We welcome everyone to today’s hearing on oversight of the report on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

I will now recognize myself for a brief opening statement.

Director Mueller, thank you for being here.

I want to say just a few words about our themes today: responsibility, integrity and accountability. Your career, for example, is a model of responsibility. You are a decorated Marine officer. You were awarded a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam. You served in senior roles at the Department of Justice, and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, you served as director of the FBI.

AD

AD

Two years ago you returned to public service to lead the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. You conducted that investigation with remarkable integrity.

For 22 months, you never commented in public about your work, even when you were subjected to repeated and grossly unfair personal attacks. Instead, your indictments spoke for you, and in astonishing detail.

Over the course of your investigation, you obtained criminal indictments against 37 people and entities. You secure the conviction of President Trump’s campaign chairman, his deputy campaign manager, his national security adviser and his personal lawyer, among others. In the Paul Manafort case alone you recovered as much as $42 million, so that the cost of your investigation to the taxpayers approaches zero.

AD

And in your report you offer the country accountability, as well. In Volume 1 you find that the Russian government attacked our 2016 elections, quote, “in a sweeping and systematic fashion,” and that the attacks were designed to benefit the Trump campaign.

AD

Volume 2 walks us through 10 separate incidents of possible obstruction of justice where, in your words, President Trump attempted to exert undue influence over your investigation. The president’s behavior included, and I quote from your report, quote, “public attacks on the investigation, nonpublic efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate,” close quote.

Among the most shocking of these incidents, President Trump ordered his White House counsel to have you fired, and then to — to lie and deny that it had happened, he ordered his former campaign manager to convince the recused attorney general to step in and limit your work, and he attempted to prevent witnesses from cooperating with your investigation.

AD

NADLER: Although department policy barred you from indicting the president for this conduct, you made clear that he is not exonerated. Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes, and in this nation, not even the president is above the law.

AD

Which brings me to this committee’s work. Responsibility, integrity and accountability: These are the marks by which we who serve on this committee will be measured as well.

Director Mueller, we have a responsibility to address the evidence that you have uncovered. You recognize as much when you said, quote, “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing,” close quote.

AD

That process begins with the work of this committee. We will follow your example, Director Mueller. We will act with integrity. We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes. We will do this work because there must be accountability for the conduct described in your report especially as it relates to the president.

AD

Thank you again, Director Mueller. We look forward to your testimony.

It is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for his opening statement.

COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AD

And thank you, Mr. Mueller, for being here.

For two years leading up to the release of the Mueller report and in the three months since Americans were first told what to expect and then what to believe. Collusion, we were told, was in plain sight even if the special counsel’s team didn’t find it.

When Mr. Mueller produced his report and Attorney General Barr provided to every American, we read, “No American conspired with Russia to interfere in our elections,” but learned the depths of Russia’s malice toward America.

We are here to ask serious questions about Mr. Mueller’s work and we will do that.

AD

After an extended, unhampered investigation, today marks an end to Mr. Mueller’s involvement in an investigation that closed in April. The burden of proof for accusations that remain unproven is extremely high and especially in light of the special counsel’s thoroughness.

AD

We were told this investigation began as an inquiry into whether Russia meddled in our 2016 election. Mr. Mueller, you concluded they did. Russians accessed Democrat servers and disseminated sensitive information by tricking campaign insiders into revealing protected information.

The investigation also reviewed whether Donald Trump, the president, sought Russian assistance as a candidate to win the presidency. Mr. Mueller concluded he did not. His family or advisers did not. In fact, the report concludes no one in the president’s campaign colluded, collaborated or conspired with the Russians.

AD

The president watched the public narrative surrounding this investigation that assumes — (inaudible) assume his guilt while he knew the extent of his innocence. Volume 2 of Mr. Mueller’s report details the president’s reaction to a frustrating investigation where his innocence was established early on.

AD

The president’s attitude toward the investigation was understandably negative, yet the president did not use his authority to close the investigation. He asked his lawyer if Mr. Mueller had conflicts that disqualified Mr. Mueller from the job, but he did not shut down the investigation. The president knew he was innocent.

Those are the facts of the Mueller report. Russia meddled in the 2016 election, the president did not conspire with the Russians and nothing we hear here today will change those facts.

AD

But one element of this story remains: the beginnings of the FBI investigation into the president. I look forward to Mr. Mueller’s testimony about what he found during his review of the origins of the investigation.

AD

COLLINS: In addition, the inspector general continues to review how baseless gossip can be used to launch an FBI investigation against a private citizen and eventually a president. Those results will be released and we will need to learn from them to ensure government intelligence and law enforcement powers are never again used and turned on a private citizen or a potential — or political candidate as a result of the political leanings of a handful of FBI agents.

The origins and conclusions of the Mueller investigation are the same things: what it means to be American. Every American has a voice in our democracy. We must protect the sanctity of their voice by combating election interference. Every American enjoys the presumption of innocence and guarantee of due process.

AD

If we carry nothing — anything away today, it must be that we increase our vigilance against foreign election interference, while we ensure our government officials don’t weaponize their power against the constitutional rights guaranteed to every U.S. citizen.

Finally, we must agree that the opportunity cost here is too high. The months we have spent investigating from this dais failed to end the border crisis or contribute to the growing job market. Instead, we have gotten stuck and it’s paralyzed this committee and this House.

And as a side note, every week I leave my family and kids, the most important things to me, to come to this place because I believe this place is a place where we can actually do things and help people.

Six and a half years ago, I came here to work on behalf of the people of the 9th District and this country. And we accomplished a lot in those first six years on a bipartisan basis, with many of my friends across the aisle sitting on this dais with me today.

However, this year, because of the majority’s dislike of this president and the endless hearings into a closed investigation have caused us to accomplish nothing except talk about the problems of our country while our border is on fire, in crisis, and everything else is stopped.

This hearing is long overdue. We’ve had the truth for months: No American conspired to throw our election. What we need today is to let that truth bring us confidence. And I hope, Mr. Chairman, closure.

With that, I yield back.

NADLER: Thank you, Mr. Collins.

I will now introduce today’s witness.

Robert Mueller served as director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013, and he most recently served as special counsel in the Department of Justice, overseeing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 special election. He received his B.A. from Princeton University, an M.A. from New York University — in my district — and his J.D. from the University of Virginia.

Mr. Mueller is accompanied by his — by Counsel Aaron Zebley, who served as deputy special counsel on the investigation.

We welcome our distinguished witness and we thank you for participating in today’s hearing. Now, if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you in.

Would you raise your right hand, please? Left hand.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you God?

Let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative.

Thank you, and please be seated.

Please note that your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirely. Accordingly, I ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes.

Director Mueller, you may begin.

MUELLER: Good morning, Chairman Nadler, the — and Ranking Member Collins, and the members of the committee.

As you know, in May 2017, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel. I undertook that role because I believe that it was of paramount interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the presidential election.

As the acting attorney general said at the time, the appointment was necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome.

My staff and I carried out this assignment with that critical objective in mind: to work quietly, thoroughly and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome.

MUELLER: The order appointing me as special counsel directed our office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. It also included investigating efforts to interfere with or obstruct our investigation.

Throughout the investigation I continually stressed two things to the team that we had assembled.

First, we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and expeditiously as possible. It was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete, but not to last a day longer than was necessary.

Second, the investigation needed to be conducted fairly and with absolute integrity. Our team would not leak or take other actions that could compromise the integrity of our work. All decisions were made based on the facts and the law.

During the course of our investigation we charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes, including 12 officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants have been convicted or plead guilty.

Certain of the charges we brought remain pending today. And for those matters I stress that the indictments contain allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

In addition to the criminal charges we brought, as required by Justice Department regulations, we submitted a confidential report to the attorney general at the conclusion of our investigation. The report set forth the results of our work and the reasons for our charging and declination decisions. The attorney general later made the report largely public.

As you know, I made a few limited remarks -- limited remarks about our report when we closed the special counsel’s office in May of this year. There are certain points that bear emphasis.

First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.

Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term; rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and there was not.

Third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable.

Finally, as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the president towards the investigation. Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a decision as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.

MUELLER: Let me say a further word about my appearance today. It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation. And given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony -- testimony will necessarily be limited.

First, public testimony could affect several ongoing matters. In some of these matters, court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect -- to protect the fairness of the proceedings. And consistent with longstanding Justice Department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter.

Second, the Justice Department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department, and deliberations within our office. These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect.

The department has released the letter discussing the restrictions of my testimony. I, therefore, will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that I know are of public interest.

For example, I am unable to address questions about the initial opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation which occurred months before my appointment or matters related to the so-called Steele dossier. These matters are subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should, therefore, be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department.

As I explained when we closed the Special Counsel’s Office in May, our report contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We conducted an extensive investigation over two years. In writing the report, we stated the results of our investigation with precision. We scrutinized every word.

