 
CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT SAID HE 
WOULD NOT BE WATCHING, BUT WILL 
HE BE TWEETING? 
>> FOR MANY AMERICANS, JUST 
LEARNING WHAT IS IN THE REPORT 
WILL BE A REVELATION. 
>> EOS ANSWERS ON REALLY 
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, LIKE WHY 
HE CHOSE NOT TO INTERVIEW THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> IT IS INTERESTING TO ME HOW 
MANY TIMES THEY WANT TO SEE 
THIS MOVIE AGAIN. 
>> SHOULD ROBERT MULLER TESTIFY 
TODAY, DEMOCRATS WANT ANSWERS. 
WE WILL BREAK DOWN EVERY ANGLE 
OF TODAY'S TESTIMONY FOR YOU. 
WE HAVE POLITICAL AND LEGAL 
EXPERTS JOINING US THROUGHOUT 
THE NEXT HOUR AND A HALF TO GET 
YOU READY FOR ONE OF THE MOST 
ANTICIPATED CONGRESSIONAL 
HEARINGS OF THE YEAR. 
WE PROMISED TO BRING YOU SOME 
OF THE STORIES YOU DON'T WANT 
TO MISS TODAY. 
>> "CBSN A.M." 
STARTS RIGHT NOW.  
>>> HEY, GOOD MORNING, 
EVERYONE. 
IT IS 7:01 AM ON THE EAST 
COAST. 
I AM ANNE-MARIE GREEN. 
IN JUST OVER AN HOUR, FORMER 
SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER 
WILL TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS IN 
A DAY THAT IS LIKELY TO BE 
HISTORIC. 
MUELLER  WILL FACE FIVE HOURS 
OF QUESTIONING FROM TWO 
COMMITTEES REGARDING HIS REPORT 
ON THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. 
NEARLY 450 PAGES FOUND 10 
POSSIBLE ACTS WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE 
BUT DID NOT COME TO A 
CONCLUSION ON IF THE PRESIDENT 
ACTUALLY DID SO. 
WE HAVE WHAT TO EXPECT FROM 
TODAY'S HEARINGS. 
>> Reporter: FORMER SPECIAL 
COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER WILL BE 
ON CAPITOL HILL TODAY, 
TESTIFYING BEFORE THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY AND INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEES. 
BOTH HEARINGS WILL FOCUS ON 
WHAT HE FOUND WHILE IN  THE 
INVESTIGATION FOR THE 2016 
ELECTION. 
>> FOR MANY, IT WILL BE A 
REVELATION. 
>> Reporter: MUELLER, BY HIS 
OWN ACCOUNT, IS A RELUCTANT 
WITNESS. 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S NEARLY 
TWO-YEAR PROBE ENDED IN MAY. 
THE FINDINGS WERE PUBLISHED IN 
A 448 PAGE REPORT THAT DID NOT 
IDENTIFY EVIDENCE OF A 
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TRUMP  
CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA. 
HOWEVER, IT CITED 10 INSTANCES 
OF POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE ISSUES INVOLVING THE 
PRESIDENT. 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SENT 
MUELLER A LETTER ASKING HIM TO 
KEEP HIS TESTIMONY WITHIN THE 
BOUNDARIES OF THE REPORT. 
DEMOCRATS ARE HOPING TO GET 
MORE THAN THAT. 
>> HE OWES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
SOME ANSWERS, LIKE WHY HE CHOSE 
NOT TO INTERVIEW THE PRESIDENT. 
>> Reporter: REPUBLICANS AND 
THE PRESIDENT SAY THE MUELLER 
REPORT IS OLD NEWS. 
>> NO, I WILL NOT BE WATCHING, 
PROBABLY, LITTLE BIT. 
>> WE ALREADY HEARD FROM HIM. 
IT SEEMS TO ME, I DON'T KNOW 
HOW MANY TIMES WE WANT TO SEE 
THIS MOVIE AGAIN. 
>> Reporter: DEMOCRATS  ALLOWED 
MUELLER'S REQUEST TO HAVE HIS 
TOP AIDE SWORN IN BUT HE WON'T 
BE QUESTIONED BY THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE.  
>> I AM JOINED BY OUR PANEL. 
THANK YOU FOR JOINING ME SO 
EARLY. 
I KNOW YOU WILL BE HERE 
PROBABLY ALL DAY LONG. 
I WANTED TO START WITH YOU WITH 
A BASIC QUESTION. 
WHAT ARE DEMOCRATS HOPING TO 
GET OUT OF MUELLER? 
HE IS ALREADY SAID HE IS NOT 
GOING TO GO BEYOND WHAT IS 
PUBLICLY KNOWN. 
>> I THINK WE HAVE TO GET HIM 
ON THE RECORD TO FLUSH OUT 
PARTS OF THIS REPORT THAT WERE 
PERHAPS REDACTED AND I THINK WE 
NEED TO HEAR HIM READ THE 
REPORT . THERE ARE SPECIFIC 
AREAS IN THE REPORT, SOMEHOW 
THE REPUBLICANS SPENT DAY AND 
NIGHT AND REBUFFED IT AS IF IT 
DIDN'T EIST BUT GOING INTO 
TODAY'S HEARING HAVE TO HAVE 
MANAGEABLE AND REASONABLE 
EXPECTATIONS. 
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS BEEN 
CLEAR HE WILL NOT GO OUTSIDE OF 
WHAT HE IS LAID OUT IN THE 
REPORT. 
THERE ARE DAMAGING THINGS IN 
THE REPORT THAT WILL GIVE THEM, 
I THINK, THE POLITICAL COVER TO 
CONTINUE WITH THEIR EFFORTS TO 
INVESTIGATE AND LEGISLATE AS 
THEY HAVE DONE SUCCESSFULLY UP 
TO THIS POINT. 
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, JUST 
BECAUSE HE DID NOT PROSECUTE OR 
CHARGE THE PRESIDENT, THAT DID 
NOT MEAN THE PRESIDENT DID NOT 
COMMIT CRIMES OR THINGS THAT 
ARE WORTHY OF THEM, HE 
SPECIFICALLY WENT BY RULE OF 
LAW. 
>> OKAY. 
YOU ARE RIGHT. 
IF HE DOESN'T GO BEYOND THE 
BOUNDS OF THE DOCUMENT THAT HAS 
ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN IN HIS 
REPORT, WE KIND OF ALREADY KNOW 
WHAT IS THERE. 
>> THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE. 
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE 
INTERESTING POLITICAL EVENTS 
THAT YOU WONDER WHERE YOU GET 
TO THE MEAT? 
EVERYBODY WANTS SOME SAUCE, 
SOME SASS. 
I PRAY PRESIDENT TRUMP IS 
LYING, AND HE PROBABLY IS, 
ABOUT NOT LYING NOT WATCHING. 
I AM NOT GOING TO SAY ROBERT 
MUELLER IS NOT THE MOST 
EXCITING PERSON BUT THERE IS 
NOT A LOT OF SPARKS. 
IF HE STAYS WITHIN THE FOUR 
CORNERS OF HIS REPORT, THAT 
TAKES AWAY THE CHANCE FOR 
SPARKS. 
THERE WILL BE TWO COMPLETELY 
DIFFERENT VIEWS WE SEE TODAY. 
THE TALK RADIO CONSERVATIVE 
UNIVERSE, PEOPLE WHO WATCH FOX 
NEWS, THEY HAVE A WHOLE SERIES 
OF QUESTIONS THEY WANT ASKED 
ABOUT HOW THE REPORT STARTED, 
HOW IT BEGAN WITH A DOCUMENT 
THAT WAS FUNDED BY THE 
DEMOCRATS AND THE CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN. 
THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. 
HALF OF AMERICANS ARE GETTING 
HERE THESE QUESTIONS AND GO, 
WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING 
ABOUT? 
OTHERS WILL BE LOOKING AT 
ROBERT MUELLER AND I THINK THEY 
NEED TO MEASURE THEIR 
EXPECTATIONS. 
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING 
HIM TO GO, I CAN'T TAKE IT 
ANYMORE! 
HE IS GUILTY! 
IMPEACH NOW! THAT WILL NOT 
HAPPEN. 
>> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE 
DEMOCRATS THINK, THEY THINK A 
LOT OF PEOPLE DIDN'T READ THIS. 
IF THEY JUST READ IT, THEY WILL 
FIND OUT A LOT OF STUFF ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT THEY DID NOT 
KNOW. 
>> NOT ONLY THAT, I THINK THE 
BOTTOM LINE IS, DEMOCRATS HAVE 
TO FRAME THIS FROM A NATIONAL 
SECURITY STANDPOINT. 
WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT 
RUSSIA HACKED INTO OUR 
ELECTIONS TO CHANGE THE WAY THE 
AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM 
WORKS. 
REPUBLICANS TEND TO PRESS THE 
IGNORE BUTTON ON THAT AND THEY 
DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH IT BUT 
IT IS REAL. 
WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT 
YES, DONALD TRUMP, THE 
REPUBLICANS, AND HIS KIDS 
WORKED WITH A FOREIGN POWER 
THAT ULTIMATELY ENDED UP 
INFLUENCING OUR ROUTE OUR 
ELECTIONS. 
I AM NOT NACVE ENOUGH TO 
BELIEVE WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE 
ANYBODY'S MIND ON THE LEFT OR 
THE RIGHT. 
PEOPLE GO BACK AND FORTH. 
WE CALL THEM INDEPENDENCE. 
>> SOME DEMOCRATS HAVE 
EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT PEOPLE 
DON'T READ THE BOOK, THEY WATCH 
THE MOVIE. 
THEY HOPE THAT READING THE 
ACCOUNT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TELLING THEM AGAIN TO FIRE 
ROBERT MUELLER, READING SOME 
THE LANGUAGE PRESIDENT TRUMP 
USED, THAT WILL SHOCK PEOPLE. 
I AM JUST WONDERING IF THIS 
WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHOCK 
THE AUDIENCE. 
PEOPLE WHO WATCH CNN EVERY DAY 
AND FOLLOW THE NEWS, THEY KNOW 
LARGELY WHAT HAPPENED. 
IT IS THE PEOPLE YOU ARE TRYING 
TO PERSUADE. 
ARE THEY GOING TO TURN AWAY 
FROM WHATEVER, "JUDGE JUDY", 
AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE TALK ABOUT 
LAWYER STOP. 
>> IT WILL HIGHLIGHT THE 
CORRUPTION THAT OVERFLOWS FROM 
THIS ADMINISTRATION AND HOW WE 
GOT TO THIS POINT. 
THERE HAS BEEN TESTIMONY BY THE 
FBI DIRECTOR THAT DECLARED 
RUSSIA IS CONTINUING TO PLAY 
BALL IN OUR ELECTIONS. 
I THINK THIS WILL BE GIVING 
DEMOCRATS THE CREDIBILITY WITH 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO CONTINUE 
INVESTIGATING WHAT STEMS FROM 
TODAY'S TESTIMONY BUT ALSO SEND 
A SHOCKWAVE THAT WE HAVE TO DO 
SOMETHING ABOUT PROTECTING THE 
MOST SACRED THING WE HAVE, THAT 
IS OUR VOTE IN THIS DEMOCRACY. 
>> I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I AM 
MOST INTERESTED IN,. 
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HIS 
INTENTION WAS WITH THIS 
DOCUMENT. 
WAS THE INTENTION THAT, LIKE HE 
SAID, PERHAPS IT COULD BE USED 
AS EVIDENCE LATER ON? 
IS IT SOMETHING FOR THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT? 
IS IT SOMETHING FOR CONGRESS IN 
TERMS OF CONTINUING THIS 
QUESTION OF ARTICLES OF 
IMPEACHMENT? 
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE, 
PARTICULARLY LEGAL SCHOLARS, 
WHO LIKETO SAY THIS IS 
ESSENTIALLY A ROADMAP TO 
IMPEACHMENT. 
IMPEACHMENT IS ENTIRELY A 
POLITICAL ACT. IF YOU DON'T 
HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL TO DO 
IT, THERE IS THIS INTERESTING 
MOMENT WHERE DEMOCRATS SAY WE 
HAVE TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT, 
HE IS SO CORRUPT. 
THEY BROUGHT A PIECE OF 
LEGISLATION FORWARD LAST WEEK. 
I THINK 12 DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR 
IT. 
AS LONG AS YOU SAY THE 
IMPEACHMENT GAME IS CLOSED, 
THEN THE QUESTION BECOMES, WHY 
ARE WE HERE? 
>> HE WANTS TO FRAME THIS ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT, I WANT TO KEEP 
THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT 
CONGRESS IS SUPPOSED TO DO AND 
BE A CHECK BOX FOR THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. 
REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED TO BEAT 
THE DEMOCRATS UP AND SAY ALL 
THEY WANT TO DO IS INVESTIGATE. 
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR PASSED 
THE BUCK TO THE LEGISLATIVE 
BRANCH TO GIVE THEM COVER AND A 
REASON TO INVESTIGATE. 
WE CANNOT LOSE SIGHT OF THAT. 
>> YOU SAY THE REPUBLICANS ARE 
DOING THIS, BUT NANCY PELOSI 
RELEASED A SIX PAGE DOCUMENT 
LAST WEEK THAT BASICALLY SAYS, 
HERE IS OUR APPROACH TO KEEPING 
THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE 
ALLEGATIONS ALIVE. 
THIS IS PART OF A BROADER 
STRATEGY. 
NOBODY DOUBTS THAT IDEALLY, FOR 
MANY ON THE LEFT, THAT STRATEGY 
IS IMPEACHMENT. 
>> I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IS NOT 
THE CASE. 
WHAT I THINK FROM THE 
BEGINNING, DEMOCRATS WANT TO 
INVESTIGATE AND LEGISLATE. 
WE PASSED OVER 200 SOMETHING 
ODD PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, DEMOCRATS 
AND REPUBLICANS ARE SO HUNGRY 
AND THIRSTY FOR AND WE SIX 
FLESHED OUT THE CORRUPTION THAT 
CAME FROM DONALD TRUMP AND 
PEOPLE SURROUNDING HIM. 
I THINK WE WILL SEE TO MAKE THE 
CASE IN 2020 WHY HE IS NOT FIT 
TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES. 
>> KEEPING THAT IN MIND THAT 
THE ROLE OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE 
CHECK AND BALANCE, BUT I 
BELIEVE THERE IS A DEGREE OF A 
POLITICAL COMPONENT TO THIS, 
OBVIOUSLY. 
THIS IS ALSO ABOUT ALLOWING THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC TO WATCH WHAT 
HE HAS TO SAY AND INFLUENCE A 
PUBLIC ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 
LET ME ASK YOU, AND THE 
DEMOCRATS OR THE REPUBLICANS, 
AND THIS BE A MISSTEP FOR THEM? 
CAN PLAY THIS BADLY COME OUT IN 
A WAY THEY DON'T? 
IF THEY DO NOT SET REASONABLE 
EXPECTATIONS, YES. 
IF MUELLER READS OUT LOUD ONE 
LINE AND REPORT, IF THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT A 
CRIME, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO. 
IF MUELLER READS THAT ALLOWED 
AND PEOPLE REMAIN COMMITTED AND 
ASK HIM TO DO IT FOUR OR FIVE 
TIMES IN A ROW, I THINK THAT 
WILL BE A COMMERCIAL WOULD SEE 
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY IN BATTLE 
GROUND DISTRICT 2 KC IS NOT 
THAT. 
>> I THINK YOU WILL SEE THAT 
REGARDLESS. 
MY QUESTION IS,  IS THERE 
MOVEMENT ON THIS ISSUE? 
50% OF AMERICANS SAID IN UP THE 
LAST TWO DAYS THAT CONGRESS HAS 
SPENT TOO MUCH TIME ON THIS. 
THEY ARE DONE. 
THAT PEOPLE LIKE, MANY OF THEM 
HE IS A SKETCHY GUY THEY DON'T 
HAVE A PROBLEM BELIEVING ALL OF 
THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T CARE THEY 
SHOULD I DON'T KNOW. 
ROBERT MUELLER MAY SAY 
SOMETHING STUNNING. 
DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE WORRIED. 
REPUBLICANS ARE NOT ALL DOM AND 
THEY HAVE SMART QUESTIONS BUT 
MOST AMERICANS HAVE NO CLUE 
ABOUT THE VERY SKETCHY ORIGINS 
OF THAT EARLY INFORMATION. 
THEY DON'T KNOW THE STORY. 
FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, THE FIRST 
BRUSH OF THAT STORY COULD CAUSE 
THEM TO GO, WAIT A MINUTE. 
>> YOU EXPECT THEM TO DRILL 
DOWN ON THE DOSSIER? 
PETER STRUCK? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
NOT MANY PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE 
DOSSIER WAS FUNDED BY THE 
CLINTONS. 
>> IT WAS NOT FUNDED BY THE 
CLINTONS. 
IT WAS NOT FUNDED BY THE 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN. 
THEY HIRED OPPOSITION RESEARCH. 
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN CANNOT 
CONTROL THAT. 
>> THEY MIGHT GO, HOLY MOLY, 
WHAT THE HECK? 
IT SHOULD BE A BIG DEAL WHEN A 
PRESIDENT OF ONE PARTY HAS HIS 
DOJ INVESTIGATE THE NOMINEE OF 
THE OTHER PARTY, REGARDLESS 
WHAT THAT NOMINEE DID. 
IT SHOULD BE A BIG DEAL. 
THIS WAS NOT HANDLED BY THE 
PEOPLE INSIDE THE DOJ LIKE A 
SENSITIVE POLITICAL MATTER. 
THE WHOLE NARRATIVE THE 
REPUBLICANS HAVE COULD GO AWAY. 
WHEN YOU READ THE EMAILS AND 
TEXTS, WHEN YOU SEE WHAT THEY 
DID, IT IS HARD TO SAY THEY 
WERE TRYING TO GO DOWN THE 
MIDDLE OF THE LINE. 
THE REPUBLICANS HAVE SOMETHING 
TO FIGHT BACK WITH. 
THAT IS WHY LOWER EXPLANATIONS 
EXPECTATIONS WILL LOWER. 
>> MEASURE THREE TIMES, CUT 
ONCE IS MY ADVICE TO DEMOCRATS 
TODAY. 
>>> IN JUST OVER AN HOUR, WE 
WILL BRING YOU ROBERT MUELLER'S 
TESTIMONY  ON A SPECIAL REPORT. 
NORAH O
COVERAGE BEGINNING AT 8:15 AM 
EASTERN, 7:15 AM CENTRAL RIGHT 
HERE ON CBSN. 
WE WILL HAVE ANALYSIS FROM OUR 
TEAM OF CORRESPONDENTS AND 
CONTRIBUTORS THROUGHOUT THE 
ENTIRE DAY. 
>>> IT HAS BEEN NEARLY 18 YEARS 
SINCE THE  SEPTEMBER 11 
ATTACKS. 
FIRST RESPONDERS ARE STILL 
FIGHTING DISEASES LINKED TO THAT
DISASTER. 
YESTERDAY THE SENATE PASSED A 
BILL GUARANTEEING FINANCIAL 
SUPPORT TO THE FAMILIES OF THE 
FIRST RESPONDERS AND OTHERS 
STRICKEN WITH ILLNESSES RELATED 
TO 9/11. 
THE BILL NOW HEADS BACK TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S DESK FOR SIGNING. 
CBSN CORRESPONDENT CHIP REID 
HAS MORE FROM CAPITAL HILL. 
>> I AM PROUD  THAT WE ARE HERE 
TODAY AND WE GOT THIS BILL 
PASSED. 
>> Reporter: CONGRESSMAN THAT 
CAN'T AGREE ON MUCH OF ANYTHING 
FINALLY AGREED ON THIS. 
>> 97-2. WHEN DOES THE SENATE 
EVER GET THERE? 
>> Reporter: THE BILL ENSURES 
THAT THE FUND PAYING FOR 
MEDICAL TREATMENTS FOR FIRST 
RESPONDERS AND NEIGHBORHOOD 
VICTIM SECOND IN THE AFTERMATH 
OF 9/11 NEVER RUNS OUT OF 
MONEY. 
>> YOU ARE IGNORING THEM. 
>> Reporter: FORMER DAILY SHOW 
HOST JON STEWART HAS 
PASSIONATELY CHAMPIONED THE 
CAUSE FOR YEARS. 
>> MY JOB WAS TO COME IN AT THE 
VERY AND AND YELL AS LOUD AS I 
COULD. 
IT WAS INSPIRED BY THESE GUYS. 
>> Reporter: THE BILL WAS HELD 
UP BY REPUBLICAN SENATOR RAND 
PAUL OVERSPENDING CONCERTS. 
>> IT IS A MANUFACTURED CRISIS. 
AS OF TODAY, THE FUNDING 
QUESTION HAS $2 BILLION IN IT. 
>> Reporter: THE VOTE CAME TOO 
LATE FOR FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE 
LUIS ALVAREZ TO SEE IT HAPPEN. 
>> THIS FUND IS NOT A TICKET TO 
PARADISE. 
>> Reporter: THREE WEEKS AFTER 
TESTIFYING ON CAPITOL HILL, 
ALVAREZ DIED OF CANCER. 
HIS SON, DAVID ALVAREZ. 
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR NOT 
FORGETTING HIM, NOT FORGETTING 
ALL THE OTHER FIRST RESPONDERS. 
>> Reporter: THE BILL NOW GOES 
TO PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
HE IS EXPECTED TO SIGN IT 
FRIDAY WHILE SURROUNDED BY 9/11 
FIRST RESPONDERS. 
CHIP REID, CBS NEWS, CAPITAL 
HILL. 
>>> TWO MAJOR NEWS OUTLETS IN 
PUERTO RICO ARE REPORTING THAT 
GOERNOR RICARDO ROSSELLO WILL 
STEP DOWN AT NOON TODAY. 
CBS NEWS HAS NOT INDEPENDENTLY 
CONFIRMED THE APPARENT 
RESIGNATION. 
THIS COMES AFTER PUERTO RICO 
CONTINUED PROTESTS LAST NIGHT. 
WHAT DO WE HEARING THIS 
MORNING, LAUREN? 
WHAT IS GOING ON? 
>> Reporter: IT IS A WAITING 
GAME TO SEE IF HE RESIGNS. 
WE KNOW YESTERDAY HIS CHIEF OF 
STAFF RESIGNED. 
IT WOULD BE A REVERSAL IF 
RICARDO ROSE A WOOD RESIGNED 
TODAY. 
WE KNOW THE EMBATTLED LEADER 
VOWED TO REMAIN IN OFFICE 
DESPITE PUBLIC OUTCRY. 
HE HAS NOT YET SAID HE WOULD BE 
STEPPING DOWN ALTHOUGH IT COULD 
COME WITHIN MINUTES. 
PROTESTERS TOOK TO THE STREETS 
OF PUERTO RICO LAST NIGHT FOR 
THE 12th DAY. 
THEY STEM FROM THE ALLEGATIONS 
OF CORRUPTION AND OF ELITE 
ONLINE CHAT BETWEEN THE 
GOVERNOR AND HIS POLITICAL 
ALLIES. 
THE MESSAGES CONTAINED PROFANE, 
HOMOPHOBIC AND SEXIST COMMENTS 
AND MOCKED VICTIMS OF HURRICANE 
MARIA. 
SEARCH WARRANTS HAVE BEEN 
ISSUED INTO THE INVESTIGATION 
INTO ROSSELLO AND 11 OF HIS 
AIDES. 
PUERTO RICO'S DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE IS LOOKING INTO ANY 
CRIMINAL OR ETHICAL CRIMINALS 
CRIMES WERE COMMITTED IN THIS 
CHECK A CONTROVERSY. 
THE ONES COME JUST TWO DAYS 
ROSSELLO  ANNOUNCED HE WOULD 
NOT SEEK REELECTION NEXT YEAR. 
GOVERNOR RICARDO ROSSELLO, HIS 
CHIEF OF STAFF RESIGNED 
YESTERDAY, WE ARE REALLY GOING 
TO FIND OUT IF HE WILL RESIGN 
TODAY. 
IF HE DOES STEP DOWN, WE KNOW 
THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE WOULD 
LIKELY REPLACE HIM, ALTHOUGH 
THE PEOPLE IN PUERTO RICO SAY 
THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. 
THY WANT THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT 
TAKEN OUT. 
>> I KNOW THE GOVERNOR HAS BEEN 
EXPRESSING HIMSELF, WHETHER 
THROUGH TWEETS OR WITH 
INTERVIEWS OR WHATEVER 
THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE THING, 
OFTEN HE HAS PUT HIS FOOT INTO 
HIS MOUTH. 
WHATEVER HE SAYS DOESN'T 
SATISFY PEOPLE. 
HE ISSUED A STATEMENT 
YESTERDAY? 
>> YES. 
>> Reporter: IT SAID WHEN ONE 
SIDE SPEAKS LEGITIMATELY, THE 
OTHER SIDE HAS THE 
RESPONSIBILITY TO LISTEN 
CAREFULLY. 
THE PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING. 
I MIGHT HAVE TO LISTEN. 
>> THAT SOUNDS INTERESTING. 
>> Reporter: WE WILL SEE IF 
THAT HAPPENS TODAY. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>>> COMING UP AFTER THE BREAK, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GOING TO 
ENSURE RETURNS. 
THE LATEST ATTORNEY TO TRY TO 
NULLIFY STATE LAW. 
DO WE WANT ANY DELAYS IMPACTED 
BY THIS CBS-AT&T DISAGREEMENT. 
YOU CAN GET YOUR NEWS RIGHT 
HERE BY DOWNLOADING NEWS APP 
AND STREAMING US ON ANY 
PLATFORM YOU CHOOSE, YOUR 
PHONE, YOUR iPAD, YOUR 
COMPUTER. 
AT YOUR LOCAL NEWS AND DSL 
ACCESS WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK 
>>> HERE IS SOME STORE YOU MAY 
HAVE MISSED WHILE YOU WERE OFF-
LINE. 
A FEDERAL JUDGE IS TEMPORALLY 
HALTING THREE ANTIABORTION LAWS 
FROM BEING ENFORCED IN 
ARKANSAS. 
JUDGE CHRISTINE BAKER GRANTED 
THE ACLU OF ARKANSAS A 14 DAY 
RESTRAINING ORDER. 
THE LAWS THAT WERE BLOCKED 
INCLUDE WOMEN BEING KEPT FROM 
GETTING AN ABORTION AFTER 18 
WEEKS OF PREGNANCY, REQUIRING 
DOCTORS WHO PERFORM ABORTIONS 
TO BE CERTIFIED IN GYNECOLOGICAL
STUDIES AND ARKANSAS IS AT RISK 
OF LOSING THEIR ONLY SURGICAL 
PROVIDER OF ABORTION. 
>>> MONEY WAS PAID TO NEAL 
ARMSTRONG'S ESTATE. ACCORDING 
TO THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORT, 
MERCY HEALTH FAIRFIELD HOSPITAL 
AGREE TO PAY IN ORDER TO AVOID 
BAD PUBLICITY. 
HIS TWO SONS CLAIM THEIR FATHER 
DIED BECAUSE OF POSTSURGICAL 
COMPLICATIONS CAUSED BY THE 
HOSPITAL. 
MOST OF THE SETTLEMENT WAS 
SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO SONS, 
FOLLOWED BY ARMSTRONG'S BROTHER 
AND SISTER AND THEIR SIX 
GRANDCHILDREN. 
>>> NEW YORK HAS A NEW 
LAWMAKING REVENGE BORN A 
MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. 
THE ACT OF SHARING SEXUAL 
PHOTOS OR VIDEOS WITHOUT 
CONSENT IS NOW ILLEGAL. 
41 STATES AND WASHINGTON, D.C. 
ALREADY HAVE SIMILAR LAWS IN 
PLACE. 
OFFENDERS COULD PUT UP SPEND UP 
TO ONE YEAR IN PRISON AND 
VICTIMS CAN SUE AND GET A COURT 
ORDER TO REMOVE THE VIDEOS AND 
PICTURES FROM SOCIAL MEDIA 
PLATFORMS. 
>>> PRESIDENT TRUMP FILED A 
LAWSUIT AGAINST THE HOUSE WAYS 
AND MEANS COMMITTEE AND NEW 
YORK OFFICIALS TO PROTECT HIS 
TAX RETURNS. 
HIS ATTORNEY RIGHTS, NEW YORK'S 
NEW LAW ALLOWING THE 
PRESIDENT
RELEASED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 
HE ALSO CLAIMS THE LAW VIOLATES 
MR. TRUMP'S FIRST AMENDMENT 
RIGHTS. 
JOINING ME NOW IS CBS NEWS 
LEGAL ANALYST REBECCA WOULD BE 
TO JOIN US. 
>> THERE HAS BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO 
ACCESS THE PRESIDENT
RETURNS AND IT GETS FOLDED IN. 
THIS ONE IS RELATED TO NEW YORK 
TAX RETURNS. 
>> IT IS ALSO PARTICULAR 
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES. 
IT IS NOT LIKE, THE TAX RETURNS 
CAN GO TO ANYONE AT THE FEDERAL 
LEVEL. 
>> THIS IS A NEW YORK LAW THAT 
WAS PASSED THAT ENABLES NEW YORK
TO OBTAIN FROM NEW YORK TAX 
OFFICIALS TRUMP'S STATE TAX 
RETURNS. 
IN TURN, THE U.S. CONGRESS WAYS 
AND MEANS COMMITTEE CAN OBTAIN 
THOSE TAXES FROM NEW YORK 
STATE, OR AT LEAST 
THEORETICALLY. 
I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE 
COMMITTED TO DOING THAT, BUT 
THEORETICALLY, THEY COULD. 
THE CONCERN IS SECONDARY TO THE 
FIRST CONCERN, THE HOUSE WAYS 
AND MEANS WILL TRY TO GET FROM 
THE TREASURY HIS FEDERAL 
RETURNS. 
NOW WE ARE CONCERNED WITH HIS 
STATE RETURNS. 
>> JAY SEKULOW SAID THERE WAS 
NO LEGITIMATE REASON. 
>> HE SAYS HE REPEATS HIS 
MANTRA, THERE IS NO LEGISLATIVE 
PURPOSE HERE. 
THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE 
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. 
THIS IS A POLITICAL ATTEMPT TO 
DESTROY THIS PRESIDENT. 
YOU KNOW, IN TRUMP'S TERMS, IT 
IS PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT. 
SECONDARILY, IN TERMS OF THE 
STATE OFFICIALS, THE EFFORT TO 
BLOCK THE STATE OFFICIALS FROM 
GETTING HIS TAX RETURNS, HIS 
ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS IS A 
VIOLATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. 
HE IS FILING THIS COMPLAINT AS 
A PRIVATE CITIZEN. 
HE SAYS BY COMING AFTER ME, 
THIS IS ESSENTIALLY RETALIATION 
FOR MY POLITICAL BELIEFS. 
THAT IS INTERESTING. 
>> HE HAS DONE THIS BEFORE. 
HE HAS CLAIMED HE IS A PRIVATE 
CITIZEN IN THIS LAWSUIT. 
>> I AM PUTTING MY PRESIDENT 
HAD ASIDE AND I AM NOW A 
PRIVATE CITIZEN. 
HE DIDN'T GET AWAY WITH IT WITH 
HIS TWITTER FEED. 
HE COULD NOT BLOCK WHOEVER HE 
WANTED. 
HE IS THE PRESIDENT AND THIS IS 
A PUBLIC FORM ACCORDING TO THE 
COURT. 
THIS HAS A LITTLE MORE MERIT. 
WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW YORK 
STATE GOVERNMENT, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. 
IT IS A LITTLE MORE OF A 
LEGITIMATE CLAIM TO SAY HERE 
YOU ARE COMING AFTER ME. 
YOU'RE COMING AFTER ME AS A 
PRIVATE CITIZEN. 
ON THE OTHER SIDE, NO, YOU ARE 
NOT. 
YOU ARE ALSO THE ELECTED 
OFFICIAL FOR THE PEOPLE OF NEW 
YORK. 
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE YOUR 
TAX RETURNS AND PRETENDING TO 
ALL OF A SUDDEN TO BECOME A 
PRIVATE CITIZEN, YOU CAN'T DO 
THAT. 
YOU CANNOT STRIP YOURSELF OF 
THIS PRESIDENCY FOR YOUR THAT 
PURPOSE. 
>> HE IS NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED, 
AS A PRESIDENT, TO RELEASE HIS 
TAX RETURNS. 
IT IS MORE OF A TRADITION. 
>> IT IS A TRADITION THAT HAS 
FOLLOWED THROUGH EVERY 
PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM. 
THE QUESTION IS, NOW, WHEN HE 
IS FLOUTING THOSE TRADITIONS, 
HOW DO WE GET THOSE TAX RETURNS
? THERE IS THIS EFFORT IN THE 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOW, THERE 
IS ALREADY A LAWSUIT, THIS IS A 
TAGALONG LAWSUIT. 
BOTH OF THESE LAWSUITS ARE 
EFFORTS TO GET HIS TAX RETURNS. 
BOTH HIS FEDERAL AND HIS STATE 
TAX RETURNS. 
>> WHEN I READ ABOUT THIS, MY 
INITIAL REACTION WAS, THE 
PRESIDENT KEEPS SAYING HE IS 
MORE THAN WILLING TO RELEASE 
HIS TAX RETURNS, IT IS JUST HE 
IS UNDER AUDIT. 
NOW HE IS FIGHTING IT. 
IT SEEMS LIKE A CONTRADICTION. 
RELEASE IT OR NOT? 
>> IT HAS GONE ON LONG. 
I DON'T THINK THAT IS IT. 
THERE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION 
HERE. 
THERE ARE TWO NARRATIVES. 
ONE IS, THIS IS OVERSIGHT, THIS 
IS AN EXERCISE TWO ISSUE PROPER 
OVERSIGHT BY CONGRESS, THE STATE
BECAUSE THE CITIZENS HAVE AN 
INTEREST. 
THE OTHER STORY IS, THIS IS A 
CONTINUAL EFFORT TO DESTROY 
THIS PRESIDENT. 
>> THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO ASK 
YOU. 
COULD YOU ARGUE PRESIDENTIAL 
HARASSMENT PRECISELY BECAUSE HE 
IS NOT LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO 
RELEASE ANY OF THIS STUFF? 
THIS IS HIS PRIVATE 
INFORMATION. 
IF HE WANTS TO SHARE IT WITH 
US, GREAT. 
IF NOT, WHY ALL THESE MULTIPLE 
ANGLES TO GET IT? 
ISN'T IT LEGITIMATE THAT COULD 
BE A FORM OF HARASSMENT? 
>> I THINK THE STATE, THIS 
PARTICULAR LAWSUIT THAT JUST 
CAME OUT, MAKES THAT STORY A 
LITTLE MORE COMPELLING. 
LOOK, YOU HAVE TRIED. 
YOU ARE LITIGATING IT. 
IT KEPT PILING ON. 
LETICIA JAMES REALLY DID 
CAMPAIGN ON, I AM AFTER TRUMP. 
IN MY MIND, THAT IS 
INAPPROPRIATE. 
IF YOU ARE A LEGAL OFFICIAL, 
YOU SHOULD NOT BE AFTER SOMEONE 
BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR 
POLITICAL BELIEFS OR THEIR 
PRESIDENCY. 
SHE LOOKS RABID. 
SHE LOOKS LIKE SHE IS AFTER 
HIM. 
I DON'T THINK THAT IS 
APPROPRIATE. 
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE 
LEGITIMATE CONGRESSIONAL 
OVERSIGHT POINT IS AN IMPORTANT 
ONE. 
WE, AS A COUNTRY, NEED TO KNOW 
WHETHER OUR PRESIDENT HAS 
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, 
ENTANGLEMENTS WITH FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES, THAT MIGHT IMPAIR 
HIS ABILITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF 
AMERICANS. 
THAT IS A LEGITIMATE 
LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. 
IF YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT, 
MAYBE WE NEED TO ENACT 
LEGISLATION TO MAKE SURE OUR 
PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE NOT IN 
SOME SITUATION THAT WE DON'T 
KNOW ABOUT IN WHICH THERE 
JUDGMENT IS BEING IMPAIRED AND 
WARPED. 
I THINK THERE IS DEFINITELY A 
GOOD ARGUMENT FOR THAT. 
WHEN I READ THIS COMPLETE, I 
THOUGHT, WOW, THIS SOUNDS MUCH 
MORE CONVINCING ON THE PART OF 
TRUMP'S ATTORNEYS. 
THEY ARE GOING AFTER HIS STATE 
TAX RETURNS, THEY ARE JUST 
TRYING TO GET THE SAME 
INFORMATION. 
THERE IS A LOT OF THE SAME 
INFORMATION IN A MATT. 
>> YOU MAKE A GREAT POINT. 
WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WE KNOW, 
FOR EXAMPLE, TRIED TO START A 
DEVELOPMENT IN MOSCOW AND KIND 
OF MISLED US WHEN EXACTLY HE 
LET GO OF THAT OPPORTUNITY AND 
ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF. 
IT WILL BE AN INTERESTING LEGAL 
ARGUMENT. 
>>> LET'S GO TO LONDON AND 
CHECK IN. 
WE HAVE THE LATEST ON A BRAND-
NEW PRIME MINISTER IN THE UK. 
>> Reporter: A NEW DAY AND A 
NEW PRIME MINISTER. 
BORIS JOHNSON OFFICIALLY 
BECOMES PRIME MINISTER THE UK 
TODAY. 
THE FORMER LONDON'S MAYOR 
REPLACES THERESA MAY, WHO 
RESIGNED LAST MONTH AFTER 
PARLIAMENT REJECTED ALL OF HER 
BREXIT PROPOSALS TO LEAVE THE 
EUROPEAN UNION. 
SHE WILL GIVE HER FINAL ADDRESS 
TO PARLIAMENT AND THEN MEET 
WITH THE QUEEN TO HAND IN HIS 
RESIGNATION. 
JOHNSON WILL ALSO MEET WITH THE 
QUEEN BEFORE TAKING OVER THIS 
AFTERNOON. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP CONGRATULATED 
JOHNSON ON WINNING THE RACE 
YESTERDAY, SAYING HE WILL BE 
GREAT. 
TRUMP ALSO CLAIMS JOHNSON IS 
POPULAR IN THE UK BECAUSE THEY 
CALL HIM BRITAIN DROP. 
>>> IN CHINA, MORE THAN 500 
RESCUERS ARE SEARCHING FOR MORE 
THAN 30 PEOPLE AFTER TWO 
LANDSLIDES IN THE SOUTHWESTERN 
PART OF THE COUNTRY. 
AT LEAST 12 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN 
KILLED. 
A LANDSLIDE TUESDAY NIGHT 
BURIED HOMES AND ANOTHER ONE 
ALSO HIT A VILLAGE IN THE SAME 
PROBIT PROVINCE. 
THE LANDSLIDE HAPPENED NEAR A 
HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION SITE. 
>>> BACK ERE IN EUROPE, THE 
HEAT IS ON. 
THE UNITED NATIONS IS ISSUING A 
WARNING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES 
OF CLIMATE CHANGE AS A SECOND 
HEAT WAVE ARRIVES THIS SUMMER. 
A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE 
METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION SAYS 
THE HEATWAVES ARE STARTING 
EARLIER AND BECOMING MORE 
INTENSE BECAUSE OF CLIMATE 
CHANGE. 
THE PROBLEM, THEY SAY, IS NOT 
GOING TO GO AWAY. 
SPAIN HAS BEEN BATTLING ITS 
BIGGEST WILDFIRES IN DECADES, 
WHILE THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT HAS 
LIMITED WATER USE IN DOZENS OF 
REGIONS BECAUSE OF DROUGHT. 
HERE IN LONDON, IT WILL BE 
SIZZLING TOMORROW. 
IT IS EXPECTED TO REACH ABOUT 
100B0F. 
>> I KNOW WHAT THAT FEELS LIKE. 
WE HAD IT OVER THE WEEKEND 
HERE. 
>>> COMING UP AFTER THE BREAK, 
MAJOR TWIST IN THE CASE OF THE 
COUPLE MURDERED IN CANADA. 
WHO AUTHORITIES FEAR MAY HAVE 
BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE QUYNH. 
KEEP IT RIGHT HERE. 
YOU ARE STREAMING "CBSN A.M."  
>>> NOW, EVERY EVENING SHE 
BRINGS TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING 
RIGHT WHEN WE NEED IT MOST. 
>> WOW. 
THIS IS PRETTY SPECTACULAR. 
>> THE "CBS EVENING NEWS" WITH 
NORAH O
TRUST MATTERS. 
>>> PRESENTED BY GO DADDY. 
>>> A 20-YEAR-OLD IN BROOKLYN, 
NEW YORK HAS TAKEN HIS LOVE FOR 
CLOTHING DESIGN AND A SPARE 
ROOM IN HIS PARENTS' HOUSE TO 
CREATE A BUDDING SMALL BUSINESS 
WHILE A FULL-TIME STUDENT. 
ERIC CONNOR HAS DESIGNED 
SNEAKERS FOR MUSIC ARTISTS 
JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE AND MORE. 
HERE IS MORE ON HIS JOURNEY 
INTO ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS PART 
OF OUR SMALL BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT.
>> THE DAY I LEARNED HOW TO SEW 
IS A DAY I BOUGHT MY FIRST 
MACHINE. 
MY NAME IS ERIC CONNOR. 
I AM A CEO AND I MAKE SNEAKERS 
AND ACCESSORIES THAT I 
RECONSTRUCT THE SNEAKERS THAT 
ARE ALREADY MADE WITH DESIGNER 
MATERIALS AND EXOTIC FABRICS. 
I FIND IT FUN TO PIECE 
EVERYTHING TOGETHER. 
IT IS REALLY COOL TO SEE AN 
IDEA YOU HAVE COME TO LIFE. 
YOU CAN ENVISION EVERYTHING AND 
THEN YOU SEE IT. 
IT IS LIKE, WOW, I MADE THIS. 
I USED TO SEE PEOPLE MAKING 
STUFF ON INSTAGRAM, FACEBOOK
AND I FIGURED I MIGHT AS WELL 
LEARN HOW TO DO IT MYSELF 
INSTEAD OF PAYING SOMEONE ELSE 
$2000 OR $3000. 
IT TOOK ME ABOUT THREE YEARS TO 
GET COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO 
REALLY JUST ZOOM THROUGH STUFF 
ON MY MACHINE. 
YOU CAN HAVE GREAT PRODUCTS. 
I SEE THIS ALL THE TIME, PEOPLE 
HAVE GREAT PRODUCTS BUT THEY 
DON'T KNOW HOW TO MARKET 
THEMSELVES. 
YOU HAVE TO LEARN HOW TO BRIDGE 
THE GREAT PRODUCTS AND 
MARKETING TOGETHER. 
WITHOUT THE MARKETING, YOU 
CAN'T REALLY GET THE SALES TO 
KEEP GOING ON IN THE BUSINESS. 
STARTING OFF, IT WAS VERY HARD 
TO GET A FOLLOWING UNTIL I 
STARTED MEETING UP WITH 
CELEBRITIES AND MEETING THE 
RIGHT PEOPLE. 
PEOPLE SEE CELEBRITIES WEARING 
IT AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHO 
THEY GOT IT FROM SO THEY CAN GO 
AND SHOP AT THE SAME PLACE. 
IT IS THE SAME THING WITH THE 
WEBSITE. 
PEOPLE WILL GO FOR MY INSTAGRAM 
DIRECTLY TO MY WEBSITE BECAUSE 
THEY SAW SOMEBODY THEY LIKE 
WEARING MY STUFF OR THEY WANT 
TO GET THE SAME DESIGN THEY SAW 
ONLINE IN THE PICTURE THAT THE 
INFLUENCER HAD ON. 
ONE OF THE SHOES I JUST DID WAS 
THIS ONE. 
NO ONE HAD SEEN A CUSTOM ON 
THAT. 
THAT MADE A LOT OF PEOPLES PAW 
HEADS TURNED. 
MY PLAN RIGHT NOW IS PRETTY 
MUCH JUST MARKETING WITH BIGGER 
BRANDS AND TRYING TO GET ACTUAL 
COLLABORATIONS WITH THEM. 
IF SOMEON IS TRYING TO START A 
BUSINESS AND BE AN 
ENTREPRENEUR, YOU HAVE TO 
REALLY WAIT AND BE PATIENT WITH 
EVERYTHING. 
IT WILL NOT COME OVERNIGHT. 
EVERYTHING I BUILT, MY WHOLE 
BUSINESS AND EVERYTHING, IT DID 
NOT COME OVERNIGHT. 
IT WAS A LOT OF HARD WORK AND 
COUNTLESS HOURS THAT I CAN'T 
EVEN COUNT UP ANYMORE. 
SOME SNEAKERS CAN TAKE ME AN 
HOUR. 
SOME SNEAKERS CAN TAKE ME 60 
HOURS. 
ONCE YOU LEARN THE SWIVEL WITH 
THE NEEDLE AND ALL THE STITCH 
PATTERNS, IT BECOMES LIKE 
RIDING A BIKE, YOU CAN'T 
FORGET. 
>>> WE ARE JUST AN HOUR AWAY 
FROM ROBERT MUELLER'S 
UNPRECEDENTED TESTIMONY ON 
CAPITOL HILL. 
FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE FORMER 
SPECIAL COUNSEL WILL FACE 
QUESTIONS FROM LAWMAKERS ON HIS 
RUSSIA REPORT AND 
INVESTIGATION. 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY AND 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES ARE 
BOTH HOLDING HEARINGS TODAY. 
DEMOCRATS WANT ANSWERS ON 
PRESIDENT TRUMP POTENTIALLY 
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, WHILE 
REPUBLICANS WILL FOCUS ON THE 
ORIGINS OF THE MUELLER 
INVESTIGATION. 
FOR MORE ON THIS, I WENT TO 
BRING IN OUR POLITICAL 
CONTRIBUTOR. 
SHE IS STILL HERE. 
SHE IS THE FORMER ASSISTANT 
DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND CBSN 
POLITICAL  REPORTER, MOLLY 
COOPER. 
WE WILL START WITH YOU, MOLLY. 
MUELLER HAS ALREADY SAID, I AM 
NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING 
BEYOND THE FOUR CORNERS OF MY 
REPORT. 
YOU CAN READ IT. 
READ IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN 
BECAUSE THAT IS ALL I WILL TALK 
ABOUT. 
HE WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO ASKED 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
ESSENTIALLY BROADCASTING THE 
GUIDELINES. 
YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAK 
OUTSIDE OF THESE BOUNDARIES, 
EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT AN 
EMPLOYEE OF THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT ANYWAY, AT THIS 
POINT, BECAUSE HE LEFT. 
HOW ON EARTH ARE DEMOCRATS 
GOING TO GET ANYTHING MORE OUT 
OF THIS MAN? 
>> WELL, I THINK THERE ARE TWO 
THINGS. 
NUMBER ONE, DEMOCRATS WANT TO 
FOLLOW UP ON THIS CONVERSATION 
THAT BILL BARR, THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL, REPORTED ON DURING THE 
SENATE HEARING ON THE MUELLER 
REPORT, IN WHICH WILLIAM BARR 
SAID ROBERT MUELLER WASN'T 
TERRIBLY UPSET. 
HE WAS UPSET WITH SORT OF THE 
WAY BITS AND PIECES OF THE 
REPORT CAME OUT, THE SUMMARY 
CAME OUT, BUT THE PRESS' 
HANDLING OF IT, NOT NECESSARILY 
THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WILLIAM 
BARR AND ROSENSTEIN CAME TO IN 
RELEASING THAT SUMMARY. 
DURING THAT HEARING, I CAN'T 
REMEMBER, WAS IT MAY? IT SEEMS 
LIKE YESTERDAY. 
DURING THAT HEARING, DEMOCRATS 
REALLY PRESSED WILLIAM BARR ON 
WHAT YOU MEAN, ROBERT MUELLER 
WASN'T CONCERNED? 
HE WAS CONCERNED. 
HE HAD A LETTER THAT SAID HE 
WAS CONCERNED. 
WILLIAM BARR SAID THAT WAS NOT 
WHAT HE TOLD ME. 
HE WAS UPSET ABOUT SOMETHING 
ELSE. 
DEMOCRATS ON THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEE WANT TO KNOW IF THAT 
WAS TRUE AND IF WILLIAM BARR 
WAS TELLING THE TRUTH TO THE 
SENATE COMMITTEE. 
ALSO, DEMOCRATS WANT ROBERT 
MUELLER TO ESSENTIALLY REVIEW 
AND STATE KEY POINTS OF THIS 
REPORT. 
PART OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE 
GOING FOR HERE IS TO SPOTLIGHT 
THE MUELLER REPORT. 
THEY SAY A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE 
NOT READ IT. 
A LOT OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
HAVE NOT READ IT. 
IT IS 448 PAGES. 
YOU KNOW, IT IS FASCINATING. 
A LOT OF FOLKS WOULD SAY IT WAS 
DULL AS DISHWATER, BUT IT IS 
NOT. 
>> IT IS NOT. 
>> IF THAT IS ALL HE CAN SAY, 
ALL HE CAN STATE IS WHAT IS IN 
THAT REPORT, FOR A LOT OF 
DEMOCRATS, THAT IS JUST FINE. 
>> OBSTRUCTED OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE IS A BIG ISSUE AND THE 
NEED FOR INTENT TO DETERMINE IF 
THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE ON THE PRESIDENT
PART? 
WHAT WAS THE UNDERLYING CRIME? 
IF THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY OR 
CRIME, HOW COULD HE OBSTRUCT IT?
WILLIAM BARR DID THIS PRESS 
CONFERENCE WHERE WE TALKED 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT BEING 
FRUSTRATED. 
WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT? 
I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU THINK 
THAT WILL BE AN AREA THAT THE 
LAWMAKERS WILL PURSUE TRYING TO 
DETERMINE THE INTENT OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
HOW ON EARTH DO YOU DETERMINE 
THAT? 
>> ONE THING I WOULD ASK IF I 
WERE THERE, WHY DIDN'T YOU 
SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT? 
IT IS VERY HARD TO ASSESS 
INTENT WITHOUT TALKING TO 
SOMEBODY. 
EVERY PROSECUTOR IN ANY CASE 
THAT HAS EYES ON INTENT, YOU 
ALWAYS WANT THIS MOMENT. 
YOU WANT TO SAY, TELL ME YOUR 
STORY AND THEN ASSESS IF YOU 
BELIEVE IT. IT IS CURIOUS HE 
DID NOT DO THAT. 
I DON'T KNOW IF HE WILL ANSWER 
THAT QUESTION. 
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY 
IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK. 
THE OTHER THING ABOUT BILL 
BARR, IT IS TRUE BILL BARR DID 
NOT STICK. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY 
SAYING THIS IS THE PRESIDENT
TESTIMONY AND THAT IS NOT HIS 
JOB. 
THAT IS AN INTERESTING 
QUESTION. 
I WOULD SAY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR 
QUESTION TO MOLLY, ONE THING 
ROBERT MUELLER REALLY WANTS TO 
DO IS TO PRESERVE THE 
REPUTATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AS AN A POLITICAL BODY. 
THAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON HE 
DOES NOT WANT TO BE HERE. 
ONE WAY TO BEAT HIM INTO 
ANSWERING IS TO PUSH HIM ON THE 
QUESTION OF, HAS THE DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE, UNDER YOUR WATCH, 
THIS INVESTIGATION BECOME 
POLITICIZED? 
I THINK HE WILL BE VERY TEMPTED 
TO ANSWER NO. 
THERE ARE CERTAIN ANSWERS TO 
YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT BILL BARR, 
HE WILL BE VERY PROFESSIONAL. 
HE WILL ALSO, I THINK, I WOULD 
SUSPECT BE WILLING TO SAY A 
LITTLE BIT MORE IN SO FAR AS 
WHAT HE SAYS SERVES THE PURPOSE 
OF PRESERVING THE REPUTATION OF 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 
>> THERE ARE A FEW MEMBERS ON 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
WHO WORKED WITH ROBERT MUELLER 
IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS DOJ 
ATTORNEYS. 
THIS WILL BE A POINT THAT 
REPUBLICANS WILL HIGHLIGHT OVER 
AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, TELL 
ME ABOUT THIS TEAM YOU CAME UP 
WITH. 
MORE THAN HALF OF THEM WERE 
DEMOCRATS AND ONE OF THEM HUNG 
OUT WITH HILLARY CLINTON ON THE 
NIGHT OF THE BIG WIN SHE WAS 
SUPPOSED TO HAVE AS PRESIDENT. 
HOW CAN YOU EXPECT THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE TO TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY 
WHEN NINE OUT OF THE 10 MEMBERS 
OF YOUR TEAM ARE DEMOCRATS AND 
GAVE MONEY TO THE DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY? 
>> THAT IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
SAYS. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT. 
YOU ARE RIGHT, I THINK MUELLER, 
I HAVE HEARD HE MIGHT BE TEMPTED
TO PUSH BACK. 
THAT IS WHAT I THINK 
REPUBLICANS ARE HOPING FOR. 
>> YOU KNOW WE HAVE BEEN 
HEARING ROM THE PRESIDENT NO 
COLLUSION AND NO OBSTRUCTION. 
IN A WAY, TECHNICALLY HE IS 
RIGHT ABOUT NO COLLISION. 
COLLUSION IS NOT WHAT WAS BEING 
INVESTIGATED TO BEGIN WITH, IT 
WAS CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. 
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE USING THOSE 
WORDS INTERCHANGEABLY. 
I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE IDEA OF 
COLLUSION OR CRIMINAL 
CONSPIRACY WILL COME UP AND BE 
BROKEN DOWN. 
HOW DO YOU THINK REPUBLICANS 
ARE GOING TO HANDLE THAT? 
>> THAT IS PROBABLY A QUESTION 
MORE FOR THE INTEL COMMITTEE, 
WHICH COMES UP SECOND. 
A LOT OF THOSE MEMBERS WERE 
WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM. 
YOU HAVE SOMEONE LIKE DEVON 
NUNEZ, WHO HAS BEEN A BIG 
BACKER OF THE PRESIDENT AND 
SORT OF INVOLVED IN A TERTIARY 
WAY TO THE RUSSIAN 
INVESTIGATION. 
THAT IS SOMETHING THEY WILL BE 
BRINGING UP. 
I THINK WE WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT 
THAT DURING THE SECOND PART OF 
THE DAY. 
REALLY, I THINK REPUBLICANS WILL
BRING UP THE FACT OR TRY TO 
BRING UP THE FACT THERE IS NO 
COLLUSION AND WHITE DIDN'T -- 
YOU DIDN'T RECOMMEND INDICTING, 
WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? 
IF YOU NEEDED THE PRESIDENT -- 
I THINK THIS GOES BACK TO THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MUELLER 
SAID I DON'T HAVE THE 
PRESIDENT
CAN'T REALLY RECOMMEND ON 
WHETHER OR NOT HE OBSTRUCTED 
JUSTICE. 
IT IS THE SAME THING. 
WHY DIDN'T YOU SUBPOENA HIM? 
WHY NOT? 
YOU SPENT TWO YEARS, $30 
MILLION ON THIS THING AND YOU 
DIDN'T PUSH TO INVESTIGATE AND 
INTERVIEW THE PRESIDENT? 
HOW DO WE TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY? 
THE REPUBLICANS ARE REALLY 
WORKING ON TAKING THOSE 
QUESTIONS DOWN. 
YOU ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES. 
THIS IS LIKE A TEAM SPORT, BUT 
WITH AN INDIVIDUAL SPORT. IT IS 
LIKE BEING ON A TENNIS TEAM. 
EACH PERSON HAS TO WIN THEIR 
MATCH BUT YOU ALL HAVE TO WIN 
THE MATCH TOGETHER TO WIN THE 
WHOLE THING. 
THIS IS WHY IT WILL BE 
INTERESTING TO SEE HOW 
REPUBLICANS PLAY THIS OUT 
QUESTION BY QUESTION BY 
QUESTION. 
>> I SEE A LOT OF QUESTIONS 
ASKING WHY? 
WHY DID YOU MAKE THIS DECISION? 
IF YOU CONCLUDED THAT, YOU 
COULD NOT MOVE FORWARD ON 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE DOJ 
POLICY, THEN WHY DID YOU DO ANY 
OF IT AT ALL PERHAPS, NO MATTER 
WHAT YOU FOUND, YOU WOULD NOT 
BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD. 
WHAT WAS THE LAST TWO YEARS 
ABOUT? 
>> I THINK THAT IS TRUE, 
ALTHOUGH HE HAS A CLEAR ANSWER 
TO THAT. 
I AM SERVING AS AN ADJUNCT TO 
CONGRESS. 
CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE THE 
POWER TO GATHER INFORMATION OR 
THE EXPERTISE TO GATHER 
INFORMATION THE WAY I DO. 
THAT IS WHY I WAS APPOINTED. 
I SEE MYSELF AS SERVING THE 
BODIES WHO ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY 
AUTHORIZED TO HOLD THIS 
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE. 
I HAVE DONE THAT. 
THERE IS ANOTHER QUESTION HERE. 
ON THE CONCLUSION, SOMEBODY 
COULD COME BACK AND SAY, OKAY, 
THAT WAS YOUR DETERMINATION BUT 
THEN YOUR BOSS, WHO YOU REPORT 
TO OVERRULED YOU AND SAID, NO, 
WE CAN DETERMINE THAT. 
NOW WE WANT TO KNOW, NOW THAT 
NO LONGER PERTAINS, YOUR BOSSES 
TOLD YOU THAT IS NOT HOW WE 
SHOULD GO. 
IT OVERRULED YOUR DETERMINATION 
SO NOW WE WANT TO KNOW YOUR 
OPINION. 
DOES HE HAVE A VALID CLAIM 
ANYMORE? 
I THINK HE HAD A VALID CLAIM 
WHEN HE FIRST CAME OUT AND 
SAID, HERE IS WHAT I AM DOING. 
NOW THAT WILLIAM BARR HAS 
STEPPED IN, PEOPLE DO HAVE A 
RIGHT TO KNOW. 
IF YOUR BOSS, WHO WASN'T THERE 
AND DID NOT VIEW THE FACTS AND 
GIVING HIS OPINION, I AM MORE 
CONCERNED ABOUT YOU, WHO 
INTERVIEWED ALL THESE WITNESSES 
AND LOOKED THEM IN THE EYE. 
WHAT DID HE SAY TO THAT? 
>> BILL BARR SAID, LISTEN, WHEN 
BOB MILLER DIDN'T MAKE THE 
RECOMMENDATION, IT BECAME MY 
BABY. 
ROBERT MUELLER DID NOT TELL US 
WHAT HE RECOMMENDED EITHER WAY. 
HE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE 
THAT. 
HE GAVE IT BACK TO US AND IT IS 
HOURS. 
WE WILL SEE HOW ROBERT MUELLER 
REALLY FEELS ABOUT THAT. 
>> 1000 PROSECUTORS, OVER 1000 
FEDERAL PROSECUTOR SIGNED THIS 
PETITION TO SAY WE THINK IT 
OUTLINES JUSTICE OBSTRUCTION. 
>> DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO WANT 
TO DO THAT DURING THIS HEARING 
FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING 
FOR. 
>> I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE WITH US 
ALL DAY LONG, THANK YOU VERY 
MUCH. 
BE SURE TO STAY WITH US HERE ON 
CBSN. 
WE WILL HAVE CONTINUING LIVE 
COVERAGE STARTING AT 8 AM OF 
THE MUELLER HEARING. 
EVERYTHING GETS UNDER WAY  AT 
8:15 AM WITH A SPECIAL REPORT 
AND 8:30 AM IS THE ACTUAL 
HEARING. 
>>> THE UNIVERSITY OF 
MISSISSIPPI STUDENT HAS BEEN 
CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF 
ANOTHER STUDENT. 
OFFICIALS FOUND THE BODY OF 
ALLIE CASTILLE BY A LAKE LAST 
WEEK IN. 
AUTHORITIES CHARGED ANOTHER 
STUDENT WITH HER MURDER 
YESTERDAY. 
A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE 
UNIVERSITY SAYS HE HAS BEEN 
SUSPENDED FROM THE SCHOOL. 
HER LIFELONG FRIEND TOLD OUR 
ST. LOUIS AFFILIATE SHE QUOTE, 
LOVED TO LIVE LIFE. 
>> I ALWAYS KNEW SHE WAS THERE. 
SHE WAS LIKE, MY PERSON. 
I COULD ALWAYS COUNT ON HER. 
>> OFFICIALS HAVE NOT RELEASED 
DETAILS ABOUT HOW SHE WAS 
KILLED OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES 
THAT LED TO HER DEATH. 
>>> THERE IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT 
IN THE STORY WE HAVE BEEN 
FOLLOWING OUT OF CANADA. 
OFFICIALS SAY TWO TEENS, WHO 
WERE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT TO BE 
MISSING, ARE NOW CONSIDERED 
SUSPECTS IN THREE MURDERS. 
THERE IS A MANHUNT UNDER WAY TO 
FIND THESE TEENAGERS. 
POLICE SAY THEY ARE CONSIDERED 
ARMED AND DANGEROUS. 
THOSE VICTIMS INCLUDE AN 
AMERICAN WOMAN AND HER 
AUSTRALIAN BOYFRIEND. 
WE ARE FOLLOWING THE STORY FROM 
JUST OUTSIDE OF THE POLICE 
STATION THERE WHERE OFFICIALS 
ARE WORKING ON THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
WHAT DO WE KNOW SO FAR? 
THIS HAS TAKEN QUITE A TWIST. 
>> Reporter: I MEAN, THIS IS A 
VERY DRAMATIC TURN IN THIS 
CASE. 
THIS MORNING, AUTHORITIES ARE 
CASTING A VERY WIDE NET. 
THEY BELIEVE THESE TEENAGERS 
ARE NOW ON THE RUN. 
EVEN IF THEY COULD HAVE CHANGED 
THEIR OPINION OR APPEARANCES, 
THEY COULD BE THOUSANDS OF 
MILES AWAY FROM HERE. 
>> IF YOU SPOT BRYER 
SCHMEGELSKY OR KAM McLEOD, 
CONSIDER THEM DANGEROUS. 
>> Reporter: AN INTENSE MANHUNT 
IS UNDER WAY FOR KAM McLEOD AND 
BRYER SCHMEGELSKY, NOW SUSPECTS 
IN THREE DEATHS ON RURAL ROADS 
IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA. 
THE SEARCH COMES MORE THAN A 
WEEK AFTER THE BODIES OF NORTH 
CAROLINA NATIVE CHYNNA DEESE 
AND A STRAW UNION  LUCAS FOWLER 
WERE FOUND NEAR THEIR VAN ON 
THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. 
THE YOUNG COUPLE, SEEN HERE 
HUGGING AT A GAS STATION TWO 
DAYS BEFORE BEING FOUND WERE ON 
A ROAD TRIP.  
>> WE JUST PULLED OVER TO SEE 
IF THEY NEEDED HELP. 
>> Reporter: THIS COUPLE SAY 
THEY MET THE PAIR SHORTLY 
BEFORE THEY DIED, LEAVING THE 
YOUNG TRAVELERS ONLY AFTER THEY 
THOUGHT THE YOUNG COUPLE KNEW 
HOW TO REPAIR THEIR BROKEN DOWN 
FAN. 
>> THEY WERE HAPPY AND SMILING. 
>> THEY WERE ON A ROAD TRIP AND 
THEY LOOKED LIKE A YOUNG COUPLE 
IN LOVE. 
>> Reporter: THE MYSTERY 
DEEPENED LATE LAST WEEK WHEN 
ANOTHER BODY WAS FOUND SOME 300 
MILES AWAY, ALSO ON A REMOTE 
CANADIAN ROAD. 
THAT MAN HAS NOT BEEN 
IDENTIFIED, THE POLICE RELEASED 
THIS SKETCH OF HIM. 
POLICE SAY THEY FOUND A TRUCK 
ON FIRE THAT BELONGED TO THE 
CANADIAN SUSPECTS ABOUT A MILE 
FROM THE MAN'S BODY. 
>> WE BELIEVE THEY ARE LIKELY 
CONTINUING TO TRAVEL. 
>> Reporter: THESE ARE NEWLY 
RELEASED RECENT PHOTOS OF THE 
TEEN SUSPECTS LAST SEEN DRIVING 
A 2011 SILVER TOYOTA RAV4. 
POLICE BELIEVE THEY HAVE LEFT 
BRITISH COLOMBIA AND MAY BE 
THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY IN 
MANITOBA. 
OFFICIALS WILL NOT SAY WHAT 
EVIDENCE CONNECTS THE TEENS TO 
THE KILLINGS. 
FOR THE FATHER OF LUCAS FOWLER, 
THE LOSS IS UNIMAGINABLE. 
>> AS A POLICE OFFICER, YOU 
WORK WITH FAMILIES ALL THE 
TIME.  
NOTHING PREPARES ME. 
NOTHING PREPARES MY FAMILY FOR 
WHAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH NOW. 
>> HAVE POLICE SPOKEN TO THE 
FAMILIES OF THESE TEENS? 
I UNDERSTAND THEY RAN AWAY. 
WHAT ELSE ARE THEY LEARNING 
ABOUT THEM? 
>> Reporter: WELL, WHAT THE 
TEENS'S PARENTS ARE TELLING US, 
THEY HAVE NOT SEEN THEIR 
CHILDREN FOR SEVERAL DAYS. 
IT WAS THEIR IMPRESSION THE 
KIDS WERE ON THE ROAD LOOKING 
FOR WORK. 
THAT IS ALL THEY HAVE SAID. 
APPARENTLY, THE TEENS HAVE NOT 
BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THEIR 
FAMILIES AT THIS POINT. 
YOU JUST HAVE TO FEEL SO MUCH 
EMPATHY WHEN YOU HEAR THAT DAD 
SAY THAT. 
HERE IS A MAN IN HIS 
PROFESSIONAL LIFE WHO HAS HAD 
TO GO ALL THE TIME AND SPEAK TO 
FAMILIES AND DELIVER THIS KIND 
OF NEWS. 
NOW, JUST TO HAVE TO HEAR IT 
HIMSELF IS JUST, IT IS 
UNIMAGINABLE. 
>> TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 
THAT, YEAH, IT IS TERRIBLE. 
>>> COMING UP AFTER THE BREAK, 
AFTER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
PROMISED MASS OF I.C.E. 
RAIDS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, ONLY 
A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE WERE 
ACTUALLY DETAINED. 
THE NUMBER OF ARRESTS WERE MUCH 
LOWER THAN  ANTICIPATED. 
>>> COMING UP ON "RED & BLUE" 
STREAMING AT 5 PM EASTERN,  WE 
WILL TALK ABOUT ROBERT 
MUELLER'S TESTIMONY IN ALL THE 
MAJOR NEWS OF THE DAY. 
KEEP IT RIGHT HERE. 
YOU ARE STREAMING "CBSN A.M."  
>>> HERE
ROOM WHERE ROBERT MUELLER WILL 
BE TESTIFYING. 
YOU CAN SEE PEOPLE GATHERING 
THERE, MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA AND 
OTHERS. 
ROBERT MUELLER APPARENTLY JUST 
ARRIVED IN THE BUILDING AND IS 
PRESUMABLY MAKING HIS WAY 
THERE. 
TESTIMONY IS NOT SCHEDULED TO 
BEGIN UNTIL 8:30 AM. 
IT IS BOUND TO BE A VERY, VERY 
INTERESTING DAY. 
HE IS SPEAKING IN FRONT OF TWO 
COMMUNITIES COMMITTEES. 
THE EXPECTATION IS DEMOCRATS 
WILL REALLY DRILL DOWN ON SOME 
OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY HE 
DID NOT RECOMMEND OBSTRUCTION 
OF JUSTICE CHARGES BE FILED, 
YET HE OUTLINED AT LEAST 10 
DIFFERENT WAYS HE BELIEVED THE 
PRESIDENT MAY HAVE OBSTRUCTED 
JUSTICE. 
REPUBLICANS ARE EXPECTED TO 
FOCUS ON THE ORIGINS OF THIS 
INVESTIGATION AND THE 
CONSISTENCY OF THE DEVELOPMENT 
OF THE TRUTH FOCUSING ON THE 
INVESTIGATORS, PART OF ROBERT 
MUELLER'S TEAM AND OTHER AREAS 
OF CONCERN. 
WE WILL COVER THIS ALL DAY 
LONG. 
WE HAVE A SPECIAL REPORT 
STARTING AT 8:15 AM. 
FOR NOW, WE ARE DISCUSSING ALL 
THE THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW 
BEFORE THE HEARING STARTS, AS 
WELL AS ALL THE OTHER NEWS OF 
THE DAY. 
>>> OVER 2000 MIGRANTS WERE 
TARGETED IN RECENT NATIONWIDE 
I.C.E. 
RAIDS, BUT IT ONLY RESULTED IN 
35 ARRESTS.  
CBS CORRESPONDENT ADRIANA DIAZ 
HAS THE REPORT. 
>> Reporter: IMMIGRATIONS AND 
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT HAS 
ARRESTED LESS THAN 2% OF THE 
2100 TARGETED LAST WEEK THAT 
BEGAN EARLIER THIS MONTH. 
IT IS CALLED BORDER RESOLVE. 
A KEY REASON, ACCORDING TO 
I.C.E. 
OFFICIALS IS THAT ACTIVISTS HAD 
TIME TO PLAN FOR THE HIGHLY 
PUBLICIZED CRACKDOWN, WHICH WAS 
ANNOUNCED  AHEAD OF TIME BY 
TRIPP. 
ACTIVISTS INFORMED UNDOCUMENTED 
IMMIGRANTS OF THEIR RIGHTS AND 
STEPPED IN TO INTERVENE. 
ON MONDAY, WHEN RESIDENTS SAW 
THEIR NEIGHBORS BEING TARGETED 
BY I.C.E. 
IN NASHVILLE, THEY FORMED A 
HUMAN CHAIN AROUND HIS VAN 
ALLOWING HIM AND HIS SON TO RUN 
INTO THEIR HOME. 
OTHERS READIED THEMSELVES, LIKE 
THIS MAN, WHO BARRICADED 
HIMSELF IN HIS OWN HOME. 
ACCORDING TO I.C.E. 
ACTING DIRECTOR MATTHEW ALBANS, 
SOME ARE UNDER  SURVEILLANCE 
WHICH ALSO IMPEDE ITS ARRESTS. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP PRAISED THE 
EFFORT LAST WEEK. 
>> THE I.C.E. 
RAIDS WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL. 
>> Reporter:  DEPORTATIONS 
DURING PRESIDENT TRUMP FIRST 
TWO YEARS IN OFFICER DOWN 
ROUGHLY 40% COMPARED TO 
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FIRST TWO 
YEARS. 
IN CHICAGO, ACTIVIST CECILIA 
GARCIA HANDED OUT FLYERS. 
>> IF WE HAD NOT RAISED THE 
AWARENESS TO THE COMMUNITY, IT 
WOULD'VE BEEN WORSE. 
>> Reporter: I.C.E.  
MADE 899 ARRESTS IN THE LAST 
FEW MONTHS. 
WITH OPERATION BORDER RESOLVE, 
THE DIRECTOR SAYS HE DOES NOT 
BELIEVE ANY FAMILIES WERE 
SEPARATED DURING ARRESTS BUT 
THE OPERATION IS ONGOING. 
>>> HERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS 
WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE ON TODAY. 
CAN YOU GUESS? 
OTHER THAN ROBERT MUELLER, OF 
COURSE, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS 
GOING ON. 
AT 10 AM EASTERN, A SLEW OF 
2020 DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES TAKE 
THE STATE IN DETROIT. 
WE WILL WATCH THOSE SPEECHES 
AND BRING YOU ANY UPDATES AS 
THEY WANT. 
AT 2 PM EASTERN, THE HOUSE 
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WILL HOLD A 
HEARING ON THE 2020 CENSUS 
AFTER THE SUPREME COURT RULED 
THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
COULD IT CURRENTLY ADD A 
QUESTION ON CITIZENSHIP. 
WE WILL CONTINUE OUR SPECIAL 
COVERAGE OF THE MUELLER HEARINGS
JUST AFTER OUR BREAK. 
STARTING AT 8:15 AM EASTERN, WE 
WILL BE BRINGING YOU A CBS NEWS 
SPECIAL REPORT ON THOSE 
HEARINGS. 
SO, IF YOU'RE HEADING OUT THE 
DOOR, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MISS 
ANYTHING. 
YOU CAN TAKE US WITH YOU. 
YOU CAN STREAM US ANYTIME, 
ANYWHERE AT CBSNEWS.COM/LIVE 
FOR YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE CBS 
NEWS APP. 
IT IS JUST ONE LITTLE BUTTON 
YOU TAP AND YOU HAVE IT. 
I WILL BE BACK HERE RIGHT AFTER 
THE COMMERCIAL BREAK, ACTUALLY. 
WE WILL SEE YOU THERE. 
YOU HAVE BEEN STREAMING "CBSN 
A.M." 
>> Reporter: SHE HAS BROUGHT US 
THE WORLD AND TOLD AMERICA'S 
MOST IMPORTANT STORIES. 
>> HOW DOES A GOVERNMENT 
SHUTDOWN AFFECT NATIONAL 
SECURITY? 
>> YOU PUT YOUR FAMILY ON A 737 
MAX? 
>> Reporter: SHE'S OPENED OUR 
EYES. 
>> WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU? 
>> I WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED MY 
FRESHMAN YEAR. 
>> Reporter: AND OUR HEARTS. 
>> WERE YOU SCARED? 
>> YEAH. 
>> WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? 
>> ABOUT MY MOM. 
>> Reporter: AND WEATHERED THE 
STORM. 
NOW EVERY EVENING SHE BRINGS 
TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE 
NEED IT MOST. 
THE "CBS EVENING NEWS" WITH 
NORAH O'DONNELL. 
TRUST MATTERS. 
>>> GOOD MORNING TO YOU AND 
WELCOME TO "CBS THIS MORNING." 
>> Reporter: UNDERSTANDING THE 
WORLD BEGINS WITH THE RIGHT 
QUESTIONS. 
>> HAVE POLICE DISCOVERED A 
MOTIVE? 
>> DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE A 
RED LINE HERE? 
>> Reporter: JOIN GAYLE KING, 
ANTHONY MASON AND TONY DOKOUPIL 
ON "CBS THIS MORNING." 
>> THIS IS A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT. 
>> THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS 
SITUATION. 
>> Reporter: MORE NEWS EVERY 
MORNING ON THE SHOW EVERYONE IS 
TALKING ABOUT, "CBS THIS 
MORNING." 
>>> ALL RIGHT, GOOD MORNING, 
EVERYONE. 
IT IS 8:02 ON THE EAST COAST 
AND I'M ANNE-MARIE GREEN. 
ROBERT MUELLER HAS OFFICIALLY 
ARRIVED ON CAPITOL HILL AND 
THIS IS NEW VIDEO OF THE FORMER 
SPECIAL COUNSEL HEADING INTO 
THE BUILDING. 
ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES. 
LAWMAKERS WILL ASK ABOUT THE 
RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AND THE 
REPORT. 
HE'S EXPECTED TO STICK TO HIS 
SCRIPT, BUT DEMOCRATS WILL 
PRESS HIM ON POTENTIAL 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE 
PRESIDENT. 
FOR MORE ON THIS, I WANT TO 
BRING IN A LOT OF PEOPLE. 
OUR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTORS 
MOLLY HOOPER AND MICHAEL GRAHAM,
. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
MAYBE THIS IS THE MOST PEOPLE 
I'VE EVER HAD ON THE DESK. 
VLAD WILL BE COMING IN LATER 
ON. 
MOLLY, I'LL START WITH YOU. 
IT'S LIKE THE GRAND OVERVIEW 
QUESTION. 
WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM TODAY? 
HE SAID NOT GOING TO SAY 
ANYTHING BEYOND HIS REPORT. 
>> Reporter: EXACTLY. 
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HAS 
CAUTIONED HER DEMOCRATS AGAINST 
HYPING THIS UP AND DIMINISHING 
IT TOO MUCH. 
SHE BELIEVES THIS IS IMPORTANT 
AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE FOCUSING 
THIS TOWARDS HER. 
THIS IS A BIG AUDIENCE FOR 
NANCY PELOSI BECAUSE SHE'LL 
DECIDE WHETHER THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE WILL MOVE FORWARD 
WITH IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. 
AS WE SAW IN THE LAST VOTE LAST 
WEEK, 95 DEMOCRATS VOTED IN 
FAVOR OF ESSENTIALLY MOVING 
ONTO IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS. 
SO NANCY PELOSI WANTS TO SEE 
HOW WELL MUELLER DOES, WHETHER 
HE DOES CONVINCINGLY MAKE A 
CASE THAT THE DEMOCRATS CAN USE 
TO START THOSE IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRIES. 
REPUBLICANS ON THE OTHER HAND 
WANT TO DO SOMETHING ELSE. 
THEY WANT TO DISCREDIT THE 
UNDERLYING FBI INVESTIGATION. 
YOU'LL HEAR TERMS LIKE DIRTY 
DOSSIER, A REFERENCE TO THE 
STEELE DOSSIER BY A FORMER 
BRITISH SPY WHO CAME UP WITH 
ALL THIS BACKGROUND INFO THAT 
WAS USED. 
REPUBLICANS WILL ARGUE AND ASK 
TO ESTABLISH THE WARRANT THAT 
KICKED OFF THE WHOLE 
INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP DURING 
THE SUMMER OF 2016, SOMETHING 
BILL BARR ALREADY SAID HE'S 
LOOKING INTO IT. 
AND REPUBLICANS WILL PUSH BOB 
MUELLER WHO'S BEEN A PART OF 
THE DOJ AS TO WHETHER THEIR 
POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS GOING 
INTO THE INVESTIGATION IN THE 
FIRST PLACE, AND THEY WILL 
FOCUS ON ONE OF THE QUESTIONS 
I'VE HEARD LIKE, SO YOU DIDN'T 
RECOMMEND INDICTING. 
OKAY. 
WHY DIDN'T YOU RECOMMEND 
IMPEACHING? 
KEN STARR DID BACK IN 1998, 
SAYING THERE'S CREDIBLE 
INFORMATION THAT THE HOUSE 
SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH 
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS AGAINST 
THEN-PRESIDENT CLINTON. 
SO WHY DIDN'T BOB MUELLER? 
AND DEMOCRATS WILL PRESS HIM AS 
TO WHAT HE WOULD HAVE INDICTED 
THE PRESIDENT IF HE WAS NOT THE 
SITTING PRESIDENT. 
WHETHER TAKE THAT BAIT IS 
ANOTHER STORY. 
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK DEMOCRATS 
WANT TO HEAR TO PUSH THAT 
IMPEACHMENT ARGUMENT? 
A LOT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT 
DEMOCRATIC VOTERS, THAT THERE'S 
A COMPONENT OF VOTERS THAT WANT 
TO SEE DEMOCRATS BE MORE 
AGGRESSIVE. 
SLOWLY WE HAVE SEEN DEMOCRATS 
WARM TO THE IDEA, EVEN THOUGH 
NANCY PELOSI IS KIND OF SHYING 
AWAY FROM IT. 
JERRY NADLER ALSO IS TAKING A 
VERY MEASURED APPROACH. 
WHAT WOULD KIND OF SHOVE THINGS 
ALONG? 
>> Reporter: I THINK WHAT WE 
HAVE HEARD FOR WEEKS IS THAT WE 
WANT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO 
BRING CLARITY TO THIS. 
THERE ARE A LOT OF REDACTED 
POINTS IN THE REPORT THAT POINT 
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THOSE 
AROUND HIM OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. 
I DON'T THINK ANY DEMOCRAT 
COMES IN WITH EXPECTATIONS OF A 
KNOCKOUT PUNCH FROM THE SPECIAL 
PROSECUTOR THAT WOULD LOAD UP 
THEIR IMPEACHMENT WAGON. 
I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE 
EXPECTATION. 
WHAT I HOPE THAT YOU'LL HEAR 
FROM DEMOCRATS ON BOTH 
COMMITTEES IS THAT THEY WILL 
ALLOW THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO 
READ OUT LOUD, THAT IF THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT A 
CRIME, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO. 
ALSO BRING THIS HOME TO WHERE 
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS 
SHOULD BE ON THE SAME PAGE, AND 
EVEN THE PRESIDENT, THE FACT 
THAT RUSSIA HAS PLAYED INTO OUR 
ELECTIONS AND THEY DID WHAT 
FOREIGN POWERS HAVE NOT BEEN 
ABLE TO DO TO THIS POINT, WHICH 
IS IMPACT THE TURNOUT OF OUR 
ELECTION. 
THERE IS HOPE THIS WILL GIVE 
DEMOCRATS POLITICAL COVER AND 
ENTHUSIASM GOING INTO THE 
ELECTION. 
IF YOU READ THE REPORT -- AND I 
KNOW THE FBI DIRECTOR DID NOT, 
BUT SOME OF US HAVE. 
THERE WERE EXAMPLES OF REAL 
CORRUPTION THAT IF ROLES WERE 
REVERSED, REPUBLICANS WOULD BE 
DRIVING THE SCHOOL BUS OFF THE 
CLIFF ABOUT WHAT'S IN THAT 
REPORT. 
I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO BE 
NONPARTISAN IN THAT REGARD. 
>> WE HAVE HEARD PEOPLE SAY, IF 
HE JUST READS THE REPORT, THAT 
WILL BE ENOUGH. 
BUT DO YOU THINK THAT'S THE 
CASE? 
MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO 
SIT THROUGH THIS FIVE HOURS. 
>> Reporter: MY PARENTS ARE 
POLITICAL JUNKIES AND THEY ARE 
WATCHING THIS MORNING. 
MY AUNT SANDY IS NOT POLITICAL, 
VOTED FOR TRUMP I BELIEVE, AND 
THIS IS SO HARD TO GET THEM TO 
TUNE INTO ANYTHING POLITICAL 
ANYWAY. 
THEN ADD THE VENEER THAT THIS 
IS SO ABOUT LEGALESE, THE WORLD 
OF PROSECUTION AND LAW. 
THIS IS REALLY THE COMPLETELY 
WRONG VIBE. 
THEN ADD THE FACT THAT 
IMPEACHMENT IS NOW POLLING IN 
THE 20s, MOST PEOPLE THINK IT'S 
GONE TOO FAR. 
I THINK REPUBLICANS HOPE 
DEMOCRATS WILL TALK A LOT ABOUT 
RUSSIA BECAUSE THEY CAN SAY, 
WHAT PART OF THIS THEY EMBRACE 
THE MOST, NO COLLUSION. 
THAT'S THE CASE THEY'RE THE 
STRONGEST ON. 
IT'S WHEN YOU GET INTO THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT IT 
GETS MESSY. 
>> TODAY IS NOT THE IMPORTANT 
DAY. 
IT'S TOMORROW. 
IF DEMOCRATS ARE SMART -- AND 
I'VE TALKED TO SEVERAL IN 
LEADERSHIP. 
WE HAVE TO FRAME THIS FROM A 
NATIONAL SECURITY STANDPOINT. 
WHILE MUELLER IS TESTIFYING 
TODAY, PEOPLE IN OTHER 
COUNTRIES ARE FIGURING OUT HOW 
TO SEND MESSAGES THAT IMPACT 
THE NEXT ELECTION. 
WE CANNOT LOSE SIGHT OF THAT. 
>> AND ROBERT MUELLER HAS BEEN 
VERY CLEAR IN THE REPORT THAT 
THAT WAS WHAT WAS MOST 
IMPORTANT TO HIM. 
HE REINFORCED THAT WHEN HE 
ISSUED HIS STATEMENT. 
THERE WILL BE A LOT OF NOISE 
TODAY, A LOT OF GRAND STANDING. 
HELP US AS VIEWERS UNDERSTAND 
WHAT TO FOCUS ON. 
WHAT ARE THE KEY QUESTIONS THAT 
WE SHOULD BE LISTENING FOR AND 
FOCUSING ON THE ANSWER? 
>> Reporter: I THINK THE KEY 
THING IS WATCHING ROBERT 
MUELLER WALK THROUGH THE 
EVIDENCE THAT HE FOUND. 
AND IN HIS OWN WORDS, I THOUGHT 
HIS PRESS CONFERENCE ALTERED 
THE NARRATIVE A LITTLE BIT. 
I THINK THE WAY THAT HE FRAMED 
WHY HE DID WHAT HE DID, NOT 
COMING TO A CONCLUSION ON 
OBSTRUCTION, WAS VERY DIFFERENT 
THAN HOW IT HAD BEEN PORTRAYED. 
SAYING, IF WE'D FOUND THERE WAS 
NO OBSTRUCTION, WE WOULD HAVE 
SAID SO. 
IF WE FOUND OBSTRUCTION, WE 
WOULD SAY NOTHING. 
AND THEY SAID NOTHING. 
IF HE CAN DO THAT AND THEY CAN 
MAKE HIM WALK THROUGH THAT 
AGAIN, THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. 
THE SECOND THING IS JUST 
WALKING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE. 
ON THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGE, IF 
YOU ACTUALLY TAKE THE TWO 
STORIES TOGETHER, THERE WERE A 
LOT OF CONTACTS. 
THEY NEVER APPROACHED THE FBI. 
NOBODY IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN -- 
THIS WAS GOING ON. 
>> THAT'S YOUR ARGUMENT. 
>> THE FRAME IS -- 
>> BUT REPUBLICANS WILL ARGUE 
BACK, WHY DIDN'T THE FBI GO TO 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND SAY, 
THIS IS HAPPENING TO YOU. 
WHY DIDN'T THEY GET A 
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE BRIEFING? 
THAT'S SOMETHING REPUBLICANS 
WILL PROBABLY BRING UP. 
>> HOW SO? 
IF YOU SEE SOMEONE COMMITTING A 
CRIME IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, 
IT'S YOUR JOB TO REPORT THE 
CRIME. 
>> IF I DON'T KNOW SOMEBODY IS 
COMING AFTER ME AND I NEED TO 
BE AWARE OF IT, THAT'S THE 
ARGUMENT REPUBLICANS WILL COME 
FROM AND ASK BOB MUELLER, IF 
THIS WAS ANOTHER CANDIDATE, 
WOULD THE FBI HAVE GONE TO THE 
CAMPAIGN AND SAID, WE HAVE 
INTEL THE RUSSIANS ARE TRYING 
TO INFILTRATE, SO YOU NEED TO 
WATCH OUT AND KEEP US ABREAST. 
WHEN I TALK TO REPUBLICAN 
LAWMAKERS, THAT'S A BIG DEAL 
FOR THEM AND THEY DON'T 
UNDERSTAND WHY IT DIDN'T 
HAPPEN. 
>> THEY'RE PUTTING A RED PAINT 
BRUSH ON THIS. 
THE FACT OF THE MATTER, ANYBODY 
WHO'S EVER DONE A CAMPAIGN -- 
THEY HAD LEGAL PEOPLE AND LONG-
TIME POLITICOS ON THAT 
CAMPAIGN. 
WE ALL KNOW YOU CAN'T GO TO A 
FOREIGN POWER AND THEY CAN'T 
COME TO YOU AND OFFER YOU DIRT 
ON AN AMERICAN ENTITY, WHETHER 
YOU AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT, AND 
THINK THAT'S OKAY. 
