Robert Mueller Testimony before House Judiciary Committee

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Quotes[edit]

All below statements placed in quotes, were stated to have been extracted from the Mueller Report, unless otherwise indicated within the context, or by commentary notes.

Robert Mueller[edit]

Statements. Mueller's responses to questions are listed below under each Representative's stated question.
  • [I]n May 2017, the acting Attorney General asked me to serve as special counsel. I undertook that role because I believed that it was of paramount interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the Presidential election. ...My staff and I carried out this assignment with [the] critical objective in mind: to work quietly, thoroughly, and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome.
  • The order appointing me as special counsel directed our office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. It also included investigating efforts to interfere with or obstruct our investigation. Throughout the investigation I continually stressed two things to the team... First) we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and expeditiously as possible. ...Second) the investigation needed to be conducted fairly and with absolute integrity. Our team would not leak, or take other actions that could compromise the integrity... All decisions were made based on the facts and the law. ...[W]e charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes, including 12 officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants have been convicted or pled guilty.
  • Certain of the charges we brought remain pending today. And for those matters... the indictments contain allegations, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. In addition to the criminal charges... as required... we submitted a confidential report to the attorney general... The report set forth the results of our work and the reasons for our charging and declination decisions. The attorney general later made the report largely public. ...I made a few limited remarks... about our report when we closed the special counsel's office in May... [C]ertain points... bear emphasis. First) our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Second) the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term; rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and it was not. Third) our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable. Finally) as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions, by the President, towards the investigation. Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a decision as to whether the President committed a crime. ...it remains our decision today.
  • It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony... will necessarily be limited. First) public testimony could affect several ongoing matters. In some of these matters, court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect... the fairness of the proceedings, and consistent with longstanding Justice Department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter. Second) the Justice Department has asserted privileges, concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department, and deliberations within our office. These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect. The department has released the letter discussing the restrictions of my testimony. I, therefore, will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that I know are of public interest. For example, I am unable to address questions about the initial opening of the FBI's Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment; or matters related to the so-called Steele dossier. These matters are subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should, therefore, be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department. ...[O]ur report contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We conducted an extensive investigation over two years. In writing the report, we stated the results of our investigation with precision. We scrutinized every word. I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. ...[T]he report is my testimony, and I will stay within that text. ...I 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.
  • I'll be joined today by Deputy Special Counsel Aaron Zebley. Mr. Zebley... served as my chief of staff. Mr. Zebley was responsible for the day-to-day oversight on the investigations conducted by our office. ...I also want to... say thank you to the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts and professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent matter. These individuals... were of the highest integrity.
  • Over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. And... this deserves the attention of every American.

Democratic Representatives[edit]

Their Statements, Questions, and the associated Responses from Robert Mueller.

Jerrold Nadler, Committee Chair, New York[edit]

10th congressional district since 2013
  • Two years ago you returned to public service to lead the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. ...Over the course of your investigation you obtained criminal indictments against 37 people and entities. You secured the conviction of President Trump's campaign chairman, his deputy campaign manager, his national security advisor and his personal lawyer, among others. In the Paul Manafort case alone you recovered as much as $42 million, so that the cost of your investigation to the taxpayers approaches zero. ...In Volume 1, you find that the Russian government attacked our 2016 elections... "in a sweeping and systematic fashion," and that the attacks were designed to benefit the Trump campaign. Volume 2 walks us through 10 separate incidents of possible obstruction of justice, where... "President Trump attempted to exert undue influence over your investigation." The President's behavior included... "public attacks on the investigation, nonpublic efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate"... Among the most shocking... President Trump ordered his White House counsel to have you fired, and then to lie and deny that it had happened, he ordered his former campaign manager to convince the recused attorney general to step in and limit your work, and he attempted to prevent witnesses from cooperating with your investigation.
  • Although department policy barred you from indicting the President for this conduct, you made clear that he is not exonerated. Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes, and in this nation, not even the President is above the law. Which brings me to this committee's work. Responsibility, integrity and accountability: These are the marks by which we who serve on this committee will be measured as well. Director Mueller, we have a responsibility to address the evidence that you have uncovered. You recognized as much when you said, quote, "The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing"... That process begins with the work of this committee. We will follow your example... We will act with integrity. We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. ...We will do this work because there must be accountability for the conduct described in your report, especially as it relates to the President.
  • Director Mueller, the President has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?
    • Nadler, 21:12
      • Correct. That is not what the report said.
        • Mueller
  • [R]eading from page 2 of Volume 2... "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment"... does that say there was no obstruction?
    • Nadler, 21:28
      • No.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou were actually unable to conclude the President did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?
    • Nadler, 21:56
      • [W]e, at the outset, determined that... when it came to the President's culpability, we needed to... go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a... sitting President cannot be indicted.
        • Mueller
  • So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?
    • Nadler, 22:25
      • That is correct.
        • Mueller
  • And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the President?
    • Nadler, 22:34
      • No.
        • Mueller
  • Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the President.
    • Nadler, 22:39
      • It does.
        • Mueller
  • And your investigation actually found... "multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations." Is that correct?
    • Nadler, 22:45
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • [C]an you explain in plain terms what that finding means so the American people can understand it?
    • Nadler, 23:00
      • [T]he finding indicates that the President... was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou were talking about incidents... "in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels"... to exert undo influence over your investigations, is that right?
    • Nadler, 23:27
      • That's correct.
        • Mueller
  • Now, am I correct that on page 7 of Volume 2... "The President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction of justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation"... So President Trump's efforts to exert undo influence over your investigation intensified after the President became aware that he personally was being investigated?
    • Nadler, 23:41
      • I stick with the language... from page 7, Volume 2.
        • Mueller
  • Now, is it correct that if you concluded that the President committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report, or here today?
    • Nadler, 24:26
      • Well, I would say you could... you would not indict because under the OLC opinion, a sitting President... cannot be indicted. It would be unconstitutional.
        • Mueller
  • But... under Department of Justice policy, the President could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?
    • Nadler, 25:09
      • True. [The meaning of this statement was later clarified by Mueller, which is that any sitting President could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after leaving office, if culpable.]
        • Mueller
  • Did the President refuse a request to be interviewed by you and your team?
    • Nadler, 25:35
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • And is it true that you tried for more than a year to secure an interview with the President?
    • Nadler, 25:40
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • And is it true that you and your team advised the President's lawyer that... "an interview with the President is vital to our investigation"..?
    • Nadler, 25:45
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • And is it true that you also... "stated that it is in the interest of the presidency and the public for an interview to take place"..?
    • Nadler, 25:55
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • But the President still refused to sit for an interview by you or your team?
    • Nadler, 26:04
      • True.
        • Mueller
  • And did you also ask him to provide written answers to questions on the 10 possible episodes of obstruction of justice crimes involving him?
    • Nadler, 26:11
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • Did he provide any answers to a single question about whether he engaged in obstruction of justice crimes?
    • Nadler, 26:19
      • I would have to check on that. I'm not certain.
  • Having reviewed your work, I believe anyone else who would engage in the conduct described in your report would have been criminally prosecuted. Your work is vitally important to this committee and the American people because no one is above the law.

Zoe Lofgren, California[edit]

12th congressional district since 1994
  • [T]he investigation of Russia's attack that started your investigation is why evidence of possible obstruction is serious. To what extent did the Russian government interfere in the 2016 Presidential election?
    • Lofgren, 32:21
      • [P]articularly when it came to computer crimes and the like, the government was implicated.
        • Mueller
  • You've also described in your report that the then Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, shared with a Russian operative, Kilimnik, the campaign strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states, and internal polling data of the campaign. Isn't that correct?
    • Lofgren, 33:01
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for a some period of time after their August meeting. Isn't that correct?
    • Lofgren, 33:27
      • Accurate.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]our investigation found that Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election, and that briefing encompassed the campaign's messaging, its internal polling data. It also included discussion of battleground states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Isn't that correct?
    • Lofgren, 33:39
      • That's correct.
        • Mueller
  • Did your investigation determine who requested the polling data to be shared with Kilimnik? ...We ...don't have the redacted version. That's maybe another reason why we should get that for Volume 1. Based on your investigation, how could the Russian government have used this campaign polling data to further its sweeping and systematic interference in the 2016 Presidential election?
    • Lofgren, 34:02
    • That's a little bit out of our... path.
        • Mueller
  • [T]he Trump campaign wasn't exactly reluctant to take Russian help. You wrote it expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, isn't that correct?
    • Lofgren, 34:54
      • That's correct.
        • Mueller
  • From your testimony and the report, I think the American people have learned several things. First, the Russians wanted Trump to win. Second, the Russians went on a sweeping cyber influence campaign. The Russians hacked the DNC and they got the Democratic game plan for the election. Russian [sic, Trump's] campaign chairman met with Russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data, polling, and messaging in the battleground states. So while the Russians were buying ads and creating propaganda to influence the outcome of the election, they were armed with inside information that they had stolen through hacking from the DNC, and that they had been given by the Trump campaign chairman, Mr. Manafort. My colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this information from becoming public, but I think it's important for the American people to understand the gravity of the underlying problem that your report uncovered.

Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas[edit]

18th congressional district since 1995
  • On page 12 of Volume 2... "We determined that there was sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the President" is that correct?
  • Your report also describes at least 10 separate instances of possible obstruction of justice that were investigated by you and your team, is that correct?
  • [T]he table of contents serves as a very good guide of some of the acts of that obstruction of justice that you investigated. ...On page 157 of Volume 2, you describe those acts. And they range from the President's effort to curtail the special counsel's investigation, the President's further efforts to have the attorney general take over the investigation, the President orders Don McGahn to deny that the President tried to fire the special counsel, and many others, is that correct?
  • I direct you now to... "The President's pattern of conduct as a whole sheds light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent." Does that mean you have to investigate all of his conduct to ascertain true motive?
  • For each of those 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice, you analyzed three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice: an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and official proceeding, and corrupt intent, is that correct?
  • You wrote on page 178, Volume 2 in your report about corrupt intent, "Actions by the President to end a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct," is that correct?

Steve Cohen, Tennessee[edit]

9th congressional district, since 2007
  • Do you recall, and I think it's at page 78 of volume 2, the President told Sessions, "You were supposed to protect me. You were supposed to protect me," or words to that effect?
    • Cohen, 56:11
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • And is the attorney general supposed to be the attorney general of the United States of America, or the consigliere for the President?
    • Cohen, 56:23
      • The United States of America.
        • Mueller
  • On page 113... the President believed that an un-recused attorney general would play a protective role and conceal the President from the ongoing investigation. ...It's clear, from your report and the evidence, that the President wanted former Attorney General Sessions to violate the Justice Department ethics rules by taking over your investigation and improperly interfering with it, to protect himself and his campaign.

Hank Johnson, Georgia[edit]

4th congressional district, since 2007
  • Your investigation found that President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire you. Isn't that correct?
  • And the President claimed that he wanted to fire you because you had supposed conflicts of interest, isn't that correct?
  • Now, you had no conflicts of interest that required your removal, isn't that a fact?
  • Don McGahn advised the President that the asserted conflicts were, in his words, "silly and not real conflicts" ...page 85 of Volume 2 speaks to that. ...DOJ ethics officials confirmed that you had no conflicts that would prevent you from serving as special counsel, isn't that correct?
    • Johnson, 1:03:22
      • That's Correct.
        • Mueller
  • But despite Don McGahn and the Department of Justice guidance, around May 23, 2017, the President... "Prodded McGahn to complain to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein about these supposed conflicts of interest," correct?
  • And McGahn declined to call Rosenstein... telling the President that... knocking out Mueller would be another fact used to claim obstruction of justice, isn't that correct?
    • Johnson, 1:04:10
      • Generally so, yes.
        • Mueller
  • Volume 2, page 81... and 82... after the President was warned about obstructing justice... on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, the President dictated a press statement, stating he had... "no intention of firing" you, correct?
  • But the following day, June 14, the media reported for the first time that you were investigating the President for obstructing of justice, correct?
    • Johnson, 1:05:26
      • That's Correct.
        • Mueller
  • [A]fter learning for the first time that he was under investigation, the very next day, the President... "issued a series of tweets acknowledging the existence of the obstruction investigation, and criticizing it." Isn't that correct?
    • Johnson, 1:05:40
      • Generally so.
        • Mueller
  • [T]wo days later... page 85, Volume 2... "on Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home to have the special counsel removed." ...On page 85 ..."On the first call, McGahn recalled that the President said something like... 'You've got to do this. You've got to call Rod.' " Correct?
  • At Volume 2, page 85... [McGahn] "...didn't want to have a role in trying to fire the attorney general."

Ted Deutch, Florida[edit]

22nd congressional district, since 2016; previously representing district 19, 2010-2012, and district 21, 2012-2016.
  • I'd like to get back to your findings covering June of 2017. ...page 90 of Volume 2 ..."news of the obstruction investigation prompted the President to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed" ...you wrote about multiple calls ...[R]egarding the second call ..."McGahn recalled that the President was more direct, saying something like [page 86, Vol II] 'Call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be... the Special Counsel'. McGahn recalled the President telling him, 'Mueller has to go' and 'Call me back when you do it.' " ...And in the report ..."McGahn understood the President to be saying that the Special Counsel had to be removed." ...[A]lso ...on page 86 ..."McGahn considered the President's request to be an inflection point, and he wanted to hit the brakes, and he felt trapped, and McGahn decided he had to resign." ..."he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter"
    • Deutch, 1:13:29
      • That is... directly from the report. [Referring only to the last quote.]
        • Mueller
  • And before he resigned, however, he called the President's Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, and he called the President's senior advisor, Steve Bannon. ...page 87 ..."Preibus recalled that McGahn said that the President asked him to do crazy [expletive]." In other words, crazy stuff. The White House Counsel thought that the President's request was completely out of bounds. He said the President asked him to do something crazy, it was wrong, and he was prepared to resign over it. Now these are extraordinarily troubling events, but you found White House Counsel McGahn to be a credible witness, isn't that correct?
  • [W]hy did the President of the United States want you fired?
    • Deutch, 1:16:21
      • I can't answer that question.
        • Mueller
  • [O]n page 89... Volume 2... "substantial evidence indicates that the President's... attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involve the President's conduct, and most immediately to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice"... Director Mueller, you found evidence... that the President wanted to fire you, because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice. Isn't that correct?
    • Deutch, 1:16:31
      • That's what it... says in the report. Yes, and I... stand by... the report.
        • Mueller
  • [T]hat shouldn't happen in America. No President should be able to escape investigation by abusing his power, but that's what you testified to in your report. The President ordered you fired. The White House Counsel knew it was wrong. The President knew it was wrong. In your report, it says there's also evidence the President knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn. But the President did it anyway. ...Anyone else who blatantly interfered with a criminal investigation, like yours, would be arrested and indicted on charges of obstruction of justice. Director Mueller, you determined that you were barred from indicting a sitting President. ...That is exactly why this committee must hold the President accountable.