I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. And as I said on May 29th, the report is my testimony, and I will stay within that text.

And as I stated in May, I will not comment on the actions of the attorney general or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor, and I intend -- intend to adhere to that role and to the department’s standards that govern it.

I’ll be joined today by Deputy Special Counsel Aaron Zebley. Mr. Zebley has extensive experience as a federal prosecutor and at the FBI, where he served as my chief of staff. Mr. Zebley was responsible for the day-to-day oversight on the investigations conducted by our office.

Now, I also want to, again, say thank you to the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts and professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent matter. These individuals who spent nearly two years of -- working on this matter were of the highest integrity.

Let me say one more thing. Over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. And as I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

NADLER: Thank you. Thank you.

We will now proceed, under the five-minute rule, with questions. I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes.

Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?

MUELLER: Correct. That is not what the report said.

NADLER: Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that’s on the screen, you wrote, quote, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment,” close quote.

Now does that say there was no obstruction?

MUELLER: No.

NADLER: In fact, you were actually unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?

MUELLER: Well, we at the outset determined that we -- when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to -- we needed -- we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a president -- sitting president cannot be indicted.

NADLER: So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?

MUELLER: That is correct.

NADLER: And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president?

MUELLER: No.

NADLER: Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president.

MUELLER: It does.

NADLER: And your investigation actually found, quote, “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.” Is that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

NADLER: Now, Director Mueller, can you explain in plain terms what that finding means so the American people can understand it?

MUELLER: Well, the finding indicates that the president was not -- that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.

NADLER: In fact, you were talking about incidents, quote, “in which the president sought to use his official power outside of usual channels,” unquote, to exert undo influence over your investigations, is that right?

MUELLER: That’s correct.

NADLER: Now, am I correct that on page 7 of Volume 2 of your report, you wrote, quote, “The president became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction of justice inquiry. At that point, the president engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation,” close quote.

So President Trump’s efforts to exert undo influence over your investigation intensified after the president became aware that he personally was being investigated?

MUELLER: I stick with the language that you have in front of you, which comes from page 7, Volume 2.

NADLER: Now, is it correct that if you concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Can you repeat the question, sir?

NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Well, I would say you could -- the statement would be to -- that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president -- excuse me -- cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.

NADLER: So you could not state that because of the OLC opinion, if that would have been your conclusion.

MUELLER: OLC opinion was some guide, yes.

NADLER: But under DOJ -- under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.

NADLER: Thank you.

Did any senior White House official refuse or request to be interviewed by you and your team?

MUELLER: I don’t believe so.

NADLER: The president...

MUELLER: Well, I take -- let me take that back. I would have to look at it, but I’m not certain that that was the case.

NADLER: Did the president refuse a request to be interviewed by you and your team?

MUELLER: Yes.

NADLER: Yes.

And is it true that you tried for more than a year to secure an interview with the president?

MUELLER: Yes.

NADLER: And is it true that you and your team advised the president’s lawyer that, quote, “an interview with the president is vital to our investigation,” close quote?

MUELLER: Yes. Yes.

NADLER: And is it true that you also, quote, “stated that it is in the interest of the presidency and the public for an interview to take place,” close quote?

MUELLER: Yes.

NADLER: But the president still refused to sit for an interview by you or your team?

MUELLER: True. True.

NADLER: And did you also ask him to provide written answers to questions on the 10 possible episodes of obstruction of justice crimes involving him?

MUELLER: Yes.

NADLER: Did he provide any answers to a single question about whether he engaged in obstruction of justice crimes?

MUELLER: I would have to check on that. I’m not certain.

NADLER: Director Mueller, we are grateful that you are here to explain your investigation and findings. Having reviewed your work, I believe anyone else who’d engage in the conduct described in your report would have been criminally prosecuted. Your work is vitally important to this committee and the American people because no one is above the law.

I now -- I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins.

COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And we’re moving on. I want to (inaudible) just reiterate the five-minute rule. Mr. Mueller, I have several questions, many of which you just answered. Will begin questions here in a moment, but I want to lay some foundation. So we’ll go through these fairly quickly. I’ll talk slowly. It’s said that I talk fast; I will talk slowly.

MUELLER: Thank you, sir.

COLLINS: In your press conference you said any testimony from your office would not go beyond our report. “We chose these words carefully. The word speaks for itself. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.” Do you stand by that statement?

MUELLER: Yes.

COLLINS: Since closing the special counsel’s office in May of 2019, have you conducted any additional interviews or obtained any new information in your role as special counsel?

MUELLER: In the -- in the -- in the wake of the report?

COLLINS: Since the -- since the closing of the office in May of 2019.

MUELLER: And the question was, have we conducted...

COLLINS: Have you conducted any new interviews, any new witnesses, anything?

MUELLER: No.

COLLINS: And you can confirm you’re no longer special counsel, correct?

MUELLER: I am no longer special counsel.

COLLINS: At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

MUELLER: No.

COLLINS: Were you or your team provided any questions by members of Congress (inaudible) the majority ahead of your hearing today?

MUELLER: No.

COLLINS: Your report states that your investigative team included 19 lawyers and approximately 40 FBI agents and analysts and accountants. Are those numbers accurate?

MUELLER: Could you repeat that, please?

COLLINS: Forty FBI agents, 19 lawyers, intelligence analysts and forensic accountants; are those numbers accurate? This was in your report.

MUELLER: Generally, yes.

COLLINS: Is it also true that you issued over 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records and 50 pin registers?

MUELLER: That went a little fast for me.

COLLINS: OK. In your report -- I’ll make this very simple -- you did a lot of work, correct?

MUELLER: Yes, that I agree to.

COLLINS: A lot of subpoenas, a lot of pin registers...

MUELLER: A lot of subpoenas.

COLLINS: OK, we’ll walk this really slow if we need to.

MUELLER: A lot of search warrants.

COLLINS: All right, a lot of search warrants, a lot of things, so you are very thorough.

MUELLER: What?

COLLINS: In your opinion, very thorough, you listed this out in your report, correct?

MUELLER: Yes.

COLLINS: Thank you.

Is it true, the evidence gathered during your investigation -- given the questions that you’ve just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?

MUELLER: We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.

COLLINS: So that would be a yes.

MUELLER: Pardon?

COLLINS: That would be a yes.

MUELLER: Yes.

COLLINS: Thank you.

Isn’t it true the evidence did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the president otherwise had unlawful relationships with any Russian official, Volume 2, page 76? Correct?

MUELLER: I will leave the answer to our report.

COLLINS: So that is a yes.

Is that any true your investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian government in election interference activity, Volume 1, page 2; Volume 1, page 173?

MUELLER: Thank you. Yes.

COLLINS: Yes. Thank you.

Although your reports states, “collusion is not some specific offense,” -- and you said that this morning -- “or a term of art in federal criminal laws, conspiracy is.” In the colloquial context, are collusion and conspiracy essentially synonymous terms?

MUELLER: You’re going to have to repeat that for me.

COLLINS: Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in the federal criminal law. Conspiracy is.

MUELLER: Yes.

COLLINS: In the colloquial context, known public context, collusion -- collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct?

MUELLER: No.

COLLINS: If no, on page 180 of Volume 1 of your report, you wrote, “As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371.”

MUELLER: Yes.

COLLINS: You said at your May 29th press conference and here today you choose your words carefully. Are you sitting here today testifying something different than what your report states?

MUELLER: Well, what I’m asking is if you can give me the citation, I can look at the citation and evaluate whether it is actually...

COLLINS: OK. Let -- let me just -- let me clarify.

You stated that you would stay within the report. I just stated your report back to you, and you said that collusion -- collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms. That was your answer, was no.

MUELLER: That’s correct.

COLLINS: In that, page 180 of Volume 1 of your report, it says, “As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in general conspiracy statute 18 USC 371.”

MUELLER: Right.

COLLINS: Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?

MUELLER: Not when I read it.

COLLINS: So you would change your answer to yes, then?

MUELLER: No, no -- the -- if you look at the language...

COLLINS: I’m reading your report, sir. These are yes-or-no answers.

MUELLER: (inaudible) Page 180?

COLLINS: Page 180, Volume 1.

MUELLER: OK.

COLLINS: This is from your report.

MUELLER: Correct, and I -- I -- I -- I leave it with the report.

COLLINS: So the report says yes, they are synonymous.

MUELLER: Yes.

COLLINS: Hopefully, for finally, out of your own report, we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy.

One last question as we’re going through: Did you ever look into other countries investigated in the Russians’ interference into our election? Were other countries investigated...

MUELLER: (inaudible)

COLLINS: ... or found knowledge that they had interference in our election?

MUELLER: I’m not going to discuss other matters.

COLLINS: All right.

And I yield back.

NADLER: Gentleman yields back.

The gentlelady from California?

