Robert Mueller testimony LIVE: Former special counsel testifies on Russia investigation

Subtitles section Play video

>> Announcer: THIS IS AN ABC
NEWS SPECIAL REPORT.
>> MULTIPLE SYSTEMATIC EFFORTS
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION.
AND THAT ALLEGATION D NOT CONSP
ANYBODY FROM RUSSIA TO AFFECT
THE ELECTION, AND THEY SEE THE
BIG JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WITH
PEOPLE THAT HATE THAT PERSON
COMING AFTER THEM, AND THEN A
SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTED WHO
HIRES A DOZEN OR MORE PEOPLE
THAT HATE THAT PERSON, AND HE
KNOWS HE'S INNOCENT.
HE'S NOT CORRUPTLY ACTING IN
ORDER TO SEE THAT JUSTICE IS
DONE.
WHAT HE'S DOING IS NOT
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
HE'S PURSUING JUSTICE AND THE
FACT THAT YOU RAN IT OUT TWO
YEARS MEANS PERPETUATED
INJUSTICE.
>> I TAKE YOUR QUESTION.
>> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE
QUESTION.
>> I TAKE YOUR QUESTION.
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WOULD
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.
THEN YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT ON
PAGE 90 OF VOLUME T2, AND I
QUOTE, NEWS OF THE OBSTRUCTION
INVESTIGATION PROMPTED HIM TO
CALL McGAHN AND ASK FOR YOU TO
BE REMOVED.
REGARDING THE SECOND CALL, YOU
WROTE, AND I QUOTE, McGAHN
RECALLED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
MORE DIRECT, SAYING SOMETHING
LIKE, CALL ROD.
TELL ROD THAT MUELLER HAS
CONFLICTS, AND CAN'T BE THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL.
McGAHN RECALLED THE PRESIDENT
TELLING HIM, MUELLER HAS TO GO,
AND CALL ME BACK WHEN YOU DO IT.
DIRECTOR MUELLER, DID McGAHN
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRESIDENT
WAS ORDERING HIM TO DO?
>> I DIRECT YOU TO WHAT WE HAVE
WRITTEN IN THE REPORT IN TERMS
OF CHARACTERIZING HIS FEELINGS.
>> IN THE REPORT, IT SAYS,
QUOTE, McGAHN UNDERSTOOD THE
PRESIDENT TO BE SAYING THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD TO BE
REMOVED.
YOU ALSO SAID ON PAGE 86 THAT
QUOTE, McGAHN CONSIDERED HIS
REQUEST TO BE AN INFLECTION
POINT, AND HE WANTED TO HIT THE
BRAKES AND HE FELT TRAPPED AND
McGAHN DECIDED HE HAD TO RESIGN.
HE 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 DIRECTLY 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
ADVISER, STEVE BANNON.
DO YOU RECALL WHAT HE TOLD THEM?
>> WHATEVER WAS SAID WILL APPEAR
IN THE REPORT.
>> IT IS.
IT IS.
IT SAYS ON PAGE 87, QUOTE,
PRIEBUS RECALLED THAT McGAHN
SAID 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
EVIDENCE -- THAT THE PRESIDENT'S
ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL WERE LINKED TO THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OVERSIGHT OF
INVESTIGATIONS THAT INVOLVE 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
REPO
REPORT.
YES.
I STAND BY THE REPORT.
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THAT
SHOULDN'T HAPPEN IN AMERICA.
NO PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO
ESCAPE INVESTIGATION BY ABUSING
HIS POWER, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU
TESTIFIED TO IN YOUR REPORT.
THE PRESIDENT ORDERED YOU FIRED.
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL KNEW IT
WAS WRONG.
THE PRESIDENT KNEW IT WAS WRONG,
AND IN YOUR REPORT IT SAYS, 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 THE 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 QUESTIONING,
THAT YOU WOULD REFER AS IT
RELATES TO THIS FIRING
DISCUSSION THAT I WOULD REFER
YOU TO THE REPORT IN THE WAY IT
WAS CHARACTERIZED IN THE REPORT.
IMPORTANTLY, THE PRESIDENT NEVER
SAID FIRE MUELLER, OR IN THE
INVEST
INVESTIGATION, ONE DOESN'T
NECESSITATE THE OTHER, AND
McGAHN DID NOT, IN FACT, RESIGN.
HE STUCK AROUND FOR A YEAR AND A
HALF.
ON MARCH 4th, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL SAID HE RECEIVED THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REPORT, AND IT
WAS NOT UNTIL APRIL 18th, HE
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 HE WOULD BE ABLE
TO RELEASE IT TO CONGRESS IN THE
PUBLIC WITHOUT DELAY, PURSUE IT
TO HIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE
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 AN UN
UNREUNR
UNREDACTED VERSIONS?
>> WE WORKED ON THOSE TOGETHER.
>> DID HE ASK YOU WHERE THE
GRAND JURY MATERIAL WAS
SEPARATED?
>> NOT GOING TO GET INTO
DETAILS.
>> IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT AN
UNREDACTED VERSION OF THE REPORT
COULD BE RELEASED TO CONGRESS OR
THE PUBLIC?
>> THAT'S NOT IN MY PURVIEW.
>> WHY DID YOU NOT TAKE A
SIMILAR ACTION SO CONGRESS COULD
VIEW THIS MATERIAL?
>> WE HAD A PROCESS WE WERE
OPERATING ON WITH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY ATTORNEY
GENERAL GOING TO COURT TO
RECEIVE SIMILAR PERMISSION TO
UNREDACT THIS MATERIAL?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT BEING
DONE.
>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASED
THE 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 A STATUTE AND WOULD
GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
FURTHER -- 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.
>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
>> AT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S
HEARING, HE TALKED ABOUT IT.
DO YOU REMEMBER HOW MUCH OF YOUR
REPORT HAD BEEN WRITTEN AT THAT
POINT?
>> I DO NOT.
>> WERE THERE ARE 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 THE TESTIMONY OF
GENERAL BARR, KAMALA HARRIS
ASKED MR. BARR IF HE LOOKED AT
ALL THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S TEAM HAD
GATHERED.
HE STATED THAT HE HAD NOT.
I'LL ASK YOU.
DID YOU PERSONALLY REVIEW ALL OF
THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE GATHERED
IN YOUR INVESTIGATION?
>> TO ACCEPT THAT IT CAME
THROUGH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S
OFFICE, YES.
>> DID ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF YOUR
TEAM REVIEW ANY OF THE
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE DURING THE
COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION?
>> AS CITED TODAY, A SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF WORK WAS DONE.
WHETHER IT BE SEARCH
WARRANTED --
>> 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, IF
ANYONE, WOULD HAVE REVIEWED ALL
OF THE UNDERLYING --
>> THANK YOU, YES.
>> HOW MANY OF THE APPROXIMATELY
500 INTERVIEWS DID YOU ATTEND
PERSONALLY?
>> VERY FEW.
>> ON MARCH 27, 2019, YOU WROTE
A LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MEDIA
COVERAGE OF YOUR REPORT.
YOU WROTE, AND I QUOTE, THE
SUMMARY LETTER SENT TO CONGRESS
AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC LATE
IN THE AFTERNOON 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 -- I CAN'T GET INTO
WHO WROTE IT OR THE INTERNAL
DELIBERATION.
>> YOU SIGNED IT.
>> I WILL SAY THE LETTER STANDS
FOR ITSELF.
>> WHY WOULD YOU WRITE A FORMAL
LETTER SINCE YOU HAD ALREADY
CALLED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
EXPRESS THOSE CONCERNS?
>> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT.
>> DID YOU AUTHORIZE THE LETTERS
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 AND
LEAKED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE
OF ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE
NARRATIVE ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS
OF YOUR REPORT?
WAS ANYTHING IN ATTORNEY GENERAL
BARR'S LETTER RELATED --
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLELADY
HAS EXPIRED.
>> CAN HE ANSWER THE QUESTION?
>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
>> HE MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> WAS ANYTHING REFERRED TO AS
THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS LETTER
DATED INAI ACCURATE?
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO
THAT.
>> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.
NOW THE GENTLELADY FROM
CALIFORNIA.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT
THE SECOND OF THOSE FIVE
OBSTRUCTION EPISODES.
IT'S IN THE SECTION OF YOUR
REPORT, BEGINNING ON 113 OF
VOLUME 2, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT
ORDERS McGAHN THAT THE PRESIDENT
TRIES TO FIRE THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL, END QUOTE.
"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 HEAR 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, IN DIFFICULT TIMES.
FAKE NEWS STORY.
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> 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 RESPONSE TO
THAT NEWS REPORT?
>> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE
COVERAGE OF THIS IN THE REPORT.
>> ON PAGE 114, QUOTE, ON
JANUARY 26, 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 WOULD REFER YOU TO THE
REPORT.
>> COMMUNICATING THROUGH HIS
PERSONAL ATTORNEY, McGAHN
REFUSED BECAUSE HE SAID, QUOTE,
THAT THE "TIMES" STORY WAS
ACCURATE IN REPORTING THAT THE
PRESIDENT WANTED THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL REMOVED.
ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVE IT IS, BUT I WOULD
REFER YOU 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 WRITEUP OF
THIS IN THE REPORT.
>> OKAY.