Karen Bass, California[edit]

37th congressional district, since 2013; previously representing district 33, 2011-2013.
  • [W]e are focusing on five obstruction episodes today. I would like to ask you about the second... page 113 of Volume 2... "The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel"... On January 25th, 2018, The New York Times reported that, quote, "The President had ordered McGahn to have the Department of Justice fire you." Is that correct?
    • Bass, 1:24:04 (As described, the last quote is from The New York Times.)
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • And that story related to the events you already testified about here today. The President's calls to McGahn to have you removed. Correct?
    • Bass, 1:24:36 (As described, the last quote is from The New York Times.)
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • In fact [after the news broke, the President was televised as denying the story, where] the President said... "Fake news, folks. Fake news, a typical New York Times fake story"... Correct?
    • Bass, 1:24:51 (As described, the last quote is from The New York Times.)
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • But your investigation... found substantial evidence that McGahn was ordered by the President to fire you. Correct?
    • Bass, 1:25:01 (As described, the last quote is from The New York Times.)
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • [P]age 114... [The following day,] "On January 26th, 2018, the President's personal counsel called McGahn's attorney and said that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the special counsel"... Communicating through his personal attorney, McGahn refused, because he said... "That the Times story was accurate in reporting that the President wanted the special counsel removed." Isn't that right?
    • Bass, 1:25:18 (As described, the last quote is from The New York Times.)
      • I refer you to the report. ...I believe it is, but I refer you again to the report.
        • Mueller
  • Mr. McGahn, through his personal attorney, told the President that he... was not going to lie. Is that right?
  • Next, the President told the White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter to try to pressure McGahn to make a false denial. Is that correct?
    • Bass, 1:26:12
      • That's correct.
        • Mueller
  • [P]age 113... "The President then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make it clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire you"... Is that correct?
    • Bass, 1:26:27 (As described, the last quote is from The New York Times.)
      • That is as it's... stated in the report.
        • Mueller
  • And you found... "The President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file for our records." Correct?
  • [T]he President is asking his White House Counsel Don McGahn to create a record that McGahn believed to be untrue, while you were in the midst of investigating the President for obstruction of justice. Correct?
    • Bass, 1:26:56
      • Generally correct.
        • Mueller
  • Mr. McGahn was an important witness in that investigation, wasn't he?
  • [D]idn't the President say [to Porter, speaking about McGahn]... on page 116... "If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him" ..?
  • [P]age 116... the President met him [McGahn] in the Oval Office... "The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that The New York Times' story didn't look good and McGahn needed to correct it." Is that correct?
    • Bass, 1:28:03
      • That's... as it's written in the report, yes.
        • Mueller
  • The President asked McGahn whether he would do a correction and McGahn said no. Correct?
    • Bass, 1:28:24
      • That's accurate.
        • Mueller
  • [T]hank you for your investigation uncovering this very disturbing evidence. ...[I]t is clear to me, if anyone else had ordered a witness to create a false record and cover up acts that are subject of a law enforcement investigation, that person would be facing criminal charges.

Cedric Richmond, Louisiana[edit]

2nd congressional district, since 2011.
  • [I]t's accurate to say that the President knew that he was asking McGahn to deny facts that McGahn... "had repeatedly said were accurate"... Isn't that right?
  • Your investigation also found... "by the time of the Oval Office meeting with the President, the President was aware [1] that McGahn did not think the story was false and [2, that McGahn] did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true. The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate." ...that's on page 119 ...In other words, the President was trying to force McGahn to say something that McGahn did not believe to be true.
    • Richmond, 1:36:45
      • That's accurate.
        • Mueller
  • [R]eference... a slide... [Vol. II] on page 120... "Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation."
    • Richmond, 1:37:29
      • That's accurate.
        • Mueller
  • So it's fair to say the President tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?
    • Richmond, 1:38:08
      • I would say that is generally a summary.
        • Mueller
  • [T]he President's attempt to get McGahn to create a false-written record, were related to Mr. Trump's concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry, correct?
    • Richmond, 1:38:38
      • I believe that to be true.
        • Mueller
  • [T]hank you... for your investigation into whether the President attempted to obstruct justice by ordering his White House Counsel, Don McGahn, to lie to protect the President, and then to create a false record about it. It is clear that any other person who engaged in such conduct would be charged with a crime. ...[W]e will hold the President accountable ...

Hakeem Jeffries, New York[edit]

8th congressional district, since 2013.
  • [O]bstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of an investigator's effort to find the truth. Correct?
  • The crime of obstruction of justice has three elements... The first element is an obstructive act. ...An obstructive act could include taking an action that would delay or interfere with an ongoing investigation... True? ...
    • Jeffries, 1:46:05
      • ...That's true.
        • Mueller
  • Your investigation found evidence that President Trump took steps to terminate the special counsel. Correct?
  • [D]oes ordering the termination of the head of a criminal investigation constitute an obstructive act? ...Let me refer you to page 87 and 88 of Volume 2 where you conclude "The attempt to remove the special counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation in any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry." Correct?
  • The second element of obstruction of justice is the presence of an obstructive act in connection with an official proceeding. ...President Trump tweeted on June 16, 2017... "I am being investigated for firing the FBI director... Witch hunt." The... tweet just read... page 89 in Volume 2 constitutes a public acknowledgement by President Trump that he was under criminal investigation. Correct?
    • Jeffries, 1:47:20
      • I... think, generally correct.
        • Mueller
  • One day later on Saturday, June 17, President Trump called White House counsel Don McGahn at home, and directed him to fire the special counsel. True?
    • Jeffries, 1:48:15
      • I believe it to be true. ...
        • Mueller
  • President Trump told Don McGahn... "Mueller has to go"... Correct?
  • Your report found on page 89, Volume 2 that substantial evidence indicates that by June 17 the President knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor, who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. True?
  • The third element—second element having just been satisfied— ...of the crime of obstruction of justice, is corrupt intent. True?
  • Corrupt intent exists if the President acted to obstruct an official preceding for the improper purpose of protecting his own interest. Correct?
    • Jeffries, 1:49:06
      • That's generally correct. ...
        • Mueller
  • Upon learning about the appointment of the Special Counsel, your investigation found that Donald Trump stated to the then Attorney General... "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm f'ed." Is that correct?
  • Is it fair to say that Donald Trump viewed the Special Counsel's investigation into his conduct as adverse to his own interest?
    • Jeffries, 1:49:53
      • I think that generally is true.
        • Mueller
  • The investigation found evidence... "that the President knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to fire the Special Counsel." ...Page 90, Volume 2, "There's evidence that the President knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn"...
    • Jeffries, 1:50:01
      • I see that, yes, that's accurate.
        • Mueller
  • The investigation also found substantial evidence that President Trump repeatedly urged McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, correct?
  • The investigation found substantial evidence that when the President ordered Don McGahn to fire the special counsel, and then lie about it, Donald Trump 1) committed an obstructive act, 2) connected to an official proceeding, 3) did so with corrupt intent. Those are the elements of obstruction of justice. ...The President must be held accountable, one way or the other.
    • Jeffries, 1:50:31
      • I don't subscribe necessarily to... the way you analyze that. I'm not saying it's out of the ballpark, but I'm not supportive of that analytical charge.
        • Mueller

David Cicilline, Rhode Island[edit]

1st congressional district, since 2011.
  • [W]e are specifically focusing on five separate obstruction episodes here today. I'd like to ask you about the third... the section of your report entitled "The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation" beginning at page 90. And by "curtail" you mean limit, correct?
    • Cicilline, 1:56:50
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • My colleagues have walked through how the President tried to have you fired through the White House Council, and because Mr. McGahn refused the order, the President asked others to help limit your investigation, is that correct?
    • Cicilline, 1:57:07
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • Your report describes an incident in the Oval Office involving Mr. Lewandowski on June 19, 2017... Volume 2 page 91... And that was just two days after the President called Don McGahn at home and ordered him to fire you. ...
  • So right after his White House Council Mr. McGahn refused to follow the President's order to fire you, the President came up with a new plan. And that was to go around all of his senior advisors and government aids, to have a private citizen try to limit your investigation. What did the President tell Mr. Lewandowski to do? Do you recall? He called him, he dictated a message to Mr. Lewandowski for Attorney General Sessions, and asked him to write it down, is that correct?
  • The message directed Sessions to give... a public speech saying that he planned to "meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections." ...page 91 [Vol. II]. Is that correct?
    • Cicilline, 1:58:34
      • ...Yes, it is.
        • Mueller
  • In other words, Mr. Lewandowski, a private citizen, was instructed by the President of the United States to deliver a message from the President to the Attorney General, that directed him to limit your investigation. Correct?
    • Cicilline, 1:58:53
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • And at this time, Mr. Sessions was still recused from oversight of your investigation. ...The attorney general was recused from oversight.
    • Cicilline, 1:59:05
      • Yes. ...
        • Mueller
  • So the Attorney General had to violate his own Department's rules in order to comply with the President's order... And if the Attorney General had followed through with the President's request... it would have effectively ended your investigation into the President and his campaign ...page 97. ..."Taken together, the President's directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign, with the Special Counsel being permitted to 'move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.' " Is that correct?
    • Cicilline, 1:59:14
      • Generally true, yes...
        • Mueller
  • And... an unsuccessful attempt to obstruct justice is still a crime, is that correct?
    • Cicilline, 2:00:00
      • That is correct.
        • Mueller
  • And Mr. Lewandowski tried to meet with the attorney general. ...in his office so he would be... certain there wasn't a public log of the visit?
    • Cicilline, 2:00:06
      • True... According to what we gathered for the report.
        • Mueller
  • And the meeting never happened. And the President raised the issue again with Mr. Lewandowski and... said...[page 93] "If Sessions does not meet with you, Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired" correct?
    • Cicilline, 2:00:19
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • So immediately following the meeting with the President, Lewandowski then asked Mr. Dearborn to deliver the message, who's the former chief of staff to Mr. Sessions. And Mr. Dearborn refuses to deliver it, because he doesn't feel comfortable. Isn't that correct?
    • Cicilline, 2:00:32
      • Generally correct, yes.
        • Mueller
  • So... two days after the White House Counsel Don McGahn refused to carry out the President's order to fire you, the President directed a private citizen to tell the Attorney General of the United States—who was recused at the time—to limit your investigation to future elections, effectively ending your investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign. Is that correct?
    • Cicilline, 2:00:48
      • I'm not going to adopt your characterization. I'll say that the facts, as laid out in the report, are accurate.
        • Mueller
  • ....page ...97 ..."Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the special counsel's investigation to future elections interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President and his campaign conduct." Is that correct?
    • Cicilline, 2:01:18
      • Generally.
        • Mueller
  • ...1,000 former Republican and Democratic federal prosecutors have read your report and said, anyone but the President who committed those acts would be charged with obstruction of justice. ...

Eric Swalwell, California[edit]

15th congressional district, since 2013.
  • [G]oing back to the President's obstruction via Corey Lewandowski, it was referenced that a thousand former prosecutors who served under Republican and Democratic administrations with 12,000 years of federal service wrote a letter regarding the President's conduct. Are you familiar with that letter?
    • Swalwell, 2:07:06
      • I've read about that letter, yes.
        • Mueller
  • ...And in that letter they said all of this conduct, trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others, is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions. Are they wrong?
    • Swalwell, 2:07:37
      • They have a different case.
        • Mueller
  • Do you want to sign that letter, Director Mueller?
    • Swalwell, 2:07:57 (Following Mueller's answer, Swalwell yielded his time to Ted Lieu)
      • They have a different case.
        • Mueller

Ted Lieu, California[edit]

32nd congressional district, since 2015.
  • I'd like to now turn to the elements of obstruction of justice as applied to the President's attempts to curtail your investigation. The first element of obstruction of justice requires an obstructive act, correct?
  • ...page 97 of Volume 2 ..."Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign"... That's in the report, correct?
  • That would be evidence of an obstructive act because it would naturally obstruct the investigation, correct?
  • Let's turn now to the second element of the crime of obstruction of justice, which requires a nexus to an official proceeding. Again ...page 97 ...Volume 2. ..."by the time of the President's initial one-on-one meeting with Lewandowski on June 19, 2017, the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge." That's in the report, correct?
  • That would constitute evidence of a nexus to an official proceeding because a grand jury investigation is an official proceeding, correct?
  • I'd like to now turn to the final element of the crime of obstruction to justice. On that same page... 97, do you see... an "Intent" section on that page? ...
    • Lieu, 2:09:48
      • I do see that.
        • Mueller
  • ..."Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct."... That's in the report, correct?
    • Lieu, 2:10:14
      • That is in the report, and I rely [on] what's in the report to indicate what's happened in the paragraphs that we've been discussing.
        • Mueller
  • [T]o recap what we've heard... today... the President ordered former White House Counsel, Don McGahn, to fire you. The President ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail. And now we've heard the President ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that... you [would] stop investigating the President. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met. ...I'd like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President, correct?
    • Lieu, 2:10:43
      • That is correct.
        • Mueller
  • The fact that... orders by the President were not carried out... is not a defense to obstruction of justice, because the statute itself is quite broad. It says that as long as you endeavor, or attempt to obstruct justice, that would also constitute a crime.
    • Lieu, 2:11:28
      • I'm not going to get into that at this juncture.
        • Mueller
  • [B]ased on the evidence that we have heard today, I believe a reasonable person could conclude that at least three crimes of obstruction of justice by the President occurred. We're going to hear about two additional crimes. That would be the witness tamperings of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, and I yield back [to Mr. Swalwell].
    • Lieu, 2:11:50
      • [T]hat I'm going through the elements [of obstruction of justice] with you... does not mean that I subscribe to... what you're trying to prove through those elements.
        • Mueller