LOFGREN: Director Mueller, as you’ve heard from the chairman, we’re mostly going to talk about obstruction of justice today, but the investigation of Russia’s attack that started your investigation is why evidence that possible obstruction is serious.

To what extent did the Russian government interfere in the 2016 presidential election?

MUELLER: Could you repeat that, ma’am?

LOFGREN: To what extent did the Russian government interfere in the 2016 presidential election?

MUELLER: Well, at -- particularly when it came to computer crimes and the like, the government was implicated.

LOFGREN: So you wrote on -- in Volume 1 that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. You’ve also described in your report that the then-Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, shared with the Russian operative, Kilimnik, the campaign strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states and internal polling data of the campaign. Isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

LOFGREN: They -- they also discussed the status of the Trump campaign and Manafort strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states.

LOFGREN: Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for a (inaudible) period of time after their August meeting. Isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: That’s correct.

LOFGREN: In fact, your investigation found that Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump campaign and Manafort’s plan to win the election and that briefing encompassed the campaign’s messaging, its internal polling data. It also included discussion of battleground states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: That’s correct.

LOFGREN: Did your investigation determine who requested the polling data to be shared with Kilimnik?

MUELLER: Well, I -- I would direct you to the report. That’s what we have in the report with regard to that particular issue.

LOFGREN: We -- we don’t have the redacted version. That’s maybe another reason why we should get that for Volume 1.

Based on your investigation, how could the Russian government have used this campaign polling data to further its sweeping and systematic interference in the 2016 presidential election?

MUELLER: That’s a little bit out of our -- our path.

LOFGREN: Fair enough.

Did your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?

MUELLER: Yes.

LOFGREN: And which candidate would that be?

MUELLER: Well, it would be Trimp -- Trump.

LOFGREN: Correct.

MUELLER: The president.

LOFGREN: Now, the Trump campaign wasn’t exactly reluctant to take Russian help. You wrote it expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: That’s correct.

LOFGREN: Now, was the investigation’s determination -- what was the investigation’s determination regarding the frequency with which the Trump campaign made contact with the Russian government?

MUELLER: Well, I would have to refer you to the report on that.

LOFGREN: Well, we went through and we counted 126 contacts between Russians or their agents and Trump campaign officials or their associates. So, would that sound about right?

MUELLER: I -- I can’t say, I -- I -- I understand the statistic and I believe it. You know, I understand the statistic.

LOFGREN: Well, Mr. Mueller, I appreciate your being here and your report. From your testimony and the report, I think the American people have learned several things.

First, the Russians wanted Trump to win.

Second, the Russians went on a sweeping cyber influence campaign. The Russians hacked the DNC and they got the Democratic game plan for the election. Russian (sic) campaign chairmen met with Russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data, polling and messaging in the battleground states.

So while the Russians were buying ads and creating propaganda to influence the outcome of the election, they were armed with inside information that they had stolen through hacking from the DNC and that they had been given by the Trump campaign chairman, Mr. Manafort.

My colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this information from becoming public, but I think it’s important for the American people to understand the gravity of the underlying problem that your report uncovered.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.

NADLER: The gentlelady yields back.

The gentleman from Texas, (inaudible)?

RATCLIFFE: Good morning, Director.

If you’ll let me quickly summarize your opening statement this morning, you said in Volume 1 on the issue of conspiracy, the special counsel determined that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

And then in Volume 2, for reasons that you explained, the special counsel did not make a determination on whether there was an obstruction of justice crime committed by the president.

Is that fair?

MUELLER: Yes, sir.

RATCLIFFE: All right.

Now, in explaining the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declination decision, the report, on the bottom of page 2, Volume 2, reads as follows: “The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Now, I read that correctly?

MUELLER: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: All right.

Now, your report -- and today, you said that at all times, the special counsel team operated under, was guided by and followed Justice Department policies and principles. So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?

MUELLER: Can you repeat the last part of that question?

RATCLIFFE: Yeah.

Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?

Can -- let me make it easier. Is...

MUELLER: May -- can I -- I’m sorry, go ahead.

RATCLIFFE: ... can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated...

MUELLER: I -- I...

RATCLIFFE: ... because their innocence was not conclusively determined?

MUELLER: I cannot, but this is a unique situation.

RATCLIFFE: OK.

Well, I -- you can’t -- time is short. I’ve got five minutes. Let’s just leave it at, you can’t find it because -- I’ll tell you why: It doesn’t exist.

The special counsel’s job -- nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC opinions. It’s not in the Justice Manual. And it’s not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully -- respectfully, Director, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him. Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.

Now, Director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can’t find and you said doesn’t exist anywhere in the department policies. And you used it to write a report.

And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it “authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel.” That’s the very first word of your report, right?

MUELLER: That’s correct.

RATCLIFFE: Here’s the problem, Director: The special counsel didn’t do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination.

So respectfully, Director, you didn’t follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, “Write a confidential report about decisions reached.” Nowhere in here does it say, “Write a report about decisions that weren’t reached.”

You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided. And respectfully -- respectfully, by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged.

So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle, as they do dramatic readings from this report: that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary.

I agree with the chairman this morning, when he said, “Donald Trump is not above the law.” He’s not. But he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him.

NADLER: The (inaudible) time has expired.

The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.

JACKSON LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director Mueller, good morning.

Your exchange with the gentlelady from California demonstrates what is at stake. The Trump campaign chair, Paul Manafort, was passing sensitive voter information and polling data to a Russian operative, and there were so many other ways that Russia subverted our democracy. Together with the evidence in Volume 1, I cannot think of a more serious need to investigate.

So, now, I’m going to ask you some questions about obstruction of justice as it relates to Volume 2.

On page 12 of Volume 2, you state, “We determined that there were sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the president,” is that correct?

MUELLER: And -- do you have a citation, ma’am?

JACKSON LEE: Page 12, Volume 2.

MUELLER: And which portion of that page?

JACKSON LEE: That is, “We determined that there was sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the president,” is that correct?

MUELLER: Yes.

JACKSON LEE: Your report also describes at least 10 separate instances of possible obstruction of justice that were investigated by you and your team, is that correct?

MUELLER: Yes.

JACKSON LEE: In fact, the table of contents serves as a very good guide of some of the acts of that obstruction of justice that you investigated. And I put it up on the screen.

On page 157 of Volume 2, you describe those acts. And they range from the president’s effort to curtail the special counsel’s investigation, the president’s further efforts to have the attorney general take over the investigation, the president orders Don McGahn to deny that the president tried to fire the special counsel, and many others, is that correct?

MUELLER: Yes.

JACKSON LEE: I direct you now to what you wrote, Director Mueller.

“The president’s pattern of conduct as a whole sheds light on the nature of the president’s acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent.” Does that mean you have to investigate all of his conduct to ascertain true motive?

MUELLER: No.

JACKSON LEE: And when you talk about the president’s pattern of conduct, that include the 10 possible acts of obstruction that you investigated, is that correct? When you talk about the president’s pattern of conduct, that would include the 10 possible acts of obstruction that you investigated, correct?

MUELLER: I direct you to the report for how that is characterized.

JACKSON LEE: Thank you.

Let me go to the screen again. And for each of those 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice, you analyzed three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice: an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and official proceeding, and corrupt intent, is that correct?

MUELLER: Yes.

JACKSON LEE: You wrote on page 178, Volume 2 in your report about corrupt intent, “Actions by the president to end a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct,” is that correct?

MUELLER: Yes.

JACKSON LEE: To the screen again. Even with the evidence you did find, is it true, as you note on page 76 of Volume 2, that, “The evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally that the president could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to legal, personal and political concerns”?

MUELLER: I -- I rely on the language of the report.

JACKSON LEE: Is that relevant to potential obstruction of justice? Is that relevant to potential obstruction of justice?

MUELLER: Yes.

JACKSON LEE: You further elaborate, on page 157, “Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area or to avoid personal embarrassment,” is that correct?

MUELLER: I have on the screen a -- a ...

JACKSON LEE: Is that correct on the screen?

MUELLER: Can you -- can you repeat the question now that I have the language on the screen?

JACKSON LEE: Is it correct, as you further elaborate, “Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a direct desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area...”

MUELLER: Yes.

JACKSON LEE: “... or to avoid” -- is that true?

MUELLER: Yes.

JACKSON LEE: And is it true that the impact -- pardon?

MUELLER: Can you read the last question?

JACKSON LEE: The last question was...

(CROSSTALK)

MUELLER: ... certain I got it accurate.

JACKSON LEE: No, the last question was the language on the screen asking you if that’s correct.

MUELLER: Yes.

JACKSON LEE: OK.

Does a conviction of obstruction of justice result potentially in a lot of years of -- a lot of years of time in jail?

MUELLER: Yes. Well, again, can you repeat the -- the question just to make certain I have it accurate?

JACKSON LEE: Does obstruction of justice warrant a lot of time in -- in jail if you were convicted?

