Thank you. Volume 2, page 76, correct . Ill leave the answer to our report. So thats a yes . Is it true your investigation did not establish that any members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in election interference activity, volume 1, page 2. Volume 1, page 73 . Yes. Thank you. Although your Report States collusion is not a specific offense and you said that this morning or a term of our in federal criminal law and experience is, in the colloquial context are collusion and experience essentially synonymous terms. Youre going to have to row peat that for me. Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. Conspiracy is. In the colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct . No. If no on page 180 of volume 1 of your report you wrote collusion is largely synonymous of conspiracy and that crime is set forth in the general conspiracy statute. You said at your May 29th Press Conference and here today you choose your words carefully. Are you sitting here today testifying Something Different than what your Report States . Well, what im asking is if you can give me citation i can look at the citation and evaluate what it is. Well, let me just clarify. You stated in your report i just stated your report back to you. And you said that collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms. Your answer was no. Thats correct. In that page 180 volume one of your report it said collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth. Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your
report right now . Not when i read it. So you would change your answer to yes, then . No. If you look at the language im reading your report, sir. Is it or a yes or no answer. Page 180, volume 1. This is from your report. Correct. And i leave it with the report. So the report says, yes, they are synonymous. Hopefully and finally out of your own report we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy. One last question were going through. Did you ever look into other countries investigated in the russian interference into our election . Were other countries investigated or found knowledge that they have interfered in our election . I will not discuss other matters. With that i yield back. Gentlemen yields back. As you heard from the chairman were mostly going to talk about Obstruction Of Justice today, but the investigation of russias attack that started your investigation
is why evidence of possible obstruction is serious. To what extent did the russian government interfere in the 2016 president ial election . Could you repeat that, miami . To what extent did the russian government interfere in the 2016 president ial election . Well, particularly when i came to Computer Crimes and the like the government was implicated. So you wrote in volume 1 that the russian government interfered in the 2016 president ial election in sweeping and systematic fashion. You 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 Pollingidate Ow of the campaign. Isnt that correct . Correct. They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and manaforts strat aenl for
winning democrat votes in midwestern states. Months before that Meeting Manafort had caused internal data to be shared with culikili and the sharing continued for some period of time after their august meeting. Thats correct. In fact your investigation found manafort briefed kilimnik on the state of Trumps Campaign and manaforts plan to win the election and that also included discussion of Battleground States which manafort identified as michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania. Isnt that correct . Thats correct. Did your investigation determine who requested the polling data to be shared with kilimnik . Well, i would direct you to the report. Thats what we have the report with regard to that particular issue. We dont have the redacted version. That maybe is 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 president ial election . Thats a little bit out of our path. Fair enough. Did your investigation find that the russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning . Yes. And which candidate would that be . Well, it would be trump. Correct. Now, the Trump Campaign wasnt exactly reluctant to take russian help. You wrote it expected it would benefit electorally from Information Stolen and released through russian efforts. Isnt that correct . Thats correct. Now, what was the investigates determination regarding the frequency with which the Trump Campaign made contact with the russian government . Well, i would have to refer you to the report on that. Well, we went through and we
counted 126 contacts between russians agents and Trump Campaign officials or their associates. So would that sound about right . I cant say i understand the statistic. I understand the statistic. Mr. Mueller, i appreciate you being here and your report. From your testimony and the report i think the American People have learned several things. First, the russians wanted trump to win. Second, the russians went on a sweeping cyber influence campaign. The russians hacked the dnc and they got the democratic game plan for the election. Russian Campaign Chairmen met with russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data, polling and messaging in the Battleground States. So while the russians were buying ads and creating propaganda to influence the outcome of the election, they were armed with inside information that they had stolen through hacking from the dnc and that they had been given by the Trump Campaign chairman mr. Manafort. My colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this information from becoming public, but i think its important for the American People to understand the gravity of the underlying problem that your report uncovered. And with that, mr. Chairman, i would yield back. Good morning, director. If youll let me quickly summarize your Opening Statement this morning. You said in volume 1 on the issue of conspiracy the Special Counsel determined that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. And then in volume 2 for reasons you explain the Special Counsel did not make a determination on whether there was an Obstruction Of Justice crime committed by the president , is that fair . Yes, sir. Now, explain the Special Counsel did not make what you call a traditional declamation or decision. On it report on the bottom of page 2, volume 2 reads as follows. It presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining no criminal conduct occurred. While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. Now, i read that correctly . Yes. All right, your report and today you said at all times the it was guided by Justice Department principles. So which doj policy or principle sets forth a Legal Standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not