>> TALKING TO REPUBLICAN 
LAWMAKERS, THEY WOULD SAY THE 
SAME THING. 
DONALD TRUMP WAS NOT A 
POLITICIAN, HE WAS A 
BUSINESSMAN. 
>> THIS IS PART OF THE MAGIC 
THAT IS TRUMP. 
PEOPLE THINK HE'S CLUELESS AND 
HAVE NO IDEA BUYING THAT 
ARGUMENT. 
BUT EVERY TIME THEY POINT OUT 
WHAT THE RUSSIANS WERE DOING 
AND ALL THE WAYS THEY DID 
THINGS IN THE ELECTION, THEIR 
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE GROUP 
FAILED ALL OF IT. 
IT'S JUST A FACT THAT HE WAS 
THE PRESIDENT AT THE TIME, AND 
THAT'S WHAT REPUBLICANS POINT 
OUT. 
THIS WILL DEINVOLVE INTO A 
POLITICAL EVENT, NOT A FOLLOW 
THE LAW EVENT. 
>> WE KNOW BARACK OBAMA WENT TO 
MITCH McCONNELL, THE REPUBLICAN 
LEADER, AND LAID OUT WHAT WAS 
HAPPENING IN THE ELECTION. 
WE KNOW THAT MITCH SAID, I 
DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THIS. 
YOU CAN'T PUT IT ALL ON BARACK. 
HE DID WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO 
DO AND NOTIFIED THE REPUBLICAN 
LEADERS, SAYING THIS IS 
HAPPENING. 
>> LISTEN, THIS REPORT IS 
BROKEN UP INTO TWO PIECES 
RIGHT, THE DESTRUCTION AND 
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND WHETHER 
OR NOT THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE. 
THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PART 
IS THE PART THAT ROBERT MUELLER 
SAID THAT HE COULD NOT 
DETERMINE OR NOT MAKE A CALL ON 
BECAUSE THERE'S A JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT POLICY THAT 
PROHIBITS A SITTING PRESIDENT 
FROM BEING CHARGED. 
BUT LET ME SHOW THOSE TEN 
POINTS. 
WHY DID YOU EVEN INCLUDE THIS 
SECOND PART TO THIS REPORT? 
IF YOU KNEW YOU WEREN'T GOING 
TO CHARGE THE MAN, WHY DID YOU 
LAY OUT THE ARGUMENT WHEN THE 
INITIAL FOCUS ON THE 
INVESTIGATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE 
WHETHER OR NOT THE RUSSIANS -- 
I'M SORRY, WE'LL GET THAT 
ANSWER LATER. 
WE HAVE A SPECIAL REPORT COMING 
UP ON THE MUELLER  
INVESTIGATION. 
>> Reporter: MONUMENTAL 
FINDINGS. 
>> THERE WERE MULTIPLE 
SYSTEMATIC EFFORTS TO INTERFERE 
IN OUR ELECTION, AND THAT 
ALLEGATION DESERVES THE 
ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN. 
>> Reporter: A 22-MONTH INQUIRY 
NETTING 37 INDICTMENTS ON 229 
CHARGES, AND 7 GUILTY PLEAS. 
>> THERE'S NO OBSTRUCTION, NO 
COLLUSION, NO NOTHING. 
>> IF WE'D HAD CONFIDENCE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY DID NOT 
COMMIT A CRIME, WE WOULD HAVE 
SAID SO. 
>> IT WAS A COMPLETELY AND 
TOTAL EXONERATION. 
THE WHOLE THING IS A SCAM. 
IT'S A GIANT PRESIDENTIAL 
HARASSMENT. 
>> Reporter: NOW AN OPPORTUNITY 
FOR AMERICA TO HEAR FROM THE 
MAN WHO WANTED TO STAY SILENT. 
>> WE CHOSE THOSE WORDS 
CAREFULLY AND THE WORDS SPEAK 
FOR THEMSELVES. 
THE REPORT IS MY TESTIMONY. 
>> Reporter: HIGH STAKES AND 
HISTORY AS ROBERT MUELLER 
TESTIFIES ON CAPITOL HILL. 
THE SUN IS UP OTHER THE CAPITOL 
AND IT COULD GET PRETTY HOT 
UNDER THE DOME TODAY. 
WE ARE LIVE IN WASHINGTON. 
GOOD MORNING. 
I'M NORAH O'DONNELL WITH MAJOR 
GARRETT HERE. 
IT IS A ROBERT MUELLER DOUBLE-
HEADER. 
THE FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL IS 
ABOUT TO MAKE BACK TO BACK 
APPEARANCES BEFORE THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES. 
IT IS ABOUT THE LAST PLACE ON 
EARTH HE WANTS TO BE AND THE 
LAST THING HE WANTS TO DO. 
THIS FORMER MARINE WHO 
VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE HIS 
COUNTRY DURING VIETNAM HAD TO 
BE SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY TODAY. 
HE ARRIVED A FEW MINUTES AGO. 
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ANSWER 
QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS 
INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. 
ELECTION, WHETHER ANYONE IN THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS INVOLVED, 
AND WHETHER THE PRESIDENT 
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. 
MUELLER SAYS HIS REPORT SPEAKS 
FOR ITSELF AND HE DOESN'T 
INTEND TO GO BEYOND WHAT THE 
REPORT SAYS. 
IT SAYS MUELLER COULD NOT 
DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRESIDENT 
DID OR DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME. 
>> WE HAD NO SOLUTION, NO 
OBSTRUCTION, NO NOTHING. 
WE HAD A TOTAL NO COLLUSION 
FINDING. 
THE DEMOCRATS WERE DEVASTATED 
BY IT. 
>> Reporter: THE NO OBSTRUCTION 
FINDING CAME FROM ATTORNEY 
GENERAL WILLIAM BARR, WHO SAID 
THE EVIDENCE MUELLER FOUND WAS 
NOT ENOUGH TO ESTABLISH THE 
PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS 
RESTRICTED WHAT MUELLER CAN SAY 
TODAY. 
OFF LIMITS, TALKING ABOUT 
UNCHARGED THIRD PARTIES, WHICH 
INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT. 
IF MUELLER DOES NOT GO BEYOND 
HIS REPORT TODAY, WHAT'S THE 
POINT? 
ADAM SCHIFF SAYS THE REPORT IS 
PRETTY DRY AND WE NEED MUELLER 
TO TRY AND BRING IT TO LIFE. 
GET A CHANCE AT THE BOTTOM OF 
THIS HOUR. 
THEN AFTER A BREAK, MUELLER 
WILL APPEAR BEFORE SCHIFF'S 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. 
JOINING US, CHIEF WASHINGTON 
CORRESPONDENT MAJOR GARRETT, 
CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL 
CORRESPONDENT NANCY CORDES, 
JEFF PEGUES AND WHITE HOUSE 
CORRESPONDENT PAULA REID. 
LET'S GET RIGHT TO IT. 
PAULA, YOU HAVE COVERED THIS 
FROM THE BEGINNING. 
THE REPORT DETAILS TEN 
INSTANCES OF POSSIBLE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
THERE ARE INSIGHTS THROUGHOUT 
THIS ENTIRE REPORT. 
TELL US THE FIVE TOP TAKEAWAYS. 
>> Reporter: THAT'S RIGHT. 
IN THIS REPORT THEY LAY OUT THE 
SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND 
ULTIMATELY COULD NOT CLEAR THE 
PRESIDENT ON THAT QUESTION 
BECAUSE THEY POINT TO HOW HE 
DIRECTED JAMES COMEY TO END HIS 
INVESTIGATION OF FORMER 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR MIKE 
FLYNN AND DIRECTED DON McGAHN 
TO TELL THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
TO FIRE MUELLER. 
HE POINTED TO HOW HE ATTACKED 
JEFF SESSIONS IN THE PRESS AND 
THIS PAINTS A PRETTY DAMNING 
PICTURE. 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAYS YOU 
CAN'T CHARGE A SITTING 
PRESIDENT, AND MUELLER FELT HE 
COULDN'T CHARGE HIM BECAUSE IF 
HE COULDN'T GO THROUGH A TRIAL, 
HE HAD NO WAY TO CLEAR HIS 
NAME. 
THIS DIDN'T START OUT AS AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP. 
THIS WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2016 CAMPAIGN AND MUELLER'S 
REPORT FOUND RUSSIA INTERFERED 
IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC 
FASHION. 
THE FIRST VOLUME OF HIS REPORT 
SHOWS HOW THEY TRIED TO SOW 
DISCORD MORNING PEOPLE ON 
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES LIKE GUNS 
AND RACE, AND THE E-MAILS THEY 
BELIEVED WOULD HURT CANDIDATE 
CLINTON. 
ULTIMATELY, IT WAS FOUND THERE 
WAS NO OBSTRUCTION OR COLLUSION 
BETWEEN THE CAMPAIGN AND 
RUSSIA. 
HE SAID THEY DIDN'T WORK 
TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT HE COULD 
PROVE A CRIME. 
>> AND THAT DESERVES OUR 
ATTENTION, EXACTLY. 3
NANCY CORDES IS JUST OUTSIDE 
THE HEARING ROOM WHERE HUNDREDS 
WERE GATHERED ALL NIGHT LONG TO 
GET A SEAT OR A VIEW THERE. 
>> Reporter: YOU HAVE GROUPS OF 
CAPITOL POLICE OFFICERS TRYING 
TO KEEP THE HALLWAYS CLEAR. 
BUT THE LINE TO GET INTO THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HERE BEHIND 
ME STRETCHES DOWN THIS HALL, 
AROUND THE CORNER, DOWN ANOTHER 
HALL AND AROUND ANOTHER CORNER. 
THESE OFFICE BUILDINGS ARE NOT 
SMALL. 
THAT GIVES YOU A SENSE OF THE 
ANTICIPATION FOR THESE 
HEARINGS. 
THIS HEARING ROOM HOLDS A 
MAXIMUM OF ABOUT 100 MEMBERS OF 
THE PUBLIC. 
IF YOU GOT HERE AFTER 4:00 
A.M., YOU'RE PROBABLY GOING TO 
BE DISAPPOINTED. 
ROBERT MUELLER STEPPED OUT OF 
HIS SUV AND WE ASKED WHETHER HE 
WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO TODAY'S 
HEARING, AND HE DIDN'T RESPOND. 
HE IS VIEWED BY DEMOCRATS AS A 
RELUCTANT WITNESS, SOMEONE 
WHO'S GOING TO LOOK TO SAY 
LESS, NOT MORE. 
THEY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT 
WAYS THEY CAN DRAW HIM OUT 
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THIS IS THEIR 
ONE OPPORTUNITY TO GET ALL 
THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED BY HIM 
ON THE RECORD IN PUBLIC. 
>> AS THEY ATTEMPT TO TRY AND 
BRING THIS REPORT TO LIFE 
TODAY, MAJOR GARRETT IS WITH US 
IN THE STUDIO. 
YOU HAVE COVERED PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
THERE'S ONE PART, IF YOU READ 
THE MUELLER REPORT, IT IS 
EXHAUSTIVE IN ITS SCOPE ABOUT 
WHAT HAPPENED. 
PARTS OF IT READ LIKELY A 
POLITICAL NOVEL. 
>> Reporter: SURE. 
THERE'S A LEGAL COMPONENT TO 
WHAT THEY DID AND THAT'S 
FASCINATING. 
PARTS OF IT READ LIKE A TENSE 
DRAMA PLAYING OUT INSIDE THE 
OVAL OFFICE, WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT IS THE CENTRAL 
CHARACTER. 
SOME THINGS HE SAYS AND DOES DO 
NOT READ WELL FOR A SITTING 
PRESIDENT. 
IS IT LEGALLY PROSECUTABLE? 
THAT'S THE QUESTION. 
>> AFTER JAMES COMEY IS FIRED, 
A SPECIAL COUNSEL IS NAMED. 
THE REPORT TAKES US THROUGH 
THAT SCENE AND WE MADE A 
GRAPHIC THAT ILLUSTRATES THE 
PRESIDENT'S STATE OF MIND. 
HE SAID HE LEARNED OF THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL BEING 
APPOINTED, HE SAID OH MY GOD, 
THIS IS TERRIBLE. 
THIS IS THE END OF MY 
PRESIDENCY. 
WHAT WAS THE PRESIDENT MOST 
AFRAID OF? 
>> LOSING CONTROL. 
THE PRESIDENT LOVES CONTROL AND 
WANTED A WAY TO CONTROL THIS 
REPORT. 
WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THAT'S 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OR NOT, 
HE THOUGHT WITH THIS HE'D LOSE 
ALL CONTROL. 
HE COMPLAINS OF THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS, WHO 
RECUSED HIMSELF. 
HE WASN'T PROTECTING THE 
PRESIDENT AND DOING WHAT HE 
NEEDED. 
THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED THE 
INVESTIGATION UNDERCUT HIS 
ELECTION FROM THE VERY 
BEGINNING, WHICH HE THOUGHT WAS 
FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. 
HE ALSO BELIEVED THERE WAS 
SOMETHING ILLEGITIMATE ABOUT 
ITS ORIGINS AND BIAS 
THROUGHOUT. 
THOSE TWO THINGS DROVE A LOT OF 
THIS BEHAVIOR THAT LOOKS AT 
TIMES UNHINGED. 
BUT IT MAY NOT BE OBSTRUCTIVE. 
>> WE'LL HEAR ABOUT THE 
INSTANCES IN WHICH HE DIRECTS 
HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER TO 
TRY AND GET HIM FIRED. 
>> ALL THESE THINGS. 
IT'S THE PRESIDENT'S STATE OF 
MIND AND ALSO ON THIS QUESTION 
OF OBSTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR, IN 
SOME CASES IT WAS NOT, BECAUSE 
IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. 
WHY? 
BECAUSE PEOPLE DIDN'T FOLLOW 
HIS ORDERS. 
>> AND THAT'S CRITICAL INDEED. 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DIDN'T 
FOLLOW HIS ORDERS. ROBERT 
MUELLER, WHO'S SERVED THE 
COUNTRY FOR NEARLY HALF A 
CENTURY AND SERVED FOR MORE 
THAN NINE YEARS. 
JEFF PEGUES COVERS THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT. 
SET THIS SCENE AND REMIND 
PEOPLE ABOUT ROBERT MUELLER, 
HIS BACKGROUND, WHAT TYPE OF 
WITNESS BE TODAY. 
>> Reporter: EVEN THOUGH HE WAS 
FBI DIRECTOR FOR 12 YEARS AND 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, NO 
ONE IN WASHINGTON WOULD 
DESCRIBE HIM AS SOMEONE WHO 
SEEKS THE SPOTLIGHT. 
HE'S BUILT A REPUTATION FOR 
BEING RELUCTANT TO DO SO. 
HE RAN SOME OF THE MOST 
CONTROVERSIAL INVESTIGATIONS 
THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER TAKEN. 
HE WAS SWORN IN A WEEK BEFORE 
9/11 AND LED THE INVESTIGATION 
AFTER THE ATTACKS. 
IN THE 90s HE LED THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT'S CRIMINAL DIVISION 
AS. HE EARNED A BRONZE CAR AND 
PURPLE HEART IN BATTLE AS WELL. 
THOSE WHO KNOW HIM AND THOSE 
WHO HAVE COVEREDHIM SAY THIS 
IS TYPICAL OF MUELLER, WHO 
THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER IS KNOWN 
TO LET ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER 
THAN WORDS. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
BACK TO PAULA REID AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE, AND WE JUST HEARD DETAIL 
OF ROBERT MUELLER. 
HE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE AT THE 
MAIN TABLE TODAY. 
ROBERT MUELLER'S LONG-TIME 
CHIEF OF STAFF WHEN HE WAS 
DIRECTOR AND NUMBER TWO AT THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE, AARON 
ZEBLEY WILL ALSO BE JOINING HIM 
AT THE TABLE. 
WHY WAS THAT REQUEST MADE? 
>> Reporter: IT APPEARS THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL WANTS TO HAVE 
SOMEONE HELP HIM GO THROUGH THE 
MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF THIS 
INFORMATION. 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SENT HIM 
A LETTER THAT APPEARED SOMEWHAT 
THREATENING, IF HE DID VEER 
AWAY FROM THE SPECIFIC DETAILS 
OUTLINED IN HIS REPORT. 
ZEBLEY IS A LONG-TIME AIDE, 
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR THE FBI. 
HE KNOWS MUELLER AND KNOW IF HE 
NEEDS A BREAK OR SPECIFIC PAGE 
NUMBER. 
HE IS WELL EQUIPPED TO HELP HIM 
GET THROUGH THE MARATHON 
HEARING. 
>> PAULA REID, LET'S GO BACK TO 
NANCY CORDES AS PEOPLE BEGIN TO 
FILL IN THE HEARING ROOM. 
I KNOW YOU HAVE SPENT A COUPLE 
WEEKS SPEAKING TO BOTH THE 
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ON 
THIS COMMITTEE. 
BEYOND BRINGING THIS REPORT TO 
LIFE, WHAT ARE DEMOCRATS HOPING 
TO ACHIEVE?
>> Reporter: THEY REALLY WANT 
TO LOOK AT THE TEN COUNTS OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND GET 
MUELLER ON THE RECORD 
EXPLAINING THOSE INCIDENTS AND 
EXPLAINING TO THEM WHY HE NEVER 
CONCLUDED AT THE END OF THE DAY 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT HAD 
COMMITTED A CRIME. 
THEY HAVE EVEN GONE SO FAR AS 
TO THE DIFFERENT INCIDENTS WITH 
DIFFERENT LAWMAKERS BECAUSE 
THEY WANT TO OVERLAP. 
THEY ARE FOCUSED ON WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT ASKED COREY 
LEWANDOWSKI TO LIMIT THE SCOPE 
OF THE INVESTIGATION. 
PRESS MUELLER ON THAT ISSUE. 
AND YOU HAVE A GROWING NUMBER 
OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS WHO 
BELIEVE THE INCIDENTS CONTAINED 
IN THIS REPORT CONSTITUTE HIGH 
CRIMES BUT THE NUMBER OF 
AMERICANS WHO BELIEVE THE 
PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED 
IS FALLING. 
DEMOCRATS VIEW THIS HEARING AS 
ONE OF THEIR BEST CHANCES TO 
TRY AND GRAB THE PUBLIC'S 
ATTENTION AND CHANGE SOME 
MINDS. 
WHEN IT COMES TO REPUBLICANS, 
THEY WILL FOCUS ON THE ORIGINS 
OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. 
THEY BELIEVE ALL THIS STARTED 
WITH A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED 
DOSSIER COMMISSIONED BY THE 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THEY WILL 
PRESS MUELLER TO EXPLAIN THAT 
AT THE END OF THE DAY, HIS 
REPORT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO 
EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRCY 
BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND 
RUSSIA. 
THEY SAY THAT'S THE WHOLE SHE-
BANG. 
AND YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT 
WATCHING ONTO PRESS THE POINT 
THAT HE'S BEEN PRESSING ALL 
MORNING. 
THIS IS THE SENATE, RUN BY 
REPUBLICANS, AND THEY ARE 
SAYING, WE DON'T FEEL WE HAVE A 
IMMEDIATE TO TALK TO MUELLER. 
THEY BELIEVE EVERYTHING HAS 
BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED IN THE 
REPORT. 
ONE PUT IT YESTERDAY, JOHN 
KENNEDY OF LOUISIANA, HE SAID 
ALL THIS IS AS DEAD AS FRIED 
CHICKEN. 
>> THERE YOU GO. 
THAT'S THE CHAIRMAN, JERRY 
NADLER, OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE, WHO'S BEEN 
LIKE A BULLDOG GOING AFTER THE 
PRESIDENT. 
PLAY A KEY ROLE IN THIS HEARING 
THIS MORNING. 
AND MAJOR, I WANT TO TURN TO 
YOU ON THAT POINT. 
WHILE THIS REPORT BY THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT SAY THE 
PRESIDENT COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION 
OF JUSTICE, HE DOES SAY THAT 
ESSENTIALLY THAT'S THE ROLE OF 
NOT A LEGAL SYSTEM BUT A 
POLITICAL SYSTEM. 
WAS MUELLER SETTING UP THIS 
VERY MOMENT, THIS IT IS THE JOB 
OF CONGRESS? 
>> EXACTLY. 
ROBERT MUELLER SAID THERE'S A 
CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS BY WHICH 
TO DEAL WITH THIS CONDUCT. 
IT'S NOT HIS ROLE TO CALL FOR 
OR ADVOCATE FOR OR TRY TO STOP. 
>> LET'S LISTEN IN NOW TO 
WHAT'S HAPPENING INSIDE THE 
HEARING ROOM. 
OM. 
>> ROBERT MUELLER, 74 YEARS OLD,
FORMER VIETNAM WAR MARINE, ALSO 
KNOWN AS BOBBY THREE STICKS.
THAT IS THE USUAL
>> THAT IS THE USUAL PROTESTER. 
>> SOME LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE 
GOING ON. 
>> HE'S SOMETIMES NICKNAMED 
BOBBY THREE-STICKS BECAUSE HE'S 
ROBERT MUELLER III. 
HE GOES BY THE BOOKS. 
>> AND THIS IS HAPPENING 
BECAUSE WE HAD A MIDTERM 
ELECTION. 
IF DEMOCRATS HADN'T TAKEN 
CONTROL OF THE HOUSE, THERE 
WOULD BE NO ROBERT MUELLER 
HEARING. 
THIS IS A REFLECTION OF THAT 
ELECTION ON THE HOUSE SIDE 
BECAUSE NANCY POINTED OUT, 
THERE'S NO INTENTION TO HAVE A 
SENATE HEARING WITH ROBERT 
MUELLER. 
>> WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE HERE 
AT CBS THREE HOURS OF LIVE 
COVERAGE. 
>> WE WELCOME EVERYONE TO 
TODAY'S HEARING ON OVERSIGHT OF 
THE REPORT AND THE 
INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
I WILL NOW RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR 
A BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR 
BEING HERE. 
I WANT TO SAY JUST A FEW WORDS 
ABOUT OUR THEMES TODAY:  
RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY AND 
ACCOUNTABILITY. 
YOUR CAREER, FOR EXAMPLE, IS A 
MODEL OF RESPONSIBILITY. 
YOU'RE A DECORATED MARINE 
OFFICER, AWARDED A PURPLE HEART 
AND BRONZE STAR FOR VALOR IN 
VIETNAM. 
YOU HAVE SERVED AT THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND AFTER 
9/11, DIRECTOR OF THE FBI. 
TWO YEARS AGO, YOU RETURNED TO 
PUBLIC SERVICE TO LEAD THE 
INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTIONS. 
YOU CONDUCTED THAT 
INVESTIGATION WITH REMARKABLE 
INTEGRITY. 
FOR 22 MONTHS, YOU NEVER 
COMMENTED IN PUBLIC ABOUT YOUR 
WORK, EVEN WHEN YOU WERE 
SUBJECTED TO REPEATED AND 
GROSSLY UNFAIR PERSONAL 
ATTACKS. 
INSTEAD, YOUR INDICTMENTS SPOKE 
FOR YOU, AND IN ASTONISHING 
DETAIL. 
OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR 
INVESTIGATION, YOU OBTAINED 
CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS AGAINST 37 
PEOPLE AND ENTITIES. 
YOU SECURED THE QUICKS OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN 
CHAIRMAN, HIS DEPUTY CAMPAIGN 
MANAGER, NATIONAL SECURITY 
ADVISOR AND HIS PERSONAL 
LAWYER, AMONG OTHERS. 
IN THE PAUL MANAFORT CASE 
ALONE, YOU RECOVERED AS MUCH AS 
$42 MILLION SO THE COST OF YOUR 
INVESTIGATION TO THE TAXPAYERS 
APPROACHES ZERO. 
IN YOUR REPORT, YOU OFFER THE 
COUNTRY ACCOUNTABILITY AS WELL. 
IN VOLUME ONE, YOU FIND THAT 
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ATTACKED 
OUR 2016 ELECTIONS QUOTE, IN A 
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC 
FASHION, AND THAT THE ATTACKS 
WERE DESIGNED TO BENEFIT THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 
VOLUME TWO GOES THROUGH TEN 
SEPARATE INCIDENTS OF POSSIBLE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WHERE 
IN YOUR WORDS, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
ATTEMPTED TO EXERT UNDUE 
INFLUENCE OVER YOUR 
INVESTIGATION. 
THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR 
INCLUDED, QUOTE, PUBLIC ATTACKS 
ON THE INVESTIGATION, NONPUBLIC 
EFFORTS TO CONTROL IT, AND 
EFFORTS IN BOTH PUBLIC AND 
PRIVATE TO ENCOURAGE WITNESSES 
NOT TO COOPERATE, CLOSE QUOTE. 
AMONG THE MOST SHOCKING OF 
THESE INCIDENTS, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP ORDERED HIS WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL TO HAVE YOU FIRED AND 
THEN TO LIE AND DENY THAT IT 
HAD HAPPENED. 
HE ORDERED HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN 
MANAGER TO ORDER THE RECUSED 
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STEP IN AND 
LIMIT YOUR WORK, AND ATTEMPTED 
TO PREVENT WITNESSES FROM 
COOPERATING WITH YOUR 
INVESTIGATION. 
ALTHOUGH DEPARTMENT POLICY 
BARRED YOU FROM INDICTING THE 
PRESIDENT FOR THIS CONDUCT, YOU 
MADE CLEAR THAT HE IS NOT 
EXONERATED. 
ANY OTHER PERSON WHO ACTED IN 
THIS WAY WOULD HAVE CHARGED 
WITH CRIMES AND NOT EVEN THE 
PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
THIS COMMITTEE'S WORK IS 
RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY AND 
ACCOUNTABILITY. 
THESE ARE THE MARKS BY WHICH WE 
ON THIS COMMITTEE WILL BE 
MEASURED AS WELL. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, WE HAVE A 
RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE 
EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE 
UNCOVERED. 
YOU RECOGNIZED AS MUCH WHEN YOU 
SAID QUOTE, THE CONSTITUTION 
REQUIRES A PROCESS OTHER THAN 
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO 
FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING 
PRESIDENT OF WRONG DOING, CLOSE 
QUOTE. 
THAT PROCESS BEGINS WITH THE 
WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE. 
WE WILL FOLLOW YOUR EXAMPLE, 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, AND ACT WITH 
INTEGRITY. 
WE WILL FOLLOW THE FACTS WHERE 
THEY LEAD. 
WE WILL CONSIDER ALL 
APPROPRIATE REMEDIES. 
WE WILL MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATION 
TO THE HOUSE WHEN OUR WORK 
CONCLUDES. 
WE WILL DO THIS WORK BECAUSE 
THERE MUST BE ACCOUNTABILITY 
FOR THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED IN 
YOUR REPORT, ESPECIALLY AS IT 
RELATES TO THE PRESIDENT. 
THANK YOU AGAIN, DIRECTOR 
MUELLER. 
WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR 
TESTIMONY. 
IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO 
RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
GEORGIA, MR. COLLINS, FOR HIS 
OPENING STATEMENT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER, FOR 
BEING HERE. 
FOR TWO YEARS LEADING UP TO THE 
RELEASE OF THE MULER REPORT AND 
IN THE THREE MONTHS SINCE, 
AMERICANS WERE TOLD WHAT TO 
EXPECT AND WHAT TO BELIEVE. 
COLLUSION WE WERE TOLD WAS IN 
PLAIN SIGHT, EVEN IF THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S TEAM DIDN'T 
FIND IT. 
WHEN IT WAS PROVIDED TO EVERY 
AMERICAN, WE LEARNED THE DEPTHS 
OF RUSSIA'S MALICE TOWARD 
AMERICA. 
WE ARE HERE TO ASK SERIOUS 
QUESTIONS ABOUT MR. MUELLER'S 
WORK AND WE WILL DO THAT AFTER 
THE INVESTIGATION THAT CLOSED 
IN APRIL. 
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS 
EXTREMELY HIGH, AND ESPECIALLY 
IN LIGHT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
THOROUGHNESS. 
WE ARE TOLD THIS INVESTIGATION 
BEGAN AS AN INQUIRY INTO 
WHETHER RUSSIA MEDDLED IN OUR 
2016 ELECTION. 
MR. MUELLER, YOU CONCLUDED THEY 
DID. 
RUSSIANS ACCESSED DEMOCRATIC 
SERVERS AND DISSEMINATED 
SENSITIVE INFORMATION BY 
TRICKING INSIDERS INTO E-
MAILING PROTECTED  INFORMATION. 
THE INVESTIGATION ALSO 
CONCLUDED THE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
FAMILY DID NOT AND NO ONE IN 
THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN 
COLLUDED, COLLABORATED OR 
CONSPIRED WITH THE RUSSIANS. 
THE PRESIDENT WATCHED THE 
PUBLIC NARRATIVE SURROUNDING 
THE INVESTIGATION ASSUMING HIS 
GUILT WHILE HE KNEW THE EXTENT 
OF HIS INNOCENCE. 
VOLUME TWO DETAILS THE 
FRUSTRATING REACTION AFTER 
INNOCENCE WAS ESTABLISHED EARLY 
ON. 
THE PRESIDENT'S ATTITUDE WAS 
UNDERSTANDABLY NEGATIVE, YET 
THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T USE HIS 
AUTHORITY TO CLOSE THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
HE DID NOT SHUT DOWN THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE WAS 
INNOCENT. 
THOSE ARE THE FACTS OF THE 
MUELLER REPORT. 
RUSSIA MEDDLED IN THE ELECTION, 
THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T CONSPIRE 
WITH THE RUSSIANS, AND NOTHING 
WE HEAR TODAY WILL CHANGE THOSE 
FACTS. 
ONE ELEMENT REMAINS:  THE 
BEGINNINGS OF THE FBI 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
PRESIDENT. 
I LOOK FORWARD INTO THE 
TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT HE FOUND 
AND IN ADDITION, THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL REVIEWS HOW BASELESS 
GOSSIP CAN BE USED TO LAUNCH AN 
INVESTIGATION AGAINST A PRIVATE 
CITIZEN AND A PRESIDENT. 
THOSE RESULTS WILL BE RELEASED 
AND WE'LL NEED TO LEARN FROM 
THEM TO ENSURE GOVERNMENT 
INTELLIGENCE AND LAW 
ENFORCEMENT POWERS ARE NEVER 
USED ON A PRIVATE CITIZEN OR 
POLITICAL CANDIDATE AS A RESULT 
OF A POLITICAL LEANINGS OF A 
HANDFUL OF FBI AGENTS. 
EVERY AMERICAN HAS TO PROTECT 
THE SANCTITY OF THEIR VOICE AND 
ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF 
INNOCENCE AND GUARANTEE OF DUE 
PROCESS. 
IF WE CARRY ANYTHING AWAY 
TODAY, IT MUST BE THAT WE 
INCREASE OUR VIGILANCE AGAINST 
THE FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. 
FINALLY, WE MUST AGREE THAT THE 
COST IS TOO HIGH. 
THE MONTHS WE HAVE SPENT 
INVESTIGATING FAILED TO END THE 
BORDER CRISIS AND INSTEAD WE 
HAVE GOTTEN STUCK, AND IT'S 
PARALYZED THIS COMMITTEE AND 
THIS HOUSE. 
AS A SIDE NOTE, EVERY WEEK I 
LEAVE MY FAMILY AND KIDS, THE 
MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO ME, TO 
COME TO THIS PLACE BECAUSE I 
BELIEVE THIS IS A PLACE WE CAN 
DO THINGS AND HELP PEOPLE. 
SIX AND A HALF YEARS AGO, I 
CAME HERE TO WORK AND WE HAVE 
ACCOMPLISHED A LOT ON A 
BIPARTISAN BASIS WITH MANY OF 
MY FRIENDS ACROSS THE AISLE 
SITTING HERE TODAY. 
HOWEVER, THIS YEAR BECAUSE THE 
MAJORITIES DISLIKE THIS 
PRESIDENT AND THE INVESTIGATION 
HAVE CAUSED US TO ACCOMPLISH 
NOTHING EXCEPT TALK ABOUT THE 
PROBLEMS OF OUR COUNTRY WHILE 
OUR BORDER IS ON FIRE IN CRISIS 
AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS STOPPED. 
THIS HEARING IS LONG OVERDUE. 
WE HAVE HAD TRUTH FOR MONTHS, 
AND WHAT WE NEED IS TO LET THE 
TRUTH BRING US CONFIDENCE AND I 
HOPE, MR. CHAIRMAN, CLOSURE. 
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS. 
ROBERT MUELLER SERVED AS 
DIRECTOR OF THE FBI FROM 2001 
TO 2013, AND MOST RECENTLY AS 
SPECIAL COUNSEL IN THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
OVERSEEING THE INVESTIGATION 
INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 
THE 2016 ELECTION. MR. MUELLER 
IS ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL AARON 
ZEBLEY, WHO SERVED AS DEPUTY 
SPECIAL COUNSEL ON THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
WE THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING 
IN TODAY'S HEARING. 
IF YOU WILL RISE, I WILL SWEAR 
YOU IN. 
 BY SWEARING YOU IN
RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. 
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM UNDER 
PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE 
TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE 
IS THE CORRECTION TO THE BEST 
OF YOUR BELIEF? 
WITNESS ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVE. 
THANK YOU AND PLEASE BE SEATED. 
NOTE THAT YOUR WRITTEN 
STATEMENT WILL BE ENTERED INTO 
THE RECORD ENTIRELY. 
SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN 
FIVE MINUTES. 
YOU MAY BEGIN. 
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIRMAN 
NADLER AND RANKING MEMBER 
COLLINS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE. 
AS YOU KNOW, IN MAY 2017, THE 
ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKED 
ME TO SERVE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL. 
I UNDERTOOK THAT ROLE BECAUSE I 
BELIEVED IT WAS A PARAMOUNT 
INTEREST OF THE NATION TO 
DETERMINE WHETHER A FOREIGN 
ADVERSARY INTERFERED IN THE 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
AS THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL 
SAID AT THE TIME, THE 
APPOINTMENT WAS NECESSARY IN 
ORDER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
TO HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE 
OUTCOME. 
MY STAFF AND I CARRIED OUT THIS 
ASSIGNMENT WITH THAT CRITICAL 
OBJECTIVE IN MIND, TO WORK 
QUIETLY, THOROUGHLY, AND WITH 
INTEGRITY SO THAT THE PUBLIC 
WOULD HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN 
THE OUTCOME. 
THE ORDER APPOINTING ME AS 
SPECIAL COUNSEL DIRECTED OUR 
OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
THIS INCLUDED INVESTIGATING ANY 
LINKS OR COORDINATION BETWEEN 
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND 
INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 
IT ALSO INCLUDED INVESTIGATING 
EFFORTS TO INTERFERE WITH OR 
OBSTRUCT OUR INVESTIGATION. 
THROUGHOUT THE INVESTIGATION, I 
CONTINUALLY STRESSED TWO THINGS 
TO THE TEAM WE HAD ASSEMBLED:  
FIRST, WE NEEDED TO DO OUR WORK 
AS THOROUGHLY AS POSSIBLE, AND 
AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. 
IT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 
FOR OUR INVESTIGATION TO BE 
COMPLETE AND NOT TO LAST A DAY 
LONGER THAN WAS NECESSARY. 
SECOND, THE INVESTIGATION 
NEEDED TO BE CONDUCTED FAIRLY 
AND WITH ABSOLUTE INTEGRITY. 
OUR TEAM WOULD NOT LEAK OR TAKE 
OTHER ACTIONS THAT COULD 
COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR 
WORK. 
ALL DECISIONS WERE MADE BASED 
ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW. 
DURING THE COURSE OF OUR 
INVESTIGATION, WE CHARGED MORE 
THAN 30 DEFENDANTS WITH 
COMMITTING FEDERAL CRIMES, 
INCLUDING 12 OFFICERS OF THE 
RUSSIAN MILITARY. 
SEVEN DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN 
CONVICTED OR PLED GUILTY. 
CERTAIN OF THE CHARGES WE 
BROUGHT REMAIN PENDING TODAY, 
AND I STRESS THAT THE 
INDICTMENTS CONTAIN ALLEGATIONS 
AND EVERY DEFENDANT IS PRESUMED 
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. 
IN ADDITION TO THE CRIMINAL 
CHARGES WE BROUGHT, AS REQUIRED 
BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
REGULATIONS, WE SUBMITTED A 
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE 
CONCLUSION OF OUR 
INVESTIGATION. 
THE REPORT SET FORTH THE 
RESULTS OF OUR WORK AND THE 
REASONS FOR OUR CHARGING AND 
DECLINATION DECISIONS. 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LATER MADE 
THE REPORT LARGELY PUBLIC. 
AS YOU KNOW, I MADE A FEW 
LIMITED REMARKS ABOUT OUR 
REPORT WHEN WE CLOSED THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE IN MAY 
OF THIS YEAR. 
THERE ARE CERTAIN POINTS THAT 
BEAR EMPHASIS. %
FIRST, WE FOUND THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN A 
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC 
FASHION. 
SECOND, THE INVESTIGATIO DID 
NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED 
WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN 
ITS ELECTION INTERFERENCE 
ACTIVITIES. 
WE DID NOT ADDRESS COLLUSION, 
WHICH IS NOT A LEGAL TERM. 
RATHER WE FOCUSED ON WHETHER 
THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO 
CHARGE ANY MEMBER OF THE 
CAMPAIGN WITH TAKING PART IN A 
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, AND IT WAS 
NOT. 
THIRD, OUR INVESTIGATION OF 
EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT THE 
INVESTIGATION AND LIE TO 
INVESTIGATORS WAS OF CRITICAL 
IMPORTANCE. 
BSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE STRIKES 
AT THE CORE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S 
EFFORT TO FIND THE TRUTH AND TO 
HOLD WRONGDOERS ACCOUNTABLE. 
FINALLY, AS DESCRIBED IN VOLUME 
TWO OF OUR REPORT, WE 
INVESTIGATED A SERIES OF 
ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT 
TOWARDS THE INVESTIGATION. 
BASED ON JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
POLICY AND PRINCIPLES OF 
FAIRNESS, WE DECIDED WE WOULD 
NOT MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED 
A CRIME. 
THAT WAS OUR DECISION THEN AND 
IT REMAINS OUR DECISION TODAY. 
LET ME SAY A FURTHER WORD ABOUT 
MY APPEARANCE TODAY. 
IT IS UNUSUAL FOR A PROSECUTOR 
TO TESTIFY ABOUT A CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION. 
AND GIVEN MY ROLE AS A 
PROSECUTOR, THERE ARE REASONS 
WHY MY TESTIMONY WILL 
NECESSARILY BE LIMITED. 
FIRST, PUBLIC TESTIMONY COULD 
AFFECT SEVERAL ONGOING MATTERS. 
IN SOME OF THESE MATTERS, COURT 
RULES OF JUDICIAL ORDERS LIMIT 
THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION 
TO PROTECT THE FAIRNESS OF THE 
PROCEEDINGS. 
AND CONSISTENT WITH LONG-
STANDING JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
POLICY, IT WOULD BE 
INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO COMMENT 
IN ANY WAY THAT COULD AFFECT AN 
ONGOING MATTER. 
SECOND, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
ASSERTED PRIVILEGES CONCERNING 
INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION AND 
DECISIONS. 
ONGOING MATTERS WITHIN THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND 
DELIBERATIONS WITHIN OUR OFFICE 
ARE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
PRIVILEGES THAT I WILL RESPECT. 
THE DEPARTMENT HAS RELEASED A 
LETTER DISCUSSING THE 
RESTRICTIONS OF MY TESTIMONY. 
I THEREFORE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO 
ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT CERTAIN 
AREAS THAT I KNOW ARE OF PUBLIC 
INTEREST. 
FOR EXAMPLE, I'M UNABLE TO 
ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 
INITIAL OPENING OF THE FBI'S 
RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, WHICH 
OCCURRED MONTHS BEFORE MY 
APPOINTMENT, OR MATTERS RELATED 
TO THE SO-CALLED STEELE  
DOSSIER. 
THESE ARE MATTERS OF ONGOING 
REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT AND 
ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE TOPICS 
SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE FBI 
OR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. 
AS I EXPLAINED WHEN WE CLOSED 
THIS SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE 
IN MAY, OUR REPORT CONTAINS OUR 
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS, AND THE 
REASONS FOR THE DECISIONS WE 
MADE. 
WE CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE 
INVESTIGATION OVER TWO YEARS. 
IN WRITING THE REPORT, WE 
STATED THE RESULTS OF OUR 
INVESTIGATION WITH PRECISION. 
WE SCRUTINIZED EVERY WORD. 
WE DID NOT INTEND TO SUMMARIZE 
THE WORK IN A DIFFERENT WAY IN 
THE COURSE OF MY TESTIMONY 
TODAY. 
AS I'VE SAID MAY 29th, THE 
REPORT IS MY TESTIMONY, AND I 
WILL STAY WITHIN THAT TEXT. 
AS I STATED IN MAY, I WILL NOT 
COMMENT ON THE ACTIONS OF THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR CONGRESS. 
I WAS APPOINTED AS A PROSECUTOR 
AND I INTEND TO ADHERE TO THAT 
ROLE AND TO THE DEPARTMENT'S 
STANDARDS THAT GOVERN IT. 
I WILL BE JOINED TODAY BY 
DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL AARON 
ZEBLEY, WHO HAS EXTENSIVE 
EXPERIENCE AS A FEDERAL 
PROSECUTOR, AND AT THE FBI 
WHERE HE SERVED AS MY CHIEF OF 
STAFF. 
HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAY-
TO-DAY OVERSIGHT OF THE 
INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY OUR 
OFFICE. 
I ALSO WANT TO AGAIN SAY THANK 
YOU TO THE ATTORNEYS, THE FBI 
AGENTS, ANALYSTS, PROFESSIONAL 
STAFF WHO HELPED US CONDUCT 
THIS INVESTIGATION IN A FAIR 
AND INDEPENDENT MANNER. 
THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO SPENT 
NEARLY TWO YEARS WORKING ON 
THIS MATTER WERE OF THE HIGHEST 
INTEGRITY. 
LET ME SAY ONE MORE THING:  
OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, 
I'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF 
CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY. 
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S EFFORT 
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION IS 
AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS. 
AS I SAID ON MAY 29th, THIS 
DSERVES THE ATTENTION OF EVERY 
AMERICAN. 
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> THANK YOU. 
WE WILL NOW PROCEED UNDER THE 
FIVE-MINUTE RULE WITH 
QUESTIONS. 
I WILL BEGIN BY RECOGNIZING 
MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE PRESIDENT 
HAS REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THAT 
YOUR REPORT FOUND THERE WAS NO 
OBSTRUCTION AND THAT IT 
COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY 
EXONERATED HIM. 
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR REPORT 
SAID, IS IT? 
>> CORRECT, IT'S NOT WHAT THE 
REPORT SAID. 
>> PAGE TWO OF VOLUME TWO OF 
THE REPORT, ON THE SCREEN HERE, 
YOU WROTE, QUOTE, IF WE HAD 
CONFIDENCE OF A THOROUGH 
INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS THAT 
THE PRESIDENT CLEARLYDID NOT 
COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 
WE WOULD SO STATE. 
BASED ON THE FACTS, WE ARE 
UNABLE TO REACH THAT JUDGMENT. 
DOES THAT SAY THERE WAS NO 
OBSTRUCTION? 
>> NO. 
>> IN FACT, YOU WERE UNABLE TO 
CONCLUDE THE PRESIDENT DID NOT 
COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 
THAT'S CORRECT? 
>> WELL, AT THE OUTSET WE 
DETERMINED THAT WHEN IT CAME TO 
THE PRESIDENT'S CULPABILITY, WE 
NEEDED TO GO FORWARD AFTER 
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OLC 
OPINION THAT INDICATED THAT A 
SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE 
INDICTED. 
>> SO THE REPORT DID NOT 
CONCLUDE THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHAT ABOUT TOTAL 
EXONERATION? 
DID YOU TOTALLY EXONERATE THE 
PRESIDENT? 
>> NO. 
>> IN FACT, YOUR REPORT STATES 
IT DOES NOT EXONERATE THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> IT DOES. 
>> AND YOUR INVESTIGATION 
ACTUALLY FOUND QUOTE, MULTIPLE 
ACTS BY THE PRESIDENT CAPABLE 
OF EXERTING UNDUE INFLUENCE 
OVER LAW ENFORCEMENT 
INVESTIGATIONS, INCLUDING THE 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND 
OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATIONS, IS 
THAT CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN IN PLAIN 
TERMS WHAT THAT FINDING MEANS 
SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN 
UNDERSTAND IT? 
>> WELL, THE FINDING INDICATES 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT 
EXCULPATED FOR THE ACTS THAT HE 
ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED. 
>> IN FACT, YOU WERE TALKING 
ABOUT INCIDENTS QUOTE, IN WHICH 
THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO USE HIS 
OFFICIAL POWER OUTSIDE OF THE 
USUAL CHANNELS, UNQUOTE, TO 
EXERT UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER YOUR 
INVESTIGATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> ON PAGE SEVEN OF VOLUME TWO, 
YOU WROTE, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT 
BECAME AWARE HIS OWN CONDUCT 
WAS BEING INVESTIGATED IN AN 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INQUIRY. 
AT THAT POINT THE PRESIDENT 
ENGAGED IN A SECOND PHASE OF 
CONDUCT INVOLVING PUBLIC 
ATTACKS ON THE INVESTIGATION, 
NONPUBLIC EFFORTS TO CONTROL 
IT, AND EFFORTS IN BOTH PUBLIC 
AND PRIVATE TO ENCOURAGE 
WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH 
THE INVESTIGATION, CLOSE QUOTE. 
SO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO 
EXERT UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER THE 
INVESTIGATION INTENSIFIED AFTER 
THE PRESIDENT BECAME AWARE THAT 
HE WAS PERSONALLY BEING 
INVESTIGATED? 
>> I WOULD STICK WITH THE 
LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT 
OF YOU. 
PAGE SEVEN, VOLUME TWO. 
>> IS IT CORRECT THAT IF YOU 
CONCLUDED THAT THE PRESIDENT 
COMMITTED THE CRIME OF 
OBSTRUCTION, YOU COULD NOT 
PUBLICLY STATE THAT IN YOUR 
REPORT OR HERE TODAY? 
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, 
SIR? 
>> IS IT CORRECT THAT IF YOU 
HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE CRIME 
OF OBSTRUCTION, YOU COULD NOT 
PUBLICLY STATE THAT IN YOUR 
REPORT OR HERE TODAY? 
>> I WOULD SAY THE STATEMENT 
WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD NOT 
INDICT, AND YOU WOULD NOT 
INDICT BECAUSE UNDER THE OLC 
OPINION, A SITTING PRESIDENT 
CANNOT BE INDICTED. 
>> SO YOU COULD NOT STATE THAT 
BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION? 
>> OLC OPINION WITH SOME GUIDE, 
YES. 
>> UNDER DOJ POLICY, THE 
PRESIDENT COULD BE PROSECUTED 
FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE, 
CORRECT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
DID ANY SENIOR WHITE HOUSE 
OFFICIAL REFUSE A REQUEST TO BE 
INTERVIEWED BY YOU AND YOUR 
TEAM? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
LET ME TAKE THAT BACK. 
I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT, BUT 
I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT WAS THE 
CASE. 
>> DID THE PRESIDENT REFUSE A 
REQUEST TO BE INTERVIEWED BY 
YOU AND YOUR TEAM? 
>> YES. 
>> AND IS IT TRUE THAT YOU 
TRIED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR TO 
SECURE AND INTERVIEW WITH THE 
PRESIDENT? 
>> YES. 
>> IS IT TRUE AND YOU ADVISED 
THE TEAM AND INTERVIEW WITH THE 
PRESIDENT IS VITAL TO THE 
INVESTIGATION? 
>> YES. 
>> IS IT TRUE THAT YOU ALSO 
QUOTE, STATED THAT IT IS IN THE 
INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENCY AND 
THE PUBLIC FOR AN INTERVIEW TO 
TAKE PLACE, CLOSE QUOTE? 
>> YES. 
>> BUT THE PRESIDENT STILL 
REFUSED TO SIT FOR AN INTERVIEW 
BY YOU OR YOUR TEAM? 
>> TRUE. 
>> AND DID YOU ASK HIM TO 
PROVIDE WRITTEN ANSWERS TO 
QUESTIONS ON THE TEN POSSIBLE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIMES 
INVOLVING HIM? 
>> YES. 
>> DID HE PROVIDE ANY ANSWERS 
TO A SINGLE QUESTION ABOUT 
WHETHER HE ENGAGED IN 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIMES? 
>> I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, WE ARE 
GRATEFUL YOU'RE HERE. 
HAVING REVIEWED YOUR WORK, I 
BELIEVE ANYONE ELSE WOULD 
ENGAGE IN THE CONDUCT WOULD BE 
PROSECUTED. 
YOUR WORK IS VITAL TO THE 
COMMITTEE BECAUSE NO ONE IS 
ABOVE THE LAW. 
I NOW RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN 
FROM GEORGIA, MR. COLLINS. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
WE ARE MOVING WITH THE FIVE 
MINUTE RULE AND I HAVE SEVERAL 
QUESTIONS, MANY OF WHICH YOU 
JUST ANSWERED. 
I WANT TO LAY FOUNDATION. 
WE'LL GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY. 
I WILL TALK SLOWLY. 
IN YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE, YOU 
STATED TESTIMONY FROM YOUR 
OFFICE WOULD NOT GO BEYOND YOUR 
REPORT AND NOT PROVIDE 
INFORMATION THAT'S NOT ALREADY 
PUBLIC. 
DO YOU STANDBY THAT? 
>> YES. 
>> SINCE CLOSING THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL OFFICE IN MAY 2019 HAVE 
YOU OBTAINED ANY NEW 
INFORMATION AS YOU ROLE AS 
SPECIAL COUNSEL? 
>> IN THE WAKE OF THE REPORT? 
>> SINCE THE CLOSING OF THE 
OFFICE IN MAY 2019, HAVE YOU 
CONDUCTED ANY NEW INTERVIEWS OR 
WITNESSES? 
>> NO. 
>> AND YOU'RE NO LONGER SPECIAL 
COUNSEL? 
>> I AM NO LONGER SPECIAL 
COUNSEL. 
>> AT ANY TIME WITH THE 
INVESTIGATION, WAS YOUR 
INVESTIGATION CURTAILED OR 
STOPPED OR HINDERED? 
>> NO. 
>> WERE YOU OR YOUR TEAM 
PROVIDED QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS 
OF CONGRESS AHEAD OF THE 
HEARING TODAY? 
>> NO. 
>> YOUR START STATES YOU TEAM 
INCLUDED 19 LAWYERS AND 
APPROXIMATELY 40 ANALYSTS, IS 
THAT ACCURATE? 
>> COULD YOU REAP THAT? 
>> 40 FBI AGENTS, INTELLIGENCE 
ANALYSTS AND FORENSIC 
ACCOUNTANTS. 
ARE THOSE NUMBERS ACCURATE? 
>> GENERALLY YES. 
>> AND YOU EXECUTED NEARLY 500 
SEARCH WARRANTS AND OBTAINED 
WARRANTS COMPUTER RECORDS? 
>> THAT WAS FAST. 
>> YOU DID A LOT OF WORK, 
CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> A LOT OF SUBPOENAS. 
>> YES, SUBPOENAS. 
>> OKAY. 
>> A LOT OF SEARCH WARRANTS. 
>> OKAY. 
SO YOU'RE VERY THOROUGH, YOUR 
OPINION IS VERY THOROUGH, 
CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
IS IT TRUE THE EVIDENCE 
GATHERED DURING YOUR 
INVESTIGATION -- GIVEN THE 
QUESTION THAT YOU JUST 
ANSWERED, IS IT TRUE THE 
EVIDENCE GATHERED DID NOT 
ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT WAS 
INVOLVED IN THE UNDERLYING 
CRIME RELATED TO RUSSIAN 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE AS STATED 
IN VOLUME ONE PAGE SEVEN? 
>> WE FOUND INSUFFICIENT 
EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
CULPABILITY. 
>> SO THAT WILL BE A YES? 
>> PARDON? 
>> THAT WILL BE A YES? 
>> YES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
AND THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT 
INVOLVED IN THE HACKING OR 
EXPERIENCES IN VOLUME TWO PAGE 
76? 
>> I LEAVE THE ANSWER TO THE 
REPORT. 
>> SO YES. 
IS IT TRUE YOUR INVESTIGATION 
DIDN'T ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS 
OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED 
OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT? 
>> YES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> ALTHOUGH YOUR REPORT STATES 
COLLUSION IS NOT SPECIFIC, AND 
YOU HAVE SAID THAT THIS 
MORNING, A TERM IN LAW, ARE 
COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY úESSEN 
>> YOU'LL HAVE TO REPEAT THAT. 
>> COLLUSION IS NOT A SPECIFIC 
OFFENSE OR A TERM OF ART IN THE 
FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW. 
CONSPIRACY IS. 
>> YES. 
>> IN THE COLLOQUIAL CONTEXT, 
COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY ARE 
ESSENTIALLY SYNONYMOUS TERMS, 
CORRECT? 
>> NO. 
>> PAGE 180 VOLUME ONE, YOU 
WROTE COLLUSION IS LARGELY 
SYNONYMOUS WITH CONSPIRACY AS 
THAT CRIME IS SET FORTH IN A 
U.S. STATUTE. 
YOU SAID AT YOUR MAY 29th PRESS 
CONFERENCE YOU CHOOSE YOUR 
WORDS CAREFULLY. 
ARE YOU TESTIFYING SOMETHING 
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOUR REPORT 
STATES? 
>> IF YOU COULD GIVE ME THE 
CITATION, I CAN LOOK AT THE 
CITATION AND EVALUATE WHETHER 
IT IS. 
>> I'LL CLARIFY. 
YOU STATED THAT YOU WOULD STAY 
WITHIN THE REPORT. 
I STATED YOUR REPORT BACK TO 
YOU AND YOU SAID COLLUSION AND 
CONSPIRACY WERE NOT SYNONYMOUS 
TERMS. 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> PAGE 180 OF VOLUME ONE OF 
YOUR REPORT, IT SAYS AS DEFINED 
IN LEGAL DICTIONARIES, 
COLLUSION IS LARGELY SYNONYMOUS 
WITH CONSPIRACY AS THE CRIME IS 
SET FORTH IN GENERAL CONSPIRACY 
STATUTES. 
YOU SAID YOU CHOSE THE WORDS 
CAREFULLY. 
ARE YOU CONTRADICTING YOUR 
REPORT RIGHT NOW? 
>> NOT WHEN I READ IT. 
>> SO YOU CHANGE YOUR ANSWER TO 
QUESTION THEN? 
>> NO. 
IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE. 
>> I'M READING YOUR REPORT, 
SIR. 
>> PAGE 180. 
>> PAGE 180, VOLUME ONE FROM 
YOUR REPORT. 
>> CORRECT. 
I LEAVE IT WITH THE REPORT. 
>> SO THE REPORT SAYS YES, THEY 
ARE SYNONYMOUS. 
HOPEFULLY FINALLY WE CAN PUT TO 
BED COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY. 
ONE LAST QUESTION:  DID YOU 
EVER LOOK INTO OTHER COUNTRIES 
INVESTIGATED IN THE RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION? 
WERE OTHER COUNTRIES 
INVESTIGATED OR FOUND KNOWLEDGE 
THEY HAD INTERFERED IN THE 
ELECTION. 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS 
OTHER MATTERS. 
>> I YIELD BACK. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, AS YOU 
HAVE HEARD FROM THE CHAIRMAN, 
WE'LL TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE TODAY. 
THE INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIA'S 
ATTACK THAT STARTED YOUR 
INVESTIGATION IS WHY EVIDENCE 
OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION IS 
SERIOUS. 
TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN THE 
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? 
>> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? 
>> TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE 
RUSSIAN GOVERNMNT INTERFERE IN 
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? 
>> PARTICULARLY WHEN IT CAME TO 
COMPUTER CRIMES AND THE LIKE, 
THE GOVERNMEN WAS IMPLICATED. 
>> YOU WROTE IN VOLUME ONE THE 
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED 
IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND 
SYSTEMATIC FASHION. 
YOU ALSO DESCRIBED IN YOUR 
REPORT THAT THE THEN-TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT 
SHARED WITH A RUSSIAN OPERATIVE 
KILIMNIK THE CAMPAIGN STRATEGY 
FOR WINNING DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN 
MID-WESTERN STATES AND INTERNAL 
POLLING DATA OF THE CAMPAIGN, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND THEY DISCUSSED THE 
STATUS OF THE CAMPAIGN AND 
MANAFORT'S STRATEGY FOR WINNING 
DEMOCRATC VOTES IN MID-WESTERN 
STATES. 
MONTHS BEFORE THAT MEETING, 
MANAFORT CAUSED INTERNAL DATA 
TO BE SHARED WITH KILIMNIK AND 
IT CONTINUED AFTER THEIR AUGUST 
MEETING, CORRECT? 
>> ACCURATE. 
>> IN FACT, YOUR INVESTIGATION 
FOUND MANAFORT BRIEFED KILIMNIK 
ON THE STATE OF THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN AND MANAFORT'S PLAN TO 
WIN THE ELECTION, WHICH 
INCLUDED DISCUSSIONS OF 
BATTLEGROUND STATES, IDENTIFIED 
AS MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, 
PENNSYLVANIA AND MINNESOTA, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DID YOUR INVESTIGATION 
DETERMINE WHO REQUESTED THE 
DATA BE SHARED WITH KILIMNIK? 
>> I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE 
REPORT WITH REGARD TO THAT. 
>> WE DON'T HAVE THE REDACTED 
VERSION. 
THAT'S MAYBE WHY WE SHOULD GET  
BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION, 
HOW COULD THE RUSSIAN 
INVESTIGATION HAVE USED THIS 
POLLING DATA TO FURTHER ITS 
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? 
>> THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OUT OF 
OUR PATH. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH. 
DID YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND 
THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 
PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM 
ONE OF THE CANDIDATES WINNING? 
>> YES. 
>> AND WHICH CANDIDATE WOULD 
THAT BE? 
>> WELL, IT WOULD BE TRUMP. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THE PRESIDENT. 
>> NOW, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN 
WASN'T EXACTLY RELUCTANT TO 
TAKE RUSSIAN HELP. 
YOU WROTE IT EXPECTED TO 
BENEFIT FROM THE INFORMATION 
STOLEN AND RELEASED THROUGH 
RUSSIAN EFFORTS, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> WAS THE INVESTIGATION'S 
DETERMINATION -- WHAT WAS THE 
INVESTIGATION'S DETERMINATION 
REGARDING THE FREQUENCY WITH 
WHICH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MADE 
CONTACT WITH THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT? 
>> WELL, I WOULD HAVE TO REFER 
YOU TO THE REPORT ON THAT. 
>> WELL, WE WENT THROUGH AND 
COUNTED 126 CONTACTS BETWEEN 
RUSSIANS OR THEIR AGENTS AND 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS OR 
THEIR ASSOCIATES. 
WOULD THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? 
>> I CAN'T SAY. 
I UNDERSTAND THE STATISTIC. 
I UNDERSTAND THE STATISTIC. 
>> I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE 
AND YOUR REPORT. 
FROM YOUR TESTIMONY AND THE 
REPORT, I THINK THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED SEVERAL 
THINGS:  FIRST, THE RUSSIANS 
WANTED TRUMP TO WIN. 
SECOND, THE RUSSIANS WENT ON A 
SWEEPING CYBERINFLUENCE 
CAMPAIGN. 
THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE DNC AND 
GOT THE DEMOCRATIC GAME PLAN 
FOR THE ELECTION. 
THE RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN 
MET WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS AND 
REPEATEDLY GAVE THEM INTERNAL 
DATA, POLLING, AND MESSAGING IN 
THE BATTLEGROUND STATES. 
SO WHILE THE RUSSIANS WERE 
BUYING ADS AND CREATING 
PROPAGANDA TO INFLUENCE THE 
OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION, THEY 
WERE ARMED WITH INSIDE 
INFORMATION THEY HAD STOLEN 
THROUGH HACKING THE DNC AND 
THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN, MR. 
MANAFORT. 
MY COLLEAGUES WILL PROBE THE 
EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN TO KEEP THIS 
INFORMATION FROM BECOMING 
PUBLIC, BUT I THINK IT'S 
IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE 
GRAVITY OF THE UNDERLYING 
PROBLEM THAT YOUR REPORT 
UNCOVERED. 
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I 
WOULD YIELD BACK. 
>> GOOD MORNING, DIRECTOR. 
IF YOU WOULD LET ME SUMMARIZE 
YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THIS 
MORNING, YOU SAID VOLUME ONE ON 
THE ISSUE OF CONSPIRACY, THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL DETERMINED 
THERE WAS NO MEMBERS OF THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR 
COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT IN INTERFERENCE 
ACTIVITIES. 
VOLUME TWO, FOR REASONS YOU 
EXPLAINED, SPECIAL COUNSEL 
DIDN'T MAKE A DETERMINATION ON 
WHETHER THERE WAS AN 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIME 
COMMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT. 
IS THAT FAIR? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> EXPLAIN THE TRADITIONAL 
DECLINATION DECISION, THE 
REPORT ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 
TWO VOLUME TWO:  THE EVIDENCE 
WE OBTAINED ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AND INTENT 
PRESENTS DIFFICULT ISSUES THAT 
PREVENT US FROM CONCLUSIVELY 
DETERMINING NO CONDUCT OCCURRED 
AND DOES NOT CONCLUDE THE 
PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME BUT 
DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM? 
>> YES. 
>> AND TODAY YOU SAID THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL TEAM OPERATED 
UNDER AND WAS GUIDED BY AND 
FOLLOWED JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES. 
SO WHICH DOJ POLICY OR 
PRINCIPLE SETS FORTH A LEGAL 
STANDARD THAT AND INVESTIGATED 
PERSON IS NOT EXONERATED IF 
THEIR INNOCENCE FROM CRIMINAL 
CONDUCT IS NOT CONCLUSIVELY 
DETERMINED? 
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE LAST PART 
OF THAT? 
>> WHICH DOJ POLICY SETS FORTH 
THE STANDARD THAT AND 
INVESTIGATED PERSON IS NOT 
EXONERATED IF THEIR INNOCENCE 
FROM CRIMINAL CONDUCT IS NOT 
DETERMINED? 
WHERE DOES THAT LANGUAGE COME 
FROM? 
WHERE'S THE DOJ POLICY THAT 
SAYS THAT? 
LET ME MAKE IT EASIER -- IS 
THERE -- CAN YOU GIVE ME AN 
EXAMPLE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP 
WHERE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
DETERMINED THEIR INNOCENCE WAS 
NOT DETERMINED? 
>> I CANNOT BUT THIS IS A 
UNIQUE SITUATION. 
>> TIME IS SHORT. 
I'VE GOT FIVE MINUTES. 
LET'S LEAVE IT AT YOU CAN'T 
FIND IT. 
I'LL TELL YOU WHY. 
IT DOESN'T ECONOMIST. 
NOWHERE DOES IT SAY YOU WERE TO 
DETERMINE DONALD TRUMP'S 
INNOCENCE OR THAT THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL REPORT SHOULD DETERMINE 
WHETHER OR NOT TO EXONERATE 
HIM. 
IT'S NOT IN THE DOCUMENTS OR 
APPOINTMENT ORDER OR SPECIAL 
COUNSEL REGULATIONS. 
IT'S NOT IN THE OLC OPINIONS, 
JUSTICE MANUAL AND PRINCIPLES 
OF PROSECUTION. 
IT WAS NOT THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S JOB TO DETERMINE 
DONALD TRUMP'S INNOCENCE OR 
EXONERATE HIM, BECAUSE THE 
PRINCIPLE OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM 
IS A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. 
IT EXISTS FOR EVERYONE. 
EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO IT, 
INCLUDING SITTING PRESIDENTS. 
BECAUSE THERE IS A PRESUMPTION 
OF INNOCENCE, PROSECUTORS NEVER 
EVER NEED TO CONCLUSIVELY 
DETERMINE IT. 
DIRECTOR, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
APPLIED THIS INVERTED BURDEN OF 
PROOF THAT I CAN'T FIND AND YOU 
SAID DOESN'T EXIST ANYWHERE IN 
THE DEPARTMENT POLICIES, AND 
YOU USED IT TO WRITE A REPORT. 
VERY FIRST LINE OF YOUR REPORT, 
THE VERY FIRST LINE OF THE 
REPORT SAYS, AS YOU READ THIS 
MORNING, IT AUTHORIZES THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL TO PROVIDE THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A 
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT EXPLAINING 
THE PROSECUTION OR DECLINATION 
DECISIONS REACHED BY THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL. 
THAT'S THE FIRST WORD OF YOUR 
REPORT, RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> HERE IS THE PROBLEM, 
DIRECTOR:  THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
DIDN'T DO THAT. 
VOLUME ONE, YOU DID. 
VOLUME TWO, WITH RESPECT TO 
POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
MADE NEITHER A PROSECUTION 
DECISION OR A DECLINATION 
DECISION. 
YOU MADE NO DECISION. 
YOU TOLD US THIS MORNING AND IN 
THE REPORT THAT YOU MADE NO 
DETERMINATION. 
SO RESPECTFULLY, DIRECTOR, YOU 
DIDN'T FOLLOW THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL REGULATIONS. 
IT CLEARLY SAYS, WRITE A 
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT ABOUT 
DECISIONS REACHED. 
NOWHERE IN HERE DOES IT SAY, 
WRITE A REPORT ABOUT DECISIONS 
THAT WEREN'T REACHED. 
YOU WROTE 180 PAGES -- 180 
PAGES ABOUT DECISIONS THAT 
WEREN'T REACHED, ABOUT 
POTENTIAL CRIMES THAT WEREN'T 
CHARGED OR DECIDED. 
AND RESPECTFULLY, RESPECTFULLY 
BY DOING THAT, YOU MANAGED TO 
VIOLATE EVERY PRINCIPLE IN THE 
MOST SACRED OF TRADITIONS ABOUT 
PROSECUTORS NOT OFFERING EXTRA 
PROSECUTOR I CAN'T LIKE 
ANALYSIS ABOUT POTENTIAL CRIMES 
THAT ARE NOT CHARGES. 
SO AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW THIS 
AS THEY LISTEN TO THE DEMOCRATS 
AND SOCIALISTS ON THE OTHER 
SIDE OF THE AISLE, DOING 
DRAMATIC READINGS FROM THIS 
REPORT. 
VOLUME TWO OF THIS REPORT WAS 
NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW TO 
BE WRITTEN. 
IT WAS WRITTEN TO A LEGAL 
STANDARD THAT DOES NOT EXIST AT 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND IT 
WAS WRITTEN IN VIOLATION OF 
EVERY DOJ PRINCIPLE ABOUT EXTRA 
PROSECUTORIAL ARGUMENT. 
THE CHAIRMAN THIS MORNING SAID 
DONALD TRUMP IS NOT ABOVE THE 
LAW. 
HE'S NOT. 
BUT HE SURE SHOULDN'T BE BELOW 
THE LAW, WHICH IS WHERE VOLUME 
TWO OF THIS REPORT PUTS HIM. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, GOOD MORNING. 
YOUR EXCHANGE DEMONSTRATES WHAT 
IS AT STAKE:  PAUL MANAFORT WAS 
PASSING SENSITIVE VOTER 
INFORMATION AND POLLING DATA TO 
A RUSSIAN OPERATIVE. 
THERE WERE SO MANY OTHER WAYS 
RUSSIA SUBVERTED OUR DEMOCRACY. 
TOGETHER WITH THE EVIDENCE IN 
VOLUME ONE, I CANNOT THINK OF A 
MORE SERIOUS NEED TO 
INVESTIGATE. 
NOW I'LL ASK YOU QUESTIONS 
ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS 
IT RELATES TO VOLUME TWO. 
PAGE 12 OF VOLUME TWO, YOU 
STATE, WE DETERMINED THAT THERE 
WERE SUFFICIENT FACTUAL AND 
LEGAL BASIS TO FURTHER 
INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ISSUES 
INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> DO YOU HAVE THE CITATIONS? 
>> PAGE 12, VOLUME TWO. 
>> WHICH PORTION OF THAT PAGE? 
>> WE DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS 
A SUFFICIENT FACTUAL AND LEGAL 
BASIS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE 
POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE ISSUES INVOLVING THE 
PRESIDENT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> YOUR REPORT ALSO DESCRIBES 
AT LEAST TEN SEPARATE INSTANCES 
OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE THAT WERE INVESTIGATED 
BY YOU AND YOUR TEAM, CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> IN FACT, THE TABLE OF 
CONTENTS SERVES AS A VERY GOOD 
GUIDE OF SOME OF THE ACTS OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT YOU 
INVESTIGATED, AND I'VE PUT IT 
UP ON THE SCREEN. 
YOU DESCRIBE THE ACTS RANGING 
FROM THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO 
CURTAIL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT'S 
FURTHER EFFORTS TO HAVE THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKE OVER THE 
INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT'S 
ORDERS TO DON McGAHN TO DENY 
THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO 
FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND 
MANY OTHERS. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> I DIRECT YOU NOW TO WHAT YOU 
WROTE, DIRECTOR MUELLER:  THE 
PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF CONDUCT 
AS A WHOLE SHEDS LIGHT ON THE 
NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTS 
AND INFERENCES THAT CAN BE 
DRAWN ABOUT HIS INTENT. 
DO YOU HAVE TO INVESTIGATE ALL 
HIS CONDUCT TO ASCERTAIN TRUE 
MOTIVE? 
>> NO. 
>> AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE 
CONDUCT THAT INCLUDES THE TEN 
POSSIBLE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION, 
THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE TEN 
POSSIBLE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION 
THAT YOU INVESTIGATED? 
>> I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE 
REPORT FOR HOW THAT'S 
CHARACTERIZED. 
>> LET ME GO TO THE SCREEN 
AGAIN. 
FOR EACH OF THE TEN POTENTIAL 
INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE, YOU ANALYZED THREE 
ELEMENTS:  AND OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, 
NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACT AND 
PROCEEDING, AND CORRUPT INTENT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> PAGE 178 IN VOLUME TWO, 
ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT TO END 
A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO 
HIS OWN CONDUCT TO PROTECT 
AGAINST PERSONAL EMBARRASSMENT 
OR LEGAL LIABILITY WOULD 
CONSTITUTE A CORE EXAMPLE OF 
CORRUPTLY MOTIVATED CONDUCT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> TO THE SCREEN AGAIN, EVEN 
WITH THE EVIDENCE YOU DID FIND, 
THE EVIDENCE INDICATES A 
THOROUGH FBI INVESTIGATION 
WOULD UNCOVER FACTS ABOUT THE 
CAMPAIGN AND THE THE PRESIDENT 
PERSONALLY THAT THE PRESIDENT 
COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD TO BE 
CRIMES THAT WOULD GIVE RISE TO 
LEGAL, PERSONAL AND POLITICAL 
CONCERNS? 
>> I RELY ON THE LANGUAGE OF 
THE REPORT. 
>> IS THAT RELEVANT TO 
POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE? 
>> YES. 
>> YOU FURTHER ELABORATE ON 
PAGE 157, IT CAN PROTECT 
AGAINST THE INVESTIGATIONS 
WHERE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL 
LIABILITY FALLS INTO A GRAY 
AREA OR TO AVOID PERSONAL 
EMBARRASSMENT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I HAVE ON THE SCREEN HERE. 
>> IS THAT CORRECT ON THE 
SCREEN? 
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? 
>> IS IT CORRECT OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE CAN BE MOTIVATED BY A 
DESIRE TO PROTECT AGAINST 
INVESTIGATIONS WHERE UNDERLYING 
CRIMINAL LIABILITY FALLS INTO A 
GRAY AREA? 
>> YES. 
>> AND IS IT TRUE THAT THE 
IMPACT -- 
>> CAN YOU READ THE LAST 
QUESTION? 
>> THE LAST QUESTION WAS THE 
LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN ASKING 
YOU IF THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> YES. 
>> OKAY. 
DOES A CONVICTION OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE RESULT 
POTENTIALLY IN A LOT OF YEARS 
OF TIME IN JAIL? 
>> YES. 
WELL, AGAIN, CAN YOU REPEAT THE 
QUESTION JUST TO MAKE SURE I 
HAVE IT ACCURATE? 
>> DOES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
WARRANT A LOT OF TIME IN JAIL 
IF YOU WERE CONVICTED? 
>> YES. 
>> TIME HAS EXPIRED. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN. 
LET ME BEGIN BY READING THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS BY 
WHICH YOU WERE APPOINTED: 
QUOTE, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S WORK, HE OR 
SHE SHALL PROVIDE THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL WITH A CONFIDENTIAL 
REPORT EXPLAINING THE 
PROSECUTION OR DECLINATION 
DECISIONS REACHED BY THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> OKAY. 
WHEN A REGULATION USES THE 
WORDS "SHALL PROVIDE" DOES IT 
MEAN THE INDIVIDUAL IS IN FACT 
OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE WHAT'S 
BEING ASKED, MEANING YOU DON'T 
HAVE ANY WIGGLE ROOM? 
>> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK CLOSELY 
AT THE STATUTE. 
>> I JUST READ IT TO YOU. 
OKAY, VOLUME TWO, PAGEONE, WE 
DETERMINE NOT TO MAKE A 
PROSECUTORIAL JUDGMENT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I'M TRYING TO FIND THAT 
CITATION, CONGRESSMAN. 
>> DIRECTOR, COULD YOU SPEAK 
MORE DIRECTLY INTO THE 
MICROPHONE, PLEASE? 
>> YES. 
>> VOLUME TWO, PAGE ONE, WE 
DETERMINE NOT TO MAKE A 
TRADITIONAL PROSECUTORIAL 
JUDGMENT. 
>> YES. 
>> NOW, SINCE YOU DECIDED UNDER 
THE OLC OPINION THAT YOU 
COULDN'T PROSECUTE A SITTING 
PRESIDENT, MEANING PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, WHY DO WE HAVE ALL THIS 
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS 
TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU KNEW 
THAT YOU WERE NOT GOING TO 
PROSECUTE HIM? 
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE 
INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO LIE. 
AND OLC OPINION SAYS YOU CAN 
CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION EVEN 
THOUGH YOU'RE NOT GOING TO 
INDICT THE PRESIDENT. 
>> IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO 
INDICT THE PRESIDENT, THEN YOU 
JUST CONTINUE FISHING. 
THAT'S MY OBSERVATION. 
SURE YOU CAN INDICT OTHER 
PEOPLE, BUT YOU CAN'T INDICT 
THE SITTING PRESIDENT, RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S TRUE. 
>> OKAY. 
NOW, THERE ARE 182 PAGES IN RAW 
EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL, INCLUDING 
HUNDREDS OF REFERENCES TO 302, 
INTERVIEWS BY THE FBI FOR 
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN 
CROSS-EXAMINED AND DID NOT 
COMPLY WITH THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S GOVERNING REGULATION 
TO EXPLAIN THE PROSECUTION OR 
DECLINATION DECISIONS REACHED, 
CORRECT? 
>> WHERE ARE YOU READING FROM? 
>> I'M READING FROM MY 
QUESTION. 
>> COULD YOU REPEAT IT? 
>> OKAY. 
YOU HAVE 182 PAGES OF RAW 
EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL WITH 
HUNDREDS OF REFERENCES TO 302s 
NEVER CROSS-EXAMINED AND DIDN'T 
COMPLY WITH THE GOVERNING 
REGULATION TO EXPLAIN THE 
PROSECUTION OR DECLINATION 
DECISIONS REACHED. 
>> THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS 
WHICH I DECLINE TO DISCUSS AND 
WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT 
ITSELF. 
>> OKAY. 
I LOOKED AT 182 PAGES OF IT. 
LET ME SWITCH GEARS. 
DURING THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT, 
WHILE I RECOGNIZE THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUE 
UNDER WHICH KEN STARR OPERATED, 
HE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS IN 
HIS REPORT STATED THAT 
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ACTIONS MAY 
HAVE RISEN TO IMPEACHABLE 
CONDUCT, RECOGNIZING THAT IT IS 
UP TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES TO DETERMINE 
WHAT CONDUCT IS IMPEACHABLE. 
YOU NEVER USED THE TERM RAISING 
TO IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT FOR ANY 
OF THE TEN INSTANCES. 
IS IT TRUE THERE'S NOTHING IN 
VOLUME TWO OF THE REPORT THAT 
SAYS THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE 
ENGAGED IN IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT? 
>> WELL, WE KEPT IN THE CENTER 
OF OUR INVESTIGATION OUR 
MANDATE. 
AND OUR MANDATE DOES NOT GO TO 
OTHER WAYS OF ADDRESSING 
CONDUCT. 
OUR MANDATE GOES TO DEVELOPING 
THE REPORT AND GIVING THE 
REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
>> DUE RESPECT, IT SEEMS TO ME 
THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF 
STATEMENTS YOU MADE, YOU KNOW, 
THAT SAID, THIS IS NOT FOR ME 
TO DECIDE AND THE IMPLICATION 
IS IT'S FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO 
DECIDE. 
THERE WAS NO STATUTE TO PREVENT 
YOU FROM USING THE WORD 
IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT. 
I GO BACK TO WHAT MR. RADCLIFFE 
SAID, THAT EVEN THE PRESIDENT 
IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN 
GUILTY. 
>> YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED. 
GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO READ -- 
RESTATE WHAT MR. NADLER SAID 
ABOUT YOUR CAREER. 
IT'S A MODEL OF RECTITUDE AND I 
THANK YOU. 
>> SURE. 
>> BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION, 
HOW DID PRESIDENT TRUMP REACT 
TO YOUR APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL 
COUNSEL IN. 
>> AGAIN, I'LL SEND YOU TO THE 
REPORT WHERE THAT IS STATED. 
>> THERE IS A QUOTE FROM PAGE 
78 OF THE REPORT IN VOLUME TWO, 
WHICH READS:  WHEN SESSIONS 
TOLD THE PRESIDENT A SPECIAL 
COUNSEL HAD BEEN APPOINTED, THE 
PRESIDENT SLUMPED BACK IN HIS 
CHAIR AND SAID, QUOTE, OH MY 
GOD, THIS IS TERRIBLE. 
THIS IS THE END OF MY 
PRESIDENCY. 
I'M F-ED, END QUOTE. 
DID ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS 
TELL YOU ABOUT THAT LITTLE 
TALK? 
>> DIRECTOR, PLEASE SPEAK INTO 
THE MICROPHONE. 
>> SURELY, APOLOGIES. 
I'M NOT CERTAIN OF THE PERSON 
WHO ORIGINALLY COPIED THAT 
QUOTE. 
>> OKAY. 
SESSIONS APPARENTLY SAID ONE OF 
HIS AIDES HAD IT IN HIS NOTES 
TOO. 
HE WAS NOT PLEASED WITH THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL, IN 
PARTICULARLY YOU BECAUSE OF 
YOUR OUTSTANDING REPUTATION. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> PRIOR TO YOUR APPOINTMENT, 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RECUSED 
HIMSELF FROM THE INVESTIGATION 
BECAUSE OF HIS ROLE IN THE 
CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THAT MEANS THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL CAN'T BE INVOLVED IN 
THE INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S THE EFFECT OF 
RECUSAL, YES. 
>> SO INSTEAD, ANOTHER TRUMP 
APPOINTEE, MR. ROSENSTEIN 
BECAME INVOLVED, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> WASN'T HE FOLLOWING THE 
RULES AND ADVICE OF THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT WHEN HE RECUSED 
HIMSELF? 
>> YES. 
>> BUT THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED 
DISPLEASURE AT THE RECUSAL? 
>> THAT'S ACCURATE BASED ON 
WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE REPORT. 
>> AND THE PRESIDENT'S REACTION 
TO THE RECUSAL IS NOTED IN THE 
REPORT. 
MR. BANNON RECALLED THE 
PRESIDENT WAS MAD AS HE'D EVER 
SEEN HIM, AND HE SCREAMED AT 
DON McGAHN ABOUT HOW WEAK 
SESSIONS WAS. 
DO YOU RECALL THAT? 
>> IT'S IN THE REPORT, YES. 
>> DESPITE NOTING ATTORNEY 
GENERAL SESSIONS WAS NOT 
SUPPOSED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE 
INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT 
TRIED TO GET THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF 
AFTER YOU WERE APPOINTED, 
CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND YOU FOUND AT SOME POINT 
AFTER YOUR APPOINTMENT, THE 
PRESIDENT CALLED SESSIONS AT 
HIS HOME AND ASKED IF HE WOULD 
UNRECUSE HIMSELF, CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S TRUE. 
>> THAT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME, 
WAS IT? 
>> I KNOW THERE WERE AT LEAST 
TWO OCCASIONS. 
>> AND ONE WAS WITH FLYNN AND 
ONE WAS WITH SESSIONS WHO SAID 
THE PRESIDENT PULLED HIM ASIDE 
AND ASKED FOR UNRECUSAL. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> A FEW DAYS AFTER MICHAEL 
FLYNN ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA FOR 
LYING TO FEDERAL AGENTS, TRUMP 
ASKED TO SPEAK TO SESSIONS 
ALONE AGAIN IN THE OVAL OFFICE. 
>> YES. 
>> DO YOU KNOW OF ANY PRESIDENT 
THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED ANGER 
OR FRUSTRATIONS AT SESSIONS? 
>> I WOULD HAVE TO PASS ON 
THAT. 
>> I THINK IT'S PAGE 78 OF 
VOLUME TWO, THE PRESIDENT TOLD 
SESSIONS YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO 
PROTECT ME. 
YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ME 
OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
OR FOR THE PRESIDENT? 
>> UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR. 
YOU WROTE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
REPEATEDLY SOUGHT TO GET 
SESSIONS TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF SO 
SESSIONS COULD SUPERVISE THE 
INVESTIGATION IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> RELY ON THE REPORT. 
>> HOW COULD SESSIONS HAVE 
RESTRICTED THE SCOPE OF YOUR 
INVESTIGATION? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE. 
IF HE TOOK OVER, HE'D HAVE 
GREATER LATITUDE IN HIS ACTIONS 
THAT WOULD ENABLE HIM TO DO 
THINGS THAT OTHERWISE HE COULD 
NOT. 
>> ON PAGE 113, YOU SAID YOU 
BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED 
HE COULD PLAY A PROTECTIVE 
ROLE. 
I WANT TO THANK YOU DIRECTOR 
MULER FOR YOUR LIFE OF SERVICE 
TO OUR COUNTRY. 
IT'S CLEAR FROM YOUR REPORT AND 
THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WANTED FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL 
SESSIONS TO VIOLATE THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT ETHICS RULES BY 
TAKING OVER YOUR INVESTIGATION 
AND IMPROPERLY INTERFERING WITH 
IT TO PROTECT HIMSELF AND HIS 
CAMPAIGN. 
YOUR FINDINGS ARE SO IMPORTANT 
BECAUSE IN AMERICA NOBODY IS 
ABOVE THE LAW. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU. 
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO? 
>> THANK YOU. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, MY DEMOCRATIC 
COLLEAGUES WERE VERY 
DISAPPOINTED IN YOUR REPORT, 
EXPECTING YOU TO SAY SOMETHING 
ALONG THE LINES OF, HERE IS WHY 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DESERVES TO BE 
IMPEACHED, MUCH LIKE KEN STARK 
DID WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON. 
NOW THEY ALLEGE THERE'S PLENTY 
OF EVIDENCE IN THE REPORT TO 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, BUT THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST DIDN'T 
READ IT. 
THIS HEARING TODAY IS THEIR 
LAST BEST HOPE TO BUILD UP SOME 
SORT OF GROUND SWELL ACROSS 
AMERICA TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS REALLY ALL 
ABOUT TODAY. 
NOW A FEW QUESTIONS. 
ON PAGE 103 OF VOLUME TWO OF 
YOUR REPORT, WHEN DISCUSSING 
THE JUNE 2016 TRUMP TOWER 
MEETING, YOU REFERENCED QUOTE, 
THE FIRM THAT PRODUCED STEELE 
REPORTING. 
THE NAME OF THE FIRM WAS FUSION 
GPS, CORRECT? 
>> YOU'RE ON PAGE 103? 
>> 103, VOLUME TWO. 
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE FIRM 
THAT PRODUCED THE STEELE 
REPORTING, THE NAME OF THE FIRM 
THAT PRODUCED THAT WAS FUSION 
GPS, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. 
>> IT'S NOT A TRICK QUESTION. 
IT WAS FUSION GPS. 
FUSION GPS PRODUCED THE 
OPPOSITION RESEARCH DOCUMENT 
WIDELY KNOWN AS THE STEELE 
DOSSIER, AND THE OWNER OF 
FUSION GPS WAS GLENN SIMPSON. 
ARE YOU FAMILIAR? 
>> THIS IS OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. 
>> GLENN SIMPSON WAS NEVER 
MENTIONED IN THE 448-PAGE 
MUELLER REPORT, WAS HE? 
>> AS I'VE SAID, IT'S OUTSIDE 
MY PURVIEW AND BEING HANDLED IN 
THE DEPARTMENT BY OTHERS. 
>> HE WAS NOT. 
448 PAGES, THE OWNER OF FUSION 
GPS THAT DID THE STEELE DOSSIER 
THAT STARTED ALL THIS, HE'S NOT 
MENTIONED IN THERE. 
AT THE SAME TIME FUSION GPS WAS 
WORKING TO COLLECT OPPOSITION 
RESEARCH ON DONALD TRUMP FROM 
FOREIGN SOURCES ON BEHALF OF 
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THE 
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, 
IT ALSO WAS REPRESENTING A 
RUSSIAN-BASED COMPANY WHICH HAD 
BEEN SANCTIONED BY THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT. 
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? 
>> IT'S OUTSIDE MY  PURVIEW. 
>> THANK YOU. 
ONE OF THE KEY PLAYERS IN THE 
JUNE 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING 
WAS DESCRIBED AS A RUSSIAN 
ATTORNEY WHO ADVOCATED FOR THE 
REPEAL OF THE MAGNITSKY ACT, 
WORKING WITH GLENN SIMPSON AND 
FUSION GPS SINCE AT LEAST EARLY 
2014. 
ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? 
>> OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. 
>> YOU DIDN'T MENTION THAT OR 
HER CONNECTIONS TO FUSION GPS 
IN YOUR REPORT AT ALL. 
LET ME MOVE ON. 
NBC NEWS REPORTED THE 
FOLLOWING:  QUOTE, RUSSIAN 
LAWYER NATALIA VESELNITSKAYA 
SAYS SHE RECEIVED THE 
SUPPOSEDLY INCRIMINATING 
INFORMATION SHE BROUGHT TO 
TRUMP TOWER DESCRIBING ALLEGED 
TAX EVASION OF DEMOCRATS FOR 
GLENN SIMPSON. 
YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT IN THE 
REPORT. 
>> THAT'S BEING HANDLED BY 
OTHERS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE. 
>> YOUR REPORT SPENDS 14 PAGES 
DISCUSSING THE JUNE 9th, 2016 
TRUMP TOWER MEETING. 
IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY, WOULD 
IT NOT, THAT YOU SPENT 
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES 
INVESTIGATING THAT MEETING? 
>> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE 
REPORT. 
>> OKAY. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WASN'T AT THE 
MEETING? 
>> NO, HE WAS NOT. 
>> IN STARK CONTRAST TO THE 
ACTIONS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, 
WE KNOW THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN 
DID PAY FUSION GPS TO GATHER 
DIRT ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN FROM 
PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS. 
BUT YOUR REPORT DOESN'T MENTION 
A THING ABOUT FUSION GPS IN IT, 
AND YOU DIDN'T INVESTIGATE 
FUSION GPS'S CONNECTIONS TO 
RUSSIA. 
LET ME ASK YOU THIS:  CAN YOU 
SEE THAT FROM NEGLECTING THE 
MENTION GLENN SIMPSON AND THE 
FUSION INVOLVEMENT WITH THE 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN TO FOCUS ON A 
BRIEF MEETING AT TRUMP OF TOWER 
THAT PRODUCED NOTHING, TO 
IGNORING THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN'S 
TIES TO GPS, AS SOMEONE SEE 
THIS AS A ONE-SIDED ATTACK ON 
THE PRESIDENT? 
>> I TELL YOU, IT'S STILL 
OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
I WOULD JUST NOTE FINALLY THAT, 
I GUESS BY CHANCE, THINGS 
TENDED TO BE FAVORABLE TO THE 
PRESIDENT. 
MY TIME IS EXPIRED. 
>> THANK YOU. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WOULD LIKE 
TO GET US BACK ON TRACK HERE. 
YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN TO 
FIRE YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> AND THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED 
THAT HE WANTED TO FIRE YOU 
BECAUSE YOU HAD SUPPOSED 
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, CORRECT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> YOU HAD NO CONFLICTS OF 
INTEREST THAT REQUIRED YOUR 
REMOVAL? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND IN FACT DON McGAHN 
ADVISED THE PRESIDENT THAT THE 
ASSERTED CONFLICTS WERE IN HIS 
WORDS, SILLY AND NOT REAL 
CONFLICTS, IS THAT TRUE? 
>> I WOULD REFER TO THE REPORT 
ON THAT. 
>> PAGE 85 OF VOLUME TWO SPEAKS 
TO THAT. 
ALSO DIRECTOR MUELLER, DOJ 
ETHICS OFFICIALS CONFIRMED THAT 
YOU HAD NO CONFLICTS THAT WOULD 
PREVENT YOU FROM SERVING AS 
SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DESPITE DON McGAHN AND THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GUIDANCE, 
AROUND MAY 23rd, 2017, THE 
PRESIDENT QUOTE, PRODDED McGAHN 
TO COMPLAIN TO DEPUTY ATTORNEY 
GENERAL ROSENSTEIN ABOUT THESE 
SUPPOSED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND McGAHN DECLINED TO CALL 
ROSENSTEIN, TELLING THE 
PRESIDET THAT IT WOULD LOOK 
LIKE TRYING TO MEDDLE IN THE 
ELECTION AND KNOCKING OUT 
MUELLER WOULD BE ANOTHER FACT 
USED TO CLAIM OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE, CORRECT? 
>> GENERALLY SO, YES. 
>> IN OTHER WORDS, DIRECTOR 
MUELLER, THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT 
IF HE TRIED TO REMOVE YOU, THAT 
THAT COULD BE ANOTHER BASIS TO 
ALLEGE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS GENERALLY CORRECT, 
YES. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WHAT 
HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESIDENT 
WAS WARNED ABOUT OBSTRUCTING 
JUSTICE THE I'M SORRY, DO YOU 
HAVE A CITATION FOR THAT? 
>> YES, VOLUME TWO, PAGE 81. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> AND 82. 
I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WHAT 
HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESIDENT 
WAS WARNED ABOUT OBSTRUCTING 
JUSTICE. 
IT'S TRUE THAT ON TUESDAY, JUNE 
13th, 2017, THE PRESIDENT 
DICTATED A STATEMENT THAT SAID 
QUOTE, HE HAD NO INTENTION OF 
FIRING YOU, CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> BUT THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE 
MEDIA REPORTED FOR THE FIRST 
TIME THAT YOU WERE 
INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT FOR 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THEN AFTER LEARNING THAT HE 
WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION, THE 
VERY NEXT DAY THE PRESIDENT 
QUOTE, ISSUED A SERIES OF 
TWEETS ACKNOWLEDGING THE 
EXISTENCE OF THE OBSTRUCTION 
INVESTIGATION AND CRITICIZING 
IT, CORRECT? 
>> GENERALLY SO. 
>> THEN ON SATURDAY, JUNE 17th, 
TWO DAYS LATER, THE PRESIDENT 
CALLED DON McGAHN AT HOME FROM 
CAMP DAVID ON A SATURDAY TO 
TALK ABOUT YOU, ISN'T THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> WHAT WAS THE SIGNIFICANT -- 
WHAT WAS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THAT 
FIRST WEEKEND PHONE CALL THAT 
DON McGAHN TOOK FROM PRESIDENT 
TRUMP? 
>> I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO RELY 
ON WHAT WE WROTE ABOUT THAT. 
>> YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT, 
PAGE 85, VOLUME TWO, THAT ON 
SATURDAY, JUNE 17th, 2017, THE 
PRESIDENT CALLED McGAHN AT HOME 
TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
REMOVED. 
DID THE PRESIDENT CALL DON 
McGAHN MORE THAN ONCE THAT 
DAY?I THINK IT WAS TWO CALLS. 
>> I'M SORRY. 
>> PAGE 85 OF YOUR REPORT, YOU 
WROTE, QUOTE, ON THE FIRST 
CALL, McGAHN RECALLED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT SAID SOMETHING LIKE, 
QUOTE, YOU'VE GOT TO DO THIS, 
CALL ROD. 
CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND YOU FOUND DON McGAHN WAS 
PERTURBED BY THE PRESIDENT'S 
REQUEST TO CALL ROD ROSENSTEIN 
TO FIRE HIM, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> WELL, THERE WAS A CONTINUOUS 
-- IT WAS A CONTINUOUS 
INVOLVEMENT OF DON McGAHN 
RESPONDING TO THE PRESIDENT'S 
ENTREATIES. 
>> AND HE DID NOT WANT TO PUT 
HIMSELF IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT. 
HE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE A ROLE 
IN ASKING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, 
CORRECT? 
>> AGAIN, I WOULD REFER YOU TO 
THE REPORT AND THE WAY IT'S 
CHARACTERIZED IN THE REPORT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
VOLUME TWO, PAGE 85, IT STATES 
THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL -- HE DIDN'T 
WANT TO HAVE A ROLE IN TRYING 
TO FIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
SO AT THIS POINT I WILL YIELD 
BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
MR. MUELLER, FIRST LET ME ASK 
YOU UNANIMOUS CONSENT MR. 
CHAIRMAN TO SUBMIT THIS 
ARTICLE, ROBERT MUELLER 
UNMASKED, FOR THE RECORD. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> WHO WROTE THE NINE-MINUTE 
COMMENTS YOU READ AT YOUR MAY 
29th PRESS CONFERENCE? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO 
THAT. 
>> OKAY. 
SO THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, YOU 
DIDN'T WRITE IT. 
A 2013 PUFF PIECE ABOUT COMEY 
SAID WHEN HE CALLED YOU WOULD 
DROP EVERYTHING. 
HE CALLS, YOU DROP EVERYTHING 
AND GO. 
THE ARTICLE QUOTED COMEY AS 
SAYING IF A TRAIN WERE COMING 
DOWN THE TRACK, QUOTE, AT LEAST 
BOB MUELLER WILL BE STANDING ON 
THE TRACKS WITH ME. 
YOU AND JAMES COMEY HAVE BEEN 
GOOD FRIENDS AND WERE GOOD 
FRIENDS FOR MANY YEARS, 
CORRECT? 
>> WE WERE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES. 
WE BOTH STARTED OFF IN THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. 
>> YOU WERE GOOD FRIENDS. 
YOU CAN WORK TOGETHER AND NOT 
BE FRIENDS, BUT YOU WERE 
FRIENDS? 
>> WE WERE FRIENDS. 
>> THAT'S MY QUESTION. 
THANK YOU FOR GETTING TO THE 
ANSWER. 
BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED AS 
SPECIAL COUNSEL, HAD YOU TALKED 
TO JAMES COMEY IN THE PRECEDING 
SIX MONTHS? 
>> NO. 
>> WHEN YOU WERE APPOINTED AS 
SPECIAL COUNSEL, WAS PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S FIRING OF COMEY 
SOMETHING YOU ANTICIPATED 
INVESTIGATING, POTENTIALLY 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO 
THAT, INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS IN 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. 
>> ACTUALLY IT GOES TO YOUR 
CREDIBILITY. 
CREDIBILITY IS ALWAYS RELEVANT, 
ALWAYS MATERIAL, AND THAT GOES 
FOR YOU TOO. 
YOU'RE A WITNESS BEFORE US. 
LET ME ASK YOU, WHEN YOU TALKED 
TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THE DAY 
BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED AS 
SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOU WERE 
TALKING TO HIM ABOUT THE FBI 
DIRECTOR POSITION AGAIN. 
DID HE MENTION THE FIRING -- 
>> NOT AS A CANDIDATE. 
>> DID HE MENTION THE FIRING OF 
JAMES COMEY IN YOUR DISCUSSION 
WITH HIM? 
>> I CANNOT REMEMBER. 
>> PARDON? 
>> I CANNOT REMEMBER. 
I DON'T BELIEVE SO BUT I'M NOT 
GOING TO BE SPECIFIC. 
>> YOU DON'T REMEMBER. 
BUT IF HE DID, YOU COULD HAVE 
BEEN A FACT WITNESS AS TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS AND STATE 
OF MIND ON FIRING JAMES COMEY? 
>> I SUPPOSE THAT'S POSSIBLE. 
>> MOST PROSECUTORS WANT NO 
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, BUT 
IN YOUR CASE, YOU HIRED A BUNCH 
OF PEOPLE THAT DID NOT LIKE THE 
PRESIDENT. 
LET ME ASK YOU WHEN YOU LEARNED 
AFTER PETER STRZOK'S ANIMUS 
TOWARD PRESIDENT TRUMP? 
>> 2017. 
>> YOU DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE HE 
WAS HIRED FOR YOUR TEAM? 
>> KNOW WHAT? 
>> PETER STRZOK HATED TRUMP. 
>> OKAY. 
>> YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT BEFORE 
HE WAS MADE PART OF YOUR TEAM, 
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? 
>> I DID NOT KNOW THAT. 
>> WHEN DID YOU LEARN -- 
>> WHEN I DID FIND OUT, I ACTED 
SWIFTLY TO HAVE HIM REASSIGNED. 
>> THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION 
ABOUT HOW SWIFT THAT WAS. 
WHEN DID YOU LEARN OF THE 
AFFAIR HE WAS HAVING WITH LISA 
PAGE? 
>> ABOUT THE SAME TIME. 
>> DID YOU EVER ORDER ANYBODY 
TO INVESTIGATE THE DELETION OF 
ALL OF THEIR TEXTS OFF THEIR 
GOVERNMENT PHONES? 
>> ONCE WE FOUND THAT PETER 
STRZOK WAS AUTHOR OF -- 
>> DID YOU EVER -- 
>> MAY I FINISH? 
>> YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING THE 
QUESTION. 
DID YOU ORDER AN INVESTIGATION 
INTO THE DELETION AND 
REFORMATTING OF THEIR 
GOVERNMENT PHONES? 
>> NO, THERE WAS AN 
INVESTIGATION ONGOING. 
>> REGARDING COLLUSION OR 
CONSPIRACY, YOU DIDN'T FIND 
EVIDENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT, AND 
I'M QUOTING YOU, AMONG THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND 
ANY RUSSIAN LINKED OFFICIALS TO 
INTERFERE WITH OUR U.S. 
ELECTION, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO YOU ALSO NOTE IN THE 
REPORT THAT AN ELEMENT OF ANY 
OF THOSE OBSTRUCTIONS YOU 
REFERENCED REQUIRES A CORRUPT 
STATE OF MIND, CORRECT? 
>> CORRUPT INTENT, CORRECT. 
>> RIGHT. 
IF SOMEBODY KNOWS THEY DID NOT 
CONSPIRE WITH ANYBODY FROM 
RUSSIA TO AFFECT THE ELECTION, 
AND THEY SEE THE BIG JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT WITH PEOPLE THAT 
HATE THAT PERSON COMING AFTER 
THEM, AND THEN A SPECIAL 
COUNSEL APPOINTED HIRES A DOZEN 
OR MORE PEOPLE THAT HATE THAT 
PERSON, AND HE KNOWS HE'S 
INNOCENT, HE'S NOT CORRUPTLY 
ACTING IN ORDER TO SEE THAT 
JUSTICE IS DONE. 
WHAT HE'S DOING IS NOT 
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. 
HE IS PURSUING JUSTICE, AND THE 
FACT THAT YOU RAN IT UP TWO 
YEARS MEANS YOU PERPETUATED THE 
INJUSTICE. 
>> YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED. 
THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE 
QUESTION. 
>> I TAKE YOUR QUESTION. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WOULD 
LIKE TO GET BACK TO YOUR 
FINDINGS FROM JUNE 2017. 
THERE WAS AN ARTICLE THAT 
REPORTED THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES WAS PERSONALLY 
UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT ON PAGE 
90, VOLUME TWO, QUOTE, NEWS OF 
THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION 
PROMPTED THE PRESIDENT TO CALL 
McGAHN AND SEEK TO HAVE THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED, CLOSE 
QUOTE. 
IN YOUR REPORT, YOU WROTE ABOUT 
MULTIPLE CALLS FROM THE 
PRESIDENT TO WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL DON McGAHN. 
REGARDING THE SECOND CALL, 
QUOTE, McGAHN RECALLED THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS MORE DIRECT, 
SAYING SOMETHING LIKE, CALL 
ROD. 
TELL ROD MUELLER HAS CONFLICTS 
AND CAN'T BE THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL. 
McGAHN RECALLED THE PRESIDENT 
TELLING HIM, MUELLER HAS TO GO, 
AND CALL ME BACK WHEN YOU DO 
IT. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, DID McGAHN 
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
WAS ORDERING HIM TO DO? 
>> I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE 
REPORT IN TERMS OF 
CHARACTERIZING HIS FEELINGS. 
>> IN THE REPORT IT SAYS, 
QUOTE, McGAHN UNDERSTOOD THE 
PRESIDENT TO BE SAYING THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD TO BE 
REMOVED. 
PAGE 86, QUOTE, McGAHN 
CONSIDERED THE PRESIDENT'S 
REQUEST TO BE AN INFLECTION 
POINT, AND HE WANTED TO HIT THE 
BRAKES AND HE FELT TRAPPED. 
AND McGAHN DECIDED HE HAD TO 
RESIGN. 
McGAHN TOOK ACTION TO PREPARE 
TO RESIGN, CORRECT? 
>> I WOULD DIRECT YOU AGAIN TO 
THE REPORT. 
>> AND IN FACT THAT VERY DAY HE 
WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE, AND 
YOU SAID QUOTE, HE THEN DROVE 
TO THE OFFICE TO PACK HIS 
BELONG, AND SUBMIT HIS 
RESIGNATION LATER, CLOSE QUOTE. 
>> THAT IS DIRECTLY FROM THE 
REPORT. 
>> IT IS. 
BEFORE HE RESIGNED, HOWEVER, HE 
CALLED THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF 
STAFF, REINCE PRIEBUS, AND 
CALLED THE PRESIDENT'S SENIOR 
ADVISOR STEVE BANNON. 
DO YOU RECALL WHAT McGAHN TOLD 
THEM? 
>> WHATEVER WAS SAID WILL 
APPEAR IN THE REPORT. 
>> IT IS. 
IT IS. 
IT SAYS ON PAGE 87, QUOTE, 
PRIEBUS RECALLED THAT McGAHN 
SAID THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIM TO 
DO CRAZY EXPLETIVE, CRAZY 
STUFF. 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL THOUGHT 
THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST WAS 
COMPLETELY OUT OF BOUNDS. 
HE SAID THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIM 
TO DO SOMETHING CRAZY. 
IT WAS WRONG. 
AND HE WAS PREPARED TO RESIGN 
OVER IT. 
NOW, THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARILY 
TROUBLING EVENTS, BUT YOU FOUND 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL McGAHN TO 
BE A CREDIBLE WITNESS, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE MOST 
IMPORTANT QUESTION I HAVE FOR 
YOU TODAY IS WHY? 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, WHY DID THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
WANT YOU FIRED? 
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION. 
>> WELL, ON PAGE 89 IN YOUR 
REPORT, VOLUME TWO, YOU SAID 
QUOTE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 
INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 
ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL WERE LINKED TO THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OVERSIGHT OF 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT INVOLVED 
THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT AND 
MOST IMMEDIATELY, TO REPORTS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS BEING 
INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CLOSE 
QUOTE. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU FOUND 
EVIDENCE, AS YOU LAY OUT IN THE 
REPORT, THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WANTED TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU 
WERE INVESTIGATING HIM FOR 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE 
REPORT, YES. 
I STANDBY THE REPORT. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THAT 
SHOULDN'T HAPPEN IN AMERICA. 
NO PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO 
ESCAPE INVESTIGATION BY ABUSING 
HIS POWER. 
BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU TESTIFY TO 
IN YOUR REPORT. 
THE PRESIDENT ORDERED YOU 
FIRED. 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL KNEW IT 
WAS WRONG. 
THE PRESIDENT KNEW IT WAS 
WRONG. 
IN YOUR REPORT, IT SAYS THERE'S 
EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE 
SHOULDN'T MAKE THE CALLS TO 
McGAHN BUT HE DID IT ANYWAY. 
HE DID IT ANYWAY. 
ANYONE ELSE WHO BLATANTLY 
INTERFERED WITH A CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION LIKE YOURS WOULD 
BE ARRESTED AND INDICTED ON 
CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU 
DETERMINED THAT YOU WERE BARRED 
FROM INDICTING A SITTING 
PRESIDENT. 
WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT 
THAT TODAY. 
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THIS 
COMMITTEE MUST HOLD THE 
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU SAID 
THAT YOU WOULD REFER AS IT 
RELATES TO THE FIRING 
DISCUSSION, THAT I WOULD REFER 
YOU TO THE REPORT AND THE WAY 
IT WAS CHARACTERIZED IN THE 
REPORT. 
IMPORTANTLY, THE PRESIDENT 
NEVER SAID FIRE MUELLER OR IN 
THE INVESTIGATION AND ONE 
DOESN'T NECESSITATE THE OTHER.  
McGAHN IN FACT DID NOT RESIGN 
AND STUCK AROUND FOR A YEAR AND 
A HALF. 
MARCH 24th, ATTORNEY GENERAL 
BARR INFORMED THE COMMITTEE 
THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REPORT, AND 
IT WAS NOT UNTIL APRIL 18th 
THAT THE PERSIAN GULF RELEASED 
THE REPORT TO CONGRESS AND THE 
PUBLIC. 
WHEN YOU SUBMITTED YOUR REPORT 
úTO 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 CAN'T GET INTO DETAIL. 
>> WHY DID YOU NOT TAKE A 
SIMILAR ACTION TO CONGRESS 
COULD REVIEW THIS MATERIAL? 
>> WE HAVE A PROCESS WE ARE 
OPERATING ON WITH THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL'S OFFICE. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY 
ATTORNEY GENERAL GOING TO COURT 
TO RECEIVE SIMILAR PERMISSION 
TO UNREDACT MATERIAL? 
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT BEING 
DONE. 
>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
RELEASED A SPECIAL COUNSEL 
REPORT WITH MINIMAL REDACTIONS 
TO THE PUBLIC, AND EVEN LESSER 
REDACTED VERSION TO CONGRESS. 
DID YOU WRITE THE REPORT WITH 
THE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULD 
BE RELEASED PUBLICLY? 
>> NO, WE DID NOT HAVE AN 
EXPECTATION. 
WE WRITE THE REPORT 
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS 
DEMANDED BY A STATUTE AND WOULD 
GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 
FURTHER REVIEW. 
>> AND PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL REGULATIONS, WHO IS THE 
ONLY PARTY THAT MUST RECEIVE 
THE CHARGING DECISION RESULTING 
FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
INVESTIGATION? 
>> WITH REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT 
OR GENERALLY? 
>> NO, GENERALLY. 
>> ATTORNEY GENERAL. 
>> AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S 
CONFIRMATION HEARING, HE MADE 
IT CLEAR HE INTENDED TO RELEASE 
YOUR REPORT TO THE PUBLIC. 
DO YOU REMEMBER HOW MUCH OF THE 
REPORT HAD BEEN WRITTEN AT THAT 
POINT? 
>> I DO NOT. 
>> WERE THERE SIGNIFICANT 
CHANGES IN TONE OR SUBSTANCE 
MADE AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT 
THAT THE REPORT WOULD BE MADE 
AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS AND THE 
PUBLIC? 
>> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT. 
>> DURING THE TESTIMONY OF 
WILLIAM BARR, SENATOR KAMALA 
HARRIS ASKED BARR IF HE'D 
LOOKED AT ALL THE UNDERLYING 
EVIDENCE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
TEAM HAD GATHERED AND HE STATED 
HE HAD NOT. 
DID YOU PERSONALLY REVIEW ALL 
THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE IN YOUR 
INVESTIGATION? 
>> TO THE EXTENT IT CAME 
THROUGH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
OFFICE, YES. 
>> DID ANY MEMBER OF YOUR TEAM 
REVIEW ALL THE UNDERLYING 
EVIDENCE? 
>> AS RECITED HERE TODAY, A 
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WORK WAS 
DONE, SEARCH WARRANTS OR -- 
>> THERE WAS NO ONE MEMBER OF 
THE TEAM THAT LOOKED AT 
EVERYTHING? 
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO 
GET AT. 
>> OKAY. 
IN AN INVESTIGATION AS 
COMPREHENSIVE AS YOURS, IT'S 
NORMAL TO HAVE DIFFERENT 
MEMBERS OF TEAM REVIEW 
DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS AND FEW IF 
ANYONE WOULD HAVE REVIEWED ALL 
OF THEM? 
>> YES. 
>> HOW MANY OF THE 500 
INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THE 
CONFERENCE DID YOU ATTEND? 
>> VERY FEW. 
>> MARCH 27th, 2019 YOU WROTE A 
LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MEDIA 
COVERAGE OF YOUR REPORT, 
WRITING QUOTE, THE SUMMARY 
LETTER RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC 
DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE 
CONTEXT AND NATURE OF THIS 
OFFICE WORK AND CONCLUSIONS. 
WE COMMUNICATED THAT CONCERN TO 
THE DEPARTMENT ON THE MORNING 
OF MARCH 24th. 
THERE'S NOW PUBLIC CONFUSION 
ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
WHO WROTE THAT MARCH 27th 
LETTER? 
>> I CAN'T GET INTO WROTE WROTE 
IT. 
>> BUT YOU SIGNED IT? 
>> WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THE 
LETTER STANDS FOR ITSELF. 
>> WHY DID YOU WRITE A FORMAL 
LETTER? 
>> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT. 
>> DID YOU AUTHORIZE THE 
LETTER'S RELEASE TO THE MEDIA 
OR WAS IT LEAKED? 
>> I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ON 
EITHER. 
>> YOU WENT NEARLY TWO YEARS 
HANDOUT A LEAK. 
WHY WAS THIS LETTER LEAKED? 
>> I CAN'T GET INTO IT. 
>> WAS THIS LETTER WRITTEN AND 
LEAKED FOR THE PURPOSE OF 
ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE 
NARRATIVE ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS 
OF YOUR REPORT AND WAS ANYTHING 
IN ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S 
LETTER REFERRED TO AS PRINCIPLE 
CONCLUSIONS INACCURATE? 
CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION, 
PLEASE? 
>> YOU MAY ANSWER. 
>> WAS ANYTHING IN ATTORNEY 
GENERAL BARR'S LETTER REFERRED 
TO AS THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS 
LETTER DATED MARCH 24th 
INACCURATE? 
>> WELL, I AM NOT GOING TO GET 
INTO THAT. 
>> TIME IS EXPIRED. 
GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. 
MR. MUELLER, WE ARE FOCUSING ON 
FIVE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES 
TODAY. 
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT 
THE SECTION OF THE REPORT 
BEGINNING PAGE 113 OF VOLUME 
TWO ENTITLED QUOTE, THE 
PRESIDENT ORDERS McGAHN TO DENY 
THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO 
FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, END 
QUOTE. 
JANUARY 25th, 2018, THE NEW 
YORK TIMES REPORTED QUOTE, THE 
PRESIDENT ORDERED McGAHN TO 
HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
FIRE YOU. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND THAT STORY RELATED TO 
THE EVENTS YOU ALREADY 
TESTIFIED ABOUT HERE TODAY. 
THE PRESIDENT'S CALLS TO McGAHN 
TO HAVE YOU REMOVED, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AFTER THE NEWS BROKE, DID 
THE PRESIDENT GO ON TV AND DENY 
THE STORY? 
>> I DO NOT KNOW. 
>> IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT SAID 
QUOTE, FAKE NEWS, FOLKS, A 
TYPICAL NEW YORK TIMES FAKE 
STORY, END QUOTE. 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> BUT YOUR INVESTIGATION 
ACTUALLY FOUND SUBSTANTIAL 
EVIDENCE THAT McGAHN WAS 
ORDERED BY THE PRESIDENT TO 
FIRE YOU, CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> DID THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER 
DO SOMETHING THE FOLLOWING DAY 
IN RESPONSE TO THAT REPORT? 
>> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE 
REPORT. 
>> PAGE 114, QUOTE, ON JANUARY 
26th, 2018, THE PRESIDENT'S 
PERSONAL COUNSEL CALLED 
McGAHN'S ATTORNEY AND SAID THAT 
THE PRESIDENT WANTED McGAHN TO 
PUT OUT A STATEMENT DENYING 
THAT HE HAD BEEN ASKED TO FIRE 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, END QUOTE. 
DID McGAHN DO WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT ASKED? 
>> I REFER YOU TO THE REPORT. 
>> COMMUNICATING THROUGH HIS 
PERSONAL ATTORNEY, McGAHN 
REFUSED BECAUSE HE SAID QUOTE, 
THAT THE TIMES STORY WAS 
ACCURATE IN REPORTING THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WANTED THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL REMOVED. 
ISN'T THAT RIGHT? 
>> I BELIEVE IT IS BUT I WOULD 
REFER YOU TO THE REPORT. 
>> MR. McGAHN THROUGH HIS 
PERSONAL ATTORNEY TOLD THE 
PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS NOT GOING 
TO LIE, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> DID THE PRESIDENT DROP THE 
ISSUE? 
>> REFER TO THE WRITE-UP OF 
THIS IN THE REPORT. 
>> NEXT, THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE 
WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY, 
ROB PORTER, TO TRY AND PRESSURE 
McGAHN TO MAKE A FALSE DENIAL, 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> WHAT DID HE DIRECT PORTER TO 
DO? 
>> I WOULD SEND YOU BACK TO THE 
REPORT. 
>> PAGE 113, IT SAYS QUOTE, THE 
PRESIDENT THEN DIRECTED PORTER 
TO TELL McGAHN TO CREATE A 
RECORD TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT 
THE PRESIDENT NEVER DIRECTED 
McGAHN TO FIRE YOU, END QUOTE. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS AS STATED IN THE 
REPORT. 
>> AND YOU FOUND, QUOTE, THE 
PRESIDENT SAID HE WANTED McGAHN 
TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE FILE 
FOR OUR RECORDS, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND TO BE CLEAR, THE 
PRESIDENT IS ASKING HIS WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL, DON McGAHN, TO 
CREATE A RECORD THAT McGAHN 
BELIEVED TO BE UNTRUE, WHILE 
YOU WERE IN THE MIDST OF 
INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT FOR 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 
CORRECT? 
>> GENERALLY CORRECT. 
>> AND MR. McGAHN WAS AN 
IMPORTANT WITNESS IN THAT 
INVESTIGATION? 
>> YES. 
>> DID THE PRESIDENT TELL MR. 
PORTER TO THREATEN McGAHN IF HE 
DIDN'T CREATE THE REPORT? 
>> I WOULD REFER TO THE REPORT. 
>> PAGE 116, THE PRESIDENT 
SAID, IF HE DOESN'T WRITE A 
LETTER, MAYBE I'LL HAVE TO GET 
RID OF HIM, END QUOTE. 
>> YES. 
>> DID PORTER DELIVER THAT 
THREAT? 
ú>> I AGAIN REFER YOU TO THE 
DISCUSSION FOUND ON PAGE 115. 
>> OKAY. 
BUT THE PRESIDENT STILL DIDN'T 
GIVE UP, DID HE? 
THE PRESIDENT TOLD McGAHN 
DIRECTLY TO DENY THAT THE 
PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HAVE YOU 
FIRED. 
CAN YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT 
HAPPENED? 
>> I CAN'T BEYOND WHAT'S IN THE 
REPORT. 
>> ON PAGE 116, IT SAYS, THE 
PRESIDENT MET HIM IN THE OVAL 
OFFICE. 
QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT BEGAN THE 
OVAL OFFICE MEETING BY TELLING 
McGAHN THAT THE NEW YORK TIMES 
STORY DIDN'T LOOK GOOD AND 
McGAHN NEEDED TO CORRECT IT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT AS IT'S 
WRITTEN IN THE REPORT, YES. 
>> THE PRESIDENT ASKED McGAHN 
WHETHER HE WOULD DO A 
CORRECTION, AND McGAHN SAID NO. 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S ACCURATE. 
>> WELL, MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU 
FOR YOUR INVESTIGATION 
UNCOVERING THIS VERY DISTURBING 
EVIDENCE. 
MY FRIEND, MR. RICHMOND, WILL 
HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON 
THE SUBJECT. 
IT IS CLEAR TO ME IF ANYONE 
ELSE HAD ORDERED A WITNESS TO 
CREATE A FALSE RECORD AND COVER 
UP ACTS SUBJECT OF A LAW 
ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION, THAT 
PERSON WOULD BE FACING CRIMINAL 
CHARGES. 
I YIELD BACK MY TIME. 
 GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
THE CONGRESSMAN FGENTLEMAN FROM.
>> IN THAT INTERVIEW, HE LIED.
YOU POINT THIS OUT ON PAGE 193, 
VOLUME 1, HE DENIED.
HE FALSELY STATED.
IN ADDITION HE OMITTED.
THRE
[ CHANGING CAPTIONERS ]  
>> IN 2016 THE FBI DID 
SOMETHING THEY PROBABLY HAVE 
NOT DONE BEFORE. 
THEY SPIED ON TO AMERICAN 
CITIZENS, ASSOCIATED WITH THE 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. 
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS AND CARTER 
PAGE, WITH CARTER PAGE THEY 
WENT TO THE FISA COURT. 
THEY USE THE NOW FAMOUS DOSSIER 
AS PART OF THE WARRANT AND SPY 
ON CARTER PAGE FOR A BETTER 
PART OF THE YEAR. 
WITH MISTER PAPADOPOULOS, THEY 
DID NOT GO TO THE COURT. 
THEY USED HUMAN SOURCES. 
ALL KINDS, FROM ABOUT THE 
MOMENT PAPADOPOULOS JOINS THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN, YOU GOT ALL 
THESE PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE 
WORLD STARTING TO SWIRL AROUND 
HIM. 
NAMES LIKE HELPER, DOWNER, 
THOMPSON, LONDON, ALL KINDS OF 
PLACES. 
THE FBI EVEN SENT, EVEN SENT A 
LADY POSING AS SOMEBODY ELSE 
WENT BY THE NAME AS RETURNED, 
DISPATCHED HER TO LONDON, TO 
SPY ON ESTHER PAPADOPOULOS. 
IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS, HE IS 
TALKING TO A FOREIGN DIPLOMAT, 
AND HE TELLS THE DIPLOMAT, 
RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT ON CLINTON. 
THAT DIPLOMAT THEN CONTACTS THE 
FBI, AND THE FBI OPENS AN 
INVESTIGATION BASED ON THAT 
FACT. 
HE PUT THIS ON PAGE 1 OF THE 
REPORT. 
JULY 31, 2016, HE OPENED THE 
INVESTIGATION BASED ON THAT 
PIECE OF INFORMATION. 
DIPLOMAT, TELLS PAPADOPOULOS, 
RUSSIANS EXCUSE ME PAPPAS 
PAPADOPOULOS TELLS THEM THEY 
HAVE DIRT ON CLINTON. 
THE FBI, I AM WONDERING WHO 
TELLS PAPADOPOULOS. 
>> I CANNOT GET INTO THE 
EVIDENCE. 
>> YES YOU CAN, YOU WROTE ABOUT 
IT. 
YOU GAVE US THE ANSWER. 
YOU TELL US WHO TOLD HIM. 
JOSEPH NIXON. 
HE IS THE GUY WHO TOLD 
PAPADOPOULOS. 
THE MYSTERIOUS PROFESSOR WHO 
LIVES IN ROME AND LONDON, WORKS 
AND TEACHES AT TWO DIFFERENT 
UNIVERSITIES. 
úTHIS IS THE GUY WHO TOLD 
PAPADOPOULOS. 
HE IS THE GUY WHO STARTS IT 
ALL. 
AND WHEN THE FBI INTERVIEWS HIM,
HE LIES THREE TIMES, AND YET 
YOU DON'T CHARGE HIM WITH A 
CRIME. 
YOU CHARGE RICK GATES FOR FALSE 
STATEMENTS, PAUL MANAFORT FOR 
FALSE STATEMENTS, MICHAEL: WITH 
FALSE STATEMENTS, MICHAEL FLYNN 
WITH FALSE STATEMENTS BUT THE 
GUY WHO PUTS THE COUNTRY 
THROUGH THIS WHOLE SAGA, STARTS 
IT ALL FOR THREE YEARS WE HAVE 
LIVED THIS NOW, HE LIES AND YOU 
GUYS DON'T CHARGE HIM. 
AND I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY. 
>> WELL, I CANNOT GET INTO IT. 
IT IS OBVIOUS IN I THINK WE 
CAN'T GET INTO CHARGING 
DECISIONS. 
>> ON THE FBI INTERVIEWED HIM 
IN FEBRUARY, WHEN THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S OFFICE INTERVIEWED 
NIXON, DID HE LIE TO YOU GUYS 
ALSO? 
>> I CANNOT GET INTO THAT. 
>> IS HE WESTERN INTELLIGENCE 
OR WESTERN RUSSIAN 
INTELLIGENCE? 
>> A LOT OF THINGS YOU CAN'T 
GET INTO. 
>> YOU CAN CHARGE 13 RUSSIANS, 
NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF, NO 
ONE HAS EVER SEEN, NO ONE WILL 
EVER HEAR OF THEM OR SEE OF 
THEM, YOU CAN CHARGE THEM, YOU 
CAN CHARGE ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE 
WHO ARE AROUND THE PRESIDENT 
WITH FALSE STATEMENTS, BUT THE 
GUY WHO WATCHES EVERYTHING, THE 
GUY WHO PUTS THIS WHOLE STORY 
IN MOTION, YOU CAN'T CHARGE 
HIM. 
I THINK THAT IS AMAZING. 
>> I AM NOT CERTAIN I AGREE 
WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATIONS. 
>> I AM READING FROM YOUR 
REPORT. 
HE TOLD PAPADOPOULOS, 
PAPADOPOULOS TOLD THE DIPLOMAT, 
THE DIPLOMAT TELLS THE FBI THE 
FBI OPENS THE INVESTIGATION 
JULY 31, 2016 AND HERE WE ARE, 
THREE YEARS LATER, JULY 2019, 
THE COUNTRY HAS BEEN PUT 
THROUGH THIS IN A CENTRAL 
FIGURE WHO LAUNCHES IT ALL, 
LIES TO US AND YOU GUYS DON'T 
HUNT HIM DOWN AND INTERVIEW HIM 
AGAIN AND YOU DON'T CHARGE HIM 
WITH A CRIME. 
HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS. 
HERE IS THE GOOD NEWS. 
THE PRESIDENT WAS FALSELY 
CONFUSED OF CONSPIRACY. 
THEY DO A 10 MONTH 
INVESTIGATION AND JAMES, WE 
DEPOSED HIM A YEAR AGO HE THEY 
TOLD US WE HAVE NOTHING. 
HE WOULD DO TO -- AT THE END OF 
THE 22 MONTHS YOU FIND NO 
CONSPIRACY AND WHAT IS THE 
DEMOCRATS WANTING TO DO? 
THEY WANT TO KEEP INVESTIGATING.
THEY WANT TO KEEP GOING. 
MAY BE A BETTER COURSE OF 
ACTION, MAYBE A BETTER COURSE 
OF ACTION IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW 
THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS STARTED. 
MAYBE IT IS TO GO BACK AND 
ACTUALLY FIGURE OUT WHY JOSEPH 
NIPSON WAS LYING TO THE FBI AND 
HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS.  
HERE IS THE GOOD NEWS. 
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT BILL BARR 
IS DOING. 
AND THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT. 
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL IS DOING. 
THEY WILL FIND OUT WHY WE WENT 
THROUGH THIS THREE-YEAR. 
FOR YOUR SAGA AND GET TO THE 
GENTLEMAN -- 
>> IN A MOMENT WE WILL TAKE A 
VERY BRIEF FIVE MINUTE BREAK. 
FIRST, I ASK EVERYONE IN THE 
ROOM TO PLEASE REMAIN SEATED 
AND QUIET. 
WHILE THE WITNESS EXITS THE 
ROOM. 
I ALSO WANT TO ANNOUNCE TO 
THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, THAT YOU 
MAY NOT BE GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT 
IF YOU LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM 
AT THIS TIME. 
>> WE HAVE NOW JUST WITNESSED 
OVER AN HOUR OF MEMBERS OF THE 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 
QUESTIONING OR SHOUTING, 
SOMETIMES, MAKING THEIR POINT 
OF VIEWS IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT 
MUELLER TO EXPLAIN MORE OF WHAT 
WAS IN THIS REPORT, MAJOR, YOUR 
TAKE. 
>> THERE ARE TWO CENTRAL 
QUESTIONS AT THE HEART OF ALL 
OF THIS. 
TO THE PRESIDENT CONSPIRE TO 
INFLUENCE AN ELECTION WITH A 
HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER? 
IT IS CLEAR, NO. 
THE MUELLER REPORT IS CLEAR ON 
THAT. 
DID THAT INVESTIGATION INTO 
THAT UNDERLYING QUESTION START 
ON ILLEGITIMATE MEANS, 
REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO USE 
THIS HEARING TO INJECT IF NOT 
EVIDENTIARY PROOF OF THAT, AT 
LEAST SOME DOUBT IN THE PUBLIC 
MINDS. 
DEMOCRATS ARE SPENDING ALL OF 
THEIR TIME GOING METICULOUSLY 
THROUGH THE REPORT, ON THE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGE. 
MUELLER IS BACKING THEM UP ON 
THINGS THEY HAVE READ FROM THE 
REPORT. 
THAT DOESN'T SOLVE THE 
UNDERLYING QUESTION, WHICH IS 
WHAT OUR HOUSE DEMOCRATS GOING 
TO DO, WITH WHAT THEY SAY IS 
CLEAR EVIDENCE OF POSSIBLE 
OBSTRUCTION? 
THERE IS ONLY ONE ANSWER TO 
THAT QUESTION. 
YES, OR NO? 
DO YOU IMPANEL A IMPEACHMENT 
PROCEEDING OR DO YOU NOT? 
AFTER THIS HEARING, THEY MAY 
COME TO MORE CLARITY BUT IN 
TERMS OF REVELATIONS, WHAT WE 
HEARD IS THE REPORT READ OUT 
LOUD. 
THAT IS NOT A REVELATION. 
IT MAY PROVE POLITICALLY 
HELPFUL TO DEMOCRATS, BUT THEY 
ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO MORE IT 
SEEMS TO ME, TO MOVE THEM OFF 
OF THEIR POSITION OF STRUCTURAL 
RELUCTANCE. 
TO GO DOWN THE ROAD OF 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> JONATHAN TURLEY JOINS US AS 
WELL, WE KNEW GOING INTO THIS, 
THAT ROBERT MUELLER WAS A 
RELUCTANT WITNESS. 
HE WAS SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY. 
HE WANTED THE REPORT, TO BE HIS 
STATEMENT. 
HE DID NOT WANT TO TAKE 
QUESTIONS ON THIS. 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ALSO 
WEIGHED IN WITH A LETTER 
PRESCRIBED WHAT HE COULD SAY. 
WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE OF MY 
ROBERT MUELLER'S VERY SHORT 
MONOSYLLABIC ANSWERS, MANY WAYS 
NOT EVEN ELABORATING AT ALL ON 
WHAT IS IN THIS REPORT. 
>> I THINK HE IS STICKING TO 
WHAT WE THOUGHT WOULD HAPPEN. 
HE IS THE RELUCTANT WITNESS. 
SOME OF WHAT HE SAYS, I HAVE TO 
SAY SOMEWHAT CONFUSING. 
HE IS REFUSING TO TALK ABOUT 
THINGS THAT BILL BARR HAS 
ALREADY TALKED ABOUT. 
THINGS THAT ARE NOT PRIVILEGED. 
THINGS LIKE BARR RAISED THIS 
ISSUE OF WHY MUELLER DID NOT 
IDENTIFY RULE 60 INFORMATION OR 
GRAND JURY INFORMATION. 
BARR BASICALLY SAID IT WAS 
MUELLER THAT DELAYED  THE 
RELEASE OF THE REPORT. 
ALL OF THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY 
TESTIFIED TO. 
MUELLER SET I REALLY CANNOT 
SPEAK TO THAT, I DON'T KNOW THE 
LEGAL BASIS FOR THAT. 
BUT, THE DEMOCRATS DID GET SOME 
GOOD STUFF OUT OF MUELLER. 
MUELLER SAID THAT WHEN HE SPOKE 
WITH THE PRESIDENT, AFTER THE 
FIRING OF CALL ME, HE DID NOT 
SPEAK TO HIM ABOUT THE 
POSSIBILITY OF REPLACING COMEY. 
THAT IS A DIRECT CONTRADICTION 
TO JUMP. 
OF COURSE THE HEARING BEGAN  
WITH WHAT MAY BE THE HOME RUN 
HIT FOR THE DEMOCRATS, WHICH IS 
WHEN MUELLER SIMPLY SAID, IT IS 
SIMPLY NOT TRUE WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT HE 
WOULD BE EXONERATED. 
FOR ALL OF THAT, THE 
REPUBLICANS DID SCORE A FEW 
POINTS THEMSELVES. 
AND SOME OF IT THEY ENDED UP 
GETTING SORT OF CAUGHT UP IN 
THEIR OWN GEARS, BUT ONE POINT 
THEY RAISE, IS A SYMBOL OF YOUR 
MANDATE WAS TO EXPLAIN YOUR 
PROSECUTORIAL DECISIONS, OR 
YOUR DECISION NOT TO INDICT AND 
THEY SAID THAT IS A SHALL DUTY. 
YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. 
AND YET YOU SAID, I DON'T HAVE 
ENOUGH INFORMATION TO EXONERATE 
HIM, AND THE REPUBLICAN SCORED 
POINTS TO SAY WHERE DOES THAT 
DUTY COME FROM, WHERE IS THIS 
POLICY THAT YOU CAN SAY WE DID 
FIND EVIDENCE OF A CRIME BUT WE 
DIDN'T EXAMINE EXONERATE HIM. 
PROSECUTORS DON'T SAY THAT. 
AS A GENERAL. 
I THOUGHT ABOUT MUELLER POINTS 
LOOKED A LITTLE BEFUDDLED ON 
THOSE ISSUES. 
I DON'T THINK HE DID AS WELL ON 
THOSE ISSUES. 
>> THIS LAST EXCHANGE WITH 
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JORDAN, 
REPUBLICAN OF OHIO ABOUT JOSEPH 
NIPSON AND THIS PERSON WHO TOLD 
GEORGE ANNAPOLIS ABOUT THIS 
INFORMATION WHICH HE THEN 
CONVEYED  TO A FOREIGN 
DIPLOMAT. 
>> LAMING HE HAD HER ON THE 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN. 
>> RIGHT. 
ROBERT MUELLER WOULD NOT 
DESCRIBE ANY PART OF THEIR 
DECISIONS ABOUT THAT UNDERLYING 
SET OF FACTS.'S RELUCTANCE TO 
ENGAGE ON THAT, WHICH MAY FIT 
WITHIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF HIS 
OFFICE, CREATES AN OPENING FOR 
REPUBLICANS BECAUSE FOR THIS 
PROCESS, FOR REPUBLICANS AND 
THOSE WHO SUPPORT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, ANY SET OF QUESTIONS, OR 
LACK OF ANSWERS THEY GET FROM 
ROBERT MUELLER ON THESE 
UNDERLYING QUESTIONS, OF THE 
FAIRNESS, OR ANY POTENTIAL BIAS 
IN THIS INVESTIGATION, GIVE 
THEM SOMETHING TO HOLD ONTO 
POLITICALLY. 
WHY TO STICK WITH THE PRESIDENT 
WITH EACH THEY HAVE HAD A VERY 
GOOD ... 
>> ARE THOSE ATTEMPTS TO 
DISTRACT FROM WHAT ARE THE 
MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE REPORT? 
WHICH IS THAT THE RUSSIANS 
SYSTEMIC EFFORT TO INFLUENCE 
OUR ELECTIONS  AND 2, THAT 
THERE WERE AT LEAST 10 
INSTANCES OF POTENTIAL 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
HIS OWN STAFF. 
>> THEY WOULD CALL THEM PART OF 
THIS RECORD. 
BUT, THEY DO CREATE THIS OTHER 
SPACE FOR WHICH PEOPLE WHO ARE 
SYMPATHETIC TO THE PRESIDENT 
CAN LAND ON. 
AND AT ANY ENCOUNTER, WHERE LAW 
AND POLITICS ARE INVOLVED, OR 
EVEN IN STRAIGHT LAW, JURIES 
NEED A PLACE TO LAND. 
WHERE DO YOU HELP PLANT THE 
JURY? 
REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO LAND 
REPUBLICAN SYMPATHIZERS TO THE 
PRESIDENT IS PLACED, THERE IS 
SOMETHING FISHY ABOUT HOW ALL 
OF THIS GOT STARTED. 
>> I THINK PART OF THE DYNAMIC 
YEARS EVERYONE IS TRYING TO OUT 
OUTRAGE EVERYONE ELSE TO GET ON 
EVENING NEWS. 
SO THIS IS SORT OF THE THEATER 
OF THE MACABRE. 
>> I NOTICED THAT ALSO. 
>> I ACTUALLY THOUGHT ANOTHER 
SCORE FOR THE DEMOCRATS, WAS 
THAT MUELLER SAID THEY SAID 
LOOK, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT TRUMP 
WAS DOING THESE THINGS, BECAUSE 
YOU WERE INVESTIGATING HIM FOR 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? 
AND MUELLER ANSWERED THAT 
QUESTION, AND SAID YES. 
NOW THAT IS A VERY ... 
>> THAT WAS  ATTORNEY GENERAL 
BARR HAS SAID. 
THEY SAID BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT 
WAS FRUSTRATED. 
>> THAT WENT TO THE HEART THAT 
THERE IS NONCRIMINAL 
MOTIVATIONS HERE, AND SO THIS 
GETS BACK TO MAJORS POINT, 
WHICH IS YOU DO HAVE THIS SORT 
OF TWO SEPARATE HEARINGS GOING 
ON, IF YOU LISTEN ONLY TO THE 
DEMOCRATS OR ONLY TO THE 
REPUBLICANS YOU'D BE SURPRISED 
THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME 
PRESENT SAME REPORT. 
BUT, WITH THE DEMOCRATS YOU ARE 
LEFT WITH THIS ISSUE OF THERE 
IS GOING TO BE LOOK, THIS IS 
POWERFUL EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION
AND YOU SAY OKAY, YOU ARE THE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. 
YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPEACH 
HIM. 
>> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO. 
>> I WANT TO BRING IN PAULA 
REED WHO IS STANDING BY AT THE 
LIGHTHOUSE, AND OF COURSE HAVE 
BEEN COVERING THIS 
INVESTIGATION FROM THE VERY 
BEGINNING. 
DESCRIBE THE NUANCE IN THOSE 
QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION. 
>> Reporter: IT IS ALL ABOUT 
THE QUESTIONS, NORA. 
IF YOU ONLY EXPECT TO GET A 
YES, NO, I REFER YOU TO PAGE 
106, YOU CAN SEE THAT THESE 
LAWMAKERS HAVE CAREFULLY 
CRAFTED THESE QUESTIONS TO TRY 
TO GET ANY FACT THEY WANT TO 
HIGHLIGHT, AND WE SHOULD BE 
CLEAR THAT ON OBSTRUCTION, 
MUELLER DID NOT SAY THAT HE DID 
NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. 
HE WAS CLEAR HE SAID HE CANNOT 
EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT, BUT 
UNDER THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S 
GUIDELINES HE DID NOT FEEL HE 
COULD ACTUALLY CHARGE THE 
PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME, BECAUSE 
HE COULDN'T BE PUT ON TRIAL. 
HE COULDN'T JUST ACCUSE SOMEONE 
OF SOMETHING AND THEN NOT GIVE 
HIM THE OPPORTUNITY AND ANYWAY, 
TO CLEAR HIS NAME IF HE WAS 
INNOCENT. 
AND HE SUGGESTED THAT THE 
PROPER CHANNEL FOR THAT OF 
COURSE WOULD BE CONGRESS, AND 
THAT IS SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATS 
WERE REALLY HAMMERING HIM ON 
AND RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE, THEY 
GOT MUELLER TO CONFIRM THAT IN 
FACT THE PRESIDENT COULD 
POTENTIALLY BE CHARGED WITH 
OBSTRUCTION, CRIMES AFTER HE 
LEAVES OFFICE. 
REPUBLICANS ARE LIKELY 
DISAPPOINTED, THAT MUELLER DOES 
NOT WANT TO REALLY DELVE INTO 
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINS 
OF THE INVESTIGATION, BUT AS 
YOU SAW RIGHT THERE WITH 
REPRESENTATIVE JORDAN, HE WAS 
ABLE TO PACK A LOT IN HIS 
QUESTIONS, EVERY SALACIOUS 
ACCUSATION ABOUT GEORGE 
PAPADOPOULOS, PUT IT ALL IN THE 
QUESTION HE DID NOT EVEN NEED 
MUELLER TO RESPOND. 
HE WAS ABLE TO COMMUNITY HAS 
CONCERNS ABOUT ANY POLITICAL 
MOTIVATIONS AT THE OUTSET OF 
THIS INVESTIGATION IN HIS 
QUESTIONS ALONE. 
>> AND WE NOTICE, PAULA, THAT 
ACCORDING TO A CBS NEWS TOWN, 
THAT ROBERT MUELLER GAVE 41 ONE 
WORD ANSWERS, EITHER A YES OR A 
NO. 
WE KNEW THAT HE WAS NOT GOING 
TO BE VERBOSE, OR LOQUACIOUS. 
DURING THESE PARTICULAR 
HEARINGS, AND WOULD FREQUENTLY 
REFER TO WHAT IS ALREADY IN 
THAT REPORT. 
DID YOU FIND ANYTHING ELSE 
UNUSUAL ABOUT HIS ANSWERS? 
>> Reporter: I WOULD SAY THE 
NIGHT THE YES NO ANSWERS, THAT 
IS JUST GOOD LAWYERING. 
THIS APPEARANCE IS CERTAINLY A 
CONTRAST TO HIS PREVIOUS 
APPEARANCES, BEFORE CONGRESS, 
HE DOES SEEM A LITTLE BIT 
DIFFERENT HERE, A LITTLE UNSURE 
OF HIMSELF, HE FREQUENTLY ASKED 
THEM TO REPEAT QUESTIONS. 
AND HE DID HAVE TROUBLE IN A 
FEW INSTANCES, PROPERLY 
RECALLING NAMES, OR TERMS, OR 
ASPECTS OF HIS REPORT, AND 
INVESTIGATION THAT WE WOULD'VE 
EXPECTED TO COME TO HIM A 
LITTLE BIT SOONER. 
>> OKAY, PAULA REED. 
THERE OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE, 
AND PAULA MENTIONED THIS KEY 
POINT, WHICH I THINK IS WORTH 
DRILLING DOWN ON. 
IT WAS TALKED ABOUT IN THE 
HEARING, IT IS ALSO RIGHT HERE 
WHAT MUELLER SAID ABOUT THE OLC 
OPINION, THE OFFICE OF LEGAL 
COUNSEL. 
ABOUT WHETHER YOU CAN CHARGE 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES WITH OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE. 
AND WHAT MUELLER TRIES TO MAKE 
CLEAR AND ACTUALLY HE SAID THIS 
ON HIS MAY 29 STATEMENT AT THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, IS THAT THE 
OLC OPINIONS AS THE 
CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A PROCESS 
OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
SYSTEM. 
TO FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING 
PRESIDENT OF WRONGDOING. 
WHY HE SAYS? 
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO 
POTENTIALLY ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A 
CRIME WHEN THEY ARE CAN BE NO 
COURT RESOLUTION OF THE ACTUAL 
CHARGE. 
DO YOU UNDERSTAND, SO WHAT HE 
IS SAYING AS IT WOULD'VE BEEN 
COMPLETELY UNFAIR TO SAY HE 
COULD'VE DONE THIS BECAUSE 
THERE IS NO OTHER REMEDY OTHER 
THAN CONGRESS. 
THAT IS THEIR JOB ACCORDING TO 
THE CONSTITUTION. 
FAIR? 
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 
>> I DO NOT AGREE. 
A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WITH THE 
OLC OPINIONS. 
THOSE OPINIONS ARE WELL KNOWN. 
I TESTIFIED ON THAT, IN THE 
CLINTON IMPEACHMENT WHEN ONE OF 
THOSE OPINIONS WAS JUST COMING 
OUT. 
NOTHING IN THE OLC OPINION 
MEMOS SAY ANYTHING ABOUT 
ACCUSING A PRESIDENT. 
THEY SAY YOU CAN INDICT A 
PRESIDENT. 
I THINK THIS WILL BE COMING UP 
IN THIS NEXT ROUND OF QUESTIONS 
I ASSUME BECAUSE THE BIG 
QUESTION FOR MUELLER, THIS IS A 
WEAK POINT. 
IS LOOK, A LOT PEOPLE DISAGREE 
WITH YOU ON THE MEMOS, THAT 
THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE THAT 
SAYS YOU CAN'T ALLEGE A CRIME, 
IT SAYS YOU CAN'T INDICT A 
SITTING PRESIDENT. 
SO THE BIG QUESTION IS, IF YOU 
WEREN'T GOING TO REACH THIS 
CONCLUSION, WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL 
SOMEONE? 
WHY DIDN'T YOU GO TO OLC, THAT 
IS WHAT THEY DO WHEN YOU HAVE A 
QUESTION ABOUT POLICY, YOU GO 
TO OLC AND SAY IS THIS WHAT YOU 
MEANT? 
>> RIGHT BUT ORIGINALLY THIS 
INVESTIGATION, THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL WAS ABOUT IN THE 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. 
IT WASN'T INITIALLY ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR. 
THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR CAME 
ABOUT BECAUSE OF THIS 
INVESTIGATION. 
AND MANY INSTANCES. 
>> IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GETTING 
READY TO RECONVENE. 
WE WILL CONTINUE THE 
CONVERSATION, UNTIL CHAIRMAN 
NADLER RECONVENES THE COMMITTEE 
FORMALLY. 
>> THE UNDERLYING QUESTION FOR 
MUELLER AND HIS TEAM SINCE HE 
IS THE ONLY WITNESS, HE HAS TO 
COME AROUND TO ANSWER THIS. 
IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ALLEGE, 
WHY DID YOU INVESTIGATE? 
HE SAID LOOK YOU SHOULD 
INVESTIGATE BUT REPUBLICANS ARE 
SAYING THAT DOESN'T FIT WITHIN 
THE PARAMETERS OF YOUR MANDATE, 
AND IF YOU WEREN'T GOING TO 
ALLEGE OR INDICT, AND WHY ALL 
OF THIS TIME TO LOOK INTO THE 
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR? 
WELL THERE IS AN ARGUMENT FOR 
THAT BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT'S 
BEHAVIOR IS A LEGITIMATE LACE 
OF INQUIRY. 
AND WHETHER OR NOT IT FITS 
WITHIN OUR LEVEL OF COMFORT, 
FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE THE 
HIGHEST POLITICAL OFFICER IN 
THE LAND HAS SUFFERED FROM 
WHOLE LEGAL DETERMINATION OF 
WHETHER THAT IS INDICTABLE OR 
NOT. 
I THINK HE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO 
SAY THAT. 
>> IN MY CAN I MAKE ONE OTHER 
POINT? 
THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY ONE 
NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, REPORTED 
INSTANCES FOR INSTANCE THAT HE 
HAD DIRECTED DON McGAHN, HIS 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, TO FIRE  
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. 
THOSE WERE PRESS REPORTS AT THE 
TIME. 
THE PRESIDENT DERIDED THOSE AS 
FAKE NEWS AND NOT TRUE. 
IT TURNS OUT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
LYING. 
>> YES. 
NOW THEY HAVE SAID TODAY AND 
THE PRESIDENT HAS THAT I NEVER 
USE THE WORD FIRE. 
AND HE ULTIMATELY WASN'T FIRED. 
PHRASEOLOGY MATTERS, BUT INTENT 
IS CLEAR HERE, THE INTENT OF 
THE PRESIDENT WAS TO TRY TO END 
THIS AND TO GET HIS WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL TO LEAN ON THE DEPUTY 
ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO END OR 
CIRCUMSCRIBE THIS 
INVESTIGATION. 
WHY? 
>> OKAY, QUESTIONING RESUMES. 
>> THINK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. 
MISTER MUELLER, CONGRESSWOMAN 
DEUTCH ADDRESSED TOM'S REQUEST 
TO McGAHN,  TO FIRE YOU. 
REPRESENTATIVE BASS TALKED 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST 
OF McGAHN TO DENY  THE FACT THAT
THE PRESIDENT MADE THAT 
REQUEST. 
I WANT TO PICK UP WHERE THEY 
LEFT OFF AND I WANT TO PICK UP 
WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
PERSONAL LAWYER. 
IN FACT, THERE WAS EVIDENCE 
THAT THE PRESIDENTS PERSONAL 
LAWYER, WAS ALARMED AT THE 
PROSPECT OF THE PRESIDENT 
MEETING WITH MISTER McGAHN  TO 
DISCUSS MISTER McGAHN'S REFUSAL 
TO DENY THE NEW YORK TIMES 
REPORT  ABOUT THE PRESIDENT 
TRYING TO FIRE YOU, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT'S 
COUNSEL, WAS SO ALARMED BY THE 
PROSPECT OF THE PRESIDENTS 
MEETING WITH McGAHN, THAT HE 
CALLED MISTER McGAHN'S COUNSEL 
AND SAID THAT  AGAIN COULD NOT 
RESIGN, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED 
IN THE OVAL OFFICE THAT DAY. 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> IT IS ACCURATE TO SAY THAT 
THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT HE WAS 
ASKING McGAHN  TO DENY FACTS 
THAT McGAHN  HAD REPEATEDLY SAID
WERE ACCURATE, ISN'T THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOUR INVESTIGATION ALSO 
FOUND, QUOTE, BY THE TIME OF 
THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH 
THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDEN 
WAS AWARE ONE, THAT McGAHN DID 
NOT SEE  THE STORY FALSE, AND 
DID NOT WANT TO ISSUE A 
STATEMENT OR CREATE A WRITTEN 
RECORD DENYING FACTS THAT 
McGAHN BELIEVED TO BE TRUE,  
THE PRESIDENT NEVERTHELESS 
PERSISTED AND ASKED McGAHN TO 
REPUDIATE FATS THAT McGAHN HAD 
REPEATEDLY SAID  WERE ACCURATE. 
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 
>> GENERALLY TRUE. 
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS ON PAGE 
119. 
THANK YOU. 
IN OTHER WORDS THE PRESIDENT 
WAS TRYING TO FORCE McGAHN, TO 
SAY SOMETHING THAT McGAHN DID 
NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE.  
>> THAT IS ACCURATE. 
>> I WANT TO REFERENCE YOU TO A 
SLIDE AND IS ON PAGE 120. 
AND IT SAYS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
INDICATES THAT IN REPEATEDLY 
URGING McGAHN,  TO DISPUTE THAT 
HE WAS ORDERED TO HAVE THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL TERMINATED, THE 
PRESIDENT ACTED FOR THE PURPOSE 
OF INFLUENCING McGAHN'S 
ACCOUNT,  AND IN ORDER TO 
DEFLECT OR PREVENT FURTHER 
SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
CONDUCT TOWARDS THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> THAT IS ACCURATE. 
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU 
MEANT THERE? 
>> I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT 
AS IT APPEARS IN THE REPORT. 
>> IT IS FAIR TO SAY THE 
PRESIDENT TRY TO PROTECT 
HIMSELF BY ASKING STAFF TO 
FALSIFY RECORDS RELEVANT TO AN 
ONGOING INVESTIGATION? 
>> I WOULD SAY THAT IS 
GENERALLY THE SUMMARY. 
>> WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT 
ACTION, THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO 
HAMPER THE INVESTIGATION BY 
ASKING STAFF TO FALSIFY RECORDS 
RELEVANT TO YOUR INVESTIGATION 
TO WORK 
>> I WILL HAVE TO REFER YOU TO 
THE REPORT IF I COULD, FOR 
REVIEW OF THAT EPISODE. 
>> THINK YOU. 
>> ALSO THE PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPT 
TO GET McGAHN TO CREATE A FALSE 
WRITTEN RECORD,  WERE RELATED 
TO MISTER TRUMP'S CONCERNS 
ABOUT EUROPE STRUCK OBSTRUCTION 
OF JUSTICE INQUIRY. 
>> IN FACT AT BEST A MOBILE 
OFFICE MEETING TO THE PRESIDENT 
ALSO ASKED McGAHN, WHY HE HAD 
TOLD  QUOTE, WHY HE HAD TOLD 
SPECIAL COUNCILS OFFICE 
INVESTIGATORS, THAT THE 
PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HAVE YOU 
REMOVED. 
>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION, SIR? 
>> LET ME GO TO THE NEXT ONE. 
THE PRESIDENT QUOTE CRITICIZED 
McGAHN, FOR TELLING YOUR OFFICE 
ABOUT THE JUNE 17  2017 EVENTS, 
WHEN HE TOLD McGAHN TO HAVE YOU 
REMOVED. 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT.  
>> IN OTHER WORDS, THE 
PRESIDENT WAS CRITICIZING HIS 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, FOR 
TELLING LAW ENFORCEMENT 
OFFICIALS WHAT HE BELIEVES TO 
BE THE TRUTH. 
>> I AGAIN GO BACK TO THE TEXT 
OF THE REPORT. 
>> LL LET ME GO A LITTLE BIT 
FURTHER. 
WOULD IT HAVE BEEN A CRIME IF 
MISTER McGAHN HAD LIED TO YOU 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT  ORDERING 
HIM TO FIRE YOU? 
>> I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE. 
>> OKAY, IS IT TRUE THAT YOU 
CHARGE MULTIPLE PEOPLE 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENT, 
FOR LYING TO YOU DURING YOUR 
INVESTIGATION? 
>> THAT IS ACCURATE. 
>> THE PRESIDENT ALSO 
COMPLAINED THAT HIS STAFF FOR 
TAKING NOTES DURING THE MEETING 
ABOUT FIRING McGAHN, IS THAT 
CORRECT?  
>> THAT IS WHAT THE REPORT 
SAYS. 
YES, THE REPORT. 
>> BUT IN FACT THIS IS 
COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE FOR THE 
PRESIDENTS STAFF ESPECIALLY HAS 
COUNCILS TO TAKE NOTES DURING A 
MEETING, CORRECT? 
>> I RELY ON THE WORDING OF THE 
REPORT. 
>> WELL, THANK YOU DIRECTOR 
MUELLER FOR YOUR INVESTIGATION 
INTO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT 
ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE 
BY ORDERING HIS WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL DON McGAHN TO LIE TO 
PROTECT THE PRESIDENT AND THEN 
TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD ABOUT 
A.  IT IS CLEAR THAT ANY OTHER 
PERSON, WHO ENGAGED IN SUCH 
CONDUCT WOULD BE CHARGED WITH A 
CRIME. 
WE WILL CONTINUE OUR 
INVESTIGATION AND WE WILL HOLD 
THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE 
BECAUSE NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
>> THINK YOU. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, CAN YOU 
STATE WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THE 
STEEL DOSSIER WAS NOT PART OF 
RUSSIA'S DISINFORMATION 
CAMPAIGN? 
>> KNOW AS I SAID IN MY OPENING 
STATEMENT, THAT PART OF THE 
BUILDING OF THE CASE WAS 
PREDATED BY AT LEAST 10 MONTHS. 
>> PAUL MANAFORT'S ALLEGED 
CRIMES REGARDING TAX EVASION 
PREDATED YOU YOU YOU HAD NO 
TROUBLE CHARGING THEM. 
THE STEEL DOSSIER PREDATED THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HE DIDN'T 
HAVE ANY PROBLEM ANSWERING THE 
QUESTION WHEN SENATOR CORNYN 
ASKED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE 
EXACT QUESTION I ASKED YOU 
DIRECTOR, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
SAID AND I AM QUOTING, NO, I 
CAN'T STATE THAT WITH 
CONFIDENCE. 
THAT IS ONE OF THE AREAS I AM 
REVIEWING. 
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IT, AND I 
DON'T THINK IT IS ENTIRELY 
SPECULATIVE. 
IF SOMETHING IS NOT ENTIRELY 
SPECULATIVE, THEN IT MUST HAVE 
SOME FACTUAL BASIS, BUT YOU 
IDENTIFY NO FACTUAL BASIS, 
REGARDING THE DOSSIER OR THE 
POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS PART OF 
THE RUSSIA DISINFORMATION 
CAMPAIGN. 
NOW CHRISTOPHER STEALS 
REPORTING IS REFERENCD IN YOUR 
REPORT, STEELE REPORTED TO THE 
FBI THAT SENIOR RUSSIAN FOREIGN 
MINISTRY FIGURES ALONG WITH 
OTHER RUSSIANS, TOLD HIM, THAT 
THERE WAS AND I AM QUOTING FROM 
THE STEEL DOSSIER, EXTENSIVE 
EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TEAM AND THE 
KREMLIN. 
HERE'S MY QUESTION. 
DID RUSSIANS REALLY TELL THAT 
TO CHRISTOPHER STEELE? 
OR DID HE JUST MAKE IT ALL UP 
AND WAS HE LYING TO THE FBI? 
>> LET ME BACK UP A SECOND IF I 
COULD, AND SAY AS I SAID 
EARLIER, WITH REGARD TO THE 
STEEL, THAT IS BEYOND MY 
PURVIEW. 
>> KNOW IS IS IT IS EXACTLY HER 
PURVIEW, DIRECTOR MUELLER. 
ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS AS 
POSSIBLE. 
EITHER STEEL MADE THIS WHOLE 
THING UP AND THERE WERE NEVER 
ANY RUSSIANS TELLING HIM OF 
THIS VAST CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY 
THAT YOU DIDN'T FIND OR 
RUSSIANS LIKE TO STEAL. 
NOW IF RUSSIANS WERE LYING TO 
STEEL, TO UNDERMIE OUR 
CONFIDENCE IN OUR DULY ELECTED 
PRESIDENT, THAT WOULD SEEM TO 
BE PRECISELY HER PURVIEW, 
BECAUSE YOU STATED IN YOUR 
OPENING THAT THE ORGANIZING 
PRINCIPLE WAS TO FULLY AND 
THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE RUSSIA'S 
INTERFERENCE, BUT YOU WEREN'T 
INTERESTED IN WHETHER OR NOT 
RUSSIANS ARE INTERVIEWING 
INTERFERING. 
IF HE WAS LYING THEN YOU 
SHOULD'VE CHARGED WITH LYING. 
BUT YOU SAY NOTHING ABOUT THIS 
IN YOUR REPORT. 
>> SIR, MEANWHILE DIRECTOR ARE 
QUITE LOQUACIOUS ON OTHER 
TOPICS. 
YOU WRITE 3500 WORDS ABOUT THE 
JUNE 9 MEETING BETWEEN THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIAN 
LAWYER, EMBEZZLEMENT SKY EYE, 
YOU WRITE ON PAGE 103 OF YOUR 
REPORT, THAT THE PRESIDENTS 
LEGAL TEAM SUGGESTED AND I AM 
QUOTING FROM YOUR REPORT, BUT 
THE MEETING MIGHT HAVE BEEN A 
SET UP. 
BY INDIVIDUALS WORKING WITH THE 
FIRM, THAT PRODUCED THE STEEL 
REPORTING. 
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A VERY 
EASY QUESTION DIRECTOR MUELLER, 
ON THE WEEK OF JUNE 9, WHO DID 
RUSSIAN LAWYER'S GUIDE MEET 
WITH MORE FREQUENTLY? 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR GLENN 
SIMPSON WHO IS FUNCTIONALLY 
ACTING AS AN OPERATIVE FOR THE 
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE? 
>> WHAT I THINK IS MISSING HERE 
IS THE FACT THAT THIS IS UNDER 
INVESTIGATION ELSEWHERE IN THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IF I CAN 
FINISH SIR, AND IF I CAN 
FINISH, SIR. 
CONSEQUENTLY IT IS NOT WITHIN 
MY PURVIEW. 
I AM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND 
FBI SHOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO 
QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR 
ISSUE. 
>> IT IS ABSURD TO SUGGEST THAT 
AN OPERATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATS 
WAS MEETING WITH THIS RUSSIAN 
LAWYER THE DAY BEFORE AND THE 
DAY AFTER THE TRUMP TOWER 
MEETING, AND YET THAT IS NOT 
SOMETHING YOU REFERENCE. 
LYNN SIMPSON TESTIFIED UNDER 
OATH. 
HE HAD DINNER WITH HIM THE DAY 
BEFORE, AND THE DAY AFTER THIS 
MEETING WITH THE TRUMP TEAM, DO 
YOU HAVE ANY BASIS AS YOU SIT 
HERE TODAY TO BELIEVE THAT 
STEELE WAS LYING? 
>> AS I SAID BEFORE AND I WILL 
SAY AGAIN IT IS NOT MY PURVIEW. 
OTHERS ARE INVESTIGATING. 
>> IT IS NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO 
LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT STEELE 
IS LYING, IT IS NOT YOUR 
PURVIEW TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR 
NOT ANTI-TRUMP RUSSIANS ARE 
LYING TO STEEL AND IS NOT YOUR 
PURVIEW TO LOOK AT WHETHER OR 
NOT CLEMSON SINCE WAS MEETING 
WITH THE RUSSIANS THE DAY 
BEFORE AND THE DAY AFTER YOU 
WRITE 3500 WORDS ABOUT THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN MEETING. 
I'M WONDERING, HOW THESE 
DECISIONS ARE GUIDED. 
I LOOK AT THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL'S REPORT I AM SIDING 
FROM PAGE 404 OF THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL'S REPORT, IT STATES 
PAGE STATED TRUMPS NOT EVER 
GOING TO BE PRESIDENT, RIGHT? 
RIGHT. 
STARK REPLIED NO. 
HE IS NOT. 
WE WILL STOP IT. 
ALSO IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S 
REPORT ARE SOMEWHAT IDENTIFIED 
AS ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO, 
ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO, THIS IS 
PAGE 419, REPLIEDNO, AND THEN 
ADDED  THE BELOW RESISTANCE. 
AND ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO IN THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT AND 
STRUCK BOTH WORKED ON YOUR 
TEAM, DIDN'T THEY? 
>> PARDON ME? 
>> THEY BOTH WORKED ON YOUR 
TEAM, DIDN'T THEY? 
>> I HEARD STRUCK AND WHO ELSE? 
>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? 
>> HE WORKED FOR ME FOR A 
PERIOD OF TIME, YES. 
>> SO THAT SO DID THE OTHER 
GUY. 
>> HERE'S WHAT I'M NOTICING 
WITH PEOLE ASSOCIATED WITH 
TRUMP LIE YOU FLEW THE BOOK AT 
THEM. 
IT SEEMS TO BE THAT WHEN 
SIMPSON MET WITH RUSSIANS, 
NOTHING, WHEN THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN MET WITH RUSSIAN 3500 
WORDS AND MAYBE THE REASON WHY 
THEY ARE THESE DISCREPANCIES 
... 
>> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS 
EXPIRED.  
>> MISTER MILLER OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE IS A SERIOUS CRIME THAT 
STRIKES AT THE CORE OF AN 
EFFORT TO FIND THE TRUTH, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE HAS THREE ELEMENTS, 
TRUE? 
>> TRUE. 
>> THE FIRST ELEMENT IS AN 
OBSTRUCTIVE ACT. 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT COULD 
INCLUDE TAKING AN ACTION THAT 
WOULD DELAY OR INTERFERE WITH 
AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION, AS 
SET FORTH IN VOLUME 2 PAGE 87 
AND 88 OF YOUR REPORT, TRUE? 
>> I AM SORRY, COULD YOU AGAIN 
REPEAT THE QUESTION. 
>> AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT COULD 
INCLUDE TAKING AN ACTION THAT 
WOULD DELAY OR INTERFERE WITH 
AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION? 
>> INDUSTRY. 
>> YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND 
EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TOOK STEPS TO TERMINATE THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> MISTER MUELLER DOES ORDERING 
THE TERMINATION OF THE HEAD OF 
A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION 
CONSTITUTES AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT? 
>> THAT WOULD BE ...  
>> LET ME REFER YOU TO PAGE 87 
AND 88 OF VOLUME 2, WHERE YOU 
CONCLUDE THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WOULD 
QUALIFY AND AS AN OBSTRUCTIVE 
ACT IF IT WOULD NATURALLY 
OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION AND 
ANY GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS THAT 
MIGHT FLOW FROM THE INQUIRY, 
CORRECT? 
>> YES, I HAVE A NOW. 
>> THANK YOU THE SECOND ELEMENT 
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS 
THE PRESENCE OF AN OBSTRUCTIVE 
ACT IN CONNECTION WITH AN 
OFFICIAL PROCEEDING, TRUE? 
>> TRUE. 
>> TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
POTENTIAL WRONGDOING OF DONALD 
TRUMP, CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL 
PROCEEDING? 
>> THAT IS AN AREA WHICH I 
CANNOT GET INTO. 
>> OKAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
TWEETED, ON JUNE 16, 2017, 
QUOTE, I AM BEING INVESTIGATED 
FOR FIRING THE FBI DIRECTOR, BY 
THE MAN WHO TOLD ME TO FIRE THE 
FBI DIRECTOR. 
WITCHHUNT. 
THE JUNE 16 TWEET, JUST READ, 
WAS CITED ON PAGE 89 IN VOLUME 
2, CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY PRESIDENT 
TRUMP THAT HE WAS UNDER 
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, CORRECT?
>> I THINK GENERALLY CORRECT. 
>> ONE DAY LATER, ON SATURDAY, 
JUNE 17, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, DON BEGAN 
AT HOME, AND DIRECTED HIM TO 
FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, TRUE? 
>> I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE. 
I THINK I MAY HAVE STATED IN 
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS, SOME. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TALL TOLD DON 
McGAHN, QUOTE, MUELLER HAS TO 
GO. 
". CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOUR REPORT FOUND ON PAGE 
89, VOLUME 2, THAT SUBSTANTIAL 
EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT BY JUNE 
17, THE PRESIDENT KNEW HIS 
CONDUCT WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION 
BY FEDERAL PROSECUTOR WHO COULD 
PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF FEDERAL 
CRIMES TO THE GRAND JURY, TRUE? 
>> TRUE. 
>> THE THIRD ELEMENT, SECOND 
ELEMENT HAVING JUST BEEN 
SATISFIED, THE THIRD ELEMENT OF 
THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE IS CORRUPT, TRUE? 
>> 
>> CREPT INTO EXISTENCE THE 
PRESENT ACTED TO OBSTRUCT AN 
OFFICIAL PROCEEDING OR THE 
IMPROPER PURPOSE OF PROTECTING 
HIS OWN INTEREST, CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS GENERALLY CORRECT. 
>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY 
IS WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE 
THREE ELEMENTS OF THE PROOF OF 
THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
CHARGES. 
WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, 
WE GOT EXCUSE ME JUST ONE 
SECOND. 
>> THANK YOU MISTER MUELLER, 
LET ME MOVE ON IN THE INTEREST 
OF TIME. 
UPON LEARNING ABOUT THE 
APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL YOUR INVESTIGATION 
FOUND THAT DONALD TRUMP STATED 
TO THE BENN ATTORNEY GENERAL 
QUOTE OH MY GOD, THIS IS 
TERRIBLE. 
THIS IS THE END OF MY 
PRESIDENCY, IMF. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT HE 
VIEWED THE CONDUCT AS ADVERSE 
TO HIS OWN INTEREST? 
>> I THINK THAT GENERALLY IS 
TRUE. 
>> THE INVESTIGATION FOUND 
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
KNEW THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE 
DIRECT TO DON McGAHN TO FIRE 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? 
>>  WHERE DO YOU HAVE THAT 
QUOTE? 
>> PAGE 90, VOLUME 2. THERE IS 
EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT 
KNEW HE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE 
THOSE CALLS TO McGAHN ". 
>> I SEE THAT, YES THAT IS 
ACCURATE. 
>> THE INVESTIGATION ALSO FOUND 
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY 
URGED McGAHN TO DISPUTE THAT HE 
WAS ORDERED TO HAVE THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL TERMINATED. 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT.  
AT THE INVESTIGATION FOUND 
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WHEN 
THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON 
McGAHN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT, 
DONALD TRUMP  1 COMMITTED AN 
OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, 2 CONNECTED TO 
AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING 3, DID 
SO WITH CORRUPT INTENT. 
THOSE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA. 
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
NO ONE. 
THE PRESIDENT MUST BE HELD 
ACCOUNTABLE ONE WAY OR THE 
OTHER. 
>> LET ME JUST SAY IF I MIGHT, 
I DON'T SUBSCRIBE NECESSARILY 
TO THE WAY YOU ANALYZE THAT. 
I AM NOT SAYING IT IS OUT OF 
THE BALLPARK BUT I AM NOT 
SUPPORTIVE OF THAT ANALYTICAL 
CHARGE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. 
MISTER MUELLER OVER HERE. 
>> I WANT TO START BY THANKING 
YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
YOU JOINED THE MARINES AND LED 
A RIFLE PLATOON IN VIETNAM 
WHERE YOU EARNED A BRONZE STAR 
PURPLE HEART AND OTHER 
ACCOMMODATIONS. 
TO SERVE AS AN ASSISTANT UNITED 
STATES LEADING THE HOMICIDE 
UNIT IN DC. 
U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT 
OF MASSACHUSETTS AND LATER 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 
CALIFORNIA. 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR 
DOJ'S CRIMINAL DIVISION AND THE 
FBI DIRECTOR. 
SO, THANK YOU. 
I APPRECIATE THAT. 
HAVING REVIEWED YOUR BIOGRAPHY, 
IT PUZZLES ME WHY YOU HANDLED 
YOUR DUTIES IN THIS CASE THE 
WAY YOU DID. 
THE REPORT CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU 
TAUGHT YOUNG ATTORNEYS, AT THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INCLUDING 
TO ENSURE THAT EVERY DEFENDANT 
IS TREATED FAIRLY OR IS JUST AS 
SUTHERLAND SAID IN THE BERGER 
CASE, A PROSECUTOR IS NOT THE 
REPRESENTATIVE OF AN ORDINARY 
PARTY TO A CONTROVERSY, BUT OF 
A SOVEREIGNTY, WHOSE INTEREST 
IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS 
NOT THAT IT SHALL WHEN A CASE 
BUT THE JUSTICE SHALL BE DONE 
AND THAT THE PROSECUTOR MAY 
STRIKE HARD BLOWS BUT HE IS NOT 
AT LIBERTY TO STRIKE FOUL ONES. 
BY LISTING THE 10 FACTUAL 
SITUATIONS AND NOT REACHING A 
CONCLUSION, ABOUT THE MERITS OF 
THE CASE, YOU UNFAIRLY SHIFTED 
THE BURDEN TO THE PRESENT. 
FORCING HIM TO PROVE HIS 
INNOCENCE WHILE DENYING HIM A 
LEGAL FORUM TO DO SO. 
I'VE NEVER HEARD OF A PROSECUTOR
DECLINING A CASE, AND THEN 
HOLDING A PRESS CONFERENCE TO 
TALK ABOUT THE DEFENDANT. 
YOU NOTED EIGHT TIMES IN YOUR 
REPORT THAT YOU HAD A LEGAL 
DUTY UNDER THE REGULATIONS TO 
EITHER PROSECUTE OR DECLINE 
CHARGES. 
DESPITE THIS, YOU DISREGARDED 
THAT DUTY. 
AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, I AM 
ALSO TROUBLED WITH YOUR LEGAL 
ANALYSIS. 
YOU DISCUSS 10 SEPARATE FACTUAL 
PATTERNS INVOLVING ALLEGED 
OBSTRUCTION, AND THEN YOU 
FAILED TO SEPARATELY APPLY THE 
ELEMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE 
STATUTES. 
I LOOKED AT THE 10 FACTUAL 
SITUATIONS AND I READ THE CASE 
LAW. 
I HAVE TO TELL YOU, JUST 
LOOKING AT THE FLYNN MATTER FOR 
EXAMPLE, THE FOUR STATUTES THAT 
YOU CITED FOR A POSSIBLE 
OBSTRUCTION, 1503, 1505, 1512 
B3 AND 1512 C2, WHEN I LOOK AT 
THOSE CONCERNING THE FLYNN 
MATTER, 1503 IS AN APPLICABLE 
BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A GRAND 
JURY OR TRIAL JURY AND PANELED 
AND DIRECTOR COMEY WAS NOT AN 
OFFICER OF COURT AS DEFINED BY 
THE STATUTE. 
SECTION 1505, CRIMINALIZES ACTS 
THAT WOULD OBSTRUCT OR IMPEDE 
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS  AND 
THOSE BEFORE CONGRESS AND 
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL 
RESOURCE, THE FBI INVESTIGATION 
IS NOT A PENDING PROCEEDING. 
1512 B3 TALKS ABOUT 
INTIMIDATION THREATS OF FORCE, 
TO TAMPER WITH A WITNESS, 
GENERAL FLYNN AT THE TIME WAS 
NOT A WITNESS AND CERTAINLY 
DIRECTOR COMEY WAS NOT A 
WITNESS.  
AND 1512 SEE, TALKS ABOUT 
TAMPERING WITH THE RECORD AS 
JOE BIDEN DESCRIBED THE STATUTE 
AS BEING DEBATED ON THE SENATE 
FLOOR, HE CALLED THIS A STATUTE 
CRIMINALIZING DOCUMENT SHREDDING
AND THERE IS NOTHING IN YOUR 
REPORT THAT ALLEGES THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DESTROYED ANY 
EVIDENCE. 
SO, WHAT I HAVE TO ASK YOU AND 
WHAT I THINK PEOPLE ARE WORKING 
AROUND IN THIS HEARING, IS LET 
ME LAY A LITTLE FOUNDATION FOR 
IT, THE ETHICAL RULES REQUIRE 
THAT A PROSECUTOR HAVE A 
REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF 
CONVICTION TO BRING A CHARGE, 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> SOUNDS GENERALLY ACCURATE. 
>> OKAY. 
AND THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING 
YOUR JOB, AS SPECIAL COUNSEL 
STATE THAT YOUR JOB IS TO 
PROVIDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
WITH A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT 
EXPLAINING THE PROSECUTION OR 
DECLINATION DECISIONS REACHED 
BY YOUR OFFICE. 
YOU RECOMMENDED THE PROSECUTION 
OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ANYONE 
ASSOCIATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN 
BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT 
EVIDENCE TO CONVICT FOR A 
CHARGE OF HERESY WITH RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION. 
IS THAT FAIR? 
>> THAT IS FAIR. 
>> WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
TO CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR 
ANYONE ELSE WITH OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE? 
>> WE DID NOT MAKE THAT 
CALCULATION. 
>> HOW COULD YOU NOT HAVE MADE 
THE CALCULATION WITH THE 
REGULATION? 
>> THE OLC OPINION OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL INDICATES THAT WE 
CANNOT INDICT A CITY PRESIDENTS.
SITTING PRESENT ONE OF THE 
TOOLS IS NOT THERE. 
>> OKAY, BUT LET ME JUST STOP. 
YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THE 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. 
YOU COULDN'T HAVE INDICTED THE 
PRESIDENT ON THAT AND YOU MADE 
THE DECISION ON THAT. 
BUT WHEN IT CAME TO 
OBSTRUCTION, YOU THROUGH A 
BUNCH OF STUFF UP AGAINST THE 
WALL TO SEE WHAT WOULD STICK. 
AND THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY 
UNFAIR. 
>> I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION AT ALL. 
WHAT WE DID IS PROVIDE TO THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE FORM OF 
A CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM, OUR 
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CASE. 
THOSE CASES THAT WERE BROUGHT, 
THOSE CASES THAT WERE DECLINED, 
AND FOUND ONE CASE WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT BE CHARGED 
WITH A CRIME. 
>> OKAY. 
BUT COULD YOU CHARGE THE 
PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME AFTER HE 
LEFT OFFICE? 
>> YES. 
>> YOU BELIEVE THAT HE 
COMMITTED, YOU COULD CHARGE THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE? 
>> YES. 
>> ETHICALLY UNDER THE ETHICAL 
STANDARDS? 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE I 
HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE ETHICAL 
STANDARDS BUT OLC OPINION SAYS 
THE PROSECUTOR, CANNOT BRING A 
CHARGE AGAINST THE SITTING 
PRESIDENT, NONETHELESS IT CAN 
CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION TO 
SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER 
PERSONS WHO MIGHT BE DRAWN INTO 
THE CONSPIRACY. 
>> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS 
EXPIRED. 
THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE 
ISLAND. 
>> DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR AS YOU 
KNOW WE ARE SPECIFICALLY 
FOCUSING ON FIVE SEPARATE 
OBSTRUCTION EPISODES. 
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT 
THE THIRD EPISODE. 
THE SECTION OF YOUR REPORT 
ENTITLED THE PRESIDENT'S 
EFFORTS TO CURTAIL THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL INVESTIGATION BEGINNING 
AT PAGE 90. 
BY CURTAIL, YOU MEAN LIMIT, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> MY COLLEAGUES HAVE WALKED 
AND TRY TO FIRE TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL AND BECAUSE 
MISTER McGAHN REFUSE THE ORDER 
THE PRESIDENT ASK OTHERS TO 
HELP LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION, 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>>  WAS COREY LEWANDOWSKI ONE 
INDIVIDUAL? 