MUELLER: Yes.

JACKSON LEE: And...

NADLER: The time of the gentlelady has expired.

The gentleman from Wisconsin?

SENSENBRENNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by reading the special counsel regulations by which you were appointed. It reads, quote “At the conclusion of the special counsel’s work, he or she shall provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declamations decisions reached by the special counsel,” is that correct?

MUELLER: Yes.

SENSENBRENNER: OK.

Now when a regulation uses the words “shall provide,” does it mean that the individual is in fact obligated to provide what’s being demanded by the regulation or statute, meaning you don’t have any wiggle room, right?

MUELLER: I’d have to look more closely at the statute.

SENSENBRENNER: Well, I just read it to you.

OK, now Volume 2, page 1, your report boldly states, “We determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment,” is that correct?

MUELLER: I’m trying to find that citation, Congressman.

NADLER: Director, could you speak more directly into the microphone, please?

MUELLER: Yes.

NADLER: Thank you.

SENSENBRENNER: Well, it’s Volume 2, page...

MUELLER: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry.

SENSENBRENNER: Yeah, it’s Volume 2, page 1. It says, “We determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.”

MUELLER: Yes.

SENSENBRENNER: That’s right at the beginning.

Now, since you decided under the OLC opinion that you couldn’t prosecute a sitting president, meaning President Trump, why do we have all of this investigation of President Trump that the other side is talking about when you know that you weren’t going to prosecute him?

MUELLER: Well, you don’t know where the investigation’s going to lie, and OLC opinion itself says that you can continue the investigation even though you are not going to indict the president.

SENSENBRENNER: OK, well if you’re not going to indict the president then you just continue fishing. And that’s -- you know, that’s my -- my observation.

You know, sure -- sure you -- sure you -- my time is limited -- sure you can indict other people but you can’t indict the sitting president, right?

MUELLER: That’s true.

SENSENBRENNER: OK.

Now, there are 182 pages in raw evidentiary material, including hundreds of references to 302, which are interviews by the FBI for individuals who have never been cross-examined, and which did not comply with the special counsel’s governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declamation decisions reached, correct?

MUELLER: Where are you reading from on that?

SENSENBRENNER: I’m reading from my question.

(LAUGHTER)

MUELLER: That -- could you repeat it?

SENSENBRENNER: OK.

If -- you have 182 pages of raw evidentiary material with hundreds of references to 302s who are -- never been cross-examined, which didn’t comply with the governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declaration -- declination decisions reached.

MUELLER: This is one of those areas which I decline to discuss...

SENSENBRENNER: OK, then let...

MUELLER: ... and would direct you to the report itself for what...

(CROSSTALK)

SENSENBRENNER: ... 182 pages of it.

You know, let me switch gears. Mr. Chabot and I were on this committee during the Clinton impeachment. Now, while I recognize that the independent counsel statute under which Kenneth Starr operated is different from the special counsel statute, he, in a number of occasions in his report, stated that the -- “President Clinton’s actions may have risen to impeachable conduct, recognizing that it is up to the House of Representatives to determine what conduct is impeachable.”

You never used the term “raising to impeachable conduct” for any of the 10 instances that the gentlewoman from Texas (inaudible) -- did. Is it true that there’s nothing in Volume 2 of the report that says that the president may have engaged in impeachable conduct?

MUELLER: Well, we have (inaudible) kept in the -- the center of our investigation the -- our mandate. And our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct, our mandate goes to what -- developing the report and putting the report in to the attorney general.

SENSENBRENNER: With due respect, you know, it -- it seems to me, you know, that there are a couple of statements that you made, you know, that said that, “This is not for me to decide,” and the implication is this is -- this was for this committee to decide.

Now, you didn’t use the word “impeachable conduct” like Starr did. There was no statute to prevent you from using the words “impeachable conduct.” And I go back to what Mr. Ratcliffe said, and that is is that even the president is innocent until proven guilty.

I -- my time is up.

NADLER: The gentleman’s time has expired.

The gentleman from Tennessee?

COHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I’d just like to restate that -- Mr. Nadler said about your career. It’s a model of rectitude and I thank you.

MUELLER: Thank you, sir.

COHEN: Based upon your investigation, how did President Trump react to your appointment as special counsel?

MUELLER: He had a -- I -- I’d send you the report for where that is stated.

COHEN: Well, there is a quote from page 78 of your report, Volume 2, which reads: “When Sessions told the president that a special counsel had been appointed, the president slumped back in his chair and said, quote, ‘Oh my God, this is terrible, this is the end of my presidency. I’m f-ed’,” unquote.

Did Attorney General Sessions tell you about that little talk?

MUELLER: I...

NADLER: Director, please speak into the microphone.

MUELLER: Oh, surely, my -- my apologies.

I am not certain of the -- the person who originally copied that quote.

COHEN: OK, well, Sessions apparently said it, and one of his aides had it in his notes too, which I think you had, but...

MUELLER: (inaudible)

COHEN: ... but that’s become record. He wasn’t pleased. He probably wasn’t pleased with the special counsel, and particularly you because of your outstanding reputation.

MUELLER: Correct.

COHEN: Prior to your appointment, the attorney general recused himself from the investigation because of his role in the 2016 campaign. Is that not correct?

MUELLER: That’s correct.

COHEN: Recusal means the attorney general could not be involved in the investigation. Is that correct?

MUELLER: That’s the effect of recusal, yes.

COHEN: And so instead, another Trump appointee, as you know Mr. Sessions was, Mr. Rosenstein became in charge of it. Is that correct?

MUELLER: Yes.

COHEN: Wasn’t Attorney General Sessions following the rules and professional advice of the Department of Justice Ethics folks when he recused himself from the investigation?

MUELLER: Yes.

COHEN: And yet, the president repeatedly expressed his displeasure at Sessions’ decision to follow those ethics rules, to recuse himself from oversight of that investigation. Is that not correct?

MUELLER: That’s accurate, based on what is written in the report.

COHEN: And the president’s reaction to the recusal, as noted in the report, Mr. Bannon recalled that the president was mad, as mad as Bannon had ever seen him, and he screamed at McGahn about how weak Sessions was. Do you recall that from the report?

MUELLER: That’s in the report, yes.

COHEN: Despite knowing that Attorney General Sessions was supposed to be in -- was not supposed to be involved in the investigation, the president still tried to get the attorney general to un-recuse himself after you were appointed special counsel. Is that correct?

MUELLER: Yes.

COHEN: In fact, your investigation found that at some point after your appointment, quote, “the president called Sessions at his home and asked if he would un-recuse himself.” Is that not true?

MUELLER: It’s true.

COHEN: Now, that wasn’t the first time the president had asked Sessions to un-recuse himself, was it?

MUELLER: I know there were at least two occasions.

COHEN: And one of them was with Flynn, and one of them was when Sessions and McGahn flew to Mar-a-Lago to meet with the president. Sessions recalled that the president pulled him aside to speak alone and suggested he should do this un-recusal act, correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

COHEN: And then when Michael Flynn, a few days after Flynn entered a guilty plea for lying to federal agents and indicated his intent to cooperate with that investigation, Trump asked to speak to Sessions alone again in the Oval Office, and again asked Sessions to un-recuse himself. True?

MUELLER: I’d refer you to the report for that.

COHEN: Page 109, volume 2. Thank you, sir.

Do you know of any point when the president personally expressed anger or frustrations at Sessions?

MUELLER: I’d have to pass on that.

COHEN: Do you recall, and I think it’s at page 78 of volume 2, the president told Sessions, “You were supposed to protect me. You were supposed to protect me,” or words to that effect?

MUELLER: Correct.

COHEN: And is the attorney general supposed to be the attorney general of the United States of America, or the consiglieri for the president?

MUELLER: The United States of America.

COHEN: Thank you, sir. In fact, you wrote in your report that the president repeatedly sought to convince Sessions to un-recuse himself so Sessions could supervise the investigation in a way that was -- restrict its scope. Is that correct?

MUELLER: I’m relying on the -- on the report. (inaudible)

COHEN: How could Sessions have restricted the scope of your investigation?

MUELLER: Well, I’m not going to speculate. If he, quite obviously, if he took over or was attorney general, he would have greater latitude in his actions that would enable him to do things that otherwise he could not.

COHEN: On page 113, you said the president believed that an un-recused attorney general would play a protective role and conceal the president from the ongoing investigation.

Regardless of all that, I want to thank you, Director Mueller, for your life of rectitude and service to our country. It’s clear from your report and the evidence that the president wanted former Attorney General Sessions to violate the Justice Department ethics rules by taking over your investigation and improperly interfering with it to protect himself and his campaign. Your findings are so important because in America, nobody is above the law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

NADLER: Thank the gentleman for yielding back.

The gentleman from Ohio.

CHABOT: Thank you.

