MUELLER HEARING: House Judiciary Committee Part 1


The in ring work [inaudible] We just as we wait here for Robert Muller to be sworn in — We already heard one protester we didn’t even get dig here. Any parts of the hearing but that is just moments away right here hi news now everyone [inaudible] Read. More. The Judiciary Committee will come to order. That objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess is of the committee at any time. We welcome everyone to today’s hearing on oversight of the report. On the investigation into Russian interference in the two thousand sixteen presidential election say may I will now recognize myself for a brief opening statement. Back in other. Thank you for being here. I want to say just a few words about our themes today accountability once ability your career for example is a model of responsibility. You are a decorated marine officer. You awarded a Purple Heart and the bronze star for valor in Vietnam. He served his senior roles of the department of justice. And in the immediate aftermath of nine eleven you served as director of the FBI. Two years ago. Into public service and to lead the investigation into Russian interference in the two thousand sixteen elections. You can does that investigation with remarkable integrity. But twenty two months you never commented in public about your work. Even when you were subjected to repeated and grossly unfair personal attacks. Instead your indictments is spoke for you and then astonishing detail. Over the course of your investigation you obtain criminal indictments against thirty seven people and entitie. You secure the conviction. Of president trump’s campaign chairman. Is deputy campaign manager. Is national security adviser. And his personal lawyer. Among others. In the Paul Manafort case alone your car is much is forty two million dollars. So that the course of your investigation to the taxpayers approaches. Zero and in your report you are for the country accountability as well. In volume. One you find that the Russian government intact a two thousand sixteen elections. Quote in a sweeping and systematic fashion. And that the attacks were designed to benefit the trump campaign. Volume two works is to ten separate incidents of possible obstruction of justice. Where in your words president trump intended to exert undue influence over your investigation? The president’s behavior included and a quote from the report quote. Public attacks on the investigation non public at to efforts to control it. And efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate. Close quote. Among the most shocking of these incidents. President trump boarded his White House counsel to have you fired. And then to do not to lie and deny that it happened. Your is former campaign manager to convince the accused Attorney General to step in and limit your work. And intended to prevent witnesses from cooperating with your investigation. Although department policy barred you from indicting the president for this kind that. You made it clear that he is not exonerated. Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes. And in this nation not even the president is above the law. Which brings me to this committee’s work [inaudible] Responsibility integrity and accountability. These are the March by which we to serve on this committee. Will be measured as well. Director mother we have a responsibility to address the evidence that you have uncovere. You recognize as much when you said quote. The constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system. To formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing close quote. That process begins with the work of this committee. We will follow your example director mother. We will act with integrity. We will follow the facts with a lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make a recommendation to the house when I work includes. We will do this work because there must be accountability for the conduct described in your report. Especially as it relates to the president. Thank you again direct the mola. We look forward to your testimony. It is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member the Judiciary Committee the gentleman from Georgia Mister Collins. For his opening statement. Thank you Mister chairman and thank you must roller for being here. For two years leading up to the release of the mall report and in the three months since Americans were first told what to expect. And then what to believe. Collusion we were told was in plain sight even if the special counsel same didn’t find. When Mr Miller produces a report international Mar provided to every American we read no American conspired with Russia to interfere in our elections? But learn the deaths of Russia’s malice toward America. We are here to ask serious questions about Mr Miller’s wor. And we will do that. After an extended on hampered investigation today marks an end to Mister Miller’s involvement in an investigation that closed in a for the burden of proof for accusations that remain unproven is extremely high. And especially a lot of special counsels thoroughness. We’re told this investigation began as an in car into where the Russia metal in our twenty sixteen election. Mr Lawler you concluded they di. Russians extra access Democrat servers in disseminated sensitive information by tricking campaign insiders and revealing protected information. The investigation also reviewed whether Donald Trump the president saw Russian assistance as a Canada to win the presidency Mr lower concluded he did not. His family or advisers did not. In fact the report concludes no one in the president’s campaign included collaborated or conspired with the Russians. The present wash the public narrative surrounding his investigation. As soon as it is. Finally it was assumed his guilt what he knew the extent of his innocence. Volume two of my old Mister Miller’s report details the president’s reaction to frustrating investigation for is innocence was established early on the president’s attitude toward the investigation was understandably negative. Yes the president did not use of already to close the investigation he asked his lawyer Mr Miller had conflicts in disqualify Mr Miller from the job but he did not shut down the investigation. The president knew he was innocent. Those are the facts of the mall report. Russia metal in the twenty sixteen election the president did not conspire with the Russian and nothing we here today. We’ll change those facts. But one element of the story reminds the beginnings of the FBI investigation in the presen. I look for to Mister Miller’s testimony about what he found during his review of the origins of the investigation in addition the inspector general continues to review how baseless gossip. Can be used to launch of the FBI investigation against a private citizen. And eventually a president. Those results will be released in will need to learn rom them to ensure government intelligence and law enforcement powers are never again use and turn on a private citizen or a potential for political candidates. As a result of the political leanings of a handful of FBI agents. The origins in conclusion the mall or investigation the same things what it means to be American. Every American has a voice in our democracy we must protect the sanctity of their voice by combating election interference every American enjoys the presumption of innocence. And guarantee of due process. If we carry in nothing anything away today it must be that we increase our business against for election affairs while we insure our government official no weapon as their power against the constitutional rights guaranteed. To every U. S. citizen. Finally we must agree that the opportunity call Sears too hot the months we have spent investigating from this dies failed to end the border crosser contribute to the growing job market. Instead we have gotten stuck in his paralyze this committee and this house. And as a side note. Every week I leave my family and kids the most important things to me to come to this place because I believe this voice is a place where we can actually do things and help people. Six and a half years ago I came here to work on behalf of the people the ninth district in this country. And we accomplished a lot in those for six years on a bipartisan basis with many of my friends across the aisle sitting on this and us with me today. However this year because the majority’s this life. Of this president and again was hearing and a close investigation have calls us to accomplish nothing except talk about the problems of our country while our border is on fire in crisis and everything else is stopped. This hearing is long overdue we’ve had truth for months no American is part of our electio. What we need today is to let the truth brings confidence? And I hope Mister chairman closure with that I yield back. The Cohns I will now introduce today’s witness. Robert Muller served as director of the FBI from 200-012-2000. Thirteen and most recently served as special counsel in the department of justice. Overseeing the investigation into Russian interference in the two thousand sixteen special election. He received his BA from Princeton University an MA from New York University in my district and his JD from the university of Virginia. Mr mother is accompanied by his by counsel Aaron’s Embley you served as deputy special counsel on the investigation. We welcome our distinguished witness and we thank you for participating in today’s hearin. Now food please rise I will begin by swearing you in. If you raise your right hand please. Let and you swear affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you’re about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief. So help you god. Let the record show the witness answer the affirmative thank you and please be seated. Please note. That you are a written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly I ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. Well you may be in. Good morning chairman and are. The and ranking member columns and the members of the committe. As you know in may. Twenty seventeen the acting Attorney General asked me to serve as special counsel. I undertook undertook that role because I believe that it was of paramount. Interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the presidential election. As the acting Attorney General said at the time. The appointment was necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence confidence in the outcome. My staff and I carried out this assignment with that critical objective in mind. To work quietly thoroughly. And with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome. The order appointing me as special counsel directed our office to investigate Russian interference. In the twenty sixteen presidential election. This included investigating any links. Or coordination between the Russian government. And individuals associated with the trump campaign. It also included investigating efforts to interfere with or obstruct our investigation. Throughout the investigation I continually stress to things to the team that we have assembled. First we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible. And as expeditiously as possibl. It was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete. But not to last a day longer than was necessary. Second in the investigation needed to be conducted fairly. And with absolute integrity. Our team would not leave or take other actions that could compromise the integrity of our work. All decisions were made based on the facts and the law. During the course of our investigation we charge more than thirty defendants. With committing federal crimes. Including twelve officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants have been convicted or pled guilty. Certain of the charges we brought remain pending today. And for those matters I stress that the indictments contain allegations. And every defendant is presumed innocentunless and until proven guilty. In addition to the criminal charges we brought. As required by justice department regulations. We submitted a confidential report to the Attorney General. At the conclusion of our investigation. The reports for the results of our work. And the reason for are charging and declination decisions. The Attorney General later made to the policy — Report largely public. As you know I made a few limited remarks limited remarks about our report when we close the special counsel’s office. In may of this year. But there are certain points that their emphasis. First our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping. And systematic fashion. Second the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired with the Russian government. In its election interference activities. We did not address collusion which is not a legal term. Rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient. To charge any member of the campaign. Was taking part in a criminal conspiracy and it was not. Third our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation. And lied to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s effort. To find the truth and all [inaudible] Wrongdoers accountable. Finally as described in volume two of our report. We investigated a series of actions. By the president towards investigation. Based on justice department policy and principles of fairness. We decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision and remains our decision today. Let me say. For a further word about my appearance today. It is unusual for a prosecutor. To testify about a criminal investigation. And given my role as a prosecutor. There are reasons why my testimony of testimony will necessarily be limited. First public testimony could effects of wrongdoing matters. In some of these matters court rules or judicial orders limited disclosure. Of information to protect to protect the fairness of the proceedings. And consistent with long standing justice department policy it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter. Second the justice department has a certain privileges concerning investigative information and decisions. Ongoing matters within the justice department and deliberations. Within our office. These are justice department privileges that I will respect. The department has released the letter discussing the restrictions on my testimony. I therefore will not be able to answer questions about certain areas. That I know are of public interest. For example I am unable to address questions about the initial opening. Of the F. B. I.’s Russia. Investigation which occurred months before my appointment. Or matters related to the so called steel dossier. These matters are subject of ongoing review by the departmen. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the FBI for the justice department. As I explained when we close the special counsel’s office and ma. How report contains our findings [inaudible] And analysis. And the reasons for the decisions we made. We conducted an extensive investigation over two years. In writing the report. We stated the results of our an investigation with precision. We scrutinized every word. Do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way. In the course of my testimony today. As I said on may twenty ninth the report is my testimony. And I will stay within that tex. And as I stated in may high will not comment on the actions of the Attorney General or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor. And I intend intend to adhere to that role. And to the department standards that govern. I’ll be joined today by Debbie special counsel Erin’s Emily. Mr doubly has extensive experience as a professional prosecutor. And at the F. B. I. where he served as vice chief of staff. Mr so I’m is reasonably was responsible for the day to day oversight. Of the investigations conducted by our office. I also want to again say thank you to the attorneys. The FBI agents [inaudible] The analysts. The professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair. An independent manner. These individuals who spent nearly two years of working on this matter. We’re of the highest integrity. Let me say one more thing over the course of my career I’ve seen. A number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government efforts. To interfere in our election. Is among the most serious. As I said on may twenty ninth this deserves the attention. Of every American. Thank you Mister chairman. Thank you we will now proceed under the five minute rule with questions. I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes [inaudible] Director mother. The president has repeatedly claimed that you report found there was no obstruction. And that it completely and totally exonerated him. But that is not what you reports said is it. That is not what the report sai. In reading from page two volume two movie report that’s on the screen you wrote to quote. If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts. That the president clearly did pf justice we would so state. Based on the facts and the apple global legal standards however we are unable to reach that judgment close quote. Now does that say there was no obstruction [inaudible] Now all. In fact you were actually on able to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice is that correct well we have — At the outset a determined — We when it came to the the the president’s culpability. We needed. To we need a we need to go forward. Only after taking account deal will see opinion who that indicated that a president. A sitting president cannot be — Indicted so the report did not. Conclude that he did not commit instruction justice. Is that correct that is correct. And what about total exoneration did you actually totally exonerate the president. Now in fact. Your reports expressly stated it does not exonerate the present. At does. In your investigation actually found quote. Multiple acts by the president that we capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations. Including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations is that correct correct. No directly Muller can you explain in plain terms what that finding means so the American people can understand it. Well as the of the finding indicates that. On the president — Was not — The president was not a school thing. Exculpate an eye out for the accident — He allegedly committed. In fact you were talking about incidents quote in which the president sought to use his official power outside of usual channels on quote. To exert undue influence over your investigations is that right that’s correct. Now in my correct in and page seven of volume two of the report you wrote quote. The president became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction of justice enquiring. At that point the president engage in a second phas of conduct. Involving public attacks on the investigation. Non public efforts to control it and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation close quote. So president trump’s efforts to exert undue influence over your investigation intensified after the president became aware that he personally. Was being investigated I stick with that language that you have in front of you [inaudible] Which which from page seven volume. Two now is it correct that if you can could that the president committed the crime of obstruction you could not publicly state that in your report or here today. Can you repeat the question Sir. Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction you could not publicly state that in your report. For here today well I would say — If you — I couldn’t Hey this statement would be. To that you would not indict and you would not indict because under the we’ll see opinion — A sitting president. She’s we cannot be indicted be unconstitutional so you could not state that because of the see opinion if that would have been your it was some guy ideas. But under DOJ under department justice policy the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes. After he leaves office is correct. Thank you that any senior White House official refused a request to be interviewed by you and your team. A double in cell. Let me take that back. I I would have to look at it but I’m not certain if that was the case. The president refused requests to be interviewed by you and your team yes. Yes and is it true that you tried for more than a year to secure an interview with the president yes. team advise the president’s you- lawyer that quote. An interview with the president is vital to our investigation closed [inaudible] Yes. And is it true that you also state quote stated that it is in the interest of the presidency in the public. For interview to take place close quote yes. But the president still refused to sit for an interview by you or your team [inaudible] Truth and did you also ask him to provide written answers to questions on the ten possible episodes of obstruction of justice crimes involving him ye. Did he provide any answers to a single question about whether he engaged in the destruction justice crimes. I would have to check on that unanswered directed mother we’re grateful that you were here to explain your investigation findings. Having reviewed to work I believe anyone else would engage in the conduct described in your report would have been criminally prosecuted. Your work is vitally important to this committee and the American people because no one is above the law — And that wa. I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia Mister Collins. Thank yu measurement and were moving on understand this for it or in the five mineral Mister small I have several questions many of which did you just answer will be kind of question here in a moment only some foundations will go through these fairly quickly I’ll. I’ll talk slowly I’m said that all fast hold on slow. Thank you Sir in your press conference used eight any testimony from your office would not go beyond our report we chose his words carefully the work speaks for itself. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress do you stand by that statement yes. This call is a special counsel’s office in may of twenty nineteen have you conducted any additional interviews or obtain any new information and your role as special counsel. At the end of in the wake of the reports since the since the closing of the office in may of twenty nine and the question wa. Any new interviews any new witnesses. And you can confirm your no longer special counsel correct I am no longer special counsel. At any time of the investigation was your investigation printer or curtailed or stopped. Or hindered. Note. Were you or your team about any questions by members of Congress a majority ahead of your hearing today. No. Your for states your investigative team included not taking orders in across my forty FBI agents an analyst and counts of those numbers actor. A could you repeat that please forty FBI agents nineteen lawyers intelligence analyst and friends accounts of those numbers accurate. This is generally the airport generally yes. Is it also true that you issued over two and twenty eight hundred subpoenas executed nearly five hundred search warrants a time more than two hundred thirty order for communication represent fifty can registers — That one little fast for me. In your report. A sample you need a lot of work right. Yes that I agree lot of subpoenas. Subpoenas. Okay walk is really low when a search. For hi mom surge Moore’s law so you. The what your opinion very thorough you listed as out in your four correct. Yes thank you. Is it true damage gathered during your investigation given the questions that you just answered is it true the evidence gathered during investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in volume one page. Seven we found that a insufficient — Evidence. Of the president’s goal culpability — So they will be yes with that — What on pardon me yes yes thank you isn’t it true that is not established in the present or those close to him were involved? In the charge Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the present otherwise an unlawful relationship with any Russian officials volume two page seventy six correct. The answer to the report. So the U. S. is that a true your investigation did not establish the members of the trump campaign conspire to coordinate with Russian government in the legs interference activity volume one page two volume one page. One seventy three thank you yes yes thank you. Although your report states collusion is not so specific about fans and you said that this morning for a term of art in federal criminal law conspiracy is and the colloquial contexts are collusion and conspiracy essentially synonymous terms. Your guide to repeat that for m. Collusion is not a specific offense. Or or a term of art in the federal criminal law conspiracy he is. Yeah in the colloquial contexts. Known public Condit’s collusion collusion and conspiracy are essentially. Synonymous terms correct no. If no on page one eighty a volume of one of your report you wrote as defined in legal dictionaries collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute eighteen USC. Three seventy one and you said at your may twenty Press collars and here today you choose your words carefully are you sitting here today testifying something different than what your report states. Well what I’m asking is if you can give me the citation I can look at citation hand — Evaluate whether it is actually the the let me just make our front you stated that you start with an record I do stated your report. To you. And you said that collusion collusion conspiracy or not synonymous terms that was your answer was no. In the end page — One eighty volume one of your report it say as as defining legal dictionaries collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as a crime is set forth in general conspiracy statute eighteen USC. Three seventy one now you said you chose your words carefully are you contradicting your report right now. Now when I read it. So you change your answer to you know them well. The the if you look at the language. I’m reading your report Sir it’s a yes or no answer page one eighty page one eighty volume. One this is from your report. Correct and I leave it with the report so therefore says yes they are synonymous hopefully for finally out of your own