Military Gear & Army Surplus Gear Blog

Watch: Robert Mueller’s testimony on Trump and Russia investigation

Watch: Robert Mueller’s testimony on Trump and Russia investigation


>>>LIVE PICTURES OF THE HEARING
ROOM WHERE ROBERT MUELLER WILL TESTIFY IN LESS THAN HALF AN
HOUR, ONE OF THE MOST TALKED ABOUT FIGURES IN WASHINGTON BUT
THE MAN APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HAS SCARCELY BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT A
PUBLIC LEAP YEAR WELCOME TO WASHINGTON POST LIVE
COVERAGE OF ROBERT MUELLER TESTIFYING BETWEEN TO MAKE HOUSE
COMMITTEES, AND 30 MINUTES MUELLER WILL APPEAR BEFORE
CONGRESS TO TESTIFY FOR THE FIRST TIME
ABOUT HIS FINDINGS. WE WILL BE BRINGING YOU THE HEARINGS LIVE
AND UNINTERRUPTED. WE HAVE REPORTERS STANDING BY ON CAPITOL
HILL FOR THE LATEST. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REALLY REPEATEDLY
CALLED THE REPORT TOTAL EXONERATION BUT DEMOCRATS SAY THAT IT SETS
THE TABLE FOR IMPEACHMENT, ROBERT MUELLER ARRIVED MOMENTS
AGO, A DRAMATIC DAY ON CAPITOL HILL. JOINING ME NOW COVERING
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND WHITE HOUSE REPORTER THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE. I HAVE TO START WITH YOUR BUTT
AND WHAT DOES THAT SAY? >>I READ THE MUELLER REPORT, IT
HAS A COPY OF THE BOOK THAT THE POST PUBLISHED.>>I HAVE TO SAY NOT ONLY DID
YOU READ THE REPORT YOU WROTE THE WASHINGTON POST VERSION.
>>I WROTE PART OF THE RELATED MATERIAL.
>>VERY FEW PEOPLE COULD WEAR THAT BUTTON.
>>INCLUDING SOMEONE WHO SAID I HAVE REVIEWED
IT I HAVE NOT READ EVERY WORD. HE IS THE FBI DIRECTOR YOU WOULD EXPECT HE WOULD BE
AMONG THE SELECT FEW WHO WOULD HAVE READ EVERY WORD. FBI AGENTS
WERE INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATING. HE DID REVIEW IT AND HE SAID I
DID NOT READ EVERY WORD.>>>EFFORTS TO HAVE COORDINATION
OR COOPERATION OR DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, ALTHOUGH THOSE DISCUSSIONS EVEN THOUGH
THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY JUST HAVING THE DISCUSSION ON
TELEVISION ALLOWS MORE PEOPLE TO KNOW MORE THAN JUST THE TAGLINE
THE PRESIDENT HAS PUSHED OUT WHICH IS NO COLLUSION NO
OBSTRUCTION. >>WE HAVE HEARD THAT BEFORE. SO
IS ROBERT MUELLER JUST GOING TO BE READING FROM THE REPORT AND
IS THAT OKAY WITH DEMOCRATS?>>A LITTLE BIT, HE HAS SAID HE
DOES NOT WANT TO SPEAK ON THE FOUR CORNERS THE REPORT, THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAYS FORMALLY DO NOT SPEAK BEYOND THE
FOUR CORNERS OF THE REPORT AND AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN THEY CANNOT
CONTROL HIM HOLY BUT THAT’S WHAT HE WANTS TO DO. HE WOULD USE
THAT INSTRUCTION I WOULD ANTICIPATE BUT, DEMOCRATS FEEL
LIKE THAT MIGHT BE ENOUGH JUST GETTING THIS IN FRONT OF MORE
PEOPLE MIGHT BE ENOUGH BECAUSE SO FEW
PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE THING AND UNDERSTOOD.
GETTING HIM ON NATIONAL TV IN THIS SPECTACLE EVEN IF YOU JUST
READ SOME PASSAGES ALOUD OR DESCRIBE DEMOCRATS SEE REAL MERIT.
>>IS THAT BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN SUCH A DIVIDE OVER THE
NARRATIVE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID ONE THING WHICH WE
MENTIONED NO OBSTRUCTION NO COLLUSION BUT THE REPORT SAYS
SOMETHING DIFFERENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE
OVAL OFFICE. LET’S TAKE A LISTEN TO WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD TO
SAY ABOUT MUELLER AND ABOUT HIS REPORT.
>>ROBERT MUELLER IS CONFLICTED. THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFLICT HE
HAS GOT, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT HIS BEST FRIEND IS JAMES COMEY
BUT HE HAS CONFLICTS WITH ME. HE WANTED THE JOB OF THE FBI
DIRECTOR HE DID NOT GET IT AND WE HAD A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
WHERE I SAID NO AND I WOULD SAY HE WAS NOT HAPPY AND THEN ALL OF
A SUDDEN HE GETS THIS POSITION BUT I RESPECT HIM FOR IT, HE
RULED NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION AND THIS THING
SHOULD’VE ENDED A LONG TIME AGO.>>LET’S CONTRAST THE TONE OF THE PRESIDENT AND
MEANING WITH THAT OF THE MUELLER REPORT ITSELF AND HERE IT SAYS
THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME
IT ALSO DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM. HOW DO YOU SQUARE THAT QUOTE
WITH WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID?>>THE PRESIDENT HAS ZEROED IN
ON THE WORD COLLUSION, NO COLLUSION. MUELLER DID NOT LOOK
AT THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A CRIME THAT IS COLLUSION, HE
LOOKED AT CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN. IT IS TRUE HE DID NOT FIND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BUT HE
DID NOT EVER ASSESS THE COLLUSION WORD. I DON’T KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN SO THE PRESIDENT AND MUELLER ARE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER. THE
PRESIDENT SAYS NO COLLUSION AND MUELLER SAYS I DID NOT EVEN LOOK
AT THAT I LOOKED AT THE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BUT HE DID FIND THE
TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT RUSSIAN HELP AND THE
RUSSIANS WANTED TO HELP THEM THEY JUST SORT OF DID NOT
COORDINATE OR CONSPIRE AND THAT IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.
WHEN YOU BOIL DOWN TO NO COLLUSION IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE
WAS NO TIES AT ALL. >>IN TERMS OF ACTUAL TALKING
THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE MUCH MORE TALKING THAN MUELLER. WE SAW
THAT 10 MINUTE PRESS CONFERENCE WHERE MUELLER LAID OUT SOME OF
THE BASICS OF THE REPORT BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS HAD MORE TIME TO
SPEND THE OF REPORT. HE GAVE THE NO OBSTRUCTION LINE BUT THIS
WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY. I DON’T KNOW MUELLER WANTS TO BE
SPEAKING BUT DEMOCRATS WANT HIM TO GO ON THE RECORD AND CONTRAST
A LOT OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID TRYING TO MAKE IT CLEAR HE
HAS BEEN EXONERATED. NOTHING IN THE REPORT WOULD BE DAMAGING AND
THE DEMOCRATS WILL TRY TO SHOW THERE WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION
IN THE REPORT THAT WOULD NOT SHINE A POSITIVE LIGHT ON THE
PRESIDENT AND ON THE WHITE HOUSE WHICH IS WHY THE PRESIDENT HAS
BEEN SO RESISTANT TO HAVING MUELLER TESTIFY AND OTHER
WITNESSES. IT IS EASIER TO SAY NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION THAN
IT IS TO GO TO THE REPORT AND GO TO THE CONTEXT.
>>WHEN YOU ARE THE ONLY VOICE IN
THE ROOM IT IS EASIER TO SHAPE THE NARRATIVE. WITH COOPERATION
BETWEEN THE COMMITTEES THE PANELS QUESTIONING MUELLER HAVE
DIVIDED UP TOPICS OF INQUIRY. LET’S GO LIVE TO CAPITOL HILL. TALK US THROUGH
THE AGENDA AND HOW WE GOT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>>WE ARE LOOKING AT THESE TWO HEARINGS ONE FROM JUDICIARY AND
ONE FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. THIS IS THE RESULT OF
WEEKLONG NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE MUELLER TEAM AND STAFF OF
THE JUDICIARY AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES. THIS DATES BACK TO
APRIL WHEN THE CAVITY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REQUESTED
MUELLER COME BEFORE IN FRONT OF THEM. REPRESENTATIVE NADLER
TALKED WITH FOXNEWS.>>THE REPORT PRESENTS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY OF HIGH
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND WE HAVE TO LET MUELLER PRESENT
THOSE FACTS AND SEE WHERE WE GO BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATION MUST
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. NO PRESIDENT CAN BE ABOVE THE LAW.
>>FIRST WE WILL HAVE THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE LED BY CHAIRMAN NADLER GIVING OPENING STATEMENTS AND
THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY DOUG COLLINS OF GEORGIA TALKING FOR THE MINORITY MEMBERS
AND THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM ROBERT MUELLER. HE WILL BE
QUESTIONED BY ALL 41 MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AT
FIRST ONE OF THE REASONS THIS HEARING WAS PUSHED BACK IS
BECAUSE IT WAS FIRST NEGOTIATED ALL MEMBERS COULD NOT QUESTION
BUT NOW WE KNOW ALL 41 WILL BE ABLE TO GET A FEW MINUTES OF
QUESTIONS. AFTER A SHORT BREAK AT 11:30 WE WILL GO TO THE
INTELLIGENCE HEARING LED BY CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF, THAT WILL
LOOK AT PARTS OF THE REPORT TALK ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN
THE 2016 ELECTION WHICH WILL DIFFER FROM WHAT JUDICIARY WILL
FOCUS ON AS THEY FOCUS ON THE QUESTIONS OF OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE.>>GOING INSIDE THE HEARING ROOM
SHORTLY, ARE THERE MEMBERS ON THE PANEL YOU’RE KEEPING AN EYE
ON?>>I THINK IT WILL BE IMPORTANT
TO LISTEN TO THE CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER, THAT WILL SET THE TONE
FOR HOW THE MAJORITY CAN SEE THE HEARING. AND THEN I WOULD LISTEN
TO COLLINS, HE WILL BE SPEAKING ON HALF OF THE MINORITY. WE WILL
GET A GLIMPSE INTO HOW THE MINORITY WANTS THIS TO GO. AND
THEN I AM LOOKING AT THREE MEMBERS, TWO DEMOCRATS AND ONE
REPUBLICAN WHO ARE ON BOTH COMMITTEES, ERIC SWALWELL FROM CALIFORNIA VAL DEMING’S AND
JOHN RADCLIFFE. THE THREE OF THEM, THE THREE OF THEM HAVE ACCESS TO THE UNDERLYING
EVIDENCE THAT BOTH COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE SO THEY
WILL HAVE SOME INSIGHT TO INFORM QUESTIONING.
>>THANK YOU, WE WILL CHECK BACK LATER. BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT THAT
QUOTE FROM CHAIRMAN NADLER LET ME TALK ABOUT THE FORMAT OF THE
HEARING TODAY. WITH GRADE REPORTING MUELLER’S DEPUTY WILL
BE APPEARING WITH HIM AND THIS FELT LIKE A LAST-MINUTE MOVE
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?>>THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF
DRAMA. MUELLER REQUESTED AT SOME POINT THAT HIS DEPUTY SPECIAL
COUNCIL APPEAR AND BE SWORN IN AND TESTIFY WITH HIM, THE
COMMITTEE IS SPLIT ON HOW THEY WANT TO HANDLE THAT, HE WILL
APPEAR BEHIND HIM I GUESS BUT NOT BE SWORN IN INTELLIGENCE WANTS HIM SWORN IN
TO TESTIFY. REPUBLICANS ARE CRYING FOUL ON THE LAST THING
SAYING IT IS LAST-MINUTE, NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A DEPUTY.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS TWEETING ABOUT THIS WHAT IS GOING ON? I
WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF BEFORE THE HEARINGS BEGIN WE SEE
PROCEDURAL WRANGLING, REPUBLICANS CRYING FOUL WHICH
COULD DELAY THINGS AND MAYBE CUT INTO SOMETIME. THERE HAS BEEN
SOME LAST-MINUTE DRAMA. AARON ZEBLEY WILL BE THERE. WE WILL
SEE TO WHAT EXTENT.>>WHAT DO YOU THINK, WHY DID HE
WANT HIM WITH HIM? HE WAS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION. HE CAN
ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS BUT IS THERE REASON HE FELT HE COULDN’T
FULLY SPEAK FOR THE REPORT?>>THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION AND WE DON’T HAVE A CRYSTAL
CLEAR ANSWER. A SPOKESMAN YESTERDAY SAID HE WAS THE DEPUTY
SPECIAL COUNSEL, HE WAS WELL-VERSED AND WE TALKED TO THE
COMMITTEES A WEEK AGO. MUELLER IS THE MAIN GUY AND IT IS A
LITTLE UNUSUAL. WHEN JAMES COMEY TESTIFIED FOR EXAMPLE HE DID NOT
BRING ANDREW McCABE SO WE DON’T HAVE A PRECISE ANSWER ON WHY
MUELLER WANTED TO OTHER THAN AARON ZEBLEY WAS AN IMPORTANT
FIGURE. >>DO YOU THINK THIS WILL KNOCK
DEMOCRATS OFF THE PLANT TO KEEP THE FOCUS ON MUELLER AND PRESENT
THIS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?>>I’M NOT SURE THAT IT WILL I
THINK MUELLER’S WORDS WILL BE THE TAKE AWAY. BECAUSE IT IS A
THOROUGH REPORT 440 PAGES, HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES, A LOT OF
INFORMATION OVER THE COURSE OF ONE AND A HALF YEARS SO EVEN IF
DEMOCRATS TRY TO BUILD A NARRATIVE IT MAY HELP TO HAVE
SOMEONE WHO IS MORE WELL-VERSED WITH EVERY LITTLE PIECE OF THIS
INVESTIGATION BECAUSE IT’S EASY TO FORGET AFTER ONE AND A HALF
YEARS A DETAIL OR A PIECE OF WHAT IS REDACTED OR
UNCLASSIFIED. SOMETHING HE CAN TALK ABOUT OR NOT. SO IT MIGHT
HELP TO HAVE SOMEONE NEARBY WHO CAN HELP FILL IN THE GAPS BUT I
THINK DEMOCRATS WILL PUSH FORWARD TRYING TO BUILD THE
NARRATIVE BRINGING THE LANGUAGE AND THE
TEXT OF THIS REPORT TO LIFE THROUGH ROBERT MUELLER AND IF HE
NEEDS A LITTLE HELP FROM THE DEPUTY I DON’T THINK THAT WILL
TAKE AWAY MUCH.>>WHAT SPECIFIC PASSAGES DO YOU
THINK DEMOCRATS WILL POINT TO THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE MUELLER
EXPLAIN OR READ?>>I THINK WHAT THEY WILL LIKELY
DO IS HOLD UP THINGS THE PRESIDENT SAID AND ASK MUELLER
ABOUT THOSE SO ON THE QUESTION OF COLLUSION THEY MIGHT HOLD UP
A TRUMP QUOTE AND SAY TRUMP SAID THERE WAS NO COLLUSION WHAT DID
YOUR REPORT FIND? AND THEN YOU WILL GET MUELLER READING
PASSAGES IN THE REPORT THAT SAYS WE DID NOT ASSESS THAT QUESTION
OR WE FOUND CONNECTIONS JUST NOT CONSPIRACY. THAT IS WHAT I
EXPECT THEM TO DO, TO HIGHLIGHT WHERE THE PRESIDENT HAS
MIS-DESCRIBED THE INVESTIGATION.>>WHAT DO WE EXPECT THE
PRESIDENT TO BE DOING TODAY?>>HE HAS A LOT OF EXECUTIVE
TIME ON THE SCHEDULE THAT SEEMS TO COINCIDE WITH THE HEARING. HE
SAID HE WILL NOT SPEND A LOT OF TIME WATCHING IT BUT HE HAS BEEN
TWEETING ABOUT THIS. I HIGHLY DOUBT HE WILL NOT BE WATCHING
THIS AND TWEETING. HE HAS TRIED TO POKE HOLES IN THE TESTIMONY
BEFORE HE TESTIFIED SAYING I HOPE HE DOES NOT SAY
THIS BECAUSE IT’S A LIE. I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF THE
PRESIDENT SPENDS TIME TWEETING AT THIS REPORT. HE WILL BE GOING
TO A FUNDRAISER LATER TONIGHT. HE MAY WANT TO OPEN THAT UP TO
THE PRESS SO HE CAN HAVE A NARRATIVE AFTER THE MUELLER
REPORT IS FINISHED.>>SOME COUNTERPROGRAMMING.
>>MAY BE AND ONE OTHER THING DEMOCRATS MAY TRY TO HIGHLIGHT
IS THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PART, SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE
MUELLER SHOWED PRESIDENT TRUMP TRYING TO INTERVENE IN THE
INVESTIGATION, TRYING TO TELL WITNESSES WHAT TO DO. TRYING TO
GET JEFF SESSIONS FIRED, TRYING TO GET ROBERT MUELLER FIRED. I
THINK THAT NARRATIVE IS SOMETHING DEMOCRATS WANT TO
BRING OUT, THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS SO EAGER TO
INTERVENE IN THE INVESTIGATION THAT HE MAY HAVE OVERSTEPPED HIS
BOUNDS AND TIPPED INTO THE LINE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
SOMETHING HE DECIDED NOT TO WEIGH IN ON ONE WAY OR THE OTHER
BUT HE PROVIDED EVIDENCE AND A LOT OF SCENARIOS THAT COULD BE
POTENTIALLY OBSTRUCTION.>>LET’S CHECK BACK IN WITH
THEIR TEAM OF REPORTERS ON CAPITOL HILL. OUTSIDE THE
HEARING ROOM SINCE EARLY THIS MORNING WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN
SEEING?>>Reporter: I CANNOT SAY I WAS
HERE EARLIER THAN THE PEOPLE, THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO
WANT TO WITNESS THE HEARING FIRSTHAND I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING
TO MANY’S HILL STAFFERS MANY FATHERS AND SONS MOTHERS AND
DAUGHTERS WHO ARE LINING UP WANTING TO WITNESS THIS
IMPORTANT MOMENT IN HISTORY. I TALKED WITH A FATHER AND SON
FROM DC. THE FATHER SAID WE KNOW TODAY IS IMPORTANT IN AMERICAN
HISTORY AND HIS HAND SET I WAS EXCITED TO SKIP CAMP.
UNFORTUNATELY THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET IN. HILL STAFFERS
HAVE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES SO THE INTERNS WHO COME TO WORK FOR
CONGRESS WERE ABLE TO GET THEIR FRIENDS IN FOR THE HOTTEST
TICKET IN TOWN SO I SAW THEM WALKING AWAY SO THEY DECIDED TO
GET BREAKFAST AND WATCH IT ON TV. BUT MANY INTERNS AND I HAVE
SPOKEN WITH SOME WHO ARRIVED AT 6:00 P.M. LAST NIGHT CALLING
THEMSELVES THE 6:00 SQUAD. THEY SLEPT ON THE FLOOR. THEY ORDERED
DOOR DASH PIZZA AND HAVE GOTTEN TO KNOW EACH OTHER. THEY WOULD
NOT TELL ME WHO THEY WORKED FOR. WE WILL BE CHECKING BACK IN WITH
THEM TO SEE IF IT MEETS THEIR
EXPECTATIONS LATER. >>THANK YOU SO MUCH. SOUNDS
LIKE THOSE KIDS WILL HAVE SOMETHING EXCITING FOR WHAT THEY
DID ON MY SUMMER VACATION. INTERESTING. COVERING NATIONAL SECURITY
ISSUES, GREAT TO HAVE YOU WITH US. SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE
FOLKS FROM THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE COME OUT TO VIEW THE HEARING IN
PERSON. DO YOU THINK THIS HEARING WILL RESONATE WITH THE
PUBLIC? PEOPLE WILL BE TUNING IN AND OUT
BUT DOES IT HAVE THE POWER TO SHIFT THE GROUND?
>>THE MOST HIGHLY ANTICIPATED HEARING OF THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY
AND WE HAVE HAD SOME HIGHLY RATED HEARINGS. WE HAD CAVANAGH,
MICHAEL COHEN, NOBODY REACHES THE BAR OF WHAT THIS HEARING
WILL BE ABOUT. WE HAVE BEEN HEARING ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT
FOR YEARS. SPENDING YEARS INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT WAS SO MUCH DRAMA. IT
DOES HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO SWAY THE PUBLIC GETTING MORE PEOPLE
TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT MUELLER WROTE AND IT DEPENDS ON HOW HE
DECIDES TO TAKE ON THE HEARING. IF HE MAKES IT SOMETHING
DRAMATIC AND REALLY HIGH-STAKES END OF THE DEMOCRATS CAN PULL
HIM OUT TO TALK ABOUT THE EMOTIONS AND THE DRAMA BEHIND
THIS AND BRING TO LIFE SOME OF THE SCENES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
AND THE OVAL OFFICE WITH THE PRESIDENT TELLING EVERYONE TO
LEAVE THE ROOM AND THEN DIRECTING JAMES COMEY TO DO X,
Y, AND Z, IF HE CAN DRAMATIZE THAT AND THE DEMOCRATS CAN
DRAMATIZE THE REPORT THEN IT COULD SWAY THE PUBLIC. IT COULD
BE REALLY TECHNICAL AND A CIRCUS AND A FIGHT OVER PROCEDURAL
ISSUES THEN PEOPLE MIGHT END UP TUNING OUT SO IT WILL DEPEND ON
HOW THEY DECIDE TO TAKE ON THE ROLE.
>>YOU DID INCREDIBLE REPORTING LOOKING BACK AT MUELLER’S
PREVIOUS TESTIMONY OVER MANY YEARS DO YOU EXPECT
HIM TO BE A VERY DRY WITNESS? HE LOOKS LIKE A GUY WHO WON’T BE
KNOCKED OFF WHAT HE WANTS TO SAY.
>>MUELLER BRINGS A LOT OF GRAVITAS TO ANYTHING HE DOES. I
THINK WHAT HIS PAST APPEARANCES SHOW IS THAT HE IS SUSCEPTIBLE,
YOU CAN SWAY HIM WITH AN APPEAL TO HIS SENSE OF DUTY, HIS SENSE
OF RESPONSIBILITY AND OBLIGATION TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PUBLIC
TO GIVE PEOPLE THE FULL INFORMATION AS TO WHAT THEY NEED
TO KNOW. THOSE SORTS OF APPEALS, NOT EMOTIONAL BUT THEY DO
RESONATE WITH HIM SOMETIMES IN A HEARING SETTING SO I WILL LOOK
TO SEE DO THE DEMOCRATS PUSH IN THAT WAY OR DOES IT BECOME MORE
OF SORT OF A TRY TO HIT THE EMOTIONAL BUTTON AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE? THE EMOTIONAL THING, SOMETIMES YOU CAN GET A RISE OUT
OF THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS GETTING A MEANINGFUL ANSWER SO
THE TIMES WHEN HE SEEMS TO SHUT DOWN IS WHEN PEOPLE ARE YELLING
AT HIM OR GETTING ANGRY HE FINDS THAT DISTASTEFUL AS A GENERAL
RULE. WHEN YOU PUSH HIM AND YOU SAY YOU OWE IT TO THE COUNTRY,
YOU OWE IT TO CONGRESS TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO TELL US
THIS THAT IS AN ARGUMENT THAT CARRIES A LOT OF WEIGHT.
>>WHAT ABOUT THE QUESTIONS THAT REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE? WILL
THOSE EFFORTS TO IN SOME CASES SULLY HIS OWN
CHARACTER GET A RISE?>>IT MIGHT AND WE HAVE SEEN
FLASHES IN THE PAST, NOTHING ON THIS SCALE AS THIS INVESTIGATION
HAS BEEN SO HIGHLY CHARGED SINCE THE FIRST DAY BUT I THINK
SOMETHING I AM LOOKING FOR IS TO WHAT DEGREE ARE WE WATCHING TWO
HEARINGS, TWO HEARINGS IN THE SENSE OF A REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRATIC HEARING. AND DO THEY OVERLAP OR IS IT ESSENTIALLY A
SPLIT SCREEN VERSION OF THE TRUTH? REPUBLICANS YELLING ABOUT
FBI BIAS AND THE DEMOCRATS TALK ABOUT BEHAVIOR? DO THOSE
UNIVERSES MEET UP AT ANY POINT?>>WHAT DO YOU EXPECT
REPUBLICANS TO FOCUS ON? WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE INVESTIGATING
INVESTIGATORS, THE ORIGINS OF THE MUELLER PROBE.>>I DO NOT EXPECT REPUBLICANS
TO TALK MUCH ABOUT THE TEXT OF THE REPORT IN SOME OF THOSE
EPISODES DESCRIBED. ATTORNEY GENERAL BAR THERE IS THAT TAKE
ON THOSE FINDINGS AND THE REPUBLICANS COULD GO TO SAY YOU
BELIEVE THIS COULD BE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BECAUSE
OF X, Y, AND Z BUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DISAGREED BUT I DON’T
EXPECT THEM TO DELVE INTO THAT LEGAL WRANGLING, I THINK THEY
WILL TRY TO KNOCK HIM OFF HIS GAME, TALK ABOUT HIS
INVESTIGATIVE TEAM AND THE ORIGINS OF THE INVESTIGATION.
WHY HE DID NOT SPEND MORE TIME INVESTIGATING THE INVESTIGATORS
OR THE HILLARY CLINTON INVESTIGATION OR ALL OF THESE
CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SOME CASES WITH THE REPUBLICANS PUSHING ON
HOW TRUMP WAS SPIED ON AND HOW THE OBAMA DEPARTMENT WAS UP TO
NO GOOD. I EXPECT MUCH MORE FOCUS ON THAT AND MUCH LESS
REPUBLICANS MAKING THE ARGUMENT EVEN THOUGH HE SAYS THESE ARE
POTENTIAL CASES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THE LEGAL FINDINGS ARE AT ODDS WITH WHAT MUELLER
FOUND. I DON’T EXPECT THEM TO DELVE INTO THAT. INSTEAD IT
WOULD BE MORE OF A FOCUS ON THINGS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP
LIKES TO FOCUS ON LIKE THE INVESTIGATION AND WHY IT GOT
STARTED.>>ALL THE THINGS ON THE BINGO
CARD. SO THERE WILL BE THINGS DEMOCRATS WANT TO KNOW THAT ARE
NOT JUST ABOUT HEARING MUELLER TALK ABOUT THE REPORT, THE TEXT.
THERE WILL BE THINGS THEY WANT TO KNOW SO TO WHAT EXTENT WILL
THEY ASK WHY DIDN’T YOU PRESS HARDER TO QUESTION PRESIDENT
TRUMP? WHY DIDN’T YOU TALK TO TRUMP JR. ? WHAT ARE THE THINGS DEMOCRATS
WANT TO KNOW OUTSIDE THE FOUR CORNERS?
>>THERE ARE A BUNCH OF PARTS. A POTENTIALLY RICH AREA OF INQUIRY
WOULD BE ALL OF MUELLER’S CONVERSATIONS WITH ATTORNEY
GENERAL WILLIAM BARR. THAT WAS SUCH A KEY PART OF HOW THE
FINDINGS BECAME PUBLIC AND WE KNOW THERE WERE TENSIONS BETWEEN
THOSE PEOPLE, TO THE DEGREE THAT MUELLER EXPLAINS AND DESCRIBES
OR ADDING NEW INFORMATION COULD BE A SIGNIFICANT NEW MOMENT BUT
HE MAY NOT DO THAT. REMEMBER THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SENT A LETTER
BASICALLY LAYING OUT A BROAD RANGE OF CATEGORIES OF STUFF
THEY DON’T WANT HIM TALKING ABOUT BUT WE KNOW THERE’S A
LITTLE DAYLIGHT ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES SO IT IS INTERESTING TO
SEE DOES HE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION? HOW DOES HE
INTERPRET THAT? LOOSELY OR STRICTLY AND IN THAT CASE WE
COULD SEE ALL SORTS OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT INTERNAL
CONVERSATIONS.>>AT WHAT EXTENT IS HE
OBLIGATED TO ADHERE TO THAT ADVICE OR THE WARNING?
>>INTERESTING SITUATION BECAUSE HE IS NO LONGER A GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE. HE HAS A LOT MORE FREEDOM TO SAY WHAT HE WANTS
HOWEVER HE IS ALSO A CAREER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. HE IS ALSO
A LAWYER WITH A VERY STRONG SENSE OF PROPERTY AND THE RIGHT
AND WRONG THING TO DO. HE WOULD FILL OBLIGATION TO THE CLIENT
EVEN A PAST CLIENT THAT HE WAS A GOVERNMENT TO RESPECT THE TERMS
OF HIS LEGAL WORK. SO I THINK THERE’S A LOT OF IMPULSES THAT
WOULD SUGGEST MUELLER WOULD NOT SAY MUCH BUT AGAIN THE WAY HE
SOMETIMES DECIDES HE HAS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IS WHEN YOU
APPEAL TO HIS SENSE OF THE GREATER GOOD. AND THE PUBLIC
NEED TO KNOW HOW THE GOVERNMENT WORKS.
>> TO FOLLOW UP ON MUELLER’S PERSONAL SENSE OF WHAT IS RIGHT
AND WHAT IS THE GREATER GOOD, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
THAT ARE NOT ANSWERED BY THE REPORT INCLUDING IF HE BELIEVES
CONGRESS SHOULD STEP IN AND IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BASED ON
THE CONDUCT. THERE ARE SOME LIGHTS TALKING ABOUT NO ONE IS
ABOVE THE LAW AND CONGRESS HAS A ROLE TO PLAY IN KEEPING THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACCOUNTABLE POTENTIALLY TO THE PROCESS OF
IMPEACHMENT SO THEIR BREAD COMES THEY WILL PUSH MUELLER ON TO SEE
IF HE WAS DROPPING HINTS AND WHETHER OR NOT HE WILL GO BEYOND
THAT IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND MAYBE SORT OF TAKE A LITTLE BIT
OF TELLING THE DEMOCRATS WHETHER OR NOT HE FEELS THEY SHOULD MOVE
BEYOND READING THE REPORT AND INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT.
>>DO YOU THINK THEY CAN DO ANYTHING WITH THOSE BREADCRUMBS
AND MAKE THEM MORE THAN THAT?>>IT IS POSSIBLE BUT A LOT OF
THIS DEPENDS ON WHAT MUELLER WANTS TO DO. TO THE DEGREE HE
COULD STAY FOCUSED ON WHAT HE WANTS TO DO AS OPPOSED TO WHAT
THE LAWMAKERS WANT TO DO, ONE OF THE TENDENCIES, WE TALK ABOUT
WHAT MUELLER IS INTERESTED IN AND WHAT CONGRESS WANTS TO KNOW
BUT ONE OF THE OVERARCHING QUALITIES IS THAT LAWMAKERS LIKE
TO TALK A LOT SO WHEN YOU BREAK IT UP IN FIVE-MINUTE BITS HOW
MUCH DO WE GET TO THE MEAT AND HOW MUCH IS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS LOOKING FOR THE CLIPS? DO WE GET
A SENSE THEY HAVE HAD SO MUCH TIME TO PREPARE AND MAYBE HE HAS
DONE A BETTER JOB CHOREOGRAPHING AND COORDINATING? HOPE SPRINGS
ETERNAL BUT I THINK ABOUT THE MICHAEL COHEN HEARING WHICH
EVERYONE THOUGHT WAS A BIG DEAL LIKE THIS WILL MAKE OR BREAK THE
PRESIDENCY YOU KNOW HONESTLY MICHAEL COHEN WAS THE GROWN-UP
IN THE ROOM AND THAT SAYS SOMETHING NOT
GREAT ABOUT CONGRESS. MICHAEL COHEN WHO HAS A CAREER BUILT ON
HIS PERSONAL OUTBURST AND LACK OF PERSONAL CONTROL MICHAEL
COHEN CAME ACROSS AS THE MORE MATURE PARTY. OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE
IS WATCHING AND EVERYONE IS GOING TO TRY TO RISE TO THE
OCCASION BUT FRANKLY SOMETIMES CONGRESS DOES NOT RISE TO THE
OCCASION. FINAL THOUGHTS WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO HEAR WHAT ARE YOU
LOOKING FOR?>>I WILL LOOK AT THE INTERPLAY
BETWEEN HOW DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HANDLE THIS AND IF
THERE IS A CIRCUS ATMOSPHERE. IF REPUBLICANS COME AWAY FROM THIS
LIKE THEY DID WITH THE MICHAEL COHEN HEARING SEIZING ON A
COUPLE MOMENTS WHETHER OR NOT THEY TRY TO DO THE SAME THING
AGAINST ROBERT MUELLER, VERY CAREFULLY SPOKEN WITNESS WHO YOU
EXPECT HE WILL STAY WITH WHAT HE WROTE AND NOT GET RATTLED BUT IF
REPUBLICANS COME AWAY WITH ONE OR TWO ISSUES HE FEEL HE WAS
RATTLED ON THEY WILL SEES THAT AND DEMOCRATS WILL SEIZE MUELLER
RATING PARTS OF THE REPORT SHOWING A DAMNING IMAGE. IF
DEMOCRATS CAN PULL MUELLER OUT A LITTLE BIT BEYOND THE REPORT TO
TALK ABOUT IF HE FEELS THE TYPE OF IMPROPRIETY AND MISCONDUCT HE
LAID OUT SHOULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION OR
WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN TALK BEYOND WHAT HE SAID IN THE
REPORT WHICH IS IF WE COULD EXONERATE WE WOULD BUT WE DON’T
FEEL WE CAN. IF DEMOCRATS CAN HONE IN ON THAT AND IF MUELLER
WILL GO BEYOND SAYING WE CANNOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT WHAT IS
THE NEXT STEP? THAT MAY YIELD BENEFITS. BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT
MUELLER WANTS TO DO AND HOW WILLING HE WILL BE.
>>WHAT SHOULD WE BE KEEPING OUR EYES ON?
>>I AM THINKING IN TERMS OF HOT AND COLD. IF THE TEMPERATURE IS
LOW IN THE ROOM MEANING PEOPLE ARE NOT YELLING CHIPPING AT EACH OTHER I THINK
THAT LENDS ITSELF TO MORE INFORMATION COMING OUT OF THE
PROCESS. TO THE DEGREE IT GETS HOT AND PEOPLE ARE YELLING WITH
A LOT OF PUBLIC SHAMING OR ATTEMPTED PUBLIC SHAMING, THEN
YOU’RE GOING TO SEE A BUNCH OF HISTRIONICS AND YOU’RE NOT GOING
TO GET AN INFORMATIONAL SCOOP OUT OF THE PROCESS.
>>WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING ON CAPITOL HILL IN TERMS OF
INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OF RUSSIAN
INFLUENCE? THIS IS THE HEARING THAT’S FINALLY HAPPENING YET
THERE ARE INVESTIGATIONS GOING ON ON OTHER TRACKS.>>A LOT OF INVESTIGATIONS BY
OTHER COMMITTEES BUT THE OVERARCHING THEME IS THE WHITE
HOUSE AND THE ADMINISTRATION STONEWALLING THOSE
INVESTIGATIONS. PART OF THE REASON WHY EVERYONE CARES SO
MUCH ABOUT THE MUELLER HEARING IS HE IS A WITNESS THEY CAN GET.
>>GOING LIVE INTO THE HEARING ROOM, THE CHAIRMAN HAS SAT DOWN.
THE STAR WITNESS HAS NOT YET ENTERED THE ROOM BUT WE HAVE THE CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS TAKING PHOTOS THAT
WILL PROBABLY END UP ON THE FRONT PAGES OF NEWSPAPERS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AND POSSIBLY ACROSS THE WORLD. INTERESTED MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC. WE ARE IN RAYBURN 2141 THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE HEARING ROOM. WHAT IS INTERESTING IS AFTER THIS
HEARING THERE WILL BE A BREAK AND A SECOND COMMITTEE HEARING
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE THEY WILL BE USING THE SAME ROOM
MAKING THINGS LOGISTICALLY EASIER AND THERE IS THE STAR
WITNESS FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER COMING AND
SHAKING HANDS WITH AARON ZEBLEY BEHIND HIM WHO WILL BE SITTING
WITH HIM AT THE WITNESS TABLE. THEY WILL BE SWORN IN SHORTLY.
LET’S TAKE YOUR LIVE INTO THE HEARING. WE WILL BE BACK ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THIS HEARING WITH REPORTING AND ANALYSIS. WE WILL
SEE YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS WITH MORE REPORTING AND
ANALYSIS.>>>THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL
COME TO ORDER. WITHOUT OBJECTION THE CHAIR HAS AUTHORIZED TO
DECLARE RECESS OF THE COMMITTEE ANYTIME, WE WELCOME EVERYONE
TODAY’S HEARING ON OVERSIGHT OF THE REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION
INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. I
WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR A BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT.
DIRECTOR MUELLER THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I WANT TO SAY A FEW
WORDS ABOUT THEMES TODAY. RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. YOUR CAREER FOR EXAMPLE IS A MODEL OF
RESPONSIBILITY YOU ARE A DECORATED MARINE OFFICER,
AWARDED A PURPLE HEART AND THE BRONZE STAR OF VALOR IN VIETNAM,
SERVING SENIOR ROLES AS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND IN THE
AFTERMATH OF 9/11 DIRECTOR OF THE FBI. TWO YEARS AGO YOU
RETURNED TO PUBLIC SERVICE TO LEAD THE INVESTIGATION INTO
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS. YOU CONDUCTED THAT
INVESTIGATION WITH REMARKABLE INTEGRITY, FOR 22 MONTHS YOU
NEVER COMMENTED IN PUBLIC ABOUT YOUR WORK. EVEN WHEN YOU WERE
SUBJECTED TO REPEATED AND GROSSLY UNFAIR PERSONAL ATTACKS.
INSTEAD YOUR INDICTMENT SPOKE FOR YOU IN ASTONISHING DETAIL.
OVER THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION YOU OBTAIN CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS
AGAINST 37 PEOPLE IDENTITIES. YOU SECURED THE CONVICTION OF
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN, HIS DEPUTY CAMPAIGN
MANAGER, AS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND HIS PERSONAL LAWYER
AMONG OTHERS. IN THE PAUL MANAFORT CASE ALONE HE RECOVERED
AS MUCH AS $42 MILLION SO THAT THE COST OF INVESTIGATION TO THE
TAXPAYERS APPROACHES ZERO. AND IN YOUR REPORT YOU OFFER THE
COUNTRY ACCOUNTABILITY AS WELL. IN VOLUME 1 YOU FIND THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT ATTACKED OURS 2016 ELECTIONS IN A SWEEPING AND
SYSTEMATIC FASHION AND THE ATTACKS WERE DESIGNED TO BENEFIT
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. VOLUME 2 WALK-THROUGH 10 SEPARATE
INCIDENTS OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WERE IN
YOUR WORDS PRESIDENT TRUMP ATTEMPTED TO EXERT UNDUE
INFLUENCE OVER YOUR INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR
INCLUDED AND I QUOTE FROM THE REPORT PUBLIC ATTACKS ON THE
INVESTIGATION, NONPUBLIC EFFORTS TO CONTROL IT AND EFFORTS IN
BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TO ENCOURAGE WITNESSES NOT TO
COOPERATE. AMONG THE MOST SHOCKING OF THESE
INCIDENTS PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
TO HAVE YOU FIRED AND THEN TO LIE AND DENY THAT IT HAD
HAPPENED. HE ORDERED HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN
MANAGER TO CONVINCE THE RECUSED ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STEP IN AND
LIMIT YOUR WORK. HE ATTEMPTED TO PREVENT WITNESSES FROM
COOPERATING WITH YOUR INVESTIGATION. ALTHOUGH
DEPARTMENT POLICY BARRED YOU FROM INDICTING THE PRESIDENT FOR
THIS CONDUCT YOU MADE CLEAR HE IS NOT EXONERATED. ANY OTHER
PERSON WHO ACTED IN THIS WAY WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH
CRIMES. IN THIS NATION NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW.
WHICH BRINGS ME TO THIS COMMITTEE’S WORK,
RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. THESE ARE THE
MARKS BY WHICH WE WHO SERVE ON THIS COMMITTEE WILL BE MEASURED
AS WELL. DIRECTOR MUELLER WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS
THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE UNCOVERED. YOU RECOGNIZED AS MUCH WHEN YOU
SAID THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A PROCESS OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM TO FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING PRESIDENT OF
WRONGDOING. THAT PROCESS BEGINS WITH THE WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE.
WE WILL FOLLOW YOUR EXAMPLE DIRECTOR MUELLER, WE WILL ACT
WITH INTEGRITY, WE WILL FOLLOW THE FACTS WHERE THEY LEAD, WE
WILL CONSIDER ALL APPROPRIATE REMEDIES, WE WILL MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE HOUSE WHEN THE WORK IS CONCLUDED. WE WILL DO THIS WORK BECAUSE
THERE MUST BE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED IN YOUR
REPORT ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE PRESIDENT. THANK YOU
AGAIN DIRECTOR MUELLER. WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR TESTIMONY. IT IS
NOW MY PLEASURE TO RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE MR. COLLINS FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT.
>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. FOR TWO YEARS LEADING UP TO THE
RELEASE OF THE MUELLER REPORT AND IN THREE MONTHS SINCE
AMERICANS WERE TOLD WHAT TO EXPECT AND THEN WANT TO BELIEVE.
COLLUSION WE WERE TOLD WAS IN PLAIN SIGHT EVEN IF THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL CANNOT FIND IT, WHEN MR. MUELLER PRODUCED HIS REPORT WE
READ NO AMERICAN CONSPIRED WITH RUSSIA TO INTERFERE BUT LEARNED
THE DEPTHS OF RUSSIA’S MALICE TOWARD AMERICA. WE HERETO AS
SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT MR. MUELLER’S WORK AND WE WILL DO
THAT. AFTER EXTENDED UNHAMPERED INVESTIGATING TODAY MARKS AN END TO INVOLVEMENT IN THE
INVESTIGATION THAT CLOSED IN APRIL THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR
ACCUSATION THAT REMAIN UNPROVEN IS EXTREMELY HIGH ESPECIALLY IN
LIGHT OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. WE ARE TOLD THIS INVESTIGATION
BEGAN AS AN INQUIRY INTO WHETHER RUSSIA MEDDLED IN THE 2016
ELECTION. MR. MUELLER YOU CONCLUDED THEY DIDN’T — DID.
ACCESSING SERVERS AND DISSEMINATING SENSITIVE
INFORMATION BY TRICKING CAMPAIGN INSIDERS THE INVESTIGATION REVIEWED IF
DONALD TRUMP THOUGHT RUSSIAN ASSISTANCE WAS A CANDIDATE TO
WIN THE PRESIDENCY MR. MUELLER CONCLUDED HE DID NOT, FAMILY AND ADVISORS DID NOT
AFFECT THE REPORT CONCLUDES NO ONE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
COLLUDED COLLABORATED OR CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIANS. THE
PRESIDENT WATCHED THE NARRATIVE ASSUME HIS GUILT WHILE HE KNEW
THE EXTENT OF HIS INNOCENCE. VOLUME 2 DETAILS OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL REACTION TO FRUSTRATING INVESTIGATION WERE
HIS INNOCENCE WAS ESTABLISHED EARLY ON, THE PRESIDENTIAL
ATTITUDE WAS UNDERSTANDABLY NEGATIVE AT THE PRESIDENT DO NOT
USE AUTHORITY TO CAUSE THE INVESTIGATION, HE ASKED HIS
LAWYER IF MR. MILLER HAD CONFLICTS TO DISQUALIFY MR.
MUELLER FROM THE JOB BUT HE DID NOT SHUT DOWN THE INVESTIGATION.
THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE WAS INNOCENT. THOSE ARE THE FACTS OF
THE MUELLER REPORT. RUSSIA MEDDLED IN THE 2016 ELECTION THE
PRESIDENT DID NOT CONSPIRE WITH THE RUSSIANS AND NOTHING WE HEAR
TODAY WILL CHANGE THOSE FACTS BUT ONE ELEMENT REMAINS THE
BEGINNINGS OF THE FBI INVESTIGATION I LOOK FORWARD TO
MR. MUELLER’S TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT HE FOUND DURING HIS REVIEW
OF THE ORIGINS OF THE INVESTIGATION, IN ADDITION THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL REVIEWS HOW BASELESS GOSSIP CAN BE USED TO
LAUNCH AN FBI INVESTIGATION. THOSE RESULTS WILL BE RELEASED
AND WE WILL NEED TO LEARN FROM THEM TO ENSURE GOVERNMENT
INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS ARE NEVER AGAIN USED AND
TURNED ON A PRIVATE CITIZEN OR POLITICAL CANDIDATE AS A RESULT
OF THE POLITICAL LEANINGS OF A HALF FULL OF FBI AGENTS. THE
ORIGINS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE THE SAME THING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE
AMERICAN, EVERY AMERICAN HAS A VOICE AND WE MUST PROTECT THE
SANCTITY OF THEIR VOICE. EVERY AMERICAN ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION
OF INNOCENCE AND GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS. IF WE CARRY
ANYTHING AWAY TODAY MUST BE WE INCREASE VIGILANCE AGAINST
FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE AS WE ENSURE OFFICIALS DO NOT
WEAPON IS THERE POWER AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
GUARANTEE EVERY YOU A CITIZEN. WE MUST AGREE THE COST IS TOO HIGH, THE MONTHS
SPENT INVESTIGATING FAILED TO REPORT A CRISIS OR CONTRIBUTE TO
THE GROWING JOB MARKET INSTEAD WE ARE STUCK IN A PARALYZED
COMMITTEE AND HOUSE. AS A SIDE NOTE, EVERY WEEK I LEAVE MY
FAMILY AND KIDS THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO ME TO COME
TO THIS PLACE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS IS A PLACE WHERE WE CAN DO
THINGS AND HELP PEOPLE. SIX AND HALF YEARS AGO I CAME TO WORK ON
BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE IN THE NINTH DISTRICT AND WE HAVE
ACCOMPLISHED A LOT ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS WITH MANY OF MY
FRIENDS ACROSS THE AISLE SITTING ON THE SIDE WITH ME TODAY. THIS
YEAR BECAUSE THE MAJORITY IS DISLIKED OF THIS PRESIDENT AND
THE ENDLESS HEARING INVESTIGATIONS HAVE COST US TO
ENCOMPASS NOTHING EXCEPT TALK ABOUT THE COUNTRY WAS A THE
BORDER IS ON FIRE AND IN CRISIS AND EVERYTHING ELSE HAS STOPPED.
HIS HEARING IS LONG OVERDUE. WE HAVE A TRUTH FOR MONTHS NO
AMERICAN CONSPIRED TO THROW THE ELECTION, WE NEED THE TRUTH TO
BRING US CONFIDENCE TODAY AND I HOPE CLOSURE. WITH THAT I YELLED BACK. SPIKE I
WILL NOW INTRODUCE TODAY’S WITNESS. ROBERT MUELLER SERVED
AS DIRECTOR OF THE FBI FROM 2001 TO 2013. MOST RECENTLY SERVING A
SPECIAL COUNSEL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OVERSEEING
THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 SPECIAL
ELECTION. RECEIVED HIS PA FROM PRINCETON
UNIVERSITY AND MA FROM NEW YORK UNIVERSITY AND JD FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA. MR. MUELLER IS ACCOMPANIED BY
COUNSEL AARON ZEBLEY WHO SERVED AS DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL ON
THE INVESTIGATION. WE WELCOME THEIR WITNESS AND THANK YOU FOR
PARTICIPATING. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE I WILL BEGIN BY
SWEARING YOU IN. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND PLEASE.
DUES WERE TO AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE
TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST
OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE INFORMATION AND BELIEF SO HELP YOU GOD? LET
THE RECORD SHOW THE WITNESS ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVE THANK YOU
AND PLEASE BE SEATED. PLEASE NOTE YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL
BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD IN ITS ENTIRETY, I ASKED THAT YOU
SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN FIVE MINUTES, DIRECTOR MUELLER YOU
MAY BEGIN.>>GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN NADLER.
AND RANKING MEMBER COLLINS AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. AS YOU
KNOW IN MAY 2017 THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKED ME TO
SERVE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL. I UNDERTOOK THAT ROLE BECAUSE I
BELIEVED THAT IT WAS OF PARAMOUNT INTEREST TO THE
NATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FOREIGN ADVERSARY HAD INTERFERED
IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. AS THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID
AT THE TIME THE APPOINTMENT WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE OUTCOME. MY
STAFF AND I CARRIED OUT THIS ASSIGNMENT WITH THAT CRITICAL
OBJECTIVE IN MIND. WE WORKED QUIETLY, THOROUGHLY AND WITH
INTEGRITY SO THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN
THE OUTCOME. THE ORDER APPOINTING ME OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
DIRECTED OUR OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE
IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. THIS INCLUDED
INVESTIGATING ANY LINKS OR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN. IT ALSO INCLUDED INVESTIGATING EFFORTS TO
INTERFERE WITH OR OBSTRUCT OUR INVESTIGATION. THROUGHOUT THE
INVESTIGATION I CONTINUALLY STRESSED TWO THINGS TO THE TEAM
WE HAD ASSEMBLED. FIRST WE NEEDED TO DO OUR WORK AS
THOROUGHLY AS POSSIBLE AND AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. IT
WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR OUR INVESTIGATION TO BE COMPLETE
AND NOT TO LAST A DAY NOT LONGER THAN NECESSARY. SECOND, THE
INVESTIGATION NEEDED TO BE CONDUCTED FAIRLY AND WITH
ABSOLUTE INTEGRITY. OUR TEAM WOULD NOT LEAK OR TAKE
OTHER ACTIONS THAT COULD COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR
WORK. ALL DECISIONS WERE MADE BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW. DURING THE COURSE OF OUR
INVESTIGATION WE CHARGED MORE THAN 30 DEFENDANTS WITH
COMMITTING FEDERAL CRIMES. INCLUDING 12 OFFICERS OF THE
RUSSIAN MILITARY. SEVEN DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN CONVICTED
OR PLED GUILTY. CERTAIN OTHER CHARGES WE BROUGHT REMAIN
PENDING TODAY. FOR THOSE MATTERS I STRESS THAT THE INDICTMENTS
CONTAIN ALLEGATIONS AND EVERY DEFENDANT IS APPROVED PRESUMED
INNOCENT UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY. IN ADDITION TO
THE CRIMINAL CHARGES WE BROUGHT AS REQUIRED BY JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS WE SUBMITTED A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF OUR INVESTIGATION.
THE REPORT SET FORTH THE RESULTS OF THEIR WORK AND THE REASONS
FOR CHARGING AND DECLARATION DECISIONS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LATER MADE THE REPORT LARGELY PUBLIC. AS YOU KNOW I MADE A FEW
LIMITED REMARKS ABOUT OUR REPORT WHEN WE CLOSED THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL’S OFFICE IN MAY OF THIS YEAR, THERE WERE
CERTAIN POINTS THAT BEAR EMPHASIS. FIRST OUR
INVESTIGATION FOUND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN OUR
ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION. SECOND, THE
INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ELECTION
INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. WE DID NOT ADDRESS COLLUSION WHICH IS
NOT A LEGAL TERM RATHER WE FOCUSED ON WHETHER THE EVIDENCE
WAS SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE ANY MEMBER OF THE CAMPAIGN WERE
TAKING PART IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND IT WAS NOT. THIRD
OUR INVESTIGATION OF EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION AND
LIE TO INVESTIGATORS WAS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE. OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE AT THE CORE OF THE GOVERNMENT EFFORT TO FIND THE
TRUTH AND HOLD WRONGDOERS ACCOUNTABLE. FINALLY AS DESCRIBED IN VOLUME 2
OF THE REPORT WE INVESTIGATED A SERIES OF ACTIONS BY THE
PRESIDENT TOWARD THE INVESTIGATION. BASED
ON JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY AND PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS WE
DECIDED WE WOULD NOT MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME. THAT WAS OWED IS DECISION THEN
AND IT REMAINS OUR DECISION TODAY. LET ME SAY A FURTHER WORD ABOUT MY
APPEARANCE TODAY. IT IS UNUSUAL FOR A PROSECUTOR TO TESTIFY
ABOUT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND GIVEN MY ROLE AS A
PROSECUTOR THERE ARE REASONS WHY MY TESTIMONY WILL NECESSARILY BE
LIMITED. FIRST, PUBLIC TESTIMONY COULD
AFFECT SEVERAL ONGOING MATTERS. SOME OF THESE MATTERS, COURT
RULES OR JUDICIAL ORDERS LIMIT THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO
PROTECT THE FAIRNESS OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. CONSISTENT WITH
LONG-STANDING JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE
FOR ME TO COMMENT IN ANY WAY THAT COULD AFFECT AN ONGOING MATTER. SECOND, THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS PRIVILEGES CONCERNING
INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION AND DECISIONS. ONGOING MATTERS
WITHIN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND DELIBERATIONS WITHIN OUR
OFFICE. THESE ARE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PRIVILEGES THAT I
WILL RESPECT, THE DEPARTMENT HAS RELEASED A LETTER DISCUSSING THE
RESTRICTIONS ON MY TESTIMONY. I THEREFORE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT CERTAIN AREAS THAT I KNOW ARE OF PUBLIC
INTEREST. FOR EXAMPLE I AM UNABLE TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE INITIAL OPENING OF THE FBI RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WHICH
OCCURRED MONTHS BEFORE MY APPOINTMENT. MATTERS RELATED TO
THE SO-CALLED STEEL DOSSIER THESE MATTERS ARE SUBJECT OF ONGOING REVIEW BY
THE DEPARTMENT, ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE TOPICS SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO THE FBI OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. AS I EXPLAINED WHEN
WE CLOSED THE OFFICE IN MAY OUR REPORT CONTAINS FINDINGS AND
ANALYSIS AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISIONS WE MADE. WE CONDUCTED
AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION OVER TWO YEARS WE STATED THE RESULTS
OF THE INVESTIGATION WITH PRECISION. WE SCRUTINIZED EVERY
WORD. WE DO NOT INTEND TO SUMMARIZE OR
DESCRIBE THE RESULTS OF OUR WORK IN A DIFFERENT WAY IN MY
TESTIMONY TODAY. AS I SAID MAY 29 THE REPORT IS MY TESTIMONY
AND I WILL STAY WITHIN THAT TEXT. AS I STATED IN MAY I WILL NOT
COMMENT ON THE ACTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR OF CONGRESS,
I WAS APPOINTED AS A PROSECUTOR AND I INTEND TO ADHERE TO THAT
ROLE AND TO THE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS
THAT GOVERN IT. I WILL BE JOINED TODAY BY DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL
AARON ZEBLEY, AARON ZEBLEY HAS EXPERIENCE AS A FEDERAL
PROSECUTOR AND AT THE FBI WHERE HE SERVED AS MY CHIEF OF STAFF.
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAY-TO-DAY OVERSIGHT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS
CONDUCTED BY OUR OFFICE. I ALSO WANT TO AGAIN SAY THANK YOU TO
THE ATTORNEYS, THE FBI AGENTS, PROFESSIONAL STAFF WHO HELPED US
CONDUCT THIS INVESTIGATION IN A FAIR AND INDEPENDENT MANNER.
THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO SPENT NEARLY 2 YEARS WORKING ON THIS
MATTER WERE OF THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY. LET ME SAY ONE MORE
THING, OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF
CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY. THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT’S EFFORTS TO
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION IS AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS. AS I
SAID MAY 29 THIS DESERVES THE ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.>>THANK YOU WE WILL NOW PROCEED
UNDER THE FIVE MINUTE RULE WITH QUESTIONS. I WILL BEGIN BY
RECOGNIZING MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. DIRECTOR MUELLER THE PRESIDENT
HAS REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THAT YOUR REPORT FOUND THERE WAS NO
OBSTRUCTION AND THAT IT COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY
EXONERATED HIM BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOUR REPORT SAID IS IT?
>>CORRECT.>>READING FROM PAGE 2 OF VOLUME
2 OF THE REPORT ON THE SCREEN YOU SAID IF WE HAVE CONFIDENCE
AFTER A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS THAT THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY DID
NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WE WOULD SO STATE, BASED
ON THE FACTS AND APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS WE ARE UNABLE TO
REACH THAT JUDGMENT. DOES THAT SAY THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION?
>>NO.>>IN FACT YOU WERE UNABLE TO
CONCLUDE THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
IS THAT CORRECT?>>AT THE OUTSET WE DETERMINED
WHEN IT CAME TO THE PRESIDENT’S CULPABILITY, WE NEEDED TO GO
FORWARD ONLY AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OPINION THAT
INDICATED THE SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE
INDICTED.>>THE REPORT DID NOT INCLUDE HE
DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>WHAT ABOUT TOTAL EXONERATION?
DID YOU TOTALLY EXONERATED THE PRESIDENT?
>>NO.>>YOUR REPORT STATES IT DID NOT
EXONERATE.>>IT DOES.
>>YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND MULTIPLE ACTS BY THE PRESIDENT
CAPABLE OF EXERTING UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER LAW ENFORCEMENT
INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND
OBSTRUCTION IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.
>>CAN YOU EXPLAIN IN PLAIN TERMS WHAT THAT FINDING MEANS?
>>THE FINDING INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
NOT FOR THE ACTS THAT HE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED.
>>IN FACT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT INCIDENTS IN WHICH THE
PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO USE OFFICIAL POWER OUTSIDE OF USUAL CHANNELS
TO EXERT UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER YOUR INVESTIGATION.
>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>ON PAGE 7 OF VOLUME 2, THE
PRESIDENT BECAME AWARE HIS OWN CONDUCT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED
IN AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INQUIRY, AT THAT POINT THE
PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN A SECOND PHASE OF CONDUCT INVOLVING
PUBLIC ATTACKS ON THE INVESTIGATION, NONPUBLIC EFFORTS TO CONTROL IT
AND EFFORTS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TO ENCOURAGE WITNESSES
NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION. SO PRESIDENT
TRUMP’S EFFORTS IN TO EXERT UNDUE INFLUENCE INTENSIFIED
AFTER THE PRESIDENT BECAME AWARE HE PERSONALLY WAS BEING
INVESTIGATED? >>I STICK WITH THE LANGUAGE YOU
HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. WHICH COMES FROM PAGE 7.
>>IF YOU CONCLUDED THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE CRIME OF
OBSTRUCTION YOU CANNOT PUBLICLY STATE THAT IN YOUR REPORT OR
HERE TODAY? IS IT CORRECT THAT IF YOU HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION YOU CANNOT PUBLICLY
STATE THAT IN YOUR REPORT OR HERE TODAY?
>>WELL I WOULD SAY THE STATEMENT WOULD BE THAT YOU
WOULD NOT IN TIGHT BECAUSE UNDER THE LOC OPINION A SITTING
PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INDICTED IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
>>YOU CANNOT STATE THAT.>>LOC OPINION WITH SOME GUIDE.
>>UNDER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLICY THE PRESIDENT COULD BE
PROSECUTED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIMES AFTER HE LEAVES
OFFICE. DID ANY SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL REFUSE TO REQUEST
TO BE INTERVIEWED BY YOU OR YOUR TEAM?
>>I DON’T BELIEVE SO. LET ME TAKE THAT BACK. I WOULD HAVE TO
LOOK AT IT. SPARKED DID THE PRESIDENT REFUSE
TO BE REQUESTED OR INTERVIEWED BY YOUR TEAM?
>>YES.>>IS A TRUE YOU TRIED FOR MORE
THAN A YEAR TO SECURE AN INTERVIEW? IS IT TRUE THAT YOU
AND YOUR TEAM ADVISED THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER THAT AN
INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT IS VITAL TO THE INVESTIGATION?
>>YES. >>IS IT TRUE THAT YOU STATED IT
IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE PUBLIC FOR AN
INTERVIEW TO TAKE PLACE?>>YES.>>BUT THE PRESIDENT STILL
REFUSED TO SIT FOR AN INTERVIEW BY YOU OR YOUR TEAM? DID YOU
ALSO ASK HIM TO PROVIDE WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON THE 10
POSSIBLE EPISODES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIMES INVOLVING HIM?
THAT HE PROVIDE ANY ANSWERS TO A SINGLE QUESTION?
>>I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT.
>>WE ARE GRATEFUL YOU’RE HERE TO EXPLAIN YOUR INVESTIGATION
AND FINDINGS, HAVING REVIEWED YOUR WORK I BELIEVE ANYONE ELSE
WOULD ENGAGE AND SAY THAT WORK WOULD BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED,
YOUR WORK IS VITAL BECAUSE NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I WILL NOW
RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA MR.
COLLINS. >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
MOVING ON I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS MANY OF WHICH YOU JUST
ANSWERED WILL BE QUESTIONED IN A MOMENT. WHAT I WANT TO LAY SOME
FOUNDATION. I WILL TALK SLOWLY. IN YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE YOU
STATED ANY TESTIMONY WOULD NOT GO BEYOND REPORT WE CHOSE THESE
WORDS CAREFULLY I WOULD PROVIDE INFORMATION BEYOND THAT WHICH IS
PUBLIC DO YOU STAND BY THAT STATEMENT? CLOSING THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL OFFICE HAVE YOU CONDUCTED ANY ADDITIONAL
INTERVIEWS OR OBTAINED ANY NEW INFORMATION?
>>IN THE WAKE OF THE REPORT? >>SINCE THE CLOSING OF THE
OFFICE? IN MAY 2019 HAVE YOU CONDUCTED ANY NEW INTERVIEWS?
>>NO. >>YOU CAN CONFIRM YOU ARE NO
LONGER SPECIAL COUNSEL. AT ANY TIME IN THE INVESTIGATION
WAS YOUR INVESTIGATION CURTAILED OR STOPPED OR HINDERED?
>>NO.>>WERE YOUR YOUR TEAM PROVIDED
QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OR THE MAJORITY AHEAD OF THE
HEARING TODAY?>>NO.
>>YOUR TEAM INCLUDED 19 LAWYERS AND 40 FBI AGENTS ARE THOSE
NUMBERS ACCURATE? 40 FBI AGENTS, 19 LAWYERS INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS
AND FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS ARE THOSE NUMBERS ACCURATE?
>>GENERALLY YES.>>ISSUING 2800 SUBPOENAS
EXECUTING 500 SEARCH WARRANTS.>>THAT WENT A LITTLE FAST FOR
ME.>>IN YOUR REPORT YOU DID A LOT
OF WORK CORRECT? A LOT OF SUBPOENAS, A LOT OF REGISTERS.
>>A LOT OF SEARCH WARRANTS.>>YOU WERE VERY THOROUGH. IN
YOUR OPINION VERY THOROUGH LISTING THIS IN YOUR REPORT.
THANK YOU. IS IT TRUE THE EVIDENCE GATHERED DURING YOUR
INVESTIGATION GIVEN THE QUESTIONS YOU ANSWERED IS IT
TRUE THE EVIDENCE GATHERED DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESIDENT
WAS INVOLVED IN THE UNDERLYING CRIME RELATED TO RUSSIAN
ELECTION INTERFERENCE?>>WE FOUND INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CULPABILITY. YES.
>>IS IT TRUE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT OR
THOSE CLOSE TO HIM WERE INVOLVED IN THE CHARGED RUSSIAN COMPUTER
HACKING OR THAT THE PRESIDENT OTHERWISE HAD UNLAWFUL
RELATIONSHIPS WITH ANY RUSSIAN OFFICIAL.
>>I BELIEVE THE ANSWER TO THE REPORT.>>IS IT TRUE YOUR INVESTIGATION
DID NOT ESTABLISH MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR
COORDINATED IN ELECTION INTERFERENCE ACTIVITY?
>>YES.>>ALTHOUGH YOUR REPORT STATES
COLLUSION IS NOT A SPECIFIC OFFENSE OR A TERM OF FEDERAL
CRIMINAL LAW CONSPIRACY IS IN THE COLLOQUIAL CONTEXT COLLUSION
AND CONSPIRACY ARE ESSENTIALLY ANONYMOUS TERMS? COLLUSION IS
NOT A SPECIFIC OFFENSE. OR A TERM OF ART IN THE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL LAW, CONSPIRACY IS. AND THE COLLOQUIAL CONTEXT THE
NONPUBLIC CONTEXT COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY ARE ESSENTIALLY
SYNONYMOUS TERMS. CORRECT?>>NO.
>>IF NO, YOU SAID AS DEFINED IN LEGAL DICTIONARIES COLLUSION IS
LARGELY SYNONYMOUS WITH CONSPIRACY AND STATUTE LISTED
YOU SAID ON YOUR MAY 29 PRESS CONFERENCE AND HERE TODAY YOU
CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY ARE YOU TESTIFYING SOMETHING
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOUR REPORT STATES?
>>WHAT I AM ASKING IF YOU CAN GIVE ME THE CITATION I CAN LOOK
AT THE CITATION AND EVALUATE.>>LET ME CLARIFY. YOU STATED
WITHIN THE REPORT I STATED YOUR REPORT BACK TO YOU AND YOU SAID
COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY WERE NOT SYNONYMOUS TERMS YOUR ANSWER
WAS NO. PAGE 180 OF VOLUME ONE OF YOUR REPORT IT SAYS AS
DEFINED IN LEGAL DICTIONARIES COLLUSION IS LARGELY SYNONYMOUS
WITH CONSPIRACY AS THE CRIME IS SET FORTH IN GENERAL STATUTE KNOW YOU SAID YOU CHOSE YOUR
WORDS CAREFULLY ARE YOU CONTRADICTING YOUR REPORT RIGHT
NOW?>>NOT WHEN I READ IT.
>>YOU WOULD CHANGE YOUR ANSWER?>>IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE.
>>I AM READING YOUR REPORT. YES OR NO ANSWER. PAGE 180 VOLUME 1
FROM YOUR REPORT.>>I LEAVE IT TO THE REPORT.
>>THE REPORT SAYS YES THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS. HOPEFULLY WE CAN PUT
TO BED THE COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY. ONE LAST QUESTION
DID YOU EVER LOOK INTO OTHER COUNTRIES INVESTIGATED IN THE
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, OR OTHER COUNTRIES INVESTIGATED? OR FOUND
KNOWLEDGE THEY HAD INTERFERENCE?>>I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS
OTHER MATTERS.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER AS YOU HAVE
HEARD FROM THE CHAIRMAN WE ARE MOSTLY GOING TO TALK ABOUT
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TODAY BUT THE INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIA’S
ATTACK THAT STARTED THE INVESTIGATION IS WHY EVIDENCE OF
POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION IS SERIOUS. TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? TO WHAT
EXTENT DID THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?>>PARTICULARLY WHEN IT CAME TO
COMPUTER CRIMES THE GOVERNMENT WAS IMPLICATED.
>>YOU SAID IN VOLUME 1 THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC
FASHION. YOU ALSO DESCRIBED THAT THAT THEN TRUMP CAMPAIGN
CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT SHARED WITH A RUSSIAN OPERATIVE THE
CAMPAIGN STRATEGY FOR WINNING DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN MIDWESTERN
STATES AND INTERNAL POLLING DATA IN THE CAMPAIGN.
>>CORRECT.>>THEY DISCUSSED THE STATUS OF
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE MANAFORT STRATEGY FOR WINNING
VOTES IN MIDWESTERN STATES. MONTHS BEFORE THE MEETING
MANAFORT CAUSED INTERNAL DATA TO BE SHARED AND THE SHARING
CONTINUED FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE AUGUST MEETING.
>>THAT IS ACCURATE. >>YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THEY
BRIEFED ON THE STATE OF THE CAMPAIGN AND MANAFORT’S PLAN TO
WIN THE ELECTION AND THAT ENCOMPASS THE CAMPAIGN MESSAGING
THE INTERNAL POLLING DATA AND INCLUDED DISCUSSION ABOUT A
GRANT STATES WHICH MANAFORT IDENTIFIED AS MICHIGAN,
WISCONSIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND MINNESOTA. DID YOUR
INVESTIGATION DETERMINE WHO REQUESTED THE POLLING DATA TO BE
SHARED?>>I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE
REPORT. IN REGARD TO THAT.>>WE DON’T HAVE THE REDACTED
VERSION WHICH MAY BE ANOTHER REASON WHY WE SHOULD GET THAT.
BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION HOW COULD THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
HAVE USED CAMPAIGN POLLING DATA TO FURTHER ITS SWEEPING AND
SYSTEMATIC INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION?
>>THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OUT OF THE ASK.
>>FAIR ENOUGH. DID YOUR
INVESTIGATION FIND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT WOULD
BENEFIT FROM ONE CANDIDATE WINNING?
>>YES.>>WHICH CANDIDATE WOULD THAT
BE?>>WELL IT WOULD BE TRUMP.
>>NOW THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS NOT EXACTLY RELUCTANT TO TAKE
RUSSIAN HELP, YOU SAID IT EXPECTED IT WOULD BENEFIT
ELECTORALLY FROM INFORMATION STOLEN AND RELEASED THROUGH
RUSSIAN EFFORTS.>>THAT IS CORRECT.
>>WAS AT THE INVESTIGATION OR WHAT WAS THE INVESTIGATION
DETERMINATION REGARDING THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN MADE CONTACT WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT?
>>I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE REPORT ON THAT.
>>WE WENT THROUGH AND COUNTED 126 CONTACTS BETWEEN RUSSIANS OR THEIR AGENTS AND
TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS OR THEIR ASSOCIATES. WOULD THAT
SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?>>I CANNOT SAY. I UNDERSTAND
THE STATISTIC.>>MR. MUELLER I APPRECIATE YOUR
BEING HERE ANNUAL 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 GOT THE DEMOCRATIC GAME PLAN FOR THE ELECTION. THE
RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN MET WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS AND
REPEATEDLY GAVE THEM INTERNAL DATA, POLLING AND MESSAGING IN
THE BATTLEGROUND STATES SO WHILE THE RUSSIANS WERE BUYING ADS AND PROVIDING PROPAGANDA TO
INFLUENCE THE ELECTION THEY WERE ARMED WITH INSIDE INFORMATION
THAT THEY HAD STOLEN THROUGH HACKING OF THE DNC AND THAT THEY
HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN MR. PAUL
MANAFORT. MY COLLEAGUES WILL PROBE THE EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO
KEEP THIS INFORMATION FROM BECOMING PUBLIC BUT I THINK IT
IS IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY
OF THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM THAT YOUR REPORT UNCOVERED AND
WITH THAT I WILL YIELD BACK.>>GOOD MORNING DIRECTOR. IF YOU
WILL LET ME QUICKLY SUMMARIZE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU SAID
IN VOLUME 1 THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DETERMINE THE INVESTIGATION DID
NOT ESTABLISH MEMBERS OF THE TRIM CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR
COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN ELECTION
INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES AND THEN VOLUME 2 THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO
NOT MAKE THE DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE CRIME COMMITTED IS THAT FAIR? NOW IN EXPLAINING THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT MAKE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTION DECISION
THE REPORT ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 2 OF VOLUME 2 READS AS FOLLOWS
THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS AND INTENT
TO PRESENT DIFFICULT ISSUES TO DETERMINE NO CRIMINAL CONDUCT
OCCURRED WHILE THE REPORT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THE PRESIDENT
COMMITTED A CRIME HE DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM. I READ THAT
CORRECTLY? NOW YOUR REPORT AND TODAY YOU SAID AT ALL TIMES THE
TEAM OPERATED UNDER AND WAS GUIDED BY POLICIES