Director Mueller, my Democratic colleagues were very disappointed in your report. They were expecting you to say something along the lines of he was -- why President Trump deserves to be impeached, much as Ken Starr did relative to President Clinton back about 20 years ago. Well, you didn’t, so their strategy had to change. Now they allege that there’s plenty of evidence in your report to impeach the president, but the American people just didn’t read it. And this hearing today is their last best hope to build up some sort of groundswell across America to impeach President Trump. That’s what this is really all about today.

Now a few questions: On page 103 of Volume 2 of your report, when discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, you referenced, quote, “the firm that produced Steele reporting,” unquote. The name of that firm was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?

MUELLER: And you’re on page 103?

CHABOT: 103, that’s correct, Volume 2. When you talk about the -- the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?

MUELLER: Yeah, I -- I’m not familiar with -- with that. I (inaudible)

CHABOT: (inaudible) It’s not -- it’s not a trick question, right? It was Fusion GPS. Now, Fusion GPS produced the opposition research document wide -- widely known as the Steele dossier, and the owner of Fusion GPA (sic) was someone named Glenn Simpson. Are -- are you familiar with...

MUELLER: This is outside my purview.

CHABOT: OK. Glenn Simpson was never mentioned in the 448-page Mueller report, was he?

MUELLER: Well, as I -- as I say, it’s outside my purview and it’s being handled in the department by others.

CHABOT: OK. Well, he -- he was not. In the 448 pages the -- the owner of Fusion GPS that did the Steele dossier that started all this, he -- he’s not mentioned in there. Let me move on.

At the same time Fusion GPS was working to collect opposition research on Donald Trump from foreign sources on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, it also was representing a Russian-based company, Probison, which had been sanctioned by the U.S. government. Are you aware of that?

MUELLER: It’s outside my purview.

CHABOT: OK, thank you.

One of the key players in the -- I’ll go to something different. One of the key players in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was Natalia Veselnitskaya, who you described in your report as a Russian attorney who advocated for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Veselnitskaya had been working with none other than Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS since at least early 2014. Are -- are you aware of that?

MUELLER: Outside my purview.

CHABOT: Thank you. But you didn’t mention that or her connections to Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS in -- in your report at all. Let -- let me move on.

Now, NBC News has reported the following: quote, “Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya says she first received the supposedly-incriminating information she brought to Trump Tower describing alleged tax evasion and donation to Democrats from none other than Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS owner.” You didn’t include that in the report, and I assume you (inaudible).

MUELLER: This is a matter that’s being handled by others at the Department of Justice.

CHABOT: OK, thank you.

Now, your report spends 14 pages discussing the June 9th, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. It would be fair to say, would it not, that you spent significant resources investigating that meeting?

MUELLER: Well, I’d refer you to the -- the report.

CHABOT: OK. And President Trump wasn’t at the meeting...

MUELLER: No, he was not.

CHABOT: ... that you’re aware of? Thank you.

Now, in stark contrast to the actions of the Trump campaign, we know that the Clinton campaign did pay Fusion GPS to gather dirt on the Trump campaign, from persons associated with foreign governments. But your report doesn’t mention a thing about Fusion GPS in it, and you didn’t investigate Fusion GPS’ connections to Russia.

So let me just ask you this. Can you see that from neglecting to mention Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS’ involvement with the Clinton campaign, to focusing on a brief meeting at the Trump Tower that produced nothing, to ignoring the Clinton campaign’s own ties to Fusion GPS, why some view your report as a pretty one-sided attack on the president?

MUELLER: Well, I’ll tell you, this is still outside my purview.

CHABOT: All right. And I would just note, finally, that I guess it’s just by chance, by coincidence that the things left out of the report tended to be favorable to the president?

NADLER: The gentleman’s time has expired.

CHABOT: My time’s expired.

NADLER: The gentleman from Georgia.

H. JOHNSON: Thank you.

Director Mueller, I’d like to get us back on track here. Your investigation found that President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire you. Isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: True.

H. JOHNSON: And the president claimed that he wanted to fire you because you had supposed conflicts of interest, isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: True.

H. JOHNSON: Now, you had no conflicts of interest that required your removal, isn’t that a fact?

MUELLER: Correct.

H. JOHNSON: And in fact, Don McGahn advised the president that the asserted conflicts were, in his words, “silly and not real conflicts,” isn’t that true?

MUELLER: I refer to the report on that episode.

H. JOHNSON: Well, page 85 of Volume 2 speaks to that. And also, Director Mueller, DOJ ethics officials confirmed that you had no conflicts that would prevent you from serving as special counsel, isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: That’s correct.

H. JOHNSON: But despite Don McGahn and the Department of Justice guidance, around May 23, 2017, the president, quote, “Prodded McGahn to complain to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein about these supposed conflicts of interest,” correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

H. JOHNSON: And McGahn declined to call Rosenstein -- or Rosenstein, I’m sorry -- telling the president that it would look like still trying to meddle in the investigation and knocking out Mueller would be another fact used to claim obstruction of justice, isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: Generally so, yes.

H. JOHNSON: And in other words, Director Mueller, the White House Counsel told the president that if he tried to remove you, that that could be another basis to allege that the president was obstructing justice, correct?

MUELLER: That is generally correct, yes.

H. JOHNSON: Now, I’d like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justice. On Tuesday, June...

MUELLER: Do you have -- I’m sorry, Congressman. Do you have a citation for that?

H. JOHNSON: On -- yes. Volume 2, page 81.

MUELLER: Thank you.

H. JOHNSON: And 82.

Now, I’d like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justice. It’s true that on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, the president dictated a press statement, stating he had, quote, “no intention of firing” you, correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

H. JOHNSON: But the following day, June 14, the media reported for the first time that you were investigating the president for obstructing of justice, correct?

MUELLER: That’s correct.

H. JOHNSON: And then, after learning for the first time that he was under investigation, the very next day, the president, quote, “issued a series of tweets acknowledging the existence of the obstruction investigation, and criticizing it.” Isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: Generally so.

H. JOHNSON: And then, on Saturday, June 17, two days later, the president called Don McGahn at home from Camp David on a Saturday, to talk about you. Isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

H. JOHNSON: What was the significant -- what was significant about that first weekend phone call that Don McGahn took from President Trump?

MUELLER: Well, I’m going to ask you to rely on what we wrote about those incidents.

H. JOHNSON: Well, you wrote in your report that on -- page 85, Volume 2, that on Saturday, June 17, 2017, the president called McGahn at home to have the special counsel removed. Now, did the president call Don McGahn more than once that day?

MUELLER: Well, I gave...

H. JOHNSON: I think it was two calls.

NADLER: Talk into the microphone.

MUELLER: Oh, sorry about that.

H. JOHNSON: On page 85 of your report, you wrote, quote, “On the first call, McGahn recalled that the president said something like, quote, ‘You’ve got to do this. You’ve got to call Rod.’” Correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

H. JOHNSON: In your investigation and report found that Don McGahn was perturbed, to use your words, by the president’s request to call Rod Rosenstein to fire him. Isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: Well, there was a continuous call he -- I would -- no, it was a continuous involvement of Don McGahn...

(CROSSTALK)

H. JOHNSON: And he...

MUELLER: ... responding to the president’s entreaties.

H. JOHNSON: And he did not want to put himself in the middle of that. He did not want to have a role in asking the attorney general to fire the special counsel, correct?

MUELLER: Well, I would, again, refer you to the report and the way it is characterized in the report.

H. JOHNSON: Thank you. At Volume 2, page 85, it states that “he didn’t want to have the attorney general -- he didn’t want to have a role in trying to fire the attorney general.” So at this point -- I will yield back.

NADLER: The gentleman’s time has expired.

The gentleman from Texas.

GOHMERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mueller -- well, first, let me ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to submit this article Robert Mueller unmasked for the record.

NADLER: Without objection.

GOHMERT: Now, Mr. Mueller, who wrote the nine-minute comments you read at your May 29th press conference.

MUELLER: I’m not going to get into that.

GOHMERT: OK. So that’s what I thought. You didn’t write it. A 2013 puff piece in The Washingtonian about Comey said basically, when Comey called, you’d drop everything you were doing.

Gave examples. You were having dinner with your wife and daughter, Comey calls, you’d drop everything and go. The article quoted Comey as saying if a train were coming down the track -- and I quote -- “at least Bob Mueller will be standing on the tracks with me.”

You and James Comey have been good friends or were good friends for a -- for many years, correct?

MUELLER: No. We were business associates. We both started off at the Justice Department about the same time...

(CROSSTALK)

GOHMERT: You were good friends. You can work together and not be friends, but you and Comey were...

MUELLER: Yes, we were friends.

GOHMERT: ... friends.

MUELLER: We were friends.

GOHMERT: That’s my question. Thank you for getting to the answer.

Now, before you were appointed as special counsel, had you talked to James Comey in the preceding six months?

