he lied three times. why didn't you charge him with a crime? >> i can't get into internal deliberations with regard who would or would not be. >> you charged a lot of other people. let's

the fbi opened an investigation based on that fact. you point this out on page 1 of the report. july 31st, 2016, they opened the investigation based on that piece of investigation. diplomat tells papadopoulos -- papadopoulos tells diplomat russian has dirt on clinton. what i'm wondering is what told papadopoulos. how did he find out? >> i can't get into the evidence findings. >> yes you can. you gave us the answer. you tell us who told him. joseph nipson. told padopouloss the guy who

the mysterious professor who lives in rome and london. 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. you charge michael cohen with false statements. you charge michael flynn but the guy who puts the country, starts it all for three years, he lies, you guys don't charge him. i'm curious as to why. >> well, i can't get into it. it's obvious i think we can't get into charging decisions. >> when the fbi interviewed him in february. when the special counsel's office interviewed him, did he lie into you too? tthat. is h igenc russian intelligence?

>> can't get it into that. >> you can charge 13 russians no one has ever heard of, never seen. no one will ever see them. you can't charge all kinds of people but the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can't charge him. i think that's amazing. >> i'm not certain i agree with your characterizations. >> i'm reading from your report. nipson told papadopoulos. the diplomat tells the fbi. the fbi opens the investigation july 31st, 2016 and here we are three years later, july of 2019 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 told us at that point they had

nothing. you do a 22 month investigation. at the end, you find no conspiracy. what's 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 accusation started. maybe it's to go bac news. that's exactly what bill barr is doing. that's what the attorney general is doing. they will find out why we went through -- >> time of the gentleman is expired. >> in a moment we will take a very brief five-minute break. first, i ask every one in the room to please remain seated and quiet while the witness exits the room. i also want to announce to those in the audience that you may not be guaranteed your seat if you leave the hearing room at this time.

>> we have now just witnessed over an hour of members of the house judiciary committee ququestioning or shouting sometimes, making their point of views in an team to get robert mueller to explain more of what was in this report. major, your take. >> there are two central questions at the heart of all this. did the president conspire to influence an election with a hostile foreign power? it's clear, no. the mueller report is clear on that. did that investigation into that underlying question start on ill legitimate means. republicans are trying to use this hearing to inject proof of that, at least some doubt in the public's minds. democrats are spending all their time going through the report on the obstruction of justice

charge. mueller issing b backing them u things they read from the report. that doesn't solve the question which is what are house democrats going to do with what they say is clear evidence of possible obstruction. there's only one answer to that question. yes or no. do you panel an inpeachment proceeding or not. they may come to more clarity about this but in terms of revelation, we heard is the report read out loud, that's not a revolution. he may prove helpful to democrats but they will have to do more to move them off of their position of structural reluctance to go down the road of impeachment. >> jonathan turley joins us as well. we knew robert mueller was a reluctant witness. he was subpoenaed to testify. he wanted the report to be his statement. he did not want to take questions on this. the justice department weighed be with a letter prescribed with

what he could say. what should we may of his short answers, many ways not elaborating at all about what is in this report. >> i think he's sticking to what we thought would happen. he is a reluctant witness. some of what he said is confusing. he's refusing to talk about things that bill barr has already talked about. things that are not privileged. things like barr raised this issue of why mueller did not identify rule 16 or grand jury information. barr said it was mueller that delayed the release of the report. all of that was previously testified to. mueller said i really can't speak to that. i don't know the legal basis for that. the democrats did get some good stuff out of mueller. mueller said that when he spoke with the president after the firing of comey, he did not speak to him about the possibility of replacing comey. that's a direct contradiction to trump. the hearing began with what may

be the home run hit for the democrats which is when mueller said it's simply not true what the president said he would be exonerated. for all of that, the republicans did score a few point themselves. they ended up getting sort of caught up in their own gears. one point they raised is said your mandate was to explain your prosecutorial decisions or your decision not to indict and they said that's a shell duty. you have to do that. yet you said i don't have enough information to exonerate him and the republicans scored some point to say where does that duty come from. where is this policy that you can say we didn't find evidence of a crime but we didn't exonerate him. that's not the standard of the department of justice. they are right. prosecutors don't say that as a general. i thought mueller looked a little befuddled on those issues. i don't think he did as well.

>> this last exchange with jim jordan about this person who told george papadopoulos about this information which he conveyed to a foreign diplomat. >> claiming he had the dirt on the clinton campaign. >> robert mueller would not describe any part of their decisions about that underlying set of facts.. his reluctance to engage on that which may fit within the requirements of his office creates an opening for republicans because for this process, for republicans and those who support president trump, any set of questions or lack of answers they get from robert mueller on these underlying questions of fairness or any potential bias in this investigation give them politically. hold onto thai >> are those attram t major fins -- findings is the russians attempt to influence our

election and attempts to obstruct justice by the president. >> they would not call them distractions. they would call them part of this record. they do create this other space for people who are sympathetic to the president can land on. in any encounter where law and politics are involved or in straight law, juries need a place to land. where do you help land the jury? republicans are trying to land republicans, sympathizers of the president. >> every one is trying to out rage every one else to get on the evening news. this is the theater of the macabre. >> i noticed that too. >> mueller said tas doing these things because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice. mueller answered that question and said yes. that is a very -- >>

general barr said is a lot of the actions is because the heart is frustrated. >> that went to the heart there'sinal motivations here. you do have this sort of two separate hearings going on. if you listen only to the democrats and the republicans you'd be surprised they are talking about the same person, same report. the democrat, this is powerful evidence of obstruction and it's okay, you're the judiciary committee. you have the ability to impeach him. >> what are you going to do? >> i want to bring in paula reed who is standing by at the white house. describe the nuance in those questions about obstruction. >> reporter: it's all about the questions. if you only expect to get a yes, no, i refer you to page 106, you can see these lawmakers have carefully crafted the questions to try to get in any facts they can highlight.

mueller didn't say he didn't have sufficient evidence. he said he could not exonerate the president. under the justice department's guidelines he did not feel he could charge the president with a crime because he couldn't be put on trial. he couldn't accuse someone of something and not give him the opportunity in any way to clear his name if he was innocent. he suggested that the proper channel for that would be congress. that's something the democrats are hammering him on. they got mueller to confirm the president could be charged with obstruction crimes after he leaves office. republicans are likely disappointed that mueller does not want to delve into any questions about the origins of the investigation. as you saw right there with representative jordan he was able to pack a lot in his question. every accusation about george papadopoulos, he put it into question. he was able to communicate his concerns about any political motivations in his questions

alone. >> we noticed, paula, that robert mueller gave 41 one word answers either a yes or a no. he knew he was not going to be verbose during these particular hearings that would refer to what is already in that report. did you find anything else unusual about his answers? >> reporter: i'd say the yes, no, answers that's just good lawyering. i would advise him to do the same. this appearance is a contrast to his previous appearances before congress. he does seem a bit different. a little unsure of himself. he frequently asked him to repeat questions and he did have trouble properly recalling names or terms or aspects of his report that we would have expected to come to him a little bit sooner. >> all right. paula reed there outside the white house. paula mentioned this key point which i think is worth drilling down on. it was talked about in the

hearing. it's also right here what mueller said about the olc opinion, the office of legal counsel about whether you can charge a president of the united states with obstruction of justice. what mueller tries to make clur and he said this on his may 29th statement is the olc opinion says the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing. why he says, because it would be unfair to potentially accuse someone of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. do you understand? what he said is it would have been completely unfair to say he could have done this because there's no other remedy other than congress. that is their job according to the constitution. fair? do you agree with it? >> i don't agree with it. a lot of people don't with the olc opinions. those opinions are well known. i testified on that in the clinton impeachment when one of those opinions were just coming out. nothing in the olcem s

