Generations yet unborn, we have got to guard this moment. This is our watch. And again, i am soso very proud of the Judiciary Committee, i am so very, very proud of the Intelligence Committee because they went in and tried to pull out the facts so that they could paint the picture so that america could see it. And hopefully, they will not be ladies like the lady at amashs town hall meeting who said they didnt know that there was something wrong that trump did with regard in this Mueller Report. And so again, we, the speaker is absolutely right. She told us a little bit earlier that she wants to gather all the information and make sure that we have everything we need to paint that picture. Now, what the American People do with it, thats another thing. But we will not stand by and
fail to give them, let them see the total picture. I too thank mr. Mueller for coming forward for his service to our country. Last but not least, it is so interesting that when mueller would make a decision that they liked, they said, oh, we love you, youre the greatest thing since ice cream. But then as soon as he says something they didnt like, youre a bum. Come on, now. We have to see through that. Thank you. Thank you very much. No, as we acknowledge the greatness of our chair jerry nadler and adam schiff, i also want to acknowledge the greatness of elijah cummings, the chair of the government reform and Oversight Committee. He has really won the first case, The Mazur Decision which his research enabled us to take to court. We won the case. The decision was a complete
beautiful statement on the ability of congress to have oversight. Thats right. And just a remarkable decision and now of course, the administration is appealing it. But i thank you, too, mr. Cummings, for your great leadership and where were going next because as you know, the Mueller Investigation could not do the president s personal or business connections. And one of those connections could be to the russians. And thats what we want to find out. So as we go to questions, i just want to say that i think, i do believe that what we saw today was a very strong manifestation in fact, some would even say indictment of this administrations Cone Of Silence in their coverup. This is about our, the oath we take to protect and defend the constitution, but some of the
actions that the Administration May have taken, well see through our investigation, may have jeopardized our National Security by strengthening russias hand and interfering in our elections, undermining democracy, not only in our country but in other countries, as well. Upsetting our preeminence as a democracy in the world. This is very serious. Today was very important. Again salute our chairman, all of our six chairmen hon have been involved in this. Who do you want to hear from first . You guys decide. Wait a minute. How about a new person. Katie, shes having a baby. We have to go there first. As a mother of five, i yield. Reporter thank you. Madam speaker, What You Saw Today, did it change whether or not you think the House Of Representatives should launch Impeachment Proceedings . My position has always been that whatever decision we made in that regard would have to be done with our strongest possible hand. We still have some outstanding matters in the courts. Its about the congress, the constitution and the courts. And are fighting the president in in the courts. Is this Madam Speaker excuse me. Could i just some of your members told us over the course of today they were expecting imminent action of some kinded. I dont know why they did. What are the. I dont know why they thought that. They came to me and i said i dont know what. Again, the lawsuits as we have a number of lawsuits. You want to speak to that, jerry . The very next step, im not going to talk longer range. Either tomorrow or friday is were going into court to enforce, to ask for the grand jury material. And to enforce the subpoena
against mr. Mcgahn. And thats particularly important because the excuses, i wont call them reasons, the excuses that the white house gives for mcgahn not testifying and the nonsense about absolute immunity are the same excuses for all the other fact witnesses and if we break that, well break the lag jam. Madam speaker, what do you need to know on impeachment to say okay, we dont know the enough yet. Did i just not say were waiting to hear from the courts so we have our subpoenas in the court for the subpoenas are for information. And when we get that information, we can make a judgment. Telltale sign whether or not you we have several considerations. Its about what information is there. And this isnt endless. This isnt endless. Understand that. But we have live cases in the courts. We have some that are Going Forward that mr. Chairman
nadler just mentioned. It isnt endless but strengthening our hand to get that information, remembering that in watergate was when they got the information and the tapes that broke the case. Those just about changing public opinion, that helped change public opinion. But its not about me. Our caucus is about our country. As i say, theres a Cone Of Silence in the white house that is engaged in a massive coverup in the Obstruction Of Justice. Those obstruction of Justice Charges as has been demonstrated today in the hearings are could be indictable offenses by anybody else, not the president of the United States abbott president when hes no longer president. But the American People i think if we go go down that path, we should go in the strongest possible way and thats all im going to say about the subject. We have our distinguished chairs here. May i Say Something . And i know Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler would repeat what im saying. You know, the American People in the last election even from trump districts said we want to make the president accountable. A lot of people loved him, they like him but want to make him accountable. We have been stonewalled with regard to getting information, access to witnesses, and getting documents. All of us have. Remember the president said im not going to give you anything really. And so again, the speaker is absolutely right. We were gathering information and we are met with significant force, but were plowing our way through, but all