NEXT, THE WHITE HOUSE 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 IS 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
WRITEUP OF IT IN THE REPORT.
>> IN FACT, DIDN'T THE PRESIDENT
S
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?
>> IT'S CORRECT AS IT'S WRITTEN
IN THE REPORT, YES.
>> THE PRESIDENT ASKED McGAHN
WHETHER HE WOULD DO A
CORRECTION, AND McGAHN SAID, NO.
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S ACCURATE.
>> WELL, MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR INVESTIGATION
UNCOVERING THIS VERY DISTURBING
EVIDENCE.
MY FRIEND, MR. RICHMOND WILL
HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE
SUBJECT, 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
>> THE FBI INTERVIEWS JOSEPH ON
FEBRUARY 10th, 2017.
IN THAT INTERVIEW HE LIED.
YOU POINT THAT OUT ON PAGE 193.
HE DENIED.
HE ALSO FALSELY STATED.
IN ADDITION HE OMITTED.
THREE TIMES HE LIE TO THE FBI.
YET YOU DIDN'T CHARGE HIM WITH A
CRIME.
>> DID YOU SAY 193?
>> VOLUME 1, 193.
WHY DIDN'T YOU CHARGE HIM WITH A
CRIME?
>> I CAN'T GET INTO
INVESTIGATIONS --
>> YOU CHARGED A LOT OF OTHER
PEOPLE WITH FALSE STATEMENTS.
LET'S REMEMBER THIS.
IN 2016 THE FBI DID SOMETHING
THEY PROBABLY HAVEN'T DONE
BEFORE.
THEY SPIED ON TWO AMERICAN
CITIZENS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, GEORGE
PAPADOPOULOS AND CARTER PAGE.
WITH CARTER PAGE THEY WENT TO
THE FISA COURT AND USED THE
DOSSIER AS PART OF THE REASON
THEY WERE ABLE TO GET THE
WARRANT AND SPY ON CARTER PAGE.
WITH GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS THEY
DIDN'T GO TO THE COURT, THEY
USED HUMAN SOURCES.
FROM THE MOMENT GEORGE
PAPADOPOULOS JOINED THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN YOU HAVE ALL THESE
PEOPLE SWIRLING AROUND HIM.
ALL THESE PEOPLE MEETING IN ROME
AND LONDON.
ALL KINDS OF PLACES.
THE FBI EVEN SENT A LADY POSING
AS SOMEBODY ELSE.
EVEN DISPATCHED HER TO LONDON TO
SPY ON GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS.
IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS GEORGE
PAPADOPOULOS IS TALKING TO A
FOREIGN DIPLOMAT AND HE TELLS
THE DIPLOMAT RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT
ON CLINTON.
THAT DIPLOMAT CONTACTS THE FBI
AND THE FBI OPENS AN
INVESTIGATION BASED ON THAT
FA
FACT.
YOU POINT THAT OUT ON PAGE ONE
OF THE REPORT.
JULY 21, 2016 YOU OPEN THE
INVESTIGATION BASED ON THAT
INFORMATION.
DIPLOMAT TELLS -- EXCUSE ME
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS TELLS THE
DIPLOMAT RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT ON
CLINTON.
WHO TOLD GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS?
HOW DEFINEID HE FIND OUT?
>> I CAN'T GET INTO IT.
>> YES, YOU CAN.
IN PAGE 192 OF THE REPORT YOU
TELL US WHO TOLD HIM.
THE MYSTERIOUS PROFESSOR WHO
WORKS IN LONDON, THIS IS THE GUY
WHO TELLS GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS.
HE STARTS IT ALL.
WHEN THE FBI INTERVIEWS HIM HE
LIES THREE TIMES AND YET YOU
DON'T CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME.
YOU CHARGE RICK GAITS, MICHAEL
COHEN, MICHAEL FLYNN YOU CHARGE
THEM.
THE GUY WHO PUTS THIS COUNTRY
THROUGH THE WHO SAGA HE LIES.
YOU GUYS DON'T CHARGE HIM.
I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY.
>> I CAN'T GET INTO IT.
IT'S OBVIOUS I THINK THAT WE
CAN'T GET INTO CHARGING
DECISIONS.
>> WHEN THE FBI INTERVIEWED HIM
IN FEBRUARY, WHEN THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL'S OFFICE INTERVIEWED
HIM, DID HE LIE TO YOU GUYS TO?
>> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT.
>> DID YOU INTERVIEW HIM?
>> I CAN'T GET INTO IT.
>> A LOT OF THINGS YOU CAN'T GET
INTO.
YOU CAN CHARGE 13 RUSSIANS NO
ONE'S EVER HEARD OF OR SEEN, NO
ONE'S EVER GOING TO HEAR OF
THEM, NO ONE'S EVER GOING TO SEE
THEM.
YOU CAN CHARGE ALL KINDS OF
PEOPLE AROUND THE PRESIDENT WITH
FALSE STATEMENTS, BUT 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.
>> I'M READING FROM YOUR REPORT.
HE TOLD GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS.
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS TELLS THE
D
DIPLOMAT.
THE DIPLOMAT TELL IS THE FBI.
THE FBI STARTS THE
INVESTIGATION.
THE CENTRAL FIGURE WHO LAUNCHES
IT ALL LIES TO US AND YOU GUYS
DON'T HUNT HIM DOWN AND
INTERVIEW HIM AGAIN AND CHARGE
HIM WITH A CRIME.
HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS.
>> THE PRESIDENT WAS FALSELY
ACCUSED OF CONSPIRACY.
JAMES COMEY WHEN WE DEPOSED HIM
TOLD US THEY HAVE NOTHING.
AT THE END OF YOUR 22-MONTH
INVESTIGATION YOU FIND NO
CONSPIRACY.
WHAT DO THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO
DO?
KEEP INVESTIGATING.
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 FIGURE OUT WHY
JOSEPH WAS LYING TO THE FBI.
HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS.
HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BILL BARR IS
DOING.
THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT.
THAT'S WHAT THE ATTORNEY JEGENEL
IS DOING.
>> TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN HAS
EXPIRED.
IN A MOMENT WE'LL TAKE A VERY
BRIEF FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.
I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO
REMAIN SEATED AND QUIET WHILE
THE WITNESS EXITS THE ROOM.
I ALSO WANT TO ANNOUNCE TO THOSE
IN THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU MAY NOT
BE GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF YOU
LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT THIS
TIME.
>> THERE WE HAVE IT AFTER ABOUT
THE FIRST HOUR AND A HALF OF
ROBERT MUELLER'S TESTIMONY,
ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH, THEY'LL
TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.
I WANT TO START WITH MARY BRUCE.
MARY, WE SAW TWO DIFFERENT
STRATEGIES AT PLAY BY THE
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.
THE DEMOCRATS MIGHT HAVE WANTED
TO BRING ROBERT MUELLER'S REPORT
TO LIFE.
THEY HAD HIM SAY THAT'S WHAT I
WROTE.
THE REPUBLICANS RAISING
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ENTIRE
APPROACH OF ROBERT MUELLER.
>> GEORGE, THE STRATEGIES WERE
VERY CLEAR STRAIGHT OUT THE
GATE.
WE SAW JERROLD NADLER, HIS FIRST
LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS TO GET
ROBERT MUELLER TO SAY NO HIS
REPORT DID IN THE EXONERATE THE
PRESIDENT.
VERY CLEARLY WE SAW DEMOCRATS
TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE TEN
INCIDENTS OF POSSIBLE
OBSTRUCTION, TO UNDER SCORE HIS
REPORT DIDN'T EXONERATE THE
PRESIDENT.
THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO
PUT TO BED THE ISSUE OF
COLLUSION, PICKING APART THE
REPORT TO HIGHLIGHT THERE WAS NO
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.
THEN THEY WERE TRYING TO
DISCREDIT THE INVESTIGATION.
GEORGE, BOTH SIDES KNEW ROBERT
MUELLER IS KNOWN FORGI GIVING O
WORD ANSWERS.
IT'S A HEARING OF RAPID FIRE
WHERE MUELLER IS KICKING THROUGH
THE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S
RESONATING WITH THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
>> DAVID MUIR ALSO AT THE
CAPITAL.
AT TIMES IT APPEARED ROBERT
MUELLER WAS HAVING TROUBLE
FOLLOWING THE QUESTIONING.
>> IT DID APPEAR THAT WAY.
IT'S PROBABLY WHY HE WANTED HIS
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF BESIDE
HIM, TO SIT BESIDE HIM AND HELP
HIM POINT OUT THE PAGE NUMBERS
IN THE REPORT CONTINUALLY BEING
CITED BY DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS.
YOU HEARD ROBERT MUELLER GIVING
ONE-WORD ANSWERS.
PARTICULARLY ON THE DEMOCRATIC
SIDE OF THE QUESTIONING WHEN
THEY WERE TRYING TO PRESS ON THE
POINTS THAT MARY MENTIONED, THE
POTENTIAL EXAMPLES OF
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE MUELLER
SAID I TURN BACK TO THE REPORT.
THE DEMOCRAT WOULD READ FROM
MUELLER'S REPORT.
THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT
WHETHER WE WOULD HEAR ROBERT
MUELLER READ FROM THE REPORT.
LAW MAKERS ARE CHOOSING TO READ
IT FOR HIM.