record we can put to bed the collusion conspiracy one last question is we’re going through. Did you ever look into other in. Countries investigating in the Russian sale interference in our election while the country’s investigated. Or fail knowledge that they had an affairs are election I’m not gay discuss other matters. I’m not a Yuma. Germany is back the gentle lady from California. Director Muller as you’ve heard from the chairman were mostly going to talk about obstruction of justice today but the investigation of Russia’s attac. That started your investigation is why evidence of possible obstruction is serious to what extent do the Russian government to interfere in the twenty sixteen presidential election. I could you repeat that ma’am to what extent the Russian government interfere in the twenty sixteen presidential election. Well A it up quickly when I cam- To computer crimes in the like – The government was implicated so you were on in volume one that the Russian government interfered in the twenty sixteen presidential election and sweeping and systematic of fashion. You also described in your report that that then trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared with the Russian operative clinic the campaign strategy for winning democratic votes in midwestern states. In internal polling data of the campaign isn’t that correct correct. The they also discussed the status of the trump campaign and Manafort strategy for winning democratic votes in midwestern states months before that meeting. Mana for had caused internal data to be shared with clinic and the sharing continued for some period of time. After their August meeting isn’t that correct accurate. In fact your investigation found that manifold brief clinic on the state of the trump campaign and manifolds plan to win the election. And that briefing encompass the campaign’s messaging its internal polling data it also includes discussion of battleground states which manner for the down the fight is Michigan Wisconsin. Pennsylvania in Minnesota isn’t that correct that’s correct. pDin determined who requested the polling data to be shared with Colin neck. Well I I would — Direct you to the report and job what we have in the report in a with regard to that particular. We don’t have the redacted version this may be another reason why we should get that for volume. One based on your investigation how the Russian government have used this campaign polling data to further its sleeping and systematic interference in the twenty sixteen presidential little bit out of or or a up past — Your investigation find that the Russian government perceives it would benefit from one of the candidates winning. Yes and which candidate would that be. Well into would be trimmed a trump correct. The trump campaign wasn’t exactly will locked in to take Russian help you wrote — It expected it would benefit elect horribly from information stolen and release through Russian efforts isn’t that correct that’s correct. Now was the investigations the determination of recall was the investigations 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 what we went through and we counted. A hundred and twenty six contacts between of Russians. Or their agents and the trump campaign. Officials or their associates so would that sound about right — But I can’t say I mean I I understand this and sadistic and I believe it. Since it’s a stick. Mr Miller I appreciate your being here and your report. From your testimony and report I think. The American people have learned several things. First. The Russians wanted trump to wi. Second the Russians went on the sweeping cyber influence campaign. The Russians have the DNC and they got the democratic game plan for the election. The Russian campaign chairman met with Russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data. Polling and messaging in the battleground states. So while the Russians were buying ads and creating propaganda the influence the outcome of the election. They were armed with the inside information that they had stolen to hacking from the DNC and they had been given. By the trump campaign — Chairman Mister manning. For my colleagues will follow the efforts undertaken a to keep this information from becoming public but I think it’s important for the American people to understand the gravity of the underlying problem. That your report uncovered and with that Mister chairman I would yield back [inaudible] General AT. Good morning director — If you let me quickly summarize your opening statement this morning seven volume one on the issue of conspiracy the special counsel determine that the investigation did not establish the members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government. It’s election interference activities and then in volume. Two for reasons that you explain 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 all right now in explaining this special counsel did not make what you call the traditional prosecution or declination decision. The report on the bottom of page two of volume. Two resist follows. The evidence we obtain about the president’s actions in intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred accordingly while this report does not conclude. That the president committed a crime it also does not exonerate him. Now. Please yes I now hear report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under was guided by and follow justice department policies and principles so. Which DOJ policy or principal sets forth a legal standard that investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from critic criminal conduct is not conclusively determined. Can you repeat the last part of that question yeah which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that investigated person is not exonerated. If there innocence from criminal criminal conduct is not conclusively determined. How does that language come from director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can you do it let me make it easier. There is. It can you give me an example other than Donald Trump for the justice department to determine that in investigative person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined — Hi can I put this evening okay well. You can’t time is short I’ve got five minutes let’s just leave it you can’t find it because I’ll tell you why it doesn’t exist. The special counsel’s job nor does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald trump’s innocence or that the special counsel. Report should determine whether or not to exonerate him it’s not in any of the documents is not in your appointment order it’s not in special counsel regulations. Is not in the we’ll see opinions is not the justice manual and it’s not the principles of federal prosecution nor to those words appear together. Because respectfully respectfully director it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald trump’s innocence for to exonerate him. Because the bedrock principles of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone everyone is entitled to it including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence prosecutors never ever need to conclusively determine it. Now director the special counsel applied. This inverted burden of proof that I can’t find and you said doesn’t exist anywhere. In the department policies and used it to write a report and the very first line of your report the very first line of your report says. And you as you read this morning it authorizes a special counsel to provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached. By the special counsel that’s the very first word of your report right that’s correct. Here’s the problem director. The special counsel didn’t do that. I’m volume one you did on Bombali into with respect to potential of obstruction of justice the special counsel ade neither a prosecution. Decision or a declination decision you made no decision you told us this morning and in your report that you made no determination so respectfully director you didn’t follow the special counsel regulations it clearly says. Right a confidential report about decisions reached nowhere in here does it say write a report about decisions that warrant reached. You wrote a hundred eighty pages a hundred eighty pages about decisions that weren’t reach about potential crimes that weren’t charged. Your decided and respectfully respectfully by doing that you manage to violate every principle and the most sacred. Of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that are charged so Americans need to know this as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle. As they do dramatic readings from. This report that volume two 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 of every DOJ principal about extra prosecutorial commentary I agree with the chairman this morning when he said Donald Trump is not above the law he’s not. But he sure shouldn’t be below the law which is where volume two of this. Puts him. Thank you Mister chairman — Direct mail the morning your exchange with the gentle lady from California demonstrates what is at stake. The trump campaign here Paul Manafort was passing sensitive voter information polling data to a Russian operative. And there were so many other ways that Russia severity. Chrissy. Together with the evidence in volume one I cannot think of a more serious need. To investigate so now I’m going to ask you some questions about obstruction of justice. As it relates to volume two on page twelve a volume to use state we determined that there were. Says sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the president. Is that correct. And do you have the citations ma’am page twelve volume. Two the and which fortune that page. That is. We determine that there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the president is that correct yes. Your record also described at least ten separate instances a possible obstruction of justice. That were investigated by you and your team is that correct. In fact the table of contents the best serves as a very good guy. Of some of the acts of that obstruction of justice and to investigate it and I put it up on the screen. On page one fifty seven a volume to you describe those acts and they range from the president’s effort to curtail the special counsel’s investigation the president’s. Further efforts to have the Attorney General take over the investigation the president’s supporters down again 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 directed all 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 is in. Ten does that mean you have to investigate all of his conduct to ascertain true motives. 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 present pattern of conduct that would include the ten possible acts of obstruction that you investigated correct. Directly to the reporter for how that is characterized. Thank you. Let me go to the screen again and for each of those ten potential instances of obstruction of justice you analyze three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice. And obstructive act. A nexus between the Achen official proceeding. Is that correct. You wrote on page one seventy eight volume two in your report about corrupt intent. Actions by the president. In a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example. Corruptly motivated conduct is that correct [inaudible] Yes. To the screen again even with the evidence you did fine is it true as you note on page seventy six of volume two that the evidence does indicate that a floral. FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally that the president could have understood to be crimes of that would give rise to legal personal and political concerns. IRA rely on the language of the report. Is that relevant to potential obstruction of justice. Is that relevant to potential structure justice yes. You further elaborate on page one fifty seven obstruction justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non criminal personal interest to protect against investigations were underlying come alive Billy fall into a gray area. Or to avoid personal — Embarrassment is that correct [inaudible] Yes. I have on the screen. That correct on the screen can you — Repeat the question and now that I have a language on the screen is that correct — As you further elaborate construction just as can be motivated by the desire to protect not criminal personal interest. To protect against investigations were underlying from a lot of Italy falls into a gray area yeah void is that tru. And is it true that the impact of a pardon. Can you read the last question. Alas it was my what I got an accurate the last question was a language on the screen asking you that’s correct. Yes. Okay. The conviction of obstruction of justice. Potentially a lot of years of a lot of years of set of time [inaudible] In jail [inaudible] Yes. Well I have a and again can you repeat the question does make certain I have accurate. Does obstructing justice warrant a lot of time and try and a jail if you were convicted yes. Any. Time of the gentlelady has expired. Thank you very much French German. Let me begin by reading this special counsel regulations by which you were