of that information, piece by piece, is like a mosaic, paints the picture. Reporter but have long said theres no point in moving forward with an Impeachment Inquiry because republicans control the senate. Its going to die in the senate. Ive never long said that. I have never long said that. If we have a case for impeachment, thats the place we will have to go. The fact that why id like it to be a strong case is because its based on the facts, the facts and the law. Thats what matters, not politics, not partisanship. Just patriotism. I dont care id like to the senate to be responsible and honor their Oath Of Office to protect and defend the constitution to see the challenge this is to our noshl security, the russians trying to do to our country, but the stronger our case is, the worse the senate will look for just letting the president off the
hook. Reporter Speaker Pelosi we have these great chairman here who know so much. Im going to start asking them questions if you. Even after these hearings, the president said hes completely exonerated. Please, come on, come on. Let me just say this. You give me the opportunity to say this and then i invite my chairmen to close. We want to have the strongest possible case to make a decision as to what path we will go down, and that is not endless in terms of time or endless in terms of the information that we want. But if it comes to a point where the Cone Of Silence and the Obstruction Of Justice and the coverup in the white house prevents us from getting that information, that will not prevent us from Going Forward, in fact, its even more grounds to go forward. My colleagues . I just want to the echo that. You know, said something that is in the dna of my brain
particularly right now. He said there comes a point when silence becomes betrayal. And we refuse to betray generations yet unborn and the marine people. Were not going to betray them. Were accumulating information and doing the best we can. Again, with a force as great, i dont know how many lawyers the president has, buttize got a lot of them. And they go against every single thing we do. And so again, we were not going to betray america. Were going to do our part to make sure we have a democracy thats intact. Jerry . The United States is a democracy. It must remain a democracy. A democracy acts through the elected officials with the consent of the people. The people cannot give that consent unless they know the facts. Today was a watershed day in telling the facts to the American People. With those facts, we can proceed. And we face a time of great danger. Richard nixon said he thought that the president was a dictator. He said if the president does it, that means its not illegal. President trump echoed that yesterday. He said under article 2, i, that is he, can do anything i want. That is a totalitarian picture, not a democratic picture. The United States must be saved from this. So we have to paint the picture of whats going on. A picture of someone who gladly accepted help from a foreign power Interested In subverting our election, our democratic election process and thats what it is, subverting our election process and taking the choice of our president to some extent away from the American People. Thats what the russians
attempted to do and thats what the Trump Campaign welcomed them in doing. A president who engages in crimes repeated crimes to cover up these unpatriotic and dictatorial actions. And this cannot go on. And its up to congress to safeguard the constitution and we will do it. As i mentioned today during our hearing, i think the story of the 2016 election is really a story of disloyalty to country about greed and about lies. And if theres anything that i think symbolizes those three strands of the 2016 election, it was moscow trump tower. It was this massive real estate project that the president was trying to consummate while he was running for president and concealing it from the country. This i think demonstrated disloyalty to the country by
deceiving the American People about this massive Business Opportunity he was seeking while he was running for president. It certainly is a vivid example of the greed of people involved with that campaign. And be an ample demonstration of all the lies that permeated the campaign and its aftermath. That to me is the story of the 2016 election. We need to make sure that is not the story of the 2020 election. Ill say this on the issue of impeachment which i view in very much the same way as the speaker. Maybe im just an old prosecutor. But before i brought a case to indictment, i wanted to make sure that i had the strongest evidence possible. I wanted to understand my case, i wanted to be able to make my case. Now, i tried an Impeachment Case in the senate about ten years ago, Corrupt Federal Judge who was convicted. So i have some understanding what it takes to get a conviction in the senate and i have no illusions about getting a conviction in the senate, but
there are two juries in an peach impeachment. There is the jury which is the senate wit decides removal from office and then there is the jury that is the American People. And im most concerned about the jury that is the American People. And before we embark on a course as significant to the country as the impeachment of a country i want to make sure we can make that case to the jury of the American People. I thank our distinguished chairmen, so proud of all of them. Following up on the last statement by Chairman Schiff, e pluribus unum, thats the guidance our founders gave us. Cant imagine how many we would are or how different from one another, they wan us to remember that we are one. When we go down this path, we want it to be as unifying for our country, not dividing. Thats why we want it to be the strongest possible case. President lincoln said public sentiment is everything. In order for the public to have
the sentiment, the public has to know. I hope you will be messengers of the truth to the public. We think today was really a milestone in making that sentiment be more informed. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. We have been listening to Speaker Of The House nancy pelosi and the Top Democrats on each of the relevant committees on this historic day, mueller day, in washington. The speaker there tamping down questions about impeachment while her Committee Chairs were vigorous on what they think muellers it meant and what theyll continue to do. We have a big show including a breakdown on some of the most important thing mueller testified, testifying under oath today for the first time about the russia probe but given that Press Conference, i want to bring in former u. S. Attorney joyce vance and former federal prosecutor John Flannery. Before i get into the rest of it, what was important to you about that Press Conference . This conference gave us a road map where democrats are
