LIVE: Robert Mueller Testifies Before Congress (C-SPAN)


…. CAPTIONING PERFORMED BY VITC>>ALTHOUGH YOUR REPORT STATES COLLUSION IS NOT A SPECIFIC OFFENSE AND YOU HAVE SAID THIS THIS MORNING, OR A TERM OF ART IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW, CONSPIRACY IS IN THE COLLOQUIAL CONTEXT ARE COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY ESSENTIALLY SYNONYMOUS TERMS?>>YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RETHAT FOR ME.>>COLLUSION IS NOT A SPECIFIC OFFENSE OR A TERM OF ART IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW, CONSPIRACY IS. >>YES. >>IN THE COLLOQUIAL CONTEXT NO PUBLIC CONTEXT — COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY ARE ESSENTIALLY SYNONYMOUS TERMS, CORRECT?>>NO. >>IF NOT ON PAGE 180 OF VOLUME 1 OF YOUR REPORT YOU WROTE IN AS DEFINED IN LEGAL DICTIONARIES COLLUSION IS LARGELY SYNONYMOUS WITH CONSPIRACY 18 USC — YOU SAID AT YOUR MAY 29 PRESS CONFERENCE AND HERE TODAY YOU CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY. ARE YOU TESTIFYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOUR REPORT STATES. >>WHAT I’M ASKING IS IF YOU CAN GIVE ME THE CITATION I CAN LOOK AT THE CITATION AND EVALUATE WHETHER IT IS ACCURATE. >>LET ME JUST CLARIFY. YOU STATED THAT YOU HAD STAYED WITHIN THE REPORT, I JUST STATED YOUR REPORT BACK TO YOU AND YOU SAID THAT COLLUSION — COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY WERE NOT SYNONYMOUS TERMS. THAT WAS YOUR ANSWER WAS NO. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>IN THAT PAGE 180 OF VOLUME 1 OF YOUR REPORT IT SAYS AS DEFINED IN LEGAL DICTIONARIES COLLUSION IS LARGELY SYNONYMOUS WITH CONSPIRACY AS THAT CRIME IS SET FORTH IN 18 USC 371. YOU SAID YOU CHOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY. ARE YOU CONTRADICTING YOUR REPORT RIGHT NOW?>>NOT WHEN I READ IT. >>SO YOU WOULD CHANGE YOUR ANSWER SO YES THEN. >>NO. NO. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE — >>I’M READING YOUR REPORT, SIR. IT’S A YES OR NO ANSWER. >>PAGE 180. >>PAGE 180, VOLUME 1. THIS IS FROM YOUR REPORT.>>CORRECT. AND I LEAVE IT WITH THE REPORT. >>SO THE REPORT SAYS YES THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS. >>YES. >>HOPEFULLY FINALLY OUT OF YOUR REPORT WE CAN PUT TO BED THE COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY. ONE LAST QUESTION AS WE’RE GOING THROUGH, DID YOU EVER LOOK INTO OTHER COUNTRIES INVESTIGATED IN THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE INTO OUR ELECTION, WERE OTHER COUNTRIES INVESTIGATED OR FOUND KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAD INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION?>>I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS OTHER MATTERS. >>THEN I YIELD BACK. >>GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER, AS YOU’RE HEARD FROM THE CHAIRMAN WE’RE MOSTLY GOING TO TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TODAY, BUT 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, MA’AM?>>TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?>>WELL, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT CAME TO COMPUTER CRIMES AND THE LIKE, THE GOVERNMENT WAS IMPLICATED. >>SO YOU WROTE IN VOLUME 1 THAT 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 KILIMNICK THE CAMPAIGN STRATEGY FOR WINNING DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN MIDWESTERN STATES AND INTERNAL POLLING DATA OF THE CAMPAIGN, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>THEY ALSO DISCUSSED THE STATUS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND MANAFORT’S STRATEGY FOR WINNING DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN MIDWESTERN STATES MONTHS BEFORE THAT MEETING MANAFORT HAD CAUSED INTERNAL DATA TO BE SHARED WITH KILIMNICK AND THE SHARING CONTINUED FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THEIR AUGUST MEETING, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>ACCURATE. >>IN FACT, YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT MANAFORT BRIEFED KILIMNICK ON THE STATE OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND MANAFORT’S PLAN TO WIN THE ELECTION AND THAT BRIEFING ENCOMPASSED THE CAMPAIGN’S MESSAGING, IT’S INTERNAL POLLING DATA, IT ALSO INCLUDED DISCUSSION OF BATTLE GROUND STATES WHICH MANAFORT IDENTIFIED AS MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND MINNESOTA. ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT. >>DID YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINE WHO REQUESTED THE POLLING DATA TO BE SHARED WITH KILIMNICK?>>I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT AND ADOPT WHAT WE HAVE IN THE REPORT WITH REGARD TO THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. >>WE DON’T HAVE THE REDACTED VERSION, THAT’S MAYBE ANOTHER REASON WHY WE SHOULD GET THAT FOR VOLUME 1. BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION HOW COULD THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT HAVE USED THIS CAMPAIGN 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 IT WOULD BENEFIT ELECTORALLY FROM INFORMATION STOLEN AND RELEASED THROUGH RUSSIAN EFFORTS, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT. >>NOW, 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?>>I WOULD HAVE TO REFER YOU TO THE REPORT ON THAT. >>WELL, WE WENT THROUGH AND WE COUNTED 126 CONTACTS BETWEEN RUSSIANS OR THEIR AGENTS AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS OR THEIR ASSOCIATES. SO WOULD THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?>>I CAN’T SAY. I UNDERSTAND THE STATISTIC AND I BELIEVE IT — I UNDERSTAND THE STATISTIC. >>WELL, MR. MUELLER, I APPRECIATE YOUR BEING HERE AND YOUR REPORT. FROM YOUR TESTIMONY AND THE REPORT I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED SEVERAL THINGS. FIRST, THE RUSSIANS WANTED TRUMP TO WIN. SECOND, THE RUSSIANS WENT ON A SWEEPING CYBER INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN. THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE DNC AND THEY GOT THE DEMOCRATIC GAME PLAN FOR THE ELECTION. THE RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN MET WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS AND REPEATEDLY GAVE THEM INTERNAL DATA, POLLING AND MESSAGING IN THE BATTLE GROUND STATES. SO WHILE THE RUSSIANS WERE BUYING ADS AND CREATING PROPAGANDA TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION, THEY WERE ARMED WITH INSIDE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAD STOLEN THROUGH HACKING FROM THE DNC AND THAT 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. >>GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.>>GOOD MORNING, DIRECTOR. IF YOU WILL LET ME QUICKLY SUMMARIZE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THIS MORNING, YOU SAID IN VOLUME 1 ON THE ISSUE OF CONSPIRACY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DETERMINED THAT THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ELECTION INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES AND THEN IN VOLUME 2 FOR REASONS THAT YOU EXPLAINED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER THERE WAS AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIME COMMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT. IS THAT FAIR?>>YES, SIR.>>ALL RIGHT. NOW, IN EXPLAINING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT MAKE WHAT YOU CALLED A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTION OR DECLINATION DECISION, THE REPORT ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 2 OF VOLUME 2 READS AS FOLLOWS: THE EVIDENCE WE OBTAINED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS AND INTENT PRESENTS DIFFICULT ISSUES THAT PREVENT US FROM CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINING THAT NO CRIMINAL CONDUCT OCCURRED. ACCORDINGLY, WHILE THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME, IT ALSO DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM. NOW, I READ THAT CORRECTLY?>>YES. >>ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOUR REPORT AND TODAY YOU SAID THAT AT ALL TIMES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TEAM OPERATED UNDER WAS GUIDED BY AND FOLLOWED JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES. SO WHICH DOJ POLICY OR PRINCIPLE SETS FORTH A LEGAL STANDARD THAT AN INVESTIGATED PERSON IS NOT EXONERATED IF THEIR INNOCENCE FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT IS NOT CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED?>>CAN YOU REPEAT THE LAST PART OF THAT QUESTION?>>YEAH. WHICH DOJ POLICY OR PRINCIPLE SETS FORTH A LEGAL STANDARD THAT AN INVESTIGATED PERSON IS NOT EXONERATED IN THEIR INNOCENCE FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT IS NOT CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED? WHERE DOES THAT LANGUAGE COME FROM, DIRECTOR? WHERE IS THE DOJ POLICY THAT SAYS THAT? LET ME MAKE IT EASIER — >>CAN I ANSWER? I’M SORRY, GO AHEAD. >>CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP WHERE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THAT AN INVESTIGATED PERSON WAS NOT EXONERATED BECAUSE THEIR INNOCENCE WAS NOT CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED?>>I CANNOT, BUT THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION. >>YOU CAN’T. TIME IS SHORT, I HAVE FIVE MINUTES, LET’S JUST LEAVE IT AT YOU CAN’T FIND IT BECAUSE I WILL TELL YOU WHY, IT DOESN’T EXIST. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S JOB NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT YOU WERE TO CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINE DONALD TRUMP’S INNOCENCE OR THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO EXONERATE HIM. IT’S NOT IN ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS, IT’S NOT IN YOUR APPOINTMENT ORDER, IT’S NOT IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS, IT’S NOT IN THE AOL CONDITIONS, NOT IN THE JUSTICE MANUAL. NOWHERE DO THOSE WORDS APPEAR TOGETHER BECAUSE RESPECTFULLY — RESPECTFULLY, DIRECTOR, IT WAS NOT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S JOB TO CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINE DONALD TRUMP’S INNOCENCE OR TO EXONERATE HIM BECAUSE THE BEDROOM PRINCIPLE OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. IT EXISTS FOR EVERYONE. EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO IT INCLUDING SITTING PRESIDENTS. AND BECAUSE THERE IS A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PROSECUTORS NEVER EVER NEED TO CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINE IT. NOW, DIRECTOR, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL APPLIED THIS INVERTED BURDEN OF PROOF THAT I CAN’T FIND AND YOU SAID DOESN’T EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND YOU USED IT TO WRITE A REPORT AND THE VERY FIRST LINE OF YOUR REPORT, THE VERY FIRST LINE OF YOUR REPORT SAYS — AS YOU READ THIS MORNING, THIS 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 VERY FIRST WORD OF YOUR REPORT, RIGHT?>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>HERE IS THE PROBLEM, DIRECTOR, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DIDN’T DO THAT. ON VOLUME 1 YOU DID, ON VOLUME 2 WITH RESPECT TO POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MADE NEITHER A PROSECUTION DECISION OR A DECLINATION DECISION. YOU MADE NO DECISION. YOU TOLD US THIS MORNING AND IN YOUR 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 PROSECUTORIAL ANALYSIS ABOUT POTENTIAL CRIMES THAT AREN’T CHARGED. SO AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW THIS AS THEY LISTEN TO THE DEMOCRATS AND SOCIALISTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE AS THEY DO DRAMATIC READINGS FROM THIS REPORT, THAT VOLUME 2 OF THIS REPORT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW TO BE WRITTEN, IT WAS WRITTEN TO A LEGAL STANDARD THAT DOES NOT EXIST AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IT WAS WRITTEN IN VIOLATION OF EVERY DOJ PRINCIPLE ABOUT EXTRA PROSECUTORIAL COMMENTARY. I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN THIS MORNING WHEN HE SAID DONALD TRUMP IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. HE’S NOT. BUT HE DAMN SURE SHOULDN’T BE BELOW THE LAW WHICH IS WHERE VOLUME 2 OF THIS REPORT PUTS HIM.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DIRECTOR MUELLER, GOOD MORNING. YOUR EXCHANGE WITH THE GENTLE LADY FROM CALIFORNIA DEMONSTRATES WHAT IS AT STAKE. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIR PAUL MANAFORT WAS PASSING SENSITIVE VOTER INFORMATION AND POLL DATA TO A RUSSIAN OPERATIVE AND THERE WERE SO MANY OTHER WAYS THAT RUSSIA SUBVERTED OUR DEMOCRACY. TOGETHER WITH THE EVIDENCE IN VOLUME 1 I CANNOT THINK OF A MORE SERIOUS NEED TO INVESTIGATE. SO NOW I’M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS IT RELATES TO VOLUME 2. ON PAGE 12 OF VOLUME 2 YOU STATE: WE DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE IT SAYS SUFFICIENT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ISSUES INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT. IS THAT CORRECT?>>DO YOU HAVE THE CITATION, MA’AM?>>PAGE 12, VOLUME 2.>>AND WHICH PORTION OF THAT PAGE?>>THAT IS “WE DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ISSUES INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT.” IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES.>>YOUR REPORT ALSO DESCRIBES AT LEAST TEN SEPARATE INSTANCES OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT WERE INVESTIGATED BY YOU AND YOUR TEAM, IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES. >>IN FACT, THE TABLE OF CONTENTS SERVES AS A VERY GOOD GUIDE OF SOME OF THE ACTS OF THAT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT YOU INVESTIGATED AND I PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN. ON PAGE 157 OF VOLUME 2 YOU DESCRIBE THOSE ACTS AND THEY RANGE 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 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 THE INFERENCES THAT CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT HIS INTENT. DOES THAT MEAN YOU HAVE TO INVESTIGATE ALL OF HIS CONDUCT TO ASCERTAIN TRUE MOTIVE?>>NO. >>AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S PATTERN OF CONDUCT THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE TEN POSSIBLE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION THAT YOU INVESTIGATED, IS THAT CORRECT, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S PATTERN OF CONDUCT, THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE TEN POSSIBLE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION THAT YOU INVESTIGATED, CORRECT?>>I DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT FOR HOW THAT IS CHARACTERIZED. >>THANK YOU. LET ME GO TO THE SCREEN AGAIN. FOR EACH OF THOSE TEN POTENTIAL INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, YOU ANALYZED THREE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND OBSTRUCTIVE ACTS, A NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACT AND OFFICIAL PROCEEDING AND CORRUPT INTENT. IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES. >>YOU WROTE ON PAGE 178, VOLUME 2 IN YOUR REPORT ABOUT CORRUPT INTENT. ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT TO END A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO HIS OWN CONDUCT TO PROTECT AGAINST PERSONAL EMBARRASSMENT OR LEGAL LIABILITY WOULD CONSTITUTE A CORE EXAMPLE OF CORRUPTLY MOTIVATED CONDUCT. IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES.>>TO THE SCREEN AGAIN. EVEN WITH THE EVIDENCE YOU DID FIND, IS IT TRUE AS YOU NOTE ON PAGE 76 OF VOLUME 2 THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES INDICATE THAT A THOROUGH FBI INVESTIGATION WOULD UNCOVER FACTS ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN AND THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD TO BE CRIMES OR 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? IS THAT RELEVANT TO POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?>>YES. >>YOU FURTHER ELABORATE ON PAGE 157, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CAN BE MOTIVATED BY DESIRE TO PROTECT NONCRIMINAL PERSONAL INTERESTS, TO PROTECT AGAINST INVESTIGATIONS WHERE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FALLS INTO A GRAY AREA OR TO AVOID PERSONAL EMBARRASSMENT. IS THAT CORRECT?>>I HAVE ON THE SCREEN — >>IS THAT CORRECT ON THE SCREEN?>>CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION NOW THAT I HAVE THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN?>>IS IT CORRECT AS YOU FURTHER ELABORATE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CAN BE MOTIVATED BY DIRECT DESIRE TO PROTECT NONCRIMINAL PERSONAL INTERESTS, TO PROTECT AGAINST INVESTIGATIONS WHERE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FALLS INTO A GRAY AREA. >>YES. >>OR TO AVOID. IS THAT TRUE. >>YES. >>AND IS IT TRUE FLAT IMPACT — PARDON. >>CAN YOU READ THE LAST QUESTION?>>THE LAST QUESTION — >>I WANT TO BE CERTAIN I GOT IT ACCURATE. >>THE LAST QUESTION WAS THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN ASKING YOU IF THAT’S CORRECT.>>YES.>>OKAY. DOES THE CONVICTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE RESULT POTENTIALLY IN A LOT OF YEARS OF — A LOT OF YEARS OF TIME IN JAIL?>>YES. WELL, AGAIN, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION JUST TO MAKE CERTAIN I HAVE IT ACCURATE?>>DOES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WARRANT A LOT OF TIME IN JAIL. >>YES. >>IF YOU WERE CONVICTED?>>YES. >>TIME OF THE GENTLE LADY HAS EXPIRED. GENTLEMAN FROM WISCONSIN. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. LET ME BEGIN BY READING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS BY WHICH YOU WERE APPOINTED. IT READS, QUOTE, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SPECIAL 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. NOW, WHEN A REGULATION USES THE WORD “SHALL PROVIDE” DOES IT MEAN THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS, IN FACT, OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE WHAT’S BEING DEMANDED BY THE REGULATION OR STATUTE, MEANING YOU DON’T HAVE ANY WIGGLE ROOM, RIGHT?>>I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK MORE CLOSELY AT THE STATUTE.>>I JUST READ IT TO YOU. OKAY. NOW, VOLUME 2, PAGE 1, YOUR REPORT BOLDLY STATES WE DETERMINED NOT TO MAKE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTORIAL JUDGMENT. IS THAT CORRECT?>>I’M TRYING TO FIND THAT CITATION, CONGRESSMAN.>>DIRECTOR, COULD YOU SPEAK MORE DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE?>>YES. >>THANK YOU.>>IT’S VOLUME 2 — >>MR. CHAIRMAN — I’M SORRY. >>VOLUME 2, PAGE 1, IT SAID WE DETERMINED NOT TO MAKE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTORIAL JUDGMENT. >>YES. >>THAT’S RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING. >>THAT’S TRUE.>>NOW, SINCE YOU DECIDED UNDER THE OLC OPINION THAT YOU COULDN’T PROSECUTE A SITTING PRESIDENT, MEANING PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHY DID WE HAVE ALL OF THIS INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU KNEW THAT YOU WEREN’T GOING TO PROSECUTE HIM?>>WELL, YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE THE INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO LIE AND OLC OPINION ITSELF SAYS THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE NOT GOING TO INDICT THE PRESIDENT. >>OKAY. WELL, IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO INDICT THE PRESIDENT, THEN YOU JUST CONTINUE FISHING AND THAT’S — YOU KNOW, THAT’S MY OBSERVATION. MY TIME IS LIMITED. 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, WHICH ARE INTERVIEWS BY THE FBI FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN CROSS-EXAMINED AND WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S GOVERNING REGULATION TO EXPLAIN THE PROSECUTION OR DECLINATION DECISIONS REACHED. CORRECT?>>WHERE ARE YOU READING FROM ON THAT?>>I’M READING FROM MY QUESTION.>>THEN COULD YOU REPEAT IT?>>OKAY. WE HAVE 182 PAGES OF RAW EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL WITH HUNDREDS OF REFERENCES TO 302s WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN CROSS-EXAMINED AND WHICH 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. >>OKAY.>>AND WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT ITSELF. >>OKAY. WELL, I LOOKED AT 182 PAGES OF IT. YOU KNOW, LET ME SWITCH GEARS. MR. CHABOT AND I WERE ON THIS COMMITTEE DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT. NOW, WHILE I RECOGNIZE THAT THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE UNDER WHICH KENNETH STARR OPERATED IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL STATUTE, HE AND A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS IN HIS REPORT STATED THAT THE 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 THAT THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM TEXAS BROUGHT — IS IT TRUE THAT THERE’S NOTHING IN VOLUME 2 OF THE REPORT THAT SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE ENGAGED IN IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT?>>WELL, WE HAVE STUDIOUSLY 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 WHAT — DEVELOPING THE REPORT AND TURNING THE REPORT INTO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. >>WITH DUE RESPECT, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE STATEMENTS THAT YOU MADE, YOU KNOW, THAT SAID THAT THIS IS NOT FOR ME TO DECIDE AND THE IMPLICATION IS THAT THIS IS FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO DECIDE. NOW, YOU DID USE THE WORD IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT LIKE STARR DID, THERE WAS NO STATUTE TO PREVENT YOU FROM USING THE WORD IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT AND I GO BACK TO WHAT MR. RADCLIFFE SAID AND THAT IS THAT EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. MY TIME IS UP. >>GENTLEMAN’S TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. FIRST I’D JUST LIKE TO RESTATE THAT WHAT MR. NADLER SAID ABOUT YOUR CAREER. IT’S A MODEL OF RECTITUDE AND I THANK YOU. >>YES, SIR. >>BASED UPON YOUR INVESTIGATION HOW DID PRESIDENT TRUMP REACT TO YOUR APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL?>>AGAIN, I SEND YOU THE REPORT FOR WHERE THAT IS STATED. >>WELL, THERE IS A QUOTE FROM PAGE 78 OF YOUR REPORT, VOLUME 2, WHICH READS: WHEN SESSIONS TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT A SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD BEEN APPOINTED, THE PRESIDENT SLUMPED BACK IN HIS CHAIR AND SAID QUOTE, OH, MY GOD, THIS IS TERRIBLE. THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY. I’M F’d, UNQUOTE. DID ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS TELL YOU ABOUT THAT LITTLE TALK?>>DIRECTOR, PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. >>SURELY. MY APOLOGIES. I AM NOT CERTAIN OF THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY COPIED THAT QUOTE. >>OKAY. WELL, SESSIONS APPARENTLY SAID IT AND ONE OF HIS AIDES HAD IT IN HIS NOTES, TOO, WHICH I BELIEVE YOU HAD. THAT HAS BECOME RECORD. HE WASN’T PLEASED, HE PROBABLY WASN’T PLEASED WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND SPECIFICALLY YOU BECAUSE OF YOUR OUTSTANDING REPUTATION. >>CORRECT. >>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE OF HIS ROLE IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN, IS THAT NOT CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT. >>RECUSAL MEANS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S THE EFFECT OF RECUSAL, YES. >>AND SO INSTEAD ANOTHER TRUMP APPOINTEE, AS YOU KNOW, MR. SESSIONS WAS, MR. ROSENSTEIN BECAME IN CHARGE OF IT, IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES. >>WASN’T ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS FOLLOWING THE RULES AND PROFESSIONAL ADVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ETHICS FOLKS WHEN HE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE INVESTIGATION?>>YES. >>AND YET THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED HIS DISPLEASURE AT SESSIONS’ DECISION TO FOLLOW THOSE ETHICS RULES TO RECUSE HIMSELF FROM RECUSAL OF THAT INVESTIGATION. >>THAT’S ACCURATE BASED ON WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE REPORT.>>AND THE PRESIDENT’S REACTION TO THE RECUSAL AS NOTED IN THE REPORT, MR. BANNON RECALLED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS MAD, AS MAD AS BANNON HAD EVER SEEN HIM, AND HE SCREAMED AT McGAHN ABOUT HOW WEAK SESSIONS WAS. DO YOU RECALL THAT FROM THE REPORT?>>THAT’S UNTIL THE REPORT, WHY HE. >>DESPITE KNOWING THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT STILL TRIED TO GET THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF AFTER YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL. IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES. >>IN FACT, YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT AT SOME POINT AFTER YOUR APPOINTMENT, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT CALLED SESSIONS AT HIS HOME AND ASKED IF HE WOULD UNRECUSE HIMSELF. IS THAT NOT TRUE?>>THAT’S TRUE. >>NOW, THAT WASN’T THE FIRST TIME THE PRESIDENT ASKED SESSIONS TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF, WAS IT?>>I KNOW THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONES.>>AND ONE OF THEM WAS WITH FLYNN AND ONE OF THEM WAS WHEN SESSIONS AND McGAHN FLEW TO MAR-A-LAGO TO MEET WITH THE PRESIDENT, SESSIONS RECALLED THE PRESIDENT PULLED HIM ASIDE AND SUGGESTED THAT HE SHOULD DO THIS UNRECUSAL ACT, CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>AND THEN WHEN MICHAEL FLYNN A FEW DAYS AFTER FLYNN ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA FOR LYING TO FEDERAL AGENTS AND INDICATED HIS INTENT TO COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION, TRUMP ASKED TO SPEAK TO SESSIONS ALONE AGAIN IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND AGAIN ASKED SESSIONS TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF, TRUE?>>I REFER YOU TO THE REPORT FOR THAT. >>PAGE 109, VOLUME 2. THANK YOU, SIR. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY POINT WHEN THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY EXPRESSED ANGER OR FRUSTRATIONS AT SESSIONS?>>I WOULD HAVE TO PASS ON THAT.>>DO YOU RECALL — AND I THINK IT’S AT PAGE 78 OF VOLUME 2, THE PRESIDENT TOLD SESSIONS YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ME. YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ME OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?>>CORRECT.>>AND IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUPPOSED TO BE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR THE CONSIGLIERE FOR THE PRESIDENT?>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. >>THANK YOU, SIR. IN FACT, YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY SOUGHT TO CONVINCE SESSIONS TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF SO SESSIONS COULD SUPER VICE THE INVESTIGATION IN A WAY THAT WOULD RESTRICT ITS SCOPE, IS THAT CORRECT?>>I RELY ON THE REPORT. >>HOW COULD SESSIONS HAVE RESTRICTED THE SCOPE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?>>WELL, I’M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE. IF HE — OBVIOUSLY IF HE TOOK OVER AS ATTORNEY GENERAL HE WOULD HAVE GREATER LATITUDE IN HIS ACTIONS THAT WOULD ENABLE HIM TO DO THINGS THAT OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT. >>ON PAGE 113 YOU SAID THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED THAT AN UNRECUSED ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD PLAY A PROTECTIVE ROLE AND COULD SHIELD THE PRESIDENT FROM THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION. REGARDLESS OF ALL THAT I WANT TO THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER FOR YOUR LIFE OF RECTITUDE AND SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. IT’S CLEAR 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 THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >>THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR ELD. >>>ING BACK. THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO. >>THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER, MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WERE VERY DISAPPOINTED IN YOUR REPORT. THEY WERE EXPECTING YOU TO SAY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF HERE IS WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP DESERVES TO BE IMPEACHED, AS MUCH AS KEN STARR DID RELATIVE TO PRESIDENT CLINTON BACK ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO. WELL, YOU DIDN’T. SO THEIR STRATEGY HAD TO CHANGE. NOW THEY ALLEGE THAT THERE’S PLENTY OF EVIDENCE IN YOUR REPORT TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST DIDN’T READ IT. AND 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 2 OF YOUR REPORT WHEN DISCUSSING THE JUNE 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING YOU REFERENCE, QUOTE, THE FIRM THAT PRODUCED THE STEELE REPORTING, UNQUOTE, THE NAME OF THAT FIRM WAS FUSION GPS. IS THAT CORRECT?>>AND YOU ARE ON PAGE 103?>>103, THAT’S CORRECT, VOLUME 2. 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. NOW, FUSION GPS PRODUCED THE OPPOSITION RESEARCH DOCUMENT WIDELY KNOWN AS THE STEELE DOSSIER AND THE OWNER OF FUSION GPA WAS SOMEONE NAMED GLEN SIMPSON. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH — >>THIS IS OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. >>OKAY. GLEN SIMPSON WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE 448-PAGE MUELLER REPORT?>>AS I SAID I SAY, IT’S OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW AND BEING HANDLED IN THE ABOUT I 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. LET ME MOVE ON. 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 PREVASON WHICH HAD BEEN SANCTIONED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?>>THAT’S OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. >>THANK YOU. ONE OF THE KEY PLAYERS IN — I WILL GO TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT — ONE OF THE KEY PLAYERS IN THE JUNE 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING WAS IN A TALL LA VICINITY YET ASK A WHO YOU DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT AS A RUSSIAN ATTORNEY WHO — FOR THE — SHE HAD BEEN WORKING WITH DONE OTHER THAN GLEN SIMPSON AND FUSION GPS SINCE AT LEAST EARLY 2014. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?>>OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. >>THANK YOU. YOU DIDN’T MENTION MA OR HER CONNECTIONS TO GLEN SIMPSON AT FUSION GPS IN YOUR REPORT AT ALL. LET ME MOVE ON. NOW, NBC NEWS HAS REPORTED THE FOLLOWING, QUOTE, RUSSIAN LAWYER IN A TALA VICINITY YET SKI I CAN’T SAYS SHE FIRST RECEIVED A SUPPOSEDLY INCRIMINATING INFORMATION SHE BROUGHT TO TRUMP TOWER DESCRIBING ALLEGED TAX EVASION AND INFORMATION FROM DEMOCRATS FROM NONE OTHER THAN GLEN SIMPSON THE FUSION GPS OWNER. YOU DIDN’T INCLUDE THAT IN THE REPORT AND I ASSUME — >>THAT’S A MATTER BEING HANDLED BY OTHERS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >>THANK YOU. NOW, 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 REFER YOU TO THE REPORT. >>OKAY. AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WASN’T AT THE MEETING. >>NO. >>THANK YOU. NOW, IN STARK CONTRAST TO THE ACTIONS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, WE KNOW THAT 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. SO LET ME JUST ASK YOU THIS, CAN YOU SEE THAT FROM NEGLECTING TO MENTION GLEN SIMPSON AND FUSION GPS’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN TO FOCUSING ON A BRIEF MEETING AT THE TRUMP TOWER THAT PRODUCED NOTHING, TO IGNORING THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN’S OWN TIES TO FUSION GPS, WHY SOME VIEW YOUR REPORT AS A PRETTY ONE-SIDED ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT?>>WELL, I TELL YOU THIS IS STILL OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. >>ALL RIGHT. I WOULD JUST NOTE FINALLY THAT I GUESS IT IS BY CHANCE, BY COINCIDENCE THAT THE THINGS LEFT OUT OF THE REPORT TENDED TO BE FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT. MY TIME IS EXPIRED. >>THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER, I’D LIKE TO GET US BACK ON TRACK HERE. YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN TO FIRE YOU, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>TRUE. >>AND THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED THAT HE WANTED TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAD SUPPOSED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>TRUE. >>NOW, YOU HAD NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT REQUIRED YOUR REMOVAL, ISN’T THAT A FACT?>>SO CORRECT. >>AND, IN FACT, DON McGAHN ADVISED THE PRESIDENT THAT THE ASSERTED CONFLICTS WERE IN HIS WORDS SILLY AND NOT REAL CONFLICTS, ISN’T THAT TRUE?>>I REFER TO THE REPORT ON THAT EPISODE. >>WELL, PAGE 85 OF VOLUME 2 SPEAKS TO THAT. ALSO, DIRECTOR MUELLER, DOJ ETHICS OFFICIALS CONFIRMED THAT YOU HAD NO CONFLICTS THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM SERVING AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT. >>BUT 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 — OR ROSENSTEIN, I’M SORRY, TELLING THE PRESIDENT THAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE STILL TRYING TO MEDDLE IN THE INVESTIGATION AND KNOCKING OUT MUELLER WOULD BE ANOTHER FACT USED TO CLAIM OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>GENERALLY SO, WHY HE. >>AND, 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. >>NOW, I’D LIKE TO REVIEW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS WARNED ABOUT OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. ON TUESDAY — >>I’M SORRY, CONGRESSMAN, DO YOU HAVE A CITATION?>>YES, VOLUME 2 PAGE 81. >>THANK YOU. >>AND 82. I’D 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 PRESS STATEMENT STATING HE HAD, QUOTE, NO INTENTION OF FIRING YOU, CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>BUT THE FOLLOWING DAY, JUNE 14th, THE MEDIA REPORTED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU WERE INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTING OF JUSTICE, CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>AND THEN AFTER LEARNING FOR THE FIRST TIME 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. ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>GENERALLY SO. >>AND 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 THOSE INCIDENTS. >>WELL, YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT ON — AT PAGE 85, VOLUME 2, THAT ON SATURDAY, JUNE 17th, 2017, THE PRESIDENT CALLED McGAHN AT HOME TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED. NOW, DID THE PRESIDENT CALL DON McGAHN MORE THAN ONCE THAT DAY?>>WELL — >>I THINK IT WAS TWO CALLS. >>SORRY ABOUT THAT. >>ON 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. YOU’VE GOT TO CALL RUDD, CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>AND YOUR INVESTIGATION AN REPORT FOUND THAT DON McGAHN WAS PERTURBED, TO USE YOUR WORDS, BY THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST TO CALL ROD ROSENSTEIN TO FIRE HIM, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>WELL, THERE WAS A CONTINUOUS COLLOQUY. IT WAS A CONTINUOUS INVOLVEMENT OF DON McGAHN RESPONDING TO THE PRESIDENT’S — >>AND HE DID NOT WANT TO PUT HIMSELF IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT. HE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A ROLE IN ASKING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT?>>WELL, I WOULD, AGAIN, REFER YOU TO THE REPORT AND THE WAY IT IS CHARACTERIZED IN THE REPORT.>>THANK YOU. AT VOLUME 2 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 — WELL, FIRST, LET ME ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT, MR. CHAIRMAN, TO SUBMIT THIS ARTICLE ROBERT MUELLER UNMASKED FOR THE RECORD. >>WITHOUT OBJECTION.>>NOW, MR. MUELLER, 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 IN THE WASHINGTONIAN ABOUT COMEY SAID BASICALLY WHEN COMEY CALLED YOU WOULD DROP EVERYTHING YOU WERE DOING, GAVE EXAMPLES YOU HAVING WINNER WITH YOUR WIFE AND DAUGHTER, COMEY CALLS YOU DROP EVERYTHING AND GO. THE ARTICLE QUOTED COMEY AS SAYING IF A TRAIN WERE COMING DOWN THE TRACKS AND I QUOTE AT LEAST BOB MUELLER WILL BE STANDING ON THE TRACKS WITH ME. YOU AND JAMES COMEY HAD BEEN GOOD FRIENDS, WERE GOOD FRIENDS FOR MANY YEARS, CORRECT?>>WE WERE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES. WE BOTH STARTED OFF IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE SAME TIME. >>YOU WERE GOOD FRIENDS. YOU CAN WORK TOGETHER AND NOT BE FRIENDS. >>WE WERE FRIENDS. >>YOU AND COMEY WERE FRIENDS. >>WE WERE FRIENDS. >>THAT’S MY QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR GETTING TO THE ANSWER. NOW, BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD YOU TALKED TO JAMES COMEY IN THE PRECEDING SIX MONTHS?>>NO. >>WHEN YOU WERE APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP’S FIRING OF COMEY SOMETHING YOU ANTICIPATED INVESTIGATING, POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. >>ACTUALLY, IT GOES TO YOUR CREDIBILITY AND MAYBE YOU’VE BEEN AWAY FROM THE COURTROOM FOR A WHILE. CREDIBILITY IS ALWAYS RELEVANT, IT’S ALWAYS MATERIAL AND THAT GOES FOR YOU, TOO, YOU ARE 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 FBI DIRECTOR POSITION AGAIN. DID HE MENTION THE FIRING OF JAMES COMEY. >>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 — >>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. >>YEAH. SO MOST PROSECUTORS WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, BUT IN YOUR CASE YOU HIRED A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT DID NOT LIKE THE PRESIDENT. LET ME ASK YOU WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN OF PETER STRZOK’S ANONYMOUS TOWARD DONALD TRUMP?>>IN THE SUMMER OF 2017. >>YOU DIDN’T KNOW BEFORE HE WAS HIRED?>>I’M SORRY?>>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. >>ALL RIGHT.>>AND ACTUALLY WHEN I DID FIND OUT I ACTED SWIFTLY TO HAVE HIM REASSIGNED ELSEWHERE IN THE FBI.>>WELL, THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW SWIFT THAT WAS, BUT WHEN DID YOU LEARN OF THE ONGOING AFFAIR HE WAS HAVING WITH LISA PAGE. >>ABOUT THE SAME TIME I LEARNED FROM STRZOK. >>DID YOU EVER ORDER ANYBODY TO INVESTIGATE THE DELETION OF ALL OF THEIR TEXTS OFF OF THEIR GOVERNMENT PHONES?>>ONCE WE FOUND THAT PETER STRZOK WAS AUTHOR OF — >>DID YOU EVER — >>MAY I FINISH?>>YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION. DID YOU ORDER AN INVESTIGATION INTO DELETION AND REFORMATTING OF THEIR GOVERNMENT PHONES?>>NO, THERE WAS AN IG INVESTIGATION ONGOING. >>LISTEN, 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 INDIVIDUALS 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. AND IF SOMEBODY KNOWS THEY DID NOT CONSPIRE WITH ANYBODY FROM RUSSIA TO EFFECT THE ELECTION AND THEY SEE THE BIG JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WITH PEOPLE THAT HATE THAT PERSON COMING AFTER THEM AND THEN A SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTED WHO HIRES 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 OUT TWO YEARS MEANS YOU PERPETUATED INJUSTICE. I YIELD BACK. >>I TAKE YOUR QUESTION. >>THE GENTLEMAN’S TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >>I TAKE YOUR QUESTION.>>THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER — DIRECTOR MUELLER, I’D LIKE TO GET BACK TO YOUR FINDINGS COVERING JUNE OF 2017. THERE WAS A BOMBSHELL ARTICLE THAT REPORTED THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS PERSONALLY UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT ON PAGE 90 VOLUME 2 AND I QUOTE NEWS OF THE OBSTRUCTION QUESTIONS PROMPTED THE PRESIDENT TO CALL McGAHN AND SEEK TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED, CLOSED QUOTE. THEN IN YOUR REPORT YOU WROTE ABOUT MULTIPLE CALLS FROM THE PRESIDENT TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN AND REGARDING THE SECOND CALL YOU WROTE, AND I QUOTE, McGAHN RECALLED THAT THE PRESIDENT WITH AS MORE DIRECT, SAYING SOMETHING LIKE CALL ROD. TELL ROD THAT MUELLER WAS CONFLICTS AND CAN’T BE — 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 DIRECT YOU TO WHAT WE HAVE WRITTEN IN THE REPORT IN TERMS OF CHARACTERIZING HIS FEELINGS. >>AND IN THE REPORT IT SAYS, QUOTE, McGAHN UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT TO BE SAYING THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD TO BE REMOVED. YOU ALSO SAID ON PAGE 86 THAT, 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, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>I WOULD DIRECT YOU AGAIN TO THE REPORT. >>AND, IN FACT, THAT VERY DAY HE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND QUOTING YOUR REPORT YOU SAID, QUOTE, HE THEN DROVE TO THE OFFICE TO PACK HIS BELONGINGS AND SUBMIT HIS RESIGNATION LETTER, CLOSED QUOTE. >>THAT IS EXACTLY FROM THE REPORT. >>IT IS. AND BEFORE HE RESIGNED, HOWEVER, HE CALLED THE PRESIDENT’S CHIEF OF STAFF, REINCE PRIEBUS, AND HE 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. AND IT SAYS ON PAGE 87, QUOTE, PRIEBUS RECALLED THAT McGAHN SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIM TO DO CRAZY EXPLETIVE. IN OTHER WORDS, CRAZY STUFF. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL THOUGHT THAT THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF BOUNDS. HE SAID THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIM TO DO SOMETHING CRAZY. IT WAS WRONG. AND HE WAS PREPARED TO RESIGN OVER IT. NOW, THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARILY TROUBLING EVENTS, BUT YOU FOUND WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL McGAHN TO BE A CREDIBLE WITNESS, ISN’T THAT 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 IN VOLUME 2 YOU SAID, AND I QUOTE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT’S — 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. CLOSED QUOTE. DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU FOUND EVIDENCE, AS YOU LAY OUT IN YOUR REPORT, THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE INVESTIGATING HIM FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE REPORT, YES, AND I GO — I STAND BY THE REPORT. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER, THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN IN AMERICA. NO PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ESCAPE INVESTIGATION BY ABUSING HIS POWER, BUT THAT’S WHAT YOU TESTIFIED 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 ALSO EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THOSE CALLS TO McGAHN, BUT THE PRESIDENT 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.>>THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLELADY FROM ALABAMA.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU JUST SAID IN RESPONSE TO TWO DIFFERENT LINES OF QUESTIONINGS THAT YOU WOULD REFER AS IT RELATES TO THIS 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 END THE INVESTIGATION AND ONE DOESN’T NECESSITATE THE OTHER AND McGAHN, IN FACT, DID NOT RESIGN, HE STUCK AROUND FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. ON 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 ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASED THE REPORT TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC. WHEN YOU SUBMITTED YOUR REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DID YOU DELIVER A REDACTED VERSION 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’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO DETAILS. >>IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT A REDACTED VERSION OF THE REPORT COULD BE RELEASED TO CONGRESS OR THE PUBLIC?>>THAT’S NOT IN MY PURVIEW.>>WE HAD A PROCESS THAT WE WERE OPERATING ON WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE. >>ARE YOU WEAR OF ANY ATTORNEY GENERAL GOING TO COURT TO RECEIVE SIMILAR PERMISSION TO UNREDACTED 6 E MATERIAL?>>I’M NOT AWARE OF THAT BEING DONE. >>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT WITH MINIMAL REDACTIONS TO THE PUBLIC AND AN 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 WROTE THE REPORT UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS DEMANDED BY THE 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. >>AT ATTORNEY GENERAL’S BARR’S CONFIRMATION HEARING HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE INTENDED TO RELEASE YOUR REPORT TO THE PUBLIC. DO YOU REMEMBER HOW MUCH OF YOUR REPORT HAD BEEN WRITTEN AT THAT POINT?>>I DO NOT. >>WERE THERE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN TONE OR SUBSTANCE OF THE REPORT MADE AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE REPORT WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC?>>I CAN’T GET INTO THAT. >>DURING THIS SENATE TESTIMONY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR, SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS ASKED MR. BARR IF HE HAD LOOKED AT ALL THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S TEAM HAD GATHERED. HE STATED THAT HE HAD NOT. SO I’M GOING TO ASK YOU, DID YOU PERSONALLY REVIEW ALL OF THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE GATHERED IN YOUR INVESTIGATION?>>TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAME THROUGH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE, YES. >>DID ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF YOUR TEAM REVIEW ALL THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?>>AS HAS BEEN RECITED HERE TODAY, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WORK WAS DONE, WHETHER IT BE SEARCH WARRANTS — >>ANY POINT IS THERE WAS NO ONE MEMBER OF THE TEAM THAT LOOKED AT EVERYTHING.>>THAT’S WHAT I’M TRYING TO GET AT. >>IT’S FAIR TO SAY THAT AN INVESTIGATION AS COMPREHENSIVE AS YOURS, IT’S NORMAL THAT DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE TEAM WOULD HAVE REVIEWED DIFFERENT SETS OF DOCUMENTS AND FEW F ANYONE, WOULD HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THE UNDERLYING?>>YES.>>HOW MANY OF THE APPROXIMATELY 500 INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE DID YOU ATTEND PERSONALLY?>>VERY FEW. >>ON MARCH 27, 2019 YOU WROTE A LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ESSENTIALLY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MEDIA COVERAGE OF YOUR REPORT. YOU WROTE, AND I QUOTE, THE SUMMERY LETTER THE DEPARTMENT SENT TO CONGRESS AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC LATE IN THE AFTERNOON OF MARCH 24 DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT, NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF THIS OFFICE WORK AND CONCLUSIONS. WE COMMUNICATED THAT CONCERN TO THE DEPARTMENT ON THE MORNING OF MARCH 25th. THERE IS NOW PUBLIC CONFUSION ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE RESULT OF OUR INVESTIGATION. WHO WROTE THAT MARCH 27th LETTER?>>WELL, I CAN’T GET INTO WHO WROTE IT. THE INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS — >>BUT YOU SIGNED IT?>>WHAT I WILL SAY IS THE LETTER STANDS FOR ITSELF. >>WHY DID YOU WRITE A FORMAL LETTER SINCE HU ALREADY CALLED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO EXPRESS THOSE CONCERNS?>>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 WITHOUT A LEAK. WHY WAS THIS LETTER LEAKED?>>I CAN’T GET INTO IT. >>WAS THIS LETTER WRITTEN FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE NARRATIVE ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT, AND WAS ANYTHING IN ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S LETTER REFERRED TO ASPIRINS POLE CONCLUSIONS INACCURATE? THE TIME OF THE GENTLELADY IS EXPIRED. >>CAN HE ANSWER THE QUESTION, PLEASE?>>AND THE QUESTION IS?>>WAS ANYTHING IN ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S LETTER REFERRED TO AS THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS LETTER DATED MARCH 24th INACCURATE?>>WELL, I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. >>THE TIME OF THE GENTLELADY IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DIRECTOR MUELLER, AS YOU KNOW WE ARE FOCUSING ON FIVE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE SECOND OF THOSE FIVE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES. IT IS IN THE SECTION OF YOUR REPORT BEGINNING ON PAGE 113 OF VOLUME 2, ENTITLED, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT ORDERS McGAHN TO DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, END QUOTE. ON JANUARY 25th, 2018, “THE NEW YORK TIMES” REPORTED THAT, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT HAD 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, FAKE NEWS. 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 PERSONAL LAWYER DO SOMETHING THE FOLLOWING DAY IN RESPONSES TO THAT NEWS REPORT?>>I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE COVERAGE OF THIS IN THE REPORT. >>ON 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 REFER YOU AGAIN TO THE REPORT. >>SO 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?>>I REFER TO THE WRITE-UP OF THIS IN THE REPORT. >>NEXT, THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY, ROB PORTER, TO TRY TO PRESSURE McGAHN TO MAKE A FALSE DENIAL. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT. >>WHAT DID HE ACTUALLY DIRECT PORTER TO DO?>>I SEND YOU BACK TO THE REPORT. >>ON 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 IT’S 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, WASN’T HE?>>I WOULD HAVE TO SAY YES. >>DID THE PRESIDENT TELL PORTER TO THREATEN McGAHN IF HE DIDN’T CREATE THE WRITTEN DENIAL?>>I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE WRITE-UP OF IT IN THE REPORT. >>IN FACT, DIDN’T THE PRESIDENT SAY, QUOTE, AND THIS IS ON PAGE 116, IF HE DOESN’T WRITE A LETTER, THEN MAYBE I’LL HAVE TO GET RID OF HIM, END QUOTE?>>YES.>>DID PORTER DELIVER THAT THREAT?>>I AGAIN REFER YOU TO THE DISCUSSION THAT’S FOUND ON PAGE 115.>>OKAY. BUT THE PRESIDENT STILL DIDN’T GIVE UP, DID HE? SO 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. >>WELL, 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?>>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. HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR TO ME, IF ANYONE ELSE HAD ORDERED A WITNESS TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD AND COVER UP ACTS THAT ARE SUBJECT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION, THAT PERSON WOULD BE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES. I YIELD BACK MY TIME.>>GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLEMEN FROM OHIO. >>THE FBI INTERVIEWED ON FEBRUARY 10th, 2017. IN THAT INTERVIEW MR. MIFS HAD LIED. YOU POINT THIS OUT THAT MIF SON DENIED AND ALSO FALSELY STATED. IN ADDITION, HE O MITD. THREE TIMES HE LIED TO THE FBI, YET YOU DIDN’T CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME.>>I’M SORRY, DID YOU SAY 193?>>VOLUME 1, 193. WHY DIDN’T YOU CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME?>>I CAN’T GET INTO INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS WITH REGARD TO WHO OR WHO WOULD NOT BE CHARGED. >>LET’S REMEMBER THIS. IN 2016 THE FBI DID SOMETHING THEY PROBABLY HAVEN’T DONE BEFORE. THEY SPIED ON TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS ASSOCIATED WITH A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS AND CARTER PAGE. THEY WENT TO THE FIZA COURT AND USED THE NOW FAMOUS DOSSIER AS PART OF THE REASON THEY WERE ABLE TO GET THE WARRANT AND SPY ON PARTER PAGE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. WITH MR. PAPADOPOULOS THEY DIDN’T GO TO THE COURT. THEY USED HUMAN SOURCES. FROM THE MOMENT PAPADOPOULOS JOINS THE CAMPAIGN YOU’VE GOT ALL THESE PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD STARTING TO SWIRL AROUND HIM. NAMES LIKE HALPEL, DOWNER, MEETING IN ROME AND LONDON, ALL KINDS OF PLACES. THE FBI EVEN SPENT A LADY POSING AS SOMEBODY ELSE WHO AND DISPATCHED HER TO LONDON TO SPY ON MR. PAPADOPOULOS. IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS MR. PAPADOPOULOS 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. YOU POINT THIS OUT ON PAGE 1 OF THE REPORT, JULY 31ST, 2016, THEY OPEN THE INVESTIGATION BASED ON THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION. DIPLOMAT TELLS PAPADOPOULOS THE RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT — EXCUSE ME, PAPADOPOULOS TELLS THE DIPLOMAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT ON CLINTON, THEY TELL THE FBI. WHAT I’M WONDERING IS WHO TOLD PAPADOPOULOS? HOW DID HE FIND OUT. >>I CAN’T GET INTO THE — >>YES, YOU CAN. YOU WROTE ABOUT IT. YOU GAVE US THE ANSWER ON PAGE 192 OF THE REPORT, YOU TELL US WHO TOLD HIM. JOSEPH NIPSON IS THE GUY WHO TOLD PAPADOPOULOS. HE LIVES IN LOND NS AND TEACHES AT TWO UNIVERSITIES. THIS IS THE GUY WHO TOLD PAPADOPOULOS. HE’S 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 AND PAUL MANAFORT FOR FALSE STATEMENTS, MICHAEL COHEN FOR FALSE STATEMENTS, YOU CHARGE MICHAEL FLYNN, A THREE-STAR GENERAL WITH FALSE STATEMENTS. BUT THE GUY WHO PUTS THE COUNTRY THROUGH THIS WHOLE SAGA STARTS IT OFF, FOR THREE YEARS WE’VE LIVED THIS NOW. HE LIES, AND YOU GUYS DON’T CHARGE HIM. I’M CURIOUS AS TO WHY.>>WELL, I CAN’T GET INTO IT AND IT’S OBVIOUS THAT WE CAN’T GET INTO CHARGING DECISIONS. >>WHEN THE FBI INTERVIEWED HIM IN FEBRUARY, WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE INTERVIEWED MIFSON, DID HE LIE TO YOU GUYS, TOO?