>> AGAIN CAN YOU REMIND ME? 
>> COREY LEWANDOWSKI IS THE 
PRESIDENT'S FORMER CAMPAIGN 
MANAGER, CORRECT? 
>> DID HE HAVE ANY OFFICIAL 
POSITION OF THE TRUMPET 
MINISTRATION? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
>> YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES AN 
INCIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE 
INVOLVING MISTER LEWANDOWSKI ON 
JUNE 19, 2017, AT VOLUME 2 PAGE 
91, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I AM SORRY, WHAT IS THE 
CITATION? 
>> PAGE 91. 
>> OF THE SECOND VOLUME? 
>> YES. 
>> A MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE 
BETWEEN MISTER LEWANDOWSKI IN 
THE PRESENT. 
>> THAT WAS JUST TWO DAYS AFTER 
THE PRESIDENT CALLED ON HIM 
AGAIN AT HOME AND ORDERED HIM 
TO FIRE YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> APPARENTLY SO. 
>> RIGHT AFTER HIS WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL MISTER McGAHN  REFUSE 
TO FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER 
TO FIRE YOU, THE PRESIDENT CAME 
UP WITH A NEW PLAN. 
I WAS TO GO AROUND ALL OF HIS 
SENIOR ADVISORS AND GOVERNMENT 
AIDS TO HAVE A PRIVATE CITIZEN 
TRY TO LIMIT YOUR 
INVESTIGATION. 
WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT TELL 
MISTER LEWANDOWSKI TO DO? 
DO YOU RECALL HE TOLD HIM HE 
DICTATED A MESSAGE TO MISTER 
LEWANDOWSKI FOR SESSIONS AND 
ASKED HIM TO WRITE IT DOWN. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> DID YOU AND YOUR TEAM SEE 
THIS HANDWRITTEN MESSAGE? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO 
WHICH WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE 
INCLUDED INTO OUR 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> THE MESSAGE DIRECTED 
SESSIONS TO GIVE AND I AM 
QUOTING FROM YOUR REPORT, TO 
GIVE A PUBLIC SPEECH SAYING 
THAT HE PLANNED TO MEET WITH 
THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO 
EXPLAIN THIS IS VERY UNFAIR AND 
LET THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MOVE 
FORWARD WITH THE INVESTIGATING 
ELECTION MEDDLING FOR FUTURE 
ELECTIONS. 
THAT IS AT PAGE 91, IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
THANK YOU. 
YES IT IS. 
>> IN OTHER WORDS MISTER 
LEWANDOWSKI A PRIVATE CITIZEN 
WAS INSTRUCTED BY THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES TO DELIVER 
A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT 
DIRECTED HIM TO LIMIT YOUR 
INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT AT THIS TIME MISTER 
SESSIONS WAS STILL RECUSED FROM 
OVERSIGHT OF YOUR 
INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? 
>> I'M SORRY. 
>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS 
RECUSED? 
>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
WOULD'VE HAD TO VIOLATE HIS OWN 
DEPARTMENT'S RULES IN ORDER TO 
COMPLY WITH THE PRESIDENT'S 
ORDER, CORRECT? 
>> I WILL NOT GET INTO THE 
DETAILS. 
I JUST REFER YOU AGAIN, TO PAGE 
91 AND 92 OF THE REPORT. 
>> IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD 
FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE 
PRESIDENT REQUEST, IT WOULD 
HAVE EFFECTIVELY ENDED YOUR 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN AS 
YOU KNOW ON PAGE 97, CORRECT? 
>> COULD YOU? 
>> YOU WROTE TAKEN TOGETHER THE 
PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVES 
INDICATES THAT SESSIONS WAS 
BEING INSTRUCTED TO TELL THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL TO END THE 
EXISTING INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
RESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN, 
WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL BEING 
PERMITTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH 
INVESTIGATING ELECTION MEDDLING 
FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> GENERALLY TRUE, YES OR. 
>> IT IS AN UNSUCCESSFUL 
ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IS 
STILL A CRIME, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> MISTER LEWANDOWSKI TRY TO BE 
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IS 
THAT RIGHT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> HE TRIED TO MEET WITH THEM 
IN HIS OFFICE SO HE WOULD BE 
CERTAIN THERE WASN'T A PUBLIC 
LOG OF THE VISIT. 
>> ACCORDING TO WHAT WE 
GATHERED FOR THE REPORT. 
>> THE MEETING NEVER HAPPENED 
AND THE PRESIDENT RAISE THE 
ISSUE AGAIN WITH MISTER 
LEWANDOWSKI AND THIS TIME HE 
SAID, IF SESSIONS DOES NOT MEET 
WITH YOU, LEWANDOWSKI SHOULD 
TELL SESSIONS HE WAS FIRED. 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> SO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE 
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, 
LEWANDOWSKI THEN ASKED MISTER 
DEARBORN TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE 
WHO WAS THE FORMER CHIEF OF 
STAFF, TO MISTER SESSIONS AND 
MISTER DEARBORN REFUSES TO 
DELIVER BECAUSE HE DOESN'T FEEL 
COMFORTABLE, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> GENERALLY CORRECT, YES. 
>> JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR, TWO 
DAYS AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL, DON McGAHN, REFUSED TO 
CARRY OUT THE PRESENT  ORDER TO 
FIRE YOU, THE PRESIDENT 
DIRECTED A SET PRIVATE CITIZEN 
TO TELL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 
THE UNITED DATES WAS RECUSED AT 
THE TIME TO LIMIT YOUR 
INVESTIGATION, TO FUTURE 
ELECTIONS EFFECTIVELY ENDING 
YOUR INVESTIGATION, INTO THE 
2016 TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I WILL NOT DOCTOR 
CHARACTERIZATION. 
I WILL SAY THAT IS LAID OUT IN 
THE REPORT AND IS ACCURATE. 
>> YOU IN FACT WRITE A PAGE 99, 
THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL 
EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT THE 
PRESIDENTS EFFORT TO HAVE 
SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION 
TO FUTURE ELECTIONS 
INTERFERENCE, WAS INTENDED TO 
PREVENT FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE 
SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT, AND 
HIS CAMPAIGN CONDUCT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> GENERALLY. 
>> ESTHER MUELLER, YOU HAVE 
SEEN A LETTER, WHERE 1000 
PROSECUTORS HAVE READ YOUR 
REPORT, AND SAID ANYONE BUT THE 
PRESIDENT WHO COMMITTED THOSE 
ACTS WILL BE CHARGED WITH 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
DO YOU AGREE WITH THOSE FORMER 
COLLEAGUES, 1000 PROSECUTORS 
THAT CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION? 
>> THOSE PROSECUTORS TEND TO 
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. 
MISTER MUELLER. 
YOUR TEAM WROTE IN THE REPORT, 
THIS IS THE TOP OF PAGE 2, 
VOLUME 1, ALSO ON PAGE 173 BY 
THE WAY. 
YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD COME TO 
THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 
INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH 
THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR 
COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT AND ITS ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. 
THAT IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT, 
RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS ACCURATE. 
>> I'M CURIOUS, WHEN DID YOU 
PERSONALLY COME TO THAT 
CONCLUSION? 
>> CAN YOU REMIND ME, WHICH 
PARAGRAPH YOU ARE REFERRING TO? 
>> TOP OF PAGE 2. VOLUME 1. 
>> OKAY. 
AND EXACTLY WHICH PARAGRAPH ARE 
YOU LOOKING AT? 
>> INVESTIGATION DID NOT 
ESTABLISH. 
>> OF COURSE, I SEE. 
WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? 
>> MY QUESTION IS WHEN DID YOU 
PERSONALLY REACH THAT 
CONCLUSION? 
>> WELL, WE WERE ONGOING FOR 
TWO YEARS. 
>> YOU ARE ONGOING AND HE WROTE 
AT SOME POINT DURING THE TWO-
YEAR PERIOD BUT AT SOME POINT 
YOU HAVE TO COME TO CONCLUSION 
THAT I DON'T THINK THERE IS, 
THERE IS NOT A CONSPIRAY GOING 
ON HERE. 
THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN 
THIS PRESIDENT AND I'M NOT 
TALKING ABOUT THE REST OF THE 
PRESIDENCY. 
I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS 
PRESIDENT AND THE RUSSIANS. 
>> AS YOU UNDERSTAND, AND 
DEVELOPING A CRIMINAL CASE, YOU 
GET PIECES OF INFORMATION, 
PIECES OF INFORMATION, 
WITNESSES AND AS YOU MAKE YOUR 
CASE. 
>>) 
>> WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION ON 
THAT PARTICULAR CASE, IT 
DEPENDS ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS. 
>> RED. 
I UNDERSTAND. 
>> I CANNOT SAY SPECIFICALLY 
THAT WE REACHED A DECISION ON A 
PARTICULAR DEFENDANT AT A 
PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. 
>> IT WAS SOMETIME WELL BEFORE 
YOU WROTE THE REPORT, FAIR 
ENOUGH? 
>> YOU WROTE THE REPORT DEALING 
WITH A WHOLE MYRIAD OF ISSUES, 
CERTAINLY SOMETIME PRIOR TO 
THAT REPORT IS WHEN YOU REACH 
THE DECISION THAT OKAY, WITH 
REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT 
HIMSELF, I DON'T FIND ANYTHING 
HERE. 
>> FAIR ENOUGH. 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN I AGREE WITH 
THAT. 
>> YOU WAITED UNTIL THE LAST 
MINUTE. 
>> NO, THERE ARE VARIOUS 
ASPECTS OF A DEVELOPMENT. 
>> SURE. 
THAT IS MY POINT. 
THERE ARE VARIOUS ASPECTS THAT 
HAPPEN, BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE 
PIKE, YOU COME TO A CONCLUSION, 
THERE IS NO THERE THERE FOR 
THIS DEFENDANT. 
IS ABOUT RIGHT? 
>> I CAN'T SPEAK ON THAT. 
>> YOU CANNOT THEY WIN, FAIR 
ENOUGH. 
>> SO I AM ASKING THE SWORN 
WITNESS. 
MISTER MUELLER, EVIDENCE 
SUGGESTS THAT ON MAY 10, 2017 
APPROXIMATE 7:45 AM SIX DAYS 
BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, 
MISTER ROSENSTEIN CALLED YOU 
AND MENTIONED THE APPOINTMENT 
OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL. 
NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU WOULD 
BE APPOINTED, BUT THAT YOU HAD 
A DISCUSSION ABOUT. 
IS THAT TRUE? 
MAY 10, 2017. 
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE 
OF THAT OCCURRING. 
>> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE 
OR YOU DON'T RECALL? 
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE. 
>> EVIDENCE ALSO SUGGESTS ... 
>>  ARE YOU QUESTIONING THAT? 
>> WELL, I JUST FIND IT 
INTRIGUING. 
LET ME JUST TELL YOU THAT THERE 
IS EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT 
PHONE CALL TOOK PLACE AND THAT 
IS WHAT WAS SAID. 
WITH YOU TO THE NEXT QUESTION. 
EVIDENCE JESS ON MAY 12, 2017, 
FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE APPOINTED 
SPECIAL COUNSEL, HE MET WITH 
MISTER ROSENSTEIN IN PERSON. 
DID YOU DISCUSS THE APPOINTED A 
SPECIAL COUNSEL THEN? 
NOT NECESSARILY USED BUT THAT 
THERE WOULD BE A SPECIAL 
COUNSEL? 
>> I HAVE GONE INTO WATERS, I 
DON'T BUT DOESN'T ALLOW ME TO 
GIVE YOU AN ANSWER TO THAT 
PARTICULAR QUESTION THAT 
RELATES TO THE INTERNAL 
DISCUSSION HE WOULD HAVE IN 
TERMS OF INDICTING AN 
INDIVIDUAL. 
>> IT HAS TO DO WITH SPECIAL 
COUNSEL, AND WHETHER YOU 
DISCUSS THAT WITH MISTER 
ROSENSTEIN. 
EVIDENCE ALSO SUGGESTS ON MAY 
13 FOUR DAYS BEFORE YOUR 
APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, HE 
MET WITH ATTORNEY FORMER 
ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS AND 
ROSENSTEIN AND YOU SPOKE ABOUT 
SPECIAL COUNSEL, DO YOU KNOW 
THAT? 
>> NO. 
>> OKAY, ON MAY 16, THE DAY 
BEFORE YOUR APPOINTED SPECIAL 
COUNSEL, YOU MET WITH THE 
PRESIDENT AND ROSENSTEIN, DO 
YOU EVER HAVING THAT MEETING? 
>> YES. 
>> AND A DISCUSSION OF THE 
POSITION OF THE FBI DIRECTOR 
TOOK PLACE, DO YOU EVER THAT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND DID YOU DISCUSS AT ANY 
TIME IN THAT MEETING, MISTER 
COMEY'S TERMINATION? 
>> NOTE  NO. 
>> DID YOU DISCUSS THE EVENTUAL 
POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF 
COUNSEL, JUST IN GENERAL TERMS? 
>> I CANNOT GET INTO THE 
DISCUSSIONS ON THAT. 
>> COMEDY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK 
TO MISTER ROSENSTEIN BEFORE MAY 
17 WHICH WAS THE DAY YOU GOT 
APPOINTED REGARDING THE 
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, 
HOW MAY TIMES PRIOR TO THAT DID 
YOU DISCUSS THAT YOU MARK 
>> I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW MANY 
TIMES. 
>> IS THAT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT 
RECALL? 
>> I DO NOT RECALL. 
>> HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK 
WITH MISTER COMEY  PRIOR TO MAY 
17, 2017? 
>> ZERO. 
>> ZERO? 
OKAY. 
NOW MY TIME IS EXPIRED. 
>> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS 
EXPIRED. 
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, GOING BACK 
TO THE PRESIDENTS OBSTRUCTION, 
VIA COREY LEWANDOWSKI, IT WAS 
REFERENCED THAT 1000 FORMER 
PROSECUTORS WHO SERVED UNDER 
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC 
ADMINISTRATIONS WITH 12,000 
YEARS OF FEDERAL SERVICE, WROTE 
A LETTER REGARDING THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT, ARE YOU 
FAMILIAR WITH THAT LETTER? 
>> I HAVE READ ABOUT THAT 
LETTER, YES. 
THE NEXT OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO 
SIGNED THAT LETTER, THE 
STATEMENT OF FORMER 
PROSECUTORS, ARE PEOPLE YOU 
WORKED WITH, IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> QUITE PROBABLY, YES. 
>> PEOPLE THAT YOU RESPECT? 
>> QUITE PROBABLY, YES. 
>> THEY SAID ALL OF THIS 
CONDUCT, TRYING TO CONTROL AND 
IMPEDE THE INVESTIGATION 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT BY 
LEVERAGING HIS AUTHORITY OVER 
OTHERS, IS SIMILAR TO CONDUCT 
WE HAVE SEEN CHARGED AGAINST 
OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AND 
PEOPLE IN POWERFUL POSITIONS. 
ARE THEY WRONG? 
>> THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT CASE. 
>> DO YOU WANT TO SIGN THAT 
LETTER DIRECTOR MUELLER? 
>> THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT CASE. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU 
FOR YOUR SERVICE, GOING ALL THE 
WAY BACK TO THE 60s WHEN YOU 
COURAGEOUSLY SERVED IN VIETNAM, 
BECAUSE I HAVE A C ON THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE I WILL 
HAVE QUESTIONS LATER, AND 
BECAUSE OF OUR LIMITED TIME, I 
WILL ASK TO ENTER THIS LETTER 
INTO THE RECORD, UNDER 
UNANIMOUS CONSENT. 
>> THINK YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER 
FOR YOUR LONG HISTORY OF 
SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, 
INCLUDING YOUR SERVICE AS A 
MARINE YOU EARNED A BRONZE 
STAR. I 
WOULD LIKE NOW TO TURN TO THE 
ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE AS APPLIED TO THE 
PRESIDENTS ATTEMPTS TO CURTAIL 
YOUR INVESTIGATION. 
THE FIRST ELEMENT OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE REQUIRES 
AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT. 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOU 
TO PAGE 97 OF VOLUME 2 OF YOUR 
REPORT. 
AND YOU WROTE THERE, ON PAGE 97,
QUOTE, SESSIONS WAS BEING 
INSTRUCTED TO TELL THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL TO INDIAN 16 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN". 
THAT IS IN THE REPORT, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF AN 
OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, BECAUSE IT 
WOULD NATURALLY OBSTRUCT THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> LET'S TURN NOW TO THE SECOND 
ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHICH 
úREQUIRES A NEXUS TO OFFICIAL 
PROCEEDING, I WILL DIRECT YOU 
TO PAGE 97, THE SAME PAGE, OF 
VOLUME 2. YOU WROTE, QUOTE, BY 
THE TIME THE PRESIDENTS INITIAL 
101 MEETING WITH LEWANDOWSKI ON 
JUNE 19, 2017, THE EXISTENCE OF 
A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION 
SUPERVISED BY THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL WAS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. 
THAT IS IN THE REPORT, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE 
EVIDENCE OF A NEXUS PROCEEDING, 
BECAUSE A GRAND JURY 
INVESTIGATION IS AN OFFICIAL 
PROCEEDING, CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN TO 
THE FINAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME 
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ON 
THAT SAME PAGE, PAGE 97, DO YOU 
SEE WHERE THERE IS THE INTENT 
SECTION ON THAT PAGE? 
>> I DO. 
>> WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO READ 
THE FIRST SENTENCE? 
>> STARTING WITH SUBSTANTIAL 
EVIDENCE, INDICATES THAT THE 
PRESIDENTS. 
>> YES, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO 
READ THE FIRST SENTENCE? 
>> I AM HAPPY TO HAVE YOU READ. 
>> YOU WROTE QUOTE, SUBSTANTIAL 
EVIDENCE. 
IT INDICATES THE PRESENCE 
EFFORTS TO HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT 
THE SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION, TO THE 
FUTURE ELECTION INTERFERENCE 
WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT FURTHER 
INVESTIGATIVE SCRUTINY OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN'S 
CONDUCT. THAT IS IN THE REPORT. 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS IN THE REPORT AND I 
RELY WHAT IS IN THE REPORT TO 
INDICATE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN 
THE PARAGRAPHS WE HAVE BEEN 
DISCUSSING. 
>> THANK YOU. 
TO RECAP WHAT WE HAVE HEARD, WE 
HAVE HEARD TODAY, THAT THE 
PRESIDENT ORDERED FORMER WHITE 
HOUSE COUNSEL, DON BEGAN TO 
FIRE YOU. 
THE PRESIDENT ORDERED McGAHN TO 
COVER THAT UP AND CREATE A 
FALSE PAPER TRAIL, AND NOW WE 
HAVE HEARD THE  PRESIDENT 
ORDERED CORDER LEWIN -- COREY 
LEWANDOWSKI TO LIMIT YOUR 
INVESTIGATION, SO THAT HE, YOU, 
STOP INVESTIGATING THE 
PRESIDENT. 
LOOKING AT THESE FACTS, A 
PERSON COULD CONCLUDE THAT ALL 
THREE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HAVE 
BEEN MET, AND I WOULD LIKE TO 
ASK YOU, THE REASON AGAIN THAT 
YOU DID NOT INDICT DONALD 
TRUMP, IS BECAUSE OF OLC 
OPINION, STATING THAT YOU 
CANNOT INDICT A SITTING 
PRESIDENT, CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> THE FACT THAT THEIR ORDER IS 
BY THE PRESIDENT THAT IT WAS 
NOT CARRIED OUT, THAT IS NOT A 
DEFENSE TO OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE, BECAUSE THE STATUTE 
ITSELF WAS QUITE BROAD. 
IT SAYS THAT AS LONG AS YOU 
ENDEAVOR OR ATTEMPT TO INSTRUCT 
JUSTICE I WOULD ALSO CONSTITUTE 
A CRIME. 
>> I WILL NOT GET INTO THAT. 
>> OKAY. 
THANK YOU. 
>> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT 
WE HAVE HEARD TODAY, I BELIEVE 
REASONABLE PERSON COULD 
CONCLUDE THAT AT LEAST THREE 
CRIMES OF OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE BY THE PRESIDENT, 
OCCURRED, WE WILL HEAR ABOUT 
TWO ADDITIONAL CRIMES, THAT 
WOULD BE THE WITNESS 
TAMPERING'S OF MICHAEL COHEN 
AND PAUL MANAFORT. 
>> THE ONLY THING I WANT TO 
ADD, IS THAT I AM GOING THROUGH 
THE ELEMENTS WITH YOU, DOES NOT 
MEAN THAT I SUBSCRIBE TO WHAT 
YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE THROUGH 
THOSE ELEMENTS. 
>> THE TIME OF THE GENERAL IS 
EXPIRED. 
THE GENTLE LADY FROM ARIZONA. 
I AM SORRY, GENTLEMEN FROM 
CALIFORNIA. 
>> THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. 
OVER HERE. 
THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY. 
YOU HAVE THREE DISCUSSIONS WITH 
ROSENSTEIN ABOUT YOUR 
APPOINTMENT WITH SPECIAL 
COUNSEL MAY 10, MAY 12, AND MAY 
13. 
CORRECT? 
>> IF YOU SAY SO, I HAVE NO 
REASON TO DISPUTE THAT. 
>> THEN HE MET WITH THE 
PRESIDENT ON THE 16th WITH ROD 
ROSENSTEIN PRESENT AND THEN ON 
THE 17th, YOU WERE FORMALLY 
APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL. 
WERE YOU MEETING WITH THE 
PRESIDENT ON THE 16th, WITH 
KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE UNDER 
CONSIDERATION FOR APPOINTMENT 
OF SPECIAL COUNSEL? 
>> I DID NOT BELIEVE I WAS 
UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR COUNSEL.
I HAVE SERVED TWO TERMS AS FBI 
DIRECTOR. 
>> THE ANSWER IS NO? 
>> THE ANSWER IS NO. 
>> DISRUPTOR OFFICE AS THE TEAM 
OF PARTISANS, AND AS ADDITIONAL 
INFORMATION IS COMING TO LIGHT, 
THERE IS A GROWING CONCERN THAT 
POLITICAL BIAS CAUSED IMPORTANT 
FACTS TO BE ADMITTED FROM 
OMITTED FROM YOUR REPORT IN 
ORDER TO CAST THE PRESIDENT 
UNFAIRLY IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT. 
FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN DOW THE 
PRESIDENTS LAWYER LEAVES A 
MESSAGE WITH MICHAEL FLYNN'S 
LAWYER ON NOVEMBER 2017. 
THE EDITED VERSION IN YOUR 
REPORT, MAKES IT APPEAR THAT HE 
WAS IMPROPERLY ASKING FOR 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, AND 
THAT IS ALL WE KNOW, FROM YOUR 
REPORT. 
EXCEPT THAT THE JUDGE IN THE 
FLYNN CASE ORDERED THE ENTIRE 
TRANSCRIPT RELEASED, IN WHICH 
HE MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT 
IS NOT WHAT HE WAS SUGGESTING. 
MY QUESTION IS WHY DID YOU EDIT 
THE TRANSCRIPT TO HIDE THE 
EXCULPATORY PART OF THE 
MESSAGE? 
>> I WOULD NOT SAY WE DID 
ANYTHING TO HIDE. 
>> YOU OMITTED IT. 
YOU QUOTED THE PART WHERE HE 
SAID HEADS UP FOR THE SAKE OF 
PROTECTING ALL OF OUR INTEREST 
IF WE CAN, BUT YOU OMITTED THE 
PORTION WHERE HE SAYS WITHOUT 
GIVING UP ANY CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION. 
>> I AM NOT GOING TO GO FURTHER 
IN TERMS OF DISCUSSING. 
>> YOU EXTENSIVELY DISCUSS 
CONSTANTINE CLINICS ACTIVITIES 
WITH PAUL MANAFORT, YOU 
DESCRIBED AS A RUSSIAN 
UKRAINIA POLITICAL CONSULTANT, 
AND LONGTIME EMPLOYEE OF PAUL 
MANAFORT, ASSESSED BY THE FBI 
TO HAVE TIES TO RUSSIAN 
INTELLIGENCE. 
THAT IS ALL WE KNOW FROM YOUR 
REPORT, ETC. 
EXCEPT WE HAVE SINCE LEARNED 
THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY A U.S. 
STATE DEPARTMENT INTELLIGENCE 
SOURCE, YET NOWHERE IN YOUR 
REPORT IS HE SO IDENTIFIED. 
WHY WAS THAT FACT ... 
>> I DON'T NECESSARILY CREDIT 
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING  OCCURRED. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE THAT HE WAS 
IN THE DEPARTMENT? 
>> I WILL NOT GO IN THE INS AND 
OUTS. 
>> DID YOU INTERVIEW 
CONSTANTINE? 
>> PARDON? 
>> DID YOU INTERVIEW 
CONSTANTINE? 
>> I CANNOT GO INTO THE 
DISCUSSION OF OUR INVESTIGATIVE 
MOVES. 
>> AND YET, THAT IS THE BASIS 
OF YOUR REPORT. 
AGAIN THE PROBLEM WE ARE 
HAVING, IS WE HAVE TO RELY ON 
YOUR REPORT FOR ENACTED 
ACCURATE REFLECTION, AND WE ARE 
STARTING TO FIND OUT THAT IS 
NOT TRUE. 
FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR REPORT 
FAMOUSLY LINKS RUSSIAN INTERNET 
TROLL FORMS WITH THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT. 
A HEARING ON MAY 28 IN THE 
CONCORDE MANAGEMENT IRA 
PROSECUTION THAT YOU INITIATED, 
THE JUDGE EXCORIATED BOTH YOU, 
AND MISTER BARR FOR PRODUCING 
NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS 
CLAIM. 
WHY DID YOU SUGGEST RUSSIA WAS 
RESPONSIBLE SEVERAL RESPONSIBLE 
FOR THE TROLL FORMS WHEN YOU 
HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT? 
>> I WILL NOT GET INTO THAT 
MORE THAN I ALREADY HAVE. 
>> BUT, YOU HAVE LEFT THE CLEAR 
IMPRESSION THROUGHOUT THE 
COUNTRY, THROUGH YOUR REPORT, 
THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT BEHIND THE TROLL 
FORMS AND YET WHEN YOU ARE 
CALLED UPON TO PROVIDE ACTUAL 
EVIDENCE, IN URT, YOU FAIL TO 
DO SO. 
>> AGAIN, I WOULD DISPUTE YOUR 
CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT 
OCCURRED IN THAT PROCEEDING. 
>> IN FACT, THE JUDGE 
CONSIDERING CONSIDERED HOLDING 
PROSECUTORS AND CRIMINAL 
CONTEMPT, SHE BACKED OFF ONLY 
AFTER YOUR HASTILY CALLED PRESS 
CONFERENCE THE NEXT DAY IN 
WHICH YOU WRECK YOUR ACTIVELY 
MADE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN 
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND 
RUSSIA TROLL FARMS, DID YOUR 
PRESS CONFERENCE OF MAY 29 HAD 
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE THREAT 
TO PROSECUTORS AND CONTEMPT, 
THE PREVIOUS DAY? 
FOR PUBLICLY MISREPRESENTING 
THE EVIDENCE? 
>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? 
>> THE QUESTION IS, DID YOUR 
MAY 29 PRESS CONFERENCE HAVE 
ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT 
THAT THE PREVIOUS DAY, THE JUDGE
THREATENED TO HOLD YOUR 
PROSECUTORS AND CONTEMPT FOR 
MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE? 
>> NO. 
>> NOW, THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM,
IS AS I SAID WE HAVE TO TAKE 
YOUR WORD, FAITHFULLY ACTIVELY 
AND PARTIALLY, AND COMPLETELY 
DESCRIBING ALL OF THE 
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE IN THE 
MUELLER REPORT AND WE ARE 
FINDING MORE AND MORE INSTANCES 
WHERE THIS JUST IS NOT THE 
CASE. 
AND IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE 
YOU KNOW HAVING DESPERATELY 
TRIED AND FAILED TO MAKE A 
LEGAL CASE AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT, YOU MADE A POLITICAL 
CASE INSTEAD. 
YOU PUT IT IN A PAPER SACK, LIT 
IT ON FIRE, DROPPED IT ON THE 
PORCH, RANG THE DOORBELL AND 
RAN. 
>> I DON'T THINK YOU REVIEWED A 
REPORT THAT IS AS THOROUGH, AS 
FAIR, AS CONSISTENT AS A REPORT 
WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. 
>> THEN WHY ... 
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS 
EXPIRED. 
THE GENTLE MEN FROM MARYLAND IS 
RECOGNIZE GOOD 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, LET'S GO 
TO A FOURTH EPISODE OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.  
IN THE FORM OF WITNESS 
TAMPERING, WHICH IS URGING 
WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH 
LAW ENFORCEMENT, EITHER BY 
PERSUADING THEM OR INTIMIDATING 
THEM. 
WITNESS TAMPERING IS A FELONY 
PUNISHABLE BY 20 YEARS IN 
PRISON. 
YOU FOUND EVIDENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN EFFORTS, 
AND I QUOTE, TO ENCOURAGE 
WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH 
THE INVESTIGATION. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
DO YOU HAVE THE CITATION? 
>> PAGE 7 ON VOLUME 2. ONE OF 
THESE WITNESSES WAS MICHAEL 
COHEN. 
THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER 
WHO ULTIMATELY PLED GUILTY TO 
CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS. 
>> 
THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HANG 
IN THERE AND STAY STRONG. 
YOU REMEMBER THAT? 
>> YES, IT IS RIGHT. 
>> THERE WAS A SERIES OF OTHER 
CALLS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT AND 
ONE REACHED OUT TO SAY HE WAS IN
MAR-A-LAGO AND THE PRESIDENT 
SAID, HE LOVES YOU AND HIS NAME 
IS REDACTED. 
ANOTHER FRIEND SAID THE BOSS 
LOVES YOU AND THE THIRD 
REDACTED FRIEND SAID EVERYONE 
KNOWS THE BOSS HAS YOUR BACK. 
DO YOU REMEMBER FINDING THAT 
SUIT ONES? 
>> GENERALLY, YES. 
>> WHEN THE NEWS -- AND IN FACT 
-- MICHAEL COHEN SAID FOLLOWING 
THE RECEIPT OF THESE QUESTIONS, 
HE BELIEVED HE HAD THE SUPPORT 
OF THE WHITE HOUSE IF HE 
CONTINUED TO TOE THE PARTY LINE 
AND HE DETERMINED TO STAY ON 
MESSAGE AND BE PART OF THE 
TEAM. 
THAT IS PAGE 147. 
YOU REMEMBER THAT? 
>> GENERALLY, YES. 
>> ROBERT COSTELLO, A LAWYER 
CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL 
TEAM EMAILED COHEN TO SAY, 
QUOTE, YOU ARE LOVED, THEY ARE 
IN OUR CORNER, SLEEP WELL 
TONIGHT AND YOU HAVE FRIENDS IN 
HIGH PLACES. 
THAT IS ON THE SCREEN, PAGE 
147. 
DO REMEMBER THAT? 
>> YES. 
>> WHEN THE NEWS FIRST BROKE 
THAT COHEN HAD ARRANGED PAYOFFS 
TO STORMY DANIELS, COHEN 
FAITHFULLY STUCK TO THE PARTY 
LINE AND SAID PUBLICLY THAT 
NEITHER TRUMP NOR THE PARTY WERE
PART OF THE TRANSACTION AND 
NEITHER REIMBURSED HIM. 
TRUMPS PERSONAL ATTORNEY, AT 
THAT POINT, QUICKLY TEXTED 
COHEN TO SAY, QUOTE, CLIENT 
SAYS THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO. 
MR. MUELLER, WHO IS THE CAPITAL 
C CLIENT THANKING COHEN? 
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. 
>> OKAY. 
THE ASSUMPTION WOULD SUGGEST 
VERY STRONGLY IT'S PRESIDENT 
TRUMP. 
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. 
>> OKAY. 
COHEN LATER BROKE AND PLED 
GUILTY TO CAMPAIGN-FINANCE 
ALLEGATIONS AND SAID THEY WERE 
MADE AT THE DIRECTION OF 
CANDIDATE TRUMP AIDE DO YOU 
REMEMBER THAT? 
>> YES. 
>> AFTER COHEN'S GUILTY PLEA, 
THE PRESIDENT SUDDENLY CHANGED 
HIS TUNE TOWARD MR. COHEN, 
DIDN'T HE? 
>> I WOULD SAY I RELY ON WHAT'S 
IN THE REPORT. 
>> HE MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT 
COHEN FAMILY MEMBERS COMMITTED 
CRIMES, TARGETING COHEN'S 
FATHER-IN-LAW AND REPEATEDLY 
SUGGESTED HE WAS GUILTY OF 
COMMITTING CRIMES. 
>> GENERALLY ACCURATE. 
>> OKAY. 
ON PAGE 154, YOU GIVE A 
POWERFUL SUMMARY OF THE 
CHANGING DYNAMICS. 
WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ IT? 
>> I WOULD. 
>> CAN YOU READ IT OUT LOUD TO 
EVERYBODY? 
>> I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU 
READ IT OUT. 
>> THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THIS 
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS COULD 
SUPPORT AN INFERENCE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT USED INDUCEMENTS IN 
THE FORM OF POSITIVE MESSAGES 
IN AN EFFORT TO GET COHEN NOT 
TO COOPERATE AND THEN TURNED TO 
ATTACKS AND INTIMIDATION TO 
DETER THE PROVISIN OF 
INFORMATION OR TO UNDERMINE 
COHEN'S CREDIBILITY, ONCE COHEN 
BEGAN COOPERATING. 
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S ACCURATE. 
>> IN MY VIEW, IF ANYONE ELSE 
IN AMERICA ENGAGED IN THESE 
ACTIONS, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN 
CHARGED WITH WITNESS TAMPERING 
AND WE MUST ENFORCE A PRINCIPAL 
IN CONGRESS THAT YOU 
EMPHASIZED, WHICH IS THAT IN 
AMERICA, NO PERSON IS SO HIGH 
AS TO BE ABOVE THE LAW. I 
YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
RECENTLY, MR. MUELLER, YOU SAID 
THAT MR. LIEU WAS ASKING YOU 
QUESTIONS AND MR. LIEU'S 
QUESTIONS, THE REASON YOU 
DIDN'T INDICT THE PRESIDENT IS 
BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION AND 
YOU ANSWERED, THAT IS CORRECT. 
THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID IN 
THE REPORT AND IT'S NOT WHAT 
YOU TOLD ATTORNEY GENERAL 
WILLIAM BARR. 
IN FACT, IN A JOINT STATEMENT 
THAT YOU RELEASED WITH DOJ ON 
MAY 29, AFTER YOUR PRESS 
CONFERENCE, YOUR OFFICE ISSUED 
A JOINT STATEMENT WITH THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT 
SAID, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL REPEATEDLY 
AFFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT SAYING 
THAT BUT FOR THE OLC OPINION HE 
WOULD HAVE FOUND THE PRESIDENT 
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT IN 
HIS STATEMENT TODAY MADE CLEAR 
THAT THE OFFICE CONCLUDED IT 
WOULD NOT REACH A DETERMINATION 
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER 
THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A 
CRIME. 
THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN 
THESE STATEMENTS. 
MR. MUELLER, DO YOU STAND BY 
YOUR JOINT STATEMENT WITH DOJ 
THAT YOU ISSUED MAY 29, AS YOU 
SIT HERE TODAY? 
>> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK MORE 
CLOSELY BEFORE I SAID I AGREE 
WITH IT. 
>> WELL, SO, YOU KNOW, MY 
CONCLUSION IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE 
TOLD MR. LIEU REALLY 
CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU SAID IN 
THE REPORT AND SPECIFICALLY, 
WHAT YOU SAID, APPARENTLY 
REPEATEDLY TO ATTORNEY GENERAL 
WILLIAM BARR, AND THEN ISSUED A 
JOINT STATEMENT ON MAY 29TH 
SAYING THAT THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL IT PREVIOUSLY STATED 
THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED THAT HE WAS 
NOT SAYING BUT FOR THE OLC 
REPORT WE WOULD HAVE FOUND THE 
PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. 
I SAY THERE IS A CONFLICT AND I 
HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. 
MR. MUELLER, THERE'S BEEN A LOT 
OF TALK TODAY ABOUT FIRING THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL AND CURTAILING 
THE INVESTIGATION. 
WERE YOU EVER FIRED, MR. 
MUELLER? 
>> WAS I WHAT? 
>> WHERE YOU EVER FIRED AS 
SPECIAL COUNSEL, MR. MUELLER? 
>> NOT THAT I KNOW OF. 
>> WERE YOU ALLOWED TO COMPLETE 
YOUR INVESTIGATION 
UNENCUMBERED? 
>> YES. 
>> IN FACT, YOU RESIGNED AS 
SPECIAL COUNSEL WHEN YOU CLOSED 
UP THE OFFICE IN LATE MAY 2019, 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
MR. MUELLER, ON APRIL 18, THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL HELD A PRESS 
CONFERENCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH 
THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF YOUR 
REPORT. 
DID ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR SAY 
ANYTHING INACCURATE, EITHER IN 
HIS PRESS CONFERENCE OR HIS 
MARCH 24TH LETTER TO CONGRESS, 
SUMMARIZING THE PRINCIPLES AND 
CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT? 
>> WELL, WHAT YOU ARE NOT 
MENTIONING IS THE LETTER WE 
SENT ON MARCH 27TH. 
IT WAS TO MR. BARR AND RAISED 
SOME ISSUES. 
THAT LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. 
>> BUT, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU -- 
HOW THAT COULD BE, SINCE A.G. 
BARR'S D TILL THE PRINCIPAL 
CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT AND 
YOU HAVE SAID BEFORE THAT THERE 
WASN'T ANYTHING INACCURATE. 
IN FACT, YOU HAD A JOINT 
STATEMENT. 
BUT, LET ME GO TO A ANOTHER 
QUESTION. 
MR. MUELLER, RATHER THAN PURELY 
RELYING ON THE EVIDENCE 
PROVIDED BY WITNESSES AND 
DOCUMENTS, I THINK HE RELIED A 
LOT ON MEDIA AND I LIKE TO KNOW 
HOW MANY TIMES YOU CITED THE 
WASHINGTON POST IN YOUR REPORT. 
>> HOW MANY TIMES I WHAT? 
>> CITED THE WASHINGTON POST IN 
YOUR REPORT. 
>> I DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF 
THAT FIGURE. 
I DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT 
FIGURE. 
>> I COUNTED ABOUT $60 TIMES 
BUT HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU CITE 
THE NEW YORK TIMES? 
>> AGAIN, I HAVE NO IDEA. 
>> I COUNTED ABOUT $75 TIMES 
AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU CITE 
FOX NEWS? 
>> AS WITH THE OTHER TWO, I 
HAVE NO IDEA. 
>> ABOUT $25 TIMES. 
I'VE GOT TO SAY IT LOOKS LIKE 
VOLUME TWO IS MOSTLY 
REGURGITATED PRESS STORIES. 
HONESTLY, THERE'S ALMOST 
NOTHING IN VOLUME TWO THAT I 
COULDN'T HEAR OR KNOW SIMPLY BY 
HAVING A $50 CABLE NEWS 
SUBSCRIPTION. 
HOWEVER, YOUR NEWS 
INVESTIGATION COSTS THE AMERICAN
TAXPAYERS $25 MILLION. 
MR. MUELLER, YOU CITED MEDIA 
REPORTS NEARLY 200 TIMES IN YOUR
REPORT AND IN A FOOTNOTE, A 
SMALL FOOTNOTE, NUMBER SEVEN, 
PAGE $15 OF VOLUME TWO OF YOUR 
REPORT, YOU WROTE, THIS SECTION 
SUMMARIZES AND CITES VARIOUS 
NEWS STORIES NOT FOR THE TRUTH 
OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN 
THE STORIES, BUT RATHER, TO 
PLACE CANDIDATE TRUMPS RESPONSE 
TO THOSE STORIES IN CONTEXT. 
SINCE NOBODY BUT LAWYERS READS 
FOOTNOTS, ARE YOU CONCERNED 
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TOOK THE 
EMBEDDED NEWS STORIES -- 
>> WHAT TIME IS EXPIRED. 
THE GENTLELADY FROM WASHINGTON? 
>> CAN MR. MUELLER ANSWER THE 
QUESTION? 
>> NO. 
WE ARE RUNNING SHORT ON TIME. 
THE GENTLELADY FROM WASHINGTON. 
>> THANK YOU. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, LET'S TURN TO 
THE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES IN 
YOUR REPORT AND THAT IS THE 
EVIDENCE OF WHETHER PRESIDENT 
DONALD TRUMP ENGAGED IN WITNESS 
TAMPERING WITH TRUMP CAMPAIGN 
CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT, WHOSE 
FOREIGN TIES WERE CRITICAL TO 
YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO 
RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE IN OUR 
ELECTIONS. 
THIS STARTS AT VOLUME TWO, PAGE 
123. 
YOUR OFFICE GOT INDICTMENTS 
AGAINST MANAFORT AND TRUMP 
DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER, RICK 
GATES AND TWO DIFFERENT 
JURISDICTIONS, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOUR OFFICE FOUND THAT AFTER 
A GRAND JURY INDICTED THEM, 
MANAFORT TOLD GATES NOT TO PLEAD
GUILTY TO ANY CHARGES BECAUSE, 
QUOTE, HE HAD TALKED TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL COUNSEL 
AND THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE 
CARE OF US. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> IT'S ACCURATE. 
>> ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, 
ONE TO AFTER MANAFORT'S 
CONVICTION ON EIGHT FELONY 
CHARGES, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT 
SAID THAT FLIPPING WAS NOT FAIR 
AND ALMOST OUGHT TO BE 
OUTLAWED. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I'M AWARE OF THAT. 
>> IN THIS CONTEXT, DIRECTOR 
MULDER, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO 
FLIP? 
>> HAVE SOMEBODY COOPERATE IN A 
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. 
>> HOW ESSENTIAL IS THAT 
COOPERATION TO ANY EFFORTS TO 
COMBAT CRIME? 
>> I'M NOT GOING BEYOND THAT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
IT IN YOUR REPORT, YOU 
CONCLUDED THAT PRESIDENT DONALD 
TRUMP AND HIS PERSONAL COUNSEL, 
RUDY GIULIANI, MADE REPEATED 
STATEMENTS SUGGESTING THAT A 
PARDON WAS A POSSIBILITY FOR 
MANAFORT AND MAKING IT CLEAR 
THAT THE PRESIDENT DID NOT WANT 
MANAFORT TO FLIP AND COOPERATE 
WITH THE GOVERNMENT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> WITNESS TAMPERING, AS YOU 
SAID EARLIER, SOMEONE WITH AN 
IMPROPER MOTIVE ENCOURAGES 
ANOTHER NOT TO COOPERATE WITH 
LAW ENFORCEMENT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> ON PAGE 123 OF VOLUME TWO, 
YOU DISCUSS THE PRESIDENT'S 
MOTIVES AND YOU SAID AS COURT 
PROCEEDINGS MOVED FORWARD 
AGAINST MANAFORT, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, QUOTE, DISCUSSED WITH 
AIDES WEATHER AND IN WHAT WAY 
MANAFORT MIGHT BE COOPERATING 
AND WHETHER MANAFORT KNEW ANY 
INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE 
HARMFUL TO THE PRESIDENT, IS 
THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT WAS A QUOTE -- >> FROM 
PAGE 123, VOLUME TWO. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I HAVE IT. 
>> WHEN SOMEONE STOPS WORK IN 
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE 
THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT 
WILL BE SAID, IT SEEMS CLEAR 
THAT THIS IS A CLASSIC 
DEFINITION OF WITNESS 
TAMPERING. 
MR. MANAFORT DID DECIDE TO 
COOPERATE WITH YOUR OFFICE AND 
ENTERED INTO A PLEA AGREEMENT 
BUT THEN BROKE THAT AGREEMENT. 
CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT HE DID 
THAT CAUSED YOU TO TELL THE 
COURT THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS 
OFF? 
>> I REFER YOU TO THE COURT 
PROCEEDINGS ON THAT ISSUE. 
>> ON PAGE 127 VOLUME TWO, YOU 
TOLD THE COURT THAT MR. 
MANAFORT LIED ABOUT THINGS 
MATERIAL TO THE INVESTIGATION 
AND YOU SAID THAT THE LAWYERS 
ALSO QUOTE, DISCUSS THE 
INFORMATION MANAFORT PROVIDED 
IN INTERVIEWS WITH THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S OFFICE. 
>> THE SOURCE OF THAT IS? 
>> PAGE 127 VOLUME TWO. 
>> YES, I SUPPORT IT. 
>> TWO DAYS LATER YOU SAID THAT 
HE BROKE THE PLEA AGREEMENT BY 
LYING REPEATEDLY. 
DID PRESIDENT TRUMP TELL THE 
COURT THAT MANAFORT WAS BRAVE 
BECAUSE HE DID NOT FLIP? 
PAGE 128, VOLUME TWO. 
>> IF IT'S IN THE REPORT, I 
SUPPORT IT, AS IT IS SET FORTH. 
>> IN YOUR REPORT YOU MAKE A 
SERIOUS CONCLUSION ABOUT THE 
EVIDENCE REGARDING THE 
PRESIDENT'S INVOLVEMENT WITH 
THE MANAFORT CRIMINAL 
PROCEEDINGS AND LET ME READ 
FROM YOUR REPORT. 
EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TOWARD 
MANAFORT INDICATES THAT THE 
PRESIDENT INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE 
MANAFORT TO NOT COOPERATE WITH 
THE GOVERNMENT. 
IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT 
BOTH PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY 
DISCOURAGE MR. MANAFORT'S 
COOPERATION OR FLIPPING WHILE 
ALSO DANGLING THE PROMISE OF A 
PARDON IF HE STAYED LOYAL AND 
DID NOT SURE WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT. 
ANYONE ELSE WHO DID THESE 
THINGS WOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR 
THEM AND WE MUST ENSURE THAT NO 
ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, 
DIRECTOR MUELLER. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
PENNSYLVANIA. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
MR. MUELLER, ARE YOU FAMILIAR 
WITH THE NOW EXPIRED 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE, IN 
WHICH KEN STARR WAS APPOINTED? 
>> THAT KEN STARR DID WHAT? 
>> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE 
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE? 
>> THE ONE WE OPERATE UNDER NOW 
OR PREVIOUS? 
>> UNDER WHICH KEN STARR WAS 
APPOINTED. 
>> I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH 
IT BUT WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE 
YOUR QUESTION. 
>> THE STATUTE WAS ALLOWED TO 
EXPIRE AFTER KEN STARR'S 
INVESTIGATION. 
THE FINAL REPORT REQUIREMENT 
WAS A MAJOR REASON WHY THE 
STATUTE WAS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE. 
EVEN PRESIDENT CLINTON'S A.G., 
JANET RENO EXPRESSED CONCERNS 
ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT. 
AND I WILL QUOTE A.G. 
JANET RENO. I 
ONE HAND, SHE SAID THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE HAVE AN INTEREST IN 
KNOWING THE OUTCOME OF THE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE HIGHEST 
OFFICIALS BUT ON THE OTHER 
HAND, THE REQUIREMENT CUTS 
AGAINST MANY OF THE MOST BASIC 
TRADITIONS AND PRACTICES OF 
AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT. 
UNDER OUR SYSTEM, WE PRESUME 
INNOCENCE AND VALUE PRIVACY. 
WE BELIEVE THAT INFORMATION 
OBTAINED DURING A CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION SHOULD, IN MOST 
CASES, BE MADE PUBLIC ONLY IF 
THERE IS AN INDICTMENT AND 
PROSECUTION, NOT ANY LENGTHY 
AND DETAILED REPORT FOUND AFTER 
A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE NOT TO 
PROSECUTE. 
THE FINAL REPORT PROVIDES A 
FORUM FOR AIRING DIRTY LAUNDRY 
UNFAIRLY AND CREATES AN 
INCENTIVE FOR INDEPENDENT 
COUNSEL TO OVER INVESTIGATE IN 
ORDER TO JUSTIFY HIS OR HER 
TENURE AND TO AVOID CRITICISM 
THAT THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL 
MAY HAVE LEFT A STONE UNTURNED. 
THOSE ARE A.G. 
RENO'S WORDS AND DIDN'T YOU DO 
EXACTLY WHAT A.G. 
RENO FEARED, UNFAIRLY AIRING 
THE TARGET'S DIRTY LAUNDRY 
WITHOUT RECOMMENDING CHARGES? 
>> I DISAGREE WITH THAT. 
>> DID ANY WITNESSES HAVE A 
CHANCE TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED? 
>> CAN ANSWER THAT. 
OPERATE UNDER THE CURRENT 
STATUTE. 
I'M MOST FAMILIAR WITH THE 
CURRENT STATUTE, NOT THE OLDER 
STATUTE. 
>> DID ANY WITNESSES HAVE A 
CHANCE TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED? 
IN THE INVESTIGATION? 
>> YES. 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER 
THAT. 
>> DID YOU ALLOW THE PEOPLE 
MENTIONED TO CHALLENGE HOW THEY 
WERE CHARACTERIZED? 
>> I'M NOT GETTING INTO THAT. 
>> Reporter: GIVEN THAT A.G. 
BARR STATED MULTIPLE TIMES THAT 
HE WOULD MAKE AS MUCH OF THE 
REPORT PUBLIC AS POSSIBLE, DID 
YOU WRITE THE REPORT KNOWING IT 
WOULD LIKELY BE SHARED WITH THE 
PUBLIC? 
>> NO. 
>> DID KNOWING THE REPORT GOOD 
AND LIKELY WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC,
DID THAT ALTER THE CONTENT YOU 
INCLUDED? 
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. 
>> DESPITE THE ACCUSATIONS, YOU 
LEFT OUT SIGNIFICANT 
EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. 
IN OTHER WORDS, EVIDENCE 
FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT, 
CORRECT? 
>> I ACTUALLY DISAGREE WITH 
YOU. 
WE STROVE TO PUT INTO THE 
REPORT --
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO 
THAT WITH YOU. 
YOU SAID THERE WAS EVIDENCE YOU 
LEFT OUT? 
>> WELL, YOU MAKE A CHOICE AS 
TO WHAT GOES INTO AN 
INDICTMENT. 
>> ISN'T IT TRUE THAT ON PAGE 
ONE OF VOLUME TWO, YOU STATED 
WHEN YOU ARE QUOTING THE 
STATUTE THAT YOU HAD AN 
OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE OR NOT 
PROSECUTE? 
>> GENERALLY, THAT IS THE CASE 
ALTHOUGH MOST CASES ARE NOT 
DONE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
>> IN THIS CASE, YOU MADE A 
DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE, 
CORRECT? 
>> WE MADE A DECISION NOT TO 
DECIDE WHETHER TO PROSECUTE OR 
NOT. 
>> ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THE REPORT 
DID WAS EVERYTHING THAT A.G. 
RENO WARNED AGAINST? 
>> I CAN'T AGREE WITH THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION. 
>> WHAT YOU DID IS COMPILED AND 
NEARLY 450 PAGE REPORT OF THE 
WORST INFORMATION YOU GATHERED 
AGAINST THE TARGET OF YOUR 
INVESTIGATION, WHO HAPPENS TO 
BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES PAID YOU DID THIS 
KNOWING YOU WOULD NOT RECOMMEND 
CHARGES AND THAT THE REPORT 
WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC. 
>> NOT TRUE. 
>> MR. MUELLER, AS A FORMER 
OFFICER IN THE COURT, I 
PROSECUTED NEARLY 100 
TERRORISTS AND EXAMINED THE 
BUTCHER OF FALLUJAH IN DEFENSE 
OF OUR NAVY SEALs AND AS A 
CIVILIAN, I WAS ELECTED A JUDGE 
IN PENNSYLVANIA AND I'M VERY 
WELL-VERSED IN THE AMERICAN 
LEGAL SYSTEM. 
THE DRAFTING AND PUBLICATION OF 
SOME OF THIS INFORMATION IN THE 
REPORT WITHOUT AN INDICTMENT, 
WITHOUT PROSECUTION, FRANKLY, 
FLIES IN THE FACE OF AMERICAN 
JUSTICE AND I FIND THOSE FACTS 
AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS UN-
AMERICAN. 
I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY 
TIME TO MY COLLEAGUE, JIM 
JORDAN. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOUR 
SPECIAL COUNSEL ROLE, WHAT DID 
IT PLAY IN THE THIRD RENEWAL 
WITH CARTER PAGE? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO TALK TO 
THAT. 
>> THE LADY FROM FLORIDA. 
>> A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES 
ARE HERE AND WE WANTED TO TALK 
OR ASK ABOUT LIES. 
ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, PAGE 
NINE, VOLUME ONE, WITNESSES LIED
TO YOUR OFFICE AND TO CONGRESS 
AND THOSE LIES MATERIALLY 
IMPAIR THE INVESTIGATION OF 
RUSSIA INTERFERENCE ACCORDING 
TO YOUR REPORT. 
OTHER THAN THE INDIVIDUALS THAT 
PLED GUILTY TO CRIMES BASED ON 
LYING, DID OTHER WITNESSES LIE 
TO YOU? 
>> PROBABLY A SPECTER OF 
WITNESSES, IN TERMS OF THOSE WHO
ARE NOT TELLING THE FULL TRUTH 
AND THOSE ARE OUTRIGHT LIARS. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
OUTRIGHT LIARS. 
IT'S FAIR TO SAY THERE WERE 
LIMITS ON THE EVIDENCE 
AVAILABLE TO YOUR INVESTIGATION 
OF RUSSIA INTERFERENCE AND 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? 
>> THAT IS TRUE AND USUALLYTHE 
CASE. 
>> LIES BY TRUMP OFFICIALS 
IMPEDED YOUR INVESTIGATION? 
>> I WOULD GENERALLY AGREE WITH 
THAT. 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, DIRECTOR 
MUELLER. 
YOU WILL HEAR MORE FROM ME AND 
I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME 
TO MR. KOREA. 
THANK YOU. 
>> MR. MUELLER, LET ME WELCOME 
YOU AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. 
YOU ARE A HERO, A VIETNAM WAR 
THAT, A WOUNDED WAR VET AND WE 
DON'T FORGET YOUR SERVICE TO 
OUR COUNTRY. 
BECAUSE OF TIME LIMITS, WE HAVE 
GONE INTO DEPTH ON ONLY FIVE 
POSSIBLE EPISODES OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND I 
WANT TO FOCUS ON THIS, THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT CONCERNING 
MICHAEL FLYNN, THE PRESIDENT'S 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER. 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND THE 
PRESIDENT WERE INFORMED THAT 
MR. FLYNN HAD LIED TO 
GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES BUT HIS 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RUSSIAN 
AMBASSADOR DURING THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN AND TRANSITION. 
IT IS THIS CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> OF HOSTILE NATION KNOWS A 
U.S. OFFICIAL LIED PUBLICLY, IT 
CAN BE USED TO BLACKMAIL THAT 
OFFICIAL, CORRECT? 
>> I WON'T SPEAK TO THAT AND I 
DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT, 
NECESSARILY BUT I WON'T SPEAK 
ANYMORE TO THAT ISSUE. 
>> FLYNN RESIGNED ON FEBRUARY 
13, 2016 AND THE NEXT DAY WHEN 
THE PRESIDENT HAD LUNCH WITH 
NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR, CHRIS 
CHRISTIE, DID THE PRESIDENT SAY 
"-LEFT-DOUBLE-QUOTE, NOW THAT 
WE FIRED FLYNN, THE RUSSIA THING
IS OVER, "-RIGHT-DOUBLE-QUOTE. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> DID CHRISTIE RESPOND BY 
SAYING NO WAY AND THIS RUSSIA 
THING IS FAR FROM OVER? 
>> THAT'S THE WAY WE HAVE IT IN 
THE REPORT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
AND AFTER THE PRESIDENT MET 
WITH CHRISTIE, LATER THAT SAME 
DAY, THE PRESIDENT MET WITH 
JAMES COMEY ALONE IN THE OVAL 
OFFICE, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT, PARTICULARLY IF YOU 
HAVE THE CITATION. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
>> THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM, I 
HOPE YOU CAN SEE YOUR WAY TO 
CLEAR TO LETTING THIS THING GO, 
TO LETTING FLYNN GO. 
HE'S A GOOD GUY AND I HOPE YOU 
CAN LET IT GO, PAGE $40, VOLUME 
TWO? 
>> ACCURATE. 
>> WHAT DID COMEY UNDERSTAND 
THE PRESIDENT TO BE ASKING? 
>> I'M NOT GETTING INTO WHAT 
WAS IN MR. COMEY'S MIND. 
>> HE UNDERSTOOD THIS TO BE A 
DIRECTION BECAUSE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDITION AND THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ONE-TO-ONE 
MEETING, PAGE $40, VOLUME TWO? 
>> I UNDERSTAND IT'S IN THE 
REPORT AND I SUPPORT IT AS 
BEING IN THE REPORT. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR. 
EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT 
PUBLICLY DENIED TELLING JAMES 
COMEY TO DROP THE 
INVESTIGATION, YOU FOUND 
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 
CORROBORATING JAMES COMEY'S 
ACCOUNT OVER THE PRESIDENT, IS 
THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> THE PRESIDENT FIRED JAMES 
COMEY ON MAY 9. IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE 
ACCURATE DATE. 
>> PAGE $77, VOLUME TWO. 
YOU FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE 
THAT THE CATALYST FOR THE 
PRESIDENT'S FIRING OF COMEY WAS 
COMEY'S " UNWILLINGNESS TO 
PUBLICLY STATE THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS NOT PERSONALLY 
UNDER INVESTIGATION? 
>> I WON'T DELVE INTO THE 
DETAILS. 
IF IT'S IN THE REPORT, I'M 
SUPPORTIVE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY 
BEEN REVIEWED AND APPEARS IN 
THE REPORT. 
>> PAGE $75, VOLUME TWO. 
>> IN FACT, THE VERY NEXT DAY, 
THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE RUSSIAN 
FOREIGN MINISTER "I JUST FIRED 
THE HEAD OF THE FBI. 
HE WAS CRAZY, A REAL NUT JOB 
AND I FACED GREAT PRESSURE 
BECAUSE OF RUSSIA " IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT WAS WRITTEN IN THE 
REPORT. 
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN 
EXPIRED. 
THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA. 
>> THANK MR. AIRMAN AND MR. MUE 
WE'VE ARD A LOABOUT WHAT
YOU WON'TALK ABOUT SO LET'S 
TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU SHOULD 
BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT, THE LAW 
ITSELF, THE UNDERLYING STATUTE 
AND YOUR CREATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS
OF THE STATUTES AND VOLUME TWO, 
PARTICULARLY, THE 
INTERPRETATION OF 18 USC, $12 
C, STATUTE CREATED AS PART OF 
AUDITING FINANCIAL REGULATIONS 
FOR PUBLIC COMPANIES AND AS YOU 
WRITE ON PAGE 164 OF VOLUME TWO,
THIS PROVISION WAS ADDED IN THE 
SENATE AND EXPLAINED AS CLOSING 
A CERTAIN LOOPHOLE WITH RESPECT 
TO DOCUMENT SHREDDING AND TO 
READ THE STATUTE, WHOEVER 
DESTROYS OR MUTILATES A RECORD 
OR DOCUMENT OR ATTEMPTS TO DO 
SO WITH THE INTENT TO IMPAIR THE
OBJECT'S INTEGRITY OR 
AVAILABILITY FOR USE IN 
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR 
OTHERWISE OBSTRUCTS, INFLUENCES 
OR IMPEDES ANY OFFICIAL 
PROCEEDING SHALL BE FINED UNDER 
THIS STATUTE OR IN PRISON. 
YOUR ANALYSIS PROPOSES TO GIVE 
CLAUSE 2 OF MUCH MORE COMMON 
INTERPRETATION. 
IT READS IN ISOLATION AS A 
FREESTANDING PROVISION 
PROHIBITING THE ACT IF DONE 
WITH AN IMPROPER MOTIVE AND 
YOUR ANALYSIS TO APPLY THIS FOR 
SWEEPING PROHIBITION FOR LAWFUL 
ACTS TAKEN BY OFFICIALS 
EXERCISING DISCRETIONARY POWERS 
IF THOSE ACTS INFLUENCE A 
PROCEEDING. 
I WOULD ASK YOU, IN ANALYZING 
THE OBSTRUCTION, YOU STATE THAT 
YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE 
COURTS HAVE NOT DEFINITIVELY 
RESOLVE THESE ISSUES, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU'D AGREE THAT NOT 
EVERYONE IN THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT AGREED WITH YOUR 
LEGAL THEORY OF THE STATUTE OF 
JUSTICE, CORRECT? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO BE INVOLVED 
IN A DISCUSSION ON THAT AT THIS 
JUNCTURE. 
>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
DISAGREES WITH YOUR 
INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW? 
>> I WILL LEAVE THAT TO THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO IDENTIFY. 
>> PROSECUTORS SOMETIMES AND 
CORRECTLY APPLY THE LAW? 
>> I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH 
THAT ONE. 
>> MEMBERS OF YOUR LEGAL TEAM 
HAVE HAD THINGS OVERTURNED? 
>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT TRYING 
CASES, NOT EVERYONE OF THOSE 
CASES. 
>> ONE OF THE TOP PROSECUTORS, 
ANDREW WEISSMAN, OBTAINED A 
CONVICTION AGAINST ARTHUR 
ANDERSEN AND A LOWER COURT THAT 
WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED IN 
A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT 
DECISION. 
CORRECT? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO DELVE INTO 
THAT. 
>> LET ME READ FROM THAT. 
>> MAY I FINISH MY ANSWER. 
I'M NOT GOING TO BE GETTING 
INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION ON 
THAT BUT I WILL REFER YOU TO 
THAT CITATION THAT YOU GAVE ME 
AT THE OUTSET FOR THE LENGTHY 
DISCUSSION ON JUST WHAT YOU ARE 
TALKING ABOUT AND TO THE EXTENT 
THAT I HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY 
ABOUT IT, IT IS ALREADY PUT 
INTO THE REPORT. 
>> I AM READING FROM YOUR 
REPORT WHEN DISCUSSING THIS 
SECTION AND I WILL READ FROM THE
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT 
UNANIMOUSLY REVERSING MR. 
WISEMAN. 
HE SAID IT'S STRIKING HOW 
LITTLE CULPABILITY OF THE 
INSTRUCTION REQUIRES. 
THE JURY WAS TOLD THAT A 
PETITIONER HONESTLY BELIEVED IT 
WAS LAWFUL AND THEY COULD 
CONVICT AND IT DILUTED THE 
MEANING OF CORRUPT SO IT 
COVERED INNOCENT CONDUCT. 
>> LET ME JUST SAY -- 
>> I HAVE LIMITED TIME. 
YOUR READING IS THE BROADEST 
PART OF THE INVASION AND I'M 
CONCERNED ABOUT OVER 
CRIMINALIZING CONDUCT FOR 
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND TO 
EMPHASIZE HOW BROAD YOUR 
LIABILITY IS, ON OCTOBER 11, 
2015 DURING FBI INVESTIGATION 
INTO HILLARY CLINTON'S USE OF A 
PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER, PRESIDENT 
OBAMA SAID I DON'T THINK IT 
POSED AND NATIONAL SECURITY 
PROBLEM AND SAID I CAN TELL YOU 
IT'S NOT A SITUATION IN WHICH 
SECURITY WAS ENDANGERED. 
ASSUMING HIS COMMENTS 
INFLUENCED THE INVESTIGATION, 
COULDN'T PRESIDENT OBAMA BE 
CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE? 
>> AGAIN, I REFER YOU TO THE 
REPORT BUT LET ME SAY WITH 
ANDREW WEISSMAN, HE'S ONE OF 
THE MORE TALENTED ATTORNEYS WE 
HAVE ON BOARD. 
>> I WILL TAKE THAT -- 
>> OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, HE'S 
RUN A NUMBER OF UNITS. 
>> I HAVE LIMITED TIME. 
IN AUGUST 2015, SENIOR D.O.J. 
OFFICIAL CALLED ANDREW MCCABE 
TO EXPRESS CONCERN THAT FBI 
AGENTS WERE OPENLY CUT PURSUING 
THE CLINTON FOUNDATION PROBE 
AND THE D.O.J. 
OFFICIAL WAS APPARENTLY VERY 
MAD. 
ARE YOU TELLING ME I NEED TO 
SHUT DOWN AN INVESTIGATION AND 
THE OFFICIAL REPLIED, OF COURSE 
NOT. 
THIS SEEMS TO BE A CLEAR 
EXAMPLE OF ATTEMPTING TO 
INFLUENCE AN FBI INVESTIGATION. 
COULDN'T THAT PERSON BE CHARGED 
WITH OBSTRUCTION AS LONG AS A 
PROSECUTOR COULD COME UP WITH A 
POTENTIALLY CORRUPT MOTIVE? 
>> I REFER YOU TO THE LENGTHY 
DISSERTATION THAT APPEARS AT 
THE END OF THE REPORT. 
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN IS 
EXPIRED AND OUR INTENT WAS TO 
CONCLUDE THE HEARING IN THREE 
HOURS AND GIVEN THE BREAK, THAT 
WOULD BRING US TO APPROXIMATELY 
11:40. 
WITH DIRECTOR MUELLER'S 
INDULGENCE, WE ASKED THE 
REMAINING DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS TO 
VOLUNTARILY LIMIT THEIR TIME 
BELOW FIVE MINUTES SO WE COME 
IN COMPLETE OUR WORK TO AS 
CLOSE TO THAT TIME FRAME AS 
POSSIBLE AND I RECOGNIZE A 
GENTLE LADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA. 
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER. 
I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S STATEMENTS 
REGARDING ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF 
THE WIKILEAKS DUMPS. 
THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO SIT 
DOWN FOR AN IN-PERSON INTERVIEW,
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THE ONLY ANSWERS WE HAVE ARE 
CONTAINED IN APPENDIX C TO THE 
REPORT. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> LOOKING AT APPENDIX C ON 
PAGE FIVE, YOU ASKED THE 
PRESIDENT OVER A DOZEN 
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT 
HE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT WIKILEAKS 
POSSESSED OR MIGHT POSSESS THE 
EMAIL STOLEN BY THE RUSSIANS. 
>> I APOLOGIZE. 
CAN YOU START AGAIN? 
>> WHERE LOOKING AT APPENDIX C 
AND PAGE FIVE, YOU ASKED THE 
PRESIDENT ABOUT A DOZEN 
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD 
KNOWLEDGE THAT WIKILEAKS 
POSSESSED THE STOLEN EMAILS 
THAT MIGHT BE RELEASED IN A WAY 
HELPFUL TO HIS CAMPAIGN OR 
HARMFUL TO THE CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, 
MR. TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, 
MICHAEL COHEN, TESTIFIED TO 
CONGRESS UNDER OATH "MR. 
TRUMP KNEW FROM ROGER STONE IN 
ADVANCE ABOUT THE WIKILEAKS 
EMAILS" AND THAT'S A MATTER OF 
PUBLIC RECORD, ISN'T IT? 
>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE 
REPORT? 
>> IT WAS TESTIMONY BEFORE 
CONGRESS BY MR. COHEN. 
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR. 
I'NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HE 
TESTIFIED TO BEFORE CONGRESS. 
>> OKAY. 
LET'S LOOK AT AN EVENT 
DESCRIBED ON PAGE $18 OF VOLUME 
TWO OF YOUR REPORT. 
WE WILL PUT IT IN THE SLIDE, I 
THINK. 
ACCORDING TO DEPUTY CAMPAIGN 
MANAGER, RICK GATES, IN THE 
SUMMER OF 2016, HE AND CAIDE
TRUMPER ON THE WAY TO AN 
AIRPORT SHORTLY AFTER WIKILEAKS 
REVERSED THE SET OF STOLEN 
EMAILS AND GATES TOLD YOUR 
INVESTIGATORS THAT CANDIDATE 
TRUMP WAS ON A PHONE CALL AND 
WHEN THE CALL AND IT, TRUMP 
TOLD GATES THAT MORE RELEASES 
OF DAMAGING INFORMATION WOULD BE
COMING. 
DO YOU RECALL THAT FROM THE 
REPORT? 
>> IF IT'S IN THE REPORT, I 
SUPPORT IT. 
>> IT'S ON PAGE EIGHT. 
>> ON PAGE $77, YOUR REPORT 
STATED THAT IN ADDITION, SOME 
WITNESSES SAID THAT TRUMP 
PRIVATELY SOUGHT INFORMATION 
ABOUT WIKILEAKS RELEASES, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> IN APPENDIX C WHERE THERE 
WERE WRITTEN QUESTIONS, HE SAID,
QUOTE, I DO NOT RECALL 
DISCUSSING WIKILEAKS WITH HIM 
OR DISCUSSING WITH INDIVIDUALS 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAMPAIGN. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> IF IT'S FROM THE REPORT, IT 
IS CORRECT. 
>> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT DISCUSSING 
WIKILEAKS WITH MR. STONE AND 
DENIED BEING AWARE THAT ANYONE 
ASSOCIATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN 
DISCUSSED WIKILEAKS WITH STONE? 
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? 
>> IS IT FAIR THAT THE 
PRESIDENT DENIED AT KNOWLEDGE 
OF HIMSELF OR ANYONE ELSE 
DISCUSSING WIKILEAKS DUMPS WITH 
MR. STONE? 
>> YES. 
>> WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. MUELLER? 
>> OVER HERE. 
>> DID YOU INTERVIEW FOR THE 
FBI DIRECTOR JOB ONE DAY BEFORE 
BEING APPOINTED SPECIAL 
COUNSEL? 
>> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS I WAS 
NOT APPLYING FOR THE JOB, I WAS 
ASKED TO GIVE MY INPUT ON WHAT 
IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THE JOB, 
WHICH TRIGGERED THE INTERVIEW 
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. 
>> YOU DON'T RECALL MAY 1627 
NEAT THAT YOU INTERVIEWED WITH 
THE PRESIDENT REGARDING THE FBI 
DIRECTOR JOB? 
>> I INTERVIEWED WITH THE 
PRESIDENT AND IT WAS ABOUT THE 
JOB BUT NOT ABOUT ME APPLYING 
FOR THE JOB. 
>> YOUR STATEMENT TODAY IS THAT 
YOU DIDN'T INTERVIEW TO APPLY 
FOR THE FBI DIRECTOR JOB? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> DID YOU TELL THE VICE 
PRESIDENT THAT IT WOULD BE THE 
ONE JOB YOU WOULD COME BACK 
FOR? 
>> I DON'T RECALL THAT ONE. 
>> YOU DON'T RECALL THAT? 
>> NO. 
>> GIVEN YOUR $22 MONTHS OF 
INVESTIGATION AND MILLIONS OF 
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED, DID YOU 
OBTAIN EVIDENCE THAT ANY 
AMERICAN VOTER CHANGE THEIR 
VOTE AS A RESULT OF THE 
ELECTION INTERFERENCE? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO 
THAT. 
>> YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT AFTER 
$22 MONTHS OF INVESTIGATION, NO 
DOCUMENTATION THAT DEVOTE OR 
CHANGE THEIR VOTE BECAUSE OF 
THE INTERFERENCE? 
>> THAT WAS OUTSIDE OUR 
PURVIEW. 
>> RUSSIAN MEDDLING WAS OUTSIDE 
VIEW YOUR PURVIEW? 
>> THE IMPACT OF THE MEDDLING 
WAS UNDERTAKEN BY OTHER 
AGENCIES. 
>> YOU STATED IN THE OPENING 
STATEMENT THAT YOU WOULD NOT 
GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THE 
STEELE DOSSIER BUT IN MULTIPLE 
VOLUMES, YOU MENTIONED THE 
UNVERIFIED ALLEGATIONS. 
HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO 
REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS
UNVERIFIED? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO 
THAT. 
>> IT'S IN YOUR REPORT MULTIPLE 
TIMES AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT
YOU CAN'T TELL ME HOW YOU CAME 
TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS 
NOT VERIFIED? 
>> TRUE. 
>> WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE 
THAT IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE FISA
APPLICATION. 
>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? 
>> WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE 
THAT THE UNVERIFIED STEELE 
DOSSIER WAS INCLUDED IN THE 
FISA APPLICATION FILED ON CARTER
PAGE? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO 
THAT. 
>> YOUR TEAM INTERVIEWED 
CHRISTOPHER STEELE, IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> I'M NOT GETTING INTO THAT. 
>> YOU CAN'T TELL THIS 
COMMITTEE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT 
YOU INTERVIEWED CHRISTOPHER 
STEELE IN A $22 MONTH 
INVESTIGATION WITH $18 LAWYERS? 
>> AS I SAID AT THE OUTSET, 
THAT'S ONE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS
THAT IS BEING HANDLED BY OTHERS 
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 
>> YOU'RE TESTIFYING ABOUT THE 
INVESTIGATION AND I'M ASKING 
YOU IF ANY MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM 
OR DID YOU INTERVIEW CHRISTOPHER
STEELE? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT 
QUESTION, SIR. 
>> YOU HAD TWO YEARS TO 
INVESTIGATE AND NOT ONCE DID 
YOU CONSIDER IT WORTHY WITH 
THIS PAID FOR BY A POLITICAL 
OPPONENT AND USED TO OBTAIN A 
WARRANT TO SPY ON THE 
OPPOSITION POLITICAL CAMPAIGN 
AND DID YOU DO ANY 
INVESTIGATION? 
>> I DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR 
CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT 
OCCURRED AND I WON'T SPEAK MORE 
TO IT. 
>> YOU WANT SPEAK MORE TO IT 
AND DON'T AGREE WITH MY 
CHARACTERIZATION? 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> THE FISA APPLICATION MAKES 
THIS WITH CHRISTOPHER STEELE, 
THE AUTHOR OF THIS DEAL DOSSIER 
AND THE FISA APPLICATION SAID 
THAT FOR THE TIES TO RUSSIA, 
BASED ON PREVIOUS REPORTING 
HISTORY WITH THE FBI, RELIABLE 
INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED WHERE 
THE FBI BELIEVES THAT IT WOULD 
BE COMING THROUGH THAT IT WAS 
CREDIBLE TO BE ACCURATE. 
>> YOU WON'T RESPOND TO THE 
QUESTIONS? 
>> AS I SAID, THAT WAS 
SOMETHING I CAN SPEAK TO. 
>> ON THE PURVIEW OF FOR THE 
INVESTIGATION, YOU CAN CLOSE 
THE INVESTIGATION AND IS NOT 
WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW TO TELL US 
ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION AND WHO 
YOU INTERVIEWED? 
>> I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. 
>> I CAN GUARANTEE THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW AND A VERY 
HOPEFUL AND GLAD THAT A.G. 
BARR IS LOOKING INTO THIS AND 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS 
LOOKING INTO THIS BECAUSE YOU 
ARE UNWILLING TO ANSWER THE 
QUESTIONS OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AS IT RELATES TO THE 
BASIS OF THIS INVESTIGATION 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND THE 
BASIS OF THE INDIVIDUAL YOU DID 
INTERVIEW BUT YOU ARE REFUSING 
TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. 
CAN'T THE PRESIDENT FIRE THE 
FBI DIRECTOR AT ANY TIME 
WITHOUT REASON UNDER ARTICLE 1 
OF THE CONSTITUTION? 
ARTICLE 2? 
>> YES PRINT 
>> AND HE FIRE AS SPECIAL 
COUNSEL FOR ANY REASON? 
>> I BELIEVE THAT COULD BE THE 
CASE. 
HOLD ON ONE SECOND. 
YOU SAID WITHOUT ANY REASON? I 
KNOW THIS SPECIAL COUNSEL CAN 
REFERRED BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN TO 
THE EXTENT FOR WHATEVER REASON 
IS GIVEN. 
>> YOU TESTIFIED YOU WEREN'T 
FIRED AND YOU WERE ABLE TO 
COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION IN 
FULL. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO ADD TO WHAT 
I STATED BEFORE. 
>> MY TIME IS EXPIRED. 
>> THE GENTLELADY FROM 
PENNSYLVANIA. 
>> FROM TEXAS? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND 
THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER, FOR 
BEING WITH US. 
IT'S CLOSE TO THE AFTERNOON, 
NOW. 
FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, 
UNDERSTANDING THERE IS A GAG 
ORDER ON THE STONE CASE. 
I WILL KEEP MY QUESTIONS TO 
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION. 
>> I SAID THIS AT THE OUTSET 
AND I DON'T MEAN TO DISRUPT YOU 
BUT I'D LIKE SOME DEMARCATION 
OF THAT WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO 
THIS BUT ALSO IN SUCH A WAY 
THAT IT DOES NOT HINDER THE 
OTHER PROSECUTION TAKING PLACE 
IN D.C.. 
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT AND WE'LL 
TALK ABOUT THE QUESTIONS YOU 
ASKED IN WRITING TO THE 
PRESIDENT RELATING TO MR. 
STONE. 
MR. STONE'S INDICTMENT STATES 
AMONG OTHER THINGS THE 
FOLLOWING. 
STONE WAS CONTACTED BY SENIOR 
TRUMP OFFICIALS ABOUT FUTURE 
RELEASES OF ORGANIZATIONS AND 
THAT WOULD BE WIKILEAKS. 
THE INDICTMENT CONTINUES TO SAY 
THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS 
TOLD ABOUT POTENTIAL RELEASES OF
DAMAGING MATERIAL BY WIKILEAKS, 
SO IN SHORT, THE INDICTMENT 
ALLEGES THAT STONE WAS ASKED BY 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO GET 
INFORMATION ABOUT MORE 
WIKILEAKS RELEASES AND THAT 
STONE, IN FACT, DID TELL THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN ABOUT POTENTIAL 
FUTURE RELEASES, CORRECT? 
>> I SEE YOU ARE QUOTING FROM 
THE INDICTMENT, EVEN THOUGH 
IT'S A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. 
I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE DISCUSSING 
ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE 
STONE PROSECUTION. 
>> WE PULLED IT OFF. 
>> TURNING BACK TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S ANSWERS TO YOUR 
QUESTIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, THE 
PRESIDENT DENIED EVER 
DISCUSSING FUTURE WIKILEAKS 
RELEASES WITH STONE AND DENIED 
KNOWING WHETHER ANYONE ELSE HAD 
THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH STONE. 
IF YOU HAVE LEARNED THAT OTHER 
WITNESSES PUT IN A SLIGHT TO 
THE PRESIDENT, IF THEY HAD LIED 
TO THE QUESTIONS, WHETHER IN 
WRITING OR IN INTERVIEWS, COULD 
THEY BE CHARGED WITH FALSE 
STATEMENT CRIMES? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE 
BECAUSE I THINK YOU ARE ASKING 
FOR ME TO SPECULATE ON A SET OF 
CIRCUMSTANCES. 
>> LET'S PUT IT MORE SPECIFIC. 
IF I HAD MADE A FALSE 
STATEMENT, COULD I GO TO JAIL 
FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS? 
>> YES. 
BUT IT'S CONGRESS --
[ LAUGHTER ] 
>> THAT'S THE POINT, ISN'T IT? 
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT 
YOU OR THE CONGRESS AND 
CERTAINLY NOT THE PRESIDENT. 
THAT IS WHY THE THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE DESERVE TO LEARN THE 
FULL FACTS DESCRIBED IN THE 
REPORT FOR WHICH ANY OTHER 
PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED 
WITH CRIMES. 
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND 
THE POINT HAS BEEN UNDERSCORED 
MANY TIMES BUT I WILL REPEAT IT 
THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, 
THANK YOU. 
>> THANK YOU MA'AM. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH 
DAKOTA IS RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. MUELLER, HOW MANY PEOPLE 
ON YOUR STAFF DID YOUR FIRE 
DURING THE COURSE OF THE 
INVESTIGATION? 
HOW MANY DID YOU FIRE? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS 
THAT. 
>> ACCORDING TO THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL REPORT, ATTORNEY NUMBER 
TWO WAS LET GO AND WE KNOW 
PETER STRZOK WAS LET GO. 
>> THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHERS 
ON OTHER ISSUES EITHER 
TRANSFERRED OR FIRED. 
>> PETER STRZOK TESTIFIED THAT 
HE WAS FIRED BECAUSE YOU WERE 
CONCERNED ABOUT PRESERVING THE 
APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE. 
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE 
TESTIMONY? 
>> SAY THAT AGAIN. 
>> HE SAID HE WAS FIRED, AT 
LEAST PARTIALLY, BECAUSE YOU 
WERE WORRIED OR CONCERNED ABOUT 
PRESERVING THE APPEARANCE OF 
INDEPENDENCE WITH THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 
>> THE STATEMENT WAS BY WHOM? 
>> PETER STRZOK AT THAT 
HEARING. 
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. 
>> WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE 
APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE OF 
THE INVESTIGATION? 
>> NO. 
HE WAS TRANSFERRED BECAUSE OF 
INSTANCES INVOLVING TEXT 
MESSAGES. 
>> DO YOU AGREE THAT YOUR 
OFFICE NOT ONLY HAD AN 
OBLIGATION TO OPERATE WITH 
INDEPENDENCE BUT WITH THE 
APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE? 
>> WE STROVE TO DO THAT OVER 
THE TWO YEARS AND PART IF IT 
WAS MAKING CERTAIN -- 
>> ANDREW WEISSMAN IS ONE OF 
YOUR TOP ATTORNEYS? 
>> YES. 
>> DID YOU HAVE A ROLE IN 
SELECTING OTHER ATTORNEYS? 
>> SOME ROLE BUT NOT A MAJOR 
ROLE. 
>> DID YOU KNOW THAT HE HAD 
ATTENDED HILLARY CLINTON'S 
PARTY? 
>> HE WROTE AN EMAIL TO DEPUTY 
ATTORNEY GENERAL YATES STATING 
I AM SO PROUD AND IN OUR 
REGARDING HER DISOBEYING A 
DIRECT ORDER FROM THE 
PRESIDENT. 
DID WISEMAN DISCLOSE THAT A 
MILL BEFORE HE JOINED THE TEAM? 
>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. 
>> IS THAT NOT A CONFLICT OF 
INTEREST? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT 
THAT. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE WAS 
LITIGATION REGARDING PERSONAL 
EMAILS ORIGINATING FROM 
CLINTON'S TIME AS SECRETARY OF 
STATE? 
DID YOU KNOW THAT BEFORE SHE 
CAME ON? 
>> NO. 
>> THE GUY SITTING NEXT TO 
REPRESENTED JUSTIN COOPER, A 
CLINTON AIDE WHO DESTROYED ONE 
OF CLINTON'S MOBILE DEVICES AND 
YOU MUST BE AWARE THAT SIX OF 
YOUR LAWYERS DONATED $12,000 
DIRECTLY TO HILLARY CLINTON. 
I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE 
49,000 THEY DONATED TO OTHER 
DEMOCRATS, JUST THE OPPONENT 
WHO WAS THE TARGET OF YOUR 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> CAN I SPEAK TO THE HIRING 
PRACTICES? 
>> SURE. 
>> WE STROVE TO HIRE 
INDIVIDUALS THAT COULD DO THE 
JOB. 
>> OKAY. 
>> I'VE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS 
ALMOST $25 YEARS AND IN THOSE 
$25 YEARS, I'VE NOT HAD AN 
OCCASION TO ASK ABOUT POLITICAL 
AFFILIATION. 
IT IS NOT DONE. 
WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS THE 
CAPABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO 
DO THE JOB AND DO THE JOB 
QUICKLY AND SERIOUSLY AND WITH 
INTEGRITY. 
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. 
IT IS NOT JUST YOU BEING ABLE 
TO VOUCH FOR YOUR TEAM BUT THE 
DAY YOU ACCEPTED THIS ROLE, YOU 
HAD TO BE AWARE THAT NO MATTER 
WHAT THE REPORT CONCLUDED 
KHANNA HALF WOULD BE SKEPTICAL 
OF YOUR FINDINGS AND THAT'S WHY 
WE HAVE RECUSAL LAWS THAT 
DEFINE BIAS AND PERCEIVED BIAS 
FOR THIS REASON. 
SPECIFICALLY, NOT JUST 
POLITICAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
BUT THE APPEARANCE OF POLITICAL 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 
IT'S NOT ENOUGH THAT YOU VOUCH 
FOR YOUR TEAM. 
IT DEMANDS THAT NO PERCEIVED 
BIAS EXISTS AND I CAN'T IMAGINE 
A SINGLE PROSECUTOR OR JUDGE 
I'VE EVER APPEARED BEFORE WOULD 
BE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS WHERE 
HALF THE PROSECUTORIAL TEAM HAD 
A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE 
OPPONENT OF THE PERSON BEING 
INVESTIGATED. 
>> AND OTHER FACTORS WE'VE 
HIRED $19 LAWYERS OVER THE 
PERIOD OF TIME AND OF THEM, $14 
WERE TRANSFERRED FROM ELSEWHERE 
IN THE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AND ONLY FIVE CAME FROM 
OUTSIDE. 
>> HALF DID NOT HAVE A DIRECT 
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OPPONENT 
OF THE PERSON YOU ARE 
INVESTIGATING AND THAT'S MY 
POINT. 
IF NOT A SINGLE WORD WAS 
CHANGED, BUT RATHER, THE ONLY 
DIFFERENCE WAS THAT WE SWITCHED 
HILLARY CLINTON AND PRESIDENT 
TRUMP, IF PETER STRZOK HAD 
TEXTED THOSE TERRIBLE THINGS 
ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON INSTEAD OF
TRUMP, HAVE A TEAM OF LAWYERS 
DONATED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO 
AND WHEN TO TRUMP PARTIES 
INSTEAD OF CLINTON PARTIES, I 
DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE HERE 
TRYING TO PROP UP AN OBSTRUCTION
EVALUATION. 
MY COLLEAGUES WOULD HAVE SPENT 
THE LAST FOUR MONTHS ACCUSING 
YOUR TEAM OF BEING BOUGHT AND 
PAID FOR BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN 
AND WE COULDN'T TRUST A SINGLE 
WORD OF THIS REPORT. 
THERE WAS STILL ACCUSE THE 
PRESIDENT OF CONSPIRACY WITH 
RUSSIA AND THEY WOULD ACCUSE 
YOUR TEAM OF AIDING AND 
ABETTING THAT CONSPIRACY AND 
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. 
>>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM 
COLORADO. 
>> I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT ONE 
OF THE OTHER INCIDENTS OF 
OBSTRUCTION AND THAT SHOWS THE 
PRESIDENT DIRECTED HIS SON AND 
HIS COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR TO 
ISSUE A FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENT 
IN JUNE 2017 ABOUT A MEETING 
BETWEEN HIS CAMPAIGN AND 
INDIVIDUALS AT TRUMP TOWER IN 
2016. 
ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, MR. 
TRUMP JR. WAS THE ONLY 
ASSOCIATE WHO PARTICIPATED IN 
THE MEETING AND DECLINED TO BE 
VOLUNTARILY INTERVIEWED BY YOUR 
OFFICE. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> DID THEY COMMUNICATE ANY 
INTENT TO INVOKE THE FIFTH 
AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
INCRIMINATION? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER 
THAT. 