appointed. It reads court at the conclusion of the special counsel for he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report. The explaining the prosecution or day the nation’s decisions reach by the special counsel that’s correct yes. Ma’am Kay now under regulation uses the word shall provide. Does it mean if the individual is in fact obligated to provide was being demanded by the regulation or statute meaning you don’t have any wiggle room right. I’d have to look more closely at the statute. I just read it to you [inaudible] Okay. Now what I am to the age. One your report boldly stage we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial prosecutorial judgment. Is that correct — Trying to find that a citation [inaudible] Congressman. Thank you can you speak more directly into the microphone please yes thank you. I am to pay their share — I’m sorry if I am to page one instead we determine that to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. Yes that’s right the beginning. Now. Since you decided under the O. L. C. opinion that you couldn’t prosecutors sitting president meeting. President trump. Where we have all of this — Investigation of president trump that the other side is talking about when you knew that you weren’t going to prosecute him. You don’t know where the investigations gonna live hand will see opinion itself. A says that you can continue the investigation even though you are not going — To indict the president okay well — If you’re not going to let the president then you just continue fishing. And that’s you know that’s fine. I have vision you know. My time is limited sure you can and other people would you can’t in day the sitting president [inaudible] Right. That’s true okay. Now there are hundred eighty two pages in the broader evidentiary material including hundreds of references to three old tool which are interviews by the FBI. For individuals of never been cross examined and which did not comply with the special counsel’s governing regulation. To explain the prosecution or declination decisions arranged correct. nd we’re a reading from on that I’m reading for my question. Could you repeat it okay if you have a hundred and eighty two pages arrive an injury material hundreds of references the three oh Jews who were. Never been cross examined in which didn’t comply with the governing regulation to explain the prosecution declaration declination decisions reached this is one of those — Areas which I declined to discuss okay and and would direct you. To the report itself. Well I look down on that hundred eighty two is about. You know let me switch gears Mister Chapman and I were on this committee hearing the Clinton impeachment now while I recognize that. The independent counsel statute under which Kenneth Starr operated is different from the special counsel statute he and a number of occasions in his report. Stated in that the president Clinton’s actions may have risen to impeachable conduct recognizing that it is up to the house of representatives to determine. What conduct is impeachable you never use the term raising to impeachable conduct for any of the ten instances that the gentleman from Texas — Awry. Right. Is it true that there is nothing in volume two of the report this says that the president may have engaged in impeachable conduct. Well — We have some — Studiously — Kept in. The the center of our investigation. The our mandate and our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct our mandate goes — To who what. Developing the report. Do you know inches seems to me. Have their couple statements that you made. You know this and that this is not for me to decide in the implication is this is this is for this committee inside. Now you didn’t use the word impeachable conduct like starred and there is no statute to prevent you from using the word. Impeachable kind that and I go back to what Mister Radcliffe said and that is is that even the president is innocent until proven guilty. I had my time is up. One is time is expired the gentleman from Tennessee. Thank you Mister chairman. First I’d just like. To read. It a free Free State that Mister Nadler said about your career. It’s a model of rectitude and I thank you. Based upon your investigation had a president trump react to your appointment as special counsel. I get our but I send you the report — For where that is stated. Well there is a full from page seventy eight of your report volume. Two which reads when sessions told the president that the special counsel had been appointed. The president slumped back in his chair and said quote all my god this is terrible this is the end of my presidency. After. On quote. Did tourney general sessions tell you about that little [inaudible] Talk. Please speak into the microphon. Of showing my my apologies. I am not certain of the the person who originally — A copy the quote. Okay was sessions apparently said in one of his aides had it in his notes to which I think you had but what that’s become record he wasn’t pleased they probably wouldn’t please with the special counsel in particular you because of your outstanding reputation. Priority appointment Attorney General recused himself from the investigation because of his role in the twenty sixteen campaign is that not correct. Correct. Refusal me see turning general cannot be involved in the investigation is that correct. That’s the effect the refusal yes and so instead of another trump appointee as you. Know Mr sessions was Mr Rosenstein became in charge of it is that correct. Yes. Wasn’t Attorney General sessions following the rules and professional advice of the department of justice ethics folks when he recused himself from the investigation yeah. And yet the president repeatedly expressed his displeasure extension’s decision to follow that lead thinks rules to recuse himself from oversight of an investigation is that not correct that’s accurate based on what is written in the report. And the president’s reaction — Off to the refusal is as noted in the report. Mr Bannon recall that the president was mad as mad as Bannon had ever seen any screen that McGann about how weak sessions was do you recall that from the report to the report yes. Despite knowing the journey general sessions was supposed to be in was not supposed to be involved investigation the presence still try to get the Attorney General. To on recused himself after you were appointed special counsel. Is that correct yes. In fact your investigation found at some point after your appointment. What the president called sessions at his home and asked if he would recuse himself is that not true true? Now that wasn’t the first time the president and sessions to on refuse himself was it. I know there are at least two occasions. And one of them was with plan and one of them was when sessions and again flew tomorrow Lago to meet with the president sessions recall that the president folding aside to speak alone. And suggested he should do this on refusal act [inaudible] Correct correct. And then when Michael slander few days after playing into the guilty plea for lying to federal agents. And indicated his intent to cooperate with that investigation. Trump asked to speak to sessions alone again in the oval office and again as sessions to on recuse himself troops — Refer you to the report for that page one on volume two thank you Sir. Do you know of any point when the president personally expressed anger or frustrations and sessions. I’d have to pass on that. You called I think it’s a paid seventy eight a volume to the president told sessions you were supposed to protect me. You were supposed to protect me or words to that effect [inaudible] Correct to be the Attorney General of the United States of America. Or if. They can sickly ari for the president. A United States of America thank you Sir in fact you wrote your report the president repeatedly sought to convince sessions the on recuse himself so sessions could supervise the quite. Investigation in a way that would restrict its scope is that correct — Rely on the the report. Should restricted the scope of your investigation. Well I’m not gay — Speculate — AP — Quite obviously we took over her role is — And tourney general he would have greater latitude news actions at the well into. I enable them to do things that otherwise you could not on page one thirteen you said the president believe that and I’m refused Attorney General player protective rolling conceal the president from the ongoing investigation. Regardless of all that I want to thank you director Miller for your life of rectitude and service to our country it’s clear from your report and the evidence that the president wanted former Attorney General sessions to violate the justice department ethics rules. By taking over your investigation and improperly interfering with the to protect himself and his campaign your findings are so important because I’m in America nobody is above the law. I yield back the balance of my time thank the gentleman feeling back the gentleman from Ohio. Thank you a direct roller my democratic colleagues were very disappointed in your report. They were expecting you to say something along the lines of here’s why president trump deserves to be impeached much is Ken Starr did a relative to president Clinton — Back about twenty years ago well if you didn’t. A so their strategy had to change. Now the alleged there’s plenty of evidence — In your report to impeach the president but the American people just didn’t read it. And this hearing today is their last best hope to build up some sort a ground swell across America to impeach president trump. That’s what this is really all about — Today now a few questions. On page — One of three of volume two of your report. When discussing the June two thousand sixteen trump tower meeting — You reference quote the firm that produced the steel reporting on quote. The name of that firm was fusion GPS is that correct. And your own page one oh three one oh three that’s correct volume. To when you talk about the the firm that produced the steel reporting — The name of the firm the produce that was fusion GPS is that correct. Hi I’m not familiar of a with — With that night [inaudible] Well I it was it’s not it’s not a trick question and it was jus. Using GPS. Now fusion GPS produce the opposition research document widened widely known as the steel dossier and the owner of the fusion GPA was — Someone name Glenn Simpson — For you familiar with — That’s outside my purview okay — Glenn Simpson was never mentioned in the four hundred forty eight page more report was a well as I as I say it’s outside my purview and being handled in the department by others. Okay well he was not a foreigner forty eight pages the the owner of fusion GPS — They did the steel dossier that started all this — He’s not mentioned in there let me move on at the same time — Fusion GPS was working to collect opposition research on Donald Trump — From foreign sources on behalf of the Clinton campaign. And the Democratic National Committee it also was representing a Russian based company premises on which had been sanctioned by the U. S. government are you aware that. Except for my purview okay thank you one of the key players. In the don’t go to something different — When the key players in the June two thousand sixteen trump tower meeting was in the tally — This in Yessica- Who you described in your report is a Russian attorney who had decayed — For the repeal of the Magnitsky act — This and yet to kia had been working with none other tha Glenn Simpson and fusion GPS since at least early- Two thousand fourteen her are you aware that I took my purvie. Thank you but you didn’t mention that for her connections — To Glenn Simpson and fusion a GPS – In in your report at all — Let me move on now NBC news has reported the following. Quote Russian lawyers Natalia vision yes kia. Says she first Percy the supposedly incriminating information she brought to trump tower describing alleged tax evasion a donation to Democrats. From none other than Glenn Simpson the fusion GPS owner — He didn’t include that in the report I soon. Being handled by others of the department of justice okay thank you — Now you report spends fourteen pages discussing the June ninth two thousand sixteen trump tower meeting — It would be fair to say would not that you spent significant resources investigating that meeting. Well I mean I will refer you to the of the report. Okay and can president trump was in after meeting. No matter where life thank you. Now in stark contrast to the actions of the trump campaign we know that the Clinton campaign did pay fusion GPS together dirt on the trump campaign from persons associated. With foreign governments — But your report doesn’t mention a thing about fusion GPS — In it and you didn’t investigate fusion GPS is connections to roster so let me just ask you this — Can you see. That from neglecting to mention Glenn Simpson infusion GPS is involvement with the cling campaign. To focusing on a brief meeting at the trump tower that produce nothing. To ignoring the Clinton campaign’s phone ties to fusion GPS why some. View your report as a pretty one sided attack on the president. L. — Five but I tell you if it