Full: Robert Mueller Testimony To Congress, Reaction And Analysis | NBC News

HERE ARE LESTER HOLT AND SAVANNAH GUTHRIE. >> GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY, AN EXTRAORDINARY MOMENT OF AMERICAN POLITICS. THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MUELLER WHO AS SPECIAL COUNSEL LED THE TWO YEARS INVESTIGATION INTO DONALD TRUMP AND RUSSIA INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN. >> MUELLER ARRIVED ON CAPITOL HILL A FEW MOMENT AGO. IT HAS BEEN FOUR MONTHS SINCE HE SUBMITTED HIS REPORT. TODAY IS THE FIRST TIME HE'LL FACE PUBLIC QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HE UNCOVERS. MUELLER WILL TESTIFY UNDER OATH FOR AT LEAST FIVE HOURS TODAY. >> PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY CALLED THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT. TODAY ROBERT MUELLER, THE LIFELONG REPUBLICAN AND NOW A PRIVATE CITIZEN WILL HAVE HIS SAY AND THE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE ENORMOUS. >> WE'LL BE FOLLOWING THIS ALL THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND STANDING BY TO HELP US IS OUR TEAM CORRESPONDENTS AND ANALYSTS. I AM GOING TO START OUT WITH KASIE HUNT ON THE HILL FOR US. >> A HISTORIC DAY, TWO YEARS IN THE MAKING SAVANNAH. WE'LL SEE ROBERT MUELLER IN A FEW SHORT MINUTES HERE SIT DOWN WITH THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT'S GOING TO BEGIN AT 8:30.

THAT'S THE LARGER OF THE TWO COMMITTEES. THERE ARE 41 MEMBERS ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. EACH ONE IS GOING TO GET ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK. THIS IS GOING TO FOCUS ON ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION, VOLUME TWO OF THE MUELLER REPORT. YOU WILL SEE ALL OF THOSE INSTANCES LAID OUT AND THE REPORT DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING THEN WE'LL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A BREAK AND THE INTELLIGENCE WILL TAKE OVER. THERE IS ONLY 22 MEMBERS AND THEY'LL GET FIVE MINUTES. THAT'S WHEN YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION CONSPIRACY QUESTIONS THAT ARE LAID OUT IN THE FIRST VOLUME OF THE MUELLER REPORT. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE TASKED TO DIG INTO. THAT'S GOING TO TAKE US ABOUT 5 HOURS OF TOTAL TESTIMONY HERE. THE PERSON THAT'S SITTING WITH HIM, WE HAD LAST MINUTE DEVELOPMENTS, ROBERT MUELLER'S NUMBER TWO IN THE COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION.

HE'S A FORMER DEPUTY COUNCIL TO ROBERT MUELLER. IN THE JUDICIARY HEARING HE'LL ACT AS MUELLER'S LAWYER. HE'S COUNSEL AND HE'S GOING TO SIT NEXT TO MUELLER. HE'S NOT GOING TO BE SWORN IN FOR THAT HEARING. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WILL BE A SWORN WITNESS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS CONCERNS SOME DEMOCRATS. PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETING THIS MORNING ABOUT ROBERT MUELLER BEING ABLE TO GET HELP FROM ONE OF HIS LAWYERS. AGAIN, SAVANNAH, THE POLITICAL QUESTION AT STAKES COULD NOT BE HIGHER HERE. THIS IS REALLY A CRITICAL TEST FOR DEMOCRATS WHO ARE LOOKING TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT, THIS MAY BE THEIR FINAL MOMENT TO LAY OUT FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ON THE TABLE. SAVANNAH. >> THAT TESTIMONY IS EXPECTED TO GET UNDERWAY IN ABOUT 12 MINUTES FROM NOW. >> WE EXPECT MR. MUELLER TO REFER A LOT OF THIS REPORT. THIS IS THE VERSION OF IT, VARIOUS FORM OF MEDIA.

THE WHOLE THING IS A BEST SELLER. A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE NOT READ IT. 448 PAGES. 951 BLACKED OUT REDACTIONS. VOLUME TWO COVERS TEN INSTANCES OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY PRESIDENT TRUMP INCLUDING ORDERING THE FIRE OF MUELLER HIMSELF. PETE WILLIAMS WILL BE WITH US FOR ALL OF TODAY'S TESTIMONY. >> THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION RESULTED IN SEVEN CONVICTIONS INCLUDING FIVE MEN WHO WORKED FOR TRUMP ON THE CAMPAIGN OR THE WHITE HOUSE. AMONG THEM, PAUL MANAFORT AND MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP'S LAWYER AND MICHAEL FLYNN, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND ROGER STONE GOES ON TRIAL IN NOVEMBER AND TWO GROUPS OF RUSSIANS WERE CHARGED WITH MEDDLING IN THE CAMPAIGN BY STEALING AND PUBLICIZING DEMOCRATIC E-MAILS AND PLANNING PHONY SOCIAL MEDIA. THE REPORT SAYS THIS, RUSSIA PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY.

THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE CAMPAIGN CONSPIRE OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIANS. AS FOR THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, THE REPORT SITES 10 POSSIBLE ACTS OF ON OBSTRUCTIONS. THE COUNCIL TEAM NEVER GOT THE POINT DECIDING WHETHER ANY OF THAT AMOUNTS TO A CRIME BECAUSE A LONG STANDING PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE INDICTED. MILER SAID THOUGH IF THE TEAM HAD CONFIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THEN THE REPORT WOULD SAID SO. >> THANK YOU, PETE. >> THE HALIE JACKSON, THE PRESIDENT MAY TUNE IN HIMSELF. >> HE LEFT IT OPEN TO INTERPRETATIONS. IF YOU ARE A BETTING MAN OR WOMAN, I THINK YOU WILL BE CONFIDENT OF THE PRESIDENT IS ENGAGED OF WHAT'S HAPPENING FROM WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. HE'S UP AND TWEETING ABOUT ALL OF THIS THIS MORNING. IT IS THE GREATEST HIT OF HIS TALKING POINT, NO COLLUSION AND NO COLLUSION OR OBSTRUCTION. WITH AARON ZEBLEY WILL BE NEAR WITH ROBERT MUELLER FOR BOTH OF THE HEARING TODAY. HERE IS WHAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS FEELING RIGHT NOW, THE PRESIDENT IS IRRITATED AND ROBERT MUELLER IS THE DOMINATING HEADLINE INTO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

WE ARE TOLD THE PRESIDENT IS NOT OVERLY FURIOUS AS WE HAVE SEEN HIM IN PAST INSTANCES WHEN MUELLER IS FRONT AND CENTERED. FOLKS ARE FEELING BATTERED HEARTED. THEY HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE AND KIND OF HERE WE GO AGAIN AT ATTITUDE. BUT IF YOU HAVE SEEN FROM THE PUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT IS FRUSTRATED BY MUELLER'S TEAM. HE HAD NOTHING ON HIS PUBLIC SCHEDULE WHICH MORNING WHICH IS AN INDICATION HE'LL BE TUNED IN ON EVERYTHING GOING DOWN. WE'LL GET A CHANCE TO SEE THE PRESIDENT IN PERSON AND POTENTIALLY ASK HIM SOME QUESTIONS HERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE BEFORE HE HEADS TO A FUNDRAISER IN WEST VIRGINIA LATER ON. LESTER AND SAVANNAH. >> WE ARE UNDER EIGHT MINUTES AWAY FROM THE SCHEDULE STARTING. HERE IS OUR CHUCK TODD AND ANDREA MITCHELL AND OUR ANALYST, FORMER ACTING GENERAL OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, HE WROTE A NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED IDENTIFYING OF WHAT HE CALLS THE THREE QUESTIONS THAT ROBERT NEEDS TO ANSWER.

WHAT MAY WE EXPECT TO HEAR A LOT ABOUT, LET ME TURN TO PARAGRAPHS A, B AND C, WHAT QUESTIONS MAY BE PLAYED THROUGH? >> THIS INVESTIGATION IS ENORMOUSLY TECHNICAL. THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE TO COME THROUGH ARE NOT PAGE 442, SUBPARAGRAPH A, NUMBER 2 BUT RATHER THE SIMPLE ONE. WHEN THE MUELLER REPORT WAS GIVEN TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TRUMP SAID THIS FOUND NO OBSTRUCTION AND NO COLLUSION AND TOTALLY EXONERATES THE PRESIDENT. THE FIRST THREE QUESTIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE MR. MUELLER, YOU WROTE THIS REPORT, DID YOU FIND THIS REPORT, DID YOU FIND NO OBSTRUCTION OR NO COLLUSION? DID YOU TOTALLY EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT. AS PETE WILLIAMS JUST SAID THE ACTUAL REPORT SAID SIMPLY THE OPPOSITE.

IF HE COULD EXONERATED THE PRESIDENT, WE WOULD. >> THE TESTIMONY IS NOT HAPPENING IN A VACUUM, IT IS HAPPENING ON CAPITOL HILL. IT IS HAPPENING AMONG DEMOCRATS WHO ARE THEMSELVES DIVIDED OVER WHETHER OR NOT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE STARTED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. WHAT'S THE PRESSURE OF NANCY PELOSI FACING RIGHT NOW? >> THIS FEELS LIKE IN SOME WAY THE MUELLER REPORT, IT WAS OUT AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO HEAR IT VERBALIZED AND THEY'LL PUT IT OVER THE PACKAGE AND FOCUS ON THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN. THERE IS A PART OF ME WONDERS IS THAT WHAT TODAY WILL FEEL LIKE. I THINK THAT'S THE CHALLENGE BECAUSE I THINK TODAY UNDERSCORES JUST HOW MUCH THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE STRUGGLED TO DO ACCOUNTABILITY ON THIS WHITE HOUSE. A LOT OF THIS IS BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE IS STONE WALLED AND PREVENTED AND BLOCKS SUBPOENAS OR NOT ABIDED BY THEM.

THEY HAVE NOT HAD ANY SORT OF BIG MOMENT WHERE THEY FEEL OH, THIS IS WHY DEMOCRATS ARE IN CHARGE OF CONGRESS AND THIS IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY YOU PROMISE TO BRING. THIS IS THEIR BIGGEST MOMENT YET PRESENTING ACCOUNTABILITY ON THIS PRESIDENT. IF THEY DON'T DELIVER, IT COULD BECOME A POLITICAL DIVIDE. >> IS THIS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DEMOCRATS TO REGAIN THE NARRATIVE. IF YOU THINK BACK FOUR MONTHS AGO, WILLIAM BARR, PUTS UP THAT BRIEF SUMMARY ON A SATURDAY EVENING AND THAT TONE HAS NOT CHANGED OF WHAT HE SAID IN THAT BRIEF SUMMARY. >> ACTUALLY WILLIAM BARR IN THAT MOMENT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. HE CREATED THE NARRATIVE AND DONALD TRUMP THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA THROUGH HIS MEDIA FEED RAN THIS, WITCH HUNT, ALL OF THE REST OF THIS. THIS MAY WELL BE DEMOCRATS' LAST CHANCE. THEY'RE NOT LIKE YET ON AGAIN AND THE DELAYS AND ALTERCATION AND ALL THE IMPEDIMENTS INCLUDING THIS LAST MINUTE LETTER TO ROBERT MUELLER, GUARD RAILS THAT NO ONE THINKS IT IS REQUIRED.

HE MAY WELL FEEL HE HAS TO ABIDE BY IT AND BEING SOMEONE WHO IS SO MUCH A MAN OF THE SYSTEM OF THE INSTITUTIONS. AND SO THEY HAVE OBSTRUCTED IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY NOT CRIMINALLY OBSTRUCTED BUT JUST IN TERMS OF STOPPING THE WHITE HOUSE AND STOPPING THE HOUSE' DEMOCRATS FROM MAKING THEIR CASE. IF THEY'RE EVER GOING TO MAKE THEIR CASE POLITICALLY OR LEGALLY TOWARDS ARTICLE IMPEACHMENTS, IT IS TODAY. >> ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE HERE BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE NOT READ THE MUELLER REPORT. THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO YOU GET PEOPLE TO CONSUME THIS MUELLER REPORT? THE CURRENT FBI DIRECTOR ADMITTED HE DID NOT READ THE REPORT.

ONE OF THE GREATEST TRAVESTY OF WASHINGTON IS THE LACK OF URGENCY OF THIS REPORT. >> YESTERDAY OF CHRIS WRAY, THAT WAS THE MOMENT. IF THE FBI DIRECTOR HAVE NOT READ THE FULL REPORT. >> THE FIRST 30 OR 40 PAGES IN HERE BEFORE WE GET TO THE POLITICAL SIDE ARE ABOUT THE DEPTHS OF THE RUSSIAN EFFORTS UNDERMINING THE ELECTIONS. >> IT IS READABLE. >> IT IS NOT HARD TO READ. >> IT READS LIKE A SPINE NOVEL. IT IS WHERE ROBERT MUELLER IN NINE MINUTES STARTED AND ENDED HIS VERBAL, HE NEVER TOOK QUESTIONS. IT IS NOT SO MUCH OF THE OBSTRUCTION WHICH IS HARD TO PROVE INTENT.

YOU ARE A LAWYER AND YOU KNOW BETTER THAN I AS A CAREER PROSECUTOR HOW HARD THAT CASE MAY BE. THE FACT THE MATTER OF THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IS CLEAR. THERE IS NO CRIME OF COLLUSION AS WE KNOW SO THE PRESIDENT MISDIRECTED THAT BY SAYING NO COLLUSION AND COMPLETELY EXONERATED. DID YOU PROVE NO COLLUSION IN YOUR REPORT? HE COULD SAY WE NEVER ADDRESSED COLLUSION. >> AS YOU WELL KNOW THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT A PROSECUTOR IS LOOKING TO INDICT MAY HAVE TO ESTABLISH PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I DID NOT ENTERTAIN THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I AM NOT ALLOWED TO INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT. THE POLITICAL QUESTION BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE IS WHETHER THE CONDUCT THAT ROBERT MUELLER IS GOING TO TESTIFY TO IS A POLITICAL PROBLEM. IT IS SOMETHING THAT MAY WARRANT IMPEACHMENT WHICH IS A SEPARATE ISSUE THAN WHETHER IT IS TRUTH BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE COURTROOM.

>> ABSOLUTELY. DO YOU WANT THIS PERSON SITTING THERE, THE MUELLER REPORT FOUND WHILE THEY COULD NOT FIND THE CRIMINAL STANDARDS FOR CONSPIRACY WHICH IS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IT NEVER SAID THERE WAS NO ATTEMPTS TO CONSPIRE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. ON A LOWER LEVEL OF PRISM. THAT'S WHAT'S SO FRUSTRATING. THE LACK OF URGENCY AROUND THIS AND THE FACT THAT DEMOCRATS SAW THIS AS AS POLITICAL PROBLEM AS OPPOSED TO A KIND OF RULE OF LAW OR GOVERNANCE PROBLEM. IF YOU ASK OURSELF, WOULD YOU ACCEPTED A CEO OF ANY PUBLIC COMPANY THAT DOES ANYTHING LIKE THIS. >> I GOT 30 SECONDS. >> NANCY PELOSI WHO IS A SHREWD POLITICIAN IS LOOKING AT PUBLIC OPINION POLLS. PEOPLE DO NOT SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT'S WHAT SHE'S LOOKING AT. >> THIS IS SHORT TERM/LONG-TERM. >> I THINK IT IS THE IRAQ WAR VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS AND THE MOMENT YOU THINK POLITICS LOOK ONE WAY AND THE FIVE YEARS POLITICS COULD BE A 180.

THAT'S WHAT I THINK DEMOCRATS ARE NOT THINKING ENOUGH ABOUT. >> WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS HEARING ROOM IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IN A FEW MOMENT WE'LL START FIVER HOURS OF TESTIMONY FROM ROBERT MUELLER, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR. HE'LL TAKE THE WITNESS STAND IN JUST A FEW. I WANT TO PAUSE AND LET SOME OTHER STATIONS JOIN US. >> GOOD MORNING, 8:30 ON THE EASTERN TIME ZONE, AS WE COME ON THE AIR, YOU ARE SEEING IN THE HEARING ROOM IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WHERE ROBERT MUELLER WILL BE SWORN INTO TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMISSION AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I AM JOINING WITH LESTER HOLT AND OUR CHAIRMAN, JERRY NADLER. HE'S SITTING DOWN AND GETTING READY TO START THIS HEARING. FAIR TO SAY A RELUCTANT WITNESS THIS MORNING.

>> HE IS. THAT LEADS TO A BIGGER CHALLENGE FOR DEMOCRATS IN PARTICULAR. THEY WANT HIM TO NARRATE THE STORY. NARRATE, GIVE US THE AUDIO VERSION OF YOUR BOOK AND TELL US A STORY AND DON'T BORE US. >> IS IT THE STORY OR THE SOUND BYTE THEY ARE LOOKING FOR? >> I THINK THEY'RE LOOKING FOR HIM TO HELP CONFIRM THE STORY. IT WILL BE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT GOES. >> THERE IS MUELLER. >> HE'S NOT THE MOST DYNAMIC STORY. >> WE HAVE NOT HEARD A LOT OF HIS VOICE. HE CAME OUT SEVERAL WEEKS AGO AND GAVE A BRIEF STATEMENT THAT THE REPORT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. HIS VOICE IS NOT FAMILIAR TO A LOT OF AMERICANS. WE'LL HEAR SEVERAL HOURS OF IT.

NEIL, ON THIS ISSUE HE'S BEING FORCED TO TESTIFY HERE TODAY. HE CAME OUT WHEN HE MADE HIS NINE-MINUTE STATEMENT, PLEASE DON'T CALL ME. MY REPORT IS MY TESTIMONY, YOU ARE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE. HE'S GOING TO SIT DOWN AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BEFORE HIM. HE'S NOT REACHING OUT TO MAKE THIS GOOD FOR DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS. >> MUELLER SAID THE ENTIRE TIME HAS BEEN NOT IN THE PUBLIC EYE, HE'S BEEN IN THE PUBLIC EYE A COUPLE OF TIMES TO CORRECT THE RECORD. >> ON THE DATE OF THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING — >> PERHAPS WE HAVE A PROTESTER INSIDE THE ROOM. >> SOMEBODY WANTS TO QUESTION HIM EARLY. >> THAT HAPPENS ON THIS TYPE OF PROFILING HEARING ON CAPITOL HILL. THERE IS ALWAYS AN OUTBURST. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN GAVELLED IN. >> I HAVE TO SAY THE CHIEF DEFENDANT SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW. JIM JORDAN IS ON JUDICIARY. HE'S A DEFENDER AND A FREQUENT FOX NEWS. >> FREEDOM CAUCUS, THE HOUSE OF REPUBLICANS WHO ARE DEAD SET AGAINST IT. >> MR. MUELLER IS NOT TAKING HIS SEAT YET BUT HE'LL BE SWORN IN HERE SHORTLY.

HE'LL GIVE AN OPENING REMARK. >> JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER. WE WELCOME EVERYONE TO TODAY'S HEARING ON OVERSIGHT OF THE REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIA INTERFERENCE OF 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 IS A MODEL OF RESPONSIBILITY. YOU ARE A DECORATED MARINE OFFICER. YOU AWARDED THE PURPLE HEART AND THE BRONZE STAR IN VIETNAM. YOU SERVED THE SENIOR ROLE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE IMMEDIATE AFTER MATH OF 9/11, YOU SERVED AS DIRECTOR OF THE FBI.

TWO YEARS AGO YOU RETURNED TO PUBLIC SERVICE TO LEAD THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIA INTERFERENCE OF 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 AND GROSSLY, UNFAIR ATTACKS. YOUR INDICTMENT SPOKE FOR YOU IN ASTONISHING DETAILS. OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOU OBTAINED CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS AGAINST 37 PEOPLE. YOU SECURED HIS DEPARTMENT CAMPAIGN MANAGER AND HIS PERSONAL LAWYER AND ADVISER AMONG OTHERS. IN THE PAUL MANAFORT'S CASE. YOU RECOVERED AS MUCH AS $42 MILLION. TAXPAYERS APPROACHES ZERO. AND IN YOUR REPORT, ACCOUNTABILITY AS WELL. IN VOLUME ONE, YOU FIND THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ATTACKED OUR 2016 ELECTIONS QUOTE, "IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION," THE ATTACK IS DESIGNED TO BENEFIT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. VOLUME TWO, WALK US THROUGH TEN INCIDENTS OF POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION. PRESIDENT ATTEMPTED TO EXERT UNDO INFLUENCE OVER YOUR INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR INCLUDED, PUBLIC ATTACKS ON THE INVESTIGATION AND NON EFFORTS TO CONTROL IT AND EFFORTS IN BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TO ENCOURAGE WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE.

AMONG THE MOST SHOCKING OF THESE INCIDENTS, PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL TO HAVE YOU FIRED AND THEN TO LIE AND DENY THAT IT DID NOT HAPPEN. HE ORDERED HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER TO CONVINCE TO RECUSE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STEP IN AND LIMIT YOUR WORK. HE ATTEMPTED TO PREVENT WITNESSES FROM COOPERATING WITH YOUR INVESTIGATION. ALTHOUGH THE DEPARTMENT'S POLICY BARRED YOU FROM INDICTING THE PRESIDENT FROM THIS CONDUCT. YOU MADE CLEAR THAT HE'S NOT EXONERATED. ANY OTHER PERSON WHO ACTED IN THIS WAY WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH CRIMES. IN THIS NATION AND NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW. WHICH BRINGS ME TO THIS COMMITTEE'S WORK, RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, THESE ARE THE MARKS BY WHICH WE SERVE ON THIS COMMITTEE WILL BE MEASURED AS WELL. DIRECTOR MUELLER, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE UNCOVERED. YOU RECOGNIZE AS MUCH WHEN YOU SAY QUOTE "THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THE PROCESS OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING PRESIDENT OF WRONG DOING," THAT PROCESS BEGINS WITH THE WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE.

WE'LL FOLLOW YOUR EXAMPLE DIRECTOR MUELLER, WE'LL ACT WITH INTEGRITY. WE'LL FOLLOW THE FACTS WITH A LEAD. WE'LL CONSIDER ALL OF APPROPRIATE REMEDIES. WE'LL MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE HOUSE WHEN OUR WORK CONCLUDES. WE'LL DO THIS WORK BECAUSE THERE MUST BE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CONDUCT DESCRIBING YOUR REPORT ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE PRESIDENT. THANK YOU DIRECTOR MUELLER, WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR TESTIMONY. IT IS NOW MY PLEASURE TO RECOGNIZE THE RANKING MEMBER, MR. COLLINS FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU MR. MUELLER FOR BEING HERE.

FOR TWO YEARS LEADING UP TO THE MUELLER REPORT AND THE THREE MONTHS IN, AMERICANS WERE FIRST TOLD WHAT TO EXPECT AND WHAT TO BELIEVE. CONCLUSION WE ARE TOLD WAS IN PLAIN SIGHT EVEN WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT FIND IT. GENERAL BARR PROVIDED TO EVERY AMERICAN, WE READ NO AMERICAN CONSPIRED INTERFERENCE. WE ARE HERE TO ASK SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT MR. MUELLER'S WORK AND WE'LL DO THAT. TODAY MARKS THE END OF MR. MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION THAT CLOSED IN APRIL. THE BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS EXTREMELY HIGH. WE ARE TOLD THIS INVESTIGATION BEGAN AS AN INQUIRY WHETHER RUSSIA MEDDLE INTO OUR 2016 ELECTIONS. MR. MULLER, UCONN COLLUDEDD THE DID. >> MR. MUELLER CONCLUDED HE DID NOT. HIS FAMILY OR ADVISERS DID NOT. THE REPORT CONCLUDES NO ONE IN THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN COLLUDED OR COLLABORATED OR CONSPIRE WITH THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT ASSUMES HIS GUILT WHILE HE KNEW THE EXTENT OF HIS PRESIDENCY. THE PRESIDENT'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE INVESTIGATION WAS NEGATIVE. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT USE AUTHORITY TO CLOSE THE INVESTIGATION. HE ASKED HIS LAWYER AND DISQUALIFY MR. MUELLER FROM THE JOB, BUT HE DID NOT SHUT DOWN THE INVESTIGATION.

THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE WAS INNOCENT. THOSE ARE THE FACTS OF THE MUELLER REPORT. RUSSIA MEDDLE INTO THE 2016 ELECTIONS. NOTHING WE HEAR TODAY WILL CHANGE THOSE FACTS. ONE ELEMENT OF THE STORY REMAINS, THE BEGINNING OF THE FBI INVESTIGATION. I LOOK FORWARD TO MR. MUELLER'S TESTIMONY OF WHAT HE FOUND DURING HIS REVIEW AND IN ADDITION INSPECTOR GENERAL CONTINUES TO REVIEW HOW GOSSIPS COULD BE USED AGAINST A PRIVATE CITIZEN, A PRESIDENT. THOSE RESULTS WILL BE RELEASED AND WE'LL NEED TO LEARN FROM THEM TO ENSURE GOVERNMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT POWER WILL NEVER AGAIN USED IN A PRIVATE CITIZEN OR A POLITICAL CANDIDATE. THE ORIGINS AND CONCLUSION OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION IS THE SAME THING, WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN AMERICAN. EVERYBODY HAS THEIR VOICE. EVERY AMERICAN ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND GUARANTEE OF DUE PROCESS. IF WE CARRY ANYTHING AWAY TODAY, IT MUST BE WE INCREASE OUR ELECTIONS.

FINALLY, WE MUST AGREE THAT THE OPPORTUNITY CALLS HERE IS TOO HIGH. THE MONTHS WE HAVE SPENT INVESTIGATING FAILED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE GROWING JOB MARKET, INSTEAD WE HAVE GOTTEN STUCK AND PARALYZED THIS COMMITTEE IN THIS HOUSE. HERE IS A SIDE NOTE. EVERY WEEK I LEAVE MY FAMILY AND KIDS, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO ME TO COME TO THIS PLACE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS PLACE IS A PLACE WHERE WE CAN DO THINGS AND HELP PEOPLE. SIX AND A HALF YEARS AGO, I CAME HERE TO WORK, WE ACCOMPLISHED A LOT IN THOSE FIRST SIX YEARS ON A BIPARTISAN BASES WITH MANY OF MY FRIENDS ACROSS THE ISLE SITTING HERE TODAY. THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF THE MAJORITY'S DISLIKES OF THIS PRESIDENT AND THIS INVESTIGATION CAUSED US TO ACCOMPLISH NOTHING BUT TALK ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF OUR COUNTRY WHILE OUR BORDER IS ON FIRE AND CRISIS AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS STOPPED.

THIS HEARING IS LONG OVERDUE. WE HAD PROOFS FOR MONTHS. WHAT WE NEED TODAY IS TO LET THAT TRUTH BRING US CONFIDENCE AND I HOPE MR. CHAIRMAN, CLOSURE WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU MR. COLLINS. I WILL NOW INTRODUCE TODAY'S WITNESS. ROBERT MUELLER SERVED AS DIRECTOR OF FBI SINCE 2001 TO 2013. HE SERVED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SIS OVERSEEING THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIA INTERFERENCE OF THE 2016 ELECTION. HE RECEIVED HIS BA FROM UNIVERSITY. MR. MUELLER IS ACCOMPANIED BY AARON ZEBLEY ON THE INVESTIGATION. WE WELCOME OUR OUR WITNESS AND WE THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN TODAY'S HEARING. IF YOU WILL PLEASE RISE, I WILL BEGIN TO SWEAR YOU IN. >> WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND PLEASE? DO YOU SWEAR OF THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, SO HELP YOU GOD. LET THE RECORD SHOW IT IS AFFIRMATIVE AND THANK YOU AND BE SEATED. YOUR WRITTEN STATEMENT WILL BE ENTERED IN THE RECORD AND ITS ENTIRETY.

I ASK THAT YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN FIVE MINUTES. DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU MAY BEGIN. >> GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN NADLER. AND MEMBER COLLINS AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. AS YOU KNOW IN MAY OF 2017, THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKED ME TO SERVE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL. I UNDER TOOK THAT ROLE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS OF PARAMOUNT INTEREST TO THE NATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FOREIGN ADVERSARY HAD INTERFERED IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. AS THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID AT THE TIME, THE APPOINTMENT WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE OUTCOME. MY STAFF AND I CARRIED OUT THIS ASSIGNMENT WITH THAT CRITICAL OBJECTIVE IN MIND TO WORK QUIETLY AND THOROUGHLY AND WITH INTEGRITY SO THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE OUTCOME.

THE ORDER POINTED ME AS SPECIAL COUNSEL AND DIRECTED OUR OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. THIS INCLUDED INVESTIGATING ANY LENGTHS OR COORDINATIONS BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. IT ALSO INCLUDED INVESTIGATING EFFORTS TO INTERFERE WITH OUR OBSTRUCT OR INVESTIGATION. THROUGHOUT THE INVESTIGATION, I CONTINUALLY STRESS TWO THINGS OF THE TEAMS WE HAVE ASSEMBLED. FIRST, WE NEEDED TO DO OUR WORK AS THOROUGHLY AS POSSIBLE ANDIT WAS IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST FOR OUR INVESTIGATION TO BE COMPLETE BUT NOT TO LAST A DAY LONGER THAN IT 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 CHARGE MORE THAN 30 DEFENDANTS WITH COMMITTING FEDERAL CRIMES INCLUDING 12 OFFICERS OF THE RUSSIAN MILITARY. 7 DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OR PLED GUILTY. OTHER CHARGES WE BROUGHT REMAINED PENDING TODAY. FOR THOSE MATTERS, I STRETCH THAT THE INDICTMENT CONTAINS — AND EVERY DEFENDANT IS PRESUMED INNOCENCE UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY. THE REPORT SAYS SET FORTH THE RESULTS OF OUR WORK AND THE REASON OF OUR CHARGING AND DECISIONS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LATER MADE THE REPORT LARGELY PUBLIC. AS YOU KNOW I MADE A FEW LIMITED REMARKS ABOUT OUR REPORT WHEN WE CLOSED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE IN MAY OF THIS YEAR.

THERE WERE CERTAIN POINTS OF EMPHASIS. OUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION. SECOND, THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRE WITH RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ELECTION INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. WE DID NOT ADDRESS COLLUSION WHICH WAS NOT A LEGAL TERM RATHER WE FOCUSED ON WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE ANY MEMBER OF THE CAMPAIGN TAING PART IN A CONSPIRACY AND IT WAS NOT. THIRD, OUR INVESTIGATION OF EFFORTS TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION AND LIE TO INVESTIGATORS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE. OBSTRUCTION STRENGTHEN THE CORE OF OUR JUSTICE TO FIND THE TRUTH AND WRONGDOERS ACCOUNTABLE. VOLUME TWO, WE INVESTIGATED A SERIES OF ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT TOWARDS THE INVESTIGATION. BASED ON JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS, WE DECIDED NOT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME.

THAT WAS OUR DECISION THEN AND REMAINS OUR DECISION TODAY. LET ME SAY FURTHER WORD ABOUT MY APPEARANCE TODAY. IT IS UNUSUAL FOR A PROSECUTOR TO TESTIFY ABOUT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, GIVEN MY ROLE AS A PROSECUTOR, THERE ARE REASONS WHY MY TESTIMONY WILL NECESSARILY BE LIMITED. FIRST, PUBLIC TESTIMONY COULD AFFECT SEVERAL ONGOING MATTERS. SOME OF THESE MATTERS, COURT RULES OR JUDICIAL ORDERS LIMIT THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO PROTECT THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. AND CONSISTENT WITH LONG STANDING JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES, 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 OF 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 OF CERTAIN AREAS THAT I KNOW OF PUBLIC INTEREST. FOR EXAMPLE, I AM UNABLE TO ADDRESS INITIAL OPENING OF THE FBI RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WHICH OCCURRED MONTHS BEFORE MY APPOINTMENT OR THE SO-CALLED STEELE DOSSIER, THESE ARE MATTERS SUBJECTED OF ONGOING REVIEWS BY THE DEPARTMENT, ANY QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO THE FBI OR ONE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

AS I EXPLAIN WHEN WE CLOSE THE SPECIAL COUNCIL'S OFFICE IN MAY. OUR REPORT FINDS ANALYSIS AND DECISIONS THAT WE MADE. WE CONDUCTED AN EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATION OVER TWO YEARS. IN WRITING THE REPORT, WE STATED THE RESULTS OF OUR INVESTIGATION WITH PRECISION. WE SCRUTINIZE EVERY WORD. I DO NOT INTEND TO SUMMARIZE OR DESCRIBE THE RESULTS OF OUR WORK IN A DIFFERENT WAY. ON 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 OF CONGRESS. I WAS APPOINTED AS A PROSECUTOR. I INTEND TO ADHERE TO THAT ROLE AND TO THE DEPARTMENT'S STANDARDS THAT GOVERNANCE. I AM JOINED BY DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL MR. AARON ZEBLEY. MR. ZEBLEY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAY-TO-DAY OVERSIGHT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY OUR OFFICE. NOW I ALSO WANT TO AGAIN SAY THANK YOU TO THE ATTORNEYS, THE FBI AGENTS AND ANALYSTS AND 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 HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES WHO ARE DEMOCRACY, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION IS AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS. AS I SAID ON MAY 29th, THIS DESERVES THE ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU, WE'LL PROCEED UNDER THE FIVE MINUTES RULE OF QUESTION. >> THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY CLAIM YOUR REPORT FOUND OF NO OBSTRUCTION AND COMPLETE EXONERATED HIM. THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR REPORT SAYS, IS IT? >> CORRECT. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE REPORT SAYS. >> VOLUME TWO ON THE SCREEN, YOU WROTE "IF WE HAD CONFIDENCE AFTER A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS THAT THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, WE WOULD SO STATE, BASED ON THE FACTS WE ARE UNABLE TO READ THAT JUDGMENT," DOES THAT SAY THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION? >> NO.

>> YOU ARE UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THE PRESIDENT DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> AT THE OUT SET DETERMINED THAT WE — WHEN IT CAME TO THE PRESIDENT'S CULPABILITY WE NEEDED TO GO FORWARD ONLY AFTER TAKING TO ACCOUNT OF THE OLC OPINION THAT INDICATED THAT THE PRESIDENT, A SITTING PRESIDENT CAN'T 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 ACTUALLY TOTALLY EXONERATED THE PRESIDENT? >> NO. YOUR REPORT STATES THAT IT DID NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT. >> IT DOES. >> YOUR INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY FOUND QUOTE "MULTIPLE ACTS BY THE PRESIDENT THAT WERE CAPABLE OF EXERTING LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION INCLUDING THE RUSSIA INTERFERENCE," IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT FINDINGS MEAN SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND IT? >> THE FINDING INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXCALPATED FOR THE ACTS THAT HE COMMITTED. >> YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT INCIDENTS WHERE THE PRESIDENT USED HIS OFFICIAL POWER TO EXERT UNDO INFLUENCES OVER YOUR INVESTIGATION, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ON PAGE 7, VOLUME TWO, YOU WROTE "THE PRESIDENT BECAME AWARE THAT HIS OWN CONDUCT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED IN AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INQUIRY, THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN — AND EFFORTS IN BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TO ENCOURAGE WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION," SO PRESIDENT TRUMP EFFORT TO EXERT UNDOING — AFTER HE'S AWARE THAT HE'S BEING INVESTIGATED? >> I STICK WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. >> WHICH IS? >> ON PAGE 7, VOLUME 2. >> IS IT CORRECT THAT UCONN YOU CONCLUDED THAT –PS. >> CAN YOU REPETE THE QUESTION? >> IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU CONCLUDED, IF THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE CRIME, YOU COULD NOT STATE THAT IN YOUR REPORT HERE TODAY? >> I WOULD SAY — THE STATEMENT WOULD BE YOU WOULD NOT INDICT BECAUSE UNDER OLC OPINION, A SITTING PRESIDENT CAN'T BE INDICTED. >> YOU COULD NOT STATE THAT BECAUSE OF A OAC OPINION. >> YES, WITH SOME GUIDE. >> UNDER DOJ, THE PRESIDENT COULD BE PROSECUTED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIMES AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE, CORRECT? >> TRUE.

>> DID ANY SENIOR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS REFUSED TO BE INVESTIGATED BY YOUR TEAM? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT BUT I AM NOT CERTAIN IF THAT'S THE CASE. >> DID THE PRESIDENT REQUESTED TO BE INTERVIEWED BY YOU AND YOUR TEAM? >> YES. >> IS IT TRUE THAT YOU TRIED TO SECURE AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT? >> YES. >> IS IT TRUE THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM ADVISE THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER THAT AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT IS VITAL TO OUR INVESTIGATION? >> YES. >> IS IT TRUE THAT YOU ALSO STATED THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THE PUBLIC FOR AN INTERVIEW TO TAKE PLACE? >> YES.

>> THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO SIT FOR AN INTERVIEW BY YOU AND YOUR TEAM? >> TRUE. >> DID YOU ALSO ASK HIM TO PROVIDE WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON THE TEN POSSIBLE EPISODES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CRIMES INVOLVING HIM? >> YES. >> DID HE PROVIDE ANY ANSWERS? >>. >> I WOULD TO CHECK ON THAT. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER WE ARE GRATEFUL YOU ARE HERE EXPLAINING YOUR INVESTIGATION AND FINDINGS. YOUR WORK IS VITALLY IMPORTANT TO THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BECAUSE NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

NOW I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA. >> WE ARE MOVING OF THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE. I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS. I WANT TO LAY OUT SOME FOUNDATION. IN YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE, YOUR TESTIMONY IN YOUR OFFICE WOULD NOT GO BEYOND YOUR REPORT. I WOULD NOT PROVIDE INFORMATION BEYOND THAT WHICH IS ALREADY PUBLIC IN ANY APPEARANCE IN CONGRESS, DO YOU STANDBY THAT STATEMENT? >> YES. >> IN MAY OF 2019, HAVE YOU CONDUCTED ANY ADDITIONAL INTERVIEWS OR NEW INFORMATION IN YOUR ROLE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL? >> IN THE WAKE OF THE REPORT? >> SINCE THE CLOSING OF THE OFFICE IN MAY OF 2019? >> AND THE QUESTION WAS? >> HAVE YOU CONDUCTED ANY NEW INTERVIEWS OR NEW WITNESSES? >> NO.

>> YOU CAN CONFIRM YOU ARE NO LONGER SPECIAL COUNSEL? >> I AM NO LONGER SPECIAL COUNSEL. >> WAS YOUR INVESTIGATION STOPPED OR HINDERED? >> NO. >> WERE YOU OR YOUR TEAM PROVIDED ANY QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AHEAD OF THE HEARING TODAY? >> NO. >> YOUR REPORT INCLUDED 19 LAWYERS AND 40 FBI AGENTS AND ANALYSTS. >> 40 FBI AGENTS AND 19 LAWYERS AND FORENSIC AND ANALYSTS? >> YES. >> IS IT TRUE THAT YOU ISSUED 2800 SUBPOENAS, AND EXECUTED 500 WARRANTS AND 50 PIN REGISTERS. >> THAT WENT A LITTLE FAST FOR ME. >> IN YOUR REPORT, YOU DID A LOT OF WORK, CORRECT? >> YES, THAT I AGREE.

>> A LOT OF SUBPOENAS. >> YES. >> SEARCH WARRANTS. >> ALL RIGHT, A LOT OF SEARCH WARRANTS. >> YOU ARE VERY THOROUGH. >> YES. >> YOU LISTED IT OUT IN YOUR REPORT, CORRECT? >> YES. >> IS IT TRUE THAT THE EVIDENCE GATHERED DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION GIVEN THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU JUST ANSWERED, IS IT TRUE THE INVESTIGATION GATHERED ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT DID NOT INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION? >> WE FOUND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PRESIDENT'S CULPABILITY — >> THAT WOULD BE A YES? >> PARDON? >> THOSE CLOSE TO HIM INVOLVED IN THE COMPUTER HACKING OR THE PRESIDENT OTHERWISE UNLAWFUL RELATIONSHIP — >> I WILL LEAVE THE ANSWER TO OUR REPORT.

>> SO IT IS A YES. >> IS IT TRUE YOUR INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THE ELECTION. >> THANK YOU. >> YES. >> THANK YOU. ALTHOUGH YOUR REPORT STATES COLLUSION IS NOT SO SPECIFIC OFFENSE AND YOU SAID THAT THIS MORNING, A TERM OF OUR CRIMINAL LAW CONSPIRACY IS IN THE CONTEXT ESSENTIALLY ANONYMOUS TERMS. >> YOU HAVE TO REPEAT THAT FOR ME. >> COLLUSION IS NOT A SPECIFIC OFFENSE OR A TERM OF IN THE FEDERAL LAW, CONSPIRACY IS. >> YES. >> COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY ARE ESSENTIALLY. >> ON PAGE ONE OF YOUR REPORT AS YOU WROTE, COLLUSION IS SON MOUSE WITH CONSPIRACY.

>> YOU SAID ON YOUR MAY 29th CONFERENCE THAT YOU CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY. ARE YOU TESTIFYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOUR REPORT STATES? >> NO WHAT I AM ASKING IS YOU CAN GIVE ME THE CITATION, I CAN LOOK AT THE CITATION AND EVALUATE WHETHER IT IS. >> LET ME CLARIFY. YOU STATED IN THE REPORT. I STATED YOUR REPORT BACK TO YOU AND YOU SAID THAT COLLUSION CONSPIRACY WERE NOT SYNONMOUS TERMS. >> AS DEFINEDD — NOW YOU SAID YOU CHOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY, ARE YOU CONTRADICTING YOUR REPORT RIGHT NOW. >> NOT WHEN I READ IT. >> SO YOU WILL CHANGE YOUR ANSWER TO YES THEN. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE. >> I AM READING YOUR REPORT SIR. IT IS A YES OR NO. >> PAGE 180, VOLUME 1. >> THIS IS FROM YOUR REPORT. >> I WILL LEAVE IT WITH THE REPORT. >> THE REPORT SAYS. HOPEFULLY OUT OF YOUR OWN REPORT WE COULD PUT TO BED COLLUSION OF CONSPIRACY. DID YOU LOOK AT OTHER COUNTRIES INVESTIGATED IN OUR INTERFERENCE.

WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES? >> I DISCUSS OTHER MATTERS. >> THAT I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER AS YOU HEARD FROM THE CHAIRMAN WE ARE MOSTLY GOING TO TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE TODAY BUT THE INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIA'S ATTACK THAT STARTED YOUR INVESTIGATION IS WHY EVIDENCE OF POSSIBLE ON OBSTRUCTION IS SERIOUS. TO WHAT EXTENT THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. >> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? >> AT THE PARTICULAR OF WHAT IT CAME TO THE COMPUTER CRIMES AND THE GOVERNMENT WAS INDICATED. >> THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND SWEEPING IN SYSTEMATIC FASHION. >> YOU DESCRIBE IN YOUR REPORT THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN, MANAFORT, SHARED WITH A RUSSIAN OPERATIVE, KILIMNIK, WHO WIN VOTES IN WESTERN STATES. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. CORRECT. >> THEY ALSO DISCUSSED THE STATUS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN FOR WINNING DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN MID WESTERN STATES MONTHS BEFORE THAT MEETING, MANAFORT CAUSED INTERNAL DATA TO BE SHARED WITH KILIMNIK AND THE SHARING CONTINUED WITH SOME PERIODS OF TIME AFTER THE MEETING, IS THAT ACCURATE? >> ACCURATE. >> OUR INVESTIGATION FOUND MANAFORT BRIEFED KILIMNIK ON THE STATE OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND MANAFORT PLANNED TO WIN THE ELECTION.

IT ALSO INCLUDES DISCUSSIONS OF BATTLEGROUND STATES WHICH MANAFORT IDENTIFIED AS MICHIGAN AND WISCONSIN AND PENNSYLVANIA. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> DID YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINED WHO REQUESTED THE POLLING DATA TO BE SHARED WITH KILIMNIK? >> WELL, I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN THE REPORT IN REGARDS TO THAT PARTICULAR. >> WE DON'T HAVE THE REDACTED VERSION.

THAT MAY BE A REASON WHY WE SHOULD GET THAT FOR VOLUME ONE. HOW COULD THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT USE THIS CAMPAIGN DATA TO FURTHER SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC INTERFERENCE OF THE 2016? >> THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF OUR — PASS. >> FAIR ENOUGH. >> DID YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WOULD BENEFIT FROM ONE OF THE CANDIDATE'S WINNING? >> YES. >> WHICH CANDIDATE WOULD THAT BE? >> WELL, IT WOULD BE TRUMP. >> NOW THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS NOT RELUCTANT TO TAKE RUSSIAN'S HELP. >> WAS THE INVESTIGATION DETERMINATION, WHAT WAS THE INVESTIGATION DETERMINATION REGARDING THE FREQUENCY OF WHICH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MADE CONTACT WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT? >> WELL, I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO THE REPORT ON THAT.

>> WE WENT THROUGH AND COUNTED 126 CONTACTS BETWEEN RUSSIANS OR THEIR AGENTS AND CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND ASSOCIATES. DID THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? >> I CAN'T SAY I UNDERSTAND THE STATISTIC AND BELIEVE IT. I UNDERSTAND THE STATISTICS. >> I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE ON THE REPORT. FROM YOUR TESTIMONY AND REPORT, I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED SEVERAL THINGS. FIRST, THE RUSSIANS WANTED TRUMP TO WIN. SECOND, THE RUSSIANS WENT ON A SWEEPING AND INFLUENCED CAMPAIGN. THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE DNC AND THEY GOT THE DEMOCRATIC GAME PLAN FOR THE ELECTION. 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 ELECTIONS, THEY WERE ARMED WITH INSIDE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAD STOLEN TO HACKING FROM THE DNC AND THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN MR.

MANAFORT, MY COLLEAGUES WILL PROBE THE EFFORTS UNDER TAKEN TO KEEP THIS INFORMATION FROM BECOMING PUBLIC. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THE UNDER LINE PROBLEM THAT YOUR REPORT UNCOVERED. WITH THAT MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD YIELD BACK. >> GOOD MORNING DIRECTOR, IF YOU WILL LET ME SUMMARIZE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. YOU SAID ON THE ISSUE OF CONSPIRACY, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DETERMINED THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THE ELECTIONS.

IS THAT FAIR? >> YES, SIR. >> NOW EXPLAINING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT MAKE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTION DECISION, THE REPORT ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 2, VOLUME 2, READS AS FOLLOWS. THE EVIDENCE WE OBTAINED OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS AND INTENT PRESENTS DIFFICULT ISSUES PREVENT US FROM DETERMINING NO CRIMINAL CONDUCT OCCUR WHILE THIS REPORT DID NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THE CRIME BUT IT DID NOT ALSO EXONERATE HIM. >> I READ THAT CORRECTLY? >> YES. >> YOU SAID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TEAM OPERATED UNDER AND FOLLOWED BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES, WHICH DOJ POLICIES OR PRINCIPLES SET FORTH A LEGAL STANDARD THAT A PERSON IS NOT EXONERATED WHEN A CRIMINAL CONDUCT IS NOT DETERMINED? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE LAST PART OF THE QUESTION? >> WHAT DOES THAT LANGUAGE COME FROM DIRECTOR? >> I AM SORRY, GO AHEAD.

>> CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP WHERE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE INVESTIGATIVE PERSON WAS NOT EXONERATED BECAUSE THEIR INNOCENCE WAS NOT CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED? >> I CAN'T BUT THIS IS UNIQUE. >> TIME IS SHORT, I GOT FIVE MINUTES. LET'S LEAVE IT THAT YOU CAN'T FIND IT. IT DOES NOT EXIST. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S JOB NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT YOU WERE TO CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINE DONALD TRUMP'S INNOCENCE, IT IS NOT IN ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS AND IT IS NOT IN YOUR APPOINTMENT ORDER OR SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REGULATIONS OR THE JUSTICE MANUEL OR THE PRINCIPLE OF PROSECUTION. NOWHERE DID THOSE WORDS APPEAR TOGETHER BECAUSE RESPECTFULLY, IT WAS NOT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S JOB TO EXONERATE HIM.

THE BEDROCK PRINCIPLE OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO IT AND INCLUDING THE SITTING PRESIDENT. PROSECUTORS NEVER, EVER NEED TO CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINE IT. NOW DIRECTOR, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL APPLIED THIS INVERTED BURDEN OF PROOF THAT I CAN'T FIND AND YOU SAID DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE IN THE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND YOU USED IT TO WRITE A REPORT. THE FIRST LINE OF YOUR REPORT, THE VERY FIRST LINE OF YOUR REPORT SAYS AND AS YOU READ THIS MORNING AUTHORIZES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO PROVIDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT EXPLAINING THE PROSECUTION DECISIONS REACHED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL.

THAT'S THE FIRST WORD OF YOUR RECORD, CORRECT? >> RIGHT. >> HERE IS THE PROBLEM, DIRECTOR, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT DO THAT. ON VOLUME 1, YOU DID. ON VOLUME 2, WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MADE NEITHER A PROSECUTION DECISION, YOU MADE NO DECISION, YOU TOLD US THIS MORNING AND IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU TOLD US NO INFORMATION. IT CLEARLY SAYS, WRITE A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT ABOUT DECISIONS REACHED. NOWHERE IN HERE DOES IT SAY WRITE A REPORT ABOUT DECISIONS THAT WERE NOT REACHED. YOU WROTE 180 PAGES, 180 PAGES ABOUT DECISIONS THAT WERE NOT REACHED, ABOUT POTENTIAL CRIMES THAT WERE NOT CHARGED OR DECIDED AND RESPECTFULLY BY DOING THAT, YOU MANAGED TO VIOLATE EVERY PRINCIPLE IN THE MOST SACRED OF TRADITIONS OF PROSECUTORS NOT OFFERING EXTRA ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL CRIMES THAT ARE NOT CHARGED. AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW THIS AS THEY LISTEN TO THE DEMOCRATS AND SOCIALISTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ISLE AS THEY DO 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 WRITTEN IN VIOLATION OF EVERY DOJ. I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN THIS MORNING WHEN HE SAID DONALD TRUMP IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. HE'S NOT. BUT HE DAMN SURE SHOULD NOT BE BELOW THE LAW WHICH IS WHERE VOLUME TWO OF THIS REPORT PUTS IN.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, GOOD MORNING. YOUR EXCHANGE WITH THE GENERAL LADY FROM CALIFORNIA DEMONSTRATES WHAT IS AT STAKES. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAFORT WAS PASSING SENSITIVE INFORMATION TO A RUSSIAN OPERATIVE. THERE WERE SO MANY OTHER WAYS RUSSIA SUBVERTED OUR DEMOCRACY. VOLUME 1, I CAN'T THINK OF A SERIOUS NEED TO INVESTIGATE. I AM GOING TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS IT RELATES TO VOLUME 2. PAGE 12 OF VOLUME 2. YOU STATE WE DETERMINED THERE WERE SUFFICIENT FACTUALS AND LEGAL BASES TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> PAGE 12, VOLUME 2. >> WHICH PORTION OF THAT PAGE? >> THAT IS WE DETERMINE THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ISSUES INVOLVING THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> YOUR REPORT ALSO DESCRIBES 10 SEPARATE INCIDENTS POSSIBLE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT WERE INVESTIGATED BY YOU AND YOUR TEAM, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES.

>> THE TABLE OF CONTENTS IS A GOOD GUIDE OF SOME OF THE IT REIGNS THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS AND THE PRESIDENT'S FURTHER EFFORT TO HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TAKE OVER THE INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS 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 SHED LIGHTS ON THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACT AND INFERENCES THAT COULD BE DRAWN OF HIS INTENT. >> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF CONDUCT THAT CONCLUDES 10 POSSIBLE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION THAT YOU INVESTIGATED, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT WOULD CONCLUDE THE 10 POSSIBLE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION.

>> I DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT OF HOW IT IS CHARACTERIZED. >> FOR EACH OF THOSE TEN POTENTIAL INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, YOU ANALYZED THREE ELEMENTS. >> OBSTRUCTION ACT, AND CORRUPT INTENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> YOU WROTE ON PAGE 178, VOLUME 2 OF CORRUPT INTENT. ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT TO END A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO HIS OWN CONDUCT TO PROTECT AGAINST PERSONAL EMBARRASSMENT OR LEGAL LIABILITY COULD CONS SUBSTITUTE A CORE EXAMPLE OF CORRUPTLY MOTIVATED CONDUCT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> TO THE SCREEN AGAIN, WITH THE EVIDENCE YOU DID FIND, IS IT TRUE ON PAGE 76 OF VOLUME 2 THAT THE EVIDENCE DOES INDICATE A THOROUGH FBI INVESTIGATION WOULD UNCOVER FACTS OF THE CAMPAIGN THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD TO BE CRIMES THAT WOULD GIVE RISE TO LEGAL AND PERSONAL AND LEGAL CONCERNS. >> YES, I RELY ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE REPORT. >> IS THAT RELEVANT TO POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> YES. >> YOU FURTHER ELABORATE ON PAGE 157, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE COULD BE MOTIVATED BY DESIRE TO PROTECT NON-CRIMINAL PERSON OF INTERESTS OR TO AVOID PERSONAL EMBARRASSMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I HAVE ON THE SCREEN.

>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION NOW THAT I HAVE THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN? >> IS IT CORRECT AS YOU FURTHER ELABORATE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CAN BE MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO PROTECT NON-CRIMINAL PERSONAL INTERESTS TO PROTECT AGAINST INVESTIGATIONS WHERE UNDER LYING CRIMINAL LIABILITY — >> CAN YOU READ THE LAST QUESTION? >> THE LAST QUESTION ON THE SCREEN IS ASKING YOU IF THAT'S CORRECT? >> YES.

>> OKAY. DOES THE CONVICTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE RESULTS POTENTIALLY OF A LOT OF YEARS OF TIME IN JAIL? >> YES. >> AGAIN, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE IT ACCURATE? >> DOES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WARRANTS A LOT OF TIME IN JAIL IF YOU WERE CONVICTED? >> YES. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. CHAIRMAN. >> LET ME BEGIN BY READING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REGULATION BY WHICH YOU WERE APPOINTED. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S WORK, HE OR SHE SHALL PROVIDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF A REPORT EXPLAINING THE PROSECUTION OR DECISIONS REACHED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> OKAY, NOW A REGULATION USES THE WORD SHALL PROVIDE, DOES IT MEAN THE INDIVIDUAL IS IN FACT OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE WHAT'S BEING DEMANDED BY THE REGULATION OF THE STATUE MEANING IT DID NOT HAVE ANY WIGGLE ROOM. >> I HAVE TO READ THE STATUE. >> I JUST READ IT TO YOU. >> I AM TRYING TO FIND THAT CITATION CONGRESSMAN. >> DIRECTOR COULD YOU SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? >> YES, THANK YOU. >> VOLUME TWO — >> I AM SORRY. >> VOLUME TWO, PAGE ONE SAYS WE DETERMINE NOT THE MAKE A TRADITIONAL JUDGMENT, RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING. NOW, SINCE YOU DECIDED UNDER IT HAS OLC OPINION THAT YOU COULD NOT PROSECUTE A SITTING PRESIDENT MEANING PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHY ARE WE HAVING ALL OF THIS INVESTIGATIO OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IF THE OTHER SIDE IS TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU KNEW THAT YOU WERE NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE HIM? >> YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THE INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO LIE AND OLC'S OPINION ITSELF SAYS THAT YOU CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE NOT GOING TO INDICT THE PRESIDENT.

>> OKAY. WELL, IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO INDICT THE PRESIDENT THEN YOU JUST CONTINUE FISHING AND THAT'S MY OBSERVATION. MY TIME IS LIMITED. I AM SURE YOU CAN INDICT OTHER PEOPLE BUT NOT THE SITTING PRESIDENT, RIGHT? >> THAT'S TRUE. >> THERE ARE 182 PAGES OF RAW EVIDENCE INCLUDING HUNDREDS OF REFERENCES TO 302 WHICH WERE INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT NEVER BEEN CROSS EXAMINED AND DID NOT COMPLY OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REGULATION TO EXPLAIN THE DECISIONS REACHED, CORRECT? >> WHERE ARE YOU READING FROM ON THAT? >> I AM READING FROM MY QUESTION. >> COULD YOU REPEAT IT? >> 182 PAGES OF RAW MATERIALS, HUNDREDS OF REFERENCES OF 302S WERE NEVER BEEN CROSSED EXAMINED AND DID NOT COMPLY OF THE REGULATION TO EXPLAIN THE PROSECUTION DECISIONS REACHED? >> THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHICH I DECLINE TO DISCUSS. >> OKAY. I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT ITSELF. >> OKAY.

>> WELL, I LOOKED AT 182 PAGES OF IT. LET ME SWITCH GEAR. NOW WHILE I RECOGNIZE THAT THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL'S STATUE WHICH CAN A STAR OPERATED IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL STATUE, HE AND A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS IN HIS REPORT STATED THAT THE PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ACTION MAY HAVE RISEN TO IMPEACH AND 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. IS IT TRUE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN VOLUME TWO OF THE REPORT THAT SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY HAVE REACHED IN AN IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT? >> SERIOUSLY KEPT CENTER OF OUR INVESTIGATION, OUR MANDATE AND OUR MANDATE DOES NOT GO TO OTHER WAYS OF ADDRESSING CONDUCT. OUR MANDATE GOES TO WHAT DEVELOPING NEW REPORT INTO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE VERY A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS THAT YOU MADE THAT SAID THAT THIS IS NOT FOR ME TO DECIDE, THE IMPLICATION IS THIS IS FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO DECIDE.

NOW YOU DID USE THE WORD IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT LIKE STARTED, THERE WAS NO STATUE TO PREVENT YOU FROM USING THE WORD IMPEACHABLE CONDUCT AND I GO BACK TO WHAT MR. RATLIFF SAYS AND THAT'S EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS PROVEN UNTIL GUILTY. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. >> FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO READ A STATEMENT THAT MR. NADLER SAID ABOUT YOUR CAREER, IT IS A MODEL OF RECTITUDE AND I THANK YOU. >> BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION, HOW DID PRESIDENT TRUMP REACT TO YOUR APPOINTMENT? >> I SENT YOU THE REPORT WHERE THAT IS STATED. >> WHEN SESSIONS TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT A SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD BEEN APPOINTED, THE PRESIDENT SLUMPED BACK IN HIS CHAIR AND SAID QUOTE "THIS IS TERRIBLE, THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY, I AM F' KED." >> DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSION TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT TALK? >> I AM NOT CERTAIN OF THE PERSON WHO ORIGINALLY SAID THAT QUOTE.

>> SESSIONS APPARENTLY SAID IT AND ONE OF HIS AIDES HAD IN HIS NOTES, TOO. HE WAS NOT PLEASED OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL BECAUSE OF YOUR OUTSTANDING REPUTATION. THE ATTORNEY JONES RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE OF HIS ROLE OF THE 2016 CAMPAIGN, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? >> RECUSAL MEANS HE COULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION? >> YES. >> YOU KNOW MR. SESSIONS AND MR. ROSENSTEIN BECAME IN CHARGE OF IT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> WAS ATTORNEY SESSIONS FOLLOWING THE RULES AND PROFESSIONAL ADVISE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHEN HE RECUSE HIMSELF FROM THE DEPARTMENT? >> YES. >> THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY EXPRESS HIS DISPLEASURE OF THE RECUSAL? >> YES, BASED ON WHAT IS WRITTEN ON THE REPORT.

. >>> THE PRESIDENT'S REACTION OF THE RECUSAL NOTED IN THE REPORT, MR. BANNON RECALLED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS MAD AND HE SCREAMED AT MCGAHN OF HOW WEAK SESSIONS WAS. DID YOU RECALL THAT IN THE REPORT? >> YES, THAT'S IN THE REPORT. >> ATTORNEY SESSIONS WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO GET THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UNRECUSED HIMSELF AFTER YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, WAS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> THE PRESIDENT CALLED THE SESSIONS AT HOME AND ASKED THAT HE WOULD UNRECUSE HIMSELF, WAS THAT TRUE? >> IT IS TRUE. >> WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIM TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF, WAS IT? >> YES.

I KNOW OF TWO OCCASIONS. >> SESSIONS RECALLED THE PRESIDENT PULLED HIM ASIDE TO SPEAK ALONE AND SET FOR HIM TO DO THIS UNRECUSE ACT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> A FEW DAYS AFTER FLYNN LYING FOR AGENTS AND COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION, TRUMP ASKED TO SPEAK TO SESSIONS ALONE IF THE OVAL OFFICE AND ASKED SESSIONS TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF, TRUE? >> REFER TO THE REPORT ON THAT. >> DID YOU KNOW AT ANY POINT THAT THE PRESIDENT EXPRESSED ANGER ON SESSIONS? >> I HAVE TO PASS ON THAT. >> THE PRESIDENT SAID, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT ME AND WORDS TO THAT EFFECT. >> CORRECT. >> IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUPPOSED TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OR FOR THE PRESIDENT? >> THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. >> YOU WROTE YOUR REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT REPEATEDLY SOUGHT SESSIONS TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF? >> RELY ON THE REPORT. >> I AM NOT GOING TO SPECULATE, IF HE OBVIOUSLY TOOK OVER ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE WOULD HAVE GREATER LATITUDE IN HIS ACTIONS AND ENABLES HIM TO DO THINGS OTHERWISE HE COULD NOT.

>> ON PAGE 113, YOU SAID — I WANT TO THANK YOU MR. MUELLER, IT IS CLEAR FROM YOUR REPORT AND THE EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS TO VIOLATE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ETHIC RULES BY TAKING OVER THE INVESTIGATION AND INTERFERING IN IT TO PROTECT HIMSELF AND HIS CAMPAIGN. YOUR FINDINGS IS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE IN AMERICA NO BODY IS ABOVE THE LAW. >> THANK YOU, I YIELD BACK. >> DIRECTOR, MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES WERE DISAPPOINTED IN YOUR REPORT. THEY WERE EXPECTING YOU TO SAY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINE OF HERE IS WHY PRESIDENT TRUMP DESERVES TO BE IMPEACHED MUCH AS KEN STAR DID WROTE ABOUT PRESIDENT CLINTON ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO. THE STRATEGY HAD TO CHANGE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST DID NOT READ IT. AND THIS HEARING TODAY IS THEIR LAST BEST HOPE TO BUILD UP SOME SORT OF GROUND SWELL ACROSS AMERICA TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT TODAY. NOW A FEW QUESTIONS. ON PAGE 103, OF VOLUME 2, OF YOUR REPORT WHEN DISCUSSING THE JUNE 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING, YOU REFERENCED QUOTE, "THE FIRM THAT PRODUCE STEEL REPORTING," THE NAME OF THAT FIRM WAS FUSION GPS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YOU ARE ON PAGE 103? >> YES, 103, VOLUME 2.

WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FIRM THAT PRODUCED THE STEEL REPORTING, THE NAME OF THE FIRM THAT PRODUCED THAT WAS FUSION GPS, WAS THAT CORRECT? >> I AM NOT FAMILIAR — I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >> IT IS NOT A TRICK QUESTION. NOW FUSION GPS PRODUCED THE OPPOSITION RESEARCH DOCUMENT WIDELY KNOWN AS THE STEELE DOSSIER AND THE OWNER OF FUSION GPS IS SOMEONE NAMED GLENN SIMPSON. >> THIS IS OUTSIDE OF MY PURVIEW. >> GLENN SIMPSON WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE 448-PAGE MUELLER REPORT. >> AS I SAID IT IS OUTSIDE OF MY PURVIEW AND HANDLED BY OTHERS. >> HE WAS NOT. >> 448 PAGES AND THE OWNER OF FUSION GPS DID THE STEELE DOSSIER STARTED ALL THIS, HE'S NOT MENTIONED IN THERE. LET ME MOVE ON. AT THE SAME TIME FUSION GPS WAS WORKING TO COLLECT OPPOSITION RESEARCH ON DONALD TRUMP FROM FOREIGN SOURCES ON BEHALF OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, IT ALSO WAS REPRESENTING A RUSSIAN BASED COMPANY WHICH HAD BEEN SANCTIONED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> YES, IT IS OUTSIDE OF MY PURVIEW.

>> ONE OF THE KEY PLAYERS AND I WILL GO TO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. ONE OF THE KEY PLAYERS IN THE JUNE 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING WAS NATHALIA. SHE HAD BEEN WORKING WITH GLENN SIMPSON AND FUSION GPS SINCE AT LEAST EARLY 2014, ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> THAT'S OUTSIDE MY PURVIEW. >> YOU DID NOT MENTION THAT OR HER CONNECTIONS TO GLENN SIMPSON AT FUSION GPS IN YOUR REPORT AT ALL. LET ME MOVE ON. NOW NBC NEWS AS REPORTED THE FOLLOWING QUOTE "RUSSIAN LAWYER, VESELNITSKAYA, SHE BROUGHT INFORMATION, YOU DID NOT INCLUDE THAT IN THE REPORT. >> IT IS A MATTER BEING HANDLED BY OTHERS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >> OUR REPORT SPENDING 14 PAGES DISCUSSING THE 2016 TRUMP TOWER, IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU SPENT SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES INVESTIGATING THAT MEETING? >> I REFER YOU TO THE REPORT. >> OKAY. AND PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS NOT AT THE MEETING? >> NO. >> YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT? IN CONTRAST OF THE REACTION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, WE KNOW THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN DID PAY TO GATHER DIRT WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, YOUR REPORT DID NOT MENTION A THING ABOUT FUSION GPS CONNECTION WITH RUSSIA.

CAN YOU SEE FROM NEGLECTING TO MENTION FUSION GPS AND GLENN SIMPSON INVOLVEMENT TO FOCUS ON A BRIEF MEETING AT THE TRUMP TOWER THAT PRODUCED NOTHING TO IGNORING THE CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN OWN TIES TO FUSION GPS WHILE SOME VIEW YOUR REPORT AS A ONE SIDED ATTACK ON THE PRESIDENT? >> I WILL TELL YOU IT IS STILL OUTSIDE OF MY PURVIEW. >> NOTE FINALLY, THINGS LEFT OUT OF THE REPORT TENDS TO BE FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT.

>> MY TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER. YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DIRECTED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DAN MCGAHN TO FIRE YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> AND THE PRESIDENT CLAIMS THAT HE WANTED TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAD CLOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, IS THAT CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> YOU HAD NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT REQUIRES YOUR REMOVAL? >> CORRECT. >> DAN MCGAHN ADVISED THE PRESIDENT THAT ASSERTED CONFLICT WERE IN HIS WORDS — >> I REFER TO THE REPORT. >> ON PAGE 85 OF VOLUME 2 SPEAKS TO THAT. YOU HAD NO — >> AROUND MAY 23rd, 2017, THE PRESIDENT QUOTE, "MCGAHN TO COMPLAIN TO DEPUTY ROSENSTEIN ABOUT THIS CONFLICT, TELLING THE PRESIDENT THAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE STILL TRYING TO MEDDLE IN THE INVESTIGATION AND KNOCKING OUT MUELLER WOULD BE ANOTHER FACT USED TO BE CLAIMED OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> GENERALLY SO. >> DIRECTED THE MUELLER, THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT IF HE TRIED TO REMOVE THAT COULD BE ANOTHER BASES TO A LEDGE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

>> NOW I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS WARNED ABOUT OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. ON TUESDAY — >> CONGRESSMAN, DO YOU HAVE A CITATION? >> YES. VOLUME 2, PAGE 81 AND 82. >> I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS WARNED ABOUT OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. ON TUESDAY JUNE 13, 2017, THE PRESIDENT DICTATED A STATEMENT STATING HE HAD QUOTE, "NO INTENTIONS OF FIRING YOU," CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THE FOLLOWING DAY JUNE 14th, THE MEDIA REPORTED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU WERE INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND THEN AFTER LEARNING FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT HE WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION THE VERY NEXT DAY, THE PRESIDENT QUOTE "ISSUED A SERIES OF TWEETS ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXISTENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF THE INVESTIGATION AND CRITICIZING IT," IS THAT CORRECT? >> GENERALLY SO.

>> TWO DAYS LATER, THE PRESIDENT CALLED MCGAHN AT HOME FROM CAMP DAVID ON A SATURDAY TO TALK ABOUT YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WHAT WAS SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THAT FIRST WEEKEND PHONE CALL THAT MCGAHN TOOK FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO RELY ON WHAT WE WROTE ABOUT THOSE? >> WELL, YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT ON PAGE 85, VOLUME 2 THAT ON SATURDAY JUNE 17th, 2017, THE PRESIDENT CALLED MCGAHN AT HOME TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED.

NOW DID THE PRESIDENT CALL DON MCGAHN MORE THAN ONCE THAT DAY? >> WELL — >> I THINK IT WAS TWO CALLS. >> ON PAGE 85 OF YOUR REPORT, YOU WROTE QUOTE, "ON THE FIRST CALL, MCGAHN RECALLED THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID SOMETHING LIKE "YOU GOT TO DO THIS," CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> DON MCGAHN CALLED ROD ROSENSTEIN TO FIRE HIM, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THERE WAS A CONTINUOUS INVOLVEMENT OF DON MCGAHN RESPONDING TO THE PRESIDENT. >> HE DID NOT WANT TO PUT HIMSELF IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT.

HE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A ROLE IN ASKING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? >> I WILL REFER TO THE REPORT AND THE WAY IT IS CHARACTERIZED IN THE REPORT. >> VOLUME, PAGE 285. HE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE A ROLE IN FIRING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. SO AT THIS POINT, I WILL YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, FIRST, LET ME ASK YOU A UNANIMOUS CONSENT MR.

CHAIRMAN TO SUBMIT THIS ARTICLE OF ROBERT MUELLER UNMASKED FOR THE RECORD. >>. >> NOW, MR. MUELLER WHO WROTE THE NINE-MINUTE COMMENT YOU READ AT YOUR MAY 29th PRESS CONFERENCE? >> I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. >> OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT. >> ABOUT COMEY WHERE WHEN COMEY CALLED, YOU DROP EVERYTHING YOU WERE DOING AND YOU HAD DINNER WITH YOUR WIFE AND DAUGHTER AND COMEY CALLED AND YOU DROPPED EVERYTHING AND GO. AT LEAST BOB MUELLER WILL BE STANDING ON THE TRACKS WITH ME. YOU AND JAMES COMEY HAD BEEN GOOD FRIENDS OR 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 AND COMEY WERE FRIENDS. >> WE WERE FRIENDS. >> THAT'S MY QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR GETTING TO THE ANSWER. BEFORE YOU WERE POINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, HAD YOU TALK TO JAMES COMEY IN THE PROCEEDING SIX MONTHS? >> NO. WHEN YOU WERE APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP FIING OF COMEY SOMETHING YOU INVESTIGATED OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> THAT'S INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS OF THE JUSTICE DEPUTY. DEPARTMENT. >> IT GOES TO YOUR CREDIBILITY. IT IS RELEVANT AND IT IS ALWAYS MATERIAL. THAT GOES FOR YOU, TOO. YOU ARE A WITNESS BEFORE US. WHEN YOU TALK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THE DAY WHEN YOU WERE APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT FBI DIRECTOR POSITION AGAIN.

DID HE MENTION THE FIRING OF JAMES COMEY? >> NO, I DID NOT AS A CANDIDATE. >> DID HE MENTION THE FIING JAMES COMEY IN YOUR DISCUSSION WITH HIM? >> I DON'T REMEMBER. >> IF HE DID, YOU COULD BEEN A FACT WITNESS AS TO THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENT AND STATE OF MIND ON FIRING JAMES COMEY. >> I SUPPOSE THAT'S POSSIBLE. >> SO MOST PROSECUTORS WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO APPEARANCE OF PROPRIETY.

>> YOU HIRED A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT DID NOT LIKE THE PRESIDENT. >> YOU DID NOT KNOW BEFORE HE WAS HIRED? >> I AM SORRY? >> YOU DIDN'T KNOW BEFORE HE WAS HIRED FOR YOUR TEAM? >> KNOW WHAT? >> PETER STRUK HATED TRUMP. YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT? >> WHEN I DID FIND OUT, I ASKED SWIFTLY TO HAVE HIM REMOVED. >> WHEN DID YOU LEARN OF THE ONGOING AFFAIR THAT HE HAD WAS LISA PAGE? >> ABOUT THE SAME TIME. >> DID I ORDER ANYBODY TO INVESTIGATE THE DELETION OF ALL OF THEIR TEXTS OFF OF THEIR GOVERNMENT PHONES? >> ONCE WE FOUND THAT PETER STRZOK WAS — MAY I FINISH? >> WELL, YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. DID YOU ORDER AN INVESTIGATION IN DELETION OF REFORMATTING THEIR PHONES? >> REGARDLESS OF COLLUSION OR CONSPIRACY, YOU DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT AMONG THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS, OR COLLUSION, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> YOU NOTED IN THE REPORT THAT AN ELEMENT OF ANY OF THOSE OBSTRUCTIONS YOU REFERENCED REQUIRES A CORRUPT STATE OF MIND? >> CORRUPT INTENT. >> 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 A SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTED WHO HIRES DOZENS OR MORE PEOPLE THAT HATE THAT PERSON, AND HE KNOWS HE'S INNOCENT. HE'S NOT CORRUPTLY ACTING IN ORDER TO SEE THE JUSTICES DONE.

WHAT HE'S DOING IS NOT OBSTRUCTION JUSTICE. HE'S PURSUING JUSTICE AND THE FACT THAT YOU RAN IT OUT TWO YEARS MEANS YOU PERPETUATED INJUSTICE. >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME IS EXPIRED. >> I TAKE YOUR QUESTION. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER I WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK TO YOUR FINDINGS COVERING JUNE OF 2017, THERE WAS A BOMB SHELL ARTICLE THAT REPORTED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS PERSONALLY UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT, NEWS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION PROMPTED THE PRESIDENT TO CALL MCGAHN AND SEEK TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED. YOU WROTE ABOUT MULTIPLE CALLS FROM THE PRESIDENT TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL MCGAHN. MCGAHN RECALLS THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS MORE DIRECT, CALL ROD, TELL ROD THAT MUELLER HAS CONFLICTS AND CAN'T BE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. MCGAHN RECALLED THE PRESIDENT AND TELLING HIM MUELLER HAS TO GO.

CALL ME BACK WHEN YOU DO IT. DIRECTOR MUELLER, DID MCGAHN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED HIM TO DO? >> IN THE REPORT IT SAYS MCGAHN UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT TO BE SAYING THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD TO BE REMOVED. ON PAGE 86, MCGAHN CONSIDERS THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST TO BE AN INFLECTION POINT. MCGAHN DECIDED HE HAD TO RESIGN. HE TOOK ACTION TO PREPARE THE RESIGN, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I WILL DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT. >> THAT DAY HE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND QUOTING THE REPORT YOU SAID HE THEN DROVE TO THE OFFICE TO PACK HIS BELONGINGS AND SUBMIT HIS RESIGNATION LETTER. >> THAT'S DIRECTLY FROM TR REPORT. >> BEFORE HE RESIGNS, HE CALLED THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF OF STAFF, DID YOU RECALL WHAT MCGAHN TOLD HIM? >> WHATEVER HE SAID WILL APPEAR ON THE REPORT.

