Jump to content

Robert Mueller Testimony before House Intelligence Committee

Add links
From Wikiquote

The Robert Mueller Testimony before House Intelligence Committee occurred July 24, 2019. Linked video clips are extracted from the C-SPAN full video, Robert Mueller Testifies Before House Intelligence Committee, of the same date.

Quotes

[edit]
All statements placed within quotes were extracted from the Mueller Report, unless otherwise stated within the context, or by commentary notes.

Robert Mueller

[edit]
  • I testified this morning before the House Judiciary Committee. I ask that the opening statement I made before that Committee be incorporated into the record here. ...I understand that this Committee has a unique jurisdiction, and that you are interested in further understanding the counterintelligence implications of our investigation. So let me say a word about how we handled the potential impact of our investigation on counterintelligence matters. ...the Special Counsel regulations effectively gave me the role of United States Attorney. As a result, we structured our investigation around evidence for possible use in prosecution of federal crimes. We did not reach... counterintelligence conclusions. We did, however, set up processes... to identify and pass counterintelligence information... to the FBI. Members of our office periodically briefed the FBI about counterintelligence information. In addition, there were agents and analysts from the FBI who were not on our team, but whose job it was to identify counterintelligence information in our files, and to disseminate that information to the FBI. With these reasons, questions about what the FBI has done with the counterintelligence information obtained from our investigation should be directed to the FBI.
    I also want to reiterate a few points that I made this morning. I am not making any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence in any pending case. It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited. First) public testimony could effect several ongoing matters, in some of these matters court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information, 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 effect an ongoing matter. Second) the Justice Department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department, and deliberations within our office. These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect.
    The department has released a letter discussing the restrictions on my testimony. I therefore will not be able to answer questions about certain areas... of public interest. For example, I am unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI's Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the... Steele dossier. These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the FBI, or the Justice Department. Third) ...it is important for me to adhere to what we wrote in our report. The report contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We stated the results of our investigation with precision. I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way... today. And as I stated in May, I also will not comment on the actions of the Attorney General, or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor and I intend to adhere to that role, and to the department's standards that govern it. Finally) ...over the course of my career I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious, and I am sure that the committee agrees. ...
    I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. I wanted to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu. It was said... "you didn't charge the President because of the OLC opinion." That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. ...

Democratic Representatives

[edit]

Adam Schiff, Committee Chair, California

[edit]
28th congressional district, since 2001
  • ...Your report... is methodical and it is devastating, for it tells the story of a foreign adversary's sweeping and systemic intervention in a close U.S. presidential election. That should be enough to deserve the attention of every American... But your report tells another story as well. The story of the 2016 election is also a story about disloyalty to country, about greed, and about lies. Your investigation determined that the Trump campaign, including Donald Trump himself, knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election, and welcomed it, built Russian meddling into their strategy, and used it.
    Disloyalty to country. Those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly shun it, or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it, and made full use of it?
    That disloyalty may not have been criminal. Constrained by uncooperative witnesses, the destruction of documents, and the use of encrypted communications, your team was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. So not a provable crime, in any event.
    But I think maybe something worse. The crime is the violation of law written by Congress. But disloyalty to country violates the very oath of citizenship, our devotion to a core principle on which our nation was founded that we, the people, and not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide who governs us.
    This is also a story about money, about greed and corruption, about the leadership of a campaign willing to compromise the nation's interest, not only to win, but to make money at the same time. About a campaign chairman, indebted to pro-Russian interests, who tried to use his position to clear his debts and make millions. About a national security advisor using his position to make money from still other foreign interests. And about a candidate trying to make more money than all of them put together, through a real estate project that to him was worth a fortune, hundreds of millions of dollars, and the realization of a life-long ambition, a Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow. A candidate who... viewed his whole campaign as the greatest infomercial in history.
    Donald Trump and his senior staff were not alone in their desire to use the election to make money. For Russia, too, there was a powerful financial motive. Putin wanted relief from U.S. economic sanctions, imposed in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and over human rights violations. The secret Trump Tower meeting between the Russians and senior campaign officials was about sanctions. The secret conversations between Flynn and the Russian ambassador were about sanctions. Trump and his team wanted more money for themselves, and the Russians wanted more money for themselves, and for their oligarchs.
    But the story doesn't end here either, for your report also tells a story about lies. Lots of lies. Lies about a gleaming tower in Moscow, and lies about talks with the Kremlin. Lies about the firing of FBI Director James Comey, and lies about efforts to fire you... and lies to cover it up. Lies about secret negotiations with the Russians over sanctions, and lies about WikiLeaks. Lies about polling data, and lies about hush money payments. Lies about meetings in the Seychelles to set up secret back channels, and lies about a secret meeting in New York Trump Tower. Lies to the FBI, lies to your staff, and lies to this committee. Lies to obstruct an investigation into the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history.
    That is where your report ends... with a scheme to cover up, obstruct and deceive every bit as systematic and pervasive, as the Russian disinformation campaign itself, but far more pernicious, since this rot came from within.
    Even now, after 448 pages and two volumes, the deception continues. The President and his accolades say your report found no collusion, though your report explicitly declined to address that question, since collusion can involve both criminal and noncriminal conduct. Your report laid out multiple offers of Russian help to the Trump campaign, the campaign's acceptance of that help, and overt acts in furtherance of Russian help. To most Americans, that is the very definition of collusion, whether it is a crime or not. They say your report found no evidence of obstruction, though you outlined numerous actions by the president intended to obstruct the investigation. They say the president has been fully exonerated, though you specifically declare you could not exonerate him. In fact, they say your whole investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt, that the Russians didn't interfere in our election, that it's all a terrible hoax. The real crime, they say, is not that the Russians intervened to help Donald Trump, but that the FBI investigated it...
    But worst of all, worse than all the lies and the greed, is the disloyalty to country, for that too, continues. When asked, "If the Russians intervene again, will you take their help, Mr. President?" "Why not?" was the essence of his answer. "Everyone does it." No, Mr. President, they don't. Not in the America envisioned by Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton. Not for those who believe in the idea that Lincoln labored until his dying day to preserve, the idea animating our great national experiment, so unique then, so precious still, that our government is chosen by our people, through our franchise, and not by some hostile foreign power. This is what is at stake, our next election, and the one after that for generations to come. Our democracy. This is why your work matters, Director Mueller. This is why our investigation matters, to bring these dangers to light.
  • [Y]our report describes a sweeping and systematic effort by Russia to influence our Presidential election. Is that correct?
    • Schiff, 23:30
      • That is correct.
        • Mueller
  • And during the course of this Russian interference in the election, the Russians made outreach to the Trump campaign, did they not?
    • Schiff, 23:40
      • ...Yeah, that occurred.
        • Mueller
  • It's also clear from your report that during that Russian outreach to the Trump campaign, no one associated with the Trump campaign ever called the FBI to report it. Am I right?
    • Schiff, 23:51
      • I don't know that for sure.
        • Mueller
  • In fact, the campaign welcomed the Russian help, did they not?
    • Schiff, 24:05
      • I think we have... in the report, indications that that occurred, yes.
        • Mueller
  • The President himself called on the Russians to hack Hillary's emails?
    • Schiff, 24:25
      • There was a statement by the President in those general lines.
        • Mueller
  • Your report found that the Trump campaign planned... "a press strategy, communications campaign, and messaging"... based on that Russian assistance?
    • Schiff, 24:43
      • I am not familiar with that.
        • Mueller
  • That language comes from Volume 1, page 54. Apart from the Russians wanting to help Trump win, several individuals associated with the Trump campaign were also trying to make money during the campaign and transition. Is that correct?
    • Schiff, 24:56
      • That's true.
        • Mueller
  • Paul Manafort was trying to make money or achieve debt forgiveness from a Russian oligarch?
    • Schiff, 25:13
      • Generally, that is accurate.
        • Mueller
  • Donald Trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in Moscow?
    • Schiff, 25:23
      • To the extent you're talking about the hotel in Moscow? ...Yes.
        • Mueller
  • When your investigation looked into these matters, numerous Trump associates lied to your team, the grand jury, and to Congress?
    • Schiff, 25:34
      • A number of persons that we interviewed in our investigation... did lie.
        • Mueller
  • Paul Manafort... went so far as to encourage other people to lie?
    • Schiff, 25:56
      • That is accurate.
        • Mueller
  • Manafort's deputy, Rick Gates, lied?
    • Schiff, 26:02
      • That is accurate.
        • Mueller
  • Michael Cohen, the President's lawyer, was indicted for lying?
    • Schiff, 26:06
      • True.
        • Mueller
  • He lied to stay on message with the President?
    • Schiff, 26:11
      • Allegedly, by him.
        • Mueller
  • And when Donald Trump called your investigation a witch hunt, that was also false, was it not?
    • Schiff, 26:15
      • I'd like to think so, yes.
        • Mueller
  • Well, your investigation is not a witch hunt. Is it?
    • Schiff, 26:22
      • It is not a witch hunt.
        • Mueller
  • When the President said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it?
    • Schiff, 26:26
      • True.
        • Mueller
  • When he said it publicly, it was false?
    • Schiff, 26:32
      • He did say publicly that it [the Russian interference] was false, yes.
        • Mueller
  • And when he told it to Putin, that was false, too, wasn't it?
    • Schiff, 26:41
      • That I'm not familiar with.
        • Mueller
  • When the President said he had no business dealings with Russia, that was false, wasn't it?
    • Schiff, 26:45
      • I'm not going to go into the details of the report... along those lines.
        • Mueller
  • When the president said he had no business dealings with Russia, in fact he was seeking to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, was he not?
    • Schiff, 26:58
      • I think there... are some questions about when this was accomplished.
        • Mueller
  • You would consider a billion dollar deal to build a tower in Moscow to be business dealings, wouldn't you, Director Mueller?
    • Schiff, 27:09
      • Absolutely.
        • Mueller
  • In short, your investigation found evidence that Russia wanted to help Trump win the election, right?
    • Schiff, 27:18
      • I think generally, that would be accurate.
        • Mueller
  • Russia informed campaign officials of that? ...through an intermediary that informed Papadopoulos that they could help with the anonymous release of stolen emails?
    • Schiff, 27:27
      • Accurate.
        • Mueller
  • Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump?
    • Schiff, 27:41
      • When you're talking about computer crimes... charged in our case, absolutely.
        • Mueller
  • The Trump campaign officials built their strategy—their messaging strategy—around those stolen documents?
    • Schiff, 27:51
      • Generally, that's true.
        • Mueller
  • And then they lied to cover it up.
    • Schiff, 28:02
      • Generally, that's true.
        • Mueller

  • Generally, a conspiracy requires an offer of something illegal, the acceptance of that offer and an overt act and furtherance of it, is that correct?
  • And Don Jr. was made aware that the Russians were offering dirt on his opponent, correct?
    • Schiff, 1:07:44
      • I don't know that for sure, but one would assume [so], given his presence at the meeting.
        • Mueller
  • And when you say that you would love to get that help, that would constitute acceptance of the offer?
    • Schiff, 1:07:55
      • It's a wide open request.
        • Mueller
  • And it would certainly be evidence of acceptance if you say, when somebody offers you something illegal and you say I would love it. That would... be considered evidence of acceptance.
    • Schiff, 1:08:04
      • I would stay away from addressing one... or two particular situations.
        • Mueller