TO GO BACK TO THE TWO KEY POINTS
MARY MENTIONED DID YOU TOTALLY
EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT, MUELLER
SAYING NO ON THAT.
THAT TENSE BACK AND FORTH A
MOMENT AGO ON THE DEMOCRATIC
SIDE ABOUT DON McGAHN, THE
PRESIDENT'S LAWYER, WHO WAS
MENTIONED A MULTITUDE OF TIMES
IN THE MUELLER REPORT, A SERIES
OF BACK AND FORTH QUESTIONS ON
WHETHER OR NOT DON McGAHN HAD
BEEN TOLD TO LIE ABOUT THE
PUBLIC NARRATIVE AND MUELLER
REPEATEDLY TURNING BACK TO THE
REPORT.
>> DAN ABRAMS IT SEEMS LIKE THE
DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO CREATE A
WRITTEN RECORD IN THIS HEARING
THAT WOULD LAY THE PREDICATE FOR
GOING FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS.
DON McGAHN APPEARS TO BE A KEY
WITNESS.
THE PRESIDENT CALLING HIM A
LIAR.
ROBERT MUELLER CALLING HIM A
CREDIBLE WITNESS.
>> YOU NEED TO HEAR FROM DON
McGAHN NOW.
THAT'S THE KEY.
FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PERSPECTIVE
TO ME IT'S BEEN A BIT OF A BUST.
THEY NEEDED THIS TO COME TO
LIFE.
THEY NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO TELL
THAT STORY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IT HASN'T FELT LIKE A STORY.
ROBERT MUELLER HAS NOT BEEN
DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST
ALLEGATION THAT IS THERE WERE 12
PLUS ANGRY PEOPLE OUT TO GET
DONALD TRUMP ON HIS TEAM.
HE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT THE
INTEGRITY OF THE TEAM.
WHEN THEY'RE ACCUSATIONS BEING
MADE, HE'S NOT DEFENDING THEM AT
ALL.
HE'S NOT DEFENDING WHY THEY
WROTE SECTION TWO.
HE'S NOT PROPERLY ANSWERING THE
QUESTION ABOUT THE FBI JOB.
>> LET ME TAKE THAT TO CHRIS
CHRISTIE.
THAT WAS A SURPRISE TO ME AS
WELL.
ROBERT MUELLER IS NOT WANTING TO
SAY ONE WORD MORE THAN HE HAS
TO.
>> THIS IS WHAT I SAID BEFORE IT
STARTED.
MY EXPERIENCE WITH BOB MUELLER
HAVING WORKED WITH HIM FOR SEVEN
YEARS WHEN WE WOULD GET INTO A
ROOM WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE
WHERE YOU WERE HAVING A
CONVERSATION BOB MUELLER ALWAYS
SAID THE LEAST AND WAS ALWAYS
THE MOST CAREFUL.
I THINK YOU'RE SEEING THAT THIS
MORNING.
THE DEMOCRATS HAVE LEFT A LOT OF
OPPORTUNITIES ON THE TABLE.
CONGRESSMAN RATCLIFFE MADE
POINTS THAT WE AS BROSPROSECUTOO
NOT EXONERATE PEOPLE.
>> THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS
SUPPOSED TO WRITE A POINT ABOUT
THAT.
>> THE POINT IS THE DEMOCRATS
DIDN'T FOLLOW UP AND SAY DID YOU
INTEND FOR US TO DO THIS SINCE
YOU FELT YOU COULD NOT.
THAT'S THE BIGGEST MISTAKE THE
DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE.
>> IT SEEMS TO BE THE BIGGEST
UNANSWERED QUESTION ON THE
TABLE, IS THAT WHAT ROBERT
MUELLER INTENDED?
HE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THE BAIT
ON BARR EITHER.
>> I WANT TO TAKE IT TO JON
KARL.
WE'VE NOT HEARD FROM THE
PRESIDENT SINCE THE HEARING
BEGAN, JON.
ANY REPORTING ON THE WHITE HOUSE
REACTION?
>> WE'RE TOLD THE PRESIDENT HAS
BEEN WATCHING.
A PERSON CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT
TELLS US, QUOTE, THIS IS A ZERO
FOR THE DEMOCRATS.
THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT BEEN
TWEETING.
HE'S BEEN WATCHING.
THEY CLEARLY THINK THE DEMOCRATS
HAVE NOT DONE WHAT THEY INTENDED
TO DO HERE.
GEORGE, THIS IS IN THE THE
MOMENT THAT DEMOCRATS HAD BEEN
EXPECTING.
THEY EXPECTED THIS TO BE A
DRAMATIC CULMINATION, HEARING
DIRECTLY FROM THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL.
YOU HEARD A LOT OF ONE-WORD
ANSWERS, APPARENT CONFUSION FROM
ROBERT MUELLER.
NOT THE MOMENT THEY HOPED FOR.
THERE WAS A MOMENT OF CLARITY IN
THE BEGINNING WITH THE
QUESTIONING FROM JERRY NADLER ON
THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT
MUELLER WANTED TO INTERVIEW
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
WE'VE REPORTED A LONG THE WAY HE
TRIED VERY HARD.
HE WAS VERY CLEAR IN HIS Q&A
WITH NADLER THAT THAT EFFORT
WENT ON THROUGHOUT THE
INVESTIGATION AND HE FELT AN
INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT WAS
VITAL TO THE INVESTIGATION AND
HE NEVER GOT THAT INTERVIEW.
I FOUND THAT ESPECIALLY
INTERESTING BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT TOLD ME DIRECTLY ON
MORE THAN ONE OCCASION THAT HE
FULLY INTENDED AND WILLING TO BE
INTERVIEWED UNDER OATH BY THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL.
OBVIOUSLY NEVER HAPPENED.
>> HIS TEAM FOUGHT IT EVERY STEP
OF THE WAY.
PIERRE THOMAS YOU COVERED ROBERT
MUELLER A LONG TIME.
WE KNOW ROBERT MUELLER WAS A
RELUCTANT WITNESS TODAY.
HE FOUGHT OVER THE RESTRICTIONS
AND THE TIMING.
HE DIDN'T WANT TO APPEAR.
HE SAID HIS REPORT WAS THE
TESTIMONY.
IT APPEARED THERE WERE QUESTIONS
FROM REPUBLICANS RAISED HOW
INVOLVED HE WAS IN THE OVERALL
PREPARATION OF THE REPORT AND
THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF.
>> THAT'S RIGHT, GEORGE.
MUELLER IS NOT A MADE FOR
TELEVISION PERSON.
YOU'RE SEEING THAT PLAY OUT
TODAY.
HE'S EXTREMELY -- AS GOVERNOR
CHRISTIE SAID, EXTREMELY CAREFUL
IN HOW HE APPROACHES THESE TYPES
OF THINGS.
HE'S TRYING TO SAY WITHIN THE
REPORT.
HE'S TRYING TO DEFEND THE
CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT BY
AGREEING WITH THE DEMOCRATS
WHERE HE SEES FIT.
IN TERMS OF THE ATTACKS BY THE
REPUBLICANS HE'S PERFECTLY
CONTENT TO IGNORE THEM.
I THINK THE THING HE'S BEEN MOST
ANIMATED ABOUT IS TRYING TO MAKE
THIS POINT THAT WHAT THE
RUSSIANS DID IN TERMS OF
ATTACKING THE ELECTION WAS
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC.
>> WE JUST GOT A TWEET FROM
PRESIDENT TRUMP CECELIA.
HE'S RETWEETING CHRIS WALLACE
SAYING IT'S BEEN A DISASTER FOR
THE DEMOCRATS.
HE'S WEIGHING IN AT THE HALFWAY
MARK.
>> AND QUARTERBACKING AND
WATCHING.
HE SAID HE WOULD BE WATCHING A
LITTLE BIT.
THE PRESIDENT HAS A LIGHT
SCHEDULE TODAY.
HE'S IN WASHINGTON.
HE HAS AN OPEN SCHEDULE.
WE EXPECT HIM TO BE WATCHING.
WE HEARD THE PREVIEW ATTACK
LINES COMING OUT OF THE WHITE
HOUSE.
THEY SAID THE DEMOCRATS WANT A
DO OVER OF THE DO OVER OF THE DO
OVER.
WE'LL HEAR THAT THROUGHOUT THE
COURSE OF THE DAY.
WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO MUELLER'S
OPENING STATEMENT.
HE CAME OUT SWINGING IN A WAY.
HE CONTRADICTED WHAT THE
PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SAYING ALL
ALONG, THE CRUX OF HIS ARGUMENT
THAT HE WAS TOTALLY EXONERATED.
MUELLER SAID NO.
THERE MAY NOT BE GIANT
BOMBSHELLS OR REVELATIONS AFTER
THAT.
HEARING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ON
THE RECORD SAY THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT
EXONERATED BY THIS INVESTIGATION
IS BIG NEWS.
>> I DID NOT REACH THE
CONCLUSION OF NO COLLUSION AND
NO OBSTRUCTION.
THAT GETS TO THE QUESTION KATE
SHAW ONE OF THE THINGS THE
CONGRESSMEN ARE TRYING TO DO IS
SAYING THIS IS NOT A CASE THAT
COULD BE PROSECUTED.
ROBERT MUELLER SAID I DIDN'T
EVEN LOOK AT THAT.