anything about accusing a president. they say you can't indict a president. i think this will be coming up in next round of questions because the big question for mueller, this is weak point for him. a lot of people disagree with you on the olc memos. there's nothing that says you can't allege a crime. it says you can't indict a sitting president. the big question is, if you weren't going to reach this conclusion, why didn't you tell someone? why didn't you go to olc? they what's they do. when you have a question about policy, you say is this what you meant. >> right. this investigation, the special counsel was about in the russian interference. it wasn't initially about the president's behavior. the president's behavior came about because of this investigation. >> looks like we're getting ready to reconvene. we'll continue to conversation until chairman nadler reconvenes formally. he has to come around to answer,

why did you investigate. he said you should investigate but republicans are saying that doesn't fit within the parameters of your mandate. if you weren't going to allege or indict then why all this time to look into the president's behavior. there's an argument for that because the president's behavior is a legitimate place of e inquiry. i think he ought to be able -- >> can i make one other point? the president repeatedly on news organizations reported instances that he directed don mcgahn, his white house counsel, to fire the special counsel. those were press reports at the time. the president derided those as fake news and not true. it turns out the president was lying. >> yes. they've said today and the president said i never used the word fire.

he ultimately wasn't fired. phraseology matters but intent is clear. the intent of the president was to try to end this and to get his white house counsel to lean on the deputy attorney general. why? >> all right. questioning resumes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mueller, congressman dutch addressed trump's request to mcgahn to fire you. represent bass talked about the president's request 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 president's personal lawyer. 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 presid counsel was so alarmed by the prospect of the president 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 the president knew he was asking mcgahn to deny facts that mcgahn said were accurate, unquote, isn't that right in. >> correct. >> your investigation fountd, quote by the time of the oval office meeting with the president, the president was aware 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. be president nevertheless

persisted and asked mcgahn to repudiate facts that mcgahn repeatedly said were accurate, isn't that accurate? >> generally true. >> i believe that's on page 119. thank you. the president was trying to force mcgahn to say something that mcgahn did not believe to be true. >> that's accurate. >> i want to reference you to a slide. it's on page 120. it says substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging mcgahn to dispute he was ordered to have the special counsel terminated, the president acted for the purpose of influencing mcgahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the president's conduct towards the investigation. >> that's accurate. >> can you explain what you meant there? >> i believe as it appears in the report.

>> it's fair to say the president tried to protect himself by asking staff falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation. >> i would say that's general in summary. >> would you say that action, the president tried to hamper the investigation by asking staff to falsify records relevant to your investigation? >> i'll have to refer you to the report 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 concern about your obstruction of justice inquiry, correct? >> i believe that to be true. >> in fact, that same oval office meeting did the president ask mcgahn why he 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 17th, 2017 events when he told mcgahn to have you removed, correct? >> correct. >> in other words, the president was criticizing his white house counsel for telling law enforcement officials what he believed to be the truth. >> again, go back to the text of the report. >> well, let me go a bit further. would it have been a crime if mr. mcgahn lied to you president ordering him to fire you. >> i don't want to speculate. >> you charge the investigation? >> that is accurate. >> the president complained his staff were taking notes during the meeting about firing mcgahn, is that correct? >> that's what the report says.

>> in fact, it's completely appropriate for the president's staff especially counsel to take notes during a meeting, correct? >> i rely on the wording of the report. >> well, thank you director mueller for your investigation into whether the president attempted to obstruct justice by ordering his white house counsel don mcgahn to lie to protect the president and then to create a false record. it's 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 from florida. >> director mueller can you state with confidence that the steel dossier was not part of russia's disinformation in >> no. as i said in of the building of the case was predated me by ten months.

>> paul manafort's crimes pre-dated you. you had no problem charging him. this pre-dated the attorney general and he didn't have any problem answering the question when senator cornyn asked the exact question. the attorney general said i can't state that with confidence. that's one of the areas i'm reviewing. i'm concerned about it and i don't think it's entirely speculative. 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. christopher steel reporting has referenced in your report, steel reported to the fbi that senior russian foreign ministry figures along with other russians told him that there was and i'm quoting, extensive evidence of conspiracy between the trump campaign team and the kremlin. here is my question.

did russians really tell that to christopher steel or did he just make it up and was he lying to the fbi? >> let me back up and say as i said earlier with regard to steel that's beyond my purview. >> it's exactly your purview. only one of two things is possible. either steel made this whole thing up and they were never any russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn't find or russians lied to steel. if russians were lying to steel to undermine our confidence in our duly elected president, that would be seem to be precisely your purview because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully an thoroughly investigate russia's interference. you aren't interested in they were interfering with steel and you should have charged him with lying. you say nothing about this in your report. you write 3500 words about the

june 9 meeting between the trump campaign and russian lawyer. you write on page 103 of your report that the president's legal team suggested and i'm quoting that the meeting might have been a set up by individuals working with the firm that produced the steel reporting. i'm going to ask you a very easy question. on the week of june 9, who did russian lawyer meet with more frequently. the trump campaign or glen simpson who was acting as an operative for the democratic national committee? >> what i think is missing is the fact this is under investigation elsewhereelsewher. >> i get that. >> if i can finish. it's not within my purview. the department of justice and fbi should be responsive to questions on this particular issue. >> it's absurd to suggest that an operative for the democrats was meeting with this russian

lawyer the day before or the day after the trump tower meeting and that's not something you reference. glen simpson testified he had dinner the day before and after this meeting with trump team. do you have any basis to believe steel was lying in. >> as i've said before, it's not my purview. others are it'sot your purview k into steel was lying. it's not your purview to look into anti-russians are lying to steel and not your purview if they were meeting with russians the day after you write 3500 words after the trump campaign meeting. i'm wondering how the decisions are guided. i look at the inspector general's report on page 404. trump is not ever be president. right. struck replied, he's not. will stop it. also there's someone identified as attorney number two. attorney number two, this is page 419 relied hell no.

attorney number two in the inspector general's report both worked your team, didn't they? >> pardon me? >> they both worked on your team did they. >> who else? >> attorney number two identified in inspector general's report. >> the question was? >> did he work for you. >> peter struck worked for me for a period of time. >> so did the other guy who said viva la resistance. when people associated with trump lie, you threw the book at them. when glen simpson met with russians, nothing. maybe the reason why there are these chris cre -- is because it isbiassed. >>ed >> obstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of an investigators effort to find the truth, correct? >> correct. >> the crime of obstruction of

justice has three elements. >> true. >> first element is an obstructive act. >> correct. >> an obstructive act could include taking an action that could they 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 could they 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. >> let me refer you to page 87 and 88. >> you conclude the attempt to

remove the special counsel would qualify as on obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the i ve investigation. >> correct. >> i've got that now. thank you. >> thank you. the second element of obstruction of justice is the president of an obstructive act and connection with official proceeding, true? >> true. >> does the special counsel's criminal investigation enter the potential wrong doing of donald trump constitute an official proceeding? >> that's an area which i cannot get into. >> okay. president trump tweeted on june 16th, 2017, quote, i am being investigated for firing the fbi director by the man who told me to fire the fbi director which hunt. the june 16th tweet just read was cited on page 89 in volume two constitutes a public

acknowledge by president trump he was under investigation. >> i think generally correct. >> president trump called white house counsel don mcgahn at home and directed him to fire the special counsel, true? >> i believe to be true. i think we have been -- i may have stated in response to questions. >> that is 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 by june 17th, 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, true? >> true. >> corrupt intent exists if the