>> IT SAYS ON PAGE 87, PREVIOUSLY CALLED HIM, MCGAHN SAID THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIM TO DO CRAZY EXPLETIVE. IN OTHER WORDS, CRAZY STUFF. THE WHITE HOUSE'S COUNSEL THOUGHT THAT THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST IS COMPLETELY OUT OF BOUND. HE SAID THE PRESIDENT ASKED HIM TO DO SOMETHING CRAZY. IT WAS WRONG. HE WAS PREPARED TO RESIGN OVER IT. NOW, THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARY TROUBLING EVENTS BUT YOU FOUND WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL MCGAHN TO BE A CREDIBLE WITNESS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU TODAY IS WHY. DIRECTOR MUELLER, WHY DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WANT YOU FIRED? >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> WELL, ON PAGE 89 IN YOUR REPORT ON VOLUME 2, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WERE LINKED TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OVERSIGHT OF INVESTIGATIONS THAT INVOLVES THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT AND MOST IMMEDIATELY TO REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS BEING INVESTIGATED FOR POTENTIAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. CLOSED QUOTE. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU FOUND EVIDENCE AS YOU LAY OUT IN YOUR REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE INVESTIGATING HIM FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS ON THE REPORT.

I STANDBY ON THE REPORT. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THAT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN AMERICA. NO PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ESCAPE INVESTIGATIONS BY ABUSING HIS POWER. 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 SAYS HE SHOULD NOT MAKE THOSE CALLS TO MCGAHN BUT THE PRESIDENT DID IT ANYWAY. ANYONE ELSE WHO INTERFERED WITH THE 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 ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT TODAY.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THIS COMMITTEE MUST HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE. I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK, THE GENTLE LADY FROM ALABAMA. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER YOU SAID IN RESPONSE TO TWO DIFFERENT LINES OF QUESTIONING THAT YOU REFER OF THIS DISCUSSION, I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE REPORT IN THE WAY IT WAS CHARACTERIZED IN THE REPORT. IMPORTANTLY THE PRESIDENT NEVER SAID FIRE MUELLER OR IN THE INVESTIGATION, ONE DOES NOT NECESSITATE THE OTHER. MCGAHN DID NOT RESIGN, HE STUCK AROUND A YEAR AND A HALF. IT WAS NOT UNTIL APRIL 18th THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASED THE REPORT TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC. WHEN YOU SUBMITTED YOUR REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DID YOU DELIVER A REDACTED VERSION OF THE REPORT SO 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 AM NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN DISCUSSIONS OF WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRODUCTION OF THE REPORT? >> HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE THE REDACTION OF THE REPORT? >> WE WORKED ON THE REDACTION TOGETHER.

>> I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO DETAILS. >> IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT AN UNREDACTED VERSION OF THE REPORT COULD BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC OR CONGRESS? >> THAT'S NOT IN MY PURVIEW. >> WHY DID YOU NOT TAKE A SIMILAR ACTION SO CONGRESS CAN VIEW THIS MATERIAL? >> WE HAD A PROCESS OPERATING ON WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASED A SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REPORT WITH MINIMAL REDACTIONS TO THE PUBLIC AND A LESSER VERSION TO CONGRESS. DID YOU WRITE THE REPORT WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULD BE RELEASED PUBLICLY? >> NO, WE DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION.

WE WROTE THE REPORT UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS DEMANDED BY A STATUTE AND WOULD GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR FURTHER REVIEW. >> AND PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATION, WHO IS THE ONLY PARTY THAT MUST RECEIVE THE CHARGING DECISION RESULTING FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION? >> WITH REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT OR GENERALLY? >> NO, GENERALLY. >> ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> AT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S CONFIRMATION HEARING HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE INTENDED TO RELEASE YOUR REPORT TO THE PUBLIC.

DO YOU REMEMBER HOW MUCH OF YOUR REPORT HAD BEEN WRITTEN AT THAT POINT? >> I DO NOT. >> WERE THERE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN TONE OR SUBSTANCE OF THE REPORT MADE AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE REPORT WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC? >> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT. >> DURING THE SENATE TESTIMONY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR, SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS ASKED MR. BARR IF HE HAD LOOKED AT ALL THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S TEAM HAD GATHERED. HE STATED THAT HE HAD NOT. SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, DID YOU PERSONALLY REVIEW ALL OF THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE GATHERED IN YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> THE EXTENT THAT IT CAME THROUGH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE, YES. >> DID ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF YOUR TEAM REVIEW ALL THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR — >> AS HAS BEEN RECITED HERE TODAY, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WORK WAS DONE, WHETHER IT BE SEARCH WARRANTS OR — >> MY POINT IS THERE'S NO ONE MEMBER OF THE TEAM THAT LOOKED AT EVERYTHING.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AN INVESTIGATION AS COMPREHENSIVE AS YOURS, IT'S NORMAL THAT DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF THE TEAM WOULD HAVE REVIEWED DIFFERENT SETS OF DOCUMENTS AND FEW, IF ANYONE, WOULD HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THE UNDERLYING — >> THANK YOU, YES. >> HOW MANY OF THE APPROXIMATELY 500 INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID YOU ATTEND PERSONALLY? >> VERY FEW. >> YOU WROTE A LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ESSENTIALLY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MEDIA COVERAGE OF YOUR REPORT. YOU WROTE — AND I QUOTE — THE SUMMARY LETTER THE DEPARTMENT SENT TO CONGRESS AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC LATE IN THE AFTERNOON OF MARCH 24 DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT, NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF THIS OFFICE WORK AND CONCLUSIONS. WE COMMUNICATED THAT CONCERN TO THE DEPARTMENT ON THE MORNING OF MARCH 25th. THERE'S NOW PUBLIC CONFUSION ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE RESULT OF OUR INVESTIGATION.

WHO WROTE THAT MARCH 27 LETTER? >> I CAN'T GET INTO WHO WROTE IT. THE INTERNAL DELIBERATION — >> BUT YOU SIGNED IT. >> WHAT I WILL SAY IS THE LETTER STANDS FOR ITSELF. >> OKAY. WHY DID YOU WRITE A FORMAL LETTER SINCE YOU HAD ALREADY CALLED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO EXPRESS THOSE CONCERNS? >> I CAN'T GET INTO INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS. >> DID YOU AUTHORIZE THE LETTERS RELEASED TO THE MEDIA OR WAS IT LEAKED? >> I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ON EITHER. >> YOU WENT NEARLY TWO YEARS WITHOUT A LEAK. WHY WAS THIS LETTER LEAKED? >> WELL, I CAN'T GET INTO IT. >> WAS THIS LETTER WRITTEN AND LEAKED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE NARRATIVE ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT, AND WAS ANYTHING IN ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S LETTER REFERRED TO AS PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS — >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLE LADY HAS EXPIRED.

>> CAN HE ANSWER THE QUESTION, PLEASE? >> THE QUESTION IS? >> WAS ANYTHING IN ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S LETTER REFERRED TO AS THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS LETTER DATED MARCH 24th INACCURATE? >> I AM NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLE LADY HAS EXPIRED. THE GENTLE LADY FROM CALIFORNIA. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DIRECTOR MUELLER, AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE FOCUSING ON FIVE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES TODAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE SECOND OF THOSE FIVE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES. IT IS IN THE SECTION OF YOUR REPORT BEGINNING ON PAGE 113 OF VOLUME TWO ENTITLED, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT ORDERS McGAHN TO DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, END QUOTE. ON JANUARY 25th, 2018, "THE NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTED THAT, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT HAD ORDERED McGAHN TO HAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FIRE YOU. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND THAT STORY RELATED TO THE EVENTS YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED ABOUT HERE TODAY. THE PRESIDENT'S CALLS TO McGAHN TO HAVE YOU REMOVED, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AFTER THE NEWS BROKE, DID THE PRESIDENT GO ON TV AND DENY THE STORY? >> I DO NOT KNOW. >> IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT SAID, QUOTE, FAKE NEWS, FOLKS, FAKE NEWS. A TYPICAL "NEW YORK TIMES" FAKE STORY, END QUOTE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> BUT YOUR INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT McGAHN WAS ORDERED BY THE PRESIDENT TO FIRE YOU, CORRECT? >> YES. >> DID THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER DO SOMETHING THE FOLLOWING DAY IN RESPONSE TO THAT NEWS REPORT? >> I'D REFER YOU TO THE COVERAGE OF THIS IN THE REPORT.

>> ON PAGE 114, QUOTE, ON JANUARY 26, 2018 THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL COUNSEL CALLED McGAHN'S ATTORNEY AND SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED McGAHN TO PUT OUT A STATEMENT DENYING THAT HE HAD BEEN ASKED TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, END QUOTE. DID McGAHN DO WHAT THE PRESIDENT ASKED? >> I REFER YOU TO THE REPORT. >> COMMUNICATING THROUGH HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY, McGAHN REFUSED BECAUSE HE SAID, QUOTE, THAT THE TIME STORY WAS ACCURATE IN REPORTING THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED. ISN'T IS THAT RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE IT IS BUT I REFER YOU AGAIN TO THE REPORT.

>> SO MR. McGAHN, THROUGH HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY, TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO LIE. IS THAT RIGHT? >> TRUE. >> DID THE PRESIDENT DROP THE ISSUE? >> I REFER TO THE WRITEUP OF THIS IN THE REPORT. >> NEXT, THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY, ROB PORTER, TO TRY TO PRESSURE McGAHN TO MAKE A FALSE DENIAL. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHAT DID HE ACTUALLY DIRECT PORTER TO DO? >> I WOULD SEND YOU BACK TO THE REPORT. >> ON PAGE 113 IT SAYS, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT THEN DIRECTED PORTER TO TELL McGAHN TO CREATE A RECORD TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT NEVER DIRECTED McGAHN TO FIRE YOU, END QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS AS IT'S STATED IN THE REPORT.

>> AND YOU FOUND, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT SAID HE WANTED McGAHN TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE FILE FOR OUR RECORDS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> 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. >> MR. McGAHN WAS AN IMPORTANT WITNESS IN THAT INVESTIGATION, WASN'T HE? >> I'D HAVE TO SAY YES. >> DID THE PRESIDENT TELL PORTER TO THREATEN McGAHN IF HE DIDN'T CREATE THE WRITTEN DENIAL? >> I'D REFER YOU TO THE WRITEUP OF IT IN THE REPORT.

>> IN FACT, DIDN'T THE PRESIDENT SAY, QUOTE — AND THIS IS ON PAGE 116 — IF HE DOESN'T WRITE A LETTER, THEN MAYBE I'LL HAVE TO GET RID OF HIM, END QUOTE? >> YES. >> DID PORTER DELIVER THAT THREAT? >> I AGAIN REFER YOU TO THE DISCUSSION THAT'S FOUND ON PAGE 115. >> OKAY. BUT THE PRESIDENT STILL DIDN'T GIVE UP, DID HE? SO THE PRESIDENT TOLD McGAHN DIRECTLY TO DENY THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HAVE YOU FIRED. CAN YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED? >> I CAN'T BEYOND WHAT'S IN THE REPORT. >> ON PAGE 116 IT SAYS THE PRESIDENT MET HIM IN THE OVAL OFFICE, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT BEGAN THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING BY TELLING McGAHN THAT "THE NEW YORK TIMES" STORY DIDN'T LOOK GOOD AND McGAHN NEEDED TO CORRECT IT.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> AS IT'S WRITTEN IN THE REPORT, YES. >> THE PRESIDENT ASKED McGAHN WHETHER HE WOULD DO A CORRECTION AND McGAHN SAID NO. CORRECT? >> THAT'S ACCURATE. >> WELL, MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR INVESTIGATION UNCOVERING THIS VERY DISTURBING EVIDENCE. MY FRIEND, MR. RICHMOND, WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE SUBJECT. HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR TO ME IF ANYONE ELSE HAD ORDERED A WITNESS TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD AND COVER UP ACTS THAT ARE SUBJECT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION, THAT PERSON WOULD BE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES.

I YIELD BACK MY TIME. >> THE GENTLE LADY YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO. >> DIRECTOR, THE FBI INTERVIEWED JOSEPH MISSSUED ON FEBRUARY 10, 2017. IN THAT INTERVIEW HE HAD LIED. YOU POINT OUT HE DENIED, ALSO FALSELY STATED, IN ADDITION, OMITTED. THREE TIMES HE LIED TO THE FBI, YET YOU DIDN'T CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME. WHY NOT? >> EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY, DID YOU SAY 193? >> VOLUME ONE, 193.

HE LIED THREE TIMES, YOU POINTED OUT IN THE REPORT. WHY DIDN'T YOU CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME? >> I CAN'T GET INTO INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS WITH REGARD TO WHO WOULD OR WOULD NOT BE — >> LET'S REMEMBER THIS, IN 2016 THE FBI DID SOMETHING THEY PROBABLY HAVEN'T DONE BEFORE. THEY SPIED ON TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS ASSOCIATED WITH A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS AND CARTER PAGE. WITH CARTER PAGE THEY WENT TO THE FISA COURT. THEY USED THE NOW FAMOUS DOSSIER AS PART OF THE REASON THEY WERE ABLE TO GET THE WARRANT AND SPY ON CARTER PAGE FOR A BETTER PART OF THE YEAR. WITH MR. PAPADOPOULOS, THEY DIDN'T GO TO THE COURT. THEY USED HUMAN SOURCES. FROM ABOUT THE MOMENT PAPADOPOULOS JOINS THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN YOU GET ALL THESE PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE WORLD STARTING TO SWIRL AROUND HIM. NAMES LIKE HALLPER, DOWNER, THOMPSON, MEETING IN ROME, LONDON, ALL KINDS OF PLACES.

THE FBI EVEN SENT A LADY POSING AS ANYBODY ELSE, EVEN DISPATCHED HER TO LONDON TO SPY ON MR. PAPADOPOULOS. IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS, MR. PAPADOPOULOS IS TALKING TO A FOREIGN DIPLOMAT AND HE TELLS THE DIPLOMAT RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT ON CLINTON. THAT DIPLOMAT THEN CONTACTS THE FBI AND THE FBI OPENS AN INVESTIGATION BASED ON THAT FACT. YOU POINT THIS OUT ON PAGE ONE OF THE REPORT, JULY 31st, 2016, THE OPENING INVESTIGATION BASED ON THAT PIECE OF INFORMATION. THE DIPLOMAT TELLS PAPADOPOULOS RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT — EXCUSE ME. PAPADOPOULOS TELLS A DIPLOMAT RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT ON CLINTON. THE DIPLOMAT TELLS THE FBI. WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, WHO TOLD PAPADOPOULOS? HOW DID HE FIND OUT? >> I CAN'T GET INTO THE EVIDENTIARY — >> YES, YOU CAN, BECAUSE YOU WROTE ABOUT IT. YOU GAVE US THE ANSWER. PAGE 192 OF THE REPORT YOU TELL US WHO TOLD HIM. ZONESEST MISSFID, THE MYSTERIOUS PROFESSOR TO LIVES IN ROME AND LONDON, WORKS AT TWO DIFFERENT UNIVERSITIES.

THIS IS THE GUY WHO TOLD PAPADOPOULOS. HE'S THE GUY WHO STARTS IT ALL. WHEN THE FBI INTERVIEWS HIM HE LIES THREE TIMES AND YET YOU DON'T CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME. YOU CHARGE RICK GATES FOR FALSE STATEMENTS. YOU CHARGE PAUL MANAFORT FOR FALSE STATEMENTS, MICHAEL COHEN FOR FALSE STATEMENTS. YOU CHARGE MICHAEL FLYNN, A THREE-STAR GENERAL, WITH FALSE STATEMENTS. BUT THE GUY WHO PUTS THE COUNTRY THROUGH THIS WHOLE SAGA, STARTS IT OFF, FOR THREE YEARS WE'VE LIVED WITH THIS NOW, HE LIES AND YOU GUYS DON'T CHARGE HIM. AND I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY. >> WELL, I CAN'T GET INTO IT AND IT'S OBVIOUS I THINK THAT WE CAN'T GET INTO CHARGING DECISIONS. >> WHEN THE FBI INTERVIEWED HIM IN FEBRUARY, THE FBI INTERVIEWS HIM IN FEBRUARY. WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE INTERVIEWED NIPSON, DID HE LIE TO YOU GUYS TOO? >> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT. >> DID YOU INTERVIEW NIPSON? >> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT.

>> IS NIPSON WESTERN INTELLIGENCE OR RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE? >> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT. >> YOU CAN CHARGE 13 RUSSIANS NO ONE'S EVER HEARD OF, NO ONE'S EVER SEEN, NO ONE'S EVER GOING TO HEAR OF THEM OR SEE THEM, YOU CAN CHARGE THEM AND ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AROUND THE PRESIDENT WITH FALSE STATEMENTS, BUT THE GUY WHO LAUNCHES EVERYTHING, THE GUY WHO PUTS THIS WHOLE STORY IN MOTION, YOU CAN'T CHARGE HIM. I THINK THAT'S AMAZING. >> I'M NOT CERTAIN I AGREE WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATIONS. >> I'M READING FROM YOUR REPORT. NIPSON TOLD PAPADOPOULOS. PAPADOPOULOS TELLS A DIPLOMAT. THE DIPLOMAT TELLS THE FBI. THE FBI OPENS THE INVESTIGATION JULY 31, 2016 AND HERE WE ARE THREE YEARS LATER, JULY OF 2019, THE COUNTRY'S BEEN PUT THROUGH THIS AND THE CENTRAL FIGURE WHO LAUNCHES IT ALL LIES TO US AND YOU GUYS DON'T HUNT HIM DOWN AND INTERVIEW HIM AGAIN AND YOU DON'T CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME.

HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS. HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS. THE PRESIDENT WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF CONSPIRACY. THE FBI DOES A TEN-MONTH INVESTIGATION AND JAMES COMEY, WHEN WE DEPOSED HIM A YEAR AGO SAID THEY HAD NOTHING. YOU DID A 22-MONTH INVESTIGATION. AT THE END OF THAT 22 MONTHS YOU FIND NO CONSPIRACY AND WHAT DO THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO DO? THEY WANT TO KEEP INVESTIGATING. THEY WANT TO KEEP GOING. MAYBE A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION, MAYBE A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS STARTED.

MAYBE IT'S TO GO BACK AND ACTUALLY FIGURE OUT WHY JOSEPH NIPSON WAS LYING TO THE FBI. AND HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BIG BARR IS DOING. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND JOHN DURHAM ARE DOING. THEY'RE GOING TO FIND OUT WHY WE WENT THROUGH THIS THREE-YEAR SAGA AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. IN A MOMENT WE WILL TAKE A VERY BRIEF, FIVE-MINUTE BREAK. FIRST, I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AND QUIET WHILE THE WITNESS EXITS THE ROOM. I ALSO WANT TO ANNOUNCE TO THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU MAY NOT BE GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF YOU LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT THIS TIME. >>> WE'RE ABOUT AN HOUR AND 20 MINUTES NOW INTO ROBERT MUELLER'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THIS HOUSE COMMITTEE, LARGELY STAYING WITHIN THE LINES AS WE THOUGHT HE WOULD, AS HE TOLD US HE WOULD, BUT THERE WERE SOME MOMENTS.

>> LET'S PUT IT TO THE PANEL HERE. THE DEMOCRATS WERE HOPING THIS WOULD BE A COMPELLING RECITATION, THE MOVIE VERSION OF THIS 446-PAGE REPORT THAT MUELLER AND HIS TEAM PUT TOGETHER. HAVE WE SEEN THAT SO FAR, CHUCK? >> WE HAVEN'T BECAUSE IN NO MOVIE WAS THE BEST ACTOR, THE LEAD PERSON HERE, HAVE THE FEWEST WORDS. AND THE PROBLEM HERE IS YOU BASICALLY — THE NARRATIVE THAT DEMOCRATS WERE HOPING THAT BOB MUELLER WOULD BE TELLING IS ESSENTIALLY THEY'RE TELLING HIM AND HE SAYS, THAT'S TRUE, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THE WORST, I WROTE IT DOWN, THERE ARE TWO TO ME THAT ARE NARRATIVE NIGHTMARES. ONE IS I STICK WITH THE LANGUAGE YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, OR, WHATEVER WAS SAID APPEARS IN THE REPORT. HE HAS NO INTEREST TO PROVIDE COLOR, CONTEXT AND THAT DOES TAKE AWAY FROM IT. >> ANDREA, THE DEMOCRATS CANNOT BE SURPRISED BY THIS. THEY HAD TO SUBPOENA HIS TESTIMONY TODAY. HE TOLD THEM, HE SAID I WON'T SAY ANYTHING BEYOND THE REPORT, ALL BUT SAYING PLEASE DO NOT CALL ME TO COME AND TESTIMONY AND HERE HE IS.

IS IT ANY SURPRISE? >> THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND IN FACT THEY WERE PREPARED. JERRY NADLER I THINK WAS THE MOST EFFECTIVE IN HIS OPENING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BECAUSE HE LAID OUT THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT HE WAS EXONERATED. IS THAT TRUE? NO. THE PRESIDENT SAID THERE WAS NO OBSTRUCTION, WAS THERE, NO. >> HE TOOK ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S NARRATIVE HAS BEEN. HERE IT IS. >> THE REPORT DID NOT CONCLUDE THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHAT ABOUT TOTAL EXONERATION, DID YOU ACTUALLY TOTALLY EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT? >> NO.

>> NOW, IN FACT, YOUR REPORT EXPRESSLY STATES THAT IT DOES NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT. >> IT DOES. >> 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. >> NOW, DIRECTOR MUELLER, 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 — THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXCULPATED FOR THE ACTS THAT HE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED.

>> THAT WAS ONE OF THE EARLIER EXCHANGES. >> THAT DOES FRAME IT BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS WITNESS NOT ONLY IS HE RELUCTANT, NOT ONLY DID HE ACTUALLY SEEK GUIDANCE FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN THAT LETTER WHICH, IN THE LAST 24 HOURS, TOLD HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE COULD NOT DO AND HE'S DETERMINED TO STICK TO THAT BUT IT HAS TO BE SAID THAT HE IS NOT A VERY ASSERTIVE WITNESS. HE HAS NOT PUSHED BACK AGAINST VERY AGGRESSIVE REPUBLICAN QUESTIONING AND HE DOES SEEM TO BE FRAIL IN HIS GRASP OF THE REPORT THAT HE HIMSELF OVERSAW. >> I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE IS MUELLER BEING RETICENT BUT I THINK ANOTHER PART OF THE ISSUE IS THE QUESTIONING BY THE DEMS. I THINK IT STARTED OFF RIGHT WITH NADLER BUT THEN HAS EVOLVED INTO A SERIES OF SPEECHES AND YES/NO ANSWERS. AND IN PARTICULAR, THEY HAVEN'T MOVED THE BALL FORWARD AFTER THE DOES THE REPORT TOTALLY EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT SET OF QUESTIONS.

IMPORTANTLY, I THINK THE NEXT SET OF QUESTIONS REALLY HAVE TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR SAID YOU COULD HAVE REACHED A CONCLUSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT OBSTRUCTION WAS MET HERE. >> BUT NEIL, I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT, ISN'T THAT HOW HE'S GOING TO RESPOND TO EVERY PROCESS QUESTION? >> IT'S VERY HARD GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS SAID NOW HE CAN'T. SO THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE TIME HE TURNED HIS REPORT IN. >> HAVE REPUBLICANS BEEN EFFECTIVELY UNDERMINING MUELLER AND THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS INVESTIGATION? >> MY VIEW IS NO. THESE ATTACKS HAVE LANDED REALLY FLAT. LIKE THEY CLAIM THAT HE VIOLATED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS. THAT'S GOING NOWHERE. THE IDEA THAT HE HASN'T INVESTIGATED THE ORIGINS IN 2016 AND THE NIPSON STUFF.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO MOVE THE NEEDLE IN ANY REAL WAY. >> IS HE IN A TRICKY POSITION HERE BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ASK AND CALL FOR THE NARRATIVE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT HAPPENED WITH DON McGAHN WHEN HE TRIED TO GET YOU FIRED, HE JUST SAID I REFER TO THE REPORT. SO DEMOCRATS WHO HAD ADVERTISED THIS AS THE BRINGING TO LIFE OF THE MUELLER REPORT, ROBERT MUELLER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ON BOARD WITH THAT STRATEGY.

>> AND HE'S NOT PUSHING BACK AGAINST THE REPUBLICAN ATTACKS. SO, NEIL, YOU KNOW BETTER. YOU KNOW THE FALSENESS OF A LOT OF THEIR ASSERTIONS BUT UNLESS ROBERT MUELLER SAYS THAT IS NOT CORRECT, THAT'S NOT WHAT I WROTE, THAT IS NOT THE LAW, HE HAS TO SAY THAT RATHER THAN JUST SAYING IT'S IN THE REPORT. >> I AGREE. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF TIMES THERE WHERE HE GETS WITHERING ATTACKS AND THEN HE JUST SAID I TAKE THE QUESTION. >> SHOULD DEMOCRATS TREAT MUELLER WITH A BIT MORE SKEPTICISM? RIGHT NOW THE DECISION WAS MADE, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS HE'S A MARINE AND A PATRIOT AND THIS GREAT AMERICAN HERO. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF FAILURES HERE THAT HE HAD. HE FAILED TO GET MANAFORT TO FLIP, TO GET THE PRESIDENT TO SIT DOWN.

WHY DIDN'T YOU SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT. THEY HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO THAT. THEY DON'T WANT TO TREAT HIM WITH, I GUESS, HOSTILITY. >> THERE'S A VIEW AMONG THE DEMOCRATS THAT THE REPORT IS SO DAMMING THAT YOU DON'T NEED TO ATTACK THE AUTHOR OF THE REPORT BUT I THINK WHEN YOU SEE THIS KIND OF RETICENCE TIME AND TIME AGAIN, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BECOME IMPORTANT TO AT LEAST HAVE HIM ANSWER THE BARR QUESTION WHICH BARR SAID HE COULD.

THAT'S HIS JOB, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. TAXPAYERS PAID 22 MONTHS FOR THIS THING. LET'S GET AN ANSWER. >> MUELLER MADE IT VERY CLEAR FROM HIS OPENING STATEMENT THAT HE DIDN'T WANT THIS TO GO A DAY LONGER SO HE WAS CLEARLY FEELING SOME TIME PRESSURE, BUT TO YOUR POINT, HE HASN'T REALLY ANSWERED THE QUESTION OF DID YOU GET EVERYTHING YOU NEEDED.

>> I HAVE TO SAY THIS TO MR. MUELLER. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS REPORT IS THE SWEEPING ASPECT OF THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, YOU'RE DOING YOURSELF A DISSERVICE BY NOT BEING — EXPOUNDING ON THE IMPORTANCE AND URGENCY OF THIS REPORT. THERE'S NO URGENCY COMING FROM MR. MUELLER. THEREFORE, SAVANNAH, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS LEADS TO THE DEMOCRATS GOING TO STEP TWO WHICH IS IMPEACHMENT.

>> LET'S GO TO OUR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT PETE WILLIAMS. PETE, WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON HOW HE'S TESTIFYING THIS MORNING, HIS COMMAND OF THE MATERIAL, HOW HE'S COMING ACROSS AND HOW YOU THINK THIS IS GOING TO GO FOR THE NEXT FOUR HOURS? >> WELL, I THINK DESPITE ROBERT MUELLER BEING STRICTLY THE PROSECUTOR, HE KNOWS FULL WELL WHAT ROLE THE DEMOCRATS WANT HIM TO PLAY HERE AND HE'S CLEARLY RELUCTANT TO DO IT. I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST POINT. THE SECOND POINT IS THIS IS NOT THE SAME ROBERT MUELLER THAT WE SAY IN HIS 88 APPEARANCES BEFORE CONGRESS IN THE PAST. HE LAST TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS SIX YEARS AGO WHEN JUST AS HE WAS CONCLUDING HIS TIME AS THE FBI DIRECTOR. HE TURNS 75 IN TWO WEEKS AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE YEARS HAVE CLEARLY TAKEN A TOLL ON THE BOB MUELLER WE USED TO SEE AND I THINK THAT'S AFFECTED HIS ABILITY TO PERHAPS ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS PERHAPS BOTH SIDES WANTED. I WILL SAY ONE THING. IT'S INTERESTING THE REPUBLICANS JUST ASKED ONCE AND DIDN'T PURSUE THIS WHOLE IDEA OF WHAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL PARTS OF THIS REPORT WHERE IT SAID THAT WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT DONALD TRUMP OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE BECAUSE WE DECIDED WE WOULD NEVER EVEN MAKE THE CALCULATION ABOUT WHETHER ANY OF HIS ACTIONS CONSTITUTED A CRIME, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND THE REPORT SAYS WE'RE NOT EXONERATING HIM EITHER.

HE WAS ASKED THAT TODAY, SINCE WHEN IS THAT THE JOB OF THE PROSECUTOR TO SAY SOMEBODY IS EXONERATED. HE WAS ASKED REPEATEDLY BY ONE OF THE MEMBERS AND HIS ONLY ANSWER WAS, THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION. THAT REMAINS A CONTROVERSIAL PART OF THIS REPORT. >> YEAH. HE DIDN'T REALLY GIVE A STIRRING DEFENSE OF HIS DECISION TO MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXONERATED, WHICH IS MORE THAN JUST A SIMPLE DECLARATION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE.

>> I WANT TO GO TO KASIE HUNT RIGHT NOW ON CAPITOL HILL. CLEARLY ALL OF CONGRESS LISTENED TO THIS TESTIMONY WITH THE THOUGHT OF WHERE DOES IMPEACHMENT GO OR WHERE DOES IT HALT. WHAT'S THE BUZZ THAT YOU'RE HEARING ALREADY ABOUT THIS HEARING? >> I THINK YOU'VE CAPTURED IT WELL IN YOUR CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. I WAS JUST SITTING IN THE ROOM AND IF ANYTHING, THE FACT THAT ROBERT MUELLER, THE PERSON, SEEMS LIKE A SMALLER FIGURE THAN PERHAPS WE ANTICIPATED THAT HE WOULD BE AFTER SO MUCH BUILDUP, SO MUCH DRAMA OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS. IT'S EVEN MORE EVIDENT IN THE ROOM. HIS ANSWERS SOUND VERY QUIET. THE EMOTION AND THE FORCEFULNESS IS COMING FROM THE DAIS, FROM THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, MANY OF WHOM HAVE BEEN — IN SOME WAYS IT FEELS LIKE THEY'RE YELLING AT HIM IN SOME WAYS. SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THE INITIAL SENSE IS IT'S HARDER TO MAKE A CASE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE SUCH COMPELLING, FORCEFUL TESTIMONY FROM MUELLER.

NOW, NADLER'S INITIAL QUESTION AND ANSWER WAS VERY — AND YOU PLAYED THAT ALREADY — VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT YIELDS A VERY STRAIGHT FORWARD HEADLINE WHEN THE PRESIDENT TALKS ABOUT AS HE DOES REPEATEDLY CLAIMS OF NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, TOTAL EXONERATION. HERE YOU HAVE A VERY STRAIGHT FORWARD REPUTATION OF THAT. IT'S VERY CLEAR IN THE SOUND, VERY CLEAR WHEN IT'S WRITTEN DOWN ON THE PAGE AND I DO THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DEMOCRATS ARE ALREADY PLANNING ON SEIZING ON. I ALSO THINK, YOU KNOW, PETE'S POINT RIGHT THERE ABOUT THIS QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS HIS ROLE TO NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT, ROBERT MUELLER SEEMED TO HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY THERE BUT HE WAS CUT OFF BY MR. RATCLIFF, THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN, AND THEN THEY RAN OUT OF TIME AND MUELLER DID NOT MAKE A DECISION TO TRY TO FORCEFULLY INTERJECT HIMSELF INTO THAT EXCHANGE. AND SO I THINK THAT'S ONE THING THAT'S WORKING AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS HERE AS THEY TRY TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE. >> THEY'RE ABOUT TO GET STARTED AGAIN BUT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THOUGH HE'S NOT AS FORCEFUL AS MANY EXPECTED, HE IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID WHICH IS STAY WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THAT REPORT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. AND TO KASIE'S POINT, HE DID NOT REACH OUT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION ABOUT THAT CONTROVERSIAL DECISION TO SAY I WON'T EXONERATE. BUT NOR DID THE NEXT QUESTIONER WHO WAS A DEMOCRAT REACH OUT AND SAY, WELL LET ME GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THESE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST YOU. SO THERE WAS NO REHABILITATING OF THE WITNESS. >> SAVANNAH, THEY HAVE THIS PLAN. THEY HAVE THIS PLANNED DOWN ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE LAST — SEQUENTIALLY OF HOW THEY WANT TO NARRATE THIS REPORT AND I AGREE THAT NOBODY HAS SHOWN THE ABILITY — >> WE HAVE TO ASK OUR LITIGATOR ON THE SET.

YOU HAVE YOUR PLAN BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO BE PRESENT IN THE MOMENT AND SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY. >> YOU HAVE TO BE DYNAMIC. YOU CANNOT JUST BE READING YOUR PRESCRIPTED TALKING POINTS FROM ONE POINT TO THE NEXT. >> ANDREA, YOU WANTED TO SAY? >> IF ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR CAN MAKE POINTS ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR INCORRECTNESS, WHY CAN'T MUELLER? >> LET'S QUICKLY CHECK IN WITH HALLIE JACKSON RIGHT NOW. IS THE PRESIDENT WATCHING OR NOT? HE LEFT THAT OPEN QUESTION UP TO YESTERDAY. >> HE IS, LESTER. I'LL MAKE IT QUICK. HE IS WATCHING COVERAGE, RETWEETING AND CALLING THIS A DISASTER FOR THE DEMOCRATS. THE PRESIDENT IS ENGAGED, SEIZING IN PARTICULAR ON THE MOMENTS IN WHICH MUELLER TALKED ABOUT NO CONSPIRACY, LESTER. >> I DON'T THINK WE'VE HEARD THE WORD DISASTER. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA, MR.

RICHMOND. >> AND LET'S LISTEN IN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, THE CONGRESSMAN ADDRESSED TRUMP'S REQUEST TO McGAHN TO FIRE YOU. REPRESENTATIVE BASS TALKED ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST OF McGAHN TO DENY THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT MADE THAT REQUEST. I WANT TO PICK UP WHERE THEY LEFT OFF AND I WANT TO PICK UP WITH THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER. IN FACT, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER WAS ALARMED AT THE PROSPECT OF THE PRESIDENT MEETING WITH MR. McGAHN TO DISCUSS MR. McGAHN'S REFUSAL TO DENY "THE NEW YORK TIMES" REPORT ABOUT THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO FIRE YOU, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WAS SO ALARMED BY THE PROSPECT OF THE PRESIDENT'S MEETING WITH McGAHN THAT HE CALLED MR.

McGAHN'S COUNSEL AND SAID THAT McGAHN COULD NOT RESIGN NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED IN THE OVAL OFFICE THAT DAY, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> IT'S ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT HE WAS ASKING McGAHN TO DENY THE FACT THAT McGAHN, QUOTE, HAD REPEATEDLY SAID WERE ACCURATE, UNQUOTE. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> YOUR INVESTIGATION ALSO FOUND, QUOTE, BY THE TIME OF THE OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT WAS AWARE, ONE, THAT McGAHN DID NOT THINK THE STORY WAS FALSE. TWO, DID NOT WANT TO ISSUE A STATEMENT OR CREATE A WRITTEN RECORD DENYING FACTS THAT McGAHN BELIEVED TO BE TRUE. THE PRESIDENT NEVERTHELESS PERSISTED AND ASKED McGAHN TO REPUDIATE FACTS THAT McGAHN HAD REPEATEDLY SAID WERE ACCURATE.

IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT'S ON PAGE 119. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO FORCE McGAHN TO SAY THINGS THAT McGAHN DID NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE. >> THAT'S ACCURATE. >> I WANT TO REFERENCE YOU TO A SLIDE ON PAGE 120. IT SAYS, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT IN REPEATEDLY URGING McGAHN TO DISPUTE THAT HE WAS ORDERED TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TERMINATED, THE PRESIDENT ACTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFLUENCING McGAHN'S ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO DEFLECTOR PREVENT FURTHER SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TOWARDS THE INVESTIGATION. >> THAT'S ACCURATE. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEANT THERE? >> I JUST BELIEVE IT AS IT APPEARS IN THE REPORT. >> IT'S FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO PROTECT HIMSELF BY ASKING STAFF TO FALSIFY RECORDS RELEVANT TO AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION? >> I WOULD SAY THAT'S GENERALLY 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? >> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO REFER YOU TO THE REPORT IF I COULD FOR REVIEW OF THAT EPISODE. >> THANK YOU. ALSO, THE PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPT TO GET McGAHN TO CREATE A FALSELY WRITTEN RECORD WERE RELATED TO MR. TRUMP'S CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INQUIRY, CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE. >> IN FACT, AT THAT SAME OVAL OFFICE MEETING, DID THE PRESIDENT ALSO ASK McGAHN WHY HE HAD TOLD, QUOTE, WHY HE HAD TOLD SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE INVESTIGATORS THAT THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HAVE YOU REMOVED, UNQUOTE.

>> 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 BELIEVED TO BE THE TRUTH. >> I AGAIN GO BACK TO THE TEXT OF THE REPORT. >> WELL, LET ME GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. WOULD IT HAVE BEEN A CRIME IF MR. McGAHN HAD LIED TO YOU ABOUT THE PRESIDENT ORDERING HIM TO FIRE YOU? >> I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE.

>> OKAY. IS IT TRUE THAT YOU CHARGED MULTIPLE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENT FOR LYING TO YOU DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> THE PRESIDENT ALSO COMPLAINED THAT HIS STAFF WERE TAKING NOTES DURING THE MEETING ABOUT FIRING McGAHN. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S WHAT THE REPORT SAYS. YEAH, THE REPORT. >> BUT IN FACT, IT'S COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S STAFF, ESPECIALLY HIS COUNSEL'S, TO TAKE NOTES DURING A MEETING, CORRECT? >> I RELY ON THE WORDING OF THE REPORT. >> WELL, THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER, FOR YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE BY ORDERING HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, DON McGAHN, TO LIE TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT AND THEN TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD ABOUT IT. IT IS CLEAR THAT ANY OTHER PERSON WHO ENGAGED IN SUCH CONDUCT WOULD BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME. WE WILL CONTINUE OUR INVESTIGATION AND WE WILL HOLD THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

>> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, CAN YOU STATE WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS NOT PART OF RUSSIA'S DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN? >> AS I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, THAT PART OF THE BUILDING OF THE CASE WAS — PREDATED ME BY AT LEAST TEN MONTHS. >> PAUL MANAFORT'S ALLEGED CRIMES REGARDING TAX EVASION PREDATED YOU, YET YOU HAD NO PROBLEM CHARGING THEM. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS STEELE 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'M QUOTING, NO, I CAN'T STATE THAT WITH CONFIDENCE AND THAT'S ONE OF THE AREAS I'M REVIEWING. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT AND I DON'T THINK IT'S ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE. NOW, IF SOMETHING IS NOT ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE, THEN IT MUST HAVE SOME FACTUAL BASIS, BUT YOU IDENTIFY NO FACTUAL BASIS REGARDING THE DOSSIER OR THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS PART OF THE RUSSIA DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN.

NOW, CHRISTOPHER STEELE'S REPORTING IS REFERENCED IN YOUR REPORT. STEELE REPORTED TO THE FBI THAT SENIOR RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY FIGURES AMONG — ALONG WITH OTHER RUSSIANS, TOLD HIM THAT THERE WAS — AND I'M QUOTING FROM THE STEELE DOSSIER — EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TEAM AND THE KREMLIN. SO HERE'S MY QUESTION, DID RUSSIANS REALLY TELL THAT TO CHRISTOPHER STEELE, OR DID HE JUST MAKE IT ALL UP AND WAS HE LYING TO THE FBI? >> LET ME BACK UP A SECOND IF I COULD AND SAY AS I SAID EARLIER, WITH REGARD TO THE STEELE — THAT'S BEYOND MY PER VIEW.

>> IT IS EXACTLY YOUR PURVIEW, DIRECTOR MUELLER AND HERE'S WHY. ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS IS POSSIBLE, RIGHT? EITHER STEELE MADE THIS WHOLE THING UP AND THERE WERE NEVER ANY RUSSIANS TELLING HIM OF THIS VAST CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY THAT YOU DIDN'T FIND, OR RUSSIANS LIED TO STEELE. IF RUSSIANS WERE LYING TO STEELE TO UNDERMINE OUR CONFIDENCE IN OUR DULY ELECTED PRESIDENT, THAT WOULD BE PRECISELY YOUR PURVIEW BECAUSE YOU STATED IN YOUR OPENING THAT THE ORGANIZATIONSING PRINCIPLE WAS TO FULLY AND THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN'S INTERFERENCE, BUT YOU WEREN'T INTERESTED IN WHETHER OR NOT RUSSIANS WERE INTERFERING TO CHRISTOPHER STEELE AND IF STEELE WAS LYING, YOU SHOULD HAVE CHARGED HIM WITH LYING LIKE YOU CHARGED OTHER PEOPLE BUT YOU SAY NOTHING ABOUT THIS IN YOUR REPORT. MEANWHILE, DIRECTOR, YOU'RE QUITE LOQUACIOUS ON OTHER TOPICS. YOU WRITE 3500 WORDS ABOUT THE JUNE 9 MEETING BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND A RUSSIAN LAWYER. YOU WROTE ON PAGE 103 THAT THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM SUGGESTED — AND I'M QUOTING FROM YOUR REPORT — THAT THE MEETING MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SETUP BY INDIVIDUALS WORKING WITH THE FIRM. WHO DID THE RUSSIAN LAWYER MEET WITH MORE FREQUENTLY, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR THE OPERATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE? >> I THINK WHAT IS MISSING HERE IS THE FACT THAT THIS IS UNDER INVESTIGATION ELSEWHERE AND — >> I'M SAYING — >> AND IF I CAN FINISH, SIR.

CONSEQUENTLY, IT'S NOT WITHIN MY PURVIEW. I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. >> IT IS ABSURD TO SUGGEST THAT AN OPERATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATS WAS MEETING WITH THIS RUSSIAN LAWYER THE DAY BEFORE AND THE DAY AFTER THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING AND YET THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU REFERENCED. NOW, GLEN SIMPSON TESTIFIED UNDER OATH HE HAD DINNER WITH NA SKY YA THE DAY BEFORE AND THE DAY AFTER THIS MEETING WITH THE TRUMP TEAM. DO YOU HAVE ANY BASIS TO BELIEVE THAT STEELE WAS LYING? >> IT'S NOT MY PURVIEW. OTHERS ARE INVESTIGATING WHAT YOU ADDRESS. >> IT'S NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT STEELE'S LYING, TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT ANTI-TRUMP RUSSIANS ARE LYING TO STEELE AND IT'S NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO LOOK INTO WHETHER OR NOT GLEN SIMPSON MEETING WITH THE RUSSIANS.

I'M WONDERING HOW THESE DECISIONS ARE GUIDED. I LOOK AT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT. I'M CITING FROM PAGE 404 OF THE REPORT. IT STATES, PAGE STATED TRUMP'S NOT EVER GOING TO BE PRESIDENT, RIGHT? STRZOK REPLIED. NO, WE'LL STOP IT. THERE'S SOMEONE IDENTIFIED AS ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO, THIS IS PAGE 419. HE REPLIED, HELL NO AND THEN ADDED, VIVA LA RESISTANCE. BOTH WORKED ON YOUR TEAM, DIDN'T THEY? >> PARDON ME? >> THEY BOTH WORKED ON YOUR TEAM, DIDN'T THEY? >> I HEARD STRZOK, WHO ELSE? >> ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO. >> AND THE QUESTION WAS? >> DID HE WORK FOR YOU? >> PETER STRZOK WORKED FOR ME FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, YES. >> BUT SO DID THE OTHER GUY WHO SAID VIVA LA RESISTANCE. HERE'S WHAT I'M NOTICING, WHEN PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH TRUMP LIED, YOU THREW THE BOOK AT THEM. WHEN CHRISTOPHER STEELE LIED, NOTHING. WHEN GLEN SIMPSON MET WITH RUSSIANS, NOTHING. WHEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MET WITH RUSSIANS, 3500 WORDS. MAYBE THESE — >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK IS RECOGNIZED.

>> OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A SERIOUS CRIME, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HAS THREE ELEMENTS, CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> THE FIRST IS AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THAT COULD INCLUDE TAKING AN ACTION THAT WOULD DELAY OR INTERFERE WITH AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION AS SET FORTH IN VOLUME TWO, PAGE 87 AND 88 OF YOUR REPORT, TRUE? >> I'M SORRY, COULD YOU AGAIN REPEAT THE QUESTION? >> AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT COULD INCLUDE TAKING AN ACTION THAT WOULD DELAY OR INTERFERE WITH AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION? >> THAT'S TRUE.

>> YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK STEPS TO TERMINATE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> MR. MUELLER, DOES ORDERING THE TERMINATION OF THE HEAD OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION CONSTITUTE AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT? >> THAT WOULD BE — I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE REPORT ON THAT. >> LET ME REFER YOU TO PAGE 87 AND 88 OF VOLUME TWO WHERE YOU CONCLUDE THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WOULD QUALIFY AS AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT IF IT WOULD NATURALLY OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION OF ANY GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS THAT MIGHT FLOW FROM THE INQUIRY, CORRECT? >> YES, I'VE GOT THAT NOW, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THE SECOND ELEMENT OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS THE PRESENCE OF AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT IN CONNECTION WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS, TRUE? >> TRUE. >> DOES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE POTENTIAL WRONGDOING OF DONALD TRUMP CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS? >> THAT'S AN AREA WHICH I CANNOT GET INTO. >> 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, WITCH HUNT.

THE JUNE 16 TWEET JUST READ WAS CITED ON PAGE 89 IN VOLUME TWO, 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 McGAHN AT HOME AND DIRECTED HIM TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, TRUE? >> I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. I MAY HAVE STATED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD DON McGAHN, QUOTE, MUELLER HAS TO GO, CLOSE QUOTE. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> YOUR REPORT FOUND ON PAGE 89, VOLUME TWO THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT BY JUNE 17 THE PRESIDENT KNEW HIS CONDUCT WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR WHO COULD PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF FEDERAL CRIMES TO A GRAND JURY, TRUE? >> TRUE. >> THE THIRD ELEMENT — SECOND ELEMENT HAVING JUST BEEN SATISFIED, THE THIRD ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS CORRUPT INTENT FOR THE IMPROPER PURPOSE OF PROTECTING HIS OWN INTEREST, CORRECT? >> THAT'S GENERALLY CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> I WANT TO — THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE THREE ELEMENTS OF PROOF OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE GOT — EXCUSE ME JUST ONE SECOND.

>> THANK YOU. MR. MUELLER, LET ME MOVE ON. UPON LEARNING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT DONALD TRUMP STATED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, QUOTE, OH, MY GOD, THIS IS TERRIBLE. THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY. I'M FED. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WAS THIS ADVERSE TO HIS OWN INTERESTS? >> I THINK THAT'S GENERALLY TRUE. >> THE INVESTIGATION FOUND EVIDENCE, QUOTE, THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE DIRECTED DON McGAHN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? >> WHERE DO YOU HAVE THAT QUOTE? >> PAGE 90, VOLUME TWO. THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THOSE CALLS TO McGAHN, CLOSE QUOTE. >> I SEE THAT, YES. THAT'S ACCURATE. >> THE INVESTIGATION ALSO FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP REPEATEDLY URGED McGAHN TO DISPUTE THAT HE WAS ORDERED TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TERMINATED, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THE INVESTIGATION FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND THEN LIE ABOUT IT, DONALD TRUMP, ONE, COMMITTED AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, TWO, CONNECTED TO AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING, THREE, DID SO WITH CORRUPT INTENT.

THOSE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. NO ONE. THE PRESIDENT MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. >> LET ME JUST SAY, IF I MIGHT, I DON'T SUBSCRIBE NECESSARILY TO YOUR — THE WAY YOU ANALYZED THAT. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S OUT OF THE BALLPARK BUT I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THAT ANALYTICAL CHARGE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO START BY THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. YOU JOINED THE MARINES AND LED A PLATOON IN VIETNAM WHERE YOU EARNED A BRONZE STAR, PURPLE HEART AND OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS. YOU LEAD THE HOMICIDE UNIT HERE IN D.C., THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, ASSISTANT D.J. FOR THE CRIMINAL DIVISION AND LATER 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 TREAT EVERYONE FAIRLY. A PROSECUTOR IS NOT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF AN ORDINARY PARTY TO A CONTROVERSY BUT A SOVEREIGNTY WHOSE INTEREST IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IS NOT THAT IT SHALL WIN A CASE BUT THAT 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 TEN FACTUAL SITUATIONS AND NOT REACHING A CONCLUSION ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE, YOU UNFAIRLY SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE PRESIDENT, FORCING HIM TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE WHILE DENYING HIM A LEGAL FORUM TO DO SO. 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'M ALSO TROUBLED WITH YOUR LEGAL ANALYSIS. YOU DISCUSS TEN SEPARATE FACTUAL PATTERNS INVOLVING ALLEGED OBSTRUCTION AND THEN YOU FAILED TO SEPARATELY APPLY THE ELEMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTES. I LOOKED AT THE TEN FACTUAL SITUATIONS AND I READ THE CASE LAW. I HAVE TO TELL YOU JUST LOOKING AT THE FLYNN MATTER FOR EXAMPLE, THE FOUR STATUTES THAT YOU CITED FOR POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION, 1503, 1505, 1512 B 3 AND C2, WHEN I LOOK AT THOSE CONCERNING THE FLYNN MATTER, 1503 IS INAPPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A GRAND JURY OR TRIAL JURY EMPANELED AND DIRECTOR COMEY WAS NOT AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. SECTION 1505 CRIMINALIZES ACTS THAT WOULD IMPEDE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS OF THOSE BEFORE CONGRESS. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RESOURCE MANUAL STATES THAT THE FBI INVESTIGATION IS NOT A PENDING PROCEEDINGS. 1512 B3 TALKS ABOUT INTIMIDATION, THREATS, FORCE TO TAMPER WITH A WITNESS.

GENERAL FLYNN AT THE TIME WAS NOT A WITNESS AND CERTAINLY DIRECTOR COMEY WAS NOT A WITNESS. 1512 C2 TALKS ABOUT TAMPERING WITH THE RECORD AND AS JOE BIDEN DESCRIBED THE STATUTE AS BEING DEBATED ON THE SENATE FLOOR, HE CALLED THIS A STATUTE CRIMINALIZING DOCUMENT SHREDDING AND THERE'S NOTHING IN YOUR REPORT THAT ALLEGES THAT THE PRESIDENT DESTROYED ANY EVIDENCE. SO, WHAT I HAVE TO ASK YOU AND WHAT I THINK PEOPLE ARE WORKING AROUND IN THIS HEARING IS — LET ME LAY A LITTLE FOUNDATION. THE RULES REQUIRE THAT A PROSECUTOR HAVE A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF CONVICTION TO BRING A CHARGE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> GENERALLY ACCURATE. >> AND THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING YOUR JOB AS SPECIAL COUNSEL STATES THAT YOUR JOB IS TO PROVIDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT EXPLAINING THE PROSECUTION OR DECK CHINATION DECISIONS REACHED BY YOUR OFFICE. YOU RECOMMENDED DECLINING PROSECUTION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND NO ONE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT FOR A CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION. IS THAT FAIR? >> THAT'S FAIR.

>> WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANYONE ELSE WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? >> WE DID NOT MAKE THAT CALCULATION. >> HOW COULD YOU NOT HAVE MADE THE CALCULATION? >> THE OFFICE OF LEGAL OPINION INDICATES THAT WE CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT, SO ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT A PROSECUTOR WOULD USE IS NOT THERE. >> BUT LET ME JUST STOP. YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. YOU COULDN'T HAVE INDICTED THE PRESIDENT ON THAT, AND YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THAT. BUT WHEN IT CAME TO OBSTRUCTION, YOU THREW A BUNCH OF STUFF UP AGAINST THE WALL TO SEE WHAT WOULD STICK AND THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR.

>> I WOULD NOT AGREE TO THAT CHARACTERIZATION AT ALL. WHAT WE DID IS PROVIDE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN THE FORM OF A CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDA 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. >> BUT THE — COULD YOU CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE? >> YES. >> YOU BELIEVE THAT HE COMMITTED — YOU COULD CHARGE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE? >> YES.

>> ETHICALLY, UNDER THE ETHICAL STANDARDS? >> I'M NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE ETHICAL STANDARDS BUT THE OLC OPINION SAYS THAT THE PROSECUTOR CANNOT BRING A CHARGE AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT, NONETHELESS, 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, AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON FIVE SEPARATE OBSTRUCTION EPISODES HERE TODAY. I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE THIRD EPISODE.

IT'S 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 TRIED TO HAVE YOU FIRED AS THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND BECAUSE MR. McGAHN REFUSED THE ORDER THE PRESIDENT ASKED OTHERS TO HELP LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WAS COREY LEWANDOWSKI ONE SUCH INDIVIDUAL? >> AGAIN, CAN YOU REMIND ME — >> THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> DID HE HAVE ANY OFFICIAL POSITION IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >> YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES AN INCIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE INVOLVING MR. LEWANDOWSKI ON JUNE 19, 2017 AT VOLUME TWO, PAGE 91. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M SORRY, WHAT'S THE CITATION, SIR? >> PAGE 91. >> OF THE SECOND VOLUME? >> YES. >> AND WHAT — >> MEETING IN THE OVAL OFFICE BETWEEN MR. LEWANDOWSKI AND THE PRESIDENT. THAT WAS TWO DAYS AFTER THE PRESIDENT CALLED DON McGAHN AT HOME AND ORDERED HIM TO FIRE YOU.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> APPARENTLY SO. >> RIGHT AFTER HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, MR. McGAHN, REFUSED THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO FIRE YOU THE PRESIDENT CAME UP WITH A NEW PLAN TO GO AROUND ALL OF HIS SENIOR ADVISERS AND GOVERNMENT AIDES TO HAVE PRIVATE CITIZENS TRY TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION. WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT TELL MR. LEWANDOWSKI TO DO? DO YOU REMEMBER HE DICTATED A MEMO FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS AND ASKED HIM TO WRITE IT DOWN, CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> DID YOU AND YOUR TEAM SEE THIS HANDWRITTEN MESSAGE? >> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO WHAT WE MAY OR MAY HAVE INCLUDED IN YOUR INVESTIGATION. >> THE MESSAGE DIRECTED SESSIONS TO GIVE — AND I'M QUOTING FROM YOUR REPORT — TO GIVE A PUBLIC SPEECH SAYING THAT HE PLANNED TO MEET WITH THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO EXPLAIN THIS IS VERY UNFAIR AND LET THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MOVE FORWARD WITH INVESTIGATING ELECTION MEDDLING FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, I SEE THAT, THANK YOU. YES, IT IS.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, A PRIVATE CITIZEN, WAS INSTRUCTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DELIVER A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT DIRECTED HIM TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AT THIS TIME MR. SESSIONS WAS STILL RECUSED FROM OVERSIGHT OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >> I'M SORRY, COULD YOU RESTATE THAT. >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS RECUSED. >> YES. >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD HAVE HAD TO VIOLATE HIS OWN DEPARTMENT'S RULES IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER, CORRECT? >> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE SUBSIDIARY DETAILS. I'D REFER YOU AGAIN TO PAGE 91 AND 92 OF THE REPORT. >> IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST, MR. MUELLER, WOULD HAVE EFFECTIVELY ENDED YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN AS YOU KNOW IT ON PAGE 97, CORRECT? >> COULD YOU — >> YOU WRITE AND I QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVES INDICATE THAT SESSIONS WAS BEING INSTRUCTED TO TELL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO END THE EXISTING INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL BEING PERMITTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH INVESTIGATING ELECTION MEDDLING FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> GENERALLY TRUE, YES, SIR.

>> AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IS STILL A CRIME, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> MR. LEWANDOWSKI TRIED TO MEET WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IS THAT RIGHT? >> TRUE. >> HE TRIED TO MEET WITH HIM IN HIS OFFICE SO THERE WOULDN'T BE A PUBLIC LOG OF THE VISIT. >> ACCORDING TO WHAT I GATHERED FOR THE REPORT. >> THE MEETING NEVER HAPPENED AND THE PRESIDENT RAISED THE ISSUE AGAIN WITH MR.

LEWANDOWSKI AND SAID, AND I QUOTE, IF SESSIONS DOES NOT MEET WITH YOU, LEWANDOWSKI SHOULD TELL SESSIONS HE WAS FIRED, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT MR. LEWANDOWSKI THEN ASKED MR. DEERBORN TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE TO MR. SESSIONS AND MR. DEERBORN REFUSES TO DELIVER IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> GENERALLY CORRECT, YES. >> SO WE'RE CLEAR, MR. MUELLER, TWO DAYS AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, DON McGAHN, REFUSED TO CARRY OUT THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO FIRE YOU, THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED A PRIVATE CITIZEN TO TELL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WHO WAS RECUSED AT THE TIME TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION TO FUTURE ELECTIONS, EFFECTIVELY ENDING YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 TRUMP CAMPAIGN, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M NOT GOING TO ADOPT YOUR CHARACTERIZATION. I'LL SAY THAT THE FACTS AS LAID OUT IN THE REPORT ARE ACCURATE. >> MR. MUELLER, IN YOUR REPORT, YOU IN FACT, WRITE ON PAGE 97, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION TO FUTURE ELECTIONS INTERFERENCE WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN CONDUCT.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> GENERALLY. >> SO MR. MUELLER, YOU HAVE SEEN THE LETTER WHERE 1,000 FORMER REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC FEDERAL PROSECUTORS HAVE READ YOUR REPORT AND SAID IF ANYONE BUT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED THOSE ACTS, HE WOULD BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. DO YOU AGREE? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, YOUR TEAM WROTE IN THE REPORT AT THE TOP OF PAGE TWO, VOLUME ONE, ALSO ON PAGE 173 BY THE WAY, YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, QUOTE, THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ELECTION ACTIVITIES. THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT, RIGHT? >> THAT'S ACCURATE. >> I'M CURIOUS, WHEN DID YOU PERSONALLY COME TO THAT CONCLUSION? >> CAN YOU REMIND ME WHICH PARAGRAPH? >> PAGE TWO, VOLUME ONE. >> EXACTLY WHICH PARAGRAPH ARE YOU LOOKING AT? >> THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH — >> I SEE IT. WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? >> MY QUESTION NOW IS, WHEN DID YOU PERSONALLY REACH THAT CONCLUSION? >> WELL, WE WERE ONGOING FOR TWO YEARS.

>> YOU WERE ONGOING. YOU WROTE IT AT SOME POINT DURING THAT TWO-YEAR PERIOD BUT YOU HAD TO COME TO THE CONCLUSIONS THAT THERE'S NOT A CONSPIRACY GOING ON HERE. THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THIS PRESIDENT — AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE REST OF THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM BUT THIS PRESIDENT AND THE RUSSIANS. >> AS YOU UNDERSTAND, DEVELOPING A CRIMINAL CASE, YOU GET PIECES OF INFORMATION, WITNESSES AND THE LIKE AS YOU MAKE YOUR CASE. AND WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION ON A PARTICULAR CASE DEPENDS ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS. >> RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND.

>> SO I CANNOT SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT WE REACHED A DECISION ON A PARTICULAR DEFENDANT AT A PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. >> BUT IT WAS SOME TIME WELL BEFORE YOU WROTE THE REPORT, FAIR ENOUGH? YOU WROTE THE REPORT DEALING WITH A MYRIAD OF ISSUES. PRIOR TO THAT REPORT IS WHEN YOU REACHED THE DECISION THAT, OKAY, WITH REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, I DON'T FIND ANYTHING HERE. FAIR ENOUGH? >> I'M NOT CERTAIN I DO AGREE WITH THAT. >> YOU WAITED UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE WHEN YOU WERE ACTUALLY WRITING THE REPORT? >> NO. BUT THERE ARE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A — >> SURE. THAT'S MY POINT. THERE ARE VARIOUS ASPECTS THAT HAPPEN, BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE PIKE YOU COME TO A CONCLUSION THERE'S NO THERE THERE FOR THIS DEFENDANT, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

>> FAIR ENOUGH. I'M ASKING THE SWORN WITNESS. MR. MUELLER, EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT ON MAY 10, 2017 AT APPROXIMATELY 7:45 A.M., SIX DAYS BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, MR. ROSENSTEIN CALLED YOU AND MENTIONED THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL, NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU WOULD BE APPOINTED BUT THAT YOU HAD A DISCUSSION OF THAT. ISN'T THAT TRUE? MAY 10, 2017. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY — I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT OCCURRING. >> YOU DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OR YOU DON'T RECALL? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE. >> THE EVIDENCE ALSO — >> GIVEN WHAT I SAW YOU DO, ARE YOU QUESTIONING THAT? >> WELL, I JUST FIND IT INTRIGUING. LET ME TELL YOU THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT THAT PHONE CALL TOOK PLACE AND THAT'S WHAT WAS SAID.

EVIDENCE SUGGESTS ALSO THAT ON MAY 12, 2017, FIVE DAYS BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOU MET WITH MR. ROSENSTEIN IN PERSON. DID YOU DISCUSS THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THEN, NOT NECESSARILY YOU BUT THAT THERE WOULD BE A SPECIAL COUNSEL? >> I'VE GONE INTO WATERS THAT DON'T ALLOW ME TO GIVE YOU AN ANSWER TO THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION THAT RELATES TO THE INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS WE WOULD HAVE IN TERMS OF INDICTING AN INDIVIDUAL. >> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INDICTMENT BUT WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL AND WHETHER YOU DISCUSSED THAT WITH MR. ROSENSTEIN. THE EVIDENCE ALSO SUGGESTS ON MAY 13, FOUR DAYS BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOU MET WITH FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS AND ROSENSTEIN AND YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? >> OFFHAND, NO. >> ON MAY 16, THE DAY BEFORE YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, YOU MET WITH THE PRESIDENT AND ROD ROSENSTEIN. DO YOU REMEMBER HAVING THAT MEETING? >> YES. >> AND THE DISCUSSION OF THE POSITION OF FBI DIRECTOR TOOK PLACE.

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? >> YES. >> DID YOU DISCUSS AT ANY TIME IN THAT MEETING MR. COMEY'S TERMINATION? >> NO. >> DID YOU DISCUSS AT ANY TIME IN THAT MEETING THE POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL, NOT NECESSARILY YOU BUT JUST IN GENERAL TERMS? >> I CAN'T GET INTO THE DISCUSSIONS ON THAT. >> HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. ROSENSTEIN BEFORE MAY 17 WHICH IS THE DAY YOU GOT APPOINTED REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL? HOW MANY TIMES PRIOR TO THAT DID YOU DISCUSS IT? >> I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES. >> BECAUSE YOU DON'T RECALL OR YOU JUST — >> I DO NOT RECALL. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK WITH MR. COMEY ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS PRIOR TO MAY 17, 2017? >> NOT AT ALL.

>> ZERO? >> ZERO. >> MY TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, GOING BACK TO THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION VIA COREY LEWANDOWSKI, IT WAS REFERENCED THAT 1,000 FORMER PROSECUTORS WHO SERVED UNDER REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS WITH 12,000 YEARS OF FEDERAL SERVICE WROTE A LETTER REGARDING THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT LETTER? >> I'VE READ ABOUT THAT LETTER, YES. >> SOME OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO SIGNED THAT LETTER, THE STATEMENT OF FORMER PROSECUTORS, ARE PEOPLE YOU WORKED WITH. IS THAT CORRECT? >> QUITE PROBABLY, YES. >> PEOPLE THAT YOU RESPECT? >> QUITE PROBABLY, YES.

>> IN THAT LETTER THEY SAID ALL OF THIS CONDUCT, TRYING TO CONTROL AND IMPEDE THE INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT BY LEVERAGING HIS AUTHORITY OVER OTHERS IS SIMILAR TO CONDUCT WE HAVE SEEN CHARGED AGAINST OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PEOPLE IN POWERFUL POSITIONS. ARE THEY WRONG? >> THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT CASE. >> YOU WANT TO SIGN THAT LETTER, DIRECTOR MUELLER? >> THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT CASE. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE '60s WHEN YOU SERVED IN VIETNAM. I'LL HAVE QUESTIONS LATER AND BECAUSE OF TIME, I WILL ASK TO ENTER THIS LETTER INTO THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER, FOR YOUR LONG HISTORY OF SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, INCLUDING YOUR SERVICE AS A MARINE WHERE YOU EARNED A BRONZE STAR. I'D LIKE TO NOW TURN TO THE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS APPLIED TO THE PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPTS TO CURTAIL YOUR INVESTIGATION. THE FIRST ELEMENT OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE REQUIRES AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> I'D LIKE TO DIRECT YOU TO PAGE 97 OF VOLUME TWO OF YOUR REPORT. YOU WROTE THERE ON PAGE 97, QUOTE, SESSIONS WAS BEING INSTRUCTED TO TELL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO END THE EXISTING INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN, UNQUOTE. THAT'S IN THE REPORT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT BECAUSE IT WOULD NATURALLY OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> LET'S TURN NOW TO THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHICH REQUIRES A NEXUS TO A SPECIAL PROCEEDING.

AGAIN I DIRECT YOU TO PAGE 97, THE SAME PAGE, VOLUME TWO. YOU WROTE, QUOTE, BY THE TIME THE PRESIDENT'S INITIAL ONE-ON-ONE WITH LEWANDOWSKI ON JUNE 19, 2017, THE EXISTENCE OF A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION SUPERVISED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. THAT'S IN THE REPORT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE OF A NEXUS TO AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING BECAUSE A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IS AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING, CORRECT? >> YES. >> I'D 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'S THE INTENT SECTION ON THAT PAGE? >> I DO SEE THAT. >> WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO READ THE FIRST SENTENCE? >> AND THAT WAS STARTING WITH? >> SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. >> INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT — >> IF YOU COULD READ THAT FIRST SENTENCE, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO READ IT? >> I'M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU READ IT. >> YOU WROTE, QUOTE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION TO FUTURE ELECTION INTERFERENCE WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN'S CONDUCT, UNQUOTE. THAT'S IN THE REPORT, CORRECT? >> THAT IS IN THE REPORT AND I RELY ON WHAT'S IN THE REPORT TO INDICATE THE PERHAPS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING. >> THANK YOU. >> TO RECAP WHAT WE HAVE HEARD, WE HAVE HEARD TODAY THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN TO FIRE YOU.

THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN TO THEN COVER THAT UP AND CREATE A FALSE PAPER TRIAL, AND NOW WE'VE HEARD THE PRESIDENT ORDERED COREY LEWANDOWSKI TO TELL JEFF SESSIONS TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION SO THAT HE — YOU — STOP INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT. I BELIEVE A REASONABLE PERSON LOOKING AT THESE FACTS COULD CONCLUDE THAT ALL THREE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE HAVE BEEN MET AND I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU THE REASON AGAIN THAT YOU DID NOT INDICT DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF OLC OPINION STATING THAT YOU CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE FACT THAT THE ORDERS BY THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT CARRIED OUT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE STATUTE ITSELF IS QUITE BROAD.

IT SAYS THAT AS LONG AS YOU ENDEAVOR OR ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE, THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIME. >> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT AT THIS JUNCTURE. >> THANK YOU. >> BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE HEARD TODAY, I BELIEVE A REASONABLE PERSON COULD CONCLUDE THAT AT LEAST THREE CRIMES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE PRESIDENT OCCURRED. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT TWO ADDITIONAL CRIMES. THAT WOULD BE THE WITNESS TAMPERING OF MICHAEL COHEN AND PAUL MANAFORT. I YIELD BACK. >> THE ONLY THING I WANT TO ADD IS THAT BECAUSE I'M GOING THROUGH THE ELEMENTS WITH YOU DOES NOT MEAN THAT I SUBSCRIBE TO THE — WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVE THROUGH THOSE ELEMENTS. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.

>> THANK YOU. MR. MUELLER, THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY. YOU HAD THREE DISCUSSIONS WITH ROD ROSENSTEIN ABOUT YOUR APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL MAY 10, 12 AND MAY 13, CORRECT? >> IF YOU SAY SO, I HAVE NO REASON TO DISPUTE THAT. >> THEN YOU MET WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THE 16th WITH ROD ROSENSTEIN PRESENT AND THEN ON THE 17th YOU WERE FORMALLY APPOINTED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL. WERE YOU MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT ON THE 16th WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU WERE UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO SPECIAL COUNSEL? >> I DID NOT BELIEVE I WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR COUNSEL. I HAD SERVED TWO TERMS AS FBI DIRECTOR — >> THE ANSWER IS NO? >> THE ANSWER IS NO. >> GREG JARRETT DESCRIBES YOUR OFFICE AS THE TEAM OF PARTISAN AND THERE'S A GROWING CONCERN THAT POLITICAL BIAS CAUSED FACTS TO BE OMITTED FROM YOUR REPORT IN ORDER TO CAST THE PRESIDENT UNFAIRLY IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT. FOR EXAMPLE, JOHN DOWD, TH PRESIDENT'S LAWYER LEAVES A MESSAGE ON NOVEMBER 2017. THE EDITED VERSION IN YOUR REPORT MAKES IT APPEAR THAT HE WAS IMPROPERLY ASKING FOR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND THAT'S ALL WE WOULD KNOW FROM YOUR REPORT, EXCEPT THAT THE JUDGE IN THE FLYNN CASE ORDERED THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT RELEASED IN WHICH DOWD MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT'S NOT WHAT HE WA SUGGESTING.

MY QUESTION IS WHY DID YOU EDIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO HIDE THE EXCULPATORY PART OF THE MESSAGE? >> I'M NOT SURE I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATION THAT WE DID ANYTHING TO HIDE. >> YOU OMITTED THE PORTION WHERE HE SAYS WITHOUT GIVING UP ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. >> I'M NOT GOING TO GO FURTHER IN TERMS OF DISCUSSING — >> YOU EXTENSIVELY DISCUSS A RUSSIAN CONSULTANT AND LONG-TIME EMPLOYEE OF PAUL MANAFORT IS SAID BY THE FBI TO HAVE TIES TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE.

AGAIN, THAT'S ALL WE WOULD KNOW FROM YOUR REPORT EXCEPT WE'VE SEEN LEARNED FROM NEWS ARTICLES THAT CLEM NICK WAS AN INTELLIGENCE — THAT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED. >> I DON'T CREDIT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING OCCURRED. >> WERE YOU AWARE THAT KILIMNIK WAS A — >> I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO WHAT WE HAD OR — IN THE COURSE OF OUR INVESTIGATION — >> DID YOU INTERVIEW CONSTANTINE KILIMNIK? >> I CAN'T GO INTO THE DISCUSSION OF OUR INVESTIGATIVE MOVES. >> AND YET THAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR REPORT. AGAIN, THE PROBLEM WE'RE HAVING IS WE HAVE TO RELY ON YOUR REPORT FOR AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE AND THAT'S NOT TRUE.

FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR REPORT FAMOUSLY LINKS RUSSIAN INTERNET TROLL FORUMS WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. YET AT A YEARS ON MAY 28th, THE JUDGE EXCORIATED BOTH YOU AND MR. BARR FOR PRODUCING NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM. WHY DID YOU SUGGEST RUSSIA WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TROLL FARMS WHEN IN COURT YOU'VE BEEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT? >> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT ANY FURTHER THAN I ALREADY HAVE. >> YOU HAVE LEFT THE CLEAR IMPRESSION THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THROUGH YOUR REPORT THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT BEHIND THE TROLL FARMS AND YET WHEN YOU'RE CALLED UPON TO PROVIDE CALL EVIDENCE IN COURT, YOU FAIL TO DO SO.

>> AGAIN, I DISPUTE YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT OCCURRED IN THAT PROCEEDING. >> IN FACT, THE JUDGE CONSIDERED HOLDING PROSECUTORS IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. SHE BACKED OFF ONLY AFTER YOUR HASTILY CALLED PRESS CONFERENCE THE NEXT DAY IN WHICH YOU RETROACTIVELY MADE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE RUSSIAN TROLL FARMS. DID YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE OF MAY 29 HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE THREAT TO HOLD YOUR PROSECUTORS IN 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 IN CONTEMPT FOR MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE? >> NO. >> THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM, AS I SAID, WE'VE GOT TO TAKE YOUR WORD THAT YOU FAITHFULLY AND ACCURATELY DESCRIBED THE EVIDENCE AND WE'RE FINDING INSTANCES WHERE THIS JUST ISN'T THE CASE. IT'S STARTING TO LOOK LIKE HAVING DESPERATELY TRIED AND FAILED TO MAKE A LEGAL CASE AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, YOU MADE A POLITICAL CASE INSTEAD. YOU PUT IT IN A PAPER SACK, LIT IT ON FIRE, DROPPED IT ON OUR PORCH AND RAN.

>> I DON'T THINK YOU REVIEWED A REPORT THAT IS AS THOROUGH, AS FAIR, AS CONSISTENT AS THE REPORT THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. >> WHY IS — >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND IS RECOGNIZED. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, LET'S GO TO A FOURTH EPISODE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE FORM OF A WITNESS TAMPERING WHICH IS URGING WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT EITHER BY PERSUADING THEM OR INTIMIDATING THEM.

IT'S A FELONY PUNISHABLE BY 20 YEARS IN PRISON. YOU FOUND EVIDENCE THAT THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN EFFORTS — AND I QUOTE — TO ENCOURAGE WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE THE CITATION? >> PAGE 7, VOLUME TWO. >> ONE OF THESE WITNESSES IS MICHAEL COHEN. CAMPAIGN VIOLATI SECRET HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS TO WOMEN THE PRESIDENT KNEW AND ALSO TO LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER DEAL. AFTER THE FBI SEARCHED COHEN'S HOME, THE PRESIDENT CALLED HIM UP PERSONALLY AND SAID TO CHECK IN AND TOLD HIM TO QUOTE HANG IN THERE, AND STAY STRONG. IS THAT RIGHT? DO YOU REMEMBER FINDING THAT? >> IF IT'S IN THE REPORT AS STATED, YES, IT IS RIGHT. >> ALSO IN THE REPORT, ACTUALLY, ARE A SERIES OF CALLS MADE BY OTHER FRIENDS OF THE PRESIDENT. ONE REACHED OUT TO SAY HE WAS WITH THE BOSS IN MAR-A-LAGO AND THE PRESIDENT SAID HE LOVES YOU.

HIS NAME IS REDACTED. ANOTHER REDACTED FRIEND CALLED TO SAY THE BOSS LOVES YOU. AND A THIRD REDACTED FRIEND SAID THE BOSS HAS YOUR BACK. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? >> YES. >> IN FACT COHEN SAID FOLLOWING THE RECEIPT OF THESE MESSAGES, I'M QUOTING HERE, PAGE 147 OF VOLUME 2, HE BELIEVED HE HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE WHITE HOUSE IF HE CONTINUED TO TOW THE PARTY LINE AND DETERMINED TO STAY ON MESSAGE AND BE PART OF THE TEAM. THAT'S AT PAGE 147. DO YOU REMEMBER GENERALLY FINDING THAT? >> GENERALLY, YES. >> AND ROBERT COSTELLO, A LAWYER CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL TEAM EMAILED COHEN YOU ARE LOVED, SLEEP WELL TONIGHT, YOU HAVE FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES. THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN ON PAYING 147. DO YOU REMEMBER REPORTING THAT. OKAY. NOW WHEN THE NEWS FIRST BROKE THAT COHEN HAD ARRANGED PAYOFF TO STORMY DANIELS, COHEN BASICALLY STUCK TO THIS PARTY LINE.