THE QUESTION FOR THE DEMOCRATS
IS IT A CASE ROBERT MUELLER
INTENDED FOR THEM TO PURSUE.
>> THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T STEP IN
AND PICK UP THOSE LINES OF
QUESTIONING.
MUELLER SAYS THIS IS A UNIQUE
SITUATION WHEN HE RESPONDS TO
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS.
IT'S UNIQUE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T
HAVE AVAILABLE THE OPTION OF
INDICTING THE PRESIDENT.
WITH LEAVING OPEN THE QUESTION,
YOU KNOW, THE NEXT SORT OF
NATURAL LINE IS SO THE REPORT
DISCUSSES OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
MECHANISMS FOR ADDRESSING
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT.
WHAT ARE THOSE MECHANISMS?
CLEARLY THE REPORT IS
REFERENCING IMPEACHMENT.
>> WILL HE SAY --
>> THEY NEED TO ASK.
IT'S IN THE REPORT.
IT'S IN A FOOTNOTE.
IT'S THERE.
WILL HE WAY IN SUBSTANTIVELY ON
WHETHER THIS IS IMPEACHABLE
CONDUCT?
I DOUBT IT.
I THINK THEY SHOULD TRY.
>> TERRY, WE'VE SEEN HEARINGS
LIKE THIS IN THE PAST.
THE WATERGATE HEARINGS, THE IRAN
CONTRA HEARINGS.
THIS ONE DOES SEEM REMARKABLE.
THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANYONE
ON EITHER SIDE WHO IS GOING TO
MOVE ONE INCH FROM THE PARTY
LINE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
WHAT YOU HAVE IS A STORY TELLING
COMPETITION.
YOU'VE GOT THE MESS OF FACTS.
THE COUNTRY IS KIND OF CONFUSED
ABOUT THEM.
THE DEMOCRATS CAME IN WITH A
DIFFICULT CHALLENGE.
TELL A NEW STORY TO THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC ABOUT SOMETHING THEY
THINK THEY ALREADY KNOW.
>> JERROLD NADLER IS BACK AT THE
PODIUM.
YOU SEE JERROLD NADLER THERE
WITH CONGRESSMAN COLLINS AS WE
WAIT FOR ROBERT MUELLER TO
RETURN TO THE HEARING ROOM.
ABOUT ANOTHER HOUR AND A HALF OF
QUESTIONING IS EXPECTED.
CHRIS CHRISTIE, I DON'T KNOW IF
YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ROBERT
MUELLER'S TEAM IS TELLING HIM?
>> I THINK THEY'LL TELL HIM
CONTINUE TO DO WHAT YOU'RE
DOING.
TAKE YOUR TIME.
THEY'LL PROBABLY TELL HIM TO
PUSH BACK LITTLE BIT.
I'M SURE THOSE FOLKS ARE
DISTURBED AND WE'RE SURPRISED
THAT HE HASN'T PUSHED BACK ON
THE INTEGRITY OF HIS
INVESTIGATION.
>> AND HIS OWN INTEGRITY.
>> THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
THEY'RE NOT MOVING THE BALL
POLITICALLY.
IT'S AN IMPEACHMENT --
>> THEY NEED TO LISTEN TO THE
ANSWERS.
>> THEY DON'T EVER.
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA.
>> 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 THE
PRESIDENT MADE THAT REQUEST.
I WANT TO PICK UP WHERE THEY
LEFT OFF.
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 PRESIDENT
MEETING WITH MR. McGAHN TO
DISCUSS THE REFUSAL OF McGAHN'S
IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" REPORT
ABOUT FIRING YOU, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WAS
SO ALARMED ABOUT THE 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.
>> IT'S ACCURATE TO SAY THE
PRESIDENT KNEW 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 REPUD YAT
FACTS THAT McGAHN REPEATEDLY
SAID WERE ACCURATE, 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 ON PAGE 120.
IT SAYS, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
INDICATES THAT IN REPEATEDLY
URGING McGAHN TO DISPUTE HE WAS
ORDERED TO HAVE THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL TERMINATED, THE
PRESIDENT ACTING 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 BELIEVE IT AS IT APPEARS IN
THE REPORT.
>> 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 --
>> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE
REPORT IF I COULD FOR REVIEW OF
THAT EPISODE.
>> THANK YOU.
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 THAT SAME OVAL
OFFICE MEETING DID THE PRESIDENT
ALSO ASK McGAHN, QUOTE, WHY HE
TOLD SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE
INVESTIGATORS THAT THE PRESIDENT
TOLD HIM TO HAVE YOU REMOVED,
UNQUOTE?
>> THAT WAS THE QUESTION, SIR?
>> LET ME GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
THE PRESIDENT CRITICIZED McGAHN
FOR TELLING YOUR OFFICE ABOUT
THE JUNE 17, 2017 EVENTS WHEN HE
TOLD McGAHN TO HAVE YOU REMOVED,
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> IN OTHER WORDS THE PRESIDENT
WAS CRITICIZING HIS WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL FOR TELLING LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHAT HE
BELIEVED TO BE THE TRUTH?
>> 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 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.
YEAH, THE REPORT.
>> IN FACT, IT'S COMPLETELY
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S
STAFF, ESPECIALLY HIS COUNSEL,
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 McGAHN TO CREATE A
FALSE RECORD.
IT'S CLEAR ANY OTHER PERSON
WOULD BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME.
WE'LL HOLD THE PRESIDENT
ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE NO ONE IS
ABOVE THE LAW.
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, CAN YOU
STATE WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THE
STEELE DOSSIER WAS NOT PART OF
RUSSIAN'S DISINFORMATION
CAMPAIGN?
>> IN MY OPENING STATEMENT THAT
PART OF THE BUILDING OF THE CASE
PRE-DATED ME BY AT LEAST TEN
MONTHS.
>> PAUL MANAFORT'S ALLEGED
CRIMES PRE-DATED YOU.
YOU HAD NO PROBLEM CHARGING HIM.
THIS PRE-DATED THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL.
HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM
ANSWERING THE QUESTION.
WHEN THE SENATOR ASKED THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL THE SAME
QUESTION, HE SAID I CAN'T STATE
THAT WITH CONFIDENCE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE AREAS I'M
REVIEWING.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S ENTIRELY
SPECULATIVE.
IF SOMETHING ISN'T ENTIRELY
SPECULATIVE, IT MUST HAVE
FACTUAL BASIS.
YOU IDENTIFY NO FACTUAL BASIS
THAT IT WAS PART OF THE
MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN.
CHRISTOPHER STEELE'S REFERENCE
IN YOUR REPORT, HE REPORTED TO
THE FBI THAT SCENIOR RUSSIAN
MINISTRY FIGURES TOLD HIM -- I'M
QUOTING -- THERE WAS EXTENSIVE
EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TEAM AND THE
KREMLIN.
HERE'S MY QUESTION.
DID RUSSIANS TELL THAT TO
CHRISTOPHER STEELE OR DID HE
MAKE IT ALL UP AND WAS HE LYING
TO THE FBI?
>> LET ME BACK UP FOR A SECOND.
I'LL SAY AS I SAID EARLIER WITH
REGARD TO THE STEELE, THAT'S
BEYOND MY PURVIEW.
>> IT'S EXACTLY YOUR PURVIEW.
ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS IS
POSSIBLE.
EITHER STEELE MADE THIS WHOLE
THING UP AND THERE WERE NEVER
RUSSIANS TELLING HIM OF THE VAST
CONSPIRACY OR RUSSIANS LIED TO
STEELE.
IF RUSSIANS LIED TO STEELE THAT
WOULD SEEM TO BE PRECISELY YOUR
PURVIEW.
YOU STATED IN YOUR OPENING THAT
THE ORGANIZING PRINCIPAL WAS TO
FULLY AND THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE
RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE.
YOU WEREN'T INTERESTED IN THAT
AND IF IF STEEL WAS LYING.
YOU SHOULD HAVE CHARGED HIM WITH
LYING LIKE YOU CHARGED OTHER
PEOPLE.
YOU SAY NOTHING ABOUT THIS IN
YOUR REPORT.
>> WELL SIR --
>> YOU WRITE 3500 WORDS ABOUT
THE JUNE 9th MEETING.
YOU WRITE ON PAGE 103 OF YOUR
REPORT THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL
TEAM SUGGESTED -- I'M QUOTING
FROM YOUR REPORT -- THAT THE
MEETING MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SET UP
BY INDIVIDUALS WORKING WITH THE
FIRM THAT PRODUCED THE STEELE
REPORTING.
I'LL ASK YOU AN EASY QUESTION.
ON THE WEEK OF JUNE 9th WHO DID
THE RUSSIAN LAWYER MEET WITH
MORE FREQUENTLY THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN OR GLENN SIMPSON WHO
WAS ACTING AS AN OPERATIVE FOR
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE?
>> THIS IS UNDER INVESTIGATION
ELSEWHERE.
>> I GET THAT --
>> IF I COULD FINISH, SIR.
CONSEQUENTLY IT'S NOT WITHIN MY
PURVIEW.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
THE FBI SHOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO
QUESTIONS ON THIS ISSUE.
>> IT'S ABSURD TO SUGGEST AN
OPERATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATS WAS
MEETING WITH THIS RUSSIAN LAWYER
THE DAY BEFORE AND DAY AFTER THE
TRUMP TOWER MEETING, YET YOU
DON'T REFERENCE IT.