>> YOU POST WRITTEN QUESTIONS 
ABOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE 
TRUMP TOWER MEETING AND INCLUDED
WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD A FALSE 
PRESS STATEMENT AND THE 
PRESIDENT DID NOT ANSWER THAT 
STATEMENT. 
>> I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF 
ME AND I TAKE YOUR WORD. 
>> APPENDIX C, C $13, STATES AS 
MUCH AND ACCORDING TO YOUR 
REPORT, IT FOUND THAT HOPE 
HICKS, THE PRESIDENT'S 
COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR, IN JUNE 
2017, WAS SHOWN EMAILS THAT 
SENT UP THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING 
AND SHE TOLD THE OFFICE SHE 
WAS, QUOTE, SHOCKED BY THE 
EMAILS BECAUSE THEY LOOKED 
"REALLY BAD." 
IS THAT TRUE? 
AND WHILE YOU FLIP TO THAT 
PAGE, I WILL TELL YOU THAT 
ACCORDING TO PAGE $99 OF VOLUME 
TWO, THE EMAILS IN QUESTION 
STATED, ACCORDING TO YOUR 
REPORT, THAT THE PROSECUTOR OF 
RUSSIA OFFERED TO PROVIDE 
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND 
INFORMATION INCRIMINATING 
HILLARY AND HER DEALINGS OF 
RUSSIA AS PART OF THE SUPPORT 
FOR MR. TRUMP AND TRUMP JR. 
RESPONDED, IF IT'S WHAT YOU 
SAY, I LOVE IT. 
HE, KUSHNER AND MANAFORT MET 
WITH THE RUSSIAN ATTORNEYS AND 
SEVERAL OTHER INDIVIDUALS AT 
TRUMP TOWER ON JUNE 9, 2016. 
IS IT TRUE THAT MS. HICKS TOLD 
YOUR OFFICE THAT SHE WENT 
MULTIPLE TIMES TO THE PRESIDENT 
TO, QUOTE, URGE HIM THAT THEY 
SHOULD BE FULLY TRANSPARENT 
ABOUT THE JUNE 9TH MEETING BUT 
THE PRESIDENT, EACH TIME, SAID 
NO? 
>> ACCURATE. 
>> THE REASON WAS BECAUSE OF 
THOSE EMAILS, WHICH THE 
PRESIDENT BELIEVED WOULD NOT 
LEAK, CORRECT? 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN HOW IT'S 
CHARACTERIZED, BUT GENERALLY 
CORRECT. 
>> DID THE PRESIDENT DIRECT MS. 
HICKS TO SAY THAT TRUMP JR. 
TOOK A BRIEF MEETING ABOUT 
RUSSIA ADOPTION BECAUSE HIS 
STATEMENT TO THE NEW YORK TIMES 
SAID TOO MUCH, ACCORDING TO 
PAGE 102 OF VOLUME TWO? 
>> OKAY. 
>> CORRECT? 
>> LET ME CHECK ONE THING. 
YES. 
>> ACCORDING TO MS. HICKS, THE 
PRESIDENT DIRECTED HER TO SAY 
THE MEETING WAS ONLY ABOUT 
RUSSIAN ADOPTION, CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> DESPITE KNOWING THAT TO BE 
UNTRUE AND I YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE OF MY TIME. 
>> MR. MUELLER, YOU'VE BEEN 
ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS TODAY 
AND TO BE FRANK, YOU PERFORMED 
AS MOST OF US EXPECTED AND 
STUCK CLOSELY TO YOUR REPORT AND
DECLINED TO ANSWER MANY 
QUESTIONS ON BOTH SIDES. 
AS A CLOSER FOR THE REPUBLICAN 
SIDE, I WANT TO SUMMARIZE THE 
HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT WE'VE HEARD 
AND WHAT WE KNOW. 
YOU'VE SPENT TWO YEARS AND 
NEARLY 30 MILLION TAXPAYER 
DOLLARS FOR THE REPORT THAT 
YOU'VE DESCRIBED AS VERY 
THOROUGH. 
MILLIONS OF AMERICANS MAINTAIN 
GENUINE CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR 
WORK, IN LARGE PART, BECAUSE OF 
THE INFLUENCE AND WIDE BIAS OF 
YOUR TEAM MEMBERS. 
WE NOW KNOW IT INCLUDED $14 
DEMOCRATS AND ZERO REPUBLICANS. 
THAT TEAM OF DEMOCRAT 
INVESTIGATORS YOU HIRED DONATED 
MORE THAN $60,000 TO THE 
HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND 
OTHER CANDIDATES ON YOUR TEAM 
INCLUDED PETER STRZOK AND LISA 
PAGE AND THEY ALSO HAD THE 
LURID TEXT MESSAGES THAT 
CONFIRM THEY OPENLY MOCKED AND 
HATED DONALD TRUMP AND HIS 
SUPPORTERS AND THEY VOWED TO 
TAKE HIM OUT. 
MR. RADCLIFFE ASKED YOU 
EARLIER, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN 
EXAMPLE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP 
OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
DETERMINED THAT AN INVESTIGATED 
PERSON WAS NOT EXONERATED 
BECAUSE THEIR INNOCENCE WAS NOT 
DETERMINED AND YOU ANSWERED, I 
CANNOT. 
SIR, THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED. 
THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED FROM THE 
BEGINNING THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM
HAD SERIOUS CONFLICTS AND THAT 
IS STATED IN THE REPORT AND 
ACKNOWLEDGED BY EVERYBODY BUT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP COOPERATED FULLY
AND KNEW HE HAD DONE RUSHING 
WRONG AND ENCOURAGED ALL 
WITNESSES TO COOPERATE AND 
PRODUCE MORE THAN 1.4 MILLION 
PAGES OF INFORMATION AND 
ALLOWED OVER $40 WITNESSES 
AFFILIATED WITH THE WHITE HOUSE 
OR HIS CAMPAIGN. 
YOUR REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 
IF VOLUME OF EVIDENCE EXISTED 
OF THE PRESIDENT TELLING MANY 
PEOPLE PRIVATELY, THE PRESIDENT 
WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT 
OF THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION ON 
HIS ABILITY TO GOVERN AND TO 
ADDRESS IMPORTANT ISSUES OF 
NATIONAL SECURITY AND ON PAGE 
174, VOLUME TWO, YOUR REPORT 
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SUPREME 
COURT HELD REMOVAL POWERS AT 
THEIR ZENITH WITH RESPECT TO 
PERSONAL OFFICES. 
THAT IS OFFICE AS REPORTED BY 
THE PRESIDENT AND TO REPORT TO 
HIM DIRECTLY. 
THE POWER OF REMOVAL AND FOR 
THOSE OFFICERS, IT FURTHER 
ENSURES THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY 
EXECUTED. 
THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL. 
IN SPITE OF ALL OF THAT, 
NOTHING HAPPENED TO STOP OR 
IMPEDE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
INVESTIGATION. 
NOBODY WAS FIRED BY THE 
PRESIDENT. 
AS YOU CONCLUDED, THE EVIDENCE 
DID NOT ESTABLISH WITH THE 
UNDERLYING CRIME. 
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH 
THAT THE PRESIDENT OR THOSE 
CLOSE TO HIM WERE INVOLVED IN 
RUSSIAN CONSPIRACY OR HAD 
UNLAWFUL RELATIONSHIPS WITH ANY 
RUSSIAN OFFICIAL AND OVER THOSE 
MONTHS, IT WAS INCREASINGLY 
FRUSTRATED. 
WITH THE EFFECT ON OUR COUNTRY 
AND HIS ABILITY TO GOVERNMENT, 
HE VENTED ABOUT THIS AND SHARED 
HIS FRUSTRATIONS ON TWITTER. 
WHILE THE PRESIDENT'S SOCIAL 
MEDIA ACCOUNTS MIGHT HAVE 
INFLUENCED SOME IN THE MEDIA OR 
SOME OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, 
NONE OF THOSE AUDIENCES WERE 
TARGETS OR WITNESSES IN YOUR 
INVESTIGATION. 
THE PRESIDENT NEVER AFFECTED 
ANYBODY'S TESTIMONY, NEVER 
DEMANDED TO END THE 
INVESTIGATION AND NEVER MISLED 
CONGRESS, THE D.O.J. 
OR THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. 
THOSE ARE UNDISPUTED FACTS AND 
THERE WILL BE A LOT OF 
DISCUSSION AND GREAT 
FRUSTRATION THROUGHOUT THE 
COUNTRY ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU 
WOULDN'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS 
ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THIS WHOLE 
CHARADE, THE INFAMOUS 
CHRISTOPHER STEELE DOSSIER, NOW 
PROVEN TO BE TOTALLY BOGUS EVEN 
THOUGH IT'S LISTED AND 
REFERENCED IN YOUR REPORT. 
AS THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED, WE 
APPARENTLY WILL GET NO COMMENT 
ON THAT FROM YOU. 
THERE IS ONE PRIMARY REASON YOU 
WERE CALLED HERE TODAY BY THE 
DEMOCRAT MAJORITY OF OUR 
COMMITTEE. 
OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER 
SIDE OF THE ONE POLITICAL COVER 
AND DESPERATELY WANTED YOU TO 
TELL THEM THEY SHOULD IMPEACH 
THE PRESIDENT. 
THE ONE THING YOU HAVE SAID 
VERY CLEARLY TODAY IS THAT YOUR 
REPORT IS COMPLETE AND THOROUGH 
AND YOU COMPLETELY AGREE WITH 
AND STAND BY THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE 
CONTENT. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> ONE LAST QUESTION. 
YOUR REPORT DOES NOT RECOMMEND 
IMPEACHMENT, DOES IT? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT 
THE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
>> IT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT 
IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE 
APPROPRIATE? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT 
THAT THAT, ABOUT THAT ISSUE. 
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE MANY 
THINGS HE WOULDN'T TALK ABOUT 
TODAY BUT I THINK WE CAN ALL 
DRAW OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS AND I 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO 
OUR COUNTRY AND I'M GLAD YOU 
WERE HERE AND WE CAN GET BACK 
TO THE IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR THE 
COUNTRY. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK 
AND OUR INTENT WAS TO CONCLUDE 
THE HEARING AT AROUND 11:45 AND 
ALL THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS HAVE 
NOW ASKED THEIR QUESTIONS. 
WE HAVE A FEW REMAINING 
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS THAT WILL 
LIMIT THEIR QUESTIONS. 
WE EXPECT TO FINISH WITHIN $15 
MINUTES. 
THE GENTLELADY FROM GEORGIA? 
>> THANK YOU. 
YOUR INVESTIGATIONS OF THE 
RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY 
AND THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
WERE EXTRAORDINARILY PRODUCTIVE 
AND UNDER TWO YEARS, YOU 
CHARGED AT LEAST $37 PEOPLE OR 
ENTITIES WITH CRIMES AND 
CONVICTED SEVEN INDIVIDUALS, 
FIVE OF WHOM WERE TOP TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN OR WHITEHOUSE AIDES 
WITH CHARGES PENDING AGAINST 
MORE THAN TWO DOZEN RUSSIAN 
PERSONS OR ENTITIES AND AGAINST 
OTHERS. 
LET ME START WITH THOSE AIDS 
THAT YOU CONVICTED. 
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THEY ARE 
PAUL MANAFORT, PRESIDENT 
TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER, RICK 
GATES, DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER, 
MICHAEL FLYNN, PRESIDENT DONALD 
TRUMP'S FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISER, MICHAEL COHEN, THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY, 
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, PRESIDENT 
DONALD TRUMP'S FORMER CAMPAIGN 
FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER, 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
AND THEY WILL FACE TRIAL LATER 
THIS YEAR, CORRECT? 
AND THAT PERSON WOULD BE ROGER 
STONE, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT YOU 
SAID ABOUT ROGER STONE BUT HE IS
IN ANOTHER COURT SYSTEM AS I 
INDICATED BEFORE. 
>> EXACTLY. 
>> CORRECT. 
THERE ARE MANY OTHER CHARGES, 
AS WELL, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU IN MY 
LIMITED TIME FOR YOUR TEAM AND 
THE WORK THAT YOU DID AND YOUR 
DEDICATION. 
IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS YOUR 
TEAM UNCOVERED AN INCREDIBLE 
AMOUNT OF INFORMATION RELATED TO
RUSSIA'S ATTACK ON OUR 
ELECTIONS AND TO OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE AND THERE IS STILL MORE 
WE HAVE TO LEARN. 
DESPITE FACING UNFAIR ATTACKS BY
THE PRESIDENT AND EVEN HERE 
TODAY, YOUR WORK HAS BEEN 
SUBSTANTIVE AND FAIR. 
THE WORK HAS LAID THE CRITICAL 
FOUNDATION FOR OUR 
INVESTIGATION AND FOR THAT, I 
THANK YOU. 
I THANK YOU. 
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE OF MY TIME. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA? 
>> DIRECTOR MOTHER, I'M 
DISAPPOINTED THAT SOME HAVE 
QUESTIONED YOUR MOTIVES 
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS AND I 
WANT TO TAKE ONE MOMENT TO 
REMIND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF 
WHO YOU ARE AND YOUR EXEMPLARY 
SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. 
YOU ARE A MARINE AND SERVED IN 
VIETNAM AND EARNED A BRONZE 
STAR AND PURPLE HEART, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> WHICH PRESIDENT APPOINTED 
YOU TO BECOME THE U.S. ATTORNEY 
FOR MASSACHUSETTS? 
WHICH PRESIDENT? 
>> I THINK IT WAS PRESIDENT 
BUSH. 
>> ACCORDING TO MY NOTES, IT 
WAS PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN HAD 
THE HONOR TO DO SO. 
>> MY MISTAKE. 
>> UNDER WHOSE ADMINISTRATION 
DID YOU SERVE AS THE ASSISTANT 
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CHARGE OF 
THE D.O.J. 
CRIMINAL DIVISION? 
>> UNDER WHICH PRESIDENT? 
THAT WOULD BE GEORGE BUSH. 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
GEORGE H.W. 
BUSH. 
AFTER THAT, YOU TOOK A JOB AT A 
PRESTIGIOUS LAW FIRM AND AFTER 
ONLY A COUPLE OF YEARS, YOU DID 
SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY. 
YOU LEFT THAT LUCRATIVE 
POSITION TO REENTER PUBLIC 
SERVICE, PROSECUTING HOMICIDES 
IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> WHEN YOU ARE NAMED DIRECTOR 
OF THE FBI, WHICH PRESIDENT 
APPOINTED YOU? 
>> BUSH. 
>> THE SENATE CONFIRMED YOU 
WITH A VOTE OF 98-0, CORRECT? 
>> SURPRISING. 
>> YOU WERE SWORN IN AS 
DIRECTOR ONE WEEK BEFORE THE 
SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS AND HELPED 
PROTECT THIS NATION AGAINST 
ANOTHER ATTACK AND DID SUCH AN 
OUTSTANDING JOB THAT WHEN YOUR 
$10-YEAR TERM EXPIRED, THE 
SENATE UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO 
EXTEND YOUR TERM FOR ANOTHER TWO
YEARS, CORRECT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> WHEN YOU ARE ASKED IN 2017 TO
TAKE THE JOB A SPECIAL COUNSEL, 
THE PRESIDENT HAD JUST FIRED 
FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY AND 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE 
FBI WERE IN TURMOIL. 
YOU MUST HAVE KNOWN THERE WOULD 
BE AN EXTRAORDINARY CHALLENGE. 
WHY DID YOU ACCEPT? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO 
THAT, IT'S OFF-TRACK. A 
CHALLENGE. 
>> SOME HAVE ATTACK THE 
POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS OF YOUR 
TEAM, EVEN SUGGESTING YOUR 
INVESTIGATION WAS A WITCH HUNT. 
WHEN YOU CONSIDER PEOPLE 
JOINING YOUR TEAM, DID YOU EVER 
ASK ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL 
AFFILIATION? 
>> NEVER ONCE. 
>> AND YOUR CAREER AS A LAW 
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL, HAVE YOU 
úEVER MADE A HIRING DECISION 
BASED ON POLITICAL 
AFFILIATIONS? 
>> NO. 
>> IF I MIGHT INTERJECT, THE 
CAPABILITIES WE HAVE SHOWN IN 
THE REPORT THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED
HERE TODAY, IT WAS THE RESULT 
OF A TEAM OF AGENTS AND LAWYERS 
WHO WERE EXEMPLARY AND WERE 
HIRED BECAUSE OF THE VALUE THEY 
COULD CONTRIBUTE TO GETTING THE 
JOB DONE EXPEDITIOUSLY. 
>> IN READING YOUR REPORT AND 
LISTENING, YOU ACTED FAIRLY 
WITH RESTRAINT AND THERE WERE 
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU COULD 
HAVE FILED CHARGES AGAINST 
OTHERS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT 
BUT YOU DECLINED AND NOT EVERY 
PROSECUTOR DOES THAT AND 
CERTAINLY THE ATTACKS MADE 
AGAINST YOU INTENSIFIED BECAUSE 
YOUR REPORT IS DAMMING AND I 
BELIEVE YOU DID UNCOVER 
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF HIGH 
CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AND LET 
ME ALSO SAY SOMETHING ELSE THAT 
YOU WERE RIGHT ABOUT. 
THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THIS 
SITUATION IS FOR CONGRESS TO 
TAKE ACTION AND I YIELD BACK. 
>> THE GENTLELADY FROM 
PENNSYLVANIA? 
>> GOOD MORNING, DIRECTOR 
MUELLER. 
NATALIE DEAN. 
>> GOT YOU, SORRY. 
>> I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT PUBLIC 
CONFUSION CONNECTED WITH 
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S RELEASE 
OF YOUR ONE REPORT. I 
WILL RECALL YOUR MARCH 27TH 
LETTER. 
IN THAT LETTER, AND SEVERAL 
OTHER TIMES, DID YOU CONVEY TO 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE, 
QUOTE, INTRODUCTIONS AND 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF OUR TWO 
VOLUME REPORT ACCURATELY 
SUMMARIZE THIS OFFICE'S WORK AND
CONCLUSIONS? 
>> I'D HAVE TO SAY THAT THE 
LETTER, ITSELF, SPEAKS FOR 
ITSELF. 
>> THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS IN 
THAT LETTER? 
CONTINUING WITH YOUR LETTER, 
YOU WROTE TO THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL THAT THE SUMMARY LETTER 
THE DEPARTMENT SENT TO CONGRESS 
AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC LATE 
IN THE AFTERNOON OF MARCH 24TH 
DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE 
CONTEXT, NATURE AND SUBSTANCE 
OF THE WORK AND CONCLUSIONS. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I WOULD RELY ON THE LETTER 
FOR ITS TERMS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE REPORT 
WITH THE NATURE, THE SUBSTANCE 
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID 
NOT CAPTURE? 
>> WE CAPTURED THAT IN THE 
MARCH 27TH RESPONSIVE LETTER. 
>> THIS IS FROM THE 27TH 
LETTER. 
WHAT WERE SOME SPECIFICS? 
>> I DIRECTED IT IN THE LETTER 
ITSELF. 
>> OKAY. 
YOU FINISH THAT LETTER BY SAYING
THERE IS NOW PUBLIC CONFUSION 
ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECTS AS A 
RESULT OF OUR INVESTIGATION. 
COULD YOU TELL US SOME OF THE 
CONFUSION YOU IDENTIFIED? 
>> NOT GENERALLY. 
THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. 
>> COULD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR 
HAVE AVOIDED PUBLIC CONFUSION 
IF HE HAD RELEASED YOUR 
SUMMARIES AND YOUR EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARIES? 
>> I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE 
SPECULATING ON THAT. 
>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN AN 
INTERVIEW WITH CBS NEWS, SAID 
YOU COULD HAVE REACHED, COULD 
HAVE REACHED A DECISION AS TO 
WHETHER IT WAS CRIMINAL 
ACTIVITY ON THE PART OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR S 
STAFEVER TELL YOU THAT 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. 
>> OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD 
DIRECTED YOU OR ORDERED YOU TO 
MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL 
ACTIVITY, WOULD YOU HAVE SO 
DONE? 
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION 
IN THE VACUUM. 
>> I THANK YOU FOR BEING YOU 
AND I AGREE WITH YOUR MARCH 
27TH LETTER. 
THERE WAS PUBLIC CONFUSION AND 
THE PRESIDENT TOOK FULL 
ADVANTAGE BY FALSELY CLAIMING 
YOUR REPORT FOUND NO 
OBSTRUCTION. 
LET US BE CLEAR, YOUR REPORT 
DID NOT EXONERATE THE 
PRESIDENT, INSTEAD, IT PROVIDED 
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, LEADING 
CONGRESS TO DO ITS DUTY AND WE 
SHALL NOT SHRINK FROM THAT DUTY 
AND I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A POINT 
OF EQUITY ON YOUR LEFT. 
>> WAS THE POINT OF THIS 
HEARING TO GET MR. MUELLER TO 
RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT? 
>> THAT IS NOT A FAIR POINT OF 
INQUIRY. 
THE GENTLE LEADER FLORIDA IS 
RECOGNIZE. 
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IN POINT -- 
>> YOU ARE A PATRIOT AND I 
REFER YOU NOW TO VOLUME 2, PAGE 
158. 
YOU WROTE THAT "THE PRESIDENT'S 
EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE THE 
INVESTIGATION WERE MOSTLY 
UNSUCCESSFUL, BUT THAT IS 
LARGELY BECAUSE THE PERSONS WHO 
SURROUNDED THE PRESIDENT 
DECLINED TO CARRY OUT ORDERS OR 
EXCEED TO HIS REQUESTS" IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS ACCURATE AND WHAT WE 
FOUND. 
>> YOU REFER TO SENIOR ADVISERS 
WHO DISOBEYED THE PRESIDENT'S 
ORDERS LIKE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL 
DON MCGAHN, FORMER CAMPAIGN 
MANAGER, COREY LEWANDOWSKI. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> WE HAVE NOT SPECIFIED. 
>> ON PAGE 158, WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL DON MCGAHN, QUOTE, DID 
NOT TELL THE ACTING ATTORNEY 
GENERAL THAT THE COUNCIL MUST 
BE REMOVED BUT WAS INSTEAD 
PREPARED TO RESIGN OVER THE 
PRESIDENT'S ORDERS. 
YOU ALSO EXPLAINED THAT AN 
ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE 
DOES NOT HAVE TO SUCCEED TO BE 
A CRIME, RIGHT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> SIMPLY ATTEMPTING TO 
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE CAN BE A 
CRIME, CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> SO, EVEN THOUGH THE 
PRESIDENT'S AIDES REFUSED TO 
CARRY OUT THE ORDERS TO 
INTERFERE WITH YOUR 
INVESTIGATION, THAT IS NOT A 
DEFENSE TO OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE BY THIS PRESIDENT, IS 
IT? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE. 
>> TO REITERATE, SIMPLY TRYING 
TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE CAN BE A 
CRIME? 
>> YES. 
>> THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO 
INFLUENCE THE INVESTIGATION 
WERE MOSTLY UNSUCCESSFUL AND 
THAT'S BECAUSE NOT ALL OF HIS 
EFFORTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL, 
RIGHT? 
>> ARE YOU READING INTO WHAT WE 
HAD WRITTEN IN THE REPORT? 
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK IF YOU 
COULD JUST TELL ME WHICH YOU 
HAD IN MIND AS SUCCESSFUL WHEN 
YOU WROTE THAT SENTENCE. 
>> I'M GOING TO PASS ON THAT. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, TODAY, 
WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE 
SEPARATE ACTS BY THIS PRESIDENT 
BUT YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT 
THAT "THE OVERALL PATTERN OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TOWARDS 
INVESTIGATIONS CAN SHED LIGHT ON
THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
ACTS AND THE INFERENCES CAN BE 
DRAWN ABOUT HIS INTENT"," 
CORRECT? 
>> ACCURATE AND RECITATION FROM 
THE REPORT. 
>> ON PAGE 158, I THINK IT'S 
IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO NOTE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT 
HAD A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WHEN HE
REALIZED THAT IT WAS THE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT WERE 
CONDUCTED TO INVESTIGATE HIS 
OBSTRUCTION ACTS. 
IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE DECIDING 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THEY 
NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT AND OVERALL 
PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I DON'T DISAGREE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, DR. ALSO, 
I WILL DESIGNATE THAT, TOO, I 
HAVE CERTAINLY MADE UP MY MIND 
ABOUT WHETHER WHAT WE HAVE 
REVIEWED TODAY MEETS THE 
ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION, 
INCLUDING WHETHER THERE WAS 
CORRUPT INTENT AND WHAT IS 
CLEAR, IS THAT ANYONE ELSE, 
INCLUDING SOME MEMBERS OF 
CONGRESS WOULD HAVE BEEN 
CHARGED WITH CRIMES FOR THESE 
ACTS. 
WE WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THIS 
BEHAVIOR FROM ANY OF THE 
PREVIOUS $44 PRESIDENTS AND WE 
SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT NOW OR FOR 
THE FUTURE, TO PROTECT OUR 
DEMOCRACY. 
YES, WE WILL CONTINUE TO 
INVESTIGATE BECAUSE AS YOU 
CLEARLY STATED AT THE END OF 
YOUR REPORT, NO ONE IS ABOVE 
THE LAW. 
>> THE GENTLELADY YIELD 
>> . THE GENTLELADY FROM TEXAS. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU WROTE 
IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU, QUOTE, 
DETERMINED NOT TO MAKE A 
TRADITIONAL PROSECUTORIAL 
JUDGMENT. 
WAS THAT, IN PART, BECAUSE OF 
THE OPINION BY THE DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL 
COUNSEL THAT A SITTING 
PRESIDENT CAN'T BE CHARGED WITH 
A CRIME? 
>> YES. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, AT YOUR 
MAY 29 PRESS CONFERENCE, YOU 
EXPLAINED THAT THE OPINION SAYS 
THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES 
A PROCESS OTHER THAN THE 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO 
FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING 
PRESIDENT OF WRONGDOING. 
THAT PROCESS, OTHER THAN THE 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR 
ACCUSING A PRESIDENT OF 
WRONGDOING, IS THAT 
IMPEACHMENT? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON 
THAT. 
>> YOU ALSO WROTE THAT YOU DID 
NOT WANT TO, QUOTE, POTENTIALLY 
PREEMPT CONSTITUTIONAL 
PROCESSES FOR ADDRESSING 
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT. 
FOR THE NONLAWYERS IN THE ROOM, 
WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY, QUOTE, 
POTENTIALLY PREEMPT 
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO EXPLAIN 
THAT. 
>> THAT COMES FROM PAGE ONE, 
VOLUME TWO IN THE FOOTNOTE WITH 
THE REFERENCE TO THIS. 
WHAT ARE THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL 
PROCESSES? 
>> I THINK I HEARD YOU MENTION 
AT LEAST ONE. 
>> IMPEACHMENT, CORRECT? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT. 
>> OKAY. 
THAT IS ONE OF THE 
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES LISTED 
IN THE FOOTNOTE IN VOLUME TWO 
AND YOUR REPORT DOCUMENTS THE 
MANY WAYS THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT 
TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR 
INVESTIGATION AND YOU STATE IN 
YOUR REPORT ON PAGE $10 VOLUME 
TWO THAT INTERFERING WITH A 
CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY OR 
INVESTIGATION WITH CORRUPT 
INTENT CAN ALSO CONSTITUTE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
>> TRUE. 
>> WELL, THE PRESIDENT HAS TOLD 
US HE INTENDS TO FIGHT ALL OF 
THE SUBPOENAS AND HIS CONTINUED 
EFFORTS
MUELLER, THAT WE ALL HAVE A 
VITAL ROLE IN HOLDING THIS 
PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS 
ACTIONS.
MORE THAN THAT, I BELIEVE WE IN 
CONGRESS HAVE A DUTY TO DEMAND 
ACCOUNTABILITY AND SAFEGUARD ONE
OF OUR NATION'S HIGHEST 
PRINCIPLES THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE 
THE LAW.
FROM EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE 
HEARD YOU SAY HERE TODAY, IT'S 
CLEAR THAT ANYONE ELSE WOULD 
HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED BASED ON 
THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN YOUR 
REPORT.
IT NOW FALLS ON US TO HOLD 
PRESIDENT TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK.
>> GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK.
>> POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
>> WE DID GET IN OUR TIME.
OUR SIDE GOT OUR FIVE MINUTES 
IN.
ALSO MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR 
BEING HERE.
I JOIN THE CHAIRMAN AND THANK 
YOU FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANK YOU.
DIRECTOR MUELLER THANKS NOR 
ATTENDING TODAY'S HEARING.
BEFORE WE CONCLUDE, I ASK 
EVERYONE TO PLEASE REMAIN SEATED
AND QUIET WHILE THE WITNESS 
EXITS THE ROOM.
>> WELL, A HISTORIC HEARING THIS
MORNING.
3 1/2 HOURS, ALL 41 MEMBERS OF 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
ASKING QUESTIONS.
CBS NEWS, WE COUNTED 110 
ONE-WORD ANSWERS BY THE 
COMMERCIAL COUNSEL.
THE DEMOCRAT THAT DID BEGIN THIS
HEARING BY GETTING THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL TO SAY OUT LOUD WHAT HE 
HAS WRITTEN IN HIS REPORT THAT 
HE DID NOT EXONERATE PRESIDENT 
TRUMP.
THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT THE 
>>> FROM CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER. 
>> YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND, 
QUOTE, MULTIPLE ACTS BY THE 
PRESIDENT CAPABLE OF EXERTING 
UNDUE INFLUENCE OVER LAW 
ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS 
INCLUDING THE RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE AND OBSTRUCTION 
INVESTIGATIONS. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN IN PLAIN 
TERMS WHAT THAT FINDING MEANS 
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN 
UNDERSTAND IT? 
>> WELL, THE FINDING INDICATES 
THAT THE PRESIDENT -- THE 
PRESIDENT WAS WAS -- THE 
PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXCULPATED 
FOR THE ACTS HE ALLEGEDLY 
COMMITTED. 
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE HEADLINES 
FROM THE HEARINGS THIS MORNING 
AND WITH ME NOW OUR CBS NEWS 
CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, 
MAJOR GARRETT AND ANALYST 
JONATHAN TURLEY. 
JUST OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE, 
THERE IS NO MARINE STANDING 
THERE AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE 
PRESIDENT IS NOT IN THE OVAL 
OFFICE AND THAT MEANS THE 
PRESIDENT IS LIKELY IN HIS 
RESIDENCE WATCHING THIS 
COVERAGE THIS MORNING AND WE'VE 
ESSENTIALLY HEARD AS MUCH FROM 
OUR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, BEN 
TRACY. 
I INTRODUCED MAJOR GARRETT AND 
JONATHAN TURLEY JOINS US AND 
KIM WEHLE, A LAW PROFESSOR AND 
FORMER PROSECUTOR. 
AN EXTRAORDINARY MORNING. 
THE DEMOCRATS WROTE A SCRIPT 
AND THEY EACH TOOK THEIR PART 
AND LAID OUT ALL OF THE 
INSTANCES OF POTENTIAL 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AGAINST 
THE PRESIDENT AND THEY WANTED 
THIS TO BE A MOVIE. 
WHAT ROLE DID ROBERT MUELLER 
PLAY? 
>> THE MOTHER REPORT IS THE 
BOOK AND HOW MANY AMERICANS 
HAVE READ THE BOOK AND HOW MANY 
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE READ 
THE BOOK? 
A LOT OF AMERICANS DON'T WRITE 
BOOKS BUT THEY GO TO THE 
MOVIES. 
THEY WANTED THIS TO BE THE 
MOVIE VERSION OF THE ROD B 
MOTHER REPORT. 
DID THEY ACT AS THE MATINEE 
IDOL OR THE CENTRAL GALVANIZING 
FIGURE OF THE DRAMA? 
NO. 
EVEN WHEN ASKED TO READ THINGS 
FROM HIS OWN REPORT, HE 
REFUSED. 
NO, YOU READ FROM THE REAR PART,
I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. 
WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO EITHER 
COME CLOSE TO OR DO 
INTERPRETIVE ANALYSIS, NO 
INTERPRETATION. 
WOULD HE USE THE WORD 
IMPEACHMENT? 
NO. 
WOULD HE SAY THAT IS WHAT HE IS 
EGGING THEM ON TO DOOR IMPLYING 
THAT IS SOMETHING THEY SHOULD 
CONSIDER, NO. 
HE CONSTANTLY STAYED WITH THE 
REPORT AND IF NOT BACKED AWAY 
FROM IT, ASSERTED IT AS THE 
ONLY RELEVANT DOCUMENT. 
IN EFFECT, HE WAS LESS RELEVANT 
THAN THE REPORT, HIMSELF. 
>> WAS THAT INTENTIONAL, FOR 
HIM TO BE LESS RELEVANT? 
>> HE CERTAINLY SUCCEEDED. 
IT WAS LIKE WATCHING A 
PASSIONATE CONVERSATION WITH AN 
ANSWERING MACHINE. 
HE GAVE MONOSYLLABIC RESPONSES 
AND THE MOST NEWSY THING THAT 
CAME OUT WAS THAT 
REPRESENTATIVE LESKO APPARENTLY 
CAN GET CABLE FOR $50 A MONTH 
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT WAS 
JUST THREE CITATIONS OF THE 
REPORT AND MOTHER REFUSING TO 
ANSWER OR BARELY ANSWERING. 
THE POSITION WAS CONFUSING AND 
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHERE HE 
WAS DRAWING THE LINE. 
HE REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS 
ABOUT THE ELEMENTS BUT THEN HE 
WOULD ANSWER ANOTHER QUESTION. A
LOT OF THE STUFF HE REFUSED TO 
ANSWER, HE WAS ALLOWED TO 
ANSWER. 
BILL BARR TESTIFIED TOO MUCH OF 
THAT STUFF. 
IT WAS CONFUSING ON WHAT BASIS 
HE DECLINED TO ANSWER. 
I KNOW HE DIDN'T WANT TO ANSWER 
BUT A LOT OF THAT STUFF IS NOT 
PRIVILEGED. 
>> AS POINTED OUT, IN THIS 
REPORT, HE DID NOT EVER 
SUBPOENA PRESIDENT TRUMP OR 
INSIST ON HIS QUESTIONING OR 
CHARGE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
U.S. WITH OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE. 
YET, THE REPUBLICANS PARADED 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. 
WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THEIR 
QUESTIONING? 
>> THEY TRY TO MAKE IT ABOUT 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, VS. 
MR. TRUMP AND THEY PROBABLY 
SUCCEEDED TO SOME EXTENT BUT 
SOME THINGS WERE ESTABLISHED 
AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE 
INVESTIGATION, ITSELF, CAME OFF 
AS HUMBLE AND HE BACKED UP HIS 
TEAM IN THE OPENING REMARKS 
WERE, IT WAS A NEUTRAL LAW 
INVESTIGATION. 
HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE DID 
NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT AND 
THAT HE COULD BE EXONERATED 
AFTER HE FINISHES OFFICES. 
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL 
NOT HAVE RUN IF HE DOES NOT GET 
A SECOND TERM. 
>> THERE WAS A TACTIC 
REMINISCENT FOR THOSE COVERING 
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT WAS NOT 
THE EVIDENCE, BUT WHO GATHERED 
IT AND I REMEMBER REPUBLICANS 
BEING DEEPLY FRUSTRATED WITH 
DEMOCRATS CONSTANTLY RAISING 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FACT 
GATHERERS, NOT THE FACTS, 
THEMSELVES. A 
RULE REVERSE ARE COMPLETELY AND 
WHAT OUGHT TO MATTER IS THE 
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE AND WHAT I 
FOUND FASCINATING IS YOU DID 
NOT SEE ANY REPUBLICAN ATTEMPT 
TO UNDERMINE THE ASSERTION THAT 
THESE BEHAVIORS AND THIS PATTERN
OF BEHAVIOR FROM THE PRESIDENT, 
IF NOT CRIMINALLY INDICTABLE AS 
OBSTRUCTION, CERTAINLY SOUNDS 
OBSTRUCTIVE. 
THEY DID NOT TRY TO ATTACK THAT 
ASSERTION AT ALL. 
>> I WANT TO BRING IN PAULA 
RID AT THE WHITE HOUSE. 
DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, 
ESSENTIALLY, THERE WAS AN 
EFFORT BY THE REPUBLICANS TO 
CHALLENGE THE INTEGRITY OF SOME 
OF THE INVESTIGATORS BUT NOT 
SOME OF THE CHARGES THAT WERE 
MADE IN THIS REPORT? 
>> Reporter: EXACTLY. 
THEY TRIED NOT TO DRAW ATTENTION
THAT SIX OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
ASSOCIATES WERE CHARGED AND 
FIVE OF THEM CONVICTED AND IT 
WAS INTERESTING TO SEE HOW 
MUELLER HANDLED THE 
REPUBLICANS. 
LARGELY, HE LET THEM SHARE THE 
UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS ABOUT 
THE ORIGIN OF THE INVESTIGATION 
AND THE STEELE DOSSIER AND 
GEORGE PAPP ANNAPOLIS, WITHOUT 
BEING CHALLENGED. 
NO PUSH BACK READ WHAT HE WOULD 
NOT ALLOW WAS CRITICISM OF HIS 
INVESTIGATORS AND IT WAS ONE OF 
THE STRONGEST MOMENTS IN THE 
HEARINGS. 
HE SHOT BACK ABOUT WHETHER HE 
SHOULD HAVE VETTED PEOPLE FOR 
WHO THEY SUPPORTED IN THE LAST 
CAMPAIGN OR IF YOU SHOULD'VE 
SEEN THIS AS A POLITICALLY 
CHARGED INVESTIGATION. 
HE SAID, QUOTE, HAD BEEN IN THIS
BUSINESS FOR ALMOST $25 YEARS 
AND IN THOSE $25 YEARS, I'VE 
NOT HAD OCCASION ONCE TO ASK 
PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL 
AFFILIATION. 
IT WAS NOT DONE AND IT WAS A 
SIGNIFICANT MOMENT BECAUSE HE 
PUSHED BACK AGAINST THE 
REPUBLICANS AND THEIR 
NARRATIVE. 
>> DO YOU THINK IT'S BECAUSE 
WAS TRYING TO INTACT THE 
INTEGRITY OF THE INVESTIGATION? 
THE LIMITED ANSWERS WITH YES AND
NO, IT'S IN THE REPORT, I'M NOT 
GOING TO READ FROM THE REPORT 
-- HE WANTED TO BE HUMBLE AND 
RESPECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE 
REPORT AND NOT ADD ANYTHING 
EXTRA THAT WOULD DISTRACT FROM 
IT? 
>> HE WANTS PEOPLE TO FOCUS ON 
THE REPORT AND THERE WAS 
FRUSTRATION FOR THOSE ON HIS 
TEAM THAT THERE IS FOCUS ON THE 
QUESTION OF OBSTRUCTION AND NOT 
ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND EVEN
ON THE FIRST DAY WHEN WE GOT 
THE REPORT AND WE WERE FLIPPING 
THROUGH IT, I REMEMBER STAFFERS 
SAYING, GO TO VOLUME ONE AND 
HE'S EXPRESSING THE FRUSTRATION 
ABOUT FIELDING COMMENTS ABOUT 
THE INTEGRITY OF THE 
INVESTIGATORS WHEN HE BELIEVES 
THEY HAVE DONE INCREDIBLY 
IMPORTANT WORK ABOUT A FOREIGN 
ADVERSARY WHO TRIED TO MEDDLE 
IN OUR DEMOCRACY. 
>> MORE TO COME. 
STAY WITH US BECAUSE THERE IS 
GOING TO BE TWO MORE HOURS OF 
THIS BEFORE THE INTEL 
COMMITTEE. 
>> THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID HAVE 
COLLECTIVELY A FRUSTRATION ABOUT
THIS. 
THE RUSSIAN MEDDLING THING WAS 
REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL AND 
CARRIED OUT AT A LEVEL OF 
EFFECTIVENESS AND PERVASIVENESS 
THE RUSSIANS HAD NEVER ACHIEVED 
BEFORE AND WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND 
SOME OF THOSE FUNDAMENTALS AND 
UNDERSTAND HOW TO REMEDY THEM 
OR GUARD AGAINST THEM IN THE 
FUTURE. 
HE WOULD HOPE IN THIS 
ENVIRONMENT, DIFFICULT THOUGH 
IT MAY BE, TO BE A NONPARTISAN 
CONCERN. 
>> I WOULD BE LESS CHARITABLE, 
MAY BE A DISSENTING VIEW 
BECAUSE LET'S NOT FORGET THAT 
MUELLER HAD STUFF HE NEEDED TO 
ANSWER WITH SERIOUS QUESTIONS 
ABOUT DECISIONS HE MADE. 
$1 OF THE MOST IMPORTANT IS HIS 
FAILURE TO IDENTIFY GRAND JURY 
MATERIAL. 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LEVELED 
THAT BY REFUSING TO ANSWER 
THOSE QUESTIONS AND MAHLER 
AVOIDED WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN A 
VERY DIFFICULT POSITION. 
THERE IS NOTHING CLASSIFIED IN 
THAT QUESTION AND I'M NOT 
WILLING TO SAY HE DID THIS 
ENTIRELY BECAUSE HE WAS A 
HUMBLE SERVANT. 
>> WHAT WOULD BE THE COUNTER 
ARGUMENT? 
>> IT SEEMS LIKE THE ISSUE IS 
$2 FOLD. 
IF WE CANNOT INVESTIGATE 
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AND THE JUDICIAL 
SYSTEM, IT HAS TO HAPPEN IN 
CONGRESS. 
IT'S WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFICE 
OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THAT IS 
WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THIS 
MOMENT. 
IS THERE PART OF GOVERNMENT 
CHARGED LEGITIMATELY WITH 
OVERSIGHT OF THE PRESIDENCY? 
THE QUESTION HAS TO BE NOT SO 
MUCH THE DETAILS OF WHAT MR. 
MUELLER DID OR DIDN'T DO, BUT 
WHAT IS IN THE REPORT. 
FOR THE NEXT STEPS, IF THE 
CONGRESS DOESN'T STATE THESE 
STEPS, NO PRESIDENT, 
THEORETICALLY, WOULD BE 
INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL 
WRONGDOING. 
THE $3 ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION, 
AN ACT, AND OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, 
PENDING INVESTIGATION, THE 
DEMOCRATS CAREFULLY WENT 
THROUGH THEM AND THE 
REPUBLICANS DID NOT ANSWER THAT 
ON THE MERIT AND FOR 
IMPEACHMENT, YOU DON'T NEED TO 
PROVE THAT. 
>> FOR THOSE THAT HAVEN'T READ 
THE MUELLER REPORT, THERE ARE 
VERSIONS BUT IT IS USEFUL TO 
ACTUALLY LOOK BECAUSE YOU POINT 
OUT THERE IS THE OBSTRUCTIVE 
ACT, AND THEN THERE IS THE 
INTENT, WHICH IS INTERESTING. 
I'M NOT A LAWYER BUT I FIND IT 
INTERESTING. 
WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF QUICK 
BUSINESS. 
SOME WILL BE LEAVING US FOR 
LOCAL NEWS FROM YOUR CBS 
STATIONS AND FOR THE REST OF 
YOU, OUR COVERAGE CONTINUES 
RIGHT HERE ON CBS NEWS. 
>>> A HISTORIC DAY ON CAPITOL 
HILL AS THE FORMER SPECIAL 
COUNSEL, ROBERT MUELLER, 
TESTIFIED BEFORE $2 COMMITTEES 
AND IS ALREADY WRAPPED UP SOME 
$3.05 HOURS OF QUESTIONING BY 
$41 LAWMAKERS AND LATER THIS 
AFTERNOON, AFTER A BREAK, HE 
WILL GO BEFORE THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, 
EXPECTED TO FOCUS ON WHAT 
LAUNCHED THIS INVESTIGATION IN 
THE VERY BEGINNING, WHICH IS 
RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT AND 
ATTEMPTS TO CURB OUR DEMOCRACY 
IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 
WHICH THEY SAY CONTINUES TO THIS
DAY AND UP TO THE NEXT 
ELECTION. I 
BRING IN OUR CORRESPONDENT, 
JEFF PEGUES, WITH US IN 
WASHINGTON. I 
WANT TO GO OVER $1 OF THE 
EXCHANGES THAT HAPPENED EARLIER 
THIS MORNING BETWEEN REPUBLICAN 
REPRESENTATIVE LOUIE GOHMERT 
AND ROBERT MUELLER. 
LET'S TAKE A LOOK. 
>> WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN OF 
PETER STRZOK'S ANIMUS TOWARD 
DONALD TRUMP? 
>> SUMMER OF 2017. 
>> YOU DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE HE WAS
HIRED? 
>> I'M SORRY? 
>> YOU DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE HE 
WAS HIRED TO YOUR TEAM? 
>> KNOW WHAT. 
>> PETER STRZOK HATED TRUMP. 
>> OKAY. 
>> YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT BEFORE 
HE WAS MADE PART OF YOUR TEAM, 
IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? 
>> I DID NOT KNOW THAT. 
>> WHEN I DID FIND OUT, I ACTED 
SWIFTLY TO HAVE HIM REASSIGNED 
ELSEWHERE. 
>> THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION 
ABOUT HOW SWIFT THAT WAS BUT 
WHEN DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THE 
ONGOING AFFAIR HE WAS HAVING 
WITH LISA PAGE? 
>> ABOUT THE SAME TIME. 
>> TO REMIND EVERYBODY, PETER 
STRZOK WAS ONE OF THE FBI 
AGENTS INVOLVED AND LATER 
FIRED. 
EXPLAIN WHY THIS WAS A FOCUS FOR
REPUBLICANS. 
>> YOU SAID IT MOMENTS AGO THAT 
MUELLER TRIED AND HAS OVER THE 
LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, TO 
MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE 
INVESTIGATION AND ALMOST FROM 
THE BEGINNING IN 2017, HE WAS 
HIT WITH THE NEWS THAT PETER 
STRZOK AND LISA PAGE WERE 
EXCHANGING HUNDREDS OF TEXT 
MESSAGES AND MANY SHOWED A BIAS 
TOWARD THEN CANDIDATE DONALD 
TRUMP AND AT THE TIME IN 2016, 
THEY WERE BEING EXCHANGED. 
THIS IS WHAT MUELLER HAD TO 
DEAL WITH ALMOST FROM THE 
BEGINNING AND THE REPUBLICANS 
HAVE USED IT AS A HAMMER TO 
POKE HOLES IN THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
YOU HEARD IT OVER AND OVER 
AGAIN DURING THE LINE OF 
QUESTIONING. 
>> JEFF BRINGS UP THAT POINT 
THAT WE'VE LAID OUT THAT THE 
REPUBLICANS LARGELY TRIED TO 
INTACT INVESTIGATORS TODAY AND 
WHETHER THEY'VE MADE POLITICAL 
CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE PAST OR 
THIS PARTICULAR FBI AGENT, MANY 
INVOLVED, HAD AN AFFAIR AND 
ENGAGED IN UNPROFESSIONAL 
CONDUCT ON MULTIPLE LEVELS, 
WHICH IS WHY HE WAS ULTIMATELY 
REMOVED FROM THE FBI. 
>> WE SHOULD NOTE THAT ROBERT 
MUELLER MADE REFERENCE TO THIS 
WITH THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION. 
MICHAEL HORWITZ IS THE NAME OF 
THE INVESTIGATOR IN THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAVE NOT 
EMERGED UNSCATHED IN THIS 
PROCESS. 
MICHAEL HORWITZ PUBLISHED 
REPORTS THAT CONDEMNED CERTAIN 
ACTIONS THAT SAY THERE ARE 
APPEARANCES OF BIAS AND 
PROTOCOL WAS NOT FOLLOWED IN 
ALL THESE RESPECTS. 
IT WAS NOT A SITUATION WHERE 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE 
ELEMENTS OF THE FBI, WITH THEIR 
REPUTATIONS PERFECTLY ENHANCED. 
THEY DON'T. 
THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT ARE 
RELEVANT. ARE THEY AS RELEVANT 
AS THE CONDUCT OF THE 
PRESIDENT? 
THAT'S FOR THE PUBLIC TO DECIDE 
BUT IT'S NOT A MATERIAL ISSUE. 
IT IS ON THE MARGINS, THAT IT'S 
FAIR TO SAY, BUT PART OF THIS 
CONVERSATION. 
>> LET ME BRING IN NANCY CORDES 
ON CAPITOL HILL. 
SHE NOT ONLY IS FOLLOWING WHAT 
HAPPENED THIS MORNING, BUT THE 
HEARING COMING UP LATER THIS 
AFTERNOON. 
SET THE SCENE FOR US. 
>> Reporter: WELL, NORAH, THE 
HEARING WAS HELD BY THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THIS IS 
A COMMITTEE LOOKING INTO 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS WERE 
ALONG THOSE LINES BUT THIS 
AFTERNOON, IT'S THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN THAT 
COMMITTEE HAS BEEN LOOKING FOR 
THE PAST TWO YEARS AT RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE. 
THE QUESTIONS WILL BE VERY 
DIFFERENT AND YOU WILL HEAR 
QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL THE WAYS 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WELCOMED AND 
ENCOURAGED AND BENEFITED FROM 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2016 ELECTIONS AND THAT COULD 
MEAN QUESTIONS ABOUT DONALD 
TRUMP JR.'S MEETING AT TRUMP 
TOWER WITH RUSSIAN LAWYERS AND 
QUESTIONS ABOUT ALL THE 
CONTACTS DETAILED IN THE REPORT 
BETWEEN TRUMP ASSOCIATES, 
CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND VARIOUS 
RUSSIANS AND EXPECT REPUBLICANS 
TO FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT AT 
THE END OF THE DAY, MUELLER'S 
REPORT DID NOT LAY OUT EVIDENCE 
OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIANS. 
REPUBLICANS WILL ARGUE THAT 
THIS IS A LOT OF SMOKE BUT NO 
FIRE. 
>> NANCY CORDES DOING A 
TERRIFIC JOB ON CAPITOL HILL. 
WE NOW BRING IN PAULA REID FROM 
THE WHITE HOUSE TO HEAR WHAT 
SHE HEARS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE 
AND ALSO TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT 
NANCY WAS TALKING ABOUT, THIS 
UPCOMING HEARING THAT WILL, I 
THINK, SEND MORE ABOUT THE 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND WHAT 
BOB MUELLER SAID. 
OF THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, 
I'VE SEEN CHALLENGES TO OUR 
DEMOCRACY. 
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT'S 
EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IS AMONG 
THE MOST SERIOUS. 
THAT SHOULD BE THE RED BUZZING 
LIGHT THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE 
CONCERNED ABOUT, FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT AND JUST LAST 
WEEK, A SENIOR OFFICIAL 
CONFIRMED THAT RUSSIA CONTINUES 
TO MEDAL AND THEY TRIED TO GET 
PEOPLE RILED UP OVER 
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES LIKE GUNS 
AND RACE AND TO SOW DISCORD IN 
THE U.S. WE WILL SEE HOW THEY 
SHAPE THEIR QUESTIONS AND IF 
THEY WANT TO LOOK OVER THIS AND 
HOW TO PREVENT THIS. 
IN TERMS OF THE WHITE HOUSE 
REACTION, THE WHITE HOUSE HAS 
NOT COME UP WITH THE STATEMENT 
BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS WEIGHED 
IN SPORADICALLY ON TWITTER AND 
QUOTED FOX NEWS A FEW TIMES. 
ONE QUOTE ABOUT NO OBSTRUCTION, 
A CLAIM WHICH THE FORMER SPECIAL
COUNSEL CLEARLY REFUTED AND 
HEARING THAT HE ALSO QUOTED FOX 
NEWS ATTACKING MUELLER AND HIS 
PERFORMANCE. 
THE ONE TIME THE PRESIDENT 
WEIGHED-IN WITHOUT QUOTING 
ANYONE ELSE WAS ON THE ISSUE 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT ALLEGING 
THAT ROBERT MUELLER WAS 
CONFLICTED BECAUSE HE WAS 
INTERVIEWED TO REPLACE JAMES 
COMEY AS THE FBI DIRECTOR AND 
HE WAS UPSET. 
IN THIS HEARING, WE HEARD FOR 
THE FIRST TIME THAT MUELLER 
DENIED THIS UNDER OATH AND SAID 
HE DID NOT INTERVIEW FOR THAT 
JOB, WHICH OF COURSE, HE HAD 
EVEN BEYOND THE $10-YEAR TERMS, 
HE TESTIFIED HE ACTUALLY CAME 
TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO TALK TO 
THE PRESIDENT ABOUT WHAT MAKES 
A GOOD FBI DIRECTOR PITT OF 
COURSE, ANYONE WHO WAS SPOKEN 
TO THE PRESIDENT KNOWS THAT A 
CONVERSATION STARTS IN ONE 
PLACE AND ENDS UP IN ANOTHER 
BUT HE COULD LIKELY BE ASKED 
ABOUT THIS DISCREPANCY AROUND 
4:00 WHEN HE IS EXPECTED TO 
SPEAK WITH REPORTERS. 
>> ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANT 
TO DIG IN WITH ON THIS HEARING, 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ULTIMATELY 
WORKS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AND WHEN MUELLER TURNED 
IN HIS REPORT, HE TURNED IT 
INTO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE
TIME, BOB BARR AND MOTHER WAS 
ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES TO DRAW 
SOME SPACE BETWEEN HIM AND THE 
CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL AND 
SEEMED TO AVOID THAT ENTIRELY 
EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A 
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON SOME 
THINGS, CORRECT? 
>> IT'S SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE I 
ANTICIPATED THEY WOULD WANT TO 
SEIZE ON THE DISCREPANCIES 
BETWEEN THESE MEN AND GET 
MUELLER TO CLARIFY THAT THEY 
WERE TRYING TO PAINT THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL AS SOMEONE 
TRYING TO HELP THE PRESIDENT, 
WHO GOT OUT AHEAD OF THE 
RELEASE OF THE FULL REPORT WITH 
THE SUMMARY THAT WAS VERY 
FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT. 
MUELLER WAS NOT WILLING TO 
WEIGH-IN ON THIS AND WE HAVE 
THE LETTER SENT TO THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL ABOUT HOW HE HANDLED 
THAT SUMMARY AND IN THAT LETTER,
HE CLEARLY SAID, THE WAY YOU'VE 
HANDLED THIS, THE SUMMARY WITH 
CONCLUSIONS, IT'S CAUSED GREAT 
CONFUSION AMONG THE PUBLIC AND 
HE QUESTIONS WHY WILLIAM BARR 
DIDN'T JUST RELEASE THE 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN 
WILLING TO CRITICIZE A SPECIAL 
COUNSEL IN PUBLIC AND HAS 
QUESTIONED WHY HE DIDN'T COME 
TO A CONCLUSION ON OBSTRUCTION 
AND HAS QUESTIONED WHY HE 
WASN'T GIVEN THE REDACTED COPY 
OF THE REPORT HE HAD ASKED FOR. 
MUELLER WAS NOT WILLING TO 
EXCHANGE WORDS WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND NOT 
WILLING TO CRITICIZE HIM OR 
REVEAL THE CONTENT OF THEIR 
CONVERSATIONS. 
>> PAULA REID, LET'S DIG INTO 
THAT FURTHER. 
THERE IS DAYLIGHT BETWEEN 
ROBERT MUELLER AND THE CURRENT 
ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE DIDN'T 
SEEM TO WANT TO MAKE NEWS ON 
THAT TODAY. 
>> THAT WAS PART OF MY 
FRUSTRATION BECAUSE HE WAS 
REFUSING TO ANSWER PURELY LEGAL 
QUESTIONS. 
HE WAS ASKED WHAT HE MEANT BY A 
PARTICULAR STATEMENT THAT WAS 
AMBIGUOUS AND HE REFUSED TO 
ANSWER THAT BUT THE MOST 
SERIOUS PROBLEM WAS WHEN HE WAS 
CONFRONTED ON THE FACT THAT THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL BELIEVED HE 
COULD REACH A CONCLUSION AND 
MANY OF US HOLD THAT VIEW THAT 
THERE WAS NOTHING PREVENTING 
MUELLER FROM REACHING THAT 
CONCLUSION. 
>> WHAT HE SAID TO OUR OWN JAN 
CRAWFORD, HE BELIEVED MUELLER 
COULD HAVE SAID, YES, HE 
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE BUT IT'S NOT 
MY ROLE TO CHARGE HIM? 
>> IT WAS UNINTELLIGIBLE. 
IF HE'S CORRECT AND THE DEPUTY 
ATTORNEY GENERAL VIOLATED D.O.J.
POLICY BY REACHING A CONCLUSION 
ON OBSTRUCTION, THERE IS 
NOTHING IN THE MEMO THAT SAYS 
YOU CANNOT -- ESPECIALLY AS A 
SPECIAL COUNSEL WHERE YOU ARE 
SUPPOSED TO MAKE THESE 
DECISIONS, STATE WHETHER YOU 
BELIEVE A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. 
HE REACHED CONCLUSION ON THE 
FIRST PART, BUT NOT THE SECOND 
PART. 
WHAT IS VERY STRANGE, MUELLER 
DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, 
IT WOULD BE STRANGE IF YOU 
THOUGHT THAT YOU'RE ALL WELL 
SEE INTERPRETATION WAS AT ODDS 
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 
USUALLY CONTROLLING D.O.J. 
POLICY, HE GOES TO AN WEDDELL 
SEA AND THE SUSPICION IS, HE'S 
A GOOD ENOUGH LITIGATOR TO NOT 
ASK A QUESTION HE DOESN'T KNOW 
THE ANSWER TO. 
>> COULD I OFFER A RESPONSE? 
I THINK THE REASON HE DIDN'T 
REACH A CONCLUSION -- AND I'M 
NOT SURE I AGREE -- IS THAT WE 
DON'T, AS A DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE, WE DON'T CHARGE 
SOMEONE IF A CRIME IF THEY 
CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES. 
IT IS A SORT OF DUE PROCESS 
IDEA. 
IF HE CAN'T DEFEND HIMSELF 
BECAUSE OF THE MEMO, THAT WOULD 
BE UNFAIR. 
>> HE DID SAY THAT IN HIS 
APPEARANCE. 
>> WHAT DID HE MEAN WHEN HE 
SAID IF I COULD EXONERATE YOU, I
WOULD. 
IT SOUNDS LIKE EVIDENCE OF A 
CRIME. 
>> NANCY CORDES IS ON CAPITOL 
HILL, WITH A RANKING MEMBER 
FROM GEORGIA. 
>> THE FIRST REPUBLICAN ASKED 
QUESTIONS OF MUELLER IN THIS 
JUDICIARY HEARING AND THANK YOU 
FOR JOINING ME. 
REPUBLICANS, YOURSELF INCLUDED, 
HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM 
CREDIBILITY AND THE PEOPLE 
ROBERT MUELLER HIRED AND THE 
AVENUES HE CHOSE TO GO DOWN AND 
THE AVENUES HE IGNORED. 
WHAT DID YOU THINK OF HIS 
ANSWERS? 
>> THEY WERE FRUSTRATING, AT 
TIMES. 
WHAT WAS IMPORTANT WAS WHAT HE 
DID SAY WHERE HE ADMITTED THAT 
COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY WERE 
ONE AND THE SAME AND THAT WAS 
OVER, DONE AWAY WITH AND HE 
CONFIRMED THAT IN HIS OWN 
REPORT AND IN THE HEARING. 
WHAT WAS CONCERNING WAS ANOTHER 
INTERESTING POINT THAT EVERY 
TIME THE DEMOCRATS TRIED THE 
OBSTRUCTION CLAIM, HE WOULD SAY 
I DISAGREE WITH YOUR THEORY. 
WHAT WAS INTERESTING, THE FULL 
REPORT, IT WAS SOMETHING THEY 
MISSED, SOMETHING THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW. 
WHAT WE FOUND OUT TODAY, IT WAS 
ALL THE WHAT THE REPORT SAID AND
IT WAS VERY FRUSTRATING THAT HE 
WOULDN'T TALK ABOUT THE 
ELEMENTS IN THE REPORT BUT 
WOULDN'T TALK ABOUT THE STEELE 
DOSSIER AND THOSE THINGS. 
>> ONE THING IS THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS WRONG AND WAS 
EXONERATED. 
>> WHAT MR. MUELLER DIDN'T SAY 
WAS THAT HE WAS GUILTY AND WE 
ALWAYS FOCUS ON WHAT HE DIDN'T 
EXONERATE BUT THERE WAS NOTHING 
TO SAY HE WAS GUILTY AND 
WOULDN'T BRING A CHARGE BUT 
THIS IS WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT 
TODAY. 
THE MOTHER REPORT WAS AN 
UNQUESTIONED DOCUMENT UNTIL 
TODAY. 
TODAY, WE BRING FORTH THE IDEAS 
AND NOW IT IS A QUESTIONED 
DOCUMENT. 
INSTEAD OF ONE PERSON'S 
OPINION, WE CAN SAY WHAT ABOUT 
THIS? 
THE TAKEAWAY STORY IN THE FINAL 
CHAPTER IS THAT TODAY, HE 
CONFIRMED COLLUSION AND 
CONSPIRACY, ONE IN THE SAME AND 
HE'S DONE WITH IT. 
OBSTRUCTION, HE DISAGREES WITH 
THE DEMOCRATIC VERSION OF 
OBSTRUCTION AND NOW TURNS TO 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT 
ON THE FISA ABUSE AND THE ABUSE 
THAT MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE TO 
AMERICAN CITIZENS. 
>> COULD YOU ASK THE 
CONGRESSMAN, WHY DIDN'T THE 
REPUBLICANS DIRECTLY CHALLENGE 
ANY OF THE $10 INSTANCES OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 
POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION, LAID OUT 
BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL? 
>> CONGRESSMAN, NORAH 
O'DONNELL'S QUESTION IS WHY 
DIDN'T REPUBLICANS CHALLENGE 
ANY OF THE $10 INSTANCES OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE MUELLER 
LAID OUT IN GREAT DETAIL IN HIS 
REPORT? 
>> WE DIDN'T HAVE TO BECAUSE 
MR. MUELLER DID IT HIMSELF. 
THEY DID THAT THEMSELVES. 
>> THEY DIDN'T DISAGREE ABOUT 
WHAT HAPPENED AND THE FACT THAT 
IT WAS POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE. 
>> WHAT IS NEW ABOUT THAT? 
>> DOESN'T THAT CONCERN YOU 
THAT HE POTENTIALLY COMMITTED 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? 
>> HE NEVER SAID HE DID THE 
ANALYSIS TO FIND OUT BECAUSE HE 
STOPPED IT BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT 
THIS, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THIS, 
HE SAYS I DISAGREE AND WHEN 
THEY PUT THEIR CHARTS UP AND 
GOT TO THE POINT, HE SAID I 
DISAGREE WITH YOUR ANALYSIS ON 
OBSTRUCTION, THAT IS WHAT YOU 
TAKE IN. 
THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS TO 
ASK ABOUT AND WHY GO ON TO 
THINGS HE DISAGREED WITH AND 
THINGS MOVING IN A DIFFERENT 
FORMAT, HOW THE REPORT GOT 
STARTED, ALSO CONFIRMING THAT 
IF YOU THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING 
IN AND THE DEMOCRATS PUT THEIR 
MONEY ON IMPEACHMENT, THIS WAS 
A BAD DAY FOR YOU. 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE CONGRESSMAN, THE RANKING 
MEMBER ON THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE AND WHEN HE LEAVES 
CONGRESS, HE COULD BE A CATTLE 
AUCTIONEER PIT $1 OF THE 
FASTEST TALKERS EVER OF ALL 
TIME. 
I HAD TROUBLE FOLLOWING WHAT HE 
SAID. 
>> SOMETIMES, NOT ALWAYS TO HIS 
BENEFIT OR THE BENEFIT OF THE 
WITNESS. 
$1 THING THE ATTORNEY SAID AFTER
THE MOTHER REPORT CAME OUT, AND 
I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH JAY 
SEKULOW AND RUDY GIULIANI -- 
ROBERT MUELLER AND HIS TEAM -- 
THEIR WORDS AND NOT MINE -- 
THEY HAD A UNIQUE THEORY ABOUT 
OBSTRUCTION PIT YOU CAN HAVE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BITE TO 
EAT, BY THREAT OR BY FOAM A 
NATION OR BEING ANGRY. 
THEY SAID NONE OF THOSE THINGS 
ARE OBSTRUCTIONIST. 
THEY MIGHT SOUND BAD AND NOT 
COMFORTABLE FOR CONDUCT BUT NOT 
CRIMINALLY PROSECUTABLE. 
IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING 
WHERE THE MOTHER REPORT 
SUGGESTED THEY WERE. 
ULTIMATELY, THE LEGAL BASIS TO 
BRING THAT CHARGE DIDN'T EXIST 
AND WOULD NEVER EXIST AND FROM 
THEIR INTERPRETATION, A 
SIDELIGHT TO THIS AND THIS AND 
DRILL COMPONENT THAT THEY HAVE 
TO RENDER A JUDGMENT ABOUT HOW 
COMFORTABLE THEY ARE WITH THIS 
CONDUCT OF THE PRESIDENT, NOT 
NECESSARILY WHETHER IT WAS 
CRIMINALLY PROSECUTABLE. 
>> CAN WE DIVE DOWN ON THAT 
ISSUE BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS 
USED THE WORD COLLUSION, NOT A 
LEGAL TERM AND CONGRESSMAN 
COLLINS TRIED TO POINT THIS OUT 
AND HE SPEAKS VERY QUICKLY. 
IT'S ON PAGE 180 FOR THOSE 
FOLLOWING AT HOME. 
THEY SAY IN THE REPORT THAT TO 
THE CONTRARY, EVEN AS DEFINED 
AND LEGAL DICTIONARIES, 
COLLUSION IS LARGELY SYNONYMOUS 
WITH CONSPIRACY AS THE CRIME 
SAID FORWARD IN THE STATUTE. 
DID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL CHARGE 
THE PRESIDENT OR ASSOCIATES WITH
CONSPIRACY? 
>> NO. 
AND THAT'S VERY CLEAR. 
NO CONSPIRACY REQUIRES A 
MEETING OF THE MIND AND IT'S IN 
A STATUTE AND IF YOU HAVE THESE 
ELEMENTS, YOU CAN PROSECUTE 
THEM AND YOU COULD GO TO JAIL. 
COLLUSION IS A COMMON TERM AND 
THERE'S A DICTIONARY DEFINITION 
OF COLLUSION AND IT'S SOMETHING 
THAT COULD GO IN THEORY TO AN 
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AND PRODUCE 
THE NEXT STEP EVEN IF SOMETHING 
IS NOT WORTH CONVICTING BEFORE 
THE ACTUAL JURY. 
THOSE ARE DIFFERENT TERMS. 
COLLUSION IS NOT A LEGAL 
CONCEPT. 
>> WE ARE ABOUT $6 MINUTES FROM 
THE NEXT HEARING BEGINNING. 
EVERYBODY HAD A QUICK BREAK ON 
BOB MUELLER'S TEAM TO GET A 
SNACK OR CUP OF COFFEE AND THEY 
ARE GOING BACK FOR ANOTHER $2 
HOURS. 
WE ARE TOLD THIS WILL FOCUS ON 
WHAT IS KNOWN AS VOLUME $2. 
THE REPORT TO RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE, VOLUME $1 OF 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE INTO THE 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
SOME KEY THINGS, GO THROUGH IT. 
>> WHAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE LONG 
DONE IS WHAT THEY CALL 
COUNTERMEASURES, EFFECTIVE 
ACTIVE MEASURES TO CREATE 
WITHIN THE U.S. OR ANY 
ADVERSARY, POLITICAL CONFUSION 
OR DISCORD AND THE SENSE THAT 
THE POLITICS, THAT ENEMY OF 
RUSSIA IS NOT AS LEGITIMATE AS 
THEY BELIEVED AND THEY'VE NEVER 
BEEN MORE EFFECTIVE IF DOING 
THAT. 
ONE OF THE TAKEAWAYS IS ALSO 
THAT WE, AS AMERICANS, BECAUSE 
OF OUR PARTISAN DIFFERENCES, 
GAVE THEM A FIELD WHERE THAT 
WAS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN IT EVER 
HAS BEEN AND THAT WE ARE 
WILLING TO BELIEVE IN WAYS WE 
HAVEN'T, THE WORST ABOUT EACH 
OTHER AND THEY USE ELECTRONIC 
SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER MEANS TO 
PIT OURSELVES AGAINST ONE 
ANOTHER. 
THE ADVANTAGE THROUGH THE 
PARTISAN DIFFERENCES AND THAT'S 
ONE OF THE THINGS WE SHOULD ALL 
REFLECT ON, IS THAT YES, THEY 
HAD ILL INTENT AND THEY USED 
MEANS AND A PERVASIVE THING AND 
WE HAVE OUR OWN SENSE OF 
DIVISIONS THAT MADE THAT MORE 
SUCCESSFUL THAN IT HAD BEEN 
BEFORE. 
>> THE REPORT FOUND THAT THE 
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED 
IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC 
FASHION BUT THEY DID SO TO 
BENEFIT THE PRESIDENCY OF 
DONALD TRUMP. 
>> THAT IS VERY CLEAR AND 
MUELLER SAID THAT IN THE 
MORNING THAT IT WAS CLEARLY 
DESIGNED TO HELP TRUMP. 
THERE WOULD BE TWO ISSUES. 
ONE, DID THE RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE HAPPEN? 
IT'S WELL-ESTABLISHED ON THE 
SECOND, WAS THERE A CONSPIRACY 
LINKED TO THAT EFFORT? 
ON THAT, IT HELPS THE PRESIDENT 
AND DOES NOT FIND A CRIMINAL 
CASE OF CONSPIRACY BUT IN 
SMALLER HAS ALREADY MAPPED OUT 
THAT HE WON'T TALK ABOUT HOW 
THE INVESTIGATION BEGAN, THE 
SOURCES USED, THE REPUBLICANS 
SAY IT WAS FALSE STATEMENTS, 
THAT THEY WEREN'T PROSECUTED, 
YOU ARE LIKELY TO SEE MUCH OF 
THE SAME AND THIS IS ONE OF THE 
CASES WHERE PEOPLE ARE LIKELY 
TO LEAVE THE PARTY WITH WHOEVER 
THEY CAME WITH. 
YOU ARE GOING TO GET FROM THIS 
A LOT THAT REINFORCES YOUR 
VIEWS, BUT MUELLER WILL BE 
PUSHED BY THE REPUBLICANS, 
SAYING, YOU SAID IN THE REPORT 
THAT VARIOUS STATEMENTS MADE 
EARLY ON WERE FALSE AND SOME OF 
THOSE WERE KEY PLAYERS IN 
RAISING THIS ISSUE AND WHY 
DIDN'T YOU CHARGE THEM? 
WHY DOESN'T THIS UNDERMINE THE 
ORIGINAL PURPOSE? 
WE WILL SEE IF MUELLER IS MORE 
FLEXIBLE. 
>> I THINK THIS IS AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT 
HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST 
ELECTION AND WHAT FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENTS ARE DOING. 
WHAT HAPPENED, IT WAS A SOCIAL 
MEDIA CAMPAIGN AND THERE WAS 
THE HACKING OPERATION INTO THE 
DEMOCRATIC EMAILS AND THE 
EMAILS OF HILLARY CLINTON AND 
MEMBERS OF HER CAMPAIGN AND 
THERE WERE RUSSIAN CONTACTS 
INCLUDING THOSE MEMBERS OF THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN TRUMP CAMPAIGN, 
WHICH WE WILL HEAR A LOT ABOUT. 
THIS WAS A MULTIPRONGED EFFORT 
BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. 
IN ITS SCOPE AND ENTIRETY, 
WE'VE HEARD ROBERT MUELLER SAY 
IT'S ONE OF THE MOST TROUBLING 
THINGS HE'S EVER INVESTIGATED 
IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER IN 
GOVERNMENT. 
THAT SHOULD SEND A CHILL DOWN 
YOUR BACK WHETHER REPUBLICAN, 
DEMOCRATIC OR INDEPENDENT 
FOLDER. 
>> IT GOES TO WE THE PEOPLE. 
WE GET TO DECIDE WHO OUR 
ELECTED OFFICIALS JUST SIDED 
ARE. 
WE GO TO THE BALLOT BOX ON OUR 
OWN DECISION AND THE IDEA IS 
THAT THE RUSSIANS DISTORTED 
THAT PROCESS AND BASICALLY CO-
OPTED, TO SOME DEGREE, THE 
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT CENTRAL TO OUR
DEMOCRACY. 
>> JEFF PEGUES IS OUR JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENT AND 
HAS COVERED THIS SO CLOSELY. 
WALK US THROUGH WHAT YOU KNOW 
ABOUT THIS. 
>> ACCORDING TO MUELLER, IT WAS 
OF RUSSIAN OPERATION THROUGH 
SOCIAL MEDIA, FACEBOOK, TWITTER 
AND INSTAGRAM. 
IT MAY HAVE REACHED AS MANY AS 
230 MILLION AMERICANS AND JUST 
THINK OF THE SCOPE OF THIS, A 
NEW WAVE OF RUSSIAN INFLUENCE 
OPERATIONS COMBINING ALL OF THE 
THINGS YOU'VE DISCUSSED. 
IT IS THE HACKING FROM THE DMC 
AND THEN THE GOAL WAS ACCORDING 
TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND 
ACCORDING TO INTELLIGENCE 
AGENCIES, IT WAS TO INFLUENCE 
HOW AMERICANS THINK AND THEY 
DID THAT IN A MYRIAD OF WAYS 
INCLUDING SETTING UP FACEBOOK 
ACCOUNTS. 
THEY WEREN'T FAKE, BECAUSE 
THERE WERE REAL PEOPLE BEHIND 
THEM BUT THEY WERE RUSSIAN 
OPERATIVES TRYING TO CREATE 
DIVISION BASED ON ISSUES LIKE 
RACE, IMMIGRATION, GUN CONTROL 
-- THEY KEPT TWEAKING AND 
HITTING AT THESE CONTROVERSIAL 
TOPICS TO DIVIDE AMERICANS. 
NOT TO BRING THEM TOGETHER, BUT 
TO DIVIDE THEM AND TAKE THE 
DIVISIONS TO THE POLLS. 
>> WE WILL LEARN INTERESTING 
DETAILS OF JUST WHAT HAPPENED. 
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS DEMOCRATS 
WILL LIKELY ASK, BECAUSE WE 
KNOW THERE WERE CONTACTS 
BETWEEN RUSSIAN OFFICIALS AND 
MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN 
IN ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WILL 
BE, DID THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN 
REPORT ANY OF THESE TO THE FBI? 
THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE, 
NO. 
AS FORMER PROSECUTORS, IS A 
CAMPAIGN REQUIRED BY LAW TO 
REPORT ANY CONTACT WITH A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO THE FB 
>> IT DEPENDS WHAT THE CONTACT 
IS. 
YOU ARE EXPECTED TO AN FBI 
DIRECTOR SAID HE BELIEVES THAT 
DONALD TRUMP JR. SHOULD HAVE 
IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO THE FBI 
BEFORE THE MEETING OCCURRED THAT
HE HAD THIS CONTACT. 
WHAT IS NOTABLE IS THAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP, LATER, STOOD 
IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH 
HIS OWN FBI DIRECTOR AND SAID 
HE WASN'T SURE HE WOULD HAVE 
MADE THAT CALL. 
IT WAS A SHOCKING MOMENT FOR 
MANY IN WASHINGTON BECAUSE THE 
UNDERSTANDING IS, THERE IS SOME 
GIVE AT THE ELBOW ON WHAT YOU 
ARE REQUIRED TO CALL. 
GENERALLY, IT'S NOT A CRIME AND 
SOMEONE DIDN'T CONTACT YOU BUT 
THE OVERWHELMING VIEW OF THE 
FBI, THE CIA AND THE NSA, YOU 
NEED TO CALL US. 
>> ONE KEY THING TO DO WITH THE 
TRUMP TOWER MEETING THAT 
OCCURRED WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS 
AND LATER, WAS THAT ONCE IT WAS 
REPORTED AND THE QUESTIONS 
RAISED, THE PRESIDENT EDITED A 
STATEMENT DIRECTING OTHERS TO 
CHANGE A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT 
WHAT WAS SAID IN THAT MEETING. 
>>> THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS SAID 
THERE'S NO CRIME BUT IT WAS NOT 
RUSSIAN OFFICIALS, IT WAS A WHO 
SAID SHE WAS WORKING ON BEHALF 
OF THE INTEREST IN THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT. 
ONE THING THAT CAME OUT THIS 
MORNING, THAT SAME LAWYER THEN 
MET WITH GLENN SIMPSON, FUSION 
GPS, AFTER THE TRUMP TOWER 
MEETING AND REPUBLICANS WOULD 
SAY, WHY AREN'T YOU INCLUDING 
THAT TO MEETING WITH BOTH SIDES 
AND WAS IT SOMETHING THAT 
SHOULD BE PART OF THE PUBLIC 
RECORD? 
IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. 
>> IT IS A FAIR QUESTION AND WE 
ARE WAITING FOR THE FORMER 
SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER 
TO COME THROUGHTHE DOOR TO 
APPEAR BEFORE THE INTEL 
COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THIS. 
IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL. 
>> I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A WORD 
MR. MUELLER USED MULTIPLE 
TIMES, INTEGRITY. 
THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS. 
IS THAT ACTION GOING TO PRODUCE 
AN INDICTMENT TO PUT SOMEBODY 
IN JAIL? 
AND THE OTHER QUESTION, DO WE 
WANT PUBLIC SERVANTS TO ACT WITH
INTEGRITY? 
THESE ARE NORMS AND NOT 
ENFORCEABLE AND THESE ARE WAYS 
WE TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO ACT 
AND IN ADDITION TO WHETHER OR 
NOT THERE IS A QUESTION AS TO 
WHETHER IT WAS ILLEGAL TO NOT 
CALL THE FBI, DO WE WANT 
SOMEONE IN A POSITION OF POWER 
TO TAKE THAT STEP RATHER THAN 
TO SAY IT'S GOOD FOR ME EVEN 
THOUGH THE RUSSIANS ARE BAD 
GUYS AND I WILL KEEP THIS 
QUIET? 
THAT IS THE QUESTION OF 
INTEGRITY. 
>> THEY ARE GOING TO SAY, IN 
THE STEELE DOSSIER, THEY 
RECEIVED INFORMATION ALLEGEDLY 
FROM FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
INCLUDING THE RUSSIANS AND YOU 
HAD INFORMATION GOING TO THE 
CLINTON SIDE, BUT YOU DIDN'T 
INVESTIGATE ANY OF THAT. 
YOU WANTED TO LOOK AT THE 
INFLUENCE OF RUSSIANS BUT IT 
ONLY SEEMED TO BE ONE SIDE AND 
MOTHER REFUSED TO ANSWER THAT 
AND HE HAD A GOOD REASON 
BECAUSE HE SAID THAT WILL BE 
PART OF THE OTHER INVESTIGATION,
GOING FORWARD. 
>> YOU SUGGESTED THE DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE IS LOOKING AT IT 
RIGHT NOW? 
>> RIGHT. 
THEY WILL JUMP ON THE FACT THAT 
IN THE MUELLER REPORT, IT DOES 
NOT FIND THAT TRUMP KNEW ABOUT 
THE MEETING IN ADVANCE. 
THAT WAS A KEY MOMENT FOR THE 
REPUBLICANS. 
>> ROBERT MUELLER, BEFORE WE 
START THIS, HE HAS BROUGHT IN 
REINFORCEMENTS TODAY. 
HIS TOP AIDE, FORMER CHIEF OF 
STAFF WHEN HE WAS FBI DIRECTOR, 
THE MAN WHO HELPED RUN THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL OPERATIONS WILL 
BE SWORN IN TODAY AND I WANT TO 
BRING IN NANCY CORDES TO 
EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS AND 
WHAT WE WILL SEE FOR THE SECOND 
HEARING. 
>> Reporter: AARON SIBLEY WAS 
MUELLER'S CHIEF OF STAFF AND 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAY-TO-DAY 
OPERATIONS. 
HE MADE AN UNUSUAL LAST-MINUTE 
REQUEST OF THESE COMMITTEES 
THAT HE BE ABLE TO NOT JUST 
ADVISE HIM AT THE WITNESS 
STAND, BUT BE SWORN IN SO THAT 
THERE WERE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 
MOTHER COULDN'T ANSWER, THAT 
AARON ZEBLEY WOULD PICK THAT 
UP. 
THEY SAID IT WAS A LAST-MINUTE 
CURVEBALL. 
AARON ZEBLEY WAS IN THE HEARING 
ROOM BUT DIDN'T TESTIFY IN THE 
NEXT HEARING IS DIFFERENT 
BECAUSE HE WILL BE SWORN IN 
BECAUSE POTENTIALLY THERE ARE 
SO MANY QUESTIONS GETTING INTO 
THE NITTY-GRITTY OF RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE AND THESE MEMBERS 
OF CONGRESS BELIEVE THAT IN SOME
CASES, AARON ZEBLEY IS BETTER 
EQUIPPED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS 
ABOUT SPECIFIC INTERVIEWS, 
FOREIGN NATIONALS OR AMERICANS, 
AND HE WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK. 
NOT EVERYONE IS HAPPY ABOUT 
THIS. 
SEVERAL REPUBLICANS SAID THEY 
WERE PREPARED TO QUESTION 
ROBERT MUELLER, NOT AARON 
ZEBLEY BUT IT WILL HAPPEN IN 
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE AND THE PRESIDENT IS 
ONE OF THE PEOPLE RAILING 
AGAINST THIS DECISION. 
HE CALLS AARON ZEBLEY A NEVER-
TRUMPERS, ALTHOUGH WE SHOULD 
POINT OUT THAT THERE IS NO 
EVIDENCE OF ANY PARTICULAR BIAS 
AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT. 
>> THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL IS THAT 
PEOPLE WERE FRUSTRATED ABOUT 
ROBERT MUELLER. 
THERE WERE $10 MONOSYLLABIC 
ANSWERS AND THIS INTENT IS TO 
BIDE MORE CONTEXT TO THIS ISSUE 
AND THAT'S WHY THE DIRECTOR 
TAKING HIS SEAT THERE, ALONG 
WITH AARON ZEBLEY, A NOTED 
PROSECUTOR AND FORMER PARTNER. 
>> YOU CAN EXPECT THAT SIBLEY 
WILL HAVE A HARDER TIME. 
HE WAS ALREADY ATTACKED BECAUSE 
HE HAD AN EARLIER CONNECTION TO 
THE I.T. 
CONTROVERSY BUT HE WILL BE UNDER
OATH SO THE REPUBLICANS COULD 
WELL GO AFTER HIM AS ONE OF THE 
FIGURES THEY HAD SUGGESTED 
MIGHT BE BIASED. 
>> IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT 
THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY, 
NUMEROUS CONTACTS 
RITUALISTICALLY DENIED UNTIL 
FORCED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD 
AND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN AT ANY LEVEL 
DISCOURAGED RUSSIANS FROM 
TALKING WITH THEM. 
>> WE NOW WILL HEAR FROM ADAM 
SCHIFF, A FORMER PROSECUTOR, 
CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE. 
>> THE MEETING WILL COME TO 
ORDER. 
>> AT THE OUTSET, AND ON BEHALF 
OF MY COLLEAGUES, I THINK YOU, 
SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER, 
FOR LIFETIME OF SERVICE TO THE 
COUNTRY. 
YOUR REPORT IS METHODICAL AND 
DEVASTATING. FOR THE FOREIGN 
ADVERSARY SWEEPING WITH 
SYSTEMATIC INTERVENTION AND A 
CLOSE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION, THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH 
TO DESERVE THE ATTENTION OF 
EVERY AMERICAN, AS YOU WELL 
POINT OUT BUT YOUR REPORT TELLS 
ANOTHER STORY, THE STORY OF THE 
2016 ELECTION, STORY ABOUT 
DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY, ABOUT 
GREED AND ABOUT LIES. 
YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINES 
THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN 
INCLUDING DONALD TRUMP, 
HIMSELF, KNEW THAT A FOREIGN 
POWER WAS INTERVENING IN OUR 
ELECTION AND WELCOMED IT, BUILT 
RUSSIAN MEDDLING INTO THEIR 
STRATEGY AND USED IT. 
DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY, STRONG 
WORDS. 
HOW ELSE ARE WE TO DESCRIBE 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WHICH DID 
NOT INFORM AUTHORITIES ABOUT 
HER FOR AN OFFER OF DIRT ON 
THEIR OPPONENT AND THEY DID NOT 
PUBLICLY SHUN IT AN HOUR TURN 
IT AWAY BUT INSTEAD, INVITED 
AND ENCOURAGED IT AND MADE FULL 
USE OF IT. 
THAT DISLOYALTY MIGHT NOT HAVE 
BEEN CRIMINAL. 
IN THE USE OF THE ENCRYPTED 
COMMUNICATIONS, YOUR TEAM 
DIDN'T ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS 
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. 
I THINK SOMETHING WORSE? A 
CRIME IS THE VIOLATION OF LAW 
ARE WRITTEN BY CONGRESS WITH 
DISLOYALTY VIOLATING THE VERY 
OATH OF CITIZENSHIP WITH OUR 
DEVOTION TO THE CORE PRINCIPLE 
ON WHICH OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED 
THAT WE, THE PEOPLE AND NOT A 
FOREIGN POWER THAT WISHES US 
ILL, WE DECIDE WHO GOVERNS US 
AND THIS IS A STORY ABOUT MONEY 
ABOUT GREED, CORRUPTION AND A 
CAMPAIGN WILLING TO COMPROMISE 
THE INTEREST TO WIN AND TO MAKE 
MONEY AT THE SAME TIME. 
PRO-RUSSIAN INTERESTS TRIED TO 
USE THE POSITION TO CLEAR HIS 
DEBTS AND MAKE MILLIONS. A 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER USING 
HIS POSITION TO MAKE MONEY FROM 
OTHER FOREIGN INTERESTS AND 
ABOUT A CANDIDATE TRYING TO 
MAKE MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF 
THEM PUT TOGETHER FOR A REAL 
ESTATE PROJECT THAT WAS WITH A 
FORTUNE, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS 
OF DOLLARS AND THE REALIZATION 
OF A LIFELONG AMBITION, A TRUMP 
TOWER IN THE HEART OF MOSCOW. A 
CANDIDATE WHO, IN FACT, VIEWED 
HIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN AS THE 
GREATEST INFOMERCIAL IN 
HISTORY. 
DONALD TRUMP AND HIS SENIOR 
STAFF WERE NOT ALONE IN THE 
ELECTION TO MAKE MONEY. 
IT WAS A POWERFUL FINANCIAL 
MOTIVE AND PUTIN WANTED RELIEF 
FROM ECONOMIC SANCTIONS FOR THE 
UKRAINE AND OVER HUMAN RIGHTS 
VIOLATIONS. 
THE SECRET TRUMP TOWER MEETING 
BETWEEN THE RUSSIANS AND SENIOR 
CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS WAS ABOUT 
SANCTIONS IN THE SECRET 
CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN FLYNN AND 
THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR WERE 
ABOUT SANCTIONS AND TRUMP AND 
HIS TEAM WANTED MORE MONEY FOR 
THEMSELVES AND THE RUSSIANS 
WANTED MORE MONEY FOR 
THEMSELVES AND THEIR OLIGARCHS. 