  • I think you made it clear that you think it unethical, to put it politely, to tout a foreign service like WikiLeaks publishing stolen political documents of a presidential campaign?
    • Schiff, 1:18:16 (Under yield time from Mike Quigley.)
      • Certainly calls for investigation.
        • Mueller
  • I want to... turn to some of the exchange you had with Mr. Welch a bit earlier. I'd like to see if we can broaden the aperture at the end of your hearing. From your testimony today I'd gather that knowingly accepting assistance from a foreign government is an unethical thing to do.
    • Schiff, 2:29:29 (Committee Chair closing questions and statements.)
      • And a crime... under certain circumstances.
        • Mueller
  • And to the degree that it undermines our democracy and our institutions, we can also agree that it's unpatriotic. ...And wrong.
  • The standard behavior for a presidential candidate, or any candidate for that matter, shouldn't be merely whether something is criminal, it should be held to a higher standard... I'm just referring to ethical standards. We should hold our elected officials to a standard higher than mere avoidance of criminality, shouldn't we?
    • Schiff, 2:30:11
      • Absolutely.
        • Mueller
  • You have served this country for decades, you've taken an oath to defend the Constitution. You hold yourself to a standard of doing what's right. ...[W]e can all see that. And befitting the times, I'm sure your reward will be unending criticism, but we are grateful. The need to act in an ethical manner is not just a moral one, but when people act unethically it also exposes them to compromise, particularly in dealing with foreign powers, is that true?
  • Because when someone acts unethically in connection with a foreign partner, that foreign partner can later expose their wrongdoing and extort them.
  • And that... unethical conduct can be of a financial nature, if you have a financial motive or elicit business dealing, am I right?
  • It could also just involve deception. If you are lying about something that can be exposed, then you can be blackmailed.
  • In the case of Michael Flynn, he was secretly doing business with Turkey, correct?
  • And that could open him up to compromise that financial relationship.
  • He also lied about his discussions with the Russian ambassador, and since the Russians were on the other side of the conversation, they could have exposed that, could they not?
  • If a presidential candidate was doing business in Russia and saying he wasn't, Russians could expose that too, could they not?
    • Schiff, 2:32:15
      • I leave that to you.
        • Mueller
  • [L]et's look at Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for the Kremlin, someone that the Trump organization was in contact with to make that deal happen. Your report indicates that Michael Cohen had a long conversation on the phone with someone from Dmitry Peskov's office. Presumably, the Russians could have tape recorded that conversation, could they not?
  • [S]o we have Candidate Trump who's saying "I have no dealings with the Russians," but if the Russians had a tape recording, they could expose that, could they not?
  • That's the stuff of counterintelligence nightmares, is it not?
    • Schiff, 2:32:55
      • It has to do with counterintelligence and the need for a strong counterintelligence entity.
        • Mueller
  • And when this was revealed, that there were these communications, notwithstanding President's denials, the President was confronted about this and he said two things. First... that's not a crime. But I think you and I have already agreed that shouldn't be the standard. Right, Mr. Mueller?
  • The second thing he said was, why should I miss out on all those opportunities? I mean, why indeed. Merely running a Presidential campaign, why should you miss out on making all that money, was the import of his statement. Were you ever able to ascertain whether Donald Trump still intends to build that tower when he leaves office? ...Were you able to ascertain, because he wouldn't answer your questions completely, whether or if he ever ended that desire to build that tower?
    • Schiff, 2:33:30
      • I'm not going to speculate...
        • Mueller
  • If the President was concerned that if he lost his election, he didn't want to miss out on that money, might he have the same concern about losing his reelection?
    • Schiff, 2:34:10
      • Again, speculation.
        • Mueller
  • The difficulty with this... is we are all left to wonder whether the President is representing us or his financial interests. ...The facts you set out in your report and have elucidated here today tell a disturbing tale of a massive Russian intervention in our election, of a campaign so eager to win, so driven by greed, that it was willing to accept the help of a hostile foreign power, and a presidential election decided by a handful of votes in a few key states. Your work tells of a campaign so determined to conceal their corrupt use of foreign help, that they risked going to jail by lying to you, to the FBI, and to Congress about it and, indeed, some have gone to jail over such lies. And your work speaks of a president who committed countless acts of obstruction of justice, that in my opinion and that of many other prosecutors, had it been anyone else in the country, they would have been indicted. Notwithstanding the many things you have addressed today and in your report, there were some questions you could not answer given the constraints you're operating under. You would not tell us whether you would have indicted the president, but for the OLC opinion that you could not. And so the Justice Department will have to make that decision when the President leaves office, both as to the crime of obstruction of justice, and as to the campaign finance fraud scheme that individual [number] one directed and coordinated, and for which Michael Cohen went to jail.
    You would not tell us whether the president should be impeached, nor did we ask you, since it is our responsibility to determine the proper remedy for the conduct outlined in your report. Whether we decide to impeach the President... or we do not, we must take any action necessary to protect the country, while he is in office.
    You would not tell us the results or whether other bodies looked into Russian compromise in the form of money laundering, so we must do so. You would not tell us whether the counterintelligence investigation revealed whether people still serving within the administration pose a risk of compromise, and should never have been given a security clearance, so we must find out. We did not bother to ask whether financial inducements from any Gulf nations were influencing this U.S. policy, since it is outside the four corners of your report, and so we must find out.
    But one thing is clear from your report [and] your testimony from Director Wray's statements yesterday. The Russians massively intervened in 2016, and they are prepared to do so again, in voting that is set to begin a mere eight months from now. The President seems to welcome the help, again. And so, we must make all efforts to harden our election's infrastructure, to ensure there is a paper trail for all voting, to deter the Russians from meddling, to discover it when they do, to disrupt it, and to make them pay. Protecting the sanctity of our elections begins, however, with the recognition that accepting foreign help is disloyal to our country, unethical, and wrong. We cannot control what the Russians do, not completely, but we can decide what we do, and that the centuries old experiment we call American democracy is worth cherishing.

Jim Himes, Connecticut

[edit]
4th congressional district, since 2009
  • [Y]our report opens with two statements of remarkable clarity and power. The first statement is one that is, as of today, not acknowledged by the President of the United States, and that is... "the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion". The second statement remains controversial amongst members of this body, same page... "the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome". Do I have that statement right?
    • Himes, 33:32
      • I believe so.
        • Mueller
  • [T]his attack on our democracy involved, as you said, two operations. First, a social media disinformation campaign... a targeted campaign to spread false information on places like Twitter and Facebook. Is that correct?
    • Himes, 34:10
      • That's correct.
        • Mueller
  • Facebook estimated, as per your report, that the Russian fake images reached 126 million people, is that correct?
    • Himes, 34:26
      • I believe that's the sum that we recorded.
        • Mueller
  • [W]ho did the Russian social media campaign ultimately intend to benefit, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
    • Himes, 34:35
      • Donald Trump... but there were instances where Hillary Clinton was subject to much the same behavior.
        • Mueller
  • The second operation in the Russian attack was a scheme—what we called the hack and dump—to steal and release hundreds of thousands of e-mails from the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. Is Is that a fair summary?
    • Himes, 34:53
      • That is.
        • Mueller
  • Did your investigation find that the releases of the hacked e-mails were strategically timed to maximize impact on the election? ...Page 36 ..."the release of the documents were designed and timed to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election." ...[W]hich presidential candidate was Russia's hacking and dumping operation designed to benefit, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
    • Himes, 35:05
      • Mr. Trump.
        • Mueller
  • [I]s it possible that this sweeping and systematic effort by Russia actually had an effect on the outcome of the Presidential election? ...One hundred and twenty-six million Facebook impressions, fake rallies, attacks on Hillary Clinton's health, would you rule out that it might have had some effect on the election?
    • Himes, 35:35
      • I'm not going to speculate.
        • Mueller
  • Your report describes... a third avenue of Russian interference, and that's the links and contacts between the Trump campaign and individuals tied to the Russian government.
    • Himes, 36:00
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • [S]lide one... is about George Papadopoulos and it reads "On May 6th, 2016, 10 days after that meeting with Mifsud,"... much discussed today... "Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton." And... that's exactly what happened two months later, is it not?
    • Himes, 36:24
      • I can speak to the excerpt that you have on screen as being accurate... but not the second half of your question.
        • Mueller
  • [T]he second half... page six... is that on July 22nd, through WikiLeaks, thousands of these emails that were... stolen by the Russian government appeared, correct? ...This is the WikiLeaks posting of those e-mails. ...[B]efore the public or the FBI ever knew, the Russians previewed for a Trump campaign official, George Papadopoulos, that they had stolen e-mails that they could release anonymously to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Is that correct?
    • Himes, 37:05
      • I'm not going to speak to... that.
        • Mueller
  • [R]ather than report this contact with Joseph Mifsud, and the notion there that was dirt that the campaign could use, rather than report that to the FBI—that I think most of my constituents would expect an individual to do—Papadopoulos... lied about his Russian contacts to you. Is that correct?
    • Himes, 37:50
      • That's true.
        • Mueller
  • We have an election coming up in 2020... If a campaign receives an offer of dirt from a foreign individual or a government, generally speaking, should that campaign report those contacts?
    • Himes, 38:12
      • It should be [reported], and [if not reported] can be, depending on the circumstances, a crime.
        • Mueller

Terri Sewell, Alabama

[edit]
7th congressional district, since 2011
  • I'd like to turn your attention to the June 9th, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. Slide two... [Vol. I. p. 113] is part of an e-mail chain between... Donald Trump Jr. and a publicist representing the son of a Russian oligarch. The e-mail exchange ultimately led to the now infamous June 9th, 2016 meeting. The e-mail from the publicist... reads... "The Crown prosecutor of Russia... offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and... is part of Russia and its government's support of Mr. Trump." In this e-mail, Donald Trump Jr. is being told that the Russian government wants to pass along information which would hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. Is that correct?
    • Sewell, 43:35
      • That's correct.
        • Mueller
  • Trump Jr.'s response to that e-mail is slide three. He said... "If it is what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer." Then Donald Jr. invited senior campaign officials Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner to the meeting, did he not?
    • Sewell, 44:30
      • He did.
        • Mueller
  • This e-mail exchange is evidence of an offer of illegal assistance, is it not?
    • Sewell, 44:50
      • I cannot adopt that characterization.
        • Mueller
  • But isn't it against the law for a presidential campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign government.
    • Sewell, 44:58
      • Generally speaking, yes, but... cases are... unique.
        • Mueller
  • [P]age 184 in Volume 1... the Federal Campaign Finance Law broadly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, etc., and... foreign nationals may not make a contribution or donation of money or anything of value. It says clearly in the report itself.
    • Sewell, 45:11
      • Thank you.
        • Mueller
  • [L]et's turn to what actually happened at the meeting. When Donald Trump Junior and the others got to the June 9th meeting, they realized that the Russian delegation didn't have the promised... "dirt." ...[T]hey got upset about that, did they not?
    • Sewell, 45:31
      • Generally, yes.
        • Mueller
  • Volume 1, page 118... Trump Junior asked what are we doing here? What... do they have on Clinton? And during the meeting, Kushner... texted Manafort saying it was... "a waste of time"... Is that correct?
    • Sewell, 45:31
      • I believe it's in the report, along the lines you specify.
        • Mueller
  • [T]op Trump campaign officials learned that Russia wanted to help Donald Trump's campaign by giving him dirt on his opponent. Trump Junior said, loved it. Then he and senior officials held a meeting with the Russians to try to get the Russian help, but they were disappointed because the dirt wasn't as good as they hoped. ...[D]id anyone to your knowledge in the Trump campaign ever tell the FBI of this offer?
    • Sewell, 46:09
      • I don't believe so.
        • Mueller
  • Wouldn't it be true, sir, that if they had reported it to the FBI or anyone in the campaign during the course of your two-year investigation, you would have uncovered such a...
    • Sewell, 46:48
      • I would hope, yes.
        • Mueller
  • [I]s it not the responsibility of political campaigns to inform the FBI if they receive information from a foreign government?
    • Sewell, 46:59
      • I would think... that's something they would and should do.
        • Mueller
  • Not only did the campaign not tell the FBI, they sought to hide the existence of the June 9th meeting for over a year. Is that not correct?
    • Sewell, 47:11
      • On the general characterization, I would question it. If you're referring to later initiative that flowed from the media, then...
        • Mueller
  • No, what I'm suggesting is that you've said in Volume 2, page 5, on several occasions the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the email, setting up the June 9th meeting.
    • Sewell, 47:33
      • Yes, that's accurate.
        • Mueller
  • [G]iven this illegal assistance by Russians... even given that, you did not charge Donald Trump Junior or any of the other senior officials with conspiracy. Is that right?
    • Sewell, 47:46
      • Correct. ... [I]f you're talking about "other individuals"... [as] the attendees on June 9th, that's accurate.
        • Mueller
  • [E]ven though... you didn't charge them with conspiracy, don't you think the American people would be concerned these three senior campaign officials eagerly sought a foreign adversary's help to win elections, and don't you think that reporting that [to the FBI] is important, [so] that we don't set a precedent for future elections?
    • Sewell, 48:07
      • I can't accept that characterization.
        • Mueller
  • I think that it seems like a betrayal of American values... if not being criminal, [it] is unethical and wrong, and... we would not want to set a precedent that political campaigns would not divulge... foreign governments' assistance.

