“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 it was not. Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.” “So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice. Is that correct?” “That is correct.” “And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” “No.” “Now in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the present.” “It does.” “And your investigation actually found ‘multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.’ Is that correct?” “Correct.” “Now Director Mueller, can you explain in plain terms what that finding means so the American people can understand it?” “Well, the finding indicates that the president was not — that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.” “This hearing is political theater. It’s a Hail Mary attempt to convince the American people that collusion is real and that it’s concealed in the report. Granted, that’s a strange argument to make about a report that is public. It’s almost like the Democrats prepared arguments accusing Mr. Barr of hiding the report and didn’t bother to update their claims once he published the entire thing. “Well, your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it, Director Mueller?” “It is not a witch hunt.” “When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn’t it?” “True.” “‘This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove.’ Donald Trump, Oct. 31, 2016. ‘Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks.’ Donald Trump, Nov. 4, 2016. Would any of those quotes disturb you, Mr. Director?” “I’m not sure I would say —” “How do you react to them?” “Well, it’s — problematic is an understatement in terms of whether it displays, in terms of giving some, I don’t know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.” “In your investigation, did you think that this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election, or did you find evidence to suggest they’ll try to do this again?” “Oh, it wasn’t a single attempt. They are doing it as we sit here. And they expect to do it during the next campaign.” “It’s really the only subject I want to talk to you about, sir: Why didn’t you subpoena the president?” “When we were almost towards the end of our investigation and we’d had little success in pushing to get the interview of the president, we decided that we did not want to exercise the subpoena powers because of the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation. “Was that, was that, excuse me. Did you want —” “I was going to say, the expectation was, if we did subpoena the president, he would fight the subpoena and we would be in the midst of the investigation for a substantial period of time.” “Director Mueller, isn’t it fair to say that the president’s written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete — because he didn’t answer many of your questions — but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn’t always being truthful?” “There — I would say, generally.” “Generally.”