THE STORY DOESN'T END HERE, 
EITHER. 
YOUR REPORT TELLS STORIES ABOUT 
LIES, LOTS OF LIES, LIES ABOUT 
A GLEAMING TOWER IN MOSCOW AND 
LIES ABOUT TALKS WITH THE 
KREMLIN AND LIES ABOUT THE 
FIRING OF JAMES COMEY AND LIES 
ABOUT EFFORTS TO FIRE YOU, 
DIRECTOR COMEY AND LIES TO 
COVER IT UP, LIES ABOUT 
SANCTIONS AND LIES ABOUT 
WIKILEAKS AND LIES ABOUT 
POLLING DATA AND HUSH MONEY 
PAYMENTS AND LIES ABOUT 
MEETINGS IN THE SEYCHELLES TO 
SET UP BACK CHANNELS AND LIES 
ABOUT TRUMP TOWER. 
LIES ABOUT THE FBI, LIES TO 
YOUR STAFF AND LIES TO THIS 
COMMITTEE. 
LIES TO OBSTRUCT AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE MOST 
SERIOUS ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY 
BY A FOREIGN POWER IN OUR 
HISTORY. 
THAT IS WHERE YOUR REPORT ENDS, 
DIRECTOR MILLER. 
IT IS A SCHEME TO COVER UP, 
DESTRUCT AND DECEIVE AND FAR 
MORE PERNICIOUS, SINCE THIS ROT 
CAME FROM WITHIN. 
EVEN NOW, AFTER 447 PAGES IN 
TWO VOLUMES, THE DECEPTION 
CONTINUES. THE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS ACOLYTES SAID YOUR REPORT 
FOUND NO COLLUSION BUT IT 
EXPLICITLY DECLINED TO ADDRESS 
THAT QUESTION SINCE COLLUSION 
CAN INVOLVE BOTH CRIMINAL AND 
NONCRIMINAL CONDUCT AND YOUR 
REPORT LAID OUT MULTIPLE OFFERS 
OF RUSSIAN HELP TO THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN, THE ACCEPTANCE OF 
THAT HELP AND OVER THE 
FURTHERANCE OF RUSSIAN HELP, 
AND TO MOST AMERICANS, THAT IS 
THE VERY DEFINITION OF 
COLLUSION, WHETHER IT IS A 
CRIME OR NOT. 
THEY SAY YOUR REPORT FOUND NO 
EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION THOUGH 
YOU OUTLINE NUMEROUS ACTIONS BY 
THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO 
OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION. 
THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN 
FULLY EXONERATED BUT YOU 
SPECIFICALLY DECLARED YOU COULD 
NOT EXONERATE HIM. 
IN FACT, THEY SAY YOUR WHOLE 
INVESTIGATION WAS NOTHING MORE 
THAN A WITCH HUNT AND THAT THE 
RUSSIANS DIDN'T INTERFERE IN 
OUR ELECTION AND IT'S ALL A 
TERRIBLE HOAX. 
THE REAL CRIME, THEY SAY, IS 
NOT THAT THE RUSSIANS 
INTERVENED TO HELP DONALD TRUMP,
BUT THAT THE FBI HAD THE 
TEMERITY TO INVESTIGATE IT WHEN 
THEY DID. 
WORST OF ALL, WORSE THAN ALL 
THE LIES IN THE GREED, IT'S THE 
DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY. 
FOR THAT, TOO, CONTINUES. 
WHEN ASKED IF THE RUSSIANS 
INTERVENE AGAIN WOULD YOU TAKE 
THEIR HELP, MR. PRESIDENT? 
WHY NOT WAS THE ESSENCE OF HIS 
ANSWER, EVERYONE DOES IT. 
NO, MR. PRESIDENT, THEY DON'T. 
NOT IN THE AMERICAN INVASION BY 
JEFFERSON, MADISON AND HAMILTON 
AND NOT FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE 
IN THE IDEA THAT LINCOLN LABORED
UNTIL HIS DYING DAY TO 
PRESERVE. 
THE IDEA AN ANIMATED ARE GREAT 
NATIONAL EXPERIENCE SO UNIQUE 
THEN AND SO PRECIOUS, STILL. 
OUR GOVERNMENT IS CHOSEN BY OUR 
PEOPLE, THROUGH OUR FRANCHISE 
AND NOT BY SOME HOSTILE FOREIGN 
POWER. 
THIS IS WHAT IS AT STAKE, OUR 
NEXT ELECTION AND THE ONE AFTER 
THAT, FOR GENERATIONS TO COME, 
OUR DEMOCRACY. 
THIS IS WHY YOUR WORK MATTERS, 
DIRECTOR MUELLER AND WHY ARE 
INVESTIGATION MATTERS. BRING 
THESE DANGERS TO LIGHT. RANKING 
MEMBER NEWNESS? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND 
WELCOME TO THE LAST GASP OF THE 
RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY 
THEORY. 
AS DEMOCRATS VOICED THIS 
SPECTACLE ON THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AS WELL AS YOU, MR. 
MUELLER, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
MAY RECALL THE MEDIA FIRST 
BEGAN SPREADING THIS CONSPIRACY 
THEORY IN THE SPRING OF 2016 
WHEN FUSION GPS, FUNDED BY THE 
DNC ON THE HILLARY CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN STARTED DEVELOPING THE 
STEELE DOSSIER. 
A COLLECTION OF OUTLANDISH 
ACCUSATIONS THAT TRUMP AND HIS 
ASSOCIATION WERE RUSSIAN 
AGENTS. 
FUSION GPS AND OTHERS FED 
ABSURDITIES TO NAIVE OUR 
PARTISAN REPORTERS AND TO TOP 
OFFICIALS IN NUMEROUS 
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INCLUDING 
THE FBI, THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AND THE STATE 
DEPARTMENT. 
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE FBI 
USED DOSSIER ALLEGATIONS TO 
OBTAIN A WARRANT TO SPY ON THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 
DESPITE ACKNOWLEDGING DOSSIER 
ALLEGATIONS AS BEING SALACIOUS 
AND UNVERIFIED, FORMER FBI 
DIRECTOR, JAMES COMEY, BRIEFED 
THOSE ALLEGATIONS TO PRESIDENT 
OBAMA AND PRESIDENT-ELECT 
TRUMP. 
THOSE BRIEFINGS CONVENIENTLY 
LEAKED TO THE PRESS, RESULTING 
IN THE PUBLICATION OF THE 
DOSSIER AND LAUNCHING THOUSANDS 
OF FALSE PRESS STORIES BASED ON 
THE WORD OF A FOREIGN EX-SPY, 
ONE WHO ADMITTED HE WAS 
DESPERATE THAT TRUMP LOSE THE 
ELECTION AND WHO WAS EVENTUALLY 
FIRED AS AN FBI SOURCE FOR 
LEAKING TO THE PRESS. 
AFTER COMEY, HIMSELF, WAS 
FIRED, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, HE 
LEAKED DEROGATORY INFORMATION 
úON PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP TO 
THE PRESS FOR THE SPECIFIC 
PURPOSE AND SUCCESSFULLY SO, OF 
ENGINEERING THE APPOINTMENT OF 
A SPECIAL COUNSEL WHO SITS 
BEFORE US TODAY. 
THEY HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATION 
WAS MARRED BY FURTHER 
CORRUPTION AND BIZARRE ABUSES. 
TOP D.O.J. 
OFFICIAL, BRUCE OHR, WHOSE OWN 
WIFE WORKED ON FUSION GPS'S 
ANTI-TRUMP OPERATION FED 
STEELE'S INFORMATION TO THE FBI,
EVEN AFTER STEELE WAS FIRED AND 
THE TOP INVESTIGATOR AND HIS 
LOVER, A TOP OFFICIAL, 
CONSTANTLY TEXTED ABOUT HOW 
MUCH THEY HATED TRUMP AND 
WANTED TO STOP HIM FROM BEING 
ELECTED AND THE ENTIRE 
INVESTIGATION WAS OPEN, BASED 
NOT ON THE INTELLIGENCE, BUT A 
TIP FROM A FOREIGN POLITICIAN 
ABOUT A CONVERSATION INVOLVING 
JOSEPH MIFSUD. 
HE BRAZENLY IGNORED THE RED 
FLAGS AND THE TRANSPARENT 
ABSURDITY AND THEY WERE ARGUED 
FOR THREE YEARS THAT EVIDENCE 
OF COLLUSION IS HIDDEN JUST 
AROUND THE CORNER. 
LIKE THE LOCH NESS MONSTER, 
THEY INSIST IT'S THERE EVEN IF 
NO ONE CAN FIND IT. 
CONSIDER THIS, IN MARCH 2017, 
DEMOCRATS OF THIS COMMITTEE SAID
THEY HAVE MORE THAN 
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF 
COLLUSION BUT COULDN'T REVEAL 
IT, YET. 
MR. MUELLER WAS SOON APPOINTED 
AND THEY SAID HE WOULD FIND THE 
COLLUSION. 
WHEN NO COLLUSION WAS FOUND AND 
MR. MUELLER'S INDICTMENTS WERE 
OVER, THE DEMOCRATS SAID WE 
WOULD FIND IT IN THE FINAL 
REPORT AND WHEN THERE WAS NO 
COLLUSION IN THE REPORT, WE 
WERE TOLD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR 
WAS HIDING IT. 
WHEN IT WAS CLEAR THAT HE 
WASN'T HIDING ANYTHING, WE WERE 
TOLD IT WOULD BE REVEALED 
THROUGH A HEARING WITH MR. 
MUELLER, HIMSELF. 
NOW THAT MR. MUELLER IS HERE, 
THEY CLAIM THE COLLUSION HAS 
ACTUALLY BEEN IN HIS REPORT ALL 
ALONG, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT 
AND THEY ARE RIGHT. 
THERE IS COLLUSION IN PLAIN 
SIGHT. 
COLLUSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND 
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 
THE DEMOCRATS COLLUDED WITH 
RUSSIAN SOURCES TO DEVELOP THE 
STEELE DOSSIER AND THE RUSSIAN 
LAWYER COLLUDED WITH THE 
DOSSIER KEY ARCHITECT, FUSION 
GPS HAD, GLEN SIMPSON AND THE 
DEMOCRATS ALREADY ADMITTED THAT 
THROUGH THE ANONYMOUS 
STATEMENTS TO REPORTERS, THAT 
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE INFORMATION, 
BUT TO BRING THE MUELLER REPORT 
TO LIFE AND CREATE A TELEVISION 
MOMENT THROUGH PLOYS LIKE 
HAVING MR. MUELLER RECITE 
PASSAGES FROM HIS OWN REPORT. 
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S POLITICAL 
FEAR AND A HAIL MARY ATTEMPT TO 
CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
THAT COLLUSION IS REAL AND 
CONCEALED IN THE REPORT. 
GRANTED THAT'S A STRANGE 
ARGUMENT TO MAKE ABOUT A REPORT 
THAT IS PUBLIC AND ALMOST LIKE 
THERE WERE ARGUMENTS ACCUSING 
MR. BARR OF HIDING THE REPORT 
AND DIDN'T BOTHER TO UPDATE 
THEIR CLAIMS ONCE HE PUBLISHED 
THE ENTIRE THING. 
AMONG CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS, 
THE INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER 
ABOUT FINDING THE TRUTH, IT'S 
ALWAYS BEEN A SIMPLE MEDIA 
OPERATION BY THEIR OWN ACCOUNTS 
WHERE IT CONTINUES IN THIS ROOM 
TODAY. 
ONCE AGAIN, NUMEROUS PRESSING 
ISSUES THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO 
ADDRESS ARE PUT ON HOLD TO 
INDULGE THE POLITICAL FANTASIES 
OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED IT WAS 
HER DESTINY TO TO SERVE HILLARY 
CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATION. 
IT'S TIME FOR THE CURTAIN TO 
CLOSE ON THE RUSSIA HOAX, THE 
CONSPIRACY THEORY IS DEAD. 
AT SOME POINT, I WOULD ARGUE WE 
HAVE TO GET BACK TO WORK AND 
UNTIL THEN I YIELD BACK THE 
BALANCE OF MY TIME. 
>> TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND MAKE 
SURE THAT OUR HEARING IS PROMPT 
-- WE GOT A LATE START, 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE HEARING 
WILL BE STRUCTURED AS FOLLOWS 
-- EACH MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE 
WILL BE AFFORDED FIVE MINUTES TO
ASK QUESTIONS, BEGINNING WITH 
THE CHAIR AND RANKING MEMBER 
AND AS CHAIR, I WILL DO 
ALTERNATING FASHION AND 
ASCENDING MEMBERS OF THE 
MAJORITY AND THE RANKING MEMBER 
WILL BE AFFORDED AN ADDITIONAL 
FIVE MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS 
FOLLOWED BY THE CHAIR WITH AN 
ADDITIONAL FIVE QUESTIONS, FIVE 
MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS AND THE 
RANKING MEMBER AND THE CHAIR 
WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO 
DELEGATE OR YIELD THE FINAL 
ROUND OF QUESTIONS TO ANY OTHER 
MEMBER AND AFTER SIX MEMBERS OF 
THE MAJORITY IN SIX MEMBERS OF 
THE MINORITY HAVE CONCLUDED 
THEIR FIVE-MINUTE ROUNDS OF 
QUESTIONS, WE WILL TAKE A FIVE 
OR $10 MINUTE BREAK THAT WE 
UNDERSTAND YOU'VE REQUESTED 
BEFORE RESUMING THE 
QUESTIONING. 
AARON ZEBLEY SERVED AS DEPUTY 
SPECIAL COUNSEL FROM MAY 2017 
UNTIL MAY 2019 AND THE DAY-TO-
DAY OVERSIGHT OF THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL INVESTIGATION. 
MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY 
RESIGNED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AT THE END OF MAY 2019 
WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE 
WAS CLOSED. 
BOTH MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY 
WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER 
QUESTIONS TODAY AND WILL BE 
SWORN AND CONSISTENT WITH THE 
RULES OF THE HOUSE AND THE 
COMMITTEE. 
MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY'S 
APPEARANCE IS IN KEEPING WITH 
THE LONG-STANDING PRACTICE OF 
RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM 
CURRENT OR FORMER DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AND FBI PERSONNEL 
REGARDING OPEN AND CLOSED 
INVESTIGATIVE MATTERS. 
HEARING IS UNDER OATH AND BEFORE
WE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. 
MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY, WOULD 
YOU PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR 
RIGHT HANDS TO BE SWORN IN? 
>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT 
THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO 
GIVE AT THIS HEARING IS THE 
WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE 
TRUTH? 
>> YES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THE 
WITNESSES HAVE BEEN DULY SWORN. 
RANKING MEMBER? 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR PETTIT 
WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS 
HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR MR. ZEBLEY 
TO BE SWORN IN. 
WE ARE HERE TO ASK DIRECTOR 
MUELLER QUESTIONS. HE'S HERE AS 
COUNSEL AND OUR SIDE IS NOT 
GOING TO DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS 
TO MR. ZEBLEY AND WE HAVE 
CONCERNS ABOUT HIS PRIOR 
REPRESENTATION OF THE HILLARY 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN AIDE AND I 
WANT TO VOICE THAT CONCERN THAT 
WE DO HAVE GOOD WE WILL NOT BE 
ADDRESSING ANY QUESTIONS TO MR. 
ZEBLEY TODAY. 
>> THE RANKING MEMBER, I REALIZE
, AS PROBABLY DOES MR. ZEBLEY, 
THAT THERE IS AN ANGRY MAN DOWN 
THE STREET NOT HAPPY ABOUT YOU 
BEING HERE TODAY BUT IT IS UP 
TO THIS COMMITTEE AND NOT 
ANYONE ELSE WHO WILL BE ALLOWED 
TO BE SWORN IN AND TESTIFY AND 
YOU ARE WELCOME, AS A PRIVATE 
CITIZEN, TO TESTIFY AND MEMBERS 
MAY DIRECT THEIR QUESTIONS TO 
WHOEVER THEY CHOOSE. 
WITH THAT, DIRECTOR MUELLER, 
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED FOR ANY 
OPENING REMARKS YOU'D LIKE TO 
MAKE. 
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN 
ADAM SCHIFF AND RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES AND MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE. 
I TESTIFIED THIS MORNING BEFORE 
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
AND ASKED THAT THE OPENING 
STATEMENT I MADE BEFORE THAT 
COMMITTEE BE INCORPORATED INTO 
THE RECORD HERE. 
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION. 
>> I UNDERSTAND THIS COMMITTEE 
HAS A UNIQUE JURISDICTION AND 
THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN 
FURTHER UNDERSTANDING THE 
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE 
IMPLICATIONS OF OUR 
INVESTIGATION. SO, LET ME SAY A 
WORD ABOUT HOW WE HANDLED THE 
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF OUR 
INVESTIGATION ON 
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE MATTERS. 
AS WE EXPLAIN IN OUR REPORT, 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS 
EFFECTIVELY GAVE ME THE ROLE OF 
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND 
AS A RESULT, RESTRUCTURED OUR 
INVESTIGATION AROUND EVIDENCE 
FOR POSSIBLE USE AND 
PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL CRIMES. 
WE DID NOT REACH WHAT YOU WOULD 
CALL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE 
CONCLUSIONS. 
WE DID, HOWEVER, SET OF 
PROCESSES IN THE OFFICE TO 
IDENTIFY AND PASS 
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION 
ONTO THE FBI. 
MEMBERS OF OUR OFFICE 
PERIODICALLY BRIEFED THE FBI 
ABOUT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE 
INFORMATION AND IN ADDITION 
THERE WERE AGENTS AND ANALYSTS 
FROM THE FBI WHO ARE NOT ON OUR 
TEAM, BUT WHOSE JOB IT WAS TO 
IDENTIFY COUNTERINTELLIGENCE 
INFORMATION IN OUR FILES AND TO 
DISSEMINATE THAT INFORMATION TO 
THE FBI. 
FOR THESE REASONS, QUESTIONS 
ABOUT WHAT THE FBI HAS DONE 
WITH THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE 
INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM OUR 
INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE 
DIRECTED TO THE FBI. I 
ALSO WANT TO REITERATE A FEW 
POINTS I MADE THIS MORNING. 
I'M NOT MAKING ANY JUDGMENTS OR 
OFFERING OPINIONS ABOUT THE 
GUILT OR INNOCENCE IN ANY 
PENDING CASE. 
IT IS UNUSUAL FOR PROSECUTOR TO 
TESTIFY ABOUT A CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION AND GIVEN MY ROLE 
AS A PROSECUTOR, THERE ARE 
REASONS WHY MY TESTIMONY WILL 
NECESSARILY BE LIMITED. 
FIRST, PUBLIC TESTIMONY COULD 
AFFECT SEVERAL ONGOING MATTERS 
AND SOME OF THESE MATTERS OR 
JUDICIAL ORDERS LIMIT THE 
DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO 
PROTECT THE FAIRNESS OF THE 
PROCEEDINGS. 
CONSISTENT WITH LONG-STANDING 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY, IT 
WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME 
TO COMMENT IN ANY WAY THAT 
COULD AFFECT AN ONGOING MATTER. 
SECOND, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
HAS ASSERTED PRIVILEGES 
CONCERNING INVESTIGATIVE 
INFORMATION AND DECISIONS, 
ONGOING MATTERS WITHIN THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND 
DELIBERATIONS WITHIN OUR 
OFFICE. 
THESE ARE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
PRIVILEGES THAT I WILL RESPECT. 
THE DEPARTMENT HAS RELEASED A 
LETTER DISCUSSING THE 
RESTRICTIONS ON MY TESTIMONY. I 
THEREFORE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO 
ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT CERTAIN 
AREAS THAT I KNOW ARE OF PUBLIC 
INTEREST. 
FOR EXAMPLE, I'M NOT ABLE TO 
ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE 
OPENING OF THE FBI RUSSIA 
INVESTIGATION, WHICH OCCURRED 
MONTHS BEFORE MY APPOINTMENT. 
OR, MATTERS RELATED TO THE 
STOVE CALLED STEELE DOSSIER. 
THESE MATTERS ON THE SUBJECT OF 
ONGOING REVIEW BY THE 
DEPARTMENT AND ANY QUESTIONS ON 
THESE TOPICS SHOULD THEREFORE 
BE DIRECTED TO THE FBI OR THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. 
THIRD, AS I EXPLAINED THIS 
MORNING, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME 
TO ADHERE TO WHAT WE WROTE IN 
OUR REPORT. 
THE REPORT CONTAINS OUR 
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS AND THE 
REASONS FOR THE DECISIONS WE 
MADE. 
WE STATED THE RESULTS OF OUR 
INVESTIGATION WITH PRECISION. I 
DO NOT INTEND TO SUMMARIZE OR 
DESCRIBE THE RESULTS OF OUR 
WORK IN A DIFFERENT WAY IN THE 
COURSE OF OUR TESTIMONY TODAY. 
AS I STATED IN MAY, I ALSO WILL 
NOT COMMENT ON THE ACTIONS OF 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR OF 
CONGRESS. 
I WAS APPOINTED AS A PROSECUTOR 
AND I INTEND TO ADHERE TO THAT 
ROLE AND TO THE DEPARTMENT 
STANDARDS THAT GOVERN IT. 
FINALLY, AS I SAID THIS 
MORNING, OVER THE COURSE OF MY 
CAREER, I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF 
CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY. 
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT EFFORTS 
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION IS 
AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS AND I'M 
SURE THAT THE COMMITTEE AGREES. 
NOW, BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS, 
I WANT TO ADD ONE CORRECTION TO 
MY TESTIMONY THIS MORNING. I 
WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE THING 
THAT WAS SAID THIS MORNING BY 
MR. LIEU, WHO SAID, AND I 
QUOTE, YOU DIDN'T CHARGE THE 
PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF THE OLC 
OPINION. 
THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT WAY TO 
SAY IT. 
AS WE SAY IN THE REPORT AND AS 
I SAID AT THE OPENING, WE DID 
NOT REACH A DETERMINATION AS TO 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED 
A CRIME. 
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M 
READY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER 
AND I RECOGNIZED MYSELF FOR 
FIVE MINUTES. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOUR REPORT 
SUBSCRIBES THAT RUSSIA 
INFLUENCED OUR PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> DURING THE COURSE OF THE 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 
ELECTION, THE RUSSIANS MADE 
OUTREACH TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, 
DID THEY NOT? 
>> THAT OCCURRED OVER THE 
COURSE OF -- THAT OCCURRED. 
>> IT'S ALSO CLEAR THAT DURING 
THE RUSSIAN OUTREACH TO THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN, NO ONE 
ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN EVER CALLED THE FBI TO 
REPORT IT, AM I RIGHT? 
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. 
>> IN FACT, THE CAMPAIGN 
WELCOMED THE RUSSIAN HELP, DID 
THEY NOT? 
>> I THINK WE REPORT THAT THERE 
ARE INDICATIONS THAT OCCURRED, 
YES. 
>> THE PRESIDENT'S SON SAID 
WHEN APPROACHED ABOUT DIRT ON 
HILLARY CLINTON, THAT THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN WOULD LOVE IT? 
>> THAT IS GENERALLY WHAT WAS 
SAID, YES. 
>> THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF CALLED 
ON THE RUSSIANS TO HACK HILARY'S
EMAILS? 
>> THERE WAS A STATEMENT BY THE 
PRESIDENT ALONG THOSE GENERAL 
LINES PERSPECTIVE NUMEROUS TIMES
DURING THE CAMPAIGN, THE 
PRESIDENT PRAYS THE RELEASES OF 
THE RUSSIAN HACKED EMAILS 
THROUGH WIKILEAKS? 
>> THAT DID OCCUR. 
>> YOUR REPORT FOUND THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN PLANNED, QUOTE, 
OPPRESSED STRATEGY AND 
COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGN AND 
MESSAGING BASED ON THE RUSSIAN 
ASSISTANCE? 
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. 
>> THE LANGUAGE COMES FROM 
VOLUME ONE, PAGE $54. 
APART FROM THE RUSSIANS WANTING 
TO HELP TRUMP WIN, SEVERAL 
INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN WERE ALSO TRYING 
TO MAKE MONEY DURING THE 
CAMPAIGN AND TRANSITION, IS 
THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS TRUE. 
>> WHILE MANAFORT WAS TRYING TO 
ACHIEVE DEBT FORGIVENESS? 
>> GENERALLY, THAT IS ACCURATE. 
>> MICHAEL FLYNN WAS TRYING TO 
MAKE MONEY FROM TURKEY? 
>> TRUE. 
>> DONALD TRUMP WAS TRYING TO 
MAKE MILLIONS FROM A REAL 
ESTATE DEAL IN MOSCOW? 
>> TO THE EXTENT YOU ARE 
TALKING ABOUT THE HOTEL IN 
MOSCOW? 
>> YES. 
>> YES. 
>> WHEN YOU'RE INVESTIGATION 
LOOKED INTO THE MATTERS, 
NUMEROUS TRUMP ASSOCIATES LIED 
TO YOUR TEAM, THE GRAND JURY IN 
CONGRESS? 
>> A NUMBER OF PERSONS WE 
INTERVIEWED IN THE 
INVESTIGATION, IT TURNS OUT, 
DID LIE. 
>> MIKE FLYNN LIE? 
>> HE WAS CONVICTED OF LYING, 
YES BUT 
>> GEORGE PAPP ANNAPOLIS? 
>> TRUE. 
>> PAUL MANAFORT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> PAUL MANAFORT WAS, IN FACT, 
WENT SO FAR AS TO ENCOURAGE 
OTHER PEOPLE TO LIVE? 
>> THAT IS ACCURATE. 
>> RICK GATES LIED? 
>> THAT IS ACCURATE. 
>> THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WAS 
INDICTED FOR LYING? 
>> ALLEGEDLY. 
>> WHEN DONALD TRUMP CALLED YOUR
INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT, 
THAT WAS FALSE? 
>> I LIKE TO THINK SO, YES. 
>> YOUR INVESTIGATION IS NOT A 
WITCH HUNT? 
>> IT IS NOT A WITCH HUNT. 
>> WAS IT PUBLICLY FALSE? 
>> HE DID SAY PUBLICLY THAT IT 
WAS FALSE, YES. 
>> WHEN HE TOLD IT TO PUTIN, 
THAT WAS FALSE? 
>> THAT, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH. 
>> THE PRESIDENT SAID HE HAD NO 
BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA 
AND THAT WAS FALSE? 
>> I'M NOT GOING INTO DETAILS 
OF THE REPORT OR ALONG THOSE 
LINES. 
>> WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID HE 
HAD NO BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH 
RUSSIA, IN FACT, HE WAS SEEKING 
TO BUILD A TRUMP TOWER IN 
MOSCOW? 
>> THERE WAS SOME QUESTION 
ABOUT WHEN THIS WAS 
ACCOMPLISHED. 
>> YOU WOULD CONSIDER A BILLION-
DOLLAR DEAL TO BUILD A TOWER IN 
MOSCOW TO BE BUSINESS DEALINGS, 
WOULDN'T YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
>> Reporter: YOUR INVESTIGATION 
FOUND EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIA 
WANTED TRUMP TO WIN THE 
ELECTION? 
>> GENERALLY, THAT WOULD BE 
ACCURATE. 
>> RUSSIA INFORMED OFFICIALS OF 
THAT? 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT 
CONVERSATIONS YOU ARE REFERRING 
TO. 
>> PAPP ANNAPOLIS WAS INFORMED 
THEY COULD HELP WITH THE 
ANONYMOUS RELEASE OF STOLEN 
EMAILS? 
>> ACCURATE. 
>> RUSSIA COMMITTED FEDERAL 
CRIMES TO HELP DONALD TRUMP? 
>> TALKING ABOUT COMPUTER 
CRIMES, IN OUR CASE, 
ABSOLUTELY. 
>> TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS 
BUILT THEIR STRATEGY AND THEIR 
MESSAGING STRATEGY AROUND THOSE 
STOLEN DOCUMENTS? 
>> GENERALLY, THAT'S TRUE. 
>> THEY LIED TO COVER IT UP? 
>> GENERALLY, THAT'S TRUE. 
>> THINK YOU. 
MR. NUNES? 
>> THANK YOU AND WELCOME, 
DIRECTOR. 
AS A FORMER FBI DIRECTOR, YOU 
WOULD REE THE FBI'S THE 
WORLD'S MOST CAPABLE LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY? 
>> YES. 
>> THE FBI CLAIMS THE 
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE 
INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN BEGAN JULY 31, 2016 BUT
IN FACT IT BEGAN BEFORE THAT, IN
JUNE 2016, BEFORE THE 
INVESTIGATION OFFICIALLY OPEN, 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ASSOCIATES, 
CARTER PAGE AND STEPHEN MILLER, 
CURRENT TRUMP ADVISER, WERE 
INVITED TO ATTEND A SYMPOSIUM 
AT CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY IN JULY 
2016. 
YOUR OFFICE, HOWEVER, DID NOT 
INVESTIGATE WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE 
FOR INVITING THESE TRUMP 
ASSOCIATES TO THE SYMPOSIUM AND 
YOUR INVESTIGATORS FAILED TO 
INTERVIEW AN AMERICAN CITIZEN 
WHO HELPED ORGANIZE THE EVENT 
AND INVITED CARTER PAGE TO IT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? 
>> WHETHER OR NOT YOU 
INTERVIEWED STEVEN SCHRAG HE? 
>> IN THOSE AREAS, I'M GOING TO 
STAY AWAY FROM. 
>> THE FIRST TRUMP ASSOCIATE TO 
BE INVESTIGATED WAS GENERAL 
FLYNN AND MANY OF THE 
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM STEM 
FROM FALSE MEDIA REPORTS THAT 
HE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH THE 
CAMBRIDGE ACADEMIC, SVETLANA 
LOW, AND THAT SHE WAS A RUSSIAN 
SPY AND SOME OF THESE 
ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE PUBLIC IN 
A 2017 ARTICLE WRITTEN BY 
BRITISH INTELLIGENCE? 
>> HOW OR WHY ANDREW AND THE 
COLLABORATOR, THE FORMER HEAD OF
THE BRITAIN AM I SIX SPREAD 
THESE ALLEGATIONS AND YOU 
FAILED TO INTERVIEW 1024? 
>> GETTING INTO THE THINGS YOU 
INFER. 
>> YOU AT $40 AGENTS AND 
UNLIMITED BUDGET, CORRECT, MR. 
MUELLER? 
>> I WOULD NOT SAY WE HAD AN 
UNLIMITED BUDGET. 
>> SUPPOSEDLY, ON JULY 31, 
2016, THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT 
OPEN, BASED ON THE OFFICIAL 
PRODUCT FROM FISA INTELLIGENT 
BUT A RUMOR WITH VOLUME ONE, 
PAGE $81 WHERE HE'S DESCRIBED 
BLANDLY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF 
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT BUT HE WAS 
ACTUALLY A LONGTIME AUSTRALIAN 
POLITICIAN, NOT A MILITARY 
OFFICIAL. 
HE HAD PREVIOUSLY THE RANGE OF 
$25 MILLION DONATION TO THE 
CLINTON FOUNDATION AND HAS TIES
. HE HAD HEARD ABOUT A 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN 
PAPADOPOULOS AND JOSEPH MIFSUD 
AND JAMES COMEY PUBLICLY CALLED 
MIFSUD A RUSSIAN AGENT BUT YOUR 
REPORT DOES NOT REFER TO THAT. 
HE'S GOT EXTENSIVE CONTACTS 
WITH THE FBI AND THERE'S A 
PHOTO OF HIM STANDING NEXT TO 
BORIS JOHNSON, THE NEW PRIME 
MINISTER OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE 
OUT, ARE THE NATIVE ALLIES OR 
BORIS JOHNSON COMPROMISE? 
WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT 
WHERE COMEY SAYS THAT MIFSUD IS 
A RUSSIAN AGENT AND YOU DO NOT. 
DO YOU STAND BY THE REPORT? 
>> I STAND BY THAT WHICH IS IN 
THE REPORT AND NOT NECESSARILY 
THAT WHICH IS NOT IN THE 
REPORT. 
>> I RETURNED TO MR. DOWNER WHO 
DENIES THAT PAPADOPOULOS 
MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT HILARY 
CLINTON'S EMAILS AND IN FACT, 
MIFSUD DENIES THAT PAPADOPOULOS 
MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT 
HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAILS AND 
DENIES MENTIONING THEM TO 
PAPADOPOULOS IN THE FIRST 
PLACE. 
HOW DOES THE FBI KNOW TO ASK 
PAPADOPOULOS ABOUT CLINTON'S 
EMAILS FOR THE REST OF 2016? 
AND YOUR MEMO ON PAPADOPOULOS 
BLAMES HIM FOR HINDERING THE 
FBI'S ABILITY TO POTENTIALLY 
DETAIN OR ARREST MIFSUD BUT THE 
PROOF WAS HE WALTZED IN AND OUT 
OF THE U.S. IN DECEMBER 2016 
AND THE U.S. MEDIA CAN FIND HIM 
IN THE ITALIAN PRESS FOUND HIM 
AND HE'S A SUPPOSE I'D RUSSIAN 
AGENT AT THE CENTER OF THE 
SUPPOSE I'D COLLUSION AND THAT 
HE KNOWS THE RUSSIANS HAVE 
CLINTON'S EMAILS PER THE FBI 
FAILED TO QUESTION HIM FOR ONE 
HALF YEAR AFTER OFFICIALLY 
OPENING THE INVESTIGATION AND 
THEN ACCORDING TO VOLUME ONE, 
PAGE 193 OF YOUR REPORT, ONCE 
MIFSUD WAS FINALLY QUESTION, HE 
MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE 
FBI. 
YOU DECLINED TO CHARGE HIM. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
YOU DID NOT INDICT MIFSUD? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO 
THE SERIES OF HAPPENINGS AS YOU 
ARTICULATED THEM. 
>> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS
EXPIRED. 
>> YOU DID NOT INDICT MR. 
MIFSUD? 
>> TRUE. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU 
FOR YOUR LIFETIME OF SERVICE TO 
THIS COUNTRY AND FOR YOUR 
PERSEVERANCE AND PATIENCE 
TODAY. 
YOUR REPORT OPENS WITH TWO 
STATEMENTS OF REMARKABLE 
CLARITY AND POWER. 
THE FIRST STATEMENT THAT AS OF 
TODAY, IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND THAT IS, QUOTE, THE 
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
AND SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC 
FASHION. 
THE SECOND STATEMENT REMAINS 
CONTROVERSIAL AMONG MEMBERS OF 
THIS BODY, THE SAME PAGE ON 
YOUR REPORT. 
I QUOTE, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 
PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM 
A TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND WORKED 
TO SECURE THAT OUTCOME. 
DO I HAVE THAT STATEMENT RIGHT? 
>> I BELIEVE SO. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THIS 
ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY, AS YOU 
SAID, INVOLVE TWO OPERATIONS. 
FIRST, SOCIAL MEDIA 
DISASSOCIATION CAMPAIGN TO 
SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION ON 
PLACES LIKE TWITTER AND 
FACEBOOK. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> FACEBOOK ESTIMATED THAT THE 
RUSSIAN FAKE IMAGES REACHED 126 
MILLION PEOPLE. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE SUM WE
RECORDED. 
>> WHO DID THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL 
MEDIA CMPAIGN ULTIMATELY 
INTEND TO BENEFIT, HILLARY 
CLINTON OR DONALD TRUMP? 
>> DONALD TRUMP. 
>> LET ME JUST SAY, DONALD 
TRUMP AT THERE WERE INSTANCES 
WHERE HILLARY CLINTON WAS 
SUBJECT TO MUCH THE SAME 
BEHAVIOR. 
>> THE SECOND OPERATION IN THE 
RUSSIAN ATTACK WAS A SCHEME 
CALLED HACK AND DUMP, TO STEAL 
AND RELEASE EMAILS FROM THE 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE CLINTON
CAMPAIGN. 
IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY? 
>> THAT IS. 
>> TO DRAW INVESTIGATION FIND 
THAT THE RELEASED EMAILS WERE 
STRATEGICALLY TIMED TO MAXIMIZE 
IMPACT ON THE ELECTION? 
>> I'D HAVE TO REFER YOU TO OUR 
REPORT ON THAT QUESTION. 
>> I QUOTE, THE RELEASE WAS 
TIME TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 
U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 
WAS RUSSIA'S HACKING AND DUMPING
OPERATION DESIGNED TO BENEFIT, 
HILLARY CLINTON OR DONALD 
TRUMP? 
>> MR. TRUMP. 
>> MR. MUELLER, IS IT POSSIBLE 
THAT THE SWEEPING AND 
SYSTEMATIC EFFORT BY RUSSIA 
ACTUALLY HAD AN OUTCOME ON THE 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? 
>> THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN 
INVESTIGATED BY OTHER ENTITIES. 
>> 126 MILLION FACEBOOK 
ATTACKS, WOULD YOU RULE OUT 
THAT IT HAD SOME EFFECT? 
>> THE THIRD AVENUE OF ATTEMPTED
INTERFERENCE, THE NUMEROUS 
LINKS AND CONTACTS BETWEEN THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND THE 
INDIVIDUALS TIED TO THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES THE 
THIRD AVENUE OF RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE AND THAT IS THE 
LINKS AND CONTACTS BETWEEN THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND INDIVIDUALS 
TIED TO THE CAMPAIGN? 
>> YES. 
>> LET'S BRING UP SLIDE ONE 
ABOUT GEORGE PAPP ANNAPOLIS AND 
IT READS -- ON MAY 6, 2016, $10 
DAYS AFTER THAT MEETING WITH 
MIFSUD, PAPADOPOULOS SUGGESTED 
THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD 
RECEIVED INDICATIONS FROM THE 
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT THAT IT 
COULD ASSIST THE CAMPAIGN 
THROUGH THE ANONYMOUS RELEASE 
OF INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE 
DAMAGING TO HILLARY CLINTON. 
DIRECTOR, THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED 
TWO MONTHS LATER, IS IT NOT? 
>> I CAN SPEAK TO THE EXCERPT 
ON THE SCREEN AS BEING ACCURATE 
BUT NOT THE SECOND HALF OF YOUR 
QUESTION. 
>> ON JULY 22, THROUGH 
WIKILEAKS, THOUSANDS OF THESE 
EMAILS THAT WERE STOLEN BY THE 
RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT APPEARED, 
CORRECT? 
THAT'S ON PAGE SIX OF THE 
REPORT. 
THIS IS THE WIKILEAKS POSTING 
OF THOSE EMAILS. 
>> I CAN FIND IT QUICKLY, BUT 
PLEASE CONTINUE. 
>> TO BE CLEAR, BEFORE THE 
PUBLIC OR THE FBI EVER KNEW THE 
RUSSIANS PREVIEWED FOR THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL THAT 
THEY HAD STOLEN EMAILS THAT 
THEY COULD RELEASE ANONYMOUSLY 
TO HELP DONALD TRUMP AND HURT 
HILLARY CLINTON, IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> I WANT SPEAK TO THAT. 
>> DIRECTOR, RATHER THAN REPORT 
THIS CONTACT WITH JOSEPH 
MIFSUD, RATHER THAN REPORT THAT 
TO THE FBI AND MOST MY 
CONSTITUENTS WOULD EXPECT THAT, 
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS LIED? 
>> THAT'S TRUE. 
>> GENERALLY SPEAKING, SHOULD A 
CAMPAIGN REPORT THOSE TYPES OF 
CONTACTS? 
>> DEPENDING ON THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES OF IT BEING A 
CRIME. 
>> I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF 
MY TIME. 
>> MR. KHAN AWAY? 
>> THANK YOU. 
MR. MUELLER, DID ANYONE ASK YOU 
TO EXCLUDE ANYTHING FROM YOUR 
REPORT THAT YOU FELT SHOULD BE 
IN THE REPORT? 
>> I DON'T THINK SO. 
IT'S NOT A SMALL REPORT. 
>> NO ONE ASKED YOU TO EXCLUDE 
SOMETHING IN THERE? 
>> NOT THAT I CAN RECALL, NO. 
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, DIRECTOR 
MUELLER. 
IN YOUR MAY 29 PRESS CONFERENCE 
AND IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS 
THIS MORNING, YOU MADE IT CLEAR 
HE ONE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
REPORT TO SPEAK FOR ITSELF. 
HE SAID AT YOUR PRESS 
CONFERENCE THAT IT WAS THE 
OFFICE'S FINAL POSITION AND WE 
WILL NOT COMMENT ON ANY OTHER 
CONCLUSIONS OR HYPOTHETICALS 
ABOUT THE PRESIDENT BUT YOU'VE 
SPENT THE LAST FEW HOURS OF 
YOUR LIFE, FROM DEMOCRATS 
TRYING TO GET YOU TO ANSWER ALL 
KINDS OF HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT -- AND I EXPECT 
IT MAY CONTINUE FOR THE NEXT 
FEW HOURS OF YOUR LIFE, I THINK 
YOU'VE STAYED PRETTY MUCH TRUE 
TO YOUR INTENT AND DESIRE. 
BUT REGARDLESS OF THAT, THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE IS 
CLOSED AND IT HAS NO CONTINUING 
JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY. 
WHAT WOULD BE YOUR AUTHORITY OR 
JURISDICTION FOR ADDING NEW 
CONCLUSIONS OR DETERMINATIONS 
TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WRITTEN 
REPORT? 
>> I DON'T KNOW OR EXPECT. 
>> TO THAT POINT, WHAT ARE THE 
ISSUES, TO THE TESTIMONY THIS 
MORNING, SOME CONSTRUE IT AS A 
CHANGE TO THE WRITTEN REPORT. 
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE EXCHANGE 
YOU HAD WITH CONGRESSMAN LOOP. 
I WANT TO ASK YOU SO THE RECORD 
IS CLEAR. 
I RECORDED THAT HE ASKED YOU 
THE REASON HE DID NOT INDICT 
DONALD TRUMP WAS BECAUSE OF THE 
OLC OPINION STATING YOU CANNOT 
INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT TO 
WHICH HE RESPONDED, THAT IS 
CORRECT. 
THAT RESPONSE IS INCONSISTENT 
WITH YOUR WRITTEN REPORT AND I 
WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT IT'S 
NOT YOUR INTENT TO CHANGE THE 
WRITTEN REPORT BUT TO CLARIFY 
THE RECORD? 
>> I ADDED A FOOTNOTE OR IN AN 
NOTE AND I WANTED TO CLARIFY 
THAT WE DID NOT MAKE ANY 
DETERMINATION WITH REGARD TO 
CULPABILITY. 
WE DID NOT START THAT PROCESS. 
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THE 
RECORD. 
A STATED PURPOSE OF YOUR 
APPOINTMENT WAS A THOROUGH 
INVESTIGATION OF THE RUSSIAN 
EFFORTS TO INTERFERE AND PART 
OF THAT INVESTIGATION SHOWS, 
WHAT DETERMINATION DID THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE MAKE 
ABOUT WHETHER THE STEELE 
DOSSIER WAS PART OF THE RUSSIAN 
EFFORT TO INTERFERE IN THE 
ELECTION? 
>> WHEN IT COMES TO MR. STEELE, 
I DEFER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE. 
>> FIRST OF ALL, I VERY MUCH 
AGREE WITH YOUR DETERMINATION 
THAT THE EFFORTS FROM RUSSIA 
WERE SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC 
AND IT SHOULD CONCERN EVERY 
AMERICAN BUT I WANT TO KNOW HOW 
SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC THOSE 
EFFORTS WERE AND WANT TO FIND 
OUT IF IT INTERFERES. 
WHAT ABOUT THE TRUMP 
CONSPIRACY. 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO INFER WITH 
MR. STEELE AND IN TERMS OF 
PORTRAYAL OF THE CONSPIRACY, WE 
RETURNED TWO INDICTMENTS IN THE 
COMPUTER CRIMES ARENA AND ONE 
GRU AND ANOTHER ACTIVE MEASURES 
IN WHICH WE LAY OUT IN 
EXCRUCIATING DETAIL WHAT 
OCCURRED IN THOSE TWO RATHER 
LARGE CONSPIRACIES. 
>> I AGREE WITH RESPECT TO THAT 
BUT WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT IS AN 
APPLICATION AND THREE RENEWAL 
APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED BY 
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO SERVILE 
CARTER PAGE AND ON ALL FOUR 
OCCASIONS, THE STEELE DOSSIER 
WAS A CENTRAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE 
WITH RESPECT TO THAT. 
THE BASIC PREVALECE OF THE 
DOSSIER, AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS 
A WELL-DEVELOPED CONSPIRACY OF 
COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN IN THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT. 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH 
CONSPIRACY, CORRECT? 
>> WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT 
THE EVENTS YOU CHARACTERIZE IS 
PART OF ANOTHER MATTER BEING 
HANDLED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE. 
>> YOU DID NOT ESTABLISH A 
CONSPIRACY, MUCH LESS A WELL-
DEVELOPED ONE? 
>> AGAIN, I PASS ON THAT 
QUESTION. 
>> THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT 
CHARGE CARTER PAGE WITH 
ANYTHING? 
>> THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT. 
>> MY TIME IS OVER. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> FOR THE JUNE 9TH 2016 TRUMP 
TOWER MEETING, SLIDE TWO, ON 
THE SCREEN NOW, AS PART OF AN 
EMAIL CHAIN BETWEEN DON JR., 
DONALD TRUMP JR., AND A 
PUBLICIST REPRESENTING THE SON 
OF A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH AND THE 
EMAIL EXCHANGE ULTIMATELY LEAD 
TO THE NOW INFAMOUS JUNE 9, 
2016 MEETING IN THE EMAIL FROM 
A PUBLICIST TO DONALD TRUMP JR. 
READS, IN PART, OFFICIAL 
DOCUMENTS WERE OFFERED WITH 
INFORMATION TO INCRIMINATE 
HILLARY AND HER DEALINGS WITH 
RUSSIA AND AS A PART OF RUSSIA 
AND ITS GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF 
MR. TRUMP. 
IN THIS EMAIL, DONALD TRUMP JR. 
IS BEING TOLD THAT THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PASS ALONG 
INFORMATION WHICH WOULD HURT 
HILLARY CLINTON AND HELP DONALD 
TRUMP DONALD TRUMP. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> NOW, TRUMP JR.'S RESPONSE IS 
ON SLIDE THREE. 
HE SAID, AND I QUOTE, IF IT IS 
WHAT YOU SAY, I LOVE IT, 
ESPECIALLY LATER IN THE SUMMER 
AND THEN DONALD TRUMP JR. 
INVITED THE SENIOR CAMPAIGN 
OFFICIALS, PAUL MANAFORT AND 
JARED KUSHNER TO THE MEETING, 
DID HE NOT? 
>> HE DID. 
>> THIS EMAIL CHAIN IS EVIDENCE 
OF AN OFFER OF A LEGAL 
ASSISTANCE. 
>> I CANNOT ADOPT THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION. 
>> ISN'T IT AGAINST THE LAW TO 
ACCEPT ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT? 
GENERALLY SPEAKING, YES BUT 
GENERALLY, THE CASES ARE UNIQUE
. 
>> YOU SAY ON PAGE 184, VOLUME 
ONE, THAT THE FEDERAL CAMPAIGN 
FINANCE LAW BROADLY ROQUE 
PROHIBITS FOREIGN NATIONALS FOR 
MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS AND THEN 
YOU SAY FOREIGN NATIONALS MAY 
NOT MAKE A CONTRIBUTION OR 
DONATION OF MONEY OR ANYTHING 
OF VALUE. 
IT SAYS IT CLEARLY IN THE 
REPORT, ITSELF. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> LET'S TURN TO WHAT HAPPENED 
AT THE MEETING WHEN DONALD 
TRUMP JR. AND OTHERS GOT TO THE 
MEETING, THEY REALIZE THEY 
DIDN'T HAVE THE QUOTE-UNQUOTE 
DIRT AND THEY GOT UPSET ABOUT 
THAT, DID THEY NOT? 
>> IN GENERAL, YES. 
>> SAY IN VOLUME ONE, PAGE 118 
THAT TRUMP JR. ASKED, WHAT ARE 
WE DOING HERE? 
WHAT DO THEY HAVE ON CLINTON? 
DURING THE MEETING, KUSHNER 
TEXTED MANAFORT SAYING IT WAS, 
QUOTE, A WASTE OF TIME. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I BELIEVE IT IS IN THE 
REPORT ALONG THE LINES YOU 
SPECIFY. 
>> TO BE CLEAR, TOP TRUMP 
OFFICIALS LEARNED RUSSIA WANTED 
TO HELP TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN BY 
GIVING HIM DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT 
AND TRUMP JR. SAID HE LOVED IT 
AND THEN HE AND SENIOR 
OFFICIALS HELD A MEETING WITH 
THE RUSSIANS TO TRY TO GET THAT 
RUSSIAN HELP BUT WERE 
DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE THE DIRT 
WASN'T AS GOOD AS I'D HOPED. 
TO THE NEXT STEP, DID ANYONE 
COME INTO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, AND 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, TELL THE 
FBI OF THIS OFFER? 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
>> DID DONALD TRUMP JR. SAY 
THEY RECEIVED AN OFFER OF HELP? 
>> THAT'S ABOUT ALL I WILL SAY 
ON THIS ASPECT OF IT. 
>> WOULDN'T IT BE TRUE, SIR, 
THAT IF THEY REPORTED IT TO THE 
CAMPAIGN OUT OF THESE 
INVESTIGATIONS, YOU WOULD BE 
RECOVERED? 
>> I WOULD HOPE, YES. 
>> IS IT NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY 
OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS TO 
INFORM THE FBI IF THEY'VE 
RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT? 
>> I WOULD THINK IT IS 
SOMETHING THEY WOULD AND SHOULD 
DO. 
>> NOT ONLY DID THE CAMPAIGN 
NOT TELL THE FBI, THEY SOUGHT 
TO HIDE THE EXISTENCE OF THE 
JUNE 9TH MEETING FOR OVER A 
YEAR. 
IS THAT NOT CORRECT? 
>> ON THE GENERAL 
CHARACTERIZATION, I WOULD 
QUESTION IT AND IF YOU ARE 
REFERRING TO LATER, I REFER TO 
AN INITIATIVE THAT FLOWED FROM 
THE MEDIA. 
>> WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IF 
YOU'VE SAID ON VOLUME TWO, PAGE 
FIVE THAT THEY DIRECTED AIDES 
TO NOT DISCLOSE THE EMAIL 
SETTING UP THE JUNE 9TH 
MEETING. 
>> THAT'S ACCURATE. 
>> THANKS. 
>> GIVEN THIS A LEGAL 
ASSISTANCE, YOU CHOSE, EVEN 
GIVEN THAT, YOU DID NOT CHARGE 
DONALD TRUMP JR. OR ANY SENIOR 
OFFICIALS WITH CONSPIRAY. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 
OTHER INDIVIDUALS, YOU ARE 
TALKING ABOUT THE ATTENDEES. 
>> DON'T YOU THINK THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERNED THAT 
THESE SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS 
EAGERLY SOUGHT A FOREIGN 
ADVERSARIES HELP TO WIN 
ELECTIONS AND WOULDN'T THAT BE 
IMPORTANT SO WE DON'T SET A 
PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS? 
>> I CAN'T ACCEPT THAT 
CHARACTERIZATION. 
>> LISTEN. 
IT SEEMS LIKE A BETRAYAL OF 
AMERICAN VALUES THAT SOMEONE -- 
NOT BEING CRIMINAL, IT'S 
DEFINITELY UNETHICAL AND WRONG 
AND WE WOULDN'T WANT TO SET A 
PRECEDENT THAT THEY SHOULDN'T 
DIVULGE THE INFORMATION? 
THANK YOU, SIR. 
>> MR. TURNER? 
>> MR. MUELLER, IN THE 
BEGINNING OF YOUR OPENING 
STATEMENT, YOU INDICATE THAT 
PURSUANT TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
REGULATIONS, YOU SUBMITTED A 
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE 
CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION 
AND I'D LIKE YOU TO CONFIRM THAT
A REPORT THAT IS THE SUBJECT 
MATTER OF THIS HEARING WAS TO 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL? 
>> YES. 
>> YOU ALSO STATE THAT YOU 
THREW OVERBOARD THE WORD 
COLLUSION BECAUSE IT'S NOT A 
LEGAL TERM AND YOU WOULD NOT 
CONCLUDE BECAUSE CONCLUSION WAS 
NOT A LEGAL TERM? 
>> IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT 
TO USE THE WORD. 
IN A GENERAL PARLANCE, YOU CAN 
THINK OF IT THAT WAY BUT IN THE 
CRIMINAL STATUTE ARENA, YOU 
CAN'T BECAUSE IT'S MUCH MORE 
APTLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED 
AS CONSPIRACY. 
>> IT'S NOT A LEGAL TERM SO YOU 
DIDN'T PUT IT IN YOUR COLLUSION 
REPORT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE 
APPOINTMENT ORDER GAVE YOU 
POWERS RESIDING IN THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL AND THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL HAS NO ABILITY TO GIVE 
YOU A POWER GREATER THAN THE 
POWER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 
CORRECT? 
>> I THINK THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> I WANT TO FOCUS ON ONE WORD, 
THE SECOND TO LAST WORD, 
EXONERATE. 
THE REPORT STATES THAT WHILE 
THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONCLUDE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A 
CRIME, IT DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM
AND IN THE JUDICIARY HEARING 
AND IN YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY, 
YOU'VE ALREADY AGREED THAT 
EXONERATE IS NOT A LEGAL TERM 
SO I HAVE A QUESTION. 
MR. MUELLER, DOES THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL HAVE THE POWER OR 
AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE? 
I PUT THIS UP HERE AS THE U.S. 
CODE. 
FOR THE ANNOTATED CASES OF 
THESE, WE'VE SEARCHED AND WE 
WENT TO YOUR LAW SCHOOL. 
I WENT TO CASE WESTERN BUT I 
THOUGHT YOUR LAW SCHOOL MIGHT 
TEACH IT DIFFERENTLY. 
WE GOT THE CRIMINAL LAW 
TEXTBOOK FROM YOUR LAW SCHOOL. 
NOWHERE IN THIS IS THEIR 
PROCESS OR DESCRIPTION ON 
EXONERATE. 
THERE IS NO OFFICE OF 
EXONERATION, NO CERTIFICATE. 
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT 
HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE? 
>> I HAVE GOT TO PASS ON THAT. 
>> WHY? 
>> BECAUSE IT BROYLES US IN A 
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND I'M NOT 
PREPARED TO DO A LEGAL 
DISCUSSION IN THAT ARENA. 
>> MR. MUELLER, YOU WOULD NOT 
DISAGREE WITH ME WHEN I SAY 
THERE IS NO PLACE THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL WOULD HAVE THE POWER TO 
EXONERATE AND YOU'VE NOT BEEN 
GIVEN THAT AUTHORITY? 
>> I TAKE YOUR QUESTION. 
>> I GUESS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
KNOWS THAT HE CAN'T EXONERATE, 
EITHER AND THAT'S THE PART THAT 
CONFUSES ME BECAUSE THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T HAVE 
THE POWER TO EXONERATE AND YOU 
DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO 
EXONERATE AND I BELIEVE HE 
KNOWS HE DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER 
TO EXONERATE. 
THIS IS WHAT I DON'T 
UNDERSTAND. 
IF YOUR REPORT IS TO THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T HAVE 
THE POWER TO EXONERATE AND HE 
KNOWS YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT 
POWER, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL 
HIM YOU ARE NOT EXONERATING THE 
PRESENT BECAUSE HE KNOWS THIS 
ALREADY. 
THAT CHANGES THE CONTEXT. 
>> I KNOW AND WE INCLUDED IT IN 
THE REPORT FOR EXACTLY THAT 
REASON. 
>> YOU BELIEVE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
BILL BARR BELIEVES THAT 
SOMEWHERE IN THE HALLWAYS OF 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THERE 
IS AN OFFICE OF EXONERATION? 
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. 
>> I THINK YOU PUT THAT IN FOR 
EXACTLY THE REASON I DISCUSS 
AND THAT IS SO THE WASHINGTON 
POST, WHEN SPEAKING OF THE 
REPORT, THE ARTICLE SAID TRUMP 
COULD NOT BE EXONERATED OF 
TRYING TO OBSTRUCT THE 
INVESTIGATION, ITSELF. 
TRUMP COULD NOT BE EXONERATED 
AND THAT STATEMENT IS CORRECT, 
IN THAT NO ONE CAN BE 
EXONERATED. 
THIS REPORTER CAN'T BE 
EXONERATED AND YOU CAN'T BE 
EXONERATED. 
IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, 
THERE IS NO POWER OR AUTHORITY 
TO EXONERATE AND MY CONCERN IS, 
THIS IS THE HEADLINE ON ALL OF 
THE NEWS CHANNELS WHILE YOU 
TESTIFIED TODAY. 
MUELLER, TRUMP WAS NOT 
EXONERATED ON WHAT YOU KNOW AS 
THIS CAN'T SAY MUELLER 
EXONERATED? 
BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE 
POWER OR AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE 
TUMP. 
YOU HAVE NO MORE POWER TO DO 
THAT THAN TO DECLARE HIM 
ANDERSON COOPER. 
THE PROBLEM I HAVE, SINCE THERE 
IS NO ONE IN THE CRIMINAL 
JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT HAS THAT 
POWER, THE PRESIDENT PARDONS, 
NOT EXONERATE. 
THEY DON'T DECLARE EXONERATION 
AND THE STATEMENT ABOUT 
EXONERATION IS MISLEADING AND 
MEANINGLESS AND IT COLORS THIS 
INVESTIGATION. 
ONE WORD OF THE ENTIRE PORTION 
OF YOUR REPORT AND IT'S A 
MEANINGLESS WORD THAT HAS NO 
LEGAL MEANING AND IT HAS 
COLORED YOUR ENTIRE REPORT. 
>> THE GENTLEMAN IS EXPIRED. 
>> MR. CARSON? 
>> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN AND THANK 
YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER FOR YOUR 
YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR 
COUNTRY. I 
WANT TO LOOK AT THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN, PAUL 
MANAFORT, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO I 
BELIEVE BETRAYED OUR COUNTRY, 
LIED TO THE GRAND JURY AND 
TAMPERED WITH WITNESSES AND WHO 
REPEATEDLY TRIED TO USE HIS 
POSITION WITH THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN TO MAKE MORE MONEY. 
LET'S FOCUS ON THE BETRAYAL AND 
GREED. 
YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND 
TROUBLING CONTACTS BETWEEN MR. 
MANAFORT AND RUSSIAN 
INTERVIEWED JEWELS BEFORE AND 
AFTER THE CAMPAIGN? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> IN ADDITION TO THE JUNE 9TH 
MEETING JUST DISCUSSED, 
MANAFORT MET SEVERAL TIMES WITH 
A MAN NAMED CONSTANTINE 
KILIMNIK WITH THE FBI ASSESSED 
TO HAVE TIES WITH RUSSIAN INTEL 
AGENCIES. 
>> CORRECT. 
>> MR. MANAFORT DIDN'T JUST 
MEET WITH HIM, HE SHARED 
PRIVATE POLLING INFORMATION 
WITH THIS MAN LINKED TO RUSSIAN 
INTELLIGENCE. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
>> THE INFORMATION WAS SHARED 
WITH THE RUSSIAN OLIGARCH TIED 
TO VLADIMIR PUTIN. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> ALLEGEDLY. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, MEETING 
WITH HIM WASN'T ENOUGH AND 
SHARING INTERNAL POLLING 
INFORMATION WASN'T ENOUGH. 
MR. MANAFORT WENT SO FAR AS TO 
OFFER THE RUSSIAN OLIGARCH TIED 
TO PUTIN, A PRIVATE BRIEFING ON 
THE CAMPAIGN. 
IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> FINALLY, MR. MANAFORT 
DISCUSSED INTERNAL CAMPAIGN 
STRATEGY ON FOUR BATTLEGROUND 
STATES, MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, 
PENNSYLVANIA AND MINNESOTA WITH 
THE LINKED INDIVIDUAL. 
DID HE NOT? 
>> THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE 
REPORT, AS WERE THE ITEMS YOU 
LISTED PREVIOUSLY. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, BASED ON 
YOUR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH 
THE FBI WOULD YOU AGREE IT 
CREATES A NATIONAL SECURITY 
RISK WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN SHARES 
PRIVATE POLLING INFORMATION ON 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? 
PRIVATE POLITICAL STRATEGIES 
RELATED TO WINNING THE VOTES OF 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND PRIVATE 
INFORMATION ABOUT AMERICAN 
BATTLEGROUND STATES WERE SHARED 
WITH THE FOREIGN ADVERSARY? 
>> IS AT THE QUESTION? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE 
ALONG THOSE LINES. 
TO THE EXTENT IT IS WITHIN THE 
REPORT, I SUPPORTED AND 
ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IS NOT 
PART OF THAT WHICH I WOULD 
SUPPORT. 
>> I THINK IT DOES, SIR. 
I THINK IT SHOWS AN INFURIATING 
LACK OF PATRIOTISM FROM THOSE 
SEEKING THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN 
THE LAND. 
MANAFORT DIDN'T SHARE THIS FOR 
NOTHING, DID HE, SIR? 
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION 
WITHOUT KNOWING MORE ABOUT THAT 
QUESTION. 
>> IT'S CLEAR THAT HE HOPED TO 
BE PAID BACK THE MONEY HE WAS 
OWED BY THE RUSSIAN OR 
UKRAINIAN OLIGARCHS IN TURN FOR 
THE PASSAGE OF PRIVATE CAMPAIGN 
INFORMATION? 
>> THAT IS TRUE. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, AS WE WILL 
DISCUSS LATER, GREED CORRUPTS. 
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT SHARING A 
PRIVATE CAMPAIGN INFORMATION IN 
EXCHANGE FOR MONEY REPRESENTS A 
PARTICULAR KIND OF CORRUPTION, 
ONE THAT PRESENTS A NATIONAL 
SECURITY RISK TO OUR COUNTRY, 
SIR? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO OPINE ON 
THAT. 
I DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE IN 
THAT ARENA. 
>> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT 
MANAFORT'S CONTACTS WITH 
RUSSIANS CLOSE TO VLADIMIR 
PUTIN AND THE EFFORT TO 
EXCHANGE PRIVATE INFORMATION ON 
AMERICANS FOR MONEY LEFT THEM 
VULNERABLE TO BLACKMAIL BY THE 
RUSSIANS? 
>> GENERALLY, SO, THAT WOULD BE 
THE CASE. 
>> WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THESE 
ACTS DEMONSTRATED A BETRAYAL OF 
THE DEMOCRATIC VALUES OF OUR 
COUNTRY? 
>> I CAN AGREE WITH THAT. 
NOT THAT IT'S NOT TRUE, BUT I 
CAN'T AGREE WITH IT. 
>> YES, SIR. 
IN MY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A 
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND AS 
A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FORTUNATE 
TO SERVE ON THE INTEL 
COMMITTEE, I KNOW ENOUGH TO SAY 
YES. 
TRADING POLITICAL SECRETS FOR  
MONEY. 
DEPENDING ON DEMOCRACY, I THANK 
YOU FOR COMING. 
>> DR. WENSTRUP? 
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. 
IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY YOUR 
INVESTIGATION FOUND NO EVIDENCE 
THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN WERE INVOLVED IN THE 
THEFT OR PUBLICATION OF CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN RELATED EMAILS? 
>> CAN YOU READ -- CAN YOU 
REPEAT THE QUESTION? 
>> IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY YOUR 
INVESTIGATION FOUND NO EVIDENCE 
THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN WERE INVOLVED IN THE 
THEFT OR PUBLICATION OF THE 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN RELATED 
EMAILS? 
>> I DON'T KNOW. 
>> VOLUME ONE PAGE FIVE, THE 
INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH 
THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR 
COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT IN THE ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. 
SO, IT WOULD THEREFORE BE 
INACCURATE, BASED ON THIS, TO 
DESCRIBE THAT FINDING AS OPEN 
TO DOUBT. 
THAT FINDING BEING THAT THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN WASN'T INVOLVED 
WITH THEFT OR PUBLICATION OF 
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN EMAILS. 
ARE YOU FOLLOWING THAT, SIR? 
>> I DO BELIEVE I'M FOLLOWING 
UP BUT THAT PORTION OF THAT 
MATTER DOES NOT FALL WITHIN OUR 
JURISDICTION OR FALL WITHIN OUR 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> BASICALLY, WHAT YOUR REPORT 
SAYS ON VOLUME ONE, PAGE FIVE, 
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT OPEN TO 
DOUBT IS HOW THE COMMITTEE 
DEMOCRATS DESCRIBE THE FINDING 
IN THE MINORITY VIEWS FOR THE 
2018 REPORT. 
IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF WHAT 
YOU HAVE IN YOUR REPORT. 
IS IT ACCURATE ALSO, TO SAY THE 
INVESTIGATION FOUND NO 
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT 
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS TOLD ANYONE 
AFFILIATED WITH THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN ABOUT JOSEPH MIFSUD'S 
CLAIMS THAT THE RUSSIA PEOPLE 
HAD DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON? 
>> LET ME TURN THAT OVER TO MR. 
ZEBLEY. 
>> I LIKE TO ASK YOU, SIR. 
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? 
>> IS IT ACCURATE TO SAY THE 
INVESTIGATION FOUND NO 
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT 
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS TOLD ANYONE 
AFFILIATED WITH THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN ABOUT JOSEPH MIFSUD'S 
CLAIMS THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD 
DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON? 
>> I BELIEVE THE REPORT IS 
ACCURATE. 
>> AND THE REPORTED SAYS NO 
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT 
GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS SHARED THIS 
INFORMATION WITH THE CAMPAIGN 
AND IS THEREFORE INACCURATE TO 
CONCLUDE THAT BY THE TIME OF THE
JUNEJUNE 9, 2016 TRUMP TOWER 
MEETING, QUOTE, THE CAMPAIGN 
WAS LIKELY ALREADY ON NOTICE 
VIA GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS' 
CONTACT WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS 
THAT RUSSIA HAD DAMAGING 
INFORMATION ON TRUMP'S 
OPPONENT. 
WOULD YOU SAY THAT IS 
INACCURATE, TO SAY IT'S LIKELY 
ALREADY -- 
>> I DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT. 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE 
THE DEMOCRATS JUMPED TO THE 
INCORRECT CONCLUSION IN THEIR 
MINORITY VIEWS, WHICH 
CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU HAVE IN 
YOUR REPORT. 
CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF 
STATEMENTS I'D LIKE YOU TO 
CLARIFY, BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF 
DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE STATEMENTS 
THAT I HAVE CONCERNS WITH AND 
MAYBE YOU CAN CLEAR THEM UP. 
A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE SAID 
PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS A RUSSIAN 
AGENT AFTER YOUR REPORT WAS 
PUBLICLY RELEASED. 
THAT STATEMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED 
BY YOUR REPORT, CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS ACCURATE, NOT 
SUPPORTED. 
>> MULTIPLE DEMOCRAT MEMBERS 
HAVE ASSERTED THAT PAUL MANAFORT
MET WITH JULIAN ASSANGE IN 2016 
BEFORE WIKILEAKS RELEASED DNC 
EMAILS, IMPLYING MANAFORT 
COLLUDED WITH ASSANGE. 
YOUR REPORT DOES NOT FIND 
EVIDENCE THAT MANAFORT MET WITH 
US ON SO I ASSUME THAT MEANS 
YOU FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF THAT 
MEETING. 
IS THAT ASSUMPTION CORRECT? 
>> I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH 
THAT ASSUMPTION. 
>> YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF IT IN 
YOUR REPORT, WOULD YOU AGREE 
WITH THAT? 
>> YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH 
THAT. 
>> MR. MUELLER, DOES THE REPORT 
CONTAIN EVIDENCE THAT MR. TRUMP 
WAS ENROLLED IN THE RUSSIAN 
SYSTEM AS A MEMBER OF THIS 
COMMITTEE ONCE CLAIMED? 
>> WHAT I CAN SPEAK TO IS 
INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE THAT 
WE PICKED UP, THAT SPECIAL 
COUNSEL -- I THINK IT'S 
ACCURATE, AS FAR AS IT GOES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I APPRECIATE THAT. 
LET'S GO FOR A SECOND TO 
SCHOOL. 
DID YOU ASK THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MANDATE 
RELATED TO AUGUST 2ND, 2017 
SCOPING MEMORANDA? 
>> WELL, WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE 
MEMORANDA, I CANNOT ANSWER 
THAT. 
>> DID YOU EVER MAKE A REQUEST 
TO EXPAND THE MANDATE AT ALL? 
>> GENERALLY, YES. 
>> WAS THAT EVER DENIED? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO 
THAT. 
IT GOES TO INTERNAL 
DELIBERATIONS. 
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO 
UNDERSTAND PROCESS. 
DOES EXPANDING THE SCOPE COME 
FROM THE ACTING ATTORNEY 
GENERAL, OR ROD ROSENSTEIN, OR 
DOES IT COME FROM YOU OR CAN IT 
COME FROM EITHER? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS ANY 
OTHER ALTERNATIVES. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
MR. MUELLER, I THINK I CAN SAY 
WITHOUT FEAR OF CONTRADICTION 
THAT YOU ARE THE GREATEST 
PATRIOT IN THIS ROOM TODAY. 
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING 
HERE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT, AND 
I WILL QUIBBLE WITH YOUR WORDS, 
THAT THE RUSSIAN INTERVENTION 
WAS SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC. I 
WOULD QUIBBLE WITH THAT BECAUSE 
I DON'T THINK IT WAS JUST 
INTERVENTION, I THINK IT WAS AN 
INVASION AND I DON'T THINK IT 
WAS SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC, I 
THINK IT WAS SINCE UNDER AND 
SCHEMING. 
ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, THEY 
REFERRED TO THE RUSSIAN 
INTERVENTION AS A HOAX. 
I'D LIKE TO GET YOUR COMMENT ON 
THAT AND ON PAGE $26 OF YOUR 
REPORT, YOU TALK ABOUT THE 
INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY AND HOW
TENS OF MILLIONS OF U.S. PERSONS
BECAME ENGAGED WITH THE POSTS 
THAT THEY MADE AND THERE WERE 
SOME 80,000 POSTS ON FACEBOOK 
AND THAT FACEBOOK, ITSELF, 
ADMITTED THAT 126 MILLION 
PEOPLE HAD PROBABLY SEEN THE 
POSTS PUT UP BY THE INTERNET 
RESEARCH AGENCY AND THAT THEY 
HAVE 3700 TWITTER ACCOUNT AND 
HAD DESIGNED MORE THAN 175,000 
TWEETS THAT PROBABLY REACHED 
1.4 MILLION PEOPLE. 
THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY 
WAS SPENDING ABOUT $1.25 
MILLION A MONTH ON ALL OF THIS 
SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE UNITED 
STATES, AND WHAT I WOULD CALL 
AN INVASION IN OUR COUNTRY. 
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT WAS NOT 
A HOAX, THAT THE RUSSIANS WERE 
ENGAGED IN TRYING TO IMPACT OUR 
ELECTION? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
IT WAS NOT A HOAX AND THE 
INDICTMENTS RETURNED AGAINST 
THE RUSSIANS, TWO DIFFERENT 
ONES, WERE SUBSTANTIAL IN THEIR 
SCOPE, USING LET'S GO FOR IT 
AGAIN AND I THINK WE HAVE 
UNDERPLAYED, TO A CERTAIN 
EXTENT, THAT ASPECT OF OUR 
INVESTIGATION THAT HAS AND 
WOULD HAVE LONG-TERM DAMAGE TO 
THE UNITED STATES THAT WE NEED 
TO MOVE QUICKLY TO ADDRESS. 
>> THANK YOU. 
I LIKE TO DRILL DOWN EVEN MORE. 
THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY 
ACTUALLY STARTED IN 2014 BY 
SENDING OVER STAFF AS TOURISTS, 
I GUESS, TO START LOOKING AT 
WHERE THEY WANTED TO ENGAGE. 
THERE ARE MANY THAT SUGGEST -- 
AND I'M INTERESTED IN YOUR 
OPINION -- AS TO WHETHER OR NOT 
RUSSIA IS PRESENTLY IN THE 
UNITED STATES LOOKING FOR WAYS 
TO IMPACT THE 2020 ELECTION? 
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. 
THAT WOULD BE IN LEVELS OF 
CLASSIFICATION. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
LET ME ASK YOU THIS -- 
OFTENTIMES, WHEN WE ENGAGE IN 
THESE HEARINGS, WE FORGET THE 
FOREST FOR THE TREES. 
YOU HAVE A VERY LARGE REPORT 
HERE, OVER 400 PAGES AND MOST 
AMERICANS HAVE NOT READ IT. 
WE HAVE READ IT. 
ACTUALLY, THE FBI DIRECTOR, 
YESTERDAY, SAID HE HADN'T READ 
IT, WHICH WAS A LITTLE 
DISCOURAGING. 
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE, I WANT TO GIVE YOU 1:39 
TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO 
GLEAN FROM THIS REPORT. 
>> WELL, WE SPENT SUBSTANTIAL 
TIME ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF 
THE REPORT, UNDERSTANDING IT 
WOULD BE A LIVING MESSAGE TO 
THOSE WHO COME AFTER US. 
BUT, IT ALSO IS A SIGNAL, A 
FLAG, TO THOSE OF US WHO HAVE 
SOME RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS 
AREA, TO EXERCISE THOSE 
RESPONSIBILITIES SWIFTLY AND 
DON'T LET THIS PROBLEM CONTINUE 
TO LINGER AS IT HAS OVER SO 
MANY YEARS. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
YOU DIDN'T TAKE THE WHOLE AMOUNT
OF TIME SO I YIELD THE REST OF 
MY TIME TO THE CHAIRMAN. 
>> I THINK THE GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING. 
DIRECTOR MALIK, I WANTED TO ASK 
YOU ABOUT CONSPIRACY. 
GENERALLY, CONSPIRACY REQUIRES 
AN OFFER OF SOMETHING ILLEGAL, 
THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE 
FURTHERANCE OF IT. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND, DON JR. WAS MADE AWARE 
THAT THE RUSSIANS WERE OFFERING 
DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT, CORRECT? 
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. 
>> AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU 
WOULD LOVE TO GET THAT HELP, 
THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE 
ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER? 
>> IT'S A WIDE-OPEN REQUEST. 
>> WOULD CERTAINLY BE EVIDENCE 
OF ACCEPTANCE IF YOU SAY WHEN 
SOMEONE OFFERS YOU SOMETHING 
ILLEGAL AND YOU SAY YOU WOULD 
LOVE IT, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED 
EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE? 
>> I STAY AWAY FROM ANY -- 
ADDRESSING ONE OR TWO PARTICULAR
SITUATIONS. 
>> THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, 
I'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE IN A BIT. 
NOW, I YIELD TO. 
>> I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO 
EMPHASIZE SOMETHING THAT MY 
FRIEND MR. TURNER HAS SAID. 
I HAVE HEARD MANY PEOPLE STATE 
NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW AND 
MANY TIMES RECENTLY THEY HAD 
NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT, WHICH I 
THINK IS BLAZINGLY OBVIOUS TO 
MOST OF US. 
>> I'M HAVING A LITTLE PROBLEM 
HEARING YOU, SIR. 
>> IS THIS BETTER? 
>> THAT IS BETTER. 
THANK YOU. 
>> I WANT YOU TO KNOW, I AGREE 
WITH THIS STATEMENT THAT NO 
PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW. 
BUT THERE'S ANOTHER PRINCIPLE 
THAT WE ALSO HAVE TO DEFEND AND 
THAT IS THE PRESUMPTION OF 
INNOCENCE AND I'M SURE -- THE 
WAY YOUR OFFICE PHRASED SOME 
PARTS OF YOUR REPORT, IT DOES 
MAKE ME WONDER, I HAVE TO BE 
HONEST WITH YOU, FOR GOING ON 
THREE YEARS, INNOCENT PEOPLE 
HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF VERY 
SERIOUS CRIMES, INCLUDING 
TREASON. 
ACCUSATIONS MADE EVEN HERE  
TODAY, THEY HAVE HAD THEIR 
LIVES DISRUPTED AND IN SOME 
CASES DESTROYED BY FALSE 
ACCUSATIONS FOR WHICH THE IS 
ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS OTHER THAN 
SOME PEOPLE DESPERATELY WISH 
THAT IT WAS SO. 
YOUR REPORT IS VERY CLEAR. 
NO EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY, NO 
EVIDENCE OF COORDINATION. 
AND I BELIEVE WE OWE IT TO 
THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN 
FALSELY ACCUSED, INCLUDING THE 
PRESIDENT AND HIS FAMILY, TO 
MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. 
MR. MUELLER, THE CREDIBILITY OF 
YOUR REPORT IS BASED ON THE 
INTEGRITY OF HOW IT IS HANDLED 
AND THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I 
THINK BOTHERS ME AND OTHER 
AMERICANS. 
I AM HOLDING HERE IN MY HAND A 
BINDER OF 25 EXAMPLES OF LEAKS 
THAT OCCURRED FROM THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S OFFICE FROM THOSE WHO 
ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR WORK 
DATING BACK TO AS EARLY AS A 
FEW WEEKS AFTER YOUR INCEPTION 
AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR WORK 
AND CONTINUING UP TO JUST A FEW 
MONTHS AGO. 
ALL OF THESE, ALL OF THEM HAVE 
ONE THING IN COMMON. 
THEY WERE DESIGNED TO WEAKEN OR 
TO EMBARRASS THE PRESIDENT. 
EVERY SINGLE ONE. 
NEVER WAS IT LEAKED THAT YOU 
HAD FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF 
COLLUSION. 
NEVER WAS IT LEAKED THAT THE 
STEAL DOSSIER WAS A COMPLETE 
FANT SAY NOR THAT IT WAS FUNDED 
BY THE HILLARY CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN. 
I COULD GO ON AND ON. 
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE FROM 
YOUR TEAM HAVING GIVEN ADVANCED 
KNOWLEDGE OF THE RAID ON ROGER 
STONE'S HOME TO ANY PERSON OR 
THE PRESS INCLUDING CNN? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT 
SPECIFICS. 
I WILL MENTION, BUT TALK FOR A 
MOMENT ABOUT PERSONS WHO BECOME 
INVOLVED IN AN INVESTIGATION. 
AND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IN A 
LENGTHY, THOROUGH 
INVESTIGATION, SOME PERSONS 
WILL BE UNDER A CLOUD. 
I SHOULD NOT BE UNDER A CLOUD 
AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR 
EMPHASIZING AS I HAVE THE SPEED 
OF AN ELECTION -- OR NOT 
ELECTION, THE SPEED OF AN 
INVESTIGATION IS THAT SO THOSE 
PERSONS WHO ARE DISRUPTED AS A 
RESULT OF -- 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. 
BUT I DO HAVE A SERIES OF 
QUESTIONS OF CONCERN. 
>> RESULT IN THAT 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IT IS AN 
UNFAIR CLOUD FOR DOZENS OF 
PEOPLE. 
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE 
PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE 
MEDIA REGARDING THE RAID ON 
ROGER STONE'S HOME INCLUDING  
CNN? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO 
THAT. 
>> MR. MUELLER, YOU SENT A 
LETTER DATED MARCH 27th TO 
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR IN WHICH 
YOU CLAIMED THE ATTORNEY  
GENERAL'S MEMO TO CONGRESS DID 
NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT 
OF YOUR REPORT. 
YOU STATED EARLIER TODAY THAT 
RESPONSE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED. 
DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO 
DETERMINE WHO LEAKED THIS 
CONFIDENTIAL LETTER? 
>> NO, AND I'M NOT CERTAIN -- 
THIS IS A LETTER OF  MARCH 
27th? 
>> YES, SIR. 
>> I AM NOT CERTAIN WHEN IT WAS 
PUBLICIZED. 
I DO KNOW IT WAS PUBLICIZED BUT 
I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WOULD BE 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LEAKS. 
>> WELL -- 
>> I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE 
DONE A GOOD JOB IN ASSURING 
THAT NO LEAKS OCCUR AND -- 
>> WE HAVE 25 EXAMPLES HERE OF 
WHERE YOU DID NOT DO A GOOD 
JOB. 
NOT YOU, SIR. 
I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU AT ALL 
BUT WHAT YOUR JOB DID NOT DO A 
GOOD JOB OF PROTECTING THIS 
INFORMATION. 
ONE MORE EXAMPLE. 
DO YOU KNOW WHO ANYONE WHO 
ANONYMOUSLY MADE CLAIMS TO THE 
PRESS THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL  
BARR'S MARCH 24th LETTER TO 
CONGRESS HAD BEEN 
MISREPRESENTED OR 
MISREPRESENTED, THE BASIS OF 
YOUR REPORT? 
>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? 
>> DO YOU KNOW WHO ANONYMOUSLY 
MADE CLAIMS TO THE PRESS THAT 
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S  MARCH 
24th LETTER TO CONGRESS HAD 
MISREPRESENTED THE FINDINGS OF 
YOUR REPORT? 
>> NO. 
>> SIR, GIVEN THESE EXAMPLES AS 
WELL AS OTHERS, YOU MUST HAVE 
REALIZED THE LEAKS WERE COMING 
FROM SOMEONE ASSOCIATED WITH 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE. 
WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK -- 
>> I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT. 
>> WELL, SIR, THIS WAS YOUR  
WORK. 
YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE -- YOUR 
OFFICE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAD 
INFORMATION REGARDING THIS. 
IT HAD TO COME FROM YOUR 
OFFICE. 
PUTTING THAT ASIDE, WHICH LEADS 
ME TO MY FINAL QUESTION, DID 
YOU DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? 
>> FROM THE OUTSET WE HAVE  
UNDERTAKEN TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT 
WE MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF 
LEAKS AND I THINK WE WERE 
SUCCESSFUL OVER THE TWO YEARS 
THAT WE WERE IN OPERATION. 
>> WELL, I WISH YOU HAD BEEN 
MORE SUCCESSFUL SIR. 
I THINK IT WAS DISRUPTIVE TO 
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
MY TIME IS EXPIRED. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. QUIGLEY. 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. 
DIRECTOR, THANK YOU FOR BEING 
HERE. 
THIS TOO SHALL PASS. 
EARLIER TODAY AND THROUGHOUT 
THE DAY YOU HAVE STATED THE 
POLICY THAT A SEATED PRESIDENT 
CANNOT BE INDICTED, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> UPON QUESTIONING THIS  
MORNING, YOU WERE ASKED COULD 
THAT -- COULD A PRESIDENT BE 
INDICTED AFTER THEIR SERVICE, 
CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND YOUR ANSWER WAS THAT 
THEY COULD? 
>> THEY COULD. 
>> DIRECTOR, PLEASE SPEAK INTO 
THE MICROPHONE. 
>> I'M SORRY. 
THANK YOU. 
>> SO -- 
>> THEY COULD. 
>> THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION THAT 
SHOULD BE CONCERNING IS, WHAT 
IF A PRESIDENT SERVES BEYOND 
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? 
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO 
THAT ONE. 
>> WOULD IT NOT INDICATE THAT 
IF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 
ON FEDERAL CRIMES SUCH AS THIS 
ARE FIVE YEARS, THAT A 
PRESIDENT, WHO SERVES HIS 
SECOND TERM IS THERE FOR, UNDER 
THE POLICY ABOVE THE LAW? 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD 
AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION. 
I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT I CAN  SEE 
-- 
>> THE STATUTE -- 
>> -- THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU 
SUGGEST. 
>> BUT THE STATUTE DOESN'T 
TOLL; IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY. 
>> IT CLEARLY DOESN'T. 
AND I JUST WANT -- AS THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC IS WATCHING 
THIS AND PERHAPS LEARNING ABOUT 
MANY OF THESE FOR THE FIRST 
TIME, WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT 
AND THAT THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES 
ARE PERHAPS ALL THAT WE HAVE, 
BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE: 
EARLIER IN QUESTIONING SOMEONE 
MENTIONED THAT WAS A QUESTION 
INVOLVING WHETHER ANYONE IN THE 
TRUMP POLITICAL WORLD 
PUBLICIZED THE E-MAILS, WHETHER 
OR NOT THAT WAS THE CASE. 
I JUST WANT TO REFER TO VOLUME 
ONE, PAGE 60, WHERE WE LEARNED 
THAT TRUMP JUNIOR PUBLICLY 
TWEETED A LINK TO THE LEAK OF 
STOLEN PODESTA E-MAILS IN 
OCTOBER OF 2016. 
YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT? 
>> I AM. 
>> SO THAT WOULD AT LEAST BE A 
REPUBLISHING OF THIS  
INFORMATION, WOULD IT NOT? 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD 
AGREE WITH THAT. 
>> DIRECTOR POMPEO ASSESSED 
WIKILEAK AT ONE POINT AS A 
HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. 
GIVEN YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT 
EXPERIENCE AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE 
OF WHAT WIKILEAKS DID HERE AND 
WHAT THEY DO GENERALLY, WOULD 
YOU ASSESS THAT TO BE ACCURATE 
OR SOMETHING SIMILAR? 
HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS WHAT 
WIKILEAKS DOES? 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
AND THEY HAVE -- CURRENTLY 
UNDER INDICTMENT. 
JULIAN ASSANGE IS. 
>> YOU WOULD AGREE WITH 
DIRECTOR POMPEO, THAT'S WHAT HE 
WAS WHEN HE MADE THAT REMARK 
THAT IT'S A HOSTILE 
INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> IF WE COULD PUT UP SLIDE 
SIX. 
THIS JUST CAME OUT, WIKILEAKS. 
I LOVE WIKILEAKS, DONALD TRUMP, 
OCTOBER 10th, 2016, THIS 
WIKILEAKS STUFF IS 
UNBELIEVABLE. 
IT TELLS YOU THE INNER HEART. 
YOU GOT TO READ IT. 
DONALD TRUMP, OCTOBER 12th, 
2016, THIS WIKILEAKS IS LIKE A 
TREASURE TROVE. 
DONALD TRUMP, OCTOBER 21st, 
2016, BOY, I LOVE READING THOSE 
WIKILEAKS. 
DONALD TRUMP NOVEMBER 4th, 
2016. 
DO ANY OF THOSE QUOTES DISTURB 
YOU, MR. DIRECTOR? 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD  SAY 
-- 
>> HOW DO YOU REACT TO THEM? 
>> WELL, IT'S PROBLEMATIC IS AN 
UNDERSTATEMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT 
IT DISPLAYS IN TERMS OF GIVING 
SOME, I DON'T KNOW, HOPE OR 
SOME BOOST TO WHAT IS AND 
SHOULD BE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. 
>> VOLUME ONE, PAGE 59, DONALD 
TRUMP, JR. HAD DIRECT 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH WIKILEAKS 
DURING THE CAMPAIGN PERIOD. 
ON OCTOBER 3rd, 2016, WIKILEAKS 
SENT ANOTHER DIRECT MESSAGE TO 
TRUMP JUNIOR ASKING, YOU GUYS 
TO HELP DISSEMINATE A LINK 
ALLEGING CANDIDATE CLINTON HAD 
ADVOCATED A DRONE TO ATTACK 
JULIAN ASSANGE. 