MUELLER: No.

GOHMERT: When you were appointed as special counsel, was President Trump’s firing of Comey something you anticipated investigating, potentially obstruction of justice?

MUELLER: I can’t get into that. That’s internal deliberations of the Justice Department.

GOHMERT: Actually, it goes to your credibility and maybe you’ve been away from the court room for a while, credibility is always relevant, it’s always material and that goes for you, too. You’re a witness before us.

Let me ask you, when you talked to President Trump the day before he appointed you -- or you were appointed as Special Counsel, you were talking to him about the FBI Director position again. Did he mention the firing of James Comey?

MUELLER: Not -- not as a candidate. I was asked ...

GOHMERT: Did he mention the firing of James Comey in your discussion with him?

MUELLER: Cannot remember.

GOHMERT: Pardon?

MUELLER: Cannot remember. I don’t believe so but I’m not going to be specific.

GOHMERT: You don’t remember? But if he did, you could’ve been a fact witness as to the President’s comments and state of mind on firing James Comey.

MUELLER: I suppose that’s possible.

GOHMERT: Yeah. So most prosecutors want to make sure there was no appearance of impropriety, but in your case, you hired a bunch of people that did not like the President. Now let me ask you, when did you first learn of Peter Strzok’s animus toward Donald Trump?

MUELLER: In the summer of 2017.

GOHMERT: You didn’t know before he was hired?

MUELLER: I -- I’m sorry, what’d you ...

GOHMERT: You didn’t know before he was hired for your team?

MUELLER: Know what?

GOHMERT: Peter Strzok hated Trump.

MUELLER: OK.

GOHMERT: You didn’t know that before he was made part of your team, is that what you’re saying?

MUELLER: I did not know that.

GOHMERT: All right. When did you first learn ...

(CROSSTALK)

MUELLER: ... when I did find out, I -- I acted swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere in the FBI.

GOHMERT: Well there’s some discussion about how swift that was. But when did you learn of the ongoing affair he was having with Lisa Page?

MUELLER: About the same time I ...

GOHMERT: OK.

MUELLER: ... from Strzok.

GOHMERT: Did you ever order anybody to investigate the deletion of all of their texts off of their government phones?

MUELLER: Once we found that Peter Strzok was author of -- of ...

GOHMERT: Did you ever ...

MUELLER: May I finish?

GOHMERT: ... order -- well you’re not answering my question. Did you order an investigation in the deletion and reformatting of their government phones?

MUELLER: No, there was an IG investigation ongoing.

GOHMERT: Listen, regarding collusion or conspiracy, you didn’t find evidence of any agreement, and I’m quoting you, “among the Trump campaign officials and any Russia linked individuals to interfere with our U.S. election,” correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

GOHMERT: So you also note in the report that an element of any of those obstructions you referenced requires a corrupt state of mind, correct?

MUELLER: Corrupt intent, correct.

GOHMERT: Right. And if somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to affect the election and they see the big Justice Department with people that hate that person coming after them, and then a Special Counsel appointed who hires a dozen or more people that hate that person and he knows he’s innocent, he’s not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done, what he’s doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice and the fact that you ...

NADLER: The gentleman’s time ...

GOHMERT: ... ran it out two years means you ...

NADLER: Gentleman’s time ...

(CROSSTALK)

GOHMERT: ... injustice, and I yield back.

(CROSSTALK)

NADLER: The gentleman’s time is expired, the witness may answer the question.

MUELLER: I take your question.

NADLER: The gentleman from Florida?

GOHMERT: Director Mueller, I -- Director Mueller, I’d like to get back to your findings covering June of 2017. There was a bombshell article that reported that the President of the United States was personally under investigation for obstruction of justice.

And you said in your report on page 90 of Volume 2, and I quote, “news of the obstruction investigation prompted the President to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed,” close quote. And then in your report you wrote about multiple calls from the President to White House Counsel Don McGahn.

And regarding the second call, you wrote, and I quote, “McGahn recalled that the President was more direct, saying something like call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can’t be Special -- can’t be the Special Counsel. McGahn recalled the President telling him Mueller has to go and call me back when you do it.”

Director Mueller, did McGahn understand what the President was ordering him to do?

MUELLER: I direct you to the -- what we’ve written in the report in terms of characterizing his feelings.

GOHMERT: And in the report it says quote “McGahn understood the President to be saying that the Special Counsel had to be removed.” You also said on page 86 that quote “McGahn considered the President’s request to be an inflection point and he wanted to hit the brakes and he felt trapped and McGahn decided he had to resign.”

McGahn took action to prepare to resign, isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: I direct you again to the report.

GOHMERT: And in -- in fact, that very day he went to the White House and quoting your report, you said quote “he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter,” close quote.

MUELLER: That is -- that is directly from the report.

GOHMERT: It is. And before he resigned, however, he called the President’s Chief of Staff, Reince Preibus, and he called the President’s senior advisor, Steve Bannon. Do you recall what McGahn told them?

MUELLER: I -- whatever he -- was -- was said will -- will appear in the report.

GOHMERT: It is, it is, and it says on page 87 quote “Preibus recalled that McGahn said that the President asked him to do crazy expletive.” In other words, crazy stuff. The White House Counsel thought that the President’s request was completely out of bounds. He said the President asked him to do something crazy, it was wrong, and he was prepared to resign over it.

Now these are extraordinarily troubling events but you found White House Counsel McGahn to be a credible witness, isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

GOHMERT: Director Mueller, the most important question I have for you today is why? Director Mueller, why did the President of the United States want you fired?

MUELLER: I can’t answer that question.

GOHMERT: Well on -- on page 89 in your report on Volume 2, you said and I quote “substantial evidence indicates that the President’s evident -- that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involve the President’s conduct, and most immediately to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice,” close quote.

Director Mueller, you found evidence, as you lay out in your report, that the President wanted to fire you because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice. Isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: That’s what it -- it says in the report, yes, and I go -- I stand by in the report.

DEUTCH: Director Mueller, that shouldn’t happen in America. No president should be able to escape investigation by abusing his power but that’s what you testified to in your report. The president ordered you fired. The White House counsel knew it was wrong. The president knew it was wrong. In your report, it says there’s also evidence the president knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn.

But the president did it anyway. He did it anyway. Anyone else who blatantly interfered with a criminal investigation, like yours, would be investigated and indicted on charges of obstruction of justice.

Director Mueller, you determined that you were barred from indicting a sitting president. We’ve already talked about that today. That is exactly why this committee must hold the president accountable.

I yield back.

NADLER: The gentleman yields back.

The gentlelady from Alabama?

ROBY: Director Mueller, you just said in response to two different lines of questionings that you would refer -- as it relates to this firing discussion that I would refer you to the report and the way it was characterized in the report.

Importantly, the president never said, fire Mueller or in the investigation. And one doesn’t necessitate the other. And McGahn, in fact, did not resign; he stuck around for a year and a half.

On March 24th, Attorney General Barr formed the committee that he had received the special counsel’s report and it was not until April 18th that the attorney general released the report to Congress and the public.

When you submitted your report to the attorney general, did you deliver a redacted version of the report so that he would be able to release it to Congress and the public without delay, pursuant to his announcement of his intention to do so during his confirmation hearing?

MUELLER: I’m not going to engage in a discussion about what happened after the production of our report.

ROBY: Had the attorney general asked you to provide a redacted version of the report?

MUELLER: We worked on the redacted versions together.

ROBY: Did he ask you for a version where the grand jury material was separated?

MUELLER: I’m not going to get into details.

ROBY: Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to Congress or the public?

MUELLER: That’s not within my purview.

ROBY: In the Starr investigation of President Clinton, it was the special prosecutor who went to court to receive permission to unredact grand jury material, Rule 6(e) material. Why did you not take a similar action so Congress could view this material?

MUELLER: We had a process that we were operating on with the Attorney General’s Office.

ROBY: Are you aware of any attorney general going to court to receive similar permission to unredact 6(e) material?

MUELLER: I’m not aware of that being done.

ROBY: The attorney general released the special counsel’s report with minimal redactions to the public and an even lesser redacted version to Congress. Did you write the report with the expectation that it would be released publicly?

MUELLER: No, we did not have an expectation. We wrote the report understanding that it was demanded by the statute and would go to the attorney general for further -- further review.

ROBY: And pursuant it to the special counsel regulations, who is the only party that must receive the charging decision resulting from the special counsel’s investigation?

MUELLER: With regard to the president or generally?

ROBY: No, generally.

MUELLER: Attorney general.

ROBY: At Attorney General Barr’s confirmation hearing, he made it clear that he intended to release your report to the public. Do you remember how much of your report had been written at that point?

MUELLER: I do not.

ROBY: Were there significant changes in tone or substance of the report made after the announcement that the report would be made available to Congress and the public?

MUELLER: I can’t get into that.