HE SAID PUBLICLY THAT NEITHER THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION NOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS A PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION AND NEITHER REIMBURSED HIM. TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY AT THAT POINT QUICKLY TEXTED COHEN TO SAY QUOTE, CLIENT SAYS THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO. MR. MUELLER, WHO IS THE CAPITAL C CLIENT THANKING COHEN FOR WHAT HE DID. >> CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. >> THE ASSUMPTION, THE CONTEXT SUGGESTS VERY STRONG iIT'S PRESIDENT TRUMP. >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. >> COHEN LATER BROKE AND PLED GUILTY TO CAMPAIGN FINANCES AND ADMITTED THEY WERE MADE AT THE DIRECTION OF CANDIDATE TRUMP. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? >> YES. >> AFTER COHEN'S GUILTY PLEA THE PRESIDENT SUDDENLY CHANGED HIS TUNE TOWARDS MR.

COHEN, DIDN'T HE? >> I WOULD SAY, I RELY ON WHAT'S IN THE REPORT. >> HE MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT COHEN FAMILY MEMBERS HAD COMMITTED CRIMES. HE TARGETED, FOR EXAMPLE COHEN'S FATHER-IN-LAW AND SUGGESTED HE COMMITTED CRIMES. >> GENERALLY ACCURATE. >> ON PAGE 154 YOU GIVE A POWERFUL SUMMARY OF THESE CHANGING DYNAMICS AND YOU SAID — WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ IT? >> I WOULD. >> CAN YOU READ IT OUT LOUD TO EVERYBODY. >> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU READ IT. >> THIS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS COULD SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT USED INDUCEMENTS IN THE FORM OF PORTION NEGATIVE MESSAGES IN AN EFFORT TO GET COHEN NOT TO COOPERATE AND TURN TO ATTACKS AND INTIMIDATION TO DETER THE PROVISIONS INFORMATION OR TO UNDERMINE COHEN'S CREDIBILITY ONCE COHEN BEGAN COOPERATING.

>> I BELIEVE THAT'S ACCURATE. >> IN MY VIEW ANYONE ELSE IN AMERICA ENGAGED IN HELPS ACTIONS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH WITNESS TAMPERING. WE MUST ENFORCE THE PRINCIPLE IN CONGRESS THAT YOU EMPHASIZE THAT IN AMERICA NO PERSON IS SO HIGH TO BE ABOVE THE LAW. I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST RECENTLY, MR. MUELLER, YOU SAID MR. LIU WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS AND THE QUESTION IS THE REASON YOU DIDN'T INDICT THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION. YOU ANSWERED THAT IS CORRECT. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID IN THE REPORT AND IT'S NOT WHAT YOU TOLD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND, IN FACT, IN A JOINT STATEMENT THAT YOU RELEASED WITH THE DOJ ON MAY 29th, AFTER YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE, YOUR OFFICE ISSUED A JOINT STATEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT SAID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT SAYING THAT BUT FOR THE OLC OPINION WOE HAVE FOUND THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.

THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REPORT IN HIS STATEMENT TODAY MADE CLEAR THAT THE OFFICE CONCLUDED IT WOULD NOT REACH A DETERMINATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME. THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE STATEMENTS. MR. MUELLER, DO YOU STAND BY YOUR JOINT STATEMENT WITH DOJ THAT YOU ISSUED ON MAY 29th AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY? >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT MORE CLOSELY BEFORE I SAY I AGREE WITH IT. >> WELL, SO, YOU KNOW, MY CONCLUSION IS THAT WHAT YOU TOLD MR. LIU REALLY CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU SAID IN THE REPORT AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU SAID APPARENTLY REPEATEDLY TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR THAT — THEN YOU ISSUED A JOINT STATEMENT ON MAY 29th SAYING THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPEATEDLY AFFIRMED HE WAS NOT SAYING BUT FOR THE OLC REPORT THAT WE WOULD HAVE FOUND THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. I SAY THAT IS A CONFLICT. I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. MR. MUELLER, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK TODAY ABOUT FIRING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND CURE TAILING THE INVESTIGATION.

WERE YOU EVER FIRED, MR. MUELLER? >> SAY WHAT? >> WERE YOU EVER FIRED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, MR. MUELLER? >> NO. >> NO. 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 18th THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF YOUR REPORT. DID ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR SAY ANYTHING INACCURATE EITHER IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE OR HIS MARCH 24th LETTER TO CONGRESS SUMMARIZING THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT? >> WELL, WHAT YOU ARE NOT MEN SHOPPING THE LETTER WE SENT ON MARCH 27th TO MR.

BARR THAT RAISED SOME ISSUES. THAT LETTER SPEAKS ITSELF. >> BUT THEN I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD, THAT COULD BE SINCE AG BARR'S LETTER DETAILED THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS OF YOUR REPORT AND YOU HAVE SAID BEFORE THAT, THAT THERE WASN'T ANYTHING INACCURATE. IN FACT, YOU HAD THIS JOINT STATEMENT. BUT LET ME GO ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION. MR. MUELLER, RATHER THAN PURELY RELYING ON THE EVIDENCE PROVIDE BY WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS, I THINK YOU RELIED ON MEDIA. I WOULD 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. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU CITE THE "NEW YORK TIMES"? >> AGAIN I HAVE NO IDEA. >> I COUNTED ABOUT 75 TIMES. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU CITE FOX NEWS? >> AS WITH THE OTHER TWO, I HAVE NO IDEA.

>> ABOUT 25 TIMES. I GOT TO SAY IT LOOKS LIKE VOLUME 2 IS MOSTLY REGURGITATES PRESS STORIES. THERE'S NOTHING IN VOLUME 2 THAT I HEAR OR KNOW SIMPLY BY HAVING A $50 TABLE NEWS SUBSCRIPTION. HOWEVER YOUR INVESTIGATION COST AMERICAN TAXPAYERS $25 MILLION. MR. MUELLER, YOU CITED MEDIA REPORTS NEARLY 200 TIMES IN YOUR REPORT. THEN IN A FOOTNOTE, A SMALL FOOTNOTE NUMBER 7, PAGE 15 OF VOLUME 2 OF YOUR REPORT YOU WROTE, I QUOTE, THIS SECTION SUMMARIZES AND CITES VARIOUS NEWS STORIES NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE STORIES BUT RATHER TO PLACE CANDIDATE TRUMP'S RESPONSE TO THOSE STORIES IN CONTEXT. SINCE NOBODY BUT LAWYERS READ FOOTNOTES ARE YOU CONCERNED — >>> THE GENTLELADY'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE GENTLELADY FROM WASHINGTON. >>> THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER, LET'S TURN TO THE FIFTH OF THE OBSTRUCTION EPISODE IN YOUR REPORT AND THAT'S THE EVIDENCE OF WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP ENGAGED IN WITNESS TAMPERING WITH TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT WHOSE FOREIGN TIES WERE CRITICAL TO YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS AND THIS STARTS AT VOLUME 2, PAGE 123.

YOUR OFFICE GOT INDICTMENTS AGAINST MANAFORT AND TRUMP DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER RICK GATES IN TWO DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS, CORRECT >> CORRECT. >> 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, PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL COUNSEL AND THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF US. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S ACCURATE. >> ACCORD TOURING REPORT ONE DAY AFTER MANAFORT'S CONVICTION ON EIGHT FELONY CHARGES QUOTE THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT FLIPPING WAS NOT FAIR AND ALMOST OUGHT TO BE OUTLAWED.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M AWARE OF THAT. >> IN THIS CONTEXT, DIRECTOR MUELLER, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FLIP? >> HAVE SOMEBODY COOPERATE IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. >> HOW ESSENTIAL IS THAT COOPERATION TO ANY EFFORTS COMBAT CRIME? >> I'M NOT GOING TO GO BEYOND THAT CHARACTERIZING THAT EFFORT. >> IN YOUR REPORT YOU CONCLUDED PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS PERSONAL COUNCIL RUDY GIULIANI QUOTE MADE REPEATED STATEMENTS SUGGESTS — SUGGESTING A PARDON WAS A FOIA FOR MANAFORT. >> CORRECT.

>> AS YOU STATED EARLIER WITNESS TAMPERING CAN BE SHOWN WHERE SOMEONE WITH AN IMPROPER MOTIVE ENCOURAGES ANOTHER PERSON NOT TO COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> NOW, ON PAGE 123 OF VOLUME 2 YOU ALSO DISCUSSED THE PRESIDENT'S MOTIVE AND YOU SAY THAT AS COURT PROCEEDINGS MOVED FORWARD AGAINST MANAFORT, PRESIDENT TRUMP QUOTE DISCUSSED WITH AIDES WHETHER AND IN WHAT WAY MANAFORT MIGHT BE COOPERATING AND WHETHER MANAFORT KNEW ANY INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE PRESIDENT. END QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT WAS A QUOTE. >> VOLUME 2 PAGE 123. >> YES. >> WHEN SOMEBODY STOPS ANOTHER PERSON FROM WORK WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THEY DO IT BECAUSE THEY ARE WORRIED OF WHAT THAT PERSON MIGHT SAY YOU SAY THAT'S A DEFINITION WITNESS TAMPERING. MR. MANAFORT DID DECIDE TO COOPERATE WITH YOUR OFFICE AND HE ENTERED INTO A PLEA AGREEMENT BUT THEN HE BROKE THAT AGREEMENT.

CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT HE DID THAT CAUSED YOU TO TELL THE COURT THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS OFF? >> I REFER TO THE COURT PROCEEDINGS ON THAT ISSUE. >> ON PAGE 127 OF VOLUME 2 YOU TOLD THE COURT THAT MR. MANAFORT LIED ABOUT A NUMBER OF MATTERS THAT WERE MATERIAL TO THE INVESTIGATION AND YOU SAID THAT MANAFORT'S LAWYERS REGULARLY BRIEFED THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS ON TOPICS DISCUSSED ANTICIPATE INFORMATION THAT MANAFORT HAD PROVIDE IN SKBIR VIEWS WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE. >> IF IT'S IN THE REPORT YES. >> TWO DAYS AFTER YOU TOLD THE COURT THAT MANAFORT BROKE HIS PLEA AGREEMENT BY LYING REPEATEDLY DID PRESIDENT TRUMP TELL THE PRESS THAT MR. MANAFORT WAS QUOTE VERY BRAVE BECAUSE HE DID NOT FLIP, THIS IS PAGE 128 OF VOLUME 2. >> IF IT'S IN THE REPORT I SUPPORT IT, AS IT IS SET FORTH. >> THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER, IN YOUR REPORT YOU MAKE A VERY SERIOUS CONCLUSION ABOUT THE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PRESIDENT'S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE MANAFORT CRIMINAL PROEGTD.

LET ME READ TO YOU FROM YOUR REPORT. EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TOWARDS 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 DISCOURAGED MR. MANAFORTS COOPERATION WHILE FLIPPING WHILE DANGLING THE PROMISE OF A PARDON IF HE STAYED LOYAL AND DIDN'T SHARE WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT THE PRESIDENT. ANYONE ELSE WHO DID THESE THINGS WOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR THEM WE MUST ENSURE THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE DIRECTOR MUELLER. YIELD BACK. >> GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER, I'M OVER HERE, I'M SORRY.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE NOW EXPIRED INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE? IT'S A STATUTE UNDER WHICH KEN STARR WAS APPOINTED. >> KEN STARR DID WHAT? >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STAT SNUT >> THE ONE WE'RE OPERATING NOW OR PREVIOUS. >> NO UNDER WHICH KEN STARR WAS APPOINTED. >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR. >> WOULD THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION ALLOW THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL ALLOW TO EXPIRE. THAT'S WHY THE STATUTE WAS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE. EVEN PRESIDENT CLINTON'S A.G. GENTLEMAN MET RENO EXPRESSED CONCERNS. SHE SAID ON ONE HAND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE AN INTEREST IN KNOWING THE OUTCOME OF AN INVESTIGATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REPORT REQUIREMENT CUTS AGAINST MANY OF THE MOST BASIC TRADITIONS AND PRACTICES OF AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT. UNDER OUR SYSTEM WE PRESUME INNOCENCE AND WE VALUE PRIVACY. WE BELIEVE THAT INFORMATION OBTAINED DURING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION SHOULD, IN MOST CASES, BE MADE PUBLIC ONLY IF THERE'S AN INDICTMENT AND PROSECUTION, NOT IN A LENGTHY AND DETAILED REPORT FILED AFTER DECISION HAS BEEN MADE NOT TO PROSECUTE.

THE FINAL REPORT PROVIDES A FORUM FOR UNFAIRLY AIRING A TARGET'S DIRTY LAUNDRY AND CREATES ANOTHER INCENTIVE FOR AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO OVER INVESTIGATE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY HIS OR HER TENURE AND TO AVOID CRITICISM THAT THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL MAY HAVE LEFT A STONE UNTURNED. AGAIN, MR. MUELLER THOSE ARE A.G. RENO'S WORDS. DIDN'T YOU DO EXACTLY WHAT A.G. RENO FEARED.

DIDN'T YOU PUBLISH A REPORT UNFAIRLY AIRING THE TARGET'S DIRT LIE LAUNDRY WITHOUT RECOMMENDING CHARGES? >> I DISAGREE WITH THAT. >> DID ANY OF YOUR WITNESSES HAVE A CHANCE TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED? >> COULD I JUST FINISH MY ANSWER ON THAT? >> I OPERATED UNDER THE CURRENT STATUTE. I'M MOST FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENT STATUTE.

>> DID ANY OF THE WITNESS HAVE A CHANCE TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED? >> DID ANY OF THE WITNESSES IN OUR INVESTIGATION? >> YES. >> I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT. >> DID YOU ALLOW THE PEOPLE MENTIONED IN YOUR REPORT TO CHALLENGE HOW THEY WERE CHARACTERIZED. >> I WON'T GET INTO THAT. >> ISN'T A.G. BARR STATED MULTIPLE TIMES DURING HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING THAT HE WOULD MAKE AS MUCH OF YOUR REPORT PUBLIC AS POSSIBLE, DID YOU WRITE YOUR REPORT KNOWING THAT IT WOULD LIKELY BE SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC? >> NO. >> DID KNOWING THE REPORT COULD AND LIKELY WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC DID THAT ALTER THE CONTENTS WHICH YOU INCLUDED? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. >> DESPITE THE EXPECTATIONS THAT YOUR REPORT WOULD BE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC YOU LEFT OUT SIGNIFICANT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. IN OTHER WORDS EVIDENCE FAVORABLE TO THE PRESIDENT. >> I WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU. WE TRIED TO PUT IN THE REPORT — >> YOU SAID THERE WAS EVIDENCE YOU LEFT OUT. >> WELL, MAKE A CHOICE AS TO WHAT GOES IN — >> ISN'T IT TRUE, MR.

MUELLER, ON PAGE 1 OF VOLUME 2 YOU STATE WHEN QUOTING THE STATUTE YOU HAD AN OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE OR NOT TO PROSECUTE. >> GENERALLY THAT'S 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? >> NO, WE MADE A DECISION NOT TO DECIDE TO PROSECUTE OR NOT. >> SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOUR REPORT DID WAS EVERYTHING THAT A.G. RENO WARNED AGAINST? >> I CAN'T AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. >> YOU COMPILED NEARLY 450 PAGES OF THE VERY WORSE INFORMATION YOU GATHERED AGAINST THE TARGET OF YOUR INVESTIGATION TO HAPPEN TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND YOU DID THIS KNOWING THAT YOU WERE NOT GOING RECOMMEND CHARGES AND THAT THE REPORT WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC. >> NOT TRUE. >> MR. MUELLER, HAS A FORMER OFFICER IN THE U.S.

JAG CORPS I CROSS-EXAMINED PEOPLE IN DEFENSE OF OUR S.E.A.L.S. I WAS ELECTED AS A JUDGE IN PENNSYLVANIA. I'M VERY WELL VERSD IN THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM. THE DRAFTING AND PUBLICATION OF SOME OF THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT WITHOUT AN INDICTMENT, WITHOUT PROSECUTION, FRANKLY, FLIES IN THE FACE OF AMERICAN JUSTICE. AND I FIND THOSE FACTS AND THIS ENTIRE PROCESS UNAMERICAN. I YIELD THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE THIRD RENEWAL HAPPENED A MONTH AFTER YOU NAME ANNOUNCED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL. HOW DID THAT PLAY — >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. >>> DIRECTOR MUELLER A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES RIGHT HERE WANT TO TALK TO YOU OR ASK TO YOU ABOUT LIES.

LET'S TALK ABOUT LIES. ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT PAGE 9 VOLUME 1 WITNESSES TLIED YOUR OFFICE AND TO CONGRESS. THOSE LIES MATERIALLY IMPAIRED THE INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIA INTERFERENCE ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT. OTHER THAN THE INDIVIDUALS WHO PLED GUILTY TO CRIMES BASED ON THEM LYING TO YOU AND YOUR TEAM DID OTHER WITNESSES LIE TO YOU >> I THINK THERE'S A SPECTER OF WITNESSES IN TERMS OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT TELLING THE FULL TRUTH AND THOSE ARE OUTRIGHT LIARS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S FAIR TO SAY THEN THAT THERE WERE LIMITS ON WHAT EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE TO YOUR INVESTIGATION OF BOTH RUSSIA ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> THAT'S TRUE. USUALLY THE CASE. >> AND THAT LIES ABOUT TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS IMPEDED YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> I WOULD GENERALLY AGREE WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, DIRECTOR MUELLER. YOU'LL BE HEARING FROM ME IN THE NEXT HEARING SO I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

THANK YOU. >>> MR. MUELLER, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME WELCOME YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. YOU'RE A HERO. VIETNAM WAR VET. WOUNDED WAR VET. WE WON'T FORGET YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. I MAY BEGIN BECAUSE OF TIME LOW TEMPERATURES WE'VE GONE ON DEPTH ON LIE FIVE POSSIBLE EPISODES OF OBSTRUCTION. THERE'S SO MUCH MORE. I WANT TO FOCUS ON ANOTHER SECTION OF OBSTRUCTION WHICH IS THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT CONCERNING MICHAEL FLYNN, THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER.

IN EARLY 27 THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AND PRESIDENT INFORMED MR. FLYNN HAD LIED TO GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES ABOUT HIS COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR DURING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND TRANSITION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> IF A HOSTILE NATION KNOWS A U.S. OFFICIAL HAS LIED PUBLICLY THAT CAN BE USED TO BLACKMAIL THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, CORRECT? >> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH IT NECESSARILY, BUT I'M NOT GOING SPEAK ANY MORE TO THAT ISSUE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. FLYNN RESIGNED ON FEBRUARY 13, 2016. THE VERY NEXT DAY WHEN THE PRESIDENT WAS HAVING LUNCH WITH NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE DID HE SAY NOW THAT WE FIRED FLYNN THE RUSSIA THING IS OVER. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> CHRISTIE RESPONDED NO WAY AND THIS RUSSIA THING IS FAR FROM OVER, CLOSE QUOTE. >> THAT'S WAY WE HAVE IT IN THE REPORT. >> THANK YOU. AND AFTER PRESIDENT MET WITH CHRISTIE LATER THAT SAME DAY THE PRESIDENT ARRANGED TO MEET WITH THEN FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY, ALONE IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

CORRECT? >> CORRECT. PARTICULARLY IF YOU HAVE THE CITATION — >> PAGE 39 TO 42. ACCORDING TO COMEY THE PRESIDENT TOLD HIM I HOPE OPEN QUOTE, I HOPE YOU CAN SEE YOUR WAY CLEAR TO LETTING THIS THING GO, TO LETTING FLYNN GO. HE'S A GOOD GUY AND I HOPE YOU CAN LET IT GO. CLOSE QUOTE. PAGE 40, VOLUME 2. >> ACCURATE. >> WHAT DID COMEY UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT TO BE ASKING? >> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO WHAT MR. COMEY'S MIND. >> COMEY UNDERSTOOD THIS TO BE A DIRECTION BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION AND THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE ONE TO ONE MEETING, PAGE 40, VOLUME 2. >> I UNDER IT'S IN THE REPORT AND I SUPPORT IT AS BEING IN THE REPORT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. EVEN THOUGH THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY DENIED TELLING COMEY TO DROP THE INVESTIGATION, YOU FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CORROBORATING COMEY'S ACCOUNT OVER THE PRESIDENT'S. IS THAT KRERK? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THE PRESIDENT FIRED COMEY ON MAY 9th, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? >> I BELIEVE THAT'S THE ACCURATE DATE. >> THAT'S PAGE 77, VOLUME 2.

YOU FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE CATALYST FOR THE PRESIDENT'S FIRING OF COMEY WAS COMEY'S OPEN QUOTE UNWILLINGNESS TO PUBLICLY STATE THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT PERSONALLY UNDER INVESTIGATION. >> I'M NOT GOING TO DELVE MORE INTO THE DETAILS OF WHAT HAPPENED. IF IT'S IN THE REPORT THEN I SUPPORT IT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED APPROPRIATELY APPEARS IN THE REPORT. >> THAT'S PAGE 75 VOLUME 2. >> THANK YOU. >> IN FACT, THE VERY NEXT DAY THE PRESIDENT TOLD THE RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER OPEN QUOTE, I JUST FIRED THE HEAD OF THE FBI.

HE WAS CRAZY, A REAL NUT JOB, I FACED GREAT PRESSURE BECAUSE OF RUSSIA. THAT'S TAKEN OFF. I'M NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION. CLOSE QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE REPORT. YES. >> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. MUELLER. WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT TODAY. LET TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT.

THE LAW ITSELF. THE UNDERLYING OBSTRUCTION STATUTE AND YOUR CREATIVE LEVEL ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTES IN VOLUME 2, PARTICULARLY INTERPRETATION OF 12 C, SECTION 1512 C IS AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS PART OF AUDITING FOR PUBLIC COMPANIES AND AS YOU WRITE ON PAGE 164 VOLUME 2 THIS PROVISION WAS ADDED AT A FULL AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE AND COMPLAINED AS CLOSING A CERTAIN LOOPHOLE WITH RESPECT TO DOCUMENT SHREDDING AND TO READ THE STATUTE WHO ALTERS OR CONCEALS A RECORD DOCUMENT OR OTHER OBJECT OR ATTEMPTS TO DO SO WITH INTENT TO IMPAIR THE OBJECTESS INTEGRITY FOR AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING OR INFLUENCES OR IMPEEPDS ANY OFFICIAL PROCEEDING SHALL BE FINED.

YOUR ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE PROPOSES TO GIVE THE CLAUSE A MUCH BROADER INTERPRETATION. YOU PROPOSE TO READ THE CLAUSE IN ISOLATION AS A FREE-STANDING PROHIBITING ANY ACT INFLUENCING A PROCEEDING IF DONE WITH IMPROPER MOTIVE AND SECOND YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTE TO APPLY THIS PROPOSES TO APPLY THE SWEEPING PROHIBITION TO LAWFUL ACTS TAKEN BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETIONARY POWERS IF THOSE ACTS INFLUENCE A PROCEEDING. SO MR. MUELLER, I WOULD ASK YOU, IN ANALYZING THE OBSTRUCTION YOU STATE YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE COURTS HAVE NOT DEFINITIVELY RESOLVED THESE ISSUES, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> YOU WOULD AGREE NOT ANYONE IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AGREED WITH YOUR LEGAL THEORY OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE STATUTE, CORRECT >> I'M NOT GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN A DISCUSSION ON THAT AT THIS JUNCTURE. >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HIMSELF DISAGREES WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I LEAVE THAT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO IDENTIFY. >> YOU WOULD AGREE PROSECUTORS SOMETIMES INCORRECTLY APPLY THE LAW, CORRECT? >> I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT ONE.

>> MEMBERS OF YOUR LEGAL TEAM HAD CONVICTIONS OVERTURNED BECAUSE THEY WERE BASED ON AN INCORRECT LEGAL THEORY. >> I DON'T KNOW, WHEN TRYING CASES WE HAVE NOT WON EVERY ONE OF THOSE CASE. >> ONE OF YOUR TOP PROSECUTOR OBTAINED A CONVICTION AGAINST ARTHUR ANDERSON WHICH WAS OVERTURNED IN A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT DECISION. >> I WON'T DELVE INTO THIS. MAY I JUST FINISH MY ANSWER. I'M NOT GOING TO BE GETTING IN ON A DISCUSSION LIKE THAT. I'LL REFER YOU TO THAT CITATION THAT YOU GAVE ME AT THE OUTSET, LENGTHY DISCUSSION ON JUST WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND TO THE EXTENT I HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT'S WHAT WE ALREADY PUT INTO THE REPORT.

>> I'M READING FROM YOUR REPORT WHEN DISCUSSING THIS SECTION. I'LL READ FROM THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT, UNANIMOUSLY REVERSING MR. WEISMAN WHEN HE SAID INDEED IT'S STRIKING HOW LITTLE CULPABILITY THE INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED. THE JURY WAS TOLD IF THE PETITION BELIEVED IT WAS LAWFUL THE JURY COULD CONVICT. >> LET ME JUST SAY — >> LET ME MOVE ON. YOUR REPORT TAKES THE BROADEST POSSIBLE READING OF THIS PROVISION IN APPLYING IT TO THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICIAL ACT AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT YOU OVERCRITICIZING CONDUCT OF PRIVATE CITIZEN. I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT A FEW EXAMPLES. DURING THE FBI'S INVESTIGATION IN HILLARY CLINTON'S USE OF PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID I DON'T THINK IT POSED A NATIONAL SECURITY PROBLEM AND I CAN TELL YOU THIS IS NOT A SITUATION IN WHICH NATIONAL SECURITY WAS IN DANGER. ASSUMING HIS COMMENTS DID INFLUENCE THE INVESTIGATION, COUNT PRESIDENT OBAMA BE CHARGED UNDER YOUR INTERPRETATION? >> I'LL REFER YOU TO THE REPORT. WITH ANDREW WEISMAN, ONE OF THE MORE TALENTED ATTORNEYS WE HAVE ON BOARD.

OVER A PERIOD OF TIME HE'S RUN A NUMBER OF UNITS. >> I HAVE VERY LITTLE TIME. IN AUGUST OF 2015 A SENIOR DOJ OFFICIAL CALLED ANDREW McGABE SAYING THEY WERE CONCERNED THEY WERE STILL PROBING THE HILLARY CLINTON EMAILS. McGABE QUESTIONED THIS FISH ARE YOU TELLING ME TO SHUT DOWN AN INVESTIGATION AND THE OFFICIAL SAID OF COURSE NOT. THIS SEEMS TUBE CLEAR EXAMPLE OF ASSOCIATE WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE AN FBI INVESTIGATION. UNDER YOUR THEORY COULDN'T THAT PERSON BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION AS LONG AS THE PROSECUTOR COULD COME UP WITH A CORRUPT MOTIVE? >> I REFER YOU TO OUR LENGTHY DISSERTATION AT THE END OF THE REPORT.

>> MR. MUELLER, IT SAYS ABOVE THE SUPREME COURT — >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. OUR INTENT WAS TO CONCLUDE THIS HEARING IN THREE HOURS. GIVEN THE BREAK THAT WOULD BRING US TO APPROXIMATELY 11:40. WE'LL BE ASKING OUR REMAINING DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS TO VOLUNTARILY LIMIT THEIR TIME BELOW THE FIVE MINUTES SO WE CAN COMPLETE OUR WORK AS CLOSE TO THAT TIME FRAME AS POSSIBLE. I RECOGNIZE THE GENTLELADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA. >> THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WANT TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT' STATEMENTS REGARDING ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF THE WIKILEAKS DUMP. SO THE PRESIDENT REFUSED TO SIT DOWN WITH YOUR INVESTIGATORS FOR AN IN PERSON INTERVIEW, CORRECT >> CORRECT. >> THE ONLY ANSWERS WE HAVE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESIDENT ARE CONTAINED IN APPENDIX C TO YOUR REPORT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO LOOKING AT APPENDIX C ON PAGE 5 YOU ASKED THE PRESIDENT OVER A DOZEN QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT WIKILEAKS POSSIBLE SESD OR MIGHT POSSESS THE EMAILS THAT WERE STOLEN BY THE RUSSIANS. >> I APOLOGIZE. CAN YOU START IT AGAIN? >> OKAY. SURE. WE'RE LOOKING AT APPENDIX C. >> RIGHT. >> APPENDIX C, PAGE 5 YOU ASKED THE PRESIDENT ABOUT A DOZEN QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT WIKILEAKS POSSESSED THE STOLEN EMAILS THAT MIGHT BE RELEASED IN A WAY HELPFUL TO HIS CAMPAIGN OR HARMFUL TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, IS THAT CORRECT? YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS. >> YES. >> IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR MR. TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFIED TO CONGRESS UNDER OATH THAT QUOTE MR. TRUMP KNEW FROM ROGER STONE IN ADVANCE ABOUT THE WIKILEAKS DROP OF EMAILS. END QUOTE. THAT'S MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD, ISN'T IT? >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE REPORT OR SOME OTHER PUBLIC RECORD? >> THIS WAS TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS BY MR. COHEN.

DO YOU KNOW IF HE TOLD YOU — >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR, EXPLICITLY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO BEFORE CONGRESS. >> LET'S LOOK AT AN EVENT DESCRIBED ON PAGE 18 OF VOLUME 2 OF YOUR REPORT. NOW ACCORDING AND WE'LL PUT IT UP ON THE SLIDE. ACCORDING TO DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER RICK GATES, IN THE SUMMER OF 2016 HE AND CANDIDATE TRUMP WERE ON THE WAY TO AN AIRPORT SHORTLY AFTER WIKILEAKS RELEASED ITS FIRST SET OF STOLEN EMAILS AND GATES TOLD YOUR INVESTIGATORS CANDIDATE TRUMP WAS ON A PHONE CALL AND WHEN THE CALL ENDED TRUMP TOLD GATES THAT MORE RELEASES OF DAMAGING INFORMATION WOULD BE COMING END QUOTE.

DO YOU RECALL THAT FROM THE REPORT? >> IF IT'S IN THE REPORT, I SUPPORT IT. >> THAT'S ON PAGE 18 OF VOLUME 2. NOW ON PAGE 77 OF VOLUME 2 YOUR REPORT ALSO STATED QUOTE, IN ADDITION SOME WITNESSES SAID THAT TRUMP PRIVATELY SOUGHT INFORMATION ABOUT FUTURE WIKILEAKS RELEASES END QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> NOW IN APPENDIX C WHERE THE PRESIDENT DID ANSWER SOME WRITTEN QUESTIONS HE SAID QUOTE, I DO NOT RECALL DISCUSSING WIKILEAKS WITH HIM NOR I DO RECALL BEING AWARE OF MR. STONE HAVING DISCUSSED WIKILEAKS WITH INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH MY CAMPAIGN END QUOTE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> IF IT'S IN THE REPORT IT'S CORRECT. >> SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT DENIED EVER DISCUSSING WICK WLAEKS MR. STONE AND DENIED BEING AWARE THAT ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH HIS CAMPAIGN DISCUSSED WIKILEAKS WITH STONE. >> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT ONE. >> IS IT FAIR THE PRESIDENT DENIED KNOWLEDGE OF HIMSELF OR ANYONE ELSE DISCUSSING WIKILEAKS DUMP WITH MR.

STONE? >> YES. >> OKAY. WITH THAT I WOULD YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. MUELLER, OVER HERE. MR. MUELLER, DID YOU INDEED INTERVIEW FOR THE FBI DIRECTOR JOB ONE DAY BEFORE YOU WERE 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'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> SO YOU DON'T RECALL ON MAY 16, 2017 YOU INTERVIEWED WITH THE PRESIDENT REGARDING THE FBI DIRECTOR JOB? >> I INTERVIEWED WITH THE PRESIDENT. IT WAS ABOUT THE JOB AND NOT ABOUT ME APPLYING FOR THE JOB.

>> YOUR STATEMENT HERE TODAY YOU DIDN'T INTERVIEW TO APPLY FOR THE FBI DIRECTOR JOB. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> DID YOU TELL THE VICE PRESIDENT THAT THE FBI DIRECTOR POSITION WOULD BE 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, TENS EVER MILLIONS DOLLARS SPENT AND MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED DID YOU OBTAIN ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT ANY AMERICAN VOTER CHANGED THEIR VOTE AS A RESULT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE. >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. >> YOU CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

AFTER 22 MONTHS OF INVESTIGATION THERE'S NO DOCUMENT BEFORE US THAT ANY VOTER CHANGED THEIR VOTE BECAUSE OF INTERFERENCE AND I'M ASKING YOU BASED ON ALL THE DOCUMENTS YOU REVIEWED. >> THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW. >> RUSSIAN MEDDLING — >> THAT WAS UNDERTAKEN BY OTHER AGENCIES. >> OKAY. YOU STATED IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU WOULD NOT GET INTO THE DISCUSSION ON STEELE DOSSIER. HOWEVER YOU MENTIONED THE UNVERIFIED ALLEGATIONS. HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS UNVERIFIED. >> I WON'T SPEAK TO THAT. >> IT'S IN YOUR REPORT MULTIPLE TIMES IT'S UNSEVERE FIDUCIARY DUTY AND YOU'RE TELLING US YOU'RE NOT WILLING HOW YOU CAME TO THE CONCLUSION.

>> TRUE. >> WHEN YOU BECOME AWARE THE UNVERIFIED DOSSIER — >> I'M SORRY WHAT WAS THE QUESTION. >> WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE THE UNVERIFIED STEELE DOSSIER WAS INCLUDE IN THE FISA APPLICATION FILED BY CARTER PAGE? >> I'M NOT GOING SPEAK TO THAT. >> YOUR TEAM INTERVIEWED CHRISTOPHER STEELE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I WON'T GET INTO THAT. >> YOU CAN'T TELL THIS COMMITTEE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU INTERVIEWED CHRISTOPHER STEELE IN A 22 MONTH INVESTIGATION WITH 18 LUXURIOUS. >> AS I SAID AT THE OUTSET THOSE ARE ONE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT IS BEING HANDLED BY OTHERS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >> YOU'RE HERE TESTIFYING ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION TODAY. I'M ASKING YOU DIRECTLY DID ANY MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM OR DID YOU INTERVIEW CHRISTOPHER STEELE IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION. >> I WON'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION, SIR. >> YOU HAD TWO YEARS TO INVESTIGATE.

NOT ONCE DID YOU CONSIDER HOW TO WARD A DOCUMENT THAT WAS PAID BY A POLITICAL OPPONENT USED TO OBTAIN A WARRANT TO SUPPLY ON THE OPPOSITION'S POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. >> I DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT OCCURRED. I WON'T SPEAK ANY MORE TO IT. >> YOU WON AGREE WITH MY CHARACTERIZATION? IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> THE FISA APPLICATION MAKES REFERENCE TO SOURCE ONE WHO IS CHRISTOPHER STEELE WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THE DOSSIER. BASED ON SOURCES ONE PREVIOUS REPORTING HISTORY WITH FBI WHEREBY SOURCE ONE PROVIDE RELIABLE INFORMATION THE FBI. THE FBI BELIEVES SOURCE ONE TO BE CREDIBLE. DO YOU BELIEVE THE FBI'S REPRESENTATION THAT SOURCE ONE REPORTING WAS CREDIBLE? >> I WON'T ANSWER THAT. >> YOU'RE NOT GOING RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING CHRISTOPHER STEELE OR YOUR INTERVIEWS WITH HIM. >> AS I SAID AT THE OUTSET THIS MORNING THAT WAS ONE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT I COULD NOT SPEAK TO.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IF YOU INTERVIEWED AN INDIVIDUAL IN THE PURVIEW OF THIS INVESTIGATION THAT YOU'RE TESTIFYING TO US TODAY THAT YOU CLOSED THAT INVESTIGATION, THAT'S NOT WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW THAT'S WITHIN YOUR INVESTIGATION. >> I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. >> I CAN GUARANTEE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW AND I'M VERY HOPEFUL AND GLAD THAT A.G. BARR IS LOOKING INTO THIS AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS LOOKING INTO THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE UNWILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS TO THE BASIS OF THIS INVESTIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE BASIS OF THIS INDIVIDUAL WHO YOU INTERVIEWED YOU'RE REFUSING TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

CAN'T THE PRESIDENT FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR AT ANY TIME WITHOUT REASON UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION? >> YES. >> ARTICLE 2. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> KEY FIRE YOU AS SPECIAL COUNSEL AT ANY TIME WITHOUT ANY REASON? I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE. HOLD ON A SECOND. YOU SAID WITHOUT ANY REASON. I KNOW THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL CAN BE FIRED. I'M NOT SURE IT EXTENDS TO FOR WHATEVER REASON IS GIVEN.

>> YOU TESTIFIED YOU WEREN'T FIRED YOU WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION IN FULL, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M NOT GOING ADD TO WHAT I STATED BEFORE. >> MY TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> THE GENTLELADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA. FROM TEXAS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU MR. MUELLER FOR BEING WITH US CLOSE TO THE AFTERNOON NOW. DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWERS RELATING TO ROGER STONE. ROGER STONE WAS INDICTED FOR MULTIPLE FEDERAL CRIMES, AND THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES MORE STONE DISCUSSED FUTURE WIKILEAKS EMAIL RELEASES WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. UNDERSTANDING THERE'S A GAG ORDER ON THE STONE CASE, I'LL KEEP MY QUESTIONS RESTRICTED TO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION. MR. STONE'S INDICTMENT — >> LET ME SAY AT THE OUTSET, I DON'T MEAN TO DISRUPT YOU, BUT I'M NOT — I WOULD LIKE SOME DEMARCATION ON THAT WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THIS BUT ALSO IN SUCH A WAY IT DOES NOT HINDER THE OTHER PROSECUTION THAT'S TAKING PLACE IN D.C.

>> I UNDER. I'LL ONLY BE TALKING ABOUT QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED THE PRESIDENT RELATING TO MR. STONE. MR. STONE'S INDICTMENT SAYS MR. STONE WAS CONTACTED BY SENIOR TRUMP OFFICIALS ABOUT ORGANIZATION ONE. ORGANIZATION ONE BEING WIKILEAKS. INDICTMENT CONTINUES QUOTE STONE THEREAFTER TOLD THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ABOUT POTENTIAL FUTURE RELEASES OF DAMAGING MATERIAL BY WIKILEAKS. SO IN SHORT, THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT STONE WAS ASKED BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT MORE WIKILEAKS RELEASES AND THAT STONE, IN FACT, DID TELL THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ABOUT POTENTIAL FUTURE RELEASES, CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM. BUT I SEE YOU'RE QUOTING FROM THE INDICTMENT EVEN THOUGH THE INDICTMENT IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT I FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE DISCUSSING ANYTHING WITH THE STONE PROSECUTION. >> >> TURNING BACK TO THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS THEN ON THIS VERY SUBJECT THE PRESIDENT DENIED EVER DISCUSSING FUTURE WIKILEAK RELEASES WITH STONE AND DENIED WHETHER ANYONE ELSE IN HIS CAMPAIGN HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH STONE.

IF YOU HAD LEARNED THAT OTHER WITNESSES, PUTTING ASIDE THE PRESIDENT, IF OTHER WITNESSES HAD LIED TO YOUR INVESTIGATORS IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, WHETHER IN WRITING OR IN INTERVIEW, COULD THEY BE CHARGED WITH FALSE STATEMENT CRIMES? >> WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE. I THINK YOU'RE ASKING FOR ME TO SPECULATE GIVEN A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. >> LET'S PUT IT MORE SPECIFIC. WHAT IF I HAD MADE A FALSE STATEMENT AN INVESTIGATOR ON YOUR TEAM. I COULD GO JAIL FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS? >> YES. >> YES. >> ALTHOUGH IT'S CONGRESS SO — [ LAUGHTER ] >> WELL THAT'S THE POINT, ISN'T IT, THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. >> THAT'S TRUE. >> NOT YOU, NOT CONGRESS, CERTAINLY NOT THE PRESIDENT. I THINK IT'S TROUBLING TO HAVE TO HEAR SOME OF THESE THINGS AND THAT'S WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO LEARN THE FULL FACTS OF THE MISCONDUCT DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT FOR WHICH ANY OTHER PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH CRIMES.

SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND, AGAIN, THE POINT HAS BEEN UNDERSCORED MANY TIME BUT I'LL REPEAT IT. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH DAKOTA IS RECOGNIZED. >> HOW MANY PEOPLE DID YOU FIRE DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> HOW MANY PEOPLE — >> DID YOU FIRE? >> I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THAT. >> YOU FIRED, ACCORDING TO INSPECTOR GENERAL ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO WAS LET GO AND PETER STRZOK WAS LET GO. >> PETER STRZOK TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE ON JULY 12th, 2018 HE WAS FIRED BECAUSE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT PRESERVING THE APPEARANCE EVER INDEPENDENCE. DO YOU AGREE WITH HIS P.M. >> SAY THAT AGAIN.

>> HE SAY HE WAS FIRED PARTIALLY BECAUSE YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT CONCERN ABOUT PRESERVING THE APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? >> THE STATEMENT WAS BY WHOM? >> PETER STRZOK AT THIS HEARING. >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >> DID YOU FIRE HIM BECAUSE YOU WERE BOTHERED THE APPEARANCE OF THE INVESTIGATION. >> NO. HE WAS TRANSFERRED AS A RESULT OF INSTITUTE INVOLVING TEXTS. >> DO YOU AGREE THAT YOUR OFFICE DID NOT ONLY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO OPERATE WITH INDEPENDENCE BUILT TO OPERATE WITH INDEPENDENCE.

>> WE STROVE TO DO THAT. >> DID WEISMAN HAVE A ROLE IN SELECTING OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM. >> SOME ROLE BUT NOT A MAJOR. >> ON JANUARY 30th, 2017 WEISMAN WROTE AN EMAIL TO DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL YATES STATING I'M SO PROUD AND IN AWE REGARDING HER DISOBEYING A DIRECT ORDER FROM THE PRESIDENT. DID WEISMAN DISCLOSE THAT E NILE BEFORE HE JOINED THE TEAM? >> I WON'T TALK ABOUT THAT. >> IS THAT NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? >> NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. >> WERE YOU MISS JEANNIE RHE REPRESENTED MRS. CLINTON REGARDING EMAILS? >> YES. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT BEFORE SHE CAME ON? >> NO. >> THE GUY SITTING NEXT TO YOU REPRESENTED JUSTIN COOP EAR CLINTON AIDE WHO DESTROYED ONE OF CLINTON'S MOBILE DEVICE. I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE $49,000 THEY DONATED TO OTHER DEMOCRATS JUST DONATIONS TO THE OPPONENT WHO WAS THE TARGET OF YOUR INVESTIGATION. >> I I SPEAK FOR A SECOND TO THE HIRING PRACTICES.

>> SURE. >> WE WANTED TO HIRE INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD DO THE JOB. I'VE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS FOR 25 YEARS. IN THOSE 25 YEARS ONCE I HAVE NOT ASKED SOMEBODY ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION. I CARE ABOUT THE CAPABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO DO THE JOB QUICKLY AND SERIOUSLY AND WITH INTEGRITY. >> THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT YOU BEING ABLE TO VOUCH FOR YOUR TEAM THIS IS ABOUT KNOWING THE DAY YOU ACCEPTED THIS ROLE YOU HAD TO BE AWARE NO MATTER WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS GOING TO BE SKEPTICAL. DEFINED BIAS AND PERCEIVED BIAS. 28 OF THE CODE LIST APPEARANCE OF POLITICAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IT'S JUST SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH YOU VOUCH FOR YOUR TEAM. IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE NO PERCEIVED BIAS EXISTS. I CAN'T IMAGINE A SINGLE PROSECUTOR OR JUDGE I'VE EVER APPEAR OF BEFORE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE OVER HALF OF THE PROSECUTORIAL TEAM HAD A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OPPONENT. >> WE HIRED 19 LAWYERS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. OF THOSE 19 LAWYERS, 14 OF THEM WERE TRANSFERRED FROM ELSEWHERE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

ONLY FIVE CAME FROM OUTSIDE. >> HALF OF THOSE HAD A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP POLITICAL OR ARE PERSONAL WITH THE OPPONENT OF THE PERSON YOU WERE INVESTIGATING. THAT'S MY POINT. I WONDER IF NOT A SINGLE WORD IN THIS ENTIRE REPORT WAS CHANGED BUT RATHER THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WE SWITCHED HILLARY CLINTON AND PRESIDENT TRUMP. IF PETER STRZOK TWEETED THOSE TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON INSTEAD OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IF A TEAM OF LAWYERS WORKED FOR, DONATED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO AND WENT TO TRUMP'S PARTIES INSTEAD OF CLINTON'S I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE HERE TRYING TO PROP UP AN OBSTRUCTION ALLEGATION. OUR COLLEAGUES WOULD SPENT FOUR MONTHS OF EXCUSING YOUR TEAM TO BE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THEY WOULD STILL BE ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT CONSPIRACY WITH RUSSIA AND ACCUSING YOUR TEAM OF AIDING IN A ABETTING WITH THAT CONSPIRACY. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK. >> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. THE JUDGE FROM COLORADO. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY. IT TO TALK ABOUT THE OTHER EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION. THERE WAS A MEETING BETWEEN HIS CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIAN INDIVIDUALS AT TRUMP TOWER IN JUNE OF 2016.

ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, MR. TRUMP JR. WAS THE ONLY TRUMP ASSOCIATE WHO PAID IN THAT MEETING AND WHO DECLINED TO BE VOLUNTARILY INTERVIEWED BY YOUR OFFICE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> DID MR. TRUMP JR. OR HIS COUNSEL EVER COMMUNICATE TO YOUR OFFICE ANY INTENT TO INVOKE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. >> I WON'T ANSWER THAT. >> YOU POSED WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING. YOU INCLUDED ALSO ASKED HIM WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD DIRECTED A FALSE PRESS STATEMENT.

THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ANSWER IT ALL THAT QUESTION, CORRECT? >> I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. I TAKE YOUR WORD. I DID REPRESENT TO YOU THAT APPENDIX C SPECIFICALLY C13 STATES AS MUCH. PAGE 100 OF ROLL 2 OF YOUR REPORT YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT HOPE HICKS, PRESIDENT'S COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR IN JUNE OF 2017 WAS SHOWN EMAILS THAT SET UP THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING AND TOLD YOUR OFFICE SHE WAS QUOTE SHOCKED BY THE EMAILS BECAUSE THEY LOOKED QUOTE REALLY BAD. TRUE? >> DO YOU HAVE A CITATION. >> PAGE 100 OF VOLUME 2. WHILE YOU'RE FLIPPING TO THAT PAGE, DIRECTOR MUELLER, ON PAGE 99 OF VOLUME 2 THOSE EMAILS IN QUESTION STATED ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT THE CROWN PROSECUTOR OF RUSSIA AGREED PROVIDE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD INCRIMINATE HILLARY.

TRUMP JR. RESPOND IF IT'S WHAT YOU SAY I LOVE IT. AND HE, KUSHNER AND MANAFORT MET THE RUSSIAN ATTORNEYS AND SEVERAL OTHER RUSSIAN INDIVIDUALS AT TRUMP TOWER ON JUNE 9th, 2016, END QUOTE. >> GENERALLY ACCURATE. >> IS IT TRUE MISS HICKS TOLD YOUR OFFICE THAT SHE WENT MULTIPLE TIMES TO THE PRESIDENT TO QUOTE URGE HIM THAT THEY SHOULD BE FULLY TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE JUNE 9th MEETING AND THAT THE PRESIDENT EACH TIME SAID NO. CORRECT? >> ACCURATE. >> AND THE REASON WAS BECAUSE OF THOSE E MAILINGS WHICH THE PRESIDENT QUOTE BELIEVED WOULD NOT LEAK. CORRECT? >> WELL I'M NOT CERTAIN HOW IT'S CHARACTERIZED BUT GENERALLY CORRECT. >> DID THE PRESIDENT DIRECT MISS HICKS TO SAY QUOTE ONLY TRUMP JR. TOOK A BRIEF MEETING AND IT WAS ABOUT RUSSIAN ADOPTION BECAUSE TRUMP JR.'S STATEMENT TO THE "NEW YORK TIMES" QUOTE SAID TOO MUCH. >> OKAY. >> CORRECT? >> LET ME JUST CHECK ONE THING. YES. >> ACCORDING TO MISS HICKS THE PRESIDENT STILL DIRECTED HER TO SAY THE MEETING WAS ONLY ABOUT RUSSIAN ADOPTION.

CORRECT? >> YES. >> DESPITE KNOWING THAT TO BE UNTRUE. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER, I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >>> MR. MUELLER, YOU'VE BEEN ASKED OVER HERE ON THE FAR-RIGHT, SIR. YOU'VE BEEN ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS HERE TODAY. TO BE FRANK YOU PERFORMED AS MOST OF US EXPECTED. YOU STUCK CLOSELY TO YOUR REPORT AND YOU HAVE DECLINE TO ANSWER MANY OF OUR QUESTIONS ON BOTH SIDES. AS A CLOSER FOR THE REPUBLICAN SIDE I KNOW YOU'RE GLAD TO GET TO THE CLOSE I WANT TO SUMMARIZE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT WE HEARD AND KNOW. YOU SPENT TWO YEARS AND NEARLY $30 MILLION IN TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO PREPARE A REPORT WHICH YOU DESCRIBE TODAY AS VERY THOROUGH. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS TODAY MAINTAIN GENUINE CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR WORK IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF THE INFAMOUS AND WIDELY PUBLICIZED BIAS OF YOUR INVESTIGATING TEAM MEMBERS WHICH WE NOW INCLUDED 14 DEMOCRATS AND ZERO REPUBLICANS. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS LATER SHOWED THAT TEAM — EXCUSE ME MY TIME. THAT TEAM OF DEMOCRATIC INVESTIGATORS DONATED MORE THAN $60,000 TO THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.

YOUR TEAM INCLUDED PETER STRZOK AND LISA PAGE AND HAD LURID TEXT MESSAGES TO CONFIRM THEY OPENLY MOCKED AND HATED DONALD TRUMP AND HIS SUPPORTERS AND VOWED TO TAKE HIM OUT. MR. RADCLIFF ASKED YOU EARLIER THIS MORNING CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP WHERE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DETERMINED AN INVESTIGATED PERSON WAS NOT EXONERATED BECAUSE THEIR INNOCENCE WAS NOT CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINED. YOU ANSWERED I CAN NOT. SIR, THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED. THE PRESIDENT BELIEVED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING YOU AND YOUR SPECIAL COUNSEL TEAM HAD SERIOUS CONFLICTS. YET PRESIDENT TRUMP COOPERATED FULLY WITH THE INVESTIGATION. HE KNEW HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG AND ENCOURAGED ALL WITNESSES TO COOPERATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION AND PRODUCED 1.4 MILLION PAGES OF INFORMATION AND ALLOWED WITNESSES. YOUR REPORTING KNOWLEDGE ON PAGE 61 VOLUME 2 THAT A INVOLVE EVIDENCE EXISTS OF THE PRESIDENT TELLING MANY PEOPLE PRIVATELY QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION ON HIS ABILITY TO GOVERN AND TO ADDRESS IMPORTANT FOREIGN RELATIONS ISSUES AND EVEN MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.

ON PAGE 174 VOLUME 2 YOUR REPORT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD QUOTE THE PRESIDENT'S REMOVAL POWERS WITH RESPECT TO PRINCIPALED OFFICER, OFFICERS WHO MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND REPORT TO HIM DIRECTLY. THE PRESIDENT'S EXCLUSIVE AND LIMITED POWER OF REMOVAL FURTHER THE PRESIDENT'S POWERS. THAT INCLUDES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IN SPITE OF ALL OF THAT NOTHING EVER HAPPENED TO STOP OR IMPEDE YOUR SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION. NOBODY WAS FIRED BY THE PRESIDENT. NOTHING WAS CURE TAILED. AND IF INVESTIGATION CONTINUED UNENCUMBERED FOR 22 LONG MONTHS.

AS YOU FINALLY CONCLUDED IN VOLUME 1 THE EVIDENCE QUOTE DID NOT ESTABLISH THE PRESIDENT WAS INVOLVED IN AN UNDER LYING CRIME RELATED TO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND THE EVIDENCE QUOTE DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE PRESIDENT OR THOSE CLOSE TO HIM WERE INVOLVED IN ANY RUSSIAN CONSPIRACIES OR HAD AN UNLAWFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH ANY RUSSIAN OFFICIAL. UNQUOTE. OVER THOSE 22 LONG MONTHS THAT YOUR INVESTIGATION DRAGGED ALONG THE PRESIDENT BECAME INCREASINGLY FRUSTRATED WITH EFFECTS ON OUR COUNTRY AND HIS ABILITY TO GOVERN. EVENTED THIS TO HIS LAWYER AND CLOSE ASSOCIATES AND SHARED HIS FRUSTRATIONS AS WE KNOW ON TWITTER. WHILE THE PRESIDENT'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS MIGHT HAVE INFLUENCED SOME IN THE MEDIA OR THE OPINION OF SOME OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NONE OF THOSE AUDIENCES WERE TARGETS OR WITNESSES IN YOUR INVESTIGATION. THE PRESIDENT NEVER AFFECTED ANYBODY'S TESTIMONY, NEVER DEMANDED TO END THE INVESTIGATION OR DEMANDED YOU BE TERMINATED AND NEVER MISLED CONGRESS, DOJ OR SPECIAL COUNSEL. THOSE, SIR, ARE UNDISPUTED FACTS. THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACT YOU WOULDN'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANSWER OF THIS WHOLE CHARADE WHICH IS THE CHRISTOPHER STEELE DOSSIER WHICH IS BOGUS.

AS OUR SHARING CONCLUDE WE WILL GET NO COMMENT ON THAT FROM YOU. MR. MUELLER, THERE'S ONE PRIMARY REASON WHY YOU WERE CALLED HERE TODAY AND BY THE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY OF OUR COLLEAGUE. OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE WANT COVER. THEY WANT YOU TO TELL THEM THEY SHOULD IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. ONE THING YOU HAVE SAID VERY CLEARLY TODAY IS THAT YOUR REPORT IS COMPLETE AND THE THOROUGH AND YOU COMPLETELY AGREE WITH AND STAND BY ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALL OF ITS CONTENT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> TRUE.

>> ONE LAST IMPORTANT QUESTION. YOUR REPORT DOES NOT RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT, DOES IT? >> I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT RECOMMENDATIONS. >> IT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT IMPEACHMENT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE? >> I'M NOT GOING TALK ABOUT THAT, ABOUT THAT ISSUE. >> THAT'S ONE OF THE MANY THING YOU WOULDN'T TALK ABOUT TODAY BUT I THINK WE CAN DRAW OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. I DO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK. >> GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK. I WANT TO ANNOUNCE THAT OUR INTENT WAS TO CONCLUDE THIS HEARING AROUND 11:45.

ALL REPUBLICAN MEMBERS HAVE ASKED THEIR QUESTIONS BUT WE HAVE A FEW REMAINING DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS. THEY WILL LIMIT THEIR QUESTIONS. WE EXPECT TO FINISH WITHIN 15 MINUTES. GENTLELADY FROM GEORGIA IS RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOUR INVESTIGATIONS OF THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON YOUR DEMOCRACY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS EXTRAORDINARILY PRODUCTIVE AND UNDER TWO YEARS YOU CHARGED AT LEAST 37 PEOPLE OR ENTITIES WITH CRIMES. YOU CONVICTED SEVEN INDIVIDUALS, FIVE OF WHOM WHO WERE TOP TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR WHITE HOUSE AIDES. CHARGES REMAIN PENDING AGAINST MORE THAN TWO DOZEN RUSSIAN PERSONS AND ENTITIES. LET ME START WITH THOSE FIVE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADMINISTRATION AIDES THAT YOU CONVICTED. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THEY ARE PAUL MANAFORT, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER. RICK GATES PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER. MR. FLYNN, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER. MICHAEL COHEN THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY. GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, FORMER CAMPAIGN FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER AND SIXTH TRUMP ASSOCIATE WILL FACE TRIAL LATER THIS YEAR, CORRECT? THAT PERSON WOULD BE ROGER STONE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. I'M NOT CERTAIN HE'S IN ANOTHER COURT SYSTEM. >> THERE ARE MANY OTHER CHARGES AS WELL, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> I WANT TO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE WORK YOU DID IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS YOUR TEAM WAS ABLE TO UNCOVER AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION RELATING TO RUSSIA'S ATTACKS ON OUR ELECTIONS AND TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THERE'S STILL MORE THAT WE HAVE TO LEARN DESPITE FACING UNFAIR ATTACKS BY THE PRESIDENT AND EVEN HERE TODAY YOUR WORK HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIVE AND FAIR. THE WORK HAS DELAYED CRITIC JL FOUNDATION FOR OUR INVESTIGATION AND FOR THAT I THANK YOU. I THANK YOU. WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DIRECTOR MUELLER, I'M SPOIPTED THAT SOME HAVE QUESTIONED YOUR MOTIVES THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS AND I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO REMIND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF WHO YOU ARE, AND YOUR EXEMPLARY SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. YOU ARE A MARINE, YOU SERVED IN VIETNAM AND EARNED A BRONZE STAR AND A PURPLE HEART, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> WHICH PRESIDENT APPOINTED TO YOU BECOME THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR MASSACHUSETTS? >> WHICH SENATOR? >> WHICH PRESIDENT? >> OH, WHICH PRESIDENT. I THINK THAT 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 DOJ'S CRIMINAL DIVISION? >> UNDER WHICH PRESIDENT? >> YEAH.

>> THAT WOULD BE GEORGE BUSH I. >> THAT'S CORRECT. PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH. AFTER THAT YOU TOOK A BE JOB AT PRESTIGIOUS LAW FIRM. AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS YOU DID SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY. YOU LEFT THAT LUCRATIVE POSITION TO RE-ENTER PUBLIC SERVICE, PROSECUTING HOMICIDES HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WHEN YOU WERE NAMED DIRECTOR OF THE FBI, WHICH PRESIDENT FIRST APPOINTED YOU >> BUSH. >> THE SENATE CONFIRMED YOU WITH A VOTE OF 98-0, CORRECT? >> SURPRISING. [ LAUGHTER ] >> YOU WERE SWORN IN AS DIRECTOR JUST ONE WEEK BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 11th ATTACKS.

>> TRUE. >> TO HELP PROTECT THIS NATION AGAINST ANOTHER ATTACK. YOU DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB WHEN YOUR TENURE EXPIRED THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO EXTEND YOUR TERM FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS, CORRECT >> TRUE. >> WHEN YOU WERE ASKED IN 2017 TO TAKE THE JOB AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, THE PRESIDENT HAD JUST FIRED FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THE FBI WERE IN TURMOIL. YOU MUST HAVE KNOWN THERE WOULD WOULD BE AN EXTRAORDINARY CHALLENGE. WHY DID YOU ACCEPT? >> I WON'T GET INTO THAT.

THAT'S A LITTLE OFF TRACK. IT WAS A CHALLENGE PERIOD. >> SOME PEOPLE HAVE ATTACKED THE POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS OF YOUR TEAM EVEN SUGGESTING YOUR INVESTIGATION WAS A WITCH-HUNT. WHEN YOU CONSIDER PEOPLE TO JOIN YOUR TEAM DID YOU EVER EVEN ONCE ASK ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION. >> NOT ONCE. >> IN YOUR ENTIRE CAREER AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL HAVE YOU EVER MADE A HIRING DECISION BASED UPON A PERSON'S POLITICAL AFFILIATION? >> NO. >> I'M NOT SURPRISED. >> IF I MIGHT INTERJECT. CAPABILITIES WE'VE SHOWN IN THE REPORT THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED HERE TODAY WAS A RESULT OF A TEAM OF AGENTS AND LAWYERS WHO WERE ABSOLUTELY EXEMPLARY AND WERE HIRED BECAUSE OF THE VALUE THAT THEY CONTRIBUTED TO GETTING THE JOB DONE AND GETTING IT DONE EXPEDITIOUSLY. >> YOU'RE PATRIOT. IN LISTENING TO YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY YOU ACTED FAIRLY. THERE WERE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU COULD HAVE FILED CHARGES AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE MENTIONED IN THE REPORT. YOU DECLINE. NOT EVERY PROSECUTOR DOES THAT ESPECIALLY ONE ON A WITCH-HUNT. YOUR REPORT IS DAMNING. I BELIEVE YOU DID UNCOVER SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEAMNOR.

LET ME ALSO SAY SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU WERE WRITE ABOUT. THE ONLY REMEDY FOR THIS SITUATION IS FOR DONG TAKE ACTION. I YIELD BACK. >> GENTLELADY FROM PENNSYLVANIA. >>> GOOD MORNING DIRECTOR MUELLER. NATALIE DEAN. >> GOT YOU. SORRY. >> THANK YOU. I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT PUBLIC CONFUSION CONNECTED WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S RELEASE OF YOUR REPORT. I WILL BE QUOTING YOUR MARCH 27th LETTER. SIR, IN THAT LETTER, AND AT SEVERAL OTHER TIMES, DID YOU CONVEY TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE, QUOTE, INTRODUCTIONS AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF OUR TWO VOLUME REPORT ACCURATELY SUMMARIZED THIS OFFICE'S WORK AND CONCLUSIONS? END QUOTE. >> I HAVE TO SAY THAT THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. >> AND THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS IN THAT LETTER. CONTINUING, YOU WROTE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT, QUOTE, THE SUMMARY LETTER THAT THE DEPARTMENT SENT TO CONGRESS AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC LATE IN THE AFTERNOON OF MARCH 24th DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT, NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF THIS OFFICE'S WORK AND CONCLUSIONS, INDEPENDENT QUOTE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> AGAIN, I RELY ON THE LETTER ITSELF FOR ITS TERMS. >> THANK YOU.

WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE REPORT'S CONTEXT, NATURE, SUBSTANCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LETTER DID NOT CAPTURE? >> I THINK WE CAPTURED THAT IN THE MARCH 27th RESPONSIVE LETTER. >> AND THIS IS FROM THE 27th LETTER. WHAT WERE SOME OF THE SPECIFICS THAT YOU — >> I DIRECT YOU TO THE LETTER ITSELF. >> YOU FINISHED THAT LETTER BY SAYING THERE IS NOW PUBLIC CONFUSION ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECTS AS A RESULT OF OUR INVESTIGATION. COULD YOU TELL US SPECIFICALLY SOME OF THE PUBLIC CONFUSION THAT YOU IDENTIFIED? >> NOT GENERALLY. AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE LETTER. THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. >> COULD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR HAVE AVOIDED PUBLIC CONFUSION IF HE HAD RELEASED YOUR SUMMARIES AND EXECUTIVE INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARIES? >> I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SPECULATING ON THAT. >> SHIFTING TO MAY 30th, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN AN INTERVIEW WITH CBS NEWS SAID THAT YOU COULD HAVE REACHED, QUOTE, YOU COULD HAVE REACHED A DECISION AS TO WHETHER IT WAS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, END QUOTE, ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT.

DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR HIS STAFF EVER TELL YOU THAT HE THOUGHT THAT YOU SHOULD MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY? >> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS THINKING OR SAYING. >> IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAD DIRECTED YOU OR ORDERED YOU TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, WOULD YOU HAVE SO DONE? >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN THE VACUUM.

>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, AGAIN I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. AND I AGREE WITH YOUR MARCH 27th LETTER. THERE WAS PUBLIC CONFUSION AND THE PRESIDENT TOOK FULL ADVANTAGE OF THAT CONFUSION BY FALSELY CLAIMING YOUR REPORT FOUND NO OBSTRUCTION. LET US BE CLEAR, YOUR REPORT DID NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT. INSTEAD, IT PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE LEAVING CONGRESS TO DO ITS DUTY. WE SHALL NOT SHRINK FROM THAT DUTY. I YIELD BACK. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A POINT OF INQUIRY OVER ON YOUR LEFT. >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS POINT OF INQUIRY. >> WAS THE POINT OF THIS HEARING TO GET MR.

MUELLER TO RECOMMEND IMPEACHMENT? >> THAT IS NOT A FAIR POINT OF INQUIRY. THE GENTLE LADY OF FLORIDA IS RECOGNIZED. >> MR. CHAIRMAN — >> THE LADY IS RECOGNIZED. >> I WANT TO REFER YOU TO VOLUME 2, PAGE 158. YOU WROTE THAT, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO INFLUENCE THE INVESTIGATION WERE MOSTLY UNSUCCESSFUL, BUT THAT IS LARGELY BECAUSE THE PERSONS WHO SURROUNDED THE PRESIDENT DECLINED TO CARRY OUT ORDERS OR ACCEDE TO HIS QUESTIONS. >> THAT IS WHAT WE FOUND. >> AND YOU ARE REFERRING TO THOSE LIKE DON McGAHN, CORY LEWANDOWSKI, IS THAT RIGHT? >> WE HAVE NOT SPECIFIED THE PERSONS. >> WELL, PAGE 158 DON McGAHN QUOTE DID NOT TELL THE ACTINGING ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL 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.

>> SIMPLE ATTEMPTING TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE CAN BE A CRIME? >> GENTLEMEN. . >> YES. >> SO EVEN THOUGH THE 5ID OIGS REFUSED TO CARRY OUT HIS ORDERS TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR INVESTIGATION, THAT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THIS PRESIDENT, IS IT. >> >> I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE. >> SO SIMPLY TRYING TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE CAN BE A CRIME, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND YOU SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO INFLUENCE THE INVESTIGATION WERE, QUOTE, MOSTLY UNSUCCESSFUL. AND THAT IS BECAUSE NOT ALL OF HIS EFFORTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL, RIGHT? >> YOU'RE READING INTO WHAT WE HAVE WRITTEN IN THE REPORT. >> I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU COULD JUST TELL ME WHICH ONES YOU HAD IN MIND SUCCESSFUL WHEN YOU WROTE THAT SENTENCE.

>> I'M GOING TO PASS ON THAT. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, TODAY WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE SEPARATE ACTS BY THIS PRESIDENT, BUT YOU ALSO WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT, QUOTE, THE OVERALL PATTERN OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TOWARDS THE INVESTIGATIONS CAN SHED LIGHT ON THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTS AND THE INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT HIS INTENT.

CORRECT? >> ACCURATE RECITATION FROM THE REPORT. >> RIGHT. AND ON PAGE 158 AGAIN, I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE TO NOTE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT HAD A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WHEN HE REALIZED THAT IT WAS THE — THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE CONDUCTED TO INVESTIGATE HIS OBSTRUCTION ACTS. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE DECIDING WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THEY NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE PRESIDENT 'S CONDUCT AND OVERALL PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DON'T DISAGREE. >> THANK YOU. >> DR.

MUELLER — DIRECTOR MUELLER, DOCTOR ALSO I'LL DESIGNATE THAT TOO. I'VE CERTAINLY MADE UP MY MIND ABOUT WHETHER WHAT WE HAVE REVIEWED TODAY MEETS THE AMOUNTS 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. WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT NOW. OR FOR THE FUTURE TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY AND YES, WE WILL CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE BECAUSE AS YOU CLEARLY STATE AT THE END OF YOUR REPORT, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. I YIELD BACK MY TIME. >> THE GENTLE LADY FROM TEXAS. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU WROTE IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU, QUOTE, DETERMINED NOT TO MAKE A TRADITIONAL PROSECUTORIAL JUDGMENT, END QUOTE.

WAS THAT IN PART BECAUSE OF AN OPINION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL THAT SITTING PRESIDENT CAN'T BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME? >> YES. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, AT YOUR MAY 29th, 2019 PRESS CONFERENCE, YOU EXPLAINED THAT, QUOTE, THE OPINION THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES A PROCESS OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO FORMALLY ACCUSE A SITTING PRESIDENT OF WRONGDOING, END QUOTE.

THAT PROCESS OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR ACCUSING A PRESIDENT OF WRONGDOING, IS THAT IMPEACHMENT? >> I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT. >> IN YOUR REPORT, YOU ALSO WROTE THAT YOU DID NOT WANT TO, QUOTE, POTENTIALLY PREEMPT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES FOR AEDING PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT. FOR THE NON-LAWYERS IN THE ROOM, WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY, QUOTE, POTENTIALLY PREEMPT CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES? >> I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT. >> THAT ACTUALLY IS COMING FROM PAGE 1 OF VOLUME 2. IN THE FOOTNOTE IS THE REFERENCE TO THIS. WHAT ARE THOSE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES? >> I THINK I HEARD YOU MENTION AT LEAST ONE. >> IMPEACHMENT. CORRECT? >> I'M NOT GOING COMMENT. >> OKAY. THAT IS ONE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES LISTED IN THE REPORT IN THE FOOTNOTE IN VOLUME 2. YOUR REPORT DOCUMENTS THE MANY WAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT SOUGHT TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR INVESTIGATION. AND YOU STATE IN YOUR REPORT ON PAGE 10 VOLUME 2 THAT INTERFERING WITH A CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION WITH CORRUPT INTENT CAN ALSO DON'T DUTY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

>> TRUE. >> WELL, THE PRESIDENT HAS TOLD US THAT HE INTENDS TO FIGHT ALL THE SUBPOENAS. HIS CONTINUED EFFORTS TO INTERFERE WITH INVESTIGATIONS OF HIS POTENTIAL MISCONDUCT CERTAINLY REINFORCE THE PROCESS THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES TO, QUOTE, FOR H ALLEY ACCUSE A SITTING PRESIDENT OF WRONGDOING AS YOU CITED IN THE REPORT. AND IN THIS — THIS HEARING HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO THIS COMMITTEE AS IT EXERCISES ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO RECOMMEND ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

I AGREE WITH YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER, THAT WE ALL HAVE A VITAL ROLE IN HOLDING THIS PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS. MORE THAN THAT, I BELIEVE THAT WE IN CONGRESS HAVE A DUTY TO DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY AND SAFE GUARD ONE OF OUR NATION'S HIGHEST PRINCIPLES THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. FROM EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE HEARD YOU SAY HERE TODAY, IT IS CLEAR THAT ANYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN YOUR REPORT. IT NOW FALLS ON US TO HOLD PRESIDENT TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. >> I WANT TO THANK THE CHAIRMAN. WE DID GET IN OUR TIME. OUR SIDE GOT OUR FIVE MINUTES IN, ALSO MR. MUELLER THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. AND I JOIN THE CHAIRMAN IN THANKING YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU. DIRECT DIRECTOR, WE THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THEHEARING. I ASK EVERYONE TO PLEASE REMAIN SEATED AND QUIET WHILE THE WITNESS EXITS THE ROOM. >> ROBERT MUELLER THIS THE HOT SEAT FOR ABOUT 3 1/2 HOURS. AND I THINK IT IS A ACCURATE TO CALL IT A HOT SEAT. IT GOT HEATED AT MOMENTS. IF DEMOCRATS WERE LOOKING FOR A PRISTINE 10 TO 15 SECOND SOUND BITE THAT MADE THE POINT THEY WANTED TO MAKE, IT PROBABLY DIDN'T HAPPEN.

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE WITH ME. BUT SOME POINTS WERE EVENTUALLY BROUGHT OUT OVER THE DIFFICULT QUESTIONING. >> YEAH, WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WERE ASKED WHY WOULD THEY PUT ROBERT MUELLER ON THE WITNESS STAND, WHY DID HE COME BEFORE CONGRESS WHEN HE ISSUED THIS REPORT, THEY SAID BECAUSE YOU NEEDED TO HAVE THIS REPORT COME ALIVE BECAUSE THE MOVIE WOULD BE BETTER THAN THE BOOK, THAT IT WOULD CAPTURE AND CAPTIVATE AMERICAN'S ATTENTION AND FOCUS THEM ON THE ISSUES HERE. AND TO OUR PANEL, I ASK THE QUESTION, IS IT MISSION ACCOMPLISHED IF THAT WAS THE GOAL? >> IF THAT WAS THE GOAL, IT WAS A COMPLETE FAILURE ON THAT FRONT. I THINK ON SUBSTANCE DEMOCRATS GOT WHAT THEY WANTED. THEY GOT HIM TO CONFIRM THAT HE DIDN'T MAKE A CHARGE BECAUSE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MEMO. HE CONFIRMED THAT YOU CAN STILL INDICT HIM ON THESE CHARGES AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. AND HE SEEMED TO CONFIRM THE IDEA THAT UNDER ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE, HE LIKELY WOULD HAVE FILED SOME CHARGES.

SO THEY GOT SOME SUBSTANCE OF WHAT THEY WANTED HIM — SOME OF THAT. BUT HE PROVIDED SUCH, WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, UNCOMFORTABLE CLARITY. THIS THEY WERE USING HIM FOR CLARITY, HE'D SOMEHOW FOG IT UP HOW HE WOULD DO CERTAIN THINGS. AND SO LOOK, ON ON THAT P AND SO LOOK, ON N THAT — ON OPTICS, THIS WAS A DISASTER. BUT ON SUBSTANCE, THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED. BUT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR THIS DRAMATIC MOMENT THAT WOULD CAPTURE THE IMAGINATION — AND I THINK FOR — REMEMBER HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS THAT THEY SHOULD START IMPEACHMENT.

BUT HE DIDN'T COME ANYTHING TODAY TO ADVANCE THAT CAUSE. >> HE ONLY GOT FIRED UP FROM DEFENDING CHARGES OF POLITICS AND IN DEFENDING HIMSELF SAYING IN 25 YEARS AS A PROSECUTOR HE NEVER ONCE ASKED ANYBODY ON HIS TEAM WHAT THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION WAS. SO THAT IS THE ONLY TIME WHEN HE REALLY PUSHED BACK HARD AGAINST REPUBLICANS. REPUBLICANS WHO WERE AT TIMES REALLY YELLING AT MIAMI AND MISCHARACTERS RISING THE FACTS, FREQUENTLY MISCHARACTERIZING THE FACTS — >> AND THERE IS NOBODY CHECKING THAT. >> WHY DIDN'T THE DEMOCRATS JUMP IN.

THEY DID NOT DO ANY FACT CHECK IN REAL TIME OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS IN MANY CASES WERE POSITING WHICH BECAUSE NOT ACCURATE. BUT WHAT MUELLER DID DO IS HE SAT THERE AS THE DEMOCRATS TRIED SUMMARIZE SAYING WERE HE NOT THE PRESIDENT, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN INDICTED. THE ATTEMPTED FIRING OF MUELLER OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE INVESTIGATION IS ENOUGH FOR OBSTRUCTION. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO SUCCEED TO BE OBSTRUCTION. BUT THAT IS THEM MAKING THE CASE, NOT THE KEY WITNESS. >> AND NEAL, I WAS FOLLOWING YOUR TWEETS DURING THIS AND YOU SEIZED ON THAT EXCHANGE BETWEEN CONGRESSMAN TED LU. I WANT TO PLAY THAT AND GET YOUR THOUGHTS. >> SO TO RECAP, WE'VE HEARD TODAY THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON McGAHN TO FIRE YOU. THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN TO COVER THAT UP AND CREATE A FALSE PAPER TRAIL AND NOW WE'VE HEARD THE PRESIDENT ORDERED LEWANDOWSKI TO TELL JEFF SESSIONS TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION, THAT YOU STOP INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT. I BELIEVE A REASONABLE PERSON LOOKING AT THESE FACTS COULD CONCLUDE THAT ALL THREE ELEMENTS OF A CRIME OF SOCIAL INJUSTICE HAVE BEEN MET.

AND THE REASON AGAIN THAT YOU DID NOT INDICT DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF THE OPINION STATING THAT YOU CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND HE SAID IT AGAIN A FEW MOMENTS AGO. JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU ARE HEARING THERE IS HE WAS READY TO CHARGE EXCEPT FOR THAT. >> THE CENTRAL DEMOCRAT NARRATIVE THROUGH THE HEARING HAS BEEN LOOK, IF YOU JUST READ THE REPORT, IT YUT LINES TEN INSTANCES OF CRIME AND WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED FOR ANYONE ELSE, 1,000 FORMER PROSECUTORS SAID SO. AND IT TOOK A LONG TIME BEFORE WE GOT THAT STORY TELLING TO COME OUT. IN THEORY I THOUGHT IT WAS DEVASTATING FOR THE PRESIDENT. SO SURE I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE DEMOCRATS WERE NOT GOOD STORYTELLERS TODAY, THEY WERE WRITING A RUSSIAN NOVEL WHEN YOU NEEDED AN INSTAGRAM STORY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THOUGHT THAT THEY GOT THAT ACROSS.

