decision after your investigation where, unless there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you wouldn t make a charge, correct? generally, that s the case. but making that decision does not mean your investigation failed to turn up evidence of conspiracy? that s correct. and, in fact, i will go through some of the significant findings that your exhaustive investigation made. you found, if mr. welsh. you found from may 2016, mr. manafort gave private polling portion. can you speak into the microphone? i will. my apologies. thank you. your investigation found in june of 2016, donald trump jr. made an arrangement to meet at trump tower along with jared kushner and others expecting to receive dirt on the hillary clinton campaign, correct?
i don t know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity. volume 1, page 59, donald trump jr. had direct communications with wikileaks during the campaign period. october 3, 2016, wikileaks sent another direct message to trump jr., asking guys to help disseminate a link alleging candidate clinton advocated a drone to attack julian assange. trump jr. responded back, quote, he had already done so. then question, this behavior, at the very least, disturb you? disturbing. also subject to investigation. could it be described as aiding cop fort to a hostile intelligence service, sir? i wouldn t characterize it with any specificity. i yield the balance to the chairman, please. not sure i can make good use
one thing in common. they were designed to weaken or embarrass the president, every sinle one. never was it leaked that you had found no evidence of collusion. never was it leaked that the steele dossier was a complete fantasy nor that it was funded by the hillary clinton campaign. mr. mueller, are you aware of anyone from your team having given advanced knowledge of the raid on roger stone s home to any person or the press including cnn? i m not gonna talk about specifics. i will mention but talk for a moment about persons who have become involved in an investigation. and the understanding that in a lengthy thorough investigation, some persons will be under a cloud that they should not be under a cloud. and one of the reasons for emphasizing, as i have, the
the one under the microscope. they want to say, no, no, no. not only are they going to do that here, but we re going to investigate the investigators, because they failed to look at what we want to look at. what they want to look at, not what s on the playing field today is it relevant to ask the question? if you re going to say michael flynn lied when he was questioned by the fbi and, you know, it s worth reminding everyone that that is what he was convicted of, lying, talking to the fbi, not of any collusion specifically. then why would it not all be relevant that professor msud, who lied to the fbi about his involvement, shouldn t also why did they give him a pass? doesn t that evoke curiosity at the very least for you? of course. martha, the answers are right in front of us. there was a counter intelligence investigation going on with a different set of rules. under that counter intelligence investigation, we don t know
we re discussing. this is supposed to be the other side. with due respect to juan, i have never seen an investigation where the investigators were not under investigation. every criminal trial i ever prosecuted, the defense puts the government investigators on trial and we allow it to happen because we consider it to be a part of the adversarial fact finding truth seeking process. you can t make a judgment about the prosecutor s version of events unless you kick the tires, unless you let it get tested. and that is the way you test it. you go into not only the motivation, but the conduct and the practices of the investigators. that s what happens in every case. let s go to ken starr, who s also standing by. ken, as you have watched this first chapter of the afternoon, house intelligence committee, what stands out? one of the thins has not been talked about is separation of powers and the power of the president.