of this testimony, it s more likely to be member questions than staff, but we re going to be convening among ourselves to determine the best method to approach this hearing. just going to be an incredibly important moment for the country. i don t envy you, the job of prepping for it, sir, but i hope you ll keep us apprised as we get closer to the date. thank you for helping us understand. congressman adam schiff, chairman of the intelligence committee. really appreciate it, sir. he s got to leave because he s got to go vote and i think i held him long. sorry. but he s on his way to make that vote and i hope that he does. but, again, this is this is an important step. this is what the american people have been waiting for since the mueller report was released to us in the form that we got, which is sort of an explanation of what s in that report, and i think in particular, of why the special counsel and his staff approached the russia investigation the way that they did. it has not
resistant to speaking at all, as he put it, beyond the four corners of the report that he and his staff put out in writing. can you shed any light on that for us and tell us what these negotiations have been like? i ve seen you express dissatisfaction or impatience or frustration that it s taken this long to arrange his testimony. well, you know, i will let the special counsel speak for himself and their office speak for themselves, but i think that what they have represented to us is that they view themselves as prosecutors, and prosecutors don t normally talk outside of the trial or outside of the indictment, but let s face it, this is not a traditional prosecutorial case. and what s more, bill barr has felt more than free as the attorney general to speak well beyond the mueller report, and if he is able to speak beyond the four corners of the mueller report, then so too should bob mueller feel free so to do so. so we have never concurred with that judgement, but i think
investigations, obviously chairman schiff took pains to point out that there is going to be open session testimony but it s going to be followed by testimony in closed session that will involve mueller s staff. even at that closed session where members are used to hearing classified information and all sorts of sensitive stuff, those justice department staffers, those special counsel s office staffers, even in closed session they won t be able to talk to members of congress about ongoing open criminal matters, will they? i don t think so. typically not. some of the things for which the department of justice will typically invoke privilege, you know, or narrowly they re supposed to disclose and be transparent but there are a few areas of sensitivity. grand jury material is one and another is ongoing criminal matters. they wouldn t want to say anything that might jeopardize the success of those investigations. all right. even behind closed doors. yeah. there is always the chance th
point out that there is going to be open session testimony but it s going to be followed by testimony in closed session that will involve mueller s staff. even at that closed session where members are used to hearing classified information and all sorts of sensitive stuff, those justice department staffers, those special counsel s office staffers, even in closed session they won t be able to talk to members of congress about ongoing open criminal matters, will they? i don t think so. typically not. some of the things for which the department of justice will typically invoke privilege, you know, ordinarily they re supposed to disclose and be transparent but there are a few areas of sensitivity. grand jury material is one and another is ongoing criminal matters. they wouldn t want to say anything that might jeopardize the success of those investigations. all right. even behind closed doors. yeah. there is always the chance that someone will disclose something that happened that can
we ve all been sort of marinating in it since it first came out. what springs to your mind immediately what mueller should be asked in this setting that was mandated by the subpoena and described to us by the chairman. well, first i would want to know, did you really intend to leave it to attorney general william barr to make a decision when you declined to make a prosecutorial decision? william barr says, well, that leaves it to me and i decide no obstruction. was that your intention? i would ask that, number one. number two, i would ask him about you didn t make a decision with regard to obstruction but you treated it very differently than conspiracy. you said the evidence does not establish conspiracy. with obstruction you said something very different, we do not charge the president but we also do not zbaunt him. what do you mean by that? because there was evidence of crime here and you didn t feel it was fair to say it out loud? with regard to conspiracy, at one point in the rep