything in Attorney General barrs level the time of the gentle lady has expired. Can he answer the question, please . And the question is . Yes. Was anything in barrs letter referred to as the principal conclusions letter dated March 24th Inaccurate . Well, i wont get into that. The time of the gentle lady has expired. The gentle lady from california. Thank you, mr. Chair. Director mueller, as you know, we are focusing on five obstruction episodes today and i would to ask you about the second of the five. Its the in the section of your report beginning of page 113 entitled, quote, the president Orders Mcgahn to deny that the president tried to fire the Special Counsel. End quote. On january 25, 2018 the new york times reported that quote, the president had ordered mcgahn to have the department of justice fire is that correct . Correct. That story related to the events you testified about today. The president s calls to mcgahn to have you removed, correct . Correct. After the news broke, did the president go on tv and deny the story . Do not know. In fact, the president said, quote, fake news, folks. Fake news. A typical New York Times fake story. End quote. Correct . Correct. But your investigation actually found substantial evidence that mcgahn was ordered by the president to fire you, correct . Yes. Did the president s personal lawyer do something the following day in response to that news report . Id refer you to the coverage of this in the report. On page 114, quote, on january 26, 2018, the president s personal counsel called mcgahns attorney and said that the president wanted mcgahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel. End quote. Did mcgahn do what the president asked . Id refer you to the report. Communicating through his personal attorney, mcgahn refused because he said quote, that the the times story was accurate in the president wanted the Special Counsel removed. Isnt that right . I believe it is, but i refer you again to the report. Okay. So mr. Mcgahn told the president that he was not going to lie, is that correct . True. Did the president drop the issue . I refer to the writeup of in in the report. Okay. Next the president told the white house staff secretary rob porter to try to pressure mcgahn to make a false denial, is that correct . Thats correct. What did he actually direct porter to do . I send you back to the report. Okay. Well on page 113, it says, quote, the president then directed porter to tell mcgahn to create a record, to make it clear that the president never directed mcgahn to fire you. End quote. Is that correct . That is as its stated in the report. And you found, quote, the president said he wanted mcgahn to write a letter to the file for our records. Correct . Correct. And to be clear the president is asking his White House Counsel Don Mcgahn to create a record that mcgahn believed to be untrue while you were in the midst of investigating the president for Obstruction Of Justice, correct . Generally correct. And mr. Mcgahn was important in that investigation . I would have to say yes. Did the president tell porter to threaten mcgahn if he didnt create the Written Denial . Id refer you to the writeup of it in the report. In fact, didnt the president say quote, this is on page 116, if he doesnt write a letter then maybe ill have to get rid of him, end quote. Yes. Did porter deliver that threat . I again refer you to the discussion. Its found on page 115. Okay. But the president still didnt 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 in the report. Well, on page 116, it says the president met him in the oval office, quote. The president began the Oval Office Meeting by telling mcgahn that the New York Times Story Didnt Look Good and mcgahn needed to correct it. Is that correct . Correct as its Written In The Report, yes. The president asked mcgahn whether he would do a correction and mcgahn said no. Correct . Thats accurate. Well, mr. Mueller, thank you for your investigation uncovering this very disturbing evidence. My friend, mr. Richman, will have additional questions on the subject. However, it is clear to me if anyone else had 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. The gentleman from ohio. Director, the fbi interviewed Joseph Misfeud on january 2017 and he lied. You point this out on page 193. Misfeud denied and he falsely stated, in addition misfeud omitted. Three times he lied to the fbi. Yet you didnt charge him with the crime. Excuse me, did you say 193