GLENN SIMPSON TESTIFIED HE HAD
DINNER THE DAY BEFORE AND THE
DAY AFTER THIS MEETING WITH THE
TRUMP TEAM.
DO YOU HAVE ANY BASIS TO BELIEVE
THAT STEELE WAS LYING?
>> IT'S NOT MY PURVIEW.
OTHERS ARE INVESTIGATING --
>> IT'S NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO LOOK
INTO WHETHER OR NOT STEELE IS
LYING.
IT'S NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO LOOK
INTO WHETHER RUSSIANS ARE LYING
TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
IT'S YOUR NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO
LOOK INTO WHETHER GLENN SIMPSON
IS LYING.
I LOOK AT THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL'S REPORT, PAGE 404.
PAGE STATED TRUMP'S NOT EVER
GOING TO BE PRESIDENT, RIGHT?
PETER STRZOK REPLIED NO HE'S
NOT.
WE'LL STOP IT.
THERE'S SOMEBODY IDENTIFIED AS
ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO, PAGE 419.
HELL NO.
THEN ADDED VIVA LA RESISTANCE.
THEY BOTH WORKED ON YOUR TEAM,
DIDN'T THAT?
>> WHO?
I HEARD PETER STRZOK?
>> THE GUY THAT SAID --
>> PETER STRZOK WORKED FOR ME
FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.
SO DID THE OTHER GUY.
HERE'S WHAT I'M NOTICING.
WHEN PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH
TRUMP YOU THREW THE BOOK AT
THEM.
WHEN CHRISTOPHER STEELE LIED,
NOTHING.
WHEN GLENN SIMPSON MET WITH
RUSSIANS, NOTHING.
MAYBE THE --
>> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN
EXPIRED.
>> MR. MUELLER, OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE IS A SERIOUS CRIME THAT
STRIKES AT THE CORE OF AN
INVESTIGATOR'S EFFORT TO FIND
THE TRUTH, CORRECT?
>> IT HAS THREE ELEMENTS?
>> TRUE.
>> FIRST IS AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT.
>> CORRECT.
>> THAT COULD INCLUDE TAKING AN
ACTION THAT WOULD DELAY OR
INTERVIEW WITH AN ONGOING
INVESTIGATION AS SET FORTH IN
VOLUME 2 PAGE 87 AND 88 OF YOUR
REPORT, TRUE?
>> I'M SORRY.
COULD YOU 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 DETERMINED
THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK STEPS
TO TERMINATE THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> DOES ORDERING THE HEAD OF A
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
CONSTITUTE AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT?
>> THAT WOULD BE -- I WOULD
REFER YOU TO THE REPORT.
>> 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 OBSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY
PROCEEDINGS THAT WOULD FLOW FROM
THE INQUIRY?
>> YES.
>> THE PRESENCE OF AN
OBSTRUCTIVE ACT IN CONNECTION
WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING?
>> TRUE.
>> DOES THE INVESTIGATION INTO
THE POTENTIAL WRONG DOING OF
DONALD TRUMP CONSTITUTE AN
OFFICIAL PROCEEDING?
>> THAT'S AN AREA I CANNOT GET
INTO.
>> PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED ON
JUNE 16, 2017 QUOTE I'M BEING
INVESTIGATED FOR FIRING THE FBI
DIRECTOR BY THE MAN WHO TOLD ME
TO FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR.
WITCH HUNT.
THE JUNE 16th TWEET WAS CITED ON
PAGE 89, VOLUME 2 CONSTITUTES A
PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGE OF 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 TO BE TRUE.
I MAY HAVE STATED IN RESPONSE TO
QUESTIONS SOME.
>> 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 RECEIVED INDICATES
BY JUNE 17th THE PRESIDENT KNEW
HIS CONDUCT WAS UNDER
INVESTIGATION BY A FEDERAL
PROSECUTOR WHO COULD PRESENT ANY
EVIDENCE OF CRIME TOSS A GRAND
JURY, TRUE?
>> TRUE.
>> THE SECOND ELEMENT HAVING
BEEN SATISFIED.
THE THIRD ELEMENT IS CORRUPT
INTENT, TRUE?
>> TRUE.
>> THAT EXISTS IF THE PRESIDENT
ACTING TO OBSTRUCT A PROCEEDING
FOR THE IMPROPER PURPOSE OF
PROTECTING HIS OWN INTERESTS,
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S GENERALLY CORRECT.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS WE
ARE GOING THROUGH THE THREE
ELEMENTS OF THE PROOF OF THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES
WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS
WE GOT -- EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND.
>> MR. MUELLER, LET ME MOVE ON
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME.
LEARNING ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT
OF SPECIAL COUNSEL DONALD TRUMP
STATED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OH, MY GOD THIS IS TERRIBLE.
THIS IS THE END OF MY
PRESIDENCY.
I'M Fed.
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY DONALD
TRUMP VIEWED THIS INVESTIGATION
AS ADVERSE TO HIS OWN INTEREST?
>> GENERALLY THAT'S TRUE.
>> THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE SHOULD
NOT HAVE DIRECTED DON McGAHN TO
FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL,
CORRECT?
>> WHERE IS THAT QUOTE?
>> PAGE 90 VOLUME 2.
THERE'S EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT
KNEW HE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE
THOSE CALLS TO McGAHN.
>> THAT'S ACCURATE.
>> THE INVESTIGATION FOUND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP URGED McGAHN TO
DISPUTE HE WAS ORDERED TO HAVE
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TERMINATED,
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> THE INVESTIGATION FOUND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHEN THE
PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN TO
FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND LIE
ABOUT IT, DONALD TRUMP, ONE,
COMMITTED AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT,
TWO CONNECTED TO A 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 DASH THE WAY YOU ANALYZE
THAT.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S OUT OF THE
BALLPARK.
I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THAT
ANALYTICAL CHARGE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. MUELLER, OVER HERE.
>> HI.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
YOU JOINED THE MARINES AND LED A
RIFLE PLATOON IN VIETNAM WHERE
YOU EARNED COMMENDATIONS.
YOU SERVED AS AN ASSISTANT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY HERE IN
D.C., U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR
MASSACHUSETTS AND LATER NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE
FBI DIRECTOR.
THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
HAVING REVIEWED YOUR BIOGRAPHY
IT PUZZLES ME WHY YOU HANDLED
YOUR DUTIES IN THIS CASE THE WAY
YOU DID.
THE REPORT CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU
TAUGHT YOUNG ATTORNEYS AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INCLUDING
TO ENSURE THE DEFENDANT IS
TREATED FAIRLY.
THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT THE PARTY
OF AN ORDINARY PARTY, BUT TO A
SOVEREIGNTY.
JUSTICE SHALL BE DONE AND THE
PROSECUTOR MAY STRIKE HARD
BLOWS, BUT NOT FOUL ONES.
BY LISTING THE TEN FACTUAL
SITUATIONS AND NOT REACHING A
CONCLUSION CROW SHIFTED THE
BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE
PRESIDENT, FORCING HIM TO DEFEND
HIS INNOCENCE BY DENYING HIM A
LEGAL FORUM TO DO SO.
I NEVER HEARD OF A PROSECUTOR
DECLINING A CASE, BUT THEN
HOLDING A PRESS CONFERENCE.
YOU NOTED YOU HAD A LEGAL DUTY
TO PROSECUTOR DECLINE CHARGES
DESPITE THIS YOU DISREGARDED
THAT DUTY.
AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR I'M
TROUBLED WITH YOUR LEGAL
ANALYSIS.
YOU DISCUSSED TEN SEPARATE
FACTUAL PATTERNS AND THEN YOU
FAILED TO APPLY THE ELEMENTS OF
THE APPLICABLE STATUTES.
I LOOKED AT THE TEN FACTUAL
SITUATIONS AND READ THE CASE
LAW.
LOOKING AT THE FLYNN MATTER FOR
EXAMPLE, THE FOUR STATUTES THAT
YOU CITED FOR POSSIBLE
OBSTRUCTION, WHEN I LOOK AT
THOSE CONCERNING THE FLYNN
MATTER, 1503 ISN'T APPLICABLE.
THERE WASN'T A GRAND JURY
IMPANELLED.
DIRECTOR COMEY WAS NOT AN
OFFICER OF THE COURT AS DEFINED
BY THE STATUTE.
1505 CRIMINALIZES ACTS THAT
WOULD OBSTRUCT OR IMPEDE.
THE MANUAL STATES THAT THE FBI
INVESTIGATION IS NOT A PENDING
PROCEEDING.
1512 B 3 TALKS ABOUT
INTIMIDATION, THREATS, FORCE TO
TAMPER WITH A WITNESS.
GENERAL FLYNN WAS NOT A WITNESS
AND CERTAINLY DIRECTOR COMEY WAS
NOT A WITNESS.
1512 C 2 TALKS ABOUT TAMPERING
WITH THE RECORD AS JOE BIDEN
DESCRIBED THE STATUTE AS BEING
DEBATED ON THE SENATE FLOOR, HE
CALLED THIS A STATUTE
CRIMINALIZING DOCUMENT
SHREDDING.
