Investigation that july 27th, candidate trump called on russia to hack Hillary Clintons email, something for the first time they did five hours later, correct . Correct. And you also found that on august 2nd, mr. Manafort met with a person tied to russian intelligence. Mr. Kilimnik gave him internal Campaign Strategy aware that russia was intending to do a misinformation social media campaign. Correct . Not certain of the time. But the fact that that meeting. The meeting took place is accurate. And your investigation as i understand it, also found that in late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign in fact devised its strategy and messaging around wiki leaks releases of materials that were stolen from the Democratic National committee, correct is it. Is that from the report . Yes, its according to mr. Gates. Yes. Thank you. You also talked earlier about the finding in your investigation that in september and october of 2016, donald trump jr. Had email communications with wiki leaks now indict ed about releasing information damaging to the clinton campaign, correct . True. True. I understand you made a decision pros couture ya decision that this would not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt but i ask if you share my concern. My concern is, have we established a new normal that is going to apply to future Campaign Campaigns so that any one of us from the u. S. House, the senate, the presidency of the United States aware if hostile foreign
powers has no duty to report that to the fbi or other authorities . I hope. I hope this is not the new normal. But i fear it is. Would in fact have the ability without fear of legal repercussion to meet with foreign entities, before an American Election . Im sorry, what is the question. Is that an apprehension you share with me . Yes. And that there would be no repercussions whatsoever to russia if they did this again as you stated earlier, theyre doing it now, is that correct . Youre absolutely right. Do you have any advice to this congress together as to what we should do, and accept responsibility on our part to report to you and our successor
when were aware of hostile foreign involvement in our elections. I would say the basis for defense is the ability of the various agencies who have some piece of this to not only share explanation, but shared expertise, to use the full resources that we have, to address this problem. Thank you Director Mueller, i yield back. Mr. Maloney. Mr. Mueller, i know its been a long day, i want to make clear how much respect i have for your service. I want you to understand my questions in that context. Im going to be asking you about appendix c to your report, and in particular, the decision not to do a sworn interview with the president. Thats really the only subject i
want to talk to you about, sir. Why didnt you subpoena the president . At the outset, after we took over and initiated the investigation. If we can ask you to speak . At the outset, after we took over the investigation and began and pursued it, one of the things we anticipated wanting to accomplish is getting the having the interview of the president. We negotiated with him for a little over a year, and i think what you alluded to in the appendix lays out our expectations as a result of those negotiations. But when we were almost toward the end of our investigation, we had no success to get the interview of the president , we decided we did not want to exercise the Subpoena Power because on the necessity of
ending the investigations. Excuse me. We did subpoena the president , he would fight the subpoena, and we would be under the investigation for a substantial period of time. Right, but as we sit here, youve never had the opportunity to ask the president questions. Youre right that i believe you described the in person interview as vital, your words, and, of course, you made clear that the authority and the legal justification, as you point out, you waited a year, so he could prepare and not be surprised. I take it you were trying to be fair to the president. And by the way, you were going to limit the questions when you got to written questions to russia. Only. And the president responded to those written questions after
about nine months. And you have some hard language for what you thought of those responses. What did you think of those responses, mr. Mueller . Certainly not as useful as the interview would be. You pointed out and by my count there were more than 30 times where the president said he didnt recall, he didnt remember, no independent correction, no current recollection. I take it by your answer it wasnt as helpful, thats why you used words like incomplete, imprecise, inadequate. Is that a fair summary of what you thought of those answers. That is a fair summary. I presume that comes from the report. The president didnt ever claim the 5th amendment, did he . Im not going to talk to that. From what i can tell, sir, at one point it was vital and another another point it wasnt vital. My question to you is, why did it stop being vital. One is that someone told you couldnt do it. But no one told you couldnt subpoena the president , right . No, we understood we could subpoena the president. The only other explanation, one, that you just flinched, you had had the opportunity to do it, and you didnt do it. You dont strike me as the kind of guy who flinches. I hope not. The third explanation i can think of is that you didnt think you needed it. And what caught my eye was page 13 of volume ii, where you said you had a substantial body of evidence and you cite a bunch of cases about how you often have to prove intent to obstruct Justice Without an in person interview. And you used words like significant evidence. Did you have sufficient evidence of the president s intent to obstruct justice, and is that why you begun the do the interview. Theres a balance. How much of it you have to satisfy the last element against how much time youre willing to spend in the courts, litigating