president acted to obstruct a official proceeding for the improper purpose of protecting his own interest, correct? >> that's generally correct. the only thing i would say is we're going through the three elements of proof of the obstruction of justice charges when the fact of the matter is, we got. >> let me move on and interest of time. upon learning about the special counsel, your investigation found he stated to then attorney general, oh, my god, this is terrible. this is tend of my presidency. i'm fed. is that direct? >> correct. >> is it fair toe viewed it as adverse to his own interest? >> i think that generally is 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 the president knew he should not have made those calls to mcgahn. >> yes. that's accurate. >> the investigation found substantial evidence that president trump repeatedly urged mcgahn to dispute 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 to your -- the

way you analyze that. i'm not saying it's out of the ballpark but i'm not supportive of that analytical charge. >> the man from colorado. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. mueller over here. >> hi. >> i want to start by thanking you for your service. you joined the marines and in vietnam earned the bronze star and purple heart. assistant attorney general for doj and fbi director. thank you. i appreciate that. having reviewed your biography it puzzles me why you handled your duties in this case the way you did. the report contradicts what you taught young attorneys at the department of justice including to ensure that every defendant is treated fairly or as justice

sut sutherland said it's not that it shall win case but justice shall be done and the prosecutor may strike hard blows but he's not at liberty to strike foul ones. by 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 prosecutor declining a case and holding a press conference to talk about the defendant. you noted eight times you had a legal duty to either prosecute or decline charges. despite this, you disregarded that duty. as a former prosecutor i'm troubled with your legal analysis. you discussed ten separate factual patterns involviing alleged obstruction and you failed to apply the elements of the applicable statutes.

looking at the flynn matter, for example, the four statutes that you cited, when i look at those concerning the flynn matter, 1503 because it wasn't a grand jury or trial jury impanelled and director comey was not an officer of the court as defined by the statute. the department of justice criminal resource manual says the fbi investigation is not a pending proceeding. 1512b3 talks about intimidation threats or force to tamper with a witness. general flynn was not a witness and director comey was not a witness.

1512c2 talks about tampering r as joe biden describes as a statute debating on the floor. there's nothing in your report that alleges that the president destroyed any evidence. what i have to ask you and what i think people are working around in this hearing is, let me lay a little foundation for it. the ethical rules require that prosecutor have a reasonable probability of conviction to bring a charge, is that correct? >> sounds generally accurate. >> the regulations concerning your job as special counsel rneyeral with a s t confidential report explaining the prosecution decisions reached by your office. you recommended declining prosecution of president trump and anyone associated with his campaign because there was insufficient evidence to convict for a charge of conspiracy with russian interference in the 2016

election. is that fair? >> that's fair. >> was there sufficient evidence to convict president trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice? >> we did not make that calculation. >> how could you not have made the calculation in. >> olc opinion indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president. one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there. >> okay. 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. when it came to obstruction, you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick. that's unfair. >> i would not agree to that characterization at all. what we did is provide to the attorney general in the form of a confidential memorandum our understanding of the case. those cases that were brought. those cases that were declined. that one case where the

president cannot be charged with a crime. >> okay. the --e left office? >> yes. >> you believe that you could charge the president of the united states with obstruction of justice after he left office? >> yes. >> ethically. under the ethical standards. >> i haven't looked at the ethical standards but olc opinion says the prosecutor cannot bring a charge against a sitting president, nonetheless continue to 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. >> we are focusing on five ruike t ask y about the third. it's entitled the president's effort to curtail the special counsel investigation at page

90. by curtail you mean limit. >> correct. >> mr. mcgahn refused the order the president asked others to help limit your investigation, is that correct? >> correct. >> was cory lewandokski. >> correct. >> did he have any official business with the trump administration in. >> i don't believe so. >> your report describes an incident in the oval office involving mr. lewandowski. >> what's the criatioitation? >> page 91. a meeting in the oval office. >> okay. >> that was just two days after the president called don mcgahn at home and ordered him to fire you, is that correct apparently. >> right after his white house counsel, mr. mcgahn, refused to follow the president's order to fire you. the president came up with a new plan and that was to go around

all his senior advisers to have a private citizen try to limit your i venvestigation. what did the president tell mr. lewandowski to do. he asked him to write it down, is that correct ? >> true. >> did you and your team see this handwritten message in. >> i'm not going to get into it what we may or may not have. >> message directed sessions to give a public speech saying 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 yes. >> 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 investigati investigation, correct? >> correct.

>> mr. sessions was still rec e recused from oversight of your investigation, correct? >> could you restate. >> the attorney general was recused. >> yes. >> he would have to violate his own department rules to comply with the president's order, correct? >> i'm not going to get into the subsidiary details. i'd refer you to page 91, 92 of the report. >> if the attorney general followed through with the president's threats it would have ended your investigation, correct? >> could you -- >> page 97 you write, taken together, the president's directives indicate that sessions was being instructed to tell the special counsel to end the existing investigation into the president and his campaign with the special counsel being permitted to move forward with i vest-- investigating meddling for future elections? >> generally true.

>> mr. lewandowski tried meet with the attorney general. >> true. >> he would meet in his office so it wasn't a public log of the visit. >> according to what we gathered from the report. >> the meeting never happened and the president raised the issue again and he said if sessions does not meet with you, lewandowski should tell sessions he was fired, correct? >> correct. >> immediately following the meeting mr. lewandowski asking mr. dearborn and he refuses to deliver it because he doesn't feel comfortable. >> generally correct. >> just so we're clear. 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 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 facts laid out in the report are accurate. >> in your report you write on page 99, 97. substantial evidence indicates that the president's action to limit the scope into interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the campaign. is that correct? >> generally. >> you have seen a letter where a thousands former republican and democratic federal prosecutors read your report and said anyone but the president would be charged with obstruction of justice. do you agree with those former colleagues? >> those prosecutors. >> thank you, mr. chairman. over here. mr. mueller, you guys -- your team wrote in the report, quote,

this is the top of page two, volume one. you said the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired and coordinated with the russian government. closed quote. that's an accurate statement, right. >> that's accurate. >> when did you personally come to that conclusion? >> can you remind me which paragraph? >> top of page two. >> page two, volume one. >> okay. exactly which photograph are ar. >> investigation did not establish. >> i see it. >> when did you personally reach that conclusion? >> we were ongoing for two years. >> you were ongoing. you wrote it at some point but at some point you had to come to conclusion that i don't think

there's not a conspiracy going on here. there was no conspiracy between this president. i'm not talking about the rest of the president's team. i'm talking about this president and the russians. >> as you understand developing a criminal case you get pieces of information. pieces of information witnesses and the like as you make your case. i cannot say specifically we reached a decision on a particular defendant at a point in time. >> it was some time before you wrote the report. some time prior to that report is when you reached the decision that with regard to the president himself, i don't find anything here. fair enough? >> i'm not certain i agree with that. >> you waited until the last minute. >> there are various aspects of the development of -- >> sure. that's my point.