Jamie Raskin, Maryland[edit]

8th congressional district, since 2017.
  • [L]et's go to a fourth episode of obstruction of justice in the form of a witness tampering, which is urging witnesses not to cooperate with law enforcement, either by persuading them or intimidating them. Witness tampering is a felony, punishable by 20 years in prison. You found evidence that the President engaged in efforts... "To encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation." Is that right?
    • Raskin, 2:17:38
      • That's correct. Do you have a citation?
        • Mueller
  • ...page 7 ...Volume 2. ...[O]ne of these witnesses was Michael Cohen, the President's personal lawyer, who ultimately pled guilty to campaign violations based on secret hush money payments... to women the President knew, and also to... lying to Congress... about the hope for [a] $1 billion Trump Tower deal. After the FBI searched Cohen's home, the President called him up personally. He said to check in, and told him to... "hang in there and stay strong." Is that right? Do you remember finding that?
    • Raskin, 2:18:08
      • That's in the report as stated. Yes, it is right.
        • Mueller
  • Also in the report... are a series of calls made by other friends of the President. One reached out to say he was with the boss in Mar-a-Lago and the President said, he loves you. His name is redacted. Another redacted friend called to say the boss loves you and the third redacted friend called to say everyone knows the boss has your back. Do you remember finding that sequence of calls?
    • Raskin, 2:18:43
      • Generally, yes.
        • Mueller
  • When the news... and, in fact, Cohen said that following the receipt of these messages, ...page 147... Volume 2, "he believed he had the support of the White House if he continued to toe the party line, and he determined to stay on message and be part of the team." ...Do you remember generally finding that?
    • Raskin, 2:19:07
      • Generally, yes.
        • Mueller
  • Robert Costello, a lawyer close to the President's team, emailed Cohen to say... "You are 'loved'...they are in our corner...Sleep well tonight," and "you have friends in high places." And that's up on the screen... Do you remember reporting that?
    • Raskin, 2:19:35
      • I see that.
        • Mueller
  • [W]hen the news first broke that Cohen had arranged payoffs to Stormy Daniels, Cohen faithfully stuck to this party line. He said that publicly that neither the Trump organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction and neither reimbursed him. Trump's personal attorney at that point quickly texted Cohen to say... "Client says thank you for what you do." ...[W]ho is the capital "C" client thanking Cohen for what he does?
    • Raskin, 2:19:53
      • Can't speak to that.
        • Mueller
  • The assumption in the context suggests very strongly it's President Trump.
    • Raskin, 2:20:29
      • I can't speak to that.
        • Mueller
  • Cohen later broke and pled guilty to campaign finance offenses, and admitted fully they were made... "at the direction of candidate Trump." Do you remember that?
  • After Cohen's guilty plea, the President suddenly changed his tune towards Mr. Cohen, didn't he?
    • Raskin, 2:20:45
      • I would say, I rely on what's in the report.
        • Mueller
  • [H]e made the suggestion that Cohen family members had committed crimes. He targeted, for example, Cohen's father-in-law and repeatedly suggested that he was guilty of committing crimes, right?
    • Raskin, 2:20:55
      • Generally accurate.
        • Mueller
  • On page 154 you give a powerful summary of this changing in dynamics. And you said... "The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or to undermine Cohen's credibility once Cohen began cooperating."
    • Raskin, 2:21:07
      • I believe that's accurate.
        • Mueller
  • [I]n my view, if anyone else in America engaged in these actions, they would have been charged with witness tampering. We must enforce the principle in Congress that you emphasize so well in the last sentence of your report, which is that in America, no person is so high as to be above the law.

Pramila Jayapal, Washington[edit]

7th congressional district, since 2017.
  • [L]et's turn to the fifth of the obstruction episodes in your report, and that is the evidence of whether President Trump engaged in witness tampering with Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, whose foreign ties were critical into your investigation into Russia's interference in our elections... Volume 2, page 123. Your office got indictments against Manafort and Trump Deputy Campaign Manager, Rick Gates, in two different jurisdictions. Correct?
  • And your office found that after a grand jury indicted them, Manafort told Gates not to plead guilty to any charges because... "he had talked to the... President's personal counsel, and they were going to take care of us." Is that correct?
    • Jayapal, 2:27:55
      • That's accurate.
        • Mueller
  • And according to your report, one day after Manafort's conviction on eight felony charges... [page 127, Vol. 2] "The President said that flipping was not fair and almost ought to be outlawed." Is that correct?
    • Jayapal, 2:28:10
      • I'm aware of that.
        • Mueller
  • In this context... what does it mean to flip?
    • Jayapal, 2:28:23
      • To have somebody cooperate in a criminal investigation.
        • Mueller
  • In your report you concluded that President Trump and his personal counsel Rudy Giuliani... "made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort, while also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to 'flip' and cooperate with the government"... Is that correct?
  • And as you stated earlier, witness tampering can be shown where someone with an improper motive encourages another person not to cooperate with law enforcement. Is that correct?
  • [O]n page 123 of Volume 2 you also discuss the President's motive and you say that as court proceedings moved forward against Manafort, President Trump... "discussed with aides whether and in what way Manafort might be cooperating... and whether Manafort knew any information that would be harmful to the President." ...Is that correct? ..page 123, Volume 2.
    • Jayapal, 2:29:06
      • I have it. Thank you. Yes.
        • Mueller
  • And when someone tries to stop another person from working with law enforcement, and they do it because they're worried about what that person will say, it seems clear, from what you wrote, that this is a classic definition of witness tampering. Now Mr. Manafort did eventually decide to cooperate with your office, and he entered into a plea agreement, but then he broke that agreement. Can you describe what he did that caused you to tell the court that the agreement was off.
    • Jayapal, 2:29:34
      • Now I'd refer you to the court proceedings on that issue.
        • Mueller
  • [O]n page 127 of Volume 2 you told the court that Mr. Manafort lied about a number of matters that were material to the investigation and you said that Manafort's lawyers also... "regularly briefed the President's lawyers on topics discussed and the information that Manafort had provided in interviews with the Special Counsel's Office." Does that sound right? ...That's page 127, Volume 2. That's a direct quote.
    • Jayapal, 2:30:02
      • If it's on the report, yes I support it.
        • Mueller
  • [T]wo days after you told the court that Manafort broke his plea agreement by lying repeatedly, did President Trump tell the press that Mr. Manafort was... "very brave because he did not flip." This is page 128 of Volume 2.
    • Jayapal, 2:30:29
      • If it's in the report I support it... as it is set forth.
        • Mueller
  • [I]n your report you make a very serious conclusion about the evidence regarding the President's involvement with the Manafort criminal proceedings. ...[page 132, Vol. II] "Evidence concerning the President's conduct toward Manafort indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government."
    It is clear that the President both publicly and privately discouraged Mr. Manafort's cooperation or flipping, while also dangling the promise of a pardon, if he stayed loyal and did not share what he knew about the President. Anyone else who did these things would be prosecuted for them. We must ensure that no one is above the law...

Val Demings, Florida[edit]

10th congressional district, since 2017.
  • [L]et's talk about lies. According to your report, page 9, Volume 1, witnesses lied to your office and to Congress. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russia interference, according to your report. Other than the individuals who plead guilty to crimes based on their lying to you and your team, did other witnesses lie to you?
    • Demings, 2:36:43
      • I think there are probably a spectrum of witnesses in terms of those who are not telling the full truth, and those who are outright liars.
        • Mueller
  • It is fair to say, then, that there were limits on what evidence was available to your investigation of both Russia election interference and obstruction of justice.
    • Demings, 2:37:20
      • That's true, and it's usually the case.
        • Mueller
  • And that lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation?
    • Demings, 2:37:33 (Yielded the balance of time to Mr. Correa.)
      • I would generally agree with that.
        • Mueller

Lou Correa, California[edit]

46th congressional district, since 2018.
  • I want to focus on another section of obstruction which is the President's conduct concerning Michael Flynn, the President's national security advisor. In early [2017], the White House Counsel and the President were informed that Mr. Flynn had lied to government authorities about his communications with the Russian ambassador during the Trump campaign in transition. Is this correct?
  • If a hostile nation knows that a U.S. official has lied publicly... that can be used to blackmail that government official, correct?
    • Correa, 2:38:43
      • I'm not going to speak to that. I don't disagree with it necessarily, but I'm not going to speak... anymore to that issue.
        • Mueller
  • Flynn resigned on February 13, 2016, and the very next day when the President was having lunch with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, did the President say... "now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over"...
  • And is it true that Christie responded by saying... "no way, and this Russia thing is far from over"...
    • Correa, 2:39:19
      • That's the way we have it in the report.
        • Mueller
  • And after the President met with Christie, later... that same day the President arranged to meet with then FBI Director James Comey, alone in the Oval Office. Correct?
    • Correa, 2:39:30
      • Correct. Particularly if you have the citation to the report.
        • Mueller
  • Page 39-40, Volume 2. ...And according to Comey, the President told him... "I hope you can see your way to clear to letting this thing go, to letting Flynn go. He's a good guy and I hope you can let it go."... Page 40, Volume 2.
  • "Comey understood this to be 'a direction' because of the President's position and the circumstances of the one-to-one meeting"? Page 40, Volume 2.
    • Correa, 2:40:21
      • Well, I understand it's in the report and I support it as being in the report.
        • Mueller
  • Even though the President publicly denied telling Comey to drop the investigation, you found... "substantial evidence corroborating Comey's account over the President's." Is this correct?
  • The President fired Comey on May 9. Is that correct, sir?
    • Correa, 2:40:53
      • I believe that's the accurate date.
        • Mueller
  • That's page 77, Volume 2. You found substantial evidence that the catalyst for the President's firing of Comey was Comey's... "unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation"? ...And that's page 75, Volume 2.
    • Correa, 2:41:00
      • I'm not going to delve more into the details of what happened. If it's in the report, then I support it because it's already been reviewed appropriately [as it] appears in the report.
        • Mueller
  • And in fact, the very next day the President told the Russian Foreign Minister...[page 62, Vol. II] "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off. ...I'm not under investigation."... Is that correct?
    • Correa, 2:41:29
      • If that's what was... written in the report, yes.
        • Mueller

Mary Gay Scanlon, Pennsylvania[edit]

5th congressional district, since 2019.
  • I want to ask you some questions about the President's statements regarding advanced knowledge of the WikiLeaks dumps. So the President refused to sit down with your investigators for an in-person interview, correct?
  • So the only answers we have to questions from the President are contained in Appendix C to your report.
    • Scanlon, 2:47:41
      • That's correct.
        • Mueller
  • Appendix C, page 5, you asked the President about a dozen questions about whether he had knowledge that WikiLeaks possessed the stolen emails that might be released in a way helpful to his campaign, or harmful to the Clinton campaign. Is that correct, you asked those questions?
  • In February of this year, Mr. Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen testified to Congress under oath that... "Mr. Trump knew from Roger Stone in advance about the WikiLeaks dump."... That's a matter of public record, isn't it?
    • Scanlon, 2:48:27
      • I am not... specifically familiar with what he testified to before Congress.
        • Mueller
  • [P]age 18 of Volume 2... According to Deputy Campaign Manager Rick Gates, in the summer of 2016, he and Candidate Trump were on the way to an airport, shortly after WikiLeaks released its first set of stolen e-mails. And Gates told your investigators that Candidate Trump was on a phone call, and when the call ended, "Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming."... Do you recall that from the report?
    • Scanlon, 2:49:00
      • If it's in the report, I support it.
        • Mueller
  • [O]n page 77 of Volume 2... "In addition, some witnesses said that Trump privately sought information about future WikiLeak releases".... Is that correct?
  • [I]n Appendix C, where the President did answer some written questions, he said... "I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with him, nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign".... Is that correct?
    • Scanlon, 2:49:56
      • If it's from the report, it is correct.
        • Mueller
  • Is it fair then, that the President denied knowledge of himself or anyone else [in his campaign] discussing WikiLeaks dumps with Mr. Stone?

Sylvia Garcia, Texas[edit]

29th congressional district, since 2019.
  • I would like to ask you about the President's answers relating to Roger Stone. Roger Stone was indicted for multiple federal crimes and [the] indictment alleges that Mr. Stone discussed future WikiLeaks e-mail releases with the Trump campaign. Understanding there's a gag order on the Stone case, I will keep my questions restricted to publicly available information. Mr. Stone's indictment...
    • Garcia, 2:56:06
      • Let me just at the outset... I would like some demarcation of that which is applicable to this, but also in such a way that it does not hinder the other prosecution that is taking place in D.C.
        • Mueller
  • Mr. Stone's indictment states among other things... "Stone was contacted by senior Trump officials to inquire about future releases of organization 1", organization 1 being WikiLeaks. The indictment continues... "Stone thereafter told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by WikiLeaks". So... the indictment alleges that Stone was asked by the Trump campaign to get information about more WikiLeaks releases, and that Stone in fact did tell the Trump campaign about potential future releases. Correct?
    • Garcia, 2:56:51 (The above statements in quotes are not from the Mueller Report.)
      • Yes... but I see you're quoting from the indictment, and even though the indictment is a public document, I feel uncomfortable discussing anything having to do with the Stone prosecution.
        • Mueller
  • [T]he President denied ever discussing future WikiLeaks releases with Stone and denied knowing whether anyone else in his campaign had those discussions with Stone. If you had learned that other witnesses, putting aside the President,.. had lied to your investigators in response to specific questions whether... in writing or in interview, could they be charged with false statement crimes?
    • Garcia, 2:58:02
      • I'm not going to speculate because... you're asking for me to speculate given a set of circumstances.
        • Mueller
  • [L]et's put it more specific. What if I had made a false statement to an investigator on your team. Could I go to jail for up to five years?
    • Garcia, 2:58:37
      • Yes. ...Although... it's Congress, so...
        • Mueller
  • Well, that's the point, though, isn't it that no one is above the law.
    • Garcia, 2:58:50
      • That's right.
        • Mueller
  • Not you, not the Congress, and certainly not the President, and I think it's just troubling to have to hear some of these things, and that's why the American people deserve to learn the full facts of the misconduct described in your report, for which any other person would have been charged with crimes. ....No one is above the law. ...