is a still outside my purview. And I I would just new finally that. I guess is by chance by coincidence that the things left out of the report. To be favorable to the president. Fired my time’s expired. Thank. Direct the mall and like to get us back on track here. You investigation found that president trump directed White House counsel don McGann to fire you did not correct. In the president claimed that he wanted to fire you because you had support wanted to fire you. Because you had supposed conflicts of interest in that correct pro. Neat you had no conflicts of interest that required your removal in that of factor correct. And in fact don McGann advised the president that the of started conflicts were in his words silly and not real conflicts in that true. I will refer to the report on that episode will page eighty five the volume to speaks to that. And also direct the mullet D. O. J. at six officials confirmed that you had no conflicts that would prevent you from serving as special counsel in my correc. A threat but despite don McGann and the department of justice guidance. Around may twenty third twenty seventeen the president quote [inaudible] It is. And to complain to deputy Attorney General Rosen Steen about these suppose conflicts of interest correct correct. And McGann declined to call Rosen stain — Rosenstein I’m sorry telling the president that it would look like. Still trying to meddle in the investigation and knocking out. Would be a nother fact. Used to claim obstruction of justice in their correct generally so yes and in other words — Direct the mother the White House counsel. Told the president that if he tried to remove you that that could be another basis to allege that the president was obstructing justice correct. That is generally correct yes now I’d like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justic. On Tuesday. I’m sorry fines or do a citation for the yes — Volume — To page eighty one thank you an eighty two that like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justic. It’s true that on Tuesday June thirteenth twenty seventeen the president dictated. A press statement stating. He had quote no intention of firing you correct. But the following days. June fourteenth the media reported for the first time. That you were investigating the president for obstructing justice correct correct. And then after learning for the first time that he was under investigation the very next day [inaudible] Zidane. Who issued a series of tweets acknowledging the existence of the obstruction investigation and criticizing it in that correct Carolyn so? And the end on Saturday June seventeenth two days later. The president called don McGann at home. From camp David on a Saturday. To talk about you it is that correct correct. What was the significant the? What was significant about that first weekend phone call bit don McGann — Took from president trump okay as you to rely on what we wrote about guys and you wrote in your report that on it page eighty five volume to that on Saturday June seventeenth twenty seventeen the president. Column again at home to have the special counsel removed. Now did the president call don McGann more than once that day. And I think it was too close. I’m sorry about that page eighty five of your report you wrote quote. On the first call. McGann recalled that the president said something like quote you got to do this you got to call wrote correct correct. And you investigation and report found that don McGann was put Turkey — To use your words by the president’s request the call rod Rosenstein to fire him is not correct. Well there — Is there was a continuous — At okay I we know it was a continuous involvement. Done again. I need — Responding to the president’s entreaties and he did not want — To put himself in the middle of that. He did not want to have a role in asking the Attorney General to fire the special counsel correct. Well I would again. Refer you to the report and the way it is characterized in the report thank you in volume — To page eighty five it states that he didn’t want to have the Attorney General he didn’t want to have a role in. Trying to fight in the Attorney General so at this point. I with you back. Thank you measurement — Mr Mahler well first let me ask unanimous consent Mister chairman to submit. This article. Robert Muller on mass for the record. That objection [inaudible] Now. Mr Miller who wrote the nine minute comments you read at your may twenty ninth press conference. I’m not getting that. Okay so that’s what I thought you did ride a twenty thirteen puff piece in the Washingtonians calmly said basically when call me call you drop everything you were due and gave examples. You haven’t dinner with your wife and daughter called me called you drop everything and go. The article quoted call me saying of a train we’re coming down the track in a quote at least Bob lower will be standing on the tracks with me. You and James calmly have been good friends a worker in France for a for many years correct our business associates. They does start often justice department. Brands you can work together or not be friends what you were calling were friends we were friends. That’s my question thank you for the answer. Now before you were appointed as special counsel. Can you talk to James calmly in the preceding six months ago. When you were appointed as special counsel — Was presiden. Trump’s firing and call me something you anticipated investigating potentially obstruction and John okay get into. Okay internal the liberation to the justice department actually it goes to your credibility and maybe ran away from court room for a while credibility is always well then it’s always material that goes for you. Too your witness before us let me ask you when you talk to president trump the day before he appointed you. Or you were appointed as special counsel you were talking to him about FBI director position again. Did he mention a ring of James on which but not as a candidate. As as did he mention the firing of James call me in your discussion with him. And I’ll never. Pardon and I remember I don’t believe so okay we don’t remember. But if he did you could win a fact witness as to the president’s comments instead of mine on firing James call me. I suppose as possible yeah so. Most prosecutors want to make sure there’s no appearance of impropriety — But in your case you hired a bunch of people they did not like the president. I don’t mean as you we did you first learn of Peter strokes animus toward. Donald Trump. I had a summer a what a seventeen you didn’t know before he was hired. I I’m sorry. You didn’t know before he was hired for your team — If you know what. Peter strong hated trial. You didn’t know that before he was made part of your team that we did not know that. All right. When did you learn when he did find out I I acting swiftly to have been reassigned elsewhere in the and well there’s some discussion about house with that wise but when did you learn of the ongoing affair he was having with Lisa page? At about the same time I return. At the struck. Did you ever order any body to investigate. The deletion of all of their tax of L. offer their government jobs phones what we found that – I’m Peter struck — Was an author of you ever may I finish order what you not answer my question did you order an investigation and a deletion and reformatting of their government phones. No there was a I G. investigation ongoing. Listed now regarding collusion or conspiracy you didn’t find evidence of any agreement I’m quoting you among the trump campaign officials in any wrestling to individuals who fear with. Our U. S. selection correct correct [inaudible] So. You also noted in the report that an element of any of those obstruction you referenced. Requires a corrupt state of mind correct corrupt intent correct right. Any somebody knows day did not conspire with anybody from Russia to the fact election. And now you see them being justice department with people that hate that person. Comment after him and then a special counsel appointed who hires dozen or more people that hate that person. Any knows he’s innocent. He’s not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done what he is doing is not obstructing justice he is pursuing justice benefactor June ran it out in two years. In just. Take your time is expired the with this man so the question. I take your questions. The gentleman from Florida. I drafter Mahler I’m. Gretchen mol I’d like to give back your findings covering June of twenty seventeen there was a bomb shell article that reported that the president the United States was personally under investigation for obstruction of justice. And you said in the report — On page ninety vying to and I quote news of the obstruction investigation prompted the president to call me again and seek to have the special counsel removed. Close quote and then in your report you wrote about multiple calls from the president to White House counsel done again. And regarding the second call you wrote and I quote. Again recalled that the president was more direct. Saying something like. Col rod tell Robert Muller has conflicts it can’t be special to camp with the special counsel. Began recall the president telling him Mahler has to go and call me back when you do it. Director Mahler didn’t again understand what the president was ordering him to do. I direct you to DO you written in the report in terms of characterizing and his feelings and in the report it says quote McGann understood the president to be saying that the special counsel. Had to be removed he also said on page eighty six that quote. Began consider the president’s request to be an inflection point anyone in the hit the brakes and he felt trapped. And began decided he had to resign. Again took action to prepare to resign is that correct. Hi Maria direct you again to the record and in in fact very day he went to the White House including a report you said quote. He then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter close quote. That is directly from the report it is and before he resigned to however he call the president’s chief of staff Wright’s previou. And call the president’s senior adviser Steve Bannon. Do you recall what again told them. I whatever it is he was it was said it will be a little. It is a it is and it says on page eighty seven called previous for call the McGann 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 a wrong and he was prepared to resign. Over at now these are extraordinarily troubling event. But you found — White House counsel began to be a credible witness isn’t that correct. Director Mauler the most important question I have for you today [inaudible] Is why. Why did the president of the United States one you fired? I can’t answer that question. Well I’m on page eighty nine in your report on volume. Two 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 of 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. Close quote [inaudible] Dr Muller. 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 is that correct — To attend and says in the report yes. I stand by the report. Doctor Miller 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. Reporter you fire. White House counsel knew was wrong the president knew it was wrong in your report says there’s all seventh president we should not of me those calls them again. The president did it anyway. You 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. Rector Mauler you determined. That you were barred. From indicting a sitting president we’ve already talked about that today. That is exactly why is this committee must hold the president accountable I yield back. German yields back the gentle lady from Alabama. Some roller you just said — In response to two different lines of the questions that you would refer. As it relates to this — Firing discussion that I would refer you to the report in the weight was characterized in the report. Importantly the president never said fire Muller. Or in the investigation — Aim one doesn’t necessitate the other and making and in fact did not resign he stuck around for a year and a half. On March twenty fourth Attorney General Barr inform the committee that he had received the special counsel’s from working it was not until April eighteenth. That the Attorney General released a 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 that he would be able to release it to Congress. And the public without delay pursuant to his announcement of his intention to do Sir during his confirmation hearing. Gauging discussion about what happened after the of production of our report had the Attorney General asked you to provide a redacted version of the report. We worked on the reactive versions together he he ask you for a version with the grand jury material was separated okay the details. Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the repor- Could be released to Congress or the public H.. Away then my perfume. You’ll — Rule sixty material why did you not take a similar action so Congress could be this material. So we had a process that we were on operating on with the the an attorney general’s office. Are you aware of any Attorney General going to court to receive similar permission to honor died on sixty material I’m not aware of that being done. The Attorney General released a special counsel for poor with minimal reads redactions to the public in an even lesser redacted version to Congress did you write the report. With the expectation that it would be released publicly. No we do not have an expectation we write the report — Understanding that it was — Demanded by a statues hand would go. To the Attorney General — For further prop have further — Group a review enter sequence you third special counsel regulations him is the only party that must receive the charging decision resulting from the special counsel’s investigation — With regard to the president for a generally. Know generally [inaudible] Attorney General. And international bars in confirmation hearing he made it clear that he intended to release a report to the public do you remember how much of your report had been written at that point — Where there significant changes in town or substance of the report made after the announcement that the report would be made available to Congress and the public? Get into the during the Senate testimony Attorney General William Barr Senate senator Kamali here’s ask Mister bar — If you looked at all the underlying evidence that the special counsel’s teammate gathered he stated that he had not so I’m gonna ask you. Did you personally review all of the underlying evidence gathered in your investigation. Well except that it came through the special counsel’s office ye. Did anything Sam amico member of your team review all the underlying — Evidence gathered during the course of and recited here today substantial amount of work was done with the search warrants or or queen is is there is no one member of the team that looked at everything that’s what I’m trying to get out. It’s fair to say that in an investigation is comprehensive is yours — It’s normal that different members of the team would have review different sets of documents — And few if anyone would have reviewed all of the underlying thank you yes how many of the approximately five hundred interviews conducted by the special conference did you attend personally. Very few. On March twenty seven two thousand and nineteen you read a letter to the Attorney General essentially complaining about the media coverage of your report. You read not quite the summary letter to the department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March. Twenty four did not fully capture the context nature and substance of this office working conclusions we communicated that concern to the department on the morning of March twenty third. There’s now public confusion about critical aspects of the result of our investigation he wreck that March twenty seventh letter. Well. I can’t get into who wrote it the internal delivery that you signed. And what I will say is a letter stand for itself okay why did you write a formal letter sent you had already called the Attorney General to express those concerns can get into the term liberation to did you authorize the letters released to the media. Or was it leaked. Hi other no knowledge on either. Well you a nearly two years without a leak by was this letter in late. Yeah well I I I can’t get into it with this letter written mainly for the express purpose of attempting to change the narrative about the conclusions of your report in which he anything and Attorney General bars letter referred to as principal conclusions. The time of the gentlelady has expired the answer the question please. The question is we may answer the question was anything in Attorney General bars letter referred to as the principal conclusions letter dated March twenty fourth inaccurate. I am not gonna get into that. Time of the gentlelady has expired the gentlelady from California. Thank you Mister chair director Miller as you know we are focusing on five obstruction episodes today. I would like to ask you about the second of those five obstructions episodes it is in the section of your report beginning on page a hundred and thirteen a volume. To entitled quote the president borders McGann to deny that the president tried to fire the special counsel in quote. On January twenty fifth twenty eighteen The New York Times reported that quote the president had ordered began to have the department of justice fire you is that correct. And that’s story related to the events you already testified about here today the president’s calls to me can to have you removed correct. After the news broke did the president go on TV and denied the story. In fact the president said quot. Fake news folks fake news a typical New York times fake story. In quote correct correct. When you’re investigation actually found substantial evidence that began 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. The coverage of this in the report on page a hundred and fourteen of quote on January twenty six twenty eighteen the president’s personal counsel called began to tourney. And said that the president wanted began to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the special counsel in quote. Didn’t can’t do what the president asked. Free to the report. Communicating through his personal attorney can reduce because he said quote that the times story was accurate in reporting that the president wanted. To the special counsel removed isn’t that right. That is what I refer you again to report okay so Mister McAndrew’s personal attorney told the president. That he is was not going to lie is that right. Did the president drop the issu. First to the right of of this in the report. Okay next the president told the White House staff secretary rob Porter to try to pressure we can to make a false the Nile is that correct correct what did he actually direct Porter to do and and I would send you back to the report. Okay one page a hundred and thirteen it says quote the president then directed Porter to tell me again to create a record to make it clear that the president will never directed McCann. To fire you in quote is that correct that is. State stated in the report. And you found quote the president said he wanted me again to write a letter to the file for our records correct. And to be clear the president is asking his White House counsel done we can to create a record. That we can believed to be untrue while you were in the midst of investigating the president for obstruction of justice correct [inaudible] Generally correct. And Mister McCann was an important witness in an investigation wasn’t. I have to say yes. Did the president tell Porter to threaten the can if you didn’t create the written denial. Today are all right above that. In fact didn’t the president saying quote in this is on page a hundred sixteen if he doesn’t write a letter then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him in court. Yes. The Porter deliver that — A again refer you — To and the discussion the town on the a twenty one fifteen okay but the president. Still didn’t give updating. So the president told me again directly to deny that the president told him to have you fired can you tell me exactly what happened. I can’t be on what’s in the report. Well he just hundred and sixteen it says the president met him in the oval office quote. The president began the oval office meeting by telling the can that the New York times story didn’t look good and we can needed to correct. Is that correct. So as it’s written in the report yes. The president asked me again whether he would do a correction and began said no [inaudible] Correct. Well Mister Miller thank you for your investigation on covering this very disturbing evidence my friend Mister 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 apps that are subject of a law enforcement investigation. That person would be facing criminal charges I yield back my time. General radios back the gentleman from Ohio. Directed the FBI interviewed Joseph Smith sued on February tenth. Twenty seventeen in that interview Mr misapplied. You point this out on page one ninety three volume one minutes to denied. Nixon also falsely stated in addition nipped said omitted three times he lied to the FBI yet you didn’t charged with a crime. I’m sorry did you say one ninety three volume one one ninety three he lied three times you play it on the report why did you charged with a crime. I can’t get into — Internal deliberations with regard to water would not be — Charge a lot other people from make apostate let’s remember this let’s remember this. In twenty sixteen the FBI did something they probably haven’t done before. They spied on to American citizens of associated with the presidential campaign. George Stephanopoulos. Carter page. The card pays they went to the FISA court. They use the now famous dot CA is part of the reason they were able to get the warrant smile Carter page for a better part of the year. With Mr Pappa topless. It into the court. They use human sources. All kinds from about the moment. Happened Abu is joins the trump campaign you got all these people all around the world start to swirl around the names like helper. Downer Mrs Thompson meeting in Rome London all kinds of places the FBI even sent. Even sent a lady posing as somebody else win by the name as returned even dispatched her to London. This file Mister Papago office in one of these meetings Mr Babbitt opposite talking to a foreign diplomat. And he tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton. That diplomat and then contacts the FBI. In the FBI opens investigation based on that fact he put this on page one of the report. July thirty first twenty sixteen the Albany investigation based on that piece of information. Tells happened obelisks. Russians have their excuse me capital please tell the diplomat and Russians after on Clinton diplomat tells the FBI. What I wondered is? Who told Davos? How do you find out I can’t get into the evidence? Yes you. You get the answer. Page one ninety two of the report you tell us who told [inaudible] Does this. Joseph medicines a guy who told Papadopoulos the mysterious professor who lives in Rome in London works to teach in two different universities this is the guy who told Papago. Was. He’s the guy who started it all. And when the FBI interviews in. He lives three times and yet you don’t charged with a crime. He charge reggae’s for false statement you charge Paul Manafort for false statements he charge Michael calling with all statement the charge Michael Flynn a three star general with false statements. But the guy who puts the countries to this whole saga starts at all for three years we live this now. He lives. And you guys don’t charge. I’m curious as to why. Well I can’t get into it and and it’s obvious I take it we can’t get in the charging decision. When the FBI interviewed him in February FBI interviews in February? In the special counsel’s office interview nested if you lie you guys still. Can’t get into that did you interview message. Is miss in western intelligence a Russian intelligence can’t get into that. A lot of things you can get into what’s interesting you can charge thirteen Russians. No one’s ever heard of no one’s ever seen no one’s ever going to hear of them no one’s ever going to see him you can charge them. You can charge all kinds of people who around the president with false statements. But the guy who launches every the guy who puts this whole story in motion lies to us and you guys don’t hunting down an interview again. And you don’t charged with a crime. And here’s the good news. Here’s a goodness. The president was falsely accused of conspiracy the FBI does a ten month investigation James Comey we deposed in the year ago told us at that point they had nothing you do a twenty two month investigation DO that twenty two months. You find no conspiracy and what’s the Democrats want to do. I wanna keep investigating. They want to keep gone. 