>>I CAN’T GET INTO THAT. >>DID YOU INTERVIEW MIFSON?>>I CAN’T GET INTO THAT. >>IS HE WESTERN INTELLIGENCE OR RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE?>>I CAN’T GET INTO THAT. >>YOU CAN CHARGE 13 RUSSIANS NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF, NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN, NO ONE IS EVER GOING TO HEAR OF THEM OR SEE THEM. YOU CAN CHARGE THEM AND ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AROUND THE PRESIDENT WITH FALSE STATEMENTS. BUT THE GUY WHO LAUNCHES EVERYTHING, THE GUY WHO PUTS THIS WHOLE STORY IN MOTION, YOU CAN’T CHARGE HIM. I THINK THAT’S AMAZING. >>I’M NOT CERTAIN I AGREE WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATIONS.>>WELL, I’M READING FROM YOUR REPORT. MIFSON TOLD PAPADOPOULOS, PAPADOPOULOS TELLS THE DIPLOMAT WHO TELLS THE FBI, THE FBI OPENS THE INVESTIGATION JULY 31ST, 2016, AND HERE WE ARE THREE YEARS LATER, JULY OF 2019. THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN PUT THROUGH THIS AND THE CENTRAL FIGURE WHO LAUNCHES IT ALL LIES TO US AND YOU GUYS DON’T HUNT HIM DOWN AND INTERVIEW HIM AGAIN, AND YOU DON’T CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME. NOW, HERE’S THE GOOD NEWS. HERE’S THE GOOD NEWS. THE PRESIDENT WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF CONSPIRACY, THE FBI DOES A TEN-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. AT THE END OF THAT 22 MONTHS, YOU FIND NO CONSPIRACY. AND WHAT DO THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO DO? THEY WANT TO KEEP INVESTIGATING. THEY WANT TO KEEP GOING. MAYBE A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION, MAYBE A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS STARTED. MAYBE IT’S TO GO BACK AND ACTUALLY FIGURE OUT WHY JOSEPH MIFSON WAS LYING TO THE FBI. AND HERE’S THE GOOD NEWS. HERE’S THE GOOD NEWS. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT BILL BARR IS DOING. AND THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS DOING. THEY’RE GOING TO FIND OUT WHY WE WENT THROUGH THIS THREE-YEAR SAGA AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. >>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMEN IS EXPIRED. 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. A VERY SHORT RECESS. THE MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER. PEOPLE, PLEASE TAKE THEIR SEATS BEFORE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL RETURNS. THE GENTLEMEN FROM LOUISIANA, MR. RICHMOND.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, CONGRESSMAN DEUTCH ADDRESSED TRUMP’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’S PERSONAL LAWYER. IN FACT, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER WAS ALARMED AT THE PROSPECT OF THE PRESIDENT MEETING WITH MR. McGAHN TO DISCUSS MR. McGAHN’S REFUSAL TO DENY “THE NEW YORK TIMES” REPORT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO FIRE YOU. CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT’S COUNSEL WAS SO ALARMED BY THE PROSPECT OF THE PRESIDENT’S MEETING WITH McGAHN, THAT HE CALLED MR. McGAHN’S COUNSEL AND SAID THAT McGAHN COULD NOT RESIGN, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED IN THE OVAL OFFICE THAT DAY. CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>SO IT’S ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT HE WAS ASKING McGAHN TO DENY FACTS THAT McGAHN, QUOTE, HAD REPEATEDLY SAID WERE ACCURATE, UNQUOTE. ISN’T THAT RIGHT?>>CORRECT. >>YOUR INVESTIGATION ALSO FOUND, QUOTE, BY THE TIME OF THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT WAS AWARE, ONE, THAT McGAHN DID NOT THINK THE STORY WAS FALSE, TWO, DID NOT WANT TO ISSUE A STATEMENT OR CREATE A WRITTEN RECORD DENYING FACTS THAT McGAHN BELIEVED TO BE TRUE. THE PRESIDENT, NEVERTHELESS, PERSISTED AND ASKED McGAHN TO REPUDIATE FACTS THAT McGAHN HAD REPEATEDLY SAID WERE ACCURATE. ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>GENERALLY TRUE. >>I BELIEVE THAT’S 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’S ACCURATE. >>I WANT TO REFERENCE YOU TO A SLIDE AND IT’S 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 IN ORDER TO DEFLECT OR PREVENT FURTHER SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT TOWARDS THE INVESTIGATION.>>THAT’S ACCURATE. >>CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEANT THERE?>>I’M JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT AS IT APPEARS IN THE REPORT. >>SO IT’S FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO PROTECT HIMSELF BY ASKING STAFF TO FALSIFY RECORDS RELEVANT TO AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION?>>I WOULD SAY THAT’S GENERALLY A SUMMARY. >>WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT ACTION, THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO HAMPER THE INVESTIGATION BY ASKING STAFF TO FALSIFY RECORDS, RELEVANT TO YOUR INVESTIGATION?>>I’M GOING TO REFER YOU TO THE REPORT, IF I COULD, FOR REVIEW OF THAT EPISODE.>>THANK YOU. ALSO, THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPT TO GET McGAHN TO CREATE A FALSE WRITTEN RECORD WERE RELATED TO MR. TRUMP’S CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INQUIRY. CORRECT?>>I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE. >>IN FACT, AT THE SAME OVAL OFFICE MEETING, DID THE PRESIDENT ALSO ASK McGAHN QUOTE, WHY HE HAD TOLD SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE INVESTIGATORS THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HAVE YOU REMOVED, UNQUOTE?>>AND WHAT WAS THE QUESTION, SIR, IF I MIGHT?>>LET ME GO TO THE NEXT ONE. THE PRESIDENT, QUOTE, CRITICIZED McGAHN FOR TELLING YOUR OFFICE ABOUT THE JUNE 17th, 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 BELIEVED TO BE THE TRUTH?>>I AGAIN GO BACK TO THE TEXT OF THE REPORT.>>WELL, LET ME GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. WOULD IT HAVE BEEN A CRIME IF MR. 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 CHARGED MULTIPLE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENT FOR LYING TO YOU DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION?>>THAT IS ACCURATE. >>THE PRESIDENT ALSO COMPLAINED THAT HIS STAFF WERE TAKING NOTES DURING THE MEETING ABOUT FIRING McGAHN. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S WHAT THE REPORT SAYS. YOU HAVE THE REPORT.>>BUT, IN FACT, IT’S COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT’S STAFF, ESPECIALLY HIS COUNSELS, TO TAKE NOTES DURING A MEETING. CORRECT?>>I RELY ON THE WORDING OF THE REPORT. >>WELL, THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER, 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 IT. 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.>>THE GENTLEMEN FROM FLORIDA. >>CAN YOU STATE WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS NOT PART OF RUSSIA’S DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN?>>I SAID IN MY OPEN STATEMENT THAT PART OF THE BUILDING OF THE CASE PRE-DATED ME BY AT LEAST TEN MONTHS. >>PAUL MANAFORT’S ALLEGED CRIMES REGARDING TAX EVASION PRE-DATED YOU. YOU HAD NO PROBLEM CHARGING HIM. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS STEELE DOSSIER PRE-DATED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HE DIDN’T HAVE ANY PROBLEM ANSWERING THE QUESTION WHEN SENATOR CORNYN ASKED HIM THE EXACT SAME QUESTION. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID, AND I’M QUOTING, NO, I CAN’T STATE THAT WITH CONFIDENCE. THAT’S ONE OF THE AREAS I’M REVIEWING. I’M KOERND ABOUT IT AND I DON’T THINK IT’S 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 STEELE’S REPORTING IS REFERENCED 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’M QUOTING FROM THE STEELE DOSSIER, EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TEAM AND THE KREMLIN. SO 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. I’LL SAY AS I’VE SAID EARLIER, WITH REGARD TO THE STEELE, THAT THAT’S BEYOND MY PURVIEW. >>NO, IT IS EXACTLY YOUR PURVIEW, DIRECTOR MUELLER. AND HERE’S WHY. ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS IS POSSIBLE. EITHER STEELE 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 LIED TO STEELE. NOW, IF RUSSIANS WERE LIE TO GO STEELE TO UNDERMINE OUR CONFIDENCE IN OUR DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT, THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE PRECISELY YOUR 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 RUSSIANS WERE INTERFERING THROUGH CHRISTOPHER STEELE. AND IF STEELE WAS LYING, THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE CHARGED HIM WITH LYING. BUT YOU SAY NOTHING ABOUT THIS IN YOUR REPORT. MEANWHILE, DIRECTOR, ON OTHER TOPICS YOU WRITE 3,500 WORDS ABOUT THE JUNE MEETING AND THE RUSSIAN LAWYER VESELNITSKAYA. YOU WRITE ON PAGE 10 # OF YOUR REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT’S LEGAL TEAM SUGGESTED, AND I’M QUOTING FROM YOUR REPORT, THAT THE MEETING MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SETUP BY INDIVIDUALS WORKING WITH THE FIRM THAT PRODUCED THE STEELE REPORTING. SO I’M GOING TO ASK YOU A VERY EASY QUESTION. ON THE WEEK OF JUNE 9, WHO DID RUSSIA LAWYER VESELNITSKAYA MEET WITH MORE FREQUENTLY, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR GLEN SIMPSON WHO WAS FUNCTIONALLY ACTING AS AN OPERATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE?>>THIS IS UNDER INVESTIGATION ELSEWHERE IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.>>I JUST — >>AND IF I CAN FINISH, AND CONSEQUENTLY IT’S NOT WITHIN MY PURVIEW. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE 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’S NOT SOMETHING YOU REFERENCE. GLEN SIMPSON TESTIFIED UNDER OATH HE HAD DINNER WITH VESELNITSKAYA 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’LL SAY AGAIN, IT’S NOT MY PURVIEW. OTHERS ARE INVESTIGATING WHAT YOU ADDRESSED. >>SO IT’S NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT STEELE IS LYING. IT’S NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO LOOK INTO WHETHER ANTI-TRUMP RUSSIANS ARE LOOKING INTO STEELE. AND WHETHER SIMPSON WAS MEETING WITH RUSSIANS THE DAY BEFORE AND AFTER THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MEETING. I’M WONDERING HOW THESE DECISIONS ARE GUIDED. I LOOK AT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT AND I’M CITING FROM 404 OF THE INSPECT GENERAL’S REPORT, IT SAID PAGE STATED PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT EVER GOING TO BE PRESIDENT, RIGHT. STRZOK REPLIED NO, HE’S NOT. WE’LL STOP IT. THERE’S SOMEONE IDENTIFIED AS ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO. THIS IS PAGE 419. ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO REPLIED HELD, NO, AND THEN ADDED VIVA RESISTANCE: THEY BOTH WORKED ON YOUR TEAM, DIDN’T THEY?>>I HEARD STRZOK. WHO ELSE FROM YOU TALKING ABOUT?>>ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO IDENTIFIED IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT. >>AND THE QUESTION WAS?>>DID HE WORK FOR YOU?>>PETER STRZOK WORKED FOR ME FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, YES. >>BUT SO DID THE OTHER GUY THAT SAID VIVA RESISTANCE. HERE’S WHAT I’M INTERESTING. WHEN PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH TRUMP LIED, YOU THREW THE BOOK AT THEM. WHEN CHRISTOPHER STEELE LIED, NOTHING. IT SEEMS TO BE THAT WHEN GLEN SIMPSON MET WITH RUSSIANS, NOTHING. WHEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MET WITH RUSSIANS, 3,500 WORDS. THE TEAM WAS SO BIASED — >>MR. JEFFRIES OF NEW YORK IS RECOGNIZED. >>OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A SERIOUS CRIME THAT STRIKES AT THE CORE OF AN INVESTIGATOR’S 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’M SORRY. COULD YOU AGAIN REPEAT THE QUESTION?>>AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT COULD INCLUDE TAKING AN ACTION THAT WOULD DELAY OR INTERFERE WITH AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION?>>THAT’S TRUE. >>YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK STEPS TO TERMINATE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>MR. MUELLER, DOES ORDERING THE TERMINATION OF THE HEAD OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION CONSTITUTE AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT?>>THAT WOULD BE — >>LET ME REFER YOU — >>I’LL REFER YOU TO THE REPORT ON THAT. >>LET ME REFER YOU TO PAGE 87 AND 88 OF VOLUME 2 WHERE YOU CONCLUDE THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WOULD QUALIFY 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’VE GOT THAT 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. >>DOES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE POTENTIAL WRONGDOING OF DONALD TRUMP CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING?>>AND THAT’S AN AREA WHICH I CAN NOT GET INTO. >>OKAY. PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED ON JUNE 16th, 2017, QUOTE, I AM BEING INVESTIGATED FOR FIRING THE FBI DIRECTOR BY THE MAN WHO TOLD ME TO FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR. WITCH HUNT. THE JUNE 16th TWEET JUST READ WAS CITED ON PAGE 89 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 17th, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN AT HOME AND DIRECTED HIM TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, TRUE?>>I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. I THINK I MAY HAVE STATED IN RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SOMEWHERE. >>THAT IS CORRECT. PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD DON McGAHN, QUOTE, MUELLER HAS TO GO, CLOSED QUOTE. CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>YOUR REPORT FOUND ON PAGE 89, VOLUME 2 THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT BY JUNE 17th THE PRESIDENT KNEW HIS CONDUCT WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR WHO WOULD PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF FEDERAL CRIMES TO A 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 INTENT. TRUE?>>TRUE. >>CORRUPT INTENT EXISTS IF THE PRESIDENT ACTED TO OBSTRUCT AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING FOR THE IMPROPER PURPOSE OF PROTECTING HIS OWN INTEREST, CORRECT?>>THAT’S GENERALLY CORRECT. >>THANK YOU.>>THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE THREE ELEMENTS OF PROOF OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES, WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE GOT — EXCUSE ME JUST ONE SECOND. >>THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER. LET ME MOVE ON IN THE INTEREST OF TIME. UPON LEARNING ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, THE PRESIDENT STATED TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, OH MY GOD, THIS IS TERRIBLE, THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY. CORRECT. >>CORRECT.>>IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT VIEWED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION AS ADVERSE TO HIS OWN INTEREST IN. >>I THINK THAT GENERALLY IS TRUE. >>THE INVESTIGATION FOUND EVIDENCE, QUOTE, THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE DIRECT DON McGAHN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. CORRECT?>>WHERE DO YOU HAVE THAT QUOTE?>>PAGE 90, VOLUME 2. THERE’S EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THOSE CALLS TO McGAHN, CLOSED QUOTE.>>I SEE THAT. YES, THAT’S 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. >>THE INVESTIGATION FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT, DONALD TRUMP, ONE, COMMITTED AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, TWO, CONNECTED TO AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING, THREE, DID SO WITH CORRUPT INTENT. THOSE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. NO ONE. THE PRESIDENT MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.>>LET ME JUST SAY, IF I MIGHT, I DON’T SUBSCRIBE NECESSARILY TO YOUR — THE WAY YOU ANALYZED THAT. I’M NOT SAYING IT’S OUT OF THE BALLPARK BUT I’M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THAT ANALYTICAL CHARGE.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, OVER HERE.>>HI. >>I WANT TO START BY THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. YOU JOINED THE MARINES AND WENT TO VIETNAM WHERE YOU EARNED A BRONZE STAR, PURPLE HEART. YOU SERVED AS ASSISTANT NOIMDS ATTORNEY LEADING THE HOMICIDE DEPARTMENT HERE IN DC, IN MASSACHUSETTS AND DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DOJ’S CRIMINAL DIVISION AND THE FBI DIRECTOR. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YAT 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 ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, INCLUDING TO ENSURE THAT EVERY DEFENDANT IS TREATED FAIRLY. THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF AN ORDINARY PARTY BUT OF A SOVEREIGNTY, WHOSE INTEREST IS NOT THAT IT SHALL WIN A CASE BUT THAT JUSTICE SHALL BE DONE AND THE PROSECUTOR SHALL STRIKE HARD BLOWS BUT NOT FOUL ONES. BY LISTING THE TEN FACTUAL SITUATIONS AND NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE, YOU UNFAIRLY SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE PRESIDENT, FORCING HIM TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE, WHILE DENYING HIM A LEGAL FORUM TO DO SO. AND I’VE NEVER HEARD OF A PROSECUTOR DECLINING A CASE AND THEN HOLDING A PRESS CONFERENCE TO TALK ABOUT THE DEFENDANT. YOU NOTED EIGHT TIMES IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU HAD A LEGAL DUTY UNDER THE REGULATIONS TO PROSECUTOR OR DECLINE CHARGES. DESPITE THIS, YOU DISREGARDED THAT DUTY. AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, I’M ALSO TROUBLED WITH YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS. YOU DISCUSS TEN SEPARATE FACTUAL PATTERNS INVOLVING ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION, AND THEN YOU FAILED TO SEPARATELY APPLY THE ELEMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTES. I LOOKED AT THE TEN FACTUAL SITUATIONS AND I READ THE CASE LAW. AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU, JUST LOOKING AT THE FLYNN MATTER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOUR STATUTES THAT YOU CITED FOR POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION, 1503, 1505 AND 1512 C 2, WHEN I LOOK AT THOSE CONCERNING THE FLYNN MATTER, 1503 ISN’T APPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE WASN’T A GRAND JURY AND DIRECTOR COMEY WAS NOT AN OFFICER OF THE COURT AS DEFINED BY THE STATUTE. SECTION 1505 CRIMINAL LIES ACTS THAT WOULD OBSTRUCT OR IMPEDE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CONGRESS. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL MANUAL STATES THAT THE FBI INVESTIGATION IS NOT A PENDING PROCEEDING. 1512 B 3 TALKS ABOUT INTIMIDATION, THREATS OR FORCE TO TAMPER WITH A WITNESS. GENERAL FLYNN WAS NOT A WITNESS AND CERTAINLY DIRECTOR COMEY WAS NOT A WITNESS. AND IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT TAMPERING WITH A RECORD AND AS JOE BIDEN DESCRIBED THE STATUE BEING DEBATED ON THE SENATE FLOOR, HE CALLED THIS A STATUTE CRIMINALIZING DOCUMENT SHREDDING AND THERE’S NOTHING IN YOUR REPORT THAT ALLEGES THAT THE PRESIDENT DESTROYED ANY EVIDENCE. SO WHAT I HAVE TO ASK YOU, AND WHAT I THINK PEOPLE ARE WORKING AROUND IN THIS HEARING, IS — LET ME LAY A LITTLE FOUNDATION. THE ETHICAL RULES REQUIRE THAT A PROSECUTOR HAVE A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF CONVICTION TO BRING A CHARGE. IS THAT CORRECT?>>SOUNDS GENERALLY ACCURATE. >>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 DECLINING PROSECUTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT FOR A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. IS THAT FAIR?>>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 WHEN THE REGULATION — >>BECAUSE THE OLC OPINION, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, INDICATES THAT WE CANNOT INDITE A SITTING PRESIDENT. SO ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT A PROSECUTOR WOULD USE IS NOT THERE. >>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 THREW 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 WAS 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?>>I’M NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE I HAVEN’T LOOKED AT THE ETHICAL STANDARDS. BUT THE OLC OPINION SAYS THAT THE PROSECUTOR CANNOT BRING A CHARGE AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT, NONETHELESS CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER PERSONS WHO MIGHT BE DRAWN INTO THE CONSPIRACY.>>TIME OF THE GENTLEMEN IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMEN FROM RHODE ISLAND.>>DIRECTOR, AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON FIVE SPECIFIC OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE EPISODES HERE TODAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE THIRD EPISODE. IT’S THE SECTION ENTITLED THE PRESIDENT’S EFFORTS TO CURTAIL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION BEGINNING AT PAGE 90. AND BY CURTAIL, YOU MEAN LIMIT, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>MY COLLEAGUES HAVE WALKED THROUGH HOW THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO HAVE YOU FIRED BU THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND BECAUSE MR. McGAHN REFUSED THE ORDER, THE PRESIDENT ASKED OTHERS TO HELP LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION. IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>AND WAS COREY LEWANDOWSKI ONE SUCH INDIVIDUAL?>>AGAIN, CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT — >>COREY LEWANDOWSKI IS THE PRESIDENT’S FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>DID HE HAVE ANY OFFICIAL POSITION IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION?>>I DON’T BELIEVE SO. >>YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES AN INCIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE INVOLVING MR. LEWANDOWSKI ON JUNE 19, 2017 AT VOLUME 2, PAGE 91, IS THAT CORRECT?>>I’M SORRY, WHAT IS THE CITATION?>>PAGE 91.>>OF THE SECOND VOLUME?>>YES. A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE BETWEEN MR. LEWANDOWSKI AND THE PRESIDENT.>>OKAY. >>AND THAT WAS JUST TWO DAYS AFTER THE PRESIDENT CALLED DON McGAHN AT HOME AND ORDERED HIM TO FIRE YOU. IS THAT CORRECT?>>APPARENTLY SO. >>SO RIGHT AFTER HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, MR. McGAHN, REFUSED TO FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT’S ORDER TO FIRE YOU, THE PRESIDENT CAME UP A NEW PLAN AND THAT WAS TO GO AROUND ALL OF HIS SENIOR ADVISERS AND GOVERNMENT AIDES TO HAVE A PRIVATE CITIZEN TRY TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION. WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT TELL MR. LEWANDOWSKI TO DO? DO YOU RECALL HE DICTATED A MESSAGE FOR GENERAL 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 WHAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE INCLUDED IN OUR INVESTIGATION. >>THE MESSAGE DIRECTED SESSIONS TO GIVE — AND I’M 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 THREAT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MOVE FORWARD WITH INVESTIGATING INVESTIGATION MEDDLING FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS. THAT’S A PAGE 91. >>YES. I SEE THAT. YES, IT IS. >>IN OTHER WORDS, MR. 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.>>AND AT THIS TIME MR. SESSIONS WAS STILL RECUSED FROM OVERSIGHT OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, CORRECT?>>I’M SORRY, COULD YOU RESTATE THAT?>>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS RECUSED FROM OVERSIGHT.>>YES.>>SO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD TO VIOLATE HIS OWN DEPARTMENT’S RULES IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE PRESIDENT’S ORDER, CORRECT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE DETAILS. I’LL JUST REFER YOU AGAIN TO PAGE 91, 92 OF THE REPORT. >>AND IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST, IT WOULD HAVE EFFECTIVELY ENDED YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN AS YOU NOTE ON PAGE 97, CORRECT?>>COULD YOU — >>PAGE 97 YOU WRITE, AND I QUOTE, TAKEN TOGETHER, THE PRESIDENT’S DIRECTIVES INDICATE THAT SESSIONS WAS BEING INSTRUCTED TO TELL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO END THE EXISTING INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL BEING PERMITTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH INVESTIGATING ELECTION MEDDLING FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS. IS THAT CORRECT?>>GENERALLY TRUE, YES, SIR. >>AND IT’S AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IS STILL A CRIME, IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT IS CORRECT. >>AND MR. LEWANDOWSKI TRIED TO MEET WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IS THAT RIGHT?>>TRUE. >>AND HE TRIED TO MEET WITH HIM 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. >>AND THE MEETING NEVER HAPPENED AND THE PRESIDENT RAISED THE ISSUE AGAIN WITH MR. LINE DOW SKI AND I QUOTE, 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 ASKED MR. DEER BORN TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE AND MR. DEER BORN REFUSES TO DELIVER IT BECAUSE HE DOESN’T FEEL COMFORTABLE. ISN’T THAT CORRECT?>>GENERALLY CORRECT, YES. >>JUST SO WE’RE CLEAR, MR. MUELLER. TWO DAYS AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN REFUSED TO CARRY OUT THE PRESIDENT’S ORDER TO FIRE YOU, THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED A PRIVATE CITIZEN TO TELL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO 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’M NOT GOING TO ADOPT YOUR CHARACTERIZATION. I’LL SAY THAT THE FACTS LAID OUT IN THE REPORT ARE ACCURATE. >>MR. MUELLER, IN YOUR REPORT YOU IN FACT WRITE AT PAGE 99 — 97, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT’S EFFORT TO HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION TO FUTURE ELECTIONS INTERFERENCE WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN CONDUCT. IS THAT CORRECT?>>GENERALLY. >>AND SO MR. MUELLER, YOU HAVE SEEN A LETTER WHERE 1,000 FORMER REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC FEDERAL PROSECUTORS HAVE RED YOUR REPORT AND SAID ANYONE BUT THE PRESIDENT WHO COMMITTED THOSE ACTS WOULD BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? DO YOU AGREE WITH THOSE 1,000 PROSECUTORS WHO CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, YOU GUYS, YOUR TEAM WROTE IN THE REPORT, QUOTE — THIS IS THE TOP OF PAGE 2, VOLUME 1, ALSO ON PAGE 173, BY THE WAY, YOU SAID YOU HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, QUOTE, THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ELECTION INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. CLOSED QUOTE. THAT’S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT, RIGHT?>>THAT’S ACCURATE. >>AND I’M CURIOUS, WHEN DID YOU PERSONALLY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?>>CAN YOU REMIND ME WHICH HALF YOU’RE 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 IT. WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?>>MY QUESTION NOW IS WHEN DID YOU PERSONALLY REACH THAT CONCLUSION?>>WELL, WE WERE ONGOING FOR TWO YEARS. >>YOU WERE ONGOING AND YOU WROTE IT AT SOME POINT DURING THAT TWO-YEAR PERIOD. AT SOME POINT YOU HAD TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT I DON’T THINK THERE’S — THAT THERE’S NOT A CONSPIRACY GOING ON HERE. THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THIS PRESIDENT. I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE REST OF THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM. I’M TALKING ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT AND THE RUSSIANS.>>AS YOU UNDERSTAND, DEVELOPING A CRIMINAL CASE YOU GET PIECES OF INFORMATION, PIECES OF INFORMATION, WITNESSES AND THE LIKE AS YOU MAKE YOUR CASE. >>RIGHT.>>AND WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION ON A PARTICULAR CASE DEPENDS ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS. >>I UNDERSTAND ALL THIS.>>SO I CANNOT SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT WE REACHED A DECISION ON A PARTICULAR DEFENDANT AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. >>BUT IT WAS SOMETIME WELL BEFORE YOU WROTE THE REPORT. FAIR ENOUGH? I MEAN, YOU WROTE THE REPORT DEALING WITH A WHOLE MYRIAD OF ISSUES. CERTAINLY SOMETIME PRIOR TO THAT REPORT IS WHEN YOU REACHED THE DECISION THAT WITH REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, I DON’T FIND ANYTHING HERE. FAIR ENOUGH?>>WELL, I’M NOT CERTAIN I DO AGREE WITH THAT.>>SO YOU WAITED UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE WHEN YOU WERE ACTUALLY WRITING THE REPORT?>>NO, BUT THERE ARE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF –>>SURE. AND THAT’S MY POINT. THERE ARE VARIOUS ASPECTS THAT HAPPEN, BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE PIKE YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THERE’S NO THERE FOR THIS DEFENDANT.>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO IT. >>YOU CAN’T SAY WHEN. FAIR ENOUGH. I’M ASKING THE SWORN WITNESS. MR. MUELLER, EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT ON MAY 10th, 2017 AT APPROXIMATELY 7:45 A.M. SIX DAYS BEFORE THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL A POINTED YOU SPECIAL COUNSEL, MR. ROSENSTEIN CALLED YOU AND MENTIONED THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL. NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU WOULD BE APPOINTED, BUT THAT YOU HAD A DISCUSSION OF THAT. IS THAT TRUE? MAY 10th, 2017.>>I DON’T HAVE ANY — 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’S EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT THAT PHONE CALL TOOK PLACE AND THAT’S WHAT WAS SAID. SO LET’S MOVE TO THE NEXT QUESTION. EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT ALSO ON MAY 12th, 2017, FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE DAG APPOINTED YOU SPECIAL COUNSEL. DID YOU DISCUSS IT WITH HIM THEN? NOT NECESSARILY YOU, BUT THAT THERE WOULD BE A SPECIAL COUNSEL.>>YOU’VE GONE INTO WATERS THAT DON’T ALLOW ME TO ANSWER THE PARTICULAR QUESTION. IT RELATES TO CONVERSATIONS WE WOULD HAVE WITH DIETING AN INDIVIDUAL. >>IT HAS NOTHING TO THE WITH INDICTMENT. IT HAS TO DO WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL AND WHETHER YOU DISCUSSED THAT WITH MR. ROSENSTEIN. >>FOUR DAYS BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOU MET WITH SESSIONS AND ROSENSTEIN AND YOU SPOKE WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?>>NOT OFFHAND, NO. >>OKAY. AND ON MAY 16th, THE DAY BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOU MET WITH THE PRESIDENT AND ROD ROSENSTEIN. DO YOU REMEMBER HAVING THAT MEETING?>>YES.>>AND THE DISCUSSION OF THE POSITION OF THE FBI DIRECTOR TOOK PLACE. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?>>YES.>>AND DID YOU DISCUSS AT ANY TIME IN THAT MEETING MR. COMEY’S TERMINATION?>>NO.>>DID YOU DISCUSS AT ANY TIME IN THAT MEETING THE POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL? NOT NECESSARILY YOU, BUT JUST IN GENERAL TERMS.>>I CAN’T GET INTO THE DISCUSSIONS ON THAT. >>HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. ROSENSTEIN BEFORE MAY 17th, WHICH IS THE DAY YOU GOT APPOINTED, REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL? HOW MANY TIMES PRIOR TO THAT DID YOU DISCUSS WITH — >>I CAN’T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES. >>IS THAT BECAUSE YOU DON’T RECALL OR YOU JUST — >>I DO NOT RECALL. >>OKAY. THANK YOU. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK WITH MR. COMEY ABOUT ANY INVESTIGATIONS PERTAINING TO RUSSIA PRIOR TO MAY 17th, 2017?>>NONE AT ALL. >>ZERO?>>ZERO. >>NOW, MY TIME IS EXPIRED.>>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMEN IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMEN FROM CALIFORNIA.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, GOING BACK TO THE PRESIDENT’S OBSTRUCTION VIA COREY LEWANDOWSKI, IT WAS REFERENCED THAT 1,000 FORMER PROSECUTORS WHO SERVED UNDER REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC, WITH 12,000 YEARS OF FEDERAL SERVICE WROTE A LETTER REGARDING THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT LETTER?>>I’VE READ ABOUT THAT LETTER. >>AND SOME OF THE PROSECUTORS WHO SIGNED THE LETTER ARE PEOPLE YOU’VE WORKED WITH. IS THAT RIGHT?>>QUITE PROBABLY, YES. >>PEOPLE YOU RESPECT?>>QUITE PROBABLY, YES. >>AND IN THAT LETTER 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 HAD 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 SEAT ON THE INTELLIGENCE LATER. BECAUSE OF OUR LIMITED TIME, I WILL ASK TO ENTER THIS LETTER INTO THE RECORD UNDER UNANIMOUS CONSENT. I WILL YIELD TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA.>>THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER FOR YOUR LONG HISTORY OF SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY INCLUDING YOUR SERVICE AS A MARINE WHERE YOU EARNED A BRONZE STAR. I’D LIKE TO NOW TURN TO THE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS APPLIED TO THE PRESIDENT’S ATTEMPTS TO CURTAIL YOUR INVESTIGATION. THE FIRST ELEMENT OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE REQUIRES AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT. CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>I’D LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO PAGE 97 OF VOLUME 2 OF YOUR REPORT. YOU WROTE THERE ON PAGE 97, QUOTE, SESSIONS WAS BEING INSTRUCTED TO TELL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO END THE EXISTING INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN, UNQUOTE. THAT’S IN THE REPORT, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT BECAUSE IT WOULD NATURALLY OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>OKAY. LET’S TURN NOW TO THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHICH INCLUDES A NEXUS TO INITIAL PROCEEDING. THE SAME PAGE OF VOLUME 2. YOU WROTE, QUOTE, BY THE TIME THE PRESIDENT’S INITIAL ONE-ON-ONE MEETING WITH LEWANDOWSKI ON JUNE 19th, 2017, THE EXISTENCE OF SUPERVISED BY SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. THATst IN THE REPORT, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF A NEXUS TO OFFICIAL PROCEEDING BECAUSE A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IS AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING, CORRECT?>>YES.>>OKAY. I’D LIKE TO NOW TURN TO THE FINAL ELEMENT OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. ON THAT SAME PAGE, PAGE 97, DO YOU SEE WHERE THERE’S THE INTENT SECTION ON THAT PAGE?>>I DO.>>WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO READ THE FIRST SENTENCE?>>AND THAT WAS STARTING WITH –?>>SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.>>INDICATING SET OF PRECEDENCE?>>IF YOU COULD READ THE SENTENCE, WOULD YOU DO THAT?>>I’M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU READ IT.>>YOU WROTE, QUOTE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES TO HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION TO PREVENT FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN AND CONDUCT. UNQUOTE. THAT’S IN THE REPORT, CORRECT?>>THAT’S IN THE REPORT. AND I RELY WHAT’S IN THE REPORT TO INDICATE WHAT’S HAPPENED IN THE PARAGRAPHS WE’VE BEEN DISCUSSING.>>THANK YOU. SO TO RECAP WHAT WE’VE HEARD. WE HAVE HEARD TODAY THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN TO FIRE YOU. THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN TO THEN COVER THAT UP AND CREATE A FALSE PAPER TRAIL. NOW WE HEARD THE PRESIDENT ORDERED COREY LEWANDOWSKI TO TELL JEFF SESSIONS TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION SO YOU STOP INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT. I BELIEVE A REASONABLE PERSON LOOKING AT THESE FACTS COULD CONCLUDE THAT ALL THREE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HAVE BEEN MET. AND I’D LIKE TO ASK YOU THE REASON AGAIN THAT YOU DID NOT INDICT DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF OLC OPINION STATING THAT YOU CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT, CORRECT?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>THE FACT THAT THE ORDERS BY THE PRESIDENT WERE NOT CARRIED OUT, THAT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BECAUSE A STATUTE ITSELF IS QUITE BROAD. IT SAYS THAT AS LONG AS YOU ENDEAVOR OR ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, THAT WOULD ALSO CONSTITUTE A CRIME.>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT AT THIS JUNCTIONTURE.>>THANK YOU. AND BASED ON THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE HEARD TODAY, I BELIEVE A REASONABLE PERSON COULD CONCLUDE THAT AT LEAST THREE CRIMES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE PRESIDENT OCCURRED. WE’RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT TWO ADDITIONAL CRIMES THAT WOULD BE THE WITNESS TAMPERINGS.>>THE ONLY THING I WANT TO ADD IS GOING THROUGH THE ELEMENTS WITH YOU DOES NOT MEAN I SUBSCRIBE TO THE — WHAT YOU’RE TRYING TO PROVE THROUGH THOSE ELEMENTS.>>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLELADY FROM ARIZONA — I’M SORRY. GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA. >>THANK YOU. OVER HERE. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY. YOU HAD THREE DISCUSSIONS WITH ROD ROSENSTEIN ABOUT YOUR APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL. MAY 10th, 12th, AND 13th, CORRECT?>>IF YOU SAY SO. I HAVE NO REASON TO DISPUTE THAT.>>THEN YOU MET WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THE 16th WITH ROD ROSENSTEIN PRESENT. THEN ON THE 17th YOU WERE FORMALLY APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL. WERE YOU MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THE 16th WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU WERE UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO SPECIAL COUNSEL?>>I DID NOT BELIEVE I WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR COUNSEL. THE — I HAD SERVED TWO TERMS AS FBI DIRECTOR.>>THE ANSWER IS NO.>>THE ANSWER IS NO.>>GREG JARRETT DESCRIBES YOUR OFFICE AS THE TEAM OF PARTISANS. AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS COMING TO LIGHT, THERE’S A GROWING CONCERN THAT POLITICAL BIAS CAUSED IMPORTANT FACTS TO BE OMITTED FROM YOUR REPORT IN ORDER TO CAST THE PRESIDENT UNFAIRLY IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT. FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN DOWD THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER LEAVES A MESSAGE WITH MICHAEL FLYNN’S LAWYER IN NOVEMBER 2017. THE EDITED VERSION IN YOUR REPORT MAKES IT APPEAR THAT HE WAS IMPROPERLY ASKING FOR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. AND THAT’S ALL WE’D KNOW FROM YOUR REPORT. EXCEPT THAT THE JUDGE IN THE FLYNN CASE ORDERED THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT RELEASED IN WHICH DOWD MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT’S NOT WHAT HE WAS SUGGESTING. MY QUESTION IS WHY DID YOU EDIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO HIDE THE EXCULPATORY AMOUNT OF THE MESSAGE?>>I DON’T AGREE WITH WE DID ANYTHING TO HIDE — >>YOU OMITTED IT. YOU QUOTED THE PART HE SAID WE NEED A HEADS UP FOR THE SAKE OF PROTECTING OUR INTERESTS IF WE CAN. BUT YOU OMITTED THE PART ABOUT NOT GIVING UP CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.>>I’M NOT GOING TO GO FURTHER IN TERMS OF DISCUSSING — >>LET’S GO ON. YOU TALKED ABOUT CONSTANTINE’S — A RUSSIAN UKRAINIAN POLITICAL CONSULTANT OF PAUL MANAFORT ASSESSED BY THE FBI TO HAVE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. THAT’S ALL WE’D KNOW FROM YOUR REPORT. EXCEPT WE’VE SINCE LEARNED FROM NEWS ARTICLES THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY A U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT INTELLIGENCE SOURCE. YET NOWHERE IN YOUR REPORT IS HE SO IDENTIFIED. WHY WAS THAT NOT THERE?>>I DON’T NECESSARILY CREDIT WHAT YOU’RE SAYING OCCURRED.>>WERE YOU AWARE THAT KALEMNIK WAS NOT — >>I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO — >>DID YOU INTERIEW CONSTANTINE?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO OUR INVESTIGATIVE MOVES.>>AND YET THAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR REPORT. THE PROBLEM WE’RE HAVING IS WE HAVE TO REFLECT ON YOUR REPORT AND THAT’S FINDING OUT IT’S NOT TRUE. FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR REPORT FAMOUSLY LINKS INTERNET TROLL FARMS WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. YET AT A HEARING IN THE CONCORD MANAGEMENT IRA PROSECUTION YOU INITIATED, THE JUDGE EXCORRELATED FOR PRODUCING NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM. WHY DID YOU SAY RUSSIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TROLL FARMS WHEN IN COURT YOU HAVEN’T HAD ANY PROOF.>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT FURTHER THAN I HAVE.>>BUT YOU LEFT THE IMPRESSION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THROUGH YOUR REPORT IT WAS THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT BEHIND THE TROLL FARMS. IF YOU’RE CALLED ON TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE IN COURT, YOU FAIL TO DO SO.>>AGAIN, I DISPUTE YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT OCCURRED IN THAT PROCEEDING.>>IN FACT, THE JUDGE CONSIDERED HOLDING PROSECUTORS IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. SHE BACKED OFF ONLY AFTER YOUR HASTILY CALLED PRESS CONFERENCE THE NEXT DAY. TO PUBLIC PLI MISREPRESENTING THE EVIDENCE?>>WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?>>THE QUESTION IS DID YOUR MAY 29th PRESS CONFERENCE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE PREVIOUS DAY THE JUDGE THREATENED TO HOLD YOUR PROSECUTORS IN CONTEMPT FOR MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE?>>NO.>>NOW, THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM ISN’T — AS I SAID, WE GOT TO TAKE YOUR WORD, YOUR TEAM FAITHFULLY ACCURATELY IMPARTIALLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED ALL OF THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE IN THE MUELLER REPORT. AND WE’RE FINDING MORE AND MORE INSTANCES WHERE THIS JUST ISN’T THE CASE. AND IT’S STARTING TO LOOK LIKE, 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 OUR PORCH, RANG THE DOORBELL, AND RAN.>>I DON’T THINK IT’S AS FAIR, AS CONSISTENT AS THE REPORT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.>>THEN WHY IS — >>THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND IS RECOGNIZED.>>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. THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN EFFORTS AND I QUOTE, TO ENCOURAGE WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION. IS THAT RIGHT?>>THAT’S CORRECT. YOU HAVE THE CITATION?>>ON PAGE 7 OF VOLUME 2.>>THANK YOU.>>NOW, ONE OF THESE WITNESSES WAS MICHAEL COHEN, THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER WHO ULTIMATELY PLED GUILTY TO CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS BASED ON HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS AND ALSO TO LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER DEAL. AFTER THE FBI SEARCHED COHEN’S HOME, THE PRESIDENT CALLED HIM PERSONALLY AND TOLD HIM TO, QUOTE, HANG IN THERE AND STAY STRONG. IS THAT RIGHT?>>YES, IT IS RIGHT.>>ALSO IN THE REPORT ACTUALLY ARE A SERIES OF CALLS MADE BY OTHER FRIENDS OF THE PRESIDENT. ONE REACHED OUT TO SAY HE WAS WITH THE BOSS IN MAR-A-LAGO AND THE PRESIDENT SAID, HE LOVES YOU. HIS NAME IS REDACTED. ANOTHER REDACTED FRIEND CALLED TO SAY HE BOSS LOVES YOU AND THE THIRD REDACTED FRIEND CALLED TO SAY EVERYONE KNOWS THE BOSS HAS YOUR BACK. DO YOU REMEMBER FINDING THAT SEQUENCE OF CALLS?>>GENERALLY, YES.>>WHEN THE NEWS — AND IN FACT, COHEN SAID THAT FOLLOWING THE RECEIPT OF THESE MESSAGES, I’M QUOTING HERE PAGE 147 OF VOLUME 2. 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’S PAGE 147. DO YOU REMEMBER GENERALLY FINDING THAT?>>GENERALLY, YES.>>WELL, ROBERT COSTELLO, A LAWYER CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT’S TEAM EMAILED COHEN TO SAY, QUOTE, YOU ARE LOVED. THEY ARE IN OUR CORNER. SLEEP WELL TONIGHT. AND YOU HAVE FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES. AND THAT’S UP ON THE SCREEN, PAGE 147. YOU REMEMBER — >>I SEE THAT.>>OKAY. WHEN THE NEWS FIRST BROKE THAT COHEN HAD ARRANGED PAYOFFS TO STORMY DANIELS, COHEN FAITHFULLY STUCK TO THIS PARTY LINE. HE SAID THAT PUBLICLY THAT NEITHER THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION NOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS A PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION AND NEITHER REIMBURSED HIM. TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY AT THAT POINT QUICKLY TEXTED COHEN TO SAY, QUOTE, CLIENT SAYS THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO. MR. MUELLER, WHO IS THE CAPITAL “C” CLIENT?>>CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.>>THE ASSUMPTION IN THE CONTEXT SUGGESTS IT’S PRESIDENT TRUMP.>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.>>ALL RIGHT. COHEN LATER BROKE AND PLED GUILTY TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS AND ADMITTED THEY WERE MADE AT THE ACCOUNT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?>>YES.>>AFTER COHEN’S GUILTY PLEA, THE PRESIDENT SUDDENLY CHANGED HIS TUNE TOWARDS MR. COHEN, DIDN’T HE?>>I WOULD SAYRY LIE ON WHAT’S IN THE REPORT.>>WELL, HE MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT COHEN FAMILY MEMBERS HAD CRIMES. HE REPEATED COHEN’S FATHER AND SUGGESTED HE WAS GUILTY OF FIRE.>>GENERALLY ACCURATE.>>ON PAGE 154 YOU GIVE A POWERFUL SUMMARY OF THESE CHANGE IN DYNAMICS. I’M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU READ IT OR I WILL READ IT.>>WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ IT?>>I WOULD. >>COULD YOU READ IT OUT LOUD TO EVERYBODY?>>I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU READ IT.>>ALL RIGHT. WE’LL READ IT AT THE SAME TIME. THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS — THE PRESIDENT USED INDUCEMENTS IN THE FORM OF POSITIVE MESSAGES NOT TO GET COHEN TO COOPERATE AND THEN TURNED TO ATTACKS AND INTIMIDATION TO DETER THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION ONCE COHEN BEGAN COOPERATING.>>I BELIEVE THAT’S ACCURATE.>>OKAY. AND IN MY VIEW, IF ANYONE ELSE IN AMERICA ENGAGED IN THESE ACTIONS, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH WITNESS TAMPERING. WE MUST ENFORCE THE PRINCIPLE IN CONGRESS YOU EMPHASIZE WELL IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF YOUR REPORT WHICH IS IN AMERICA NO PERSON IS SO HIGH TO BE ABOVE THE LAW. I YIELD BACK.>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. LIU WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS. QUOTE, THE REASON YOU DIDN’T INDICT THE PRESIDENT WAS BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION. AND YOU ANSWERED, THAT IS CORRECT. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID IN THE REPORT AND IT’S NOT WHAT YOU TOLD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR. IN FACT, IN A JOINT STATEMENT THAT YOU RELEASED WITH DOJ ON MAY 29th AFTER YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE, YOUR OFFICE ISSUED A JOINT STATEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT SAID, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT SAYING THAT BUT FOR THE OLC OPINION, HE WOULD HAVE FOUND THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT AND HIS STATEMENT TODAY MADE CLEAR THE OFFICE CONCLUDED IT WOULD NOT REACH A DETERMINATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME. THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE STATEMENTS. SO MR. MUELLER, DO YOU STAND BY YOUR JOINT STATEMENT WITH DOJ YOU ISSUED ON MAY 29th AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY?>>I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT MORE CLOSELY.>>WELL, SO — YOU KNOW, MY CONCLUSION IS THAT WHAT YOU TOLD MR. LIEU REALLY CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU SAID IN THE REPORT. AND SPECIFICALLY REPEATEDLY TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND THEN ISSUED A JOINT STATEMENT ON MAY 29th SAYING THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT SAYING BUT FOR THE OLC REPORT THAT WE WOULD HAVE FOUND THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. I SAY THERE’S A CONFLICT. I DO HAVE SOME 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?>>WERE YOU EVER FIRED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, MR. MOOULER?>>NO. >>WERE YOU ALLOWED TO COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION UNENCUMBERED?>>YES.>>AND IN FACT, YOU RESIGNED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL WHEN YOU CLOSED UP THE OFFICE IN LATE MAY 2019. IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>THANK YOU. MR. MUELLER, ON APRIL 18th, 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 PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT?>>WELL, WHAT YOU ARE NOT MENTIONING IS THE LETTER WE SENT ON MARCH 27th TO MR. BARR THAT RAISED SOME ISSUES. AND THAT LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.>>BUT THEN I DON’T SEE HOW YOU COULD — THAT COULD BE SINCE A.G. BARR’S LETTER DETAILED THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT AND YOU HAVE SAID BEFORE THAT THAT THERE WASN’T ANYTHING INACCURATE. IN FACT, YOU HAD THIS JOINT STATEMENT. BUT LET ME GO ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION. MR. MUELLER, RATHER THAN PURELY RELYING ON THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, I THINK YOU RELIED A LOT ON MEDIA. I’D 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, BUT — I DON’T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT FIGURE.>>I COUNTED ABOUT 60 TIMES. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU CITE “THE NEW YORK TIMES”? I COUNTED — >>AGAIN, I HAVE NO IDEA.>>I COUNTED ABOUT 75 TIMES. 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 2 IS MOSTLY REGURGITATED PRESS STORIES. HONESTLY, THERE’S ALMOST NOTHING IN VOLUME 2 THAT I COULDN’T ALREADY HEAR OR KNOW SIMPLY BY HAVING A $50 CABLE NEWS SUBSCRIPTION. HOWEVER, YOUR INVESTIGATION COST THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS $25 MILLION. MR. MUELLER, YOU CITED MEDIA REPORTS NEARLY 200 TIMES IN YOUR REPORT. THEN IN A FOOTNOTE, A SMALL FOOTNOTE, NUMBER 7 PAGE 15 OF VOLUME 2 OF YOUR REPORT, YOU WROTE — NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE STORIES BUT RATHER TO PLACE CANDIDATE TRUMP’S RESPONSE TO THOSE STORIES AND CONTEXT. SINCE NOBODY BUT LAWYERS READS FOOTNOTES, ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TOOK THE EMBEDDED NEWS STORIES — >>TIME OF THE GENTLELADY IS EXPIRED. THE GENTLELADY FROM — >>CAN MR. MUELLER ANSWER THE QUESTION?>>NO. WE’RE RUNNING SHORT ON TIME. I SAID THE GENTLELADY FROM WASHINGTON.>>THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER, LET’S TURN TO THE FIFTH OF THE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES IN YOUR REPORT. THAT IS THE EVIDENCE WHETHER PRESIDENT 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 ELECTION. THIS STARTS AT VOLUME 2, PAGE 123. YOUR OFFICE GOT INDICTMENTS AGAINST MANAFORT AND TRUMP DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER RICK GATES IN TWO DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>AND YOUR OFFICE FOUND THAT AFTER A GRAND JURY INDICTED THEM, MANAFORT TOLD GATES NOT TO PLEAD GUILTY TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ANY CHARGES BECAUSE, QUOTE, HE HAD TALKED TO THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL COUNSEL AND THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF US. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S ACCURATE.>>AND ONE DAY 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, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FLIP?>>HAVE SOMEBODY COOPERATE IN A CREDIBLE INVESTIGATION.>>AND HOW ESSENTIAL IS THAT COOPERATION TO ANY EFFORTS TO COMBAT CRIME?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GO BEYOND THAT CHARACTERIZING THAT EFFORT.>>THANK YOU. IN YOUR REPORT, YOU CONCLUDED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS COUNSEL RUDY GIULIANI MADE REPEATED STATEMENTS THAT A PARDON WAS A POSSIBILITY FOR MANAFORT WHILE ALSO MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT WANT MANAFORT TO FLIP AND COOPERATE WITH THE GOVERNMENT. END QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>AND WITNESS TAMPERING CAN BE SHOWN WHERE SOMEONE WITH AN IMPROPER MOTIVE ENCOURAGES ANOTHER PERSON NOT TO COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>NOW, ON PAGE 123 OF VOLUME 2, YOU ALSO DISCUSSED THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVE. AND YOU SAY THAT AS COURT PROCEEDINGS MOVE FORWARD AGAINST MANAFORT, PRESIDENT TRUMP, QUOTE, DISCUSSED WITH AIDES WHETHER AND IN WHAT WAY MANAFORT MIGHT BE COOPERATING AND WHETHER MANAFORT KNEW ANY INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE PRESIDENT, END QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT WAS A QUOTE FROM — >>FROM PAGE 123, VOLUME 2. >>YES.>>WHEN SOMEONE TRIES TO STOP ANOTHER PERSON FROM WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY’RE WORRIED WHAT THAT PERSON WILL SAY, IT SEEMS CLEAR FROM WHAT YOU WROTE THAT THIS IS A CLASSIC DEFINITION OF WITNESS TAMPERING. NOW, MR. MANAFORT DID EVENTUALLY DECIDE TO COOPERATE WITH YOUR OFFICE AND HE ENTERED INTO A PLEA AGREEMENT. BUT THEN HE 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.