TRUMP JUNIOR RESPONDED TO THAT, 
QUOTE, HE HAD ALREADY DONE SO. 
SAME QUESTION. 
THIS BEHAVIOR AT THE VERY LEAST 
DISTURBING AND YOUR REACTION? 
>> DISTURBING AND ALSO SUBJECT 
TO INVESTIGATION. 
>> CAN IT BE DESCRIBED AS AID 
AND COMFORT TO A HOSTILE 
INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, SIR? 
>> I WOULDN'T CATEGORIZE THAT 
WITH ANY SPECIFICITY. 
>> I YIELD THE BALANCE TO THE 
CHAIRMAN, PLEASE. 
>> I'M NOT SURE I CAN MAKE GOOD 
USE OF 27 SECONDS BUT DIRECTOR, 
I THINK YOU MADE IT CLEAR THAT 
YOU THINK IT UNETHICAL TO PUT 
IT POLITELY TO TOUT A FOREIGN 
SERVICE LIKE WIKILEAKS  
PUBLISHING STOLEN POLITICAL 
DOCUMENTS IN A PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN? 
>> CERTAINLY CALLS FOR 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. 
WE ARE GOING TO GO NOW TO  MR. 
CRAWFORD AND THEN AFTER  MR. 
CRAWFORD A FIVE MINUTES, WE 
WILL TAKE A FIVE OR TEN-MINUTE 
BREAK. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER FOR 
BEING HERE. 
DAYS AFTER YOUR APPOINTMENT 
PETER STRZOK TEXTED ABOUT HIS 
CONCERN THAT THERE'S NO QUOTE, 
THERE THERE IN THE  
INVESTIGATION. 
DID STRZOK OR ANYONE THAT 
WORKED ON THE INVESTIGATION 
TELL YOU ABOUT 10 MONTHS INTO 
THE INVESTIGATION THE FBI STILL 
HAD NO CASE FOR COLLUSION? 
>> WHO? 
CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? 
>> PETER STRZOK. 
>> COULD YOU -- I'M SORRY. 
CAN YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE A 
LITTLE CLOSER? 
THANK YOU. 
>> SURE. 
THERE'S A QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO 
PETER STRZOK. 
HE TEXTED ABOUT HIS CONCERN 
THAT THERE IS QUOTE NO BIG 
THEIR THERE IN THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN INVESTIGATION. 
DID HE OR ANYONE ELSE WHO 
WORKED ON THE FBI'S 
INVESTIGATION TELL YOU THAT 
AROUND 10 MONTHS INTO THE 
INVESTIGATION, THE FBI STILL 
HAD NO CASE FOR COLLUSION? 
>> NO. 
>> IS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
REPORT CORRECT THAT THE TEXT 
MESSAGES FROM PETER STRZOK AND 
LISA PAGE'S PHONES FROM YOUR 
OFFICE WERE NOT RETAINED AFTER 
THEY LEFT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
OFFICE? 
>> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT 
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
AN INVESTIGATION INTO THOSE -- 
PETER STRZOK WENT ON FOR A 
PERIOD OF TIME AND I AM NOT 
CERTAIN WHAT IT ENCOMPASSES. 
IT MAY WELL ENCOMPASS WHAT 
YOU'RE ALLUDING TO. 
>> DID YOU ASK THE DEPARTMENT 
TO AUTHORIZE YOUR OFFICE TO 
INVESTIGATE THE ORIGIN OF THE 
TRUMP RUSSIA INVESTIGATION? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO 
THAT. 
IT GOES TO INTERNAL 
DELIBERATIONS. 
>> SO THE CIRCUMSTANCES 
SURROUNDING THE ORIGIN OF 
INVESTIGATION HAVE YET TO BE 
FULLY VETTED THEN. 
I'M CERTAINLY GLAD THAT 
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND U.S. 
ATTORNEY DURHAM ARE LOOKING 
INTO THIS MATTER. 
WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO YIELD 
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO 
RANKING MEMBER NUNEZ. 
>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMAN FOR 
YIELDING. 
MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO MAKE 
SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF WHO FUSION 
GPS IS. 
FUSION GPS IS A POLITICAL 
OPERATIONS FIRM THAT WAS 
WORKING DIRECTLY FOR THE 
HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND 
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL 
COMMITTEE. 
THEY PRODUCED THE DOSSIER SO 
THEY PAID STEELE WHO THEN WENT 
OUT AND GOT THE DOSSIER. 
I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO ANSWER 
ANY DOSSIER QUESTIONS SO I'M 
NOT GOING THERE. 
BUT YOUR REPORT MENTIONED 
NATALIA LESNASKIA MANY TIMES. 
YOU'VE HEARD MANY OF THE 
DEMOCRATS REFER TO IT TODAY. 
THE MEETING WAS SHORTER THAN 20 
MINUTES, I BELIEVE; IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> I THINK -- WHAT WE HAVE IN 
OUR REPORT REFLECTS IT WAS 
ABOUT THAT LENGTH. 
>> SO DO YOU KNOW -- SO FUSION 
GPS, THE MAIN ACTOR AT FUSION 
GPS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
COMPANY OR THE OWNER OF THE 
COMPANY IS A GUY NAMED GLEN 
SIMPSON WHO IS WORKING FOR 
HILLARY CLINTON. 
GLEN SIMPSON, DO YOU KNOW HOW 
MANY TIMES HE MET WITH NATALIA? 
>> MYSELF, NO. 
>> WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU THAT 
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN DIRTY OPS 
ARM MET WITH NATALIA MORE TIMES 
THAN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN DID? 
>> WELL, THIS IS AN AREA THAT 
I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO. 
>> DID YOU EVER INTERVIEW GLEN 
SIMPSON? 
>> I'M GOING TO PASS ON THAT. 
>> ACCORDING TO -- I'M GOING TO 
CHANGE TOPICS HERE. 
ACCORDING TO NOTES FROM THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL 
KATHLEEN CAVILAC, CHRISTOPHER 
STEELE TOLD HER THAT FORMER 
RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE HEAD  
TUBECOFF AND SIRCOFF WERE 
SOURCES FOR THE STEELE DOSSIER. 
KNOWING THAT THESE ARE NOT 
GETTING INTO WHETHER THESE 
SOURCES WERE REAL OR NOT REAL, 
WAS THERE ANY CONCERN THAT 
THERE COULD HAVE BEEN 
DISINFORMATION THAT WAS GOING 
FROM THE KREMLIN INTO THE 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THEN BEING 
FED INTO THE FBI? 
>> AS I SAID BEFORE, THIS IS AN 
AREA THAT I CANNOT SPEAK TO. 
>> IS THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE -- 
IT'S NOT IN THE REPORT OR 
YOU'RE JUST -- OR BECAUSE -- 
>> INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS, 
OTHER PROCEEDINGS AND THE LIKE. 
>> OKAY. 
WHEN ANDREW WEISMAN AND SANEB 
AHMED JOINED YOUR TEAM, WERE 
YOU AWARE THAT BRUCE FORE, 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TOP 
OFFICIAL, DIRECTLY BRIEFED THE 
DOSSIER ALLEGATIONS TO THEM IN 
THE SUMMER OF 2016? 
>> AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO 
SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE. 
>> OKAY. 
BEFORE YOU ARRESTED GEORGE 
PAPADOPOULOS IN JULY OF 2017 HE 
WAS GIVEN $10,000 IN CASH IN 
ISRAEL. 
DO YOU KNOW WHO GAVE HIM THAT 
CASH? 
>> AGAIN, IT'S OUTSIDE OUR 
AMBIT AND QUESTIONS SUCH AS 
THAT SHOULD GO TO THE FBI OR 
OUR DEPARTMENT. 
>> BUT IT INVOLVED YOUR 
INVESTIGATION? 
>> IT INVOLVED PERSONS IN MY 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> WE WILL STAND IN RECESS FOR 
FIVE OR 10 MINUTES. 
PLEASE, FOLKS, REMAIN IN YOUR 
SEATS, ALLOW THE DIRECTOR  MR. 
ZEBLY TO EXIT THE CHAMBER. 
>> THE HEADLINE SO FAR IS NOT A 
WITCH HUNT. 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL BEING ASKED 
SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS CHARGES 
THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE 
REPEATEDLY ABOUT THIS 
INVESTIGATION AND ACTUALLY WE 
HAVE SEEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 
BE A BIT MORE VERBOSE, IF YOU 
WILL, IN THIS SECOND HEARING 
AND IT'S LARGELY CENTERED ON 
WHAT WAS REALLY WHAT BEGAN THIS 
ENTIRE INVESTIGATION, WHICH WAS 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
WHAT DID YOU SEE? 
>> SO THE DEMOCRATS ASKED A 
SERIES OF QUESTIONS TO 
ESTABLISH SOME FOUNDATIONAL 
TRUTHS. 
WERE THERE CONTACTS? 
YES. 
WERE THEY ENUMEROUS? 
>> YES. 
DID THEY HAVE A POSSIBLE VALUE 
TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 
IN HIS INTERPRETATION THE 
REPORT SAYS YES. 
DID THOSE ASKED ABOUT IT LIE 
ABOUT IT? 
YES. 
THESE ARE ALL FOUNDATIONAL 
QUESTIONS TO CONDUCT, WAS THERE 
A CONSPIRACY? 
NO. 
THAT YOU COULD CRIMINALLY 
CHARGE -- 
>> DID THE CAMPAIGN REVEAL 
THESE RUSSIAN CONTACTS? 
>> TO THE FBI. 
DID IT TAKE ANY PROACTIVE 
EFFORT TO NOTIFY THE FBI OR 
ANYBODY WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED 
WITH OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
ABOUT THIS ACTIVITY OF A 
HOSTILE  POWER, NO. 
>> DID THEY LIE REPEATEDLY TO 
COVER UP THE TRACKS. 
YES. 
>> ALL OF THAT IS 
FOUNDATIONALLY ESTABLISHED. 
IT'S INTERESTING THAT 
REPUBLICANS DID NOT SPEND ANY 
TIME OR EFFORT TO TRY TO KNOCK 
DOWN ANY OF THOSE FOUNDATIONAL 
FACTS. 
JUST AS THEY DID NOT IN THE 
EARLIER HEARING TRY TO KNOCK 
DOWN THE FOUNDATIONAL FACTS 
ABOUT OBSTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. 
MUCH OF THEIR EMPHASIS, I WOULD 
SAY ALMOST THE TOTALITY OF 
THEIR EMPHASIS IS ON THE 
ORIGINS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 
NOT THAT WHICH THE 
INVESTIGATION ULTIMATELY FOUND 
BUT WHY DID IT GET STARTED? 
THAT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS LOOKING 
INTO THAT. 
BUT THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO 
REFUTE OR UNDERCUT THINGS THAT 
HAVE BEEN ESTABLIHED BY THAT 
INVESTIGATION. 
THINGS THAT ARE OF NATIONAL 
INTEREST, PUBLIC INTEREST AND 
SHOULD WE BE COMFORTABLE WITH 
IN THE CONDUCT OF A 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. 
THOSE ARE THE UNDERLYING 
QUESTIONS. 
>> YEAH. 
AND HE SAID -- HE SAID -- THIS 
 I THINK MUELLER THE PATRIOT 
SPEAKING WHERE HE SAYS THERE'S 
NO HOAX, THERE'S LONG-TERM 
DAMAGE TO OUR SYSTEM. 
WE NEED TO MOVE QUICKLY TO 
ADDRESS IT. 
HIS REPORT IS A LIVING MESSAGE 
TO THOSE WHO HAVE POWER TO 
EXERCISE THAT POWER OF 
RESPONSIBILITY. 
THAT'S A MESSAGE TO THE  
CONGRESS. 
WITH RESPECT TO I THINK THE 
FIRST SUECT OF RUSSIAN 
TERFEREN, THAT IS STTINGTHE ECR 
PROCS. TH RESCT TO THE SECOND, 
TH IS THE HACKING OFTHE 
WIKILEAKS MAILS AS YOU 
INDICATED, HE SAID THE 
PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN'S 
INVOLVEMENT WAS PROBLEMATIC AS 
AN UNDERSTATEMENT, SHOULD BE 
SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION 
BECAUSE IT GAVE HOPE OR BOOST 
TO WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 
ILLEGAL. 
SO I THINK IN BOTH OF THOSE HE 
úWENT FURTHER THAN HE DID WITH 
OBSTRUCTION, PERHAPS BECAUSE 
HE'S WORRIED. 
>> PAULA REID IS AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE, AND ON THAT SPECIFIC 
POINT, ADAM SCHIFF ASKED DID 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS BUILD 
THEIR MESSAGING STRATEGY AROUND 
THOSE STOLEN DOCUMENTS AND THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL SAID GENERALLY 
THAT'S TRUE. 
SCHIFF SAID AND THEY LIED TO 
COVER IT UP? 
HE SAID GENERALLY THAT'S TRUE. 
THAT SUGGESTS THEY WERE USING 
THAT AS PART OF THEIR 
MESSAGING. 
>> EXACTLY AND THIS IS WHERE 
THE FINDINGS OF THE SPECIAL  
COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION GET  
MURKY. 
IT'S HARD FOR PEOPLE TO PARSE 
THIS. 
HOW CAN THEY BE USING RUSSIA'S 
WORK TO THEIR ADVANTAGE BUT NOT 
BE CONSPIRING OR COLLUDING. 
VOLUME ONE LAYS OUT 200 PAGES 
OF CONTACTS BETWEEN VARIOUS 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND 
VARIOUS PEOPLE WITH CONNECTIONS 
TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT BUT 
ULTIMATELY SAID WE DON'T HAVE 
ENOUGH EVIDENCE HERE TO 
ACTIVELY CHARGE AND 
SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTE A 
CONSPIRACY. 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID PROVID
AN IMPORTANT MINDER TO THE 
VIEWS TH RUSSIAWAS WORKING 
TO HELP -- EN CANDIDATE 
PRIDENT TRUMP BECOME
PRESIDENT TRUMP BUT HE WAS 
QUICK TO NOCE AT ONE POINT 
SAYING I WILL NOTE THAT 
CANDIDATE CLINTON WAS SUBJECT 
TO SOME OF THE SAME ATTACKS. 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS USING IT 
TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. 
>> YES. 
NANCY CORDES IS ON CAPITOL 
HILL. 
NANCY, ONCE AGAIN, THOSE 
QUESTIONS, WHO DID THIS 
ULTIMATELY BENEFIT, DID IT 
BENEFIT HILLARY CLINTON OR 
DONALD TRUMP AND THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL SAYING CLEARLY THIS WAS 
AN EFFORT TO BENEFIT DONALD 
TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. 
>> Reporter: RIGHT. 
WE HAVE SEEN THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL HESITATE MANY TIMES 
TODAY. 
HE DOESN'T WANT TO OVERSTEP HIS 
BOUNDS BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE 
QUESTION OF WHETHER THE RUSSIAN 
ACTIVITY BENEFITED HILLARY 
CLINTON OR DONALD TRUMP, HE 
DIDN'T HESITATE AT ALL. 
HE SAID IT BENEFITED DONALD 
TRUMP AND HERE I THINK IT'S 
IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT 
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
THE CRIMINAL DEFINITION OF 
CONSPIRACY AND THE POLITICAL 
DEFINITION OF A HIGH CRIME AND 
MISDEMEANOR, WHICH IS THE ROAD 
THAT DEMOCRATS ARE ON RIGHT 
NOW. 
YES, IT IS TRUE THAT ROBERT 
MUELLER DID NOT FIND ENOUGH 
EVIDENCE TO CRIMINALLY CHARGE 
ANYONE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF 
CONSPIRING WITH RUSSIANS. 
BUT DEMOCRATS HERE ON CAPITOL 
HILL SAY THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO 
MEET THAT DEFINITION IN ORDER 
TO POTENTIALLY PURSUE 
IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT 
DOWN THE ROAD SO THEY ARE 
TRYING TO GET MUELLER TO TALK 
ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS VERY 
UNUSUAL FOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS 
TO BE OPENLY COURTING THIS KIND 
OF HELP FROM RUSSIAN OPERATIVES 
TO SAYING, I LOVE THAT, GIVE ME 
MORE, BEING FRUSTRATED WHEN 
THEY DIDN'T GET DIRT ON HILLARY 
CLINTON AND THEN LYING ABOUT IT 
TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. 
DEMOCRATS ARE ARGUING THIS IS 
NOT HOW CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS ARE 
SUPPOSED TO ACT. 
THIS IS NOT HOW ADMINISTRATION 
OFFICIALS ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT. 
SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN CHARGED 
WITH LYING AND SO, YOU KNOW, 
DEMOCRATS WHO ARE STILL TRYING 
TO MAKE THE CASE, EVEN TO SOME 
OF THEIR OWN MEMBERSHIP, THAT 
THEY SHOULD PURSUE IMPEACHMENT 
ARE JUST TRYING TO GATHER AS 
MUCH EVIDENCE AS THEY CAN, THAT 
IF THE PRESIDENT AND SOME OF 
HIS AIDS DIDN'T COMMIT A CRIME, 
THEY SURE WEREN'T OPERATING ON 
THE LEVEL EITHER. 
>> THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT 
DISTINCTION YOU MAKE ABOUT THE 
POLITICAL HIGH CRIMES AND  
DEMEANOR FOR IMPEACHMENT VERSUS 
A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. 
LET ME ASK YOU TO BREAK DOWN 
WHAT HAPPENED AT THE BEGINNING 
OF THIS INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE 
HEARING BECAUSE THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL 
CAME FORWARD AND SAY HE WANTED 
TO ISSUE A CLARIFICATION SAYING 
E DID NOT CONSIDER BRINGING 
CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST DONALD 
TRUMP. 
EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED. 
>> Reporter: WELL, THIS IS ONE 
OF THE STCKIEST ISSUES THAT HE 
HAS HAD TO DEAL WITH TODAY,  
NORA, THE FACT THAT HE HAS SAID 
ALL ALONG AND SAID IN HIS 
REPORT THAT HE DID NOT SEEK 
CRIMINAL CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION 
OF JUSTICE AGAINST THIS 
PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE'S NOT 
ALLOWED TO UNDER LONG STANDING 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES. 
AND HE HAS SAID THAT BECAUSE 
THOSE GUIDELINES EXIST, HE 
NEVER CONSIDERED SEEKING THOSE 
CHARGES TO BEGIN WITH. 
THE REASON THAT SUCH A GRAY 
AREA IS BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE 
SAYING IF YOU WERE NEVER GOING 
TO BE ABLE TO SEEK CHARGES 
AGAINST THIS PRESIDENT,  WHY 
DID YOU LAY OUT THIS EVIDENCE 
AGAINST HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE? 
YOU ARE SIMPLY MAKING HIM LOOK 
BAD AND NO WAY TO CLEAR HIS  
NAME. 
ON THE OTHER HAND DEMOCRATS SAY 
WE THINK YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN 
WELL WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS EVEN IF 
YOU WEREN'T GOING TO SEEK 
CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT TO SAY WHETHER YOU 
BELIEVE AT THE END OF THE DAY 
HE COMMITTED A CRIME OR NOT. 
EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO 
PURSUE THAT CRIME. 
AND SO MUELLER IS TRYING TO 
PARSE HIS WORDS VERY CAREFULLY. 
HE ENDED UP GOING ON A LITTLE 
BIT FARTHER ON A LIMB THAN HE 
WANTED TO, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE 
SEEN HIM BE SO HALTING AND SO 
CAREFUL THROUGHOUT THE DAY. 
HE'S WORRIED ABOUT GETTING OVER 
HIS -- ON QUESTIONS LIKE THIS 
AND HE WANTED TO MAKE IT VERY 
CLEAR THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO 
REVEAL, AS MANY TIMES AS HE'S 
ASKED WHETHER YOU WOULD HAVE 
SOUGHT CRIMINAL CHARGES IF THIS 
WAS NOT A SITTING PRESIDENT. 
IF ANYONE ELSE HAD COMMITTED 
THESE ACTS, WOULD HE HAVE 
SOUGHT CHARGES AGAINST THEM. 
THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT 
DEMOCRATS KEEP TRYING TO GET 
HIM TO ANSWER AND SO FAR HE 
HASN'T BEEN. 
>> NANCY CORDES, THANK YOU. 
STAY TUNED BECAUSE WE ARE 
MINUTES AWAY FROM THIS HEARING 
BEGINNING AGAIN. 
>> TED LIEU ASKED HIM IS THE 
ONLY REASON YOU DIDN'T BRING 
CONTEMPT IS BECAUSE OF THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES? 
HE BRIEFLY ANSWERED YES. 
HE WANTED TO CORRECT THAT AND 
SAY, NO, I DIDN'T MAKE A 
DETERMINATION ON THAT 
UNDERLYING QUESTION. 
HE DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE IN THE 
PUBLIC RECORD THAT HE HAD 
DECIDED, MEANING YOU COULD 
POSSIBLY INTERPRET THAT HE 
WOULD BE WILLING TO AND COULD 
HAVE BROUGHT A CASE OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BUT ONLY 
THING HOLDING HIM BACK WERE THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES. 
HE SAID, NO, I DIDN'T MAKE A 
DETERMINATION. 
LET'S BACK AWAY FROM THAT 
CONCLUSION. 
I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THAT EVEN 
AS SOMETHING YOU COULD READ 
INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD. 
>> KIM IS A LAWYER, PROFESSOR. 
GETTING THIS RIGHT, EVERY DOT 
HAS TO BE -- EVERY WORD HAS TO 
BE PERFECT. 
>> ABSOLUTELY. 
>> ESPECIALLY ACCUSING THE 
PRESIDENT OF WHAT YOU'VE 
ACCUSED HIM OF AND I THINK YOU 
SEE IN SOME OF THE ANSWERS 
GIVEN BY THE FORMER SPECIAL 
COUNSEL AN EFFORT TO NOT SCREW 
UP ONE LITTLE  THING. 
IT SEEMS AS IF HE'S HALTING OR 
HE MAY BE NOT REMEMBERING 
THINGS BUT I AGAINST A SENSE 
TOO HE'S MAKING SURE HE DOESN'T 
MAKE ANY MISTAKES. 
>> HE'S BEING ABSOLUTELY 
IMPECCABLE FOR TWO REASONS. 
ONE, HE SAID I WANT THE PUBLIC 
TO BUY INTO THE INTEGRITY OF 
THE REPORT. 
THAT'S WHY HE WAS APPOINTED FOR 
HIS NEUTRALITY, HIS RULE OF 
LAW, HIS APOLITICAL NOTION AND 
IF HE'S SAYING THINGS THAT 
CRITIC THE REPORT, ALL OF A 
SUDDEN PEOPLE DON'T BUY INTO 
THE  REPORT. 
THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO 
POINT OUT THAT I THINK HE'S 
UNDERSCORING HERE IS THERE ARE 
TWO ISSUES. 
ONE IS WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 
ELECTORAL PROCESS. 
THAT IS NOT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. 
THAT IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THAT 
HE'S SAYING, LISTEN, WE AS 
AMERICA NEED TO ADDRESS. 
NUMBER 2 IS, WHAT DO WE DO 
POTENTIALLY ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 
ELECTION. 
>> I WANT TO BRING IN JEFF 
PEGUES NOW BECAUSE HE HAS 
FOLLOWED THIS SO CLOSELY FROM 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND I 
THINK THERE'S AN INTERESTING 
DISCUSSION. 
THE PRESIDENT CAN BE VERBOSE, 
NOT ON SOCIAL MEDIA BUT ALSO 
WHEN HE STEPS BEFORE THE 
CAMERAS OUTSIDE OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
HE CAN SPEAK OFF THE CUFF, 
CERTAINLY WE SAW THAT DURING 
THE CAMPAIGN. 
DID SOME OF HIS PUBLIC COMMENTS 
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WIKILEAKS 
PUT HIM IN SOME LEGAL JEOPARDY? 
>> WELL, I THINK THEY CERTAINLY 
FUEL THE SPECULATION AROUND 
WHETHER THERE WAS CONTACT 
BETWEEN RUSSIAN OPERATIVES AND 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 
IF YOU THINK BACK TO 2016 AND 
SPECIFICALLY JULY OF 2016 WHEN 
THIS COUNTER INTELLIGENCE 
INVESTIGATION STARTED, IT 
STARTED RIGHT AROUND THE TIME 
THE PRESIDENT WAS SPEAKING ON 
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL AND SAID,  
HEY, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, AND 
HE WAS ALLUDING TO HILLARY  
CLINTON'S E-MAILS AND AROUND 
THAT SAME TIME THE RUSSIAN  
HACKERS WENT INTO ACTION AND 
TRIED TO AGAIN HACK DEMOCRATIC 
PARTY E-MAILS. 
AND SO IN A LOT OF WAYS IT WAS 
A PERFECT STORM FOR U.S. 
INTELLIGENCE AND LAW  
ENFORCEMENT. 
YOU HAD ALL OF THIS -- YOU KNEW 
THAT THE DNC HAD BEEN HACKED. 
YOU KNEW THERE WERE DIFFERENT 
ENTITIES RELEASING THE HACKED 
INFORMATION, AND AT THE SAME 
TIME YOU HAD CARTER PAGE GO  
OVERSEAS TO MOSCOW, MAKING A 
SPEECH THERE AND THEN YOU HAD 
THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF MAKING 
THESE PUZZLING STATEMENTS AT A 
TIME WHEN MOST PEOPLE IN 
LEADERSHIP IN THE COUNTRY WERE 
TRYING TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES 
AWAY FROM WIKILEAKS AND AWAY 
FROM ANY SORT OF CONTACT WITH 
ANY SORT OF RUSSIAN OFFICIAL. 
>> ALL RIGHT.  
SPECIFICALLY ONE SPECIFIC 
MENTION TOO IS THAT REMEMBER 
DURING THE CAMPAIGN ONE MONTH 
BEFORE THE ELECTION THE "ACCESS 
HOLLYWOOD" TAPE CAME OUT WHERE 
YOU SEE THEN DONALD TRUMP ALONG 
WITH BILLY BUSH MAKING OBSCENE 
COMMENTS ABOUT GRABBING WOMEN 
IN PARTICULAR WAYS. 
WHEN THAT JUST AN HOUR -- A 
COUPLE HOURS AFTER THAT TAPE 
COMING OUT, WIKILEAKS STARTED 
DUMPING A NUMBER OF THESE E-
MAILS. 
THAT RAISED ALARM BELLS EVEN 
THEN INSIDE THE CLINTON 
CAMPAIGN ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON, 
BECAUSE QUICKLY THE NARRATIVE 
SHIFTED -- 
>> TRYING TO CREATE A COUNTER 
NARRATIVE BECAUSE THAT WEEKEND 
THERE WAS ONE DOMINANT  
NARRATIVE, REPUBLICANS WERE 
HAVING ALL SORTS OF EXISTENTIAL 
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER 
DONALD TRUMP COULD CONTINUE AS 
THE NOMINEE. 
>> THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT 
WHETHER HE SHOULD STEP DOWN AND 
PENCE SHOULD BECOME THE 
NOMINEE, WHETHER PAUL RYAN 
SHOULD GET ON THE TICKET. 
WHETHER THEY WERE GOING TO DUMP 
DONALD TRUMP. 
>> THE OTHER COUNTER NARRATIVE 
WAS THERE AND IT DID FUEL 
ANOTHER LINE OF INQUIRY, 
SKEPTICISM AND THE TIMING OF IT 
DOES NOT LOOK IN ANY WAY, SHAPE 
OR FORM COINCIDENTAL. 
>> YEAH. 
NOTING NOW THAT THE FORMER 
SPECIAL COUNSEL IS RETURNING TO 
THE TABLE WITH HIS SECURITY AND 
ALONG WITH SOME OF HIS TOP 
AIDES AS THEY CONTINUE THE 
QUESTIONING BY THESE MEMBERS OF 
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE, LARGELY DEALING WITH 
MANY OF THESE PARTICULARS 
RELATED TO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE 
IN THE 2016 ELECTION. 
THE MEETINGS THAT OCCURRED 
BETWEEN RUSSIAN REPRESENTATIVES 
AND MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN AND WHY MANY PEOPLE 
LIED TO COVER UP SOME OF THOSE 
MEETINGS. 
THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE DIGGING 
INTO IN THIS PARTICULAR PART OF 
THIS HEARING AS IT HAS TO DO 
WITH INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL 
SECURITY. 
LET'S LISTEN IN AS THEY GAVEL. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR. 
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. 
MR. SWAWWELL, YOU ARE  
RECOGNIZED. 
>> AT THE. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, AS A 
PROSECUTOR YOU WOULD AGREE THAT 
IF A WITNESS OR SUSPECT LIES OR 
OBSTRUCTS OR TAMPERS WITH 
WITNESSES OR DESTROYS EVIDENCE, 
DURING AN INVESTIGATION, THAT 
GENERALLY THAT CONDUCT CAN BE 
USED TO SHOW A CONSCIOUSNESS OF 
GUILT? 
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 
>> YES. 
>> LET'S GO THROUGH THE 
DIFFERENT PEOPLE ASSOCIATED 
WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND 
THIS INVESTIGATION WHO LIED TO 
YOU AND OTHER INVESTIGATORS TO 
COVER UP THEIR DISLOYAL AND  
UNPATRIOTIC CONDUCT. 
IF WE COULD PUT EXHIBIT 8 UP. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, I'M SHOWING 
YOU CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL 
MANAFORT, POLITICAL ADVISOR 
ROGER STONE, DEPUTY CAMPAIGN 
MANAGER RICK GATES, NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR MICHAEL FLYNN, 
DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL  
ATTORNEY, MICHAEL COHEN AND 
FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR GEORGE 
PAPADOPOULOS. 
THESE SIX INDIVIDUALS HAVE EACH 
BEEN CHARGED, CONVICTED OR LIED 
TO YOUR OFFICE OR OTHER 
INVESTIGATORS; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> YES, ALTHOUGH I LOOK ASCANS 
AT MR. STONE BECAUSE HE IS -- 
HE IS IN A DIFFERENT CASE HERE 
IN D.C. 
>> SO NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR 
FLYNN LIED ABOUT DISCUSSIONS 
WITH RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR RELATED 
TO SANCTIONS; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> MICHAEL COHEN LIED TO THIS 
COMMITTEE ABOUT TRUMP TOWER 
MOSCOW; IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, THE 
PRESIDENT'S SENIOR FOREIGN 
POLICY ADVISOR LIED TO THE FBI 
ABOUT HIS COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT 
RUSSIA'S POSSESSION OF DIRT ON 
HILLARY CLINTON; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> CORRECT, YES. 
>> THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN 
CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT LIED 
ABOUT MEETINGS THAT HE HAD WITH 
SOMEONE WITH TIES TO RUSSIAN 
INTELLIGENCE; IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S TRUE. 
>> AND YOUR INVESTIGATION WAS 
HAMPERED BY TRUMP CAMPAIGN 
OFFICIALS' USE OF ENCRYPTION 
COMMUNICATIONS; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> WE BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE 
CASE. 
>> YOU ALSO BELIEVE TO BE THE 
CASE THAT YOUR INVESTIGATION 
WAS HAMPERED BY THE DELETION OF 
ELECTRONIC MESSAGES; IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> IT WOULD BE, YES. 
GENERALLY ANY CASE WOULD BE IF 
THOSE KINDS OF COMMUNICATIONS 
ARE USED. 
>> FOR EXAMPLE, YOU NOTED THAT 
DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER RICK 
GATES, WHO SHARED INTERNAL 
CAMPAIGN POLLING DATA WITH THE 
PERSON WITH TIES TO RUSSIAN 
INTELLIGENCE AT THE DIRECTOR OF 
MANAFORT, THAT MR. GATES 
DELETED THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ON 
A DAILY BASIS; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I THINK IT WERE -- LIKE I  
SAY, I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY 
BUT PHYSICAL IT IN THE REPORT 
THEN I SUPPORT IT. 
>> THAT'S RIGHT, DIRECTOR, IT'S 
VOLUME ONE, PAGE 136. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> IN ADDITION TO THAT, OTHER 
INFORMATION WAS INACCESSIBLE 
BECAUSE YOUR OFFICE DETERMINED 
IT WAS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-
CLIENT PRIVILEGE; IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS TRUE. 
>> THAT WOULD INCLUDE THAT YOU 
DO NOT KNOW WHETHER 
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DONALD 
TRUMP AND HIS PERSONAL 
ATTORNEYS JAY SEKULOW, RUDY 
GIULIANI AND OTHERS DISCOURAGED 
WITNESSES FROM COOPERATING WITH 
THE GOVERNMENT; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO TALK TO  
THAT. 
>> THAT WOULD ALSO MEAN THAT 
YOU CAN'T TALK TO WHETHER OR 
NOT PARDONS WERE DANGLED 
THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S 
ATTORNEYS BECAUSE THE SHIELD OF 
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE? 
>> NOT -- I'M NOT GOING TO 
DISCUSS THAT. 
>> DID YOU WANT TO INTERVIEW 
DONALD TRUMP, JR.? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS  
THAT. 
>> DID YOU SUBPOENA DONALD  
TRUMP, JR.? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS  
THAT. 
>> DID YOU WANT TO INTERVIEW 
THE PRESIDENT? 
>> YES. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, ON  
JANUARY 1st, 2017 THROUGH MARCH 
2019, DONALD TRUMP MET WITH 
VLADIMIR PUTIN IN PERSON SIX 
TIMES, CALLED HIM 10 TIMES AND 
EXCHANGED FOUR LETTERS WITH 
HIM. 
BETWEEN THAT TIME PERIOD, HOW 
MANY TIMES DID YOU MEET WITH 
DONALD TRUMP? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO 
THAT. 
>> HE DID NOT MEET WITH YOU IN 
PERSON; IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> HE DID NOT. 
>> AS A RESULT OF LIES, 
DELETION OF TEXT MESSAGES, 
OBSTRUCTION AND WITNESS 
TAMPERING, IS IT FAIR TO SAY 
THAT YOU WERE UNABLE TO FULLY 
ASSESS THE SCOPE AND SCALE OF 
RUSSIAN'S INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2016 ELECTION AND TRUMP'S ROLE 
IN THAT INTERFERENCE? 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD 
ADOPT THAT CHARACTERIZATIONIN 
TOTAL. 
THERE MAY BE PIECES OF IT 
ACCURATE BUT NOT IN TOTAL. 
>> BUT YOU DID STATE IN VOLUME 
ONE, PAGE 10, THAT WHILE THIS 
REPORT EMBODIES FACTUAL AND 
LEGAL DETERMINATIONS, THE 
OFFICE BELIEVES IT TO BE 
ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE 
GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE GIVEN 
THESE IDENTIFIED GAPS THE 
OFFICE CANNOT RULE OUT THE 
POSSIBILITY THAT THE 
UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION WOULD 
SHED ADDITIONAL LIGHT; IS THAT 
CORRECT? 
>> THAT IS CORRECT. 
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T  
KNOW. 
>> WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT THAT 
WITNESSES COOPERATE AND TELL 
THE TRUTH IN AN INVESTIGATION 
LIKE THIS? 
>> BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY OF THE 
WITNESSES GOES TO THE HEART OF 
JUST ABOUT ANY CRIMINAL CASE 
YOU HAVE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
AND MR. CHAIRMAN I WOULD YIELD 
BACK AND THANK YOU, DIRECTOR 
MUELLER. 
>> MISS -- 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
MR. MUELLER, AS SPECIAL 
COUNSEL, DID YOU REVIEW 
DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE ORIGIN 
OF THE COUNTER INTELLIGENCE 
INVESTIGATION TO THE TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN? 
>> ON OCCASION. 
>> WAS THE STEELE DOSSIER ONE 
OF THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT WAS 
REVIEWED? 
>> AND I CAN'T DISCUSS THAT  
CASE. 
>> I'M JUST ASKING A PROCESS 
QUESTION. 
HAVE YOU READ THE STEELE  
DOSSIER? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO RESPOND TO 
THAT. 
>> YOU WERE TASKED AS SPECIAL 
COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER 
THERE WAS COLLUSION BETWEEN 
RUSSIA AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN 
ASSOCIATES TO INTERFERE WITH 
THE 2016 ELECTION. 
AND THE FBI, WE KNOW, HAS 
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND 
INFORMATION RELATED TO THE 
OPENING OF THE CI 
INVESTIGATION. 
WERE YOU AND YOUR TEAM 
PERMITTED TO ACCESS ALL THOSE  
DEVELOPMENTS? 
>> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT 
INVESTIGATIVE, WHAT WE 
COLLECTED AND WHAT WE ARE DOING 
WITH INVESTIGATION -- 
INVESTIGATION MATERIALS. 
>> LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY. 
WAS THERE ANY LIMITATION IN 
YOUR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS 
RELATED TO THE COUNTER 
INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION? 
>> SUCH A BROAD QUESTION. 
I HAVE REAL TROUBLES ANSWERING 
IT. 
>> DID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
OFFICE UNDERTAKE ANY EFFORTS TO 
INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY OR 
DISPROVE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED 
IN THE STEELE DOSSIER? 
>> AGAIN, I CAN'T RESPOND. 
>> THE REASON I'M ASKING FOR 
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT IS  
WATCHING, IT'S APPARENT THAT 
THE STEELE DOSSIER FORMED PART 
OF THE BASIS TO JUSTIFY THE 
FBI'S COUNTER INTELLIGENCE 
INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION AS WE KNOW IT WAS USED 
TO OBTAIN A FISA WARRANT ON 
CARTER PAGE. 
THIS IS WHY I'M ASKING THESE 
QUESTIONS. 
DID YOUR OFFICE UNDERTAKE ANY 
EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY STEELE'S 
SOURCES OR SUB SOURCES? 
>> AGAIN, THE SAME ANSWER. 
>> WERE THESE TASKS REFERRED TO 
ANY OTHER AGENCIES? 
>> AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK TO IT. 
>> DID YOUR OFFICE CONSIDER 
WHETHER THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT 
USED STEELE'S SOURCES TO 
PROVIDE STEELE WITH 
DISINFORMATION? 
>> AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK TO 
THAT. 
>> I UNDERSTAND. 
I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS JUST 
FOR THE RECORD SO THANKS FOR 
YOUR PATIENCE. 
SHIFTING GEARS HERE, DID ANY 
MEMBER OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S 
OFFICE STAFF TRAVEL OVERSEAS AS 
PART OF THE INVESTIGATION? 
>> YES, BUT I CAN'T GO FURTHER 
THAN THAT. 
>> I'M GOING TO ASK, TO WHICH 
COUNTRIES? 
>> AND I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. 
>> DID THEY MEET WITH FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS? 
>> AGAIN, IT'S OUT OF OUR -- 
OUT OF OUR BAILEY WICK. 
>> DID THEY MEET WITH FOREIGN 
PRIVATE CITIZENS? 
>> AGAIN, SAME RESPONSE. 
>> DID THEY SEEK INFORMATION 
ABOUT A U.S. CITIZEN OR ANY 
U.S. CITIZENS? 
>> IN A TERRITORY THAT I CANNOT 
GO TO. 
>> THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING ON 
THE RECORD. 
THESE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS 
FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND WE 
ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE IG IS ABLE 
TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. 
I WILL YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY 
TIME TO THE RANKING MEMBER. 
>> THANK THE GENTLE LADY FOR 
YIELDING. 
>> WE STARTED OFF WITH JOSEPH 
5:00 CYD -- MIFSUD ABOUT THIS 
INVESTIGATION. I HAVE SEEN ON 
THE SCREEN THE DEMOCRATS HAVE 
PUT UP ALL THE PROSECUTIONS 
THAT YOU MADE AGAINST TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND OTHERS, 
BUT I'M STRUGGLING TO 
UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DIDN'T 
INDICT JOSEPH MIFSUD.  
>> I HAVE SAID -- I'M GOING TO 
BE ABLE TO SAY WITH REGARD TO 
MR. MIFSUD. 
>> WERE YOU AWARE OF KATHLEEN 
CALF LEX'S INVOLVEMENT THAT SHE 
HAD MET WITH MISS STEELE, THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL. 
>> I CAN'T RESPOND TO THAT 
QUESTION. 
IT'S OUTSIDE MY JURISDICTION. 
>> OKAY.  
THE CARTER PAGE FISA WARRANT 
WAS REUPPED THREE TIMES. 
THE LAST TIME IT WAS REUPPED 
WAS UNDER YOUR WATCH. 
SO WERE YOU IN THE APPROVAL 
PROCESS OF THAT LAST TIME THAT 
THE CARTER PAGE WARRANT WAS -- 
>> I CAN'T SPEAK SPECIFICALLY 
ABOUT THAT WARRANT BUT IF YOU 
ASK WAS I IN THE APPROVAL 
CHAIN, THE ANSWER IS NO. 
>> OKAY. 
IT'S VERY HELPFUL. 
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. CASTRO. 
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. 
THANK YOU, SPECIAL COUNSEL 
ROBERT MUELLER FOR YOUR 
TESTIMONY AND FOR YOUR SERVICE 
TO OUR COUNTRY. 
DONALD TRUMP OVER THE YEARS HAS 
SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH VERY 
SHADY PEOPLE, PEOPLE THAT LIED 
FOR HIM, PEOPLE THAT COVERED UP 
FOR HIM, PEOPLE THAT HELPED HIM 
ENRICH HIMSELF. 
I WANT TO TALK SPECIFICALLY 
ABOUT ONE OF THOSE INCIDENTS 
THAT'S IN YOUR REPORT. 
SPECIFICALLY LET'S TURN TO THE 
TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT 
WHICH YOU DESCRIBED IN YOUR 
REPORT AS A QUOTE, HIGHLY 
LUCRATIVE DEAL FOR THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE 
QUOTE FROM THE REPORT, IF YOU 
HAVE IT. 
>> SURE. 
IT'S ON VOLUME TWO, PAGE 135. 
IT'S DESCRIBED AS HIGHLY 
LUCRATIVE. 
>> OKAY. 
I HAVE IT. 
I HAVE IT. 
THANK YOU, SIR. 
>> YEAH. 
NO PROBLEM. 
YOUR OFFICE PROSECUTED MICHAEL 
COHEN AND MICHAEL COHEN WAS 
DONALD TRUMP'S LAWYER FOR LYING 
TO THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT SEVERAL 
ASPECTS OF THE TRUMP 
ORGANIZATION'S PURSUIT OF THE 
TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW DEAL; IS 
THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, 
COHEN LIED TO, QUOTE, MINIMIZE 
LINKS BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND 
TRUMP, UNQUOTE, AND TO, QUOTE, 
STICK TO THE PARTY LINE,  
UNQUOTE, IN ORDER NOT TO CRITIC 
TRUMP'S PUBLIC MESSAGE THAT NO 
CONNECTION EXISTED BETWEEN 
TRUMP AND RUSSIA; IS THAT 
RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S A -- YES, THAT'S 
CORRECT. 
>> NOW, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING 
ABOUT THE PARTY LINE HERE, THE 
PARTY LINE IN THIS CASE -- 
>> IF I CAN INTERJECT. 
THE ONE THING I SHOULD HAVE 
SAID AT THE OUTSET IF IT WAS IN 
THE REPORT AND CONSEQUENTLY I 
DO BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THE DEAL ENDED IN JANUARY 2016. 
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE 
SAYING THAT THE DEAL ENDED IN  
JANUARY 2016, BEFORE THE 
REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES. 
IN TRUTH, THOUGH, THE DEAL 
EXTENDED TO JUNE 2016, WHEN 
DONALD TRUMP WAS ALREADY THE 
PRESUMPTIVE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE; 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> THE PARTY LINE WAS ALSO THAT 
COHEN DISCUSSED THE DEAL WITH 
TRUMP ONLY THREE TIMES, WHEN IN 
TRUTH THEY DISCUSSED IT 
MULTIPLE TIMES; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> ALSO TRUE AND THE BASIS  FOR 
-- AND PART OF THE BASIS FOR 
THE PLEA THAT HE ENTERED FOR 
LYING TO THIS ENTITY. 
>> THANK YOU. 
AND THANK YOU FOR PROSECUTING 
THAT. 
THE PARTY LINE WAS ALSO THAT 
COHEN AND TRUMP NEVER DISCUSSED 
TRAVELING TO RUSSIA DURING THE 
CAMPAIGN WHEN IN TRUTH THEY DID 
DISCUSS IT; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> THAT'S ACCURATE. 
>> AND THE PARTY LINE WAS THAT 
COHEN NEVER RECEIVED A RESPONSE 
FROM THE KREMLIN TO HIS  
INQUIRIES ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER 
MOSCOW DEAL. 
IN FACT, COHEN NOT ONLY 
RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM THE 
KREMLIN TO HIS E-MAIL, BUT ALSO 
HAD A LENGTHY CONVERSATION WITH 
A KREMLIN REPRESENTATIVE WHO 
HAD A DETAILED UNDERSTANDING OF 
THE PROJECT; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> IF IT'S IN THE REPORT, THAT 
IS ACCURATE RECITATION OF THAT 
PIECE OF THE REPORT. 
>> SO YOU HAD THE CANDIDATE 
TRUMP AT THE TIME SAYING HE HAD 
NO BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH  
RUSSIA. 
HIS LAWYER, WHO WAS LYING ABOUT 
IT, AND THEN THE KREMLIN WHO 
DURING THAT TIME WAS TALKING TO 
PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER ABOUT 
THE DEAL; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I CAN'T ADOPT YOUR 
CHARACTERIZATION. 
>> NOT ONLY WAS COHEN LYING ON 
TRUMP'S BEHALF, BUT SO WAS THE 
KREMLIN. 
ON AUGUST 30th,2017, TWO DAYS 
AFTER COHEN SUBMITTED HIS FALSE 
STATEMENT TO THIS COMMITTEE 
CLAIMING HE NEVER RECEIVED A 
RESPONSE TO HIS E-MAIL TO THE 
KREMLIN, VLADIMIR PUTIN'S PRESS 
SECRETARY TOLD REPORTERS THAT 
THE KREMLIN LEFT THE E-MAIL  
UNANSWERED. 
IS THAT STATEMENT BY PUTIN'S 
PRESS SECRETARY WAS FALSE, úWAS 
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. 
>> ALTHOUGH IT WAS WIDELY 
REPORTED IN THE PRESS. 
>> AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT 
PARTICULARLY IF IT WAS -- IF IT 
WAS DEPENDENT UPON MEDIA  
SOURCES. 
>> BUT IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH 
THE LIE THAT COHEN HAD MADE TO 
THE COMMITTEE; IS THAT RIGHT? 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN I CAN GO 
THAT FAR. 
>> SO COHEN, PRESIDENT TRUMP 
AND THE KREMLIN WERE ALL 
TELLING THE SAME LIE? 
>> I DEFER TO YOU ON THAT. 
I CAN'T GET INTO DETAILS. 
>> SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT 
MUELLER, I WANT TO ASK YOU 
SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT 
TO THE NATION. 
DID YOUR INVESTIGATION EVALUATE 
WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD 
BE VULNERABLE TO BLACKMAIL BY 
THE RUSSIANS BECAUSE THE 
KREMLIN KNEW THAT TRUMP AND HIS 
ASSOCIATES LIED ABOUT 
CONNECTIONS TO RUSSIA RELATED 
TO THE TRUMP TOWER DEAL? 
>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. 
>> I YIELD BACK, CHAIRMAN. 
>> MR. HURT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU HAVE BEEN 
ASKED MANY TIMES THIS AFTERNOON 
ABOUT COLLUSION, OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE AND IMPEACHMENT AND THE 
STEELE DOSSIER AND I DON'T 
THINK YOUR ANSWERS ARE GOING TO 
CHANGE IF I ASK YOU ABOUT THOSE 
QUESTIONS. 
SO I'M GOING TO ASK ABOUT A 
COUPLE OF PRESS STORIES BECAUSE 
A LOT OF WHAT THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE HAVE RECEIVED ABOUT THIS 
HAVE BEEN ON PRESS STORIES AND 
SOME OF THAT HAS BEEN WRONG AND 
SOME PRESS STORIES ACCURATE. 
ON APRIL 13th, 2018, 
McMcCLATCHY REPORTED THAT YOU 
HAD EVIDENCE MICHAEL COHEN MADE 
A SECRET TRIP TO PRAGUE DURING 
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. 
I THINK HE TOLD ONE OF THE 
COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN CONGRESS 
THAT WAS INCORRECT. 
IS THAT STORY TRUE? 
>> I CAN'T GO INTO IT. 
>> GOTCHA. 
ON OCTOBER 21st, 2016 LATE 
PUBLISHED A REPORT SUGGESTING 
THAT A SERVER AT TRUMP TOWER 
WAS SECRETLY COMMUNICATING WITH 
RUSSIAN'S ALPHA BANK AND I  
QUOTE, AKIN TO WHAT CRIMINAL 
SYNDICATES DO. 
DO YOU KNOW IF THAT STORY IS 
TRUE? 
>> DO NOT. 
YOU DO NOT. 
>> KNOW WHETHER IT'S TRUE. 
>> SUGGESTIONS OF A POTENTIAL 
TRUMP RUSSIA -- BECAUSE I 
BELIEVE -- IT MAY WELL HAVE 
BEEN INVESTIGATED ALTHOUGH MY 
BELIEF AT THIS POINT IT'S NOT 
TRUE. 
>> AS A FORMER CIA OFFICER, I 
WANT TO FOCUS ON SOMETHING, I 
THINK, BOTH SIDES OF THE 
POLITICAL AISLE CAN AGREE ON, 
THAT IS HOW DO WE PREVENT 
RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE AND OTHER 
ADVERSARIES FROM DOING THIS 
AGAIN. 
AND AFTER OVERSEEING COUNTER 
INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS FOR 12 
YEARS AS FBI DIRECTOR AND THEN 
INVESTIGATING WHAT THE RUSSIANS 
HAVE DONE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, 
YOU HAVE SEEN TACTICS, 
TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS OF 
RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE 
OPERATIONS. 
OUR COMMITTEE MADE A 
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE FBI 
SHOULD IMPROVE ITS VICTIM 
NOTIFICATION PROCESS WHEN A 
PERSON, ENTITY OR CAMPAIGN HAS 
FALLEN VICTIM TO ACTIVE 
MEASURES OF TACK. 
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THIS? 
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE A WORTHWHILE 
ENDEAVOR. 
I WILL TELL YOU, THOUGH, THAT 
THE ABILITY OF OUR INTELLIGENCE 
AGENCY IS TO WORK TOGETHER AND 
THIS ARENA IS PERHAPS MORE 
IMPORTANT THAN THAT. 
AND ADOPTING WHATEVER -- AND 
I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH 
LEGISLATION, BUT WHATEVER 
LEGISLATION WILL ENCOURAGE US 
WORKING TOGETHER, BY US, I MEAN 
THE FBI, CIA, NSA AND THE REST, 
IT SHOULD BE PURSUED, 
AGGRESSIVELY, EARLY. 
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE 
RESPONSIBLE WITHIN THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT TO COUNTER 
DISSATISFACTION? 
>> I'M NO LONGER IN THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT SO -- 
>> YOU'VE HAD A LONG STORIED 
CAREER AND I DON'T THINK 
THERE'S ANYBODY WHO BETTER 
UNDERSTANDS THE THREAT THAT WE 
ARE FACING THAN YOU. 
DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS A 
FORMER FBI OFFICER? 
>> AS TO? 
>> AS TO WHO SHOULD BE THE 
COORDINATING POINTS WITHIN THE 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON HOW TO 
DEAL WITH DISINFORMATION? 
>> I DON'T WANT TO WADE IN 
THOSE WATERS. 
>> GOOD COPY. 
ONE OF THE MOST STRIKING THINGS 
IN YOUR REPORT IS THAT THE 
INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY NOT 
ONLY UNDERTOOK A SOCIAL MEDIA 
CAMPAIGN IN THE U.S., BUT THEY 
WERE ABLE TO ORGANIZE POLITICAL 
RALLIES AFTER THE ELECTION. 
OUR COMMITTEE ISSUED A REPORT, 
AN INSIGHT SAYING THAT RUSSIAN 
ACTIVE MEASURES ARE GROWING 
WITH FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY 
AND INCLUDING THEIR EXPANDED 
USE OF GROUPS SUCH AS THE IRA 
AND THESE GROUPS POSE A 
SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE 
UNITED STATES AND OUR ALLIES IN 
UPCOMING ELECTIONS. 
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 
>> YES. 
IN FACT, ONE OF THE OTHER AREAS 
THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, MANY 
MORE COMPANIES -- NOT 
COMPANIES. 
MANY MORE COUNTRIES ARE 
DEVELOPING CAPABILITY TO 
REPLICATE WHAT THE RUSSIANS 
HAVE DONE. 
>> YOU ALLUDED TO MAKING SURE 
THE -- ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE 
WORKING TOGETHER. 
DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION ON A 
STRATEGY TO DO THAT TO COUNTER 
THIS DISINFORMATION? 
>> NOT OVERARCHING. 
>> IS THIS -- IN YOUR 
INVESTIGATION, DID YOU THINK 
THAT THIS WAS A SINGLE ATTEMPT 
BY THE RUSSIANS TO GET INVOLVED 
IN OUR ELECTION OR DID YOU FIND 
EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THEY 
WILL TRY TO DO THIS AGAIN. 
>> IT WASN'T A SINGLE ATTEMPT. 
THEY ARE DOING IT AS WE SIT 
HERE AND THEY EXPECT TO DO IT 
DURING THE NEXT CAMPAIGN. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I 
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND 
INDULGING US HERE IN MULTIPLE 
COMMITTEES AND I YIELD BACK TO 
THE RANKING MEMBER IF HE HAS -- 
I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. 
>> MR. HECK. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I'D LIKE 
TO GO TO THE MOTIVES BEHIND THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGEMENT 
AND ACCEPTANCE OF HELP DURING 
THE ELECTION. 
OBVIOUSLY A CLEAR MOTIVATION 
WAS TO HELP THEM IN WHAT WOULD 
TURN OUT TO BE A VERY CLOSE 
ELECTION, BUT THERE WAS ANOTHER 
KEY MOTIVATION AND THAT WAS 
FRANKLY THE DESIRE TO MAKE 
MONEY. 
I ALWAYS TRY TO REMEMBER WHAT 
MY DAD, WHO NEVER HAD THE 
OPPORTUNITY TO GO BEYOND THE 
EIGHTH GRADE TAUGHT ME, WHICH 
IS THAT I SHOULD NEVER, EVER  
UNDERESTIMATE THE CAPACITY OF 
SOME PEOPLE TO CUT CORNERS AND 
EVEN MORE IN ORDER TO WORSHIP 
AND CHASE THE ALL MIGHTY BUCK. 
THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT 
GOES TO THE HEART OF WHY THE 
TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS SO 
UNRELENTINGLY INTENT ON 
DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIPS WITH 
THE KREMLIN. 
SO LET'S QUICKLY REVISIT ONE 
FINANCIAL SCHEME WE JUST 
DISCUSSED, WHICH WAS THE TRUMP 
TOWER IN MOSCOW. 
WE INDICATED EARLIER THAT IT 
WAS A LUCRATIVE DEAL. 
TRUMP, IN FACT, STOOD, HE AND 
HIS COMPANY, TO EARN MANY 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THAT  
DEAL, DID THEY NOT, SIR? 
>> TRUE. 
>> AND COHEN, MR. COHEN, HIS 
ATTORNEY, TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS 
COMMITTEE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP 
BELIEVED THE DEAL REQUIRED 
KREMLIN APPROVAL. 
IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE 
TOLD YOU? 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN WHETHER IT'S 
MR. TRUMP HIMSELF OR OTHERS 
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ENTERPRISE 
THAT DISCUSSED THE NECESSITY 
FROM HAVING THE INPUT FROM THE 
STATE, MEANING THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT IN ORDER FOR IT TO 
GO FORWARD SUCCESSFULLY? 
>> ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT 
DONALD TRUMP VIEWED HIS 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AS HE 
TOLD TOP CAMPAIGN AIDES THAT 
THE CAMPAIGN WAS AN INFOMERCIAL 
FOR THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION AND 
HIS PROPERTIES? 
>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. 
>> AND LET'S TURN TO TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN CHAIR PAUL MANAFORT. 
DID IN FACT YOUR INVESTIGATION 
FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT PAUL 
MANAFORT INTENDED TO USE HIS 
POSITION AS TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN 
CHAIR FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL 
FINANCIAL BENEFIT? 
>> I WILL SAY THERE WAS SOME 
INDICATION OF THAT BUT I WON'T 
GO FURTHER. 
>> I THINK YOU WILL FIND IT ON 
PAGE 135 OF VOLUME ONE. 
DURING THE TRANSITION TRUMP'S 
SON-IN-LAW JARED KUSHNERMET 
WITH SERGEI GORECOFF, THE HEAD 
OF A RUSSIAN OWNED BANK THAT IS 
UNDER U.S. SANCTIONS AND 
ACCORDING TO THE HEAD OF THE 
BANK HE MET WITH KUSHNER IN HIS 
CAPACITY AS CEO OF KUSHNER 
COMPANIES TO DISCUSS BUSINESS 
OPPORTUNITIES; IS THAT CORRECT, 
SIR? 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN. 
I'M NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THAT. 
LET ME PUT IT THAT WAY. 
>> IT WAS ASSERTED THUSLY IN 
YOUR REPORT VOLUME ONE,  PAGES 
161 AND 162, YOUR REPORT NOTES 
THAT AT THE TIME KUSHNER 
COMPANIES WERE TRYING TO 
RENEGOTIATE A BILLION, WITH A 
B, A BILLION DOLLAR LEASE OF 
THEIR FLAGSHIP BUILDING AT 666 
FIFTH AVENUE, CORRECT? 
>> I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THOSE 
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. 
>> ALSO ON PAGE 162 WHERE 
KUSHNER COMPANIES IT WAS 
ASSERTED HAD DEBT OBLIGATIONS 
COMING DUE ON THE COMPANY, ERIC 
PRINCE, A SUPPORTER CLOSE TO 
TRUMP -- 
>> A SUPPORTER? 
>> CAMPAIGN ADMINISTRATIVE -- 
>> A SUPPORTER, I WAS -- 
>> YES. 
HE MET IN THE SEYCHELLES DURING 
THE TRANSITION WITH KEIRLE -- 
GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT ARM WHICH 
HAD CLOSE TIES TO VLADIMIR  
PUTIN, CORRECT, SIR? 
>> YES. 
>> YOUR INVESTIGATION 
DTERMINED THAT MR. PRINCE HAD 
NOT KNOWN, NOR CONDUCTED 
BUSINESS WITH  DIMTII EF BEFORE 
TRUMP WON THE ELECTION, RIGHT? 
>> I REFER TO THE REPORT ON  
THAT. 
>> YET, IT DOES AND YET PRINCE 
WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO TOP 
ADMINISTRATION, TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MET 
WITH DIMITRIIVE DURING THE 
TRANSITION PERIOD TO DISCUSS 
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES AMONG 
OTHER THINGS BUT IT WASN'T JUST 
TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATES WHO 
WERE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF 
THIS DEAL NOR HIDE IT, NOR LIE 
ABOUT IT. 
RUSSIA WAS TOO. 
THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT, TO 
GAIN RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS 
WHICH WOULD HUGELY BENEFIT 
THEIR INCREDIBLY WEALTHY 
OLIGARCHS. IT WAS DISCUSSED IN 
THE TRUMP TOWER, WAS IT NOT, 
SIR? 
>> YES. 
IT WAS NOT A MAIN SUBJECT FOR 
DISCUSSION. 
>> TRUMP ADMINISTRATION 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR 
DESIGNANT MICHAEL FLYNN 
DISCUSSED IN A SECRET 
CONVERSATION WITH THE RUSSIAN 
AMBASSADOR, DID HE NOT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> TO SUMMARIZE, DONALD TRUMP, 
PAUL MANAFORT JARED KUSHNER, 
ERIC PRINCE AND OTHERS IN THE 
TRUMP ORBIT ALL TRIED TO USE 
THEIR CONNECTIONS WITH THE 
TRUMP ORGANIZATION TO PROFIT 
FROM RUSSIA, WHICH WAS OPENLY 
SEEKING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS. 
IS THAT TRUE, SIR? 
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN I CAN ADOPT 
WHAT YOU ARTICULATED. 
>> I WILL AND I WILL FURTHER 
ASSERT THAT WAS NOT ONLY 
DANGEROUS, IT WAS UNAMERICAN. 
GREED CORRUPTS AND IT IS A 
TERRIBLE FOUNDATION FOR 
DEVELOPING AMERICAN FOREIGN 
POLICY. 
>> MR. RADCLIFFE. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, GIVEN YOUR 
CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT YOU'RE ABLE 
OR ALLOWED TO ANSWER WITH 
RESPECT TO COUNTER INTELLIGENCE 
MATTERS OR OTHER MATTERS 
CURRENTLY OPEN UNDER 
INVESTIGATION YOU'RE NOT GOING 
TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER MY 
REMAINING QUESTIONS SO I THANK 
YOU FOR YOUR COURTESIES IN THE 
ANSWERS THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO 
MY PRIOR QUESTIONS AND I DO 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
EXTRAORDINARY CAREER AND RECORD 
OF SERVICE AND YIELD THE 
BALANCE OF MY TIME TO THE 
RANKING MEMBER. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> A FEW MORE QUESTIONS I WANT 
TO CLEAN UP ABOUT THE ERIC 
PRINCE SEYCHELLES MEETING. 
HE TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS 
COMMITTEE THAT HE WAS 
SURVEILLED BY THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT AND THE INFORMATION 
FROM THE SURVEILLANCE WAS 
LEAKED TO THE PRESS. 
DID YOU INVESTIGATE WHETHER 
PRINCE WAS SURVEILLED AND 
WHETHER CLASSIFIED INFORMATION 
ON HIM WAS ILLEGALLY LEAKED TO 
THE MEDIA? 
>> DID YOU SAY DID YOU OR WILL 
YOU. 
>> WELL, I KNOW YOU CAN'T. 
JOIN BACK UP IN THE RANKS, BUT 
DID YOU REFER -- WERE YOU AWARE 
THAT, YOU KNOW, PRINCE HAS MADE 
THESE ALLEGATIONS HE WAS 
SURVEILLED, HE IS CONCERNED 
THERE WERE LEAKS ABOUT THIS 
SURVEILLANCE. 
DID YOU MAKE ANY REFERRALS 
ABOUT THESE LEAKS? 
>> I CAN'T GET INTO A 
DISCUSSION ON IT. 
>> OKAY.  
ALSO WANT -- GENERAL FLYNN, I 
KNOW YOU CAME AFTER THE LEAK OF 
HIS PHONE CALL WITH THE RUSSIAN 
AMBASSADOR. 
YOUR TIME AT FBI, IT WOULD BE A 
MAJOR SCANDAL, WOULDN'T IT, FOR 
THE LEAK OF THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY ADVISOR AND ANYONE -- 
>> I CAN'T ADOPT THAT HYPOTHESIS
HYPOTHESIS. 
>> DOES YOUR REPORT NAME ANY 
PEOPLE ACTING AS U.S. 
GOVERNMENT INFORMANTS OR 
SOURCES WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT 
FACT? 
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. 
>> ON VOLUME ONE, PAGE 133 OF 
YOUR REPORT, YOU STATE THAT 
CONSTANTINE KILIMNIK HAS TIES 
TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. 
NAMES CAME UP QUITE OFTEN 
TODAY. 
BUT YOUR REPORT OMITS TO 
MENTION THAT KILIMNIK HAS LONG-
TERM RELATIONSHIPS WITH U.S. 
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS INCLUDING 
OUR OWN STATE DEPARTMENT. 
>> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT. 
>> I KNOW IT'S NOT IN THE  
REPORT, BUT IF KILIMNIK IS 
BEING USED IN THE REPORT TO SAY 
THAT HE WAS POSSIBLY SOME TYPE 
OF RUSSIAN AGENT, AND I THINK 
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS 
COMMITTEE TO KNOW IF KILIMNIK 
HAS TIES TO OUR OWN STATE 
DEPARTMENT, WHICH IT APPEARS 
THAT HE DOES. 
>> AGAIN, THE SAME TERRITORY 
THAT I'M LOATHED TO GET INTO. 
>> YOU WERE ASKED THIS EARLIER 
ABOUT TRUMP ATTORNEY JOHN DOWD 
THAT PIECES OF HIS PHONE CALL 
WERE OMITTED FROM THE REPORT. 
IT WAS WHAT MR. DOUBT CALLS 
EXCULL  EXCULPITOY EVIDENCE. 
>> I'M NOT SURE I WOULD AGREE 
WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. 
I THINK I SAID THAT BEFORE. 
>> YES. 
>> AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FROM THE 
REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA, IDENTIFIES 
AS A RUSSIAN, CLAIMS YOUR 
REPORT OMITTED PARTS OF A TEXT 
MESSAGE HE HAD WITH MICHAEL 
COHEN ABOUT STOPPING THE FLOW 
OF COMPROMISING TAPES OF DONALD 
TRUMP. 
IN THE OMITTED PORTIONS HE SAYS 
HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE TAPES 
ACTUALLY SHOWED. 
WAS THAT PORTION OF THE 
EXCHANGE LEFT OUT OF THE REPORT 
FOR A REASON? 
>> NO. 
WE GOT AN AWFUL LOT INTO THE 
REPORT. 
BUT WE DID NOT GET EVERY 
INTERSECTION OR CONVERSATION 
AND THE LIKE. 
SO I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT 
PARTICULAR EPISODE YOU'RE 
TALKING ABOUT. 
>> THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER. 
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> MR. WELCH. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, DID YOU 
FIND THERE WAS NO COLLUSION 
BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND 
RUSSIA? 
>> NO. 
WE DON'T USE THE WORD 
COLLUSION. 
THE WORD WE USUALLY USE IS -- 
NOT COLLUSION, BUT ONE OF THE 
OTHER TERMS THAT FILLS IN WHEN 
COLLUSION IS NOT USED. 
IN ANY EVENT, THE -- WE DECIDED 
NOT TO USE THE WORD COLLUSION 
IN AS MUCH AS IT HAS NO 
RELEVANCE TO THE CRIMINAL LAW 
ARENA. 
>> THE TERM IS CONSPIRACY THAT 
YOU PREFER TO USE? 
>> CONSPIRACY, EXACTLY RIGHT. 
>> YOU HELP ME, I'LL HELP YOU. 
>> THANK YOU. 
>> AS AN AGREEMENT. 
THANK YOU. 
AND IN FACT YOU HAD TO MAKE A 
CHARGING DECISION AFTER YOUR 
INVESTIGATION WHERE, UNLESS 
THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO 
PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE 
DOUBT, YOU WOULDN'T MAKE A 
CHARGE, CORRECT? 
>> GENERALLY THAT'S THE CASE. 
>> BUT MAKING THAT DECISION 
DOES NOT MEAN YOUR 
INVESTIGATION FAILED TO TURN UP 
EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY? 
>> ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. 
>> AND IN FACT, I WILL GO 
THROUGH SOME OF THE SIGNIFICANT 
FINDINGS THAT YOUR EXHAUSTIVE 
INVESTIGATION MADE. 
YOU FOUND, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, 
THAT FROM MAY 2016 UNTIL THE 
END OF THE CAMPAIGN, CAMPAIGN 
CHAIRMAN MR. MANAFORT GAVE 
PRIVATE POLLING INFORMATION TO 
RUSSIAN AGENTS, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> YOU NEED TO SPEAK INTO THE 
MICROPHONE. 
>> I WILL. 
MY APOLOGIES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
AND YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND 
THAT IN JUNE 2016 DONALD TRUMP, 
JR. MADE AN ARRANGEMENT TO MEET 
AT TRUMP TOWER ALONG WITH JARED 
KUSHNER AND OTHERS EXPECTING TO 
RECEIVE DIRT ON THE HILLARY 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> 
SOMETHING FOR THE FIRST TIME 
THEY DID ABOUT FIVE HOURS 
LATER, CORRECT? 
>>  THAT'S CORRECT. 
>> AND YOU ALSO FOUND THAT ON 
AUGUST 2nd, MR. MANAFORT MET 
WITH A PERSON TIED TO RUSSIAN 
END TELL YOU GENERALS, MR. 
KILIMNIK, AND GAVE HIM INTERNAL 
CAMPAIGN STRATEGY, AWARE THAT 
RUSSIA WAS INTENDING TO DO A 
MISINFORMATION SOCIAL MEDIA 
CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? 
>>  I'M NOT CERTAIN OF THE TIE 
THERE. 
>> BUT THE FACTS OF THAT 
MEETING -- 
>>  THE FACT THAT THE MEETING 
TOOK PLACE IS ACCURATE. 
>> YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND IN 
LATE SUMMER THE CAMPAIGN DEVISED
ITS CAMPAIGN AROUND WIKILEAKS 
MATERIALS THAT WAS STOLEN FROM 
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL 
CONVENTION. 
>> IS THAT FROM THE REPORT? 
>>  YES, ACCORDING TO  MR.
GATES.
>> YES. 
>> YES, THANK YOU. 
AND YOU ALSO TALKED EARLIER 
ABOUT THE FINDING IN YOUR 
INVESTIGATION THAT IN SEPTEMBER 
AND OCTOBER OF 2016, DONALD 
TRUMP, JR., HAD EMAIL 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH WIKILEAKS, 
NOW INDICTED, ABOUT RELEASING 
INFORMATION DAMAGING TO THE 
CLINTON CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? 
>>  TRUE. 
>> SO -- 
>>  TRUE. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
SO I UNDERSTAND YOU MADE A 
DECISION, PROSECUTORIAL 
DECISION THAT THIS WOULD NOT 
RISE TO PROOF BEYOND A 
REASONABLE DOUBT. 
BUT I ASK IF YOU SHARE MY 
CONCERN. 
AND MY CONCERN IS, HAVE WE 
ESTABLISHED A NEW NORMAL FROM 
THIS PAST CAMPAIGN THAT IS 
GOING TO APPLY TO FUTURE 
CAMPAIGNS SO THAT IF ANY ONE OF 
US RUNNING FOR THE U.S. HOUSE, 
ANY CANDIDATE FOR THE U.S. 
SENATE, ANY CANDIDATE FOR THE 
PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED  
STATES, AWARE THAT A HOSTILE 
FOREIGN POWER IS INFLUENCING 
ELECTION HAS NO DUTY TO REPORT 
THAT TO THE FBI OR OTHER 
AUTHORITIES? 
>> I HOPE THIS IS NOT THE NEW 
NORMAL. 
BUT I FEAR IT IS. 
>> AND HAVE WITHOUT FEAR OF 
LEGAL REPERCUSSION MEET WITH 
FOREIGN ENTITIES HOSTILE TO THE 
ELECTION?
>> WHAT'S THE QUESTION? 
>>  IS THAT AN APPREHENSION 
THAT YOU SHARE WITH ME? 
>>  YES. 
>> AND THAT THERE WOULD BE NO 
REPERCUSSIONS WHATSOEVER TO 
RUSSIA IF THEY DID THIS AGAIN 
AND AS YOU STATED EARLIER, AS 
WE SIT HERE, THEY'RE DOING IT 
NOW, IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. 
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE TO 
THIS CONGRESS AS TOGETHER WHAT 
WE SHOULD DO TO PROTECT OUR 
ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND ACCEPT 
RESPONSIBILITY ON OUR PART TO 
REPORT TO YOU OR YOUR SUCCESSOR 
WHEN WE'RE AWARE OF HOSTILE 
FOREIGN ENGAGEMENT IN OUR 
ELECTIONS? 
>>  I WOULD SAY THE BASIS -- 
FIRST -- UM, LINE OF DEFENSE 
REALLY IS, UM, THE ABILITY OF 
THE VARIOUS AGENCIES WHO HAVE 
SOME PIECE OF THIS, UM, TO NOT 
ONLY SHARE INFORMATION BUT 
SHARE EXPERTISE, SHARE TARGETS 
AND USE THE FULL RESOURCES THAT 
WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS  
PROBLEM. 
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER. 
I YIELD BACK. 
>> MR. MALONEY. 
>> THANKS. 
MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU. 
I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, 
AND I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR HOW 
MUCH RESPECTIVE FOR YOUR 
SERVICE AND FOR YOUR 
EXTRAORDINARY CAREER, AND I 
WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND MY 
QUESTIONS IN THAT CONTEXT, SIR. 
I'M GOING TO BE ASKING YOU 
ABOUT APPENDIX C TO YOUR  
REPORT. 
AND IN PARTICULAR, THE DECISION 
NOT TO DO A SWORN INTERVIEW 
WITH THE PRESIDENT. 
THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY SUBJECT 
I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT, 
SIR. 
WHY DIDN'T YOU SUBPOENA THE 
PRESIDENT? 
>>  WELL, AT THE OUTSET, AFTER 
WE TOOK OVER AND INITIATED THE 
INVESTIGATION -- 
>>  IF I COULD ASK YOU TO SPEAK 
INTO THE MICROPHONE. 
>> OF COURSE. 
AT THE OUTSET, AFTER WE TOOK 
OVER THE INVESTIGATION AND 
BEGAN AND PURSUED IT QUITE 
OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE THINGS WE 
ANTICIPATED WANTING TO 
ACCOMPLISH AND THAT IS GETTING 
-- HAVING THE INTERVIEW OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
WE NEGOTIATED FROM -- WITH HIM 
FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR, AND I 
THINK WHAT YOU ALLUDED TO IN 
THE APPENDIX LAYS OUT OUR 
EXPECTATIONS AS A RESULT OF 
THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. 
BUT FINALLY, WE WERE ALMOST 
TOWARDS THE END OF OUR 
INVESTIGATION AND WE HAD HAD 
LITTLE SUCCESS IN PUSHING TO 
GET THE INTERVIEW OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
WE DECIDED THAT WE DID NOT WANT 
TO EXERCISE THE SUBPOENA POWERS 
BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF 
EXPEDITING THE END OF THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
>> WAS THAT -- EXCUSE ME, DID 
YOU -- 
>>  I WAS GOING TO SAY THE 
EXPECTATION WAS IF WE DID 
SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT, HE 
WOULD FIGHT THE SUBPOENA AND WE 
WOULD BE IN THE MIDST OF THE 
INVESTIGATION FOR A SUBSTANTIAL 
PERIOD OF TIME. 
>> RIGHT. 
BUT AS WE SIT HERE, YOU HAVE 
NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK 
THE PRESIDENT IN PERSON 
QUESTIONS UNDER OATH AND SO 
OBVIOUSLY, THAT MUST HAVE BEEN 
A DIFFICULT DECISION. 
AND YOU'RE RIGHT, APPENDIX C 
LAYS THAT OUT AND I BELIEVE YOU 
DESCRIBED THE IN-PERSON 
INTERVIEW AS VITAL. 
THAT'S YOUR WORD. 
UM, AND, OF COURSE, YOU MADE 
CLEAR YOU HAD THE AUTHORITY AND 
THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO DO 
IT AS YOU POINT OUT. 
YOU WAITED A YEAR. 
YOU PUT UP WITH A LOT OF 
NEGOTIATIONS. 
YOU MADE NUMEROUS 
ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH YOU LAY 
OUT SO HE COULD PREPARE AND NOT 
BE SURPRISED. 
I TAKE IT YOU WERE TRYING TO BE 
FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT. 
AND BY THE WAY, YOU WERE GOING 
TO LIMIT THE QUESTIONS WHEN YOU 
GOT TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO 
RUSSIA ONLY. 
AND, IN FACT, YOU DID GO WITH 
WRITTEN QUESTIONS AFTER ABOUT 
NINE MONTHS, SIR, RIGHT? 
AND THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO 
THOSE AND YOU HAVE SOME HARD 
LANGUAGE FOR WHAT YOU THOUGHT 
OF THOSE RESPONSES. 
WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S WRITTEN RESPONSES, 
MR. MUELLER? 
>>  IT'S CERTAINLY NOT AS 
USEFUL AS THE INTERVIEW WOULD 
BE. 
>> IN FACT, YOU POINTED OUT -- 
AND BY MY ACCOUNT, THERE WERE 
MORE THAN 30 TIMES WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT SAID HE DIDN'T  
RECALL, HE DIDN'T REMEMBER, NO 
INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION, NO 
CURRENT RECOLLECTION, AND I 
TAKE IT BY YOUR ANSWER THAT IT 
WASN'T AS HELPFUL, UM, THAT'S 
WHY YOU USED WORDS LIKE 
INCOMPLETE, IMPRECISE, 
INADEQUATE, INSUFFICIENT, IS 
THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU 
THOUGHT OF THOSE WRITTEN 
ANSWERS? 
>> THAT IS A FAIR SUMMARY. 
AND I PRESUME THAT COMES FROM 
THE REPORT. 
>> YET, SIR, AND I ASK THIS 
RESPECTFULLY -- BY THE WAY, THE 
PRESIDENT DIDN'T EVER CLAIM THE 
FIFTH AMENDMENT, DID HE? 
>>  I'M NOT GOING TO TALK TO 
THAT. 
>> WELL FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, 
SIR, AT ONE POINT IT WAS VITAL 
AND AT ANOTHER POINT IT WASN'T 
VITAL. 
AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHY 
DID IT STOP BEING VITAL? 
I CAN ONLY THINK OF THREE 
EXPLANATION. 
ONE SOMEBODY TOLD YOU, YOU 
COULDN'T DO IT. 
BUT NOBODY TOLD YOU, YOU 
COULDN'T SUBPOENA THE  
PRESIDENT. 
>> NO, WE SUBPOENA THE 
PRESIDENT. 
WE COULD SERVE A SUBPOENA. 
>> THERE'S TWO OTHER 
EXPLANATIONS. 
ONE THAT YOU JUST FLINCHED. 
YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND 
DIDN'T DO IT. 
BUT YOU DON'T STRIKE ME AS THE 
KIND OF GUY WHO FLINCHES. 
>> I HOPE NOT. 
>> THEN THE THIRD EXPLANATION, 
I HOPE NOT,  TOO, SIR, AND THE 
THIRD EXPLANATION I CAN THINK 
OF IS THAT, YOU DIDN'T THINK 
YOU NEEDED IT. 
AND, IN FACT, WHAT CAUGHT MY I 
WAS PAGE 13 OF VOLUME 2 WHERE 
YOU SAID, IN FACT, YOU HAD A 
SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF EVIDENCE 
AND YOU CITE A BUNCH OF CASES 
THERE, DON'T YOU, ABOUT HOW YOU 
OFTEN HAVE TO PROVE INTENT TO 
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WITHOUT AN IN-
PERSON INTERVIEW. 
THAT'S THE KIND OF NATURE OF 
IT. 
AND YOU USED TERMS LIKE A 
SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF EVIDENCE, 
SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE, OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S INTENT. 
SO MY QUESTION, SIR, IS, DID 
YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF 
THE PRESIDENT'S INTENT TO 
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND IS THAT 
WHY YOU DIDN'T DO THE  
INTERVIEW? 
>> THERE'S A BALANCE. 
IN OTHER WORDS, HOW MUCH 
EVIDENCE YOU HAVE TO SATISFY 
THE LAST ELEMENT AGAINST HOW 
MUCH TIME ARE YOU WILLING TO 
SPEND IN THE COURTS LITIGATING 
A, UM, THE, UM, INTERVIEW WITH 
THE PRESIDENT. 
>> IN THIS CASE, YOU FELT THAT 
YOU HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S INTENT? 
>> WE HAD TO MAKE A BALANCED 
DECISION IN TERMS OF, UM, UM, 
HOW MUCH EVIDENCE WE HAD 
COMPARED TO THE LENGTH OF TIME 
IT WOULD TAKE -- 
>>  SIR, BECAUSE I HAVE LIMITED 
TIME YOU THOUGHT IF YOU GAVE IT 
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR THIS 
CONGRESS THAT THERE WAS 
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS 
BETTER THAN THAT DELAY? 
>> OKAY, STATE THAT AGAIN? 
>> THAT IT WAS BETTER THAN THE 
DELAY TO PRESENT THIS 
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, YOUR TERM, 
OF THE PRESIDENT'S INTENTS TO 
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE TO THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THIS 
COMMITTEE, ISN'T THAT WHY YOU 
DIDN'T DO THE INTERVIEW? 
>>  NO. 
THE REASON WE DIDN'T DO THE 
INTERVIEW IS BECAUSE OF THE 
LENGTH OF TIME THAT IT WOULD 
TAKE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES 
ATTENDANT TO THAT. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR. 
>>> MISS DEMINGS. 
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH,  MR. 
CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR MUELLER, 
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING A 
PERSON OF HONOR AND INTEGRITY. 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO 
THE NATION. 
WE ARE CERTAINLY BETTER FOR IT. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, I TOO WANT TO 
FOCUS ON THE WRITTEN RESPONSES 
THAT THE PRESIDENT DID PROVIDE 
AND THE CONTINUED EFFORT TO LIE 
AND COVER UP WHAT HAPPENED 
DURING THE 2016 ELECTION. 
WERE THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWERS 
SUBMITTED UNDER OATH? 
>> YES. 
YES. 
>> THANK YOU. 
THEY WERE. 
WERE THESE ALL THE ANSWERS YOUR 
OFFICE WANTED TO ASK THE 
PRESIDENT ABOUT RUSSIA 
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 
ELECTION? 
>> NO, NOT NECESSARILY. 
>> SO THERE WERE OTHERS? 
>>  YES. 
>> QUESTIONS THAT YOU WANTED TO 
ANSWER. 
DID YOU ANALYZE HIS WRITTEN 
ANSWERS ON RUSSIA INTERFERENCE 
OR DRAW CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT'S CREDIBILITY? 
>> NO. 
IT WAS PERHAPS ONE OF THE 
FACTORS, BUT NOTHING MORE THAN 
THAT. 
>> IT WAS ONE OF THE FACTORS. 
SO WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE ABOUT 
THE PRESIDENT'S CREDIBILITY? 
>> THAT I CAN'T GET INTO. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I KNOW 
BASED ON YOUR DECADES OF 
EXPERIENCE, YOU PROBABLY HAD AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, ANALYZE THE 
CREDIBILITY OF COUNTLESS 
WITNESSES. 
BUT YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO DO SO 
WITH THIS WITNESS? 
>> EVERY WITNESS PARTICULARLY A 
READING WITNESS ONE ASSESSES 
THE CREDIBILITY DAY BY DAY, 
WITNESS BY WITNESS, DOCUMENT BY 
DOCUMENT. 
AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN 
THIS CASE. 
SO WE STARTED WITH VERY LITTLE 
AND BY THE END WE ENDED UP WITH 
A FAIR AMOUNT. 
YEAH. 
A FAIR AMOUNT. 
>> THANK YOU. 
LET'S GO THROUGH SOME OF THE 
ANSWERS TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK 
AT HIS CREDIBILITY BECAUSE IT 
SEEMS TO ME, DIRECTOR MUELLER, 
THAT HIS ANSWERS WERE NOT 
CREDIBLE AT ALL. 
DID SOME OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 
INCOMPLETE ANSWERS RELATE TO 
TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW? 
>>  YES. 
>> FOR EXAMPLE, DID YOU ASK THE 
PRESIDENT WHETHER HE HAD HAD AT 
ANY TIME DIRECTED OR SUGGESTED 
THAT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT TRUMP 
MOSCOW PROJECT SHOULD CEASE? 
>>  SAID WHAT? 
>> CEASE. 
>> DO YOU HAVE A CITATION? 
>> YES. 
WE ARE STILL IN APPENDIX C, 
SECTION 1-7. 
>> FIRST PAGE? 
>> MM-HM. 
THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ANSWER 
WHETHER HE HAD AT ANY TIME 
DIRECTED OR SUGGESTED THAT 
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE TRUMP 
MOSCOW PROJECT CEASED BUT HE 
HAS SINCE MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS 
ABOUT THIS TOPIC. 
>> OKAY. 
AND THE QUESTION WAS? 
>> DID THE PRESIDENT -- LET ME 
GO TO THE NEXT ONE. 
DID THE PRESIDENT FULLY ANSWER 
THAT QUESTION IN HIS WRITTEN 
STATEMENT TO YOU ABOUT THE 
PRESIDENT TRUMP MOSCOW PROJECT 
CEASING? 
AGAIN, IN APPENDIX C. 
>> AND CAN YOU DIRECT ME TO  
THE, UM, PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH 
YOU'RE AVERTING TO? 
>>  IT WOULD BE APPENDIX C-C-1. 
BUT LET ME MOVE FORWARD. 
NINE DAYS AFTER HE SUBMITTED 
WRITTEN ANSWERS DIDN'T THE 
PRESIDENT SAY PUBLICLY THAT HE, 
QUOTE, DECIDED NOT TO DO THE 
PROJECT, UNQUOTE? 
AND THAT IS IN YOUR -- 
>>  UM -- 
>>  -- REPORT. 
>> UM -- I'D ASK YOU IF YOU 
WOULD TO POINT OUT THE, UM, THE 
PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH THAT 
YOU'RE FOCUSED ON. 
>> WE CAN MOVE ON. 
DID THE PRESIDENT ANSWER YOUR 
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS -- 
ACCORDING TO THE THE REPORT 
THERE WERE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS 
BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S 
INCOMPLETE ANSWERS ABOUT THE 
MOSCOW PROJECT. 
DID THE PRESIDENT ANSWER YOUR 
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS EITHER IN 
WRITING OR ORALLY? 
AND WE'RE NOW IN VOLUME 2, PAGE 
150 THROUGH 151. 
>> NO. 
>> HE DID NOT. 
AND, IN FACT, THERE WERE MANY 
QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED THE 
PRESIDENT THAT HE SIMPLY DIDN'T 
ANSWER. 
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> AND THERE WERE MANY ANSWERS 
THAT CONTRADICTED OTHER 
EVIDENCE YOU HAD GATHERED 
DURING THE INVESTIGATION, ISN'T 
THAT CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER? 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, FOR EXAMPLE, 
THE PRESIDENT HAS WRITTEN 
ANSWERS STATED HE DID NOT 
RECALL HAVING ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE 
OF WIKILEAKS' RELEASE. 
IS THAT CORRECT? 
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. 
>> BUT DIDN'T YOUR 
INVESTIGATION UNCOVER EVIDENCE 
THAT THE PRESIDENT DID IN FACT 
HAVE ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF 
WIKILEAKS' PUBLIC RELEASES OF 
EMAILS DAMAGING TO HIS  
OPPONENT? 
>>  I CAN'T GET INTO THAT AREA. 
>> DID YOUR INVESTIGATION 
DETERMINE AFTER VERY CAREFUL 
VETTING OF RICK GATES AND 
MICHAEL COHEN, THAT YOU FOUND 
THEM TO BE CREDIBLE? 
>>  THAT WE FOUND THE PRESIDENT 
TO BE CREDIBLE? 
>> THAT YOU FOUND GATES AND 
COHEN TO BE CREDIBLE IN THEIR 
STATEMENTS ABOUT WIKILEAKS? 
>> THOSE AREAS I'M NOT GOING TO 
DISCUSS. 
>> OKAY. 
COULD YOU SAY, DIRECTOR  
MUELLER, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS 
CREDIBLE? 