there are various aspects that happen. somewhere along the pike you come to a conclusion there's no there there for this defendant. >> i can't speak. >> you can't say when. >> i'm asking the sworn witness. mr. mueller, evidence suggest on may 2017 at 7:45 a.m., six days before the attorney general reported you counsel, mr. rosenstein mentioned the appointment of a special counsel. is 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. >> evidence also suggesting -- >> given what i saw you do. are you questioning that? >> well, i just find it

intriguing. let me tell you there's evidence that suggest that phone call took place and that's is what was said. evidence suggests that on may 12th, 2017. five days before the dag appointed you special counsel, you met with mr. rosenstein in person. not necessarily you but there would be a special counsel. >> i've gone into waters that i 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 to do with special counsel and whether you discussed that with mr. rosenstein. evidence suggests four days before you were appointed you met with former attorney general sessions and rosenstein and spe. do you remember that? >> no. >> on may 16th, the day before you were appointed special counsel, you met with the president and rod rosenstein. do you remember having that meeting? >> yes. >> 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 any time during that meeting the potential appointment of a special counsel, not necessarily you but in general terms? >> i can't get into the discussions on that. >> how many times did you speak to mr. rosenstein before may 17th, which is the day you got appointed? >> i can't tell you how many times. >> is that because you don't recall? >> i do not recall. >> how many times did you speak with mr. comey about investigations. >> zero. >> zero. my time has expired. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from california. >> director mueller, going back to the president's obstruction

via cory lewandowski. a thousands who serves with 12,000 years of federal sft wrote a letter regarding the president's conduct. are you familiar with that? >> i've read about it. >> some of the individuals who signed that letter are people you worked with, is that right? >> quite probably, yes. >> people you respect? >> quite probably yes. >> in that letter saying all this conduct trying to control and impede the investigation into the president by leveraging his authority over others is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions. are they wrong? >> they have a different case. >> do you want to sign that letter? >> they have a different case. >> director mueller thank you for your service going back to the '60s when you served in

vietnam. i'll have questions later. i will ask to sfenter this lett. >> without objection. >> thank you, director mueller for your long history of service 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 requires an obstruct iive act, correct in. >> correct. >> i'd like to refer you to page 97 of your report and you wrote, 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 in. >> correct. >> that would be evidence of obstructive act because it would

naturally obstruct their investigation, crime of obstruction of justice which requires a nexus to a official proceeding. i'll direct you to page 97. you wrote, quote, by the time that the president's initial one-on-one meeting with lewandowski, the existence of a grand jury investigation was public knowledge. that's in the report, correct snk. >> correct. >> a grand jury investigation is a official proceeding. >> yes. >> i'd like to 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. >> would you be willing to read the first sentence? >> that was starting with? >> substantial evidence. >> indicates the president.

>> if you could read the first sentence. >> i'm happy to have you read it. >> i'll read it. you wrote quote, substantial 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 presidents and his campaign conduct unquote. that's in the report, correct. >> that's in the report. i rely what's many the -- in the report to indicate what's happening in the photographs we have been discussing. >> thank you. we have 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. we heard the president ordered cory lewandowski so you stop investigating the president. i believe a reasonable person

looking ining at these facts c conclude all three elements of obstruction of justice have been met. i'd like to ask you the reason you did not indict donald trump is because of olc opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president, correct? >> that is correct. >> the fact that the orders by the president is not carried out, that's not an defense to obstruction of justice because the statute is quite broad. long as you endevouendevour, thd constitute a crime. >> i'm not going get into that. >> based on the evidence we have heard today, i believe a reason person could conclude that three crimes of obstruction of justice by the president occurred. we're going to hear about two additional crimes. that would be the witness tampers of michael cohen and

paul manafort. >> the only thing i want to add is i'm going through the elements with you does not mean that i subscribe to what you're trying to prove through the elements. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from california. >> thank you. >> mr. mueller, over here. thanks for joining us today. you had three discussions with rod rosenstein about your appointment, correct? >> if you say so. i have no reason to dispute that. >> you met with the president on the 16th with rod rosenstein present and 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 served two terms as fbi

director. >> the answer is no. >> the answer is no. >> your office is described as the team of partisans. additional information is coming to light, there's a growing concern that political bias caused important facts to be omitted from your report in order to cast the president unfairly in a negative light. for example, john dodd leaves a message with michael flynn's lawyer on november 2017. the edited version makes it appear he was asking for confidential information. that's all we would know except the judge ordered the entire transcript released in which he makes it crystal clear that's not what he was 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 part of the message that we did anything to hide. >> you quoted the part where h said we need heads up but you

omitted the portion where he says without giving up any confidential information. >> i'm in the going to go further in terms of discussing. >> let's go on. you extensively discuss activities with paul. you describe a russian ukrainian political ee of paul manafort to have ties with russian intelligence. that's all we know from your report. we have learned from news articles that he was actually a u.s. state department intelligence source. nowhere in your report is so he identified. why was that fact omitted in. >> i don't credit what you're saying occurred. >> were you aware he was -- >> i'm not going to into into the ends and outs of what we had. >> did you interview constantine? >> i can't go into the discussion of our investigative

moves. >> yet that is the basis of your report. the problem we're having is we have to rely on your report for an accurate reflection of the evidence and we're starting to find out that's not true. your report famously linked russian internet troll forms with the russian government yet at a hearing on may 28th in the concord ira prosecution that you initiated the judge excoriated you and mr. barr from 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 that i 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 actual evidence in court, you failed to do so. >> again, i dispute your

characterization of what occurred in that proceeding. >> in fact, the judge considered holding prosecutors in criminal contempt to be backed off only after your hastily called press conference in which you retroactively made the distinction between the russia government and the russia troll farms. did you press conference have anything to do to hold your prosecutors in contempt the previous day? >> what was the question? >> did your may 29th press conference have anything to do with the previous day the judge threatened thoeld yo eed to hol prosecutors in contempt with misrepresenting evidence. >> the fundamental problem is we have to take your word. your team faithfully, accurately, impartially and completely described the evidence in the mueller report

and we're finding more and more instances where this isn't the case. it's starting the look like having separately t ldesperately and make a legal case, you made a political case. you put it in paper sack, lit it on fire, dropped it on the porch and ran. >> i think you reviewed a report as thorough, as fair, as consistent as the report that we have in front of us. >> why is -- >> time of the gentleman expi expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> let's go to a fourth episode of obstruction of evidence which is witness tampering which is urging witnesses not to cooperate by persuading them or intimidating. it's a felony punishable by 20 years in prison. you found evidence that the president engaged in efforts and aquot i quote to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with >> that's correct.

do you have the citation. >> page 7, volume 2. one of these witnesses was michael cohen, the president's personal lawyer who pled guilty to campaign violations based on secret hush money payments to women the president knew and also to lying to congress about the help for the billion dollar trump tower deal. after the fbi searched cohen's home, the president called him up personally 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 stated, yes, that's right. >> also in the report a series of calls made by the president, one reaching out to say he was with the boss in mar-a-lago and the president said he loves you. his name is redacted. another redacted friend called to say the boss loves you. a third redacted friend called to say, everyone knows the boss has your back. do you remember finding that sequence of calls?

>> yes. >> cohen said following the receipt of these messages, i'm quoting here, page 147, volume 2, he believed he had the support of the white house if he continued to tow the party line and he determined to stay on message and be part of the team. that's page 147. do you remember generally finding that? >> generally, yes. >> robert costello, a lawyer close to the legal team e-mailed to say, you are loved, they are in our corner, sleep well tonight, and you have friends in high places. that's up on the screen page 147. you remember reporting that. when the news first broke that cohen had arranged payoffs to stormy daniels, cohen stuck to this party line. he said publicly 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 does. >> can't speak to that. >> okay. the assumption, the context suggests very strongly it's president trump. >> i can't speak to that. >> okay. cohen later broke and pled guilty to campaign finance and made, quote, 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 committed crimes targeted cohen's father-in-law and repeatedly suggested he was committing crimes. >> generally accurate.