>>SO ON PAGE 127 OF VOLUME 2, YOU TOLD THE COURT THAT MR. MANAFORT LIED ABOUT A NUMBER OF MATTERS THAT WERE MATERIAL TO THE INVESTIGATION. AND YOU SAID THAT MANAFORT’S LAWYERS ALSO, QUOTE, REGULARLY BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYERS ON TOPICS DISCUSSED AND THE INFORMATION THAT MANAFORT HAD PROVIDED IN INTERVIEWS WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT?>>AND THE SOURCE OF THAT IS?>>THAT’S PAGE 127, VOLUME 2. >>IF IT’S FROM THE REPORT, I SUPPORT IT.>>THANK YOU. TWO DAYS AFTER YOU TOLD THE COURT THAT MANAFORT BROKE HIS PLEA AGREEMENT BY LYING REPEATEDLY, DID MR. TRUMP TELL THE PRESS THAT MR. MANAFORT WAS, QUOTE, VERY BRAVE BECAUSE HE DID NOT FLIP.>>IF IT’S IN THE REPORT, I SUPPORT IT AS IT IS SET FORTH.>>THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER, IN YOUR REPORT YOU MAKE A VERY SERIOUS CONCLUSION ABOUT THE EVIDENCE RATHERING THE PRESIDENT’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE MANAFORT PROCEEDINGS. LET ME READ TO YOU FROM YOUR REPORT. EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT TOWARD MANAFORT INDICATES THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE MANAFORT TO NOT COOPERATE WITH THE GOVERNMENT. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT BOTH PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY DISCOURAGED MR. MANAFORT’S COOPERATION OR FLIPPING WHILE ALSO DANGLING THE PROMISE OF A PARDON IF HE STAYED LOYAL AND DID NOT SHARE WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. ANYONE ELSE WHO DID THESE THINGS WOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR THEM. WE MUST ENSURE THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. YIELD BACK.>>GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER. I’M OVER HERE. SORRY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE NOW-EXPIRED INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE? IT’S THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH KEN STARR WAS APPOINTED.>>THAT KEN STARR DID WHAT? I’M SORRY. >>ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE?>>ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ONE WE’RE OPERATING UNDER NOW OR PREVIOUS?>>NO, UNDER WHICH KEN STARR WAS APPOINTED.>>I’M NOT BUT I’D BE HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR QUESTION.>>WELL, IT 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 FINAL REPORT REQUIREMENT. AND I’LL QUOTE A.G. RENO. SHE SAID, ON ONE HAND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE AN INTEREST IN KNOWING THE OUTCOME OF AN INVESTIGATION OF THEIR HIGHEST OFFICIALS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REPORT REQUIREMENT CUTS AGAINST MANY OF THE MOST BASIC TRADITIONS AND PRACTICES OF AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT. UNDER OUR SYSTEM, WE PRESUME INNOCENCE AND WE VALUE PRIVACY. WE BELIEVE THAT INFORMATION SHOULD IN MOST CASES BE MADE PUBLIC IF THERE’S AN INDICTMENT OR PROSECUTION, NOT ANY LENGTHY AND DETAILED REPORT FILED AFTER A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE NOT TO PROSECUTE. THE FINAL REPORT PROVIDES A FORUM FOR UNFAIRLY AIRING A TARGET’S DIRTY LAUNDRY. IT ALSO CREATES ANOTHER INCENTIVE FOR AN 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. DIDN’T YOU DO EXACTLY WHAT SHE FEARED? DIDN’T YOU PUBLISH A LENGTHY REPORT UNFAIRLY AIRS THE DIRTY LAUNDRY WITHOUT RECOMMENDING CHARGES?>>I DISAGREE WITH THAT.>>DID ANY OF YOUR WITNESSES HAVE THE CHANCE TO BE CROSS EXAMINED?>>CAN I JUST FINISH MY ANSWER ON THAT?>>QUICKLY.>>I OPERATE UNDER THE CURRENT SCHOOUT. NOT THE ORIGINAL STATUTE. SO I AM MOST FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENT STATUTE.>>DID ANY OF THE WITNESSES HAVE A CHANCE TO BE CROSS EXAMINED?>>DID ANY OF THE WITNESSES IN OUR INVESTIGATION?>>YES.>>I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT.>>DID YOU ALLOW THE PEOPLE MENTIONED IN YOUR REPORT TO CHALLENGE HOW THEY WERE CHARACTERIZED?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT.>>GIVEN THAT A.G. BARR STATED MULTIPLE TIMES DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING THAT HE WOULD MAKE AS MUCH OF YOUR REPORT PUBLIC AS POSSIBLE, DID YOU WRITE YOUR REPORT KNOWING IT WOULD LIKELY BE SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC?>>NO.>>DID KNOWING THE REPORT COULD AND LIKELY WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC, DID THAT ALTER THE CONTENTS WHICH YOU INCLUDED?>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.>>DESPITE THE EXPECTATIONS THAT YOUR REPORT WOULD BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, YOU LEFT OUT SIGNIFICANT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT, CORRECT?>>ACTUALLY, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU. I THINK WE STROVE TO PUT INTO THE REPORT EXCULPATORY — >>WHERE YOU SAID — YOU SAID THERE WAS EVIDENCE YOU LEFT OUT.>>YOU MAKE A CHOICE AS TO WHAT GOES INTO AN INDICTMENT.>>ISN’T IT TRUE THAT ON PAGE ONE OF VOLUME TWO, YOU STATE WHEN YOU’RE QUOTING THE STATUTE, THE OBLIGATION TO EITHER PROSECUTE OR NOT PROSECUTE.>>GENERALLY THAT IS THE CASE. ALTHOUGH MOST CASES ARE NOT DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESIDENT.>>AND IN THIS CASE YOU MADE A DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE, CORRECT?>>NO, WE MADE A DECISION NOT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO PROSECUTE OR NOT.>>SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOUR REPORT DID WAS EVERYTHING THAT A.G. RENO WARNED AGAINST.>>I CAN’T AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION.>>WELL, WHAT YOU DID IS COMPILED A NEARLY 450 — YOU COMPILED NEARLY 450 PAGES OF THE WORST EVIDENCE YOU GATHERED AGAINST THE TARGET OF YOUR INVESTIGATION WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND YOU DID THIS KNOWING YOU WERE NOT GOING TO RECOMMEND CHARGES AND THE REPORT WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC. >>NOT TRUE.>>MR. MUELLER, AS A FORMER OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES J.A.G. CORPS, I PROSECUTED IN A BAGHDAD COURTROOM AND FOR OUR NAVY S.E.A.L.s. SO I’M VERY WELL VERSED IN THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM. THE DRAFTING IN THE PUBLICATION OF SOME OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT WITHOUT AN INDICTMENT, WITHOUT PROSECUTION, FRANKLY FLIES IN THE FACE OF AMERICAN JUSTICE. AND I FIND THOSE FACTS OF THIS ENTIRE PROCESS UN-AMERICAN. I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME TO JIM JORDAN. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE THIRD RENEWAL HAPPENS A MONTH AFTER YOU’RE NAMED SPECIAL COUNSEL. DID THAT DEAL WITH — >>I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT.>>TIME HAS EXPIRED.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES RIGHT HERE WANTED TO TALK TO YOU OR ASK YOU ABOUT LIES. SO LET’S TALK ABOUT LIES. ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT PAGE 9 VOLUME 1, WITNESSES LIED TO YOUR OFFICE AND TO CONGRESS. THOSE LIES MATERIALLY IMPAIRED THE INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIA INTERFERENCE ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT. OTHER THAN THE INDIVIDUALS WHO PLED GUILTY TO CRIMES BASED ON THEIR LYING TO YOU AND YOUR TEAM, DID OTHER WITNESSES LIE TO YOU?>>I THINK THERE PROBABLY ARE A SPECTER OF WITNESSES IN TERMS OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT TELLING THE FULL TRUTH. AND THOSE ARE OUTRIGHT LIARS.>>THANK YOU. OUTRIGHT LIARS. IT IS FAIR TO SAY THEN THAT THERE WERE LIMITS ON WHAT EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE TO YOUR INVESTIGATION OF BOTH RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.>>THAT’S TRUE AND USUALLY THE CASE.>>AND THAT LIES BY TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS IMPEDED YOUR INVESTIGATION.>>I WOULD GENERALLY AGREE WITH THAT.>>THANK YOU SO MUCH, DIRECTOR MUELLER. YOU WILL BE HEARING MORE FROM ME IN THE NEXT HEARING SO I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO MR. KOREA. THANK YOU.>>MR. MUELLER, FIRST OF ALL LET ME WELCOME YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. YOU’RE A HERO. VIETNAM WAR VET. WOUNDED WAR VET. WE WON’T FORGET YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.>>THANK YOU, SIR.>>I MAY BEGIN BECAUSE OF TIME LIMITS WE’VE GONE IN DEPTH ONLY ON FIVE POSSIBLE EPISODES OF OBSTRUCTION. THERE’S SO MUCH MORE. AND I WANT THE FOCUS ON ANOTHER SECTION OF OBSTRUCTION WHICH IS THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT CONCERNING MICHAEL FLYNN. THE PRESIDENT’S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER. IN EARLY 27, THE INFORMED THAT MR. FLYNN HAD LIED TO GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES ABOUT HIS COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR DURING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN TRANSITION. IS THIS CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>IF A HOSTILE NATION KNOWS THAT A U.S. OFFICIAL HAS LIED PUBLICLY, THAT CAN BE USED TO BLACKMAIL THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, CORRECT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. I DON’T AGREE NECESSARILY BUT I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK ANY MORE TO THAT ISSUE.>>THANK YOU. FLYNN RESIGNED IN 2016. THE VERY NEXT DAY WHEN THE PRESIDENT WAS HAVING LUNCH WITH NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE, DID THE PRESIDENT SAY, OPEN QUOTES, NOW THAT WE FIRED FLYNN THE RUSSIA THING IS OVER, CLOSED QUOTE? IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>AND IS IT TRUE THAT CHRISTIE RESPONDED BY SAYING, OPEN QUOTES, NO WAY. THIS RUSSIA THING IS FAR FROM OVER, CLOSED QUOTE.>>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 ARRANGED TO MEET WITH THEN-FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY. ALONE IN THE OVAL OFFICE, CORRECT?>>CORRECT. PARTICULARLY AT THE — YOU HAVE THE CITATION TO THE PAGE?>>ACCORDING TO COMEY, THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM, OPEN QUOTE, I HOPE YOU CAN SEE YOUR WAY TO CLEAR TO LETTING THIS THING GO, TO LETTING FLYNN GO. HE’S A GOOD GUY AND I HOPE YOU CAN LET IT GO. CLOSED QUOTE. PAGE 40, VOLUME 2.>>ACCURATE.>>WHAT DID COMEY UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT TO BE ASKING?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO WHAT WAS IN MR. COMEY’S MIND. >>COMEY UNDERSTOOD THIS TO BE A DIRECTION BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT’S POSITION AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ONE-TO-ONE MEETING PAGE 40 VOLUME 2.>>I UNDERSTAND IT’S IN THE REPORT. AND I SUPPORT IT AS BEING IN THE REPORT.>>THANK YOU, SIR. EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY DENIED TELLING COMEY TO DROP THE INVESTIGATION, YOU FOUND, OPEN QUOTE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CORROBORATING COMEY’S ACCOUNT OVER THE PRESIDENT’S. IS THIS CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>THE PRESIDENT FIRED COMEY ON MAY 9th, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?>>I BELIEVE THAT’S THE ACCURATE DATE.>>THAT’S PAGE 77, VOLUME 2. YOU FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE CATALYST FOR THE PRESIDENT’S FIRING OF COMEY WAS COMEY’S, OPEN QUOTE, UNWILLINGNESS TO PUBLICLY STATE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT PERSONALLY UNDER INVESTIGATION.>>I’M NOT GOING TO DELVE MORE INTO THE DETAILS OF WHAT HAPPENED. IF IT’S IN THE REPORT, THEN I SUPPORT IT BECAUSE IT’S ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED APPROPRIATELY APPEARS IN THE REPORT.>>AND THAT’S PAGE 75, VOLUME 2.>>THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. IN FACT, THE NEXT DAY, THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER, OPEN QUOTE, I JUST FIRED THE HEAD OF THE FBI. IT WAS CRAZY, A REAL NUTJOB. I FACE GREAT PRESSURE BECAUSE OF RUSSIA. THAT’S TAKEN OFF. I’M NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION, CLOSED QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE REPORT, YES.>>TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED.>>THANK YOU, SIR.>>GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, WE’VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT WHAT YOU’RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT TODAY. SO LET’S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT. THE LAW ITSELF. THE UNDERLYING OBSTRUCTION STATUTE AND YOUR CREATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTES IN VOLUME TWO. PARTICULARLY YOUR INTERPRETATION OF 1512-C. SECTION 15-12-C IS A STATUTE CREATED AS PART OF AUDITING FINANCIAL REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC COMPANIES. AS YOU WRITE ON PAGE 164 OF VOLUME 2, THIS WAS PROVIDED AS A FLOOR AMENDMENT AND CLOSED A LOOPHOLE WITH DOCUMENT SLEDDING. ALSO ALTERS, DROIS A DOCUMENT OR OTHER TO IMPAIR THE OBJECT’S INTEGRITY OR AVAILABILITY FOR A OFFICIAL PROCEEDING. OTHER THAN IF STRZOK’S ATTEMPTS TO DO SO SHALL BE FINED NOT MORE THAN 20 YEARS OR BOTH. THE ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE PROPOSES TO GIVE CLAUSE TWO A MUCH BORDER INTERPRETATION THAN COMMONLY USED. FIRST PROPOSED TO READ IT AS A FREE STANDING PROVISION PROHIBITING ANY ACT INFLUENCING A PROCEEDING IF DONE WITH AN IMPROPER MOTIVE. AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTE. TAKEN BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS EXERCISING THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWERS. IF THOSE ACTS INFLUENCE A PROCEEDING. SO MR. MUELLER, I’D ASK YOU IN ANALYZING THE OBSTRUCTION, YOU STATE THAT YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE COURTS HAVE NOT RESOLVED THESE ISSUES, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>YOU’D AGREE NOT EVERYONE IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AGREED WITH YOUR LEGAL OPINION, CORRECT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION ON THAT AT THIS JUNCTURE.>>IN FACT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HIMSELF DISAGREES WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, CORRECT?>>I LEAVE THAT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO IDENTIFY.>>YOU WOULD AGREE THAT PROSECUTORS SOMETIMES IMPROPERLY ADHERE TO THE LAW.>>I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT ONE.>>THEY WERE BASED ON AN INCORRECT LEGAL THATTER ARE I. >>WE’VE ALL SPENT TIME IN THE TRENCHES TRYING CASING. NOT WON EVERY ONE OF THOSE CASES.>>ONE OF YOUR TOP PROSECUTORS AGAINST ARTHUR ANDERSON LOWER COURT WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED AND A UNANIMOUS PURCHASE.>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT — MAY I JUST FINISH? MAY I JUST FINISH MY ANSWER?>>YES. >>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION ON THAT. I WILL REFER YOU TO THAT CITATION THAT YOU GAVE ME AT THE OUTSET FOR THE LENGTHY DISCUSSION ON JUST WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT AND TO THE EXTENT I HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT, IT IS WHAT WE’VE ALREADY PUT INTO THE REPORT ON THAT.>>I AM READING FROM YOUR REPORT WHEN DISCUSSING THIS SECTION. I’LL READ FROM THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT UNANIMOUSLY REVERSING MR.WISE MAN WHEN HE SAID IT’S STRIKING HOW LITTLE IT’S REQUIRED. EVEN A — INSTRUCTIONS ALSO DILUTED THE MEANING OF SKRUPTLY SUCH THAT IT COVERED INNOCENT CONDUCT.>>LET ME JUST SAY — >>LET ME MOVE ON. I HAVE LIMITED TIME. YOU TAKE THE BROADEST POSSIBLE PROVISION AND APPIED IT. I’M CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR OVER CRIMINALIZING CONDUCT BY OFFICIALS AND PRIVATE CITIZENS ALIKE. TO EMPHASIZE HOW BROAD IT IS, I WANT TO ASK A FEW EXAMPLES. IN 2015 DURING THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE HILLARY CLINTON USE OF A PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID I DON’T THINK IT CREATED A NATIONAL SECURITY PROBLEM. COULDN’T PRESIDENT OBAMA BE CHARGED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?>>I REFER AGAIN TO THE REPORT. BUT WITH ANDREW WEISMAN, HE’S ONE OF THE MORE TALENTED ATTORNEYS WE’VE HAD OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. HE HAS RUN A NUMBER OF UNITS — >>I HAVE VERY LIMITED TIME. IN AUGUST 2015, A VERY SENIOR DOJ OFFICIAL CALLED FBI DIRECTOR ANDREW McCABE INTRODUCING CONCERN THEY AARE — ARE YOU TELLING ME TO SHUT DOWN AN INVESTIGATION TO WHICH THE OFFICIAL REPLIED OF COURSE NOT. THIS SEEMS TO BE SOMEBODY WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO INTERFERE WITH THIS. COULDN’T THAT PERSON HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH. OBSTRUCTION.>>I REFER TO YOU TO OUR LENGTHY DISSERTATION ON EXACTLY THOSE ISSUES THAT APPEARS AT THE OND THE REPORT.>>IT SAYS ABOVE THE — >>TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. OUR INTENT WAS TO CONCLUDE THIS HEARING IN THREE HOURS. GIVEN THE BREAK THAT WOULD BRING US TO APPROXIMATELY 11:40. WE WILL ASK OUR REMAINING DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS TO VOLUNTARILY LIMIT THEIR TIME BELOW THE FIVE MINUTES SO WE CAN COMPLETE OUR WORK AS CLOSE TO THAT TIME FRAME AS POSSIBLE. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLELADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA.>>THANK YOU. I WANT TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS REGARDING ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THE WIKILEAKS DUMPS. SO THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO SIT DOWN WITH YOUR INVESTIGATORS FOR AN IN-PERSON INTERVIEW, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>SO THE ONLY QUESTIONS WE HAVE FROM THE PRESIDENT ARE CONTAINED IN APPENDIX C TO YOUR REPORT.>>THAT’S CORRECT. >>SO LOOKING AT APPENDIX C ON PAGE FIVE, YOU ASKED THE PRESIDENT OVER A DOZEN QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT WIKILEAKS POSSESSED OR MIGHT POSSESS THE EMAILS THAT WERE STOLEN BY THE RUSSIANS.>>I APOLOGIZE KPP YOU START IT AGAIN?>>OKAY. SURE. SO WE’RE LOOKING AT APPENDIX C.>>RIGHT.>>AND APPENDIX C, PAGE 5 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, YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS?>>YES.>>OKAY. IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, MR. TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFIED TO CONGRESS, QUOTE, MR. TRUMP KNEW FROM ROGER STONE IN ADVANCE ABOUT THE WIKILEAKS DUMP. END QUOTE. THAT’S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. >>ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE REPORT OR SOME OTHER RECORD?>>THIS IS TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS.>>I’M NOT SPECIFICALLY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO BEFORE CONGRESS.>>OKAY. LET’S LOOK AT AN EVENT DESCRIBED ON PAGE 18 OF VOLUME 2 OF YOUR REPORT. AND WE’RE GOING TO PUT IT UP IN A SLIDE, I THINK. ACCORDING TO DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER RICK GATES IN THE SUMMER OF 2016 HE AND CANDIDATE TRUMP WERE ON THE WAY TO THE AIRPORT AND GATES TOLD YOUR INVESTIGATORS THAT CANDIDATE TRUMP WAS ON A PHONE CALL AND WHEN THE CALL ENDED, TRUMP TOLD GATES THAT MORE RELEASES OF DAMAGING INFORMATION WOULD BE COMING, END QUOTE. DO YOU RECALL THAT FROM THE REPORT?>>IF IT’S IN THE REPORT, I SUPPORT IT.>>OKAY. AND THAT’S ON PAGE 18 OF VOLUME 2. NOW, ON PAGE 77 OF VOLUME 2, YOUR REPORT ALSO STATED, QUOTE, IN ADDITION TO SOME KWNSS SAID THAT TRUMP PRIVATELY SOUGHT WIKILEAKS PIECES IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT. >>IN APPENDIX C, HE SAID, QUOTE, I DO NOT RECALL DISCUSSING WIKILEAKS WITH HIM M. DOESING WITH INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH MU CAMPAIGN.>>IF IT’S FROM THE REPORT, IT IS CORRECT. >>IS IT FAIR TO DENY BEING AWARE THAT ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAMPAIGN DISCUSSED WITH STONE.>>COULD YOU REPEAT THAT ONE?>>IS IT FAIR THAT THE PRESIDENT DENIED KNOWLEDGE OF HIMSELF OR ANYONE ELSE DISCUSSING WIKILEAKS DUMPS WITH MR. STONE?>>YEP.>>AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.>>THANK YOU, MA’AM.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. MUELLER, DID YOU APPLY FOR THE JOB A DAY BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED. ZBLIFS NOT APPLYING FOR THE JOB. I WAS ASKED TO GIVE MY INPUT ON WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THE JOB WHICH TRIGGERED THE INTERVIEW YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.>>SO YOU DON’T RECALL ON MAY 16th, 2017, THAT YOU INTERVIEWED WITH THE PRESIDENT REGARDING THE FBI DIRECTOR JOB.>>I INTERVIEWED WITH THE PRESIDENT. NOT ABOUT ME APPLYING IF THEY ARE JOB.>>SO YOUR STATEMENT HERE TODAY IS YOU DIDN’T INTERVIEW TO APPLY FOR THE FBI DIRECTOR JOB?>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>SO DID YOU TELL THE FBI DIRECTOR POSITION WOULD BE THE ONE JOB YOU WOULD COME BACK FOR?>>I DON’T RECALL THAT ONE.>>YOU DON’T RECALL THAT, OKAY. GIVEN YOUR 22 MONTHS OF INVESTIGATION, TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT, AND MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS, DID YOU SAY RUSSIANS CHANGED VOTERS.>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.>>THERE’S NO VOTER CHANGE CHANGED BECAUSE OF THEIR INTERFERENCE. I’M ASKED BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAD.>>THAT WAS OUTSIDE OUR PURVIEW. THE BAKT OF THAT MEDDLING WAS UNDERTAKEN BY OTHER AGENCIES.>>OKAY. YOU STATED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU WOULD NOT GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THE STEELE DOSSIER, HOWEVER, MANY SOMETIMES ON PAGE 23, 27, AND 28 YOU MENTIONED THE UNVERIFIED ALLEGATIONS. HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS UNVERIFIED.>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT.>>IT’S ACTUALLY IN YOUR REPORT MULTIPLE TIMES THAT IT’S UNVERIFIED AND YOU’RE TELLING ME YOU’RE NOT WILLING TO TELL US TO HOW YOU CAME TO SAY IT WAS UNVERIFIED. ?>>TRUE.>>WHEN DID YOU DECIDE IT WAS UNVERIFIED TO SPY ON CARTER PAGE?>>I’M SORRY. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?>>WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE THAT THE UNVERIFIED STEELE DOSSIER WAS INCLUDED IN THE FISA APPLICATION TO SPY ON CARTER PAGE.>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT.>>YOUR TEAM INTERVIEWED CHRISTOPHER SALE, IS THAT CORRECT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT.>>YOU CAN’T TELL THIS COMMITTEE WHETHER YOU INTERVIEWED HIM?>>AT THE OUTSET, I SAID THIS IS ONE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT IS BEING HANDLED BY OTHERS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.>>BUT YOU’RE HERE TESTIFYING ABOUT THIS TODAY AND I’M ASKING YOU DIRECTLY DID ANY MEMBER OF YOUR TEAM OR DID YOU INTERVIEW CHRISTOPHER SEAL?>>AND I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, SIR. >>YOU HAD TWO YEARS TO INVESTIGATE. NOT ONCE TO INVESTIGATE HOW UNVERIFIED DOCUMENT THAT WAS PAID FOR BY A POLITICAL OPPONENT WAS USED TO OBTAIN A WARRANT TO SPY ON THE OPPOSITION POLITICAL COME PAIN. DID YOU DO ANY INVESTIGATION ON THAT?>>I DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT OCCURRED.>>WHAT WOULD BE YOUR CHARACTERIZATION?>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK ANY MORE TO IT. >>SO YOU’RE NOT GOING TO SPEAK ANY MORE TO IT BUT DON’T AGREE WITH MY CHARACTERIZATION. IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES.>>THE FISA APPLICATION MAKES REFERENCE TO SOURCE ONE WHO IS CHRISTOPHER STEELE. THE FISA APPLICATION SAYS CONDUCTING THE RESEARCH INTO CANDIDATE TIES TO RUSSIA BASED ON SOURCES REPORTING HISTORY WITH FBI WHEREBY SOURCE ONE PROVIDED RELIABLE INFORMATION TO THE FBI. THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE CREDIBLE. DO YOU THINK THE REPRESENTATION THAT IT WAS CREDIBLE TO BE ACCURATE.>>I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT.>>SO YOU’RE NOT GOING TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS REGARDING CHRISTOPHER STEELE OR YOUR INTERVIEWS WITH THEM?>>AS I SAID AT THE OUTSET THIS MORNING, THAT WAS ONE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT I COULD NOT SPEAK TO.>>WELL, I DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW IF YOU INTERVIEWED AN INDIVIDUAL ON THE PURVIEW OF THIS INVESTIGATION THAT YOU’RE TESTIFYING TO US TODAY THAT YOU’VE CLOSED THAT INVESTIGATION, HOW THAT’S NOT WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TO TELL US ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION AND HOW YOU INTERVIEWED.>>I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.>>OKAY. WELL, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW. AND I’M VERY HOPEFUL AND GLAD THAT A.G. BARR IS LOOKING INTO THIS AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS LOOKING INTO THIS BECAUSE YOU’RE UNWILLING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS IT RELATES TO THE BASIS OF THIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT. AND THE VERY BASIS OF THIS INDIVIDUAL WHO YOU DID INTERVIEW. YOU’RE JUST REFUSING TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. CAN’T THE PRESIDENT FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR AT ANY TIME WITHOUT REASON UNDER ARTICLE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION?>>YES.>>ARTICLE TWO.>>YES.>>THAT’S CORRECT. CAN’T HE FIRE YOU WITHOUT ANY REASON?>>I BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE CASE.>>WITHOUT ANY REASON. >>WELL, HOLD ON. YOU SAID WITHOUT ANY REASON. I KNOW SPECIAL COUNSEL CAN BE FIRED BUT I’M NOT SURE IT EXTENDS TO WHATEVER REASON.>>YOU’VE TESTIFIED YOU WEREN’T FIRED. YOU WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION IN FULL, IS THAT CORRECT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO ADD TO WHAT I’VE STATED BEFORE.>>MY TIME’S EXPIRED.>>THE GENTLELADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA. FROM TEXAS.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER FOR BEING WITH US CLOSE TO THE AFTERNOON NOW. DIRECTOR MOOUL WE ARE I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S ANSWERS RELATING TO ROGER STONE. ROGER STONE WAS INDICTED FOR MULTIPLE SEVERAL CRIMES ALLEGED THAT FUTURE RELEASES WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. UNDERSTANDING THERE’S A GAS ORDER ON THE STONE CASE, I WILL KEEP MY QUESTIONS LIMITED.>>LET ME JUST SAY AT THE OUTSET, I DON’T MEAN TO DISRUPT YOU, BUT I’M NOT — I WOULD LIKE THE DEMARCATION OF THAT WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THIS BUT ALSO IN SUCH A WAY IT DOES HINDER THE OTHER PROSECUTION TAKING PLACE.>>I UNDERSTAND THAT. I’M ONLY GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED IN WRITING TO THE PRESIDENT THAT RELATE TO MR. STONE.>>THANK YOU, MA’AM.>>MR. STONE’S INDICTMENT STATES AMONG OTHER THINGS THE FOLLOWING. STONE WAS CONTACTED BY SENIOR TRUMP OFFICIALS, THE ABOUT FUTURE RELEASES OF ORGANIZATION ONE. ORGANIZATION ONE BEING WIKILEAKS. THE INDICTMENT CONTINUES, QUOTE, STONE TOLD THE CAMPAIGN ABOUT 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?>>YES, MA’AM. BUT I SEE ACCORDING TO FROM THE INDICTMENT AND EVEN THOUGH THE INDICTMENT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT, I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE DISCUSSING ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE STONE PROSECUTION.>>RIGHT. THE INDICTMENT IS OF RECORD AND WE PULLED IT OFF OF THE — I’M READING STRAIGHT FROM IT. WELL, TURNING BACK TO THE PRESIDENT’S ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS THEN. ON THIS VERY SUBJECT, THE PRESIDENT EVER DISCUSSING RELEASES WITH STONE. AND DENIED WHETHER ANYONE ON HIS CAMPAIGN HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH STONE. IF YOU HAD LEARNED THAT OTHER WITNESSES PUTTING ASIDE THE PRESIDENT, IF OTHER WITNESSES HAD LIED TO YOUR INVESTIGATORS IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. WHETHER IN WRITING OR IN AN INTERVIEW. WOULD THEY BE CHARGED WITH FALSE STATEMENT CRIMES?>>WELL, I’M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE. I THINK YOU’RE ASKING FOR ME TO SPECULATE GIVEN A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.>>LET’S GO MORE SPECIFIC. COULD GUY TO JAIL FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS?>>YES. ALTHOUGH IT’S CONGRESS, SO.>>WELL, THAT’S THE POINT, THOUGH, ISN’T IT? THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.>>THAT’S TRUE. >>NOT YOU. NOT THE CONGRESS. AND CERTAINLY NOT THE PRESIDENT. AND I THINK IT’S JUST TROUBLING TO HAVE TO HEAR SOME OF THESE THINGS AND THAT’S WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO LEARN THE FULL FACTS OF THE MISCONDUCT DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT FOR WHICH ANY OTHER PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH CRIMES. SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND AGAIN, THE POINT HAS BEEN UNDERSCORED MANY TIMES BUT I’LL REPEAT IT, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU, MA’AM. >>THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA IS RECOGNIZED.>>MR. MUELLER, HOW MANY PEOPLE ON YOUR STAFF DID YOU FIRE DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION?>>HOW MANY PEOPLE — >>DID YOU FIRE?>>I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THAT.>>YOU FIRED — ACCORDING TO INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT, ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO WAS LET GO AND WE KNOW PETER STRZOK WAS LET GO, CORRECT?>>AND THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER PERSONS ON OTHER ISSUES EITHER TRANSFERRED OR FIRED.>>PETER STRZOK TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE IN 2018 THAT HE WAS FIRED BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT PRESERVING THE APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE. DO YOU AGREE?>>SAY THAT AGAIN?>>HE SAID HE WAS FIRED AT LEAST PARTIALLY BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT PRESERVING THE APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT?>>THE STATEMENT WAS BY WHOM?>>PETER STRZOK AT THIS HEARING.>>I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.>>DID YOU FIRE HIM BECAUSE YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE?>>NO. HE WAS TRANSFERRED AS A RESULT OF INSTANCES INVOLVING TEXTS.>>DO YOU AGREE THAT YOUR OFFICE DID NOT ONLY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO OPERATE WITHIN THE APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE SWELL?>>YES. WE STRUGGLED TO DO THAT OVER THE TWO YEARS. PART OF DOING THAT WAS — >>ANDREW WEISMAN IS ONE OF YOUR TOP ATTORNEYS?>>YES.>>DID HE HAVE A ROLE FOR SELECTING OTHER ATTORNEYS?>>HE HAD SOME ROLL.>>DON’T KNOW WHEN I FOUND THAT OUT.>>ON JANUARY 30th, 2017, WEISMAN WROTE AN EMAIL TO DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL YATES STATING I AM SO PROUD AND IN AWE WITH HER DISOBEYING A DIRECT ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT. DID HE DISCLOSE THAT EMAIL TO YOU. >>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. >>IS THAT NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?>>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT.>>ARE YOU AWARE THAT MISS JEANNE REE REPRESENTED HILLARY CLINTON DURING THE TIME OF THE EMAILS DURING HER TIME — >>YES.>>AARON SEB ZEBLEY DESTROYED ONE OF CLINTON’S MOBILE DEVICES AND YOU MUST BE AWARE BY NOW 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 DONATIONS TO THE OPPONENT WHO WAS THE TARGET OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?>>CAN I SPEAK FOR A MOMENT TO THE HIRING PRACTICES?>>SURE.>>WE STROVE TO HIRE INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD DO THE JOJ. I’VE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS FOR ALMOST 25 YEARS. IN THOSE 25 YEARS I’VE NOT HAD OCCASION ONCE TO ASK ABOUT SOMEBODY’S POLITICAL AFFILIATION. IT IS NOT DONE. WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS THE CAPE NLT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO DO THE JOB AND DO THE JOB SERIOUSLY AND QUICKLY AND WITH INTEGRITY. >>THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING. THIS ISN’T JUST ABOUT YOU BEING ABLE TO VOUCH FOR YOUR TEAM. THAT THIS IS ABOUT NO MATTER WHAT THIS REPORT CONCLUDED, HALF ARE GOING TO BE SKEPTICAL. THAT’S WHY WE HAVE RECUSAL LAWS. SPECIFICALLY LIST TS NOT JUST POLITICAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST BUT THE APPEARANCE OF POLITICAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. IT’S JUST SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH YOU VOUCH FOR YOUR TEAM. DEMANDS THAT NO PERCEIVED BIAS EXISTS. I CAN’T IMAGINE A SINGLE PROSECUTOR OR JUDGE THAT I’VE APPEARED IN FRONT OF WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE HALF OF THE PROSECUTORIAL TEAM HAD A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE OPPONENT OF THE PERSON BEING INVESTIGATED.>>WE HIRED 19 LAWYERS OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME. OF THOSE, 14 OF THEM WERE TRANSFERRED FROM ELSEWHERE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. ONLY FIVE CAME FROM OUTSIDE. WE — >>AND HAD NOT HAD A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OPPONENT OF THE PERSON YOU WERE INVESTIGATING. THAT’S MY POINT. I WONDER IF NOT A SINGLE WORD IN THIS ENTIRE REPORT WAS CHANGED BUT RATHER THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS WE SWITCHED HILLARY CLINTON AND PRESIDENT TRUMP. IF PETER STRZOK HAD TWEETED THOSE THINGS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON INSTEAD OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. IF THEY WENT TO TRUMP’S — 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. THEY WOULD STILL BE ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIA. AND WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.>>THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. I’D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE EVIDENCE IN YOUR REPORT SHOWING THE PRESIDENT DIRECTING HIS SON AND COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR TO ISSUE A FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENT IN JUNE OF 2017 ABOUT A MEETING BETWEEN HIS CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIAN INDIVIDUALS AT TRUMP TOWER IN JUNE OF 2016. ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, MR. TRUMP JR. WAS THE ONLY TRUMP ASSOCIATE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THAT MEETING AND WHO DECLINED TO BE VOLUNTARILY INTERVIEWED BY YOUR OFFICE. IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES.>>DID MR. TRUMP JR. OR HIS COUNSEL EVER COMMUNICATE TO YOUR OFFICE ANY INTENT TO INVOKE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION?>>I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT.>>YOU DID POSE WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING. YOU INCLUDED — ALSO ASKED HIM ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD DIRECTED A FALSE STATEMENT.>>I DON’T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. I TAKE YOUR WORD.>>I CAN REPRESENT TO YOU THAT C-13 STATES AS MUCH. ACCORDING TO PAGE 100 OF VOLUME 2, YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND HOPE HICKS IN JUNE OF 2017 WAS SHOWN EMAILS THAT SET UP THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING. AND SHE TOLD YOUR OFFICE THAT SHE WAS, QUOTE, SHOCKED BY THEM DETAILS.>>YOU HAVE THE CITATION?>>SURE. PAGE 100 OF VOLUME 2. WHILE YOU’RE FLIPPING TO THAT PAGE, I WILL ALSO TELL YOU ORGT PAGE 99 OF VOLUME 2, THOSE EMAILS IN QUESTION STATED ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT THAT RUSSIA HAD OFFERED TO INCRIMINATE HILLARY IN HER DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA AS PART OF RUSSIA AND THE GOVERNMENT’S SUPPORT FOR MR. TRUMP. TRUMP JR. RESPONDED IF IT’S WHAT YOU SAY, I LOVE IT. AND HE KUSHNER AND MONTH FORT MET WITH THE M — ON JUNE 9th, 2016. CORRECT?>>GENERALLY ACCURATE. ISN’T IT TRUE THAW MISS HICKS TOLD YOUR OFFICE THAT HE WENT MULL PL TIMES TO THE PRESIDENT TO, QUOTE, URGE HIM THAT THEY SHOULD BE FULLY TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE JUNE 9th MEETING, END QUOTE. BUT THE PRESIDENT EACH TIME SAID NO. CORRECT?>>ACCURATE.>>AND THE REASON WAS BECAUSE OF THOSE EMAILS WHICH THE PRESIDENT, QUOTE, BELIEVED WOULD NOT LEAK. CORRECT?>>WELL, I’M NOT CERTAIN HOW IT’S CHARACTERIZED, BUT GENERALLY CORRECT.>>DID THE PRESIDENT DIRECT MISS HICKS TO SAY, QUOTE, ONLY TRUMP JR. BECAUSE HIS AT THE SAME TIME CRUSHED.>>LET ME JUST CHECK ONE THING. YES.>>AND ACCORDING TO MISS HICKS, THE PRESIDENT STILL DIRECTED HER TO SAY THE MEETING WAS ONLY ABOUT RUSSIAN ADOPTION, CORRECT?>>YES.>>DESPITE KNOWING THAT TO BE UNTRUE. THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK THE AMOUNT OF MY TIME.>>MR. MUELLER, YOU’VE BEEN ASKED — OVER HERE ON THE FAR RIGHT, SIR. YOU’VE BEEN ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS HERE TODAY. TO BE FRANK, YOU’VE PERFORMED AS MOST OF US EXPECTED. YOU’VE STUCK CLOSELY TO YOUR REPORT AND YOU HAVE DECLINED TO ANSWER MANY OF OUR QUESTIONS ON BOTH SIDES. AS THE CLOSER FOR THE REPUBLICAN SIDE — I KNOW YOU’RE GLAD TO GET TO THE CLOSE — I WANT TO SUMMARIZE WHAT WE HAVE HEARD AND WHAT WE KNOW. YOU SPENT TWO YEARS AND NEARLY $30 MILLION IN TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PREPARE A NEARLY 450 PAGE REPORT. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS TODAY MAINTAIN GENUINE CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR WORK BECAUSE OF THE EMPHASIS OF BIAS BETWEEN YOUR MEMBERS. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS LATER SHOWED THAT — EXCUSE ME. IT’S MY TIME. THAT TEAM OF DEMOCRAT INVESTIGATORS YOU HIRED DONATED $60,000 TO THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND OTHER CANDIDATES. YOUR TEAM INCLUDED PETER STYRK AND LISA PAGE TO CONFIRM THEY OPENLY MOCKED AN HATED DONALD TRUMP AND THEY VOWED TO TAKE HIM OUT. MR. RADCLIFF ASKED CAN YOU GIVE AN AN EXAMPLE WHERE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED WHERE AN INVESTIGATIVE PERSON WAS NOT EXONERATED. YOU ANSWERED I CANNOT. THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED. THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED YOU AND YOUR SPECIAL COUNSEL TEAM HAD CONFLICTS. YET, PRESIDENT TRUMP COOPERATED FULLY WITH THE INVESTIGATION. HE KNEW HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG AND HE ENCOURAGED ALL WITNESSES TO COOPERATE AND PRODUCED MORE THAN 1.4 MILLION PAGES OF INFORMATION AND ALLOWED OVER 40 WITNESSES AFFILIATED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE OR HIS CAMPAIGN. YOUR REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES ON PAGE 61 THAT A VOLUME OF EVIDENCE EXISTS OF THE PRESIDENT TELLING ME PEOPLE PRIVATELY, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION ON HIS ABILITIES TO GOVERN AND TO ADDRESS IMPORTANT FOREIGN RELATIONS AND MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY. ON PAGE 174 YOUR REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT’S REMOVAL POWERS ARE AT THEIR ZENITH WITH RESPECT TO PRINCIPAL OFFICERS. THAT IS OFFICERS WHO MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND REPORT TO HIM DIRECTLY. THAT WOULD EVEN INCLUDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IN SPITE OF ALL OF THAT, NOTHING EVER HAPPENED TO STOP OR IMPEDE YOUR SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION. NOBODY WAS FIRED BY THE PRESIDENT. NOTHING WAS CURTAILED AND THE INVESTIGATION CONTINUED FOR 22 LONG MONTHS. THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED IN AN UNDERLYING CRIME RELATING TO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND THE EVIDENCE, QUOTE, DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESIDENT OR THOSE CLOSE TO HIM WERE INVOLVED IN ANY RUSSIAN CONSPIRACIES OR HAD AN UNLAWFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY RUSSIAN OFFICIAL. UNQUOTE. OVER THOSE 22 MONTHS THE PRESIDENT BECAME FRUSTRATED AS MANY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID. HE VENTED TO HIS LAWYER AND CLOSE ASSOCIATES AND SHARED HIS FRUSTRATIONS ON TWITTER. WHILE THE PRESIDENT SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS MIGHT HAVE INFLUENCED SOME IN THE MEDIA OR THE OPINION OF SOME OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NONE OF THOSE AUDIENCES WERE TARGETS OR WITNESSES IN YOUR INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT NEVER AFFECTED ANYBODY’S TESTIMONY. HE NEVER DEMANDED TO END THE INVESTIGATION OR DEMAND YOU BE TERMINATE AND NEVER MISLED CONGRESS, THE DOJ OR THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. THOSE ARE UNDISPUTED FACTS. THERE WILL BE A LOT OF DISCUSS TODAY AND GREAT FRUSTRATION THROUGHOUT THE CAN COUNTRY THAT YOU COULDN’T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THIS CHERADE. AS OUR HEARING IS CONCLUDESING WE WILL GET NO COMMENT ON THAT FROM YOU. MR. MUELLER THERE’S ONE PRIMARY REASON WHY YOU WERE CALLED HERE TODAY AND BY THE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY. OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE JUST WANT POLITICAL COVER. THEY WANTED YOU O TELL THEM THEY SHOULD IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. THE ONE THING YOU HAVE SAID CLEARLY IS YOUR REPORT IS COMPLETE AND THOROUGH AND YOU AGREE WITH AND STAND BY ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALL OF ITS CONTENT. IS THAT RIGHT?>>TRUE.>>YOUR REPORT DOES NOT RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT, DOES IT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT RECOMMENDATIONS.>>IT DOES NOT CONCLUDES THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE HERE?>>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT ISSUE.>>THAT’S ONE OF THE MANY THINGS YOU WON’T TALK ABOUT TODAY. I THINK WE CAN ALL DRAW OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. I DO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I’M GLAD WE CAN GET BACK TO OUR BUSINESS. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.>>OUR INTENT WAS TO CONCLUDE THIS HEARING AT AROUND 11:45. ALL THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS HAVE ASKED THEIR QUESTIONS BUT WE HAVE A FEW REMAINING DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS. THEY WILL BE LIMITING THEIR QUESTIONS SO WITH DIRECTOR MUELLER’S WE WILL FINISH WITHIN 15 MINUTES.>>YOUR INVESTIGATIONS OF THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY AND THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WERE EXTRAORDINARILY PRODUCTIVE. UNDER TWO YEARS YOUR CHARGED 37 PEOPLE WITH CRIMED. YOU CONVICTED FIVE INDIVIDUALS. FIVE OF WHOM WERE TOP TRUMP AIDES. CHARGES REMAIN PENDING AGAINST MORE THAN TWO DOZEN RUSSIAN PERSONS OR ENTENTITIES. LET ME START WITH THE TRUMP AIDES. WOULD YOU AGREE THEY ARE PAUL MANAFORT, PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN MANAGER, RICK GATES, MICHAEL FLYNN, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, MICHAEL COHEN P, THE PERSON’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY. GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, CORRECT.>>CORRECT.>>THE SIXTH TRUMP ASSOCIATE WILL FACE TRIAL LATER THIS YEAR, CORRECT? THAT PERSON WOULD BE ROGER STONE, CORRECT IN. >>CORRECT.>>. >>I’M NOT CERTAIN WHAT YOU SAID BY STONE HE IS IN ANOTHER COURT SYSTEM AS I INDICATED BEFORE.>>EXACTLY. THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WORK THAT YOU DID. IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS, YOUR TEAM WAS ABLE TO UNCOVER AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION RELATED TO RUSSIA’S ATTACK ON OUR ELECTIONS AND TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THERE IS STILL MORE THAT WE HAVE TO LEARN. DESTATE FACING UNFAIR TAKES 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.>>THANK YOU. I’M DISAPPOINTED THAT SOME HAVE QUESTIONED YOUR MOTIVES. I WANT TO REMIND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF WHO YOU ARE AND YOUR EXEMPLARY SERVICE OUR COUNTRY. YOU’RE A MARINE. YOU SERVED IN VIETNAM AND EARNED A BRONZE STAR AND A PURPLE HEART, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>WHICH PRESIDENT APPOINTED YOU TO BECOME THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR MASSACHUSETTS?>>WHICH SENATOR?>>WHICH PRESIDENT?>>I THINK THAT WAS PRESIDENT BUSH.>>ACCORDING TO MY NOTES IT WAS PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN.>>MY MISTAKE.>>UNDER WHOSE ADMINISTRATION DID YOU SERVE AS THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CHARGE OF THE DOJ’S CRIMINAL DIVISION?>>WHICH PRESIDENT?>>YEAH.>>THAT WOULD BE GEORGE BUSH ONE.>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH. AFTER THAT YOU TOOK A JOB AT A PRESTIGIOUS LAW FIRM AND AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS YOU RE-ENTERED PUBLIC SERVICE PROSECUTOR HOMICIDES HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IS THAT CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>WHEN YOU WERE NAMED DIRECTOR OF THE FBI, WHICH PRESIDENT FIRST APPOINTED YOU?>>BUSH.>>THE SENATE CONFIRMED YOU WITH A VOTE OF 98-0, CORRECT?>>SURPRISING.>>YOU WERE SWORN IN AS DIRECTOR JUST ONE WEEK BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 11th ATTACKS.>>TRUE.>>YOU HELPED TO PROTECT THIS NATION AGAINST ANOTHER ATTACK. YOU DID SUCH AN OUTSTANDING JOB THAT WHEN YOUR TEN YEAR TERM EXPIRED THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO EXTEND YOUR TERM FOR TWO YEARS.>>TRUE.>>WHEN YOU WERE ASKED IN 2017 TO TAKE THE JOB AS SPECIAL COUNSEL THE PRESIDENT HAD SKRUS FIRED JAMES COMEY. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FBI WERE IN TURMOIL. YOU MUST HAVE KNOWN THERE WOULD BE AN EXTRAORDINARY CHALLENGE. WHY DID YOU ACCEPT?>>THAT’S A BIT OFF TRACK. IT’S A CHALLENGE.>>SOME PEOPLE HAVE ATTACKED THE POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS OF YOUR TEAM. EVEN SUGGESTED YOUR INVESTIGATION WAS A WITCH HUNT. WHEN YOU CONSIDER PEOPLE TO JOIN YOUR TEAM, DID YOU EVER EVEN ONCE ASK ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION?>>NEVER ONCE.>>IN YOUR ENTIRE CAREER AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL HAVE YOU MADE A HIRING DECISION BASED UPON A PERSON’S POLITICAL AFFILIATION?>>NO. IF I MIGHT INTERJECT. THE CAPABILITIES THAT WE HAVE SHOWN IN THE REPORT WAS A RESULT OF A TEAM OF AGENTS AND LAWYERS WHO WERE ABSOLUTELY EXEMPLARY AND WERE HIRED BECAUSE OF IT WILL VALUE TO GET THE JOB DONE.>>YOU’RE A PATRIOT. YOU ACTED FAIRLY AND WITH RESTRAINT. THERE WERE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU COULD HAVE FILED CHARGES BUT YOU DECLINED. NOT EVERY PROSECUTOR DONE THAT AND CERTAINLY ONE ON A WITCH HUNT. THE TAKES INTENSIFIED BECAUSE YOUR REPORT IS DAMMING. I BELIEVE YOU DID UNCOVER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. LET ME SAY SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU WERE RIGHT ABOUT. THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THIS SITUATION IS FOR CONGRESS TO TAKE ACTION. I YIELD BACK.>>GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLE LADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA.>>GOOD MORNING.>>GOT YOU. SORRY.>>THANK YOU. I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT PUBLIC CONFUSION CONNECTED WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S RELEASE OF YOUR REPORT. I WILL BE QUOTING YOUR MARCH 27th LETTER. IN THAT LETTER AND AT SEVERAL OTHER TIMES DID YOU CONVEY THE INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES SUMMARIZES THIS OFFICE’S WORK AND CONCLUSIONS, END QUOTE.>>I HAVE TO SAY THE LETTER ITSELF SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.>>THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS IN THAT LETTER. YOU WROTE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT QUOTE, THE SUMMARY LETTER, THE LETTER THAT THE DEPARTMENT SENT TO CONGRESS AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC LATE IN THE AFTERNOON OF MARCH 24th DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT, NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF THIS OFFICE’S WORK AND CONCLUSIONS, END QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT?>>I RELY ON THE LETTER ITSELF FOR ITS TERMS.>>THANK YOU. WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE REPORT’S CONTEXT NATURE, SUBSTANCE THE THE ATTORNEY’S GENERAL DID NOT CAPTURE?>>I THINK WE CAPTURED THAT IN THE MARCH 27th RESPONSIVE LETTER.>>THIS IS FROM THE 27th LETTER. WHAT WERE SOME OF THE SPECIFICS THAT YOU THOUGHT — >>DIRECTED YOU TO THAT 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 SPECIFICALLY SOME OF THE PUBLIC CONFUSION YOU IDENTIFIED?>>I GO BACK TO THE LETTER AND THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.>>COULD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR HAVE AVOIDED PUBLIC CONFUSION IF HE RELEASED YOUR SUMMARIES?>>I DON’T FEEL COMFORTABLE SPECULAING ON THAT.>>SHIFTING TO MAY 30th AN ATTORNEY SAID YOU COULD HAVE REACHED A DECISION AS TO WHETHER IT WAS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY END QUOTE, ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT. DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HIS STAFF TELL YOU HE THOUGHT YOU SHOULD MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS THINKING OR SAYING.>>IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD DIRECTED YOU OR 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.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. 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. IT PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE LEAVING CONGRESS TO DO ITS DUTY. WE SHALL NOT SHRINK FROM THAT DUTY. I YIELD BACK.>>THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.>>I HAVE A POINT OF INQUIRY OVER ON YOUR LEFT.>>GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS POINT OF INQUIRY. >>WAS THE POINT OF THIS HEARING TO GET MR. MUELLER TO RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT?>>THAT’S NOT A FAIR POINT OF INQUIRY. THE GENTLE LADY FROM FLORIDA IS RECOGNIZED.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER I’M TO YOUR — >>THE GENTLE LADY FROM FLORIDA IS RECOGNIZED.>>I THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE. YOU’RE A PATRIOT. I WANT TO REFER YOU TO VOLUME 2, PAGE 58. YOU WROTE THAT QUOTE, 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 REQUEST? IS THAT RIGHT.>>THAT IS ACCURATE. THAT IS WHAT WE FOUND.>>YOU’RE REFERRING TO SENIOR ADD VIERZS WHO DISOBEYED THE PRESIDENT’S ORDERS LIKE DON McGAHN, CORY LEWANDOWSKI.>>WE HAVE NOT SPECIFIED THE PERSONS.>>DON McGAHN DID NOT TELL THE BASICING ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MUST BE REMOVED BUT WAS PREPARED TO RESIGN OVER THE PRESIDENT’S ORDERS. YOU ALSO EXPLAIN AN ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE DOES NOT HAVE TO SUCCEED TO BE A CRIME, RIGHT IN. >>TRUE.>>SIMPLY ATTEMPTING TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE CAN BE A CRIME, CORRECT?>>YES.>>SO, EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT’S AIDES REFUSED TO CARRY OUT HIS 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, TRYING TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE CAN BE A CRIME, CORRECT?>>YES.>>YOU SAY THE PRESIDENT’S EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE THE INVESTIGATION WERE MOSTLY UNSUCCESSFUL AND THAT’S BECAUSE NOT ALL OF HIS EFFORTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL, RIGHT?>>YOU’RE READING INTO WHAT WE HAVE WRITTEN IN THE REPORT.>>I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU COULD JUST TELL ME WHICH ONES YOU HAD IN MIND SUCCESSFUL WHEN YOU WROTE THAT SENTENCE.>>I’M GOING TO PASS ON THAT.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, TODAY WE HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE SEPARATE ACTS BY THIS PRESIDENT BUT YOU ALSO WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT QUOTE, THE OVERALL PATTERN OF THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT TOWARDS THE INVESTIGATIONS CAN SHED LIGHT ON THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT’S ACTS AND THE INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT HIS INTENT.>>ACCURATE FROM THE REPORT.>>ON PAGE 158, AGAIN, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR EVERY ONE TO NOTE THAT THE PRESIDENT’S CONDUCT HAD A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WHEN HE REALIZED THAT IT WAS THE INVESTIGATIONS 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, I HAVE CERTAINLY MADE UP MY MIND ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE REVIEWED 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 OTHER PREVIOUS 44 PRESIDENTS. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT NOW OR FOR THE FUTURE TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY AND YES, WE WILL CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE BECAUSE AS YOU CLEARLY STATE AT THE END OF YOUR REPORT, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I YIELD BACK MY TIME.>>GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLE LADY FROM TEXAS.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU QUOTE, DETERMINED NOT TO MAKE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTORIAL JUDGMENT, END QUOTE. WAS THAT IN PART BECAUSE OF AN OPINION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL THAT A SITTING PRESIDENT CAN’T BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME?>>YES.