AND EVEN MUELLER WAS SO AFRAID TO EVEN USE THE WORD IMPEACHMENT. LIKE HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED. CAN'T EVEN USE THE WORD. >> COULDN'T EVEN REFER TO THE CONSTITUTION. >> LAST WITNESS, HE SAID I MENTIONED IT IN MY REPORT. WELL, WHAT IS THAT? >> HE WAS NOT REACHING OUT TO HELP ANY OF THESE LAWMAKERS IN THEIR QUESTIONING. HE DIDN'T DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST SOME PRETTY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS AND IMPUGNING OF HIS TWO YEAR INVESTIGATION WHETHER IT BE HIS LAWYERS, ALTHOUGH HE DID DEFEND SOME OF HIS LAWYER, BUT THE TACTIC, PROSECUTORIAL DECISIONS. HE DID NOT TAKE THE BAIT. HE DID NOT DEFEND THEM. YOU CAN QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS A GOOD DECISION. >> STEELE DOSSIER. >> BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HE WASN'T REACHING OUT TO HELP THE DEMOCRATS. >> I THINK WHAT YOU SEE IS A TRUE PROSECUTOR. THAT IS WHAT DO YOU AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, YOU DON'T TRY TO DEFEND YOUR REPUTATION, YOU LET THE WORK SPEAK FOR ITSELF.

AND IF THERE IS ANY MOTIF OF THE 3 1/2 HOURS OF TESTIMONY, IT IS I'M LETTING THE WORK SPEAK FOR ITSELF. >> AND ING FORGOING BACK TO THE QUESTION SAVANNAH ASKED, WHAT WAS THE POINT THE HEARING, TO GET TO IMPEACHMENT? >> TO LAY THE CASE. AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT SUB IS AN DIFFERENCE, I THINK THEY LAID OUT THE CASE THAT IF THIS WERE ANY OTHER PERSON, THEY WOULDN'T BEIS AN DIFFERENCE, I THINK THEY LAID OUT THE CASE THAT IF THIS WERE ANY OTHER PERSON, THEY WOULDN'T BE NOT JUST FREE, THEY WOULD BE IN JAIL. AND WOULD YOU REALLY WANT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE THIS PERSON. >> PETE, PEOPLE HAVE SEIZED UPON RIGHTLY SO THIS EXCONGRESSMAN LEW AND MUELLER WHERE HE SEEMS TO SAY THAT THE OLC OPINION IS THE REASON THAT TRUMP WASN'T INDICTED. BUT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE TESTIMONY, HE IS ASKED WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT THE PRESIDENT AND HE SAID WE DIDN'T MAKE THAT CALCULATION.

SO DID THE DEMOCRATS GET IT AS CLEAN AS THEY WANTED TO, THIS NOTION THAT BUT FOR THIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OPINION THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T INDICT A IT IS BEING PRESIDENT, THIS PRESIDENT WOULD BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME? >> YEAH, THIS IS ONE OF THE TRICKIEST PARTS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REPORT. BECAUSE HERE IS WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. BECAUSE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY THAT SAYS THAT PRESIDENT CAN'T BE INDICTED, WE MARSHALLED ALL THESE FACTS BUT THEN WE NEVER DECIDED WHETHER ANY OF THOSE FACTS CONSTITUTED A CRIME. SO IN OTHER WORDS, HE IS SAYING HERE IS WHAT WE DIDN'T DO. THIS IS WHAT THE REPORT SAYS.

WE DIDN'T SAY HERE ARE THE FACTS. THEY CONSTITUTE A CRIME BUT WE CAN'T CHARGE THE PRESIDENT. WHAT IT SAYS IS HERE ARE THE FACTS. MAYBE THEY CONSTITUTE A CRIME, MAYBE THEY DON'T, BUT WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING THERE BECAUSE WE CAN'T. AND HE SAID WE'RE DOING IT FOR SEVERAL REASONS. BECAUSE OF THE POLICY ABOUT INDICTING A PRESIDENT, BECAUSE OF THE MATTER OF FAIRNESS, YOU CAN'T ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIME BUT THEN NOT CHARGE THEM BECAUSE YOU DENY THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN COURT, CROSS-EXAMINE IN-WITNESSES AND SO FORTH. SO FOR BOTH CONSTITUTIONAL REASONS AND FAIRNESS REASONS, THE REPORT SAYS THAT THE OFFICE NEVER CONCLUDED WHETHER THESE ACTIONS CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL ACT. AND THAT IS A SORT OF TOUGH THING TO GET YOUR HEAD AROUND ABOUT THE REPORT, THAT AND THE OTHER PART WHICH CAME OUT ABOUT THE REPORT ALSO SAYING CONTROVERSIALLY BUT WE'RE NOT GOING IT SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T COMMIT A CRIME BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO GO EITHER WAY ON THAT.

AND THAT LED TO A QUESTION TODAY ABOUT, WELL, YOU SAID ON OBSTRUCTION THAT THERE WAS NO CRIME. BUT YOU DIDN'T — I'M SORRY, ON THE COORDINATION WITH RUSSIAN MEDDLING, YOU SAID THERE WASN'T A CRIME BUT YOU DIDN'T DO THAT ON OBSTRUCTION. AND OF COURSE THE REPORT SAYS THAT ON THE QUESTION OF COLLUSION, THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO EVEN GET TO THE FIRST BASE MUCH LESS TO MAKE THE WHOLE TRIP AROUND THE BASES TO HOME PLATE. >> WELL, RIGHT. AND ALSO ON THAT FIRST ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS COLLUSION, THAT CONCERNS NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT WHERE HE CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME, BUT ALSO CONCERNED OTHER REGULAR INDIVIDUALS WHO COULD.

SO IN THAT SITUATION MUELLER AND HIS TEAM COULD ANALYZE WHETHER OR NOT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED AND THEY DID. LET'S LISTEN TO RANKING MEMBER COLLINS SPEAKING OUTSIDE THE HEARING ROOM. >> — NOW WE JUST HAVE MUELLER — >> THE FACT THAT MUELLER NOW SAYS THAT HIS REPORT DOES NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT, DOES NOT MEAN NOW THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP INVESTIGATE SOMETHING. >> IF YOU LISTEN TO MUELLER, IT WAS INTERESTING HOW HE WOULDN'T EXPLAIN THAT AND ALSO WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WAS SOMETHING UNIQUE IN HISTORY THAT HOW A PROSECUTOR TRIED TO EXONERATE, THAT WAS NEVER HIS JOB.

BUT HE ALSO DIDN'T SAY HE NEVER HAD ENOUGH TO FIND HIM GUILTY EITHER. [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] THE REPORT SAYS WHAT THE REPORT SAYS. NO CONCLUSION, NO CONSPIRACY WHICH WE CONFIRMED TODAY AND ALSO NO CHARGES. THAT IS WHAT IT IS. PEOPLE CAN READ THAT. >>. [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> I THINK THE PROCESS FOR IMPEACHMENT WAS ALREADY GOING DOWN. WE SAW THAT, THEY ARE GETTING TIRED OF THIS, THEY KNOW THERE WAS NOTHING THERE, SO I DON'T THINK THAT DAY HELPEDHAT NARRATIVE. FOR ME IT HURT. I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY PUT A PERIOD HERE. AND NOW INSTEAD OF SAYING-46 MAYBE GET A PERIOD AND GET BACK TO THE BUSINESS OF THE COMMITTEE INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT PROBLEMS ACTUALLY SOLVING THEM. I THINK THAT HAPPENED TODAY. >> RANKING MEMBER DOUG COLLINS. AND WE SHOULD RESET WHERE WE ARE. WE'VE SEEN THE UDICIARY HEARING. AND NOW THERE WILL BE THE INTEL HEARING AFTER THE BREAK. AND I WANT TO GO AROUND — >> AND THAT WILL BE A DIFFERENT STORY. THIS IS THE CRIME. THE NEXT SET WILL BE OUTLINING THE CRIME THAT RUSSIA COMMITTED.

>> AND I WONDER HOW MUCH LEARNING HAS GONE ON OVER THE LAST 3 1/2 HOURS AND WHAT F. WE'LL SEE A DIFFERENT HANDLING OF THIS PARTICULAR — >> AND IT IS MUCH SMALLER COMMITTEE, 22 MEMBERS. ADAM SCHIFF IS THE CHAIR. BUT THIS IS WHAT WAS ASSERTED IN THE REPORT, THAT RUSSIA SYSTEMICALLY ATTACKED OUR ELECTIONS. AND THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE RUSSIANS INDICTED, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ARRESTED BECAUSE THEY ARE BEYOND THE REACH OF THE LAW. BUT THEY HAVE BEEN INDICTED WITH SPECIFIC CRIMES OF BOTH USING SOCIAL MEDIA, FAKE BOTS THAT WENT OUT AND CREATED RALLY, CREATED FALSE PERSONI TO TRY TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION IN FAVOR OF DONALD TRUMP AND AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON. IF NOT TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP, TO WEAKEN HILLARY CLINTON IF SHE WAS AS WAS THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ELECTED.

THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM IN MOSCOW AND AROUND THE COUNTRY, THAT SHE WAS THE FAVORITE TO WIN THE ELECTION. SO THIS WAS A PRUDENT PLOT BY MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AUNT — AND PLATED THROUGH ST. PETERSBURG CLEVERLY THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA AND ALSO TO INFLUENCE THE HACKING THAT WAS DONE. AND VERY SYSTEMICALLY AND STRATEGICALLY DUMPED BY WikiLeaks AT KEY MOMENTS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION, 45 MINUTES AFTER "ACCESS HOLLYWOOD" TAPE, TWO OR THREE DAYS BEFORE THE FINAL DEBATE. SO THAT IS WHAT WILL BE OUTLINED IN THIS — >> CAN WE BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, THAT IS HIS PERFORMANCE AS A WITNESS.

HE WAS HALTING AT TIMES, HE HAD TROUBLE FOLLOWING THE LINE OF QUESTIONING. AND THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WE HAVE BUILT UP AS 10 FEET TALL. >> DEMOCRATS BEAT HIM UP TO ABOUT 25 FEET. A DOCTOR, A PH.D. AT THE END. >> SO WE'RE LISTENING TO THE WORDS AND REACTING TO THE WORDS WHICH ARE IMPORTANT, BUT HOW MUCH IS HIS DEMEANOR AS A WITNESS? HOW MUCH WILL THAT INFLUENCE WHERE ALL THIS GOES? >> I THINK A LOT. BECAUSE HE DIDN'T PUSH BACK EFFECTIVELY AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS' FALSE STATEMENTS IN MANY CASES AND HE SEEMED TO CONTRADICT THE DEMOCRAT ASSERTIONS. >> AND YOU TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE POINTS THAT DEMOCRATS SCORED AND TO A CERTAIN EXTENT YES, THEY WERE ABLE TO CREATE A RECORD FOR EXAMPLE JERRY NADLER CHAIRMAN RIGHT AT THE TOP SAYING DOES THIS REPORT EXONERATE AND HE SAYS NO.

SO IT CREATES A RECORD. IF YOU WERE LITIGATING THIS CASE, YOU'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE THATIN YOUR TRANSCRIPT. BUT IN TERMS OF THE POLITICAL QUESTION AND THE REASON WHY THEY SAID IT IS NOT JUST ENOUGH TO HAVE THE REPORT, WE HAVE TO ARE ROBERT MUELLER IN THE FLESH BREATHING LIFE INTO THIS REPORT AND GIVING IT COMPELLING NARRATIVE, THEN THIS ISSUE THAT LESTER RAISES OF PERFORMANCE DOES SEEM SALIENT. >> BUT IT CAN CUT THE OTHER WAY TOO. AS A LITIGATOR, SOMETIMES YOU WANT TO HAVE A RELUCTANT HALTING WITNESS BECAUSE THAT ISN'T THE FIRE BREATHER, SOMEONE JUST TRYING TO DO THEIR JOB.

AND I THINK THAT REALLY CAME ACROSS TODAY. MUELLER WASN'T PLAYING FOR ONE TEAM ARE ON THE OTHER. HE WAS MEASURING HIS WORDS QUITE CAREFULLY. SO WHEN HE DEVIATES FROM HIS REPORT AND SAYS TO REPRESENTATIVE LEW THAT THE REASON YOU DIDN'T INDICT DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF THE OLC MEMO, HE SAYS YES. MUELLER WAS CAREFUL TO NOT USE CERTAIN WORDS, TO NOT BE ACCUSED OF ANY FAVORITE TIM. BUT THERE I THINK HE DID DID SOMETHING. AND SO WHILE INITIALLY OUR TAKE IS THAT, OH, IT IS NOT A MADE FOR TV MOMENT, IT MIGHT TURN OUT LONG TERM TO BE PRETTY — >> AND LET'S BRING INTO THE CONVERSATION OUR ATTORNEY IN MICHIGAN. BARBARA, HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE MUELLER GOING FORWARD? HAVING SEEN HOW HE PERFORMED IN THIS HEARING, HOW WOULD YOU PERHAPS HANDLE HIM IN THE NEXT ONE? >> I THINK THAT WE HAVE SEEN AS NEAL SAID HE WON'T TAKE SIDES. AND HE IS RELUCTANT TO GET IN TO DETAILS. BUT HE WILL ANSWER FACTUALLY YES OR NO QUESTIONS. I THINK THAT THERE WAS A DECENT JOB LAYING OUT THE FACTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION CASE.

I THINK THEY GOT TOO MUCH INTO MINUTIA. BUT I THINK TALKING ABOUT SHARING OF POLLING DATA WITH KILIMNICK, THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING FOR OBTAINING DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON, THE COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION WITH WikiLeaks ABOUT DUMPS OF STOLEN Emails. THOSE ARE REALLY SHOCKING STORIES. AND I THINK THAT IF THE DEMOCRATS JUST EXPLAIN THE FACTS IN A NARRATIVE FORM AND GET ROBERT MUELLER JUST TO AGREE WITH WHAT IS IN HIS REPORT, THAT CAN GO A LONG WAY. I THINK WE'RE FAR TOO CONCERNED ABOUT THE OPINIONS AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF ROBERT MUELLER BECAUSE AFTER ALL HE WAS LOOKING AT VIOLATIONS OF CRIMINAL STATUTES WHICH DOESN'T APPLY TO A PRESIDENT. INSTEAD WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACTS BECAUSE THOSE COULD CONSTITUTE THE KIND OF REMEDY THAT CONGRESS CAN IMPOSE WHICH IS IMPEACHMENT. >> AND I FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT DEMOCRATS TRIED AT LEAST A COUPLE TIMES TO GET HIM TO SAY HIS OWN WORDS. READ DIRECTLY FROM THE REPORT AND HE DECLINED. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS A SENSE OF NOT WANTING TO PROVIDE — >> HE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GOING FOR.

HE MADE THE DECISION THAT HE WON'T BE THE TELEVISION AD. AND I TAKE NEAL'S POINT. THE FACT IS THAT WE ARE LIVING IN THIS 21st CENTURY NEW TYPE OF ASYMMETRICAL MEDIA WARFARE. YOU HAVE A PROPAGANDA MACHINE ON THE RIGHT. IT IS A FULL-FLEDGED PROPAGANDA MACHINE ON THE RIGHT THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT HOW TO COMBAT VERY WELL. THEY TOOK THE TRUMP BAIT. OH, YEAH, YOU'RE A TV SPECTACLE? WE'LL MAKE A TV SPECTACLE. BUT THEY WERE WARNED. AND THIS GOES TO THE LARGER ISSUE OF HAVE THEY FUMBLED THE ENTIRE ACCOUNTABILITY MISSION THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THESE LAST SET OF MONTHS.

>> ONE WAY OF THINKING ABOUT IT IS THEY ALWAYS THOUGHT ABOUT THIS IN POLITICAL TERMS AND INSTEAD THEY COULD COULD HAVE THOUGHT OF RULE OF LAW TERMS. THE PRESIDENT NOT COMPLYING WITH OUR BASIC DOCUMENT AL LAWS AND WHATEVER THE CONSEQUENCES TO POLITICAL FORTUNE, THEY SHOULD HAVE HEARINGS. >> THEY ARE MAKING POLITICAL DECISIONS NOT THINKING ABOUT — THE IRONY IS THEY COULD HAUNT THEM POLITICALLY DOWN THE ROAD IF THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM FLIPS ON ITS HEAD. >> SO DOES THIS INCREASE OR DECREASE THE PRESSURE ON NANCY PELOSI NOW TO LET THEM RECAST THEIR HEARINGS, THEIR INQUIRIES AS AN OFFICIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHICH MIGHT STRENGTHEN THEIR HANDS TO GET SOME WITNESSES? >> MAYBE WE NEED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THAT THIS IS NOW A CASE CLOSED AS IT RELATES TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION.

THAT IS THE FIRST BIT OF REACTION THAT WE'RE GETTING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S TEAM AND WE'VE HAD OTHERS. THERE ARE TWO POINTS. PERFORMANCE OF ROBERT MUELLER AS YOU HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING AND THE SUBSTANCE. THE PRESIDENT WE KNOW IS WATCHING THIS, HE HAS BEEN WATCHING THE COVERAGE OVER ON A DIFFERENT CABLE NETWORK. AND WE'RE TOLD FROM INSIDE THE RESIDENCE, NOT IN THE WEST WING. HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC EVENTS UNTIL LATER THIS AFTERNOON. HIS AIDES ARE TALKING ABOUT A COUPLE THINGS. ONE ON SUBSTANCE POINTING TO THE IDEA AND THIS IS FROM PEOPLE CLOSE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT ROBERT MUELLER ELABORATED ON THE IDEA THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID NOT — THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO FIND THAT HIS CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED WITH RUSSIA. THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE FOLKS WHO POINTED TO THE PERFORMANCE, THEE OF QUESTIONING TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, THAT HAS RESONATED IN SOME CONSERVATIVE CIRCLES. THERE HAS ALSO BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION INSIDE THOSE CIRCLES ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE OF MUELLER HIMSELF, WITH SOME FRIENDS OF THE PRESIDENT ALLIES, QUESTIONING HOW MUELLER HAS BEEN DOING. ONE PERSON CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT HAS TOLD US THAT MUELLER APPEARED TIRED QUESTIONING HOW HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE NEXT HALF OF THIS HEARING.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT ALLIES OF THE PRESIDENT HAVE KEYED IN ON AS WELL TO THE POINT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP, THIS IS REALLY THE CULMINATION OF WHAT HAS BEEN HANGING OVER HIS WHITE HOUSE FOR TWO PLUS YEARS OF HIS ADMINISTRATION. ALMOST SINCE THE DAY HE TOOK OFFICE THIS HAS BEEN A SHADOW OVER THIS BUILDING HERE. FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PEOPLE AROUND HIM, THERE IS A SENSE THAT HE HAS BEEN HERE AND DONE THIS. AND THAT IS THE LINE THAT YOU ARE HEARING FROM THOSE ALLIES JUST THIS AFTERNOON. >> HALLIE JACKSON, THANK YOU SO MUCH. IT IS 12:30 IN THE EAST, 9:30 OUT WEST. AND WE'RE AWAITING THE SECOND PORTION OF THIS TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MUELLER. HE WILL GO BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN THE SAME ROOM, THIS IS A BIG ROOM ON CAPITOL HILL, THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THE INTERESTS. IT IS A SMALLER COMMITTEE. AND OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT IT PORTION OF HIS TESTIMONY WILL COVER THE PART OF THE REPORT THAT HAS TO DO WITH RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION. AND THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR ANY MEMBERS OF HIS CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED WITH, COLLUDED IS THE TERM GETTING THROWN AROUND, BUT CONSPIRACY WITH THE LEGAL ISSUE THAT WAS ANALYZED BY ROBERT MUELLER AND HIS STAFF.

THEY CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED WITH RUSSIA. BUT ANDREA, AS YOU LOOK IN THE REPORT, WHAT YOU WILL SEE AND I ASSUME WHAT WILL COME OUT IS THAT THERE WERE MANY, MANY CONTACTS AND ATTEMPTS TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BY THE RUSSIANS AND THE REPORT STATES THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS IN SOME CASES VERY RECEPTIVE TO THAT HELP. >> DOZENS AND DOZENS OF ATTEMPTS BY TOP OFFICIALS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PAUL MANAFORT AND OTHERS WHO WERE IN TOUCH WITH THE RUSSIANS. A WORD ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE. BY TRADITION UP UNTIL THIS WHOLE CONTROVERSY A COUPLE YEARS AGO, THIS COMMITTEE WAS ALWAYS 50/50 BUY, REALLY WORKING TOGETHER.

AND THEN DEVIN NUNES DURING THE TRANSITION WHO WAS THEN THE CHAIR IF YOU RECALL WENT ROGUE, WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE, WAS WORKING WITH THE TRUMP PEOPLE AND MIKE FLYNN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER LATER INDICTED AND PLEADED GUILTY. AND SO WHEN THAT HAPPENED WITH YOU NUNES, HE HAD TO TEMPORARILY RECUSE HIMSELF. SO A LOT OF AFTER FESK EFFECTS. >> AND REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE ARE NOT LIKE THOSE ON JUDICIARY. YOU HAVE WILL HERD WHO IS FORMER CIA OFFICER, TAKES THIS VERY SERIOUSLY. AND THE MEMBERS ON THIS — I ACTUALLY EXPECT THIS TO BE MORE SUBSTANTIVE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. AND I'LL REMIND YOU, WHEN YOU READ PART ONE OF THE MUELLER REPORT, THE CONSPIRACY ASPECT, THE REASON NOT TO BRING CHARGES IN MANY OF THE CASES WAS BECAUSE THEY FELT THE LAW WAS WEAK, NOT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEIR CASE WAS WEAK. THEY SAID THAT THE LAW NEEDS TO BE MODERNIZED.

THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN REALLY — AND THAT WAS MY TAKEAWAY, TO ME IT WAS A CORRECTIVE TO CONGRESS. >> AND I BELIEVE AND IT IS A CRIME THAT CONGRESS HASN'T IN THE WAKE OF THIS — >> THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE PURPOSE OF WHAT THE REFERRAL WAS ALL ABOUT. >> BUT ALSO IN THE REPORT THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION OF HOW ALL THIS OBSTRUCTION ACTUALLY MADE THE PRESENTATION TO GET THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY NEEDED TO PROVE IT.

>> SOME OF THE REPUBLICAN QUESTIONING SEEMED TO QUESTION THE WHOLE THOSE OF WHETHER THE IRA INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY WAS WORKING WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THEY WEREPLANTING THESE SEEDS. >> I THINK REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE WILL AGREE THAT THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE GOVERNMENT. A DIFFERENT STYLE OF REPUBLICAN QUESTIONING. >> LET'S BRINGIN RICHARD ENGEL. WHAT ARE THE FACTS AS YOU KNOW IT IN THE REPORT? >> FRANKLY IF YOU WERE LISTENING TO THE FIRST HALF OF THE TESTIMONY, IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT THE FACTS WERE. I THINK THAT WHAT WE HEARD FOR THE LAST SEVERAL HOURS WAS COMPLETELY CONFUSING. YOU WERE HEARING IT PRESENTED IN VERY PARTISAN WAYS. THE FORMER SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR SEEMED NOT TO KNOW ALWAYS WHAT HIS ANSWERS WERE, NOT TO HEAR THE QUESTION. IF YOU WERE LISTENING FOR THIS AND HOPING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GET A CLEAR DRAMATIC NARRATIVE OF HOW THE RUSSIANS INTERFERED IN THE ELECTION AND YOU HOW THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO SLOW DOWN OR EVEN STOP THAT INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS LAID OUT QUITE CLEARLY IN MUELLER'S WRITTEN REPORT, YOU CERTAINLY DIDN'T GET IT IN THE LAST SEVERAL HOURS.

NOW, WE MAY HEAR MORE SPECIFICS ABOUT WHAT RUSSIA DID DO BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE LESS CONTROVERSIAL, LESS POLITICAL IN A DOMESTIC SENSE IN THE UNITED STATES. BUT IF PAST PERFORMANCE IS A JUDGE OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE, I THINK THAT WE'LL LEAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EVEN MORE CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016 THAN THEY MAY HAVE BEEN EARLIER. WHAT WE DO KNOW, ACCORDING TO MY OWN REPORTING, ACCORDING TO NUMEROUS MEDIA REPORTS, NUMEROUS INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, IS THAT THE RUSSIANS, RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT THROUGH KEY OLIGARCHS DID INFLUENCE THE U.S. ELECTIONS. THEY SENT OUT A MASSIVE MEDIA CAMPAIGN TO TRY TO SWAY VOTERS IN FAVOR OF PRESIDENT TRUMP TO TRY TO DIVIDE AND CONFUSE VOTERS, PARTICULARLY OVER EMOTIONAL AND RACIAL ISSUES. THEY HACKED IN TO DEMOCRATIC Emails. SO THERE IS A SPY STORY. THIS IS PERHAPS THE GREATEST INVESTIGATION THAT RUSSIA HAS CONDUCTED IN THE LAST CENTURY. >> AND I ASSUME ANY MOMENT WE'LL SEE DIRECTOR MUELLER WALK BACK INTO THAT HEARING ROOM.

LET'S GET TO CASEY — KASIE HUNT? WHAT ARE YOU HEARING ON THE HILL? >> Reporter: SO FAR IT IS HARD TO GET A SENSE THAT THIS CHANGED THE GAME UP HERE IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. ALTHOUGH I WILL SAY TO WHAT RICHARD WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, WE STILL HAVE YET TO GET TO THE PORTION OF THE PROGRAM WHERE THEY WALK VERY CAREFULLY THROUGH WHAT THE REPORT LAYS OUT ABOUT RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION. I MEAN, THAT WILL BE THE FOCUS OF THIS AFTERNOON. AND SO IF THAT BECOMES CLEAR THROUGH THE COURSE OF INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE QUESTIONING, I THINK THAT THERE IS STILL AN OPEN QUESTION ABOUT HOW THIS ALL PLAYS OUT IN THE END. BUT THE REALITY IS DEMOCRATS GOT FRANKLY SOME OF THE MOST COMPELLING HEADLINES OUT OF THIS RIGHT OFF THE BAT. AND THEN THERE WAS A STRUGGLE BACK AND FORTH TO GET MR.

MUELLER, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL, TO SAY ANYTHING BEYOND YES OR NO. WE KNOW HE HAD SAID IN ADVANCE THAT HE WON'T READ FROM THE REPORT. AND OF COURSE THE GREAT QUESTION ABOUT HOW POLITICALLY THIS MOVES FORWARD, WHETHER OR NOT DEMOCRATS ARE WILLING TO LAUNCH IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, DEPENDS HOW THIS IS PERCEIVED BY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND WHETHER THEY ACTUALLY WATCH THIS MOVIE. AND MR. MUELLER WAS A VERY RELUCTANT CAST MEMBER, DIDN'T SEEM TO WANT TO GIVE DEMOCRATS WHAT THEY WANTED ON THAT FRONT. SO FAR WHAT WE'VE HEARD IN THE HALLWAY, I'VE SPOKEN TO SEVERAL MEMBERS AND HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH AIDES ON BACKGROUND AS WELL, THIS IS LIKELY TO LEAVE US WHERE WE STARTED, WITH A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS SUPPORTING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT WITH NOT NECESSARILY A LOT OF CLEAR NEW COMPELLING REASONS FOR THERE TO BE A DRAMATIC SHIFT.

OBVIOUSLY THEY WILL WATCH THE POLLING DATA AND WHAT HAPPENS THIS AFTERNOON. BUT I THINK AS WE STAND HERE AT THE NOON HOUR, THAT IS HOW THINGS ARE INITIALLY SHAPING UP. AGAIN WE'LL HEAR FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HERE LED BY ADAM SCHIFF COMING UP IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. WE ANTICIPATE MUELLER WILL SIT DOWN FOR THAT. A MUCH SMALLER COMMITTEE, ONLY 22 MEMBERS AND AGAIN A DIFFERENT FOCUS HEADING INTO THIS AFTERNOON. >> ALL RIGHT. SIT TIGHT THERE. ANDREA? >> I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF RUSSIA'S ATTACK ON OUR ELECTION WHICH WAS BRIEFED TO THE PRESIDENT-ELECT AND ACTUALLY TO THE CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP AND THEN PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP BY JOHN BRENNAN, BUT GENERAL CLAPPER AND ALL THE OTHERS — OF COURSE FBI DIRECTOR COMEY, THAT IS WHAT POISONED THE WHOLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INCOMING PRESIDENT AND THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

AND HE DEFENDED PUTIN SAYING THAT HE DENIES IT. WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED IN HELSINKI. SO THIS HAS REALLY CREATED A TOXIC SITUATION BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND CERTAIN DAN COATS NOW WHOSE JOB MAY WELL BE ON THE LINE. SO THERE IS A BIGGER CONTEXT HERE FOR THE AFTER EFFECT OF THE WAY THAT DONALD TRUMP VIEWS INTELLIGENCE GATHERING. BUT IT WAS THE UNANIMOUS DECISION THAT RUSSIA ATTACKED THE ELECTION AND THAT IS WHAT LED TO THIS WHOLE INVESTIGATION. >> AND WHEN THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS CAME IN AND SAID HEY LOOK, WE SAY IT WAS RUSSIA, THEY MEDALED IN OUR ELECTIONS, DONALD TRUMP HEARD THEM SAY SOMEHOW IT CAST INTO QUESTION THE LEGIT — EGITIMACY OF HIS ELECTION. >> AND NONE OF US CAN CRAWL INSIDE HIS HEAD AND KNOW WHETHER HE IS ACTING THIS WAY BECAUSE HE IS GUILTY OF SOMETHING OR BECAUSE HE IS VAIN. AND THAT IS — THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE PRESIDENT — >> COULD BE NEITHER. >>. >> WHAT HE SAYS SOMETIMES WE DON'T KNOW, WE CAN'T CRAWL IN HIS HEAD, BUT GUESS WHAT, ROBERT MUELLER NEVER INTERVIEWED HIM, SO ROBERT MUELLER DIDN'T KNOW.

>> BUT WE DO HAVE A PRETTY GOOD CLUE. HE FIRES COMEY AND SAYS THAT THE REASON HE IS FIRING COMEY INITIALLY IS BECAUSE COMEY WAS UNFAIR TO HILLARY CLINTON. I MEAN, COME ON. AND THEN IN RESPONSE TO LESTER'S QUESTIONING DOES HE SAY, OH, NO, IT WAS BECAUSE OF YOUR RUSSIA THING. IF YOU ARE UP AND UP IT IS YOUR FIRST STORY. >> LET'S ME BRING IN OUR LEGAL AN LIST. MIMI, ONE THING THAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT A LOT, THE NOTION THAT MUELLER APPARENTLY THINKS THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD BE INDICTED AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. HOW WOULD THAT WORK? >> WELL, THAT WAS A VERY STRIKING MOMENT. I MEAN IT WAS REPUBLICAN ACTUALLY THAT ASKED THE QUESTION AND DIDN'T QUITE GET THE ANSWER THAT HE EXPECTED WHEN MUELLER SAID THAT HE COULD BE INDICTED. I THINK THAT THE QUESTION ACTUALLY WAS COULD YOU INDICT THE PRESIDENT, NOT JUST ANY PRESIDENT.

WHICH IS PRETTY SPECIFIC. AND ALL OF THIS ISSUE ABOUT MUELLER STAYING VERY NEUTRAL AND THE REPORT BEING VERY NEUTRAL, SORT OF COMING DOWN THE MIDDLE, IT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK TO THE BENEFIT OF ANY FUTURE PROSECUTOR WHO DOES WANT TO TRY TO BRING A PROSECUTION. IT WILL BE — BASICALLY INHERITANCE OF A CASE FILE WITH FACTS, NOT THE CONCLUSION OF SOMEONE SAYING YOU SHOULD INDICT. SO IF THERE IS A FUTURE PROSECUTOR WHO WANTS TO TAKE UP THAT INDICTMENT, THEY CAN JUST DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS LESS POLITICAL, LESS CONTROVERSIAL. >> BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE MUELLER ESSENTIALLY JUST PUT IT OVER THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD TODAY. >> HE DID. AND IT IS IMPORTANT — AGAIN, I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT IT WASN'T MUELLER VOLUNTEERING IT, IT WAS SORT OF IN RESPONSE TO A REPUBLICAN ASKING HIM IN A SKEPTICAL WAY AND MUELLER SAYING, YOU KNOW, YES I COULD AND THEN HE AGAIN KIND OF DOUBLED DOWN ON IT WHEN IN RESPONSE TO ANOTHER REPUBLICAN WHO SAID, WELL, BILL BARR SAID THAT THE OLC MEMO DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHY YOU DIDN'T INDICT.

AND THAT IS WHEN MUELLER I THOUGHT DOUBLED DOWN THE MOST ON SAYING THAT THE OLC MEMO WAS THE REASON THAT HE DIDN'T INDICT. BUT AGAIN, THE NEUTRALITY, THE LACK EVER CONCLUSION FULL BY MUELLER ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD INDICT, REFUSAL TO SAY IT IN THE TERMS THAT WE ARE YEARNING TO HEAR IT OF I WOULD NOT HAVE INDICTED BUT FOR THE OLC MEMO, THAT WILL HELP A FUTURE PROSECUTOR WHO DOES WANT TO BRING THE CHARGES. >> INTERESTING TO WATCH THE THINGS THAT HE BITES ON AND WHAT HE DOESN'T BITE ON. CERTAINLY INCONSISTENCY. >> IN FAIRNESS TO HIM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HE WAS EVER ASKED — BUT FOR THIS OPINION WOULD YOU HAVE INDICTED THE PRESIDENT.

BUT IT WAS NEVER ASKED IN THAT BUT FOR FORMULATION THAT WOULD HAVE LEFT NO DOUBT. I MEAN, DID YOU HEAR IT ANY OTHER WAY? >> I THINK THAT IS RIGHT. I THINK TED LEW CAME THE CLOSEST. BUT I THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS SORT OF KNEW THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO GET THE ANSWER FROM MUELLER. AND SO THAT IS WHY IT ACTUALLY CAME OUT WHEN REPUBLICANS WERE TRYING TO RELY ON BILL BARR'S STATEMENT THAT IN FACT, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T THE OLC MEMO.

AND I THINK THAT IT BECAME PRETTY CLEAR THE GAP BETWEEN MUELLER AND BARR AGAIN WITHOUT MUELLER EXPLICITLY SAYING IT. >> AND I THINK IF PEOPLE PORE OVER THE TRANSCRIPT, THERE IS SOMETHING IN THERE FOR EVERYBODY. BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PLACES THAT HE STATES THAT THEY NEFF DID THE ANALYSIS OF WHETHER THEY COULD CHARGE HIM OF OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE OF THAT OLC OPINION. THEY DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE CONCLUSION. SO I GUESS EVERYBODY CAN DEBATE IT FROM HERE ON OUT. >> I THINK THAT YOU WILL BE SEEING IN THE HOURS TO COME IF NOT ALREADY THE CLEAR DELINEATION OF A SEPARATE UNIVERSE THAT LOT OF THE AMERICANS — >> THE QUESTIONS THAT HOUSE REPUBLICANS ASKED WILL BE WHAT YOU HEAR IN PRIMETIME ON ONE CABLE CHANNEL AND THE QUESTIONS OF OTHERS WHAT YOU WILL HEAR IN THE LIBERAL SPHERE. >> WHAT HE DID PUSH BACK ON IS THE SUGGESTION FROM SEVERAL REPUBLICANS THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO EVEN CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE INDICTED UNDER THOSE GUIDELINES.

BUT THE POINT BEING THAT HE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO INVESTIGATE TO ESTABLISH THE FACTS. >> RIGHT. AND HE SAID THAT IN A MEMO AS WELL. THE REPORT, HE IS SAYING NOTWITHSTANDING THIS OLC GUIDANCE, HE SAYS THAT THE OLC DOES ENVISION THAT YOU DO AN INVESTIGATION TO CREATE AND PRESERVE A FACTUAL RECORD EITHER FOR IMPEACHMENT, HE DOESN'T USE THAT WORD, THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS, OR SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION AFTER THE OFFICIAL IS OUT OF OFFICE. >> WHY DO DEMOCRATS FEEL COMFORTABLE LETTING MUELLER GET AWAY WITH BASICALLY SAYING I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER — I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT MY CONVERSATIONS WITH BARR? >> IT IS ASTOUNDING TO ME. EVEN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE ACTUAL DETAILS, AT LEAST ASK THE QUESTION BARR TOOK OFFICE, DID ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION CHANGE, DID HE DO ANYTHING — >> SHOULD THEY FORCE HIM TO DO THIS? HE IS UNDER SUBPOENA. SHOULD THEY BE SAYING CAN WE TAKE THIS IN CLOSED SESSION? >> THERE WILL BE ONGOING PROSECUTIONS, SO YOU WANT DIFFERENTIAL. BUT TO FORCE HIM TO ANSWER THOSE SIMPLE QUESTIONS.

>> DID THEY EVEN ASK HIM ABOUT THE LETTER THAT HIS OFFICE SENT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WHEN MUELLER COMPLAINED THAT BECAUSE OF THE PICTURE THAT YOU PROVIDED, PEOPLE ARE NOT HAVING A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF OUR WORK. BUT WHEN ASKED TODAY, WHAT EXACTLY BOTHERS YOU ABOUT WHAT BARR DID? HE SAID I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. TO CHUCK'S POINT, NO ONE SAID WHY NOT. >> BY THE WAY, THERE IS PROBABLY A LOT OF THINGS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT, BUT YOU ARE HERE UNDER SUBPOENA, MR. MUELLER. >> HE SAYS THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. IT DIDN'T SPEAK FOR ITSELF. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED WHETHER BARR MISCHARACTERIZED THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT. >> WE'LL BE BACK AT IT SHORTLY. YOU SEE CHAIRMAN SCHIFF IS ALREADY IN HIS SEAT. REST OF THE MEMBERS. AND WE'RE WAITING FOR WILLIAM BARR TO COME BACK OUT FOR HIS SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONING [ SIC ] IT SHOULD START MOMENTARILY.

LET ME BRING IN PETE WILLIAMS. PETE, WHAT ARE THE BIG QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO HEAR — MAYBE THE ANSWERS, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT WE NEED TO HEAR IN THE NEXT SESSION? >> WELL, THIS IS THE SESSION ABOUT THE RUSSIAN MEDDLING OF COURSE. AND I THINK ONE THING THAT WE MAY HEAR ABOUT IS THAT THERE WAS AN FBI INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION THAT PREDATED MUELLER'S APPOINTMENT AND MANY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE WANTED TO KNOW, WELL, WHATEVER RAPPED — HAPPENED TO THAT, WHAT DID THE FBI DO, WHAT CAN BE LEARNED SEPARATE FROM THE MUELLER REPORT. AND THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER HE WILL BE ABLE TO GO INTO THAT OR NOT. AND OF COURSE WHAT THE REPORT SAYS IS THAT THEY FOUND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT EITHER THE PRESIDENT OR MEMBERS OF HIS CAMPAIGN OR PEOPLE WHO WERE WORKING FOR HIM AFTER THE INAUGURATION WERE COOPERATING WITH THE RUSSIANS. AND BY THE WAY, YOU ALL HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A SUFFICIENT CONNECTION THAT ALL OF THE RUSSIANS THAT DID BOTH THE COMPUTER HACKING AND THE PHONY SOCIAL MEDIA WERE ALL WORKING FOR THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

REPORT SEEMS TO SAY THAT THE HACKING OPERATION WAS ONE THING AND THAT THE PHONY MEDIA CAMPAIGN WAS ANOTHER AND THEY WEREN'T NECESSARILY BOTH CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. ALL THEY SAY IS THE OLIGARCH WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE ONE WAS A CLOSE FRIEND OF PUTIN. WHEREAS THE OTHER WAS CARRIED OUT THE BY ACTUAL MEMBERS OF THE RUSSIAN MILITARY. SO THERE IS A CONNECTION BUT ONE WAS PRIVATE AND ONE DEFINITELY CARRIED OUT BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. SO THAT MAY BE ANOTHER LINE OF QUESTIONING THAT MEMBERS WILL WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IN THIS SECOND ROUND HERE. AND THEN JUST THE OTHER THING IS, WHY — THIS CAME UP A LITTLE BIT IN THE FIRST HEARING, WHY WERE YOU ABLE TO REACH A CONCLUSION ON PART ONE WHERE YOU SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE WASN'T SUFFICIENT BUT YOU DIDN'T DO IT ON PART TWO.

>> AND OF COURSE IT IS MR. MUELLER WE'RE WAITING FOR HERE. >> AND ONE QUESTION CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE TO BE IF PAUL MANAFORT DID AS IT IS ASSERTED SHARE CRITICAL POLLING DATA WHICH IS NEVER DONE, UNPRECEDENTED, WITH THE RUSSIANS ABOUT THE THREE STATES MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN AND PENNSYLVANIA AT WELL AS MINNESOTA, STATES THAT DECIDED THE ELECTION. WHY DON'T WE KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS. AND THE RESULT IS THAT MANAFORT WAS THROUGH HIS AGREEMENT AND ESSENTIALLY DIDN'T FULLY COOPERATE. >> AND THAT IS WHERE THE TWO VOLUMES COME TOGETHER, THE NOTION THAT PAUL MANAFORT HAVING BEEN DANGLED A PARDON, IF YOU BELIEVE SOME OF THE INFER REBSS IN THE REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT, DECIDES NOT TO COOPERATE.

THEREFORE DOESN'T SAY, DOESN'T TELL THE PROSECUTORS WHY IT IS THAT HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN THIS POLLING DATA, THEN I THINK THAT THAT IS WHAT STRANS TOGETHER. >> AND BARBARA WANTS TO WEIGH IN. >> I THINK THE POLLING DATA IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PARTS OF THE MUELLER FINDINGS. HE SAYS THAT THERE WERE IDENTIFIED GAPS IN OUR INVESTIGATION CLOGGED BY PEOPLE WHO LIED TO US, WHO PROVIDED INCOMPLETE INFORMATION, WHO DELETED COMMUNICATIONS AND USED ENCRYPTED APPS. THIS IS OF THE AREAS THAT HE WAS NEFF ABLE TO GET HIS ARMS AROUND. SO IT MAY BE THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ACTUALLY WERE SUCCESSFUL IN OBSTRUCTING THE INVESTIGATION. I LIVE IN MICHIGAN. PRESIDENT TRUMP WON THERE BY 10,000 VOTES. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE STATES WHERE POLLING DATA WAS SHARED WITH RUSSIANS WHO WE KNOW WERE FLOODING THE ZONE WITH PROPAGANDA. AND EVEN IF PEOPLE DIDN'T VOTE FOR TRUMP, THEY MIGHT HAVE STAYED HOME FROM VOTING FOR HILLARY.

>> ROBERT MUELLER ABOUT TO TAKE HIS SEAT. SAME ROOM THAT HE SPENT 3 1/2 HOURS TESTIFYING BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THIS IS THE INTEL COMMITTEE. A SMALLER GROUP. 22 MEMBERS. AND THEY WILL GO TWO HOURS. ONCE AGAIN THE CAMERAS SURROUNDING ROBERT MUELLER. ONE WONDERS IF THE TONE WILL CHANGE, IF THEY HAVE RETHOUGHT STRATEGY. >> I THINK NUNES WILL BE FAIRLY TOUGH, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE SHOUTING AT HIM. THERE WAS SOME CRITICISM ON LINE THAT THEY WERE VERY STRIDENT AND ABUSIVE. >> THEY WERE AGGRESSIVE. >> IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT, I THINK THAT YOU WANT A MADE INFORMATION TV MOMENT. YOU NEED ONE SOMEWHERE IN THIS TWO HOUR HEARING. >> AND WE COULD HEAR FROM LONG TIME CHIEF OF STAFF AARON ZEBLEY. HE WILL BE SWORN IN. >> AND THEY ARE CALLING THE HEARING INTO ORDER. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR A LIFETIME OF SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY. YOUR REPORT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO STUDY IT IS METHODICAL AND IT IS DEVASTATING. IT TELLS THE STORY OF A FOREIGN ADVERSARY'S INTERVENTION IN A CLOSE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO KEY SERVE THE ATTENTION OF EVERY AMERICAN AS YOU WELL POINT OUT.

BUT YOUR REPORT TELLS ANOTHER STORY AS WELL. THE STORY OF THE 2016 ELECTION IS ALSO A STORY ABOUT DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY. ABOUT GREED AND ABOUT LIES. YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN INCLUDING DONALD TRUMP HIMSELF KNEW THAT FOREIGN POWER WAS INTERVENING IN OUR ELECTION AND WELCOMED IT. BUILT RUSSIAN MEDDLING INTO THEIR STRATEGY AND USE CANNED IT. DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY. STRONG WORDS, BUT HOW ELSE DO WE DESCRIBE A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WHICH DID NOT INFORM THE AUTHORITIES OF A FOREIGN OFFER OF DIRT ON THEIR OPPONENT WHICH DID NOT PUBLICLY SHUN IT OR TURN IT AWAY. BUT WHICH INSTEAD INVITED IT, ENCOURAGED IT AND MADE FULL USE OF IT. THAT DISLOYALTY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CRIMINAL, CONSTRAINED BY UNCOOPERATIVE WITNESSES, ENCRYPTED DOCUMENTS, YOUR TEAM WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH EACH OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

SO NOT A PROVABLE CRIME IN ANY EVENT. BUT I THINK MAYBE SOMETHING WORSE, A CRIME IS THE VIOLATION OF LAW WRITTEN BY CONGRESS. BUT DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY VIOLATES THE VERY OATH OF CITIZENSHIP, OUR DEVOTION TO A CORE PRINCIPAL IN WHICH OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED THAT WE, THE PEOPLE AND NOT SOME FOREIGN POWER THAT WISHES US ILL, WE DECIDE WHO GOVERNS US. THIS IS ALSO A STORY ABOUT MONEY, ABOUT GREED AND CORRUPTION, ABOUT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CAMPAIGN WILLING TO COMPROMISE THE NATION'S INTERESTS NOT ONLY TO WIN, BUT IT MAKE MONEY AT THE SAME TIME. ABOUT A CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN INDEBTED PRO-RUSSIAN INTERESTS WHO TRIED TO USE HIS POSITION TO CLEAR HIS DEBTS AND MAKE BE MILLIONS, ABOUT A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER USING HIS POSITION TO MAKE MONEY FROM STILL OTHER FOREIGN INTERESTS.

AND ABOUT A CANDIDATE TRYING TO MAKE MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF THEM PUT TOGETHER, THE REAL ESTATE PROJECT THAT TO HELP WAS WORTH A FORTUNE, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THE REALIZATION OF A LIFE LONG AMBITION, A TRUMP TOWER IN THE HEART OF MOSCOW. A CANDIDATE WHO IN FACT VIEWED HIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN AS THE GREATEST INFOMERCIAL IN HISTORY. DONALD TRUMP AND HIS SENIOR STAFF WERE NOT ALONE IN THEIR DESIRE TO USE THE ELECTION TO MAKE MONEY. FOR RUSSIA TOO THERE WAS A POWERFUL FINANCIAL OFFICE. PUTIN WANTED RELIEF FROM U.S. ECONOMIC SANCTIONS IMPOSED IN THE WAKE OF RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE AND OVER HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. THE SECRET TRUMP TOWER MEETING BETWEEN THE RUSSIANS AND SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS WAS ABOUT SANCTIONS. THE SECRET CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN FLYNN AND THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR WERE ABOUT SANCTIONS. TRUMP AND HIS TEAM WANTED MORE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AND RUSSIANS WANTED MORE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR OLIGARCHS.

BUT THE STORY DOESN'T END HERE EITHER. YOUR REPORT TELLS A STORY ABOUT LIES. LOTS OF LIES. LIES ABOUT A GLEAMING TOWER IN MOSCOW AND LIES ABOUT TALKS WITH THE KREMLIN. LIES ABOUT THE FIRING OF FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY AND LIES ABOUT EFFORTS TO FIRE YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER. AND LIES TO COVER IT UP. LIES ABOUT SECRET NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS OR SANCTIONS AND LIES ABOUT WikiLeaks, LIES ABOUT POLLING DATA AND LIES ABOUT HUSH MONEY PAYMENTS. LIES ABOUT MEETINGS TO SET UP SECRET BACK CHANNELS AND LIES ABOUT A SECRET MEETING IN NEW YORK TRUMP TOWER. LIES TO THE FBI. LIES TO YOUR STAFF AND LIES TO THIS COMMITTEE. LIES TO OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE MOST SERIOUS ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY BY A FOREIGN POWER IN OUR HISTORY. THAT IS WHERE YOUR REPORT ENDS, DIRECTOR MUELLER, WITH A SCHEME TO COVER UP EVERY BIT AS SYSTEMIC AND PERVASIVE AS THE RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN ITSELF, BUT FAR MORE PERNICIOUS SINCE THIS ROT CAME FROM WITHIN.

EVEN NOW AFTER 448 PAGES AND TWO VOLUMES, THE DECEPTION CONTINUES. THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ACOLYTES SAY YOUR REPORT FOUND NO COLLUSION, THOUGH YOUR REPORT DECLINED TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION SINCE COLLUSION CAN INVOLVE BOTH CRIMINAL AND NON-CRIMINAL CONDUCT. YOUR REPORT LAID OUT MULTIPLE OFFERS OF RUSSIAN HELP TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, CAMPAIGN'S ACCEPTANCE OF THAT HELP AND ACTS IN FURTHERANCE OF RUSSIAN HELP. TO MOST AMERICANS, THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF COLLUSION. WHETHER IT IS A CRIME OR NOT. THEY SAY YOUR REPORT FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION THOUGH YOU OUTLINED NUMEROUS ACTIONS BY THE PRESIDENT INTENDED TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION.

THEY SAY THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN FULLY EXONERATED THOUGH YOU SPECIFICALLY DECLARE YOU COULD NOT EXONERATE HIM. IN FACT, THEY SAY YOUR WHOLE INVESTIGATION WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A WITCH HUNT, THAT THE RUSSIANS DIDN'T INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION, THAT IT IS ALL A TERRIBLE HOAX. THE REAL CRIME THEY SAY IS NOT THAT THE RUSSIANS INTERVENED TO HELP DONALD TRUMP, BUT THAT THE FBI HAS A TEMERITY TO INVESTIGATE IT WHEN THEY DID. BUT WORST OF ALL, WORSE THAN ALL THE LIES AND GREED, IS THE DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY. FOR THAT, WHEN ASKED IF THE RUSSIANS INTERVENE AGAIN WILL YOU TAKE THEIR HELP, MR. PRESIDENT, WHY NOT WAS THE ESSENCE OF HIS ANSWER. EVERYONE DOES IT. NO, MR. PRESIDENT, THEY DON'T. NOT IN THE AMERICA ENVISIONED BY JEFFERSON, MADISON AND HAMILTON. NOT FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE IDEA THAT LINCOLN LABORED UNTIL HIS DYING DAY TO PRESERVE THE IDEA AN ANIMATING OUR GREAT AMERICAN EXPERIMENT, SO PRECIOUS STILL, THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS CHOSEN BY OUR PEOPLE THROUGH OUR FRANCHISE AND NOT BY SOME HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER.

THIS IS WHAT IS AT STAKE. OUR NEXT ELECTION. AND THE ONE AFTER THAT. FOR GENERATIONS TO COME, OUR DEMOCRACY. THIS IS WHY YOUR WORK MATTERS, DIRECTOR MUELLER. THIS IS WHY OUR INVESTIGATION MATTERS. TO BRING THESE DANGERS TO LIGHT. RANKING MEMBER NUNES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO THE LAST GASP OF THE RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY THEORY. DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO FOIST THIS SPECTACLE ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WELL AS YOU, MR. MUELLER. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY RECALL THE MEDIA FIRST BEGAN. AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE FBI USED DOSSIER ALLEGATIONS TO OBTAIN A WARRANT TO SPY ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. DESPITE ACKNOWLEDGING DOSSIER ALLEGATIONS AS BEING SALACIOUS AND UNVERIFIED, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY BRIEFED THE ALLEGATIONS TO PRESIDENT OBAMA AND PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP. THOSE BRIEFINGS CONVENIENTLY LEAKED TO THE PRESS RESULTING IN THE PUBLICATION OF THE DOSSIER AND LAUNCHING THOUSANDS OF FALSE PRESS STORIES BASED ON THE WORD OF A FOREIGN EX-SPY, ONE WHO ADMITTED HE WAS DESPERATE THAT TRUMP LOSE THE ELECTION AND WAS EVENTUALLY FIRED AS AN FBI SOURCE FOR LEAKING TO THE PRESS. AFTER COMEY HIMSELF WAS FIRED BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, HE LEAKED DEROGATORY INFORMATION ON TRUMP TO THE PRESS FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND SUCCESSFULLY SO OF ENGINEERING THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL WHO SITS HERE BEFORE US TODAY.

THE FBI INVESTIGATION WAS MARRED BY FURTHER CORRUPTION AND BIZARRE ABUSES, TOP DOJ OFFICIAL BRUCE OHR WHOSE OWN WIFE WORKED ON FUSION GPS ANTI-TRUMP INFORMATION SENT STEEL'S INFORMATION TO THE FBI EVEN AFTER THE FBI FIRED STEELE. THE TOP FBI INVESTIGATOR AND HIS LOVER, ANOTHER TOP FBI OFFICIAL CONSTANTLY TEXTED ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY HATED TROP AND WANTED TO STOP HIM FROM BEING ELECTED AND THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION WAS OPEN BASED NOT ON FIVE EYES OF INTELLIGENCE, BUT ON A TIP FROM A FOREIGN POLITICIAN ABOUT A CONVERSATION INVOLVING JOSEPH MIFSUD, A DIPLOMAT PORTRAYED AS A RUSSIAN AGENT BUT HAS FAR MORE CONNECTIONS WITH WESTERN GOVERNMENT INCLUDING OUR OWN FBI AND OUR OWN STATE DEPARTMENT THAN WITH RUSSIA. IGNORING THE RED FLAGS AS WELL AS THE TRANSPARENT ABSURDITIY OF THE CLAIMS THEY'RE MAKING, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ARGUED FOR THREE YEARS THAT EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION IS HIDDEN JUST AROUND THE CORNER. LIKE THE LOCHNESS MONSTER, THEY ARE SAY IT IS THERE EVEN THOUGH THEY CAN'T FIND.

IN MARCH OF 2017 DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE SAID THEY HAD MORE THAN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. BUT THEY COULDN'T REVEAL IT YES. MR. MUELLER WAS SOON APPOINTED AND THEY SAID HE WOULD FIND THE COLLUSION. THEN WHEN NO COLLUSION WAS FOUND AND MR. MUELLER'S INDICTMENTS, THE DEMOCRATS SAID WE'D FIND IT IN THE FINAL REPORT. THEN WHEN THERE WAS NO COLLUSION IN THE REPORT, WE WERE TOLD ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WAS HIDING IT. THEN WHEN IT WAS CLEAR BARR WASN'T HIDING ANYTHING, WE WERE TOLD IT WILL BE REVEALED THROUGH A HEARING WITH MR. MUELLER HIMSELF. AND NOW THAT MR. MUELLER IS HERE, THEY'RE CLAIMING THAT THE COLLUSION HAS ACTUALLY BEEN IN HIS REPORT ALL ALONG. HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT. AND THEY'RE RIGHT. THERE IS COLLUSION IN PLAIN SIGHT. COLLUSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

THE DEMOCRATS COLLUDED WITH RUSSIAN SOURCES TO DEVELOP THE STEELE DOSSIER AND RUSSIAN LAWYER NATALIA VESELNITSKAYA COLLUDED WITH THE DOSSIER KEY ARCHITECT, FUSION GPS HEAD GLENN SIMPSON. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ADMITTED IN INTERVIEWS AND THROUGH USUAL ANONYMOUS STATEMENTS TO REPORTERS THAT TODAY'S HEARING IS NOT ABOUT GETTING INFORMATION AT ALL, THEY SAID, THEY WANT TO, QUOTE, BRING THE MUELLER REPORT TO LIFE AND CREATE A TELEVISION MOMENT THROUGH PLOYS LIKE HAVING MR. MUELLER RECITE PASSAGES FROM HIS OWN REPORT. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS HEARING IS POLITICAL THEATER, IT IS A HAIL MARY ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT COLLUSION IS REAL AND THAT IT IS CONCEALED IN THE REPORT.

GRANTED THAT IS A STRANGE ARGUMENT TO MAKE ABOUT A REPORT THAT IS PUBLIC. IT IS ALMOST LIKE THE DEMOCRATS PREPARED ARGUMENTS ACCUSING MR. BARR OF HIDING THE REPORT AND DIDN'T BOTHER TO UPDATE THEIR CLAIMS ONCE HE PUBLISHED THE ENTIRE THING. AMONG CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WAS NEVER ABOUT FINDING THE TRUTH. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A SIMPLE MEDIA OPERATION. BY THEIR OWN ACCOUNT THIS OPERATION CONTINUES IN THIS ROOM TODAY. ONCE AGAIN, NUMEROUS PRESSING ISSUE THIS IS COMMITTEE NEEDS TO ADDRESS ARE PUT ON HOLD TO INDULGE THE POLITICAL FANTASY OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED IT WAS THEIR DESTINY TO SERVE HILLARY CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATION. IT IS TIME FOR THE CURTAIN TO CLOSE ON THE RUSSIA HOAX. THE CONSPIRACY THEORY IS DEAD. AT SOME POINT I WOULD ARGUE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET BACK TO WORK.

UNTIL THEN I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR HEARING IS PROMPT, I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT 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 THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE THEM IN SENIORITY OF THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY. AFTER EACH MEMBER HAS ASKED HIS OR HER QUESTIONS THE RANKING MEMBER WILL AFIVE MINUTES TO ASK ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOLLOWED BY THE CHAIR WITH ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS. RANKING MEMBER AND THE CHAIR WILL NOT PERMIT OR DELEGATE OUR FINAL ROUND OF QUESTIONS TO ANY OTHER MEMBER. AFTER SIX MEMBERS OF THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY HAVE CONCLUDED THE FIVE-MINUTE ROUNDS OF QUESTIONS WE'LL TAKE A FIVE OR TEN-MINUTE BREAK WE UNDERSTAND YOU REQUESTED BEFORE RESUMING THE HEARING WITH CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL STARTING HIS ROUND OF QUESTIONS.

SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER IS ACCOMPANIED TODAY BY AARON ZEBLEY, WHO SERVED AS DEPUTY SPECIAL COUNSEL FROM MAY OF 2017 UNTIL MAY OF 2019. AND HAD 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'S OFFICE WAS CLOSED. BOTH MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS TODAY. AND WILL BE SWORN IN CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF THE HOUSE AND THE COMMITTEE. MR. MUELLER AND MR. ZEBLEY'S APPEARANCE TODAY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE IS IN KEEPING WITH THE COMMITTEE'S LONG-STANDING PRACTICE OF RECEIVING TESTIMONY FROM CURRENT OR FORMER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI PERSONNEL REGARDING OPEN AND CLOSED INVESTIGATIVE MATTERS.

AS THIS HEARING IS UNDER OATH AND BEFORE WE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY, MR. MUELLER AND ZEBLEY, WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS TO BE SWORN. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM 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 WILL REFLECTED THAT THE WITNESSES HAVE BEEN DULY SWORN.

RANKING MEMBER. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR MR. ZEBLEY TO BE SWORN IN. WE'RE HERE TO ASK DIRECTOR MUELLER QUESTIONS. HE'S HERE AS COUNSEL. OUR SIDE IS NOT DIRECTING ANY QUESTIONS TO MR. ZEBLEY. AND WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HIS PRIOR REPRESENTATION OF THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AIDE SO I JUST WANT TO VOICE THAT CONCERN THAT WE DO HAVE.

AND WE WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING ANY QUESTIONS TO MR. ZEBLEY TODAY. >> I THANK THE RANKING MEMBER. I REALIZE, MR. ZEBLEY, 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'RE RECOGNIZED FOR ANY OPENING REMARKS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF. RANKING MEMBER NUNES AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.

I TESTIFIED THIS MORNING BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I ASKED THAT THE OPENING STATEMENT I MADE BEFORE THAT COMMITTEE BE INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD HERE. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION, DIRECTOR. >> I UNDERSTAND THIS COMMITTEE HAS A UNIQUE JURISDICTION AND THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN FURTHER UNDERSTANDING THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR INVESTIGATION. SO LET ME SAY A WORD ABOUT HOW WE HANDLED THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF OUR INVESTIGATION ON COUNTERINTELLIGENCE MATTERS. AS WE EXPLAIN IN OUR REPORT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS EFFECTIVELY GAVE ME THE ROLE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY. AS A RESULT, WE STRUCTURED OUR INVESTIGATION AROUND EVIDENCE FOR POSSIBLE USE IN PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL CRIMES. WE DID NOT REACH WHAT YOU WOULD CALL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CONCLUSIONS. WE DID, HOWEVER, SET UP PROCESSES IN THE OFFICE TO A — TO IDENTIFY AND PASS COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION ON TO THE FBI. MEMBERS OF OUR OFFICE PERIODICALLY BRIEFED THE FBI ABOUT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION. IN ADDITION THERE WERE AGENTS AND ANALYSTS FROM THE FBI WHO WERE NOT ON OUR TEAM BUT WHOSE JOB WAS TO IDENTIFY COUNTERINTELLIGENCE IN OUR FILES AND TO DISSEMINATE THAT 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 A PROSECUTOR TO TESTIFY ABOUT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND GIVEN MY ROLE AS A PROSECUTOR THERE ARE REASONS WHY MY TESTIMONY WILL NECESSARILY BE LIMITED. FIRST PUBLIC TESTIMONY COULD AFFECT SEVERAL ONGOING MATTERS. AND SOME OF THE MATTERS COURT RULES OR JUDICIARY 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 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 RESUBMITTED 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 UNABLE TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPENING OF THE FBI RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, WHICH OCCURRED MONTHS BEFORE MY APPOINTMENT. OR MATTERS RELATED TO THE SO-CALLED STEELE DOSSIER. THESE MATTERS ARE THE SUBJECT OF ONGOING REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE TOPICS SHOULD THEREFORE BE DIRECTED TO THE FBI OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THIRD IS I EXPLAINED THIS MORNING IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO ADHERE TO WHAT WE WROTE IN OUR REPORT. THE REPORT CONTAINS OUR FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISIONS WE MADE. WE STATED THE RESULTS OF OUR INVESTIGATION WITH PRECISION.

I DO NOT INTEND TO SUMMARIZE OR DESCRIBE THE RESULTS OF OUR WORK IN A DIFFERENT WAY IN THE COURSE OF MY TESTIMONY TODAY. AND AS I STATED IN MAY, I ALSO WILL NOT COMMENT ON THE ACTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR OF CONGRESS. I WAS APPOINTED AS A PROSECUTOR AND I INTEND TO ADHERE TO THAT ROLE AND TO THE DEPARTMENT STANDARDS THAT GOVERN. FINALLY, AS I SAID THIS MORNING, OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER I HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES TO OUR DEMOCRACY.

THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION AIS MONG THE MOST SERIOUS. 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 WOULD LIKE 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.

AND WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M READY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER. I RECOGNIZE MYSELF FOR FIVE MINUTES. DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC EFFORT BY RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IS THAT CORRECT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND DURING THE COURSE OF THIS RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION THE RUSSIANS MADE OUTREACH TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, DID THEY NOT? >> THAT OCCURRED OVER THE COURSE OF — YEAH, THAT OCCURRED. >> IT IS ALSO CLEAR FROM YOUR REPORT THAT DURING THAT RUSSIAN OUTREACH TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN NO ONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN EVER CALLED THE FBI TO REPORT IT, AM I RIGHT? >> DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. >> IF FACT, THE CAMPAIGN WELCOMED THE RUSSIAN HELP, DID THEY NOT? >> I THINK WE HAVE — WE REPORT IN OUR — IN THE REPORT INDICATIONS THAT THAT OCCURRED, YES. >> THE PRESIDENT'S SON SAID WHEN HE WAS APPROACHED ABOUT DIRT ON HILLARY CLINTON THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WOULD LOVE IT. >> THAT IS GENERALLY WHAT WAS SAID, YES. >> THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF CALLED ON THE RUSSIANS TO HACK HILLARY'S EMAILS? >> THERE WAS A STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT IN THOSE GENERAL LINES.

>> AND NUMEROUS TIMES DURING THE CAMPAIGN THE PRESIDENT PRAISED THE RELEASES OF THE RUSSIAN-HACKED EMAILS THROUGH WIKILEAKS. >> THAT DID OCCUR. >> YOUR REPORT FOUND THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN PLANNED, QUOTE, A PRESS STRATEGY AND COMMUNICATIONS CAMPAIGN AND MESSAGING, UNQUOTE, BASED ON THAT RUSSIAN ASSISTANCE? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. >> THAT LANGUAGE COMES FROM VOLUME 1 PAGE 54. APART FROM THE RUSSIANS WANTING TO HELP TRUMP WIN, SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WERE ALSO TRYING TO MAKE MONEY DURING THE CAMPAIGN IN TRANSITION, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> THAT IS TRUE. PAUL MANAFORT WAS TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OR ACHIEVE DEBT FORGIVENESS FROM A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH. >> GENERALLY THAT IS ACCURATE. >> MICHAEL FLYNN WAS TRYING TO MAKE MONEY FROM TURKEY. >> TRUE. >> DONALD TRUMP WAS TRYING TO MAKE MONEY MILLIONS FROM A REAL ESTATE DEAL IN MOSCOW? >> TO THE EXTENT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HOTEL IN MOSCOW? >> YES. >> YES. >> WHEN YOUR INVESTIGATION LOOKED INTO THE MATTERS, NUMEROUS TRUMP ASSOCIATES LIED TO YOUR TEAM AND THE GRAND JURY AND TO CONGRESS? >> A NUMBER OF PERSONS THAT WE INTERVIEWED IN OUR INVESTIGATION, IT TURNS OUT, DID LIE. >> MIKE FLYNN LIED. >> HE WAS CONVICTED OF LYING, YES. >> GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS WAS CONVICTED OF LYING? >> TRUE. >> PAUL MANAFORT WAS CONVICTED OF LYING. >> TRUE. >> PAUL MANAFORT WAS IN FACT WENT TO FAR AS TO ENCOURAGE OTHER PEOPLE TO LIE. >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> PAUL MANAFORT'S DEPUTY RICK GATES LIED. >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> MICHAEL COHEN, THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER WAS INDICTED FOR LYING? >> TRUE.

>> YOU TRIED TO STAY ON MESSAGE BY THE PRESIDENT. >> BY HIM. >> AND WHEN DONALD TRUMP CALLED YOUR INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT, THAT WAS ALSO FALSE, WAS IT NOT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO THINK SO, YES. >> WELL YOUR INVESTIGATION IS NOT A WITCH HUNT. >> IT IS NOT A WITCH HUNT. >> WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WAS A HOAX, THAT WAS FALSE, WASN'T IT. >> TRUE. >> WHEN HE SAID IT PUBLICLY IT WAS FALSE? >> HE DID SAY PUBLICLY THAT IT WAS FALSE, YES. >> AND WHEN HE TOLD IT TO PUTIN, THAT WAS FALSE TOO, WASN'T IT. >> THAT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH. >> WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID HE HAD NO BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA, THAT WAS FALSE, WASN'T IT. >> I WON'T GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THE REPORT THAT — 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.

>> I THINK THERE IS SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHEN THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED. >> YOU WOULD CONSIDER A BILLION DOLLARS DEAL TO BUILD A TOWER IN MOSCOW TO BE BUSINESS DEALINGS, WOULDN'T YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> IN SHORT, YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIA WANTED TO HELP TRUMP WIN THE ELECTION, RIGHT? >> I THINK GENERALLY THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE. >> RUSSIA INFORMED CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS OF THAT? >> I'M NOT CERTAIN TO WHAT CONVERSATIONS YOU'RE REFERRING TO. >> WELL IF YOU WENT INTO IMMEDIATYARY AND TOLD GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS THEY COULD HELP WITH THE STOLEN EMAILS. >> ACCURATE. >> AND RUSSIA COMMITTED FEDERAL CRIMES TO HELP DONALD TRUMP.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT COMPUTER CRIMES CHARGED IN OUR CASE, ABSOLUTELY. >> THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS BUILT THEIR STRATEGY, THEIR MESSAGING STRATEGY AROUND THOSE STOLEN DOCUMENTS? >> GENERALLY THAT IS TRUE. >> AND THEN THEY LIED TO COVER IT UP? >> GENERALLY, THAT'S TRUE. >> THANK YOU. MR. NUNES. >> THANK YOU. WELCOME, DIRECTOR. THE FORMER FBI DIRECTOR, YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE FBI IS THE WORLD'S MOST CAPABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY? >> I WOULD SAY WE'RE — YES. >> THE FBI CLAIMS THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEGAN ON JULY 31st, 2016. BUT IN FACT IT BEGAN BEFORE THAT. IN JUNE OF 2016 BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION OFFICIALLY OPENED TRUMP CAMPAIGN ASSOCIATES CARTER PAGE AND STEPHEN MILLER, A CURRENT TRUMP ADVISER WERE INVITED TO ATTEND A SYMPOSIUM AT CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY IN JULY OF 2016.

YOUR OFFICE, HOWEVER, DID NOT INVESTIGATE WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVITING THESE TRUMP ASSOCIATES TO THIS SYMPOSIUM. YOUR INVESTIGATORS FAILED TO INTERVIEW STEVEN SHRAGGY AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO ORGANIZED THE EVENT AND INVITED CARTER PAGE TO IT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION. >> WHETHER OR NOT YOU INTERVIEWED STEVEN SHRAGGY WHO ORGANIZED THE CAMBRIDGE — >> THOSE AREAS, I'M GOING TO STAY AWAY FROM. >> THE FIRST TRUMP ASSOCIATE TO BE INVESTIGATED WAS GENERAL FLYNN. MANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM STEM FROM FALSE MEDIA REPORTS THAT HE HAD AN AFFAIR WITH A CAMBRIDGE ACADEMIC SWEATLANA LOKAVA AND SHE WAS A RUSSIAN SPY. SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE PUBLIC IN A 2017 ARTICLE WRITTEN BY BRITISH INTELLIGENCE HISTORIAN CHRISTOPHER ANDREW.

YOUR REPORT FAILS TO REVEAL HOW OR WHY ANDREW AND HIS COLLABORATOR RICHARD DEARLOVE HEAD OF THE BRITAIN MI-6 SPREAD THE ALLEGATIONS. AND YOU FAILED TO INTERVIEW LOKOVA ABOUT THE MATTERS. >> I CAN'T GET INTO THOSE MATTERS TO WHICH YOU REFER. >> YOU HAD A TEAM OF 19 LAWYERS, 40 AGENTS, AND UNLIMITED BUDGET, CORRECT, MR. MUELLER? >> I WOULD NOT SAY WE HAD AN UNLIMITED BUDGET. >> LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE ONGOING — WITH THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATION SUPPOSEDLY ON JULY 31, 2016. THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT OPENED BASED ON AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT FROM FIVES INTELLIGENCE BUT A RUMOR CONVEYED BY ALEXANDER DOWNER, ON VOLUME ONE PAGE 89 THE REPORT DESCRIBED HIM BLANDLY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. BUT HE WAS ACTUALLY A LONG-TIME AUSTRALIAN POLITICIAN.

NOT A MILITARY OR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY ARRANGED A $25 MILLION DONATION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND HAS PREVIOUS TIES TO DEARLOVE, SO DOWNER CONVEYS A RULE YORE HE SUPPOSEDLY HEARD ABOUT A CONVERSATION BETWEEN PAPADOPOULOS AND JOSEPH MIFSUD. JAMES COMEY HAS CALLED MIFSUD A RUSSIAN AGENT BUT YOUR REPORT DOES NOT REFER TO HIM AS A RUSSIAN AGENT. HE HAD CONTACT WITH WESTERN GOVERNMENT AND THE FBI. FOR EXAMPLE THERE IS A RECENT PHOTO OF HIM STANDING NEXT TO BORIS JOHNSON, THE NEW PRIME MINISTER OF GREAT BRITAIN. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE, MR. MUELLER, IS IF OUR NATO ALLIES OR BORIS JOHNSON HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED? SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT COMEY SAID MIFSUD IS A RUSSIAN AGENT AND YOU DO NOT. SO DO YOU STAND BY WHAT IS IN THE REPORT? >> I STAND BY THAT WHICH IS IN THE REPORT AND NOT SO NECESSARILY WITH THAT WHAT IS — WHICH IS NOT IN THE REPORT.

>> I WANT TO RETURN TO MR. DOWNER. HE DENIES THAT PAPADOPOULOS MENTIONED ANYTHING TO HIM ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAILS AND MIFSUD DENIES MENTIONING THAT TO PAPADOPOULOS AND DENIES THAT PAPADOPOULOS MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAILS AND MIFSUD MENTIONED THEM TO PAPADOPOULOS IN THE FIRST PLACE SO HOW DOES THE FBI KNOW TO ASK PAPADOPOULOS ABOUT CLINT'S EMAILS FOR THE REST OF 2016 AND MORE STRANGELY YOUR SENTENCING MEMO ON PAPADOPOULOS BLAMED HIM FOR HINDERING THE FBI ABILITY TO DETAIN OR ARREST MIFSUD BUT THE TRUTH IS MIFSUD WALTZED IN AND OUT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2016. THE U.S. MEDIA AND THE ITALIAN PRESS FOUND HIM AND HE'S A SUPPOSED RUSSIAN AGENT AT THE EPICENTER OF THE PURPORTED CONSPIRACY AND HE'S THE GUY THAT KNOWS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON EMAILS AND THE RUSSIANS HAVE THEM BUT THE FBI FAILED TO QUESTION HIM FOR HALF A YEAR AFTER OFFICIALLY OPENING THE INVESTIGATION. AND THEN ACCORDING TO VOLUME 1, PAGE 193 OF THE REPORT, ONCE MIFSUD FINALLY WAS QUESTIONED, HE MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE FBI. BUT YOU DECLINED TO CHARGE HIM.

IS THAT CORRECT? YOU DID NOT INDICT MR. MIFSUD? >> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THE SERIES OF HAPPENINGS AS YOU ARTICULATED THEM. >> BUT YOU DID NOT INDICT — >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. >> PARDON? >> YOU DID NOT INDICT MR. MIFSUD? >> TRUE. >> MR. HIMES. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LIFETIME OF SERVICE TO THIS COUNTRY AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PERSEVERANCE AND PATIENCE TODAY. DIRECTOR, YOUR REPORT OPENS WITH TWO STATEMENTS OF REMARKABLE CLARITY AND POWER. THE FIRST STATEMENT IS ONE THAT IS AS OF TODAY NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THAT IS, QUOTE, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION. THE SECOND STATEMENT REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL AMONGST MEMBERS OF THIS BODY, SAME PAGE ON YOUR REPORT, AND I QUOTE, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND WORKED TO SECURE THAT OUTCOME.