AND PRINCIPLES FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SO WHICH DOJ POLICY
OR PRINCIPLE SETS FORTH THE LEGAL STANDARD THAT AN
INVESTIGATED PERSON IS NOT EXONERATED IF THEIR INNOCENCE IS
NOT CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED? >>KENNY REPEAT THE LAST PART OF
THE QUESTION?>>WHICH DOJ DOJ POLICY SETS
FORTH THE INVESTIGATED PERSON IS NOT EXONERATED IF INNOCENCE FROM
CRIMINAL CONDUCT IS NOT CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED? WHERE
DOES THAT LANGUAGE COME FROM? WHERE IS THE DOJ POLICY THAT
SAYS THAT? LET ME MAKE IT EASIER. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN
EXAMPLE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
DETERMINED AN INVESTIGATED PERSON WAS NOT EXONERATED
BECAUSE THEIR INNOCENCE WAS NOT CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED?
>>I CANNOT BUT THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION.
>>TIME IS SHORT YOU WILL LEAVE IT AT YOU CANNOT FIND IT BECAUSE
IT DOES NOT EXIST, NOWHERE DOES IT SAY YOU WERE TO CONCLUSIVELY
DETERMINE DONALD TRUMP’S INNOCENCE OR THAT THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL REPORT SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO EXONERATE. IT
IS NOT IN THE APPOINTMENT ORDER IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
REGULATIONS OR IN THE LOC OPINIONS, NOT IN THE JUSTICE
MANUAL, NOWHERE DO THOSE WORDS APPEAR TOGETHER BECAUSE
RESPECTFULLY DIRECTOR IT WAS NOT THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL’S JOB TO CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINE DONALD TRUMP’S
INNOCENCE OR TO EXONERATE HIM BECAUSE THE BEDROCK PRINCIPLE OF
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. IT
EXISTS FOR EVERYONE, EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO IT INCLUDING SITTING
PRESIDENTS BECAUSE THERE IS PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
PROSECUTORS NEVER EVER NEED TO CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINE IT.
DIRECTOR THE SPECIAL COUNSEL APPLIED THIS INVERTED BURDEN OF
PROOF THAT I CANNOT FIND IN YOU SAID DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE IN
THE DEPARTMENT POLICY AND YOU USED IT TO WRITE THE REPORT AND
THE VERY FIRST LINE OF YOUR REPORT, THE VERY FIRST LINE OF
YOUR REPORT SAYS IT AUTHORIZES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO PROVIDE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT EXPLAINING
THE PROSECUTION OR DECLINATION DECISIONS REACHED THAT IS THE
FIRST WORDS OF YOUR REPORT. HERE’S THE PROBLEM DIRECTOR. THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT DO THAT. ON VOLUME 1 YOU DID, ON VOLUME 2
WITH RESPECT TO POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL MADE NEITHER A PROSECUTION DECISION OR A
DECLINATION DECISION. YOU MADE NO DECISION, TELLING US HE MADE
NO DETERMINATION SO RESPECTFULLY YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL REGULATIONS, IT CLEARLY SAYS TO WRITE A CONFIDENTIAL
REPORT ABOUT DECISIONS REACHED. NOWHERE IN HERE DOESN’T SAY
WRITE A REPORT ABOUT DECISIONS THAT WERE NOT REACHED. YOU WROTE
180 PAGES ABOUT DECISIONS THAT WERE NOT REACHED. ABOUT
POTENTIAL CRIMES THAT WERE NOT CHARGED OR DECIDED AND
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 ARE NOT CHARGED. AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW THIS AS THEY LISTEN
TO THE DEMOCRATS AND SOCIALISTS AS THEY DO DRAMATIC READINGS
FROM THIS REPORT VOLUME 2 WAS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW TO
BE WRITTEN. IT WAS WRITTEN TO A LEGAL STANDARD THAT DOES NOT
EXIST AND IT WAS WRITTEN IN VIOLATION OF EVERY DOJ PRINCIPAL
ABOUT EXTRA COMMENTARY. I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN WHEN HE SAID
DONALD TRUMP IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. HE IS NOT BUT HE SHOULD NOT
BE BELOW THE LAW WHICH IS WHERE VOLUME 2 PUTS HIM.>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. YOUR
EXCHANGE WITH A GENTLE LADY FROM CALIFORNIA DEMONSTRATES WHAT IS
AT STAKE, PAUL MANAFORT WAS PASSING SENSITIVE INFORMATION TO
A RUSSIAN OPERATIVE. THERE WERE SO MANY OTHER WAYS RUSSIA
SUBVERTED OUR DEMOCRACY, WITH THE EVIDENCE IN VOLUME 1 I
CANNOT THINK OF A MORE SERIOUS NEED TO INVESTIGATE. I’M NOW
GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS IT
RELATES TO VOLUME 2. ON PAGE 12 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 CITATION?>>PAGE 12 VOLUME 2. THAT IS WE
DETERMINED THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT FACTUAL AND LEGAL
BASIS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
ISSUES INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT. YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES AT LEAST 10 SEPARATE
INSTANCES OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT WERE
INVESTIGATED BY YOU AND YOUR TEAM. IS THAT CORRECT? THE TABLE
OF CONTENTS SERVES AS A VERY GOOD GUIDE TO SOME OF THE ACTS
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INVESTIGATED. PAGE 157 VOLUME 2
YOU DESCRIBE RANGING FROM THE PRESIDENT EFFORT TO CURTAIL THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT FURTHER EFFORTS TO
HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKE OVER THE INVESTIGATION, THE
PRESIDENT’S ORDERS TO DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED
TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND MANY OTHERS. IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES.
>>I DIRECT YOU TO WHERE YOU WROTE THE PRESIDENT’S PATTERN OF
CONDUCT AS A WHOLE SHEDS LIGHT ON THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT’S
ACTS AND INFERENCES THAT CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT INTENT, DOES THAT
MEAN YOU HAVE TO INVESTIGATE ALL CONDUCT TO ASCERTAIN TRUE
MOTIVE? WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S PATTERN OF CONDUCT
INCLUDING THE 10 POSSIBLE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION IS THAT CORRECT
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PATTERN OF CONDUCT THAT WOULD INCLUDE
THOSE 10 POSSIBLE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION?
>>I DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT FOR THAT AS CHARACTERIZED.
>>LET ME GO TO THE SCREEN. FOR EACH OF THE 10 POTENTIAL
INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE YOU ANALYZED THREE
ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, A NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACT AND PROCEEDINGS AND
CORRUPT INTENT. ON PAGE 178 VOLUME 2 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 A CORE EXAMPLE OF CORRUPTLY
MOTIVATED CONDUCT. IS THAT CORRECT?
>>YES. >>WITH THE EVIDENCE YOU DID
FIND, IS IT TRUE AS YOU NOTED THE EVIDENCE
INDICATES A THOROUGH FBI INVESTIGATION WOULD UNCOVER
FACTS ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN AND THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY THAT THE
PRESIDENT COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD TO BE CRIMES THAT WOULD ARISE TO
LEGAL PERSONAL AND POLITICAL CONCERN?
>>I RELY ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE REPORT.
>>IS THAT RELEVANT TO POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
>>YES. >>YOU FURTHER ELABORATE
OBSTRUCTION CAN BE MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO PROTECT NONCRIMINAL
PERSONAL INTEREST, AGAINST INVESTIGATIONS OR UNDERLYING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY FALLING INTO A GRAY AREA OR TO AVOID PERSONAL
EMBARRASSMENT. IS THAT CORRECT?>>CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?
NOW THAT I HAVE THE LANGUAGE.>>IS THE CORRECT OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE CAN BE MOTIVATED BY DIRECT DESIRE TO PROTECT
NONCRIMINAL PERSONAL INTEREST, TO PROTECT AGAINST INVESTIGATION
OR TO AVOID IS THAT TRUE? IS IT TRUE THE IMPACT?
>>CAN YOU READ THE LAST QUESTION? I WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN
I HAVE IT ACCURATE.>>THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN
ASKING IF THAT’S CORRECT.>>YES.
>>CONVICTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE RESULT POTENTIALLY IN A
LOT OF YEARS OF TIME? IN JAIL?>>YES. AGAIN CAN YOU REPEAT THE
QUESTION TO MAKE SURE I HAVE IT ACCURATE?
>>DOES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WARRANT A LOT OF TIME IN JAIL?
IF YOU ARE CONVICTED?>>YES.
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR.
CHAIRMAN. LET ME BEGIN BY READING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
REGULATIONS BY WHICH YOU WERE APPOINTED, IT READS AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WORK HE OR SHE SHALL PROVIDE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT EXPLAINING
THE PROSECUTION OF DECLINATION OF DECISION REACHED BY THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. WHEN A REGULATION USES THE WORD
SHALL PROVIDE DOESN’T MEAN THE INDIVIDUAL IS IN FACT OBLIGATED
TO PROVIDE WHAT IS DEMANDED BY THE REGULATION OR STATUTE
MEANING YOU DON’T HAVE WIGGLE ROOM.
>>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 DETERMINED NOT TO MAKE EXTRA ADDITIONAL PROSECUTORIAL
JUDGMENT IS THAT CORRECT?>>I’M TRYING TO FIND THAT
CITATION.>>DIRECTOR COULD YOU SPEAK MORE
DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE?>>VOLUME 2 ON PAGE 1 WE
DETERMINED NOT TO MAKE PROSECUTORIAL JUDGMENT. RIGHT
FROM THE BEGINNING. SINCE YOU DECIDED UNDER THE LOC OPINION
YOU CANNOT PROSECUTE A SITTING PRESIDENT MEANING PRESIDENT
TRUMP WHY DO WE HAVE ALL OF THIS INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP
THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU KNEW YOU WERE NOT
GOING TO PROSECUTE HIM?>>YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE THE
INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO LIE AND THE LOC OPENING ITSELF SAYS
YOU CAN CONTINUE EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE NOT GOING TO INDICT.>>OKAY IF YOU’RE NOT GOING TO
INDICT THE PRESIDENT AND YOU CONTINUE FISHING AND THAT IS MY
OBSERVATION. I ASSURE YOU, SURE YOU CAN INDICT OTHER PEOPLE BUT
YOU CANNOT INDICT THE SITTING PRESIDENT.
>>THAT’S TRUE.>>THERE ARE 182 PAGES OF RAW
EVIDENCE INCLUDING HUNDREDS OF REFERENCES TO 302 WHICH ARE
INTERVIEWS BY THE PI FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN
CROSS-EXAMINED AND WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
GOVERNING REGULATION TO EXPLAIN THE PROSECUTION OR DECLINATION
DECISIONS REACHED. CORRECT? I AM READING FROM MY QUESTION.
>>COULD YOU REPEAT?>>OKAY 182 PAGES OF RAW
EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL WITH HUNDREDS OF REFERENCES TO THE
302 THAT I NEVER BEEN CROSS-EXAMINED AND DID NOT
COMPLY WITH GOVERNING REGULATION TO EXPLAIN THE PROSECUTION OR
DECLINATION DECISIONS REACHED.>>THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS
WHICH I DECLINED TO DISCUSS. I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT
ITSELF.>>I LOOKED AT 182 PAGES. LET ME
SWITCH GEARS. WE WERE ON THIS COMMITTEE DURING THE CLINTON
IMPEACHMENT. WHILE I RECOGNIZE THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE
UNDER WHICH KENNETH STARR OPERATED IS DIFFERENT FROM THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL STATUTE. HE, IN A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS IN HIS
REPORT STATED THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON’S 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 USE THE TERM RAISING TWO IMPEACHABLE
CONDUCT FOR ANY OF THE 10 INSTANCES THAT THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TEXAS DID. IS IT TRUE THERE IS NOTHING IN VOLUME 2 OF THE
REPORT THAT SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE ENGAGED IN
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT?>>WE HAVE KEPT IN THE CENTER OF THE
INVESTIGATION OUR MANDATE AND THAT DOES NOT GO TO OTHER
WAYS OF ADDRESSING CONDUCT, OUR MANDATE GOES TO DEVELOPING THE
REPORT. >>WITH ALL DUE RESPECT IT SEEMS
TO ME THERE ARE A COUPLE STATEMENTS THAT YOU MADE THAT
SAID THIS IS NOT FOR ME TO DECIDE AND THE IMPLICATION IS,
IT IS FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO DECIDE. YOU DID NOT USE THE WORD
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. THERE WAS NO STATUTE TO PREVENT YOU FROM
USING THE WORD IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. I GO BACK TO WHAT MR.
RADCLIFFE SAID, EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS INNOCENT UNTIL
PROVEN GUILTY. MY TIME IS UP.>>TIME IS EXPIRED THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TENNESSEE.>>FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO RESTATE
WHAT MR. NADLER SAID ABOUT YOUR CAREER. A MODEL OF REC TO TOOT
AND I THINK YOU. BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION HOW DID PRESIDENT
TRUMP REACT TO YOUR APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL?
>>I WOULD SEND YOU A REPORT. >>THERE IS A QUOTE FROM PAGE 78
VOLUME 2 WHICH READS WHEN SESSIONS TOLD THE PRESIDENT
SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD BEEN APPOINTED, THE PRESIDENT SLUMPED
BACK IN HIS CHAIR AND SAID OH, MY GOD THIS IS TERRIBLE THIS IS
THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY I AM EFFED. DID ATTORNEY SESSIONAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT?
>>I AM NOT CERTAIN OF THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY COPIED
THAT QUOTE. >>SESSIONS HAD SAID IT AND ONE
OF HIS AIDES SAID THAT IN THE NOTE BUT HE WAS NOT PLEASED. HE
WAS NOT PLEASED WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL PARTICULARLY YOU BECAUSE
OF YOUR REPUTATION. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RECUSED HIMSELF OF THE
INVESTIGATION BECAUSE OF HIS ROLE IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN.
RECUSAL MEANS HE CANNOT BE INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION IS
THAT CORRECT? >>YES.
>>ANOTHER TRUMP APPOINTEE AS YOU KNOW MR. ROSENSTEIN BECAME
IN CHARGE. WASN’T ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS FOLLOWING THE
RULES AND PROFESSIONAL ADVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ETHICS
FOLKS WHEN HE RECUSED HIMSELF? YET THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED
DISPLEASURE AT SESSIONS DECISION TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM OVERSIGHT
OF THE INVESTIGATION.>>THAT IS ACCURATE.
>>THE PRESIDENT OF REACTION OF RECUSAL MR. BANNON RECALLED THE
PRESIDENT WAS AS MAD AS HE HAD EVER SEEN HIM AND HE SCREAMED
ABOUT HOW WEAK SESSIONS WAS.>>THAT IS IN THE REPORT.
>>DESPITE NOTING ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS WAS NOT
SUPPOSED TO BE INVOLVED THE PRESIDENT STILL TRIED TO GET THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO NOT RECUSE HIMSELF IS THAT CORRECT? IN FACT
YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND AT SOME POINT AFTER YOUR APPOINTMENT THE
PRESIDENT CALLED SESSIONS AT HOME AND ASKED IF HE WOULD NOT
RECUSE HIMSELF. THAT IS NOT THE FIRST TIME HE ASKED SESSIONS TO
UNRECUSE HIMSELF. ONE OCCASION WAS WITH FLYNN AND WAS WITH
SESSIONS. THE PRESIDENT PULLED SESSIONS ASIDE AND SUGGESTED HE
SHOULD DO THIS UNRECUSE. >>CORRECT.
>>WHEN MICHAEL FLYNN ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA FOR LYING TO FEDERAL
AGENTS AND INDICATED HIS COOPERATION TRUMP ASKED TO SPEAK
TO SESSIONS AGAIN ALONE AND AGAIN ASKED SESSIONS TO
UNRECUSE. >>I WILL REFER YOU TO THE
REPORT.>>DO YOU KNOW OF ANY POINT WHEN
THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED ANGER OR FRUSTRATION AT SESSIONS
PERSONALLY?>>I WOULD HAVE TO PASS.
>>PAGE 78 VOLUME 2 THE PRESIDENT
TOLD SESSIONS YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ME, WORDS TO THAT
EFFECT.>>CORRECT.
>>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR FOR THE PRESIDENT?
>>THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.>>YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT THE
PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO CONVINCE SESSIONS TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF SO
THAT HE COULD SUPERVISE THE INVESTIGATION TO RESTRICT ITS
SCOPE. HOW COULD SESSIONS HAVE RESTRICTED THE SCOPE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?
>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE. OBVIOUSLY IF HE TOOK OVER AS
ATTORNEY GENERAL HE WOULD HAVE GREATER LATITUDE IN HIS ACTIONS
THAT WOULD ENABLE HIM TO DO THINGS.
>>THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED THE UNRECUSE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD
PROTECT THE PRESIDENT FROM THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION.
REGARDLESS I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LIFE OF SERVICE TO
THEIR COUNTRY. IT IS CLEAR FROM YOUR REPORT THE PRESIDENT WANTED
JEFF SESSIONS TO VIOLATE ETHICS RULES BY TAKING OVER YOUR
INVESTIGATION AND IMPROPERLY INTERFERING TO PROTECT HIMSELF
AND HIS CAMPAIGN. YOUR FINDINGS ARE SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE IN
AMERICA NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW.>>THANK YOU, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
OHIO.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WERE VERY DISAPPOINTED IN YOUR REPORT,
THEY WERE EXPECTING YOU TO SAY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF
HERE’S WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP DESERVES TO BE IMPEACHED. MUCH
LIKE RELATIVE TO PRESIDENT CLINTON. WELL, YOU DIDN’T SO THE
STRATEGY HAD TO CHANGE, NOW THEY ALLEGE THERE IS PLENTY OF
EVIDENCE IN THE REPORT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST DID NOT READ IT. IN THIS HEARING TODAY
IT IS THEIR LAST BEST HOPE TO BUILD UP SOME SORT OF
GROUNDSWELL ACROSS AMERICA TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT’S
WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT TODAY. NOW A FEW QUESTIONS. ON PAGE 103
OF VOLUME 2 WHEN DISCUSSING THE JUNE 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING
YOU REFERENCE THE FIRM THAT PRODUCED FIELD REPORTING THE
NAME OF THE FIRM WAS FUSION GPS. IS THAT CORRECT? PAGE 103 VOLUME
2. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE FIRM THAT PRODUCED THE STEELE DOSSIER
THE NAME OF THE FIRM WAS FUSION GPS.
>>I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.>>IT IS NOT A TRICK QUESTION IT
WAS FUSION GPS. FUSION GPS PRODUCED THE OPPOSITION RESEARCH
DOCUMENT WIDELY KNOWN AS THE STEELE DOSSIER AND THE OWNER OF
FUSION WAS SOMEONE NAMED GLENN SIMPSON ARE YOU FAMILIAR?
>>THIS IS OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW.>>GLENN SIMPSON WAS NEVER
MENTIONED IN THE 448 PAGE MUELLER REPORT.
>>THAT IS OUTSIDE OF MY PURVIEW AND IS BEING HANDLED BY OTHERS.
>>HE WAS NOT, THE OWNER OF FUSION GPS THAT DID THE STEELE
DOSSIER, HE IS NOT MENTIONED. LET ME MOVE ON. AT THE SAME TIME
FUSION GPS WAS COLLECTING TO COLLECT OPPOSITION RESEARCH ON
DONALD TRUMP FROM FOREIGN SOURCES ON BEHALF OF THE CLINTON
CAMPAIGN AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, IT WAS
REPRESENTING A RUSSIAN BASED COMPANY WHICH HAD BEEN
SANCTIONED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ARE YOU AWARE OF
THAT?>>THAT IS OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW.
>>ONE OF THE KEY PLAYERS IN THE JUNE IN THE JUNE 2016 TRUMP
TOWER MEETING WAS WHO YOU DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT AS A
RUSSIAN ATTORNEY WHO ADVOCATED FOR THE REPEAL, SHE HAD BEEN
WORKING WITH NONE OTHER THAN GLENN SIMPSON AND FUSION GPS
SINCE AT LEAST EARLY 2014 ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?
>>OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW.>>OR HER CONNECTIONS TO GLENN
SIMPSON AT FUSION GPS YOU DID NOT MENTION THAT IN YOUR REPORT.
NBC NEWS HAS REPORTED THE FOLLOWING. RUSSIAN LAWYER SAYS
SHE FIRST RECEIVED A SUPPOSEDLY INCRIMINATING INFORMATION SHE
BROUGHT TO TRUMP TOWER DESCRIBING ALLEGED ATTACKS
VISION AND DONATION TO DEMOCRATS FROM GLENN SIMPSON THE FUSION
GPS OWNER. YOU DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN THE REPORT.
>>THAT IS A MATTER BEING HANDLED BY OTHERS.
>>YOUR REPORT SPENDS 14 PAGES DISCUSSING THE JUNE 9 DISCUSSING
THE JUNE 9, 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING. IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY
YOU SPENT SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES INVESTIGATING THE MEETING.
>>I REFER YOU TO THE REPORT.>>PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT AT
THE MEETING? THANK YOU. IN STARK CONTRAST TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
WE KNOW THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN DID PAY FUSION GPS TO GATHER DIRT ON
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN FROM PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS THAT YOUR REPORT DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT
FUSION GPS AND YOU DID NOT INVESTIGATE FUSION GPS AND THE
CONNECTIONS SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS. CAN YOU SEE THAT TRUMP,
NEGLECTING TO MENTION GLENN SIMPSON AND FUSION GPS WITH
THEIR INVOLVEMENT FOCUSING ON A BRIEF MEETING AT THE TRUMP TOWER
THAT PRODUCED NOTHING TO IGNORING THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN
TIES TO FUSION GPS, WHY SOME VIEW YOUR REPORT IS A PRETTY
ONE-SIDED ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT?
>>THIS IS STILL OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW.
>>FINALLY I WOULD NOTE BY CHANCE OR COINCIDENCE THE THINGS
LEFT OUT TENDED TO BE FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT.
>>THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK ON TRACK HERE. YOUR
INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL TO FIRE YOU IS THAT CORRECT?
>>THAT IS TRUE. >>THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED HE
WANTED TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAD SUPPOSE IT CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST. YOU HAD NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT REQUIRED YOUR
REMOVAL. IN FACT DON McGAHN ADVISED THE PRESIDENT THAT THE
CONFLICTS WERE IN HIS WORDS SILLY AND NOT REAL CONFLICTS.
>>I REFERRED TO THE REPORT. >>PAGE 85 VOLUME 2 SPEAKS TO
THAT. ALSO DOJ ETHICS OFFICIALS CONFIRMED THAT YOU HAD NO
CONFLICTS THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM SERVING AS SPECIAL COUNSEL.
IS THAT CORRECT? DESPITE DON McGAHN AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTIN’S GUIDANCE, AROUND MAY 23 , AROUND MAY 23, 2017 THE
PRESIDENT PRODDED DON McGAHN TO COMPLAIN TO DEPUTY GENERAL ROD
ROSENSTEIN ABOUT THESE SUPPOSE IT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
CORRECT? DON McGAHN DECLINE TO CALL ROSENSTEIN TELLING THE
PRESIDENT THAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE HE WAS TRYING TO MEDDLE IN
THE INVESTIGATION AND KNOCKING OUT MUELLER WOULD BE ANOTHER
FACT USED TO CLAIM OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. AND IN OTHER WORDS
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TOLD THE PRESIDENT IF HE TRIED TO REMOVE
YOU THAT THAT COULD BE ANOTHER BASIS TO ALLEGE THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
>>THAT IS GENERALLY CORRECT.>>I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WHAT
HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS WARNED ABOUT OBSTRUCTING
JUSTICE.>>I’M SORRY, DO YOU HAVE A
CITATION FOR THAT?>>YES, VOLUME 2, PAGE 81. I
WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS
WARNED OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. IT IS TRUE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 13
IT IS TRUE ON TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2017 THE PRESIDENT DICTATED A
PRESS STATEMENT STATING HE HAD NO INTENTION OF FIRING YOU. THE
FOLLOWING DAY JUNE 14 THE MEDIA REPORTED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT
YOU WERE INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTING
JUSTICE CORRECT?>>CORRECT.
>>AFTER LEARNING FOR THE FIRST TIME HE WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION,
THE NEXT DAY THE PRESIDENT ISSUED A SERIES OF TWEETS
ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXISTENCE OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE
INVESTIGATION AND CRITICIZING IT. AND THEN SATURDAY, JUNE 17,
TWO DAYS LATER THE PRESIDENT CALLED DON McGAHN AT HOME FROM
CAMP DAVID ON A SATURDAY TO TALK ABOUT YOU IS THAT CORRECT?
>>CORRECT.>>WHAT WAS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT
THAT FIRST WEEKEND PHONE CALL THAT DON McGAHN TOOK FROM
PRESIDENT TRUMP?>>I WILL ASK YOU TO RELY ON
WHAT WE SAID.>>YOU SAID IN THE REPORT PAGE
85 VOLUME 2 THE PRESIDENT CALLED DON McGAHN AT HOME TO HAVE THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED. DID THE PRESIDENT CALL DON McGAHN MORE
THAN ONCE THAT DAY? I THINK IT WAS TWO CALLS. PAGE 85 OF YOUR
REPORT YOU WROTE ON THE FIRST CALL DON McGAHN RECALLED THE
PRESIDENT SAID SOMETHING LIKE YOU’VE GOT TO DO THIS YOU HAVE
TO CALL. AND YOUR INVESTIGATION AND REPORT FOUND DON McGAHN WAS
PERTURBED BY THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST TO CALL ROD ROSENSTEIN
TO FIRE HIM.>>THERE WAS A CONTINUOUS
INVOLVEMENT OF DON McGAHN. RESPONDING TO THAT.
>>HE DID NOT WANT TO PUT HIMSELF IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT.
HE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A ROLE IN ASKING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL.>>AGAIN I WOULD REFER YOU TO
THE REPORT AND THE WAY IT IS CHARACTERIZED.
>>VOLUME 2 PAGE 85 STATES HE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A ROLE IN TRYING TO
FIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SO AT THIS POINT I WILL YIELD BACK.
>>THANK YOU. MR. MUELLER FIRST LET ME ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
SUBMIT THIS ARTICLE ROBERT MUELLER UNMASKED FOR THE RECORD.
NOW WHO WROTE THE NINE MINUTE COMMENTS YOU
READ AT YOUR MAY 29 PRESS CONFERENCE?
>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT.
>>THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT. A 2013 PUFF PIECE ABOUT JAMES COMEY
SAID BASICALLY WHEN JAMES COMEY CALLED YOU WOULD DROP EVERYTHING
YOU’RE DOING, GAVE EXAMPLES, YOU ARE HAVING DINNER WITH YOUR WIFE
AND DAUGHTER, HE CALLS SO YOU DROP EVERYTHING AND GO. THE
ARTICLE QUOTED TO SAY IF A TRAIN WERE COMING DOWN THE TRACK AT
LEAST ROBERT MUELLER WILL BE STANDING ON THE TRACKS WITH ME.
YOU AND JAMES COMEY HAVE BEEN GOOD FRIENDS OR WOULD WERE GOOD
FRIENDS FOR MANY YEARS?>>BUSINESS ASSOCIATES. WE BOTH
STARTED OFF AT THE SAME TIME.>>YOU AND JAMES COMEY WERE
FRIENDS.>>YES WE WERE FRIENDS.
>>NOW BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD YOU
TALKED TO JAMES COMEY IN THE PRECEDING SIX MONTHS?
>>NO.>>WHEN YOU WERE APPOINTED AS
SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FIRING OF COMEY
SOMETHING YOU ANTICIPATED INVESTIGATING?
>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. THAT IS INTERNAL
DELIBERATION.>>IT GOES TO YOUR CREDIBILITY,
CREDIBILITY IS ALWAYS RELEVANT AND IS MATERIAL AND THAT GOES
FOR YOU. YOU ARE A WITNESS BEFORE US. WHEN YOU TALKED WITH
PRESIDENT TRUMP THE DAY BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED YOU WERE
TALKING TO HIM ABOUT FBI DIRECTOR POSITION AGAIN. DID HE
MENTION THE FIRE AND?>>NOT AS A CANDIDATE.
>>DID HE MENTION THE FIRING OF JAMES COMEY IN YOUR DISCUSSION?
>>I DO NOT REMEMBER, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.
>>IF HE DID YOU COULD HAVE BEEN A FACT WITNESS AS TO THE
PRESIDENT’S COMMENTS AND STATE OF MIND ON FIRING JAMES COMEY.
>>I SUPPOSE THAT IS POSSIBLE.>>MOST PROSECUTORS WANT TO MAKE
SURE THERE IS NO APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY BUT IN YOUR CASE YOU
HIRED A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT DID NOT LIKE THE PRESIDENT. WHEN DID
YOU FIRST LEARN OF THIS ANIMUS TOWARD DONALD TRUMP?
>>SUMMER OF 2017.>>YOU DID NOT KNOW BEFORE HE
WAS HIRED? YOU DID NOT KNOW FOR YOUR TEAM BEFORE HE WAS HIRED?
>>KNOW WHAT?>> PETER STRZOK HATED TRUMP
YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT BEFORE HE WAS MADE PART OF THE TEAM?
>>I DID NOT KNOW THAT. WHEN WE DID FIND OUT WE SWIFTLY HAD HIM
REASSIGNED ELSEWHERE.>>THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION
ABOUT HOW SWIFT. WHEN DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THE ONGOING AFFAIR
HE WAS HAVING WITH LISA PAGE?>>ABOUT THE SAME TIME.
>>DID YOU EVER ORDER ANYBODY TO INVESTIGATE THE DELETION OF ALL
TEXTS OFF OF THEIR GOVERNMENT PHONES?
>>WHEN WE FOUND PETER STRZOK WAS THE AUTHOR, MAY I FINISH?
>>YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION. DID YOU ORDER AN
INVESTIGATION INTO THE DELETION AND REFORMATTING OF GOVERNMENT
PHONES? >>NO, THERE WAS THE IG ONGOING
INVESTIGATION. >>REGARDING COLLUSION OR
CONSPIRACY YOU DO NOT FIND EVIDENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT AMONG
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND ANY RUSSIAN LINKED OFFICIALS TO
INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION. >>CORRECT.
>>YOU NOTE IN THE REPORT THAT THE ELEMENT OF ANY OF THOSE
OBSTRUCTIONS REQUIRES A CORRUPT STATE OF MIND CORRECT?
>>CORRUPT INTENT.>>IF SOMEBODY KNOWS THEY DID
NOT CONSPIRE WITH ANYBODY FROM RUSSIA TO AFFECT THE ELECTION
AND THEY SEE THE BIG JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WITH PEOPLE THAT HATE
THAT PERSON COMING AFTER THEM AND THEN A SPECIAL COUNSEL
APPOINTED WHO HIRES A DOZEN OR MORE PEOPLE THAT HATE THAT
PERSON AND HE KNOWS HE IS INNOCENT, HE IS NOT CORRUPTLY
ACTING IN ORDER TO SEE THAT JUSTICE IS DONE. WHAT HE IS
DOING IS NOT OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, HE IS PURSUING JUSTICE.
THE FACT THAT YOU RAN IT OUT FOR TWO YEARS MEANS YOU PERPETUATED
INJUSTICE.>>TIME HAS EXPIRED THE WITNESS
MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.>>I TAKE YOUR QUESTION.
>>GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER I WOULD LIKE
TO GET BACK TO YOUR FINDINGS IN JUNE 2017. A BOMBSHELL ARTICLE
REPORTING THE PRESIDENT WAS PERSONALLY UNDER
INVESTIGATION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND YOU SAID IN YOUR
REPORT ON PAGE 90 OF VOLUME 2, NEWS OF THE OBSTRUCTION
INVESTIGATION PROMPTED THE PRESIDENT TO CALL PETER STRZOK
EIGHT AND HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED AND THEN IN YOUR
REPORT YOU WROTE ABOUT MULTIPLE CALLS FROM THE PRESIDENT TO DON
McGAHN. REGARDING THE SECOND CALL YOU WROTE DON McGAHN
RECALLED THE PRESIDENT WAS MORE DIRECT SAYING SOMETHING LIKE
CALL ROD SAY THAT MUELLER HAS CONFLICTS AND CANNOT BE SPECIAL
COUNSEL. DON McGAHN RECALLED THE PRESIDENT TELLING HIM MUELLER
HAS TO GO AND CALL ME BACK WHEN YOU DO IT. DIRECTOR DID DON
McGAHN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ORDERING HIM TO
DO? >>I DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT IN
TERMS OF CHARACTERIZING HIS FEELINGS.
>>THE REPORT SAYS DON McGAHN UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT TO SAY
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD TO BE REMOVED. YOU ALSO SAID ON PAGE
86 McGAHN CONSIDERED THIS AN INFLECTION POINT AND HE WANTED
TO HIT THE BRAKES AND HE FELT TRAPPED AND McGAHN DECIDED TO
RESIGN. HE TOOK ACTION TO PREPARE TO RESIGN?
>>I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT.
>>THAT VERY DAY HE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND YOU SAID HE THEN
DROVE TO THE OFFICE TO PACK HIS BELONGINGS AND SUBMIT
RESIGNATION LETTER.>>THAT IS FROM THE REPORT.
>>BEFORE HE RESIGNED HE CALLED THE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF
AND CALLED THE SENIOR ADVISOR. DO YOU RECALL WHAT McGAHN TOLD
HIM? >>WHATEVER WAS SAID WILL APPEAR
IN THE REPORT.>>IT IS AND ON PAGE 87 IT SAYS
IT IS RECALLED McGAHN SAID THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIM TO DO CRAZY
EXPLETIVE IN OTHER WORDS CRAZY STUFF. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL
THOUGHT THAT THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF
BOUNDS, HE SAID THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIM TO DO SOMETHING CRAZY.
IT WAS WRONG AND HE WAS PREPARED TO RESIGN OVER IT. NOW THESE ARE
EXTRAORDINARILY TROUBLING EVENTS. BUT YOU FOUND McGAHN TO
BE A CREDIBLE WITNESS. >>CORRECT.
>>DIRECTOR MUELLER THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION I HAVE FOR
YOU TODAY IS WHY? DIRECTOR MUELLER, WHY DID THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES WANT YOU FIRED?
>>I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>>ON PAGE 89 IN YOUR REPORT ON VOLUME 2 YOU SAID SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WERE LINKED TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S
OVERSIGHT OF INVESTIGATION THAT INVOLVED THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT
AND MOST IMMEDIATELY TO REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS BEING
INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. DIRECTOR
MUELLER, YOU FOUND EVIDENCE AS YOU LAY OUT IN YOUR REPORT THAT
THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE INVESTIGATING
HIM FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.>>YES THAT’S WHAT IT SAYS IN
THE REPORT AND I STAND BEHIND THE REPORT.
>>THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN AMERICA. NO PRESIDENT SHOULD BE
ABLE TO ESCAPE INVESTIGATION BY ABUSING HIS POWER BUT THAT IS
WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO IN YOUR REPORT. THE PRESIDENT ORDERED
YOU FIRED, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL KNEW THAT IT WAS WRONG,
THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT IT WAS WRONG. IN YOUR REPORT AND SAYS
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THOSE CALLS BUT HE DID
ANYWAY. HE DID IT ANYWAY. ANYONE ELSE WHO BLATANTLY INTERFERED
WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION LIKE YOURS WOULD BE ARRESTED,
INDICTED ON CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. DIRECTOR
MUELLER YOU DETERMINED THAT YOU WERE BARRED FROM INDICTING A
SITTING PRESIDENT. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT TODAY. THAT IS
EXACTLY WHY THIS COMMITTEE MUST HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE.
I YIELD BACK.>>THE GENTLE LADY FROM ALABAMA.
>>DIRECTOR MUELLER YOU JUST SAID IN RESPONSE THAT YOU WOULD
REFER AS A RELATES TO THE FIRING DISCUSSION THAT I WOULD REFER
YOU TO THE REPORT AND THE WAY IT WAS CHARACTERIZED IN THE REPORT,
IMPORTANTLY THE PRESIDENT NEVER SET FIRE MUELLER OR IN THE
INVESTIGATION AND ONE DOES NOT NECESSITATE THE OTHER. McGAHN IN
FACT DID NOT RESIGN HE STUCK AROUND. MARCH 24 ATTORNEY
GENERAL WILLIAM BARR INFORMED HE RECEIVED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
REPORT AND APRIL 18 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASED THE REPORT TO
CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC, WHEN YOU SUBMITTED YOUR REPORT TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DID YOU DELIVER A REDACTED VERSION SO THAT HE
WOULD BE ABLE TO RELEASE IT TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC WITHOUT
DELAY PURSUANT TO HIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS INTENTION TO
DO SO DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING?
>>I’M NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE
DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT. >>TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ASK
YOU TO PROVIDE A REDACTED VERSION?
>>WE WORKED ON THEM TOGETHER.>>THAT HE ASKED FOR A VERSION
WHERE THE GRAND JURY MATERIAL SEPARATED?
>>NOT GETTING INTO DETAILS. >>IS IT YOUR BELIEVE THE
UNREDACTED VERSION COULD BE RELEASED TO CONGRESS OR THE
PUBLIC?>>NOT WITHIN MY PURVIEW.>>I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT BEING
DONE.>>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASED
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT WITH MINIMAL REDUCTIONS TO THE PUBLIC
AND EVEN LESS A REDACTED VERSION TO CONGRESS, DID YOU WRITE THE
REPORT WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULD BE RELEASED PUBLICLY?
>>NO WE DO NOT HAVE THE EXPECTATION. WE WRITE THE REPORT
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS DEMANDED BY THE STATUTE AND
WOULD GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR FURTHER REVIEW.
>>PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATION WAS THE ONLY
PARTY THAT MUST RECEIVE THE CHARGING DECISION RESULTING FROM
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION?
>>WITH REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT OR GENERALLY?
>>GENERALLY.>>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
>>AT THE CONFIRMATION HEARING HE MADE IT CLEAR HE INTENDED TO
RELEASE THE REPORT TO THE PUBLIC YOU REMEMBER HOW MUCH HAD BEEN
WRITTEN AT THAT POINT? WERE THERE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN
TONE OR SUBSTANCE OF THE REPORT MADE AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT
THE REPORT WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE?
>>I CANNOT GET INTO THAT. >>DURING THE SENATE TESTIMONY
OF WILLIAM BARR ONE SENATOR ASKED IF HE HAD LOOKED AT THE
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TEAM GATHERED,
HE STATED HE HAD NOT SO I WILL ASK YOU DID YOU PERSONALLY
REVIEW ALL OF THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE GATHERED IN YOUR
INVESTIGATION? >>TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAME TO
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE, YES.
>>DID ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF YOUR TEAM REVIEW ALL OF THE
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE GATHERED? >>AS RECITED TODAY A
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE.
>>THERE IS NO ONE MEMBER OF THE TEAM THAT LOOKED AT EVERYTHING.
IT IS FAIR TO SAY IN THE INVESTIGATION THIS COMPREHENSIVE
IT IS NORMAL THAT DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE TEAM WOULD HAVE
REVIEWED DIFFERENT SETS OF DOCUMENTS AND FEW IF ANYONE
WOULD HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THE UNDERLYING. HOW MANY OF THE 500
INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THE SPECIAL DID YOU ATTEND?
>>VERY FEW.>>MARCH 27, 2019 YOU READ A
LETTER ESSENTIALLY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MEDIA COVERAGE OF YOUR
REPORT. YOU WROTE THE SUMMARY LETTER SENT TO CONGRESS AND
RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC LATE IN THE AFTERNOON MARCH 24 DID NOT
FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF THIS OFFICE, WE
COMMUNICATED THAT CONCERN TO THE DEPARTMENT, THERE IS NO PUBLIC
CONFUSION ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE RESULT OF THE
INVESTIGATION, WHO WROTE THAT LETTER?
>>I CANNOT GET INTO WHO WROTE IT. WHAT I WILL SAY IS THE
LETTER STANDS FOR ITSELF.>>WHY DID YOU WRITE A FORMAL
LETTER SENT TO ALL RECALLED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO EXPRESS
THOSE CONCERNS? DID YOU AUTHORIZE THE LETTER RELEASED TO
THE MEDIA OR WAS IT LEAKED? >>I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ON
EITHER.>>YOU IN NEARLY 2 YEARS WITHOUT
A LEAK WHY WAS THE LETTER LEAKED?
>>I CANNOT GET INTO IT.>>WAS THIS WRITTEN AND LEAKED
TO ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE NARRATIVE ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS
OF YOUR REPORT AND WAS ANYTHING IN THE LETTER REFERRED TO AS
PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS?>>TIME HAS EXPIRED.
>>YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >>WAS ANYTHING IN ATTORNEY
GENERAL BARS LETTER INACCURATE?>>I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO
THAT.>>THE GENTLE LADY FROM
CALIFORNIA.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER AS YOU KNOW
WE ARE FOCUSING ON FIVE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES TODAY. I
WOULD LIKE TO ASK ABOUT THE SECOND OF THE FIVE OBSTRUCTION
EPISODES. IN THE SECTION OF EUROPE WERE BEGINNING ON PAGE
113 OF VOLUME 2 ENTITLED THE PRESIDENT ORDERS McGAHN TO DENY
THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. ON JANUARY 25
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. ON JANUARY 25, 2018 THE NEW YORK TIMES
REPORTED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ORDERED McGAHN TO HAVE THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FIRE YOU IS THAT CORRECT?
>>CRACK.>>THE STORY RELATED TO THE
EVENT YOU TESTIFIED HERE TODAY THE PRESIDENT CALLS TO McGAHN TO
HAVE YOU REMOVED. >>CORRECT.
>>AFTER THE NEWS BROKE THAT THE PRESIDENT GO ON TV AND DENY THE
STORIES? IN FACT THE PRESIDENT SAID FAKE NEWS FOLKS FAKE NEWS
ATYPICAL NEW YORK TIMES FAKE STORY. CORRECT?
>>CORRECT.>>YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT McGAHN WAS ORDERED TO FIRE YOU CORRECT?
>>YES. >>DID THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL
LAWYER DO SOMETHING THE FOLLOWING DAY IN RESPONSE TO THE
NEWS REPORT? >>I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE
REPORT.>>PAGE 114 JANUARY 26, 2018 THE
PRESIDENT PERSONAL COUNSEL CALLED THE ATTORNEY FOR McGAHN
AND SAID THE PRESIDENT WANTED McGAHN TO PUT OUT A STATEMENT
DENYING HE HAD BEEN ASKED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. DID
McGAHN DO WITH THE PRESIDENT ASKED?
>>I REFER TO THE REPORT.>>COMMUNICATING THROUGH HIS
PERSONAL ATTORNEY McGAHN REFUSED BECAUSE HE SAID THE TIMES STORY
WAS ACCURATE IN REPORTING THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL REMOVED. ISN’T THAT RIGHT? OKAY SO MR. McGAHN
THROUGH HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY TOLD THE PRESIDENT HE WOULD NOT
GOING TO LIE IS THAT RIGHT? DID THE PRESIDENT DROP THE ISSUE?
>>I REFER TO THE WRITE UP IN THE REPORT.
>>NEXT THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY ROB
PORTER TO TRY TO PRESSURE McGAHN TO MAKE A FALSE DENIAL. WHAT
DID HE ACTUALLY DIRECT ORDER TO DO?
>>I WOULD SEND YOU BACK TO THE REPORT.
>>ON PAGE 113 IT SAYS THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED PORTER TO
TELL McGAHN TO CREATE A RECORD TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE
PRESIDENT NEVER DIRECTED McGAHN TO FIRE YOU IS THAT CORRECT?
>>AS STATED IN THE REPORT.>>YOU FOUND, THE PRESIDENT SAID
HE WANTED McGAHN TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE FILE OR RECORD .
>>CORRECT.>>TO BE CLEAR THE PRESIDENT IS
ASKING WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN TO CREATE A RECORD THAT
McGAHN BELIEVES TO BE UNTRUE. IN THE MIDST OF INVESTIGATING
THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CORRECT?
>>GENERALLY CORRECT. >>MR. McGAHN WAS AN IMPORTANT
WITNESS? >>YES.
>>DID THE PRESIDENT TELL PORTER TO THREATEN McGAHN IF HE DID
NOT CREATE THE DENIAL?>>I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE
WRITE UP.>>DIDN’T THE PRESIDENT SAY IF
HE DOES NOT WRITE A LETTER THEN MAYBE I WILL HAVE TO GET RID OF
HIM. DID PORTER DELIVER THE THREAT?
>>AGAIN I REFER YOU TO THE DISCUSSION FOUND ON PAGE 115.
>>OKAY THE PRESIDENT STILL DID NOT GIVE UP. THE PRESIDENT TOLD
McGAHN DIRECTLY TO DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HAVE
YOU FIRED. CAN YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED?
>>I CANNOT BE ON WHAT IS IN THE REPORT.
>>PAGE 116 SAYS THE PRESIDENT MET HIM IN THE OVAL OFFICE. THE
PRESIDENT BEGAN THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING BY TELLING McGAHN THE
NEW YORK TIMES STORY DID NOT LOOK GOOD AND McGAHN NEEDED TO
CORRECT IT. IS THAT CORRECT?>>AS IT’S WRITTEN IN THE
REPORT.>>THE PRESIDENT ASKED McGAHN
IF HE WOULD DO A CORRECTION AND McGAHN SAID NO. MR. MUELLER
ENQUEUE FOR THE INVESTIGATION UNCOVERING THIS VERY DISTURBING
EVIDENCE. MY FRIEND MR. RICHMOND WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
ON THE SUBJECT HOWEVER IT IS CLEAR TO ME IF ANYONE ELSE
ORDERED A WITNESS TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD AND COVER UP ACTS
THAT ARE SUBJECT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION THAT
PERSON WOULD BE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES. I YIELD BACK MY 10.
>>THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO.>>THE FBI INTERVIEWED ON
FEBRUARY 10, 2017, IN THE INTERVIEW HE LIED AND THIS IS
POINTED ON PAGE 193 VOLUME 1. DENYING ALSO FALSELY STATING,
AND IN ADDITION
>>>OMITTING. LET’STHREE REMEMBERTIMES THISHE INLIED
2016TO THE THEFBI FBI DIDBUT
SOMETHINGYOU THEYDID NOT CHARGE HIM WITH A
CRIME.>>PROBABLY HAVEN’TDID DONE
BEFOREYOU SAY THEY193? SPIED
>>HE ONLIED THREE TIMES POINTED OUT IN THE REPORT WHY
DID YOU TWONOT PRESIDENTIAL CHARGE
HIM CANDIDATES.WITH THE CARTERCRIME? PAGE.
>> I CANNOT GET INTO INTERNAL
DELIBERATIONS.>>YOU CHARGED A LOT OF THEY
OTHER PEOPLE DIDN’TFOR GOFALSE TOSTATEMENTS. THE REMEMBER THIS,
COURT.IN 2016 THEY USEDTHE HUMANFBI
SOURCES.DID SOMETHING ALL KINDS FROMTHEY
ABOUTPROBABLY THEHAVE IT DONE BEFORE. SPYING ON TWO AMERICAN
CITIZENS MOMENT. PAPADOPOLIS JOINED THE CAMPAIGN.
NAMES LIKE HALPERT. ALL KINDS OF PLACES.
THE FBI EVEN SENT A LADY POSING AS SOMEBODY ELSE.
WENT BY THE NAME EVEN DISPATCHED
HER TO LONDON. IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS
MR. PAPADOPOLIS IS TALKING TO A FOREIGN DIPLOMAT AND HE TELLS
THE DIPLOMATS RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT
ON CLINTON. YOU POINT THIS OUT ON THE REPORT JOSEPH SMITH IS A GUY WHO TOLD
MR. PAPADOPOLIS. THIS IS THE GUY WHO TOLD PAPS
HE’S THE GUY WHO STARTED IT ALL AND HE LIES THREE TIMES AND
YET, YOU DON’T CHARGE HIM WITH A
CRIME. YOU CHARGE RICK GATES FOR FALSE
STATEMENTS. YOU CHARGED PAUL MANAFORT.
YOU CHARGED MICHAEL COHEN. BUT THE GUY WHO PUTS THE COUNTRY
THROUGH THIS WHOLE SAGA STARTS IT ALL FOR THREE YEARS WE’VE
LIVED THIS NOW. HE LIES AND YOU GUYS DON’T
CHARGE HIM AND I’M CURIOUS AS TO
WHY.>>WELL I CAN’T GET INTO IT AND
IT’S OBVIOUS WE CAN’T GET INTO CHARGING INCIDENTS.>>WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S
OFFICE INTERVIEWED, DID HE LIE TO YOU GUYINGS TOO.>>CAN’T GET INTO THAT.>>IS MISSION WESTERN
INTELLIGENCE OR RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE.>>CAN’T GET INTO THAT.>>A LOT OF THINGS YOU CAN’T GET
IN TO. WHAT’S INTERESTING IS YOU’VE
CHARGED 13 RUSSIANS. NO ONE’S EVER GOING TO SEE THEM.
YOU CAN CHARGE THEM. YOU CAN CHARGE ALL KINDS OF
PEOPLE AROUND THE PRESIDENT WITH
FALSE STATEMENTS BUT THE GUY WHO
BE LAUNCHES EVERYTHING. THE GUY WHOEN PUTS THIS WHOLE —
WHO PUTS THIS WHOLE STORY IN MOTION, YOU CAN’T CHARGE HIM.
I THINK THAT’S AMAZING.>>I’M NOT CERTAIN I AGREE WITH
YOUR CHARACTERIZATIONS.>>I’M READING IF YOUR REPORT.
THE DIPLOMAT TELLS THE FBI. THE FBI OPENS THE INVESTIGATION
JULY 31ST, 2016, AND HERE WE ARE
THREE YEARS LATER JULY OF 2019 THE COUNTRY’S BEEN PUT THROUGH
THIS AND THE CENTRAL FIGURE WHO LAUNCHES IT ALL LIES TO US AND
YOU GUYS DON’T HUNT HIM DOWN AND
INTERVIEW HIM AGAIN AND YOU DON’T CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME.
HERE’S THE GOOD NEWS. HERE’S THE GOOD NEWS.
THE PRESIDENT WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF CONSPIRACY.
JAMES KOM Y WHEN WE DEPOSED HIM A YEAR AGO TOLD US AT THAT
POINT THEY HAD NOTHING.
AT THE END OF THAT 22 MONTHS YOU
FIND NO CONSPIRACY AND WHAT DO DEMOCRATS WANT TO DO THEY WANT
TO KEEP INVESTIGATING. THEY WANT TO KEEP GOING.
MAYBE A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE FALSE
ACCUSATION STARTED. MAYBE TO GO BACK AND FIGURE OUT
WHY JOSEPH NIPSON WAS LYING TO THE FBI AND HERE’S THE GOOD
NEWS, THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT BILL BARR’S DOING AND THANK GOODNESS
FOR THAT. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND JOHN DURHAM ARE DOING.
THEY’RE GOING TO FIND OUT WHY WE
WENT THROUGH THIS 3-YEAR SAGA AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.>>TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS
EXPIRED. IN A MOMENT WE WILL TAKE A VERY
BRIEF 5-MINUTE BREAK. FIRST I ASK EVERYONE TO REMAIN
SEATED AND QUIET WHILE THE WITNESS EXITS THE ROOM.
I ALSO WANT TO ANNOUNCE TO THOSE
IN THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU MAY NOT
BE GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF YOU LEAVING HEARING ROOM AT THIS
TIME. .>>WE’VE BEEN WATCHING FORMER
SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER TAKE QUESTIONS AND EVADE
QUESTIONS FROM THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
YOU’RE WATCHING LIVE COVERAGE OF
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S TESTIMONY TODAY BEFORE TWO COMMITTEES.
THIS IS THE FIRST COMMITTEE TESTIFY BEFORE AND IT
SEEMS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS GOING TO LARGELY DEFER THE
QUESTIONS FROM LAWMAKERS ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE AISLE TO THE TEXT OF HIS REPORT.
WE’RE GOING TO HAVE MORE COVERAGE FROM MY WASHINGTON POST
COLLEAGUES BUT LET’S TAKE A LISTEN TO THE NADLER OPENING
STATEMENT IN WHICH THE CHAIRMAN ACTUALLY LANDED WHAT SEEMSES TO
BE ONE OF THE MORE EFFECTIVE LINES OF QUESTIONING OF THE
ENTIRE SESSION SO FAR. THIS WAS IN HIS OPENING
STATEMENT AND HE GOT THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL TO COMPARE WHAT
WAS IN HIS REPORT TO WORDS THAT TRUMP HAS BEEN USING TO
DESCRIBE THAT REPORT.
CAN WE TAKE A LISTEN TO THAT NOW?>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE
PRESIDENT HAS REPEATEDLY CLAIMED
THAT YOUR REPORT FOUND THERE WAS
NO OBSTRUCTION AND THAT IT COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY
EXONERATED HIM. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOUR REPORT
SAID, IS IT?>>CORRECT.
THAT’S NOT WHAT THE REPORT SAID.>>AND WHAT ABOUT TOTAL
EXONERATION. DID YOU ACTUALLY TOTALLY
EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT?>>NO.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER CAN YOU
EXPLAIN IN PLAIN TERMS WHAT THAT
FINDING MEANS SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND IT.>>WELL DEFINING INDICATES THAT
THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXCULPATED
FOR THE ACTS THAT HE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED.>>SO IT SEEMS THAT THAT WAS THE
CLIP THAT DEMOCRATS HAD REALLY BEEN LOOKING FOR WHEN THEY
FOUGHT SO HARD TO GET ROBERT MUELLER IN FRONT OF THEM.
WHEN NADLER ASKED DID YOU EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT AND THE
ANSWER WAS NO. THAT’S THE KIND OF THING THAT
DEMOCRATS HAD BEEN HOPING TO HIGHLIGHT ALL ALONG.
IN OTHER PARTS OF HIS TESTIMONY,
ROBERT MUELLER HAS NOT BEEN I THINK THE KIND OF WITNESS IT
SEEMED DEMOCRATS HAD BEEN LOOKING FOR.
INSTEAD OF READING DIRECTLY FROM
THE REPORT AS MANY OF THEM HAD EXPECTED HE MIGHT DO.
HE MERELY REFERRED LAWMAKERS TO VARIOUS PARTS OF THE TEXT OF
THIS REPORT. .>>Reporter: HANNAH, WHAT DOES
IT FEEL LIKE UP THERE?>>A LOT OF EXCITEMENT.
ALSO A LOT OF BROKEN HEARTS. ABOUT 40, 45 PEOPLE FROM THE
PUBLIC WERE LET IN INCLUDING THE
6:00 SQUAD WHO WAS THERE WHO HAVE BEEN THERE QUEUING SINCE
6:00 P.M. LAST NIGHT AND THERE HAS BEEN FOUR GUYS NOW AT THE
FRONT WHO ARE ALL HILL INTERNS WAITING TO GET IN.
THEY SAID THEY BASICALLY HAVE TO
WAIT FOR SOMEONE TO HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM INSIDE BECAUSE
ONCE THE PUBLIC IS LET OUT THEY CAN’T GET BACK IN.
I ALSO SAW REPRESENTATIVE MAXINE
WATERS WALKING BY. SHE SAID SHE HADN’T BEEN
WATCHING YET BUT SHE WAS TRYING TO SNEAK BACK INTO THE HEARING
ROOM. THE IMPORTANCE OF TODAY.
SHE SAID SHE WAS SEEKING CLARIFICATION ON THE REPORT.
SHE SAID I WANT TO IMPEACH HIM AND SHE’S HOPING THAT TODAY’S
HEARINGS WILL MAKE MORE CLEAR A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT
PARTICULARLY ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
SHE HAD BEEN TO A PREVIOUS HEARING AND SHE SAID THAT
PREVIOUS I BELIEVE THAT THE CENSUS WAS THE BIGGEST
ADRENALINE RUSH I HAVE EVER FELT
SO SHE DID GET INSIDE BECAUSE SHE WAS RIGHT AT THE TOP OF
THAT LINE WAITING TO GO IN.
I’M CONTINUING TO TALK TO PEOPLE.
PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE SENSE OF HISTORY HERE.
PEOPLE SAYING I WANT TO BE ABLE TO TELL MY CHILDREN I WAS HERE
FOR TODAY SO I WILL ALSO WAIT TO
SEE IF ANY OF THEM LEAVE THE ROOM TO SEE IF THEIR
EXPECTATIONS HAD BEEN MET.>>WE’LL BE CHECKING BACK IN
WITH YOU LATER. MEANWHILE I’M JOINED HERE IN
STUDIO BY AARON BLAKE. TELL ME WHAT WERE YOUR BIG
TAKE-AWAYS FROM THIS MORNING? OBVIOUSLY ACCORDING TO WHAT THE
PRESIDENT HAD BEEN SAYING ABOUT THESE HEARINGS WERE RELUCTANT
TO LET ROBERT MUELLER COME UP TO
THE HILL AND TESTIFY. I THOUGHT IN THE FIRST HUH-UHS
OR UH-HUHS AND A HALF OF THIS HEARING THEY PROBABLY GOT MORE
OUT OF THIS THAN DEMOCRATS DID. OBVIOUSLY AT THE BEGINNING,
ROBERT MUELLER WAS SAYING THAT CERTAIN TOPICS WERE OFF THE
TABLE INCLUDING THE ORIGINS OF THE INVESTIGATION WHICH IS
OBVIOUSLY THE THING THAT REPUBLICANS MOST WANT TO TALK
ABOUT. SO THE QUESTION FROM THERE IS
WHAT EXACTLY WERE REPUBLICANS GOING TO DO WITH THIS HEARING
GIVEN HE WASN’T GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
WHERE DO THEY GO FROM THERE? THE FIRST HOUR AND A HALF THEIR
TACTIC HERE IS TO TRIP HIM UP. TO UNDERMIND HIS REPORT BY
MAKING THE GUY AT THE TOP LOOK UNCERTAIN.
POKE HOLES IN CERTAIN LINES IN THE REPORT.
AND I THINK THEY’VE DONE THAT IN
LARGE PART BECAUSE ROBERT MUELLER IS A LITTLE BIT UNSTEADY
ON HIS FEET. HE ASKED FOR CITATIONS.
HE ASKED FOR PEOPLE TO REPEAT THE QUESTIONS AND THERE WERE A
COUPLE POINTS AT WHICH, YOU KNOW, REPUBLICANS MADE POINTS
WHERE YOU COULD TELL WHAT THE COUNTER ARGUMENT FOR MUELLER
WAS GOING TO BE BUT HE WASN’T
EXACTLY ENUNCIATING WHAT THAT COUNTER OFFER WOULD BE.
WHETHER COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY
ARE SYNONYMOUS WITH ONE ANOTHER.
MUELLER DIDN’T REALLY HAVE MUCH OF A RESPONSE TO THAT AND THEN
MORE RECENTLY WHEN LOUIE GOMER WAS QUESTIONING HIM ABOUT PETER
STRUCK AND THE TEXT MESSAGES THAT CAME OUT AFTER AWHILE.
HE ASKED MUELLER WHETHER HE KNEW
WHEN HE TOOK OVER THE INVESTIGATION THAT PETER STRUCK
QUOTE UNQUOTE HATED TRUMP. MUELLER DID NOT DISPUTE THAT
PREMISE. HE DIDN’T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME
AND HE REMOVED HIM FROM THE INVESTIGATION.
I THINK THE FBI WOULD HOPE THAT MUELLER WOULD DISPUTE THAT
PREMISE AND SAY PETER STRUCK SAID SOME THINGS THAT WERE
INPOLITIC IN PRIVATE — IMPOLITIC IN PRIVATE TEXT
MESSAGES BUT I THINK REPUBLICANS
HAVE SEEN IN THE EARLY PART OF THIS TESTIMONY THEY CAN GO
AFTER MUELLER AND TRIP HIM UP.>>AND MUELLER IS NOT LOOKING
LIKE SO FAR THE SORT OF TACTICIAN, THE CONTROLLER OF THE
QUESTIONING THAT PEOPLE MAYBE THOUGHT HE MIGHT BE.>>RIGHT.
AND EVEN WHEN DEMOCRATS WERE QUESTIONING HIM THERE WAS A
MOMENT WHEN STEVE KING WAS ASKING HIM ABOUT THAT VULGAR
QUOTE THAT’S IN THE REPORT WHEN MUELLER WAS APPOINTED AS
SPECIAL COUNSEL AND DONALD TRUMP’S
REACTION TO THAT NEWS WAS I’M EFED.
STEVE COHEN ASKED HIM WHERE THAT
CAME FROM AND MUELLER DIDN’T KNOW THAT.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY IMPORTANT QUOTE AND HE DIDN’T
SEEM TO RECALL WHERE HE GOTTEN THAT INFORMATION FROM.>>NOW IS THERE ANY REASON HE
MIGHT BACKFIRE ON THESE MEMBERS WHO ARE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS
IN A VERY RAPID FIRE KIND OF WAY
THAT THEY’RE ACTUALLY NOT TRIPPING MUELLER UP BUT ALSO
TRIPPING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UP.
PEOPLE WHO WERE WATCHING THIS MAYBE AREN’T FOLLOWING ALONG AS
WELL I THINK THE IDEA HAD BEEN ALL ALONG TO ANYWAY.>>AND YEAH AND ALL THE EXAMPLES
I’VE TALKED ABOUT THEY’RE INSIDE
BASEBALL FOR PEOPLE WHO TRULY READ THE REPORT AND UNDERSTAND
WHAT IT WAS. THE THINK THE LARGER CONTEXT AT
LEAST ACCORDING TO REPUBLICANS THAT MUELLER WASN’T EXACTLY THE
BULLET PROOF, YOU KNOW GUY WHO’S
LEADING THIS INVESTIGATION AND IS UNIMPEACHABLE NOT TO USE
THAT WORD.>>THE ISHGS WORD.>>YEAH, BUT I THINK THEY WANT
TO SAY THEY RECOGNIZE DESPITE THE PRESIDENT’S CLAIMS OF
EXONERATION IN THIS REPORT BECAUSE IT WAS GREAT FOR HIM I
THINK THIS APPROACH FROM REPUBLICANS REALLY GIVES LIE TO
THE FACT THEY RECOGNIZE THERE ARE SOME BAD THINGS IN HERE FOR
THE PRESIDENT AND SO THE BEST WAY THEY CAN APPROACH THIS IS
FOR THEM TO MAKE MUELLER OUT TO BE SOMEBODY WHO ISN’T QUITE AS
UNIMPEACHABLE.>>AND I THINK CHAIRMAN NADLER
HAD THE MOST EFFECTIVE LINE OF QUESTIONING WHERE HE WAS ABLE
TO PIN MUELLER DOWN THAN OTHER
MEMBERS WERE. ABOUT THE STATEMENTS PRESIDENT
TRUMP WAS MAKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION CONTRAST WHAT’S
ACTUALLY IN THE TEXT.>>AND A BIG MOMENT ON THAT
FRONT WAS WHETHER MUELLER WAS ASKED.
WHICH HAS BEEN A MAJOR TALKING POINT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP.
WHICH MUELLER WAS CONFLICTED. ROBERT MUELLER SAID HE WAS NOT
A CANDIDATE FOR THAT JOB.
SO HE IS UNDER OATH, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY SAYING THAT
THIS CLAIM BY THE PRESIDENT THAT
THE PRESIDENT’S BEEN MAKING FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS IS SIMPLY NOT
CORRECT. NOW THE PRESIDENT IN A TWEET
SAID THERE ARE MANY WITNESSES TO
THIS ALLEGED JOB INTERVIEW. SO THE QUESTION IS ARE THOSE
PEOPLE ALSO GOING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH?>>IT LOOKS LIKE WE’RE GOING TO
GO BACK TO THE HEARING NOW. IT’S RECONVENING.
ACTUALLY. WE HAVEN’T SEEN THE STAR WITNESS
SO DEMOCRATS ARE GATHERING BY THE DOOR.
UNCLEAR WHEN THEY’RE GOING TO GAVEL THE SESSION BACK.
WE ASSUME THEY’RE STILL JUST ON A BREAK.
AARON, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? DO YOU THINK THERE’S GOING TO BE
NOW THAT THEY’VE HAD THIS BREATHER IS THERE GOING TO BE A
SHIFT IN TACTICS ON EITHER SIDE?>>I THINK THEY’RE GOING TO
REEVALUATE THE WAY THEY’RE GOING
AT THIS. IN THIS HEARING AND THE 5-MINUTE
CHUNKS THAT THESE MEMBERS ARE ALLOTTED NEVER ARE GREAT AS FAR
AS GETTING INFORMATION OUT OF A WITNESS AND THAT’S ESPECIALLY
THE CASE WHEN THE WITNESS IS ASKING FOR QUESTIONS TO BE
REPEATED. I THINK THEY’RE ADJUSTING THEIR
TACTICS AND DURING A 5-MINUTE BREAK IS NOT EXACTLY A GREAT
THING.>>LET’S SEE IF IT THEY CAN PULL
THAT OFF. MUELLER IS BACK IN THE CHAIR AND
IT LOOKS LIKE THE GENTLEMEN WILL
RESUME. WE’LL SEE YOU ON THE OTHER END.>>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. MUELLER, CONGRESSMAN DUTCH ADDRESS TRUMP’S REQUEST TO
McGAHN TO FIRE YOU. REPRESENTATIVE BASS TALKED ABOUT
THE REQUEST OF McGAHN TO DENY THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT
MADE THAT REQUEST.
I WANT TO PICK UP WHERE THEY LEFT OFF AND I WANT TO PICK UP
WITH THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER.
IN FACT THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER
WAS ALARMED AT THE PROSPECT OF THE PRESIDENT MEETING WITH
MR. McGAHN TO DISCUSS MR. McGAHN’S REFUSAL TO DENY THE
NEW YORK TIMES REPORT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO FIRE YOU,
CORRECT?>>RIGHT.>>IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT’S
COUNSEL WAS SO ALARMED BY THE PROSPECT OF THE PRESIDENT’S
MEETING WITH McGAHN THAT HE CALLED MR. McGAHN’S COUNSEL AND
SAID THAT McGAHN COULD NOT RESIGN NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED
IN THE OVAL OFFICE THAT DAY; CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>SO IT’S ACCURATE TO SAY THAT
THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT HE WAS ASKING McGAHN TO DENY FACTS
THAT McGAHN QUOTE HAD REPEATEDLY SAID
WERE ACCURATE, UNQUOTE; ISN’T THAT RIGHT?>>CORRECT.>>YOUR INVESTIGATION ALSO
FOUND, QUOTE, BY THE TIME OF THE
OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT WAS
AWARE, ONE, THAT McGAHN DID NOT THINK THE STORY WAS FALSE.
TWO, DID NOT WANT TO ISSUE A STATEMENT OR CREATE A WRITTEN
RECORD THAT FACTS McGAHN BELIEVED TO BE TRUE.
THE PRESIDENT NEVERTHELESS PERSISTED AND ASKED McGAHN TO
REPUDIATE FACTS THAT McGAHN HAD REPEATEDLY SAID WERE ACCURATE.
IS THAT CORRECT?>>I BELIEVE THAT’S TRUE.>>THANK YOU.
IN OTHER WORDS THE PRESIDENT WAS
TRYING TO FORCE McGAHN TO SAY THINGS THAT ARE BELIEVED TO NOT
BE TRUE.>>THAT’S ACCURATE.>>I WANT TO REFERENCE YOU TO A
SLIDE ON PAGE 120 AND IT SAYS “SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES
THAT IN REPEATEDLY URGING McGAHN
TO DISPUTE HE WAS ORDERED TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
TERMINATED, THE PRESIDENT ACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING
McGAHN’S ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO DEFLECT OR PREVENT FURTHER
SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT TOWARDS THE
INVESTIGATION.>>THAT’S ACCURATE.>>CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU
MEANT THERE?>>I JUST BELIEVE IT AS IT
APPEARS IN THE REPORT.>>SO IT’S FAIR TO SAY THE
PRESIDENT TRIED TO PROTECT HIMDZ
BY ASKING STAFF TO FALSIFY RECORDS RELEVANT TO AN ONGOING
INVESTIGATION?>>I WOULD SAY THAT’S GENERALLY
THE SUMMARY.>>WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT
ACTION THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO HAMPER THE INVESTIGATION BY
ASKING STAFF TO FALSIFY RECORDS –>>I’M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO
REFER YOU TO THE REPORT FOR THE REVIEW OF THAT EPISODE.>>THANK YOU.
ALSO, THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPT TO
GET McGAHN TO CREATE A FALSE WRITTEN RECORD WERE RELATED TO
MR. TRUMP’S CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INKWIRY,
CORRECT?>>I BELIEVE THAT’S TRUE.>>THE PRESIDENT ALSO ASKED
McGAHN WHY HE TOLD SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE INVESTIGATORS
THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HAVE YOU REMOVE.
UNQUOTE.>>WHAT WAS THE QUESTION, SIR,
IF I MIGHT?>>LET ME GO TO THE NEXT ONE THE
PRESIDENT CRITICIZED McGAHN FOR TELLING YOUR OFFICE ABOUT THE
JUNE 17, 2017, EVENTS WHEN YOU WERE TOLD HE WAS TO HAVE YOU
REMOVED.>>CORRECT.>>IN OTHER WORDS THE PRESIDENT
WAS CRITICIZING HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WHAT HE BELIEVED TO BE
THE TRUTH.>>I AGAIN GO BACK TO THE TEXT
OF THE REPORT.>>LET ME GO A LITTLE BIT
FURTHER. WOULD IT HAVE BEEN A CRIME IF
MR. McGAHN HAD LIED TO THE PRESIDENT ORDERING TO FIRE YOU.>>I DON’T WANT TO SPECULATE.>>IS IT TRUE YOU CHARGED
MULTIPLE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENT FOR LYING TO YOU
IN THE INVESTIGATION.>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>THE PRESIDENT ALSO COMPLAINED
THAT HIS STAFF WERE TAKING NOTES
DURING THE MEETING ABOUT FIRING McGAHN; IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S WHAT THE REPORT SAYS.
YEAH, THE REPORT.>>BUT, IN FACT, IT’S COMPLETELY
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT’S STAFF ESPECIALLY HIS COUNSELS
TO TAKE NOTES DURING A MEETING;
CORRECT?>>I RELY ON THE WORDING OF THE
REPORT.>>WELL, THANK YOU, DIRECTOR
MUELLER INTO THE INVESTIGATION ON THE PRESIDENT TO LIE TO
PROTECT THE PRESIDENT. AND THEN TO CREATE A FALSE
RECORD ABOUT HIM. IT’S CLEAR THAT ANY OTHER PERSON
WHO ENGAGED IN SUCH CONDUCT WOULD BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME.
WE WILL CONTINUE OUR INVESTIGATION AND WE WILL HOLD
THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.>>THANK YOU.>>THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER CAN YOU