headed thats knee court on friday to get the court to order the release of grand jury information and to issue a subpoena top don mcgahn. If he comes into congress and tells the story to the public, that he apparently told in the Mueller Report, that could be the breakaway moment. I see the dual between nadler and at the pel. Nadler has been taking a stronger turn toward impeachment. Pelosi is still giving the buzz kill. I think the drift is toward nadler and cant happen soon enough for the public, for the days and independents and others who saw what happened today at the hearings. Watching that you could see daylight between the questions that the president were most Interested In, whats the outcome of this, Chairman Nadler who did cast a vote for impeachment last week and Speaker Pelosi. We wanted to give everyone a little context for that and turn to the most Important News in american on this Special Edition of the beat. Former Special Counsel mueller taking a turn that remember he long resisteded from prosecutor to witness, addressing congress
and the nationing about ongoing russian meddling, the president s unpatriotic actions, and mueller said the rules prevented him on trumps cullableability for obstruction or this question of impeachment. Let me show you what the highlights were. The day was split between judiciary and intelligence which made for two different prisms, one about the law, the other about National Security. Mueller began the daycarefully taking those legal questions on obstruction but often deflecting and pairing them. All told, we counted here at nbc he declined to answer 198 questions today. When the legal questions boiled down is President Trump a cook, bob mueller would answer its not for him to say. When those security questions, particularly in the second hearing boiled down to should the president act better than a crook are, muellers answer was
under oath and in public today to america, yes, he should. If you listen closely, when mueller was asked direct questions about this criminal evidence on trump like did he interfere with the probe, did he say yes. In fact, some of the most important answers today were those short confirmations from Fact Checking trump top stating under oathing that welcoming russias meddling is unpatriotic. Your investigation is not a witch hunt. It is not. When the president said the russian interference was a hoax, that was false. True. Your investigation found evidence that russia wanted to help trump win the election, right. That would be accurate. Knowingly accepting foreign assistance during a president ial campaign is and you ethical thing to do. And a crime. We can agree that its also unpatriotic . True. We should hold our elected officials to a standard higher than Meara Voidance of contractnality, shouldnt we . Absolutely. Absolutely. If you listen closely what you
heard was bob mueller forming a judgment of donald trump. And it was not a positive one. So as we dig into the substance tonight on what is one of the most moment to us days of this era, consider this next thing we learned. After all the people indict or convicted of obstructing this probe and lie together feds including several Trump Advisers note what im about to show you. Today you can hear bob mueller for the first time say in his own words under oath that donald trump followed the same path that those others were indicted for. Let me repeat before you see this. Bob mueller referring to donald trump following that same illegal path making false untruthful statements to muellers investigators. In fact, there were. Questions that you asked the president that he simply didnt answer. Isnt that correct . True. And there were many answers that contradicted other evidence you had gathered during the investigation. Isnt that correct . Yes. Director mueller, could you
say Director Mueller, that the president was credible . I cant answer that question. Director mueller, isnt it fair to say that the president s written answers were not only inadequate and complete, his answers showed he wasnt always being truthful . I would say generally. Generally untruthful is worse than rarely or what youd want if you were any other normal nonpresident witness which is a no. Mr. Mueller did not go beyond the limits that he set for himself because theyre not just laws. He said he Wouldnt Go Beyond his report. Other prosecutors have. He told everyone he Wouldnt Go Beyond his report so everyone including the press was on notice. Mr. Mueller i want to be clear in fairness to the white house, as well, mr. Mueller never explicitly built up a case for impeachment today but he did confirm serious evidence against the sitting president and confirmed doj can indict an
expresident. But under Department Of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for Obstruction Of Justice crimes after he leaves office. Is that correct . True. True. And mueller implored americans to take russias ongoing attacks seriously and dug into several other issues that were going to get into substantively in the special coverage on the beat tonight. Now i want to bring back in two analysts, joyce vance and John Flannery. John, what was important about those passages . What was important it put the lie to the public story that the public perceives. They have the story, this false story that the investigation didnt show us anything. And in fact, we have a whole series of things in chronological and significant order telling us from the treasury of a foreign nation state involved in our election and the combined with the campaign of mr. Trump and then the effort to the cover all of it up afterwards is a real
thing. That he was not exonerated and in fact, in several cases, based on the questions he got, he stretched out a little bit and suggested i have the evidence here but he didnt say an that. It was very interesting at one point he was asked he when he was before the Intelligence Committee show what are you suggesting would be the alternatives. And he suggested the word impeach which clarified in a way his report didnt that he thought the next logical accept store the congress was to impeach. Thats the issue i think. Joyce, on the substance today is also a test for america and the body politic, how do we deal with all the information coming at us, with it being delayed. I dont think theres any doubt some of this would have been useful earlier and for that, im going to play you another example. For the months that donald trump was saying witch hunt, bob mueller could have rebutted that earlier as i mentioned. Other prosecutors have rebutted in realtime. It took a subpoena because hes so by the book to get this. 