News & Blog

CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WOULD NOT BE WATCHING, BUT WILL HE BE TWEETING? >> FOR MANY AMERICANS, JUST LEARNING WHAT IS IN THE REPORT WILL BE A REVELATION. >> EOS ANSWERS ON REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, LIKE WHY HE CHOSE NOT TO INTERVIEW THE PRESIDENT. >> IT IS INTERESTING TO ME HOW MANY TIMES THEY WANT TO SEE THIS MOVIE AGAIN. >> SHOULD ROBERT MULLER TESTIFY TODAY, DEMOCRATS WANT ANSWERS. WE WILL BREAK DOWN EVERY ANGLE OF TODAY’S TESTIMONY FOR YOU. WE HAVE POLITICAL AND LEGAL EXPERTS JOINING US THROUGHOUT THE NEXT HOUR AND A HALF TO GET YOU READY FOR ONE OF THE MOST ANTICIPATED CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS OF THE YEAR. WE PROMISED TO BRING YOU SOME OF THE STORIES YOU DON’T WANT TO MISS TODAY. >> “CBSN A.M.” STARTS RIGHT NOW. >>> HEY, GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. IT IS 7:01 AM ON THE EAST COAST. I AM ANNE-MARIE GREEN. IN JUST OVER AN HOUR, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER WILL TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS IN A DAY THAT IS LIKELY TO BE HISTORIC. MUELLER WILL FACE FIVE HOURS OF QUESTIONING FROM TWO COMMITTEES REGARDING HIS REPORT ON THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. NEARLY 450 PAGES FOUND 10 POSSIBLE ACTS WHERE THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE BUT DID NOT COME TO A CONCLUSION ON IF THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY DID SO. WE HAVE WHAT TO EXPECT FROM TODAY’S HEARINGS. >> Reporter: FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER WILL BE ON CAPITOL HILL TODAY, TESTIFYING BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES. BOTH HEARINGS WILL FOCUS ON WHAT HE FOUND WHILE IN THE INVESTIGATION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION. >> FOR MANY, IT WILL BE A REVELATION. >> Reporter: MUELLER, BY HIS OWN ACCOUNT, IS A RELUCTANT WITNESS. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S NEARLY TWO-YEAR PROBE ENDED IN MAY. THE FINDINGS WERE PUBLISHED IN A 448 PAGE REPORT THAT DID NOT IDENTIFY EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA. HOWEVER, IT CITED 10 INSTANCES OF POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ISSUES INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SENT MUELLER A LETTER ASKING HIM TO KEEP HIS TESTIMONY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE REPORT. DEMOCRATS ARE HOPING TO GET MORE THAN THAT. >> HE OWES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SOME ANSWERS, LIKE WHY HE CHOSE NOT TO INTERVIEW THE PRESIDENT. >> Reporter: REPUBLICANS AND THE PRESIDENT SAY THE MUELLER REPORT IS OLD NEWS. >> NO, I WILL NOT BE WATCHING, PROBABLY, LITTLE BIT. >> WE ALREADY HEARD FROM HIM. IT SEEMS TO ME, I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES WE WANT TO SEE THIS MOVIE AGAIN. >> Reporter: DEMOCRATS ALLOWED MUELLER’S REQUEST TO HAVE HIS TOP AIDE SWORN IN BUT HE WON’T BE QUESTIONED BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. >> I AM JOINED BY OUR PANEL. THANK YOU FOR JOINING ME SO EARLY. I KNOW YOU WILL BE HERE PROBABLY ALL DAY LONG. I WANTED TO START WITH YOU WITH A BASIC QUESTION. WHAT ARE DEMOCRATS HOPING TO GET OUT OF MUELLER? HE IS ALREADY SAID HE IS NOT GOING TO GO BEYOND WHAT IS PUBLICLY KNOWN. >> I THINK WE HAVE TO GET HIM ON THE RECORD TO FLUSH OUT PARTS OF THIS REPORT THAT WERE PERHAPS REDACTED AND I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR HIM READ THE REPORT .THERE ARE SPECIFIC AREAS IN THE REPORT, SOMEHOW THE REPUBLICANS SPENT DAY AND NIGHT AND REBUFFED IT AS IF IT DIDN’T EIST BUT GOING INTO TODAY’S HEARING HAVE TO HAVE MANAGEABLE AND REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS. THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS BEEN CLEAR HE WILL NOT GO OUTSIDE OF WHAT HE IS LAID OUT IN THE REPORT. THERE ARE DAMAGING THINGS IN THE REPORT THAT WILL GIVE THEM, I THINK, THE POLITICAL COVER TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR EFFORTS TO INVESTIGATE AND LEGISLATE AS THEY HAVE DONE SUCCESSFULLY UP TO THIS POINT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, JUST BECAUSE HE DID NOT PROSECUTE OR CHARGE THE PRESIDENT, THAT DID NOT MEAN THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT CRIMES OR THINGS THAT ARE WORTHY OF THEM, HE SPECIFICALLY WENT BY RULE OF LAW. >> OKAY. YOU ARE RIGHT. IF HE DOESN’T GO BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF THE DOCUMENT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN IN HIS REPORT, WE KIND OF ALREADY KNOW WHAT IS THERE. >> THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE INTERESTING POLITICAL EVENTS THAT YOU WONDER WHERE YOU GET TO THE MEAT? EVERYBODY WANTS SOME SAUCE, SOME SASS. I PRAY PRESIDENT TRUMP IS LYING, AND HE PROBABLY IS, ABOUT NOT LYING NOT WATCHING. I AM NOT GOING TO SAY ROBERT MUELLER IS NOT THE MOST EXCITING PERSON BUT THERE IS NOT A LOT OF SPARKS. IF HE STAYS WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF HIS REPORT, THAT TAKES AWAY THE CHANCE FOR SPARKS. THERE WILL BE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VIEWS WE SEE TODAY. THE TALK RADIO CONSERVATIVE UNIVERSE, PEOPLE WHO WATCH FOX NEWS, THEY HAVE A WHOLE SERIES OF QUESTIONS THEY WANT ASKED ABOUT HOW THE REPORT STARTED, HOW IT BEGAN WITH A DOCUMENT THAT WAS FUNDED BY THE DEMOCRATS AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. HALF OF AMERICANS ARE GETTING HERE THESE QUESTIONS AND GO, WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT? OTHERS WILL BE LOOKING AT ROBERT MUELLER AND I THINK THEY NEED TO MEASURE THEIR EXPECTATIONS. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING HIM TO GO, I CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE! HE IS GUILTY! IMPEACH NOW! THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN. >> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMOCRATS THINK, THEY THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE DIDN’T READ THIS. IF THEY JUST READ IT, THEY WILL FIND OUT A LOT OF STUFF ABOUT THE PRESIDENT THEY DID NOT KNOW. >> NOT ONLY THAT, I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE IS, DEMOCRATS HAVE TO FRAME THIS FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY STANDPOINT. WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT RUSSIA HACKED INTO OUR ELECTIONS TO CHANGE THE WAY THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM WORKS. REPUBLICANS TEND TO PRESS THE IGNORE BUTTON ON THAT AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH IT BUT IT IS REAL. WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT YES, DONALD TRUMP, THE REPUBLICANS, AND HIS KIDS WORKED WITH A FOREIGN POWER THAT ULTIMATELY ENDED UP INFLUENCING OUR ROUTE OUR ELECTIONS. I AM NOT NACVE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE ANYBODY’S MIND ON THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT. PEOPLE GO BACK AND FORTH. WE CALL THEM INDEPENDENCE. >> SOME DEMOCRATS HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT PEOPLE DON’T READ THE BOOK, THEY WATCH THE MOVIE. THEY HOPE THAT READING THE ACCOUNT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP TELLING THEM AGAIN TO FIRE ROBERT MUELLER, READING SOME THE LANGUAGE PRESIDENT TRUMP USED, THAT WILL SHOCK PEOPLE. I AM JUST WONDERING IF THIS WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHOCK THE AUDIENCE. PEOPLE WHO WATCH CNN EVERY DAY AND FOLLOW THE NEWS, THEY KNOW LARGELY WHAT HAPPENED. IT IS THE PEOPLE YOU ARE TRYING TO PERSUADE. ARE THEY GOING TO TURN AWAY FROM WHATEVER, “JUDGE JUDY”, AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE TALK ABOUT LAWYER STOP. >> IT WILL HIGHLIGHT THE CORRUPTION THAT OVERFLOWS FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION AND HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT. THERE HAS BEEN TESTIMONY BY THE FBI DIRECTOR THAT DECLARED RUSSIA IS CONTINUING TO PLAY BALL IN OUR ELECTIONS. I THINK THIS WILL BE GIVING DEMOCRATS THE CREDIBILITY WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO CONTINUE INVESTIGATING WHAT STEMS FROM TODAY’S TESTIMONY BUT ALSO SEND A SHOCKWAVE THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT PROTECTING THE MOST SACRED THING WE HAVE, THAT IS OUR VOTE IN THIS DEMOCRACY. >> I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I AM MOST INTERESTED IN,. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HIS INTENTION WAS WITH THIS DOCUMENT. WAS THE INTENTION THAT, LIKE HE SAID, PERHAPS IT COULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE LATER ON? IS IT SOMETHING FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT? IS IT SOMETHING FOR CONGRESS IN TERMS OF CONTINUING THIS QUESTION OF ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT? >> THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY LEGAL SCHOLARS, WHO LIKETO SAY THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A ROADMAP TO IMPEACHMENT. IMPEACHMENT IS ENTIRELY A POLITICAL ACT. IF YOU DON’T HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL TO DO IT, THERE IS THIS INTERESTING MOMENT WHERE DEMOCRATS SAY WE HAVE TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT, HE IS SO CORRUPT. THEY BROUGHT A PIECE OF LEGISLATION FORWARD LAST WEEK. I THINK 12 DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR IT. AS LONG AS YOU SAY THE IMPEACHMENT GAME IS CLOSED, THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES, WHY ARE WE HERE? >> HE WANTS TO FRAME THIS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, I WANT TO KEEP THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO DO AND BE A CHECK BOX FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED TO BEAT THE DEMOCRATS UP AND SAY ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS INVESTIGATE. THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR PASSED THE BUCK TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH TO GIVE THEM COVER AND A REASON TO INVESTIGATE. WE CANNOT LOSE SIGHT OF THAT. >> YOU SAY THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING THIS, BUT NANCY PELOSI RELEASED A SIX PAGE DOCUMENT LAST WEEK THAT BASICALLY SAYS, HERE IS OUR APPROACH TO KEEPING THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS ALIVE. THIS IS PART OF A BROADER STRATEGY. NOBODY DOUBTS THAT IDEALLY, FOR MANY ON THE LEFT, THAT STRATEGY IS IMPEACHMENT. >> I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IS NOT THE CASE. WHAT I THINK FROM THE BEGINNING, DEMOCRATS WANT TO INVESTIGATE AND LEGISLATE. WE PASSED OVER 200 SOMETHING ODD PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE SO HUNGRY AND THIRSTY FOR AND WE SIX FLESHED OUT THE CORRUPTION THAT CAME FROM DONALD TRUMP AND PEOPLE SURROUNDING HIM. I THINK WE WILL SEE TO MAKE THE CASE IN 2020 WHY HE IS NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >> KEEPING THAT IN MIND THAT THE ROLE OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE CHECK AND BALANCE, BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS A DEGREE OF A POLITICAL COMPONENT TO THIS, OBVIOUSLY. THIS IS ALSO ABOUT ALLOWING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO WATCH WHAT HE HAS TO SAY AND INFLUENCE A PUBLIC ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. LET ME ASK YOU, AND THE DEMOCRATS OR THE REPUBLICANS, AND THIS BE A MISSTEP FOR THEM? CAN PLAY THIS BADLY COME OUT IN A WAY THEY DON’T? IF THEY DO NOT SET REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS, YES. IF MUELLER READS OUT LOUD ONE LINE AND REPORT, IF THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO. IF MUELLER READS THAT ALLOWED AND PEOPLE REMAIN COMMITTED AND ASK HIM TO DO IT FOUR OR FIVE TIMES IN A ROW, I THINK THAT WILL BE A COMMERCIAL WOULD SEE ACROSS THIS COUNTRY IN BATTLE GROUND DISTRICT 2 KC IS NOT THAT. >> I THINK YOU WILL SEE THAT REGARDLESS. MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE MOVEMENT ON THIS ISSUE? 50% OF AMERICANS SAID IN UP THE LAST TWO DAYS THAT CONGRESS HAS SPENT TOO MUCH TIME ON THIS. THEY ARE DONE. THAT PEOPLE LIKE, MANY OF THEM HE IS A SKETCHY GUY THEY DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM BELIEVING ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT DON’T CARE THEY SHOULD I DON’T KNOW. ROBERT MUELLER MAY SAY SOMETHING STUNNING. DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE WORRIED. REPUBLICANS ARE NOT ALL DOM AND THEY HAVE SMART QUESTIONS BUT MOST AMERICANS HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT THE VERY SKETCHY ORIGINS OF THAT EARLY INFORMATION. THEY DON’T KNOW THE STORY. FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, THE FIRST BRUSH OF THAT STORY COULD CAUSE THEM TO GO, WAIT A MINUTE. >> YOU EXPECT THEM TO DRILL DOWN ON THE DOSSIER? PETER STRUCK? >> ABSOLUTELY. NOT MANY PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE DOSSIER WAS FUNDED BY THE CLINTONS. >> IT WAS NOT FUNDED BY THE CLINTONS. IT WAS NOT FUNDED BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. THEY HIRED OPPOSITION RESEARCH. THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN CANNOT CONTROL THAT. >> THEY MIGHT GO, HOLY MOLY, WHAT THE HECK? IT SHOULD BE A BIG DEAL WHEN A PRESIDENT OF ONE PARTY HAS HIS DOJ INVESTIGATE THE NOMINEE OF THE OTHER PARTY, REGARDLESS WHAT THAT NOMINEE DID. IT SHOULD BE A BIG DEAL. THIS WAS NOT HANDLED BY THE PEOPLE INSIDE THE DOJ LIKE A SENSITIVE POLITICAL MATTER. THE WHOLE NARRATIVE THE REPUBLICANS HAVE COULD GO AWAY. WHEN YOU READ THE EMAILS AND TEXTS, WHEN YOU SEE WHAT THEY DID, IT IS HARD TO SAY THEY WERE TRYING TO GO DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE LINE. THE REPUBLICANS HAVE SOMETHING TO FIGHT BACK WITH. THAT IS WHY LOWER EXPLANATIONS EXPECTATIONS WILL LOWER. >> MEASURE THREE TIMES, CUT ONCE IS MY ADVICE TO DEMOCRATS TODAY. >>> IN JUST OVER AN HOUR, WE WILL BRING YOU ROBERT MUELLER’S TESTIMONY ON A SPECIAL REPORT. NORAH O COVERAGE BEGINNING AT 8:15 AM EASTERN, 7:15 AM CENTRAL RIGHT HERE ON CBSN. WE WILL HAVE ANALYSIS FROM OUR TEAM OF CORRESPONDENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DAY. >>> IT HAS BEEN NEARLY 18 YEARS SINCE THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS. FIRST RESPONDERS ARE STILL FIGHTING DISEASES LINKED TO THAT DISASTER. YESTERDAY THE SENATE PASSED A BILL GUARANTEEING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO THE FAMILIES OF THE FIRST RESPONDERS AND OTHERS STRICKEN WITH ILLNESSES RELATED TO 9/11. THE BILL NOW HEADS BACK TO THE PRESIDENT’S DESK FOR SIGNING. CBSN CORRESPONDENT CHIP REID HAS MORE FROM CAPITAL HILL. >> I AM PROUD THAT WE ARE HERE TODAY AND WE GOT THIS BILL PASSED. >> Reporter: CONGRESSMAN THAT CAN’T AGREE ON MUCH OF ANYTHING FINALLY AGREED ON THIS. >> 97-2. WHEN DOES THE SENATE EVER GET THERE? >> Reporter: THE BILL ENSURES THAT THE FUND PAYING FOR MEDICAL TREATMENTS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND NEIGHBORHOOD VICTIM SECOND IN THE AFTERMATH OF 9/11 NEVER RUNS OUT OF MONEY. >> YOU ARE IGNORING THEM. >> Reporter: FORMER DAILY SHOW HOST JON STEWART HAS PASSIONATELY CHAMPIONED THE CAUSE FOR YEARS. >> MY JOB WAS TO COME IN AT THE VERY AND AND YELL AS LOUD AS I COULD. IT WAS INSPIRED BY THESE GUYS. >> Reporter: THE BILL WAS HELD UP BY REPUBLICAN SENATOR RAND PAUL OVERSPENDING CONCERTS. >> IT IS A MANUFACTURED CRISIS. AS OF TODAY, THE FUNDING QUESTION HAS $2 BILLION IN IT. >> Reporter: THE VOTE CAME TOO LATE FOR FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE LUIS ALVAREZ TO SEE IT HAPPEN. >> THIS FUND IS NOT A TICKET TO PARADISE. >> Reporter: THREE WEEKS AFTER TESTIFYING ON CAPITOL HILL, ALVAREZ DIED OF CANCER. HIS SON, DAVID ALVAREZ. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR NOT FORGETTING HIM, NOT FORGETTING ALL THE OTHER FIRST RESPONDERS. >> Reporter: THE BILL NOW GOES TO PRESIDENT TRUMP. HE IS EXPECTED TO SIGN IT FRIDAY WHILE SURROUNDED BY 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS. CHIP REID, CBS NEWS, CAPITAL HILL. >>> TWO MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS IN PUERTO RICO ARE REPORTING THAT GOERNOR RICARDO ROSSELLO WILL STEP DOWN AT NOON TODAY. CBS NEWS HAS NOT INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED THE APPARENT RESIGNATION. THIS COMES AFTER PUERTO RICO CONTINUED PROTESTS LAST NIGHT. WHAT DO WE HEARING THIS MORNING, LAUREN? WHAT IS GOING ON? >> Reporter: IT IS A WAITING GAME TO SEE IF HE RESIGNS. WE KNOW YESTERDAY HIS CHIEF OF STAFF RESIGNED. IT WOULD BE A REVERSAL IF RICARDO ROSE A WOOD RESIGNED TODAY. WE KNOW THE EMBATTLED LEADER VOWED TO REMAIN IN OFFICE DESPITE PUBLIC OUTCRY. HE HAS NOT YET SAID HE WOULD BE STEPPING DOWN ALTHOUGH IT COULD COME WITHIN MINUTES. PROTESTERS TOOK TO THE STREETS OF PUERTO RICO LAST NIGHT FOR THE 12th DAY. THEY STEM FROM THE ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AND OF ELITE ONLINE CHAT BETWEEN THE GOVERNOR AND HIS POLITICAL ALLIES. THE MESSAGES CONTAINED PROFANE, HOMOPHOBIC AND SEXIST COMMENTS AND MOCKED VICTIMS OF HURRICANE MARIA. SEARCH WARRANTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED INTO THE INVESTIGATION INTO ROSSELLO AND 11 OF HIS AIDES. PUERTO RICO’S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS LOOKING INTO ANY CRIMINAL OR ETHICAL CRIMINALS CRIMES WERE COMMITTED IN THIS CHECK A CONTROVERSY. THE ONES COME JUST TWO DAYS ROSSELLO ANNOUNCED HE WOULD NOT SEEK REELECTION NEXT YEAR. GOVERNOR RICARDO ROSSELLO, HIS CHIEF OF STAFF RESIGNED YESTERDAY, WE ARE REALLY GOING TO FIND OUT IF HE WILL RESIGN TODAY. IF HE DOES STEP DOWN, WE KNOW THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE WOULD LIKELY REPLACE HIM, ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE IN PUERTO RICO SAY THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. THY WANT THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT TAKEN OUT. >> I KNOW THE GOVERNOR HAS BEEN EXPRESSING HIMSELF, WHETHER THROUGH TWEETS OR WITH INTERVIEWS OR WHATEVER THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE THING, OFTEN HE HAS PUT HIS FOOT INTO HIS MOUTH. WHATEVER HE SAYS DOESN’T SATISFY PEOPLE. HE ISSUED A STATEMENT YESTERDAY? >> YES. >> Reporter: IT SAID WHEN ONE SIDE SPEAKS LEGITIMATELY, THE OTHER SIDE HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO LISTEN CAREFULLY. THE PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING. I MIGHT HAVE TO LISTEN. >> THAT SOUNDS INTERESTING. >> Reporter: WE WILL SEE IF THAT HAPPENS TODAY. >> THANK YOU. >>> COMING UP AFTER THE BREAK, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GOING TO ENSURE RETURNS. THE LATEST ATTORNEY TO TRY TO NULLIFY STATE LAW. DO WE WANT ANY DELAYS IMPACTED BY THIS CBS-AT&T DISAGREEMENT. YOU CAN GET YOUR NEWS RIGHT HERE BY DOWNLOADING NEWS APP AND STREAMING US ON ANY PLATFORM YOU CHOOSE, YOUR PHONE, YOUR iPAD, YOUR COMPUTER. AT YOUR LOCAL NEWS AND DSL ACCESS WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK >>> HERE IS SOME STORE YOU MAY HAVE MISSED WHILE YOU WERE OFF- LINE. A FEDERAL JUDGE IS TEMPORALLY HALTING THREE ANTIABORTION LAWS FROM BEING ENFORCED IN ARKANSAS. JUDGE CHRISTINE BAKER GRANTED THE ACLU OF ARKANSAS A 14 DAY RESTRAINING ORDER. THE LAWS THAT WERE BLOCKED INCLUDE WOMEN BEING KEPT FROM GETTING AN ABORTION AFTER 18 WEEKS OF PREGNANCY, REQUIRING DOCTORS WHO PERFORM ABORTIONS TO BE CERTIFIED IN GYNECOLOGICAL STUDIES AND ARKANSAS IS AT RISK OF LOSING THEIR ONLY SURGICAL PROVIDER OF ABORTION. >>> MONEY WAS PAID TO NEAL ARMSTRONG’S ESTATE. ACCORDING TO THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORT, MERCY HEALTH FAIRFIELD HOSPITAL AGREE TO PAY IN ORDER TO AVOID BAD PUBLICITY. HIS TWO SONS CLAIM THEIR FATHER DIED BECAUSE OF POSTSURGICAL COMPLICATIONS CAUSED BY THE HOSPITAL. MOST OF THE SETTLEMENT WAS SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO SONS, FOLLOWED BY ARMSTRONG’S BROTHER AND SISTER AND THEIR SIX GRANDCHILDREN. >>> NEW YORK HAS A NEW LAWMAKING REVENGE BORN A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE ACT OF SHARING SEXUAL PHOTOS OR VIDEOS WITHOUT CONSENT IS NOW ILLEGAL. 41 STATES AND WASHINGTON, D.C. ALREADY HAVE SIMILAR LAWS IN PLACE. OFFENDERS COULD PUT UP SPEND UP TO ONE YEAR IN PRISON AND VICTIMS CAN SUE AND GET A COURT ORDER TO REMOVE THE VIDEOS AND PICTURES FROM SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. >>> PRESIDENT TRUMP FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE AND NEW YORK OFFICIALS TO PROTECT HIS TAX RETURNS. HIS ATTORNEY RIGHTS, NEW YORK’S NEW LAW ALLOWING THE PRESIDENT RELEASED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. HE ALSO CLAIMS THE LAW VIOLATES MR. TRUMP’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. JOINING ME NOW IS CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST REBECCA WOULD BE TO JOIN US. >> THERE HAS BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO ACCESS THE PRESIDENT RETURNS AND IT GETS FOLDED IN. THIS ONE IS RELATED TO NEW YORK TAX RETURNS. >> IT IS ALSO PARTICULAR CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES. IT IS NOT LIKE, THE TAX RETURNS CAN GO TO ANYONE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. >> THIS IS A NEW YORK LAW THAT WAS PASSED THAT ENABLES NEW YORK TO OBTAIN FROM NEW YORK TAX OFFICIALS TRUMP’S STATE TAX RETURNS. IN TURN, THE U.S. CONGRESS WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE CAN OBTAIN THOSE TAXES FROM NEW YORK STATE, OR AT LEAST THEORETICALLY. I DON’T THINK THEY HAVE COMMITTED TO DOING THAT, BUT THEORETICALLY, THEY COULD. THE CONCERN IS SECONDARY TO THE FIRST CONCERN, THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS WILL TRY TO GET FROM THE TREASURY HIS FEDERAL RETURNS. NOW WE ARE CONCERNED WITH HIS STATE RETURNS. >> JAY SEKULOW SAID THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE REASON. >> HE SAYS HE REPEATS HIS MANTRA, THERE IS NO LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE HERE. THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. THIS IS A POLITICAL ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THIS PRESIDENT. YOU KNOW, IN TRUMP’S TERMS, IT IS PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT. SECONDARILY, IN TERMS OF THE STATE OFFICIALS, THE EFFORT TO BLOCK THE STATE OFFICIALS FROM GETTING HIS TAX RETURNS, HIS ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS IS A VIOLATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. HE IS FILING THIS COMPLAINT AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. HE SAYS BY COMING AFTER ME, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY RETALIATION FOR MY POLITICAL BELIEFS. THAT IS INTERESTING. >> HE HAS DONE THIS BEFORE. HE HAS CLAIMED HE IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN IN THIS LAWSUIT. >> I AM PUTTING MY PRESIDENT HAD ASIDE AND I AM NOW A PRIVATE CITIZEN. HE DIDN’T GET AWAY WITH IT WITH HIS TWITTER FEED. HE COULD NOT BLOCK WHOEVER HE WANTED. HE IS THE PRESIDENT AND THIS IS A PUBLIC FORM ACCORDING TO THE COURT. THIS HAS A LITTLE MORE MERIT. WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. IT IS A LITTLE MORE OF A LEGITIMATE CLAIM TO SAY HERE YOU ARE COMING AFTER ME. YOU’RE COMING AFTER ME AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. ON THE OTHER SIDE, NO, YOU ARE NOT. YOU ARE ALSO THE ELECTED OFFICIAL FOR THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE YOUR TAX RETURNS AND PRETENDING TO ALL OF A SUDDEN TO BECOME A PRIVATE CITIZEN, YOU CAN’T DO THAT. YOU CANNOT STRIP YOURSELF OF THIS PRESIDENCY FOR YOUR THAT PURPOSE. >> HE IS NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED, AS A PRESIDENT, TO RELEASE HIS TAX RETURNS. IT IS MORE OF A TRADITION. >> IT IS A TRADITION THAT HAS FOLLOWED THROUGH EVERY PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM. THE QUESTION IS, NOW, WHEN HE IS FLOUTING THOSE TRADITIONS, HOW DO WE GET THOSE TAX RETURNS ? THERE IS THIS EFFORT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOW, THERE IS ALREADY A LAWSUIT, THIS IS A TAGALONG LAWSUIT. BOTH OF THESE LAWSUITS ARE EFFORTS TO GET HIS TAX RETURNS. BOTH HIS FEDERAL AND HIS STATE TAX RETURNS. >> WHEN I READ ABOUT THIS, MY INITIAL REACTION WAS, THE PRESIDENT KEEPS SAYING HE IS MORE THAN WILLING TO RELEASE HIS TAX RETURNS, IT IS JUST HE IS UNDER AUDIT. NOW HE IS FIGHTING IT. IT SEEMS LIKE A CONTRADICTION. RELEASE IT OR NOT? >> IT HAS GONE ON LONG. I DON’T THINK THAT IS IT. THERE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION HERE. THERE ARE TWO NARRATIVES. ONE IS, THIS IS OVERSIGHT, THIS IS AN EXERCISE TWO ISSUE PROPER OVERSIGHT BY CONGRESS, THE STATE BECAUSE THE CITIZENS HAVE AN INTEREST. THE OTHER STORY IS, THIS IS A CONTINUAL EFFORT TO DESTROY THIS PRESIDENT. >> THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO ASK YOU. COULD YOU ARGUE PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT PRECISELY BECAUSE HE IS NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO RELEASE ANY OF THIS STUFF? THIS IS HIS PRIVATE INFORMATION. IF HE WANTS TO SHARE IT WITH US, GREAT. IF NOT, WHY ALL THESE MULTIPLE ANGLES TO GET IT? ISN’T IT LEGITIMATE THAT COULD BE A FORM OF HARASSMENT? >> I THINK THE STATE, THIS PARTICULAR LAWSUIT THAT JUST CAME OUT, MAKES THAT STORY A LITTLE MORE COMPELLING. LOOK, YOU HAVE TRIED. YOU ARE LITIGATING IT. IT KEPT PILING ON. LETICIA JAMES REALLY DID CAMPAIGN ON, I AM AFTER TRUMP. IN MY MIND, THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE. IF YOU ARE A LEGAL OFFICIAL, YOU SHOULD NOT BE AFTER SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS OR THEIR PRESIDENCY. SHE LOOKS RABID. SHE LOOKS LIKE SHE IS AFTER HIM. I DON’T THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEGITIMATE CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT POINT IS AN IMPORTANT ONE. WE, AS A COUNTRY, NEED TO KNOW WHETHER OUR PRESIDENT HAS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, ENTANGLEMENTS WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES, THAT MIGHT IMPAIR HIS ABILITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF AMERICANS. THAT IS A LEGITIMATE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. IF YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT, MAYBE WE NEED TO ENACT LEGISLATION TO MAKE SURE OUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE NOT IN SOME SITUATION THAT WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT IN WHICH THERE JUDGMENT IS BEING IMPAIRED AND WARPED. I THINK THERE IS DEFINITELY A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR THAT. WHEN I READ THIS COMPLETE, I THOUGHT, WOW, THIS SOUNDS MUCH MORE CONVINCING ON THE PART OF TRUMP’S ATTORNEYS. THEY ARE GOING AFTER HIS STATE TAX RETURNS, THEY ARE JUST TRYING TO GET THE SAME INFORMATION. THERE IS A LOT OF THE SAME INFORMATION IN A MATT. >> YOU MAKE A GREAT POINT. WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WE KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, TRIED TO START A DEVELOPMENT IN MOSCOW AND KIND OF MISLED US WHEN EXACTLY HE LET GO OF THAT OPPORTUNITY AND ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF. IT WILL BE AN INTERESTING LEGAL ARGUMENT. >>> LET’S GO TO LONDON AND CHECK IN. WE HAVE THE LATEST ON A BRAND- NEW PRIME MINISTER IN THE UK. >> Reporter: A NEW DAY AND A NEW PRIME MINISTER. BORIS JOHNSON OFFICIALLY BECOMES PRIME MINISTER THE UK TODAY. THE FORMER LONDON’S MAYOR REPLACES THERESA MAY, WHO RESIGNED LAST MONTH AFTER PARLIAMENT REJECTED ALL OF HER BREXIT PROPOSALS TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION. SHE WILL GIVE HER FINAL ADDRESS TO PARLIAMENT AND THEN MEET WITH THE QUEEN TO HAND IN HIS RESIGNATION. JOHNSON WILL ALSO MEET WITH THE QUEEN BEFORE TAKING OVER THIS AFTERNOON. PRESIDENT TRUMP CONGRATULATED JOHNSON ON WINNING THE RACE YESTERDAY, SAYING HE WILL BE GREAT. TRUMP ALSO CLAIMS JOHNSON IS POPULAR IN THE UK BECAUSE THEY CALL HIM BRITAIN DROP. >>> IN CHINA, MORE THAN 500 RESCUERS ARE SEARCHING FOR MORE THAN 30 PEOPLE AFTER TWO LANDSLIDES IN THE SOUTHWESTERN PART OF THE COUNTRY. AT LEAST 12 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED. A LANDSLIDE TUESDAY NIGHT BURIED HOMES AND ANOTHER ONE ALSO HIT A VILLAGE IN THE SAME PROBIT PROVINCE. THE LANDSLIDE HAPPENED NEAR A HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION SITE. >>> BACK ERE IN EUROPE, THE HEAT IS ON. THE UNITED NATIONS IS ISSUING A WARNING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE AS A SECOND HEAT WAVE ARRIVES THIS SUMMER. A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION SAYS THE HEATWAVES ARE STARTING EARLIER AND BECOMING MORE INTENSE BECAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE. THE PROBLEM, THEY SAY, IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. SPAIN HAS BEEN BATTLING ITS BIGGEST WILDFIRES IN DECADES, WHILE THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT HAS LIMITED WATER USE IN DOZENS OF REGIONS BECAUSE OF DROUGHT. HERE IN LONDON, IT WILL BE SIZZLING TOMORROW. IT IS EXPECTED TO REACH ABOUT 100B0F. >> I KNOW WHAT THAT FEELS LIKE. WE HAD IT OVER THE WEEKEND HERE. >>> COMING UP AFTER THE BREAK, MAJOR TWIST IN THE CASE OF THE COUPLE MURDERED IN CANADA. WHO AUTHORITIES FEAR MAY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE QUYNH. KEEP IT RIGHT HERE. YOU ARE STREAMING “CBSN A.M.” >>> NOW, EVERY EVENING SHE BRINGS TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING RIGHT WHEN WE NEED IT MOST. >> WOW. THIS IS PRETTY SPECTACULAR. >> THE “CBS EVENING NEWS” WITH NORAH O TRUST MATTERS. >>> PRESENTED BY GO DADDY. >>> A 20-YEAR-OLD IN BROOKLYN, NEW YORK HAS TAKEN HIS LOVE FOR CLOTHING DESIGN AND A SPARE ROOM IN HIS PARENTS’ HOUSE TO CREATE A BUDDING SMALL BUSINESS WHILE A FULL-TIME STUDENT. ERIC CONNOR HAS DESIGNED SNEAKERS FOR MUSIC ARTISTS JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE AND MORE. HERE IS MORE ON HIS JOURNEY INTO ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS PART OF OUR SMALL BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT. >> THE DAY I LEARNED HOW TO SEW IS A DAY I BOUGHT MY FIRST MACHINE. MY NAME IS ERIC CONNOR. I AM A CEO AND I MAKE SNEAKERS AND ACCESSORIES THAT I RECONSTRUCT THE SNEAKERS THAT ARE ALREADY MADE WITH DESIGNER MATERIALS AND EXOTIC FABRICS. I FIND IT FUN TO PIECE EVERYTHING TOGETHER. IT IS REALLY COOL TO SEE AN IDEA YOU HAVE COME TO LIFE. YOU CAN ENVISION EVERYTHING AND THEN YOU SEE IT. IT IS LIKE, WOW, I MADE THIS. I USED TO SEE PEOPLE MAKING STUFF ON INSTAGRAM, FACEBOOK AND I FIGURED I MIGHT AS WELL LEARN HOW TO DO IT MYSELF INSTEAD OF PAYING SOMEONE ELSE $2000 OR $3000. IT TOOK ME ABOUT THREE YEARS TO GET COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO REALLY JUST ZOOM THROUGH STUFF ON MY MACHINE. YOU CAN HAVE GREAT PRODUCTS. I SEE THIS ALL THE TIME, PEOPLE HAVE GREAT PRODUCTS BUT THEY DON’T KNOW HOW TO MARKET THEMSELVES. YOU HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO BRIDGE THE GREAT PRODUCTS AND MARKETING TOGETHER. WITHOUT THE MARKETING, YOU CAN’T REALLY GET THE SALES TO KEEP GOING ON IN THE BUSINESS. STARTING OFF, IT WAS VERY HARD TO GET A FOLLOWING UNTIL I STARTED MEETING UP WITH CELEBRITIES AND MEETING THE RIGHT PEOPLE. PEOPLE SEE CELEBRITIES WEARING IT AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHO THEY GOT IT FROM SO THEY CAN GO AND SHOP AT THE SAME PLACE. IT IS THE SAME THING WITH THE WEBSITE. PEOPLE WILL GO FOR MY INSTAGRAM DIRECTLY TO MY WEBSITE BECAUSE THEY SAW SOMEBODY THEY LIKE WEARING MY STUFF OR THEY WANT TO GET THE SAME DESIGN THEY SAW ONLINE IN THE PICTURE THAT THE INFLUENCER HAD ON. ONE OF THE SHOES I JUST DID WAS THIS ONE. NO ONE HAD SEEN A CUSTOM ON THAT. THAT MADE A LOT OF PEOPLES PAW HEADS TURNED. MY PLAN RIGHT NOW IS PRETTY MUCH JUST MARKETING WITH BIGGER BRANDS AND TRYING TO GET ACTUAL COLLABORATIONS WITH THEM. IF SOMEON IS TRYING TO START A BUSINESS AND BE AN ENTREPRENEUR, YOU HAVE TO REALLY WAIT AND BE PATIENT WITH EVERYTHING. IT WILL NOT COME OVERNIGHT. EVERYTHING I BUILT, MY WHOLE BUSINESS AND EVERYTHING, IT DID NOT COME OVERNIGHT. IT WAS A LOT OF HARD WORK AND COUNTLESS HOURS THAT I CAN’T EVEN COUNT UP ANYMORE. SOME SNEAKERS CAN TAKE ME AN HOUR. SOME SNEAKERS CAN TAKE ME 60 HOURS. ONCE YOU LEARN THE SWIVEL WITH THE NEEDLE AND ALL THE STITCH PATTERNS, IT BECOMES LIKE RIDING A BIKE, YOU CAN’T FORGET. >>> WE ARE JUST AN HOUR AWAY FROM ROBERT MUELLER’S UNPRECEDENTED TESTIMONY ON CAPITOL HILL. FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL WILL FACE QUESTIONS FROM LAWMAKERS ON HIS RUSSIA REPORT AND INVESTIGATION. THE HOUSE JUDICIARY AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES ARE BOTH HOLDING HEARINGS TODAY. DEMOCRATS WANT ANSWERS ON PRESIDENT TRUMP POTENTIALLY OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, WHILE REPUBLICANS WILL FOCUS ON THE ORIGINS OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. FOR MORE ON THIS, I WENT TO BRING IN OUR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR. SHE IS STILL HERE. SHE IS THE FORMER ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND CBSN POLITICAL REPORTER, MOLLY COOPER. WE WILL START WITH YOU, MOLLY. MUELLER HAS ALREADY SAID, I AM NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING BEYOND THE FOUR CORNERS OF MY REPORT. YOU CAN READ IT. READ IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE THAT IS ALL I WILL TALK ABOUT. HE WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO ASKED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ESSENTIALLY BROADCASTING THE GUIDELINES. YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK OUTSIDE OF THESE BOUNDARIES, EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ANYWAY, AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE HE LEFT. HOW ON EARTH ARE DEMOCRATS GOING TO GET ANYTHING MORE OUT OF THIS MAN? >> WELL, I THINK THERE ARE TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE, DEMOCRATS WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS CONVERSATION THAT BILL BARR, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, REPORTED ON DURING THE SENATE HEARING ON THE MUELLER REPORT, IN WHICH WILLIAM BARR SAID ROBERT MUELLER WASN’T TERRIBLY UPSET. HE WAS UPSET WITH SORT OF THE WAY BITS AND PIECES OF THE REPORT CAME OUT, THE SUMMARY CAME OUT, BUT THE PRESS’ HANDLING OF IT, NOT NECESSARILY THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WILLIAM BARR AND ROSENSTEIN CAME TO IN RELEASING THAT SUMMARY. DURING THAT HEARING, I CAN’T REMEMBER, WAS IT MAY? IT SEEMS LIKE YESTERDAY. DURING THAT HEARING, DEMOCRATS REALLY PRESSED WILLIAM BARR ON WHAT YOU MEAN, ROBERT MUELLER WASN’T CONCERNED? HE WAS CONCERNED. HE HAD A LETTER THAT SAID HE WAS CONCERNED. WILLIAM BARR SAID THAT WAS NOT WHAT HE TOLD ME. HE WAS UPSET ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. DEMOCRATS ON THE HOUSE COMMITTEE WANT TO KNOW IF THAT WAS TRUE AND IF WILLIAM BARR WAS TELLING THE TRUTH TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE. ALSO, DEMOCRATS WANT ROBERT MUELLER TO ESSENTIALLY REVIEW AND STATE KEY POINTS OF THIS REPORT. PART OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING FOR HERE IS TO SPOTLIGHT THE MUELLER REPORT. THEY SAY A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE NOT READ IT. A LOT OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE NOT READ IT. IT IS 448 PAGES. YOU KNOW, IT IS FASCINATING. A LOT OF FOLKS WOULD SAY IT WAS DULL AS DISHWATER, BUT IT IS NOT. >> IT IS NOT. >> IF THAT IS ALL HE CAN SAY, ALL HE CAN STATE IS WHAT IS IN THAT REPORT, FOR A LOT OF DEMOCRATS, THAT IS JUST FINE. >> OBSTRUCTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A BIG ISSUE AND THE NEED FOR INTENT TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ON THE PRESIDENT PART? WHAT WAS THE UNDERLYING CRIME? IF THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY OR CRIME, HOW COULD HE OBSTRUCT IT? WILLIAM BARR DID THIS PRESS CONFERENCE WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT BEING FRUSTRATED. WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT? I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU THINK THAT WILL BE AN AREA THAT THE LAWMAKERS WILL PURSUE TRYING TO DETERMINE THE INTENT OF THE PRESIDENT. HOW ON EARTH DO YOU DETERMINE THAT? >> ONE THING I WOULD ASK IF I WERE THERE, WHY DIDN’T YOU SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT? IT IS VERY HARD TO ASSESS INTENT WITHOUT TALKING TO SOMEBODY. EVERY PROSECUTOR IN ANY CASE THAT HAS EYES ON INTENT, YOU ALWAYS WANT THIS MOMENT. YOU WANT TO SAY, TELL ME YOUR STORY AND THEN ASSESS IF YOU BELIEVE IT.IT IS CURIOUS HE DID NOT DO THAT. I DON’T KNOW IF HE WILL ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK. THE OTHER THING ABOUT BILL BARR, IT IS TRUE BILL BARR DID NOT STICK. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING THIS IS THE PRESIDENT TESTIMONY AND THAT IS NOT HIS JOB. THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION. I WOULD SAY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION TO MOLLY, ONE THING ROBERT MUELLER REALLY WANTS TO DO IS TO PRESERVE THE REPUTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS AN A POLITICAL BODY. THAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON HE DOES NOT WANT TO BE HERE. ONE WAY TO BEAT HIM INTO ANSWERING IS TO PUSH HIM ON THE QUESTION OF, HAS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNDER YOUR WATCH, THIS INVESTIGATION BECOME POLITICIZED? I THINK HE WILL BE VERY TEMPTED TO ANSWER NO. THERE ARE CERTAIN ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT BILL BARR, HE WILL BE VERY PROFESSIONAL. HE WILL ALSO, I THINK, I WOULD SUSPECT BE WILLING TO SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE IN SO FAR AS WHAT HE SAYS SERVES THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING THE REPUTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >> THERE ARE A FEW MEMBERS ON THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHO WORKED WITH ROBERT MUELLER IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS DOJ ATTORNEYS. THIS WILL BE A POINT THAT REPUBLICANS WILL HIGHLIGHT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, TELL ME ABOUT THIS TEAM YOU CAME UP WITH. MORE THAN HALF OF THEM WERE DEMOCRATS AND ONE OF THEM HUNG OUT WITH HILLARY CLINTON ON THE NIGHT OF THE BIG WIN SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE AS PRESIDENT. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY WHEN NINE OUT OF THE 10 MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM ARE DEMOCRATS AND GAVE MONEY TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? >> THAT IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS. >> THAT’S RIGHT. YOU ARE RIGHT, I THINK MUELLER, I HAVE HEARD HE MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO PUSH BACK. THAT IS WHAT I THINK REPUBLICANS ARE HOPING FOR. >> YOU KNOW WE HAVE BEEN HEARING ROM THE PRESIDENT NO COLLUSION AND NO OBSTRUCTION. IN A WAY, TECHNICALLY HE IS RIGHT ABOUT NO COLLISION. COLLUSION IS NOT WHAT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED TO BEGIN WITH, IT WAS CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE USING THOSE WORDS INTERCHANGEABLY. I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE IDEA OF COLLUSION OR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY WILL COME UP AND BE BROKEN DOWN. HOW DO YOU THINK REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO HANDLE THAT? >> THAT IS PROBABLY A QUESTION MORE FOR THE INTEL COMMITTEE, WHICH COMES UP SECOND. A LOT OF THOSE MEMBERS WERE WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM. YOU HAVE SOMEONE LIKE DEVON NUNEZ, WHO HAS BEEN A BIG BACKER OF THE PRESIDENT AND SORT OF INVOLVED IN A TERTIARY WAY TO THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION. THAT IS SOMETHING THEY WILL BE BRINGING UP. I THINK WE WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT DURING THE SECOND PART OF THE DAY. REALLY, I THINK REPUBLICANS WILL BRING UP THE FACT OR TRY TO BRING UP THE FACT THERE IS NO COLLUSION AND WHITE DIDN’T — YOU DIDN’T RECOMMEND INDICTING, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? IF YOU NEEDED THE PRESIDENT — I THINK THIS GOES BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MUELLER SAID I DON’T HAVE THE PRESIDENT CAN’T REALLY RECOMMEND ON WHETHER OR NOT HE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. IT IS THE SAME THING. WHY DIDN’T YOU SUBPOENA HIM? WHY NOT? YOU SPENT TWO YEARS, $30 MILLION ON THIS THING AND YOU DIDN’T PUSH TO INVESTIGATE AND INTERVIEW THE PRESIDENT? HOW DO WE TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY? THE REPUBLICANS ARE REALLY WORKING ON TAKING THOSE QUESTIONS DOWN. YOU ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES. THIS IS LIKE A TEAM SPORT, BUT WITH AN INDIVIDUAL SPORT. IT IS LIKE BEING ON A TENNIS TEAM. EACH PERSON HAS TO WIN THEIR MATCH BUT YOU ALL HAVE TO WIN THE MATCH TOGETHER TO WIN THE WHOLE THING. THIS IS WHY IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW REPUBLICANS PLAY THIS OUT QUESTION BY QUESTION BY QUESTION. >> I SEE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ASKING WHY? WHY DID YOU MAKE THIS DECISION? IF YOU CONCLUDED THAT, YOU COULD NOT MOVE FORWARD ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE DOJ POLICY, THEN WHY DID YOU DO ANY OF IT AT ALL PERHAPS, NO MATTER WHAT YOU FOUND, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. WHAT WAS THE LAST TWO YEARS ABOUT? >> I THINK THAT IS TRUE, ALTHOUGH HE HAS A CLEAR ANSWER TO THAT. I AM SERVING AS AN ADJUNCT TO CONGRESS. CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO GATHER INFORMATION OR THE EXPERTISE TO GATHER INFORMATION THE WAY I DO. THAT IS WHY I WAS APPOINTED. I SEE MYSELF AS SERVING THE BODIES WHO ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED TO HOLD THIS PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE. I HAVE DONE THAT. THERE IS ANOTHER QUESTION HERE. ON THE CONCLUSION, SOMEBODY COULD COME BACK AND SAY, OKAY, THAT WAS YOUR DETERMINATION BUT THEN YOUR BOSS, WHO YOU REPORT TO OVERRULED YOU AND SAID, NO, WE CAN DETERMINE THAT. NOW WE WANT TO KNOW, NOW THAT NO LONGER PERTAINS, YOUR BOSSES TOLD YOU THAT IS NOT HOW WE SHOULD GO. IT OVERRULED YOUR DETERMINATION SO NOW WE WANT TO KNOW YOUR OPINION. DOES HE HAVE A VALID CLAIM ANYMORE? I THINK HE HAD A VALID CLAIM WHEN HE FIRST CAME OUT AND SAID, HERE IS WHAT I AM DOING. NOW THAT WILLIAM BARR HAS STEPPED IN, PEOPLE DO HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. IF YOUR BOSS, WHO WASN’T THERE AND DID NOT VIEW THE FACTS AND GIVING HIS OPINION, I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT YOU, WHO INTERVIEWED ALL THESE WITNESSES AND LOOKED THEM IN THE EYE. WHAT DID HE SAY TO THAT? >> BILL BARR SAID, LISTEN, WHEN BOB MILLER DIDN’T MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, IT BECAME MY BABY. ROBERT MUELLER DID NOT TELL US WHAT HE RECOMMENDED EITHER WAY. HE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT. HE GAVE IT BACK TO US AND IT IS HOURS. WE WILL SEE HOW ROBERT MUELLER REALLY FEELS ABOUT THAT. >> 1000 PROSECUTORS, OVER 1000 FEDERAL PROSECUTOR SIGNED THIS PETITION TO SAY WE THINK IT OUTLINES JUSTICE OBSTRUCTION. >> DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO WANT TO DO THAT DURING THIS HEARING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR. >> I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE WITH US ALL DAY LONG, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BE SURE TO STAY WITH US HERE ON CBSN. WE WILL HAVE CONTINUING LIVE COVERAGE STARTING AT 8 AM OF THE MUELLER HEARING. EVERYTHING GETS UNDER WAY AT 8:15 AM WITH A SPECIAL REPORT AND 8:30 AM IS THE ACTUAL HEARING. >>> THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI STUDENT HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF ANOTHER STUDENT. OFFICIALS FOUND THE BODY OF ALLIE CASTILLE BY A LAKE LAST WEEK IN. AUTHORITIES CHARGED ANOTHER STUDENT WITH HER MURDER YESTERDAY. A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE UNIVERSITY SAYS HE HAS BEEN SUSPENDED FROM THE SCHOOL. HER LIFELONG FRIEND TOLD OUR ST. LOUIS AFFILIATE SHE QUOTE, LOVED TO LIVE LIFE. >> I ALWAYS KNEW SHE WAS THERE. SHE WAS LIKE, MY PERSON. I COULD ALWAYS COUNT ON HER. >> OFFICIALS HAVE NOT RELEASED DETAILS ABOUT HOW SHE WAS KILLED OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED TO HER DEATH. >>> THERE IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE STORY WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING OUT OF CANADA. OFFICIALS SAY TWO TEENS, WHO WERE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT TO BE MISSING, ARE NOW CONSIDERED SUSPECTS IN THREE MURDERS. THERE IS A MANHUNT UNDER WAY TO FIND THESE TEENAGERS. POLICE SAY THEY ARE CONSIDERED ARMED AND DANGEROUS. THOSE VICTIMS INCLUDE AN AMERICAN WOMAN AND HER AUSTRALIAN BOYFRIEND. WE ARE FOLLOWING THE STORY FROM JUST OUTSIDE OF THE POLICE STATION THERE WHERE OFFICIALS ARE WORKING ON THE INVESTIGATION. WHAT DO WE KNOW SO FAR? THIS HAS TAKEN QUITE A TWIST. >> Reporter: I MEAN, THIS IS A VERY DRAMATIC TURN IN THIS CASE. THIS MORNING, AUTHORITIES ARE CASTING A VERY WIDE NET. THEY BELIEVE THESE TEENAGERS ARE NOW ON THE RUN. EVEN IF THEY COULD HAVE CHANGED THEIR OPINION OR APPEARANCES, THEY COULD BE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY FROM HERE. >> IF YOU SPOT BRYER SCHMEGELSKY OR KAM McLEOD, CONSIDER THEM DANGEROUS. >> Reporter: AN INTENSE MANHUNT IS UNDER WAY FOR KAM McLEOD AND BRYER SCHMEGELSKY, NOW SUSPECTS IN THREE DEATHS ON RURAL ROADS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA. THE SEARCH COMES MORE THAN A WEEK AFTER THE BODIES OF NORTH CAROLINA NATIVE CHYNNA DEESE AND A STRAW UNION LUCAS FOWLER WERE FOUND NEAR THEIR VAN ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE YOUNG COUPLE, SEEN HERE HUGGING AT A GAS STATION TWO DAYS BEFORE BEING FOUND WERE ON A ROAD TRIP. >> WE JUST PULLED OVER TO SEE IF THEY NEEDED HELP. >> Reporter: THIS COUPLE SAY THEY MET THE PAIR SHORTLY BEFORE THEY DIED, LEAVING THE YOUNG TRAVELERS ONLY AFTER THEY THOUGHT THE YOUNG COUPLE KNEW HOW TO REPAIR THEIR BROKEN DOWN FAN. >> THEY WERE HAPPY AND SMILING. >> THEY WERE ON A ROAD TRIP AND THEY LOOKED LIKE A YOUNG COUPLE IN LOVE. >> Reporter: THE MYSTERY DEEPENED LATE LAST WEEK WHEN ANOTHER BODY WAS FOUND SOME 300 MILES AWAY, ALSO ON A REMOTE CANADIAN ROAD. THAT MAN HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED, THE POLICE RELEASED THIS SKETCH OF HIM. POLICE SAY THEY FOUND A TRUCK ON FIRE THAT BELONGED TO THE CANADIAN SUSPECTS ABOUT A MILE FROM THE MAN’S BODY. >> WE BELIEVE THEY ARE LIKELY CONTINUING TO TRAVEL. >> Reporter: THESE ARE NEWLY RELEASED RECENT PHOTOS OF THE TEEN SUSPECTS LAST SEEN DRIVING A 2011 SILVER TOYOTA RAV4. POLICE BELIEVE THEY HAVE LEFT BRITISH COLOMBIA AND MAY BE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY IN MANITOBA. OFFICIALS WILL NOT SAY WHAT EVIDENCE CONNECTS THE TEENS TO THE KILLINGS. FOR THE FATHER OF LUCAS FOWLER, THE LOSS IS UNIMAGINABLE. >> AS A POLICE OFFICER, YOU WORK WITH FAMILIES ALL THE TIME. NOTHING PREPARES ME. NOTHING PREPARES MY FAMILY FOR WHAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH NOW. >> HAVE POLICE SPOKEN TO THE FAMILIES OF THESE TEENS? I UNDERSTAND THEY RAN AWAY. WHAT ELSE ARE THEY LEARNING ABOUT THEM? >> Reporter: WELL, WHAT THE TEENS’S PARENTS ARE TELLING US, THEY HAVE NOT SEEN THEIR CHILDREN FOR SEVERAL DAYS. IT WAS THEIR IMPRESSION THE KIDS WERE ON THE ROAD LOOKING FOR WORK. THAT IS ALL THEY HAVE SAID. APPARENTLY, THE TEENS HAVE NOT BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THEIR FAMILIES AT THIS POINT. YOU JUST HAVE TO FEEL SO MUCH EMPATHY WHEN YOU HEAR THAT DAD SAY THAT. HERE IS A MAN IN HIS PROFESSIONAL LIFE WHO HAS HAD TO GO ALL THE TIME AND SPEAK TO FAMILIES AND DELIVER THIS KIND OF NEWS. NOW, JUST TO HAVE TO HEAR IT HIMSELF IS JUST, IT IS UNIMAGINABLE. >> TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, YEAH, IT IS TERRIBLE. >>> COMING UP AFTER THE BREAK, AFTER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PROMISED MASS OF I.C.E. RAIDS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, ONLY A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WERE ACTUALLY DETAINED. THE NUMBER OF ARRESTS WERE MUCH LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED. >>> COMING UP ON “RED & BLUE” STREAMING AT 5 PM EASTERN, WE WILL TALK ABOUT ROBERT MUELLER’S TESTIMONY IN ALL THE MAJOR NEWS OF THE DAY. KEEP IT RIGHT HERE. YOU ARE STREAMING “CBSN A.M.” >>> HERE ROOM WHERE ROBERT MUELLER WILL BE TESTIFYING. YOU CAN SEE PEOPLE GATHERING THERE, MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA AND OTHERS. ROBERT MUELLER APPARENTLY JUST ARRIVED IN THE BUILDING AND IS PRESUMABLY MAKING HIS WAY THERE. TESTIMONY IS NOT SCHEDULED TO BEGIN UNTIL 8:30 AM. IT IS BOUND TO BE A VERY, VERY INTERESTING DAY. HE IS SPEAKING IN FRONT OF TWO COMMUNITIES COMMITTEES. THE EXPECTATION IS DEMOCRATS WILL REALLY DRILL DOWN ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY HE DID NOT RECOMMEND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES BE FILED, YET HE OUTLINED AT LEAST 10 DIFFERENT WAYS HE BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. REPUBLICANS ARE EXPECTED TO FOCUS ON THE ORIGINS OF THIS INVESTIGATION AND THE CONSISTENCY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRUTH FOCUSING ON THE INVESTIGATORS, PART OF ROBERT MUELLER’S TEAM AND OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN. WE WILL COVER THIS ALL DAY LONG. WE HAVE A SPECIAL REPORT STARTING AT 8:15 AM. FOR NOW, WE ARE DISCUSSING ALL THE THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE THE HEARING STARTS, AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER NEWS OF THE DAY. >>> OVER 2000 MIGRANTS WERE TARGETED IN RECENT NATIONWIDE I.C.E. RAIDS, BUT IT ONLY RESULTED IN 35 ARRESTS. CBS CORRESPONDENT ADRIANA DIAZ HAS THE REPORT. >> Reporter: IMMIGRATIONS AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT HAS ARRESTED LESS THAN 2% OF THE 2100 TARGETED LAST WEEK THAT BEGAN EARLIER THIS MONTH. IT IS CALLED BORDER RESOLVE. A KEY REASON, ACCORDING TO I.C.E. OFFICIALS IS THAT ACTIVISTS HAD TIME TO PLAN FOR THE HIGHLY PUBLICIZED CRACKDOWN, WHICH WAS ANNOUNCED AHEAD OF TIME BY TRIPP. ACTIVISTS INFORMED UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS OF THEIR RIGHTS AND STEPPED IN TO INTERVENE. ON MONDAY, WHEN RESIDENTS SAW THEIR NEIGHBORS BEING TARGETED BY I.C.E. IN NASHVILLE, THEY FORMED A HUMAN CHAIN AROUND HIS VAN ALLOWING HIM AND HIS SON TO RUN INTO THEIR HOME. OTHERS READIED THEMSELVES, LIKE THIS MAN, WHO BARRICADED HIMSELF IN HIS OWN HOME. ACCORDING TO I.C.E. ACTING DIRECTOR MATTHEW ALBANS, SOME ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE WHICH ALSO IMPEDE ITS ARRESTS. PRESIDENT TRUMP PRAISED THE EFFORT LAST WEEK. >> THE I.C.E. RAIDS WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL. >> Reporter: DEPORTATIONS DURING PRESIDENT TRUMP FIRST TWO YEARS IN OFFICER DOWN ROUGHLY 40% COMPARED TO PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FIRST TWO YEARS. IN CHICAGO, ACTIVIST CECILIA GARCIA HANDED OUT FLYERS. >> IF WE HAD NOT RAISED THE AWARENESS TO THE COMMUNITY, IT WOULD’VE BEEN WORSE. >> Reporter: I.C.E. MADE 899 ARRESTS IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS. WITH OPERATION BORDER RESOLVE, THE DIRECTOR SAYS HE DOES NOT BELIEVE ANY FAMILIES WERE SEPARATED DURING ARRESTS BUT THE OPERATION IS ONGOING. >>> HERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE ON TODAY. CAN YOU GUESS? OTHER THAN ROBERT MUELLER, OF COURSE, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS GOING ON. AT 10 AM EASTERN, A SLEW OF 2020 DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES TAKE THE STATE IN DETROIT. WE WILL WATCH THOSE SPEECHES AND BRING YOU ANY UPDATES AS THEY WANT. AT 2 PM EASTERN, THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WILL HOLD A HEARING ON THE 2020 CENSUS AFTER THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION COULD IT CURRENTLY ADD A QUESTION ON CITIZENSHIP. WE WILL CONTINUE OUR SPECIAL COVERAGE OF THE MUELLER HEARINGS JUST AFTER OUR BREAK. STARTING AT 8:15 AM EASTERN, WE WILL BE BRINGING YOU A CBS NEWS SPECIAL REPORT ON THOSE HEARINGS. SO, IF YOU’RE HEADING OUT THE DOOR, YOU DON’T HAVE TO MISS ANYTHING. YOU CAN TAKE US WITH YOU. YOU CAN STREAM US ANYTIME, ANYWHERE AT CBSNEWS.COM/LIVE FOR YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE CBS NEWS APP. IT IS JUST ONE LITTLE BUTTON YOU TAP AND YOU HAVE IT. I WILL BE BACK HERE RIGHT AFTER THE COMMERCIAL BREAK, ACTUALLY. WE WILL SEE YOU THERE. YOU HAVE BEEN STREAMING “CBSN A.M.” >> Reporter: SHE HAS BROUGHT US THE WORLD AND TOLD AMERICA’S MOST IMPORTANT STORIES. >> HOW DOES A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN AFFECT NATIONAL SECURITY? >> YOU PUT YOUR FAMILY ON A 737 MAX? >> Reporter: SHE’S OPENED OUR EYES. >> WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU? >> I WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED MY FRESHMAN YEAR. >> Reporter: AND OUR HEARTS. >> WERE YOU SCARED? >> YEAH. >> WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? >> ABOUT MY MOM. >> Reporter: AND WEATHERED THE STORM. NOW EVERY EVENING SHE BRINGS TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE NEED IT MOST. THE “CBS EVENING NEWS” WITH NORAH O’DONNELL. TRUST MATTERS. >>> GOOD MORNING TO YOU AND WELCOME TO “CBS THIS MORNING.” >> Reporter: UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD BEGINS WITH THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. >> HAVE POLICE DISCOVERED A MOTIVE? >> DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE A RED LINE HERE? >> Reporter: JOIN GAYLE KING, ANTHONY MASON AND TONY DOKOUPIL ON “CBS THIS MORNING.” >> THIS IS A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT. >> THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS SITUATION. >> Reporter: MORE NEWS EVERY MORNING ON THE SHOW EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT, “CBS THIS MORNING.” >>> ALL RIGHT, GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. IT IS 8:02 ON THE EAST COAST AND I’M ANNE-MARIE GREEN. ROBERT MUELLER HAS OFFICIALLY ARRIVED ON CAPITOL HILL AND THIS IS NEW VIDEO OF THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL HEADING INTO THE BUILDING. ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES. LAWMAKERS WILL ASK ABOUT THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AND THE REPORT. HE’S EXPECTED TO STICK TO HIS SCRIPT, BUT DEMOCRATS WILL PRESS HIM ON POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE PRESIDENT. FOR MORE ON THIS, I WANT TO BRING IN A LOT OF PEOPLE. OUR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTORS MOLLY HOOPER AND MICHAEL GRAHAM, . THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAYBE THIS IS THE MOST PEOPLE I’VE EVER HAD ON THE DESK. VLAD WILL BE COMING IN LATER ON. MOLLY, I’LL START WITH YOU. IT’S LIKE THE GRAND OVERVIEW QUESTION. WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM TODAY? HE SAID NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING BEYOND HIS REPORT. >> Reporter: EXACTLY. HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HAS CAUTIONED HER DEMOCRATS AGAINST HYPING THIS UP AND DIMINISHING IT TOO MUCH. SHE BELIEVES THIS IS IMPORTANT AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE FOCUSING THIS TOWARDS HER. THIS IS A BIG AUDIENCE FOR NANCY PELOSI BECAUSE SHE’LL DECIDE WHETHER THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. AS WE SAW IN THE LAST VOTE LAST WEEK, 95 DEMOCRATS VOTED IN FAVOR OF ESSENTIALLY MOVING ONTO IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. SO NANCY PELOSI WANTS TO SEE HOW WELL MUELLER DOES, WHETHER HE DOES CONVINCINGLY MAKE A CASE THAT THE DEMOCRATS CAN USE TO START THOSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES. REPUBLICANS ON THE OTHER HAND WANT TO DO SOMETHING ELSE. THEY WANT TO DISCREDIT THE UNDERLYING FBI INVESTIGATION. YOU’LL HEAR TERMS LIKE DIRTY DOSSIER, A REFERENCE TO THE STEELE DOSSIER BY A FORMER BRITISH SPY WHO CAME UP WITH ALL THIS BACKGROUND INFO THAT WAS USED. REPUBLICANS WILL ARGUE AND ASK TO ESTABLISH THE WARRANT THAT KICKED OFF THE WHOLE INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP DURING THE SUMMER OF 2016, SOMETHING BILL BARR ALREADY SAID HE’S LOOKING INTO IT. AND REPUBLICANS WILL PUSH BOB MUELLER WHO’S BEEN A PART OF THE DOJ AS TO WHETHER THEIR POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS GOING INTO THE INVESTIGATION IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THEY WILL FOCUS ON ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I’VE HEARD LIKE, SO YOU DIDN’T RECOMMEND INDICTING. OKAY. WHY DIDN’T YOU RECOMMEND IMPEACHING? KEN STARR DID BACK IN 1998, SAYING THERE’S CREDIBLE INFORMATION THAT THE HOUSE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AGAINST THEN-PRESIDENT CLINTON. SO WHY DIDN’T BOB MUELLER? AND DEMOCRATS WILL PRESS HIM AS TO WHAT HE WOULD HAVE INDICTED THE PRESIDENT IF HE WAS NOT THE SITTING PRESIDENT. WHETHER TAKE THAT BAIT IS ANOTHER STORY. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK DEMOCRATS WANT TO HEAR TO PUSH THAT IMPEACHMENT ARGUMENT? A LOT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT DEMOCRATIC VOTERS, THAT THERE’S A COMPONENT OF VOTERS THAT WANT TO SEE DEMOCRATS BE MORE AGGRESSIVE. SLOWLY WE HAVE SEEN DEMOCRATS WARM TO THE IDEA, EVEN THOUGH NANCY PELOSI IS KIND OF SHYING AWAY FROM IT. JERRY NADLER ALSO IS TAKING A VERY MEASURED APPROACH. WHAT WOULD KIND OF SHOVE THINGS ALONG? >> Reporter: I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FOR WEEKS IS THAT WE WANT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO BRING CLARITY TO THIS. THERE ARE A LOT OF REDACTED POINTS IN THE REPORT THAT POINT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THOSE AROUND HIM OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. I DON’T THINK ANY DEMOCRAT COMES IN WITH EXPECTATIONS OF A KNOCKOUT PUNCH FROM THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR THAT WOULD LOAD UP THEIR IMPEACHMENT WAGON. I DON’T THINK THAT’S THE EXPECTATION. WHAT I HOPE THAT YOU’LL HEAR FROM DEMOCRATS ON BOTH COMMITTEES IS THAT THEY WILL ALLOW THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO READ OUT LOUD, THAT IF THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO. ALSO BRING THIS HOME TO WHERE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE ON THE SAME PAGE, AND EVEN THE PRESIDENT, THE FACT THAT RUSSIA HAS PLAYED INTO OUR ELECTIONS AND THEY DID WHAT FOREIGN POWERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO TO THIS POINT, WHICH IS IMPACT THE TURNOUT OF OUR ELECTION. THERE IS HOPE THIS WILL GIVE DEMOCRATS POLITICAL COVER AND ENTHUSIASM GOING INTO THE ELECTION. IF YOU READ THE REPORT — AND I KNOW THE FBI DIRECTOR DID NOT, BUT SOME OF US HAVE. THERE WERE EXAMPLES OF REAL CORRUPTION THAT IF ROLES WERE REVERSED, REPUBLICANS WOULD BE DRIVING THE SCHOOL BUS OFF THE CLIFF ABOUT WHAT’S IN THAT REPORT. I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO BE NONPARTISAN IN THAT REGARD. >> WE HAVE HEARD PEOPLE SAY, IF HE JUST READS THE REPORT, THAT WILL BE ENOUGH. BUT DO YOU THINK THAT’S THE CASE? MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO SIT THROUGH THIS FIVE HOURS. >> Reporter: MY PARENTS ARE POLITICAL JUNKIES AND THEY ARE WATCHING THIS MORNING. MY AUNT SANDY IS NOT POLITICAL, VOTED FOR TRUMP I BELIEVE, AND THIS IS SO HARD TO GET THEM TO TUNE INTO ANYTHING POLITICAL ANYWAY. THEN ADD THE VENEER THAT THIS IS SO ABOUT LEGALESE, THE WORLD OF PROSECUTION AND LAW. THIS IS REALLY THE COMPLETELY WRONG VIBE. THEN ADD THE FACT THAT IMPEACHMENT IS NOW POLLING IN THE 20s, MOST PEOPLE THINK IT’S GONE TOO FAR. I THINK REPUBLICANS HOPE DEMOCRATS WILL TALK A LOT ABOUT RUSSIA BECAUSE THEY CAN SAY, WHAT PART OF THIS THEY EMBRACE THE MOST, NO COLLUSION. THAT’S THE CASE THEY’RE THE STRONGEST ON. IT’S WHEN YOU GET INTO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT IT GETS MESSY. >> TODAY IS NOT THE IMPORTANT DAY. IT’S TOMORROW. IF DEMOCRATS ARE SMART — AND I’VE TALKED TO SEVERAL IN LEADERSHIP. WE HAVE TO FRAME THIS FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY STANDPOINT. WHILE MUELLER IS TESTIFYING TODAY, PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES ARE FIGURING OUT HOW TO SEND MESSAGES THAT IMPACT THE NEXT ELECTION. WE CANNOT LOSE SIGHT OF THAT. >> AND ROBERT MUELLER HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR IN THE REPORT THAT THAT WAS WHAT WAS MOST IMPORTANT TO HIM. HE REINFORCED THAT WHEN HE ISSUED HIS STATEMENT. THERE WILL BE A LOT OF NOISE TODAY, A LOT OF GRAND STANDING. HELP US AS VIEWERS UNDERSTAND WHAT TO FOCUS ON. WHAT ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS THAT WE SHOULD BE LISTENING FOR AND FOCUSING ON THE ANSWER? >> Reporter: I THINK THE KEY THING IS WATCHING ROBERT MUELLER WALK THROUGH THE EVIDENCE THAT HE FOUND. AND IN HIS OWN WORDS, I THOUGHT HIS PRESS CONFERENCE ALTERED THE NARRATIVE A LITTLE BIT. I THINK THE WAY THAT HE FRAMED WHY HE DID WHAT HE DID, NOT COMING TO A CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION, WAS VERY DIFFERENT THAN HOW IT HAD BEEN PORTRAYED. SAYING, IF WE’D FOUND THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO. IF WE FOUND OBSTRUCTION, WE WOULD SAY NOTHING. AND THEY SAID NOTHING. IF HE CAN DO THAT AND THEY CAN MAKE HIM WALK THROUGH THAT AGAIN, THAT’S VERY IMPORTANT. THE SECOND THING IS JUST WALKING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE. ON THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE, IF YOU ACTUALLY TAKE THE TWO STORIES TOGETHER, THERE WERE A LOT OF CONTACTS. THEY NEVER APPROACHED THE FBI. NOBODY IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN — THIS WAS GOING ON. >> THAT’S YOUR ARGUMENT. >> THE FRAME IS — >> BUT REPUBLICANS WILL ARGUE BACK, WHY DIDN’T THE FBI GO TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND SAY, THIS IS HAPPENING TO YOU. WHY DIDN’T THEY GET A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE BRIEFING? THAT’S SOMETHING REPUBLICANS WILL PROBABLY BRING UP. >> HOW SO? IF YOU SEE SOMEONE COMMITTING A CRIME IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IT’S YOUR JOB TO REPORT THE CRIME. >> IF I DON’T KNOW SOMEBODY IS COMING AFTER ME AND I NEED TO BE AWARE OF IT, THAT’S THE ARGUMENT REPUBLICANS WILL COME FROM AND ASK BOB MUELLER, IF THIS WAS ANOTHER CANDIDATE, WOULD THE FBI HAVE GONE TO THE CAMPAIGN AND SAID, WE HAVE INTEL THE RUSSIANS ARE TRYING TO INFILTRATE, SO YOU NEED TO WATCH OUT AND KEEP US ABREAST. WHEN I TALK TO REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS, THAT’S A BIG DEAL FOR THEM AND THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. >> THEY’RE PUTTING A RED PAINT BRUSH ON THIS. THE FACT OF THE MATTER, ANYBODY WHO’S EVER DONE A CAMPAIGN — THEY HAD LEGAL PEOPLE AND LONG- TIME POLITICOS ON THAT CAMPAIGN. WE ALL KNOW YOU CAN’T GO TO A FOREIGN POWER AND THEY CAN’T COME TO YOU AND OFFER YOU DIRT ON AN AMERICAN ENTITY, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT, AND THINK THAT’S OKAY. >> TALKING TO REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS, THEY WOULD SAY THE SAME THING. DONALD TRUMP WAS NOT A POLITICIAN, HE WAS A BUSINESSMAN. >> THIS IS PART OF THE MAGIC THAT IS TRUMP. PEOPLE THINK HE’S CLUELESS AND HAVE NO IDEA BUYING THAT ARGUMENT. BUT EVERY TIME THEY POINT OUT WHAT THE RUSSIANS WERE DOING AND ALL THE WAYS THEY DID THINGS IN THE ELECTION, THEIR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE GROUP FAILED ALL OF IT. IT’S JUST A FACT THAT HE WAS THE PRESIDENT AT THE TIME, AND THAT’S WHAT REPUBLICANS POINT OUT. THIS WILL DEINVOLVE INTO A POLITICAL EVENT, NOT A FOLLOW THE LAW EVENT. >> WE KNOW BARACK OBAMA WENT TO MITCH McCONNELL, THE REPUBLICAN LEADER, AND LAID OUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE ELECTION. WE KNOW THAT MITCH SAID, I DON’T WANT TO DEAL WITH THIS. YOU CAN’T PUT IT ALL ON BARACK. HE DID WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO AND NOTIFIED THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS, SAYING THIS IS HAPPENING. >> LISTEN, THIS REPORT IS BROKEN UP INTO TWO PIECES RIGHT, THE DESTRUCTION AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PART IS THE PART THAT ROBERT MUELLER SAID THAT HE COULD NOT DETERMINE OR NOT MAKE A CALL ON BECAUSE THERE’S A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY THAT PROHIBITS A SITTING PRESIDENT FROM BEING CHARGED. BUT LET ME SHOW THOSE TEN POINTS. WHY DID YOU EVEN INCLUDE THIS SECOND PART TO THIS REPORT? IF YOU KNEW YOU WEREN’T GOING TO CHARGE THE MAN, WHY DID YOU LAY OUT THE ARGUMENT WHEN THE INITIAL FOCUS ON THE INVESTIGATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE WHETHER OR NOT THE RUSSIANS — I’M SORRY, WE’LL GET THAT ANSWER LATER. WE HAVE A SPECIAL REPORT COMING UP ON THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. >> Reporter: MONUMENTAL FINDINGS. >> THERE WERE MULTIPLE SYSTEMATIC EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION, AND THAT ALLEGATION DESERVES THE ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN. >> Reporter: A 22-MONTH INQUIRY NETTING 37 INDICTMENTS ON 229 CHARGES, AND 7 GUILTY PLEAS. >> THERE’S NO OBSTRUCTION, NO COLLUSION, NO NOTHING. >> IF WE’D HAD CONFIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO. >> IT WAS A COMPLETELY AND TOTAL EXONERATION. THE WHOLE THING IS A SCAM. IT’S A GIANT PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT. >> Reporter: NOW AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AMERICA TO HEAR FROM THE MAN WHO WANTED TO STAY SILENT. >> WE CHOSE THOSE WORDS CAREFULLY AND THE WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. THE REPORT IS MY TESTIMONY. >> Reporter: HIGH STAKES AND HISTORY AS ROBERT MUELLER TESTIFIES ON CAPITOL HILL. THE SUN IS UP OTHER THE CAPITOL AND IT COULD GET PRETTY HOT UNDER THE DOME TODAY. WE ARE LIVE IN WASHINGTON. GOOD MORNING. I’M NORAH O’DONNELL WITH MAJOR GARRETT HERE. IT IS A ROBERT MUELLER DOUBLE- HEADER. THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL IS ABOUT TO MAKE BACK TO BACK APPEARANCES BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES. IT IS ABOUT THE LAST PLACE ON EARTH HE WANTS TO BE AND THE LAST THING HE WANTS TO DO. THIS FORMER MARINE WHO VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE HIS COUNTRY DURING VIETNAM HAD TO BE SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY TODAY. HE ARRIVED A FEW MINUTES AGO. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION, WHETHER ANYONE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS INVOLVED, AND WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. MUELLER SAYS HIS REPORT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF AND HE DOESN’T INTEND TO GO BEYOND WHAT THE REPORT SAYS. IT SAYS MUELLER COULD NOT DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT DID OR DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME. >> WE HAD NO SOLUTION, NO OBSTRUCTION, NO NOTHING. WE HAD A TOTAL NO COLLUSION FINDING. THE DEMOCRATS WERE DEVASTATED BY IT. >> Reporter: THE NO OBSTRUCTION FINDING CAME FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR, WHO SAID THE EVIDENCE MUELLER FOUND WAS NOT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS RESTRICTED WHAT MUELLER CAN SAY TODAY. OFF LIMITS, TALKING ABOUT UNCHARGED THIRD PARTIES, WHICH INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT. IF MUELLER DOES NOT GO BEYOND HIS REPORT TODAY, WHAT’S THE POINT? ADAM SCHIFF SAYS THE REPORT IS PRETTY DRY AND WE NEED MUELLER TO TRY AND BRING IT TO LIFE. GET A CHANCE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS HOUR. THEN AFTER A BREAK, MUELLER WILL APPEAR BEFORE SCHIFF’S INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. JOINING US, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT MAJOR GARRETT, CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT NANCY CORDES, JEFF PEGUES AND WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT PAULA REID. LET’S GET RIGHT TO IT. PAULA, YOU HAVE COVERED THIS FROM THE BEGINNING. THE REPORT DETAILS TEN INSTANCES OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THERE ARE INSIGHTS THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE REPORT. TELL US THE FIVE TOP TAKEAWAYS. >> Reporter: THAT’S RIGHT. IN THIS REPORT THEY LAY OUT THE SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND ULTIMATELY COULD NOT CLEAR THE PRESIDENT ON THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THEY POINT TO HOW HE DIRECTED JAMES COMEY TO END HIS INVESTIGATION OF FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR MIKE FLYNN AND DIRECTED DON McGAHN TO TELL THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO FIRE MUELLER. HE POINTED TO HOW HE ATTACKED JEFF SESSIONS IN THE PRESS AND THIS PAINTS A PRETTY DAMNING PICTURE. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAYS YOU CAN’T CHARGE A SITTING PRESIDENT, AND MUELLER FELT HE COULDN’T CHARGE HIM BECAUSE IF HE COULDN’T GO THROUGH A TRIAL, HE HAD NO WAY TO CLEAR HIS NAME. THIS DIDN’T START OUT AS AN INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP. THIS WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN AND MUELLER’S REPORT FOUND RUSSIA INTERFERED IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION. THE FIRST VOLUME OF HIS REPORT SHOWS HOW THEY TRIED TO SOW DISCORD MORNING PEOPLE ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES LIKE GUNS AND RACE, AND THE E-MAILS THEY BELIEVED WOULD HURT CANDIDATE CLINTON. ULTIMATELY, IT WAS FOUND THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION OR COLLUSION BETWEEN THE CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA. HE SAID THEY DIDN’T WORK TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT HE COULD PROVE A CRIME. >> AND THAT DESERVES OUR ATTENTION, EXACTLY. 3 NANCY CORDES IS JUST OUTSIDE THE HEARING ROOM WHERE HUNDREDS WERE GATHERED ALL NIGHT LONG TO GET A SEAT OR A VIEW THERE. >> Reporter: YOU HAVE GROUPS OF CAPITOL POLICE OFFICERS TRYING TO KEEP THE HALLWAYS CLEAR. BUT THE LINE TO GET INTO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HERE BEHIND ME STRETCHES DOWN THIS HALL, AROUND THE CORNER, DOWN ANOTHER HALL AND AROUND ANOTHER CORNER. THESE OFFICE BUILDINGS ARE NOT SMALL. THAT GIVES YOU A SENSE OF THE ANTICIPATION FOR THESE HEARINGS. THIS HEARING ROOM HOLDS A MAXIMUM OF ABOUT 100 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. IF YOU GOT HERE AFTER 4:00 A.M., YOU’RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE DISAPPOINTED. ROBERT MUELLER STEPPED OUT OF HIS SUV AND WE ASKED WHETHER HE WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO TODAY’S HEARING, AND HE DIDN’T RESPOND. HE IS VIEWED BY DEMOCRATS AS A RELUCTANT WITNESS, SOMEONE WHO’S GOING TO LOOK TO SAY LESS, NOT MORE. THEY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WAYS THEY CAN DRAW HIM OUT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THIS IS THEIR ONE OPPORTUNITY TO GET ALL THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY HIM ON THE RECORD IN PUBLIC. >> AS THEY ATTEMPT TO TRY AND BRING THIS REPORT TO LIFE TODAY, MAJOR GARRETT IS WITH US IN THE STUDIO. YOU HAVE COVERED PRESIDENT TRUMP. THERE’S ONE PART, IF YOU READ THE MUELLER REPORT, IT IS EXHAUSTIVE IN ITS SCOPE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. PARTS OF IT READ LIKELY A POLITICAL NOVEL. >> Reporter: SURE. THERE’S A LEGAL COMPONENT TO WHAT THEY DID AND THAT’S FASCINATING. PARTS OF IT READ LIKE A TENSE DRAMA PLAYING OUT INSIDE THE OVAL OFFICE, WHERE THE PRESIDENT IS THE CENTRAL CHARACTER. SOME THINGS HE SAYS AND DOES DO NOT READ WELL FOR A SITTING PRESIDENT. IS IT LEGALLY PROSECUTABLE? THAT’S THE QUESTION. >> AFTER JAMES COMEY IS FIRED, A SPECIAL COUNSEL IS NAMED. THE REPORT TAKES US THROUGH THAT SCENE AND WE MADE A GRAPHIC THAT ILLUSTRATES THE PRESIDENT’S STATE OF MIND. HE SAID HE LEARNED OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL BEING APPOINTED, HE SAID OH MY GOD, THIS IS TERRIBLE. THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY. WHAT WAS THE PRESIDENT MOST AFRAID OF? >> LOSING CONTROL. THE PRESIDENT LOVES CONTROL AND WANTED A WAY TO CONTROL THIS REPORT. WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THAT’S OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR NOT, HE THOUGHT WITH THIS HE’D LOSE ALL CONTROL. HE COMPLAINS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS, WHO RECUSED HIMSELF. HE WASN’T PROTECTING THE PRESIDENT AND DOING WHAT HE NEEDED. THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED THE INVESTIGATION UNDERCUT HIS ELECTION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WHICH HE THOUGHT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. HE ALSO BELIEVED THERE WAS SOMETHING ILLEGITIMATE ABOUT ITS ORIGINS AND BIAS THROUGHOUT. THOSE TWO THINGS DROVE A LOT OF THIS BEHAVIOR THAT LOOKS AT TIMES UNHINGED. BUT IT MAY NOT BE OBSTRUCTIVE. >> WE’LL HEAR ABOUT THE INSTANCES IN WHICH HE DIRECTS HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER TO TRY AND GET HIM FIRED. >> ALL THESE THINGS. IT’S THE PRESIDENT’S STATE OF MIND AND ALSO ON THIS QUESTION OF OBSTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR, IN SOME CASES IT WAS NOT, BECAUSE IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. WHY? BECAUSE PEOPLE DIDN’T FOLLOW HIS ORDERS. >> AND THAT’S CRITICAL INDEED. WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DIDN’T FOLLOW HIS ORDERS. ROBERT MUELLER, WHO’S SERVED THE COUNTRY FOR NEARLY HALF A CENTURY AND SERVED FOR MORE THAN NINE YEARS. JEFF PEGUES COVERS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. SET THIS SCENE AND REMIND PEOPLE ABOUT ROBERT MUELLER, HIS BACKGROUND, WHAT TYPE OF WITNESS BE TODAY. >> Reporter: EVEN THOUGH HE WAS FBI DIRECTOR FOR 12 YEARS AND ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, NO ONE IN WASHINGTON WOULD DESCRIBE HIM AS SOMEONE WHO SEEKS THE SPOTLIGHT. HE’S BUILT A REPUTATION FOR BEING RELUCTANT TO DO SO. HE RAN SOME OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL INVESTIGATIONS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER TAKEN. HE WAS SWORN IN A WEEK BEFORE 9/11 AND LED THE INVESTIGATION AFTER THE ATTACKS. IN THE 90s HE LED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S CRIMINAL DIVISION AS. HE EARNED A BRONZE CAR AND PURPLE HEART IN BATTLE AS WELL. THOSE WHO KNOW HIM AND THOSE WHO HAVE COVEREDHIM SAY THIS IS TYPICAL OF MUELLER, WHO THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER IS KNOWN TO LET ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BACK TO PAULA REID AT THE WHITE HOUSE, AND WE JUST HEARD DETAIL OF ROBERT MUELLER. HE’S NOT THE ONLY ONE AT THE MAIN TABLE TODAY. ROBERT MUELLER’S LONG-TIME CHIEF OF STAFF WHEN HE WAS DIRECTOR AND NUMBER TWO AT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE, AARON ZEBLEY WILL ALSO BE JOINING HIM AT THE TABLE. WHY WAS THAT REQUEST MADE? >> Reporter: IT APPEARS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WANTS TO HAVE SOMEONE HELP HIM GO THROUGH THE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF THIS INFORMATION. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SENT HIM A LETTER THAT APPEARED SOMEWHAT THREATENING, IF HE DID VEER AWAY FROM THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OUTLINED IN HIS REPORT. ZEBLEY IS A LONG-TIME AIDE, CHIEF OF STAFF FOR THE FBI. HE KNOWS MUELLER AND KNOW IF HE NEEDS A BREAK OR SPECIFIC PAGE NUMBER. HE IS WELL EQUIPPED TO HELP HIM GET THROUGH THE MARATHON HEARING. >> PAULA REID, LET’S GO BACK TO NANCY CORDES AS PEOPLE BEGIN TO FILL IN THE HEARING ROOM. I KNOW YOU HAVE SPENT A COUPLE WEEKS SPEAKING TO BOTH THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE. BEYOND BRINGING THIS REPORT TO LIFE, WHAT ARE DEMOCRATS HOPING TO ACHIEVE? >> Reporter: THEY REALLY WANT TO LOOK AT THE TEN COUNTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND GET MUELLER ON THE RECORD EXPLAINING THOSE INCIDENTS AND EXPLAINING TO THEM WHY HE NEVER CONCLUDED AT THE END OF THE DAY WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME. THEY HAVE EVEN GONE SO FAR AS TO THE DIFFERENT INCIDENTS WITH DIFFERENT LAWMAKERS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO OVERLAP. THEY ARE FOCUSED ON WHEN THE PRESIDENT ASKED COREY LEWANDOWSKI TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION. PRESS MUELLER ON THAT ISSUE. AND YOU HAVE A GROWING NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS WHO BELIEVE THE INCIDENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT CONSTITUTE HIGH CRIMES BUT THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHO BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED IS FALLING. DEMOCRATS VIEW THIS HEARING AS ONE OF THEIR BEST CHANCES TO TRY AND GRAB THE PUBLIC’S ATTENTION AND CHANGE SOME MINDS. WHEN IT COMES TO REPUBLICANS, THEY WILL FOCUS ON THE ORIGINS OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. THEY BELIEVE ALL THIS STARTED WITH A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED DOSSIER COMMISSIONED BY THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THEY WILL PRESS MUELLER TO EXPLAIN THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, HIS REPORT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRCY BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA. THEY SAY THAT’S THE WHOLE SHE- BANG. AND YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT WATCHING ONTO PRESS THE POINT THAT HE’S BEEN PRESSING ALL MORNING. THIS IS THE SENATE, RUN BY REPUBLICANS, AND THEY ARE SAYING, WE DON’T FEEL WE HAVE A IMMEDIATE TO TALK TO MUELLER. THEY BELIEVE EVERYTHING HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED IN THE REPORT. ONE PUT IT YESTERDAY, JOHN KENNEDY OF LOUISIANA, HE SAID ALL THIS IS AS DEAD AS FRIED CHICKEN. >> THERE YOU GO. THAT’S THE CHAIRMAN, JERRY NADLER, OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE, WHO’S BEEN LIKE A BULLDOG GOING AFTER THE PRESIDENT. PLAY A KEY ROLE IN THIS HEARING THIS MORNING. AND MAJOR, I WANT TO TURN TO YOU ON THAT POINT. WHILE THIS REPORT BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT SAY THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, HE DOES SAY THAT ESSENTIALLY THAT’S THE ROLE OF NOT A LEGAL SYSTEM BUT A POLITICAL SYSTEM. WAS MUELLER SETTING UP THIS VERY MOMENT, THIS IT IS THE JOB OF CONGRESS? >> EXACTLY. ROBERT MUELLER SAID THERE’S A CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS BY WHICH TO DEAL WITH THIS CONDUCT. IT’S NOT HIS ROLE TO CALL FOR OR ADVOCATE FOR OR TRY TO STOP. >> LET’S LISTEN IN NOW TO WHAT’S HAPPENING INSIDE THE HEARING ROOM. RO. >> ROBERT MUELLER, 74 YEARS OLD, FORMER VIETNAM WAR MARINE, ALSO KNOWN AS BOBBY THREE STICKS. THAT IS THE USUAL >> THAT IS THE USUAL PROTESTER. >> SOME LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE GOING ON. >> HE’S SOMETIMES NICKNAMED BOBBY THREE-STICKS BECAUSE HE’S ROBERT MUELLER III. HE GOES BY THE BOOKS. >> AND THIS IS HAPPENING BECAUSE WE HAD A MIDTERM ELECTION. IF DEMOCRATS HADN’T TAKEN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE, THERE WOULD BE NO ROBERT MUELLER HEARING. THIS IS A REFLECTION OF THAT ELECTION ON THE HOUSE SIDE BECAUSE NANCY POINTED OUT, THERE’S NO INTENTION TO HAVE A SENATE HEARING WITH ROBERT MUELLER. >> WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE HERE AT CBS THREE HOURS OF LIVE COVERAGE. >> WE WELCOME EVERYONE TO TODAY’S HEARING ON OVERSIGHT OF THE REPORT AND 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 JUST A FEW WORDS ABOUT OUR THEMES TODAY: RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. YOUR CAREER, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A MODEL OF RESPONSIBILITY. YOU’RE A DECORATED MARINE OFFICER, AWARDED A PURPLE HEART AND BRONZE STAR FOR VALOR IN VIETNAM. YOU HAVE SERVED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND AFTER 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 INDICTMENTS SPOKE FOR YOU, AND IN ASTONISHING DETAIL. OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOU OBTAINED CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS AGAINST 37 PEOPLE AND ENTITIES. YOU SECURED THE QUICKS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN, HIS DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND HIS PERSONAL LAWYER, AMONG OTHERS. IN THE PAUL MANAFORT CASE ALONE, YOU RECOVERED AS MUCH AS $42 MILLION SO THE COST OF YOUR INVESTIGATION TO THE TAXPAYERS APPROACHES ZERO. IN YOUR REPORT, YOU OFFER THE COUNTRY ACCOUNTABILITY AS WELL. IN VOLUME ONE, YOU FIND THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ATTACKED OUR 2016 ELECTIONS QUOTE, IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION, AND THAT THE ATTACKS WERE DESIGNED TO BENEFIT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. VOLUME TWO GOES THROUGH TEN SEPARATE INCIDENTS OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WHERE IN YOUR WORDS, PRESIDENT TRUMP ATTEMPTED TO EXERT UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER YOUR INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR INCLUDED, QUOTE, PUBLIC ATTACKS ON THE INVESTIGATION, NONPUBLIC EFFORTS TO CONTROL IT, AND EFFORTS IN BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TO ENCOURAGE WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE, CLOSE QUOTE. 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 ORDER THE RECUSED ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STEP IN AND LIMIT YOUR WORK, AND ATTEMPTED TO PREVENT WITNESSES FROM COOPERATING WITH YOUR INVESTIGATION. ALTHOUGH DEPARTMENT POLICY BARRED YOU FROM INDICTING THE PRESIDENT FOR THIS CONDUCT, YOU MADE CLEAR THAT HE IS NOT EXONERATED. ANY OTHER PERSON WHO ACTED IN THIS WAY WOULD HAVE CHARGED WITH CRIMES AND NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW. THIS COMMITTEE’S WORK IS RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. THESE ARE THE MARKS BY WHICH WE 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 QUOTE, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A PROCESS OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING PRESIDENT OF WRONG DOING, CLOSE QUOTE. THAT PROCESS BEGINS WITH THE WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE. WE WILL FOLLOW YOUR EXAMPLE, DIRECTOR MUELLER, AND ACT WITH INTEGRITY. WE WILL FOLLOW THE FACTS WHERE THEY LEAD. WE WILL CONSIDER ALL APPROPRIATE REMEDIES. WE WILL MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE HOUSE WHEN OUR WORK CONCLUDES. WE WILL DO THIS WORK BECAUSE THERE MUST BE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR 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 GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR. COLLINS, FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER, FOR BEING HERE. FOR TWO YEARS LEADING UP TO THE RELEASE OF THE MULER REPORT AND IN THE THREE MONTHS SINCE, AMERICANS WERE TOLD WHAT TO EXPECT AND WHAT TO BELIEVE. COLLUSION WE WERE TOLD WAS IN PLAIN SIGHT, EVEN IF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S TEAM DIDN’T FIND IT. WHEN IT WAS PROVIDED TO EVERY AMERICAN, WE LEARNED THE DEPTHS OF RUSSIA’S MALICE TOWARD AMERICA. WE ARE HERE TO ASK SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT MR. MUELLER’S WORK AND WE WILL DO THAT AFTER THE INVESTIGATION THAT CLOSED IN APRIL. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS EXTREMELY HIGH, AND ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL’S THOROUGHNESS. WE ARE TOLD THIS INVESTIGATION BEGAN AS AN INQUIRY INTO WHETHER RUSSIA MEDDLED IN OUR 2016 ELECTION. MR. MUELLER, YOU CONCLUDED THEY DID. RUSSIANS ACCESSED DEMOCRATIC SERVERS AND DISSEMINATED SENSITIVE INFORMATION BY TRICKING INSIDERS INTO E- MAILING PROTECTED INFORMATION. THE INVESTIGATION ALSO CONCLUDED THE PRESIDENT AND HIS FAMILY DID NOT AND NO ONE IN THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN COLLUDED, COLLABORATED OR CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIANS. THE PRESIDENT WATCHED THE PUBLIC NARRATIVE SURROUNDING THE INVESTIGATION ASSUMING HIS GUILT WHILE HE KNEW THE EXTENT OF HIS INNOCENCE. VOLUME TWO DETAILS THE FRUSTRATING REACTION AFTER INNOCENCE WAS ESTABLISHED EARLY ON. THE PRESIDENT’S ATTITUDE WAS UNDERSTANDABLY NEGATIVE, YET THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T USE HIS AUTHORITY TO CLOSE THE INVESTIGATION. 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 ELECTION, THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T CONSPIRE WITH THE RUSSIANS, AND NOTHING WE HEAR TODAY WILL CHANGE THOSE FACTS. ONE ELEMENT REMAINS: THE BEGINNINGS OF THE FBI INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT. I LOOK FORWARD INTO THE TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT HE FOUND AND IN ADDITION, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REVIEWS HOW BASELESS GOSSIP CAN BE USED TO LAUNCH AN INVESTIGATION AGAINST A PRIVATE CITIZEN AND A PRESIDENT. THOSE RESULTS WILL BE RELEASED AND WE’LL NEED TO LEARN FROM THEM TO ENSURE GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS ARE NEVER USED ON A PRIVATE CITIZEN OR POLITICAL CANDIDATE AS A RESULT OF A POLITICAL LEANINGS OF A HANDFUL OF FBI AGENTS. EVERY AMERICAN HAS TO PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF THEIR VOICE AND ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS. IF WE CARRY ANYTHING AWAY TODAY, IT MUST BE THAT WE INCREASE OUR VIGILANCE AGAINST THE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. FINALLY, WE MUST AGREE THAT THE COST IS TOO HIGH. THE MONTHS WE HAVE SPENT INVESTIGATING FAILED TO END THE BORDER CRISIS AND INSTEAD WE HAVE GOTTEN STUCK, AND IT’S PARALYZED THIS COMMITTEE AND THIS 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 WE CAN DO THINGS AND HELP PEOPLE. SIX AND A HALF YEARS AGO, I CAME HERE TO WORK AND WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED A LOT ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS WITH MANY OF MY FRIENDS ACROSS THE AISLE SITTING HERE TODAY. HOWEVER, THIS YEAR BECAUSE THE MAJORITIES DISLIKE THIS PRESIDENT AND THE INVESTIGATION HAVE CAUSED US TO ACCOMPLISH NOTHING EXCEPT TALK ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF OUR COUNTRY WHILE OUR BORDER IS ON FIRE IN CRISIS AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS STOPPED. THIS HEARING IS LONG OVERDUE. WE HAVE HAD TRUTH FOR MONTHS, AND WHAT WE NEED IS TO LET THE TRUTH BRING US CONFIDENCE AND I HOPE, MR. CHAIRMAN, CLOSURE. WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR.COLLINS. ROBERT MUELLER SERVED AS DIRECTOR OF THE FBI FROM 2001 TO 2013, AND MOST RECENTLY AS SPECIAL COUNSEL IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OVERSEEING THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. MR. MUELLER IS ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL AARON ZEBLEY, WHO SERVED AS DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL ON THE INVESTIGATION. WE THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN TODAY’S HEARING. IF YOU WILL RISE, I WILL SWEAR YOU IN. BY SWEARING YOU IN RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU’RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE CORRECTION TO THE BEST OF YOUR BELIEF? WITNESS ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED. NOTE THAT YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ENTIRELY. SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN FIVE MINUTES. YOU MAY BEGIN. >> GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN NADLER AND RANKING MEMBER COLLINS AND THE 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 IT WAS A PARAMOUNT INTEREST OF THE NATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FOREIGN ADVERSARY 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, TO WORK QUIETLY, THOROUGHLY, AND WITH INTEGRITY SO THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE OUTCOME. THE ORDER APPOINTING ME AS 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 LONGER THAN WAS 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 OF THE CHARGES WE BROUGHT REMAIN PENDING TODAY, AND I STRESS THAT THE INDICTMENTS CONTAIN ALLEGATIONS AND EVERY DEFENDANT IS PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL 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 OUR WORK AND THE REASONS FOR OUR CHARGING AND DECLINATION 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 ARE CERTAIN POINTS THAT BEAR EMPHASIS. % FIRST, WE FOUND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION. SECOND, THE INVESTIGATIO DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT 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 WITH 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. BSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE STRIKES AT THE CORE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S EFFORT TO FIND THE TRUTH AND TO HOLD WRONGDOERS ACCOUNTABLE. FINALLY, AS DESCRIBED IN VOLUME TWO OF OUR REPORT, WE INVESTIGATED A SERIES OF ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT TOWARDS 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 OUR 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. IN SOME OF THESE MATTERS, COURT RULES OF JUDICIAL ORDERS LIMIT THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO PROTECT THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. AND 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 ASSERTED PRIVILEGES CONCERNING INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION AND DECISIONS. ONGOING MATTERS WITHIN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND DELIBERATIONS WITHIN OUR OFFICE ARE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PRIVILEGES THAT I WILL RESPECT. THE DEPARTMENT HAS RELEASED A LETTER DISCUSSING THE RESTRICTIONS OF MY TESTIMONY. I THEREFORE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT CERTAIN AREAS THAT I KNOW ARE OF PUBLIC INTEREST. FOR EXAMPLE, I’M UNABLE TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INITIAL OPENING OF THE FBI’S RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, WHICH OCCURRED MONTHS BEFORE MY APPOINTMENT, OR MATTERS RELATED TO THE SO-CALLED STEELE DOSSIER. THESE ARE MATTERS OF ONGOING REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE TOPICS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE FBI OR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. AS I EXPLAINED WHEN WE CLOSED THIS SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE IN MAY, OUR REPORT CONTAINS OUR FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS, AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISIONS WE MADE. WE CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION OVER TWO YEARS. IN WRITING THE REPORT, WE STATED THE RESULTS OF OUR INVESTIGATION WITH PRECISION. WE SCRUTINIZED EVERY WORD. WE DID NOT INTEND TO SUMMARIZE THE WORK IN A DIFFERENT WAY IN THE COURSE OF MY TESTIMONY TODAY. AS I’VE SAID MAY 29th, 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 CONGRESS. I WAS APPOINTED AS A PROSECUTOR AND I INTEND TO ADHERE TO THAT ROLE AND TO THE DEPARTMENT’S STANDARDS THAT GOVERN IT. I WILL BE JOINED TODAY BY DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL AARON ZEBLEY, WHO HAS EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, AND AT THE FBI WHERE HE SERVED AS MY CHIEF OF STAFF. HE WAS 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, ANALYSTS, PROFESSIONAL STAFF WHO HELPED US CONDUCT THIS INVESTIGATION IN A FAIR AND INDEPENDENT MANNER. THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO SPENT NEARLY TWO YEARS WORKING ON THIS MATTER WERE OF THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY. LET ME SAY ONE MORE THING: OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, I’VE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY. THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT’S EFFORT TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION IS AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS. AS I SAID ON MAY 29th, THIS DSERVES 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’S NOT WHAT YOUR REPORT SAID, IS IT? >> CORRECT, IT’S NOT WHAT THE REPORT SAID. >> PAGE TWO OF VOLUME TWO OF THE REPORT, ON THE SCREEN HERE, YOU WROTE, QUOTE, IF WE HAD CONFIDENCE OF A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS THAT THE PRESIDENT CLEARLYDID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WE WOULD SO STATE. BASED ON THE FACTS, 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, THAT’S CORRECT? >> WELL, AT THE OUTSET WE DETERMINED THAT WHEN IT CAME TO THE PRESIDENT’S CULPABILITY, WE NEEDED TO GO FORWARD AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OLC OPINION THAT INDICATED THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INDICTED. >> SO THE REPORT DID NOT CONCLUDE THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> WHAT ABOUT TOTAL EXONERATION? DID YOU TOTALLY EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT? >> NO. >> IN FACT, YOUR REPORT STATES IT DOES NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT. >> IT DOES. >> AND YOUR INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY FOUND QUOTE, MULTIPLE ACTS BY THE PRESIDENT CAPABLE OF EXERTING UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS, INCLUDING THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN IN PLAIN TERMS WHAT THAT FINDING MEANS SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND IT? >> WELL, THE FINDING INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXCULPATED FOR THE ACTS THAT HE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED. >> IN FACT, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT INCIDENTS QUOTE, IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO USE HIS OFFICIAL POWER OUTSIDE OF THE USUAL CHANNELS, UNQUOTE, TO EXERT UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER YOUR INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> ON PAGE SEVEN OF VOLUME TWO, YOU WROTE, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT BECAME AWARE HIS OWN CONDUCT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED IN AN 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 BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TO ENCOURAGE WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION, CLOSE QUOTE. SO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S EFFORTS TO EXERT UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER THE INVESTIGATION INTENSIFIED AFTER THE PRESIDENT BECAME AWARE THAT HE WAS PERSONALLY BEING INVESTIGATED? >> I WOULD STICK WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. PAGE SEVEN, VOLUME TWO. >> IS IT CORRECT THAT IF YOU CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION, YOU COULD NOT PUBLICLY STATE THAT IN YOUR REPORT OR HERE TODAY? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, SIR? >> IS IT CORRECT THAT IF YOU HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION, YOU COULD NOT PUBLICLY STATE THAT IN YOUR REPORT OR HERE TODAY? >> I WOULD SAY THE STATEMENT WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD NOT INDICT, AND YOU WOULD NOT INDICT BECAUSE UNDER THE OLC OPINION, A SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INDICTED. >> SO YOU COULD NOT STATE THAT BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION? >> OLC OPINION WITH SOME GUIDE, YES. >> UNDER DOJ POLICY, THE PRESIDENT COULD BE PROSECUTED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE, CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> THANK YOU. DID ANY SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL REFUSE A REQUEST TO BE INTERVIEWED BY YOU AND YOUR TEAM? >> I DON’T BELIEVE SO. LET ME TAKE THAT BACK. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT, BUT I’M NOT CERTAIN THAT WAS THE CASE. >> DID THE PRESIDENT REFUSE A REQUEST TO BE INTERVIEWED BY YOU AND YOUR TEAM? >> YES. >> AND IS IT TRUE THAT YOU TRIED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR TO SECURE AND INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT? >> YES. >> IS IT TRUE AND YOU ADVISED THE TEAM AND INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT IS VITAL TO THE INVESTIGATION? >> YES. >> IS IT TRUE THAT YOU ALSO QUOTE, STATED THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE PUBLIC FOR AN INTERVIEW TO TAKE PLACE, CLOSE QUOTE? >> YES. >> BUT THE PRESIDENT STILL REFUSED TO SIT FOR AN INTERVIEW BY YOU OR YOUR TEAM? >> TRUE. >> AND DID YOU ASK HIM TO PROVIDE WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON THE TEN POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIMES INVOLVING HIM? >> YES. >> DID HE PROVIDE ANY ANSWERS TO A SINGLE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER HE ENGAGED IN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIMES? >> I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, WE ARE GRATEFUL YOU’RE HERE. HAVING REVIEWED YOUR WORK, I BELIEVE ANYONE ELSE WOULD ENGAGE IN THE CONDUCT WOULD BE PROSECUTED. YOUR WORK IS VITAL TO THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR.COLLINS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE ARE MOVING WITH THE FIVE MINUTE RULE AND I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS, MANY OF WHICH YOU JUST ANSWERED. I WANT TO LAY FOUNDATION. WE’LL GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY. I WILL TALK SLOWLY. IN YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE, YOU STATED TESTIMONY FROM YOUR OFFICE WOULD NOT GO BEYOND YOUR REPORT AND NOT PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT’S NOT ALREADY PUBLIC. DO YOU STANDBY THAT? >> YES. >> SINCE CLOSING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE IN MAY 2019 HAVE YOU OBTAINED ANY NEW INFORMATION AS YOU ROLE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL? >> IN THE WAKE OF THE REPORT? >> SINCE THE CLOSING OF THE OFFICE IN MAY 2019, HAVE YOU CONDUCTED ANY NEW INTERVIEWS OR WITNESSES? >> NO. >> AND YOU’RE NO LONGER SPECIAL COUNSEL? >> I AM NO LONGER SPECIAL COUNSEL. >> AT ANY TIME WITH THE INVESTIGATION, WAS YOUR INVESTIGATION CURTAILED OR STOPPED OR HINDERED? >> NO. >> WERE YOU OR YOUR TEAM PROVIDED QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AHEAD OF THE HEARING TODAY? >> NO. >> YOUR START STATES YOU TEAM INCLUDED 19 LAWYERS AND APPROXIMATELY 40 ANALYSTS, IS THAT ACCURATE? >> COULD YOU REAP THAT? >> 40 FBI AGENTS, INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS AND FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS. ARE THOSE NUMBERS ACCURATE? >> GENERALLY YES. >> AND YOU EXECUTED NEARLY 500 SEARCH WARRANTS AND OBTAINED WARRANTS COMPUTER RECORDS? >> THAT WAS FAST. >> YOU DID A LOT OF WORK, CORRECT? >> YES. >> A LOT OF SUBPOENAS. >> YES, SUBPOENAS. >> OKAY. >> A LOT OF SEARCH WARRANTS. >> OKAY. SO YOU’RE VERY THOROUGH, YOUR OPINION IS VERY THOROUGH, CORRECT? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. IS IT TRUE THE EVIDENCE GATHERED DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION — GIVEN THE QUESTION THAT YOU JUST ANSWERED, IS IT TRUE THE EVIDENCE GATHERED DID NOT ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED IN THE UNDERLYING CRIME RELATED TO RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE AS STATED IN VOLUME ONE PAGE SEVEN? >> WE FOUND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CULPABILITY. >> SO THAT WILL BE A YES? >> PARDON? >> THAT WILL BE A YES? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. AND THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE HACKING OR EXPERIENCES IN VOLUME TWO PAGE 76? >> I LEAVE THE ANSWER TO THE REPORT. >> SO YES. IS IT TRUE YOUR INVESTIGATION DIDN’T ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. >> ALTHOUGH YOUR REPORT STATES COLLUSION IS NOT SPECIFIC, AND YOU HAVE SAID THAT THIS MORNING, A TERM IN LAW, ARE COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY ESSEN >> YOU’LL HAVE TO REPEAT THAT. >> COLLUSION IS NOT A SPECIFIC OFFENSE OR A TERM OF ART IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW. CONSPIRACY IS. >> YES. >> IN THE COLLOQUIAL CONTEXT, COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY ARE ESSENTIALLY SYNONYMOUS TERMS, CORRECT? >> NO. >> PAGE 180 VOLUME ONE, YOU WROTE COLLUSION IS LARGELY SYNONYMOUS WITH CONSPIRACY AS THAT CRIME IS SET FORTH IN A U.S. STATUTE. YOU SAID AT YOUR MAY 29th PRESS CONFERENCE YOU CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY. ARE YOU TESTIFYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOUR REPORT STATES? >> IF YOU COULD GIVE ME THE CITATION, I CAN LOOK AT THE CITATION AND EVALUATE WHETHER IT IS. >> I’LL CLARIFY. YOU STATED THAT YOU WOULD STAY WITHIN THE REPORT. I STATED YOUR REPORT BACK TO YOU AND YOU SAID COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY WERE NOT SYNONYMOUS TERMS. >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> 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 CONSPIRACY STATUTES. YOU SAID YOU CHOSE THE WORDS CAREFULLY. ARE YOU CONTRADICTING YOUR REPORT RIGHT NOW? >> NOT WHEN I READ IT. >> SO YOU CHANGE YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION THEN? >> NO. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE. >> I’M READING YOUR REPORT, SIR. >> PAGE 180. >> PAGE 180, VOLUME ONE FROM YOUR REPORT. >> CORRECT. I LEAVE IT WITH THE REPORT. >> SO THE REPORT SAYS YES, THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS. HOPEFULLY FINALLY WE CAN PUT TO BED COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY. ONE LAST QUESTION: DID YOU EVER LOOK INTO OTHER COUNTRIES INVESTIGATED IN THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION? WERE OTHER COUNTRIES INVESTIGATED OR FOUND KNOWLEDGE THEY HAD INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION. >> I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS OTHER MATTERS. >> I YIELD BACK. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, AS YOU HAVE HEARD FROM THE CHAIRMAN, WE’LL TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TODAY. THE INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIA’S ATTACK THAT STARTED YOUR INVESTIGATION IS WHY EVIDENCE OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION IS SERIOUS. TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? >> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? >> TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMNT INTERFERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? >> PARTICULARLY WHEN IT CAME TO COMPUTER CRIMES AND THE LIKE, THE GOVERNMEN WAS IMPLICATED. >> YOU WROTE IN VOLUME ONE THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION. YOU ALSO DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT THAT THE THEN-TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT SHARED WITH A RUSSIAN OPERATIVE KILIMNIK THE CAMPAIGN STRATEGY FOR WINNING DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN MID-WESTERN STATES AND INTERNAL POLLING DATA OF THE CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND THEY DISCUSSED THE STATUS OF THE CAMPAIGN AND MANAFORT’S STRATEGY FOR WINNING DEMOCRATC VOTES IN MID-WESTERN STATES. MONTHS BEFORE THAT MEETING, MANAFORT CAUSED INTERNAL DATA TO BE SHARED WITH KILIMNIK AND IT CONTINUED AFTER THEIR AUGUST MEETING, CORRECT? >> ACCURATE. >> IN FACT, YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND MANAFORT BRIEFED KILIMNIK ON THE STATE OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND MANAFORT’S PLAN TO WIN THE ELECTION, WHICH INCLUDED DISCUSSIONS OF BATTLEGROUND STATES, IDENTIFIED AS MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND MINNESOTA, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> DID YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINE WHO REQUESTED THE DATA BE SHARED WITH KILIMNIK? >> I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT WITH REGARD TO THAT. >> WE DON’T HAVE THE REDACTED VERSION. THAT’S MAYBE WHY WE SHOULD GET BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION, HOW COULD THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION HAVE USED THIS POLLING DATA TO FURTHER ITS SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? >> THAT’S A LITTLE BIT OUT OF OUR PATH. >> FAIR ENOUGH. DID YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM ONE OF THE CANDIDATES WINNING? >> YES. >> AND WHICH CANDIDATE WOULD THAT BE? >> WELL, IT WOULD BE TRUMP. >> CORRECT. >> THE PRESIDENT. >> NOW, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WASN’T EXACTLY RELUCTANT TO TAKE RUSSIAN HELP. YOU WROTE IT EXPECTED TO BENEFIT FROM THE INFORMATION STOLEN AND RELEASED THROUGH RUSSIAN EFFORTS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WAS THE INVESTIGATION’S DETERMINATION — WHAT WAS THE INVESTIGATION’S DETERMINATION REGARDING THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MADE CONTACT WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT? >> WELL, I WOULD HAVE TO REFER YOU TO THE REPORT ON THAT. >> WELL, WE WENT THROUGH AND COUNTED 126 CONTACTS BETWEEN RUSSIANS OR THEIR AGENTS AND TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS OR THEIR ASSOCIATES. WOULD THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? >> I CAN’T SAY. I UNDERSTAND THE STATISTIC. I UNDERSTAND THE STATISTIC. >> I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND YOUR REPORT. FROM YOUR TESTIMONY AND THE REPORT, I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED SEVERAL THINGS: FIRST, THE RUSSIANS WANTED TRUMP TO WIN. SECOND, THE RUSSIANS WENT ON A SWEEPING CYBERINFLUENCE 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 CREATING PROPAGANDA TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION, THEY WERE ARMED WITH INSIDE INFORMATION THEY HAD STOLEN THROUGH HACKING THE DNC AND THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN, MR. MANAFORT. MY COLLEAGUES WILL PROBE THE EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO KEEP THIS INFORMATION FROM BECOMING PUBLIC, BUT I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM THAT YOUR REPORT UNCOVERED. WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD YIELD BACK. >> GOOD MORNING, DIRECTOR. IF YOU WOULD LET ME SUMMARIZE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THIS MORNING, YOU SAID VOLUME ONE ON THE ISSUE OF CONSPIRACY, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DETERMINED THERE WAS NO MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. VOLUME TWO, FOR REASONS YOU EXPLAINED, SPECIAL COUNSEL DIDN’T MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THERE WAS AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIME COMMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT. IS THAT FAIR? >> YES, SIR. >> EXPLAIN THE TRADITIONAL DECLINATION DECISION, THE REPORT ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO VOLUME TWO: THE EVIDENCE WE OBTAINED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS AND INTENT PRESENTS DIFFICULT ISSUES THAT PREVENT US FROM CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINING NO CONDUCT OCCURRED AND DOES NOT CONCLUDE THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME BUT DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM? >> YES. >> AND TODAY YOU SAID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TEAM OPERATED UNDER AND WAS GUIDED BY AND FOLLOWED JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES. SO WHICH DOJ POLICY OR PRINCIPLE SETS FORTH A LEGAL STANDARD THAT AND INVESTIGATED PERSON IS NOT EXONERATED IF THEIR INNOCENCE FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT IS NOT CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE LAST PART OF THAT? >> WHICH DOJ POLICY SETS FORTH THE STANDARD THAT AND INVESTIGATED PERSON IS NOT EXONERATED IF THEIR INNOCENCE FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT IS NOT DETERMINED? WHERE DOES THAT LANGUAGE COME FROM? WHERE’S THE DOJ POLICY THAT SAYS THAT? LET ME MAKE IT EASIER — IS THERE — CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP WHERE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THEIR INNOCENCE WAS NOT DETERMINED? >> I CANNOT BUT THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION. >> TIME IS SHORT. I’VE GOT FIVE MINUTES. LET’S LEAVE IT AT YOU CAN’T FIND IT. I’LL TELL YOU WHY. IT DOESN’T ECONOMIST. NOWHERE DOES IT SAY YOU WERE TO DETERMINE DONALD TRUMP’S INNOCENCE OR THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO EXONERATE HIM. IT’S NOT IN THE DOCUMENTS OR APPOINTMENT ORDER OR SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS. IT’S NOT IN THE OLC OPINIONS, JUSTICE MANUAL AND PRINCIPLES OF PROSECUTION. IT WAS NOT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S JOB TO DETERMINE DONALD TRUMP’S INNOCENCE OR EXONERATE HIM, BECAUSE THE PRINCIPLE OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. IT EXISTS FOR EVERYONE. EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO IT, INCLUDING SITTING PRESIDENTS. BECAUSE THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, PROSECUTORS NEVER EVER NEED TO CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINE IT. DIRECTOR, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL APPLIED THIS INVERTED BURDEN OF PROOF THAT I CAN’T FIND AND YOU SAID DOESN’T EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE DEPARTMENT POLICIES, AND YOU USED IT TO WRITE A REPORT. VERY FIRST LINE OF YOUR REPORT, THE VERY FIRST LINE OF THE REPORT SAYS, AS YOU READ THIS MORNING, IT AUTHORIZES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO PROVIDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT EXPLAINING THE PROSECUTION OR DECLINATION DECISIONS REACHED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. THAT’S THE FIRST WORD OF YOUR REPORT, RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> HERE IS THE PROBLEM, DIRECTOR: THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DIDN’T DO THAT. VOLUME ONE, YOU DID. VOLUME TWO, WITH RESPECT TO POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MADE NEITHER A PROSECUTION DECISION OR A DECLINATION DECISION. YOU MADE NO DECISION. YOU TOLD US THIS MORNING AND IN THE REPORT THAT YOU MADE NO DETERMINATION. SO RESPECTFULLY, DIRECTOR, YOU DIDN’T FOLLOW THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS. IT CLEARLY SAYS, WRITE A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT ABOUT DECISIONS REACHED. NOWHERE IN HERE DOES IT SAY, WRITE A REPORT ABOUT DECISIONS THAT WEREN’T REACHED. YOU WROTE 180 PAGES — 180 PAGES ABOUT DECISIONS THAT WEREN’T REACHED, ABOUT POTENTIAL CRIMES THAT WEREN’T CHARGED OR DECIDED. AND RESPECTFULLY, RESPECTFULLY BY DOING THAT, YOU MANAGED TO VIOLATE EVERY PRINCIPLE IN THE MOST SACRED OF TRADITIONS ABOUT PROSECUTORS NOT OFFERING EXTRA PROSECUTOR I CAN’T LIKE ANALYSIS ABOUT POTENTIAL CRIMES THAT ARE NOT CHARGES. SO AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW THIS AS THEY LISTEN TO THE DEMOCRATS AND SOCIALISTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, DOING DRAMATIC READINGS FROM THIS REPORT. VOLUME TWO OF THIS REPORT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW TO BE WRITTEN. IT WAS WRITTEN TO A LEGAL STANDARD THAT DOES NOT EXIST AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND IT WAS WRITTEN IN VIOLATION OF EVERY DOJ PRINCIPLE ABOUT EXTRA PROSECUTORIAL ARGUMENT. THE CHAIRMAN THIS MORNING SAID DONALD TRUMP IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. HE’S NOT. BUT HE SURE SHOULDN’T BE BELOW THE LAW, WHICH IS WHERE VOLUME TWO OF THIS REPORT PUTS HIM. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DIRECTOR MUELLER, GOOD MORNING. YOUR EXCHANGE DEMONSTRATES WHAT IS AT STAKE: PAUL MANAFORT WAS PASSING SENSITIVE VOTER INFORMATION AND POLLING DATA TO A RUSSIAN OPERATIVE. THERE WERE SO MANY OTHER WAYS RUSSIA SUBVERTED OUR DEMOCRACY. TOGETHER WITH THE EVIDENCE IN VOLUME ONE, I CANNOT THINK OF A MORE SERIOUS NEED TO INVESTIGATE. NOW I’LL ASK YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS IT RELATES TO VOLUME TWO. PAGE 12 OF VOLUME TWO, YOU STATE, WE DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ISSUES INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> DO YOU HAVE THE CITATIONS? >> PAGE 12, VOLUME TWO. >> WHICH PORTION OF THAT PAGE? >> WE DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ISSUES INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> YOUR REPORT ALSO DESCRIBES AT LEAST TEN SEPARATE INSTANCES OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT WERE INVESTIGATED BY YOU AND YOUR TEAM, CORRECT? >> YES. >> IN FACT, THE TABLE OF CONTENTS SERVES AS A VERY GOOD GUIDE OF SOME OF THE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT YOU INVESTIGATED, AND I’VE PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN. YOU DESCRIBE THE ACTS RANGING FROM THE PRESIDENT’S EFFORT TO CURTAIL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT’S FURTHER EFFORTS TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKE OVER THE INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT’S ORDERS TO DON McGAHN TO DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND MANY OTHERS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> I DIRECT YOU NOW TO WHAT YOU WROTE, DIRECTOR MUELLER: THE PRESIDENT’S PATTERN OF CONDUCT AS A WHOLE SHEDS LIGHT ON THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT’S ACTS AND INFERENCES THAT CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT HIS INTENT. DO YOU HAVE TO INVESTIGATE ALL HIS CONDUCT TO ASCERTAIN TRUE MOTIVE? >> NO. >> AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONDUCT THAT INCLUDES THE TEN POSSIBLE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION, THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE TEN POSSIBLE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION THAT YOU INVESTIGATED? >> I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT FOR HOW THAT’S CHARACTERIZED. >> LET ME GO TO THE SCREEN AGAIN. FOR EACH OF THE TEN POTENTIAL INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, YOU ANALYZED THREE ELEMENTS: AND OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACT AND PROCEEDING, AND CORRUPT INTENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> PAGE 178 IN VOLUME TWO, 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. >> TO THE SCREEN AGAIN, EVEN WITH THE EVIDENCE YOU DID FIND, THE EVIDENCE INDICATES A THOROUGH FBI INVESTIGATION WOULD UNCOVER FACTS ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN AND THE THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD TO BE CRIMES THAT WOULD GIVE RISE TO LEGAL, PERSONAL AND POLITICAL CONCERNS? >> I RELY ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE REPORT. >> IS THAT RELEVANT TO POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> YES. >> YOU FURTHER ELABORATE ON PAGE 157, IT CAN PROTECT AGAINST THE INVESTIGATIONS WHERE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FALLS INTO A GRAY AREA OR TO AVOID PERSONAL EMBARRASSMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I HAVE ON THE SCREEN HERE. >> IS THAT CORRECT ON THE SCREEN? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >> IS IT CORRECT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CAN BE MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO PROTECT AGAINST INVESTIGATIONS WHERE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FALLS INTO A GRAY AREA? >> YES. >> AND IS IT TRUE THAT THE IMPACT — >> CAN YOU READ THE LAST QUESTION? >> THE LAST QUESTION WAS THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN ASKING YOU IF THAT’S CORRECT. >> YES. >> OKAY. DOES A CONVICTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE RESULT POTENTIALLY IN A LOT OF YEARS OF TIME IN JAIL? >> YES. WELL, AGAIN, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION JUST TO MAKE SURE I HAVE IT ACCURATE? >> DOES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WARRANT A LOT OF TIME IN JAIL IF YOU WERE CONVICTED? >> YES. >> TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. LET ME BEGIN BY READING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS BY WHICH YOU WERE APPOINTED: QUOTE, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S WORK, HE OR SHE SHALL PROVIDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT EXPLAINING THE PROSECUTION OR DECLINATION DECISIONS REACHED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> OKAY. WHEN A REGULATION USES THE WORDS “SHALL PROVIDE” DOES IT MEAN THE INDIVIDUAL IS IN FACT OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE WHAT’S BEING ASKED, MEANING YOU DON’T HAVE ANY WIGGLE ROOM? >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK CLOSELY AT THE STATUTE. >> I JUST READ IT TO YOU. OKAY, VOLUME TWO, PAGEONE, WE DETERMINE NOT TO MAKE A PROSECUTORIAL JUDGMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I’M TRYING TO FIND THAT CITATION, CONGRESSMAN. >> DIRECTOR, COULD YOU SPEAK MORE DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? >> YES. >> VOLUME TWO, PAGE ONE, WE DETERMINE NOT TO MAKE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTORIAL JUDGMENT. >> YES. >> NOW, SINCE YOU DECIDED UNDER THE OLC OPINION THAT YOU COULDN’T PROSECUTE A SITTING PRESIDENT, MEANING PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHY DO WE HAVE ALL THIS INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU KNEW THAT YOU WERE NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE HIM? >> WELL, I DON’T KNOW WHERE THE INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO LIE. AND OLC OPINION SAYS YOU CAN CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE NOT GOING TO INDICT THE PRESIDENT. >> IF YOU’RE NOT GOING TO INDICT THE PRESIDENT, THEN YOU JUST CONTINUE FISHING. THAT’S MY OBSERVATION. SURE YOU CAN INDICT OTHER PEOPLE, BUT YOU CAN’T INDICT THE SITTING PRESIDENT, RIGHT? >> THAT’S TRUE. >> OKAY. NOW, THERE ARE 182 PAGES IN RAW EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL, INCLUDING HUNDREDS OF REFERENCES TO 302, INTERVIEWS BY THE FBI FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN CROSS-EXAMINED AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S GOVERNING REGULATION TO EXPLAIN THE PROSECUTION OR DECLINATION DECISIONS REACHED, CORRECT? >> WHERE ARE YOU READING FROM? >> I’M READING FROM MY QUESTION. >> COULD YOU REPEAT IT? >> OKAY. YOU HAVE 182 PAGES OF RAW EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL WITH HUNDREDS OF REFERENCES TO 302s NEVER CROSS-EXAMINED AND DIDN’T COMPLY WITH THE GOVERNING REGULATION TO EXPLAIN THE PROSECUTION OR DECLINATION DECISIONS REACHED. >> THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHICH I DECLINE TO DISCUSS AND WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT ITSELF. >> OKAY. I LOOKED AT 182 PAGES OF IT. LET ME SWITCH GEARS. DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, WHILE I RECOGNIZE THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUE UNDER WHICH KEN STARR OPERATED, HE ON 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 USED THE TERM RAISING TO IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT FOR ANY OF THE TEN INSTANCES. IS IT TRUE THERE’S NOTHING IN VOLUME TWO OF THE REPORT THAT SAYS THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE ENGAGED IN IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT? >> WELL, WE KEPT IN THE CENTER OF OUR INVESTIGATION OUR MANDATE. AND OUR MANDATE DOES NOT GO TO OTHER WAYS OF ADDRESSING CONDUCT. OUR MANDATE GOES TO DEVELOPING THE REPORT AND GIVING THE REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> DUE RESPECT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS YOU MADE, YOU KNOW, THAT SAID, THIS IS NOT FOR ME TO DECIDE AND THE IMPLICATION IS IT’S FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO DECIDE. THERE WAS NO STATUTE TO PREVENT YOU FROM USING THE WORD IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. I GO BACK TO WHAT MR. RADCLIFFE SAID, THAT EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. >> YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED. GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO READ — RESTATE WHAT MR. NADLER SAID ABOUT YOUR CAREER. IT’S A MODEL OF RECTITUDE AND I THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION, HOW DID PRESIDENT TRUMP REACT TO YOUR APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL IN. >> AGAIN, I’LL SEND YOU TO THE REPORT WHERE THAT IS STATED. >> THERE IS A QUOTE FROM PAGE 78 OF THE REPORT IN VOLUME TWO, WHICH READS: WHEN SESSIONS TOLD THE PRESIDENT A SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD BEEN APPOINTED, THE PRESIDENT SLUMPED BACK IN HIS CHAIR AND SAID, QUOTE, OH MY GOD, THIS IS TERRIBLE. THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY. I’M F-ED, END QUOTE. DID ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS TELL YOU ABOUT THAT LITTLE TALK? >> DIRECTOR, PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. >> SURELY, APOLOGIES. I’M NOT CERTAIN OF THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY COPIED THAT QUOTE. >> OKAY. SESSIONS APPARENTLY SAID ONE OF HIS AIDES HAD IT IN HIS NOTES TOO. HE WAS NOT PLEASED WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, IN PARTICULARLY YOU BECAUSE OF YOUR OUTSTANDING REPUTATION. >> CORRECT. >> PRIOR TO YOUR APPOINTMENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE OF HIS ROLE IN THE CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THAT MEANS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN’T BE INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >> THAT’S THE EFFECT OF RECUSAL, YES. >> SO INSTEAD, ANOTHER TRUMP APPOINTEE, MR. ROSENSTEIN BECAME INVOLVED, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WASN’T HE FOLLOWING THE RULES AND ADVICE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHEN HE RECUSED HIMSELF? >> YES. >> BUT THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED DISPLEASURE AT THE RECUSAL? >> THAT’S ACCURATE BASED ON WHAT’S WRITTEN IN THE REPORT. >> AND THE PRESIDENT’S REACTION TO THE RECUSAL IS NOTED IN THE REPORT. MR. BANNON RECALLED THE PRESIDENT WAS MAD AS HE’D EVER SEEN HIM, AND HE SCREAMED AT DON McGAHN ABOUT HOW WEAK SESSIONS WAS. DO YOU RECALL THAT? >> IT’S IN THE REPORT, YES. >> DESPITE NOTING ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO GET THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF AFTER YOU WERE APPOINTED, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND YOU FOUND AT SOME POINT AFTER YOUR APPOINTMENT, THE PRESIDENT CALLED SESSIONS AT HIS HOME AND ASKED IF HE WOULD UNRECUSE HIMSELF, CORRECT? >> THAT’S TRUE. >> THAT WASN’T THE FIRST TIME, WAS IT? >> I KNOW THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS. >> AND ONE WAS WITH FLYNN AND ONE WAS WITH SESSIONS WHO SAID THE PRESIDENT PULLED HIM ASIDE AND ASKED FOR UNRECUSAL. >> CORRECT. >> A FEW DAYS AFTER MICHAEL FLYNN ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA FOR LYING TO FEDERAL AGENTS, TRUMP ASKED TO SPEAK TO SESSIONS ALONE AGAIN IN THE OVAL OFFICE. >> YES. >> DO YOU KNOW OF ANY PRESIDENT THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED ANGER OR FRUSTRATIONS AT SESSIONS? >> I WOULD HAVE TO PASS ON THAT. >> I THINK IT’S PAGE 78 OF VOLUME TWO, THE PRESIDENT TOLD SESSIONS YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ME. YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ME OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT? >> CORRECT. >> AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR FOR THE PRESIDENT? >> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. >> THANK YOU, SIR. YOU WROTE THAT THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY SOUGHT TO GET SESSIONS TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF SO SESSIONS COULD SUPERVISE THE INVESTIGATION IS THAT CORRECT? >> RELY ON THE REPORT. >> HOW COULD SESSIONS HAVE RESTRICTED THE SCOPE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> I’M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE. IF HE TOOK OVER, HE’D HAVE GREATER LATITUDE IN HIS ACTIONS THAT WOULD ENABLE HIM TO DO THINGS THAT OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT. >> ON PAGE 113, YOU SAID YOU BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED HE COULD PLAY A PROTECTIVE ROLE. I WANT TO THANK YOU DIRECTOR MULER FOR YOUR LIFE OF SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. IT’S CLEAR FROM YOUR REPORT AND THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS TO VIOLATE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ETHICS RULES BY TAKING OVER YOUR INVESTIGATION AND IMPROPERLY INTERFERING WITH IT TO PROTECT HIMSELF AND HIS CAMPAIGN. YOUR FINDINGS ARE SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE IN AMERICA NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU. GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO? >> THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER, MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WERE VERY DISAPPOINTED IN YOUR REPORT, EXPECTING YOU TO SAY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, HERE IS WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP DESERVES TO BE IMPEACHED, MUCH LIKE KEN STARK DID WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON. NOW THEY ALLEGE THERE’S PLENTY OF EVIDENCE IN THE REPORT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST DIDN’T READ IT. THIS HEARING TODAY IS THEIR LAST BEST HOPE TO BUILD UP SOME SORT OF GROUND SWELL ACROSS AMERICA TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT’S WHAT THIS IS REALLY ALL ABOUT TODAY. NOW A FEW QUESTIONS. ON PAGE 103 OF VOLUME TWO OF YOUR REPORT, WHEN DISCUSSING THE JUNE 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING, YOU REFERENCED QUOTE, THE FIRM THAT PRODUCED STEELE REPORTING. THE NAME OF THE FIRM WAS FUSION GPS, CORRECT? >> YOU’RE ON PAGE 103? >> 103, VOLUME TWO. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE FIRM THAT PRODUCED THE STEELE REPORTING, THE NAME OF THE FIRM THAT PRODUCED THAT WAS FUSION GPS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >> IT’S 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 GPS WAS GLENN SIMPSON. ARE YOU FAMILIAR? >> THIS IS OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. >> GLENN SIMPSON WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE 448-PAGE MUELLER REPORT, WAS HE? >> AS I’VE SAID, IT’S OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW AND BEING HANDLED IN THE DEPARTMENT BY OTHERS. >> HE WAS NOT. 448 PAGES, THE OWNER OF FUSION GPS THAT DID THE STEELE DOSSIER THAT STARTED ALL THIS, HE’S NOT MENTIONED IN THERE. AT THE SAME TIME FUSION GPS WAS WORKING TO COLLECT OPPOSITION RESEARCH ON DONALD TRUMP FROM FOREIGN SOURCES ON BEHALF OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, IT ALSO WAS REPRESENTING A RUSSIAN-BASED COMPANY WHICH HAD BEEN SANCTIONED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> IT’S OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. >> THANK YOU. ONE OF THE KEY PLAYERS IN THE JUNE 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING WAS DESCRIBED AS A RUSSIAN ATTORNEY WHO ADVOCATED FOR THE REPEAL OF THE MAGNITSKY ACT, WORKING WITH GLENN SIMPSON AND FUSION GPS SINCE AT LEAST EARLY 2014. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. >> YOU DIDN’T MENTION THAT OR HER CONNECTIONS TO FUSION GPS IN YOUR REPORT AT ALL. LET ME MOVE ON. NBC NEWS REPORTED THE FOLLOWING: QUOTE, RUSSIAN LAWYER NATALIA VESELNITSKAYA SAYS SHE RECEIVED THE SUPPOSEDLY INCRIMINATING INFORMATION SHE BROUGHT TO TRUMP TOWER DESCRIBING ALLEGED TAX EVASION OF DEMOCRATS FOR GLENN SIMPSON. YOU DIDN’T INCLUDE THAT IN THE REPORT. >> THAT’S BEING HANDLED BY OTHERS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >> YOUR REPORT SPENDS 14 PAGES DISCUSSING THE JUNE 9th, 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING. IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY, WOULD IT NOT, THAT YOU SPENT SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES INVESTIGATING THAT MEETING? >> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE REPORT. >> OKAY. PRESIDENT TRUMP WASN’T AT THE MEETING? >> NO, HE WAS NOT. >> IN STARK CONTRAST TO THE ACTIONS OF 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. BUT YOUR REPORT DOESN’T MENTION A THING ABOUT FUSION GPS IN IT, AND YOU DIDN’T INVESTIGATE FUSION GPS’S CONNECTIONS TO RUSSIA. LET ME ASK YOU THIS: CAN YOU SEE THAT FROM NEGLECTING THE MENTION GLENN SIMPSON AND THE FUSION INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN TO FOCUS ON A BRIEF MEETING AT TRUMP OF TOWER THAT PRODUCED NOTHING, TO IGNORING THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN’S TIES TO GPS, AS SOMEONE SEE THIS AS A ONE-SIDED ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT? >> I TELL YOU, IT’S STILL OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. >> ALL RIGHT. I WOULD JUST NOTE FINALLY THAT, I GUESS BY CHANCE, THINGS TENDED TO BE FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT. MY TIME IS EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WOULD LIKE TO GET US BACK ON TRACK HERE. YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN TO FIRE YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> AND THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED THAT HE WANTED TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAD SUPPOSED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> YOU HAD NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT REQUIRED YOUR REMOVAL? >> CORRECT. >> AND IN FACT DON McGAHN ADVISED THE PRESIDENT THAT THE ASSERTED CONFLICTS WERE IN HIS WORDS, SILLY AND NOT REAL CONFLICTS, IS THAT TRUE? >> I WOULD REFER TO THE REPORT ON THAT. >> PAGE 85 OF VOLUME TWO SPEAKS TO THAT. ALSO DIRECTOR MUELLER, DOJ ETHICS OFFICIALS CONFIRMED THAT YOU HAD NO CONFLICTS THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM SERVING AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> DESPITE DON McGAHN AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GUIDANCE, AROUND MAY 23rd, 2017, THE PRESIDENT QUOTE, PRODDED McGAHN TO COMPLAIN TO DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROSENSTEIN ABOUT THESE SUPPOSED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND McGAHN DECLINED TO CALL ROSENSTEIN, TELLING THE PRESIDET THAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE TRYING TO MEDDLE IN THE ELECTION AND KNOCKING OUT MUELLER WOULD BE ANOTHER FACT USED TO CLAIM OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CORRECT? >> GENERALLY SO, YES. >> IN OTHER WORDS, DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT IF HE TRIED TO REMOVE YOU, THAT THAT COULD BE ANOTHER BASIS TO ALLEGE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, CORRECT? >> THAT IS GENERALLY CORRECT, YES. >> I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS WARNED ABOUT OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE THE I’M SORRY, DO YOU HAVE A CITATION FOR THAT? >> YES, VOLUME TWO, PAGE 81. >> THANK YOU. >> AND 82. I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS WARNED ABOUT OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. IT’S TRUE THAT ON TUESDAY, JUNE 13th, 2017, THE PRESIDENT DICTATED A STATEMENT THAT SAID QUOTE, HE HAD NO INTENTION OF FIRING YOU, CORRECT? >> YES. >> BUT THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE MEDIA REPORTED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU WERE INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THEN AFTER LEARNING THAT HE WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION, THE VERY NEXT DAY THE PRESIDENT QUOTE, ISSUED A SERIES OF TWEETS ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXISTENCE OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION AND CRITICIZING IT, CORRECT? >> GENERALLY SO. >> THEN ON SATURDAY, JUNE 17th, TWO DAYS LATER, THE PRESIDENT CALLED DON McGAHN AT HOME FROM CAMP DAVID ON A SATURDAY TO TALK ABOUT YOU, ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WHAT WAS THE SIGNIFICANT — WHAT WAS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THAT FIRST WEEKEND PHONE CALL THAT DON McGAHN TOOK FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO RELY ON WHAT WE WROTE ABOUT THAT. >> YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT, PAGE 85, VOLUME TWO, THAT ON SATURDAY, JUNE 17th, 2017, THE PRESIDENT CALLED 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. >> I’M SORRY. >> PAGE 85 OF YOUR REPORT, YOU WROTE, QUOTE, ON THE FIRST CALL, McGAHN RECALLED THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID SOMETHING LIKE, QUOTE, YOU’VE GOT TO DO THIS, CALL ROD. CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND YOU FOUND DON McGAHN WAS PERTURBED BY THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST TO CALL ROD ROSENSTEIN TO FIRE HIM, IS THAT CORRECT? >> WELL, THERE WAS A CONTINUOUS — IT WAS A CONTINUOUS INVOLVEMENT OF DON McGAHN RESPONDING TO THE PRESIDENT’S ENTREATIES. >> AND HE DID NOT WANT TO PUT HIMSELF IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT. HE DIDN’T WANT TO HAVE A ROLE IN ASKING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? >> AGAIN, I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE REPORT AND THE WAY IT’S CHARACTERIZED IN THE REPORT. >> THANK YOU. VOLUME TWO, PAGE 85, IT STATES THAT HE DIDN’T WANT TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL — HE DIDN’T WANT TO HAVE A ROLE IN TRYING TO FIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. SO AT THIS POINT I WILL YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, FIRST LET ME ASK YOU UNANIMOUS CONSENT MR. CHAIRMAN TO SUBMIT THIS ARTICLE, ROBERT MUELLER UNMASKED, FOR THE RECORD. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> WHO WROTE THE NINE-MINUTE COMMENTS YOU READ AT YOUR MAY 29th PRESS CONFERENCE? >> I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. >> OKAY. SO THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT, YOU DIDN’T WRITE IT. A 2013 PUFF PIECE ABOUT COMEY SAID WHEN HE CALLED YOU WOULD DROP EVERYTHING. HE CALLS, YOU DROP EVERYTHING AND GO. THE ARTICLE QUOTED COMEY AS SAYING IF A TRAIN WERE COMING DOWN THE TRACK, QUOTE, AT LEAST BOB MUELLER WILL BE STANDING ON THE TRACKS WITH ME. YOU AND JAMES COMEY HAVE BEEN GOOD FRIENDS AND WERE GOOD FRIENDS FOR MANY YEARS, CORRECT? >> WE WERE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES. WE BOTH STARTED OFF IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. >> YOU WERE GOOD FRIENDS. YOU CAN WORK TOGETHER AND NOT BE FRIENDS, BUT YOU WERE FRIENDS? >> WE WERE FRIENDS. >> THAT’S MY QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR GETTING TO THE ANSWER. 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, POTENTIALLY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT, INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. >> ACTUALLY IT GOES TO YOUR CREDIBILITY. CREDIBILITY IS ALWAYS RELEVANT, ALWAYS MATERIAL, AND THAT GOES FOR YOU TOO. YOU’RE A WITNESS BEFORE US. LET ME ASK YOU, WHEN YOU TALKED TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THE DAY BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOU WERE TALKING TO HIM ABOUT THE FBI DIRECTOR POSITION AGAIN. DID HE MENTION THE FIRING — >> NOT AS A CANDIDATE. >> DID HE MENTION THE FIRING OF JAMES COMEY IN YOUR DISCUSSION WITH HIM? >> I CANNOT REMEMBER. >> PARDON? >> I CANNOT REMEMBER. I DON’T BELIEVE SO BUT I’M NOT GOING TO BE SPECIFIC. >> YOU DON’T REMEMBER. BUT 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’S POSSIBLE. >> MOST PROSECUTORS WANT NO APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, BUT IN YOUR CASE, YOU HIRED A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT DID NOT LIKE THE PRESIDENT. LET ME ASK YOU WHEN YOU LEARNED AFTER PETER STRZOK’S ANIMUS TOWARD PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> 2017. >> YOU DIDN’T KNOW BEFORE HE WAS HIRED FOR YOUR TEAM? >> KNOW WHAT? >> PETER STRZOK HATED TRUMP. >> OKAY. >> YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT BEFORE HE WAS MADE PART OF YOUR TEAM, IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE SAYING? >> I DID NOT KNOW THAT. >> WHEN DID YOU LEARN — >> WHEN I DID FIND OUT, I ACTED SWIFTLY TO HAVE HIM REASSIGNED. >> THERE’S SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW SWIFT THAT WAS. WHEN DID YOU LEARN OF THE AFFAIR HE WAS HAVING WITH LISA PAGE? >> ABOUT THE SAME TIME. >> DID YOU EVER ORDER ANYBODY TO INVESTIGATE THE DELETION OF ALL OF THEIR TEXTS OFF THEIR GOVERNMENT PHONES? >> ONCE WE FOUND THAT PETER STRZOK WAS AUTHOR OF — >> DID YOU EVER — >> MAY I FINISH? >> YOU’RE NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION. DID YOU ORDER AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE DELETION AND REFORMATTING OF THEIR GOVERNMENT PHONES? >> NO, THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION ONGOING. >> REGARDING COLLUSION OR CONSPIRACY, YOU DIDN’T FIND EVIDENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT, AND I’M QUOTING YOU, AMONG THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND ANY RUSSIAN LINKED OFFICIALS TO INTERFERE WITH OUR U.S. ELECTION, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SO YOU ALSO NOTE IN THE REPORT THAT AN ELEMENT OF ANY OF THOSE OBSTRUCTIONS YOU REFERENCED REQUIRES A CORRUPT STATE OF MIND, CORRECT? >> CORRUPT INTENT, CORRECT. >> RIGHT. 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 HIRES A DOZEN OR MORE PEOPLE THAT HATE THAT PERSON, AND HE KNOWS HE’S INNOCENT, HE’S NOT CORRUPTLY ACTING IN ORDER TO SEE THAT JUSTICE IS DONE. WHAT HE’S DOING IS NOT OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. HE IS PURSUING JUSTICE, AND THE FACT THAT YOU RAN IT UP TWO YEARS MEANS YOU PERPETUATED THE INJUSTICE. >> YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED. THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> I TAKE YOUR QUESTION. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK TO YOUR FINDINGS FROM JUNE 2017. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE THAT REPORTED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS PERSONALLY UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT ON PAGE 90, VOLUME TWO, QUOTE, NEWS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION PROMPTED THE PRESIDENT TO CALL McGAHN AND SEEK TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED, CLOSE QUOTE. IN YOUR REPORT, YOU WROTE ABOUT MULTIPLE CALLS FROM THE PRESIDENT TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN. REGARDING THE SECOND CALL, QUOTE, McGAHN RECALLED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS MORE DIRECT, SAYING SOMETHING LIKE, CALL ROD. TELL ROD MUELLER HAS CONFLICTS AND CAN’T BE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. McGAHN RECALLED THE PRESIDENT TELLING HIM, MUELLER HAS TO GO, AND CALL ME BACK WHEN YOU DO IT. DIRECTOR MUELLER, DID McGAHN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS ORDERING HIM TO DO? >> I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT IN TERMS OF CHARACTERIZING HIS FEELINGS. >> IN THE REPORT IT SAYS, QUOTE, McGAHN UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT TO BE SAYING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD TO BE REMOVED. PAGE 86, QUOTE, McGAHN CONSIDERED THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST TO BE AN INFLECTION POINT, AND HE WANTED TO HIT THE BRAKES AND HE FELT TRAPPED. AND McGAHN DECIDED HE HAD TO RESIGN. McGAHN TOOK ACTION TO PREPARE TO RESIGN, CORRECT? >> I WOULD DIRECT YOU AGAIN TO THE REPORT. >> AND IN FACT THAT VERY DAY HE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE, AND YOU SAID QUOTE, HE THEN DROVE TO THE OFFICE TO PACK HIS BELONG, AND SUBMIT HIS RESIGNATION LATER, CLOSE QUOTE. >> THAT IS DIRECTLY FROM THE REPORT. >> IT IS. BEFORE HE RESIGNED, HOWEVER, HE CALLED THE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF, REINCE PRIEBUS, AND CALLED THE PRESIDENT’S SENIOR ADVISOR STEVE BANNON. DO YOU RECALL WHAT McGAHN TOLD THEM? >> WHATEVER WAS SAID WILL APPEAR IN THE REPORT. >> IT IS. IT IS. IT SAYS ON PAGE 87, QUOTE, PRIEBUS RECALLED THAT McGAHN SAID THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIM TO DO CRAZY EXPLETIVE, CRAZY STUFF. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL THOUGHT 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 WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL McGAHN TO BE A CREDIBLE WITNESS, CORRECT? >> 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 CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> WELL, ON PAGE 89 IN YOUR REPORT, VOLUME TWO, YOU SAID QUOTE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WERE LINKED TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OVERSIGHT OF INVESTIGATIONS THAT INVOLVED THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT AND MOST IMMEDIATELY, TO REPORTS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CLOSE QUOTE. DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU FOUND EVIDENCE, AS YOU LAY OUT IN THE REPORT, THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE INVESTIGATING HIM FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE REPORT, YES. I STANDBY THE REPORT. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THAT SHOULDN’T HAPPEN IN AMERICA. NO PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ESCAPE INVESTIGATION BY ABUSING HIS POWER. BUT THAT’S WHAT YOU TESTIFY TO IN YOUR REPORT. THE PRESIDENT ORDERED YOU FIRED. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL KNEW IT WAS WRONG. THE PRESIDENT KNEW IT WAS WRONG. IN YOUR REPORT, IT SAYS THERE’S EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE SHOULDN’T MAKE THE CALLS TO McGAHN BUT HE DID IT ANYWAY. HE DID IT ANYWAY. ANYONE ELSE WHO BLATANTLY INTERFERED WITH A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION LIKE YOURS WOULD BE ARRESTED AND INDICTED ON CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU DETERMINED THAT YOU WERE BARRED FROM INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT. WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT TODAY. THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THIS COMMITTEE MUST HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE. I YIELD BACK. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD REFER AS IT 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 SAID FIRE MUELLER OR IN THE INVESTIGATION AND ONE DOESN’T NECESSITATE THE OTHER. McGAHN IN FACT DID NOT RESIGN AND STUCK AROUND FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. MARCH 24th, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR INFORMED THE COMMITTEE THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT, AND IT WAS NOT UNTIL APRIL 18th THAT THE PERSIAN GULF RELEASED THE REPORT TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC. WHEN YOU SUBMITTED YOUR REPORT YOU DELIVER A REDACTED VERSION OF THE REPORT 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 DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRODUCTION OF OUR REPORT. >> HAD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE A REDACTED VERSION OF THE REPORT? >> WE WORKED ON REDACTED VERSIONS TOGETHER. >> DID HE ASK YOU FOR A VERSION WHERE THE GRAND JURY MATERIAL WAS SEPARATED? >> I CAN’T GET INTO DETAIL. >> WHY DID YOU NOT TAKE A SIMILAR ACTION TO CONGRESS COULD REVIEW THIS MATERIAL? >> WE HAVE A PROCESS WE ARE OPERATING ON WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE. >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY ATTORNEY GENERAL GOING TO COURT TO RECEIVE SIMILAR PERMISSION TO UNREDACT MATERIAL? >> I’M NOT AWARE OF THAT BEING DONE. >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASED A SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT WITH MINIMAL REDACTIONS TO THE PUBLIC, AND EVEN LESSER REDACTED VERSION TO CONGRESS. DID YOU WRITE THE REPORT WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULD BE RELEASED PUBLICLY? >> NO, WE DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION. WE WRITE THE REPORT UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS DEMANDED BY A STATUTE AND WOULD GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR FURTHER REVIEW. >> AND PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS, WHO IS THE ONLY PARTY THAT MUST RECEIVE THE CHARGING DECISION RESULTING FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION? >> WITH REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT OR GENERALLY? >> NO, GENERALLY. >> ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S CONFIRMATION HEARING, HE MADE IT CLEAR HE INTENDED TO RELEASE YOUR REPORT TO THE PUBLIC. DO YOU REMEMBER HOW MUCH OF THE REPORT HAD BEEN WRITTEN AT THAT POINT? >> I DO NOT. >> WERE THERE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN TONE OR SUBSTANCE MADE AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE REPORT WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC? >> I CAN’T GET INTO THAT. >> DURING THE TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM BARR, SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS ASKED BARR IF HE’D LOOKED AT ALL THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S TEAM HAD GATHERED AND HE STATED HE HAD NOT. DID YOU PERSONALLY REVIEW ALL THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE IN YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> TO THE EXTENT IT CAME THROUGH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE, YES. >> DID ANY MEMBER OF YOUR TEAM REVIEW ALL THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE? >> AS RECITED HERE TODAY, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WORK WAS DONE, SEARCH WARRANTS OR — >> THERE WAS NO ONE MEMBER OF THE TEAM THAT LOOKED AT EVERYTHING? >> THAT’S WHAT I’M TRYING TO GET AT. >> OKAY. IN AN INVESTIGATION AS COMPREHENSIVE AS YOURS, IT’S NORMAL TO HAVE DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF TEAM REVIEW DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS AND FEW IF ANYONE WOULD HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THEM? >> YES. >> HOW MANY OF THE 500 INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THE CONFERENCE DID YOU ATTEND? >> VERY FEW. >> MARCH 27th, 2019 YOU WROTE A LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MEDIA COVERAGE OF YOUR REPORT, WRITING QUOTE, THE SUMMARY LETTER RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT AND NATURE OF THIS OFFICE WORK AND CONCLUSIONS. WE COMMUNICATED THAT CONCERN TO THE DEPARTMENT ON THE MORNING OF MARCH 24th. THERE’S NOW PUBLIC CONFUSION ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. WHO WROTE THAT MARCH 27th LETTER? >> I CAN’T GET INTO WROTE WROTE IT. >> BUT YOU SIGNED IT? >> WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THE LETTER STANDS FOR ITSELF. >> WHY DID YOU WRITE A FORMAL LETTER? >> I CAN’T GET INTO THAT. >> DID YOU AUTHORIZE THE LETTER’S RELEASE TO THE MEDIA OR WAS IT LEAKED? >> I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ON EITHER. >> YOU WENT NEARLY TWO YEARS HANDOUT A LEAK. WHY WAS THIS LETTER LEAKED? >> I CAN’T GET INTO IT. >> WAS THIS LETTER WRITTEN AND LEAKED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE NARRATIVE ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT AND WAS ANYTHING IN ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S LETTER REFERRED TO AS PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS INACCURATE? CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION, PLEASE? >> YOU MAY ANSWER. >> WAS ANYTHING IN ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S LETTER REFERRED TO AS THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS LETTER DATED MARCH 24th INACCURATE? >> WELL, I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. >> TIME IS EXPIRED. GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. MUELLER, WE ARE FOCUSING ON FIVE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE SECTION OF THE REPORT BEGINNING PAGE 113 OF VOLUME TWO ENTITLED QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT ORDERS McGAHN TO DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, END QUOTE. JANUARY 25th, 2018, THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT ORDERED McGAHN TO HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FIRE YOU. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND THAT STORY RELATED TO THE EVENTS YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED ABOUT HERE TODAY. THE PRESIDENT’S CALLS TO McGAHN TO HAVE YOU REMOVED, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AFTER THE NEWS BROKE, DID THE PRESIDENT GO ON TV AND DENY THE STORY? >> I DO NOT KNOW. >> IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT SAID QUOTE, FAKE NEWS, FOLKS, A TYPICAL NEW YORK TIMES FAKE STORY, END QUOTE. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> BUT YOUR INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT McGAHN WAS ORDERED BY THE PRESIDENT TO FIRE YOU, CORRECT? >> YES. >> DID THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER DO SOMETHING THE FOLLOWING DAY IN RESPONSE TO THAT REPORT? >> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE REPORT. >> PAGE 114, QUOTE, ON JANUARY 26th, 2018, THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL COUNSEL CALLED McGAHN’S ATTORNEY AND SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED McGAHN TO PUT OUT A STATEMENT DENYING THAT HE HAD BEEN ASKED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, END QUOTE. DID McGAHN DO WHAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED? >> I REFER YOU TO THE REPORT. >> COMMUNICATING THROUGH HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY, McGAHN REFUSED BECAUSE HE SAID QUOTE, THAT THE TIMES STORY WAS ACCURATE IN REPORTING THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED. ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE IT IS BUT I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE REPORT. >> MR. McGAHN THROUGH HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO LIE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> TRUE. >> DID THE PRESIDENT DROP THE ISSUE? >> REFER TO THE WRITE-UP OF THIS IN THE REPORT. >> NEXT, THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY, ROB PORTER, TO TRY AND PRESSURE McGAHN TO MAKE A FALSE DENIAL, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> WHAT DID HE DIRECT PORTER TO DO? >> I WOULD SEND YOU BACK TO THE REPORT. >> PAGE 113, IT SAYS QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT THEN DIRECTED PORTER TO TELL McGAHN TO CREATE A RECORD TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER DIRECTED McGAHN TO FIRE YOU, END QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS AS STATED IN THE REPORT. >> AND YOU FOUND, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WANTED McGAHN TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE FILE FOR OUR RECORDS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND TO BE CLEAR, THE PRESIDENT IS ASKING HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, DON McGAHN, TO CREATE A RECORD THAT McGAHN BELIEVED TO BE UNTRUE, WHILE YOU WERE IN THE MIDST OF INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CORRECT? >> GENERALLY CORRECT. >> AND MR. McGAHN WAS AN IMPORTANT WITNESS IN THAT INVESTIGATION? >> YES. >> DID THE PRESIDENT TELL MR. PORTER TO THREATEN McGAHN IF HE DIDN’T CREATE THE REPORT? >> I WOULD REFER TO THE REPORT. >> PAGE 116, THE PRESIDENT SAID, IF HE DOESN’T WRITE A LETTER, MAYBE I’LL HAVE TO GET RID OF HIM, END QUOTE. >> YES. >> DID PORTER DELIVER THAT THREAT? >> I AGAIN REFER YOU T DISCUSSION FOUND ON PAGE 115. >> OKAY. BUT THE PRESIDENT STILL DIDN’T GIVE UP, DID HE? THE PRESIDENT TOLD McGAHN DIRECTLY TO DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HAVE YOU FIRED. CAN YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED? >> I CAN’T BEYOND WHAT’S IN THE REPORT. >> ON PAGE 116, IT SAYS, THE PRESIDENT MET HIM IN THE OVAL OFFICE. QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT BEGAN THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING BY TELLING McGAHN THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY DIDN’T LOOK GOOD AND McGAHN NEEDED TO CORRECT IT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT AS IT’S WRITTEN IN THE REPORT, YES. >> THE PRESIDENT ASKED McGAHN WHETHER HE WOULD DO A CORRECTION, AND McGAHN SAID NO. CORRECT? >> THAT’S ACCURATE. >> WELL, MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR INVESTIGATION UNCOVERING THIS VERY DISTURBING EVIDENCE. MY FRIEND, MR. RICHMOND, WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE SUBJECT. IT IS CLEAR TO ME IF ANYONE ELSE HAD ORDERED A WITNESS TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD AND COVER UP ACTS SUBJECT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION, THAT PERSON WOULD BE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES. I YIELD BACK MY TIME. GENTLE L. THE CONGRESSMANGENTLEMAN FROM O. >> IN THAT INTERVIEW, HE LIED. YOU POINT THIS OUT ON PAGE 193, VOLUME 1, HE DENIED. HE FALSELY STATED. IN ADDITION HE OMITTED. THRE [ CHANGING CAPTIONERS ] >> IN 2016 THE FBI DID SOMETHING THEY PROBABLY HAVE NOT DONE BEFORE. THEY SPIED ON TO AMERICAN CITIZENS, ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS AND CARTER PAGE, WITH CARTER PAGE THEY WENT TO THE FISA COURT. THEY USE THE NOW FAMOUS DOSSIER AS PART OF THE WARRANT AND SPY ON CARTER PAGE FOR A BETTER PART OF THE YEAR. WITH MISTER PAPADOPOULOS, THEY DID NOT GO TO THE COURT. THEY USED HUMAN SOURCES. ALL KINDS, FROM ABOUT THE MOMENT PAPADOPOULOS JOINS THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, YOU GOT ALL THESE PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE WORLD STARTING TO SWIRL AROUND HIM. NAMES LIKE HELPER, DOWNER, THOMPSON, LONDON, ALL KINDS OF PLACES. THE FBI EVEN SENT, EVEN SENT A LADY POSING AS SOMEBODY ELSE WENT BY THE NAME AS RETURNED, DISPATCHED HER TO LONDON, TO SPY ON ESTHER PAPADOPOULOS. IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS, HE IS TALKING TO A FOREIGN DIPLOMAT, AND HE TELLS THE DIPLOMAT, RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT ON CLINTON. THAT DIPLOMAT THEN CONTACTS THE FBI, AND THE FBI OPENS AN INVESTIGATION BASED ON THAT FACT. HE PUT THIS ON PAGE 1 OF THE REPORT. JULY 31, 2016, HE OPENED THE INVESTIGATION BASED ON THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION. DIPLOMAT, TELLS PAPADOPOULOS, RUSSIANS EXCUSE ME PAPPAS PAPADOPOULOS TELLS THEM THEY HAVE DIRT ON CLINTON. THE FBI, I AM WONDERING WHO TELLS PAPADOPOULOS. >> I CANNOT GET INTO THE EVIDENCE. >> YES YOU CAN, YOU WROTE ABOUT IT. YOU GAVE US THE ANSWER. YOU TELL US WHO TOLD HIM. JOSEPH NIXON. HE IS THE GUY WHO TOLD PAPADOPOULOS. THE MYSTERIOUS PROFESSOR WHO LIVES IN ROME AND LONDON, WORKS AND TEACHES AT TWO DIFFERENT UNIVERSITIES. THIS IS THE GUY PAPADOPOULOS. HE IS THE GUY WHO STARTS IT ALL. AND WHEN THE FBI INTERVIEWS HIM, HE LIES THREE TIMES, AND YET YOU DON’T CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME. YOU CHARGE RICK GATES FOR FALSE STATEMENTS, PAUL MANAFORT FOR FALSE STATEMENTS, MICHAEL: WITH FALSE STATEMENTS, MICHAEL FLYNN WITH FALSE STATEMENTS BUT THE GUY WHO PUTS THE COUNTRY THROUGH THIS WHOLE SAGA, STARTS IT ALL FOR THREE YEARS WE HAVE LIVED THIS NOW, HE LIES AND YOU GUYS DON’T CHARGE HIM. AND I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY. >> WELL, I CANNOT GET INTO IT. IT IS OBVIOUS IN I THINK WE CAN’T GET INTO CHARGING DECISIONS. >> ON THE FBI INTERVIEWED HIM IN FEBRUARY, WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE INTERVIEWED NIXON, DID HE LIE TO YOU GUYS ALSO? >> I CANNOT GET INTO THAT. >> IS HE WESTERN INTELLIGENCE OR WESTERN RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE? >> A LOT OF THINGS YOU CAN’T GET INTO. >> YOU CAN CHARGE 13 RUSSIANS, NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF, NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN, NO ONE WILL EVER HEAR OF THEM OR SEE OF THEM, YOU CAN CHARGE THEM, YOU CAN CHARGE ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AROUND THE PRESIDENT WITH FALSE STATEMENTS, BUT THE GUY WHO WATCHES EVERYTHING, THE GUY WHO PUTS THIS WHOLE STORY IN MOTION, YOU CAN’T CHARGE HIM. I THINK THAT IS AMAZING. >> I AM NOT CERTAIN I AGREE WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATIONS. >> I AM READING FROM YOUR REPORT. HE TOLD PAPADOPOULOS, PAPADOPOULOS TOLD THE DIPLOMAT, THE DIPLOMAT TELLS THE FBI THE FBI OPENS THE INVESTIGATION JULY 31, 2016 AND HERE WE ARE, THREE YEARS LATER, JULY 2019, THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN PUT THROUGH THIS IN A 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 IS THE GOOD NEWS. THE PRESIDENT WAS FALSELY CONFUSED OF CONSPIRACY. THEY DO A 10 MONTH INVESTIGATION AND JAMES, WE DEPOSED HIM A YEAR AGO HE THEY TOLD US WE HAVE NOTHING. HE WOULD DO TO — AT THE END OF THE 22 MONTHS YOU FIND NO CONSPIRACY AND WHAT IS THE DEMOCRATS WANTING TO DO? THEY WANT TO KEEP INVESTIGATING.THEY WANT TO KEEP GOING. MAY BE A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION, MAYBE A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS STARTED. MAYBE IT IS TO GO BACK AND ACTUALLY FIGURE OUT WHY JOSEPH NIPSON WAS LYING TO THE FBI AND HERE’S THE GOOD NEWS. HERE IS THE GOOD NEWS. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT BILL BARR IS DOING. AND THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS DOING. THEY WILL FIND OUT WHY WE WENT THROUGH THIS THREE-YEAR. FOR YOUR SAGA AND GET TO THE GENTLEMAN — >> IN A MOMENT WE WILL TAKE A VERY BRIEF FIVE MINUTE BREAK. FIRST, I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO PLEASE 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 LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT THIS TIME. >> WE HAVE NOW JUST WITNESSED OVER AN HOUR OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, QUESTIONING OR SHOUTING, SOMETIMES, MAKING THEIR POINT OF VIEWS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER TO EXPLAIN MORE OF WHAT WAS IN THIS REPORT, MAJOR, YOUR TAKE. >> THERE ARE TWO CENTRAL QUESTIONS AT THE HEART OF ALL OF THIS. TO THE PRESIDENT CONSPIRE TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION WITH A HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER? IT IS CLEAR, NO. THE MUELLER REPORT IS CLEAR ON THAT. DID THAT INVESTIGATION INTO THAT UNDERLYING QUESTION START ON ILLEGITIMATE MEANS, REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO USE THIS HEARING TO INJECT IF NOT EVIDENTIARY PROOF OF THAT, AT LEAST SOME DOUBT IN THE PUBLIC MINDS. DEMOCRATS ARE SPENDING ALL OF THEIR TIME GOING METICULOUSLY THROUGH THE REPORT, ON THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGE. MUELLER IS BACKING THEM UP ON THINGS THEY HAVE READ FROM THE REPORT. THAT DOESN’T SOLVE THE UNDERLYING QUESTION, WHICH IS WHAT OUR HOUSE DEMOCRATS GOING TO DO, WITH WHAT THEY SAY IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION? THERE IS ONLY ONE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. YES, OR NO? DO YOU IMPANEL A IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING OR DO YOU NOT? AFTER THIS HEARING, THEY MAY COME TO MORE CLARITY BUT IN TERMS OF REVELATIONS, WHAT WE HEARD IS THE REPORT READ OUT LOUD. THAT IS NOT A REVELATION. IT MAY PROVE POLITICALLY HELPFUL TO DEMOCRATS, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO MORE IT SEEMS TO ME, TO MOVE THEM OFF OF THEIR POSITION OF STRUCTURAL RELUCTANCE. TO GO DOWN THE ROAD OF IMPEACHMENT. >> JONATHAN TURLEY JOINS US AS WELL, WE KNEW GOING INTO THIS, THAT ROBERT MUELLER WAS A RELUCTANT WITNESS. HE WAS SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY. HE WANTED THE REPORT, TO BE HIS STATEMENT. HE DID NOT WANT TO TAKE QUESTIONS ON THIS. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ALSO WEIGHED IN WITH A LETTER PRESCRIBED WHAT HE COULD SAY. WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE OF MY ROBERT MUELLER’S VERY SHORT MONOSYLLABIC ANSWERS, MANY WAYS NOT EVEN ELABORATING AT ALL ON WHAT IS IN THIS REPORT. >> I THINK HE IS STICKING TO WHAT WE THOUGHT WOULD HAPPEN. HE IS THE RELUCTANT WITNESS. SOME OF WHAT HE SAYS, I HAVE TO SAY SOMEWHAT CONFUSING. HE IS REFUSING TO TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT BILL BARR HAS ALREADY TALKED ABOUT. THINGS THAT ARE NOT PRIVILEGED. THINGS LIKE BARR RAISED THIS ISSUE OF WHY MUELLER DID NOT IDENTIFY RULE 60 INFORMATION OR GRAND JURY INFORMATION. BARR BASICALLY SAID IT WAS MUELLER THAT DELAYED THE RELEASE OF THE REPORT. ALL OF THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED TO. MUELLER SET I REALLY CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT, I DON’T KNOW THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THAT. BUT, THE DEMOCRATS DID GET SOME GOOD STUFF OUT OF MUELLER. MUELLER SAID THAT WHEN HE SPOKE WITH THE PRESIDENT, AFTER THE FIRING OF CALL ME, HE DID NOT SPEAK TO HIM ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF REPLACING COMEY. THAT IS A DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO JUMP. OF COURSE THE HEARING BEGAN WITH WHAT MAY BE THE HOME RUN HIT FOR THE DEMOCRATS, WHICH IS WHEN MUELLER SIMPLY SAID, IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT HE WOULD BE EXONERATED. FOR ALL OF THAT, THE REPUBLICANS DID SCORE A FEW POINTS THEMSELVES. AND SOME OF IT THEY ENDED UP GETTING SORT OF CAUGHT UP IN THEIR OWN GEARS, BUT ONE POINT THEY RAISE, IS A SYMBOL OF YOUR MANDATE WAS TO EXPLAIN YOUR PROSECUTORIAL DECISIONS, OR YOUR DECISION NOT TO INDICT AND THEY SAID THAT IS A SHALL DUTY. YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. AND YET YOU SAID, I DON’T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO EXONERATE HIM, AND THE REPUBLICAN SCORED POINTS TO SAY WHERE DOES THAT DUTY COME FROM, WHERE IS THIS POLICY THAT YOU CAN SAY WE DID FIND EVIDENCE OF A CRIME BUT WE DIDN’T EXAMINE EXONERATE HIM. PROSECUTORS DON’T SAY THAT. AS A GENERAL. I THOUGHT ABOUT MUELLER POINTS LOOKED A LITTLE BEFUDDLED ON THOSE ISSUES. I DON’T THINK HE DID AS WELL ON THOSE ISSUES. >> THIS LAST EXCHANGE WITH REPRESENTATIVE JIM JORDAN, REPUBLICAN OF OHIO ABOUT JOSEPH NIPSON AND THIS PERSON WHO TOLD GEORGE ANNAPOLIS ABOUT THIS INFORMATION WHICH HE THEN CONVEYED TO A FOREIGN DIPLOMAT. >> LAMING HE HAD HER ON THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. >> RIGHT. ROBERT MUELLER WOULD NOT DESCRIBE ANY PART OF THEIR DECISIONS ABOUT THAT UNDERLYING SET OF FACTS.’S RELUCTANCE TO ENGAGE ON THAT, WHICH MAY FIT WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF HIS OFFICE, CREATES AN OPENING FOR REPUBLICANS BECAUSE FOR THIS PROCESS, FOR REPUBLICANS AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP, ANY SET OF QUESTIONS, OR LACK OF ANSWERS THEY GET FROM ROBERT MUELLER ON THESE UNDERLYING QUESTIONS, OF THE FAIRNESS, OR ANY POTENTIAL BIAS IN THIS INVESTIGATION, GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO HOLD ONTO POLITICALLY. WHY TO STICK WITH THE PRESIDENT WITH EACH THEY HAVE HAD A VERY GOOD … >> ARE THOSE ATTEMPTS TO DISTRACT FROM WHAT ARE THE MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE REPORT? WHICH IS THAT THE RUSSIANS SYSTEMIC EFFORT TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS AND 2, THAT THERE WERE AT LEAST 10 INSTANCES OF POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. HIS OWN STAFF. >> THEY WOULD CALL THEM PART OF THIS RECORD. BUT, THEY DO CREATE THIS OTHER SPACE FOR WHICH PEOPLE WHO ARE SYMPATHETIC TO THE PRESIDENT CAN LAND ON. AND AT ANY ENCOUNTER, WHERE LAW AND POLITICS ARE INVOLVED, OR EVEN IN STRAIGHT LAW, JURIES NEED A PLACE TO LAND. WHERE DO YOU HELP PLANT THE JURY? REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO LAND REPUBLICAN SYMPATHIZERS TO THE PRESIDENT IS PLACED, THERE IS SOMETHING FISHY ABOUT HOW ALL OF THIS GOT STARTED. >> I THINK PART OF THE DYNAMIC YEARS EVERYONE IS TRYING TO OUT OUTRAGE EVERYONE ELSE TO GET ON EVENING NEWS. SO THIS IS SORT OF THE THEATER OF THE MACABRE. >> I NOTICED THAT ALSO. >> I ACTUALLY THOUGHT ANOTHER SCORE FOR THE DEMOCRATS, WAS THAT MUELLER SAID THEY SAID LOOK, ISN’T IT TRUE THAT TRUMP WAS DOING THESE THINGS, BECAUSE YOU WERE INVESTIGATING HIM FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? AND MUELLER ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, AND SAID YES. NOW THAT IS A VERY … >> THAT WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR HAS SAID. THEY SAID BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT WAS FRUSTRATED. >> THAT WENT TO THE HEART THAT THERE IS NONCRIMINAL MOTIVATIONS HERE, AND SO THIS GETS BACK TO MAJORS POINT, WHICH IS YOU DO HAVE THIS SORT OF TWO SEPARATE HEARINGS GOING ON, IF YOU LISTEN ONLY TO THE DEMOCRATS OR ONLY TO THE REPUBLICANS YOU’D BE SURPRISED THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PRESENT SAME REPORT. BUT, WITH THE DEMOCRATS YOU ARE LEFT WITH THIS ISSUE OF THERE IS GOING TO BE LOOK, THIS IS POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION AND YOU SAY OKAY, YOU ARE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPEACH HIM. >> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO. >> I WANT TO BRING IN PAULA REED WHO IS STANDING BY AT THE LIGHTHOUSE, AND OF COURSE HAVE BEEN COVERING THIS INVESTIGATION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. DESCRIBE THE NUANCE IN THOSE QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION. >> Reporter: IT IS ALL ABOUT THE QUESTIONS, NORA. IF YOU ONLY EXPECT TO GET A YES, NO, I REFER YOU TO PAGE 106, YOU CAN SEE THAT THESE LAWMAKERS HAVE CAREFULLY CRAFTED THESE QUESTIONS TO TRY TO GET ANY FACT THEY WANT TO HIGHLIGHT, AND WE SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT ON OBSTRUCTION, MUELLER DID NOT SAY THAT HE DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. HE WAS CLEAR HE SAID HE CANNOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT, BUT UNDER THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S GUIDELINES HE DID NOT FEEL HE COULD ACTUALLY CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME, BECAUSE HE COULDN’T BE PUT ON TRIAL. HE COULDN’T JUST ACCUSE SOMEONE OF SOMETHING AND THEN NOT GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY AND ANYWAY, TO CLEAR HIS NAME IF HE WAS INNOCENT. AND HE SUGGESTED THAT THE PROPER CHANNEL FOR THAT OF COURSE WOULD BE CONGRESS, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATS WERE REALLY HAMMERING HIM ON AND RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE, THEY GOT MUELLER TO CONFIRM THAT IN FACT THE PRESIDENT COULD POTENTIALLY BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION, CRIMES AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. REPUBLICANS ARE LIKELY DISAPPOINTED, THAT MUELLER DOES NOT WANT TO REALLY DELVE INTO ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THE INVESTIGATION, BUT AS YOU SAW RIGHT THERE WITH REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN, HE WAS ABLE TO PACK A LOT IN HIS QUESTIONS, EVERY SALACIOUS ACCUSATION ABOUT GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, PUT IT ALL IN THE QUESTION HE DID NOT EVEN NEED MUELLER TO RESPOND. HE WAS ABLE TO COMMUNITY HAS CONCERNS ABOUT ANY POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS AT THE OUTSET OF THIS INVESTIGATION IN HIS QUESTIONS ALONE. >> AND WE NOTICE, PAULA, THAT ACCORDING TO A CBS NEWS TOWN, THAT ROBERT MUELLER GAVE 41 ONE WORD ANSWERS, EITHER A YES OR A NO. WE KNEW THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE VERBOSE, OR LOQUACIOUS. DURING THESE PARTICULAR HEARINGS, AND WOULD FREQUENTLY REFER TO WHAT IS ALREADY IN THAT REPORT. DID YOU FIND ANYTHING ELSE UNUSUAL ABOUT HIS ANSWERS? >> Reporter: I WOULD SAY THE NIGHT THE YES NO ANSWERS, THAT IS JUST GOOD LAWYERING. THIS APPEARANCE IS CERTAINLY A CONTRAST TO HIS PREVIOUS APPEARANCES, BEFORE CONGRESS, HE DOES SEEM A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT HERE, A LITTLE UNSURE OF HIMSELF, HE FREQUENTLY ASKED THEM TO REPEAT QUESTIONS. AND HE DID HAVE TROUBLE IN A FEW INSTANCES, PROPERLY RECALLING NAMES, OR TERMS, OR ASPECTS OF HIS REPORT, AND INVESTIGATION THAT WE WOULD’VE EXPECTED TO COME TO HIM A LITTLE BIT SOONER. >> OKAY, PAULA REED. THERE OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE, AND PAULA MENTIONED THIS KEY POINT, WHICH I THINK IS WORTH DRILLING DOWN ON. IT WAS TALKED ABOUT IN THE HEARING, IT IS ALSO RIGHT HERE WHAT MUELLER SAID ABOUT THE OLC OPINION, THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. ABOUT WHETHER YOU CAN CHARGE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. AND WHAT MUELLER TRIES TO MAKE CLEAR AND ACTUALLY HE SAID THIS ON HIS MAY 29 STATEMENT AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, IS THAT THE OLC OPINIONS AS THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A PROCESS OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. TO FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING PRESIDENT OF WRONGDOING. WHY HE SAYS? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO POTENTIALLY ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIME WHEN THEY ARE CAN BE NO COURT RESOLUTION OF THE ACTUAL CHARGE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND, SO WHAT HE IS SAYING AS IT WOULD’VE BEEN COMPLETELY UNFAIR TO SAY HE COULD’VE DONE THIS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER REMEDY OTHER THAN CONGRESS. THAT IS THEIR JOB ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. FAIR? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> I DO NOT AGREE. A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T WITH THE OLC OPINIONS. THOSE OPINIONS ARE WELL KNOWN. I TESTIFIED ON THAT, IN THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT WHEN ONE OF THOSE OPINIONS WAS JUST COMING OUT. NOTHING IN THE OLC OPINION MEMOS SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ACCUSING A PRESIDENT. THEY SAY YOU CAN INDICT A PRESIDENT. I THINK THIS WILL BE COMING UP IN THIS NEXT ROUND OF QUESTIONS I ASSUME BECAUSE THE BIG QUESTION FOR MUELLER, THIS IS A WEAK POINT. IS LOOK, A LOT PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THE MEMOS, THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE THAT SAYS YOU CAN’T ALLEGE A CRIME, IT SAYS YOU CAN’T INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT. SO THE BIG QUESTION IS, IF YOU WEREN’T GOING TO REACH THIS CONCLUSION, WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL SOMEONE? WHY DIDN’T YOU GO TO OLC, THAT IS WHAT THEY DO WHEN YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT POLICY, YOU GO TO OLC AND SAY IS THIS WHAT YOU MEANT? >> RIGHT BUT ORIGINALLY THIS INVESTIGATION, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS ABOUT IN THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. IT WASN’T INITIALLY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR. THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION. AND MANY INSTANCES. >> IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GETTING READY TO RECONVENE. WE WILL CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION, UNTIL CHAIRMAN NADLER RECONVENES THE COMMITTEE FORMALLY. >> THE UNDERLYING QUESTION FOR MUELLER AND HIS TEAM SINCE HE IS THE ONLY WITNESS, HE HAS TO COME AROUND TO ANSWER THIS. IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ALLEGE, WHY DID YOU INVESTIGATE? HE SAID LOOK YOU SHOULD INVESTIGATE BUT REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING THAT DOESN’T FIT WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF YOUR MANDATE, AND IF YOU WEREN’T GOING TO ALLEGE OR INDICT, AND WHY ALL OF THIS TIME TO LOOK INTO THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR? WELL THERE IS AN ARGUMENT FOR THAT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR IS A LEGITIMATE LACE OF INQUIRY. AND WHETHER OR NOT IT FITS WITHIN OUR LEVEL OF COMFORT, FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE THE HIGHEST POLITICAL OFFICER IN THE LAND HAS SUFFERED FROM WHOLE LEGAL DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THAT IS INDICTABLE OR NOT. I THINK HE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT. >> IN MY CAN I MAKE ONE OTHER POINT? THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY ONE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, REPORTED INSTANCES FOR INSTANCE THAT HE HAD DIRECTED DON McGAHN, HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. THOSE WERE PRESS REPORTS AT THE TIME. THE PRESIDENT DERIDED THOSE AS FAKE NEWS AND NOT TRUE. IT TURNS OUT THE PRESIDENT WAS LYING. >> YES. NOW THEY HAVE SAID TODAY AND THE PRESIDENT HAS THAT I NEVER USE THE WORD FIRE. AND HE ULTIMATELY WASN’T FIRED. PHRASEOLOGY MATTERS, BUT INTENT IS CLEAR HERE, THE INTENT OF THE PRESIDENT WAS TO TRY TO END THIS AND TO GET HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO LEAN ON THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO END OR CIRCUMSCRIBE THIS INVESTIGATION. WHY? >> OKAY, QUESTIONING RESUMES. >> THINK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. MISTER MUELLER, CONGRESSWOMAN DEUTCH ADDRESSED TOM’S REQUEST TO McGAHN, TO FIRE YOU. REPRESENTATIVE BASS TALKED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S 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 AND HIS PERSONAL LAWYER. IN FACT, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENTS PERSONAL LAWYER, WAS ALARMED AT THE PROSPECT OF THE PRESIDENT MEETING WITH MISTER McGAHN TO DISCUSS MISTER McGAHN’S REFUSAL TO DENY THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO FIRE YOU, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL, WAS SO ALARMED BY THE PROSPECT OF THE PRESIDENTS MEETING WITH McGAHN, THAT HE CALLED MISTER McGAHN’S COUNSEL AND SAID THAT AGAIN COULD NOT RESIGN, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED IN THE OVAL OFFICE THAT DAY. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> IT IS ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT HE WAS ASKING McGAHN TO DENY FACTS THAT McGAHN HAD REPEATEDLY SAID WERE ACCURATE, ISN’T THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> YOUR INVESTIGATION ALSO FOUND, QUOTE, BY THE TIME OF THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDEN WAS AWARE ONE, THAT McGAHN DID NOT SEE THE STORY FALSE, AND DID NOT WANT TO ISSUE A STATEMENT OR CREATE A WRITTEN RECORD DENYING FACTS THAT McGAHN BELIEVED TO BE TRUE, THE PRESIDENT NEVERTHELESS PERSISTED AND ASKED McGAHN TO REPUDIATE FATS THAT McGAHN HAD REPEATEDLY SAID WERE ACCURATE. ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >> GENERALLY TRUE. >> I BELIEVE THAT IS ON PAGE 119. THANK YOU. IN OTHER WORDS THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO FORCE McGAHN, TO SAY SOMETHING THAT McGAHN DID NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE. >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> I WANT TO REFERENCE YOU TO A SLIDE AND IS ON PAGE 120. AND IT SAYS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT IN REPEATEDLY URGING McGAHN, TO DISPUTE THAT HE WAS ORDERED TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TERMINATED, THE PRESIDENT ACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING McGAHN’S ACCOUNT, AND IN ORDER TO DEFLECT OR PREVENT FURTHER SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT TOWARDS THE INVESTIGATION. >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEANT THERE? >> I’M JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT AS IT APPEARS IN THE REPORT. >> IT IS FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT TRY TO PROTECT HIMSELF BY ASKING STAFF TO FALSIFY RECORDS RELEVANT TO AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION? >> I WOULD SAY THAT IS GENERALLY THE SUMMARY. >> WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT ACTION, THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO HAMPER THE INVESTIGATION BY ASKING STAFF TO FALSIFY RECORDS RELEVANT TO YOUR INVESTIGATION TO WORK >> I WILL HAVE TO REFER YOU TO THE REPORT IF I COULD, FOR REVIEW OF THAT EPISODE. >> THINK YOU. >> ALSO THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPT TO GET McGAHN TO CREATE A FALSE WRITTEN RECORD, WERE RELATED TO MISTER TRUMP’S CONCERNS ABOUT EUROPE STRUCK OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INQUIRY. >> IN FACT AT BEST A MOBILE OFFICE MEETING TO THE PRESIDENT ALSO ASKED McGAHN, WHY HE HAD TOLD QUOTE, WHY HE HAD TOLD SPECIAL COUNCILS OFFICE INVESTIGATORS, THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HAVE YOU REMOVED. >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION, SIR? >> LET ME GO TO THE NEXT ONE. THE PRESIDENT QUOTE CRITICIZED McGAHN, FOR TELLING YOUR OFFICE ABOUT THE JUNE 17 2017 EVENTS, WHEN HE TOLD McGAHN TO HAVE YOU REMOVED. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRESIDENT WAS CRITICIZING HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, FOR TELLING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHAT HE BELIEVES TO BE THE TRUTH. >> I AGAIN GO BACK TO THE TEXT OF THE REPORT. >> WI LET ME GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. WOULD IT HAVE BEEN A CRIME IF MISTER McGAHN HAD LIED TO YOU ABOUT THE PRESIDENT ORDERING HIM TO FIRE YOU? >> I DON’T WANT TO SPECULATE. >> OKAY, IS IT TRUE THAT YOU CHARGE MULTIPLE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENT, FOR LYING TO YOU DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> THE PRESIDENT ALSO COMPLAINED THAT HIS STAFF FOR TAKING NOTES DURING THE MEETING ABOUT FIRING McGAHN, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS WHAT THE REPORT SAYS. YES, THE REPORT. >> BUT IN FACT THIS IS COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENTS STAFF ESPECIALLY HAS COUNCILS TO TAKE NOTES DURING A MEETING, CORRECT? >> I RELY ON THE WORDING OF THE REPORT. >> WELL, THANK YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER FOR YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE BY ORDERING HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN TO LIE TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT AND THEN TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD ABOUT A. IT IS 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. >> THINK YOU. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, CAN YOU STATE WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THE STEEL DOSSIER WAS NOT PART OF RUSSIA’S DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN? >> KNOW AS I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, THAT PART OF THE BUILDING OF THE CASE WAS PREDATED BY AT LEAST 10 MONTHS. >> PAUL MANAFORT’S ALLEGED CRIMES REGARDING TAX EVASION PREDATED YOU YOU YOU HAD NO TROUBLE CHARGING THEM. THE STEEL DOSSIER PREDATED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HE DIDN’T HAVE ANY PROBLEM ANSWERING THE QUESTION WHEN SENATOR CORNYN ASKED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE EXACT QUESTION I ASKED YOU DIRECTOR, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID AND I AM QUOTING, NO, I CAN’T STATE THAT WITH CONFIDENCE. THAT IS ONE OF THE AREAS I AM REVIEWING. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IT, AND I DON’T THINK IT IS ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE. IF SOMETHING IS NOT ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE, THEN IT MUST HAVE SOME FACTUAL BASIS, BUT YOU IDENTIFY NO FACTUAL BASIS, REGARDING THE DOSSIER OR THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS PART OF THE RUSSIA DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN. NOW CHRISTOPHER STEALS REPORTING IS REFERENCD IN YOUR REPORT, STEELE REPORTED TO THE FBI THAT SENIOR RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY FIGURES ALONG WITH OTHER RUSSIANS, TOLD HIM, THAT THERE WAS AND I AM QUOTING FROM THE STEEL DOSSIER, EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TEAM AND THE KREMLIN. HERE’S MY QUESTION. DID RUSSIANS REALLY TELL THAT TO CHRISTOPHER STEELE? OR DID HE JUST MAKE IT ALL UP AND WAS HE LYING TO THE FBI? >> LET ME BACK UP A SECOND IF I COULD, AND SAY AS I SAID EARLIER, WITH REGARD TO THE STEEL, THAT IS BEYOND MY PURVIEW. >> KNOW IS IS IT IS EXACTLY HER PURVIEW, DIRECTOR MUELLER. ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS AS POSSIBLE. EITHER STEEL MADE THIS WHOLE THING UP AND THERE WERE NEVER ANY RUSSIANS TELLING HIM OF THIS VAST CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY THAT YOU DIDN’T FIND OR RUSSIANS LIKE TO STEAL. NOW IF RUSSIANS WERE LYING TO STEEL, TO UNDERMIE OUR CONFIDENCE IN OUR DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT, THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE PRECISELY HER PURVIEW, BECAUSE YOU STATED IN YOUR OPENING THAT THE ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE WAS TO FULLY AND THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE RUSSIA’S INTERFERENCE, BUT YOU WEREN’T INTERESTED IN WHETHER OR NOT RUSSIANS ARE INTERVIEWING INTERFERING. IF HE WAS LYING THEN YOU SHOULD’VE CHARGED WITH LYING. BUT YOU SAY NOTHING ABOUT THIS IN YOUR REPORT. >> SIR, MEANWHILE DIRECTOR ARE QUITE LOQUACIOUS ON OTHER TOPICS. YOU WRITE 3500 WORDS ABOUT THE JUNE 9 MEETING BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIAN LAWYER, EMBEZZLEMENT SKY EYE, YOU WRITE ON PAGE 103 OF YOUR REPORT, THAT THE PRESIDENTS LEGAL TEAM SUGGESTED AND I AM QUOTING FROM YOUR REPORT, BUT THE MEETING MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SET UP. BY INDIVIDUALS WORKING WITH THE FIRM, THAT PRODUCED THE STEEL REPORTING. I’M GOING TO ASK YOU A VERY EASY QUESTION DIRECTOR MUELLER, ON THE WEEK OF JUNE 9, WHO DID RUSSIAN LAWYER’S GUIDE MEET WITH MORE FREQUENTLY? THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR GLENN SIMPSON WHO IS FUNCTIONALLY ACTING AS AN OPERATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE? >> WHAT I THINK IS MISSING HERE IS THE FACT THAT THIS IS UNDER INVESTIGATION ELSEWHERE IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IF I CAN FINISH SIR, AND IF I CAN FINISH, SIR. CONSEQUENTLY IT IS NOT WITHIN MY PURVIEW. I AM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI SHOULD 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 AND THE DAY AFTER THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING, AND YET THAT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU REFERENCE. LYNN SIMPSON TESTIFIED UNDER OATH. HE HAD DINNER WITH HIM THE DAY BEFORE, AND THE DAY AFTER THIS MEETING WITH THE TRUMP TEAM, DO YOU HAVE ANY BASIS AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY TO BELIEVE THAT STEELE WAS LYING? >> AS I SAID BEFORE AND I WILL SAY AGAIN IT IS NOT MY PURVIEW. OTHERS ARE INVESTIGATING. >> IT IS NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT STEELE IS LYING, IT IS NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT ANTI-TRUMP RUSSIANS ARE LYING TO STEEL AND IS NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT CLEMSON SINCE WAS MEETING WITH THE RUSSIANS THE DAY BEFORE AND THE DAY AFTER YOU WRITE 3500 WORDS ABOUT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MEETING. I’M WONDERING, HOW THESE DECISIONS ARE GUIDED. I LOOK AT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT I AM SIDING FROM PAGE 404 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT, IT STATES PAGE STATED TRUMPS NOT EVER GOING TO BE PRESIDENT, RIGHT? RIGHT. STARK REPLIED NO. HE IS NOT. WE WILL STOP IT. ALSO IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT ARE SOMEWHAT IDENTIFIED AS ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO, ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO, THIS IS PAGE 419, REPLIEDNO, AND THEN ADDED THE BELOW RESISTANCE. AND ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT AND STRUCK BOTH WORKED ON YOUR TEAM, DIDN’T THEY? >> PARDON ME? >> THEY BOTH WORKED ON YOUR TEAM, DIDN’T THEY? >> I HEARD STRUCK AND WHO ELSE? >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >> HE WORKED FOR ME FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, YES. >> SO THAT SO DID THE OTHER GUY. >> HERE’S WHAT I’M NOTICING WITH PEOLE ASSOCIATED WITH TRUMP LIE YOU FLEW THE BOOK AT THEM. IT SEEMS TO BE THAT WHEN SIMPSON MET WITH RUSSIANS, NOTHING, WHEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MET WITH RUSSIAN 3500 WORDS AND MAYBE THE REASON WHY THEY ARE THESE DISCREPANCIES … >> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS EXPIRED. >> MISTER MILLER OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A SERIOUS CRIME THAT STRIKES AT THE CORE OF AN EFFORT TO FIND THE TRUTH, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HAS THREE ELEMENTS, TRUE? >> TRUE. >> THE FIRST ELEMENT IS AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT COULD INCLUDE TAKING AN ACTION THAT WOULD DELAY OR INTERFERE WITH AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION, AS SET FORTH IN VOLUME 2 PAGE 87 AND 88 OF YOUR REPORT, TRUE? >> I AM SORRY, COULD YOU AGAIN REPEAT THE QUESTION. >> AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT COULD INCLUDE TAKING AN ACTION THAT WOULD DELAY OR INTERFERE WITH AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION? >> INDUSTRY. >> YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK STEPS TO TERMINATE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> MISTER MUELLER DOES ORDERING THE TERMINATION OF THE HEAD OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION CONSTITUTES AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT? >> THAT WOULD BE … >> LET ME REFER YOU TO PAGE 87 AND 88 OF VOLUME 2, WHERE YOU CONCLUDE THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WOULD QUALIFY AND AS AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT IF IT WOULD NATURALLY OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION AND ANY GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS THAT MIGHT FLOW FROM THE INQUIRY, CORRECT? >> YES, I HAVE A NOW. >> THANK YOU THE SECOND ELEMENT OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS THE PRESENCE OF AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT IN CONNECTION WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING, TRUE? >> TRUE. >> TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE POTENTIAL WRONGDOING OF DONALD TRUMP, CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING? >> THAT IS AN AREA WHICH I CANNOT GET INTO. >> OKAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED, ON JUNE 16, 2017, QUOTE, I AM BEING INVESTIGATED FOR FIRING THE FBI DIRECTOR, BY THE MAN WHO TOLD ME TO FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR. WITCHHUNT. THE JUNE 16 TWEET, JUST READ, WAS CITED ON PAGE 89 IN VOLUME 2, CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT HE WAS UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >> I THINK GENERALLY CORRECT. >> ONE DAY LATER, ON SATURDAY, JUNE 17, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, DON BEGAN AT HOME, AND DIRECTED HIM TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, TRUE? >> I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE. I THINK I MAY HAVE STATED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS, SOME. >> THAT IS CORRECT. PRESIDENT TRUMP TALL TOLD DON McGAHN, QUOTE, MUELLER HAS TO GO. “. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> YOUR REPORT FOUND ON PAGE 89, VOLUME 2, THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT BY JUNE 17, THE PRESIDENT KNEW HIS CONDUCT WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY FEDERAL PROSECUTOR WHO COULD PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF FEDERAL CRIMES TO THE GRAND JURY, TRUE? >> TRUE. >> THE THIRD ELEMENT, SECOND ELEMENT HAVING JUST BEEN SATISFIED, THE THIRD ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS CORRUPT, TRUE? >> >> CREPT INTO EXISTENCE THE PRESENT ACTED TO OBSTRUCT AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING OR THE IMPROPER PURPOSE OF PROTECTING HIS OWN INTEREST, CORRECT? >> THAT IS GENERALLY CORRECT. >> 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. >> THANK YOU MISTER MUELLER, LET ME MOVE ON IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. UPON LEARNING ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT DONALD TRUMP STATED TO THE BENN ATTORNEY GENERAL QUOTE OH MY GOD, THIS IS TERRIBLE. THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY, IMF. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT HE VIEWED THE CONDUCT AS ADVERSE TO HIS OWN INTEREST? >> I THINK THAT GENERALLY IS TRUE. >> THE INVESTIGATION FOUND EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE DIRECT TO DON McGAHN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? >> WHERE DO YOU HAVE THAT QUOTE? >> PAGE 90, VOLUME 2. THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THOSE CALLS TO McGAHN “. >> I SEE THAT, YES THAT IS ACCURATE. >> THE INVESTIGATION ALSO FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY URGED McGAHN TO DISPUTE THAT HE WAS ORDERED TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TERMINATED. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. AT THE INVESTIGATION FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT, DONALD TRUMP 1 COMMITTED AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, 2 CONNECTED TO AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING 3, 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 THE WAY YOU ANALYZE THAT. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS OUT OF THE BALLPARK BUT I AM NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THAT ANALYTICAL CHARGE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. MISTER MUELLER OVER HERE. >> I WANT TO START BY THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. YOU JOINED THE MARINES AND LED A RIFLE PLATOON IN VIETNAM WHERE YOU EARNED A BRONZE STAR PURPLE HEART AND OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS. TO SERVE AS AN ASSISTANT UNITED STATES LEADING THE HOMICIDE UNIT IN DC. U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS AND LATER NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DOJ’S CRIMINAL DIVISION AND THE FBI DIRECTOR. SO, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. HAVING REVIEWED YOUR BIOGRAPHY, IT PUZZLES ME WHY YOU HANDLED YOUR DUTIES IN THIS CASE THE WAY YOU DID. THE REPORT CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU TAUGHT YOUNG ATTORNEYS, AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INCLUDING TO ENSURE THAT EVERY DEFENDANT IS TREATED FAIRLY OR IS JUST AS SUTHERLAND SAID IN THE BERGER CASE, A PROSECUTOR IS NOT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF AN ORDINARY PARTY TO A CONTROVERSY, BUT OF A SOVEREIGNTY, WHOSE INTEREST IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS NOT THAT IT SHALL WHEN A CASE BUT THE JUSTICE SHALL BE DONE AND THAT THE PROSECUTOR MAY STRIKE HARD BLOWS BUT HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO STRIKE FOUL ONES. BY LISTING THE 10 FACTUAL SITUATIONS AND NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION, ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE, YOU UNFAIRLY SHIFTED THE BURDEN TO THE PRESENT. FORCING HIM TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE WHILE DENYING HIM A LEGAL FORUM TO DO SO. I’VE NEVER HEARD OF A PROSECUTOR DECLINING A CASE, AND THEN HOLDING A PRESS CONFERENCE TO TALK ABOUT THE DEFENDANT. YOU NOTED EIGHT TIMES IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU HAD A LEGAL DUTY UNDER THE REGULATIONS TO EITHER PROSECUTE OR DECLINE CHARGES. DESPITE THIS, YOU DISREGARDED THAT DUTY. AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, I AM ALSO TROUBLED WITH YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS. YOU DISCUSS 10 SEPARATE FACTUAL PATTERNS INVOLVING ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION, AND THEN YOU FAILED TO SEPARATELY APPLY THE ELEMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTES. I LOOKED AT THE 10 FACTUAL SITUATIONS AND I READ THE CASE LAW. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, JUST LOOKING AT THE FLYNN MATTER FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOUR STATUTES THAT YOU CITED FOR A POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION, 1503, 1505, 1512 B3 AND 1512 C2, WHEN I LOOK AT THOSE CONCERNING THE FLYNN MATTER, 1503 IS AN APPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE WASN’T A GRAND JURY OR TRIAL JURY AND PANELED AND DIRECTOR COMEY WAS NOT AN OFFICER OF COURT AS DEFINED BY THE STATUTE. SECTION 1505, CRIMINALIZES ACTS THAT WOULD OBSTRUCT OR IMPEDE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND THOSE BEFORE CONGRESS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL RESOURCE, THE FBI INVESTIGATION IS NOT A PENDING PROCEEDING. 1512 B3 TALKS ABOUT INTIMIDATION THREATS OF FORCE, TO TAMPER WITH A WITNESS, GENERAL FLYNN AT THE TIME WAS NOT A WITNESS AND CERTAINLY DIRECTOR COMEY WAS NOT A WITNESS. AND 1512 SEE, TALKS ABOUT TAMPERING WITH THE RECORD AS JOE BIDEN DESCRIBED THE STATUTE AS BEING DEBATED ON THE SENATE FLOOR, HE CALLED THIS A STATUTE CRIMINALIZING DOCUMENT SHREDDING AND THERE IS 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 FOR IT, THE ETHICAL RULES REQUIRE THAT A PROSECUTOR HAVE A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF CONVICTION TO BRING A CHARGE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> SOUNDS 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 DECLINATION DECISIONS REACHED BY YOUR OFFICE. YOU RECOMMENDED THE PROSECUTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT FOR A CHARGE OF HERESY WITH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. IS THAT FAIR? >> THAT IS 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 HAVE MADE THE CALCULATION WITH THE REGULATION? >> THE OLC OPINION OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL INDICATES THAT WE CANNOT INDICT A CITY PRESIDENTS.SITTING PRESENT ONE OF THE TOOLS IS NOT THERE. >> OKAY, BUT LET ME JUST STOP. YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. YOU COULDN’T HAVE INDICTED THE PRESIDENT ON THAT AND YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THAT. BUT WHEN IT CAME TO OBSTRUCTION, YOU THROUGH A BUNCH OF STUFF UP AGAINST THE WALL TO SEE WHAT WOULD STICK. AND THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. >> I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT CHARACTERIZATION AT ALL. WHAT WE DID IS PROVIDE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE FORM OF A CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM, OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CASE. THOSE CASES THAT WERE BROUGHT, THOSE CASES THAT WERE DECLINED, AND FOUND ONE CASE WHERE THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME. >> OKAY. BUT COULD YOU CHARGE THE PRESIDENT 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 STANDARDS? >> I’M NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE ETHICAL STANDARDS BUT OLC OPINION SAYS THE PROSECUTOR, CANNOT BRING A CHARGE AGAINST THE SITTING PRESIDENT, NONETHELESS IT CAN CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER PERSONS WHO MIGHT BE DRAWN INTO THE CONSPIRACY. >> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND. >> DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR AS YOU KNOW WE ARE SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON FIVE SEPARATE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE THIRD EPISODE. THE SECTION OF YOUR REPORT ENTITLED THE PRESIDENT’S EFFORTS TO CURTAIL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION BEGINNING AT PAGE 90. BY CURTAIL, YOU MEAN LIMIT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> MY COLLEAGUES HAVE WALKED AND TRY TO FIRE TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND BECAUSE MISTER McGAHN REFUSE THE ORDER THE PRESIDENT ASK OTHERS TO HELP LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WAS COREY LEWANDOWSKI ONE INDIVIDUAL? >> AGAIN CAN YOU REMIND ME? >> COREY LEWANDOWSKI IS THE PRESIDENT’S FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, CORRECT? >> DID HE HAVE ANY OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE TRUMPET MINISTRATION? >> I DON’T BELIEVE SO. >> YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES AN INCIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE INVOLVING MISTER LEWANDOWSKI ON JUNE 19, 2017, AT VOLUME 2 PAGE 91, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I AM SORRY, WHAT IS THE CITATION? >> PAGE 91. >> OF THE SECOND VOLUME? >> YES. >> A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE BETWEEN MISTER LEWANDOWSKI IN THE PRESENT. >> THAT WAS JUST TWO DAYS AFTER THE PRESIDENT CALLED ON HIM AGAIN AT HOME AND ORDERED HIM TO FIRE YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? >> APPARENTLY SO. >> RIGHT AFTER HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL MISTER McGAHN REFUSE TO FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT’S ORDER TO FIRE YOU, THE PRESIDENT CAME UP WITH A NEW PLAN. I WAS TO GO AROUND ALL OF HIS SENIOR ADVISORS AND GOVERNMENT AIDS TO HAVE A PRIVATE CITIZEN TRY TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION. WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT TELL MISTER LEWANDOWSKI TO DO? DO YOU RECALL HE TOLD HIM HE DICTATED A MESSAGE TO MISTER LEWANDOWSKI FOR SESSIONS AND ASKED HIM TO WRITE IT DOWN. IS THAT CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> DID YOU AND YOUR TEAM SEE THIS HANDWRITTEN MESSAGE? >> I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO WHICH WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE INCLUDED INTO OUR INVESTIGATION. >> THE MESSAGE DIRECTED SESSIONS TO GIVE AND I AM QUOTING FROM YOUR REPORT, TO GIVE A PUBLIC SPEECH SAYING THAT HE PLANNED TO MEET WITH THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO EXPLAIN THIS IS VERY UNFAIR AND LET THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INVESTIGATING ELECTION MEDDLING FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS. THAT IS AT PAGE 91, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. THANK YOU. YES IT IS. >> IN OTHER WORDS MISTER LEWANDOWSKI A PRIVATE CITIZEN WAS INSTRUCTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DELIVER A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT DIRECTED HIM TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >> CORRECT AT THIS TIME MISTER SESSIONS WAS STILL RECUSED FROM OVERSIGHT OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >> I’M SORRY. >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS RECUSED? >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD’VE HAD TO VIOLATE HIS OWN DEPARTMENT’S RULES IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE PRESIDENT’S ORDER, CORRECT? >> I WILL NOT GET INTO THE DETAILS. I JUST REFER YOU AGAIN, TO PAGE 91 AND 92 OF THE REPORT. >> IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE PRESIDENT REQUEST, IT WOULD HAVE EFFECTIVELY ENDED YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN AS YOU KNOW ON PAGE 97, CORRECT? >> COULD YOU? >> YOU WROTE TAKEN TOGETHER THE PRESIDENT’S DIRECTIVES INDICATES THAT SESSIONS WAS BEING INSTRUCTED TO TELL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO END THE EXISTING INVESTIGATION INTO THE RESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN, WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL BEING PERMITTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH INVESTIGATING ELECTION MEDDLING FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> GENERALLY TRUE, YES OR. >> IT IS AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IS STILL A CRIME, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> MISTER LEWANDOWSKI TRY TO BE WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IS THAT RIGHT? >> TRUE. >> HE TRIED TO MEET WITH THEM IN HIS OFFICE SO HE WOULD BE CERTAIN THERE WASN’T A PUBLIC LOG OF THE VISIT. >> ACCORDING TO WHAT WE GATHERED FOR THE REPORT. >> THE MEETING NEVER HAPPENED AND THE PRESIDENT RAISE THE ISSUE AGAIN WITH MISTER LEWANDOWSKI AND THIS TIME HE SAID, IF SESSIONS DOES NOT MEET WITH YOU, LEWANDOWSKI SHOULD TELL SESSIONS HE WAS FIRED. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, LEWANDOWSKI THEN ASKED MISTER DEARBORN TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE WHO WAS THE FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, TO MISTER SESSIONS AND MISTER DEARBORN REFUSES TO DELIVER BECAUSE HE DOESN’T FEEL COMFORTABLE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> GENERALLY CORRECT, YES. >> JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR, TWO DAYS AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, DON McGAHN, REFUSED TO CARRY OUT THE PRESENT ORDER TO FIRE YOU, THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED A SET PRIVATE CITIZEN TO TELL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED DATES WAS RECUSED AT THE TIME TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION, TO FUTURE ELECTIONS EFFECTIVELY ENDING YOUR INVESTIGATION, INTO THE 2016 TRUMP CAMPAIGN. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I WILL NOT DOCTOR CHARACTERIZATION. I WILL SAY THAT IS LAID OUT IN THE REPORT AND IS ACCURATE. >> YOU IN FACT WRITE A PAGE 99, THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT THE PRESIDENTS 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. IS THAT CORRECT? >> GENERALLY. >> ESTHER MUELLER, YOU HAVE SEEN A LETTER, WHERE 1000 PROSECUTORS HAVE READ YOUR REPORT, AND SAID ANYONE BUT THE PRESIDENT WHO COMMITTED THOSE ACTS WILL BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. DO YOU AGREE WITH THOSE FORMER COLLEAGUES, 1000 PROSECUTORS THAT CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION? >> THOSE PROSECUTORS TEND TO >> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. MISTER MUELLER. YOUR TEAM WROTE IN THE REPORT, THIS IS THE TOP OF PAGE 2, VOLUME 1, ALSO ON PAGE 173 BY THE WAY. YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND ITS ELECTION INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. THAT IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT, RIGHT? >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> I’M CURIOUS, WHEN DID YOU PERSONALLY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION? >> CAN YOU REMIND ME, WHICH PARAGRAPH YOU ARE REFERRING TO? >> TOP OF PAGE 2. VOLUME 1. >> OKAY. AND EXACTLY WHICH PARAGRAPH ARE YOU LOOKING AT? >> INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH. >> OF COURSE, I SEE. WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? >> MY QUESTION IS WHEN DID YOU PERSONALLY REACH THAT CONCLUSION? >> WELL, WE WERE ONGOING FOR TWO YEARS. >> YOU ARE ONGOING AND HE WROTE AT SOME POINT DURING THE TWO- YEAR PERIOD BUT AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO COME TO CONCLUSION THAT I DON’T THINK THERE IS, THERE IS NOT A CONSPIRAY GOING ON HERE. THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THIS PRESIDENT AND I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE REST OF THE PRESIDENCY. I’M TALKING ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT AND THE RUSSIANS. >> AS YOU UNDERSTAND, AND DEVELOPING A CRIMINAL CASE, YOU GET PIECES OF INFORMATION, PIECES OF INFORMATION, WITNESSES AND AS YOU MAKE YOUR CASE. >>) >> WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION ON THAT PARTICULAR CASE, IT DEPENDS ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS. >> RED. I UNDERSTAND. >> I CANNOT SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT WE REACHED A DECISION ON A PARTICULAR DEFENDANT AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. >> IT WAS SOMETIME WELL BEFORE YOU WROTE THE REPORT, FAIR ENOUGH? >> YOU WROTE THE REPORT DEALING WITH A WHOLE MYRIAD OF ISSUES, CERTAINLY SOMETIME PRIOR TO THAT REPORT IS WHEN YOU REACH THE DECISION THAT OKAY, WITH REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, I DON’T FIND ANYTHING HERE. >> FAIR ENOUGH. >> I’M NOT CERTAIN I AGREE WITH THAT. >> YOU WAITED UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE. >> NO, THERE ARE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF A DEVELOPMENT. >> SURE. THAT IS MY POINT. THERE ARE VARIOUS ASPECTS THAT HAPPEN, BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE PIKE, YOU COME TO A CONCLUSION, THERE IS NO THERE THERE FOR THIS DEFENDANT. IS ABOUT RIGHT? >> I CAN’T SPEAK ON THAT. >> YOU CANNOT THEY WIN, FAIR ENOUGH. >> SO I AM ASKING THE SWORN WITNESS. MISTER MUELLER, EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT ON MAY 10, 2017 APPROXIMATE 7:45 AM SIX DAYS BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, MISTER ROSENSTEIN CALLED YOU AND MENTIONED THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL. NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU WOULD BE APPOINTED, BUT THAT YOU HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT. IS THAT TRUE? MAY 10, 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 ALSO SUGGESTS … >> ARE YOU QUESTIONING THAT? >> WELL, I JUST FIND IT INTRIGUING. LET ME JUST TELL YOU THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT PHONE CALL TOOK PLACE AND THAT IS WHAT WAS SAID. WITH YOU TO THE NEXT QUESTION. EVIDENCE JESS ON MAY 12, 2017, FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, HE MET WITH MISTER ROSENSTEIN IN PERSON. DID YOU DISCUSS THE APPOINTED A SPECIAL COUNSEL THEN? NOT NECESSARILY USED BUT THAT THERE WOULD BE A SPECIAL COUNSEL? >> I HAVE GONE INTO WATERS, I DON’T BUT DOESN’T ALLOW ME TO GIVE YOU AN ANSWER TO THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION THAT RELATES TO THE INTERNAL DISCUSSION HE WOULD HAVE IN TERMS OF INDICTING AN INDIVIDUAL. >> IT HAS TO DO WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND WHETHER YOU DISCUSS THAT WITH MISTER ROSENSTEIN. EVIDENCE ALSO SUGGESTS ON MAY 13 FOUR DAYS BEFORE YOUR APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, HE MET WITH ATTORNEY FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS AND ROSENSTEIN AND YOU SPOKE ABOUT SPECIAL COUNSEL, DO YOU KNOW THAT? >> NO. >> OKAY, ON MAY 16, THE DAY BEFORE YOUR APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOU MET WITH THE PRESIDENT AND ROSENSTEIN, DO YOU EVER HAVING THAT MEETING? >> YES. >> AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POSITION OF THE FBI DIRECTOR TOOK PLACE, DO YOU EVER THAT? >> YES. >> AND DID YOU DISCUSS AT ANY TIME IN THAT MEETING, MISTER COMEY’S TERMINATION? >> NOTE NO. >> DID YOU DISCUSS THE EVENTUAL POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, JUST IN GENERAL TERMS? >> I CANNOT GET INTO THE DISCUSSIONS ON THAT. >> COMEDY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK TO MISTER ROSENSTEIN BEFORE MAY 17 WHICH WAS THE DAY YOU GOT APPOINTED REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, HOW MAY TIMES PRIOR TO THAT DID YOU DISCUSS THAT YOU MARK >> I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES. >> IS THAT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT RECALL? >> I DO NOT RECALL. >> HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK WITH MISTER COMEY PRIOR TO MAY 17, 2017? >> ZERO. >> ZERO? OKAY. NOW MY TIME IS EXPIRED. >> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, GOING BACK TO THE PRESIDENTS OBSTRUCTION, VIA COREY LEWANDOWSKI, IT WAS REFERENCED THAT 1000 FORMER PROSECUTORS WHO SERVED UNDER 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 HAVE READ ABOUT THAT LETTER, YES. THE NEXT OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO SIGNED THAT LETTER, THE STATEMENT OF FORMER PROSECUTORS, ARE PEOPLE YOU WORKED WITH, IS THAT RIGHT? >> QUITE PROBABLY, YES. >> PEOPLE THAT YOU RESPECT? >> QUITE PROBABLY, YES. >> THEY SAID 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. >> DO YOU WANT TO SIGN THAT LETTER DIRECTOR MUELLER? >> THEY 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 C ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE I WILL HAVE QUESTIONS LATER, AND BECAUSE OF OUR LIMITED TIME, I WILL ASK TO ENTER THIS LETTER INTO THE RECORD, UNDER UNANIMOUS CONSENT. >> THINK YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER FOR YOUR LONG HISTORY OF SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, INCLUDING YOUR SERVICE AS A MARINE YOU EARNED A BRONZE STAR. I WOULD LIKE NOW TO TURN TO THE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS APPLIED TO THE PRESIDENTS ATTEMPTS TO CURTAIL YOUR INVESTIGATION. THE FIRST ELEMENT OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE REQUIRES AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO PAGE 97 OF VOLUME 2 OF YOUR REPORT. AND YOU WROTE THERE, ON PAGE 97, QUOTE, SESSIONS WAS BEING INSTRUCTED TO TELL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INDIAN 16 INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN”. THAT IS IN THE REPORT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, BECAUSE IT WOULD NATURALLY OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> LET’S TURN NOW TO THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHICH R PROCEEDING, I WILL DIRECT YOU TO PAGE 97, THE SAME PAGE, OF VOLUME 2. YOU WROTE, QUOTE, BY THE TIME THE PRESIDENTS INITIAL 101 MEETING WITH LEWANDOWSKI ON JUNE 19, 2017, THE EXISTENCE OF A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION SUPERVISED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. THAT IS IN THE REPORT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF A NEXUS PROCEEDING, BECAUSE A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IS AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING, CORRECT? >> YES. >> I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN TO THE FINAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ON THAT SAME PAGE, PAGE 97, DO YOU SEE WHERE THERE IS THE INTENT SECTION ON THAT PAGE? >> I DO. >> WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO READ THE FIRST SENTENCE? >> STARTING WITH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENTS. >> YES, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO READ THE FIRST SENTENCE? >> I AM HAPPY TO HAVE YOU READ. >> YOU WROTE QUOTE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IT INDICATES THE PRESENCE EFFORTS TO HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION, TO THE FUTURE ELECTION INTERFERENCE WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN’S CONDUCT. THAT IS IN THE REPORT. CORRECT? >> THAT IS IN THE REPORT AND I RELY WHAT IS IN THE REPORT TO INDICATE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE PARAGRAPHS WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. >> THANK YOU. TO RECAP WHAT WE HAVE HEARD, WE HAVE HEARD TODAY, THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, DON BEGAN TO FIRE YOU. THE PRESIDENT ORDERED McGAHN TO COVER THAT UP AND CREATE A FALSE PAPER TRAIL, AND NOW WE HAVE HEARD THE PRESIDENT ORDERED CORDER LEWIN — COREY LEWANDOWSKI TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION, SO THAT HE, YOU, STOP INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT. LOOKING AT THESE FACTS, A PERSON COULD CONCLUDE THAT ALL THREE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HAVE BEEN MET, AND I WOULD 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 IS CORRECT. >> THE FACT THAT THEIR ORDER IS BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IT WAS NOT CARRIED OUT, THAT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BECAUSE THE STATUTE ITSELF WAS QUITE BROAD. IT SAYS THAT AS LONG AS YOU ENDEAVOR OR ATTEMPT TO INSTRUCT JUSTICE I WOULD ALSO CONSTITUTE A CRIME. >> I WILL NOT GET INTO THAT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE HEARD TODAY, I BELIEVE REASONABLE PERSON COULD CONCLUDE THAT AT LEAST THREE CRIMES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE PRESIDENT, OCCURRED, WE WILL HEAR ABOUT TWO ADDITIONAL CRIMES, THAT WOULD BE THE WITNESS TAMPERING’S OF MICHAEL COHEN AND PAUL MANAFORT. >> THE ONLY THING I WANT TO ADD, IS THAT I AM GOING THROUGH THE ELEMENTS WITH YOU, DOES NOT MEAN THAT I SUBSCRIBE TO WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE THROUGH THOSE ELEMENTS. >> THE TIME OF THE GENERAL IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLE LADY FROM ARIZONA. I AM SORRY, GENTLEMEN FROM CALIFORNIA. >> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. OVER HERE. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY. YOU HAVE THREE DISCUSSIONS WITH ROSENSTEIN ABOUT YOUR APPOINTMENT WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL MAY 10, MAY 12, AND MAY 13. CORRECT? >> IF YOU SAY SO, I HAVE NO REASON TO DISPUTE THAT. >> THEN HE MET WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THE 16th WITH ROD ROSENSTEIN PRESENT AND THEN ON THE 17th, YOU WERE FORMALLY APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL. WERE YOU MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THE 16th, WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL? >> I DID NOT BELIEVE I WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR COUNSEL. I HAVE SERVED TWO TERMS AS FBI DIRECTOR. >> THE ANSWER IS NO? >> THE ANSWER IS NO. >> DISRUPTOR OFFICE AS THE TEAM OF PARTISANS, AND AS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS COMING TO LIGHT, THERE IS A GROWING CONCERN THAT POLITICAL BIAS CAUSED IMPORTANT FACTS TO BE ADMITTED FROM OMITTED FROM YOUR REPORT IN ORDER TO CAST THE PRESIDENT UNFAIRLY IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT. FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN DOW THE PRESIDENTS LAWYER LEAVES A MESSAGE WITH MICHAEL FLYNN’S LAWYER ON NOVEMBER 2017. THE EDITED VERSION IN YOUR REPORT, MAKES IT APPEAR THAT HE WAS IMPROPERLY ASKING FOR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, AND THAT IS ALL WE KNOW, FROM YOUR REPORT. EXCEPT THAT THE JUDGE IN THE FLYNN CASE ORDERED THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT RELEASED, IN WHICH HE MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WAS SUGGESTING. MY QUESTION IS WHY DID YOU EDIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO HIDE THE EXCULPATORY PART OF THE MESSAGE? >> I WOULD NOT SAY WE DID ANYTHING TO HIDE. >> YOU OMITTED IT. YOU QUOTED THE PART WHERE HE SAID HEADS UP FOR THE SAKE OF PROTECTING ALL OF OUR INTEREST IF WE CAN, BUT YOU OMITTED THE PORTION WHERE HE SAYS WITHOUT GIVING UP ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. >> I AM NOT GOING TO GO FURTHER IN TERMS OF DISCUSSING. >> YOU EXTENSIVELY DISCUSS CONSTANTINE CLINICS ACTIVITIES WITH PAUL MANAFORT, YOU DESCRIBED AS A RUSSIAN UKRAINIA POLITICAL CONSULTANT, AND LONGTIME EMPLOYEE OF PAUL MANAFORT, ASSESSED BY THE FBI TO HAVE TIES TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. THAT IS ALL WE KNOW FROM YOUR REPORT, ETC. EXCEPT WE HAVE SINCE LEARNED THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY A U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT INTELLIGENCE SOURCE, YET NOWHERE IN YOUR REPORT IS HE SO IDENTIFIED. WHY WAS THAT FACT … >> I DON’T NECESSARILY CREDIT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING OCCURRED. >> WERE YOU AWARE THAT HE WAS IN THE DEPARTMENT? >> I WILL NOT GO IN THE INS AND OUTS. >> DID YOU INTERVIEW CONSTANTINE? >> PARDON? >> DID YOU INTERVIEW CONSTANTINE? >> I CANNOT GO INTO THE DISCUSSION OF OUR INVESTIGATIVE MOVES. >> AND YET, THAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR REPORT. AGAIN THE PROBLEM WE ARE HAVING, IS WE HAVE TO RELY ON YOUR REPORT FOR ENACTED ACCURATE REFLECTION, AND WE ARE STARTING TO FIND OUT THAT IS NOT TRUE. FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR REPORT FAMOUSLY LINKS RUSSIAN INTERNET TROLL FORMS WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. A HEARING ON MAY 28 IN THE CONCORDE MANAGEMENT IRA PROSECUTION THAT YOU INITIATED, THE JUDGE EXCORIATED BOTH YOU, AND MISTER BARR FOR PRODUCING NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM. WHY DID YOU SUGGEST RUSSIA WAS RESPONSIBLE SEVERAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TROLL FORMS WHEN YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT? >> I WILL NOT GET INTO THAT MORE THAN I ALREADY HAVE. >> BUT, YOU HAVE LEFT THE CLEAR IMPRESSION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, THROUGH YOUR REPORT, THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT BEHIND THE TROLL FORMS AND YET WHEN YOU ARE CALLED UPON TO PROVIDE ACTUAL EVIDENCE, IN COT, YOU FAIL TO DO SO. >> AGAIN, I WOULD DISPUTE YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT OCCURRED IN THAT PROCEEDING. >> IN FACT, THE JUDGE CONSIDERING CONSIDERED HOLDING PROSECUTORS AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT, SHE BACKED OFF ONLY AFTER YOUR HASTILY CALLED PRESS CONFERENCE THE NEXT DAY IN WHICH YOU WRECK YOUR ACTIVELY MADE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND RUSSIA TROLL FARMS, DID YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE OF MAY 29 HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE THREAT TO PROSECUTORS AND CONTEMPT, THE PREVIOUS DAY? FOR PUBLICLY MISREPRESENTING THE EVIDENCE? >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >> THE QUESTION IS, DID YOUR MAY 29 PRESS CONFERENCE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE PREVIOUS DAY, THE JUDGE THREATENED TO HOLD YOUR PROSECUTORS AND CONTEMPT FOR MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE? >> NO. >> NOW, THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM, IS AS I SAID WE HAVE TO TAKE YOUR WORD, FAITHFULLY ACTIVELY AND PARTIALLY, AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBING ALL OF THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE IN THE MUELLER REPORT AND WE ARE FINDING MORE AND MORE INSTANCES WHERE THIS JUST IS NOT THE CASE. AND IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE YOU KNOW 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 AS A REPORT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. >> THEN WHY … >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLE MEN FROM MARYLAND IS RECOGNIZE GOOD >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, LET’S GO TO A FOURTH EPISODE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. IN THE FORM OF WITNESS TAMPERING, WHICH IS URGING WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, EITHER BY PERSUADING THEM OR INTIMIDATING THEM. WITNESS TAMPERING IS 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? >> THAT IS CORRECT. DO YOU HAVE THE CITATION? >> PAGE 7 ON VOLUME 2. ONE OF THESE WITNESSES WAS MICHAEL COHEN. THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER WHO ULTIMATELY PLED GUILTY TO CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS. >> THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HANG IN THERE AND STAY STRONG. YOU REMEMBER THAT? >> YES, IT IS RIGHT. >> THERE WAS A SERIES OF OTHER CALLS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT AND ONE REACHED OUT TO SAY HE WAS IN MAR-A-LAGO AND THE PRESIDENT SAID, HE LOVES YOU AND HIS NAME IS REDACTED. ANOTHER FRIEND SAID THE BOSS LOVES YOU AND THE THIRD REDACTED FRIEND SAID EVERYONE KNOWS THE BOSS HAS YOUR BACK. DO YOU REMEMBER FINDING THAT SUIT ONES? >> GENERALLY, YES. >> WHEN THE NEWS — AND IN FACT — MICHAEL COHEN SAID FOLLOWING THE RECEIPT OF THESE QUESTIONS, HE BELIEVED HE HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE WHITE HOUSE IF HE CONTINUED TO TOE THE PARTY LINE AND HE DETERMINED TO STAY ON MESSAGE AND BE PART OF THE TEAM. THAT IS PAGE 147. YOU REMEMBER THAT? >> GENERALLY, YES. >> ROBERT COSTELLO, A LAWYER CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM EMAILED COHEN TO SAY, QUOTE, YOU ARE LOVED, THEY ARE IN OUR CORNER, SLEEP WELL TONIGHT AND YOU HAVE FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES. THAT IS ON THE SCREEN, PAGE 147. DO REMEMBER THAT? >> YES. >> WHEN THE NEWS FIRST BROKE THAT COHEN HAD ARRANGED PAYOFFS TO STORMY DANIELS, COHEN FAITHFULLY STUCK TO THE PARTY LINE AND SAID PUBLICLY THAT NEITHER TRUMP NOR THE PARTY WERE PART OF THE TRANSACTION AND NEITHER REIMBURSED HIM. TRUMPS 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 C CLIENT THANKING COHEN? >> I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT. >> OKAY. THE ASSUMPTION WOULD SUGGEST VERY STRONGLY IT’S PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT. >> OKAY. COHEN LATER BROKE AND PLED GUILTY TO CAMPAIGN-FINANCE ALLEGATIONS AND SAID THEY WERE MADE AT THE DIRECTION OF CANDIDATE TRUMP AIDE DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? >> YES. >> AFTER COHEN’S GUILTY PLEA, THE PRESIDENT SUDDENLY CHANGED HIS TUNE TOWARD MR. COHEN, DIDN’T HE? >> I WOULD SAY I RELY ON WHAT’S IN THE REPORT. >> HE MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT COHEN FAMILY MEMBERS COMMITTED CRIMES, TARGETING COHEN’S FATHER-IN-LAW AND REPEATEDLY SUGGESTED HE WAS GUILTY OF COMMITTING CRIMES. >> GENERALLY ACCURATE. >> OKAY. ON PAGE 154, YOU GIVE A POWERFUL SUMMARY OF THE CHANGING DYNAMICS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ IT? >> I WOULD. >> CAN YOU READ IT OUT LOUD TO EVERYBODY? >> I’D BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU READ IT OUT. >> THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS COULD SUPPORT AN INFERENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT USED INDUCEMENTS IN THE FORM OF POSITIVE MESSAGES IN AN EFFORT TO GET COHEN NOT TO COOPERATE AND THEN TURNED TO ATTACKS AND INTIMIDATION TO DETER THE PROVISIN OF INFORMATION OR TO UNDERMINE COHEN’S CREDIBILITY, ONCE COHEN BEGAN COOPERATING. >> I BELIEVE THAT’S ACCURATE. >> IN MY VIEW, IF ANYONE ELSE IN AMERICA ENGAGED IN THESE ACTIONS, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH WITNESS TAMPERING AND WE MUST ENFORCE A PRINCIPAL IN CONGRESS THAT YOU EMPHASIZED, WHICH IS THAT IN AMERICA, NO PERSON IS SO HIGH AS TO BE ABOVE THE LAW. I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. RECENTLY, MR. MUELLER, YOU SAID THAT MR. LIEU WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS AND MR. LIEU’S QUESTIONS, THE REASON YOU DIDN’T INDICT THE PRESIDENT IS BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION AND YOU ANSWERED, THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID IN THE REPORT AND IT’S NOT WHAT YOU TOLD ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR. IN FACT, IN A JOINT STATEMENT THAT YOU RELEASED WITH DOJ ON MAY 29, AFTER YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE, YOUR OFFICE ISSUED A JOINT STATEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT SAID, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT SAYING THAT BUT FOR THE OLC OPINION HE WOULD HAVE FOUND THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 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. MR. MUELLER, DO YOU STAND BY YOUR JOINT STATEMENT WITH DOJ THAT YOU ISSUED MAY 29, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY? >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK MORE CLOSELY BEFORE I SAID I AGREE WITH IT. >> WELL, SO, YOU KNOW, MY CONCLUSION IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE TOLD MR.LIEU REALLY CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU SAID IN THE REPORT AND SPECIFICALLY, WHAT YOU SAID, APPARENTLY REPEATEDLY TO ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR, AND THEN ISSUED A JOINT STATEMENT ON MAY 29TH SAYING THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IT PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT SAYING BUT FOR THE OLC REPORT WE WOULD HAVE FOUND THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. I SAY THERE IS A CONFLICT AND I 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? >> WAS I WHAT? >> WHERE YOU EVER FIRED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, MR. MUELLER? >> NOT THAT I KNOW OF. >> WERE YOU ALLOWED TO COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION UNENCUMBERED? >> YES. >> IN FACT, YOU RESIGNED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL WHEN YOU CLOSED UP THE OFFICE IN LATE MAY 2019, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. MR. MUELLER, ON APRIL 18, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF YOUR REPORT. DID ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR SAY ANYTHING INACCURATE, EITHER IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE OR HIS MARCH 24TH LETTER TO CONGRESS, SUMMARIZING THE PRINCIPLES AND CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT? >> WELL, WHAT YOU ARE NOT MENTIONING IS THE LETTER WE SENT ON MARCH 27TH. IT WAS TO MR. BARR AND RAISED SOME ISSUES. THAT LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. >> BUT, I DON’T SEE HOW YOU — HOW THAT COULD BE, SINCE A.G. BARR’S D TILL THE PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT AND YOU HAVE SAID BEFORE THAT THERE WASN’T ANYTHING INACCURATE. IN FACT, YOU HAD A JOINT STATEMENT. BUT, LET ME GO TO A ANOTHER QUESTION. MR. MUELLER, RATHER THAN PURELY RELYING ON THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, I THINK HE RELIED A LOT ON MEDIA AND I LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY TIMES YOU CITED THE WASHINGTON POST IN YOUR REPORT. >> HOW MANY TIMES I WHAT? >> CITED THE WASHINGTON POST IN YOUR REPORT. >> I DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT FIGURE. I DON’T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT FIGURE. >> I COUNTED ABOUT $60 TIMES BUT HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU CITE THE NEW YORK TIMES? >> AGAIN, I HAVE NO IDEA. >> I COUNTED ABOUT $75 TIMES AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU CITE FOX NEWS? >> AS WITH THE OTHER TWO, I HAVE NO IDEA. >> ABOUT $25 TIMES. I’VE GOT TO SAY IT LOOKS LIKE VOLUME TWO IS MOSTLY REGURGITATED PRESS STORIES. HONESTLY, THERE’S ALMOST NOTHING IN VOLUME TWO THAT I COULDN’T HEAR OR KNOW SIMPLY BY HAVING A $50 CABLE NEWS SUBSCRIPTION. HOWEVER, YOUR NEWS INVESTIGATION COSTS THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS $25 MILLION. MR. MUELLER, YOU CITED MEDIA REPORTS NEARLY 200 TIMES IN YOUR REPORT AND IN A FOOTNOTE, A SMALL FOOTNOTE, NUMBER SEVEN, PAGE $15 OF VOLUME TWO OF YOUR REPORT, YOU WROTE, THIS SECTION SUMMARIZES AND CITES VARIOUS NEWS STORIES NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE STORIES, BUT RATHER, TO PLACE CANDIDATE TRUMPS RESPONSE TO THOSE STORIES IN CONTEXT. SINCE NOBODY BUT LAWYERS READS FOOTNOTS, ARE YOU CONCERNED THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TOOK THE EMBEDDED NEWS STORIES — >> WHAT TIME IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLELADY FROM WASHINGTON? >> CAN MR. MUELLER ANSWER THE QUESTION? >> NO. WE ARE RUNNING SHORT ON TIME. THE GENTLELADY FROM WASHINGTON. >> THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER, LET’S TURN TO THE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES IN YOUR REPORT AND THAT IS THE EVIDENCE OF WHETHER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ENGAGED IN WITNESS TAMPERING WITH TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT, WHOSE FOREIGN TIES WERE CRITICAL TO YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIA’S INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. THIS STARTS AT VOLUME TWO, PAGE 123. YOUR OFFICE GOT INDICTMENTS AGAINST MANAFORT AND TRUMP DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER, RICK GATES AND TWO DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> YOUR OFFICE FOUND THAT AFTER A GRAND JURY INDICTED THEM, MANAFORT TOLD GATES NOT TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ANY CHARGES BECAUSE, QUOTE, HE HAD TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL COUNSEL AND THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF US. IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT’S ACCURATE. >> ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, ONE TO AFTER MANAFORT’S CONVICTION ON EIGHT 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. >> IN THIS CONTEXT, DIRECTOR MULDER, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FLIP? >> HAVE SOMEBODY COOPERATE IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. >> HOW ESSENTIAL IS THAT COOPERATION TO ANY EFFORTS TO COMBAT CRIME? >> I’M NOT GOING BEYOND THAT. >> THANK YOU. IT IN YOUR REPORT, YOU CONCLUDED THAT PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS PERSONAL COUNSEL, RUDY GIULIANI, MADE REPEATED STATEMENTS SUGGESTING THAT A PARDON WAS A POSSIBILITY FOR MANAFORT AND MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT WANT MANAFORT TO FLIP AND COOPERATE WITH THE GOVERNMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WITNESS TAMPERING, AS YOU SAID EARLIER, SOMEONE WITH AN IMPROPER MOTIVE ENCOURAGES ANOTHER NOT TO COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> ON PAGE 123 OF VOLUME TWO, YOU DISCUSS THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVES AND YOU SAID AS COURT PROCEEDINGS MOVED FORWARD AGAINST MANAFORT, PRESIDENT TRUMP, QUOTE, DISCUSSED WITH AIDES WEATHER AND IN WHAT WAY MANAFORT MIGHT BE COOPERATING AND WHETHER MANAFORT KNEW ANY INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT WAS A QUOTE — >> FROM PAGE 123, VOLUME TWO. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE IT. >> WHEN SOMEONE STOPS WORK IN WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WILL BE SAID, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THIS IS A CLASSIC DEFINITION OF WITNESS TAMPERING. MR. MANAFORT DID DECIDE TO COOPERATE WITH YOUR OFFICE AND ENTERED INTO A PLEA AGREEMENT BUT THEN BROKE THAT AGREEMENT. CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT HE DID THAT CAUSED YOU TO TELL THE COURT THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS OFF? >> I REFER YOU TO THE COURT PROCEEDINGS ON THAT ISSUE. >> ON PAGE 127 VOLUME TWO, YOU TOLD THE COURT THAT MR. MANAFORT LIED ABOUT THINGS MATERIAL TO THE INVESTIGATION AND YOU SAID THAT THE LAWYERS ALSO QUOTE, DISCUSS THE INFORMATION MANAFORT PROVIDED IN INTERVIEWS WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE. >> THE SOURCE OF THAT IS? >> PAGE 127 VOLUME TWO. >> YES, I SUPPORT IT. >> TWO DAYS LATER YOU SAID THAT HE BROKE THE PLEA AGREEMENT BY LYING REPEATEDLY. DID PRESIDENT TRUMP TELL THE COURT THAT MANAFORT WAS BRAVE BECAUSE HE DID NOT FLIP? PAGE 128, VOLUME TWO. >> IF IT’S IN THE REPORT, I SUPPORT IT, AS IT IS SET FORTH. >> IN YOUR REPORT YOU MAKE A SERIOUS CONCLUSION ABOUT THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PRESIDENT’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE MANAFORT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND LET ME READ FROM YOUR REPORT. EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT TOWARD MANAFORT INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE MANAFORT TO NOT COOPERATE WITH THE GOVERNMENT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT BOTH PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY DISCOURAGE MR. MANAFORT’S COOPERATION OR FLIPPING WHILE ALSO DANGLING THE PROMISE OF A PARDON IF HE STAYED LOYAL AND DID NOT SURE WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. ANYONE ELSE WHO DID THESE THINGS WOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR THEM AND WE MUST ENSURE THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, DIRECTOR MUELLER. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE NOW EXPIRED INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE, IN WHICH KEN STARR WAS APPOINTED? >> THAT KEN STARR DID WHAT? >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE? >> THE ONE WE OPERATE UNDER NOW OR PREVIOUS? >> UNDER WHICH KEN STARR WAS APPOINTED. >> I’M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH IT BUT WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR QUESTION. >> THE STATUTE WAS ALLOWED 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 A.G., JANET RENO EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT. AND I WILL QUOTE A.G. JANET RENO. I ONE HAND, SHE SAID THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE AN INTEREST IN KNOWING THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION OF THE HIGHEST OFFICIALS BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REQUIREMENT CUTS AGAINST MANY OF THE MOST BASIC TRADITIONS AND PRACTICES OF AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT. UNDER OUR SYSTEM, WE PRESUME INNOCENCE AND VALUE PRIVACY. WE BELIEVE THAT INFORMATION OBTAINED DURING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION SHOULD, IN MOST CASES, BE MADE PUBLIC ONLY IF THERE IS AN INDICTMENT AND PROSECUTION, NOT ANY LENGTHY AND DETAILED REPORT FOUND AFTER A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE NOT TO PROSECUTE. THE FINAL REPORT PROVIDES A FORUM FOR AIRING DIRTY LAUNDRY UNFAIRLY AND CREATES AN INCENTIVE FOR INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO OVER INVESTIGATE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY HIS OR HER TENURE AND TO AVOID CRITICISM THAT THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL MAY HAVE LEFT A STONE UNTURNED. THOSE ARE A.G. RENO’S WORDS AND DIDN’T YOU DO EXACTLY WHAT A.G. RENO FEARED, UNFAIRLY AIRING THE TARGET’S DIRTY LAUNDRY WITHOUT RECOMMENDING CHARGES? >> I DISAGREE WITH THAT. >> DID ANY WITNESSES HAVE A CHANCE TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED? >> CAN ANSWER THAT. OPERATE UNDER THE CURRENT STATUTE. I’M MOST FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENT STATUTE, NOT THE OLDER STATUTE. >> DID ANY WITNESSES HAVE A CHANCE TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED? IN THE INVESTIGATION? >> YES. >> I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT. >> DID YOU ALLOW THE PEOPLE MENTIONED TO CHALLENGE HOW THEY WERE CHARACTERIZED? >> I’M NOT GETTING INTO THAT. >> Reporter: GIVEN THAT A.G. BARR STATED MULTIPLE TIMES THAT HE WOULD MAKE AS MUCH OF THE REPORT PUBLIC AS POSSIBLE, DID YOU WRITE THE REPORT KNOWING IT WOULD LIKELY BE SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC? >> NO. >> DID KNOWING THE REPORT GOOD AND LIKELY WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC, DID THAT ALTER THE CONTENT YOU INCLUDED? >> I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT. >> DESPITE THE ACCUSATIONS, YOU LEFT OUT SIGNIFICANT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT? >> I ACTUALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. WE STROVE TO PUT INTO THE REPORT — >> I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT WITH YOU. YOU SAID THERE WAS EVIDENCE YOU LEFT OUT? >> WELL, YOU MAKE A CHOICE AS TO WHAT GOES INTO AN INDICTMENT. >> ISN’T IT TRUE THAT ON PAGE ONE OF VOLUME TWO, YOU STATED WHEN YOU ARE QUOTING THE STATUTE THAT YOU HAD AN OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE OR NOT PROSECUTE? >> GENERALLY, THAT IS THE CASE ALTHOUGH MOST CASES ARE NOT DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESIDENT. >> IN THIS CASE, YOU MADE A DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE, CORRECT? >> WE MADE A DECISION NOT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO PROSECUTE OR NOT. >> ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THE REPORT DID WAS EVERYTHING THAT A.G. RENO WARNED AGAINST? >> I CAN’T AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. >> WHAT YOU DID IS COMPILED AND NEARLY 450 PAGE REPORT OF THE WORST INFORMATION YOU GATHERED AGAINST THE TARGET OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PAID YOU DID THIS KNOWING YOU WOULD NOT RECOMMEND CHARGES AND THAT THE REPORT WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC. >> NOT TRUE. >> MR. MUELLER, AS A FORMER OFFICER IN THE COURT, I PROSECUTED NEARLY 100 TERRORISTS AND EXAMINED THE BUTCHER OF FALLUJAH IN DEFENSE OF OUR NAVY SEALs AND AS A CIVILIAN, I WAS ELECTED A JUDGE IN PENNSYLVANIA AND I’M VERY WELL-VERSED IN THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM. THE DRAFTING AND PUBLICATION OF SOME OF THIS INFORMATION IN THE REPORT WITHOUT AN INDICTMENT, WITHOUT PROSECUTION, FRANKLY, FLIES IN THE FACE OF AMERICAN JUSTICE AND I FIND THOSE FACTS AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS UN- AMERICAN. I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO MY COLLEAGUE, JIM JORDAN. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOUR SPECIAL COUNSEL ROLE, WHAT DID IT PLAY IN THE THIRD RENEWAL WITH CARTER PAGE? >> I’M NOT GOING TO TALK TO THAT. >> THE LADY FROM FLORIDA. >> A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE HERE AND WE WANTED TO TALK OR ASK ABOUT LIES. ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, PAGE NINE, VOLUME ONE, WITNESSES LIED TO YOUR OFFICE AND TO CONGRESS AND THOSE LIES MATERIALLY IMPAIR THE INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIA INTERFERENCE ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT. OTHER THAN THE INDIVIDUALS THAT PLED GUILTY TO CRIMES BASED ON LYING, DID OTHER WITNESSES LIE TO YOU? >> PROBABLY A SPECTER OF WITNESSES, IN TERMS OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT TELLING THE FULL TRUTH AND THOSE ARE OUTRIGHT LIARS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OUTRIGHT LIARS. IT’S FAIR TO SAY THERE WERE LIMITS ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO YOUR INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIA INTERFERENCE AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> THAT IS TRUE AND USUALLYTHE CASE. >> LIES BY TRUMP OFFICIALS IMPEDED YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> I WOULD GENERALLY AGREE WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, DIRECTOR MUELLER. YOU WILL HEAR MORE FROM ME AND I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR.KOREA. THANK YOU. >> MR. MUELLER, LET ME WELCOME YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. YOU ARE A HERO, A VIETNAM WAR THAT, A WOUNDED WAR VET AND WE DON’T FORGET YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. BECAUSE OF TIME LIMITS, WE HAVE GONE INTO DEPTH ON ONLY FIVE POSSIBLE EPISODES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND I WANT TO FOCUS ON THIS, THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT CONCERNING MICHAEL FLYNN, THE PRESIDENT’S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE PRESIDENT WERE INFORMED THAT MR. FLYNN HAD LIED TO GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES BUT HIS COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR DURING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND TRANSITION. IT IS THIS CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> OF HOSTILE NATION KNOWS A U.S. OFFICIAL LIED PUBLICLY, IT CAN BE USED TO BLACKMAIL THAT OFFICIAL, CORRECT? >> I WON’T SPEAK TO THAT AND I DON’T DISAGREE WITH THAT, NECESSARILY BUT I WON’T SPEAK ANYMORE TO THAT ISSUE. >> FLYNN RESIGNED ON FEBRUARY 13, 2016 AND THE NEXT DAY WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAD LUNCH WITH NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR, CHRIS CHRISTIE, DID THE PRESIDENT SAY “-LEFT-DOUBLE-QUOTE, NOW THAT WE FIRED FLYNN, THE RUSSIA THING IS OVER, “-RIGHT-DOUBLE-QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> DID CHRISTIE RESPOND BY SAYING NO WAY AND THIS RUSSIA THING IS FAR FROM OVER? >> THAT’S THE WAY WE HAVE IT IN THE REPORT. >> THANK YOU. AND AFTER THE PRESIDENT MET WITH CHRISTIE, LATER THAT SAME DAY, THE PRESIDENT MET WITH JAMES COMEY ALONE IN THE OVAL OFFICE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT, PARTICULARLY IF YOU HAVE THE CITATION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM, 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, PAGE $40, VOLUME TWO? >> ACCURATE. >> WHAT DID COMEY UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT TO BE ASKING? >> I’M NOT GETTING INTO WHAT WAS IN MR. COMEY’S MIND. >> HE UNDERSTOOD THIS TO BE A DIRECTION BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDITION AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ONE-TO-ONE MEETING, PAGE $40, VOLUME TWO? >> 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 JAMES COMEY TO DROP THE INVESTIGATION, YOU FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CORROBORATING JAMES COMEY’S ACCOUNT OVER THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> THE PRESIDENT FIRED JAMES COMEY ON MAY 9. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE ACCURATE DATE. >> PAGE $77, VOLUME TWO. YOU FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE CATALYST FOR THE PRESIDENT’S FIRING OF COMEY WAS COMEY’S ” UNWILLINGNESS TO PUBLICLY STATE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT PERSONALLY UNDER INVESTIGATION? >> I WON’T DELVE INTO THE DETAILS. IF IT’S IN THE REPORT, I’M SUPPORTIVE BECAUSE IT’S ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED AND APPEARS IN THE REPORT. >> PAGE $75, VOLUME TWO. >> IN FACT, THE VERY NEXT DAY, THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER “I JUST FIRED THE HEAD OF THE FBI. HE WAS CRAZY, A REAL NUT JOB AND I FACED GREAT PRESSURE BECAUSE OF RUSSIA ” IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE REPORT. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA. >> THANK YOMR. CHRMAN AND WE’VE HED A LOT ABOUT WHAT R.M YOU WON’T TALK ABOUT SO LET’S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT, THE LAW ITSELF, THE UNDERLYING STATUTE AND YOUR CREATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTES AND VOLUME TWO, PARTICULARLY, THE INTERPRETATION OF 18 USC, $12 C, STATUTE CREATED AS PART OF AUDITING FINANCIAL REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC COMPANIES AND AS YOU WRITE ON PAGE 164 OF VOLUME TWO, THIS PROVISION WAS ADDED IN THE SENATE AND EXPLAINED AS CLOSING A CERTAIN LOOPHOLE WITH RESPECT TO DOCUMENT SHREDDING AND TO READ THE STATUTE, WHOEVER DESTROYS OR MUTILATES A RECORD OR DOCUMENT OR ATTEMPTS TO DO SO WITH THE INTENT TO IMPAIR THE OBJECT’S INTEGRITY OR AVAILABILITY FOR USE IN OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR OTHERWISE OBSTRUCTS, INFLUENCES OR IMPEDES ANY OFFICIAL PROCEEDING SHALL BE FINED UNDER THIS STATUTE OR IN PRISON. YOUR ANALYSIS PROPOSES TO GIVE CLAUSE 2 OF MUCH MORE COMMON INTERPRETATION. IT READS IN ISOLATION AS A FREESTANDING PROVISION PROHIBITING THE ACT IF DONE WITH AN IMPROPER MOTIVE AND YOUR ANALYSIS TO APPLY THIS FOR SWEEPING PROHIBITION FOR LAWFUL ACTS TAKEN BY OFFICIALS EXERCISING DISCRETIONARY POWERS IF THOSE ACTS INFLUENCE A PROCEEDING. I WOULD ASK YOU, IN ANALYZING THE OBSTRUCTION, YOU STATE THAT YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE COURTS HAVE NOT DEFINITIVELY RESOLVE THESE ISSUES, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> YOU’D AGREE THAT NOT EVERYONE IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AGREED WITH YOUR LEGAL THEORY OF THE STATUTE OF JUSTICE, CORRECT? >> I’M NOT GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION ON THAT AT THIS JUNCTURE. >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DISAGREES WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW? >> I WILL LEAVE THAT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO IDENTIFY. >> PROSECUTORS SOMETIMES AND CORRECTLY APPLY THE LAW? >> I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT ONE. >> MEMBERS OF YOUR LEGAL TEAM HAVE HAD THINGS OVERTURNED? >> I DON’T KNOW ABOUT TRYING CASES, NOT EVERYONE OF THOSE CASES. >> ONE OF THE TOP PROSECUTORS, ANDREW WEISSMAN, OBTAINED A CONVICTION AGAINST ARTHUR ANDERSEN AND A LOWER COURT THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED IN A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT DECISION. CORRECT? >> I’M NOT GOING TO DELVE INTO THAT. >> LET ME READ FROM THAT. >> MAY I FINISH MY ANSWER. I’M NOT GOING TO BE GETTING INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION ON THAT BUT I WILL REFER YOU TO THAT CITATION THAT YOU GAVE ME AT THE OUTSET FOR THE LENGTHY DISCUSSION ON JUST WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND TO THE EXTENT THAT I HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT, IT IS ALREADY PUT INTO THE REPORT. >> I AM READING FROM YOUR REPORT WHEN DISCUSSING THIS SECTION AND I WILL READ FROM THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY REVERSING MR. WISEMAN. HE SAID IT’S STRIKING HOW LITTLE CULPABILITY OF THE INSTRUCTION REQUIRES. THE JURY WAS TOLD THAT A PETITIONER HONESTLY BELIEVED IT WAS LAWFUL AND THEY COULD CONVICT AND IT DILUTED THE MEANING OF CORRUPT SO IT COVERED INNOCENT CONDUCT. >> LET ME JUST SAY — >> I HAVE LIMITED TIME. YOUR READING IS THE BROADEST PART OF THE INVASION AND I’M CONCERNED ABOUT OVER CRIMINALIZING CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND TO EMPHASIZE HOW BROAD YOUR LIABILITY IS, ON OCTOBER 11, 2015 DURING FBI INVESTIGATION INTO HILLARY CLINTON’S USE OF A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER, PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID I DON’T THINK IT POSED AND NATIONAL SECURITY PROBLEM AND SAID I CAN TELL YOU IT’S NOT A SITUATION IN WHICH SECURITY WAS ENDANGERED. ASSUMING HIS COMMENTS INFLUENCED THE INVESTIGATION, COULDN’T PRESIDENT OBAMA BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> AGAIN, I REFER YOU TO THE REPORT BUT LET ME SAY WITH ANDREW WEISSMAN, HE’S ONE OF THE MORE TALENTED ATTORNEYS WE HAVE ON BOARD. >> I WILL TAKE THAT — >> OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, HE’S RUN A NUMBER OF UNITS. >> I HAVE LIMITED TIME. IN AUGUST 2015, SENIOR D.O.J. OFFICIAL CALLED ANDREW MCCABE TO EXPRESS CONCERN THAT FBI AGENTS WERE OPENLY CUT PURSUING THE CLINTON FOUNDATION PROBE AND THE D.O.J. OFFICIAL WAS APPARENTLY VERY MAD. ARE YOU TELLING ME I NEED TO SHUT DOWN AN INVESTIGATION AND THE OFFICIAL REPLIED, OF COURSE NOT. THIS SEEMS TO BE A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE AN FBI INVESTIGATION. COULDN’T THAT PERSON BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION AS LONG AS A PROSECUTOR COULD COME UP WITH A POTENTIALLY CORRUPT MOTIVE? >> I REFER YOU TO THE LENGTHY DISSERTATION THAT APPEARS AT THE END OF THE REPORT. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS EXPIRED AND OUR INTENT WAS TO CONCLUDE THE HEARING IN THREE HOURS AND GIVEN THE BREAK, THAT WOULD BRING US TO APPROXIMATELY 11:40. WITH DIRECTOR MUELLER’S INDULGENCE, WE ASKED THE REMAINING DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS TO VOLUNTARILY LIMIT THEIR TIME BELOW FIVE MINUTES SO WE COME IN COMPLETE OUR WORK TO AS CLOSE TO THAT TIME FRAME AS POSSIBLE AND I RECOGNIZE A GENTLE LADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER. I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS REGARDING ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THE WIKILEAKS DUMPS. THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO SIT DOWN FOR AN IN-PERSON INTERVIEW, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THE ONLY ANSWERS WE HAVE ARE CONTAINED IN APPENDIX C TO THE REPORT. >> CORRECT. >> LOOKING AT APPENDIX C ON PAGE FIVE, YOU ASKED THE PRESIDENT OVER A DOZEN QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT WIKILEAKS POSSESSED OR MIGHT POSSESS THE EMAIL STOLEN BY THE RUSSIANS. >> I APOLOGIZE. CAN YOU START AGAIN? >> WHERE LOOKING AT APPENDIX C AND PAGE FIVE, YOU ASKED THE PRESIDENT ABOUT A DOZEN QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT WIKILEAKS POSSESSED THE STOLEN EMAILS THAT MIGHT BE RELEASED IN A WAY HELPFUL TO HIS CAMPAIGN OR HARMFUL TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, MR. TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, MICHAEL COHEN, TESTIFIED TO CONGRESS UNDER OATH “MR. TRUMP KNEW FROM ROGER STONE IN ADVANCE ABOUT THE WIKILEAKS EMAILS” AND THAT’S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD, ISN’T IT? >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE REPORT? >> IT WAS TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS BY MR. COHEN. >> I’M NOT FAMILIAR. I’M T FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO BEFORE CONGRESS. >> OKAY. LET’S LOOK AT AN EVENT DESCRIBED ON PAGE $18 OF VOLUME TWO OF YOUR REPORT. WE WILL PUT IT IN THE SLIDE, I THINK. ACCORDING TO DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER, RICK GATES, IN THE TRUMPER ON THE WAY TO AN NDAT AIRPORT SHORTLY AFTER WIKILEAKS REVERSED THE SET OF STOLEN EMAILS AND GATES TOLD YOUR INVESTIGATORS THAT CANDIDATE TRUMP WAS ON A PHONE CALL AND WHEN THE CALL AND IT, TRUMP TOLD GATES THAT MORE RELEASES OF DAMAGING INFORMATION WOULD BE COMING. DO YOU RECALL THAT FROM THE REPORT? >> IF IT’S IN THE REPORT, I SUPPORT IT. >> IT’S ON PAGE EIGHT. >> ON PAGE $77, YOUR REPORT STATED THAT IN ADDITION, SOME WITNESSES SAID THAT TRUMP PRIVATELY SOUGHT INFORMATION ABOUT WIKILEAKS RELEASES, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> IN APPENDIX C WHERE THERE WERE WRITTEN QUESTIONS, HE SAID, QUOTE, I DO NOT RECALL DISCUSSING WIKILEAKS WITH HIM OR DISCUSSING WITH INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAMPAIGN. IS THAT CORRECT? >> IF IT’S FROM THE REPORT, IT IS CORRECT. >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT DID NOT DISCUSSING WIKILEAKS WITH MR. STONE AND DENIED BEING AWARE THAT ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN DISCUSSED WIKILEAKS WITH STONE? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? >> IS IT FAIR THAT THE PRESIDENT DENIED AT KNOWLEDGE OF HIMSELF OR ANYONE ELSE DISCUSSING WIKILEAKS DUMPS WITH MR.STONE? >> YES. >> WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. >> MR. MUELLER? >> OVER HERE. >> DID YOU INTERVIEW FOR THE FBI DIRECTOR JOB ONE DAY BEFORE BEING APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL? >> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS 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 ARE TALKING ABOUT. >> YOU DON’T RECALL MAY 1627 NEAT THAT YOU INTERVIEWED WITH THE PRESIDENT REGARDING THE FBI DIRECTOR JOB? >> I INTERVIEWED WITH THE PRESIDENT AND IT WAS ABOUT THE JOB BUT NOT ABOUT ME APPLYING FOR THE JOB. >> YOUR STATEMENT TODAY IS THAT YOU DIDN’T INTERVIEW TO APPLY FOR THE FBI DIRECTOR JOB? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> DID YOU TELL THE VICE PRESIDENT THAT IT WOULD BE THE ONE JOB YOU WOULD COME BACK FOR? >> I DON’T RECALL THAT ONE. >> YOU DON’T RECALL THAT? >> NO. >> GIVEN YOUR $22 MONTHS OF INVESTIGATION AND MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED, DID YOU OBTAIN EVIDENCE THAT ANY AMERICAN VOTER CHANGE THEIR VOTE AS A RESULT OF THE ELECTION INTERFERENCE? >> I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. >> YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT AFTER $22 MONTHS OF INVESTIGATION, NO DOCUMENTATION THAT DEVOTE OR CHANGE THEIR VOTE BECAUSE OF THE INTERFERENCE? >> THAT WAS OUTSIDE OUR PURVIEW. >> RUSSIAN MEDDLING WAS OUTSIDE VIEW YOUR PURVIEW? >> THE IMPACT OF THE MEDDLING WAS UNDERTAKEN BY OTHER AGENCIES. >> YOU STATED IN THE OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU WOULD NOT GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THE STEELE DOSSIER BUT IN MULTIPLE VOLUMES, 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 IN YOUR REPORT MULTIPLE TIMES AND YOU’RE TELLING ME THAT YOU CAN’T TELL ME HOW YOU CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS NOT VERIFIED? >> TRUE. >> WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE THAT IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE FISA APPLICATION. >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >> WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE THAT THE UNVERIFIED STEELE DOSSIER WAS INCLUDED IN THE FISA APPLICATION FILED ON CARTER PAGE? >> I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. >> YOUR TEAM INTERVIEWED CHRISTOPHER STEELE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I’M NOT GETTING INTO THAT. >> YOU CAN’T TELL THIS COMMITTEE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU INTERVIEWED CHRISTOPHER STEELE IN A $22 MONTH INVESTIGATION WITH $18 LAWYERS? >> AS I SAID AT THE OUTSET, THAT’S ONE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT IS BEING HANDLED BY OTHERS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >> YOU’RE TESTIFYING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION AND I’M ASKING YOU IF ANY MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM OR DID YOU INTERVIEW CHRISTOPHER STEELE? >> I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, SIR. >> YOU HAD TWO YEARS TO INVESTIGATE AND NOT ONCE DID YOU CONSIDER IT WORTHY WITH THIS PAID FOR BY A POLITICAL OPPONENT AND USED TO OBTAIN A WARRANT TO SPY ON THE OPPOSITION POLITICAL CAMPAIGN AND DID YOU DO ANY INVESTIGATION? >> I DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT OCCURRED AND I WON’T SPEAK MORE TO IT. >> YOU WANT SPEAK MORE TO IT AND DON’T AGREE WITH MY CHARACTERIZATION? IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> THE FISA APPLICATION MAKES THIS WITH CHRISTOPHER STEELE, THE AUTHOR OF THIS DEAL DOSSIER AND THE FISA APPLICATION SAID THAT FOR THE TIES TO RUSSIA, BASED ON PREVIOUS REPORTING HISTORY WITH THE FBI, RELIABLE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED WHERE THE FBI BELIEVES THAT IT WOULD BE COMING THROUGH THAT IT WAS CREDIBLE TO BE ACCURATE. >> YOU WON’T RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS? >> AS I SAID, THAT WAS SOMETHING I CAN SPEAK TO. >> ON THE PURVIEW OF FOR THE INVESTIGATION, YOU CAN CLOSE THE INVESTIGATION AND IS NOT WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TO TELL US ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION AND WHO YOU INTERVIEWED? >> I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. >> I CAN GUARANTEE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW AND A VERY HOPEFUL AND GLAD THAT A.G. BARR IS LOOKING INTO THIS AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS LOOKING INTO THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE UNWILLING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS IT RELATES TO THE BASIS OF THIS INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND THE BASIS OF THE INDIVIDUAL YOU DID INTERVIEW BUT YOU ARE REFUSING TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. CAN’T THE PRESIDENT FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR AT ANY TIME WITHOUT REASON UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION? ARTICLE 2? >> YES PRINT >> AND HE FIRE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR ANY REASON? >> I BELIEVE THAT COULD BE THE CASE. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. YOU SAID WITHOUT ANY REASON? I KNOW THIS SPECIAL COUNSEL CAN REFERRED BUT I’M NOT CERTAIN TO THE EXTENT FOR WHATEVER REASON IS GIVEN. >> YOU TESTIFIED YOU WEREN’T FIRED AND YOU WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION IN FULL. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I’M NOT GOING TO ADD TO WHAT I STATED BEFORE. >> MY TIME IS EXPIRED. >> THE GENTLELADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA. >> FROM TEXAS? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER, FOR BEING WITH US. IT’S CLOSE TO THE AFTERNOON, NOW. FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, UNDERSTANDING THERE IS A GAG ORDER ON THE STONE CASE. I WILL KEEP MY QUESTIONS TO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION. >> I SAID THIS AT THE OUTSET AND I DON’T MEAN TO DISRUPT YOU BUT I’D LIKE SOME DEMARCATION OF THAT WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THIS BUT ALSO IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT DOES NOT HINDER THE OTHER PROSECUTION TAKING PLACE IN D.C.. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT AND WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED IN WRITING TO THE PRESIDENT RELATING TO MR. STONE. MR. STONE’S INDICTMENT STATES AMONG OTHER THINGS THE FOLLOWING. STONE WAS CONTACTED BY SENIOR TRUMP OFFICIALS ABOUT FUTURE RELEASES OF ORGANIZATIONS AND THAT WOULD BE WIKILEAKS. THE INDICTMENT CONTINUES TO SAY THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS TOLD ABOUT POTENTIAL RELEASES OF DAMAGING MATERIAL BY WIKILEAKS, SO IN SHORT, THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT STONE WAS ASKED BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT MORE WIKILEAKS RELEASES AND THAT STONE, IN FACT, DID TELL THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ABOUT POTENTIAL FUTURE RELEASES, CORRECT? >> I SEE YOU ARE QUOTING FROM THE INDICTMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT’S A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE DISCUSSING ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE STONE PROSECUTION. >> WE PULLED IT OFF. >> TURNING BACK TO THE PRESIDENT’S ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, THE PRESIDENT DENIED EVER DISCUSSING FUTURE WIKILEAKS RELEASES WITH STONE AND DENIED KNOWING WHETHER ANYONE ELSE HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH STONE. IF YOU HAVE LEARNED THAT OTHER WITNESSES PUT IN A SLIGHT TO THE PRESIDENT, IF THEY HAD LIED TO THE QUESTIONS, WHETHER IN WRITING OR IN INTERVIEWS, COULD THEY BE CHARGED WITH FALSE STATEMENT CRIMES? >> I’M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE BECAUSE I THINK YOU ARE ASKING FOR ME TO SPECULATE ON A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. >> LET’S PUT IT MORE SPECIFIC. IF I HAD MADE A FALSE STATEMENT, COULD I GO TO JAIL FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS? >> YES. BUT IT’S CONGRESS — [ LAUGHTER ] >> THAT’S THE POINT, ISN’T IT? NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT YOU OR THE CONGRESS AND CERTAINLY NOT THE PRESIDENT. THAT IS WHY THE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO LEARN THE FULL FACTS DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT FOR WHICH ANY OTHER PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH CRIMES. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND THE POINT HAS BEEN UNDERSCORED MANY TIMES BUT I WILL REPEAT IT THAT 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 YOUR FIRE DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION? HOW MANY DID YOU FIRE? >> I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THAT. >> ACCORDING TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT, ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO WAS LET GO AND WE KNOW PETER STRZOK WAS LET GO. >> THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHERS ON OTHER ISSUES EITHER TRANSFERRED OR FIRED. >> PETER STRZOK TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS FIRED BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT PRESERVING THE APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE TESTIMONY? >> SAY THAT AGAIN. >> HE SAID HE WAS FIRED, AT LEAST PARTIALLY, BECAUSE YOU WERE WORRIED OR CONCERNED ABOUT PRESERVING THE APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE WITH THE INVESTIGATION. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> THE STATEMENT WAS BY WHOM? >> PETER STRZOK AT THAT HEARING. >> I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >> WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE INVESTIGATION? >> NO. HE WAS TRANSFERRED BECAUSE OF INSTANCES INVOLVING TEXT MESSAGES. >> DO YOU AGREE THAT YOUR OFFICE NOT ONLY HAD AN OBLIGATION TO OPERATE WITH INDEPENDENCE BUT WITH THE APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE? >> WE STROVE TO DO THAT OVER THE TWO YEARS AND PART IF IT WAS MAKING CERTAIN — >> ANDREW WEISSMAN IS ONE OF YOUR TOP ATTORNEYS? >> YES. >> DID YOU HAVE A ROLE IN SELECTING OTHER ATTORNEYS? >> SOME ROLE BUT NOT A MAJOR ROLE. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT HE HAD ATTENDED HILLARY CLINTON’S PARTY? >> HE WROTE AN EMAIL TO DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL YATES STATING I AM SO PROUD AND IN OUR REGARDING HER DISOBEYING A DIRECT ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT. DID WISEMAN DISCLOSE THAT A MILL BEFORE HE JOINED THE TEAM? >> I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. >> IS THAT NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? >> I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. >> ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE WAS LITIGATION REGARDING PERSONAL EMAILS ORIGINATING FROM CLINTON’S TIME AS SECRETARY OF STATE? DID YOU KNOW THAT BEFORE SHE CAME ON? >> NO. >> THE GUY SITTING NEXT TO REPRESENTED JUSTIN COOPER, A CLINTON AIDE WHO DESTROYED ONE OF CLINTON’S MOBILE DEVICES AND YOU MUST BE AWARE THAT 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, JUST THE OPPONENT WHO WAS THE TARGET OF YOUR INVESTIGATION. >> CAN I SPEAK TO THE HIRING PRACTICES? >> SURE. >> WE STROVE TO HIRE INDIVIDUALS THAT COULD DO THE JOB. >> OKAY. >> I’VE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS ALMOST $25 YEARS AND IN THOSE $25 YEARS, I’VE NOT HAD AN OCCASION TO ASK ABOUT POLITICAL AFFILIATION. IT IS NOT DONE. WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS THE CAPABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO DO THE JOB AND DO THE JOB QUICKLY AND SERIOUSLY AND WITH INTEGRITY. >> THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING. IT IS NOT JUST YOU BEING ABLE TO VOUCH FOR YOUR TEAM BUT THE DAY YOU ACCEPTED THIS ROLE, YOU HAD TO BE AWARE THAT NO MATTER WHAT THE REPORT CONCLUDED KHANNA HALF WOULD BE SKEPTICAL OF YOUR FINDINGS AND THAT’S WHY WE HAVE RECUSAL LAWS THAT DEFINE BIAS AND PERCEIVED BIAS FOR THIS REASON. SPECIFICALLY, NOT JUST POLITICAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST BUT THE APPEARANCE OF POLITICAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IT’S NOT ENOUGH THAT YOU VOUCH FOR YOUR TEAM. IT DEMANDS THAT NO PERCEIVED BIAS EXISTS AND I CAN’T IMAGINE A SINGLE PROSECUTOR OR JUDGE I’VE EVER APPEARED BEFORE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS WHERE HALF THE PROSECUTORIAL TEAM HAD A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE OPPONENT OF THE PERSON BEING INVESTIGATED. >> AND OTHER FACTORS WE’VE HIRED $19 LAWYERS OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME AND OF THEM, $14 WERE TRANSFERRED FROM ELSEWHERE IN THE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ONLY FIVE CAME FROM OUTSIDE. >> HALF DID NOT HAVE A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OPPONENT OF THE PERSON YOU ARE INVESTIGATING AND THAT’S MY POINT. IF NOT A SINGLE WORD WAS CHANGED, BUT RATHER, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS THAT WE SWITCHED HILLARY CLINTON AND PRESIDENT TRUMP, IF PETER STRZOK HAD TEXTED THOSE TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON INSTEAD OF TRUMP, HAVE A TEAM OF LAWYERS DONATED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO AND WHEN TO TRUMP PARTIES INSTEAD OF CLINTON PARTIES, I DON’T THINK WE WOULD BE HERE TRYING TO PROP UP AN OBSTRUCTION EVALUATION. MY COLLEAGUES WOULD HAVE SPENT THE LAST FOUR MONTHS ACCUSING YOUR TEAM OF BEING BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND WE COULDN’T TRUST A SINGLE WORD OF THIS REPORT. THERE WAS STILL ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT OF CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIA AND THEY WOULD ACCUSE YOUR TEAM OF AIDING AND ABETTING THAT CONSPIRACY AND WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. >>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO. >> I’D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT ONE OF THE OTHER INCIDENTS OF OBSTRUCTION AND THAT SHOWS THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED HIS SON AND HIS COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR TO ISSUE A FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENT IN JUNE 2017 ABOUT A MEETING BETWEEN HIS CAMPAIGN AND INDIVIDUALS AT TRUMP TOWER IN 2016. ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, MR. TRUMP JR. WAS THE ONLY ASSOCIATE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE MEETING AND DECLINED TO BE VOLUNTARILY INTERVIEWED BY YOUR OFFICE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> DID THEY COMMUNICATE ANY INTENT TO INVOKE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF- INCRIMINATION? >> I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT. >> YOU POST WRITTEN QUESTIONS ABOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING AND INCLUDED WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD A FALSE PRESS STATEMENT AND THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ANSWER THAT STATEMENT. >> I DON’T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME AND I TAKE YOUR WORD. >> APPENDIX C, C $13, STATES AS MUCH AND ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, IT FOUND THAT HOPE HICKS, THE PRESIDENT’S COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR, IN JUNE 2017, WAS SHOWN EMAILS THAT SENT UP THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING AND SHE TOLD THE OFFICE SHE WAS, QUOTE, SHOCKED BY THE EMAILS BECAUSE THEY LOOKED “REALLY BAD.” IS THAT TRUE? AND WHILE YOU FLIP TO THAT PAGE, I WILL TELL YOU THAT ACCORDING TO PAGE $99 OF VOLUME TWO, THE EMAILS IN QUESTION STATED, ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, THAT THE PROSECUTOR OF RUSSIA OFFERED TO PROVIDE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION INCRIMINATING HILLARY AND HER DEALINGS OF RUSSIA AS PART OF THE SUPPORT FOR MR.TRUMP AND TRUMP JR. RESPONDED, IF IT’S WHAT YOU SAY, I LOVE IT. HE, KUSHNER AND MANAFORT MET WITH THE RUSSIAN ATTORNEYS AND SEVERAL OTHER INDIVIDUALS AT TRUMP TOWER ON JUNE 9, 2016. IS IT TRUE THAT MS. 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? >> ACCURATE. >> THE REASON WAS BECAUSE OF THOSE EMAILS, WHICH THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED WOULD NOT LEAK, CORRECT? >> I’M NOT CERTAIN HOW IT’S CHARACTERIZED, BUT GENERALLY CORRECT. >> DID THE PRESIDENT DIRECT MS. HICKS TO SAY THAT TRUMP JR. TOOK A BRIEF MEETING ABOUT RUSSIA ADOPTION BECAUSE HIS STATEMENT TO THE NEW YORK TIMES SAID TOO MUCH, ACCORDING TO PAGE 102 OF VOLUME TWO? >> OKAY. >> CORRECT? >> LET ME CHECK ONE THING. YES. >> ACCORDING TO MS. HICKS, THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED HER TO SAY THE MEETING WAS ONLY ABOUT RUSSIAN ADOPTION, CORRECT? >> YES. >> DESPITE KNOWING THAT TO BE UNTRUE AND I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> MR. MUELLER, YOU’VE BEEN ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS TODAY AND TO BE FRANK, YOU PERFORMED AS MOST OF US EXPECTED AND STUCK CLOSELY TO YOUR REPORT AND DECLINED TO ANSWER MANY QUESTIONS ON BOTH SIDES. AS A CLOSER FOR THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, I WANT TO SUMMARIZE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT WE’VE HEARD AND WHAT WE KNOW. YOU’VE SPENT TWO YEARS AND NEARLY 30 MILLION TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR THE REPORT THAT YOU’VE DESCRIBED AS VERY THOROUGH. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS MAINTAIN GENUINE CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR WORK, IN LARGE PART, BECAUSE OF THE INFLUENCE AND WIDE BIAS OF YOUR TEAM MEMBERS. WE NOW KNOW IT INCLUDED $14 DEMOCRATS AND ZERO REPUBLICANS. THAT TEAM OF DEMOCRAT INVESTIGATORS YOU HIRED DONATED MORE THAN $60,000 TO THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND OTHER CANDIDATES ON YOUR TEAM INCLUDED PETER STRZOK AND LISA PAGE AND THEY ALSO HAD THE LURID TEXT MESSAGES THAT CONFIRM THEY OPENLY MOCKED AND HATED DONALD TRUMP AND HIS SUPPORTERS AND THEY VOWED TO TAKE HIM OUT. MR. RADCLIFFE ASKED YOU EARLIER, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THAT AN INVESTIGATED PERSON WAS NOT EXONERATED BECAUSE THEIR INNOCENCE WAS NOT DETERMINED AND YOU ANSWERED, I CANNOT. SIR, THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED. THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED FROM THE BEGINNING THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAD SERIOUS CONFLICTS AND THAT IS STATED IN THE REPORT AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY EVERYBODY BUT PRESIDENT TRUMP COOPERATED FULLY AND KNEW HE HAD DONE RUSHING WRONG AND ENCOURAGED ALL WITNESSES TO COOPERATE AND PRODUCE MORE THAN 1.4 MILLION PAGES OF INFORMATION AND ALLOWED OVER $40 WITNESSES AFFILIATED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE OR HIS CAMPAIGN. YOUR REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IF VOLUME OF EVIDENCE EXISTED OF THE PRESIDENT TELLING MANY PEOPLE PRIVATELY, THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION ON HIS ABILITY TO GOVERN AND TO ADDRESS IMPORTANT ISSUES OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND ON PAGE 174, VOLUME TWO, YOUR REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SUPREME COURT HELD REMOVAL POWERS AT THEIR ZENITH WITH RESPECT TO PERSONAL OFFICES. THAT IS OFFICE AS REPORTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND TO REPORT TO HIM DIRECTLY. THE POWER OF REMOVAL AND FOR THOSE OFFICERS, IT FURTHER ENSURES THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED. THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IN SPITE OF ALL OF THAT, NOTHING HAPPENED TO STOP OR IMPEDE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION. NOBODY WAS FIRED BY THE PRESIDENT. AS YOU CONCLUDED, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH WITH THE UNDERLYING CRIME. THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESIDENT OR THOSE CLOSE TO HIM WERE INVOLVED IN RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY OR HAD UNLAWFUL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ANY RUSSIAN OFFICIAL AND OVER THOSE MONTHS, IT WAS INCREASINGLY FRUSTRATED. WITH THE EFFECT ON OUR COUNTRY AND HIS ABILITY TO GOVERNMENT, HE VENTED ABOUT THIS AND SHARED HIS FRUSTRATIONS ON TWITTER. WHILE THE PRESIDENT’S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS MIGHT HAVE INFLUENCED SOME IN THE MEDIA OR SOME OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NONE OF THOSE AUDIENCES WERE TARGETS OR WITNESSES IN YOUR INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT NEVER AFFECTED ANYBODY’S TESTIMONY, NEVER DEMANDED TO END THE INVESTIGATION AND NEVER MISLED CONGRESS, THE D.O.J. OR THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. THOSE ARE UNDISPUTED FACTS AND THERE WILL BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND GREAT FRUSTRATION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU WOULDN’T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THIS WHOLE CHARADE, THE INFAMOUS CHRISTOPHER STEELE DOSSIER, NOW PROVEN TO BE TOTALLY BOGUS EVEN THOUGH IT’S LISTED AND REFERENCED IN YOUR REPORT. AS THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED, WE APPARENTLY WILL GET NO COMMENT ON THAT FROM YOU. THERE IS ONE PRIMARY REASON YOU WERE CALLED HERE TODAY BY THE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY OF OUR COMMITTEE. OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ONE POLITICAL COVER AND DESPERATELY WANTED YOU TO TELL THEM THEY SHOULD IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THE ONE THING YOU HAVE SAID VERY CLEARLY TODAY IS THAT YOUR REPORT IS COMPLETE AND THOROUGH AND YOU COMPLETELY AGREE WITH AND STAND BY THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE CONTENT. IS THAT RIGHT? >> TRUE. >> ONE LAST QUESTION. YOUR REPORT DOES NOT RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT, DOES IT? >> I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS. >> IT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE? >> I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT THAT, ABOUT THAT ISSUE. >> THAT’S ONE OF THE MANY THINGS HE WOULDN’T TALK ABOUT TODAY BUT I THINK WE CAN ALL DRAW OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND I’M GLAD YOU WERE HERE AND WE CAN GET BACK TO THE IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR THE COUNTRY. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK AND OUR INTENT WAS TO CONCLUDE THE HEARING AT AROUND 11:45 AND ALL THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS HAVE NOW ASKED THEIR QUESTIONS. WE HAVE A FEW REMAINING DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS THAT WILL LIMIT THEIR QUESTIONS. WE EXPECT TO FINISH WITHIN $15 MINUTES. THE GENTLELADY FROM GEORGIA? >> THANK YOU. YOUR INVESTIGATIONS OF THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY AND THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WERE EXTRAORDINARILY PRODUCTIVE AND UNDER TWO YEARS, YOU CHARGED AT LEAST $37 PEOPLE OR ENTITIES WITH CRIMES AND CONVICTED SEVEN INDIVIDUALS, FIVE OF WHOM WERE TOP TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR WHITEHOUSE AIDES WITH CHARGES PENDING AGAINST MORE THAN TWO DOZEN RUSSIAN PERSONS OR ENTITIES AND AGAINST OTHERS. LET ME START WITH THOSE AIDS THAT YOU CONVICTED. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THEY ARE PAUL MANAFORT, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN MANAGER, RICK GATES, DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER, MICHAEL FLYNN, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, MICHAEL COHEN, THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S FORMER CAMPAIGN FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. AND THEY WILL FACE TRIAL LATER THIS YEAR, CORRECT? AND THAT PERSON WOULD BE ROGER STONE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> I’M NOT CERTAIN WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT ROGER STONE BUT HE IS IN ANOTHER COURT SYSTEM AS I INDICATED BEFORE. >> EXACTLY. >> CORRECT. THERE ARE MANY OTHER CHARGES, AS WELL, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU IN MY LIMITED TIME FOR YOUR TEAM AND THE WORK THAT YOU DID AND YOUR DEDICATION. IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS YOUR TEAM UNCOVERED AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION RELATED TO RUSSIA’S ATTACK ON OUR ELECTIONS AND TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND THERE IS STILL MORE 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 OUR INVESTIGATION AND FOR THAT, I THANK YOU. I THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA? >> DIRECTOR MOTHER, I’M DISAPPOINTED THAT SOME HAVE QUESTIONED YOUR MOTIVES THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS AND I WANT TO TAKE ONE MOMENT TO REMIND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF WHO YOU ARE AND YOUR EXEMPLARY SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. YOU ARE A MARINE AND SERVED IN VIETNAM AND EARNED A BRONZE STAR AND PURPLE HEART, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WHICH PRESIDENT APPOINTED YOU TO BECOME THE U.S. ATTORNEY FOR MASSACHUSETTS? WHICH PRESIDENT? >> I THINK IT WAS PRESIDENT BUSH. >> 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 IN CHARGE OF THE D.O.J. CRIMINAL DIVISION? >> UNDER WHICH PRESIDENT? THAT WOULD BE GEORGE BUSH. >> THAT IS CORRECT. GEORGE H.W. BUSH. AFTER THAT, YOU TOOK A JOB AT A PRESTIGIOUS LAW FIRM AND AFTER ONLY A COUPLE OF YEARS, YOU DID SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY. YOU LEFT THAT LUCRATIVE POSITION TO REENTER PUBLIC SERVICE, PROSECUTING HOMICIDES IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WHEN YOU ARE NAMED DIRECTOR OF THE FBI, WHICH PRESIDENT APPOINTED YOU? >> BUSH. >> THE SENATE CONFIRMED YOU WITH A VOTE OF 98-0, CORRECT? >> SURPRISING. >> YOU WERE SWORN IN AS DIRECTOR ONE WEEK BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS AND HELPED PROTECT THIS NATION AGAINST ANOTHER ATTACK AND DID SUCH AN OUTSTANDING JOB THAT WHEN YOUR $10-YEAR TERM EXPIRED, THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO EXTEND YOUR TERM FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS, CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> WHEN YOU ARE ASKED IN 2017 TO TAKE THE JOB A SPECIAL COUNSEL, THE PRESIDENT HAD JUST FIRED FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FBI WERE IN TURMOIL. YOU MUST HAVE KNOWN THERE WOULD BE AN EXTRAORDINARY CHALLENGE. WHY DID YOU ACCEPT? >> I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT, IT’S OFF-TRACK.A CHALLENGE. >> SOME HAVE ATTACK THE POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS OF YOUR TEAM, EVEN SUGGESTING YOUR INVESTIGATION WAS A WITCH HUNT. WHEN YOU CONSIDER PEOPLE JOINING YOUR TEAM, DID YOU EVER ASK ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION? >> NEVER ONCE. >> AND YOUR CAREER AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, HAVE YOU BASED ON POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS? >> NO. >> IF I MIGHT INTERJECT, THE CAPABILITIES WE HAVE SHOWN IN THE REPORT THAT’S BEEN DISCUSSED HERE TODAY, IT WAS THE RESULT OF A TEAM OF AGENTS AND LAWYERS WHO WERE EXEMPLARY AND WERE HIRED BECAUSE OF THE VALUE THEY COULD CONTRIBUTE TO GETTING THE JOB DONE EXPEDITIOUSLY. >> IN READING YOUR REPORT AND LISTENING, YOU ACTED FAIRLY WITH RESTRAINT AND THERE WERE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU COULD HAVE FILED CHARGES AGAINST OTHERS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT BUT YOU DECLINED AND NOT EVERY PROSECUTOR DOES THAT AND CERTAINLY THE ATTACKS MADE AGAINST YOU INTENSIFIED BECAUSE YOUR REPORT IS DAMMING AND I BELIEVE YOU DID UNCOVER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND LET ME ALSO SAY SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU WERE RIGHT ABOUT. THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THIS SITUATION IS FOR CONGRESS TO TAKE ACTION AND I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLELADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA? >> GOOD MORNING, DIRECTOR MUELLER. NATALIE DEAN. >> GOT YOU, SORRY. >> I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT PUBLIC CONFUSION CONNECTED WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S RELEASE OF YOUR ONE REPORT. I WILL RECALL YOUR MARCH 27TH LETTER. IN THAT LETTER, AND SEVERAL OTHER TIMES, DID YOU CONVEY TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE, QUOTE, INTRODUCTIONS AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF OUR TWO VOLUME REPORT ACCURATELY SUMMARIZE THIS OFFICE’S WORK AND CONCLUSIONS? >> I’D HAVE TO SAY THAT THE LETTER, ITSELF, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. >> THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS IN THAT LETTER? CONTINUING WITH YOUR LETTER, YOU WROTE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE SUMMARY LETTER THE DEPARTMENT SENT TO CONGRESS AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC LATE IN THE AFTERNOON OF MARCH 24TH DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT, NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF THE WORK AND CONCLUSIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I WOULD RELY ON THE LETTER FOR ITS TERMS. >> THANK YOU. WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE REPORT WITH THE NATURE, THE SUBSTANCE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT CAPTURE? >> WE CAPTURED THAT IN THE MARCH 27TH RESPONSIVE LETTER. >> THIS IS FROM THE 27TH LETTER. WHAT WERE SOME SPECIFICS? >> I DIRECTED IT IN THE LETTER ITSELF. >> OKAY. YOU FINISH THAT LETTER BY SAYING THERE IS NOW PUBLIC CONFUSION ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECTS AS A RESULT OF OUR INVESTIGATION. COULD YOU TELL US SOME OF THE CONFUSION YOU IDENTIFIED? >> NOT GENERALLY. THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. >> COULD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR HAVE AVOIDED PUBLIC CONFUSION IF HE HAD RELEASED YOUR SUMMARIES AND YOUR EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES? >> I DON’T FEEL COMFORTABLE SPECULATING ON THAT. >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN AN INTERVIEW WITH CBS NEWS, SAID YOU COULD HAVE REACHED, COULD HAVE REACHED A DECISION AS TO WHETHER IT WAS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT. STAFF EVER TELL YOU THAT HE HI 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. >> OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD DIRECTED YOU OR ORDERED YOU TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, WOULD YOU HAVE SO DONE? >> I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN THE VACUUM. >> I THANK YOU FOR BEING YOU AND I AGREE WITH YOUR MARCH 27TH LETTER. THERE WAS PUBLIC CONFUSION AND THE PRESIDENT TOOK FULL ADVANTAGE 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 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, LEADING CONGRESS TO DO ITS DUTY AND WE SHALL NOT SHRINK FROM THAT DUTY AND I YIELD BACK. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A POINT OF EQUITY ON YOUR LEFT. >> WAS THE POINT OF THIS HEARING TO GET MR. MUELLER TO RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT? >> THAT IS NOT A FAIR POINT OF INQUIRY. THE GENTLE LEADER FLORIDA IS RECOGNIZE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IN POINT — >> YOU ARE A PATRIOT AND I REFER YOU NOW TO VOLUME 2, PAGE 158. YOU WROTE THAT “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 EXCEED TO HIS REQUESTS” IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS ACCURATE AND WHAT WE FOUND. >> YOU REFER TO SENIOR ADVISERS WHO DISOBEYED THE PRESIDENT’S ORDERS LIKE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON MCGAHN, FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, COREY LEWANDOWSKI. IS THAT RIGHT? >> WE HAVE NOT SPECIFIED. >> ON PAGE 158, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON MCGAHN, QUOTE, DID NOT TELL THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE COUNCIL MUST BE REMOVED BUT WAS INSTEAD PREPARED TO RESIGN OVER THE PRESIDENT’S ORDERS. YOU ALSO EXPLAINED THAT 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, CORRECT? >> YES. >> SO, EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT’S AIDES REFUSED TO CARRY OUT THE ORDERS 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. >> TO REITERATE, SIMPLY TRYING TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE CAN BE A CRIME? >> YES. >> THE PRESIDENT’S EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE THE INVESTIGATION WERE MOSTLY UNSUCCESSFUL AND THAT’S BECAUSE NOT ALL OF HIS EFFORTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL, RIGHT? >> ARE YOU READING INTO WHAT WE HAD WRITTEN IN THE REPORT? >> I WAS GOING TO ASK IF YOU COULD JUST TELL ME WHICH YOU HAD IN MIND AS SUCCESSFUL WHEN YOU WROTE THAT SENTENCE. >> I’M GOING TO PASS ON THAT. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, TODAY, WE’VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE SEPARATE ACTS BY THIS PRESIDENT BUT YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT “THE OVERALL PATTERN OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT TOWARDS INVESTIGATIONS CAN SHED LIGHT ON THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT’S ACTS AND THE INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT HIS INTENT”,” CORRECT? >> ACCURATE AND RECITATION FROM THE REPORT. >> ON PAGE 158, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO NOTE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT HAD A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WHEN HE REALIZED THAT IT WAS THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE CONDUCTED TO INVESTIGATE HIS OBSTRUCTION ACTS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE DECIDING WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THEY NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT AND OVERALL PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DON’T DISAGREE. >> THANK YOU. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, DR. ALSO, I WILL DESIGNATE THAT, TOO, I HAVE CERTAINLY MADE UP MY MIND ABOUT WHETHER WHAT WE HAVE REVIEWED TODAY MEETS THE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION, INCLUDING WHETHER THERE WAS CORRUPT INTENT AND WHAT IS CLEAR, IS THAT ANYONE ELSE, INCLUDING SOME MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH CRIMES FOR THESE ACTS. WE WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THIS BEHAVIOR FROM ANY OF THE PREVIOUS $44 PRESIDENTS AND WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT NOW OR FOR THE FUTURE, TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY. YES, WE WILL CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE BECAUSE AS YOU CLEARLY STATED AT THE END OF YOUR REPORT, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. >> THE GENTLELADY YIELD >> . THE GENTLELADY FROM TEXAS. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU, QUOTE, DETERMINED NOT TO MAKE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTORIAL JUDGMENT. WAS THAT, IN PART, BECAUSE OF THE 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 PRESS CONFERENCE, YOU EXPLAINED THAT THE OPINION SAYS THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A PROCESS OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING PRESIDENT OF WRONGDOING. THAT PROCESS, OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR ACCUSING A PRESIDENT OF WRONGDOING, IS THAT IMPEACHMENT? >> I’M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT. >> YOU ALSO WROTE THAT YOU DID NOT WANT TO, QUOTE, POTENTIALLY PREEMPT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES FOR ADDRESSING PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT. FOR THE NONLAWYERS IN THE ROOM, WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY, QUOTE, POTENTIALLY PREEMPT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES? >> I’M NOT GOING TO EXPLAIN THAT. >> THAT COMES FROM PAGE ONE, VOLUME TWO IN THE FOOTNOTE WITH THE REFERENCE TO THIS. WHAT ARE THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES? >> I THINK I HEARD YOU MENTION AT LEAST ONE. >> IMPEACHMENT, CORRECT? >> I’M NOT GOING TO COMMENT. >> OKAY. THAT IS ONE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES LISTED IN THE FOOTNOTE IN VOLUME TWO AND YOUR REPORT DOCUMENTS THE MANY WAYS THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR INVESTIGATION AND YOU STATE IN YOUR REPORT ON PAGE $10 VOLUME TWO THAT INTERFERING WITH A CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION WITH CORRUPT INTENT CAN ALSO CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> TRUE. >> WELL, THE PRESIDENT HAS TOLD US HE INTENDS TO FIGHT ALL OF THE SUBPOENAS AND HIS CONTINUED EFFORTS 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’S 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. >> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. >> POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. >> WE DID GET IN OUR TIME. OUR SIDE GOT OUR FIVE MINUTES IN. ALSO MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I JOIN THE CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER THANKS NOR ATTENDING TODAY’S HEARING. BEFORE WE CONCLUDE, I ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AND QUIET WHILE THE WITNESS EXITS THE ROOM. >> WELL, A HISTORIC HEARING THIS MORNING. 3 1/2 HOURS, ALL 41 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ASKING QUESTIONS.CBS NEWS, WE COUNTED 110 ONE-WORD ANSWERS BY THE COMMERCIAL COUNSEL. THE DEMOCRAT THAT DID BEGIN THIS HEARING BY GETTING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO SAY OUT LOUD WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN IN HIS REPORT THAT HE DID NOT EXONERATE PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT THE >>> FROM CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER. >> YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND, QUOTE, MULTIPLE ACTS BY THE PRESIDENT CAPABLE OF EXERTING UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN IN PLAIN TERMS WHAT THAT FINDING MEANS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND IT? >> WELL, THE FINDING INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT — THE PRESIDENT WAS WAS — THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXCULPATED FOR THE ACTS HE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED. >> THAT’S ONE OF THE HEADLINES FROM THE HEARINGS THIS MORNING AND WITH ME NOW OUR CBS NEWS CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MAJOR GARRETT AND ANALYST JONATHAN TURLEY. JUST OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE, THERE IS NO MARINE STANDING THERE AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS NOT IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND THAT MEANS THE PRESIDENT IS LIKELY IN HIS RESIDENCE WATCHING THIS COVERAGE THIS MORNING AND WE’VE ESSENTIALLY HEARD AS MUCH FROM OUR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, BEN TRACY. I INTRODUCED MAJOR GARRETT AND JONATHAN TURLEY JOINS US AND KIM WEHLE, A LAW PROFESSOR AND FORMER PROSECUTOR. AN EXTRAORDINARY MORNING. THE DEMOCRATS WROTE A SCRIPT AND THEY EACH TOOK THEIR PART AND LAID OUT ALL OF THE INSTANCES OF POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND THEY WANTED THIS TO BE A MOVIE. WHAT ROLE DID ROBERT MUELLER PLAY? >> THE MOTHER REPORT IS THE BOOK AND HOW MANY AMERICANS HAVE READ THE BOOK AND HOW MANY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE READ THE BOOK? A LOT OF AMERICANS DON’T WRITE BOOKS BUT THEY GO TO THE MOVIES. THEY WANTED THIS TO BE THE MOVIE VERSION OF THE ROD B MOTHER REPORT. DID THEY ACT AS THE MATINEE IDOL OR THE CENTRAL GALVANIZING FIGURE OF THE DRAMA? NO. EVEN WHEN ASKED TO READ THINGS FROM HIS OWN REPORT, HE REFUSED. NO, YOU READ FROM THE REAR PART, I’M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO EITHER COME CLOSE TO OR DO INTERPRETIVE ANALYSIS, NO INTERPRETATION. WOULD HE USE THE WORD IMPEACHMENT? NO. WOULD HE SAY THAT IS WHAT HE IS EGGING THEM ON TO DOOR IMPLYING THAT IS SOMETHING THEY SHOULD CONSIDER, NO. HE CONSTANTLY STAYED WITH THE REPORT AND IF NOT BACKED AWAY FROM IT, ASSERTED IT AS THE ONLY RELEVANT DOCUMENT. IN EFFECT, HE WAS LESS RELEVANT THAN THE REPORT, HIMSELF. >> WAS THAT INTENTIONAL, FOR HIM TO BE LESS RELEVANT? >> HE CERTAINLY SUCCEEDED. IT WAS LIKE WATCHING A PASSIONATE CONVERSATION WITH AN ANSWERING MACHINE. HE GAVE MONOSYLLABIC RESPONSES AND THE MOST NEWSY THING THAT CAME OUT WAS THAT REPRESENTATIVE LESKO APPARENTLY CAN GET CABLE FOR $50 A MONTH BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT WAS JUST THREE CITATIONS OF THE REPORT AND MOTHER REFUSING TO ANSWER OR BARELY ANSWERING. THE POSITION WAS CONFUSING AND I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHERE HE WAS DRAWING THE LINE. HE REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELEMENTS BUT THEN HE WOULD ANSWER ANOTHER QUESTION. A LOT OF THE STUFF HE REFUSED TO ANSWER, HE WAS ALLOWED TO ANSWER. BILL BARR TESTIFIED TOO MUCH OF THAT STUFF. IT WAS CONFUSING ON WHAT BASIS HE DECLINED TO ANSWER. I KNOW HE DIDN’T WANT TO ANSWER BUT A LOT OF THAT STUFF IS NOT PRIVILEGED. >> AS POINTED OUT, IN THIS REPORT, HE DID NOT EVER SUBPOENA PRESIDENT TRUMP OR INSIST ON HIS QUESTIONING OR CHARGE THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. YET, THE REPUBLICANS PARADED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THEIR QUESTIONING? >> THEY TRY TO MAKE IT ABOUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, VS. MR. TRUMP AND THEY PROBABLY SUCCEEDED TO SOME EXTENT BUT SOME THINGS WERE ESTABLISHED AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE INVESTIGATION, ITSELF, CAME OFF AS HUMBLE AND HE BACKED UP HIS TEAM IN THE OPENING REMARKS WERE, IT WAS A NEUTRAL LAW INVESTIGATION. HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE DID NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT AND THAT HE COULD BE EXONERATED AFTER HE FINISHES OFFICES. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL NOT HAVE RUN IF HE DOES NOT GET A SECOND TERM. >> THERE WAS A TACTIC REMINISCENT FOR THOSE COVERING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE, BUT WHO GATHERED IT AND I REMEMBER REPUBLICANS BEING DEEPLY FRUSTRATED WITH DEMOCRATS CONSTANTLY RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FACT GATHERERS, NOT THE FACTS, THEMSELVES. A RULE REVERSE ARE COMPLETELY AND WHAT OUGHT TO MATTER IS THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE AND WHAT I FOUND FASCINATING IS YOU DID NOT SEE ANY REPUBLICAN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE ASSERTION THAT THESE BEHAVIORS AND THIS PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR FROM THE PRESIDENT, IF NOT CRIMINALLY INDICTABLE AS OBSTRUCTION, CERTAINLY SOUNDS OBSTRUCTIVE. THEY DID NOT TRY TO ATTACK THAT ASSERTION AT ALL. >> I WANT TO BRING IN PAULA RID AT THE WHITE HOUSE. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, ESSENTIALLY, THERE WAS AN EFFORT BY THE REPUBLICANS TO CHALLENGE THE INTEGRITY OF SOME OF THE INVESTIGATORS BUT NOT SOME OF THE CHARGES THAT WERE MADE IN THIS REPORT? >> Reporter: EXACTLY. THEY TRIED NOT TO DRAW ATTENTION THAT SIX OF THE PRESIDENT’S ASSOCIATES WERE CHARGED AND FIVE OF THEM CONVICTED AND IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE HOW MUELLER HANDLED THE REPUBLICANS. LARGELY, HE LET THEM SHARE THE UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THE STEELE DOSSIER AND GEORGE PAPP ANNAPOLIS, WITHOUT BEING CHALLENGED. NO PUSH BACK READ WHAT HE WOULD NOT ALLOW WAS CRITICISM OF HIS INVESTIGATORS AND IT WAS ONE OF THE STRONGEST MOMENTS IN THE HEARINGS. HE SHOT BACK ABOUT WHETHER HE SHOULD HAVE VETTED PEOPLE FOR WHO THEY SUPPORTED IN THE LAST CAMPAIGN OR IF YOU SHOULD’VE SEEN THIS AS A POLITICALLY CHARGED INVESTIGATION. HE SAID, QUOTE, HAD BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS FOR ALMOST $25 YEARS AND IN THOSE $25 YEARS, I’VE NOT HAD OCCASION ONCE TO ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION. IT WAS NOT DONE AND IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT MOMENT BECAUSE HE PUSHED BACK AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS AND THEIR NARRATIVE. >> DO YOU THINK IT’S BECAUSE WAS TRYING TO INTACT THE INTEGRITY OF THE INVESTIGATION? THE LIMITED ANSWERS WITH YES AND NO, IT’S IN THE REPORT, I’M NOT GOING TO READ FROM THE REPORT — HE WANTED TO BE HUMBLE AND RESPECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE REPORT AND NOT ADD ANYTHING EXTRA THAT WOULD DISTRACT FROM IT? >> HE WANTS PEOPLE TO FOCUS ON THE REPORT AND THERE WAS FRUSTRATION FOR THOSE ON HIS TEAM THAT THERE IS FOCUS ON THE QUESTION OF OBSTRUCTION AND NOT ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND EVEN ON THE FIRST DAY WHEN WE GOT THE REPORT AND WE WERE FLIPPING THROUGH IT, I REMEMBER STAFFERS SAYING, GO TO VOLUME ONE AND HE’S EXPRESSING THE FRUSTRATION ABOUT FIELDING COMMENTS ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE INVESTIGATORS WHEN HE BELIEVES THEY HAVE DONE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT WORK ABOUT A FOREIGN ADVERSARY WHO TRIED TO MEDDLE IN OUR DEMOCRACY. >> MORE TO COME. STAY WITH US BECAUSE THERE IS GOING TO BE TWO MORE HOURS OF THIS BEFORE THE INTEL COMMITTEE. >> THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID HAVE COLLECTIVELY A FRUSTRATION ABOUT THIS. THE RUSSIAN MEDDLING THING WAS REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL AND CARRIED OUT AT A LEVEL OF EFFECTIVENESS AND PERVASIVENESS THE RUSSIANS HAD NEVER ACHIEVED BEFORE AND WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND SOME OF THOSE FUNDAMENTALS AND UNDERSTAND HOW TO REMEDY THEM OR GUARD AGAINST THEM IN THE FUTURE. HE WOULD HOPE IN THIS ENVIRONMENT, DIFFICULT THOUGH IT MAY BE, TO BE A NONPARTISAN CONCERN. >> I WOULD BE LESS CHARITABLE, MAY BE A DISSENTING VIEW BECAUSE LET’S NOT FORGET THAT MUELLER HAD STUFF HE NEEDED TO ANSWER WITH SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT DECISIONS HE MADE. $1 OF THE MOST IMPORTANT IS HIS FAILURE TO IDENTIFY GRAND JURY MATERIAL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVELED THAT BY REFUSING TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS AND MAHLER AVOIDED WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT POSITION. THERE IS NOTHING CLASSIFIED IN THAT QUESTION AND I’M NOT WILLING TO SAY HE DID THIS ENTIRELY BECAUSE HE WAS A HUMBLE SERVANT. >> WHAT WOULD BE THE COUNTER ARGUMENT? >> IT SEEMS LIKE THE ISSUE IS $2 FOLD. IF WE CANNOT INVESTIGATE THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, IT HAS TO HAPPEN IN CONGRESS. IT’S WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THAT IS WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THIS MOMENT. IS THERE PART OF GOVERNMENT CHARGED LEGITIMATELY WITH OVERSIGHT OF THE PRESIDENCY? THE QUESTION HAS TO BE NOT SO MUCH THE DETAILS OF WHAT MR. MUELLER DID OR DIDN’T DO, BUT WHAT IS IN THE REPORT. FOR THE NEXT STEPS, IF THE CONGRESS DOESN’T STATE THESE STEPS, NO PRESIDENT, THEORETICALLY, WOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL WRONGDOING. THE $3 ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION, AN ACT, AND OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, PENDING INVESTIGATION, THE DEMOCRATS CAREFULLY WENT THROUGH THEM AND THE REPUBLICANS DID NOT ANSWER THAT ON THE MERIT AND FOR IMPEACHMENT, YOU DON’T NEED TO PROVE THAT. >> FOR THOSE THAT HAVEN’T READ THE MUELLER REPORT, THERE ARE VERSIONS BUT IT IS USEFUL TO ACTUALLY LOOK BECAUSE YOU POINT OUT THERE IS THE OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, AND THEN THERE IS THE INTENT, WHICH IS INTERESTING. I’M NOT A LAWYER BUT I FIND IT INTERESTING. WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF QUICK BUSINESS. SOME WILL BE LEAVING US FOR LOCAL NEWS FROM YOUR CBS STATIONS AND FOR THE REST OF YOU, OUR COVERAGE CONTINUES RIGHT HERE ON CBS NEWS. >>> A HISTORIC DAY ON CAPITOL HILL AS THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL, ROBERT MUELLER, TESTIFIED BEFORE $2 COMMITTEES AND IS ALREADY WRAPPED UP SOME $3.05 HOURS OF QUESTIONING BY $41 LAWMAKERS AND LATER THIS AFTERNOON, AFTER A BREAK, HE WILL GO BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, EXPECTED TO FOCUS ON WHAT LAUNCHED THIS INVESTIGATION IN THE VERY BEGINNING, WHICH IS RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT AND ATTEMPTS TO CURB OUR DEMOCRACY IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, WHICH THEY SAY CONTINUES TO THIS DAY AND UP TO THE NEXT ELECTION. I BRING IN OUR CORRESPONDENT, JEFF PEGUES, WITH US IN WASHINGTON.I WANT TO GO OVER $1 OF THE EXCHANGES THAT HAPPENED EARLIER THIS MORNING BETWEEN REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE LOUIE GOHMERT AND ROBERT MUELLER. LET’S TAKE A LOOK. >> WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN OF PETER STRZOK’S ANIMUS TOWARD DONALD TRUMP? >> SUMMER OF 2017. >> YOU DIDN’T KNOW BEFORE HE WAS HIRED? >> I’M SORRY? >> YOU DIDN’T KNOW BEFORE HE WAS HIRED TO YOUR TEAM? >> KNOW WHAT. >> PETER STRZOK HATED TRUMP. >> OKAY. >> YOU DIDN’T KNOW THAT BEFORE HE WAS MADE PART OF YOUR TEAM, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? >> I DID NOT KNOW THAT. >> WHEN I DID FIND OUT, I ACTED SWIFTLY TO HAVE HIM REASSIGNED ELSEWHERE. >> THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW SWIFT THAT WAS BUT WHEN DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THE ONGOING AFFAIR HE WAS HAVING WITH LISA PAGE? >> ABOUT THE SAME TIME. >> TO REMIND EVERYBODY, PETER STRZOK WAS ONE OF THE FBI AGENTS INVOLVED AND LATER FIRED. EXPLAIN WHY THIS WAS A FOCUS FOR REPUBLICANS. >> YOU SAID IT MOMENTS AGO THAT MUELLER TRIED AND HAS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE INVESTIGATION AND ALMOST FROM THE BEGINNING IN 2017, HE WAS HIT WITH THE NEWS THAT PETER STRZOK AND LISA PAGE WERE EXCHANGING HUNDREDS OF TEXT MESSAGES AND MANY SHOWED A BIAS TOWARD THEN CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP AND AT THE TIME IN 2016, THEY WERE BEING EXCHANGED. THIS IS WHAT MUELLER HAD TO DEAL WITH ALMOST FROM THE BEGINNING AND THE REPUBLICANS HAVE USED IT AS A HAMMER TO POKE HOLES IN THE INVESTIGATION. YOU HEARD IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN DURING THE LINE OF QUESTIONING. >> JEFF BRINGS UP THAT POINT THAT WE’VE LAID OUT THAT THE REPUBLICANS LARGELY TRIED TO INTACT INVESTIGATORS TODAY AND WHETHER THEY’VE MADE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE PAST OR THIS PARTICULAR FBI AGENT, MANY INVOLVED, HAD AN AFFAIR AND ENGAGED IN UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ON MULTIPLE LEVELS, WHICH IS WHY HE WAS ULTIMATELY REMOVED FROM THE FBI. >> WE SHOULD NOTE THAT ROBERT MUELLER MADE REFERENCE TO THIS WITH THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION. MICHAEL HORWITZ IS THE NAME OF THE INVESTIGATOR IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAVE NOT EMERGED UNSCATHED IN THIS PROCESS. MICHAEL HORWITZ PUBLISHED REPORTS THAT CONDEMNED CERTAIN ACTIONS THAT SAY THERE ARE APPEARANCES OF BIAS AND PROTOCOL WAS NOT FOLLOWED IN ALL THESE RESPECTS. IT WAS NOT A SITUATION WHERE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE ELEMENTS OF THE FBI, WITH THEIR REPUTATIONS PERFECTLY ENHANCED. THEY DON’T. THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT. ARE THEY AS RELEVANT AS THE CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT? THAT’S FOR THE PUBLIC TO DECIDE BUT IT’S NOT A MATERIAL ISSUE. IT IS ON THE MARGINS, THAT IT’S FAIR TO SAY, BUT PART OF THIS CONVERSATION. >> LET ME BRING IN NANCY CORDES ON CAPITOL HILL. SHE NOT ONLY IS FOLLOWING WHAT HAPPENED THIS MORNING, BUT THE HEARING COMING UP LATER THIS AFTERNOON. SET THE SCENE FOR US. >> Reporter: WELL, NORAH, THE HEARING WAS HELD BY THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THIS IS A COMMITTEE LOOKING INTO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS WERE ALONG THOSE LINES BUT THIS AFTERNOON, IT’S THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN THAT COMMITTEE HAS BEEN LOOKING FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS AT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. THE QUESTIONS WILL BE VERY DIFFERENT AND YOU WILL HEAR QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL THE WAYS THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WELCOMED AND ENCOURAGED AND BENEFITED FROM RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS AND THAT COULD MEAN QUESTIONS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP JR.’S MEETING AT TRUMP TOWER WITH RUSSIAN LAWYERS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL THE CONTACTS DETAILED IN THE REPORT BETWEEN TRUMP ASSOCIATES, CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND VARIOUS RUSSIANS AND EXPECT REPUBLICANS TO FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, MUELLER’S REPORT DID NOT LAY OUT EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIANS. REPUBLICANS WILL ARGUE THAT THIS IS A LOT OF SMOKE BUT NO FIRE. >> NANCY CORDES DOING A TERRIFIC JOB ON CAPITOL HILL. WE NOW BRING IN PAULA REID FROM THE WHITE HOUSE TO HEAR WHAT SHE HEARS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE AND ALSO TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT NANCY WAS TALKING ABOUT, THIS UPCOMING HEARING THAT WILL, I THINK, SEND MORE ABOUT THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND WHAT BOB MUELLER SAID. OF THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, I’VE SEEN CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY. THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT’S EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IS AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS. THAT SHOULD BE THE RED BUZZING LIGHT THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT, FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. >> THAT’S RIGHT AND JUST LAST WEEK, A SENIOR OFFICIAL CONFIRMED THAT RUSSIA CONTINUES TO MEDAL AND THEY TRIED TO GET PEOPLE RILED UP OVER CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES LIKE GUNS AND RACE AND TO SOW DISCORD IN THE U.S. WE WILL SEE HOW THEY SHAPE THEIR QUESTIONS AND IF THEY WANT TO LOOK OVER THIS AND HOW TO PREVENT THIS. IN TERMS OF THE WHITE HOUSE REACTION, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NOT COME UP WITH THE STATEMENT BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS WEIGHED IN SPORADICALLY ON TWITTER AND QUOTED FOX NEWS A FEW TIMES. ONE QUOTE ABOUT NO OBSTRUCTION, A CLAIM WHICH THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL CLEARLY REFUTED AND HEARING THAT HE ALSO QUOTED FOX NEWS ATTACKING MUELLER AND HIS PERFORMANCE. THE ONE TIME THE PRESIDENT WEIGHED-IN WITHOUT QUOTING ANYONE ELSE WAS ON THE ISSUE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT ALLEGING THAT ROBERT MUELLER WAS CONFLICTED BECAUSE HE WAS INTERVIEWED TO REPLACE JAMES COMEY AS THE FBI DIRECTOR AND HE WAS UPSET. IN THIS HEARING, WE HEARD FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT MUELLER DENIED THIS UNDER OATH AND SAID HE DID NOT INTERVIEW FOR THAT JOB, WHICH OF COURSE, HE HAD EVEN BEYOND THE $10-YEAR TERMS, HE TESTIFIED HE ACTUALLY CAME TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO TALK TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT WHAT MAKES A GOOD FBI DIRECTOR PITT OF COURSE, ANYONE WHO WAS SPOKEN TO THE PRESIDENT KNOWS THAT A CONVERSATION STARTS IN ONE PLACE AND ENDS UP IN ANOTHER BUT HE COULD LIKELY BE ASKED ABOUT THIS DISCREPANCY AROUND 4:00 WHEN HE IS EXPECTED TO SPEAK WITH REPORTERS. >> ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO DIG IN WITH ON THIS HEARING, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ULTIMATELY WORKS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND WHEN MUELLER TURNED IN HIS REPORT, HE TURNED IT INTO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE TIME, BOB BARR AND MOTHER WAS ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES TO DRAW SOME SPACE BETWEEN HIM AND THE CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SEEMED TO AVOID THAT ENTIRELY EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON SOME THINGS, CORRECT? >> IT’S SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE I ANTICIPATED THEY WOULD WANT TO SEIZE ON THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THESE MEN AND GET MUELLER TO CLARIFY THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO PAINT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS SOMEONE TRYING TO HELP THE PRESIDENT, WHO GOT OUT AHEAD OF THE RELEASE OF THE FULL REPORT WITH THE SUMMARY THAT WAS VERY FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT. MUELLER WAS NOT WILLING TO WEIGH-IN ON THIS AND WE HAVE THE LETTER SENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT HOW HE HANDLED THAT SUMMARY AND IN THAT LETTER, HE CLEARLY SAID, THE WAY YOU’VE HANDLED THIS, THE SUMMARY WITH CONCLUSIONS, IT’S CAUSED GREAT CONFUSION AMONG THE PUBLIC AND HE QUESTIONS WHY WILLIAM BARR DIDN’T JUST RELEASE THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN WILLING TO CRITICIZE A SPECIAL COUNSEL IN PUBLIC AND HAS QUESTIONED WHY HE DIDN’T COME TO A CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION AND HAS QUESTIONED WHY HE WASN’T GIVEN THE REDACTED COPY OF THE REPORT HE HAD ASKED FOR. MUELLER WAS NOT WILLING TO EXCHANGE WORDS WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND NOT WILLING TO CRITICIZE HIM OR REVEAL THE CONTENT OF THEIR CONVERSATIONS. >> PAULA REID, LET’S DIG INTO THAT FURTHER. THERE IS DAYLIGHT BETWEEN ROBERT MUELLER AND THE CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE DIDN’T SEEM TO WANT TO MAKE NEWS ON THAT TODAY. >> THAT WAS PART OF MY FRUSTRATION BECAUSE HE WAS REFUSING TO ANSWER PURELY LEGAL QUESTIONS. HE WAS ASKED WHAT HE MEANT BY A PARTICULAR STATEMENT THAT WAS AMBIGUOUS AND HE REFUSED TO ANSWER THAT BUT THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM WAS WHEN HE WAS CONFRONTED ON THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BELIEVED HE COULD REACH A CONCLUSION AND MANY OF US HOLD THAT VIEW THAT THERE WAS NOTHING PREVENTING MUELLER FROM REACHING THAT CONCLUSION. >> WHAT HE SAID TO OUR OWN JAN CRAWFORD, HE BELIEVED MUELLER COULD HAVE SAID, YES, HE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE BUT IT’S NOT MY ROLE TO CHARGE HIM? >> IT WAS UNINTELLIGIBLE. IF HE’S CORRECT AND THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL VIOLATED D.O.J. POLICY BY REACHING A CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE MEMO THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT — ESPECIALLY AS A SPECIAL COUNSEL WHERE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS, STATE WHETHER YOU BELIEVE A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. HE REACHED CONCLUSION ON THE FIRST PART, BUT NOT THE SECOND PART. WHAT IS VERY STRANGE, MUELLER DIDN’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, IT WOULD BE STRANGE IF YOU THOUGHT THAT YOU’RE ALL WELL SEE INTERPRETATION WAS AT ODDS WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, USUALLY CONTROLLING D.O.J. POLICY, HE GOES TO AN WEDDELL SEA AND THE SUSPICION IS, HE’S A GOOD ENOUGH LITIGATOR TO NOT ASK A QUESTION HE DOESN’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO. >> COULD I OFFER A RESPONSE? I THINK THE REASON HE DIDN’T REACH A CONCLUSION — AND I’M NOT SURE I AGREE — IS THAT WE DON’T, AS A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WE DON’T CHARGE SOMEONE IF A CRIME IF THEY CAN’T DEFEND THEMSELVES. IT IS A SORT OF DUE PROCESS IDEA. IF HE CAN’T DEFEND HIMSELF BECAUSE OF THE MEMO, THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR. >> HE DID SAY THAT IN HIS APPEARANCE. >> WHAT DID HE MEAN WHEN HE SAID IF I COULD EXONERATE YOU, I WOULD. IT SOUNDS LIKE EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. >> NANCY CORDES IS ON CAPITOL HILL, WITH A RANKING MEMBER FROM GEORGIA. >> THE FIRST REPUBLICAN ASKED QUESTIONS OF MUELLER IN THIS JUDICIARY HEARING AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING ME. REPUBLICANS, YOURSELF INCLUDED, HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM CREDIBILITY AND THE PEOPLE ROBERT MUELLER HIRED AND THE AVENUES HE CHOSE TO GO DOWN AND THE AVENUES HE IGNORED. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF HIS ANSWERS? >> THEY WERE FRUSTRATING, AT TIMES. WHAT WAS IMPORTANT WAS WHAT HE DID SAY WHERE HE ADMITTED THAT COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY WERE ONE AND THE SAME AND THAT WAS OVER, DONE AWAY WITH AND HE CONFIRMED THAT IN HIS OWN REPORT AND IN THE HEARING. WHAT WAS CONCERNING WAS ANOTHER INTERESTING POINT THAT EVERY TIME THE DEMOCRATS TRIED THE OBSTRUCTION CLAIM, HE WOULD SAY I DISAGREE WITH YOUR THEORY. WHAT WAS INTERESTING, THE FULL REPORT, IT WAS SOMETHING THEY MISSED, SOMETHING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW. WHAT WE FOUND OUT TODAY, IT WAS ALL THE WHAT THE REPORT SAID AND IT WAS VERY FRUSTRATING THAT HE WOULDN’T TALK ABOUT THE ELEMENTS IN THE REPORT BUT WOULDN’T TALK ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER AND THOSE THINGS. >> ONE THING IS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS WRONG AND WAS EXONERATED. >> WHAT MR. MUELLER DIDN’T SAY WAS THAT HE WAS GUILTY AND WE ALWAYS FOCUS ON WHAT HE DIDN’T EXONERATE BUT THERE WAS NOTHING TO SAY HE WAS GUILTY AND WOULDN’T BRING A CHARGE BUT THIS IS WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT TODAY. THE MOTHER REPORT WAS AN UNQUESTIONED DOCUMENT UNTIL TODAY. TODAY, WE BRING FORTH THE IDEAS AND NOW IT IS A QUESTIONED DOCUMENT. INSTEAD OF ONE PERSON’S OPINION, WE CAN SAY WHAT ABOUT THIS? THE TAKEAWAY STORY IN THE FINAL CHAPTER IS THAT TODAY, HE CONFIRMED COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY, ONE IN THE SAME AND HE’S DONE WITH IT. OBSTRUCTION, HE DISAGREES WITH THE DEMOCRATIC VERSION OF OBSTRUCTION AND NOW TURNS TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT ON THE FISA ABUSE AND THE ABUSE THAT MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE TO AMERICAN CITIZENS. >> COULD YOU ASK THE CONGRESSMAN, WHY DIDN’T THE REPUBLICANS DIRECTLY CHALLENGE ANY OF THE $10 INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION, LAID OUT BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL? >> CONGRESSMAN, NORAH O’DONNELL’S QUESTION IS WHY DIDN’T REPUBLICANS CHALLENGE ANY OF THE $10 INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE MUELLER LAID OUT IN GREAT DETAIL IN HIS REPORT? >> WE DIDN’T HAVE TO BECAUSE MR. MUELLER DID IT HIMSELF. THEY DID THAT THEMSELVES. >> THEY DIDN’T DISAGREE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> WHAT IS NEW ABOUT THAT? >> DOESN’T THAT CONCERN YOU THAT HE POTENTIALLY COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> HE NEVER SAID HE DID THE ANALYSIS TO FIND OUT BECAUSE HE STOPPED IT BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THIS, HE SAYS I DISAGREE AND WHEN THEY PUT THEIR CHARTS UP AND GOT TO THE POINT, HE SAID I DISAGREE WITH YOUR ANALYSIS ON OBSTRUCTION, THAT IS WHAT YOU TAKE IN. THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS TO ASK ABOUT AND WHY GO ON TO THINGS HE DISAGREED WITH AND THINGS MOVING IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT, HOW THE REPORT GOT STARTED, ALSO CONFIRMING THAT IF YOU THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING IN AND THE DEMOCRATS PUT THEIR MONEY ON IMPEACHMENT, THIS WAS A BAD DAY FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. THE CONGRESSMAN, THE RANKING MEMBER ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND WHEN HE LEAVES CONGRESS, HE COULD BE A CATTLE AUCTIONEER PIT $1 OF THE FASTEST TALKERS EVER OF ALL TIME. I HAD TROUBLE FOLLOWING WHAT HE SAID. >> SOMETIMES, NOT ALWAYS TO HIS BENEFIT OR THE BENEFIT OF THE WITNESS. $1 THING THE ATTORNEY SAID AFTER THE MOTHER REPORT CAME OUT, AND I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH JAY SEKULOW AND RUDY GIULIANI — ROBERT MUELLER AND HIS TEAM — THEIR WORDS AND NOT MINE — THEY HAD A UNIQUE THEORY ABOUT OBSTRUCTION PIT YOU CAN HAVE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BITE TO EAT, BY THREAT OR BY FOAM A NATION OR BEING ANGRY. THEY SAID NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE OBSTRUCTIONIST. THEY MIGHT SOUND BAD AND NOT COMFORTABLE FOR CONDUCT BUT NOT CRIMINALLY PROSECUTABLE. IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING WHERE THE MOTHER REPORT SUGGESTED THEY WERE. ULTIMATELY, THE LEGAL BASIS TO BRING THAT CHARGE DIDN’T EXIST AND WOULD NEVER EXIST AND FROM THEIR INTERPRETATION, A SIDELIGHT TO THIS AND THIS AND DRILL COMPONENT THAT THEY HAVE TO RENDER A JUDGMENT ABOUT HOW COMFORTABLE THEY ARE WITH THIS CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT, NOT NECESSARILY WHETHER IT WAS CRIMINALLY PROSECUTABLE. >> CAN WE DIVE DOWN ON THAT ISSUE BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS USED THE WORD COLLUSION, NOT A LEGAL TERM AND CONGRESSMAN COLLINS TRIED TO POINT THIS OUT AND HE SPEAKS VERY QUICKLY. IT’S ON PAGE 180 FOR THOSE FOLLOWING AT HOME. THEY SAY IN THE REPORT THAT TO THE CONTRARY, EVEN AS DEFINED AND LEGAL DICTIONARIES, COLLUSION IS LARGELY SYNONYMOUS WITH CONSPIRACY AS THE CRIME SAID FORWARD IN THE STATUTE. DID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL CHARGE THE PRESIDENT OR ASSOCIATES WITH CONSPIRACY? >> NO. AND THAT’S VERY CLEAR. NO CONSPIRACY REQUIRES A MEETING OF THE MIND AND IT’S IN A STATUTE AND IF YOU HAVE THESE ELEMENTS, YOU CAN PROSECUTE THEM AND YOU COULD GO TO JAIL. COLLUSION IS A COMMON TERM AND THERE’S A DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF COLLUSION AND IT’S SOMETHING THAT COULD GO IN THEORY TO AN IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND PRODUCE THE NEXT STEP EVEN IF SOMETHING IS NOT WORTH CONVICTING BEFORE THE ACTUAL JURY. THOSE ARE DIFFERENT TERMS. COLLUSION IS NOT A LEGAL CONCEPT. >> WE ARE ABOUT $6 MINUTES FROM THE NEXT HEARING BEGINNING. EVERYBODY HAD A QUICK BREAK ON BOB MUELLER’S TEAM TO GET A SNACK OR CUP OF COFFEE AND THEY ARE GOING BACK FOR ANOTHER $2 HOURS. WE ARE TOLD THIS WILL FOCUS ON WHAT IS KNOWN AS VOLUME $2. THE REPORT TO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, VOLUME $1 OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE INTO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. SOME KEY THINGS, GO THROUGH IT. >> WHAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE LONG DONE IS WHAT THEY CALL COUNTERMEASURES, EFFECTIVE ACTIVE MEASURES TO CREATE WITHIN THE U.S. OR ANY ADVERSARY, POLITICAL CONFUSION OR DISCORD AND THE SENSE THAT THE POLITICS, THAT ENEMY OF RUSSIA IS NOT AS LEGITIMATE AS THEY BELIEVED AND THEY’VE NEVER BEEN MORE EFFECTIVE IF DOING THAT. ONE OF THE TAKEAWAYS IS ALSO THAT WE, AS AMERICANS, BECAUSE OF OUR PARTISAN DIFFERENCES, GAVE THEM A FIELD WHERE THAT WAS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN IT EVER HAS BEEN AND THAT WE ARE WILLING TO BELIEVE IN WAYS WE HAVEN’T, THE WORST ABOUT EACH OTHER AND THEY USE ELECTRONIC SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER MEANS TO PIT OURSELVES AGAINST ONE ANOTHER. THE ADVANTAGE THROUGH THE PARTISAN DIFFERENCES AND THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS WE SHOULD ALL REFLECT ON, IS THAT YES, THEY HAD ILL INTENT AND THEY USED MEANS AND A PERVASIVE THING AND WE HAVE OUR OWN SENSE OF DIVISIONS THAT MADE THAT MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN IT HAD BEEN BEFORE. >> THE REPORT FOUND THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC FASHION BUT THEY DID SO TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENCY OF DONALD TRUMP. >> THAT IS VERY CLEAR AND MUELLER SAID THAT IN THE MORNING THAT IT WAS CLEARLY DESIGNED TO HELP TRUMP. THERE WOULD BE TWO ISSUES. ONE, DID THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE HAPPEN? IT’S WELL-ESTABLISHED ON THE SECOND, WAS THERE A CONSPIRACY LINKED TO THAT EFFORT? ON THAT, IT HELPS THE PRESIDENT AND DOES NOT FIND A CRIMINAL CASE OF CONSPIRACY BUT IN SMALLER HAS ALREADY MAPPED OUT THAT HE WON’T TALK ABOUT HOW THE INVESTIGATION BEGAN, THE SOURCES USED, THE REPUBLICANS SAY IT WAS FALSE STATEMENTS, THAT THEY WEREN’T PROSECUTED, YOU ARE LIKELY TO SEE MUCH OF THE SAME AND THIS IS ONE OF THE CASES WHERE PEOPLE ARE LIKELY TO LEAVE THE PARTY WITH WHOEVER THEY CAME WITH. YOU ARE GOING TO GET FROM THIS A LOT THAT REINFORCES YOUR VIEWS, BUT MUELLER WILL BE PUSHED BY THE REPUBLICANS, SAYING, YOU SAID IN THE REPORT THAT VARIOUS STATEMENTS MADE EARLY ON WERE FALSE AND SOME OF THOSE WERE KEY PLAYERS IN RAISING THIS ISSUE AND WHY DIDN’T YOU CHARGE THEM? WHY DOESN’T THIS UNDERMINE THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE? WE WILL SEE IF MUELLER IS MORE FLEXIBLE. >> I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST ELECTION AND WHAT FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS ARE DOING. WHAT HAPPENED, IT WAS A SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN AND THERE WAS THE HACKING OPERATION INTO THE DEMOCRATIC EMAILS AND THE EMAILS OF HILLARY CLINTON AND MEMBERS OF HER CAMPAIGN AND THERE WERE RUSSIAN CONTACTS INCLUDING THOSE MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TRUMP CAMPAIGN, WHICH WE WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT. THIS WAS A MULTIPRONGED EFFORT BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. IN ITS SCOPE AND ENTIRETY, WE’VE HEARD ROBERT MUELLER SAY IT’S ONE OF THE MOST TROUBLING THINGS HE’S EVER INVESTIGATED IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER IN GOVERNMENT. THAT SHOULD SEND A CHILL DOWN YOUR BACK WHETHER REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRATIC OR INDEPENDENT FOLDER. >> IT GOES TO WE THE PEOPLE. WE GET TO DECIDE WHO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS JUST SIDED ARE. WE GO TO THE BALLOT BOX ON OUR OWN DECISION AND THE IDEA IS THAT THE RUSSIANS DISTORTED THAT PROCESS AND BASICALLY CO- OPTED, TO SOME DEGREE, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT CENTRAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY. >> JEFF PEGUES IS OUR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT AND HAS COVERED THIS SO CLOSELY. WALK US THROUGH WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS. >> ACCORDING TO MUELLER, IT WAS OF RUSSIAN OPERATION THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA, FACEBOOK, TWITTER AND INSTAGRAM. IT MAY HAVE REACHED AS MANY AS 230 MILLION AMERICANS AND JUST THINK OF THE SCOPE OF THIS, A NEW WAVE OF RUSSIAN INFLUENCE OPERATIONS COMBINING ALL OF THE THINGS YOU’VE DISCUSSED. IT IS THE HACKING FROM THE DMC AND THEN THE GOAL WAS ACCORDING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ACCORDING TO INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, IT WAS TO INFLUENCE HOW AMERICANS THINK AND THEY DID THAT IN A MYRIAD OF WAYS INCLUDING SETTING UP FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS. THEY WEREN’T FAKE, BECAUSE THERE WERE REAL PEOPLE BEHIND THEM BUT THEY WERE RUSSIAN OPERATIVES TRYING TO CREATE DIVISION BASED ON ISSUES LIKE RACE, IMMIGRATION, GUN CONTROL — THEY KEPT TWEAKING AND HITTING AT THESE CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS TO DIVIDE AMERICANS. NOT TO BRING THEM TOGETHER, BUT TO DIVIDE THEM AND TAKE THE DIVISIONS TO THE POLLS. >> WE WILL LEARN INTERESTING DETAILS OF JUST WHAT HAPPENED. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS DEMOCRATS WILL LIKELY ASK, BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE WERE CONTACTS BETWEEN RUSSIAN OFFICIALS AND MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WILL BE, DID THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN REPORT ANY OF THESE TO THE FBI? THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE, NO. AS FORMER PROSECUTORS, IS A CAMPAIGN REQUIRED BY LAW TO REPORT ANY CONTACT WITH A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO THE FBI? >> IT DEPENDS WHAT THE CONTACT IS. YOU ARE EXPECTED TO AN FBI DIRECTOR SAID HE BELIEVES THAT DONALD TRUMP JR. SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO THE FBI BEFORE THE MEETING OCCURRED THAT HE HAD THIS CONTACT. WHAT IS NOTABLE IS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP, LATER, STOOD IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH HIS OWN FBI DIRECTOR AND SAID HE WASN’T SURE HE WOULD HAVE MADE THAT CALL. IT WAS A SHOCKING MOMENT FOR MANY IN WASHINGTON BECAUSE THE UNDERSTANDING IS, THERE IS SOME GIVE AT THE ELBOW ON WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CALL. GENERALLY, IT’S NOT A CRIME AND SOMEONE DIDN’T CONTACT YOU BUT THE OVERWHELMING VIEW OF THE FBI, THE CIA AND THE NSA, YOU NEED TO CALL US. >> ONE KEY THING TO DO WITH THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING THAT OCCURRED WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS AND LATER, WAS THAT ONCE IT WAS REPORTED AND THE QUESTIONS RAISED, THE PRESIDENT EDITED A STATEMENT DIRECTING OTHERS TO CHANGE A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID IN THAT MEETING. >>> THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS SAID THERE’S NO CRIME BUT IT WAS NOT RUSSIAN OFFICIALS, IT WAS A WHO SAID SHE WAS WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE INTEREST IN THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. ONE THING THAT CAME OUT THIS MORNING, THAT SAME LAWYER THEN MET WITH GLENN SIMPSON, FUSION GPS, AFTER THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING AND REPUBLICANS WOULD SAY, WHY AREN’T YOU INCLUDING THAT TO MEETING WITH BOTH SIDES AND WAS IT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD? IT’S A FAIR QUESTION. >> IT IS A FAIR QUESTION AND WE ARE WAITING FOR THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER TO COME THROUGHTHE DOOR TO APPEAR BEFORE THE INTEL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THIS. IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. >> I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A WORD MR. MUELLER USED MULTIPLE TIMES, INTEGRITY. THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS. IS THAT ACTION GOING TO PRODUCE AN INDICTMENT TO PUT SOMEBODY IN JAIL? AND THE OTHER QUESTION, DO WE WANT PUBLIC SERVANTS TO ACT WITH INTEGRITY? THESE ARE NORMS AND NOT ENFORCEABLE AND THESE ARE WAYS WE TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO ACT AND IN ADDITION TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT WAS ILLEGAL TO NOT CALL THE FBI, DO WE WANT SOMEONE IN A POSITION OF POWER TO TAKE THAT STEP RATHER THAN TO SAY IT’S GOOD FOR ME EVEN THOUGH THE RUSSIANS ARE BAD GUYS AND I WILL KEEP THIS QUIET? THAT IS THE QUESTION OF INTEGRITY. >> THEY ARE GOING TO SAY, IN THE STEELE DOSSIER, THEY RECEIVED INFORMATION ALLEGEDLY FROM FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INCLUDING THE RUSSIANS AND YOU HAD INFORMATION GOING TO THE CLINTON SIDE, BUT YOU DIDN’T INVESTIGATE ANY OF THAT. YOU WANTED TO LOOK AT THE INFLUENCE OF RUSSIANS BUT IT ONLY SEEMED TO BE ONE SIDE AND MOTHER REFUSED TO ANSWER THAT AND HE HAD A GOOD REASON BECAUSE HE SAID THAT WILL BE PART OF THE OTHER INVESTIGATION, GOING FORWARD. >> YOU SUGGESTED THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW? >> RIGHT. THEY WILL JUMP ON THE FACT THAT IN THE MUELLER REPORT, IT DOES NOT FIND THAT TRUMP KNEW ABOUT THE MEETING IN ADVANCE. THAT WAS A KEY MOMENT FOR THE REPUBLICANS. >> ROBERT MUELLER, BEFORE WE START THIS, HE HAS BROUGHT IN REINFORCEMENTS TODAY. HIS TOP AIDE, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF WHEN HE WAS FBI DIRECTOR, THE MAN WHO HELPED RUN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OPERATIONS WILL BE SWORN IN TODAY AND I WANT TO BRING IN NANCY CORDES TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT WE WILL SEE FOR THE SECOND HEARING. >> Reporter: AARON SIBLEY WAS MUELLER’S CHIEF OF STAFF AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS. HE MADE AN UNUSUAL LAST-MINUTE REQUEST OF THESE COMMITTEES THAT HE BE ABLE TO NOT JUST ADVISE HIM AT THE WITNESS STAND, BUT BE SWORN IN SO THAT THERE WERE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS MOTHER COULDN’T ANSWER, THAT AARON ZEBLEY WOULD PICK THAT UP. THEY SAID IT WAS A LAST-MINUTE CURVEBALL. AARON ZEBLEY WAS IN THE HEARING ROOM BUT DIDN’T TESTIFY IN THE NEXT HEARING IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE HE WILL BE SWORN IN BECAUSE POTENTIALLY THERE ARE SO MANY QUESTIONS GETTING INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND THESE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BELIEVE THAT IN SOME CASES, AARON ZEBLEY IS BETTER EQUIPPED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC INTERVIEWS, FOREIGN NATIONALS OR AMERICANS, AND HE WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK. NOT EVERYONE IS HAPPY ABOUT THIS. SEVERAL REPUBLICANS SAID THEY WERE PREPARED TO QUESTION ROBERT MUELLER, NOT AARON ZEBLEY BUT IT WILL HAPPEN IN THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE PRESIDENT IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE RAILING AGAINST THIS DECISION. HE CALLS AARON ZEBLEY A NEVER- TRUMPERS, ALTHOUGH WE SHOULD POINT OUT THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PARTICULAR BIAS AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT. >> THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL IS THAT PEOPLE WERE FRUSTRATED ABOUT ROBERT MUELLER. THERE WERE $10 MONOSYLLABIC ANSWERS AND THIS INTENT IS TO BIDE MORE CONTEXT TO THIS ISSUE AND THAT’S WHY THE DIRECTOR TAKING HIS SEAT THERE, ALONG WITH AARON ZEBLEY, A NOTED PROSECUTOR AND FORMER PARTNER. >> YOU CAN EXPECT THAT SIBLEY WILL HAVE A HARDER TIME. HE WAS ALREADY ATTACKED BECAUSE HE HAD AN EARLIER CONNECTION TO THE I.T. CONTROVERSY BUT HE WILL BE UNDER OATH SO THE REPUBLICANS COULD WELL GO AFTER HIM AS ONE OF THE FIGURES THEY HAD SUGGESTED MIGHT BE BIASED. >> IT’S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY, NUMEROUS CONTACTS RITUALISTICALLY DENIED UNTIL FORCED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD AND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AT ANY LEVEL DISCOURAGED RUSSIANS FROM TALKING WITH THEM. >> WE NOW WILL HEAR FROM ADAM SCHIFF, A FORMER PROSECUTOR, CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE. >> THE MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER. >> AT THE OUTSET, AND ON BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES, I THINK YOU, SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER, FOR LIFETIME OF SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY. YOUR REPORT IS METHODICAL AND DEVASTATING. FOR THE FOREIGN ADVERSARY SWEEPING WITH SYSTEMATIC INTERVENTION AND 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, THE STORY OF THE 2016 ELECTION, STORY ABOUT DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY, ABOUT GREED AND ABOUT LIES. YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINES 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. DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY, STRONG WORDS. HOW ELSE ARE WE TO DESCRIBE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WHICH DID NOT INFORM AUTHORITIES ABOUT HER FOR AN OFFER OF DIRT ON THEIR OPPONENT AND THEY DID NOT PUBLICLY SHUN IT AN HOUR TURN IT AWAY BUT INSTEAD, INVITED AND ENCOURAGED IT AND MADE FULL USE OF IT. THAT DISLOYALTY MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN CRIMINAL. IN THE USE OF THE ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATIONS, YOUR TEAM DIDN’T ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I THINK SOMETHING WORSE? A CRIME IS THE VIOLATION OF LAW ARE WRITTEN BY CONGRESS WITH DISLOYALTY VIOLATING THE VERY OATH OF CITIZENSHIP WITH OUR DEVOTION TO THE CORE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED THAT WE, THE PEOPLE AND NOT A FOREIGN POWER THAT WISHES US ILL, WE DECIDE WHO GOVERNS US AND THIS IS A STORY ABOUT MONEY ABOUT GREED, CORRUPTION AND A CAMPAIGN WILLING TO COMPROMISE THE INTEREST TO WIN AND TO MAKE MONEY AT THE SAME TIME. PRO-RUSSIAN INTERESTS TRIED TO USE THE POSITION TO CLEAR HIS DEBTS AND MAKE MILLIONS. A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER USING HIS POSITION TO MAKE MONEY FROM OTHER FOREIGN INTERESTS AND ABOUT A CANDIDATE TRYING TO MAKE MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF THEM PUT TOGETHER FOR A REAL ESTATE PROJECT THAT WAS WITH A FORTUNE, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THE REALIZATION OF A LIFELONG 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 THE ELECTION TO MAKE MONEY. IT WAS A POWERFUL FINANCIAL MOTIVE AND PUTIN WANTED RELIEF FROM ECONOMIC SANCTIONS FOR THE UKRAINE AND OVER HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. THE SECRET TRUMP TOWER MEETING BETWEEN THE RUSSIANS AND SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS WAS ABOUT SANCTIONS IN THE SECRET CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN FLYNN AND THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR WERE ABOUT SANCTIONS AND TRUMP AND HIS TEAM WANTED MORE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AND THE RUSSIANS WANTED MORE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR OLIGARCHS. THE STORY DOESN’T END HERE, EITHER. YOUR REPORT TELLS STORIES ABOUT LIES, LOTS OF LIES, LIES ABOUT A GLEAMING TOWER IN MOSCOW AND LIES ABOUT TALKS WITH THE KREMLIN AND LIES ABOUT THE FIRING OF JAMES COMEY AND LIES ABOUT EFFORTS TO FIRE YOU, DIRECTOR COMEY AND LIES TO COVER IT UP, LIES ABOUT SANCTIONS AND LIES ABOUT WIKILEAKS AND LIES ABOUT POLLING DATA AND HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS AND LIES ABOUT MEETINGS IN THE SEYCHELLES TO SET UP BACK CHANNELS AND LIES ABOUT TRUMP TOWER. LIES ABOUT 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, DIRECTOR MILLER. IT IS A SCHEME TO COVER UP, DESTRUCT AND DECEIVE AND FAR MORE PERNICIOUS, SINCE THIS ROT CAME FROM WITHIN. EVEN NOW, AFTER 447 PAGES IN TWO VOLUMES, THE DECEPTION CONTINUES. THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ACOLYTES SAID YOUR REPORT FOUND NO COLLUSION BUT IT EXPLICITLY DECLINED TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION SINCE COLLUSION CAN INVOLVE BOTH CRIMINAL AND NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT AND YOUR REPORT LAID OUT MULTIPLE OFFERS OF RUSSIAN HELP TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THAT HELP AND OVER THE FURTHERANCE OF RUSSIAN HELP, AND 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 BUT YOU SPECIFICALLY DECLARED YOU COULD NOT EXONERATE HIM. IN FACT, THEY SAY YOUR WHOLE INVESTIGATION WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A WITCH HUNT AND THAT THE RUSSIANS DIDN’T INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION AND IT’S 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. WORST OF ALL, WORSE THAN ALL THE LIES IN THE GREED, IT’S THE DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY. FOR THAT, TOO, CONTINUES. WHEN ASKED IF THE RUSSIANS INTERVENE AGAIN WOULD 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 AMERICAN INVASION BY JEFFERSON, MADISON AND HAMILTON AND NOT FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE IDEA THAT LINCOLN LABORED UNTIL HIS DYING DAY TO PRESERVE. THE IDEA AN ANIMATED ARE GREAT NATIONAL EXPERIENCE SO UNIQUE THEN AND SO PRECIOUS, STILL. OUR GOVERNMENT IS CHOSEN BY OUR PEOPLE, THROUGH OUR FRANCHISE AND NOT BY SOME HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER. THIS IS WHAT 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 AND WHY ARE INVESTIGATION MATTERS. BRING THESE DANGERS TO LIGHT. RANKING MEMBER NEWNESS? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND WELCOME TO THE LAST GASP OF THE RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY THEORY. AS DEMOCRATS VOICED 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 THE SPRING OF 2016 WHEN FUSION GPS, FUNDED BY THE DNC ON THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN STARTED DEVELOPING THE STEELE DOSSIER. A COLLECTION OF OUTLANDISH ACCUSATIONS THAT TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATION WERE RUSSIAN AGENTS. FUSION GPS AND OTHERS FED ABSURDITIES TO NAIVE OUR PARTISAN REPORTERS AND TO TOP OFFICIALS IN NUMEROUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INCLUDING 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 BRIEFINGS 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 THE PRESS FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND SUCCESSFULLY SO, OF ENGINEERING THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL WHO SITS BEFORE US TODAY. THEY HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATION WAS MARRED BY FURTHER CORRUPTION AND BIZARRE ABUSES. TOP D.O.J. OFFICIAL, BRUCE OHR, WHOSE OWN WIFE WORKED ON FUSION GPS’S ANTI-TRUMP OPERATION FED STEELE’S INFORMATION TO THE FBI, EVEN AFTER STEELE WAS FIRED AND THE TOP INVESTIGATOR AND HIS LOVER, A TOP OFFICIAL, CONSTANTLY TEXTED ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY HATED TRUMP AND WANTED TO STOP HIM FROM BEING ELECTED AND THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION WAS OPEN, BASED NOT ON THE INTELLIGENCE, BUT A TIP FROM A FOREIGN POLITICIAN ABOUT A CONVERSATION INVOLVING JOSEPH MIFSUD. HE BRAZENLY IGNORED THE RED FLAGS AND THE TRANSPARENT ABSURDITY AND THEY WERE ARGUED FOR THREE YEARS THAT EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION IS HIDDEN JUST AROUND THE CORNER. LIKE THE LOCH NESS MONSTER, THEY INSIST IT’S THERE EVEN IF NO ONE CAN FIND IT. CONSIDER THIS, IN MARCH 2017, DEMOCRATS OF THIS COMMITTEE SAID THEY HAVE MORE THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BUT COULDN’T REVEAL IT, YET. MR. MUELLER WAS SOON APPOINTED AND THEY SAID HE WOULD FIND THE COLLUSION. WHEN NO COLLUSION WAS FOUND AND MR. MUELLER’S INDICTMENTS WERE OVER, THE DEMOCRATS SAID WE WOULD FIND IT IN THE FINAL REPORT AND WHEN THERE WAS NO COLLUSION IN THE REPORT, WE WERE TOLD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WAS HIDING IT. WHEN IT WAS CLEAR THAT HE WASN’T HIDING ANYTHING, WE WERE TOLD IT WOULD BE REVEALED THROUGH A HEARING WITH MR. MUELLER, HIMSELF. NOW THAT MR. MUELLER IS HERE, THEY CLAIM 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 COLLUDED WITH RUSSIAN SOURCES TO DEVELOP THE STEELE DOSSIER AND THE RUSSIAN LAWYER COLLUDED WITH THE DOSSIER KEY ARCHITECT, FUSION GPS HAD, GLEN SIMPSON AND THE DEMOCRATS ALREADY ADMITTED THAT THROUGH THE ANONYMOUS STATEMENTS TO REPORTERS, THAT IT’S NOT ABOUT THE INFORMATION, BUT TO 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, IT’S POLITICAL FEAR AND A HAIL MARY ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT COLLUSION IS REAL AND CONCEALED IN THE REPORT. GRANTED THAT’S A STRANGE ARGUMENT TO MAKE ABOUT A REPORT THAT IS PUBLIC AND ALMOST LIKE THERE WERE 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 INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER ABOUT FINDING THE TRUTH, IT’S ALWAYS BEEN A SIMPLE MEDIA OPERATION BY THEIR OWN ACCOUNTS WHERE IT CONTINUES IN THIS ROOM TODAY. ONCE AGAIN, NUMEROUS PRESSING ISSUES THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO ADDRESS ARE PUT ON HOLD TO INDULGE THE POLITICAL FANTASIES OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED IT WAS HER DESTINY TO TO SERVE HILLARY CLINTON’S ADMINISTRATION. IT’S TIME FOR THE CURTAIN TO CLOSE ON THE RUSSIA HOAX, THE CONSPIRACY THEORY IS DEAD. AT SOME POINT, I WOULD ARGUE WE HAVE TO GET BACK TO WORK AND UNTIL THEN I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR HEARING IS PROMPT — WE GOT A LATE START, DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE HEARING WILL BE STRUCTURED AS FOLLOWS — EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WILL BE AFFORDED FIVE MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS, BEGINNING WITH THE CHAIR AND RANKING MEMBER AND AS CHAIR, I WILL DO ALTERNATING FASHION AND ASCENDING MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY AND THE RANKING MEMBER WILL BE AFFORDED AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS FOLLOWED BY THE CHAIR WITH AN ADDITIONAL FIVE QUESTIONS, FIVE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS AND THE RANKING MEMBER AND THE CHAIR WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO DELEGATE OR YIELD THE FINAL ROUND OF QUESTIONS TO ANY OTHER MEMBER AND AFTER SIX MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY IN SIX MEMBERS OF THE MINORITY HAVE CONCLUDED THEIR FIVE-MINUTE ROUNDS OF QUESTIONS, WE WILL TAKE A FIVE OR $10 MINUTE BREAK THAT WE UNDERSTAND YOU’VE REQUESTED BEFORE RESUMING THE QUESTIONING. AARON ZEBLEY SERVED AS DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL FROM MAY 2017 UNTIL MAY 2019 AND THE DAY-TO- DAY OVERSIGHT OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION. MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY RESIGNED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT THE END OF MAY 2019 WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE WAS CLOSED. BOTH MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS TODAY AND WILL BE SWORN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF THE HOUSE AND THE COMMITTEE. MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY’S APPEARANCE IS IN KEEPING WITH THE LONG-STANDING PRACTICE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM CURRENT OR FORMER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI PERSONNEL REGARDING OPEN AND CLOSED INVESTIGATIVE MATTERS. HEARING IS UNDER OATH AND BEFORE WE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY, WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS TO BE SWORN IN? >> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE AT THIS HEARING IS THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THE WITNESSES HAVE BEEN DULY SWORN. RANKING MEMBER? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR PETTIT WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR MR. ZEBLEY TO BE SWORN IN. WE ARE HERE TO ASK DIRECTOR MUELLER QUESTIONS. HE’S HERE AS COUNSEL AND OUR SIDE IS NOT GOING TO DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS TO MR.ZEBLEY AND WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HIS PRIOR REPRESENTATION OF THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AIDE AND I WANT TO VOICE THAT CONCERN THAT WE DO HAVE GOOD WE WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING ANY QUESTIONS TO MR. ZEBLEY TODAY. >> THE RANKING MEMBER, I REALIZE , AS PROBABLY DOES MR. ZEBLEY, THAT THERE IS AN ANGRY MAN DOWN THE STREET 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 WHOEVER THEY CHOOSE. WITH THAT, DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR ANY OPENING REMARKS YOU’D LIKE TO MAKE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF AND RANKING MEMBER NUNES AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I TESTIFIED THIS MORNING BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND ASKED THAT THE OPENING STATEMENT I MADE BEFORE THAT COMMITTEE BE INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD HERE. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> 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 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE MATTERS. AS WE EXPLAIN IN OUR REPORT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS EFFECTIVELY GAVE ME THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND AS A RESULT, RESTRUCTURED OUR INVESTIGATION AROUND EVIDENCE FOR POSSIBLE USE AND PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL CRIMES. WE DID NOT REACH WHAT YOU WOULD CALL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CONCLUSIONS. WE DID, HOWEVER, SET OF PROCESSES IN THE OFFICE TO IDENTIFY AND PASS COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION ONTO THE FBI. MEMBERS OF OUR OFFICE PERIODICALLY BRIEFED THE FBI ABOUT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION AND IN ADDITION THERE WERE AGENTS AND ANALYSTS FROM THE FBI WHO ARE 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’M NOT MAKING ANY JUDGMENTS OR OFFERING OPINIONS ABOUT THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE IN ANY PENDING CASE. IT IS UNUSUAL FOR 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 OR JUDICIAL ORDERS LIMIT THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO PROTECT THE FAIRNESS OF THE 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 ASSERTED 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’M NOT ABLE TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPENING OF THE FBI RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, WHICH OCCURRED MONTHS BEFORE MY APPOINTMENT. OR, MATTERS RELATED TO THE STOVE CALLED STEELE DOSSIER. THESE MATTERS ON THE SUBJECT OF ONGOING REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE TOPICS SHOULD THEREFORE BE DIRECTED TO THE FBI OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THIRD, AS I EXPLAINED THIS MORNING, IT’S 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 DO NOT INTEND TO SUMMARIZE OR DESCRIBE THE RESULTS OF OUR WORK IN A DIFFERENT WAY IN THE COURSE OF OUR 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 STANDARDS THAT GOVERN IT. 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 EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION IS AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS AND I’M SURE THAT THE COMMITTEE AGREES. NOW, BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS, I WANT TO ADD ONE CORRECTION TO MY TESTIMONY THIS MORNING. I WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE THING THAT WAS SAID THIS MORNING BY MR. LIEU, 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 AT THE OPENING, WE DID NOT REACH A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME. WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I’M READY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER AND I RECOGNIZED MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOUR REPORT SUBSCRIBES THAT RUSSIA INFLUENCED OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> DURING THE COURSE OF THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION, THE RUSSIANS MADE OUTREACH TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, DID THEY NOT? >> THAT OCCURRED OVER THE COURSE OF — THAT OCCURRED. >> IT’S ALSO CLEAR THAT DURING THE 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 CAMPAIGN WELCOMED THE RUSSIAN HELP, DID THEY NOT? >> I THINK WE REPORT THAT THERE ARE INDICATIONS THAT OCCURRED, YES. >> THE PRESIDENT’S SON SAID WHEN APPROACHED ABOUT DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON, THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WOULD LOVE IT? >> THAT IS GENERALLY WHAT WAS SAID, YES. >> THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF CALLED ON THE RUSSIANS TO HACK HILARY’S EMAILS? >> THERE WAS A STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ALONG THOSE GENERAL LINES PERSPECTIVE NUMEROUS TIMES DURING THE CAMPAIGN, THE PRESIDENT PRAYS THE RELEASES OF THE RUSSIAN HACKED EMAILS THROUGH WIKILEAKS? >> THAT DID OCCUR. >> YOUR REPORT FOUND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN PLANNED, QUOTE, OPPRESSED STRATEGY AND COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGN AND MESSAGING BASED ON THE RUSSIAN ASSISTANCE? >> I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >> THE LANGUAGE COMES FROM VOLUME ONE, 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 TRUE. >> WHILE MANAFORT WAS TRYING TO ACHIEVE DEBT FORGIVENESS? >> GENERALLY, THAT IS 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 YOU’RE INVESTIGATION LOOKED INTO THE MATTERS, NUMEROUS TRUMP ASSOCIATES LIED TO YOUR TEAM, THE GRAND JURY IN CONGRESS? >> A NUMBER OF PERSONS WE INTERVIEWED IN THE INVESTIGATION, IT TURNS OUT, DID LIE. >> MIKE FLYNN LIE? >> HE WAS CONVICTED OF LYING, YES BUT >> GEORGE PAPP ANNAPOLIS? >> TRUE. >> PAUL MANAFORT? >> TRUE. >> PAUL MANAFORT WAS, IN FACT, WENT SO FAR AS TO ENCOURAGE OTHER PEOPLE TO LIVE? >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> RICK GATES LIED? >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER WAS INDICTED FOR LYING? >> ALLEGEDLY. >> WHEN DONALD TRUMP CALLED YOUR INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT, THAT WAS FALSE? >> I LIKE TO THINK SO, YES. >> YOUR INVESTIGATION IS NOT A WITCH HUNT? >> IT IS NOT A WITCH HUNT. >> WAS IT PUBLICLY FALSE? >> HE DID SAY PUBLICLY THAT IT WAS FALSE, YES. >> WHEN HE TOLD IT TO PUTIN, THAT WAS FALSE? >> THAT, I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH. >> THE PRESIDENT SAID HE HAD NO BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA AND THAT WAS FALSE? >> I’M NOT GOING INTO DETAILS OF THE REPORT OR 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? >> THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHEN THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED. >> YOU WOULD CONSIDER A BILLION- DOLLAR DEAL TO BUILD A TOWER IN MOSCOW TO BE BUSINESS DEALINGS, WOULDN’T YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> Reporter: YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIA WANTED TRUMP TO WIN THE ELECTION? >> GENERALLY, THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE. >> RUSSIA INFORMED OFFICIALS OF THAT? >> I’M NOT CERTAIN WHAT CONVERSATIONS YOU ARE REFERRING TO. >> PAPP ANNAPOLIS WAS INFORMED THEY COULD HELP WITH THE ANONYMOUS RELEASE OF STOLEN EMAILS? >> ACCURATE. >> RUSSIA COMMITTED FEDERAL CRIMES TO HELP DONALD TRUMP? >> TALKING ABOUT COMPUTER CRIMES, IN OUR CASE, ABSOLUTELY. >> TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS BUILT THEIR STRATEGY AND THEIR MESSAGING STRATEGY AROUND THOSE STOLEN DOCUMENTS? >> GENERALLY, THAT’S TRUE. >> THEY LIED TO COVER IT UP? >> GENERALLY, THAT’S TRUE. >> THINK YOU. MR. NUNES? >> THANK YOU AND WELCOME, DIRECTOR. AS A FORMER FBI DIRECTOR, YOU WOULD AGE THE FBI’S THE WORLD’S MOST CAPABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY? >> YES. >> THE FBI CLAIMS THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEGAN JULY 31, 2016 BUT IN FACT IT BEGAN BEFORE THAT, IN JUNE 2016, BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION OFFICIALLY OPEN, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ASSOCIATES, CARTER PAGE AND STEPHEN MILLER, 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 TRUMP ASSOCIATES TO THE SYMPOSIUM AND YOUR INVESTIGATORS FAILED TO INTERVIEW AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO HELPED ORGANIZE THE EVENT AND INVITED CARTER PAGE TO IT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >> WHETHER OR NOT YOU INTERVIEWED STEVEN SCHRAG HE? >> IN THOSE AREAS, I’M GOING TO STAY AWAY FROM. >> THE FIRST TRUMP ASSOCIATE TO BE INVESTIGATED WAS GENERAL FLYNN AND MANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM STEM FROM FALSE MEDIA REPORTS THAT HE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH THE CAMBRIDGE ACADEMIC, SVETLANA LOW, AND THAT SHE WAS A RUSSIAN SPY AND SOME OF THESE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE PUBLIC IN A 2017 ARTICLE WRITTEN BY BRITISH INTELLIGENCE? >> HOW OR WHY ANDREW AND THE COLLABORATOR, THE FORMER HEAD OF THE BRITAIN AM I SIX SPREAD THESE ALLEGATIONS AND YOU FAILED TO INTERVIEW 1024? >> GETTING INTO THE THINGS YOU INFER. >> YOU AT $40 AGENTS AND UNLIMITED BUDGET, CORRECT, MR. MUELLER? >> I WOULD NOT SAY WE HAD AN UNLIMITED BUDGET. >> SUPPOSEDLY, ON JULY 31, 2016, THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT OPEN, BASED ON THE OFFICIAL PRODUCT FROM FISA INTELLIGENT BUT A RUMOR WITH VOLUME ONE, PAGE $81 WHERE HE’S DESCRIBED BLANDLY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT BUT HE WAS ACTUALLY A LONGTIME AUSTRALIAN POLITICIAN, NOT A MILITARY OFFICIAL. HE HAD PREVIOUSLY THE RANGE OF $25 MILLION DONATION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND HAS TIES . HE HAD HEARD ABOUT A CONVERSATION BETWEEN PAPADOPOULOS AND JOSEPH MIFSUD AND JAMES COMEY PUBLICLY CALLED MIFSUD A RUSSIAN AGENT BUT YOUR REPORT DOES NOT REFER TO THAT. HE’S GOT EXTENSIVE CONTACTS WITH THE FBI AND THERE’S A PHOTO OF HIM STANDING NEXT TO BORIS JOHNSON, THE NEW PRIME MINISTER OF GREAT BRITAIN. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, ARE THE NATIVE ALLIES OR BORIS JOHNSON COMPROMISE? WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE COMEY SAYS THAT MIFSUD IS A RUSSIAN AGENT AND YOU DO NOT. DO YOU STAND BY THE REPORT? >> I STAND BY THAT WHICH IS IN THE REPORT AND NOT NECESSARILY THAT WHICH IS NOT IN THE REPORT. >> I RETURNED TO MR. DOWNER WHO DENIES THAT PAPADOPOULOS MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT HILARY CLINTON’S EMAILS AND IN FACT, MIFSUD DENIES THAT PAPADOPOULOS MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAILS AND DENIES MENTIONING THEM TO PAPADOPOULOS IN THE FIRST PLACE. HOW DOES THE FBI KNOW TO ASK PAPADOPOULOS ABOUT CLINTON’S EMAILS FOR THE REST OF 2016? AND YOUR MEMO ON PAPADOPOULOS BLAMES HIM FOR HINDERING THE FBI’S ABILITY TO POTENTIALLY DETAIN OR ARREST MIFSUD BUT THE PROOF WAS HE WALTZED IN AND OUT OF THE U.S.IN DECEMBER 2016 AND THE U.S. MEDIA CAN FIND HIM IN THE ITALIAN PRESS FOUND HIM AND HE’S A SUPPOSE I’D RUSSIAN AGENT AT THE CENTER OF THE SUPPOSE I’D COLLUSION AND THAT HE KNOWS THE RUSSIANS HAVE CLINTON’S EMAILS PER THE FBI FAILED TO QUESTION HIM FOR ONE HALF YEAR AFTER OFFICIALLY OPENING THE INVESTIGATION AND THEN ACCORDING TO VOLUME ONE, PAGE 193 OF YOUR REPORT, ONCE MIFSUD WAS FINALLY QUESTION, HE MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE FBI. YOU DECLINED TO CHARGE HIM. IS THAT CORRECT? YOU DID NOT INDICT MIFSUD? >> I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THE SERIES OF HAPPENINGS AS YOU ARTICULATED THEM. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. >> YOU DID NOT INDICT MR. MIFSUD? >> TRUE. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LIFETIME OF SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY AND FOR YOUR PERSEVERANCE AND PATIENCE TODAY. YOUR REPORT OPENS WITH TWO STATEMENTS OF REMARKABLE CLARITY AND POWER. THE FIRST STATEMENT THAT AS OF TODAY, IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THAT IS, QUOTE, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION. THE SECOND STATEMENT REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL AMONG MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, THE SAME PAGE ON YOUR REPORT. 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, AS YOU SAID, INVOLVE TWO OPERATIONS. FIRST, SOCIAL MEDIA DISASSOCIATION CAMPAIGN TO SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION ON PLACES LIKE TWITTER AND FACEBOOK. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> FACEBOOK ESTIMATED THAT THE RUSSIAN FAKE IMAGES REACHED 126 MILLION PEOPLE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE SUM WE RECORDED. >> WHO DID THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CMPAIGN ULTIMATELY INTEND TO BENEFIT, HILLARY CLINTON OR DONALD TRUMP? >> DONALD TRUMP. >> LET ME JUST SAY, DONALD TRUMP AT THERE WERE INSTANCES WHERE HILLARY CLINTON WAS SUBJECT TO MUCH THE SAME BEHAVIOR. >> THE SECOND OPERATION IN THE RUSSIAN ATTACK WAS A SCHEME CALLED HACK AND DUMP, TO STEAL AND RELEASE EMAILS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY? >> THAT IS. >> TO DRAW INVESTIGATION FIND THAT THE RELEASED EMAILS WERE STRATEGICALLY TIMED TO MAXIMIZE IMPACT ON THE ELECTION? >> I’D HAVE TO REFER YOU TO OUR REPORT ON THAT QUESTION. >> I QUOTE, THE RELEASE WAS TIME TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 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 THAT THE SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC EFFORT BY RUSSIA ACTUALLY HAD AN OUTCOME ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? >> THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY OTHER ENTITIES. >> 126 MILLION FACEBOOK ATTACKS, WOULD YOU RULE OUT THAT IT HAD SOME EFFECT? >> THE THIRD AVENUE OF ATTEMPTED INTERFERENCE, THE NUMEROUS LINKS AND CONTACTS BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND THE INDIVIDUALS TIED TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES THE THIRD AVENUE OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND THAT IS THE LINKS AND CONTACTS BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND INDIVIDUALS TIED TO THE CAMPAIGN? >> YES. >> LET’S BRING UP SLIDE ONE ABOUT GEORGE PAPP ANNAPOLIS AND IT READS — ON MAY 6, 2016, $10 DAYS AFTER THAT MEETING WITH MIFSUD, PAPADOPOULOS SUGGESTED THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD RECEIVED INDICATIONS FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT THAT IT COULD ASSIST THE CAMPAIGN THROUGH THE ANONYMOUS RELEASE OF INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO HILLARY CLINTON. DIRECTOR, THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED TWO MONTHS LATER, IS IT NOT? >> I CAN SPEAK TO THE EXCERPT ON THE SCREEN AS BEING ACCURATE BUT NOT THE SECOND HALF OF YOUR QUESTION. >> ON JULY 22, THROUGH WIKILEAKS, THOUSANDS OF THESE EMAILS THAT WERE STOLEN BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT APPEARED, CORRECT? THAT’S ON PAGE SIX OF THE REPORT. THIS IS THE WIKILEAKS POSTING OF THOSE EMAILS. >> I CAN FIND IT QUICKLY, BUT PLEASE CONTINUE. >> TO BE CLEAR, BEFORE THE PUBLIC OR THE FBI EVER KNEW THE RUSSIANS PREVIEWED FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL THAT THEY HAD STOLEN EMAILS THAT THEY COULD RELEASE ANONYMOUSLY TO HELP DONALD TRUMP AND HURT HILLARY CLINTON, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I WANT SPEAK TO THAT. >> DIRECTOR, RATHER THAN REPORT THIS CONTACT WITH JOSEPH MIFSUD, RATHER THAN REPORT THAT TO THE FBI AND MOST MY CONSTITUENTS WOULD EXPECT THAT, GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS LIED? >> THAT’S TRUE. >> GENERALLY SPEAKING, SHOULD A CAMPAIGN REPORT THOSE TYPES OF CONTACTS? >> DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF IT BEING A CRIME. >> I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> MR. KHAN AWAY? >> THANK YOU. MR. MUELLER, DID ANYONE ASK YOU TO EXCLUDE ANYTHING FROM YOUR REPORT THAT YOU FELT SHOULD BE IN THE REPORT? >> I DON’T THINK SO. IT’S NOT A SMALL REPORT. >> NO ONE ASKED YOU TO EXCLUDE SOMETHING IN THERE? >> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL, NO. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, DIRECTOR MUELLER. IN YOUR MAY 29 PRESS CONFERENCE AND IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS THIS MORNING, YOU MADE IT CLEAR HE ONE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT TO SPEAK FOR ITSELF. HE SAID AT YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE THAT IT WAS THE OFFICE’S FINAL POSITION AND WE WILL NOT COMMENT ON ANY OTHER CONCLUSIONS OR HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT BUT YOU’VE 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’VE STAYED PRETTY MUCH TRUE TO YOUR INTENT AND DESIRE. BUT REGARDLESS OF THAT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE IS CLOSED AND IT HAS NO CONTINUING JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION FOR ADDING NEW CONCLUSIONS OR DETERMINATIONS TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WRITTEN REPORT? >> I DON’T KNOW OR EXPECT. >> TO THAT POINT, WHAT ARE THE ISSUES, TO THE TESTIMONY THIS MORNING, SOME CONSTRUE IT AS A CHANGE TO THE WRITTEN REPORT. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE EXCHANGE YOU HAD WITH CONGRESSMAN LOOP. I WANT TO ASK YOU SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR. I RECORDED THAT HE ASKED YOU THE REASON HE DID NOT INDICT DONALD TRUMP WAS BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION STATING YOU CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT TO WHICH HE RESPONDED, THAT IS CORRECT. THAT RESPONSE IS INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR WRITTEN REPORT AND I WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT IT’S NOT YOUR INTENT TO CHANGE THE WRITTEN REPORT BUT TO CLARIFY THE RECORD? >> I ADDED A FOOTNOTE OR IN AN NOTE AND I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE DID NOT MAKE ANY DETERMINATION WITH REGARD TO CULPABILITY. WE DID NOT START THAT PROCESS. >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THE RECORD. A STATED PURPOSE OF YOUR APPOINTMENT WAS A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE RUSSIAN EFFORTS TO INTERFERE AND PART OF THAT INVESTIGATION SHOWS, WHAT DETERMINATION DID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE MAKE ABOUT WHETHER THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS PART OF THE RUSSIAN EFFORT TO INTERFERE IN THE ELECTION? >> WHEN IT COMES TO MR. STEELE, I DEFER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >> FIRST OF ALL, I VERY MUCH AGREE WITH YOUR DETERMINATION THAT THE EFFORTS FROM RUSSIA WERE SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC AND IT SHOULD CONCERN EVERY AMERICAN BUT I WANT TO KNOW HOW SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC THOSE EFFORTS WERE AND WANT TO FIND OUT IF IT INTERFERES. WHAT ABOUT THE TRUMP CONSPIRACY. >> I’M NOT GOING TO INFER WITH MR. STEELE AND IN TERMS OF PORTRAYAL OF THE CONSPIRACY, WE RETURNED TWO INDICTMENTS IN THE COMPUTER CRIMES ARENA AND ONE GRU AND ANOTHER ACTIVE MEASURES IN WHICH WE LAY OUT IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL WHAT OCCURRED IN THOSE TWO RATHER LARGE CONSPIRACIES. >> I AGREE WITH RESPECT TO THAT BUT WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT IS AN APPLICATION AND THREE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO SERVILE CARTER PAGE AND ON ALL FOUR OCCASIONS, THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS A CENTRAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THAT. THE BASIC PREVALECE OF THE DOSSIER, AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A WELL-DEVELOPED CONSPIRACY OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH CONSPIRACY, CORRECT? >> WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THE EVENTS YOU CHARACTERIZE IS PART OF ANOTHER MATTER BEING HANDLED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >> YOU DID NOT ESTABLISH A CONSPIRACY, MUCH LESS A WELL- DEVELOPED ONE? >> AGAIN, I PASS ON THAT QUESTION. >> THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT CHARGE CARTER PAGE WITH ANYTHING? >> THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT. >> MY TIME IS OVER. I YIELD BACK. >> FOR THE JUNE 9TH 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING, SLIDE TWO, ON THE SCREEN NOW, AS PART OF AN EMAIL CHAIN BETWEEN DON JR., DONALD TRUMP JR., AND A PUBLICIST REPRESENTING THE SON OF A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH AND THE EMAIL EXCHANGE ULTIMATELY LEAD TO THE NOW INFAMOUS JUNE 9, 2016 MEETING IN THE EMAIL FROM A PUBLICIST TO DONALD TRUMP JR. READS, IN PART, OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS WERE OFFERED WITH INFORMATION TO INCRIMINATE HILLARY AND HER DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA AND AS A PART OF RUSSIA AND ITS GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF MR. TRUMP. IN THIS EMAIL, DONALD TRUMP JR. IS BEING TOLD THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PASS ALONG INFORMATION WHICH WOULD HURT HILLARY CLINTON AND HELP DONALD TRUMP DONALD TRUMP. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> NOW, TRUMP JR.’S RESPONSE IS ON SLIDE THREE. HE SAID, AND I QUOTE, IF IT IS WHAT YOU SAY, I LOVE IT, ESPECIALLY LATER IN THE SUMMER AND THEN DONALD TRUMP JR. INVITED THE SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS, PAUL MANAFORT AND JARED KUSHNER TO THE MEETING, DID HE NOT? >> HE DID. >> THIS EMAIL CHAIN IS EVIDENCE OF AN OFFER OF A LEGAL ASSISTANCE. >> I CANNOT ADOPT THAT CHARACTERIZATION. >> ISN’T IT AGAINST THE LAW TO ACCEPT ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT? GENERALLY SPEAKING, YES BUT GENERALLY, THE CASES ARE UNIQUE . >> YOU SAY ON PAGE 184, VOLUME ONE, THAT THE FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW BROADLY ROQUE PROHIBITS FOREIGN NATIONALS FOR MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS AND THEN YOU SAY FOREIGN NATIONALS MAY NOT MAKE A CONTRIBUTION OR DONATION OF MONEY OR ANYTHING OF VALUE. IT SAYS IT CLEARLY IN THE REPORT, ITSELF. >> THANK YOU. >> LET’S TURN TO WHAT HAPPENED AT THE MEETING WHEN DONALD TRUMP JR. AND OTHERS GOT TO THE MEETING, THEY REALIZE THEY DIDN’T HAVE THE QUOTE-UNQUOTE DIRT AND THEY GOT UPSET ABOUT THAT, DID THEY NOT? >> IN GENERAL, YES. >> SAY IN VOLUME ONE, PAGE 118 THAT TRUMP JR. ASKED, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? WHAT DO THEY HAVE ON CLINTON? DURING THE MEETING, KUSHNER TEXTED MANAFORT SAYING IT WAS, QUOTE, A WASTE OF TIME. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE IT IS IN THE REPORT ALONG THE LINES YOU SPECIFY. >> TO BE CLEAR, TOP TRUMP OFFICIALS LEARNED RUSSIA WANTED TO HELP TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN BY GIVING HIM DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT AND TRUMP JR. SAID HE LOVED IT AND THEN HE AND SENIOR OFFICIALS HELD A MEETING WITH THE RUSSIANS TO TRY TO GET THAT RUSSIAN HELP BUT WERE DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE THE DIRT WASN’T AS GOOD AS I’D HOPED. TO THE NEXT STEP, DID ANYONE COME INTO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, TELL THE FBI OF THIS OFFER? >> I DON’T BELIEVE SO. >> DID DONALD TRUMP JR. SAY THEY RECEIVED AN OFFER OF HELP? >> THAT’S ABOUT ALL I WILL SAY ON THIS ASPECT OF IT. >> WOULDN’T IT BE TRUE, SIR, THAT IF THEY REPORTED IT TO THE CAMPAIGN OUT OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS, YOU WOULD BE RECOVERED? >> I WOULD HOPE, YES. >> IS IT NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS TO INFORM THE FBI IF THEY’VE RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT? >> I WOULD THINK IT 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 9TH MEETING FOR OVER A YEAR. IS THAT NOT CORRECT? >> ON THE GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION, I WOULD QUESTION IT AND IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO LATER, I REFER TO AN INITIATIVE THAT FLOWED FROM THE MEDIA. >> WHAT I’M SUGGESTING IF YOU’VE SAID ON VOLUME TWO, PAGE FIVE THAT THEY DIRECTED AIDES TO NOT DISCLOSE THE EMAIL SETTING UP THE JUNE 9TH MEETING. >> THAT’S ACCURATE. >> THANKS. >> GIVEN THIS A LEGAL ASSISTANCE, YOU CHOSE, EVEN GIVEN THAT, YOU DID NOT CHARGE DONALD TRUMP JR. OR ANY SENIOR OFFICIALS WITH CONSPIRAY. IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OTHER INDIVIDUALS, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ATTENDEES. >> DON’T YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERNED THAT THESE SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS EAGERLY SOUGHT A FOREIGN ADVERSARIES HELP TO WIN ELECTIONS AND WOULDN’T THAT BE IMPORTANT SO WE DON’T SET A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS? >> I CAN’T ACCEPT THAT CHARACTERIZATION. >> LISTEN. IT SEEMS LIKE A BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN VALUES THAT SOMEONE — NOT BEING CRIMINAL, IT’S DEFINITELY UNETHICAL AND WRONG AND WE WOULDN’T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT THEY SHOULDN’T DIVULGE THE INFORMATION? THANK YOU, SIR. >> MR. TURNER? >> MR. MUELLER, IN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, YOU INDICATE THAT PURSUANT TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS, YOU SUBMITTED A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION AND I’D LIKE YOU TO CONFIRM THAT A REPORT THAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS HEARING WAS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL? >> YES. >> YOU ALSO STATE THAT YOU THREW OVERBOARD THE WORD COLLUSION BECAUSE IT’S NOT A LEGAL TERM AND YOU WOULD NOT CONCLUDE BECAUSE CONCLUSION WAS NOT A LEGAL TERM? >> IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT TO USE THE WORD. IN A GENERAL PARLANCE, YOU CAN THINK OF IT THAT WAY BUT IN THE CRIMINAL STATUTE ARENA, YOU CAN’T BECAUSE IT’S MUCH MORE APTLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS CONSPIRACY. >> IT’S NOT A LEGAL TERM SO YOU DIDN’T PUT IT IN YOUR COLLUSION REPORT? >> CORRECT. >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE APPOINTMENT ORDER GAVE YOU POWERS RESIDING IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NO ABILITY TO GIVE YOU A POWER GREATER THAN THE POWER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CORRECT? >> I THINK THAT IS CORRECT. >> I WANT TO FOCUS ON ONE WORD, THE SECOND TO LAST WORD, EXONERATE. THE REPORT STATES THAT WHILE THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME, IT DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM AND IN THE JUDICIARY HEARING AND IN YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY, YOU’VE ALREADY AGREED THAT EXONERATE IS NOT A LEGAL TERM SO I HAVE A QUESTION. MR. MUELLER, DOES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE? I PUT THIS UP HERE AS THE U.S. CODE. FOR THE ANNOTATED CASES OF THESE, WE’VE SEARCHED AND WE WENT TO YOUR LAW SCHOOL. I WENT TO CASE WESTERN BUT I THOUGHT YOUR LAW SCHOOL MIGHT TEACH IT DIFFERENTLY. WE GOT THE CRIMINAL LAW TEXTBOOK FROM YOUR LAW SCHOOL. NOWHERE IN THIS IS THEIR PROCESS OR DESCRIPTION ON EXONERATE. THERE IS NO OFFICE OF EXONERATION, NO CERTIFICATE. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE? >> I HAVE GOT TO PASS ON THAT. >> WHY? >> BECAUSE IT BROYLES US IN A LEGAL DISCUSSION AND I’M NOT PREPARED TO DO A LEGAL DISCUSSION IN THAT ARENA. >> MR. MUELLER, YOU WOULD NOT DISAGREE WITH ME WHEN I SAY THERE IS NO PLACE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE AND YOU’VE NOT BEEN GIVEN THAT AUTHORITY? >> I TAKE YOUR QUESTION. >> I GUESS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL KNOWS THAT HE CAN’T EXONERATE, EITHER AND THAT’S THE PART THAT CONFUSES ME BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN’T HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE AND YOU DON’T HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE AND I BELIEVE HE KNOWS HE DOESN’T HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE. THIS IS WHAT 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 KNOWS YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT POWER, YOU DON’T HAVE TO TELL HIM YOU ARE NOT EXONERATING THE PRESENT BECAUSE HE KNOWS THIS ALREADY. THAT CHANGES THE CONTEXT. >> I KNOW AND WE INCLUDED IT IN THE REPORT FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON. >> YOU BELIEVE ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR BELIEVES THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE HALLWAYS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THERE IS AN OFFICE OF EXONERATION? >> THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID. >> I THINK YOU PUT THAT IN FOR EXACTLY THE REASON I DISCUSS AND THAT IS SO THE WASHINGTON POST, WHEN SPEAKING OF THE REPORT, THE ARTICLE SAID TRUMP COULD NOT BE EXONERATED OF TRYING TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION, ITSELF. TRUMP COULD NOT BE EXONERATED AND THAT STATEMENT IS CORRECT, IN THAT NO ONE CAN BE EXONERATED. THIS REPORTER CAN’T BE EXONERATED AND YOU CAN’T BE EXONERATED. IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, THERE IS NO POWER OR AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE AND MY CONCERN IS, THIS IS THE HEADLINE ON ALL OF THE NEWS CHANNELS WHILE YOU TESTIFIED TODAY. MUELLER, TRUMP WAS NOT EXONERATED ON WHAT YOU KNOW AS THIS CAN’T SAY MUELLER EXONERATED? BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE TUMP. YOU HAVE NO MORE POWER TO DO THAT THAN TO DECLARE HIM ANDERSON COOPER. THE PROBLEM I HAVE, SINCE THERE IS NO ONE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT HAS THAT POWER, THE PRESIDENT PARDONS, NOT EXONERATE. THEY DON’T DECLARE EXONERATION AND THE STATEMENT ABOUT EXONERATION IS MISLEADING AND MEANINGLESS AND IT COLORS THIS INVESTIGATION. ONE WORD OF THE ENTIRE PORTION OF YOUR REPORT AND IT’S A MEANINGLESS WORD THAT HAS NO LEGAL MEANING AND IT HAS COLORED YOUR ENTIRE REPORT. >> THE GENTLEMAN IS EXPIRED. >> MR. CARSON? >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. I WANT TO LOOK AT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN, PAUL MANAFORT, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO I BELIEVE BETRAYED OUR COUNTRY, LIED TO THE GRAND JURY AND 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 FOUND TROUBLING CONTACTS BETWEEN MR. MANAFORT AND RUSSIAN INTERVIEWED JEWELS BEFORE AND AFTER THE CAMPAIGN? >> CORRECT. >> IN ADDITION TO THE JUNE 9TH MEETING JUST DISCUSSED, MANAFORT MET SEVERAL TIMES WITH A MAN NAMED CONSTANTINE KILIMNIK WITH THE FBI ASSESSED TO HAVE TIES WITH RUSSIAN INTEL AGENCIES. >> CORRECT. >> MR. MANAFORT DIDN’T JUST MEET WITH HIM, HE SHARED PRIVATE POLLING INFORMATION WITH THIS MAN LINKED TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE INFORMATION WAS SHARED WITH THE RUSSIAN OLIGARCH TIED TO VLADIMIR PUTIN. IS THAT CORRECT? >> ALLEGEDLY. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, MEETING WITH HIM WASN’T ENOUGH AND SHARING INTERNAL POLLING INFORMATION WASN’T ENOUGH. MR. MANAFORT WENT SO FAR AS TO OFFER THE RUSSIAN OLIGARCH TIED TO PUTIN, A PRIVATE BRIEFING ON THE CAMPAIGN. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. >> FINALLY, MR. MANAFORT DISCUSSED INTERNAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGY ON FOUR BATTLEGROUND STATES, MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND MINNESOTA WITH THE LINKED INDIVIDUAL. DID HE NOT? >> THAT’S REFLECTED IN THE REPORT, AS WERE THE ITEMS YOU LISTED PREVIOUSLY. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, BASED ON YOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE FBI WOULD YOU AGREE IT CREATES A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN SHARES PRIVATE POLLING INFORMATION ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? PRIVATE POLITICAL STRATEGIES RELATED TO WINNING THE VOTES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT AMERICAN BATTLEGROUND STATES WERE SHARED WITH THE FOREIGN ADVERSARY? >> IS AT THE QUESTION? >> YES, SIR. >> I’M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ALONG THOSE LINES. TO THE EXTENT IT IS WITHIN THE REPORT, I SUPPORTED AND ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IS NOT PART OF THAT WHICH I WOULD SUPPORT. >> I THINK IT DOES, SIR. I THINK IT SHOWS AN INFURIATING LACK OF PATRIOTISM FROM THOSE SEEKING THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND. MANAFORT DIDN’T SHARE THIS FOR NOTHING, DID HE, SIR? >> I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITHOUT KNOWING MORE ABOUT THAT QUESTION. >> IT’S CLEAR THAT HE HOPED TO BE PAID BACK THE MONEY HE WAS OWED BY THE RUSSIAN OR UKRAINIAN OLIGARCHS IN TURN FOR THE PASSAGE OF PRIVATE CAMPAIGN INFORMATION? >> THAT IS TRUE. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, AS WE WILL DISCUSS LATER, GREED CORRUPTS. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT SHARING A PRIVATE CAMPAIGN INFORMATION IN EXCHANGE FOR MONEY REPRESENTS A PARTICULAR KIND OF CORRUPTION, ONE THAT PRESENTS A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK TO OUR COUNTRY, SIR? >> I’M NOT GOING TO OPINE ON THAT. I DON’T HAVE THE EXPERTISE IN THAT ARENA. >> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT MANAFORT’S CONTACTS WITH RUSSIANS CLOSE TO VLADIMIR PUTIN AND THE EFFORT TO EXCHANGE PRIVATE INFORMATION ON AMERICANS FOR MONEY LEFT THEM VULNERABLE TO BLACKMAIL BY THE RUSSIANS? >> GENERALLY, SO, THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. >> WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THESE ACTS DEMONSTRATED A BETRAYAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC VALUES OF OUR COUNTRY? >> I CAN AGREE WITH THAT. NOT THAT IT’S NOT TRUE, BUT I CAN’T AGREE WITH IT. >> YES, SIR. IN MY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FORTUNATE TO SERVE ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE, I KNOW ENOUGH TO SAY YES. TRADING POLITICAL SECRETS FOR MONEY. DEPENDING ON DEMOCRACY, I THANK YOU FOR COMING. >> DR. WENSTRUP? >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WERE INVOLVED IN THE THEFT OR PUBLICATION OF CLINTON CAMPAIGN RELATED EMAILS? >> CAN YOU READ — CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >> IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WERE INVOLVED IN THE THEFT OR PUBLICATION OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN RELATED EMAILS? >> I DON’T KNOW. >> VOLUME ONE PAGE FIVE, THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN THE ELECTION INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. SO, IT WOULD THEREFORE BE INACCURATE, BASED ON THIS, TO DESCRIBE THAT FINDING AS OPEN TO DOUBT. THAT FINDING BEING THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WASN’T INVOLVED WITH THEFT OR PUBLICATION OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN EMAILS. ARE YOU FOLLOWING THAT, SIR? >> I DO BELIEVE I’M FOLLOWING UP BUT THAT PORTION OF THAT MATTER DOES NOT FALL WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION OR FALL WITHIN OUR INVESTIGATION. >> BASICALLY, WHAT YOUR REPORT SAYS ON VOLUME ONE, PAGE FIVE, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT OPEN TO DOUBT IS HOW THE COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS DESCRIBE THE FINDING IN THE MINORITY VIEWS FOR THE 2018 REPORT. IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR REPORT. IS IT ACCURATE ALSO, TO SAY THE INVESTIGATION FOUND NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS TOLD ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ABOUT JOSEPH MIFSUD’S CLAIMS THAT THE RUSSIA PEOPLE HAD DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON? >> LET ME TURN THAT OVER TO MR. ZEBLEY. >> I LIKE TO ASK YOU, SIR. >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >> IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY THE INVESTIGATION FOUND NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS TOLD ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ABOUT JOSEPH MIFSUD’S CLAIMS THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON? >> I BELIEVE THE REPORT IS ACCURATE. >> AND THE REPORTED SAYS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS SHARED THIS INFORMATION WITH THE CAMPAIGN AND IS THEREFORE INACCURATE TO CONCLUDE THAT BY THE TIME OF THE JUNEJUNE 9, 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING, QUOTE, THE CAMPAIGN WAS LIKELY ALREADY ON NOTICE VIA GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS’ CONTACT WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS THAT RUSSIA HAD DAMAGING INFORMATION ON TRUMP’S OPPONENT. WOULD YOU SAY THAT IS INACCURATE, TO SAY IT’S LIKELY ALREADY — >> I DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS JUMPED TO THE INCORRECT CONCLUSION IN THEIR MINORITY VIEWS, WHICH CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR REPORT. CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS I’D LIKE YOU TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE STATEMENTS THAT I HAVE CONCERNS WITH AND MAYBE YOU CAN CLEAR THEM UP. A MEMBER OF THE 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 THAT PAUL MANAFORT MET WITH JULIAN ASSANGE IN 2016 BEFORE WIKILEAKS RELEASED DNC EMAILS, IMPLYING MANAFORT COLLUDED WITH ASSANGE. YOUR REPORT DOES NOT FIND EVIDENCE THAT MANAFORT MET WITH US ON SO I ASSUME THAT MEANS YOU FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF THAT MEETING. IS THAT ASSUMPTION CORRECT? >> I’M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THAT ASSUMPTION. >> YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF IT IN YOUR REPORT, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. >> MR. MUELLER, DOES THE REPORT CONTAIN EVIDENCE THAT MR.TRUMP WAS ENROLLED IN THE RUSSIAN SYSTEM AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE ONCE CLAIMED? >> WHAT I CAN SPEAK TO IS INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE THAT WE PICKED UP, THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL — I THINK IT’S ACCURATE, AS FAR AS IT GOES. >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. LET’S GO FOR A SECOND TO SCHOOL. DID YOU ASK THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MANDATE RELATED TO AUGUST 2ND, 2017 SCOPING MEMORANDA? >> WELL, WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE MEMORANDA, I CANNOT ANSWER THAT. >> DID YOU EVER MAKE A REQUEST TO EXPAND THE MANDATE AT ALL? >> GENERALLY, YES. >> WAS THAT EVER DENIED? >> I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. IT GOES TO INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS. >> I’M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND PROCESS. DOES EXPANDING THE SCOPE COME FROM THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR ROD ROSENSTEIN, OR DOES IT COME FROM YOU OR CAN IT COME FROM EITHER? >> I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES. >> THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, I THINK I CAN SAY WITHOUT FEAR OF CONTRADICTION THAT YOU ARE THE GREATEST PATRIOT IN THIS ROOM TODAY. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT, AND I WILL 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 INTERVENTION, I THINK IT WAS AN INVASION AND I DON’T THINK IT WAS SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC, I THINK IT WAS SINCE UNDER AND SCHEMING. ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, THEY REFERRED TO THE RUSSIAN INTERVENTION AS A HOAX. I’D LIKE TO GET YOUR COMMENT ON THAT AND 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 AND THERE WERE SOME 80,000 POSTS ON FACEBOOK AND THAT FACEBOOK, ITSELF, ADMITTED THAT 126 MILLION PEOPLE HAD PROBABLY SEEN THE POSTS PUT UP BY THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY AND THAT THEY HAVE 3700 TWITTER ACCOUNT 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, AND 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 AND THE INDICTMENTS RETURNED AGAINST THE RUSSIANS, TWO DIFFERENT ONES, WERE SUBSTANTIAL IN THEIR SCOPE, USING LET’S GO FOR IT AGAIN AND I THINK 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. I LIKE TO DRILL DOWN EVEN 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. 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 — OFTENTIMES, WHEN WE ENGAGE IN THESE HEARINGS, WE FORGET THE FOREST FOR THE TREES. YOU HAVE A VERY LARGE REPORT HERE, OVER 400 PAGES AND 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. ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I WANT TO GIVE YOU 1:39 TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO GLEAN FROM THIS REPORT. >> WELL, WE SPENT SUBSTANTIAL TIME ENSURING 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 SO I YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. DIRECTOR MALIK, I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT CONSPIRACY. GENERALLY, CONSPIRACY REQUIRES AN OFFER OF SOMETHING ILLEGAL, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FURTHERANCE OF IT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND, DON JR.WAS MADE AWARE THAT THE RUSSIANS WERE OFFERING DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT, CORRECT? >> I DON’T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. >> AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU WOULD LOVE TO GET THAT HELP, THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER? >> IT’S A WIDE-OPEN REQUEST. >> WOULD CERTAINLY BE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE IF YOU SAY WHEN SOMEONE OFFERS YOU SOMETHING ILLEGAL AND YOU SAY YOU WOULD LOVE IT, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE? >> I STAY AWAY FROM ANY — ADDRESSING ONE OR TWO PARTICULAR SITUATIONS. >> THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, I’LL HAVE TO CONTINUE IN A BIT. NOW, I YIELD TO. >> I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO EMPHASIZE SOMETHING THAT MY FRIEND MR. TURNER HAS SAID. I HAVE HEARD MANY PEOPLE STATE NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW AND MANY TIMES RECENTLY THEY HAD NOT EVEN 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 WANT YOU TO KNOW, I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT THAT NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW. BUT THERE’S ANOTHER PRINCIPLE THAT WE ALSO HAVE TO DEFEND AND THAT IS THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND I’M SURE — THE WAY YOUR OFFICE PHRASED SOME PARTS OF YOUR REPORT, IT DOES MAKE ME WONDER, I HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, FOR GOING ON THREE YEARS, INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF VERY SERIOUS CRIMES, INCLUDING TREASON. ACCUSATIONS MADE EVEN HERE TODAY, THEY HAVE HAD THEIR LIVES DISRUPTED AND IN SOME CASES DESTROYED BY FALSE ACCUSATIONS FOR WHICH THERIS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS OTHER THAN SOME PEOPLE DESPERATELY WISH THAT IT WAS SO. YOUR REPORT IS VERY CLEAR. NO EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY, 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 THAT VERY CLEAR. MR. MUELLER, THE CREDIBILITY OF YOUR REPORT IS BASED ON THE INTEGRITY OF HOW IT IS HANDLED AND THERE’S SOMETHING THAT I THINK BOTHERS ME AND OTHER AMERICANS. I AM HOLDING HERE IN MY HAND A BINDER OF 25 EXAMPLES OF LEAKS THAT OCCURRED FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE FROM THOSE WHO ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR WORK DATING BACK TO AS EARLY AS A FEW WEEKS AFTER YOUR INCEPTION AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR WORK AND CONTINUING UP TO JUST 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. NEVER WAS IT LEAKED THAT YOU HAD FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. NEVER WAS IT LEAKED THAT THE STEAL DOSSIER WAS A COMPLETE FANT SAY NOR THAT IT WAS FUNDED BY THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. I COULD GO ON AND ON. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE FROM YOUR TEAM HAVING GIVEN ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THE RAID ON ROGER STONE’S HOME TO ANY PERSON OR THE PRESS INCLUDING CNN? >> I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT SPECIFICS. I WILL MENTION, BUT TALK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT PERSONS WHO BECOME INVOLVED IN AN INVESTIGATION. AND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IN A LENGTHY, THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, SOME PERSONS WILL BE UNDER A CLOUD. I SHOULD NOT BE UNDER A CLOUD AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR EMPHASIZING AS I HAVE THE SPEED OF AN ELECTION — OR NOT ELECTION, THE SPEED OF AN INVESTIGATION IS THAT SO THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE DISRUPTED AS A RESULT OF — >> I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I DO HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS OF CONCERN. >> RESULT IN THAT INVESTIGATION. >> AND YOU’RE RIGHT, IT IS AN UNFAIR CLOUD FOR DOZENS OF PEOPLE. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE MEDIA REGARDING THE RAID ON ROGER STONE’S HOME INCLUDING CNN? >> I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. >> MR. MUELLER, YOU SENT A LETTER DATED MARCH 27th TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR IN WHICH YOU CLAIMED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S MEMO TO CONGRESS DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT OF YOUR REPORT. YOU STATED EARLIER TODAY THAT RESPONSE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED. DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO DETERMINE WHO LEAKED THIS CONFIDENTIAL LETTER? >> NO, AND I’M NOT CERTAIN — THIS IS A LETTER OF MARCH 27th? >> YES, SIR. >> I AM NOT CERTAIN WHEN IT WAS PUBLICIZED. I DO KNOW IT WAS PUBLICIZED BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LEAKS. >> WELL — >> I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB IN ASSURING THAT NO LEAKS OCCUR AND — >> WE HAVE 25 EXAMPLES HERE OF WHERE YOU DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB. NOT YOU, SIR. I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU AT ALL BUT WHAT YOUR JOB DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF PROTECTING THIS INFORMATION. ONE MORE EXAMPLE. DO YOU KNOW WHO ANYONE WHO ANONYMOUSLY MADE CLAIMS TO THE PRESS THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S MARCH 24th LETTER TO CONGRESS HAD BEEN MISREPRESENTED OR MISREPRESENTED, THE BASIS OF YOUR REPORT? >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >> DO YOU KNOW WHO ANONYMOUSLY MADE CLAIMS TO THE PRESS THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S MARCH 24th LETTER TO CONGRESS HAD MISREPRESENTED THE FINDINGS OF YOUR REPORT? >> NO. >> SIR, GIVEN THESE EXAMPLES AS WELL AS OTHERS, YOU MUST HAVE REALIZED THE LEAKS WERE COMING FROM SOMEONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE. WHAT I’D LIKE TO ASK — >> I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT. >> WELL, SIR, THIS WAS YOUR WORK. YOU’RE THE ONLY ONE — YOUR OFFICE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAD INFORMATION REGARDING THIS. 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 HAVE UNDERTAKEN TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF LEAKS AND I THINK WE WERE SUCCESSFUL OVER THE TWO YEARS THAT WE WERE IN OPERATION. >> WELL, I WISH YOU HAD BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL SIR. I THINK IT WAS DISRUPTIVE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. MY TIME IS EXPIRED. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. QUIGLEY. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. DIRECTOR, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THIS TOO SHALL PASS. EARLIER TODAY AND THROUGHOUT THE DAY YOU HAVE STATED THE POLICY THAT A SEATED PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INDICTED, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> UPON QUESTIONING THIS MORNING, YOU WERE ASKED COULD THAT — COULD A PRESIDENT BE INDICTED AFTER THEIR SERVICE, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND YOUR ANSWER WAS THAT THEY COULD? >> THEY COULD. >> DIRECTOR, PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. >> I’M SORRY. THANK YOU. >> SO — >> THEY COULD. >> THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE CONCERNING IS, WHAT IF A PRESIDENT SERVES BEYOND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? >> I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE. >> WOULD IT NOT INDICATE THAT IF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL CRIMES SUCH AS THIS ARE FIVE YEARS, THAT A PRESIDENT, WHO SERVES HIS SECOND TERM IS THERE FOR, UNDER THE POLICY ABOVE THE LAW? >> I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION. I’M NOT CERTAIN THAT I CAN SEE — >> THE STATUTE — >> — THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU SUGGEST. >> BUT THE STATUTE DOESN’T TOLL; IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DON’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY. >> IT CLEARLY DOESN’T. AND I JUST WANT — AS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS WATCHING THIS AND PERHAPS LEARNING ABOUT MANY OF THESE FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT AND THAT THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES ARE PERHAPS ALL THAT WE HAVE, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE: EARLIER IN QUESTIONING SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT WAS A QUESTION INVOLVING WHETHER ANYONE IN THE TRUMP POLITICAL WORLD PUBLICIZED THE E-MAILS, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS THE CASE. I JUST WANT TO REFER TO VOLUME ONE, PAGE 60, WHERE WE LEARNED THAT TRUMP JUNIOR PUBLICLY TWEETED A LINK TO THE LEAK OF STOLEN PODESTA E-MAILS IN OCTOBER OF 2016. YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >> I AM. >> SO THAT WOULD AT LEAST BE A REPUBLISHING OF THIS INFORMATION, WOULD IT NOT? >> I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. >> DIRECTOR POMPEO ASSESSED WIKILEAK AT ONE POINT AS A HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. GIVEN YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WIKILEAKS DID HERE AND WHAT THEY DO GENERALLY, WOULD YOU ASSESS THAT TO BE ACCURATE OR SOMETHING SIMILAR? HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS WHAT WIKILEAKS DOES? >> ABSOLUTELY. AND THEY HAVE — CURRENTLY UNDER INDICTMENT. JULIAN ASSANGE IS. >> YOU WOULD AGREE WITH DIRECTOR POMPEO, THAT’S WHAT HE WAS WHEN HE MADE THAT REMARK THAT IT’S A HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, CORRECT? >> YES. >> IF WE COULD PUT UP SLIDE SIX. 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 12th, 2016, THIS WIKILEAKS IS LIKE A TREASURE TROVE. DONALD TRUMP, OCTOBER 21st, 2016, BOY, I LOVE READING THOSE WIKILEAKS. DONALD TRUMP NOVEMBER 4th, 2016. DO ANY OF THOSE QUOTES DISTURB YOU, MR. DIRECTOR? >> I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD SAY — >> HOW DO YOU REACT TO THEM? >> WELL, 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. >> VOLUME ONE, PAGE 59, DONALD TRUMP, JR. HAD DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS WITH WIKILEAKS DURING THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD. ON OCTOBER 3rd, 2016, WIKILEAKS SENT ANOTHER DIRECT MESSAGE TO TRUMP JUNIOR ASKING, YOU GUYS TO HELP DISSEMINATE A LINK ALLEGING CANDIDATE CLINTON HAD ADVOCATED A DRONE TO ATTACK JULIAN ASSANGE. TRUMP JUNIOR RESPONDED TO THAT, QUOTE, HE HAD ALREADY DONE SO. SAME QUESTION. THIS BEHAVIOR AT THE VERY LEAST DISTURBING AND YOUR REACTION? >> DISTURBING AND ALSO SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION. >> CAN IT BE DESCRIBED AS AID AND COMFORT TO A HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, SIR? >> I WOULDN’T CATEGORIZE THAT WITH ANY SPECIFICITY. >> I YIELD THE BALANCE TO THE CHAIRMAN, PLEASE. >> I’M NOT SURE I CAN MAKE GOOD USE OF 27 SECONDS BUT DIRECTOR, I THINK YOU MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU THINK IT UNETHICAL TO PUT IT POLITELY TO TOUT A FOREIGN SERVICE LIKE WIKILEAKS PUBLISHING STOLEN POLITICAL DOCUMENTS IN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN? >> CERTAINLY CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. WE ARE GOING TO GO NOW TO MR. CRAWFORD AND THEN AFTER MR. CRAWFORD A FIVE MINUTES, WE WILL TAKE A FIVE OR TEN-MINUTE BREAK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER FOR BEING HERE. DAYS AFTER YOUR APPOINTMENT PETER STRZOK TEXTED ABOUT HIS CONCERN THAT THERE’S NO QUOTE, THERE THERE IN THE INVESTIGATION. DID STRZOK OR ANYONE THAT WORKED ON THE INVESTIGATION TELL YOU ABOUT 10 MONTHS INTO THE INVESTIGATION THE FBI STILL HAD NO CASE FOR COLLUSION? >> WHO? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? >> PETER STRZOK. >> COULD YOU — I’M SORRY. CAN YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE A LITTLE CLOSER? THANK YOU. >> SURE. THERE’S A QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO PETER STRZOK. HE TEXTED ABOUT HIS CONCERN THAT THERE IS QUOTE NO BIG THEIR THERE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN INVESTIGATION. DID HE OR ANYONE ELSE WHO WORKED ON THE FBI’S INVESTIGATION TELL YOU THAT AROUND 10 MONTHS INTO THE INVESTIGATION, THE FBI STILL HAD NO CASE FOR COLLUSION? >> NO. >> IS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT CORRECT THAT THE TEXT MESSAGES FROM PETER STRZOK AND LISA PAGE’S PHONES FROM YOUR OFFICE WERE NOT RETAINED AFTER THEY LEFT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE? >> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. AN INVESTIGATION INTO THOSE — PETER STRZOK WENT ON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AND I AM NOT CERTAIN WHAT IT ENCOMPASSES. IT MAY WELL ENCOMPASS WHAT YOU’RE ALLUDING TO. >> DID YOU ASK THE DEPARTMENT TO AUTHORIZE YOUR OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE THE ORIGIN OF THE TRUMP RUSSIA INVESTIGATION? >> I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. IT GOES TO INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS. >> SO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ORIGIN OF INVESTIGATION HAVE YET TO BE FULLY VETTED THEN. I’M CERTAINLY GLAD THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND U.S. ATTORNEY DURHAM ARE LOOKING INTO THIS MATTER. WITH THAT, I’D LIKE TO YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ. >> THANK YOU, GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU’RE AWARE OF WHO FUSION GPS IS. FUSION GPS IS 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 STEELE WHO THEN WENT OUT AND GOT THE DOSSIER. I KNOW YOU DON’T WANT TO ANSWER ANY DOSSIER QUESTIONS SO I’M NOT GOING THERE. BUT YOUR REPORT MENTIONED NATALIA LESNASKIA MANY TIMES. YOU’VE HEARD MANY OF THE DEMOCRATS REFER TO IT TODAY. THE MEETING WAS SHORTER THAN 20 MINUTES, I BELIEVE; IS THAT CORRECT? >> I THINK — WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR REPORT REFLECTS IT WAS ABOUT THAT LENGTH. >> SO DO YOU KNOW — SO FUSION GPS, THE MAIN ACTOR AT FUSION GPS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY OR THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY IS A GUY NAMED GLEN SIMPSON WHO IS WORKING FOR HILLARY CLINTON. GLEN SIMPSON, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES HE MET WITH NATALIA? >> MYSELF, NO. >> WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU THAT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN DIRTY OPS ARM MET WITH NATALIA MORE TIMES THAN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN DID? >> WELL, THIS IS AN AREA THAT I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO. >> DID YOU EVER INTERVIEW GLEN SIMPSON? >> I’M GOING TO PASS ON THAT. >> ACCORDING TO — I’M GOING TO CHANGE TOPICS HERE. ACCORDING TO NOTES FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL KATHLEEN CAVILAC, CHRISTOPHER STEELE TOLD HER THAT FORMER RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE HEAD TUBECOFF AND SIRCOFF WERE SOURCES FOR THE STEELE DOSSIER. KNOWING THAT THESE ARE NOT GETTING INTO WHETHER THESE SOURCES WERE REAL OR NOT REAL, WAS THERE ANY CONCERN THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN 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’RE — IT’S NOT IN THE REPORT OR YOU’RE JUST — OR BECAUSE — >> INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS, OTHER PROCEEDINGS AND THE LIKE. >> OKAY. WHEN ANDREW WEISMAN AND SANEB AHMED JOINED YOUR TEAM, WERE YOU AWARE THAT BRUCE FORE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOP OFFICIAL, DIRECTLY BRIEFED THE DOSSIER ALLEGATIONS TO THEM IN THE SUMMER OF 2016? >> AGAIN, I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE. >> OKAY. BEFORE YOU ARRESTED GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS IN JULY OF 2017 HE WAS GIVEN $10,000 IN CASH IN ISRAEL. DO YOU KNOW WHO GAVE HIM THAT CASH? >> AGAIN, IT’S OUTSIDE OUR AMBIT AND QUESTIONS SUCH AS THAT SHOULD GO TO THE FBI OR OUR DEPARTMENT. >> BUT IT INVOLVED YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> IT INVOLVED PERSONS IN MY INVESTIGATION. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> WE WILL STAND IN RECESS FOR FIVE OR 10 MINUTES. PLEASE, FOLKS, REMAIN IN YOUR SEATS, ALLOW THE DIRECTOR MR. ZEBLY TO EXIT THE CHAMBER. >> THE HEADLINE SO FAR IS NOT A WITCH HUNT. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL BEING ASKED SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS CHARGES THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE REPEATEDLY ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION AND ACTUALLY WE HAVE SEEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL BE A BIT MORE VERBOSE, IF YOU WILL, IN THIS SECOND HEARING AND IT’S LARGELY CENTERED ON WHAT WAS REALLY WHAT BEGAN THIS ENTIRE INVESTIGATION, WHICH WAS RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. WHAT DID YOU SEE? >> SO THE DEMOCRATS ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS TO ESTABLISH SOME FOUNDATIONAL TRUTHS. WERE THERE CONTACTS? YES. WERE THEY ENUMEROUS? >> YES. DID THEY HAVE A POSSIBLE VALUE TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. IN HIS INTERPRETATION THE REPORT SAYS YES. DID THOSE ASKED ABOUT IT LIE ABOUT IT? YES. THESE ARE ALL FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS TO CONDUCT, WAS THERE A CONSPIRACY? NO. THAT YOU COULD CRIMINALLY CHARGE — >> DID THE CAMPAIGN REVEAL THESE RUSSIAN CONTACTS? >> TO THE FBI. DID IT TAKE ANY PROACTIVE EFFORT TO NOTIFY THE FBI OR ANYBODY WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED WITH OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ABOUT THIS ACTIVITY OF A HOSTILE POWER, NO. >> DID THEY LIE REPEATEDLY TO COVER UP THE TRACKS. YES. >> ALL OF THAT IS FOUNDATIONALLY ESTABLISHED. IT’S INTERESTING THAT REPUBLICANS DID NOT SPEND ANY TIME OR EFFORT TO TRY TO KNOCK DOWN ANY OF THOSE FOUNDATIONAL FACTS. JUST AS THEY DID NOT IN THE EARLIER HEARING TRY TO KNOCK DOWN THE FOUNDATIONAL FACTS ABOUT OBSTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. MUCH OF THEIR EMPHASIS, I WOULD SAY ALMOST THE TOTALITY OF THEIR EMPHASIS IS ON THE ORIGINS OF THE INVESTIGATION. NOT THAT WHICH THE INVESTIGATION ULTIMATELY FOUND BUT WHY DID IT GET STARTED? THAT’S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS LOOKING INTO THAT. BUT THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO REFUTE OR UNDERCUT THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLIHED BY THAT INVESTIGATION. THINGS THAT E OF NATIONAL INTEREST, PUBLIC INTEREST AND SHOULD WE BE COMFORTABLE WITH IN THE CONDUCT OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. THOSE ARE THE UNDERLYING QUESTIONS. >> YEAH. AND HE SAID — HE SAID — THIS IS I THINK MUELLER THE PATRIOT SPEAKING WHERE HE SAYS THERE’S NO HOAX, THERE’S LONG-TERM DAMAGE TO OUR SYSTEM. WE NEED TO MOVE QUICKLY TO ADDRESS IT. HIS REPORT IS A LIVING MESSAGE TO THOSE WHO HAVE POWER TO EXERCISE THAT POWER OF RESPONSIBILITY. THAT’S A MESSAGE TO THE CONGRESS. WITH RESPECT TO I THINK THE FIRST SUBJT OF SSIAN INRFERENCETHAT DIORNG E ELTOL OCES WI RESPE TO THE SECOND, THATS E HACKING OF THE WIKILEAKS E-ILS AS YOU INDICATED, HE SAID THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN’S INVOLVEMENT WAS PROBLEMATIC AS AN UNDERSTATEMENT, SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION BECAUSE IT GAVE HOPE OR BOOST TO WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL. SO I THINK IN BOTH OF THOSE HE OBSTRUCTION, PERHAPS BECAUSE HE’S WORRIED. >> PAULA REID IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE, AND ON THAT SPECIFIC POINT, ADAM SCHIFF ASKED DID TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS BUILD THEIR MESSAGING STRATEGY AROUND THOSE STOLEN DOCUMENTS AND THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SAID GENERALLY THAT’S TRUE. SCHIFF SAID AND THEY LIED TO COVER IT UP? HE SAID GENERALLY THAT’S TRUE. THAT SUGGESTS THEY WERE USING THAT AS PART OF THEIR MESSAGING. >> EXACTLY AND THIS IS WHERE THE FINDINGS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION GET MURKY. IT’S HARD FOR PEOPLE TO PARSE THIS. HOW CAN THEY BE USING RUSSIA’S WORK TO THEIR ADVANTAGE BUT NOT BE CONSPIRING OR COLLUDING. VOLUME ONE LAYS OUT 200 PAGES OF CONTACTS BETWEEN VARIOUS TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND VARIOUS PEOPLE WITH CONNECTIONS TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT BUT ULTIMATELY SAID WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE HERE TO ACTIVELY CHARGE AND SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTE A CONSPIRACY. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID PROVIDE AN IMPORTANT RENDER THE VIEWERTHATRUSSIA WAS WORKING TO HELP — TH CANDIDATE PRESENT TRUMP BECOME PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT HE WAS QUICK TO NOTI AT ONE POINT SAYING I WILL NOTE THAT CANDIDATE CLINTON WAS SUBJECT TO SOME OF THE SAME ATTACKS. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS USING IT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. >> YES. NANCY CORDES IS ON CAPITOL HILL. NANCY, ONCE AGAIN, THOSE QUESTIONS, WHO DID THIS ULTIMATELY BENEFIT, DID IT BENEFIT HILLARY CLINTON OR DONALD TRUMP AND THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SAYING CLEARLY THIS WAS AN EFFORT TO BENEFIT DONALD TRUMP’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. >> Reporter: RIGHT. WE HAVE SEEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HESITATE MANY TIMES TODAY. HE DOESN’T WANT TO OVERSTEP HIS BOUNDS BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE RUSSIAN ACTIVITY BENEFITED HILLARY CLINTON OR DONALD TRUMP, HE DIDN’T HESITATE AT ALL. HE SAID IT BENEFITED DONALD TRUMP AND HERE I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CRIMINAL DEFINITION OF CONSPIRACY AND THE POLITICAL DEFINITION OF A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR, WHICH IS THE ROAD THAT DEMOCRATS ARE ON RIGHT NOW. YES, IT IS TRUE THAT ROBERT MUELLER DID NOT FIND ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CRIMINALLY CHARGE ANYONE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF CONSPIRING WITH RUSSIANS. BUT DEMOCRATS HERE ON CAPITOL HILL SAY THAT YOU DON’T NEED TO MEET THAT DEFINITION IN ORDER TO POTENTIALLY PURSUE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT DOWN THE ROAD SO THEY ARE TRYING TO GET MUELLER TO TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS VERY UNUSUAL FOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS TO BE OPENLY COURTING THIS KIND OF HELP FROM RUSSIAN OPERATIVES TO SAYING, I LOVE THAT, GIVE ME MORE, BEING FRUSTRATED WHEN THEY DIDN’T GET DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON AND THEN LYING ABOUT IT TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. DEMOCRATS ARE ARGUING THIS IS NOT HOW CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT. THIS IS NOT HOW ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT. SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH LYING AND SO, YOU KNOW, DEMOCRATS WHO ARE STILL TRYING TO MAKE THE CASE, EVEN TO SOME OF THEIR OWN MEMBERSHIP, THAT THEY SHOULD PURSUE IMPEACHMENT ARE JUST TRYING TO GATHER AS MUCH EVIDENCE AS THEY CAN, THAT IF THE PRESIDENT AND SOME OF HIS AIDS DIDN’T COMMIT A CRIME, THEY SURE WEREN’T OPERATING ON THE LEVEL EITHER. >> THAT’S A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION YOU MAKE ABOUT THE POLITICAL HIGH CRIMES AND DEMEANOR FOR IMPEACHMENT VERSUS A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. LET ME ASK YOU TO BREAK DOWN WHAT HAPPENED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING BECAUSE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL CAME FORWARD AND SAY HE WANTED TO ISSUE A CLARIFICATION SAYING E DID NOT CONSIDER BRINGING CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST DONALD TRUMP. EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED. >> Reporter: WELL, THIS IS ONE OF THE STCKIEST ISSUES THAT HE HAS HAD TO DEAL WITH TODAY, NORA, THE FACT THAT HE HAS SAID ALL ALONG AND SAID IN HIS REPORT THAT HE DID NOT SEEK CRIMINAL CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE’S NOT ALLOWED TO UNDER LONG STANDING JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES. AND HE HAS SAID THAT BECAUSE THOSE GUIDELINES EXIST, HE NEVER CONSIDERED SEEKING THOSE CHARGES TO BEGIN WITH. THE REASON THAT SUCH A GRAY AREA IS BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING IF YOU WERE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEEK CHARGES AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT, WHY DID YOU LAY OUT THIS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE? YOU ARE SIMPLY MAKING HIM LOOK BAD AND NO WAY TO CLEAR HIS NAME. ON THE OTHER HAND DEMOCRATS SAY WE THINK YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN WELL WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS EVEN IF YOU WEREN’T GOING TO SEEK CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT TO SAY WHETHER YOU BELIEVE AT THE END OF THE DAY HE COMMITTED A CRIME OR NOT. EVEN IF YOU’RE NOT GOING TO PURSUE THAT CRIME. AND SO MUELLER IS TRYING TO PARSE HIS WORDS VERY CAREFULLY. HE ENDED UP GOING ON A LITTLE BIT FARTHER ON A LIMB THAN HE WANTED TO, THAT’S WHY WE HAVE SEEN HIM BE SO HALTING AND SO CAREFUL THROUGHOUT THE DAY. HE’S WORRIED ABOUT GETTING OVER HIS — ON QUESTIONS LIKE THIS AND HE WANTED TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO REVEAL, AS MANY TIMES AS HE’S ASKED WHETHER YOU WOULD HAVE SOUGHT CRIMINAL CHARGES IF THIS WAS NOT A SITTING PRESIDENT. IF ANYONE ELSE HAD COMMITTED THESE ACTS, WOULD HE HAVE SOUGHT CHARGES AGAINST THEM. THAT’S THE QUESTION THAT DEMOCRATS KEEP TRYING TO GET HIM TO ANSWER AND SO FAR HE HASN’T BEEN. >> NANCY CORDES, THANK YOU. STAY TUNED BECAUSE WE ARE MINUTES AWAY FROM THIS HEARING BEGINNING AGAIN. >> TED LIEU ASKED HIM IS THE ONLY REASON YOU DIDN’T BRING CONTEMPT IS BECAUSE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES? HE BRIEFLY ANSWERED YES. HE WANTED TO CORRECT THAT AND SAY, NO, I DIDN’T MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THAT UNDERLYING QUESTION. HE DIDN’T WANT TO LEAVE IN THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT HE HAD DECIDED, MEANING YOU COULD POSSIBLY INTERPRET THAT HE WOULD BE WILLING TO AND COULD HAVE BROUGHT A CASE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BUT ONLY THING HOLDING HIM BACK WERE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES. HE SAID, NO, I DIDN’T MAKE A DETERMINATION. LET’S BACK AWAY FROM THAT CONCLUSION. I DON’T WANT TO LEAVE THAT EVEN AS SOMETHING YOU COULD READ INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. >> KIM IS A LAWYER, PROFESSOR. GETTING THIS RIGHT, EVERY DOT HAS TO BE — EVERY WORD HAS TO BE PERFECT. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> ESPECIALLY ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF WHAT YOU’VE ACCUSED HIM OF AND I THINK YOU SEE IN SOME OF THE ANSWERS GIVEN BY THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL AN EFFORT TO NOT SCREW UP ONE LITTLE THING. IT SEEMS AS IF HE’S HALTING OR HE MAY BE NOT REMEMBERING THINGS BUT I AGAINST A SENSE TOO HE’S MAKING SURE HE DOESN’T MAKE ANY MISTAKES. >> HE’S BEING ABSOLUTELY IMPECCABLE FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, HE SAID I WANT THE PUBLIC TO BUY INTO THE INTEGRITY OF THE REPORT. THAT’S WHY HE WAS APPOINTED FOR HIS NEUTRALITY, HIS RULE OF LAW, HIS APOLITICAL NOTION AND IF HE’S SAYING THINGS THAT CRITIC THE REPORT, ALL OF A SUDDEN PEOPLE DON’T BUY INTO THE REPORT. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT I THINK HE’S UNDERSCORING HERE IS THERE ARE TWO ISSUES. ONE IS WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. THAT IS NOT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. THAT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT HE’S SAYING, LISTEN, WE AS AMERICA NEED TO ADDRESS. NUMBER 2 IS, WHAT DO WE DO POTENTIALLY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION. >> I WANT TO BRING IN JEFF PEGUES NOW BECAUSE HE HAS FOLLOWED THIS SO CLOSELY FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND I THINK THERE’S AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. THE PRESIDENT CAN BE VERBOSE, NOT ON SOCIAL MEDIA BUT ALSO WHEN HE STEPS BEFORE THE CAMERAS OUTSIDE OF THE WHITE HOUSE. HE CAN SPEAK OFF THE CUFF, CERTAINLY WE SAW THAT DURING THE CAMPAIGN. DID SOME OF HIS PUBLIC COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WIKILEAKS PUT HIM IN SOME LEGAL JEOPARDY? >> WELL, I THINK THEY CERTAINLY FUEL THE SPECULATION AROUND WHETHER THERE WAS CONTACT BETWEEN RUSSIAN OPERATIVES AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. IF YOU THINK BACK TO 2016 AND SPECIFICALLY JULY OF 2016 WHEN THIS COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION STARTED, IT STARTED RIGHT AROUND THE TIME THE PRESIDENT WAS SPEAKING ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AND SAID, HEY, IF YOU’RE LISTENING, AND HE WAS ALLUDING TO HILLARY CLINTON’S E-MAILS AND AROUND THAT SAME TIME THE RUSSIAN HACKERS WENT INTO ACTION AND TRIED TO AGAIN HACK DEMOCRATIC PARTY E-MAILS. AND SO IN A LOT OF WAYS IT WAS A PERFECT STORM FOR U.S. INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. YOU HAD ALL OF THIS — YOU KNEW THAT THE DNC HAD BEEN HACKED. YOU KNEW THERE WERE DIFFERENT ENTITIES RELEASING THE HACKED INFORMATION, AND AT THE SAME TIME YOU HAD CARTER PAGE GO OVERSEAS TO MOSCOW, MAKING A SPEECH THERE AND THEN YOU HAD THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF MAKING THESE PUZZLING STATEMENTS AT A TIME WHEN MOST PEOPLE IN LEADERSHIP IN THE COUNTRY WERE TRYING TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES AWAY FROM WIKILEAKS AND AWAY FROM ANY SORT OF CONTACT WITH ANY SORT OF RUSSIAN OFFICIAL. >> ALL RIGHT. SPECIFICALLY ONE SPECIFIC MENTION TOO IS THAT REMEMBER DURING THE CAMPAIGN ONE MONTH BEFORE THE ELECTION THE “ACCESS HOLLYWOOD” TAPE CAME OUT WHERE YOU SEE THEN DONALD TRUMP ALONG WITH BILLY BUSH MAKING OBSCENE COMMENTS ABOUT GRABBING WOMEN IN PARTICULAR WAYS. WHEN THAT JUST AN HOUR — A COUPLE HOURS AFTER THAT TAPE COMING OUT, WIKILEAKS STARTED DUMPING A NUMBER OF THESE E- MAILS. THAT RAISED ALARM BELLS EVEN THEN INSIDE THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON, BECAUSE QUICKLY THE NARRATIVE SHIFTED — >> TRYING TO CREATE A COUNTER NARRATIVE BECAUSE THAT WEEKEND THERE WAS ONE DOMINANT NARRATIVE, REPUBLICANS WERE HAVING ALL SORTS OF EXISTENTIAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER DONALD TRUMP COULD CONTINUE AS THE NOMINEE. >> THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE SHOULD STEP DOWN AND PENCE SHOULD BECOME THE NOMINEE, WHETHER PAUL RYAN SHOULD GET ON THE TICKET. WHETHER THEY WERE GOING TO DUMP DONALD TRUMP. >> THE OTHER COUNTER NARRATIVE WAS THERE AND IT DID FUEL ANOTHER LINE OF INQUIRY, SKEPTICISM AND THE TIMING OF IT DOES NOT LOOK IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM COINCIDENTAL. >> YEAH. NOTING NOW THAT THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL IS RETURNING TO THE TABLE WITH HIS SECURITY AND ALONG WITH SOME OF HIS TOP AIDES AS THEY CONTINUE THE QUESTIONING BY THESE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, LARGELY DEALING WITH MANY OF THESE PARTICULARS RELATED TO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. THE MEETINGS THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN RUSSIAN REPRESENTATIVES AND MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND WHY MANY PEOPLE LIED TO COVER UP SOME OF THOSE MEETINGS. THAT’S WHAT THEY ARE DIGGING INTO IN THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THIS HEARING AS IT HAS TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY. LET’S LISTEN IN AS THEY GAVEL. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. MR. SWAWWELL, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> AT THE. 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 COULD 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, CONVICTED OR LIED TO YOUR OFFICE OR OTHER INVESTIGATORS; IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES, ALTHOUGH I LOOK ASCANS AT MR.STONE BECAUSE HE IS — HE IS IN A DIFFERENT CASE HERE IN D.C. >> SO NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FLYNN LIED ABOUT DISCUSSIONS WITH RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR RELATED TO SANCTIONS; IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> MICHAEL COHEN LIED TO THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW; IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, THE PRESIDENT’S SENIOR FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR LIED TO THE FBI ABOUT HIS COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT RUSSIA’S POSSESSION OF DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON; IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT, YES. >> THE PRESIDENT’S 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 COMMUNICATIONS; 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 DIRECTOR OF MANAFORT, THAT MR. GATES DELETED THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ON A DAILY BASIS; IS THAT RIGHT? >> I THINK IT WERE — LIKE I SAY, I DON’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY BUT PHYSICAL IT IN THE REPORT THEN I SUPPORT IT. >> THAT’S RIGHT, DIRECTOR, IT’S VOLUME ONE, PAGE 136. >> THANK YOU. >> IN ADDITION TO THAT, OTHER INFORMATION WAS INACCESSIBLE BECAUSE YOUR OFFICE DETERMINED IT WAS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGE; IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS TRUE. >> THAT WOULD INCLUDE THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP AND HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEYS JAY SEKULOW, RUDY GIULIANI AND OTHERS DISCOURAGED WITNESSES FROM COOPERATING WITH THE GOVERNMENT; IS THAT RIGHT? >> I’M NOT GOING TO TALK TO THAT. >> THAT WOULD ALSO MEAN THAT YOU CAN’T TALK TO WHETHER OR NOT PARDONS WERE DANGLED THROUGH THE PRESIDENT’S ATTORNEYS BECAUSE THE SHIELD OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE? >> NOT — I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THAT. >> DID YOU WANT TO INTERVIEW DONALD TRUMP, JR.? >> I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THAT. >> DID YOU SUBPOENA DONALD TRUMP, JR.? >> I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THAT. >> DID YOU WANT TO INTERVIEW THE PRESIDENT? >> YES. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, ON JANUARY 1st, 2017 THROUGH MARCH 2019, DONALD TRUMP MET WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN IN PERSON SIX TIMES, CALLED HIM 10 TIMES AND EXCHANGED FOUR LETTERS WITH HIM. BETWEEN THAT TIME PERIOD, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU MEET WITH DONALD TRUMP? >> I’M NOT GOING TO 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 WERE UNABLE TO FULLY ASSESS THE SCOPE AND SCALE OF RUSSIAN’S INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND TRUMP’S ROLE IN THAT INTERFERENCE? >> I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD ADOPT THAT CHARACTERIZATIONIN TOTAL. THERE MAY BE PIECES OF IT ACCURATE BUT NOT IN TOTAL. >> BUT YOU DID STATE IN VOLUME ONE, PAGE 10, THAT WHILE THIS REPORT EMBODIES FACTUAL AND LEGAL DETERMINATIONS, 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 WOULD SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE DON’T KNOW. >> WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT THAT WITNESSES COOPERATE AND TELL THE TRUTH IN 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 MR. CHAIRMAN I WOULD YIELD BACK AND THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER. >> MISS — >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, DID YOU REVIEW DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE ORIGIN OF THE COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN? >> ON OCCASION. >> WAS THE STEELE DOSSIER ONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT WAS REVIEWED? >> AND I CAN’T DISCUSS THAT CASE. >> I’M JUST ASKING A PROCESS QUESTION. HAVE YOU READ THE STEELE DOSSIER? >> I’M NOT GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT. >> YOU WERE TASKED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE WAS COLLUSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ASSOCIATES TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 ELECTION. AND THE FBI, WE KNOW, HAS RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RELATED TO THE OPENING OF THE CI INVESTIGATION. WERE YOU AND YOUR TEAM PERMITTED TO ACCESS ALL THOSE DEVELOPMENTS? >> I CAN’T GET INTO THAT INVESTIGATIVE, WHAT WE COLLECTED AND WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH INVESTIGATION — INVESTIGATION MATERIALS. >> LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY. WAS THERE ANY LIMITATION IN YOUR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION? >> SUCH A BROAD QUESTION. I HAVE REAL TROUBLES ANSWERING IT. >> DID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE UNDERTAKE ANY EFFORTS TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY OR DISPROVE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE STEELE DOSSIER? >> AGAIN, I CAN’T RESPOND. >> THE REASON I’M ASKING FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT IS WATCHING, IT’S APPARENT THAT THE STEELE DOSSIER FORMED PART OF THE BASIS TO JUSTIFY THE FBI’S COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AS WE KNOW IT WAS USED TO OBTAIN A FISA WARRANT ON CARTER PAGE. THIS IS WHY I’M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS. DID YOUR OFFICE UNDERTAKE ANY EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY STEELE’S SOURCES OR SUB SOURCES? >> AGAIN, THE SAME ANSWER. >> WERE THESE TASKS REFERRED TO ANY OTHER AGENCIES? >> AGAIN, I CAN’T SPEAK TO IT. >> DID YOUR OFFICE CONSIDER WHETHER THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT USED STEELE’S SOURCES TO PROVIDE STEELE WITH DISINFORMATION? >> AGAIN, I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT. >> I UNDERSTAND. I’M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS JUST FOR THE RECORD SO THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE. SHIFTING GEARS HERE, DID ANY MEMBER OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE STAFF TRAVEL OVERSEAS AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION? >> YES, BUT I CAN’T GO FURTHER THAN THAT. >> I’M GOING TO ASK, TO WHICH COUNTRIES? >> AND I CAN’T ANSWER THAT. >> DID THEY MEET WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS? >> AGAIN, IT’S OUT OF OUR — OUT OF OUR BAILEY WICK. >> DID THEY MEET WITH FOREIGN PRIVATE CITIZENS? >> AGAIN, SAME RESPONSE. >> DID THEY SEEK INFORMATION ABOUT A U.S. CITIZEN OR ANY U.S. CITIZENS? >> IN A 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 MEMBER. >> THANK THE GENTLE LADY FOR YIELDING. >> WE STARTED OFF WITH JOSEPH 5:00 CYD — MIFSUD ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION. I HAVE SEEN ON THE SCREEN THE DEMOCRATS HAVE PUT UP ALL THE PROSECUTIONS THAT YOU MADE AGAINST TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND OTHERS, BUT I’M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DIDN’T INDICT JOSEPH MIFSUD. >> I HAVE SAID — I’M GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY WITH REGARD TO MR.MIFSUD. >> WERE YOU AWARE OF KATHLEEN CALF LEX’S INVOLVEMENT THAT SHE HAD MET WITH MISS STEELE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL. >> I CAN’T RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION. IT’S OUTSIDE MY JURISDICTION. >> OKAY. THE CARTER PAGE FISA WARRANT WAS REUPPED THREE TIMES. THE LAST TIME IT WAS REUPPED WAS UNDER YOUR WATCH. SO WERE YOU IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS OF THAT LAST TIME THAT THE CARTER PAGE WARRANT WAS — >> I CAN’T SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT WARRANT BUT IF YOU ASK WAS I IN THE APPROVAL CHAIN, THE ANSWER IS NO. >> OKAY. IT’S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YIELD BACK. >> MR. CASTRO. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. DONALD TRUMP OVER THE YEARS HAS SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH VERY SHADY PEOPLE, PEOPLE THAT LIED FOR HIM, PEOPLE THAT COVERED UP FOR HIM, PEOPLE THAT HELPED HIM ENRICH HIMSELF. I WANT TO TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ONE OF THOSE INCIDENTS THAT’S IN YOUR REPORT. SPECIFICALLY LET’S TURN TO THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT WHICH YOU DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT AS A QUOTE, HIGHLY LUCRATIVE DEAL FOR THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION; IS THAT RIGHT? >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE QUOTE FROM THE REPORT, IF YOU HAVE IT. >> SURE. IT’S ON VOLUME TWO, PAGE 135. IT’S DESCRIBED AS HIGHLY LUCRATIVE. >> OKAY. I HAVE IT. I HAVE IT. THANK YOU, SIR. >> YEAH. NO PROBLEM. YOUR OFFICE PROSECUTED MICHAEL COHEN 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, COHEN LIED TO, QUOTE, MINIMIZE LINKS BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND TRUMP, UNQUOTE, AND TO, QUOTE, STICK TO THE PARTY LINE, UNQUOTE, IN ORDER NOT TO CRITIC TRUMP’S PUBLIC MESSAGE THAT NO CONNECTION EXISTED BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA; IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT’S A — YES, THAT’S CORRECT. >> NOW, WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE PARTY LINE HERE, THE PARTY LINE IN THIS CASE — >> IF I CAN INTERJECT. THE ONE THING I SHOULD HAVE SAID AT THE OUTSET IF IT WAS IN THE REPORT AND CONSEQUENTLY I DO BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. >> THANK YOU. THE DEAL ENDED IN JANUARY 2016. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE SAYING THAT THE DEAL ENDED IN JANUARY 2016, BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. IN TRUTH, THOUGH, THE DEAL EXTENDED TO JUNE 2016, WHEN DONALD TRUMP WAS ALREADY THE PRESUMPTIVE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE; IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> THE PARTY LINE WAS ALSO THAT COHEN DISCUSSED THE DEAL WITH TRUMP ONLY THREE TIMES, WHEN IN TRUTH THEY DISCUSSED IT MULTIPLE TIMES; IS THAT RIGHT? >> ALSO TRUE AND THE BASIS FOR — AND PART OF THE BASIS FOR THE PLEA THAT HE ENTERED FOR LYING 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 TO HIS INQUIRIES ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW DEAL. IN FACT, COHEN NOT ONLY RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM THE KREMLIN TO HIS E-MAIL, BUT ALSO HAD A LENGTHY CONVERSATION WITH A KREMLIN REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAD A DETAILED UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT; IS THAT RIGHT? >> IF IT’S IN THE REPORT, THAT IS ACCURATE RECITATION OF THAT PIECE OF THE REPORT. >> SO YOU HAD THE CANDIDATE TRUMP AT THE TIME SAYING HE HAD NO BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA. HIS LAWYER, WHO WAS LYING ABOUT IT, AND THEN THE KREMLIN WHO DURING THAT TIME WAS TALKING TO PRESIDENT TRUMP’S LAWYER ABOUT THE DEAL; IS THAT RIGHT? >> I CAN’T ADOPT YOUR CHARACTERIZATION. >> NOT ONLY WAS COHEN LYING ON TRUMP’S BEHALF, BUT SO WAS THE KREMLIN. ON AUGUST 30th,2017, TWO DAYS AFTER COHEN SUBMITTED HIS FALSE STATEMENT TO THIS COMMITTEE CLAIMING HE NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO HIS E-MAIL TO THE KREMLIN, VLADIMIR PUTIN’S PRESS SECRETARY TOLD REPORTERS THAT THE KREMLIN LEFT THE E-MAIL UNANSWERED. IS THAT STATEMENT BY PUTIN’S PRESS SECRETARY WAS FALSE, WAS >> 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 CERTAIN I CAN GO THAT FAR. >> SO COHEN, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE KREMLIN WERE ALL TELLING THE SAME LIE? >> I DEFER TO YOU ON THAT. I CAN’T GET INTO DETAILS. >> SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT 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, CHAIRMAN. >> MR. HURT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED MANY TIMES THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT COLLUSION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND IMPEACHMENT AND THE STEELE 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 AND SOME PRESS STORIES ACCURATE. ON APRIL 13th, 2018, McMcCLATCHY 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 COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN CONGRESS THAT WAS INCORRECT. IS THAT STORY TRUE? >> I CAN’T GO INTO IT. >> GOTCHA. ON OCTOBER 21st, 2016 LATE PUBLISHED A REPORT SUGGESTING THAT A SERVER AT TRUMP TOWER WAS SECRETLY COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIAN’S ALPHA BANK AND I QUOTE, AKIN TO WHAT CRIMINAL SYNDICATES DO. DO YOU KNOW IF THAT STORY IS TRUE? >> DO NOT. YOU DO NOT. >> KNOW WHETHER IT’S TRUE. >> SUGGESTIONS OF A POTENTIAL TRUMP RUSSIA — BECAUSE I BELIEVE — IT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED ALTHOUGH MY BELIEF AT THIS POINT 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 COUNTER INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS FOR 12 YEARS AS FBI DIRECTOR AND THEN INVESTIGATING WHAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE DONE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, YOU HAVE SEEN TACTICS, TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS OF RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS. OUR COMMITTEE MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE FBI SHOULD IMPROVE ITS VICTIM NOTIFICATION PROCESS WHEN A PERSON, ENTITY OR CAMPAIGN HAS FALLEN VICTIM TO ACTIVE MEASURES OF TACK. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THIS? >> IT SOUNDS LIKE A WORTHWHILE ENDEAVOR. I WILL TELL YOU, THOUGH, THAT THE ABILITY OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IS TO WORK TOGETHER AND 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, CIA, NSA AND THE REST, IT SHOULD BE PURSUED, AGGRESSIVELY, EARLY. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO COUNTER DISSATISFACTION? >> I’M NO LONGER IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SO — >> 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 THE COORDINATING POINTS WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH DISINFORMATION? >> I DON’T WANT TO WADE IN 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, AN INSIGHT SAYING THAT RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES ARE GROWING WITH FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY AND INCLUDING THEIR 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, MANY MORE COMPANIES — NOT COMPANIES. MANY MORE COUNTRIES ARE DEVELOPING CAPABILITY TO REPLICATE WHAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE DONE. >> YOU ALLUDED TO MAKING SURE THE — ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE WORKING TOGETHER. DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION ON A STRATEGY TO DO THAT TO COUNTER THIS DISINFORMATION? >> NOT OVERARCHING. >> IS THIS — IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, DID YOU THINK THAT THIS WAS A SINGLE ATTEMPT BY THE RUSSIANS TO GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTION OR DID YOU FIND EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THEY WILL TRY TO DO THIS AGAIN. >> IT WASN’T A SINGLE ATTEMPT. THEY ARE DOING IT AS WE SIT HERE AND THEY EXPECT TO DO IT DURING THE NEXT CAMPAIGN. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND INDULGING US HERE IN MULTIPLE COMMITTEES AND I YIELD BACK TO THE RANKING MEMBER IF HE HAS — I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> MR.HECK. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I’D LIKE TO GO TO THE MOTIVES BEHIND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF HELP DURING THE ELECTION. OBVIOUSLY A CLEAR MOTIVATION WAS TO HELP THEM IN WHAT WOULD TURN OUT TO 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 IS THAT I SHOULD NEVER, EVER UNDERESTIMATE THE CAPACITY OF SOME PEOPLE TO CUT CORNERS AND EVEN MORE IN ORDER TO WORSHIP AND CHASE THE ALL MIGHTY BUCK. THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT GOES 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. TRUMP, IN FACT, STOOD, HE AND HIS COMPANY, TO EARN MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THAT DEAL, DID THEY NOT, SIR? >> 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’S MR. TRUMP HIMSELF OR OTHERS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ENTERPRISE THAT DISCUSSED THE NECESSITY FROM HAVING THE INPUT FROM THE STATE, MEANING THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN ORDER FOR IT TO GO FORWARD SUCCESSFULLY? >> ISN’T IT ALSO TRUE THAT DONALD TRUMP VIEWED HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AS HE TOLD TOP CAMPAIGN AIDES THAT THE CAMPAIGN WAS AN INFOMERCIAL FOR THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION AND HIS PROPERTIES? >> I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >> AND LET’S TURN TO 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 WILL FIND IT ON PAGE 135 OF VOLUME ONE. DURING THE TRANSITION TRUMP’S SON-IN-LAW JARED KUSHNERMET WITH SERGEI GORECOFF, THE HEAD OF A RUSSIAN OWNED BANK THAT IS UNDER U.S. SANCTIONS AND ACCORDING TO THE HEAD OF THE BANK HE MET WITH KUSHNER IN HIS CAPACITY AS CEO OF KUSHNER COMPANIES TO DISCUSS BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? >> I’M NOT CERTAIN. I’M NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THAT. LET ME PUT IT THAT WAY. >> IT WAS ASSERTED THUSLY IN YOUR REPORT VOLUME ONE, PAGES 161 AND 162, YOUR REPORT NOTES THAT AT THE TIME KUSHNER COMPANIES WERE TRYING TO RENEGOTIATE A BILLION, WITH A B, A BILLION DOLLAR LEASE OF THEIR FLAGSHIP BUILDING AT 666 FIFTH AVENUE, CORRECT? >> I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THOSE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. >> ALSO ON PAGE 162 WHERE KUSHNER COMPANIES IT WAS ASSERTED HAD DEBT OBLIGATIONS COMING DUE ON THE COMPANY, ERIC PRINCE, A SUPPORTER CLOSE TO TRUMP — >> A SUPPORTER? >> CAMPAIGN ADMINISTRATIVE — >> A SUPPORTER, I WAS — >> YES. HE MET IN THE SEYCHELLES DURING THE TRANSITION WITH KEIRLE — GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT ARM WHICH HAD CLOSE TIES TO VLADIMIR PUTIN, CORRECT, SIR? >> YES. >> YOUR INVESTIGATION DTERMINED THAT MR. PRINCE HAD NOT KNOWN, NOR CONDUCTED BUSINESS WITH DIMTII EF BEFORE TRUMP WON THE ELECTION, RIGHT? >> I REFER TO THE REPORT ON THAT. >> YET, IT DOES AND YET PRINCE WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO TOP ADMINISTRATION, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MET WITH DIMITRIIVE DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD TO DISCUSS BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES AMONG OTHER THINGS BUT IT WASN’T JUST TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATES WHO WERE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF THIS DEAL NOR HIDE IT, NOR LIE ABOUT IT. RUSSIA WAS TOO. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT, TO GAIN RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHICH WOULD HUGELY BENEFIT THEIR INCREDIBLY WEALTHY OLIGARCHS. IT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE TRUMP TOWER, WAS IT NOT, SIR? >> YES. IT WAS NOT A MAIN SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION. >> TRUMP ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR DESIGNANT MICHAEL FLYNN DISCUSSED IN A SECRET CONVERSATION WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR, DID HE NOT? >> CORRECT. >> TO SUMMARIZE, DONALD TRUMP, PAUL MANAFORT JARED KUSHNER, ERIC PRINCE AND OTHERS IN THE TRUMP ORBIT ALL TRIED TO USE THEIR CONNECTIONS WITH THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION TO PROFIT FROM RUSSIA, WHICH WAS OPENLY SEEKING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS. IS THAT TRUE, SIR? >> I’M NOT CERTAIN I CAN ADOPT WHAT YOU ARTICULATED. >> I WILL AND I WILL FURTHER ASSERT THAT WAS NOT ONLY DANGEROUS, IT WAS UNAMERICAN. GREED CORRUPTS AND IT IS A TERRIBLE FOUNDATION FOR DEVELOPING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY. >> MR. RADCLIFFE. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, GIVEN YOUR CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT YOU’RE ABLE OR ALLOWED TO ANSWER WITH RESPECT TO COUNTER INTELLIGENCE MATTERS OR OTHER MATTERS CURRENTLY OPEN UNDER INVESTIGATION YOU’RE 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 YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO THE RANKING MEMBER. >> THANK YOU. >> A FEW MORE QUESTIONS I WANT TO CLEAN UP ABOUT THE ERIC PRINCE SEYCHELLES MEETING. HE TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT HE WAS SURVEILLED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THE INFORMATION FROM THE SURVEILLANCE WAS LEAKED TO THE PRESS. DID YOU INVESTIGATE WHETHER PRINCE WAS SURVEILLED AND WHETHER CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ON HIM WAS ILLEGALLY LEAKED TO THE MEDIA? >> DID YOU SAY DID YOU OR WILL YOU. >> WELL, I KNOW YOU CAN’T. JOIN BACK UP IN THE RANKS, BUT DID YOU REFER — WERE YOU AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, PRINCE HAS MADE THESE ALLEGATIONS HE WAS SURVEILLED, HE IS CONCERNED THERE WERE LEAKS ABOUT THIS SURVEILLANCE. DID YOU MAKE ANY REFERRALS ABOUT THESE LEAKS? >> I CAN’T GET INTO A DISCUSSION ON IT. >> OKAY. ALSO WANT — GENERAL FLYNN, I KNOW YOU CAME AFTER THE LEAK OF HIS PHONE CALL WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR. YOUR TIME AT FBI, IT WOULD BE A MAJOR SCANDAL, WOULDN’T IT, FOR THE LEAK OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR AND ANYONE — >> I CAN’T ADOPT THAT HYPOTHESIS HYPOTHESIS. >> DOES YOUR REPORT NAME ANY PEOPLE ACTING AS U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMANTS OR SOURCES WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT FACT? >> I CAN’T ANSWER THAT. >> ON VOLUME ONE, PAGE 133 OF YOUR REPORT, YOU STATE THAT CONSTANTINE KILIMNIK HAS TIES TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. NAMES CAME UP QUITE OFTEN TODAY. BUT YOUR REPORT OMITS TO MENTION THAT KILIMNIK HAS LONG- TERM RELATIONSHIPS WITH U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INCLUDING OUR OWN STATE DEPARTMENT. >> I CAN’T GET INTO THAT. >> I KNOW IT’S NOT IN THE REPORT, BUT IF KILIMNIK IS BEING USED IN THE REPORT TO SAY THAT HE WAS POSSIBLY SOME TYPE OF RUSSIAN AGENT, AND I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO KNOW IF KILIMNIK HAS TIES TO OUR OWN STATE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IT APPEARS THAT HE DOES. >> AGAIN, THE SAME TERRITORY THAT I’M LOATHED TO GET INTO. >> YOU WERE ASKED THIS EARLIER ABOUT TRUMP ATTORNEY JOHN DOWD THAT PIECES OF HIS PHONE CALL WERE OMITTED FROM THE REPORT. IT WAS WHAT MR. DOUBT CALLS EXCULL EXCULPITOY EVIDENCE. >> I’M NOT SURE I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. I THINK I SAID THAT BEFORE. >> YES. >> AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FROM THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA, IDENTIFIES AS A RUSSIAN, CLAIMS 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 A REASON? >> NO. WE GOT AN AWFUL LOT INTO THE REPORT. BUT WE DID NOT GET EVERY INTERSECTION OR CONVERSATION AND THE LIKE. SO I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR EPISODE YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. >> THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> MR. WELCH. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, DID YOU FIND THERE WAS NO COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA? >> NO. WE DON’T USE THE WORD COLLUSION. THE WORD WE USUALLY USE IS — NOT COLLUSION, BUT ONE OF THE OTHER TERMS THAT FILLS IN WHEN COLLUSION IS NOT USED. IN ANY EVENT, THE — WE DECIDED NOT TO USE THE WORD COLLUSION IN AS MUCH AS IT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO THE CRIMINAL LAW ARENA. >> THE TERM IS CONSPIRACY THAT YOU PREFER TO USE? >> CONSPIRACY, EXACTLY RIGHT. >> YOU HELP ME, I’LL HELP YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> AS AN AGREEMENT. THANK YOU. AND IN FACT YOU HAD TO 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, CORRECT? >> GENERALLY THAT’S THE CASE. >> BUT MAKING THAT DECISION DOES NOT MEAN YOUR INVESTIGATION FAILED TO TURN UP EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY? >> ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. >> AND IN FACT, I WILL GO THROUGH SOME OF THE SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS THAT YOUR EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION MADE. YOU FOUND, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT FROM MAY 2016 UNTIL THE END OF THE CAMPAIGN, CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN MR. MANAFORT GAVE PRIVATE POLLING INFORMATION TO RUSSIAN AGENTS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> YOU NEED TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. >> I WILL. MY APOLOGIES. >> THANK YOU. AND YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT IN JUNE 2016 DONALD TRUMP, JR. MADE AN ARRANGEMENT TO MEET AT TRUMP TOWER ALONG WITH JARED KUSHNER AND OTHERS EXPECTING TO RECEIVE DIRT ON THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SOMETHING FOR THE FIRST TIME THEY DID ABOUT FIVE HOURS LATER, CORRECT? >> THAT’S CORRECT. >> AND YOU ALSO FOUND THAT ON AUGUST 2nd, MR. MANAFORT MET WITH A PERSON TIED TO RUSSIAN END TELL YOU GENERALS, MR. KILIMNIK, AND GAVE HIM INTERNAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGY, AWARE THAT RUSSIA WAS INTENDING TO DO A MISINFORMATION SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >> I’M NOT CERTAIN OF THE TIE THERE. >> BUT THE FACTS OF THAT MEETING — >> THE FACT THAT THE MEETING TOOK PLACE IS ACCURATE. >> YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND IN LATE SUMMER THE CAMPAIGN DEVISED ITS CAMPAIGN AROUND WIKILEAKS MATERIALS THAT WAS STOLEN FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. >> IS THAT FROM THE REPORT? >> YES, ACCORDING TO MR. GATES. >> YES. >> YES, THANK YOU. AND YOU ALSO TALKED EARLIER ABOUT THE FINDING IN YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER OF 2016, DONALD TRUMP, JR., HAD EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS WITH WIKILEAKS, NOW INDICTED, ABOUT RELEASING INFORMATION DAMAGING TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> SO — >> TRUE. >> ALL RIGHT. SO I UNDERSTAND YOU MADE A DECISION, PROSECUTORIAL DECISION THAT THIS WOULD NOT RISE TO PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. BUT I ASK IF YOU SHARE MY CONCERN. AND MY CONCERN IS, HAVE WE ESTABLISHED A NEW NORMAL FROM THIS PAST CAMPAIGN THAT IS GOING TO APPLY TO FUTURE CAMPAIGNS SO THAT IF ANY ONE 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 A HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER IS INFLUENCING 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 HAVE WITHOUT FEAR OF LEGAL REPERCUSSION MEET WITH FOREIGN ENTITIES HOSTILE TO THE ELECTION? >> WHAT’S 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 STATED EARLIER, AS WE SIT HERE, THEY’RE DOING IT NOW, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. >> DO 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’RE AWARE OF HOSTILE FOREIGN ENGAGEMENT IN OUR ELECTIONS? >> I WOULD SAY THE BASIS — FIRST — UM, LINE OF DEFENSE REALLY IS, UM, THE ABILITY OF THE VARIOUS AGENCIES WHO HAVE SOME PIECE OF THIS, UM, TO NOT ONLY SHARE INFORMATION BUT SHARE EXPERTISE, SHARE TARGETS AND USE THE FULL RESOURCES THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. MALONEY. >> THANKS. MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU. I KNOW IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY, AND I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR HOW MUCH RESPECTIVE FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR YOUR EXTRAORDINARY CAREER, AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND MY QUESTIONS IN THAT CONTEXT, SIR. I’M GOING TO BE ASKING YOU ABOUT APPENDIX C TO YOUR REPORT. AND IN PARTICULAR, THE DECISION NOT TO DO A SWORN INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT. THAT’S REALLY THE ONLY SUBJECT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT, SIR. WHY DIDN’T YOU SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT? >> WELL, AT THE OUTSET, AFTER WE TOOK OVER AND INITIATED THE INVESTIGATION — >> IF I COULD ASK YOU TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. >> OF COURSE. AT THE OUTSET, AFTER WE TOOK OVER THE INVESTIGATION AND BEGAN AND PURSUED IT QUITE OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE THINGS WE ANTICIPATED WANTING TO ACCOMPLISH AND THAT IS GETTING — HAVING THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT. WE NEGOTIATED FROM — WITH HIM FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR, AND I THINK WHAT YOU ALLUDED TO IN THE APPENDIX LAYS OUT OUR EXPECTATIONS AS A RESULT OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. BUT FINALLY, WE WERE ALMOST TOWARDS THE END OF OUR 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 — EXCUSE ME, DID YOU — >> 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. >> RIGHT. BUT AS WE SIT HERE, YOU HAVE NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE PRESIDENT IN PERSON QUESTIONS UNDER OATH AND SO OBVIOUSLY, THAT MUST HAVE BEEN A DIFFICULT DECISION. AND YOU’RE RIGHT, APPENDIX C LAYS THAT OUT AND I BELIEVE YOU DESCRIBED THE IN-PERSON INTERVIEW AS VITAL. THAT’S YOUR WORD. UM, AND, OF COURSE, YOU MADE CLEAR YOU HAD THE AUTHORITY AND THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO DO IT AS YOU POINT OUT. YOU WAITED A YEAR. YOU PUT UP WITH A LOT OF NEGOTIATIONS. YOU MADE NUMEROUS ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH YOU LAY OUT SO HE COULD PREPARE AND NOT BE SURPRISED. I TAKE IT YOU WERE TRYING TO BE FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT. AND BY THE WAY, YOU WERE GOING TO LIMIT THE QUESTIONS WHEN YOU GOT TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO RUSSIA ONLY. AND, IN FACT, YOU DID GO WITH WRITTEN QUESTIONS AFTER ABOUT NINE MONTHS, SIR, RIGHT? 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 PRESIDENT’S WRITTEN RESPONSES, MR. MUELLER? >> IT’S CERTAINLY NOT AS USEFUL AS THE INTERVIEW WOULD BE. >> IN FACT, YOU POINTED OUT — AND BY MY ACCOUNT, THERE WERE MORE THAN 30 TIMES WHEN 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, UM, THAT’S WHY YOU USED WORDS LIKE INCOMPLETE, IMPRECISE, INADEQUATE, INSUFFICIENT, IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF THOSE WRITTEN ANSWERS? >> THAT IS A FAIR SUMMARY. AND I PRESUME THAT COMES FROM THE REPORT. >> YET, SIR, AND I ASK THIS RESPECTFULLY — BY THE WAY, THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T EVER CLAIM THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, DID HE? >> I’M NOT GOING TO TALK TO THAT. >> WELL FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, SIR, AT ONE POINT IT WAS VITAL AND AT ANOTHER POINT IT WASN’T VITAL. AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHY DID IT STOP BEING VITAL? I CAN ONLY THINK OF THREE EXPLANATION. ONE SOMEBODY TOLD YOU, YOU COULDN’T DO IT. BUT NOBODY TOLD YOU, YOU COULDN’T SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT. >> NO, WE SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT. WE COULD SERVE A SUBPOENA. >> THERE’S TWO OTHER EXPLANATIONS. ONE THAT YOU JUST FLINCHED. YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND DIDN’T DO IT. BUT YOU DON’T STRIKE ME AS THE KIND OF GUY WHO FLINCHES. >> I HOPE NOT. >> THEN THE THIRD EXPLANATION, I HOPE NOT, TOO, SIR, AND THE THIRD EXPLANATION I CAN THINK OF IS THAT, YOU DIDN’T THINK YOU NEEDED IT. AND, IN FACT, WHAT CAUGHT MY I WAS PAGE 13 OF VOLUME 2 WHERE YOU SAID, IN FACT, YOU HAD A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF EVIDENCE AND YOU CITE A BUNCH OF CASES THERE, DON’T YOU, ABOUT HOW YOU OFTEN HAVE TO PROVE INTENT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WITHOUT AN IN- PERSON INTERVIEW. 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. SO MY QUESTION, SIR, 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. IN OTHER WORDS, HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAVE TO SATISFY THE LAST ELEMENT AGAINST HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU WILLING TO SPEND IN THE COURTS LITIGATING A, UM, THE, UM, INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT. >> IN THIS CASE, YOU FELT THAT YOU HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT’S INTENT? >> WE HAD TO MAKE A BALANCED DECISION IN TERMS OF, UM, UM, HOW MUCH EVIDENCE WE HAD COMPARED TO THE LENGTH OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE — >> SIR, BECAUSE I HAVE LIMITED TIME YOU THOUGHT IF YOU GAVE IT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR THIS CONGRESS THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS BETTER THAN THAT DELAY? >> OKAY, STATE THAT AGAIN? >> THAT IT WAS BETTER THAN THE DELAY TO PRESENT THIS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, YOUR TERM, OF THE PRESIDENT’S INTENTS TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THIS COMMITTEE, ISN’T THAT WHY YOU DIDN’T DO THE INTERVIEW? >> NO. THE REASON WE DIDN’T DO THE INTERVIEW IS BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ATTENDANT TO THAT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >>> MISS DEMINGS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN 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 TOO WANT TO FOCUS ON THE WRITTEN RESPONSES THAT THE PRESIDENT DID PROVIDE AND THE CONTINUED EFFORT TO LIE AND COVER UP WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE 2016 ELECTION. 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 RUSSIA INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> NO, NOT NECESSARILY. >> SO THERE WERE OTHERS? >> YES. >> QUESTIONS THAT YOU WANTED TO ANSWER. DID YOU ANALYZE HIS WRITTEN ANSWERS ON RUSSIA INTERFERENCE OR 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. SO WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S CREDIBILITY? >> THAT I CAN’T GET INTO. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I KNOW BASED ON YOUR DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, YOU PROBABLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, ANALYZE THE CREDIBILITY OF COUNTLESS WITNESSES. BUT YOU WEREN’T ABLE TO DO SO WITH THIS WITNESS? >> EVERY WITNESS PARTICULARLY A READING WITNESS ONE ASSESSES THE CREDIBILITY DAY BY DAY, WITNESS BY WITNESS, DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT. AND THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. SO WE STARTED WITH VERY LITTLE AND BY THE END WE ENDED UP WITH A FAIR AMOUNT. YEAH. A FAIR AMOUNT. >> THANK YOU. LET’S GO THROUGH SOME OF THE ANSWERS TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT HIS CREDIBILITY BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME, DIRECTOR MUELLER, THAT HIS ANSWERS WERE NOT CREDIBLE AT ALL. DID SOME OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S INCOMPLETE ANSWERS RELATE TO TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW? >> YES. >> FOR EXAMPLE, DID YOU ASK THE PRESIDENT WHETHER HE HAD HAD AT ANY TIME DIRECTED OR SUGGESTED THAT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT TRUMP MOSCOW PROJECT SHOULD CEASE? >> SAID WHAT? >> CEASE. >> DO YOU HAVE A CITATION? >> YES. WE ARE STILL IN APPENDIX C, SECTION 1-7. >> FIRST PAGE? >> MM-HM. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ANSWER WHETHER HE HAD AT ANY TIME DIRECTED OR SUGGESTED THAT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE TRUMP MOSCOW PROJECT CEASED BUT HE HAS SINCE MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. >> OKAY. AND THE QUESTION WAS? >> DID THE PRESIDENT — LET ME GO TO THE NEXT ONE. DID THE PRESIDENT FULLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT TO YOU ABOUT THE PRESIDENT TRUMP MOSCOW PROJECT CEASING? AGAIN, IN APPENDIX C. >> AND CAN YOU DIRECT ME TO THE, UM, PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH YOU’RE AVERTING TO? >> IT WOULD BE APPENDIX C-C-1. BUT LET ME MOVE FORWARD. NINE DAYS AFTER HE SUBMITTED WRITTEN ANSWERS DIDN’T THE PRESIDENT SAY PUBLICLY THAT HE, QUOTE, DECIDED NOT TO DO THE PROJECT, UNQUOTE? AND THAT IS IN YOUR — >> UM — >> — REPORT. >> UM — I’D ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD TO POINT OUT THE, UM, THE PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH THAT YOU’RE FOCUSED ON. >> WE CAN MOVE ON. DID THE PRESIDENT ANSWER YOUR FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS — ACCORDING TO THE THE REPORT THERE WERE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT’S INCOMPLETE ANSWERS ABOUT THE MOSCOW PROJECT. DID THE PRESIDENT ANSWER YOUR FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS EITHER IN WRITING OR ORALLY? AND WE’RE NOW IN VOLUME 2, PAGE 150 THROUGH 151. >> NO. >> HE DID NOT. AND, IN FACT, THERE WERE MANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED THE PRESIDENT THAT HE SIMPLY DIDN’T ANSWER. ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> AND THERE WERE MANY ANSWERS THAT CONTRADICTED OTHER EVIDENCE YOU HAD GATHERED DURING THE INVESTIGATION, ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER? DIRECTOR MUELLER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT HAS WRITTEN ANSWERS STATED HE DID NOT RECALL HAVING ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF WIKILEAKS’ RELEASE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I THINK THAT’S WHAT HE SAID. >> BUT DIDN’T YOUR INVESTIGATION UNCOVER EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID IN FACT HAVE ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF WIKILEAKS’ PUBLIC RELEASES OF EMAILS DAMAGING TO HIS OPPONENT? >> I CAN’T GET INTO THAT AREA. >> DID YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINE AFTER VERY CAREFUL VETTING OF RICK GATES AND MICHAEL COHEN, THAT YOU FOUND THEM TO BE CREDIBLE? >> THAT WE FOUND THE PRESIDENT TO BE CREDIBLE? >> THAT YOU FOUND GATES AND COHEN TO BE CREDIBLE IN THEIR STATEMENTS ABOUT WIKILEAKS? >> THOSE AREAS I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS. >> OKAY. COULD YOU SAY, DIRECTOR MUELLER, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS CREDIBLE? >> I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, ISN’T IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT’S 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, UM, GENERALLY. >> GENERALLY. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, IT’S ONE THING FOR THE PRESIDENT TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION, FALSELY CLAIMING THAT YOU FOUND NO COLLUSION AND NO OBSTRUCTION. BUT IT’S 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 OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> MR. MURPHY. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEVOTED SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY. EARLIER TODAY, YOU DESCRIBED YOUR REPORT AS DETAILING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. CORRECT? >> YES. 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 INSTANC, SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE YOUR PURVIEW, YOUR REPORT DID NOT REACH COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CONCLUSIONS REGARDING ANY TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO MIGHT POTENTIALLY BE VULNERABLE TO COMPROMISE OR BLACKMAIL BY RUSSIA, CORRECT? >> THOSE DECISIONS PROBABLY WERE MADE IN THE FBI. >> BUT NOT IN YOUR REPORT, CORRECT? >> NOT IN OUR REPORT. WE AVERT TO THE, UM, THE COUNTER — THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, UM, GOALS OF OUR INVESTIGATION, WHICH WERE SECONDARY TO ANY CRIMINAL WRONGDOING THAT WE COULD FIND. >> LET’S TALK ABOUT ONE ADMINISTRATION 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 BUSINESSES, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND, OF COURSE, YOUR OFFICE DID NOT OBTAIN THE PRESIDENT’S TAX RETURNS, WHICH COULD OTHERWISE SHOW FOREIGN FINANCIAL SOURCES, CORRECT? >> I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. 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. WERE THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL FINANCES OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. >> WERE YOU INSTRUCTED BY ANYONE NOT TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL FINANCES? >> NO. >> MR. MUELLER, I’D LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO COUNTERINTELLIGENCE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH LYING. INDIVIDUALS CAN BE SUBJECT TO BLACKMAIL IF THEY LIE ABOUT THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES, CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SUCCESSFULLY CHARGED FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MICHAEL FLYNN OF LYING TO FEDERAL AGENTS ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIAL, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOUR 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 AT THE FBI THAT ARE LOOKING 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, QUOTE, I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA. OF COURSE, MICHAEL COHEN 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. I THINK THAT’S RIGHT. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WANT TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO A COUPLE OTHER ISSUES. YOU’VE 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 OBVIOUSLY HAS THE — DEFENSE AND ATTACKS SUCH AS THE RUSSIANS UNDERTOOK IN 2016. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, IS THERE ANY INFORMATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH THIS COMMITTEE THAT YOU HAVE NOT SO FAR TODAY? >> THAT’S A BROAD QUESTION. AND IT WOULD TAKE ME A WHILE TO GET AN ANSWER TO IT, BUT I WOULD SAY NO. >> UM, MR. MUELLER, UM, YOU SAID THAT EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE SYSTEMIC 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’LL SPEAK GENERALLY. WHAT I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT THIS MORNING, AND HERE, THAT NO, MUCH MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO PROTECT AGAINST THIS INTRUSION NOT JUST BY THE RUSSIANS BUT OTHERS, AS WELL. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. >> TWO FIVE-MINUTE PERIODS REMAINING. MR. NUNEZ AND MYSELF. MR. NUNEZ, YOU’RE RECOGNIZED. >> MR. MUELLER, IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY FOR YOU. AND YOU HAVE HAD A LONG GREAT CAREER. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LONG-TIME 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 CAME HERE UPON YOUR OWN FREE WILL AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY. WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, SIR. MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO CLOSE OUT MY QUESTIONS, TURN TO SOME OF THE EXCHANGE YOU HAD WITH MR. WELSH A BIT EARLIER. I’D LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN BROADEN 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 DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. A CRIME UNDER GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. >> TO THE DEGREE THAT IT UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR INSTITUTIONS, WE CAN AGREE THAT IT’S ALSO UNPATRIOTIC. >> TRUE. >> AND WRONG. >> TRUE. >> THE STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OR ANY CANDIDATE, FOR THAT MATTER, SHOULDN’T BE MERELY WHETHER SOMETHING IS CRIMINAL. IT SHOULD BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD, YOU WOULD AGREE? >> I WILL NOT GET INTO THAT BECAUSE IT GOES TO THE STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED BY OTHER INSTITUTIONS BESIDES OURS. >> I’M JUST REFERRING TO ETHICAL STANDARDS. WE SHOULD HOLD OUR — >> ABSOLUTELY. >> — ELECTED OFFICIALS TO A STANDARDS HIGHER THAN MERE AVOIDANCE OF CRIMINALITY, SHOULDN’T WE? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> YOU HAVE SERVED THIS COUNTRY FOR DECADES. YOU HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. YOU HOLD YOURSELF TO A STANDARDS OF 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. BUT WE ARE GRATEFUL. THE NEED TO ACT IN AN ETHICAL MANNER IS NOT JUST A MORAL ONE BUT WHEN PEOPLE ACT UNETHICALLY, IT ALSO EXPOSES THEM TO COMPROMISE PARTICULARLY IN DEALING WITH FOREIGN POWERS. IS THAT TRUE? >> TRUE. >> BECAUSE WHEN SOMEONE ACTS UNETHICALLY IN CONNECTION WITH A FOREIGN PARTNER, THAT FOREIGN PARTNER CAN LATER EXPOSE THEIR WRONGDOING AND EXTORT THEM. >> TRUE. >> AND THAT CONDUCT THAT UNETHICAL CONDUCT CAN BE OF A FINANCIAL NATURE, IF YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL MOTIVE OR AN ILLICIT >> RIGHT. >> BUT 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, THEY COULD HAVE EXPOSED THAT, COULD THEY NOT? >> YES. >> IF A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WAS DOING BUSINESS IN RUSSIA AND SAYING HE WASN’T, RUSSIANS COULD EXPOSE THAT, TOO, COULD THEY NOT? >> I LEAVE THAT TO YOU. >> WELL, LET’S LOOK AT DIMITRI PESKOOV. MICHAEL COHEN HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH HIM. PRESUMABLY THE RUSSIANS COULD RECORD THAT? >> YES. >> IF TRUMP WAS SAYING I HAD NO DEALINGS WITH THE RUSSIANS THEY COULD EXPOSE THAT, COULD THEY NOT WITH THE TAPE RECORDINGS. >> YES. >> THAT’S THE STUFF OF COUNTER INTELLIGENCE NIGHTMARES, IS NOT? >> WELL, IT HAS TO DO WITH COUNTER INTELLIGENCE AND THE NEED FOR STRONG COUNTER INTELLIGENCE ENTITY. >> IT DOES INDEED. AND WHEN THIS WAS REVEALED THAT THERE WERE THESE COMMUNICATIONS NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRESIDENT’S DENIALS, THE PRESIDENT WAS CONFRONTED ABOUT THIS AND HE SAID TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, THAT’S NOT A CRIME. BUT I THINK YOU AND I HAVE ALREADY AGREED THAT THAT SHOULDN’T BE THE STANDARD, RIGHT, MR. MUELLER? >> TRUE. >> THE SECOND THING HE SAID WAS, WHY SHOULD I MISS OUT ON ALL THOSE OPPORTUNITIES? I MEAN, WHY INDEED? MERELY RUNNING A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, WHY SHOULD YOU MISS OUT ON MAKING ALL THAT MONEY? WAS THE IMPORT OF HIS STATEMENT. WERE YOU EVER ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER DONALD TRUMP STILL INTENDS TO BUILD THAT TOWER WHEN HE LEAVES OFFICE? >> IS THAT A QUESTION, SIR? >> YES. WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN, BECAUSE HE WOULDN’T ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS COMPLETELY, WHETHER OR IF HE EVER ENDED THAT DESIRE TO BUILD THAT TOWER? >> I’M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ON THAT. >> IF THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED THAT IF HE LOST HIS ELECTION, HE DIDN’T WANT TO MISS OUT ON THAT MONEY, MIGHT HE HAVE THE SAME CONCERN ABOUT LOSING HIS RE-ELECTION — >> AGAIN, 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 MULL MUELLER LET ME CLOSE BY RETURNING TO WHERE I BEGAN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND THANK YOU FOR LEADING THIS INVESTIGATION. THE FACTS YOU SET OUT IN YOUR REPORT AND HAVE ELUCIDATED HERE 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, AND A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DECIDED BY A HANDFUL OF VOTES IN A FEW KEY STATES. YOUR WORK TELLS OF A CAMPAIGN SO DETERMINED TO CONCEAL THEIR CORRUPT USE OF FOREIGN HELP THAT THEY RISKED GOING TO JAIL BY LYING TO YOU, TO 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 ACTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF OPINION THAT IN MY OPINION AND OF THAT MANY OTHER PROSECUTORS HAD IT BEEN ANYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN INDICTED. NOTWITHSTANDING THE MANY THINGS YOU HAVE ADDRESSED TODAY AND IN YOUR REPORT, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS YOU COULD NOT ANSWER GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS YOU’RE OPERATING 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 FRAUD SCHEME, THAT INDIVIDUAL ONE 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 TOLD US WHETHER PEOPLE STILL SERVING IN THE ADMINISTRATION POSE A COMPROMISE AND SHOULDN’T BE GIVEN A SECURITY CLEARANCE SO WE MISS IF YOU FIND OUT. WE DIDN’T FIND OUT IF ANY GULF NATIONS WERE INFLUENCING U.S. POLICY SINCE IT IS OUTSIDE THE REPORT AND SO WE MUST FIND OUT. BUT ONE THING IS CLEAR FROM YOUR REPORT, YOUR TESTIMONY, FROM DIRECTOR RAY’S 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 ELECTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE, TO ENSURE THERE IS A PAPER TRAIL FOR ALL VOTING, TO DETER THE RUSSIANS FROM MEDDLING TO DISCOVER IT WHEN THEY DO, TO DISRUPT IT AND TO MAKE THEM PAY. PROTECTING THE SANCTITY OF OUR ELECTIONS BEGINS 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. ZEBLEY. EVERYONE ELSE, PLEASE REMAIN SEATED. >> Woodruff: AND THAT WRAPS ASS. EVERYONE ELSE REMAIN >> AN INCREDIBLE DAY OF HEARINGS ON CAPITOL HILL. THE 74-YEAR-OLD ROBERT MUELLER, THE SECOND LONGEST SERVING FBI DIRECTOR WRAPPING UP HIS CAREER. THIS WAS ALMOST SIX HOURS BETWEEN TWO COMMITTEES. WE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL. NOT ONLY ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE REPORT AND SOME AROUND THE EDGES BUT CERTAINLY MUELLER TRIED TO KEEP IT TIGHT WITH HIS ANSWERS, SOMETIMES WITH YES, NO ANSWERS. LET’S GET THROUGH WHAT WE DID LEARN. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS ASKED, CAN THE PRESIDENT BE PROSECUTED WHEN HE IS OUT OF OFFICE? HE ANSWERED YES. HE SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT BEEN EXONERATED BY THIS PARTICULAR REPORT. HE WAS ALSO ASKED ABOUT THE POLITICAL NATURE OF THIS. AND WE HEARD ROBERT MUELLER SAY THIS IS NOT A WITCH HUNT. AND WE HEARD HIM EXPLAIN WHY HE DID NOT SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. WHERE DOES THIS NOW LEAVE CONGRESS? >> WITH A COUPLE OF FORMIDABLE QUESTIONS TO ANSWER. FIRST OF ALL, IS LACK OF CRIMINALITY THE ONLY STANDARD WE APPLY TO AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT? RELATED TO THAT IS THE DISCUSSION WE JUST SAW IN THE LAST PART OF THIS HEARING, WHAT IS THE NEW NORMAL? IS IT A NEW NORMAL IN AMERICA FOR POLITICAL ACTORS, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SEEKING RE- ELECTION, SENATORS, GOVERNORS, PRESIDENTS, TO ACCEPT DIRT OR COMPROMISING INFORMATION FROM A HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER? ROBERT MUELLER SAID I HOPE IT ISN’T BUT I FEAR IT MIGHT BE. >> THAT IT’S THE NEW NORMAL. >> IS THIS THE NEW NORMAL? WHAT AR WE WILLING TO ACCEPT IN THIS COUNTRY AS STANDARDS FOR THE PRESIDENT, STANDARDS FOR THOSE WHO CAMPAIGN FOR HIGH OFFICE, AND WHO WIN HIGH OFFICE? GUESS WHAT? THE CONGRESS IS A PLACE TO DEBATE THAT. AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS THE ULTIMATE ARBITER. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS LAID BEFORE THE COUNTRY AFTER THE END OF THE DAY’S HEARING. >> WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAED BY ROBERT MUELLER? >> THAT WAS A REALLY INTERESTING EXCHANGE. WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING HAVING TO DO WITH DELAY AND THAT HE WANTED TO WRAP UP THE INVESTIGATION EXPEDITIOUSLY. BUT THEN THE QUESTIONING SHIFTED TO WHAT HE CALLED A BALANCING AND THE QUESTION WAS, LISTEN, IF THIS WAS SUCH A VITAL WITNESS, WHY DIDN’T YOU CALL THAT PERSON? YOU MUST HAVE ASSUMED, YOU HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF INTENT. AND HE SORT OF HEDGED ON THAT AND ESSENTIALLY HE SAID, WELL, YEAH, WE DID ESSENTIALLY STRIKE THAT BALANCE THAT WE HAD ENOUGH — IT WASN’T WORTH WAITING. WHEN I SAY WAITING, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A CHALLENGE TO THE SUBPOENA. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, PROBABLY TO THE SUPREME COURT. EVEN IN AN EXPEDITED MANNER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MONTHS. >> SEAN MALONEY ASKING THOSE SERIES OF QUESTIONS FROM NEW YORK WAS TRYING TO LEAD ROBERT MUELLER ALL THE WAY UP TO THE POINT OF SAYING, YEAH WE HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND DIDN’T NEED THAT. MUELLER DETECTED THAT AND SAID HOLD ON, IT WAS A TIME ELEMENT. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THIS. THE PRESIDENT’S ATTORNEYS LONG BELIEVED IF HE HAD BEEN SUBPOENAED NOT ONLY WOULD — THEY BELIEVE THEY WOULD HAVE PREVAILED IN COURT BECAUSE OF UNDERLYING COMPLICATED CASE LAW ABOUT THIS. THEY BELIEVED IN THE PREPONDERANCE OF THIS WAS ON THEIR SIDE AND THE SUBPOENA FIGHT WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE SO I ALSO — >> PAULA REID — >> LOST BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. THE LAWYERS BELIEF THEY WOULD HAVE PREVAILED. >> I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AFTER NIXON AND CLINTON THAT THERE WERE SOME PRETTY GOOD PRECEDENT FOR ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO SUBPOENAS. PAULA REID IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE. WE KNOW FROM THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS AS WELL AS READING THIS REPORT THAT HE HAS BEEN OBSESSED WITH THIS INVESTIGATION. HOW DID THE PRESIDENT SPEND HIS DAY TODAY? >> Reporter: THIS HAS BEEN VERY FRUSTRATING NORTH PRESIDENT. THIS LOOMED OVER HIS WHITE HOUSE OVER ANYTHING HE PERCEIVES AS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT PRETTY MUCH SINCE THE BEGINNING OF HIS PRESIDENCY. HE WAS WATCHING AT LEAST SOME ON TV AND OCCASIONALLY WEIGHING IN ON TWITTER. IN FACT, AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PHASE OF THE HEARING, HE TWEETED A THANKS TO DEMOCRATS FOR THROWING THIS HEARING. HE CALLED IT AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE COUNTRY OF. SO FAR, NORAH, IT APPEARS THAT HE IS REALLY MONITORING WHAT’S GOING ON, ON 2013. HE IS RETWEETING A LOT OF REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS’ ACCOUNTS, HIGHLIGHTING THEIR EXCHANGES WITH MUELLER. TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT QUESTIONS OF THE ORIGINS OF THE INVESTIGATION. AND IN A SHORT TIME THE PRESIDENT WILL LEAVE FOR AN EVENT IN WEST VIRGINIA, WHERE HE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO REPORTERS AND THE FACT THAT HE HASN’T SAID TOO MUCH TODAY SUGGESTS HE WILL TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY. >> WE ARE STILL — THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND AUDIENCE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN MORE OF WHAT WAS IN THIS REPORT IF THEY HAVE NOT READ IT. WE’RE STILL AT AN IMPASSE IN TERMS OF A SOLUTION BECAUSE THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE WHILE HE IS STILL IN OFFICE ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, WHETHER THIS MOVED THE NEEDLE IN TERMS OF THE POLITICAL SOLUTION WHICH WOULD BE IMPEACHMENT. >> I THINK IT MOVED THE NEEDLE BUT NOT THE WAY THE DEMOCRATS WANTED IT QUITE FRANKLY. NOTHING IN TODAY’S HEARING IS GOING TO CHANGE MINDS. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LEAVE WITH THE SAME PEOPLE THEY CAME TO THIS PARTY WITH. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FOR THE DEMOCRATS IS THAT THERE’S — THERE’S NOT A COMPELLING CASE FOR OBSTRUCTION. I WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED IF HE WAS EVER CHARGED. ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ISSUE, I FIND THAT ONE PERPLEXING. WHAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT SO FAR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS DOING. MICHAEL COHEN WAS INDICTED AND PART OF HIS NARRATIVE WAS CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION WITH ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL. THAT OTHER INDIVIDUAL WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP. SO I DON’T SEE HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP LEAVES OFFICE CAN MAINTAIN A LINE AND SAY WE NAILED MICHAEL COHEN ON THIS BUT THE OTHER HALF OF THIS SUPPOSED CONSPIRACY WE’RE GOING TO LET WALK. >> YOU’RE SAYING THAT THE PRESIDENT IS MORE VULNERABLE ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARGES WHEN HE LEAVES OFFICE? >> I DO. I DOES. BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THE HEARING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, BOTH SIDES ESSENTIALLY DID THIS ALMOST AUDIOTAPE OF THE MUELLER REPORT. AND MUELLER WAS VIRTUALLY A DECORATION IN THE COURTROOM. HE GAVE THESE MONOSYLLABIC RESPONSES AS EVERYONE READ THEIR FAVORITE LINES OUT OF THE REPORT. NO ONE IS CONVINCED. BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS FOR THE DEMOCRATS IS THEY PORTRAYED THEMSELVES AS PEDESTRIANS. THEY KEPT ON SAYING, WHY DOESN’T SOMEONE DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS? AND WE’RE SIT THERE IS SAYING, WELL, OKAY. YOU’RE THE ONES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. YOU’RE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AND THEY’RE NOT. AND SO THE MORE ATTENTION THEY ARE PUTTING TO THIS MANTRA OF NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, THE MORE ATTENTION THEY ARE DRAWING TO THE FACT THAT THEY’RE CLEARING NOT MOVING TOWARDS IMPEACHING THIS PRESIDENT. >> AND WE SHOULDN’T REGARD THAT AS A SOLUTION. THAT’S JUST A CONSTITUTION CHOICE THAT THE DULY EMPOWERED MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS. WHETHER IT DOES IT OR NOT IS ENTIRELY UP TO THEM. WHETHER THEY PUT THE CASE TOGETHER AND SEND IT TO THE SENATE FOR TRIAL, THAT’S CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION. THEY ARE THE EVEN ONES WHO CAN DO THAT. ONE THING THAT’S WORTH NOTING BEFORE THIS HEARING THERE WAS THIS REPUBLICAN NARRATIVE THAT THE CHRIS STEELE DOSSIER WAS THE REASON THAT THIS THING GOT STARTED. SOMETHING CHANGED TODAY. TODAY IT’S ABOUT THIS GUY NAMED JOSEPH MIFSUD. THIS NEW PERSON WHO IS POSSIBLY NOW A DUPE FOR A RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN WORKED ON MANY DIFFERENT LEVELS AND MAY HAVE BEEN BEHIND GETTING THIS STARTED. WELL, ALL RIGHT. THAT’S AN INTERESTING LINE OF INQUIRY. BUT IT DOES NOT FIT WITH THE REPUBLICAN NARRATIVE THAT IF NOT FOR THE STEELE DOSSIER WE WOULDN’T BE HERE. SUDDEN A NEW SURPRISE WITNESS APPEARS TONIGHT STAGE AT THE LAST MINUTE OF THE COURT HEARING LIKE A SUPER DRAMA — >> ED O’KEEFE IS ON CAPITOL HILL AND AS MAJOR POINTS OUT IT WASN’T ENTIRELY CLEAR WHAT THE REPUBLICAN NARRATIVE WAS TODAY, THE DEMOCRATS CERTAINLY HAD A GOAL WHICH WAS TO BRING THIS REPORT TO LIFE AND WE CERTAINLY SAW IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING NOT ONLY WERE THEY COORDINATED IN EACH OF THEIR QUESTIONS TO BRING UP ALL OF THOSE TEN INSTANCES OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THEY CONTROLLED THE BIG TELEVISION MONITORS AND HAD BIG GRAPHICS AND QUOTES ALL FROM THE REPORT IN ORDER TO TRY TO PAINT THIS NARRATIVE. >> Reporter: YEAH. YOU KNOW, JONATHAN CALLED IT AN AUDIOTAPE. UP HERE THEY CALLED THIS THE MOVIE TO GO WITH THE BOOK THAT WAS RELEASED IN THE SPRING. AND YOU TALK TO DEMOCRATS UP HERE TODAY, THEY SAY THAT THEY BELIEVE MUELLER LAID OUT A PRETTY COMPELLING CASE. EXAMPLES OF WHERE THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM EITHER TRIED TO COMMIT A CRIME OR WAS THINKING ABOUT IT. AND THAT THAT PROVES SOME SENSE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THE PROBLEM IS, MOST AMERICANS WEREN’T WATCHING. THOUGH MAY SEE SOME CLIPS OF THIS. THEY ARE GOING TO SEE A WITNESS THAT WAS AS YOU DESCRIBED HIM, NORAH, HALTING AND WITH ONE WORD ANSWERS. DURING THE HALFTIME FOUR DEMOCRATS CAME UP AND TALKED TO US. GUYS, YOU PUT THIS TOGETHER. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE MOVIE VERSION OF THE BOOK. YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT THIS WAS THE MOVIE VERSION OF THE BOOK. WAS THE MOVIE BETTER THAN THE BOOK? NONE OF THEM WERE WILLING TO SAY YES. SO WE WONDER IF PERHAPS THEY NOW REALIZE THAT MUELLER WASN’T AS COMPELLING A WITNESS AS, SAY, JAMES COMEY HAS BEEN OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. MICHAEL COHEN OR SOME OF THE OTHER CHARACTERS INVOLVED IN THIS. AS ONE SENIOR HOUSE DEMOCRATIC AIDE SAID, ALL WE NEEDED TO KNOW WAS IN THE FIRST20 MINUTES OF THIS MORNING’S HEARING AND THAT NO ONE IS LIKELY TO TALK ABOUTTHIS WHEN CONGRESS COMES BACK FROM RECESS. DEMOCRATS DIDN’T GET THE SMOKING GUN AND WEREN’T GOING TO BUT GOT AFFIRMATION FROM HIS YES OR NO ANSWERS. WHERE DO YOU GO NOW, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? THE DEMOCRATS IN FAVOR OF IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WILL PRESS ON. THEY EXPECT SUPPORT TO BUILD IN THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS TO BUILD IN THE SUMMER AND HEARINGS COULD POTENTIALLY BEGIN IN THE FALL. BUT REMEMBER PUBLIC SUPPORT IS NOT THERE. MOST AMERICANS HAVE LEARNED ENOUGH, AND THEY WANT TO MOVE ON. >> ED O’KEEFE ON CAPITOL HILL, THANK YOU I.I MUST SAY IT’S VERY RARE THAT THE MOVIE IS EVER BETTER THAN THE BOOK, MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. MAYBE I JUST LOVE BOOKS. >> WE HAVE A PROBLEM THAT, YOU KNOW, I WAS LEAD COUNSEL ON THE LAST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE SENATE. THAT WAS THE PORTIAS TRY. I WAS PART OF THE CLINTON HEARINGS. THEY ARE PAST THE FAIL-SAFE LINE SAY MAYBE IN THE SUMMER WE’LL COME BACK AND IMPEACH THIS GUY. IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO IMPEACH SOMEONE EVEN IF YOU GO STRAIGHT TO THE FLOOR. THAT TIME, IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE PAST IMPEACHMENTS HAS ALREADY PASSED. SO IF THEY ARE WAITING UNTIL AFTER SUMMER, THAT WOULD BE A NASCAR RECORD OF AN IMPEACHMENT AND I DOUBT THEY CAN DO IT SO IT’S GOING TO RAISE MORE QUESTIONS AS TO, ARE YOU JUST PLAYING OUT THE CLOCK HERE? >> I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WE’LL REVISIT AND WILL BE ONE ACTUALLY REVISITED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS THE PROPOSAL THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT FORWARD IN TERMS OF HOW TO COMBAT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD FROM WHITE HOUSE AND INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS, NOW THE CHINESE AND IRANIANS ARE TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING. SO THAT PART WILL BE REVISITED FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY STANDPOINT. >> THAT GLIMMER OF LIGHT IN THE SEND SECOND HALF OF THE TESTIMONY THAT REPRESENTATIVE HURD AND PEOPLE FROM THE REPUBLICAN SIDE WERE EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT THE RUSSIANS INFLUENCE IN THE ELECTION ASKED MR. MUELLER WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, HE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THERE NEEDS TO BE COORDINATION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES ON THIS QUESTION AND AMERICANS ARE NOT SAFE, IT’S HAPPENING AGAIN, AND I THOUGHT THAT BIPARTISAN NOD WAS A GOOD ONE. >> ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU AND WE APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU JOINING US. AND HERE IT IS. IF YOU DIDN’T GET WHAT YOU WANTED TODAY IN THE SIX HOURS OF TESTIMONY, THE MUELLER REPORT EXISTS AND AS SOME PEOPLE SAID THE APPENDIX IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING PARTS OF THIS REPORT OR THE APPENDICES, WHICH IS OF COURSE THE PLEURAL OF APPENDIX. THERE WILL BE MUCH MORE ON ROBERT MUELLER’S TESTIMONY ON YOUR LOCAL CBS STATION AND TONIGHT “CBS EVENING NEWS.” WE’LL HAVE THE FULL WRAP UP OF ALL THE CHOICE SOUND BITES AND MOMENTS AND REPORTING. CBS NEWS COVERAGE NOW CONTINUES NOW ON OUR 24-HOUR STREAMING NEWS SERVICE CBSN. YOU CAN WATCH IT AT CBSNEWS.COM AND ON OUR CBS NEWS APP. WITH THANKS TO MAJOR GARRETT, NANCY CORDES, JEFFPYGATION, ED O’KEEFE TO OUR CREW, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. I’M NORAH O’DONNELL IN WASHINGTON. AND I’LL SEE YOU ON THE “CBS EVENING NEWS.” THIS HAS BEEN A CBS NEWS SPECIAL REPORT. >>> , HI, I’M REENA NINAN. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. CONGRESS AND THE NATION HAVE HEARD FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER TESTIFY ON HIS REPORT ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS NEARLY TWO-YEAR INVESTIGATION. MUELLER ARRIVED ON THE HILL EARLIER THIS MORNING AND APPEARED BEFORE BOTH THE HOUSE JUDICIARY AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES. IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT HE SAID HE WOULD STICK TO THE MAIN FINDINGS DETAILED IN HIS. >> WE FOUND THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC FASHION. SECOND, THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT 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 WITH TAKING PART IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. AND IT WAS NOT. THIRD, OUR INVESTIGATION OF EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION AND LIED TO INVESTIGATORS WAS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE STRIKES AT THE CORE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S EFFORT TO FIND THE TRUTH AND TO HEELED WRONG DOERS ACCOUNTABLE. FINALLY, AS DESCRIBED IN VOLUME 2 OF OUR REPORT, WE INVESTIGATED A SERIES OF ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT TOWARDS 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 OUR DECISION THEN AND REMAINS OUR DECISION TODAY. >> THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING LASTED ABOUT THREE HOURS. AND THE LINE OF QUESTIONING BETWEEN TWO POLITICAL PARTIES SHOWED JUST HOW PARTISAN THIS ENTIRE INVESTIGATION HAS BECOME. HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN DEMOCRAT JERRY NADLER LED THE PROCEEDINGS BY HAVING MUELLER REFUTE THE PRESIDENT’S CLAIMS THAT HIS REPORT EXONERATED HIM. >> WHAT ABOUT TOTAL EXONERATION. DID YOU ACTUALLY TOTALLY EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT? >> NO. >> NOW, IN FACT, YOUR REPORT EXPRESSLY STATES IT DOES NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT? >> IT DOES. >> AND YOUR INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY FOUND, QUOTE, MULTIPLE ACTS BY THE PRESIDENT THAT WERE CAPABLE OF EXERTING UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLICY, THE PRESIDENT COULD BE PROSECUTED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIMES AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE, CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> REPUBLICANS USED THEIR TIME TO TRY TO CAST DOUBT ON MUELLER’S REPORT SUGGESTING THAT THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN AS WE HAVE HEARD BEFORE A WITCH HUNT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. >> THE PRESIDENT WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF CONSPIRACY. THE FBI DOES A 10 MONTH INVESTIGATION AND JAMES COMEY WHEN WE DEPOSED HIM A YEAR AGO TOLD US AT THAT POINT THEY HAD NOTHING. YOU DO A 22 MONTH INVESTIGATION AND AT THE END OF THAT 22 MONTHS YOU FIND NO CONSPIRACY. AND WHAT’S THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO DO? THEY WANT TO KEEP INVESTIGATING! >> MUELLER FACED SIMILAR QUESTIONS BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE JUST A SHORT TIME AFTER. IN THAT HEARING, COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF ASKED THE PRESIDENT’S MOST FREQUENT — ASKED ABOUT THE MOST FREQUENT ATTACK. >> WHEN DONALD TRUMP CALLED YOUR INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT, THAT WAS ALSO FALSE, WAS IT NOT? >> LIKE TO THINK SO, YES. >> WELL, YOUR INVESTIGATION IS NOT A WITCH HUNT, IS IT? >> IT IS NOT A WITCH HUNT. >> SO TO ALL OF THIS THE PRESIDENT TWEETS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS JUST A SHORT TIME AGO, TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE. LET’S CHECK IN WITH ED O’KEEFE ON CAPITOL HILL. HE IS JOINED BY DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN JOAQUIN CASTRO. ED. >> Reporter: REENA, THANK YOU. CONGRESSMAN CASTRO IS THE CONGRESSMAN NOT THE CASTRO RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. HE REPRESENTS SAN ANTONIO. HE IS A MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE KIND ENOUGH TO JOIN US HERE THIS AFTERNOON AFTER THE HEARING. YOUR INITIAL IMPRESSIONS AFTER TODAY’S HEARINGS? >> I THINK HE AFFIRMED WHAT WE HAVE KNOWN WHICH IS THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN OUR 2016 ELECTIONS. THEY DID IT TO HELP DONALD TRUMP. AT TIMES MEMBERS OF DONALD TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN INVITED THAT HELP AND THEN LATER TRIED TO LIE AND COVER IT UP. ALSO, THAT THERE’S AN ELEMENT OF GREED HERE, UM, YOU KNOW, AS I SAID, IN THE HEARING, THE PRESIDENT HAS SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH VERY SHADY PEOPLE. PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW SITTING IN PRISON OR ON THEIR WAY TO PRISON AND WHO HAVE HELPED HIM ENRICH HIMSELF AND WHO HAVE LIED FOR HIM. AND OBVIOUSLY THERE’S MORE INVESTIGATION THAT IS REQUIRED TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT BOB MUELLER WOULDN’T OR COULDN’T ANSWER TODAY. AND THAT’S WHY WE HAVE CONTINUING INVESTIGATIONS IN THE HOUSE. >> REMIND US WHERE YOU ARE ON — >> I HAVE SAID A WHILE BACK PROBABLY TWO MONTHS AGO THAT I AM FOR IMPEACHMENT. >> YOU’RE ABOUT ONE OF 90 AT THIS POINT — THAT’S NOT EVEN HALF OF THE CAUCUS YET. DO YOU THINK WHAT TRANSPIRED TODAY COMPELS A FEW DOZEN MORE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES TO JOIN YOU IN THOSE CALLS? >> ULTIMATELY, THAT WILL BE A DECISION FOR EACH MEMBER OF CONGRESS BUT I THINK IT’S QUITE POSSIBLE. THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE POINTS ESPECIALLY, I THOUGHT, WERE VERY COMPELLING. YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS NOT GOING TO ADMIT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE CHARGED THE PRESIDENT IF HE WASN’T THE PRESIDENT. BUT I THINK FROM THE REPORT IT’S PRETTY CLEAR THAT IF THIS WAS ANYBODY ELSE, IF THIS WAS A REGULAR PERSON, THEY WOULD BE ON TRIAL RIGHT NOW FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> Reporter: IF AN AMERICAN WHO MUELLER REPORT, TUNED IN TODAY TO SEE THE SO-CALLED MOVIE, DO YOU THINK THEY GOT EVERYTHING THEY NEEDED TO SORT OF BE WHERE YOU ARE ON THIS ISSUE? >> I THINK IT WAS VERY DAMNING FOR THE PRESIDENT. PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO SEE CONGRESS MOST OF ALL TAKE ACTION. I DON’T THINK THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE AFTER SEEING THAT WOULD SAY, HEY, THIS ISSUE IS CLOSED, IT’S A MATTER THAT’S CLOSED. THEM CONGRESS TO ACT. >> HOW AND WHEN WILL THAT HAPPEN, DO YOU THINK AT THIS POINT? YOU GUYS LEAVE FOR RECESS AND WON’T BE BACK UNTIL SEPTEMBER. YOU MAY HAVE SOME SPENDING DEADLINES TO ADDRESS COME SEPTEMBER. WE GET CLOSER TO ELECTION HERE. WHEN AND HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN? >> I THINK THAT’S ULTIMATELY A DECISION FOR THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. I THINK THAT WHAT YOU’LL SEE IS CONTINUING SUPPORT OPENING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. REMEMBER, THAT’S AN INQUIRY SO YOU’RE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS. IT’S NOT A DECISION RIGHT AWAY THAT YOU’RE GOING TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT BUT IT’S A DECISION TO OPEN A PROCESS. I THINK YOU’LL SEE GROWING SUPPORT FOR IT. >> JOAQUIN CASTRO, CONGRESSMAN FROM SAN ANTONIO, THANKS FOR JOINING US. WE APPRECIATE IT. REENA, UM, UM, THAT IS SORT OF EMBLEMATIC OF WHAT WE HEARD FROM DEMOCRATS TODAY, THOSE THAT ARE ESPECIALLY FOR IMPEACHMENT. BELIEVING THAT NOW ON VIDEOTAPE, THE FORMER DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, HAS LAID IT OUT FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. AS ELIJAH CUMMINGS SAID EARLIER TODAY, IF YOU’RE SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN JUST LEARNING ABOUT THIS MAYBE WASN’T PAYING ATTENTION OVER THE COURSE OF THE SPRING WHEN THE MUELLER REPORT WAS RELEASED, YOU SHOULD HAVE GOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TODAY TO REALIZE THERE’S MORE HERE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE. BUT REMEMBER, MOST AMERICANS DON’T WANT THAT. THEY WANT CONGRESS TO MOVE ON. THIS ISSUE IS SETTLED. WHETHER MUELLER TODAY DID ENOUGH TO CONVINCE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS OTHERWISE, THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN. SOME OF THESE DEMOCRATS WALKING OUT ESPECIALLY AFTER THAT FIRST HEARING TODAY REALIZE THAT PERHAPS HE HADN’T MADE THE CASE. >> THANK YOU. FOR NOW, I WANT TO ALSO BRING IN MOLLIE HOOPER A CBSN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR AND RIKKI KLIEMAN, WHO IS A CBS NEWS LEGAL ANALYST. LADIES, I GOT TO TELL YOU, JUST SEEING REACTION ON SOCIAL MEDIA, WHICH IS AN ACCURATE METAPHOR FOR THE COUNTRY, IT IS PRETTY MUCH DOWN PARTISAN LINES. THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE SAID TODAY’S HEARING WERE A DISASTER FOR DEMOCRATS. THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN SAYING NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION. THIS WAS THE DISASTER FOR DEMOCRATS. BUT RIKKI, THE ONE SORT OF LINGERING THING HERE THAT WE DID KEEP HEARING ABOUT IS, CAN THE PRESIDENT BE CHARGED AFTER LEAVING OFFICE? WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE KNOWN BUT HEARD AGAIN. TALK TO ME ABOUT THIS. IN FACT, I WANT TO PLAY FOR YOU A BITE THAT COMES FROM CONGRESSMAN BUCK, I BELIEVE, A BITE THAT WE HAVE TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE EVIDENCE TO CONVICT. >> YOU RECOMMENDED DECLINING PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ANYONE SOUTHERN END WITH HIS CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT FOR A CHARGE OF COLLUSION IN THE QUICKS ELECTION, IS THAT FAIR? >> THAT’S 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 HAVE MADE THE CALCULATION? >> BECAUSE THE OLC OPINION, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, INDICATES THAT WE CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT. SO ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT THE PROSECUTOR WOULD USE IS NOT THERE. >> LET ME JUST STOP. YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THE RUSSIAN. INTERFERENCE. YOU COULDN’T HAVE INDICTED THE PRESIDENT ON THAT AND YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THAT. BUT WHEN IT CAME TO OBSTRUCTION, YOU THREW A BUNCH OF STUFF UP AGAINST THE WALL TO SEE WHAT WOULD STICK. >> WELL, I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT CHARACTERIZATION AT ALL. WHAT WE DID IS PROVIDE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE FORM OF A CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CASE. THOSE CASES THAT WERE BROUGHT, THOSE CASES THAT WERE DECLINED AND THAT ONE CASE WHERE THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME. >> OKAY. BUT THE — COULD YOU CHARGE THE PRESIDENT 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 STANDARDS? >> WELL, I’M NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE I HAVEN’T LOOKED AT THE ETHICAL STANDARDS BUT OLC OPINION SAYS THAT THE PROSECUTOR WHILE HE CANNOT BRING A CHARGE AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT, NONETHELESS CAN CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER PERSONS WHO MIGHT BE DRAWN INTO THE CONSPIRACY. >> THAT WAS CONGRESSMAN KEN BUCK FROM COLORADO. >> IT’S TRUE THAT YOU CAN INDICT THE PRESIDENT OR ANY PRESIDENT AFTER HE OR SHE LEAVES OFFICE. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP LATER ON WAS THE QUESTION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH ROBERT MUELLER DID NOT ANSWER. AND I DO THINK THAT IT’S AN INTERESTING LEGAL QUESTION BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT WERE TO — IF ANY PRESIDENT WERE TO BE INDICTED AFTER THEY LEFT OFFICE, IF THEY SERVE A SECOND TERM, IT IS MORE THAN LIKELY THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON AN ACTION WOULD HAVE RUN. HOWEVER, IS THERE A LEGAL ARGUMENT TO BE MADE, I SAY, THERE FOR THE LEGAL SCHOLARS, THAT WE CAN ALL DEBATE IT, AS TO AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS THE PRESIDENT, HE IS THEREFORE UNAVAILABLE AND THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHOULD NOT START TO RUN. BUT THAT IS A QUESTION FOR ANOTHER DAY. >> IS THERE PRECEDENT ON THIS AT ALL? YOU KNOW, ON ANY SORT OF — WHETHER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS OUT BECAUSE YOU CAN’T BE INDICTED? >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CERTAINLY HAVE LOOKED AT ABOUT STATUTES OF LIMITATION IS NOT NECESSARILY PRECEDENT BUT WE DO LOOK AT UNAVAILABILITY BY MEANS OF ANALOGY. FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON’T HAVE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS START TO RUN WHEN A VICTIM IS A CHILD. AND SO IT STARTS TO RUN WHEN THE VICTIM BECOMES THE AGE OF MAJORITY. SO IN ESSENCE, IT IS TOLD. SO IT WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST TIME. IN THAT CASE, WE’RE LOOKING AT A VICTIM. IN THIS CASE, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT A PROSPECTIVE DEFENDANT. YOU ALSO HAVE REMEMBER THAT WHAT ROBERT MUELLER WAS SAYING WAS NOT THAT THIS PRESIDENT SHOULD BE INDICTED AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. BUT IT’S THAT A PRESIDENT CAN BE INDICTED AT A LATER POINT IN TIME, CAN’T INDICTED WHILE HE IS A SITTING PRESIDENT. >> THAT’S CURIOUS THE DEMOCRATS DIDN’T SAY WOULD YOU INDICT THIS SITTING PRESIDENT ONCE HE LEAVES OFFICE? AND THAT WAS A PIECE THAT I THINK REPUBLICANS WILL SEASON. ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THE MORNING HEARING MORE SO THAN THE AFTERNOON HEARING THAT REPUBLICANS WILL PICK UP AND RUN WITH. >> AND IT’S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP IN THE MORNING THAT HAD TO BE PICKED UP BY A SECOND PERSON WAS THE QUESTION OF THE PROSECUTOR’S LETTER OF 1,000 PEOPLE PROSECUTORS WHO HAVE SAID THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR INDICTMENT. AND THAT’S VERY POWERFUL. AND IT’S SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE FORGOTTEN IN THE COURSE OF TODAY’S HEARING. >> MOLLIE, OVERALL WATCHING THE ASSESSMENTS OF HOW THE DEMOCRATS APPROACHED THIS, WERE THEY UNITED? HAD THEY COORDINATED EFFECTEDDIVELY? >> IT SEEMED LIKE THEY WERE MORE COORDINATED. THEY HAVE DONE THEIR DRESS REHEARSAL SO TO SPEAK, THEY HAD A STAND-IN FOR JIM JORDAN, YOU KNOW, THEY PRACTICED IN FRONT OF THE CAMERAS. AND WHAT’S CHALLENGING FOR THEM IS YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND IT GOES DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN AND IT’S KIND OF HARD TO STRING TOGETHER A NARRATIVE AND WHAT DEMOCRATS REALLY WANTED BOB MUELLER TO DO WAS TO LOOK AT THE REPORT AND READ WHAT THE CONCLUSIONS WERE. BUT HE WASN’T GOING THERE. HE DIDN’T WANT TO BE THERE. HE HAD TO BE SUBPOENAED TO BE THERE AND HE WAS JUST GOING TO SAY WHAT PAGE IS THAT AGAIN? LET ME SEE IF I CAN CONFIRM THAT. SO I’M NOT SURE THAT HE GAVE THEM — THIS IS THE JUDICIARY HEARING IN THE MORNING — REALLY WHAT THEY WANTED. THE INTEL COMMITTEE WAS DIFFERENT IN THE AFTERNOON. JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS PARTISAN BECAUSE OF THE SOCIAL ISSUES AND MATTERS DEALT WITH IN THE COMMITTEE AND THAT’S WHERE IMPEACHMENT AN INQUIRY WOULD START. BUT INTEL, THAT’S A DIFFERENT MATTER. IT TENDS TO BE A MORE BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE AND AS WE NOTICED THE TONE DIFFERENCE AND THAT’S SOMETHING IF YOU LOOK AT SOCIAL MEDIA, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, UM, BOTH ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE TONE IN THE AFTERNOON WAS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT. >> IT CERTAINLY WAS. DO WE KNOW HOW THE PRESIDENTS’ DAY WENT TODAY AND DID HE MEET WITH ANYBODY WHILE THIS IS GOING ON? >> IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE THE HEAD OF THE FREEDOM CAUCUS, MARK MEADOWS, BIG FAN OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A BIG FAN OF HIS, HE ACTUALLY WAS PLANTED RIGHT BEHIND BOB MUELLER FOR THE MORNING HEARING, THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AND YOU COULD SEE HIM. AND THEN TURNS OUT HE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE IN THE AFTERNOON AND WAS TALKING TO THE PRESIDENT. SO YOU KNOW, REPUBLICANS COME AWAY WITH THIS THINKING THAT THEY HAD A GOOD DAY. WELL, THEY THINK THAT DEMOCRATS HAD A BAD DAY BECAUSE MUELLER WASN’T ABLE TO DO WHAT DEMOCRATS HAD PROMISED AND AGAIN, THIS IS REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS’ LOOKING AT THE MATTER, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT IF DEMOCRATS HOLD ON TO THIS AND TRY TO MAKE IT INTO IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES, THAT’S A DIFFERENT MATTER. >> THE QUESTION OF WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT, ROBERT MUELLER IS NOT THERE TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT. ROBERT MUELLER IS THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS SUCCINCTLY AS HE POSSIBLY CAN PARTICULARLY BECAUSE HE IS UNDER DIRECTIVES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO NOT GIVE UP INFORMATION ABOUT INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS. IF THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO MAKE THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT, IT WAS THEIR JOB HAVE TO COME IN AND SAY, I AM READING TO YOU FROM VOLUME 2, PAGE 3, READ THE SENTENCES THAT THEY WANT, AND THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT WHAT’S WRITTEN IN YOUR REPORT? THAT’S HOW YOU LEAD A WITNESS. >> I WANT TO GO TO CBS NEWS’ NIKOLE KILLION ON CAPITOL HILL. GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT YOU’RE HEARING AND SEEING ON THE HILL. >> I THINK TO SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WERE RAISED EARLIER, YOU KNOW, I THINK DEMOCRATS FEEL THEY DID ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING IN THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY DID WANT TO DRAW OUT MORE OF THE CONCLUSION FROM THE REPORT AND KIND OF STITCH TOGETHER THAT NARRATIVE AND SO YOU HEARD FOR INSTANCE, IN THAT INTERVIEW THAT ED DID WITH CONGRESSMAN CASTRO THAT YOU KNOW, HE BASICALLY SAID THAT MUELLER REAFFIRMED, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE ALREADY KNEW AND WHAT WAS IN THE REPORT. SO WHILE THERE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A LOT OF NEW REVELATIONS, AGAIN, IT JUST KIND OF REAFFIRMS KEY POINTS AND PARTICULAR INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION, FOR INSTANCE, THAT DEMOCRATS WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT BECAUSE ONE THING I THOUGHT WAS PRETTY STRIKING IS THAT ESPECIALLY IN THAT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING, YOU HEARD DEMOCRAT AFTER DEMOCRAT AFTER THEY WENT THROUGH THEIR LINE OF QUESTIONING SAYING THIS WAS ANYONE ELSE BUT THE PRESIDENT, THEY WOULD BE CHARGED. SO THAT’S REALLY THE POINT IT SEEMS DEMOCRATS WANTED TO TRY TO HAMMER HOME, THAT YOU KNOW, THESE INSTANCES AND ACTS WERE EGREGIOUS, IN THEIR MINDS. AND AS YOU HEARD THE LINE OF Q PRESIDENT COULD BE POTENTIALLY PROSECUTED AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE BUT THEY REALLY WANTED TO HAMMER HOME THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT ABOVE THE LAW AND THAT ANYONE ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. NOW, WE DIDN’T HEAR MUELLER NECESSARILY BACK THEM UP. CERTAINLY THAT WAS A POINTS THAT DEMOCRATS RAISED TIME AND TIME AGAIN. AND THEN REPUBLICANS OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, >> SAYING THERE’S NO THERE THERE. THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE. WE SOLVED THAT POINT HAMMERED OUT IN THEIR LINE OF QUESTIONING TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, ACCUSING HIM OF POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS IN HIS INVESTIGATION. YOU KNOW, BASED ON SOME MEMBERS OF HIS TEAM WHO WERE INVESTIGATING, YOU KNOW, MUELLER AT TIMES DID DEFEND HIS STAFF MEMBERS SAYING, LOOK, I HIRED PEOPLE WHO I THOUGHT COULD DO THE JOB. I DIDN’T ASK ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS. THAT WAS A POINT OF CONTENTION AT TIMES IN SOME OF THE QUESTIONING. AND REPUBLICANS ALSO DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT AND HIS INNOCENCE. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY AND, YOU KNOW, BOB MUELLER DID STATE THIS, YOU KNOW, HIS TEAM DID NOT FIND ANY LINKS BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA, ANY INSTANCES OF CONSPIRACY OR COLLUSION. HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PHRASE THAT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT REPUBLICANS HONED IN ON. THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE PRESUMED INNOCENT, INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT. LET’S NOT BEAT UP ON THIS GUY. AGAIN, YOU KIND OF SAW REPUBLICAN DEFENDING THE PRESIDENT IN THAT REGARD AND THE PRESIDENT RETWEETING MANY OF THOSE KEY EXCHANGES FROM THE HEARINGS TODAY. >> A SERIES OF RETWEETS FROM THE PRESIDENT ON THAT. I WANT TO ASK YOU TOWARDS THE END OF THE AFTERNOON HEARINGS, CONGRESSMAN MALONEY BROUGHT UP THE INTERVIEW THAT THE MUELLER SAID HE WANTED WITH THE PRESIDENT. IT IS AN INTERESTING EXCHANGE. HE SAID YOU DON’T STRIKE ME AS A MAN WOULD FLINCH AND HE SAID I HOPE NOT. HE TALKED ABOUT WHY IT HAPPENED. >> THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE TIME THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO BE ABLE TO GO SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT, THE SUBPOENA WOULD BE RESISTED BY THE PRESIDENT. IT WOULD THEN BE TAKEN UP TO A COURT AND THEN TO A HIGHER COURT AND ULTIMATELY IN FRONT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT WHERE PERHAPS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE MIGHT LOSE. BUT REGARDLESS OF THE WIN OR THE LOSS, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THAT WOULD TAKE AFTER ALMOST TWO YEARS OF INVESTIGATION BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE, THE TIME WAS TOO LONG. AND THAT ROBERT MUELLER FELT THAT WHEN HE HAD TO DO THE BALANCE, THAT RATHER THAN GO THERE, WHAT HE WOULD DO IS JUST CALL IT A DAY. THERE ARE MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO IN THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL WOULD HAVE DONE EXACTLY WHAT HE DID. YOU CAN’T GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT. AND IF YOU HAVE TO GO THE ROUTE OF THE COURTS, YOU KNOW THAT TIME IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE. >> YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A SENSE, MOLLY THAT WE JUST HEARD AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT WAS PUT OUT, HE IS PUTTING OUT THE BREAD CRUMBS FOR CONGRESS. THEY’RE GOING TO MOVE IN AND GET THESE BREAD CRUMBS. IS THERE ENOUGH TO MOVE ON IMPEACHMENT? WE HEARD ED’S INTERVIEW WITH CASTRO. WHERE DO YOU SEE THE DEMOCRATS GOING NOW. >> HERE IS THE CHALLENGE. IF NANCY PELOSI IS GOING TO BE CONVINCED THIS IS A GOOD IDEA TO MOVE ON TO AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. >> WHICH SHE HAS BEEN OPPOSE TODAY. >> BECAUSE OF THE POLITICAL ASPECTS TO THAT. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT FOCUS ON LEADING UP TO THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, LIKE POLICIES. IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO CONVINCE HER TO DO THAT, SHE NEEDS TO HAVE AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF HER DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS, I BELIEVE THERE ARE 238 AT THIS POINT AND RIGHT NOW THERE’S ABOUT 91. SO SHE NEEDS — SHE NEEDS — NO. I THINK IT IS 230. PARDON ME. I’M GETTING MY MATH — REGARDLESS; IT IS A NICE NUMBER. SHE NEEDS THAT NUMBER TO SAY WE WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. SHE DOESN’T HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW. THAT’S WHAT DEMOCRATS WERE HOPING FOR. THEY WERE HOPING THAT ROBERT MUELLER WOULD MAKE THE CASE AND GET THE RELUCTANT HESITANT DEMOCRATS TO COME ON BOARD AND SAY THIS MAKES SENSE. >> WE SHOULD PURSUE THIS FURTHER FOR DEMOCRATS. >> WELL, WE WILL SEE BECAUSE NANCY PELOSI IS COMING OUT LATER TODAY. >> WE ARE EXPECTING A HEARING FROM NANCY PELOSI AND SEVERAL DEMOCRATS IN ABOUT 30 MINUTES, WHICH WE WILL BE CARRYING LIVE. >> AND SHE WANTED TO FOCUS ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY ASPECT. AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS THAT CAME OUT OF THE MUELLER REPORT. AND I THINK THAT WHAT GETS LOST IS IN THIS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD SAY THE MOST SEXY ASPECT OF IT. TRYING TO FIRE JEFF SESSIONS. HE SAID, HE SAID, SHE SAID, HE SAID. THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT. LOOK AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS. IT. MAY BE THE WAY TO GO ABOUT WE WILL HEAR WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY. >> WE HAVE NEJERSEY SENATOR AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CORY BOOKER WHO CALLED ON THE HOUSE TO BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. TRUMP. HERE IS WHAT HE SAID IN DETROIT. >> YOU SEE QUITE CLEARLY THAT HE SPELLS OUT BEHAVIORS, DECEIT, INSTRUCTING PEOPLE TO LIVE AND COVER THINGS UP. THAT REPORT IS ENOUGH OF AN INDICATION THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BEGIN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT. AND I AM PROUD THAT THE NAACP TODAY RESOLVED TO DO — THAT WE SHOULD DO JUST THAT. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A CONGRESS RIGHT NOW THAT IS DIVIDED. IT IS A SENATE THAT IS CONTROLLED BY THE REPUBLICANS. REMEMBER THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE IS THE PEOPLE IN POWER. WE NEED TO BE READY TO BEAT DONALD TRUMP SOUNDLY. >> BRING BACK IN CBS NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT ED O’KEEFE WHO JOINS US FROM CAPITOL HILL. WHAT IS THE SENSE FROM 2020 DEMOCRATS, DO THEY THINK THAT IMPEACHMENT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL MOVE THE NEEDLE. >> LOOK, HE SPOKE AT A NOOCP CONVENTION IN DETROIT, ALONG WITH SEVEN OF HIS FELLOW CONTENDERS. AS HE POINTED OUT, THE NAACP VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CALL FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. NOTABLE REBUKE FROM ONE OF THE MOST STORIED CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS. BUT BOOKER IS AMONG MANY IN THE PARTY WHO ARE RUNNING RIGHT NOW THAT AT LEAST SUPPORT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. JOE BIDEN ALSO SAID THAT HE SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT. BUT SAID IT HAS TO BE IN A, QUOTE, ORDERLY WAY SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND QUOTE, IT IS BEING DONE NOT FOR POLITICAL REASONS. BIDEN POINTED OUT THAT WILL ARE PLENTY OF REASONS WHY THE PRESIDENT COULD BE CHARGED AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. LATER CLARIFIED THAT HE DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT TRUMP SHOULD BE CHARGED. THAT’S THE SENSITIVE ASPECT OF THIS DEBATE. DO YOU GO SO FAR AS TO SAY YES IF I’M PRESIDENT, MY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL IMPEACH HIM? TO DO THAT WOULD BE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY ACCUSED DONALD TRUMP OF DOING WHICH IS POLITICIZING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PROSECUTORIAL PROCESS. SO WHILE THEY MAY THINK THERE’S ENOUGH EVIDENCE THERE, YOU’RE LIKELY TO SEE THEM STOP SHORT OF SAYING WHEN I’M PRESIDENT WE WOULD ENSURE THAT HE IS PROSECUTED. IT IS WHAT DONALD TRUMP SAID TO HILLARY CLINTON IN THAT DEBATE. IF I’M PRESIDENT, YOU’RE GOING TO JAIL. IT WOULD BE THE SAFE THREAT. >> AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION INDEED. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT POLLING NUMBERS. I WANT TO PULL UP ONE POLLING NUMBER. WHAT SHOULD DEMS TALK ABOUT? 69% SAY THEY SHOULD FOCUS ON TRYING TO DEFEAT DONALD TRUMP. ONLY 31% SAY THEY SHOULD FOCUS ON IMPEACHMENT. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE 2020 CONTENDERS, HEALTH CARE DID VERY WELL FOR DEMOCRATS LAST GO- AROUND. DO THEY FEEL THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT WILL GALVANIZE VOTERS AND BRING THEM TO THE POLLS. >> NOT NECESSARILY. WHEN THEY WALK INTO A VETERANS HALL IN IOWA OR A BAKERY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE OR SOME KIND OF FACTORY IN SOUTH CAROLINA, THEY KNOW THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE THERE ARE WITH THEM IN THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, ABOUT POSSIBLY IMPEACHMENT. IT IS UNSAID. THEY DON’T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON THE ISSUES, HEALTH CARE, CLIMATE CHANGE, REVERSING TAX CUTS. AND THEY TALK VERY LITTLE ABOUT IMPEACHMENT AND WILL CONTINUE TO. AT THE NAACP CONVENTION, THERE WAS ONE QUESTION THAT THEY ANSWERED ABOUT CONCERNS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS. WHILE IT IS THERE AND THEY HAVE EXPRESSED HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT, IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A CENTRAL ASPECT OF WHAT IT IS THAT THEY TALK ABOUT ON A REGULAR BASIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE SEEN THE SAME POLLING THAT WE HAVE. AND, YOU KNOW, DEMOCRATS HERE TODAY HAVE SAID THEY BELIEVE WHAT TRANSPIRED HERE TODAY COULD BE THAT TURNING POINT. WHERE THAT NUMBER STARTS TO TURN AND MORE AMERICANS START TO SUPPORT FURTHER PURSUING POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT CHARGES. WE WILL SEE. BECAUSE THE EARLY REVIEWS OF COURSE ARE THAT MUELLER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE MOST COMPELLING CHARACTER WITNESS TO THAT ATTEMPT. >> ED O’KEEFE, WE WILL CHECK BACK WITH YOU IN A BIT. THERE WAS A MOMENT THAT YOU POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESSMAN WELCH SAID I HOPE THIS IS NOT THE NEW NORMAL. THAT POINT MUELLER SAID I FEAR IT IS. >> I FOUND THAT THE MOST DISTURBING MOMENT IN ALL OF THE TESTIMONY. DISTURBING BECAUSE I’M A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND I DON’T WANT TO SEE MY COUNTRY IN ANY WAY HAVE ITS ELECTIONS CORRUPTED BY A FOREIGN POWER. >> AS YOU MENTIONED, WE’RE TALKING ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION. I SHOULD MAKE THAT POINT. THAT IS THE BIG FOCUS. WE’RE EIGHT MONTHS — IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE. EIGHT MONTHS FROM ELECTION AT THIS POINT. >> AND I THINK MOLLY CAN GO TO POT AN ANALYTICAL ASPECT OF IT. I THINK AS TO THE LEGAL ASPECT OF IT, IT IS HOW DO WE STOP THIS? HOW DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OR BOTH GO TO TRY TO STOP THIS IN A MEANINGFUL WAY WHEN WE HAVE LEARNED FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE READ THE ENTIRE MUELLER REPORT, ALL 440-SOME PAGES OF IT THAT WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IS HOW DEEP AND HOW THOR ETHE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WAS. AND IT IS NOT ONLY RUSSIA THAT WE HAVE TO FEAR. AND ROBERT MUELLER AND THE QUESTIONERS BROUGHT THAT UP. IT COULD BE ANY OTHER COUNTRY THAT GOES AND DECIDES THEY WANT TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS. AND I FIND THAT IT PROBABLY IS THE NEW NORMAL AND THAT THAT IS HIGHLY DISTURBING TO ME. AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE HIGHLY DISTURBING TO EVERYONE IN AMERICA. >> WHICH IS WHY WE SAW THAT TONAL IN THE AFTERNOON HEARING. IT WAS A REPUBLICAN, WILL HERR WHO ASKED MUELLER, WHAT DO YOU RECOMMEND? WHICH AGENCY TAKES THE LEAD. >> UH-HUH. >> TO DEFEND AGAINST THIS? WHO DO WE — WHO FIGHTS BACK? AND MUELLER DIDN’T — HE DIDN’T OFFER ANY ANSWER TO THAT. >> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS OVERALL, THIS ENTIRE HEARING, WHAT HAPPENS NOW AT THIS POINT? HAVE WE PUT THIS TO BED? >> WE PUT IT TO BED LEGALLY. AT LEAST UNTIL THIS PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE. I MEAN, IT MAY RAISE ITS UGLY HEAD AGAIN WHEN THE PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE, WHETHER IT IS IN 2020 OR IT IS IN 2024. BUT POLITICALLY, THAT IS A WHOLE OTHER QUESTION. THE IDEA THAT THE MUELLER REPORT WAS THE BOOK AND THIS IS THE MOVIE, ROBERT MUELLER WAS NOT GOING TO COME THERE AS SOME SWASH-BUCKLING REEOR MARVEL CHARACTER AND COME IN AND SAVE HIS DAY. HE DOES NOT SEE THAT AS HIS JOB. HIS JOB WAS TO DO THE MUELLER REPORT. HE DID THAT. HE CAME HERE AND ANSWERED QUESTIONS AS BRIEFLY AS HE COULD WITHOUT GIVING OUT ANY NEW INFORMATION. HE STUCK TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE REPORT AS MUCH ASTIAL POE. SO IF THE DEMOCRATS DECIDE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GO FORWARD AND LOOK FOR ARTICLES IMPEACHMENT, THEY BETTER HAVE MORE SUPPORT THAN THEY HAVE TODAY. >> EXACTLY. AND CAN THEY CONVINCE ENOUGH MEMBERS OF THE CAUCUS. KEEP IN MIND, YOU KNOW, REPUBLICANS PRIVATELY THINK TH BECAUSE IT SHOWS THOSE INDEPENDENTS, MAYBE THE DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED FOR TRUMP HOW ENTRENCHED THE DEMOCRATS ARE. AND THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO WIN THOSE VOTERS BACK. REPUBLICANS THINK IF THE DEMOCRATS PUSH THE INQUIRIES, PUSH IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT CAME OUT, THAT WORKS FOR THE REPUBLICANS. AND DONALD TRUMP CAN MAKE THAT AN ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO DEALING WITH THE DEMOCRATIC POLICIES ON HEALTH CARE, ON CLIMATE CHANGE, ON BORDER, ON IMMIGRATION. AND YOU KNOW, DONALD TRUMP IS GOOD AT HIS BULLET POINTS. THIS ONE HE HAS A LOT OF THEM. >> WE SAW HIM RETWEETING QUITE A FEW THIS AFTERNOON. >> IT IS EARLY IN THE DAY. >> IT IS EARLY IN THE DAY. YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT. THE PRESIDENT IS EXPECTED TO IN FACT POTENTIALLY ADDRESS CAMERAS WHEN HE HEADS TO WEST VIRGINIA. WE WILL BE WATCHING FOR THAT. BUT FOR NOW WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK. WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO GET TO. WE HOPE YOU WILL STICK WITH US. WE’RE AWAITING REMARKS FROM NANCY PELOSI AND HER FELLOW DEMOCRATS AS WELL. THAT IS EXPECTED ANY MOMENT NOW. WE WILL BRING THOSE TO YOU LIVE AS WELL. STICK WITH US. YOU’RE STREAMING CBSN.