André Carson, Indiana

[edit]
7th congressional district, since 2008
  • I want to look more closely, sir, at the Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, an individual who I believe betrayed our country, who lied to a grand jury, who tampered with witnesses, and who repeatedly tried to use his position with the Trump campaign to make more money. Let's focus on the betrayal and greed. Your investigation, sir, found a number of troubling contacts between Mr. Manafort and Russian individuals during and after the campaign. Is that right sir?
    • Carson, 54:03
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • In addition to the June 9th meeting just discussed, Manafort... met several times with... Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assessed to have ties with Russian intel agencies. Is that right, sir?
    • Carson, 54:33
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • Mr. Manafort didn't just meet with him. He shared private, Trump campaign polling information with this man linked to Russian intelligence. Is that right, sir?
    • Carson, 54:46
      • That is correct.
        • Mueller
  • And in turn, the information was shared with a Russian oligarch tied to Vladimir Putin. Is that right, sir?
    • Carson, 54:57
      • Allegedly.
        • Mueller
  • [M]eeting with him wasn't enough. Sharing internal polling information wasn't enough. Mr. Manafort went so far as to offer this Russian oligarch, tied to Putin, a private briefing on the campaign. Is that right, sir?
    • Carson, 55:05
      • Yes, sir.
        • Mueller
  • Mr. Manafort also discussed internal campaign strategy on four battleground states—Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota—with the Russian intelligence linked individual. Did he not, sir?
    • Carson, 55:22
      • That's reflected in the report, as were the items you listed previously.
        • Mueller
  • [B]ased on your decades of years of experience at the FBI, would you agree, sir, that it creates a national security risk, when a Presidential campaign chairman shares private polling information on the American people, private political strategy related to winning the votes of the American people, and private information about American battleground states with a foreign adversary?
    • Carson, 55:39
      • I'm not going to speculate along those lines. To the extent that it's within the lines of the report, then I support it. Anything beyond that, is not part of that which I would support.
        • Mueller
  • Well, I think it does [create a national security risk], sir. I think it shows an infuriating lack of patriotism from the very people seeking the highest office in the land. Director Mueller, Manafort didn't share this information in exchange for nothing. Did he, sir?
    • Carson, 56:20
      • I can't answer that question without knowing more about the... question.
        • Mueller
  • [I]t's clear that he hoped to be paid back money he was owed by Russian or Ukrainian oligarchs in return for the passage of private campaign information. Correct, sir?
    • Carson, 56:40
      • That... is true.
        • Mueller
  • [A]s my colleague Mr. Heck will discuss later, greed corrupts. Would you agree, sir, that the sharing of private campaign information in exchange for money, represents a particular kind of corruption. One that presents a national security risk to our country, sir?
    • Carson, 56:51
      • I'm not going to opine on that. I don't have the expertise in that arena to really opine.
        • Mueller
  • Would you agree, sir, that Manafort's contacts with Russians close to Vladimir Putin, and his efforts to exchange private information on Americans for money, left him vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians?
    • Carson, 57:13
      • I think generally so, that would be the case.
        • Mueller
  • Would you agree, sir, these acts demonstrated a betrayal of the democratic values that our country rests on?
    • Carson, 57:29
      • I can't agree with that. Not that it's not true, but I cannot agree with it.
        • Mueller
  • I can tell you that in my years of experience as a law enforcement officer and as a member of Congress, fortunate to serve on the Intel Committee, I know enough to say yes. Trading political secrets for money with a foreign adversary can corrupt, and it can leave you open to blackmail, and it... represents the betrayal of the values underpinning our democracy. ...

Jackie Speier, California

[edit]
16th congressional district, since 2008
  • I can say without fear of contradiction that you are the greatest patriot in this room today...
  • You said in your report... that the Russian intervention was sweeping and systematic. ...I don't think it was just an intervention. I think it was an invasion. ...I don't think it was just sweeping and systematic. I think it was sinister and scheming. ...[O]ne of my colleagues earlier here referred to this Russian intervention as a hoax, and I'd like to get your comment on that. On page 26... you talk about the Internet Research Agency, and how tens of millions of U.S. persons became engaged with the posts that they made, that there were some 80,000 posts on Facebook; that Facebook itself admitted that 126 million people had probably seen the posts, that were put up by the Internet Research Agency... [T]hey had 3,800 Twitter accounts and had designed more than 175,000 tweets, that probably reached 1.4 million people. The Internet Research Agency was spending about $1.25 million a month on all of this social media in the United States, in what I would call an invasion in our country. Would you agree that it was not a hoax, that the Russians were engaged in, trying to impact our election?
    • Speier, 1:03:38
      • Absolutely. It was not a hoax. The indictments we returned against the Russians—two different ones—were substantial in their scope, using that scope word again; and I think... we have underplayed, to a certain extent, that aspect of our investigation—that has, and would have, long term damage to the United States—that we need to move quickly to address.
        • Mueller
  • The Internet Research Agency actually started in 2014, by sending over staff (as tourists, I guess) to start looking at where they wanted to engage. ...[T]here are many that suggest—and I'm interested in your opinion—as to whether or not Russia is presently in the United States looking for ways to impact the 2020 election.
    • Speier, 1:05:47
      • I can't speak to that. That would be in... levels of classification.
        • Mueller
  • Often times when we engage in these hearings, we forget the forest for the trees. You have a very large report here of over 400 pages, most Americans have not read it. We have read it. Actually the FBI director yesterday said he hadn't read it, which was a little discouraging. But on behalf of the American people, I want to give you a minute and 39 seconds to tell the American people what you would like them to glean from this report.
    • Speier, 1:06:20 (Yielded to Committee Chairman Schiff.)
      • [W]e spent substantial time assuring the integrity of the report, understanding that it would be our living message to those who come after us. But it also is a signal, a flag, to those of us who have some responsibility in this area, to exercise those responsibilities swiftly, and don't let this problem continue to linger as it has over so many years.
        • Mueller

Mike Quigley, Illinois

[edit]
5th congressional district, since 2009
  • Earlier... and throughout today you have stated the policy that a seated president cannot be indicted, correct?
  • And upon questioning this morning, you were asked... could a president be indicted after their service, correct?
  • And your answer was that they could.
    • Quigley, 1:14:07
      • They could.
        • Mueller
  • So the follow up question that should be concerning is what if a president serves beyond the statute of limitations?
    • Quigley, 1:14:03
      • I don't know the answer to that one.
        • Mueller
  • Would it not indicate that if the statute of limitations on federal crimes such as this are five years, that a president who serves a second term is therefore, under the policy, above the law?
    • Quigley, 1:14:19
      • I'm not certain I would agree with the conclusion. I'm not certain that I can see the possibility that you suggest.
        • Mueller
  • The statute doesn't toll, is that correct?
    • Quigley, 1:14:42
      • I don't know specifically.
        • Mueller
  • It clearly doesn't. ...[A]s the American public is watching this and perhaps learning about many of these for the first time, we need to consider that, and that the other alternatives are perhaps all that we have, but I appreciate your response.
    Earlier in questioning, someone mentioned that... it was a question involved whether anyone in the Trump political world publicized the emails—whether or not that was the case. I just want to refer to Volume 1, page 60, where we learned that Trump Jr. publicly tweeted a link to the leak of stolen Podesta emails in October of 2016. You familiar with that?
  • So that would at least be a republishing of this information, would it not?
    • Quigley, 1:15:31
      • I'm not certain I would agree with that.
        • Mueller
  • Director Pompeo assessed WikiLeaks... as a hostile intelligence service. Given your law enforcement experience and your knowledge of what WikiLeaks did here, and what they do generally, would you assess that to be accurate, or something similar? How would you assess what WikiLeaks does?
  • Would it be fair to describe them, as you would agree with Director Pompeo... that it's a hostile intelligence service, correct?
  • If we could put up slide six. "This just came out... WikiLeaks. I love WikiLeaks," Donald Trump, October 10, 2016, "This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it," Donald Trump, October 12, 2016. "This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove," Donald Trump, October 31, 2016. "Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks," Donald Trump, November 4, 2016. Do any of those quotes disturb you, Mr. Director? ...How do you react?
    • Quigley, 1:16:21 (Above statements in quotes may not be from the Mueller Report.)
      • Well... problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays, in terms of giving some... hope or some boost to what is, and should be illegal activity.
        • Mueller
  • Volume 1, page 59, "Donald Trump Jr. had direct electronic communications with WikiLeaks during the campaign period." ...[page 60] "On October 3, 2016, WikiLeaks sent another direct message to Trump Jr., asking 'you guys' to help disseminate a link alleging candidate Clinton had advocated a drone to attack Julian Assange. Trump Jr. responded that... 'he had already done so' ". Same question. Is this behavior, at the very least, disturbing? Your reaction?
    • Quigley, 1:17:20
      • Disturbing, and also subject to investigation.
        • Mueller
  • Would it be described as aid and comfort to a hostile intelligence service, sir?

Eric Swalwell, California

[edit]
15th congressional district, since 2013
  • [A]s a prosecutor you would agree that if a witness or suspect lies, or obstructs, or tampers with witnesses, or destroys evidence during an investigation, that generally that conduct can be used to show a consciousness of guilt. Would you agree with that?