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. They have underplayed to a certain extent that aspect of our investigation that has and would have longterm daniel to the United States. Bob mueller has never pretended to be anything other than a prosecutor. Hes not a politician. Hes not making a case for impeachment. Hes fair. He wasnt theatrical. He told us today he bent recovery backwards to present evidence that was favorable to the president. Thats what should really hit everyone tonight with the that commitment to fairness, he makes a remarkable case today, both on the Obstruction Prong and also on the threat to the country regarding russia. We should Pay Attention to mueller when he says this. Its hard to watch this full day because i think in many ways its a long day. Its not easy watching the sausage get made but when you show these short takes and we put them together, its clear that mueller in his own way is telling us this president obstructed justice and people who obstruct justice do it because theyre concerned about whether or not theyre guilty. Trump may not have known whether or not he committed a Collusion Conspiracy with russia but he was scared that that might be the outcome and he didnt want muellers investigators to have full access to everything. Thats why they obstructed. You put your finger on something that is both legal but also broadly understandable which is if youre not guilty, why are you acting so guilty. If youre not scared, why do you look so shook. You said its useful to go into the hearing. Were going to do that tonight. So the panel stays and im going to bring in another special guest, a former counsel to a top Congressional Committee here to digging into this. Why this exchanging with a
mueller fact check of trump was so pivotal today. So the report did not conclude that he did not commit Obstruction Of Justice. That is correct. Did you actually totally exonerate the president. No. Does that say there was no obstruction . No. Flow. I bring in as promised sophia nelson, a regular on our show who was relevantly counsel to a top house committee, the Oversight Committee on the republican side although have you outlined many concerns with this president s conduct. When you look at that exchange, which really boils down to be Bob Mueller Say nothing to trump a few times and it took a subpoena to get there, what does it mean to you. Let me start and say it was a disappointing day for me as a Republican Committee council to see no republican on either committee today stand up for justice, for the constitution, to ask probative questions to, actually inquire about facts. Thats the first problem. Youre saying you dont think that the republicans used this to do fact finding on the intel side deal with the profound National Security questions. Right. That was most disturbing. You you can see on the Judiciary Committee, i kind of get the politics on that, but when youre dialling with a russian cyber attack on america, republicans should have had as many concerns as their democratic colleagues. Back to the exchanging with nadler and mueller, What You Saw Today was exactly what joyce said. Muellers not a movie star, not a theatrical guy. Hes not someone thats going to get us, sited. He didnt want to be there be today. He answered the questions to the best of his ability. What he said was alarming. Im listening closely to you. This has been a debate in the legal circles, political circles, maybe all circles. When you witnessed this and you have been through hearings before, did you see bob mueller warm up over the course of the day . You say he didnt want to be
there. By the end of the day, did he say, im here, maybe theres things i do want to get across or one view is he warmed up. The other view is, on judiciary, he was still trying to defend these very serious rules and on intel, hes like look, we didnt say the trump conspired. So having closed that out, what we will say is all of this stuff was concerning and unpatriotic and he sort of was unbridled by the rules. He was on two different playing fields. Judiciary committee is more difficult because he knows ultimately they want to go towards impeachment. On the intel committee, you could tell he was more impassioned about russia attacked our country and we ought to be alarmed and doing something about it. I think he did feel more uncontained where he could get into some of the exchanges were unbelievable. He actually woke up in the second part. At the took some red bull probably. Are you saying that bob mueller in your view is woke . Flow, he woke for sure. He tried. The other thing here, were not pulling punches one way or the other. How we try to do it. Yes. The other reason that the Judiciary Hearing was harder for mueller was that he had more turf to try to defend. And more decisions that were democratic who disagreed with certain things but wanted facts out of him. There were republicans who raised things that as ive reported today actually are at least valid or legitimate critiques so we dont know everything that the investigators know. We werent in the room. As journalists were at a distance. Let me play an exchange that i know you agree with the premise of thecrit tyke which is why didnt they go hard earn get an interview with the president. Take a look. Why didnt you subpoena the president. We negotiated from with him for a little over a year and we were almost towards the end of the investigation and we had little success in pushing to get the interview of the president. What did you think of the president s written responses,
mr. Mueller . It was certainly not as useful as the interview would be. The president didnt ever claim the fifth amendment, did he . Im not going to talk to that. I think he did something very interesting though. He spoke about weighing things. The expedition that he wanted to finish the investigation and what he had suggesting he had enough for obstruction and didnt need more. And he did have that full statement and the answers. So i think that that was critically important and it meets the issue of trump saying i am not a witch basically. And he doesnt really get away with it after this hearing. So he looks kind of foolish. You about he says here we were almost towards the end of our investigation. Yes. You have argued on this show. He should go further. You cant say youre at the end of the investigation if you havent done Everything Possible to get the facts about the Criminal Intent of the individual being krutdized in volume two, the president. In his testimony he took us down the corrupt intent thing