THERE'S NOTHING IN YOUR REPORT
ALLEGING THE PRESIDENT DESTROYED
ANY EVIDENCE.
WHAT I HAVE TO ASK YOU AND WHAT
I THINK PEOPLE ARE WORKING
AROUND IN THIS HEARING IS -- LET
ME LAY FOUNDATION.
THE ETHICAL RULES REQUIRE THAT A
PROSECUTOR HAVE A REASONABLE
PROBABILITY OF CONVICTION TO
BRING A CHARGE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SOUNDS GENERALLY ACCURATE.
>> OKAY.
THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING YOUR
JOB AS SPECIAL COUNSEL STATE
THAT YOUR JOB IS TO PROVIDE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT OF 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
RUSSIA IN THE ELECTION, IS THAT
FAIR?
>> THAT'S FAIR.
>> WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
TO CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR
ANYONE ELSE WITH OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE?
>> WE DIDN'T MAKE THE
CALCULATION.
>> HOW COULD YOU NOT?
>> THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
INDICATES WE COULD NOT INDICT A
SITTING PRESIDENT.
ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT THE
PROSECUTOR WOULD USE IS NOT
THERE.
>> LET ME JUST STOP.
YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THE
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE.
YOU COULDN'T HAVE INDICTED THE
PRESIDENT ON THAT.
YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THAT.
WHEN IT CAME TO OBSTRUCTION YOU
THREW A BUNCH OF STUFF UP
AGAINST THE WALL TO SEE WHAT YOU
COULD STICK.
>> I WOULD NOT AGREE WITH THAT
C
CHARACTERIZATION.
WE PROVIDED TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OUR OPINION OF THE CASE,
THOSE CASES THAT WERE BROUGHT,
THOSE CASES THAT WERE DECLINED.
THE 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 HE COMMITTED --
YOU COULD CHARGE THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES WITH
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AFTER HE
LEFT OFFICE?
>> YES.
>> UNDER THE ETHICAL STANDARDS?
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE I
HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE ETHICAL
STANDARDS.
THE ON OR ABOUT OC OPINION IS
THAT A PROSECUTOR CANNOT BRING A
CHARGE AGAINST A SITTING
PRESIDENT, BUT CAN CONTINUE THE
INVESTIGATION TO SEE IF THERE
ARE OTHER PERSONS BROUGHT INTO
THE CONSPIRACY.
>> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENERAL MAN FROM RHODE
ISLAND.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU BEING
ON PAGE 90, BY CURTAIL YOU MEAN
LIMIT.
>> RIGHT.
>> BECAUSE MR. McGAHN REFUSED
THE ORDER TO FIRE YOU THE
PRESIDENT ASKED OTHERS.
>> CORRECT.
>> WAS COREY LEWANDOWSKI ONE
INDIVIDUAL?
>> REMIND ME.
>> DID HE HAVE ANY OFFICIAL
POSITION IN THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
>> YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES AN
INCIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE
INVOLVES MR. LEWANDOWSKI AT --
>> I'M SORRY WHAT'S THE CITATION
SIR?
>> PAGE 91, A MEETING BETWEEN
MR. LEWANDOWSKI AND THE
PRESIDENT.
>> OKAY.
>> THAT WAS TWO DAYS AFTER THE
PRESIDENT CALLED DON McGAHN AND
ORDERED HIM TO FIRE YOU, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> APPARENTLY.
>> AFTER MR. McGAHN REFUSED TO
FIRE YOU.
THE PRESIDENT CAME UP WITH A NEW
PLAN.
THAT WAS TO HAVE A PRIVATE
CITIZEN TRY TO LIMIT YOUR
INVESTIGATION.
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT TELL
MR. LEWANDOWSKI TO DO?
HE DICTATED A MESSAGE FOR
MR. LEWANDOWSKI AND ASKED HIM TO
WRITE IT DONE, 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.
>> THE MESSAGE DIRECTED
SESSIONS -- I'M QUOTING -- TO
GIVE A PUBLIC SPEECH SAYING HE
PLANNED TO MEET WITH THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR TO EXPLAIN IT'S VERY
UNFAIR AND LET THE SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR MOVE FORWARD FOR
FUTURE ELECTIONS.
>> I SEE THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> MR. LEWANDOWSKI WAS
INSTRUCTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DELIVER A
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT
DIRECTED HIM TO LIMIT YOUR
INVESTIGATION, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> AT THIS TIME MR. SESSIONS WAS
STILL RECUSED FROM OVERSIGHT OF
YOUR INVESTIGATION, CORRECT?
>> I'M SORRY.
>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS
RECUSED FROM OVERSIGHT?
>> YES.
>> HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO VIOLATE
HIS OWN DEPARTMENTS RULES,
CORRECT?
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE
DETAILS.
I REFER YOU TO PAGE 91 AND 92 OF
THE REPORT.
>> IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE
PRESIDENT'S REQUEST IT WOULD
HAVE ENDED YOUR INVESTIGATION
INTO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS
CAMPAIGN AS YOU NOTE ON PAGE 97,
CORRECT?
>> COULD YOU --
>> PAGE 97 YOU WRITE TAKEN
TOGETHER THE PRESIDENT'S
DIRECTIVES INDICATE THAT
SESSIONS WAS BEING INSTRUCTED TO
TELL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO ENDS
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.
>> GENERALLY TRUE.
>> THE ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT
JUSTICE IS A CRIME?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> MR. LEWANDOWSKI TRIED TO MEET
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
>> TRUE.
>> HE TRIED TO MEET WITH HIM IN
HIS OFFICE SO HE WAS ASSURED
THERE WASN'T A PUBLIC LOG.
>> ACCORDING TO WHAT WE GATHERED
IN THE REPORT.
>> THE MEETING NEVER HAPPENED.
I QUOTE, IF SESSIONS DOESN'T
MEET WITH THE LEWANDOWSKI SHOULD
TELL SESSIONS HE WAS FIRED,
CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> LEWANDOWSKI THEN ASKED
MR. DEERBORN TO DELIVER THE
MESSAGE AND HE REFUSES TO
DELIVER IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T
FEEL COMFORTABLE, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> GENERALLY CORRECT.
>> JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR,
MR. MUELLER, TWO DAYS AFTER 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 TO
LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION TO
FUTURE ELECTIONS ENDING YOUR
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016
TRUMP CAMPAIGN, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I'M NOT GOING TO ADOPT YOUR
CHARACTERIZATION.
FACTS LAID OUT IN THE REPORT ARE
ACCURATE.
>> ON PAGE 97 YOU WRITE
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO
HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE TO
FUTURE ELECTIONS WAS INTENDED TO
PREVENT FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE
SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT AND
HIS CAMPAIGN CONDUCT, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> GENERALLY.
>> SO MR. MUELLER, YOU HAVE SEEN
THE LETTER WHERE 1,000 FORMER
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT FEDERAL
PROSECUTORS READ YOUR REPORT AND
SAID ANYONE BUT THE PRESIDENT
WHO COMMITTED THOSE ACTS THEY
WOULD BE CHARGED WITH
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, DO YOU
AGREE WITH THAT?
>> THOSE --
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. MUELLER, YOUR TEAM WROTE IN
THE REPORT, QUOTE, TOP OF PAGE 2
VOLUME 1, YOU SAID THAT YOU CAME
TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH
THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR
COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT.
THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT?
>> THAT'S ACCURATE.
>> WHEN DID YOU PERSONALLY COME
TO THAT CONCLUSION?
>> CAN YOU REMIND ME WHICH
PARAGRAPH?
>> TOP OF PAGE TWO, VOLUME 1.
>> OKAY.
EXACTLY WHICH PARAGRAPH ON TWO?
>> THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT
ESTABLISH --
>> I SEE.
WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?
>> WHEN DID YOU PERSONALLY REACH
THAT CONCLUSION?
>> WELL, WE WERE ONGOING FOR TWO
YEARS.
>> YOU WERE ONGOING.
YOU WROTE IT AT SOME POINT
DURING THAT PERIOD.
AT SOME POINT YOU CAME TO A
CONCLUSION THAT I DON'T THINK
THERE'S A -- THERE'S NOT A
CONSPIRACY GOING ON.
THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN
THIS PRESIDENT -- I'M NOT TALK
ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT'S TEAM.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT
AND THE RUSSIANS.
>> DEVELOPING A CRIMINAL CASE
YOU GET PIECES OF INFORMATION,
WITNESSES AND THE LIKE AND YOU
MAKE YOUR CASE.
>> RIGHT.
>> WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION ON A
PARTICULAR CASE, DEPENDS ON A
NUMBER OF FACTORS.
>> I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT.
>> I CAN'T SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT
WE REACHED A DECISION ON A
PARTICULAR DEFENDANT AT A
PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME.
>> IT WAS SOMETIME BEFORE YOU
WROTE THE REPORT.
YOU WROTE THE REPORT DEALING
WITH A MYRIAD OF ISSUES.
CERTAINLY SOMETIME BEFORE THAT
YOU REACHED A DECISION WITH
REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF,
I DON'T FIND ANYTHING HERE.
FAIR ENOUGH?
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN I AGREE WITH
THAT.
>> YOU WAITED FOR THE LAST
MINUTE WHEN YOU WERE WRITING THE
REPORT?
>> NO.