  • Let's go through the different people associated with the Trump campaign and this investigation, who lied to you and other investigators to cover up their disloyal and unpatriotic conduct. If we could put Exhibit 8 up. Director Mueller, I'm showing you Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, Political Advisor Roger Stone, Deputy Campaign Manager Rick Gates, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Donald Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen, and Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadopoulos. These six individuals have each been charged, convicted or lied to your office or other investigators. Is that right?
    • Swalwell, 1:37:56
      • That's all, though I look askance at Mr. Stone, because he is... in a different case, here in D.C.
        • Mueller
  • George Papadopoulos, the President's Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, lied to the FBI about his communications about Russia's possession of dirt on Hillary Clinton. Is that right?
    • Swalwell, 1:38:59
      • Correct. Yes.
        • Mueller
  • The President's campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied about meetings that he had with someone with ties to Russian intelligence. Is that correct?
    • Swalwell, 1:39:10
      • That's true.
        • Mueller
  • And your investigation was hampered by Trump campaign official's use of encryption communications. Is that right?
    • Swalwell, 1:39:19
      • We believe that to be the case.
        • Mueller
  • You also believe to be the case that your investigation was hampered by the deletion of electronic messages. Is that correct?
    • Swalwell, 1:39:29
      • It would be, yes. Generally, any case would be, if those kinds of communications are... used.
        • Mueller
  • For example, you noted that deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, who shared internal campaign polling data with the person with ties to Russian intelligence at the direction of Manafort, that Mr. Gates deleted those communications on a daily basis. Is that right?
    • Swalwell, 1:39:45
      • I take your word. I'm saying I don't know specifically, but if it's in the report, then I support it.
        • Mueller
  • That's right Director. It's Volume 1, page 136. ...In addition to that, other information was inaccessible because your office determined it was protected by attorney-client privilege. Is that correct?
    • Swalwell, 1:40:06
      • That is true.
        • Mueller
  • That would include that you do not know whether communications between Donald Trump and his personal attorneys Jay Sekulow, Rudy Giuliani, and others, discouraged witnesses from cooperating with the government. Is that right?
    • Swalwell, 1:40:20
      • I'm not going to talk to that.
        • Mueller
  • That would also mean that you can't talk to whether or not pardons were dangled through the President's attorneys because [of] the shield of attorney-client privilege.
    • Swalwell, 1:40:34
      • ...I'm not going to discuss that.
        • Mueller
  • Did you want to interview Donald Trump Jr.? [or] ...Did you subpoena Donald Trump, Jr.?
    • Swalwell, 1:40:48
      • I'm not going to discuss that.
        • Mueller
  • Did you want to interview the President?
  • [O]n January 1, 2017 through March 2019, Donald Trump met with Vladimir Putin, in person 6 times, called him 10 times, and exchanged 4 letters with him. Between that time period, how many times did you meet with Donald Trump?
    • Swalwell, 1:41:03
      • I'm not going to get into that.
        • Mueller
  • He did not meet with you in person. Is that correct?
    • Swalwell, 1:41:28
      • He did not.
        • Mueller
  • As a result of lies, deletion of text messages, obstruction, and witness tampering, is it fair to say that you were unable to fully assess the scope and scale of Russia's interference in the 2016 election, and Trump's role in that interference?
    • Swalwell, 1:41:32
      • I'm not certain I would adopt that characterization in total. There are maybe pieces of it that are accurate, but not in total.
        • Mueller
  • But you did state in Volume 1, page 10, that while this report embodies factual and legal determinations, the office believes it to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible. Given these identified gaps, the office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light. Is that correct?
    • Swalwell, 1:41:56
      • That is correct. We don't know what we don't know.
        • Mueller
  • Why is it so important that witnesses cooperate and tell the truth in an investigation like this?
    • Swalwell, 1:42:17
      • Because the testimony of the witness goes to the heart of just about any criminal case you have.
        • Mueller

Joaquin Castro, Texas

[edit]
20th congressional district, since 2013
  • Donald Trump over the years has surrounded himself with some very shady people. People that lied for him. People that covered up for him. People that helped him enrich himself. I want to talk specifically about one of those instances that's in your report. Specifically let's turn to the Trump Tower Moscow project, which you described in your report as... "a highly lucrative deal for the Trump Organization," is that right? ...[I]t's on volume two, page 135. It's described at highly lucrative.
    • Castro, 1:47:38
      • OK, I have it. ...
        • Mueller
  • Your office prosecuted Michael Cohen—and Michael Cohen was Donald Trump's lawyer—for lying to this Committee about several aspects of the Trump organization's pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow deal, is that right?
    • Castro, 1:48:28
      • That's correct.
        • Mueller
  • According to your report, Cohen lied to... "minimize links between the project and Trump" and to... "stick to the party line"... in order not to contradict Trump's public message that no connection existed between Trump and Russia," is that right?
    • Castro, 1:48:41
      • Yes, that's correct.
        • Mueller
  • Now when you're talking about the party line here, the party line in this case...
    • Castro, 1:49:06
      • If I could interject, the one thing I should have said at the outset: It was in the report, and consequently I do believe it to be true.
        • Mueller
  • The party line, in this case, was that the deal ended in January 2016. In other words, they were saying that the deal ended... before the Republican primaries. In truth though, the deal extended to June 2016, when Donald Trump was already the presumptive Republican nominee, is that correct?
    • Castro, 1:49:18
      • That is correct.
        • Mueller
  • The party line was also that Cohen discussed the deal with Trump only three times, when in truth they discussed it multiple times, is that right?
    • Castro, 1:49:41
      • Also true, and... part of the basis for the plea that he entered for lying to this entity.
        • Mueller
  • The party line was also that Cohen and Trump never discussed traveling to Russia during the campaign, when in truth, they did discuss it, is that right?
    • Castro, 1:50:03
      • That's accurate.
        • Mueller
  • And the party line was that Cohen never received a response from the Kremlin to his inquiries about the Trump Tower Moscow deal. In fact, Cohen not only received a response from the Kremlin to his e-mail, but also had a lengthy conversation with a Kremlin representative who had a detailed understanding of the project, is that right?
    • Castro, 1:50:14
      • If it's... in the report... that is [an] accurate recitation of that piece of the report.
        • Mueller
  • So you... had the candidate Trump... saying he had no business dealings with Russia, his lawyer, who was lying about it, and then the Kremlin, who during that time was talking to President Trump's lawyer about the deal. Is that right?
    • Castro, 1:50:41
      • I can't adopt your characterization.
        • Mueller
  • Not only was Cohen lying on Trump's behalf, but so was the Kremlin. On August 30, 2017, two days after Cohen submitted his false statement to this Committee claiming that he never received a response to his e-mail to the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin's Press Secretary told reporters that the Kremlin left the e-mail unanswered. That statement by Putin's Press Secretary was false, wasn't it?
    • Castro, 1:50:59
      • I can't speak to that.
        • Mueller
  • Although it was widely reported in the press.
    • Castro, 1:51:29
      • Again, I can't speak to that, particularly if it was dependent upon media sources.
        • Mueller
  • But it was consistent with the lie that Cohen had made to the Committee, is that right?
    • Castro, 1:51:37
      • I'm not sure if I could go that far.
        • Mueller
  • So Cohen, President Trump and the Kremlin were all telling the same lie?
    • Castro, 1:51:43
      • I defer to you on that. I can't get into details.
        • Mueller
  • [D]id your investigation evaluate whether President Trump could be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians, because the Kremlin knew that Trump and his associates lied about connections to Russia, related to the Trump Tower deal?
    • Castro, 1:51:59
      • I can't speak to that.
        • Mueller

Denny Heck, Washington

[edit]
10th congressional district, since 2013
  • I'd like to go to the motives behind the Trump campaign encouragement and acceptance of help during the election. Obviously a clear motivation was to help them in... what would turn out to be a very close election. But there was another key motivation, and that was, frankly, the desire to make money. I always try to remember what my dad, who never had the opportunity to go beyond the 8th grade, taught me, which was that I should never ever underestimate the capacity of some people to cut corners and even more, in order to worship and chase the almighty buck. And this is important, because I think it... does go to the heart of why the Trump campaign was so unrelentingly intent on developing relationships with the Kremlin. So, let's quickly revisit one financial scheme, we just discussed, which was the Trump Tower in Moscow. We indicated earlier that it was a lucrative deal. Trump, in fact, stood in his company, to earn many millions of dollars on that deal, did they not, sir?
  • ...Mr. Cohen, his attorney, testified before this committee that President Trump believed the deal required Kremlin approval. Is that consistent with what he told you?
    • Heck, 1:58:17
      • I'm not certain whether it's Mr. Trump himself, or others associated with that enterprise, that had discussed the necessity of having the input from the state—meaning the Russian government—in order... for it to go forward successfully.
        • Mueller
  • Isn't it also true that Donald Trump viewed his presidential campaign, as he told top campaign aides, that the campaign was an infomercial for the Trump organization and his properties?
    • Heck, 1:58:45
      • I'm not familiar with that.
        • Mueller
  • Let's turn to Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort. Did... your investigation find any evidence that Manafort intended to use his position as Trump's campaign chair for his own personal financial benefit?
    • Heck, 1:59:01
      • I would say there was some indication of that, but I won't go further.
        • Mueller
  • I think you'll find it on page 135 of Volume 1.
    During the transition, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner met with Sergei Gorkov, the head of a Russian-owned bank     that... is under U.S. sanctions. And according to the head of the bank, he met with Kushner, in his capacity as CEO of Kushner Companies, to discuss business opportunities, is that correct, sir?
    • Heck, 1:59:21
      • I'm not certain about that...
        • Mueller
  • It was asserted... Volume 1... pages 161 and 162.
    Your report notes that at the time, Kushner Companies were trying to renegotiate a... billion dollar lease of their flagship building at 666 5th avenue, correct?
    • Heck, 1:59:53
      • I'm not familiar with those financial arrangements.
        • Mueller
  • Your investigation determined that Mr. Prince had not known nor conducted business with Dmitriev before Trump won the election, correct?
    • Heck, 2:00:52
      • I defer to the report on that.
        • Mueller
  • [I]t does, and yet Prince, who had connections to top... Trump administration officials, met with Dimitriev, during the transition period, to discuss business opportunities, among other things. But it wasn't just Trump and his associates who were trying to make money off this deal, nor hide it, nor lie about it. Russia was, too. That was the whole point, to gain relief from sanctions, which would hugely benefit their incredibly wealthy oligarchs. For example, sanctions relief was discussed at that June 9 meeting in the Trump Tower. Was it not, sir?
    • Heck, 2:01:08
      • Yes, but it was not a main subject for discussion.
        • Mueller
  • Trump administration National Security Advisor designate Michael Flynn also discussed sanctions in a secret conversation with the Russian ambassador. Did he not?
  • Well, I will, and I'd further assert that was not only dangerous, it was un-American. Greed corrupts. Greed corrupts, and it is a terrible foundation for developing American foreign policy.