when he was asked about the three elements that were necessary. The checklist. I thought that was excellent. Even when he shaded a little bit that he was still pushed on it, i think effectively to say it was made out. Joyce spoke earlier about a road map. Youre speaking about the checklist. I have a news alert for everyone, its a little scoop. The checklist today is the road map. If youre into that kind of thing, we have a Special Report on that later in the hour. Panel stays with me. Well come back to you. I turn to a very special guest, im about to go to malcolm nance. Let me give you the context. There was hours of careful and legal testimony today and then there was kind of a wow moment when mueller took out his version of his careful Methodical Rhetorical 2x4 and said, donald trump was boosting illegal activity linked to russia. This wikileaks is like a treasure trove, donald trump october 31st, 2016, boy, i love
reading those wikileaks. Donald trump november 4th, 2016, would any of those quotes disturb you . Problematicing an understatement in terms of giving some, i dont know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity. I am joined by Intelligence Analyst malcolm nance. What did that moment mean . That moment meant that be three years ago in and one day today, wikileaks was the leading edge of an attack on the United States and Robert Mueller recognizeded that Donald Trumps amplification, praise of wikileaks and encouragement within his campaign using people who were in communications with them knowing that this was already popularly being called
in media a Russian Investigation operation that he didnt care and that his actions were unpatriotic and certainly they didnt fall in the rem of contractuality within this probe but certainly not something any american should engage in. And you lay it out like that. Why we wanted to turn to this piece because so much in washington is about does it hurt or help a given side and how does it look and how does it play . And bob mueller from covering him strikes me as someone who doesnt care which is precisely why he is credible on these issues over the long hall and disappointed political factions at various moments. With that in mind take a look at this exchange where what does mueller care about, where does can he become more animated . The idea that russia continues to do this during a backdrop where everyone knows the Current Administration is exactly out there preventing it at all times. Is this in your
investigation, did you think that this was way a single attempt by the russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest 24r5e8 try to do this again. It wasnt a single attempt. Theyre doing it as we sit here and they expect to do it during the next campaign. Give us the intelligence reasoning why again as ive mentioned tonight, bob mueller can sit there and actually make a fowardlooking statement, an estimate or prognostication here in the intelligence ekz which i know you know he would never do during the obstruction hearing, he would never say someone lied to us a bunch. I predict theyll commit a crime again. Such a different approach. Walk us through the intel of that. You know, the part of this report that none of us truly knows the depth of is the intelligence, the Counter Intelligence component of this. And the reason that a lot of questions werent answered today and i saw them, they were black holes as we call in the intelligence community. Information that should be there
all the gravitys moving towards it abwere not seeing that answer. Like the discussion about Professor Joseph mosud. Mueller didnt want to touch that because out there there is this is fbi apparatus that is still hunting spies or suspected spies within this investigation. So that being said, he was animated on this point because these are real threats to the United States. These are things which can actually hurt us. He was hobbled on the legal side. There was only so much he could do. Hes anstutionalist, he played to that institution with regards to the olc memo but with regards to Counter Intelligence, they doesnt want to talk about it. He wants the National Security division of the fbi to start breaking up plots which we may never hear about. Stay with me. I see John Flannery nodding to what youre saying. Well, i think what hes saying is spot on. You asked about his energy,
about that issue. I think he feels its urgent because it is now. And i thought he broke a little bit with his pattern by saying this is going on now. Thats certainly beyond his report. So it is an emergency and it makes you understand that if this is going on now in 2020 is approaching us, then the obstruction makes a lot of sense because we have to keep a lid on this so we can steal the next election. Malcolm, theres another thing that happened here where they say sometimes the most interesting stuff can in the footnotes. There was also what was unsaid but implied. Id like your analysis on this. Look, Director Mueller is not interested, Former Special Counsel Mueller isnt Interested InHolding Forth on his view of anything Donald Trumps ever done. That makes him different than other senior federal officials including james comey who have given their views as private citizens. Yet, look at this exchange where he seems from a Security Perspective very clearly say it
matters if donald trump was actively campaigning for a huge russian Business Deal and hid it and lied about it and did that and this is where in i said in fairness to the white house earlier, here in skepticism of the white house, you cant complain about an investigation taking time when youre lengthening It Bill Piling up the lies. Take a look. When the president said he had no Business Dealings with russia, in fact he was seeking to build a trump tower in moscow, was he not. I think there is some question about when this was accomplished. Well, you would consider a billion dollar deal to build a tower in moscow to be Business Dealings, wouldnt you . Absolutely. Malcolm . Yeah, hes absolutely right. What Robert Mueller was not tacked with in this investigation was determining whether donald trump was compromised by Vladimir Putin himself what he was being handled by russian intelligence,