the interview with the president. In this case, you felt that you had enough evidence over the president s intent . We had to make a balanced decision in terms of how much evidence we had compared to the time it would take you thought if you gave it to the Attorney General or this congress, that there was sufficient evidence, it was better than that delay . Can you state that again in. It was better than the delay to present the sufficient evidence, your term of the president s intent to the Attorney General and this committee. Season the that why you didnt do the interview . The reason we didnt do the interview is because of the length of time it would take to resolve the issues attended to that. Thank you, sir. Miss demmings. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman and Director Mueller, thank you so much for being a person of honor and integrity. Thank you for your service to the nation, we are certainly
better for it. Director mueller, i want to focus on the written responses that the president did provide. And the continued efforts to lie and cover up what happened during the 2016 election. Were the president s answers submitted under oath . Yes, yes. Thank you, they were. Were these all the answers your office wanted to ask the president about russian interference in the 2016 election . No, not necessarily. There were other questions you wanted to answer . Yes. Did you analyze his Written Answers on russia to draw conclusions about the president s credibility . No, it was perhaps one of the factors, but nothing more than that. It was one of the factors, what did you determine about the president s credibility . That i cant get into. I know based on your decades of experience, you probably had an opportunity to analyze the
credibility of countless witnesses, but you werent able to do so with this witness. Well, with every witness, particularly a leading witness, one assesses the credibility day by day, witness by witness, document by document. And thats what happened in this case. So we started with very little and by the end we ended up with a fair amount. Thank you. Lets go through some of the answers to take a closer look at his credibility. It seems to me that his answers were not credibility at all. Do some of President Trumps incomplete answers relate to Trump Tower Moscow . Yes. For example, did you ask the president whether he had directed at any time discussions about trump moscow project should cease . Should what . Cease. Do you have a citation . Yes, were still in aten dix c, section i, 7. The first page . Yes. The president did not answer whether he had directed or suggested that discussions about the trump moscow project should cease. But he has since made Public Comments about this topic. The question was. The president fully answer that question in his Written Statement to you about the Trump Moscow Project Cease something. Again in appendix c. Can you direct me to the particular paragraph here . It would be appendix c1, but let me move forward. Nine days after he submitted his Written Answers, didnt the president say publicly that he decided not to do the project . And that is in your report. Id ask you if you would, to point out the particular paragraph that youre focused
on. Did the president answer your followup questions, according to the report there were followup questions because of the president s incomplete answers about the moscow project. Did the president answer your followup questions either in writing or orally . Were now in volume 2 page 150 through 151. No. He did not. In fact, there were many questions you asked the president that he simply didnt answer, isnt that correct . True. There were many answers that contradicted other evidence during the investigation, season the that correct . Yes. Director mueller, for example, the president in his Written Answers stated he did not recall having advanced knowledge of wikileaks releases, is that correct . I think thats what he said. Doesnt your investigation uncover that he did have advanced knowledge of wikileaks, emails damaging to his opponent . I cant get into that area. Did your investigation determine after careful vetting of rick gates and Michael Cohen, that you found them to be credible . We found the president to be credible . You found gates and cohen to be credible in their statements about wikileaks. Those are areas im not going to discuss. Okay. Can you say the president was creddic. I cant answer that question. Director mueller, season the it fair to say the president s Written Answers were not only inadequate and incomplete, because he didnt answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed he wasnt always being truthful . I would say generally. Generally. General mueller its one thing for the president to lie to the American People about your investigation, falsely claiming you found no collusion and no obstruction, its something all
together different for him to get away from not answering that questions. I find that a disgrace to our Criminal Justice system. Thank you so much, i yield back to the crime. Mr. Murphy. Director mueller, thank you for your dedicated service. You described detailing a criminal investigation, correct . Yes. Since it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not reach Counter Intelligence conclusions about the Subject Matter of your report is it. Thats true. Since it was outside your purview, your report did not reach Counter Intelligence conclusions regarding any Trump Administration officials who may be vulnerable to compromise or
