Collusion is synonymous with conspiracy as that is set forth in the federal conspiracy statute. You said at your may 29th press conference and here today you choose your words carefully. Are you testifying Something Different than what your report states . Well, what im asking is if you can give me the citation i can look at the citation and evaluate whether it is actually let me clarify. You stated you would stay within the report. I stated your report back to you and you said that collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms. That was your answer was no. Thats correct. In that page 180 of volume 1 of your report, it says, as defined in legal dictionaries collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as a crime is set forth in 18 usc 371. You chose your words carefully are you contradicting your report right now. Not when i read it. You change your answer yes. No. If you look at the language. Im reading your report sir. Its a yes or no answer. Page 180. Volume 1. This is from your report. Correct. I have i leave it with the report. The report says they are sin phon muss. Out of your own report we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy. Did you ever look into other countries investigated, were other countries investigated or found knowledge they had interference in our election . I am not going to discuss other matters. That i yield back. The gentle lady from california. Director mueller as you heard from the chairman were mostly going to talk obstruction of justice today, is why evidence of possible obstruction is serious. To what extent did the russian government interfere in the 2016 president ial election . Could you repeat that . To what extent did the russian government interfere in the 2016 president ial election . Well, at particularly when it came to computer crimes and the like, the government was implicated. You wrote in volume 1 the russian government interfered in the 2016 president ial election in sweeping and systemic fashion. You also described in your report that the then Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared with a russian operative kilimnik the Campaign Strategy for winning democratic votes in midwestern states, an internal polling data of the campaign, isnt that correct . Correct. They discuss the status of the trum campaign and manaforts strategy for winning votes in midwestern states months before manafort caused internal data to be shared with kilimnik and the sharing continued for some period of time after their august meeting, isnt that correct . Accurate. Your investigation found that manafort briefed him on the state of the Trump Campaign and manaforts plan to win the election and that briefing encompassed the campaigns messaging, its internal polling data and includes discussion of battleground states which manafort identified as michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, and minnesota, isnt that correct . Thats correct. Is it your investigation determine who requested the polling data to be shared with kilimnik . I would direct you to the report. Thats what we have in the report with regard to that particular issue. We dont have the redacted version. This may be another reason we should get thaovt havesed cpaign polling data to further its sweeping and systemic interference in the 2016 president ial election. Thats a little bit out of our path. Fair enough. Did your investigation find that the russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates win withinning . Yes. Which candidate would that be . It would be trump. Correct. The president. Now the Trump Campaign wasnt exactly reluctant to take russian help. You wrote it expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through russian efforts, isnt that correct . Thats correct. Now, was the investigations determination, what was the investigations determination regarding the frequency with which the Trump Campaign made contact with the russian government . Well, i would have to refer you to the report on that. Well, we went through and we counted 126 contacts between russians or their agents and Trump Campaign officials or their associates. Would that sound about right . I cant say. I understand the statistic and i believe it i understand the statistic. Well, mr. Mueller, i appreciate your being here and your report, from your testimony, and the report, i think the American People have learned several things. First, the russians wanted trump to win. Second, the russians went on a sweeping cyber influence campaign. The russians hacked the dnc and they got the democratic game plan for the election. The russian Campaign Chairman met with the russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data, polling, and messaging in the battleground states. So while the russians were buying ads and creating propaganda, to influs when the outcome of the election, they were armed with information they had stolen from hacking of the dnc and they had been given by the Trump Campaign, chairman mr. Manafort. My colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this information from begeginning public, but i think its important for the American People to understand the gravity of the underlying problem that your report uncovered and with that, mr. Chairman, i would yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Goodor, de quickly summarize your Opening Statement this morning. You said in volume 1 on the issue of conspiracy the special counsel determined that the investigation did not establish that campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government, its election interference activities and volume 2, for reasons that you explain the special counsel did not make a determination on whether there was an obstruction of justice crime committed by the president. Is that fair . Yes, sir. All right. Now in explaining the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declaration decision, the report on the bottom of page 2 of volume 2, reads as follows the evidence we obtained about the president s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly while this report does not conclude that president committed a crime it also does not exonerate him. Now, i read that correctly . Yes. All right. Now your report and today you said that all times the special counsel team operated under was guided by and followed Justice Department policies and principles. Which doj policy or principle sets forth a standard if theyre not exonerated from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined . Can you repeat the last part of that question . Yeah. Which doj policy or principle set forth a Legal Standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined . Where does that language come from, director . Where is the doj policy that says that . Can i im sorry. Go ahead. Can you give me an example other than donald trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined . I cannot but this is a unique situation. You cant. Time is short. I have five minutes. Lets leave it at you cant find it because ill tell you why, it doesnt exist. The special counsels job nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trumps innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. Its in the in the documents or your appointment order or in the special counsel regulation, not in the justice manual or in the principles of federal prosecution, nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully, director, it was not the special counsels job to conclusively determine Donald Trumps innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our Justice System is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone, everyone is entitled to it including sitting president s. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never ever need to conclusively determine it. Now director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that i cant find and you said doesnt exist anywhere in the Department Policies and you used it to write a report and 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 as prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning and in your report that you made no determination so respectfully, director, you didnt follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says write a confidential report about decisions reached. Nowhere in here does it say, write a report about decisions that werent reached. You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages, about decisions that werent reached, about potential crimes that werent charged, or decided and respectfully, respectfully by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that arent charged, so americans need to know this, as they listen to the democrats and socialists on the other side of the oaisle as the do dramatic readings from this report that 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 and it was written in violation of every doj principle about extra prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman, this morning, when he said donald trump is not above the law. Hes not. But he dam sure shouldnt be below the law which is where volume 2 of this report puts him. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director mueller, good morning. Your exchange with the gentle lady from california demonstrates what is at stake. The Trump Campaign chair Paul Manafort was passing sensitive voter information and polling data to a russian operative and 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 im 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 . Do you have the citations. Page 12, volume 2. 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 involving the president , is that correct . Yes. Your reports also describes at least ten separate instances of possible obstruction of justice that were investigated by you and your team, is that correct . Yes. In fact, the table of contents sefx contents serves as a good guide of some of the acts you investigated and i put it on the screen. Page 157 of volume 2 you describe the acts and they range from the president s effort to curtail the special counsels investigation, the president s further efforts to have the attorney general take over the investigation, the president s orderers don mcgahn to deny that president tried to fire the special counsel and many others. Is that correct . Yes. I direct you now to what you wrote, director mueller. The president s pattern of conduct as a whole sheds light on the nature of the president s acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. 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 i direct you to the report for how that is characterized. Thank you. Let me go to the screen again. For each of those instances of obstruction of justice, you analyze d three elements of the crime. Obstructive act, between the act and official proceeding and corrupt intent. Is that correct . Yes. 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 would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct. Is that correct . Yes. To the screen again, even with the evidence you did find, is it true as you note on page 76 of volume 2 that the evidence does indicate that a thorough investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally that the president could have understood to be crimes that would give roiz to personal and political concerns. I rely on the language of the report. Is that relevant to potential obstruction of justice . Yes. You further elaborate on 157 obstruction of justice can be motivated to protect personal sbless against investigations where they fall into a gray area or to avoid personal embarrassment. Is that correct . On the screen can you repeat the question . Now that i have the language on the screen. Is it correct as you further elaborate obstruction of justice can be b motivated to protect personal interests to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area. Yes. Can you read the last question . The last question i want to make certain i got it accurate. It was on the screen asking if thats correct . Yes. Does a conviction of obstruction of justice result potentially in a lot of years of time in jail . Yes. Well, again, can you repeat the question just to make sure i have it accurate. Does obstruction of Justice Warrant a a lot of time in jail . Yes. Time of the gentle lady has expired. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Let me begin by reading the special counsel regulations by which you were appointed. It reads, quote, at the conclusion of the special counsels work, he or she shall provide the attorney general with the confidential report explaining the prosecution or decisions reached by the special counsel. Is that correct . Yes. Okay. On a regulation uses the word shall provide, does it mean the individual is, in fact, obligated whats being demand by the statute, meaning you dont have wiggle room, right . I would have to look more closely at the statute. I just read it to you. Volume 2, page 1, your report boldly states we determine not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. Is that correct . Im trying to find that citation. Director, could you speak more directly into the microphone please . Yes. Im sorry. Volume 2, page 1. We determine not to make a traditional judgment. Yes. Thats right in the beginning. Now since you decided under the olc opinion that you couldnt prosecute a sitting president meaning President Trump, why do we have all of this investigation of President Trump that the other side is is talking about when you knew that you werent going to prosecute him . You dont know where the investigation is going to lie. And olc opinion itself says that it you can continue the investigation even though you are not going to indict the president. Well, if youre not going to indict the president , you just continue fishing. And thats my observation. Sure, you can indict other people, but you cant indict the sit issing presideing president. Thats true. There are 182 pages in raw evidentiary material, including hundreds of references to 302, which are interviews by the fbi for individuals who have never been cross examined, in which did not comply with the regulation to explain the prosecution or deck la nation decisions reached. Where are you reading from . My question. Then, could you repeat it . 182 pages of raw evidentiary material with hundreds references to 302s or never been cross examined in which didnt comply with the governing regulation to explain the prosecution or deck la nation. This is one of those areas which i declined to discuss. And would direct you to the report itself. I looked at 182 pages of it. Let me switch gears. We were on this committee during the clinton impeachment. While i recognize that the independent counsel statute under which kenneth star operated is different from the special counsels statute, he and a number of occasions in his report stauted that the president clintons actions may have risen to impeachable conduct recognizing that it is up to the house of representatives to determine what conduct is impeachable. You never used the term raising to impeachable conduct for any of the ten instances that the gentlewoman from texas did. Is it true theres nothing in volume 2 of the reportt sa that the president may have engaged in impeachable conduct . We have kept in the center of our investigation our mandate. Our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct. Our mandate goes to what developing the report into the attorney general. It seems to me that there are a couple statements you made that this is not for me to decide. The implication is that this is for this for the committee to decide. You then use the word impeachable conduct. There was no statute to prevent you from using the word. And i go back to what mr. Radcliffe said. Even the president is innocent until proven guilty. My time is up. The gentleman from tennessee. Thank you, mr. Chair. First, id like to restate that mr. Nadler said about your career. Its a model of rectitude and i thank you. Sure. Based upon your investigation, how did President Trump react to your appointment as special counsel . Again, i isnt you the report. Theres a quote from page 7806 your report which reads, which sessions told the president that a special counsel had been appointed, the president slumped back in his chair and said, quote, oh, my god, this i