STATE WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THE STEEL DOSSIER WAS NOT PART OF
RUSSIA’S DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN?>>AS I SAID IN MY OPENING
STATEMENT, THAT PART OF THE BUILDING OF THE CASE WAS
PREDATED ME AND BY AT LEAST 10 MONTHS.>>YEAH, PAUL MANAFORT’S ALLEGED
CRIMES REGARDING TAX EVASION PREDATED YOU.
YOU HAD NO PROBLEM CHARGING HIM.
AND HE DIDN’T HAVE ANY PROBLEM ANSWERING THE QUESTION WHEN
SENATOR CORNYN ASKED THE EXACT SAME QUESTION I ASKED YOU AND
I’M QUOTING NO, I CAN’T STATE THAT WITH CONFIDENCE AND THAT’S
ONE OF THE AREAS I’M CONSUMING. IF SOMETHING IS NOT ENTIRELY
SPECULATIVE THEN IT MUCH HAVE SOME FACTUAL BASIS REGARDING
THE DOSSIER.
NOW CHRISTOPHER STEEL’S REPORTING HIS REFERENCE IN YOUR
REPORT. STEEL REPORTED TO THE FBI THAT
SENIOR RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY FIGURES ALONG WITH OTHER
RUSSIANS TOLD HIM AND I’M QUOTING FROM THE STEEL DOSSIER
EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY
BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
DID HE JUST MAKE IT ALL UP.>>LET ME BACK UP A SECOND IF I
COULD AND SAY AS I SAID EARLIER WITH REGARDS TO THE STEEL
THAT’S BEYOND MY PER VIEW.>>ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS IS
POSSIBLE, RIGHT. EITHER STEEL MADE THIS WHOLE
THING UP AND THERE WERE NEVER ANY RUSSIANS TELLING HIM OF
THIS VAST CONSPIRACY OR RUSSIANS LIED
TO STEEL. IF RUSSIANS WERE LYING TO STEEL
TO UNDERMIND OUR CONFIDENCE IN OUR NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT
THAT WOULD BE PRECISELY YOUR PERVIEW
BECAUSE YOU STATED IN THE OPENING WAS TO FULLY INVESTIGATE
RUSSIA’S INTERFERENCE. AND IF STEEL WAS LYING THEN YOU
SHOULD OF CHARGED HIM WITH LYING.
BUT YOU SAY NOTHING ABOUT THIS IN YOUR REPORT.>>WELL, SIR –>>MEANWHILE DIRECTOR YOU’RE
QUITE LE KWAESHS ON OTHER TOPICSOQUACIOUS ON OTHER TOPICS
THE MEETING MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SETUP BY INDIVIDUALS WORKING
WITH THE FIRM THAT PRODUCEDED THE STEEL REPORTING.
ON THE WEEK OF JUNE 9TH, WHO DID
RUSSIAN LAWYER MEET WITH MORE FREQUENTLY?
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR GLENN SIMPSON WHO IS FUNCTIONALLY
ACTING AS AN OPERATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE?>>I THINK WHAT’S MISSING HERE
IS THE FACT THIS IS UNDER INVESTIGATION ELSEWHERE IN THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IF I CAN FINISH, SIR, AND CONSEQUENTLY
IT’S NOT WITHIN MY PERVIEW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI
TO BE RESPONSIVE TO QUESTIONS ON
THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.>>IT IS ABSURD TO SUGGEST THAT
AN OPERATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATS WAS MEETING WITH THIS RUSSIAN
LAWYER THE DAY BEFORE THE DAY AFTER THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING
AND YET, THAT’S NOT SOMETHING YOU REFERENCE.
GLEN SIMPSON TESTIFIED UNDER OETSZ HE HAD DINNER WITH THE
LAWYER. DO YOU HAVE ANY BASIS AS YOU SIT
HERE TODAY THAT STEEL WAS LYING?>>AS I SAID BEFORE AND I SAY IT
AGAIN IT’S NOT MY PERVIEW.>>IT’S NOT YOUR PERVIEW TO LOOK
INTO WHETHER OR NOT ANTI–TRUMP RUSSIANS ARE LYING TO STEEL.
AND IT’S NOT YOUR PERVIEW. SO I’M WONDERING, HOW THESE
DECISIONS ARE GUIDED. I LOOK AT THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL’S REPORT ON CITING PAGE 404 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S
REPORT. IT’S STATED TRUMP’S NOT EVERY
GOING TO BE PRESIDENT. STRUCK REPLIED NO HE’S NOT WE’LL
STOP IT.>>ALSO IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
REPORT ATTORNEY NUMBER 2. THIS IS PAGE 419 REPLIED
NO. AND THEN ADDED VIVA LA
RESISTANCE.>>PARDON ME.>>THEY BOTH WORKED ON YOUR
TEAM?>>I HEARD STRUCK, WHO ELSE WERE
YOU TALKING ABOUT.>>ATTORNEY NUMBER 2 IN THE
REPORT.>>AND THE QUESTION WAS.>>DID HE WORK FOR YOU.>>PETER STRUCK WORKED FOR ME
FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.>>SO DID THE OTHER GUY WHO SAID
VIVA LA RESISTANCE. WHEN CHRISTOPHER STEEL LIED
NOTHING. AND SO IT SEEMS TO BE THAT WHEN
GLEN SIMPSON MET WITH RUSSIANS NOTHING.
WHEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MET WITH
RUSSIANS 3500 WORDS AND MAYBE THE REASON WHY THERE ARE
DISCREPANCIES.>>MUELLER OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE IS A SERIOUS CRIME IN AN
INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT TO FIND THE
TRUTH.>>CORRECT.>>THE CRIME OF JUSTICE HAS
THREE ELEMENTS.>>TRUE.>>THE FIRST ELEMENT IS AN
OBSTRUCTIVE ACT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>AN ON OBSTRUCTIVE ACT VOLUME
2-PAGE 88 OF YOUR REPORT.>>I’M SORRY COULD YOU AGAIN
REPEAT THE QUESTION?>>AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT COULD
INCLUDE TAKING AN ACTION THAT WOULD DELAY OR INTERFERE WITH
AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION?>>THAT’S TRUE.>>CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>MR. MUELLER, DOES ORDERING
THE TERMINATION OF THE HEAD OF A
A.>>LET ME REFER YOU TO PAGE 88
OF THE REPORT.>>YES, I’VE GOT THAT NOW THANK
YOU.>>THANK YOU.>>THE SECOND ELEMENT OF
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS THE PRESENCE OF AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT
IN CONNECTED WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING.>>TRUE.>>THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL .
QUOTE I AM BEING INVESTIGATED FOR FIRING THE FBI DIRECTOR BY
THE MAN WHO TOLD ME TO FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR WITCH HUNT.
THE JUNE 16TH TWEET JUST READ WAS CITED ON PAGE 89 VOLUME 2.>>I THINK GENERALLY CORRECT.>>ONE DAY LATER ON SATURDAY
JUNE 17TH, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON
McGAHN AT HOME AND DIRECTED HIM TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL,
TRUE?>>I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE.
I THINK I MAY HAVE STATED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS.>>THAT’S CORRECT.
PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD DON McGAHN QUOTE, “MUELLER HAS TO GO.”
CLOSE QUOTE; CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>YOUR REPORT ON 89.
BY JUNE 7 TEENTH. PRESIDENT KNEW HIS CONDUCT WAS
UNDER INVESTIGATION BY A FEDERAL
PROSECUTOR WHO COULD PRESENT ANY
EVIDENCE OF FEDERAL CRIMES TO A GRAND JURY.>>TRUE.>>THE THIRD ELEMENT SECOND
ELEMENT HAVING JUST BEEN SATISFIED.
THE THIRD ELEMENT IS OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE CONSTRUCT AND TRUE.>>WELL THE IMPROPER PURPOSE OF
PREKING HIS OWN INTEREST; CORRECT?>>THAT’S GENERALLY CORRECT.>>THANK YOU.>>THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS
WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE THREE ELEMENTS OF THE PROOF OF THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES. WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS
WE GOT — EXCUSE ME JUST ONE SECOND.>>LET ME MOVE ON IN THE
INTEREST OF TIME. UPON LEARNING OF THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL YOUR INTEREST FOUND OH, MY GOD THIS IS TERRIBLE.
THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY.
I’M EFFED; IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT DONALD
TRUMP’S WAS ADVERSE TO HIS OWN INTEREST?>>I THINK THAT GENERALLY IS
TRUE.>>THE INVESTIGATION FOUND
EVIDENCE QUOTE THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT HE SHOULD
NOT HAVE DIRECTED DON McGAHN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL,
CORRECT?>>AND WHERE DO YOU HAVE THAT
QUOTE?>>PAGE 90, VOLUME 2.
THERE’S EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE SHOULD NOT
HAVE MADE THOSE CALLS TO McGAHN CLOSE QUOTE.>>I SAY THAT, YES, THAT’S
ACCURATE.>>THE INVESTIGATION ALSO FOUND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY URGED
McGAHN TO DISPUTE HE WAS ORDERED
TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TERMINATED; CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>THE INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT
WHEN THE PRESIDENT ORDER DON McGAHN TO FILE THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT DONALD TRUMP ONE COMMITTED AN
OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, TWO CONNECTED TO AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING.
THREE, DID SO WITH CORRUPT INTENT.
THOSE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. NO ONE.
THE PRESIDENT MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER.>>LET ME JUST SAY IF I MIGHT, I
DON’T SUBSCRIBE NECESSARILY TO YOUR THE WAY YOU ANALYZE THAT.
I’M NOT SAYING IT’S OUT OF THE BALL PARK BUT I’M NOT
SUPPORTIVE OF THAT ANALYTICAL CHARGE.>>THANK YOU.>>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. MUELLER, OVER HERE.>>HI.>>I WANT TO START BY THANKING
YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. YOU JOINED THE MARINES WHERE YOU
EARNED A BRONZE STAR, PURPLE HEART, AND OTHER
ACCOMMODATIONS. YOU SERVED AS AN ASSISTANT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS AND LATER
THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
D.O.J.’S CRIMINAL DIVISION AND FBI DIRECTOR.
I APPRECIATE THAT. HAVING REVIEWED YOUR BIOGRAPHY
IT PUZZLES ME THE WAY YOU HANDLED THIS THAT YOU DID.>>JUSTICE SUTHERLAND SAID IN
THE CASE A PROSECUTOR IS NOT THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF AN ORDINARY PARTY BUT OF A SOVEREIGNTY THAT
JUSTICE SHALL BE DONE AND THAT THE PROSECUTOR MAY STRIKE HARD
BLOWS BUT HE’S NOT AT LIBERTY TO
STRIKE FOUL ONES. IN NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION
ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE, YOU UNFAIRLY SHIFTED THE BURDEN
OF PROOF TO THE PRESIDENT FORCING HIM TO PROVE HIS
INNOCENCE WHILE DENYING HIM A LEGAL FORUM TO DO SO AND I’VE
NEVER HEARD OF A PROSECUTOR DECLINING A CASE AND THEN
HOLDING A PRESS CONFERENCE TO TALK ABOUT THE DEFENDANT.
YOU NOTED 8 TIMES IN YOUR REPORT
THAT YOU HAD A LEGAL DUTY UNDER THE REGULATIONS TO PROSECUTE OR
DECLINE CHARGES. DESPITE THIS, YOU DISREGARDED
THAT DUTY. AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR I’M ALSO
TROUBLED WITH YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS.
YOU DISCUSSED 10 SEPARATE FACTUAL PATTERNS AND THEN YOU
FAILED TO SEPARATELY APPLY THE ELEMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE
STATUTES. I LOOKED AT THE 10 FACTUAL
SITUATIONS. LOOKING AT THE FLYNN MATTER FOR
EXAMPLE. THE FOUR STATUTES THAT YOU CITED
FOR POSSIBLE OKAY INSTRUCTION. 1503, 1505, AND 1512 B 2.
1503 IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE WASN’T A GRAND JURY OR
TRIAL JURY IMPANELLED. AND DIRECTOR COMEY IS NOT AN
OFFICER OF THE COURT. CRIMINAL ACTS THAT WOULD
OBSTRUCT OR IMPEDE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS. THE FBI INVESTIGATION IS NOT A
PENDING PROCEEDING. 1512B 3 TALKS ABOUT INTIMIDATION
EFFECTS TAMPING WITH A WITNESS. AND CERTAINLY DIRECTOR COMEY
WAS NOT A WITNESS AND 1512C 2 TALKS
ABOUT TAMPERING WITH THE RECORD AS JOE BIDEN DESCRIBED AS THE
STATUTE BEING DEBATED ON THE SENATE FLOOR HE CALLED THIS A
CRIMINALIZING DOCUMENT SHREDDING
AND THERE’S NOTHING IN YOUR REPORT THAT ALLEGES THAT THE
PRESIDENT DESTROYED ANY EVIDENCE.
SO WHAT I HAVE TO ASK YOU AND WHAT I THINK PEOPLE ARE WORKING
AROUND IN THIS HEARING IS LET ME
LAY A LITTLE FOUNDATION. THE ETHICAL RULES REQUIRE THAT
THE PROSECUTOR HAVE A REASONABLE
PROBABILITY TO BRING CONVICTION OF CHARGE.>>GENERALLY ACCURATE.>>OKAY.
AND THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING YOUR JOB AS SPECIAL COUNSEL
STATE THAT YOUR JOB IS TO PROVIDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
WITH A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT EXPLAINING THE PROSECUTION OR
DECLARATION REACHED BY YOUR OFFICE.
YOU RECOMMENDED THE CLIMBING AND
ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THERE WAS
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT
FOR A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE
2016 ELECTION, IS THAT FAIR?>>FAIR.>>WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
TO CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR
ANYONE ELSE WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?>>WE DID NOT MAKE THAT
CALCULATION.>>HOW COULD YOU NOT?>>THE OLC INDICATES THAT WE
CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT SO ONE OF THE TOOLS
THAT A PROSECUTOR WOULD USE IS
NOT THERE.>>YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THE
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. YOU COULDN’T HAVE INDICTED THE
PRESIDENT ON THAT. BUT WHEN IT CAME TO OBSTRUCTION
YOU THREW A BUNCH OF STUFF UP AT
THE WALL AND SEE WHAT WOULD STICK.>>I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT AT
ALL. WHAT WE DID WAS TROY PROI TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE CONFIDENT L MEMORANDOM.
THOSE CASES THAT WERE BROUGHT
AND DECLINED AND THAT ONE CASE WHERE THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE
CHARGED WITH A CRIME.>>COULD YOU CHARGE THE
PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE.>>YES.>>YOU BELIEVE YOU COULD CHARGE
THE PRESIDENT SGH OLC OPINION SAYS THAT THE PROSECUTOR CANNOT
BRING AN AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT TO SEE IF THERE ARE
ANY OTHER PERSONS WHO MIGHT BE DROWN INTO THE CONSPIRACY.>>I’M OF THE GENTLEMAN IS
EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND.>>>DIRECTOR YOU KNOW WE ARE
SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON 5 DIFFERENT EPISODES OF
OBSTRUCTION. THE PRESIDENT’S EFFORTS TO
CURTAIL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION BEGINNING AT PAGE
90. AND BY CURTAIL YOU MEAN LIMIT;
CORRECT?>>BECAUSE MR. McGAHN REFUSED
THE ORDER THE PRESIDENT ASKED OTHERS TO HELP LIMIT YOUR
INVESTIGATION STHAESHG?>>CORRECT.>>WAS CORY LEWANDOWSKI DID HE
HAVE ANY OFFICIAL POSITION IN THIS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION?>>I DON’T BELIEVE SO.
YOUR REPORT INVOLVES AN INCIDENT
IN THE OVAL OFFICE AT VOLUME TWO
PAGE 91 IS THAT CORRECT?>>WHAT’S THE CITATION?>>PAGE 91.>>OF THE SECOND VOLUME?>>YES.>>A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE
BETWEEN MR. LEWANDOWSKI AND THE PRESIDENT.>>OKAY.>>THAT WAS JUST TWO DAYS OF THE
PRESIDENT CALLED DON McGAHN AND ORDERED TO FIRE YOU.
RIGHT AFTER THE PRESIDENT’S ORDER TO FIRE YOU, THE PRESIDENT
CAME UP WITH A NEW PLAN AND THAT
WAS TO GO AROUND ALL OF HIS SENIOR ADVISOR AND HAVE A
PRIVATE CITIZEN TRY TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION.
DO YOU RECALL HE TOLD HIM HE DICTATED A MESSAGE TO LEWANDOWSKI.>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO
WHAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE
CONCLUDED IN OUR INVESTIGATION AND LET THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
MOVE FORWARD WITH INVESTIGATING ELECTION MEDDLING FOR FUTURE
INVESTIGATIONS.>>YES, I SEE THAT, THANK YOU.
IN OTHER WORDS MR. LEWANDOWSKI A
PRIVATE CITIZEN WAS INSTRUCTED TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE FROM THE
PRESIDENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT DIRECTED HIM TO
LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION CORRECT.>>CORRECT.>>I’M SORRY COULD YOU RESTATE
THAT.>>RECUSED FROM OVERSIGHT.>>YES.
SO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD HAVE HAD TO VIOLATE HIS OWN
DEPARTMENT’S RULES IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE PRESIDENT’S
ORDER.>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE
SUBSIDIARY DETAILS I REFER YOU TO PAGE 91, 92 OF THE REPORT.>>IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD
FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE PRESIDENT’S CREST IT WOULD HAVE
EFFECTIVELY ENDED YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT
AND THE CAMPAIGN AS YOU NOTE ON PAGE 97, CORRECT?>>COULD YOU –>>TAKEN TOGETHER THE
PRESIDENT’S DIRECTIVES INDICATES
THAT SESSIONS WAS BEING DIRECTED
TO TELL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO END THE EXISTING INVESTIGATION
INTO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN WITH THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL BEING PERMITTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH INVESTIGATION
MEDDLING FOR FUTURE.>>GENERALLY CORRECT.>>AND IT’S AN UNSUCCESSFUL
ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.>>AND MR. LEWANDOWSKI TRIED TO
MEET WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. AND HE TRIED TO MEET WITH HIS
OFFICE SO HE WASN’T CERTAIN THERE WAS A PUBLIC LAW OF THE
VISIT.>>ACCORDING TO THE REPORT.>>AND THE MEETING HAD BEEN AND
THE PRESIDENT RAISED THE ISSUE AGAIN AND HE SAID I QUOTE IF
SESSIONS DOES NOT MEET WITH YOU LEWANDOWSKI SHOULD TELL
SESSIONS HE WAS FIRED; CORRECT?>>SO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING WITH
THE PRESIDENT LEWANDOWSKI THEN ASKED MR. DEARBORN TO DELIVER
THE MESSAGE WHO WAS THE FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF BECAUSE HE
DOESN’T FEEL COMFORTABLE ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>GENERE CORRECT.>>TWO DAYS AFTER THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN ORDERED
TO FIRE YOU TO TELL THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WHO
WAS RECUSED AT THE TIME EFFECTIVELY ENDING YOUR
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
IS THAT CORRECT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO ADOPT YOUR
CHARACTERIZATION.>>MR. MUELLER IN YOUR REPORT
YOU IN FACT WRITE A PAGE 99, 97,
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT’S EFFORT TO
HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION TO FUTURE
ELECTIONS INTERFERENCE WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT FURTHER
INVESTIGATIVE SCRUTINY OF THE
PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN
CONDUCT .
SO YOU AGREE WITH THOSE FORMER COLLEAGUES THAT CAME TO THAT
CONCLUSION?>>THOSE PROSECUTION.>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
OVER HERE. MR. MUELLER, YOU GUYS — YOUR
TEAM WROTE IN THE REPORT QUOTE THIS IS AT THE TOP OF PAGE 2,
VOLUME 1. ALSO ON PAGE 173 BY THE WAY YOU
SAID YOU’D COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN — THAT’S ACCURATE STATEMENT, RIGHT RSZ THAT’S
ACCURATE.>>AND I’M CURIOUS WHEN DID YOU
PERSONALLY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?>>CAN YOU REMIND ME WHICH
PARAGRAPH YOU’RE REFERRING TO.>>OKAY.
AND EXACTLY WHICH PARAGRAPH ARE YOU LOOKING AT ON 2?>>THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT
ESTABLISH.>>OF COURSE I SEE.
YES. WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?>>MY QUESTION NOW IS WHEN DID
YOU PERSONALLY REACH THAT CONCLUSION?>>WELL WE WERE ONGOING FOR TWO
YEARS.>>RIGHT YOU WERE ONGOING YOU
WROTE IT AT SOME POINT DURING THAT TWO YEAR PERIOD BUT AT AT
SOME POINT YOU HAD TO COME TO A
CONCLUSION. THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
THIS PRESIDENT AND I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE REST OF THE
PRESIDENT’S TEAM. I’M TALKING ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT
AND THE RUSSIANS.>>AS YOU UNDERSTAND IN
DEVELOPING A CRITICAL CASE YOU GET PIECES OF INFORMATION,
WITNESSES AND LIKE AS YOU MAKE YOUR CASE.>>RIGHT.>>AND WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION
ON A PARTICULAR CASE DEPENDS ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS.
I HONESTLY CANNOT SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT WE REACHED A
DECISION ON A PARTICULAR DEFENDANT AT A PARTICULAR POINT
IN TIME.>>BUT IT WAS SOMETIME WELL
BEFORE YOU WROTE THE REPORT. THE WROTE THE REPORT DEALING
WITH A WHOLE MYRIAD OF INTERESTS.
WITH REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF I DON’T FIND ANYTHING
HERE.>>FAIR ENOUGH.>>WELL I’M NOT CERTAIN I DO
AGREE WITH THAT.>>YOU WAITED UNTIL THE LAST
MINUTE.>>NO, BUT THERE ARE VARIOUS
ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
–>>SURE.
AND THAT’S MY POINT. THERE ARE VARIOUS ASPECTS THAT
HAPPENED. BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE PIKE,
YOU WILL COME TO A CONCLUSION THERE’S NO THEY’RE THERE OR
THIS DEFENDANT.>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO IT.>>YOU CAN’T SAY WHEN.
FAIR ENOUGH.>>SO I’M NOT — I’M ASKING THE
SWORN WITNESS. MR. MUELLER, EVIDENCE SUGGESTS
ON MAY 10TH 6 DAYS BEFORE THE DAG ATTORNEY GENERAL APPOINTED
YOU SPECIAL COUNSEL MR. ROSENSTEIN CALLED AND
MENTIONED SPECIAL COUNSEL. NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU’D BE
APPOINTED BUT THAT YOU HAD A DISCUSSION OF THAT.>>MAY 10TH, 2017.>>I DON’T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF
THAT OCCURRING.>>YOU DON’T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE
OR YOU DON’T RECALL.>>I DON’T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE.>>EVIDENCE –>>I MEAN GIVEN WHAT I SAW YOU
DO, ARE YOU QUESTIONING THAT? INTRIGUING LET ME JUST TELL YOU
THERE’S EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT THAT PHONE CALL TOOK
PLACE. LET’S MOVE TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
ALSO ON MAY 12TH, 20175 DAYS BEFORE THE DAG APPOINTED YOU
SPECIAL COUNSEL YOU MET WITH MR. ROSENSTEIN IN PERSON.
NOT NECESSARILY YOU BUT THAT THERE WOULD BE A SPECIAL
COUNSEL?>>I’VE GONE INTO WATERS THAT
DON’T ALLOW ME TO GIVE YOU AN ANSWER TO THAT PARTICULAR
QUESTION THAT RELATES TO THE INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS YOU WOULD
HAVE IN TERMS OF INDICTING AN INDIVIDUAL.>>IT HAS TO DO WITH SPECIAL
COUNSEL AND WHETHER YOU DISCUSSED THAT WITH
MR. ROSENSTEIN. YOU MET WITH FORMER ATTORNEY
GENERAL SESSIONS AND ROSENSTEIN AND YOU SPOKE ABOUT PERISHABLE
COUNSEL, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?>>ON MAY 16TH THE DAY BEFORE
YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL YOU MET WITH THE
PRESIDENT AND ROD ROSENSTEIN DO YOU REMEMBER HAVING THAT
MEETING?>>YES.>>DID YOU DISCUSS THE
APPOINTMENT OF A GENERAL COUNSEL.>>I CAN’T GET INTO DISCUSSIONS
ON THAT?>>REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. HOW MANY TIMES PRIOR TO THAT DID
YOU DISCUSS IT?>>I CAN’T TELL YOU HOW MANY
TIMES.>>IS THAT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT
RECALL OR YOU –>>I DO NOT RECALL.>>OKAY THANK YOU.
HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK WITH MR. COMEY ABOUT ANY
INVESTIGATIONS?>>NOT AT ALL.>>ZERO.>>ZERO OKAY.
NOW MY TIME IS EXPIRED.>>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS
EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.>>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, GOING BACK
TO THE PRESIDENT’S OBSTRUCTION THE CORY LEWANDOWSKI IT WAS
REFERENCED THAT A THOUSAND FORMER PROSECUTORS WHO SATISFIED
ON REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS WITH 12,000
YEARS OF FEDERAL SERVICE WROTE A
LETTER REGARDING THE PRESIDENT’S
CONDUCT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT
LETTER?>>I READ ABOUT THAT LETTER,
YES.>>AND SMF 0 THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
SIGNED THAT LETTER ARE PEOPLE THAT YOU WORKED WITH IS THAT
RIGHT?>>PROBABLY YES.>>PEOPLE YOU RESPECT?>>QUITE PROBABLY YES.>>AND ALL OF THIS CONDUCT
TRYING TO CONTROL AND IMPEDE THE
INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT BY LEVERAGING HIS
AUTHORITY OVER OTHERS IS SIMILAR
TO CONDUCT WE HAVE SEEN CHARGED AGAINST OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS
AND PEOPLE IN POWERFUL POSITIONS.
ARE THEY WRONG?>>THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT CASE.>>YOU WANT TO SIGN THAT LETTER
DIRECTOR MUELLER?>>E THIS HAVE A DIFFERENT CASE.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER THANK YOU
FOR YOUR SERVICE GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE 60s WHEN YOU
COURAGEOUSLY SERVED IN VIETNAM. BECAUSE I HAVE A SEAT I’LL HAVE
QUESTIONS LATER. I WILL ASK TO ENTER THIS LETTER
INTO THE RECORD UNDER UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
MY COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA MR. LIVES.>>THANK YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER
FOR YOUR LONG HISTORY AS A SERVER OF THIS COUNTRY.
I’D LIKE TO NOW TURN TO THE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE AS APPLIED TO THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPTS TO CURTAIL
YOUR INVESTIGATION. THE FIRST ELEMENT OF OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE REQUIRES AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>I’D LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO
PAGE 87 VOLUME 2 OF YOUR REPORT AND YOU WROTE THERE ON PAGE 97
QUOTE SESSIONS WAS BEING DIRECTED TO DIRECT SPECIAL
COUNSEL INTO THE PRESIDENT AND
HIS CAMPAIGN UNQUOTE. THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTIVE ACT.
AND I WANT TO DIRECT YOU TO MAJOR 97.
YOU WROTE QUOTE BY THE TIME THE PRESIDENT’S OFFICIAL ONE ON ONE
MEETING ON JUNE 19TH, 2017 SUPERVISORED THAT THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL WAS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. THAT’S IN THE REPORT, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE
EVIDENCE OF A PROCEEDING BECAUSE
A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IS AN
OFFICIAL PROCEEDING. ON THAT SAME PAGE, PAGE 97, DO
YOU SEE WHERE THERE’S AN INTENT SECTION ON THAT PAGE?>>I DO.>>WOULD YOU MIND READING THE
FIRST SENTENCE.>>AND THAT STARTS.>>WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO
THAT.>>I WILL READ IT THEN.
YOU WROTE QUOTE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE
PRESIDENT’S EFFORT TO HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION FUTURE ELECTION BER FOOERNS WAS
TO PREVENT FURTHER SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT
UNQUOTE. THAT’S IN THE REPORT.>>THAT IS IN THE REPORT AND I
RELY WHAT IS IN THE REPORT TO INDICATE WHAT’S HAPPENED IN THE
PARAGRAPHS THAT WE’VE BEEN DISCUSSING.>>THANK YOU.
SO TO RECAP WHAT REFERRED WE HAVE HEARD TODAY THAT THE
PRESIDENT ORDERED FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN TO
FIRE YOU.
THE PRESIDENT ORDERED TO COVER THAT UP AND CREATE A FALSE
PAPER TRAIL AND NOW WE’VE ORDERED THAT
THE PRESIDENT ORDERED CORY LEWANDOWSKI TO LIMIT YOUR
INVESTIGATION SO THAT HE, YOU, STOP INVESTIGATING THE
PRESIDENT. I BELIEVE A PERSON LOOKING AT
THESE FACTS COULD CONCLUDE THAT ALL THREE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HAVE BEEN MET AND I’D LIKE TO ASK
YOU THE REASON AGAIN THAT YOU DID
NOT INDICT DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF OLC OPINION STATING
THAT YOU CANNOT INDICT A SITTING
PRESIDENT, CORRECT.>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>THE FACT THAT THE ORDERS BY
THE PRESIDENT WERE NOT CARRIED OUT THAT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. AS LONG AS YOU ENDEAVOR OR
ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE THAT
WOULD ALSO CONSTITUTE A CRIME. THAT AT THIS JUNCTURE.>>OKAY.
THANK YOU. AND BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT
WE HAVE HEARD TODAY, I BELIEVE A
REASONABLE PERSON COULD CONCLUDE
THAT AT LEAST THREE CRIMES OF SOCIAL INJUSTICE BY THE
PRESIDENT OCCURRED. WE’RE GONG TO HEAR ABOUT TWO
ADDITIONAL CRIMES THAT WOULD BE THE WITNESS TAMPERINGS OF
MICHAEL COHEN AND PAUL MANAFORT.>>THE ONLY THING I’M GOING TO
ADD I’M GOING THROUGH THE ELEMENTS WITH YOU DOES NOT MEAN
I SUBSCRIBE TO THE — WHAT YOU’RE TRYING TO PROVE THROUGH
THOSE ELEMENTS.>>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS
EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.>>MR. MUELLER OVER HERE.
THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY. YOU HAD THREE DISCUSSIONS WITH
ROD ROSENSTEIN ABOUT YOUR APPOINTMENT MAY 10TH, MAY 12TH,
AND MAY 13TH.>>IF YOU SAY SO.
I HAVE NO REASON TO DISPUTE. PRESIDENT ON THE 16TH WITH ROD
ROSENSTEIN PRESENT. WERE YOU MEETING WITH THE
PRESIDENT ON THE 16 WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU WERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
SPECIAL COUNSEL?>>I DID NOT BELIEVE I WAS UNDER
CONSIDERATION FOR COUNSEL. I HAD SERVED TWO TERMS OF FBI
DIRECTOR.>>THE ANSWER’S NO.>>GREG GARRETT DESCRIBES YOUR
OFFICE AS THE TEAM OF PARTISAN AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
COMING TO LIGHT THERE’S A GROWING CONCERN THAT POLITICAL
BIAS CAUSED IMPORTANT FACTS TO BE OMITTED FROM YOUR REPORT IN
ORDER TO CAST THE PRESIDENT UNFAIRLY IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT.
FOR EXAMPLE JOHN DOW THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER LEAVES A
MESSAGE WITH MICHAEL FLYNN’S LAWYER ON NOVEMBER 2017.
THE EDITED VERSION IN YOUR REPORT MAKES IT APPEAR HE WAS
IMPROPERLY ASKING FOR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND
THAT’S ALL WE’D KNOW FROM YOUR REPORT EXCEPT THAT THE JUDGE IN
THE FLYNN CASE ORDERED THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT RELEASED.
THAT WAS NOT WHAT HE WAS SUGGESTING.
MY QUESTION IS WHY DID YOU EDIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO HIGH THE
EXCULPATORY PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT.>>I’M NOT SAYING WE DID
ANYTHING TO HIDE.>>YOU OMITTED IT.
YOU QUOTED THE PART THAT SAYS WE
NEED SOME KIND OF HEADS UP BUT YOU OMIT THE PORTION WHERE HE
SAYS WITHOUT GIVING UP ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.>>WELL I’M NOT GOING TO GO
FURTHER IN TERMS OF DISCUSSING. WITH PAUL MANAFORT YOU DESCRIBE
A RUSSIAN UKRAINE YAN. THAT’S ALL WE’D KNOW FROM YOUR
REPORT IAN.
THAT’S ALL WE’D KNOW FROM YOUR REPORT WERE YOU AWARE.>>I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE
INS AND OUTS IN THE COURSE OF OUR INVESTIGATION.>>DID YOU INTERVIEW CON STAN CONSTANTINE CLE ELUMNICK.>>THAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR
REPORT. THE PROBLEM WE’RE HAVING IS WE
HAD TO RELY ON YOUR REPORT FOR AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF THE
EVIDENCE AND WE’RE STARTING TO FIND OUT THAT’S NOT TRUE.
YOUR REPORT FAMOUSLY LINKS INTERNET TROLL FARMS WITH THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. .>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO
THAT ANY FURTHER THAN I ALREADY HAVE.>>YOU HAVE LEFT A CLEAR
IMPRESSION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THROUGH YOUR REPORT IT
WAS THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT BEHIND THE TROLL AND WHEN YOU’RE
INCLINED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN COURT YOU FAIL TO DO SO.>>I DISPUTE YOUR
CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT OCCURRED IN THAT PROCEEDING.>>IN FACT THE JUDGE CONSIDERED
HOLDING PROSECUTORS IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.
SHE BACKED OFF ONLY AFTER YOUR HASTILY CALLED PRESS CONFERENCE
IN WHICH YOU MADE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT AND RUSSIA TROLL FORMALS.
DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH
HOLDING YOUR PROSECUTORS IN CONTEMPT?>>WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?>>THE QUESTION IS DID YOUR
MAY 29TH PRESS CONFERENCE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT
THAT THE PREVIOUS DAY THE JUDGE THREATENED TO HOLD YOUR
PROSECUTORS IN CONTEMPT FOR MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE?>>NO.>>NOW THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM
IS LIKE I SAID WE’VE GOT TO TAKE
YOUR WORD ACCURATELY, IMPARTIALLY AND COMPLETELY
DESCRIBED ALL OF THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE IN THE MUELLER REPORT
AND WE’RE FINDING MORE AND MORE INSTANCES WHERE THIS JUST ISN’T
THE CASE AND IT’S STARTING TO LOOK LIKE HAVING DESPERATELY
TRIED AND FAILED TO MAKE A LEGAL
CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT YOU MADE A POLITICAL CASE INSTEAD.
YOU PUT IT IN A PAPER SACK LIT IT ON FIRE.
DROPPED IT ON THE PORCH RANG THE
DOORBELL AND RAN.>>I DON’T THINK YOU REVIEWED A
REPORT THAT IS AS THOROUGH, AS FAIR AS CONSISTENT OF THE
REPORT THAN WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.>>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS
EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND IS
RECOGNIZED.>>>DIRECTOR MUELLER LET’S GO TO
THE FOURSDZ EPISODE OF JUSTICE IN THE FORM OF WITNESS
TAMPERING. WITNESS TAMPERING’S A FELONY
PUNISHABLE BY 20 YEARS IN PRISON.
YOU FOUND EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN EFFORTS AND
I QUOTE TO ENCOURAGE WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE
INVESTIGATION IS THAT RIGHT?>>PAGE 7, VOLUME 2.>>THANK YOU.>>NOW ONE OF THESE WITNESSES
WAS MICHAEL COHEN THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER BASE ON
SECRET HUSH MONEY TO WOMEN THE PRESIDENT KNEW AND ALSO TO
LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT THE HOPE
$41 BILLION TRUCH TOWER DEAL. AFTER THE FBI SEARCHED COHEN’S
HOME, THE PRESIDENT CALLED HIM UP PERSONALLY TO CHECK IN AND
TOLD HIM TO QUOTE HANG IN THERE
AND STAY STRONG; IS THAT RIGHT?>>ALSO IN THE REPORT ARE A
SERIES OF CALLS MADE BY OOP FRIENDS OF THE PRESIDENT.
ONE REACHED OUT TO SAY HIS NAME IS REDACTED.
OTHER REDACTED FRIEND CALLED TO SAY THE BOSS LOVES YOU.
AND THE THIRD CALLED TO SAY EVERYONE KNOWS THE BOSS HAS YOUR
BACK.>>GENERE YES.>>WHEN THE NEWS AND IN FACT
COHEN SAID THAT FOLLOWING THE
RECIDIVISM MESSAGES HERE HE HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE WHITE HOUSE
IF HE CONTINUED TO TOW THE PARTY
LINES AND HE DETERMINED TO STAY ON MESSAGE AND BE PART OF THE
TEAM. THAT’S PAGE 147.
DO YOU REMEMBER GENERALLY FINDING THAT?>>GENERALLY YES.>>WELL AND ROBERT COSTELLO A
PRESIDENT CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM E-MAILED.
YOU ARE LOVED. AND YOU HAVE FRIENDS IN HIGH
PLACES AND THAT’S UP ON THE SCREEN PAGE 147.
YOU REMEMBER REPORTING THAT.>>WHEN THE NEWS FIRST BROKE
THAT COHEN ARRANGED PAYOFFS TO STORMY DANIELS.
HE SAID PUBLICLY THAT NEITHER THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION NOR THE
TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS A PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION AND NEITHER
REIMBURSED HIM. TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY AT
THAT POINT QUICKLY TEXTED COHEN TO SAY QUOTE, CLIENT SAYS THANK
YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO. MR. MUELLER, WHO IS THE CAPITAL
CLIENT THANKING COHEN FOR WHAT HE DOES.>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.>>OKAY.
CO HEN LATER BROKE AND PLED GUILTY AT THE DIRECTION OF
CANDIDATE TRUMP. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?>>YES.>>AFTER COHEN’S GUILTY PLEA THE
PRESIDENT SUDDENLY CHANGED HIS TUNE.>>I WOULD SAY I RELY ON WHAT’S
IN THE REPORT.>>HE MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT
THE COHEN FAMILY MEMBERS HAD COMMITTED CRIMES.>>I GENERALLY ACCURATE.>>OKAY.
ON PAGE 154, YOU GIVE A POWERFUL
SUMMARY OF THESE CHANGING DYNAMICS.>>IN FRONT OF ME THANK YOU.>>WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ IT?>>I WOULD.>>CAN YOU READ IT OUT LOUD TO
EVERYBODY.>>I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU
READ IT OUT. THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THIS
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS REPORTED THAT
THE PRESIDENT. IN POSITIVE MESSAGES IN AN
EFFORT TO GET COHEN NOT TO COOPERATE AND THEN TURN TO A TAX
AND INTIMIDATION TO DETOUR THE PRO VISION OF INFORMATION OR TO
UNDERMINE COHEN’S CREDITABILITY.>>I BELIEVE THAT’S ACCURATE.>>OKAY.
AND IN MY VIEW OF ANYONE ELSE IN
AMERICA ENGAGED IN THESE ACTIONS
THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH WITNESS TAMPERING THAT YOU
EMPHASIZED SO WELL IN THE VERY LAST SENTENCE OF YOUR REPORT
WHICH IN AMERICA NO PERSON IS SO
HIGH AS TO BE ABOVE THE LAW.>>>JUST RECENTLY MR. MUELLER
YOU SAID MR. LIEU WAS ASKING YOU
QUESTIONS AND MR. LIEU’S QUESTION THE REASON YOU DIDN’T
INDICT THE PRESIDENT WAS BECAUSE
OF THE OLC OPINION AND YOU ANSWERED THAT IS CORRECT BUT
THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID IN THE
REPORT AND IT’S NOT WHAT YOU TOLD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND
IN FACT IN A JOINT STATEMENT THAT YOU RELEASED WITH DOJ ON
MAY 29TH AFTER YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE YOUR OFFICE ISSUED A
JOINT STATEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT SAID,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT SAYING
THAT BUT FOR THE OLC OPINION HE WOULD OF FOUND THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. THE PERISHABLE COUNSEL’S REPORT
IN HIS STATEMENT TODAY MADE CLEAR THAT THE OFFICE CONCLUDED
IT WOULD NOT REACH A DETERMINATION ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME.
THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE STATEMENTS SO MR. MILLER
DO YOU STAND BY YOUR JOINT STATEMENT AS AS YOU SIT HERE
TODAY.>>I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT
MORE CLOSELY BEFORE I WOULD AGREE WITH IT.>>WELL, UM, SO I — YOU KNOW MY
CONCLUSION IS THAT WHAT YOU TOLD
MR. LIEU REALLY CONTRADICTS WHAT
YOU SAID IN THE REPORT AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU SAID
APPARENTLY REPEATEDLY TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BAR AND THEN
YOU ISSUED A JOINT STATEMENT ON MAY 29TH SAYING THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED THAT WE WOULD OF FOUND THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTED JGS. SO I JUST SAY THERE’S A KUFKT.
I DO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. MR. MUELLER.
THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF TALK TODAY
ABOUT FIRING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
AND CURTAILING THE INVESTIGATION.
WERE YOU EVER FIRED MR. MUELLER AS SPECIAL COUNSEL?>>NOT THAT I — NO.>>NO.
WERE YOU ALLOWED TO COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION
UNENCUMBERED?>>YES.>>AND IN FACT YOU RESIGNED AS
SPECIAL COUNSEL WHEN YOU CLOSED UP THE OFFICE IN LATE MAY 2019
IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>ON CRITICAL 18TH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PUBLIC
RELEASE. DID ATTORNEY BARR SEND ANYTHING
INACCURATE OR HIS MARCH 24TH LETTER TO CONGRESS SUM MAR IZE MARIZE ING
YOUR REPORT.>>THAT LETTER SPEAKS FOR
ITSELF.>>BUT THEN I DON’T SEE HOW YOU
COULD — THAT COULD BE SINCE AG BARR’S LETTER DETAILED THE
PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT AND YOU HAVE SAID BEFORE
THAT THERE WASN’T ANYTHING INACCURATE BUT LET ME GO ON TO
ANOTHER QUESTION. MR. MUELLER, RATHER THAT PURELY
RELYING ON THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED
BY WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS I THINK YOU RELYING A LOT ON
MEDIA. I’D LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY TIMES
YOU CITED THE WASHINGTON PORT IN
YOUR REPORT?>>HOW MANY TIMES I WHAT?>>CITED THE WASHINGTON REPORT?>>I DO NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF
THAT FIGURE. I DON’T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT
FIGURE.>>I COUNTED ABOUT 60 TIMES.
HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU CITE THE NEW YORK TIMES?>>AGAIN.
VI NO IDEA.>>I COUNTED ABOUT 75 TIMES.>>HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU CITE
FOX NEWS?>>AS WERE THE OTHER TWO I HAVE
NO IDEA.>>ABOUT 20 FIEF TIMES.
I’VE GOT TO SAY IT LOOKS LIKE VOLUME 2 IS MOSTLY REGURGITATED
PRESS STORIES. TRANSLATION ALMOST NOTHING IN
VOLUME 2 THAT I COULDN’T ALREADY
HEAR OR NO SIMPLY BY HAVING A $50 CABLE NEWS SUBSCRIPTION.
IT COST TAXPAYERS $25 MILLION. MR. MUELLER YOU CITED MEDIA
REPORTS NEARLY 200 TIMES IN YOUR
REPORT THEN IN A FOOTNOTE, A SMALL FOOTNOTE NUMBER 7 VOLUME
2 OF YOUR REPORT AND I QUOTE THIS
CITES NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE INFORMATION BUT WHETHER TO
PLACE CANDIDATE TRUMP.
SINCE NOBODY BUT LAWYERS READ FOOTNOTES ARE YOU CONCERNED
THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TOOK THE
EMBEDDED NEWS STORY.>>THE TIME IS EXPIRED.>>CAN MR. MUELLER ANSWER THE
QUESTION?>>NO.
WE’RE RUNNING SHORT ON TIME. WASHINGTON.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, LET’S TURN
TO THE 5TH OF THE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES IN YOUR REPORT AND
THAT IS THE EVIDENCE OF WHETHER
PRESIDENT TRUMP ENGAGED IN WITNESS TAMPERING WITH TRUMP
CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT WHOSE FOREIGN TIES WERE
CRITICAL INTO YOUR SESSION HAVE INTO
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION.
THIS STARTS PAGE 123 VOLUME 2. YOUR OFFICE INDICT IN TWO
DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS CORRECT.>>CORRECT.>>AND YOUR OFFICE FOUND THAT
AFTER A GRAND JURY INDICTED THEM
MANAFORT TOLD GATES NOT TO PLEAD
GUILTY BECAUSE QUOTE HE HAD TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT, THE
PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL COUNSEL AND
THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF US IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S ACCURATE.>>AND ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT
ONE DAY AFTER MANAFORT’S CONVICTION ON 8 FELONY CHARGES,
QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT FLIPPING WAS NOT FAIR AND
ALMOST OUGHT TO BE OUTLAWED IS THAT
CORRECT?>>I’M AWARE OF THAT.>>WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FLIP.>>HAVE SOMEBODY COOPERATE IN AN
ESSENTIAL INVESTIGATION.>>AND HOW ESSENTIAL IS THAT
COOPERATION.>>I’M NOT GOING TO GO BEYOND
THAT.>>IN YOUR REPORT YOU CONCLUDED
TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS PERSONAL COUNSEL MADE REPEATED
STATEMENTS SUGGESTING THAT A PARDON WAS A POSSIBILITY FOR
MANAFORT WHILE ALSO MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT DID
NOT WANT MANAFORT TO FLIP AND
COOPERATE WITH THE GOVERNMENT IS
THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>AND AS YOU STATED EARLIER
WITNESS TAMPERING CAN BE SHOWN WHERE SOMEONE WITH AN IMPROPER
MOTIVE ENCOURAGES ANOTHER PERSON
NOT TO COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT STHAESHG?>>CORRECT.>>NOW ON PAGE 122 VOLUME 3 YOU
ALSO DISCUSSED THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVE AND AS YOU SAY AS COURT
PROCEEDINGS MOVE FORWARD AGAINST
MANAFORT PRESIDENT TRUMP QUOTE DISCUSSED WITH AIDS WHETHER AND
IN WHAT WAY MANAFORT MIGHT BE COOPERATING AND WHETHER
MANAFORT KNEW INFORMATION WOULD BE
HARMFUL TO THE PRESIDENT.>>THAT WAS A QUOTE FROM?>>FROM PAGE 123 VOLUME 2.
AND WHEN SOMEONE TRYING TO SPOP A PERSON WORKING WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT IT SEEMS CLEAR FROM WHAT YOU WROTE THIS IS A
CLASSIC DEFINITION OF WITNESS TAMPERING.
AND HE ENTERED INTO A PLEA AGREEMENT.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT HE DID THAT CAUSED YOU TO TELL THE
COURT THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS OFF.>>I REFER TO THE COURT
PROCEEDINGS ON THAT ISSUE.>>ON PAGE 127 OF VOLUME 2 YOU
TOLD THE COURT THAT MANAFORT LIED ABOUT A NUMBER OF MATTERS
THAT WERE MATERIAL TO THE INVESTIGATION AND YOU SAID THAT
MANAFORT’S LAWYERS REGULARLY BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS
ON TOPICS DISCUSSED AND INFORMATION THAT MANAFORT
PROVIDED IN INTERVIEWS WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE THAT’S
PAGE 127 VOLUME 2.>>AND TWO DAYS AFTER YOU TOLD
THE COURT THAT MANAFORT BROKE HIS PLEA AGREEMENT BY LYING
REPEATEDLY DID PRESIDENT TRUMP TELL THE PRESS THAT MR.
MANAFORT WAS QUOTE VERY BRAVE BECAUSE HE
DID NOT FLIP.>>IF IT’S IN THE REPORT I
SUPPORT IT AS IT IS SET FORTH. VERY SERIOUS CONCLUSION ABOUT
THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PRESIDENT’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE
MANAFORT PROCEEDINGS.>>EVIDENCE CONCERNING
MANAFORT’S CONDUCT INDICATED THAT THE PRESIDENT ENCOURAGED
MANAFORT TO NOT COOPERATE WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT BOTH PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY
DISCOURAGED MANAFORT’S COOPERATION WHILE FLIPPING OR
ALSO DANGLING THE PROMISE OF A PARDON IF HE STAYED LOYAL AND
DID NOT SHARE WHAT HE DID WITH
THE PRESIDENT. ANY.
I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE DIRECTOR MUELLER.>>GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. MUELLER, I’M OVER HERE I’M SORRY.>>MR. MUELLER ARE YOU FAMILIAR
WITH THE NOW EXPIRED INDEPENDENT
COUNSEL STATUE. IT’S A STATUE UNDER WHICH KEN
STARR WAS APPOINTED.>>THAT KEN STARR DID WHAT?>>ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUE?>>ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ONE
WE’RE OPERATING NOW OR A PREVIOUS.>>I’D BE HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR
QUESTION.>>WELL THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION ALLOWED IT TO EXPIRE AFTER KEN STARR’S
INVESTIGATION. THE FINAL REPORT REQUIREMENT WAS
A MAJOR REASON WHY THE STATUTE WAS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE.
EVEN PRESIDENT CLINTON’S AG DAN ARINO WOULD EXPRESS CONCERNS.
QUOTE AG RENO. SHE SAID ON ONE HAND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE AN TR IN KNOWING THE OUTCOME OF AN
INVESTIGATION OF THEIR HIGHEST OFFICIAL.>>ON THE OTHER HAND THE REPORT
REQUIREMENT CUTS AGAINST MANY OF
THE MOST BASIC TRADITIONS AND PRACTICES OF AMERICAN LAW
ENFORCEMENT. UNDER OUR SYSTEM WE PRESUME
INNOCENCE. IN MOST CASES BE MADE PUBLIC
ONLY IF THERE’S AN INDICTMENT AND PROSECUTION NOT IN LENGTHY
AND DETAILED REPORT FOUND AFTER A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE NOT TO
%. IT ALSO CREATES ANOTHER
INCENTIVE FOR AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO OVERINVESTIGATE IN
ORDER TO JUSTIFY HIS OR HER TENURE.
AGAIN MR. MUELLER THOSE ARE AG
RENO’S WORDS. DO YOU THINK HE PUBLISHED A
REPORT WITHOUT RECOMMENDING CHARGES.>>I DISAGREE WITH THAT.>>LIKE I SAID.>>DID ANY OF YOUR WITNESSES
HAVE THE CHANCE TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED.>>I OPERATED UNDER THE CURRENT
STATUTE NOT THE ORIGINAL STATUTE
SO I’M MOST FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENT STATUTE.>>DID ANY OF THE WITNESSES HAVE
A CHANCE TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED? OUR INVESTIGATION?>>YES.>>I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT.>>DID YOU ALLOW THE PEOPLE
MENTIONED IN YOUR REPORT TO CHALLENGE HOW THEY WERE
CHARACTERIZED?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO
THAT.>>OKAY.
GIVEN THAT AG BAR STATED MULTIPLE TIMES HE WOULD MAKE AS
MUCH AS OF A REPORT AS POSSIBLE DID YOU WRITE YOUR REPORT
KNOWING THAT IT WOULD LIKELY BE MADE PUBLIC.>>DID THAT ALTER THE CONTENTS
WHICH YOU INCLUDED?>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.>>DESPITE THE EXPECTATIONS THAT
YOUR REPORT WOULD BE RELEASED TO
THE PUBLIC YOU LEFT OUT EVIDENCE.
IN OTHER WORDS EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT,
CORRECT.>>I ACTUALLY WOULD DISAGREE
WITH YOU. I THINK WE WOULD STRUGGLE TO PUT
INTO THE REPORT. YOU MAKE A CHOICE AS TO WHAT
GOES INTO THE INDICTMENT.>>ISN’T IT TRUE ON PAGE 1,
VOLUME 2 YOU STATE YOU HAD OBLIGATIONS TO PROSECUTE OR NOT
PROSECUTE.>>GENERALLY THAT IS THE CASE.
ALTHOUGH MOST CASES ARE NOT DONE
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESIDENT.>>AND IN THIS CASE YOU MADE A
DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE, CORRECT?>>WE MADE A DECISION WHETHER TO
DECIDE NOT TO PROSECUTE OR NOT. REPORT DID WAS EVERYTHING THAT
AG RENO WARNED AGAINST?>>I CAN’T GLE WITH THAT
CHARACTERIZATION.>>YOU COMPILE AID NEARLY
450 PAGES OF THE VERY WORST INFORMATION YOU GATHERED AGAINST
THE TARGET OF YOUR INVESTIGATION
WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND YOU
DID THIS KNOWING THAT YOU’RE NOT
GOING TO RECOMMEND CHARGES AND THAT THE REPORT WOULD BE MADE
PUBLIC.>>NOT TRUE.>>AS A FORMER OFFICER I
PROSECUTED NEARLY 100 TERRORISTS
IN A BAGHDAD COURTROOM. I PROSECUTED IN DEFENSE OF OUR
NAVY SEALS. AS A CIVILIAN I WAS ELECTED A
JUDGE IN PENNSYLVANIA. I’M VERY WELL VERSED OF THE
AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM. THE DRAFTING IN THE PUBLICATION
OF SOME OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT WITHOUT AN
INDICTMENT. WITHOUT PROSECUTION FRANKLY
FLIES IN THE FACE OF AMERICAN JUSTICE AND I FIND THOSE FACTS
AND THIS ENTIRE PROCESS UN-AMERICAN.
I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME
TO MY COLLEAGUE.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE THIRD
FLY OF REMOVAL. WHAT ROLE DID YOUR OFFICE PLAY
IN THE THIRD FIZA PAGE.>>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK TO
THAT.>>TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS
EXPIRED. THE GENTLE LADY FROM FLORIDA.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, A COUPLE OF
MY COLLEAGUES RIGHT HERE WANTED TO TALK TO YOU OR ASK YOU ABOUT
LIES. SO LET’S TALK ABOUT LIES.
ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT PAGE 9,
VOLUME 1. WITNESSES LIED TO YOUR OFFICE
AND CONGRESS. THOSE LIES MATERIALLY ACCORDING
TO YOUR REPORT. OTHER THAN THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
PLED GUILTY TO CRIMES BASED ON THEIR LYING TO YOU AND YOUR
TEAM, DID OTHER WITNESSES LIE TO
YOU.>>I THINK THEY’RE PROBABLY A
SPECKTOR OF WITNESSES IN TERMS OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT TELLING
THE FULL TRUTH AND THOSE ARE
OUTRIGHT LIARS.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IT IS FAIR TO SAY, THEN, THAT THERE WERE LIMITS ON WHAT
EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE TO YOUR INVESTIGATION OF BOTH RUSSIA
ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.>>THAT’S TRUE AND USUALLY THE
CASE.>>AND THAT LIES BY TRUMP
CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS IMPEDED
YOUR INVESTIGATION.>>I WOULD GENERALLY AGREE WITH
THAT.>>THANK YOU SO MUCH DIRECTOR
MUELLER YOU WILL BE HEARING MORE
FROM ME IN THE NEXT HEARING SO I
YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR. KOREA.
THANK YOU.>>MR. MUELLER, FIRST OF ALL LET
ME WELCOME YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO
OUR COUNTRY YOU’RE A HERO, VIETNAM WAR VET.
WOUNDED WAR VET. WE WON’T FORGET YOUR SERVICE TO
COUNTRY. BECAUSE OF TIME LIMITS WE HAVE
GONE INTO 5 EPISODES OF POSSIBLE
OBSTRUCTION. THERE’S SO MUCH MORE AND I WANT
TO FOCUS ON ANOTHER SECTION OF OBSTRUCTION WHICH IS THE
PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT CONCERNING MICHAEL FLYNN THE PRESIDENT’S
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE PRESIDENT WERE INFORMED THAT
MR. FLYNN HAD LIED TO GOVERNMENT
AUTHORITIES DURING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN TRANSITION.
IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>IF A HOSTILE NATION KNOWS
THAT A U.S. OFFICIAL HAS LIED PUBLICLY THAT CAN BE USED TO
BLACKMAIL THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, CORRECT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO
THAT. I DON’T DISAGREE WITH IT
NECESSARILY BUT I’M NOT GOING TO
SPEAK ANYMORE TO THAT ISSUE. FLYNN RESIGNED ON FEBRUARY 13TH,
2016, AND THE VERY NEXT DAY WHEN
THE PRESIDENT WAS HAVING LUNCH WITH NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR CHRIS
CHRISTIE NOW THAT WE HAVE FIRED FLYNN THE RUSH IS THAT THING IS
OVER IS THAT CORRECT.>>AND IS IT TRUE THAT CHRISTIE
RESPONDED BY SAYING OPEN QUOTES NO WAY AND THIS RUSSIAN THING
IS FAR FROM OVER.>>THAT’S THE WAY WE HAVE IT IN
OUR REPORT.>>THANK YOU.>>AND AFTER THE PRESIDENT MET
WITH CHRISTIE LATER THAT SAME DAY THE PRESIDENT ARRANGED TO
MEET WITH THEN FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY ALONE IN THE OVAL
OFFICE, CORRECT.>>CORRECT.
PARTICULARLY IF YOU HAVE THE CITATION TO THE REPORT.>>PAGE 3940 VOLUME 2.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>AND ACCORDING TO COME Y THE
PRESIDENT TOLD HIM I HOPE OPEN QUOTE, I HOPE YOU CAN SEE YOUR
WAY TO CLEAR TO LETTING THIS THING GO, TO LETTING FLYNN GO.
HE’S A GOOD GUY AND I HOPE YOU CAN LET IT GO.
CLOSE QUOTE. PAGE 40 VOLUME 2.>>ACCURATE.>>WHAT DID COMEY UNDERSTAND THE
PRESIDENT TO BE ASKING?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO
WHAT WAS IN MR. COMEY’S MIND. DIRECTION BECAUSE OF THE
PRESIDENT’S POSITION AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ONE TO ONE
MEETING VOLUME 2.>>I UNDERSTAND IT’S IN THE
REPORT AND I SUPPORT IT AS BEING
IN THE REPORT.>>THANK YOU SIR.>>EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT
PUBLICLY DENIED TELLING COMEY TO
DROP THE INVESTIGATION YOU FOUND
OPEN QUOTE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CORROBORATING COMEY’S ACCOUNT
OVER THE PRECEDENCE IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>THE PRESIDENT FIRED COMEY ON
MAY 9TH, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? DATE.>>THAT’S PAGE 77 VOLUME 2.
YOU FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE CATALYST FOR THE
PRESIDENT’S FIRING OF COMEY WAS COMEY’S OPEN QUOTE
UNWILLINGNESS TO PUBLICLY STATE THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS NOT PERSONALLY UNDER INVESTIGATION.>>I’M NOT GOING TO DELVE MORE
INTO THE DETAILS OF WHAT HAPPENED.>>AND THAT’S PAGE 75 VOLUME 2.>>THANK YOU.>>AND IN FACT THE VERY NEXT DAY
THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER OPEN QUOTE I
JUST FIRED THE HEAD OF THE FBI. HE WAS CRAZY, A REAL NUT JOB, I
FACE GREAT PRESSURE BECAUSE OF RUSSIA.
THAT’S TAKEN OFF. I’M NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION
CLOSE QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN
THE REPORT YES.>>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS
EXPIRED. GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.>>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. MUELLER. WE’VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT WHAT
YOU’RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT SO LET’S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT
THE LAW ITSELF. THE UNDERLYING OBSTRUCTION
STATUTE AND YOUR CREATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTES IN
VOLUME 2. PARTICULARLY YOUR INTERPRETATION
OF 18 U.S.C 1512C. SECTION 1512C IS AN OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE SHALL CHUT AND AS YOU
WRITE ON PAGE 164 VOLUME 2, THIS
PRO VISION WAS ADDED AS A FLOOR AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE AND
EXPLAINED AS CLOSING A CERTAIN LOOPHOLE WITH RESPECT TO
DOCUMENT SHREDDING AND TO READ THE STATUE WHOEVER CORRECTLY
ALTERS OR OTHER OBJECT OR ATTEMPTS TO DO SO WITH THE
ATTEMPT TO IMPAIR THE OBJECT’S ABILITY.
OR OTHERWISE OBSTRUCTS INFLUENCES OR IMPEDES OFFICIAL
PROCEEDING OR ATTEMPTS TO DO SO SHALL BE FINE UNDER THE
STATUTE. YOUR ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION OF
THE STATUTE PROPOSES TO GIVE CLAUSE C2 A MUCH BROADER
INTERPRETATION THAN COMMONLY USED.
FIRST YOUR ANALYSIS PROPOSINGS TO READ 2.
AND SECOND YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTE TO APPLY THIS PROEPDZS
TO APPLY TO SWEEPING EXERCISING THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWERS IF
THOSE ACTS INFLUENCE A
PROCEEDING. YOU STATE THAT YOU RECOGNIZE
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE COURSE HAVE NOT
DEFINITIVELY RESOLVED THESEISHES
CORRECT?>>YOU WOULD AGREE THAT NOT
AGREES WITH YOUR LEGAL OPINION. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO IDENTIFY.>>AND YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE
PROSECUTORS SOMETIMES INCORRECTLY APPLY THE LAW.>>I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH
THAT ONE.>>AND MEMBERS OF YOUR LEGAL
TEAM HAVE HAD CONVICTIONS OVERTURNED BECAUSE THEY WERE
BASED ON AN INCORRECT LEGAL THEORY CORRECT.>>I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE
REFERRING TO WE HAVE ALL TRIED CASES HAVE NOT WON EVERY ONE OF
THOSE CASES.>>ONE OF YOUR TOP PROSECUTORS
ANDREW WEISSMAN AGAINST ARTHUR ANDERSON LOWER COURT WHICH WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED IN A SUPREME COURT DECISION.>>I’M NOT GOING TO DELVE INTO
THAT.>>MAY I JUST FINISH MY ANSWER
TO SAY THAT I’M NOT GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION ON
THAT. I WILL REFER YOU TO THAT
CITATION THAT YOU GAVE ME AT THE
OUTSET FOR THE LISTENINGY DISCUSSION ON JUST WHAT YOU’RE
TALKING ABOUT INTO THE EXTENT THAT I HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY
TABT IT.
IT IS WHAT WE’VE ALREADY PUT INTO THE REPORT.>>AND I AM READING FROM YOUR
REPORT WHEN DISCUSSING THAT SECTION.>>AND I’LL READ THE DECISION
FROM THE SUPREME COURT. WHEN HE SAID INDEED STACY STRIKING HOW LITTLE CULPABILITY
REQUIRED. THE INSTRUCTIONS ALSO DLUTED THE
MEANING OF CORRUPTLY SUCH THAT IT COVERED INNOCENT CONDUCT.>>LET ME JUST SAY.>>LET ME MOVE ON I HAVE LIMITED
TIME. YOUR REPORT TAKES AS LONG AS
POSSIBLE IN READING THIS PRO VISION AND I’M CONCERNED ABOUT
THE IMPLICATIONS OF YOUR THEORY FOR OVER CRIMINALIZING THE
PRIVATE CONDUCT AND PRIVATE OFFICIALS ALIKE.
I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT A FEW EXAMPLES.
ON OCTOBER 11TH, 2015, PRESIDENT
OBAMA SAID I DON’T THINK IT POSED A NATIONAL SECURITY
PROBLEM AND HE LATER SAID I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS IS NOT A
SITUATION IN WHICH AMERICA’S NATIONAL SECURITY WAS
ENDANGERED. ASSUMING FOR A MOMENT HIS
COMMENTS DID INFLUENCE THE INVESTIGATION, COULDN’T
PRESIDENT OBAMA BE CHARGED WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?>>AGAIN I REFER YOU TO THE
REPORT. BUT LET ME SAY WITH ANDREW
WEISSMAN IS ONE OF THE MORE TALENTED ATTORNEYS THAT WE HAVE
ON BOARD.>>WELL I’LL TAKE THAT.>>AND OVER A PERIOD OF TIME HE
HAS RUN A NUMBER OF UNITS.>>I HAVE VERY LIMITED TIME.
IN AUGUST 2015 A SENIOR D.O.J.
OFFICIAL ANDREW McCABE. THE DOJ OFFICIAL WAS APPARENTLY
VERY OFF. McCABE QUESTIONED THIS OFFICIAL
TELLING ME ARE YOU TELLING ME I NEED TO SHUT DOWN A .
SO UNDER YOUR THEORY COULDN’T THAT PERSON BE CHARGED WITH
OBSTRUCTION AS LONG AS A PROSECUTOR COULD COME WITH WITH
A POTENTIALLIY OBSTRUCTIVE MOTIVE.>>MR. MUELLER I’D ARGUE THAT
THAT SAYS ABOVE THIS SUPREME COURT.>>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS
EXPIRED. OUR INTENT WAS TO CONCLUDE THIS
HEARING IN THREE HOURS. GIVEN THE BREAK THAT WOULD BRING
US TO APPROXIMATELY 11:40. WE WILL BE ASKING OUR REMAINING
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS TO VOLUNTARILY LIMIT THEIR TIME
BELOW THE 5 MINUTES SO WE CAN COMPLETE OUR WORK AS CLOSE TO
THAT TIME FRAME AS POSSIBLE. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLE LADY
FROM PENNSYLVANIA.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER , I WANT TO
ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS REGARDING
ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THE WIKI LEAKS DUMPS.
THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO SIT DOWN WITH YOUR INVESTIGATORS.
STHAESHG?>>CORRECT.>>SO THE ONLY ANSWERS WE HAVE
TO QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESIDENT ARE CAMPAIGNED IN YOUR REPORT.
SO LOOKING AT APPEND EXC ON PAGE
5 YOU ASKED THE QUESTION OVER A DOZEN QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER
HE POSSESSED OR MIGHT POSSESS THE
E-MAILS STOLEN BY THE RUSSIANS.>>SO WE’RE LOOKING AT APPENDEXC
YOU ASKED THE PRESIDENT ABOUT A DOZEN QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER
HE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT WIKILEAKS
POSSESSED THE STOLEN E-MAILS THAT MIGHT BE RELEASED IN A WAY
THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HIS CAMPAIGN OR HARMFUL TO THE
CLINTON CAMPAIGN IS THAT CORRECT
YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS?>>OKAY.>>IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR
MR. TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY MR. TRUMP KNEW FROM ROGER STONE
IN ADVANCE ABOUT THE WIKILEAKS E-MAILS END QUOTE.
THAT’S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.>>ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE
REPORT OR SOME OTHER PUBLIC RECORD?>>THIS WAS TESTIMONY BEFORE
CONGRESS BY MR. COHEN.>>THEN I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH
IT. EXMRIFT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HE
TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS.>>OKAY.
LET’S LOOK AT AN ENT DESCRIBED ON PAGE 18 OF VOLUME 2 OF YOUR
REPORT. NOW ACCORDING AND WE’RE GOING TO
PUT IT UP ON A SLIDE. ACCORDING TO DEPUTY CAMPAIGN
MANAGER RICK GATES IN THE SUMMER
OF 2016 HE AND CANDIDATE TRUMP WERE ON THE WAY TO AN AIRPORT
SHORTLY AFTER WIKILEAKS RELEASED
ITS FIRST SET OF STOLEN E-MAILS AND GATES TOLD YOUR
INVESTIGATORS THAT CANDIDATE TRUMP WAS ON A PHONE CALL AND
WHEN THE CALL ENDED TRUMP TOLD GATES THAT MORE RELEASES OF
DAMAGING INFORMATION WOULD BE COMING END QUOTE.
DO YOU RECALL THAT FROM THE REPORT?>>IF IT’S IN THE REPORT I
SUPPORT IT.>>OKAY.
AND THAT’S ON PAGE 18 OF VOLUME 2.
NOW ON PAGE 77 OF VOLUME 2 YOUR REPORT ALSO STATED QUOTE IN
ADDITION SOME WITNESSES SAID THAT TRUMP PRIVATELY SOUGHT
INFORMATION ABOUT FUTURE WIKILEAK RELEASES END QUOTE.
IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>NOW IN APPENDDEX C HE SAYS I
DO NOT RECALL IS THAT CORRECT RSZ IF IT’S FROM THE REPORT IT
IS CORRECT.>>OKAY.
SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT DENIED EVER DISCUSSING
WIKILEAKS WITH MR. STONE AND DENIEDED BEING AWARE THAT
ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN.>>COULD YOU REPEAT THAT ONE?>>IS IT FAIR THEN THAT THE
PRESIDENT DENIED KNOWLEDGE OF HIMSELF OR ANYONE ELSE
DISCUSSING WIKILEAKS DUMPED WITH
MR. STONE. WITH THAT I WOULD YIELD BACK.>>THANK YOU MA’AM.>>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.
MR. MUELLER, OVER HERE. DID YOU INDEED INTERVIEW FOR THE
FBI DIRECTOR JOB ONE DAY BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL
COUNSEL?>>IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
I WAS NOT APPLYING FOR THE JOB. I WAS ASKED TO GIVE MY INPUT ON
WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THE JOB
WHICH TRIGGERED THE INTERVIEW YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.>>SO YOU DON’T RECALL ON MAY
16TH, 2017 YOU DON’T RECALL INTERVIEWING FOR THE JOB.>>IT WAS ABOUT THE JOB AND NOT
ABOUT ME APPLYING FOR THE JOB. IS THAT YOU DIDN’T INTERVIEW TO
APPLY FOR THE FBI DIRECTOR JOB.>>SO DID YOU TELL THE VICE
PRESIDENT THAT THE FBI DIRECTOR POSITION WOULD BE THE ONE JOB
THAT YOU WOULD COME BACK FOR?>>YOU DON’T RECALL THAT?>>NO.>>GIVEN YOUR 22 MONTHS OF
INVESTIGATION, TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT AND MILLIONS
OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED, DID YOU
OBTAIN ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT ANY AMERICAN VOTER CHANGED
THEIR VOTE AS A RESULT OF RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE?>>YOU CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.>>THERE’S NOT ANY EVIDENCE IN
THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE US THAT ANY
VOTER CHANGED THEIR VOTE BASED ON THAT APPEARANCE.>>THAT WAS OUTSIDE OUR PER SPGS
VIEW.>>RUSSIAN MEDDLING WAS OUTSIDE
YOUR PERVIEW.>>THE IMPACT OF THAT MEDDLING
WAS UNDERTAKEN BY OTHER AGENCIES.>>YOU STATED IN YOUR OPENING
STAMENT YOU WOULD NOT GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THE STEEL
DOSSIER HOWEVER MULTIPLE TIMES YOU
MENTIONED THE UNVERIFIED ALLEGATIONS.
HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS
UNVERIFIED.>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO
THAT.>>IT’S ACTUALLY IN YOUR REPORT