Peter Welch, Vermont

[edit]
At-Large congressional district, since 2007
  • [D]id you find there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
    • Welch, 2:07:17
      • [W]e don't use the word collusion. The word we usually use is not collusion, but one of the other terms that fills in when collusion is not used. In any event, we decided not to use the word collusion in as much as it has no relevance to the criminal law arena.
        • Mueller
  • The term is conspiracy that you prefer to use?
    • Welch, 2:07:59
      • Conspiracy, exactly right.
        • Mueller
  • You help me, I'll help you. ...It's an agreement.
  • And in fact, you had to then make a charging decision after your investigation, where, unless it was enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt, you wouldn't make a charge, correct?
    • Welch, 2:08:06
      • Generally that's the case.
        • Mueller
  • But making that decision does not mean your investigation failed to turn up evidence of conspiracy.
    • Welch, 2:08:22
      • Absolutely correct.
        • Mueller
  • I'll go through some of the significant findings that your exhaustive investigation made. You found... that from May 2016 until the end of the campaign, campaign chairman Mr. Manafort gave private polling information to Russian agents, correct?
  • And you also found that on August 2, Mr. Manafort met with the person tied to Russian intelligence, Mr. Kilimnik, and gave him internal campaign strategy, aware that Russia was intending to do a misinformation social media campaign, correct?
    • Welch, 2:09:27
      • I'm not certain of the tie [to Russian intelligence] there.
        • Mueller
  • But the fact of that meeting, do you agree with?
    • Welch, 2:09:47
      • The fact that the meeting took place is accurate.
        • Mueller
  • And you also talked earlier about the finding in your investigation that in September and October of 2016, Donald Trump Jr. had e-mail communications with WikiLeaks, now indicted, about releasing information damaging to the Clinton campaign, correct?
  • [Y]ou made a... prosecutorial decision, that this would not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but I ask if you share my concern. ...[H]ave we established a new normal from this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns, so that if any one of us running for the U.S. House, any candidate for the U.S. Senate, any candidate for the Presidency of the United States, aware that if a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report that to the FBI or other authorities?
    • Welch, 2:10:40
      • ...I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is.
        • Mueller
  • And [any candidate] would... have the ability, without fear of legal repercussion, to meet with agents of that foreign entity hostile to the American election? ...Is that an apprehension that you share with me?
  • And that there would be no repercussions whatsoever to Russia, if they did this again, and as you've stated earlier, as we sit here, they're doing it now. Is that correct?
    • Welch, 2:11:39
      • You're absolutely right.
        • Mueller
  • Do you have any advice to this Congress, as together, what we should do to protect our electoral system, and accept responsibility on our part, to report to you or your successor, when we're aware of hostile foreign engagement in our elections?
    • Welch, 2:11:55
      • I would say the basis—the first line of defense really—is the ability of the various agencies who have some piece of this, to not only share information, but share expertise, share targets, and we use the full resources that we have, to address this problem.
        • Mueller

Sean Patrick Maloney, New York

[edit]
18th congressional district, since 2013
  • I'm going to be asking you about appendix C to you report and, in particular, the decision not to do a sworn interview with the President. It's really the only subject I want to talk to you about, sir. Why didn't you subpoena the President?
    • Maloney, 2:12:55
      • At the outset, after we took over the investigation, and began it, and pursued it, quite obviously one of the things we anticipated wanting to accomplish, and that is... having the interview of the President. We negotiated... with him for a little over a year, and... what you adverted in the Appendix lays out our expectations, as a result of those negotiations. But finally, we were almost towards the end of our investigation and we'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. ...[T]he 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.
        • Mueller
  • Right, but as we sit here, you've never had an opportunity to ask the President, in person, questions under oath, and so obviously that must have been a difficult decision. And you're right, Appendix C lays that out, and indeed, I believe you describe the in-person interview as vital. That's your word. And of course you make clear, you had the authority and the legal justification to do it, as you point out. You waited a year. You put up with a lot of negotiations. You made numerous accommodations, which you lay out, so that he could prepare and not be surprised. I take it you were trying to be fair to the President. And... you were going to limit the questions, when you got to written questions, to Russia only. And... you did go with written questions after about nine months, sir, right? And the President responded to those, and you have some hard language for what you thought of those responses. What did you think of the President's written responses, Mr. Mueller?
    • Maloney, 2:14:25
      • It was certainly not as useful as the interview would be.
        • Mueller
  • In fact... you pointed out, and by my count, there were more than 30 times when the president said he didn't recall, he didn't remember, no independent recollection, no current recollection, and I take it by your answer that it wasn't as helpful. That's why you used words like incomplete, imprecise, inadequate, insufficient. Is that a fair summary of what you thought of those written answers?
    • Maloney, 2:15:21
      • That is a fair summary, and I presume that comes from the report.
        • Mueller
  • And yet... the President didn't ever claim the Fifth Amendment, did he?
    • Maloney, 2:15:48
      • I'm not going to talk to that.
        • Mueller
  • Well... from what I can tell sir, at one point it was vital, and then at another point it wasn't vital. ...[W]hy did it stop being vital, and I can only think of three explanations. One is, that somebody told you, you couldn't do it, but nobody told you couldn't subpoena the President, is that right?
    • Maloney, 2:15:55
      • No, we understood we could subpoena the President.
        • Mueller
  • Rosenstein didn't tell you, Whitaker didn't tell you, Barr didn't tell you, you couldn't subpoena the President.
    • Maloney, 2:16:12
      • We could serve a subpoena.
        • Mueller
  • So, the only other explanation—well, there's two others I guess—one, that you just flinched. That you had the opportunity to do it, and you didn't do it. But sir, you don't strike me as the kind of guy who flinches.
    • Maloney, 2:16:17
      • I'd hope not.
        • Mueller
  • Well then the third explanation... I can think of is that... you didn't think you needed it. And in fact, what caught my eye was page 13 of Volume 2, where you said, in fact, you had a substantial body of evidence, and you sight a bunch of cases there... about how you often have to prove intent to obstruct justice without an in-person interview. That's the kind of nature of it, and you used terms like a substantial body of evidence, significant evidence, of the president's intent. So, my question sir is, did you have sufficient evidence of the president's intent to obstruct justice, and is that why you didn't do the interview?
    • Maloney, 2:16:26
      • No, there's a balance. In other words, how much evidence you have that will satisfy the last element, against how much time are you willing to spend in the courts litigating... the interview with the president.
        • Mueller
  • In this case, you felt that you had enough evidence of the president's intent?
    • Maloney, 2:17:15
      • We had to make a balanced decision in terms of how much evidence we had, compared to length of time it would take to do the...
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou thought that if you gave it to the Attorney General or to this Congress, that there was sufficient evidence, that it was better than that delay? ... [T]hat it was better than the delay to present the sufficient evidence, your term of the President's intent to obstruct justice, to the Attorney General, and to this committee. Isn't that why you didn't do the interview?
    • Maloney, 2:17:30
      • No. The reason... we didn't do the interview was because of the length of time that it would take to resolve the issues attended to that.
        • Mueller

Val Demings, Florida

[edit]
10th congressional district, since 2017
  • I too want to focus on the written responses that the President did provide and the continued efforts to lie and cover up what happened during the 2016 election. Were the President's answers submitted under oath?
  • Were these all the answers your office wanted to ask the President about Russia interference in the 2016 election?
    • Demings, 2:18:35
      • No, not necessarily.
        • Mueller
  • So there were other questions that you wanted to answer.
  • Did you analyze his written answers on Russian interference to draw conclusions about the President's credibility?
    • Demings, 2:18:46
      • No, it was perhaps one of the factors, but nothing more than that.
        • Mueller
  • So, what did you determine about the president's credibility?
    • Demings, 2:18:58
      • And that I can't get into.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou've probably had an opportunity to analyze the credibility of countless witnesses, but you weren't able to do so with this witness?
    • Demings, 2:19:04
      • [W]ith every witness, particularly a... leading witness, one assesses the credibility day by day, witness by witness, document by document. And that's what happened in this case. So we started with very little, and then by the end we ended up with a... fair amount.
        • Mueller
  • [L]et's go through some of the answers to take a closer look at his credibility, because it seems to me... that his answers were not credible at all. Did some of President Trump's incomplete answers relate to Trump Tower Moscow?
  • [D]id you ask the President whether he had... at any time, directed or suggested that... discussions about Trump Moscow project should cease? ..We're still in Appendix C, Section 1.7. ...Because the President did not answer whether he had, at any time, directed or suggested that discussions about the Trump Moscow project should cease, but he has since made public comments about this topic. ...Did the President fully answer that question in his written statement to you about the Trump Moscow project ceasing? Again, in Appendix C. It would be Appendix... C1, but let me move forward. Nine days after he submitted his written answers, didn't the president say publicly that he... "decided not to do the project"... And that is in your report. ...Did the President answer your follow-up questions? According to the report there were follow-up questions because of the President's incomplete answers about the Moscow project. Did the President answer your follow up questions either in writing or orally? ...[W]e're now in Volume 2, page 150-151.
  • [T]here were many questions that you asked the President that he simply didn't answer, isn't that correct?
  • [T]here were many answers that contradicted other evidence you had gathered during the investigation, isn't that correct Director Mueller?
  • [T]he President has written answers stating he did not recall having advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks releases, is that correct?
    • Demings, 2:21:53
      • I think that's what he said.
        • Mueller
  • [The following questions remained unanswered by Robert Mueller, for reasons given in his introductory comments.]
    [1.] But didn't your investigation uncover evidence that the President did... have advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks public releases of e-mails damaging to his opponent?
    [2.] Did your investigation determine, after very careful vetting of Rick Gates and Michael Cohen... that you found them to be credible? ...That you found Gates and Cohen to be credible in their statements about WikiLeaks...
    [3.] Could you say Director Mueller that the President was credible?
    • Demings
  • [I]sn't it fair to say that the President's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete— because he didn't answer many of your questions—but where he did, his answers show that he wasn't always being truthful.
    • Demings, 2:22:41
      • ...I would say, generally.
        • Mueller
  • "Generally," Director Mueller, it's one thing for the President to lie to the American people about your investigation, falsely claiming that you found no collusion and no obstruction, but it's something else altogether for him to get away with not answering your questions and lying about them. And as a former law enforcement officer of almost 30 years, I find that a disgrace to our criminal justice system.

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois

[edit]
8th congressional district, since 2017
  • Earlier today you described your report as "detailing a criminal investigation," correct?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:23:33 (Above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • [S]ince it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding the subject matter of your report.
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:23:42
      • That's true.
        • Mueller
  • [S]ince it was outside your purview, your report did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding any Trump administration officials who might potentially be vulnerable to compromise or blackmail by Russia, correct?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:23:55
      • Those decisions probably were made in... the FBI.
        • Mueller
  • But not in your report, correct?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:24:20
      • Not in our report. We avert to the counterintelligence goals of our investigation, which were secondary to any criminal wrongdoing that we could find.
        • Mueller
  • Let's talk about one administration official in particular, namely President Donald Trump. Other than Trump Tower Moscow, your report does not address or detail the President's financial ties or dealings with Russia, correct?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:24:37
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • Similarly, since it was outside your purview, your report does not address the question of whether Russian oligarchs engaged in money laundering through any of the President's businesses, correct?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:24:56
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • And, of course, your office did not obtain the President's tax returns, which could otherwise show foreign financial sources, correct?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:25:09
      • I'm not going to speak to that.
        • Mueller
  • In July 2017 the President said his personal finances were off limits, or outside the purview of your investigation, and he drew a "red line," around his personal finances. Were the President's personal finances outside the purview of your investigation?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:25:19
      • I'm not going to get into that.
        • Mueller
  • Were you instructed by anyone not to investigate the president's personal finances?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:25:40
      • No.
        • Mueller
  • I'd like to turn your attention to counterintelligence risks associated with lying. Individuals can be subject to blackmail if they lie about their interactions with foreign countries, correct?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:25:46
      • True.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou successfully charged former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn of lying to federal agents about his conversations with Russian officials, correct?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:26:03
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • Since it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not address how Flynn's false statements could pose a national security risk because the Russians knew the falsity of those statements, right?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:26:13
      • I cannot get in to that, mainly because there are many elements of the FBI that are looking at different aspects of that issue.
        • Mueller
  • Currently?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:26:35
      • Currently.
        • Mueller
  • As you noted in Volume two of your report, Donald Trump repeated five times in one press conference... in 2016, "I have nothing to do with Russia." Of course Michael Cohen said Donald Trump was not being truthful, because at this time Trump was attempting to build Trump Tower Moscow. Your report does not address whether Donald Trump was compromised in any way because of any potential false statements that he made about Trump Tower Moscow, correct?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:26:39
      • I think that's right.
        • Mueller
  • You've served as FBI Director during three presidential elections, correct?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:27:21
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • And during those three presidential elections, you have never initiated an investigation at the FBI looking into whether a foreign government interfered in our elections, the same way you did in this particular instance, correct?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:27:29
      • I would say, I personally no, but the FBI quite obviously has. The... defense and attack, such as the Russians undertook in 2016.
  • [Y]ou said that every American should pay very close attention to the systematic and sweeping fashion in which the Russians interfered in our democracy. Are you concerned that we are not doing enough currently to prevent this from happening again?
    • Krishnamoorthi, 2:28:15
      • ...[M]uch more needs to be done in order to protect against these intrusions, not just by the Russians, but others as well.
        • Mueller