blackmail by russia, correct . Those decisions were probably made in the fbi. But not in your report, correct . Not in our report. We referred to the Counter Intelligence goals of our investigation which were secondary to any criminal wrongdoing we could find. Lets talk about one add american Station Official in particular, namely, president donald trump. Other than Trump Tower Moscow your report does not address or detail the president s financial ties or dealings with russia, correct . Correct. Similarly, since it was outside your per view, your report does not address the question of whether Russian Oligarchs engaged in Money Laundering thru any of the president s businesses, correct . Correct. And, of course, your office did not obtain the president s
tax returns which could otherwise show foreign financial services, correct . Im not going to speak to that. In july 2017, the president said his personal finances were offlimits or outside the per view of your investigation. And he drew a red line around his personal finances. Were the president s personal finances outside the purview of your investigation . Im not going to get into that. Were you instructed by anyone not to investigate the president s personal finances . No. Mr. Mueller, id like to turn your attention to Counter Intelligence risks associated with lying. Individuals can be subject to blackmail if they lie about their interactions with foreign countries, correct . True. You successfully charged former National Security adviser, Michael Flynn of lying to federal agents about his conversations with russian officials, correct . Correct. Since it was outside the per view of your investigation, your report did not address how flynns false statements could pose a National Security risk, because the russians knew the falsity of those statements, right . I cannot get into that, mainly because there are many elements that the fbi are looking into different aspects of that issue. Currently . Currently. Thank you. As you noted in volume 2 of your report. Donald trump repeated five times in one press conference, mr. Mueller, in 2016, i have nothing to do with russia. Of course, Michael Cohen said donald trump was not being truthful because at this time trump was attempting to build Trump Tower Moscow. Your report does not address whether donald trump was compromised in anyway because of any potential false statements that he made about Trump Tower Moscow, correct in. Thats right. Thats right. Director mueller, i want to turn your attention to a couple other issues. You served as fbi director during three president ial elections, correct . Yes. And during those three president ial elections, you have never initiated an investigation at the fbi looking into whether a Foreign Government interfered in our elections in the same way you did in this particular instance. I would say i personally, no. But the fbi quite honestly has. Now, Director Mueller, is there any information you would like to share with this committee that you have not so far today . Thats a broad question. And it will take me a while to get an answer to it, i will
say no. Mr. Mueller, you said that every american should pay very close attention to the systematic and sweeping fashion in which the russians interfered in our democracy, are you concerned that we are not doing enough currently to prevent this from happening again . Ill speak generally, and what i said in my Opening Statement this morning, and here, much more needs to be done in order to protect against this intrusion. Not just by the russians, but others as well. Thank you, director. We have two five minute periods remaining. Mr. Nunez and myself, mr. Nunez, you are recognized. Mr. Mueller, its been a long day for you. And youve had a long, great career. I want to thank you for your Long Time Service starting in vietnam. Obviously in the u. S. Attorneys office, the department of
justice, and the fbi. And i want to thank you for doing something you didnt have to do, you came here upon your own free will, and we appreciate your time today, with that i yield back. Thank you, sir. Director mueller, i want to close out my questions, turn to some of the exchanges you had with mr. Welsh a bit earlier. Id like to see if we can broaden the ap toer tour at thed of the hearing. Receiving assistance during a president ial campaign is an unethical thing to do. And a crime. And a crime. And a crime in given certain circumstances. To the degree that it undermines our democracy and institutions, we can agree its also unpatriotic . True. And wrong. True. The standard of behavior for
a president ial candidate or any candidate shouldnt be whether something is criminal, it should be held to a higher standard, you would agree . I will not get into that, because it goes to the standards to be applied by other institutions besides ours. Im just referring to ethical standards. We should hold our elected officials to a standard higher than mere avoidance of criminality, correct . Absolutely. You have served this country for decades, youve taken an oath to defend the constitution, you hold yourself to a standard of doing whats right. I would hope. You have. I think we can all see that. There are times where your reward will be unending criticism, but we are grateful. The need to act in an ethical manner is not just a moral one,
but when people act unethically, it exposes them to compromise. Particularly in dealing with foreign powers, is that true . True. Because when someone acts unethically in connection with a foreign partner, that foreign partner can later expose their wrongdoing and extort them . True. And that conduct that unethical conduct can be of a financial nature, if yo