MULTIPLE TIMES IT’S UNVERIFIED AND YOU’RE TELLING ME YOU’RE
NOT WILLING TO TELL US HOW YOU CAME
TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS UNVERIFIED?>>TRUE.>>WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE
THAT WAS IT WAS INCLUDED?>>.>>WHAT WAS THE QUESTION.>>WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE
THAT THE UNVERIFIED STEEL DOSE YAER WAS INCLUDED IN THE FIZA
APPLICATIONS?>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO
THAT.>>YOUR TEAM INTERVIEWED
CHRISTOPHER SEAL STHAESHG?>>NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT.>>YOU CAN’T TELL THIS COMMITTEE
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU INTERVIEWED CHRISTOPHER STEEL IN
A 22 MONTH INVESTIGATION.>>AS I SET AT THE OUTSET THAT’S
ONE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT IS BEING HANDLED BY OTHERS IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.>>BUT YOU’RE HERE TESTIFYING
ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION TODAY AND I AM ASKING YOU DIRECTLY
DID ANY MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM OR DID
YOU INTERVIEW CHRISTOPHER STEEL IN THE COURSE OF YOUR
INVESTIGATION?>>I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION, SIR.>>YOU HAD TWO YEARS TO
INVESTIGATE. NOT ONCE DID YOU CONSIDER IT
WORTHY TO INVESTIGATE HOW AN UNVERIFIED DOCUMENT PAID FOR BY
A POLITICAL OPPONENT WAS USED TO
OBTAIN A WARRANT. DID YOU DO ANY INVESTIGATION ON
THAT WHATSOEVER?>>I DO NOT RESPECT YOUR
CHARACTERIZATION.>>YOU’RE NOT GOING TO AGREE
WITH MY CHARACTERIZATION. IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES.>>THE FIZA APPLICATION MAKES
REFERENCE TO SOURCE ONE WHO IS CHRISTOPHER STEEL THE AUTHOR OF
THE STEEL DOSSIER. BASED ON SOURCES ON PREVIOUS
REPORTING HISTORY WITH FBI WHEREBY SOURCE ONE PROVIDED
RELIABLE INFORMATION TO THE FBI.
THE FBI MREEFS SOURCE TO BE CREDIBLE.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE FBI’S REPRESENTATION TO BE ACCURATE?>>I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT.>>SO YOU’RE NOT GOING TO
RESPOND TO DMI OF THE QUESTIONS REGARDING CHRISTOPHER STEEL OR
YOUR INTERVIEWS WITH HIM?>>AS I SAID AT THE OUTSET THIS
MORNING THAT WAS ONE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT I COULD NOT
SPEAK TO.>>I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW IF YOU
INTERVIEWED AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE
PERVIEW OF THIS INVESTIGATION THAT YOU’RE TESTIFYING THAT
YOU’VE CLOSED THAT INVESTIGATION
HOW THAT’S NOT WITHIN YOUR PERVIEW TO TELL US ABOUT THAT
INTERVIEW AND THAT INVESTIGATION.>>I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.>>THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO
KNOW AND I’M VERY HOPEFUL AND GLAD THAT AG BARR IS LOOKING
INTO THIS BECAUSE YOU’RE UNWILLING TO ANSWER THE
QUESTIONS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AS IT RELATES TO THE VERY BASIS OF THIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE
PRESIDENT AND THE VERY BASIS OF THIS INDIVIDUAL WHO YOU DID
INTERVIEW YOU’RE JUST REFUSING TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.
CAN’T THE PRESIDENT FIRE THE FBI
DIRECTOR AT ANY TIME WITHOUT REASON UNDER THE ARTICLE OF
CONSTITUTION.>>ARTICLE 2.>>YES THAT’S CORRECT.>>CAN HE ALSO FIRE YOU AS
SPECIAL COUNSEL WITHOUT ANY REASON.>>I BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE
CASE.>>IN ARTICLE 2.>>HOLD ON JUST A SECOND.
YOU SAID WITHOUT ANY REASON. I KNOW THE SPECIAL COUNSEL CAN
BE FIRED I’M NOT CERTAIN IT EXTENDS TO FOR WHATEVER REASON.>>YOU’VE TESTIFIED YOU WEREN’T
FIRED YOU WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION IN FULL IS
THAT CORRECT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO ADD TO WHAT
I’VE STATED BEFORE.>>MY TIME IS EXPIRED.>>THE GENTLE LADY FROM
PENNSYLVANIA: FROM TEXAS.>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND
THANK YOU MR. MUELLER FOR BEING WITH US CLOSE TO THE AFTERNOON
NOW. DIRECTOR MUELLER I WOULD LIKE TO
ASK YOU ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S ANSWERS RELATING TO ROGER
STONE. ROGER STONE WAS INDICTED FOR
MULTIPLE FEDERAL CRIMES AND INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT
MR. STONE DISCUSSED FUTURE WIKILEAK E-MAIL RELEASES WITH
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. I’LL KEEP MY QUESTIONS
RESTRICTED TO PUBLIC AVAILABLE INFORMATION.>>I DON’T MEAN TO DISRUPT YOU .>>I UNDERSTAND I’M ONLY GOING
TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED IN QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE WRITING RELATED TO MR. STONE.
MR. STONE’S INDICTMENT RELATES
AMONG OTHER THINGS. INQUIRE ABOUT FUTURE RELEASES OF
ORGANIZATION ONE .>>THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT
STONE WAS ASKED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ABOUT MORE
WIKILEAKS RELEASES AND STILL IN FACT DID TELL THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN ABOUT POTENTIAL FUTURE RELEASES
CORRECT.>>YES, MA’AM I SEE RECORDING
FROM THE INDICTMENT AND EVEN THOUGH THE INDICTMENT IS A
PUBLIC DOCUMENT I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE DISCUSSING
ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE STONE PROSECUTION.>>RIGHT THE INDICTMENT IS OF
RECORD AND WE PULLED IT OFF.>>WELL WE’LL TURN IT BACK TO
THE PRESIDENT’S ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS THEN ON THIS VERY
SUBJECT. THE PRESIDENT DENIED EVER
DISCUSSING FUTURE WIKILEAKS RELEASES WITH STONE AND DENIED
WHETHER ANYONE ELSE IN HIS CAMPAIGN HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS
WITH STONE. IF YOU HAD LEARNED THAT OTHER
WITNESSES PUTTING ASIDE THE PRESIDENT, IF OTHER WITNESSES
HAD LIED TO YOUR INVESTIGATORS IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS, WHETHER HE — WHETHER
IN WRITING OR IN AN INTERVIEW COULD THEY BE CHARGED WITH
FALSE STATEMENT CRIMES?>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE.
I THINK YOU’RE ASKING FOR ME TO SPECULATE A SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES.>>LET’S PUT IT MORE SPECIFIC
WHAT IF I HAD MADE A FALSE STATEMENT TO AN INVESTIGATOR ON
YOUR TEAM. COULD I GO TO JAIL FOR UP TO 5
YEARS?>>YES.>>ALTHOUGH IT’S CONGRESS SO.
[ LAUGHTER ]>>WELL THAT’S THE POINT THOUGH,
ISN’T IT THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT YOU, NOT THE
CONGRESS AND CERTAINLY NOT THE APPELLATE AND I THINK IT’S JUST
TROUBLING TO HAVE TO HEAR SOME OF THESE THINGS AND THAT’S WHY
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO LEARN THE FULL FACTS OF THE
MISCONDUCT DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND AGAIN THE POINT HAS BEEN
UNDERSCORED MANY TIMES BUT I’LL REPEAT IT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE
LAW.>>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU MA’AM.>>THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
DAKOTA IS RECOGNIZED.>>MR. MUELLER HOW MANY PEOPLE
ON YOUR STAFF DID YOU FIRE DURING THE COURSE OF THE
INVESTIGATION?>>HOW MANY PEOPLE –>>DID YOU FIRE?>>I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS
THAT.>>YOU FIRED ACCORDING TO THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT ATTORNEY NUMBER 2 WAS LET GO AND
WE KNOW PETER STRUCK WAS LET GO.>>YES, AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN
OTHER PERSONS ON OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE TRANSFERRED OR FIRED.>>ON JULY 12TH, 2018, YOU WERE
CONCERNED ABOUT PRESERVING THE APPEARANCE OF THE INDEPENDENCE
DO YOU AGREE TO THIS TESTIMONY. YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT A
CONCERN ABOUT PRESERVING THE APPEARANCE
OF INDEPENDENCE WITH THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT
STATEMENT?>>THE STATEMENT WAS BY WHOM?>>PETER STRUCK AT THIS HEARING?>>I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.>>DID YOU FIRE HIM BECAUSE YOU
WERE WORRIED ABOUT INTERFERENCE OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE
INVESTIGATION.>>NO HE WAS A TRANSFER AS A
RESULT OF THE INSTANCES INVOLVING TEXT.>>DO YOU AGREE THAT YOUR OFFICE
DID NOT ONLY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO OPERATE WITH THE APPEARANCE
OF INDEPENDENCE.>>ABSOLUTELY.
WE STROVE TO DO THAT OVER TWO YEARS.
PART OF THAT WAS MAKING CERTAIN.>>ANDREW WEISSMAN IS ONE OF
YOUR TOP ATTORNEYS.>>YES.>>DID WEISSMAN HAVE A ROLE IN
SELECTING SOME OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM?>>YES.>>I DON’T KNOW WHEN I FOUND
THAT OUT.>>ON JANUARY 30TH, 2017,
WEISSMAN WROTE AN E-MAIL TO DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL YATES
SAYING I’M SO PROUD IN AWE REGARDING HER DISOBEYING A
DIRECT ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT DID WEISSMAN DISCLOSE THAT
E-MAIL TO YOU BEFORE JOINING THE
TEAM?>>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK TO
THAT.>>IS THAT A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST?>>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT
THAT.>>ARE YOU AWARE HILLARY CLINTON
REGARDING PERSONAL E-MAILS ORIGINATING FROM CLINTON’S TIME
AS SECRETARY OF STATE.>>YES.>>DID YOU KNOW THAT BEFORE SHE
CAME ON?>>NO.>>AARON ZELLBY THE GUY WHO
REPRESENTED JUSTIN COOPER DESTROYED ONE OF CLINTON’S
MOBILE DEVICES AND SIX OF YOUR LAWYERS DONATED $12,000
DIRECTLY TO HILLARY CLINTON.
I’M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE 49,000 THEY DONATED TO OTHER
DEMOCRATS.>>CAN I SPEAK FOR THE SECOND TO
THE HIRING PRACTICES. WE STROVE TO HIRE THOSE
INDIVIDUALS THAT COULD DO THE JOB.
I’VE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS FOR ALMOST TWNT 5 YEARS AND IN
THOSE 25 YEARS I HAVE NOT HAD OCCASION
ONCE TO ASK SOMEBODY ABOUT THEIR
POLITICAL AFFILIATION. IT IS NOT DONE.
WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS THE CAPABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUALS TO
DO THE JOB AND DO THE JOB QUICKLY AND SERIOUSLY AND WITH
INTEGRITY.>>BUT THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING
MR. MUELLER. THIS ISN’T JUST ABOUT YOU BEING
ABLE TO VOUCH FOR YOUR TEAM. THIS IS ABOUT THE DAY YOU
ACCEPTED THIS ROLE YOU HAD TO BE
AWARE OF NO MATTER WHAT THIS REPORT CONCLUDED HALF OF THE
COUNTRY WAS GOING TO BE SKEPTICAL OF YOUR TEAM’S FINDING
AND THAT’S WHY WE HAVE RECUSAL LAWS.
28 UNITED STATES SPECIFICALLY NOT JUST POLITICAL CONFLICT OF
INTEREST BUT THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IT’S JUST SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH THAT
YOU VOUCH FOR YOUR TEAM. NO PERCEIVED BIAS EXISTS.
I CAN’T IMAGINE A SINGLE PROSECUTOR OR JUDGE THAT I HAVE
EVER APPEARED OF IN FRONT OF THAT I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE.
HAD A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE
OPPONENT OF THE PERSON BEING INVESTIGATED.>>I PUT ON THE TABLE AND THAT
IS WE HIRED 19 LAWYERS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
OF THOSE 19 LAWYERS, 14 OF THEM WERE TRANSFERRED FROM ELSEWHERE
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. ONLY 5 CAME FROM OUTSIDE.>>AND HALF OF THEM HAD A DIRECT
RELATIONSHIP POLITICAL OR PERSONAL WITH THE OPPONENT OF
THE PERSON YOU WERE INVESTIGATING.
AND THAT’S MY POINT. I WONDER IF NOT A SINGLE WORD IN
THIS ENTIRE REPORT WAS CHANGED BUT RATHER THE ONLY DIFFERENCE
WAS WE SWITCHED HILLARY CLINTON AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IF PETER STRUCK HAD TEXTED THOSE
TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON.
IF A TEAM OF LAWYERS DONATED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO TRUMP’S
PARTIES INSTEAD OF CLINTONS I DON’T THINK WE’D BE HERE TRYING
TO PROP UP AN OBSTRUCTION ALLEGATION.
MY COLLEAGUES WOULD OF ACCUSED YOUR TEAM OF BEING BOUGHT AND
PAID FOR BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND WE COULDN’T BE BELIEVING A
SINGLE WORD OF THIS REPORT. AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.>>THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I’D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE REPORT.
AS COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR TO ISSUE A FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENT
IN JUNE OF 2017 ABOUT A MEETING BETWEEN HIS CAMPAIGN AND
RUSSIAN INDIVIDUALS AT TRUMP TOWER IN
JUNE OF 2016. ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT
MR. TRUMP JR. WAS THE ONLY TRUMP
ASSOCIATE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THAT MEETING AND WHO DECLINED
TO BE VOLUNTARILY INTERVIEWED BY
YOUR OFFICE. DID MR. TRUMP JR. OR HIS COUNSEL
TO INVOKE HIS 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SELF INCRIMINATION.>>I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT.>>YOU DID IMPOSE TO THE
PRESIDENT. YOU INCLUDED ALSO ASKED HIM
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD DIRECTED A FALSE PRESS
STATEMENT. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ANSWER AT
ALL THAT QUESTION, CORRECT?>>I DON’T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF
ME. I TAKE YOUR WORD.>>I CAN REPRESENT TO YOU THAT
APPENDIX C STATES AS MUCH. ACCORDING TO PAGE 100 OF VOLUME
2 OF YOUR REPORT YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT IN JUNE
OF 2017 WAS SHOWN E-MAILS THAT SET UP THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING
AND SHE TOLD YOUR OFFICE THAT SHE WAS SHOCKED BY THE E-MAILS
BECAUSE THEY LOOKED QUOTE REALLY
BAD.>>DO YOU HAVE THE CITATION.>>SURE, IT’S PAGE 100 OF VOLUME
2. WHILE YOU’RE
FLIPPING TO THAT PAGE, DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WILL TELL YOU PAGE
99 OF VOLUME 2 THOSE E-MAILS IN
QUESTION STATED ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT THAT THE CROWNED
PROSECUTOR OF RUSSIA OFFERED TO PROVIDE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH
SOME OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD INCRIMINATE HILLARY AND
HER INDICTMENT WITH RUSSIA. TRUMP JR. RESPONDED IF IT’S WHAT
YOU SAY, I LOVE IT. AND HE KUSHNER, AND MANAFORT MET
WITH THE REDUCTION ATTORNEYS AND
SEVERAL OTHER RUSSIAN INDIVIDUALS AT TRUMP TOWER ON
JUNE 9TH, 2016, END QUOTE. CORRECT.>>GENERALLY ACCURATE.>>ISN’T IT TRUE THAT MISS HICKS
TOLD YOUR OFFICE THAT SHE WENT MULTIPLE TIMES TO THE PRESIDENT
TO QUOTE URGE HIM THAT THEY SHOULD BE FULLY TRANSPARENT
ABOUT THE JUNE 9TH MEETING BUT THE PRESIDENT EACH TIME SAID
NO.>>CORRECT?>>ACCURATE.>>AND THE REASON WAS BECAUSE OF
THOSE E-MAILS WHICH THE PRESIDENT QUOTE BELIEVED WOULD
NOT LEAK, CORRECT?>>I’M NOT CERTAIN HOW IT’S
CHARACTERIZED. BUT GENERALLY CORRECT.>>DID THE PRESIDENT DIRECT
MYSELF HICKS TO SAY QUOTE ONLY THAT TRUMP JR. TOOK A BRIEF
MEETING AND IT WAS ABOUT RUSSIAN
ADOPTION BECAUSE TRUMP’S STATEMENT SAID TOO MUCH
ACCORDING TO 102 OF VOLUME 2.>>CORRECT?>>LET ME — LET ME JUST CHECK
ONE THING. YES.>>AND ACCORDING TO MISS HICKS
THE PRESIDENT STILL DIRECTED HER
TO SAY THE MEETING WAS ONLY ABOUT RUSSIAN ADOPTION, CORRECT?>>YES.>>DESPITE KNOWING THAT TO BE
UNTRUE. THANK YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER I
YIELD BACK TO BALANCE MY TIME. OVER HERE ON THE FAR RIGHT,
SIR. YOU’VE BEEN ASKED A LOT OF
QUESTIONS HERE TODAY. TO BE FRANK, YOU PERFORMED AS
MOST OF US EXPECTED. YOU STUCK CLOSELY TO YOUR REPORT
AND YOU CENTER DECLINED TO ANSWER MANY OF OUR QUESTIONS ON
BOTH SIDES. AS A CLOSER FOR THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE. I WANT TO SUMMARIZE THE
HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD AND WHAT WE KNOW.
YOU SPENT 2 YEARS AND NEARLY 30 MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS A
NEARLY UNLIMITED 450-PAGE REPORT.
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS MAINTAIN GENUINE CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR
WORK IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF THE
INFAMOUS BIAS OF YOUR TEAM INVESTIGATORS WHICH WE NOW KNOW
INCLUDED 14 DEMOCRATS AND 5 REPUBLICANS.>>EXCUSE ME IT’S MY TIME.
THAT TEAM OF DEMOCRATIC INVESTIGATORS YOU HIRED DONATED
MORE THAN $60,000 TO THE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN AND OTHER
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES. DISCUSSED TODAY.
AND THEY HAD THE LURD TEXT MESSAGES THAT CONFIRMED THEY
OPENLY MOCKED AND HATED DONALD TRUMP AND HIS SUPPORTERS AND
THEY VOWED TO TAKE HIM OUT. MR. RATCLIFF ASKED YOU EARLIER
THIS MORNING CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP
WHERE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THAT AN INVESTIGATED
PERSON WAS NOT EXONERATED BECAUSE THEIR INDEPENDENCE WAS
NOT CONCLUSIVE DETERMINED UNQUOTE.
YOU ANSWERED I CANNOT. SIR, THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED.
THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED FROM THE BEGINNING THAT YOU AND YOUR
TEAM HAD UNCONFIDENCE.
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP COOPERATED FULLY WITH THE INVESTIGATION.
HE KNEW HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG AND HE ENCOURAGED ALL
WITNESSES TO COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION AND PRODUCED MORE
THAN 1.4 MILLION PAGES OF INFORMATION AND ALLOWED OVER 40
WITNESSES THAT WERE DIRECTLY AFFILIATED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE
IN HIS CAMPAIGN. A VOLUME OF EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT
THE PRESIDENT TELLING MANY PEOPLE PRIVATELY THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE RUSSIAN
INVESTIGATION ON HIS ABILITY TO GOVERN AND TO ADDRESS FOREIGN
RELATIONS AND ON PAGE 174 VOLUME
2 OF YOUR REPORT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SUPREME
COURT HAS HELD THE PRESIDENT’S REMOVAL POWERS WITH RESPECT TO
PRINCIPLE OFFICERS. THAT IS OFFICERS WHO MUST BE
APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND REPORT TO HIM DIRECTLY.
THE PRESIDENT’S EXCLUSIVE AND POWER OF REMOVAL TO ENSURE THAT
THE LAWS ARE UNFAITHLY EXECUTED.
IN SPITE OF ALL OF THAT, NOTHING
EVER HAPPENED TO STOP OR IMPEDE YOUR SPECIAL COUNSEL’S
INVESTIGATION. NOBODY WAS FIRED BY THE
PRESIDENT. NOTHING WAS CURTAILED AND THE
INVESTIGATION CONTINUED UNENCUMBERED FOR 22 LONG MONTHS.
VOLUME 1 THE EVIDENCE QUOTE DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE
PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED IN AN UNDERLYING
CRIME. AND THE EVIDENCE, QUOTE, DID NOT
ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESIDENT OR THOSE CLOSE TO HIM WERE
INVOLVED IN ANY RUSSIAN CONSPIRACIES OR
HAD AN UNLAWFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY RUSSIAN OFFICIAL
UNQUOTE. OVER THOSE 22 LONG MONTHS THAT
YOUR INVESTIGATION DRAGGED LONG THE PRESIDENT BECAME
INCREASINGLY FRUSTRATED WITH HIS
ABILITY TO GOVERN. HE VENTED ABOUT THIS TO HIS
LAWYER AND EVEN SHARED HIS FRUSTRATIONS AS WE ALL KNOW ON
TWITTER. WHILE THE PRESIDENT’S SOCIAL
MEDIA ACCOUNTS MIGHT HAVE INFLUENCED SOME IN THE MEDIA
NONE OF THOSE AUDIENCES WERE TARGETS OR WITNESSES IN YOUR
INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT NEVER AFFECTED
ANYBODY’S TESTIMONY. OR DANDZ R DEMANDED THAT YOU BE
TERMINATED AND HE NEVER MISLED CONGRESS OR THE DOJ.
THERE WILL BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION I PREDICT TODAY AND
GREAT FRUSTRATION THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY ABOUT THE FACT YOU WOULDN’T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THIS WHOLE HER READ.
EVEN THOUGH IT IS LISTED AND SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED IN YOUR
REPORT. AS OUR HEARING IS CONCLUDING WE
APPARENTLY WILL GET NO COMMENT ON THAT.
MR. MUELLER THERE’S ONE PRIMARY REASON WHY YOU WERE CALLED HERE
TODAY BY THE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY OF OUR COMMITTEE.
OUR COLLEAGUES JUST WANT POLITICAL COVER.
THEY WANT YOU TODAY TO TELL THEM
THEY SHOULD IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT BUT THE ONE THING YOU
HAVE SAID TODAY IS THAT YOUR REPORT IS COMPLETE AND THOROUGH
IF YOU COMPLETELY AGREE WITH AND
STAND BY ALL OF ITS CONTENT. IS THAT RIGHT?>>TRUE.>>YOUR REPORT DOES NOT
RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT, DOES IT? RECOMMENDATIONS.>>IT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT
IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE
HERE?>>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT
THAT ISSUE.>>THAT’S ONE OF THE MANY THINGS
YOU WOULDN’T TALK ABOUT TODAY. I DO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE
TO THE COUNTRY AND I’M GLAD THIS
HER READ WILL COME TO AN END SOON AND WE CAN GET BACK TO THE
IMPORTANCE ISSUES OF THIS COMMITTEE.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.>>I WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT OUR
INTENT WAS TO CONCLUDE THIS HEARING AT AROUND 11:45.
ALL OF THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS HAVE NOW ASKED THEIR QUESTIONS
BUT WE HAVE A FEW REMAINING DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS.
THEY WILL BE LIMITING THEIR QUESTIONS.
WE EXPECT TO FINISH WITHIN 15 MINUTES.
THE GENTLE LADY FROM GEORGIA IS RECOGNIZED.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
AND THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER. YOUR INVESTIGATION ON
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WERE EXTRAORDINARILY PRODUCTIVE.
YOU CHARGED AT LEAST 37 PEOPLE OR ENTITIES WITH CRIMES.
YOU CONVICTED 7 INDIVIDUALS 5 OF
WHOM WERE TOP TRUMP WHITE HOUSE AIDS.
CHARGES REMAIN PENDING AGAINST MORE THAN TWO DOZEN RUSSIAN
PERSONS OR ENTITIES AND AGAINST OTHERS.
LET ME START WITH THOSE FIVE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDS YOU
CONVICTED. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT
THEY ARE PAUL MANAFORT, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN
MANAGER. RICK GATES, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER. MICHAEL FLYNN PRESIDENT TRUMP’S
FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.
MICHAEL COHEN THE PRESIDENT’S
PERSONAL ATTORNEY. AND THE SIXTH TRUMP ASSOCIATE
WILL BE LATER THIS YEAR. THANK YOU.>>I’M NOT CERTAIN WHAT YOU SAID
BY STONE BUT HE IS IN ANOTHER COURT SYSTEM IS INDICATED
BEFORE.>>EXACTLY HE’S STILL UNDER
INVESTIGATION.>>CORRECT.
THANK YOU.>>AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER
CHARGES AS WELL, CORRECT.>>CORRECT.>>SO, SIR, I JUST WANT TO THANK
YOU SO MUCH IN MY LIMITED TIME TODAY FOR YOUR TEAM, THE WORK
THAT YOU DID IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS YOUR TEAM WAS ABLE TO
UNCOVER AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION RELATED TO RUSSIA’S
ATTACK ON OUR ELECTIONS AND TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND
THERE’S STILL MORE THAT WE HAVE TO LEARN.
DESPITE FACING UNFAIR ATTACKS BY
THE PRESIDENT AND EVEN HERE TODAY, YOUR WORK HAS BEEN
SUBSTANTIVE AND FAIR. THE WORK HAS LAID THE CRITICAL
FOUNDATION FOR THAT INVESTIGATION AND FOR THAT I
THANK YOU. I THANK YOU.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.>>LADY YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA.>>I’M DISAPPOINTED THAT SOME
HAVE QUESTIONED YOUR MOTIVES IN THIS PROCESS AND I WANT TO TAKE
A MOMENT TO REMIND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF WHO YOU ARE AND THE
SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. YOU ARE A MARINE.
YOU SERVED IN VIETNAM AND EARNED
A BRONZE STAR AND PURPLE HEART, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>WHICH PRESIDENT APPOINTED YOU
TO BECOME THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR MASSACHUSETTS
SENATOR.>>WHICH PRESIDENT?>>I THINK IT WAS PRESIDENT
BUSH.>>UM, ACCORDING TO MY NOTES IT
WAS PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN HAD THE HONOR TO DO SO.>>MY MISTAKE.>>UNDER WHOSE ADMINISTRATION
DID YOU SERVE AS THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL UNDER THE
DOJ’S CRIMINAL DIVISION.>>UNDER WHICH PRESIDENT?>>THAT WOULD BE GEORGE BUSH 1.>>THAT IS CORRECT.
PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH. AFTER THAT YOU TOOK A JOB YOU
DID SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY. YOU LEFT THAT LUCRATIVE
POSITION TO REENTER PUBLIC SERVICE HERE
IN WASHINGTON D.C. IS THAT CORRECT.>>CORRECT.>>WHEN YOU WERE NAMED DIRECTOR
OF THE FBI, WHICH PRESIDENT FIRST APPOINTED YOU?>>BUSH.>>AND THE SENATE CONFIRMED YOU
WITH A VOTE OF 98 TO 0.>>SURPRISING.>>AND YOU WERE SWORN IN AS
DIRECTOR JUST ONE WEEK BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS.
WHO HELPED PROTECT THIS NATION AGAINST ANOTHER ATTACK.
HE DID SUCH AN OUTSTANDING JOB THAT WHEN YOUR TENURE EXPIRED
YOU UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO EXTEND YOUR TERM.
WHEN YOU WERE ASKED IN 2017 TO TAKE THE JOB AS SPECIAL
COUNSEL, THE PRESIDENT HAD JUST FIRED FBI
DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
FBI WERE IN TURMOIL. YOU MUST OF KNOWN IT WOULD BE AN
EXTRAORDINARY CHALLENGE. WHY DID YOU ACCEPT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO
THAT. THAT’S A LITTLE BIT OFF TRACK?
IT WAS A CHALLENGE PERIOD.>>SOME PEOPLE HAVE ATTACKED THE
POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS OF YOUR TEAM EVEN SUGGESTING YOUR
INVESTIGATION WAS A WITCH HUNT. WHEN YOU CONSIDER PEOPLE TO
JOIN YOUR TEAM DID YOU EVER EVEN ONCE
ASK ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION?>>NEVER ONCE.>>HAVE YOU EVER MADE A HIRING
DECISION BASED UPON A PERSON’S POLITICAL AFFILIATION?>>NO IF I MIGHT JUST INTERJECT.
THE CAPABILITIES THAT WE HAVE SHOWN IN THE REPORT DISCUSSED
HERE TODAY WAS A RESULT OF A TEAM OF AGENTS AND LAWYERS WHO
ARE ABSOLUTELY EXEMPT LAIR.>>YOUR A PAT TRON AND CLEAR TO
ME IN READING YOUR REPORT YOU ACT THE FAIRLY WITH RESTRAINT.
THERE WERE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU COULD OF FILED CHARGES
AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE IN MENTIONING THE REPORT BUT YOU
DECLINED. NOT EVERY PROSECUTOR DOES THAT.
YOUR TEAM INTENSIFIED. I DID UNCOVER.
LET ME ALSO SAY SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT. I YIELD BACK.>>THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. .
>>I THINK WE CAPTURED THAT IN THE MARCH 27TH RESPONSE LETTER.
>>>AND THIS IS FROM THE 27TH LETTER. WHAT WERE SOME OF THE
SPECIFICS THAT YOU THOUGHT? >>I DIRECT YOU TO THE LETTER
ITSELF. >>>I FINISHED THAT LETTER BY
SAYING THERE IS NOW PUBLIC CONFUSION ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECTS
AS A RESULT OF OUR INVESTIGATION. COULD YOU TELL US
SPECIFICALLY SOME OF THE PUBLIC CONFUSION YOU IDENTIFIED?
>>NOT GENERALLY. AGAIN I WOULD GO BACK TO THE LETTER AND THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
>>>COULD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR HAVE AVOIDED CONFUSION.
>>I DON’T FEEL COMFORTABLE SPECULATING ON THAT.
>>>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN AN INTERVIEW WITH CBS NEWS SAID
THAT YOU COULD HAVE REACHED, QUOTE, YOU CAN HAVE REACHED A
DECISION AS TO WHETHER IT WAS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY END QUOTE ON
THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT. DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HIS
STAFF EVER TELL YOU THIS HE THOUGHT YOU SHOULD MAKE A
DECISION ON WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY? >>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO
WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS THINKING OR SAYING.
>>>IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD DIRECTED YOU OR ARE ORDERED YOU
TO MAKE A DECISION IN WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, WOULD YOU HAVE SO DONE?
>>I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION IF THE VACUUM.
>>I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I AGREE WITH YOUR MARCH 27TH
LETTER THERE WAS PUBLIC CONFUSION AND THE PRESIDENT TOOK
FULL ADVANTAGE OF THAT CONFUSION BY FALSELY CLAIMING YOUR REPORT
FOUND NO OBSTRUCTION. LET US BE CLEAR YOUR REPORT DID NOT
EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT. INSTEAD IT PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, LEAVING CONGRESS TO DO ITS DUTY.
WE SHALL NOT SHRINK FROM THAT DUTY. I YIELD BACK.
>>>THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.>>WAS THE POINT OF THIS HEARING
TO GET MR. MUELLER TO RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT?
>>THAT IS NOT A FAIR POINT OF INQUIRY. THE GENTLELADY FROM
FLORIDA IS RECOGNIZED. >>MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE. YOU ARE A PATRIOT. I WANT TO
REFER YOU TO VOLUME 2, PAGE 158. YOU WROTE THE PRESIDENT’S
EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE THE INVESTIGATION WERE MOSTLY
UNSUCCESSFUL BUT THAT IS LARGELY BECAUSE THE PERSONS WHO
SURROUNDED THE PRESIDENT DECLINED TO CARRY OUT ORDERS OR
ACCEDE TO HIS REQUESTS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>>THAT IS ACCURATE AND THAT IS WHAT WE FOUND.
>>AND YOU ARE BASICALLY REFERRING TO SENIOR ADVISERS WHO
DISOBEYED THE PRESIDENT’S ORDERS LIKE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON
MCGAHN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER CORY LEWINDOWSKI, IS
THAT RIGHT? >>WE HAVE NOT SPECIFIED THE
PERSONS. >>ON PAGE 158, WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL DON MCGAHN QUOTE DID NOT TELL THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
MUST BE REMOVED BUT WAS INSTEAD PREPARED TO RESIGN OVER THE
PRESIDENT’S ORDERS. YOU ALSO EXPLAIN AN ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT
JUSTICE DOES NOT HAVE TO SUCCEED TO BE A CRIME, RIGHT?
>>TRUE. >>SIMPLY ATTEMPTING TO OBSTRUCT
JUSTICE CAN BE A CRIME, RIGHT?
>>YES. >>OWN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT’S
AIDES REFUSED TO CARRY OUT AN ORDER TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR
INVESTIGATION THAT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE BY THIS PRESIDENT, IS IT?
>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE. >>SIMPLY TRYING TO OBSTRUCT
JUSTICE CAN BE A CRIME, CORRECT?>>YES.
>>AND YOU SAY THE PRESIDENT’S EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE THE
INVESTIGATION WERE QUOTE MOSTLY UNSUCCESSFUL AND THAT IS BECAUSE
NOT ALL OF HIS EFFORTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL, RIGHT?
>>ARE YOU LEADING INTO WHAT WE HAVE WRITTEN IN THE REPORT?
>>I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU COULD JUST TELL ME WHICH ONES
YOU HAD IN MIND AS SUCCESSFUL WHEN YOU WROTE THAT SENTENCE.
>>I’M GOING TO PASS ON THAT. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER, TODAY WE
HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT SEPARATE ACTS BY THIS PRESIDENT. BUT YOU
ALSO WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT QUOTE, THE OVERALL PATTERN OF
THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT TOWARD THE INVESTIGATIONS CAN SHED
LIGHT ON THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT’S ACTS AND THE
INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT HIS INTENT,
CORRECT? >>ACCURATE RECITATION FROM THE
REPORT. >>>RIGHT AND ON PAGE 158 AGAIN
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO NOTE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S
CONDUCT HAD A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WHEN HE REALIZED THE
INVESTIGATIONS WERE CONDUCTED TO INVESTIGATE HIS OBSTRUCTION
ACTS. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE DECIDING
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THEY
NEED TO LOOK AT ALL THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT AND OVERALL
PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR, IS THAT CORRECT?
>>I DON’T DISAGREE.
>>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, DOCTOR ALSO, I’LL DESIGNATE THAT, TOO.
I HAVE CERTAINLY MADE UP MY MIND, INCLUDING WHETHER THERE
WAS CORRUPT INTENT, AND INCLUDING WHETHER ANYONE ELSE,
INCLUDING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED 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 MAY NAME
GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK. GENTLELADY FROM TEXAS.
>>DIRECTOR MUELLER YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT YOU QUOTE DETERMINED
NOT TO MAKE A PROSECUTORIAL JUDGMENT END QUOTE. WAS THAT IN
PART BECAUSE OF AN OPINION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT CAN’T BE
CHARGED WITH A CRIME? >>YES.
>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, AT YOUR MAY 29, 2019 PRESS CONFERENCE YOU
EXPLAINED THAT QUOTE THE OPINION SAYS THAT THE CONSTITUTION
REQUIRES A PROCESS OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO
FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING PRESIDENT OF WRONGDOING, END
QUOTE. THAT PROCESS OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, FOR
ACCUSING A PRESIDENT OF WRONGDOING, IS THAT IMPEACHMENT?
>>I’M IN THE GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT.
>>IN YOUR REPORT, YOU ALSO WROTE THAT YOU DID NOT WANT TO
QUOTE POTENTIALLY PREEMPT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES TO
ADDRESSING PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT END QUOTE. FOR THE
NONLAWYERS IN THE ROOM, WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY QUOTE POTENTIALLY
PREEMPT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES?
>>I’M NOT GOING TO TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT.
>>>THAT ACTUALLY IS COMING FROM PAGE 1, VOLUME 2 IN THE FOOTNOTE
IS THE REFERENCE TO THIS. WHAT ARE THOSE
CONSTITUTION AL PROCESSES? >>I THINK I HEARD YOU MENTION
AT LEAST ONE. >>IMPEACHMENT, CORRECT?
>>I’M NOT GOING TO COMMENT. >>OKAY. THAT IS ONE OF THE
CONSTITUTION AL PROCESSES LISTED IN THE REPORT IN THE FOOTNOTE IN
COLE VOYAGER LEARNING COMPANY TWO. YOUR REPORT DOCUMENTS THE
MANY WAYS THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR
INVESTIGATION AND YOU STATE IN YOUR REPORT, ON PAGE 10, VOLUME
2, THAT WITH, INTERFERING WITH A CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY OR
INVESTIGATION WITH CORRUPT INTENT CAN ALSO CONSTITUTE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >>TRUE.
>>WELL, THE PRESIDENT HAS TOLD US THAT HE INTENDS TO FIGHT ALL
THE SUBPOENAS. HIS CONTINUED EFFORTS TO INTERFERE WITH
INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POTENTIAL MISCONDUCT CERTAINLY REINFORCE
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROCESS THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES TO
QUOTE FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING PRESIDENT OF WRONGDOING, AS YOU
CITED IN THE REPORT. AND THIS HEARING HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO
THIS COMMITTEE, AS IT EXERCISES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO
DETERMINE WHETHER TO RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST
THE PRESIDENT. I AGREE WITH YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER, THAT WE ALL
HAVE A VITAL ROLE IN HOLDING THIS PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR
HIS ACTIONS. MORE THAN THAT, I BELIEVE WE, IN CONGRESS, HAVE A
DUTY TO DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY AND SAFEGUARD ONE OF OUR
NATION’S HIGHEST PRINCIPLES THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. FROM
EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE HEARD YOU SAY HERE TODAY, IT IS CLEAR THAT
ANYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED, BASED ON THE
EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN YOUR REPORT. IT NOW FALLS ON US TO
HOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD
BACK. >>>GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK.
POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIRMAN WE
DID BOTH GET IN OUR TIME. OUR SIDE GOT OUR 5 MINUTES IN AND
ALSO MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE I JOIN THE CHAIRMAN IN
THANKING YOU FOR BEING HERE. >>I ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE
REMAIN SEED AND QUIET WHILE THE WITNESS EXITS THE
ROOM. >>>WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING FORMER
SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER TAKE AND MOSTLY DEFLECT QUESTIONS FROM THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. GUYS, WHAT DO WE THINK THAT WE HAD A DAY OF
TESTIMONY TO UNPACK HERE? BUT WHAT DID YOU THINK WERE THE
HEADLINES? DO YOU THINK THAT DEMOCRATS GOT WHAT THEY WANTED
OUT OF THIS HEARING? OR DID THEY GET SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY? I
DON’T I DON’T THINK THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED OUT OF THIS. TO
THE EXTENT THAT THIS HEARING WAS VALUABLE FOR THEM, IT WAS
PROBABLY GOING TO BE JUST GETTING ROBERT MUELLER TO
RESTATE THINGS IN HIS REPORT FOR A BROADER AUDIENCE. IT IS VERY
LONG, ONLY 3% OF PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY READ IT. THEY GOT THAT
TO SOME DEGREE. HE DID RESTATE SOME OF THE KEY FINDINGS, WHY HE
DIDN’T SAY THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CONSPIRACY VERSUS
COLLUSION, THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE TWO TERMS. BUT I
THINK THE TOTALITY OF HIS PERFORMANCE WAS THAT HE WASN’T
EXACTLY VERSED ON WHAT WAS IN HIS OWN REPORT, HE ASKED FOR
CLARIFICATIONS ON QUESTIONS AND CITATIONS A LOT. HE DIDN’T SEEM
TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS THERE TO SAY. AND SO, EVEN WHEN
HE SAID THOSE THINGS THAT COULD BE HEADLINES, EACH IF THEY WERE
JUST RESTATING THE REPORT, IT WASN’T CLEAR IF HE WAS PARSING
THEM AS CLOSELY AS DEMOCRATS WOULD LIKE HIM TO HAVE.
>>ROSALYN IS ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE WHO READ THE ENTIRE
REPORT, SHE IS ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE POST VERSION OF
THE REPORT AND THE ANALYSIS THEREIN, TELL US WHAT DID YOU
MAKE OF MUELLER’S PERFORMANCE TODAY? THIS WAS NOT THE MUELLER
DEMOCRATS HAD HOPED WOULD COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. AT TIMES
IT SEEMED HALTING, HE ASKED FOR REPEATING OF THE
QUESTIONS. >>HE WAS A VERY RETICENT
WITNESS. HE TOLD US HE CONSIDERED HIS REPORT HIS
TESTIMONY. A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THIS I THINK APPEARED TO BE
STRATEGY. HE HAD SECURED THIS LETTER FROM THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT, PUTTING A REAL FENCE AROUND WHAT HE COULD TALK ABOUT
AND HE WAS VERY CLEAR THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO GO EVEN AN INCH
BEYOND WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE REPORT. AND WOULD REPEATEDLY SAY
I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE REPORT. SO YOU KNOW, THAT IS OUTSIDE MY
PURVIEW. >>DEPRIVING DEMOCRATS OF THE
BOOK ON TAPE THEY WERE HOPING FOR.
>>BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK YOU CAN ALREADY SEE SOME OF THE
REACTION COMING WHERE YOU KNOW, I JUST READ A QUOTE FROM THE
ALWAYS QUOTABLE SENATOR KENNEDY, A REPUBLICAN FROM LOUISIANA.
SORT OF SORE ROWFULLY SAYING I HOPE WE CAN ALL REMEMBER MUELLER
IN HIS PRIME. DAVID AXELROD FORMER ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT
OBAMA TWEETING HE FINDS THIS PAINFUL. THERE DOES SEEM TO BE A SENSE BOB MALL
MUELLER WAS HALTING, HIS RECALL WAS NOT AS TOTAL AS DEMOCRATS
WOULD HAVE HOPED IT TO BE. AND YOU CAN ALREADY SEE WHERE
REPUBLICANS ARE TAKING THAT. MARK MEADOWS, MAJOR CRITIC OF
THE INVESTIGATION, MAJOR ALLY OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ALREADY
SAYING THAT THIS IS A SIGN THAT THIS INVESTIGATION WAS NOT
ACTUALLY LED OR CONTROLLED BY BOB MUELLER, IT WAS CONTROLLED
BY HIS STAFF, WHO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ALLIES HAVE
INSISTED WERE BIASED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.
>>AND THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONING ABOUT THE STAFF ON
THE INVESTIGATION. DID THAT PLAY INTO THAT STRATEGY THAT
REPUBLICANS SEEM TO BE FOLLOWING RIGHT NOW?
>>YEAH I THINK IT WAS THE LAST QUESTIONER ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE
AISLE, LISTED OFF MUELLER’S TEAM AND DONATIONS. MUELLER RESPONDED
HE DIDN’T ASK PEOPLE ON HIS STAFF ABOUT WHAT THEIR POLITICAL
AFFILIATIONS WERE WHEN HE WAS HIRING THEM. SO I THINK THAT
WHAT WE SAW WAS THE STRATEGY FOR REPUBLICANS WAS FIRST TO
UNDERMINE MUELLER, SPEND THE ENTIRE HEARING DOING THAT,
MAKING THE CASE HE WASN’T THIS AUTHORITATIVE SUPER PROSECUTOR
WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THIS INVESTIGATION AND HAD HIS TABS
ON EVERYTHING. HE EVENTUALLY ADMITTED HE DIDN’T SIT IN ON
MOST OF THE INTERVIEWS FOR THIS INVESTIGATION. AND THEN WHAT
THEY ARE GOING TO SAY, BEGINNING WITH THAT, THOSE QUESTIONS FROM
ARMSTRONG IS THIS WAS ACTUALLY OTHER PEOPLE ON HIS STAFF WHO
WERE SYMPATHETIC TO HILLARY CLINTON, DONATED TO DEMOCRATS IN
SOME CASES, WERE ACTUALLY IN CHARGE OF THIS INVESTIGATION. SO
YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHY THIS WAS A BIASED EFFORT FROM THE
BEGINNING. SO THEY COULDN’T, HE WASN’T GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE
ORIGINS OF THE INVESTIGATION BUT THAT IS HOW THEY GOT AROUND
THAT. >>>THE POST’S RHONDA COLVIN HAS
BEEN INSIDE THE HEARING ROOM. WHAT ARE SOME OF YOUR TAKE AWAYS
FROM INSIDE THE ROOM? >>Reporter: MAINLY EMILY MY
MAIN TAKE AWAY, STARTING AT THE TOP OF THE HEARING. I NOTICED
THAT MOST OF THE MEMBERS, THEY WERE THERE, THEY WERE ENGAGED,
THEY WERE SITTING THERE, THEY WERE A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE FOR
ROBERT MUELLER. USUALLY WHEN I COVER THESE HEARINGS, YOU’LL SEE
A LOT OF MEMBERS GET UP DURING TESTIMONY OR DIFFERENT COMMENTS,
THEY WILL BE TALKING TO EACH OTHER, LOOKING AT THEIR PHONE.
HERE THEY WERE PRESENT, LOOKING DIRECTLY AT THE WITNESS TABLE
FROM THE START AND NEARLY THROUGH THE DURATION AS WELL.
THIS PROBABLY SPEAKS TO HOW PREPARED BOTH SIDES WERE. WE
HEARD LAST WEEK THROUGH HALLS OF CONGRESS THAT MANY PEOPLE ON
THIS COMMITTEE WERE PLANNING THEIR QUESTIONS INTENSELY,
LOOKING AT OLD CLIPS OF MUELLER’S PREVIOUS TESTIMONY TO
BE PREPARED TO QUESTION HIM AND THAT WAS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE. SO I THINK BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS CAME
VERY PREPARED TODAY TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS THAT THEY WANTED TO
HEAR. I THINK, FROM, IN TERMS OF ROBERT MUELLER, AS I BELIEVE
SOMEBODY JUST MENTIONED HE DID PLAY THAT RELUCTANT WITNESS
TODAY. I’M SEATED NOT TOO FAR AWAY FROM HIS TABLE AND I
NOTICED HE WASN’T REALLY SPEAKING INTO THE MICROPHONE. IN
FACT A LOT OF MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA WHO WERE SITTING NEAR ME
WERE COMPLAINING WE COULDN’T HEAR HIM BECAUSE HE ISN’T
SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO THE MICROPHONE OR HE WAS OFF TO THE
SIDE. I THINK IT IS EVIDENT AS HE SAID BEFORE HE WAS NOT GOING
TO EXPOUND OR REVEAL ANYTHING THAT HASN’T BEEN SAID BEFORE.
AND I THINK WE SAW THAT TODAY. I’M JOINED NOW BY MY COLLEAGUE
PAUL CAIN, OUR SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT AT
THE POST. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE TAKE AWAYS YOU HAVE SEEN SO FAR
TODAY? >>Reporter: I THINK THE BIG
QUESTION TODAY WAS SIMPLY GOING TO BE COULD DEMOCRATS WHO WANT
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS GET A BIG JOLT OF
MOMENTUM? THEY ARE ABOUT TO LEAVE TOWN FOR SIX WEEKS. IT
BEGINS IN JULY AND CARRIES ALL THE WAY INTO SEPTEMBER. THEY
NEEDED SOMETHING TODAY THAT WOULD REALLY SPARK MORE MOMENTUM
IN THEIR DIRECTION, AND THE RELUCTANT WITNESS REALLY DID NOT
GIVE THAT BIG OF A JOLT FOR THEM. AT BEST CASE THIS WAS SORT
OF A NEUTRAL DAY FOR THEM. AND THEY DON’T NEED NEUTRAL, THEY
NEEDED SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE FORWARD LEANING TO GALVANIZE PEOPLE TO TRY AND
PRESSURE NANCY PELOSI AND OTHER DEMOCRATS. A LOT WE FOUND OUT
TODAY HAD BEEN IN THE REPORT. THERE WERE THINGS THEY KEPT
SAYING OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT THE REPORT. ELIJAH CUMMINGS WAS
JUST HERE A MINUTE AGO AND TELLING US THEY WERE TRYING TO
BRING THE REPORT TO LIFE AND THEY DID THAT. THEY NOW HAVE A
HUMAN BEING BEHIND THE REPORT TALKING ABOUT IT. BUT IT WAS NOT
IN AN OVERLY ANIMATED WAY, AND I JUST DON’T KNOW WHERE THEY GO
NEXT FROM THIS MOMENT. >>Reporter: NOW ROBERT MUELLER
HAS DONE THIS MANY TIMES BEFORE. ALMOST UP TO 90 TIMES HE HAS
TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF CONGRESS. THIS IS PROBABLY LIKELY GOING TO
BE HIS LAST TIME SPEAKING LIKE THIS IN THE PUBLIC IN THIS TYPE
OF HEARING. WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS DOES TO HIS LEGACY? HE WAS
I BELIEVE FBI DIRECTOR, ALMOST LONGER THAN ANYONE ELSE OUTSIDE
OF JEDGAR HOOVER. THIS IS HOW IS THIS GOING TO PLAY INTO HIS
LEGACY? >>Reporter: IT IS EASY TO TRY
AND SPEND ONE DAY AS A LEGACY DEFINING THING.
>>I’M SORRY PAUL, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WRAP-UP. WE ARE GOING
TO HAVE MEMBERS COMING TO THE MICROPHONE NEXT TO US. SO STAY
TUNED. >>>THANKS SO MUCH, RHONDA.
WE’LL HAVE MORE FROM YOU AS THAT COMES IN. INTERESTING POINTS
THAT RHONDA AND PAUL WERE BOTH MAKING THERE. APPARENTLY ABC IS
NEW REPORTING CONGRESSMAN AL GREEN, ONE OF THE LEADING
PROPONENTS OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD SAID TO AN
ABC REPORTER QUOTE I DON’T SEE IT AS A SEMINAL MOMENT IN TIME,
I REALLY DON’T. THAT GOES TO PAUL’S POINT THAT THIS DIDN’T
PROVIDE DEMOCRATS WITH THE MOMENTUM THEY NEEDED.
>>YOU COULD ARGUE THAT FROM NANCY PELOSI’S PERSPECTIVE THAT
IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT WANT TO IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP
AND MANY DON’T. THERE HAS BEEN SOME TENSION BETWEEN HERE AND
THE JERRY NADLER, WHO SEEMS TO BE MORE INTERESTED IN OPENING AN
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IF THE TAKE AWAY HERE IS IMPEACHMENT IS NO
MORE LIKELY THAN IT WAS YESTERDAY I THINK THAT IS
SOMETHING NANCY PELOSI WOULD TAKE GLADLY FROM THIS HEARING,
EVEN THOUGH IT WASN’T NECESSARILY A GREAT MOMENT AS
FAR AS PROSECUTING THE CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP WHEN IT
COMES TO THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION AND IT COMES TO
THE 2020 REELECTION. >>>MIGHT ANY OF THIS CHANGE
THIS AFTERNOON IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING?
>>I’M INTERESTED TO SEE HOW THAT HEARING IS GOING TO BE
DIFFERENT THAN THIS ONE. THERE IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR CHANGE IN
THE AFTERNOON, WE ARE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AARON ZEBLY, BOB
MUELLER’S CHIEF OF STAFF, HIS OFFICIAL TITLE WAS DEPUTY
COUNSEL. HE IS GOING TO BE SWORN IN AND SIT AT THE TABLE WITH BOB
MUELLER. IT IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW MANY
QUESTIONS HE TAKES IN PLACE OF HIS BOB OR EXPANDS ON OR SEEMS
TO CORRECT HIS BOSS. I THINK WE WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THE
RUSSIAN SIDE OF THE INVESTIGATION. WHAT THE RUSSIANS
DID DURING THE ELECTION AND THE CONTACTS THEY HAD WITH THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN. THAT WAS SORT OF THE INTENTION. THE MORNING WITH THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TEE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OBSTRUCTION AND
THE AFTERNOON WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RUSSIA. IT COULD BE IT HAS AN
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FEEL. BUT OF COURSE THERE IS A DANGER FOR THE
DEMOCRATS, TOO. NOW THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE STARTING THIS
NARRATIVE THAT BOB MUELLER WASN’T REALLY THIS CHARGE OF HIS
OWN INVESTIGATION, IF WE SEE AARON ZEBLY IN THE AFTERNOON
ANSWERING ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT COULD REALLY DEEPEN THAT
IMPRESSION ADVANCE THAT NARRATIVE FOR THE REPUBLICANS.
>>SURE. SPEAKING OF OBSTRUCTION, WHICH OF COURSE WAS
THE FOCUS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE’S HEARING THEY LARGELY
FOCUSED ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. LET’S LISTEN TO THIS
CLIP. THIS IS TED LOU, IN TALKING ABOUT THE RULING OF THE
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, THE O L C, LET’S LISTEN.
>>I HAD LAKE TO ASK YOU THE REASON AGAIN YOU DID NOT INDICT
DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF O L C, OPINION STATING YOU CANNOT
INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT, CORRECT?
>>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND ANOTHER HEADLINE THAT
CAME TODAY FROM REPUBLICAN KEN BUCK OF COLORADO ON THAT POINT.
ASKING ROBERT MUELLER DIRECTLY IF PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD BE
CHARGED WHEN HE IS OUT OF OFFICE. LET’S LISTEN TO THAT
ONE. >>WITH A CRIME AFTER HE LEFT
OFFICE? >>YES.
>>YOU BELIEVE THAT HE COMMITTED, YOU COULD CHARGE THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE? >>YES.
>>ETHICALLY? UNDER THE ETHICAL START?
>>I’M NOT SURE. I HAVEN’T LOOKS AT THE ETHICAL STANDARDS. BUT
THE O L C, OPINION SAYS THE PROSECUTOR CANNOT BRING A CHARGE
AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT. NONETHELESS
HE CAN CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION.
>>INTERESTING THAT CAME FROM THE MOUTH OF A REPUBLICAN
CONGRESSMAN. NOT WHO WE WERE EXPECTING TO HEAR SOMEONE DRAW
OUT A LINE THAT DEMOCRATS WILL BE SEIZING ON. AARON WAS THAT A
BIG MOMENT FROM THIS MORNING? >>I THINK THOSE WERE TWO
MOMENTS THAT DEMOCRATS WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE WERE AHA MOMENTS
IN THIS HEARING. >>LIKE TO BELIEVE.
>>I’M MORE SKEPTICAL. AMERICAN BRIDGE AFTER THE FIRST
DEMOCRATIC SUPERPAC, AFTER THAT FIRST HE CAN CHANGE SAID ROBERT
MUELLER JUST REAFFIRMED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONING THAT THE ONLY
REASON HE DECLINED DONALD TRUMP WAS BECAUSE OF THE OFFICE OF
LEGAL COUNSEL OPINION. IF YOU LOOK STRICTLY AT WHAT ROBERT
MUELLER SAID YOU COULD INTERN THAT. I DOUBT THAT IS WHAT HE
INTENDED TO SAY BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT IS IN HIS REPORT AND
EACH IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT IT YOU COULD READ IT ONE OF TWO
DIFFERENT WAYS. YOU COULD READ THAT AS HIM SAYING I PERSONALLY
COULD INDICT DONALD TRUMP AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. BUT HE MIGHT
HAVE JUST BEEN SPEAKING YOU KNOW ABOUT THE ACTUAL POLICY AND WHAT
IT ALLOWS FOR, RATHER THAN SAYING THE EVIDENCE IS THERE AND
I COULD DO THAT TODAY. SO I THINK THAT WE
MIGHT GET SOME CLARITY ON THOSE MOVING FORWARD GIVEN THOSE ARE
SOME SIGNIFICANT EXCHANGES. BUT I AM DOUBTFUL THEY ARE THE KIND
OF SILVER BULLETS DEMOCRATS BELIEVE THEY ARE.
>>Reporter: ESSENTIALLY WHEN WE GET IS ONE WORD ANSWERS FROM BOB
SMALLER RIGHT? THE QUOTE THERE IS QUESTION. WHICH IS NOT HELPFUL. THERE WAS
A PART WHERE ANOTHER REPUBLICAN WAS ASKING HIM ABOUT THE
DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE THE PRESIDENT, AND HE SAID SOMETHING
LIKE THAT WASN’T THE DECISION. THE DECISION WE MADE WAS NOT TO
DECIDE WHETHER TO PROSECUTE THE PRESIDENT, WHICH IS MUCH CLOSER
TO THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS IN THE REPORT. PARTICULARLY ON THE
QUESTION AND ANSWER WITH THE CONGRESSMAN, WHEN I FIRST HEARD
THAT I FELT AS THOUGH HE WAS ANSWERING A QUESTION SORT OF
THIS HYPOTHETICAL. CAN A PRESIDENT BE INDICTED AFTER HE
LEAVES OFFICE? IN GENERAL CAN ANY PRESIDENT FOR ANY CRIME BE
INDICTED? AND HE WAS SAYING YES. THE O L C, MEMO SAYS AYS YOU COULD BE INDICTED
AFTERWARDS. THAT IS WHAT DEMOCRATS ARE ATTRIBUTING TO IT.
I THINK HE WAS QUITE CLEAR HE WAS NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT.
>>BY THE WAY A BETTER WITNESS WOULD HAVE TAKEN QUESTIONS WHICH
MAY BE ABLE TO BE READ IN ANY NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS AND
RESTATED THEM IN THE MANNER HE WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION RATHER THAN SAYING YES OR NO. THE REASON POLITICIANS
AVOID YES OR NO ANSWERS BOTH IN POLITICS AND THE WITNESSES WHEN
THEY ARE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF THESE COMMITTEES, BECAUSE IT
RELIES UPON THE WORDING OF THE QUESTION. AND SO I THINK THAT IF
THERE IS ANYTHING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MINDING BOB MUELLER RIGHT
NOW WOULD LIKE HIM TO DO IS STOP DOING YES OR NO ANSWERS.
>>ON HIS TERMS, OF COURSE. THERE WERE A LOT OF VERY BRIEF
ANSWERS FROM ROBERT MUELLER. EACH ONE THAT WAS JUST PASS.
THERE WAS A LOT OF RESTATE THE QUESTION. I’LL JUST REFER YOU TO
THE REPORT. WAS THAT STRATEGY? >>I THINK THAT PART WAS
STRATEGY. I MEAN, AND IN FACT OUR COLLEAGUE DEVIN BARRETT DID
A STORY OVER THE WEEKEND GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT BOB
MUELLER’S CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY OVER THE YEARS. I
THINK THAT IS VERY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH THE BOB MUELLER WE
HAVE LONG KNOWN AND WHO HAS TESTIFIED MANY, MANY TIMES. HE
IS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING INTO THE PARTISAN GRUDGE MATCH
AND NOT PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN TESTIFYING. IF HE IS ASKED A
SIMPLE YOMP QUESTION HE CAN ANSWER WITH A WORN, HE IS GOING
TO PROVIDE IT. DEMOCRATS HAVE SAID WHAT THEY HOPE TO DO WITH
THIS HEARING IS BRING THE REPORT ALIVE. AND THEY WANTED BOB
MUELLER TO DO THAT FOR THEM. APPARENTLY WE HAVE SOME
REPORTING HIS PEOPLE HAD SENT WORD TO THE COMMITTEE AHEAD OF
TIME THAT HE WOULD STICK TO THE REPORT, BUT HE WOULD NOT READ
THE REPORT. AND THERE WAS A MOMENT WHERE HE WAS ASKED TO DO
SO AND HE SAID THANK YOU AND BEGAN READING TO HIMSELF QUIETLY
AND THEN RASKIN SAID WILL YOU DO THAT PUBLICLY AND HE DEMURRED
AND SAID NO, YOU CAN DO IT. SO I DO THINK THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING
A MORE DISCIPLINED JOB THAN THEY OFTEN DO IN HEARINGS LIKE THIS
OF KIND OF HAVING A GAME PLAN AND STICKING TO IT. THEY HAVE
THESE EPISODES THESE MOMENTS OF PRESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOR THAT ARE
DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE SORT OF
NARRATED ALOUD, BUT THE PROBLEM IS BOB MUELLER WILL NOT BE THE
NARRATOR. >>HE WAS NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
>>ALL HE WILL SAY IS YES THAT SOUNDS ACCURATE, THAT IS WHAT
THE REPORT SAYS.
>>AARON DID YOU NOTICE THE CHOREOGRAPHY WHERE MEMBERS GOT
ONTO THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE TEXT AND THERE WASN’T A IT UP OF
REPETITION? >>NO IT IS CLEAR THE MEMBERS,
BOTH SIDES, PREPARED FOR THIS HEARING. THERE WAS A REHEARSAL
HEARING YESTERDAY ACTUALLY WHICH IS UNUSUAL FOR THESE KINDS OF
THINGS. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE LACK OF A KIND OF IMPORTANT
MOMENT FROM BOB MUELLER FOR DEMOCRATS WAS LESS ABOUT THEIR
PREPAREDNESS OR GOOD QUESTIONS AND MORE ABOUT HOW, WHEN YOU
DON’T HAVE, WHEN YOU HAVE A WITNESS WHO ISN’T THERE TO
ASSIST YOU, NECESSARILY, AND WHO ISN’T EXACTLY ON THE DETAILS OF
WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO LAY OUT A CASE
FOR PEOPLE. AND SOENING THE FACT THAT BOB MUELLER DELIVERED THAT
KIND OF PERFORMANCE REALLY PLAYED INTO WHAT REPUBLICANS
WERE TRYING DO AND AGAINST WHAT DEMOCRATS WERE TRYING DO.
>>WHAT THIS REMINDED ME OF, I HAVE COVERED SOME CRIMINAL
CASES, TRIALS BEFORE AND THIS FELT A LOT LIKE A
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS. POTENTIALLY A HOSTILE WITNESS.
WHERE THE LAWYERS ARE ALLOWED TO ASK HEADING QUESTIONS AND HIS
GOAL IS TO GET THE JURY TO HEAR THINGS IN THE QUESTION AND TO
FORCE THE WITNESS TO SAY YES OR NO. THE PROBLEM IS IN A CRIMINAL
CASE AT THE END OF ALL THAT YOU GET A CLOSING STATEMENT. YOU GET
THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO AND MAKE AN ARGUMENT AND TIE IT ALL
TOGETHER AND SAY REMEMBER WHEN THE WITNESS SAID I ASKED HIM
THIS QUESTION ASK HE SAID YES? THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A
CLOSING STATEMENT. >>IS THERE A WAY FOR THEM TO GO
BACK AND STITCH THINGS TOGETHER AND MAKE A MORE CONVINCING CASE
OUT OF ROBERT MUELLER’S BREADCRUMBS?
>>IT IS POSSIBLE. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS GOING
TO BE MORE INTERESTED IN RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, COUNTER INTELLIGENCE. THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE LIKES TO PRIDE ITSELF ON BEING MORE
SERIOUS. THE IDEA THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
ARE GOING TO MAKE A STRONG POLITICAL CASE OR FOCUS ON
DRIVING HOME A MESSAGE FOR THEIR PARTY RATHER THAN ELICITING REAL
ANSWERS FROM MUELLER, I THINK WE’LL SEE LESS OF THAT THAN WE WOULD SEE IN A JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. >>>WHILE THE DEMOCRATIC LARGELY
FOCUSED ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND ROBERT MUELLER’S WRITTEN REPORT, THE REPUBLICANS TRIED
MANY TACTICS. >>DID YOU INTERVIEW HIM?
>>I CAN’T GET INTO THAT. >>IS RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE.
>>I CAN’T GET INTO THAT AND A LOT OF THINGS YOU CAN’T GET
INTO. >>PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL REGULATIONS WHO IS THE ONLY PARTY THAT MUST RECEIVE THE
CHARGING DECISION RESULTING FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL
INVESTIGATION? WITH REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT? OR GENERALLY?
>>NO GENERALLY. >>ATTORNEY GENERAL.
>>THE PROSECUTOR WOULD MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE OF
IMPROPRIETY, BUT IN YOUR CASE YOU HIRED A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT
DID NOT LIKE THE PRESIDENT. WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN OF PETER
STRZOK’S ANIMUS TOWARD DONALD TRUMP?
>>IN THE SUMMER OF 2017. >>ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO IN THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT AND STRZOK BOTH WORKED ON YOUR TEAM,
DIDN’T THEY? >>I HEARD STRZOK. WHO ELSE?
>>ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO IDENTIFIED IN THE INSPECTOR
AGAIN’S REPORT. AND THE QUESTION WITH WAS?
>>DID HE WORK FOR YOU? PETER STRZOK WORK FOR ME FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, YES.
>>>RIGHT THERE WE HE SEE A LOT OF MENTION OF THE STAFF. WHAT
ELSE? >>DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE GUIDANCE MUELLER WAS GIVEN FROM THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, BILL BARR, NOT TO TALK ABOUT THINGS IN THE
REPORT. YOU ACTUALLY DID SEE MOMENTS WHERE IN SOME WAYS, THAT
WAS MORE HURTFUL TO REPUBLICANS THAN DEMOCRATS. IT GAVE BOB
MUELLER A LOT OF LEEWAY TO SAY I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS. I’M
NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. SO REPUBLICANS THAT WANTED TO USE
THIS HEARING TO MAKE CERTAIN POINTS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THE
RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION AND THE STEELE DOSSIER AND ABOUT THE
FBI AGENTS SHOWING ANIMUS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP, REPEATEDLY BOB
MUELLER WOULD NOT GO THERE. HE KEPT SAYING THEY WERE OUT OF HIS
PURVIEW, NOTING THERE ARE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS AT THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INTO THOSE MATTERS. HE WOULD NOT GO THERE.
AND YOU KNOW, SO THEY GOT TO MAKE THEIR POINTS IN THEIR OWN
WORDS, BUT THEY DIDN’T REALLY GET ANYTHING OUT OF HIM EITHER.
THEY DIDN’T LEARN ANYTHING NEW FOR SURE.
>>>I THOUGHT THERE WAS ONE INTERESTING MOMENT ON STRZOK
WHEN IT WAS FIRST BROUGHT UP. THE CONGRESSMAN FROM TEXAS
REPUBLICAN WAS ASKING THE QUESTIONS. HE ASKED MUELLER YOU
KNOW, WHEN DID YOU FIRST FIND OUT THAT PETER STRZOK HATED
DONALD TRUMP? AND MUELLER DIDN’T DIFFER WITH THAT PREMISE AT ALL,
WHICH I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING. HE SAID YOU KNOW, I DIDN’T KNOW
THAT AT THE TIME. BUT I REMOVED HIM SOON. I THINK THAT WAS A
GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHEN A WITNESS WHO WAS MORE PREPARED MIGHT HAVE
OFFERED MORE OF A STUDIED ANSWER, MIGHT HAVE QUIBBLED WITH
SOMETHING THE MEMBER WAS SAYING RATHER THAN JUST TRYING TO GET
PAST THE QUESTION. >>>CONGRESSMAN JEFFERIES MADE
THE ARGUMENT TRUMP HAD COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE
MCGAHN INSTANCE AND HE BROUGHT UP YOU KNOW HIS ANALYSIS, THE
3-POINT ANALYSIS THAT WE KEPT HEARING ABOUT. AND THEN ASKED
MUELLER WHETHER HE AGREED. AND IN THAT CASE MUELLER SAID I
DISAGREE WITH YOUR ANALYTICAL CHARGE. SO I THINK IT IS
INTERESTING WHEN DEMOCRATS DID TRY TO GET HIM TO YOU KNOW, GO
OUTSIDE OF WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE REPORT, SOMETIMES IT
MISFIRED. >>HE PUT THE DOTS OUT THERE BUT
HE DOESN’T WANT TO BE THE ONE WHO CONNECTS THEM FOR PEOPLE. IN
THE REPORT THERE ARE FOUR MAYBE FIVE OF THE 10 POTENTIAL
OBSTRUCTION EPISODES IN WHICH HE LAID OUT WHAT HE SAID WAS HIS
OWN WORDS EVIDENCE FOR EACH OF THOSE THREE CRITERIA BEING
SATISFIED OF THE WHAT CONGRESSMAN JEFFERIES WAS ASKING
HIM TO DO WAS SAY YES, IT SATISFIED ALL THREE CRITERIA,
WHICH MUELLER DOESN’T SAY SO EXPLICITLY. YOU HAVE TO READ
BETWEEN THE LINES AND THERE ARE ARGUMENTS AGAINST MAYBE THESE
ACTUALLY BEING EVIDENCE AND BEING THE CRITERIA. SO IT IS
MORE COMPLEX THAN I THINK ROBERT MUELLER MADE CLEAR BEFORE HIS
TESTIMONY HE WASN’T GOING TO SHOW UP THERE AND BE ANYBODY’S
POSTER BOY FOR WHAT THIS INVESTIGATION FOUND AND WHAT IT
IS GOING TO MEAN MOVING FORWARD HE WAS JUST GOING TO STATE WHAT
WAS IN THE REPORT. >>I THINK IT WAS INTERESTING
TOO GETTING MUELLER TO USE PLAIN LANGUAGE WAS NOT WORKING. HE WAS
NOT GOING TO USE LAYMAN’S TERMS.>>AND THAT WAS ESPECIALLY TRUE
ABOUT ONE POINT THAT WAS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO
DEMOCRATS, WHICH WAS THE IMPEACHMENT WORD. THERE WAS AN
INTERESTING MOMENT AT THE VERY END, RIGHT BEFORE THE BREAK,
WHERE ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS REFERRED TO THE FOOTNOTE IN
VOLUME 2 OF THE REPORT. THAT IS
CONTEMPLATING SOMETHING ABOUT OTHER MECHANISMS FOR HOLDING THE
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE BEYOND THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM AND YOU KNOW,
SHE ASKED HIM TO SAY WHAT ARE THOSE OTHER MECHANISMS? AND
THERE IS REALLY ONLY ONE AND IT IS AN OBVIOUS ANSWER. AND YOU
KNOW, ALL HE WOULD SAY IS WELL, I THINK YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT
THEM. BUT HE WOULDN’T ANSWER IT, RIGHT? HE WOULD NOT SAY
IMPEACHMENT. THERE HE SIDE STEPPED IT EACH IN A SORT OF
HYPOTHETICAL WAY. WHAT ARE THE WAYS YOU CAN HOLD A PRESIDENT
ACCOUNTABLE? HE WOULDN’T GIVE THEM THE SOUND BYTE.
>>>I THINK WE HEARD CHAIRMAN NADLER IN HIS OPENING
QUESTIONING TRIED TO GET HIM TO SAY IN LAYMAN’S TERMS AND THAT
TERMED OUT TO BE FUN WHETHER IT WAS EXCULPATORY, WHICH IS NOT
EXACTLY LAYMAN’S TERMS. >>IT IS LAYMAN’S IF YOU ARE A
LAWYER. >>IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION
EXCULPATORY IS A SYNONYM FOR EXONERATE. I THINK THAT IS ONE
EXAMPLE OF DEMOCRATS WILL WANT TO FOCUS ON THIS THING THAT
MUELLER SAID THAT WAS COMPLETELY THE SAME AS BASICALLY WHAT WAS
IN HIS REPORT. SO TO THE EXTENT DEMOCRATS THINK IT IS GREAT TO
HAVE HIM SAY OUT LOUD THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN DOWN IN TEXT
THEY GOT THAT AT CERTAIN POINTS. BUT THE IDEA THAT IS GOING TO
CHANGE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE’S MINDS I THINK IS FOOL HARDY.
>>>LOOKING FORWARD TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEETING
MUCH MORE OF A FOCUS ON RUSSIA. MIGHT THEY GET FURTHER WITH THE
FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL THERE? >>IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE IT.
THEY MAY GET A LITTLE FURTHER WITH AARON ZEBLY. HAVING HIM AT
THE TABLE HAS SOME PLUSES AND MINUSES FOR DEMOCRATS. THEY
DON’T WANT TO LEAD TO THE IMPRESSION THAT BOB MUELLER
WASN’T IN CHARGE. ON THE OTHER HAND THEY MIGHT GET A FEW MORE
FACTS. AARON ZEBLY IS A LONG TIME FORMER OFFICIAL AND AS AN
FBI AGENT USED TO TAKE TAKE THE STAND IN CRIMINAL
TRIALS. WHEN YOU THERE IS SOME QUESTION HOW HELPFUL IS IT TO
HEAR FROM THIS GUY NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF BEFORE?
>>RIGHT AND WILL THAT FEED INTO THE NARRATIVE BOB MUELLER IS NOT
THE FACE OF THE MUELLER REPORT. >>I THINK ONE SMALL POINT ABOUT
THIS SECOND HEARING THAT ISN’T NECESSARILY THE MAIN FOCUS. BUT
I THINK THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR DEMOCRATS TO
FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE WITCH HUNT NARRATIVE. AS ROBERT
MUELLER SAID IN HIS STATEMENT IT LED TO 37 INDICTMENTS. I DON’T
HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME HERE. THERE WERE
SIGNIFICANT, THERE WERE CRIMES, THERE WERE ACTUAL THINGS THAT
YOU KNOW, HALF OF IT DEALT WITH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, EXCEPT ADDRESSING THE
CONSPIRACY ASPECT OF THINGS. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY
FOR DEMOCRATS TO MAKE THE CASE THAT THIS WAS A VALUABLE
INVESTIGATION REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT CONCLUDED
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. >>>WE WERE TALKING EARLIER
ABOUT CONGRESSMAN AL GREEN, ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROPONENTS OF
IMPEACHMENT. AND WHAT HE SAID. FINDING THIS WAS NOT A PIVOT
MOMENT. OUR REPORTER ON CAPITOL HILL, HANNAH, JUST SPOKE TO
CONGRESSMAN GREEN. LET’S SEE WHAT HE HAD TO SAY TO THE
WASHINGTON POST. >>IF WE DO NOT IMPEACH HIM, HE
IS MORE LIKELY TO WIN THAN NOT. I THINK IMPEACHMENT WILL
SENT A MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY WE TAKE THIS
SERIOUSLY. IF WE DO NOT IMPEACH HIM, HE WILL GO OUT AND SAY I
HAVE BEEN EXONERATED. THE HOUSE HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO IMPEACH
ME, BUT THEY DID NOT. AND I THINK HE WILL USE THAT AS HIS
CLARION CALL FOR HIS SUPPORTERS TO MOVE FORWARD AND PLACE HIM
BACK IN OFFICE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE DO IMPEACH HIM AND
LET’S ASSUME THE SENATE DOES NOT FIND HIM GUILTY, I THINK IT WILL
SEND A MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY THAT THE HOUSE WAS
WILLING TO DO ITS JOB AND PERHAPS THEY SHOULD TAKE A
SECOND LOOK AT THE SENATE AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT.
>>>AARON BLAKE, WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS POLITICAL ANALYSIS?
>>IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE ONE NANCY PELOSI WOULD OFFER. SHE
WOULD SAY THE IDEA THAT YOU IMPEACH A PRESIDENT AND THEN THE
SENATE DOES NOT REMOVE FROM OFFICE, BECAUSE YOU NEED
TWO-THIRDS IN THE SENATE TO ACTUALLY REMOVE THE PRESIDENT
WOULD GIVE THE PRESIDENT EVEN MORE ABILITY TO SAY HE WAS
EXONERATED OR FOUND NOT GUILTY BY THIS WHOLE THING. THE OTHER
PART OF THIS FOR DEMOCRATS IS NOT JUST WHAT IT MEANS FOR
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S REELECTION IN 2020, BUT WHAT IT MEANS FOR
HOUSE DEMOCRATS REELECTIONS IN 2020. THERE ARE LOTS OF
DEMOCRATS IN MODERATE DISTRICTS, EVEN TRUMP DISTRICTS THAT WOULD
BE FORCED INTO A VERY DIFFICULT IMPEACHMENT VOTE. YOU COULD SEE
THAT ALSO IN THE SENATE, WITH SOME OF THE MORE IN TROUBLE
DEMOCRATS WHO WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO
VOTE TO REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE, WHICH MIGHT NOT BE TERRIBLY
POPULAR WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE BACK HOME. THIS IS JUST A MINE FIELD
A POLITICAL MINE FIELD FOR DOCKS TO WANDER INTO.
>>>I THINK MOST DEMOCRATS WHO SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT WOULD TELL
YOU THEY DO SO WITHOUT REGARD TO THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES. THEY
THINK THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED BASED OFF OF HIS
BEHAVIOR AND HIS ACTIONS AND THERE YOU HAVE A DEMOCRAT
ARGUING IF WE DON’T IMPEACH HIM HE IS GOING TO BE REELECTED. I
DON’T KNOW THAT IS A HELPFUL MESSAGE. THAT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO
BE THE POINT AIDING OR NOT AIDING HIS REELECTION EFFORT.
>>>LET’S GO TO RHONDA COLVIN. WHAT ARE THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
TELLING YOU AT THIS HALFWAY.OF MUELLER DAY?
>>Reporter: EMILY, MOMENTS AGO WE HAD SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY COME TO THE MICROPHONES AND TALK ABOUT THEIR
TAKE AWAYS OF TODAY. THEY ARE VERY ENERGIZED. THEY BELIEVE
THEY HAD A PRETTY GOOD HEARING. THEY BELIEVE MUELLER WAS
FORTHCOMING. THEY BELIEVE HE PUT FORTH TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THEY
SAID THIS DOES MOVE THE NEEDLE, THIS MAY, IN FACT, MOVE THE
NEEDLE A LITTLE BIT MORE TO GET MORE MEMBERS TO JOIN THE RANKS
OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLING FOR AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. AGAIN THEY
ARE VERY, VERY ENERGIZED RIGHT NOW. THEY THINK THE FIRST
PORTION OF THE HEARING WENT VERY WELL FOR THEIR SIDE. ONLY ONE
REPUBLICAN CAME TO THE MICROPHONE, THAT WAS THE
MINORITY RANKING MEMBER COLLINS. HE OF COURSE HAD THE OTHER
VIEWS. HE THINKS HIS SIDE DID WELL AND HE BELIEVES THIS IS
UNNECESSARY FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO BRING MUELLER IN TODAY AND THAT
THIS SHOULD BE A CASE THAT IS CLOSED. RIGHT NOW WE ARE GOING
TO HEAD INTO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE’S HEARING. THEY ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE INTO THE ELECTION. BACK TO YOU.
>>>THANKS, RHONDA. WE’LL BE BACK WITH YOU IN JUST A BIT.
GUYS LET’S RECAP A LITTLE BIT MORE OF WHAT WE HEARD THIS
MORNING. THERE WAS A KEY MOMENT YOU JUST MENTIONED TO ME ABOUT
THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL NOT REMEMBERING A KEY PIECE OF
INFORMATION THAT SEEMS KIND OF OBVIOUS.
>>YEAH, THERE WERE VARIOUS POINTS IN THE HEARING WHEN HE
SEEMED TO HAVE TROUBLE REMEMBERING THINGS YOU WOULD
THINK HE WOULD KNOW ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION. I REMEMBER ONE,
HE WAS ASKED IF FUSION GPS WAS THE
ENTITY THAT COMMISSIONED THE STEELE REPORT. AND HE COULDN’T
REMEMBER. THAT IS A BASIC PIECE OF INFORMATION.
>>HE COULD HAVE SAID I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.
>>HE COULD. INSTEAD HE SAID HE COULDN’T REMEMBER. BUT THERE WAS
THIS STRIKING MOMENT AT THE END, ONE OF THE LAST DEMOCRATS, YOU
KNOW, WHO SEEMED TO SORT OF BE TRYING TO DO A REAL SOFTBALL
KIND OF GIFT TO THE SPECIAL COUNSELOR, DESCRIBING HIS
BACKGROUND, HIS HONORABLE SERVICE IN VIETNAM, WHERE HE WAS
AWARDED VARIOUS MEDALS FOR BRAVERY, HIS LONG-TERM OF
SERVICE IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, UNDER DEMOCRATIC AND
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS. AND HE WAS SORT OF TRYING TO GET
MUELLER TO HELP HIM ALONG AND EXPLAIN HIS AMAZING AND VERY
PATRIOTIC BIOGRAPHY AND HE ASKED HIM WHICH WAS THE PRESIDENT WHO
APPOINTED YOU U.S. ATTORNEY? THIS WAS A VERY SEMINAL MOMENT
IN THE LIFE OF A LAWYER. SHOULD BE QUITE EASY FOR HIM. AND HE
BLANKED. HE SAID HE COULDN’T REMEMBER WHICH PRESIDENT
APPOINTED HIM AND THEN HE SAID I THINK IT WAS BUSH. AND ACTUALLY
IT WAS RONALD REAGAN. MAYBE HE COULDN’T HEAR. HE WAS APPOINTED
TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT JOBS BY DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS. MAYBE HE
DIDN’T QUITE HEAR WHICH JOB HE WAS BEING ASKED ABOUT, BUT THAT
WAS A STRIKING MOMENT TO HAVE TROUBLE RECALLING REALLY A KEY
MOMENT IN HIS OWN BIOGRAPHY. >>THAT WAS THE FIRST GOVERNMENT
POSITION HE WAS APPOINTED TO. HE WAS LATER APPOINTED TO OTHER
POSITIONS BY GEORGE H.W. BUSH, INCLUDING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL CRIMINAL DIVISION, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA, WHERE HE WAS APPOINTED BY BILL CLINTON.
>>AND HE WAS APPOINTED FBI DIRECTOR BY GEORGE W. BUSH. HE
COULD HAVE MISHEARD OR MISREMEMBERED.
>>YOU WOULD THINK THE FIRST JOB HE GOT, SUCH AN IMPORTANT JOB, YOU WOULD THINK HE WOULD
REMEMBER REAGAN APPOINTED HIM. >>THERE IS A PHOTO ON THE WALL.
>>EACH PEOPLE WHO HAVE ASCENDED TO OTHER JOBS SPEAK OF AS A KEY
MOMENT IN THEIR LIVES. >>>LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GOING SOON
INTO THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING. THE CHAIRMAN,
ADAM SCHIFF HAS BEEN SEATED. GUYS, BEFORE WE DO THAT, WHAT
WILL YOU BE LOOKING FOR IN THIS HEARING? WHAT ARE THE EYES ON
THE BALL? WHERE SHOULD IT BE? I THINK WE KNOW A LITTLE LESS
ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY FOR THIS HEARING. IN THE
PREVIOUS HEARING THEY HAD TELEGRAPHED THEY WERE GOING TO
SORT OF WALK THROUGH THE DIFFERENT EPISODES OF
OBSTRUCTION. IN THIS HEARING IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW
MUCH THEY FOCUS ON TRUMP OR IF THEY REALLY TRY AS AARON WAS
SAYING EARLIER TO TALK MORE ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT WAS FOUND THAT
RUSSIA DID TO REMIND PEOPLE HE DID UNCOVER THIS PLOT TO I WANT
FEAR IN THE U.S. ELECTION. >>>HEZBOLLAH . REMEMBER THERE
IS A BACK STORY. IT USED TO BE A NONPARTISAN THING. MEMBERS
PRIDED THEMSELVES ON BEING VERY SERIOUS THEN IT ALL FELL APART IN THE LAST CONGRESS,
ESPECIALLY AARP THE NUNEZ MEMO. WHERE THEY LAID THE GROUNDWORK
FOR ARGUING THAT THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION’S ORIGINS WERE
SOMEHOW NEFARIOUS. THE SURVEILLANCE OF CARTER PAGE WAS
SOME KIND OF A POLITICAL EFFORT, WAS TAINTED. IT USED THE STEELE
DOSSIER AND IT SHOULDN’T HAVE. SO THAT HAS REALLY POISONED THE
WELL IN THIS COMMITTEE IN A WAY WE HAVEN’T SEEN IN PAST
CONGRESSS. THERE WELL BE AN INTERESTING BALANCE BETWEEN THE
SERIOUS NATURE OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE
DEFINITE BAD BLOOD WE SEE BETWEEN THE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF
AND THE RANKING MEMBER, DEVIN NUNEZ, ONE
OF THE MOST REVILED REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS WHEN IT COMES TO
DEMOCRATS ASK DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS.
>>>WE ARE LOOKING NOW THIS IS STILL THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE ROOM. BECAUSE OF THE UNUSUAL INTEREST IN THIS
HEARING, AND THE STRUCTURE THAT THEY WORKED OUT WITH ROBERT
MUELLER HE IS GOING TO ACTUALLY COME BACK TO THIS VERY ROOM AND
THE MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ARE GOING TO SIT IN
THE SAME ROOM. THAT HAS MADE THINGS LOGISTICALLY A LOT EASIER
ON A BIG DAY ON CAPITOL HILL. WE ARE STILL AWAITING THE ARRIVAL
OF ROBERT MUELLER TO THE TABLE AND HE WILL, OF COURSE, BE
ACCOMPANIED IN THIS HEARING ROOM BY HIS DEPUTY, WHO WILL BE SWORN
IN AS A CO–WITNESS. SO THE TWO OF
THEM WILL BE SITTING AT THAT TABLE IN WHAT IS A FAMILIAR SEAT
FOR ROBERT MUELLER HAVING SPENT MANY HOURS THERE
THIS MORNING. CAN THIS INTELLIGENCE HEARING MOVE THE
BALL FORWARD ON ANY EFFORTS TO COMBAT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN
THE NEXT ELECTION? I KNOW THERE IS SOME LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS,
SOME HAVE STALLED. IT IS SUCH A POLITICAL HOT BUTTON ISSUE. CAN
THIS HEARING MOVE THINGS FORWARD BEYOND THAT?
>>I MEAN YOU KNOW, THINGS HAVE BEEN STUCK SO MUCH IN PARTISAN
GRIDLOCK, BASICALLY ON EVERY TOPIC ON CAPITOL HILL, YOU KNOW,
THERE IS A CHANCE THE DEMOCRATS REALLY WILL HONE IN ON THAT.
MAIN THERE IS A SORT OF LET’S MOVE ONTO THE CORE ISSUE OF
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND PERHAPS THERE WOULD BE SOME ADDITIONAL
BIPARTISAN TALK ON THAT. IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE. YOU KNOW, IT IS INTERESTING.
THE MUELLER PROBE IS OVER. YOU HAVE THE CASE OF ROGER STONE, THE FORMER TRUMP ADVISER ADVISER CHARGED WITH
LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT WIKILEAKS. ONE OF THE THINGS WE
HAVE SEEN IN STONE’S DEFENSE STRATEGY IS QUESTIONING THE
FINDING THAT RUSSIA WAS ACTUALLY BEHIND THE HACK AND BEHIND THE
STEALING OF E-MAILS THAT WERE GIVEN TO WIKILEAKS. I DON’T
THINK IT IS A SUCCESSFUL TRYING STRATEGY. THE JUDGE HAS NOT BEEN
VERY AMENABLE TO IT MOSTLY BECAUSE IT DOESN’T GET TO THE
HEART OF WHETHER OR NOT HE LIED TO CONGRESS. BUT ONE OF THE
INTERESTING THINGS IS, YOU DOPE SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE TAKING UP
THAT CAUSE ON FOX. I GUESS YOU SEE SOME. BUT I THINK THAT
REPUBLICANS HAVE FOUND THEIR WAY TO A PLACE TO BE ABLE TO SAY
OKAY, FINE, THE RUSSIANS DID INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION, BUT
TRUMP DIDN’T PARTICIPATE AND IT DIDN’T SWING THE ELECTION. AND
SO, THEY VIEW IT AS HELPFUL TALK ABOUT RUSSIA AND NOT TRUMP. I
WOULD BE CURIOUS ON YOUR THOUGHTS, AARON.
>>I WONDER ON ROGER STONE THE FACT THIS IS AN ONGOING TRIAL
AND ROBERT MUELLER DOES NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT ONGOING MATTERS IF
THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE HIM TO CLAM UP A LITTLE MORE THAN HE
DID IN THE FIRST HEARING. OBVIOUSLY ALL THE OBSTRUCTION
STUFF HAS KIND OF BEEN DEALT WITH. THERE ARE NO OUTSTANDING
CASES HAVING TO DO WITH THAT. BUT ROGER STONE IS A PLAYER IN
THE SAGA AND GIVEN THAT MATTER IS ONGOING, IS ROBERT MUELLER
GOING TO SAY I CAN’T GO INTO ANY DETAIL ON THAT?
>>THAT MIGHT FURTHER CURTAIL HIS WILLNESS. AND NOT JUST ROGER
STONE. THERE IS ANOTHER CASE, THE SOCIAL MEDIA CASE, THAT
WHERE 13 RUSSIANS AND THREE RUSSIAN COMPANIES WERE CHARGED
WITH A SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN. >>I’M GOING TO HIT PAUSE ON THE
CONVERSATION FOR ANOW. ROBERT MUELLER WILL BE SWORN IN VERY
SHORTLY. WE ARE GOING TO BRING YOU THIS HEARING LIVE AND
UNINTERRUPTED. WE’LL BE BACK WITH MORE WASHINGTON POST
REPORTING AND ANALYSIS ON THE OTHER END. THANKS SO MUCH .
>>>WE WILL COME TO ORDER. ON BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES I
WANT TO THANK YOU SPECIAL COUNSEL MALL MUELLER
FOR A LIFETIME OF SERVE TO THE COUNTRY. YOUR REPORT IS
METHODICAL AND DEVASTATING. IT TELLS THE STORY OF A FOREIGN
ADVERSARY SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC INTERVENTION IN A
CLOSE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH
TO DESERVE THE ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN AS YOU WELL POINT
OUT. BUT YOUR REPORT TELLS ANOTHER STORY AS WELL. THE STORY
OF THE 2016 ELECTION IS ALSO A STORY ABOUT DISLOYALTY TO
COUNTRY, ABOUT GREED, AND ABOUT LIES. YOUR INVESTIGATION
DETERMINED THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, INCLUDING DONALD TRUMP
HIMSELF, KNEW THAT A FOREIGN POWER WAS INTERVENING IN OUR
ELECTION AND WELCOMED IT, BUILT RUSSIAN MEDDLING INTO THEIR
STRATEGY AND USED IT. THIS LOYALTY TO COUNTRY, THOSE ARE
STRONG WORDS. BUT HOW ELSE ARE WE TO DESCRIBE A PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN WHICH DID NOT INFORM THE AUTHORITIES OF A FOREIGN
OFFER OF DIRT ON THEIR OPPONENT, WHICH DID NOT PUBLICLY SHUN IT
OR TURN IT AWAY, BUT WHICH, INSTEAD, INVITED IT, ENCOURAGED
IT, AND MADE FULL USE OF IT? THIS LOYALTY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
CRIMINAL AND STRAINED BY UNCOOPERATIVE WITNESSES, THE
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THE USE OF ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATIONS
YOUR TEAM WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH EACH ELEMENT OF THE
CRIME OF CONSPIRACY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SO NOT A
PROVABLE CRIME, IN ANY EVENT. BUT I THINK MAYBE SOMETHING
WORSE. A CRIME IS THE VIOLATION OF LAW WRITTEN BY CONGRESS. BUT
DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY VIOLATES THE VERY OATH OF CITIZENSHIP.
OUR DEVOTION TO A CORE PRINCIPAL ON WHICH OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED
WE THE PEOPLE, FOR THE SOME FOREIGN POWER THAT WISHES US
ILL, WE DECIDE WHO GOVERNS US. THIS IS ALSO A STORY ABOUT
MONEY. ABOUT GREED AND CORRUPTION. ABOUT THE LEADERSHIP
OF A CAMPAIGN WILLING TO COMPROMISE THE NATION’S
INTEREST, NOT ONLY TO WIN, BUT TO MAKE MONEY AT THE SAME TIME.
ABOUT A CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN INDEBTED TO PRO RUSSIAN
INTERESTS WHO TRIED TO USE HIS POSITION TO CLEAR HIS DEBTS AND
MAKE MILLIONS. ABOUT A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER TO USE HIS
POSITION TO MAKE MONEY FROM OTHER FOREIGN INTERESTS AND
ABOUT A CANDIDATE TRYING TO MAKE MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF THEM PUT
TOGETHER, WITH A REAL ESTATE PROJECT THAT TO HIM WAS WORTH A
FORTUNE, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THE REALIZATION OF A
LIFE LONG AMBITION. A TRUMP TOWER IN THE HEART OF MOSCOW. A
CANDIDATE WHO, IN FACT, VIEWED HIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN AS THE
GREATEST INFOMERCIAL IN HISTORY. DONALD TRUMP AND HIS SENIOR
STAFF WERE NOT ALONE IN THEIR DESIRE TO USE THE ELECTION TO
MAKE MONEY. IN RUSSIAN TOO THERE WAS A POWERFUL FINANCIAL MOTIVE.
PUTIN WANTED RELIEF FROM U.S. SANCTIONS IMPOSED OVER UKRAINE
AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. THE SECRET TRUMP TOWER MEETING
BETWEEN THE RUSSIANS AND SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS
WAS ABOUT SANCTIONS. THE SECRET CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN FLYNN AND
THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR WERE ABOUT SANCTIONS. TRUMP AND HIS
TEAM WANTED MORE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AND THE RUSSIANS
WANTED MORE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THEIR OLIGARCHS. THE
STORY DOESN’T END HERE EITHER. YOUR REPORT ALSO TELLS A STORY
ABOUT LIES. LOTS OF LIES. LAYS ABOUT A GLEAMING TOWER IN MOSCOW
AND LIES ABOUT TALKS WITH THE KREMLIN AND
LIES ABOUT EFFORTS TO FIRE YOU, AND LIES TO COVER IT UP. LIES
ABOUT SECRET NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS OVER SANCTIONS AND
LIES ABOUT WIKILEAKS. LAYS ABOUT MEETINGS TO SET UP SECRET BACK
CHANNELS AND LIES ABOUT A SECRET MEETING IN NEW YORK TRUMP TOWER.
LIES TO THE FBI, LIES TO YOUR STAFF, AND LIES TO THIS
COMMITTEE. LIES TO OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MOST
SERIOUS ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY BY A FOREIGN POWER IN OUR
HISTORY. THAT IS WHERE YOUR REPORT ENDS, DIRECT TORE
MUELLER. WITH A SCHEME TO COVER-UP, OBSTRUCT AND DECEIVE
EVERY BIT AS SYSTEMATIC AND PERVASIVE AS THE RUSSIAN
DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN ITSELF BUT FAR MORE PERNICIOUS IS THIS
ROT FROM WITHIN. EVEN NOW, AFTER 448 PAGES AND TWO VOLUMES, THE
DECEPTION CONTINUES. THE PRESSES AND HIS ACOLYTES SAY YOUR REPORT
FOUND NO COLLUSION, THOUGH YOUR REPORT EXPLICITLY DECLINED TO
ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. HENCE COLLUSION CAN INVOLVE CRIMINAL
AND NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT. YOUR REPORT LAID OUT MULTIPLE OFFERS
OF RUSSIAN HELP TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THE CAMPAIGN’S
ACCEPTANCE OF THAT HELP AND OVERT ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF
RUSSIAN HELP. TO MOST AMERICANS THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF
COLLUSION, WHETHER IT IS A CRIME OR NOT. THEY SAY YOUR REPORT
FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION, THOUGH YOU OUTLINE
NUMEROUS ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO OBSTRUCT
THE INVESTIGATION. THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN FULLY
EXONERATED, THOUGH YOU SPECIFICALLY DECLARE YOU COULD
NOT EXONERATE HIM. IN FACT, THEY SAY YOUR WHOLE INVESTIGATION WAS
NOTHING MORE THAN A WITCH HUNT. THAT THE RUSSIANS DIDN’T
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION, THAT IT IS ALL A TERRIBLE HOAX. THE
REAL CRIME, THEY SAY, IS NOT THAT THE RUSSIANS INTERVENED TO
HELP DONALD TRUMP, BUT THAT THE FBI HAD THE TEMERITY TO
INVESTIGATE IT WHEN THEY DID. BUT WORST OF ALL, WORSE THAN ALL
THE LIES AND THE GREED, IS THE DISLOYALTY TO
COUNTRY. FOR THAT TOO, CONTINUES. WHEN ASKED FOR THE
RUSSIANS INTERVENE AGAIN, WILL YOU TAKE THEIR HELP, MR.
PRESIDENT? WHY NOT? WAS THE ESSENCE OF HIS ANSWER. EVERYONE
DOES IT. NO, MR. PRESIDENT, THEY DON’T. NOT IN THE AMERICA
ENVISIONED BY JEFFERSON, MADISON AND HAMILTON. NOT FOR THOSE WHO
BELIEVE IN THE IDEA THAT LINCOLN LABORED UNTIL HIS DYING DAY TO
PRESERVE THE IDEA ANIMATING OUR GREAT NATIONAL EXPERIMENT SO UNIQUE THEN, SO
PRECIOUS STILL THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS CHOSEN BY OUR
PEOPLE, THROUGH OUR FRANCHISE, AND NOT BY SOME HOSTILE FOREIGN
POWER. THIS IS IS AT STAKE. OUR NEXT ELECTION. AND THE ONE AFTER
THAT. FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. OUR DEMOCRACY. THIS IS WHY YOUR
WORK MATTERS, DIRECTOR MUELLER. THIS IS WHY OUR INVESTIGATION MATTERS. TO BRING
THESE DANGERS TO LIGHT. RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ?
>>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WELCOME, EVERYONE TO THE LAST
GASP OF THE RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY THEIRRY. THE
DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO FOUST THIS SPECTACLE ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AS WELL AS YOU MR. MUELLER. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY RECALL THE
MEDIA FIRST BEGAN SPREADING THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY IN 2016. WHEN
THE HILLARY CLINTON STARTED DEVELOPING THE STEELE DOSSIER. A
COLLECTION OF OUTLANDISH ACCUSATIONS THAT TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATES
WERE RUSSIAN AGENTS. FUSION GPS FED THESE TO NAIVE OR PARTISAN
OFFICIALS AND THE FBI THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE
STATE DEPARTMENT. AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE FBI USED DOSSIER
ALLEGATIONS TO OBTAIN A WARRANT TO SPY ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
DESPITE ACKNOWLEDGING DOSSIER ALLEGATIONS AS BEING SALACIOUS
AND UNVERIFIED, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY BRIEFED
THOSE ALLEGATIONS TO PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP.
THOSE CONVENIENTLY LEAKED TO THE PRESS. RESULTING IN THE
PUBLICATION OF THE DOSSIER AND LAUNCHING THOUSANDS OF FALSE
PRESS STORIES, BASED ON THE WORD OF A FOREIGN EX SPY. ONE WHO
ADMITTED HE WAS DESPERATE THAT TRUMP LOSE THE ELECTION, AND WHO
WAS EVENTUALLY FIRED AS AN FBI SOURCE FOR LEAKING TO THE PRESS.
AFTER COMEY HIMSELF WAS FIRED, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, HE LEAKED
DEROGATORY INFORMATION ON PRESIDENT TRUMP TO THE PRESS FOR
THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND SUCCESSFULLY SO, OF ENGINEERING
THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL WHO SITS HERE BEFORE US
TODAY. THE FBI INVESTIGATION WAS MARRED BY FURTHER CORRUPTION AND BIZARRE ANEWS. TOP DOJ
OFFICIAL BRUCE ORR WHOSE OWN WIFE WORKED ON THE OPERATION FED
STEELE’S DOSSIER TO THE FBI EVEN AFTER THE FBI FIRED STEELE. THE TOP FBI
INVESTIGATE OF OR AND HIS LOVER TEXTED ABOUT HOW THEY WANTED TO
STOP TRUCK. AND THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION WAS BASED ON A TIP
FROM A FOREIGN POLITICIAN ABOUT A CONVERSATION INVOLVING JOSEPH
MISS. HE IS A MALTESE DIPLOMAT WIDELY PORTRAYED AS A RUSSIAN
AGENT, BUT SEEMS TO HAVE FAR MORE CONNECTIONS WEESERN
GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING OUR OWN FBI AND STATE DEPARTMENT AS WELL
AS RUSSIA. RAISING THE RED FLAGS AS WELL AS THE ABSURDITY OF THE
CLAIMS THEY ARE MAKING THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ARGUED EVIDENCE
OF COLLUSION IS HIDDEN JUST AROUND THE CORNER. LAKE THE LOCH
NESS MONSTER, THEY INSIST IT IS THERE, EVEN IF NO ONE CAN FIND
IT. CONSIDER THIS IN MARCH 2017, DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMIT TEA
SAID THEY HAD MORE THAN
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. MR.MUELLER WAS SOON
APPOINTED AND THEY SAID HE WOULD FIND THE COLLUSION. THEN WHEN NO
COLLUSION WAS FOUND, THE DEMOCRATS SAID WE FIND IT IN HIS
FINAL REPORT. THEN WHEN THERE WAS NO COLLUSION IN THE REPORT,
WE WERE TOLD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WAS HIDING IT. THEN WHEN IT
WAS CLEAR BARR WASN’T HIDING ANYTHING, WE WERE TOLD IT WILL
BE REVEALED THROUGH A HEARING WITH MR. MUELLER HIMSELF. AND
NOW MR. MUELLER IS HERE. THEY ARE CLAIMING THE COLLUSION HAS
ACTUALLY BEEN IN HIS REPORT ALL ALONG. HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT.
AND THEY ARE RIGHT. THERE IS COLLUSION IN PLAIN SIGHT.
COLLUSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THE DEMOCRATS
INCLUDED WITH RUSSIAN SOURCES TO DEVELOP THE STEELE DOSSIER AND A RUSSIAN
LAWYER INCLUDED WITH FUSION GPS HEAD GLENN SIMPLES-ON. THE
DEMOCRATS HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED BOTH IN INTERVIEWS AND THROUGH
THEIR USUAL ANONYMOUS STATEMENTS TO REPORTERS THAT TODAY’S
HEARING IS NOT ABOUT GETTING INFORMATION AT ALL, THEY SAID
THEY WANT TO QUOTE BRING THE MUELLER REPORT TO LIFE. AND
CREATE A TELEVISION MOMENT THROUGH PLOYS LIKE HAVING MR.
MUELLER RECITE PASSAGES FROM HIS OWN REPORT. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS
HEARING IS POLITICAL THEATER. IT IS A HAIL MARY ATTEMPT TO
CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT COLLUSION IS REAL. AND THAT
IT IS CONCEALED IN THE REPORT. GRANTED, THAT IS A STRANGE
ARGUMENT TO MAKE ABOUT A REPORT THAT IS PUBLIC. IT IS ALMOST
LIKE THE DEMOCRATS PREPARED ARGUMENTS ACCUSING MR. BARR OF
HIDING THE REPORT AND DIDN’T BOTHER TO UPDATE THEIR CLAIMS
ONCE HE PUBLISHED THE ENTIRE THING. AMONG CONGRESSIONAL
DEMOCRATS, THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER ABOUT
FINDING THE TRUTH. IT IS ALWAYS BEEN A SIMPLE MEDIA OPERATION BY
THEIR OWN ACCOUNTS, THIS OPERATION CONTINUES IN THIS ROOM
TODAY. ONCE AGAIN, NUMEROUS PRESSING ISSUES ARE PUT ON HOLD
TO INDULGE THE POLITICAL FANTASIES OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED
IT WAS THEIR DESTINY TO SERVE HILLARY CLINTON’S
ADMINISTRATION. IT IS TIME FOR THE CURTAIN TO CLOSE ON THE
RUSSIA HOAX, THE CONSPIRACY THEORY IS DEAD. AT SOME POINT, I
WOULD ARGUE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET BACK TO WORK. UNTIL THEN
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
>>>TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND MAKE SURE OUR HEARING IS PROMPT I
KNOW WE GOT A LATE START, DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE HEARING
WILL BE STRUCTURED FOLLOWS. EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WILL BE
AFFORDED 5 MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS BEGINNING WITH THE
CHAIR AND RANKING MEMBER OF THE AS CHAIR I WILL RECOGNIZE
THEREAFTER IN ALTERNATING FASHION AND DESCENDING SENIORITY
MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY. THE RANKING MEMBER
WILL BE AFFORDED AN ADDITIONAL 5 MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS
FOLLOWED BY THE CHAIR WITH AN ADDITIONAL 5 MINUTES FOR
QUESTIONS. THE RANKING MEMBER AND THE CHAIR WILL NOT BE
PERMITTED TO DELEGATE OR YIELD OUR FINAL ROUND TO ANY OTHER
MEMBER. AFTER SIX MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY AND MAIN NEWPORT HAVE
CONCLUDED THEIR 5 MINUTE ROUNDS OF QUESTIONS WE’LL TAKE A 5 OR
10 MINUTE BREAK. WE UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE REQUESTED, BEFORE
RESUMING THE HEARING WITH CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL, STARTING
HIS ROUND OF QUESTIONS. SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER ACCOMPANIED
TODAY BY AARON ZEBLEY, WHO SERVED AS DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL
FROM MAY 2017 UNTIL MAY 2019 AND HAD DAY-TO-DAY OVERSIGHT OF THE
COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION. MR.MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY
RESIGNED AT THE END OF MAY 2019 WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S
OFFICE WAS CLOSED. BOTH MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY WILL BE
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS TODAY AND WILL BE SWORN IN
CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF THE HOUSE AND THE COMMITTEE.
MR.MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY’S APPEARANCE IS IN KEEPING WITH
THE COMMITTEE’S LONG STANDING PRACTICE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY
FROM CURRENT OR FORMER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI
PERSONNEL REGARDING OPEN AND CLOSED INVESTIGATIVE MATTERS. AS
THIS HEARING IS UNDER OATH AND BEFORE WE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY,
MR. MUELLER AND ZEBLEY, WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT-HANDS TO BE
SWORN? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO
GIVE AT THIS HEARING IS THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH? THANK YOU. THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THE WITNESSES HAVE
BEEN DULY SWORN. RANKING MEMBER?>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I WANT
TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR MR. ZEBLEY TO BE SWORN IN. WE ARE HERE TO ASK
DIRECTOR MUELLER QUESTIONS. HE IS HERE AS COUNSEL. OUR SIDE IS
NOT GOING TO BE DIRECTING ANY QUESTIONS TO MR. ZEBLEY AND WE
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HIS PRIOR REPRESENTATION OF THE HILLARY
CLINTON CAMPAIGN AIDE, SO I JUST WANT TO VOICE THAT CONCERN THAT
WE DO HAVE. WE WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING ANY QUESTIONS TO MR.
ZEBLEY TODAY. >>I THANK THE RANKING MEMBER. I
REALIZE, AS PROBABLY DO MR. ZEBLEY, THAT THERE IS AN ANGRY
MAN DOWN THE STREET WHO IS NOT HAPPY ABOUT YOU BEING HERE
TODAY. BUT IT IS UP TO THIS COMMITTEE AND NOT ANYONE ELSE
WHO WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE SWORN IN AND TESTIFY AND YOU ARE
WELCOME AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN TO TESTIFY AND MEMBERS MAY DIRECT
THEIR QUESTIONS TO WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE. WITH THAT, DIRECTOR MUELLER?
>>GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, RANKING MEMBER AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I TESTIFIED THIS MORNING BEFORE
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I ASKED THAT THE OPENING STATEMENT
I MADE BEFORE THAT COMMITTEE BE INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD
HERE. >>WITHOUT OBJECTION, DIRECTOR.
>>I UNDERSTAND THIS COMMITTEE HAS A UNIQUE JURISDICTION AND
THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN FURTHER UNDERSTANDING THE
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR INVESTIGATION. SO LET ME
SAY A WORD ABOUT HOW WE HANDLED THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF OUR
INVESTIGATION ON COUNTER INTELLIGENCE MATTERS. AS WE
EXPLAINED IN OUR REPORT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS
EFFECTIVELY GAVE ME THE ROLE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. AS A
RESULT WE STRUCTURED OUR INVESTIGATION AROUND EVIDENCE
FOR POSSIBLE USE IN PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL CRIMES. WE DID NOT
REACH WHAT YOU WOULD CALL COUNTER INTELLIGENCE
CONCLUSIONS. WE DID, HOWEVER, SET UP PROCESSES IN THE OFFICE
TO IDENTIFY AND PASS COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION
ONTO THE FBI. MEMBERS OF OUR OFFICE PERIODICALLY BRIEFED THE
FBI ABOUT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION. IN ADDITION THERE
WERE AGENTS AND ANALYSTS FROM THE FBI WHO WERE NOT ON OUR TEAM
BUT WHOSE JOB IT WAS TO IDENTIFY COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION
IN OUR FILES AND TO DISSEMINATE THAT INFORMATION TO THE FBI. FOR
THESE REASONS, QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE FBI HAS DONE WITH THE
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM OUR INVESTIGATION
SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE FBI. I ALSO WANT TO REITERATE A FEW
POINTS I MADE THIS MORNING. I AM NOT MAKING ANY JUDGMENTS OR
MAKING OPINIONS ABOUT THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE IN ANY PENDING
CASE. IT IS UNUSUAL FOR A PROSECUTOR TO TESTIFY ABOUT A
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, AND GIVEN MY ROLE AS A PROSECUTOR,
THERE ARE REASONS WHY MY TESTIMONY WILL, NECESSARILY, BE
LIMITED. FIRST, PUBLIC TESTIMONY COULD AFFECT SEVERAL ONGOING
MATTERS. AND SOME OF THESE MATTERS COURT RULES OR JUDICIAL
ORDERS LIMIT THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO PROTECT THE
FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. AND
CONSISTENT WITH LONGSTANDING JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY IT
WOULD BE INPROPOSE FOR ME TO COMMENT ON AN ONGOING MATTER.
SECOND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS INSERTED PRIVILEGES, AND
DELIBERATIONS WITHIN OUR OFFICE. THESE ARE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
PRIVILEGES THAT I WILL RESPECT. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RELEASED A
LETTER DISCUSSING THE RESTRICTIONS ON MY TESTIMONY. I
THEREFORE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT CERTAIN
AREAS THAT I KNOW ARE OF PUBLIC INTEREST. FOR EXAMPLE, I AM
UNABLE TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPENING OF THE FBI’S
RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, WHICH OCCURRED MONTHS BEFORE MY
APPOINTMENT. OR MATTERS RELATED TO THE SO-CALLED STEELE DOSSIER.
THESE MATTERS ARE THE SUBJECT OF ONGOING REVIEW BY THE
DEPARTMENT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE TOPICS SHOULD THEREFORE BE
DIRECTED TO THE FBI OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THIRD, AS I
EXPLAINED THIS MORNING, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO ADHERE TO
WHAT WE WROTE IN OUR REPORT. THE REPORT CONTAINS OUR FINDINGS,
AND ANALYSIS AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISIONS WE MADE. WE STATED
THE RESULTS OF OUR INVESTIGATION WITH PRECISION. I DID NOT INTEND
TO SUMMARIZE OR DESCRIBE THE RESULTS OF OUR WORK IN A
DIFFERENT WAY IN THE COURSE OF MY TESTIMONY TODAY. AS I STATED
IN MAY, I ALSO WILL NOT COMMENT ON THE ACTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OR OF CONGRESS. I WAS APPOINTED AS A PROSECUTOR. AND I
INTEND TO ADHERE TO THAT ROLE AND TO THE DEPARTMENT’S
STANDARDS THAT GOVERN. FINALLY, AS I SAID THIS MORNING, OVER THE
COURSE OF MY CAREER, I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES TO OUR
DEMOCRACY. THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT’S EFFORTS TO
INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION IS AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS. I AM SURE THAT THE
COMMITTEE AGREES. BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS I WANT TO ADD A
CORRECTION TO MY TESTIMONY THIS MORNING. I WANT TO GO BACK TO
ONE THING THAT WAS SAID THIS MORNING BY MR. LAW, WHO SAID AND
I QUOTE YOU DIDN’T CHARGE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF THE OLC
OPINION. THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT WAY TO SAY IT. AS WE SAY IN THE
REPORT AND AS I SAID IN THE OPENING, WE DID NOT REACH A
DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME. AND
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I’M READY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>>>THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER. YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES A SWEEPING
AND SYSTEMATIC EFFORT BY RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE OUR PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT.
>>ASK DURING THE COURSE OF THIS RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE
ELECTION THE RUSSIANS MADE OUTREACH TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN,
DID THEY NOT? >>THAT OCCURRED OVER THE COURSE
OF YEAH, THAT OCCURRED. >>IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM YOUR
REPORT THAT DURING THAT RUSSIAN OUTREACH TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN,
NO ONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN EVER CALLED THE FBI TO
REPORT IT, AM I RIGHT? >>I DON’T KNOW THAT FOR SURE.
>>>IN FACT THE TAM WAYNE WELCOMED THE RUSSIAN HELP, DID
THEY NOT? >>I THINK WE REPORTED IN OUR
REPORT INDICATIONS THAT THAT OCCURRED, YES.
>>>THE PRESIDENT’S SON SAID WHEN HE WAS APPROACHED ABOUT
DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON, THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WOULD LOVE
IT? >>THAT IS GENERALLY WHAT WAS
SAID, YES. >>>PRESIDENT HIMSELF CALLED ON
THE RUSSIANS TO HACK HILLARY’S E-MAILS.
>>THERE WAS A STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT IN THOSE GENERAL
LINES. >>>NUMEROUS TIMES DURING THE
CAMPAIGN THE PRESIDENT PRAISED THE RELEASES OF THE RUSSIAN
HACKED E-MAILS THROUGH WIKILEAKS?
>>THAT DID OCCUR. >>>YOUR REPORT FOUND THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN PLANNED QUOTE A PRESS STRATEGY COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGN
AND MESSAGING UNQUOTE BASED ON THAT RUSSIAN ASSISTANCE?
>>I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >>>THAT LANGUAGE COMES FROM
VOLUME 1, PAGE 54. APART FROM THE RUSSIANS WANTING TO HELP
TRUMP WIN, SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN WERE ALSO TRYING TO MAKE MONEY DURING THE CAMPAIGN
AND TRANSITION, IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT IS DRAW.
>>PAUL MANAFORT WAS TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OR ACHIEVE DEBT
FORGIVENESS FROM A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH?
>>GENERALLY THAT IS ACCURATE. >>MICHAEL FLYNN WAS TRYING TO
MAKE MONEY FROM TURKEY? >>TRUE.
>>DONALD TRUMP WAS TRYING TO MAKE MILLIONS FROM A DEVELOPMENT
IN MOSCOW? TO THE EXTENT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A HOTEL IN MOSCOW,
YES. >>>NAME RUSS TRUMP ASSOCIATES
LIED TO YOUR TEAM THE GRAND JURY AND CONGRESS?
>>A NUMBER OF PERSONS WE INTERVIEWED IN OUR
INVESTIGATION, IT TURNS OUT DID LIE.
>>>MIKE FLYNN LIED?
>>HE WAS CONVICTED OF LYING, YES.
>>>WAS CONVICTED OF LYING? PAUL MANAFORT WAS CONVICTED OF LYING?
>>WENT SO FAR AS TO ENCOURAGE OTHER PEOPLE TO LIE?
>>MANAFORT’S DEPUTY RICK GATES LIED?
>>THAT IS ACCURATE. >>>MICHAEL COHEN THE
PRESIDENT’S LAWYER LIED? >>TRUE.
>>>HE LAID TO STAY ON MESSAGE WITH THE PRESIDENT?
>>ALLEGEDLY BY HIM. >>>WHEN DONALD TRUMP CALLED
YOUR INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT THAT WAS ALSO FALSE, WASN’T IT?
>>I WOULD LIKE TO THINK SO. >>>YOUR INVESTIGATION IS NOT A
WITCH HUNT. >>IT IS NOT A WITCH HUNT.
>>>WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WAS A HOAX
THAT WAS FALSE, WASN’T IT? >>TRUE.
>>>WHEN HE SAID IT PUBLICLY, IT WAS FALSE?
>>HE DID SAY PUBLICLY THAT IT WAS FALSE, YES.
>>>AND WHEN HE TOLD IT TO PUTIN THAT WAS FALSE TOO, WASN’T IT?
>>THAT I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH. >>>WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID HE
HAD NO BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA THAT WAS FALSE, WASN’T IT
AND. >>I’M IN THE GOING FOR GO INTO
DETAILS OF THE REPORT ALONG THOSE LINES.
>>>WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID HE HAD NO BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH
RUSSIA IN FACT HE WAS SEEKING TO BUILD A TRUMP TOWER IN MOSCOW,
WAS HE NOT? >>I THINK THERE IS SOME
QUESTION ABOUT WHEN THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED.
>>>YOU WOULD CONSIDER A BILLION DOLLARS DEAL TO BUILD A TOWER IN
MOSCOW TO BE BUSINESS DEALINGS WOULDN’T YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER?
>>ABSOLUTELY. >>>IN SHORT YOUR INVESTIGATION
FOUND EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIA WANTED TO HELP TRUMP WIN THE
ELECTION, RIGHT? >>I THINK GENERALLY, THAT WOULD
BE ACCURATE. >>>RUSSIA INFORMED CAMPAIGN
OFFICIALS OF THAT? >>I’M NOT CERTAIN TO WHAT
CONVERSATIONS YOU ARE REFERRING TO.
>>>WELL THROUGH AN INTIMMEDIATE AREA THAT INFORMATION TO MEN ARE
THE ANONYMOUS RELEASE OF STOLEN E-MAILS.
>>ACCURATE. >>>RUSSIA COMMITTED FEDERAL
CRIMES IN ORDER TO HELP DONALD TRUMP?
>>WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT COMPUTER CRIMES CHARGED IN OUR
CASE, ABSOLUTELY. >>>TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS
BUILT THEIR STRATEGY THEIR MESSAGING STRATEGY AROUND THOSE
STOLEN DOCUMENTS? >>GENERALLY THAT IS TRUE.
>>>AND THEN THEY LIED TO COVER IT UP?
>>GENERALLY THAT IS TRUE. >>>THANK YOU.
>>>THANK YOU, WELCOME, DIRECTOR. AS A FORMER FBI
DIRECTOR YOU WOULD AGREE THE FBI IS THE WORLD’S MOST CAPABLE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY? >>I WOULD SAY WE ARE YES.
>>>THE FBI CLAIMS THE COUNT INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION OF
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEGAN JULY 31, 2016. BUT IN FACT IT BEGAN
BEFORE THAT. IN JUNE BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION OFFICIALLY OPENED,
TRUMP CAMPAIGN ASSOCIATES CARTER PAGE AND ATTORNEY MILLER A
CURRENT TRUMP ADVISER WERE INVITED TO ATTEND A SYMPOSIUM AT
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY IN JULY 2016. YOUR OFFICE, HOWEVER, DID
NOT INVESTIGATE WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVITING THESE
ASSOCIATES TO THIS SYMPOSIUM. YOUR INVESTIGATORS ALSO FAILED
TO INTERVIEW AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO HELPED ORGANIZE THE EVENT
AND INVITED CARTER PAGE TO IT. IS THAT CORRECT?
>>CAN YOU REPARTY THE QUESTION.
>>>WHETHER OR NOT YOU INTERVIEWED STEVEN WHO ORGANIZED
THE CAMBRIDGE. >>THOSE AREAS I’M GOING TO STAY
WAY FROM. >>>THE FIRST TRUMP ASSOCIATE TO
BE INVESTIGATED WAS GENERAL FLYNN. MANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS
AGAINST HIM STEM FROM FALSE MADIA REPORTS THAT HE HAD AN
AFFAIR WITH A CAMBRIDGE ACADEMIC? AND THAT SHE WAS A
RUSSIAN SPY. SOME OF THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE PUBLIC IN
A 2017 ARTICLE WRITTEN BY BRITISH INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN
CHRISTOPHER ANDREW. THE REPORT FAILS TO REVEAL HOW OR WHY
ANDREW AND RICHARD DEAR LOVE, FORMER HEAD OF BRITAIN’S MI6
SPREAD THESE ALLEGATIONS AND YOU FAILED TO INTERVIEW HER ABOUT
THESE MATTERS, IS THAT CORRECT? >>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO
THOSE MATTERS TO WHICH YOU REFER.
>>>YOU HAD A TEAM OF 19 LAWYERS, 40 AGENTS, AND AN
UNLIMITED BUDGET, CORRECT MR. MUELLER?
>>I WOULD NOT SAY WE HAD AN UNLIMITED BUDGET.
>>>LET’S CONTINUE WITH THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATION
SUPPOSEDLY ON JULY 31, 2016. THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT OPEN BASED
ON AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT FROM INTELLIGENCE BUT BASED BY A
RUMOR CONVEYED BY ALEXANDER DOWNER ON VOLUME 1 PAGE 9 YOUR
REPORT DESCRIBES HIM BLANDLY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT. BUT HE WAS ACTUALLY A LONG TIME AUSTRALIAN
POLITICIAN, NOT A MILITARY OR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL. WHO HAD
PREVIOUSLY ARRANGED A $25 MILLION DONATION TO THE CLINTON
FOUNDATION AND HAS PREVIOUS TIES TO DEER LOVE. DOWNER CONVEYS A RUMOR HE SUPPOSEDLY HEARD
ABOUT A CONVERSATION BETWEEN POP DON HUSBAND AND JAMES COMEY HAS
PUBLICLY CALLED HIM A RUSSIAN AGENT. YET YOUR REPORT DOES NOT
REFER TO MISTED AS A RUSSIAN AGENT. HE HAS EXTENSIVE CONTACTS
TO RUSSIAN AGENTS AND THE FBI. FOR EXAMPLE THERE IS AN EXAMPLE
OF HIM STANING NEXT TO BORIS JOHNSON, THE NEW PRIME MINISTER
OF GREAT BRITAIN. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE MR.
MUELLER IS IF OUR NATO ALLIES OR BORIS JOHNSON HAVE BEEN
COMPROMISED. COMEY SAYS MISTED IS A RUSSIAN AGENT, YOU DID NOT.
DO YOU STAND BY WHAT IS IN THE REPORT?
>>I STAND BY THAT WHICH IS IN THE REPORT AND NOT SO
NECESSARILY WITH THAT, WHICH IS NOT IN THE REPORT.
>>>I WANT TO RETURN TO MR. DOWNER. HE DENIES MENTIONED
ANYTHING AND MISTED DENIES MENTIONING THAT TO POP DON
HUSBAND. HE DENIES POP MENTIONED ANYTHING TO HIM ABOUT HILLARY
CLINTON’S E-MAILS AND MISTED DENIES MENTIONING THEM TO POP IN
THE FIRST PLACE. SO HOW DOES THE FBI KNOW TO CONTINUALLY ASK
ABOUT CLINTON’S E-MAILS FOR THE REST OF 2006? EACH MORE
STRANGELY, YOUR SENTENCING MEMO BLAMES HIM FOR HINDERING THE
FBI’S ABILITY TO POTENTIALLY DETAIN OR ARREST HIV
SENT. THE U.S. MEDIA COULD FIND HIM. THE ITALIAN PRESS FOUND HIM
AND HE IS A SUPPOSED RUSSIAN AGENT AT THE EPICENTER OF THE
PURPORTED COLLUSION CONSPIRACY. HE IS THE GUY WHO KNOWS ABOUT
HILLARY CLINTON’S E-MAILS AND THAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE HIM. BUT
THE FBI FAILED TO QUESTION HIM FOR A HALF YEAR AFTER OFFICIALLY
OPENING THE INVESTIGATION. AND THEN, ACCORDING TO VOLUME 1,
PAGE 193 OF YOUR REPORT, ONCE HE FINALLY WAS QUESTIONED, HE MADE
FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE FBI. BUT YOU DECLINED TO CHARGE HIM. IS
THAT CORRECT? YOU DID NOT INDICT?
>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THE SERIES OF HAPPENINGS AS YOU
ARTICULATED THEM. >>>BUT YOU DID NOT INDICT.
>>>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMEN HAS EXPIRED.
>>>YOU DID NOT INDICT? >>NO.
>>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU ON FOR YOUR LIFE TIME OF SERVICE
TO THIS COUNTRY AND YOUR PATIENCE TODAY. YOUR REPORT
OPENS WITH TWO STATEMENTS OF REMARKABLE CLARITY AND POWER.
THE FIRST STATEMENT IS ONE THAT IS AS OF TODAY, NOT ACKNOWLEDGED
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THAT IS QUOTE THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION. THE SECOND STATEMENT
REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL AMONGST MEMBERS OF THIS BODY. SAME PAGE
ON YOUR REPORT. AND I QUOTE, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT
WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP PRESIDENCY, AND WORKED TO SECURE
THAT OUTCOME. DO I HAVE THAT STATEMENT RIGHT?
>>I BELIEVE SO. >>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, THIS
ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY INVOLVED TWO OPERATIONS, FIRST A SOCIAL
MEDIA DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN, A TARGETED CAMPAIGN TO SPREAD
FALSE INFORMATION ON PLACES LIKE TWITTER AND FACEBOOK, IS THAT
CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT.
>>>FACEBOOK ESTIMATED AS PER YOUR REPORT THE RUSSIAN FAKE
IMAGES REACHED 126 MILLION PEOPLE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>>I BELIEVE THAT IS. >>> DIRECTOR, WHO DID THE RUSSIAN
SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN ULTIMATELY INTEND TO BENEFIT.
>>DONALD TRUMP. LET ME SAY DONALD TRUMP BUT THERE WERE
INSTANCES WHERE HILLARY CLINTON WAS SUBJECT TO MUCH THE SAME
BEHAVIOR. >>>THE SECOND OPERATION IN THE
RUSSIAN ATTACK WAS A SCHEME WHAT WE CALL THE HACK AND DUMP STEAL
AND RELEASE HUNDREDS OF E-MAILS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY.
>>>THAT IS. >>>DID YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND
THE RELEASES OF THE HACKED E-MAILS WERE STRATEGICALLY TIMED
TO MAXIMIZE IMPACT ON THE ELECTION?
>>I WOULD HAVE TO REFER YOU TO THE REPORT ON THAT QUESTION.
>>>PAGE 36 I QUOTE THE RELEASE OF THE DOCUMENTS WERE DESIGNED
AND TIMED TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
MR.MUELLER, WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WAS RUSSIA’S HACKING
AND DUMPING OPERATION DESIGNED TO BENEFIT? HILLARY CLINTON OR
DONALD TRUMP? >>MR. TRUMP.
>>>MR. MUELLER, IS IT POSSIBLE THIS SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC
EFFORT BY RUSSIA ACTUALLY HAD AN EFFECT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? >>THOSE ISSUES ARE BEING OR
HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY OTHER ENTITIES.
>>>126 MILLION FACEBOOK IMPRESSIONS, FAKE RALLIES,
ATTACKS ON HILLARY CLINTON’S HEALTH. WOULD YOU RULE OUT THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD
SOME EFFECT ON THE ELECTION? >>I’M IN THE GOING TO
SPECULATE. >>>YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES
NUMEROUS LINKS AND CONTACTS BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND
INDIVIDUALS TIED TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>>COULD YOU REPEAT. >>>YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES A
THIRD AVENUE OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, THE LINKS AND
CONTACTS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND INDIVIDUALS TIED TO THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT? >>YES.
>>>LET’S BRING UP SLIDE ONE. ABOUT GEORGE POP. IT READS ON
MAY 6, 2016, 10 DAYS AFTER THAT MEETING, HE SUGGESTED TO A
REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT THAT THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN HAD RECEIVED INDICATION FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT THAT
IT COULD ASSIST THE CAMPAIGN THROUGH THE ANONYMOUS RELEASE OF
INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO HILLARY CLINTON. AND
DIRECTOR. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TWO MONTHS LATER, IS IT
NOT? >>WELL I CAN SPEAK TO THE
EXCERPT YOU HAVE ON THE SCREEN AS BEING ACCURATE FROM THE
REPORT. BUT NOT THE SECOND HALF OF YOUR QUESTION.
>>>THE SECOND HALF TO REFER TO PAGE 6 OF THE REPORT IS ON JULY
22, THROUGH WIKILEAKS, THOUSANDS OF THESE E-MAILS THAT WERE
STOLEN BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT APPEARED? CORRECT? THAT IS ON
PAGE 6 OF THE REPORT. THIS IS THE WIKILEAKS POSTING OF THOSE
E-MAILS. >>I CAN’T FIND IT QUICKLY. BUT
PLEAS CONTINUE. >>>OKAY. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR,
BEFORE THE PUBLIC OR THE FBI EVER KNEW, THE RUSSIANS PREVIEWED FOR A TRUMP
CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL GEORGE PAP THAT THEY COULD RELEASE TO HURT
HILLARY CLINTON IS THAT CORRECT.>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO
THAT. >>>DIRECTOR, RATHER THAN REPORT
THIS CONTACT WITH JOSEPH AND THE NOTION THAT THERE WAS DIRT THE
CAMPAIGN COULD USE, RATHER THAN REPORT THAT TO THE FBI THAT I
THINK MOST OF MY CONSTITUENTS WOULD EXPECT AN
INDIVIDUAL TO DO, GEORGE PAP LIED ABOUT HIS RUSSIAN CONTACTS
TO YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT IS TRUE.
>>>WE HAVE AN ELECTION COMING UP IN 2020, DIRECTOR. IF A
CAMPAIGN RECEIVES AN OFFER OF DIRT FROM A FOREIGN INDIVIDUAL
OR A GOVERNMENT, CAN WE SHOULD THAT CAMPAIGN REPORT THOSE
CONTACTS? >>SHOULD BE. IT CAN BE,
DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES A CRIME.
>>>I WILL YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
>>>>>>MR. MUELLER DID ANYONE ASK
YOU TO EXCLUDE ANYTHING FROM YOUR REPORT THAT YOU FELT SHOULD
HAVE BEEN IN THE REPORT? >>I DON’T THINK SO. BUT IT IS
NOT A SMALL REPORT. >>>DID ANYONE ASK YOU
SPECIFICALLY TO EXCLUDE SOMETHING?
>>NOT THAT I CAN RECALL, NO. >>>YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME. >>>THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING. GOOD AFTERNOON, DIRECTOR MUELLER. IN YOUR MAY 29
PRESS CONFERENCE AGAIN IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS THIS MORNING YOU
MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR YOU WANTED THE SPECIAL COUNCIL REPORT TO
SPEAK FOR ITSELF. YOU SAID AT YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE THAT WAS
THE OFFICE’S FINAL POSITION AND WE WILL NOT COMMENT ON ANY OTHER
CONCLUSIONS OR HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. NOW, YOU
SPENT THE LAST FEW HOURS OF YOUR LIFE FROM DEMOCRATS TRYING TO
GET YOU TO ANSWER ALL KINDS OF HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT THE
PRESIDENT AND I EXPECT IT MAY CONTINUE FOR THE NEXT FEW HOURS
OF YOUR LIFE. I THINK YOU HAVE STAYED PRETTY MUCH TRUE TO WHAT
YOUR INTENT AND DESIRE WAS. BUT I GUESS REGARDLESS OF THAT, THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE IS CLOSED. AND IT HAS NO CONTINUING
JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY. SO WHAT WOULD BE YOUR AUTHORITY OR
JURISDICTION FOR ADDING NEW CONCLUSIONS OR DETERMINATIONS TO
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S WRITTEN REPORT?
>>AS TO THE LATTER, I DON’T KNOW OR EXPECT A CHANGE IN
CONCLUSIONS THAT WE INCLUDED IN OUR REPORT.
>>>SO TO THAT POINT, YOU ADDRESS ONE OF THE ISSUES FROM
YOUR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING, SOME CONSTRUED AS A CHANGE TO
THE WRITTEN REPORT. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE EXCHANGE THAT YOU HAD
WITH CONGRESSMAN LOU. I WROTE IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. I
WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT IT. I RECORDED THAT HE ASKED YOU QUOTE
THE REASON YOU DID NOT INDICT DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF THE
OLC OPINION STATING YOU CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT TO
WHICH YOU RESPONDED THAT’S CORRECT. THAT RESPONSE IS
INCONSISTENT, I THINK YOU’LL AGREE WITH, WITH YOUR WRITTEN
REPORT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT YOUR INTENT TO CHANGE
YOUR WRITTEN REPORT. >>NO. AS I STARTED TODAY THIS
AFTERNOON, AND ADDED A FOOTNOTE OR END NOTE, WHAT I WANTED TO
CLARIFY IS THE FACT THAT WE DID NOT MAKE ANY DETERMINATION WITH
REGARD TO CULPABILITY IN ANY WAY. WE DID NOT START THAT
PROCESS DOWN THE ROAD. >>>PERFECT. THANK YOU FOR
CLARIFYING THE RECORD. THE STATE PURPOSE OF YOUR APPOINTMENT OF
SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS TO ENSURE A FULL AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION
OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT’S EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. AS PART OF THAT FULL AND THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION WHAT DETERMINATION DID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE
MAKE ABOUT WHETHER THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS PART OF THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION? >>AGAIN WHEN IT COMES TO MR.
STEELE I DEFER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
>>>WELL, FIRST OF ALL DIRECTOR, I VERY MUCH AGREE WITH YOUR
DETERMINATION THAT RUSSIA’S EFFORTS WERE SWEEPING ASK
SYSTEMATIC. I THINK IT SHOULD CONCERN EVERY AMERICAN. I WANT
TO KNOW HOW SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC THOSE EFFORTS WERE. I
WANT TO FIND OUT IF RUSSIA INTERFERED WITH OUR ELECTION BY
PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION THROUGH SOURCES TO CHRISTOPHER
STEELE ABOUT A TRUMP CONSPIRACY THAT YOU DETERMINED DIDN’T
EXIST. >>AGAIN I’M NOT GOING TO
DISCUSS THE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO MR. STEELE. IN TERMS OF A
PORTRAYAL OF THE CONSPIRACIES, WE RETURNED TWO INDICTMENTS IN
THE COMPUTER CRIMES ARENA. ONE GR U, AND ANOTHER ACTIVE
MEASURES IN WHICH WE LAY OUT IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL WHAT OCCURRED IN THOSE TWO RATHER
LARGE. >>>I AGREE WITH THAT. THESE
WERE ON ALL FOUR OCCASIONS, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
SUBMITTED THE STEELE DOSSIER AS A CENTRAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE WITH
RESPECT TO THAT. THE BASIC PREMISE OF THE DOSSIER, AS YOU
KNOW, WAS THAT THERE WAS A WELL-DEVELOPED CONSPIRACY OF
COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT. BUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION DIDN’T
ESTABLISH ANY CONSPIRACY, CORRECT?
>>WELL, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU THAT IS THE EVENTS YOU ARE
CHARACTERIZING HERE NOW IS PART OF ANOTHER MATTER THAT IS BEING
HANDLED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
>>>BUT YOU DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY CONSPIRACY, MUCH LESS A WELL
DEVELOPED ONE? >>AGAIN, I PASS ON ANSWERING
THAT QUESTION. >>>THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT
CHARGE CARTER PAGE WITH ANYTHING?
>>SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT. >>>MY TIME HAS EXPIRED. I YIELD
BACK. >>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WOULD
LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE JUNE 9, 2016 TRUMP TOWER
MEETING. SLIDE 2, WHICH SHOULD BE ON THE SCREEN NOW IS PART OF
AN E-MAIL CHAIN BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP JR. AND A PUBLICIST
REPRESENTING THE SON OF A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH. THE E-MAIL
EXCHANGE ULTIMATELY LED TO THE NOW INFAMOUS JUNE 9, 2016
MEETING. THE E-MAIL FROM THE PUBLICIST TO DONALD TRUMP JR.
READS IN PART THE CROWN PROSECUTOR OF RUSSIA OFFERS TO
PROVIDE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND
INFORMATION THAT WOULD INCRIMINATE HILLY AND HER
DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA AND IS A PART OF RUSSIA AND ITS
GOVERNMENT’S SUPPORT OF MR. TRUMP. IN THIS E-MAIL, DONALD
TRUMP JR. IS BEING TOLD THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PASS
ALONG INFORMATION WHICH WOULD HURT HILLARY CLINTON, AND HELP DONALD TRUMP, IS THAT
CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT.
>>>TRUMP JR.’S RESPONSE TO THAT E-MAIL IS SLIDE 3. HE SAID AND I
QUOTE, IF IT IS WHAT YOU SAY, I LOVE IT. ESPECIALLY LATER IN THE
SUMMER. THEN DONALD JR. INVITED SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS PAUL
MANAFORT AND JARED KUSHNER TO THE MEETING, DID HE NOT?
>>HE DID. >>THIS E-MAIL EXCHANGE IS
EVIDENCE OF AN OFFER OF ILLEGAL ASSISTANCE, IS IT NOT?
>>I CANNOT ADOPT THAT CHARACTERIZATION.
>>ISN’T IT AGAINST THE LAW FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN TO
ACCEPT ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT?
>>GENERALLY SPEAKING, YES. BUT GENERALLY THE CASES ARE UNIQUE.
>>>WELL YOU SAY ON PAGE 184 VOLUME 1, THE FEDERAL CAMPAIGN
FINANCE LAW BROADLY PROHIBITS FOREIGN NATIONALS FROM MAKING
CONTRIBUTIONS, ET CETERA. AND THEN YOU SAY THAT FOREIGN
NATIONALS MAY NOT MAKE A CONTRIBUTION OR DONATION OF
MONEY OR ANYTHING OF VALUE. IT IS SAID CLEARLY IN THE REPORT
ITSELF. >>THANK YOU.
>>>NOW, LET’S TURN TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AT THE
MEETING. WHEN DONALD TRUMP JR. AND THE OTHERS GOT TO THE JUNE 9
MEETING THEY REALIZED THE RUSSIAN DELEGATION DIDN’T HAVE
THE PROMISED QUOTE UNQUOTE DIRT. IN FACT THEY GOT UPSET ABOUT
THAT, DID THEY NOT? >>GENERALLY, YES.
>>>YOU SAY IN VOLUME 1 PAGE 118 THAT TRUMP JR. ASKED WHAT ARE WE
DOING HERE? WHAT DO THEY HAVE ON CLINTON? AND DURING THE MEATING,
KUSHNER ACTUALLY TEXTED MANAFORT SAYING IT WAS QUOTE A WASTE OF
TIME IS THAT CORRECT? >>I BELIEVE IT IS IN THE REPORT
ALONG THE LINES YOU HAVE SPECIFIED.
>>>SO TO BE CLEAR, TOP TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS LEARNED
RUSSIA WANTED TO HELP DONALD TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN BY GIVING HIM
DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT. TRUMP JR. SAID LOVED IT. THEN HE AND
SENIOR OFFICIALS HELD A MEETING WITH THE RUSSIANS TO TRY TO GET
THAT RUSSIAN HELP. BUT THEY WERE DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE THE DIRT
WASN’T AS GOOD AS THEY HAD HOPED. SO TO THE NEXT STEP, DID
ANYONE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, EVER TELL THE
FBI OF THIS OFFER? >>I DON’T BELIEVE SO.
>>>DID DONALD TRUMP JR. TELL THE FBI THEY RECEIVED AN OFFER OF
HELP? >>THAT IS ABOUT ALL I’LL SAY ON
THIS ASPECT OF IT. >>>WOULD IT BE TRUE, SIR, IF
THEY HAD REPORTED IT TO THE FBI OR ANYONE IN THAT CAMPAIGN
DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR 2-YEAR INVESTIGATION YOU WOULD HAVE
UNCOVERED. >>I WOULD HOPE, YES.
>>>SIR, IS IT NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF POLITICAL
CAMPAIGNS TO INFORM THE FBI IF THEY RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM A
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT? >>I WOULD THINK THAT THAT IS
SOMETHING THEY WOULD AND SHOULD DO.
>>>NOT ONLY DID THE CAMPAIGN NOT TELL THE FBI, THEY SOUGHT TO
HIDE THE EXISTENCE OF THE JUNE 9 MEETING FOR OVER A YEAR, IS THAT
NOT CORRECT? >>ON THE GENERAL
CHARACTERIZATION, I WOULD QUESTION IT. IF YOU ARE
REFERRING TO LATER, INITIATIVE, THAT FLOWED FROM THE MEDIA,
THEN. >>>NO WHAT I’M SUGGESTING IS
YOU HAVE SAID IN VOLUME 2 PAGE 5 ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE PRESSES
DIRECTED AIDES NOT TO PUBLICLY DISCLOSE THE E-MAILS SETTING UP
THE JUNE 9 MEETING. >>YES THAT IS ACCURATE.
>>>THANKS. GIVEN THIS ILLEGAL ASSISTANCE BY RUSSIANS, YOU
CHOSE EVEN GIVEN THAT, YOU DID NOT CHARGE DONALD TRUMP JR. OR
ANY OF THE OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS WITH CONSPIRACY, IS
THAT RIGHT? >>CORRECT. WHEN YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OTHER INDIVIDUALS, YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT THE ATTENDEES ON JUNE 9, THAT’S CORRECT.
>>>EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN’T CHARGE THEM WITH CONSPIRACY,
DON’T YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERN THAT
THESE THREE SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS EAGERLY SOUGHT A
FOREIGN ADVERSARY’S HELP TO WIN ELECTIONS AND DON’T YOU THINK
THAT REPORTING THAT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DON’T SET A PRESS DID HE
WANT FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS? >>I CAN’T ACCEPT THAT
CHARACTERIZATION. >>>LISTEN, I THINK IT SEEMS
LIKE A BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN VALUES TO ME, SIR. IF NOT
CRIMINAL, UNETHICAL AND WRONG AND WE WOULD NOT WANT TO SET A
PRECEDENT POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS SHOULD NOT DIVULGE FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE. >>>MR. MUELLER, I HAVE YOUR
OPENING STATEMENT. AND IN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR OPENING
STATEMENT, YOU INDICATE THAT, PURSUANT TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
REGULATIONS, THAT YOU SUBMITTED A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONFIRM THE REPORT THAT YOU DID, THAT IS THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS HEARING, WAS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL?
>>YES. >>>YOU ALSO STATE IN THIS
OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU THREW OVERBOARD THE WORD COLLUSION
BECAUSE IT IS NOT A LITTLE TERM, BASCULATION WAS NOT A LEGAL
TERM? >>WELL IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU
WANT TO USE THE WORD. IN GENERAL PARLANCE PEOPLE CAN THINK OF IT
THAT WAY. BUT IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN A CRIMINAL STATUTE
ARENA, YOU CAN’T. BECAUSE REALLY, IT IS MUCH MORE APTLY
AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS CONSPIRACY.
>>>RIGHT SO IN YOUR WORDS IT IS NOT A LEGAL TERM SO YOU DIDN’T
PUT IT IN YOUR CONCLUSION? >>THAT’S RIGHT.
>>>MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR POWERS AND
AUTHORITIES. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE APPOINTMENT
ORDER GAVE YOU POWERS AND AUTHORITIES THAT RESIDE IN THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NO ABILITY TO GIVE
YOU POWERS AND AUTHORITY GREATER THAN THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CORRECT? >>NO, I DON’T BELIEVE, YEAH, I