DO I HAVE THAT STATEMENT RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THIS ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY INVOLVED AS YOU SAID TWO OPERATIONS. FIRST A SOCIAL MEDIA DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN, THIS WAS TARGETED CAMPAIGN TO SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION ON PLACES LIKE TWITTER AND FACEBOOK. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> FACEBOOK ESTIMATED AS PER YOUR REPORT THAT THE RUSSIAN FAKE IMAGES REACHED 126 MILLION PEOPLE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE SUM WE RECORDED. >> DIRECTOR, WHO DID THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN ULTIMATELY INTEND TO BENEFIT? HILLARY CLINTON OR DONALD TRUMP? >> DONALD TRUMP. >> THE SECOND OPERATION DIRECTOR — >> LET ME SAY, TRUMP, THERE WERE INSTANCES WHERE HILLARY CLINTON WAS SUBJECT TO MUCH OF THE SAME BEHAVIOR. >> THE SECOND OPERATION IN THE RUSSIAN ATTACK WAS A SCHEME, THE HACK AND DUMP TO STEAL AND RELEASE EMAILS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN.

IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY. >> IT IS. >> DID YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND THE RELEASES OF THE HACKED EMAILS WERE STRATEGICALLY TIMED TO MAXIMIZE IMPACT ON THE ELECTION? >> I HAVE TO REFER YOU TO THE — OUR REPORT ON THAT QUESTION. >> PAGE 36, I QUOTE, THE RELEASE OF THE DOCUMENTS WERE DESIGNED AND TIMED TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. MR. MUELLER, WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WAS RUSSIA'S HACKING AND DUMPING OPERATION DESIGNED TO BENEFIT? HILLARY CLINTON OR DONALD TRUMP? >> MR. TRUMP. >> SO MR. MUELLER, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC ISSUE BY RUSSIA HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE ELECTION. >> THOSE ARE BEING INVESTIGATED BY OTHER ENTITIES. >> 126 MILLION FACEBOOK IMPRESSIONED AND FAKE RALLIES AND ATTACKED ON HILLARY CLINTON HEALTH, WOULD YOU RULE OUT IT HAD EFFECT ON THE ELECTION. >> I WOULDN'T SPECULATE. >> AND THE THIRD AVENUE IS THE NUMEROUS LINKS AND CONTACTS BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND INDIVIDUALS TIED TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION? >> YOUR REPORT DESCRIBED WHAT IS CALLED A THIRD AVENUE OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE AND THAT IS THE LINKS AND CONTACTS BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND INDIVIDUALS TIED TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

>> YES. >> LET'S BRING UP SLIDE ONE WHICH IS ABOUT GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS AND IT READS, ON MAY 6th, 2016, TEN DAYS AFTER THAT MEETING WITH MIFSUD, MUCH DISCUSSED TODAY, PAPADOPOULOS SUGGESTED TO A REPRESENTATIVE OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 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. AND DIRECTOR, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TWO MONTHS LATER, IS IT NOT? >> WELL, I CAN SPEAK TO THE EXCERPT THAT YOU HAVE ON THE SCREEN AS BEING ACCURATE FROM THE REPORT. BUT NOT THE SECOND HALF OF YOUR QUESTION.

>> WELL THE SECOND HALF, JUST TO REFER TO PAGE SIX OF THE REPORT IS ON JULY 22nd, THROUGH WIKILEAKS, THOUSANDS OF THESE EMAILS THAT WERE STOLEN BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT APPEARED, CORRECT. THAT IS ON PAGE SIX OF THE REPORT. THIS IS THE WIKILEAKS POSTING OF THE EMAILS. >> I CAN'T FIND IT QUICKLY, BUT I — PLEASE CONTINUE. >> OKAY. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, BEFORE THE PUBLIC OR THE FBI EVER KNEW THE RUSSIANS PREVIEWED FOR A TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL, GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, THAT THEY HAD STOLEN EMAILS, THAT THEY COULD RELEASE ANONYMOUSLY TO HELP DONALD TRUMP AND HURT HILLARY CLINTON IS THAT CORRECT.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. >> DIRECTOR, RATHER THAN REPORT THIS CONTACT WITH JOSEPH MIFSUD AND THE NOTION THERE WAS DIRT THAT THE CAMPAIGN COULD USE, RATHER THAN REPORT THAT TO THE FBI, THAT I THINK MOST OF MY CONSTITUENTS WOULD EXPECT AN INDIVIDUAL TO DO, PAPADOPOULOS LIED ABOUT HIS RUSSIAN CONTACTS TO YOU, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? >> THAT'S TRUE. WE HAVE AN ELECTION COMING UP IN 2020, DIRECTOR. IF THE CAMPAIGN RECEIVES AN OFFER OF DIRT FROM A FOREIGN INDIVIDUAL OR A GOVERNMENT, GENERALLY SPEAKING SHOULD THAT CAMPAIGN REPORT THOSE CONTACTS? >> SHOULD BE — CAN BE DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES A CRIME. >> I WILL YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> MR. CONAWAY. >> THANK YOU.

MR. MUELLER, DID ANYONE ASK YOU TO EXCLUDE ANYTHING FROM YOUR REPORT THAT YOU FELT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE REPORT? >> I DON'T THINK SO. BUT IT'S NOT A SMALL REPORT. >> NO ONE ASKED YOU SPECIFICALLY TO EXCLUDE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE IN THERE. >> NOT THAT I RECALL. >> I YIELD THE BALANCE OF HI TIME. >> THANK YOU FOR YIELDING. GOOD AFTERNOON, DIRECTOR MUELLER. IN YOUR MAY 29th PRESS CONFERENCE IN YOUR OPENING REMARKS THIS MORNING, YOU MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR YOU WANTED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT TO SPEAK FOR ITSELF. YOU SAID AT YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE THAT THAT WAS THE OFFICE'S FINAL POSITION AND WE WILL NOT COMMENT ON ANY OTHER CONCLUSIONS OR HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT.

NOW, YOU SPENT THE LAST FEW HOURS OF YOUR LIFE FROM DEMOCRATS TRYING TO GET YOU TO ANSWER ALL KINDS OF HYPOTHETICALS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, AND I EXPECT THAT IT MAY CONTINUE FOR THE NEXT FEW HOURS OF YOUR LIFE, I THINK YOU'VE STAYED PRETTY MUCH TRUE TO WHAT YOUR INTENT AND DESIRE WAS. BUT I GUESS REGARDLESS OF THAT, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE IS CLOSED AND IT HAS NO CONTINUING JURISDICTION OR AUTHORITY SO WHAT WOULD BE YOUR AUTHORITY OR JURISDICTION FOR ADDING NEW CONCLUSIONS OR DETERMINATIONS TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S WRITTEN REPORT? >> AS TO THE LATTER, I DON'T — KNOW OR EXPECT CHANGES AND CONCLUSIONS THAT WE INCLUDED IN OUR — IN OUR REPORT. >> SO TO THAT POINT, YOU ADDRESS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I NEEDED TO, WHICH WAS FROM YOUR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING WHICH SOME CONSTRUED AS A CHANGE TO THE WRITTEN REPORT, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE EXCHANGE THAT YOU HAD WITH CONGRESSMAN LIEU. I WROTE IT DOWN DIFFERENT. I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT IT SO THE RECORD IS PERFECTLY CLEAR. I RECORDED THAT HE ASKED YOU, QUOTE, THE REASON YOU DID NOT INDICT DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION STATING YOU CANNOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED, THAT IS CORRECT.

THAT RESPONSE IS INCONSISTENT, I THINK YOU'LL AGREE WITH YOUR WRITTEN REPORT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT YOUR INTENT TO CHANGE YOUR WRITTEN REPORT, IT IS YOUR INTENT TO CLARIFY THE RECORD TODAY. >> AS I STARTED TO — TODAY, THIS AFTERNOON, AND ADDED EITHER A FOOT NOTE OR END NOTE, WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY IS THE FACT WE DID NOT MAKE ANY DETERMINATION IT REGARD TO CULPABILITY IN ANY WAY AND WE DID NOT START THAT PROCESS DOWN THE ROAD. >> TERRIFIC, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THE RECORD. A STATED PURPOSE OF YOUR APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS TO ENSURE A FULL AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND AS PART OF THAT FULL AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, WHAT DETERMINATION DID THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE MAKE ABOUT WHETHER THE STEEL DOSSIER WAS PART OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? >> AGAIN, WHEN IT COMES TO MR.

STEELE, I AM DEFERRING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, DIRECTOR, I VERY MUCH AGREE WITH YOUR DETERMINATION THAT RUSSIA'S EFFORTS WERE SWEEPING AND — SYSTEMATIC AND IT SHOULD CONCERN EVERY AMERICAN SO I WANT TO KNOW HOW SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC THOSE EFFORTS WERE. I WANT TO FIND OUT IF RUSSIA INTERFERED WITH OUR ELECTION BY PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION THROUGH SOURCES TO CHRISTOPHER STEELE ABOUT A TRUMP CONSPIRACY THAT YOU DETERMINED DIDN'T EXIST.

>> AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES WITH REGARD TO MR. STEELE. IN TERMS OF A PORTRAYAL OF THE CONSPIRACIES, WE RETURNED TWO INDICTMENTS IN THE COMPUTER CRIMES ARENA. ONE GRU AND ANOTHER ACTIVE MEASURES IN WHICH WE LAY OUT IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL WHAT OCCURRED IN THOSE TWO — >> I UNDERSTAND — >> — RATHER LARGE CONSPIRACIES. >> I AGREE WITH RESPECT TO THAT. BUT WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT IS AN APPLICATION AND THEY RENEWAL APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO SPY OR SURVEIL ON TRUMP CAMPAIGN CARTER PAGE ASSOCIATE AND ON OWL FOUR OCCASIONS THEY SUBMITTED THE STEELE DOSSIER WITH A CENTRAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR THAT AND THE BASIC EVIDENCE IS THERE WAS A WELL DEVELOPED CONSPIRACY OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT BUT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION DIDN'T ESTABLISH ANY CONSPIRACY, CORRECT? >> WELL, WHAT I COULD TELL YOU IS THAT THE EVENTS THAT YOU ARE CHARACTERIZING HERE, NOW, IS PART OF ANOTHER MATTER THAT IS BEING HANDLED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

>> BUT YOU DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY CONSPIRACY, MUCH LESS A WELL-DEVELOPED ONE. >> AGAIN, I PASS ON ANSWERING THAT QUESTION. >> THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT CHARGE CARTER PAGE WITH ANYTHING. >> THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DID NOT. >> ALL RIGHT. MY TIME IS EXPIRED. I YIELD BACK. >> MISS SEWELL. >> I WOULD LIKE TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO THE JUNE TRUMP TOWER MEETING.

SLIDE TWO ON THE SCREEN NOW IS PART OF AN EMAIL CHAIN BETWEEN DON JR., DONALD TRUMP JR. AND A PUBLICITY REPRESENTING THE SON OF A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH. THE EMAIL EXCHANGE ULTIMATELY LED TO THE NOW INFAMOUS JUNE 9th, 2016 MEETING. THE EMAIL FROM THE PUBLICIST TO DONALD TRUMP JR. READS IN PART, THE CROWN PROSECUTOR OF RUSSIA OFFERED TO PROVIDE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH SOME OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION THAT WOULD INCRIMINATE HILLARY IN HER DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA AND IS A PART OF RUSSIA AND ITS GOVERNMENT 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.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> NOW, TRUMP JR.'S RESPONSE TO THAT EMAIL IS SLIDE THREE. HE SAID, AND I QUOTE, IF IT IS WHAT YOU SAY, I LOVE IT. ESPECIALLY LATER IN THE SUMMER. THEN DONALD JR. INVITED SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS PAUL MANAFORT AND JARED KUSHNER TO THE MEETING, DID HE NOT. >> HE DID. >> THIS EMAIL EXCHANGE IS EVIDENT OF AN OFFER OF ILLEGAL ASSISTANCE, IS IT NOT.

>> I COULD NOT ADOPT THAT CHARACTERIZATION. >> ISN'T IT AGAINST THE LAW FOR A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN TO ACCEPT ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT? >> GENERALLY SPEAKING, YES. BUT THERE IS — GENERALLY THE CASES ARE — ARE UNIQUE. >> YOU SAY ON PAGE 184 IN VOLUME ONE THAT THE FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW BROADLY PROHIBITS FOREIGN NATIONALS FROM MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS, ET CETERA, AND THEN YOU SAY THAT FOREIGN NATIONALS MAY NOT MAKE A CONTRIBUTION OR DONATION OF MONEY OR ANYTHING OF VALUE. IT SAYS CLEARLY IN THE REPORT ITSELF. >> THANK YOU. >> NOW, LET'S TURN TO WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AT THE MEETING. WHEN DONALD TRUMP JR. AND THE OTHERS GOT TO THE JUNE 9th MEETING THEY REALIZED THE RUSSIAN DELEGATION DIDN'T HAVE THE PROMISED QUOTE/UNQUOTE DIRT AND IN FACT THEY GOT UPSET ABOUT THAT, DID THEY NOT? >> GENERALLY, YES.

>> YOU SAY IN VOLUME ONE, PAGE 118, THAT TRUMP JR. ASKED WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? WHAT — WHAT DO THEY HAVE ON CLINTON? AND DURING THE MEETING KIRSHNER TEXT MANAFORT SAYING IT WAS A, QUOTE, WASTE OF TIME, IS THAT CORRECT. >> I BELIEVE IT IS IN THE REPORT ALONG THE LINES YOU SPECIFY. >> SO TO BE CLEAR TOP TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS LEARNED THAT RUSSIA WANTED TO HELP DONALD TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN BY GIVING HIM DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT, TRUMP JR. SAID LOVED IT. AND THEN HE AND SENIOR OFFICIALS HELD A MEETING WITH THE RUSSIANS TO TRY TO GET THAT RUSSIAN HELP. BUT THEY WERE DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE THE DIRT WASN'T AS GOOD AS THEY HAD HOPED. SO TO THE NEXT STEP, DID ANYONE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN EVER TELL THE FBI OF THIS OFFER? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> DID DONALD TRUMP JR. TELL THE FBI THAT THEY RECEIVED AN OFFER OF HELP FROM THE — FROM RUSSIA? >> THAT IS ABOUT ALL I'LL SAY ON THAT THIS ASPECT OF IT. >> WOULDN'T IT BE TRUE, SIR, IF THEY HAD REPORTED IT TO THE FBI, OR ANYONE IN THAT CAMPAIGN, DURING THE COURSE OF THE YOUR TWO-YEAR INVESTIGATION YOU WOULD HAVE UNCOVERED. >> I WOULD HOPE, YES. >> IS IT NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS TO INFORM THE FBI IF THEY RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT? >> I WOULD THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD AND SHOULD DO.

>> NOT ONLY DID THE CAMPAIGN NOT TELL THE FBI, THEY SOUGHT TO HIDE THE EXISTENCE OF THE JUNE 9th MEETING FOR OVER A YEAR, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? >> ON THE GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION, I WOULD QUESTION IT. IF YOUR REFERRING TO LATER — ISSUE THAT FLOWED FROM THE MEDIA THAT — >> NO, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS YOU'VE SAID IN VOLUME TWO, PAGE FIVE, ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED AIDES NOT TO PUBLICLY DISCLOSE THE EMAIL SETTING UP THE JUNE 9th MEETING. >> YES. THAT'S ACCURATE. >> THANKS. SIR, GIVEN THIS ILLEGAL ASSISTANCE BY RUSSIANS, YOU CHOSE EVEN GIVEN THAT, YOU DID NOT CHARGE DONALD TRUMP JR. OR ANY OF THE OTHER SENIOR OFFICIALS WITH CONSPIRACY, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT — IF YOUR TALKING ABOUT OTHER INDIVIDUALS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ATTENDEES OF JUNE 9. >> THAT IS RIGHT. >> THAT IS ACCURATE. >> AND EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T CHARGE THEM WITH CONSPIRACY, DON'T YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD BE CONCERNED THAT THESE THREE SENIOR CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS EAGERLY SOUGHT AN FOREIGN ADVERSARY HELP AND ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T SET A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE — >> I CAN'T ACCEPT THAT CHARACTERIZATION.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE A PORTRAYAL THAT AMERICAN VALUES THAT SOMEONE WITH — NOT BEING CRIMINAL IS DEFINITELY UNETHICAL AND WRONG AND I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS SHOULD NOT DIVULGE INFORMATION IF IT IS FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE. THANK YOU, SIR. >> MR. TURNER. >> MR. MUELLER, I HAVE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND IN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR OPENING STATEMENT YOU INDICATE THAT PURSUANT TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS THAT YOU SUBMITTED A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO YOU CONFIRM IS THE REPORT THAT YOU DID THAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE THIS HEARING WAS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> YES. >> YOU ALSO STATE IN THIS OPENING STATEMENT THAT YOU THROUGH OVERBOARD THE WORD COLLUSION BECAUSE IT IS NOT A LEGAL TERM. YOU WOULD NOT CONCLUDE BECAUSE COLLUSION WAS NOT A LEGAL TERM. >> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WANT TO USE THE WORD. IN THE GENERAL PARLANCE, PEOPLE COULD THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY. BUT IF YOU TALK ABOUT IN A CRIMINAL STATUTE ARENA, YOU CAN'T. BECAUSE SOME — IT IS MUCH MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS CONSPIRACY. >> SO YOUR WORDS ARE IT IS NOT ALE — NOT A LEGAL TERM SO YOU DOES NOT PUT IT IN YOUR CONCLUSION. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT YOUR POWER AND AUTHORITY. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE APPOINTMENT ORDER GAVE YOU AUTHORITIES THAT RESIDE IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. NOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS NO ABILITY TO GIVE YOU POWERS AND AUTHORITY GREATER THAN THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY THAN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CORRECT. >> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT — YEAH, I THINK THAT IS CORRECT. >> MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO FOCUS ON ONE WORD IN YOUR REPORT, THE SECOND TO LAST WORD IN THE REPORT. IT IS EXONERATE. THE REPORT STATES ACCORDINGLY WHILE THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME, IT DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM. NOW IF THE JUDICIARY HEARING IN YOUR PRIOR TESTIMONY YOU'VE AGREED WITH MR. RATCLIFF THAT EXONERATE IS NOT A LEGAL TERM. THERE IS NOT A LEGAL TEST FOR THIS. SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. MUELLER. MR. MUELLER, DOES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVE THE POWER OR THE AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE? AND WHAT I'M PUTTING UP IS THE UNITED STATES CODE.

THIS IS WHERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GETS HIS POWER. AND THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ANNOTATED CASES OF THESE WHICH WE'VE SEARCHED AND WE EVEN WENT TO YOUR LAW SCHOOL BECAUSE I WENT TO CASE WESTERN BUT I THOUGHT YOUR LAW SCHOOL WAS DIFFERENT AND WE GOT THE LAW TEXT BOOK FROM YOUR LAW SCHOOL, MR. MUELLER, NOWHERE IN THESE, BECAUSE WE HAD THEM SCANNED IS THERE A PROCESS OR DESCRIPTION ON EXONERATE. THERE IS NO OFFICE OF EXONERATION AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE OR NO CERTIFICATE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DESK AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT — DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE? >> I'M GOING TO PASS ON THAT. >> WHY? >> BECAUSE IT EMBROILS US IN A LEGAL DISCUSSION AND I'M NOT PREPARED TO DO A LEGAL DISCUSSION IN THAT ARENA.

>> WELL, MR. MUELLER, YOU WOULD NOT DISAGREE WITH ME WHEN I SAY THAT THERE IS NO PLACE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THE POWER TO EXONERATE AND HE'S NOT BEEN GIVEN THAT AUTHORITY? >> AGAIN, I TAKE YOUR QUESTION. >> WELL THE ONE THING THAT I GUESS IS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROBABLY KNOWS THAT HE CAN'T EXONERATE EITHER. AND THAT IS THE PART THAT KIND OF CONFUSES ME. BECAUSE IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE AND I BELIEVE HE KNOWS HE DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE. AND SO THIS IS THE PART THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. IF YOUR REPORT IS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO EXONERATE AND HE DOES NOT — AND HE KNOWS YOU DON'T HAVE THAT POWER, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL HIM THAT YOU'RE NOT EXONERATING THE PRESIDENT. HE KNOWS THIS ALREADY. SO THEN THAT KIND OF CHANGED THE CONTEXT OF THE REPORT.

>> NO, WE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT EXACTLY THAT REASON. HE MAY NOT KNOW IT. AND HE SHOULD KNOW IT. >> SO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR BELIEVES SOMEWHERE IN THE HALLWAYS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THERE IS AN OFFICE OF EXONERATION? >> NO. THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. >> WELL, I BELIEVE HE KNOWS AND I DON'T BELIEVE HE PUT THAT IN THERE FOR MR. BARR I THINK YOU PUT THAT IN THERE FOR WHAT I'M GOING TO DISCUSS NEXT AND THAT IS WHEN WASHINGTON POST YESTERDAY THE ARTICLE SAID TRUMP COULD NOT BE EXONERATED OF TRYING TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF.

THAT STATEMENT IS CORRECT, MR. MUELLER, IN THAT NO ONE COULD BE EXONERATED. THIS REPORTER CAN'T BE EXONERATED. MR. MUELLER, YOU CAN'T BE EXONERATED. IN FACT IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THERE IS NO POWER OR AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE. THIS IS MY CONCERN, MR. MUELLER, THIS IS THE HEADLINE ON ALL OF THE NEWS CHANNELS WHILE YOU WERE TESTIFYING TODAY. MUELLER, TRUMP WAS NOT EXONERATED. MR. MUELLER, WHAT YOU KNOW IS THAT THIS CAN'T SAY MUELLER EXONERATED TRUMP. BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO EXONERATE TRUMP.

YOU HAVE NO MORE POWER TO DECLARE HIM EXONERATED THAN YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DECLARE HIM ANDERSON COOPER SO THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS SINCE THERE IS NO ONE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WITH THE POWER, THE PRESIDENT PARDONS, DOESN'T EXONERATE AND COURTS AND JURIES DON'T DECLARE INNOCENT AND THEY DON'T DECLARE EXONERATION AND THAT STATEMENT IS MISLEADING AND COLORS THIS INVESTIGATION, ONE WORD OUT OF THE ENTIRE REPORT AND IT IS A MEANINGLESS WORD THAT HAS NO LEGAL MEANING AND HAS COLORED YOUR ENTIRE — >> THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> I YIELD BACK. >> MR. CARSON — >> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR MUELLER FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

I WANT TO LOOK MORE CLOSELY AT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN PAUL MANAFORT. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO I BELIEVE BETRAYED OUR COUNTRY, WHO LIED TO A GRAND JURY, WHO TAMPERED WITH WITNESSES, AND WHO REPEATEDLY TRIED TO USE HIS POSITION WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO MAKE MORE MONEY. LET'S FOCUS ON THE BETRAYAL AND GREED. YOUR INVESTIGATION, SIR, FOUND A NUMBER OF TROUBLING CONTACTS BETWEEN MR. MANAFORT AND RUSSIAN INDIVIDUALS DURING AND AFTER THE CAMPAIGN. >> CORRECT. >> IN ADDITION TO THE JUNE 9th MEETING JUST DISCUSSED, MANAFORT MET WITH A MAN NAMED KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK WHO THE FBI ASSESSED TO HAVE TIED WITH RUSSIAN INTEL AGENCIES, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR. >> CORRECT. >> AND MR. MANAFORT DIDN'T JUST MEET WITH HIM, HE SHARED PRIVATE TRUMP CAMPAIGN POLLING INFORMATION WITH THIS MAN LINKED TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND IN TURN THE INFORMATION WAS SHARED WITH THE RUSSIAN OLIGARCH TIED TO VLADIMIR PUTIN, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR? >> ALLEGEDLY.

>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, MEETING WITH HIM WASN'T ENOUGH. SHARING INTERNAL POLLING INFORMATION WASN'T ENOUGH. MR. MANAFORT WENT SO FAR AS TO OFFER THIS RUSSIAN OLIGARCH TIED TO PUTIN A PRIVATE BRIEFING ON THE CAMPAIGN, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR. >> YES, SIR. >> AND FINALLY, MR. MANAFORT ALSO DISCUSSED INTERNAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGY ON FOUR BATTLEGROUND STATES, MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND MINNESOTA. BUT THE RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE LINKED INDIVIDUALS, DID HE NOT, SIR. >> THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE REPORT AS WAS THE ITEMS HE LISTED PREVIOUSLY. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, BASED ON YOUR DECADES OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AT THE FBI, WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, IT CREATES A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN SHARES PRIVATE POLLING INFORMATION ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, PRIVATE POLITICAL STRATEGY RELATED TO WINNING THE VOTES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT AMERICAN BATTLEGROUND STATES WITH A FOREIGN ADVERSARY.

>> IS THAT THE QUESTION, SIR? >> YES, SIR. >> I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE ALONG THOSE LINES. TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS WITHIN THE LINES OF THE REPORT, THEN I SUPPORT IT. ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, IS NOT PART OF THAT WHICH I WOULD SUPPORT. >> WELL I THINK IT DOES SIR. I THINK IT SHOWS ANNIN FURY ATING LACK OF PATRIOTISM FROM PEOPLE SEEKING THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND. DIRECTOR MUELLER, MANAFORT DIDN'T SHARE THIS INFORMATION IN EXCHANGE FOR NOTHING, DID HE SIR? >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION WITHOUT KNOWING MORE ABOUT THAT — THE QUESTION.

>> WELL, IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU — HE HOPED TO BE PAID BACK THAT HE WAS OWED BY RUSSIAN OR UKRAINIAN OLIGARCHS IN EXCHANGE FOR CAMPAIGN INFORMATION. >> THAT IS TRUE. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER AS MY COLLEAGUE MR. HECK WILL DISCUSS LATER, GREED CORRUPTS. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE SHARING OF PRIVATE CAMPAIGN INFORMATION IN EXCHANGE FOR MONEY REPRESENTS A PARTICULAR KIND OF CORRUPTION, ONE THAT PRESENTS A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK FOR OUR COUNTRY, SIR? >> I'M NOT GOING TO OPINE ON THAT. I DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE ON THAT TO OPINE. >> WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT MANAFORT'S CONTACTS WITH THOSE CLOSE TO VLADIMIR PUTIN AND EXCHANGING PRIVATE INFORMATION ON AMERICANS FOR MONEY LEFT HIM VULNERABLE TO BLACKMAIL BY THE RUSSIANS.

>> I THINK GENERALLY SO THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. >> WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THESE ACTS DEMONSTRATED A BETRAYAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC VALUES OF OUR COUNTRY RESTS ON. >> I CAN'T AGREE WITH THAT. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER — >> NOT THAT IT IS NOT TRUE. BUT I CANNOT AGREE WITH IT. >> YES, SIR. DIRECTOR MUELLER WHILE I COULD TELL YOU 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 WITH A FOREIGN ADVERSARY CAN CORRUPT. AND IT COULD LEAVE YOU OPEN TO BLACKMAIL AND IT CERTAINLY REPRESENTS A BETRAYAL OF THE VALUES UNDERPINNING OUR DEMOCRACY. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AGAIN, DIRECTOR MUELLER. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING TODAY. I YIELD BACK, CHAIRMAN. >> DR. WENSTRUP. >> THANK YOU MR. MUELLER FOR BEING HERE TODAY. 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 CLINT 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. >> WELL, VOL ONE PAGE FIVE, THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS ELECTION INTERFERENCE ACTIVITIES. SO IT WOULD THEREFORE BE INACCURATE BASED ON THIS TO DESCRIBE THAT FINDING AS OPEN TO DOUBT, THAT FINDING BEING THAT TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS INVOLVED WITH THEFT OR PUBLICATION OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN EMAILS. ARE YOU FOLLOWING THAT? >> I DO BELIEVE I'M FOLLOWING IT. BUT IT IS — THAT PORTION OF THAT MATTER DOES NOT FALL WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. OR FALL WITHIN OUR INVESTIGATION. >> WELL BASICALLY WHAT YOUR REPORT SAYS, VOLUME 1 PAGE FIVE, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT OPEN TO DOUBT IS HOW THE COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS DESCRIBED THIS FINDING IN THEIR MINORITY VIEWS OF OUR 2018 REPORT. AND IT KIND OF FLIES IN THE FACE OF WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR REPORT. SO IS IT ACCURATE ALSO TO SAY THE INVESTIGATION FOUND NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS TOLD ANYONE AFFILIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN ABOUT JOSEPH MIFSUD'S CLAIMS THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD DIRT ON CANDIDATE CLINTON.

>> LET ME TURN THAT OVER TO MR. ZEBLEY — >> I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU, SIR. THIS IS YOUR REPORT. AND THAT IS WHAT I'M BASING THIS ON. >> THEN COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR ME AGAIN. >> 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 CANDIDATE CLINTON. >> I BELIEVE IT APPEARED IN THE REPORT THAT IT IS ACCURATE. >> OKAY. SO IN THE REPORT IT SAYS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT PAPADOPOULOS SHARED INFORMATION WITH THE CAMPAIGN.

IT IS THEREFORE INACCURATE TO CONCLUDE BY THE TIME OF THE JUNE 9, 2016 TRUMP TOWER MEETING, QUOTE, THE CAMPAIGN WAS LIKELY ALREADY ON NOTICE VIA GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS'S CONTACT WITH RUSSIAN AGENTS THAT RUSSIA, IN FACT, HAD DAMAGING INFORMATION ON TRUMP'S OPPONENT. WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT IS INACCURATE TO SAY IT IS LIKELY ALREADY — >> I DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT. >> WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT. BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS JUMP TO THIS INCORRECT CONCLUSION IN THEIR MINORITY VIEWS AGAIN WHICH CONTRADICTS WHICH YOU HAVE IN YOUR REPORT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CLARIFY BECAUSE A NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE SOME STATEMENTS THAT I HAVE CONCERNS WITH AND MAYBE YOU CAN CLEAR THEM UP. SO A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE SAID PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS A RUSSIAN AGENT AFTER YOUR REPORT WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED. THAT STATEMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY YOUR REPORT, CORRECT? >> THAT IS ACCURATE: NOT SUPPORTED. >> MULTIPLE DEMOCRAT MEMBERS HAVE ASSERTED THAT PAUL MANAFORT MET WITH JULIAN ASSANGE IN 2016 BEFORE WIKILEAKS RELEASED THE DNC EMAILS IMPLYING MANAFORT COLLUDED WITH ASSANGE AND BECAUSE YOUR REPORT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT I ASSUME YOU FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF THIS MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THAT ASSUMPTION. >> BUT YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF IT IN YOUR REPORT? >> I — >> WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> YES, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. >> MR. MUELLER, DOES YOUR REPORT CONTAIN ANY EVIDENCE PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ENROLLED IN THE RUSSIAN SYSTEM OF KOMPROMAT AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE ONCE CLAIMED? >> WELL, WHAT I CAN SPEAK TO IS INFORMATION — EVIDENCE THAT WE PICKED UP AS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. AND I THINK THAT IS ACCURATE AS FAR AS IT GOES. >> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. SO LET'S GO FOR A SECOND TO SCOPE. DID YOU ASK THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO EXPAND THE SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S MANDATE RELATED TO AUGUST 2nd, 2017 OR AUGUST 20th, 2017 SCOPING MEMORANDUM? >> WELL, WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE MEMORANDUM, I COULD NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> WELL LET ME ASK YOU, DO YOU MAKE A REQUEST TO EXPAND YOUR OFFICE MANDATE AT ALL? >> GENERALLY, YES.

>> AND WAS THAT EVER DENIED? >> I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT. IT GOES TO THE INTERNAL DELIBERATION. >> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND PROCESSES. EXPANDING THE SCOPE COME FROM THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OR — >> I'M NOT — >> ROSENSTEIN OR FROM YOU OR FROM EITHER? >> I WILL NOT DISCUSS ANY OTHERALITY — OTHER AT TURNIVES. >> THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER. >> MISS SPEIER. >> MR. MUELLER, I COULD SAY WITHOUT CONTRADICTION YOU ARE THE GREATEST PATRIOT IN THIS ROOM TODAY AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT AND I'M GOING TO QUIBBLE WITH YOUR WORDS THAT THE RUSSIAN INTERVENTION WAS SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC. I WOULD QUIBBLE WITH THAT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WAS JUST AN INTERVENTION, I THINK IT WAS AN INVASION.

AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS JUST SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC, I THINK IT WAS SINISTER AND SCHEMING. HAVING SAID THAT, ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES EARLIER HERE REFERRED TO THIS RUSSIAN INTERVENTION AS A HOAX. AND I'D LIKE TO GET YOUR COMMENT ON THAT. ON PAGE 26 OF YOUR REPORT, YOU TALK ABOUT THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY. AND HOW TENS OF MILLIONS OF U.S. PERSONS BECAME ENGAGED WITH THE POSTS THAT THEY MADE THAT THERE WAS SOME 80,000 POSTS ON FACEBOOK THAT FACEBOOK ITSELF ADMITTED THAT 126 MILLION PEOPLE HAD PROBABLY SEEN THE POSTS PUT UP BY THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY AND THEY HAD 3800 TWITTER ACCOUNTS AND HAD DESIGNED MORE THAN 175,000 TWEETS THAT PROBABLY REACHED 1.4 MILLION PEOPLE. THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY WAS SPENDING ABOUT $1.25 MILLION A MONTH ON ALL OF THIS SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE UNITED STATES IN WHAT I WOULD CALL AN INVASION IN OUR COUNTRY. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT WAS NOT A HOAX? THAT THE RUSSIANS WERE ENGAGED IN TRYING TO IMPACT OUR ELECTION? >> ABSOLUTELY. IT WAS NOT A HOAX. THE INDICTMENTS WE RETURNED AGAINST THE RUSSIANS, TWO DIFFERENT ONES, WERE SUBSTANTIAL AND IN NEAR SCOPE USING THAT SCOPE WORD AGAIN AND I THINK ONE OF THE — WE HAVE UNDERPLAYED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT THAT ASPECT OF OUR INVESTIGATION THAT HAS AND WOULD HAVE LONG-TERM DAMAGE TO THE UNITED STATES THAT WE NEED TO MOVE QUICKLY TO ADDRESS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO DRILL DOWN ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY STARTED IN 2014 BY SENDING OVER STAFF AS TOURISTS I GUESS TO START LOOKING AT WHERE THEY WANTED TO ENGAGE. AND THERE ARE MANY THAT SUGGEST AND I'M INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT RUSSIA IS PRESENTLY IN THE UNITED STATES LOOKING FOR WAYS TO IMPACT THE 2020 ELECTION? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. THAT WOULD BE IN LEVELS OF CLASSIFICATION. >> ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. OFTENTIMES WHEN WE ENGAGE IN THESE HEARINGS, WE FORGET THE FOREST FOR THE TREES. YOU HAVE A VERY LARGE REPORT HERE OF OVER 400 PAGES. MOST AMERICANS HAVE NOT READ IT. WE HAVE READ IT. ACTUALLY THE FBI DIRECTOR YESTERDAY SAID HE HADN'T READ IT WHICH WAS A LITTLE DISCOURAGING. BUT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I WANT TO GIVE YOU A MINUTE AND 39 SECONDS TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO GLEAM FROM THIS REPORT? >> WELL, WE SPENT SUBSTANTIAL TIME ASSURING THE INTEGRITY OF THE REPORT AND UNDERSTANDING IT'S 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 WILL YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. MR. MUELLER, I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT CONSPIRACY. GENERALLY A CONSPIRACY REQUIRES AN OFFER OF SOMETHING ILLEGAL, THE ACCEPTANCE OF THAT OFFER AND OVERT ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF IT, IS THAT CORRECT.

>> CORRECT. >> AND DON JR. WAS MADE AWARE THAT RUSSIANS WERE OFFERING DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT, CORRECT? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. BUT ONE WOULD ASSUME. HIS PRESENCE AT THE MEETING. >> AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU WOULD LOVE TO GET THAT HELP, THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFER? >> IT IS A WIDE OPEN REQUEST. >> AND IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE EVIDENCE OF AN ACCEPT — ACCEPTANCE AND IF YOU GET OFFERED SOMETHING ILLEGAL AND YOU SAY I WOULD LOVE IT AND THAT IS CONSIDERED ACCEPTANCE OF AN — >> I WOULD STAY AWAY FROM ADDRESSING ONE OR TWO PARTICULAR SITUATIONS. >> WELL THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION — I'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE IN A BIT. AND I YIELD TO MR. STEWART. >> MR. MUELLER, IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND I HAVE A SERIES OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS BUT BEFORE I DO THAT I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO REEMPHASIZED MR.

TURNER STATED. 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 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 IS ANOTHER PRINCIPLE THAT WE ALSO HAVE TO DEFEND AND THAT IS THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. AND I'M SURE YOU AGREE WITH THIS PRINCIPLE, THOUGH I THINK THE WAY THAT YOUR OFFICE PHRASED SOME PART OF THES 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 THERE ACCUSATIONS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO BASIS OTHER THAN SOME PEOPLE DESPERATELY WISH IT WAS SO. 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 THE REPORT IS BASED ON THE INTEGRITY OF HOW IT IS HANDLED. THERE IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK BOTHERS ME AND OTHER AMERICANS. I'M HOLDING HERE IN A BINDER OF 25 EXAMPLES OF LEAKS THAT OCCURRED FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE, FROM THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR WORK, DATING BACK TO 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 STEELE DOSSIER WAS A COMPLETE FANTASY AND FUNDED BY THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE FROM YOUR TEAM HAVING BEEN GIVEN ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THE RAID ON ROGER STONE'S HOME TO ANY PERSON INCLUDING THE PRESS AND 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 A LENGTHY, THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, SOME PERSONS WILL BE UNDER A CLOUD THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE UNDER A CLOUD. AND ONE OF THE REASONS FOR EMPHASIZING AS I HAVE THE SPEED OF AN ELECTION — NOT AN ELECTION, THE SPEED OF AN INVESTIGATION IS THAT SO THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE DISRUPTED AS A RESULT OF THE — >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT I DO HAVE A SERIOUS QUESTION. >> WITH THE RESULT OF THAT INVESTIGATION. >> THANK YOU. AND YOU'RE RIGHT. IT IS A CLOUD AND AN UNFAIR CLOUD. TO YOUR POINT, 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. >> OKAY. MR. MUELLER, YOU SENT A LETTER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR IN WHICH YOU CLAIMED THE MEMO DID NOT 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. I'M NOT CERTAIN. THIS IS THE LETTER OF MARCH 27th? >> YES, SIR. >> I'M NOT CERTAIN WHEN IT WAS PUBLICIZED.

I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS PUBLICIZED. I DID NOT BELIEVE WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LEAK. I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB IN ASSURING NO LEAKS OCCUR — >> I HAVE 25 EXAMPLES HERE OF WHERE YOU DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB. NOT YOU, SIR. I'M NOT ACCUSING YOU, SIR. YOUR OFFICE DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB OF PROTECTING THIS INFORMATION. ONE MORE EXAMPLE, DO YOU KNOW ANYONE WHO ANONYMOUSLY MADE CLAIMS TO THE PRESS THAT THE 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 COMING FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE. >> I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT. >> WELL, SIR, THIS WAS YOUR WORK. YOU ARE THE OTHER 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 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, 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? >> RIGHT. >> 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. THEY COULD. >> SO THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE CONCERNING IS WHAT IF THE 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 A SECOND TERM IS, THEREFORE, UNDER THE POLICY ABOVE THE LAW? >> I'M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

I'M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION. I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT I CAN SEE THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU SUGGEST. >> BUT THE STATUTE DOESN'T TOLL; IS THAT RIGHT? >> I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY. >> IT CLEARLY DOESN'T. 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 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 WANTED TO REFER TO VOLUME ONE PAGE 60 WHERE WE LEARNED THAT TRUMP JR. PUBLICALLY TWEETED A LINK TO THE LEAK OF STOLEN PODESTA E-MAILS IN OCTOBER OF 2016. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >> I AM. >> THAT WOULD AT LEAST BE A REPUBLISHING OF THIS INFORMATION, WOULD IT NOT? >> I'M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. >> DIRECTOR MIKE POMPEO ASSESSED KICKY LEAKS AS A HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE. GIVEN YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THEY DID HERE AND WHAT THEY DO GENERALLY, WOULD YOU ASSESS THAT TO BE ACCURATE OR SOMETHING SIMILAR? HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS WHAT WIKILEAKS DOES? >> ABSOLUTELY. AND THEY ARE CURRENTLY UNDER INDICTMENT AND ASSANGE.

>> YOU WOULD AGREE WITH DIRECTOR MIKE 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 6, 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 31st, 2016. BOY, I LOVE READING THOSE WIKILEAKS, DONALD TRUMP NOVEMBER 24st, 2016. DO ANY OF THOSE QUOTES DISTURB YOU, DIRECTOR? >> I'M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD SAY — >> HOW DO YOU REACT TO THEM? >> WELL, IT'S PROBABLY — PROBLEMATIC IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT IN TERMS OF GIVING SOME, I DON'T KNOW, HOPE FOR SOME BOOST TO WHAT IS AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. >> VOLUME 1, PAGE 59. DONALD TRUMP JR. HAD DIRECT ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS WITH WIKILEAKS DURING THE CAMPAIGN, PERIOD. ON OCTOBER 3rd, 2016, WIKILEAKS SENT ANOTHER DIRECT MESSAGE TO TRUMP JR. ASKING YOU GUYS TO HELP DISSIMILAR MATE A LINK SHOWING CLINTON ADVOCATED A DRONE TO ATTACK JULIAN ASSANGE. TRUMP JR.

RESPONDED THAT, QUOTE, HE HAD ALREADY DONE SO. SAME QUESTION, THIS BEHAVIOR AT THE VERY LEAST, DISTURBING? >> DISTURBING AND ALSO SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION. >> COULD IT BE DESCRIBED AS AID AND COMFORT TO A HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, SIR? >> I WOULDN'T CATEGORIZE IT WITH ANY SPECIFICITY. >> I YIELD THE BALANCE TO THE CHAIRMAN, PLEASE. >>> I'M NOT SURE I COULD MAKE GOOD USE OF 27 SECONDS. BUT, DIRECTOR, I THINK YOU MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU THINK UNETHICAL, TO PUT IT POLITELY, TO TAUT A FOREIGN SERVICE LIKE WIKILEAKS PUBLISHING STOLEN PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS IN A CAMPAIGN? >> CERTAINLY CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION.

>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. WE GO NOW TO MR. CRAWFORD. AND THEN MR. CRAWFORD'S FIVE MINUTES, WE'LL TAKE A FIVE OR TEN MINUTE BREAK. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. PETER STROOP SHOWED CONCERN. DID HE OR ANYONE ELSE TELL YOU THAT AROUND TEN MONTHS INTO THE INVESTIGATION THE FBI STILL HAD NO CASE FOR COLLUSION? >> WHO? CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? >> PETER STROOP. >> CAN YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE CLOSER? >> HE TEXTED ABOUT HIS CONCERN THAT TRS NO BIG THEIR THERE. DID HE OR ANYONE ELSE THAT WORKED ON THE INVESTIGATION TELL YOU THAT AROUND TEN MONTHS INTO THE INVESTIGATION THE FBI STILL HAD NO CASE FOR COLLUSION? >> NO. IS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT CORRECT THAT THEIR PHONES WERE NOT RETAINED AFTER THEY LEFT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE? >> WELL, I DON'T — IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THE INVESTIGATION INTO THOSE — PETER STRZK WENT ON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, AND I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT IT ENCOMPASSES. IT MAY WELL HAVE ENCOMPASSED WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. >> 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 MY TIME. >> THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR YIELDING. MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE AWARE OF WHO FUSION GPS IS. FUSION GPS IS A POLITICAL OPERATIONS FIRM THAT WAS WORKING DIRECTLY FOR THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THE DEMOCRAT NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

THEY PRODUCED THE DOSSIER, SO THEY PAID 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 MENTIONS NATALIA 65 TIMES. SHE MEETS IN THE INFAMOUS TRUMP TOWER MEETING THAT IS IN YOUR REPORT. YOU HAVE 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 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 GLEN SIMPSON MET WITH NATALIA V.? >> MYSELF? NO. >> WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU THAT THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN DIRTY OPS ARM MET WITH HER MORE TIMES THAN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN DID? >> WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THIS, AS I INDICATED AT THE OUTSET. >> DID YOU EVER INTERVIEW GLEN SIMPSON? >> AGAIN, 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 KAVALAK, CHRIS TO FEAR STEELE TOLD HER THAT FORMER RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE HEAD AND PUTIN ADVISER 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 IT'S NOT IN THE REPORT OR YOU'RE JUST — OR BECAUSE OF — >> OTHER DELIBERATIONS, OTHER PROCEEDINGS AND THE LIKE.

>> OKAY. WHEN ANDREW WEISSMAN JOINED YOUR TEAM, WERE YOU AWARE THAT BRUCE ORR, 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 HE WAS GIVEN $10,000 IN ISRAEL. DO YOU KNOW WHO GAVE HIM THAT CASH? >> FOR THAT ANSWER, GO TO THE FBI OR YOUR DEPARTMENT. >> BUT IT INVOLVED YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> IT INVOLVED PERSONS IN MY INVESTIGATION. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> WE WILL STAND IN RECESS FOR FIVE OR TEN MINUTES. PLEASE, FOLKS, REMAIN IN YOUR SEATS.

ALLOW THE DIRECTOR TO EXIT THE CHAMBER. >>> ROBERT MUELLER ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THIS HEARING, THE SECOND HEARING OF THE DAY. THIS ONE WITH THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TAKING QUESTIONS FROM SOME OF THE 22 MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES. IT MADE NEWS AT THE TOP BEFORE HE BEGAN TAKING QUESTIONS, ESSENTIALLY CORRECTING THE RECORD OF SOMETHING HE HAD SAID BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE EARLIER IN THE DAY, SUGGESTING THAT IF NOT FOR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES THAT HE BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT COULD BE INDICTED ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. HE CLARIFIED THAT AND WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THE REPORT. I'LL TURN TO MY PANEL HERE. HE SEEMED A LITTLE MORE WILLING TO ENGAGE IN THIS HEARING. >> THIS WAS A REMINDER THAT I ACTUALLY THINK DEMOCRATS SENT US BACK WITH. >> THERE IS A REASON ROBERT MUELLER PART ONE WAS ABOUT THE CRIME AND PART TWO WAS ABOUT THE OBSTRUCTION. THERE WAS A REASON ONE WAS NUMBER ONE AND ONE WAS NUMBER TWO. TO UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OBSTRUCTION, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS OF WHAT HAPPENED.

I THOUGHT ALREADY IN THE FIRST HOUR THIS HAD BEEN TEN TIMES MORE COMPELLING BECAUSE THE OBSTRUCTION AS A VIEWER, AND YOU HAVE TO THINK LIKE AN AVERAGE VIEWER THAT MAY NOT BE FOLLOWING EVERY SINGLE DETAIL THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING IT. WE UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF WHAT THE OBSTRUCTION CHARGES SORT OF CAME FROM. BUT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE INITIAL CRIME AND DETAILING THAT FIRST, I THINK IT MAKES IT EVEN HARDER TO CONSUME THE OBSTRUCTION PART OF THIS STORY AND TO GRASP WHY THAT WAS SO SERIOUS UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THE INITIAL CRIME. AND I THINK ALREADY, AND, LOOK, WE CAN'T TELL HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE STILL WATCHING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THIS PART IS MORE COMPELLING AND I THINK WITH ACTUALLY INFORMED THE QUESTIONING BETTER BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY PERHAPS UNDERSTANDING AS A VIEWER BETTER HAD THEY BASICALLY DONE THIS. >> HE BECAME MORE ANIMATED BECAUSE THIS IS THE THING. EVEN WHEN HE DID HIS NEWS CONFERENCE, WHAT HE REALLY FOCUSES ON IS THE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE.

THAT'S THE BIG THING THAT HE'S BEEN IGNORING. >> IT WAS THE FIRST THING HE MENTIONED AND THE LAST THING HE MENTIONED IN THAT INITIAL STATEMENT, NINE MINUTES, WHATEVER, THAT IT WENT. AND THIS IS WHAT HE HAD FOCUSSED ON. THIS IS, AS CHUCK SAID, THE ORIGINAL CRIME. WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S COMMENTS ABOUT WIKILEAKS, YOU KNOW, I LOVE WIKILEAKS DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN AND HIS COMMENTS TO US ON THOSE DAYS FOLLOWING UP IN A NEWS CONFERENCE AND THOSE WERE QUOTED TO HIM. INSTEAD OF SAYING I'LL JUST REFER YOU TO THE REPORT, HE SAID IT'S PROBLEMATIC. HE WAS ASKED WOULD THOSE BE PROBLEMATIC TO YOU.

HE SAID PROBLEMATIC IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT. >> I WANT TO PLAY A LITTLE OF WHAT HE SAID TO CONGRESSWOMAN SPEARS ON THE VERY ISSUE. HERE IT IS. >> IT WAS NOT A HOAX THAT THE RUSSIANS WERE ENGAGED IN TRYING TO IMPACT OUR ELECTIONS? >> ABSOLUTELY. THAT WAS NOT A HOAX. THE INDICTMENTS WE RETURNED AGAINST THE RUSSIANS, TWO DIFFERENT ONES, WERE SUBSTANTIAL IN THEIR SCOPE, USING THE SCOPE WORD AGAIN. AND I THINK ONE OF THE — WE HAVE UNDERPLAYED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT THAT ASPECT OF OUR INVESTIGATION THAT HAS AND WOULD HAVE LONG-TERM DAMAGE TO THE UNITED STATES THAT WE NEED TO MOVE QUICKLY TO ADDRESS.

>> THAT RESPONSE TO JACKIE SPEAR'S QUESTION. LET ME BRING IN CHUCK ROSEN BURG, A FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY, NBC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR. WHAT STOOD OUT TO YOU IN THIS FIRST HOUR? >> SO THE MOVIE HAS BEEN QUITE FAITHFUL TO THE BOOK, LESTER. WE KNEW FROM THE REPORT THAT RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WAS SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC. WE HEARD THAT AGAIN TODAY. WE KNEW THAT THE RUSSIANS BELIEVED THEY WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP PRESIDENCY. IT WAS IN THE BOOK AND IN THE HEARING TODAY.

WE KNOW THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WELCOMED RUSSIAN ASSISTANCE, BOOK AND MOVIE, RIGHT? AND WE KNOW THAT OFFICIALS CONNECTED TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN LIED ABOUT THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS. SO THERE IS A CONSTANT THREAD THROUGH ALL OF THIS. AND YOU CAN ARGUE WHETHER THE BOOK IS BETTER OR THE MOVIE IS BETTER, BUT I'LL TELL YOU THIS. THEY'RE THE SAME. IT IS NOT AN ATTACK ON, YOU KNOW, DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS. IT WAS AN ATTACK ON AMERICA. AND I AGREE WITH CHUCK TODD. THIS IS A PLACE WHERE BOB MUELLER HAS BEEN VERY STRONG AND ENTIRELY CONSISTENT. >> I WANT TO BRING IN CYNTHIA McFADDEN RIGHT NOW WHO HAS COVERED A LOT OF THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. AND CYNTHIA, YOU KNOW, WE HEAR ABOUT WIKILEAKS HERE. WHAT'S THE LINE THAT THIS REPORT ESSENTIALLY TRIES TO DRAW OR DOES DRAW FROM THE RUSSIANS ON DONE? >> YOU HEARD MR. MUELLER SAY HE CONSIDERED WIKILEAKS FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OPERATION. THERE HAS BEEN INDICTMENT, AS YOU KNOW, OF WIKILEAKS. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST GO TO 30,000 FEET FOR A SECOND BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THIS ALL HAPPENED WITHIN A SYSTEM, A VERY VULNERABLE, VERY FRAIL ELECTION SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY.

11,000 JURISDICTIONS IN THE COUNTRY. AND THE SYSTEM IS AGING. AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, LESTER. BUT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO DEMAND THAT WE UPGRADE THIS VERY FRAGILE STRUCTURE. I MEAN, IT'S SHOCKING. 38 STATES HAVE AT LEAST ONE OR MORE JURISDICTIONS WHERE THE ELECTION MACHINERY THERE OPERATED WITH IS NO LONGER MANUFACTURED. AT LEAST EIGHT STATES HAVE SYSTEMS THAT IN THE ENTIRE STATE THERE IS NO PAPER BACKUP. SO IF THERE IS AN IRREGULARITY, IT CAN'T BE ADJUDICATED FAIRLY. SO REALLY THIS WHOLE ENTIRE HEARING COULD BE HEARD AS A WAY TO, YOU KNOW, MOTIVATE CONGRESS APPROPRIATE SOME MORE MONEY PERHAPS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO VENT THEIR OUTRAGE THAT WE HAVE DONE VERY LITTLE SINCE 2016 TO PROTECT THIS VULNERABLE STRUCTURE.

THAT'S NOT EVEN INCLUDING THE DISINFORMATION CONCERNS. >> AND I WANT TO RING IN RICHARD ENGEL IN THE CONVERSATION WHO COVERED A LOT OF THIS FROM RUSSIA. RICHARD, SOME OF US SEE THE DOUBT IN THE QUESTIONING ABOUT WHETHER THIS WAS TRULY A RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OPERATION, THAT THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY WASN'T WORKING AS AN AGENT OF THE RUSSIANS. WHAT DO WE KNOW? >> SO I THINK IF YOU'RE VLADIMIR PUTIN AND YOU ARE WATCHING THIS RIGHT NOW, YOU ARE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT IS GOING ON. YOU SEE HALF OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE THERE QUESTIONING TRYING TO PUT THE WORDS INTO ROBERT MUELLER'S MOUTH, ALMOST BEGGING HIM TO TELL A COMPELLING STORY TO MAKE THIS MOVIE BETTER THAN THE BOOK, TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THE REPUBLICANS LOOKING FOR MISTAKES, TRYING TO HURT HIS CREDIBILITY, TRYING TO TRIP HIM UP. SO IF YOU ARE RUSSIA LOOKING BACK AND YOU SEE THIS DIVISION. YOU SEE THIS CONFUSION, I THINK YOU'RE QUITE CONVINCED THAT NOT ONLY DID YOU GET AWAY WITH IT BUT THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW COSTS TO TRYING TO DO IT AGAIN. GOING — AT THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY, JUST AS ONE EXAMPLE, THIS WAS THE GROUP OF HACKERS, A HACKER ACADEMY THAT WAS RUN BY A CLOSE CONFIDANT OF VLADIMIR PUTIN. HE IS SOMETIMES KNOWN AS PUTIN'S CHEF. HE IS A WELL KNOWN OLIGARCH, AND HE USED THIS SQUAD OF HACKERS NOT ONLY TO CREATE FALSE INFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA, BUT ALSO IN SOME CASES TO PUT PEOPLE ON THE GROUND, TO ORGANIZE PROTESTS ON AMERICAN STREETS, SOMETIMES COMPETING PROTESTS.

SO PROPAGANDA OPERATION TO SWAY VOTES, BUT ALSO PHYSICAL DISRUPTION OPERATIONS. THESE HAPPENED. WE HAVE SPOKEN TO INDEPENDENT EXPERTS WHO HAVE LOOKED THROUGH THE INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY. WE HAVE DONE STORIES ON IT ON NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS" AND OTHER PLATFORMS DESCRIBING EXACTLY HOW THIS PLAYED OUT. YET, THERE ARE SEEMINGLY NO CONSEQUENCES TO THESE ACTIONS WHEN YOU HAVE THIS INCREDIBLY DIVIDED DEBATE WHERE SOME PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DRAG THE STORY OUT OF RELUCTANT WITNESS AND OTHERS TRYING TO SAY THERE IS NOTHING THERE AT ALL. >> SO CYNTHIA AND RICHARD'S POINT, ONE OF THE REASONS, THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE, SOME EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE, BUT NOT A GOVERNMENT-WIDE EFFORT IS THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS STOOD IN HIS THINKING AND ELSEWHERE AT THE G-20 IN HAMBURG INITIALLY AND THEN AGAIN IN JAPAN AND DEFENDED VLADIMIR PUTIN AGAINST THE ADVICE OF HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE AGEAGENCIES.

YOU HAVE HAD COMPLETE TURMOIL IN THAT DEPARTMENT WHICH WAS LED BY JAKE JOHNSON UNDER OBAMA AND THEY HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED FOR NOT DOING ENOUGH, BUT THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE CABINET AGENCIES AND A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES LEADING THIS. AND AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, A SECRETARY OF STATE ARGUABLY AND OTHER CABINET OFFICIALS FROM AN ACTING CAPACITY FOR MONTHS AT A TIME, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DEFEND AGAINST IT, ESPECIALLY AT HOMELAND. THAT'S WHERE IT ALL RESIDES. AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAD TO MAKE THE DECISION THAT THIS IS CRITICAL.

AND HE AGREES WITH THE RUSSIANS. >> BUT WHAT HAS HE ACKNOWLEDGED? I FEEL LIKE WE HEARD BOTH VERSIONS THAT, YES, SOMETHING HAPPENED OR NO, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. >> HE SAID SPECIFICALLY THAT WELL, YOU KNOW, HE WAS ASKED, DO YOU AGREE WITH YOUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OR PUTIN? HE SAID, WELL, HE DENIED IT. AND HE HAS CONSISTENTLY SIGNALLED THAT HE DOES NOT ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION. >> ACTUALLY, I THINK THE REAL ISSUE HERE WITH THIS PRESIDENT IS HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT HIM IS HE'S TRANSACTIONAL IN NATURE. HIS DEFENSE AND HIS RATIONALIZATION OF THIS IS, WELL, ANYBODY ELSE WOULD HAVE DONE IT. HOW MANY TIMES HAS HE STEP THERE HAD? ANYBODY WOULD HAVE TAKEN THAT MEETING. IT'S OPPOSITION RESEARCH. THIS IS POLITICS. AGAIN, WE CAN'T CRAWL INSIDE HIS HEAD. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE'S ACTING THIS WAY BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE DID SOMETHING WRONG OR HE BELIEVES THERE IS NOTHING WRONG TO IT. BUT HE DOESN'T VIEW THIS ARIZONA SERIOUS AS OTHERS DO, AND THAT IS, I THINK, WHAT'S SO ALARMING TO SO MANY POLICYMAKERS BECAUSE YOU ARE LIKE, IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ISN'T TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY, THEN THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT IS HAM STRUNG.

>> WHEN I READ THE REPORT, THERE WAS A BIG STARTLING NUMBER IN IT. IT WAS THAT 126 MILLION PEOPLE ACCORDING TO FACEBOOK HAD CONTACT WITH THE RUSSIAN TROLL OPERATION. THEY HAD SEEN IT, VISITED THE WEB PAGE, INTERACTED IN SOME WAY. THAT MOMENT OCCURRED TODAY AS WELL IN THE MOVIE, IN THE HEARING. BUT IT GOES BY SO QUICKLY SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO STOP AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST HEARD, HOW SUCCESSFUL THE RUSSIANS WERE. 126 MILLION AMERICANS REPRESENTS 39% OF OUR POPULATION. 2 OUT OF 5 AMERICANS WERE AFFECTED JUST BY THE FACEBOOK OPERATION THAT THE RUSSIANS RAN AGAINST US. AND, SO — AND ANDREA AND CHUCK BOTH MADE THIS POINT AND THEY MADE IT WELL, WE NEED LEADERSHIP IN THIS COUNTRY THAT TAKES THAT THREAT SERIOUSLY, THAT RECOGNIZES IT FOR WHAT IT IS. IT WAS A STARTLING NUMBER AND IT JUST PASSED LIKE THAT. I'M WORRIED WE DON'T LISTEN TO IT. >> AND THEY WERE FAKE RALLIES, THE RALLY IN TEXAS WAS A COMPLETE RUSSIAN FAKE. THERE WERE BLACK LIVES MATTER — >> YOU SHOW THAT RALLY SO PEOPLE CAN SEE HOW IT CAME.

>> WE'RE LESS THAN TWO MINUTES AWAY FROM THE HEARING RESUMING. I DO WANT TO GO TO HALEY JACKSON RIGHT NOW. ARE WE HEARING FROM THE PRESIDENT? >> WE ARE, LESTER. HE HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY THROUGHOUT THIS HEARING PROCESS TWEETING VARIOUS CLIPS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND VARIOUS COMMENTS FROM CABLE CLIPS. WE ARE ALSO GETTING AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. THE NEW PRESS SECRETARY IS CALLING TODAY IN HER WORDS AN EPIC EMBARRASSMENT FOR THE DEMOCRATS. THAT'S HOW SHE CHARACTERIZED THE FIRST HALF OF TODAY'S HEARING AND WHAT SHE EXPECTS TO SEE MORE OF IN THE SECOND HALF. IT TURNS OUT, BY THE WAY, DURING THE BREAK HERE, ONE OF THE PRESIDENT'S TOP ALLIES, CONGRESSMAN MARK MEADOWS, ARRIVED HERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE, LESTER. >> ALL RIGHT. AND THE DIRECTOR RETURNING BACK TO THE HEARING ROOM ABOUT TO TAKE HIS SEAT. THEY WILL GO BACK TO THE QUESTIONING. AGAIN, THIS IS THE SECOND OF TWO HEARINGS TODAY, AND THIS ONE PRIMARILY FOCUSSING ON THE CENTRAL PART OF THE CASE, WHICH WAS RUSSIAN INFLUENCE IN THE 2016 CAMPAIGN AND THE REPORT'S CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS MADE TO BENEFIT A PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP OR THEN CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP.

WE HEARD THE DIRECTOR IN HIS TESTIMONY TODAY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THAT WAS THE BELIEF THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO GLEAM FROM THEIR INVESTIGATION. >> THE MEETING WILL COME TO ORDER. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR. >> THANK YOU. DIRECTOR MUELLER, AS A PROSECUTOR, YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IF A WITNESS OR SUSPECT LIES OR OBSTRUCTS OR TAMPERS WITH WITNESSES OR DESTROYS EVIDENCE DURING AN INVESTIGATION THAT GENERALLY THAT CONDUCT CAN BE USED TO SHOW A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> YES. >> LET'S GO THROUGH THE DIFFERENT PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THIS INVESTIGATION WHO LIED TO YOU AND OTHER INVESTIGATORS TO COVER UP THEIR DISLOYAL AND UNPATRIOTIC CONDUCT. IF WE COULD PUT EXHIBIT 8 UP. DIRECTOR MUELLER, I'M SHOWING YOU PAUL MANAFORT, ROGER STONE, DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER RICK GATES, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MICHAEL FLYNN, DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY MICHAEL COHEN AND FORMER POLICY ADVISER GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS.

THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED OR CONVICTED OF LYING TO YOUR OFFICE; IS THAT RIGHT? >> MR. STONE IS — HE IS IN A DIFFERENT CASE HERE IN D.C. >> SO NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER FLYNN LIED ABOUT DISCUSSIONS WITH RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR RELATED TO SANCTIONS; IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, THE PRESIDENT'S SENIOR FOREIGN POLICY ADVISER, 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 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, QUESTION. GENERALLY ANY CASE WOULD BE IF THOSE KINDS OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH USED. >> FOR EXAMPLE, YOU NOTED THAT DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER RICK GATES, WHO SHARED INTERNAL CAMPAIGN POLLING DATA WITH A PERSON WITH TIES OF RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, THAT MR. GATES DELETED THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ON A DAILY BASIS; IS THAT RIGHT. >> I TAKE YOUR WORD. I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY, BUT IF IT'S IN THE REPORT, THEN I SUPPORT IT. >> IT'S VOLUME 1, PAGE 36.

>> THANK YOU. >> IN ADDITION TO THAT, OTHER INFORMATION WAS INACCESSIBLE BECAUSE YOUR OFFICE DETERMINED IT WAS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS TRUE. >> THAT WOULD INCLUDE THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP AND HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEYS AND OTHERS DISCOURAGED OTHERS FROM COOPERATING WITH THE GOVERNMENT? >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. >> YOU CAN'T TALK TO WHETHER OR NOT PARDONS WERE DANGLED BECAUSE OF THE SHIELD OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. >> NO, 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.? >> AND I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THAT. >> DID YOU WANT TO INTERVIEW THE PRESIDENT? >> YES. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, ON JANUARY 1st, 2017 THROUGH MARCH 2019, DONALD TRUMP MET WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN IN PERSON SIX TIMES, CALLED HIM TEN TIMES AND EXCHANGED FOUR LETTERS WITH HIM.

BETWEEN THAT TIME PERIOD, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU MEET WITH DONALD TRUMP? >> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. >> HE DID NOT MEET WITH YOU IN PERSON; IS THAT CORRECT? >> HE DID NOT. >> AS A RESULT OF LIES, DELETION OF TEXT MESSAGES, OBSTRUCTION AND WITNESS TAMPERING, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU WERE UNABLE TO FULLY ASSESS THE SCOPE AND SCALE OF RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION AND TRUMP'S ROLE IN THAT INTERFERENCE? >> I'M NOT SURE I WOULD ADOPT THAT CHARACTERIZATION IN TOTAL. MAYBE PIECES OF IT ARE ACCURATE, BUT NOT IN TOTAL.

>> BUT YOU DID STATE IN VOLUME ONE PAGE 10 THAT WHILE THIS REPORT EMBODIED FACTUAL AND LEGAL DETERMINATIONS, THE OFFICE BELIEVES IT TO BE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. 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 WITNESS GOES TO THE HEART OF JUST ABOUT ANY CRIMINAL CASE YOU HAVE.

>> THANK YOU. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I YIELD BACK. AND THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MULLEN. >> 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 OCCASIONS. >> WAS THE STEELE DOSSIER ONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED? >> I CAN'T REVIEW THAT CASE. >> I'M JUST ASKING A PROCESS QUESTION. HAVE YOU READ THE STEEL DOSSIER? >> AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT. >> YOU WERE TASKED 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 CIA INVESTIGATION. WERE YOU AND YOUR TEAM PERMITTED TO ACCESS ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS? >> AND AGAIN I CAN'T GET INTO THAT INVESTIGATIVE — WHAT WE CAN — WHAT WE COLLECTED AND WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE INVESTIGATION MATERIALS.

>> LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY. WAS THERE ANY LIMITATION IN YOUR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION? >> THAT'S SUCH A BROAD QUESTION. I HAVE REAL TROUBLE ANSWERING. >> 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 STEEL DOSSIER FORMED PART OF THE BASIS TO JUSTIFY THE INVESTIGATION 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 EVIDENCES TO IDENTIFY STEELE'S SOURCES OR SUB SOURCES? >> AGAIN, THE SAME ANSWER. >> WERE THESE TASKS REFERRED TO ANY OTHER AGENCY? >> AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

>> 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 OVER SEAS 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 BAILIWICK. >> DID THEY MEET WITH FOREIGN PRIVATE CITIZENS? >> AGAIN, SAME RESPONSE. >> DID THEY SEEK INFORMATION ABOUT A U.S. CITIZEN? >> AGAIN, I'M IN TERRITORY THAT I CANNOT GO TO. >> THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING ON THE RECORD. THESE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THE IHA IS ABLE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

I WILL YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO THE RANKING MEMBER. >> THANK THE GENTLE LADY FOR YIELDING. MR. MUELLER, I WANT TO GO BACK TO — WE STARTED OFF WITH JOSEPH . HE IS AT THE ORIGIN OF THIS. HE IS THE MAN WHO SUPPOSEDLY KNOWS ABOUT CLINTON'S E-MAILS. YOU 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 MIFSUP, WHO SEEMS TO BE THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THIS. >> WELL, I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND I CANNOT GET INTO EITHER CLASSIFIED OR LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION WITHOUT A RATIONAL FOR DOING IT. AND I HAVE SAID ALL I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY WITH REGARD TO MR.

MIFSUP. >> WERE YOU AWARE OF KATHLEEN'S INVOLVEMENT THAT SHE HAD MET WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL — >> AGAIN, I CAN'T RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION. IT'S OUTSIDE MY JURISDICTION. >> OKAY. THE CARTER PAIGE FISA WARRANT WAS REUPPED THREE TIMES. THE LAST TIME IT WAS REUPPED WAS UNDER YOUR WATCH. WERE YOU IN THE APPROVAL OF THAT THE LAST TIME. >> WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT YOUR WARRANT, BUT IF YOU ASK WAS I IN THE APPROVAL CHAIN, THE ANSWER IS NO.

>> OKAY. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AND YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. DONALD TRUMP OVER THE YEARS HAS SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH SOME SHADY PEOPLE, PEOPLE THAT LIED FOR HIM, PEOPLE THAT COVERED UP FOR HIM, PEOPLE THAT HELPED HIM ENRICH HIMSELF. I WANT TO TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES THAT'S IN YOUR REPORT, SPECIFICALLY LET'S TURN TO THE TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW PROJECT WHICH YOU DESCRIBED IN YOUR REPORT AS A, QUOTE, HIGHLY LUCRATIVE DEAL FOR THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION. IS THAT RIGHT? >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE QUOTE IF YOU HAVE IT. >> SURE. IT IS VOLUME 2, PAGE 135. IT IS DESCRIBED AS HIGHLY LUCRATIVE. >> OKAY. I HAVE IT. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> YEAH, NO PROBLEM. YOUR OFFICE PROSECUTED MICHAEL COHEN AND MICHAEL COHEN WAS DONALD TRUMP'S LAWYER FOR LYING TO THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT SEVERAL ASPECTS OF THE TRUMP 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 CONTRADICT 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 COULD INTERJECT. ONE THING I SHOULD HAVE SAID, THE OUTSET. IT WAS IN THE REPORT AND CONSEQUENTLY I DO BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. >> THANK YOU. THE PARTY LINE IN THIS CASE WAS THAT THE DEAL ENDED IN JANUARY 2016. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE SAYING THAT THE DEAL 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 — AND PART OF THE BASIS FOR THAT 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 — IF IT'S NOT REPORT, THAT IS ACCURATE, RESUSCITATION 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 THAT 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. THAT STATEMENT BY PUTIN'S PRESS SECRETARY WAS FALSE, WASN'T IT? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

>> ALTHOUGH, IT WAS WIDELY REPORTED IN THE PRESS. >> AGAIN, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT, PARTICULARLY IF THERE 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 COULD GO THAT FAR. >> SO COHEN, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE KREMLIN WERE ALL TELLING THE SAME LIE. >> I DEFER TO YOU ON THAT. I CAN'T GET INTO THE DETAILS. >> SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER, I WANT TO ASK YOU SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATION. DID YOUR INVESTIGATION EVALUATE WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD BE VULNERABLE TO BLACKMAIL BY THE RUSSIANS BECAUSE THE KREMLIN KNEW THAT TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATES LIED ABOUT CONNECTIONS TO RUSSIA RELATED TO THE TRUMP TOWER DEAL? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

>> I YIELD BACK, CHAIRMAN. >>> MR. HURT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT COLLUSION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, 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.

SOME OF THAT HAVE BEEN WRONG AND SOME HAVE BEEN ACCURATE. ON APRIL 13th, 2018, IT WAS REPORTED THAT YOU HAD EVIDENCE MICHAEL COHEN MADE A SECRET TRIP TO PRAGUE DURING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. HE TOLD ONE OF THE COMMITTEES IN CONGRESS THAT WAS INCORRECT. THAT IS TRUE? >> I CAN'T GO INTO IT. >> GOT YOU. ON OCTOBER 31st, 2016, SLATE PUBLISHED A REPORT SUGGESTING THAT A SERVER AT TRUMP TOWER WAS SECRETLY COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIA'S ALPHA BANK. AND I QUOTE, AKIN TO WHAT CRIMINAL SYNDICATES DO. DO YOU KNOW IF THAT STORY IS TRUE? >> DO NOT. DO NOT. >> YOU DO NOT KNOW. >> DO NOT KNOW WHETHER IT IS TRUE. >> DID YOU NOT INVESTIGATE THESE ALLEGATIONS WHICH ARE SUGGESTED? >> BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS NOT TRUE DOES NOT MEAN IT WOULD NOT BE INVESTIGATED. IT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED.

ALTHOUGH, MY BELIEF AT THIS POINT IS NOT TRUE. >> COPY. THANK YOU. AS A FORMER CIA OFFICER, I WANT TO FOCUS ON SOMETHING I THINK BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL AISLE CAN AGREE ON, THAT IS HOW DO WE PREVENT RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE AND OTHER ADVERSARIES FROM DOING THIS AGAIN. AND AFTER OVERSEEING A COUNTER INTELLIGENCE OPERATION 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 WOULD IMPROVE ITS VICTIM NOTIFICATION PROCESS WHEN A PERSON, ENTITY OR CAMPAIGN HAS FALLEN VICTIM TO ACTIVE MEASURES ATTACK. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THIS? >> IT SOUNDS LIKE A WORTHWHILE ENDEAVOR.

I WILL TELL YOU, THOUGH, THAT THE ABILITY OF OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER IN THIS ARENA IS PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT. AND ADOPTING WHATEVER — AND I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH LEGISLATION, BUT WHATEVER LEGISLATION WILL ENCOURAGE US WORKING TOGETHER, BY US I MEAN THE FBI, CIA AND THE REST SHOULD BE PURSUED AGGRESSIVELY EARLY. >> WHO DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO COUNTER DISINFORMATION? >> I'M NO LONGER IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. >> BUT YOU HAD A LONG, STORIED CAREER AND I DON'T THINK THERE IS 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 THAT ENTITY? >> 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 THAT YOU ASKED, BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO ORGANIZE POLITICAL RALLIES AFTER THE ELECTION. OUR COMMITTEE ISSUES A REPORT 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 WE HAVE TO LOOK AT AND MANY MORE COMPANIES — NOT COMPANIES.

MANY MORE COUNTRIES ARE DEVELOPING THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE WHAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE DONE. >> YOU ELUDED TO MAKING SURE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE WORKING TOGETHER. DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION ON A STRATEGY TO DO THAT TO COUNTER THE DISINFORMATION? >> NOT OVERARCHING IT. >> IS THIS — IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, DID YOU THINK THAT THIS WAS A SINGLE ATTEMPT BY THE RUSSIANS TO GET INVOLVED IN YOUR ELECTION OR DID YOU FIND EVIDENCE TO STRUGT THEY WOULD DO THIS AGAIN. >> 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, ENCOURAGING THE 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, WAS THAT I SHOULD NEVER UNDERESTIMATE PEOPLE TO CUT CORNERS IN ORDER TO WORSHIP AND CHASE THE ALMIGHTY BUCK. THIS GOES TO WHY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS SO UNRELENTINGLY INTENT ON DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE KREMLIN. LET'S VISIT ONE FINANCIAL SCHEME WE JUST DISCUSSED, WHICH WAS THE TRUMP TOWER IN MOSCOW.

WE INDICATED EARLIER THAT IT WAS A LUCRATIVE DEAL. TRUMP, IN FACT, STOOD IN HIS COMPANY TO EARN MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THAT DEAL, DID THEY NOT, SIR? >> TRUE. >> AND COHEN TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP BELIEVED THE DEAL REQUIRED KREMLIN APPROVAL. IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE TOLD YOU. >> I'M NOT SURE WHETHER IT WAS MR. TRUMP HIMSELF. >> ISN'T IT ALSO TRUE THAT DONALD TRUMP VIEWED HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AS HE TOLD TOP CAMPAIGN AIDS THAT THE CAMPAIGN WAS AN INFOMERCIAL FOR THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION AND HIS PROPERTIES? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

>> LET'S TURN TO TRUMP CAMPAIGN CHAIR PAUL MANAFORT. DID YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT MANAFORT INTENDED TO USE HIS POSITION AS CAMPAIGN CHAIR FOR HIS OWN FINANCIAL BENEFIT? >> 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 KUSHNER MET WITH 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 OF CEO OF KUSHNER COMPANIES TO DISCUSS BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? >> I'M NOT CERTAIN. >> IT WAS — >> I'M NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THAT. LET ME JUST PUT IT THAT WAY. >> IT WAS ASSERTED THUSLY IN YOUR REPORT, VOLUME 1, ON 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 FLAG SHIPBUILDING AT 666 FIFTH AVENUE, CORRECT? >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THOSE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. >> ALSO ON PAGE 162 WHERE KUSHNER COMPANIES IT WAS ASSERTED HAD DEBT OBLIGATIONS COMING THROUGH ON THE COMPANY.