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER AT YOUR MAY 29th, 2019 PRESS CONFERENCE YOU EXPLAINED THAT THE OPINION SAYS THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A PROCESS OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO FORMALLY ACCUSE A KIT INGSITTING PRESIDE WRONG DOING, END QUOTE. THAT PROCESS OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IS THAT IMPEACHMENT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT.>>IN YOUR REPORT, YOU ALSO WROTE THAT YOU DID NOT WANT TO QUOTE, POTENTIALLY PREEMPT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES FOR ADDRESSING PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT, END QUOTE. FOR THE NON-LAWYERS IN THE ROOM, WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY POTENTIALLY PREEMPT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES?>>I’M NOT GOING TO TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT.>>THAT ACTUALLY IS COMING FROM PAGE 1 OF VOLUME 2 IN THE FOOTNOTE IS 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 REPORT IN THE FOOTNOTE IN VOLUME TWO. YOUR REPORT DOCUMENTS THE MANY WAYS THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR INVESTIGATION AND YOU STATE IN YOUR REPORT ON PAGE 10, VOLUME 2 THAT WITH AN INTERFERING WITH A CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION WITH CORRUPT INCIDENT CAN ALSO CONSTITUTE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.>>TRUE.>>WELL, THE PRESIDENT HAS TOLD US THAT HE INTENDS THE FIGHT ALL THE SUBPOENAS. HIS CONTINUED EFFORTS TO INTERFERE WITH INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POTENTIAL MISCONDUCT REINFORCE THE PROCESS THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES TO FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING PRESIDENT OF WRONG DOING AS YOU CITED IN THE REPORT. THIS HEARING HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO THIS COMMITTEE AS IT EXERCISES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. I AGREE WITH YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER THAT WE ALL HAVE A VITAL ROLE IN HOLDING THIS PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. MORE THAN THAT, I BELIEVE WE IN CONGRESS HAVE A DUTY TO DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY AND SAFEGUARD ONE OF OUR NATION’S HIGHEST PRINCIPLES THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. FROM EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE HEARD YOU SAY HERE TODAY ITS 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.>>MR. CHAIRMAN.>>GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.>>. >>PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.>>OUR SIDE GOT OUR FIVE MINUTES IN ALSO. MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I JOIN THE CHAIRMAN IN THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.>>THANK YOU.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, WE THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING TODAY’S HEARING. BEFORE WE CONCLUDE, I ASK EVERY ONE TO REMAIN SEATED AND QUIET WHILE THE WITNESS EXITS THE ROOM. WITHOUT OBJECTION, ALL MEMBERS WILL HAVE FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS FOR QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS. WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE HEARING IS NOW ADJOURNED.>>AFTER THREE HOURS AND ABOUT 40 MINUTES, ROBERT MUELLER CONCLUDES HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. IN A APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES, HE WILL BE BACK IN THE WITNESS CHAIR BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. THERE ARE 22 MEMBERS ON THAT. THEY WILL GET THEIR CHANCE TO ASK ROBERT MUELLER QUESTIONS ABOUT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. RIGHT NOW WE WANT TO TAKE YOU TO ONE OF THE CAMERAS OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING ROOM WHERE THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND REFORM COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN ELIJAH CUMMINGS IS TALKING TO REPORTERS. WE’RE WATCHING AS THE LAWMAKERS EXIT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ROOM AND THE ROOM IS CLEARED FOR THEN THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO MAKE THEIR WAY IN AND GET SEATED FOR THEIR ROUND OF QUESTIONING. THEY WILL ALSO GET FIVE MINUTES OF TIME TO QUESTION ROBERT MUELLER, THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL. THAT EXPECTED TO START AT AROUND 12:45 P.M. EASTERN TIME. OUR COVERAGE CONTINUING HERE ON CSPAN3 THROUGHOUT THE DAY. WE’LL GET YOUR REACTION FOR WHAT YOU HEARD. AS YOU SAW, THERE ARE CAMERAS SET UP OUTSIDE OF THIS COMMITTEE ROOM HERE ON CAPITOL HILL. WE’RE WAITING FOR LAWMAKERS TO COME TO THOSE CAMERAS. WHEN AND IF THEY DO, WE’LL BRING YOU THAT COVERAGE. I THINK I SAW JIM JORDAN BEHIND THE REPORTERS THERE. WE’LL TRY TO LISTEN IN.>>I’M ENCOURAGED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BELIEVES IT’S NOT SPECULATIVE TO SUGGEST THE STEEL DOSSIER WAS VERY MUCH A PART OF RUSSIA’S DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN.>>HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE MUELLER’S GRASP?>>I FOUND HIM RATHER INTELLECTUALLY DISHEVELLED DURING THE HEARING. HE SEEMED UNWILLING TO ANSWER BASIC QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW. I THINK DEMOCRATS HOPED THIS HEARING WOULD BE LAUNCH OFF FOR IMPEACHMENT. IT LOOKED LIKE A DEATH RATTLE FOR IMPEACHMENT.>>MUELLER TOLD LUI HE WOULD HAVE INDICTED. SHOULD HE HAVE INDICTED?>>THERE ARE STATEMENTS THAT ARE JOINT STATEMENTS FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNSEL STATING THERE WERE OTHER FACTORS AND MR. MUELLER WRITES ABOUT THOSE FACTORS. THERE’S A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF ARTICLE 2 POWER THIS PRESIDENT WAS ENGAGED IN THAT MANY OF THESE ALLEGED INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OCCURRED IN PLAIN VIEW AS TO NOT IMPLY CORRUPT INTENT AND LACK OF ANY UNDERLYING CRIMINAL OFFENSE. UNEQUIVOCALLY A GREAT DAY FOR REPUBLICANS AND WE’RE GLAD THAT CHAIRMAN NADLER SCHEDULED A HEARING.>>DOES THAT CONCERN YOU OF MORE JEOPARDY IF HE’S NOT RE-ELECTED FOR 2020?>>HIS TENURE MAY HAVE BEEN EXTENDED BY FOUR YEARS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS HEARING AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THE ENTIRE ORIGIN OF THIS INVESTIGATION IS SO CORRUPT AND SO ROTTEN THAT EVEN ROBERT MUELLER WOULDN’T ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT HE WRITES NOTHING ABOUT THE FACT THAT GLEN SIMPSON MEETS WITH A RUSSIAN WORKING WITH DEMOCRATS THE DAY BEFORE AND THE DAY AFTER. YOU KNOW WHY. HE ALWAYS LOOKS FOR A WAY IN THE REPORT TO NEEDLE TRUMP AND AVOID ANY CONSEQUENCE. IT’S BECAUSE HE HAD PEOPLE ON HIS TEAM WHO SAID THEY WOULD STOP TRUMP FROM BEING PRESIDENT. YOU EVEN HAD LAWYER IDENTIFIED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL PLEDGING HIS ALLEGIANCE TO THE RESISTANCE. MUELLER DIDN’T REMEMBER THAT. IT WAS LIKE IT HAD EVADED HIS MEMORY.>>WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ANDREW TESTIFY?>>I THINK WE HAVE SEEN ALL WE NEED TO SEE. THERE ARE MANY MEMBERS OF THIS TEAM WITH CONNECTIONS TO DEMOCRAT. KELLY ARMSTRONG OF NORTH DAKOTA POINTED THAT OUT. WE DID NOT SEE A RIGOROUS DEFENSE OF THE MUELLER TEAM BY MR. MUELLER HIMSELF BECAUSE THERE’S NO RESPONSE TO THE FACT THAT HE HAD PEOPLE WHO WITH OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRAT PARTISANS. DEMOCRAT DONORS. THERE WASN’T BALANCE ON THE TEAM. IT’S REFLECTED IN THE WORK AND IN MR. MUELLER’S INABILITY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. WHEN HE SAYS THAT’S OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW, WHOSE PURVIEW IS IN IT? HE DOESN’T VIEW THAT WITHIN HIS PURVIEW, IT SEEMS HE MISUNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING.>>I DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THAT.>>HE SAID THAT.>>I DON’T THINK THE PRESIDENT WILL BE LEAVING OFFICE FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS.>>THAT’S A DECISION OTHER PROSECUTORS HAVE TO MAKE. I DON’T BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE IS THERE. THE PRESIDENT WILL HAVE STRONG DEFENSES. WE’RE LOOK AT THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.>>SHOULD GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BE ASKED ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS WHILE BEING INTERVIEWED?>>ABSOLUTELY NOT BUT PEOPLE’S DONATIONS TO SOMEONE WHO IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF AN ELECTION, THE OPPONENT, THAT OUGHT TO BE ANALYZED. WE EVEN HAD THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE IN HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE OVERSIGHT AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT THIS IS IMPROPER TO TAKE PEOPLE WHO HAD INVESTIGATED HILLARY CLINTON CLINTON’S E-MAIL SCANDAL AND MIGRATE THEM TO THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL IS INCORRECT. IT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. IT RESULTED IN THIS ORGY OF BIAS ON THE MUELLER TEAM.>>SHOULD PROSECUTOR BE ASKED THEIR PARTISAN CONFLICTS BEFORE?>>THIS ISN’T A QUESTION ABOUT SOMEONE’S PERSONAL VIEWS. IT’S PUBLIC RECORD THE DONATIONS THAT PEOPLE MAKE TO CANDIDATES. IF YOU HAD 14,000 WORTH OF DONATIONS TO HILLARY CLINTON ON THE MUELLER TEAM IT INFORMS ON WHY EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT DEMOCRATS WERE COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS AND MUELLER IS HEAR NO EVIL, SEE NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL WHEN IT COMES TO THAT NEXUS.>>THEY PUT TO BED THE CONCLUSION CONSPIRACY ISSUE. HIS ACTUAL REPORT SAYS THAT. WE CAN PUT THAT NOW TO BED. WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WANTED TO TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION. HE DISAGREED WITH THEIR FINDINGS. THERE WAS NOTHING KNEW FOUND OUT TODAY AND NOW WE JUST HAVE ROBERT MUELLER’S TAKE.>>THE FACT THAT ROBERT MUELLER SAYS IT DOES NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT, DOES THAT MEAN RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP INVESTIGATING?>>IF YOU KEEP LISTENING IT’S INTERESTING HOW HE WOULDN’T EXPLAIN THAT AND ALSO WHEN WE ACTUALLY TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THAT, IT’S SOMETHING UNIQUE TO NEVER HAVE A PROSECUTOR, THAT WAS NEVER THE JOB TO BEGIN WITH. HE SAID HE DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGH TO FIND HIM GUILTY. THAT’S SOMETHING NOT REPORTING.>>YOU STILL THINK THE REPORT EXONERATES THE PRESIDENT IN. >>THERE WAS NO COLLUSION AND NO CONSPIRACY. PEOPLE CAN READ THAT.>>DO YOU THINK THIS CHANGES THE MIND?>>I THINK THE PROCESS FOR IMPEACHMENT WAS ALREADY GOING DOWN. WE SAW THAT AMONG PUBLIC. THEY’RE GETTING TIRED OF THIS. THEY KNOW THERE WAS NOTHING THERE. I THINK THIS TODAY DID NOT HELP THAT NARRATIVE. I’M HOPING WE CAN PUT A PERIOD HERE AND NOW INSTEAD OF SAYING MAYBE IF. WE CAN HAVE A PERIOD AND GET BACK TO THE BUSINESS THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT PROBLEMS AND SOLVING THEM. I THINK THAT HAPPENED TODAY.>>THERE WAS NOTHING THAT MOVED THE NEEDLE TODAY EXCEPT THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS THAT MUELLER DIDN’T ANSWER. THERE WAS NO NOTHING KNEW FROM HIS REPORT. HE CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE HE ADDED TODAY.>>WHAT ABOUT THE EXCHANGE THAT SAID YOU DID NOT INDICT THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF THE OLC GUIDANCE AND MR. MUELLER SAID THAT IS CORRECT.>>YOU TAKE THAT IN THE TOTALITY HE ALSO WENT ONTO SAY HE DISAGREED WITH HIS LINE OF OBSTRUCTION THEORY IN THAT SAME EXCHANGE.>>DO YOU THINK REPUBLICANS EFFECTIVELY QUESTIONED MR. MUELLER IN. >>I THINK THE REPUBLICANS DID EFFECTIVELY QUESTION HIM. I THINK WE GOT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO. I THINK THE DEMOCRATS HAD EVERYTHING THEY WANTED TO QUESTION. I THINK WE HAVE FOUND EXACTLY WHAT WE STARTED WITH. THERE’S BEEN NO MOVEMENT. IT’S NOW TIME TO MOVE ON AND ACTUALLY DO THE BUSINESS THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. WE HAVE DELAYED ACTUALLY DOING COMMITTEE WORK FOR SEVEN AND A HALF MONTHS. THAT SHOULD END TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST WE HAVE DELAYED DOING THE WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE FOR EIGHT YEARS AND WE JUST STARTED IT UP WHEN JERRY NADLER TOOK OVER. THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT HEARING. MR. MUELLER, AN AMERICAN HERO MADE CLEAR THAT ANY OTHER PERSON WHO DID THE ACTS THAT TRUMP DID WOULD HAVE BEEN INDICTED FOR JUSTICE AND BUT FOR THAT YOU CAN’T INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT IS THE REASON WHY HE WAS NOT INDICTED. WHEN TRUMP AND BARR SAID NO OBSTRUCTION, THEY LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WHEN THEY SAID THAT HE WAS TOTALLY EXONERATED, HE LIED. MR. MUELLER MADE THAT CLEAR. TODAY WAS AN IMPORTANT DAY THAT THE MUELLER REPORT WAS SPOKEN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THAT THE MUELLER REPORT WAS LET OUT IN ALL OF ITS FULSOME NATURE.>>DO YOU THINK WHAT YOU HEARD TODAY MOVED THE NEEDLE IN TERM OF GETTING SUPPORT?>>I THINK IT DEFINITELY WILL AND TO IMPEACH AND UNDERSTAND WE HAVE AN UNLAWFUL, LAWLESS PRESIDENT WHO NEEDS TO BE REINED IN.>>WHY DO YOU THINK THEY WILL CHANGE THEIR MINDS?>>I THINK BECAUSE MR. MUELLER MADE THE CLEAR POINT THAT ANY OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN A PERSON HIDING BEHIND, ABLE TO HIDE BEHIND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY OF NOT INDICTING THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE HE IS ABOVE THE LAW AS LONG AS HE’S PRESIDENT WOULD BE INDICTED. WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO WAS INDIVIDUAL ONE IN SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND BUT FOR A POLICY OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED HE WOULD BE INDICTED BY ROBERT MUELLER. WE HAVE A LAWLESS PERSON IN THE WHITE HOUSE. I THOUGHT MR. MUELLER DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. I’M IN AWE OF BEING AROUND HIM. I THINK IN TIME IT MAY BE THERE BECAUSE THIS PRESIDENT WILL COMMIT MORE ACTS IN THE FUTURE THAT ARE VIVIOLATIONS. HE TOLD A BUNCH OF SCHOOL KIDS THAT CONSTITUTION LETS HIM DO ANYTHING HE WANTS. THE MAN DOES NOT HAVE RESTRAINT. HE HASN’T HAD IT SINCE HE WAS A BABY. HE DANGLED PARDONS IN FRONT OF PEOPLE AND TRIED TO GET McGAHN TO MAKE A FALSE STATEMENT. McGAHN STOOD UP AS AN AMERICAN HERO AND TRUTHFUL PERSON.>>IF I MIGHT. THANK YOU SO VERY MUMP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE. LET ME BE CLEAR ON WHAT WE ACCOMPLISHED TODAY. RIVETED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. THERE NEEDS NOT BE AN UNDERLYING CRIME TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. THOSE ARE ELEMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT. WE’RE HERE TODAY AS A PIECE OF THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION. HE STANDS BY HIS REPORT. HE STANDS ON HIS REPORT AND HE’S NOT WAIVERING. THE STAR WITNESS REFUSED TO TESTIFY. MR. MUELLER TRIED TO GET THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO COME AND TESTIFY. HE DID NOT. THAT WOULD NOT BE CASE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEEDSING. I CAN ASSURE YOU AS THIS HEARING IS FURTHER ANALYZED, YOU WILL FIND THAT THE ELEMENTS DEALING WITH TELLING STAFF TO LIE, DEALING WITH INTERFERING WITH WITNESSES DEALING WITH THE QUESTION OF DANGLING OF A PARDON TO INTERFERE WITH A WITNESS. DEALING WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO UNREFUSE YOURSELF. YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF THE QUESTION, IF ANY OTHER PRESIDENT HAD DONE THESE ACTS, WOULD A PROCEEDING NOT BE IN PLACE. I WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT WE’RE DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY WHICH IS WE ARE BUILDING THE BUILDING BLOCKS FOR PEOPLE TO FULLY COMPREHEND HOW MASSIVE. I CANNOT IMAGINE WE COULD ACCEPT THIS AS THE NEW NORM.>>WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO READ THE REPORT TO HIM? WHY NOT HAVE HIM TELL YOU WHAT WAS IN THE REPORT ITSELF?>>THE STRATEGY OF QUESTIONING OR THE APPROACH OF QUESTIONING WAS TO SOLICIT THE TRUTH. IF WE DID IT IN MANNER OF PRESENTS THE REPORT AND HE SAID YES OR NO, THAT’S THE TRUTH. WE DIDN’T ALTER OR EDIT HIS WORDS. WE JUST GAVE HIM HIS WORDS AND HE SAID YES.>>SPECIFIC INSTANCES WHERE HE RECOUNTED THE EVIDENCE HE COLLECTED FROM THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECT DON McGAHN TO LIE ABOUT IT. HE ASKED A THIRD PARTY, CORY LEWANDOWSKI TO GO TELL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TELL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO LIMIT HIS INVESTIGATION TO FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS ENDING THIS INVESTIGATION. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MADE IT CLEAR THIS PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH CRIMES. THIS REPORT CAME TO LIFE. I THINK IT WILL BE A POWERFUL MOMENT FOR PEOPLE TO REFLECT ON WHAT ACTION IS NEXT. WE BELIEVE THE TIME HAS LONG PAST TO OPEN A FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS OUGHT TO BE FILED. I THINK TODAY’S TESTIMONY FURTHER SUPPORTS THAT. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. IT GOES THE HEART OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE SUCCESSFUL. ANY ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IS A SERIOUS CRIME. WE SAW IT OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF THAT AS IT RELATES TO THE PRESIDENT.>>YOU COMMENT ON MR. MUELLER’S DECISION NOT TO ELABORATE ON THE REPORT.>>I THINK THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFIED THE WAY YOU WOULD EXPECT A PROSECUTOR TO TESTIFY. VERY SOBERLY. I THINK WE WERE QUOTING BACK HIS OWN WORDS BECAUSE WE HAD VERY LIMITED TIME. WE WANTED TO MAKE CERTAIN WE GOT THE EVIDENCE IN AND THE CONTENTS OF THE REPORT. I THINK IT WAS A STRATEGY TO MAKE SURE WE MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF THE TIME WE HAD.>>YOUR EXCHANGE, YOU ASKED HIM YOU DID NOT INDICT — YOU THINK HE MISHEARD YOU? DO YOU THINK THAT’S WHAT HE BELIEVES?>>THAT’S WHAT WE BELIEVES. WE HAVE FELON SITTING IN THE WHITE HOUSE. WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DO WITH THAT, WE’LL SEE IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. THIS HEARING ESTABLISHED THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN TO FIRE HIM. THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN TO COVER THAT UP AND CREATE A FALSE PAPER TRIAL AND THE PRESIDENT ORDERED CORY LEWANDOWSKI TO CURTAIL THE INVESTIGATION. WE ESTABLISHED HE TAMPERED WITH TWO WITNESSES. WE HOPE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS.>>DO YOU BELIEVE THE ONE WORD ANSWERS, TRUE, CORRECT, YES, NO WERE REALLY EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES, REALLY MOVED THE BALL FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?>>FOR PEOPLE THAT READ THE REPORT, THIS HEARING WAS NOT SURPRISING. FOR PEOPLE THAT DID NOT, THIS SHOULD HAVE BLOWN THEIR MIND. THEY SAW ROBERT MUELLER SAYING YES TO MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. WE HAVE A FELON IN THE WHITE HOUSE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SEEING IT. IT’S A FELONY. IT’S NOT EVEN A MISDEMEANOR THAT ROBERT MUELLER SAID SOMEONE COULD GO TO JAIL FOR A VERY LONG TIME.>>YOU ALL READ THE REPORT?>>WAS THE MOVIE AS GOOD AS THE BOOK? YOU WERE TRYING TO CREATE A MOVIE VERSION.>>THE CRITICAL THING IS THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SAW OVERWHELMING AND DEVASTATING EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE RELATED IN FINE DETAIL BY THE COMMITTEE AND THE WITNESS. IT’S IRREFUTABLE. WE’RE ALL ON THE EDGE OF OUR SEATS TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE AFTERNOON ABOUT VOLUME ONE. IN TERMS OF VOLUME TWO THIS IS A GREAT VICTORY FOR THE TRUTH AND FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF JUSTICE AND THE COUNTRY BECAUSE AMERICA FINALLY GOT TO SEE WHAT SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER WAS TALKING ABOUT. THERE WERE REPEATED EFFORTS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, TO COVER UP HIS EFFORTS TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. TO GET PEOPLE THE LIE, TO COACH WITNESSES, TO INFLUENCE TESTIMONY. ALL OF THIS IS IN OUTRAGEOUS BETRAYAL OF HIS OFFICE AND THE RULE OF LAW. YET THAT’S PRECISELY WHAT THIS PRESIDENT DID IN TRYING TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. HE TLIETRIED TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION. IT’S AN ABSURD SITUATION THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS PLUNGED US INTO. NOW THE WHOLE COUNTRY CAN SEE IT.>>MEMBERS OF CONGRESS READ THE REPORT WHEN IT CAME OUT AND FELT THERE WAS EVIDENCE IN THE REDACTED VERSION TO LAUNCH AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THERE 80 OR 90 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO ASKED IS ONE VERY LOGICAL WAY TO GO. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN TRYING THE STONE WALL AND COVER UP FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. I’M AFRAID TO SAY THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BAR WAS VERY MUCH PART OF THAT. WE SHOULD HAVE HAD THIS HEARING BACK IN LATE MARCH OR EARLY APRIL WHEN THE REPORT FIRST CAME OUT. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO PULL THE WOOL OVER EVERY ONE’S EYES WHICH IS WHAT PROMPTED SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER TO WRITE TWO LETTERS OF PROTEST ABOUT THE CONFUSION THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR CREATED IN THE COUNTRY. WE DIDN’T GET THE REDACTED VERSION FOR THREE AND A HALF WEEKS AND WE’VE BEEN PIERCING THIS FOG OF PROPAGANDA THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND DONALD TRUMP LAID DOWN. I THINK TODAY BEGINS TO DISPEL THE FOG.>>WILL SPEAKER PELOSI OFFER UP — >>I THINK THE SPEAKER HAS BEEN CLEAR. SHE’S REFLECTED THE CONSENSUS OF OUR CAUCUS. AS MORE MEMBERS REVIEW THE EVIDENCE AND THE HEARING, WHEN THE BROAD CONSENSUS OF THE CAUCUS IS IT’S TIME, I THINK THE SPEAKER WILL REFLECT THAT. I THINK THOSE CONVERSATIONS CONTINUE. I SEE THEM ALL THE TIME. PEOPLE ARE REALLY TAKING THIS RESPONSIBILITY SERIOUSLY AND SOBERLY AND LOOKING AT THIS EVIDENCE AND CONTEMPLATING THE NEXT COURSE OF ACTION. A MAJORITY OF OUR CAUCUS WILL BELIEVE IN IMPEACHMENT AND WE’LL MOVE FORWARD WITH ONE. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFIED AS HE WOULD TESTIFY. HE WAS CAREFUL IN THE LANGUAGE HE WOULD USE. HE CONFIRMED THE CONTENTS OF HIS REPORT. IT REVEALED SIGNIFICANCE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINALALTY BY THE PRESIDENT. I THINK IT WAS HELPFUL IN TERMS OF PROVIDING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AS TO CLARITY AS TO WHAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION ENTAILED.>>HOW DOES THIS MOVE THE NEEDLE FOR YOU AND THE COLLEAGUES. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MIGHT NOT HAVE KNOWN BUT WHAT ABOUT YOUR COLLEAGUES. HOW DOES THIS CHANGE YOUR MINDS. MOST OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS NOT READ THE BOOK. MANY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAS NOT READ IT AT ALL. I THINK THE HEARINGS THIS MORNING AND THIS AFTERNOON WILL PROVIDE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO HAVE NOT REVIEWED THE REPORT WITH AN ATTORNEY TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S FINDINGS. I SUSPECT THAT THEY AFTER DOING THAT MANY OF THEM WILL REACH THE SAME CONCLUSIONS THAT WE HAVE. NOT ONLY HAVE MOST PERSONS READ THEY REPORT BUT THEY RELIED ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO YOU EXPECT TO BE TRUTHFUL AND CLEARLY WAS NOT.>>I THINK YOU GUYS WILL TELL US.>>WE’LL SEE.>>SEVERAL COMMITTEE LAWMAKERS MAKING THEIR WAY TO THEIR SEAT. THEY’RE GETTING READY FOR THE SECOND HEARING. THAT EXPECTED TO GET UNDER WAY IN ABOUT SIX MINUTES. EACH OF THOSE MEMBERS WILL GET FIVE MINUTES OF QUESTIONING OF THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL. WE SAW THEY SCHEDULED THREE HOURS OF TESTIMONY AND IT WENT THREE HOURS AND 40 MINUTES. RIGHT NOW A BREAK HAPPENING FOR THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL. HE WILL BE BACK IN THE ROOM. THE SAME ROOM AS THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR HIS 90th APPEARANCE BEFORE CONGRESS. HIS 89th JUST EARLY THIS MORNING. YOU CAN GO BACK AND WATCH IT ON OUR WEBSITE. WE’LL CONTINUE WITH OUR LIVE COVERAGE. YOU CAN WATCH BOTH HEARINGS TONIGHT. LET’S GO BACK INTO THE COMMITTEE ROOM AND WAIT AND WATCH FOR ROUND TWO OF ROBERT MUELLER’S TESTIMONY. . .>>>THIS MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER. AT THE OUTSET ON BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES I WANT TO THANK SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER FOR A LIFETIME OF SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY. IT TELLS THE STORY OF A FOREIGN ADVERSARY SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC INTERVENTION IN A CLOSE U.S. ELECTION. THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO DESERVE THE ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN AS YOU WELL POINT OUT. BUT YOUR REPORT TELLS ANOTHER STORY AS WELL. THE STORY OF THE 2016 ELECTION IS ALSO A STORY ABOUT DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY. ABOUT GREED, AND ABOUT LIES. YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINED 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. THOSE ARE STRONG WORDS BUT HOW ELSE ARE WE TO DESCRIBE A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WHICH DID NOT INFORM THE AUTHORITIES OF A FOREIGN OFFER OF DIRT ON THEIR OPPONENT WHICH DID NOT PUBLICLY SHUN IT OR TURN IT AWAY BUT WHICH INSTEAD INVITED IT, ENCOURAGED IT AND MADE FULL USE OF IT. THAT DISLOYALTY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CRIMINAL, CONSTRAINED BY UNCOOPERATIVE WITNESSES, THE DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THE USE OF ENCRYPTED COMMUNICATIONS, YOUR TEAM WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH EACH OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, SO NOT A PROVABLE CRIME IN ANY EVENT. BUT I THINK MAYBE SOMETHING WORSE, A CRIME IS THE VIOLATION OF LAW WRITTEN BY CONGRESS, BUT DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY VIOLATES THE VERY OATH OF CITIZENSHIP, OUR DEVOTION TO A CORE PRINCIPLE ON WHICH OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED THAT WE, THE PEOPLE AND NOT SOME FOREIGN POWER THAT WISHES US ILL, WE DECIDE WHO GOVERNS US. THIS IS ALSO A STORY ABOUT MONEY. ABOUT GREED AND CORRUPTION. ABOUT THE LEADERSHIP OF A CAMPAIGN WILLING TO COMPROMISE THE NATION’S INTEREST NOT ONLY TO WIN BUT TO MAKE MONEY AT THE SAME TIME. ABOUT A CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN INDEBTED TO PRO RUSSIAN INTERESTS WHO TRIED TO USE HIS POSITION TO CLEAR HIS DEBTS AND MAKE MILLIONS. ABOUT A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER USING HIS POSITION TO MAKE MONEY FROM STILL OTHER FOREIGN INTERESTS. AND ABOUT A CANDIDATE TRYING TO MAKE MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF THEM PUT TOGETHER THROUGH REAL ESTATE PROJECT THAT TO HIM WAS WORTH A FORTUNE. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THE REALIZATION OF A LIFE-LONG AMBITION, A TRUMP TOWER IN THE HEART OF MOSCOW. A CANDIDATE WHO, IN FACT, VIEWED HIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN AS THE GREATEST INFOMERCIAL IN HISTORY. DONALD TRUMP AND HIS SENIOR STAFF WERE NOT ALONE IN THEIR DESIRE TO USE THE ELECTION TO MAKE MONEY. FOR RUSSIA TOO THERE WAS A POWERFUL FINANCIAL MOTIVE. PUTIN WANTED RELIEF FROM U.S. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS IMPOSED IN THE WAKE OF RUSSIA’S INVASION OF UKRAINE AND OVER HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. THE SECRET TRUMP TOWER MEETING BETWEEN THE RUSSIANS AND SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS WAS ABOUT SANCTIONS. THE SECRET CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN FLYNN AND THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR WERE ABOUT SANCTIONS. TRUMP AND HIS TEAM WANTED MORE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES, AND THE RUSSIANS WANTED MORE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES. AND FOR THEIR OLIGARCHS. BUT THE STORY DOESN’T END HERE EITHER. FOR YOUR REPORT ALSO TELLS A STORY ABOUT LIES. LOTS OF LIES. LIES ABOUT A GLEAMING TOWER IN MOSCOW AND LIES ABOUT TALKS WITH THE KREMLIN. LIES ABOUT THE FIRING OF JAMES COMEY AND LIES ABOUT EFFORTS TO FIRE YOU, AND LIES TO COVER IT UP. LIES ABOUT SECRET NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS OVER SANCTIONS AND LIES ABOUT WIKILEAKS. LIES ABOUT POLLING DATA AND LIES ABOUT HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS. LIES ABOUT MEETINGS IN THE SE SHELLS AND ABOUT A SECRET MEETING IN TRUMP TOWER. LIES TO THE FBI. LIES TO YOUR STAFF, AND LIES TO THIS COMMITTEE. LIES TO OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MOST SERIOUS ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY BY A FOREIGN POWER IN OUR HISTORY. THAT IS WHERE YOUR REPORT ENDS, DIRECT MUELLER. WITH A SCHEME TO COVER UP OBSTRUCT AND DECEIVE EVERY BIT AS SYSTEM ATTIC AS THE RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN ITSELF BUT FAR MORE PERNICIOUS SINCE THIS ROT CAME FROM WITHIN. EVEN NOW AFTER 448 PAGES AND TWO VOLUMES, THE DECEPTION CONTINUES. THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ACCOLADES SAY YOUR REPORT FOUND NO COLLUSION, THOUGH YOUR REPORT EXPLICITLY DECLINED TO ADDRESS THAT SINCE IT CAN INVOLVE CRIMINAL AND NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT. YOUR REPORT LAID OUT MULTIPLE OFFERS OF RUSSIAN HELP AND FURTHERANCE TO MOST AMERICANS THAT’S THE VERY DEFINITION OF COLLUSION. WHETHER IT IS A CRIME OR NOT. THEY SAY YOUR REPORT FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION THOUGH YOU OUTLINED NUMEROUS ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION. THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN FULLY EXONERATED THOUGH YOU DECLARE YOU COULD NOT EXONERATE HIM. IN FACT, THEY SAY YOUR WHOLE INVESTIGATION WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A WITCH HUNT. THAT THE RUSSIANS DIDN’T INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION, THAT IT’S ALL A TERRIBLE HOAX. THE REAL CRIME, THEY SAY, IS NOT THAT THE RUSSIANS INTERVENED TO HELP DONALD TRUMP BUT THAT THE FBI INVESTIGATED IT WHEN THEY DID. BUT WORST OF ALL, WORSE THAN ALL THE LIES AND THE GREED IS THE DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY. FOR THAT, TOO, CONTINUES. WHEN ASKED IF THE RUSSIANS INTERVENE AGAIN, WILL YOU TAKE THEIR HELP, MR. PRESIDENT? WHY NOT WAS THE ESSENCE OF HIS ANSWER. EVERYONE DOES IT. NO, MR. PRESIDENT, THEY DON’T. NOT THE AMERICA ENVISIONED BY JEFFERSON, MADISON AND HAMILTON. NOT FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE IDEA THAT LINCOLN LABORED UNTIL HIS DYING DAY TO PRESERVE THE IDEA ANIMATING OUR GREAT NATIONAL EXPERIMENTS SO UNIQUE THEN, SO PRECIOUS STILL THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS CHOSEN BY OUR PEOPLE THROUGH OUR FRANCHISE, AND NOT BY SOME HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER. THIS IS 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. THIS IS WHY OUR INVESTIGATION MATTERS. TO BRING THESE DANGERS TO LIGHT. RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO THE LAST GASP OF THE RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY THEORY. AS DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO FOIST THIS SPECTACLE ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WELL AS YOU, MR. MUELLER, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY RECALL THE MEDIA FIRST BEGAN SPREADING THIS SERIOUS THEORY IN THE SPRING OF 2016 WHEN FUSION GPS FUNDED BY THE DNC AND THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN STARTED DEVELOPING THE STEELE DOSSIER. A COLLECTION OF OUTLANDISH ACCUSATIONS THAT TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATES WERE RUSSIAN AGENTS. FUSION GPS, STEELE, AND OTHER CONFEDERATES FED THIS TO NAIVE OR 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 THE 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 EXSPY. ONE WHO ADMITTED HE WAS DESPERATE THAT TRUMP LOSE THE ELECTION AND WHO WAS EVENTUALLY FIRED AS AN FBI SOURCE FOR LEAKING TO THE PRESS. AFTER COMEY HIMSELF WAS FIRED BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, HE LEAKED DEROGATORY INFORMATION ON PRESIDENT TRUMP TO THE PRESS FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND SUCCESSFULLY SO, OF ENGINEERING THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL WHO SITS HERE BEFORE US TODAY. THE FBI INVESTIGATION WAS MARRED BY FURTHER CORRUPTION AND BUSINESS ZAR ABUSES. TOP DOJ OFFICIALS WHOSE WIFE WORKED ON FUSION GPS ANTI-TRUMP — FED INFORMATION EVEN AFTER THE FBI FIRED STEELE. THE TOP FBI INVESTIGATOR AND HIS LOVER, ANOTHER TOP FBI 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 INTELLIGENCE BUT ON A TIP FROM A FOREIGN POLITICIAN. ABOUT A CONVERSATION INVOLVING JOSEPH NIF HAVE A, HE’S A DIPLOMAT WHO IS WIDELY PORTRAYED AS A RUSSIAN AGENT BUT SEEMS TO HAVE FOR MORE CONNECTIONS WITH WESTERN GOVERNMENTS INCLUDING OUR OWN FBI AND OUR OWN STATE DEPARTMENT THAN WITH RUSSIA. IGNORING THE RED FLAGS AS WELL AS THE TRANSPARENT ABSURDITY OF THE CLAIMS THEY’RE MAKING, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ARGUING FOR NEARLY THREE YEARS THAT EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION IS HIDDEN JUST AROUND THE CORNER. THEY INSIST IT’S THERE’VEN IF NO ONE CAN FIND IT. CONSIDER THIS. IN MARCH OF 2017 DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE SAID THEY HAD MORE THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION BUT THEY COULDN’T REVEAL IT YET. MR. MUELLER WAS SOON APPOINTED AND THEY SAID HE WOULD FIND THE COLLUSION. THEN WHEN NO COLLUSION WAS FOUND, AND MR. MUELLER’S INDICTMENTS, THE DEMOCRATS SAID WE’D FIND IT IN HIS FINAL REPORT. THEN WHEN THERE WAS NO COLLUSION IN THE REPORT, WE WERE TOLD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WAS HIDING IT. THEN WHEN IT WAS CLEAR BARR WASN’T HIDING ANYTHING, WE WERE TOLD IT WILL BE REVEALED THROUGH A HEARING WITH MR. MUELLER HIMSELF. AND NOW THAT MR. MUELLER IS HERE, THEY’RE CLAIMING THE COLLUSION HAS ACTUALLY BEEN IN HIS REPORT ALL ALONG. HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT, AND THEY’RE RIGHT. THERE IS COLLUSION IN PLAIN SIGHT. COLLUSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED BOTH IN INTERVIEWS AND THROUGH THEIR USUAL ANONYMOUS STATEMENTS TO REPORTERS THAT TODAY’S HEARING IS NOT ABOUT GETTING INFORMATION AT ALL. THEY SAID THEY WANT TO, QUOTE, BRING THE MUELLER REPORT TO LIFE. AND CREATE A TELEVISION MOMENT THROUGH PLOYS LIKE HAVING MR. MUELLER RECITE PASSAGES FROM HIS OWN REPORT. IT’S THEATER. IT’S TRYING 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. IT’S ALMOST LIKE THE DEMOCRATS PREPARED ARGUMENTS ACCUSING MR. BARR OF HIDING THE REPORT AND DIDN’T BOTHER TO UPDATE THEIR CLAIMS ONCE HE PUBLISHED THE ENTIRE THING. AMONG CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER ABOUT FINDING THE TRUTH. IT’S ALWAYS BEEN A SIMPLE MEDIA OPERATION BY THEIR OWN ACCOUNTS THIS OPERATION CONTINUES IN THIS ROOM TODAY. ONCE AGAIN, NUMEROUS PRESSING ISSUES THIS COMMITTEE NEEDS TO ADDRESS ARE PUT ON HOLD TO INDULGE THE POLITICAL FANTASIES OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED IT WAS THEIR DESTINY 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’RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET BACK TO WORK. UNTIL THEN, I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.>>TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR HEARING IS PROMPT, I KNOW 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. AS CHAIR, I WILL RECOGNIZE THEREAFTER IN ALTERNATING FASHION AND MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY. AFTER EACH MEMBER ASKS THEIR QUESTIONS, THE RANKING MEMBER WILL BE AFFORDED AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES FOLLOWED BY THE CHAIR WITH ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS. RANKING MEMBER AND THE CHAIR WILL NOT BE PREPARED TO DELEGATE OR YIELD OUR FIVE MINUTES TO ANY OTHER MEMBER. AFTER SIX MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY AND SIX MEMBERS OF MINORITY HAVE CONCLUDED THEIR ROUND OF QUESTIONS, WE’LL TAKE A FIVE OR TEN MINUTE BREAK. WE UNDERSTAND YOU’VE REQUESTED IT, BEFORE RESUMING THE SWAL WELL ROUND OF QUESTIONS. AARON ZEBLEY SERVED AS DEPUTY COUNSEL UNTIL MAY 2019 AND HAD DAY TODAY OVERSIGHT OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION. MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY RESIGNED AT THE END OF MAY 2019 WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE WAS CLOSED. BOTH MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS TODAY AND WILL BE SWORN IN CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF THE HOUSE AND THE COMMITTEE. THEIR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE 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. AS THIS HEARING IS UNDER OATH AND BEFORE WE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. MUELLER AND ZEBLEY, WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS TO BE SWORN? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU’RE ABOUT TO GIVE AT THIS HEARING IS THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?>>I DO.>>THANK YOU. THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THE WITNESSES HAVE BEEN DULY SWORN. RANKING MEMBER.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR MR. ZEBLEY TO BE SWORN IN. WE’RE HERE TO ASK DIRECTOR MUELLER QUESTIONS. HE’S HERE AS COUNSEL. OUR SIDE IS NOT GOING TO BE DIRECTING ANY QUESTIONS TO MR. ZEBLEY, AND WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HIS PRIOR REPRESENTATION OF THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AIDE, SO I JUST WANT TO VOICE THAT CONCERN THAT WE DO HAVE. AND WE WILL NOT BE PRESENTING ANY QUESTIONS TO MR. ZEBLEY TODAY.>>I THANK THE RANKING MEMBER. I REALIZE AS PROBABLY DO MR. ZEBLEY THAT THERE IS AN ANGRY PERSON 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’RE RECOGNIZED FOR ANY OPENING REMARKS YOU’D LIKE TO MAKE.>>GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I TESTIFIED THIS MORNING BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I ASKED THAT THE OPENING STATEMENT I MADE BEFORE THAT COMMITTEE BE INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD HERE.>>WITHOUT OBJECTION, DIRECTOR.>>I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS A UNIQUE JURISDICTION. THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN FURTHER UNDERSTANDING THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR INVESTIGATION. SO LET ME SAY A WORD ABOUT HOW WE HANDLE 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 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. AS A RESULT, WE STRUCTURED OUR INVESTIGATION AROUND EVIDENCE FOR POSSIBLE USE IN PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL CRIMES. WE DID NOT REACH WHAT YOU WOULD CALL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CONCLUSIONS. WE DID, HOWEVER, SET UP PROCESSES IN THE OFFICE TO IDENTIFY AND PASS COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION ONTO THE FBI. MEMBERS OF OUR OFFICE PERIODICALLY BRIEF THE FBI ABOUT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION. 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 THAT I MADE THIS MORNING. I AM NOT MAKING ANY JUDGMENTS OR OFFERING OPINIONS ABOUT THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE IN ANY PENDING CASE. IT IS UNUSUAL FOR A PROSECUTOR TO TESTIFY ABOUT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. AND GIVEN MY ROLE AS A PROSECUTOR, THERE ARE REASONS WHY MY TESTIMONY WILL NECESSARILY BE LIMITED. FIRST PUBLIC TESTIMONY COULD EFFECT SEVERAL ONGOING MATTERS. IN SOME OF THESE MATTERS COURT RULES OR 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 EFFECT 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 AM UNABLE TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPENING OF THE FBI’S RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WHICH OCCURRED MONTHS BEFORE MY APPOINTMENT. OR MATTERS RELATED TO THE SO-CALLED STEELE DOSSIER. THESE MATTERS ARE THE SUBJECT OF ONGOING REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE TOPICS SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE DIRECTED TO THE FBI OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THIRD AS I EXPLAINED THIS MORNING, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO ADHERE TO WHAT WE WROTE IN OUR REPORT. THE REPORT CONTAINS OUR FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISIONS WE MADE. WE STATED THE RESULTS OF OUR INVESTIGATION WITH PRECISION. I DO NOT INTEND TO SUMMARIZE OR DESCRIBE THE RESULTS OF OUR WORK IN A DIFFERENT WAY IN THE COURSE OF MY TESTIMONY TODAY. AS I STATED IN MAY, I ALSO WILL NOT COMMENT ON THE ACTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR OF CONGRESS. I WAS APPOINTED AS A PROSECUTOR, AND I INTEND TO ADHERE TO THAT ROLE AND TO THE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS THAT GOVERN. FINALLY AS I SAID THIS MORNING, OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY. THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT’S EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION IS AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS. I AM SURE THE COMMITTEE AGREES. NOW, BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS, I WANT TO ADD A CORRECTION TO MY TESTIMONY THIS MORNING. I WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE THING THAT WAS SAID THIS MORNING BY MR. LOU 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. AND WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I’M READY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.>>THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. DIRECTOR MUELLER YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES A SWEEPING EFFORT BY RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>AND DURING THE COURSE OF THIS RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION, THE RUSSIANS MADE OUTREACH TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. DID THEY NOT?>>THAT OCCURRED OVER THE COURSE OF — YEAH, THAT OCCURRED.>>IT’S ALSO CLEAR FROM YOUR REPORT THAT DURING THAT RUSSIAN OUTREACH TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, NO ONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN EVER CALLED THE FBI TO REPORT IT. AM I RIGHT?>>I DON’T KNOW THAT FOR SURE.>>IN FACT, THE CAMPAIGN WELCOMED THE RUSSIAN HELP, DID THEY NOT?>>I THINK WE REPORT IN OUR — IN THE REPORT INDICATIONS THAT THAT OCCURRED, YES.>>THE PRESIDENT’S SON SAID WHEN HE WAS APPROACHED ABOUT DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WOULD LOVE IT.>>THAT IS GENERALLY WHAT WAS SAID, YES.>>THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF CALLED ON THE RUSSIANS TO HACK HILLARY’S EMAILS?>>THERE WAS A STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT IN THOSE GENERAL LINES.>>NUMEROUS TIMES DURING THE CAMPAIGN THE PRESIDENT PRAISED THE RELEASES OF THE RUSSIAN-HACKED EMAILS THROUGH WIKILEAKS.>>THAT DID OCCUR.>>YOUR REPORT FOUND THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN PLANNED, QUOTE, A PRESS STRATEGY, COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGN AND MESSAGING, UNQUOTE, BASED ON THAT RUSSIAN ASSISTANCE?>>I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.>>THAT LANGUAGE COMES FROM VOLUME ONE, PAGE 54. APART FROM THE RUSSIAN’S WANTING TO HELP TRUMP WIN, SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WERE ALSO TRYING TO MAKE MONEY DURING THE CAMPAIGN IN TRANSITION. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT IS TRUE.>>PAUL MANAFORT WAS TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OR ACHIEVE DEBT FORGIVENESS FROM A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH?>>THAT’S GENERALLY ACCURATE.>>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’RE TALKING ABOUT THE HOTEL DEAL IN MOSCOW?>>YES.>>YES.>>WHEN YOUR INVESTIGATION LOOKED INTO THESE MATTERS, NUMEROUS PEOPLE LIED — >>NUMBER OF PERSONS THAT WE INTERVIEWED IN OUR INVESTIGATION IT TURNS OUT DID LIE.>>MIKE FLYNN LIED?>>HE WAS CONVICTED OF LYING, YES.>>GEORGE PAP DROP LOUSE WAS CONVICTED OF LYING? >>YES.>>PAUL MANAFORT WENT SO FAR AS TO ENCOURAGE OTHER PEOPLE TO LIE. >>THAT’S ACCURATE.>>RICK GATES LIED?>>THAT’S ACCURATE.>>MICHAEL COHEN, THE PRESIDENT’S LAWYER WAS INDICTED FOR LYING?>>TRUE.>>HE LIED TO STAY ON MESSAGE WITH THE PRESIDENT?>>ALLEGEDLY BY HIM.>>AND WHEN DONALD TRUMP CALLED YOUR INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT, THAT WAS ALSO FALSE, WAS IT NOT?>>I’D LIKE TO THINK SO, YES.>>WELL, YOUR INVESTIGATION IS NOT A WITCH HUNT, IS IT?>>IT IS NOT A WITCH HUNT.>>WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WAS A HOAX, THAT WAS FALSE, WASN’T IT?>>TRUE.>>WHEN HE SAID IT PUBLICLY IT WAS FALSE?>>HE DID SAY PUBLICLY THAT IT WAS FALSE, YES.>>AND WHEN HE TOLD IT TO PUTIN, THAT WAS FALSE TOO, WASN’T IT?>>THAT I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH.>>WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID HE HAD NO BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA, THAT WAS FALSE, WASN’T IT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THE REPORT ALONG THESE LOANS.>>WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID HE HAD NO BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA HE WAS SEEKING TO BUILD A TRUMP TOWER IN MOSCOW, WAS HE NOT?>>I THINK THERE’S 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?>>ABSOLUTELY.>>IN SHORT, YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIA WANTED TO HELP TRUMP WIN THE ELECTION?>>I THINK GENERALLY THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE.>>RUSSIA INFORMED CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS OF THAT?>>I’M NOT CERTAIN TO WHAT CONVERSATION YOU’RE REFERRING TO.>>WELL, THROUGH AN INTERMEDIARY THEY INFORMED PAPADOPOULOS THEY COULD HELP WITH THE UNANIMOUS RELEASE OF STOLEN EMAILS?>>ACCURATE.>>RUSSIA COMMITTED FEDERAL CRIMES TO HELP DONALD TRUMP?>>WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMPUTER CRIMES CHARGED IN OUR CASE, ABSOLUTELY.>>THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS BUILT THEIR STRATEGY, THEIR MESSAGING STRATEGY AROUND THE STOLEN DOCUMENTS?>>GENERALLY THAT’S TRUE.>>AND THEN THEY LIED TO COVER IT UP?>>GENERALLY THAT’S TRUE.>>THANK YOU. MR. NUNEZ.>>THANK YOU. WELCOME, DIRECTOR. AS A FORMER FBI DIRECTOR, YOU’D AGREE THAT THE FBI IS THE WORLD’S MOST CAPABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY?>>I WOULD SAY WE’RE — YES.>>THE FBI CLAIMS THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEGAN ON JULY 31ST, 2016. BUT, IN FACT, IT BEGAN BEFORE THAT. IN JUNE OF 2016 BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION OFFICIALLY OPENED, TRUMP CAMPAIGN ASSOCIATES CARTER PAGE AND STEPHEN MILLER WERE INVITED TO ATTEND A SYMPOSIUM AT CAME BRIDGE UNIVERSITY IN JULY OF 2016. YOUR OFFICE, HOWEVER, DID NOT INVESTIGATE WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVITING THE TRUMP ASSOCIATES TO THIS SYMPOSIUM. YOUR INVESTIGATORS ALSO FAILED TO INTERVIEW AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO HELPED ORGANIZE THE EVENT AND INVITED CARTER PAGE TO IT. IS THAT CORRECT?>>CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?>>WHETHER OR NOT YOU INTERVIEWED STEPHEN SHRE DP GY.>>IN THOSE AREAS I’M GOING TO STAY AWAY FROM.>>THE FIRST TRUMP ASSOCIATE TO BE INVESTIGATED WAS GENERAL FLYNN. MANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM STEM FROM FALSE MEDIA REPORTS THAT HE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH A CAMBRIDGE ACADEMIC. AND THAT LOKAVA WAS A RUSSIAN SPY. SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE PUBLIC IN A 2017 ARTICLE WRITTEN BY BRITISH INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN CHRISTOPHER ANDREW. YOUR REPORT FAILS TO REVEAL HOW OR WHY ANDREW AND HIS COLLABORATOR, FORMER HEAD OF BRITAIN’S MI-6 SPREAD THESE ALLEGATIONS. AND YOU FAILED TO INTERVIEW LOKAVA ABOUT THESE MATTERS. IS THAT CORRECT?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THOSE MATTERS TO WHICH YOU REFER.>>YOU HAD A TEAM OF 19 LAWYERS, 40 AGENTS AND AN UNLIMITED BUDGET. CORRECT, MR. MUELLER? >>I WOULD NOT SAY WE HAD AN UNLIMITED BUDGET.>>LET’S CONTINUE WITH THE ONGOING OR THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATION SUPPOSEDLY ON JULY 31ST, 2016. THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT OPEN BASED ON AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT FROM FIVE EYES INTELLIGENCE BUT BASED ON A RUMOR CONDUCTED BY ALEXANDER DOWNER ON AS A RULE YUM ONE, PAGE 89 YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES HIM BLANDLY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. HE WAS ACTUALLY A LONG-TIME AUSTRALIAN POLITICIAN, NOT A MILITARY OR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY ARRANGED A 25 MILLION DONATION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND HAS PREVIOUS TIES TO DEERLOVE. DOWNER CONVEYS A RUMOR HE SUPPOSEDLY HEARD ABOUT A CONVERSATION BETWEEN PAPADOPOULOS AND ANOTHER. JAMES COMEY HAS PUBLICLY CALLED MIFFSID A RUSSIAN AGENT, YET YOUR REPORT DOES NOT REFER TO HIM AS A RUSSIAN AGENT. HE HAS EXTENSIVE CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN GOVERNMENTS AND THE FBI. THERE’S A RECENT PHOTO OF HIM STANDING NEXT TO BORIS JOHNSON, THE NEW PRIME MINISTER OF GREAT BRITAIN. WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE, MR. MUELLER, IS IF OUR NATO ALLIES OR BORIS JOHNSON HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED. WE’RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT COMEY SAYS MIFFSIN IS A RUSSIAN AGENT. YOU DO NOT. DO YOU STAND BY WHAT’S IN THE REPORT?>>I STAND BY THAT WHICH IS IN THE REPORT, AND NOT SO NECESSARILY WITH THAT WHICH IS NOT IN THE REPORT.>>I WANT TO RETURN TO MR. DOWNER. HE DENIES THAT PAPADOPOULOS MENTIONED ANYTHING TO HIM ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAILS, AND IN FACT, MIFFSA DENIES MENTIONING THAT TO PAPADOPOULOS. HE DENIES PAPADOPOULOS MENTIONED ANYTHING TO HIM ABOUT CLINTON’S EMAILS. HOW DOES THE FBI KNOW TO CONTINUOUSLY ASK PAPADOPOULOS ABOUT CLINTON’S EMAILS FOR THE REST OF 2016? EVEN MORE STRANGELY, YOUR SENTENCING ON POP COP LOUSE BLAMES HIM FOR HINDERING THE FBI’S ABILITY TO DETAIN OR ARREST MIFFSIN, BUT THE TRUTH IS MIFFSID CAME IN AND OUT OF THE UNITED STATES IN DECEMBER OF 2016. THE U.S. MEDIA COULD FIND HIM. THE ITALIAN PRESS FOUND HIM, AND HE’S THE SUPPOSED RUSSIAN AGENT AT THE EPICENTER OF PURPORTED COLLUSION. BUT THE FBI FAILED TO QUESTION HIM FOR A HALF A YEAR AFTER OFFICIALLY OPENING THE INVESTIGATION. AND THEN ACCORDING TO VOLUME ONE, PAGE 193 OF YOUR REPORT, ONCE MIFFSID FINALLY WAS QUESTIONED HE MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE FBI. BUT YOU DECLINED TO CHARGE HIM. IS THAT CORRECT? YOU DID NOT INDICT MR. MIFFSID?>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THE SERIES OF HAPPENINGS AS YOU ARTICULATED THEM.>>BUT YOU DID NOT — >>TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. >>PARDON?>>YOU DID NOT INDICT MR. MIFFSID?>>TRUE.>>MR. HIMES.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE COUNTRY. DIRECTOR, YOUR REPORT OPENS WITH TWO STATEMENTS OF REMARKABLE CLARITY AND POWER. THE FIRST STATEMENT IS ONE THAT IS AS OF TODAY NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT IS, QUOTE, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION. THE SECOND STATEMENT IS CONTROVERSIAL AMONG MEMBERS OF THIS BODY. SAME PAGE, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND WORK TO SECURE THAT OUTCOME. DO I HAVE THAT STATEMENT RIGHT?>>I BELIEVE SO.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, THIS FAMILY MEMBER ON OUR DEMOCRACY INVOLVED AS YOU SAID TWO OPERATIONS. FIRST A SOCIAL MEDIA DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN. THIS WAS THE A TARGETED CAMPAIGN TO SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION ON PLACES LIKE TWITTER AND FACEBOOK. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>FACEBOOK ESTIMATED AS PER YOUR REPORT THAT THE RUSSIAN FAKE IMAGES REACHED 126 MILLION PEOPLE. IS THAT CORRECT?>>I BELIEVE THAT’S THE SUM WE RECORD.>>DIRECTOR, WHO DID THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN ULTIMATELY INTEND TO BENEFIT? HILLARY CLINTON OR DONALD TRUMP?>>DONALD TRUMP.>>THE SECOND OPERATION — >>LET ME SAY DONALD TRUMP BUT THERE WERE INSTANCES WHERE HILLARY CLINTON WAS SUBJECT TO MUCH THE SAME BEHAVIOR.>>THE SECOND WAS A SCHEME WHAT WE CALL THE HACK AND DUMP TO STEAL AND RELEASE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF EMAILS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGNS. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY?>>IT IS.>>DID YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND THAT THE RELEASES OF THE HACKED EMAILS WERE STRATEGICALLY TIMED TO MAXIMIZE IMPACT ON THE ELECTION.>>I’D HAVE TO REFER YOU TO OUR REPORT.