THINK THAT IS CORRECT. >>>MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO FOCUS
ON ONE WORD IN YOUR REPORT. THE SECOND TO THE LAST WORD IN YOUR
REPORT. IT IS EXONERATE. THE REPORT STATES ACCORDINGLY, WHILE
THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A
CRIME, IT DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM.
NOW IN THE JUDICIARY HEARING, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. DOES
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE?
WHAT I’M PUTTING UP HERE IS THE UNITED STATES CODE. THIS IS
WHERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GETS HIS POWER AND THE CONSTITUTION
AND THE ANNOTATED CASES OF THESE. WE EVEN WENT TO YOUR LAW
SCHOOL. WE THOUGHT MAYBE YOUR LAW SCHOOL TEACHES IT
DIFFERENTLY. WE GOT THE CRIMINAL LAW TEXTBOOK FROM YOUR LAW
SCHOOL. NOWHERE IN THESE, BECAUSE WE HAD THEM SCANNED, IS THERE A PROSECUTE PROCESS OR
DESCRIPTION ON EXONERATE. MR.MUELLER WOULD YOU AGREE WITH
ME THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO
EXONERATE? >>I HAVETO PASS ON THAT.
>>>WHY? >>BECAUSE IT EMBROILS US IN A
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND I’M NOT PREPARED TO DO A LEGAL
DISCUSSION IN THAT ARENA. >>>YOU WOULD NOT DISAGREE WITH
ME WHY SAY THAT THERE IS NO PLACE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HAS THE POWER TO EXONERATE? AND HE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN THAT
AUTHORITY? >>I TAKE YOUR QUESTION.
>>>WELL THE ONE THING THAT I GUESS IS THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL PROBABLY KNOWS THAT HE CAN’T EXONERATE EITHER. AND THAT
IS THE PART THAT KIND OF CONFUSES ME. IF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL DOESN’T HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE, THEN YOU DON’T
HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE AND HIBLE HE KNOWS HE DOESN’T HAVE
THE POWER TO EXONERATE. THIS IS THE PART THAT I DON’T
UNDERSTAND. IF YOUR REPORT IS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN’T HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE AND HE
DOES NOT AND HE KNOWS THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT POWER, YOU
DON’T HAVE TO TELL HIM YOU ARE NOT EXONERATING THE PRESIDENT.
HE KNOWS THIS ALREADY. SO THEN THAT KIND OF CHANGES THE
CONTEXT. >>NO. WE INCLUDED IT IN THE
REPORT FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON. HE MAY NOT KNOW IT AND HE SHOULD
KNOW IT. >>>SO YOU BELIEVE ATTORNEY BILL
BARR BELIEVES SOMEWHERE IN THE HALLWAYS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE THERE IS AN OFFICE OF EXONERATION.
>>NO THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. >>>I BELIEVE HE KNOWS AND I
DON’T BELIEVE YOU PUT THAT IN THERE FOR MR. BARR. I THINK YOU
PUT THAT IN THERE FOR SAGLY WHAT I’M GOING TO DISCUSS NEXT. THE
WASHINGTON POST YESTERDAY THE ARTICLE SAID TRUMP COULD NOT BE
EXONERATED OF TRYING TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF. TRUMP
COULD NOT BE EXONERATED. THAT STATEMENT IS CORRECT, MR.
MUELLER, IN THAT NO ONE CAN BE EXONERATED? THE REPORTER WHO
WROTE THIS, THIS REPORTER CAN’T BE EXONERATED. YOU CAN’T BE
EXONERATED. IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THERE IS NO POWER
OR AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE. THIS IS MY CONCERN. THIS IS THE
HEADLINE ON ALL OF THE NEWS CHANNELS WHEN YOU WERE
TESTIFYING TODAY. MUELLER, TRUMP WAS NOT EXONERATED. MR.MUELLER
YOU KNOW IS THIS CAN’T SAY MUELLER EXONERATED TRUMP BECAUSE
YOU DON’T HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY. YOU HAVE NO MORE
POWER TO DECLARE HIM EXONERATED THAN YOU HAVE HIM THE POWER TO
DECLARE HIM ANDERSON COOPER. THE PROBLEM IS SINCE THERE IS NO ONE
IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT HAS THAT POWER. THE
PRESIDENT PARDONS, HE DOES NOT EXONERATES, COURTS AND JURIES DO
NOT EXONERATE. THE STATEMENT ABOUT EXONERATION IS MEANINGLESS
AND IT COLORS THIS INVESTIGATION OF THE ONE WORD OUT OF THE
ENTIRE PORTION OF YOUR REPORT, AND IT IS A MEANINGLESS WORD
THAT HAS NO LEGAL MEANING AND IT HAS COLORED YOUR ENTIRE REPORT.
>>>TIME HAS EXPIRED. >>>MR. CARSON.
>>>THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER FOR YOUR
YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. I WANT TO LOOK MORE CLOSELY,
SIR, AT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT, AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO I BELIEVE BETRAYED OUR COUNTRY, LIED TO A
GRAND JURY, TAMPERED WITH WITNESSES, AND WHO REPEATEDLY
TRIED TO USE HIS POSITION WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO MAKE MORE
MONEY. LET’S FOCUS ON THE BETRAYAL AND GREED. YOUR
INVESTIGATION, SIR, FOUND A NUMBER OF TROUBLING CONTEXTS
BETWEEN MR. MANAFORT AND RUSSIAN INDIVIDUALS DURING AND AFTER THE
CAMPAIGN, IS THAT RIGHT SIR? >>RIGHT, CORRECT.
>>>IN ADDITION TO THE JUNE 9 MEETING, JUST DISCUSSED,
MANAFORT ALSO MET SEVERAL TIMES WITH A MAN NAMED CONSTANT TEEN
CLOONEY WHO THE FBI ASSESSED TO HAVE RUSSIAN TIES TO INTEL.
>>CORRECT. >>>MR. MANAFORT DIDN’T JUST
MEET WITH HIM, HE SHARED PRIVATE TRUMP CAMPAIGN POLLING
INFORMATION WITH THIS MAN LINKED TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, ISN’T
THAT RIGHT, SIR? >>THAT’S CORRECT.
>>>AND IN TURN THE INFORMATION WAS SHARED WITH
A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH TIED TO VLADIMIR PUTIN.
>>REPORTEDLY. >>>SHARING POLLING INFORMATION
WASN’T ENOUGH. MR.MANAFORT WENT SO FAR AS TO OFFER THIS RUSSIAN
OLIGARCH TIED TO PUTIN A PRIVATE BRIEFING ON THE CAMPAIGN, IS
THAT RIGHT SIR? >>YES, SIR.
>>>AND FINALLY, MR. MANAFORT ALSO DISCUSSED INTERNAL CAMPAIGN
STRATEGY ON FOUR BATTLEGROUND STATES, MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN,
PENNSYLVANIA AND MINNESOTA. WITH THE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE LINKED
INDIVIDUAL,. >>THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE
REPORT AS WERE THE ITEMS YOU LISTED PREVIOUSLY.
>>>BASED ON YOUR DECADES OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AT THE FBI
WITH YOU AGREE, SIR IT CREATES A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK WHEN A
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN SHARES PRIVATE POLLING
INFORMATION ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? PRIVATE POLITICAL
STRATEGY RELATED TO WINNING THE VOTES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND
PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT AMERICAN BATTLEGROUND STATES WITH A FOREIGN ADVERSARY?
>>I THINK BEYOND THAT IT IS NOT PART OF THAT WHICH I WOULD
SUPPORT. >>>I THINK IT DOES SIR. I THINK
IT SHOWS AN INFURIATING LACK OF PATRIOTISM FROM THE VERY PEOPLE
SEEKING THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND. DIRECTOR MANAFORT
DIDN’T SHARE THIS INFORMATION IN EXCHANGE FOR NOTHING, DID HE
SIR? >>I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION
WITHOUT KNOWING MORE ABOUT THE QUESTION.
>>>IT IS CLEAR HE HOPED TO BE PAID BACK MONEY HE WAS OWED BY
RUSSIAN OR UKRANIAN OLIGARCHS IN RETURN FOR THE PASSAGE OF
PRIVATE INFORMATION. >>THAT IS TRUE.
>>>AS MY COLLEAGUE WILL DISCUSS LATER GREED CORRUPTS. WILL YOU
AGREE THE SHARING OF PRIVATE CAMPAIGN INFORMATION IN EXCHANGE
FOR MONEY REPRESENTS A PARTICULAR KIND OF CORRUPTION,
ONE THAT PRESENTS A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK FOR OUR COUNTRY
SIR? I CAN’T I’M IN THE GOING TO OPINE TO THAT. I DON’T HAVE THE
EXPERTISE IN THAT ARENA TO REALLY OPINE.
>>>WOULD YOU AGREE SIR MANAFORT’S CONTACTS WITH SOURCES
CLOSE TO VLADIMIR PUTIN AND HIS EFFORTS TO EXCHANGE PRIVATE
INFORMATION LEFT HIM VULNERABLE TO BLACKMAIL BY THE RUSSIANS.
>>I THINK GENERALLY SO, THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.
>>>WOULD YOU AGREE SIR THESE ACTS DEPENDS STRAIGHT A BETRAYAL
OF THE DEMOCRATIC VALUE OUR COUNTRY RESTS ON.
>>I CAN’T AGREE WITH THAT. NOT THAT IT IS NOT TRUE BUT I CANNOT
AGREE WITH IT. >>>YES, SIR. DIRECTOR MUELLER.
>>Reporter: I CAN TELL YOU AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FORTUNATE TO
SERVE ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE, I KNOW ENOUGH TO SAY YES, TRADING
POLITICAL SECRETS FOR MONEY WITH A FOREIGN ADVERSARY CAN CORRUPT
AND CAN LEAVE YOU OPEN TO BLACKMAIL AND IT CERTAINLY
REPRESENTS A BETRAYAL OF THE VALUES UNDERPINNING OUR
DEMOCRACY. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE WE APPRECIATE YOU FOR COMING TODAY. I YIELD BACK
CHAIRMAN. >>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR.MUELLER IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND NO
EVIDENCE MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WERE INVOLVED IN THE
THEFT OR PUBLICATION OF CLINT ON TONIGHT CAMPAIGN-RELATED E-MAILS
I CAN’T CAN YOU READ OR CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION.
>>>IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND NO EVIDENCE
MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WERE INVOLVED IN THE THEFT OR
PUBLICATION OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN-RELATED E-MAILS.
>>I DON’T KNOW. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE, WELL.
>>>WELL VOLUME 1 PAGE 56789 THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH
THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR
COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN THIS ELECTION
INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. SO IT WOULD THEREFORE BE INACCURATE,
BASED ON THIS TO DESCRIBE THAT FINDING AS OPEN TO DOUBT. THAT
FINDING BEING THAT TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS INVOLVED WITH THEFT
OR PUBLICATION OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN E-MAILS, ARE YOU
FOLLOWING THAT? >>I DO BELIEVE I’M FOLLOWING
IT. BUT IT IS, THAT PORTION OF THAT MATTER DOES NOT FALL WITHIN
OUR JURISDICTION, OR FALL WITHIN OUR INVESTIGATION.
>>>WELL BASICALLY WHAT YOUR REPORT SAYS VOLUME 1 PAGE 5, I
WANT TO BE CLEAR. THAT OPEN TO DOUBT IS HOW THE COMMITTEE
DEMOCRATS DESCRIBE THE FINDING IN THEIR MINORITY VIEWS OF OUR
2018 REPORT. AND IT KIND OF FLIES IN THE FACE OF WHAT YOU
HAVE IN YOUR REPORT. SO IS IT ACCURATE ALSO TO SAY THE
INVESTIGATION FOUND NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT GEORGE
PAP TOLD ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ABOUT
JOSEPH’S CLAIMS THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD DIRT ON CANDIDATE
CLINTON. >>LET ME TURN THAT OVER TO MR.
ZEBLEY. >>>I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU,
SIR. THIS IS YOUR REPORT. >>COULD YOU HE ARE PETE THE
QUESTION. >>>
>>IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY THE INVESTIGATION FOUND NO
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT GEORGE PAP TOLD ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN ABOUT JOSEPH MS.’S CLAIM THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD DIRT
ON CANDIDATE CLINTON. >>I BELIEVE APPEARING IN THE
REPORT IT IS ACCURATE. >>>IN THE REPORT IT SAYS NO
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT PAP SHARED THIS INFORMATION WITH THE CAMPAIGN.
IT IS THEREFORE ACCURATE TO CONCLAWED THE CAMPAIGN WAS
ALREADY ON NOTICE VIA CONTACT WITH RUSSIAN AGENT THAT RUSSIA
IN FACT HAD DAMAGING INFORMATION ARE ON TRUMP’S OPPONENT. WOULD
YOU SAY THAT IS INACCURATE TO SAY IT IS LIKELY ALREADY?
>>I COULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT.
>>>I APPRECIATE THAT. BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS JUMPED TO THIS
INCORRECT CONCLUSION IN THEIR MINORITY VIEWS, AGAIN WHICH
CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR REPORT. I’M CONCERNED ABOUT
A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CLARIFY. A NUMBER OF
DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE SOME STATEMENTS THAT I HAVE CONCERNS
WITH AND MAYBE YOU CAN CLEAR THEM UP. A MEMBER OF THIS
COMMITTEE SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS A RUSSIAN AGENT. AFTER YOUR
REPORT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED. THAT STATEMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED
BY YOUR REPORT, CORRECT? >>THAT IS ACCURATE.
>>NOT SUPPORTED. >>>MULTIPLE DEMOCRAT MEMBERS
HAVE ASSERTED PAUL MANAFORT MET WITH JULIAN ASSANGE IN 2016
BEFORE WIKILEAKS RELEASED E-MAILS FROM THE DNC. WAS YOUR
REPORT DOES NOT MENTION FINDING EVIDENCE MANAFORT MET WITH
ASSANGE, I WOULD ASSUME THAT OPINIONS YOU FOUND NO EVIDENCE
OF THIS MEETING IS THAT CORRECT?>>I’M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH
THAT ASSUMPTION. >>>BUT YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF
IT IN YOUR REPORT WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>>YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.>>>DOES YOUR REPORT CONTAIN ANY
EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ENROLLED IN THE RUSSIAN
SYSTEM OF AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE ONCE CLAIMED?
>>WHAT I CAN SPEAK TO IS INFORMATION, AND EVIDENCE THAT
WE PICKED UP AS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. AND I THINK THAT IS
ACCURATE, AS FAR AS IT GOES. >>>THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE
THAT. LET’S GO FOR A SECOND TO SCOPE. DID YOU ASK THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL’S MANDATE RELATED TO AUGUST 2, 2017 OR AUGUST 20,
2017 SCOPING MEMORANDA? >>WELL, WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE
MEMORANDA, I COULD NOT ANSWER THAT.
>>>DID YOU EVER MAKE A REQUEST TO EXPAND YOUR OFFICE’S MANDATE
AT ALL? >>GENERALLY, YES.
>>>AND WAS THAT EVER DENIED? >>EM’S NOT TO SPEAK TO THAT. IT
GOES TO INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS. >>>I’M JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND PROCESS. IS EXPANDING THE SCOPE COME FROM THE ACTING ATTORNEY
GENERAL? OR FROM EITHER? >>I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES.
>>>THANK YOU MR. MUELLER. >>>MR. MUELLER, I THINK I CAN
SAY WITHOUT FARE OF CONTRADICTION THAT YOU ARE THE
GREATEST PATRIOT IN THIS ROOM TODAY. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR BEING HEAR. >>THANK YOU.
>>>YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT AND I’M GOING TO QUIBBLE WITH YOUR
WORDS, THAT THE RUSSIAN INTERVENTION WAS SWEEPING AND
SYSTEMATIC. I WOULD QUIBBLE WITH THAT, BECAUSE I DON’T THINK IT
WAS JUST AN INTERVENTION, I THINK IT WAS AN INVASION. AND I
DON’T THINK IT WAS JUST SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC, I THINK IT WAS
SINISTER AND SCHEMING. HAVING SAID THAT, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES
EARLIER HERE REFERRED TO THIS RUSSIAN INTERVENTION AS A HOAX.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET YOUR COMMENT ON THAT ON PAGE 26 OF
YOUR REPORT, YOU TALK ABOUT THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY. AND
HOW TENS OF MILLIONS OF U.S. PERSONS BECAME ENGAGED WITH THE
POSTS THAT THEY MADE. THAT THERE WERE SOME 80,000 POSTS ON
FACEBOOK THAT FACEBOOK ITSELF ADMITTED THAT 126 MILLION PEOPLE
HAD PROBABLY SEEN THE POSTS THAT WERE PUT UP BY THE INTERNET
RESEARCH AGENCY. THAT THEY HAD 3800 TWITTER ACCOUNTS, AND HAD
DESIGNED MORE THAN 175,000 TWEETS THAT PROBABLY REACHED 1.4
MILLION PEOPLE. THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY WAS SPENDING
ABOUT $1.25 MILLION A MONTH ON ALL OF THIS SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE
UNITED STATES. IN WHAT I WOULD CALL AN INVASION IN OUR COUNTRY.
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT WAS NOT A HOAX THAT THE RUSSIANS WERE
ENGAGED IN TRYING TO IMPACT OUR ELECTION?
>>ABSOLUTELY. IT WAS NOT A HOAX. THE INDICTMENTS WE
RETURNED AGAINST THE RUSSIANS, TWO DIFFERENT ONES, WERE
SUBSTANTIAL IN THEIR SCOPE USING THE SCOPE WORD AGAIN. AND I
THINK ONE OF THE, WE HAVE UNDERPLAYED, TO A CERTAIN
EXTENT, THAT ASPECT OF OUR INVESTIGATION THAT HAS, AND
WOULD HAVE LONG-TERM DAMAGE TO THE UNITED STATES THAT WE NEED
TO MOVE QUICKLY TO ADDRESS. >>>THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WOULD
LIKE TO DRILL DOWN ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. THE INTERNET
RESEARCH AGENCY ACTUALLY STARTED IN 2014, BY SENDING OVER STAFF
AS TOURISTS I GUESS TO START LOOKING AT WHERE THEY WANTED TO
ENGAGE. AND THERE ARE MANY THAT SUGGEST, AND I’M INTERESTED IN
YOUR OPINION, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT RUSSIA IS PRESENTLY IN THE
UNITED STATES, LOOKING FOR WAYS TO IMPACT THE 2020 ELECTION?
>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT. THAT WOULD BE IN LEVELS OF
CLASSIFICATION. >>>ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. OFTEN TIMES WHEN
WE ENGAGE IN THESE HEARINGS, WE FORGET THE FOREST FOR THE TREES.
YOU HAVE A VERY LARGE REPORT HERE OF OVER 400 PAGES. MOST
AMERICANS HAVE NOT READ IT. WE HAVE READ IT. ACTUALLY THE FBI
DIRECTOR YESTERDAY SAID HE HADN’T READ IT, WHICH WAS A
LITTLE DISCOURAGING. BUT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I
WANT TO GIVE YOU A MINUTE AND 39 SECONDS TO TELL THE PERSON
PEOPLE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO GLEAN FROM THIS REPORT.
>>WELL, WE SPENT SUBSTANTIAL TIME ASSURING THE INTEGRITY OF
THE REPORT. UNDERSTANDING IT WOULD BE A LIVING MESSAGE TO
THOSE WHO COME AFTER US. BUT IT ALSO IS A SIGNAL, A FLAG TO
THOSE OF US WHO HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS AREA TO
EXERCISE THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES SWIFTLY AND DON’T LET THIS
PROBLEM CONTINUE TO LINGER AS IT HAS OVER SO MANY YEARS.
>>>ALL RIGHT. YOU DIDN’T TAKE THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF TIME. I’M
GOING TO YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO THE CHAIRMAN.
>>>THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. I WANT TO ASK YOU
ABOUT CONSPIRACY. GENERALLY A CONSPIRACY REQUIRES AN OFFER OF
SOMETHING ILLEGAL, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THAT OFFER AND AN
OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF IT, IS THAT CORRECT.
>>CORRECT. >>>AND DON JR. WAS MADE AWARE
THE RUSSIANS WERE OFFERING DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT, CORRECT?
>>I DON’T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. BUT ONE WOULD ASSUME.
>>>AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU WOULD LOVE TO GET THAT HELP THAT
WOULD CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER?
>>IT IS WIDE OPEN REQUEST. >>>AND IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE
EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE IF YOU SAY WHEN SOMEBODY OFFERS YOU
SOMETHING ILLEGAL AND YOU SAID I WOULD LOVE IT, THAT WOULD BE
CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF AN ACCEPTANCE?
>>STAY AWAY FROM ANY ADDRESSING ONE PARTICULAR OR TWO PARTICULAR
SITUATIONS. >>>THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION,
I’LL HAVE TO CONTINUE. NOW YIELD TO MR. STEWART.
>>>IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I WANT
TO EMPHASIZE SOMETHING. I HAVE HEARD MANY PEOPLE STATE NO
PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW. AND MANY TIMES RECENTLY THEY HAD NOT
EACH THE PRESIDENT, WHICH I THINK IS BLAZINGLY OBVIOUS TO
MOST OF US. >>I’M HAVING A LITTLE PROBLEM
HEARING YOU SIR. >>>IS THIS BETTER.
>>THAT IS BETTER, THANK YOU. >>>I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT
NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW. BUT THERE IS ANOTHER PRINCIPLE WE
HAVE TO DEFEND AND THAT IS THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. AND
I’M SURE YOU AGREE WITH THIS PRINCIPLE. THOUGH I THINK THE
WAY THAT YOUR OFFICE PHRASED SOME PARTS OF YOUR REPORT ACCUSATIONS MADE HERE
TODAY, THEY HAVE HAD THEIR LIFE DISRUPTED AND DESTROYED BY FALSE
ACCUSATIONS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO BASIS OTHER THAN SOME PEOPLE
WISH IT WAS. BUT YOUR REPORT IS CLEAR, NO EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY
AND NO EVIDENCE OF COORDINATION. AND I BELIEVE WE OWE IT TO THESE
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN FALSELY ACCUSED INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT
AND HIS FAMILY TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
REPORT IS BASED ON THE INTEGRITY OF HOW IT IS HANDLED AND
SOMETHING THAT I THINK BOTHERS ME AND OTHERS, I’M HOLDING IN MY
HAND A BINDER OF 25 EXAMPLES, AT LEAST THAT OCCURRED FROM THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE FOR THOSE WHO ASSOCIATED DATING BACK TO AS
EARLY AS A FEW WEEKS INTO YOUR INCEPTION AND
BEGINNING IN YOUR WORK AND CONTINUING UP TO A FEW MONTHS
AGO. ALL OF THESE, ALL OF THEM HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON. THEY
WERE DESIGNED TO WEAKEN OR TO EMBARRASS THE PRESIDENT. EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF THEM. NEVER WAS IT LATE THAT YOU FOUND NO EVIDENCE
OF COLLUSION, NEVER WAS IT LEAKED THAT THE STEEL
DOSSIER WAS A COMPLETE FANTASY AND FUNDED BY THE HILLARY
CLINTON CAMPAIGN. I COULD GO ON AND ON. MR. MUELLER, ARE YOU
AWARE OF ANYONE FROM YOUR TEAM GIVING ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THE
RAIDS ON ROGER STONE’S HOME TO ANY PERSON OR THE PRESS
INCLUDING CNN? >>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT
SPECIFICS. I WILL MENTION, I WILL TALK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT
PERSONS WHO, INVOLVED IN AN INVESTIGATION. AND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT A LENGTHY
THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, SOME PERSONS WILL BE UNDER A CLOUD, AND I WILL NOT
BE UNDER A CLOUD. IN ONE OF THE REASONS FOR EMPHASIZING THE
SPEED OF THE ELECTION, OR NOT THE ELECTION, THE SPEED OF THE
INVESTIGATION IS SO THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE DISRUPTED AS A
RESULT — >>I APPRECIATE THAT.
>>WITH THE RESULT OF THE INVESTIGATION.
>>AND IT IS AN UNFAIR CLOUD FOR DOZENS OF PEOPLE. BUT ARE YOU
AWARE OF ANYONE PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE MEDIA
REGARDING THE RAID ON ROGER STONE’S HOME INCLUDING CNN?
>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT. >>YOU SIGNED A LETTER MARCH 22
WHICH YOU CLAIMED IT DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONCEPT OF
YOUR REPORT. IT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED. DID YOU MAKE ANY
EFFORT TO DETERMINE WHO LEAKED THE CONFIDENTIAL LETTER?
>>NO. I’M NOT CERTAIN. IT IS A LETTER OF MARCH 27?
>>YES, SIR. >>I’M NOT SURE WHEN, BUT I
KNOW, I DO NOT BELIEVE HE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LEAKS.
>>WELL, I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB AND ENSURING NO LEAKS —
>>WE HAVE 25 EXAMPLES OF WHERE YOU DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB, NOT
YOU. I’M NOT A USING YOU AT ALL. BUT YOUR OFFICE DID NOT DO A
GOOD JOB OF PROTECTING THE INFORMATION. DO YOU KNOW ANYONE
WHO ANONYMOUSLY MADE CLAIMS TO THE PRESS AND A MARCH 24
CONGRESS WAS MISREPRESENTED OR MISREPRESENTED THE BASICS OF
YOUR REPORT? >>WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
>>DO YOU KNOW WHO ANONYMOUSLY MADE CLAIMS TO THE PRESS THAT
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR MARCH 24 LETTER TO THE CONGRESS
MISREPRESENTED YOUR FINDINGS IN THE REPORT?
>>NO. >>GIVEN THIS EXAMPLE AS WELL AS
OTHERS, YOU MUST REALIZE COMING FROM SOMEONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU —
>>I DO NOT BELIEVE IT. >>BUT SIR, THIS IS YOUR WORK.
YOUR OFFICE IS THE ONLY ONE WITH INFORMATION. IT HAD TO COME FROM
YOUR OFFICE. PUTTING THAT ASIDE, WHICH LEADS ME TO MY FINAL
QUESTION, DID YOU DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
>>FROM THE OUTSET, WE HAD UNDERTAKEN TO MAKE SURE TO
MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF LEAKS. I THINK WE WERE
SUCCESSFUL OVER THE 2 YEARS THAT WE WERE IN OPERATION.
>>WELL, I WISH YOU HAD BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL. I THINK IT WAS
DISRUPTIVE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. MY TIME IS EXPIRED. I
YIELD BACK. >>THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
THIS TOO SHALL PASS. EARLIER TODAY AND THROUGHOUT THE DAY,
YOU’VE STATED THE POLICY OF THE SEATED PRESIDENT IN NOT BEING
INDICTED, CORRECT? >>RIGHT.
>>QUESTIONED THIS MORNING, YOU WERE ASKED, COULD A PRESIDENT BE
INDICTED AFTER THEIR SERVICE? CORRECT?
>>CORRECT. >>YOUR ANSWER WAS THAT THEY COULD. PLEASE SPEAK INTO
THE MICROPHONE. >>I’M SORRY. THEY COULD.
>>THE QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE CONCERNING IS WHAT OF A
PRESIDENT SERVES BEYOND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS?
>>I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE.
>>WE DID NOT INDICATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON
FEDERAL CRIMES SUCH AS THIS ARE 5 YEARS, THAT A PRESIDENT WHO
SERVES A SECOND TERM IS THEREFORE UNDER THE POLICY,
ABOVE THE LAW? >>I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE
WITH THE CONCLUSION. I’M NOT CERTAIN THAT I CAN SPEAK — THE
DISTINCT POSSIBILITY THAT YOU SUGGEST. I DON’T KNOW
SPECIFICALLY. >>IT CLEARLY DOESN’T. I JUST WANT, AS
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS WATCHING THIS AND PERHAPS HEARING ABOUT MANY
OF THESE FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE CAN CONSIDER THAT AND THE OTHER
ALTERNATIVES ARE PERHAPS — BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE.
EARLIER IN QUESTIONING, SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS
A QUESTION INVOLVING WHETHER ANYONE IN THE TRUMP POLITICAL
WORLD PUBLICIZED THE EMAILS. I JUST WANTED TO
REFER TO THE VOLUME 1 PAGE 60 WHERE WE LEARNED THAT TRUMP
JUNIOR PUBLICLY TWEETED A LINK TO THE STOLEN EMAILS AND
2016. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT?
>>YES. >>THAT WAS AT LEAST A
REPUBLISHING OF THE INFORMATION.>>I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
>>DIRECTOR POMPEO ASSESSED WIKILEAKS AT ONE POINT AS A
HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. GIVEN YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT
EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WIKILEAKS DID HEAR AND
WHAT THEY DO GENERALLY, WOULD YOU ASSESS THAT TO BE ACCURATE
OR SOMETHING SIMILAR? HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS IT, WHAT WIKILEAKS
DOES? >>ABSOLUTELY. AND THEY ARE
CURRENTLY UNDER INDICTMENT. AS JULIAN ASSANGE IS.
>>WOULD IT BE FAIR TO DESCRIBE THEM AS YOU WOULD AGREE WITH
DIRECTOR POMPEO, THAT’S WHAT HE WAS WHEN HE MADE THE REMARK,
THAT IT IS A POSSIBLE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. IF WE
COULD PUT UP SLIDE 6? THIS JUST CAME OUT. WIKILEAKS. I LOVE
WIKILEAKS, DONALD TRUMP OCTOBER 10, 2016. THIS WIKILEAKS
STUFF IS UNBELIEVABLE. IT TELLS YOU, YOU HAVE TO REALLY, DONALD
TRUMP, OCTOBER 12, 2016. THIS WIKILEAKS IS A TREVOR AT TREASURE TROVE. OCTOBER 21,
2060. I LOVE READING THOSE WIKILEAKS, NOVEMBER 4, 2016. TO
THOSE QUOTES DISTURB YOU?
>>I’M NOT SURE — >>HOW DO YOU REACT?
>>WELL, IT’S PROBLEMATIC IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT IN TERMS OF
GIVING SOME, I DON’T KNOW, HOPE FOR THIS BOOST TO WHAT IS AND
SHOULD BE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. >>VOLUME 1, PAGE 59, DONALD
TRUMP JUNIOR HAD DIRECT LEFT-HANDED MUNICATION WITH
WIKILEAKS DURING THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD AND ON OCTOBER 23rd,
2060, WIKILEAKS SENT ANOTHER DIRECT MESSAGE TO TRUMP JUNIOR
ASKING YOU GUYS TO HELP DISSEMINATE A LINK CONNECTING CANDIDATE CLINTON AND
DRONES TO ATTACK JULIAN ASSANGE. AND HE RESPONDED, HE HAD ALREADY
DONE SO. THIS BEHAVIOR AT THE VERY LEAST IS DISTURBING?
>>DISTURBING AND ALSO SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION.
>>COULD IT BE DESCRIBED AS AIDING
COMFORT TO A HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE?
>>I WOULDN’T CATEGORIZE THAT WITH ANY SPECIFICITY.
>>I YIELD THE BALANCE TO THE CHAIRMAN.
>>I’M NOT SURE I COULD MAKE GOOD USE OF 27 SECONDS, BUT
DIRECTOR, THANK YOU. YOU MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU THINK IT IS
UNETHICAL, TO PUT IT LIGHTLY, TO OUT A FOREIGN SERVICE LIKE WIKILEAKS PUBLISHING STOLEN
DOCUMENTS FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN?
>>UNDER THE CULTURE OF INVESTIGATION.
>>THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. MR. CRAWFORD, THEN AFTER MR. CRAWFORD, WE WILL TAKE A 5
TO 10 MINUTE BREAK. >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND
THANK YOU FOR BEING YOU. DAYS AFTER YOUR
>>REPORTER:, PETER STRUCK TEXTED ABOUT HIS CONCERN ABOUT
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN INVESTIGATION. DID
ANYONE ELSE WHO WORKED ON THE INVESTIGATING TELL YOU THAT
AROUND 10 MONTHS INTO THE INVESTIGATION, THE FBI STILL HAD
NO CASE FOR COLLUSION? >>WHO? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT.
>>>>SURE, THERE IS A QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO PETER STRZOK
. HE SAID THAT THERE IS NO BIG THERE THERE, DID ANYONE TELL YOU THAT 10 MONTHS INTO THE
INVESTIGATION, THE FBI STILL HAD NO CASE FOR COLLUSION?
>>NO. >>IS THE INSTRUCTOR GENERAL
REPORT CORRECT, A PAGE OF PHONES WERE NOT RETAINED AFTER THEY
LEFT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE?
>>I DON’T, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. BUT AN
INVESTIGATION INTO PETER STRZOK , IT WENT ON FOR A PERIOD OF
TIME. AND I’M NOT CERTAIN WHAT IT ENCOMPASSES. IT MAY WELL HAVE ENCOMPASSED WHAT YOU
ARE REFERRING TO. >>LET ME MOVE ON QUICKLY. DID
YOU ASK THE DEPARTMENT TO AUTHORIZE YOUR OFFICE TO
INVESTIGATE THE ORIGIN OF THE TRUMP-RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION?
>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT.
>>SO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ORIGINS OF THE
INVESTIGATION HAVE YET TO BE DOES I’M CERTAINLY GLAD THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR
AND DURHAM ARE LOOKING INTO THIS MATTER, I’D LIKE TO YIELD THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME. >>THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING. MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE AWARE OF WHO FUSION GPS IS, IT’S
A POLITICAL OPERATIONS FIRM THAT WAS WORKING DIRECTLY FOR THE
HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE.
THEY PRODUCED THE DOSSIER. SO THEY PAID SEALS WHO WENT OUT AND
GOT THE DOSSIER. I KNOW YOU DON’T
WANT TO ANSWER ANY DOSSIER QUESTIONS, SO I’M NOT GOING
THERE. BUT THE REPORT MENTIONS NATALIA 65 TIMES, DID ANY OF THE
DEMOCRATS REFERRED TO TODAY? THE MEETING WAS SHORTER THAN 20
MINUTES, I BELIEVE.
>>I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR REPORT REFLECTS IT WAS ABOUT
THAT LENGTH. >>SO DO YOU KNOW, SO FUSION GPS, THE MAIN ACTOR OF
FUSION GPS, THE OWNER OR PRESIDENT, HIS NAME IS GLENN
SIMPSON WORKING FOR HILLARY CLINTON. GLENN SIMPSON, DO YOU
KNOW HOW MANY TIMES GLENN SIMPSON MET WITH NATALIA
POKLONSKAYA? >>MYSELF? NO.
>>WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU THAT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN MET WITH NATALIA POKLONSKAYA
MORE TIMES THAN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN DID?
>>I WILL NOT GET INTO THIS AS I INDICATED AT THE OUTSET.
>>DID YOU EVER INTERVIEW GLENN SIMPSON?
>>AGAIN, I WILL PASS ON THAT. >>ACCORDING TO, I WILL CHANGE
TOPICS. ACCORDING TO THE NOTES FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL KATHLEEN CADILLAC EMMA CHRISTOPHER STEELE
TOLD HER THAT THE FORMER RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE HAD AND ADVISOR
WERE SOURCES FOR THE STEEL DOSSIER. AND KNOWING THAT, NOT
KNOWING IF THESE SOURCES ARE REAL OR NOT REAL, WAS THERE ANY
CONCERN THAT THERE COULD BE DISINFORMATION THAT WAS GOING
FROM THE KREMLIN INTO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND
THEN BEING FED INTO THE FBI? >>AS I SAID BEFORE, THIS IS AN
AREA THAT I CANNOT SPEAK TO. >>IS THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT
IN THE REPORT OR BECAUSE
>>ACCORDING TO THE DELIBERATIONS, THE PROCEEDINGS
— >>OKAY. WHEN ANDREW WISEMAN AND
SIMON AUGMENT JOINED YOUR TEAM, WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOP OFFICIAL DIRECTLY BRIEFED THE DOSSIER
ALLEGATIONS TO THEM IN THE SUMMER OF 2016?
>>AGAIN, I WON’T SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE.
>> BEFORE YOU ARRESTED GEORGE
PAPADOPOULOS IN JULY 2017, HE WAS GIVEN $10,000 IN CASH IN
ISRAEL. DO YOU KNOW WHO GAVE HIM THAT CASH?
>>AGAIN, THAT’S OUTSIDE AND QUESTIONS LIKE THAT SHOULD GO TO
THE FBI OR YOUR DEPARTMENT. >>BUT IT INVOLVED YOUR
INVESTIGATION. >>IT INVOLVED PERSONS INVOLVED
IN MY INVESTIGATION.
>>WE WILL STAND A RECESS FOR FIVE OR 10 MINUTES. PLEASE
REMAIN IN YOUR SEATS, ALLOW FOR THE DIRECTOR TO EXIT THE
CHAMBER. >>YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING FORMER
SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. THE COMMITTEE IS NOW ON BREAK AND
WILL RESUME SHORTLY. I’M JOINED IN STUDIO BY THE WASHINGTON POST
WHITE HOUSE REPORTER ASHLEY PARKER. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
JOINING US. >>SO SLIGHTLY MORE ANIMATED
ROBERT MUELLER IN THIS HEARING THEN IN THE LAST. BUT TELL ME,
HOW IS THIS PLAYING OUT? HOW ARE PEOPLE VIEWING THIS FROM OUTSIDE, PARTICULARLY AT THE
WHITE HOUSE? >>IT IS WORTH NOTING GOING IN,
EVEN JUST IN THE LEAD UP AND TALKING TO PEOPLE INSIDE THE
WHITE HOUSE AND OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE, THERE WAS NOT THE
LEVEL OF EITHER ANXIETY OR PREPARATION THAT YOU MIGHT
EXPECT LEADING UP TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. THERE WAS JUST A
GENERAL SENSE THAT THE REPORT WAS MORE OF A DUD THAN EVERYONE HAD EXPECTED. AND PART OF THAT,
THEY WOULD SAY, A LOT OF THE STORIES IN THIS REPORT, AS WE
ACTUALLY HEARD, HE WAS PRESSED ON, THEY CANNOT AND REPORTING IN
THE WASHINGTON POST, THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE MEDIA. SO
WHEN THIS LANDED, IT WAS HUGE AND IN SOME WAYS, IT WAS DAMNING
FOR THE PRESENT, BUT IT WASN’T BRAND-NEW. IT WASN’T PAGES AND
PAGES OF BRAND-NEW ADMISSION. ONE SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL
SAID TO ME, ROBERT MUELLER WILL GO OVER THERE AND JUST TESTIFY,
JUST LIKE BEFORE THE COURT, THERE IS NO INDICTMENT OF THE
PRESENT. YOU WILL NOT BE IN INDICTMENT, THERE MIGHT BE CHARGES. THERE ALSO WASN’T
THE KIND OF PREPARATION. IT WAS IN THE
CASE THAT THE HEARING STARTED EARLY, IT WASN’T THAT THE
CAMPAIGN PEOPLE WERE ARRIVING AT 4 AM TO CHUG RED BULL AND GET
AMPED UP. EVERYONE WOULD BE MONITORING AND WATCHING AND
RESPONDING IN KIND, BUT IT WAS NOT THE MONSTER OPERATION YOU
MIGHT HAVE EXPECTED. THAT’S JUST SOME CONTEXT TO BRING US TO
TODAY. THEY WERE SUPER NERVOUS, BUT THE CHALLENGE WITH ALL OF
THIS IS THAT THEY CARED A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE SOMEONE DESCRIBED TO
ME, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CARED.>>HE DID SAY HE WOULD BE
WATCHING A LITTLE BIT. >>BUT I BELIEVE HE WATCHED A
LITTLE MORE THAN A LITTLE BIT. >>A LITTLE MORE THAN A LITTLE?
[ LAUGHTER ] >>THEY CARED BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT CARED AND HE PERSONALLY INSTRUCTED, I WANT A
RESPONSE, I WANT SURROGATES PUSHING OUR MESSAGE. I WANT
THESE PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH US AND YOU
HAVE TO BE SUPPORTING US AND IT STARTED IN EARNEST AT TIMES LIKE
YESTERDAY, THE PRESIDENT DICTATING THE RESPONSE AND
AGAIN, PEOPLE AROUND HIM CARE BECAUSE HE CARES AND IS ALWAYS
THE CHALLENGE OF, WELL, WHO KNOWS WHAT MUELLER WILL SAY? AND
WHAT IF HE SAYS SOMETHING THAT KIND OF PROMPTS THE PRESIDENT TO
TWEET SOMETHING OUT OR SAY SOMETHING PROBLEMATIC THAT THEY
ALL HAVE TO SCRAMBLE TO CLEAN UP. BUT ONCE THIS HEARING
STARTED, IT BECAME VERY CLEAR, THIS IS KIND OF THE REACTION YOU
HEAR TALKING TO JOURNALISTS AND YOU SEE ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND
FRANKLY FROM DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, ESPECIALLY IN THE
PRESIDENTIAL ORBIT, SOMEONE DESCRIBED TO ME, THE MOOD IS
JOYOUS. IT WASN’T JUST NOT AS BAD AS THEY THOUGHT, HE THOUGHT
IT WAS WAY BETTER FOR THEM. THERE WAS NO MOMENT THAT THE
DEMOCRATS WANTED THAT WOULD GO VIRAL FROM BOB MUELLER. AND
THERE WAS THE SENSE THAT HE SEEMED OLDER AND A LITTLE
STUMBLING AND BUMBLING AND FUMBLING AND OFF HIS GAME. AND
IF YOU LOOK AT THE RANGE OF RESPONSES FROM PEOPLE IN THE
PRESIDENT’S ORBIT, THERE’S THE KIND OF DOWNRIGHT COOL SEIZING
ON THAT. TO THE MORE JUST LOOK, HE DIDN’T REALLY COME TO PLAY.
>>HE WAS NOT THE SUPER WITNESS THAT DEMOCRATS WERE HOPING FOR.
>>EXACTLY. SO THAT’S HOW THEY FEEL. AND HE CAN SEE SOME OF
THAT MESSAGE GETTING PUSHED OUT WHAT THEY’RE SAYING AND WHAT
THEY’RE TEXTING PRIVATELY AND FRANKLY IN WHAT THEY ARE
TWEETING. >>WHAT ARE THEY TEXTING
PRIVATELY? >>THAT THE MOOD IS KIND OF ONE
OF GLEE AND IT IS JOYFUL, AND THERE IS A SENSE THAT IT IS A
WIN FOR THEM EITHER WAY. THAT SOMEONE SAID LOOK, AS A HUMAN, I
MAY DEAL SOME SYMPATHY FOR BOB MUELLER, BUT EITHER, HE IS SORT
OF AN OLD MAN WHO IF HE WASN’T CAPABLE OF GIVING A VERY COGENT,
PRECISE TESTIMONY TODAY, THEN HOW ON EARTH CAN WE SAY THAT HE
WAS THE PERSON BEST TASKED TO OVERSEE THIS ENTIRE INVESTIGATION? THERE WERE
A FEW, I WANT TO SAY DAMNING, BUT THERE WERE SOME MOMENTS
WHERE DEMOCRATS GOT A LITTLE SMIDGE OF WHAT THEY WANTED OR
THEY GOT HIM TO TALK ABOUT IN THE REPORT, HE WAS NOT ACTUALLY
EXONERATED, BUT I WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE WHO SAID I CANNOT
IMAGINE THE CAMPAIGN AND THAT THAT CLIP ENDS UP IN AND THE
PERSON SAID AS THE PRESIDENT WOULD SAY, IT WAS A VERY
LOW-ENERGY DESCRIPTION. >>NOW THERE WASN’T A HIGHER ENERGY MOMENT. THE FIRST HEARING
TODAY WAS SORT OF MUTED. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING
STARTED WITH A STRONG EXCHANGE BETWEEN CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF AND
ROBERT MUELLER. LET’S WATCH THAT.
>>APART FROM THE RUSSIANS WANTING TO HELP TRUMP WIN,
SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WERE ALSO TRYING
TO MAKE MONEY DURING THE CAMPAIGN AND TRANSITION, IS THAT
CORRECT? >>THAT’S TRUE.
>>PAUL MANAFORT WAS TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OR ACHIEVE DEBT
FORGIVENESS, A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH?>>GENERALLY, THAT WAS ACCURATE.
>>MICHAEL FLYNN WAS TRYING TO MAKE MONEY FROM TURKEY?
>>TRUE. >>DONALD TRUMP WAS TRYING TO
MAKE MILLIONS FROM A REAL ESTATE DEAL IN MOSCOW?
>>TO THE EXTENT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE HOTEL IN MOSCOW?
>>YES. >>YES.
>>WHEN YOUR INVESTIGATION LOOK INTO THE MATTERS, NUMEROUS TRUMP
ASSOCIATE LIED TO YOUR TEAM AND GRAND JURY AND CONGRESS?
>>THE NUMBER PERSONS THAT WE INTERVIEWED AND OUR
INVESTIGATION, IT TURNS OUT, THEY DID LIE .
>>MIKE FLYNN LIED? >>HE WAS CONVICTED OF LYING,
YES. >>GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS WAS
CONVICTED OF LYING? >>TRUE.
>>PAUL MANAFORT? >>TRUE.
>>PAUL MANAFORT WENT SO FAR AS TO ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO LIE?
>>THAT IS ACCURATE. >>RICK GATES LIED?
>>THAT’S ACCURATE. >>MICHAEL COHEN, THE PRESIDENTIAL LIAR — LAWYER WAS
INDICTED FOR LYING? >>TRUE.
>>HE STAYED ON MESSAGE BY LYING?
>>ALLEGEDLY BY HIM. >>WHEN DONALD TRUMP CALLED YOUR
INVESTIGATION A WITCHHUNT, THAT WAS FALSE, WAS IT NOT?
>>I’D LIKE TO THINK SO. YES. >>IT IS NOT A WITCHHUNT, IS IT?
>>IT IS NOT A WITCHHUNT. >>THAT IS NOT A WITCHHUNT,
THAT’S WHAT PASSES FOR A REALLY STRONG EXCHANGE AND STRONG
MOMENT FROM THIS VERY SUBDUED FORMER SPECIAL
COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER. AGAIN, THE PHRASING IS PHRASING WE’VE
HEARD SO OFTEN FROM THE PRESIDENT. LATER ON, THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL ALSO SAID IT IS NOT A HOAX. THOSE ARE TWO WORDS THE
PRESIDENT OFTEN USED TO DESCRIBE THE INVESTIGATION. TO WHAT
EXTENT DOES HIS APPEARANCE TODAY UNDERCUT THAT, THE NARRATIVE
ABOUT HIS EXONERATION?
>>THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION AND WE DON’T KNOW YET. AND THAT
EXCHANGE DID SEE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF LAYING OUT SOME BASELINE FACTS THAT WORK TO THE
DEMOCRATIC BENEFIT THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL PROBABLY WANTED OUT
THERE THAT IT WASN’T A WITCHHUNT AND IT WASN’T A HOAX AND IT WAS
A REAL INVESTIGATION AND THE RUSSIANS DID, IN FACT, WORK TO
INTERFERE AND DID INTERFERE IN THE U.S. ELECTION AND THEIR GOAL
MAINLY WAS TO HELP THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP, BUT MUELLER DID
SAY THAT THERE WERE SIMILAR INSTANCES WHERE HILLARY CLINTON
WAS TARGETED. BUT I THINK THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH
DOES THIS CHANGE THINGS? I THINK THE ONE THING THE PRESIDENT
AGAIN IS A MASTER OF IS SORT OF MESSAGING AND NICKNAMES AND
SHORTHAND AND BEING QUICKLY. AND I THINK IT’S
FAIR TO SAY THAT AT A CERTAIN POINT, THIS REPORT, THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL INVESTIGATION WAS A PR WAR, BUT THAT’S KIND OF WHAT IT
BECAME AND THAT SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT AND FRANKLY HIS FINAL
TEAM OF LAWYERS, INTUITIVE, VERY EARLY ON. SO DID THIS COUNTER THAT? MAYBE A LITTLE, BUT YOU’VE
HAD THE PRESIDENT FOR ALMOST 2 YEARS MESSAGING THIS DAY AND AND
DAY OUT, A HUGE RALLY ON TWITTER, THIS IS A WITCHHUNT AND
THIS WAS A HOAX AND I SHOULD SAY THAT IS NOT THE POST ASSESSMENT
OF THE INVESTIGATION, BUT THE MESSAGE WAS FOR SO LONG AND WHEN
YOU HAVE MUELLER AND A CLIPPED, TERSE
PROFESSIONAL LANGUAGE COUNTERING IT WITH YES, YES, ACCURATE, NO.
>>READ THE REPORT. >>I DON’T KNOW IF THAT KIND OF
PACS THE IMPACT TO GO AGAINST 2 YEARS OF THE PRESIDENT’S SIGNATURE MARKETING.
>>AND THE PRESIDENT, WHEN IT WAS SCHEDULED FOR ONE WEEK AGO,
HE TALKED ABOUT DOING SOME COUNTERPROGRAMMING. HE
WOULD HOLD A RALLY THAT NIGHT. TODAY, HIS SCHEDULE IS LIGHT.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE HE HAS BEEN KEEPING AN EYE ON THINGS. MIGHT
HE SAY SOMETHING LATER? COULD WE HEAR SOMETHING DIRECTLY FROM THE
PRESIDENT EITHER ON TWITTER OR ELSEWHERE?
>>WE’VE ALREADY BEEN HEARING FROM HIM ON TWITTER ALL DAY. IT
STARTED AS JUST GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT TWEETS BEFORE I CAME
ON AND HE WAS RE-TWEETING POSITIVE SENTIMENTS. PEOPLE WHO
THOUGHT MUELLER WAS DOING A BAD JOB OR PEOPLE SAYING NO
COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, TOTAL EXONERATION. MIDWAY THROUGH, HE
WEIGHED IN AND SAID I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE DEMOCRATS. AGAIN,
WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE WILL HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT, BUT I THINK
IF HISTORY IS ANY GUIDANCE, IT IS A FAIRLY SAFE ASSUMPTION WE
WILL HEAR SOMETHING. THE SCHEDULE WAS INCREDIBLY LIGHT
AND I TALKED TO A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL AROUND A LITTLE BEFORE
11 AM AND THE PRESIDENT STILL HAD NOT LEFT THE RESIDENCE. THE
PRESIDENT WAS WATCHING THE HEARING IN THE RESIDENCE. SO
STARS ARE JUST LIKE US [ LAUGHTER ]
>>HE WAS GLUED TO HIS TELEVISION.
>>THAT’S RIGHT. >>BUT THE ONE THING HE HAS TO
DO TODAY IS HE’S GOING TO LEAVE THE WHITE HOUSE AND WALK OUT
WITH A CELL PHONE AND GET ON MARINE 1 TO FIGHT TO A FUNDRAISER. THE PRESENT OFTEN
STOPS TO WEIGH IN ON THE NEWS OF THE DAY AND IT’S HARD TO IMAGINE
ON THIS DAY WITH THE REPORTERS WHO ARE WAITING TO WATCH HIM —
ESPECIALLY WITH THE SENSE FROM INSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE, THIS IS
IT WENT SO WELL FOR HIM, THAT HE WILL NOT STOP TO WEIGH IN AND
GLOAT. >>WOULD OFFICIALLY KNOW.
>>INTO A VICTORY LAP. YES. AND THE CAMERAS ARE SORT OF
IRRESISTIBLE. >>HAVING BEEN WATCHING
TELEVISION ALL DAY, YOU ARE THINKING YOU MIGHT WANT TO MAKE
A LITTLE BIT. >>WE ARE LOOKING AT THE HEARING
ROOM, THEY ARE STILL ON A BREAK. A 5 TO 10 MINUTE BREAK WITH THE
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. IT LOOKS LIKE SOME PEOPLE ARE
FILING BACK INTO THE ROOM, BUT WE WILL WAIT AND SEE WHEN ROBERT
MUELLER TAKES THE SEAT AGAIN TO RESUME THIS HEARING. THIS IS THE
SECOND OF TWO HEARINGS TODAY. AND OVERALL, ASHLEY, THIS WILL
BE FIVE HOURS OF TESTIMONY. DOES THIS MOVE THE GROUND AT ALL? DO
YOU THINK FOR DEMOCRATS WHO WANTED IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>>AGAIN, THIS IS JUST, AND I SHOULD ALSO BE CLEAR, I’VE BEEN
TALKING TO PEOPLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE ALL DAY. AND SO I DON’T
KNOW IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ORBIT IF MAYBE DEMOCRATS HAVE A
DIFFERENT SENTIMENT, BUT ONE THING THAT IS STRIKING IS THAT
WHEN YOU GO OUT AND YOU TALK TO VOTERS, I TALKED TO MORE VOTERS
AT THE PRESIDENT WILL RALLY. I TALKED TO SUPPORTERS AND I, WE
HAVE A LOT OF CAMPAIGN REPORTERS AND WE TALK TO PEOPLE WHO
DESPERATELY WANT THE PRESIDENT OUT OF OFFICE. IMPEACHMENT AND
EVEN THE MUELLER REPORT IS NOT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMES UP.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT TYPICALLY COMES UP UNPROMPTED.
AND EVEN IF YOU BRING IT UP, BECAUSE YOU ARE CURIOUS, JUST ON
THE WHOLE, IT FEELS LIKE IT IS NOT TOP OF MIND. SO HAVING WATCH
THIS TODAY, IT WAS FASCINATING AND INTERESTING FOR A NUMBER OF
REASONS, BUT I DON’T KNOW THAT IT WILL KIND OF RESONATE IN THE
PUBLIC CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE ETHER IN A WAY THAT REALLY HAS
THE STAYING POWER TO CHANGE MOODS AND MINDS AND THOUGHTS AND
SENTIMENTS A WEEK FROM NOW. >>THE PRESIDENT SURELY MENTIONS
IT OFTEN IN HIS CAMPAIGN, DO YOU SEE HIM USING ANYTHING FROM
TODAY AS FURTHER, YOU KNOW, FODDER FOR THE CAMPAIGN RALLY?
>>INTENTIONALLY. I MEAN, HE IS ALREADY BEEN SAYING FOR A WHILE
NOW, NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, TOTAL EXONERATION.
THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY, IT’S WORTH MENTIONING, WHAT BOB MUELLER
FOUND. BUT I THINK IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT, WE’VE EVEN SEEN HIM
TODAY POINTING ON TWITTER AS THE HEARING IS GOING ON THAT SORT OF
THING WELL, THIS JUST FURTHER PROVES IT.
>>SO I THINK YOU WILL ABSOLUTELY SEE HIM
CONTINUE THAT LINE OF ARGUMENT AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS WILL
YOU GET THE KIND OF ATTACK ROBERT MUELLER ON A PERSONAL
BASIS? >>A PERSONAL LEVEL, THAT WILL
BE INTERESTING. AND SPEAKING OF, HE HAS RETURNED TO THE HEARING
ROOM. THIS IS RAYBURN 2141, THIS IS THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
HEARING ROOM BUT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS USING
IT FOR THIS SESSION WITH ROBERT MUELLER. THIS IS WITHIN A DAY OF
TESTIMONY AND WE ARE BACK FOR THE SECOND PART OF THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEETING. THEY ARE FINISHING UP
QUESTIONING OF ROBERT MUELLER AND THAT WILL BE THE FINAL STOP FOR THE PUBLIC
HEARINGS ON CAPITOL HILL TODAY. WE WILL TAKE YOU LIVE. AND WE
WILL BE BACK AT THE END OF THIS SESSION WITH MORE REPORTING AND
ANALYSIS. >>THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. MR. SWALLOW, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER, AS A
PROSECUTOR, YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IF A WITNESS OR SUSPECT LIES OR
OBSTRUCTS OR TAMPERS WITH WITNESSES OR DESTROYS EVIDENCE
DURING AN INVESTIGATION, THAT GENERALLY, THAT CONDUCT CAN BE
USED TO SHOW A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
>>YES. >>LET’S GO THROUGH THE
DIFFERENT PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THIS
INVESTIGATION WHO LIED TO YOU AND OTHER INVESTIGATORS TO COVER
UP THEIR DISLOYAL AND UNPATRIOTIC CONDUCT. IF WE CAN
PUT EXHIBIT 8 UP. DIRECTOR MUELLER, I’M SHOWING YOU
CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT, POLITICAL ADVISOR ROGER STONE,
DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER RICK GATES , NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
MICHAEL FLYNN, DONALD TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, MICHAEL
COHEN, AND FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS.
THESE SIX INDIVIDUALS HAVE EACH BEEN CHARGED AND CONVICTED OR
LIED TO YOUR OFFICE OR OTHER INVESTIGATORS. IS THAT RIGHT?
>>I’M IN THE STANCE THAT MR. STONE, HE IS, HE IS IN A DIFFERENT CASE HERE, IN DC.
>>’S INITIAL SECURITY ADVISOR FLYNN LIED ABOUT DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR RELATED TO SANCTIONS. IS THAT
RIGHT? >>THAT’S CORRECT.
>>MICHAEL COHEN LIGHT TO THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT TRUMP TOWER,
MASCO COME IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES.
>>GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, THE SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR LIED TO
THE FBI ABOUT HIS MEDICATIONS ABOUT RUSSIA’S POSSESSION OF
DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON. >>CORRECT. >>THE CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL
MANAFORT LIED ABOUT MEETINGS THAT HE HAD WITH SOMEONE WITH
TIES TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>>THAT’S TRUE. >>AND YOUR INVESTIGATION WAS
HAMPERED BY TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS USE OF ENCRYPTION
MEDICATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>>WE BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE CASE.
>>YOU ALSO BELIEVE TO BE THE CASE THAT YOUR INVESTIGATION WAS
HAMPERED BY THE DELETION OF ELECTRONIC MESSAGES. IS THAT
CORRECT? >>IT WOULD BE, YES. GENERALLY
ANY CASE WOULD BE IF THOSE KINDS OF COMMUNICATIONS ARE USED.
>>FOR EXAMPLE, YOU NOTED THAT DEPUTY CAMPAIGN
MANAGER RICK GATES, WHO SHARED INTERNAL CAMPAIGN POLLING DATA
WITH THE PERSON WITH TIES TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE AT THE
DIRECTION OF THE PAUL MANAFORT THAT MR. GATES DELETED THOSE
MEDICATIONS ON A DAILY BASIS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>>I TAKE YOUR WORD. I DON’T KNOW
SPECIFICALLY, BUT IF IT IS IN THE REPORT, THEN I SUPPORT IT.
>>THAT’S RIGHT. IT IS VOLUME 1, PAGE 136.
>>THANK YOU. >>IN ADDITION TO THAT, OTHER
INFORMATION WAS INACCESSIBLE BECAUSE YOUR OFFICE DETERMINED
IT WAS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
>>THAT IS TRUE. >>THAT WOULD INCLUDE THAT YOU
DON’T KNOW WHETHER THE MEDICATIONS BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP
AND HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEYS, J SECULAR, RUDY GIULIANI AND
OTHERS DISCOURAGE WITNESSES FROM COOPERATING WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
IS THAT RIGHT? >>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK TO
THAT. >>THAT ALSO MEAN THAT YOU CAN’T
TALK TO WHETHER OR NOT PARDONS WERE DANGLED THROUGHOUT THE
PRESIDENT’S ATTORNEYS BECAUSE THE SHIELD OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE? >>I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS
THAT. >>DID YOU WANT TO INTERVIEW
DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR? >>I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS
THAT. >>DID YOU SUBPOENA DONALD TRUMP
JUNIOR? >>I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS
THAT. >>DID YOU WANT TO INTERVIEW THE
PRESENT? >>YES.
>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, ON JANUARY 1, 2070 THROUGH MARCH 29 — MARCH 20-2019, PRESIDENT TRUMP
MET WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN IN PERSON SIX TIMES AND CALLED HIM
10 TIMES AND EXCHANGED FOUR LETTERS WITH THEM. BETWEEN THAT
TIME PERIOD, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU MEET WITH DONALD TRUMP?
>>I’M NOT GOING TO, I WILL NOT GET INTO THAT.
>>HE DID NOT MEET WITH YOU IN
PERSON, IS THAT CORRECT? >>HE DID NOT.
>>AS A RESULT OF LIES, DELETION OF TEXT MESSAGES, OBSTRUCTION
AND WITNESS TAMPERING, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU ARE UNABLE
TO FULLY ASSESS THE SCOPE AND SCALE OF THE RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND TRUMP’S ROLE IN
THAT INTERFERENCE? >>I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD ADOPT
THAT CHARACTERIZATION. IN TOTAL, THERE MAY BE PIECES OF IT THAT
ARE ACCURATE, BUT NOT IN TOTAL. >>BUT YOU STATED IN VOLUME 1,
PAGE 10, THIS REPORT EMBODIES FACTUAL AND LEGAL TERMINATIONS,
THE OFFICE BELIEVES IT TO BE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE
GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE GIVEN THESE IDENTIFIED GAPS, THE
OFFICE CANNOT RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE UNAVAILABLE
INFORMATION WHICH SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT, IS THAT
CORRECT? >>THAT IS CORRECT. WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE DON’T
KNOW. >>WISE IT’S IMPORTANT THAT
WITNESSES COOPERATE AND TELL THE TRUTH AN INVESTIGATION LIKE
THIS? >>BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY OF THE
WITNESSES GOES TO THE HEART OF JUST ABOUT ANY CRIMINAL CASE YOU
HAVE. >>THANK YOU. AND I YIELD BACK
AND THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR.
MUELLER, AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, DID YOU REVIEW DOCUMENTS RELATED TO
THE ORIGIN OF THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
INVESTIGATION INTO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN?
>>ON OCCASION. >>AND WAS THE STEELE DOSSIER,
ONE OF THOSE DISCUSSED.
>>I WILL NOT RESPOND TO THAT. >>DID YOU READ IT?
>>I WILL NOT RESPOND TO THAT. >>YOU WERE TASKED AS SPECIAL
COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE COLLUSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
ASSOCIATES TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 ELECTIONS. THE FBI, WE
KNOW, HAS RELATIVE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RELATED TO THE
OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATION. WERE YOU AND YOUR TEAM PERMITTED
TO ACCESS ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS? >>AGAIN, I CAN GET INTO THAT
INVESTIGATIVE, WHAT WE COLLECTED AND WHAT WE WERE DOING WITH
INVESTIGATIONS, INVESTIGATION MATERIALS.
>>LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY, WAS THERE ANY LIMIT TATIAN IN YOUR
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE?
>>AND THAT SUCH, THAT SUCH A BROAD QUESTION, I REAL TROUBLE
ANSWERING IT.
>>DID A SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE UNDERTAKE ANY EFFORTS TO
INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY OR DISPROVE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED
IN THE STEELE DOSSIER? >> AGAIN, I CANNOT RESPOND.
>>THE REASON I’M ASKING FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT’S WATCHING,
IT IS APPARENT THAT THE STEEL DOSSIER FORMED PART OF THE BASIS
TO JUSTIFY THE FBI’S COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016
ELECTION. IT WAS USED TO OBTAIN A FISA WARRANT ON CARTER PAGE.
DID YOUR OFFICE UNDERTAKE ANY EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCES OR SUB
SOURCES? >>AGAIN, THE SAME ANSWER.
>>WERE THESE TASKS REFERRED TO ANY OTHER AGENCIES?
>>AGAIN, I CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT.
>>DID YOUR OFFICE CONSIDER WHETHER THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
USED THE SOURCES TO PROVIDE HIM WITH MISINFORMATION?
>>AGAIN, I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.>>I’M JUST ASKING THESE
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
>>SHIFTED GEARS, THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S
STAFF TRAVEL OVERSEAS AS PART OF INVESTIGATION?
>>YES, BUT I CAN’T GO FURTHER THAN THAT.
>>I WILL ASK. TO WHICH COUNTRIES?
>>AND I CAN’T ANSWER THAT. >>THAT THEY MEET WITH FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS? >>AGAIN, THAT’S OUT OF OUR BANDWIDTH.
>>DID THEY MEET WITH FOREIGN PRIVATE CITIZENS?
>>AGAIN, SAME RESPONSE. >>THAT THEY SEEK INFORMATION
ABOUT A U.S. CITIZEN OR ANY — >>AGAIN, TERRITORY THAT I
CANNOT GO TO. >>THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING ON
THE RECORD, THESE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FOR THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC AND WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE IG IS ABLE TO ANSWER THESE
QUESTIONS. I WILL YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO THE
RANKING MEMBERS.
>>I THINK THE GENTLE LADY FOR YIELDING. MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO
GO BACK TO WE STARTED OFF WITH JOSEPH LIPSETT WHO IS
AT THE CENTER OF THIS INVESTIGATION AND HE APPEARS IN
THE REPORT. A DOZEN TIMES OR MORE. HE REALLY IS THE
EPICENTER. HE IS AT THE ORIGIN OF THIS AND IS THE MAN WHO
SUPPOSEDLY KNOWS ABOUT THE CLINTON EMAILS.
>>YOU HAVE SEEN ON THE SCREEN THE DEMOCRATS CAN PUT UP ALL OF
THE PROSECUTIONS THAT YOU MADE AGAINST TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS
AND OTHERS. BUT, I’M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DIDN’T INDICT JOSEPH LIPSETT WHO
SEEMS TO BE THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF THIS.
>>WELL, I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CANNOT GET INTO ANY OF
THE CLASSIFIED OR LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION WITHOUT
A RATIONALE FOR DOING IT. AND I HAVE SAID, I’M GOING TO BE ABLE
TO SAY WITH REGARD TO HIM.
>>WERE YOU AWARE OF KATHLEEN X INVOLVEMENT THAT SHE
MET WITH MS. STEELE? >>AGAIN, I CAN’T RESPOND TO
THAT QUESTION. THAT IS OUTSIDE MY JURISDICTION.
>>THE CARTER PAGE WARRANT WAS RE-UPPED THREE
TIMES. THE LAST TIME IT WAS RE-UPPED WAS UNDER YOUR WATCH. SO YOU, WERE YOU IN THE
APPROVAL PROCESS OF THAT LAST TIME THAT THE CARTER PAGE
WARRANT WAS? >>WELL, I CAN’T SPEAK
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT WARRANT, BUT IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU ASK WAS
I IN THE APPROVAL TRAIN, THE ANSWER IS NO.
>>VERY HELPFUL, THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. >>MR. CASTRO?
>>THANK YOU, JIM, THANK YOU SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY AND SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. DONALD TRUMP OF THE
YEARS HAS SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH SOME VERY SHADY PEOPLE.
PEOPLE THAT LIVE FOR HIM, PEOPLE THAT COVERED UP FOR HIM. PEOPLE
THAT HELP THEM ENRICH HIMSELF. I WANT TO SPEAK
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES THAT IS IN YOUR
REPORT. SPECIFICALLY, LET’S TURN TO THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW
PROJECT WHICH YOU DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT AS A HIGHLY LUCRATIVE DEAL FOR THE TRUMP
ORGANIZATION. IS THAT RIGHT? >>I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE QUOTE FROM THE REPORT IF YOU
HAVE IT. >>IT IS IN VOLUME 2, PAGE 135.
IT IS DESCRIBED AS HIGHLY LUCRATIVE. >>OKAY. I HAVEN’T.
>> THANK YOU.
>>NO PROBLEM. YOUR OFFICE PROSECUTED MICHAEL CULLEN AND
MICHAEL COHEN WAS DONALD TRUMP’S LAWYER FOR LYING TO THIS
COMMITTEE ABOUT SEVERAL ASPECTS OF THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION’S
PURSUIT OF THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW DEAL. IS THAT
RIGHT? >>THAT’S CORRECT.
>>ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, MICHAEL COHEN LIED TO QUOTE
MINIMIZE LINKS BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND TRUMP, UNQUOTE. AND
TO QUOTE, STICK TO THE PARTY LINES, UNQUOTE. IN ORDER TO NOT CONTRADICT TRUMP’S PUBLIC
MESSAGE THAT NO CONNECTION EXISTED BETWEEN TRUMP AND
RUSSIA. IS THAT RIGHT? >>YES. THAT IS CORRECT.
>>WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PARTY LINE THE PARTY LINE IN
THIS CASE DOES >>IF I COULD INTERJECT, ONE
THING I SHOULD’VE SAID AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS IN THE REPORT AND
CONSEQUENTLY, I DO BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE.
>>THANK YOU. >>THE PARTY LINE IN THIS CASE
WAS THAT THE DEAL ENDED IN JANUARY 2016. IN OTHER WORDS,
THEY WERE SAYING THAT THE DEAL AND THAT IN 2016 BEFORE THE
REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. IN TRUTH, THE DEAL EXTENDED TO JUNE 2016.
ONE DONALD TRUMP WAS ALREADY THE PRESUMPTIVE
REPUBLICAN NOMINEE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>>THAT IS CORRECT. >>THE PARTY LINE WAS ALSO, DID
COHEN DISCUSS THE DEAL WITH TRUMP ONLY THREE TIMES WHEN IN
TRUTH, THEY DISCUSSED IT MULTIPLE TIMES. IS THAT RIGHT?
>>ALSO TRUE IN THE BASES, PART OF THE BASIS THAT HE ENTERED. OR ALIGNED TO THIS
ENTITY. >>THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU FOR
PROSECUTING THAT. >>THE PARTY LINE WAS ALSO THAT
COHEN AND TRUMP NEVER DISCUSSED TRAVELING TO RUSSIA DURING THE
CAMPAIGN WHEN IN TRUTH THEY DID DISCUSS IT. IS
THAT RIGHT? >>THAT’S ACCURATE.
>>AND THE PARTY LINE WAS THAT COHEN NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE
FROM THE KREMLIN IN HIS INQUIRIES ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER
MOSCOW DEAL. IN FACT, HE NOT ONLY RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM
THE KREMLIN TO HIS EMAIL, BUT ALSO HAD A LENGTHY CONVERSATION
WITH THE KREMLIN REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAD A DETAILED UNDERSTANDING
OF THE PROJECT. IS THAT RIGHT? >>IF IT IS IN THE REPORT, THAT
IS ACCURATE. RECITATION OF THAT PIECE IN THE REPORT.
>>SO YOU HAD THE CANDIDATE TRUMP AT THE TIME SAYING HE HAD
NO BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA, HIS LAWYER WAS LYING
ABOUT IT, AND THEN THE KREMLIN WHO DURING THAT TIME
WAS TALKING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP LAWYER ABOUT THE DEAL, IS THAT
RIGHT? >>I CAN’T ADOPT A
CHARACTERIZATION. >>NOT ONLY WAS COHEN LYING ON TRUMP’S
BEHALF, BUT SO WAS THE KREMLIN. ON AUGUST 20 2017, TWO DAYS
AFTER COHEN SUBMITTED HIS FALSE STATEMENT TO THIS COMMITTEE
CLAIMING THAT HE NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO HIS EMAIL TO THE
KREMLIN, VLADIMIR PUTIN REST SECRETARY TOLD REPORTERS THAT
THE KREMLIN LEFT THE EMAIL UNANSWERED. THAT STATEMENT
BY PUTIN’S PRESS SECRETARY WAS FALSE, WASN’T IT?
>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT. >>ALTHOUGH IT WAS WIDELY
REPORTED IN THE PRESS. >>AGAIN, I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT
PARTICULARLY IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS DEPENDENT UPON MEDIA
SOURCES. >>BUT IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH
THE LIE THAT COHEN HAD MADE TO THE COMMITTEE. IS THAT RIGHT?
>>I’M NOT SURE IF I COULD GO THAT FAR.
>>SO MICHAEL COHEN, PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND THE KREMLIN WERE ALL
TELLING THE SAME LIE? >>I DEFER TO YOU ON THAT. I
CAN’T BE I CAN’T GET INTO DETAILS.
>>SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, I WANT TO ASK YOU SOMETHING THAT’S
VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATION. DID YOUR INVESTIGATION EVALUATE
WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD BE VULNERABLE TO BLACKMAIL BY THE
RUSSIANS BECAUSE THE KREMLIN KNEW THAT TRUMP AND
HIS ASSOCIATES LIED ABOUT CONNECTIONS TO RUSSIA RELATED TO
THE TRUMP TOWER DEAL? >>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.
>>I YIELD BACK.
>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU’VE BEEN
ASKED MANY TIMES THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE. AND IMPEACHMENT AND THE STEEL DOSSIER AND I DON’T
THINK YOUR ANSWERS ARE GOING TO CHANGE IF I ASK YOU ABOUT THOSE