A SUPPORTER CLOSE TO TRUMP — >> A SUPPORTER. A SUPPORTER, I WAS — >> YES. HE MET DURING THE TRANSITION WITH THE HEAD OF A SANCTIONED GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT ARM WHICH HAD CLOSE TIES TO VLADIMIR PUTIN, CORRECT, SIR? >> YES. >> YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINED THAT MR. PRANCE HAD NOT KNOWN NOR CONDUCTED BUSINESS WITH HIM BEFORE TRUMP WON THE ELECTION, CORRECT? >> I DEFER TO THE REPORT ON THAT. >> YET, IT DOES AND YET PRANCE WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO TOP TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MET WITH DIMITROV DURING THE TRANSITION TO DISCUSS BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES AMONG OTHER THINGS. BUT IT WASN'T JUST TRUMP AND HIS ASSOCIATES TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OFF THIS DEAL, NOR HIDE IT, NOR LIE ABOUT IT. RUSSIA WAS, TOO. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT, TO GAIN RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, WHICH WOULD HUGELY BENEFIT THEIR INCREDIBLY WEALTHY OLIGARCHS. FOR EXAMPLE, SANCTIONS RELIEF WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT JUNE 9th MEETING IN THE TRUMP TOWER, WAS IT NOT, SIR? >> YES. ALTHOUGH, IT WAS NOT A MAIN SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION. >> TRUMP ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER MICHAEL FLYNN ALSO DISCUSSED SANCTIONS IN A SECRET CONVERSATION WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR, DID HE NOT? >> CORRECT.

>> SO TO SUMMARIZE, DONALD TRUMP, MICHAEL COHEN, PAUL MANAFORT, JARED KUSHNER 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 ADAPT. >> I WILL. AND I FURTHER ASSERT THAT WAS NOT ONLY DANGEROUS BUT UN-AMERICAN. >> GREED CORRUPTS AND IS A TERRIBLE FOUNDATION FOR DEVELOPING AMERICAN POLICY.

>> DIRECTOR MUELLER, GIVEN YOUR CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT YOU ARE ABLE TO ALLOW OR ANSWER WITH YOUR RESPECT MATTERS OR OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPEN AND UNDER INVESTIGATION, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER MY REMAINING QUESTIONS. SO I THANK YOU FOR THE COURTESIES YOU HAVE GIVEN IN MY ANSWERS TO THE 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. >> LET ME ASSOCIATE MY WORDS. I WANT TO CLEAN UP THE ERIC PRINCE MEETING. HE TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT HE WAS SURVEILLED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THE INFORMATION FROM THIS SURVEILLANCE WAS LEAKED TO THE PRESS. DID YOU INVESTIGATE WHETHER CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ON HIM WAS LEAKED TO THE MEDIA? >> DID YOU OR WILL YOU? >> I KNOW YOU CAN'T. I KNOW YOU ARE NOT GOING TO JOIN BACK UP IN THE RANKS. BUT DID YOU REFER — WERE YOU AWARE THAT HE WAS SURVEILLED. HE'S CONCERNED THERE WERE LEAKS ABOUT THIS SURVEILLANCE.

DID YOU MAKE ANY REFERRALS ABOUT THESE? >> 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 THE FBI, IT WOULD BE A MAJOR SCANDAL, WOULDN'T IT, FOR THE LEAK OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND ANYONE. >> I CAN'T OFFER A HYPOTHESIS. >> DID YOUR REPORT NAME ANY PEOPLE WHO WERE ACTING AS U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMANTS OR SOURCES WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT FACT? >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. >> ON VOLUME 1, PAGE 133 OF YOUR REPORT, YOU STATE THAT CON STAN TEEN HAD TIES TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. THE REPORT OMITS TO MENTION THAT HE HAS LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP WITH U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, INCLUDING OUR OWN STATE DEPARTMENT. >> I CAN'T BE — I CAN'T GET INTO THAT. >> I KNOW IT'S NOT IN THE REPORT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF HE IS BEING USED IN THE REPORT TO SAY THAT HE WAS POSSIBLY SOME TYPE OF RUSSIAN AGENT, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO KNOW IF KLIMNIK HAS TIES TO OUR OWN STATE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IT APPEARS THAT HE DOES.

>> AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME TERRITORY THAT I CAN'T GET INTO. >> YOU WERE ASKED THIS EARLIER ABOUT TRUMP ATTORNEY JOHN DOWD, THAT PIECES OF HIS PHONE CALLS WERE OMITTED FROM THE REPORT. IT WAS WHAT MR. DOWD CALLED ELSE EVIDENCE. >> I'M NOT CERTAIN I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT KRAKTIZATION. I SAID THAT BEFORE. >> AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FROM THE REPUBLIC OF GEORGIA WHO YOUR REPORT MISIDENTIFIED AS A RUSSIAN CLAIMS THAT YOUR REPORT OMITTED PARTS OF A TEXT MESSAGE HE HAD WITH MICHAEL COHEN ABOUT STOPPING THE FLOW OF COMPROMISING TAPES OF DONALD TRUMP.

AND 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, SO I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PARTICULAR EPISODE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. MUELLER. >> DIRECTO MUELLER, DID YOU FIND THERE WAS NO COLLUSION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA? >> WELL, WE DON'T USE THE WORD COLLUSION. THE WORD WE USUALLY USE IS THE — WELL, NOT COLLUSION, BUT ONE OF THE OTHER TERMS THAT SPILLS 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? >> YES. >> YOU HELP ME. I'LL HELP YOU. IT'S AN AGREEMENT. YOU HAD TO THEN MAKING 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'LL GO THROUGH SOME OF THE SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS THAT YOUR EXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION MADE. YOU FOUND, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT FROM MAY 2016 UNTIL THE END OF THE CAMPAIGN, CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN MR. MANAFORT GAVE PRIVATE POLLING INFORMATION TO RUSSIAN AGENTS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> COULD YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? >> I WILL. MY APOLOGIES. >> YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT IN JUNE 2016 DONALD TRUMP JR. MADE AN ARRANGEMENT TO MEET AT TRUMP TOWER ALONG WITH JARED KUSHNER AND OTHERS EXPECTING TO RECEIVE DIRT ON THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND YOU FOUND IN YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT ON JULY 27th, CANDIDATE TRUMP CALLED ON RUSSIA TO HACK HILLARY CLINTON'S E-MAILS, SOMETHING THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME THEY DID ABOUT >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU ALSO FOUND THAT ON AUGUST 2ND, MR. MANAFORT MEDWITH A PERSON TIED TO RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, MR. KILIMNIK, AND GAVE HIM INTERNAL CAMPAIGN STRATEGY, AWARE THAT RUSSIA WAS INTENDING TO DO A MISINFORMATION SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >> I'M NOT CERTAIN OF THE TIE THERE. >> THE FACT OF THAT MEETING YOU AGREE WITH IN.

>> IT'S CONSIDERATE. >> YOUR INVESTIGATION ALSO FOUND IN LATE SUMMER OF 2016, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, IN FACT, DEVISED ITS STRATEGY AND MESSAGING AROUND WIKILEAKS RELEASES OF INFORMATION THAT WAS STOLEN FROM COMMITTEE. >> IS THAT FROM THE REPORT? >> YES, ACCORDING TO MR. GATES. YES, THANK YOU. YOU ALSO TALKED EARLIER ABOUT THE FINDING IN YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER OF 2016, DONALD TRUMP JR. HAD E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS WITH WIKILEAKS, NOW INDICTED, ABOUT RELEASING INFORMATION DAMAGING TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, CORRECT? >> TRUE. TRUE. >> ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND YOU MADE A DECISION, PROSECUTORIAL DECISION, THIS WOULD NOT RISE TO PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I ASK IF YOU SHARE MY CONCERN. MY CONCERN IS HAVE WE ESTABLISHED THE NEW NORMAL FROM THIS PAST CAMPAIGN THAT IS GOING TO APPLY TO FUTURE CAMPAIGNS? THAT IF ANY OF US RUNNING FOR THE U.S. HOUSE, ANY CANDIDATE FOR THE U.S. SENATE, ANY CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, AWARE THAT IF HOSTILE FOREIGN POWERS ARE TRYING TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION HAS NO DUTY TO REPORT THAT TO THE FBI OR OTHER AUTHORITIES? >> I HOPE THIS IS NOT THE NEW NORMAL, BUT I FEAR IT IS.

>> AND WOULD IN FACT HAVE THE ABILITY WITHOUT FEAR OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS TO MEET WITH AGENTS OF THAT FOREIGN ENTITY HOSTILE TO THE AMERICAN ELECTION? >> WHAT'S THE QUESTION? >> IS THAT AN APPREHENSION 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 LINE OF DEFENSE, REALLY, IS THE ABILITY OF THE VARIOUS AGENCIES WHO HAVE SOME PIECE OF THIS TO NOT ONLY SHARE INFORMATION, BUT SHARE EXPERTISE, SHARE TARGETS AND USE THE FULL RESOURCES WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM.

>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER, I YIELD BACK. >> MR. MALONEY. >> THANK YOU I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR HOW MUCH RESPECT FOR HAVE FOR YOUR SERVICE AND YOUR EXTRAORDINARY CAREER. I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND MY QUESTIONS IN THAT CONTEXT, SIR. I'M GOING TO BE ASKING YOU ABOUT APPENDIX C TO YOUR REPORT. IN PARTICULAR, THE DECISION NOT TO DO A SWORN INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT. 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 IN THE MICROPHONE. >> OF COURSE. AFTER WE BEGAN THE INVESTIGATION, ONE OF THE THINGS WE ANTICIPATED WANTING TO ACCOMPLISH, THAT IS HAVING THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT. WE NEGOTIATED FROM — WITH HIM FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR. I THINK WHAT YOU AVERTED TO IN THE APPENDIX LAYS OUT OUR EXPECTATIONS AS A RESULT OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.

BUT FINALLY, WHEN WE WERE ALMOST TOWARDS THE END OF OUR INVESTIGATION, AND WE'D HAD LITTLE SUCCESS IN PUSHING TO GET THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT, WE DECIDED THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO EXERCISE THE SUBPOENA POWERS BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF EXPEDITING THE END OF THE INVESTIGATION. >> EXCUSE ME. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY THE EXPECTATION WAS IF WE DID SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT, HE WOULD FIGHT THE SUBPOENA AND WE WOULD BE IN THE MIDST OF THE INVESTIGATION FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME. >> RIGHT, BUT AS WE SIT HERE, YOU'VE NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE PRESIDENT IN PERSON QUESTIONS UNDER OATH, AND SO OBVIOUSLY THAT MUST HAVE BEEN A DIFFICULT DECISION.

YOU'RE RIGHT, APPENDIX C LAYS THAT OUT. I BELIEVE YOU DESCRIBE THE IN PERSON INTERVIEW AS VITAL, THAT'S YOUR WORDS. YOU MAKE CLEAR YOU HAD THE AUTHORITY AND LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO DO IT. AS YOU POINT OUT, YOU WAITED A YEAR, MADE NUMEROUS ACCOMMODATIONS WHICH YOU LAY OUT SO HE COULD PREPARE AND NOT BE SURPRISED. YOU WERE TRYING TO BE FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT. BY THE WAY, YOU WERE GOING TO LIMIT THE QUESTIONS WHEN YOU GOT TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO RUSSIA ONLY.

AND IN FACT, HE DID GO WITH WRITTEN QUESTIONS AFTER ABOUT NINE MONTHS, RIGHT? AND THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO THOSE AND YOU HAVE HARD LANGUAGE FOR WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF THOSE RESPONSES. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE PRESIDENT'S WRITTEN RESPONSES, MR. MUELLER? >> CERTAINLY NOT AS USEFUL AS THE INTERVIEW WOULD BE. >> IN FACT, YOU POINTED OUT — BY MY COUNT, THERE WERE MORE THAN 30 TIMES WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAID HE DIDN'T RECALL, DIDN'T REMEMBER, NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION, NO CURRENT RECOLLECTION. I TAKE IT BY YOUR ANSWER IT WASN'T AS HELPFUL, THAT'S WHY YOU USED WORDS LIKE INCOMPLETE, IN PRECISE, INADEQUATE, INSUFFICIENT, IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF THOSE WRITTEN ANSWERS? >> THAT IS A FAIR SUMMARY. I PRESUME THAT COMES FROM THE REPORT.

>> 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. >> FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, SIR, AT ONE POINT IT WAS VITAL AND THEN ANOTHER POINT IT WASN'T VITAL. AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHY DID IT STOP BEING VITAL? I CAN ONLY THINK OF THREE EXPLANATIONS.

ONE IS THAT SOMEBODY TOLD YOU YOU COULDN'T DO IT. NOBODY TOLD YOU YOU COULDN'T SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT? >> NO, WE UNDERSTOOD WE COULD SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT. WE COULD SERVE A SUBPOENA. >> THERE'S TWO OTHER EXPLANATIONS. YOU JUST FLINCHED. YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT AND YOU DIDN'T DO IT. YOU DON'T STRIKE ME AS THE KIND OF GUY THAT FLINCHES. >> I HOPE NOT. >> THE THIRD EXPLANATION — I HOPE NOT, TOO. THE THIRD EXPLANATION I CAN THINK OF IS THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK YOU NEEDED IT. WHAT CAUGHT MY EYE WAS PAGE 13 OF VOLUME II WHERE YOU SAID IN FACT YOU HAD A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF EVIDENCE AND 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 AND YOU USED TERMS LIKE SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S INTENT. MY QUESTION, SIR, DID YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S INTENT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE AND IS THAT WHY YOU DIDN'T DO THE INTERVIEW? >> THERE'S A BALANCE.

IN OTHER WORDS HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAVE THAT SATISFIES THE LAST ELEMENT AGAINST HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU WILLING TO SPEND IN THE COURTS LITIGATING THE CASE. >> YOU FELT YOU HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE? >> WE HAD TO MAKE A BALANCED DECISION IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH EVIDENCE WE HAD COMPARED TO THE LENGTH OF TIME — >> 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? >> CAN YOU STATE THAT AGAIN.

>> IT WAS BETTER THAN THE DELAY TO PRESENT THE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT'S INTENT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THIS COMMITTEE. ISN'T THAT WAY YOU DIDN'T DO THE INTERVIEW? >> THE REASON WE DIDN'T DO THE INTERVIEW IS BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ATTENDANT TO THAT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> MS. DEMINGS. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING A PERSON OF HONOR AND INTEGRITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE NATION. WE'RE CERTAINLY BETTER FOR IT. DIRECTOR MUELLER, I, TOO, WANT TO FOCUS ON THE WRITTEN RESPONSES THAT THE PRESIDENT DID PROVIDE AND THE CONTINUED EFFORTS TO LIE AND COVER UP WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE 2016 ELECTION. WERE THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWERS SUBMITTED UNDER OATH? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU, THEY WERE. WERE THESE ALL THE ANSWERS YOUR OFFICE WANTED TO ASK THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION? >> NOT NECESSARILY. >> THERE WERE OTHER — >> YES. >> — QUESTIONS YOU WANTED TO ANSWER? DID YOU ANALYZE HIS WRITTEN ANSWERS TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CREDIBILITY? >> NO, IT WAS PERHAPS ONE OF THE FACTORS, BUT NOTHING MORE THAN THAT. >> WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S CREDIBILITY? >> THAT I CAN'T GET INTO.

>> I KNOW BASED ON YOUR DECADES OF EXPERIENCE YOU PROBABLY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANALYZE THE CREDIBILITY OF COUNTLESS WITNESSES, BUT YOU WURNTS ABLE TO DO SO WITH THIS WITNESS. >> EVERY WITNESS, PARTICULARLY A LEADING WITNESS, ONE ASSESSES THE CREDIBILITY DAY BY DAY, WITNESS BY WITNESS, DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT. AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. WE STARTED WITH VERY LITTLE, BY THE END WE ENDED UP WITH 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. >> DID YOU ASK THE PRESIDENT IF HE HAD DIRECTED OR SUGGESTED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT TRUMP MOSCOW PROJECTS SHOULD CEASE? >> WHAT? >> CEASE. >> DO YOU HAVE A CITATION? >> YES, WE'RE AT APPENDIX C, SECTION I, 7. >> FIRST PAGE? >> UH-HUH. THE PRESIDENT DID NOT AT ANY TIME SAY THAT THE TRUMP MOSCOW PROJECTS SHOULD CEASE BUT HE HAS SINCE MADE COMMENTS ABOUT THE TOPIC. >> THE QUESTION WAS? >> LET ME GO ON. DID THE PRESIDENT FULLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT TO YOU ABOUT THE TRUMP MOSCOW PROJECT CEASING? AGAIN IN APPENDIX C. >> CAN YOU DIRECT ME TO THE PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH YOU'RE REFERRING TO. >> APPENDIX C-C1. LET ME MOVE FORWARD. NINE DAYS AFTER HE SUBMITTED HIS WRITTEN ANSWERS, DIDN'T THE PRESIDENT SAY, QUOTE, THAT HE DECIDED NOT TO DO THE PROJECT, UNQUOTE? THAT IS IN YOUR REPORT.

>> I AM NOT — I'D ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD TO POINT OUT THE PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH THAT YOU'RE FOCUSED ON. >> WE CAN MOVE ON. DID THE PRESIDENT ANSWER YOUR FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS, ACCORDING TO THE REPORT THERE WERE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S INCOMPLETE ANSWERS ABOUT THE MOSCOW PROJECT. DID THE PRESIDENT ANSWER YOUR FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS EITHER IN WRITING OR ORALLY? WE'RE NOW IN VOLUME II, PAGE 150 THROUGH 151. >> NO. >> HE DID NOT? 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 THROUGH AN INVESTIGATION, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT IN HIS WRITTEN ANSWERS STATED HE DID NOT RECALL HAVING AN ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF WIKILEAKS RELEASES, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.

>> DID YOUR EVIDENCE UNCOVER THAT THE PRESIDENT DID HAVE ADVANCED NOTICE OF THE WIKILEAKS? >> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT AREA. >> DID YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINE AFTER VETTING OF RICK GATES AND MICHAEL COHEN THAT YOU FOUND THEM TO BE CREDIBLE? >> WE FOUND THE PRESIDENT TO BE CREDIBLE? >> YOU FOUND GATES AND COHEN TO BE CREDIBLE IN THEIR STATEMENTS ABOUT WIKILEAKS. >> THOSE AREAS I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS. >> COULD YOU SAY DIRECTOR MUELLER THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS CREDIBLE? >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> ISN'T IT FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWERS WERE NOT ONLY INADEQUATE AND INCOMPLETE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T ANSWER, BUT WHEN HE DID ANSWER HE WASN'T ALWAYS TRUTHFUL. >> I WOULD SAY GENERALLY. >> GENERALLY. IT'S ONE THING FOR THE PRESIDENT TO LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION, FALSELY CLAIMING YOU FOUND NO COLLUSION AND NO OBSTRUCTION. BUT IT'S SOMETHING ELSE ALL TOGETHER FOR HIM TO GET AWAY WITH NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION AND LYING ABOUT THEM. AS A FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OF ALMOST 30 YEARS I FIND THAT A DISGRACE TO OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, I YIELD BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEVOTED SERVICE TO YOUR COUNTRY. EARLIER TODAY, YOU DESCRIBED YOUR REPORT AS DETAILING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >> YES. >> DIRECTOR SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOUR REPORT DID NOT REACH COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR REPORT? >> THAT'S TRUE. >> FOR INSTANCE, 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 ADVERT TO THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE GOALS OF OUR INVESTIGATION, WHICH WERE SECONDARY TO ANY CRIMINAL WRONGDOING 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, THE REPORT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER RUSSIAN OLIGARCHS ENGAGED IN MONEY LAUNDERINGS THROUGH ANY OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUSINESSES, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> 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. >> IN JULY 2017 THE PRESIDENT SAID HIS PERSONAL FINANCES WERE OFF LIMITS OR OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF YOUR INVESTIGATION. 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 MICHAEL FLYNN OF LYING TO FEDERAL AGENTS ABOUT HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SINCE IT WAS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOUR REPORT DID NOT ADDRESS HOW FLYNN'S FALSE STATEMENTS COULD POSE A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS KNEW THE FALSITY OF THOSE STATEMENTS, RIGHT? >> I CANNOT GET INTO THAT MAINLY BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY ELEMENTS OF THE FBI THAT ARE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THAT ISSUE. >> CURRENTLY? >> CURRENTLY. >> THANK YOU. AS YOU NOTED IN VOLUME II OF YOUR REPORT, DONALD TRUMP REPEAT 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 HE MADE ABOUT TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW, CORRECT? >> 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 SUCH AS THE RUSSIANS TOOK IN 2016. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, IS THERE ANY INFORMATION YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH THIS COMMITTEE THAT YOU HAVE NOT SO FAR TODAY.

>> THAT'S BROAD QUESTION. AND IT WOULD TAKE ME A WHILE TO ANSWER TO IT BUT I'LL SAY NO. >> MR. MUELLER, YOU SAID THAT EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE SYSTEMIC AND SWEEPING REACTION 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 AND WHAT I SAID IN MY OPENING STATEMENT THIS MORNING AND HERE THAT 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. NUNES AND MYSELF. MR. NUNES YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >> MR. MUELLER, IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY FOR YOU AND YOU'VE HAD A LONG GREAT CAREER. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LONGTIME SERVICE STARTING IN VIETNAM. OBVIOUSLY IN THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND THE FBI. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR DOING SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DO. YOU CAME HERE UPON YOUR OWN FREE WILL. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY. WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> MR. MUELLER I WANT TO CLOSE OUT MY QUESTIONS, AND RETURN TO THE CONVERSATIONS YOU HAD WITH MR.

WELSH A BIT EARLIER. I WANT TO SEE IF WE CAN BROADEN THE APERTURE. I GATHER THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT KNOWINGLY ASSISTING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE DURING A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IS AN UNETHICAL THING TO DO? >> AND A CRIME. GIVEN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. >> TO THE DEGREE 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 REFERRING TO ETHICAL STANDARDS. WE SHOULD HOLD OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO A STANDARD HIGHER THAN MERE AVOIDANCE OF CRIMINALITY, SHOULDN'T WE? >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> YOU HAVE SERVED THIS COUNTRY FOR DECADES. YOU'VE TAKEN AN OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. YOU HOLD YOURSELF TO A STANDARD DOING WHAT'S RIGHT. >> I WOULD HOPE. >> YOU HAVE. I THINK WE CAN ALL SEE THAT. AND BEFITTING THE TIMES, I'M SURE YOUR AWARD 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 EXPOSED THEM TO COMPROMISE. PARTICULARLY IN DEAL ING WITH FOREIGN POWERS, IS THAT TRUE? >> TRUE. >> 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 ELICIT BUSINESS DEALING, AM I RIGHT? >> YES. >> IT COULD INVOLVE DECEPTION IF YOU'RE LYING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE EXPOSED AND 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. 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 THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE KREMLIN, SOMETHING AT THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION WAS IN CONTACT WITH TO MAKE THAT DEAL HAPPEN.

YOUR REPORT INDICATES THAT MICHAEL COHEN HAD A LONG CONVERSATION ON THE PHONE WITH SOMEONE FROM THAT OFFICE. PRESUMABLY THE RUSSIANS COULD RECORD THAT CONVERSATION, COULD THEY NOT? >> YES. >> SO WE HAVE CANDIDATE TRUMP SAYING WE HAVE NO DEALINGS WITH THE RUSSIANS, BUT THE RUSSIANS HAD A TAPE RECORDING, THEY COULD EXPOSE THAT, COULD THEY NOT? >> YES. >> THAT'S THE STUFF OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE NIGHTMARES, IS IT NOT? >> IT HAS TO DO WITH COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND THE NEED FOR STRONG COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ENTITY. >> IT DOES, INDEED. AND WHEN THIS WAS REVEALED THAT THERE WERE THESE COMMUNICATIONS, NOT WITHSTANDING THE PRESIDENT'S DENIALS, THE PRESIDENT WAS CONFRONTED ABOUT THIS AND HE SAID TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S NOT A CRIME. I THINK YOU AND I HAVE ALREADY AGREED THAT SHOULDN'T BE THE STANDARD, RIGHT, MR. MUELLER? >> TRUE. THE SECOND THING HE SAID WAS WHY SHOULD I MISS OUT ON THOSE OPPORTUNITIES? 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? >> 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 — >> AGAIN, SPECULATION. >> THE DIFFICULTY WITH THIS, OF COURSE, IS WE'RE ALL LEFT TO WONDER WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS REPRESENTING US OR HIS FINANCIAL INTERESTS. THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS. MR. NUNES DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCLUDING REMARKS? >> 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 ELECTION DECIDED BY A HANDFUL OF VOTES IN A FEW KEY STATES. IT TELLS OF A CAMPAIGN SO DETERMINED TODAY CONCEAL THEIR USE OF FOREIGN HELP THAT THEY RISKED GOING TO JAIL BY LYING TO YOU, TO THE FBI AND TO CONGRESS ABOUT IT. INDEED, SOME HAVE GONE TO JAIL OVER SUCH LIES. AND YOUR WORK SPEAKS OF A PRESIDENT WHO COMMITTED COUNTLESS ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE THAT IN MY OPINION AND MANY OTHER PROSECUTORS, HAD IT BEEN ANYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN INDICTED.

NOT WITHSTANDING THE MANY THINGS YOU'VE ADDRESSED TODAY, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS YOU COULDN'T ANSWER GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS YOU'RE OPERATING UNDER. YOU WOULDN'T TELL US IF YOU WOULD INDICT THE PRESIDENT BUT FOR THE OLC OPINION YOU COULD NOT. SO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION WHEN THE PRESIDENT LEAVES OFFICE. BOTH AS TO THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND AS TO THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, THAT AN INDIVIDUAL COORDINATED AND FOR MICHAEL COHEN WENT TO JAIL. YOU WOULD NOT TELL US WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED, NOR DID WE ASK YOU. SINCE IT WAS 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 AND WE MUST DO SO. YOU WOULDN'T TELL US WHETHER PEOPLE STILL SERVING IN THE ADMINISTRATION POSE A RISK OF COMPROMISE AND SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN GIVEN A SECURITY CLEARANCE, SO WE MUST FIND OUT.

WE DID NOT BOTHER TO ASK WHETHER FINANCIAL INDUCEMENTS FROM FOREIGN NATIONS AFFECTED POLICY. WE MUST FIND OUT. BUT ONE THING IS CLEAR FROM YOUR REPORT, YOUR TESTIMONY FROM DIRECTOR WRAY'S STATEMENTS YESTERDAY, THE RUSSIANS MASSIVELY INTERVENED IN 2016 AND THEY'RE 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, WE SHOULD MAKE ALL EFFORTS TO HARDEN OUR ELECTION'S INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAKE SURE THERE'S A PAPER TRAIL FOR ALL VOTING. TO DETER THE RUSSIANS FROM MEDDLING AND TO DISRUPT THEM AND MAKE THEM PAY. THIS BEGINS WITH THE RECOGNITION THAT ACCEPTING FOREIGN HELP IS UNETHICAL AND WRONG. WE CANNOT CONTROL WHAT THE RUSSIANS DO, NOT COMPLETELY, BUT WE CAN DECIDE WHAT WE DO.

AND AT THE CENTURY'S OLD EXPERIMENT WE CALL AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS WORTH CHERISHING. DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR BEING HERE TODAY. BEFORE I ADJOURN, I WOULD LIKE TO EXCUSE YOU AND MR. ZEBLEY. EVERYONE ELSE, PLEASE REMAIN SEATED. >> HE KEPT HIS CARDS CLOSE TO HIS VEST, AND LARGELY STAYED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SCRIPT, IN THIS CASE THE MUELLER REPORT. ROBERT MUELLER FINISHING A VERY, VERY LONG DAY OF TESTIMONY BEFORE TWO CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS. THIS LAST ONE RUNNING OVER TWO HOURS. THE FIRST WAS WELL OVER THREE HOURS. AND AS I SAID HE LARGELY STAYED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES. HOWEVER — AS I BRING ON CHUCK TODD AND ANDREA MITCHELL AND CHUCK ROSENBURG. HOWEVER, DOWN THE STRETCH, HE BECAME A LITTLE MORE IF — ENGAGED. ESPECIALLY WITH THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT. IT BECAME A WRITTEN Q&A. IT SOUNDS LIKE HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ANSWERS HE GOT FROM THE PRESIDENT WERE NOT NECESSARILY TRUTHFUL. >> CERTAINLY INSUFFICIENT. HE CERTAINLY MADE THAT CLEAR, THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO HAVE AN IN-PERSON INTERVIEW. I GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID DURING OUR BREAK, WHICH IS — WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS BEFORE.

WHY IS IT THAT MUELLER SEEMS MORE COMFORTABLE DEFENDING HIS CONCLUSIONS ON WHAT HE DID IN PART ONE AND WHAT HE FOUND IN PART ONE. YOU JUST FEEL IT. HE SEES HE'S MORE COMFORTABLE SHOWING A LITTLE MORE URGENCY AS TO THE CRIME THAT WAS INVESTIGATED. AND, AGAIN, I GO BACK TO I THINK THAT NOW IF YOU WENT BACK AND WATCHED PART ONE AS A VIEWER AND YOU HADN'T READ THE MUELLER REPORT, YOU'D UNDERSTAND THE OBSTRUCTION QUESTIONING BETTER AFTER UNDERSTANDING THE INITIAL EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE OF THE PUSH POINTS, WHETHER IT WAS THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING, TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW. I DO THINK THAT HOUSE DEMOCRATS WERE SORT OF LOOKING AT THIS AS WHAT'S OUR BEST CASE TO MAKE IMPEACHMENT, LEAD WITH OBSTRUCTION, RATHER THAN WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO EXPLAIN WHAT THIS IS ABOUT TO THE PUBLIC. IF YOU DID IT AS WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO EXPLAIN THE REPORT, YOU WOULD HAVE STARTED WITH THE AFTERNOON SESSION FIRST. >> WE KNOW THERE WAS NO CRIME.

SO THE QUESTION, WHAT — >> NO, THERE'S A CRIME. LESTER THERE'S A CRIME. THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT COMMITTED THE CRIME. >> YOU MEAN THE PRESIDENT. >> CORRECT. DID ANY AMERICANS HELP THE RUSSIANS COMMIT THIS CRIME. >> WE DO HAVE THE SOUND RIGHT NOW OF THAT EXCHANGE. IT WILL DRILL DOWN A LITTLE MORE ON OUR CONVERSATION. >> CAN 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 SHOW HE WASN'T ALWAYS BEING TRUTHFUL? >> I WOULD SAY GENERALLY. >> HE OF COURSE WAS CHOOSING HIS WORDS VERY CAREFULLY ALL DAY LONG. THAT QUESTION, THE ANSWER WAS GENERALLY. CHUCK ROSENBURG, WHAT STOOD OUT TO YOU? >> SO THE HARDEST THING TO PROVE IN ANY CASE IS INTENT.

RIGHT? PROSECUTORS ALWAYS STRUGGLE WITH INTENT. ONE WAY YOU PROVE INTENT IS TO TALK TO THE PERSON THAT'S UNDER INVESTIGATION. WE LEARNED THIS MORNING AND AFTERNOON THAT THEY VERY MUCH WANTED TO TALK TO DONALD TRUMP. THEY TRIED FOR OVER A YEAR TO DO IT. HE ONLY RESPONDED TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS ON THE FIRST HALF OF THE REPORT ON THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. AND THAT HIS ANSWERS WERE INPRECISE AND INCOMPLETE AND UNHELPFUL. IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT SURPRISING THAT YOU CAN'T DEMONSTRATE INTENT. YOU DON'T HAVE THE SHOWING TO BRING A CASE IF YOU CAN'T TALK TO THE SUBJECT UNDER INVESTIGATION. >> WELL, WHAT HE SAID IN ANSWER TO CONGRESSWOMAN DENINGS WAS GENERALLY ACCEPTING HER PREMISE WHICH WAS THEY WERE INCOMPLETE, UNHELPFUL AND UNTRUTHFUL. HE SAID GENERALLY HE AGREED WITH THAT. MORE THAN 30 TIMES HE SAID IN HIS WRITTEN ANSWERS THAT HE COULDN'T RECALL. SO THAT WAS INCOMPLETE. NOT HELPFUL. AND THE FACT IS THAT THE TRUMP TEAM, THE TRUMP LAWYERS RAN OUT THE CLOCK IS WHAT HE ACKNOWLEDGES TODAY. FOR MORE THAN A YEAR THEY THOUGHT THEY MIGHT GET THIS INTERVIEW.

THEY STRETCHED IT THEM ALONG, THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE LEGAL COUNSEL, THE PRIVATE COUNSEL, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE WAS THAT FOR MORE THAN A YEAR THEY THOUGHT THEY MIGHT GET HIM. COULD HAVE SUBPOENAED HIM. HE DECIDED IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG TO LITIGATE AND THEY TO COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION, THEY HAD TO WRAP IT UP. HE SAID NOBODY TOLD HIM HE COULD NOT SUBPOENA. ROD ROSENSTEIN — >> THAT STRUCK ME — IT SUGGESTS THIS THING WAS BEING RUN BY THE CLOCK. >> WHAT CLOCK? >> EARLIER IN THE FIRST HEARING, HIS OPENING STATEMENT WAS THEY WANTED TO GO AS LONG AS THEY NEEDED TO. >> THAT WOULD BE THE CRITICAL QUESTION. WHY DID YOU NOT SUBPOENA HIM AND FORCE HIM TO GO TO THE COURT, GO TO THE SUPREME COURT AND EXPEDITE IT. WE ALL KNOW WHY HIS LAWYERS DID NOT WANT THE PRESIDENT TO BE SITTING DOWN.

>> LET ME ASK YOU THE QUESTION THIS WAY, WHEN I SHOULD WE BE THE MUELLER REPORT IF THE FOLLOWING TWO THINGS ARE TRUE. WE NEVER REALLY GOT A STRAIGHT ANSWER FROM PAUL MANAFORT. WE HAVE NO IDEA — PAUL MANAFORT DID NOT COOPERATE. HE TURNED OUT NOT TO BE A COOPERATING WITNESS. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT MANAFORT WAS UP TO, WHAT — THAT'S INCOMPLETE. NO INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT. HOW IS IT THAT ROBERT MUELLER CAN CLAIM THIS IS A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION? >> SADLY, CHUCK, SOMETIMES INVESTIGATIONS END BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL NOT COOPERATE OR THEY WILL NOT TELL YOU THE TRUTH. IF IT TURNS OUT IN THE END THAT IS IT FROM MANAFORT AND PERHAPS THE PRESIDENT HAS INVOKED HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT, THEN YOUR INVESTIGATION IS LARGELY COMPLETE. MEANING, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO DO. >> THE LAW IS ALMOST PROTECTING THEM FROM IF THEY DID DO SOMETHING NEFARIOUS. >> THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS ALL OF US, AND PROPERLY SO. IT'S THERE FOR A PURPOSE. THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IT'S FOR THE INNOCENT AS WELL AS THE GUILTY.

IT COULD BE THAT THE MUELLER TEAM HAS RUN OUT OF THINGS TO DO WITH ONE EXCEPTION. THEY COULD HAVE SUBPOENAED THE PRESIDENT AND LITIGATED THE QUESTION. >> WE HAVE THE EXCHANGE HERE WITH CONGRESSMAN MALONEY ASKING ABOUT THIS IDEA, WHY DIDN'T YOU SUBPOENA HIM. HERE IT IS. >> WE NEGOTIATED WITH HIM FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR. WHAT YOU ADVERTED TO IN THE APPENDIX LAYS OUT OUR EXPECTATIONS AS A RESULT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS. FINALLY, WE WERE ALMOST TOWARDS THE END OF OUR INVESTIGATION AND WE HAD LITTLE SUCCESS IN PUSHING TO GET THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT. WE DECIDED WE DID NOT WANT TO EXERCISE THIS SUBPOENA POWERS BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF EXPEDITING THE END OF THE INVESTIGATION. >> WAS THAT — EXCUSE ME. >> THE EXPECTATION WAS IF WE DID SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT HE WOULD FIGHT THE SUBPOENA AND WE'D BE IN THE MIDST OF THE INVESTIGATION FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME.

>> HE WENT ON TO CLARIFY HE HAD FULL SUBPOENA POWER, NO ONE TOLD HIM HE DIDN'T HAVE IT. ANOTHER POINT HE WANTED TO MAKE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW. HE ACKNOWLEDGED THEY DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION AT THEIR DISPOSAL THEY WANTED. HALLIE JACKSON IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE. WHAT'S THE REACTION FROM PART TWO OF HIS TESTIMONY? >> WELL, I THINK YOU COULD DESCRIBE IT AS TRIUMPHANT VINDICATION OF THE PRESIDENT BASED ON WHAT OUR SOURCES HAVE BEEN TELLING US. LET ME BRING YOU UP TO SPEED. WHEN YOU HAVING THAT CONVERSATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED, HIS OWN WORDS, IN ALL CAPS, TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE.

THE PRESIDENT CLEARLY IS FEELING LIKE TODAY WENT WELL FOR HIM. IN FACT, SOURCES FAMILIAR WITH HIS ATTITUDE AT THE MOMENT DESCRIBES HIM AS FEELING UPBEAT AFTER NOT FEELING QUITE SO UPBEAT THIS MORNING DURING THE FIRST PORTION OF THE HEARING. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, HIS CAMPAIGN MANAGER IS ALSO OUT WITH A STATEMENT CALLING TODAY A DISASTER FOR DEMOCRATS. ECHOING THE LINE WE HAVE BEEN HEARING PERHAPS UNSURPRISINGLY FROM THOSE CLOSE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP TODAY. KEEP IN MIND THAT ROBERTR, AS Y OTHERS HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DID SEEM MORE ANIMATED IN H DISCUSSING THE MATTERSE OF RUSSN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION. WHICH IS SOMETHING PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELFIS HAS STRUGGLED TO ADDRES IN THE PAST. HIS AIDS AND OTHERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE STEPS THEE ADMINISTRATION IS TAKING TO PROTECT OUR ELECTIONS COME 2020.

TRUMP HIMSELF HAS BEEN LESS FORCEFUL. YOU HEARD REPORT MUELLER BECOME ANIMATED WHD HE TALKED ABOUT THE ISSUE OF WIKILEAKS AND PRESIDENT TRUMP'S PRAISE FOR WIKILEAKS, CALLING IT PROBLEMATIC AT THE VERY LEAST. THEN CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP IN THE MONTHS BEFORE THE ANELECTI MENTIONED WIKILEAKS ABOUT 150 TIMES BASED ON OUR NBC NEWS COUNT. THIS IS FODDER FOR QUESTIONS TO ASK THE PRESIDENT, INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE — WE'VE ASKED HIM THIS BEFORE — WHY HE NEVER SAT DOWN WITH ROBERT MUELLER. THAT WAS THE ADVICE FRO FROM HI LEGAL COUNSEL.

I THINK THE LINES OF QUESTIONING YOU HEARD TODAY FROM CONGRESSMAN SEAN MALONEY AND OTHERS, HAS BROUGHT THAT BACK TO THE FOREFRONT HERE. A LOT TO DISCUSS WITH THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE HEADS OUT IN JUST ABOUT 20 MINUTES FROM NOW. >> THANKS. WE LEARNED A LOT AROUND THE EDGES. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW MUCH MORE THAN WE KNEW IF WE READ THE ENTIRE REPORT. >> WE DON'T EVEN HAVE — ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I THINK ALL HAD, WOULD MUELLER INDICTED HIM HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE OLC MEMO? THAT'S SOMETHING WE THOUGHT WE'D HAVE ANSWERED BUT HE DIDN'T ANSWER THAT. HE SAID THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD BE, CALL ME IF YOU WANT. I'M NOT GOING OUTSIDE THOSE LINES. >> ALL RIGHT. >> BUT FOR LITERALLY THAT FEW SECONDS THERE ON DESCRIBING HIS VIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S INTERVIEW. >> HE DIDN'T GO FAR OUT THE LINES. WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THIS ISN'T GOING TO MOVE THE NEEDLE FOR ANYONE WHO HAS — >> NANCY PELOSI'S POSITION IS SHE'S PUBLIC TO ASK FOR IMPEACHMENT BEFORE SHE CONDUCTS IT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS HEARING DOES THAT. IF SHE LOOKS AT THIS HEARING AND OTHER HOUSE DEMOCRATS LOOK AT THIS HEARING THROUGH THE PRISM OF OH, MY GOD THERE'S UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE IF WE DON'T HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE? THEN IT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. HOW DOES SPEAKER PELOSI — >> I THINK SHE'S IN A MORE PERILOUS SITUATION. IF MUELLER HAD SATISFIED THE DEMOCRATIC DESIRE FOR ANSWERS AND FOR A CREDIBLE NARRATIVE AND DRAMATIC WITNESS, THAT MIGHT HAVE SATISFIED THEM — >> SATISFIED HER TO SAY GO THROUGH WITH IT. >> NOW SHE'S GOT TO MAKE A VERY TOUGH DECISION.

IT'S POLITICALLY UNTENABLE, SHE BELIEVES, GOING INTO THE 2020 ELECTION. SHE THINKS NOW IT WILL, EVEN MORE LLSO, I THINK SHE'LL BELIE THIS HELPS THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE CAN CLAIM — YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS DIDN'T WORK FOR THE DEMOCRATS. I'VE WON. IT'S GOING TO MAKE HIM SAY THAT HE'S S A VICTIM. >> I DON'T MEAN TO PUT THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN HERE. YESTERDAY, ONE OF THE THE DEMOCRATICDA PARTY'S FAVORITE POLLSTERS BASICALLY WROTE A MEMO ON BEHALF OF THE ONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC SUPER PACS THAT OUTLINED WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THET MESSAGING IT TAKES TO DEFET PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT'S HOW ABOUT THIS ECONOMY HASN'T WORKED FOR YOU. THEY'RE BASICALLY SAYING STAY AWAY, THE ADVICE THAT NATIONAL DEMOCRATS ARE GIVING EVERYBODY AND EACH OTHER, STAY AWAY FROM THIS.

STAY AWAY FROM THIS. STAY AWAY FROM THIS. THEY'RE VIEWING IT THROUGH A POLITICAL LENS. THE QUESTION I HAVE — I'VE SAID IS BEFORE — WHY ARE YOU SO SURE THE POLITICS ON THIS ISN'T GOING TO FLIP IF YOU'RE ONLY LOOK AT IT THROUGH A POLITICAL PRISM? BE CAREFUL LOOKING AT THIS ONLY THROUGH A POLITICAL PRISM. >> I THINK THESE NEW DEMOCRATS, YOUNGER DEDEMOCRATS, EVEN SOME FROM THE MARGINAL DISTRICTS THAT NANCY PELOSI IS TRYING TO PROTECT IN THE NEXT T ROUND, AR GOING TO BE PUSHING FOR IT.

>> LET'S GO TO KASIE HUNT RIGHT NOW ON THE HILL. WHAT ARE WE HEARING IF ANYTHING FROM SPEAKER PELOSI AND OTHERS YOU'REOS TALKING TO THERE? >> Reporter: WELL, WE'RE GOING TORE HEAR FROM NANCY PELOSI HERSELF HERE IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. SHE AND THE TWO CHAIRMEN WE SAW TODAY ARE GOING TO HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE AT 4:45 EASTERN TIME TODAY. SO WE SHOULD LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HER THINKING. BUT AS I'VE TALKED TO SOURCES AND MEMBERS WHO ARE CLOSE TO THE HOUSE SPEAKER THROUGHOUT THE DAY, THERE'S A VERY REAL SENSE THAT THIS ISL NOT GOING TO CHANE THE DYNAMIC THAT HAS ALREADY REALLY SET IN IN THE HOUSE. NANCY PELOSI HAS BEEN AS ANDREA AND CHUCK WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, INCREDIBLY RELUCTANT TO GO DOWN THIS PATH. SHE WILL REASSURE HER CAUCUS IN PRIVATE THAT THEY SHOULDN'T LOOK AT IT THROUGH A POLITICAL LENS.

I DO THINK THAT HAS BEEN THE CENTRAL TENSION. T BECAUSE THE GROWING NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE BEEN CALLING FOR IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS, A LOT OF THEM HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT ON THE GROUNDS OF HISTORY, ON THE GROUNDS OF SETTING AHI PRECEDENT OF SAYING, HEY, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE CAN ACCEPT. THE SECOND HALF OF THIS HEARING WAS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY STARK IN LAYING OUT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT UTUNFOLDED IN 2016. AND I THINK COULD POTENTIALLY TURN A I FEW MEMBERS INTO THE IMPEACHMENT CAMP. BUT ENOVERALL, IT'S VERY HARD T SEE THIS AFTERNOON STANDING HERE THAT WHAT WE SAW UNFOLD TODAY IS A GAME CHANGER OF ANY KIND ON IMPEACHMENT FOR NANCY PELOSI, LESTER. >> THANKS. I WANT TO GO TO RICHARD ENGEL, WHO HAS COVERED A LOT OF THE RUSSIA STORY AS IT PERTAINS TO HACKING.

I SUPPOSE YOU CAN'T STRIP POLITICS FROM THIS, BUT WHEN YOU READ THOSE FIRST SEVERAL DOZEN PAGES OF THE REPORT AND JUST LOOK AT THE EFFORTS THAT THE RUSSIANS FOMADE. AS CHUCK POINTS OUT THAT WAS A CRIME INT AND OF ITSELF. WHAT CHANGES BASED OEN WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY? >> Reporter: I THINK WHAT WAS SHOWN CLEARLY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND CLEARLY TO THE RUSSIANS IS THAT CYBER MEDDLING WORKS AND THAT YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. THAT WHEN YOU DO CYBERATTACKS WHICH ARE BY DEFINITIONS HARD TO TRACK DOWN, YOU USE CUT OFFS, YOU USE CUT OUTS, ANONYMOUS SOURCES.

YOU USE FAKE NEWS ACCOUNTS AND FAKE PROPAGANDA POSTINGS. THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO HIDE YOUR HAND AND THE PERSON WHO BENEFITS FROM IT, IN THIS CASE, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, DOES T NOT EVER WANT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT TOOK PLACE. SO IT IS A MESSAGE TO RUSSIA THAT A IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA AGE, INFORMATION OPERATIONS ARE POWERFUL. YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH THEM. AND THAT IN SOME CASES, IF THE PEOPLE YOUE HELP WILL HELP YOU Y DENYING THAT'S THE OPERATION EVER TOOK PLACE. IT'S A VERY POWERFUL MESSAGE. AND AS MUELLER SAID TODAY, THERE ARE MANY OTHER COUNTRIES, NOT JUST RUSSIA, WHO ARE LOOKING INTO THIS CAPABILITY. HE SAID THAT RUSSIA IS PLANNING TO DO THIS AGAIN AND MAYBE TRYING TO DO THIS OPERATION RIGHT NOW.

EVEN AS HE WAS TESTIFYING. YOU CAN DEBATE HOW THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT THE DEMOCRATS AND THE REPUBLICANS, WHETHER THIS HURT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S CAUSE BY BRINGING THIS PUBLIC. BUT I THINK THE BIG TAKE AWAY INTERNATIONALLY IS THAT THIS KIND OF RNOPERATION WORKS AND Y CAN HIDE IT. >> ALL RIGHT. RICHARD,RI THANKS. CHUCKS I WANT TO GET YOUR OPINION. YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS WITH YOUR PROSECUTOR HAT ON. LISTENING TO THAT TESTIMONY, WHAT STOOD OUT IN TERMS OF MAKING ANY KIND OF CASE HERE? >> WELL, YOU KNOW, BOB MUELLER AT THE END SOUNDED WISTFUL.

I GET IT. HE FINDS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT I HOPENG THIS IS NOT THE N NORMAL, BUT I FEAR IT IS. AND RICHARD JUST SPOKE TO IT. A SIGNAL HAS NOW GONE OUT TO ADVERSARIES AROUND THE WORLD THAT WE ARE GAME. COME HUNT US. IT'S A DEEPLY DISTURBING MESSAGE. TAKING OFF MY PROSECUTOR'S HAT AND PUTTING ON MY COUNTERINTELLIGENCE HAT, THAT'S WHERE THE THREAT LIES. WE'LL ALWAYS HAVE CRIMINALS. THERE'S ALWAYS PEOPLE WHO BREAK THE LAW AND PUSH BOUNDARIES AND WHAT HAVE YOU. WE HAVE FAILED TO LEAD ON THIS ISSUE. TO SEND A SIGNAL TO OUR ADVERSARIES AROUND THE WORLD THAT THIS WILL NOTS BE TOLERAT. >> THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTRAORDINARY DAY, A MAN WHO HAS FIGURED IN OUR CONVERSATIONS FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS. >> A NOUN, A A VERB, AN ADJECTI. >> A LOT OF US DIDN'T REMEMBER OR HADN'T HEARD HIS VOICE IN A BIG WAY BUT WE'VE CERTAINLY HEARD IT.

THE QUESTION OF THE IMPACT IT MAKES IS THE SUBJECT OF WHAT YOU'LL BE HEARING TONIGHT ON NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS". LONG AWAITED QUESTIONING OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ISST HISTORY. THE IMPACT WILL BE MEASURED AND DEBATED FOR A LOT OF DAYS TO COME. I'M LESTER HOLT IN NEW YORK. I'LL BE BACK WITH COMPLETE DETAILS ON "NIGHTLY NEWS." FOR ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AND GOOD DAY.

>> THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> I TAKE YOUR QUESTION. >> I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN WHEN HE SAID DONALD TRUMP IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. HE'S NOT. BUT HE SHOULDN'T BE BELOW THE LAW WHICH IS WHERE VOLUME II OF THIS REPORT PUTS HIM. >> SO EVEN WITH THE SOMETIMES HEATED QUESTIONS, MUELLER DID WHAT HE PROMISED. HE STUCK TO THE SCRIPT. THE SCRIPT, OF COURSE, BEING HIS 448 PAGE REPORT, SOMETHING HE FREQUENTLY REFERRED LAWMAKERS TO. BUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM FOR BOTH PARTIES WAS IMPEACHMENT. AND WHETHER THE REPORT ACTUALLY DOES ANYTHING TO DAMAGE THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY. THE WHOLE REASON DEMOCRATS WANTED THIS HEARING WAS BECAUSE MUELLER DECIDED NOT TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER TRUMP OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. SO WHAT CAN WE TAKE AWAY FROM THIS? DID EITHER PARTY GET WHAT THEY WANTED FROM MUELLER? WE'RE GOING TO BE DIGGING INTO ALL OF THIS OVER THE NEXT HOUR.

I'M JOINED BY FORMER CONGRESSMAN DAVID JOLLY. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU FIRST, FORMER REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN, NOW AN INDEPENDENT I UNDERSTAND, YOU WATCH — WE WATCHED THE ENTIRE HEARINGS TOGETHER TODAY. WE KNOW IN TERMS OF IMPEACHMENT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES TREASON, BRIBERY, OR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOR. SO IN YOUR OPINION FROM WHAT YOU SAW TODAY, DID ANYONE GET CLOSE TO ELICITING ANY OF THOSE IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES? >> I THINK THEY WERE ALREADY THERE. DID TODAY CHANGE ANYBODY'S MIND? PROBABLY NOT. I THINK PROBABLY EVERYBODY LEAVES TODAY WHERE THEY STARTED TODAY. DID WE KNOW GOING INTO TODAY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ARGUABLY SATISFIED THE THREE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? YES. WE WENT IN TODAY KNOWING THAT THE PRESIDENT WELCOMED INTERFERENCE BY RUSSIA AND NEVER REPORTED IT. ADAM SCHIFF GOT BOB MUELLER TO CONFIRM THAT AND ARTICULATE THAT AGAIN. THOSE ELEMENTS ARE ALREADY THERE. THE QUESTION IS DID IT CHANGE THE POLITICAL CALCULATION FOR A LEADER LIKE SPEAKER PELOSI WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS HAS ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES.

THE SECOND QUESTION I THINK, NO, IT DIDN'T CHANGE THE ELECTORAL CALCULATIONS. THEN YOU ARRIVE SHOULD THIS EVEN MATTER? I THINK SPEAKER PELOSI CONTINUES TO LOOK AT THE LATTER. MANY MEMBERS LOOK AT THE FORMER. ADAM SCHIFF, YOU'VE GOT TO GIVE HIM CREDIT, HE WENT THROUGH THE PRIMA FACIE ELEMENTS. I DON'T THINK ANYTHING MOVED. >> EARLY ON TODAY THERE WAS TALK OF THE ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION YOU JUST BROUGHT UP, BUT THE FACT THAT THE OLC OPINION, THE DOJ POLICY IS TO NOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT. WE HAD A MOMENT THIS MORNING WHERE WE THOUGHT THAT MUELLER WAS SAYING IF NOT FOR THE OLC OPINION, I WOULD HAVE INDICTED. WE LEARNED IN THE AFTERNOON DURING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING THAT MAYBE THAT WASN'T THE CASE, RIGHT? THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT A HIGH CRIME OR MISDEMEANOR HAS BEEN COMMITTED.

>> THIS IS WHERE TED LIU AND BOB MUELLER SPOKE ABOUT. BOB MUELLER SAID YES, IT WAS AN INARTFUL MOMENT FOR BOB MUELLER BECAUSE WHAT HE WAS SAYING IS I MAY HAVE REACHED THE CONCLUSION BUT FOR OLC. I DIDN'T EVEN REACH A CONCLUSION. THAT'S THE MOMENT WE WERE MISSING. I KNOW SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTING ON THIS THROUGHOUT THE DAY, THE MOMENT THAT COULD HAVE MOVED THE NEEDLE IS FOR SOMEBODY TO REALLY PUSH BOB MUELLER TO SAY IF DONALD TRUMP WAS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WOULD YOU HAVE INDICTED HIM ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? THE ONE THING I DO THINK WE LEARNED TODAY — IT'S STILL NOT TOTALLY CLEAR, BUT I THINK WHAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM BOB MUELLER IS THAT WHEN IT CAME TO ALL MATTERS RELATED TO THE PRESIDENT DIRECTLY, BECAUSE OF THE OLC MEMO, BOB MUELLER TOOK HIS JOB AS SIMPLY AN INVESTIGATOR.

HE SAID SO I'M NOT GOING TO EXONERATE BUT I ALSO CAN'T BRING CHARGES. WHEREAS FOR ALL THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS HERE LOOKED AT, THE MANAFORTS OF THE WORLD, THE COHENS AND OTHERS, HE WAS ABLE TO ACT IN THE ROLE OF PROSECUTOR. AS FOR THE PRESIDENT, HE WAS LIMITED BY THE OLC MEMO. WE NEVER GOT THAT MOMENTS. FRANKLY, THAT'S WHY I THINK IT DIDN'T MOVE. THE NEEDLE DIDN'T MOVE TODAY. IF BOB MUELLER HAD BEEN ABLE TO LEAN IN AND SAY YES, I BELIEVE IF DONALD TRUMP WAS NOT PRESIDENT, I WOULD HAVE CHARGED OR I WOULDN'T HAVE CHARGED. THAT'S THE CONVERSATION AMERICA NEEDED TO HAVE. EVEN IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN IMPERFECT MOMENT, AMERICA NEEDED TO SEE THE MOMENT. WE DIDN'T SEE IT TODAY. >> DIDN'T MUELLER ALREADY SAY THAT IN THAT REPORT? DIDN'T HE SAY I CAN'T CHARGE A SITTING PRESIDENT, BUT, YOU, CONGRESS, IF YOU WANT THAT REMEDY AND THAT REMEDY CAN ONLY BE IMPEACHMENT, DIDN'T HE PUT THE BALL IN CONGRESS' COURT MANY WEEKS FOR TODAY? >> I'D HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.

CONGRESS WANTED TODAY HEAR, IN ORDER TO PERSUADE PELOSI WHO HAS BEEN VIEWING THIS THROUGH THE POLITICAL LENS OF PROTECTING THE SEATS IN TRUMP DISTRICTS THAT SWEPT AND HELPED HER WIN THE MAJORITY, THAT'S WHAT PELOSI NEEDED TO HEAR. THAT BASICALLY MUELLER SAYING YES, THAT THE PRESIDENT WASN'T THE PRESIDENT, IF HE WAS A CIVILIAN, HE'D BE IN PRISON. WHAT A LOT OF MEMBERS VIEWED THIS AS THE REST OF THE WAY THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN GOING. A SLOW BURN AND PERHAPS A CHANCE THAT EDUCATING CONSTITUENTS WHO HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION. MUELLER DID PROVIDE AN IMPEDIMENT TO THAT.

HE MADE THE — MADE HIS INTERROGATORS — AND CONTINUED TO BE A VERY RELUCTANT WITNESS. THAT'S WHY THE FIRST HEARING WAS NOT THE MOST PRODUCTIVE. I THINK REPUBLICANS DID THE BEST THEY COULD AT, YOU KNOW, LODGING A CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, TRYING TO SOW AS MANY DOUBTS AS POSSIBLE. DEMOCRATS DIDN'T SO GO SO FAR. ESPECIALLY THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE TIP TOEING ON THAT LINE WHO DOES FACE A TOUGH REELECT HERE. JUST SIMPLY PRAISING MUELLER AND NOT NECESSARILY GETTING INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY. BUT I THINK IN THE SECOND HEARING, YOU REALLY SAW MUELLER AGITATE TOWARDS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUTTING UP A HARDER LINE AGAINST FOREIGN INTERFERENCE. AND ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE DOING AT THE MOMENT. AND THAT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IS OCCURRING RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, ALSO, LOOPING THE PRESIDENT INTO THAT. THAT, YOU KNOW, HE HAS SET A NEW NORMAL. I THINK THAT LAST QUESTION WAS TELLING FOR ME. SHOULD WE HOLD OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN MERE AVOIDANCE OF CRIMINALITY.

MUELLER SAID CORRECT. >> THAT LAST QUESTION I THINK WAS REALLY IMPORTANT, TOO. BECAUSE FOR MOST OF THE DAY, IF ASKED TO VEER AWAY FROM THE FOUR CORNERS OF HIS REPORT, MUELLER DECLINED. HERE WE ARE AT THE END OF THE DAY AND HE'S ASKED A MORAL QUESTION. SHOULD OUR POLITICIANS BE INVOLVED IN THAT BEHAVIOR? IT SEEMS LIKE HE WENT AWAY FROM HIS POLICY OF ONLY ANSWERING WHAT'S IN THE REPORT? >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THAT'S THE MOMENT THAT STOOD OUT FOR ME THAT I THINK DEMOCRATS SHOULD PUT OUT ON AIR IF THEY REALLY DO WANT TO MOVE THIS IMPEACHMENT BALL FORWARD. I THINK, YOU KNOW, ALSO, POTENTIALLY GOING INTO RETEST. TALK ABOUT THE MORAL ELEMENTS HERE. CLEARLY, THE POLITICAL CALCULUS ON PELOSI'S PART IS STEADFAST AT THE MOMENT. >> IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE THE CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT, IS THAT YOUR STRONGEST EXHIBIT, THAT LAST QUESTION WE JUST TALKED ABOUT? THE MORALITY OF ACCEPTING SOMETHING FROM FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN AN ELECTION? IS THAT THE STRONGEST CASE? >> WELL, I'M BY NO MEANS A POLITICAL STRATEGIST.

AND I THINK THAT — I DO THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY THE BIPARTISAN CALCULUS HERE — EVERYONE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT ELECTION INTERFERENCE GOING INTO 2020. MITCH McCONNELL SHOULD MOVE THE BIPARTISAN ELECTION SECURITY BILL ONTO THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE. BUT YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S WHAT THE PROGRESSIVE FLANK HAS BEEN PUSHING FOR. THIS IS ABOVE POLITICS. IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION, DOING OUR JOB AND CONDUCTING OVERSIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS IS INITIATING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY IS NOT THE SAME AS IMPEACHING PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NANCY PELOSI COULD BE SAYING TO MOVE THIS BALL FORWARD AS WELL. IN TURN, PROTECTING THOSE VULNERABLE MEMBERS SHE'S SO WORRIED ABOUT. >> WHAT'S THE ADVANTAGE OR TACTICAL POINT OF INITIATING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY VERSUS ACTUALLY ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT. >> LEGALLY IT HELPS THEM IN COURT. IT HELPS THE HOUSE. IF THEY OPEN AN IMPEACHMENT HEARING, MORE LIKELY YOU CAN GET DON McGAHN TO SATISFY AND GET COURTS TO RESPOND WITH URGENCY. YOU KNOW, IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. DOES IT ALLOW NANCY PELOSI TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS? DOES IT HELP HOUSE DEMOCRATS TO SAY YEAH, WE'RE PUTTING OUR TOES INTO IMPEACHMENT BUT WE'RE NOT? >> IS THERE A DOWN SIDE, A RISK? >> YEAH, IF YOU DON'T GO THROUGH IT.

WHAT WAS THE POINT OF THE ELECTIONS? MY INTERPRETATION OF EVERY MOVE NANCY PELOSI HAS MADE, SHE'S TRYING TO RUN OUT THE CLOCK. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DO NOT WANT GOING INTO IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE AND SOUTH CAROLINA, NEVADA, AND CALIFORNIA, AND FLORIDA. IS TO HAVE AN OPEN IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION IN THE CONGRESS WHERE EVERYTHING QUESTION THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES GET IS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. THEY WANT THIS WRAPPED UP NOW. I THINK AFTER TODAY AN IMPEACHMENT PERHAPS YOU OPEN THE INQUIRY, BUT THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT BECOMES FAR LESS LIKELY TODAY THAN IT WOULD OTHERWISE BE. THIS ADDED NO NEW FACTS THAT WE KNEW OF. IN FACT THE ONLY FACTS THAT GOT ADDED I THINK SOMETIMES QUESTION NOW — DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO HAVE HARD QUESTIONS ABOUT BOB MUELLER'S HANDLING OF THE INVESTIGATION. IT APPEARS HE WAS AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INVESTIGATION BUT NOT ON POINT WITH EVERY TACTIC. AN ODD MOMENT WITH SEAN MALONEY PUSHING HIM WITH WHY DIDN'T HE LITIGATE AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT AND HE BASICALLY SAID, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LONG TIME.

MALONEY TRIED TO GIVE MUELLER AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, LOOK, IN THE BALANCING TEST, WE HAVE WHAT WE NEEDED. MUELLER DIDN'T SAY WE HAD WHAT WE NEEDED. HE SAID I'M NOT SURE WE WANTED TO GO THROUGH THE YEAR OF LITIGATING, BRINGING THE PRESIDENT IN. PRESIDENT IN. HOW DID HE COMPORT HIMSELF TODAY? DID MUELLER APPEAR TO HAVE A STRONG COMMAND OF HIS OWN REPORT? >> I DO THINK A LOT OF THE COMMENTARY WAS UNFORTUNATE. HE WAS BASICALLY EXPECTED TO ANSWER TO EVERY SINGLE VARIOUS PASSAGE. >> QUICKLY. >> YEAH. THAT EVERYRY SINGLE MEMBER HAD SPENT THE PAST FEW WEEKS STRATEIZING HOW THEY WERE GOING TO GET HIM IN A GOT YOU MOMENT. HE WAS A RELUCTANT WITNESS, THOUGH. HE ONLYS, AGREED TO DO THESE HEARINGS BECAUSE HE WAS ESSENTIALLY FORCED TO DO SO.

I THINK HE REALIZED THAT HIS LEGACY WAS GOING TO BE ON THE LINE HERE, WHICH WAS PART OF PROBABLY WHY HE WAS SO RETICENT TO APPEAR BEFORE CONGRESS. THIS IS HIS 90th TIME. PREVIOUS HE HAD SHOWN CONTEMPT FOR THEON POLITICAL GRANDSTANDI. IT'S WHY HE'S BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL AT REMAINING SUCH A NONPARTISAN FIGURE. IT WAS TELLING THAT DEMOCRATS DEDICATED THE FINAL MOMENTS OF THEIR FIRST M HEARING TOWARDS GOING THROUGH HIS RECORD, PRAISING HIMCO FOR HIS SERVICE D FOR HIS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT AND TRACK RECORD. >> HE WAS A RELUCTANT WITNESS, AS YOU SAY.

HE WASN'T A HOSTILE WITNESS, BUT HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE THERE AND HE TOLD US THAT MANY WEEKS AGO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL BE BACK. >>> YESTERDAY WE HAD EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TO CONGRESSMAN DAVID CICCOLINI'S PREPARATION. IT'S A LITTLE TASTE OF WHAT IT'S LIKE FOR A LAWMAKER GETTING READY FOR A DAY LIKE THIS. >> GOOD MORNING, DIRECTOR MUELLER. I WANT TO BEGIN BY THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.

♪♪ >> ONE THING THAT WE DIDN'T PUT IN D THERE THAT I WAS THINKING MIGHT WANT TO ADD AT THE BEGINNING IS ONE OR TWO SENTENCES THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THE WORK OF THE DIRECTOR AND THANK HIM. >> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT ESPECIALLY HE'LL BE COMING OFF AN EXAMINATION WHERE HE'S UNDER ATTACK. >> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. >> JUST SO WE'RE HIGHLIGHTING THAT AS WELL. >> OKAY. >> WHEN WWEE SAT DOWN LAST TIMEE DISCUSSED BEING MORE CLEAR SAYING IT WOULD — >> IS THAT CORRECT? >> HE COULD TRY TO PONTIFICATE AND SAY I CAN'T SPECULATE AS TO WHAT THE — >> I THINK WE SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO HOW HE'S ANSWERING QUESTIONS UP TO THAT POINT, BECAUSE THAT IS A QUESTION IF WERE TRYING TO EAT UP TIME, YOU'D SAY, WELL, IT WAS REALLY HARD TOWA KNOW, MAYBE WE COULD HAVE W GOTTEN INFORMATION IN A DIFFERENT ONWAY.

>> I'M'M NOT GOING TO ADOPT YOU CHARACTERIZATION. >> I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS. >> DO YOU WANT US TO MOVE THIS LAST QUESTION UP HIGHER OR SHOULD WEHE JUST LEAVE IT IN TH ORDER? >> NO. >> OKAY. >> I>> THINK IT WOULD BE USEFULO MAKE THOSE EDITS. >> DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED ANY ADDITIONAL CLOSING? I THINK YOU SHOULD USE ALL YOUR TIME ON SUBSTANCE. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO WASTE 30 N SECONDS ON A CLOSING >> I DON'T KNOW THAT HE WOULD ANSWER THIS BUT IT'S A GOOD WAY TO REMIND PEOPLE. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF A THOUSAND FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WHO SAID IT WAS — SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE CHARGE WITH A CRIME. ANYBODY ELSE WOULD BE PROSECUTED AND IMPRISONED AND THE ONLY REASON IT'S NOT HAPPENED IS DONALD TRUMP IS THE H PRESIDENT. THAT FUNDAMENTALLY FEELS WRONG.

>> YOU HAVE SEEN A LETTER WHERE A THOUSAND FORMER REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC FEDERAL PROSECUTORS HAVE READ P YOUR REPORT AND SAI ANYONE BUT THE PRESIDENT WHO COMMITTED THOSENT ACTS WOULD BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> HE MAY STILL NOT WANT TO SPECULATE. >> ONE WAY YOU COULD ASK IT IS ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS LETTER, DO YOU KNOW ANY OF THE SIGNATORIES. ARE THESE PEOPLE THAT YOU RESPECT. >> AND IS THERE — >> DO YOU AGREE WITH THOSE FORMER COLLEAGUES, A THOUSAND PROSECUTORS WHO CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION? ♪♪ >> HE DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, BUT HE WILL BE ON LIVE IN THE 5:00 HOUR TO GET HIS TAKE ON HOW THINGS PLAYED OUT TODAY.

STAY TUNED. WE'RE TAKING A QUICK BREAK. 'RTA. >>> ONE OF THE ISSUES DEMOCRATS ZEROED IN ON IN THE FIRST HEARING WITH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WAS THE QUESTION OF OBSTRUCTION. ATTORNEY BARR AND ROD ROSENSTEIN SENT A LETTER TO TOP LAWMAKERS SAYING THE REPORT DIDN'T FIND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OR TRUMP COORDINATING WITH RUSSIA. TRUMP AND HIS ALLIES SAW THAT AS COMPLETE VINDICATION. NO ONE ELSE HAD SEEN THE REPORT YET. MUELLER TOOK ISSUE WITH BARR'S INTERPRETATION AND SENT A LETTER TO HIM COMPLAINING THAT HIS TAKE ON THE REPORT, QUOTE, DID NOT FULLY CAPTURE THE CONTEXT, NATURE AND SUBSTANCE OF THIS OFFICE'S WORK AND CONCLUSION. THEN THE REPORT WAS RELEASED WITH REDACTIONS IN APRIL AND DEMOCRATS CRIED FOUL BECAUSE THEY SAY IT LAYS OUT NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF OBSTRUCTION BY TRUMP INCLUDING ATTEMPTS TO HAVE MUELLER FIRED.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE POINTS WHERE THIS ISSUE CAME UP INCLUDING A DISCUSSION OF WHETHER A PRESIDENT CAN BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME AFTER THEY'RE OUT OF OFFICE. >> 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. >> DID YOU ACTUALLY TOTALLY EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT? >> NO. >> 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.

IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. >> COULD YOU CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE? >> YES. >> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU COULD CHARGE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE? >> YES. >> IT'S FAIR TO SAY THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO PROTECT HIMSELF BY ASKING STAFF TO FALSIFY RECORDS RELEVANT TO AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION? >> I WOULD SAY THAT'S GENERALLY THE SUMMARY. >> WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT ACTION THE PRESIDENT TRIED TO HAMPER THE INVESTIGATION BY ASKING STAFF TO FALSIFY RECORDS RELATIVE TO YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO REFER TO THE RECORD IF I COULD FOR REVIEW OF THAT EPISODE. >> THANK YOU. ALSO THE PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPT TO GET McGAHN TO CREATE A FALSE WRITTEN RECORD WERE RELATED TO MR. TRUMP'S CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INQUIRY, CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE. >> YOU FOUND EVIDENCE AS YOU LAYOUT IN YOUR REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE INVESTIGATING HIM FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE REPORT, YES.

I STAND BY THE REPORT. >> 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. >> AND THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED THAT HE WANTED TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAD SUPPOSED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> YOU HAD NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT REQUIRED YOUR REMOVAL, ISN'T THAT A FACT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> DESPITE KNOWING THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, THE PRESIDENT STILL TRIED TO GET THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF AFTER YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> NOW THAT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME THE PRESIDENT ASKED SESSIONS TO UNRECUSE HIMSELF, WAS IT? >> I KNOW THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS. >> "WASHINGTON POST" REPORTER JACKIE AL MANY IS BACK WITH ME AGAIN. GLENN KUSHNER AND CYNTHIA OXNEY. OBSTRUCTION WAS THE FOCUS OF MOST OF THE MORNING. JACKIE, WHICH MEMBER OF CONGRESS MADE THE MOST HEADWAY ON THE OBSTRUCTION QUESTION? >> I THINK THE MOST MEMORABLE QUESTION ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO COME FROM A REPUBLICAN.

THAT WAS CONGRESSMAN BACK WHO ASKED — >> YOU CAN PARAPHRASE. JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING. >> THERE ARE SO MANY CHANGES HERE. BUT BASICALLY WHAT HE ASKED WAS COULD YOU CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE AND THAT WAS YES. MUELLER SAID THAT VERY FLATLY. WHAT I'VE HAD A FEW DEMOCRATIC HOUSE STAFFERS TEXT ME IS THEY'RE NOT SURE IF THIS IS GOING TO PROPEL THE GROUND SWELL FOR CALLING FOR PEOPLE BUT IT DOES PROVIDE WHAT THEY CAN DO TO THE PRESIDENT ONCE HE'S NO LONGER PRESIDENT, WHICH IS CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME.

WHEN YOU PULL VARIOUS ANSWERS FROM MUELLER, THOSE ONE-WORD ANSWERS AND YOU PUT IT ALL TOGETHER AND YOU LIST IT DOWN. THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT EXONERATED, THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT A WITCH HUNT. RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IS NOT A HOAX. A LOT OF THINGS THAT PIERCE DIRECTLY THROUGH FALSE CLAIMS THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS NOW. IT'S PRETTY DAMNING. >> CYNTHIA, JACKIE TALKED ABOUT ONE EXCHANGE WHERE THE QUESTION WAS CAN YOU CHARGE A SITTING PRESIDENT AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. MAYBE I AM HYPERANALYZING IT BUT DOES THAT MEAN YOU CAN CHARGE THE PRESIDENT IF HE COMMITTED A NEW OBSTRUCTIVE ACT AFTER HE'S OUT OF OFFICE OR CAN YOU PUT A PIN IN HIS CURRENT ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION, WAIT AND THEN CHARGE HIM WHEN HE GETS OUT? >> I DON'T THINK WE GOT AN ANSWER BUT MY SENSE WAS WOULD HE BE CHARGED FOR THE ACTIONS IN THE MUELLER REPORT AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T GET REELECTED AND WE LOSE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

I FEEL LIKE THESE HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE FOREVER LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM. IT'S PAPADOPOULOS IS GOING TO FLIP AND MANAFORT'S GOING TO FLIP AND CORSI MIGHT KNOW SOMETHING AND ASSANGE. NOW IT'S, JUST WAIT, HE CAN BE PROSECUTED AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. THERE'S ALWAYS SOME REASON WHY THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. AND THEY HAVE TO. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY MAKE ANYMORE. IT'S JUST MAKE A DECISION. WHATEVER IT IS SO THAT WE CAN EITHER GO ON WITH IMPEACHMENT OR MOVE ON WITH OTHER THINGS BECAUSE THE COUNTRY IS PARALYZED. WE HAVE THESE HUGE PROBLEMS LOOMING AND WE AREN'T DEALING WITH THEM BECAUSE THIS IS ALL WE DEAL WITH. IF WE'RE GOING TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT, LET'S GET GOING. IF WE'RE NOT, LET'S DEAL WITH THE BORDER. LET'S FIND OUT WHY THE PRESIDENT IS KICKING PEOPLE OFF FOOD STAMPS. LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON. >> WOULD IT BE WRONG TO CONCLUDE THAT MUELLER'S POSITION IS THAT THERE WAS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BUT ONLY THE OLC OPINION THAT DOJ POLICY PREVENTS INDICTMENT OF A SITTING PRESIDENT, THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT PREVENT ADD CONCLUSION OF OBSTRUCTION? IS THAT THE CORRECT CONCLUSION BECAUSE THERE WAS DEFINITELY SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THIS ISSUE DURING THE HEARING.

>> I AGREE THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION. I THINK BOB MUELLER TRIED TO BACKTRACK AND CLARIFY. I BELIEVE YOUR INTERPRETATION IS RIGHT, DANNY, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW IF BOB MUELLER CAME RIGHT OUT AND SAID IT. THE THREE TAKE-AWAYS HERE ARE, ONE, THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS ENDLESSLY SAID THE MUELLER REPORT EXONERATED HIM, THAT IS FLATLY UNTRUE. BOB MUELLER TESTIFIED REPEATEDLY, I DID NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT. THE SECOND IS BOB MUELLER DID IN SUBSTANCE AFFIRM THAT EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS SATISFIED BY THE EVIDENCE IN VOLUME TWO OF HIS REPORT. HE DIDN'T SAY IT AS CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY AS THAT, BUT TAKEN AS A WHOLE HE COMMUNICATED THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS THERE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.