>>PAGE 36, THE RELEASE OF THE DOCUMENTS DESIGNED TO TIME WITH THE THEN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. MR. MUELLER, WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WAS RUSSIA’S HACKING AND DUMPING OPERATION DESIGNED TO BENEFIT, HILLARY CLINTON OR DONALD TRUMP?>>MR. TRUMP.>>MR. MUELLER, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS SWEEPING EFFORT BY RUSSIA HAD AN EFFECT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?>>THOSE ISSUES ARE BEING OR HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY OTHER ENTITIES. >>126 MILLION FACEBOOK IMPRESSIONS. FAKE RALLIES. ATTACKS ON HILLARY CLINTON’S HEALTH. WOULD YOU RULE OUT THAT IT MIGHT HAVE HAD SOME EFFECT ON THE ELECTION?>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE.>>MR. MUELLER YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES A THIRD AVENUE OF ATTEMPTED RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, THE NUMEROUS LINKS AND CONTACTS BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND INDIVIDUALS TIED TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. IS THAT CORRECT?>>COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?>>YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES WHAT IS CALLED A THIRD AVENUE OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. THAT’S THE LINKS AND CONTACTS BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND INDIVIDUALS TIED TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT?>>YES.>>LET’S BRING UP SLIDE ONE WHICH IS ABOUT GORGE PAPADOPOULOS. IT READS ON MAY 6, 2016 TEN DAYS AFTER THAT MEETING WITH MIFFSUD, PAPADOPOULOS SUGGESTED TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IT COULD ASSIST THE CAMPAIGN THROUGH THE ANONYMOUS RELEASE OF INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO HILLARY CLINTON. DIRECTOR, THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TWO MONTHS HEARD, IS IT NOT?>>WELL, I CAN SPEAK TO THE EXCERPT THAT YOU HAVE ON THE SCREEN AS BEING ACCURATE FROM THE REPORT, BUT NOT THE SECOND HALF OF YOUR QUESTION.>>THE SECOND HALF TO REFER TO PAGE SIX OF THE REPORT IS THAT ON JULY 22nd THROUGH WIKILEAKS THOUSANDS OF THESE EMAILS THAT WERE STOLEN BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT APPEARED. CORRECT? THAT’S ON PAGE 6 OF THE REPORT. THIS IS THE WIKILEAKS POSTING OF THOSE EMAILS. >>I CAN’T FIND IT QUICKLY, BUT I — PLEASE CONTINUE.>>OKAY. JUST TO BE CLEAR, BEFORE THE PUBLIC OR THE FBI EVER KNEW THE RUSSIANS REVIEWED FOR A TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL, PAPADOPOULOS, THAT THEY HAD STOLEN EMAILS THAT THEY COULD RELEASE ANONYMOUSLY TO HELP DONALD TRUMP AND HURT HILLARY CLINTON.>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT.>>DIRECTOR, RATHER THAN REPORT THIS CONTACT WITH JOSEPH MISSUD AND THE NOTION THAT THERE WAS DIRT THE CAMPAIGN COULD USE. RATHER THAN REPORT THAT TO THE FBI PAPADOPOULOS LIED ABOUT HIS RUSSIAN CONTACTS TO YOU?>>THAT’S TRUE.>>WE HAVE AN ELECTION COMING UP IN 2020, DIRECTOR. IF A CAMPAIGN RECEIVES AN OFFER OF DIRT FROM A FOREIGN INDIVIDUAL OR A GOVERNMENT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, SHOULD THAT CAMPAIGN REPORT THOSE CONTACTS?>>SHOULD BE AND CAN BE DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR CRIME.>>I WILL YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.>>MR. CONWAY.>>THANK YOU. MR. MUELLER, DID ANYONE ASK YOU TO EXCLUDE ANYTHING FROM YOUR REPORT THAT YOU FELT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE REPORT?>>I DON’T THINK SO. BUT IT’S NOT A SMALL REPORT.>>I DON’T WANT TO ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY TO — NO ONE ASKED YOU SPECIFICALLY TO EXCLUDE SOMETHING?>>NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.>>I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.>>THANK YOU FOR YIELDING. GOOD AFTERNOON. IN YOUR MAY 29th PRESS ARCHS IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS THIS MORNING YOU MADE IT CLEAR YOU WANTED THE REPORT TO SPEAK FOR ITSELF. YOU SAID AT YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE THAT THAT WAS THE OFFICE’S FINAL POSITION, AND WE WILL NOT COMMENT ON ANY OTHER CONCLUSIONS OR HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. NOW, YOU SPENT THE LAST FEW HOURS OF YOUR LIFE FROM DEMOCRATS TRYING TO GET YOU TO ANSWER ALL KIND OF HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. 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 I GUESS REGARDLESS OF THAT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE IS CLOSED, AND IT HAS NO CONTINUING JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY. SO WHAT WOULD BE YOUR AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION FOR ADDING NEW CONCLUSIONS OR DETERMINATIONS TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S WRITTEN REPORT?>>AS THE LATTER, I DON’T KNOW OR EXPECT A CHANGE IN CONCLUSIONS THAT WE INCLUDED IN OUR REPORT.>>SO TO THE POINT YOU ADDRESSED ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I NEEDED TO WHICH WAS FROM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING WHICH SOME CONSTRUED AS A CHANGE TO THE WRITTEN REPORT. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE EXCHANGE THAT YOU HAD WITH CONGRESSMAN LOU. I WROTE IT DOWN DIFFERENT. I RECORDED THAT HE ASKED YOU, QUOTE, THE REASON YOU DID NOT INDICT DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION STATING YOU CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED THAT IS CORRECT. THAT RESPONSE IS INCONSISTENT, I THINK YOU’LL AGREE WITH YOUR WRITTEN REPORT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT YOUR INTENT TO CHANGE YOUR WRITTEN REPORT. IT IS YOUR INTENT TO CLARIFY THE RECORD TODAY?>>AS I STARTED TODAY, THIS AFTERNOON AND ADDED A FOOTNOTE OR END NOTE, WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY IS THE FACT THAT WE DID NOT MAKE ANY DETERMINATION WITH REGARD TO CULPABILITY. WE DID NOT START THAT PROCESS.>>TERRIFIC. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THE RECORD. A STATED PURPOSE OF YOUR APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS TO ENSURE A FULL AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AS PART OF THAT FULL AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, WHAT DETERMINATION DID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE MAKE ABOUT WHETHER THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS PART OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?>>WHEN IT COMES TO MR. STEELE, I DEFER TO THE PRESIDENT OF JUSTICE.>>WELL, FIRST OF ALL, DIRECTOR, I VERY MUCH AGREE WITH YOUR DETERMINATION THAT RUSSIA’S EFFORTS WERE SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC. I THINK IT SHOULD CONCERN EVERY AMERICAN. THAT’S WHY I WANT TO KNOW HOW SWEEPING THE EFFORTS WERE. I WANT TO FIND OUT IF RUSSIA INTERFEAR — INTERFERED WITH OUR ELECTION BY PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT A CONSPIRACY YOU DETERMINED DIDN’T EXIST.>>I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO MR. STEELE. IN TERMS OF A PORTRAYAL OF THE CONSPIRACIES, WE RETURNED TWO INDICTMENTS, IN THE COMPUTER CRIMES ARENA. ONE GRU, AND ANOTHER ACTIVE MEASURES IN WHICH WE LAY OUT IN DETAIL — >>I YOU SAID — >>WHAT OCCURRED IN THOSE TWO UNDER LARGE CONSPIRACIES.>>I AGREE WITH RESPECT TO THAT. WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT IS AN APPLICATION AND THREE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED TO SPY OR SURVEIL ON CARTER PAGE, AND ON ALL FOUR OCCASIONS THE UNITED STATES SUBMITTED THE STEELE DOSSIER AS A CENTRAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THAT. THE BASIC PREMISE OF DOSSIER WAS THERE WAS A WELL-DEVELOPED CONSPIRACY OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, BUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION DIDN’T ESTABLISH ANY SERIOUS, CORRECT?>>WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THE EVENTS THAT YOU ARE CHARACTERIZING HERE NOW IS PART OF ANOTHER MATTER THAT IS BEING HANDLED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.>>BUT YOU DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY CONSPIRACY, MUCH LESS A WELL DEVELOPED ONE?>>AGAIN, I PASS ON ANSWERING THAT QUESTION.>>THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT CHARGE CARTER PAGE WITH ANYTHING. CORRECT?>>SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT.>>ALL RIGHT. MY TIME IS EXPIRED. I YIELD BACK.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, I’D LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE JUNE 9TH, 2016, TRUMP TOWER MEETING. SLIDE TWO WHICH SHOULD BE ON THE SCREEN NOW IS PART OF AN EMAIL CHAIN BETWEEN DON JUNIOR AND A PUBLICIST REPRESENTING THE SON OF A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH. IT LED TO THE INFAMOUS JUNE 9TH, 2016, MEETING. THE EMAIL READS IN PART THE CROWN PROSECUTOR OF RUSSIA OFFERED TO PROVIDE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH SOME OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION THAT WOULD INCRIMINATE HILLARY IN HER DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA AND IS A PART OF RUSSIA AND ITS GOVERNMENT’S SUPPORT OF MR. TRUMP. IN THIS EMAIL DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR IS BEING TOLD THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PASS ALONG INFORMATION THAT WOULD HURT HILLARY CLINTON AND HELP DONALD TRUMP. IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>NOW, TRUMP JUNIOR’S RESPONSE TO THE EMAIL IS SLIDE THREE. HE SAID, AND I QUOTE, IF IT IS WHAT YOU SAY, I LOVE IT. ESPECIALLY LATER IN THE SUMMER. THEN DONALD JUNIOR INVITED SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS PAUL MANAFORT AND JARED KUSHNER TO THE MEETING, DID HE NOT?>>HE DID.>>THIS EMAIL EXCHANGE IS EVIDENCE OF AN OFFER OF ILLEGAL ASSISTANCE, IS IT NOT?>>I CANNOT ADOPT THAT CHARACTERIZATION.>>ISN’T IT AGAINST THE LAW FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN TO ACCEPT ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT?>>GENERALLY SPEAKING, YES, BUT — GENERALLY THE CASES ARE UNIQUE.>>YOU SAY IN PAGE 184 IN VOLUME ONE THAT THE FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW BROADLY PROHIBITS FOREIGN NATIONALS FROM MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS, ET CETERA, AND THEN YOU SAY THAT FOREIGN NATIONALS MAY NOT MAKE A CONTRIBUTION OR DONATION OF MONEY OR ANYTHING OF VALUE. IT SAYS CLEARLY IN THE REPORT ITSELF.>>THANK YOU.>>NOW, LET’S TURN TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AT THE MEETING. WHEN DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR AND THE OTHERS GOT TO THE JUNE 9TH MEETING THEY REALIZED THE RUSSIAN DELEGATION DIDN’T HAVE THE PROMISED QUOTE UNQUOTE DIRT. THEY GOT UPSET ABOUT THAT, DID THEY NOT?>>GENERALLY, YES.>>YOU SAY IN VOLUME ONE, PAGE 118 THAT TRUMP JUNIOR ASKED WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? WHAT DO THEY HAVE ON CLINTON? AND DURING THE MEETING KUSHNER ACTUALLY TEXTED MANAFORT SAYING IT WAS, QUOTE, A WASTE OF TIME, END QUOTE.>>I BELIEVE THAT’STY LONG THE LINES YOU SPECIFY. >>TOP TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS LEARNED RUSSIA WANTED TO HELP DONALD TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN BY GIVING HIM DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT. TRUMP JUNIOR SAID LOVED IT. THEN HE AND SENIOR OFFICIALS HELD A MEETING WITH THE RUSSIANS TO TRY TO GET THE RUSSIAN HELP BUT THEY WERE DISAPOINTED BECAUSE THE DIRT WASN’T AS GOOD AS THEY HOPED. TO THE NEXT STEP, DID ANYONE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN EVER TELL THE FBI OF THIS OFFER?>>I DON’T BELIEVE SO.>>DID DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR TELL THE FBI THAT THEY RECEIVED AN OFFER OF HELP FROM THE RUSSIANS?>>THAT’S ABOUT ALL I’LL SAY ON THIS ASPECT OF IT.>>WOULD IT BE TRUE, SIR, THAT IF THEY HAD REPORTED IT TO THE FBI OR ANYONE IN THE CAMPAIGN DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR TWO-YEAR INVESTIGATION, YOU WOULD HAVE UNCOVERED — >>I WOULD HOPE, YES.>>SIR, IS IT NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS TO INFORM THE FBI IF THEY RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT?>>I WOULD THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD AND SHOULD DO.>>NOT ONLY DID THE CAMPAIGN NOT TELL THE FBI, THEY SOUGHT TO HIDE THE EXISTENCE OF THE JUNE 9TH MEETING FOR OVER A YEAR. IS THAT NOT CORRECT?>>ON THE GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION, I WOULD QUESTION IT. IF YOU’RE REFERRING TO LATER INITIATIVE THAT FLOWED FROM THE MEDIA, THEN — >>NO, WHAT I’M SUGGESTING IS YOU’VE SAID IN VOLUME 2, PAGE 5 ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED AIDES NOT TO PUBLICLY DISCLOSE THE EMAIL SETTING UP THE JUNE 9TH MEETING.>>THAT’S ACCURATE.>>THANKS. GIVEN THIS ILLEGAL ASSISTANCE BY RUSSIANS, YOU CHOSE EVEN GIVEN THAT, YOU DID NOT CHARGE DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR OR ANY OF THE OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS WITH CONSPIRACY. IS THAT RIGHT?>>CORRECT.>>AND WHILE — >>WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT — IF YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER INDIVIDUALS, YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE ATTENDEES ON JUNE 9TH, THAT’S ACCURATE.>>MR. MUELLER, EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN’T CHARGE THEM WITH CONSPIRACY, DON’T YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERNED THESE THREE SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS EAGERLY SOUGHT A FOREIGN ADVERSARY’S HELP TO WIN ELECTIONS AND DON’T YOU THINK THAT REPORTING THAT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DON’T SET A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS?>>I CAN’T ACCEPT THAT CHARACTERIZATION.>>WELL, LISTEN, I THINK THAT IT SEEMS LIKE A BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN VALUES TO ME, SIR, THAT SOMEONE WITH — NOT BEING CRIMINAL IS UNETHICAL AND WRONG, AND I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS WOULD NOT DIVULGE INFORMATION IF IT’S FOREIGN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE. THANK YOU, SIR.>>MR. TURNER?>>I HAVE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND IN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU INDICATE PURSUANT TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RELATIONS THAT YOU SUBMITTED A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION. WHAT I’D LIKE YOU TO CONFIRM IS THE REPORT THAT YOU DID THAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS HEARING WAS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.>>YES.>>YOU ALSO STATE IN THIS OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU THREW OVERBOARD THE WORD COLLUSION BECAUSE IT’S NOT A LEGAL TERM. YOU WOULD NOT CONCLUDE BECAUSE COLLUSION WAS NOT A LEGAL TERM?>>WELL, IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT TO USE THE WORD. IN A GENERAL PARLANCE, PEOPLE CAN THINK OF IT THAT WAY, IF YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT IN A CRIMINAL STATUTE ARENA, YOU CAN’T. BECAUSE IT REALLY — IT’S MUCH MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS CONSPIRACY.>>IN YOUR WORDS, IT’S NOT A LEGAL TERM, SO YOU DIDN’T PUT IT IN YOUR CONCLUSION. CORRECT?>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR POWERS AND AUTHORITIES. NOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE APPOINTMENT ORDER GAVE YOU POWERS AND AUTHORITIES THAT RESIDE IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. NOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NO ABILITY TO GIVE YOU POWERS OF AUTHORITY GREATER THAN THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. CORRECT?>>I DON’T BELIEVE — YEAH. I THINK THAT IS CORRECT.>>I WANT TO FOCUS ON ONE WORD IN YOUR REPORT. IT’S A SECOND TO THE LAST WORD IN THE REPORT. IT’S EXONERATE. THE REPORT STATES ACCORDINGLY WHILE THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME, IT DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM. NOW, IN THE JUDICIARY HEARING IN YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY, YOU’VE ALREADY AGREED WITH MR. RAT CLIFF THAT EXONERATE IS NOT A LEGAL TERM. THAT THERE IS NOT A LEGAL TEST FOR THIS. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. MUELLER. MR. MUELLER, DOES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE? WHAT I’M PUTTING UP HERE IS THE UNITED STATES CODE. THIS IS WHERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GETS HIS POWER AND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ANNOTATED CASES OF THESE WE EVEN WENT TO YOUR LAW SCHOOL. I WENT TO CASE WESTERN, BUT I THOUGHT MAYBE YOUR LAW SCHOOL TEACHES IT DIFFERENTLY. WE GOT THE CRIMINAL LAW TEXTBOOK FROM YOUR LAW SCHOOL. NOWHERE IN THESE BECAUSE WE HAD THESE SCANNED IS THERE A PROCESS OR DESCRIPTION ON EXONERATE. THERE’S NO OFFICE OF EXONERATION AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE. THERE’S NO CERTIFICATE AT THE BOTTOM OF HIS DESK. MR. MUELLER, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE?>>I’M GOING TO PASS ON THAT.>>WHY?>>BECAUSE IT EMBROILS US IN A LEGAL DISCUSSION, AND I’M NOT PREPARED TO DO A LEGAL DISCUSSION IN THAT ARENA.>>YOU WOULD NOT DISAGREE WITH ME WHEN I SAY THAT THERE IS NO PLACE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THE POWER TO EXONERATE AND HE’S NOT BEEN GIVEN THAT AUTHORITY?>>I’M NOT GOING TO — I TAKE YOUR QUESTION.>>GREAT. THE ONE THING THAT I GUESS SECOND DOWN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROBABLY KNOWS HE CAN’T EXONERATE EITHER, AND THAT’S THE PART THAT KIND OF CONFUSES ME. IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN’T HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE, THEN YOU DON’T HAVE THE POWER TO KPOB RATE, 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 DOES NOT — AND HE KNOWS YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT POWER, YOU DON’T HAVE TO TELL HIM THAT YOU’RE NOT EXONERATING THE PRESIDENT. HE KNOWS THIS ALREADY. SO THEN THAT KIND OF CHANGES THE CONTEXT OF THE REPORT.>>NO. INCLUDED IN THE REPORT FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON. HE MAY NOT KNOW IT AND SHOULD.>>SO YOU BELIEVE BILL BARR BELIEVES SOMEWHERE IN THE HALLWAYS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THERE’S AN OFFICE OF EXONERATION?>>NO, THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID.>>WELL I BELIEVE HE KNOWS AND I DON’T BELIEVE YOU PUT THAT IN THERE FOR MR. BARR. I THINK YOU PUT THAT IN THERE FOR EXACTLY WHAT I’M GOING TO DISCUSS NEXT, AND THAT IS TO THE WASHINGTON POST YESTERDAY WHEN SPEAKING OF YOUR REPORT, THE ARTICLE SAID TRUMP COULD NOT BE EXONERATED OF TRYING TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF. TRUMP COULD NOT BE EXONERATED. THAT STATEMENT IS CORRECT, MR. MUELLER ISN’T IT IN THAT NO ONE CAN BE EXONERATED? THE REPORTER WROTE THIS. THIS REPORTER CAN’T BE EXONERATED. MR. MUELLER, YOU CAN’T BE EXONERATED. IN FACT, IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, THERE IS NO POWER OR AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE. THIS IS MY CONCERN, MR. MUELLER. THIS IS THE HEADLINE ON ALL OF THE NEWS CHANNELS WHIERL YOU WERE TESTIFYING TODAY. MUELLER, TRUMP WAS NOT EXONERATED. MR. MUELLER, WHAT YOU KNOW IS THIS CAN’T SAY MUELLER EXONERATED TRUMP. YOU DON’T HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE TRUMP. YOU HAD NO MORE POWER TO DECLARE HIM EXONERATE THAN YOU HAVE TO DECLARE HIM ANDERSON COOPER. THEY DON’T EVEN DECLARE EXONERATION. THE STATEMENT ABOUT EXONERATION IS MISLEADING. AND IT’S MEANINGLESS, AND IT COLORS THIS INVESTIGATION ONE WORD OUT 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.>>TIME HAS EXPIRED.>>I YIELD BACK.>>MR. CARSON.>>THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. I WANT TO LOOK MORE CLOSELY AT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO I BELIEVE BETRAYED OUR COUNTRY, WHO LIED TO A 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, SIR, FOUND A NUMBER OF TROUBLING CONTACTS BETWEEN MR. MANAFORT AND RUSSIAN INDIVIDUALS DURING AND AFTER THE CAMPAIGN. IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?>>CORRECT.>>IN ADDITION TO THE JUNE 9TH MEETING JUST DISCUSSED, MANAFORT ALSO MET SEVERAL TIMES WITH A MAN, KILIMNIK WHO THE FBI ASSESSED TO HAVE TIES WITH RUSSIAN INTEL AGENCIES.>>CORRECT.>>IN FACT, MR. MANAFORT DIDN’T JUST MEET WITH HIM. HE SHARED PRIVATE TRUMP CAMPAIGN POLLING INFORMATION WITH THIS MAN LINKED TO RUSSIAN INTENTION. IS THAT RIGHT?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>AND IN TURN THE INFORMATION WAS SHARED WITH A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH TIED TO VLADIMIR PUTIN. IS THAT CORRECT?>>ALLEGEDLY.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, MEETING WITH HIM WASN’T ENOUGH. SHARING INTERNAL POLLING INFORMATION WASN’T ENOUGH. MR. MANAFORT WENT SO FAR AS TO OFFER THIS RUSSIAN OLIGARCH TIED TO PUTIN A PRIVATE BRIEFING ON THE CAMPAIGN. IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?>>YES, SIR.>>AND FINALLY, MR. MANAFORT ALSO DISCUSSED INTERNAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGY ON FOUR BATTLE GROUND STATES, MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, PENNSYLVANIA, AND MINNESOTA. BUT THE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE LINKED INDIVIDUAL, DID HE NOT?>>THAT’S REFLECTED IN THE REPORT AS THE ITEMS YOU LISTED PREVIOUSLY.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, BASED ON YOUR DECADES AND YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AT 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 STRATEGY RELATED TO WINNING THE VOTES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT AMERICAN BATTLE GROUND STATES WITH A FOREIGN ADVERSARY?>>IS THAT THE YES, SIR?>>YES, SIR.>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ALONG THOSE LINES TO THE EXTENT IT’S WITHIN THE LINES OF THE REPORT AND I SUPPORT IT. I THINK BEYOND THAT IS NOT PART OF THAT WHICH I WOULD SUPPORT IT.>>I THINK IT DOES, SIR. I THINK IT SHOWS A LACK OF PATRIOTISM FROM THE PEOPLE SEEKING THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND. MANAFORT DIDN’T SHARE THIS INFORMATION FOR NOTHING, DID HE J SIR?>>I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITHOUT KNOWING MORE ABOUT THE QUESTION.>>IT’S CLEAR HE HOPED TO BE PAID BACK MONEY HE WAS OWED BY RUSSIAN OR UKRAINIAN OLIGARCHS FOR THE RETURN OF CAMPAIGN INFORMATION?>>THAT IS TRUE.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, AS MY COLLEAGUE WILL DISCUSS LATER, GREED CORRUPTS. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE SHARING OF PRIVATE CAMPAIGN INFORMATION IN EXCHANGE FOR MONEY REPRESENTS A PARTICULAR KIND OF CORRUPTION, ONE THAT PRESENTS A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK TO OUR COUNTRY?>>I’M NOT GOING TO OPINE ON THAT. I DON’T HAVE THE EXPERTISE IN THAT ARENA TO REALLY OPINE.>>WOULD YOU AGREE THAT MANAFORT’S CONTACTS WITH PEOPLE CLOSE TO PUTIN — LEFT HIM VULNERABLE TO BLACKMAIL BY THE RUSSIANS?>>GENERALLY SO, THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.>>WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT THESE ACTS DEMONSTRATED A BETRAYAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC VALUES OF OUR — OUR COUNTRY RESTS ON.>>I CAN’T AGREE WITH THAT. NOT THAT IT’S NOT TRUE, BUT I CANNOT AGREE WITH IT.>>YES, SIR. DIRECTOR MUELLER, I CAN TELL YOU IN MY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FORTUNATE TO SERVE ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE, I KNOW ENOUGH TO SAY YES. TRADING POLITICAL SECRETS FOR MONEY WITH A FOREIGN ADVERSARY CAN CORRUPT. AND IT CAN LEAVE YOU OPEN TO BLACKMAIL, AND IT CERTAINLY REPRESENTS A BETRAYAL OF THE UNDERPINNINGS OF OUR DEMOCRACY. I APPRECIATE YOU FOR COMING TODAY. I YIELD BACK, CHAIRMAN.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER FOR BEING HERE TODAY. IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND NO EVIDENCE MEMBERS OF TRUMP CAMPAIGN WERE INVOLVED OR THEFT OF CLIENT CAMPAIGN RELATED EMAILS?>>CAN YOU READ OR 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.>>WELL, VOLUME ONE, PAGE FIVE THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ELECTION INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. SO IT WOULD, THEREFORE, BE AN ACCURATE BASED ON THIS TO TRIBE — INACCURATE TO DESCRIBE THAT FINDING AS OPEN TO DOUBT. THAT FINDING BEING THAT TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS INVOLVED WITH THEFT OR PUBLICATION OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN EMAILS. ARE YOU FOLLOWING THAT, SIR? SI?>>I DO BELIEVE I’M FOLLOWING IT, BUT IT IS — THAT PORTION OF THAT MATTER DOES NOT FALL WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION OR FALL WITHIN OUR INVESTIGATION.>>WELL, BASICALLY WHAT YOUR REPORT SAYS VOLUME ONE PAGE FIVE, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT OPEN TO DOUBT IS HOW THE COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS FIND THE FINDING IN THEIR MINORITY VIEWS TO OUR 2018 REPORT, AND IT KIND OF FLIES IN THE FACE OF WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR REPORT. SO, IS IT ACCURATE ALSO TO SAY THE INVESTIGATION FOUND NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS TOLD ANYONE ABOUT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ABOUT THE CLAIMS THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD DIRT ON CANDIDATE CLINTON.>>LET ME TURN THAT OVER TO MR. ZEBLEY — >>I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, SIR. THIS IS YOUR REPORT, AND THAT’S WHAT I’M BASING THIS ON.>>CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN?>>IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY THE INVESTIGATION FOUND NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS TOLD ANYONE INVOLVED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGNS THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD DIRT ON CANDIDATE CLINTON.>>I BELIEVE IN THE REPORT, THAT’S ACCURATE.>>YEAH, IN THE REPORT, IT SAYS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT PAPADOPOULOS SHARED THIS INFORMATION WITH THE CAMPAIGN. IT’S THEREFORE INACCURATE TO CONCLUDE THAT BY THE TIME OF THE JUNE 9, 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING, QUOTE, THE CAMPAIGN WAS LIKELY ALREADY ON NOTICE VIA GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS’S CONTACT WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS THAT RUSSIA IN FACT HAD DAMAGING INFORMATION ON TRUMP’S OPPONENT. WOULD YOU SAY THAT’S INACCURATE TO SAY IT’S LIKELY — >>I DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT.>>I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS JUMP TO THIS INCORRECT COLLUSION IN THEIR MINORITY VIEWS AGAIN WHICH CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR REPORT. I’M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS I’D LIKE YOU TO CLARIFY BECAUSE A NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE STATEMENTS THAT I HAVE CONCERNS WITH AND MAYBE YOU CAN CLEAR THEM UP. A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS A RUSSIAN AGENT AFTER YOUR REPORT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED. THAT STATEMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY YOUR REPORT, CORRECT?>>THAT IS ACCURATE. NOT SUPPORTED.>>MULTIPLE DEMOCRAT MEMBERS HAVE ASSERTED THAT PAUL MANAFORT MET WITH JULIAN ASSANGE BEFORE WIKILEAKS RELEASED EMAILS. BECAUSE YOUR REPORT DOES NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE, YOU WOULD ASSUME THAT MEANS YOU FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF THIS MEETING. IS THAT ASSUMPTION CORRECT?>>I’M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THAT ASSUMPTION.>>BUT YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF IT IN YOUR REPORT, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?>>YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.>>DOES YOUR REPORT CONTAIN ANY EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ENROLLED IN THE RUSSIAN SYSTEM AS COME PROMAT AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE ONCE CLAIMED.>>WHAT I CAN SPEAK TO IS INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE THAT WE PICKED UP AS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. AND I THINK THAT’S ACCURATE AS FAR AS IT GOES.>>THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. SO, LET’S GO FOR A SECOND TO SCOPE. DID YOU ASK THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO EXPAND THE MANDATE RELATED TO AUGUST 2017 SCOPING MEMORANDA?>>WELL, WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE MEMORANDA, I COULD NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.>>DID YOU EVER MAKE A REQUEST TO EXPAND YOUR OFFICE’S MANDATE AT ALL?>>GENERALLY, YES.>>AND WAS THAT EVER DENIED?>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT.>>YOU’RE NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT?>>IT GOES TO INTERNAL DELIBERATION.>>I’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND PROCESS. IS IT EXPANDING THE SCOPE COME FROM THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL? OR — >>I’M NOT — >>ROSENSTEIN OR YOU OR 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’RE THE GREATEST PATRIOT IN THIS ROOM TODAY, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.>>THANK YOU.>>YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT — AND I’M GOING TO QUIBBLE WITH YOUR WORDS — THAT THE RUSSIAN INTERVENTION WAS SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC. I WOULD QUIBBLE WITH THAT BECAUSE I DON’T THINK IT WAS JUST AN INTERVENTION. I THINK IT WAS AN INVASION. AND I DON’T THINK IT WAS JUST SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC. I THINK IT WAS SINISTER AND SCHEMING. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES EARLIER HERE REFERRED TO THIS RUSSIAN INTERVENTION AS A HOAX. AND I’D LIKE TO GET YOUR COMMENT ON THAT. ON PAGE 26 OF YOUR REPORT, YOU TALK ABOUT THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY AND HOW TENS OF MILLIONS OF U.S. PERSONS BECAME ENGAGED WITH THE POSTS THAT THEY MADE, THAT THERE WERE SOME 80,000 POSTS ON FACEBOOK, THAT FACEBOOK ITSELF ADMITTED THAT 126 MILLION PEOPLE HAD PROBABLY SEEN THE POSTS THAT WERE PUT UP BY THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY, THAT THEY HAD 3,800 TWITTER ACCOUNTS AND HAD DESIGNED MORE THAN 175,000 TWEETS THAT PROBABLY REACHED 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE. THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY WAS SPENDING ABOUT $1.25 MILLION A MONTH ON ALL OF THIS SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE UNITED STATES IN WHAT I WOULD CALL AN INVESTIGATION IN OUR COUNTRY. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT WAS NOT A HOAX THAT THE RUSSIANS WERE ENGAGED IN TRYING TO IMPACT OUR ELECTION?>>ABSOLUTELY. IT WAS NOT A HOAX. THE INDICTMENTS WE RETURNED AGAINST THE RUSSIANS, TWO DIFFERENT ONES, WERE SUBSTANTIAL IN THEIR SCOPE, USING THAT SCOPE WORD AGAIN. AND I THINK ONE OF THE — WE HAVE UNDERPLAYED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT THAT ASPECT OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT HAS AND WOULD HAVE LONG TERM DAMAGE TO THE UNITED STATES THAT WE NEED TO MOVE QUICKLY TO ADDRESS.>>THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO DRILL DOWN ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY ACTUALLY STARTED IN 2014 BY SENDING OVER STAFF AS TOURISTS, I GUESS, TO START LOOKING AT WHERE THEY WANTED TO ENGAGE. AND THERE ARE MANY THAT SUGGEST — AND I’M INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINION — AS TO WHETHER OR NOT RUSSIA IS PRESENTLY IN THE UNITED STATES LOOKING FOR WAYS TO IMPACT THE 2020 ELECTION.>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT. THAT WOULD BE IN LEVELS OF CLASSIFICATION.>>ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. OFTEN TIMES WHEN WE ENGAGE IN THESE HEARINGS, WE FORGET THE FOREST FOR THE TREES. YOU HAVE A VERY LARGE REPORT HERE OF OVER 400 PAGES. MOST AMERICANS HAVE NOT READ IT. WE HAVE READ IT. ACTUALLY THE FBI DIRECTOR YESTERDAY SAID HE HADN’T READ IT WHICH WAS A LITTLE DISCOURAGING. BUT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I WANT TO GIVE YOU A MINUTE AND 39 SECONDS TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO GLEAN FROM THIS REPORT.>>WELL, WE SPENT SUBSTANTIAL TIME ASSURING THE INTEGRITY OF THE REPORT, UNDERSTANDING IT WOULD BE OUR 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’M GOING TO YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO THE CHAIRMAN.>>I THANK THE GENTLEWOMAN FOR YIELDING. DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT CONSPIRACY. GENERALLY CONSPIRACY OFFERS AN OFFER OF SOMETHING ILLEGAL, ACCEPTANCE OF THAT OFFER IN OVERT ACT AND 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, BUT ONE WOULD ASSUME GIVEN THE PRESENCE AT THE MEETING.>>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.>>AND IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE IF YOU SAY WHEN SOMEBODY OFFERS YOU SOMETHING ILLEGAL AND YOU SAY I LOVE IT, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE.>>I CAN STAY AWAY FROM ADDRESSING ONE OR TWO PARTICULAR SITUATIONS.>>WELL, THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION I’LL HAVE TO CONTINUE IN A BIT. NOW YIELD TO MR. STEWART.>>MR. MUELLER, IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I DO HAVE A SERIES OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO RE-EMPHASIZE SOMETHING THAT MY FRIEND MR. TURNER HAS SAID. I’VE HEARD MANY PEOPLE STATE NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW. AND MANY TIMES THEY HAD RECENTLY NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT WHICH I THINK IS BLAZENLY OBVIOUS TO MOST OF US.>>I’M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU, SIR.>>IS THIS BETTER?>>THAT IS BETTER, THANK YOU.>>I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT THAT NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW. WE ALSO HAVE TO DEFEND PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. I’M SURE YOU AGREE WITH THIS PRINCIPLE. THOUGH I THINK THE WAY YOUR OFFICE PHRASED SOME PARTS OF YOUR REPORT, IT DOES MAKE ME WONDER. FOR GOING ON THREE YEARS INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF VERY SERIOUS CRIMES INCLUDING TREASON, ACCUSATIONS MADE HERE TODAY. THEY HAVE MADE THEIR LIVES DISRUPTED AND IN SOME CASES DESTROYED FOR FALSE ACCUSATIONS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO BASIS OTHER THAN SOME PEOPLE DESPERATELY WISH IT WAS SO. BUT 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’M 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 DATED BACK TO AS EARLY AS A FEW WEEKS AFTER YOUR INCEPTION OF THE BEGINNING OF YOUR WORK AND CONTINUING TO A FEW MONTHS AGO. ALL OF THESE, ALL OF THEM, HAVE ONE ONE THING IN COMMON. THEY WERE DESIGNED TO WEAKEN OR EMBARRASS THE PRESIDENT, EVERY ONE. NEVER WAS IT LEAKED THAT YOU HAD FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. NEVER WAS IT LEAKED THAT THE STEEL DOSSIER WAS A COMPLETE FANTASY NOR THAT IT WAS FUNDED BY THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. I COULD GO ON AND ON. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE ON 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 OR TALK MORE 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 THAT SHOULD NOT BE UNDER A CLOUD. AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR EMPHASIZES AS I HAVE THE SPEED OF AN ELECTION — 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.>>– WITH THE RESULT OF THAT INVESTIGATION.>>THANK YOU. AND IT IS A CLOUD. AND IT’S AN UNFAIR CLOUD FOR DOZENS OF PEOPLE. TO MY POINT, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE PROVIDING INFORMATION TO ANYONE REGARDING THE RAID ON ANYONE’S HOME INCLUDING CNN.>>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT.>>OKAY. YOU SENT A LETTER DATED MARCH 27th TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR IN WHICH YOU ACCLAIM HIS COMMENTS DID NOT CAPTURE THE CONTEXT OF THE REPORT. YOU STATED TODAY THAT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED. DID YOU MAKE EFFORT TO DETERMINE WHO LEAKED THIS CONFIDENTIAL LETTER?>>NO, AND I’M NOT SURE — THIS IS A LETTER OF MARCH 27?>>YES, SIR.>>I’M NOT SURE IT WAS PUBLICIZED. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LEAKS. I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB IN ASSURING THAT NO LEAKS OCCUR.>>WE HAVE 25 EXAMPLES HERE OF WHERE YOU DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB. NOT YOU, SIR. I’M NOT ACCUSING YOU AT ALL. BUT WHERE YOUR OFFICE DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB PROTECTING THIS INFORMATION. ONE MORE EXAMPLE, DO YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO ANONYMOUSLY MADE CLAIMS TO THE PRESS THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL’S BARR’S LETTER TO CONGRESS HAD BEEN MISREPRESENTED OR MISREPRESENTED YOUR 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 THAT LEAKS WERE COMING FROM SOMEONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE.>>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’VE UNDERTAKEN TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE MINIMIZED 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 HAS EXPIRED.>>MR. QUIGLEY.>>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.>>AND UPON QUESTIONING THIS MORNING YOU WERE ASKED 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. THEY COULD.>>SO, 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 OR FIVE YEARS THAT A PRESIDENT WHO SERVES A SECOND TERM IS THEREFORE UNDER THE POLICY ABOVE THE LAW?>>I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH — I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION. I’M NOT CERTAIN THAT I CAN SEE THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU SUGGEST.>>BUT THE STATUTE DOESN’T TOLL, IS THAT CORRECT?>>I DON’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY.>>IT CLEARLY DOESN’T. AS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS WATCHING THIS AND 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 — IT WAS A QUESTION INVOLVING WHETHER ANYONE IN THE TRUMP POLITICAL WORLD PUBLICIZED THE EMAILS, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS THE CASE. I JUST WANT TO REFER TO VOLUME ONE PAGE 60 WHERE WE LEARN THAT TRUMP JR. PUBLICLY TWEETED A LINK TO THE LEAK OF STOLEN PODESTA EMAILS IN OCTOBER OF 2016. YOU’RE 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 WIKILEAKS IN 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 ARE CURRENTLY UNDER INDICTMENT, JULIAN ASSANGE IS.>>WOULD IT BE FAIR TO DESCRIBE THEM AS — YOU WOULD AGREE WITH DIRECTOR POMPEO — THAT’S WHAT HE WAS WHEN HE MADE THAT REMARK — THAT IT’S A HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE.>>YES.>>IF WE COULD PUT UP SLIDE SIX. THIS JUST CAME OUT. WIKILEAKS. I LOVE WIKILEAKS. DONALD TRUMP, OCTOBER 10, 2016. THIS WIKILEAKS STUFF IS UNBELIEVABLE. IT TELLS YOU THE INNER HEART. YOU’VE GOT TO READ IT. DONALD TRUMP, OCTOBER 12, 2016. THIS WIKILEAKS IS LIKE A TREASURE TROVE. DONALD TRUMP, OCTOBER 21, 2016. BOY, I LOVE READING THOSE WIKILEAKS. DONALD TRUMP, NOVEMBER 4th, 2016. WOULD ANY OF THOSE QUOTES DISTURB YOU, MR. DIRECTOR?>>I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD SAY — >>HOW DO YOU REACT TO THAT?>>WELL, IT’S PROBABLY — 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 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS WITH WIKILEAKS DURING THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD. ON OCTOBER 3rd, 2016, WIKILEAKS SENT ANOTHER DIRECT MESSAGE TO TRUMP JR. ASKING YOU GUYS TO HELP DISSEMINATE A LINK ALLEGING CANDIDATE CLINTON HAD ADVOCATED A DRONE TO ATTACK JULIAN ASSANGE. TRUMP JR. RESPONDED THAT, QUOTE, HE HAD ALREADY DONE SO. SAME QUESTION. THIS BEHAVIOR AT THE VERY LEAST DISTURBING? YOUR REACTION?>>DISTURBING AND ALSO SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION.>>COULD IT BE DESCRIBED AS AIDE AND COMFORT TO A HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE?>>I WOULDN’T CATEGORIZE 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 TO THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN?>>CERTAINLY CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION.>>THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. WE GO NOW TO MR. CRAWFORD. AND THEN AFTER MR. CRAWFORD’S FIVE MINUTES, WE’LL TAKE A FIVE OR TEN-MINUTE BREAK.>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER FOR BEING HERE. THERE’S NO BIG THERE THERE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR INVESTIGATION, DID STRUCK OR ANYONE ELSE TELL YOU THAT AROUND TEN MONTHS INTO THE INVESTIGATION THE FBI STILL HAD NO CASE FOR COLLUSION?>>WHO? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?>>PETER STRZOK.>>COULD YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE CLOSER?>>SURE, THERE’S A QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO PETER STRZOK. THERE’S NO BIG THERE THERE IN THE INVESTIGATION. DID HE OR ANYONE ELSE TELL YOU THAT AROUND TEN MONTHS INTO THE INVESTIGATION THE FBI STILL HAD NO CASE FOR COLLUSION?>>NO.>>IS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT THAT THE TEXT MESSAGES FROM PETER STRZOK AND LISA PAIGE’S OFFICE WERE NOT RETAINED AFTER THEY LEFT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE.>>WELL, I — I DON’T — DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. INVESTIGATION INTO THOSE PETER STRZOK WENT ON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. AND I AM NOT CERTAIN WHAT IT ENCOMPASSES. IT MAY WELL HAVE E ENCOMPASSED WHAT YOU’RE AVERTING TO.>>DID YOU ASK THE DEPARTMENT 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 THE INVESTIGATION HAVE YET TO BE VETTED YET. I’M GLAD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND DUNHAM ARE LOOKING INTO THAT. I WOULD 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 DEMOCRAT NATIONAL COMMITTEE. THEY PRODUCED THE DOSSIER. SO, THEY PAID STEEL 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 MENTIONS NA TALIA 65 TIMES. SHE MEETS IN THE TRUMP TOWER. IT’S THIS INFAMOUS TRUMP TOWER MEETING. IT’S IN YOUR REPORT. YOU’VE HEARD MANY 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 OF FUSION GPS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY OR OWNER OF THE COMPANY IS A GUY NAMED GLENN SIMPSON WHO’S WORKING FOR HILLARY CLINTON. GLEN SIMPSON — DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES GLENN SIMPSON MET WITH NATALIA?>>MYSELF? NO.>>WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU THAT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN DIRTY OPS ARM MET WITH HER MORE TIMES THAN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN DID?>>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO AS I INDICATED AT THE OUTSET.>>DID YOU EVER INTERVIEW GLENN SIMPSON?>>I’M AGAIN GOING TO PASS ON THAT.>>ACCORDING TO — I’M GOING TO CHANGE TOPICS HERE. ACCORDING TO NOTES FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL KATHLEEN CAVALACK, CHRISTOPHER STEEL TOLD HER THAT FORMER RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE HEAD AND PUTIN ADVISER WERE SOURCES FOR THE STEEL DOSSIER. NOW, 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 BECAUSE — >>IT’S DELIBERATIONS, OTHER PROCEEDINGS, AND THE LIKE.>>OKAY. WHEN ANDREW WEISSMAN AND OKMAN JOINED YOUR TEAM, WERE YOU AWARE THAT BRUCE OHR DIRECTLY BRIEFED THE DOSSIER ALLEGATIONS TO HIM 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, THAT’S OUTSIDE OUR QUESTIONS. YOU SHOULD GO TO THE FBI OR DEPARTMENT.>>BUT IT INVOLVED YOUR INVESTIGATION.>>IT INVOLVED PERSONS INVOLVED IN MY INVESTIGATION.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.>>WE WILL STAND A RECESS FOR FIVE OR TEN MINUTES. PLEASE, FOLKS, REMAIN IN YOUR SEATS. ALLOW THE DIRECTOR MR. ZEBLEY TO EXIT THE CHAMBER.>>>IT’S LIVE COVERAGE OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING WITH ROBERT MUELLER, THE SECOND HEARING OF THE DAY. THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL TESTIFYING THIS AFTERNOON AS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF SAID IN PARTICULAR THIS COMMITTEE FOCUSING ON THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE IMPLICATIONS OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. ERIC SWALWELL IS SET TO QUESTION MR. MUELLER NEXT WHEN THEY COME BACK, TAKING A BRIEF BREAK HERE AS THEY DID ALSO IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. OUR C-SPAN COVERAGE INCLUDES OTHER CAMERAS ON CAPITOL HILL EXPECTING REACTION TO THIS AFTERNOON’S HEARING. WE WILL BRING THAT TO YOU AS MEMBERS COME TO THE CAMERAS. AND ALSO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT BOTH OF TODAY’S HEARINGS, THE 4 1/2 HOUR HOUSE JUDICIARY HEARING FROM EARLIER TODAY AND THIS AFTERNOON HEARING WILL AIR LATER THIS EVENING ON THE C-SPAN NETWORKS ONCE THEY’RE ALL WRAPPED UP. LOOK FOR COVERAGE ON C-SPAN AND THE C-SPAN NETWORKS. AND THE DOUG COLLINS THERE, THE RANKING MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WATCHING THE PROCEEDINGS THIS AFTERNOON. WE ALSO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT LATER ON WE WILL SIEMAL CAST OUR COVERAGE OF WASHINGTON TODAY FROM C-SPAN RADIO. THAT’S EXPECTED AT 5:00 P.M. OUR GUESTS INCLUDE CONGRESSMAN AND TEXAS JUDGE AND A REPORTER FOR YAHOO NEWS. OUR LIVE COVERAGE CONTINUING AS THE COMMITTEE IS IN A BREAK. WE’LL BRING YOU REACTION FROM MEMBERS IF IT COMES UP DURING THIS BREAK AND CERTAINLY AFTERWARDS AS WELL.>>MEETING WITH COME TO ORDER.>>THANK YOU DIRECTOR. MR. SWALWELL, YOU’RE RECOGNIZED.>>THANK YOU. 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 ADVISER ROGER STONE, DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER RICK GATES, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, MICHAEL FLYNN, DONALD TRUMP’S PERSONAL ATTORNEY MICHAEL COHEN, AND FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS. THESE SIX INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN CHARGED, CONVICTED FOR LYING TO YOUR OFFICE OR OTHERS.>>THAT’S RIGHT, WITH STANCE OF MR. STONE BECAUSE HE IS — HE IS IN A DIFFERENT CASE HERE IN D.C.>>SO, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER FLYNN LIED ABOUT DISCUSSION WITH RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR RELATED TO SANCTIONS, STHARGT?>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>MICHAEL COHEN LIED TO THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW.>>YES.>>GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS LIED TO THE FBI ABOUT HIS COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT RUSSIAN POSSESSION OF DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON, IS THAT CORRECT?>>YES.>>THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT LIED ABOUT MEETINGS HE HAD ABOUT LIES TO RUSSIAN CONTACT.>>THAT’S TRUE.>>AND YOUR INVESTIGATION WAS HAMPERED BY TRUMP CAM PAGS’S USE OF ENCRYPTION. 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 ELECTRONICS.>>YES. GENERALLY THAT WOULD BE IF THE CLIENT’S COMMUNICATIONS ARE USED.>>YOU NOTED THAT DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER RICK GATES WHO SHARED INTERNAL CAMPAIGN POLLING DATA WITH THE PERSON WITH TIES TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE AT THE DIRECTION OF MANAFORT THAT MR. GATES DELETED THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ON A DAILY BASIS. IS THAT RIGHT?>>I DON’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY, BUT IF IT’S IN THE REPORT, THEN I SUPPORT IT.>>THAT’S RIGHT. IT’S VOLUME 1, PAGE 136.>>THANK YOU.>>IN ADDITION TO THAT, OTHER INFORMATION WAS INACCESSIBLE BECAUSE YOUR OFFICE DETERMINED IT WAS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE.>>THAT IS TRUE.>>THAT WOULD INCLUDE THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP AND HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEYS JAY SEKULOW, RUDY GIULIANI. SHIELD OF ATTORNEY/PRIVATE PRIVILEGE.>>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, JUROR?>>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 TEN 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 RUSSIA’S INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND TRUMP’S ROLE IN THAT INTERFERENCE?>>I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD ADOPT THAT CHARACTERIZATION IN TOTAL. MAYBE PIECES OF IT ARE ACCURATE, BUT NOT IN TOTAL.>>BUT YOU DID STATE IN VOLUME ONE PAGE 10 WHILE THIS REPORT EMBODIES FACTUAL AND LEGAL DETERMINATIONS THE OFFICE BELIEVES IT TO BE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. GIVEN THE GAPS, THE OFFICE CANNOT RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION WOULD SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT.>>THAT IS CORRECT. WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE KNOW DON’T KNOW.>>WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT THAT THE WITNESSES TELL THE TRUTH IN A CASE LIKE THIS.>>BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES GOES TO THE HEART OF ANY TESTIMONY YOU HAVE.>>THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, DID YOU REVIEW DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE ORIGIN OF THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN?>>ON OCCASION.>>WAS THE STEEL DOSSIER ONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT WAS REVIEWED?>>I CAN’T DISCUSS THAT CASE.>>I’M JUST ASKING A PROCESS QUESTION. HAVE YOU READ THE STEEL DOSSIER?>>AGAIN, 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 OF THOSE DOCUMENTS?>>AGAIN, I CAN’T GET INTO THAT INVESTIGATIVE — WHAT WE COLLECTED AND WHAT WE’RE DOING WITH INVESTIGATION MATERIALS.>>LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY. WAS THERE ANY LIMITATION IN YOUR AEK SES TO DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE — >>THAT’S SUCH A BROAD QUESTION, I HAVE REAL TROUBLE ANSWERING IT.>>DID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE UNDERTAKE ANY EFFORTS TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY OR DISPROVE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE STEEL DOSSIER?>>AGAIN, I CAN’T RESPOND.>>THE REASON I’M ASKING, IT’S APPARENT THAT THE STEEL DOSSIER FORMED PART OF THE BASIS TO JUSTIFY THE FBI’S COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. AS WE KNOW, IT WAS USED TO OBTAIN A FISA WARRANT ON CARTER PAEJ. THIS IS WHY I’M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS. DID YOUR OFFICE UNDERTAKE ANY EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY STEEL’S SOURCES OR SUBSOURCES?>>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 STEEL SOURCES TO PROVIDE STEEL 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?>>I CAN’T ANSWER THAT.>>DID THEY MEET WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS?>>AGAIN, IT’S OUT OF OUR BAY OF WORK.>>DID THEY MEET WITH FOREIGN PRIVATE CITIZENS?>>AGAIN, SAME RESPONSE.>>DID THEY SEEK INFORMATION ABOUT A U.S. CITIZEN OR ANY U.S. CITIZENS?>>AGAIN, TERRITORY I CANNOT GO TO.>>THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING ON THE RECORD. THESE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND WE’RE HOPEFUL THAT THE IG IS ABLE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. I WILL YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO THE RANKING MEMBER.>>THANK THE GENTLELADY FOR YIELDING. MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO GO BACK TO — WE STARTED OFF WITH JOSEPH MIFSUD AT THE CENTER OF THE INVESTIGATION. HE APPEARS IN YOUR REPORT A DOZEN TIMES OR MORE. HE’S AT THE ORIGIN OF THIS. HE’S THE MAN WHO SUPPOSEDLY KNOWS ABOUT CLINTON’S EMAILS. YOU’VE 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 WHO SEEMS TO BE THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF THIS?>>WELL, I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CANNOT GET INTO CLASSIFIED OR LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION WITHOUT A RATIONALE FOR DOING IT. AND I HAVE SAID ALL I CAN SAY WITH REGARD TO MR. MIFSUD.>>WERE YOU AWARE OF KATHLEEN CAV LEK’S INVOLVEMENT THAT SHE HAD MET WITH MRS. STEEL?>>AGAIN, 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, YOU — WERE YOU IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS OF THAT LAST TIME THAT THE CARTER PAGE WARRANT WAS — >>WELL, I CAN’T SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT WARRANT, BUT IF YOU ASK WAS I IN THE APPROVAL CHAIN, THE ANSWER IS NO.>>OKAY. IT’S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I YIELD BACK.>>MR. CASTRO.>>THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND 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 INSTANCES THAT’S IN YOUR REPORT. SPECIFICALLY, LET’S TURN TO THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT WHICH YOU DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT AS A HIGHLY LUCRATIVE DEAL FOR THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION. IS THAT RIGHT?>>I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE QUOTE FROM THE REPORT IF YOU HAVE IT.>>IT’S VOLUME 2 PAGE 135. IT’S DESCRIBED AS “HIGHLY LUCRATIVE.”>>OKAY. 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 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 CONTRADICT TRUMP’S PUBLIC MESSAGE THAT NO CONNECTION EXISTED BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA. IS THAT RIGHT?>>THAT’S AN — 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, CONSEQUENTLY, I DO BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE.>>THANK YOU. THE PARTY LINE IN THIS CASE WAS THAT THE DEAL ENDED IN JANUARY 2016. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE SAYING THAT THE DEAL 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.>>THAT’S CORRECT.>>THE COHEN DEAL DISCUSSED WITH TRUMP ONLY THREE TIMES WHEN IN TRUTH THEY DISCUSSED IT MULTIPLE TIMES.>>ALSO TRUE. AND PART OF THE BASE FOR THE PLEA 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 EMAIL 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 HAVE 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 A 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 EMAIL TO THE KREMLIN, VLADIMIR PUTIN’S PRESS SECRETARY TOLD REPORTERS THAT THE KREMLIN LEFT THE EMAIL UNANSWERED. THAT STATEMENT BY PUTIN’S PRESS SECRETARY WAS FALSE, WASN’T IT?>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.>>ALTHOUGH IT WAS WIDELY REPORTED IN THE PRESS.>>AGAIN, I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT PARTICULARLY IF IT WAS 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 COULD 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 IN THE DETAILS.>>SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, I WANT TO ASK YOU SOMETHING THAT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATION. DID YOUR INVESTIGATION EVALUATE WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD BE VULNERABLE TO BLACKMAIL BY THE RUSSIANS BECAUSE THE KREMLIN KNEW THAT TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATES LIED ABOUT CONNECTIONS TO RUSSIA RELATED TO THE TRUMP TOWER DEAL?>>I CAN’T SPEAK TO THAT.>>I YIELD BACK, CHAIRMAN.>>MR. HURT.>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU’VE BEEN ASKED MANY TIMES THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT COLLUSION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND IMPEACHMENT AND THE STEEL DOSSIER. AND I DON’T THINK YOUR ANSWERS ARE GOING TO CHANGE IF I ASK YOU ABOUT THOSE QUESTIONS. SO, I’M GOING TO ASK ABOUT A COUPLE OF PRESS STORIES BECAUSE A LOT OF WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE RECEIVED ABOUT THIS HAVE BEEN ON PRESS STORIES. AND SOME OF THAT HAS BEEN WRONG AND SOME OF THOSE PRESS STORIES HAVE BEEN ACCURATE. ON APRIL 13th, 2018, IT WAS REPORTED YOU HAD EVIDENCE MICHAEL COHEN MADE A SECRET TRIP TO PRAGUE DURING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. I THINK HE TOLD ONE OF THE COMMITTEES HERE IN CONGRESS THAT WAS INCORRECT. IS THAT STORY TRUE?>>I CAN’T — WELL, I CAN’T GO INTO IT.>>GOT YOU. ON OCTOBER 31st, 2016, SLATE PUBLISHED A REPORT SUGGESTING THAT A SERVER AT TRUMP TOWER WAS SECRETLY COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIA’S ALPHA BANK. AND I QUOTE, AKIN TO WHAT CRIMINAL SYNDICATES DO. DO YOU KNOW IF THAT STORY IS TRUE?>>DO NOT. DO NOT.>>YOU DO NOT?>>DO NOT KNOW IF IT’S TRUE.>>DID YOU NOT INVESTIGATE THESE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE SUGGESTIVE OF POTENTIAL TRUMP/RUSSIA — >>BECAUSE I DON’T BELIEVE IT NOT TRUE DOESN’T MEAN I WOULD NOT HAVE INVESTIGATED IT. IT MAY HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED. BUT I DON’T BELIEVE IT’S TRUE.>>GOOD COPY. THANK YOU. 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? AFTER OVERSEEING COUNTERINTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS FOR 12 YEARS AND THEN INVESTIGATING WHAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE DONE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, YOU’VE 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. COULD YOU AGREE WITH THIS?>>IT SOUNDS LIKE A WORTH WHILE ENDEAVOR. I WILL TELL YOU, THOUGH, THAT THE ABILITY OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER IN THIS ARENA IS PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT. AND ADOPTING WHATEVER — AND I’M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH LEGISLATION, BUT WHATEVER LEGISLATION WILL ENCOURAGE US WORKING TOGETHER — BY US, I MEAN THE FBI, CIA, NSA, AND THE REST — IT SHOULD BE PURSUED AGGRESSIVELY EARLY.>>WHO DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO COUNTER DISINFORMATION?>>I’M NO LONGER IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SO — >>BUT YOU’VE HAD A LONG STORIED CAREER, AND I DON’T THINK THERE’S ANYBODY WHO BETTER UNDERSTANDS THE THREAT THAT WE ARE FACING THAN YOU. DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS A FORMER FBI OFFICER?>>AS TO?>>AS TO WHO SHOULD BE THE COORDINATING POINTS WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON HOW TO DEAL?>>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 ON IT’S SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN IN THE U.S., BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO ORGANIZE POLITICAL RALLIES AFTER THE ELECTION. OUR COMMITTEE ISSUED A REPORT 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 UP COMING ELECTIONS. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?>>YES. IN FACT, ONE OF THE OTHER AREAS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ARE MANY MORE COMPANIES — NOT COMPANIES. MANY MORE COUNTRIES ARE DEVELOPING CAPABILITY TO REPLICATE WHAT THE RUSSIANS HAD DONE.>>YOU ILLUDED TO MAKING SURE 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 INFORMATION?>>NOT OVERARCHING.>>IS THIS — IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, DID YOU THINK THIS WAS A SINGLE ATTEMPT BY THE RUSSIANS TO GET INVOLVED IN OUR ELECTION, OR DID YOU FIND EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THEY’LL TRY TO DO THIS AGAIN.>>IT WASN’T A SINGLE ATTEMPT. THE DOING IT AS WE SIT HERE. AND THEY EXPECT TO DO IT DURING THE NEXT CAMPAIGN.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME IN INDULGING US HERE IN MULTIPLE COMMITTEES. AND I YIELD BACK TO THE RANKING MEMBER IF HE HAS — I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN.>>MR. HECK.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE MOTIVES BEHIND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF HELP DURING THE ELECTION. OBVIOUSLY CLEAR MOTIVATION IS 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 8th GRADE TAUGHT ME WHICH WAS THAT I SHOULD NEVER EVER UNDERESTIMATE THE CAPACITY OF SOME PEOPLE TO CUT CORNERS AND EVEN MORE IN ORDER TO WORSHIP AND CHASE THE ALMIGHTY BUCK. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK IT IN FACT DOES GO TO THE HEART OF WHY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS SO UNRELENTINGLY INTENT ON DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE KREMLIN. SO, LET’S QUICKLY REVISIT ONE FINANCIAL SCHEME WE JUST DISCUSSED WHICH WAS THE TRUMP TOWER IN MOSCOW. WE INDICATED EARLIER THAT IT WAS A LUCRATIVE DEAL. TRUMP, IN FACT, STOOD IN 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 MR. TRUMP HIMSELF OR OTHERS DISCUSSED THE NECESSITY OF HAVING THE INPUT WITH 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.>>LET’S TURN TO TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIR PAUL MANAFORT. DID IN FACT YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT MANAFORT INTENDED TO USE HIS POSITION AS TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN CHAIR FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL FINANCIAL BENEFIT?>>LIKE I WOULD SAY THERE’S SOM THAT, BUT I WON’T GO FURTHER. >>I THINK YOU’LL FIND IT ON PAGE 135 OF VOLUME ONE. JARED KUSHNER MET WITH SERGEI GORKOFF. 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 JUST 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 DOLLAR LEASE OF THEIR FLAG SHIPBUILDING AT 666 5th AVENUE, CORRECT?>>I’M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THOSE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. KUSHNER — ERIC PRINCE, A SUPPORTER CLOSE TO TRUMP. >>A SUPPORTER. I’M SORRY.>>YES. HE MET IN THE SEYCHELLES DURING THE TRANSITION WITH DMITRI WHO WAS THE HEAD OF A SANCTIONED RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT ARM WHICH HAS CLOSE TIES TO VLADIMIR PUTIN, CORRECT, SIR?>>YES. >>YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THAT MR. PRINCE HAD NOT KNOWN OR CONDUCTED BUSINESS WITH DMITRI BEFORE TRUMP WON THE ELECTION, CORRECT. >>I DEFER TO THE REPORT ON THAT.>>YET, IT DOES. YET, PRINCE WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO TOP ADMINISTRATION, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS, MET WITH DMITRIEV DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD TO DISCUSS BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES AMONG OTHER THINGS. BUT IT WASN’T JUST TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATES WHO ARE 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. FOR EXAMPLE SANCTIONS RELIEF WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT JUNE 9th MEETING IN THE TRUMP TOWER, WAS IT NOT, SIR?>>YES. IT WAS NOT A MAIN SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION.>>TRUMP ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR MICHAEL FLYNN ALSO DISCUSSED SANCTIONS IN A SECRET CONVERSATION WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR, DID HE NOT?>>CORRECT.>>TO SUMMARIZE, DONALD TRUMP, MICHAEL COHEN, 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 — >>I WILL. I’D FURTHER ASSERT THAT WAS NOT ONLY DANGEROUS, IT WAS UN-AMERICAN. GREED CORRUPTS. GREED CORRUPTS AND IT IS A TERRIBLE FOUNDATION FOR DEVELOPING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.>>MR. RADCLIFF. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER, GIVEN YOUR CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT YOU’RE ABLE OR ALLOWED TO ANSWER WITH RESPECT TO COUNTER INTELLIGENCE MATTERS OR OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPEN AND 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.>>THANK YOU. MR. MUELLER, LET ME ASSOCIATE MY WORDS WITH MR. RADCLIFF. I WANT TO CLEAN UP ABOUT THE ERIC PRINCE MEETING.>>DID YOU OR WILL YOU?>>WELL, I KNOW YOU CAN’T.>>I CAN’T DISCUSS EITHER WAY.>>DID YOU REFER THE SAY — HE’S CONCERNED THERE WERE LEAKS ABOUT THE SURVEILLANCE. DID YOU MAKE ANY REFERRALS ABOUT THESE LEAKS?>>I CAN’T GET INTO A DISCUSSION ON IT.>>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.>>DID YOUR REPORT NAME ANY PEOPLE WHO WERE 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 KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK HAS TIES TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. HIS NAME HAS 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, 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 IT’S THE SAME TERRITORY THAT I’M LOATHE 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. DOWD CALLS EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT — >>I’M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. I DID THAT BEFORE. >>AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FROM THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA, WHO YOUR REPORT MISIDENTIFIES AS A RUSSIAN, CLAIMS THAT YOUR REPORT OMITS PARTS OF A TEXT MESSAGE HE HAD WITH MICHAEL COHEN ABOUT STOPPING THE FLOW OF COMPROMISING TAPES OF DONALD TRUMP. IN THE OMITS 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’M 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?>>WELL, 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, 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. THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT. >>YOU HELP ME, I’LL HELP YOU. THANK YOU. IN FACT, YOU HAD TO THEN MAKE A CHARGING DECISION AFTER YOUR INVESTIGATION WHERE UNLESS THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT YOU WOULDN’T MAKE A CHARGE, CORRECT?>>GENERALLY, THAT’S THE CASE. >>BUT MAKING THAT DECISION DOES NOT MEAN YOUR INVESTIGATION FAILED TO TURN UP EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY. >>ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. >>IN FACT, I’LL 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.>>SPEAK INTO THE MIKE MICROPHONE. >>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.>>AND YOU FOUND IN YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT ON JULY 27th, CANDIDATE TRUMP CALLED ON RUSSIA TO HACK HILLARY CLINTON’S E-MAIL, SOMETHING THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME THEY DID ABOUT FIVE HOURS LATER, CORRECT?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>AND YOU ALSO FOUND THAT ON AUGUST 2nd, MR. MANAFORT MET WITH A PERSON TIED TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, MR. KILIMNIK, AND GAVE HIM INTERNAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGY, AWARE THAT RUSSIA WAS INTENDING TO DO A MISINFORMATION SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN, CORRECT?>>WE’RE NOT CERTAIN OF THE TIE THERE.>>BUT THE FACT OF THAT MEETING, YOU AGREE WITH. >>THE FACT THAT THE MEETING TOOK PLACE IS ACCURATE. >>IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU ALSO FOUND THAT IN LATE SUMMER OF 2016, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, IN FACT, DEVISED ITS STRATEGY AND MESSAGING AROUND WIKILEAKS RELEASES OF MATERIALS THAT WERE STOLEN FROM THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, CORRECT?>>IS THAT FROM THE REPORT?>>YES.>>YES.>>ACCORDING TO MR. GATES. >>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 E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS WITH WIKILEAKS NOW INDICTED ABOUT RELEASING INFORMATION DAMAGING TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, CORRECT?>>TRUE. TRUE.>>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. 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 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AWARE THAT A HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER IS TRYING TO INFLUENCE AN 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.>>WOULD, IN FACT, HAVE THE ABILITY WITHOUT FEAR OF LEGAL REPERCUSSION TO MEET WITH AGENTS OF THAT FOREIGN ENTITY HOSTILE TOO WITH THE AMERICAN ELECTION?>>I’M SORRY, WHAT IS THE QUESTION?>>IS THAT AN APPREHENSION THAT YOU SHARE WITH ME?>>YES.>>AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO REPERCUSSIONS WHATSOEVER TO RUSSIA IF THEY DID THIS AGAIN AND, AS YOU’VE STATED EARLIER, AS WE SIT HERE, THEY’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 LINE OF DEFENSE REALLY IS THE ABILITY OF THE VARIOUS AGENCIES WHO HAVE SOME PIECE OF THIS 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.>>MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU. I KNOW IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR HOW MUCH RESPECT I HAVE FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR YOUR EXTRAORDINARY CAREER. 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. IT’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 MIC. >>OF COURSE AT THE OUTSET AFTER WE TOOK OVER THE INVESTIGATION AND BEGAN IT AND PURSUED IT, QUITE HONESTLY ONE OF THE THINGS WE ANTICIPATED WANTING TO ACCOMPLISH WAS GETTING THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT. WE NEGOTIATED WITH HIM FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR. AND I THINK THE APPENDIX LAYS OUT OUR EXPECTATIONS AS A RESULT OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. FINALLY WE WERE ALMOST TOWARD THE END OF OUR INVESTIGATION AND WE’D 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. 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’VE NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE PRESIDENT IN PERSON QUESTIONS UNDER OATH AND SO OBVIOUSLY THAT MUST HAVE BEEN A DIFFICULT DECISION. YOU’RE RIGHT, APPENDIX C LAYS THAT OUT. INDEED, I BELIEVE YOU DESCRIBED THE IN-PERSON INTERVIEW AS VITAL. THAT’S YOUR WORD. OF COURSE YOU MADE CLEAR YOU HAD THE AUTHORITY AND 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 SO THAT HE COULD PREPARE AND NOT BE SURPRISED. BY THE WAY, YOU WERE GOING TO LIMIT THE QUESTIONS WHEN YOU GOT TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO RUSSIA ONLY. IN FACT, YOU DID GO WITH WRITTEN QUESTIONS AFTER ABOUT NINE MONTHS, SIR, RIGHT? AND THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO THOSE. YOU HAVE SOME HARD LANGUAGE FOR WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF THOSE RESPONSES. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE PRESIDENT’S WRITTEN RESPONSES, MR. MUELLER?>>CERTAINLY NOT AS USEFUL AS THE INTERVIEW WOULD BE.>>IN FACT, YOU POINTED OUT — AND BY MY COUNT THERE WERE MORE THAN 30 TIMES WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID HE DIDN’T RECALL, HE DIDN’T REMEMBER, NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION, NO CURRENT RECOLLECTION. I TAKE IT BY YOUR ANSWER IT WASN’T AS HELPFUL. THAT’S WHY YOU USED WORDS LIKE INCOMPLETE, IMPRECISE, INADEQUATE, INSUFFICIENT. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF THOSE WRITTEN ANSWERS?>>THAT IS A FAIR SUMMARY.>>AND I ASK THAT RESPECTFULLY — BY THE WAY, THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T EVER CLAIM THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, DID HE?>>I’M NOT GOING TO TALK TO THAT. >>FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, SIR, AT ONE POINT IT WAS VITAL AND ANOTHER POINT IT WASN’T VITAL. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHY DID IT STOP BEING VITAL? I CAN ONLY THINK OF THREE EXPLANATIONS. ONE IS SOMEBODY TOLD YOU YOU COULDN’T DO IT. >>WE UNDERSTOOD WE COULD SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT. WE COULD SERVE A SUBPOENA. >>THE ONLY OTHER EXPLANATIONS. WELL TWO OTHERS, ONE THAT YOU JUST FLINCHED. YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT AND YOU DIDN’T DO IT. YOU DON’T STRIKE ME AS THE KIND OF GUY WHO FLINCHES. >>I HOPE NOT. >>I HOPE NOT TOO, SIR. THE THIRD EXPLANATION IS YOU DIDN’T THINK YOU NEEDED IT. WHAT CAUGHT MY EYE WAS PAGE 13 ON VOLUME TWO WHERE YOU SAID, IN FACT, YOU HAD A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF EVIDENCE. AND YOU CITE A BUNCH OF CASES ABOUT HOW YOU OFTEN HAVE TO PROVE INTENT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WITHOUT AN IN-PERSON INTERVIEW. THAT’S THE KIND OF NATURE OF IT. AND YOU USED TERMS LIKE A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF EVIDENCE, SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT’S INTENT. MY QUESTION, 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 THAT SATISFIED THE LAST ELEMENT AGAINST HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU WILLING TO SPEND IN THE COURTS LITIGATING THE INTERVIEW OF 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 HOW MUCH EVIDENCE WE HAD COMPARED TO THE LENGTH OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THIS. >>YOU THOUGHT IF YOU GAVE IT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR TO THIS CONGRESS, THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS BETTER THAN THAT DELAY?>>CAN YOU STATE THAT AGAIN?>>OR THAT IT WAS BETTER THAN THE DELAY TO PRESENT THE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, YOUR TERM, OF THE PRESIDENT’S INTENT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TO 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 IT WOULD TAKE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ATTENDANT TO THAT. >>THANK YOU, SIR.>>MS. DEMMINGS.>>THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE NATION. DIRECTOR MUELLER, I TOO WANT TO FOCUS ON THE WRITTEN RESPONSES THAT THE PRESIDENT DID PROVIDE AND THE CONTINUED EFFORTS TO LIE AND COVER UP WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE 2016 ELECTION. 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?>>NOT NECESSARILY. >>SO THERE WERE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU WANTED TO ANSWER. DID YOU ANALYZE HIS WRITTEN ANSWERS ON RUSSIA INTERFERENCE TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S CREDIBILITY?>>NO. IT WAS PERHAPS ONE OF THE FACTORS, BUT NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.>>IT WAS ONE OF THE FACTORS. 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 ANALYZE THE CREDIBILITY OF COUNTLESS WITNESSES BUT YOU WEREN’T ABLE TO DO SO WITH THIS WITNESS. >>PARTICULARLY A LEADING WITNESS, ONE ASSESSES THE CREDIBILITY DAY BY DAY, WITNESS BY WITNESS, DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT. 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, 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 THAT HIS ANSWERS WERE NOT CREDIBLE AT ALL. DO 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?>>SHOULD WHAT?>>CEASE. >>DO YOU HAVE A CITATION?>>YES. WE’RE STILL IN APPENDIX C, SECTION 17. DOES THE PRESIDENT ANSWER WHETHER HE HAD AT ANY TIME DIRECTED WHETHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE TRUMP MOSCOW PROJECT SHOULD CEASE, BUT HE HAS SINCE MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT THIS TOPIC. >>OKAY. AND THE QUESTION WAS?>>LET ME GO ONTO THE NEXT. DID THE PRESIDENT FULLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT TO YOU ABOUT THE TRUMP MOSCOW PROJECT CEASING? AGAIN, IN APPENDIX C. >>CAN YOU DIRECT ME TO THE PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH YOU’RE AVERTING TO. >>NINE DAYS AFTER HIS SUBMITTED HIS WRITTEN ANSWERS DIDN’T THE PRESIDENT SAY PUBLICLY THAT HE, QUOTE, DECIDED NOT TO DO THE PROJECT, UNQUOTE? AND THAT IS IN YOUR REPORT.>>I’D ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD TO POINT OUT THE PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH THAT YOU’RE FOCUSED ON. >>WE CAN MOVE ON. DID THE PRESIDENT ANSWER YOUR FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS? ACCORDING TO 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?>>NO.>>WE’RE IN VOLUME 2, PAGE 52-151. >>NO.>>THERE WERE MANY QUESTIONS THAT HE DIDN’T ANSWER, CORRECT?>>TRUE. >>AND THERE WERE MANY ANSWERS THAT CONTRADICTED EVIDENCE YOU HAD FOUND DURING THE INVESTIGATION, ISN’T THAT CORRECT, DIRECTOR MUELLER?>>YES. >>DIRECTOR MUELLER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT IN HIS WRITTEN ANSWERS STATED HE DID NOT RECALL HAVING ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF WIKILEAKS RELEASES.>>I THINK THAT’S WHAT HE DID. >>DIDN’T YOU INVESTIGATION UNCOVER EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID HAVE ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF WIKILEAKS’ E-MAILS DAMAGING TO HIS OPPONENT?>>I CAN’T GET INTO THAT AREA. >>DID YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINE AFTER 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 ARE ANSWERS I’M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS.>>OKAY. DID 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 ANSWER SHOWED THAT HE WASN’T ALWAYS BEING TRUTHFUL.>>I WOULD SAY GENERALLY.>>GENERALLY. DIRECTOR MUELLER, IT’S ONE THING FOR THE PRESIDENT TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION, BUT IT’S SOMETHING ELSE ALL TOGETHER 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.>>MR. KRISH THAT MURTHY.>>EARLIER TODAY YOU DESCRIBED YOUR REPORT AS DETAILING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, CORRECT?>>YES, YES.>>SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOUR REPORT DID NOT REACH COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR REPORT. >>THAT’S TRUE. >>FOR INSTANCE, 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 TO THE FBI. >>NOT IN YOUR REPORT?>>NOT IN OUR REPORT. WE ADVERT TO THE COUNTER INTELLIGENCE GOALS OF OUR INVESTIGATION WHEN 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. >>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.>>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 ADVISOR MICHAEL FLYNN OF LYING TO FEDERAL AGENTS ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS, 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 OF THE FBI THAT ARE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THAT ISSUE. >>CURRENTLY?>>CURRENTLY.>>AS YOU NOTED IN VOLUME TWO OF YOUR REPORT, DONALD TRUMP REPEATED FIVE TIMES IN ONE PRESS CONFERENCE 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?>>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 ME PERSONAL NO, BUT THE FBI QUITE HONESTLY HAS — DEFENSE AND ATTACK SUCH AS THE RUSSIANS UNDERTOOK IN 2017. >>IS THERE ANY INFORMATION YOU’D LIKE TO SHARE WITH THIS COMMITTEE THAT YOU HAVE NOT SO FAR TODAY?>>THAT’S A BROAD QUESTION. IT WOULD TAKE ME A WHILE TO GET AN ANSWER TO IT. I’LL SAY NO.>>MR. MUELLER, YOU SAID THAT EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD PAY 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.>>WE HAVE TWO FIVE-MINUTE PERIODS REMAINING. MR. NUNES AND MYSELF. MR. NUNES, YOU’RE RECOGNIZED.>>MR. MUELLER, IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY FOR YOU AND YOU’VE HAD A LONG GREAT CAREER. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LONG TIME SERVICE STARTING IN VIETNAM OBVIOUSLY IN THE US 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.>>DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WANT TO CLOSE OUT MY QUESTIONS, TURN TO SOME OF THE EXCHANGE YOU HAD WITH MR. WELSH A BIT EARLIER. I WANT TO SEE IF WE CAN BROADEN THE APERTURE AT THE END OF YOUR HEARING. FROM YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY I’D GATHER THAT KNOWINGLY ACCEPTING ASSISTANCE FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IS A — >>AND A CRIME.>>TO THE DEGREE THAT IT UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR INSTITUTIONS WE CAN ALSO AGREE THAT IT’S UNPATRIOTIC AND WRONG.>>TRUE. >>THE BEHAVIOR OF A CANDIDATE SHOULDN’T BE MERELY WHETHER SOMETHING IS CRIMINAL. IT SHOULD BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD, YOU WOULD AGREE?>>I’M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT BECAUSE IT GOES TO THE STANDARDS APPLIED BY OTHER INSTITUTIONS BESIDES OURS. >>I’M JUST REFERRING TO ETHICAL STANDARDS. WE SHOULD HOLD OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO A HIGHER STANDARDS THAN MERE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINALITY. >>CERTAINLY. >>YOU’VE HELD YOURSELF TO A STANDARD OF DOING WHAT’S RIGHT. >>I WOULD HOPE. >>WE HAVE. I THINK WE CAN ALL SEE THAT. BEFITTING THE TIMES, I’M SURE YOUR REWARD WILL BE UNENDING CRITICISM BUT WE ARE GRATEFUL. THE NEED TO ACT IN ANNEST CAL 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. >>THAT FOREIGN PARTNER CAN EXPOSE THEIR WRONGDOING AND EXTORT THEM. >>TRUE. >>THAT CONDUCT CAN BE OF A FINANCIAL NATURE IF YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL MOTIVE OR ELICIT BUSINESS DEALING, AM I RIGHT?>>YES. >>IT COULD ALSO JUST INVOLVE 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. >>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. >>LET’S LOOK AT DMITRI PESKOV. YOUR REPORT INDICATES THAT MICHAEL COHEN HAD A LONG CONVERSATION ON THE PHONE WITH SOMEONE FROM DMITRI PESKOV’S OFFICER. THEY COULD HAVE TAPE RECORDED THAT, COULD THEY NOT?>>YES. >>THAT’S THE STUFF OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE NIGHTMARES, IS IT NOT?>>IT HAS TO DO WITH THE NEED FOR A STRONG COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ENTITY. >>IT DOES INDEED. AND WHEN THIS WAS REVEALED THAT THERE WERE THESE COMMUNICATIONS NOTWITHSTANDING 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 SHOULDN’T BE THE STANDARD, RIGHT, MR. MUELLER?>>TREE. >>THE SECOND THING YOU 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 THE ELECTION, HE DIDN’T WANT TO LOSE OUT ON THAT MONEY. MIGHT HE HAVE THE SAME CONCERN ABOUT HIS REELECTION?>>SPECULATION.>>THE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS, OF COURSE, IS WE ARE ALL LEFT TO WONDER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS REPRESENTING US OR HIS FINANCIAL INTERESTS. THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS. MR. NUNES, DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCLUDING REMARKS? DIRECTOR MUELLER, LET ME CLOSE BY RETURNING TO WHERE I BEGAN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND THANK YOU FOR 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 IN 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 ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT IN MY OPINION AND THAT OF MANY OTHER PROSECUTORS, HAD IT BEEN ANYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY, THEY WOULD HAVE 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 ONLY THAT YOU COULD NOT. 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 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 REVEALED WHETHER PEOPLE STILL SERVING WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION POSE A RISK OF COMPROMISE AND SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN A SECURITY CLEARANCE, SO WE MUST FIND OUT. WE DID NOT BOTHER TO ASK WHETHER FINANCIAL INDUCEMENTS FROM ANY GULF NATIONS WERE INFLUENCING THIS U.S. POLICY SINCE IT IS OUTSIDE THE FOUR CORNERS OF YOUR REPORT, AND SO WE MUST FIND OUT. BUT ONE THING IS CLEAR FROM YOUR REPORT, YOUR TESTIMONY FROM DIRECTOR WRAY’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 EIGHTH MONTHS FROM NOW. THE PRESIDENT SEEMS TO BECOME 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 THIS SEARCHES 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.>>THIS HEARING IS ADJOURNED.>>>WRAPPING UP ALMOST THREE HOURS BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, HIS TESTIMONY ON THE 448-PAGE MUELLER REPORT. THIS, COUNSEL MUELLER’S 90th APPEARANCE BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE IN HIS CAREER. HERE ON C-SPAN 3 WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR CALLS AND COMMENTS AND C-SPAN RADIO AS WELL. HERE’S HOW TO JOIN THE CONVERSATION. DEMOCRATS CALL 202-748-8920. REPUBLICANS 202-748-8921. FOR ALL OTHERS 202-748-8922. WE PLAN TO SHOW THE HEARING AS WELL, BOTH HEARINGS TODAY, TO RE-AIR THE HEARINGS IN THEIR ENTIRETY ON THE C-SPAN NETWORK. IF YOU MISSED ANY OF THE EARLIER TESTIFY, WE’LL HAVE IT FOR YOU MUCH LATER THIS EVENING AFTER THE HOUSE GAVELS OUT. LET’S GO FIRST TO JOHN IN SAN FRANCISCO ON OUR OTHERS LINE. JOHN, SAN FRANCISCO, GO AHEAD, YOU’RE ON THE AIR.>>Caller: DISAPPOINTING AS EVERYBODY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE, BUT I WAS WONDERING THAT IT SEEMED SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE ASKED IF HE — REPORT BECAUSE HIS — >>JOHN, YOU’RE BREAKING UP ON US A LITTLE BIT. I’M GOING TO LET YOU GO HERE AND GO TO JACKIE IN IRVINE, CALIFORNIA, DEMOCRATS LINE. JACKIE IN, IRVINE, GO AHEAD. >>Caller: THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY CALL. I AM SO PROUD TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN DEMOCRACY. CAN YOU HEAR ME?>>GO AHEAD, JACKIE.>>Caller: OKAY. I AM SO PROUD TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WATCH C-SPAN AND LISTEN TO THE HEARING AND PARTICIPATE IN DEMOCRACY THE WAY I HAVE THIS MORNING. I HAVE TO SAY THAT TO SEE FIGURES SUCH AS CHAIRMAN SCHIFF AND MR. MUELLER, THEY ARE GENTLEMEN OF INTEGRITY, SOMEONE THAT CAN MAKE EVERY AMERICAN VERY PROUD. IT REALLY BREAKS MY HEART, TO BE HONEST, THAT WHEN I SEE THE PRESIDENT SPEAK, WHEN I SEE HOW HE CONDUCTS HIMSELF, WHEN I SEE HOW HE REPRESENTS US AS AMERICANS, I CRINGE. NOW, I THINK THEY DID A VERY GOOD JOB OF BRINGING FORWARD TO ALL AMERICANS KEY POINTS OF FACT THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT. IT’S CLEAR THAT TRUMP HAS A CORRUPT PRESIDENCY AND HE HAD A CORRUPT CAMPAIGN. AND WITH ALL OF THE ANSWERS OF THE QUESTIONS, I’M HOPING THAT INDEPENDENTS AND UNDECIDEDS OUT THERE REALLY TAKE IT TO HEART AND REALLY UNDERSTAND THE THREAT THAT WE’RE FACING. >>THAT’S JACKIE FROM CALIFORNIA. THE PRESIDENT DEPARTING SHORTLY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE HEADED OUT TO A FUND-RAISER, A PRIVATE FUND-RAISER IN WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA. WE MAY HEAR SOME COMMENTS FROM THE PRESIDENT AT THAT TIME. AS WE ARE ABLE, WE’LL BRING THEM TO YOU AS WE CAN. IF YOU DON’T SEE THEM HERE SHORTLY, WE’LL HAVE THEM LATER IN OUR COVERAGE. WE’LL REAIR BOTH OF THE HEARINGS TONIGHT. LET’S GO TO KYLE IN PORTLAND. KYLE’S ON OUR REPUBLICAN LINE. 202-748-8921. HEY THERE, KYLE. >>Caller: HI. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. I JUST HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS TESTIMONY AND HAVING ACTUALLY BEEN ONE OF THE FEW AMERICANS TO HAVE READ THE REPORT MYSELF, I HAVE TO AGREE COMPLETELY WITH JUSTIN AMASH AND HIS CONCLUSIONS. THE PRESIDENT’S BEHAVIOR IS SHOCKING. THE TESTIMONY REGARDING DON McGAHN AND THE INSTRUCTION BY THE PRESIDENT TO REMOVE MUELLER FROM OFFICE AND OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IN WHICH HIS AIDES AND HIS LEGAL COUNSEL WERE FORCED TO IGNORE OUT OF COMPROMISE TO THEMSELVES ULTIMATELY LEADING TO McGAHN’S FIING ARE INCREDIBLY DAMNING. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE WITHIN THE GOP TO LOOK BEYOND PARTY POLITICS AND THE PARTY OF DONALD TRUMP AT THIS STAGE AND SEE WITHIN THEMSELVES TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT ON BEHALF OF AMERICA AND DECRY THIS AS WRONG. IT IS MORALLY OBJECTIONABLE. IT IS WRONG. IF THIS MAN WERE NOT THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HE WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN INDICTED AND PUNISHMENT WOULD BE PURSUED FOR THESE ACTIONS. >>AS WE’RE TAKING YOUR CALLS, YOU’RE SEEING ON YOUR SCREEN OUR CAMERAS, WAITING TO HEAR POSSIBLE COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. THEY’VE JUST WRAPPED UP THEIR QUESTIONS OF ROBERT MUELLER, HIS SECOND APPEARANCE OF THE DAY. KENNEY’S NEXT UP IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, OTHERS LINE.>>Caller: HELLO. >>HI, KENNY. GO AHEAD.>>Caller: ANYBODY THAT THINKS THAT THIS PRESIDENT IS IS FOR AMERICA HAS GOT THEIR HEAD SCREWED ON WRONG. IT’S OBVIOUS HE’S OUT FOR HIMSELF. IT’S OBVIOUS THAT HE DIDN’T WANT TO BE PRESIDENT TO BEGIN WITH AND IT’S OBVIOUS HE WAS GOING TO USE IT AS AN INFOMERCIAL FOR HIS PRODUCT LINE. I JUST FIND IT DISGUSTING ABOUT HOW THE REPUBLICANS BACK HIS EVERY WORD, AND I REALLY HOPE THAT THE COMING PRESIDENT DOESN’T USE HIS BEHAVIOR AS A WAY TO KEEP THE PRESIDENT IN LINE. >>THE PRESIDENT WAS VERY ACTIVE THIS MORNING ON TWITTER AHEAD OF THE HEARINGS THIS MORNING. AFTER THE JUDICIARY WRAPPED UP, TWEETING JUST A FEW MOMENTS AGO, “TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE.” LET’SLINDA, NORTHPORT, FLORIDA, THE REPUBLICAN LINE. DONNA. I’M SORRY GO AHEAD. DONNA IN EAST NORWICH, NEW YORK. GO AHEAD. >>Caller: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING MY CALL. I DIDN’T HAVE A VERY HIGH BAR. I WAS ABLE TO WATCH BOTH HEARINGS FORTUNATELY. I CAME AWAY WITH SEVERAL THINGS. ONE, MY FRUSTRATION WITH MR. MUELLER EVEN THOUGH I FELT VERY EMPATHETIC WITH HIM AT TIMES, AT TIMES HE JUST SEEMED LIKE MY BEFUDDLED UNCLE. BUT HE IS A TRUE PATRIOT. BUT I WAS VERY FRUSTRATED THAT HE WOULD NOT GO OUT OF THE LINES OF THE REPORT ITSELF. I WAS VERY PROUD OF THE WAY THE DEMOCRATS COMPORTED THEMSELVES AND I HAVE TO SAY THAT I WAS DEEPLY MOVED BY ADAM SCHIFF’S OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS BOTH. I LEARNED NOTHING NEW. ACTUALLY, I HAVE READ THE REPORT AND I FOLLOW TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY FROM THE INCEPTION AND I JUST PRAY THAT WE CAN WASH THIS ALL CLEAN IN 2020. THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY CALL. >>THANK YOU FOR YOUR CALL. DONNA POINTED OUT DIRECTOR MUELLER PRETTY MUCH STAYED WITHIN THE LINES OF WHAT THE REPORT REVEALED. THAT WAS FAIRLY WELL KNOWN AHEAD OF THE TESTIMONY. A FEW NEW TIDBITS OF INFORMATION TOWARD THE END IN TERMS OF WHETHER THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE CALLED TO

2015 Selden Society lecture – the Hon Justice Peter Applegarth on Lord Atkin


Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the fifth in the series of the Selden Society lectures. Justice Applegarth with characteristic modesty has suggested that I introduce him by mentioning that he’s a judge of the Supreme Court. Thank you. Justice Applegarth (APPLAUSE) Thank you for that very kind and concise introduction, Justice Fraser. President McMurdo, other Judicial colleagues and friends, distingushed guests, ladies and gentlemen. Any view of Lord Atkin is dominated by his
two towering judgments in Donoghue v Stevenson and Liversidge v Anderson. Yet
to focus upon the two judgments for which he is most famous risks overlooking some important contributions that he made to the law. Any speech to an Australian audience must begin with the fact that Lord Atkin was born in Brisbane. But as proud as we are
of Lord Atkin’s Australian origins, he didn’t regard himself as an Australian or a Queenslander.
He was a different kind of outsider in the colleges of Oxford and in the legal establishment
of London: a Welshman. There is, however, a good reason to treat
Lord Atkin as an honorary Australian. It has more to do with his work in the last few years
of his life than the accidental place of his birth. In 1943 and 1944 he represented
the Australian Government on the War Crimes Commission, a body that was established by the allies to investigate war crimes and to advise allies on how to try them. Lord Atkin
was uncompromising in his views that Nazi war criminals should be brought to justice,
if necessary before international tribunals. This stand was consistent
with the ‘sympathetic and welcoming’ attitude he displayed to refugees from Nazi Germany. According to his biographer, Geoffrey Lewis, Lord Atkin’s ‘humane and compassionate spirit was the most constant feature of his work for more
than thirty years on the English Bench’. Lord Denning described Lord Atkin as ‘a
progressive within the law’. These humane and compassionate instincts were not developed late in his life. They were inherited from a father who died tragically young after championing
progressive causes in Queensland politics. They’re also inculcated by powerful women,
who raised and educated James Richard Atkin. The first part of this talk concerns Lord
Atkin’s life and legal career. Naturally, I’m going to talk about Donoghue v Stevenson. At the
risk of being accused of elevating style over substance, I will concentrate on Lord Atkin’s
judicial method and style in that seminal judgment, and other judgments. It’s not just what he said, it’s the way
that he said it. It’s not just what he ruled, it’s the way that he wrote it. Lord Wright described
Atkin’s style as ‘chaste, composed, easy, accurate… But he could on occasion illuminate
a whole topic by a felicitous phrase.’ Now, I’m getting ahead of myself, Lord Atkin hasn’t even been born yet So let me retreat. He was born on the 28 November,
1867 at Ellandale Cottage in Tank Street. Less than 100 metres from where we gather tonight. His father, Robert Travers Atkin,
was an Irishman from County Cork. His mother, came from Wales. They were married in 1864 and four months after they married, they, departed for Australia. Professor Carney who graces us with this presence and who researched Lord Aktin’s life with great distincition suggests that the
Atkins’ reasons for travelling to Australia, were ‘probably curative and financial’. Members of the Atkin family had died from consumption and the remaining members sought a warmer climate. Robert Atkin who wasn’t wealthy also sought
his fortune. After a short stay in Brisbane the Atkins moved to a selection about 100 kilometres from Rockhampton, but the conditions were harsh and the colony was recovering from the depression. Robert Atkin was seriously injured when he fell off a horse. Mary Atkin’s health was poor as well. He was induced fraudulently it seems to invest in a stock and station agents’ business, that didn’t prosper. So the Atkins
decided to move to Brisbane and for Robert to become a barrister. He registered as a
student of law, but because of his work as a journalist and his involvement in politics he never finished his legal studies. Instead he was a journalist and a newspaper editor. His journalistic
coverage of Queensland politics led to a short parliamentary career. He was first elected in 1868 as the member for Clermont. He
was a leader of the liberal cause, which supported land reform, opposed the power of the squatters.
In 1870 he was elected unopposed to the seat of East Moreton which was then represented by two
members. And significantly, his fellow member after 1871 was William Hemmant, of whom we will hear more. Robert Atkin joined an extra-parliamentary group, called the Queensland Defence League, to oppose Premier
Palmer’s electoral redistribution, which would have reduced the number of seats
in Brisbane and its suburbs. They opposed the squattocracy and a group of six members
of Parliament from Ipswich and West Moreton who were dubbed ‘the Ipswich Bunch’. By 1871 Robert Atkin’s health was in
decline. Two other sons had been born by this time and the third born son was of poor health and Mary Atkin decided to return to Wales with all of her sons. The sons were never to see their father again. During the final years of his life Robert
Atkin enjoyed what Lord Atkin later described as the ‘unremitting care’ of William Hemmant,
who was both a member of Parliment and a prosperous merchant. About twenty years
later in England, William Hemmant became a benefactor of the young barrister, Dick Atkin,
and in 1893 became his father-in-law. Robert Atkin resigned as a member of parliment
in March 1872 on the basis that Samuel Griffith could be persuaded to stand for his seat and Griffith did so and won an election, and as we know championed the real progressive politics for the next 18 years or so of his life before, of his political life before he made common cause with the conservatives. Robert Atkin died on 25 May 1872, aged only
30. His wife who had returned to Brisbane the previous month and her arrival without the sons was said to have been a great disappointment to him since he yearned obviously to see his sons. A few weeks after
his death, Mary Atkin wrote to her two eldest sons and explained their father’s passing, how he had gone to heaven and how he sent his love to them. And she wrote: ‘Perhaps some day when you are big men, we shall come out to
Brisbane, and you shall finish the work that Papa had only time to begin.’ Later in his life, Lord Atkin wrote, ‘My
father must have been a man of exceptional gifts’. One of the pieces of evidence was an inscription upon a public memorial that was set up in memory of his father. It
was erected by the Hibernian Society, and still stands, some what obscurely, in Sandgate. The broken column
on the monument is said to symbolise ‘the irreparable loss of a man who well represented
some of the finest characteristics of the Celtic race – its rich humour and subtle
wit, its fervid passion and genial warmth of heart.’ The inscription on the monument
describes how Robert Atkin had ‘large and elevated views, remarkable powers of organisation, and unswerving advocacy of the popular cause, and
his rare abilities were especially devoted to the promotion of quote ‘a patriotic union among
his countrymen, irrespective of class or creed, combined with a loyal allegiance to the land
of their adoption.’ On Richard Atkin’s fourth birthday in
1871, his dying father had written to him encouraging him to be ‘truthful and honourable’.
And in April 1872, the month before he died, Robert Atkin wrote another letter which conveyed the final wish that his sons would grow up to be ‘nice unaffected gentlemen’, without concern for status, honourable and upright. The ‘rare abilities’ which Robert Atkin
displayed, his commitment to the values of liberal democracy and his egalitarianism were passed to his son. Now epigeneticists and psychoanalysts might debate whether the transmission of these
qualities was some kind of genetic inheritance, or the response of a son to the unfinished work of his father. The letters which Dick Atkin’s father and mother
each wrote to him must have had a powerful influence on him. But instead of returning to Brisbane to take up the yet to be completed work of his father, Richard Atkin took up similar causes on the other side of the planet. And rather than following his father into liberal politics in Queensland or Samuel Griffith into law and politics Dick Atkin lived the life of a Welshman. His formative years were in the Welsh countryside, and he and his brothers spent several years living with their grandmother whom Dick Atkin later
described as ‘the greatest woman I ever met’. He wrote of her that, native wit,
large sympathy, great experience of life cultivated by association with all classes of people,
an active memory stocked with folk tales and countryside traditions made her conversations
inimitable. She had strong likes and dislikes. She detested pretence either in rank or religion:
and she was not sparing in her denunciation of her pet aversion, the sanctimonious Calvinist.
Her sympathies were with people: not so much politically as in their ordinary life. We
were never allowed to speak of the ‘common’ people. The young Atkin also enjoyed the love and devotion
of his mother who would walk up the hill to give her children lessons in English history. Dick Atkin excelled academically at schools in Wales and before his 17th birthday he was awarded a classical demyship at
Magdalen College, Oxford. However, his time at Magdalen was not a happy one. He later wrote that his
life, there was not happy, he was ‘too young, at any rate it was too young for me,’ he wrote. He was young and sensitive, he had a small allowance and he fraternised with other Welsh students. After graduating from Oxford and completing the Bar exams he went in search of a pupil master and went around the courts to see the greatest advocates of his time. He settled upon Thomas Scrutton who had a leading practice
at the commercial bar. Atkin described Scrutton as being the ‘complete master of the facts and
the law’. Atkin persuaded Scrutton to allow him to become his pupils. Scrutton’s pupils worked in what’s been described as unattractive chambers and temporal gardens under conditions of austerity. After completing his pupillage in 1891 Atkin
took chambers. But lacking connection with solicitors, the briefs were few and far between.
Good fortune came in the form of William Hemmant who, after his career in Queensland politics,
had become resident partner of his firm in London. Hemmant gave most of his legal work
to a young solicitor named Norman Herbert Smith who had just started a firm in the City of London. Smith promised to give Atkin his first brief and
fulfilled the promise. Atkin recalled that it was one of the most difficult cases he had ever had to
advise upon in his whole career. And Atkin wrote to his mother in March 1891 ‘It was a very complicated case and I think I earned my guinea.’ Smith continued to brief Atkin during the whole of his career as a barrister, and of course Herbert Smith went on to build one of the most prestigious firms
in the City of London. Smith was about the only solicitor who briefed Atkin in his first year. But a little later Hemmant introduced Atkin to the Official
Assignee of the Stock Exchange and there generated a consistent flow of work. Atkin’s practice grew and
according to The Times, when he took silk in 1906 he was probably the busiest junior
at the Bar. With the appointment to the Bench of Hamilton in 1909 and Scrutton in 1910,
Atkin dominated the commercial Bar. In retrospect, Atkin’s success at the Bar
and on the Bench seems inevitable. However, he came close to leaving the Bar. Professor Gutteridge’s obituary reported that in Atkin’s early years at the Bar ‘briefs
were few and far between and the outlook was black.’ The professor recalled an occasion on when he and Atkin were walking down a street in London and Atkin pointed out a building and
said: ‘I can never see that without thinking how lucky I have been!’ Then Atkin recounted that the building contained the office of a scholastic academy, and he told Gutteridge that a few years earlier he had walked into that office with despair in his heart to inquire about obtaining a mastership at a public school. So it would be well-advised to note how close the law came to losing a junior barrister who was to become a great judge. And we should think about and think about what we can do to keep bright and industrious junior barristers where they belong: at the Bar. Dick Atkin and Lizzie Hemmant were born twelve days apart and as toddlers they must have been each other’s company, here at North Quay. 20 years later they met at the Hemmant estate in Kent. Atkin was still struggling to establish himself at the Bar, and so their engagement lasted for five years. And they married in 1893. They had eight children: six girls and two
boys. One of Atkin’s daughters went on the stage and he was very proud of her. Tragically, the Atkin’s eldest son was killed in battle in France in 1917 at the age of twenty. On a happier note Sir Samuel Griffith,
attended the wedding of one of the Atkins’ other daughters. Lord Atkin and Lady Atkin enjoyed a
happy marriage until her death in 1939. Before the First World War Lizzie Atkin bought a car, the same model as used by London taxi, and she used it to go shopping. Her son reported quote “In later years she patronised
the Army and Navy Stores into which she would enter majestically leading her bulldog and
smoking her cigarette knowing confidently that none of the staff would think of reminding her that both dogs and cigarettes were forbidden in the stores”. Lewis likens Lizzie Hemmant to Atkin’s mother
and grandmother. He describes Lizzie Hemmant as ‘a girl and woman of strong, vivid character,
great warmth and the habit of outspoken opinions.’ Well, the Atkin’s acquired a home in Wales. In terms of his personal family life his daughter reported that he had
‘low-brow’ tastes. He went to the musical the ‘Lambeth Walk’ twelve times. He was a devout Christian and attended
church with his family every Sunday. His Christian faith
was a ‘strong constant in his life’. A local clergyman later described Atkin as a ‘low Church-man with a great love of the Prayer Book’, and reported that many of the villagers went to him with their troubles; he always found time, even on vacation, to talk to them’. As appears from many of his judicial decisions,
he considered that principled decisions that courts make should rest upon the judicial officer having an understanding of the conditions of life of ordinary people. He initiated the appointment as a magistrate
of a sheep farmer who had given expert evidence in a sheep stealing case. Atkin had presided as a Magistrate had thought
the farmer had given clear and fearless evidence. And much like the friendship that developed between
the fictional characters Darryl Kerrigan and Lawrie Hammil QC in The Castle, a friendship
developed between Atkin and the sheep farmer. Atkin’s daughter, Elizabeth, recalled that he didn’t enjoy his work in the Court of Appeal he felt that he was merely the intermediary between one Court and another. And his usual answer when asked by his family during his nine year period on the Court of Appeal about whether he had heard any interesting cases that day was ‘No, very dull’. As a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, he would
come home and say that he thought he had won his ‘brothers’
over to his side or ‘so-and-so is still not convinced but he may be tomorrow’. All of his letters and judgments were hand written, he didn’t have a secretary. He spent every Saturday morning at the House of Lords working on judgments and took judgments away on vacation to complete them. He and Lady Atkin never travelled abroad. Atkin was heavily involved in the affairs,
of the Medico-Legal Society. He chaired a committee on criminal
responsibility of the insane. He was committed to improving legal education. He championed the education of law in universities
and the improvement of practical legal orientation. He didn’t have any political affiliations, that may explain why he never occupied the Woolsack. He’s been described as a ‘political agnostic’. But when he spoke in debates in the House of Lords, he spoke from the Liberal Benches. The six years that he was a King’s
Bench judge was said to have been the happiest years of his professional career. And he was regarded as one of the greatest criminal judges of his generation, along with Scrutton. The motto ‘tough on crime; tough on the causes of the crime’ may have been coined for Lord Atkin. As I said in 1919, he was appointed to the Court of Appeal, he typically sat with his former pupil master, Lord Justice Scrutton and Lord Justice Bankes. Atkin had a life-long admiration for Scrutton but despite this, he disagreed with Scrutton about the disposition of a number of appeals. And Lord Denning said that Scrutton and Atkin ‘fought for
the body of Bankes’. As a judge he was said to have had a good temperament, courteous and incisive in his questioning. One barrister who appeared in front of him said: ‘He listened to argument with generous indulgence; his interjections were few and in tone almost apologetic; but his observations were as pointed
as a needle.’ Other reports suggest that if he’d
made up his mind, it was hard, if not impossible, to persuade him to change it, and as the intelligence from his daughter reported when he came home, he said that his task the next day was to persuade the other judges over to his point of view. Lord Denning recalled: ‘If
he was on your side, you had no need to worry – he would put the points in your favour.