ROBY: During the Senate testimony of Attorney General William Barr, Senate -- Senator Kamala Harris asked Mr. Barr if he had looked at all the underlying evidence that -- that the special counsel’s team had gathered. He stated that he had not.

So I’m going to ask you, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence gathered in your investigation?

MUELLER: Well, to the extent that it came through the Special Counsel’s Office, yes.

ROBY: Did any single member of your team review all the underlying evidence gathered during the course of your investigation?

MUELLER: As has been recited here today, a substantial amount of work was done, whether it be search warrants or -- or...

ROBY: My point is, is there was no one member of the team that looked at everything.

MUELLER: ... That’s what I’m trying to get at.

ROBY: OK. It’s fair to say that in an investigation as comprehensive as yours, it’s normal that different members of the team would have reviewed different sets of documents and few, if anyone, would have reviewed all of the underlying?

MUELLER: Thank you, yes.

ROBY: How many of the approximately 500 interviews conducted by the Special Counsel’s Office did you attend personally?

MUELLER: Very few.

ROBY: On March 27, 2019, you wrote a letter to the attorney general essentially complaining about the media coverage of your report. You wrote, and I quote, “The summery letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office’s work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25th. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the result of our investigation.”

Who wrote that March 27th letter?

MUELLER: Well, I -- I -- I can’t get into who wrote it. The internal deliberations...

ROBY: But you signed it?

MUELLER: ... I -- what I will say is the letter stands for itself.

ROBY: OK. Why did you write a formal letter since you had already called the attorney general to express those concerns?

MUELLER: I can’t -- I can’t get into that, internal deliberations.

ROBY: Did you authorize the letter’s release to the media or was it leaked?

MUELLER: I have no knowledge on either.

ROBY: Well, you went nearly two years without a leak. Why was this letter leaked?

MUELLER: I -- I -- well, I -- I can’t get into it.

ROBY: Was this letter written and leaked for the expressed purpose of attempting to change the narrative about the conclusions of your report? And was anything in Attorney General Barr’s letter referred to as principal conclusions...

(CROSSTALK)

NADLER: The time of the gentlelady...

ROBY: ... inaccurate?

NADLER: ... The time of the gentlelady is expired. The gentlelady...

ROBY: Can he answer the question, please?

MUELLER: And the question is?

NADLER: ... Yes, he may answer the question.

ROBY: Was anything in Attorney General Barr’s letter referred to as the principle conclusions letter dated March 24th inaccurate?

MUELLER: Well, I am not going to get into that.

NADLER: The time of the gentlelady is expired.

The gentlelady from California?

BASS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Director Mueller, as you know, we are focusing on five obstruction episodes today. I would like to ask you about the second of those five obstruction episodes. It is in the section of your report beginning on page 113 of Volume 2, entitled, quote, “The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel,” end quote.

On January 25th, 2018, The New York Times reported that, quote, “The president had ordered McGahn to have the Department of Justice fire you.” Is that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

BASS: And that story related to the events you already testified about here today. The president’s calls to McGahn to have you removed. Correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

BASS: After the news broke, did the president go on TV to deny the story?

MUELLER: I do not know.

BASS: In fact, the president said, quote, “Fake news, folks. Fake news, a typical New York Times fake story,” end quote. Correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

BASS: But your investigation actually found substantial evidence that McGahn was ordered by the president to fire you. Correct?

MUELLER: Yes.

BASS: Did the president’s personal lawyer do something the following day in responses to that news report?

MUELLER: I’d refer you to the coverage of this in the report.

BASS: On page 114, quote, “On January 26th, 2018, the president’s personal counsel called McGahn’s attorney and said that the president wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the special counsel,” end quote. Did McGahn do what the president asked?

MUELLER: I refer you to the report.

BASS: Communicating through his personal attorney, McGahn refused, because he said, quote, “That the Times story was accurate in reporting that the president wanted the special counsel removed.” Isn’t that right?

MUELLER: I believe it is, but I refer you again to the report.

BASS: OK. So Mr. McGahn, through his personal attorney, told the president that he is -- was not going to lie. Is that right?

MUELLER: True.

BASS: Did the president drop the issue?

MUELLER: I refer to the write-up of this in the report.

BASS: OK. Next, the president told the White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter to try to pressure McGahn to make a false denial. Is that correct?

MUELLER: That’s correct.

BASS: What did he actually direct Porter to do?

MUELLER: And -- and I would send you back to the report.

BASS: OK. Well, on page 113 it says, quote, “The president then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make it clear that the president never directed McGahn to fire you,” end quote. Is that correct?

MUELLER: That is as it’s -- it’s stated in the report.

BASS: And you found, quote, “The president said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file for our records.” Correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

BASS: And to be clear, the president is asking his White House Counsel Don McGahn to create a record that McGahn believed to be untrue, while you were in the midst of investigating the president for obstruction of justice. Correct?

MUELLER: Generally correct.

BASS: And Mr. McGahn was an important witness in that investigation, wasn’t he?

MUELLER: I’d have to say yes.

BASS: Did the president tell Porter to threaten McGahn if he didn’t create the written denial?

MUELLER: I would refer you to the write-up of it in the report.

BASS: In fact, didn’t the president say, quote, and this is on page 116, “If he doesn’t write a letter, then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him,” end quote?

MUELLER: Yes.

BASS: Did Porter deliver that threat?

MUELLER: I, again, refer you to the discussion that’s found on page 115.

BASS: OK. But the president still didn’t give up, did he? So the president told McGahn directly to deny that the president told him to have you fired. Can you tell me exactly what happened?

MUELLER: I can’t beyond what’s in the report.

BASS: Well, on page 116, it says the president met him in the Oval Office, quote, “The president began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that The New York Times’ story didn’t look good and McGahn needed to correct it.” Is that correct?

MUELLER: That’s -- as it’s written in the report, yes.

BASS: The president asked McGahn whether he would do a correction and McGahn said no. Correct?

MUELLER: That’s accurate.

BASS: Well, Mr. Mueller, thank you for your investigation uncovering this very disturbing evidence. My friend, Mr. Richmond will have additional questions on the subject.

However, it is clear to me, if anyone else had ordered a witness to create a false record and cover-up acts that are subject of a law enforcement investigation, that person would be facing criminal charges. I yield back my time.

NADLER: The gentlelady yields back.

The gentlemen from Ohio?

JORDAN: Director, the FBI interviewed Joseph Mifsud on February 10th, 2017. In that interview, Mr. Mifsud lied. You point this out on page 193, Volume 1, Mifsud denied, Mifsud also falsely stated. In addition, Mifsud omitted. Three times, he lied to the FBI; yet, you didn’t charge him with a crime. Why...

(CROSSTALK)

MUELLER: Excuse me -- are...

JORDAN: ... Why not?

MUELLER: ... did you say -- I’m sorry, did you say 193?

JORDAN: Volume 1, 193. He lied three times, you point it out in the report, why didn’t you charge him with a crime?

MUELLER: I can’t get into internal deliberations with regard to who or who would not be charged.

JORDAN: You charged a lot of other people for making false statements. Let’s remember this -- let’s remember this, in 2016 the FBI did something they probably haven’t done before, they spied on two American citizens associated with a presidential campaign.

George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. With Carter Page they went to the FISA court, they used the now famous dossier as part of the reason they were able to get the warrant and spy on Carter Page for a better part of a year.

With Mr. Papadopoulos, they didn’t go to the court, they used human sources, all kinds of -- from about the moment Papadopoulos joins the Trump campaign, you’ve got all these people all around the world starting to swirl around him, names like Halper, Downer, Mifsud, Thompson, meeting in Rome, London, all kinds of places.

The FBI even sent -- even sent a lady posing as somebody else, went by the name Azmiturk, even dispatched her to London to spy on Mr. Papadopoulos. In one of these meetings, Mr. Papadopoulos is talking to a foreign diplomat and he tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton.

That diplomat then contacts the FBI and the FBI opens an investigation based on that fact. You point this out on page 1 of the report. July 31st, 2016 they open the investigation based on that piece of information.

Diplomat tells Papadopoulos Russians have dirt -- excuse me, Papadopoulos tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton, diplomat tells the FBI. What I’m wondering is who told Papadopoulos? How’d he find out?

MUELLER: I can’t get into the evidentiary filings.

JORDAN: Yes, you can because you wrote about it, you gave us the answer. Page 192 of the report, you tell us who told him. Joseph Mifsud, Joseph Mifsud’s the guy who told Papadopoulos, the mysterious professor who lives in Rome and London, works at -- teaches in two different universities.

This is the guy who told Papadopoulos he’s the guy who starts it all, and when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times and yet you don’t charge him with a crime. You charge Rick Gates for false statements, you charge Paul Manafort for false statements, you charge Michael Cohen with false statements, you charge Michael Flynn a three star general with false statements, but the guy who puts the country through this whole saga, starts it all for three years we’ve lived this now, he lies and you guys don’t charge him.