THERE WERE VARIOUS ASPECTS.
>> THERE ARE VARIOUS ASPECTS
THAT HAPPEN.
SOMEWHERE ALONG THE PIKE YOU
COME TO THE CONCLUSION THERE'S
NOTHING THERE FOR THIS
DEFENDANT.
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
>> YOU CAN'T SAY WHEN.
I'M ASKING THE SWORN WITNESS.
MR. MUELLER, EVIDENCE SUGGESTS
ON MAY 10, 2017, SIX DAYS BEFORE
YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL
COUNSEL MR. ROSE ROSENTHAL CALL
YOU ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT OF
THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF
THAT.
>> YOU DON'T RECALL OR YOU DON'T
HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE.
THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS
THAT PHONE CALL TOOK PLACE AND
THAT'S WHAT WAS SAID.
ON MAY 12, 2017 FIVE DAYS BEFORE
YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL
COUNSEL YOU MET WITH
MR. ROSENTHAL IN PERSON.
DID YOU DISCUSS THAT THERE WOULD
BE A SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTED
THEN?
>> I'VE GONE INTO WATERS THAT
DON'T ALLOW ME TO GIVE YOU AN
ANSWER.
IT'S THE INTERNAL CONVERSATIONS
AND THE INDICTING --
>> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
INDICTING.
FOUR DAYS BEFORE YOU WERE
APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL YOU
MET WITH FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL
SESSIONS AND ROSENSTEIN AND
SPOKE ABOUT SPECIAL COUNSEL, DO
YOU REMEMBER THAT?
>> OFFHAND NO.
>> ON MAY 16th, THE DAY BEFORE
YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL
COUNSEL YOU MET WITH THE
PRESIDENT AND ROD ROSENSTEIN, DO
YOU REMEMBER THAT MEETING?
>> YES.
>> DID YOU DISCUSS AT ANY TIME
IN THAT MEETING MR. COMEY'S
TERMINATION?
>> NO.
>> DID YOU DISCUSS AT ANY TIME
IN THAT MEETING THE APPOINTMENT
OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, NOT
NECESSARILY YOU, BUT IN GENERAL
TERMS?
>> I CAN'T GET INTO DISCUSSIONS
ON THAT.
>> HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK
TO MR. ROSENSTEIN BEFORE THE DAY
YOU GOT APPOINTED REGARDING THE
APARTMENT APPOINTMENT OF A
SPECIAL COUNSEL?
>> I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY
TIMES.
>> YOU DON'T RECALL OR YOU --
>> I DON'T RECALL.
>> THANK YOU.
HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK
WITH MR. COMEY ABOUT ANY
INVESTIGATIONS PRIOR TO MAY 17,
2017?
>> ZERO.
>> OKAY.
NOW, MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS
EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN 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 DEMOCRAT WROTE A
LETTER ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S
CONDUCT.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT
LETTER?
>> YES.
>> SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT
SIGNED THAT LETTER ARE PEOPLE
YOU WORKED WITH, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> QUITE PROBABLY YES.
>> PEOPLE YOU RESPECT?
>> QUITE PROBABLY.
>> IN THAT LETTER THEY SAID ALL
THIS CONDUCT TRYING TO CONTROL
AND IMPEDE THE INVESTIGATION OF
THE PRESIDENT IS SIMILAR TO
CONDUCT WE HAVE SEEN CHARGED
AGAINST OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS
AND PEOPLE IN POWERFUL
POSITIONS.
ARE THEY WRONG?
>> THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT CASE.
>> YOU WANT TO SIGN THAT LETTER,
DIRECTOR MUELLER?
>> THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT CASE.
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR SERVICE GOING BACK TO
THE '60s WHEN YOU SERVED IN
VIETNAM.
BECAUSE OF OUR LIMITED TIME I'LL
ASK TO ENTER THIS LETTER INTO
THE RECORD UNDER UNANIMOUS
CONSENT AND YIELD TO MY
COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA
MR. LIEU.
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER,
FOR YOUR SERVICE INCLUDING YOUR
SERVICE AS A MARINE WHERE YOU
EARNED A BRONZE STAR.
I WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO THE
ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE AS APPLIED TO THE
PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPTS TO CURTAIL
YOUR INVESTIGATION.
THE FIRST ELEMENT REQUIRES AN
OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO PAGE 97
OF VOLUME 2.
YOU WROTE THERE, 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.
>> TURN TO THE SECOND ELEMENT OF
THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE WHICH REQUIRES A NEXUS
TO AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING.
YOU WROTE, QUOTE, BY THE TIME
THE PRESIDENT'S INITIAL ONE ON
ONE MEETING WITH LEWANDOWSKI ON
JUNE 19, 2017, THE EXISTENCE OF
A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION
SUPERVISED BY THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL WAS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.
THAT'S IN THE REPORT?
>> CORRECT.
>> THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE
EVIDENCE OF A NEXUS TO AN
OFFICIAL PROCEEDING BECAUSE A
GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IS AN
OFFICIAL PROCEEDING, CORRECT?
>> YES.
>> I WOULD TURN TO THE FINAL
ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
ON 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?
>> STARTING WITH?
>> SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
READ THE FIRST SENTENCE WOULD
YOU?
>> I'M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU READ
IT.
>> YOU WROTE QUOTE SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE
PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO HAVE
SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION
TO FEW CLUR ELECTIONS WAS
INTENDED TO PREVENT FURTHER
SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT AND
HIS CAMPAIGN'S CONDUCT, UNQUOTE.
THAT'S IN THE REPORT?
>> CORRECT.
THAT'S IN THE REPORT AND I RELY
ON THE REPORT TO INDICATE WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THE PARAGRAPHS
WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.
>> THANK YOU.
TO RECAP WHAT WE HEARD, WE HEARD
THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED
FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON
McGAHN TO FIRE YOU.
THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN
TO 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.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, THE
REASON AGAIN YOU DID NOT INDICT
DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF OOC
OPINION STATING YOU CANNOT
INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT,
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THE FACT THAT THE ORDERS BY
THE PRESIDENT WERE NOT CARRIED
OUT, THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE TO
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BECAUSE
THE STATUTE ITSELF IS BROAD.
IT SAYS AS LONG AS YOU ENDEAVOR
OR ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE,
THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIME.
>> I'M NOT GETTING INTO THAT AT
THIS JUNCTURE.
>> THANK YOU.
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE
HEARD TODAY I BELIEVE A
REASONABLE PERSON COULD CONCLUDE
AT LEAST THREE CRIMES OF
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE
PRESIDENT OCCURRED.
WE'LL HEAR ABOUT TWO ADDITIONAL
CRIMES.
THAT WOULD BE THE WITNESS
TAMPERING OF MICHAEL COHEN AND
PAUL MANAFORT.
>> I'LL ADD I'M GOING THROUGH
THE ELEMENTS WITH YOU AND THAT
DOES NOT MEAN THAT I SUBSCRIBE
TO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVE
THROUGH THOSE ELEMENTS.
>> TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN IS
EXPIRED.
THE GENTLE LADY FROM ARIZONA.
I'M SORRY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MR. MUELLER, THANKS FOR JOINING
US.
YOU HAD THREE DISCUSSIONS WITH
ROD ROSENSTEIN ABOUT YOUR
APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL.
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO DISPUTE
THAT.
>> THEN YOU MET WITH THE
PRESIDENT ON THE 16th WITH ROD
PRESENT AND ON THE 17th YOU WERE
APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL.
WERE YOU MEETING WITH THE
PRESIDENT ON THE 16th WITH
KNOWLEDGE YOU WERE UNDER
CONSIDERATION FOR THE
APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS UNDER
CONSIDERATION FOR SPECIAL
COUNSEL.
I HAD SERVED TWO TERMS AS FBI
DIRECTOR.
>> THE ANSWER IS NO?
>> THE ANSWER IS NO.
>> GREG JARRET DESCRIBES YOUR
OFFICE AS THE TEAM OF PARTISANS.
THERE'S A GROWING CONCERN THAT
POLITICAL BIAS CAUSED IMPORTANT
FACTS TO BE OMITTED FROM YOUR
REPORT TO CAST THE PRESIDENT IN
A NEGATIVE LIGHT.
JOHN DOWD LIVES A MESSAGE FOR
MICHAEL FLYNN'S LAWYER IN
NOVEMBER OF 2017.
THE EDITED VERSION IN YOUR
REPORT MAKES IT APPEAR HE WAS
IMPROPERLY ASKING FOR
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
THAT'S ALL WE WOULD KNOW EXCEPT
THE JUDGE IN THE FLYNN CASE
ORDERED THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT
RELEASED IN WHICH DOWD MAKES IT
CLEAR THAT'S NOT WHAT HE WAS
SUGGESTING.
WHY DID YOU EDIT THE TRANSCRIPT?
>> WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO
HIDE.
>> YOU OMITTED THE PART WHERE HE
SAYS WE NEED SOME KIND OF HEADS
UP.
YOU OMITTED THE PORTION WHERE HE
SAYS WITHOUT GIVING ANY
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GO FURTHER.
>> YOU DISCUSS CON STAN TEEN
DISCUSSIONS WITH PAUL MANAFORT.
YOU SAID HE HAD TIES TO RUSSIAN
INTELLIGENCE.