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT  
QUESTION. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, ISN'T IT 
FAIR TO SAY THAT THE  
PRESIDENT'S WRITTEN ANSWERS 
WERE NOT ONLY INADEQUATE AND 
INCOMPLETE, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T 
ANSWER MANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS, 
BUT WHERE HE DID, HIS ANSWERS 
SHOWED THAT HE WASN'T ALWAYS 
BEING TRUTHFUL? 
>> I WOULD SAY, UM, GENERALLY. 
>> GENERALLY. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, IT'S ONE 
THING FOR THE PRESIDENT TO LIE 
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT 
YOUR INVESTIGATION, FALSELY 
CLAIMING THAT YOU FOUND NO 
COLLUSION AND NO OBSTRUCTION. 
BUT IT'S SOMETHING ELSE 
ALTOGETHER FOR HIM TO GET AWAY 
WITH NOT ANSWERING YOUR 
QUESTIONS AND LYING ABOUT THEM 
AND AS A FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT 
OFFICER OF ALMOST 30 YEARS, I 
FIND THAT A DISGRACE TO OUR 
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. 
THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. 
>> MR. MURPHY. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU 
FOR YOUR DEVOTED SERVICE TO 
YOUR COUNTRY. 
EARLIER TODAY, YOU DESCRIBED 
YOUR REPORT AS DETAILING A 
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. 
CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
YES. 
>> DIRECTOR, SINCE IT WAS 
OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF YOUR 
INVESTIGATION, YOUR REPORT DID 
NOT REACH COUNTERINTELLIGENCE 
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE 
SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR REPORT. 
>> THAT'S TRUE. 
>> FOR INSTANC, SINCE IT WAS 
OUTSIDE YOUR PURVIEW, YOUR 
REPORT DID NOT REACH 
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CONCLUSIONS 
REGARDING ANY TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO 
MIGHT POTENTIALLY BE VULNERABLE 
TO COMPROMISE OR BLACKMAIL BY 
RUSSIA, CORRECT? 
>>  THOSE DECISIONS PROBABLY 
WERE MADE IN THE FBI. 
>> BUT NOT IN YOUR REPORT, 
CORRECT? 
>>  NOT IN OUR REPORT. 
WE AVERT TO THE, UM, THE 
COUNTER -- THE 
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, UM, GOALS 
OF OUR INVESTIGATION, WHICH 
WERE SECONDARY TO ANY CRIMINAL 
WRONGDOING THAT WE COULD FIND. 
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT ONE 
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL IN 
PARTICULAR NAMELY PRESIDENT 
DONALD TRUMP. 
OTHER THAN TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW, 
YOUR REPORT DOES NOT ADDRESS OR 
DETAIL THE PRESIDENT'S 
FINANCIAL TIES OR DEALINGS WITH 
RUSSIA, CORRECT? 
>>  CORRECT. 
>> SIMILARLY, SINCE IT WAS 
OUTSIDE YOUR PURVIEW, YOUR 
REPORT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE 
QUESTION OF WHETHER RUSSIAN 
OLIGARCHS ENGAGED IN MONEY 
LAUNDERING THROUGH ANY OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S BUSINESSES,  
CORRECT? 
>> CORRECT. 
>> AND, OF COURSE, YOUR OFFICE 
DID NOT OBTAIN THE PRESIDENT'S 
TAX RETURNS, WHICH COULD 
OTHERWISE SHOW FOREIGN 
FINANCIAL SOURCES, CORRECT? 
>>  I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO 
THAT. 
I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
>> IN JULY 2017, THE PRESIDENT 
SAID HIS PERSONAL FINANCES WERE 
OFF LIMITS OR OUTSIDE THE 
PURVIEW OF YOUR INVESTIGATION. 
AND HE DREW A QUOTE, UNQUOTE 
RED LINE AROUND HIS PERSONAL 
FINANCES. 
WERE THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL 
FINANCES OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF 
YOUR INVESTIGATION? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO 
THAT. 
>> WERE YOU INSTRUCTED BY 
ANYONE NOT TO INVESTIGATE THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL FINANCES? 
>> NO. 
>> MR. MUELLER, I'D LIKE TO 
TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO 
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE RISKS 
ASSOCIATED WITH LYING. 
INDIVIDUALS CAN BE SUBJECT TO 
BLACKMAIL IF THEY LIE ABOUT 
THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH FOREIGN 
COUNTRIES, CORRECT? 
>>  TRUE. 
>> FOR EXAMPLE, YOU 
SUCCESSFULLY CHARGED FORMER 
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER 
MICHAEL FLYNN OF LYING TO 
FEDERAL AGENTS ABOUT HIS 
CONVERSATIONS WITH RUSSIAN 
OFFICIAL, CORRECT? 
>>  CORRECT. 
>> SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE THE 
PURVIEW OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, 
YOUR REPORT DID NOT ADDRESS HOW 
FLYNN'S FALSE STATEMENTS COULD 
POSE A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK 
BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS KNEW THE 
FALSITY OF THOSE STATEMENTS, 
RIGHT? 
>>  I CANNOT GET INTO THAT 
MAINLY BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY 
ELEMENTS AT THE FBI THAT ARE 
LOOKING AT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF 
THAT ISSUE. 
>> CURRENTLY? 
>>  CURRENTLY. 
>> THANK YOU. 
AS YOU NOTED IN VOLUME 2 OF 
YOUR REPORT, DONALD TRUMP 
REPEATED FIVE TIMES IN ONE 
PRESS CONFERENCE, MR. MUELLER, 
IN 2016, QUOTE, I HAVE NOTHING 
TO DO WITH RUSSIA. 
OF COURSE, MICHAEL COHEN SAID 
DONALD TRUMP WAS NOT BEING 
TRUTHFUL BECAUSE AT THIS TIME, 
TRUMP WAS ATTEMPTING TO BUILD 
TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW. 
YOUR REPORT DOES NOT ADDRESS 
WHETHER DONALD TRUMP WAS 
COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY BECAUSE 
OF ANY POTENTIAL FALSE 
STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE ABOUT 
TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW. 
CORRECT? 
>>  THAT'S RIGHT. 
I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WANT TO 
TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO A COUPLE 
OTHER ISSUES. 
YOU'VE SERVED AS FBI DIRECTOR 
DURING THREE PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTIONS, CORRECT? 
>>  YES. 
>> AND DURING THOSE THREE 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, YOU 
HAVE NEVER INITIATED AN 
INVESTIGATION AT THE FBI 
LOOKING INTO WHETHER A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN OUR 
ELECTIONS THE SAME WAY YOU DID 
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, 
CORRECT? 
>>  I WOULD SAY I PERSONALLY, 
NO. 
BUT THE FBI QUITE OBVIOUSLY HAS 
THE -- DEFENSE AND ATTACKS SUCH 
AS THE RUSSIANS UNDERTOOK IN 
2016. 
>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, IS THERE 
ANY INFORMATION YOU WOULD LIKE 
TO SHARE WITH THIS COMMITTEE 
THAT YOU HAVE NOT SO FAR TODAY? 
>>  THAT'S A BROAD QUESTION. 
AND IT WOULD TAKE ME A WHILE TO 
GET AN ANSWER TO IT, BUT I 
WOULD SAY NO. 
>> UM, MR. MUELLER, UM, YOU 
SAID THAT EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD 
PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE 
SYSTEMIC AND SWEEPING FASHION 
IN WHICH THE RUSSIANS 
INTERFERED IN OUR DEMOCRACY. 
ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT WE ARE 
NOT DOING ENOUGH CURRENTLY TO 
PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING 
AGAIN? 
>> I'LL SPEAK GENERALLY. 
WHAT I SAID IN MY OPENING 
STATEMENT THIS MORNING, AND 
HERE, THAT NO, MUCH MORE NEEDS 
TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO PROTECT 
AGAINST THIS INTRUSION NOT JUST 
BY THE RUSSIANS BUT OTHERS, AS 
WELL. 
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. 
>> TWO FIVE-MINUTE PERIODS 
REMAINING. 
MR. NUNEZ AND MYSELF. 
MR. NUNEZ, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. 
>> MR. MUELLER, IT'S BEEN A 
LONG DAY FOR YOU. AND YOU HAVE 
HAD A LONG GREAT CAREER. 
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
LONG-TIME SERVICE STARTING IN 
VIETNAM, OBVIOUSLY IN THE U.S. 
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE, AND THE FBI. 
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR 
DOING SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T HAVE 
TO DO. 
YOU CAME HERE UPON YOUR OWN 
FREE WILL AND WE APPRECIATE 
YOUR TIME TODAY. 
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. 
>> THANK YOU, SIR. 
MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO CLOSE OUT
MY QUESTIONS, TURN TO SOME OF 
THE EXCHANGE YOU HAD WITH MR. 
WELSH A BIT EARLIER. 
I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN 
BROADEN THE APERTURE AT THE END 
OF THE HEARING. 
FROM YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY, I 
GATHER THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT 
KNOWINGLY ACCEPTING FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE DURING A 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IS AN  
UNETHICAL THING TO DO. 
>> AND A CRIME. 
>> AND A CRIME DEPENDING ON THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES. 
A CRIME UNDER GIVEN 
CIRCUMSTANCES. 
>> TO THE DEGREE THAT IT 
UNDERMINES OUR DEMOCRACY AND 
OUR INSTITUTIONS, WE CAN AGREE 
THAT IT'S ALSO UNPATRIOTIC. 
>> TRUE. 
>> AND WRONG. 
>> TRUE. 
>> THE STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR FOR 
A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OR ANY 
CANDIDATE, FOR THAT MATTER, 
SHOULDN'T BE MERELY WHETHER 
SOMETHING IS CRIMINAL. 
IT SHOULD BE HELD TO A HIGHER 
STANDARD, YOU WOULD AGREE? 
>>  I WILL NOT GET INTO THAT 
BECAUSE IT GOES TO THE 
STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED BY 
OTHER INSTITUTIONS BESIDES  
OURS. 
>> I'M JUST REFERRING TO 
ETHICAL STANDARDS. 
WE SHOULD HOLD OUR -- 
>>  ABSOLUTELY. 
>> -- ELECTED OFFICIALS TO A 
STANDARDS HIGHER THAN MERE 
AVOIDANCE OF CRIMINALITY, 
SHOULDN'T WE? 
>>  ABSOLUTELY. 
>> YOU HAVE SERVED THIS COUNTRY 
FOR DECADES. 
YOU HAVE TAKEN AN OATH TO 
DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. 
YOU HOLD YOURSELF TO A 
STANDARDS OF DOING WHAT'S  
RIGHT. 
>> I WOULD HOPE. 
>> YOU HAVE. 
I THINK WE CAN ALL SEE THAT. 
AND BEFITTING THE TIMES, I'M 
SURE YOUR REWARD WILL BE  
UNENDING CRITICISM. 
BUT WE ARE GRATEFUL. 
THE NEED TO ACT IN AN ETHICAL 
MANNER IS NOT JUST A MORAL ONE 
BUT WHEN PEOPLE ACT  
UNETHICALLY, IT ALSO EXPOSES 
THEM TO COMPROMISE PARTICULARLY 
IN DEALING WITH FOREIGN POWERS. 
IS THAT TRUE? 
>>  TRUE. 
>> BECAUSE WHEN SOMEONE ACTS  
UNETHICALLY IN CONNECTION WITH 
A FOREIGN PARTNER, THAT FOREIGN 
PARTNER CAN LATER EXPOSE THEIR 
WRONGDOING AND EXTORT THEM. 
>> TRUE. 
>> AND THAT CONDUCT THAT  
UNETHICAL CONDUCT CAN BE OF A 
FINANCIAL NATURE, IF YOU HAVE A 
FINANCIAL MOTIVE OR AN ILLICIT 
úDEALING, RIGHT? 
>>  RIGHT. 
>> BUT DECEPTION, IF YOU ARE 
LYING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT CAN 
BE EXPOSED, THEN YOU CAN BE 
BLACKMAILED. 
>> ALSO TRUE. 
>> IN THE CASE OF MICHAEL 
FLYNN, HE WAS SECRETLY DOING 
BUSINESS WITH TURKEY. 
CORRECT? 
>> YES. 
>> AND THAT COULD OPEN HIM UP 
TO COMPROMISE, THAT FINANCIAL 
RELATIONSHIP? 
>> I PRESUME. 
>> HE ALSO LIED ABOUT HIS 
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE RUSSIAN 
AMBASSADOR AND SINCE THE 
RUSSIANS WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE 
OF THE CONVERSATION, THEY COULD 
HAVE EXPOSED THAT, COULD THEY 
NOT? 
>>  YES. 
>> IF A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 
WAS DOING BUSINESS IN RUSSIA 
AND SAYING HE WASN'T, RUSSIANS 
COULD EXPOSE THAT,  TOO, COULD 
THEY NOT? 
>>  I LEAVE THAT TO YOU. 
>> WELL, LET'S LOOK AT DIMITRI 
PESKOOV. 
MICHAEL COHEN HAD A PHONE 
CONVERSATION WITH HIM. 
PRESUMABLY THE RUSSIANS COULD 
RECORD THAT? 
>>  YES. 
>> IF TRUMP WAS SAYING I HAD NO 
DEALINGS WITH THE RUSSIANS THEY 
COULD EXPOSE THAT, COULD THEY 
NOT WITH THE TAPE RECORDINGS. 
>> YES. 
>> THAT'S THE STUFF OF COUNTER 
INTELLIGENCE NIGHTMARES, IS  
NOT? 
>>  WELL, IT HAS TO DO WITH 
COUNTER INTELLIGENCE AND THE 
NEED FOR STRONG COUNTER 
INTELLIGENCE ENTITY. 
>> IT DOES INDEED. 
AND WHEN THIS WAS REVEALED THAT 
THERE WERE THESE COMMUNICATIONS 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRESIDENT'S 
DENIALS, THE PRESIDENT WAS 
CONFRONTED ABOUT THIS AND HE 
SAID TWO THINGS. 
FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S NOT A 
CRIME. 
BUT I THINK YOU AND I HAVE 
ALREADY AGREED THAT THAT 
SHOULDN'T BE THE STANDARD, 
RIGHT, MR. MUELLER? 
>> TRUE. 
>> THE SECOND THING HE SAID  
WAS, WHY SHOULD I MISS OUT ON 
ALL THOSE OPPORTUNITIES? 
I MEAN, WHY INDEED? 
MERELY RUNNING A PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN, WHY SHOULD YOU MISS 
OUT ON MAKING ALL THAT MONEY? 
WAS THE IMPORT OF HIS  
STATEMENT. 
WERE YOU EVER ABLE TO ASCERTAIN 
WHETHER DONALD TRUMP STILL 
INTENDS TO BUILD THAT TOWER 
WHEN HE LEAVES OFFICE? 
>> IS THAT A QUESTION, SIR? 
>> YES. 
WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN, 
BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T ANSWER YOUR 
QUESTIONS COMPLETELY, WHETHER 
OR IF HE EVER ENDED THAT DESIRE 
TO BUILD THAT TOWER? 
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE 
ON THAT. 
>> IF THE PRESIDENT WAS 
CONCERNED THAT IF HE LOST HIS 
ELECTION, HE DIDN'T WANT TO 
MISS OUT ON THAT MONEY, MIGHT 
HE HAVE THE SAME CONCERN ABOUT 
LOSING HIS RE-ELECTION -- 
>>  AGAIN, SPECULATION. 
>> THE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS, OF 
COURSE, IS WE ARE ALL LEFT TO 
WONDER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS 
REPRESENTING US OR HIS 
FINANCIAL INTERESTS. 
THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS. 
DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCLUDING 
REMARKS? 
>> DIRECTOR MULL MUELLER LET ME 
CLOSE BY RETURNING TO WHERE I 
BEGAN. 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND 
THANK YOU FOR LEADING THIS 
INVESTIGATION. 
THE FACTS YOU SET OUT IN YOUR 
REPORT AND HAVE ELUCIDATED HERE 
TODAY TELL A DISTURBING TALE OF 
A MASSIVE RUSSIAN INTERVENTION 
IN OUR ELECTION, OF A CAMPAIGN 
SO EAGER TO WIN SO DRIVEN BY 
GREED THAT IT WAS WILLING TO 
ACCEPT THE HELP OF A HOSTILE 
FOREIGN POWER, AND A 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DECIDED 
BY A HANDFUL OF VOTES IN A FEW 
KEY STATES. 
YOUR WORK TELLS OF A CAMPAIGN 
SO DETERMINED TO CONCEAL THEIR 
CORRUPT USE OF FOREIGN HELP 
THAT THEY RISKED GOING TO JAIL 
BY LYING TO YOU, TO THE FBI AND 
TO CONGRESS ABOUT IT AND INDEED 
SOME HAVE GONE TO JAIL OVER 
SUCH LIES. 
AND YOUR WORK SPEAKS OF A 
PRESIDENT WHO COMMITTED 
COUNTLESS ACTION OF OBSTRUCTION 
OF OPINION THAT IN MY OPINION 
AND OF THAT MANY OTHER 
PROSECUTORS HAD IT BEEN ANYONE 
ELSE IN THE COUNTRY, THEY WOULD 
HAVE BEEN INDICTED. 
NOTWITHSTANDING THE MANY THINGS 
YOU HAVE ADDRESSED TODAY AND IN 
YOUR REPORT, THERE WERE SOME 
QUESTIONS YOU COULD NOT ANSWER 
GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS YOU'RE 
OPERATING UNDER. 
YOU WOULD NOT TELL US WHETHER 
YOU WOULD HAVE INDICTED THE 
PRESIDENT BUT FOR THE OLC 
OPINION THAT YOU COULD NOT. 
AND SO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
WILL HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION 
WHEN THE PRESIDENT LEAVES 
OFFICE. 
BOTH AS TO THE CRIME OF 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND AS 
TO THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAUD 
SCHEME, THAT INDIVIDUAL ONE 
DIRECTED AND COORDINATED AND 
FOR WHICH MICHAEL COHEN WENT TO 
JAIL. 
YOU WOULD NOT TELL US WHETHER 
THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE 
IMPEACHED NOR DID WE ASK YOU 
SINCE IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY 
TO DETERMINE THE PROPER REMEDY 
FOR THE CONDUCT OUTLINED IN 
YOUR REPORT. 
WHETHER WE DECIDE TO IMPEACH 
THE PRESIDENT IN THE HOUSE OR 
WE DO NOT, WE MUST TAKE ANY 
ACTION NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE 
COUNTRY WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE. 
YOU WOULD NOT TELL US THE 
RESULTS OR WHETHER OTHER BODIES 
LOOKED INTO RUSSIAN COMPROMISE 
IN THE FORM OF MONEY  
LAUNDERING, SO WE MUST DO SO. 
YOU WOULD NOT TELL US WHETHER 
THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE 
INVESTIGATION TOLD US WHETHER 
PEOPLE STILL SERVING IN THE 
ADMINISTRATION POSE A 
COMPROMISE AND SHOULDN'T BE 
GIVEN A SECURITY CLEARANCE SO 
WE MISS IF YOU FIND OUT. 
WE DIDN'T FIND OUT IF ANY GULF 
NATIONS WERE INFLUENCING U.S. 
POLICY SINCE IT IS OUTSIDE THE 
REPORT AND SO WE MUST FIND OUT. 
BUT ONE THING IS CLEAR FROM 
YOUR REPORT, YOUR TESTIMONY, 
FROM DIRECTOR RAY'S STATEMENTS 
YESTERDAY, THE RUSSIANS 
MASSIVELY INTERVENED IN 2016 
AND THEY ARE PREPARED TO DO SO 
AGAIN IN VOTING THAT IS SET TO 
BEGIN A MERE EIGHT MONTHS FROM 
NOW. 
THE PRESIDENT SEEMS TO WELCOME 
THE HELP AGAIN AND SO WE MUST 
MAKE ALL EFFORTS TO HARDEN OUR 
ELECTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE, TO 
ENSURE THERE IS A PAPER TRAIL 
FOR ALL VOTING, TO DETER THE 
RUSSIANS FROM MEDDLING TO 
DISCOVER IT WHEN THEY DO, TO 
DISRUPT IT AND TO MAKE THEM 
PAY. 
PROTECTING THE SANCTITY OF OUR 
ELECTIONS BEGINS WITH THE 
RECOGNITION THAT ACCEPTING 
FOREIGN HELP IS DISLOYAL TO OUR 
COUNTRY, UNETHICAL AND WRONG. 
WE CANNOT CONTROL WHAT THE 
RUSSIANS DO, NOT COMPLETELY. 
BUT WE CAN DECIDE WHAT WE DO. 
AND THAT THE CENTURIES OLD 
EXPERIMENT WE CALL AMERICAN 
DEMOCRACY IS WORTH CHERISHING. 
DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU 
AGAIN FOR BEING HERE TODAY. 
AND BEFORE I ADJOURN, I WOULD 
LIKE TO EXCUSE YOU AND  MR.
ZEBLEY. 
EVERYONE ELSE, PLEASE REMAIN 
SEATED. 
>> Woodruff: AND THAT WRAPS ASS.
EVERYONE ELSE REMAIN 
>> AN INCREDIBLE DAY OF 
HEARINGS ON CAPITOL HILL. 
THE 74-YEAR-OLD ROBERT MUELLER, 
THE SECOND LONGEST SERVING FBI 
DIRECTOR WRAPPING UP HIS  
CAREER. 
THIS WAS ALMOST SIX HOURS 
BETWEEN TWO COMMITTEES. 
WE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL. 
NOT ONLY ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE 
REPORT AND SOME AROUND THE 
EDGES BUT CERTAINLY MUELLER 
TRIED TO KEEP IT TIGHT WITH HIS 
ANSWERS, SOMETIMES WITH YES, NO 
ANSWERS. 
LET'S GET THROUGH WHAT WE DID 
LEARN. 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS ASKED, 
CAN THE PRESIDENT BE PROSECUTED 
WHEN HE IS OUT OF OFFICE? 
HE ANSWERED YES. 
HE SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS 
NOT BEEN EXONERATED BY THIS 
PARTICULAR REPORT. 
HE WAS ALSO ASKED ABOUT THE 
POLITICAL NATURE OF THIS. 
AND WE HEARD ROBERT MUELLER SAY 
THIS IS NOT A WITCH HUNT. 
AND WE HEARD HIM EXPLAIN WHY HE 
DID NOT SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES. 
WHERE DOES THIS NOW LEAVE 
CONGRESS? 
>> WITH A COUPLE OF FORMIDABLE 
QUESTIONS TO ANSWER. 
FIRST OF ALL, IS LACK OF 
CRIMINALITY THE ONLY STANDARD 
WE APPLY TO AN AMERICAN 
PRESIDENT? 
RELATED TO THAT IS THE 
DISCUSSION WE JUST SAW IN THE 
LAST PART OF THIS HEARING, WHAT 
IS THE NEW NORMAL? 
IS IT A NEW NORMAL IN AMERICA 
FOR POLITICAL ACTORS, MEMBERS 
OF CONGRESS SEEKING  RE-
ELECTION, SENATORS,  GOVERNORS, 
PRESIDENTS, TO ACCEPT DIRT OR 
COMPROMISING INFORMATION FROM A 
HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER? 
ROBERT MUELLER SAID I HOPE IT 
ISN'T BUT I FEAR IT MIGHT BE. 
>> THAT IT'S THE NEW NORMAL. 
>> IS THIS THE NEW NORMAL? 
WHAT AR WE WILLING TO ACCEPT 
IN THIS COUNTRY AS STANDARDS 
FOR THE PRESIDENT, STANDARDS 
FOR THOSE WHO CAMPAIGN FOR HIGH 
OFFICE, AND WHO WIN HIGH  
OFFICE? 
GUESS WHAT? 
THE CONGRESS IS A PLACE TO 
DEBATE THAT. 
AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS THE 
ULTIMATE ARBITER. 
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE MOST 
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS LAID 
BEFORE THE COUNTRY AFTER THE 
END OF THE DAY'S HEARING. 
>> WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD 
HAVE BEEN SUBPOENAED BY ROBERT 
MUELLER? 
>> THAT WAS A REALLY 
INTERESTING EXCHANGE. 
WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS 
SOMETHING HAVING TO DO WITH 
DELAY AND THAT HE WANTED TO 
WRAP UP THE INVESTIGATION 
EXPEDITIOUSLY. 
BUT THEN THE QUESTIONING 
SHIFTED TO WHAT HE CALLED A 
BALANCING AND THE QUESTION WAS, 
LISTEN, IF THIS WAS SUCH A 
VITAL WITNESS, WHY DIDN'T YOU 
CALL THAT PERSON? 
YOU MUST HAVE ASSUMED, YOU HAD 
ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF INTENT. 
AND HE SORT OF HEDGED ON THAT 
AND ESSENTIALLY HE SAID, WELL, 
YEAH, WE DID ESSENTIALLY STRIKE 
THAT BALANCE THAT WE HAD ENOUGH 
-- IT WASN'T WORTH WAITING. 
WHEN I SAY WAITING, THERE WOULD 
HAVE BEEN A CHALLENGE TO THE 
SUBPOENA. 
IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE 
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, PROBABLY 
TO THE SUPREME COURT. 
EVEN IN AN EXPEDITED MANNER IT 
WOULD HAVE BEEN MONTHS. 
>> SEAN MALONEY ASKING THOSE 
SERIES OF QUESTIONS FROM NEW 
YORK WAS TRYING TO LEAD ROBERT 
MUELLER ALL THE WAY UP TO THE 
POINT OF SAYING, YEAH WE HAD 
ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND DIDN'T NEED 
THAT. 
MUELLER DETECTED THAT AND SAID 
HOLD ON, IT WAS A TIME ELEMENT. 
BUT I WILL TELL YOU THIS. 
THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS LONG 
BELIEVED IF HE HAD BEEN 
SUBPOENAED NOT ONLY WOULD -- 
THEY BELIEVE THEY WOULD HAVE 
PREVAILED IN COURT BECAUSE OF 
UNDERLYING COMPLICATED CASE LAW 
ABOUT THIS. 
THEY BELIEVED IN THE 
PREPONDERANCE OF THIS WAS ON 
THEIR SIDE AND THE SUBPOENA 
FIGHT WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST BY 
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE SO 
I ALSO -- 
>>  PAULA REID -- 
>>  LOST BY THE SPECIAL  
COUNSEL. 
THE LAWYERS BELIEF THEY WOULD 
HAVE PREVAILED. 
>> I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT AFTER 
NIXON AND CLINTON THAT THERE 
WERE SOME PRETTY GOOD PRECEDENT 
FOR ACTUALLY RESPONDING TO 
SUBPOENAS. 
PAULA REID IS AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE. 
WE KNOW FROM THE PRESIDENT'S 
ACTIONS AS WELL AS READING THIS 
REPORT THAT HE HAS BEEN  
OBSESSED WITH THIS 
INVESTIGATION. 
HOW DID THE PRESIDENT SPEND HIS 
DAY TODAY? 
>> Reporter: THIS HAS BEEN VERY 
FRUSTRATING NORTH PRESIDENT. 
THIS LOOMED OVER HIS WHITE 
HOUSE OVER ANYTHING HE 
PERCEIVES AS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT 
PRETTY MUCH SINCE THE BEGINNING 
OF HIS PRESIDENCY. 
HE WAS WATCHING AT LEAST SOME 
ON TV AND OCCASIONALLY WEIGHING 
IN ON TWITTER. 
IN FACT, AT THE BEGINNING OF 
THIS PHASE OF THE HEARING, HE 
TWEETED A THANKS TO DEMOCRATS 
FOR THROWING THIS HEARING. 
HE CALLED IT AN EMBARRASSMENT 
TO THE COUNTRY OF. 
SO FAR, NORAH, IT APPEARS THAT 
HE IS REALLY MONITORING WHAT'S 
GOING ON, ON 2013. 
HE IS RETWEETING A LOT OF 
REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS' ACCOUNTS, 
HIGHLIGHTING THEIR EXCHANGES 
WITH MUELLER. 
TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT QUESTIONS 
OF THE ORIGINS OF THE 
INVESTIGATION. 
AND IN A SHORT TIME THE 
PRESIDENT WILL LEAVE FOR AN 
EVENT IN WEST VIRGINIA, WHERE 
HE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
TALK TO REPORTERS AND THE FACT 
THAT HE HASN'T SAID TOO MUCH 
TODAY SUGGESTS HE WILL TAKE 
THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
>> WE ARE STILL -- THE AMERICAN 
PUBLIC AND AUDIENCE GOT AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN MORE OF 
WHAT WAS IN THIS REPORT IF THEY 
HAVE NOT READ IT. 
WE'RE STILL AT AN IMPASSE IN 
TERMS OF A SOLUTION BECAUSE 
THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE WHILE 
HE IS STILL IN OFFICE ANY 
CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE 
PRESIDENT. 
AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, 
WHETHER THIS MOVED THE NEEDLE 
IN TERMS OF THE POLITICAL 
SOLUTION WHICH WOULD BE 
IMPEACHMENT. 
>> I THINK IT MOVED THE NEEDLE 
BUT NOT THE WAY THE DEMOCRATS 
WANTED IT QUITE FRANKLY. 
NOTHING IN TODAY'S HEARING IS 
GOING TO CHANGE MINDS. 
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LEAVE WITH 
THE SAME PEOPLE THEY CAME TO 
THIS PARTY WITH. 
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FOR THE 
DEMOCRATS IS THAT THERE'S -- 
THERE'S NOT A COMPELLING CASE 
FOR OBSTRUCTION. 
I WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED IF HE 
WAS EVER CHARGED. 
ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ISSUE, 
I FIND THAT ONE PERPLEXING. 
WHAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT SO FAR 
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS 
DOING. 
MICHAEL COHEN WAS INDICTED AND 
PART OF HIS NARRATIVE WAS 
CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION WITH 
ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL. 
THAT OTHER INDIVIDUAL WAS 
PRESIDENT TRUMP. 
SO I DON'T SEE HOW THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AFTER 
PRESIDENT TRUMP LEAVES OFFICE 
CAN MAINTAIN A LINE AND SAY WE 
NAILED MICHAEL COHEN ON THIS 
BUT THE OTHER HALF OF THIS 
SUPPOSED CONSPIRACY WE'RE GOING 
TO LET WALK. 
>> YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS MORE VULNERABLE ON 
THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE CHARGES 
WHEN HE LEAVES OFFICE? 
>>  I DO. 
I DOES. 
BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THE 
HEARING IS THAT,  YOU KNOW, 
BOTH SIDES ESSENTIALLY DID THIS 
ALMOST AUDIOTAPE OF THE MUELLER 
REPORT. 
AND MUELLER WAS VIRTUALLY A 
DECORATION IN THE COURTROOM. 
HE GAVE THESE MONOSYLLABIC 
RESPONSES AS EVERYONE READ 
THEIR FAVORITE LINES OUT OF THE 
REPORT. 
NO ONE IS CONVINCED. 
BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS FOR THE 
DEMOCRATS IS THEY PORTRAYED 
THEMSELVES AS PEDESTRIANS. 
THEY KEPT ON SAYING, WHY 
DOESN'T SOMEONE DO SOMETHING 
ABOUT THIS? 
AND WE'RE SIT THERE IS SAYING, 
WELL, OKAY. 
YOU'RE THE ONES THAT ARE 
SUPPOSED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT 
THIS. 
YOU'RE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE. 
AND THEY'RE NOT. 
AND SO THE MORE ATTENTION THEY 
ARE PUTTING TO THIS MANTRA OF 
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, THE 
MORE ATTENTION THEY ARE DRAWING 
TO THE FACT THAT THEY'RE 
CLEARING NOT MOVING TOWARDS 
IMPEACHING THIS PRESIDENT. 
>> AND WE SHOULDN'T REGARD  
THAT AS A SOLUTION. 
THAT'S JUST A CONSTITUTION 
CHOICE THAT THE DULY EMPOWERED 
MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES HAS. 
WHETHER IT DOES IT OR NOT IS 
ENTIRELY UP TO THEM. 
WHETHER THEY PUT THE CASE 
TOGETHER AND SEND IT TO THE 
SENATE FOR TRIAL, THAT'S 
CONSTITUTIONAL DECISION. 
THEY ARE THE EVEN ONES WHO CAN 
DO THAT. 
ONE THING THAT'S WORTH NOTING 
BEFORE THIS HEARING THERE WAS 
THIS REPUBLICAN NARRATIVE THAT 
THE CHRIS STEELE DOSSIER WAS 
THE REASON THAT THIS THING GOT 
STARTED. 
SOMETHING CHANGED TODAY. 
TODAY IT'S ABOUT THIS GUY NAMED 
JOSEPH MIFSUD. 
THIS NEW PERSON WHO IS POSSIBLY 
NOW A DUPE FOR A RUSSIAN  
DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN AND THE 
RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN 
WORKED ON MANY DIFFERENT LEVELS 
AND MAY HAVE BEEN BEHIND 
GETTING THIS STARTED. 
WELL, ALL RIGHT. 
THAT'S AN INTERESTING LINE OF 
INQUIRY. 
BUT IT DOES NOT FIT WITH THE 
REPUBLICAN NARRATIVE THAT IF 
NOT FOR THE STEELE DOSSIER WE 
WOULDN'T BE HERE. 
SUDDEN A NEW SURPRISE WITNESS 
APPEARS TONIGHT STAGE AT THE 
LAST MINUTE OF THE COURT 
HEARING LIKE A SUPER DRAMA -- 
>>  ED O'KEEFE IS ON CAPITOL 
HILL AND AS MAJOR POINTS OUT IT 
WASN'T ENTIRELY CLEAR WHAT THE 
REPUBLICAN NARRATIVE WAS TODAY, 
THE DEMOCRATS CERTAINLY HAD A 
GOAL WHICH WAS TO BRING THIS 
REPORT TO LIFE AND WE CERTAINLY 
SAW IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
HEARING NOT ONLY WERE THEY 
COORDINATED IN EACH OF THEIR 
QUESTIONS TO BRING UP ALL OF 
THOSE TEN INSTANCES OF POSSIBLE 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THEY 
CONTROLLED THE BIG TELEVISION 
MONITORS AND HAD BIG GRAPHICS 
AND QUOTES ALL FROM THE REPORT 
IN ORDER TO TRY TO PAINT THIS 
NARRATIVE. 
>> Reporter: YEAH. 
YOU KNOW, JONATHAN CALLED IT AN 
AUDIOTAPE. 
UP HERE THEY CALLED THIS THE 
MOVIE TO GO WITH THE BOOK THAT 
WAS RELEASED IN THE SPRING. 
AND YOU TALK TO DEMOCRATS UP 
HERE TODAY, THEY SAY THAT THEY 
BELIEVE MUELLER LAID OUT A 
PRETTY COMPELLING CASE. 
EXAMPLES OF WHERE THE  
PRESIDENT'S TEAM EITHER TRIED 
TO COMMIT A CRIME OR WAS 
THINKING ABOUT IT. 
AND THAT THAT PROVES SOME SENSE 
OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
THE PROBLEM IS, MOST AMERICANS 
WEREN'T WATCHING. 
THOUGH MAY SEE SOME CLIPS OF 
THIS. 
THEY ARE GOING TO SEE A WITNESS 
THAT WAS AS YOU DESCRIBED HIM, 
NORAH, HALTING AND WITH ONE 
WORD ANSWERS. 
DURING THE HALFTIME FOUR 
DEMOCRATS CAME UP AND TALKED TO 
US. 
GUYS, YOU PUT THIS TOGETHER. 
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE 
MOVIE VERSION OF THE BOOK. 
YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT THIS 
WAS THE MOVIE VERSION OF THE 
BOOK. 
WAS THE MOVIE BETTER THAN THE 
BOOK? 
NONE OF THEM WERE WILLING TO 
SAY YES. 
SO WE WONDER IF PERHAPS THEY 
NOW REALIZE THAT MUELLER WASN'T 
AS COMPELLING A WITNESS AS,  
SAY, JAMES COMEY HAS BEEN OVER 
THE PAST TWO YEARS. 
MICHAEL COHEN OR SOME OF THE 
OTHER CHARACTERS INVOLVED IN 
THIS. 
AS ONE SENIOR HOUSE DEMOCRATIC 
AIDE SAID, ALL WE NEEDED TO 
KNOW WAS IN THE FIRST20 MINUTES 
OF THIS MORNING'S HEARING AND 
THAT NO ONE IS LIKELY TO TALK 
ABOUTTHIS WHEN CONGRESS COMES 
BACK FROM RECESS. 
DEMOCRATS DIDN'T GET THE 
SMOKING GUN AND WEREN'T GOING 
TO BUT GOT AFFIRMATION FROM HIS 
YES OR NO ANSWERS. 
WHERE DO YOU GO NOW, WHAT 
HAPPENS NEXT? 
THE DEMOCRATS IN FAVOR OF 
IMPEACHMENT OR IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY WILL PRESS ON. 
THEY EXPECT SUPPORT TO BUILD IN 
THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS TO BUILD 
IN THE SUMMER AND HEARINGS 
COULD POTENTIALLY BEGIN IN THE 
FALL. 
BUT REMEMBER PUBLIC SUPPORT IS 
NOT THERE. 
MOST AMERICANS HAVE LEARNED 
ENOUGH, AND THEY WANT TO MOVE 
ON. 
>> ED O'KEEFE ON CAPITOL HILL, 
THANK YOU I. I MUST SAY IT'S 
VERY RARE THAT THE MOVIE IS 
EVER BETTER THAN THE BOOK, MY 
OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. 
MAYBE I JUST LOVE BOOKS. 
>> WE HAVE A PROBLEM THAT, YOU 
KNOW, I WAS LEAD COUNSEL ON THE 
LAST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL IN THE 
SENATE. 
THAT WAS THE PORTIAS TRY. 
I WAS PART OF THE CLINTON 
HEARINGS. 
THEY ARE PAST THE FAIL-SAFE 
LINE SAY MAYBE IN THE SUMMER 
WE'LL COME BACK AND IMPEACH 
THIS GUY. 
IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO IMPEACH 
SOMEONE EVEN IF YOU GO STRAIGHT 
TO THE FLOOR. 
THAT TIME, IF YOU LOOK AT ALL 
THE PAST IMPEACHMENTS HAS 
ALREADY PASSED. 
SO IF THEY ARE WAITING UNTIL 
AFTER SUMMER, THAT WOULD BE A 
NASCAR RECORD OF AN IMPEACHMENT 
AND I DOUBT THEY CAN DO IT SO 
IT'S GOING TO RAISE MORE 
QUESTIONS AS TO, ARE YOU JUST 
PLAYING OUT THE CLOCK HERE? 
>> I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE THAT 
WE'LL REVISIT AND WILL BE ONE 
ACTUALLY REVISITED BY THE TRUMP 
ADMINISTRATION IS THE PROPOSAL 
THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT FORWARD 
IN TERMS OF HOW TO COMBAT 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 
2020 ELECTION. 
WE HAVE ALSO HEARD FROM WHITE 
HOUSE AND INTELLIGENCE 
OFFICIALS, NOW THE CHINESE AND 
IRANIANS ARE TRYING TO DO THE 
SAME THING. 
SO THAT PART WILL BE REVISITED 
FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY 
STANDPOINT. 
>> THAT GLIMMER OF LIGHT IN THE 
SEND SECOND HALF OF THE 
TESTIMONY THAT REPRESENTATIVE 
HURD AND PEOPLE FROM THE 
REPUBLICAN SIDE WERE EXPRESSING 
CONCERN ABOUT THE RUSSIANS 
INFLUENCE IN THE ELECTION ASKED 
MR. MUELLER WHAT NEEDS TO BE 
DONE, HE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES 
THERE NEEDS TO BE COORDINATION 
BETWEEN THE VARIOUS 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES ON THIS 
QUESTION AND AMERICANS ARE NOT 
SAFE, IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN, AND 
I THOUGHT THAT BIPARTISAN NOD 
WAS A GOOD ONE. 
>> ALL RIGHT. 
WELL, THANK YOU AND WE 
APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU JOINING 
US. 
AND HERE IT IS. 
IF YOU DIDN'T GET WHAT YOU 
WANTED TODAY IN THE SIX HOURS 
OF TESTIMONY, THE MUELLER 
REPORT EXISTS AND AS SOME 
PEOPLE SAID THE APPENDIX IS 
ACTUALLY ONE OF THE MOST 
INTERESTING PARTS OF THIS 
REPORT OR THE APPENDICES, WHICH 
IS OF COURSE THE PLEURAL OF 
APPENDIX. 
THERE WILL BE MUCH MORE ON 
ROBERT MUELLER'S TESTIMONY ON 
YOUR LOCAL CBS STATION AND 
TONIGHT "CBS EVENING NEWS." 
WE'LL HAVE THE FULL WRAP UP OF 
ALL THE CHOICE SOUND BITES AND 
MOMENTS AND REPORTING. 
CBS NEWS COVERAGE NOW CONTINUES 
NOW ON OUR 24-HOUR STREAMING 
NEWS SERVICE CBSN. 
YOU CAN WATCH IT AT CBSNEWS.COM 
AND ON OUR CBS NEWS APP. 
WITH THANKS TO MAJOR GARRETT, 
NANCY CORDES, JEFFPYGATION, ED 
O'KEEFE TO OUR CREW, THANK YOU 
FOR JOINING US. 
I'M NORAH O'DONNELL IN 
WASHINGTON. 
AND I'LL SEE YOU ON THE "CBS 
EVENING NEWS." 
THIS HAS BEEN A CBS NEWS 
SPECIAL REPORT. 
>>>  , HI, I'M REENA NINAN. 
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
CONGRESS AND THE NATION HAVE 
HEARD FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL 
ROBERT MUELLER TESTIFY ON HIS 
REPORT ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE 
IN THE 2016 ELECTION. 
THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME  
ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS 
NEARLY TWO-YEAR INVESTIGATION. 
MUELLER ARRIVED ON THE HILL 
EARLIER THIS MORNING AND 
APPEARED BEFORE BOTH THE HOUSE 
JUDICIARY AND INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEES. 
IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT HE 
SAID HE WOULD STICK TO THE MAIN 
FINDINGS DETAILED IN HIS. 
>> WE FOUND THAT THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN OUR 
ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND 
SYSTEMIC FASHION. 
SECOND, THE INVESTIGATION DID 
NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED 
WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN 
ITS ELECTION INTERFERENCE 
ACTIVITIES. 
WE DID NOT ADDRESS COLLUSION, 
WHICH IS NOT A LEGAL TERM. 
RATHER, WE FOCUSED ON WHETHER 
THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO 
CHARGE ANY MEMBER OF THE 
CAMPAIGN WITH TAKING PART IN A 
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. 
AND IT WAS NOT. 
THIRD, OUR INVESTIGATION OF 
EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT THE 
INVESTIGATION AND LIED TO 
INVESTIGATORS WAS OF CRITICAL 
IMPORTANCE. 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE STRIKES 
AT THE CORE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S 
EFFORT TO FIND THE TRUTH AND TO 
HEELED WRONG DOERS ACCOUNTABLE. 
FINALLY, AS DESCRIBED IN VOLUME 
2 OF OUR REPORT, WE 
INVESTIGATED A SERIES OF 
ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT 
TOWARDS THE INVESTIGATION. 
BASED ON JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
POLICY AND PRINCIPLES OF  
FAIRNESS, WE DECIDED WE WOULD 
NOT MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO 
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED 
A CRIME. 
THAT WAS OUR DECISION THEN AND 
REMAINS OUR DECISION TODAY. 
>> THE HOUSE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE HEARING LASTED ABOUT 
THREE HOURS. 
AND THE LINE OF QUESTIONING 
BETWEEN TWO POLITICAL PARTIES 
SHOWED JUST HOW PARTISAN THIS 
ENTIRE INVESTIGATION HAS  
BECOME. 
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 
CHAIRMAN DEMOCRAT JERRY NADLER 
LED THE PROCEEDINGS BY HAVING 
MUELLER REFUTE THE PRESIDENT'S 
CLAIMS THAT HIS REPORT 
EXONERATED HIM. 
>> WHAT ABOUT TOTAL  
EXONERATION. 
DID YOU ACTUALLY TOTALLY 
EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT? 
>>  NO. 
>> NOW, IN FACT, YOUR REPORT 
EXPRESSLY STATES IT DOES NOT 
EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT? 
>>  IT DOES. 
>> AND YOUR INVESTIGATION 
ACTUALLY FOUND, QUOTE, MULTIPLE 
ACTS BY THE PRESIDENT THAT WERE 
CAPABLE OF EXERTING UNDUE 
INFLUENCE OVER LAW ENFORCEMENT 
INVESTIGATIONS INCLUDING THE 
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND 
OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATIONS, IS 
THAT CORRECT? 
>>  CORRECT. 
>> THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
POLICY, THE PRESIDENT COULD BE 
PROSECUTED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE CRIMES AFTER HE LEAVES 
OFFICE, CORRECT? 
>> TRUE. 
>> REPUBLICANS USED THEIR TIME 
TO TRY TO CAST DOUBT ON  
MUELLER'S REPORT SUGGESTING 
THAT THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN 
AS WE HAVE HEARD BEFORE A WITCH 
HUNT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. 
>> THE PRESIDENT WAS FALSELY 
ACCUSED OF CONSPIRACY. 
THE FBI DOES A 10 MONTH 
INVESTIGATION AND JAMES COMEY 
WHEN WE DEPOSED HIM A YEAR AGO 
TOLD US AT THAT POINT THEY HAD 
NOTHING. 
YOU DO A 22 MONTH INVESTIGATION 
AND AT THE END OF THAT 22 
MONTHS YOU FIND NO CONSPIRACY. 
AND WHAT'S THE DEMOCRATS WANT 
TO DO? 
THEY WANT TO KEEP 
INVESTIGATING! 
>> MUELLER FACED SIMILAR 
QUESTIONS BEFORE THE HOUSE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE JUST A 
SHORT TIME AFTER. 
IN THAT HEARING, COMMITTEE 
CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF ASKED THE 
PRESIDENT'S MOST FREQUENT -- 
ASKED ABOUT THE MOST FREQUENT 
ATTACK. 
>> WHEN DONALD TRUMP CALLED 
YOUR INVESTIGATION A WITCH 
HUNT, THAT WAS ALSO FALSE, WAS 
IT NOT? 
>>  LIKE TO THINK SO, YES. 
>> WELL, YOUR INVESTIGATION IS 
NOT A WITCH HUNT, IS IT? 
>> IT IS NOT A WITCH HUNT. 
>> SO TO ALL OF THIS THE 
PRESIDENT TWEETS IN ALL CAPITAL 
LETTERS JUST A SHORT TIME AGO, 
TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE. 
LET'S CHECK IN WITH ED O'KEEFE 
ON CAPITOL HILL. 
HE IS JOINED BY DEMOCRATIC 
CONGRESSMAN JOAQUIN CASTRO. 
ED. 
>> Reporter: REENA, THANK YOU. 
CONGRESSMAN CASTRO IS THE 
CONGRESSMAN NOT THE CASTRO 
RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. 
HE REPRESENTS SAN ANTONIO. 
HE IS A MEMBER OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE KIND 
ENOUGH TO JOIN US HERE THIS 
AFTERNOON AFTER THE HEARING. 
YOUR INITIAL IMPRESSIONS AFTER 
TODAY'S HEARINGS? 
>>  I THINK HE AFFIRMED WHAT WE 
HAVE KNOWN WHICH IS THAT RUSSIA 
INTERFERED IN OUR 2016 
ELECTIONS. 
THEY DID IT TO HELP DONALD 
TRUMP. 
AT TIMES MEMBERS OF DONALD 
TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN INVITED THAT 
HELP AND THEN LATER TRIED TO 
LIE AND COVER IT UP. 
ALSO, THAT THERE'S AN ELEMENT 
OF GREED HERE, UM, YOU KNOW, AS 
I SAID, IN THE HEARING, THE 
PRESIDENT HAS SURROUNDED 
HIMSELF WITH VERY SHADY PEOPLE. 
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW SITTING IN 
PRISON OR ON THEIR WAY TO 
PRISON AND WHO HAVE HELPED HIM 
ENRICH HIMSELF AND WHO HAVE 
LIED FOR HIM. 
AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S MORE 
INVESTIGATION THAT IS REQUIRED 
TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS 
THAT BOB MUELLER WOULDN'T OR 
COULDN'T ANSWER TODAY. 
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE 
CONTINUING INVESTIGATIONS IN 
THE HOUSE. 
>> REMIND US WHERE YOU ARE ON 
-- 
>>  I HAVE SAID A WHILE BACK 
PROBABLY TWO MONTHS AGO THAT I 
AM FOR IMPEACHMENT. 
>> YOU'RE ABOUT ONE OF 90 AT 
THIS POINT -- THAT'S NOT EVEN 
HALF OF THE CAUCUS YET. 
DO YOU THINK WHAT TRANSPIRED 
TODAY COMPELS A FEW DOZEN MORE 
OF YOUR COLLEAGUES TO JOIN YOU 
IN THOSE CALLS? 
>>  ULTIMATELY, THAT WILL BE A 
DECISION FOR EACH MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS BUT I THINK IT'S QUITE 
POSSIBLE. 
THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 
POINTS ESPECIALLY, I THOUGHT, 
WERE VERY COMPELLING. 
YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS NOT GOING 
TO ADMIT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE 
CHARGED THE PRESIDENT IF HE 
WASN'T THE PRESIDENT. 
BUT I THINK FROM THE REPORT 
IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT IF THIS 
WAS ANYBODY ELSE, IF THIS WAS A 
REGULAR PERSON, THEY WOULD BE 
ON TRIAL RIGHT NOW FOR 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
>> Reporter: IF AN AMERICAN WHO 
MUELLER REPORT, TUNED IN TODAY 
TO SEE THE SO-CALLED MOVIE, DO 
YOU THINK THEY GOT EVERYTHING 
THEY NEEDED TO SORT OF BE WHERE 
YOU ARE ON THIS ISSUE? 
>>  I THINK IT WAS VERY DAMNING 
FOR THE PRESIDENT. 
PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. 
AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
WANT TO SEE CONGRESS MOST OF 
ALL TAKE ACTION. 
I DON'T THINK THAT THE MAJORITY 
OF PEOPLE AFTER SEEING THAT 
WOULD SAY, HEY, THIS ISSUE IS 
CLOSED, IT'S A MATTER THAT'S 
CLOSED. 
THEM CONGRESS TO ACT. 
>> HOW AND WHEN WILL THAT 
HAPPEN, DO YOU THINK AT THIS 
POINT? 
YOU GUYS LEAVE FOR RECESS AND 
WON'T BE BACK UNTIL SEPTEMBER. 
YOU MAY HAVE SOME SPENDING 
DEADLINES TO ADDRESS COME 
SEPTEMBER. 
WE GET CLOSER TO ELECTION HERE. 
WHEN AND HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN? 
>> I THINK THAT'S ULTIMATELY A 
DECISION FOR THE SPEAKER OF THE 
HOUSE. 
I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS 
CONTINUING SUPPORT OPENING AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
REMEMBER, THAT'S AN INQUIRY SO 
YOU'RE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS. 
IT'S NOT A DECISION RIGHT AWAY 
THAT YOU'RE GOING TO IMPEACH A 
PRESIDENT BUT IT'S A DECISION 
TO OPEN A PROCESS. 
I THINK YOU'LL SEE GROWING 
SUPPORT FOR IT. 
>> JOAQUIN CASTRO, CONGRESSMAN 
FROM SAN ANTONIO, THANKS FOR 
JOINING US. 
WE APPRECIATE IT. 
REENA, UM, UM, THAT IS SORT OF 
EMBLEMATIC OF WHAT WE HEARD 
FROM DEMOCRATS TODAY, THOSE 
THAT ARE ESPECIALLY FOR 
IMPEACHMENT. 
BELIEVING THAT NOW ON  
VIDEOTAPE, THE FORMER DIRECTOR 
MUELLER, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, 
HAS LAID IT OUT FOR THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC. 
AS ELIJAH CUMMINGS SAID EARLIER 
TODAY, IF YOU'RE SOMEBODY WHO 
HAS BEEN JUST LEARNING ABOUT 
THIS MAYBE WASN'T PAYING 
ATTENTION OVER THE COURSE OF 
THE SPRING WHEN THE MUELLER 
REPORT WAS RELEASED, YOU SHOULD 
HAVE GOT ENOUGH INFORMATION 
TODAY TO REALIZE THERE'S MORE 
HERE THAT CONGRESS SHOULD 
CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE. 
BUT REMEMBER, MOST AMERICANS 
DON'T WANT THAT. 
THEY WANT CONGRESS TO MOVE ON. 
THIS ISSUE IS SETTLED. 
WHETHER MUELLER TODAY DID 
ENOUGH TO CONVINCE THE MAJORITY 
OF AMERICANS OTHERWISE, THAT 
REMAINS TO BE SEEN. 
SOME OF THESE DEMOCRATS WALKING 
OUT ESPECIALLY AFTER THAT FIRST 
HEARING TODAY REALIZE THAT 
PERHAPS HE HADN'T MADE THE 
CASE. 
>> THANK YOU. 
FOR NOW, I WANT TO ALSO BRING 
IN MOLLIE HOOPER A CBSN 
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR AND RIKKI 
KLIEMAN, WHO IS A CBS NEWS 
LEGAL ANALYST. 
LADIES, I GOT TO TELL YOU, JUST 
SEEING REACTION ON SOCIAL  
MEDIA, WHICH IS AN ACCURATE 
METAPHOR FOR THE COUNTRY, IT IS 
PRETTY MUCH DOWN PARTISAN  
LINES. 
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL 
COMMITTEE SAID TODAY'S HEARING 
WERE A DISASTER FOR DEMOCRATS. 
THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN SAYING 
NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION. 
THIS WAS THE DISASTER FOR 
DEMOCRATS. 
BUT RIKKI, THE ONE SORT OF 
LINGERING THING HERE THAT WE 
DID KEEP HEARING ABOUT IS, CAN 
THE PRESIDENT BE CHARGED AFTER 
LEAVING OFFICE? 
WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE 
KNOWN BUT HEARD AGAIN. 
TALK TO ME ABOUT THIS. 
IN FACT, I WANT TO PLAY FOR YOU 
A BITE THAT COMES FROM 
CONGRESSMAN BUCK, I BELIEVE, A 
BITE THAT WE HAVE TALKING A 
LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE EVIDENCE 
TO CONVICT. 
>> YOU RECOMMENDED DECLINING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ANYONE 
SOUTHERN END WITH HIS CAMPAIGN 
BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT 
EVIDENCE TO CONVICT FOR A 
CHARGE OF COLLUSION IN THE 
QUICKS ELECTION, IS THAT FAIR? 
>>  THAT'S FAIR. 
>> WAS THERE SUFFICIENT 
EVIDENCE TO CONVICT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP OR ANYONE ELSE WITH 
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? 
>> WE DID NOT MAKE THAT 
CALCULATION. 
>> HOW COULD YOU NOT HAVE MADE 
THE CALCULATION? 
>> BECAUSE THE OLC OPINION, 
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, 
INDICATES THAT WE CANNOT INDICT 
A SITTING PRESIDENT. 
SO ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT THE 
PROSECUTOR WOULD USE IS NOT 
THERE. 
>> LET ME JUST STOP. 
YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THE 
RUSSIAN. 
INTERFERENCE. 
YOU COULDN'T HAVE INDICTED THE 
PRESIDENT ON THAT AND YOU MADE 
THE DECISION ON THAT. 
BUT WHEN IT CAME TO  
OBSTRUCTION, YOU THREW A BUNCH 
OF STUFF UP AGAINST THE WALL TO 
SEE WHAT WOULD STICK. 
>> WELL, I WOULD NOT AGREE TO 
THAT CHARACTERIZATION AT ALL. 
WHAT WE DID IS PROVIDE TO THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE FORM OF 
A CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM OUR 
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CASE. 
THOSE CASES THAT WERE BROUGHT, 
THOSE CASES THAT WERE DECLINED 
AND THAT ONE CASE WHERE THE 
PRESIDENT CANNOT BE CHARGED 
WITH A CRIME. 
>> OKAY. 
BUT THE -- COULD YOU CHARGE THE 
PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME AFTER HE 
LEFT OFFICE? 
>> YES. 
>> YOU BELIEVE THAT HE 
COMMITTED -- YOU COULD CHARGE 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES WITH OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE? 
>>  YES. 
>> ETHICALLY UNDER THE ETHICAL 
STANDARDS? 
>>  WELL, I'M NOT CERTAIN 
BECAUSE I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE 
ETHICAL STANDARDS BUT OLC 
OPINION SAYS THAT THE 
PROSECUTOR WHILE HE CANNOT 
BRING A CHARGE AGAINST A 
SITTING PRESIDENT, NONETHELESS 
CAN CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION 
TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER 
PERSONS WHO MIGHT BE DRAWN INTO 
THE CONSPIRACY. 
>> THAT WAS CONGRESSMAN KEN 
BUCK FROM COLORADO. 
>> IT'S TRUE THAT YOU CAN 
INDICT THE PRESIDENT OR ANY 
PRESIDENT AFTER HE OR SHE 
LEAVES OFFICE. 
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME 
UP LATER ON WAS THE QUESTION OF 
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 
WHICH ROBERT MUELLER DID NOT 
ANSWER. 
AND I DO THINK THAT IT'S AN 
INTERESTING LEGAL QUESTION 
BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT WERE 
TO -- IF ANY PRESIDENT WERE TO 
BE INDICTED AFTER THEY LEFT 
OFFICE, IF THEY SERVE A SECOND 
TERM, IT IS MORE THAN LIKELY 
THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 
ON AN ACTION WOULD HAVE RUN. 
HOWEVER, IS THERE A LEGAL 
ARGUMENT TO BE MADE, I SAY, 
THERE FOR THE LEGAL SCHOLARS, 
THAT WE CAN ALL DEBATE IT, AS 
TO AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT 
BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS THE 
PRESIDENT, HE IS THEREFORE  
UNAVAILABLE AND THEREFORE THE 
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHOULD 
NOT START TO RUN. 
BUT THAT IS A QUESTION FOR 
ANOTHER DAY. 
>> IS THERE PRECEDENT ON THIS 
AT ALL? 
YOU KNOW, ON ANY SORT OF -- 
WHETHER THE STATUTE OF 
LIMITATIONS RUNS OUT BECAUSE 
YOU CAN'T BE INDICTED? 
>>  ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE 
CERTAINLY HAVE LOOKED AT ABOUT 
STATUTES OF LIMITATION IS NOT 
NECESSARILY PRECEDENT BUT WE DO 
LOOK AT UNAVAILABILITY BY MEANS 
OF ANALOGY. 
FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON'T HAVE THE 
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS START TO 
RUN WHEN A VICTIM IS A CHILD. 
AND SO IT STARTS TO RUN WHEN 
THE VICTIM BECOMES THE AGE OF 
MAJORITY. 
SO IN ESSENCE, IT IS TOLD. 
SO IT WOULD NOT BE THE FIRST 
TIME. 
IN THAT CASE, WE'RE LOOKING AT 
A VICTIM. 
IN THIS CASE, WE WOULD BE 
LOOKING AT A PROSPECTIVE 
DEFENDANT. 
YOU ALSO HAVE REMEMBER THAT 
WHAT ROBERT MUELLER WAS SAYING 
WAS NOT THAT THIS PRESIDENT 
SHOULD BE INDICTED AFTER HE 
LEAVES OFFICE. 
BUT IT'S THAT A PRESIDENT CAN 
BE INDICTED AT A LATER POINT IN 
TIME, CAN'T INDICTED WHILE HE 
IS A SITTING PRESIDENT. 
>> THAT'S CURIOUS THE DEMOCRATS 
DIDN'T SAY WOULD YOU INDICT 
THIS SITTING PRESIDENT ONCE HE 
LEAVES OFFICE? 
AND THAT WAS A PIECE THAT I 
THINK REPUBLICANS WILL SEASON. 
ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THE 
MORNING HEARING MORE SO THAN 
THE AFTERNOON HEARING THAT 
REPUBLICANS WILL PICK UP AND 
RUN WITH. 
>> AND IT'S ONE OF THE 
QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP IN THE 
MORNING THAT HAD TO BE PICKED 
UP BY A SECOND PERSON WAS THE 
QUESTION OF THE PROSECUTOR'S 
LETTER OF 1,000 PEOPLE 
PROSECUTORS WHO HAVE SAID THAT 
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT 
THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR 
INDICTMENT. 
AND THAT'S VERY POWERFUL. 
AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT CANNOT 
BE FORGOTTEN IN THE COURSE OF 
TODAY'S HEARING. 
>> MOLLIE, OVERALL WATCHING THE 
ASSESSMENTS OF HOW THE 
DEMOCRATS APPROACHED THIS, WERE 
THEY UNITED? 
HAD THEY COORDINATED  
EFFECTEDDIVELY? 
>>  IT SEEMED LIKE THEY WERE 
MORE COORDINATED. 
THEY HAVE DONE THEIR DRESS 
REHEARSAL SO TO SPEAK, THEY HAD 
A STAND-IN FOR JIM JORDAN, YOU 
KNOW, THEY PRACTICED IN FRONT 
OF THE CAMERAS. 
AND WHAT'S CHALLENGING FOR THEM 
IS YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND IT 
GOES DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, 
DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN AND IT'S 
KIND OF HARD TO STRING TOGETHER 
A NARRATIVE AND WHAT DEMOCRATS 
REALLY WANTED BOB MUELLER TO DO 
WAS TO LOOK AT THE REPORT AND 
READ WHAT THE CONCLUSIONS WERE. 
BUT HE WASN'T GOING THERE. 
HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE THERE. 
HE HAD TO BE SUBPOENAED TO BE 
THERE AND HE WAS JUST GOING TO 
SAY WHAT PAGE IS THAT AGAIN? 
LET ME SEE IF I CAN CONFIRM 
THAT. 
SO I'M NOT SURE THAT HE GAVE 
THEM -- THIS IS THE JUDICIARY 
HEARING IN THE MORNING --  
REALLY WHAT THEY WANTED. 
THE INTEL COMMITTEE WAS 
DIFFERENT IN THE AFTERNOON. 
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS PARTISAN 
BECAUSE OF THE SOCIAL ISSUES 
AND MATTERS DEALT WITH IN THE 
COMMITTEE AND THAT'S WHERE 
IMPEACHMENT AN INQUIRY WOULD 
START. 
BUT INTEL, THAT'S A DIFFERENT 
MATTER. 
IT TENDS TO BE A MORE 
BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE AND AS WE 
NOTICED THE TONE DIFFERENCE AND 
THAT'S SOMETHING IF YOU LOOK AT 
SOCIAL MEDIA, DEMOCRATS AND 
REPUBLICANS, UM, BOTH 
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE TONE IN 
THE AFTERNOON WAS DRAMATICALLY 
DIFFERENT. 
>> IT CERTAINLY WAS. 
DO WE KNOW HOW THE PRESIDENTS' 
DAY WENT TODAY AND DID HE MEET 
WITH ANYBODY WHILE THIS IS 
GOING ON? 
>>  IT IS INTERESTING BECAUSE 
THE HEAD OF THE FREEDOM CAUCUS, 
MARK MEADOWS, BIG FAN OF 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PRESIDENT 
TRUMP IS A BIG FAN OF HIS, HE 
ACTUALLY WAS PLANTED RIGHT 
BEHIND BOB MUELLER FOR THE 
MORNING HEARING, THE JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE. 
AND YOU COULD SEE HIM. 
AND THEN TURNS OUT HE WENT TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE IN THE 
AFTERNOON AND WAS TALKING TO 
THE PRESIDENT. 
SO YOU KNOW, REPUBLICANS COME 
AWAY WITH THIS THINKING THAT 
THEY HAD A GOOD DAY. 
WELL, THEY THINK THAT DEMOCRATS 
HAD A BAD DAY BECAUSE MUELLER 
WASN'T ABLE TO DO WHAT 
DEMOCRATS HAD PROMISED AND 
AGAIN, THIS IS REPUBLICAN 
LAWMAKERS' LOOKING AT THE 
MATTER, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY 
WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. 
BUT IF DEMOCRATS HOLD ON TO 
THIS AND TRY TO MAKE IT INTO 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES, THAT'S A 
DIFFERENT MATTER. 
>> THE QUESTION OF WHOSE 
RESPONSIBILITY IS IT, ROBERT 
MUELLER IS NOT THERE TO PROVIDE 
A BASIS FOR IMPEACHMENT. 
ROBERT MUELLER IS THERE TO 
ANSWER QUESTIONS AS SUCCINCTLY 
AS HE POSSIBLY CAN PARTICULARLY 
BECAUSE HE IS UNDER DIRECTIVES 
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
TO NOT GIVE UP INFORMATION 
ABOUT INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS. 
IF THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO MAKE 
THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT, IT 
WAS THEIR JOB HAVE TO COME IN 
AND SAY, I AM READING TO YOU 
FROM VOLUME 2, PAGE 3, READ THE 
SENTENCES THAT THEY WANT, AND 
THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT WHAT'S 
WRITTEN IN YOUR REPORT? 
THAT'S HOW YOU LEAD A WITNESS. 
>> I WANT TO GO TO CBS NEWS' 
NIKOLE KILLION ON CAPITOL HILL. 
GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT YOU'RE 
HEARING AND SEEING ON THE HILL. 
>> I THINK TO SOME OF THE 
POINTS THAT WERE RAISED  
EARLIER, YOU KNOW, I THINK 
DEMOCRATS FEEL THEY DID 
ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING IN THE 
FACT THAT,  YOU KNOW, THEY DID 
WANT TO DRAW OUT MORE OF THE 
CONCLUSION FROM THE REPORT AND 
KIND OF STITCH TOGETHER THAT 
NARRATIVE AND SO YOU HEARD FOR 
INSTANCE, IN THAT INTERVIEW 
THAT ED DID WITH CONGRESSMAN 
CASTRO THAT YOU KNOW, HE 
BASICALLY SAID THAT MUELLER  
REAFFIRMED,  YOU KNOW, WHAT WE 
ALREADY KNEW AND WHAT WAS IN 
THE REPORT. 
SO WHILE THERE MAY NOT HAVE 
BEEN A LOT OF NEW REVELATIONS, 
AGAIN, IT JUST KIND OF 
REAFFIRMS KEY POINTS AND 
PARTICULAR INSTANCES OF 
OBSTRUCTION, FOR INSTANCE, THAT 
DEMOCRATS WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT 
BECAUSE ONE THING I THOUGHT WAS 
PRETTY STRIKING IS THAT 
ESPECIALLY IN THAT JUDICIARY 
COMMITTEE HEARING, YOU HEARD 
DEMOCRAT AFTER DEMOCRAT AFTER 
THEY WENT THROUGH THEIR LINE OF 
QUESTIONING SAYING THIS WAS 
ANYONE ELSE BUT THE PRESIDENT, 
THEY WOULD BE CHARGED. 
SO THAT'S REALLY THE POINT IT 
SEEMS DEMOCRATS WANTED TO TRY 
TO HAMMER HOME, THAT YOU KNOW, 
THESE INSTANCES AND ACTS WERE 
EGREGIOUS, IN THEIR MINDS. 
AND AS YOU HEARD THE LINE OF úQ 
PRESIDENT COULD BE POTENTIALLY 
PROSECUTED AFTER HE LEAVES 
OFFICE BUT THEY REALLY WANTED 
TO HAMMER HOME THAT THE 
PRESIDENT WAS NOT ABOVE THE LAW 
AND THAT ANYONE ELSE COULD HAVE 
BEEN CHARGED UNDER THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES. 
NOW, WE DIDN'T HEAR MUELLER 
NECESSARILY BACK THEM UP. 
CERTAINLY THAT WAS A POINTS 
THAT DEMOCRATS RAISED TIME AND 
TIME AGAIN. 
AND THEN REPUBLICANS OBVIOUSLY, 
YOU KNOW, 
>> SAYING THERE'S NO THERE 
THERE. 
THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE. 
WE SOLVED THAT POINT HAMMERED 
OUT IN THEIR LINE OF 
QUESTIONING TO THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL, ACCUSING HIM OF 
POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS IN HIS 
INVESTIGATION. 
YOU KNOW, BASED ON SOME MEMBERS 
OF HIS TEAM WHO WERE 
INVESTIGATING, YOU KNOW, 
MUELLER AT TIMES DID DEFEND HIS 
STAFF MEMBERS SAYING, LOOK, I 
HIRED PEOPLE WHO I THOUGHT 
COULD DO THE JOB. 
I DIDN'T ASK ABOUT THEIR 
POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS. 
THAT WAS A POINT OF CONTENTION 
AT TIMES IN SOME OF THE 
QUESTIONING. 
AND REPUBLICANS ALSO DEFENDING 
THE PRESIDENT AND HIS 
INNOCENCE. 
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY 
AND, YOU KNOW, BOB MUELLER DID 
STATE THIS, YOU KNOW, HIS TEAM 
DID NOT FIND ANY LINKS BETWEEN 
THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA, 
ANY INSTANCES OF CONSPIRACY OR 
COLLUSION. 
HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PHRASE 
THAT. 
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT IS 
SOMETHING THAT REPUBLICANS 
HONED IN ON. 
THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE 
PRESUMED INNOCENT, INCLUDING 
THE PRESIDENT. 
LET'S NOT BEAT UP ON THIS GUY. 
AGAIN, YOU KIND OF SAW 
REPUBLICAN DEFENDING THE 
PRESIDENT IN THAT REGARD AND 
THE PRESIDENT RETWEETING MANY 
OF THOSE KEY EXCHANGES FROM THE 
HEARINGS TODAY. 
>> A SERIES OF RETWEETS FROM 
THE PRESIDENT ON THAT. 
I WANT TO ASK YOU TOWARDS THE 
END OF THE AFTERNOON HEARINGS, 
CONGRESSMAN MALONEY BROUGHT UP 
THE INTERVIEW THAT THE MUELLER 
SAID HE WANTED WITH THE 
PRESIDENT. 
IT IS AN INTERESTING EXCHANGE. 
HE SAID YOU DON'T STRIKE ME AS 
A MAN WOULD FLINCH AND HE SAID 
I HOPE NOT. 
HE TALKED ABOUT WHY IT 
HAPPENED. 
>> THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL MADE A DETERMINATION 
THAT THE TIME THAT IT WOULD 
TAKE TO BE ABLE TO GO SUBPOENA 
THE PRESIDENT, THE SUBPOENA 
WOULD BE RESISTED BY THE 
PRESIDENT. 
IT WOULD THEN BE TAKEN UP TO A 
COURT AND THEN TO A HIGHER 
COURT AND ULTIMATELY IN FRONT 
OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME 
COURT WHERE PERHAPS THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S OFFICE MIGHT LOSE. 
BUT REGARDLESS OF THE WIN OR 
THE LOSS, THE AMOUNT OF TIME 
THAT THAT WOULD TAKE AFTER 
ALMOST TWO YEARS OF 
INVESTIGATION BY THE SPECIAL 
COUNSEL'S OFFICE, THE TIME WAS 
TOO LONG. 
AND THAT ROBERT MUELLER FELT 
THAT WHEN HE HAD TO DO THE 
BALANCE, THAT RATHER THAN GO 
THERE, WHAT HE WOULD DO IS JUST 
CALL IT A DAY. 
THERE ARE MANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO 
IN THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL 
COUNSEL WOULD HAVE DONE EXACTLY 
WHAT HE DID. 
YOU CAN'T GET EVERYTHING YOU 
WANT. 
AND IF YOU HAVE TO GO THE ROUTE 
OF THE COURTS, YOU KNOW THAT 
TIME IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE. 
>> YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A SENSE, 
MOLLY THAT WE JUST HEARD AFTER 
THE MUELLER REPORT WAS PUT OUT, 
HE IS PUTTING OUT THE BREAD 
CRUMBS FOR CONGRESS. 
THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE IN AND 
GET THESE BREAD CRUMBS. 
IS THERE ENOUGH TO MOVE ON 
IMPEACHMENT? 
WE HEARD ED'S INTERVIEW WITH 
CASTRO. 
WHERE DO YOU SEE THE DEMOCRATS 
GOING NOW. 
>> HERE IS THE CHALLENGE. 
IF NANCY PELOSI IS GOING TO BE 
CONVINCED THIS IS A GOOD IDEA 
TO MOVE ON TO AN IMPEACHMENT 
INQUIRY. 
>> WHICH SHE HAS BEEN OPPOSE 
TODAY. 
>> BECAUSE OF THE POLITICAL 
ASPECTS TO THAT. 
THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT 
FOCUS ON LEADING UP TO THE 
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, LIKE 
POLICIES. 
IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO 
CONVINCE HER TO DO THAT, SHE 
NEEDS TO HAVE AT LEAST THE 
MAJORITY OF HER DEMOCRATIC 
CAUCUS, I BELIEVE THERE ARE 238 
AT THIS POINT AND RIGHT NOW 
THERE'S ABOUT 91. 
SO SHE NEEDS -- SHE NEEDS -- 
NO. 
I THINK IT IS 230. 
PARDON ME. 
I'M GETTING MY MATH -- 
REGARDLESS; IT IS A NICE 
NUMBER. 
SHE NEEDS THAT NUMBER TO SAY WE 
WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS. 
SHE DOESN'T HAVE THAT RIGHT 
NOW. 
THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRATS WERE 
HOPING FOR. 
THEY WERE HOPING THAT ROBERT 
MUELLER WOULD MAKE THE CASE AND 
GET THE RELUCTANT HESITANT 
DEMOCRATS TO COME ON BOARD AND 
SAY THIS MAKES SENSE. 
>> WE SHOULD PURSUE THIS 
FURTHER FOR DEMOCRATS. 
>> WELL, WE WILL SEE BECAUSE 
NANCY PELOSI IS COMING OUT 
LATER TODAY. 
>> WE ARE EXPECTING A HEARING 
FROM NANCY PELOSI AND SEVERAL 
DEMOCRATS IN ABOUT 30 MINUTES, 
WHICH WE WILL BE CARRYING LIVE. 
>> AND SHE WANTED TO FOCUS ON 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ASPECT. 
AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
CONCERNS THAT CAME OUT OF THE 
MUELLER REPORT. 
AND I THINK THAT WHAT GETS LOST 
IS IN THIS OBSTRUCTION OF 
JUSTICE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD 
SAY THE MOST SEXY ASPECT OF IT. 
TRYING TO FIRE JEFF SESSIONS. 
HE SAID, HE SAID, SHE SAID, HE 
SAID. 
THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE GROUNDS 
FOR IMPEACHMENT. 
LOOK AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
CONCERNS. 
THAT MAY BE THE WAY TO GO ABOUT 
IT. 
WE WILL HEAR WHAT SHE HAS TO 
SAY. 
>> WE HAVE W JERSEY SENATOR 
AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL 
CANDIDATE CORY BOOKER WHO 
CALLED ON THE HOUSE TO BEGIN 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST 
MR. TRUMP. 
HERE IS WHAT HE SAID IN 
DETROIT. 
>> YOU SEE QUITE CLEARLY THAT 
HE SPELLS OUT BEHAVIORS, 
DECEIT, INSTRUCTING PEOPLE TO 
LIVE AND COVER THINGS UP. 
THAT REPORT IS ENOUGH OF AN 
INDICATION THAT THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD BEGIN 
IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST 
THIS PRESIDENT. 
AND I AM PROUD THAT THE NAACP 
TODAY RESOLVED TO DO -- THAT WE 
SHOULD DO JUST THAT. 
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A CONGRESS 
RIGHT NOW THAT IS DIVIDED. 
IT IS A SENATE THAT IS 
CONTROLLED BY THE REPUBLICANS. 
REMEMBER THE POWER OF THE 
PEOPLE IS THE PEOPLE IN POWER. 
WE NEED TO BE READY TO BEAT 
DONALD TRUMP SOUNDLY. 
>> BRING BACK IN CBS NEWS 
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT ED 
O'KEEFE WHO JOINS US FROM 
CAPITOL HILL. 
WHAT IS THE SENSE FROM 2020 
DEMOCRATS, DO THEY THINK THAT 
IMPEACHMENT IS SOMETHING THAT 
WILL MOVE THE NEEDLE. 
>> LOOK, HE SPOKE AT A NOOCP 
CONVENTION IN DETROIT, ALONG 
WITH SEVEN OF HIS FELLOW 
CONTENDERS. 
AS HE POINTED OUT, THE NAACP 
VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CALL FOR 
THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE 
PRESIDENT. 
NOTABLE REBUKE FROM ONE OF THE 
MOST STORIED CIVIL RIGHTS 
ORGANIZATIONS. 
BUT BOOKER IS AMONG MANY IN THE 
PARTY WHO ARE RUNNING RIGHT NOW 
THAT AT LEAST SUPPORT AN 
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. 
JOE BIDEN ALSO SAID THAT HE 
SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT. 
BUT SAID IT HAS TO BE IN A, 
QUOTE, ORDERLY WAY SO THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND 
QUOTE, IT IS BEING DONE NOT FOR 
POLITICAL REASONS. 
BIDEN POINTED OUT THAT WILL ARE 
PLENTY OF REASONS WHY THE 
PRESIDENT COULD BE CHARGED 
AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. 
LATER CLARIFIED THAT HE DOESN'T 
NECESSARILY MEAN THAT TRUMP 
SHOULD BE CHARGED. 
THAT'S THE SENSITIVE ASPECT OF 
THIS DEBATE. 
DO YOU GO SO FAR AS TO SAY YES 
IF I'M PRESIDENT, MY JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT WILL IMPEACH HIM? 
TO DO THAT WOULD BE DOING 
EXACTLY WHAT THEY ACCUSED 
DONALD TRUMP OF DOING WHICH IS 
POLITICIZING THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT AND THE 
PROSECUTORIAL PROCESS. 
SO WHILE THEY MAY THINK THERE'S 
ENOUGH EVIDENCE THERE, YOU'RE 
LIKELY TO SEE THEM STOP SHORT 
OF SAYING WHEN I'M PRESIDENT WE 
WOULD ENSURE THAT HE IS 
PROSECUTED. 
IT IS WHAT DONALD TRUMP SAID TO 
HILLARY CLINTON IN THAT DEBATE. 
IF I'M PRESIDENT, YOU'RE GOING 
TO JAIL. 
IT WOULD BE THE SAFE THREAT. 
>> AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION 
INDEED. 
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT POLLING 
NUMBERS. 
I WANT TO PULL UP ONE POLLING 
NUMBER. 
WHAT SHOULD DEMS TALK ABOUT? 
69% SAY THEY SHOULD FOCUS ON 
TRYING TO DEFEAT DONALD TRUMP. 
ONLY 31% SAY THEY SHOULD FOCUS 
ON IMPEACHMENT. 
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE 2020 
CONTENDERS, HEALTH CARE DID 
VERY WELL FOR DEMOCRATS LAST GO-
AROUND. 
DO THEY FEEL THIS IS AN ISSUE 
THAT WILL GALVANIZE VOTERS AND 
BRING THEM TO THE POLLS. 
>> NOT NECESSARILY. 
WHEN THEY WALK INTO A VETERANS 
HALL IN IOWA OR A BAKERY IN NEW 
HAMPSHIRE OR SOME KIND OF 
FACTORY IN SOUTH CAROLINA, THEY 
KNOW THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE 
THERE ARE WITH THEM IN THEIR 
CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, 
ABOUT POSSIBLY IMPEACHMENT. 
IT IS UNSAID. 
THEY DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT 
IT. 
THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY 
SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON THE 
ISSUES, HEALTH CARE, CLIMATE 
CHANGE, REVERSING TAX CUTS. 
AND THEY TALK VERY LITTLE ABOUT 
IMPEACHMENT AND WILL CONTINUE 
TO. 
AT THE NAACP CONVENTION, THERE 
WAS ONE QUESTION THAT THEY 
ANSWERED ABOUT CONCERNS OF 
AFRICAN-AMERICANS. 
WHILE IT IS THERE AND THEY HAVE 
EXPRESSED HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT 
IT, IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A 
CENTRAL ASPECT OF WHAT IT IS 
THAT THEY TALK ABOUT ON A 
REGULAR BASIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE 
SEEN THE SAME POLLING THAT WE 
HAVE. 
AND, YOU KNOW, DEMOCRATS HERE 
TODAY HAVE SAID THEY BELIEVE 
WHAT TRANSPIRED HERE TODAY 
COULD BE THAT TURNING POINT. 
WHERE THAT NUMBER STARTS TO 
TURN AND MORE AMERICANS START 
TO SUPPORT FURTHER PURSUING 
POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT CHARGES. 
WE WILL SEE. 
BECAUSE THE EARLY REVIEWS OF 
COURSE ARE THAT MUELLER MAY NOT 
HAVE BEEN THE MOST COMPELLING 
CHARACTER WITNESS TO THAT 
ATTEMPT. 
>> ED O'KEEFE, WE WILL CHECK 
BACK WITH YOU IN A BIT. 
THERE WAS A MOMENT THAT YOU 
POINTED OUT THAT CONGRESSMAN 
WELCH SAID I HOPE THIS IS NOT 
THE NEW NORMAL. 
THAT POINT MUELLER SAID I FEAR 
IT IS. 
>> I FOUND THAT THE MOST 
DISTURBING MOMENT IN ALL OF THE 
TESTIMONY. 
DISTURBING BECAUSE I'M A 
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA. 
AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE MY 
COUNTRY IN ANY WAY HAVE ITS 
ELECTIONS CORRUPTED BY A 
FOREIGN POWER. 
>> AS YOU MENTIONED, WE'RE 
TALKING ABOUT RUSSIAN 
INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION. 
I SHOULD MAKE THAT POINT. 
THAT IS THE BIG FOCUS. 
WE'RE EIGHT MONTHS -- IT IS 
HARD TO IMAGINE. 
EIGHT MONTHS FROM ELECTION AT 
THIS POINT. 
>> AND I THINK MOLLY CAN GO TO 
POT AN ANALYTICAL ASPECT OF IT. 
I THINK AS TO THE LEGAL ASPECT 
OF IT, IT IS HOW DO WE STOP 
THIS? 
HOW DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE OR THE INTELLIGENCE 
AGENCIES OR BOTH GO TO TRY TO 
STOP THIS IN A MEANINGFUL WAY 
WHEN WE HAVE LEARNED FOR THOSE 
OF US WHO ARE READ THE ENTIRE 
MUELLER REPORT, ALL 440-SOME 
PAGES OF IT THAT WHAT WE HAVE 
LEARNED IS HOW DEEP AND HOW 
THOR ETHE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE 
WAS. 
AND IT IS NOT ONLY RUSSIA THAT 
WE HAVE TO FEAR. 
AND ROBERT MUELLER AND THE 
QUESTIONERS BROUGHT THAT UP. 
IT COULD BE ANY OTHER COUNTRY 
THAT GOES AND DECIDES THEY WANT 
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTORAL 
PROCESS. 
AND I FIND THAT IT PROBABLY IS 
THE NEW NORMAL AND THAT THAT IS 
HIGHLY DISTURBING TO ME. 
AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE HIGHLY 
DISTURBING TO EVERYONE IN 
AMERICA. 
>> WHICH IS WHY WE SAW THAT 
TONAL IN THE AFTERNOON HEARING. 
IT WAS A REPUBLICAN, WILL HERR 
WHO ASKED MUELLER, WHAT DO YOU 
RECOMMEND? 
WHICH AGENCY TAKES THE LEAD. 
>> UH-HUH. 
>> TO DEFEND AGAINST THIS? 
WHO DO WE -- WHO FIGHTS BACK? 
AND MUELLER DIDN'T -- HE DIDN'T 
OFFER ANY ANSWER TO THAT. 
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS 
OVERALL, THIS ENTIRE HEARING, 
WHAT HAPPENS NOW AT THIS POINT? 
HAVE WE PUT THIS TO BED? 
>> WE PUT IT TO BED LEGALLY. 
AT LEAST UNTIL THIS PRESIDENT 
LEAVES OFFICE. 
I MEAN, IT MAY RAISE ITS UGLY 
HEAD AGAIN WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
LEAVES OFFICE, WHETHER IT IS IN 
2020 OR IT IS IN 2024. 
BUT POLITICALLY, THAT IS A 
WHOLE OTHER QUESTION. 
THE IDEA THAT THE MUELLER 
REPORT WAS THE BOOK AND THIS IS 
THE MOVIE, ROBERT MUELLER WAS 
NOT GOING TO COME THERE AS SOME 
SWASH-BUCKLING REEOR MARVEL 
CHARACTER AND COME IN AND SAVE 
HIS DAY. 
HE DOES NOT SEE THAT AS HIS 
JOB. 
HIS JOB WAS TO DO THE MUELLER 
REPORT. 
HE DID THAT. 
HE CAME HERE AND ANSWERED 
QUESTIONS AS BRIEFLY AS HE 
COULD WITHOUT GIVING OUT ANY 
NEW INFORMATION. 
HE STUCK TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF 
THE REPORT AS MUCH ASTIAL POE. 
SO IF THE DEMOCRATS DECIDE ON 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT 
THEY ARE GOING TO GO FORWARD 
AND LOOK FOR ARTICLES 
IMPEACHMENT, THEY BETTER HAVE 
MORE SUPPORT THAN THEY HAVE 
TODAY. 
>> EXACTLY. 
AND CAN THEY CONVINCE ENOUGH 
MEMBERS OF THE CAUCUS. 
KEEP IN MIND, YOU KNOW, 
REPUBLICANS PRIVATELY THINK 
úTHAT IMPEACHMENT WORKS FOR THE 
BECAUSE IT SHOWS THOSE 
INDEPENDENTS, MAYBE THE 
DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED FOR TRUMP 
HOW ENTRENCHED THE DEMOCRATS 
ARE. 
AND THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO WIN 
THOSE VOTERS BACK. 
REPUBLICANS THINK IF THE 
DEMOCRATS PUSH THE INQUIRIES, 
PUSH IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT 
AFTER THE MUELLER REPORT CAME 
OUT, THAT WORKS FOR THE 
REPUBLICANS. 
AND DONALD TRUMP CAN MAKE THAT 
AN ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO DEALING 
WITH THE DEMOCRATIC POLICIES ON 
HEALTH CARE, ON CLIMATE CHANGE, 
ON BORDER, ON IMMIGRATION. 
AND YOU KNOW, DONALD TRUMP IS 
GOOD AT HIS BULLET POINTS. 
THIS ONE HE HAS A LOT OF THEM. 
>> WE SAW HIM RETWEETING QUITE 
A FEW THIS AFTERNOON. 
>> IT IS EARLY IN THE DAY. 
>> IT IS EARLY IN THE DAY. 
YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT. 
THE PRESIDENT IS EXPECTED TO IN 
FACT POTENTIALLY ADDRESS 
CAMERAS WHEN HE HEADS TO WEST 
VIRGINIA. 
WE WILL BE WATCHING FOR THAT. 
BUT FOR NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE 
A QUICK BREAK. 
WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO GET TO. 
WE HOPE YOU WILL STICK WITH US. 
WE'RE AWAITING REMARKS FROM 
NANCY PELOSI AND HER FELLOW 
DEMOCRATS AS WELL. 
THAT IS EXPECTED ANY MOMENT 
NOW. 
WE WILL BRING THOSE TO YOU LIVE 
AS WELL. 
STICK WITH US. 
YOU'RE STREAMING CBSN. 