whether all of this was an elaborate 30year dangle being used because of Donald Trumps interest since 1988 to get a moscow tower where he would make hundreds of millions, perhaps as much as A Billion Dollars in profit. Mueller was not tacked with susing that out, but he automobile has an opinion about it because that would go to all of the things which were alleged here and as he mentioned in part 2 of the report, why he would lie about it and obstruct justice when it was not under his purview. Right which is the Connective Tissue between the morning and the afternoon. As you say not his purview. Col um 1 doesnt close the circle what you just alludesed you you alluded to. The president is saying foreign governments should give his Companies Money by hosting the g7 summit. That would be a huge scandal for any other president. Obviously were just mentioning it in passing with a lot of other scandals. Malcolm, thank you. My special thanks to joyce vance, John Flannery and sophia. As weve been reporting, mueller hit hardest on this russia stuff. There was also the grilling going in the other direction with questions about how mueller might have pushed harder including on something i mentioned before that hangs over any analysis of what was in Donald Trumps mind, did he commit a crime, did he have Criminal Intent. Well, would you have wanted an interview with trump. What did you think of the president s written responsibilitieses, mr. Mueller . It was certainly not as useful as the interview would be. Did you have sufficient evidence of the president s intent to obstruct justice and is that why you didnt do the interview. Theres a balance. In other words, how much evidence you have does it satisfy the last element against how much are you willing to spend in the could yours
litigating a interview with the president. And that wasnt the only unanswered question here that both sides and this is pretty interesting, both sides got into. There was also this question that im sure if you followed our coverage of the Mueller Report you heard about, which is was the Obstruction Nals clear enough. Could bob mueller like other prosecutors like ken starr, have said more clearly what donald trump did and whether it amounted to criminal conduct. We saw lawmakers of all stripes demanding more clarity on these points. For the nonlawyers in the room, what did you mean by potentially preempt constitutional processes. Im not going to try to explain that. Now, since you decided under the olc opinion that you couldnt prosecute a sitting president , meaning President Trump, why did we have all of this investigation if President Trump that the other side is talking about when you knew that you arent going to prosecute
him . Well, you dont know where the investigation is going to lie. I want to bring in a very special guest, former u. S. Attorney david kelley. If youve watched the beat before, youve seen him, he was the chief of the Southern District of new york, the very office that has graduated people like james comey, Preet Bharara and rudy giuliani. He also is my former boss in law. Nice to see you, sir. I should mention for everyone, i cant hear david yet, im going to pull stay with me. Im going to pull an audible and say gene, i can hear you because youre sitting next to me. Good afternoon. While we work on that, the same question i wanted to ask both of you which is what does it tell you one of the only areas of logical overlap, whatever you think of motives, was members of both parties on the Judiciary Committee saying gosh, would have been helpful. At one point a republican said Straight Up Mueller back of his
head and Republican Sensenbrenner says starr told us what was impeachable. Why cant you. Thats one of the things i criticize Robert Mueller about and i have the utmost respect for him. But what he should have done today is clarified a question that everybody has been asking. You said you could not exonerate him. You say the olc memo prevents you from indicting. But give us the punch line. Do you have you enough evidence to charge him with Obstruction Of Justice. I think there is. Our viewers are familiar with you saying a lot of things that kind of go at trump. Hard, hard. Sounds to me like your bottom line is, some of the republicans had a point on that today. Absolutely. All right. Let me play one of them. Congressman radcliff and david kelley, i think were scared away. Take a good listen. Lets look at that. The im not going to go
beyond that. I would refer you to the Court Proceedings on that issue. I dont recall that one. Im not going to answer that. Im not going to talk about that. About that issue. Im not going to comment on that. Im not going to try to explain that. David . Yeah. Your view on the same issue gene just discussed. Should mr. Mueller in the report today been more clear . I can take the other side but i can see him not pushing it that far because once you take off the table the indictment by the olc memo, youre throwing it into a political process for impeachment. He has Spoon Fed Congress and the public. I mean i agree with joyce vance. If you take all those clips together, that cuts out a lot of the garbage and focuses on what he actually said. Then you really see a composite of information that gives plenty of information for congressional Impeachment Proceedings recognizes its not so much as a
criminal law standard because you dont have to meet the elements of a criminal offense for impeachment. High crimes and misdemeanors really means abuse of power, abuse of trust. He doesnt have to meet the elements of defense. The elements of Obstruction Offense for congress which sets some sort of con next what they should look for but not the require thes what they need to find for impeachment. Once you focus on this being more of a political issue because olc has taken off the table an indictment as it relates to the president , then i think hes given them enough. I can see him as being the epitome of all prosecutor whats a prosecutor should be, not going beyond the four corners can of the document and let the political folks figure it out because thats the arena in which it now faus. David, shall we take to mean that people are kind of being daft that he laid it out and he didnt use the i word and its good enough. I think the public and
congress need to work a little bit, not like theres an important issue. Laziness is not acceptable here and people should dig into it and see all the gems that are there. Talk about ten instances of justice, right . But recognize when were talking about criminal law, when were talking about obstruction is not obstructing something. Its endeavoring to impede or obstruct. You dont really have to succeed. You jut mentioned whether or not there is intent. And if you have ten instances of endeavoring to obstruct, somewhere in there youre going to find intent if you walk into a courtroom. Thats fair. I plugged earlier our road map checklist which is our Special Report later in the hour where Hakeem Jeffries makes that argument. Let me play this republican Congressman Radcliff in the exchange taking the other side of davids point. Take a look. 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 declination 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 Obstruction Of Justice, the Special Counsel made neither a Prosecution Decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. 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. David, you worked at the justice department. I did. Your response . Look, if it wasnt specifically authorized, i think thats kind of a silly argument. But v knows and everybody would