QUESTIONS, SO I’M GOING TO ASK ABOUT A COUPLE OF PRESS STORIES,
BECAUSE A LOT OF WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE RECEIVED
ABOUT THIS HAVE BEEN ON PRESS STORIES AND SOME OF THAT HAS
BEEN WRONG IN SOME OF THOSE PRESS STORIES HAVE BEEN
ACCURATE. ON APRIL 13 2018, McCLATCHY REPORTED THAT YOU HAD
EVIDENCE MICHAEL COHEN MADE A SECRET TRIP TO PRAGUE DURING THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. I THINK
HE TOLD ONE OF THE COMMITTEES THAT WAS INCORRECT. IS THAT
STORY TRUE? >>I CAN, WELL, I CAN’T GO INTO
IT. >>ON OCTOBER 31 OF 2016, SLATE
PUBLISHED A REPORT SUGGESTING THAT A
SERVER AT TRUMP TOWER WAS SECRETLY COMMUNICATING WITH
RUSSIA’S ALPHA BANK AND THEN I QUOTE, AKIN TO WHAT CRIMINAL
SYNDICATES DO. DO YOU KNOW IF THAT STORY IS TRUE?
>>I DO NOT. >>I DO NOT.
>>I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER IT’S TRUE.
>>SO DID YOU NOT INVESTIGATE THESE ALLEGATIONS WHICH ARE
SUGGESTIVE OF POTENTIAL TRUMP AND RUSSIA.
>>BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT’S NOT TRUE DOES NOT MEAN IT WOULD NOT
BE INVESTIGATED. IT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED, BUT MY
BELIEF AT THIS POINT IS IT’S NOT TRUE.
>>AS A FORMER CIA OFFICER, I WANT TO FOCUS ON SOMETHING I
THINK BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL AISLE CAN AGREE ON.
THAT IS HOW DO WE PREVENT RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE AND OTHER
ADVERSARIES FROM DOING THIS AGAIN?
>>AND AFTER OVERSEEING COUNTERINTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS
FOR 12 YEARS AS THE FBI DIRECTOR AND THEN INVESTIGATING WHAT THE
RUSSIANS HAVE DONE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, YOU’VE SEEN TACTICS
AND TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS OF RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS.
OUR COMMITTEE MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE FBI
SHOULD IMPROVE THE VICTIM NOTIFICATION PROCESS WHEN A
PERSON, ENTITY, OR CAMPAIGN HAS FALLEN VICTIM TO ACTIVE MEASURES
ATTACKED. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THIS?
>>IT SOUNDS LIKE A WORTHWHILE ENDEAVOR. I WILL TELL YOU THOUGH
THAT THE ABILITY OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER IN THIS ARENA IS
PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT. AND ADOPTING WHATEVER, AND I’M
NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH LEGISLATION, BUT WHATEVER LEGISLATION WILL
ENCOURAGE US WORKING TOGETHER, BY US, I MEAN THE FBI AND CIA, AND NSA AND THE REST.
IT SHOULD BE PURSUED AGGRESSIVELY, EARLY.
>>COULD YOU THINK SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE WITHIN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO COUNTER DISINFORMATION?
>>I’M NO LONGER IN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
>>BUT YOU’VE HAD A LONG STORIED CAREER, AND I DON’T THINK
THERE’S ANYBODY WHO BETTER UNDERSTANDS THE THREAT THAT WE
ARE FACING THAN YOU. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION? AS A FORMER FBI
OFFICER? >> AS TO?
>>AS TO WHO SHOULD BE COORDINATING POINTS WITHIN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH IT?
>>THAT IS, I DON’T WANT TO WADE INTO THOSE WATERS.
>>GOOD COPY. ONE OF THE MOST STRIKING THINGS IN YOUR REPORT
IS THAT THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY NOT ONLY
UNDERTOOK A SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN IN THE U.S., BUT THEY
WERE ABLE TO ORGANIZE POLITICAL RALLIES AFTER THE ELECTION. OUR
COMMITTEE ISSUED A REPORT AND INSIGHT SAYING THAT
RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES ARE GROWING WITH FREQUENCY AND
INTENSITY AND INCLUDING THE EXPANDED USE OF GROUPS SUCH AS
THE IRA AND THESE GROUPS POSE A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE UNITED
STATES AND OUR ALLIES IN UPCOMING ELECTIONS. WOULD YOU
AGREE WITH THAT? >>YES.
>>IN FACT, ONE OF THE OTHER AREAS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT
AND MANY MORE COMPANIES, MANY MORE COUNTRIES DEVELOP A
CAPABILITY TO REPLICATE WHAT THE RUSSIANS HAD DONE.
>>YOU ELUDED TO MAKE SURE THE, ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE WORKING TOGETHER. YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION
ON A STRATEGY TO DO THAT TO COUNTER THIS DISINFORMATION?
>>THE OVERARCHING WEEK. >>IS THIS, IN YOUR
INVESTIGATION, DO YOU THINK THAT THIS WAS A SINGLE ATTEMPT BY THE
RUSSIANS TO GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTION? OR DID YOU FIND
EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THEY WILL TRY TO DO THIS AGAIN?
>>IT WASN’T A SINGLE ATTEMPT. THEY ARE DOING IT AS WE SIT HERE
AND I EXPECT THEY WILL DO IT GOING INTO THE NEXT CAMPAIGN.
>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME IN
INDULGING US HERE IN MULTIPLE COMMITTEES, AND I YIELD BACK TO
THE RANKING MEMBER IF THE AS, I WILL YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN.
>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE MOTIVES BEHIND
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND ENCOURAGEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF
HELP. DURING THE ELECTION. I WAS LIKE, CLEAR MOTIVATION WAS TO
HELP THEM IN WHAT WOULD BE A VERY CLOSE ELECTION,
BUT THERE WAS ANOTHER KEY MOTIVATION. AND THAT WAS FRANKLY
THE DESIRE TO MAKE MONEY. I ALWAYS TRY TO REMEMBER WHAT MY
DAD WHO NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BEYOND THE
EIGHTH GRADE TAUGHT ME WHICH WAS THAT I SHOULD NEVER EVER
UNDERESTIMATE THE CAPACITY OF SOME PEOPLE TO CUT CORNERS AND
EVEN MORE IN ORDER TO WORSHIP AND CHASE THE ALMIGHTY BUCK. AND
THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK IT IN FACT DOES GO TO THE
HEART OF WHY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS SO UNRELENTINGLY INTENT ON
DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE KREMLIN. SO LET’S QUICKLY
REVISIT ONE FINANCIAL SCHEME WE JUST DISCUSSED WHICH WAS THE
TRUMP TOWER IN MOSCOW. WE INDICATED EARLIER
THAT IT WAS A LUCRATIVE DEAL AND TRUMP STOOD IN HIS COMEDY TO
EARN MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THAT DEAL. DID THEY NOT?
>>>>TRUE.
>>AND COHEN, MR. COHEN, HIS ATTORNEY TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP BELIEVED THE DEAL REQUIRED KREMLIN APPROVAL.
IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE TOLD YOU?
>>I’M NOT CERTAIN WHETHER IT IS, MR. TRUMP HIMSELF OR OTHERS
ASSOCIATE WITH THAT ENTERPRISE THAT HAD DISCUSSED THE NECESSITY
OF HAVING INPUT FROM THE STATE AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OR
FOR TO GO FORWARD SUCCESSFULLY. >>IS IT ALSO TRUE THAT DONALD
TRUMP VIEWED HIS PRESIDENT JOE CAMPAIGN AS HE TOLD THE CAMPAIGN
AIDES THAT THE CAMPAIGN WAS AN INFOMERCIAL FOR THE TRUMP
ORGANIZATION AND HIS PROPERTIES?>>I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
>>LET’S TURN TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIR PAUL MANAFORT.
DID IN FACT YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT PAUL
MANAFORT INTENDED TO USE HIS POSITION AS TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN
CHAIR FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL FINANCIAL
BENEFIT? >>I WILL SAY THERE WAS SOME
INDICATION OF THAT, BUT I WON’T GO FURTHER.
>>I THINK YOU’LL FIND ON PAGE 135 OF VOLUME 1, DURING THE
TRANSITION, TRUMPS SON-IN-LAW, JARED KUSHNER BUT WITH THE HEAD
OF A RUSSIAN OWNED BANK THAT WAS UNDER HIM IS UNDER U.S.
SANCTIONS. ACCORDING TO THE HEAD OF THE BANK, HE MET WITH JARED
KUSHNER IN HIS CAPACITY AS CEO OF KUSHNER COMPANIES TO DISCUSS
HIS OPPORTUNITIES. IS THAT CORRECT?
>>I’M NOT CERTAIN.
>>I’M NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THAT, LET ME PUT IT THAT WAY.
>>IT WAS ASSERTED THUSLY IN YOUR REPORT VOLUME 1, 160, PAGES
161 AND 162. YOUR REPORT NOTES THAT AT THE TIME, KUSHNER
COMPANIES WERE TRYING TO RENEGOTIATE A 1 BILLION WITH A
B, A BILLION-DOLLAR LEASE OF THE FLAGSHIP BUILDING AT 666 FIFTH AVENUE. IS
THAT CORRECT? >>I’M NOT REALLY WITH THOSE
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. >>ALSO ON PAGE 162, WERE
KUSHNER COMPANIES ASSERTED THEY HAD DEBT OBLIGATIONS COMING DUE
ON THE COMPANY. >>A SUPPORTER CLOSE TO TRUMP.
>>A SUPPORTER?
>>A SUPPORTER. >>YES.
>>HE MET IN THE SEA SHELLS DURING THE TRANSITION WITH
CURIEL DEMETRIA WHO WAS THE HEAD OF A SANCTION RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
INVESTMENT ARM WHICH HAD CLOSE TIES TO VLADIMIR PUTIN, CORRECT?
>>DIRECT. >>INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THAT
MR. PRINCE HAD NOT KNOWN NOR CONDUCTED BUSINESS WITH DEMETRIA
BEFORE TRUMP WON THE ELECTION, CORRECT?
>>, I DEFER TO THE REPORT ON THAT.
>>YET IT DOES, AND YET PRINCE WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO TOP IT
MINISTRATION, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MET
WITH DEMETRIA OF DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD TO DISCUSS
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES AMONG OTHER THINGS.
>>BUT IT WASN’T JUST TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATES TRYING TO MAKE
MONEY OFF OF THIS DEAL. NOR HIDE IT, NOR LIE ABOUT IT, RUSSIA WAS
AS WELL. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT, TO GAIN RELIEF FROM
SANCTIONS WHICH WOULD HUGELY BENEFIT THE INCREDIBLY WEALTHY OLIGARCHS.
FOR EXAMPLE, SECTIONS RELIEF WAS DISCUSSED AT THE JUNE 9 MEETING
IN THE TRUMP TOWER, WAS IT NOT? >>YES.
>>BUT IT WAS NOT A MAIN SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION.
>>TRUMPET MINISTRIES NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR DESIGNATE
MICHAEL FLYNN ALSO DISCUSSED SANCTIONS IN A SECRET
CONVERSATION WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR, DID HE NOT?
>>CORRECT. >>SO TO SUMMARIZE, DONALD TRUMP,
MICHAEL COHEN, PAUL MANAFORT, JARED KUSHNER, ERIC PRINCE AND
OTHERS IN THE TRUMP ORBIT ALL TRY TO USE THEIR CONNECTIONS
WITH THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION TO PROFIT FROM RUSSIA? WHICH WAS OPENLY SEEKING RELIEF FROM
SANCTIONS? IS THAT TRUE? >>I’M NOT CERTAIN I CAN ADOPT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE.
>>I WILL, AND I WOULD FURTHER ASSERT THAT WAS NOT ONLY
DANGEROUS, IT WAS UN-AMERICAN. GREED CORRUPTS. GREED CORRUPTS
AND IT IS A TERRIBLE FOUNDATION FOR DEVELOPING AMERICAN FOREIGN
POLICY. >>MR. RADCLIFFE?
>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, GIVEN YOUR CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT YOU ARE ABLE
OR ALLOWED TO ANSWER WITH RESPECT TO COUNTERINTELLIGENCE MATTERS OR
OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPEN AND UNDER INVESTIGATION,
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER MY REMAINING QUESTIONS.
SO I THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESIES IN THE ANSWERS THAT
YOU HAVE GIVEN TO MY PRIOR QUESTIONS. AND I DO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR EXTRAORDINARY CAREER AND RECORD OF SERVICE AND I YIELD THE
BALANCE OF TIME TO THE RANKING MEMBER.
>>THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. MR. RADCLIFFE AND
MR. MILLER, LET ME ASSOCIATE MY WORDS WITH MR. RADCLIFFE. THERE ARE A FEW
MORE QUESTIONS I WANT TO CLEAN UP A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ERIC
PRINCE MEETING. HE TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT HE
WAS SURVEILLED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THE INFORMATION
FROM THIS SURVEILLANCE WAS LEAKED TO THE PRESS. DID YOU
INVESTIGATE WHETHER HE WAS SURVEILLED AND WHETHER CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION ON HIM WAS ILLEGALLY LEAKED TO THE MEDIA?
>>I CAN SAY DID YOU OR WILL YOU?
>>WELL, I KNOW THAT YOU CAN’T. I KNOW YOU’RE NOT GOING TO THE
>>I CAN’T BUT DID YOU REFER, WERE YOU AWARE THAT PRINCE MADE THESE
ALLEGATIONS THAT HE WAS SURVEILLED AND HE WAS CONCERNED
THAT THERE WERE LEAKS ABOUT THE SURVEILLANCE? DID YOU MAKE ANY
REFERRALS ABOUT THESE? >>I CAN’T GET INTO THE
DISCUSSION ON IT. >>ALSO I WANT GENERAL FLYNN, I KNOW
THAT YOU CAME AFTER THE LEAK OF THE PHONE CALL WITH THE RUSSIAN
AMBASSADOR. BUT YOUR TIME AT THE FBI, IT WOULD BE A MAJOR
SCANDAL, WOULDN’T, FOR THE WEEK OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
AND ANYONE?
>>I CAN’T HELP THAT HYPOTHESIS.>>DID YOU REPORT AND NAME ANY PEOPLE
ACTING AS U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMANTS OR SOURCES WITHOUT
DISCLOSING THAT FACT? >>I CAN’T ANSWER THAT.
>>ON VOLUME 1, PAGE 133 OF YOUR REPORT, YOU STATE THAT
KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK HAS TIES TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. HIS NAME
CAME UP QUITE OFTEN TODAY. YOUR REPORT OMITS TO MENTION THAT HE
HAS LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIPS WITH U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
CLEANING OUR OWN STATE DEPARTMENT.
>>I CAN’T GET INTO THAT. >>I KNOW IT IS NOT IN THE
REPORT. BUT IF HE IS BEING USED IN THE REPORT TO SAY THAT HE WAS
POSSIBLY SOME TYPE OF RUSSIAN AGENT, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT
FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO KNOW IF HE HAS TIES TO OUR OWN STATE
DEPARTMENT, WHICH IT APPEARS THAT HE DOES.
>>AGAIN, IT’S THE SAME TERRITORY THAT I’M LOATH TO GET
INTO. >>YOU WERE ASKED THIS EARLIER ABOUT THE TRUMP
ATTORNEY JOHN DOWD THAT PIECES OF HIS PHONE CALL WERE OMITTED
FROM THE REPORT AND IT WAS WHAT MR. DOWD CALLED EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. ARE YOU
CONCERNED ABOUT? >>I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE
WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. I THINK I SAID THAT BEFORE.
>>YES. >>AN AND CITIZEN FROM THE
REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA WHO YOU REPORT MISIDENTIFIES AS A
RUSSIAN CLAIMS THAT YOUR REPORT OMITTED PARTS OF A TEXT MESSAGE
HE HAD WITH MICHAEL COHEN ABOUT STOPPING THE FLOW OF
COMPROMISING TAPES OF DONALD TRUMP. IN THE OMITTED PORTIONS,
HE SAYS HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE TAPES ACTUALLY SHOWED. WAS THAT
PORTION OF THE EXCHANGE LEFT OUT OF THE REPORT FOR REASON? >>NO. WE GOT AN AWFUL LOT INTO
THE REPORT, BUT WE DID NOT GET EVERY INTERSECTION OR
CONVERSATION. AND THE LIKE. SO I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT
PARTICULAR EPISODE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
>> THANK YOU.
>>MR. WELSH. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER, DID YOU
FIND THERE WAS NO COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND
RUSSIA? >>WELL, WE DON’T USE THE WORD
COLLUSION. >>THE WORD WE USUALLY USE IS THE, NOT COLLUSION, I’M,
BUT ONE OF THE OTHER TERMS THAT FILLS AND WHEN
COLLUSION IS NOT USED. IN ANY EVENT, WE DECIDED NOT TO USE
THE WORD COLLUSION INASMUCH AS IT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE CRIMINAL LAW ARENA.
>>THE TERM IS CONSPIRACY? >>THAT’S IT. EXACTLY RIGHT.
>>YOU HELP ME, I’LL HELP YOU. IN AGREEMENT.
>>THANK YOU. >>AND IN FACT, YOU HAD TO THEN
MAKE A CHARGING DECISION AFTER YOUR INVESTIGATION WHERE UNLESS
THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, YOU WOULDN’T
MAKE A CHARGE. >>FEDERALLY, THAT’S THE CASE.
>>BUT MAKING THAT DECISION DOES NOT MEAN YOUR INVESTIGATION
FAILED TO TURN UP EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY?
>>ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. >>AND I WILL GO THROUGH SOME OF
THE SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS THAT YOUR EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION
MADE. >>YOU FOUND AS I UNDERSTAND IT
FROM MAY 2016 UNTIL THE END OF THE CAMPAIGN, THE CAMPAIGN
CHAIRMAN MR. MANAFORT GAVE PRIVATE POLLING INFORMATION TO
RUSSIAN AGENTS, CORRECT? >>DIRECT.
>>COULD YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE?
>>I WILL. >>THANK YOU. IN YOUR
INVESTIGATION, HE FOUND THAT IN JUNE 2016, DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR
MADE AN ARRANGEMENT TO MEET AT TRUMP TOWER ALONG WITH JARED
KUSHNER AND OTHERS, EXPECTING TO RECEIVE DIRT ON THE HILLARY
CLINTON CAMPAIGN? CORRECT? >>DIRECT.
>>AND HE FOUND IN YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT ON JULY 27th,
CANDIDATE TRUMP CALLED ON RUSSIA TO HACK HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAILS,
SOMETHING THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME THEY DID ABOUT FIVE HOURS
LATER? CORRECT? >>CORRECT.
>>AND HE ALSO FOUND THAT ON AUGUST 2, MR. MANAFORT MET WITH
A PERSON TIED TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, MR. CLINIC AND
GAVE HIM INTERNAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGIES, AWARE THAT RUSSIA
WAS INTENDING TO DO A MISINFORMATION SOCIAL MEDIA
CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >>I’M NOT CERTAIN OF THE TYPE.
>>BUT THE FACT OF THE MEETING TOOK PLACE —
>>THE FACT THAT THE MEETING TOOK PLACE IS ACCURATE.
>>YOUR INVESTIGATION AS I UNDERSTAND ALSO FOUND THAT IN
LATE SUMMER OF 2016, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, IN FACT, IT DEVISED
ITS STRATEGY AND MESSAGING AROUND WIKILEAKS’S RELEASES OF MATERIALS THAT WERE
STOLEN FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. CORRECT?
>>IS THAT FROM THE REPORT? >>YES. ACCORDING TO MR. GATES.
>>YES. >> THANK YOU. YOU ALSO TALKED
EARLIER ABOUT THE FINDING IN YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT IN
SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER OF 2016, DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR HAD EMAIL
COMMUNICATIONS WITH WIKILEAKS, NOW INDICTED ABOUT RELEASING
INFORMATION DAMAGING TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, CORRECT?
>>WHO? >>UNDERSTAND YOU MADE THE
DECISION, PROSECUTORIAL DECISION THAT THIS WOULD NOT RISE TO
PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT I ASKED IF YOU WOULD SHARE
MY CONCERNS. MY CONCERN IS IF WE ESTABLISHED A NEW NORMAL FROM
THIS PAST CAMPAIGN, IT IS GOING TO APPLY TO FUTURE CAMPAIGNS, IF
ANY OF US RUNNING FOR THE U.S. HOUSE, ANY CANDIDATE FOR THE
U.S. SENATE, ANY CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED
STATES, AWARE THAT HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER
IS TRYING TO INFLUENCE ELECTION HAS NO DUTY TO REPORT THAT TO
THE FBI OR OTHER AUTHORITIES? >>I HOPE THIS IS NOT THE NEW
NORMAL, BUT I FEAR IT IS. >>AND IN FACT, HAVE THE ABILITY
WITHOUT FEAR OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS TO
MEET WITH AGENTS OF THAT FOREIGN ENTITY, HOSTILE TO THE AMERICAN
ELECTION? >>I’M SORRY, WHAT IS THE
QUESTION? >>IS THAT AN APPREHENSION THAT
YOU SHARE WITH ME? >>YES.
>>AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO REPERCUSSIONS WHATSOEVER TO
RUSSIA IF THEY DID THIS AGAIN, AND AS YOU’VE STATED
EARLIER, AS WE SIT HERE, THEY ARE DOING IT NOW, IS THAT
CORRECT? >>YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
>>YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE TO THIS CONGRESS AS TOGETHER WHAT WE
SHOULD DO TO PROTECT OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM? AND ACCEPT
RESPONSIBILITY ON OUR PART TO REPORT TO YOU OR YOUR SUCCESSOR?
WHEN WE ARE AWARE OF HOSTILE FOREIGN ENGAGEMENT IN OUR
ELECTIONS? >>I WOULD SAY THE BASIS, THE
FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE REALLY IS THE ABILITY OF THE VARIOUS
AGENCIES WHO HAVE SOME PIECE OF THIS TO NOT ONLY SHARE ADMISSION
BUT SHARE EXPERTISE, SHARE TARGETS AND THE USE OF FULL
RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM.
>>THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK. >>MR. MALONEY?
>> THANK YOU.
>>MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU, I KNOW IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY AND I
WANT TO MAKE CLEAR HOW MUCH RESPECT I HAVE FOR YOUR SERVICE
AND YOUR EXTRAORDINARY CAREER AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND MY
QUESTIONS IN THAT CONTEXT. I WILL BE ASKING YOU ABOUT
APPENDIX C TO YOUR REPORT, AND IN PARTICULAR THE DECISION NOT TO DO A SWORN INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT.
>>REALLY THE ONLY SUBJECT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT, WHY
DIDN’T YOU SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT?
>>WELL, AT THE OUTSET, AFTER WE TOOK OVER AND INITIATED THE
INVESTIGATION. >>IF I CAN ASK YOU TO SPEAK
INTO THAT. >>AT THE OUTSET, AFTER WE TOOK
OVER THE INVESTIGATION AND PURSUED IT, QUITE OBVIOUS LIKE
THE ONE OF THE THINGS WE ANTICIPATED AND WANTED TO
ACCOMPLISH WAS HAVING THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT. WE
NEGOTIATED FROM, WITH HIM FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR, AND I THINK
WHAT YOU REVERTED TO IN THE APPENDIX LAYS OUT OUR
EXPECTATIONS AS A RESULT OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. BUT FINALLY, WE WERE ALMOST
TOWARDS THE END OF THE INVESTIGATION, AND WE HAD HAD
LITTLE SUCCESS IN PUSHING TO GET THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT.
WE DECIDED THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO EXERCISE THE SUBPOENA POWERS
BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF EXPEDITING THE END OF THE
INVESTIGATION. >>WAS THAT COMIC SEES ME.
>>I WAS GOING TO SAY THE EXPECTATION WAS IF WE DID
SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT, HE WOULD FIGHT THE SUBPOENA AND WE WOULD
BE IN THE MIDST OF THE INVESTIGATION FOR A SUBSTANTIAL
PERIOD OF TIME. >>BUT AS WE SAY HERE, YOU’VE
NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE PRESIDENT IN PERSON
QUESTIONS UNDER OATH? SO OBVIOUSLY THAT MUST OF BEEN A
DIFFICULT DECISION AND YOU ARE RIGHT, APPENDIX C LAYS THAT OUT
AND INDEED, I BELIEVE HE DESCRIBED THE IN-PERSON
INTERVIEW AS VITAL. THAT’S YOUR WORD. AND OF COURSE, YOU MAKE
CLEAR YOU HAD THE AUTHORITY AND LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO DO IT. AS
YOU POINT OUT, HE WAITED ONE YEAR AND YOU PUT UP WITH A LOT
OF NEGOTIATIONS AND MADE NUMEROUS ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH
YOU LAYOUT SO THAT HE COULD PREPARE AND NOT BE SURPRISED, I
TAKE IT YOU ARE TRYING TO BE FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT. AND BY
THE WAY, YOU ARE GOING TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS WHEN YOU
GOT TO THE WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO RUSSIA, ONLY. ANYONE WITH
WRITTEN QUESTIONS AFTER NINE MONTHS. AND THE PRESIDENT
RESPONDED TO THOSE. AND YOU HAVE SOME HARD LANGUAGE FOR WHAT YOU
THOUGHT OF THOSE RESPONSES. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE WRITTEN
RESPONSES? >>CERTAINLY NOT AS USEFUL AS
THE INTERVIEW WOULD BE. >>IN FACT, YOU POINTED OUT AND
BY MY ACCOUNT, THERE WERE MORE THAN 30 TIMES THAT THE PRESIDENT
SAID HE DIDN’T RECALL, HE DIDN’T REMEMBER, NO INDEPENDENT
RECOLLECTION, NO CURRENT RECOLLECTION. AND I TAKE IT BY
YOUR ANSWER THAT IT WASN’T AS HELPFUL. THAT’S WHY YOU USED
WORDS LIKE INCOMPLETE, IMPRECISE, INADEQUATE,
INSUFFICIENT. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF
THE WRITTEN ANSWERS? >>THAT IS A FAIR SUMMARY AND I
PRESUME THAT COMES FROM THE REPORT.
>>AND I ASKED THIS ESPECIALLY, THE
PRESIDENT DID EVER CLAIM THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, DID HE?
>>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT. >>FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, AT ONE
POINT, IT IS VITAL, AND THEN AT ANOTHER POINT, IT WASN’T VITAL.
IN MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHY DID IT STOP BEING VITAL, AND I CAN
ONLY THINK OF THREE EXPLANATIONS, ONE IS THAT
SOMEONE TOLD YOU YOU COULDN’T DO IT, BUT NOBODY TOLD YOU YOU
COULDN’T SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT. IS THAT RIGHT?
>>WE UNDERSTOOD THAT WE COULD SUBPOENA THE PRESENT.
>>WHAT OCCURRED UNTIL YOU, WILLIAM BARR DIDN’T TELL YOU?
>>THERE’S TWO OTHER EXPIRATION, ONE THAT YOU JUST FLINCHED, THAT
YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT AND YOU DIDN’T DO IT, BUT YOU
DON’T STRIKE ME AS THE KIND OF GUY THAT FLINCHES.
>>I HOPE NOT. >>THE THIRD EXPLANATION, I HOPE
NOT AS WELL, THE THIRD EXCLAMATION IS THAT YOU DIDN’T
THINK YOU NEEDED IT. AND IN FACT WHAT CAUGHT MY EYE WAS PAGE 13
— WHERE YOU SAID IN FACT, YOU HAD A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF
EVIDENCE AND YOU CITE A BUNCH OF CASES ABOUT HOW YOU OFTEN HAVE
TO PROVE INTENT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WITHOUT AN IN PERSON
INTERVIEW AND THAT’S THE KIND OF NATURE OF IT AND YOU USED TERMS
LIKE A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF EVIDENCE, SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE
OF THE PRESIDENT’S INTENT. MY QUESTION IS DID YOU HAVE
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT’S INTENT TO OBSTRUCT
JUSTICE, AND IS THAT WHY YOU DIDN’T DO THE INTERVIEW?
>>THERE’S A BALANCE. HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAVE AND DOESN’T
SATISFY THE LAST ELEMENT? AGAINST HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU
WILLING TO SPEND IN THE COURTS? ON LITIGATING THE INTERVIEW WITH
THE PRESIDENT. >>IN THIS CASE, YOU FELT THAT
YOU HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL INTENT?
>>WE HAVE TO MAKE A BALANCE DECISION IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH
EVIDENCE WE HAD COMPARED TO THE LENGTH OF TIME IT WOULD
TAKE. >>BECAUSE I HAVE LIMITED TIME,
YOU THOUGHT THAT IF YOU GIVE IT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR TO
THIS CONGRESS THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS
BETTER THAN THAT DELAY? >>
>>AND YOU STATE THAT AGAIN? >>IT WAS BETTER THAN THE DELAY
TO PRESENT THE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, YOUR TERM OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL INTENT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AND THIS COMMITTEE. IS THAT WHY YOU DID TO THE INTERVIEW?
>>THE REASON WE DID INTO THE INTERVIEW WAS BECAUSE OF THE
LENGTH OF TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES
ATTENDED TO THAT. >>THANK YOU.
>>MS. DEMING’S? >>THANK YOU SO MUCH AND
DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING A PERSON OF HONOR
AND INTEGRITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE NATION, WE
ARE CERTAINLY BETTER FOR IT. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WANT TO
FOCUS ON THE WRITTEN RESPONSES THAT THE PRESIDENT DID PROVIDE
AND THE CONTINUED EFFORTS TO LIE AND COVER UP WHAT HAPPENED
DURING THE 2016 ELECTION. WITH THAT, WERE THE PRESIDENT’S
ANSWERS SUBMITTED UNDER OATH?
>>YES. YES. >>THANK YOU, THEY WERE. WERE
THESE ALL THE ANSWERS YOUR OFFICE WANTED
TO ASK THE PRESIDENT ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016
ELECTION? >>NOT NECESSARILY.
>>THERE WERE OTHERS? >>YES.
>>QUESTIONS THAT YOU WANTED TO ANSWER. DID YOU ANALYZE THESE
WRITTEN ANSWERS ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S CREDIBILITY?
>>NO. IT WAS PERHAPS ONE OF THE FACTORS, BUT NOTHING MORE THAN
THAT. >>IT WAS ONE OF THE FACTORS.
WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE ABOUT HIS CREDIBILITY?
>>THAT, I CANNOT GET INTO. >>I KNOW THAT BASED ON YOUR
DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, YOU PROBABLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ANALYZE THE CREDIBILITY OF COUNTLESS WITNESSES, BUT YOU
WEREN’T ABLE TO DO SO WITH THIS WITNESS?
>>PARTICULARLY A LEADING WITNESS, ONE THAT SENSES THE
CREDIBILITY DAY BY DAY, WITNESS BY WITNESS, DOCUMENT BY
DOCUMENT. AND THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED. IN THIS CASE.
>>SO WE START WITH VERY LITTLE AND BY THE END, WE ENDED UP WITH
A FAIR AMOUNT. >>LET’S GO THROUGH SOME OF THE ANSWERS AND TAKE A CLOSER
LOOK AT THE CREDIBILITY. BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME, DIRECTOR
MUELLER, THAT HIS ANSWERS WERE NOT CREDIBLE AT ALL. DID SOME OF
HIS AND COMPLETE ANSWERS RELATE TO TRUMP TOWER AND MOSCOW?
>>YES. >>DID U.S. THE PRESENT WHETHER
HE HAD HAD ANY TIME DIRECTED OR SUGGESTED THAT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT
TRUMP MOSCOW PROJECT SHOULD CEASE?
>>WHAT? >>CEASE?
>>YOU HAVE CITATIONS? >>YES. WE ARE STILL IN THE
PENDANTS — APPENDIX C SECTION 7, 1.
>>THE FIRST PAGE? >>YES.
>>MR., DID THE PRESIDENT NOT ANSWER THAT HE DIRECTED OR SUGGESTED THE QUESTION SHOULD
CEASE, BUT HE HAS SINCE MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT THIS
TOPIC. >>AND THE QUESTION WAS?
>>DID THE PRESIDENT, LET ME GO ON TO THE NEXT, DID THE
PRESIDENT FULLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN HIS WRITTEN
STATEMENT? ABOUT THE TRUMP-MOSCOW PROJECT CEASING?
AGAIN, IN APPENDIX C. >>CAN YOU DIRECT ME TO THE
PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH YOU ARE REFERRING TO?
>>IT WOULD BE APPENDIX C DASH C1, AND LET ME MOVE
FORWARD. NINE DAYS AFTER HE SUBMITTED HIS WRITTEN ANSWERS,
DID THE PRESENT SAY PUBLICLY THAT HE, QUOTE, DECIDED NOT TO
DO THE PROJECT. AND THAT IS IN YOUR REPORT.
>>I WOULD ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD TO POINT OUT THE PARTICULAR
PARAGRAPH THAT YOU ARE FOCUSED ON.
>>OKAY, WE CAN MOVE ON. >>DID THE PRESENT ANSWER YOUR
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS? ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, THERE WERE
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENTS AND COMPLETE
ANSWERS ABOUT THE MOSCOW PROJECT.
>>TO THE PRESENT ANSWER YOUR FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS EITHER IN
WRITING OR ORALLY? >>AND WE ARE NOW IN VOLUME 2, PAGE 150 THROUGH
151. >>NO.
>>HE DID NOT. >>IN FACT, THERE WERE MANY
QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED THE PRESENT THAT HE SIMPLY DIDN’T
ANSWER, ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>TRUE.
>>THERE WERE MANY ANSWERS THAT CONTRADICTED OTHER EVIDENCE YOU
GATHERED DURING THE INVESTIGATION. ISN’T THAT
CORRECT? >> YES.
>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT HAS WRITTEN
ANSWERS STATING HE DID NOT RECALL HAVING ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE
OF THE WIKILEAKS RELEASES, IS THAT CORRECT?
>>I THINK THAT’S WHAT HE SAID. >>DID IN YOUR INVESTIGATION
UNCOVER EVIDENCE THAT HE DID HAVE ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF
PUBLIC RELEASES OF EMAILS DAMAGING TO THE OPPONENT.
>>I CAN’T GET INTO THAT. >>DID YOUR INVESTIGATION
DETERMINE AFTER VERY CAREFUL VETTING OF RICK GATES AND
MICHAEL COHEN THAT HE FOUND THEM TO BE CREDIBLE?
>>WE FOUND THE PRESIDENT TO BE CREDIBLE?
>>THAT HE FOUND GATES AND COHEN TO BE CREDIBLE IN THEIR
STATEMENTS ABOUT WIKILEAKS? >>THOSE AREAS, I WILL NOT DISCUSS.
>>DID YOU SAY DIRECTOR MUELLER, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS CREDIBLE?
>>I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.>>ISN’T IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE
PRESIDENTS WRITTEN ANSWERS WERE NOT ONLY INADEQUATE AND
INCOMPLETE BECAUSE HE DIDN’T ANSWER MANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS,
BUT WHERE HE DID, HIS ANSWERS SHOWED THAT HE WASN’T ALWAYS
BEING TRUTHFUL? >>I WOULD SAY GENERALLY .
>>GENERALLY. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER, IT’S ONE
THING FOR THE PRESIDENT TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THE
INVESTIGATION AND CLAIM THAT YOU FOUND NO COLLUSION IN
OBSTRUCTION, BUT SOMETHING ELSE ALTOGETHER FOR HIM TO GET AWAY
WITH NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS AND LYING ABOUT THEM.
AND AS A FORMER LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF ALMOST 30 YEARS, I
FIND THAT A DISGRACE TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN.
>>MR. CHRISTIAN MURPHY. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR DEVOTED SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY. EARLIER TODAY, YOU
DESCRIBE YOUR REPORT AS DETAILING A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >> YES.
>>DIRECTOR, SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF YOUR
INVESTIGATION, YOUR REPORT DID NOT REACH COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR REPORT?
>>THAT’S TRUE. >>FOR INSTANCE I MISSED IT WAS
OUTSIDE YOUR PURVIEW, YOUR REPORT DID NOT REACH
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CONCLUSIONS REGARDING ANY TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO MIGHT POTENTIALLY BE VULNERABLE THROUGH COMPROMISE
OR BLACKMAIL BY RUSSIA, CORRECT?>>THOSE DECISIONS WERE PROBABLY MADE IN THE COUNTER OF THE FBI.
>>BUT NOT IN YOUR REPORT, CORRECT?
>>NOT IN OUR REPORT. WE REFER TO THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE GOALS
OF OUR INVESTIGATION WHICH WERE SECONDARY TO ANY CRIMINAL WRONGDOING THAT
WE COULD FIND. >>LET’S TALK ABOUT WANTED
MENSTRUATION OFFICIAL IN PARTICULAR, NAMELY PRESIDENT
DONALD TRUMP. OTHER THAN TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW, YOUR REPORT DOES
NOT ADDRESS OR DETAIL THE PRESIDENT’S FINANCIAL TIES OR DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA,
CORRECT? >>CORRECT.
>>SIMILARLY, SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE YOUR PURVIEW, YOUR
REPORT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER RUSSIAN
OLIGARCHS ENGAGED IN MONEY-LAUNDERING THROUGH ANY OF
THE PRESIDENT’S IS THIS IS, CORRECT?
>>CORRECT. >>AND YOUR OFFICE DO NOT OBTAIN
THE PRESIDENTS TAX RETURNS WHICH COULD OTHERWISE SHOW FOREIGN FINANCIAL
SOURCES, CORRECT? >>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO
THAT. >>IN JULY 2017, THE PRESIDENT
SAID HIS PERSONAL FINANCES WERE OFF-LIMITS OR OUTSIDE THE
PURVIEW OF YOUR INVESTIGATION. AND HE DREW A QUOTE UNQUOTE RED
LINE AROUND HIS PERSONAL FINANCES. WITH THE
PRESIDENTS PERSONAL FINANCES OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF YOUR
INVESTIGATION? >>I WILL NOT GET INTO THAT.
>>WERE YOU INSTRUCTED BY ANYONE NOT TO INVESTIGATE THE
PRESIDENTS PERSONAL FINANCES? >>NO.
>>MR. MUELLER, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH LINE.
INDIVIDUALS CAN BE SUBJECT TO BLACKMAIL IF THEY LIE ABOUT
THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES, CORRECT?
>>WHO? >>FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SUCCESSFULLY
CHARGE FORMER NATIONAL SCAREDY ADVISOR MICHAEL FLYNN OF APPLYING TO FEDERAL AGENTS
ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS, CORRECT?
>>CORRECT. >>SAID THAT WAS OUTSIDE THE
PIER VIEW OF YOUR INSTIGATION, YOU REPORT DID NOT ADDRESS HOW
FLYNN’S FALSE STATEMENTS COULD POSE A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK
BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS KNEW THE FALSITY OF THOSE STATEMENTS, RIGHT?
>>I CANNOT GET INTO THAT MAINLY BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY ELEMENTS THAT THE FBI ARE LOOKING AT,
THERE LOOK AT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THAT ISSUE.
>>CURRENTLY. >>CURRENTLY.
>>THANK YOU. >>AS YOU NOTED IN VOLUME 2 OF
YOUR REPORT, DONALD TRUMP REPEATED FIVE TIMES IN ONE PRESS
CONFERENCE MR. MUELLER, IN 2016, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH
RUSSIA. OF COURSE, UNCLE, AND SAID DONALD TRUMP WAS NOT BEING
TRUTHFUL BECAUSE AT THIS TIME, TRUMP WAS ATTEMPTING TO BUILD
TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW. YOUR REPORT DOES NOT ADDRESS WHETHER DONALD
TRUMP WAS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY BECAUSE OF ANY POTENTIAL
FALSE STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE ABOUT TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW,
CORRECT? >>THAT’S RIGHT.
>>THAT’S RIGHT. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WANT TO
TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO A COUPLE OTHER ISSUES. YOU HAVE SERVED AS
FBI DIRECTOR DURING THREE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, CORRECT?
>>YES. >>AND DURING THOSE THREE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, YOU HAVE NEVER INITIATED AN INVESTIGATION
AT THE FBI LOOKING INTO WHETHER A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED
IN OUR ELECTIONS THE SAME WAY YOU DID IN THIS PARTICULAR
INSTANCE, CORRECT? >>I WOULD SAY I PERSONALLY, NO,
BUT THE FBI QUITE HONESTLY HAS. HOW YOU DEFEND AND ATTACK THE
WAY THE RUSSIANS DID IN 2016. >>NOW DIRECTOR MUELLER, IS
THERE ANY INFORMATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH THIS
COMMITTEE THAT YOU HAVE NOT SO FAR TODAY?
>>THAT IS A BROAD QUESTION. >>[ LAUGHTER ]
>>IT’LL TAKE ME A WHILE TO GET AN ANSWER TO IT, BUT I WOULD SAY
NO. >>[ LAUGHTER ]
>>MR. MUELLER, YOU SAID THAT EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD PAY VERY
CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE SYSTEMATIC AND SWEEPING FASHION IN WHICH
THE RUSSIANS INTERFERED IN OUR DEMOCRACY. ARE YOU CONCERNED
THAT WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH CURRENTLY TO PREVENT THIS
FROM HAPPENING AGAIN? >>I WILL SPEAK GENERALLY AND
WHAT I SAID AT MY OPENING STATEMENT THIS MORNING, AND NO,
MUCH MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO PROTECT AGAINST THIS
INTRUSION NOT JUST RUSSIANS BUT OTHERS AS WELL.
>>THANK YOU, DIRECTOR.
>>WE HAVE 25 MINUTE PERIODS REMAINING. MR. NUNEZ AND MYSELF.
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>MR. MUELLER, IT’S BEEN A LONG
DAY FOR YOU. AND YOU’VE HAD A LONG GREAT CAREER. I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LONGTIME SERVICE STARTING IN VIETNAM. OBVIOUSLY IN THE
U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND THE
FBI. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR DOING SOMETHING
YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO DO, YOU CAN HEAR UPON YOUR OWN FREE WILL,
AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY. I YIELD BACK.
>>THANK YOU, SIR. I WANT TO CLOSE OUT MY
QUESTIONS AND TURN TO SOME OF THE EXCHANGES YOU HAD WITH MR.
WELSH A BIT EARLIER. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN RUN THE
APERTURE AT THE END OF THE HEARING. FROM YOUR TESTIMONY
TODAY, I GATHER THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT KNOWINGLY ACCEPTING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE DURING A
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IS AN UNETHICAL THING TO DO.
>>AND A CRIME. >>AND A CRIME.
>>AND GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. >>TO THE DEGREE THAT IT
UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR INSTITUTIONS COME A WE CAN AGREE
THAT IT IS ALSO UNPATRIOTIC. >>TRUE.
>>AND WRONG. >>TRUE.
>>THE STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR FOR A PERSONAL CANDIDATE OR ANY
CANDIDATE FOR THAT MATTER SHOULD BE JUST MERELY WHETHER SOMETHING IS CRIMINAL, THEY SHOULD BE HELD
TO A HIGHER STANDARD, YOU WOULD AGREE?
>>I WILL NOT GET INTO THAT, BECAUSE IT GOES TO THE STANDARDS
APPLIED BY OTHER INSTITUTIONS, SO THAT’S BESIDES HOURS.
>>I AM REFERRING TO ETHICAL STANDARDS. WE SHOULD HOLD OUR
ELECTED OFFICIALS TO A STANDARD HIGHER THAN MERE AVOIDANCE OF
CRIMINALITY, SHOULDN’T WE? >>ABSOLUTELY.
>>YOU HAVE SERVED THIS COUNTRY FOR DECADES AND YOU TAKE AN OATH
TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. YOU HOLD YOURSELF TO A STANDARD, BUT
DOING WHAT’S RIGHT. >>I WOULD HOPE.
>>>>YOU HAVE. I THINK WE CAN ALL
SEE THAT. AND BEFITTING THE TIMES, I’M SURE YOUR REWARD WILL
BE UNENDING CRITICISM. [ LAUGHTER ]
>>BUT WE ARE GRATEFUL. THE NEED TO ACT IN AN ETHICAL MANNER IS
NOT JUST A MORAL ONE, BUT WHEN PEOPLE ACT UNETHICALLY, THAT
EXPOSES THEM TO COMPROMISE. PARTICULARLY IN
DEALING WITH FOREIGN POWERS. IS THAT TRUE?
>>TRUE. >>WHEN SOMEONE ACTS UNETHICALLY
WITH A FOREIGN PARTNER, THAT FOREIGN PARTNER
CAN LATER EXPOSE THEIR WRONGDOING IN SHORT THEM.
>>TRUE. >>THAT UNETHICAL CONDUCT CAN BE
OF A FINANCIAL NATURE IF YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL MOTIVE OR
ILLICIT IS THE STEALING, AM I RIGHT?
>>YES. >>BUT IT IS ALSO INVOLVING
DECEPTION. IF YOU ARE LYING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE
EXPOSED, THEN YOU CAN BE BLACKMAILED.
>>ALSO TRUE. >>IN THE CASE OF MICHAEL FLYNN,
HE WAS SECRETLY DOING BUSINESS WITH TURKEY, CORRECT?
>>YES. >>AND THAT COULD OPEN HIM UP TO
COMPROMISE, THAT FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP.
>>I PRESUME. >>HE ALSO LIED ABOUT HIS
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR. AND SINCE
THE RUSSIANS WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CONVERSATION, THE
COULD’VE EXPOSED THAT, COULD THEY NOT?
>>YES. >>THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
WAS DOING BUSINESS IN RUSSIA AND SAYING HE WASN’T. RUSSIANS COULD
EXPOSE THAT AS WELL, COULD THEY NOT?
>>I LEAVE THAT TO YOU. >>WELL, LET’S LOOK AT THE
SPOKESPERSON FOR THE KREMLIN, SOMEONE THAT THE TRUMP
ORGANIZATION WAS IN CONTACT WITH AND TO MAKE THAT DEAL HAPPEN.
>>YOUR REPORT INDICATES THAT MICHAEL COHEN HAD A LONG
CONVERSATION ON THE PHONE WITH SOMEONE FROM HIS OFFICE.
>>PRESUMABLY THE RUSSIANS COULD RECORD THAT CONVERSATION, COULD
THEY NOT? >>YES. AND SO IF CANDIDATE
TRUMP WAS SAYING I HAD NO DEALINGS WITH THE RUSSIANS, BUT
THE RUSSIANS HAD A TAPE RECORDING OF THE THEY COULD
EXPOSE THAT, COULD THEY NOT? >>YES.
>>THAT IS THE STUFF OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE NIGHTMARES,
IS IT NOT? >>IT HAS TO DO WITH
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND THE NEED FOR STRONG COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ENTITY. >>IT DOES, INDEED. AND WHEN
THIS WAS REVEALED THAT THERE WERE
THESE COMMUNICATIONS NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRESIDENT’S
DENIALS, THE PRESENT WAS CONFRONTED ABOUT THIS, AND HE
SAID TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, THAT IS NOT A CRIME. AND I THINK YOU AND I
HAVE ALREADY AGREED THAT THAT SHOULDN’T BE THE STANDARD,
RIGHT? >>TRUE.
>>THE SECOND THING YOU SAID WAS WHY SHOULD I MISS OUT ON ALL OF
THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. WHY SHOULD EMMA WHY INDEED? MERELY RUNNING
A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, WHY SHOULD YOU MISS OUT ON MAKING
ALL OF THAT MONEY? IT WAS THE IMPORT OF HIS STATEMENT. WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER
DONALD TRUMP STILL INTENDS TO BUILD THAT TOWER WHEN HE LEAVES OFFICE?
>>IS THAT A QUESTION? >>YES, WERE YOU ABLE TO
ASCERTAIN BECAUSE HE WOULDN’T ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS
COMPLETELY, RATHER OR IF HE EVER ENDED THAT DESIRE TO BUILD THAT
TOWER. >>I WILL NOT SPECULATE ON THAT.
>>AT THE PRESENT WAS CONCERNED THAT IF HE LOST HIS ELECTION, HE
DIDN’T WANT TO MISS OUT ON THE MONEY, MIGHT HE HAVE THE SAME
CONCERN ABOUT LOSING HIS REELECTION? >>SPECULATION.
>>THE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS, OF COURSE IS WE ARE ALL LEFT TO
WONDER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS REPRESENTING US OR HIS FINANCIAL
INTERESTS. THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY
CONCLUDING REMARKS? >>
>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, LET ME CLOSE BY RETURNING TO WHERE I
BEGAN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND THANK YOU FOR
LEAVING, LEADING THIS INVESTIGATION. THE FACTS YOU SET
OUT ANY REPORT AND HAVE ELUCIDATED TODAY TELL A
DISTURBING TALE OF A MASSIVE RUSSIAN INTERVENTION IN OUR ELECTION OF A CAMPAIGN SO
EAGER TO WIN, SO DRIVEN BY GREED THAT IT WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT
THE HELP OF A HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
DECIDED BY A HANDFUL OF THE VOTES IN A FEW KEY STATES. YOUR
WORK TELLS OF A CAMPAIGN SO DETERMINED TO CONCEAL THE
CORRUPT USE OF FOREIGN HELP THAT THEY RISK GOING TO JAIL BY LYING
TO YOU INTO THE FBI AND TO CONGRESS ABOUT IT AND INDEED,
SOME HAVE GONE TO JAIL OVER SUCH LIES. AND YOUR WORK SPEAKS
OF A PRESIDENT WHO COMMITTED COUNTLESS ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE THAT IN MY OPINION AND THAT OF MANY OTHER PROSECUTORS,
HAD IT BEEN ANYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY, THEY WOULD HAVE INDICTED. NOTWITHSTANDING
THE MANY THINGS THAT YOU’VE ADDRESSED TODAY AND IN THE
REPORT, THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS YOU CANNOT ANSWER GIVEN THE
CONSTRAINTS YOU OPERATE UNDER. YOU WOULD NOT TELL US WHETHER
YOU WOULD HAVE INDICTED THE PRESIDENT, BUT FOR THE OLC
OPINION THAT YOU COULD NOT, AND SO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL
HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION WHEN THE PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE.
BOTH AS TO THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND AS TO
THE CAMPAIGN-FINANCE, THE INDIVIDUAL 1 DIRECTED AND
COORDINATED AND FOR WHICH MICHAEL COHEN WENT TO JAIL. YOU
WOULD NOT TELL US WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED,
NOR DID WE ASK YOU SINCE IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE
THE PROPER REMEDY FOR THE CONDUCT OUTLINED IN YOUR REPORT.
WHETHER WE DECIDE TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT IN THE HOUSE OR WE DO
NOT, WE MUST TAKE ANY ACTION NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE COUNTRY
WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE. YOU WOULD NOT TELL US THE RESULTS OR
WHETHER OTHER BODIES LOOKED INTO RUSSIAN COMPROMISE
IN THE FORM OF MONEY LAUNDERING, SO WE MUST DO SO. YOU WOULD NOT
TELL US WHETHER THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION REVEALED WHETHER
PEOPLE STILL SERVING WITHIN THE MINISTRATION POSE A RISK OF
COMPROMISE AND SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN A SECURITY CLEARANCE,
SO WE MUST FIND OUT. WE DID NOT BOTHER TO ASK WHETHER FINANCIAL
INDUCEMENTS FOR MANY GULF NATIONS WERE INFLUENCING THIS
U.S. POLICY SINCE IT IS THE OUTSIDE THE FOUR CORNERS OF YOUR
REPORT, AND SO WE MUST FIND OUT. BUT ONE THING IS CLEAR FROM YOUR
REPORT, YOUR TESTIMONY FROM DIRECTOR RAY STATEMENTS
YESTERDAY, THE RUSSIANS MASSIVELY
INTERVENED IN 2016 AND THEY ARE PREPARED TO DO SO AGAIN IN
VOTING THAT IS SET TO BEGIN A MERE EIGHT MONTHS FROM NOW. THE
PRESIDENT SEEMS TO WELCOME THE HELP AGAIN AND SO WE MUST MAKE ALL EFFORTS TO HARDEN OUR
ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE AND TO ENSURE THERE IS A PAPER TRAIL
FOR ALL VOTING, TO DETER THE RUSSIANS FROM MEDDLING TO
DISCOVER IT WHEN THEY DO, THE DISRUPTED, AND TO MAKE THEM PAY. PROTECTING THE SANCTITY OF OUR
ELECTIONS BEGINS, HOWEVER WITH THE RECOGNITION THAT ACCEPTING
FOREIGN HELP IS DISLOYAL TO OUR COUNTRY, UNETHICAL, AND WRONG.
WE CANNOT CONTROL WHAT THE RUSSIANS DO, NOT COMPLETELY, BUT
WE CAN DECIDE WHAT WE DO. AND THAT THE CENTURIES-OLD
EXPERIMENT WE CALL AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS WORTH CHERISHING. DIRECTOR
MUELLER, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BEING HERE TODAY. AND BEFORE I
ADJOURN, I WOULD LIKE TO EXCUSE YOU AND MR. SIBLEY.
>>EVERYONE ELSE, PLEASE REMAIN SEATED.
>>>>YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING FORMER
SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. QUESTIONING HIS, HAS WRAPPED UP
FOR THE DAY. I’M JOINED IN STUDIO BY TOM HAMBURGER, THE
INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, TOM, WHAT WERE YOUR KEY TAKEAWAYS
FROM TODAY? >> WE SAW TWO BOB MUELLER’S TODAY,
ONE IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS THAT
PARTICULARLY THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS WERE MOST INTERESTED
IN GETTING ANSWERS TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ANY NEW
INFORMATION ON CONSPIRACY WITH THE RUSSIANS, BOB MUELLER EITHER
REFERRED TO THE REPORT, OFFERED LITTLE NEW AND WHEN HE
WAS DISCUSSING DECISION-MAKING COME
HE WAS AT TIMES, A BIT CONFUSING. AND MODELED AND EVEN
IN THE AFTERNOON, HAD TO CORRECT HIMSELF IN EXPLAINING WHY HE
DECIDED NOT TO ANNOUNCE WHETHER, NOT TO
CONCLUDE WHETHER THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT A CRIME HAD BEEN
COMMITTED IN THE OBSTRUCTION PERIOD. BUT THERE ARE AREAS
WHERE BOB MUELLER WAS VERY CLEAR TODAY. ONE OF THEM WAS HIS
EMPHATIC ASSERTION THAT THE RUSSIAN THREAT WAS REAL AND
ISRAEL. AND THAT WE IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE TO BE WARY OF IT ON GUARD AND PREPARED TO
TAKE ACTION. >>ABSOLUTELY, AND THE QUOTE
THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW IS THAT THEY ARE DOING IT AS
WE SIT HERE. THAT’S PRETTY STRIKING LANGUAGE.
>>IT WAS QUITE CLEAR THAT FROM THE PART OF HIS REPORT WHICH HE
REFERRED TO AS PERHAPS THE LASTING LEGACY FROM OUR GROUP
IS, THE WORK THAT THEY DID IN UNDERSTANDING THE RUSSIAN
EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, AND HE BECAME SO
FAMILIAR WITH THE TECHNIQUES OF THE RUSSIANS THAT WERE DEPLOYED,
AND HE MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY SOME OF THE DISINFORMATION AND
SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGNS AND HE SAID IT IS GOING ON NOW.
>>AND NOT JUST RUSSIA. HE ELUDED TO THREATS FROM
ELSEWHERE. >>WE HAD HEARD YESTERDAY FROM
THE FBI DIRECTOR, PREVIOUS TESTIMONY ABOUT THREATS FROM
RUSSIA, THAT WAS ACTUALLY NUMBER TWO AND THREATS FROM THE CHINESE
IN PARTICULAR, AND THE ESPIONAGE AREA, WE’VE BEEN HAVING EVEN
GREATER THREATS FROM EVEN THE RUSSIANS. HE REFERRED TO FOR
THREATS GENERALLY AND HAD QUITE EMPHATIC AND CLEAR WARNINGS ALSO
FOR PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS TO BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR FOREIGN
INTERFERENCE, TO REPORT IT IF THEY SEE IT, AND MADE NO BONES
ABOUT THAT. AND ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT THERE IS, AS EMILY
SUGGESTED, AN ONGOING EFFORT TO INFLUENCE THIS ELECTION
INCLUDING THE ONE THAT COMES UP IN THE UNITED STATES
NEXT YEAR. >>AND ONE A PRESCRIPTION, ONE
OF THE FEW PRESCRIPTIONS HE OFFERED AND ONE OF THE FEW AREAS
WHERE HE REALLY DEVIATED FROM JUST REFERRING BACK TO THE
REPORT WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW IT WAS A NEED FOR MORE
COMMUNICATION, AMONG THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. WHERE
DOES THAT CONCERN COME FROM? WAS THERE A PARTICULAR POINT OF THIS
INVESTIGATION WERE ROBERT MUELLER FELT LIKE HE NEEDED MORE
COMMUNICATION? >>I’M NOT SURE IF THERE WAS A
SINGLE MOMENT FOR BOB MUELLER, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT A
PERSON GATHERS FROM READING THE MUELLER REPORT WAS THAT HE AND
HIS STAFF CAME ACROSS AN EXTRAORDINARY ACCUMULATION OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE MANY
WAYS THE RUSSIANS WERE TRYING TO INSERT THEMSELVES INTO THIS
CAMPAIGN. HE DISCUSSED NOT ONLY SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS
ABOUT OUTREACH IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, HE TALKED ABOUT SOCIAL
MEDIA, HE TALKED ABOUT NUMEROUS EFFORTS TO COMMUNICATE AND HE
WAS ASKED IN GREAT DETAIL ABOUT CAMPAIGN, FORMER CAMPAIGN CHAIR
PAUL MANAFORT AND HIS REPEATED COMMUNICATIONS WITH ONE PERSON,
CLEM THE, IDENTIFIED AS A LIKELY RUSSIAN ASSOCIATE PERSON,
ASSOCIATE WITH RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, AND IN PAUL
MANAFORT’S COMMUNICATIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS IF YOU WILL WITH A
VERY PROMINENT RUSSIAN OLIGARCH WHO IS CLOSE TO VLADIMIR PUTIN.
SO AT ALL OF THESE UP, AND WHAT YOU HAD AND WHAT YOU COULD TELL,
THE CLEAREST PART OF THE TESTIMONY TODAY WAS REALLY HOW
CONCERNED HE IS BY THE ACCUMULATED INFORMATION THAT HE
UNCOVERED ABOUT RUSSIAN EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION.
>>DID THAT RESONATE? I FEEL LIKE THERE IS SUCH A POLITICAL
TUG-OF-WAR GOING ON, DID THAT MESSAGE BREAKTHROUGH?
>>SO YOU HEARD AT THE CLOSING, JUST NOW FROM CHAIRMAN CHEF OF
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OFFERING HIS CONCLUSION AND SORT
OF AS HE SUMMARIZED THE TAKE AWAY, IT WAS THAT THERE WAS AN
EMPHATIC AND CLEAR EFFORT TO INTERFERE IN OUR PAST
ELECTION, BUT YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, THERE ARE EXPECTATIONS
THAT REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS HAD IN THIS FIERCELY POLARIZED
ENVIRONMENT, DEMOCRATS WERE LOOKING FOR ANY NEW INFORMATION
OR INDICATION THAT BOB MUELLER HAD
FOUND IN THE CASE OF THIS MORNING’S HEARINGS’S
INFORMATION, THAT WOULD’VE LET HIM OR CONVINCE THE PUBLIC THAT AN OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE CRIME HAD OCCURRED. >>I WANT TO GO BACK TO
SOMETHING YOU MENTIONED. IT WAS HIS DEFENSE OF HIS STAFF WORK.
IS THAT IN ANTICIPATION OF SOME CRITICISM WE ARE EXPECTING
PARTICULARLY FROM REPUBLICANS? AND THEY CERTAINLY LAID THE
GROUNDWORK FOR THAT DURING THE EARLIER HEARING, THE JUDICIARY
HEARING WHERE THERE WAS A LOT OF ATTENTION PAID TO STAFF WORK ON THIS INVESTIGATION? WHAT DID
ROBERT MILLER HAVE TO SAY ABOUT HIS STAFF, AND WHY WAS THAT
IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO COMMUNICATE THAT?
>>THERE ARE TWO WAYS IN WHICH THE MUELLER AND THE BEHAVIOR OF
HIS STAFF BECAME CENTRAL TO TODAY’S HEARINGS. AND ONE OF
THEM, JUST AS YOU SUGGESTED, IS LIKELY TO RESONATE FOR DAYS AND
WEEKS MAYBE INTO THE FUTURE. FIRST, YOU HEARD FROM
CONGRESSMAN JORDAN AND NUMEROUS REPUBLICANS, QUESTIONS AND
CONGRESSMAN NUNEZ IN THE AFTERNOON, QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
POLITICAL ORIENTATION OF ROBERT MUELLER’S STAFF, HOW QUICKLY DID
HE RESPOND WHEN TEXT MESSAGES REVEALED THAT PETE STRUCK AND
ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE MUELLER TEAM WERE IN MEDICATIONS AND
MAKING DERISIVE COMMENTS ABOUT CANDIDATE AND PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP. HOW DID HE RESPOND TO CLAIMS THAT THERE WAS BIAS AND
INHERENT IN THE TEAM AND EVEN THAT THE PERSON,
TOP IT, THE SO-CALLED CHIEF OF STAFF, MR. SIBLEY WAS SITTING BY
HIM AND IN FACT ONCE REPRESENTED A FORMER AIDE TO HILLARY
CLINTON. >>HE RESPONDED QUITE FORCEFULLY
BY SAYING, I GOT THE BEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD OF JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATIONS TO WORK WITH ME. HE DEFENDED ALL OF
THEM INCLUDING ANDREW WISEMAN WHO MAYBE HAS BEEN, KNOWN AS
PERHAPS THE MOST AGGRESSIVE OF THE PROSECUTORS ON THE TEAM, AND
IN SOME WAYS THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL. HE DEFENDED ALL
OF THESE PEOPLE AND DEFENDED THEM HEARTILY. BUT HIS INABILITY
TO ANSWER SOME OF THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT HE WAS ASKED
UNDERLINED A REPUBLICAN COMPLAINT THAT WE ARE LIKELY TO
HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT BOB MUELLER MAY BE A REPUBLICAN AND MAYBE AN
INDEPENDENT-MINDED GUY, BUT IN FACT, HIS TESTIMONY TODAY
REVEALED HE WASN’T IN CHARGE AND THE WAY YOU WOULD WANT A LEADER
TO FULLY BE. AND THAT ALLOWED THE STAFF, AS CONGRESSMAN NUNEZ
SUGGESTED, TO RUN AMOK IN A WAY THAT AS YOU DESCRIBED IT TODAY, WE HAVE THE LOCH NESS MONSTER THEORY
BEING PERPETRATED ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. I THINK WE WILL
HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT. >>THAT NARRATIVE WILL PROBABLY
BE STRENGTHENED BECAUSE OF HIS PERFORMANCE TODAY ON CAPITOL
HILL. NOW YOU’VE COVERED ROBERT MUELLER FOR MANY YEARS. I DON’T
WANT TO DATE YOU HERE. MANY YEARS.
>>THE MID-19TH CENTURY. >>FAIR ENOUGH. WHAT DID YOU
THINK OF HIS PERFORMANCE TODAY? AND WHAT DID THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW
HIM THINK OF IT? >>WELL, I HAVE, IT IS A
JOURNALIST ACTIVE IN WASHINGTON FOR THE PAST FEW DECADES, I HAVE
OBSERVED BOB MUELLER’S CAREER, I RECALL THE ARM IN WHICH HE WAS
HELD DURING THE MONTHS AND YEARS AFTER 9/11. PARTICULARLY THE WAY
HE CONDUCTED HIMSELF AT CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS. HE WAS
HELD IN ALL BY REPUBLICANS, BUT IT WAS A BIPARTISAN ALL. A GUY
THAT SERVED HIS COUNTRY IN THE MILITARY BUT ALSO THIS
REMARKABLE SERVICE. HE WAS ALWAYS KIND OF FAMOUSLY A
RETICENT WITNESS, BUT HE WAS IN COMMAND PREVIOUSLY IN A WAY THAT
WAS DISTURBINGLY MISSING TODAY, IN PARTICULAR IN THIS MORNING’S
HEARING BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I DID TALK TO SOME
LONGTIME FRIENDS OF BOB MUELLER WHO SAID THEY FOUND IT DIFFICULT
TO WATCH. IN PART BECAUSE HE WAS BOTH UNDER ATTACK AND AS THE
QUESTIONS WERE ASKED AND IN RAPIDFIRE ORDER BY BARRY PARTISAN FORCES, MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS WHO WANTED TO GET ANSWERS QUICKLY, HAD TO
REPEATEDLY ASK FOR THE QUESTION TO BE REPEATED AND HE SEEMED TO
GET LOST IN A COUPLE OF CASES. AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF MEMORABLE MOMENTS WHERE HE
FORGOT THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO THINK ARE UNFORGETTABLE.
>>THE WORD CONSPIRACY. >>HE COULDN’T QUITE GRASP THAT.
>>HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THIS ONGOING DISPUTE IN DISCUSSION OF
WHETHER COLLUSION OCCURRED AND CONSPIRACY AND HE
COULDN’T COME UP WITH THE WORD CONSPIRACY AND CONGRESSMAN
WELCH, I THINK FROM VERMONT, CAME AND SAID LET’S HELP EACH
OTHER OUT HERE COME A CONSPIRACY IS THE WORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.
THERE WAS ONE OTHER MOMENT THAT WAS MEMORABLE, HE WAS ASKED TO
RECALL, SORT OF A SOFTBALL QUESTION, WHO FIRST APPOINTED
YOU AS U.S. ATTORNEY. AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT JOB. HE SAID
I THINK IT WAS PRESIDENT BUSH, BUT IN FACT IT WAS PRESIDENT
REAGAN. AND IT WAS JUST A SIGN OF A GUY OR A SYMBOL MAYBE OF A
GUY THAT DIDN’T SEEM AT LEAST DURING THE MORNING AND AS WE
MENTIONED, AGAIN IN THE AFTERNOON, AT LEAST FOR MOMENTS
WAS NOT ON HIS GAME. AND THE WAY WE HAD SEEN HIM IN THE PAST.
>>AND WHAT DOES THIS DO TO HIS LEGACY? AND WHERE DOES ROBERT
MUELLER GO FROM HERE? IS HE JUST GOING TO WRITE HIS MEMOIRS?
>>HE IS PRACTICING, HE IS A PRACTICING LAWYER AND WAS TO
CONTINUE THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW. AND HE IS, HIS, HE HAS SAID, AND HE
SAID TODAY EMPHATICALLY THAT THE LEGACY, WHAT HE WANTED HE AND
HIS TEAM WANTED TO BE REMEMBERED FOR IS THE WORK THEY DID PIERCING THE RUSSIAN EFFORT
TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. AND TO ISSUE, IT IS
REALLY A WARNING FOR THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO ARE QUESTIONING
HIM AND FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC LIKE US WHO ARE WATCHING, THAT
THIS IS A THREAT TO THE REPUBLICAN, TO THE REPUBLICAN
ONE WE NEED TO BE WARY OF. >>LET’S GO TO RHONDA COVEN UP
ON CAPITOL HILL. RHONDA HAS BEEN IN THE HEARING ROOM ALL DAY. I’M
GOING TO ASK YOU, WHAT WERE YOUR IMPRESSIONS, PARTICULARLY
CONTRASTING THE MORNING’S HEARING IN THE HOUSE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE AND THE AFTERNOON IN THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE? TO KIND OF DIFFERENT TONES, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK THE
DIFFERENCE WAS? >>THEIR WORK, THIS WAS A LITTLE
BIT DIFFERENT FROM DID YOU SHARE HEARING. THE MOOD WAS A LITTLE
BIT, LITTLE BIT MORE JUST ELATED, DEFLATED, I
WOULD SAY IN THE HEARING ROOM, THE SECOND TIME AROUND. OF
COURSE, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE DIRECTED ALL THE
QUESTIONS, MOST OF THEM ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE INTO THE
ELECTION. SO THAT WAS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE. WE HEARD NAMES THAT
WE REALLY DIDN’T HEAR THE FIRST TIME AROUND. MICHAEL COHEN,
DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR, WIKILEAKS, AND IN FACT, ONE OF THE MOMENTS
THAT STOOD OUT TO ME WAS WHEN PRESENTED OF QUICKLY ASKED
ROBERT MUELLER TO GIVE HIM HIS REACTION THE FINDINGS THAT HE
HEARD ABOUT IN, READ ABOUT IN THE REPORT ON WIKILEAKS. TAKE A
LISTEN. >>THIS JUST CAME OUT,
WIKILEAKS. I LOVE WIKILEAKS, DONALD TRUMP, OCTOBER 10th,
2016. THIS WIKILEAKS STUFF IS UNBELIEVABLE. IT TELLS YOU
THE INNER HEART. YOU GOT TO READ IT, DONALD TRUMP, OCTOBER 12,
2016. >>THIS WIKILEAKS IS LIKE A
TREASURE TROVE, DONALD TRUMP, OCTOBER 31, 2016.
>>BOY I LOVE READING THOSE WIKILEAKS, DONALD TRUMP,
NOVEMBER 4, 22nd. DID ANY OF THOSE QUOTES DISTURB YOU?
>>I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD SAY. >>AND YOU REACT TO THEM?
>>IT’S PROBABLY, IT’S PROBLEMATIC IS AN
UNDERSTATEMENT. IN TERMS OF WHAT IT DISPLAYS IN TERMS OF GIVING SOME, I DON’T KNOW, HOPE
OR SOME BOOST TO WHAT IS AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
>>>>NOW THAT WAS THE EXTENT WITH
REPRESENTATIVE QUICKLY, AND IT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES THAT
I HEARD A MEMBER ASK HIM HIS REACTION TO SOMETHING. SO THAT
WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HEARD IN THE BEGINNING OF THE
DAY. THINGS ARE CALMING DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT AS PEOPLE
LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM RIGHT NOW. WE ARE STILL IN RAYBURN
WATCHING AS PEOPLE LEAVE. MEMBERS ARE TALKING IN THE
HALLWAY ABOUT WHAT THEIR TAKEAWAYS WERE. AND WE WILL
LISTEN AND TO SEE WHAT THE OTHERS HAVE REACTIONS TODAY.
>>THERE HAS BEEN SO MUCH BUILDUP THROUGH TODAY,
NEGOTIATING THE FORMAT OF THIS HEARING, NEGOTIATING HOW MUCH
TIME THEY GOT WITH ROBERT MUELLER. SO MUCH BUILDUP TODAY
IS A BIG MOMENT IN THIS INVESTIGATION IN THIS PROCESS.
BUT WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? WHAT IS NEXT FOR THE FOLKS ON
CAPITOL HILL?
>>WELCOME IMMEDIATELY, I JUST HEARD THIS FROM ONE OF THE
SPOKESPERSONS FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, THERE WILL BE A PRESS
CONFERENCE AT 4:45 TODAY WITH LEADER PELOSI AS WELL AS ADAM
SCHIFF AND REPRESENTATIVE NADLER. SO WE CERTAINLY WILL BE
HEARING THOSE COMMENTS AND HEARING WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AS
THE DAY WINDS UP. AND ALSO IN THE LONG-TERM, WE KNOW THAT
REPRESENTATIVE NADLER DID SAY THIS MORNING THAT HE WILL REPORT
HIS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE HOUSE OF WHAT HE FOUND TODAY. THIS
WILL CONTINUE TO GO ON. WE ALSO KNOW THAT TWO WEEKS AGO, THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPROVED A MEASURE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR 12
SUBPOENAS TO NEW WITNESSES AND TWO OF THOSE ARE JARED KUSHNER,
A WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR AS WELL AS THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF
SESSIONS. SO THIS WILL LIKELY CONTINUE EVEN THOUGH THEY’RE
GOING TO RECESS AFTER THIS WEEK.>>THANK YOU SO MUCH. NOW, WE
WILL HAVE TO GIVE, WRAP THIS ALL UP. ANY
FINAL THOUGHTS YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH US?
>>AFTER THIS LONG DAY THAT WE’VE
SPENT LISTENING TO BOB MUELLER AFTER ALL OF THE ANTICIPATION,
IT’S THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE TWO
VERY POLARIZED CAMPS, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ON
CAPITOL HILL WARRING OVER HOW TO INTERPRET THIS REPORT. I DON’T
THINK THAT BOB MUELLER SETTLED ANYTHING TODAY OR MADE A LOT OF
INROADS, AT LEAST IN WASHINGTON ON THESE TWO VERY DIVIDED CAMPS.
>>WE WILL BE TALKING TO YOU MORE ABOUT THAT AS IT DEVELOPS.
WE’VE WITNESSED MORE THAN FIVE HOURS OF TESTIMONY IN TWO
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES WITH ONE MAN AT THE CENTER OF IT ALL.
ROBERT MUELLER WANTED HIS 448 PAGE REPORT TO SERVE AS
TESTIMONY AND INDEED HE SPENT MOST OF THE DAY IF USING
CONGRESS PLEASE DO ADD TO THE TEST AND GIVE SOUNDBITES.
>>THANKS FOR WATCHING THE LIVE COVERAGE. DON’T FORGET TO
SUBSCRIBE TO THE WASHINGTON POST SO YOU DON’T MISS ANY PART OF
THIS DEVELOPING STORY.