And I’m curious as to why.

MUELLER: Well I can’t get into it and it’s obvious I think that we can’t get into charging decisions.

JORDAN: When the FBI interviewed him in February -- FBI interviews him in February, when the Special Counsel’s Office interviewed Mifsud, did he lie to you guys too?

MUELLER: Can’t get into that.

JORDAN: Did you interview Mifsud?

MUELLER: Can’t get into that.

JORDAN: Is Mifsud western intelligence or Russian intelligence?

MUELLER: Can’t get into that.

JORDAN: A lot of things you can’t get into. What’s interesting, you can charge 13 Russians no one’s ever heard of, no one’s ever seen, no one’s ever going to hear of them, no one’s ever going to see them, you can charge them, you can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements but the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can’t charge him.

I think that’s amazing.

MUELLER: I’m not certain I -- I’m not certain I agree with your characterizations.

JORDAN: Well I’m reading from your report, Mifsud told Papadopoulos, Papadopoulos tells the diplomat, the diplomat tells the FBI, the FBI opens the investigation July 31st, 2016.

And here we are three years later, July of 2019, the country’s been put through this and the central figure who launches it all, lies to us and you guys don’t hunt him down and interview him again and you don’t charge him with a crime.

Now here’s the good news, here’s the good news, the president was falsely accused of conspiracy. The FBI does a 10 month investigation and James Comey when we deposed him a year ago told us at that point they had nothing.

You do a 22-month investigation, at the end of that 22 months you find no conspiracy and 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 accusations started, maybe it’s to go back and actually figure out why Joseph Mifsud was lying to the FBI.

And here’s the good news, here’s the good news, that’s exactly what Bill Barr is doing. And thank goodness for that. That’s exactly what the attorney general and John Durham doing, they’re going to find out why we went through this three year...

NADLER: The time of the gentleman...

JORDAN: ...three year saga and get to the bottom of it.

NADLER: Time of the gentleman has expired. In a moment we will take a very brief five minute break. First I ask everyone in the room to please remain seated and quiet while the witness exit the -- 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.

At this time, the committee will stand in a very short recess.

(RECESS)

NADLER: Gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond.

RICHMOND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller, Congressman Duetch addressed Trump’s request to McGahn to fire you. Representative Bass talked about the president’s request to McGahn to deny the fact that the president made that request.

So I want to pick up where they left off and I want to pick up with the president’s personal lawyer. In fact, there was evidence that the president’s personal lawyer was alarmed at the prospect of the president meeting with Mr. McGahn to discuss Mr. McGahn’s refusal to deny The New York Time’s report about the president trying to fire you, correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

RICHMOND: In fact, the president’s counsel was so alarmed by the prospect of the president’s meeting with McGahn that he called Mr. McGahn’s counsel and said that McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the Oval Office that day, correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

RICHMOND: So it’s accurate to say that the president knew that he was asking McGahn to deny facts that McGahn, quote, “had repeatedly said were accurate,” unquote. Isn’t that right?

MUELLER: Correct.

RICHMOND: Your investigation also found, quote, “by the time of the Oval Office meeting with the president, the president was aware, one, that McGahn did not think the story was false, two, did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true. The president nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.” Isn’t that correct?

MUELLER: (Inaudible)

RICHMOND: I believe that’s on page 119. Thank you. In other words, the president was trying to force McGahn to say something that McGahn did not believe to be true.

MUELLER: That’s accurate.

RICHMOND: I want to reference you to a slide and it’s on page 120, and it says, “substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the special counsel terminated, the president acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the president’s conduct towards the investigation.”

MUELLER: It’s accurate.

RICHMOND: Can you explain what you meant there?

MUELLER: I’m just going to leave it as it appears in the report.

RICHMOND: So it’s fair to say the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?

MUELLER: I would say that is generally a summary.

RICHMOND: Would you that that action the president tried to hamper the investigation by asking staff to falsify records relevant to your investigation?

MUELLER: I’m just going to refer you to the report if I could for review of that episode.

RICHMOND: Thank you. Also, the president’s attempt to get McGahn to create a false-written record, were related to Mr. Trump’s concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry, correct?

MUELLER: I believe that to be true.

RICHMOND: In fact, at that same Oval Office meeting, did the president also ask McGahn why he had told - quote, “why he had told Special Counsels Office investigators that the president told him to have you removed,” unquote?

MUELLER: What was the question, sir? I might...

RICHMOND: Let me go to the next one. The president, quote, “criticized McGahn for telling your office about the June 17, 2017 events when he told McGahn to have you removed,” correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

RICHMOND: In other words, the president was criticizing his White House Counsel for telling law enforcement officials what he believed to be the truth?

MUELLER: I, again, go back to the text of the - of the report.

RICHMOND: Well, let me go a little bit further. Would it have been a crime if Mr. McGahn had lied to you about the president ordering him to fire you?

MUELLER: I don’t want to speculate.

RICHMOND: OK. Is it true that you charged multiple people associated with the president for lying to you during your investigation?

MUELLER: That is accurate.

RICHMOND: The president also complained that his staff were taking notes during the meeting about firing McGahn. Is that correct?

MUELLER: That’s what the report says. Yes, the report.

RICHMOND: But, in fact, it’s completely appropriate for the president’s staff, especially his counsels, to take notes during a meeting correct?

MUELLER: I rely on the wording of the report.

RICHMOND: Well, thank you, Director Mueller, for you investigation into whether the president attempted to obstruct justice by ordering his White House Counsel, Don McGahn, to lie to protect the president and then to create a false record about it. It is clear that any other person who engaged in such conduct would be charged with a crime. We will continue our investigation. We will hold the president accountable because no one is above the law.

NADLER: Gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman from Florida.

GAETZ: Director Mueller, can you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia’s disinformation campaign?

MUELLER: No. I said they - my opening statement that part of the building of the case predated me by at least 10 months.

GAETZ: Yes. I mean, Paul Manafort’s alleged crimes regarding tax evasion predated you. You had no problem charging them, and a matter of fact, this Steele dossier predated the attorney general and he didn’t have any problem answering the question when Senator Cornyn asked the attorney general the exact question I asked you, Director.

The attorney general said, and I’m quoting, “no. I can’t state that with confidence, and that’s one of the areas I’m reviewing. I’m concerned about it and I don’t think it’s entirely speculative.”

Now, something is not entirely speculative that it must have some factual basis, but you identify no factual basis regarding the dossier or the possibility that it was part of the Russia disinformation campaign.

Now, Christopher Steele’s reporting is referenced in your report. Steele reported to the FBI that senior Russian foreign ministry figures among with other - along with other Russia’s told him that there was a - and I’m quoting from the Steele dossier - “extensive evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign team and the Kremlin.”

GAETZ: So here’s my question. Did Russians really tell that to Christopher Steele or did he just make it all up and was he lying to the FBI?

MUELLER: Let me back up a second if I could and say as I’ve said earlier, with regard to Steele, that’s beyond my purview.

GAETZ: No it is exactly your purview Director Mueller and here’s why. Only one of two things is possible, right? Either Steele made this whole thing up and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn’t find or Russians lied to Steele. Now if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our duly elected president, that would seem to be precisely your purview because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russia’s interference but you weren’t interested in whether or not Russians were interfering through Christopher Steele and if Steele was lying then you should have charged him with lying like you charged a variety of other people. But you say nothing about this in your report.

MUELLER: Well, sir...

GAETZ: Meanwhile, Director, you’re quite loquacious on other topics, you write 3,500 words about the June 9 meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya. You write on page 103 of your report that the president’s legal team suggested and I’m quoting from your report, “that the meeting might have been a set up by individuals working with the firm that produced the Steele reporting.” So I’m going to ask you a very easy question Director Mueller, on the week of June 9, who did Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya meet with more frequently, the Trump campaign or Glenn Simpson who is functionally acting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee?

MUELLER: Well what I think is missing here is the fact that this is under investigation and -- elsewhere...

GAETZ: I get that...

MUELLER: And if I could finish, sir. And if I could finish, sir. And consequently it’s not within my purview, the Department of Justice and FBI should be responsive to questions on this particular issue.

GAETZ: It is absurd to suggest that a operative for the democrats was meeting with this Russian lawyer the day before, the day after the Trump Tower meeting and yet that’s not something you reference. Now Glenn Simpson testified under oath he had dinner with Veselnitskaya the day before and the day after this meeting with the Trump team. Do you have any basis as you sit here today to believe that Steele was lying?

MUELLER: As I said before and I’ll say again, it’s not my purview. Others are investigating what you...

GAETZ: It’s not your purview to look into whether or not Steele is lying? It’s not your purview to look into whether or not anti-Trump Russians are lying to Steele? And it’s not your purview to look at whether or not 