Gotcha sorry. [laughter] i wanted to ask you about public confusion, connected with Attorney General barrs release of your report. I will be coding you are in march 27th letter. Sarah, in that letter and at several other times did you convey to the Attorney General that the introductions and executive some summaries accurately i have to say the letter itself speaks for itself. And those were your words and that . Continuing with your letter, you are to the Attorney General that the summary letter the department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24th did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this offices work and conclusions. Is that correct . Again, i rely on the letter itself for its terms. Thank you. What was it about the reports context, nature, substance that the attorneys letter did not capture . I think we captured that in the in the March 27th Responsive letter. This is from the letter. Im directing you to the letter its
Him threatening to support primary challengers, essentially saying that republicans took the careers into their own hands unless they were on board with the president s efforts. very much part of this rhetorical effort to level as much pressure as possible against republican members of congress. these are all things that are core to this select committee s investigation. the fact that don junior cooperated sol tarly just shows the extent to which in the final weeks of the investigative process this committee has had a series of major breakthroughs and have major bursts of momentum that most of us i think couldn t have imagined last year when the committee first started its work. i mean, also draws a bright line between ivanka and jared kushner and donald trump jr., does it have any ramifications on those obstructive acts by
This is part of the regular/irregular track, meaning it wentr/ through the president which makes it regular. ands they met with the t president. exactly. they met with the president after the white house hanukkah partyus last year at the trump hotel. and we have photographs of this. they will have some firsthand information. now, weath now, whether it is information that isth incriminating remainso be seen. the president s conduct ended up investigated because of a campaign finance investigation intoca michael cohen. the president was obviously investigated in the sweep of the mueller propose of russian interference and then the president s obstructive acts. it would appear if sdny and those prosecutors work for main justice, if they re investigating rudy giuliani in hisdy foreign business work, th obviously includes efforts that benefitted the orpresident. that s the beenbe rudy s testimony, that s been sondland s testimony yesterday. the removal of yovanovitch was
Report as compelling today as when it was issued. a series of witness intimidation, counseling people to create false documents, threatening potential witnesses with all sorts of consequences. if that sounds familiar, it should. i don t know why we ve lost our focus collectively. i don t mean here on this panel, but collectively as a nation on the mueller report on what those prosecutors and agents found. the type of things that people do when they are under investigation is what the president did. it was a series of obstructive acts. if it was anybody else, if there wasn t department of justice policy that says you can t indict a sitting president, i believe he would be charged. let me pick up another piece of what hans just reported from the white house, claire mccaskill, there are more problems with what they describe as transcripts, notes from calls or summaries. what hans just reported from the
Whether the president committed obstruction of justice, they need to look at all the president s conduct and overall pattern of behaviors. is that correct? i don t disagree. figure. dr. mueller. director mueller. doctor, also. i will designate that, too. i have certainly made up my mind about what we have reviewed today, that it meets the elements of obstruction. including whether there was corrupt intent. what is clear is that anyone else, including some members of congress, would have been charged with crimes for these acts. we would not have allowed this behavior from any of the previous 44 presidents. we should not allow it now or for the future, to protect our democracy. and, yes, we will continue to investigate. because as you clearly state at the end of your report, no one is above the law. i yield back my time. speak of the gentle lady yields back.