Joe Neguse, Colorado[edit]

2nd congressional district, since 2019.
  • I'd like to talk to you about one of the other incidents of obstruction, and that's the evidence in your report showing the President directing his son and his communications director to issue a false public statement in June of 2017 about a meeting between his campaign and Russian individuals at Trump Tower in June of 2016. According to your report, Mr. Trump Jr. was the only Trump associate who participated in that meeting... who declined to be voluntarily interviewed by your office. Is that correct?
  • Did Mr. Trump Jr. or his counsel ever communicate to your office any intent to invoke his fifth amendment right against self incrimination?
    • Neguse, 3:04:36
      • I'm not going to answer that.
        • Mueller
  • You did pose written questions to the President about his knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting. You... also asked him about whether or not he had directed a false press statement. The President did not answer... that question, correct?
    • Neguse, 3:04:46
      • I don't have it in front of me. I take you word.
        • Mueller
  • Appendix C, specifically C13 states as much. According to page 100 of Volume 2 of your report, your investigation found that Hope Hicks, the President's communications director, in June of 2017, was shown emails that set up the Trump Tower meeting, and she told your office that she was... "shocked by the emails" because they looked... "really bad." True? ...While you're flipping to that page... I will also tell you that according to page 99 of Volume 2... those emails in question stated, according to your report, that the crown prosecutor of Russia had offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia, as part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump. Trump Jr. responded, "if it's what you say, I love it. And he, Kushner, and Manafort, met with the Russian attorneys and several other Russian individuals at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016"... Correct?
    • Neguse, 3:05:03
      • Generally accurate.
        • Mueller
  • Isn't it true that Ms. Hicks told your office that she went multiple times to the President to... "urge him that they should be fully transparent about the June 9th meeting,"... but the President, each time, said No. correct?
  • And the reason was, because of those emails which the President... believed "would not leak." Correct?
    • Neguse, 3:06:26
      • I'm not certain how it's characterized, but generally correct.
        • Mueller
  • Did the President direct Ms. Hicks to say... "Only that Trump Jr. took a brief meeting and it was about Russian adoption"... because Trump Jr.'s statement to The New York Times... "said too much" according to page 102, of Volume 2?
  • And according to Ms. Hicks, the President still directed her to say the meeting was only about Russian adoption. Correct?
  • Despite knowing that to be untrue.

Lucy McBath, Georgia[edit]

6th congressional district, since 2019.
  • Your investigations of the Russian attack on our democracy and of obstruction of justice were extraordinarily productive and in under two years you charged at least 37 people or entities with crimes. You convicted seven individuals, five of whom are top Trump campaign or White House aides. Charges remain pending against more than two dozen Russian persons or entities and against others. Now let me start with those five Trump campaign or administration aides that you convicted. Would you agree with me that they are Paul Manafort, President Trump's campaign manager; Rick Gates, President Trump's deputy campaign manager; Michael Flynn, President Trump's former National Security Advisor; Michael Cohen, the President's personal attorney; George Papadopoulos, President Trump's former campaign foreign policy advisor? Correct?
  • And the sixth Trump associate will face... trial later this year. ...And that person would be Roger Stone. Correct?
    • McBath, 3:13:30
      • Correct. ...I'm not certain about what you said about Stone but he is in another court system, as I indicated before.
        • Mueller
  • And there are many other charges as well, correct?
  • [I]n less than two years your team was able to uncover an incredible amount of information related to Russia's attack on our elections, and to obstruction of justice, and there is still more that we have to learn. Despite facing unfair attacks by the President, and even here today, your work has been substantive and fair. The work has laid the critical foundation for our investigation, and for that I thank you...

Greg Stanton, Arizona[edit]

9th congressional district, since 2019.
  • I'm disappointed that some have questioned your motives throughout this process, and I want to take a moment to remind the American people of who you are, and your exemplary service to our country. You are a Marine. You served in Vietnam and earned a Bronze Star and Purple Heart, correct?
  • Which President appointed you to become the United States Attorney for Massachusetts? ...President Ronald Reagan had the honor to do so. ...Under whose administration did you serve as the assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ's criminal division?
  • ...After that you took a job at a prestigious law firm, and after only a couple of years, you did something extraordinary. You left that lucrative position to re-enter public service, prosecuting homicides here in Washington, D.C. Is that correct?
  • When you were named Director of the FBI, which President first appointed you?
  • And the Senate confirmed you with a vote of 98 to 0, correct?
    • McBath, 3:15:51
      • Surprising.
        • Mueller
  • And you were sworn in as Director just one week before the September 11th attacks. You helped to protect this nation against another attack. You did such an outstanding job that when your 10-year term expired, the Senate unanimously voted to extend your term for another 2 years, correct?
  • When you were asked in 2017 to take the job as Special Counsel, the President had just fired FBI Director James Comey. The Justice Department and the FBI were in turmoil. You must have known there would be an extraordinary challenge. Why did you accept?
    • McBath, 3:16:17
      • ...It was a challenge. ...
        • Mueller
  • Some people have attacked the political motivations of your team, even suggested your investigation was a witch hunt. When you considered people to join your team, did you ever, even once, ask about their political affiliation?
    • McBath, 3:16:40
      • Never once.
        • Mueller
  • In your entire career as a law enforcement official, have you ever made a hiring decision based upon a person's political affiliation?
    • McBath, 3:16:55
      • No. ...The capabilities that we have shown in the report that's been discussed here today, is a result of a team of agents and lawyers who are absolutely exemplary, and were hired because of the value they could contribute to getting the job done, and getting it done expeditiously.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou're a patriot. And [it's] clear to me in reading you report, and listening to your testimony today, you acted fairly and with restraint. There were circumstances where you could have filed charges against other people mentioned in the report, but you declined. Not every prosecutor does that, certainly not one on a witch hunt. The attacks made against you and your team intensified, because your report is damning, and I believe you did uncover substantial evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. Let me also say something else that you are right about. The only remedy for this situation, is for Congress to take action.

Madeleine Dean, Pennsylvania[edit]

4th congressional district, since 2019.
  • I wanted to ask you about public confusion connected with Attorney General Barr's release of your report. I will be quoting your March 27th letter. ...[I]n that letter and at several other times, did you convey to the Attorney General, that the... "Introductions and Executive Summaries of our two volume report accurately summarized this Office's work and conclusions."?
    • Dean, 3:18:09 (The above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • [T]he letter itself, speaks for itself.
        • Mueller
  • Continuing with your letter, you wrote to the Attorney General that... "The summary letter... the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24th did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office's work and conclusions."... Is that correct?
    • Dean, 3:18:41 (The above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • I rely on the letter itself for its terms.
        • Mueller
  • What was it about the report's context, nature, substance, that the attorney general's letter did not capture?
    • Dean, 3:19:05
      • [W]e captured that in the March 27th responsive letter.
        • Mueller
  • [C]ould Attorney General Barr have avoided public confusion if he had released your... executive introduction and summaries?
    • Dean, 3:19:41
      • I don't feel comfortable speculating...
        • Mueller
  • ...May 30th, the Attorney General in an interview with CBS News said that... you "could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity"... on the part of the President. Did the Attorney General or his staff ever tell you that he thought you should make a decision on whether the President engaged in criminal activity?
    • Dean, 3:19:51 (The above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • I'm not going to speak to what the Attorney General was thinking or saying.
        • Mueller
  • I agree with your March 27th letter. There was public confusion, and the President took full advantage of that confusion by falsely claiming your report found no obstruction. Let us be clear, your report did not exonerate the President. Instead, it provided substantial evidence of obstruction of justice, leaving Congress to do its duty. We shall... not shrink from that duty.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Florida[edit]

26th congressional district, since 2019.
  • ...Volume 2, page 158. ..."The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." Is that right?
    • Mucarsel-Powell, 3:21:22
      • That is accurate, and that is what we found.
        • Mueller
  • And you're basically referring to senior advisors who disobeyed the President's orders like White House Counsel Don McGahn, Former Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski. Is that right?
    • Mucarsel-Powell, 3:21:46
      • We have not specified the persons mentioned.
        • Mueller
  • ...page 158, White House Counsel Don McGahn ..."did not tell the acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President's orders." You also explained that an attempt to obstruct justice does not have to succeed to be a crime, right?
    • Mucarsel-Powell, 3:22:01
      • True.
        • Mueller
  • Simply attempting to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct?
    • Mucarsel-Powell, 3:22:22
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • So even though the President's aides refused to carry out his orders to interfere with your investigation, that is not a defense to obstruction of justice by this President, is it?
    • Mucarsel-Powell, 3:22:27
      • I'm not going to speculate.
        • Mueller
  • So to reiterate, simply trying to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct?
    • Mucarsel-Powell, 3:22:42
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou say that the President's efforts to influence the investigation were... "mostly unsuccessful" and that's because not all of his efforts were unsuccessful, right?
    • Mucarsel-Powell, 3:22:48
      • You're reading into... what we've written in the report.
        • Mueller
  • I was going to ask you if you could just tell me which ones you had in mind, as successful, when you wrote that sentence.
    • Mucarsel-Powell, 3:23:05
      • I'm... going to pass on that.
        • Mueller
  • [T]oday we've talked a lot about the separate acts by this President, but you also wrote in your report that... "[T]he overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences [that] can be drawn about his intent." Correct?
    • Mucarsel-Powell, 3:23:16
      • Accurate recitation from the report.
        • Mueller
  • [O]n page 158... it's important for everyone to note that the President's conduct had a significant change when he realized that... the investigations were conducted to investigate his obstruction acts. So, in other words, when the American people are deciding whether the President committed obstruction of justice, they need to look at all of the President's conduct and overall pattern of behavior. Is that correct?
    • Mucarsel-Powell, 3:23:43
      • I don't disagree.
        • Mueller
  • Dr. Mueller/Director Mueller... I have certainly made up my mind about whether... what we have reviewed today meets the elements of obstruction, including whether there was corrupt intent. ...[A]nyone else, including some members of Congress, would have been charged with crimes for these acts. We would not have allowed this behavior from any of the previous 44 Presidents. We should not allow it now, or for the future, to protect our democracy. ...[Y]es, we will continue to investigate, because as you clearly state at the end of your report: No one is above the law.

Veronica Escobar, Texas[edit]

16th congressional district, since 2019.
  • [Y]ou wrote in your report that you... "determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment"... Was that, in part, because of an opinion by the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, that a sitting President can't be charged with a crime?
  • [A]t your May 29, 2019 press conference, you explained that... "the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing"... That process... is that impeachment?
    • Escobar, 3:25:25 (Above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • I'm not going to comment...
        • Mueller
  • In your report you also wrote that you did not want to... "potentially preempt Constitutional processes for addressing Presidential misconduct"... For the non-lawyers in the room, what did you mean by... "potentially preempt constitutional processes"?
    • Escobar, 3:25:54
      • I'm not going to try to explain that.
        • Mueller
  • That actually is... from page 1 of Volume 2. In the footnote... What are those constitutional processes?
    • Escobar, 3:26:14
      • I think I heard you mention at least one.
        • Mueller
  • Impeachment, correct?
    • Escobar, 3:26:33
      • I'm not going to comment.
        • Mueller
  • That is one of the Constitutional processes listed in the report in the footnote, in Volume 2. Your report documents the many ways the President sought to interfere with your investigation, and you state in your report on page 10, Volume 2, that... "interfering with a congressional inquiry or investigation with corrupt intent can also constitute obstruction of justice."
  • [T]he President has told us that he intends to fight all the subpoenas. His continued efforts to interfere with investigations of his potential misconduct certainly reinforce the importance of the process the Constitution requires to... "formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing" as you cited in the report. ...[T]his hearing has been very helpful to this Committee as it exercises its Constitutional duty to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President. I agree with you... that we all have a vital role in holding this President accountable for his actions. More than that, I believe we in Congress have a duty to demand accountability, and safeguard one of our nation's highest principles, that no one is above the law. From everything that I have heard you say here today, it's clear that anyone else would have been prosecuted based on the evidence available in your report. It now falls on us to hold President Trump accountable. ...

Republican Representatives[edit]

Their Statements, Questions, and the associated Responses from Robert Mueller.

Doug Collins, Ranking Member, Georgia[edit]

9th congressional district, since 2013
  • For two years leading up to the release of the Mueller report, and in the three months since, Americans were first told what to expect, and then what to believe. Collusion, we were told, was in plain sight, even if the special counsel's team didn't find it. When Mr. Mueller produced his report and Attorney General Barr provided it to every American, we read, "No American conspired with Russia to interfere in our elections," but learned the depths of Russia's malice toward America.
  • The burden of proof for accusations that remain unproven is extremely high, and especially in light of the special counsel's thoroughness. We were told this investigation began as an inquiry into whether Russia meddled in our 2016 election. Mr. Mueller, you concluded they did. Russians accessed Democrat servers and disseminated sensitive information by tricking campaign insiders into revealing protected information. The investigation also reviewed whether Donald Trump, the President, sought Russian assistance as a candidate to win the presidency. Mr. Mueller concluded he did not. His family or advisers did not. In fact, the report concludes no one in the President's campaign colluded, collaborated or conspired with the Russians. The President watched the public narrative surrounding this investigation that assumes... his guilt while he knew the extent of his innocence.
  • Volume 2 of Mr. Mueller's report details the President's reaction to a frustrating investigation where his innocence was established early on. The President's attitude toward the investigation was understandably negative, yet the President did not use his authority to close the investigation. He asked his lawyer if Mr. Mueller had conflicts that disqualified Mr. Mueller from the job, but he did not shut down the investigation. The President knew he was innocent. Those are the facts of the Mueller report. Russia meddled in the 2016 election. The President did not conspire with the Russians and nothing we hear... today will change those facts. But one element of this story remains: the beginnings of the FBI investigation into the President. I look forward to Mr. Mueller's testimony about what he found during his review of the origins of the investigation.
  • [T]he inspector general continues to review how baseless gossip can be used to launch an FBI investigation against a private citizen, and eventually a President. Those results will be released, and we will need to learn from them to ensure government intelligence and law enforcement powers are never again used and turned on a private citizen... or a political candidate as a result of the political leanings of a handful of FBI agents.
  • The origins and conclusions of the Mueller investigation are the same things: what it means to be American. Every American has a voice in our democracy. We must protect the sanctity of their voice by combating election interference. Every American enjoys the presumption of innocence and guarantee of due process. If we carry... anything away today, it must be that we increase our vigilance against foreign election interference, while we ensure our government officials don't weaponize their power against the constitutional rights guaranteed to every U.S. citizen.
  • Finally, we must agree that the opportunity cost here is too high. The months we have spent investigating from this dais failed to end the border crisis or contribute to the growing job market. Instead, we have gotten stuck and it's paralyzed this committee and this House.
  • ...I believe this place is a place where we can actually do things and help people. Six and a half years ago, I came here to work on behalf of the people of the 9th District and this country. And we accomplished a lot in those first six years on a bipartisan basis, with many of my friends across the aisle sitting on this dais with me today. However, this year, because of the majority's dislike of this President, and the endless hearings into a closed investigation have caused us to accomplish nothing except talk about the problems of our country while our border is on fire, in crisis, and everything else is stopped. This hearing is long overdue. We've had the truth for months. No American conspired to throw our election. What we need today is to let that truth bring us confidence, and I hope Mr. Chairman, closure.
  • I want to lay some foundation. ...In your press conference you said "any testimony from your office would not go beyond our report. We chose these words carefully. The work speaks for itself. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress." Do you stand by that statement?
    • Collins, 27:01 (The above quote is from Mueller's previous press conference,as stated.)
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • Since closing the special counsel's office in May of 2019, have you conducted any additional interviews or obtained any new information in your role as special counsel? ...Have you conducted any new interviews, any new witnesses, anything?
    • Collins, 27:21 (The above quote is from Mueller's previous press conference,as stated.)
      • No.
        • Mueller
  • At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed... or stopped, or hindered?
    • Collins, 27:45 (The above quote is from Mueller's previous press conference,as stated.)
      • No.
        • Mueller
  • Were you or your team provided any questions by members of Congress, [or] the majority, ahead of your hearing today?
    • Collins, 27:52 (The above quote is from Mueller's previous press conference,as stated.)
      • No.
        • Mueller
  • Given the questions that you've just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the President was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?
    • Collins, 28:48 (The above quote is from Mueller's previous press conference,as stated.)
      • We found insufficient evidence of the President's culpability.
        • Mueller
  • So that would be a yes.
    • Collins, 29:13 (The above quote is from Mueller's previous press conference,as stated.)
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • Isn't it true the evidence did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charge of Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had unlawful relationships with any Russian official, Volume 2, page 76? Correct?
    • Collins, 29:18 (The above quote is from Mueller's previous press conference,as stated.)
      • I leave the answer to our report.
        • Mueller
  • So that is a yes. Is [it]... true your investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian government in the election interference activity: Volume 1, page 2; Volume 1, page 173?
    • Collins, 29:35
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • Although your reports states, "collusion is not some... specific offense," and you said that this morning, "or a term of art in federal criminal laws, conspiracy is." In the colloquial context, are collusion and conspiracy essentially synonymous terms? ...on page 180 of Volume 1 of your report, you wrote, "As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371."
    • Collins, 29:48
      • I leave it with the report.
        • Mueller
  • So the report says yes, they are synonymous.
    • Collins, 31:48
      • Yes.
        • Mueller
  • Hopefully, for finally, out of your own report, we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy. ...Did you ever look into... other countries investigated in the Russians'... interference into our election? Were other countries investigated... or found knowledge that they had interference in our election?
    • Collins, 31:50
      • I'm not going to discuss... other matters.
        • Mueller

John Ratcliffe, Texas[edit]

4th congressional district, since 2015
  • [I]n explaining, the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declination decision, the report, on the bottom of page 2, Volume 2, reads as follows: "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Now, I read that correctly?
    • Ratcliffe, 37:36
      • Yes sir.
        • Mueller
  • [W]hich DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? ...Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? ...Let me make it easier. ...Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated... because their innocence was not conclusively determined?
    • Ratcliffe, 38:15
      • I cannot, but this is a unique situation.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou can't find it because... It doesn't exist. The special counsel's job... Nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It's not in any of the documents. It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the Justice Manual, and it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together, because... it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence, or to exonerate him, because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it including sitting Presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never - ever need to conclusively determine it. Now... the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof, that I can't find, and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies; and you used it to write a report; and the very first line of your report... says, as you read this morning, it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the special counsel." That's the very first word of your report, right?
    • Ratcliffe, 39:09
      • That's correct.
        • Mueller
  • Here's the problem... The special counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So... you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached." You wrote 180 pages... about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged, or decided. And... by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged. So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle... that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized, under the law, to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman... when he said, "Donald Trump is not above the law." He's not. But he damn sure shouldn't be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him.
    • Ratcliffe, 40:35 (Quotation marks in this entry do not refer to the Mueller Report.)

Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin[edit]

5th congressional district, since 1979
  • Now, since you decided under the OLC opinion that you couldn't prosecute a sitting President, meaning President Trump, why do we have all of this investigation of President Trump that the other side is talking about when you know that you weren't going to prosecute him?
    • Sensenbrenner, 48:52
      • [Y]ou don't know where the investigation's going to lie [lead], and the OLC opinion itself says that you can continue the investigation even though you are not going to indict the President.
        • Mueller
  • [I]f you're not going to indict the President then you just continue fishing. ...[Y]ou can indict other people, but you can't indict the sitting President, right?
    • Sensenbrenner, 49:23
      • That's true.
        • Mueller
  • Mr. Chabot and I were on this committee during the Clinton impeachment. Now, while I recognize that the independent counsel statute under which Kenneth Starr operated is different from the special counsel statute, he, in a number of occasions in his report, stated that... "President Clinton's actions may have risen to impeachable conduct," recognizing that it is up to the House of Representatives to determine what conduct is impeachable. You never used the term "raising to impeachable conduct" for any of the 10 instances... Is it true that there's nothing in Volume 2 of the report that says that the President may have engaged in impeachable conduct?
    • Sensenbrenner, 50:46
      • [W]e have studiously kept in the... center of our investigation... our mandate, and our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct, our mandate goes to... developing the report and putting [submitting] the report into the attorney general.
        • Mueller
  • [T]here are a couple of statements that you made... that said that, "This is not for me to decide," and the implication is that this is for this committee to decide. Now, you didn't use the word "impeachable conduct" like Starr did. There was no statute to prevent you from using the word "impeachable conduct." ...I go back to what Mr. Ratcliffe said... even the President is innocent until proven guilty.
    • Sensenbrenner, 52:06 (Quotation marks in this entry do not reference the Mueller Report.)

Steve Chabot, Ohio[edit]

1st congressional district, since 2007 & previously, 1995 to 2009.
  • [M]y Democratic colleagues were very disappointed in your report. They were expecting you to say something along the lines of here's why President Trump deserves to be impeached, much as Ken Starr did relative to President Clinton back about 20 years ago. Well, you didn't, so their strategy had to change. Now they allege that there's plenty of evidence in your report to impeach the President, but the American people just didn't read it. And this hearing today is their last best hope to build up some sort of groundswell across America to impeach President Trump. That's what this is really all about today.
  • On page 103 of Volume 2 of your report, when discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, you referenced... "the firm that produced Steele reporting". The name of that firm was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?
    • Chabot, 58:24
      • I'm not familiar with... that.
        • Mueller
  • Fusion GPS produced the opposition research document... widely known as the Steele dossier, and the owner of Fusion GPA [sic Fusion GPS] was... Glenn Simpson. Are... are you familiar with...
    • Chabot, 59:10
      • This is outside my purview.
        • Mueller
  • Glenn Simpson was never mentioned in the 448 page Mueller report, was he?
    • Chabot, 59:26
      • [I]t's being handled in the department by others.
        • Mueller
  • [H]e's not mentioned in there. ...At the same time Fusion GPS was working to collect opposition research on Donald Trump from foreign sources on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, it also was representing a Russian-based company, Prevezon, sanctioned by the U.S. government. Are you aware of that?
    • Chabot, 59:46
      • That's outside my purview.
        • Mueller
  • One of the key players in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was Natalia Veselnitskaya, who you described in your report as a Russian attorney who advocated for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Veselnitskaya had been working with none other than Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS since at least early 2014. Are -- are you aware of that?
    • Chabot, 1:00:18
      • Outside my purview.
        • Mueller
  • But you didn't mention that, or her connections to Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS in... your report at all. ...NBC News has reported [in a story by Ken Dilanian] the following:... "Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya says she first received the supposedly incriminating information she brought to Trump Tower—describing alleged tax evasion and donation to Democrats—from..." none other than "Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS owner,..." [who had been hired to conduct research in a New York federal court case.] You didn't include that in the report, and I assume you...
    • Chabot, 1:00:46
      • This is a matter that's being handled by others at the Department of Justice.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]our report spends 14 pages discussing the June 9th, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. ...It would be fair to say, would it not, that you spent significant resources investigating that meeting?
    • Chabot, 1:01:23
      • I'd refer you to the... report.
        • Mueller
  • [I]n stark contrast to the actions of the Trump campaign, we know that the Clinton campaign did pay Fusion GPS to gather dirt on the Trump campaign, from persons associated with foreign governments. But your report doesn't mention a thing about Fusion GPS in it, and you didn't investigate Fusion GPS' connections to Russia. So let me just ask you this. ...Can you see, that from neglecting to mention Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS' involvement with the Clinton campaign, to focusing on a brief meeting at the Trump Tower that produced nothing, to ignoring the Clinton campaign's own ties to Fusion GPS, why some view your report as a pretty one-sided attack on the President?
    • Chabot, 1:01:48
      • [T]his is still outside my purview.
        • Mueller
  • I guess it's just by chance, by coincidence, that the things left out of the report tended to be favorable to the President.

Louie Gohmert, Texas[edit]

1st congressional district, since 2005.
  • You and James Comey have been good friends or were good friends for a -- for many years, correct?
    • Gohmert, 1:08:56
      • ...[W]e were friends.
        • Mueller
  • [B]efore you were appointed as special counsel, had you talked to James Comey in the preceding six months?
  • When you were appointed as special counsel, was President Trump's firing of Comey something you anticipated investigating, potentially obstruction of justice?
    • Gohmert, 1:09:24
      • I can't get into that. That's internal deliberations of the Justice Department.
        • Mueller
  • Actually, it goes to your credibility and maybe you've been away from the court room for a while. Credibility is always relevant. It's always material, and that goes for you, too. You're a witness before us.
  • [W]hen you talked to President Trump the day before... you were appointed as Special Counsel, you were talking to him about the FBI Director position again...
    • Gohmert, 1:09:51
      • Not... as a candidate [for FBI Director]...
        • Mueller
  • Did he mention the firing of James Comey in your discussion with him?
    • Gohmert, 1:10:07
      • Cannot remember. ...I don't believe so, but I'm not going to be specific.
        • Mueller
  • But if he did, you could've been a fact witness as to the President's comments and state of mind on firing James Comey.
    • Gohmert, 1:10:19
      • I suppose that's possible.
        • Mueller
  • [M]ost prosecutors want to make sure there was no appearance of impropriety, but in your case, you hired a bunch of people that did not like the President. Now let me ask you, when did you first learn of Peter Strzok's animus toward Donald Trump?
    • Gohmert, 1:10:31
      • In the summer of 2017.
        • Mueller
  • You didn't know before he was hired for your team? ...Peter Strzok hated Trump!
    • Gohmert, 1:10:57
      • I did not know that.
        • Mueller
  • [W]hen did you [first] learn of the ongoing affair he was having with Lisa Page?
    • Gohmert, 1:11:23
      • About the same time...
        • Mueller
  • Did you ever order anybody to investigate the deletion of all of their texts off of [and reformatting] their government phones?
    • Gohmert, 1:11:32
      • ...No, there was an IG investigation ongoing.
        • Mueller
  • Regarding collusion or conspiracy, you didn't find evidence of any agreement, and I'm quoting you, "among the Trump campaign officials and any Russia linked individuals to interfere with our U.S. election" correct?
  • [A]n element of any of those obstructions you referenced requires a corrupt state of mind, correct?
    • Gohmert, 1:12:20
      • Corrupt intent, correct.
        • Mueller
  • [I]f somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to affect the election, and they see the big Justice Department with people that hate that person coming after them, and then a Special Counsel appointed who hires a dozen or more people that hate that person, and he knows he's innocent, he's not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done, what he's doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice, and the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuated injustice.
    • Gohmert, 1:12:30
      • I take your question.
        • Mueller

Martha Roby, Alabama[edit]

2nd congressional district, since 2011.
  • Importantly, [in the report] the President never said, "fire Mueller" or "end the investigation", and one doesn't necessitate the other. ...McGahn, in fact, did not resign; he stuck around for a year and a half.
  • When you submitted your report to the attorney general, did you deliver a redacted version of the report so that he would be able to release it to Congress and the public without delay, pursuant to his announcement of his intention to do so during his confirmation hearing?
    • Roby, 1:19:07
      • I'm not going to engage in a discussion about what happened after the production of our report.
        • Mueller
  • Had the attorney general asked you to provide a redacted version of the report?
    • Roby, 1:19:28
      • We worked on the redacted versions together.
        • Mueller
  • Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to Congress or the public?
    • Roby, 1:19:28
      • That's not within my purview.
        • Mueller
  • Did you write the report with the expectation that it would be released publicly?
    • Roby, 1:20:30
      • No, we did not have an expectation. We wrote the report understanding that it was demanded by the statute, and would go to the attorney general for further... review.
        • Mueller
  • Were there significant changes in tone or substance of the report made after the announcement that the report would be made available to Congress and the public?
    • Roby, 1:21:15
      • I can't get into that.
        • Mueller
  • During the Senate testimony of Attorney General William Barr... Senator Kamala Harris asked Mr. Barr if he had looked at all the underlying evidence that... the special counsel's team had gathered. He stated that he had not. ...It's fair to say that in an investigation as comprehensive as yours, it's normal that different members of the team would have reviewed different sets of documents and few, if anyone, would have reviewed all of the underlying [evidence]?
  • How many of the approximately 500 interviews conducted by the Special [Counsel's Office] did you attend personally?
  • On March 27, 2019, you wrote a letter to the attorney general essentially complaining about the media coverage of your report. You wrote, and I quote, "The summery letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25th. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the result of our investigation." ...Did you authorize the letter's release to the media or was it leaked?
    • Roby, 1:22:26
      • I have no knowledge on either.
        • Mueller

Jim Jordan, Ohio[edit]

4th congressional district, since 2007.
  • [T]he FBI interviewed Joseph Mifsud on February 10th, 2017. In that interview, Mr. Mifsud lied. You point this out on page 193, Volume 1, Mifsud denied, Mifsud also falsely stated. In addition, Mifsud omitted. Three times, he lied to the FBI; yet, you didn't charge him with a crime. Why?
    • Jordan, 1:29:02
      • ...I can't get into internal deliberations with regard to who would, or who would not be charged.
        • Mueller
  • You charged a lot of other people for making false statements. Let's remember this... in 2016 the FBI did something they probably haven't done before. They spied on two American citizens associated with a Presidential campaign: George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
    With Carter Page they went to the FISA court, they used the now famous dossier as part of the reason they were able to get the warrant and spy on Carter Page for a better part of a year.
    With Mr. Papadopoulos, they didn't go to the court, they used human sources, all kinds... from about the moment Papadopoulos joins the Trump campaign, you've got all these people all around the world starting to swirl around him, names like Halper, Downer, Mifsud, Thompson, meeting in Rome, London, all kinds of places. The FBI even sent... a lady posing as somebody else, went by the name [Azra Turk], even dispatched her to London to spy on Mr. Papadopoulos. In one of these meetings, Mr. Papadopoulos is talking to a foreign diplomat and he tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton. That diplomat then contacts the FBI, and the FBI opens an investigation based on that fact. You point this out on page 1 of the report. July 31st, 2016 they open the investigation based on that piece of information. ...
    Papadopoulos tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton, diplomat tells the FBI. What I'm wondering is who told Papadopoulos? How'd he find out?
    • Jordan, 1:29:37
      • I can't get into the evidentiary filings.
        • Mueller
  • Yes, you can, because... Page 192.... Joseph Mifsud's the guy who told Papadopoulos, the mysterious professor who lives in Rome and London, works and teaches in two different universities.
    This is the guy who told Papadopoulos. He's the guy who starts it all, and when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times and yet you don't charge him with a crime. You charge Rick Gates for false statements. You charge Paul Manafort for false statements. You charge Michael Cohen with false statements. You charge Michael Flynn, a three star general, with false statements, but the guy who puts the country through this whole saga, starts it all—for [the] three years we've lived this now—he lies and you guys don't charge him. And I'm curious as to why.
    • Jordan, 1:31:15
      • I can't get into it, and it's obvious... that we can't get into charging decisions.
        • Mueller
  • Is Mifsud western intelligence or Russian intelligence?
    • Jordan, 1:32:24
      • Can't get into that.
        • Mueller
  • A lot of things you can't get into. What's interesting, you can charge 13 Russians no one's ever heard of, no one's ever seen. No one's ever going to hear of them. No one's ever going to see them. You can charge them, you can charge all kinds of people who are around the President with [making] false statements, but the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can't charge him. I think that's amazing.
    • Jordan, 1:32:28
      • ...I'm not certain I agree with your characterizations.
        • Mueller
  • Well I'm reading from your report, Mifsud told Papadopoulos, Papadopoulos tells the diplomat, the diplomat tells the FBI, the FBI opens the investigation [on] July 31st, 2016. And here we are three years later, July of 2019, the country's been put through this, and the central figure who launches it all, lies to us and you guys don't hunt him down and interview him again, and you don't charge him with a crime.
    Now here's the good news... The President was falsely accused of conspiracy. The FBI does a 10 month investigation and James Comey, when we deposed him a year ago told us, at that point, they had nothing. You do a 22-month investigation... you find no conspiracy and what... [do the] the Democrats want to do? They want to keep investigating. They want to keep going. Maybe a better course of action... is to figure out how the false accusations started. Maybe it's to go back and actually figure out why Joseph Mifsud was lying to the FBI. And here's the good news... That's exactly what Bill Barr is doing. And thank goodness for that. That's exactly what the attorney general and John Durham doing, they're going to find out why we went through this three year... saga and get to the bottom of it.
  • [T]he third FISA renewal happens a month after you're named Special Counsel. What role did your office play in the third FISA renewal... of Carter Page?
    • Jordan, 2:36:27
      • I'm not going to talk to that.
        • Mueller

Matt Gaetz, Florida[edit]

1st congressional district, since 2017.
  • [C]an you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia's disinformation campaign?
    • Gaetz, 1:40:48
      • No, as I said in my my opening statement, that part of the building of the case predated me by at least 10 months.
        • Mueller
  • Yea, but Paul Manafort's alleged crimes regarding tax evasion predated you. You had no problem charging them, and as a matter of fact, this Steele dossier predated the Attorney General, and he didn't have any problem answering the question. When Senator Cornyn asked the Attorney General the exact question I asked you... [he] said... "No, I can't state that with confidence, and that's one of the areas I'm reviewing. I'm concerned about it, and I don't think it's entirely speculative."
    Now, if something is not entirely speculative, then it must have some factual basis, but you identify no factual basis regarding the dossier or the possibility that it was part of the Russia disinformation campaign. Now, Christopher Steele's reporting is referenced in your report. Steele reported to the FBI that senior Russian foreign ministry figures,.. along with other Russians, told him "that there was"—and I'm quoting from the Steele dossier—"extensive evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign team and the Kremlin."
    So here's my question. Did Russians really tell that to Christopher Steele, or did he just make it all up, and was he lying to the FBI?
    • Gaetz, 1:41:07 (The above quotes are not taken from the Mueller Report.)
      • Let me back up a second, if I could, and say as I've said earlier, with regard to Steele, that's beyond my purview.
        • Mueller
  • No, it is exactly your purview... and here's why. Only one of two things is possible... Either Steele made this whole thing up and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn't find, or Russians lied to Steele. Now if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our duly elected President, that would seem to be precisely your purview, because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russia's interference, but you weren't interested in whether or not Russians were interfering through Christopher Steele, and if Steele was lying, then you should have charged him with lying like you charged a variety of other people. But you say nothing about this in your report. ...Meanwhile, Director, you're quite loquacious on other topics. You write 3,500 words about the June 9 meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya. You write on page 103... that the President's legal team suggested... "that the meeting might have been a set up by individuals working with the firm that produced the Steele reporting." So I'm going to ask you... on the week of June 9, who did Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya meet with more frequently, the Trump campaign or Glenn Simpson, who was functionally acting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee?
    • Gaetz, 1:42:24
      • [W]hat... is missing here is the fact that this is under investigation... elsewhere... in the Justice Department... and consequently, it's not within my purview. The Department of Justice and FBI should be responsive to questions on this particular issue.
        • Mueller
  • It is absurd to suggest that a operative for the democrats was meeting with this Russian lawyer the day before, the day after the Trump Tower meeting and yet that's not something you reference. Now Glenn Simpson testified under oath he had dinner with Veselnitskaya the day before and the day after this meeting with the Trump team. Do you have any basis as you sit here today to believe that Steele was lying?
    • Gaetz, 1:44:00
      • As I said before and I'll say again, it's not my purview. Others are investigating what you... address.
        • Mueller
  • So it's not your purview to look into whether or not Steele is lying? It's not your purview to look into whether or not anti-Trump Russians are lying to Steele? And it's not your purview to look at whether or not Glenn Simpson was meeting with the Russians the day before and the day after you write 3,500 words about the Trump campaign meeting. So I'm wondering... how these decisions are guided. I look at the Inspector General's report. I'm citing from page 404... It states, "[Lisa] Page stated, Trump is not ever going to be President... Right?" Strzok replied, "No he's not. We'll stop it." Also in the inspector general's report there's someone identified as "Attorney Number 2." ...page 419, replied, "Hell no," and then added, "viva la resistance." Attorney Number 2 in the inspector general's report and Strzok both worked on your team, didn't they? ...
    • Gaetz, 1:44:27
      • ...Peter Strzok worked for me for a period of time, yes.
        • Mueller
  • Yea, but so did the other guy that said, "Viva la resistance." And here's what I'm... noticing Director Mueller. When people associated with Trump lied, you threw the book at them. When Christopher Steele lied, nothing, and so it seems to be when Simpson met with Russians, nothing. When the Trump campaign met with Russians, 3,500 words, and maybe the reason why there are these discrepancies in what you focused on is because the team was so biased. Pledged to the resistance. Pledged to stop Trump.

Ken Buck, Colorado[edit]

4th congressional district, since 2015.
  • The report contradicts what you taught young attorneys at the Department of Justice, including to ensure that every defendant is treated fairly, or as Justice Sutherland said in the Berger [v. United States] case, "A prosecutor is not the representative of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty, whose interest in a criminal prosecution is not that shall win a case, but that justice shall be done" and that "the prosecutor may strike hard blows, but he is not at liberty to strike fowl ones."
    By listing the 10 factual situations and not reaching a conclusion about the merits of the case, you unfairly shifted the burden of proof to the President, forcing him to prove his innocence, while denying him a legal forum to do so. ...I've never heard of a prosecutor declining a case, and then holding a press conference to talk about the defendant. You noted eight times in your report that you had a legal duty under the regulations to either prosecute or decline charges. Despite this, you disregarded that duty.
  • As a former prosecutor, I'm also troubled with your legal analysis. You discussed 10 separate factual patterns involving alleged obstruction, and then you failed to separately apply the elements of the applicable statutes.
    I looked at the 10 factual situations and I read the case law, and... just looking at the [Michael Flynn|Flynn]] matter, for example, the four statutes that you cited for possible obstruction, 1503, 1505, 1512(b)(3) and 1512(c)(2). When I look at those concerning the Flynn matter, 1503 is inapplicable because there wasn't a grand jury or trial jury impaneled, and Director Comey was not an officer of the court, as defined by the statute. Section 1505 criminalizes acts that would obstruct or impede administrative proceedings, as those before Congress, or an administrative agency. The Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual states that the FBI investigation is not a pending proceeding. 1512(b)(3) talks about intimidation, threats, force, to tamper with a witness. General Flynn at the time was not a witness, and certainly Director Comey was not a witness. ...1512(c)(2) talks about tampering with the record, and as Joe Biden described the statute—as [it was] being debated on the Senate floor—he called this a statute criminalizing document shredding, and there's nothing in... your report that alleges that the President destroyed any evidence.
  • [T]he ethical rules require that a prosecutor have a reasonable probability of conviction to bring a charge, is that correct?
    • Buck, 1:54:36
      • Generally accurate.
        • Mueller
  • [T]he regulations concerning your job as special counsel state that your job is to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by your office. You recommended declining prosecution of President Trump, and anyone associated with his campaign, because there was insufficient evidence to convict for a charge of conspiracy with Russian interference in the 2016 election. Is that fair?
  • Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice?
    • Buck, 1:55:12
      • We did not make that calculation.
        • Mueller
  • How could you not have made the calculation when the regulation..?
    • Buck, 1:55:23
      • Because the OLC opinion.., Office of Legal Counsel, indicates that we cannot indict a sitting President. So one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou made the decision on the Russian interference. You couldn't have indicted the President on that, and you made the decision on that. But when it came to obstruction, you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick, and that is fundamentally unfair.
    • Buck, 1:55:37
      • I would not agree to... that characterization at all. What we did is provide to the Attorney General, in the form of a confidential memorandum, our understanding of the case. Those cases that were brought, those cases that were declined and... that one case where the President cannot be charged with a crime.
        • Mueller
  • OK, but... could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?
    • Buck, 1:56:12
      • Yes. [The meaning here was general. Any President could be charged with a crime, if culpable, but only after leaving office.]
        • Mueller
  • Ethically, under the ethical standards?
    • Buck, 1:56:25
      • Well... I'm not certain, because I haven't looked at the ethical standards, but the OLC opinion... says that the prosecutor, while he cannot bring a charge against a sitting President, nonetheless he can continue the investigation to see if there are any other persons who might be drawn into the conspiracy.
        • Mueller

Andy Biggs, Arizona[edit]

4th congressional district, since 2017.
  • [Y]our team wrote... at the top of page 2, Volume 1... also on page 173..."The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"... That's [an] accurate statement, right?
    • Biggs, 2:02:05
      • That's accurate.
        • Mueller
  • And I'm curious, when did you personally come to that conclusion?
    • Biggs, 2:02:25
      • As you understand, in developing a criminal case, you get pieces of information.., witnesses and the like as you make your case. ...I cannot say specifically that we reached the decision on a particular defendant at a particular point in time.
        • Mueller
  • Mr. Mueller, evidence suggests that on May 10th, 2017 at approximately 7:45 a.m., six days before the DAG, that's Deputy Attorney General, appointed you special counsel, Mr. Rosenstein called you and mentioned the appointment of a special counsel, not... necessarily that you would be appointed, but that you had a discussion of that. Is that... true?
    • Biggs, 2:04:29
      • ...I don't have any knowledge of that occurring.
        • Mueller
  • [T]here's evidence that suggests that... phone call took place and that... is what was said. So let's move to the next question. Evidence suggests that also on May 12th, 2017, five days before the DAG appointed you special counsel, you met with Mr. Rosenstein in person. Did you discuss the appointment of special counsel then, not necessarily you, but that there would be a special counsel.
    • Biggs, 2:05:07
      • I've gone into waters that don't allow me to give you an answer the particular question. It relates to the internal discussions we would have in terms of indicting an individual.
        • Mueller
  • It has nothing to with the indictment. It has to do with Special Counsel, and whether you discussed that with Mr. Rosenstein. Evidence also suggested, on May 13th, four days before you were appointed special counsel, you met with... former Attorney General Sessions and Rosenstein, and you spoke about Special Counsel. Do you remember that?
    • Biggs, 2:05:37
      • Not offhand, no.
        • Mueller
  • ...And on May 16th, the day before you were appointed special counsel, you met with the President and Rod Rosenstein. ...And the discussion of the position of the FBI director took place. Do you remember that?
  • And did you discuss at any time in that meeting Mr. Comey's termination?
  • Did you discuss at any time in that meeting the potential appointment of a Special Counsel? Not necessarily you, but just in general terms?
    • Biggs, 2:06:20
      • I can't get into any discussions on that.
        • Mueller
  • How many times did you speak to Mr. Rosenstein before [May 17, which is the day you got appointed, regarding the appointment of special counsel? ...
    • Biggs, 2:06:31
      • ...I do not recall.
        • Mueller
  • How many times did you speak with Mr. Comey about any investigations pertaining to the Russia prior to May 17, 2017? ...

Tom McClintock, California[edit]

4th congressional district, since 2009.
  • You had three discussions with Rod Rosenstein about your appointment as special counsel May 10, May 12, and May 13, correct?
    • McClintock, 2:12:31
      • If you say so, I have no reason to... dispute that.
        • Mueller
  • Then you met with the President on the 16th with Rod Rosenstein present. And then on the 17th, you were formally appointed as Special Counsel. Were you meeting with the President on the 16th with knowledge that you were under consideration for appointment of Special Counsel?
    • McClintock, 2:12:42
      • I did not believe I was under consideration for counsel. ...I had served two terms as FBI director...
        • Mueller
  • The answer is no?
    • McClintock, 2:13:09
      • The answer is no.
        • Mueller
  • Gregg Jarrett describes your office as the team of partisans. And as additional information's coming to light, there's a growing concern that political bias caused important facts to be omitted from your report in order to cast the President unfairly in a negative light. For example, John Dowd, the President's lawyer, leaves a message with Michael Flynn's lawyer... November 2017. The edited version in your report makes it appear that he was improperly asking for confidential information, and that's all we know from your report, except that the judge in the Flynn case ordered the entire transcript released; in which Dowd makes it crystal clear that's not what he was suggesting. So my question's why did you edit the transcript to hide the exculpatory part of the message?
    • McClintock, 2:13:12
      • My answer will not agree with your characterization that we did anything to hide...
        • Mueller
  • Well, you omitted... it. You quoted the part where he says "we need some kind of heads up just for the sake of protecting all of our interests, if we can", but you omitted the portion where he says, "without giving up any confidential information."
    • McClintock, 2:14:03
      • Well, I'm not going to go further in terms of discussing the...
        • Mueller
  • You... extensively discussed Konstantin Kilimnik's activities with Paul Manafort. And you described him as... "A Russian/Ukrainian political consultant," and "longtime employee of Paul Manafort, assessed by the FBI to have ties to Russian intelligence." And again, that's all we know from your report, except we've since learned from news articles that Kilimnik was actually a U.S. State Department intelligence source, yet nowhere in your report is he so identified. Why was that fact omitted?
    • McClintock, 2:14:18
      • ...I don't necessarily credit what you're saying occurred.
        • Mueller
  • Did you interview Konstantin Kilimnik?
    • McClintock, 2:15:00
      • I can't go into the discussion of our investigative moves.
        • Mueller
  • And... yet that is... the basis of your report. Again, the problem we're having is we have to rely on your report for an accurate reflection of the evidence, and we're starting to find out... that's not... true. For example... your report famously links Russian Internet troll farms with the Russian government. Yet, at a hearing on May 28th in the Concord Management IRA prosecution that you initiated, the judge excoriated both you and Mr. Barr for producing no evidence to support this claim. Why did you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms, when, in court, you've been unable to produce any evidence to support it?
    • McClintock, 2:15:08
      • I am not going to get into that any further than... I already have.
        • Mueller
  • But... you have left the clear impression throughout the country, through your report, that... it was the Russian government behind the troll farms. And yet, when you're called upon to provide actual evidence in court, you fail to do so.
    • McClintock, 2:15:50
      • I would again dispute your characterization of what occurred in that... proceeding.
        • Mueller
  • In... fact, the judge... considered holding prosecutors in criminal contempt. She backed off only after your hastily called press conference the next day, in which you retroactively made the distinction between the Russian government and the Russia troll farms. Did your press conference on May 29th have anything to do with the threat to hold your prosecutors in contempt, the previous day, for publicly misrepresenting the evidence? ...
  • The fundamental problem... is that... we've got to take your word [that] your team faithfully, accurately, impartially and completely described all of the underlying evidence in the Mueller report. And we're finding more and more instances where this just isn't the case. And it's starting to look like... having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the President, you made a political case instead. You put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire, dropped it on our porch, rang the doorbell, and ran.
    • McClintock, 2:16:54
      • I don't think you reviewed a report that is as thorough, as fair, [and] as consistent as the report that we have in front of us.
        • Mueller
  • Then... why is contradictory information continuing to come out?
    • McClintock, 2:17:32 (Time expired.)

Debbie Lesko, Arizona[edit]

8th congressional district, since 2018.
  • Mr. Lieu was asking you... "the reason you didn't indict the President was because of the OLC opinion." And you answered, that is correct. But that is not what you said in the report, and it's not what you told Attorney General Barr. ...[I]n fact, in a joint statement that you [your office] released with DOJ on may 29th after your press conference... a joint statement with the Department Of Justice... "the Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other, whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements." So Mr. Mueller, do you stand by your joint statement with DOJ you issued on May 29th..?
    • Lesko, 2:22:12 (The above statements, in quotes, are not from the Mueller Report.)
      • I would have to look at it more closely before I said I agree with it.
        • Mueller
  • [M]y conclusion is that what you told Mr. Lieu really contradicts what you said in the report; and specifically, what you said, apparently repeatedly, to Attorney General Barr... and then you issued a joint statement, on May 29th, saying that the Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying but for the OLC report, that we would have found the President obstructed justice. So I just say there's a conflict. ...Mr. Mueller, there's been a lot of talk today about firing the Special Counsel and curtailing the investigation. ...Were you ever fired as Special Counsel, Mr. Mueller?
  • Were you allowed to complete your investigation unencumbered?
  • [Y]ou resigned as Special Counsel when you closed up the office in late May... 2019. Is that correct?
  • [O]n April 18th, the Attorney General... held a press conference in conjunction with the public release of your report. Did Attorney General Barr say anything inaccurate either in his press conference or his March 24th letter to Congress summarizing the principle conclusions of your report?
    • Lesko, 2:24:35
      • [W]hat you are not mentioning is the letter, we sent on March 27th, to Mr. Barr that raised some issues. And that letter speaks for itself.
        • Mueller
  • I don't see how... that could be since A.G. Barr's letter detailed the principle conclusions of your report and you have said before, ...that there wasn't anything inaccurate. In fact, you had this joint statement. But... let me go on to another question. ...[R]ather than purely relying on the evidence provided by witnesses and documents, I think you relied a lot on media. ...[H]ow many times you cited "The Washington Post" in your report?
    • Lesko, 2:25:13
      • ...I don't have knowledge of that figure.
        • Mueller
  • I counted about 60 times. How many times did you cite "The New York Times"? ...
    • Lesko, 2:26:00
      • Again, I have no idea.
        • Mueller
  • I counted about 75 times. How many times did you cite Fox News?
    • Lesko, 2:26:07
      • ...As with the other two, I have no idea.
        • Mueller
  • About 25 times. ...[I]t looks like Volume 2 is mostly regurgitated press stories. ...[T]here's almost nothing in Volume 2 that I couldn't already hear or know simply by having a $50 dollar cable news subscription. However, your investigation cost American taxpayers $25 million dollars. ...[Y]ou cited media reports nearly 200 times.., then in a... small footnote, number 7, page 15... Volume 2 ..."this section summarizes and cites various news stories not for the truth of the information contained in the stories but rather to place Candidate Trump's response to those stories in context." Since nobody but lawyers reads footnotes, are you concerned that the American public took the embedded news stories...
    • Lesko, 2:26:16 (Time expired. The above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)

Guy Reschenthaler, Pennsylvania[edit]

14th congressional district, since 2018.
  • [A]re you familiar with the now expired independent counsel statute. It's a statue under which Ken Starr was appointed.
    • Reschenthaler, 2:31:38
      • I am not that familiar with that but I'd be happy to take your question.
        • Mueller
  • [T]he Clinton Administration allowed the independent counsel statute to expire after Ken Starr's investigation. The final report requirement was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. Even President Clinton's A.G., Janet Reno, expressed concerns about the final report requirement...
    She said, "On one hand, the American people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. On the other hand, the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of American law enforcement. Under our system, we presume innocence and we value privacy. We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most cases, be made public only if there's an indictment and prosecution, not any lengthy and detailed report filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute. The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target's dirty laundry. And it also creates yet another incentive for an independent counsel to over-investigate—in order, [again] to justify his or her tenure, and to avoid criticism that the independent counsel may have left a stone unturned."
    ...Didn't you do exactly what A.G. Reno feared? Didn't you publish a lengthy report unfairly airing the target's dirty laundry without recommending charges?
    • Reschenthaler, 2:32:01 (The above statement in quotes is not from the Mueller Report.)
      • I disagree with that... We operate under the current statute, not the original statute. ...I'm most familiar with the current statute, not the older statute.
        • Mueller
  • Did any of the witnesses have a chance to be cross examined? ...
    • Reschenthaler, 2:33:49
      • ...I'm not going to answer that.
        • Mueller
  • Did you allow the people mentioned in your report to challenge how they were characterized?
    • Reschenthaler, 2:33:58
      • I'm not going to get into that.
        • Mueller
  • Given that A.G. Barr stated multiple times during his confirmation hearing that he would make as much of your report public as possible, did you write your report knowing that it would likely be shared with the public?
  • Did knowing that the report could and likely would be made public... alter the contents which you included?
    • Reschenthaler, 2:34:18
      • I can't speak to that.
        • Mueller
  • Despite the expectations that your report would be released to the public, you left out significant exculpatory evidence. In other words, evidence favorable to the President, correct?
    • Reschenthaler, 2:34:26
      • I... would disagree with you. I think we strove to put into the report... exculpatory evidence as well.
        • Mueller
  • I think... Mr. McClintock got into that with you where... you said there was evidence you left out.
    • Reschenthaler, 2:34:41
      • Well, you make a choice as to what goes into... an indictment.
        • Mueller
  • Isn't it true that on page 1 of Volume 2, you state, when you're quoting the statute, that you have the obligation to either prosecute or not prosecute?
    • Reschenthaler, 2:34:55
      • [G]enerally that is the case... Although most cases are not done in the context of the President.
        • Mueller
  • [I]n this case you made a decision not to prosecute, correct?
    • Reschenthaler, 2:35:13
      • No. We made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not.
        • Mueller
  • So essentially, what your report did was everything that A.G. Reno warned against?
    • Reschenthaler, 2:35:21
      • I can't agree with that characterization.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou compiled... nearly 450 pages of the very worst information you gathered against the target of your investigation, who happens to be the President of the United States, and you did this knowing that you were not going to recommend charges, and that the report would be made public.
    • Reschenthaler, 2:35:29
      • Not true.
        • Mueller
  • [A]s a former officer in the United States JAG Corps I prosecuted nearly 100 terrorists in a Baghdad courtroom. I cross-examined the Butcher of Fallujah in defense of our Navy SEALs. As a civilian, I was elected a magisterial district judge in Pennsylvania, so I'm very well-versed in the American legal system. The drafting and the publication of some of the information in this report without an indictment, without prosecution, frankly flies in the face of American justice, and I find those facts and this entire process un-American. I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague Jim Jordan.

Ben Cline, Virginia[edit]

6th congressional district, since 2019.
  • [L]et's talk about... the law itself, the underlying obstruction statute, and your creative legal analysis of the statutes in Volume 2. Particularly, your interpretation of 18 USC 1512(c). Section 1512(c) is an obstruction of justice statute created as part of auditing and financial regulations for public companies. [A]s you write on page 164 of Volume 2, this provision was added as a floor amendment in the Senate and explained as closing a certain loophole with respect to document shredding. And to read the statute, "Whoever appropriately alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document or other object, or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding, or otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, shall be fined under the statute or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." Your analysis and application of the statute proposes to give clause (c2) a much broader interpretation than commonly used. First) your analysis proposes to read clause (c2) in isolation, reading it as a free standing all-encompassing provision, prohibiting any act influencing a proceeding, if done with an improper motive. And second) your analysis of the statute... proposes to apply this sweeping prohibition to lawful acts taken by public officials, exercising their discretionary powers, if those acts influence a proceeding. So, Mr. Mueller, I'd ask you, in analyzing the obstruction, you state that you recognize that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitely resolved these issues, correct?
    • Cline, 2:42:04 (Above statements under quotes are not from the Mueller Report.)
      • Correct.
        • Mueller
  • You'd agree that not everyone in the Justice Department agreed with your legal theory of the obstruction of justice statutes, correct?
    • Cline, 2:43:43
      • I'm not going to be involved in a discussion... on that at this juncture.
        • Mueller
  • In fact, the Attorney General himself disagrees with your interpretation of the law, correct?
    • Cline, 2:43:54
      • I leave that to the Attorney General to identify.
        • Mueller
  • And you would agree that prosecutors sometimes incorrectly apply the law. Correct?
    • Cline, 2:44:01
      • I would have to agree with that one.
        • Mueller
  • And members of your legal team, in fact, have had convictions overturned because they were based on an incorrect legal theory, correct?
    • Cline, 2:44:07
      • I don't know to what you advert. We've all spent time in the trenches trying cases, [and] have not won every one of those cases.
        • Mueller
  • [L]et me ask you about one in particular. One of your top prosecutors, Andrew Weissmann, obtained a conviction against auditing firm Arthur Andersen, in lower court, which was subsequently overturned in a unanimous Supreme Court decision that rejected the legal theory advanced by Weissmann, correct?
    • Cline, 2:44:20
      • [I]'m not going to get... involved in a discussion on that. I will refer you to that citation that you gave me at the outset, for the lengthy discussion on just what you're talking about. And to the extent I have anything to say about it, it is what we've already put into the report on that.
        • Mueller
  • And I am reading from your report when discussing this section. Now I'll read from the decision of the Supreme Court unanimously reversing Mr. Weissmann, when he said, "Indeed, it's striking how little culpability the instructions require. For example, the jury was told that even a petitioner who honestly and sincerely believed that his conduct was lawful, the jury could convict. The instructions also diluted the meaning of 'corruptly,' such that it covered innocent conduct." ...Let me move on, I have limited time. Your report takes the broadest possible reading of this provision in applying it to the President's official acts, and I'm concerned about the implications of your theory for over-criminalizing conduct by public officials and private citizens alike. So to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is, I want to ask you about a few examples. On October 11, 2015 during the FBI investigation into the Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, President Obama said, "I don't think it posed a national security problem." And he later said, "I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America's national security was endangered." Assuming for a moment that his comments did influence the investigation, couldn't President Obama be charged under your interpretation with obstruction of justice?
    • Cline, 2:44:56 (Above statements under quotes are not from the Mueller Report.)
      • Well, again, I refer you to the report. But let me say, with Andrew Weissmann, he's one of the more talented attorneys we have on board... over a period of time he has run a number of units...
        • Mueller
  • In August 2015, a very senior DOJ official called FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, expressing concern that FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe. The DOJ official was apparently "very pissed off," quote/unquote. McCabe questioned this official, asking, "Are you telling me I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?" To which the official replied, of course not. This seems to be a clear example of somebody within the executive branch attempting to influence an FBI investigation. So under your theory, couldn't that person be charged with obstruction as long as a prosecutor could come up with a potentially corrupt motive?
    • Cline, 2:46:17 (Above statements under quotes are not from the Mueller Report.)
      • I refer to you to our lengthy dissertation on exactly those issues that appears... again, in the report.
        • Mueller
  • Mr. Mueller, I'd argue that it says above the Supreme Court, equal justice under the law, not stretch to fit.

Greg Steube, Florida[edit]

17th congressional district, since 2019.
  • [D]id you indeed interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as Special Counsel?
    • Steube, 2:50:48
      • My understanding... I was not applying for the job, I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job, which triggered the interview you're talking about.
        • Mueller
  • So you don't recall on May 16th, 2017 that you interviewed with the President regarding the FBI Director job?
    • Steube, 2:51:06
      • I interviewed with the President... it was about the job, and not about me applying for the job.
        • Mueller
  • So your statement here today is that you didn't interview to apply for the FBI director job?
    • Steube, 2:51:18
      • That's correct.
        • Mueller
  • [D]id you tell the Vice President that the FBI director position would be the one job that you would come back... for?
    • Steube, 2:51:26
      • I don't recall that one.
        • Mueller
  • Given your 22 months of investigation, tens of million[s of] dollars spent and millions of documents reviewed, did you obtain any evidence, at all, that any American voter changed their vote, as a result of Russians' election interference?
    • Steube, 2:51:36
      • I'm not going to speak to that. ...That was... outside our purview. ...[T]he impact of that meddling was undertaken by other agencies.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou stated in your opening statement that you would not get into the details of the Steele Dossier. However, multiple times in Volume 2 on pages 23, 27 and 28, you mentioned the unverified allegations. How long did it take you to reach the conclusion that it was unverified?
    • Steube, 2:52:11
      • I'm not going to speak to that.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou're not willing to tell us how you came to conclusion that it was unverified?
  • When did you become aware that the unverified Steele Dossier was included in the FISA application to spy on Carter Page?
    • Steube, 2:52:39
      • I'm not going to speak to that.
        • Mueller
  • Your team interviewed Christopher Steele, is that correct?
    • Steube, 2:53:00
      • Not going to get into that. ...As I said at the outset, that is... one of the investigations that is being handled by others in the Department of Justice.
        • Mueller
  • [B]ut you're here testifying about this investigation today, and I am asking you directly did any members of your team or did you interview Christopher Steele in the course of your investigation.
    • Steube, 2:53:21
      • And I am not going to answer that question, sir.
        • Mueller
  • You had two years to investigate. Not once did you consider it worthy to investigate how an unverified document, that was paid for by a political opponent, was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition political campaign. Did you do any investigation into that whatsoever?
    • Steube, 2:53:31
      • I do not accept your characterization of what occurred.
        • Mueller
  • What would... be your characterization?
    • Steube, 2:53:48
      • I'm not going to speak any more to it.
        • Mueller
  • The FISA application makes reference to Source One, who is Christopher Steele, the author of the Steele Dossier. The FISA application says nothing [about] Source 1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate One's ties to Russia, based on Source One's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source One provided reliable information to the FBI. The FBI believes Source One's reporting herein to be credible. Do you believe the FBI's representation that Source One's reporting was credible, to be accurate?
    • Steube, 2:54:00
      • I'm not going to answer that.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou're not going to respond to any of the questions regarding Christopher Steele or your interviews with him?
    • Steube, 2:54:28
      • [A]s I said at the outset this morning, that was one of the investigations that I could not speak to.
        • Mueller
  • I don't understand how, if you interviewed an individual on the purview of this investigation, that you're testifying to us today that you've closed that investigation, how that's not within your purview to tell us about that investigation, and who you interviewed.
    • Steube, 2:54:40
      • I have nothing to add.
        • Mueller
  • [T]he American people want to know, and... I'm very hopeful and glad that A.G. Barr is looking into this, and the Inspector General is looking into this, because you're unwilling to answer the questions of the American people, as it relates to the very basis of this investigation into the President, and the very basis of this individual who you did interview. You're just refusing to answer those questions. [C]an't the President fire the FBI director at any time without reason, under... Article I of the Constitution?
  • Can't he also fire U.S. Special Counsel at any time without any reason?
    • Steube, 2:55:25
      • I believe that to be the case. ...Well, hold on just a second. You said without any reason. I know the Special Counsel can be fired, but I'm not certain it extends to for whatever reason is given.
        • Mueller
  • [Y]ou've testified that you weren't fired, you were able to complete your investigation in full. Is that correct?
    • Steube, 2:55:42
      • I'm not going to add to what I've stated before.
        • Mueller

Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota[edit]

At-large congressional district, since 2019.
  • ...How many people on your staff did you fire during the course of the investigation?
    • Armstrong, 2:59:27
      • ...I'm not going to discuss that.
        • Mueller
  • ...[A]ccording to Inspector General's report, attorney number two was let go, and we know Peter Strzok was let go, correct?
    • Armstrong, 2:59:39
      • Yes, and there may have been other persons on other issues that have been either transferred or fired.
        • Mueller
  • Peter Strzok testified before this Committee on July 12, 2018 that... he was fired at least partially because you were... concerned about preserving the appearance of independence with the special counsel's investigation. Do you agree with that statement?
    • Armstrong, 2:59:51
      • ...I am not familiar with that.
        • Mueller
  • Did you fire him because you were worried about the appearance of independence of the investigation?
    • Armstrong, 3:00:19
      • No. He was transferred as a result of instances involving texts.
        • Mueller
  • Do you agree that... your office did not only have an obligation to operate with independence, but to operate with the appearance of independence as well?
    • Armstrong, 3:00:29
      • Absolutely. We strove to do that over the two years.
        • Mueller
  • Did Weissmann have a role is selecting other members of your team?
    • Armstrong, 3:00:46
      • He had some role but not a major role.
        • Mueller
  • Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton's election night party. Did you know that before or after he came onto the team?
    • Armstrong, 3:00:51
      • I don't know when I found that out.
        • Mueller
  • On January 30, 2017, Weissmann wrote an email to Deputy Attorney General Yates stating, "I am so proud and in awe regarding her disobeying a direct order from the President." Did Weissmann disclose that email to you before he joined the team?
    • Armstrong, 3:00:58 (Above statements under quotes are not from the Mueller Report.)
      • I'm not going to talk about that.
        • Mueller
  • Is that not a conflict of interest?
    • Armstrong, 3:01:13
      • Not going to talk about that.
        • Mueller
  • Are you aware that Ms. Jeannie Rhee represented Hillary Clinton in litigation regarding personal emails originating from Clinton's time as Secretary of State?
  • Did you know that before she came on the team?
  • Aaron Zebley, the guy sitting next to you, represented Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who destroyed one of Clinton's mobile devices, and you must be aware by now that six of your lawyers donated $12,000 directly to Hillary Clinton. I'm not even talking about the $49,000 they donated to other Democrats, just the donations to the opponent [of] the target of your investigation.
    • Armstrong, 3:01:30
      • Can I speak for a second to the hiring practices? ...We strove to hire those individuals that could do that job. ...I have been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done. What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job, and do the job quickly, and seriously, and with integrity.
        • Mueller
  • This isn't just about you being able to vouch for your team. This is about knowing that the day you accepted this role, you had to be aware, no matter what this report concluded, half of the country was going to be... skeptical of your team's findings. ...[T]hat's why we have recusal laws that define bias and perceive bias, for this very reason. 28 United States code 528 specifically lists not just political conflict of interest, but the appearance of political conflicts of interest. It's just simply not enough that you vouch for your team. The interests of justice demand that no perceived bias exists. I can't imagine a single prosecutor or judge that I have every appeared in front of would be comfortable with these circumstances where over half of the prosecutorial team had a direct relationship to the opponent of the person being investigated.
    • Armstrong, 3:02:17
      • [W]e hired 19 lawyers over the period of time. Of those 19 lawyers, 14 of them were transferred from elsewhere in the Department of Justice. Only 5 came from outside, so we did not have [a conflict of interest]...
        • Mueller
  • And half of them had a direct relationship, political or personal, with the opponent of the person you were investigating, and that's my point. I wonder if not a single word in this entire report was changed, but rather the only difference was we switched Hillary Clinton and President Trump. If Peter Strzok has texted those terrible things about Hillary Clinton instead of President Trump, if a team of lawyers worked for, donated thousands of dollars to, and went to Trump's parties instead of Clinton's, I don't think we'd be here trying to prop up an obstruction allegation. My colleagues would have spent the last four months accusing your team of being bought and paid for by the Trump campaign and we couldn't trust a single word of this report. They would still be accusing the President of conspiracy with Russia and they would be accusing your team of aiding and abetting with that conspiracy. ...

Mike Johnson, Louisiana[edit]

At-large congressional district, since 2017.
  • [Y]ou performed as most of us expected. You've stuck closely to your report and you have declined to answer many of our questions on both sides. As the closer for the Republican side,.. I want to summarize the highlights of what we have heard, and what we know. You spent two years, and nearly $30 million taxpayer dollars, and unlimited resources to prepare a nearly 450 page report, which you describe today, as very thorough. Millions of Americans today maintain genuine concerns about your work, in large part, because of the infamous and widely publicized bias of your investigating team members, which we now know included 14 Democrats and 0 Republicans. Campaign finance reports later showed that team...
    [Robert Mueller attempted to speak here.]
    ...of Democrat investigators, you hired, donated more than $60,000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign and other Democratic candidates. Your team also included Peter Strzok and Lisa Page... and they had the... lurid text messages that confirm they openly mocked and hated Donald Trump and his supporters, and they vowed to take him out. Mr. Ratcliffe asked you earlier this morning... "Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"... You answered, "I cannot." Sir, that is unprecedented. The President believed, from the very beginning, that you and your Special Counsel team had serious conflicts. This is stated in the report and acknowledged by everybody. And yet, President Trump cooperated fully with the investigation. He knew he had done nothing wrong, and he encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation, and produced more than 1.4 million pages of information, and allowed over 40 witnesses who are directly affiliated with the White House or his campaign. Your report acknowledges on page 61, Volume 2, that a volume of evidence exists of the President telling many people privately... "The President was concerned about the impact of the Russian investigation on his ability to govern, and to address important foreign relations issues, and even matters of national security." And on page 174, Volume 2 your report also acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held... "The President's removal powers are at their zenith with respect to principal officers, that is, officers who must be appointed by the President and who report to him directly. The President's exclusive and illimitable power of removal of those principal officers furthers 'the President's ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed'"... And that would even include the Attorney General. ...[I]n spite of all of that, nothing ever happened to stop or impede your special counsel's investigation. Nobody was fired by the President. Nothing was curtailed, and the investigation continued unencumbered for 22 long months. As you finally concluded in Volume 1, the evidence... "did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference"... And the evidence... "did not establish that the President, or those close to him, were involved in any Russian conspiracies, or had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official"... Over those 22 long months that your investigation dragged along, the President became increasingly frustrated, as many of the American people did, with its effects on our country and... his ability to govern.
    He vented about this to his lawyer and his close associates, and he even shared his frustrations... on Twitter. But while the President's social media accounts might have influenced some in the media, or the opinion of some the American people, none of those audiences were targets or witnesses in your investigation. The President never affected anybody's testimony. He never demanded to end the investigation, or demanded that you be terminated, and he never misled Congress, the DOJ, or the Special Counsel. Those, sir, are the undisputed facts. There will be a lot of discussion, I predict today, and great frustration throughout the country, about the fact that you wouldn't answer any questions... about the origins of this whole charade, which was the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, now proven to be totally bogus, even though it is listed and specifically referenced in your report. ...Mr. Mueller, there's one primary reason why you were called here today by the Democrat majority of our committee. Our colleagues... just want political cover. They desperately wanted you, today, to tell them they should impeach the President, but the one thing you have said very clearly today, is that your report is complete, and thorough, and you completely agree with and stand by its recommendations, and all of its content. Is that right?
    • Johnson, 3:07:25 (The above first statement in quotes is not from Mueller Report.)
      • True.
        • Mueller
  • ...Your report does not recommend impeachment, does it?
    • Johnson, 3:11:44
      • I'm not going to talk about recommendations.
        • Mueller
  • It does not conclude that impeachment would be appropriate here, right?
    • Johnson, 3:11:54
      • I'm not going to talk... about... that issue.
        • Mueller
  • That's one of the many things you wouldn't talk about today, but I think we can all draw our own conclusions. ...I'm glad this charade will come to an end soon and we can get back to the important business of this committee, with its broad jurisdiction of so many important issues for the country. ...
  • Mr. Chairman, I have a point of inquiry... Was the point of this hearing to get Mr. Mueller to recommend impeachment?

Quotes about Muller Testimony[edit]

  • Mueller still struggling to answer even basic questions. He can’t accurately remember facts, evidence, or even his own conclusions.
    Folks—this guy didn’t run the investigation. His team of Resistance Democrats did.
    And they used it as a weapon to target a President they hated.
  • [T]he President is, as he usually is, or often is, disgusting and racist. He makes these charges with no [basis] at all, and they are designed to distract attention from the very serious allegations about his conduct that came from the Committee hearings this week. The fact is, the President accepted help from the Russians to attack our election. His campaign worked with the Russians. That is undisputed, and he worked hard to cover up those crimes. He committed more crimes in working to cover them up, in lying and urging other people to lie to investigators. ...[H]e's just trying to change the subject, which is what he usually does.
    • Jerry Nadler, "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" (July 28, 2019) ABC News. In response to the question about President Trump's Twitter attacks on Elijah Cummings over the previous 24 hours, which called Cummings "corrupt", and called his district "the worst run and most dangerous", and a "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess."

See also[edit]

External links[edit]