>> page 154, you give a powerful summary of these changing dynamics. you said i'm happy to have you read it. i'm happy to read it. would you like took read it. >> i would. >> would you read it out loud. >> okay. fair. we'll read at the same time. the evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference the president used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get cohen not to cooperate and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine credibility once cohen began cooperating. >> i believe that's accurate. >> okay. in my view if anyone else in america engaged in these actions they would be charged with witness tampering. we must enforce in congress what you say last sentence of the report, in america, no person is so high as to be above the law. i yield back, mr. chairman. >>

just recently, mr. mueller, you said mr. lu was asking you questions. i quote, the reason you didn't indict the president is because of the olc opinion. you answered that is correct. but that is not what you said in the report and not what you told attorney general barr. in fact, in a joint statement that you released with doj on may 29th after your press conference, your office issued a joint statement with the department of justice that said the attorney general has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed he was not saying that but for the olc opinion he would have found the presidentobcticer taffe concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other whether the president committed a crime.

there is no conflict between these statements. so mr. mueller, do you stand by your joint statement with doj that you issued on may 29th as you sit here today? >> i would have to look at it more closely before i said i agree with it. >> well, so my conclusion is what you told mr. lu really contradicts what you said in the report and specifically what you said apparently repeatedly to attorney general barr, then you issued a joint statement saying the attorney general stated special counsel repeatedly confirmed he was not saying but for the olc report we would have found the president on strublted justice. i say there's a conflict. i do have some more questions. mr. mueller, there's been a lot of talk today about firing special counsel and curtailing

the investigation. were you ever fired, mr. mueller? >> was i what? >> were you fired as special counsel. >> no. >> no.were you allowed to compl your investigation unencumbered? >> yes. >> and in fact, you resigned as special counsel when you closed up the office in late may 2019, is that correct? >> correct. >> thank you. mr. 3450umueller, attorney gene 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 march 4th letter to congress summarizing the principle conclusions of your report. >> what you're not mentioning is the letter we sent on march 27th to mr. barr that raised some issues, and that letter speaks

for itself. >> but then i don't see how you could -- that could be since ag barr's letter detailed the principle conclusions of your report. you have said before that there wasn't anything inaccurate. in fact, you had this joint statement. let me go onto another question. mr. mueller, rather than purely relying on the evidence provided by witnesses and documents, i think you relied a lot on media. i'd like to know how many times you cited "the washington post" in your report. >> how many times i what? >> cited "the washington post" in your report. >> i did not have knowledge of that figure but i -- 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've got to say, it looks like volume 2 is mostly regurgitated press stories. honestly, there's almost nothing in volume 2 that i couldn't already hear or know simply by having a $50 cable news subscription. however, your investigation cost the american taxpayers $25 million. mr. mueller, you cited media reports nearly 200 times in your report. then in a footnote, a small footnote, number 7, page 15 of volume 2 of your report you wrote, 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 reads footnotes, are you concerned the

american public took the embedded news stories -- >> time of the gentlelady has expired, the gentlelady from washington. >> can mr. mueller answer the question? >> no. no. we're running short on time. i said the gentlelady from washington. >> thank you. director mueller, let's turn to the fifth of the obstruction episodes in your report. that is the evidence whether president trump engaged in witness tampering with trump campaign chairman paul manafort whose foreign ties were critical to your investigation into russia's interference in our elections. 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's personal counsel and

they are going to take care of us. correct? >> that's accurate. >> according to your 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 to combat crime? >> i'm not going to go beyond that, characterizing that effort. >> thank you. in your report you concluded that president trump and his personal counsel rudy giuliani, quote, made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for manafort while also making it clear that the president did not want manafort to flip and cooperate with the government, end quote. is that correct? >> correct. >> 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. you say 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 from -- >> from page 123, volume 2. >> i have it. thank you. yes. >> when someone tries to stop another person from working with law enforcement and they do it because they are worried about what that person will say, it seems clear from what you wrote that this is a classic definition of witness tampering. mr. manafort did eventually decide to cooperate with your office, and he entered into a plea agreement. then he broke that agreement. can you describe what he did that caused you to tell the court that the agreement was off? >> i refer you to the court proceedings on that issue. >> so on page 127 of volume 2, you told the court mr. manafort

lied about a number of matters material to the investigation, and you said that manafort's lawyers also, quote, regularly briefed the president's lawyers on topics discussed and the information that manafort had provided in interviews with the special counsel's office. does that sound right? >> the source of that is -- >> that's page 127, volume 2. that's a direct quote. >> if it's from the report, yes, i support it. >> two days after you told the court 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 proceedings. let me read to you from your report. evidence concerning the president's conduct toward manafort indicates that the president intended to encourage

manafort to not cooperate with the government. it is clear the president both publicly and privately discouraged manafort's cooperation on flipping while also dangling the promise of a pardon if he stayed loyal and did not share what he knew about the president. anyone else who did these things would be prosecuted for them. we must ensure that no one is above the law. i thank you for being here, director mueller. yield back. >> gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. mueller -- mr. mueller, i'm over here, i'm sorry. are you familiar with the now expired statute, the statute under which ken starr was appointed? >> that ken starr did whether or not? i'm sorry. >> are you familiar with the independent counsel statute. >> are you talking t one we're operating under now or previous. >> under which ken starr was appointed. >> i am not that familiar with that but i'll be happy to ask your question. >> allowed it to expire after

ken starr's investigation. the final requirement was the reason the statute was allowed to expire. seen the ag janet reno expressed concerns about the final report requirement. i'll quote ag reno. she said, on one hand the american people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. on the other hand, the report requirements 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 therendictment and prosecution, not any lengthy and detailed report filed after decision has been made not to prosecute. the final report provides a forum for unfairly airing the target's dirty laundry and also creates another incentive for

independent counsel to overinvestigate 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 ag reno's words. didn't you do exactly what ag reno feared? didn't you publish a lengthy report unfairly airing the target's dirty laundry without recommending charges. >> i disagree with that. >> did any witnesses have a chance to be cross examined. >> can i finish the question. i operate under the current statute not the original statute. i'm familiar wallet current statute not original. >> did any of the witnesses have a chance to be cross examined? >> any witnesses in the investigation? >> yes. >> i'm in the going to answer that. >> did you give them a chance to characterize. >> i'm not going to get into

that. >> ag barr stated multiple times during his confirmation hearing this he would make as much as your report possible. did you write your report knowing it would be shared with the public. >> no. >> nothing it would did that alter the contents? >> i can't speak to that. >> despite the report being leaked to the public, you left out exculpatory evidence. in other words, evidence favorable to the president. >> i disagree. we strove to put into the report exculpatory as well. >> get into that with you. you said there was evidence you left out. >> well, you make a choice as to what goes into an indictment. >> isn't it true, mr. mueller, that on page 1 of volume 2, you state when you're quoting the statute that you had an obligation to either prosecute or not prosecute. >> generally that is the case. although, most cases are not

done in the context of the president. >> in this case you made a decision not to prosecute, correct? >> no. we made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not. >> so essentially what your report does was everything that ag reno warned against. >> i can't agree with that characterization. >> what you did, you compiled a nearly 450 -- you compiled nearly 450 pages of the very worst information you gathered against the target of your investigation, who happens to be the president of the united states, and you did this knowing that you were not going to recommend charges and that the report would be made public. >> not true. >> mr. mueller, as a former officer in the united states j.a.g. corps, i prosecuted nearly 100 terrorist in the baghdad courtroom. i prosecuted butcher of fallujah in defense of our navy s.e.a.l.s. i was elected magistrate judge in pennsylvania so i'm very well versed in the american legal

system. the drafting and the publication of some of the information in this report without an indictment, without prosecution frankly flies in the face of american justice, and i find those facts and this entire process un-american. i yield the remainder of my time to my colleague jim jordan. >> director mueller, the renewal happens a month after special counsel. what role did it play in the pfizer renewal of carter page. >> not going to talk to that. >> time expired, gentlelady from florida. >> director mueller, a couple of my colleagues want to talk to you about lies. let's talk about lies. according to your report, witnesses lied to your office and to congress. those lies materially impair the investigation of russia interference according to your report. other than the individuals who pled guilty to crimes based on their lying to you or your team, did other witnesses lie to you?