If he was against you, you could never get him around.’ In the area of commercial law Atkin understood the commercial community and he had a huge practice at the Commercial
Bar. And he understood the importance of certainty in contract law, and in the law generally. He was dismissive of legal fictions, and in United Australia v Barclays Bank said, when these ghosts of the past stand in the path of justice clanking their mediaeval chains the proper course for the judge is to pass through them undeterred. Throughout his judicial career, and not only
in the area of commercial law, Atkin sought to determine legal disputes in a manner which accorded with common sense, and he avoided complex refinements. His biographer refers to his ‘preoccupation with general
principles’. And he attempted to dispose of cases on the basis of an understanding of the life of ordinary people. In one case, Everett’s case the plaintiff launched civil action after being falsely and without adequate justification, certified as insane. Atkin held, in dissent, that the defendants owed a duty of care and his passion and empathy were obvious, as was his marvelous writing style, who’s dissenting judgment was referred to be Lord Haldane as a ‘powerful piece of reasoning displaying anxiety to ‘guard against a possible
miscarriage of justice.’ Atkin said that the poor and the weak should not quote ‘suffer the unspeakable torment of having their sanity
condemned and their liberty restricted’. The competing view, by Lord Scrutton, was as important as that was, it was also important that those who have to make these decisions aren’t deterred by the threat of legal action and be deterred from certify someone because of the threat of an action. And one hears here the echo of modern day debates about the cost and consequences of defensive
medicine. In a number of cases and I deal with them in the paper in Parliamentary debates Atkin displayed and understanding of ordinary people’s lives. In debates on the Marriage Bill, he supported the introduction of cruelty and desertion as a ground of divorce. He was appreciative of the tragedy of a Court of Appeal decision involving the poor laws and splitting up a family. And in workplace injury cases he helped erode the pernicious doctrine of common employment and in Caswell’s case he combined an understanding of the conditions of work in mines, with an ability to conceptualise the doctrine of contributory
negligence, he saw it tied to issues of causation which value judgments are to be made. Both Lord Atkin and
Lord Wright carefully analysed the evidence and concluded that contributory negligence, which then was complete defence wasn’t established. But Lord Atkin went further and provided an insightful analysis of contributory negligence and brought to bear his analytical skills, and principles
applied in other jurisdictions, including Admiralty. As a final note from my previous Galapagos Island area of practice, defamation law in Sim v Stretch he gave a statement of what it means to make a defamatory statement. And that definition has been often sighted since. Professor Brown, reports that the author of Gatley on Libel and Slander, Dr J C C Gatley, was found dead in his chambers in 1936. And open on the desk was The Times law page reporting Lord Atkin’s speech in Sim v Stretch. So, I’m not sure whether we can blame Lord Atkin for Dr Gatley’s death, but there is a circumstantial case there, I think. Turning to Donoghue v Stevenson, the case is familiar to many. Didn’t go to trial. It was a point of law about whether the facts alleged by Mrs Donoghue gave rise to a duty of care. Briefly, the background to this is that the tort of negligence had developed under the influence of Roman law and natural lawyers. The influence of natural lawyers was that there had to be an antecedent duty of care that was breached. In England there were separate functions for judge and jury and the question of whether a duty of care
existed was for the judge to decide. And so if lawyers could frame the issue of duty of care as a legal issue, it was for the judge to decide and that had the tendency to load contentious issues onto the judge to decide and for judges to control the scope of negligence. So there is an enormous body of precedent and the result was a fragmentation of the law of negligence where in Continental Europe there were general principles. At about the time that Atkin went up to Oxford, the first edition of Beven on Negligence appeared and it consisted of 700 pages. In 1889 another author had stated: ‘The Law in regard to Negligence is the most uncultivated part of the “wilderness of single instances” of which our law consists.’ And by the time Donoghue v Stevenson was argued, the fourth edition of Beven on Negligence, was 1570 pages with a table of cases consisting of 175 pages. In the area of product liability there were some exceptional cases in which it had been recognised that a manufacturer owed a duty of care to an ultimate consumer. However the 19th Century case law didn’t evidently recognise a duty of care in the circumstances that Mrs Donoghue alleged. Her case hardly be said to have had good prospects. A few weeks before the events that she alleged. The court in Scotland had rejected a similar claim. She succeeded first instance, failed on appeal, obtained leave to appeal and had the status of a pauper. The case was heard, it was reserved for quite a while and Mrs Donoghue’s appeal succeeded by three-to-two. Lords Atkin, Thankerton and Macmillan constituted the majority, Lord Buckmaster and Tomlin dissented, and Professor Heuston referred to Lord Atkin
as the leader of quote ‘the Celtic majority’ unquote something you’d expect an Irish Professor to say. Lord Thankerton, Lord Macmillian were Scotish and of course Lord Atkin’s father was Irish. The dissenting speech of Lord Buckmaster was delivered first in time. He was sarcastically dismissive of cases that didn’t support his conclusions and one commentator has said that he seems to be moved by some extra legal concern. In any event, turning to Lord Atkin’s speech after framing the issue he observed that it was ‘remarkable how difficult it is to find in the English authorities statements of general application defining the relations between parties that give rise to the duty.’ Instead, the court had engaged on an elaborate classification. And after referring to some of these, he said, ‘Yet the duty which is common to all the cases where liability is established must logically be based upon some element common to the cases where it is found.’ So the search for principle preceded the analysis of precedent and at an early stage in the judgement he comments that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular
cases found in the books are but instances. And then he immediately formulates what has become known as the ‘neighbour principle’: which we see on the PowerPoint, I won’t read it. Lord Atkin wasn’t the first jurist to articulate the ‘neighbour principle’, In 1767 Lord Bathurst had stated that such a principle in his Introduction to the Law of Trials. But Lord Atkin’s grounding of the principle in the parable of the Good Samaritan was compelling. And as Profession Chamberlain has said, that literary and rhetorical features of the parable lend themselves to persuasive legal reasoning. Rather than looking for, authorities that supported the principle, Atkin said that he hadn’t found any that were against it. Having said that he then embarked upon a masterful analysis of the authorities. For example, he didn’t attempt to overrule Winterbottom v Wright. He chose the more subtle approach of agreeing with Lord Buckmaster that the case was correctly decided, but argued that the issue of law raised in Donoghue v Stevenson wasn’t raised in that case. After analysing the authorities, he turned and looked across the Atlantic and was comforted by the fact that Justice Cardozo in the ‘illuminating judgment’ in MacPherson v Buick Motor Company had reached the same conclusion. In his judgment Lord Atkin glides over the distinction between what the law is and what the law should be. He didn’t really explain why there must be such a general conception. And many would argue the common law doesn’t generate those governing principles. For example, Professor Brian Simpson has argued that: we must start by recognising what common sense suggests, which is that the common
law is more of a muddle than a system, and that it would be difficult to conceive of a
less systematic body of law. Despite this, Lord Atkin treated the categories of case on duty of care as reflective of some general principle. And he backed up that, conclusion by a beautiful hypothetical example concerning a product mixed with poison. And in a beautiful appeal to the province of law, he stated: I don’t think so ill of our jurisprudence as to suppose that its principles are so remote from the ordinary needs of civilized society and the ordinary claims it makes upon its members as to deny a legal remedy where there is so obviously a social wrong. Others have commented about the lack of logic in Lord Atkin’s conclusion, that there must be a duty of care. And Professor MacCormick said well why can’t duties of care as a matter of logic simply crop up whenever they arise. And Justice Michael McHugh in 1998 in an, important paper on judicial method and logic and judicial reasoning noted that logic only takes one so far in deciding novel cases. Justice McHugh explained that Lord Buckmaster’s dissent showed that the cases were ‘logically explicable’ without a general principle of negligence. Lord Atkin’s, decision wasn’t compelled by logic Justice McHugh stated that Lord Atkin’s decision was
based on what he thought justice required, not logical compulsion. It was his sense of
justice and not logic that gave rise to the general principle that has dominated the law of negligence since 1932. The contrast in styles
between Atkin and Buckmaster is noteworthy. Lord Denning unfairly described Buckmaster as timid and other people said that was quite wrong. Sir Frederick Pollock, said that Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin were the last people that you would accuse of being timid. But Sir Frederick Pollock insightfully said of the two dissenting judge part of their opinions read as if they had forgotten that they were judging in a Court of last resort. Clearly, both Lord Buckmaster and Lord Atkin had a commitment to the integrity of the law. Lord Buckmaster saw himself as being bound by precedent to reject Mrs Donoghue’s claim. Lord Atkin saw no
precedent that required him to do so and he was able to discern from categories of cases, a governing principle. For Atkin, principle first precedent second, for Buckmaster precedent first. One might say finally. So let me summarise Atkin’s achievement in Donoghue v Stevenson. The law of negligence had been fragmented. In the 20th century there was a movement back towards an unifying principle and Donoghue v Stevenson can be regarded as the turning point. Chief Justice Gleeson referred to Lord Atkin’s brilliant achievement. And as I’ve said, his judgment is a great work of legal prose. Well, a view 100 years after it was decided, Donoghue v Stevenson is obviously a landmark in the law. And a few years ago, in the special edition to mark 135 years of law reporting, The Law Reports, the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting produced their ‘Top 10′ and Donoghue v Stevenson was in it it was a chronological list, I don’t know whether it rated number one, many would. Of course the case attracted immediate attention in 1933 from legal commentators. However as powerful as Lord Atkin’s, judgment was at the time and as influential as his articulation of the neighbour principle has been over the last century, his speech was only one of three and contemporary commentators adopted the more minimalist approach of Lords Thankerton and Lord Macmillan. And it was Lord Macmillan’s approach that found favour with textbook writers, many
judges including the Privy Council in Grant’s case. Dr Grant’s appeal to the Privy Council
was upheld, but without reference to the neighbour prinicple. Lord Atkin’s biographer wrote of Donoghue v Stevenson quote, “It’s true nature was perhaps not fully understood even by the profession until Lord Devlin’s
speech in 1963 in the Hedley Byrne Case’. And Lord Atkin’s judgment received a very frosty reception from Lord Justice Scrutton in 1933. But Lord Aktin’s speech in Donoghue v Stevenson, more general was more warmly received in the Commonwealth. In March 1933 Justice Herbert Vere Evatt of the High Court wrote to Atkin saying ‘the Snail case’ had aroused great interest at the Bar and the university law schools. And Evatt wrote, on all sides there is profound satisfaction that, in substance, your judgment and the opinion of Justice Cardozo of the U.S.A. coincide, and that the common law is again
shown to be capable of meeting modern conditions of industrialisation, and of striking
through forms of legal separateness to reality. Lord Atkin’s speech wasn’t forgotten in Australia. It was influential in the 1962 decision of Voli v Inglewood Shire Council. And it’s perhaps fitting that his principle should find fertile ground in the land of his birth. Returning to his life, as I said, Lady Atkin died in 1939. He wrote to Evatt in 1940 about how he had a solitary life, but his daughters were caring for him. They discussed recent cases, it’s intriging that Final Court of Appeal judges talk about what they’re going to do to the Court of Appeal below them. And he wrote to Evatt, and proudly reported that, about a particular case, we’ve not given our reasons yet, but that decision is going to receive a good hard knock. He complimented Evatt on his literary efforts. And wrote, how little the public realise how dependent they are for their happiness on an impartial
administration of justice. I have often thought it is like oxygen in the air: they know and care nothing about it until it is withdrawn. The letter concluded: ‘We hear no war news that you do not get: and that seems to me precious little. However we are determined to put an end to the gangsters as you all are.’ In May 1940 Atkin spoke at Gray’s Inn at a reception for refugee lawyers, including Dr Ernst Wolff, who’d been President of the Berlin Bar and the General Council of the German Bar before
Hitler’s rise to power. He later became President of the Supreme Court for the British Zone in Germany. After the reception Dr Wolff wrote to Lord Atkin that his quote ‘kind words of sympathy for our situation went to our hearts’ unquote. Wolff wrote about Britain’s fight against the ‘conspiracy of piracy’ that the German lawyers had suffered, and hoped that after Nazi Germany was destroyed ‘law can prevail again’. I turn to Liversidge v Anderson which was a defining point in Atkin’s judicial career. It was delivered in November 1941, a few weeks before his 74th birthday. And it stands, as one of the most significant of all the
constitutional speeches from the House of Lords in hundred years. Briefly the British Parliament passed emergency legislation, a regulation was passed which permitted the Secretary of State to order the detention of an individual, quote, ‘If the Secretary of State has
reasonable grounds to believe’, and so the provision went. About 15,000 people were detained including Mr Jack Perlzweig who during his time in Brixton Prison changed his name to Robert Liversidge and he sued for false imprisonment. The case in first instance went on the issue of onus. And up to that time the government accepted that the words ‘reasonable cause’ imported an objective test. But when the parallel case called Greene went to the Court of Appeal, the government argued for the first time that, the Home Secretary only had to have, only had to subjectively believe that he had reasonable cause it wasn’t a objective test. Well, that argument was accepted by four of the five Law Lords for reasons I set out in the paper. Atkin was a sole dissentient and he pointed to ‘the
plain and natural meaning of the words’, and gave many examples of where the same or similar words had been held to import an objective test. As Lewis notes, ‘The weight of examples was
and was intended to be crushing.’ There was no ambiguity in the language of Regulation 18B. Atkin then proceeded to demolish the arguments of those who favoured a subjective interpretation. He said that such a matter could be determined by a judge and having demolished those arguments he continued with his famous dissent, I view with apprehension the attitude of judges who on a mere question of construction when face to face with claims involving the liberty of the subject show themselves more executive minded than the executive. And then there was a beautiful passage, which we have in the PowerPoint. And famously he wrote, of the judges, their function is to give words their natural meaning, in this
country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they
speak the same language in war as in peace. And he went on to make a fundamental statement about the role of courts in protecting liberty. And he said I protest even if I do it alone against a strained construction put on words with the effect of giving an uncontrolled power of imprisonment to the minister. After recapitulating his arguments and referring to the non-natural construction favoured by his colleagues Lord Atkin stated, I know of only one authority which might justify the suggested method of construction. And he then quoted from Alice in Wonderland. Well, views differ about the inclusion of the paragraphs, which ridiculed his colleagues. Many years after the event, Professor
Heuston described them as ‘passionate, almost wild, rhetoric’. And he referred to ‘an
explosion’ in Lord Atkin’s mind. In his review of the style of judgments in the House of Lords between 1876 and 2009, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper writes that Atkin’s language in dissent, quote, ‘reflected a rare departure from the convention that disapproval among judicial colleagues should be couched in decorous language’. A few days before the speech was to be delivered, Lord Simon, who hadn’t sat on the appeal, but had access to the, copies of the speeches that were to be delivered, wrote to Atkin about his inclusion of the Alice in Wonderland reference. The unintended offence, as Simon saw it, was that the literary allusion ‘may be regarded as wounding’ to Atkin’s fellow judges who would take the view that he was satirising, and at worst ridiculing, their efforts. Lord Simon wrote,
that quote ‘neither the dignity of the House, nor the collaboration of colleagues, nor the force of your
reasoning, would suffer from the omission’ unquote. Atkin declined and wrote to Simon that he felt strongly about the matter, quote ‘I have not the slightest intent to ridicule them, nor I think does the passage you mention ridicule them. But I did mean to hit the proposed construction as hard as I could and to
ridicule the method by which it is reached. I consider that I have destroyed it on every
legal ground: and it seems to me fair to conclude with a dose of ridicule. Simon responded politely that he wished Atkin had seen his way to ‘omit the jibe’. Lord Maugham, the senior judge, on the appeal wasn’t present through an administrative problem when the speeches were delivered. And he was naturally stung by Atkin’s words and he took the extraordinary step of writing a letter to editor of The Times, which ostensibly to defend counsel, who had been accused by Atkin of advancing arguments that might have been addressed in the time of
Charles I. Of course Maugham was also defending himself. Atkin maintained a dignified silence, in the face of Maugham’s letter. Maugham himself came under attack in newspapers that actually supported the outcome, of the appeal. And there was a question on notice in the House of Lords about the proprietary of Maugham writing his letter to The Times. Atkin was cold shouldered by his judicial colleagues Lord Wright, who had been a pupil in Scrutton’s chambers along with Atkin and a family friend, cold shouldered Atkin and his daughter. Atkin was no doubt correct in his interpretation, his interpretation had been vindicated as early as 1951. The case was being distinguished by the House of Lords. In 1964 Lord Reid referred to the peculiar
decision and the majority view in Liversidge v Anderson was put to the sword by Lord Diplock in 1980. Who was joined by the other Law Lords in saying that Lord Atkin’s dissent was quite correct. Now, while Atkin’s interpretation is being vindicated, the Alice in Wonderland paragraph was really unnecessarily provocative, and destructive of the collegiality which is part of the proper functioning of appellate courts. Lord Bingham, writing extra judicially as Senior Law Lord, was critical of Lord Simon’s attempt to have Atkin remove the offensive passage. However, in my view Lord Simon was entitled, as a senior judicial colleague of Lord Atkin, to suggest that the offending and satirical passage was unnecessarily wounding to Atkin’s judicial colleagues, and that
the force of Atkin’s reasoning wouldn’t suffer from their omission. Suggestions from judicial
colleagues to revise draft judgments, especially from judges who did not sit on the case in question, should of course be exceptional, lest senior judges interfere with the essential independence of other judges. But the wounding words of Lord Atkin made Liversidge an exceptional case for a constructive
suggestion about a point of style, not of substance, by someone in Lord Simon’s position. Lord Simon
didn’t seek to alter the result of the case or even the substance of Lord Atkin’s proposed speech. He wrote a polite note to Atkin in the interests of judicial collaboration and collegiality. One of the targets of Atkin’s ridicule, Lord Wright in 1944, put the matter in context. He wrote that Lord Atkin’s dissent showed quote, ‘his habitual courage and independence’ unquote. Lord Wright
concluded the obituary as follows: ‘the value of his work will not be found to lie in particular judgments valuable and
important as they are but in the animating motive force which inspired them. His service to the future of English law will be large and lasting’ unquote. Lord Wright was correct. Lord Atkin’s statement of constitutional
principle, has influenced generations of judges and lawyers. His decision in Liversidge v Anderson now reached a general audience in the in the form of an acclaimed play, which was performed in England this year to critically acclaim, called No Free Man. And as we see from the photo above the play discloses some troubling trade secerts about what judges, some judges wear when they’re writing judgments. And it also discloses how kind the families of judges are and particularly daughters in testing, their parent’s feverish conditions when writing judgments. In any event, the dissent, has been regarded as ‘one of the greatest constitutional law judgments
ever delivered.’ And I won’t take the time to read, extraordinary tribute to it by, Lord Bingham. I won’t read it in full but, he said, we’re entitled to be proud that
even in that extreme national emergency there was one voice, eloquent and courageous, which asserted older, nobler, more enduring values: the right of the individual against
the state; the duty to govern in accordance with the law; the role of the courts as guarantor of legality and individual right; the priceless gift, subject only to constraints by
law established, of individual freedom. And things were grim in late 1941 when Atkin delivered that dissent. The Balkans and Crete had been overrun. The British summer offensive in North Africa had been rebuffed. The Japanese menaced the Malayan Peninsular and Singapore. The attack on Pearl Harbour had yet to happen so the United State were not in the war. And so at such a time, Lord Atkin had the courage to be the sole dissentient and to resist arguments, which in times of emergency
would appeal naturally enough. And Justice Keane at the unveiling of the plaque to Lord Atkin in 2012, described Lord Atkin’s speech as quote ‘a ringing blow for liberty and equality under the rule of law. And perhaps most importantly for those
of us who speak the language of Shakespeare, for the integrity of the English language itself.’ Well, finally I want to turn to the honorary Australian. As I said, Atkin served as Australia’s representative on the War Crimes Commission. The Lord Chancellor at the time Lord Simon tried to talk him out of accepting that position. Saying, it was like, taking a 91-ton gun to a relatively small task. But Atkin undeterred participated and attended 12 meetings of the Commission, before his illness
made it impossible for him to continue. Some, like Professor Goodhart, publicly advocated two kinds of responses to war crimes. Those that constituted ordinary crimes would be punished under established criminal laws in individual
states. Others that were described as acts of policy, which were not governed by law, might be
punished by a political act, just as Napoleon Bonaparte had been punished by his victors by
imprisonment on St Helena. Atkin rejected that approach and in a strongly-worded letter to The Times in late 1943. He said punishment shouldn’t depend on the provisions of the penal laws of each invaded State, since they provided no remedy for crimes committed in the country of the enemy, which was possibly
lawful by the law of that country. And Atkin’s opinion, as we see part of it there, was that the crimes of which some of the barbarian enemy have been guilty transcend all domestic laws. They are offences against the conscience of civilized humanity. What is
desired is not revenge, but a vindication of civilization to be achieved by imposing retribution on the criminals so as to ensure so far as possible that in no war in the future
shall like horrors be perpetrated. And Atkin said if possible punish those crimes by the law of the land on which they were committed but that the allies should retain the power to decide, that these, crimes against humanity would be tried in ad hoc international tribunals. And in the paper I’ve given other references to Atkin’s argument that one just shouldn’t be concerned about crimes against British and American nationals and he thought that the public supported his view that the barbarians should be punished for crimes against, for example, the Jews in Europe. Lord Atkin died in June 1944, aged seventy-six. Few English judges, or indeed
any judges, enjoy such an enduring reputation. One hundred and fifty years after his birth,
plaques are unveiled in his honour. Jurists including great Australian jurists like Sir Gerry Brennan make pilgrimages to a town named Paisley where Mrs Donoghue may or may not have swallowed a decomposed snail. In 2015 plays are performed to critically acclaim about one of his finest judgments. One might say that we’ll not see the likes of Lord Atkin in our lifetime. But that wouldn’t be right. We have. Even in the lifetime of the youngest law student in this audience we’ve seen great jurists in this country and in others display the qualities which Lord Atkin exhibited. I need not mention any Australian judges. we know their names. Since this is a lecture
about English judges, I’ll mention just a few great modern English judges. Lord Bingham
displayed the masterful grasp of principle, knowledge of legal history and sense of justice to match that of Lord Atkin. He also shared Lord Atkin’s ability to write beautiful prose. Lord Hoffmann exerted
a similar intellectual force to that which Lord Atkin exerted during a long career in the English
judiciary. Lord Bingham and Lord Hoffmann, in separate commanding judgments in the Bellmarsh
cases, adhered to important constitution principles about the rule of law in times of war and crisis. And Lord Steyn, in
his 2003 F A Mann lecture, about Guantanamo Bay the legal black hole articulated the need for the rule of law to apply to detainees. In arguing
that alleged war criminals should be brought to justice rather than be exiled on remote islands, Lord Steyn displayed same internationalist sentiments which Lord Atkin did in 1944. So it is not as if Lord Atkin does not have his modern-day counterparts. The point surely is that
modern-day counterparts like Lord Bingham, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Steyn had Lord Atkin
as an example to follow. The early demise of Robert Atkin was a tragedy. However, his demise meant that Lord Atkin was to grow
up in the United Kingdom and became a great English judge, rather than a great Australian. Dick Atkin honoured the dying wishes of his father to be ‘truthful and honourable’, and to grow up a nice, unaffected gentleman without concern for status. He benefitted from the love and
nurturing of powerful women: his mother, his grandmother, his wife. By industry and
intelligence, he made good on the opportunities that were presented to him. And he was fortunate to enjoy the friendship and support of William Hemmant. Today, as we pay tribute to Lord Atkin, there are disadvantaged infants and young people in our communities with the
same potential for greatness as Dick Atkin, but who probably will not have the good fortune to have a modern-day William Hemmant to smooth their path to greatness. We describe Lord Atkin as a great English judge, although he described himself as a
Welshman. Humanity and compassion, coupled with an uncompromising spirit characterised his
life and are his legacy. He searched for principles that he expected to be embodied in the law. His view was that the law should reflect many, but not all, public sentiments about what is moral in our
dealings with others. In declaring and in developing the law, he was motivated by a desire to achieve justice. He showed an understanding of the circumstances of ordinary citizens, and the conditions in which they lived and
worked. in developing the law, he was a progressive in the sense that he believed in the potential of
law to improve society. Atkin toiled for decades as a master craftsman of law and language. In failing health, he stood alone in Liversidge v Anderson in defence of liberty and the
rule of law. And as his final days as Australia’s representative, he argued that war criminals should be brought to justice. The victims of crimes against humanity were owed nothing less. The parable of the Good Samaritan was not simply a clever literary device that Atkin deployed to
establish a point of law. It was a principle by which he lived his life. It was a principle that informed value judgments that he was required to make in administering justice
according to law. It was a principle which in 1940 prompted him to welcome victims of tyranny to London. In extending the hand of friendship to refugees of a different ethnicity and religion to his own, Dick Atkin was not writing about being a good samaritan. He was being a good samaritan. (APPLAUSE) Thank you. Justice Applegarth has prepared a written paper which will be published and I’ve seen it, at least, I’ve seen how thick it is. Tonight he has really just cherry picked from the paper but he’s done so in a way which has woven the strands of Justice Aktin’s personal life with the strands of his jurisprudence. Illuminating and eloquent if I may say so to the Judge. That causes me to do two things. One is to look for the customary parcel. (APPLAUSE) And the second you have anticipated, which is to formally thank the judge We have been really fortunate by the speakers in this series of lectures. This is as I said the fifth lecture. All of the speakers have put in an enormous intellectual effort and great labour in presenting the lectures and tonight again maintained the standard. The sixth lecture will be on Thursday 19 November, Justice Douglas on Lord Denning. The seventh lecture will be on Thursday 3 December, Justice Edelman on Lord Bingham. Can I just once more ask you to thank Justice Applegarth tonight in the usual way. (APPLAUSE) After I hand over to the Judge for one minute can I say that after he finishes having the final word, you will all be invited to refreshments outside. I won’t keep you from the drinks, my final word is I neglected to thank my associate Ms Rebekah Oldfield who has not only been powering the PowerPoints tonight but has helped me with proof reading a judgment across time zones. I am deeply grateful to her conscientiousness work and she will continue to proof read the judgment in the days ahead. Thank you very much Rebekah. (APPLAUSE)

Mayor Pete to Pack the Court: Will He Make Supremes Less Political?



is it time to pack the supreme court again I'm Scott OTT with Bill Whittle and Stephen green and this episode of right-angles brought to you by the members at bill Whittle calm and gentlemen Democrat presidential candidate Pete Buda judge who's the mayor of South Bend Indiana has a proposal that he's been pressing for quite a while now during this campaign to make the court less political and his proposal guys is basically to say let's have five justices that lean Republican five justices that lean Democrat and then let's have those 10 people appoint another five justices at their mutual agreement so that we would have at least balance on the political party representatives and then that middle group of five other justices ostensibly would be one that would be palatable to either side meaning non-political and that it would take the politics out of the court and Stephen green I just let's just take that to begin with I have another proposal to but and I may let you jump in on that one as well but just on the face of it doesn't it seem reasonable and frankly surprising that a Democrat would suggest a way to D politicize the Supreme Court was that to me yes sir yeah that's I'm sorry I liked your audio dropped out for just a second so I wasn't sure if that wasn't there bill yeah well this isn't a plan to deep a little size of Supreme Court this is a plan to politicize it more in what he perceives to be his favor it at least for the moment these these all these temporary schemes to correct the system not working in my favor before we're gonna change the rules so that it's gonna work it's gonna continue to work in my favor in the future it's almost entirely what this is it reminds me entirely of Democrats suddenly discovering on about November 9th 2016 that the electoral college was outdated and needed to be replaced with something that would elect more Democrats so no I don't trust his motives I think it's a stupid plan that said maybe there's some room for improvement on the Supreme Court the court has powers that I believe were not intended by the founders and so you have nine people who are extremely important probably more important than any nine people in the world should be and so maybe there's maybe there's a way to try and rebalance that Glenn Reynolds had an idea I want to say this as last year maybe two years ago for expanding the Supreme Court you keep the nine members that we have now that are selected in the exact same way that we have now you know we talk about how the court is political well you you can't take the politics out of the court for the same reason you can't take the sex out of a hooker it's a government institution it's going to be political I'm not actually saying they're hookers or whores or anything horrible like that I'm just saying it's it's it's intrigued you could make a case well there are certain members that certainly may be more speaking up on behalf of hookers might people take that as an insult and you probably should you know I expect a prostitute to return fair service for for my dollar well hopefully not my dollar but you know what I mean I don't expect the same out of anybody appointed by any politician sometimes I get it and that's great but it's nothing I really expect anyway Glenn's idea was to expand the court by 50 justices which would Wow that it'd be a lot more democratic so you got that you've got the with a small D you've got the core nine who were appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and then you'd have 50 more appointed one each by the governor of each of the 50 states for some sort of term limits six years 12 years 18 years whatever the term limit was not only appointed by the governor of each state but approved by the Assembly of each state and then and this is the beautiful part this might bring us back to a little bit of federalism subject to repeal by the vote of their home state assembly so you'd have a much bigger court where you've got diluted power simply because you've got a lot more people voting on each case and then you've got the idea that state governments are going to have a say in the Supreme Court by being able to recall justices off the if they interfere too much presumably in state business well there's this idea if there is a nugget room another proposal by a guy named Matt Ford who wrote in the New Republic an article posted early in June and Bill Whittle this is a this is a guy who's being critical of Peabody judges suggestion saying basically that's not going to make it less partisan and so what we should try to do is not let one side or the other win these judicial wars but we should just get out of the business of having judicial wars there are some 11 circuit courts around the country plus the District of Columbia and so Matt Ford's suggestion is that when there's a vacancy on the court that it would be supplied by a lottery drawing from each circuit so if if a judge from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals leaves the court they would do a random drawing from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to replace that justice and those people would have a limited term perhaps it's been proposed maybe 18 years or some other period of time they'd have a limited term the Chief Justice would still be appointed by the President of the United States and and when the Chief Justice was done his term he could go to whatever Circuit Court he wanted to because the appellate court judges would have lifetime ten years but the Supreme Court justices would not now bill I know both you and Steve have indicated that that we should go after the motives of the people who are making these proposals in doing so are you saying that the way that the Supreme Court is set up is the perfect incarnation of judicial probity and nothing can be done to improve it or are you willing to listen to reason I was willing to listen to reason but the devil death quote scripture and and that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to listen to every argument that comes down the pike the first thing to say about this is it once again and I simply stand in awe of it I never will understand it I don't expect to but once again the Constitution is is they in an area where it seems like being little Vegas is good the two most people surprise the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court shall consist of nine justices or any number of justices other than eight Chief Justice there has to be a chief justice and the rest of the numbers are up to I don't even know who know who I guess the president would make the decision as Congress was the Congress that number of the number of justices yes okay so what they've done basically is they've said the will of the people will not only be done through the electoral process but through the judicial process they will have the ability to change the number of people on the courts and and that just amazes me and and I think it's really very wise so now down to the specifics since there is no legal number of justices on the Supreme Court the president can this point that Congress can approve as many as as they want to we've had nine justices since 1868 now the Democrats are trying to change that system because for the first time in three generations there's a chance that the court will not be there they're giant bludgeoned to to cudgel the American people into believing what they believe and so now that the court is actually in danger of becoming a neutral if not conservative court all of a sudden it has to go same thing with the electoral colleges as was pointed out earlier this is the thing about our opponents that I find most disgraceful and and dishonorable and makes me realize that the idea of honor is just simply not there it's not that they it's not that they're doing dishonorable things they just don't they don't get it they're million the idea that we're going to hunt it the idea that we're going to change the rules every time that we play a game by the rules and if the if by playing by the rules means we lose instead of losing we change the rules again so that the rules now favor us so that we never lose and that's exactly what they're doing here there's nothing wrong with the system that's been working so far other than the fact that the Supreme Court should I in my in my reading of the Constitution and the foundational papers the Supreme Court was never going to decide if a law was constitutional or not if the law passed through Congress and was signed by the president was constitutional by definition and and that the remedy to bad laws was to change your lawmakers and get new laws every two years he I don't you get to flush the whole house so this whole thing about gee you know we need to find a more we need to find a better way is we need to find a better way because now it's five to four and if Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't survive her encasement in carbonite it'll be it'll be five to three if if they approve a conservative it'll be six to three but that'll never happen they would simply rather have that seat empty until they have the the power to win the court back and the final thing I'll say about that this is this this is why this is so important the court is the weapon that the left has in order to get their policies in place they would have to get the majority of Americans to vote for them through their representatives and that has never happened and never will happen and so the so the left has used the Supreme Court to to basically nullify laws that they don't like to legislate laws that they do like even though those laws could not have passed through Congress which is where they're from if the Left loses the court they lose they lose the game and they cannot lose the court which is why we're seeing these predictable shows of you know what we got a better idea actually you know we should go back and look at that election and see how many hairdressers voted for Hillary Clinton you know and that's how we'll determine the thing is this this business of moving the goalposts is shameful and disgusting and I would refuse to countenance any look at it simply to deny them the satisfaction of this never-ending dishonor that they seem to cover themselves in hey yeah I was just let me let me throw this to you Steve because you can say what you wanted to say in conjunction with this but it seems to me that when when the court was completely in the hands of the leftist judges that we might have been a lot more open to reform in the judiciary or are we now looking in hindsight and saying well we were always just the honorable people who wanted to win Ally and by that means shows replace the gender because we were we're I can't recall a single measure from the 1950s on which would be what the the Warren Court and all that a a single huge push from the right from the Conservatives from the libertarians to restructure or reform the Supreme Court just because we weren't getting our way instead we did the the hard grassroots work of not just getting new justices on the Supreme Court but of restructuring the Republican Party in such a way that it could win elections and win the Senate and get more of our people on the Supreme Court so I'm just gonna call BS on on the whole premise of follow up there's got and I'm gonna call BS on the other half because if we were to have a if we were to have a six to three or or or a nine to nothing conservative court I would not want that court to legislate from the bench and I would not want that court to make a decision about constitutionality of laws that has no business making a decision about if the thing were to become the weapon of the Conservatives I would not change my rules of its behavior nor would I change what I wanted to do I wanted to function the way it was determined in the Constitution and I would not all of a sudden be in favor of Supreme Court nullification or any of this other stuff I would want the court to send these issues back to the legislation where almost all of them belong so yeah I'm with Steve on this well and if I can share with you my really terrible idea that I thought of well bill was reminding us about how the number of Justices is determined by Congress instead of expanding the court maybe we need instead to limit it let's take out two justices we're gonna narrow it down to seven by an act of Congress except instead of Congress saying you know the last in first out they're gonna set up a battle royale where the first two to die in in hand-to-hand combat are the ones to lose their seats and I'm telling you right now this would be a bipartisan thing because you're gonna lose a Democrat and a Republican Bader Ginsburg is gonna be the first to go because she's half dead already and then Chief Justice Roberts would be out because he has no spine can't fight and we could call it Thunder bench nine justices enter seven justices leave and yeah and that that'd be as good as the random selection of judges that that mayor Pete is selected which you know which which we could do with a giant ball of giant transparent sphere and Taylor Swift could come down and there'd be floating ping-pong balls and he twist a little lever and one would come out as it hey you're a Supreme Court justice second progress nothing to do with knives that nothing to do with you being the leading judicial minds of the country anymore because the leading judicial minds of the country now are arrayed against the progressives well the interpretation of language is an inherently political act even if you would find the most virtuous people in the country to do it you just simply cannot suspend who you are and and then dispassionately examine a text and come up with a decision regarding that text that is completely contrary to the way that you have previously thought or would desire it to come out I'm not saying it's impossible to have to do that but it is virtually impossible to do that the best judges that we have are those who basically put the text above themselves and say look my I am a servant to the text not the other way around and so my job is to try to figure out what this text means what it meant to the people who wrote it and ratified it and and how that relates to to the case before us now ideally the Supreme Court should be a case driven institution not a legislative body not a body that's that's constantly sitting in judgment over the Congress but a body that is deciding cases that couldn't be decided at lower levels or over which no other Court has jurisdiction maritime cases cases involving of foreign entities with people in the United States cases between States and states and the like and so in my fantasy world all we have are a bunch of devoted textualist s– who look at the Constitution's words and try to determine what they mean in the context the current case now you know the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in most cases so it's deciding something that's already been decided and it's always been a wonder to me that the some of the wisest people in the country the best educated legal minds in our country at the appellate court level the federal judges all have somehow come to a decision that is exactly contrary to another group of judges who sit at a slightly higher level to them and so just that fact alone should tell you that there's a certain amount of witchcraft in this process it's not it's not a pure science it is a matter of human ideas human interpretations and therefore is beset with the fallen nature of humanity and our own inability to be able to judge rightly that said I think as my colleagues have suggested if the supreme courts purview were smaller than it is then it wouldn't be as big a deal who served on the Supreme Court we wouldn't be as concerned with entrusting the executive officer of the federal government with those appointments and that small body of the US Senate with their with the the confirmation of those nominees but putting the genie back in the bottle at this point is a little bit more than one might hopefully imagine could happen once you've said essentially that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter when it comes to constitutionality of laws then to tell the court that you that you want it to get back inside the bottle is to basically invite them to reject that again you know any law passed to constrain the power of the Supreme Court would of course be found unconstitutional and so I think the best we can hope for is to accomplish as much as we possibly can at the local and state level and push the authority and decision-making power down to local and state level when it comes to governance and try to prevent creating test cases for these nine justices or frankly five and when it comes right down to it one guy in a black robe who provides the swing vote in these cases I don't think Pete Buddha judges idea is anything beyond a utopian fantasy I don't even if I don't question his motives I don't think it can work I actually like the Matt Ford's idea at the new Republican more than Pete Buddha judges because at least you're randomly drawing people from the federal bench but ultimately you're not gonna make it a non-political body you're not going to make it something that's going to always be predictable and come out the way you expected I'm looking at you John Roberts so for Bill Whittle and Steve green I'm Scott OTT thanks to the members have bill Whittle calm for making this possible

How a 1924 law could give Trump's tax returns to Democrats



-I have no obligation to do that
while I'm under audit, and no lawyer would tell you to release your tax returns
while you're under audit. -There is a difference
in interpretation between Congress and us and the Department of Justice
around this law. -You believe Democrats
will never see the president's tax returns.
-Oh, no, never. Nor should they. -For the first time
in 45 years, Congress is asking
for the tax information of a sitting president, and for the first time
in 45 years, a sitting president
is refusing to provide Congress or the public
with that information — even after promising
to do so for years. -Maybe I'm gonna do
the tax returns when Obama does
his birth certificate. If I decide to run for office,
I'll produce my tax returns. -What is your tax rate?
-It's none of your business. You'll see it when I release. At the appropriate time,
I will release them. I became president. No, I don't think
they care at all. -After missing two deadlines
to provide six years of Trump's personal
and business tax returns, the Treasury Department
officially declined to provide the returns in May. It later also ignored
a separate House Ways and Means Committee
subpoena for the returns. -We want to know if he's been
really audited, and we want to know what the
results of those audits were. We want to know in America
everybody pays their fair share. We can't tell if the president's
paying his fair share. And we have a right to know whether there's any potential
conflicts of interest. -Democrats are using
a little-known 1924 provision in the federal tax code
to request Trump's tax returns. The provision was added
during the Teapot Dome Scandal that led to the first
cabinet official sentenced to prison
for bribery and conspiracy involving the leasing
of public oil fields. Congress site this provision
when it released President Nixon's
tax returns in 1974. The IRS ultimately ordered Nixon to pay over $400,000
in back taxes. -I think, too, that I could say
that in my years of public life, that I welcome
this kind of examination. -Congress also sited
this provision in releasing the return information
of 51 taxpayers in 2014 as part of its investigation
into IRS targeting of political groups, but the lack of case law
on the provision could complicate
its enforcement, how the courts decide to rule,
or what precedent it could set. -There is an argument that
the purpose of the request made by Chairman
Neal is not a relevant issue. The only question is access, and if the chairman
makes the written request, that he is then entitled to the
information that he's requested. The Court may or may not agree
with that, but even if a court
doesn't agree with that, then it's certainly not up
to the Treasury Department to determine
what the purpose is. -As I read the statute,
it is mandatory. It requires the administration to turn
over these tax documents. But the overlay to that is is the way the statute
is constructed Constitutional? The Supreme Court has said
that legislative demands for information,
in order to be enforced, must have a legitimate
legislative purpose, and the administration here
has argued that this demand doesn't have a legitimate
legislative purpose. If Congress were invoking
its impeachment authority, I think there, Congress might
have a much more powerful case. -Republicans have admonished
Democratic calls for Trump's returns. -The law prohibits Congress
from going after an individual's tax
returns for political purposes. That's exactly what this is. -They dislike him
with a passion. And they want his tax returns
to destroy him. It's Nixonian to the core. -This provision is all about
protecting private taxpayer information with some exceptions,
that being, you know, is the tax code
being administered properly. That's got nothing to do
with the president's tax codes. -But according to Yin,
an IRS audit of the head of the executive branch
could present a conflict. -There's always the possibility
that the president or his top staff would be exercising
some inappropriate control. All of that is something
that Congress should review, given especially the history
in the Nixon situation. -Even if House Ways and Means
Committee Chairman Richard Neal obtains
the requested returns, the committee would need to vote
to make any information public. -It's easy to call something
a crisis if the executive branch is poo-pooing
the legislative branch. It's much more evident
when there is total ignoring of one branch
or the other. That, to me, is reprehensible. It may even be illegal,
and it should be a crisis which all Americans
should be concerned about. -Do you view contempt
as a potential option? -I don't see what good it would
do at this particular time. I think that if both sides
have made up their minds, better to move it over to
the next branch of government — the judiciary.