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 go back and actually figure out why Joe’s of Nixon was lying to the FBI and here’s the good news. Here’s the good news that’s exactly what bill Barr is doing. And thank goodness for that that’s exactly what the Attorney General John Deere were doing they’re gonna find out why we went to this. Year’s time. Getting to the bottom of the gentleman has expired. In a moment to we will take a very brief five minute break. First I ask everyone in the room to please remain seated and quiet. While the witness exit exits the room I I don’t know I also want to announce to those in the audience. That you may not be guaranteed your seats if you leave the hearing room at this time. All right folks we have been listening now — For the last ninety minutes here welcome back to news now we’re showing a little bit of coverage there on fox news but this is — Really have been getting intense the last. Thirty minutes of fireworks really — Started to go off their Jim Jordan the representative from Ohio — Wrapping up a right before they went to a small five minute break and then they will be right back to stay right here with us folks on fox ten archer we gonna show. A little bit more — Special fox news special coverage on this. It’s been former senior trump administration official. And we have our geese criminal defense attorney also with us this morning thank you all for being here and if I could — I want to start actually was sorry because there you are the only one who actually brought a copy them all reporter with you. Are you of clearly read it thoroughly I want you to hold it up for the camera. So my real quick that says all of your all of your notation that you have all those posted notes yes — Quick reaction to what we’ve seen so far well I think it’s it extraordinary hearing for one simple reason chairman Jerry Nadler of the house Judiciary Committee either didn’t read the report or he doesn’t understand the law. Because the report is very clear in volume to where we discuss obstruction of justice special counsel Muller said that the president was analyzed under three criteria. Unobstructed act a nexus to a legal proceeding and criminal intent and special counsel Miller repeatedly said and I quote from page seven because that is the exact page. That — And Jerry Nadler leak views he says. The evidence we obtain didn’t not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related toRussian election interference folder right there — Dr grant if you don’t mind — It’s clear that Robert Muller is not going. To deviate from his report and he made that clear before you testified in his opening statement so. Are we learning anything no are the Democrats — Getting anything that they can perhaps potentially use later. It’s been an ongoing investigation well I think Rep Jim Jordan just ripped some of the counter intelligence lit office investigation so we are seeing a few snippets here. I thought the question that came up from Sensenbrenner about did this rise to an impeachable offense was really key and he got Miller to say that really. It hadn’t it hadn’t done that it Muller was weak there but he didn’t come in and say yes it did as with Ken Starr Mauler. Put the question I’d really like to hear answer he said I want to make sure the American people had confidence in that election outcome please someone get that question back in let’s get mall or to answer. Mall or does there is their confidence in the election outcome Max you’re a democratic strategist this is a democratic control committee. They are clearly not happy with the findings of the report they’re digging for more. How are they doing? I think what you see here is a big difference between people asking sort of fact based questions and people who are auditioning to please the president we have what we call words. We had Jim Jordan shouting to they were red in the face and repeating questions that they knew the special counsel couldn’t answer. Hi it’s performance with the Democrats we’ve had within the first ten minutes. Robert Muller again say he did not exonerate the president on obstruction of justice. And that had he been able to continue investigating it. There potentially would have been evidence of that well. The new I want you to weigh in on this as an attorney a criminal defense attorney — After. Nearly three years investigation certainly almost two years with the Robert Muller investigation. They didn’t find any criminal liability or any wrongdoing that they could prove on behalf of the president. So. Your take on that. Well actually that’s not that’s not accurate when I find was that there was a direct they can prove a conspiracy three members of the trump campaign and the Russian government when they did finally did lay out. Which ten acts of obstruction that would have been prosecuted had he not been a sitting president I think people refer after understand how one second they did. They did not establish that the trump campaign conspired with Russia that’s correct that is the finding of the report they’re not even adds value one but on the volume two they did not find out evidence. Section they did not reviving Russian interference a Russian a conspiracy with the Russian campaign. For what he did is wrong with this two parts obviously we all know this the second part willing to the obstruction of by president trump. And the land of ten acts of obstruction and in this case you will they’ve laid it out it’s up to Congress to do what it’s supposed to do. He is the word when he used to term impeachable offense or not. He’s laid out the blueprint for Congress not watching him today you got to understand the kind of person Mahler is he is a lifelong DOJ person. He’s not going to go back and forth and get into arguments when people are yelling at him he just sitting there. Your head — Why that is a totally accurate characterization of volume two which I’ve read that nineteen time and also? Acts of obstruction specifically as it relates to don McGann the evidence that Robert Muller presents is that don McGann said that he leads to The New York Times that the president said. That he should quote unquote fire Muller there is no additional evidence and Robert Muller specifically says in that exact same analysis with there was obstruction of justice. The president told the truth when he said he did not instruct began so it’s very clear that the Democratic Party has created a narrative that is not based upon reading the full tax and understanding. The full text of both volumes it is. Is actually very clear of the actually hit out by the president. I read telling sessions on recuse himself firing comi these are pretty brazen bold acts well and and you know when you look at this it’s up to Congress this is all all of this is a show this a political right I’m a I’m a legal commentator I’m a forme. Prosecutor I’m tell you there is evidence question what the Democrats want to do is that they have the majority they can begin impeachment hearings if but they’re sitting back if you want to score points if there were enough evidence. To indict president for to say that he could be in that everyone president. I think Miller made it clear document that he he would have done that. Or my wrong on that point you’re right Mauler made it 1100% clear can you really look at mall or this tremendous American and sa. That if he thought it was best for America to indict the president that he would not already have done so it’s clear from reading the mall report that that no prosecutor wants to take for in the evidence that they turned up it was way. Too squishy was the president upset you bet he was did he rant and rave clearly he did did this rise to real obstruction No Way. To his actual words he cannot he could not indict the president he can’t even charge him because that would be he couldn’t because he can’t say. That he’s guilty because I wouldn’t be fair because he wouldn’t have a criminal child to clear his name so I don’t leave out here are. You having. Guilty all right but in his own report. Muller found that the trump campaign did not collude. Or conspire with Russia that’s what. Report are you. One by AM to didn’t have a a conclusion and and we heard one of the lawmakers repent of that like that’s not his job to come up with no conclusion come up with the conclusion is the special counsel he’s got a special investigation and anyone on for two years. If you had a conclusion we we probably to reach conclusions. He laid it out and he told me he laid out for Congress up to Congress the Democrats control of the house her house of of the they control the house that you can do what they want they have enough when they want to do it that’s a political question. Let’s get Max a little more tim- Robert Muller to veteran. Of Capitol Hill he’s an attorney the very familiar with these kinds of hearings. He’s been in plenty of them he knows how to handle it he was a reluctant witness he didn’t want to come here and do this in fact he had to be subpoenaed. To testify before these two house committees. Why was he so reluctant to testify and why is he why did he seek out is K. his camp according to the day G. sought out that letter? Making sure that he didn’t deviate from the report I think you see the difference and that Robert Muller Texas John as special prosecutor very seriously he didn’t want to come out and potentially. Misspeak warmest contextualize information that published we’ve seen him repeatedly referring fact his notes it’s made for a little bit of a slow hearing but at least it’s factually accurat. And to the point on obstruction the president. Ought cannot legally be charged. Probably made that very clear okay. On what is 1-50 seven come up with a conclusion now he’s legally barred from making the conclusion I’m not says right on page. One fifty seven I’m attorney well I think whether you’re an attorney or non attorney you read the report you understand what Robert Muller is saying both in written tax as well as verbally. And it’s very clear that he chose to not make a prosecutorial decision that was his opinion. It was not a requirement by the oil seizures. Guidelines doctor Naji guidelines I’m sorry — Jerry Nadler has just re entered the hearing room — Chairman of the house Judiciary Committee — Well he’s — Isn’t discussion still so — It are you surprised Jerry add — The way that mother has handled these questions he doesn’t seem all that familiar with the material I’m terribly shocked as you noted as everybody has noted this man was director of the FBI he graduated from prestigious law school he fought in Vietnam. He was head of the FBI the week before nine eleven so every time Congress had a hearing about the lack of follow through an evidence. Muller testified he was the head of the FBI when it we decided the patriarch was a legal and yet look at his body language he is so uncomfortable he does not want to be there. And I think if I was smaller I would it super frustrated really with their go back to the here. Our folks coming up on round to here in just a moment they took a little five minute break you’re taking a a live look inside the house. Judiciary Committee as Congress men and women getting ready and let’s listen to fox news once again Air France. And that. The Attorney General William Barr is going to open his own investigation. Into what sparked this inquiry. And questions about the person who gave the original information — To George Papadopoulos. That he lied. And wasn’t prosecuted on on those lives by the mall or if we already know that this all starts against the backdrop of a huge counter intelligence out for the FBI and who knows who else are watching the Russians watch the trump campaign they pick up sound. They come out in twenty sixteen and say that the Russians have been into the DNC the RNC and fifteen hundred other individuals believe me. There watching this and this is where this come from those wife Muller was so uncomfortable with them as soon line of questioning this is counter Intel what it has to go on this is the origin bars going to tell us more about it I hope. Robert Muller will be sworn in or resume his seat there and other questions and statements will continue the gentleman from Louisiana Mister Richmond. Thank you Mister chairman [inaudible] Mr Miller. Congressman Dutch address trump’s request. On to McGann on to fire you. Represent a bass talked about the president’s request of McGann to deny. The fact that the president made that request I want to pick up. Where they left off and I want to pick up with? The president is our personal lawyer. In fact. There was evidence that the president’s personal lawyer was alarmed at the prospect of the president meeting with Mister McGann. To discuss. Mister McGann Smurf use of to deny the New York times report. About the president trying to fire you correct correct [inaudible] In fact. The president’s counsel was so alone — By the prospect of the president’s meeting with McGann that he call Mr McCann’s council in said. That McGann could not resign no matter what happens in the oval office that day correct correct. So it’s accurate to say that the president knew that he was asking McGann to deny facts that McGann quote. Had repeatedly said more accurate — Quote 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 McGann did not think the story was false. Two did not want to issue a statement or create a written record deny and facts that McGann believed to be true. The president nevertheless persisted an axe McGann to repudiate backstep McGann have repeatedly said. Were accurate isn’t that correct generally. To believe that’s on page one nineteen thank you. In other words the present was trying to force him again to say something that McGann did not believe to be true [inaudible] Attacker [inaudible] I wanna. Our reference you to slide in its own page. One twenty and it says [inaudible] Substantial evidence. Indicates that and repeatedly urging McGann to dispute that he was ordered to have the special counsel terminated. The president acted for the purpose of influencing the gains account. In order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the president’s conduct towards the investigation. Can you explain what you meant there. I just got a believe it and as it appears in the report. So it’s rare to see the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation. I would say that said I generally is summary. Would you say that [inaudible] That action. The president tried to hamper the investigation by asking staff to falsify records relevant