>> i think there are probably a specter of witnesses in terms of those who are not telling the full truth and those that are outright liars. >> thank you very much. outright liars. it's fair to say then there were limits on what evidence available to your investigation of both russia election interference and obstruction of justice. >> that's true and usually the case. >> and lies about trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation? >> i would generally agree with that. >> thank you so much, director mueller. you will be hearing more from me in the next hearing, so i yield the balance of my time to mr. coria. thank you. >> mr. mueller, first of all, let me welcome you. thank you for your service to our country. you're a hero, vietnam war vet, wounded war vet. we won't forget your service to our country. >> thank you, sir. >> i may again, because of time

limits we've gone in depth on only five possible episodes of obstruction. there's so much more. i want to focus on another section of obstruction, which is the presidet's conduct concerning michael flynn, the president's national security adviser. the white house counsel and the president were informed that mr. flynn had lied to government authorities about his communications with the russian ambassador during the trump campaign in 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 in the going to speak any more to that issue. >> thank you very much, sir. flyn sign on february 13th, 2016. the very next day when theun wi

new jersey governor chris christie, did the president say, open quotes, now that we fired flynn, the russia thing is over, close quote. is that correct? >> correct. >> is it true that christie responded by saying, open quotes, no way, and this russia thing is far from over, close quote. >> that's the way we have it in the report. >> thank you. after the president met with chris christie later that same day, the president arranged to meet with fbi director james comey alone in the oval office. correct? >> correct. particularly if you have the citation to the -- >> page 3940 volume 2. >> thank you very much. >> 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 is a good guy. 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 was in mr. comey's mind. >> comey understood this to be a direction because of the president's position and the circumstances of the one to one meeting, page 40, volume 2. >> i understand it's in the report and i support it as being in the report. >> thank you, sir. even though the president publicly denied telling comey to drop the investigation, you found, open quote, substantial evidence corroborating comey's account over the president's. is this correct? >> that's correct. >> the president fired comey on mayhais trrect, sir? >> i believe that's the accurate date. >> that's page 77, volume 2. you found sub stacks 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, i support it, because it's already been reviewed and appropriately appears in the report. >> that's page 75, volume ii. >> 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 nutjob. i faced great pressure because of russia. that's taken off. i'm not under investigation, close quote. is that correct? >> that's what we've written in the report, yes. expired. >> thank you, sir. >> gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mueller, we've heard a lot about what you're not going to talk about today. let's talk about something you should be able to talk about, the law itself, underlying

obstruction statute and your creative legal analysis of the statutes in volume ii, particularly your interpretation of 18 use 1512 c. section 1512 c is obstruction of justice created as part of auditing financial regulations for public companies. as you write on page 164 of volume ii, this provision was added as a floor amendment in the senate and explained as closing a certain loophole with respect to document shredding. to read the statute, whoever correctly alters, conceals a document or other object or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding, or otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall be fined to do so or impr 2 or both. your analysis of the statute gives clause c 2 appear much broader interpretation than

uses. first slz sis reads it in isolation reading freestanding encompassing, any act done with improper motive. second, your analysis of the statute to apply this -- proposes to apply sweeping prohibition to lawful acts taken by public officials exercising their discretionary powers if those acts influence a proceeding. so mr. mueller, i'd ask you, in analyzing the obstruction, you state that you recognize that the department of justice and courts have not definitively resolved these issues, correct? >> correct. >> you agree that not everyone in the justice department agreed with your legal theory of obstruction of justice statutes, correct? >> i'm not going to be involved in a discussion on that at this juncture. >> ane generhimself disagrees w intetati of the law, correct sno the attorney general to identify. >> you would agree that prosecutors sometimes incorrectly apply the law, correct? >> i would have to agree with that one. >> members of your legal team,

in fact, have had convictions overturned because they were based on an incorrect legal theory, correct? >> i don't know what you would -- we've all spent time in the trenches trying cases and have not won all. >> andrew wiseman against arthur anderson lower court which was subsequently overturned in an unanimous supreme court decision rejected legal theory advanced by wiseman, correct? >> i'm not going to delve into that. >> may i just finish -- may i just finish my answer to say i'm not going to get involved in a discussion on that. i will refer you to that citation that you gave me at the outset for the lengthy discussion on what you're talking about. to the extent i have anything to say about it, it is what we've already put into the report. >> i am reading from your report when discussing this section, and i'll read from the decision of the supreme court, unanimously reversing mr. wiseman when he said, indeed, striking how little culpability

the instructions require. for example the jury told even a petitioner honestly and sincerely agreed if lawful the jury could convict. deluded corruptly in that it covered innocent conduct. >> let me say for the record -- >> i have limited time. your report takes the broadest possible reading and applies it to the president's acts. i'm concerned about overcriminalizing conduct by public officials and private citizens alike. to emphasize how broad your theatre of liability is, i want to ask you about a few examples. october 11th, 2015, during fbi investigation into hillary clinton's use of private e-mail server, president obama said i don't think it posed a national security problem. later he said, i can tell you this is not a situation in which america's national security was endangered. assuming his comments did influence the investigation, couldn't president obama be charged under your interpretation with obstruction of justice? >> again, i refer you to the report. let me say with andrew wiseman is one of the more talented

attorneys we have on board. over a period of time he has run a number of -- >> i have very little time. senior doj called andrew mccabe expressing concern the fbi agents were pursuing clinton. they were pissed off. are you telling me i need to shut down a badly predicated investigation, to which the official replied, of course not. this seems to be somebody in the executive branch attempting to influence fbi investigation. under your theory, couldn't that person be charged with obstruction as long as a prosecutor could come up with a potentially corrupt motive? >> i refer to to our lengthy dissertation on the issue that appears at the end of the report. >> mr. mueller, i'd argue that it says above the supreme court -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. our intent was to conclude this hearing in three hours.

given the break, that would bring us to approximately 11:40. with director mueller's indulgence, we'll be asking remaining democratic members to voluntarily limit their time below five minutes so we can complete our work as close to that timeframe as possible. now recognize gentlelady from pennsylvania. >> thank you, director mueller. i want to ask you some questions about the president's statements regarding advanced knowledge of the wikileaks dumps. the president refused to sit down with your investigators for an in-person interview, correct? >> correct. >> so the only answers we have to questions from the president are contained in appendix c to your report. >> correct. >> so looking at appendix c on page 5, you asked the president over a dozen questions about whether he had knowledge that wikileaks possessed or might possess e-mails that were stolen by the russians. >> i apologize. can you start it again? >> okay. sure. >> thank you. >> so we're looking at appendix

c. appendix c, page 5, you ask the president about a dozen questions about whether he had knowledge that wikileaks possessed the stolen e-mails 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 e-mails, end quote. that's a 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 -- >> i'm not familiar -- explicitly familiar with what he testified to before congress. >> okay. let's look at an event described on page 18 of volume ii of your report.

according -- we're going to put it up on a 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 e-mails. and gates told your investigators that candidate trump was on a phone call. and when the call ended, trump told gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming, end quote. do you recall that from the report? >> if it's in the report, i support it. >> page 18 of volume ii. on page 77 of volume ii, your report also stated, quote, in addition, some witnesses said trump privately sought information about future wikileaks releases. is that correct? >> correct. >> appendix c where the president answered written questions, he said, quote, i do not recall discussing wikileaks with him, nor do i recall mr.

stone discussing wikileaks with individuals associated with my campaign, end quote. is that correct? >> if it's in the report, it is correct. >> so is it fair to say the president denied ever discussing wikileaks with mr. stone and denied being aware that anyone associated with his campaign discussed wikileaks with stone? >> i'm sorry, could you repeat that one? >> is it fair then that the president denied knowledge of himself or anyone else discussing wikileaks dumps with mr. stone? >> yes. yes. >> with that, i would yield back. >> thank you, ma'am. >> thank you, mr. chairman. 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 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. >> you don't remember interviewing with the president regarding the fbi director job. >> i interviewed with the president. >> about the job. >> about the job, not about me applying for the job. >> so your statement here today is you didn't interview to apply for the fbi director job. >> that's correct. >> so did you tell the vice president that the fbi director position would be the one position you would come back for? >> i don't recall that one. >> you don't recall that. >> no. >> okay. given your 22 months of investigation, tens of millions of dollars spent and millions of documents reviewed, did you obtain any evidence at all that any american voter changed their vote as a result of russia's election interference? >> i can't speak to that. >> you can't speak to that, after 22 months of investigation, there's not any evidence in that document before us that any voter change their vote because of interference. i'm asking you based on all the documents you reviewed -- >> that was outside our purview. >> russian meddling was outside purview.