expect you let the facts take you where they lead you. Thats what he did. If hes diving into the whole russian issue and that leads him into Obstruction Issues which it did, he would be yelling at him for not pursuing that. Look, if it was a president on the other side of the aisle, you can get radcliff would be screaming bloody murder if he left that out of his report. Sure. Thats why i kept referring to logical overlap meaning the republicans are saying something some trump critics said which is gosh, if this looks and seems like a crime, why didnt you use it to call it a crime. They would have gone ten alarm fire if he handed over something that attacked trump without the benefit of trial and they would have said youre worse than comey and all that. As is often the case in washington i dont say all the motives are clear. Weigh in on something else
buzzed about all day. I want to get you in on it, which is the criticism that compared to past hearings and compared to other times when bob mueller has wanted to make a point, he did seem to be bobbing and weaving a lot. We played earlier some of the evasions. At times he seemed to not be into it. Is that in your view relevant or is that kind of not the point of today . I think of charles dickens. Had you two hearings. The first hearing he had no energy. He was low energy. No pun intended. For some reason he felt my view is he felt that that report established Obstruction Of Justice no doubt. And i want to add this. Bill barr told cbs news in a may 30 interview that mueller had the right to the decide yes or no on that. The Fireside Chat interview. Exactly. Second thing i want to say is the afternoon hearing, i dont know what happened. Maybe they gave him red bull, maybe a cup of coffee. But can i just was thinking about this waiting to come on. Hes a marine. Decorated. It is the American Flag that he is protecting. When he got to that hearing in the afternoon, is he defending the United States of america. Thats why his energy level got up. Which is the morning. I heard that from other people around him as much as he talks about the rules and he clearly followed him, nobody suggested otherwise, hes a human basically still. He is not a robot. No. And you could see the passion about taking on americas enemies and the i would argue barely veiled disgust what he called unpatriotic behavior by the president of the United States welcoming it. I got to fit in a pause so i want to thank gene rossi and david kelley. Great to have you both here. Thanks very much. Thank you. We now turn to the Special Report ive been promising. This was a historic hearing today and there were big issues
teed up. Is trumps conduct impeachable . Mueller wont say. Was trump wrong to welcome russias hacking yes. Is there evidence trump committed Obstruction Of Justice . That is one of the most fascinating exchanges under questioning by democratic congressman jeffreys. Maybe its not a coincidence where mueller is very careful, confirming troubling evidence against trump and saying that jeffries may be in the ballpark while stressing he wont cosign the whoa analysis. I dont subscribe necessarily to your the way you analyzed that. Im not saying its out of the ballpark but im not supportive of that analytical charge. What got mueller speaking so carefully, a damning section of the Mueller Report. Now lets look at this mornings exchange in the news at the
time. President trump tweeted on june 16th, 2017 i am being investigated for firing the fbi director by the man who told me to fire the fbi director. Witch hunt. The president of the United States now confirming that he is under investigation along with his soninlaw. Constitutes a public acknowledgment by President Trump that he was under criminal investigation. Correct . I think generally correct. Mueller confirms that trump was tweeting scared and was upset about the investigation, which can make trump look guilty because it speaks to his motives when he tried to get mueller fired which happened the very next day after the tweet. Jeffreys asked mueller about that which was huge news. On saturday, june 17th, President Trump called White House Counsel Don Mcgahn at home and directed him to fire the Special Counsel. True . Another damaging report
linked to the russia probe, that mr. Trump gave an explicit order to have Special CounselRobert Mueller fired just a month after he was appointed. I believe to be true. That was big. Trump sprinting towards the kind of Saturday Night Massacre that led to the end of the nixon presidency. Today mueller says under oath what his report documented, that trump did try to take that potentially illegal act, something trump would then reportedly try to do even more than once. Today mueller spoke to the checklist required to prove whether there is a crime of obstruction. You have to say, well, is there a probe to obstruct in the first place . Check. Is there an Obstructive Act . Check. And then the hardest to prove, was there Criminal Intent in taking that act . Goes to that last becomes to check, Criminal Intent, showing someone not only tried to obstruct but why . Something weve been discussing in our coverage tonight. This is when jeffries highlights, there is no watergate taping system, but
mueller came somewhat close, going into the Inner Sanctum of the oval office. Trump saying when he learn to have had Special Counsels appointment, oh my god, this is terrible. Its the end of my presidency, im fd. Suggesting maybe his motive wasnt muellers alleged conflicts, but stopping the whole probe. It was a substantive moment by the time you had those different boxes checked. If Congress Accepts representative Jeffr Representative Jeffries logic, this News Photograph capturing each of those checked boxes on obstruction regarding the effort to fire mueller with the committees legal analysis right inside the room. Youll notice those checked boxes are in sharp focus. Mueller, positioned the way he prefers, out of focus. And ultimately, youre looking at a Snap Portrayal in the
