does that mean you have to investigate all of his conduct to ascertain true motive? 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. thank you. let me go to the screen again. for each of those ten potential instances of obstruction of justice, you analyze three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice. an obstructive act, and an official proceeding, and criminal intent, is that correct? yes. actions by the president to end a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of
establish that the russians interacted with the government, and then in volume 2, for whatever reason, the special counsel did not make a determination on whether the president conducted obstruction, is that fair? yes. because the special counsel did not make a decision, the report on the bottom of page 2, volume 2 reads as follows. the evidence we have obtained about the president s actions and intent produces difficult issues that prevents us from exclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. reportedly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. i read that correctly? yes. now, your report, and today you said that at all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by and followed justice department policies and principles. so which doj policy or principle sets forth the legal standard that an investigated person is
which comes from page 7, volume 2. now, is it correct that if you concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today? can you repeat the question, sir? is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you couldn t publicly state that in your report or here today? i would say you the statement would be that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the olc opinion, a sitting president cannot be indicted. it would be unconstitutional. so you could not state that because of the olc opinion if that had been your conclusion? the olc opinion with some guide, yes. under the department of justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct? true. thank you. did any senior white house
no. when you were appointed as special counsel, was president trump s firing of comey something you anticipated investigating, potentially obstruction of justice? i can t get into that. that s internal deliberations in the justice department. actually, it goes to your credibility, and maybe you ve been away from the courtroom for a while, credibility is material and that goes for you, too. you re a witness for us. when you talked to president trump the day you were appointed as 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. i was asking did he mention the firing of james comey in your discussion with him? i cannot remember. pardon? i cannot remember. i don t believe so, but i can t be specific. you don t remember. but if he did, you could have been a fact witness as to the
gentlelady of california demonstrates what is at stake. the trump campaign chair paul manafort was passing sensitive voter information and polling data to a russian operative. there were so many other ways that russia subverted our democracy. together with the evidence in volume 1, i cannot think of a more serious need to investigate. so now i m 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? and do you have the citations, ma am? page 12, volume 2. and which portion of that page? that is, we determined that there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues