at i was going to ask you if you could just tell me which ones you had in mind as successful when he wrote that sentence. i m going to pass on that. yeah. [laughs] director mueller, today we have talked a lot about the separate acts by this president, but you also wrote in your report that the overall pattern of the president s conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the president s acts, and the inferences can be drawn about his intent. correct? an accurate recitation from the report. right. on page 158, again, i think it s important for everyone to note that the president s conduct had a significant change when he realized that it was that the investigations were conducted to investigate his obstruction acts. in other words, when the american people are deciding
that it s fundamentally not only unfair, and the fact that it s fundamentally unfair is why this report was read dramatically tot over again, it simply not appropriate. so i m going to be very blunt bob mueller did not give a good reason for why he wrote, and his staff wrote, the second volume. which is what this hearing was all about. the second volume, the second part of his report, was on obstructive acts. and there is inconsistency with exactly what was the conclusion. and, why did he not do what the prosecutor was charged with doing? what he was charged with doing was to it, in fact, make a determination of whether there was a chargeable offense. of course, he failed to do that. i think that should be frustrating to everyone. it was certainly frustrating to attorney general barr. that s what you were hired to do.
to ascertain true motive? no. when you talk about the president s pattern of conduct that includes the 10 possible acts of obstruction that you investigated, is that correct, when you talk about the president s pattern of conduct, that would include the 10 possible acts of obstruction that you investigated, correct? i direct you to the report for how that is characterized. thank you. let me go through the screen again. for each of those 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice unanalyzed three elements of the crime. obstructive acts, nexus between the act and proceeding and corrupt intent, is that correct? you wrote on page 178, volume 2 about corrupt intent. actions by the president to end a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute an example of
he crumbles on the stand. you can t handle the truth. you can take his words and put it into a leading question. you could say, did you find substantial evidence that and then fill in the blank. describe in detail each of the obstructive acts, then robert mueller can simply say yes. he doesn t have to elaborate, he doesn t have to go beyond the four corners of the report. right there you have a sound bite in direct contradiction with there is no obstruction. here you have robert mueller saying, in fact, there was obstruction. i think they have to sort of work through those ten instances, go through them in detail, sort of lead robert mueller through them using his own words. i think that s how they ll get the most success here. what s the danger of a broader question like, when the president says no obstruction, no collusion, total exoneration, is he telling the truth, is he correct? is there a danger to a question like that? i think the danger is he s not going to want to answer
he crumbles on the stand. you can take his words and put it into a leading question. you could say, did you find substantial evidence that and then fill in the blank. describe in detail each of the obstructive acts, then robert mueller can simply say yes. he doesn t have to elaborate, he doesn t have to go beyond the four corners of the report. right there you have a soundbite in direct contradiction with there is no obstruction. here you have robert mueller saying, in fact, there was obstruction. i think they have to sort of work through those ten instances, go through them in detail, sort of lead robert mueller through them using his own words. i think that s how they ll get the most success here. what s the danger of a broader question like, when the president says no obstruction, no collusion, total exoneration, is he telling the truth, is he correct? is there a danger to a question like that? zin i think the danger is he s not going to want to answer that. you re not going t