conclusively determined . Can you repeat the last part of that question . Yeah. Which doj policy or principle sets forth a Legal Standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined . Where does that language come from, director . Where is the doj policy that says that . Let me make it easier. Is there can you give me an champ other than donald trump where the Justice Department determined an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined . I cannot, but this is unique well, time is short. Ive got five minutes. Lets just leave it at you cant find it because ill tell you why. It doesnt exist. The Special Counsels job nowhere does it say you are to conclusively determine Donald Trumps innocence or that the Special Counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. Its not in any of the documents, not in your point order, the olc
opinion, not in the justice manual and not in the principles of federal prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully, director, it was not the Special Counsels job to conclusively determine Donald Trumps 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 president s. And because there is a Presumption Of Innocence prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it. Now, director, the Special Counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that i cant find and you said doesnt exist anywhere in the Department Policies and you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says as you read this morning, it authorizes the Special Counsel to provide the Attorney General with a
confidential report explaining the prosecution or Declamation Decisions reached by the Special Counsel. Thats the very first word of your report, right . Thats correct. Heres the problem, director, the Special Counsel didnt do that. On volume 1, you did. On volume 2 with respect to potential obstruck of justice the Special Counsel made neither a Prosecution Decision nor a declamation decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning and in your report you made no determination where so respectfully, director, you didnt 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 werent reached. You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that werent reached, about potential crimes that werent charged or decided. And respectfully, respectfully
by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that arent charged, so americans need to know this as they listen to the democrats and socialists on the other sides of the aisle as they do dramatic raeeadings from thi report. That volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a Legal Standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every doj principle about extra prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman this morning when he said donald trump is not above the law. Hes not, but he damn sure shouldnt be below the law which is where volume 2 of this report puts him. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director mueller, good morning. Your exchange with the gentle lady from california demonstrates what is at stake. The Trump Campaign chair, Paul Manafort, was passing Sensitive Information and polling data to a russian operative. And there was so many other ways russia subverted our democracy. Together with the evidence in volume 1 i cannot think of a more serious need to investigate. So now im going to ask you some questions about Obstruction Of Justice as it relates to volume 2. On page 12 of volume 2 you state, we determined that there were sufficient, factual and legal basis to further investigate potential Obstruction Of Justice issues involving the president. Is that correct . Do you have the citation, maam . Page 12, volume 2. And which portion of that page . That is, we determined there was a sufficient, factual, and legal basis to further investigate potential Obstruction Of Justice issues involving the president. Is that correct . Yes. Your report also describes at least ten separate instances of possible Obstruction Of Justice that were investigated by you and your team. Is that correct . Yes. In fact, the Table Of Contents serves as a very good guide of some of the acts of that Obstruction Of Justice that you investigated, and put it up on the screen. On page 157 of volume 2 you describe those acts and they range from the president s effort to curtail the Special Counsels 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 . Yes. I direct you now to what you wrote, director mueller. The president s pattern of conduct as a whole sheds light on the nature of the president s act and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. Does that mean you have to
investigate all of his conduct to ascertain true moat intensive. No. And when you talk about the president s pattern of conduct that include the ten possible acts of obstruction that you investigated, is that correct . When you talk about the president s pattern of conduct that would include the ten possible acts of obstruction that you investigated, correct . I direct you to the report for how that is characterized. Let me go to the screen again. For each of those ten potential instances of Obstruction Of Justice, you analyze three elements of the chemoof Obstruction Of Justice. An instructive act, a nexus between the act and official proceeding and corrupt intent, is that correct . Yes. You wrote on page 178, volume 2 of 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 will constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct. Is that correct . Yes. To the screen again. Even with the evidence you did find is it true as you found on page 6 of volume 2 the evidence does note a thorough investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally that the president could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to legal, personal or political concerns . I rely on the language of the report. Is that relevant to potential Obstruction Of Justice . Is that relevant to potential Obstruction Of Justice . You further elaborate on page 157 Obstruction Of Justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability fall into a gray area or to avoid personal embarrassment. Is that correct . Can you repeat the question now that i have the language on the screen . Is it correct as you further elaborate, Obstruction Of Justice can be motivated by a Director Desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, is that true . And is it true the impact pardon . Can you read the last question . The last question was i wasnt certain i got it accurate. The last question was the language on the screen asking you if thats correct. Yes. Okay. Theres a conviction of Obstruction Of Justice result potentially in a lot of years of time in jail . Yes. Well, again, can you repeat the question just to make sure that i have it accurate . Does obstruction of Justi