>> impact of that meddling was undertaken by other agencies. >> okay. you stated in your opening statement you would not get into the details of the steel dossier. multiple times in volume ii on page 23, 27 and 28, you mentioned the unverified allegations. how long did it take you to reach the conclusion that it was unverified? >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> it's actually in your report multiple times, unverified, and you're telling me you're not willing to tell us how you came to the conclusion it was unverified? >> true. >> when did you become aware the unverified steel dossier included in the fisa application with carter page. >> i'm sorry, what was the question? >> when did you become aware the unverified steel dossier was included in the fisa application of carter page. >> not going to speak to that. >> your team interviewed onot

getting into that. >> you can't tell this is committee whether you interviewed christopher steele and lawyers. >> that's one of the investigations 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'm not going to answer that question, sir. >> you had two years to investigate. not once did you consider it worthy toss investigate an unverified document paid for by political apont used to spy on a political campaign. did you do any investigation sflf i do not accept your characterization of what occurred. >> i can't speak more to it. >> you're not going to speak more to it but you're not going to agree to my characterization. is that correct? >> yes. >> fisa makes reference to source one, author of steele

dossier, nothing for conducting research into candidate ties to russia, based on previous reporting history with fbi whereby source one provided reliable information to the fbi. the fbi believed source one's reporting to be credible. do you believe the fbi's representation that source one's reporting was credible to be accurate. >> i'm not going to answer that. >> you're not going to 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. >> well, 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've closed that investigation, how that's not within your purview to tell us about that investigation and who you interviewed. >> i have nothing to add. >> okay. i can guarantee the american people want to know, and i'm very hopeful and glad ag barr is looking into this and the inspector general is looking into this because you you're unwilling to answer the questions of the american people as it relates to the very basis

of this investigation into the president and very basis of this individual who you did interview, you're just refusing to answer those questions. can't the president fire the fbi director at any time without reason under arlington 1 of the constitution. >> yes. >> article 2. >> yes. >> that's correct. can he also fire you as special counsel at any time without any reason? >> i believe that to be the case. >> under article 2. >> hold on just a second. you said without any reason. i know that special counsel can be fired, i'm not sure the extent 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 to add to what i stated before. >> my time has expired. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from pennsylvania. from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. mueller for being with us. it's close to the afternoon now. 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. the indictment a little that mr. stone discussed future wikileaks e-mail realeases with the trump campaign. understanding there's a gag order on the stone case, i will 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 of 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 understand that i'm only going to be talking about the questions that you asked in writing to the president. >> thank you, ma'am. >> that relate to mr. stone. >> mr. stone's indictment states, among other things, the following quote. stone was contacted by senior trump officials to inquire about

future releases of organization one. organization one being wikileaks. the indictment continues, quote, stone thereafter told the campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by wikileaks. so in short, the indictment a little 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. even though the indictment is a public document, i feel uncomfortable discussing anything having to do with the stone prosecution. >> right. the indictment is of record and we pulled it -- i read straight from it. turning back to the president's answers to your questions then on this very subject, the president denied ever discussing future wikileaks releases with stone and denied knowing whether

anyone else on his campaign had those discussions with stone. if you had learned that other witnesses put in sight of the president, if other witnesses had lied to investigators in response to specific questions, whether he whether in writing or in an interview, could they be charged with false statement crimes? >> i'm in the going to speculate. i think you're asking for me to speculate given a set of circumstances. >> well, let's put it more specific. what if i had made a false statement to an investigator on your team. could i go to jail for up to five years? >> yes. >> yes. >> it's congress, so -- >> well, that's the point, though, isn't it? no one is above the law, not you, not the congress, and certainly not the president. i think it's just troubling to have it hear some of these things. 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. thank you for being here. again, the point has been underscored many times but i'll repeat it. no one is above the law. >> thank you, ma'am. >> the gentleman from north dakota is recognized. >> mr. mueller, how many people on your staff did you fire during the course of your investigation? how many people did you fire? >> i'm not going to discuss that. >> according to inspector general's report attorney number two was let go and we know peter strzok was let go, correct? >> yes. there may have been other persons on other issues either transferred or fired. >> peter strzok testified before there committee on jewel 12th, 2018, he was fired because you were concerned about preserving the appearance of independence. do you agree with this testimony. >> say that again, if you could. >> he said he was fired at pay becau you were worried about -- concerned about

preserving the appearance of independence with the special counsel's investigation. statement?ee with that >> the statement was by whom? >> peter strzok at this hearing. >> i am unfamiliar with that. >> did you fire him because you were worried about the appearance of independence. >> he was transferred as a result of instances involving texts. >> do you agree that your office did not only have an obligation to operate with independence but operate with the appearance of independence as well. >> absolutely. we strove to do that over the two years. part of that was making certain that -- >> andrii weissmaew weissmann a your team. >> yes. >> did he have some role. >> some role. >> he attended hillary clinton's election party. did you know that before or after he came on the team. >> i don't know when i found that out. >> weissmann wrote an e-mail to deputy general yates i am so proud and in awe regarding her

disobeying a direct order from the president. did weissmann disclose that e-mail. >> i'm in the going to talk about that. >> is that a conflict of interest? >> not going to t about. >> are you aware hillary clinton regarding her e-mails. >> yes. >> represented justin cooper, a clinton aide who destroyed one of clinton's mobile devices. you must be aware by now six of your lawyers donated $12,000 directly to hillary clinton. i'm not even talking about the $49,000 they donated to other democrats, just the donations to the opponent who is a target of your investigation. >> can i speak to hiring practices? >> sure. >> we strove to hire individuals who can do the job. i have been in this business for almost 25 years. in those 25 years i have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political

affiliation. it is not done. what i care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity. >> that's what i'm saying, mr. mueller, 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 whatever the report concluded half the country was going to be skeptical of your team's findings. that's why we have recusal laws that perceive bias for this reason. code 528 specifically lists not just political confliblgt of interest but the appearance of conflict of interest. it's simply not enough you vouch for your team. the interest demands no perceived bias exists. i can't imagine a single prosecutor or judge i appeared in front of would be comfortable with these circumstances where half the prrl team had a direct relationship to the opponent of the person being investigated. >> one other fact on the table. that is we hired 19 lawyers over the period of time. of those 19 lawyers, 14 of them

were transferred from elsewhere in the department of justice. only 5 came from outside. so we did not -- >> a direct relationship, political or 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 was we switched hillary clinton and president trump. if peter strzok texted those terrible things about hillary clinton instead of president trump, 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'd be here trying to prop up an obstruction allegation. my colleagues would have spent the last four months of accusing your team of being bought and paid for by the trump campaign and we couldn't truss a single word of this report. they would accuse the president of conspiracy with russia and accusing your team of aiding and abetting with that conspiracy. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado.