Republican Representatives

[edit]

Devin Nunes, Ranking Member, California

[edit]
22nd congressional district, since 2003
  • Welcome everyone, to the last gasp of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory. As Democrats continue to foist this spectacle on the American people... the American people may recall, the media first began spreading this conspiracy theory in the spring of 2016, when Fusion GPS, funded by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, started developing the Steele dossier, a collection of outlandish accusations that Trump and his associates were Russian agents. Fusion GPS, Steele and other confederates fed these absurdities to naive or partisan reporters, and to top officials in numerous government agencies, including the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the State Department. Among other things, the FBI used dossier allegations to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. Despite acknowledging dossier allegations as being salacious and unverified, former FBI Director James Comey briefed those allegations to President Obama, and President-elect Trump. Those briefings, conveniently leaked to the press, resulting in the publication of the dossier and launching thousands of false press stories based on the word of a foreign ex-spy. One who admitted he was desperate that Trump lose the election, and who was eventually fired, as an FBI source, for leaking to the press. After Comey himself was fired, by his own admission, he leaked derogatory information on President Trump, to the press, for the specific purpose... of engineering the appointment of a Special Counsel who sits here before us today. The FBI investigation was marred by further corruption and bizarre abuses. Top DOJ official Bruce Ohr, whose own wife worked on Fusion GPS' anti-Trump operation, fed Steele's information to the FBI, even after the FBI fired Steele. The top FBI investigator and his lover, another top FBI official, constantly texted about how much they hated Trump and wanted to stop him from being elected. And the entire investigation was opened, based not on Five Eyes intelligence, but on a tip from a foreign politician about a conversation involving Joseph Mifsud. He's a Maltese diplomat who's widely portrayed as a Russian agent, but seems to have far more connections with Western governments, including our own FBI and... State Department, than with Russia.
    Brazenly ignoring all these red flags as well as the transparent absurdity of the claims they are making, the Democrats have argued for nearly three years that evidence of collusion is hidden just around the corner. Like the Loch Ness monster, they insist it's there, even if no one can find it. ...[I]n March of 2017, Democrats on this committee said they had more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, but they couldn't reveal it yet. Mr. Mueller was soon appointed and they said he would find the collusion. Then when no collusion was found in Mr. Mueller's indictment, the Democrats said we'd find it in his final report. Then when there was no collusion in the report, we were told Attorney General Barr was hiding it. Then when it was clear Barr wasn't hiding anything, we were told it will be revealed through a hearing with Mr. Mueller himself.
    Now that Mr. Mueller is here, they are claiming that the collusion has actually been in his report all along, hidden in plain sight, and they're right. There is collusion in plain sight, collusion between Russia and the Democratic party. The Democrats colluded with Russian sources to develop the Steele dossier, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya colluded with the dossiers key architect, Fusion GPS Head, Glenn Simpson. The Democrats have already admitted, both in interviews and through their usual anonymous statements to reporters, that today's hearing is not about getting information at all. They said they want to "bring the Mueller report to life." And create a television moment through ploys, like having Mr. Mueller recite passages from his own report. In other words, this hearing is political theater, it's a Hail Mary attempt to convince the American people that collusion is real, and 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.
    Among Congressional Democrats, the Russia investigation was never about finding the truth. It's always been a simple media operation, by their own accounts. This operation continues in this room today. Once again, numerous pressing issues this Committee needs to address are put on hold to indulge the political fantasies of people who believed it was their destiny to serve Hillary Clinton's administration. It's time for the curtain to close on the Russia hoax. The conspiracy theory is dead. At some point... we're going to have to get back to work...
    • 9:15 (Above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
  • The FBI claims the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign began on July 31, 2016. But in fact, it began before that. In June 2016 before the investigation officially opened, Trump campaign associates Carter Page and Stephen Miller, a current Trump advisor, were invited to attend a symposium at Cambridge University in July 2016. Your office, however, did not investigate who was responsible for inviting these Trump associates to this symposium. Your investigators also failed to interview Steven Schrage, and American citizen who helped organize the event and invited Carter Page to it. Is that correct? ...
    • Nunes, 28:23
      • ...In those areas, I am going to stay away from.
        • Mueller
  • The first Trump associate to be investigated was General Flynn. Many of the allegations against him stem from false media reports that he had an affair with a Cambridge academic Svetlana Lokhova, and that Lokhova was a Russian spy. Some of these allegations were made public in a 2017 article written by British intelligence historian Christopher Andrew. Your report fails to reveal how or why Andrew and his collaborator, Richard Dearlove, former head of Britain's MI6, spread these allegations. And you failed to interview Svetlana Lokhova about these matters. Is that correct?
    • Nunes, 29:17
      • I'm going to get... into those matters to which you refer.
        • Mueller
  • Let's continue with the... opening of the investigation, supposedly on July 31st, 2016. The investigation was not opened, based on an official product from Five Eyes intelligence, but based on a rumor conveyed by Alexander Downer. On Volume 1, page 89, your report describes him blandly as a representative of a foreign government. But he was actually a long time Australian politician—not a military or intelligence official—who had previously arranged a $25 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, and has previous ties to Dearlove. So Downer conveys a rumor he supposedly heard about a conversation between Papadopoulos and Joseph Mifsud. James Comey has publicly called Mifsud a Russian agent, yet your report does not refer to Mifsud as a Russian agent. Mifsud has extensive contacts with western governments and the FBI. For example, there is a recent photo of him standing next to Boris Johnson, the new prime minister of Great Britain. What we're trying to figure out... is if our NATO allies or Boris Johnson have been compromised. ...Comey says Mifsud is a Russian agent, you do not. So... do you stand by what's in the report?
    • Nunes, 30:15
      • I'd stand by that which is in the report and not so necessarily with that, which... is not in the report.
        • Mueller
  • I want to return to Mr. Downer. He denies that Papadopoulos mentioned anything to him about Hillary Clinton's e-mails, and... Mifsud denies mentioning... that to Papadopoulos. He denies that Papadopoulos mentioned anything to him about Hillary Clinton's e-mails, and... Mifsud denies mentioning them to Papadopoulos in the first place. So how does the FBI know to continually ask Papadopoulos about Clinton's e-mails for the rest of 2016? Even more strangely, your sentencing memo on Papadopoulos blames him for hindering the FBI's ability to potentially detain or arrest Mifsud. But... Mifsud waltzed in and out of the United States in December 2016. The U.S. media could find him, the Italian press found him, and he's a supposed Russian agent at the epicenter of the purported collusion conspiracy. He's the guy who knows about Hillary Clinton's e-mails and that the Russians have them. But the FBI failed to question him for a half a year after officially opening the investigation. And then according to Volume 1, page 193... once Mifsud finally was questioned, he made false statements to the FBI. But you declined to charge him. Is that correct, you did not indict Mr. Mifsud?
    • Nunes, 31:45
      • I'm not going to speak to the series of happenings as you articulated them.
        • Mueller
  • But... You did not indict Mr. Mifsud.
    • Nunes, 33:16
      • True.
        • Mueller

  • I want to make sure you're aware of who Fusion GPS is. Fusion GPS is a political operations firm that was working directly for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee. They produced the dossier, so they paid Steele who then went out and got the dossier. And I know you don't want to... answer any dossier questions, so I'm not going there, but your report mentions Natalia Veselnitskaya 65 times. She meets in the Trump Tower. It's this infamous Trump Tower meeting that's in your report. You've heard many of the Democrats refer to it today. The meeting was shorter than 20 minutes, I believe. Is that correct?
    • Nunes, 1:20:26 (Under yield time from Rick Crawford)
      • I think what we have in our report reflects it was about that length.
        • Mueller
  • So... the main actor [in] Fusion GPS, the president of the company, or owner of the company is a guy named Glenn Simpson, who's working for Hillary Clinton. ...[D]o you know how many times Glenn Simpson met with Natalia Veselnitskaya?
  • Would it surprise you that the Clinton campaign, dirty ops arm, met with Natalia Veselnitskaya more times than the Trump campaign did?
    • Nunes, 1:21:45
      • This is an area I'm not going to get into, as I indicated at the outset.
        • Mueller
  • Did you ever interview Glenn Simpson?
    • Nunes, 1:22:00
      • I'm again going to pass on that.
        • Mueller
  • According to notes from the State Department Official Kathleen Kavalec, Christopher Steele told her that former Russian intelligence head Trubnikov and Putin adviser, Surkov, were sources for the Steele dossier. ...[N]ot getting into whether these sources were real or not real, was there any concern that there could have been disinformation that was going from the Kremlin into the Clinton campaign and then being fed into the FBI?
    • Nunes, 1:22:14
      • As I said before, this is an area that I cannot speak to. ...It's deliberations, other proceedings, and the like.
        • Mueller
  • Before you arrested George Papadopoulos in July of 2017, he was given $10,000 in cash in Israel. Do you know who gave him that cash?
    • Nunes, 1:23:26
      • Again, that's outside our... and questions such as that should go to the FBI or the Department.
        • Mueller
  • But it involved your investigation.
    • Nunes, 1:23:45 (Above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • It involved persons involved in my investigation.
        • Mueller

  • I want to go back to [where] we started off, with Joseph Mifsud, whose at the center of this investigation. He appears in your report a dozen times or more. He really is the epicenter. He's at the origin of this. He's the man who supposedly knows about Clinton's e-mails. You've seen on the screen, the Democrats can only put up all the prosecutions that you made against Trump campaign officials, and others. But I'm struggling to understand why you didn't indict Joseph Mifsud, who seems to be the man in the middle of all of this?
    • Nunes, 1:45:36 (Under yield time from Elise Stefanik)
      • I think you understand that you cannot get into either classified, or law enforcement information, without a rationale for doing it... I have said all I'm going to be able to say, with regard to Mr. Mifsud.
        • Mueller
  • Were you aware of [the State Department official] Kathleen Kavalec's involvement, that she had met with [Mr.] Steele.
    • Nunes, 1:46:43
      • Again, I can't respond to that question. It's outside my jurisdiction.
        • Mueller
  • The Carter Page FISA warrant was... re-upped three times, the last time it was re-upped was under... your watch. So... were you in the approval process of that last time that the Carter Page warrant was..?
    • Nunes, 1:46:59
      • Well I can't speak specifically about that warrant, but if you asked, was I in the approval chain, the answer is no.
        • Mueller