spirit of mueller, because it focuses on the evidence that was uncovered and leaves mueller and his investigators where he thinks they belong, out of focus. Lets remember, mueller has already said, the evidence should speak for itself, a Classic Maxim in law. While a hearing is always going to have these reactions to the witness and how he sounded, for one moment tonight, before i bring in another special guest, it is worth reflecting on this substance from today. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the governments effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. The work speaks for itself. And the report is my testimony. There you have it. Now i turn to as promised a special guest on this historic day when a former Special Counsel testifies about a probe of the sitting president. Very news worthy gte is jay
sekulow. Hi. Who represented the president in the mueller probe. Thank you for doing this. Sure. My pleasure. Lets begin something very relevant to your client. Here is mueller factchecking trump today. There was no collusion with russia. There was no obstruction, and none whatsoever. And it was a complete and total exoneration. Did you actually total exonerate the president . No. Jay, well, you and the president now acknowledge mueller did not conclude total exoneration . No, im not going to acknowledge that, because i said on your program and others that the Exoneration Standard is absurd. Prosecutors do not exonerate. They determine whether there is culpability to move forward or not. And what did Bob Mueller Say today when he had to correct his testimony on the issue of the olc opinion and congressman lieu had asked him earlier in the Judiciary Committee hearing but
for the olc opinion, you would have gone with an indictment . He came back and said no, that wasnt correct because we never made a legal determination on criminal culpability. How heres what did happen. They did not make a determination. Thats what became clear. And it ultimately went to the Department Of Justice. Inside the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney general and the office of Legal Counsel reviewed bob muellers evidence through the lens of bob mueller and concluded there was no obstructive intent. Thats true that barr did that but the president said muellers report was a total exoneration, and mueller today said under oath thats not true. Youre not suggesting that mueller was lying today, you . Im telling what im thinking. I think bob mueller has confl e conflated and does not understand the burden of proof. And youre a good lawyer, ari. Bob mueller does not understand the burden of proof . I got to keep moving. Its your program. Let me really quickly, here is the issue. You and i both know that the term exoneration is not a legal term of art. That in any case where there is a criminal manner, a prosecutor either moves forward with the prosecution or declines. And this in a sense became a declination and certainly became a declination when it went to the Department Of Justice. But its your program, your question. It certainly in ways looked like a declination, but the president claimed it was total exoneration, putting words in muellers mouth. Today is the First Americans have herd mueller say the president was wrong about that. Let me show you something that i think is more concerning for your client. You obviously never want to be in a situation where a former prosecutor is suggesting your client committed perjury. Take a look at this today. Isnt it fair to say that the president s written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete, his answers showed that he wasnt always being truthful . I would say generally. Generally untruthful. Whats your response to mueller suggesting that there may have been untrue statements made by the president . As you know, thats a potential
violation of federal law. Well, there are only two groups that know what the correspondence was between the office of Special Counsel and my team. The phrase Untruthful Lowe never came up in that correspondence. I want to be very clear on that. So their issue, again, im not trying to say anything negative about bobs performance today, but i think that whole response well. You say burden of proof. You said id today earlier you. Said it was not a good day. I heard you this morning after the Judiciary Committee meeting. So i think thats a consensus with everyone. Why wasnt it a good day . As they say, jay move the case forward. As they say, jay, this is why you watch. Im glad you were watching. I did call it like i saw it on some of the issues in the hearing. I do think bob mueller from my viewers understand is a seasoned prosecutor who understands what burden of proof. The other thing that was really strike, and i want to make sure to get you on the record on this is mueller discussing the
potential prosecution of an expresident. Take a look. Yeah. Knowingly accepting for ini assistance during a president ial campaign is an unethical thing toe do. And a crime. We can also agree its unpatriotic. True. Boy, i love reading those wikileaks. Donald trump, wouldnt those quotes disturb you . Problematic is an understatement. Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office . Yes. You believe that he committed you could charge the president of the United States with Obstruction Of Justice after he left office . Yes. You get the final word on the beat tonight. Your view of mr. Mueller using his testimony to say your client acted unpatriotically and leaving the door open to a potential prosecution of an expresident. The unpatriotic comment i thought was gratuitous and unnecessary. With regard to future prosecutions, lets not forget that the Department Of Justice concluded there was no obstructive intent. So i dont buy any of that. Im not concerned about any of that. If this was the democratic partys best case to put forward today, as many of your friends have said, they did not move the needle. This was a good day pour the president. Thanks for having me, ari. Always great to you. Have you spoken to the president about this today . I would never discuss the conversations ive had with the president , but needless to say it was good day. He was happy. With most clients, youll never know because he was explicitly retweeting you, it seemed like you guys were on the same page today. I got to say its a big news day. You represent the sitting president. I really appreciate you coming back here on the beat. As always, my pleasure. Jay sekulow. We have had quite a show. We started here talking about what bob mueller did and didnt do today. And why in the morning when he began he was so careful, so circumscribed and didnt ever say anything was really a crime or impeachable with regard to the president. And yet by the afternoon, as i was just discussing with the basically the lawyer for the sitting president of the united