THAT'S ALL WE KNOW FROM YOUR
REPORT.
WE'VE LEARNED FROM NEWS ARTICLES
HE WAS ACTUALLY A U.S. STATE
DEPARTMENT INTELLIGENCE SOURCE.
NOWHERE IN YOUR REPORT IS HE
IDENTIFIED.
WHY WAS THAT --
>> I DON'T CREDIT WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING OCCURRED.
>> WERE YOU AWARE HE WAS --
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE
INS AND OUTS OF WHAT WE HAD IN
THE COURSE OF OUR INVESTIGATION.
>> DID YOU INTERVIEW HIM?
>> PARDON?
>> DID YOU INTERVIEW?
>> I CAN'T GO INTO THE
DISCUSSION OF OUR INVESTIGATION.
>> THAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR
REPORT.
THE PROBLEM WE'RE HAVING IS WE
HAVE TO RELY ON YOUR REPORT FOR
AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF THE
EVIDENCE AND WE'RE STARTING TO
FIND OUT THAT'S NOT PROOF.
YOUR REPORT FAMOUSLY LINKS
RUSSIAN TROLL FARMS WITH THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
IN A HEARING ON MAY 28th, THE
JUDGE BOTH YOU AND MR. BARR FOR
PRODUCING NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THIS CLAIM.
WHY DID YOU SAY RUSSIA WAS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TROLL FARMS
WHEN YOU SUPPLIED NO EVIDENCE TO
SUPPORT IT?
>> I'M NOT GETTING INTO THAT ANY
FURTHER.
>> YOU HAVE LEFT THE IMPRESSION
WITH THE COUNTRY THAT IT WAS THE
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT BEHIND THE
TROLL FARMS.
WHEN YOU'RE CALLED UPON TO
PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN COURT, YOU
FAILED TO DO SO.
>> I DISPUTE YOUR
CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT
OCCURRED.
>> THE JUDGE CONSIDERED HOLDING
PROSECUTORS IN CRIMINAL
CONTEMPT.
SHE BACKED OFF AFTER YOUR
HASTILY CALLED PRESS CONFERENCE
WHICH YOU MADE THE DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
AND THE RUSSIAN TROLL FARMS.
DID YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE THREAT
TO HOLD PROSECUTORS IN CONTEMPT
THE PREVIOUS DAY FOR IMPROPER
EVIDENCE?
>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
>> DID YOUR MAY 29th PRESS
CONFERENCE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO
WITH THE FACT THE PREVIOUS DAY
THE JUDGE THREATENED TO HOLD
YOUR PROSECUTORS IN CONTEMPT FOR
MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE?
>> NO.
>> THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM, AS I
SAID, WE HAVE TO TAKE YOUR WORD
OF YOUR TEAM FAITHFULLY,
ACCURATELY, IMPARTIALLY
DESCRIBING ALL THE EVIDENCE IN
THE MUELLER REPORT.
WE'RE FINDING MORE INSTANCES
WHERE THIS ISN'T THE CASE.
IT'S STARTING TO LOOK LIKE
HAVING DESPERATELY HAVING TRIED
TO MAKE A LEGAL CASE AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT, YOU MADE A POLITICAL
CASE INSTEAD.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU REVIEWED A
REPORT AS THOROUGH, AS FAIR, AS
CONSISTENT AS THE REPORT IN
FRONT OF US.
>> THE TIME IS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND.
>> LET'S GO TO A FOURTH EPISODE
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE
FORM OF WITNESS TAMPERING URGING
WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH
LAW ENFORCEMENT.
IT'S A FELONY.
YOU FOUND THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED
IN EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE
WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH
THE INVESTIGATION, IS THAT
RIGHT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
DO YOU HAVE A CITATION?
>> PAGE 7, VOLUME 2.
ONE OF THESE WITNESSES WITH
MICHAEL COHEN WHO ULTIMATELY
PLED GUILTY TO LYING TO CONGRESS
ABOUT THE $1 BILLION TRUMP TOWER
DEAL.
AFTER THE FBI SEARCHED COHEN'S
HOME, THE PRESIDENT CALLED HIM
PERSONALLY HE SAID TO CHECK IN
AND TOLD HIM TO HANG IN THERE
AND STAY STRONG, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IF IT'S IN THE REPORT AS
STATED, YES IT'S RIGHT.
>> ALSO IN THE REPORT ARE A
SERIES OF CALLS MADE BY OTHER
FRIENDS OF 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 THE BOSS LOVES YOU.
A THIRD REDACTED FRIEND SAID
EVERYONE KNOWS THE BOSS HAS YOUR
BACK.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
>> GENERALLY, YES.
>> WHEN THE NEWS -- IN FACT
COHEN SAID THAT FOLLOWING THE
RECEIPT OF THESE MESSAGES I'M
QUOTING PAGE 147, HE BELIEVED HE
HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE WHITE
HOUSE IF HE CONTINUED TO TOW 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.
>> ROBERT COSTELLO A LAWYER
CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL
TEAM EMAILED COHEN TO SAY YOU
ARE LOVED.
THEY ARE IN OUR CORNER.
SLEEP WELL TONIGHT AND YOU HAVE
FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES.
THAT'S ON THE SCREEN MAJOR 147.
>> I SEE THAT.
>> WHEN THE NEWS FIRST BROKE
THAT COHEN ARRANGED PAY OFFS TO
STORMY DANIELS COHEN STUCK TO
THE PARTY LINE.
HE SAID PUBLICLY NEITHER THE
TRUMP ORGANIZATION OR THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN WAS A PARTY 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 THANKING COHEN FOR WHAT
HE DOES?
>> CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
>> THE ASSUMPTION IN THE CONTEXT
SUGGESTS VERY STRONGLY IT'S
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
>> COHEN LATER BROKE AND PLED
GUILTY TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE
OFFENSES AND ADMITTED THEY WERE
MADE AT THE DIRECTION OF
CANDIDATE TRUMP.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
>> AFTER THE GUILTY PLEA THE
PRESIDENT CHANGED HIS TUNE
TOWARDS MR. COHEN, DIDN'T HE?
>> I WOULD SAY -- I RELY ON
WHAT'S IN THE REPORT.
>> HE MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT
COHEN FAMILY MEMBERS COMMITTED
CRIMES.
HE TARGETED HIS FATHER-IN-LAW
AND SUGGESTED HE WAS GUILTY OF
COMMITTING CRIMES, RIGHT?
>> GENERALLY ACCURATE.
>> ON PAGE 154 YOU GIVE A
POWERFUL SUMMARY OF THE CHANGING
DYNAMICS.
YOU SAID -- I'M HAPPY TO HAVE
YOU READ IT.
>> I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ IT?
>> I WOULD.
COULD YOU READ IT OUT LOUD?
>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU
READ IT.
>> THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THIS
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS COULD SUPPORT
THAT THE PRESIDENT USED
INDUCEMENTS IN ORDER TO GET
COHEN TO NOT COOPERATE AND THEN
TURNED TO ATTACKS AND
INTIMIDATION TO UNDERMINE
COHEN'S CREDIBILITY ONCE HE
BEGAN COOPERATING.
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S ACCURATE.
>> IN MY VIEW IF ANYONE ELSE
ENGAGED IN THESE ACTIONS THEY
WOULD BE CHARGED WITH WITNESS
TAMPERING.
IN AMERICA NO PERSON IS SO HIGH
AS TO BE ABOVE THE LAW.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
RECENTLY, MR. MUELLER, MR. LIEU
WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS.
THE REASON YOU DIDN'T INDICT THE
PRESIDENT WAS BECAUSE OF THE OOC
OPINION.
YOU ANSWERED THAT IS CORRECT.
THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID IN THE
REPORT.
IT'S NOT WHAT YOU ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR.
IN A JOINT STATEMENT 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
PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE
SPECIAL COUNSEL REPEATEDLY
AFFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT SAYING
THAT BUT FOR THE OOC OPINION HE
WOULD HAVE FOUND THE PRESIDENT
OBSTRUCTED JOUSTICE.
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 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.
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 BEFORE I SAY I
AGREE WITH IT.
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, MY CONCLUSION
IS THAT WHAT YOU TOLD MR. LIEU
REALLY CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU SAID
IN THE REPORT AND SPECIFICALLY
WHAT YOU SAID APPARENTLY
REPEATEDLY TO ATTORNEY GENERAL
BARR THAT -- THEN YOU ISSUED A
JOINT STATEMENT ON MAY 29th
SAYING THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HAS PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE
SPECIAL REPEATEDLY CONCURRED HE
WAS NOT SAYING BUT FOR THE OOC
REPORT WE WOULD NOT HAVE FOUND
THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED
JUSTICE.
MR. MUELLER, THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF TALK ABOUT FIRING THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL AND CURTAILING THE
INVESTIGATION.
WERE YOU EVER FIRED,
MR. MUELLER?
>> WAS IT WHAT?
>> WERE YOU EVER FIRED?
>> NOT THAT I KNOW.
>> NO.
WERE YOU ALLOWED TO COMPLETE
YOUR INVESTIGATION UNENCUMBERED?
>> YES.
>> YOU RESIGNED WHEN YOU CLOSED
THE OFFICE IN MAY 2019, IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU.
MR. MUELLER, ON APRIL 18TH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HELD