THE THIRD TAKE AWAY I THINK IS THAT HE DID SAY THAT A PRESIDENT CAN BE INDICTED AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY NOT ACCURATE TO SAY HE EVER AFFIRMATIVELY INDICATED THIS PRESIDENT CAN BE INDICTED WHEN HE LEAVES OFFICE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE I FOUND. I THINK THAT'S THE IMPORT OF HIS TESTIMONY BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID. THOSE MIGHT BE THE TAKE-AWAYS. WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM THIS? HERE'S WHAT WE LEARNED. FROM THE MOMENT THE MUELLER REPORT WAS RELEASED, PEOPLE WERE CLAMORING TO HAVE BOB MUELLER TESTIFY. I WAS SAYING ALL ALONG BOB MUELLER IS THE PROSECUTOR. YOU DON'T PROVE A CASE BY HAVING A PROSECUTOR TESTIFY AND RECITE HEARSAY INFORMATION THAT IS WHAT THE WITNESSES SAID ABOUT THE CRIMES THAT WERE COMMITTED. THE WAY YOU PROVE A CASE, WHETHER A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT OR A CRIMINAL CASE IN A COURT OF LAW IS YOU CALL THE WITNESSES.

THE DEMOCRATS SEEM TO BE FOREVER WAITING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO COME IN AND RESCUE THIS SITUATION. WHAT THEY NEED TO DO NEXT AND IT MAY BE THE FINAL PIECE OF THE PUZZLE, IS CALL THE FACT WITNESSES, THE McGAHNS, THE LEWANDOWSKI'S, THE HOPE HICKS, BECAUSE ALL THREE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS CAN PROVIDE DIRECT, FIRSTHAND INFORMATION AND TESTIMONY THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSES. THAT'S WHAT I HOPE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL GET TO SEE NEXT. >> YOU WORKED WITH ROBERT MUELLER. IN FACT, I BELIEVE YOU WERE TRAINED BY ROBERT MUELLER. THE THING HE TOLD US MANY WEEKS AGO IS THAT I'M GOING TO TESTIFY CONSISTENT WITH THE FOUR CORNERS OF MY REPORT. I'M NOT GOING TO DEVIATE FROM THAT. DID HE DELIVER ON THAT PROMISE TODAY? >> HE DID. HE MAY HAVE RESTRAINED HIMSELF TO THREE CORNERS OF THE REPORT. HE DID NOT GO BEYOND THE REPORT. HE DID SAY SOME THINGS IN THE SECOND APPEARANCE THAT I THINK WERE PRETTY IMPORTANT AND PRETTY IMPACTFUL.

WHEN HE WAS ASKED, YOU DOCUMENTED HOW THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HIMSELF ENCOURAGED AND THEN WELCOMED THE ASSISTANCE OF RUSSIA, A FOREIGN ADVERSARY, IN HELPING HIM GET ELECTED. THEN HE WAS ASKED IS THIS THE NEW NORMAL, SHOULD THIS BE THE NEW NORMAL. AND WHAT WAS A PRETTY SOMBER AND ALMOST WISTFUL MOMENT, BOB MUELLER SAID, IT SHOULDN'T BE THE NEW NORMAL, BUT I FEAR IT IS. I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT LESSON FOR US ALL TO TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT WE HEARD AND WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS BY RUSSIA. AND I THINK MOVING FORWARD WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO PROTECT AGAINST THAT. HOPEFULLY THE MITCH McCONNELLS OF THE WORLD WILL RECOGNIZE THAT AND WILL NOT BLOCK PROPOSED LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO PUT AN END TO FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

LET'S HOPE WE'VE LEARNED A NUMBER OF LESSONS AND NOT JUST THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE OFFENSES. >> LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT GOING FORWARD. JACKIE, WHAT'S NEXT FOR DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE ON THE OBSTRUCTION ISSUE? IS IT A DEAD ISSUE? >> I THINK THE NEXT BEST STEP IS TO GET DON McGAHN, COREY LEWANDOWSKI, HOPE HICKS UP TO THE HILL TO TESTIFY ABOUT THEIR TIMELINE.

THIS IS WHAT SHE'S SAID TO HER MEMBERS ALL ALONG, WE CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM. THAT'S NOT REALLY RESONATING. EVERYTHING THE HOUSE DOES PASS JUST GOES TO MITCH McCONNELL'S GRAVEYARD. I THINK THE BEST RECOURSE IS FOR DEMOCRATS TO GO HOME, HOLD THESE TOWN HALLS, CONTINUE TO EDUCATE THEIR CONSTITUENTS ON WHAT IS GOING ON WITH REGARDS TO THE INVESTIGATION, BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE. THEN WHEN THEY COME BACK, THAT'S THE BEST TIMING FOR THEM TO INITIATIVE AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY AND EXPEDITE GETTING THESE PEOPLE ONTO THE HILL TO TESTIFY.

RIGHT NOW THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN STONEWALLING AND FRUSTRATIONS HAVE BEEN BOILING OVER. OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES HAVE COME TO A STANDSTILL BECAUSE McGAHN, HICKS AND LEWANDOWSKI, REALLY IMPORTANT WITNESSES, THAT AS MUELLER SAID REALLY GET TO THE HEART OF THE CASE THROUGH THEIR TESTIMONIES. THEY'VE BEEN REFUSING TO COOPERATE. >> CYNTHIA, TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE DON McGAHN. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF FOLKS WHOSE NAMES CAME UP IN THE OBSTRUCTION PORTIONS OF THE HEARING TODAY. HOW DID SOME OF THE FOLKS IN THE TRUMP CIRCLE COME OUT OF THE HEARING THIS MORNING? DID THEY IMPROVE THEIR POSITION? DID THEY INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES? >> I THINK THEY IMPROVED THEIR POSITION IN THIS WAY. THERE'S NO REASON WHY THEY SHOULD BE DOING ANYTHING BESIDES CONTINUING TO STONEWALL. IF YOU REPRESENT DON McGAHN AFTER TODAY, JUST SAY YOU'RE NOT COMING. THE HOUSE IS SORT OF FECKLESS AND THEY CAN'T SEEM TO GET ORGANIZED AND THE LAWSUITS ARE TAKING FOREVER AND WE'LL DRAG THIS THING OUT. A DEAD CASE IS AS GOOD AS A WIN. IF YOU REPRESENT ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE, WHAT YOU DO IS JUST CONTINUE TO STONEWALL.

HOPE HICKS CAME IN, STONEWALLED, GOT AWAY WITH IT. LEWANDOWSKI HAS NEVER GOTTEN UP THERE. THERE'S NOT A REASON IN THE WORLD WHY McGAHN HAS AN EXCUSE ON WHY HE HASN'T APPEARED AND YET HE HASN'T APPEARED AND THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCE. I'M VERY DISSPIRITED ABOUT WHERE WE'RE GOING AND MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT AFTER A DAY LIKE TODAY, PELOSI IS NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO PUSH IT.

SHE'S GOING TO TRY TO COME UP FOR SOMETHING ELSE FOR THE HOUSE TO BE KNOWN FOR TO TRY TO GET REELECTED IN THE NEXT ELECTION. THIS GROUP DOESN'T LOOK TO ME LIKE THEY'RE A GROUP THAT ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE IMPEACHMENT FORWARD IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY. >> GLENN, AS A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR YOURSELF, WAS THERE A QUESTION OR SET OF QUESTIONS THAT WAS NOT ASKED ON THE OBSTRUCTION ISSUE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ASKED? >> NO.

I THINK THEY COVERED ALL THE BASES. I THINK THEY REALIZED EARLY ON THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUSH MUELLER BEYOND THE FOUR CORNERS OF HIS REPORT. I THINK THE MOST EFFECTIVE QUESTIONING WAS ACTUALLY JUST THE SORT OF SLOW, THOUGHTFUL AND METHODICAL RECOUNTING OF THE INCIDENT WITH DON McGAHN, WITH COREY LEWANDOWSKI. I FOR ONE FIND THE COREY LEWANDOWSKI EPISODE ABSOLUTELY REMARKABLE WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TOLD A PRIVATE CITIZEN, NOT A CABINET MEMBER, NOT AN ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL, PRIVATE CITIZEN COREY LEWANDOWSKI. HE SAID I WANT YOU TO GO TELL JEFF SESSIONS TO TELL MUELLER TO SHUT DOWN THE INVESTIGATION AND ONLY INVESTIGATE FUTURE CRIMES. THEN HE TOLD COREY LEWANDOWSKI, IF JEFF SESSIONS DOESN'T SHUT THINGS DOWN, I WANT YOU TO FIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU. THAT'S A WHOLE BASKET FULL OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS RIGHT THERE. WHAT A GROSS ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION. I'M ACTUALLY HEARTENED THAT SOME OF THE CONGRESSIONAL QUESTIONERS TOOK MUELLER STEP BY STEP THROUGH THOSE INSTANCES OF MISCONDUCT. AND I AM SOMEWHAT PESSIMISTIC.

BUT I THINK THE SUBPOENAS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ENFORCE THROUGH THE COURT PROCESS, THE McGAHNS, THE HOPE HICKS, I ACTUALLY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GET SOME GOOD STRONG RULINGS FROM FEDERAL JUDGES. THE WITNESSES MAY BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY. WE MAY HAVE HEARD THE OPENING STATEMENT FROM THE PROSECUTOR. OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE COMES FROM THE MOUTHS OF THE WITNESSES. THAT'S HOPEFULLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. >> JACKIE, I WANT TO ASK YOU, TODAY HAVE YOU — TO CHALLENGE THE BASIS, THE ORIGINS OF THE INVESTIGATION. HOW DID YOU SEE THAT. DID REPUBLICANS ACHIEVE WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO ON THE OBSTRUCTION SIDE. >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. IF YOU NOTED NOT ONE REPUBLICAN DIRECTLY DISPUTED ROBERT MUELLER AND THE 448-PAGE REPORT THAT LISTED THESE INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. INSTEAD THEY JUST TRIED TO UNDERCUT MUELLER HIMSELF AND TRY TO PAINT THIS PICTURE THAT THIS WAS A PARTISAN INVESTIGATION TO BEGIN WITH AND TRIED TO SEW A LOT OF DOUBT ABOUT THE INFAMOUS STEEL DOSSIER AND HOW IT WAS THAT THIS INVESTIGATION, YOU KNOW, BUILT OFF OF A DOSSIER THAT REPUBLICANS TRIED TO PORTRAY AS LARGELY DISCREDITED.

WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THIS INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT BEING CURRENTLY CONDUCTED BY THE DOJ THAT ROBERT MUELLER REFUSED TO COMMENT ON. THAT'S WHAT REPUBLICANS KEPT GETTING BACK TO ABOUT GLENN SIMPSON, HIS ROLE IN THIS PROCESS, AND ALSO REALLY TRIED TO LODGE PARTISAN ATTACKS AT SOME OF THE PEOPLE SITTING BEHIND ROBERT MUELLER, HIS REALLY ESTEEMED LAWYERS. THAT'S WHEN I THINK MUELLER WAS MOST AGITATED IN PUTTING FORWARD A DEFENSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAD WORKED OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS IN PAINSTAKING DETAIL ON THIS REPORT.

>> WHETHER IT'S CHALLENGING THE BIAS OF HIS TEAM OR TRYING TO GET HIM TO TALK ABOUT THE STEEL DOSSIER, WHETHER IN THE MORNING OR THE AFTERNOON, ESPECIALLY ON THE OBSTRUCTION QUESTION, MUELLER OFTEN SAID HE DECLINED TO ANSWER OR REFERRED TO THE REPORT. WAS HE TOO LIBERAL WITH HIS REFUSAL TO ANSWER OR WAS HE JUST RIGHT? >> I THOUGHT HE WAS TOO LIBERAL. I'M A BIG FAN OF HIS. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE DEFENSE OF HIS PROSECUTORS, WHEN THE ATTACK WENT OUT ABOUT SO-AND-SO DONATED $3,000 OR 12,000 OR WHATEVER IT WAS, HE WOULD HAVE EASILY SAID, WELL, I'M A LIFELONG REPUBLICAN, OR HE COULD HAVE EASILY SAID BOB BARR DONATED $50,000 TO SOME REPUBLICAN SENATE COMMITTEE BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED. PEOPLE HAVE POLITICAL POINTS OF VIEW AND THEY LEAVE THEM IN THE GRAND JURY ROOM. YOU LEAVE THEM OUTSIDE THE DOOR. YOU DON'T BRING THEM IN. PROSECUTORS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE OPINIONS BUT IT HAS NOT AFFECTED MY PROSECUTORS. HE WASN'T WILLING TO TAKE IT ONE STEP FURTHER. I KIND OF FELT LIKE HE JUST SORT OF WAS A FIGHT HE DID NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN.

>> YOU GET THE FEELING HE COULD HAVE PUNCHED BACK A LITTLE MORE. >> I JUST THINK EVERY SIDE CAME IN READY FOR A FIGHT AND HE STOOD THERE WITH HIS ETHICAL ARMOR. THAT'S WHAT WE ALL ADMIRE ABOUT HIM BUT MAYBE THAT'S NOT FOR THIS TIME. I WAS DISSPIRITED BY THE WHOLE THING. >> MUELLER'S RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS, WAS HE TOO LIBERAL WITH THE REFUSALS TO ANSWER OR NOT? >> HE TRIED TO STICK WITHIN THE CONFINES OF WHAT HE PROMISED TO DO WITH THE REPORT, NOT GET PARTISAN AND NOT BE OVERLY DEFENSIVE AND POINT TO HIS WORK. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS EFFECTIVE. I DO HAVE TO SAY IN TRANSITIONING TO THE SECOND HEARING I THINK IT MADE HIS CHALLENGES TO TRUMP THAT MORE IMPACTFUL AND CREDIBLE WHEN YOU PUT HIS STATEMENTS SIDE BY SIDE TO THE PRESIDENTS. >> GLENN, YOU'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT HOW TO FORMULATE OR STRATEGIES FOR FORMULATING QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, WHETHER REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, WHETHER TO MAKE YOUR QUESTIONS SHORT AND LEADING OR TO ASK OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS.

I HAPPEN TO SEE MUELLER FREQUENTLY USE THE CAN YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION IF A QUESTION PUNISHING MEMBERS FOR ASKING TOO LONG AND CONVOLUTED QUESTIONS. I HAVE TO WONDER IF THAT WAS A STRATEGY OR MUELLER REALLY WASN'T HEARING THEM. >> THE ONES DETERMINED TO MAKE SPEECHES FOR THEIR CONSTITUENTS BACK HOME, TRY TO POUND THEIR CHEST A LITTLE BIT, THEY WEREN'T INTERESTED IN ELICITING ANY TRUTHFUL ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT BOB MUELLER FOUND IN ANY EVENT. WHEN I WATCHED THE PROCEEDINGS, IT LOOKED VERY MUCH LIKE A CRIMINAL TRIAL. THE PROSECUTOR'S JOB IS TO ELICIT FACTUAL, ACCURATE RELIABLE INFORMATION. AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S JOB TYPICALLY IS TO ASK QUESTIONS DESIGNED TO KNOCK DOWN THAT INFORMATION, HAVE THE JURY QUESTION ITS RELIABILITY, DIVERT ATTENTION FROM WHATEVER INCRIMINATED THEIR CLIENT AND TRY TO GET THEIR CLIENT OFF REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY COMMITTED THE CRIME OR NOT.

THAT'S NOT A CRITICISM. THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE PRACTICE. THAT'S WHAT I CALL UNFOLDING IN THE QUESTIONING OF BOB MUELLER. I THINK THE LEADING WERE A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT GAVE MUELLER THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER YES OR NO. IS HE THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. IT'S NO SURPRISE OR SECRET THAT MUELLER'S COMMUNICATIVE ABILITIES ARE DIFFERENT NOW THAN THEY WERE FIVE YEARS AGO, 10 YEARS AGO, 20 YEARS AGO. YOU CAN SIMPLY LOOK AT HIS OLD CONGRESSIONAL APPEARANCES TO SEE. HE WAS MUCH LOUDER, MUCH STRONGER, MUCH MORE FORCEFUL. SOMETHING WAS LIMITING HIS ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE TODAY IN A WAY WE HADN'T SEEN BEFORE.

WHEN YOU ASK WAS HE TOO RELUCTANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, WAS HE TOO CIRCUMSPECT, THAT'S LIKE ASKING IS WATER IS TOO WET. THE ONLY THING THAT LIMITED BOB MUELLER'S RESPONSES TODAY IS THE INTERNAL MAN THAT HE IS. >> WE ARE ON OUR BAY TO GO SPEAK WITH REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON. SHE REPRESENTS TEXAS AND SHE'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THE REPS ASKING MUELLER QUESTIONS TODAY DURING THE TESTIMONY. ♪♪ >> WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM MUELLER TODAY? >> I WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH. [ INAUDIBLE ] >> WITH THE EVIDENCE IN VOLUME ONE, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AS IT RELATES TO VOLUME TWO. [ INAUDIBLE ] >> I THINK WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS IF THE PRESIDENT WAS — [ INAUDIBLE ] >> THE PRESIDENT'S PATTERN OF CONDUCT AS A WHOLE SHEDS LIGHT ON THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ACTS AND THE INFERENCES THAT CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT HIS INTENT. DOES THAT MEAN YOU HAVE TO INVESTIGATE ALL OF HIS CONDUCT TO ASCERTAIN TRUE MOTIVE? >> NO. [ INAUDIBLE ] >> ACT OF OBSTRUCTION THAT YOU INVESTIGATED, CORRECT? >> I DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT FOR HOW THAT IS CHARACTERIZED.

>> ARE YOU HOPING THIS — [ INAUDIBLE ] >> IF MUELLER DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OUTSIDE OF HIS REPORT, IS THERE A POTENTIAL THIS COULD BACKFIRE FOR DEMOCRATS AND TRUMP WOULD COME OUTLOOKING MORE POPULAR? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT. WE'LL CONTINUE WITH HEARINGS AND FINISH OUR WORK INVESTIGATING THE WHOLE SERIES OF INCIDENCES THAT OCCURRED IN THIS ADMINISTRATION. >> YES. >> WHAT SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BE LOOKING FOR TODAY? >> I HOPE THEY WILL BE LISTENING. THEY SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR THE VOLUME ONE AND TWO COMING TO LIGHT AND THE STORY BEING TOLD.

IT MAY NOT BE THE BEST SELLER, BUT IT WILL BE A STORY THAT THEY WILL HAVE NEVER HEARD BEFORE. >>. [ INAUDIBLE ] >> YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC EFFORT. TESTIMONY FROM WITNESSES IS AT THE HEART OF ANY CASE THAT INVESTIGATORS ARE PURSUING. >> DAVID, IS IT BELIEVABLE THAT THE DOJ, I MEAN, AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, I'VE OPPOSED THE DOJ, I'VE OPPOSED THE GOVERNMENT, AND THEY DON'T SEEM LIKE THE FOLKS WORRIED ABOUT TIME. DO YOU THINK MUELLER'S ANSWER WAS SATISFACTORY? WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO OPPOSE THE PRESIDENT? IF SO, WHY WAIT UNTIL DECEMBER TO EVEN BRING THIS UP. WERE THEY BAMBOOZELED BY RUDY GIULIANI? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. WAS HIS ANSWER SATISFACTORY? >> NO. AND IT WAS ONE OF THE ODDEST MOMENTS BECAUSE HE OFFERED MUELLER AN OUT. MUELLER'S LEGAL RESPONSE WAS THERE'S A BALANCING TEST BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WE HAVE AND HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO LITIGATE A SUBPOENA OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. MALONEY SAID SO YOU HAD ALL THE INFORMATION YOU NEEDED AND MUELLER SAID, NO, NOT REALLY.

WE JUST LOOKED AT HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO LITIGATE. AND THAT'S WHERE IT LOOKED. THIS IS A FAIR CRITICISM OF BOB MUELLER. THIS IS THE CENTRAL ACTOR. AS WHAT WE SAW IN THE BILL CLINTON INVESTIGATION. >> A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY IT WASN'T WHAT CLINTON DID. WHAT GOT HIM IMPEACHED WAS PERJURY UNDER OATH. A LOT OF PEOPLE WANTED TO SEE HOW THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD BEHAVE IF HE HAD TO DO A LIVE INTERVIEW OR RECORDED INTERVIEW WITH BOB MUELLER UNDER OATH BECAUSE MOST ANALYSTS WOULD AGREE, MOST LAWYERS WOULD AGREE DONALD TRUMP WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED THAT INTERVIEW WITH BOB MUELLER.

IT TOOK A LOT OF AIR OUT OF THE ROOM WHEN BOB MUELLER SAID, NO, IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TOO LONG. AND THEN WHEN HE GOT THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, WELL, WERE THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWERS UNDER OATH? HE DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. HE LOOKED TO HIS DEPUTY — >> IN FAIRNESS TO MUELLER, IS IT POSSIBLE WE CAN SAY, WELL, ROBERT MUELLER, IT MAY BE THE MUELLER REPORT, BUT HE DIDN'T WRITE THE WHOLE THING.

HE HAD HELP. AIDES, DEPUTIES. IS THAT EXCUSABLE FOR THAT REASON? >> NOT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ANSWERS TO THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A LITIGATION MATTER RELATED TO PAPADOPOULOS, PERHAPS BOB MUELLER COULD LOOK AT HIS COUNSEL. BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DECISION TO NOT INTERVIEW DONALD TRUMP, TO NOT SUBPOENA HIM, TO ACCEPT THE ANSWERS FROM DONALD TRUMP, FRANKLY WRITTEN BY HIS LAWYERS, NOT UNDER SWORN OATH OF THE PRESIDENT, THAT IS EXACTLY THE MOMENT THE PRINCIPAL IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE, BOB MUELLER, NEEDS TO HAVE COMMAND OF THAT TOPIC AND HAVE A WELL-VERSED CONVERSATION WITH THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. BOB MUELLER DID NOT RISE TO THAT MOMENT. A LOT OF PEOPLE, WE TALK ABOUT BOB MUELLER'S CREDENTIALS. HE'S A HERO AS MANY PEOPLE SAY. HE IS WELL SEASONED.

HE'S AN ACCOMPLISHED COUNSEL IF YOU WILL. FBI DIRECTOR. IT IS ALSO FAIR TO ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND PERHAPS CRITICIZE HIS HANDLING OF EXACTLY THIS PIECE OF THE INVESTIGATION. I THINK THIS IS A TOUGH MOMENT OF SCRUTINY FOR BOB MUELLER. >> JACKIE, YOU WERE KEYED IN ON MALONEY'S EXCHANGE. ONE OF THE REASONS YOU DIDN'T TALK TO THE PRESIDENT, IS THAT TO DO WITH THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND HIS REFUSAL TO INCRIMINATE HIMSELF? AND THEN THE ANSWER WAS SORT OF, WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WHICH LEAVES ALL OF US WONDERING, WELL, IS THAT THE REASON? IS THAT YOUR TAKEAWAY? >> THAT WAS ALWAYS THE CONCERN THE WHITE HOUSE WAS PRIVATELY DISCUSSING THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS GOING TO PERJURE HIMSELF AND THAT'S WHY HE WAS A LIABILITY. BUT THAT STILL DOESN'T PROVIDE AN ANSWER. AND YOU REALLY HAVE TO WONDER, ESPECIALLY AFTER MUELLER CONFIRMED THAT TRUMP'S WRITTEN ANSWERS WERE INADEQUATE AND UNTRUTHFUL, WHY HE DIDN'T PUSH HARDER FOR AN INTERVIEW. >> DAVID, JACKIE AND THANK YOU TO ALL OUR GUESTS, CYNTHIA, GLEN KERSHNER. PRESIDENT TRUMP COMMENTED ON MUELLER'S TESTIMONY THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

HE'S NOW TAKING QUESTIONS FROM REPORTERS ON THE WHITE HOUSE SOUTH LAWN. LET'S LISTEN IN. NO, WE DON'T HAVE IT QUITE YET. SO WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR THAT TO COME ON, LET ME ASK YOU, WHAT — OH, NOW I'M HEARING WE HAVE IT. OKAY. SO UP TO THE SOUTH LAWN. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> SO WE HAD A VERY GOOD DAY TODAY. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. OUR COUNTRY. THERE WAS NO — OF WHAT ROBERT MUELLER WAS TRYING TO DEFEND.

IN ALL FAIRNESS TO ROBERT MUELLER, WHETHER HIS PERFORMANCE WAS A BAD ONE OR A GOOD ONE, I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT. I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S GOING ON. THERE WAS NO DEFENSE TO THIS RIDICULOUS HOAX. THIS WITCH HUNT THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME. PRETTY MUCH FROM THE TIME I CAME DOWN ON THE ESCALATOR WITH OUR FIRST LADY AND IT'S A DISGRACE WHAT HAPPENED.

BUT I THINK TODAY PROVED A LOT TO EVERYBODY. IN FACT, SOME OF MY BIGGEST OPPONENTS WROTE THINGS TODAY I WOULDN'T BELIEVE THEY WOULD HAVE WRITTEN AND I APPRECIATE THAT THEY DID THAT. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY BAD THING FOR OUR COUNTRY. AND DESPITE EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN THROUGH, IT'S BEEN AN INCREDIBLE 2 1/2 YEARS FOR OUR COUNTRY. THE ADMINISTRATION, OUR PRESIDENT, ME, WE'VE DONE A GREAT JOB. WE'VE DONE IT UNDER THIS TERRIBLE, PHONY CLOUD, A PHONY CLOUD. AND THEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES. ABSOLUTELY ASHAMED. AND YOU KNOW WHO KNEW IT WAS A PHONY CLOUD MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE? SCHIFF AND NADLER AND SCHUMER AND PELOSI. EVERY ONE OF THEM. THEY ALL KNEW IT WAS PHONY STUFF. AND YOU LOOK AT THE POLLS. THE POLLS ARE SHOWING IT MAYBE MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE OR ANYTHING ELSE. AND I'VE HAD MY BEST POLLS, AND I DON'T SAY WHY, BUT PEOPLE SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN OUR COUNTRY WITH THIS WHOLE THING.

I'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH IT FOR THREE YEARS. FOR THREE YEARS. ALL NONSENSE. SO THIS WAS A VERY BIG DAY FOR OUR COUNTRY. THIS WAS A VERY BIG DAY FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. AND YOU CAN SAY IT WAS A GREAT DAY FOR ME, BUT I DON'T EVEN LIKE TO SAY THAT. IT'S GREAT. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THOSE INCREDIBLE WARRIORS THAT YOU WATCHED TODAY ON TELEVISION.

REPUBLICANS THAT DEFENDED SOMETHING AND DEFENDED SOMETHING VERY POWERFUL, VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY WERE REALLY DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY. MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, THEY WERE DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY. BUT THEY WERE WARRIORS, AND THEY'VE BEEN WARRIORS FOR A LONG TIME. AND EVERYBODY KNEW IT WAS A HOAX. ESPECIALLY THE DEMOCRATS. I WISH WE COULD BE A FLY ON THE WALL IN THOSE ROOMS WHERE THE DEMOCRATS WOULD GO AND TALK BEFORE AND AFTER MEETINGS. AND THEY'D BE LAUGHING AND SMILING AND SAY, CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT WE'RE GETTING AWAY WITH THIS? BUT IN THE END, THEY DIDN'T GET AWAY WITH IT. YEAH? >> [ INAUDIBLE ]. >> HE DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXONERATE.

THAT'S VERY INTERESTING. PEOPLE MENTION EXONERATION. THAT WAS SOMETHING WHERE HE TOTALLY FOLDED BECAUSE HE NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO EXONERATE. AND IT WAS COVERED VERY WELL BY CONGRESSMAN TURNER AND PUT TO A CONCLUSION. WE WERE — IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT NOT ONLY THE REPORT, BEYOND THE REPORT, TAKE A LOOK AT NOT WHAT HE SAID BUT WHAT HE WAS FORCED TO SAY. AND EVEN YOUR NETWORKS AND YOUR NETWORK AND YOUR NETWORK AND YOUR — EVERY ONE OF THESE NETWORKS, THEY PUT UP THEIR HANDS. WE HAD A COUPLE OF CASES — ACTUALLY, WE HAD ABOUT SIX CASES WHERE THEY ASKED OUR PEOPLE, OUR REPRESENTATIVES, TELEVISION NETWORKS, PLEASE DON'T COME IN TONIGHT. WE'LL NOT BE DOING MUCH ON IT. AND THE REASON THEY'RE NOT BECAUSE IT'S OVER.

GO AHEAD. >> ARE YOU CONCERNED YOU COULD BE INDICTED OUT OF OFFICE? [ INAUDIBLE ]. >> WIKILEAKS IS A HOAX JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE. AND ALL OF THOSE PROBLEMS HAVING TO DO WITH CRIME WERE THE BIGGEST HOAX OF ALL. IT WAS A WITCH HUNT. A TOTAL WITCH HUNT. AND WHEN YOU SAW ROBERT MUELLER'S STATEMENT, THE EARLIER STATEMENT, AND THEN HE DID A RECAP, HE DID A CORRECTION LATER ON IN THE AFTERNOON. AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT CORRECTION WAS, AND YOU STILL ASKED THE QUESTION. YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE YOU'RE FAKE NEWS. AND YOU'RE ONE OF THE MOST — AND LET ME JUST TELL YOU. THE FACT THAT YOU EVEN ASKED THAT QUESTION, YOU'RE FAKE NEWS BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT? HE TOTALLY CORRECTED HIMSELF IN THE AFTERNOON AND YOU KNOW THAT JUST AS WELL AS ANYBODY. [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> I DON'T KNOW WHOSE ANSWERS WEREN'T. I GUESS HIS ANSWERS WEREN'T. IF YOU LOOK, THE WHOLE REPORT, YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT. SOME OF THE THINGS HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

BUT YOU KNOW, IN THE END, WHAT HE DID, HE ACTUALLY, PROBABLY CAME THROUGH FOR HIMSELF. THE PERFORMANCE WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT VERY GOOD. HE HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS. BUT WHAT HE SAID MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE IS THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN THREE YEARS OF EMBARRASSMENT AND WASTE OF TIME FOR OUR COUNTRY. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? THE DEMOCRATS THOUGHT THEY COULD WIN AN ELECTION LIKE THIS. I THINK THEY HURT THEMSELVES VERY BADLY FOR 2020. >> [ INAUDIBLE ]. >> SHALL I WHAT? >> I DON'T KNOW. I REALLY DON'T KNOW. DON'T KNOW. YEAH, GO AHEAD. FRANKLY, WHETHER OR NOT HE DID, WOULDN'T MATTER TO ME BECAUSE HE DID NOTHING WRONG. HE DID NOTHING WRONG BECAUSE IT'S SO UNIMPORTANT. IT WAS ALWAYS A VERY UNIMPORTANT MEETING.

IT WAS ONLY IMPORTANT TO THE FAKE NEWS. GO AHEAD. NO, HE DIDN'T SAY THAT. AGAIN, YOU'RE FAKE NEWS AND YOU'RE RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE LIST ALSO. LET ME JUST TELL YOU. GO BACK TO — NOT WHAT HE SAID. READ HIS CORRECTIONS. READ HIS CORRECTIONS. IF YOU READ HIS CORRECTIONS, YOU'LL FIND OUT. THAT'S WHY PEOPLE DON'T DEAL WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT AN HONEST REPORTER. >> [ INAUDIBLE ].

>> JOHN, THEY DEVASTATED. THE DEMOCRATS LOST SO BIG TODAY. THEIR PARTY IS IN SHAMBLES RIGHT NOW. THEY'VE GOT THE SQUAD LEADING THEIR PARTY. THEY ARE A MESS. WHERE EVEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT SO MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THE MOST OUTSPOKEN AND THEY SAY THIS WAS A DEVASTATING DAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS, AND YOU KNOW IT, JOHN, AND EVERYBODY ELSE KNOWS IT, THIS WAS A DEVASTATING DAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS.

>> MR. PRESIDENT — >> [ INAUDIBLE ]. >> A VERY DUMB AND VERY UNFAIR QUESTION BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT HIS CORRECTION, HE TOOK THAT TOTALLY OUT OF PLAY. HE MADE HIS DECISION BASED ON THE FACTS, NOT BASED ON SOME RULE. YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN ASK THAT QUESTION BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT'S A PHONY. GO AHEAD. >> [ INAUDIBLE ]. >> THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOTHING. AND NOW THEY HAVE LESS THAN NOTHING. AND I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE THE 2020 ELECTION VERY BIG, INCLUDING CONGRESSIONAL SEATS BECAUSE OF THE PATH THAT THEY CHOSE. WHO KNOWS WHERE IT GOES. FROM WHAT I HEAR, THEY'RE GIVING UP. I HEAR THEM DO WELL. THEY'LL NEVER GIVE UP. THEY'LL GO BACK INTO THE ROOM AND — AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WIN BETTER THAN EVER. NOW I'M GOING TO WEST VIRGINIA, ONE OF THE GREAT STATES. A STATE THAT'S DOING — IF YOU LOOK AT ONE OR NUMBER TWO IN THE COUNTRY. AND NOBODY WOULD HAVE BELIEVED THAT. WEST VIRGINIA'S DOING GREAT. I'M GOING TO WEST VIRGINIA. WE DID HAVE A BIG CASE TODAY. YOU KNOW, WE WON THE ASYLUM CASE IN WASHINGTON, WHICH, FRANKLY, YOU SHOULD BE ASKING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE REAL DEAL.

I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW NICE YOU ARE. GO AHEAD, GIVE ME A QUESTION. [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> NO, BECAUSE WE DID NOTHING WRONG. THE ANSWER IS VERY SIMPLE. NOTHING WAS DONE WRONG. THIS IS ALL A BIG HOAX. IF YOU LOOK AT IT TODAY, NOTHING WAS DONE WRONG. NOW, I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND, YOU'RE GOING TO FINE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WERE DONE WRONG. THAT'S GOING ON NOW. THAT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVEN'T BEEN WRITING ABOUT. THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE OTHER SIDE. >> MR. PRESIDENT — >> THAT HAS TO DO WITH A THING CALLED INVESTIGATE THE INVESTIGATORS. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS. THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY INTERESTING. >> MR. PRESIDENT — >> ROBERT MUELLER DID A GOOD JOB — [ INAUDIBLE ] >> LOOK, I THINK ROBERT MUELLER DID A HORRIBLE JOB. BOTH TODAY AND WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTIGATION.

BUT IN ALL FAIRNESS TO ROBERT MUELLER, HE HAD NOTHING TO WORK WITH. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN BE A BUILDER. IF THEY DON'T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT MATERIALS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD A VERY GOOD BUILDING. ROBERT MUELLER HAD NO MATERIAL. HE HAD NOTHING TO WORK WITH. SO, OBVIOUSLY, HE DID VERY POORLY TODAY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY EVEN AMONG THE FAKERS. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY WHO WOULD SAY HE DID WELL. I LOOKED AT YOUR PEOPLE. THEY'RE SAYING IT WAS DEVASTATING FOR THE DEMOCRATS. AND EVEN, I WILL TELL YOU, THE TWO MOST NAUSEOUS AND NAUSEATING NETWORKS WHOSE RATINGS HAVE BOTH GONE DOWN, WAY DOWN, EVEN THEY SAID THIS WAS A REALLY BAD DAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS. SO ROBERT MUELLER DID A POOR JOB, BUT IN ALL FAIRNESS TO HIM, HE HAD NOTHING TO WORK WITH. DAVID? >> MR. PRESIDENT, DO YOU REGRET NOT TALKING TO MUELLER — [ INAUDIBLE ] >> LOOK, I SAW WHAT HE DID TO PEOPLE.

HOW HE RUINED PEOPLE'S LIVES BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T REMEMBER A DATE OR SOMETHING VERY MINOR. HE RUINED PEOPLE'S LIVES. THE DEMOCRATS, THEY TOOK PEOPLE, THEY DESTROYED THEIR LIVES. THEY WENT BANKRUPT BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T AFFORD THE LEGAL FEES AND THERE WERE GOOD PEOPLE, MANY, MANY PEOPLE. SO WHEN YOU ASK ME THAT QUESTION, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS SEE HOW NICE THIS WEATHER IS, IF I MADE A MISTAKE AND SAID I WAS TALKING TO THE MEDIA AND IT WAS A LITTLE BIT RAINY, A LITTLE BIT OVERCAST, THEY'D SAY, WELL WITH HAVE TO DO — HE LIED. I'VE SEEN WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO PEOPLE, HOW THEY DESTROYED PEOPLE LIKE GENERAL FLYNN AND SO MANY OTHERS. WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO PEOPLE, NO, I DID THE RIGHT THING. >> MR. PRESIDENT — [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> WELL, MUELLER HAD NO MATERIAL. SURE. MUELLER HAD NO MATERIAL TO WORK WITH.

AND HE DID A HORRIBLE JOB. OBVIOUSLY, HIS PRESENTATION WAS WAY OFF. BUT THAT'S OKAY. IT DIDN'T MATTER. HE HAD NO MATERIAL. THERE WAS NOTHING DONE WRONG. IN FACT, THINGS WERE DONE RIGHT. THERE WAS NOTHING DONE WRONG. AND CERTAINLY, I MEAN, LOOK, I READ THE PAPERS AND I READ THE PRESS AND I READ THE INTERNET. AND IF YOU SEE WHAT'S GOING ON THE INTERNET, IF YOU LISTEN TO THE INTERNET, THIS WAS ONE OF THE WORST PERFORMANCES IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY. SO YOU KNOW THAT. YOU KNOW THAT VERY WELL. BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY COULD HAVE DONE A GOOD PERFORMANCE. HE HAD NO MATERIAL. IT WAS A FAKE SET OF FACTS THAT THE DEMOCRATS USED, AND OTHERS, TO TRY AND DO REALLY AN ILLEGAL OVERTHROW. BUT WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT ABOUT THAT.

[ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> WELL, THE ASYLUM IS — DAN? >> GUATEMALA? >> SO THE ASYLUM IS A VERY BIG RULING. THAT WAS A TREMENDOUS RULING TODAY. WE APPRECIATE IT. WE RESPECT THE COURTS VERY MUCH. THAT HELPS US VERY MUCH AT THE BORDER. THE NUMBERS ARE WAY DOWN AT THE BORDER WHICH IS A GOOD THING. APPREHENSIONS ARE WAY DOWN. BECAUSE MEXICO HAS NOW 22,000 SOLDIERS AND THEY MEAN BUSINESS BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. THE ALTERNATIVE IS NOT GOOD FOR THEM. IT'S ALSO GOOD FOR MEXICO WHAT THEY'RE DOING BECAUSE THE CAR CARTELS HAVE BEEN RUNNING THE BORDER FOR YEARS AND YEARS. THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING, THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING WE GOT TO CLEAN IT UP. THEY GOT 21,000 SOLDIERS. THEY'LL PROBABLY PUT UP MORE. THIS RULING TODAY ON ASYLUM IS A TREMENDOUS RULING.

>> GUATEMALA? >> GUATEMALA GAVE US THEIR WORD. WE WERE GOING TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY BACKED OUT. THEY SAID IT WAS THEIR SUPREME COURT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. BUT THEY USED THEIR SUPREME COURT AS THE REASON THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT. SO WE'LL EITHER DO TARIFFS OR WE'LL DO SOMETHING. WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING VERY SEVERE WITH RESPECT TO GUATEMALA.

I'VE ALREADY CUT OFF PAYMENTS. I DID THAT A YEAR AGO. I CUT OFF PAYMENTS GOING TO HONDURAS, EL SALVADOR, AND GUATEMALA. WE USED TO SEND THEM $500 MILLION FOR NOTHING. FOR NOTHING. THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING EXCEPT SET UP CARAVANS. SO GUATEMALA, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF AND WON'T EVEN BE TOUGH. WE'RE LOOKING AT A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS. ONE OF THE THINGS VERY HEAVY, AS YOU KNOW, MEXICO HAS PUT 6,000 PEOPLE ON THAT BORDER. >> MR. PRESIDENT — [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> LET ME JUST TELL YOU SOMETHING. I KNOW YOU ALWAYS HAVE A QUESTION. [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> YOU MEAN MY WHITE HOUSE AIDES LIED? WHAT ABOUT HIS AIDE? WHAT ABOUT MUELLER'S AIDE? [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> HE DIDN'T SAY THAT AT ALL. YOU'RE UNTRUTHFUL WHEN YOU'RE ASKING — YOU ARE UNTRUTHFUL. WHEN YOU ASK THAT QUESTION — WHEN YOU ASK THAT QUESTION, YOU'RE UNTRUTHFUL, AND YOU KNOW WHO ELSE IS UNTRUTHFUL? YOU KNOW WHO ELSE IS UNTRUTHFUL? HIS AIDES.

WHITE WISEMAN WAS UNTRUTHFUL AND GOT CAUGHT JUST LIKE HE DID WITH ARTHUR ANDERSON WHEN HE LOST IN THE SUPREME COURT 9-0. HIS AIDES WERE VERY UNTRUTHFUL AND THEY PUT MUELLER — NOT AT ALL. THEY PUTMUELLER IN A VERY BAD POSITION. HIS AIDES PUT HIM IN A VERY BAD POSITION. IF YOU WERE EVER TRUTHFUL, YOU'D BE ABLE TO –? HAVE YOU — >> JUST A QUICK RECAP HERE, PRESIDENT TRUMP JUST FINISHED TALKING ON THE WHITE HOUSE SOUTH LAWN EN ROUTE TO WEST VIRGINIA. OBVIOUSLY, HE ADDRESSED THE MUELLER TESTIMONY TODAY. THE PRESIDENT CALLED THAT INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT. SAYING THIS WAS A DEVASTATING DAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS.

TRUMP SAID THAT ROBERT MUELLER DID A POOR JOB, THOUGH HE HAD NOTHING TO WORK WITH. THE PRESIDENT SAYS HE THINKS HE DID THE RIGHT THING NOT TALKING TO MUELLER, SAYING WHAT MUELLER AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE TO OTHER PEOPLE CALLING THE INVESTIGATION COLLUSION WITH THE MEDIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES. WE WILL HAVE MUCH MORE ON THIS INCLUDING SOME BEHIND THE SCENES EXCLUSIVES COMING UP SOON, BUT FIRST, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT SOME NON-MUELLER NEWS. TODAY IS BORIS JOHNSON'S FIRST OFFICIAL DAY AS PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

EARLIER JOHNSON MET WITH THE QUEEN OF BUCKINGHAM PALACE. SHE FORMALLY INVITED HIM TO FORM A NEW GOVERNMENT. HE DIDN'T EXACTLY GET A WARM WELCOME OUTSIDE THE PALACE. PROTESTERS FORMED A HUMAN CHAIN TRYING TO BLOCK JOHNSON'S MOTORCADE FROM ENTERING THE PALACE GATE. THE PROTEST WAS REPORTEDLY ORGANIZED BY CLIMATE CHANGE FIGHTING GROUP GREEN PEACE. AFTER MEETING THE QUEEN, JOHNSON MADE HIS WAY TO HIS OFFICIAL RESIDENCE AT 10 DOWNING STREET DELIVERING HIS FIRST REMARKS AS BRITAIN'S 77th PRIME MINISTER. >> PEOPLE WHO BET AGAINST BRITAIN ARE GOING TO LOSE. WE'RE GOING TO RESTORE TRUST IN OUR DEMOCRACY. AND WE'RE GOING TO FULFILL THE REPEATED PROMISES OF PARLIAMENT TO THE PEOPLE AND COME OUT OF THE EU ON OCTOBER THE 31st. NO IFS OR BUTS. >> BREXIT IS AT THE TOP OF THE AGENDA BUT BORIS' FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, HIS CABINET. A NUMBER OF BIG NAMES FROM THERESA MAY'S CABINET ARE OUT LIKE FOREIGN SECRETARY JEREMY HUNT. A FEW PEOPLE ARE STICKING AROUND LIKE STEVEN BARKLEY WHO'S KEEPING HIS JOB AS BREXIT SEC SECRETARY. >>> A 9-YEAR-OLD GIRL VISITING YELLOWSTONE PARK WAS HURT WHEN A BUFFALO CHARGED AT HER AND THREW HER INTO THE AIR.

THE WHOLE THING WAS CAUGHT ON CAMERA. WE'RE GOING TO WARN YOU, THE VIDEO IS PRETTY INTENSE. >> OH MY GOD. >> THE NATIONAL PARKS IS S PARK SAYING THE GIRL WAS STANDING WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE BEFORE SHE WAS CHARGED. SHE WAS TREATED AND RELEASED LATER THAT DAY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO VISIT A PARK ANY TIME SOON, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SAYS STAY 20 FEET AWAY FROM ANY BISON, ELK, DEER OR MOOSE. >>> FACEBOOK IS PAYING A RECORD FINE FOR VIOLATING PRIVACY. PAY $5 BILLION FOR VIOLATING A PREVIOUS PRIVACY SETTLEMENT. THIS IS THE BIGGEST FINE EVER FOR A TECH COMPANY. SOME DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMISSION DON'T THINK IT'S BIG ENOUGH. AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT, EXECS INCLUDING MARK ZUCKERBERG, HIMSELF, WILL NOW HAVE TO VERIFY FACEBOOK'S NEW FEATURES ACTUALLY MEET PRIVACY STANDARDS, DOCUMENTING ANY RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE FEATURES AND PLANS TO NEUTRALIZE THEM. FACEBOOK ALSO HAS TO CREATE A PRIVACY COMMITTEE. IT WAS A PRETTY EXPENSIVE DAY FOR FACEBOOK. THE S.E.C. ALSO HIT THE COMPANY WITH A RECORD $100 MILLION FINE OVER CLAIMS THAT FACEBOOK MISLED INVESTORS ABOUT THE MISUSE OF CUSTOMER DATA.

>>> ALLERGEN IS RECALLING TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANTS. THE FDA ORDERED THE RECALL AFTER FINDING A HIGHER RISK OF A RARE CANCER LINKED TO THOSE IMPLANTS. THE CANCER IS CALLED BIAALCL. THE FDA SAYS THERE'S BEEN A SHARP INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CASES. ACCORDING TO THE FDA, THERE HAVE BEEN 573 CASES WORLDWIDE. 481 OF THEM LINKED TO ALLERGEN'S BIO CELL TEXTURED IMPLANTS. 33 WOMEN HAVE DIED. THE FDA SAY WOMEN WHO HAVE THESE IMPLANTS BUT NO SYMPTOMS DO NOT NEED THEM REMOVED. SYMPTOMS INCLUDE SWELLING, PAIN AND SKIN IRRITATION. AND NOW YOU KNOW. >>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S GET BACK INTO THE MUELLER HEARINGS WHICH HAPPENED IN WASHINGTON, D.C.. REACTION UNFOLDING IN REALTIME AS THIS IS ALL HAPPENING EARLIER TODAY. LEEANN CALDWELL WATCHED THE HEARINGS FROM CAPITOL HILL. LEEANN, WHAT WERE YOUR MAJOR TAKEAWAYS FROM THE INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF TESTIMONY TODAY? >> Caller: ALISON, QUITE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY. FIRST A FEW THINGS, FIRST AS FAR AS MUELLER'S PERFORMANCE IS CONCERNED, DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS ARE SAYING THAT HE DEFINITELY GOT STRONGER AS THE DAY WENT ON.

THERE'S ONE MEMBER WHO DID TELL ME THAT DID NOT WANT TO BE NAMED BUT HE SAID THEY WEREN'T PREPARED FOR MUELLER NOT TO BE AS UNFORCEFUL AS HE WAS. THE OTHER TAKEAWAYS, WHAT REALLY MATTERS IS WHAT COMES NEXT. FROM WHAT THIS HEARING WAS. WHERE DO DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS STAND? DOES THIS MOVE THE NEEDLE AS FAR AS IMPEACHMENT IS CONCERNED? WE'RE EXPECTING TO HEAR FROM HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI AT A PRESS CONFERENCE ANY MOMENT NOW. AND THIS WILL BE THE FIRST TIME THAT WE GET HER TAKE ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THESE HEARINGS. AS WE KNOW, THERE'S ABOUT 85 TO 90 LAWMAKERS WHO HAVE ALREADY COME OUT FOR IMPEACHMENT, AND DOES THIS DAY-LONG TESTIMONY BEFORE TWO COMMITTEES, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE BY ROBERT MUELLER CONVINCE A HANDFUL OR MANY MORE LAWMAKERS ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE TO COME OUT AND SAY THAT IMPEACHMENT IS THE WAY TO GO? OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE ALSO HEARING, THAT DEMOCRATS ARE REALLY TRYING TO MAYBE SPIN THIS SAYING IT WAS A GREAT DAY FOR DEMOCRATS. IT WAS A GREAT DAY FOR THE COUNTRY. FOR THE COUNTRY TO HEAR ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT. THEY'RE SAYING THAT, YEAH, IF YOU READ THE MUELLER REPORT, YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T LEARN ANYTHING NEW.

BUT IF YOU DID NOT READ THE MUELLER REPORT, DEMOCRATS INSIST THAT PEOPLE'S MINDS WOULD BE BLOWN. THE FACT THAT THEY GOT MUELLER TO SAY THAT HIS REPORT DID NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT WAS A BIG WIN FOR DEMOCRATS ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. THEY REALLY HONED IN ON THAT ISSUE. AND SAYING THAT THAT MADE THE ENTIRE HEARING WORTH IT. IT WAS A VERY BIG DAY ON CAPITOL HILL. I THINK WHAT IS EVEN BIGGER IS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. DO DEMOCRAT — IS THIS THE END FOR DEMOCRATS AS FAR AS THEIR INVESTIGATION GOES? OR IS IT JUST THE BEGINNING? AND FROM EVERY INDICATION THAT I'M GETTING FROM TALKING TO MEMBERS AND TALKING TO AIDES, THEY'RE SAYING THAT IT'S JUST THE BEGINNING, ALISON.

>> WE JUST HEARD FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP A SHORT TIME AGO. I REALIZE HE ONLY SPOKE A LITTLE WHILE AGO SO YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR WHAT HE SAID. HE BASICALLY CALLED TODAY A DISASTER FOR THE DEMOCRATS. HE SAID EARLIER THIS WEEK HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE TESTIMONY BUT HE OBVIOUSLY DID. WAS TWEETING THROUGHOUT. YOU KNOW, WATCHING ALONG WITH CABLE NEWS. ANY SENSE OF — ANY REACTION TODAY TO HOW THE PRESIDENT TOOK ALL OF THIS? >> Reporter: YEAH, I DID GET TO HEAR WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID AND THERE WAS A FEW THINGS THAT HE SAID THAT REALLY STRUCK ME. THE FACT THAT HE KEPT REPEATING THE LINES, FAKE NEWS, FAKE NEWS, OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WE KNOW AFTER YEARS OF COVERING THIS PRESIDENT AS A CANDIDATE AND AS A PRESIDENT, WHEN HE USES THE TERMS OF FAKE NEWS, HE'S REALLY IN A DEFENSIVE POSTURE.

THAT'S WHEN HE FEELS MOST THREATENED. FAKE NEWS DOESN'T MEAN IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. WHAT FAKE NEWS ACTUALLY MEANS IS HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH WHAT WAS BEING SAID OR WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. AND IT'S ALSO NOTICEABLE THAT HE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT ONLY WATCHED FOX NEWS, HIS NETWORK OF CHOICE, BUT HE WATCHED COVERAGE ON ALL THE NETWORKS. HE POINTED OUT SPECIFIC REPORTERS AND CORRESPONDENTS FROM THOSE NETWORKS AND TALKED ABOUT WHAT THEIR NETWORKS WERE SAYING.

BUT, YEAH, I MEAN, I'M NOT SHOCKED THAT THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING THAT IT WAS A TERRIBLE DAY FOR DEMOCRATS, AND IT WAS A GREAT DAY FOR HIM. THAT'S WHAT HE DOES. HE ALWAYS DEFENDS HIMSELF. AND HE'S A MASTER MARKETER, REALLY, AND HE'S REALLY GOOD AT SPINNING WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO BENEFIT HIM. ANOTHER THING THAT WAS REALLY INTERESTING OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID IS HE CALLED THE REPUBLICANS ON THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SOLDIERS. WARRIORS. AND THAT THEY DEFENDED SOMETHING, QUOTE, VERY IMPORTANT, AND WHAT THAT WAS, THEY OBVIOUSLY DEFENDED THE PRESIDENT, BUT THEN HE WENT ON TO SAY AND THEY ALSO DEFENDED THE COUNTRY, TOO. SO HE WAS VERY PROUD OF THOSE REPUBLICANS AND THAT'S GOING TO GIVE THOSE REPUBLICANS A LOT OF COMFORT ESPECIALLY HEADING INTO AN ELECTION WHEN THEY KNOW THEY HAVE THE PRESIDENT BEHIND THEM BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS AN EXTREMELY LOYAL AND STRONG BASE, ALISON. SO HAVING THE PRESIDENT BEHIND THESE LAWMAKERS GOES A LONG WAY IN THEIR RE-ELECTION.

>> VERY INTERESTING AND SPECIFIC SELECTION OF WORDS FROM THE PRESIDENT ON THE SOUTH LAWN TODAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR REPORTING FROM CAPITOL HILL. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A BUSY ONE. WE WILL CHECK IN WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT LATER. THANKS, LEEANN. >>> ALL RIGHT. MANY PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA TUNED IN EARLIER TO WATCH THE TESTIMONY WITH LEGAL ANALYST DANNY CEVALLOS AND FORMER REPRESENTATIVE DAVID JOLLY. AFTER WATCHING FOR THREE HOURS, WE HAD A LOT OF THINGS TO SAY. HERE ARE SOME OF OUR FIRST REACTIONS. PEOPLE WERE COMING TODAY TO LOOK FOR GREATER CONTEXT. YOU WERE NOT GOING TO WALK AWAIR WITH A LOT OF THAT TODAY. >> THERE IS LITTLE MORE CLARITY TODAY AFTER THIS HEARING FOR YOUR MEDIUM-INFORMATION VOTER, IF YOU WILL, THAT WANT TO LOOK AT THEIR CONGRESS AND LOOK AT THEIR PRESIDENT AND SAY, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? IF YOU WOKE UP NOT CARING, I DON'T THINK YOU CARE MUCH RIGHT NOW.

>> I LOVE THE PHRASE HE JUST USED, MEDIUM-INFORMATION CITIZEN. MANY TIMES WE HEARD, WHY ASK THAT QUESTION? WE KNOW NO ONE EVER FIRES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, WHY WASTE 30 SECONDS WITH A QUESTION LIKE THAT? FORGETTING THAT FOR MANY PEOPLE, THIS IS AN EDUCATION. THEY HAVEN'T READ THE REPORT. SO, POSSIBLY, THE MOST EFFECTIVE QUESTIONERS TODAY FOR THE ONES WHO ASKED STUFF THAT WE THOUGHT IS JUST BASIC KNOWLEDGE AND ESSENTIALLY HAD MUELLER READING OR CITING TO HIS OWN REPORT.QUEY EDUCATED THE PUBLIC ON WHAT WAS IN THE RECORD, MAYBE AT THE END OF THE DAY THEY WERE MOST EFFECTIVE TODAY. >> IF YOU HAD TO GIVE A REPORT CARD TODAY ON MAYBE WINNERS, LOSERS, PEOPLE KIND OF TOED THE LINE, WHAT WOULD YOUR REPORT CARD BE OVERALL? >> I'M NOT SURE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE POWER OF A PAUSE. THEY HAD FIVE MINUTES. A LOT OF THEM WERE HURRIED. WREN BOB MUELLER SAYS IT TAKES A FORUM OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, ASK HIM WHAT HE WAS CONTEMPLATING. IF HE SAYS I STICK BY MY REPORT, SAY, WELL, WHAT FORUM? IF NOT CRIMINAL JUSTICE, WHAT FORUM? GIVE HIM TIME TO JUST ELICIT THAT A LITTLE BIT.

I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO SAY CONGRESS. >> WE DIDN'T FULLY GET THAT. THIS IS THE DANGER OF SCRIPTING YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. WHEN YOU DO THAT, WE SAW THAT TODAY. WE SAW CERTAIN MEMBERS STICKING SO RIGIDLY TO THEIR QUESTIONS AND THE EXPECTED ANSWERS. YOU COULD SEE THEM LOOKING DOWN AND READING THEIR QUESTIONS TO MUELLER. WHEN YOU STOP AND LISTEN AND DO A LITTLE IMPROV, YOU LISTEN TO MUELLER'S ANSWER AND THE PAUSE IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE HE MAY ADD TO THAT ANSWER. >> MORE THAN JUST A NO. AS HE DID SEVERAL TIMES. AND ACTUALLY INTERRUPTED THE NEXT QUESTION ON THE LIST BECAUSE THE QUESTIONER ASKED TOO QUICKLY. I KNOW FIVE MINUTES IS A TINY AMOUNT OF TIME, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE CHALLENGE IS ASK THE QUESTION, LISTENING TO THE ANSWER AND USING SOME IMPROV TO POSSIBLY DEVIATE, GO IN A NEW DIRECTION.

THAT'S WHEN SOMETIMES YOU STRIKE GOLD. >> YOU THINK THAT SOME REPRESENTATIVES SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT BY NOT LETTING HIM SPEAK OR JUST NOT TALKING QUITE AS MUCH? >> IT DEPENDS WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. A LOT OF MEMBERS WERE TRYING TO MAKE A MOMENT FOR THEMSELVES ON TELEVISION. THEY WANTED TO BE THE MEMBER THAT THE CAMERAS RUSHED TO OR GOT THE CALL TONIGHT. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS CONSUMEers ACROSS THE COUNTRY, WE GET OUR NEWS FROM DIFFERENT PLACES AND THERE WERE MEMBERS PLAYING TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES. YOU KNOW THAT THE PRESIDENT'S SPACE GOES TO FOX NEWS. DONALD TRUMP IS ALREADY UP QUOTING SOME OF THE COMMENTATORS ON FOX NEWS SAYING GREAT DAY FOR THE PRESIDENT. HE'S GOT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SAYING GREAT DAY FOR THE PRESIDENT. MANY MEMBERS TOOK FIVE MINUTES TO MAKE SPEECHES, NOT ASK QUESTIONS. >> WERE ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU WANTED TO HEAR, WERE THEY ASKED? >> NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I THINK THE NATION STILL NEEDED TO HEAR MR. MUELLER, IF DONALD TRUMP WASN'T PRESIDENT, WOULD YOU HAVE BROUGHT CHARGES? NEITHER SIDE ACTUALLY WANTED TO ASK THAT QUESTION. IT WAS FASCINATING. DEMOCRATS OFTEN STATED IT WITH A PERIOD AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE, NOT A QUESTION, THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN. I THINK THEY WERE FEARFUL THAT MAYBE EITHER MUELLER WOULDN'T HAVE ANSWERED IT OR WOULD HAVE ANSWERED IT IMPERFECTLY. REPUBLICANS DIDN'T ANSWER IT, EITHER, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T SURE HOW MUELLER WOULD ANSWER. THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT THE OBSTRUCTION PART OF THE INVESTIGATION WAS ABOUT, NOT THE COLLUSION PART, BUT THE OBSTRUCTION PART WAS DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CRIMINALLY ACT IN A WAY OR ACT IN A CRIMINAL WAY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE? IF SO, IT'S NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

WE DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER TO THAT TODAY. THE WHITE HOUSE IS VERY GOOD RIGHT NOW. THIS IS A GOOD DAY FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. >>> IN HIS TESTIMONY TODAY, ROBERT MUELLER HIT TOPICS LIKE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THE STEELE DOSSIER AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN'S TIES TO RUSSIA. DURING THE HEARING, NBC NEWS FACT CHECKED VARIOUS CLAIMS FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT AND MUELLER, HIMSELF. JANE KIM DID THE INCREDIBLE FACT CHECKING LIVE DURING THE TESTIMONY. SHE JOINS US LIVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANKS FOR HAVING ME. >> LET'S GO THROUGH SOME OF THE THINGS YOU ACTUALLY FACT CHECKED.

REPUBLICAN REP MIKE JOHNSON SAID TRUMP COOPERATED FULLY WITH MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION. >> FALSE. THIS IS THE WHOPPER OF THE DAY FOR ME. THE PRESIDENT SPENT YEARS TRYING TO OPPOSE HIS INVESTIGATION, PUBLICLY CONDEMNED IT, HE ENCOURAGED WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE. BUT MOSTLY, HE ALSO REFUSED TO TALK TO THE INVESTIGATION. HE AGREED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON CERTAIN TOPICS. WHEN YOU READ THOSE ANSWERS, HE SAYS I DON'T KNOW 30 TIMES. SO, AND HE ALSO REFUSED TO TALK ABOUT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WHICH WAS SORT OF THE MEATY THING THAT DEMOCRATS REALLY WANTED TO HEAR HIM RESPOND TO. HE DID NOT SIT FOR AN INTERVIEW AND YOU HEARD THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SAY HE WANTED THAT INTERVIEW TODAY AND ALSO HEARD THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WHO WAS ASKED BY A DEMOCRAT IF THE PRESIDENT'S ANSWERS WERE HELPFUL AND IF THEY WERE TRUTHFUL. AND HE SAID GENERALLY, THEY WERE NOT.

>> WE EVEN JUST HEARD THE PRESIDENT MOMENTS AGO ON THE SOUTH LAWN SAYING VERY SPECIFICALLY THAT HE'S GLAD HE DIDN'T TALK TO MUELLER. THAT HE SAW WHAT HE DID AND HE DIDN'T. THE PRESIDENT, HIMSELF, ACKNOWLEDGING IT AFTER THE FACT. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. REPUBLICAN REP LOUIE GOHMERT ASKED MUELLER ABOUT CELL PHONES. WHY DID THAT COME UP? WHAT DID MUELLER HAVE TO SAY? >> THIS SURPRISED ME TO HEAR THIS COME UP.

THIS IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY THE PRESIDENT HAS SORT OF PUSHED IN THE PAST, THAT ROBERT MUELLER DELETED EVIDENCE BETWEEN TWO FBI AGENTS HAVING AN AFFAIR AND WERE CAUGHT SPEAKING NEGATIVELY ABOUT THE PRESIDENT IN THEIR TEXT MESSAGES. AND FIVE MONTHS OF THOSE TEXT MESSAGES, 19,000 TEXTS, WERE MISSING WHEN THE FBI STARTED GOING THROUGH AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ST WAS REVIEWING THIS. THEY EVENTUALLY FOUND IT WAS A TECHNICAL PROBLEM AND FOUND THE TEXT MESSAGES LATER. ROBERT MUELLER DIDN'T FORMAT THEIR PHONES OR DELETE THE TEXT MESSAGES. NO EVIDENCE OF THIS AND MUELLER WAS SORT OF, LIKE, NO. >> WE WERE WATCHING WITH FORMER CONGRESSMAN DAVID JOLLY, SAID HERE WE GO, THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES, HE KNEW IT WAS COMING AS IT WAS HAPPENING. OUR THIRD ONE, PRESIDENT TRUMP CALLED MUELLER, QUOTE, HIGHLY CONFLICTED. DOES ROBERT MUELLER HAVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST HERE? >> THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LOOKS FOR BEFORE THEY APPOINT A SPECIAL COUNSEL AND REVIEWED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST THEY WERE MOST INTERESTED IN IS THE FACT THAT ROBERT MUELLER'S PRIVATE PRACTICE LAW FIRM ACTUALLY REPRESENTED SOME TRUMP ALLIES.

THEY WERE ACTUALLY WORRIED HE MIGHT BE BIASED IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS ALLEGED. SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE SAID, OR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SAID THIS DOESN'T PRECLUDE HIM FROM BEING SPECIAL COUNSEL. THE PRESIDENT, OF COURSE, SAYS HE'S BIASED AGAINST HIM AND HE DIDN'T GIVE HIM THE FBI DIRECTOR JOB. ROBERT MUELLER, AS HE SAID TODAY, DID NOT INTEND TO GET AN FBI DIRECTOR JOB. HE IS 74. HE WAS ALREADY FBI DIRECTOR FOR TEN YEARS. ACTUALLY I THINK EVEN MORE. HE SAID HE WENT TO TALK TO THE PRESIDENT ABOUT WHAT HE WOULD LOOK FOR IN AN FBI DIRECTOR, THAT WAS THE INFORMATIONAL INTERVIEW HE HAD BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL. HE WAS NOT LOOKING FOR THE JOB, HIMSELF. >> JANE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR FACT CHECKING TODAY.

SO INTERESTING TO WATCH EVERYTHING LIVE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S REAL, WHAT ISN'T. THANKS FOR CLEARING ALL THAT UP FOR US TODAY. >> THANKS. APPRECIATE IT. >> WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> A VERY BUSY NEWS DAY. >> TODAY'S HIGH-STAKES CONFRONTATION. >> LET'S GO LIVE TO THE BORDER WHERE OUR COLLEAGUES — >> EXCLUSIVE VIDEO. >> COUNTRY'S TOP INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS TESTIFYING. >> NBC NEWS GETS AN EXCLUSIVE LOOK INSIDE. >> LIVE HERE AT THE NATION'S CAPITOL. >> NOW AN OPEN INVESTIGATION. >> BLOCKBUSTER NEW REPORTING TODAY ON THIS. >> THIS IS THE DEADLIEST SCHOOL SHOOTING. >> SUPREME COURT UPHELD — >> THIS NEW REPORT COMES AMID A STAGGERING AMOUNT OF NEWS. >> BREAKING NEWS. >> NBC NEWS FIRST OUT WITH THIS SCOOP TODAY. >> BEEN AN EXTRAORDINARY NIGHT WATCHING THIS DEVELOP.

>> SO, A LOT TO TALK ABOUT. >>> WE ARE GOING TO START WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT TONIGHT. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS YOU HAVE NOT BEEN OTHERWISE HEARING ABOUT IN THE NEWS, BUT STICK WITH ME. >> FEED YOUR MIND WITH FRESH PERSPECTIVE. GET YOUR FAVORITE MSNBC SHOWS NOW AS PODCASTS. >>> ALL EYES ON THE 2020LATEST CANDIDATES WITH THE NBC NEWS MOBILE APP. STAY CONNECTED WITH BREAKING NEWS. TOP STORIES. LIVE VIDEO. AND YOUR FAVORITE NBC NEWS SHOWS.

TEXT "NBC NEWS" TO 66866 TO GET THE APP. >>> A VERY BUSY NEWS DAY. >> TODAY'S HIGH-STAKES CONFRONTATIONS. >> LET'S GO LIVE TO THE BORDER ARE OUR COLLEAGUES — >> EXCLUSIVE VIDEO. >> COUNTRY'S TOP INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS TESTIFYING. >> NBC NEWS GETS AN EXCLUSIVE LOOK INSIDE. >> LIVE HERE AT THE NATION'S CAPITOL. >> NOW AN OPEN INVESTIGATION. >> BLOCKBUSTER NEW REPORTING TODAY ON THIS.

>> THIS IS THE DEADLIEST SCHOOL SHOOTING. >> THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE REVISED VERSION. >> THIS NEW REPORT COMES AMID A STAGGERING AMOUNT OF NEWS. >> BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT. EXCLUSIVELY HERE — >> NBC NEWS WAS FIRST OUT WITH THIS SCOOP TODAY. >> BEEN AN EXTRAORDINARY NIGHT WATCHING THIS DEVELOP. >> SO, A LOT TO TALK ABOUT. >>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT. >> LESTER HOLT. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE A JET AIRPLANE UP THERE, BUT THAT IS FIRE. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MAX. HOW DO YOU CONVINCE SOME SKITTISH PASSENGER TO GET ON THIS AIRPLANE? MET A LOT OF GREAT PEOPLE. >> THE MOST TRUSTED EVENING NEWS ANCHOR IN AMERICA. >> THAT'S "NIGHTLY NEWS." I'M LESTER HOLT. >>> ALL EYES ON THE 2020 ELECTION. FOLLOW THE LATEST ON THE CANDIDATES WITH THE NBC NEWS MOBILE APP. STAY CONNECTED WITH BREAKING NEWS. TOP STORIES.

LIVE VIDEO. AND YOUR FAVORITE NBC NEWS SHOWS. TEXT "NBC NEWS" TO 66866 TO GET THE APP. >>> WHEN THE FACTS ARE HIDDEN IN THE SHADOWS. WHEN SOURCES GO SILENT BECAUSE THEY'RE RISKING SO MUCH MORE. WHEN EVERY LEAD TAKES YOU FURTHER DOWN A WINDING TRAIL BUT CLOSER TO THE TRUTH. AND THE CHALLENGE IS GREATER BECAUSE THE STAKES ARE HIGHER. THAT'S WHEN THE STORIES YOU UNEARTH CAN SHAKE THE WORLD. >> EXCLUSIVE REPORTS ON NBC NEWS. >> THIS IS EXCLUSIVE TO US. >> NBC NEWS IS OUT TODAY WITH SOME EXCLUSIVE NEW REPORTING. >>> WE ARE GOING TO START WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT TONIGHT. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS YOU HAVE NOT BEEN OTHERWISE HEARING ABOUT IN THE NEWS, BUT STICK WITH ME. >> FEED YOUR MIND WITH FRESH PERSPECTIVE. GET YOUR FAVORITE MSNBC SHOWS NOW AS PODCASTS. >>> WASHINGTON FEELS MORE CHAOTIC THAN EVER. IT'S MY JOB TO ASK THE TOUGH QUESTIONS. LEFT AND RIGHT.

AND HELP YOU MAKE SENSE OF IT ALL. >>> MORE AMERICANS WATCH NBC NEWS THAN ANY OTHER NEWS ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD. >>> YESTERDAY, WE HAD EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TO CONGRESSMAN DAVID CICILLINE'S PREPARATION FOR MUELLER'S TESTIMONY AS HE AND HIS TEAM CAME UP WITH THE QUESTIONS THEY WANTED TO ASK IN HIS FIVE MINUTES. IT'S A LITTLE TASTE OF WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE A LAWMAKER GETTING READY FOR A BIG DAY LIKE THIS. TAKE A LOOK. >> FIVE MINUTES. >> YES. OKAY. GOOD MORNING, DIRECTOR MUELLER. I WANT TO BEGIN BY THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. ♪♪ >> SO ONE THING THAT WE DIDN'T PUT IN THERE THAT I WAS THINKING WE MIGHT WANT TO ADD AT THE BEGINNING IS ONE OR TWO SENTENCES TO KIND OF ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK OF THE DIRECTOR AND THANK HIM.

>> YEAH. NO, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. ESPECIALLY IT WILL BE COMING OFF A REPUBLICAN EXAMINATION. >> YEAH. >> AND THE FBI. >> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND. >> I JUST THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND THE INVESTIGATION. >> SHOULD ALSO THROW IN FAIR AND INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION JUST SO THAT WE'RE HIGHLIGHTING THAT AS WELL. >> OKAY. >> THEN IN 1.92 — WHEN WE SAT DOWN LAST TIME, WE HAD DISCUSSED IT MORE CLEAR SAYING IT WOULD HAVE EFFECTIVELY — >> THE 2016 TRUMP CAMPAIGN. IS THAT CORRECT? >> HE COULD TRY TO PONTIFICATE AND SAY I CAN'T SPECULATE AS TO WHAT THE — >> I THINK WE SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO HOW HE'S ANSWERING QUESTIONS UP TO THAT POINT BECAUSE THAT IS A QUESTION IN WHICH HE'S TRYING TO EAT UP TIME, COULD SAY, WELL, IT'S HARD TO KNOW, MAY BE WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN INFORMATION IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO ADOPT YOUR CHARACTERIZATION. I'LL SAY THAT FACTS WERE LAID OUT IN THE REPORT ARE ACCURATE. >> YOU WANT TO READ THROUGH — >> TIME IT. >> YEAH. JUST — >> I CAN — >> YOU GOT MUELLER. I'LL BE MUELLER. >> ALL RIGHT. >> I CAN — >> OKAY. >> FIVE MINUTES, RIGHT? >> ALL RIGHT. READY? >> GOOD MORNING, DIRECTOR MUELLER. I WANT TO BEGIN BY THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND YOUR VERY DISTINGUISHED CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >> AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON FIVE — I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE — SECTION OF YOUR REPORT ENTITLED THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO CURTAIL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION. AND BY CURTAIL, YOU MEAN LIMIT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> YES. >> MY COLLEAGUES — PRESIDENT TRIED TO HAVE YOU FIRED AS THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL.

BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL REFUSED THE ORDER, THE PRESIDENT ASKED OTHERS TO HELP LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> CORRECT. >> COREY LEWANDOWSKI, ONE SUCH INDIVIDUAL? >> HE WAS. >> AND WHO IS HE? >> HE IS A FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL. >> AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID HE HAVE ANY OFFICIAL POSITION IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? >> HE DID NOT. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY OFFICIAL POSITION IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >> YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES AN INCIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE INVOLVING MR.

LEWANDOWSKI ON JUNE 19th, 2017, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT WAS JUST TWO DAYS AFTER THE PRESIDENT CALLED DON McGAHN AT HOME AND ORDERED HIM TO FIRE YOU, CORRECT? >> YES. >> FAIRLY SO. >> RIGHT AFTER HIS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, MR. McGAHN REFUSED TO FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO FIRE YOU. THE PRESIDENT CAME UP A NEW PLAN. TO GO AROUND ALL OF HIS SENIOR ADVISERS AND GOVERNMENT AIDES TO HAVE A PRIVATE CITIZEN, HIS FORMER CAMPAIGN MANAGER, TRY TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION. WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT TELL MR. LEWANDOWSKI TO DO? YOU RECALL HE TOLD HIM, DICTATED A MESSAGE TO MR. LEWANDOWSKI FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS AND ASKED HIM TO WRITE IT DOWN, IS THAT CORRECT? >> TRUE. >> DID YOUR TEAM HAVE ACCESS TO THIS HANDWRITTEN MESSAGE? >> YES. >> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO WHAT WE MAY AND MAY NOT HAVE — >> THE MESSAGE DIRECTED SESSIONS TO GIVE — I'M QUOTING FROM YOUR REPORT, TO GIVE A PUBLIC SPEECH SAYING THAT HE PLANNED TO MEET WITH THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO EXPLAIN THIS IS VERY UNFAIR AND LET THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR MOVE FORWARD WITH INVESTIGATING ELECTION MEDDLING FOR FUTURE ELECTIONS.

THAT'S ON PAGE 91. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, I SEE THAT, THANK YOU. YES, IT IS. >> DID MR. LEWANDOWSKI TRY MEET WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO EXECUTE THIS PLAN? >> HE DID. >> IN OTHER WORDS, MR. LEWANDOWSKI, A PRIVATE CITIZEN, INSTRUCTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO DELIVER A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT DIRECTED HIM TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND DID THAT MEETING HAPPEN? >> NO, IT DID NOT. >> DID THE PRESIDENT RAISE THE ISSUE, AGAIN, WITH MR. LEWANDOWSKI? >> HE DID. >> AND WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT SAY THE NEXT TIME HE RAISED IT? >> HE TOLD MR. LEWANDOWSKI THAT IF SESSIONS DOES NOT MEET WITH YOU, LEWANDOWSKI WILL TELL SESSIONS THAT HE WAS FIRED. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WE'RE OUT OF TIME RIGHT THERE. I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS.

>> DO YOU WANT US TO MOVE THIS LAST QUESTION UP HIGHER OR SHOULD WE JUST LEAVE IT IN THE ORDER — >> NO. I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO MAKE THOSE EDITS AND LET ME READ THROUGH IT ONE MORE TIME AND WE CAN TIME IT. >> DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED ANY ADDITIONAL CLOSING OR — I THINK YOU SHOULD USE ALL YOUR TIME ON SUBSTANCE. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO WASTE, LIKE, 30 SECONDS ON A CLOSING. >> THE ONLY THING I WAS THINKING IS ANOTHER — I DON'T KNOW THAT HE WOULD ANSWER THIS, BUT IT'S A GOOD WAY TO REMIND PEOPLE, YOU AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF A THOUSAND FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS WHO SAID THAT IT WAS SUFFICIENT, WARRANT CHARGING OF A CRIME, I ALSO THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR, THAT THIS, LIKE, ANYBODY ELSE WOULD BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION.

ANYBODY ELSE WOULD BE PROSECUTED AND IMPRISONED AND THE ONLY REASON THAT IS NOT HAPPENING IS BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH, YOU KNOW, FUNDAMENTALLY FEES WRONG. >> MR. MUELLER, YOU HAVE SEEN A LETTER WHERE A THOUSAND FORMER REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC FEDERAL PROSECUTORS HAVE READ YOUR REPORT AND SAID ANYONE BUT THE PRESIDENT WHO COMMITTED THESE ACTS WOULD BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. >> IF THE INDIVIDUAL WERE NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I MEAN, HE MAY STILL NOT WANT TO SPECULATE — >> ONE WAY YOU COULD ASK IT IS ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS LETTER, DO SIGNATORIES? ARE THESE PEOPLE THAT YOU RESPECT? >> IS THERE ANYTHING — THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH? I MIGHT GUESS HIS ANSWER IS GOING TO BE NO. >> DO YOU AGREE WITH THE FORMER COLLEAGUES, 1,000 PROSECUTORS CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION? >> THOSE PROSECUTORS — >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >>> AFTER REPRESENTATIVE CICILLINE FINISHED QUESTIONING ROBERT MUELLER HE CALLED ON THE HOUSE TO BEGIN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

REPRESENTATIVE CICILLINE JOINS US NOW FROM CAPITOL HILL. AND REPRESENTATIVE, FIRST, WE'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR LETTING US SEE YOUR PREPARATION YESTERDAY. REALLY FASCINAING TO SEE WHAT SOMEONE GOES THROUGH BEFORE THEY PARTICIPATE IN A HEARING LIKE THIS, SO THANKS FOR THAT. AND THE LACK — >> MY PLEASURE. >> YOU ASKED ROBERT MUELLER ABOUT THE 1,000 PROSECUTORS. YOU DIDN'T QUITE GET AN ANSWER ON THAT ONE. IT LOOKED LIKE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO.

ARE YOU SURPRISED CHAIRMAN NADLER DIDN'T LET HIM GO THERE? >> NO, YOU KNOW, THE CHAIRMAN, I THINK, WAS VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE TIME. WE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT EVERYONE ON THE COMMITTEE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THEIR QUESTIONS, SO HE WAS PRETTY STRICT ABOUT THE FIVE MINUTES. BUT AS YOU RECALL, CONGRESSMAN — THE CONGRESSMAN WHO FOLLOWED ME ASKED THAT SAME QUESTION AND ATTEMPTED TO GET AN ANSWER. CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL, THE LETTER SIGNED BY 1,000 FEDERAL PROSECUTORS. >> WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT ROBERT MUELLER ACTUALLY STARTED ANSWERING THE QUESTION? FOR A MOMENT WE WERE ALL ON THE EDGES OF OUR SEATS BECAUSE WE THOUGHT HE'D IMMEDIATELY SAY I'M NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THAT AND IT LOOKED LIKE HE WAS ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING. >> YEAH, THINK THE WAY HE ANSWERED IT WHEN CONGRESSMAN SWALWELL ASKED THAT WAS THOSE PROSECUTORS HAD A DIFFERENT FUNCTION OR THAT — I'M NOT SURE HE WOULD HAVE ANSWERED IT, BUT I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE REVIEWED YOUR EVIDENCE SAID IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT AN INDICTMENT ON MULTIPLE COUNTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

>> AFTER THE HEARING YOU SENT OUT A TWEET CALLING FOR IMPEACHMENT. DO YOU THINK YOUR FELLOW DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO FOLLOW THAT LEAD AFTER THE VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT JUST FAILED IN THE HOUSE A FEW DAYS AGO? >> WELL, I THINK THERE'S A GROWING NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE CALLED FOR THE BEGINNING OF AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, AND, AGAIN, THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE FORMAL PROCESS BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT SHOULD BE FILED. I SAID FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN THE MUELLER REPORT TO WARRANT THAT INQUIRY. I THINK PARTICULARLY AFTER THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TODAY WHERE HE REALLY BROUGHT THAT REPORT TO LIFE AND WALKED THROUGH THE VERY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOING ON THE PART OF THE PRESIDENT THAT THE URGENCY TO BEGIN THIS FORMAL IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IS EVEN MORE CLEAR. >> WE SAW HOW YOU PREPARED FOR TODAY AND THEN JUST HOW MUCH WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID MATCHED WITH YOUR REHEARSALS.

WE SAW A LOT OF REPRESENTATIVES DOING THAT. WHERE THEY DIDN'T REALLY IMPROV OR STRAY FROM WHAT THEY WANTED TO SAY. HOW IMPORTANT WAS IT FOR YOU TO STICK TO THAT MESSAGE EVEN WHEN YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN GETTING THE ANSWERS YOU WERE LOOKING FOR? IS THE POINT JUST TO GET OUT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY EVEN IF ROBERT MUELLER IS NOT GOING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS? >> WELL, I THINK WE WERE VERY STRATEGIC. WE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WE COVERED ALL OF THE MAJOR ACTIONS, THE EPISODES OF OBSTRUCTION, IN THE MUELLER REPORT. AND SO WE REALLY PLANNED TO GO THROUGH THEM SEQUENTIALLY AND I WAS ASSIGNED THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LEWANDOWSKI OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, SO WE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WE USED MR. MUELLER'S OWN WORDS FROM THE REPORT TO MAKE SURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD WHAT HE FOUND, WHAT EVIDENCE HE UNCOVERED, AND USING LEADING QUESTIONS WHERE YOU'RE READING BACK THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OWN WORDS, FACILITATED THAT, IT DID MAKE FOR A LITTLE BIT OF A DRY HEARING SOMETIMES, BUT IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO GET THE FACTS BEFORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND HAVE MR.

MUELLER ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT HE FOUND. >> I KNOW PRIOR TO TODAY, ROBERT MUELLER SAID HE REAL LID WAS GOING TO STICK TO THE CONTENTS OF HIS 448-PAGE REPORT AND LET THAT BE HIS TESTIMONY. DID ANYTHING HE SAID TODAY OR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED TODAY OR ANYTHING HE DIDN'T SAY TODAY SURPRISE YOU? >> NO, I THINK HE WAS VERY CONSISTENT WHO THE CONTENTS OF HIS REPORT, REMINDED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE, STRIKES AT THE HEART OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM AND RECOUNTED FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE EVIDENCE HE COLLECTED OF THE PRESIDENT COMMITTING TEN SPECIFIC ACT OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. SO HE REALLY, I THINK, VERY SOBERLY IN A VERY KIND OF PROSECUTOR'S WAY WALKED THROUGH THE REPORT AND WITHOUT A LOT OF EMOTION IN A VERY KIND OF YES-AND-NO WAY. I THINK THE HEARING WAS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT LAID BEFORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE — MANY PEOPLE FOR THE FIRST TIME HEARING WHAT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE REPORT, WHAT HE ACTUALLY DISCOVERED IN HIS 22-MONTH INVESTIGATION.

>> WE'RE WAITING JUST A FEW MOMENTS FOR HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI TO TALK ABOUT TODAY'S TESTIMONY. I DON'T KNOW YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR, BUT JUST A LITTLE WHILE AGO THE PRESIDENT ADDRESSED IT FROM THE SOUTH LAWN. HE CALLED THIS A DEVASTATING DAY FOR DEMOCRATS. HE SAID THAT ROBERT MUELLER DID NOT DO WELL AND THEN HE HAD NOTHING TO DO GO. HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THAT? >> WELL, I THINK THE PRESIDENT OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WATCH THE HEARING. THE SECRETARY ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS INVESTIGATION WAS NOT A HOAX. IT WAS NOT A WITCH HUNT. AND HE DID NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, HE WALKED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THROUGH THE DAMNING EVIDENCE HE COLLECTED OF THE PRESIDENT'S CRIMINALITY, OF THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO STOP THIS INVESTIGATION.

HE STARTED WITH THE DISCUSSION OF THE WIDESPREAD AND SYSTEMIC ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY BY THE RUSSIANS. THE FACT THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BENEFITED FROM THAT AND WELCOMED IT. AND THEN THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED IN AN ONGOING COVER-UP AS WELL AS AN EFFORT TO STOP THE INVESTIGATION AND PREVENT MR. MUELLER FROM DOING HIS WORK. I THINK IT WAS A VERY BAD DAY FOR THE PRESIDENT. VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE OF CRIMINALITY. AND, AGAIN, MADE IT VERY CLEAR OF THIS INVESTIGATION WAS NOT A HOAX. NOT A WITCH HUNT AND EMPHATICALLY DID NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >> REPRESENTATIVE CICILLINE, THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME BOTH TODAY AND YESTERDAY.

>> MY PLEASURE. THANKS FOR HAVING ME. >>> COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WE ARE CALLING THIS MIXED TAPE A BEST OF "I REFER YOU TO THE REPORT" BY ROBERT MUELLER. >> DO YOU KNOW OF ANY POINT WHEN THE PRESIDENT PERSONALLY EXPRESSED ANGER OR FRUSTRATIONS AT SESSIONS? >> I'D HAVE TO PASS ON THAT. >> ISN'T IT TRUE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT PRESIDENT OR THOSE CLOSE TO HIM WERE INVOLVED? CORRECT? >> I'LL LEAVE THE ANSWER TO OUR REPORT. >> AND THEN WHEN MICHAEL FLYNN A FEW DAYS AFTER FLYNN ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA FOR LYING TO FEDERAL AGENTS — TRUE? >> I REFER YOU TO THE REPORT FOR THAT.

LEAVE IT WITH THE REPORT. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHICH I DECLINE TO DISCUSS. >> OKAY. THEN LET'S — >> I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO THE REPORT, ITSELF. >> OKAY. I LOOKED AT 182 PAGES OF IT. >> THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE TEN POSSIBLE ACTS OF OBSTRUCTION THAT YOU INVESTIGATED, CORRECT? >> I'D DIRECT YOU FOR THE REPORT FOR HOW THAT IS CHARACTERIZED. >> THANK YOU. >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU TODAY IS WHY? [ CRICKETS ] WHY DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WANT YOU FIRED? >> WELL, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >>> A VERY BUSY NEWS DAY. >> TODAY'S HIGH-STAKES CONFRONTATION. >> LET'S GO LIVE TO THE BORDER WHERE OUR COLLEAGUE — >> EXCLUSIVE JOID. >> COUNTRY'S TOP INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS TESTIFYING. >> NBC NEWS GETS AN EXCLUSIVE LOOK INSIDE. >> LIVE AT THE NATION'S CAPITOL.

>> NOW AN OPEN INVESTIGATION. >> BLOCKBUSTER NEW REPORTING TODAY. >> THIS IS THE DEADLIEST SCHOOL SHOOTING. >> THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE REVISED VERSION. >> THIS NEW REPORT COMES AMID A STAGGERING AMOUNT OF NEWS. >> BREAKING NEWS EXCLUSIVELY — >> NBC NEWS WAS FIRST OUT WITH THIS SCOOP TODAY. >> IT'S BEEN AN EXTRAORDINARY NIGHT WATCHING THIS DEVELOP. >> SO, A LOT TO TALK ABOUT. >>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT. >> LESTER HOLT. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE A JET AIRPLANE UP THERE, BUT THAT IS FIRE. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MAX. HOW DO YOU CONVINCE SOME SKITTISH PASSENGER TO GET ON THIS AIRPLANE? MET A LOT OF GREAT PEOPLE. >> THE MOST TRUSTED EVENING NEWS ANCHOR IN AMERICA. THAT'S "NIGHTLY NEWS." I'M LESTER HOLT. >>> ALL EYES ON THE 2020 ELECTION. FOLLOW THE LATEST ON THE CANDIDATES WITH THE NBC NEWS MOBILE APP.

STAY CONNECTED WITH BREAKING NEWS. TOP STORIES. LIVE VIDEO. AND YOUR FAVORITE NBC NEWS SHOWS. TEXT "NBC NEWS" TO 66866 TO GET THE APP. >>> WHEN THE FACTS ARE HIDDEN IN THE SHADOWS. WHEN SOURCES GO SILENT BECAUSE THEY'RE RISKING SO MUCH MORE. WHEN EVERY LEAD TAKES YOU FURTHER DOWN A WINDING TRAIL BUT CLOSER TO THE TRUTH. AND THE CHALLENGE IS GREATER BECAUSE THE STAKES ARE HIGHER. THAT'S WHEN THE STORIES YOU UNEARTH SHAKE THE WORLD. >> EXCLUSIVE REPORT ON NBC NEWS. >> THIS IS EXCLUSIVE TO US. >> NBC NEWS IS OUT TODAY WITH SOME EXCLUSIVE NEW REPORTING. >>> WE ARE GOING TO START WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT TONIGHT. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN OTHERWISE HEARING ABOUT IN THE NEWS, BUT STICK WITH ME. >> FEED YOUR MIND WITH FRESH PERSPECTIVE. GET YOUR FAVORITE MSNBC SHOWS NOW AS PODCASTS. >>> WASHINGTON FEELS MORE CHAOTIC THAN EVER. IT'S MY JOB TO ASK THE TOUGH QUESTIONS.

LEFT AND RIGHT. AND HELP YOU MAKE SENSE OF IT ALL. >>> MORE AMERICANS WATCH NBC NEWS THAN ANY OTHER NEWS ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD. >>> BORIS JOHNSON TOOK OVER AS PRIME MINISTER OF THE UK TODAY. HE WAS CHOSEN TO LEAD THE RUING CONSERVATIVE PARTY YESTERDAY AND PROMISED TO CARRY OUT BREXIT. BILL NEELY JOINS US FROM LONDON WITH THE LATEST ON THE PRIME MINISTER'S FIRST DAY AND HIS FUTURE PROMISES.

>> Reporter: WHETHER ON CAPITOL HILL OR DOWNING STREET, IT IS DEMOCRACY'S FINEST DAY. OUT WITH THE OLD AND IN WITH THE NEW. TODAY, BORIS JOHNSON, THE CONTROVERSIAL FORMER MAYOR OF LONDON, IS BRITAIN'S NEW PRIME MINISTER. AND HE BEGAN HIS TERM IN OFFICE WITH FIGHTING TALK, VOWING TO PULL BRITAIN OUT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION BY OCTOBER THE 31st. NOT MUCH ATTEMPT FROM HIM TO HEAL A DEEPLY DIVIDED COUNTRY. INSTEAD, HE CRITICIZED THOSE HE CALLED THE GLOOMSTERS AND THE DOOMSTERS. WE HAD THREE YEARS OF SELF-DOUBT, HE SAID, BUT NO ONE IN THE LAST FEW CENTUIES HAVE SUCCEEDED IN BETTING AGAINST THE PLUCK AND NERVE OF THIS COUNTRY. THEY WILL NOT SUCCEED TODAY.

IT WAS ALMOST CHURCHILLIAN, IT WAS PATRIOTIC AND PUGNACIOUS, AND IT WAS VINTAGE BORIS. BUT HIS WHOLE SPEECH WAS ALMOST DROWNED OUT BY HECKLING AND JEERING FROM PROTESTERS OUTSIDE DOWNING STREET. NOW, HE BEGAN THE DAY AFTER BEING FORMALLY ASKED TO DO IT BY BRITAIN'S QUEEN. HE IS HER 14th PRIME MINISTER. NO WORD ON WHETHER THIS FAMOUSLY MESSY POLITICIAN COMBED HIS HAIR BEFORE MEETING HER. THAT'S WHAT WAS TRENDING ON SOCIAL MEDIA TODAY. WELL, THE QUEEN HAS JUST ACCEPTED THE RESIGNATION OF THERESA MAY, THE OUTGOING LEADER. SHE'S GONE AFTER HER FINAL DUTY IN PARLIAMENT, SHE TAUNTED THE MAIN OPPOSITION LEADER SAYING I ACCEPTED MY TIME IS UP, WHY DON'T YOU? IT WAS A GOOD LINE FROM A WOMAN WHO'S DELIVERED SO FEW AND WHO WAS DESTROYED BY THE CRISIS THAT NOW FACES JOHNSON. THAT IS BREXIT. PLENTY OF CONGRATULATIONS FOR JOHNSON INCLUDING, OF COURSE, FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP. HE SAID HE WAS TOUGH AND SMART AND HE'D BE A GREAT PRIME MINISTER, AND HE CLAIMED JOHNSON WAS THE BRITISH TRUMP.

WELL, SOON JOHNSON WILL BE TALKING TO HIM ABOUT A TRADE DEAL, BUT TODAY, JOHNSON QUOTED TRUMAN, NOT TRUMP, WHEN HE SAID, THE BUCK STOPS HERE ON BREXIT. IT'S NOW HIS CRISIS TO SOLVE. A GOOD WELCOME BEFORE HIM FROM EUROPEAN LEADERS. THEY'VE BEEN VERY POLITE. JOHNSON IS A HORROR STORY FOR HIM. HE'S MANAGED TO INSULT MANY OF EUROPE'S NATIONS IN HIS NEWSPAPER COLUMNS OR OFF THE CUFF COMMENTS. THEIR DISLIKE IS MOSTLY ABOUT BREXIT. HE'S THREATENED TO PULL BRITAIN OUT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION WITHOUT A DEAL BEFORE NOVEMBER. THAT'S IN JUST 99 DAYS. HE SAYS HE'D LIKE A DEAL BUT NOT THE ONE THAT'S ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW WHICH, OF COURSE, BRITAIN'S PARLIAMENT HAS REJECTED THREE TIMES.

INTERESTING THAT AS BORIS JOHNSON ARRIVES AT NUMBER 10 DOWNING STREET, HIS GIRLFRIEND, CARRIE SIMMONS, WAS THERE TO SEE HIM. SHE IS 23 YEARS YOUNGER THAN HIM. HE'S STILL LEGALLY MARRIED TO HIS SECOND WIFE BUT SHE IS NOW BRITAIN'S FIRST PARTNER. SHE DIDN'T STAND AT THE DOOR OF DOWNING STREET WAITING WITH HIM, BUT SHE WILL NOW FACE A PUBLIC SPOTLIGHT LIKE SHE'S NEVER EXPERIENCED BEFORE. AND THAT ALSO GOES FOR THE TV-LOVING SHOWMAN AND POLITICAL MAVERICK, PRIME MINISTER BORIS JOHNSON. >>> NO END TO THE PROTESTS IN PUERTO RICO. DEMANDING THE GOVERNOR RICARDO ROSSELLO STEP DOWN.

THE PUERTO RICAN GOVERNMENT DENIED RUMORS TODAY THAT ROSSELLO HAD RESIGNED. GABE GUTIERREZ IS WITH PROTESTERS IF FRONT OF THE GOVERNOR'S NATION WITH THE LATEST. >>> ALL RIGHT. NANCY PELOSI IS SPEAKING ABOUT THE TESTIMONY FROM ROBERT MUELLER TODAY. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THAT RIGHT NOW INSTEAD. >> A DAY IN WHICH HIS FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL AFFIRMED IN PUBLIC WHAT THE MUELLER REPORT PUT FORTH. IT IS A CROSSING OF A THRESHOLD IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF WHAT HAPPENED AND HOW IT CONFMS TO THE LAW OR NOT. THE PRESIDENT LIKES TO HAVE HIS POSTS THAT SAY THE MUELLER REPORT TOOK THIS MANY DAYS, COST THIS MUCH MONEY, THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER, BUT WE HAVE A CORRESPONDING CONTRADICTORY THOUGHT. MUELLER INVESTIGATION BY THE NUMBERS. $40 MILLION RECOVERED FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. REMEMBER, HE SAID HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST. LESS THAN THAT. 37 PEOPLE AND ENTITIES CHARGED WITH CRIMES. 25 ONGOING CRIMINAL CASES REFERRED. SEVEN CONVICTED INCLUDING FIVE TOP TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS. TEN INSTANCES OF OBSTRUCTION, YES.

NO EXONERATION. THAT'S SOME OF WHAT WE HEARD TODAY. I JUST WANT TO GO TO ANOTHER POINT. THAT THE SAME TIME THAT WE'RE ON THIS PATH OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS PROHIBITED FROM LOOKING INTO THE PRESIDENT'S FINANCES. AND THAT IS WHAT OUR COMMITTEES OF JURISDICTION HAVE BEEN DOING. AS WE LEGISLATE FOR THE GOOD OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WE'RE ALSO INVESTIGATING SO THAT WE CAN MITIGATE IN COURT. THOSE CASES WE'VE WON IN LOWER QUART. THEY, OF COURSE, APPEALED. WE FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THE POSITION OF ARTICLE 1, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH HAVING THE RIGHT TO HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER EVERY OTHER BLANCH OF GOVERNMENT, BUT THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT MEANS WE CAN GET THE INFORMATION TO SHOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS FURTHER ALL ABOUT.

I'M VERY, VERY PROUD OF OUR COMMITTEE. THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND ITS GREAT CHAIRMAN, JERRY NADLER. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, GREAT CHAIRMAN, ADAM SCHIFF. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THEM NOW. WE'RE ALSO JOINED BY ELIJAH CUMMINGS. CHAIR OF THE GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. A COMMITTEE THAT IS — I'M GOING TO YIELD WITH GREAT RESPECT TO ALL THREE OF OUR CHAIRMEN THEN WE'LL TAKE SOME QUESTIONS. FIRST I'LL YIELD TO THE DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, MR. NADLER. >> THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER. TODAY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HEARD DIRECTLY ABOUT WHAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION UNCOVERED. AS TO RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND THE PRESIDENT'S COOPERATION WITH IT AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

MUELLER MADE CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT EXONERATED. MUELLER FOUND EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND ABUSES OF POWER BY THE PRESIDENT. HE SAID — THE REPORT SAID THE PRESIDENT COULD BE INDICTED FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. MUELLER FOUND THAT TRUMP WOULD AND DID BENEFIT FROM RUSSIA'S HELP AND THAT THE CAMPAIGN WELCOMED THAT HELP. MUELLER FOUND MULTIPLE INSTANCES WHERE ALL THREE ELEMENTS WERE CHARGING CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WERE MET.

TRYING TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IN ORDER TO STOP THE INVESTIGATION. TRYING TO HAVE PEOPLE LIE AND COVER UP FOR HIM FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. TRYING TO LIMIT OR IMPEDE OR CONSTRICT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION. TRYING TO TAMPER WITH WITNESSES, TAMPER WITH WITNESSES COOPERATING WITH INVESTIGATORS. ALL OF THESE WERE FOUND WITH GREAT EVIDENCE. PRESIDENT TRUMP WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO OBSTRUCT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION. ANYONE ELSE WHO ACTED IN THIS WAY IF THEY WERE NOT THE SITTING PRESIDENT WOULD FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, WOULD FACE INDICTMENTS. ONLY THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL'S OPINION THAT YOU CAN'T INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT HAS SAVED OR IS SAVING THE PRESIDENT FROM INDICTMENT BECAUSE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THESE CRIMES WERE FOUND WITH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THE PEOPLE HAVE NOW HEARD THIS, THE PRESIDENT'S CHANT OF NO OBSTRUCTION IS NONSENSE, HIS CHANTS THAT HE'S BEEN TOTALLY EXONERATED IS A SIMPLE LIE.

>> FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK DIRECTOR MUELLER FOR A LIFETIME OF SERVICE TO THE COUNTRY, FROM HIS DAYS AS A YOUNG MARINE IN VIETNAM, THROUGH HIS DECADES OF SERVICE AS A PROSECUTOR, AS A DIRECTOR OF THE FBI, AND THROUGH HIS SERVICE AS SPECIAL COUNSEL, THIS NATION OWES HIM AN ENORMOUS DEBT OF GRATITUDE. SO, DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WANT TO THANK YOU PERSONALLY FOR ALL OF YOUR SERVICE. TODAY, THE DIRECTOR OUTLINED IN POWERFUL WORDS HOW RUSSIA INTERVENED MASSIVELY IN OUR ELECTION. SYSTEMICALLY IN A SWEEPING FASHION. HOW DURING THE COURSE OF THAT INTERVENTION, THAT MADE MULTIPLE APPROACHES TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND FAR FROM SHUNNING THAT FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT IN OUR ELECTION, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WELCOMED IT, MADE FULL USE OF IT, PUT IT INTO ITS COMMUNICATIONS AND MESSAGING STRATEGY, AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT. LIED ABOUT IT TO COVER IT UP. LIED ABOUT IT TO OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION INTO THAT VERY ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY.

PART OF WHAT I FOUND SO POWERFUL ABOUT HIS TESTIMONY TODAY WAS NOT JUST WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE LAW BUT WHEN HE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE ETHICS, THE MORALITY, THE LACK OF PATRIOTISM OF THIS CONDUCT AND, PERHAPS, ONE OF THE MOST CHILLING MOMENTS I THINK IN OUR COMMITTEE WAS WHEN HE EXPRESSED THE FEAR THAT THIS BECOME THE NEW NORMAL. AND, OF COURSE, I THINK WHAT IS ANIMATING THAT FEAR OF THE DIRECTOR WAS CERTAINLY ANIMATES IT FOR ME IS THE FACT THAT EVEN AFTER THE NIGHTMARE OF THE LAST 2 1/2 YEARS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WILL STILL NOT FORESWEAR RECEIVING FOREIGN HELP AGAINST. TO THIS POINT THE PRESIDENT STILL CONTINUES TO CALL THIS RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY A HOAX. SOMETHING THAT DIRECTOR MUELLER TODAY DIRECTLY REFUTED. THAT HE STILL CALLS A WITCH HUNT THAT SOMETHING DIRECTOR MUELLER DIRECTLY REFUTED. SO WE GO INTO THIS NEXT ELECTION MORE VULNERABLE THAN WE SHOULD BE.

WE CAN'T CONTROL COMPLETELY WHAT RUSSIA DOES ALTHOUGH WE MUST DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO HARDEN OUR ELECTION DEFENSES TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE PAPER TRAILS, TO MAKE SHEER WE DETER AND DISRUPT ANY KIND OF RUSSIAN INTERVENTION, BUT WE CANNOT CONTROL THAT COMPLETELY BUT WE CAN CONTROL WHAT WE DO, AND DIRECTOR MUELLER MADE IT CLEAR IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT IT'S UP TO US WHETHER WE ACT ETHICALLY AND PATRIOTICALLY, WHETHER WE REFUSE TO BE A PARTY TO A FOREIGN ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY AND ONCE AGAIN, I THANK HIM FOR HIS SERVICE. >> NICE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I FIRST WANT TO APPLAUD CHAIRMAN NADLER AND, WHO AS OUR JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND CERTAINLY CHAIRMAN OF OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

FOR WHAT THEY DID TODAY AND THEIR COMMITTEES. WHAT THEY DID IS PAINT A PICTURE FOR AMERICA. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE NOTICED, THAT I'VE WITNESSED, IS WHEN A MEMBER OF — FORMER MEMBER OF OUR COMMITTEE, MR. AMASH, A REPUBLICAN, WENT TO HIS TOWN HALL MEETING AND GOT A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IN A REPUBLICAN DISTRICT AFTER HE HAD SAID THAT HE FELT THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED, BUT THAT WASN'T THE THING THAT GOT ME. WHAT REALLY GOT ME WAS WHEN A LADY AT THE END OF THE TOWN HALL MEETING SAID, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING NEGATIVE IN THE MUELLER REPORT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT SAYS A LOT. AND TO HER CREDIT, OUR SPEAKER MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE NEEDED TO PAINT A PICTURE FOR AMERICA SO THAT THEY COULD FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON.

THIS IS A CRITICAL MOMENT IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY. DON'T BE FOOLED. AND IT IS A MOMENT WHICH PEOPLE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT AND READING ABOUT 300, 400, 500 YEARS FROM NOW. AND THEY'RE GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN WE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO — WHO KNEW THE RULES AND KNEW THAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS HAD DONE A GREAT JOB OF CREATING A CONSTITUTION AND PUT IN ALL THE GUARDRAILS BUT WOULD NEVER ANTICIPATE WE'D HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO JUST THROW AWAY THE GUARDRAILS.

AND THAT'S WHY WHAT HAPPENED TODAY IS SO CRITICAL. IT WAS A GIANT STEP IN MAKING SURE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE, GOT A PICTURE OF ALL OF IT AND HOPEFULLY WILL LOOK TOWARD THE FUTURE AND SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THIS. BOTH MR. NADLER AND MR. SCHIFF SAID SOMETHING THAT'S VERY CRITICAL. THIS ISN'T NORMAL. AND WE HAVE GOTTEN SO WE'RE NOW GETTING SO USED TO NORMAL TO THIS KIND OF CONDUCT BY OUR PRESIDENT, AND, BY THE WAY, OF OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, THAT WE — IT LOOKS LIKE PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO ACCEPT IT. WELL, WE REFUSE TO ACCEPT. AND THEN, IN MY COMMITTEE, WE CONSTANTLY — AND I KNOW SCHIFF AND NADLER HAVE HEARD THIS, PEOPLE SAY, OH, YOU'RE JUST MESSING WITH THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE HIM. IT'S NOT ABOUT NOT LIKING THE PRESIDENT.

IT'S ABOUT LOVING DEMOCRACY. IT'S ABOUT LOVING OUR COUNTRY. IT'S ABOUT MAKING A DIFFERENCE FOR GENERATIONS YET UNBORN. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. AND I'M BEGGING, I'M BEGGING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON BECAUSE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY INTACT FOR YOUR CHILDREN AND YOUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN AND GENERATIONS YET UNBORN, WE HAVE GOT TO GUARD THIS MOMENT. THIS IS OUR WATCH. AND, AGAIN, I AM SO, SO VERY PROUD OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

I AM SO VERY, VERY PROUD OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THEY WENT IN AND TIED TO PULL OUT A PICTURE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE IT. HOPEFULLY THEY WILL NOT BE LIKE THE LADY AT THE TOWN HALL MEETING WHO SAID THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG THAT TRUMP DID WITH REGARD IN THE MUELLER REPORT. SO, AGAIN, WE, THE SPEAKER IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. SHE TOLD US A LITTLE BIT EARLIER THAT SHE WANTS TO GATHER ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING TO PAINT THAT PICTURE, AND WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO WITH IT IS ANOTHER THING, BUT WE WILL NOT STAND BY AND NOT PAINT THE TOTAL PICTURE. I WANT TO THANK MR.

MUELLER FOR COMING FORWARD WITH THE SERVICE OF OUR COUNTRY, AND ANOTHER THING, IT IS SO INTERESTING WHEN MUELLER WOULD MAKE A DECISION THAT THEY LIKED, OH, IT IS THAT WE LOVE YOU, AND LOVE YOU AND YOU ARE THE GREATEST THING SINCE ICE CREAM, BUT AS SOON AS HE SAID SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T LIKE, YOU ARE A BUM. COME ON NOW. WE HAD TO SEE THROUGH THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, AS WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE GREATNESS OF OUR JERRY NAD LER AND ADAM SCHIFF, I ALSO WANT TO SHOW THAT ELIJAH CUMMINGS HAS WON THE FIRST CASE WHICH IS HIS RESEARCH TO ENABLE US TO GO TO COURT AND, WE WON THE CASE, AND THE DECISION WAS A COMPLETE BEAUTIFUL STATEMENT ON THE ABILITY OF CONGRESS TO HAVE OVERSIGHT, AND JUST A REMARKABLE DECISION AND NOW OF COURSE, THE ADMINISTRATION IS APPEALING IT, BUT I THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN CUMMINGS FOR YOUR GREAT LEADERSHIP AND WHERE WE ARE GOING NEXT.

AS YOU KNOW THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION COULD NOT DO THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL BUSINESS CONNECTIONS, AND ON OF THE CONNECTIONS COULD BE TO THE RUSSIANS, AND THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO FIND OUT. SO, AS WE GO TO QUESTIONS, I WANT TO SAY THAT I DO BELIEVE WHAT WE SAW TODAY IS A VERY STRONG MANIFESTATION, AND IN FACT, SOME WOULD SAY INDICTMENT OF THIS ADMINISTRATION'S CODE OF SILENCE AND THEIR COVER-UP. THIS IS ABOUT THE OATH WE TAKE TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, BUT SOME OF THE ACTIONS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION MAY HAVE TAKEN WE WILL SEE THROUGH OUR INVESTIGATION MAY HAVE JEOPARDIZED OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND STRENGTHENING RUSSIAN'S HANDS AND INTERFERING IN OUR HANDS AND UNDERMINING THE DEMOCRACY NOT ONLY IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT OTHER COUNTRIES AS WELL UPSETTING THE PREIMMINENCE AS A DEM KRA ANY THE WORLD. THIS IS VERY SERIOUS. TODAY, WAS VERY IMPORTANT. AGAIN, TO SALUTE OUR CHAIRMAN AND THE SIX CHAIRMEN WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS AND NOW WE WILL TAKE SOME QUESTIONS. WHO DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM FIRST? YOU GUYS DECIDE. WAIT A MINUTE. HOW ABOUT A NEW PERSON? OKAY.

LET'S GO THERE FIRST. AS THE MOTHER OF FIVE, I YIELD. >> MADAM SPEAKER, WHAT WE SAW TODAY, SHOULD THE REPRESENTATIVES LAUNCH FURTHER PROCEEDINGS? >> MY POSITION HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WHATEVER WE DO HAS TO BE WITH THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE HAND AND WE HAVE STILL SOME ISSUES IN THE COURT, AND IT IS ABOUT THE CONGRESS, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS, AND WE ARE FIGHTING FOR PRESIDENT IN THE COURTS. >> MADAM SPEAKER, CAN YOU, PLEASE — >> EXCUSE ME? >> MEMBERS HELD UP TODAY THAT THEY WERE HOLDING UP THE — >> I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY THOUGHT THAT, BECAUSE THEY CAME TO ME, AND I SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHY.

AGAIN, THE LAWSUIT THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF LAWSUITS, AND YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT, DEAR? >> THE VERY NEXT STEP AND I WON'T TALK LONG, BUT THE NEXT STEP TOMORROW OR FRIDAY IS TO GO INTO COURT TO ASK FOR THE GRAND JURY MATERIAL, AND TO ENFORCE THE SUBPOENA AGAINST MR. McGAHN AND THAT PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE OF THE EXCUSE, AND I WON'T CALL THEM REASON, BUT THE EXCUSES THAT THE WHITE HOUSE GIVES FOR McGAHN NOT TO TESTIFY AND THE SAME EXCUSES FOR ALL OF THE OTHER FACT WITNESSES, AND IF WE BREAK THAT, WE WILL BREAK THE LOGJAM. >> AND MADAM SPEAKER, WHAT ABOUT WHERE YOU STAND RIGHT NOW? WHAT DO YOU NEED TO KNOW, AND SAYING THAT YOU DON'T KNOW ENOUGH? >> DID I NOT JUST SAY THAT WE ARE WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE COURTS, AND WE HAVE THE SUBPOENAS IN THE COURT, AND THE SUBPOENAS ARE FOR INFORMATION AND WHEN WE GET THAT INFORMATION, WE CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT.

>> IT IS A TELLTALE SIGN. >> WELL, WE HAVE SEVERAL CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT WHAT INFORMATION IS THERE, AND THIS ISN'T ENDLESS. THIS ISN'T ENDLESS AND UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE HAVE LIVE CASES IN THE COURTS, AND WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE GOING FORWARD THAT MR. CHAIRMAN NADLER JUST MENTIONED AND IT IS NOT ENDLESS, BUT WE ARE WAITING TO STRENGTHEN OUR HAND FOR THAT INFORMATION. REMEMBER, WATERGATE IS WHEN THEY GOT THE INFORMATION FROM THE TAPES THAT BROKE THE CASE. SO IT WAS NOT JUST ABOUT THE CHANGING PUBLIC OPINION, BUT IT IS ABOUT, AND IT IS NOT ABOUT ME, BUT OUR CAUCUS IS ABOUT THE COUNTRY, AND AS WE SAY, THERE IS A CODE OF SILENCE IN THE WHITE HOUSE ENGAGED IN A MAJOR COVER UP IN THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND THOSE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES AS HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED TODAY IN THE HEARING ARE COULD BE INDICTABLE OFFENSES BY ANYBODY ELSE, BUT NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT, BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE, I THINK THAT THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK IN THAT TASK AND THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE WAY, AND THIS IS ALL I WILL SAY.

>> AND MAY I JUST SAY SOMETHING, AND I KNOW CHAIRMAN SHIF AND CHAIRMAN NAD LER WOULD REPEAT WHAT I AM SAYING. YOU KNOW, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE LAST ELECTION EVEN FROM TRUMP DISTRICTS SAID THAT WE WANT TO MAKE THE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE. A LOT OF PEOPLE LOVE HIM AND LIKE HIM, BUT THEY WANT TO MAKE HIM ACCOUNTABLE. WE HAVE BEEN STONEWALLED WITH REGARD TO GETTING THE ANSWERS, ACCESS TO WITNESSES, AND GETTING DOCUMENTS, AND ALL OF US HAVE. AND REMEMBER THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING REALLY. AND SO, AGAIN, THE SPEAK SER ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

WE ARE GOING TO GATHERING INFORMATION AND WE ARE MET WITH SIGNIFICANT FORCE, BUT WE ARE GOING TO PLOW OUR WAY THROUGH, AND ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, PIECE BY PIECE, AND IT IS LIKE THE MOSAIC, AND PAINT THE PICTURE. >> YOU HAVE LONG SAID THAT SINCE THE REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE SENATE — >> I HAVE NEVER LONG SAID. I HAVE NEVER LONG SAID THAT. IF WE HAVE A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT, THAT IS THE PLACE WE WILL HAVE TO GO. THE FACT OF WHY I WOULD LIKE IT TOT BE A STRONG CASE IS BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON THE FACTS.

THE FACTS AND THE LAW. THAT'S WHAT MATTERS AND NOT POLITIC, AND NOT PARTISANSHIP, JUST PATRIOTISM. I DON'T CARE, I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE SENATE RESPONSIBLE AND HONOR THE OATH OF OFFICE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION TO SEE THE CHALLENGES OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND WHAT ARE THE RUSSIANS TRYING TO DO TO OUR COUNTRY, BUT THE STRONGER THE CASE IS, THE WORST THE SENATE WILL LOOK FOR JUST LETTING THE PRESIDENT OFF OF THE HOOK. >> SPEAKER PELOSI — >> WE HAVE A GREAT PEOPLE IN HERE WHO KNOW SO MUCH AND ASK GREAT QUESTIONS. CAN YOU PLEASE, COME ON, COME ON. LET ME JUST SAY THIS, AND YOU WILL GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THIS, AND THEN I INVITE MY CHAIRMAN TO CLOSE.

WE WANT TO HAVE STRONGEST POSSIBLE CASE TO MAKE THE DECISION AS TO WHAT PATH WE WILL GO DOWN AND THAT IS NOT ENDLESS IN TERMS OF THE TIME, AND ENDLESS IN TERMS OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE WANT. BUT IF IT COMES TO A POINT WHERE THE CONE OF SILENCE, AND THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND THE COVER-UP IN THE WHITE HOUSE PREVENTS US FROM GETTING THAT INFORMATION, THAT IS NOT GOING TO PREVENT US FROM GOING FORWARD AND IN FACT, IT IS MORE GROUNDS THE GO FORWARD. MY COLLEAGUES. >> I WANTED TO ECHO THAT. YOU KNOW, MARTIN LUTHER KING SAID SOMETHING THAT IS IN THE DNA AND STILL IN MY BRAIN AND PARTICULARLY RIGHT NOW. HE SAID THERE COMES A POINT WHEN SILENCE BECOMES BETRAYAL. REWE REFUSE TO BETRAY GENERATIONS UNBORN AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WE WON'T BETRAY THEM AND WITH MORE ACCUMULATING INFORMATION AND DOING THE BEST WE CAN, AND AGAIN WITH THE FORCE AS GREAT, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY LAWYERS THE PRESIDENT HAS, BUT HE HAS A LOT OF THEM, AND THEY ARE GOING AGAINST EVERY SINGLE THING WE DO. AND SO, AGAIN, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BETRAY AMERICA, BUT WE WILL DO OUR PART TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A DEMOCRACY THAT IS INTACT.

>> JERRY? >> THE UNITED STATES IS A DEMOCRACY. IT MUST REMAIN A DEMOCRACY. A DEMOCRACY ACTS THROUGH THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE CANNOT GIVE THAT CONTENT UNLESS THEY KNOW THE FACTS. TODAY WAS A WATERSHED DAY IN TELLING THE FACTS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WITH THOSE FACTS, WE CAN PROCEED, AND WE FACE A TIME OF GREAT DANGER. RICHARD NIXON SAID THAT HE THOUGHT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS A DICTATOR AND HE SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT ILLEGAL, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP ECHOED THAT YESTERDAY. HE SAID UNDER ARTICLE II, I, THAT IS HE, CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT. AND THAT IS A TOTALITARIAN PICTURE AND NOT A DEMOCRATIC PICTURE, AND THE UNITED STATES MUST BE SAFE FROM THIS, AND SO WE HAVE TO PAINT THE PICTURE OF WHAT IS GOING ON, AND THE PICTURE OF SOMEONE WHO GLADLY ACCEPTED HELP FROM A FOREIGN POWER INTERESTED IN SUBVERTING OUR ELECTION, THE DEMOCRATIC ELECTION PROCESS, AND THAT IS WHAT IT IS, SUBVERTING THE ELECTION PROCESS AND TAKING THE CHOICE OF OUR PRESIDENT AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THIS IS WHAT THE RUSSIANS ATTEMPTED TO DO AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WELCOMED THEM IN DOING.

AND A PRESIDENT WHO ENGAGES IN REPEATED CRIMES TO COVER-UP THESE UNPATRIOTIC AND DICTATORIAL ACTIONS, AND THIS CANNOT GO ON, AND IT IS UP TO THE CONGRESS TO SAFEGUARD THE CONSTITUTION, AND WE WILL DO IT. >> AS I MENTIONED TODAY IN OUR HEARING, THEY STORY OF THE 2016 ELECTION IS REALLY A STORY OF DISLOYALTY TO THE COUNTRY AND ABOUT GREED AND LIE, AND IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT SYMBOLIZES THOSE THREE STRANDS OF THE 2016 ELECTION, IT WAS MOSCOW TRUMP TOWER. IT WAS THIS MASSIVE REAL ESTATE PROJECT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO CONSUMMATE WHILE HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND CONCEALING IT FROM THE COUNTRY.

THIS DEMONSTRATED THE DISLOYALTY TO THE COUNTRY, ABOUT THIS MASSIVE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY THAT HE WAS SEEKING WHILE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, AND VIVID EXAMPLE OF THE GREED OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THAT CAMPAIGN, AND AMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ALL OF THE LIES THAT PERMEATED THE CAMPAIGN AND ITS AFTERMATH. THAT TO ME IS THE STORY OF THE 2016 ELECTION, AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS NOT THE STORY OF THE 2020 ELECTION, AND I WILL SAY THIS ON THE ISSUE OF IMPEACHMENT IN WHICH I VIEW THIS IN THE VERY SAME WAY AS THE SPEAKER, AND MAYBE I AM AN OLD PROSECUTOR, BUT BEFORE I BROUGHT THIS CASE TO INDICTMENT, I WANTED TO HAVE THE STRONGEST CASE POSSIBLE.

I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND MY CASE AND MAKE MY CASE, AND NOW I TRIED THE IMPEACHMENT CASE IN THE SENATE YEARS AGO AND A CRIMINAL JUDGE WHO WAS CONVICTED AND I HAVE A UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT TAKES TO GET A CONVICTION IN THE SENATE AND I HAVE NO ILLUSION ABOUT WHAT IT TAKES TO GET A CONVICTION IN THE SENATE. THERE IS A JURY IN THE SENATE THAT DECIDES REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND THEN JURY THAT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I AM MOST CONCERNED ABOUT THE JURY THAT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND BEFORE WE EMBARK ON A COURSE THAT IS AS SIGNIFICANT AS THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT CASE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >> ONE OF THE GUIDELINES AND I THANK THE DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN AND SO PROUD OF ALL OF THEM AND JUST FOLLOWING UP ON THE STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN SHIF, THE GUIDANCE THAT OUR FRAMERS WOULD BE, AND THEY COULD NOT IMAGINE HOW DIFFERENT THAT WE ARE, AND SO WHEN WE GO DOWN THIS PATH, WE ARE ONE, AND WE WANT IT TO BE UNIFYING AND NOT DIVIDING AND THAT IS WHY WE WANT IT TO BE THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE CASE.

PRESIDENT LINCOLN SAID THAT PUBLIC SENTIMENT IS EVERYTHING, AND IN ORDER FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE THE SENTIMENT, THE PUBLIC HAS TO KNOW, SO I HOPE THAT YOU WILL BE MESSENGERS OF THE TRUTH TO PUBLIC, AND WE THINK THAT TODAY WAS REALLY A MILESTONE IN MAKING THAT SENTIMENT BE MORE INFORMED. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. >> SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI AND THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS CALLING THIS A WATERSHED DAY IN TELLING THE FACTS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. LEANN CALDWELL WAS THERE AND YOUR TAKEAWAY FROM THE DEMOCRATS' PRESS CONFERENCE TONIGHT.

>> ALLISON, I HAVE A LOT TO SAY SO IF I GO TOO LONG, FEEL FREE TO CUT ME OFF HERE. >> OKAY. GO AHEAD. >> AND SO, I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE DEMOCRATS OUTLINED WERE THE MOST COMPELLING COMPONENTS OF WHAT MUELLER TESTIFIED TODAY. THEY LISTED OFF ABOUT FOUR THINGS, AND THAT WAS THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD STILL BE INDICTED ONCE HE LEAVES OFFICE, AND THAT IS A HUGE TAKEAWAY FOR THE DEMOCRATS. ANOTHER ONE THAT THE PRESIDENT DID BENEFIT AND WANTED THE HELP OF THE RUSSIANS IN THE 2016 ELECTION. THAT IS ALSO WHAT THEY TOOK AWAY FROM MUELLER'S TESTIMONY. THEY ALSO ARE SAYING THAT THE MUELLER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE PRESIDENT MET ALL THREE CRITERIA THAT DEFINES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT, AND FINALLY, THEY SAID THAT ANYONE ELSE WOULD BE INDICTED ON WHAT MUELLER FOUND IF THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT IN OFFICE AT THIS MOMENT. AND SO, HINTING THAT AND MOVING FORWARD, THE DEMOCRATS WERE NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS THE END OF THEIR INVESTIGATION.

THEY ARE LAYING OUT EVIDENCE OF A REASON FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE, AND NANCY PELOSI AND SOME OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN WERE UP THERE TALKING ABOUT TWO PLACES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE, AND ONE IS THE PRESIDENT'S FINANCES. IT SOUNDS LIKE ADAM SCHIFF, THE HEAD OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO PICK THAT UP AS A MAIN FOCUS OF THE COMMITTEE MOVING FORWARD AND THEN THE SECOND IS THAT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER SAID THAT AS SOON AS TOMORROW, THE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS RELATING TO DON McGAHN'S TESTIMONY BEFORE MUELLER, AND OF COURSE, DON McGAHN WAS VERY CLOSE WITH THE PRESIDENT AND PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN THIS INVESTIGATION ESPECIALLY IN THE VOLUME II OF THE MUELLER REPORT ON THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

THEN I WANTED TO ALSO GO INTO WHERE, YOU KNOW, PELOSI HAS BEEN RELUCTANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON IMPEACHMENT EVEN THOUGH NEARLY 90 OF HER MEMBERS HAVE COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF IMPEACHMENT. AND SO, PELOSI WAS NOT THERE YET. BUT THERE IS A BIG CAVEAT. SHE DID NOT SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT, BUT SHE SAID THAT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO LAY OUT THE CASE FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, AND YOU GO TO BAT WITH YOUR STRONGEST HAND. AND SO SHE SAID THAT THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF CONTINUING TO DO THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME SEMANTICS IN THE LANGUAGE, AND THERE WAS NOT A BIG JUMP FROM NANCY PELOSI, AND ANY TAKE AWAY IS THAT SHE IS MOVING EVER SO CLOSELY IN THAT DIRECTION. SHE DID HAVE A NEW CATCH PHRASE. SHE USED TO SAY ALL OF THE TIME WHEN PEOPLE WOULD ASK HER ABOUT IMPEACHMENT THAT THE JOB OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS TO LEGISLATE, INVESTIGATE AND LITIGATE AND NOW TODAY, SHE HIS A NEW ONE.

AND SHE SAYS IT IS CONGRESS, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS. AND SO THAT IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE THEIR PATH MOVING FORWARD, BUT THEY SEEMED REALLY PLEASED WITH THE DAY OF MUELLER'S TESTIMONY AND DEFINITELY GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INTENSE INVESTIGATION OF THIS PRESIDENT, ALLISON. >> I KNOW THAT YOU MENTIONED SEMANTICS AND I DON'T WANT TO PARSE WORDS, BUT YOU SAID IT SEEMED ALMOST LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF THE MOVE TODAY THAT NANCY PELOSI ALWAYS HAD TO SORT OF GO FOR IMPEACHMENT, BUT ONCE YOU HAVE ALL OF THE PIECES IN PLACE, OR DID YOU FEEL LIKE THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A SHIFT TODAY AND SHE IS MORE INTERESTED IN SPEEDING IT UP A LITTLE BIT? >> SO, I THINK THAT ONE THING THAT WE HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR IS WHERE A LOT OF HER MEMBERS COME OUT.

LIKE I SAID, THERE IS ALMOST 90 WHO HAVE COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPEACHMENT, SO WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OFF DAYS DO WE GET DOZENS MORE WHO SAY THAT IMPEACHMENT IS THE ROUTE TO GO, I THINK THAT IT IS GOING TO PUT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PRESSURE ON THE SPEAKER, AND YOU KNOW, SHE DIDN'T, AND SHE IS ASKED ABOUT IT BEFORE, AND SHE HAS BEEN PRETTY STRONG SAYING THAT NOW IS NOT THE TIME.

I KNOW THAT PARSING WORDS OR SEMANTICS OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO SAY IT, BUT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR UP HERE ON CAPITOL HILL SO OFTEN ARE THE INCREMENTAL MOVEMENTS FROM THE LAWMAKERS AND WHAT THEY SAID TODAY AND YESTERDAY OR THE PAST TO GIVE US AN INDICATION OF WHERE THINGS ARE GOING, AND I THINK THAT THAT AFTER TODAY AND HEARING NANCY PELOSI SPEAK AND HER, HER COMMITMENT TO CONTINUED TO DIG DOWN INTO THE INVESTIGATIONS AND TO NOT COMPLETELY BRUSH OFF ANY SORT OF TALK OF IMPEACHMENT IS A LITTLE BIT OF THE SHIFT FOR HER, ALLISON.

>> AND LEIGH ANN, I HATE TO ASK YOU TO REWIND, BECAUSE THE MUELLER TESTIMONY SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME AGO, BECAUSE IT IS A LONG DAY, BUT FOR THE VIEWERS JUST CHECKING IN WITH US, AND THINKING, MAN, I MISSED THE WHOLE THING TODAY. CAN YOU RUN THROUGH SOME OF THE TAKEAWAYS FROM THE HEARING AND THE GENERAL SENSE THAT YOU ARE GETTING ON CAPITOL HILL, AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT OPINION, BUT HOW PEOPLE FEEL HOW TODAY WENT. >> YES, THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS DEFINITELY COME DOWN TO WHAT PARTY YOU ARE IN. THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING THAT MUELLER DID NOT MEET THE EXPECTATIONS THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAD BEEN SETTING FORTH ARE THE HEARING, AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE SAYING THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE BUILT IT UP SO MUCH THAT THEY — >> SORRY, LEIGH ANNE, WE HAVE TO CUT YOU FOR A SECOND, BECAUSE THEY ARE RESPONDING TO THE MUELLER TESTIMONY, AND WE WILL LISTEN IN. >> IT IS TIME THAT AMERICA TURNS THE PAGE, AND IT IS TIME FOR AMERICA TO MOVE FORWARD. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO STOP WASTING TIME AND IN TRYING TO HAVE A DO-OVER OF 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE OBSESSED ABOUT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION.

GOING AS FAR AS FALSELY ACCUSING THAT THEY HAD EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION. WHICH WE FOUND THAT TO NOT BE TRUE TODAY. WE HEARD TODAY ONLY HELP TO REINFORCEMENT THE FACTS THAT THERE IS NO COLLUSION, AND NO OBSTRUCTION AND IT IS WELL PAST THE TIME TO PUT THIS COUNTRY FIRST. THE DEMOCRATS ARE MORE FOCUSED ON BRINGING DOWN THE PRESIDENT OF BUILDING UP AMERICA. WE HAVE GONE TO ROUGHLY 200 DAYS OF THIS NEW DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST MAJORITY, AND NAME ME ONE THING THAT THEY HAVE SOLVED. WE HAVE A CHALLENGE ON OUR BORDER. WE HAVE A TRADE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE JOBS TO MAKE AMERICA STRONGER AND MORE PROSPEROUS, BUT THEY WILL NOT BRING IT UP. WE HAVE A CHALLENGE IN OUR HEALTH CARE WHEN IT COMES TO THE SURPRISE BILLING, AND THE THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS RECEIVE, AND AGAIN, THEY HAVE ONLY FOCUSED ON THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. TODAY IS THE END OF THE CHAPTER AND TODAY, PUT POLITICS ASIDE AND PUT THE PEOPLE FIRST AND PUT THIS COUNTRY FIRST. NOW I'D LIKE TO CALL UP OUR REPUBLICAN LEADER OF THE JUDICIARY LEADER DOUG COLLINS. >> THANK YOU, EVERYONE. I THINK THAT WHAT WAS INTERESTING TODAY AND JUST SAID A FEW MOMENTS AGO OF A PAINTING OF THE PICTURE, AND THE DEMOCRATS SAID THEY WANT TO PAINT A PICTURE, AND WHY DON'T WE START TODAY AND PAINT THE PICTURE OF TODAY.

WHAT DID WE FIND OUT? MR. MUELLER CAME HERE TODAY AND FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SEPARATE COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY, WE PUT IT TO REST TODAY AND THIS IS A SYNONYMOUS REPORT AND HE SAID SO IN THE REPORT. AND SO FOR THOSE WHO SAID COLLUSION IS IN PLAIN SIGHT, AND IT IS TO REST. THAT IS PAINTING A PICTURE. THEY TRIED TO PUT UP SLIDES AND TALKING ABOUT OBSTRUCTION AND DIFFERENT ACTS AND PUTTING THE GREEN CHECK MARKS BESIDE IT AND IN THE END, MR. MUELLER SAYS, I DISAGREE WITH YOUR THEORY AND INTERPRETATION, AND WHAT WE SEE GOING THROUGH THIS IS MY COMMITTEE IS INTERESTING OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION, AND WHAT HAS BEEN THE ANSWER FROM MY MAJORITY OF CHAIRMAN? TO BRING NO BILL FORWARD OR SOLUTION FORWARD AND IN FACT, ALL WE WANT TO DO IS TO PAINT THE PICTURE OF THE PRESIDENT THEY HAVE DESPISED. THEY HAVE DONE SO SINCE 2016 AND FOR SEVEN MONTHS THAT IS ALL WE HAVE DONE IN OUR COMMITTEE. SOMEONE SAID, HOW DID YOU PREPARE? I DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT, BECAUSE THAT IS ALL MY COMMITTEE TALKING ABOUT FOR SEVEN MONTHS, AND EVERYTHING THING THAT HAS COME IN IS DOG AND PONY SHOWS AND RUNNING OUT PEOPLE FROM THE OLD WATERGATE ERA, AND SO THEY JUST DON'T LIKE THIS PICTURE.

AND SO THE QUESTION I HAVE IF WE ARE GOING TO PAINT THE PICTURE, LET'S PAINT ONE OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED A. DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY THAT HAS NO AGENDA, A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY WHO HAS TROUBLE BRINGING A BILL TO THE FLOOR, AND ALSO, FOR PEOPLE WHO BRING IMMIGRATION, AND ELECTION INTERFERENCE, AND OTHER ISSUES TO ELT DEALT WITH, BUT THEY WON'T BRING IT FORWARD. IN FACT, TOMORROW, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER HEARING OF TALKING ABOUT THE PROBLEM ON THE BORDER AND NOT FIXING IT. SO I SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES, GET OVER 2016 AND RUN IN 2020 IF YOU WANT TO, BECAUSE THIS PRESIDENT HAS PUT FORWARD A GREAT ECONOMY AND GREAT IDEAS AND RUN ON THOSE, AND QUIT DRUDGING UP A PICTURE THAT IS PAINTED THAT SAID THAT YOUR INVESTIGATION IS OVER.

MR. MUELLER HAS DONE HIS JOB AND PRESENTED THE REPORT. SOMEONE ASKED ASK, DID YOU FIND OUT ANYTHING NEW? NO. WE HAVE HAD THE REPORT FOR THREE MONTH, AROUND MR. MUELLER HAS SAID WHAT IS IN THE REPORT, THAT COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY IS OVER, AND THE OBSTRUCTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY SAYING THERE IS, HE SAID HE DID NOT AGREE WITH IT. SO THAT IS THE PICTURE THAT IS PAINTED TODAY. WITH THAT, I YIELD TO YOU. >> THANK YOU. TODAY, WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS THE COLLUSION BETWEEN THE CAMPAIGN PARTY AND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE DOSSIER THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AND THIS IS THE REAL COLLUSION, YOU HAD THE COLLUSION OF A FORMER BRITISH MI-6 AGENT WORKING WITH RUSSIAN SOURCE, AND WE DID NOT GET NEW INFORMATION ON THAT TODAY, BUT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE REFUSED TO ACCEPT REALITY, AND LIVE IN AN ALTERNATIVE UNIVERSE.

SO I THINK THAT AS REPRESENTATIVE COLLINS SAID, AND LIKE WE SAID TODAY, THIS IS OVER. HOPEFULLY, THIS IS TEND OF THESE HEARINGS, BECAUSE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS IMPORTANT WORK TO DO. IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY FOR THIS COUNTRY, THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW THAN PASSING THE UNITED STATES/MEXICO/CANADIAN AGREEMENT READY TO GO. AND LOOKING AT THE SITUATION ON THE BORDER, IT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH AND WE NEED REAL LEGISLATION TO MOVE THROUGH THIS HOUSE TO GET TO THE SENATE. IT IS WHAT THE DEMOCRATS RAN ON, AND THEY PROMISED SOLUTIONS TO IMMIGRATION, AND THEY ARE NOT DELIVERING IT. SO TWO PRESSING ISSUE NOT BEING DEALT WITH AND HOPEFULLY AFTER TODAY, WE WITH WILL BEGIN WHEN WE GET BACK HERE IN SEPTEMBER TO WORK ON IMMIGRATION REFORM, AND TO PASS THIS VERY IMPORTANT TRADE AGREEMENT. I WANTED TO INTRODUCE MR. JORDAN. >> THANK YOU. THE LEADER AND MY COLLEAGUES ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON. UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE AT. THREE YEARS AGO NEXT WEEK IS WHEN THE TRUMP RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION BEGAN.

AND SO THE FBI INVESTIGATED FOR 10 MONTHS AND UNDERSTAND THE BIG PICTURE. THE PRESIDENT HAS FALSELY BEEN ACCUSE AND THE FBI INVESTIGATES FOR 10 MONTHS AND FIND NOTHING AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE DEPOSED JIM COMEY AND HE TOLD US THAT, AND THEN BOB MUELLER TAKES OVER AND HE INVESTIGATES FOR 22 MONTHS AND SO NOW HERE WE ARE 23 MONTHS LATER, AND THEY HAVE FOUND NO COLLUSION OR OBSTRUCTION, AND SO IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON. AND THIS IS WHAT I SAID IN THE HEARING. THE HEARING THAT MR. HOROWITZ IS GOING ON THE HAVE COMPLETED IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AND THE ONE THAT THE ATTORNEY JEN HALL HAS TASKED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DO IN FINDING HOW TO GET THROUGH THIS SEGA THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIVING THROUGH.

BUT STOP THE CONTINUOUS INVESTIGATION INTO SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE SPENT THREE YEARS ON. AND LET'S FOCUS ON THOSE ISSUES THAT REALLY MATTER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. QUESTIONS? >> YES, SIR. >> IT SEEMS THAT YOU HAVE HAD TOTAL COMMAND OF THE DETAILS, AND ARE YOU BELIEVING THAT HE WAS — [ INAUDIBLE ]. >> I THINK FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO BACK CHANNEL, THEY DID NOT LIKE THE PERFORMANCE, BUT THE ANSWERS. IT IS A CERTAIN THING FOR SOMEONE WHO RAN AN ORGANIZATION LIKE HE DID, WHAT IS REALLY INTERESTING IS THAT HE HAD 418 PAGES AND MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS, AND THE TESTIMONY, AND HE HAD A COMMAND, AND HE HAD HIS ADVISER THERE, AND HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION AS WE WENT THROUGH THEM, AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS DID NOT LIKE HOW HE ANSWERED THEM.

THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO SALVAGE THEM, AND FIND A WAY THAT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS MATTERING AND THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME AND MONEY, BUT THE PICTURE PAINTED TODAY IS A LONG TIME INVESTIGATOR WHO LAID OUT THE FACT, AND THEY JUST DON'T LIKE IT. >> [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> WELL, IF YOU WATCHED THE HEARING AND THE INTEL HEARING AND WE DISCUSSED EXONERATION AND WHERE IS THAT LEGAL THEORY THAT HE WOULD COME OUT WAS A NOVEL THEORY, BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN USED BEFORE.

IT IS NOT SOMETHING FOR HIM TO EXONERATE, AND THAT IS THE FLIPSIDE TO SAY THERE NOT ENOUGH THERE THE FIND GUILT, SO INSTEAD OF THE OPPOSITE INSTEAD OF SAYING EXONERATION WHICH HE HAS NEVER DONE BEFORE AND NONE HAVE NEVER DONE BEFORE AND THAT IS SAYING THAT HE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO GO FORWARD. SO IF I WERE THE DEMOCRATS AND JUST AS THEY GOT THROUGH TALKING ABOUT IT IN THEIR OWN CONFERENCE, I WOULD BE FRUSTRATED, TOO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROMISED AND PROMISED AND PROMISED THAT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION IS THE GOLD STANDARD AND IT WOULD THEIR PROBLEM, BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE GOT TO THE END, AND IT WAS NOT WHAT THEY WANTED TO HAIR. >> YO HAVE PROOF THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTEL COMMITTEE LIE NOD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND YOU FOUND THAT IS NOT TRUE, AND YOU HAD THE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE REPORT, AND TODAY, YOU HAD THE HEARINGS.

YOU HAVE A CHAIRMAN OF JUDICIARY WHO RAN FOR HIS CHAIRMANSHIP BASED THAT HE PROPOSED TO THE CONFERENCE THAT HE WOULD BE THE VERY FIRST BEST PERSON FOR IMPEACHMENT. THIS IS THE GOAL. THE ONLY PEOPLE HURT IN THIS ARE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. I WATCHED THE DEMOCRATS' PRESS CONFERENCE AND THE BODY LANGUAGE AND I WATCH WHAT THEY SPOKE OF. THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE TODAY. IT WAS NOT THE ANSWERS THEY WANTED TO HEAR. EVEN WHEN THEY LAID OUT THE THEORY, MUELLER SAID, NO, I DISAGREE.

THIS SHOULD BE THE END OF THE CHAPTER OF THIS BOOK THAT WE PUT AMERICA THROUGH. IT IS TIME TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MAJORITY HAS NO AGENDA. I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY CAN'T PASS SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF A RESOLUTION. BUT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC EXPECTS MORE FROM THIS CONGRESS. IT WOULD BE THE BEST ADVICE FOR THESE DEMOCRATS TO PUT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FIRST AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ISSUES THAT WE CAN SOLVE.

YES, SIR. >> [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> THE PRESIDENT WAS WORKING ON ISSUES. WE WERE WORKING ON ISSUES TODAY, AND I THINK THAT YOU CAUGHT SOME OF IT. HE IS UPBEAT AND I HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT BE UPBEAT ALMOST EVERY SINGLE DAY, AND WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH HIM, HIS CUP IS ALWAYS HALF FULL, AND TO THINK WHAT THIS POOR PRESIDENT HAD TO GO THROUGH AND IF YOU HAD TO SIT THERE FOR THREE YEARS AND HEAR SOMEBODY SAY A LIE ABOUT YOU AND EACH TURN OF THE CORNER, YOU ARE PROVEN CORRECT, AND I WATCHED THE QUESTION BEFORE MUELLER, DID ANYBODY IN THE WHITE HOUSE NOT COME TO TESTIFY BEFORE YOU? NO.

THE PAPERS BEFORE YOU, AND YOU HAD PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE LIE TO AMERICAN PEOPLE, AHEAD OF THE INTEL COMMITTEE, AND THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. KNOWING WHAT SHE KNOWS NOW, HOW CAN ADAM SCHIFF STILL BE CHAIRMAN OF A COMMITTEE THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE TRUST IN ON THE INTEL AROUND THE WORLD WHEN HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. YES? >> THERE IS A CONCERN THAT HE HAD A PERIOD OF TALKING ABOUT THE LEGISLATION, AND YOU CAN — >> YES. >> WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT THE NEW MAJORITY CAME IN AND SAID WE WILL HAVE HEARINGS BEFORE WE PUT BILLS ON THE FLOOR. AND MY COMMITTEE IS SO OBSESSED WITH THE PRESIDENT IN THE FIGHT THAT THEY SHOULD BE IMPEACHED THAT WE DON'T HAVE HEARINGS OR DISCUSSIONS ANYMORE AND WE HAVE BILL, AND PUT FORTH A BILL, AND THEY CAN PUT FORWARD THE BILLS, BUT WE ARE NOT GETTING THE HEARINGS IN THE COMMITTEE.

THE VERY COMMITTEE IN WHICH MR. MUELLER TALKED ABOUT TODAY, THE VERY THREAT OF THE EXISTENCE IN ELECTIONS, AND WE ARE NOT PUTTING THE BILLS TOGETHER. THAT MEANS THEY ARE BANKRUPT OF THE IDEA OR THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE IDEAS OF THE NATIVE OF RUNNING DOWN THIS PRESIDENT. SO I SAY TO THE DEMOCRATS IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE FOR THE LOVE OF AMERICA, WELL, THAT LOVE WOULD BE DOING LEGISLATION, AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE WOULD DO AND WE WOULD SUPPORT IF WE COULD HAVE SOME ACTION AND DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. >> I WAS JUST — >> WAS THAT QUESTION TO ME? >> I WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN REPORT LAST YEAR AND A YEAR AGO WE PUT OUT 45 RECOMMENDATION, AND I REFER YOU TO THAT WE PORT IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE TO GUARD OUR SYSTEM AGAINST FRAUD.

>> WELL, LET ME ASK YOU — GO AHEAD, JIM. >> I WOULD SAY THAT MAYBE TOMORROW WE COULD HAVE A HEARING ON THE VARIOUS ISSUES OF MAKING SURE THAT THE ELECTION IS SAFE, AND INSTEAD, WE ARE SUBPOENAING THE WHITE HOUSE EMPLOYEES FOR THE E-MAILS, AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE CONTINUING THIS AS THE LEADER SAID. WHEN YOU ARE SHORT OF FOCUSING ON THE COUNTRY, IT IS TOUGH IN YOUR EXAMPLE TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE ELECTION SYSTEM. YEAH, WE WOULD UP SU PORT MOVING AHEAD AND HAVING BIPARTISAN FOCUS ON, THAT AND THE FOCUS OF THE OVERSIGHT IN JUDICIARY IS GOING TOUT THE PRESIDENT AND THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR HIM. >> I WILL TELL YOU WHAT WE WILL WORK ON. WE WILL WORK WITH ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BORDER IS SECURE AND TAKE CARE OF THE KIDS. AS A REPUBLICAN LEADER, WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT THE USMC IS GOING TO MAKE AMERICA STRONGER AND MAKE THIS BATTLE IN THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT THE GDP IS GOING TO GROW AND MORE JOBS CREATED HERE, AND WE WILL GLADLY WORK ON THAT, AND WE WILL WORK IN HEALTH CARE THAT THE SURPRISE BILLING OF THE AMERICANS WHO GET A SURPRISE BILL THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE IN NETWORK, IT IS COMING BACK TO THEM, AND THE MAJORITY IS CONTROLLING WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE COMMITTEE, AND NONE OF IT HAS HAPPENED AND NONE OF IT HAS HAPPEN AND THE ONLY THING THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE ENTIRE YEAR IS SOMETHING TO DO TO UNDERCUT THIS PRESIDENT.

AND WELL, NOW IT IS TIME TO BUILD UP AMERICA, AND TURN THE PAGE. YES? >> YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY SAID — [ INAUDIBLE ]. >> NO, IT IS VERY INCLUSIVE. DO I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT? HE HAS CREATED ZILLIONS OF JOB AND THE STRONGEST ECONOMY IN MORE THAN 50 YEARS. >> ROBERT MUELLER IS — >> THERE WAS NO COLLUSION, AND HOW DO YOU GET TO OBSTRUCTION? THEY HAVE WATCHED THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION FOR THREE YEARS GOING AFTER SOMETHING THAT THERE IS NO PROOF TO IT.

>> [ INAUDIBLE ]. >> I THINK THAT IN THE QUESTIONING OF JOHN RADCLIFFE, MUELLER ANSWERED THE QUESTION VERY CLEARLY, THIS PRESIDENT HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG, SO NO, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS PRESIDENT. >> WHAT I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT IN 2016 TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS WERE SPIED ON WHO WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. WE KNOW THAT IS THE CASE. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOLD US THAT IS THE CASE, AND WE KNOW THAT THEY WENT TO THE FISA COURT AND GOT A WARRANT TO SPY ON CARTER PAGE AND RENEWED IT THREE TIMES AND DID IT FOR THE BERT PART OF A YEAR AND THE SAME THING WITH GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, AND TO ME, THAT IS SCARY.

NEVER FORGET WHAT ENNIS SLUD WROTE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL F THEY CAN DO THIS TO THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, IMAGINE WHAT THEY COULD DO TO YOU AND I, AND THAT IS WHY THE INVESTIGATION THAT BILL BARR IS DOING IN AND MICHAEL HOROWITZ IS DOING, CONCERNS ME, AND THAT KIND OF STUFF SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN THE COUNTRY, BUT KNOW IT DID. AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES SAYS IT WAS NOT PROPERLY PREDICATED SO FIGURE OUT IF IT WAS OR WASN'T AND LET'S GET AN ANSWER TO THAT AND THANK GOD, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS DOING. >> IF YOU WERE FALSELY ACCUSED OF SOMETHING, AND YOU WOULD BE TICKED OFF, TOO. I MEAN, THAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE, AND THIS WHOLE THING IS PLAYED OUT OVER THREE YEARS AND REMEMBER WHAT WE LEARNED TODAY, THEY DIDN'T EVEN CHARGE THE GUY WHO STARTED THE WHOLE THING, THIS JOSEPH MIFSUD AND HE LIED THREE TIME, AND THEY CHARGED EVERYONE ELSE, AND 13 RUSSIANS NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD, BUT YOU CAN'T CHARGE THE GUY WHO STARTED THIS WHOLE THREE-YEAR SAGA THAT WE HAVE ENDURED AS A COUNTRY.

AND SO I WILL SAY IT UNTIL IT IS DONE, THE INVESTIGATION AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS SO DARN IMPORTANT. >> AGREE WITH WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT THIS, BUT THE QUESTION THAT YOU ARE ASKING AND ADDRESS IT HERE THAT IT IS GOING BACK TO A CERTAIN PART OF THE HEARING, AND REMEMBER IT THAT I ASKED THE SIMILAR QUESTION IF YOU HAVE CURTAILED OR HINDERED FROM YOUR INVESTIGATION AT ALL AND HIS ANSWER WAS NO. BACK TO THE PRESIDENT, AND THE ANSWER WAS NO. WE TALKED ABOUT THE ACTION OF THE PRESIDENT, AND JOHN DEAN, AND HE MADE AN INTERESTING POINT, BECAUSE ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS WAS ASKING HIM ABOUT ADVICE OR IF YOUR BOSS GAVE YOU ADVICE WOULD YOU FOLLOW IT, AND HE SAID THAT YOU VO TO BE CAREFUL HERE ABOUT THIS, THESE FOLKS, THIS PRESIDENT WHO HAS BEEN ATTACKED FROM DAY ONE HAS BEEN FRUSTRATED WITH IT, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED WITH THE INVESTIGATION, AND WE SEEM TO GLOSS OVER THAT, IT WAS NEVER STOPPED.

AND THE QUESTION AT THE END OF THE DAY IS WHAT HAPPENED, AND THE QUESTION IS NOT FOR THE ETHEREAL HYPOTHETICALS OUT THERE, AND THEY HAVE A BAD AGENDA, AND THEY SIMPLY WANT TO ATTACK THIS PRESIDENT, AND MR. MUELLER SAID IT. WHEN THEY LAID OUT EVERY POSSIBLE THING FOR OBSTRUCTION, AND WHEN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL SAID THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE THEORY, THAT IS VERY CLEAR. >> THE ONLY NEW THING THEY LEARNED TODAY IS EVEN WHEN DOUG COLLINS SAYS THAT HE IS GOING TO SPEAK CLOSER, HE CAN.

LAST QUESTION. >> [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION PRKT [ >> ONE OF THE FRUSTRATING THINS IN THE MUELLER REPORT IS WHO IS ACTUALLY MENTIONED IN THE REPORT. HE IS MENTIONED IN THE REPORT TWO DOZEN TIMES, AND THE POINT THAT I WAS MAKING IS THAT MIFSUD WE KNOW HAS CLOSE TIES NOT ONLY TO OUR OWN FBI AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND THE WESTERN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, AND HE WORKED AT CAMPUSES THAT APPEAR TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP WITH MULTIPLE WESTERN GOVERNMENTS AND HE TAUGHT 2345I TOE COURSE, AND HE WAS RIGHT HERE ABOUT 100 FEET AWAY IN THE CAPITAL VISITOR CENTER IN 2017 AND PARTICIPATING IN A PROGRAM HERE IN U.S. CAPITOL, AND IN THAT PICTURE THAT I SHOWED WITH BORIS JOHNSON, IT IS A RECENT PHOTO LESS THAN A YEAR-OLD, AND SO THE POINT THAT I AM TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT IF WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT MIFSUD AND COMEY SAID THAT HE IS A RUSSIAN AGENT, BUT IN THE REPORT THEY DON'T SAY, THAT AND SO WE NEED TO KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT TODAY, MR.

MUELLER STOOD BY WHAT IS IN THE REPORT OF, AND THIS IS NOT REALLY GOING TO BRING FINALITY OR CLOSURE TO WHO MISFUD IS, AND WE HAVE THAT OUTSTANDING QUESTION. AND I WAS MAKING THE POINT THAT IF THIS GUY IS CONTINUING TO HANG OUT WITH NATO LEADERS, BORIS JOHNSON, AND MANY OTHERS, WE NEED TO KNOW WHO THIS GUY REALLY IS, BECAUSE IF HE IS A RUSSIAN AGENT, THEN WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RUSSIAN ALLIES KNOW ABOUT IT. >> IT IS NOT ABOUT BORIS, BUT ABOUT — >> VERY CLEAR. IT IS TIME TO PUT AMERICA FIRST.

IT IS TIME FOR THE DEMOCRATS TO CLOSE THE CHAPTER ON THIS BOOK THEY HAVE TRIED FOR THREE YEARS AND TIME TO GET OVER THE 2016 ELECTION, AND SOLVE THE PROBLEMS THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC EXPECTS THEM TO DO. THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE WATCHING THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP RESPONDING TO THE ROBERT MUELLER HEARING, AND SAYING THAT THE.

As found on YouTube