Reader Comments

  1. He passed many questions by replicans but entertained more questions by democrats. Fair assessment ? Very interesting. Not looking impartial.

  2. Please help me understand why the Obama administration has nothing to do with the Russian intervention in our election under their watch. It looks like a trap.

  3. EVERYONE IS MISSING THE POINT. Mueller's report demostrate that there IS misconduct. What the Congress does with this information is another thing. If YOU are a thief, lier, and someone who breaks the RULES one the regular then you will say," there is NOTHING in the report," if YOU love facts, law, and order for everyone then YOU will view ths report as felony and mistermenors, and prison time. They didn't NEED a hearing. Waste of time & money. Peace hustlers

  4. PBS on YouTube they disabled the comments on there I wonder why and CBS said they lost their signal when President Trump was having a press conference on the White House lawn . Fair and balanced mainstream news media 😀😀😀😀😀😀✌✌✌✌🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

  5. LEFT WING FEMALE and MALE Scientific Classification: Order: Primates Species: H Sapiens Gender: DIFFICULT TO TELL: Females or Males with a Left mentality that inhabit the USA have Mutated and HAVE BECOME ONE OF THE MOST EVIL and INHUMAN CREATURES THAT INHABIT PLANET EARTH!!! THIS SUB SPECIES HAS TRANSGRESSED AND has become, using slang, RYMES WITH HUNT. They process ZERO Logic and are POSSIBLY the least INTELLIGENT form that is considered Human. THE NUMBER ONE MOST DISCRIMINATED AGAINST HUNAN BEING IN THE USA IS A WHITE ALL AMERICAN MALE AND KARMA WILL TAKE CARE OF THIS MUTANT SPECIES OF EVIL SUB MORON, SUB HUMANS, WITH SINGLE OR DOUBLE DIGIT IQ’s HOWEVER, THEY THINK THEY ARE INTELLIGENT AND SO MANY WENT TO GREAT SCHOOLS, HOWEVER, THEY ALL WERE ADMITTED TO FINE SCHOOLS, THE SAME WAY THAT SUB MORON TED KENNEDY DID AND THAT IS THE REAL TRUTH, WHICH THEY CANNOT HANDLE!!! PS: UNLESS A PERSON IS BORN WEALTHY, IF THEY BECOME WEALTHY AND FAMOUS, like opra, clinton, woopie goldberg, obama, schumer, schiff, and MOST ENTERTAINERS and LEFT WING POLITICIANS, could not have succeeded without EITHER HELP OR LUCK, EXACTLY THE SAME AS A HOMELESS, DRUG ADDICT THAT WINS THE LOTTERY. That is REAL SCIENCE and NO ONE CAN DISPUTE!!!

  6. You can have so much fun with this:

    1. I can't see any blood coming from my body, but I could be bleeding.
    2. The sky is dark blue, but it could be pink
    3. The cookie jar appears to have no cookies, but that doesn't mean there is no cookies in the jar
    4. Nine people are standing there, but there could be less people, or even more people standing there
    5. There is no evidence, but there could be evidence.
    6. There is absolutely no proof that there is life on Mars, but there might not even be a mars but an illusion.
    7. There is no chance he committed a crime, but then again, he might have committed one, or even 2 crimes
    8. There is no evidence that air is leaking from my bicycle tire, but then again, air could be escaping. I presume we'll just have to wait to see if the tire goes flat. I can't be judgmental until enough time has passed that will allow me to be judgmental regarding the state of air pressure.
    9 etc.

    Muller left the door open, so that lawyers can make even more money, to investigate DT after he leaves office in 2024. See you then!

  7. This is how you interview with Congress about a record you enter without lying. Really smart despite all the twisting pundents are lobbing out there.

  8. WHY ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT RUSSIA RIGHT NOW. WHY AREN'T THEY TALKING ABOUT HOW MANY CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS TRUMP HAS BROKEN? BECUASE OF MISTREATMENT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHICH ARE ALSO PROTECTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. HOW MANY LAWS OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS TRUMP BROKEN? A LOT.

  9. Republicans have become from a great party to a party full of liars, brainwashed Trump crusaders, and racists for a lack of a better word. Democrats seems to be the only ones that are calling Trump out on his faults but no one wants to believe it because those who don’t are too incompetent. This country is far too divided and is becoming Hitler’s Germany.

  10. I was impressed when they read through Director R Mueller's résumé and his dedication to the United States. From across the pond it looks like that gentleman has done a vast amount for the country.

  11. Yeah Republicans want to end this charade so they can go back to ripping off the American people and destroying aids and benefits to the public and those in need.

  12. Democrats are doing a good job. If we need to get rid of Trump, impeachment is the only way and later he will be locked up.

  13. Mueller states (regarding the observation made about his team's left-leaning bias) "I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years. And in those 25 years, I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation."

    That is a really good point. I assume he is referring to all the other times he has investigated a President.

  14. Mueller states (regarding the observation made about his team's left-leaning bias) "I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years. And in those 25 years, I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation."

    That is a really good point. I assume he is referring to all the other times he has investigated a President.

  15. 6:39:08 Mueller gets completely owned on the powers of the AG and his BS exonerate comments. Keep editing your video to make my time stamp change you bums and I will keep editing my comment. MAGA

  16. Put him on a lie detectors test and ask the same questions see how all it turns out. Let the detector tell the truth.

  17. A Sondergericht (plural: Sondergerichte) is a American "special court". After taking power in 2016, the Republicans quickly moved to remove internal opposition to the Trump regime in America . The legal system became one of many tools for this aim and the Republicans gradually supplanted the normal justice system with political courts with wide-ranging powers. The function of the special courts was to intimidate the American public, but as they expanded their scope and took over roles previously done by ordinary courts such as Amtsgerichte this function became diluted.

  18. Mueller declined to answer hundreds of questions. If this is what the Democrats were looking for out of today they really must think Americans are stupid. Trump will easily win in 2020. Trump won 85% of the counties in America today certainly won't make him lose any votes

  19. All this is scripted. They do this to make us believe they are worth having around. Dissolve the government. They are pass there prim. Clean house and put people who are not preapproved by the people we are replacing. Wish I could run but I don't qualify. Even though I'm an American citizen

  20. Seriously ,I believe Mr.Mueller was once very capable ,Although he had nothing to work with against President Trump . Clinton ,Yes she is corrupt . however It looked to me as though Mr. Mueller is going senile.

  21. Mueller looking in his bathroom mirror the morning of the House Judiciary Committee
    Mueller: I don't know, I don't, know, I do not know, I can't answer that. Not to my knowledge, I can't speak on that. insert vague comment that can be interpreted incorrectly
    Mueller: I'm ready.

  22. Sorry shitlibs, its over. But thanks for boosting Trump's approval rating 10 points with your desperate hail mary.

  23. What a joke this f*ck*ng Democrats who lack any resemblance of common sense and have forgotten their brains who knows where, if they ever had brains in the first place.

  24. I feel sorry for Mueller the Democrats are Relentless Bill do anything and that's including using agent Mueller to try to bring down our president and do as much damage to this country as possible agent Mueller shouldn't have testified he clearly had a tough time answering questions

  25. 1:53:09 he asked for plain terms. Not fumble then use a word that the average American will have to look up. Smdh

  26. Community guidelines= censorship
    We don't burn bibles, we our progressive fascist in today's technocracy, we create algorithms that make you disappear if you do not fall in line.

  27. All the Democrats keep saying "No one is above the law". What they should be saying is no one is above the law unless they are a Democrat…

  28. We should make the Muller testimony a drinking game!
    🍺🍻🍺
    Every time Muller says " Uh..uh..can you repeat the question? You take a drink, and I GUARANTEE you'll jet jacked!
    😵
    💦🚽

  29. They do not have the right to call themselves democrats. They interrogate him as a Gestapo.The Democrats have lost and no one is to blame for this but even the Russians themselves.

  30. this is so stupid… a person is a GOP and MAGICALLY, they cant see any wrongdoing…a person is a democrat, and they see nothing but wrongdoing…

    this proves that people will believe and protect others without any concern for whats before them…they will instead take sides to show solidarity… GOP or Democrat. What a country… LOL

  31. so wait, because you cant indite the sitting president, NO ONE SHOULD LOOK FOR CRIME BY HIM!?!?!?! LOL WHAT A FLIPPIN JOB!!!! LOL we ALL need jobs like THAT!! LOL @8:46:47

  32. Mueller, not a good way to end your career! Repukes had tube socks shoved in his mouth yesterday. So obvious !!! Now we know exactly why it was delayed for so long !!!

  33. I'm not from America and to be honest I'm really scared of Donald Trump. The American people including the Republican party it's and voters/supporters don't have a clue who he is and what his intentions are. Donald Trump just a few weeks ago lied about a request by the Indian Prime Minister to mediate between India and Pakistan which is a an internal issue. I know for a fact Indian prime minister would never put in such a request to Donald Trump.

  34. The American authorities have not dug deep enough. No stone should be left unturned.
    Somewhere in their files or in an obscure bank account they will find evidence to get rid of the bully-boy.
    The President (in name only) had a very good family education learning how to hustle. .He knows every trick in the book, or so he thinks.
    It only needs one small piece of jig-saw to open up the undoubted can of worms.
    The esteemed Bob Mueller is the very antithesis of Donald Trump

  35. "let me make it simpler for you"… a statement made after u just said a paragraph long "question" with quotes, a few soap box comments all states under 30 seconds.. then when u say, "repeat that?" they say "well let me make it easier" — the fact that they ALL are doing it, is a sign that they have spoken as a political party and practiced how to "get at" him. the way the system is rigged, no peace, unity, or understanding is possible. like mixing clay with iron as a foundation for a huge statue

  36. Robert Mueller publicly showed his great INCOMPETENCE by not being able to answer questions regarding the Steele Dossier which was the main justification for the FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign (out of many other unanswered questions), and failed to examine the DNC servers to verify if Russia really hacked the DNC servers (some sources claimed Seth Rich provided DNC emails to Wikileaks). He should return the circa $30 million of taxpayers money that he and his corrupt team charged for this hoax Trump-Russia collusion investigation.

  37. their case against Trump.
    His monotonal yes and no answers might not have made for the most dramatic viewing, but they weren’t without effect. In five minutes, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff walked Mueller through the most damning details of Volume 1 of his report. Mueller’s answers were short—“that did occur,” “accurate,” “that is correct”—but what he affirmed was that Russia engaged in a systematic effort to help Trump win in 2016, that Trump and his campaign welcomed Russian aid, and that Trump lied to the American people about his business dealings in Russia.

  38. Muller does a great job here, and it's gotta be hard to deal with all the dumbfuck republicans that try and twist his rapport around using things like the False Equivalency fallacy, and Strawmanning…. How and why are so many 'Mericans so repugnantly corrupt and stupid?

  39. 200 times Purview; the scope of the influence or concerns of something.

    Which is it mister Muller – Influence or concern?

  40. 3:43:30–3:43:39 Why couldn't he answer the question? He was mid answer and stopped, has me wondering if they were tryna cover something up 🧐

  41. Just listening to this now. I’m at 1:18:00 and they are just talking about wanting to hear the emotion and drama of the investigation. I thought the point of the hearing was to set in stone what is and is not stated in the report? I’ll keep listening.

  42. Sounds like the dems must’ve written his report for him because he has no idea of what’s in his own report. He can’t speak on anything because it’s all bs. Great display of liberal lunatics.

  43. Why called a man for a hearing when the facts are in the papers, and all you have to do is read it and act? By law, Mueller is not allowed to give any further pieces of information concerning the next steps. From what I watched and concluded "Trump" is guilty of crimes but would not be charged until he gets out of office. But, the Democrats wants to hear it from Mueller's mouth and escape on reading the actual reports." The question then is, "why are the American people paying all of you when you will not read the reports and act?"

  44. Wow Mueller is such a train wreck.. before this, I would have bet the farm that Jeff Sessions had the single worst testimony I ever saw.. Whether Mueller is stonewalling, stalling, or is senile or just unprepared it looks like Mueller tarnished his "legacy" Thanks to Andrew (Mueller's Pitbull) Weissman! At least Mueller didn't cry at Hillary Clinton 's losing the election party!

  45. lmfao 2:04:00 this dyke straight RIPPED those pages out of the MSM interview booklet. look at those tab holes….she was TRIGGERED when she grabbed the pages.

  46. lmfao 2:04:00 this dyke straight RIPPED those pages out of the MSM interview booklet. look at those tab holes….she was TRIGGERED when she grabbed the pages.

  47. it's like anything related to democrats just tend to lose. failing cities, failing msm, and failing elections. PARTY OF LOSERS

  48. 1:45:58 There it is straight from the horses mouth: Russia interfered in our election. NO MEMBER OF THE TRUMP TEAM CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

  49. He didn't have a clue what he wrote? Over 400 pages and had no clue? But people still follow this fool? And you have to ask why? LMFAO LMFAO Any person can see this is a hustle, stupids!! The guy is acting! He's a expert remember you Dem fools?

  50. A proof of the corruption of political and judicial institutions. It makes you not want to pay taxes as it only funds tyranny.

  51. Clearly Mueller was just a name or figure head for this farce of an investigation. I had been led to believe this man was an honorable man, had integrity, would not only look at the Trump association with the "Russians", but also any interference and he completely bombed. He went after "Russian Collision" that has been shown to not even have existed, clearly shows the FBI under the Obama administration, was illegally spying on the Trump campaign, yet he didn't follow that lead that was dangling in his face like a carrot. Mueller has turned out to be a huge disappointment to both the Dems & Reps, yet the elected officials can't get their head's out of their asses & start working together to make this country a better place. Time to take care of immigration laws & stop dragging their feet. AG Barr needs to be bring Mueller before the Congress and make him answer all the questions he couldn't seem to answer due to not knowing what was even in the report. Using key words to cast doubt with no evidence should land Mueller behind the same bars he put many other's behind, yet coislnt manage to put the one man who started this enter farce that cost the tax payers 30 million dollar's. We deserve to see a full itemized report on where every dollar was spent & begin to investigate this man who lied to get the investigation started. Follow up on the illegal wire tapping, the Obama administration spying not only on a presidential candidate, but all the citizens who weren't involved, all illegal activities that he claims happened but were outside his purview. I think the entire job was outside his purview.

  52. ATTENTION! TRUMPA PAYED BY THE SOVIET (RUSSIAN) PARTY OF SHUE (PPSh, ShPSh (IN RUSSIAN ШУЕ, ППШ, ШПШ)) HERE VIDEO WHERE IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ENTERED THIS PARTY !!!! @

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *