Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • >> Announcer: THIS IS AN ABC

  • NEWS SPECIAL REPORT.

  • >> MULTIPLE SYSTEMATIC EFFORTS

  • TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION.

  • AND THAT ALLEGATION D NOT CONSP

  • 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'S PURSUING JUSTICE AND THE

  • FACT THAT YOU RAN IT OUT TWO

  • YEARS MEANS PERPETUATED

  • INJUSTICE.

  • >> I TAKE YOUR QUESTION.

  • >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.

  • THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE

  • QUESTION.

  • >> I TAKE YOUR QUESTION.

  • >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.

  • >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, I WOULD

  • LIKE TO GET BACK TO YOUR

  • FINDINGS COVERING JUNE OF 2017.

  • THERE WAS A BOMBSHELL ARTICLE

  • THAT REPORTED THAT THE PRESIDENT

  • OF THE UNITED STATES WAS

  • PERSONALLY UNDER INVESTIGATION

  • FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

  • THEN YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT ON

  • PAGE 90 OF VOLUME T2, AND I

  • QUOTE, NEWS OF THE OBSTRUCTION

  • INVESTIGATION PROMPTED HIM TO

  • CALL McGAHN AND ASK FOR YOU TO

  • BE REMOVED.

  • REGARDING THE SECOND CALL, YOU

  • WROTE, AND I QUOTE, McGAHN

  • RECALLED THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS

  • MORE DIRECT, SAYING SOMETHING

  • LIKE, CALL ROD.

  • TELL ROD THAT MUELLER HAS

  • CONFLICTS, AND CAN'T BE THE

  • SPECIAL COUNSEL.

  • McGAHN RECALLED THE PRESIDENT

  • TELLING HIM, MUELLER HAS TO GO,

  • AND CALL ME BACK WHEN YOU DO IT.

  • DIRECTOR MUELLER, DID McGAHN

  • UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PRESIDENT

  • WAS ORDERING HIM TO DO?

  • >> I DIRECT YOU TO WHAT WE HAVE

  • WRITTEN IN THE REPORT IN TERMS

  • OF CHARACTERIZING HIS FEELINGS.

  • >> IN THE REPORT, IT SAYS,

  • QUOTE, McGAHN UNDERSTOOD THE

  • PRESIDENT TO BE SAYING THE

  • SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD TO BE

  • REMOVED.

  • YOU ALSO SAID ON PAGE 86 THAT

  • QUOTE, McGAHN CONSIDERED HIS

  • 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 TOOK ACTION TO PREPARE TO

  • RESIGN.

  • ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

  • >> I WOULD DIRECT YOU AGAIN TO

  • THE REPORT.

  • >> AND, IN FACT, THAT VERY DAY,

  • HE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND

  • QUOTING YOUR REPORT, YOU SAID,

  • QUOTE, HE THEN DROVE TO THE

  • OFFICE TO PACK HIS BELONGINGS

  • AND SUBMIT HIS RESIGNATION

  • LETTER.

  • CLOSED QUOTE.

  • >> THAT IS DIRECTLY FROM THE

  • REPORT.

  • >> IT IS.

  • AND BEFORE HE RESIGNED, HOWEVER,

  • HE CALLED THE PRESIDENT'S CHIEF

  • OF STAFF, REINCE PRIEBUS AND HE

  • CALLED THE PRESIDENT'S SENIOR

  • ADVISER, STEVE BANNON.

  • DO YOU RECALL WHAT HE TOLD THEM?

  • >> WHATEVER WAS SAID WILL APPEAR

  • IN THE REPORT.

  • >> IT IS.

  • IT IS.

  • IT SAYS ON PAGE 87, QUOTE,

  • PRIEBUS 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?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE MOST

  • IMPORTANT QUESTION I HAVE FOR

  • YOU TODAY IS WHY?

  • DIRECTOR MUELLER, WHY DID THE

  • PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

  • WANT YOU FIRED?

  • >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

  • >> WELL, ON PAGE 89 IN YOUR

  • REPORT IN VOLUME 2 YOU SAID, AND

  • I QUOTE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

  • INDICATES THAT THE PRESIDENT'S

  • EVIDENCE -- 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.

  • CLOSED QUOTE.

  • DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU FOUND

  • EVIDENCE AS YOU LAY OUT IN YOUR

  • REPORT THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED

  • TO FIRE YOU BECAUSE YOU WERE

  • INVESTIGATING HIM FOR

  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

  • ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

  • >> THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE

  • REPO

  • REPORT.

  • YES.

  • I STAND BY THE REPORT.

  • >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THAT

  • SHOULDN'T HAPPEN IN AMERICA.

  • NO PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO

  • ESCAPE INVESTIGATION BY ABUSING

  • HIS POWER, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU

  • TESTIFIED TO IN YOUR REPORT.

  • THE PRESIDENT ORDERED YOU FIRED.

  • THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL KNEW IT

  • WAS WRONG.

  • THE PRESIDENT KNEW IT WAS WRONG,

  • AND IN YOUR REPORT IT SAYS, THE

  • PRESIDENT KNEW HE SHOULD NOT

  • HAVE MADE THOSE CALLS TO McGAHN,

  • BUT THE PRESIDENT DID IT ANYWAY.

  • HE DID IT ANYWAY.

  • ANYONE ELSE WHO BLATANTLY

  • INTERFERED WITH A CRIMINAL

  • INVESTIGATION LIKE YOURS WOULD

  • BE ARRESTED AND INDICTED ON

  • CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION OF

  • JUSTICE.

  • DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU DETERMINED

  • THAT YOU WERE BARRED FROM

  • INDICTING THE SITTING PRESIDENT.

  • WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT

  • THAT TODAY.

  • THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THIS

  • COMMITTEE MUST HOLD THE

  • PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE.

  • I YIELD BACK.

  • >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

  • THE GENTLELADY FROM ALABAMA.

  • >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU JUST

  • SAID IN RESPONSE TO TWO

  • DIFFERENT LINES OF QUESTIONING,

  • THAT YOU WOULD REFER AS IT

  • RELATES TO THIS FIRING

  • DISCUSSION THAT I WOULD REFER

  • YOU TO THE REPORT IN THE WAY IT

  • WAS CHARACTERIZED IN THE REPORT.

  • IMPORTANTLY, THE PRESIDENT NEVER

  • SAID FIRE MUELLER, OR IN THE

  • INVEST

  • INVESTIGATION, ONE DOESN'T

  • NECESSITATE THE OTHER, AND

  • McGAHN DID NOT, IN FACT, RESIGN.

  • HE STUCK AROUND FOR A YEAR AND A

  • HALF.

  • ON MARCH 4th, THE ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL SAID HE RECEIVED THE

  • SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REPORT, AND IT

  • WAS NOT UNTIL APRIL 18th, HE

  • RELEASED THE REPORT TO CONGRESS

  • AND THE PUBLIC.

  • WHEN YOU SUBMITTED YOUR REPORT

  • TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DID YOU

  • DELIVER A REDACTED VERSION OF

  • THE REPORT SO HE WOULD BE ABLE

  • TO RELEASE IT TO CONGRESS IN THE

  • PUBLIC WITHOUT DELAY, PURSUE IT

  • TO HIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE

  • INTENTION TO DO SO DURING HIS

  • CONFIRMATION HEARING?

  • >> I'M NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN

  • DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED

  • AFTER THE PRODUCTION OF OUR

  • REPORT.

  • >> HAD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE AN UN

  • UNREUNR

  • UNREDACTED VERSIONS?

  • >> WE WORKED ON THOSE TOGETHER.

  • >> DID HE ASK YOU WHERE THE

  • GRAND JURY MATERIAL WAS

  • SEPARATED?

  • >> NOT GOING TO GET INTO

  • DETAILS.

  • >> IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT AN

  • UNREDACTED VERSION OF THE REPORT

  • COULD BE RELEASED TO CONGRESS OR

  • THE PUBLIC?

  • >> THAT'S NOT IN MY PURVIEW.

  • >> WHY DID YOU NOT TAKE A

  • SIMILAR ACTION SO CONGRESS COULD

  • VIEW THIS MATERIAL?

  • >> WE HAD A PROCESS WE WERE

  • OPERATING ON WITH THE ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL'S OFFICE.

  • >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL GOING TO COURT TO

  • RECEIVE SIMILAR PERMISSION TO

  • UNREDACT THIS MATERIAL?

  • >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT BEING

  • DONE.

  • >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RELEASED

  • THE COUNSEL'S REPORT WITH

  • MINIMAL REDACTIONS TO THE

  • PUBLIC, AND AN EVEN LESSER

  • REDACTED VERSION TO CONGRESS.

  • DID YOU WRITE THE REPORT WITH

  • THE EXPECTATION THAT IT WOULD BE

  • RELEASED PUBLICLY?

  • >> NO.

  • WE DID NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION.

  • WE WROTE THE REPORT

  • UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS

  • DEMANDED BY A STATUTE AND WOULD

  • GO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR

  • FURTHER -- FURTHER REVIEW.

  • >> AND PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL REGULATIONS, WHO IS THE

  • ONLY PARTY THAT MUST RECEIVE THE

  • CHARGING DECISION RESULTING FROM

  • THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S

  • INVESTIGATION?

  • >> WITH REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT

  • OR GENERALLY?

  • >> NO, GENERALLY.

  • >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

  • >> AT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR'S

  • HEARING, HE TALKED ABOUT IT.

  • DO YOU REMEMBER HOW MUCH OF YOUR

  • REPORT HAD BEEN WRITTEN AT THAT

  • POINT?

  • >> I DO NOT.

  • >> WERE THERE ARE 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?

  • >> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT.

  • >> DURING THE TESTIMONY OF

  • GENERAL BARR, KAMALA HARRIS

  • ASKED MR. BARR IF HE LOOKED AT

  • ALL THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE THAT

  • THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S TEAM HAD

  • GATHERED.

  • HE STATED THAT HE HAD NOT.

  • I'LL ASK YOU.

  • DID YOU PERSONALLY REVIEW ALL OF

  • THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE GATHERED

  • IN YOUR INVESTIGATION?

  • >> TO ACCEPT THAT IT CAME

  • THROUGH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S

  • OFFICE, YES.

  • >> DID ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF YOUR

  • TEAM REVIEW ANY OF THE

  • UNDERLYING EVIDENCE DURING THE

  • COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION?

  • >> AS CITED TODAY, A SUBSTANTIAL

  • AMOUNT OF WORK WAS DONE.

  • WHETHER IT BE SEARCH

  • WARRANTED --

  • >> THERE WAS NO ONE MEMBER OF

  • THE TEAM THAT LOOKED AT

  • EVERYTHING.

  • >> THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET

  • AT.

  • >> IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT 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 --

  • >> THANK YOU, YES.

  • >> HOW MANY OF THE APPROXIMATELY

  • 500 INTERVIEWS DID YOU ATTEND

  • PERSONALLY?

  • >> VERY FEW.

  • >> ON MARCH 27, 2019, YOU WROTE

  • A LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • COMPLAINING ABOUT THE MEDIA

  • COVERAGE OF YOUR REPORT.

  • YOU WROTE, AND I QUOTE, THE

  • SUMMARY LETTER SENT TO CONGRESS

  • AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC LATE

  • IN THE AFTERNOON DID NOT FULLY

  • CAPTURE THE CONTEXT, NATURE AND

  • SUBSTANCE OF THIS OFFICE WORK

  • AND CONCLUSIONS.

  • WE COMMUNICATED THAT CONCERN TO

  • THE DEPARTMENT ON THE MORNING OF

  • MARCH 25th.

  • THERE IS NOW PUBLIC CONFUSION

  • ABOUT CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE

  • RESULT OF OUR INVESTIGATION.

  • WHO WROTE THAT MARCH 27th

  • LETTER?

  • >> WELL, I -- I CAN'T GET INTO

  • WHO WROTE IT OR THE INTERNAL

  • DELIBERATION.

  • >> YOU SIGNED IT.

  • >> I WILL SAY THE LETTER STANDS

  • FOR ITSELF.

  • >> WHY WOULD YOU WRITE A FORMAL

  • LETTER SINCE YOU HAD ALREADY

  • CALLED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO

  • EXPRESS THOSE CONCERNS?

  • >> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT.

  • >> DID YOU AUTHORIZE THE LETTERS

  • TO THE MEDIA OR WAS IT LEAKED?

  • >> I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ON

  • EITHER.

  • >> YOU WENT NEARLY TWO YEARS

  • WITHOUT A LEAK.

  • WHY WAS THIS LETTER LEAKED?

  • >> I CAN'T GET INTO IT.

  • >> WAS THIS LETTER WRITTEN AND

  • LEAKED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE

  • OF ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THE

  • NARRATIVE ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS

  • OF YOUR REPORT?

  • WAS ANYTHING IN ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • BARR'S LETTER RELATED --

  • >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLELADY

  • HAS EXPIRED.

  • >> CAN HE ANSWER THE QUESTION?

  • >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

  • >> HE MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.

  • >> WAS ANYTHING REFERRED TO AS

  • THE PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS LETTER

  • DATED INAI ACCURATE?

  • >> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO

  • THAT.

  • >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.

  • NOW THE GENTLELADY FROM

  • CALIFORNIA.

  • >> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT

  • THE SECOND OF THOSE FIVE

  • OBSTRUCTION EPISODES.

  • IT'S IN THE SECTION OF YOUR

  • REPORT, BEGINNING ON 113 OF

  • VOLUME 2, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT

  • ORDERS McGAHN THAT THE PRESIDENT

  • TRIES TO FIRE THE SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL, END QUOTE.

  • "THE NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTED

  • THAT, QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT HAD

  • ORDERED McGAHN TO HAVE THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FIRE YOU.

  • IS THAT CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> AND THAT STORY RELATED TO THE

  • EVENTS YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED

  • ABOUT HEAR TODAY.

  • THE PRESIDENT'S CALLS TO McGAHN

  • TO HAVE YOU REMOVED, CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> AFTER THE NEWS BROKE, DID THE

  • PRESIDENT GO ON TV AND DENY THE

  • STORY?

  • >> I DO NOT KNOW.

  • >> IN FACT, THE PRESIDENT SAID,

  • QUOTE, FAKE NEWS, FOLKS.

  • FAKE NEWS, IN DIFFICULT TIMES.

  • FAKE NEWS STORY.

  • CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> YOUR INVESTIGATION ACTUALLY

  • FOUND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT

  • McGAHN WAS ORDERED BY THE

  • PRESIDENT TO FIRE YOU, CORRECT?

  • >> YES.

  • >> DID THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL

  • LAWYER DO SOMETHING THE

  • FOLLOWING DAY IN RESPONSE TO

  • THAT NEWS REPORT?

  • >> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE

  • COVERAGE OF THIS IN THE REPORT.

  • >> ON PAGE 114, QUOTE, ON

  • JANUARY 26, 2018, THE

  • PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL COUNSEL

  • CALLED McGAHN'S ATTORNEY AND

  • SAID THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED

  • McGAHN TO PUT OUT A STATEMENT

  • DENYING THAT HE HAD BEEN ASKED

  • TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, END

  • QUOTE.

  • DID McGAHN DO WHAT THE PRESIDENT

  • ASKED?

  • >> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE

  • REPORT.

  • >> COMMUNICATING THROUGH HIS

  • PERSONAL ATTORNEY, McGAHN

  • REFUSED BECAUSE HE SAID, QUOTE,

  • THAT THE "TIMES" STORY WAS

  • ACCURATE IN REPORTING THAT THE

  • PRESIDENT WANTED THE SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL REMOVED.

  • ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

  • >> I BELIEVE IT IS, BUT I WOULD

  • REFER YOU AGAIN TO THE REPORT.

  • >> SO MR. McGAHN THROUGH HIS

  • PERSONAL ATTORNEY TOLD THE

  • PRESIDENT THAT HE WAS NOT GOING

  • TO LIE.

  • IS THAT RIGHT?

  • >> TRUE.

  • >> DID THE PRESIDENT DROP THE

  • ISSUE?

  • >> I REFER TO THE WRITEUP OF

  • THIS IN THE REPORT.

  • >> OKAY.

  • NEXT, THE WHITE HOUSE TOLD THE

  • WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY, ROB

  • PORTER, TO TRY TO PRESSURE

  • McGAHN TO MAKE A FALSE DENIAL.

  • IS THAT CORRECT?

  • >> THAT'S CORRECT.

  • >> WHAT DID HE ACTUALLY DIRECT

  • PORTER TO DO?

  • >> I SEND YOU BACK TO THE

  • REPORT.

  • >> ON PAGE 113, IT SAYS, QUOTE,

  • THE PRESIDENT THEN DIRECTED

  • PORTER TO TELL McGAHN TO CREATE

  • A RECORD, TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT

  • THE PRESIDENT NEVER DIRECTED

  • McGAHN TO FIRE YOU, END QUOTE.

  • IS THAT CORRECT?

  • >> THAT IS AS IT IS STATED IN

  • THE REPORT.

  • >> AND YOU FOUND, QUOTE, THE

  • PRESIDENT SAID, HE WANTED McGAHN

  • TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE FILE

  • FOR OUR RECORDS.

  • CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> AND TO BE CLEAR, THE

  • PRESIDENT IS ASKING HIS WHITE

  • HOUSE COUNSEL, DON McGAHN, TO

  • CREATE A RECORD THAT McGAHN

  • BELIEVED TO BE UNTRUE WHILE YOU

  • WERE IN THE MIDST OF

  • INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT FOR

  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

  • CORRECT?

  • >> GENERALLY CORRECT.

  • >> AND MR. McGAHN WAS AN

  • IMPORTANT WITNESS IN THAT

  • INVESTIGATION, WASN'T HE?

  • >> I WOULD HAVE TO SAY YES.

  • >> DID THE PRESIDENT TELL PORTER

  • TO THREATEN McGAHN IF HE DIDN'T

  • CREATE THE WRITTEN DENIAL?

  • >> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE

  • WRITEUP OF IT IN THE REPORT.

  • >> IN FACT, DIDN'T THE PRESIDENT

  • S

  • SAY, QUOTE, AND THIS IS ON PAGE

  • 116, IF HE DOESN'T WRITE A

  • LETTER, THEN MAYBE I'LL HAVE TO

  • GET RID OF HIM.

  • END QUOTE.

  • >> YES.

  • >> DID PORTER DELIVER THAT

  • THREAT?

  • >> I AGAIN, REFER YOU TO THE

  • DISCUSSION THAT'S FOUND ON PAGE

  • 115.

  • >> OKAY.

  • BUT THE PRESIDENT STILL DIDN'T

  • GIVE UP, DID HE?

  • SO THE PRESIDENT TOLD McGAHN

  • DIRECTLY TO DENY THAT THE

  • PRESIDENT TOLD HIM TO HAVE YOU

  • FIRED.

  • CAN YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT

  • HAPPENED?

  • >> I CAN'T BEYOND WHAT'S IN THE

  • REPORT.

  • >> WELL, ON PAGE 116, IT SAYS

  • THE PRESIDENT MET HIM IN THE

  • OVAL OFFICE.

  • QUOTE, THE PRESIDENT BEGAN THE

  • OVAL OFFICE MEETING BY TELLING

  • McGAHN THAT "THE NEW YORK TIMES"

  • STORY DIDN'T LOOK GOOD, AND

  • McGAHN NEEDED TO CORRECT IT.

  • IS THAT CORRECT?

  • >> IT'S CORRECT AS IT'S WRITTEN

  • IN THE REPORT, YES.

  • >> THE PRESIDENT ASKED McGAHN

  • WHETHER HE WOULD DO A

  • CORRECTION, AND McGAHN SAID, NO.

  • CORRECT?

  • >> THAT'S ACCURATE.

  • >> WELL, MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU

  • FOR YOUR INVESTIGATION

  • UNCOVERING THIS VERY DISTURBING

  • EVIDENCE.

  • MY FRIEND, MR. RICHMOND WILL

  • HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE

  • SUBJECT, HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR TO

  • ME IF ANYONE ELSE HAD ORDERED A

  • WITNESS TO CREATE A FALSE RECORD

  • AND COVER UP ACTS THAT ARE

  • SUBJECT OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT

  • INVESTIGATION, THAT PERSON WOULD

  • BE FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES.

  • I

  • >> THE FBI INTERVIEWS JOSEPH ON

  • FEBRUARY 10th, 2017.

  • IN THAT INTERVIEW HE LIED.

  • YOU POINT THAT OUT ON PAGE 193.

  • HE DENIED.

  • HE ALSO FALSELY STATED.

  • IN ADDITION HE OMITTED.

  • THREE TIMES HE LIE TO THE FBI.

  • YET YOU DIDN'T CHARGE HIM WITH A

  • CRIME.

  • >> DID YOU SAY 193?

  • >> VOLUME 1, 193.

  • WHY DIDN'T YOU CHARGE HIM WITH A

  • CRIME?

  • >> I CAN'T GET INTO

  • INVESTIGATIONS --

  • >> YOU CHARGED A LOT OF OTHER

  • PEOPLE WITH 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 THE

  • PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, GEORGE

  • PAPADOPOULOS AND CARTER PAGE.

  • WITH CARTER PAGE THEY WENT TO

  • THE FISA COURT AND USED THE

  • DOSSIER AS PART OF THE REASON

  • THEY WERE ABLE TO GET THE

  • WARRANT AND SPY ON CARTER PAGE.

  • WITH GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS THEY

  • DIDN'T GO TO THE COURT, THEY

  • USED HUMAN SOURCES.

  • FROM THE MOMENT GEORGE

  • PAPADOPOULOS JOINED THE TRUMP

  • CAMPAIGN YOU HAVE ALL THESE

  • PEOPLE SWIRLING AROUND HIM.

  • ALL THESE PEOPLE MEETING IN ROME

  • AND LONDON.

  • ALL KINDS OF PLACES.

  • THE FBI EVEN SENT A LADY POSING

  • AS SOMEBODY ELSE.

  • EVEN DISPATCHED HER TO LONDON TO

  • SPY ON GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS.

  • IN ONE OF THESE MEETINGS GEORGE

  • PAPADOPOULOS IS TALKING TO A

  • FOREIGN DIPLOMAT AND HE TELLS

  • THE DIPLOMAT RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT

  • ON CLINTON.

  • THAT DIPLOMAT CONTACTS THE FBI

  • AND THE FBI OPENS AN

  • INVESTIGATION BASED ON THAT

  • FA

  • FACT.

  • YOU POINT THAT OUT ON PAGE ONE

  • OF THE REPORT.

  • JULY 21, 2016 YOU OPEN THE

  • INVESTIGATION BASED ON THAT

  • INFORMATION.

  • DIPLOMAT TELLS -- EXCUSE ME

  • GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS TELLS THE

  • DIPLOMAT RUSSIANS HAVE DIRT ON

  • CLINTON.

  • WHO TOLD GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS?

  • HOW DEFINEID HE FIND OUT?

  • >> I CAN'T GET INTO IT.

  • >> YES, YOU CAN.

  • IN PAGE 192 OF THE REPORT YOU

  • TELL US WHO TOLD HIM.

  • THE MYSTERIOUS PROFESSOR WHO

  • WORKS IN LONDON, THIS IS THE GUY

  • WHO TELLS GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS.

  • HE STARTS IT ALL.

  • WHEN THE FBI INTERVIEWS HIM HE

  • LIES THREE TIMES AND YET YOU

  • DON'T CHARGE HIM WITH A CRIME.

  • YOU CHARGE RICK GAITS, MICHAEL

  • COHEN, MICHAEL FLYNN YOU CHARGE

  • THEM.

  • THE GUY WHO PUTS THIS COUNTRY

  • THROUGH THE WHO SAGA HE LIES.

  • YOU GUYS DON'T CHARGE HIM.

  • I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY.

  • >> I CAN'T GET INTO IT.

  • IT'S OBVIOUS I THINK THAT WE

  • CAN'T GET INTO CHARGING

  • DECISIONS.

  • >> WHEN THE FBI INTERVIEWED HIM

  • IN FEBRUARY, WHEN THE SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL'S OFFICE INTERVIEWED

  • HIM, DID HE LIE TO YOU GUYS TO?

  • >> I CAN'T GET INTO THAT.

  • >> DID YOU INTERVIEW HIM?

  • >> I CAN'T GET INTO IT.

  • >> A LOT OF THINGS YOU CAN'T GET

  • INTO.

  • YOU CAN CHARGE 13 RUSSIANS NO

  • ONE'S EVER HEARD OF OR SEEN, NO

  • ONE'S EVER GOING TO HEAR OF

  • THEM, NO ONE'S EVER GOING TO SEE

  • THEM.

  • YOU CAN CHARGE ALL KINDS OF

  • PEOPLE AROUND THE PRESIDENT WITH

  • FALSE STATEMENTS, BUT THE GUY

  • WHO PUTS THIS WHOLE STORY IN

  • MOTION, YOU CAN'T CHARGE HIM.

  • I THINK THAT'S AMAZING.

  • >> I'M NOT CERTAIN I AGREE WITH

  • YOUR CHARACTERIZATIONS.

  • >> I'M READING FROM YOUR REPORT.

  • HE TOLD GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS.

  • GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS TELLS THE

  • D

  • DIPLOMAT.

  • THE DIPLOMAT TELL IS THE FBI.

  • THE FBI STARTS THE

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • THE CENTRAL FIGURE WHO LAUNCHES

  • IT ALL LIES TO US AND YOU GUYS

  • DON'T HUNT HIM DOWN AND

  • INTERVIEW HIM AGAIN AND CHARGE

  • HIM WITH A CRIME.

  • HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS.

  • >> THE PRESIDENT WAS FALSELY

  • ACCUSED OF CONSPIRACY.

  • JAMES COMEY WHEN WE DEPOSED HIM

  • TOLD US THEY HAVE NOTHING.

  • AT THE END OF YOUR 22-MONTH

  • INVESTIGATION YOU FIND NO

  • CONSPIRACY.

  • WHAT DO THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO

  • DO?

  • KEEP INVESTIGATING.

  • KEEP GOING.

  • MAYBE A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION,

  • MAYBE A BETTER COURSE OF ACTION

  • IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE FALSE

  • ACCUSATIONS STARTED.

  • MAYBE IT'S TO FIGURE OUT WHY

  • JOSEPH WAS LYING TO THE FBI.

  • HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS.

  • HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS.

  • THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BILL BARR IS

  • DOING.

  • THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT.

  • THAT'S WHAT THE ATTORNEY JEGENEL

  • IS DOING.

  • >> TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN HAS

  • EXPIRED.

  • IN A MOMENT WE'LL TAKE A VERY

  • BRIEF FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.

  • I ASK EVERYONE IN THE ROOM TO

  • REMAIN SEATED AND QUIET WHILE

  • THE WITNESS EXITS THE ROOM.

  • I ALSO WANT TO ANNOUNCE TO THOSE

  • IN THE AUDIENCE THAT YOU MAY NOT

  • BE GUARANTEED YOUR SEAT IF YOU

  • LEAVE THE HEARING ROOM AT THIS

  • TIME.

  • >> THERE WE HAVE IT AFTER ABOUT

  • THE FIRST HOUR AND A HALF OF

  • ROBERT MUELLER'S TESTIMONY,

  • ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH, THEY'LL

  • TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.

  • I WANT TO START WITH MARY BRUCE.

  • MARY, WE SAW TWO DIFFERENT

  • STRATEGIES AT PLAY BY THE

  • DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.

  • THE DEMOCRATS MIGHT HAVE WANTED

  • TO BRING ROBERT MUELLER'S REPORT

  • TO LIFE.

  • THEY HAD HIM SAY THAT'S WHAT I

  • WROTE.

  • THE REPUBLICANS RAISING

  • QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ENTIRE

  • APPROACH OF ROBERT MUELLER.

  • >> GEORGE, THE STRATEGIES WERE

  • VERY CLEAR STRAIGHT OUT THE

  • GATE.

  • WE SAW JERROLD NADLER, HIS FIRST

  • LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS TO GET

  • ROBERT MUELLER TO SAY NO HIS

  • REPORT DID IN THE EXONERATE THE

  • PRESIDENT.

  • VERY CLEARLY WE SAW DEMOCRATS

  • TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE TEN

  • INCIDENTS OF POSSIBLE

  • OBSTRUCTION, TO UNDER SCORE HIS

  • REPORT DIDN'T EXONERATE THE

  • PRESIDENT.

  • THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO

  • PUT TO BED THE ISSUE OF

  • COLLUSION, PICKING APART THE

  • REPORT TO HIGHLIGHT THERE WAS NO

  • CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY.

  • THEN THEY WERE TRYING TO

  • DISCREDIT THE INVESTIGATION.

  • GEORGE, BOTH SIDES KNEW ROBERT

  • MUELLER IS KNOWN FORGI GIVING O

  • WORD ANSWERS.

  • IT'S A HEARING OF RAPID FIRE

  • WHERE MUELLER IS KICKING THROUGH

  • THE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.

  • THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S

  • RESONATING WITH THE AMERICAN

  • PEOPLE.

  • >> DAVID MUIR ALSO AT THE

  • CAPITAL.

  • AT TIMES IT APPEARED ROBERT

  • MUELLER WAS HAVING TROUBLE

  • FOLLOWING THE QUESTIONING.

  • >> IT DID APPEAR THAT WAY.

  • IT'S PROBABLY WHY HE WANTED HIS

  • DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF BESIDE

  • HIM, TO SIT BESIDE HIM AND HELP

  • HIM POINT OUT THE PAGE NUMBERS

  • IN THE REPORT CONTINUALLY BEING

  • CITED BY DEMOCRATS AND

  • REPUBLICANS.

  • YOU HEARD ROBERT MUELLER GIVING

  • ONE-WORD ANSWERS.

  • PARTICULARLY ON THE DEMOCRATIC

  • SIDE OF THE QUESTIONING WHEN

  • THEY WERE TRYING TO PRESS ON THE

  • POINTS THAT MARY MENTIONED, THE

  • POTENTIAL EXAMPLES OF

  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE MUELLER

  • SAID I TURN BACK TO THE REPORT.

  • THE DEMOCRAT WOULD READ FROM

  • MUELLER'S REPORT.

  • THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT

  • WHETHER WE WOULD HEAR ROBERT

  • MUELLER READ FROM THE REPORT.

  • LAW MAKERS ARE CHOOSING TO READ

  • IT FOR HIM.

  • TO GO BACK TO THE TWO KEY POINTS

  • MARY MENTIONED DID YOU TOTALLY

  • EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT, MUELLER

  • SAYING NO ON THAT.

  • THAT TENSE BACK AND FORTH A

  • MOMENT AGO ON THE DEMOCRATIC

  • SIDE ABOUT DON McGAHN, THE

  • PRESIDENT'S LAWYER, WHO WAS

  • MENTIONED A MULTITUDE OF TIMES

  • IN THE MUELLER REPORT, A SERIES

  • OF BACK AND FORTH QUESTIONS ON

  • WHETHER OR NOT DON McGAHN HAD

  • BEEN TOLD TO LIE ABOUT THE

  • PUBLIC NARRATIVE AND MUELLER

  • REPEATEDLY TURNING BACK TO THE

  • REPORT.

  • >> DAN ABRAMS IT SEEMS LIKE THE

  • DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO CREATE A

  • WRITTEN RECORD IN THIS HEARING

  • THAT WOULD LAY THE PREDICATE FOR

  • GOING FORWARD WITH IMPEACHMENT

  • PROCEEDINGS.

  • DON McGAHN APPEARS TO BE A KEY

  • WITNESS.

  • THE PRESIDENT CALLING HIM A

  • LIAR.

  • ROBERT MUELLER CALLING HIM A

  • CREDIBLE WITNESS.

  • >> YOU NEED TO HEAR FROM DON

  • McGAHN NOW.

  • THAT'S THE KEY.

  • FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PERSPECTIVE

  • TO ME IT'S BEEN A BIT OF A BUST.

  • THEY NEEDED THIS TO COME TO

  • LIFE.

  • THEY NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO TELL

  • THAT STORY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

  • IT HASN'T FELT LIKE A STORY.

  • ROBERT MUELLER HAS NOT BEEN

  • DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST

  • ALLEGATION THAT IS THERE WERE 12

  • PLUS ANGRY PEOPLE OUT TO GET

  • DONALD TRUMP ON HIS TEAM.

  • HE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT THE

  • INTEGRITY OF THE TEAM.

  • WHEN THEY'RE ACCUSATIONS BEING

  • MADE, HE'S NOT DEFENDING THEM AT

  • ALL.

  • HE'S NOT DEFENDING WHY THEY

  • WROTE SECTION TWO.

  • HE'S NOT PROPERLY ANSWERING THE

  • QUESTION ABOUT THE FBI JOB.

  • >> LET ME TAKE THAT TO CHRIS

  • CHRISTIE.

  • THAT WAS A SURPRISE TO ME AS

  • WELL.

  • ROBERT MUELLER IS NOT WANTING TO

  • SAY ONE WORD MORE THAN HE HAS

  • TO.

  • >> THIS IS WHAT I SAID BEFORE IT

  • STARTED.

  • MY EXPERIENCE WITH BOB MUELLER

  • HAVING WORKED WITH HIM FOR SEVEN

  • YEARS WHEN WE WOULD GET INTO A

  • ROOM WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE

  • WHERE YOU WERE HAVING A

  • CONVERSATION BOB MUELLER ALWAYS

  • SAID THE LEAST AND WAS ALWAYS

  • THE MOST CAREFUL.

  • I THINK YOU'RE SEEING THAT THIS

  • MORNING.

  • THE DEMOCRATS HAVE LEFT A LOT OF

  • OPPORTUNITIES ON THE TABLE.

  • CONGRESSMAN RATCLIFFE MADE

  • POINTS THAT WE AS BROSPROSECUTOO

  • NOT EXONERATE PEOPLE.

  • >> THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS

  • SUPPOSED TO WRITE A POINT ABOUT

  • THAT.

  • >> THE POINT IS THE DEMOCRATS

  • DIDN'T FOLLOW UP AND SAY DID YOU

  • INTEND FOR US TO DO THIS SINCE

  • YOU FELT YOU COULD NOT.

  • THAT'S THE BIGGEST MISTAKE THE

  • DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE.

  • >> IT SEEMS TO BE THE BIGGEST

  • UNANSWERED QUESTION ON THE

  • TABLE, IS THAT WHAT ROBERT

  • MUELLER INTENDED?

  • HE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THE BAIT

  • ON BARR EITHER.

  • >> I WANT TO TAKE IT TO JON

  • KARL.

  • WE'VE NOT HEARD FROM THE

  • PRESIDENT SINCE THE HEARING

  • BEGAN, JON.

  • ANY REPORTING ON THE WHITE HOUSE

  • REACTION?

  • >> WE'RE TOLD THE PRESIDENT HAS

  • BEEN WATCHING.

  • A PERSON CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT

  • TELLS US, QUOTE, THIS IS A ZERO

  • FOR THE DEMOCRATS.

  • THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT BEEN

  • TWEETING.

  • HE'S BEEN WATCHING.

  • THEY CLEARLY THINK THE DEMOCRATS

  • HAVE NOT DONE WHAT THEY INTENDED

  • TO DO HERE.

  • GEORGE, THIS IS IN THE THE

  • MOMENT THAT DEMOCRATS HAD BEEN

  • EXPECTING.

  • THEY EXPECTED THIS TO BE A

  • DRAMATIC CULMINATION, HEARING

  • DIRECTLY FROM THE SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL.

  • YOU HEARD A LOT OF ONE-WORD

  • ANSWERS, APPARENT CONFUSION FROM

  • ROBERT MUELLER.

  • NOT THE MOMENT THEY HOPED FOR.

  • THERE WAS A MOMENT OF CLARITY IN

  • THE BEGINNING WITH THE

  • QUESTIONING FROM JERRY NADLER ON

  • THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT

  • MUELLER WANTED TO INTERVIEW

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP.

  • WE'VE REPORTED A LONG THE WAY HE

  • TRIED VERY HARD.

  • HE WAS VERY CLEAR IN HIS Q&A

  • WITH NADLER THAT THAT EFFORT

  • WENT ON THROUGHOUT THE

  • INVESTIGATION AND HE FELT AN

  • INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT WAS

  • VITAL TO THE INVESTIGATION AND

  • HE NEVER GOT THAT INTERVIEW.

  • I FOUND THAT ESPECIALLY

  • INTERESTING BECAUSE THE

  • PRESIDENT TOLD ME DIRECTLY ON

  • MORE THAN ONE OCCASION THAT HE

  • FULLY INTENDED AND WILLING TO BE

  • INTERVIEWED UNDER OATH BY THE

  • SPECIAL COUNSEL.

  • OBVIOUSLY NEVER HAPPENED.

  • >> HIS TEAM FOUGHT IT EVERY STEP

  • OF THE WAY.

  • PIERRE THOMAS YOU COVERED ROBERT

  • MUELLER A LONG TIME.

  • WE KNOW ROBERT MUELLER WAS A

  • RELUCTANT WITNESS TODAY.

  • HE FOUGHT OVER THE RESTRICTIONS

  • AND THE TIMING.

  • HE DIDN'T WANT TO APPEAR.

  • HE SAID HIS REPORT WAS THE

  • TESTIMONY.

  • IT APPEARED THERE WERE QUESTIONS

  • FROM REPUBLICANS RAISED HOW

  • INVOLVED HE WAS IN THE OVERALL

  • PREPARATION OF THE REPORT AND

  • THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF.

  • >> THAT'S RIGHT, GEORGE.

  • MUELLER IS NOT A MADE FOR

  • TELEVISION PERSON.

  • YOU'RE SEEING THAT PLAY OUT

  • TODAY.

  • HE'S EXTREMELY -- AS GOVERNOR

  • CHRISTIE SAID, EXTREMELY CAREFUL

  • IN HOW HE APPROACHES THESE TYPES

  • OF THINGS.

  • HE'S TRYING TO SAY WITHIN THE

  • REPORT.

  • HE'S TRYING TO DEFEND THE

  • CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT BY

  • AGREEING WITH THE DEMOCRATS

  • WHERE HE SEES FIT.

  • IN TERMS OF THE ATTACKS BY THE

  • REPUBLICANS HE'S PERFECTLY

  • CONTENT TO IGNORE THEM.

  • I THINK THE THING HE'S BEEN MOST

  • ANIMATED ABOUT IS TRYING TO MAKE

  • THIS POINT THAT WHAT THE

  • RUSSIANS DID IN TERMS OF

  • ATTACKING THE ELECTION WAS

  • SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC.

  • >> WE JUST GOT A TWEET FROM

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP CECELIA.

  • HE'S RETWEETING CHRIS WALLACE

  • SAYING IT'S BEEN A DISASTER FOR

  • THE DEMOCRATS.

  • HE'S WEIGHING IN AT THE HALFWAY

  • MARK.

  • >> AND QUARTERBACKING AND

  • WATCHING.

  • HE SAID HE WOULD BE WATCHING A

  • LITTLE BIT.

  • THE PRESIDENT HAS A LIGHT

  • SCHEDULE TODAY.

  • HE'S IN WASHINGTON.

  • HE HAS AN OPEN SCHEDULE.

  • WE EXPECT HIM TO BE WATCHING.

  • WE HEARD THE PREVIEW ATTACK

  • LINES COMING OUT OF THE WHITE

  • HOUSE.

  • THEY SAID THE DEMOCRATS WANT A

  • DO OVER OF THE DO OVER OF THE DO

  • OVER.

  • WE'LL HEAR THAT THROUGHOUT THE

  • COURSE OF THE DAY.

  • WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO MUELLER'S

  • OPENING STATEMENT.

  • HE CAME OUT SWINGING IN A WAY.

  • HE CONTRADICTED WHAT THE

  • PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SAYING ALL

  • ALONG, THE CRUX OF HIS ARGUMENT

  • THAT HE WAS TOTALLY EXONERATED.

  • MUELLER SAID NO.

  • THERE MAY NOT BE GIANT

  • BOMBSHELLS OR REVELATIONS AFTER

  • THAT.

  • HEARING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ON

  • THE RECORD SAY THE PRESIDENT OF

  • THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT

  • EXONERATED BY THIS INVESTIGATION

  • IS BIG NEWS.

  • >> I DID NOT REACH THE

  • CONCLUSION OF NO COLLUSION AND

  • NO OBSTRUCTION.

  • THAT GETS TO THE QUESTION KATE

  • SHAW ONE OF THE THINGS THE

  • CONGRESSMEN ARE TRYING TO DO IS

  • SAYING THIS IS NOT A CASE THAT

  • COULD BE PROSECUTED.

  • ROBERT MUELLER SAID I DIDN'T

  • EVEN LOOK AT THAT.

  • THE QUESTION FOR THE DEMOCRATS

  • IS IT A CASE ROBERT MUELLER

  • INTENDED FOR THEM TO PURSUE.

  • >> THE DEMOCRATS DIDN'T STEP IN

  • AND PICK UP THOSE LINES OF

  • QUESTIONING.

  • MUELLER SAYS THIS IS A UNIQUE

  • SITUATION WHEN HE RESPONDS TO

  • ONE OF THE QUESTIONS.

  • IT'S UNIQUE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T

  • HAVE AVAILABLE THE OPTION OF

  • INDICTING THE PRESIDENT.

  • WITH LEAVING OPEN THE QUESTION,

  • YOU KNOW, THE NEXT SORT OF

  • NATURAL LINE IS SO THE REPORT

  • DISCUSSES OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL

  • MECHANISMS FOR ADDRESSING

  • PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT.

  • WHAT ARE THOSE MECHANISMS?

  • CLEARLY THE REPORT IS

  • REFERENCING IMPEACHMENT.

  • >> WILL HE SAY --

  • >> THEY NEED TO ASK.

  • IT'S IN THE REPORT.

  • IT'S IN A FOOTNOTE.

  • IT'S THERE.

  • WILL HE WAY IN SUBSTANTIVELY ON

  • WHETHER THIS IS IMPEACHABLE

  • CONDUCT?

  • I DOUBT IT.

  • I THINK THEY SHOULD TRY.

  • >> TERRY, WE'VE SEEN HEARINGS

  • LIKE THIS IN THE PAST.

  • THE WATERGATE HEARINGS, THE IRAN

  • CONTRA HEARINGS.

  • THIS ONE DOES SEEM REMARKABLE.

  • THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANYONE

  • ON EITHER SIDE WHO IS GOING TO

  • MOVE ONE INCH FROM THE PARTY

  • LINE.

  • >> THAT'S RIGHT.

  • WHAT YOU HAVE IS A STORY TELLING

  • COMPETITION.

  • YOU'VE GOT THE MESS OF FACTS.

  • THE COUNTRY IS KIND OF CONFUSED

  • ABOUT THEM.

  • THE DEMOCRATS CAME IN WITH A

  • DIFFICULT CHALLENGE.

  • TELL A NEW STORY TO THE AMERICAN

  • PUBLIC ABOUT SOMETHING THEY

  • THINK THEY ALREADY KNOW.

  • >> JERROLD NADLER IS BACK AT THE

  • PODIUM.

  • YOU SEE JERROLD NADLER THERE

  • WITH CONGRESSMAN COLLINS AS WE

  • WAIT FOR ROBERT MUELLER TO

  • RETURN TO THE HEARING ROOM.

  • ABOUT ANOTHER HOUR AND A HALF OF

  • QUESTIONING IS EXPECTED.

  • CHRIS CHRISTIE, I DON'T KNOW IF

  • YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS.

  • WHAT DO YOU THINK ROBERT

  • MUELLER'S TEAM IS TELLING HIM?

  • >> I THINK THEY'LL TELL HIM

  • CONTINUE TO DO WHAT YOU'RE

  • DOING.

  • TAKE YOUR TIME.

  • THEY'LL PROBABLY TELL HIM TO

  • PUSH BACK LITTLE BIT.

  • I'M SURE THOSE FOLKS ARE

  • DISTURBED AND WE'RE SURPRISED

  • THAT HE HASN'T PUSHED BACK ON

  • THE INTEGRITY OF HIS

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • >> AND HIS OWN INTEGRITY.

  • >> THE DEMOCRATS HAVE TO DO

  • SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

  • THEY'RE NOT MOVING THE BALL

  • POLITICALLY.

  • IT'S AN IMPEACHMENT --

  • >> THEY NEED TO LISTEN TO THE

  • ANSWERS.

  • >> THEY DON'T EVER.

  • >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA.

  • >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • MR. MUELLER, CONGRESSMAN DEUTCH

  • ADDRESSED TRUMP'S REQUEST TO

  • McGAHN TO FIRE YOU.

  • REPRESENTATIVE BASS TALKED ABOUT

  • THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST OF

  • McGAHN TO DENY THE FACT THE

  • PRESIDENT MADE THAT REQUEST.

  • I WANT TO PICK UP WHERE THEY

  • LEFT OFF.

  • I WANT TO PICK UP WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER.

  • IN FACT, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT

  • THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER

  • WAS ALARMED AT THE PRESIDENT

  • MEETING WITH MR. McGAHN TO

  • DISCUSS THE REFUSAL OF McGAHN'S

  • IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" REPORT

  • ABOUT FIRING YOU, CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL WAS

  • SO ALARMED ABOUT THE MEETING

  • WITH McGAHN THAT HE CALLED

  • MR. McGAHN'S COUNSEL AND SAID

  • THAT McGAHN COULD NOT RESIGN NO

  • MATTER WHAT HAPPENED IN THE OVAL

  • OFFICE THAT DAY, CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> IT'S ACCURATE TO SAY THE

  • PRESIDENT KNEW HE WAS ASKING

  • McGAHN TO DENY FACTS THAT

  • McGAHN, QUOTE, HAD REPEATEDLY

  • SAID WERE ACCURATE, UNQUOTE,

  • ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> YOUR INVESTIGATION ALSO

  • FOUND, QUOTE, BY THE TIME OF THE

  • OVAL OFFICE MEETING WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT THE PRESIDENT WAS

  • AWARE, ONE, THAT McGAHN DID NOT

  • THINK THE STORY WAS FALSE, TWO,

  • DID NOT WANT TO ISSUE A

  • STATEMENT OR CREATE A WRITTEN

  • RECORD DENYING FACTS THAT McGAHN

  • BELIEVED TO BE TRUE, THE

  • PRESIDENT NEVERTHELESS PERSISTED

  • AND ASKED McGAHN TO REPUD YAT

  • FACTS THAT McGAHN REPEATEDLY

  • SAID WERE ACCURATE, CORRECT?

  • >> GENERALLY TRUE.

  • >> I BELIEVE THAT'S ON PAGE 119.

  • THANK YOU.

  • IN OTHER WORDS THE PRESIDENT WAS

  • TRYING TO FORCE McGAHN TO SAY

  • SOMETHING THAT McGAHN DID NOT

  • BELIEVE TO BE TRUE?

  • >> THAT'S ACCURATE.

  • >> I WANT TO REFERENCE YOU TO A

  • SLIDE ON PAGE 120.

  • IT SAYS, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

  • INDICATES THAT IN REPEATEDLY

  • URGING McGAHN TO DISPUTE HE WAS

  • ORDERED TO HAVE THE SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL TERMINATED, THE

  • PRESIDENT ACTING FOR THE PURPOSE

  • OF INFLUENCING McGAHN'S ACCOUNT

  • IN ORDER TO DEFLECT OR PREVENT

  • FURTHER SCRUTINY OF THE

  • PRESIDENT'S CONDUCT TOWARDS THE

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • >> THAT'S ACCURATE.

  • >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU

  • MEANT THERE?

  • >> I BELIEVE IT AS IT APPEARS IN

  • THE REPORT.

  • >> IT'S FAIR TO SAY THE

  • PRESIDENT TRIED TO PROTECT

  • HIMSELF BY ASKING STAFF TO

  • FALSIFY RECORDS RELEVANT TO AN

  • ONGOING INVESTIGATION?

  • >> I WOULD SAY THAT'S GENERALLY

  • A SUMMARY.

  • >> WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT

  • ACTION, THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO

  • HAMPER THE INVESTIGATION BY

  • ASKING STAFF TO --

  • >> I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE

  • REPORT IF I COULD FOR REVIEW OF

  • THAT EPISODE.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • THE PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPT TO GET

  • McGAHN TO CREATE A FALSE WRITTEN

  • RECORD WERE RELATED TO

  • MR. TRUMP'S CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR

  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INQUIRY

  • CORRECT?

  • >> I BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE.

  • >> IN FACT AT THAT SAME OVAL

  • OFFICE MEETING DID THE PRESIDENT

  • ALSO ASK McGAHN, QUOTE, WHY HE

  • TOLD SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE

  • INVESTIGATORS THAT THE PRESIDENT

  • TOLD HIM TO HAVE YOU REMOVED,

  • UNQUOTE?

  • >> THAT WAS THE QUESTION, SIR?

  • >> LET ME GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

  • THE PRESIDENT CRITICIZED McGAHN

  • FOR TELLING YOUR OFFICE ABOUT

  • THE JUNE 17, 2017 EVENTS WHEN HE

  • TOLD McGAHN TO HAVE YOU REMOVED,

  • CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> IN OTHER WORDS THE PRESIDENT

  • WAS CRITICIZING HIS WHITE HOUSE

  • COUNSEL FOR TELLING LAW

  • ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WHAT HE

  • BELIEVED TO BE THE TRUTH?

  • >> AGAIN, GO BACK TO THE TEXT OF

  • THE REPORT.

  • >> WELL, LET ME GO A LITTLE BIT

  • FURTHER.

  • WOULD IT HAVE BEEN A CRIME IF

  • MR. McGAHN LIED TO YOU ABOUT THE

  • PRESIDENT ORDERING HIM TO FIRE

  • YOU?

  • >> I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE.

  • >> OKAY.

  • IS IT TRUE THAT YOU CHARGED

  • MULTIPLE PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH

  • THE PRESIDENT FOR LYING TO YOU

  • DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION?

  • >> THAT IS ACCURATE.

  • >> THE PRESIDENT ALSO COMPLAINED

  • THAT HIS STAFF WERE TAKING NOTES

  • DURING THE MEETING ABOUT FIRING

  • McGAHN, IS THAT CORRECT?

  • >> THAT'S WHAT THE REPORT SAYS.

  • YEAH, THE REPORT.

  • >> IN FACT, IT'S COMPLETELY

  • APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRESIDENT'S

  • STAFF, ESPECIALLY HIS COUNSEL,

  • TO TAKE NOTES DURING A MEETING,

  • CORRECT?

  • >> I RELY ON THE WORDING OF THE

  • REPORT.

  • >> WELL, THANK YOU, DIRECTOR

  • MUELLER FOR YOUR INVESTIGATION

  • INTO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT

  • ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE BY

  • ORDERING McGAHN TO CREATE A

  • FALSE RECORD.

  • IT'S CLEAR ANY OTHER PERSON

  • WOULD BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

  • WE'LL HOLD THE PRESIDENT

  • ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE NO ONE IS

  • ABOVE THE LAW.

  • >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA.

  • >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, CAN YOU

  • STATE WITH CONFIDENCE THAT THE

  • STEELE DOSSIER WAS NOT PART OF

  • RUSSIAN'S DISINFORMATION

  • CAMPAIGN?

  • >> IN MY OPENING STATEMENT THAT

  • PART OF THE BUILDING OF THE CASE

  • PRE-DATED ME BY AT LEAST TEN

  • MONTHS.

  • >> PAUL MANAFORT'S ALLEGED

  • CRIMES PRE-DATED YOU.

  • YOU HAD NO PROBLEM CHARGING HIM.

  • THIS PRE-DATED THE ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL.

  • HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM

  • ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

  • WHEN THE SENATOR ASKED THE

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL THE SAME

  • QUESTION, HE SAID I CAN'T STATE

  • THAT WITH CONFIDENCE.

  • THAT'S ONE OF THE AREAS I'M

  • REVIEWING.

  • I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

  • I DON'T THINK IT'S ENTIRELY

  • SPECULATIVE.

  • IF SOMETHING ISN'T ENTIRELY

  • SPECULATIVE, IT MUST HAVE

  • FACTUAL BASIS.

  • YOU IDENTIFY NO FACTUAL BASIS

  • THAT IT WAS PART OF THE

  • MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN.

  • CHRISTOPHER STEELE'S REFERENCE

  • IN YOUR REPORT, HE REPORTED TO

  • THE FBI THAT SCENIOR RUSSIAN

  • MINISTRY FIGURES TOLD HIM -- I'M

  • QUOTING -- THERE WAS EXTENSIVE

  • EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY BETWEEN

  • THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TEAM AND THE

  • KREMLIN.

  • HERE'S MY QUESTION.

  • DID RUSSIANS TELL THAT TO

  • CHRISTOPHER STEELE OR DID HE

  • MAKE IT ALL UP AND WAS HE LYING

  • TO THE FBI?

  • >> LET ME BACK UP FOR A SECOND.

  • I'LL SAY AS I SAID EARLIER WITH

  • REGARD TO THE STEELE, THAT'S

  • BEYOND MY PURVIEW.

  • >> IT'S EXACTLY YOUR PURVIEW.

  • ONLY ONE OF TWO THINGS IS

  • POSSIBLE.

  • EITHER STEELE MADE THIS WHOLE

  • THING UP AND THERE WERE NEVER

  • RUSSIANS TELLING HIM OF THE VAST

  • CONSPIRACY OR RUSSIANS LIED TO

  • STEELE.

  • IF RUSSIANS LIED TO STEELE THAT

  • WOULD SEEM TO BE PRECISELY YOUR

  • PURVIEW.

  • YOU STATED IN YOUR OPENING THAT

  • THE ORGANIZING PRINCIPAL WAS TO

  • FULLY AND THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE

  • RUSSIA'S INTERFERENCE.

  • YOU WEREN'T INTERESTED IN THAT

  • AND IF IF STEEL WAS LYING.

  • YOU SHOULD HAVE CHARGED HIM WITH

  • LYING LIKE YOU CHARGED OTHER

  • PEOPLE.

  • YOU SAY NOTHING ABOUT THIS IN

  • YOUR REPORT.

  • >> WELL SIR --

  • >> YOU WRITE 3500 WORDS ABOUT

  • THE JUNE 9th MEETING.

  • YOU WRITE ON PAGE 103 OF YOUR

  • REPORT THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL

  • TEAM SUGGESTED -- I'M QUOTING

  • FROM YOUR REPORT -- THAT THE

  • MEETING MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SET UP

  • BY INDIVIDUALS WORKING WITH THE

  • FIRM THAT PRODUCED THE STEELE

  • REPORTING.

  • I'LL ASK YOU AN EASY QUESTION.

  • ON THE WEEK OF JUNE 9th WHO DID

  • THE RUSSIAN LAWYER MEET WITH

  • MORE FREQUENTLY THE TRUMP

  • CAMPAIGN OR GLENN SIMPSON WHO

  • WAS ACTING AS AN OPERATIVE FOR

  • THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL

  • COMMITTEE?

  • >> THIS IS UNDER INVESTIGATION

  • ELSEWHERE.

  • >> I GET THAT --

  • >> IF I COULD FINISH, SIR.

  • CONSEQUENTLY IT'S NOT WITHIN MY

  • PURVIEW.

  • THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND

  • THE FBI SHOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO

  • QUESTIONS ON THIS ISSUE.

  • >> IT'S ABSURD TO SUGGEST AN

  • OPERATIVE FOR THE DEMOCRATS WAS

  • MEETING WITH THIS RUSSIAN LAWYER

  • THE DAY BEFORE AND DAY AFTER THE

  • TRUMP TOWER MEETING, YET YOU

  • DON'T REFERENCE IT.

  • GLENN SIMPSON TESTIFIED HE HAD

  • DINNER THE DAY BEFORE AND THE

  • DAY AFTER THIS MEETING WITH THE

  • TRUMP TEAM.

  • DO YOU HAVE ANY BASIS TO BELIEVE

  • THAT STEELE WAS LYING?

  • >> IT'S NOT MY PURVIEW.

  • OTHERS ARE INVESTIGATING --

  • >> IT'S NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO LOOK

  • INTO WHETHER OR NOT STEELE IS

  • LYING.

  • IT'S NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO LOOK

  • INTO WHETHER RUSSIANS ARE LYING

  • TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

  • IT'S YOUR NOT YOUR PURVIEW TO

  • LOOK INTO WHETHER GLENN SIMPSON

  • IS LYING.

  • I LOOK AT THE INSPECTOR

  • GENERAL'S REPORT, PAGE 404.

  • PAGE STATED TRUMP'S NOT EVER

  • GOING TO BE PRESIDENT, RIGHT?

  • PETER STRZOK REPLIED NO HE'S

  • NOT.

  • WE'LL STOP IT.

  • THERE'S SOMEBODY IDENTIFIED AS

  • ATTORNEY NUMBER TWO, PAGE 419.

  • HELL NO.

  • THEN ADDED VIVA LA RESISTANCE.

  • THEY BOTH WORKED ON YOUR TEAM,

  • DIDN'T THAT?

  • >> WHO?

  • I HEARD PETER STRZOK?

  • >> THE GUY THAT SAID --

  • >> PETER STRZOK WORKED FOR ME

  • FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

  • SO DID THE OTHER GUY.

  • HERE'S WHAT I'M NOTICING.

  • WHEN PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH

  • TRUMP YOU THREW THE BOOK AT

  • THEM.

  • WHEN CHRISTOPHER STEELE LIED,

  • NOTHING.

  • WHEN GLENN SIMPSON MET WITH

  • RUSSIANS, NOTHING.

  • MAYBE THE --

  • >> TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN

  • EXPIRED.

  • >> MR. MUELLER, OBSTRUCTION OF

  • JUSTICE IS A SERIOUS CRIME THAT

  • STRIKES AT THE CORE OF AN

  • INVESTIGATOR'S EFFORT TO FIND

  • THE TRUTH, CORRECT?

  • >> IT HAS THREE ELEMENTS?

  • >> TRUE.

  • >> FIRST IS AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT.

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> THAT COULD INCLUDE TAKING AN

  • ACTION THAT WOULD DELAY OR

  • INTERVIEW WITH AN ONGOING

  • INVESTIGATION AS SET FORTH IN

  • VOLUME 2 PAGE 87 AND 88 OF YOUR

  • REPORT, TRUE?

  • >> I'M SORRY.

  • COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

  • >> AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT COULD

  • INCLUDE TAKING AN ACTION THAT

  • WOULD DELAY OR INTERFERE WITH AN

  • ONGOING INVESTIGATION?

  • >> THAT'S TRUE.

  • >> YOUR INVESTIGATION DETERMINED

  • THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK STEPS

  • TO TERMINATE THE SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL, CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> DOES ORDERING THE HEAD OF A

  • CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

  • CONSTITUTE AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT?

  • >> THAT WOULD BE -- I WOULD

  • REFER YOU TO THE REPORT.

  • >> LET ME REFER YOU TO PAGE 87

  • AND 88 OF VOLUME 2 WHERE YOU

  • CONCLUDE THE ATTEMPT TO REMOVE

  • THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WOULD

  • QUALIFY AS AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT IF

  • IT WOULD OBSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY

  • PROCEEDINGS THAT WOULD FLOW FROM

  • THE INQUIRY?

  • >> YES.

  • >> THE PRESENCE OF AN

  • OBSTRUCTIVE ACT IN CONNECTION

  • WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING?

  • >> TRUE.

  • >> DOES THE INVESTIGATION INTO

  • THE POTENTIAL WRONG DOING OF

  • DONALD TRUMP CONSTITUTE AN

  • OFFICIAL PROCEEDING?

  • >> THAT'S AN AREA I CANNOT GET

  • INTO.

  • >> PRESIDENT TRUMP TWEETED ON

  • JUNE 16, 2017 QUOTE I'M BEING

  • INVESTIGATED FOR FIRING THE FBI

  • DIRECTOR BY THE MAN WHO TOLD ME

  • TO FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR.

  • WITCH HUNT.

  • THE JUNE 16th TWEET WAS CITED ON

  • PAGE 89, VOLUME 2 CONSTITUTES A

  • PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGE OF PRESIDENT

  • TRUMP THAT HE WAS UNDER CRIMINAL

  • INVESTIGATION, CORRECT?

  • >> I THINK GENERALLY CORRECT.

  • >> ONE DAY LATER ON SATURDAY,

  • JUNE 17th, PRESIDENT TRUMP

  • CALLED WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON

  • McGAHN AT HOME AND DIRECTED HIM

  • TO FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL,

  • TRUE?

  • >> I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE.

  • I MAY HAVE STATED IN RESPONSE TO

  • QUESTIONS SOME.

  • >> THAT IS CORRECT.

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD DON McGAHN,

  • QUOTE, MUELLER HAS TO GO, CLOSED

  • QUOTE, CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> YOUR REPORT FOUND ON PAGE 89,

  • VOLUME 2 THAT RECEIVED INDICATES

  • BY JUNE 17th THE PRESIDENT KNEW

  • HIS CONDUCT WAS UNDER

  • INVESTIGATION BY A FEDERAL

  • PROSECUTOR WHO COULD PRESENT ANY

  • EVIDENCE OF CRIME TOSS A GRAND

  • JURY, TRUE?

  • >> TRUE.

  • >> THE SECOND ELEMENT HAVING

  • BEEN SATISFIED.

  • THE THIRD ELEMENT IS CORRUPT

  • INTENT, TRUE?

  • >> TRUE.

  • >> THAT EXISTS IF THE PRESIDENT

  • ACTING TO OBSTRUCT A PROCEEDING

  • FOR THE IMPROPER PURPOSE OF

  • PROTECTING HIS OWN INTERESTS,

  • CORRECT?

  • >> THAT'S GENERALLY CORRECT.

  • THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS WE

  • ARE GOING THROUGH THE THREE

  • ELEMENTS OF THE PROOF OF THE

  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CHARGES

  • WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS

  • WE GOT -- EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND.

  • >> MR. MUELLER, LET ME MOVE ON

  • IN THE INTEREST OF TIME.

  • LEARNING ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT

  • OF SPECIAL COUNSEL DONALD TRUMP

  • STATED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • OH, MY GOD THIS IS TERRIBLE.

  • THIS IS THE END OF MY

  • PRESIDENCY.

  • I'M Fed.

  • IS THAT CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY DONALD

  • TRUMP VIEWED THIS INVESTIGATION

  • AS ADVERSE TO HIS OWN INTEREST?

  • >> GENERALLY THAT'S TRUE.

  • >> THE PRESIDENT KNEW HE SHOULD

  • NOT HAVE DIRECTED DON McGAHN TO

  • FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL,

  • CORRECT?

  • >> WHERE IS THAT QUOTE?

  • >> PAGE 90 VOLUME 2.

  • THERE'S EVIDENCE THE PRESIDENT

  • KNEW HE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE

  • THOSE CALLS TO McGAHN.

  • >> THAT'S ACCURATE.

  • >> THE INVESTIGATION FOUND

  • SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP URGED McGAHN TO

  • DISPUTE HE WAS ORDERED TO HAVE

  • THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TERMINATED,

  • CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> THE INVESTIGATION FOUND

  • SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHEN THE

  • PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN TO

  • FIRE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND LIE

  • ABOUT IT, DONALD TRUMP, ONE,

  • COMMITTED AN OBSTRUCTIVE ACT,

  • TWO CONNECTED TO A PROCEEDING,

  • THREE DID SO WITH CORRUPT

  • INTENT.

  • THOSE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF

  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

  • THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF

  • AMERICA.

  • NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

  • NO ONE.

  • THE PRESIDENT MUST BE HELD

  • ACCOUNTABLE ONE WAY OR THE

  • OTHER.

  • >> LET ME JUST SAY IF I MIGHT, I

  • DON'T SUBSCRIBE NECESSARILY TO

  • YOUR DASH THE WAY YOU ANALYZE

  • THAT.

  • I'M NOT SAYING IT'S OUT OF THE

  • BALLPARK.

  • I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THAT

  • ANALYTICAL CHARGE.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • MR. MUELLER, OVER HERE.

  • >> HI.

  • >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

  • YOU JOINED THE MARINES AND LED A

  • RIFLE PLATOON IN VIETNAM WHERE

  • YOU EARNED COMMENDATIONS.

  • YOU SERVED AS AN ASSISTANT

  • UNITED STATES ATTORNEY HERE IN

  • D.C., U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR

  • MASSACHUSETTS AND LATER NORTHERN

  • DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND THE

  • FBI DIRECTOR.

  • THANK YOU.

  • I APPRECIATE THAT.

  • HAVING REVIEWED YOUR BIOGRAPHY

  • IT PUZZLES ME WHY YOU HANDLED

  • YOUR DUTIES IN THIS CASE THE WAY

  • YOU DID.

  • THE REPORT CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU

  • TAUGHT YOUNG ATTORNEYS AT THE

  • DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INCLUDING

  • TO ENSURE THE DEFENDANT IS

  • TREATED FAIRLY.

  • THE PROSECUTOR IS NOT THE PARTY

  • OF AN ORDINARY PARTY, BUT TO A

  • SOVEREIGNTY.

  • JUSTICE SHALL BE DONE AND THE

  • PROSECUTOR MAY STRIKE HARD

  • BLOWS, BUT NOT FOUL ONES.

  • BY LISTING THE TEN FACTUAL

  • SITUATIONS AND NOT REACHING A

  • CONCLUSION CROW SHIFTED THE

  • BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE

  • PRESIDENT, FORCING HIM TO DEFEND

  • HIS INNOCENCE BY DENYING HIM A

  • LEGAL FORUM TO DO SO.

  • I NEVER HEARD OF A PROSECUTOR

  • DECLINING A CASE, BUT THEN

  • HOLDING A PRESS CONFERENCE.

  • YOU NOTED YOU HAD A LEGAL DUTY

  • TO PROSECUTOR DECLINE CHARGES

  • DESPITE THIS YOU DISREGARDED

  • THAT DUTY.

  • AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR I'M

  • TROUBLED WITH YOUR LEGAL

  • ANALYSIS.

  • YOU DISCUSSED TEN SEPARATE

  • FACTUAL PATTERNS AND THEN YOU

  • FAILED TO APPLY THE ELEMENTS OF

  • THE APPLICABLE STATUTES.

  • I LOOKED AT THE TEN FACTUAL

  • SITUATIONS AND READ THE CASE

  • LAW.

  • LOOKING AT THE FLYNN MATTER FOR

  • EXAMPLE, THE FOUR STATUTES THAT

  • YOU CITED FOR POSSIBLE

  • OBSTRUCTION, WHEN I LOOK AT

  • THOSE CONCERNING THE FLYNN

  • MATTER, 1503 ISN'T APPLICABLE.

  • THERE WASN'T A GRAND JURY

  • IMPANELLED.

  • DIRECTOR COMEY WAS NOT AN

  • OFFICER OF THE COURT AS DEFINED

  • BY THE STATUTE.

  • 1505 CRIMINALIZES ACTS THAT

  • WOULD OBSTRUCT OR IMPEDE.

  • THE 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 WAS NOT A WITNESS

  • AND CERTAINLY DIRECTOR COMEY WAS

  • NOT A WITNESS.

  • 1512 C 2 TALKS ABOUT TAMPERING

  • WITH THE RECORD AS JOE BIDEN

  • DESCRIBED THE STATUTE AS BEING

  • DEBATED ON THE SENATE FLOOR, HE

  • CALLED THIS A STATUTE

  • CRIMINALIZING DOCUMENT

  • SHREDDING.

  • THERE'S NOTHING IN YOUR REPORT

  • ALLEGING THE PRESIDENT DESTROYED

  • ANY EVIDENCE.

  • WHAT I HAVE TO ASK YOU AND WHAT

  • I THINK PEOPLE ARE WORKING

  • AROUND IN THIS HEARING IS -- LET

  • ME LAY FOUNDATION.

  • THE ETHICAL RULES REQUIRE THAT A

  • PROSECUTOR HAVE A REASONABLE

  • PROBABILITY OF CONVICTION TO

  • BRING A CHARGE, IS THAT CORRECT?

  • >> SOUNDS GENERALLY ACCURATE.

  • >> OKAY.

  • THE REGULATIONS CONCERNING YOUR

  • JOB AS SPECIAL COUNSEL STATE

  • THAT YOUR JOB IS TO PROVIDE THE

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A

  • CONFIDENTIAL REPORT OF 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

  • RUSSIA IN THE ELECTION, IS THAT

  • FAIR?

  • >> THAT'S FAIR.

  • >> WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

  • TO CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR

  • ANYONE ELSE WITH OBSTRUCTION OF

  • JUSTICE?

  • >> WE DIDN'T MAKE THE

  • CALCULATION.

  • >> HOW COULD YOU NOT?

  • >> THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL

  • INDICATES WE COULD NOT INDICT A

  • SITTING PRESIDENT.

  • ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT THE

  • PROSECUTOR WOULD USE IS NOT

  • THERE.

  • >> LET ME JUST STOP.

  • YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THE

  • RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE.

  • YOU COULDN'T HAVE INDICTED THE

  • PRESIDENT ON THAT.

  • YOU MADE THE DECISION ON THAT.

  • WHEN IT CAME TO OBSTRUCTION YOU

  • THREW A BUNCH OF STUFF UP

  • AGAINST THE WALL TO SEE WHAT YOU

  • COULD STICK.

  • >> I WOULD NOT AGREE WITH THAT

  • C

  • CHARACTERIZATION.

  • WE PROVIDED TO THE ATTORNEY

  • GENERAL OUR OPINION OF THE CASE,

  • THOSE CASES THAT WERE BROUGHT,

  • THOSE CASES THAT WERE DECLINED.

  • THE ONE CASE WHERE THE PRESIDENT

  • CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

  • >> OKAY.

  • BUT THE -- COULD YOU CHARGE THE

  • PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME AFTER HE

  • LEFT OFFICE?

  • >> YES.

  • >> YOU BELIEVE HE COMMITTED --

  • YOU COULD CHARGE THE PRESIDENT

  • OF THE UNITED STATES WITH

  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AFTER HE

  • LEFT OFFICE?

  • >> YES.

  • >> UNDER THE ETHICAL STANDARDS?

  • >> I'M NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE I

  • HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE ETHICAL

  • STANDARDS.

  • THE ON OR ABOUT OC OPINION IS

  • THAT A PROSECUTOR CANNOT BRING A

  • CHARGE AGAINST A SITTING

  • PRESIDENT, BUT CAN CONTINUE THE

  • INVESTIGATION TO SEE IF THERE

  • ARE OTHER PERSONS BROUGHT INTO

  • THE CONSPIRACY.

  • >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.

  • THE GENERAL MAN FROM RHODE

  • ISLAND.

  • >> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU BEING

  • ON PAGE 90, BY CURTAIL YOU MEAN

  • LIMIT.

  • >> RIGHT.

  • >> BECAUSE MR. McGAHN REFUSED

  • THE ORDER TO FIRE YOU THE

  • PRESIDENT ASKED OTHERS.

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> WAS COREY LEWANDOWSKI ONE

  • INDIVIDUAL?

  • >> REMIND ME.

  • >> DID HE HAVE ANY OFFICIAL

  • POSITION IN THE TRUMP

  • ADMINISTRATION?

  • >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

  • >> YOUR REPORT DESCRIBES AN

  • INCIDENT IN THE OVAL OFFICE

  • INVOLVES MR. LEWANDOWSKI AT --

  • >> I'M SORRY WHAT'S THE CITATION

  • SIR?

  • >> PAGE 91, A MEETING BETWEEN

  • MR. LEWANDOWSKI AND THE

  • PRESIDENT.

  • >> OKAY.

  • >> THAT WAS TWO DAYS AFTER THE

  • PRESIDENT CALLED DON McGAHN AND

  • ORDERED HIM TO FIRE YOU, IS THAT

  • CORRECT?

  • >> APPARENTLY.

  • >> AFTER MR. McGAHN REFUSED TO

  • FIRE YOU.

  • THE PRESIDENT CAME UP WITH A NEW

  • PLAN.

  • THAT WAS TO HAVE A PRIVATE

  • CITIZEN TRY TO LIMIT YOUR

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT TELL

  • MR. LEWANDOWSKI TO DO?

  • HE DICTATED A MESSAGE FOR

  • MR. LEWANDOWSKI AND ASKED HIM TO

  • WRITE IT DONE, IS THAT CORRECT?

  • >> TRUE.

  • >> DID YOU AND YOUR TEAM SEE

  • THIS HANDWRITTEN MESSAGE?

  • >> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO

  • WHAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE

  • INCLUDED.

  • >> THE MESSAGE DIRECTED

  • SESSIONS -- I'M QUOTING -- TO

  • GIVE A PUBLIC SPEECH SAYING HE

  • PLANNED TO MEET WITH THE SPECIAL

  • PROSECUTOR TO EXPLAIN IT'S VERY

  • UNFAIR AND LET THE SPECIAL

  • PROSECUTOR MOVE FORWARD FOR

  • FUTURE ELECTIONS.

  • >> I SEE THAT.

  • THANK YOU.

  • >> MR. LEWANDOWSKI 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?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> AT THIS TIME MR. SESSIONS WAS

  • STILL RECUSED FROM OVERSIGHT OF

  • YOUR INVESTIGATION, CORRECT?

  • >> I'M SORRY.

  • >> THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS

  • RECUSED FROM OVERSIGHT?

  • >> YES.

  • >> HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO VIOLATE

  • HIS OWN DEPARTMENTS RULES,

  • CORRECT?

  • >> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE

  • DETAILS.

  • I REFER YOU TO PAGE 91 AND 92 OF

  • THE REPORT.

  • >> IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT'S REQUEST IT WOULD

  • HAVE ENDED YOUR INVESTIGATION

  • INTO THE PRESIDENT AND HIS

  • CAMPAIGN AS YOU NOTE ON PAGE 97,

  • CORRECT?

  • >> COULD YOU --

  • >> PAGE 97 YOU WRITE TAKEN

  • TOGETHER THE PRESIDENT'S

  • DIRECTIVES INDICATE THAT

  • SESSIONS WAS BEING INSTRUCTED TO

  • TELL THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO ENDS

  • 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.

  • >> GENERALLY TRUE.

  • >> THE ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT

  • JUSTICE IS A CRIME?

  • >> THAT'S CORRECT.

  • >> MR. LEWANDOWSKI TRIED TO MEET

  • WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

  • >> TRUE.

  • >> HE TRIED TO MEET WITH HIM IN

  • HIS OFFICE SO HE WAS ASSURED

  • THERE WASN'T A PUBLIC LOG.

  • >> ACCORDING TO WHAT WE GATHERED

  • IN THE REPORT.

  • >> THE MEETING NEVER HAPPENED.

  • I QUOTE, IF SESSIONS DOESN'T

  • MEET WITH THE LEWANDOWSKI SHOULD

  • TELL SESSIONS HE WAS FIRED,

  • CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> LEWANDOWSKI THEN ASKED

  • MR. DEERBORN TO DELIVER THE

  • MESSAGE AND HE REFUSES TO

  • DELIVER IT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T

  • FEEL COMFORTABLE, IS THAT

  • CORRECT?

  • >> GENERALLY CORRECT.

  • >> JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR,

  • MR. MUELLER, TWO DAYS AFTER 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 TO

  • LIMIT YOUR INVESTIGATION TO

  • FUTURE ELECTIONS ENDING YOUR

  • INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016

  • TRUMP CAMPAIGN, IS THAT CORRECT?

  • >> I'M NOT GOING TO ADOPT YOUR

  • CHARACTERIZATION.

  • FACTS LAID OUT IN THE REPORT ARE

  • ACCURATE.

  • >> ON PAGE 97 YOU WRITE

  • SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INDICATES

  • THAT THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO

  • HAVE SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE TO

  • FUTURE ELECTIONS WAS INTENDED TO

  • PREVENT FURTHER INVESTIGATIVE

  • SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT AND

  • HIS CAMPAIGN CONDUCT, IS THAT

  • CORRECT?

  • >> GENERALLY.

  • >> SO MR. MUELLER, YOU HAVE SEEN

  • THE LETTER WHERE 1,000 FORMER

  • REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT FEDERAL

  • PROSECUTORS READ YOUR REPORT AND

  • SAID ANYONE BUT THE PRESIDENT

  • WHO COMMITTED THOSE ACTS THEY

  • WOULD BE CHARGED WITH

  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, DO YOU

  • AGREE WITH THAT?

  • >> THOSE --

  • >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • MR. MUELLER, YOUR TEAM WROTE IN

  • THE REPORT, QUOTE, TOP OF PAGE 2

  • VOLUME 1, YOU SAID THAT YOU CAME

  • TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE

  • INVESTIGATION DID NOT ESTABLISH

  • THAT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP

  • CAMPAIGN CONSPIRED OR

  • COORDINATED WITH THE RUSSIAN

  • GOVERNMENT.

  • THAT'S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT?

  • >> THAT'S ACCURATE.

  • >> WHEN DID YOU PERSONALLY COME

  • TO THAT CONCLUSION?

  • >> CAN YOU REMIND ME WHICH

  • PARAGRAPH?

  • >> TOP OF PAGE TWO, VOLUME 1.

  • >> OKAY.

  • EXACTLY WHICH PARAGRAPH ON TWO?

  • >> THE INVESTIGATION DID NOT

  • ESTABLISH --

  • >> I SEE.

  • WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION?

  • >> WHEN DID YOU PERSONALLY REACH

  • THAT CONCLUSION?

  • >> WELL, WE WERE ONGOING FOR TWO

  • YEARS.

  • >> YOU WERE ONGOING.

  • YOU WROTE IT AT SOME POINT

  • DURING THAT PERIOD.

  • AT SOME POINT YOU CAME TO A

  • CONCLUSION THAT I DON'T THINK

  • THERE'S A -- THERE'S NOT A

  • CONSPIRACY GOING ON.

  • THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN

  • THIS PRESIDENT -- I'M NOT TALK

  • ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT'S TEAM.

  • I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT

  • AND THE RUSSIANS.

  • >> DEVELOPING A CRIMINAL CASE

  • YOU GET PIECES OF INFORMATION,

  • WITNESSES AND THE LIKE AND YOU

  • MAKE YOUR CASE.

  • >> RIGHT.

  • >> WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION ON A

  • PARTICULAR CASE, DEPENDS ON A

  • NUMBER OF FACTORS.

  • >> I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT.

  • >> I CAN'T SAY SPECIFICALLY THAT

  • WE REACHED A DECISION ON A

  • PARTICULAR DEFENDANT AT A

  • PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME.

  • >> IT WAS SOMETIME BEFORE YOU

  • WROTE THE REPORT.

  • YOU WROTE THE REPORT DEALING

  • WITH A MYRIAD OF ISSUES.

  • CERTAINLY SOMETIME BEFORE THAT

  • YOU REACHED A DECISION WITH

  • REGARD TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF,

  • I DON'T FIND ANYTHING HERE.

  • FAIR ENOUGH?

  • >> I'M NOT CERTAIN I AGREE WITH

  • THAT.

  • >> YOU WAITED FOR THE LAST

  • MINUTE WHEN YOU WERE WRITING THE

  • REPORT?

  • >> NO.

  • THERE WERE VARIOUS ASPECTS.

  • >> THERE ARE VARIOUS ASPECTS

  • THAT HAPPEN.

  • SOMEWHERE ALONG THE PIKE YOU

  • COME TO THE CONCLUSION THERE'S

  • NOTHING THERE FOR THIS

  • DEFENDANT.

  • >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

  • >> YOU CAN'T SAY WHEN.

  • I'M ASKING THE SWORN WITNESS.

  • MR. MUELLER, EVIDENCE SUGGESTS

  • ON MAY 10, 2017, SIX DAYS BEFORE

  • YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL MR. ROSE ROSENTHAL CALL

  • YOU ABOUT THE APPOINTMENT OF

  • THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL.

  • >> I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF

  • THAT.

  • >> YOU DON'T RECALL OR YOU DON'T

  • HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE.

  • THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS

  • THAT PHONE CALL TOOK PLACE AND

  • THAT'S WHAT WAS SAID.

  • ON MAY 12, 2017 FIVE DAYS BEFORE

  • YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL YOU MET WITH

  • MR. ROSENTHAL IN PERSON.

  • DID YOU DISCUSS THAT THERE WOULD

  • BE A SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTED

  • THEN?

  • >> I'VE GONE INTO WATERS THAT

  • DON'T ALLOW ME TO GIVE YOU AN

  • ANSWER.

  • IT'S THE INTERNAL CONVERSATIONS

  • AND THE INDICTING --

  • >> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH

  • INDICTING.

  • FOUR DAYS BEFORE YOU WERE

  • APPOINTED SPECIAL COUNSEL YOU

  • MET WITH FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • SESSIONS AND ROSENSTEIN AND

  • SPOKE ABOUT SPECIAL COUNSEL, DO

  • YOU REMEMBER THAT?

  • >> OFFHAND NO.

  • >> ON MAY 16th, THE DAY BEFORE

  • YOU WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL YOU MET WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT AND ROD ROSENSTEIN, DO

  • YOU REMEMBER THAT MEETING?

  • >> YES.

  • >> DID YOU DISCUSS AT ANY TIME

  • IN THAT MEETING MR. COMEY'S

  • TERMINATION?

  • >> NO.

  • >> DID YOU DISCUSS AT ANY TIME

  • IN THAT MEETING THE APPOINTMENT

  • OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, NOT

  • NECESSARILY YOU, BUT IN GENERAL

  • TERMS?

  • >> I CAN'T GET INTO DISCUSSIONS

  • ON THAT.

  • >> HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK

  • TO MR. ROSENSTEIN BEFORE THE DAY

  • YOU GOT APPOINTED REGARDING THE

  • APARTMENT APPOINTMENT OF A

  • SPECIAL COUNSEL?

  • >> I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY

  • TIMES.

  • >> YOU DON'T RECALL OR YOU --

  • >> I DON'T RECALL.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK

  • WITH MR. COMEY ABOUT ANY

  • INVESTIGATIONS PRIOR TO MAY 17,

  • 2017?

  • >> ZERO.

  • >> OKAY.

  • NOW, MY TIME HAS EXPIRED.

  • >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS

  • EXPIRED.

  • THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.

  • >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, GOING BACK

  • TO THE PRESIDENT'S OBSTRUCTION

  • VIA COREY LEWANDOWSKI, IT WAS

  • REFERENCED THAT 1,000 FORMER

  • PROSECUTORS WHO SERVED UNDER

  • REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT WROTE A

  • LETTER ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S

  • CONDUCT.

  • ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT

  • LETTER?

  • >> YES.

  • >> SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT

  • SIGNED THAT LETTER ARE PEOPLE

  • YOU WORKED WITH, IS THAT RIGHT?

  • >> QUITE PROBABLY YES.

  • >> PEOPLE YOU RESPECT?

  • >> QUITE PROBABLY.

  • >> IN THAT LETTER THEY SAID ALL

  • THIS CONDUCT TRYING TO CONTROL

  • AND IMPEDE THE INVESTIGATION OF

  • THE PRESIDENT IS SIMILAR TO

  • CONDUCT WE HAVE SEEN CHARGED

  • AGAINST OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS

  • AND PEOPLE IN POWERFUL

  • POSITIONS.

  • ARE THEY WRONG?

  • >> THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT CASE.

  • >> YOU WANT TO SIGN THAT LETTER,

  • DIRECTOR MUELLER?

  • >> THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT CASE.

  • >> DIRECTOR MUELLER, THANK YOU

  • FOR YOUR SERVICE GOING BACK TO

  • THE '60s WHEN YOU SERVED IN

  • VIETNAM.

  • BECAUSE OF OUR LIMITED TIME I'LL

  • ASK TO ENTER THIS LETTER INTO

  • THE RECORD UNDER UNANIMOUS

  • CONSENT AND YIELD TO MY

  • COLLEAGUE FROM CALIFORNIA

  • MR. LIEU.

  • >> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR MUELLER,

  • FOR YOUR SERVICE INCLUDING YOUR

  • SERVICE AS A MARINE WHERE YOU

  • EARNED A BRONZE STAR.

  • I WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO THE

  • ELEMENTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF

  • JUSTICE AS APPLIED TO THE

  • PRESIDENT'S ATTEMPTS TO CURTAIL

  • YOUR INVESTIGATION.

  • THE FIRST ELEMENT REQUIRES AN

  • OBSTRUCTIVE ACT, CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> I WOULD DIRECT YOU TO PAGE 97

  • OF VOLUME 2.

  • YOU WROTE THERE, QUOTE, SESSIONS

  • WAS BEING INSTRUCTED TO TELL THE

  • SPECIAL COUNSEL TO END THE

  • EXISTING INVESTIGATION INTO THE

  • PRESIDENT AND HIS CAMPAIGN,

  • UNQUOTE.

  • THAT'S IN THE REPORT, CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF AN

  • OBSTRUCTIVE ACT BECAUSE IT WOULD

  • NATURALLY OBSTRUCT THE

  • INVESTIGATION CORRECT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • >> TURN TO THE SECOND ELEMENT OF

  • THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF

  • JUSTICE WHICH REQUIRES A NEXUS

  • TO AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING.

  • YOU WROTE, QUOTE, BY THE TIME

  • 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?

  • >> YES.

  • >> I WOULD TURN TO THE FINAL

  • ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF

  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

  • ON PAGE 97 DO YOU SEE WHERE

  • THERE'S THE INTENT SECTION ON

  • THAT PAGE?

  • >> I DO.

  • >> WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO READ

  • THE FIRST SENTENCE?

  • >> STARTING WITH?

  • >> SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

  • READ THE FIRST SENTENCE WOULD

  • YOU?

  • >> I'M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU READ

  • IT.

  • >> YOU WROTE QUOTE SUBSTANTIAL

  • EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT THE

  • PRESIDENT'S EFFORT TO HAVE

  • SESSIONS LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE

  • SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION

  • TO FEW CLUR ELECTIONS WAS

  • INTENDED TO PREVENT FURTHER

  • SCRUTINY OF THE PRESIDENT AND

  • HIS CAMPAIGN'S CONDUCT, UNQUOTE.

  • THAT'S IN THE REPORT?

  • >> CORRECT.

  • THAT'S IN THE REPORT AND I RELY

  • ON THE REPORT TO INDICATE WHAT'S

  • HAPPENING IN THE PARAGRAPHS

  • WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • TO RECAP WHAT WE HEARD, WE HEARD

  • THAT THE PRESIDENT ORDERED

  • FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DON

  • McGAHN TO FIRE YOU.

  • THE PRESIDENT ORDERED DON McGAHN

  • TO COVER THAT UP AND CREATE A

  • FALSE PAPER TRAIL.

  • NOW WE HEARD THE PRESIDENT

  • ORDERED COREY LEWANDOWSKI TO

  • TELL JEFF SESSIONS TO LIMIT YOUR

  • INVESTIGATION SO YOU 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 WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, THE

  • REASON AGAIN YOU DID NOT INDICT

  • DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF OOC

  • OPINION STATING YOU CANNOT

  • INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT,

  • CORRECT?

  • >> THAT IS CORRECT.

  • >> THE FACT THAT THE ORDERS BY

  • THE PRESIDENT WERE NOT CARRIED

  • OUT, THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE TO

  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BECAUSE

  • THE STATUTE ITSELF IS BROAD.

  • IT SAYS AS LONG AS YOU ENDEAVOR

  • OR ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE,

  • THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIME.

  • >> I'M NOT GETTING INTO THAT AT

  • THIS JUNCTURE.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • BASED ON THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE

  • HEARD TODAY I BELIEVE A

  • REASONABLE PERSON COULD CONCLUDE

  • AT LEAST THREE CRIMES OF

  • OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BY THE

  • PRESIDENT OCCURRED.

  • WE'LL HEAR ABOUT TWO ADDITIONAL

  • CRIMES.

  • THAT WOULD BE THE WITNESS

  • TAMPERING OF MICHAEL COHEN AND

  • PAUL MANAFORT.

  • >> I'LL ADD I'M GOING THROUGH

  • THE ELEMENTS WITH YOU AND THAT

  • DOES NOT MEAN THAT I SUBSCRIBE

  • TO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVE

  • THROUGH THOSE ELEMENTS.

  • >> TIME FOR THE GENTLEMAN IS

  • EXPIRED.

  • THE GENTLE LADY FROM ARIZONA.

  • I'M SORRY THE GENTLEMAN FROM

  • CALIFORNIA.

  • >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • MR. MUELLER, THANKS FOR JOINING

  • US.

  • YOU HAD THREE DISCUSSIONS WITH

  • ROD ROSENSTEIN ABOUT YOUR

  • APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL.

  • >> I HAVE NO REASON TO DISPUTE

  • THAT.

  • >> THEN YOU MET WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT ON THE 16th WITH ROD

  • PRESENT AND ON THE 17th YOU WERE

  • APPOINTED AS SPECIAL COUNSEL.

  • WERE YOU MEETING WITH THE

  • PRESIDENT ON THE 16th WITH

  • KNOWLEDGE YOU WERE UNDER

  • CONSIDERATION FOR THE

  • APPOINTMENT AS SPECIAL COUNSEL?

  • >> I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS UNDER

  • CONSIDERATION FOR SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL.

  • I HAD SERVED TWO TERMS AS FBI

  • DIRECTOR.

  • >> THE ANSWER IS NO?

  • >> THE ANSWER IS NO.

  • >> GREG JARRET DESCRIBES YOUR

  • OFFICE AS THE TEAM OF PARTISANS.

  • THERE'S A GROWING CONCERN THAT

  • POLITICAL BIAS CAUSED IMPORTANT

  • FACTS TO BE OMITTED FROM YOUR

  • REPORT TO CAST THE PRESIDENT IN

  • A NEGATIVE LIGHT.

  • JOHN DOWD LIVES A MESSAGE FOR

  • MICHAEL FLYNN'S LAWYER IN

  • NOVEMBER OF 2017.

  • THE EDITED VERSION IN YOUR

  • REPORT MAKES IT APPEAR HE WAS

  • IMPROPERLY ASKING FOR

  • CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

  • THAT'S ALL WE WOULD KNOW EXCEPT

  • THE JUDGE IN THE FLYNN CASE

  • ORDERED THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT

  • RELEASED IN WHICH DOWD MAKES IT

  • CLEAR THAT'S NOT WHAT HE WAS

  • SUGGESTING.

  • WHY DID YOU EDIT THE TRANSCRIPT?

  • >> WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO

  • HIDE.

  • >> YOU OMITTED THE PART WHERE HE

  • SAYS WE NEED SOME KIND OF HEADS

  • UP.

  • YOU OMITTED THE PORTION WHERE HE

  • SAYS WITHOUT GIVING ANY

  • CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

  • >> I'M NOT GOING TO GO FURTHER.

  • >> YOU DISCUSS CON STAN TEEN

  • DISCUSSIONS WITH PAUL MANAFORT.

  • YOU SAID HE HAD TIES TO RUSSIAN

  • INTELLIGENCE.

  • THAT'S ALL WE KNOW FROM YOUR

  • REPORT.

  • WE'VE LEARNED FROM NEWS ARTICLES

  • HE WAS ACTUALLY A U.S. STATE

  • DEPARTMENT INTELLIGENCE SOURCE.

  • NOWHERE IN YOUR REPORT IS HE

  • IDENTIFIED.

  • WHY WAS THAT --

  • >> I DON'T CREDIT WHAT YOU'RE

  • SAYING OCCURRED.

  • >> WERE YOU AWARE HE WAS --

  • >> I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE

  • INS AND OUTS OF WHAT WE HAD IN

  • THE COURSE OF OUR INVESTIGATION.

  • >> DID YOU INTERVIEW HIM?

  • >> PARDON?

  • >> DID YOU INTERVIEW?

  • >> I CAN'T GO INTO THE

  • DISCUSSION OF OUR INVESTIGATION.

  • >> THAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR

  • REPORT.

  • THE PROBLEM WE'RE HAVING IS WE

  • HAVE TO RELY ON YOUR REPORT FOR

  • AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF THE

  • EVIDENCE AND WE'RE STARTING TO

  • FIND OUT THAT'S NOT PROOF.

  • YOUR REPORT FAMOUSLY LINKS

  • RUSSIAN TROLL FARMS WITH THE

  • RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.

  • IN A HEARING ON MAY 28th, THE

  • JUDGE BOTH YOU AND MR. BARR FOR

  • PRODUCING NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT

  • THIS CLAIM.

  • WHY DID YOU SAY RUSSIA WAS

  • RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TROLL FARMS

  • WHEN YOU SUPPLIED NO EVIDENCE TO

  • SUPPORT IT?

  • >> I'M NOT GETTING INTO THAT ANY

  • FURTHER.

  • >> YOU HAVE LEFT THE IMPRESSION

  • WITH THE COUNTRY THAT IT WAS THE

  • RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT BEHIND THE

  • TROLL FARMS.

  • WHEN YOU'RE CALLED UPON TO

  • PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN COURT, YOU

  • FAILED TO DO SO.

  • >> I DISPUTE YOUR

  • CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT

  • OCCURRED.

  • >> THE JUDGE CONSIDERED HOLDING

  • PROSECUTORS IN CRIMINAL

  • CONTEMPT.

  • SHE BACKED OFF AFTER YOUR

  • HASTILY CALLED PRESS CONFERENCE

  • WHICH YOU MADE THE DISTINCTION

  • BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT

  • AND THE RUSSIAN TROLL FARMS.

  • DID YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE HAVE

  • ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE THREAT

  • TO HOLD PROSECUTORS IN CONTEMPT

  • THE PREVIOUS DAY FOR IMPROPER

  • EVIDENCE?

  • >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

  • >> DID YOUR MAY 29th PRESS

  • CONFERENCE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO

  • WITH THE FACT THE PREVIOUS DAY

  • THE JUDGE THREATENED TO HOLD

  • YOUR PROSECUTORS IN CONTEMPT FOR

  • MISREPRESENTING EVIDENCE?

  • >> NO.

  • >> THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM, AS I

  • SAID, WE HAVE TO TAKE YOUR WORD

  • OF YOUR TEAM FAITHFULLY,

  • ACCURATELY, IMPARTIALLY

  • DESCRIBING ALL THE EVIDENCE IN

  • THE MUELLER REPORT.

  • WE'RE FINDING MORE INSTANCES

  • WHERE THIS ISN'T THE CASE.

  • IT'S STARTING TO LOOK LIKE

  • HAVING DESPERATELY HAVING TRIED

  • TO MAKE A LEGAL CASE AGAINST THE

  • PRESIDENT, YOU MADE A POLITICAL

  • CASE INSTEAD.

  • >> I DON'T THINK YOU REVIEWED A

  • REPORT AS THOROUGH, AS FAIR, AS

  • CONSISTENT AS THE REPORT IN

  • FRONT OF US.

  • >> THE TIME IS EXPIRED.

  • THE GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND.

  • >> LET'S GO TO A FOURTH EPISODE

  • OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE

  • FORM OF WITNESS TAMPERING URGING

  • WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH

  • LAW ENFORCEMENT.

  • IT'S A FELONY.

  • YOU FOUND THE PRESIDENT ENGAGED

  • IN EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE

  • WITNESSES NOT TO COOPERATE WITH

  • THE INVESTIGATION, IS THAT

  • RIGHT.

  • >> THAT IS CORRECT.

  • DO YOU HAVE A CITATION?

  • >> PAGE 7, VOLUME 2.

  • ONE OF THESE WITNESSES WITH

  • MICHAEL COHEN WHO ULTIMATELY

  • PLED GUILTY TO LYING TO CONGRESS

  • ABOUT THE $1 BILLION TRUMP TOWER

  • DEAL.

  • AFTER THE FBI SEARCHED COHEN'S

  • HOME, THE PRESIDENT CALLED HIM

  • PERSONALLY HE SAID TO CHECK IN

  • AND TOLD HIM TO HANG IN THERE

  • AND STAY STRONG, IS THAT RIGHT?

  • >> IF IT'S IN THE REPORT AS

  • STATED, YES IT'S RIGHT.

  • >> ALSO IN THE REPORT ARE A

  • SERIES OF CALLS MADE BY OTHER

  • FRIENDS OF 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.

  • A THIRD REDACTED FRIEND SAID

  • EVERYONE KNOWS THE BOSS HAS YOUR

  • BACK.

  • DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

  • >> GENERALLY, YES.

  • >> WHEN THE NEWS -- IN FACT

  • COHEN SAID THAT FOLLOWING THE

  • RECEIPT OF THESE MESSAGES I'M

  • QUOTING PAGE 147, HE BELIEVED HE

  • HAD THE SUPPORT OF THE WHITE

  • HOUSE IF HE CONTINUED TO TOW THE

  • PARTY LINE AND HE DETERMINED TO

  • STAY ON MESSAGE AND BE PART OF

  • THE TEAM.

  • THAT'S PAGE 147.

  • DO YOU REMEMBER GENERALLY

  • FINDING THAT?

  • >> GENERALLY, YES.

  • >> ROBERT COSTELLO A LAWYER

  • CLOSE TO THE PRESIDENT'S LEGAL

  • TEAM EMAILED COHEN TO SAY YOU

  • ARE LOVED.

  • THEY ARE IN OUR CORNER.

  • SLEEP WELL TONIGHT AND YOU HAVE

  • FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES.

  • THAT'S ON THE SCREEN MAJOR 147.

  • >> I SEE THAT.

  • >> WHEN THE NEWS FIRST BROKE

  • THAT COHEN ARRANGED PAY OFFS TO

  • STORMY DANIELS COHEN STUCK TO

  • THE PARTY LINE.

  • HE SAID PUBLICLY NEITHER THE

  • TRUMP ORGANIZATION OR THE TRUMP

  • CAMPAIGN WAS A PARTY AND NEITHER

  • REIMBURSED HIM.

  • TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY AT

  • THAT POINT QUICKLY TEXTED COHEN

  • TO SAY, QUOTE, CLIENT SAYS THANK

  • YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO.

  • MR. MUELLER, WHO IS THE CAPITAL

  • C CLIENT THANKING COHEN FOR WHAT

  • HE DOES?

  • >> CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

  • >> THE ASSUMPTION IN THE CONTEXT

  • SUGGESTS VERY STRONGLY IT'S

  • PRESIDENT TRUMP.

  • >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

  • >> COHEN LATER BROKE AND PLED

  • GUILTY TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE

  • OFFENSES AND ADMITTED THEY WERE

  • MADE AT THE DIRECTION OF

  • CANDIDATE TRUMP.

  • DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

  • >> AFTER THE GUILTY PLEA THE

  • PRESIDENT CHANGED HIS TUNE

  • TOWARDS MR. COHEN, DIDN'T HE?

  • >> I WOULD SAY -- I RELY ON

  • WHAT'S IN THE REPORT.

  • >> HE MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT

  • COHEN FAMILY MEMBERS COMMITTED

  • CRIMES.

  • HE TARGETED HIS FATHER-IN-LAW

  • AND SUGGESTED HE WAS GUILTY OF

  • COMMITTING CRIMES, RIGHT?

  • >> GENERALLY ACCURATE.

  • >> ON PAGE 154 YOU GIVE A

  • POWERFUL SUMMARY OF THE CHANGING

  • DYNAMICS.

  • YOU SAID -- I'M HAPPY TO HAVE

  • YOU READ IT.

  • >> I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

  • >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ IT?

  • >> I WOULD.

  • COULD YOU READ IT OUT LOUD?

  • >> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU

  • READ IT.

  • >> THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THIS

  • SEQUENCE OF EVENTS COULD SUPPORT

  • THAT THE PRESIDENT USED

  • INDUCEMENTS IN ORDER TO GET

  • COHEN TO NOT COOPERATE AND THEN

  • TURNED TO ATTACKS AND

  • INTIMIDATION TO UNDERMINE

  • COHEN'S CREDIBILITY ONCE HE

  • BEGAN COOPERATING.

  • >> I BELIEVE THAT'S ACCURATE.

  • >> IN MY VIEW IF ANYONE ELSE

  • ENGAGED IN THESE ACTIONS THEY

  • WOULD BE CHARGED WITH WITNESS

  • TAMPERING.

  • IN AMERICA NO PERSON IS SO HIGH

  • AS TO BE ABOVE THE LAW.

  • I YIELD BACK.

  • >> THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.

  • >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

  • RECENTLY, MR. MUELLER, MR. LIEU

  • WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS.

  • THE REASON YOU DIDN'T INDICT THE

  • PRESIDENT WAS BECAUSE OF THE OOC

  • OPINION.

  • YOU ANSWERED THAT IS CORRECT.

  • THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID IN THE

  • REPORT.

  • IT'S NOT WHAT YOU ATTORNEY

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR.

  • IN A JOINT STATEMENT YOU

  • RELEASED WITH DOJ ON MAY 29th

  • AFTER YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE YOUR

  • OFFICE ISSUED A JOINT STATEMENT

  • WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

  • THAT SAID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE

  • SPECIAL COUNSEL REPEATEDLY

  • AFFIRMED THAT HE WAS NOT SAYING

  • THAT BUT FOR THE OOC OPINION HE

  • WOULD HAVE FOUND THE PRESIDENT

  • OBSTRUCTED JOUSTICE.

  • THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MADE CLEAR

  • 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.

  • MR. MUELLER, DO YOU STAND BY

  • YOUR JOINT STATEMENT WITH DOJ

  • YOU ISSUED ON MAY 29th AS YOU

  • SIT HERE TODAY?

  • >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT

  • MORE CLOSELY BEFORE I SAY I

  • AGREE WITH IT.

  • >> WELL, YOU KNOW, MY 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 THAT -- THEN YOU ISSUED A

  • JOINT STATEMENT ON MAY 29th

  • SAYING THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

  • HAS PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE

  • SPECIAL REPEATEDLY CONCURRED HE

  • WAS NOT SAYING BUT FOR THE OOC

  • REPORT WE WOULD NOT HAVE FOUND

  • THE PRESIDENT OBSTRUCTED

  • JUSTICE.

  • MR. MUELLER, THERE'S BEEN A LOT

  • OF TALK ABOUT FIRING THE SPECIAL

  • COUNSEL AND CURTAILING THE

  • INVESTIGATION.

  • WERE YOU EVER FIRED,

  • MR. MUELLER?

  • >> WAS IT WHAT?

  • >> WERE YOU EVER FIRED?

  • >> NOT THAT I KNOW.

  • >> NO.

  • WERE YOU ALLOWED TO COMPLETE

  • YOUR INVESTIGATION UNENCUMBERED?

  • >> YES.

  • >> YOU RESIGNED WHEN YOU CLOSED

  • THE OFFICE IN MAY 2019, IS THAT

  • CORRECT?

  • >> THAT IS CORRECT.

  • >> THANK YOU.

  • MR. MUELLER, ON APRIL 18TH THE

  • ATTORNEY GENERAL HELD

>> Announcer: THIS IS AN ABC

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it