  • There are a few more questions I want to clean up... about the Erik Prince Seychelles meeting. ...Erik Prince testified before this Committee that he was surveilled by the U.S. government; and the information from the surveillance was leaked to the press. Did you investigate whether Prince was surveilled, and whether classified information on him was illegally leaked to the media?
  • ...Were you aware that Prince has made these allegations that he was surveilled. He's concerned that there were leaks about this surveillance. Did you make any referrals about these things?
    • Nunes, 2:04:02
      • I can't get into discussion on it.
        • Mueller
  • ...[O]n General Flynn, I know you came after the leak of his phone call with the Russian ambassador. Your time at FBI, it would be a major scandal, wouldn't it, for the leak of the national security advisor and anyone...
    • Nunes, 2:04:18
      • I can't adopt that hypothesis.
        • Mueller
  • Did your report name any people who were acting as U.S. government informants or sources, without disclosing that fact?
    • Nunes, 2:04:47
      • I can't answer that.
        • Mueller
  • On Volume 1, page 133... you state that Konstantin Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence. His name... came up quite often today. The report omits to mention that Kilimnik has long-term relationships with U.S. government officials including our own State Department.
    • Nunes, 2:05:00
      • I can't get into that.
        • Mueller
  • I know it's not in the report, but... if Kilimnik is being used in the report to say that he was possibly some type of Russian agent, then I think it is important for this Committee to know if Kilimnik has ties to our own State Department, which it appears... he does.
    • Nunes, 2:05:27
      • Again, it's the same territory that I'm loath to get into.
        • Mueller
  • You were asked this earlier about Trump attorney, John Dowd, that pieces of his phone call were omitted from the report. It was what Mr. Dowd calls exculpatory evidence. Are you concerned about...
    • Nunes, 2:05:59
      • I'm not certain I would agree with that characterization, and I think I said that before.
        • Mueller
  • An American citizen from the Republic of Georgia, who your report misidentifies as a Russian, claims that your report omitted parts of a text message he had with Michael Cohen, about stopping the flow of compromising tapes of Donald Trump. In the omitted portions, he says he did not know what the tapes actually showed. Was that portion of the exchange left out of the report for a reason?
    • Nunes, 2:06:25
      • No. We got an awful lot into the report, but we did not get every intersection, or conversation and the like. So I am not familiar with that particular episode you're talking about.
        • Mueller

Mike Conaway, Texas

[edit]
11th congressional district, since 2005
  • [D]id anyone ask you to exclude anything from your report that you felt should've been in the report? ...[N]o one asked you specifically to exclude something that you believe should've been in there?
    • Conaway, 38:36 (Above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • Not that I can recall, no.
        • Mueller

John Ratcliffe, Texas

[edit]
4th congressional district, since 2015
  • In your May 29th press conference and, again... this morning, you made it pretty clear you wanted the Special Counsel report to speak for itself. You said at your press conference... that was the office's final position, and [would] not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President. Now, you spent the last few hours... [with] Democrats trying to get you to answer... hypotheticals about the President... I think you've stayed pretty much true to what your intent and desire was, but... regardless of that, the Special Counsel's office has closed, and it has no continuing jurisdiction or authority. So, what would be your authority or jurisdiction for adding new conclusions or determinations to the Special Counsel's written report?
    • Ratcliffe, 39:03
      • As to the latter, I don't know or expect changes in conclusions that we included in our... report.
        • Mueller
  • [T]o that point, you addressed one of the issues that I needed to, which was from your testimony this morning, which some construed as a change to the written report. You talked about the exchange that you had with Congressman Lieu. I wrote it down a little bit different. I want to ask you about it so that the record's perfectly clear. I recorded that he asked you... "The reason you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president," to which you responded, "That is correct." That response is inconsistent—I think you'll agree—with your written report. I want to be clear that it is not your intent to change your written report. It is your intent to clarify the record today.
    • Ratcliffe, 40:05 (Above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • Well, as I started today [with the preliminary statement]... and added, either [as] a footnote or an endnote, what I wanted to clarify is the fact that we did not make any determination with regard to culpability in any way. We did not start that process down... the road.
        • Mueller
  • The stated purpose of your appointment as Special Counsel was to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. As part of that full and thorough investigation, what determination did the Special Counsel office make about whether the Steele dossier was part of the Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election?
    • Ratcliffe, 41:09
      • Again, when it comes to Mr. Steele, I defer to the Department of Justice.
        • Mueller
  • I very much agree with your determination that Russia's efforts were sweeping and systematic. I think it should concern every American. That's why I want to know just how sweeping and systematic those efforts were. I want to find out if Russia interfered with our election by providing false information through sources to Christopher Steele about a Trump conspiracy that you determined didn't exist.
    • Ratcliffe, 41:39
      • Well... again, I'm not going to discuss the issues with regard to Mr. [Steele], and in terms of a portrayal of the conspiracies, we returned two indictments in the computer crimes arena. One, GRU and another, active measures, in which we lay out, in excruciating detail,.. what occurred in those two rather large conspiracies.
        • Mueller
  • I agree, with respect to that. But... an application and three renewal applications were submitted by the United States government to spy or surveil on Trump campaign... associate... Carter Page, and on all four occasions, the United States government submitted the Steele dossier as a central piece of evidence... Now, the basic premise of the dossier... was that there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but the Special Counsel investigation didn't establish any conspiracy, correct?
    • Ratcliffe, 42:33
      • Well... the events that you are characterizing... is a part of another matter that is being handled by the Department of Justice.
        • Mueller
  • But you did not establish any conspiracy, much less a well-developed one?
    • Ratcliffe, 43:16
      • Again, I pass on answering that question.
        • Mueller
  • The Special Counsel did not charge Carter Page with anything, correct?
    • Ratcliffe, 43:24
      • The Special Counsel did not.
        • Mueller
  • [G]iven your constraints on what you're able or allowed to answer, with respect to counterintelligence matters or other matters that are currently open under investigation, you're not going to be able to answer my remaining questions...

Michael Turner, Ohio

[edit]
40th congressional district, since 2003
  • [I]n... your opening statement you indicate that pursuant to Justice Department regulations... you submitted a confidential report to the Attorney General at the conclusion of the investigation. What I'd like you to confirm is, the report that you did—that is the subject matter of this hearing—was to the Attorney General.
    • Turner, 48:48
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • You also state, in this opening statement, that you threw overboard the word collusion because it's not a legal term. You would not conclude because collusion was not a legal term?
    • Turner, 49:11
      • Well, it depends on how you want to use the word. In a general parlance, people can think of it that way. If you're talking about in a criminal statute arena, you can't. Because... it's much more accurately described as conspiracy.
        • Mueller
  • So in your words, it's not a legal term, so you didn't put it in your conclusion. Correct?
    • Turner, 49:42
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • I want to talk about your powers and authorities. ...[T]he Attorney General and the appointment order gave you powers and authorities that reside in the Attorney General. Now, the Attorney General has no ability to give you powers and authority greater than... the Attorney General. Correct?
    • Turner, 49:48
      • ...[T]hat is correct.
        • Mueller
  • I want to focus on one word in your report. It's the second to the last word in the report. It's exonerate. The report states... while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it does not exonerate him. ...[I]n the judiciary hearing, in your prior testimony, you've already agreed with Mr. Ratcliffe that exonerate is not a legal term; that there is not a legal test for this. ...[D]oes the Attorney General have the power or authority to exonerate? What I'm putting up here is the United States code—this is where the Attorney General gets his power—and the Constitution, and the annotated... cases of these... We even went to your law school, because I went to Case Western, but I thought maybe your law school teaches it differently... [W]e got the criminal law textbook from your law school. ...[N]owhere in these—because we had these scanned—is there a process, or description on exonerate. There's no office of exoneration at the Attorney General's office. There's no certificate at the bottom of his desk. Mr. Mueller, would you agree with me that the Attorney General does not have power to exonerate?
    • Turner, 50:17
      • I'm going to pass on that.
        • Mueller
  • Why?
    • Turner, 51:17
      • Because it embroils us in a legal discussion, and I'm not prepared to do a legal discussion in that arena.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou would... not disagree with me when I say that there is no place that the Attorney General has the power to exonerate and he's not been given that authority?
    • Turner, 51:25
      • Again, I'm not going to... I take your question.
        • Mueller
  • [T]he Attorney General probably knows that he can't exonerate either, and that's the part that... confuses me. Because if the Attorney General doesn't have the power to exonerate, then you don't have the power to exonerate, and I believe he knows he doesn't have the power to exonerate. And so this is that I don't understand. If your report is to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General doesn't have the power to exonerate—and he does not, and he knows you do not have that power—you don't have to tell him that you're not exonerating the President. He knows this already. [T]hat.. changed the context of the report.
    • Turner, 51:36
      • No. We included it in the report for exactly that reason. He may not know it, and he should know it.
        • Mueller
  • So you believe that... Bill Barr believes that somewhere in the hallways of the Department of Justice, there's an office of exoneration?
    • Turner, 52:18
      • No, that's not what I said.
        • Mueller
  • Well I believe he knows, and I don't believe you put that in there for Mr. Barr. I think you put that in there for exactly what I'm going to discuss... "The Washington Post" yesterday, when speaking of your report... said Trump could not be exonerated of trying to obstruct the investigation... Trump could not be exonerated. Now, that statement is correct... isn't it, in that no one can be exonerated? ...This reporter can't be exonerated. Mr. Mueller, you can't be exonerated. In fact, in our criminal justice system, there is no power or authority to exonerate. ...[T]his is the headline on all of the news channels while you were testifying today... [slide showing CNN headline] "Mueller: Trump was not exonerated." ...[W]hat you know is that this can't say "Mueller: Exonerated Trump", because you don't have the power or authority to exonerate Trump. You had no more power to declare him exonerated than you have the power to declare him Anderson Cooper. ...[S]ince there's no one in the criminal justice system that has that power. The President pardons, he doesn't exonerate, courts and juries don't declare innocent, they declare not guilty, they don't even declare exoneration. The statement about exoneration is misleading and it's meaningless. And it... colors this investigation. One word out of the entire portion of your report, and it's a meaningless word that has no legal meaning, and it has colored your entire report.

Brad Wenstrup, Ohio

[edit]
2nd congressional district, since 2013
  • [I]s it accurate to say your investigation found no evidence that members of the Trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of Clinton campaign-related emails?
    • Wenstrup, 58:35
      • I don't know. What...
        • Mueller
  • Volume 1, page 5: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." So it would therefore be inaccurate, based on this, to describe that finding, as open to doubt. That finding being that the Trump campaign was involved with theft or publication of the Clinton campaign emails. You following that, sir?
    • Wenstrup, 58:50
      • I do believe I'm following it, but it is that portion of that matter that does not fall within our jurisdiction, or fall within our investigation.
        • Mueller
  • Well basically [that is] what your report says—Volume 1, page 5—I just want to be clear that "open to doubt" is how the Committee Democrats describe this finding, in their minority views of our 2018 report, and it kind of flies in the face of what you have in your report.
    So... is it accurate also to say the investigation found "No documentary evidence..." that George Papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign about Joseph Mifsud's claims that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton?
    • Wenstrup, 59:30 (Note: Vol. I, page 94, "No documentary evidence, and nothing in the email or other communication facilities reviewed by the Office, show that Papadopolus shared this information with the Campaign.)
      • ...I believe it, appearing in the report, that's accurate.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]es. In the report it says "no documentary evidence... that Papadopoulos shared this information with the campaign." It's therefore inaccurate to conclude that by the time of the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting... "the campaign was likely already on notice via George Papadopoulos's contact with Russian agents that Russia, in fact, had damaging information on Trump's opponent." Would you say that that is inaccurate to say that it's likely already...
    • Wenstrup, 1:00:33 (The above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • I'd direct you to... the report.
        • Mueller
  • Well, I appreciate that because the Democrats jumped to this incorrect collusion in their minority views, again, which contradicts what you have in your report. I'm concerned about a number of statements I'd like you to clarify, because a number of Democrats have made some statements that I have concerns with, and maybe you can clear them up. So a member of this Committee said President Trump was a Russian agent after your report was publicly released. That statement is not supported by your report, correct?
    • Wenstrup, 1:01:07
      • That is accurate. Not supported.
        • Mueller
  • Multiple Democrat members have asserted that Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange in 2016 before WikiLeaks released DNC emails, implying Manafort colluded with Assange. Because your report does not mention finding evidence that Manafort met with Assange, I would assume that means you found no evidence of this meeting. Is that assumption correct?
    • Wenstrup, 1:01:39
      • I'm not certain I agree with that assumption.
        • Mueller
  • But you make no mention of it in your report. Would you agree with that?
    • Wenstrup, 1:02:01
      • Yes, I would agree with that.
        • Mueller
  • [D]oes your report contain any evidence that President Trump was enrolled in the Russian system of Kompromat, as a member of this Committee once claimed?
    • Wenstrup, 1:02:10
      • [W]hat I can speak to is information and evidence that we picked up as the Special Counsel, and I think that's accurate, as far as it goes.
        • Mueller
  • Did you ask the Department [of] Justice to expand the scope of the Special Counsel's mandate related to August 2, 2017 or August 20, 2017 scoping memoranda?
    • Wenstrup, 1:02:31
      • ...[W]ithout looking at the memoranda, I could not answer that question.
        • Mueller
  • [D]id you ever make a request to expand your office's mandate... at all?
    • Wenstrup, 1:02:50
      • Generally, yes.
        • Mueller
  • And was that ever denied?
    • Wenstrup, 1:02:58
      • I'm not going to speak to that. It goes into internal deliberation.
        • Mueller
  • I'm just trying to understand the process. Does expanding the scope come from the acting Attorney General, or Rod Rosenstein, or does it come from you, or can it come from either?
    • Wenstrup, 1:03:05
      • I'm not going to discuss any other alternatives.
        • Mueller