The Democratic Strategy Emerges | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 785



president Trump moves to stop his former White House Counsel from testifying a court rules against Trump on his financial records and Tim Cook laments how baby boomers betrayed Millennials i'm ben shapiro this is the ben shapiro show well we have a lot to get to today I promise no Thrones talk no game of Thrones talk we did all of it yesterday so if you want to hear that stuff listen to yesterday's show not today's show well that's all the actual news today but first rings mission is to make neighborhoods safer you might already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world so if there's a package delivery or a surprise visitor you'll get an alert you'll be able to see hear and speak to them all from your phone that is thanks to HD video and two-way audio features on marine devices I am obsessed with personal security considering all the threats I get and that's why I trust ring when I'm out of town I know who's at my door as a listener you have a special offer on a ring starter kit available right now with a video doorbell and motion activated floodlight cam the starter kit has everything you need to start building a ring of security around your home just go to ring.com slash bend that is ring comm / BAM the thing that you owe to your family more than anything else is to make sure that your home is safe ring comm / Ben can help you make that happen it's ring.com / Ben get that ring of security started honestly the world is we live thank God in pretty safe country but the world is becoming less safe in a lot of ways ring calm / Ben ensures that your home stays safe go get a special deal when you go over to ring calm / Ben go check them out right now ring calm / Ben use that / Ben to let them know that we sell you all righty so the big news of the day is that President Trump is now being subjected to new scrutiny so according to a court president Trump must now allow his accountants to turn over his financial records according to a lower court judge this from the New York Times president Trump's accounting firm must turn over his financial records to Congress a federal district court ruled on Monday rejecting his legal team's argument that lawmakers had no legitimate power to subpoena the files Trump vowed that his legal team would appeal rather than permit the firm Meszaros USA to comply with the subpoena and the ruling so the legal fight is far from over the ruling by the judge whose name is a meet Metta over the US District Court for the District of Columbia was an early judicial test of the president vowed to systemic systematically Stonewall all subpoenas by House Democrats stymieing their ability to perform oversight of mr. Trump and the executive branch after what in control of the chamber in last year's midterm elections mr. Trump's legal team led by William s con Savoy had argued that the House Committee on Oversight and reform had no legitimate legislative purpose in seeking Trump's financial records and was just trying to dig up dirt like finding out whether the president broke any waters for political reasons so the subpoena exceeded its constitutional authority Democrats claim they need the records because they're examining whether foreigners are in a position to use business dealings with the President to exert hidden influence over American policymaking and whether ethics and disclosure laws need to be strengthened judge Mehta is an Obama appointee of course he said that the justification was sufficient to make the subpoena valid he said these are facially valid legislative purposes it is not for the courts to question whether the committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations accordingly the court will enter judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee now this ruling is fairly absurd it's fairly absurd it relies extremely heavily on a 1957 court ruling that talked about how private citizens could not be targeted by the federal government by Congress but made a distinction for government figures and quote-unquote legitimate government purposes the question is is there a line that is supposed to be drawn when it comes to how far Congress can go in seeking information on somebody who holds elected office this case seems to suggest no this case seems to suggest that Congress can for any reason as long as they can just say investigation Congress can for any reason at all grab information on basically any elected official that's that's a pretty wide and broad ruling by Mehta there's a 1957 Supreme Court decision as I mentioned hot air points this out the limited congressional authority for investigations when it comes to private individuals this judge took care to rule that his decision fits well within that precedent noting that presidents are not private individuals and that the private behavior before and during their tenure in office can be grounds for impeachment Mehta notes that Congress went unchallenged in its authority to open such investigations into prior administrations he wrote quote twice in the last 50 years Congress has investigated a sitting president for alleged law violations before initiating impeachment proceedings it did so in 1873 by establishing the Senate Select Committee on presidential campaign activities better known as the Watergate committee and then did so again in 1995 by establishing the special committee to investigate whitewater Development Corporation and related matters now whitewater obviously happened before Clinton was president although Watergate happened while Clinton while Nixon was president the former investigation included within its scope potential corruption by Nixon while in office the latter concerned alleged legal misconduct by President Clinton before his time in office Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a president before and after taking office this Court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history well as hot air points out the Supreme Court wasn't asked in any of these cases whether the Whitewater investigation exceeded Congress's Authority also we already knew about whitewater I mean there there were already public reports about corruption in whitewater and at this point there's no information that suggests that President Trump is actually subject to some sort of nefarious criminal foreign activity with regard to being leveraged because of his finances Trump has called the ruling crazy he said we think it's totally the wrong decision by obviously an Obama appointed judge Trump's attorneys have already appealed this thing and again I think that there is a solid case that Trump can make that Congress has to have some limitations here I mean it is truly astonishing that a court is ruling that basically any time Congress wants to dig up any information about somebody who holds elected office for any purpose without presumably any actual hook for the for the investigation that they are allowed to do so that's it that's a pretty amazing statement and it's obvious that this this ruling is politically driven I mean the ruling opens with a quote from James Buchanan you can tell what the judge thinks of President Trump when he opens the ruling with a quotation from James Buchanan and widely derided as the worst presidents in the history of the United States the ruling itself says either the quote from Buchanan is I solemnly protest against these proceedings of the House of Representatives because they're in violation of the rights of the coordinate executive branch for the government and subversive of its constitutional independence and then the judge says these words written by President James Buchanan in March 1860s tat a resolution at opted by the US House of Representatives to form a committee known as the kavod committee to investigate whether the President or any other officer of the executive branch had sought to influence the action of Congress by improper means you can ensure fully admitted that the House of Representatives had the authority to make inquiries incident to their legislative duties as necessary to enable them to discover and provide appropriate legislative remedies but he objected to the committee's investigation of his conduct he maintained that the House of Representatives possessed no general powers to investigate him except when sitting as an impeaching body you cannon feared that if the house were to exercise such authority it would establish a precedent too dangerous and embarrassing to all my successors so whatever political party they might be attached some 160 years later President Trump has taken up the fight of his predecessor again this is a judge was politically motivated if he's quoting Buchanan there are plenty of presidents who have argued that Congress does not have this sort of investigative authority including President Clinton but he's not citing President Clinton or say Barack Obama who used executive privilege in order to shield documents from Congress's prying eyes in the Fast and Furious scandal this judge is deliberately trying to humiliate Trump by quoting James Buchanan and by the way just because Buchanan made the argument doesn't mean that the argument is actually constitutionally wrong Buchanan's argument he may be a crappy president but his argument which is that Congress only gets to use its investigative powers in the context of an impeachment proceeding that they can't in other words just say you know what I'm now subpoena every tax record from every accountant of every politician on the other side because we theoretically have the power to impeach anybody look where does this stop let's say that you are the Democratic the Democrats in the house and let's say you just don't like Ted Cruz or you just don't like Mitch McConnell can they now subpoena all financial records from Mitch McConnell he holds elected office the same way that Donald Trump holds elected office presumably without any reference points they could just issue subpoenas to the accountants for Mitch McConnell suggesting that maybe he's been compromised by foreign authorities and according to this judge McConnell's accountants would then have to turn over all of that material I mean if the idea is that if you are a public official you're now exposed to scrutiny without any sort of any sort of hook any sort of actual crime that you think has been committed you're just speculating as to whether a crime could have been committed this is gonna get very dangerous very quickly and Democrats have better pay attention to this because if Republicans retake the Congress and let's say there's a Democrat who's president and Republicans decide you know what we're gonna do exactly what Democrats did we're gonna subpoena everything all the things like where exactly does this stop what you think Democrats would've been okay if let's say that let's say the Congress under the Republicans had said you know we are afraid that Barack Obama committed some sort of fraud in his application to Occidental College that maybe he committed a fraud like he had claimed maybe he claimed that he was foreign-born or something and all this is speculative in nonsense but let's say that they had said that and so they'd subpoenaed Occidental College for his admission records and Obama said wait a second this has nothing to do with my presidency you don't have any evidence I committed a crime and Republicans were like doesn't matter we've got investigative power we can investigate anything you're an elected official what this is going to do is create a situation where no one of any level of decency runs for public office ever again because no one is pure as the driven snow and no one wants their life turned over this way unless they are absolutely shameless I mean there have to be some limitations to this sort of power but according to this judge there are no limitations of this sort of power the court says echoing the protests of President Buchanan President Trump and his associated entities are before this court claiming that the oversight committees subpoena to moszer's the the accounting firm exceeds the committee's constitutional power to conduct investigation the president argues there is no legislative purpose for the subpoena the oversight committees true motive the president insists is to collect personal information about him solely for political advantage he asks the court to declare the nazzer subpoena invalid and unenforceable courts have grappled for more than a century says the judge with the question of the scope of Congress's investigative power the binding principle that emerges from these judicial decisions is that courts must presume that Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and must defer to congressional judgments about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose to be sure there are our limits on Congress's investigative Authority but those limits do not substantially constrain Congress what are those two sentences even mean in in in context of one another what are those sentences mean there are limits on Congress's investigative authorities but those do not substantially constrain Congress so in other word I mean that's like me saying to my son who's screaming and trying to stick a fork into an electric socket you know there are limits on what I'm gonna allow you to do but those limits don't substantially constrain you according to this judge so long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which legislation could be had Congress act as contemplated by article 1 of the Constitution well this is denying the fact that the executive branch also has separate powers but the executive branch does not have to subjugate itself to the legislative power and more than that this does put private citizens in danger because for example let's say you're now a candidate for public office or let's say that you donated it to a candidate for public office and Congress is now investigating you Congress unfortunately has got its thumb in a bunch of areas in American life that are purely private in scope remember Congress used to have hearings on congressional steroids in baseball I mean if Congress has the power to do this sort of investigative work like any time they don't like somebody that can dig up anything they want on them so long as they can make the argument that they're a public figure I don't know how far this goes now maybe you say this only applies to elected officials even there how far are we going to take this exactly can they subpoena president Trump's phone records from The Times in the 90s when he was when he was calling up the New York Post as his own press secretary hey how far can they go we'll get some more of this in just a second but first when the founders crafted the Constitution you know a little thing that we like to protect our rights the first thing they did was to make sacred the rights of the individual to share ideas without limitation by their government the second right day enumerated was the right of the population to protect that speech and their own persons with force you know how strongly I believe in these principles I'm a gun owner owning a rifle is an awesome responsibility and building rifles is no different started in a garage by marine vet more than two decades ago Bravo Company manufacturing BCM for short builds a professional-grade product which is built to combat standards this is because BCM believes the same level of protection should be provided to every American regardless if they're a private citizen or a professional Bravo Company manufacturing is not a sporting arms company the design engineer and manufacture life-saving equipment the people at BCM feel it is their moral responsibility as Americans to provide tools that will not fail the end user when it's not just a paper get someone coming to do them harm to learn more about Bravo company manufacturing head on over to Bravo Company MFG comm where you can discover more about their products special offers and upcoming news that's Bravo Company and FG comm you need more convincing find out even more about PCM and the awesome people who make their products at youtube.com slash bravo company USA I know the founders of this company they are awesome folks go check them out right now at bravo company MFG calm or youtube.com / Bravo company USA so this judge rules that applying these principles compels the conclusion that President Trump cannot block the subpoena to his accountants according to the Oversight Committee it believes that the requested records will eat its consideration of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws as well as amending the penalties for violating such laws okay so this is an amazing claim by the Oversight Committee they're not even arguing at this point that President Trump has committed a crime they are arguing that in order for them to do research on the possibility of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws generally not with application to trump and amending the penalties for violating such acts they now need access to the president's personal finances I mean that's an amazing statement so in other words if I want to pass a piece of legislation on any topic all I have to do is say listen you know I'm doing research to go back to the Barack Obama college records example I'm doing research on college loans and college admissions and we're thinking of passing some legislations on loans and admissions in order for me to get some background info on that I'm gonna need Barack Obama's personal college records wouldn't everybody go wait a second that is not within Congress's scope but here that's exactly what they're saying and the judge is like no problem okay so get some more of this in just one second the judge goes even further than that the judge says that according to this Oversight Committee the records will assist in monitoring the president's compliance with the foreign emoluments clause these are facially valid legislative purposes it is not for this courts a question whether the committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations accordingly the court will enter judgment in favor of the Oversight Committee well actually it is for the court to question whether the committee's actions are motivated by political considerations if they cannot name a in a relevant crook on which to build this particular subpoena it's this this is so insanely broad and again Democrats should understand that because this could come back to bite them in a very serious way a Republican will not be President forever and Congress will not be democratic forever president Trump is correct to point out that this ruling is kind of crazy nonetheless it just exposes once again that the judiciary is out of control unfortunately and the I mean this is a judiciary that is ruling consistently that President Barack Obama had authority to issue effectively immunity for dreamers but but Donald Trump has no executive authority to roll back the immunity for dreamers the courts are out of control it's funny when the founders created the Constitution what they hoped for was the system of checks and balances now that did not mean that all of the branches were going to be equally powerful they thought that the article one branch legislature was going to be the most powerful followed by the presidency followed by the judiciary in many ways what has happened is that the legislature has become almost a vestigial organ of government where all legislation and regulation is actually done from the executive branch except when there's a political break between Congress and the president in which case the legislative branch acts as effectively an investigative unit aided by the judiciary this is a different system of checks and balances than was sought by the founders in the first place the founders were hoping that the lead check on the executive branch would in fact lie in the legislative branch but not really through impeachment so much as controlling the means and mechanisms of policy instead Congress kicked all the means and mechanisms of policymaking over to the executive branch the regulatory agencies do virtually all the policy-making in American government now and then when people in Congress don't like the president instead of them scaling back his authority to do things they launch personal investigations into his accounting practices from 1992 that is not the sort of checks and balances we were talking about and then you've got the judiciary which steps in every so often and quashes the ability of the executive branch to enforce laws that are duly on the books so it's very weird there is a system of checks and balances in place but the system of checks and balances is completely different than the system of checks and balances originally envisioned by the founders the founders thought that that the legislative branch would zealous guard its powers of rulemaking and legislation they did not they handed those to the executive they thought they did the executive branch would zealously guard its own powers against the legislative authorities encroachment and that has happened to a certain extent but then the judiciary has overruled that and created this weird new system where the executive is basically in is is effectively in by instituted with all of these imbued imbued with all of these powers and the only check on the powers of the executive is investigations and impeachment which is why which is why our policymaking is so fractured right now imagine if we went through the normal channels for banking legislation legislation started in the house and then passed the Senate and the President signed it rulemaking was not made by the executive authority well that would require all of these branches to work together more than they do the system that we have now is basically Congress delegates all of its authority to the executive and then whines about it when the executive does what they don't want them to do it's pretty amazing meanwhile this sort of stupid system of checks and balances continues to play out with regard to don McGann president Trump is now directed his former White House Counsel time again to skip a House Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday citing a Justice Department opinion that he cannot be compelled to testify about his official duties McGann confirmed on Monday evening that he won't appear now this is not an argument that McGann that McGann couldn't testify if he wanted to if McGann wants to testify he can the argument the president Trump is making is that if McGann does not testify there's no punishment in store for him which is actually true the development prompted an obstinate response late on Monday from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York he said we're having the hearing tomorrow we are expecting mr. McGann to show up pursuant to the subpoena they had the hearing today there was no there was no McGann showing up House Democrats are now claiming that maybe they will push forward with impeachment they have power to do so are they actually going to do it I have my serious doubts senator Kirsten Gillibrand desperately attempting to garner attention in this presidential race while writing and a high of zero percent in the polls says well you know maybe this is going to prompt impeachment of President Trump that he doesn't allow his White House Counsel former White House Counsel to show up even after allowing his former White House Counsel to testify to the FBI which by the way if you to the FBI that's a crime he would go to jail but according to Gillibrand if he doesn't show up and answer questions from Democrats then obviously Trump is going to be impeach yeah sure I think what the Trump investigators of what the Trump administration is doing is fundamentally blocking our constitutional right for oversight and accountability over his administration and they're doing it aggressively certainly ignoring the contempt proceedings against Barr is a step telling witnesses like McGann that they are not supposed to testify you know I think it's something that speaker Pelosi he has six Committees of jurisdiction now they're trying to do oversight investigations and I think she will continue to push very hard to get testimony and documents but if the president keeps stonewalling it may actually force the houses hands and they might decide to start a future proceedings because they need to get access to the truth okay they have access to the truth it was all in the Milan report the house is basically just frustrated they didn't get what they wanted from the Mullen report and so now they are making excuses they're digging through president Trump's personal finances and subpoena hang his accountants and they're going after Tom McGann who again testified in front of robert muller and they're going after William bard the Attorney General for abiding by the law well get to attorney generals Attorney General bars response to all of this in just one second first with stress and anxiety many people can often feel exhausted during the day and then it's time to go to bed you can't fall asleep this happened to me all the time okay I lead a fairly stressful if thing in the public eye is not exactly stress-free and you know a couple of weeks ago we had some death threats on us the FBI arrested somebody so sleep was a little bit rough during that period and that's where calm came in calm calm if worry is affecting your days and nights it's probably also affecting your overall health and that's why we have partnered with calm it's the number one app to help you reduce your anxiety and stress and help you sleep better which is a big problem for me that's why I need calm more than 40 million people around the world have downloaded it if you head over to calm calm / Ben you'll get 25% off a calm premium subscription that includes guided meditations on issues like anxiety stress and focus including a brand new meditation each day they're also the Sleep stores is this stuff that I love their bedtime stories for adults designed to help you relax and you're having trouble falling asleep well listen to Stephen Fry read to you about the match lavender fields of southern France or listen to Leona Lewis talk about the moonlit jungles of Africa you are out like a light man they even have soothing music and more right now Ben Shapiro listeners get 25% off a call him a Premium Subscription and comb comm slash pen that is ca LM comm slash man can unlimited access to all of coms content today at comb comm so I spend works on kids by the way to get comb and stop stressing comb calm slash men okay so as I say the Attorney General William bar is coming under fire from Democrats as well they suggest that they might impeach William Bar because William bar has not handed them all of the unredacted material that he is not allowed to actually hand them so William bar is responding according to The Wall Street Journal bar has come under criticism from Democrats and some Republicans who say he is acting more like the president's personal lawyer than the nation's top law enforcement officer the only Republican I've heard who said that is Justin Amash the Republican Congress person from Michigan bar was a private citizen bristled at the barrage of legal and other challenges Trump faced during his first two years in office said his long-held belief in executive power is more about protecting the presidency than the current office holder he said I felt the rules were being changed to hurt Trump I thought it was damaging for the presidency over the long haul when you look at that court ruling that basically says that Congress can subpoena anything from any public official at any time for any reason it's hard to disagree with that sentiment apparently according to The Wall Street Journal that sentiment plus coaxing from friends led the 68 year old grandfather of five to sign on for another turn at the helm of the Justice Department where his quest to protect presidential power has taken on new significance in light of special counsel Robert Muller's report and the Trump administration's efforts to thwart congressional oversight he said in an interview at every grave juncture the presidency has done what it is supposed to do which is provide leadership and direction if you destroy the presidency and make it an errand boy for Congress we're gonna be much weaker and a more divided nation bar has jump to the front lines of this Republican presidents battle against Congress in the courts a House committee has already voted to hold Barr in contempt for providing them the entire Mullah report as well as access to the unredacted portions for democrats who refuse to go look at it many current and former law enforcement officials according to The Wall Street Journal have come to view mr. Barr skeptically citing his newly launched review of the investigations origins and what he termed spying on Trump campaign assaut it's over ties to Russia he hasn't explained specifically what prompted his concerns giving fodder for mr. trump and his allies to attack the department that he leads Republicans have embraced bars willingness to bring attentions to their grievances with federal law enforcement of course Trump is very happy with bar because bar is defending him and executive power at this point he said he apparently spoke with the Wall Street Journal last week and he suggested that he is really not interested in protecting Trump personally he just believes that the rules are being arbitrarily changed in order to harm President Trump and again it is hard to argue with that perspective given the fact that Democrats were very much in favor of Barack Obama using executive privilege to shield Eric Holder had no problem when Eric Holder called himself the wingman for Barack Obama they were very upset with with the Kenneth Starr investigation which was predicated on solid legal grounds I mean Bill Clinton did commit perjury he committed a series of crimes including actual obstruction of justice the Kenneth Starr probe was actually into illegality no illegality has been found about President Trump thus far none you may say that he has done stuff you don't like that's fine he's done stuff I don't like either you may say that the President of the United States has done untoward things that is true has he committed a criminal act even robert muller who had full authority to say so could not bring himself to say that the president had done something criminal here and yet we are seeing the democrats expand the power of subpoenas to include virtually everything in the world this seems like dangerous stuff to me meanwhile Michael Cohen is out there still making trouble for the president Michael Cohen president Trump's former longtime personal attorney President Trump did not hire the best people as he himself has admitted with regard to Michael Cohen apparently Michael Cohen told the House panel during closed-door hearings earlier this year he had been encouraged by Trump's lure Jay Sekulow to falsely claim in the 2017 statement to Congress the negotiations to build the Trump Tower in Moscow ended in January 2016 in fact Cohn later admitted that discussions on the Moscow Tower continued into June of the presidential election year House Democrats are now scrutinizing whether Sekulow or other Trump attorneys played a role in shaping Cohen's 2017 testimony to Congress Cohen said he made the false statement to help hide the fact that Trump had potentially hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in a possible Russian project while he was running for president Adam Schiff who has made mountains out of molehills for several years here he says we're trying to find out whether anyone participated in the false testimony that Cohen gave to this committee well here's the problem with this story the headline says that Cohen told lawmakers that seculow encouraged him to falsely to falsely basically commit perjury before Congress and yet Schiff is now saying we're trying to find out whether this happened well if Cohen said that it happened wouldn't they now have the grounds to open some sort of criminal investigation into seculow and the White House but they don't and then they haven't been able to come up with anything that's far so it's just more Michael Cohen talk doesn't matter press is gonna run with it this is on the front page of The Washington Post today so you know again I think that these investigations into president Trump are really designed to do one thing and one thing only and that is to exacerbate the feeling of chaos that Trump naturally creates around him President Trump has a strong reelect pitch his strong reelect pitches the economy is really good people are very positive about the economy right now they're not in the midst of any serious foreign crisis he's got a really placid lake of politics in front of him and the economy is booming right now and this should be a great time for him it's no wonder he's upset because again he is a chaotic personality in and of his own right and now Democrats are exacerbating that by creating a feeling of chaos that is not really justified by the fact pattern in front of them at this point so President Trump is out there campaigning and he is doing what he does and president Trump is a stand-up comedian and out there on the campaign trail he basically does a stand-up routine here's President Trump last night speaking in front of big crowd and asking whether his slogan in 2020 is in Pennsylvania whether his slogan in 2020 should be make America great again or keep America great so now we go ready Keep America great ready make America great again whoa Wow well I like it because they'll sell many many more hats that way he's a funny dude and again the fact that he is that he actually has a strong economic record to run on means that if there is any feeling of solidity with Trump if people feel that Trump is a solid character or at the very least that he's not going to bother them too much that he's not in the eye every moment making them nuts then he is likely to do fine and his reelect effort so Democrats now have to create a feeling of chaos around Trump now Trump doesn't help himself here as we'll see in a second he doesn't help himself by constantly getting himself into trouble and saying dumb things but Democrats with the investigations are trying to generate controversy around Trump that is beyond what the facts support at this point okay we're gonna get to more of that in just one second this is where the Biden campaign comes in we're gonna get to the Biden campaign we're also going to get to Tim Cook of Apple apologizing on behalf of baby boomers but for all the wrong reasons I'll get to that in just a second first head on over to Daly we're calm and subscribe first let me remind you okay gang our business is growing rapidly and we are hiring up that means that we are excited to be offering more opportunities to become part of our in-house team if you want to work with us over at the daily wire head on over to daily wire comm slash careers and see if any of our job openings would be right for you or someone you know and get your resume ready come work with us it's really a lot of fun to work here I mean my employees will testify to it and if they don't I fired them so it's great head on over to daily wire comm slash careers and maybe you'll end up working here you never know also go subscribe over daily we're calm right now for $9.99 a month you can help support us you can also get the annual subscription for $99 a year that comes along with this the very greatest in all beverage vessels see it believe it the leftist years Hydra called tumblr woohoo just incredible feel the power flow through you as you hold it 99 dollars a year which is cheaper than the monthly subscription it gets you all sorts of fantastic things including access to two more hours of the show every day I know we are working hard for your money also you get the Sunday special on Saturday we have a great Sunday special this weekend we'll announce it a little bit later this week but you get it on Saturday if you're a subscriber plus material behind the paywall all sorts of goodies coming to you when you subscribe it makes a great Father's Day gift by the way so go check that out right now also subscribe at YouTube and iTunes that really does help us we appreciate it we are the largest fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation you all righty so President Trump on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania the polls in Pennsylvania are not fantastic for President Trump if you take a look at the polls right now he is basically losing to Joe Biden that's that's the person he has to worry about most and because of that because of that he is targeting Joe Biden and again I think he has a fairly solid case against Biden he's by the way in the polls he's just getting clobbered right now against Biden and they're not that many pulls out right now but the last poll from Quinnipiac which came out on May 15th so just a little about a week ago Biden was leading him 53 to 42 which is a blowout in favor of Joe Biden Annette is trouble for president Trump obviously president Trump needs to win one of the following three states and maintain all of the other states as well he needs to win Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania ray needs to win one of those three states or he loses the presidency right now if you look at Michigan 2020 Biden versus Trump you see that President Trump is not polling great against Biden in that state either right now the Emerson poll which is from March but I assume it actually be more in Biden's favor now because Biden is actually jumped in since then had Biden up 54 to 46 on Trump in Michigan and if you look at the Wisconsin 2020 polls the story is somewhat similar Biden versus Trump in Wisconsin is the the polls show that Biden is beating him by something like 8 from that same Emerson poll so none of this is really positive for Trump he's gonna have to tear Biden down well talk in one second about how he can do that the chief way that he's going to do that is by pointing out that his record is better than Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's here is Trump saying Obama and Biden they did a bad job I'm doing a better job the previous administration what they did to our country they should be ashamed of themselves [Applause] sleepy Joe said that he's running to quote save the world well he was he's gonna save every country but ours what they've done to us is indescribable economically we have rebuilt China they've done a great job and I don't blame China I don't blame President Xi I don't blame them look we allowed it to happen our leaders allowed it to happen hey so Trump is gonna be running against Obama Biden and what he has to do is come up with some material that damages Joe Biden the problem for him is that Joe Biden has a hundred percent name recognition he was vice president for eight years and a lot of the dirt about him is already out there in public view and some of the dirt doesn't actually hurt him so Biden right now is winning a disproportionate share of the black vote it's the reason why he's clobbering Kamala Harris and Cory Booker it's also the reason why if you're Joe Biden the person you're looking at for a VP candidate right now is not Kamala Harris or Cory Booker it's probably people who to judge you need young Millennials showing up to vote for you and Biden figures if I'm clobbering Kamala Harris with black voters what do I need Kamala Harris for she's not gonna drive out black voters I'm killing her in my own primary there's no reason for me to pick Camilla Harris so there's been a lot of talk about what sort of dirt Trump could throw at Joe Biden and they've talked about the plagiarism stuff or maybe his stance on criminal justice reform I don't think so I think that the only piece of damaging information that would really hurt Joe Biden at this point is if there was something to the corruption allegations being made about hunter Biden his son who was receiving lucrative contracts in countries in which Joe Biden was doing business as vice presidents of the United States that would hurt Joe Biden attacks that are not gonna fly our ones like this here's President Trump saying that Joe Biden left Pennsylvania for another state note Joe Biden left Pennsylvania when I believe he was 11 years old and don't forget Biden deserted you he's dead from Pennsylvania I guess he was born here but he left you folks he left you for another state remember that please I meant to say that this guy talks about I know Scranton I know that well I know the place is better he left you for another state and he didn't take care of you because he didn't take care of you he led other countries come in and rip off America that doesn't happen anymore again that line of attack is that he did a bad job as vice president's is a much more telling line of attack than that he left Pennsylvania when he was 10 or 11 years old nonetheless the the purpose of the investigations that we are seeing right now are to create a feeling of disquiet around President Trump a feeling that he exacerbates by being the man that he is and that means that Biden is doing exactly what I suggested he was gonna be doing I've I've been suggesting this for years the Biden would be a strong candidate against Trump I I doubted he could get through the primaries unscathed the way that he has so far but when it came to a general I've always said the Biden was a much more dangerous candidate for Trump than anybody else mainly because he could run a 1920 Warren G Harding's style return to normalcy campaign he could say Trump is out of the box this guy's crazy look at him he says wild stuff all the time and Here I am Uncle Joe you know me I'm not crazy and if I am crazy it's the kind of crazy you're used to and then that's the feel that you are getting from Democrats who are basically voting for him because they think that he is electable they're voting for him because he is captain electability as opposed to some of the other wilds or Democratic candidates the Bernie Sanders and the Elizabeth Warren's this is the case that Chris Matthews everybody say he's trying to make he says everybody's ribbon jumped Biden why everybody Joe Biden I come out here I come out of a show run hero drunk looking and then I talked to like jump Biden he's trying to rescue us he's trying to save us Joe Biden if I were drowning in a river but dog was drowning in the river I think Joe Biden would save me not the dog he's a good guy Joe Biden go Biden is basically running for America against Trump he's trying to rescue us from Trump ISM and Trump himself it was very proud I don't know how to go all the way through to Milwaukee at the convention I don't know I decided to say you know it's 50/50 all this bitch there's always a frontrunner always a main challenger but his emotion is patriotic it's not anger unfortunately for him a lot of the Democratic Party is about anger right now anger against corporations against fossil fuel this is the Bernie yesterday Sanders yesterday on Meet the Press it was all anger he was angry at ed Rendell he was angry at everybody but I think White's gonna have to grab that anger and turn it against Trump okay so yeah that's what's gonna happen he's gonna run is a solid unifying candidate who hates Trump's guts that's gonna be great just do it Chris mattis go yeah Chris Matthews okay so the the the benefit for Biden and this is the the narrative that's being built is that Trump is volatile and Biden is solid the problem for Democrats is that many Democrats as Matthew says correctly many Democrats don't believe that Biden is going to punch Trump hard enough so okay well take an example actor Jeff Daniels who I don't know why he's on TV talking about politics I'm just confused like the fact that he was on newsroom and read lines written for him by the wildly overrated Aaron Sorkin here's my rip on Aaron Sorkin every character that Aaron Sorkin writes is Aaron Sorkin so when it's a woman speaking and Aaron Sorkin line it's Aaron Sorkin wearing the wig and when it's a black guy reading in Aaron Sorkin line it's Aaron Sorkin just played by a black guy like everyone that Aaron Sorkin writes he does not know how to distinguish characters but that's that's an artistic critique not really a material critique Jeff Daniels I don't know what his his political expertise other than that he played a guy on TV he literally his cases I played a guy on TV it's pretty amazing here was on on MSNBC however play why is he there because he's playing Atticus Finch I guess in some Broadway production of To Kill a Mockingbird which Wow I do that does confer expertise I've also read To Kill a Mockingbird when I was eight so thank you thank you Jeff Daniels here's Jeff Daniels explaining though and then this this does say something about where the Democratic Party is he says his great fear is that Biden can't punch anyone if politics you know more than I is a hundred and eighty degrees swing I think that's part of the eight years of Obama let's go for the whitest guy we can I mean I think there's an element out there in the middle of the country the other thing what's it ones question who you watch it Oh Intel it so to go away from the toddler in chief let's go to Kamala Harris let's go somebody with a brain in their head let's go with someone with some intelligence who doesn't tweet all day me repeat I'm looking at intelligence now is I love Joe Biden is he the guy that can stand up and punch him in the face and win that's for you guys to decide okay Jeff Daniels's take on intelligence is definitely worth worth my time I think but the this is the conflict inside the Democratic Party is Biden the guy who can who can punch Trump and and take Trump down I think what Democrats are failing to recognize is that the guy who can placidly take a punch from Trump is the guy who's likely to win it's not the guy who's likely to punch Trump it's the guy who can take a punch from Trump and emerge unscathed this is why mayor Pete is actually threatening to trump when Trump him with the Alfred E Newman thing which is a great characterization by the way just on a humor level it is grade-a characterization but when mayor Pete says that seems like an old person thing and then you just sort of lets it go that is a smart take by P Buddha judge when Biden acts unflattering was able to do really well in he's got a gift for it was he was able to get under the skin of everyone who ran against in 2016 and part of that is because Trump speaks like Trump meaning that a lot of intellectual elitists run for office those are people with Ivy League degrees who are fond of the way that they command the language president Trump's command of the language is not spectacular he is basically a stand-up comic who doesn't read books and his popularity is baffling to a lot of people who got A's straight A's when they were in high school and it gets under their skin that Trump is more popular than they are in a lot of ways you saw that in 2016 Hillary Clinton was like listen I've been achieving from the time I was seven years old and here's this doofus who grew up on daddy's money or strolling in the front door and beating me how is this even possible hey that's what that was that famous clip from Hillary in 2016 where she said I should be beating this guy by 20 how is this not okay so whichever Democrat does not have that level of arrogance whichever Democrats like yeah he's popular and he's gonna say a bunch of crap but in the end you know doesn't have any impact that person is probably gonna do best against Trump that's not what the base wants what the base of the Democratic Party wants is somebody who punches and you're starting to see disquiet build in the in the intelligentsia about Joe Biden specifically because Trump doesn't seem to get under Biden's skin in the same way that he gets under the inteligencia skin what's really fascinating about modern politics is that the people who are the most woke the people who are the most militant the people who are the most of noxious politically speaking are not the people in the middle of the country it's not the unwashed masses the people who are the most obnoxious and woke and bothersome are the elite who write for the New York Times the elitists who write for the New York Times people like Jamelle Bouie so Jamelle Bouie has a column today about Joe Biden and it's sorry it says rather this is Michelle Goldberg another New York Times elitist she has a piece in The New Times called I don't want an exciting President Joe Biden makes his supporters feel safe but nominating him is risky why is it risky to nominate Joe Biden she says what worries me about Biden is that in contemporary politics the quest to finds an electable candidate hasn't resulted in candidates that actually win voters don't do themselves any favors when they try to think like pundits this of course is simply not true the fact is that many of the Democrats were elected on a congressional level ran as moderates in 2018 they were not the hard left AOC types a oc1 and a deep-blue district by winning 16,000 votes in a primary against another deep blue guy Michelle Goldberg however says that basically Democrats should vote with their heart and their heart should say anger anger not solidity not stability rage and this is Trump's best prospect Trump's best prospect is that the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot hear that they've crafted this entire world beating narrative about president Trump the chaotic man the man of absolute sure confusion and into the phrase steps a solid rock of a human Joe Biden I don't know how that happened but sure and that's the and then Democrats destroy that narrative by saying you know what can I'm Joe Biden would rather have a chaotic figure like Bernie Sanders or Connell Harris or Elizabeth Warren step into that fray that is it that is Trump's best prospect at reelection according to Michelle Goldberg and she says Democrats are now in a complicated spot as they make their electoral calculations if what you care about most is a candidate's chances next November pretending otherwise is an artificial exercise particularly if it's just in the service of making a better judgment about electability some enthusiasm for Biden is genuine if not passionate often when people I spoke to at the rally described him as safe they meant both as a candidate and as a potential leader fair enough for many voters what Biden is promising a rebuke of Trump and a return to normalcy is what they want more than anything else and it makes sense for them to back him what's counterproductive is when voters try to think past their own desires Goldberg says intensity the thing that turns a campaign into a movement matters that's especially true in a country as polarized as ours or turnout is as important as persuasion man I hope that Michelle Goldberg somehow convinces her party that she is right that's what I hope is that Michelle Goldberg and that wing of the party decide to destroy the narrative that is being built brick by brick by the Democrats in Congress and by Joe Biden on the other side in favor of somebody so woke the Michelle Goldberg is happy but the rest of America is alienated time for some things I like and then some things that I hate so time for the thing that I like today so there's a great book with basically all of Justices Justice Scalia's writing Justice Scalia of course one of the great writers in the history of the Supreme Court the they've now taken some of his writings and they've compiled them along with essays from other people about Scalia's thinking into a little booklet called on faith lessons from an American believer the forward is by Justice Justice Thomas is edited by Christopher Scalia and Edward ed Whelan at the over at one of the foundations whose name escapes me right now the book is really great for people who are of faith it's a great reminder of why you believe certain things Scully it's reminder that Scalia was not just a great thinker that he was a good man who tried to live a virtuous life and an intellectually rich life as well and it's also a reminder that the sort of scorn that so many people in the intelligencia have for people of faith is totally unjustified if you truly believe you're living in New York or LA or something and you truly believe that you are a higher IQ person than Justice Scalia or a better thinker than Justice Scalia because Justice Scalia was one of these rubes who believes in the whole Jesus thing read the book and I challenge you to think beyond your own boundaries by the way I always encourage people who are out of faith to read atheist books and think beyond their boundaries as well but I've never really run into religious people who are averse to listening to thinkers on the other side it's very rare to find somebody who's who's an atheist a militant atheist who's willing to at least hear the argument on the other side it's why I treasure my friendships with people like Michael Shermer who is an atheist or very least an agnostic who is who's interested in having those conversations and any case go check out on faith by Antonin Scalia it really is a great book it's it's only a couple hundred pages pretty quick read okay time for some things that I hate okay things that I hate today so aoc and and her fellow Democrats are constantly complaining that we don't want them to be able to speak this is so confusing has anybody on the right tried to silence a OC or l-head Omar likereally tried to silence them not that I'm aware of in fact every time they say something we sort of trumpet it because what they say is so in unerringly silly so AOC though claims that the opposition is afraid when she speaks if that were the case she would not be a very famous person right now that lack of fear of fellowship is exactly what the opposition does fear that and anytime Rashida or Ilhan speak they're scared to myself included and you know it is great that they got more than they bargained for well yeah that's exactly what happened we're so scared when AOC speaks I'm particularly scared when she starts talking about vegetables here is a OC yesterday she must be silenced we must silence her this is deeply frightening stuff here is a OC explaining why cauliflower is a colonialist vegetable I'm not kidding it's a thing she said as a human it's too hard to do a green space that grows you got instead of I don't know cauliflower or something it you're what you're doing is that you're taking a colonial approach environmentalism it's I went to a predominantly white community and said okay you guys are gonna be growing plantains and you've got and all these things that you don't know how to cook it's and that your palate isn't accustomed to it's gonna be like cute for a little bit but it's not easy um yeah I'm scared and we need to silence her because she's talking about plantains well what I'm confused so so apparently there's a group of in are there really a group of environmentalists who go around telling Latinos that they should not be they should not be planting yuca is this a thing apparently this is a thing that happens like down in the Bronx this is a thing people just walk around door-to-door and like are you planting yuca in that in that window garden so is that is that what you're doing right there is that yuca cauliflower kale do it also um cauliflower is delicious and you could taste bad um no I'm okay maybe that's just my my different cultural sensibility speaking to me here but I also I don't care if you grow you co who again who are these people colonialist vegetables man I'm gonna say that these are first world problems that would be a first world problem right there is a somebody came today they came to my door and they told me you stopped growing that sweet potato you stopped growing that yam it's time for you to grow some asparagus and I was like whoa slow your roll there slow your roll that is some cultural appropriation right there my garden is my own and if I choose to grow indigenous crops to the United States well then that's my business you white people and you tell you white people in your flips card cauliflower alrighty lady okay sure yeah we're deeply frightened mm-hmm okay meanwhile the final thing that I hate today so I did mention Jamelle Bouie earlier erroneously now I'm going to mention him non erroneously he has an incredibly dumb column today in the New York Times deeply overrated thinker Jamelle Bouie he has a piece in the New York Times called anti-abortion and pro Trump are two sides of the same coin both seek to reinforce and re-establish hierarchies that were beginning to lose force I am so bored with the argument that every time I disagree with you politically it's because I'm trying to reinforce a power hierarchy not everything is power hierarchies I understand according to Marxist and and post Marxist thought that power hierarchies are everything and either its economic hierarchies or its hierarchies of race or hierarchies of sex I understand your deconstructionist crap about how ideas about the protection of human life are secretly in a various ways to control women's bodies woo I'm familiar with the nonsensical motives that you put on pro-life people but it is so sneering and dumb that it is hard to overstate how sneering and dumb it is so Jamelle Bouie his piece today says all of the measures all these anti-abortion measures as well as the heartbeat bill signed in April by Governor Mike DeWine of Ohio are designed to bring fetal personhood to the Supreme Court and then he talks about in 2016 anti-abortion conservatives and white evangelicals in particular supported Donald Trump on the expectation that he would nominate anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court well partially yes I mean they expected that he would nominate judges to the Supreme Court who had not read abortion into the Constitution of the United States which is both a legal and moral absurdity Boyd says the story of that support which is also the story of these new laws isn't purely transactional it's about shared commitment to the same overarching goal now everybody on the right is going right the same overarching goal would be to stop the killing of the unborn no wrong you are according to Jamelle Bouie if you vote for pro-life laws it's because you hate women and seek to keep them under your thumb take that patriarchy he says the animating impulse of trumps campaign was defense of traditional hierarchies so boring it's so boring honestly makes the conversation boring because I say here's my pro-life position and here's why I believe in you say that's not really why you believe it I'm like well no that is I just I just expressed you exactly why I believe it like nope nope that's not why you believe that you believe it cuz you're nefarious you believe because you're evil you believe it because you hate women I can't have a conversation with you along those lines once you start saying that what I believe and my articulated stance on that belief system is not actually my real stance my real stance is a secret hid layering and motivation to keep women down or something then I don't we can't have a conversation at that point you've launched a character attack on me if I say I'm pro-life because I believe in biology and I believe in the inherent value of human life and you say no you just want to take us back to the dark ages I got nothing for you there's no conversation that can be had this is the kind of argument from Bowie that is meant to quell conversation not to have conversation he says Trump promised explicitly to weaken America's commitment to principles of fairness and equality to strengthen privileges of race gender and wealth did he promise explicitly to do that weird I don't remember it from saying that Trump promised explicitly to weaken our principles of fairness and equality did Trump say you know what fairness and equality are bad I want racial hierarchies to be re-established see explicitly is a word that has a meaning in which it mean it means that it's explicit like you say it his personal life says Jamelle Bouie was defined by its hedonism excess and contempt for conservative morality but he pitched himself as a bulwark against cultural and demographic change a symbol of white patriarchal manhood aligned against immigrants feminists and racial minorities a bulwark against cultural and demographic change despite his stated tolerance for same-sex marriage again now the idea is that even though Trump was Pro gay marriage that that wasn't enough his secret motivation was he wants more white people and fewer non-white people which would also not explain why he would be pro-life when a disproportionate number of abortions are of minority people in the United States so none of this makes any sense but according to Jamelle Bouie it's the same thing for pro-lifers he says the underlying dynamic is straightforward explains Robert P Jones chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute in his book the end of white Christian America Trump's promised to restore a mythical past golden age where factory jobs paid the bills and white Protestant churches were the dominant cultural hubs powerfully tapped evangelical anxieties about an uncertain future there's no restoring that past but with his nomination of conservative judges and Mitch McConnell successful drive to confirm them in the Senate Trump has given white evangelicals and their Republican representatives the opportunity to pass the laws and measures that reflect their ultra ultra traditionalist ideals so even if from distances himself from any particular law that's how one should understand the new wave of abortion restrictions as direct attacks on the social and economic autonomy of people who can become pregnant to spend pregnant designed to strengthen strict hierarchies of gender and then he's and then he just tells an open lie this is an open lie in the New York Times he says the Georgia law would open a woman to criminal prosecution and jail time including life imprisonment if she ended pregnancy after the first six weeks this is an absolute lie he's just telling lies now is not true we spoke on our radio show yesterday with the architect of the Georgia bill this is 8 it is an open lie now being repeated into the pages of the New York Times to make the case that the real reason that these evil evil Pro lifers want to say babies and disproportionately black babies by the way but the real reason these Pro lifers want to do that is because they want to see what a white supremacist hierarchy where there are more black people and brown people in the United States being born none of this makes sense but again it is I will say this Jamelle Bouie is badly motivated he's a badly motivated guy you're a badly motivated person if your immediate response to somebody explaining their theory of why laws should be the way that it is is that no that's that's actually not that are their real their real motivation the real motivation is obviously something nefarious and evil you can't have a conversation with somebody like this already so we'll be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours of coverage otherwise we'll see you here tomorrow I'm Ben Shapiro this is the Ben Shapiro show this is the Ben Shapiro show executive producer Jeremy boring senior producer Jonathan hey our supervising producer is Mathis Glover and our technical producer is Austin Stephens edited by Adam Tsai Yvette's audio is mixed by Mike Carmina hair and makeup is by Joshua ov era production assistant Nick Sheehan the Ben Shapiro show is a daily wire production copyright day Lee Weyer 2019 hey everyone its Andrew Clavin host of the Andrew Clavin show you know if it weren't for the fact that the Democrats owned the news and entertainment media it would be obvious by now that they are living in a blithering fantasy world Donald Trump is a racist except whose erases – he's a dictator except what does he dictates all US but what laws has he broken they have invented a Donald Trump of the imagination and he ain't the real Donald Trump at all we'll talk about it on the Andrew Klavan show I'm Andrew Clavin

The 3 Branches of Government Explained



what do you mean and welcome to hip Hughes history where we're going to do an oldie but goodie today a flashback lecture for the boys and girls of America and maybe even men and women too a basic lecture on the three branches of government what you need to know to get through this life if you're going to be calling yourself an American citizen so why don't we go giddy up for the learning right now and go get er done so my fellow Americans and global citizens of the world let me first preface this by saying we've already done these lectures in much more detailed fashions so as I go through each article that we're going to cover I'm going to put up that video it'll be in the description down below so if you need more information you can go dive into those videos but for the basics I wanted to start off by kind of why the Constitution why three branches of government because that's most important that's probably more important than the little pieces and really the major concept of course is separation of power you've got to keep it separated separated because we learned and this is a very basic idea in American history that it kind of stinks when you only have a one-man rule situation when you have the king up on top of the pyramid sometimes the king can be a little great great if you know what I mean so we're never going to do that again now we're going to have that European style of monarchism where we're going to give power to one entity alone whether that is an executive a legislative or judicial why keep a way to be answer so that's the basic idea separation of power keep power separated because at the heart of the root is that something the heart of the root do roots have hearts at the heart of the matter is the idea that really power rests with people that we have natural rights that were born free free and proud I tell you and that the government's job is to keep that freedom that power that natural right safe that's the job of the government so if we're going to give that government power we're going to make sure it's really for them to take that away or just stop by our Liberty so that's why separation of powers and the other major idea is going to be checks and balances that we're going to set up a little bit of a mouse trap to make sure again that it's not easy to put power into motion to make laws to change things in my life because again the role of the governments to protect my Liberty that's the idea so if we're going to give these branches power we're going to make sure that one of the other branches can knock it down come full style I kid you but that is true for every power there is a check and a balance on that power so I will repeatedly be saying it's a check and balance make sure you listen for that kids so why don't we go line up the branches of power on the fence of learning and I'll see if I can help you knock it down all right basic learning alert the US Constitution is the basic set of directions the blueprint the plan for the United States of America so in that book of rules there are seven chapters and each chapter I'm kind of directs it's focused on a different entity of government or idea and the first three that's my dog dog and in those first three articles chapters we have one for each branch of government so the first one is going to be article 1 and that's written all about the legislative branch so we made the legislative branch first probably for a reason and now if you want to go watch that video there's the thumbnail right there to the description below and that'll break it down much more than I'm about to but the basic idea is first they're going to make laws that's the biggest deal of them all because laws have the power of force so we're going to make sure that if they have the right to make laws there's going to be checks and balances on that right but the first check and balance get this is inside Congress itself now when i say congress and i'm showing you that building right there that building is split in two right down the middle i don't really know how they split it but there is a Senate and a House of Representatives there are two bodies in Congress and in order to pass a law they need to both pass the same law now I'm not going to get into details but there's like 435 Congress people in the house and there's a hundred senators so you're talking about getting half of 535 thirty-eight people to agree very difficult to do so that's the first kind of roadblock is that to pass a law you got to pass the same law in both the House and the Senate sometimes they'll kind of play legislative ping-pong where they'll pass a law in the house send it over the Senate the Senate will be like I don't like that pot send it back to the house the house is like I don't like that part and it goes back and I can put them back and forth I kid you but that's the idea that I can go back and forth and that's there so there you have the first check and balance inside the actual Congress itself between the house and the Senate having to approve the same legislative language to make a law now they also have a huge kind of function in terms of oversight on the presidency now the judges do too will go over that but basically anytime the president picks somebody to be in government it's going to be Congress it's going to have to approve that person now this is specifically targeted to the Senate so now every time that the president picks somebody to be in the family of government they have to March themselves right over to the Senate and they have to have a confirmation hearing and they provide other types of oversight as well we're seeing that kind of you know unfolds every day in the news this is April 2017 as the House of Representatives and the Senate have oversight committees that are looking into kind of the monkey business of Russia in the election and whether or not the executive branch had anything to do with that it could be a farce it could be not a farce but that's the job of Congress is to provide oversight so most important thing they pass legislation it has to pass the House and the Senate in the exact same way let's go look at article two so article 2 is a pretty short article actually when you look at it especially when it's discussing specifics of executive power because we're talking about the presidency the executive so when we look in the actual Constitution the branch of government that is the executive we're going to see first that they enforce the law they're the ones that don't make the laws they don't interpret the laws they enforce congressional law so if the president wants to do something on immigration the president has to follow congressional law they can't make up a completely new way of dealing with that problem now the president also has enormous power in the judiciary as we mentioned before they pick the judges not only the Supreme Court judges who serve unlimited terms and are the highest court in the land but also all the federal court judges as well so that's a lot of power in terms how the law is going to be interpreted it depends who the president's going to get appointed on those courts but of course they've got to go to the Senate first check and balance how about that now the president also is the commander in chief so they're going to be able to make military decisions in order to keep the country safe but again those decisions can't violate law and also those decisions are kind of reliant on Congress because Congress passes the funding laws so it's hard to have a big war game with no money if you know what I mean so again check and balance you see where I'm going with this but really the president's power is in the sense that they are the figurehead of the country now this isn't in the Constitution this is what we call the unwritten Constitution but they are in a sense the chief of the nation if the aliens come down and go take me to your more dog barking if the aliens come down and say take me to your leader you're not going to take them to a senator you're going to take them to the President of the United States or the president United States has something we call the bully pulpit did I tell you where you're under the video on the executive branch you can go watch that and get more details well I just did and that bully pulpit is in a sense their tree stump they can stand on to kind of get the nation behind an idea so a lot of times the while they don't make laws they propose laws and they act as cheerleaders on that bully pulpit I can't lecture when dogs are barking behind me and the president can use that bully pulpit to get their message across now of course in the olden day someone like Teddy Roosevelt would ride the train across the country by the time we get to FDR its radio broadcasts of course in the 60s 70s and 80s it's going to be the television the boob tube then the Internet and now Twitter how about that so what else does the president do the president of course signs legislation or can veto legislation that's a check and balance on Congress's ability to pass legislation do you see how hard it's getting the pass of law now you understand why so that power rests with the President and the president also has a whole bunch of get-out-of-jail-free cards how about that a check on the judiciary it's called the power of pardon and the president can pardon anybody or commute a sentence less than a sentence for anybody convicted of a federal crime I even mentioned the word federalism but we do have states in here where they have their own governments so the president can't pardon somebody for a murder in Ohio unless they drag the body across state lines so let's go over that real quick again what can the president do the president enforces the law they use executive actions to do that the president is commander-in-chief the president can veto laws or sign laws the president can pardon people and the president can appoint people to the Supreme Court the judiciary and to course his cabinet and ambassadors and there's other appointments as well all right we seem to have another branch I want you to close your eyes and envision yourself with a big background so that was crazy take slack robe and such but of course we're talking about the judiciary and I'll point out that we have that video if you want to do the digging deeper if you know what I mean but just to kind of go over the very basics they don't really get a lot of power the outline of article 3 is basically kind of how they get their job and that's going to be first to be nominated by the president I told you that than to be approved by the Senate I told you that and then they get a job for a very long time they get a lifetime appointment and that's because we don't want judges who interpret the Constitution they are the referees of America we don't want them to be worrying about the fans going boo or yay so they have lifetime jobs and of course we have an appellate court structure there's different chords but way out of get shopping we have the Supreme Court who right now has nine members they are regulated in the numbers and all that by Congress but they really didn't originally have that much power we're not going to talk about it a lot but their original jurisdiction power really only deals with state out of state cases and ambassadors and these kind of weirdo situations their real power rests in their appellate jurisdiction meaning they hear appeals and at the end of the day we're just going to tell you Marbury vs. Madison because the absence of the definition of their power and the Constitution was decided in a Supreme Court case it's a little bit bizarre but we have a video for that too Marbury vs. Madison in the description below but the idea is that through this unwritten power which is hearing a case they gave themselves the power of judicial review so what does that mean just kind of breaking it down it means that if the legislative branch or the executive branch does something and there's a question of whether or not it's constitutional that it doesn't go against the words of the rulebook they have the power to strike it down we've seen this not with the Supreme Court but lower courts with Donald Trump's travel ban and of course there's a whole bunch of Supreme Court cases you're probably supposed to know already for school where you learned in school I hope which is going to illustrate that idea so really important the today what do you need to know judicial review that's the power for the Supreme Court yeah okay all right we didn't go over like how long they serve in different ways you get elected and all that jazz so make sure you check out those other videos if you want to do the deep dive or you could just read pick up a book because the more you know all right guys I'm done with you good dad I'll get out of here go do some homework or what it better go play a game about that all right guys I'm going to safe because I say at the end of every lecture I've ever done where attention goes energy flows and we'll see you guys next time that you press my buttons did I mention we have like 450 videos

Legal System Basics: Crash Course Government and Politics #18



Hi, I'm Craig and this is Crash Course Civics
and today we're gonna look at the basics of a system that affects all our lives: the law.
And no, we're not going to be talking about the laws of thermo-dynamics. That's Hank's
show. Though we will be bringing the heat, ha! The law affects you even if you never committed
a crime because there's so much more to the legal system than just criminal justice, and even though we're
going to focus mainly on courts, the law is everywhere. If you don't believe me, read the user license
on your next new piece of software, or if you fly anywhere read the back of your plane
ticket. Hopefully won't be more entertaining than what you're watching now, but that's
examples of the law. [Theme Music] In general, courts have three basic functions,
only one of which you probably learned about in your history class. The first thing that courts
do is settle disputes. In pre-modern history (which is way easier to understand than post-modern
history), kings performed this function, but as states got bigger and more powerful it
became much easier to have specialized officials decide important issues like who owned the
fox you caught on someone else's land. Or what does the fox say, which was disputed
a lot back then. The second thing the courts do is probably
the one you heard about in school, or on television, or perhaps while studying for the standardized
test, and that's interpret the laws. This becomes increasingly important when you actually
try to read laws, or when you realize that legislators are often not as they might be when
writing laws in the first place. Take a look at the Affordable Care Act. There are a few
famous careless errors in that. Finally courts create expectations for future
actions. This is very important if you want to do business with someone. If you know that
you'll be punished for cheating a potential business client, you're less likely to do
it. Still you might, 'cause there are a lot of jerks out there who would. Are you one
of them? Don't be! At the same time if you know that people will be punished for cheating
you you're more likely to do business. And it's courts that create the expectation that
business will be conducted fairly. Interpreting the laws can help this too, since
the interpretations are public and they set expectations that everyone can understand
and know what the law means and how it applies and then world peace. No more law breaking
ever. The first thing to remember about courts in
the U.S. is that most legal action, if it occurs in court at all, occurs in state court.
And if it occurs at night, it occurs in Night Court. Because this is mainly a series about
federal government, and not Indiana government or sitcoms about court in New York, I'm going
to focus mainly on the federal court system which has four main characteristics. One, the federal court system is separate
from the other branches of government. The executive could do the job, just like kings
used to but we have separation of powers so we don't have to be at the mercy of kings.
Have you seen Game of Thrones? Two, the federal courts are hierarchical,
with the Supreme Court at the top and turtles all the way down. Nope — not turtles — sorry
I meant lower courts. What this means is that when a lower court makes a decision it can
be appealed to a higher court that can either affirm or overturn the lower court's decision. The third feature of federal courts is that
they are able to perform judicial review over laws passed by Congress and state legislatures,
and over executive actions. And the fourth aspect of federal court system
is that you should know that the federal judges are appointed for life, and their salaries
can't be reduced. This is to preserve their independence from politics. Sounds like a
pretty sweet deal. Remember when I told you that the legislature
makes the laws? Well, that was true, but it's also not the whole story. Legislatures both
state and national make laws and these written laws are called statutes. In continental Europe
those are pretty much all the laws they have. Statutes. Statutes everywhere! And statues. That place is
filled with art. They had the Renaissance there, y'know? But in the U.S. and England, which is where
we got the idea, we have something called common law, which consists of the past decisions
of courts that influence future legal decisions. The key to common law is the idea that a prior
court decision sets a precedent that constrains future courts. Basically if one court makes
a decision, all other courts in the same jurisdiction have to apply that decision, whether they
like it or not. The collection of those decisions by judges becomes the common law. I don't have to have a reason to punch the
eagle. I should probably point out what courts actually
do and explain that there are two different types of courts that can make civil law. What
differentiates the two types of courts is their jurisdiction, which basically means the
set of cases that they're authorized to decide. Trial courts are also called courts of original
jurisdiction. These are the ones you see on TV and they actually do two things. First,
they hear evidence and determine what actually happened when there's a dispute. This is called
deciding the facts of the case. Not everything that happened or that may be important qualifies
as a fact in a court case. Those are determined by the rules of evidence, which are complicated and
would really slow down an episode of Law and Order. After the trial court hears the facts of a
case it decides the outcome by applying the relevant law. What law they apply will depend
on statutes and in some cases what other courts have said in similar situations. In other
words the common law. You might have noticed that I've been referring
to courts, not judges or juries, because not all trials have juries. Bench trials have
only a judge who determines the facts and the law. Besides, who decides what in a court
case isn't really that important. More than 90% of cases never go to court by the way,
they just get settled by lawyers out of court. But say you actually go to court and you lose.
Naturally, you'd be upset. Especially if you're a sore loser, like me.
Shut up. You have a choice. You can give up and go
back to your normal, loser life or you can appeal the trial court decision to a higher
court. An appeals court that has, you guessed it, appellate jurisdiction. Did you actually
guess that? That'd be amazing. Appeals courts don't hear facts — who wants
those — they just decide questions of law so you don't have to bring witnesses or present
evidence, just arguments. In most cases, if you want to bring a successful appeal, you
need to show that there was something wrong with the procedure of your trial. Maybe the
judge allowed the jury to hear evidence they shouldn't have heard, maybe one of the jurors
was a cyborg. Here's the way that these courts connect to
what I was saying before about common and statutory law. Most common law is made by
appeals courts. And because appeals courts have larger jurisdiction than trial courts, appeals decisions
are much more important than trial court decisions. So now I'm going to talk about the three types
of law, and it's gonna get confusing. We should probably go to the Thought Bubble for some
nice, compelling, intriguing animations. The two main types of law are basically the
Bruce Banner of law. They're the criminal law and civil law, but they can sometimes morph
into the Incredible Hulk of laws: public law. "Public law, smash abuse of government authority!" If you watch TV or movies, or read John Grisham
novels, you're probably familiar with criminal law. Criminal laws are almost always statutes
written by legislatures, which means that there is an actual law for you to break. In
most states the criminal laws are called the penal codes. In a criminal dispute — and it's
a dispute because the government says you broke the law and you will say you didn't —
the government is called the prosecution and the person accused of committing the crime
is called the defendant. Almost all criminal cases happen at the state
level and for this reason it's hard to know exactly what is or what is not a crime in
each state. Although murder is a crime everywhere. There are also some federal crimes like tax
evasion, mail fraud, and racketeering. If you're suing someone or being sued, you're
in the realm of civil law. Civil cases arise from disputes between individuals, or between
individuals and the government, when one party, the plaintiff, claims that the other party,
the defendant, has caused an injury that can be fixed or remedied. If the plaintiff proves
his or her case the defendant must pay damages. If you lose a civil case you don't go to prison
or jail in most circumstances, but you may end up losing lots of money, and that sucks.
I love money. Cases about contracts, property, and personal
injuries, also called torts, are examples of civil law. So under certain circumstances
a civil or criminal case can become public law. This happens when either the defendant
or plaintiff can show that the powers of government or the rights of citizens under the Constitution
or federal law is involved in the case. Also if the law gets exposed to gamma rays.
"Law, smash!" For example, in a criminal case where the
defendant claims that the civil rights were violated by the police, the decision can become
public law. Thanks Thought Bubble. So those are the basics of the court system
in the U.S. And you can see that there's a lot to keep straight. There are types of courts,
basically trial courts and appeals courts, on both the state and federal level. And there are
types of laws, basically statutory and common laws. The fact that we have both state and federal
statutory law is an example of federalism in action. The U.S. unlike most other nations has both
statutory and common law, but most of the time when we're talking about federal laws we're in
the realm of statutes, or maybe the Constitution. When you study American government, most of
the cases you read about are examples of appeals and of public law. How this all works in practice
is even more complicated. And the adaptability of the American legal fabric allows statutes to stretch
to fit the growing and changing American society. Much like Bruce Banner's incredibly elastic pants.
Thanks for watching. I'll see you next time. I'm getting angry! Oh no! Ahhhh! I'm not wearing
elastic pants! Oh no! Ahhhhh! Crash Course: Government and Politics is produced
in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support for Crash Course Government comes
from Voqal. Voqal supports non profits that use technology and media to advance social equity. Learn
more about their mission and initiatives at voqal.org. Crash Course is made with the help of these
Incredible Hulks. Thanks for watching. Rarrrr!