>> director mueller, thank you for your service to our country. i'd like to talk to you about one of the other incidents of obstruction, the evidence in your report showing the president directing his son as ps director to issue a false statement in 2017 about a meeting between his campaign and russian individuals at trump tower in june of 2016. according to your report, mr. trump jr. was the only trump associate who participated in that meeting and who declined to be voluntarily interviewed by your office. is that correct? >> yes. >> did mr. trump jr. or his counsel communicate to your office to invoke his fifth amendment right to avoid incrimination. >> i'm not going to answer that. >> you did pose written questions to mr. trump about his knowledge of the trump tower meeting and asked him whether he directed a false press thpresid? >> i don't i in front of me. i take your word. >> i can represent to you appendix c, specifically c 13

states at much. according to page 100 of volume ii of your report, your investigation found that hope hicks, the president's communications director, in june of 2017 was shown e-mails that set up the trump tower meeting and she told your office that she was, quote, shocked by the e-mails because they looked, quote, really bad. true? >> do you have the citation? >> sure, page 100 of volume ii. while you're flipping to that page, director mueller, i will tell you according to page 99 of volume ii, those e-mails in questions stated, according to your report, that the crown prosecutor of russia had offered to provide the trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate hillary and her dealings with russia as part of russia and its government's support for mr. trump. trump jr. responded, if it's what you say, i love it. and he, kushner and manafort met with the russian attorneys and several other russian individuals at trump tower on june 9th, 2016, end quote.

correct? >> generally accurate. >> isn't it true that 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, end quote, but the president each time said no. correct? >> accurate. >> and the reason was because of those e-mails, which the president, quote, believed would not leak. correct? >> i'm not certain how it's characterized but generally correct. >> did the president direct miss hicks to say, quote, only that trump jr. took a brief meeting and it was about russian adoption, end quote, because trump jr.'s statement to the "new york times," quote, said too much, page 102 of volume ii. >> okay. >> correct? >> let me one --ckne thing. cks, 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. you've been asked a lot of questions here today. to be frank, you performed as most of us expected. you stuck close to your report and declined 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 have heard and what we know. you spent two years and nearly $30 million taxpayer dollars and unlimited resources to prepare a nearly 450-page 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 know know including 14 democrats and zero republicans. campaign finance reports showed

the team -- excuse me, it's my team. that team of investigators donated $60,000 to hillary clinton campaign and other democratic candidates. it also included peter strzok and lisa page, discussed today, they had the lurid text messages that confirmed they openly mocked and hated donald trump and his supporters and they vowed to take him out. mr. radcliffe c yougive an exam donald trump, where the justice department determined an investigative person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined, unquote. you answered, i cannot. sir, that is unprecedented. the president believed from the very beginning that you and your special counsel team had serious conflicts. this is stated in the report and acknowledged by everybody. and yet president trump cooperated fully with the investigation. he knew he had done nothing wrong, and he encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation and produced 1.4 million pages of investigation

and witnesses affiliated with the white house or campaign. your report acknowledges a volume of 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 matters of national security. on page 174 of volume ii, your report acknowledges the supreme court has held, quote, the president's removal powers are at their zenith with respect to principle officers. that is officers appointed by the president and who report to them directly. the president's exclusive power of removie of office furthers ability to ensure laws are faithfully executed, unquote. that would even include the attorney general. in spite of all of that, nothing ever happened to stop or impede your special counsel's investigation. nobody was fired by the president. nothing was curtailed and the investigation continued unencumbered for 22 long months. as you finally concluded in volume 1, the evidence did not

establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to russian election interference, unquote. and the evidence, quote, did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in russian conspiracies or had an unlawful relationship with any russian official. over the 22 months your investigation dragged along the president became increasingly frustrated, as the american people did, about his ability to governor. evented to his lawyer and also shared his frustrations on twitter. while the president's social media accounts might have influenced some in the media or american people, none of those audiences were targets or witnesses in your investigation. the president never affected anybody's testimony, he never demanded to end the investigation or demanded you be terminated and he never misled congress, doj or special counsel. those, sir, are undisputed facts. there will be a lot of discussion and great frustration throughout the country you

wouldn't answer any questions about the charade, christopher steele dossier, now totally bog you have had, even though it's listed in your report. as our hearing is concluded, we will apparently get no comment from you. mr. mueller, there's one primary reason you were called here today by the democratic majority of our committee. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want political cover. they desperately wanted you to tell them to impeach the president. the one thing you said today is that your report is complete and thorough and agree with its recommendations and all of its content. is that right? >> true. >> mr. mueller, one last question. your report does not recommend impeachment, does it? >> i'm not going to talk about recommendations. >> it does not conclude impeachment would be appropriate here. >> i'm not going to talk about that issue. >> that's one of the many things you wouldn't talk about today but i think we can all draw our own conclusions. i do thank you are for your

service to the country. i'm glad the so get back to the important business of the committee and it's broad implications to the country. the gentleman yields back. >> i want to announce our intent was to conclude around 1:145. all the republican members have asked questions but we have a few remaining democratic members. they will limit questions so with director mueller's indulgence, we expect to finish in 15 minutes. the gentlelady from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. mueller, your investigation of russian attack on our democracy and obstruction of justice was extraordinarily productive. under two years you charged at least 37 people or entities with crimes. you convicted seven individuals, five of whom were top trump campaign or white house aides. charges remain pending against more than two dozen russian persons or entities and against others. now, let me start with those five trump campaign or administration aids 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. michael flynn, president trump's former national security adviser. michael cohen, the president's personal attorney. george papadopoulos, president trump's former campaign foreign policy adviser. correct? >> correct. >> the six top associates will face trial this year and that person would be roger stone. >> correct. >> i'm not sure what you said about stone. he is in another court system as i said before. >> still under investigation. >> i don't want to discuss. >> correct. thank you. there are many other charges as well, correct? >> correct. >> so sir, i just want to with e today, your team and the work you did, dedication. in less than two years your team was able to uncover an incredible amount of information related to russia's attack on

our elections and 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 laid the critical foundation for our investigation, and for that i thank you. i thank you. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> young lady yields back. the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you. director mueller, i'm disappointed some have questioned your motives throughout this process. 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 purple heart, correct? >> correct. >> which president appointed you to become 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 one. >> that is correct. president george h.w. bush. after that you took a job at a prestigious law firm. after only a couple of years you did something extraordinary. you left that lucrative position to reenter 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. >> and the senate confirmed you with a vote of 98-0, correct? >> surprising. >> and you were sworn in as director just one week before the september 11th attacks. >> true. >> helped protect this nation against another attack.

you did such an outstanding job that when your ten-year term expired, the senate unanimously voted to extend your term for 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 fbi were in turmoil. you must have known there would be an extraordinary challenge. why did you accept? >> i'm not going to get into that. that's a little bit off track. it was a challenge, period. >> some people have attacked the political motivations of your team, even suggested yr investigatn was aitch hunt. when you considered people to join your team, did you ever even once ask about their political affiliation? >> never once. >> in your entire career as a law enforcement official, have you ever made a hiring decision based on a person's political affiliation? >> no. >> i'm not -- >> if i might interject. the capabilities we have shown

in the report that's being discussed here today was the result of a team of agents and lawyers who are absolutely exemplary and were hired because of the value they could contribute to getting the job done and getting it done expeditiously. >> sir, you're a patriot. clear to me reading your report and listening to your testimony you acted fairly and with restraint. there are circumstances you could have filed charges against other people mentioned in the report and you declined. not every prosecutor does that, certainly not one on a witch hunt. the attacks made against your team intensified because your report is damning. i ev unver sun substantvidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. rht ou thenlys sitonor co tacti. >> the ganld back. the gentlelady from pennsylvania. >> good morning, director mueller. natalie dean. >> gotcha.

sorry. >> thank you. i wanted to ask you about public confusion connected with attorney general barr's release of your report. >> thank you. i want to ask you about public confusion connected with attorney general barr's release of your record. i will be calling your march 27 letter. in that latter and it's several other times, did you convey to the attorney general that the "introductions and executive summaries of our two volume report accurately summarized this report and conclusions?" >> i have to say that the let itself speaks for itself. >> those were your words in that letter? continuing with your letter, you wrote to the attorney general "the summary letters that the department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24 did nofully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions." is that correct? >> again, ite >> thank you.