Chris Stewart, Utah

[edit]
2nd congressional district, since 2013
  • I want to take a moment to re-emphasize something that my friend Mr. Turner has said. I've heard many people state, no person is above the law. And many times recently, they add, not even the President, which I think is blazingly obvious to most of us. ...I agree with this statement that no person is above the law. But there's another principal that we also have to defend, and that is the presumption of innocence. And I'm sure you agree with this principle, though I think the way that your office phrased some parts of your report, it does make me wonder... For going on three years, innocent people have been accused of very serious crimes, including treason. Accusations made, even here today. They have made their lives disrupted, and in some cases destroyed by false accusations, for which there is absolutely no basis, other than some people desperately wish that it was so. But your report is very clear. No evidence of conspiracy. No evidence of coordination. And I believe we owe it to these people, who have been falsely accused, including the President and his family, to make that very clear.
    Mr. Mueller, the credibility of your report is based on the integrity of how it is handled. And there's something that I think bothers me and other Americans. I'm holding here in my hand a binder of 25 examples of leaks that occurred from the Special Counsel's office—from those who associated with your work—dating back to as early as a few weeks after your inception... and continuing up to just a few months ago. All of these... have one thing in common. They were designed to weaken or embarrass the President, every single one. Never was it leaked that you had found no evidence of collusion. Never was it leaked that the Steele dossier was a complete fantasy, nor that it was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign. I could go on and on.
    Mr. Mueller, are you aware of anyone from your team having given advance knowledge of the raid on Roger Stone's home to any person or the press, including CNN?
    • Stewart, 1:08:34
      • I'm not going to talk about specifics. I will mention—talk for a moment—about persons who become involved in an investigation, and the understanding that in a lengthy, thorough investigation, some persons will be under a cloud that... should not be under a cloud. ...[O]ne of the reasons for emphasizing, as I have, the speed of an... investigation, is... [for the benefit of] those persons who are disrupted as a result of that investigation.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou're right, it is a cloud, and it's an unfair cloud for dozens of people. But to my point, are you aware of anyone providing information to the media regarding the raid on Roger Stone's home, including CNN?
    • Stewart, 1:11:23
      • I'm not going to speak to that.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou sent a letter, dated March 27th, to Attorney General Barr, in which you claim the Attorney General's memo to Congress did not fully capture the context of your report. You stated earlier today that response was not authorized. Did you make any effort to determine who leaked this confidential letter?
    • Stewart, 1:11:37
      • No, and I'm not certain... this is the letter of March 27? ...I'm not certain when it was publicized, I didn't know it was publicized, and I do not believe we would be responsible for the leaks. I do believe we have done a good job in assuring that no leaks occurred and...
        • Mueller
  • We have 25 examples here of where you did not do a good job. Not you, sir. I'm not accusing you at all, but where your office did not do a good job protecting this information. ...Do you know who anonymously made claims to the press that Attorney General Barr's March 24th letter to Congress had misrepresented the findings of your report?
  • [G]iven these examples, as well as others, you must have realized that leaks were coming from someone associated with the Special Counsel's office. What I'd like to ask...
    • Stewart, 1:12:59
      • I do not believe that.
        • Mueller
  • [T]his was your work. ...[Y]our office is the only one who had information regarding this. It had to come from your office. Putting that aside... [D]id you do anything about it?
    • Stewart, 1:12:59
      • From the outset, we've undertaken to make certain that we minimized the possibility of leaks, and I think we were successful over the two years that we were in operation.
        • Mueller

Rick Crawford, Arkansas

[edit]
1st congressional district, since 2011
  • Days after you appointment, Peter Strzok texted... [technical communication problems] There's a quote attributed to Peter Strzok. He texted about his concern that there is... "no big there there in the Trump campaign investigation." Did he or anyone else who worked on the FBI's investigation tell you that, around 10 months into the investigation, the FBI still had no case for collusion?
    • Stewart, 1:18:44 (Statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • No.
        • Mueller
  • Is the Inspector General report correct that the text messages from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's phones, from your office, were not retained after they left the Special Counsels Office?
    • Stewart, 1:19:56
      • Well, I don't... It depends on what you're talking about. An investigation into... Peter Strzok went on for a period of time, and I'm not certain what it encompasseses, it may will have encompassed what you're referring to.
        • Mueller
  • Did you ask the department to authorize your office to investigate the origin of the Trump Russia investigation?
    • Stewart, 1:19:58
      • I'm not going to get into that. It goes into internal deliberations.
        • Mueller

Elise Stefanik, New York

[edit]
21st congressional district, since 2015
  • [A]s Special Counsel did you review documents related to the origin of the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign?
    • Stefanik, 1:42:34
      • On occasion.
        • Mueller
  • [The following questions remained unanswered by Robert Mueller, for reasons given in his introductory comments.]
    [1.] Was the Steele dossier one of those documents that was reviewed?
    [2.] I'm just asking a process question. Have you read the Steele dossier?
    [3.] You were tasked as Special Counsel to investigate whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign associates to interfere with the 2016 election... [T]he FBI... has relevant documents and information related to the opening of the CIA investigation. Were you and your team permitted to access all of those documents?
    • Stefanik
  • [W]as there any limitation in your access to documents related to the counterintelligence... investigation?
    • Stefanik, 1:43:28
      • That's such a broad question, I have real trouble answering it.
        • Mueller
  • [The following questions remained unanswered by Robert Mueller, for reasons given in his introductory comments.]
    [4.] Did the Special Counsel's office undertake any efforts to investigate and verify, or disprove allegations contained in the Steele dossier?
    [5.] The reason I'm asking for the American public that's watching. ...[T]he Steele Dossier formed part of the basis to justify the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. As we know, it was used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page. This is why I'm asking these questions. Did your office undertake any efforts to identify Steele's sources or subsources?
    [6.] Were these tasks referred to any other agencies?
    [7.] Did your office consider whether the Russian government used Steele's sources to provide Steele with disinformation?
    • Stefanik
  • [D]id any member of the Special Counsel's office staff travel overseas as part of the investigation?
    • Stefanik, 1:44:43
      • Yes, but I can't go further than that.
        • Mueller
  • [The following questions remained unanswered by Robert Mueller, for reasons given in his introductory comments.]
    [8.]I'm going to ask to which countries?
    [9.] Did they meet with foreign government officials?
    [10.] Did they meet with foreign private citizens?
    [11.] Did they seek information about a U.S. citizen, or any U.S. citizens?
    • Stefanik
  • Thank you for answering on the record. These are important questions for the American public and we're hopeful that the I.G. is able to answer these questions.

Will Hurd, Texas

[edit]
23rd congressional district, since 2015
  • [Y]ou've been asked many times this afternoon about collusion, obstruction of justice, and impeachment, and the Steele dossier... I don't think your answers are going to change if I ask you about those questions. So I'm going to ask about a couple of press stories, because a lot of what the American people have received about this, have been... press stories, and some of that has been wrong and... some of... those press stories have been accurate. On April 13, 2018 McClatchy reported that you had evidence Michael Cohen made a secret trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential election. I think he told... one of the Committees here in Congress that was incorrect, is that story true?
    • Hurd, 1:52:34
      • I can't go into it.
        • Mueller
  • On October 31st, 2016, Slate published a report suggesting that a server at Trump tower was secretly communicating with Russia's Alfa-Bank. And I quote, "akin to what criminal syndicates do." Do you know if that story is true?
    • Hurd, 1:53:09 (Above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • [I] do not... know whether it is true.
        • Mueller
  • So did you not investigate these allegations which are suggestive of potential Trump-Russia...
    • Hurd, 1:53:30
      • Because I believe it is not true, doesn't mean it would not be investigated. It may have been investigated, although my belief at this point [is that] it's not true.
        • Mueller
  • As a former CIA officer, I want to focus on something I think both sides of the political aisle can agree on. That is, how do we prevent Russian intelligence and other adversaries from doing this again? ...[A]fter overseeing counterintelligence operations for 12 years as FBI director, and then investigating what the Russians have done in the 2016 election, you've seen tactics, techniques, and results of Russian intelligence operations. Our committee made a recommendation that the FBI should improve its victim notification process when a person, entity, or campaign has fallen victim to active measures of tack. Would you agree... with this?
    • Hurd, 1:53:45
      • It sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. I will tell you, though, that the ability of our intelligence agencies to work together in this arena is, perhaps, more important than that. And adopting whatever—and I'm not that familiar with legislation—but whatever legislation will encourage us working together—by us, I mean the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the rest—it should be pursued aggressively, early.
        • Mueller
  • Who do you think should be responsible, within the federal government, to counter disinformation? ...As to who should be the coordinating points within the federal government on how to deal with disinformation?
    • Hurd, 1:55:02
      • I don't want to wade in those waters.
        • Mueller
  • One of the most striking things in your report is that the Internet Research Agency, not only undertook a social media campaign in the U.S., but they were able to organize political rallies after the election. Our committee issued a report insight on saying that Russian active measures are growing with frequency and intensity, and including their expanded use of groups, such as the IRA. And these groups pose a significant threat to the United States and our allies in upcoming elections. Would you agree with that?
    • Hurd, 1:55:33
      • Yes. In fact, one of the other areas that we have to look at, and many more... countries are developing the capability to replicate what the Russians have done.
        • Mueller
  • You... alluded to making sure... all the elements of the federal government should be working together. Do you have a suggestion on a strategy to do that, to counter this disinformation?
    • Hurd, 1:56:22
      • Not overarching.
        • Mueller
  • ...In your investigation, did you think 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?
    • Hurd, 1:56:36
      • ...It wasn't a single attempt. They're doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign.
        • Mueller

Quotes about Muller Testimony

[edit]
  • In a remarkable exchange with House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff during the final moments of the hearing, Mueller agreed that accepting foreign assistance to a presidential campaign would be “unethical,” before independently raising the possibility that it could be “a crime.” By contrast, Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in June that if offered foreign information, “I think I’d take it.”

See also

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Mueller_Testimony_before_House_Intelligence_Committee&oldid=3592768"