to your best. For refer you to the report of a third — For review that — In that episode thank you. Also the presence attempt to get McGann to create a false written record were related to Mister trump’s concerns about your obstruction of justice and Cory correct. Believe that to be true. In fact at that same oval office meeting did the president also eggs him again why he told quote why he had — To special counsel’s office investigators that the president told him to have you removed on quote. And what was question Sir highlight. Let me go to the next. One the president quote criticize McGann for telling your office about the June seventeenth twenty seventeen events. When he told me again to have you removed correct correct? In other words. The present was criticizing his White House counsel. For telling law enforcement officials what he believed to be the truth. Hi I am again go back to the text of the of the report. Well let me go a little bit further. Would it have been a crime if Mr McGann had lied to you about the president. Ordering him to fire you I don’t want to speculate. Okay is it true that you charge multiple people associated with the president or lying to you during your investigation that is accurate. The president also complained. That is staffer taking notes. During the meeting about. Our farm again is that correct. That’s what the report says. Whether any of the report. But in fact this completely appropriate for the president’s staff especially his counsels to take notes during a meeting correct. Well I I would rely on the the wording of the report. Thank you director my love we investigation into whether the president tempted to obstruct justice by water in his White House counsel dom again to live to protect the president. And then to create a false record about it. It is clear that any other person who engaged in such conduct would be charged with a crime we will continue our investigation we will hold the president accountable. Because no one is above the law. The gentleman from Florida. Roger Moeller can you state with confidence that the steel dossier was not part of Russia’s disinformation campaign. Died Friday Saturday — My opening statement I’ve the that- Part of the building of the case will pre dated may and by lease ten months I’m Paul Manafort words alleged. Crimes regarding tax evasion predated you yet no problem charging them and matter of fact it’s it’s our it’s this steel dossier predated the Attorney General and he didn’t have any problem answering the question when senator Cornyn. Asked the Attorney General the exact question I asked you director the Attorney General said and I’m quoting no. I can’t say that with confidence and that’s one of the areas I’m reviewing I’m concerned about it and I don’t think it’s entirely speculative now something is not entirely speculative but it must have some factual basis but you identified. No factual basis regarding the dossier or the possibility it was part of the Russian disinformation campaign now Christopher steals reporting is referenced in your report. Steel reported to the FBI that senior Russian. Foreign ministry figures among with other along with other Russians told him that there was and I’m quoting from the steel dossier. Extensive evidence of conspiracy between the trump campaign team and the crime one so here’s my question. Did Russians really tell that’s a Christopher steel or did you just make it all up and was he lying to the FBI let me back up a second if I could say is — Said earlier. With regard to the the steel — That — That’s beyond my purvie. No it is exactly your purview director Muller in here’s why only one of two things is possible right either steel made this whole thing up and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn’t find. War Russian slide to steal now Russians were lying to steal to undermine our confidence in our newly elected president that would seem to be recisely your purview because you stayed in your opening that the organizing principle. Was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russia’s interference but you weren’t interested in whether not Russians were interfering through Christopher steel in of steel was lying. Then you should charged with lying like to charge of right of on the other people but you say nothing about this in your report well Sir meanwhile director your point loquacious on other topics. You right thirty five hundred words about the June nine meeting between the trump campaign and Russian lawyer desolate sky you right on page one hundred and three of your report. That the president’s legal team suggested and I’m quoting from your report that the meeting might have been a set up. By individuals working with the firm that produced the still reporting so I’m going to ask you a very easy question director Miller. On the week of June nine who did Russian lawyer vessel it’s gotta meet with more frequently the trump campaign for Glenn Simpson who is functionally opting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee. Well what I think is missing here is the fact that — This is under investigation others and elsewhere in the justice. If I can finish Sir. And if I could finish her. And consequently it’s not within my purview. Former of justice and FBI should be responsive to questions on this particular issue is absurd to suggest that. A operative for the Democrats was meeting with this Russian lawyer the day before the day after the trump tower meeting and yet that’s not something you reference are going Simpson testified under oath. He had dinner with vessel it’s guy — The day before and the day after this meeting with the trump team do you have any basis as you sit here today to believe that steals line. As I said before a say again it’s not my purview others are investigating what you. So what. Do you to look into whether not steals line it’s not your purview to look into whether or not anti trump Russians or wine to steal and it’s not your pretty to look at whether not Glenn Simpson was mean with the Russians the day before the day after you right. Thirty five hundred words about the trup campaign meeting some wondering. What how the hell these decisions are guided I look at the inspector general’s report I’m starting from page four of four of the inspector general’s report it states page stated trump’s not ever going to be president right? Right struck replied no he’s not will stop. Also in the inspector general’s report there’s someone identified as Attorney number. Two Attorney number two this is page four nineteen replied hell no and then added viva la resistance Attorney number two in the inspector general’s report instruct both worked on your team today. Or make any as they both worked on your team to me — I have I heard struck who else we do enough attorney number two identified in the inspector general’s report. Okay. And the question was do you work for you the guy who said V. Valerie or appears struck for the word for me for a period of time yes. Yeah but so did the other goddess of evil resistance and here’s on Khan noticing director Miller when people associated with trump why’d you threw the book at him when Christopher steel wide. Nothing and so it seems to be that when Glenn Simpson met with the Russians nothing when the trump campaign met with Russians thirty five hundred words in may be the reason why they’re this discrepancies in what you focused on the gentleman is. Fired pledged. Trees of of New York is recognized. The mall of Georgia justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of an investigative effort to find the truth correc. The crime of junction of justice has three elements true true. The first element is an obstructive act correct correct. In obstructive act could include taking an action that would delay or interfere with an ongoing investigation as set forth in. Volume two page eighty seven eighty eight of your report tru. I’m sorry could you again — Repeat the question in obstructive act could include taking an action that would delay or interfere with an ongoing investigation that’s true. Your investigation found evidence that president trump took steps to terminate the special counsel correct [inaudible] Correct. I miss the molar does bordering the termination of the head of a criminal investigation constitute in obstructive act. I that would be — Free to the report let me refer you to page eighty seven and eighty eight a volume. To where you conclude the attempt to remove the special counsel would qualify as an obstructive act. If it would naturally obstruct the investigation at any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the and Cory correct yes I’ve got that now thank you. Thank you the second element of obstruction of justice is the presence of an obstructive back in connection with an official proceeding true. The special counsel’s criminal investigation into the potential wrongdoing of Donald Trump constitute an official proceeding. And that — An area which I cannot get into. Okay president trump tweeted. On June sixteenth. Twenty seventeen hello I am being investigated for firing the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director witch hunt. The June sixteenth we just read was cited on page eighty nine and volume. To constitute a public acknowledgement by president trump. That he was under criminal investigation correct — I I think generally correct. One day later on Saturday June seventeenth president trump cold White House counsel don McGann at home and directed him to fir. The special counsel true — I believe to be true I think we’ve been I may have stated in response to questions some that is correct. A president trump told don McGann quote Muller has to go. Close quote correct [inaudible] Correct. Your report found on page eighty nine and volume to that substantial evidence in the case that by June seventeenth the president knew his conduct was under investigation by federal prosecutor. Who could present any evidence of federal crimes the grand jury true? The third element. Second element having just been satisfied. The third element of the crime of obstruction of justice is corrupt intent true. True. Content exist that the president acted to obstruct an official proceeding. For the improper purpose of protecting his own interests correct [inaudible] Necessarily correct. Thank you know what I mean the only thing I would say is we are going through the three elements of of the proof of the I’m stretching just. A charges. Well the the fact the matter is- We got a lot. We just one second thank you miss Monique blue move on an interest of time upon learning about the appointment of a special counsel. Your investigation about a down from stated to then Attorney General quote all my god this is terrible this is the end of my presidency — Aft is that correct correct. Is it fair to say that down from due to special counsel investigation into his conduct and adverse to his own interest. I think it generally is true. The investigation found evidence quote. That the president knew that he should not have directed down again to fight a special counsel correct. And where do you have that quot. Page ninety volume. Two there is evidencethat the president knew he should not have made those calls them again close quote I see that yes that actor. The investigation also found substantial evidence that president trump repeatedly urged began to dispute that he was ordered to have the special counsel terminated correct. Correct. Investigation found substantial evidence that when the president ordered don began to fire at the special counsel and then lie about it. Donald Trump one committed in obstructive back to connected to an official 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 othe. We just say I if I might I I don’t subscribe necessarily to your I under the way you analyze that I’m not saying it down the ballpark but I’m not supportive of that analytical charge. Thank you — Thank you Mister chairman. This small over here hi. I want to start by thanking you for your service you join the marines and and let a rifle platoon in Vietnam. Where you earn the bronze star Purple Heart and other commendations you served as an assistant I say to turning leading the homicide unit here in DC U. S. attorney for the district of Massachusetts and later Northern? District of California assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s criminal division. And the FBI director so thank you I appreciate that. Having reviewed your biography it puzzles me why you handle 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 that every defendant is treated fairly or is just a Sutherland said in the murder case a prosecutor is not the representative of an ordinary party to controversy. But of US sovereignty. Who’s interested a criminal prosecutions not that show when a case but the justice shall be done and that the prosecutor may strike hard blows but he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. By listing the ten factual situations and not reaching a conclusion about the merits of the case you unfairly shifted the burden of proof to the president. Forcing him to prove his innocence while denying him a legal form to do so and I’ve never heard of a prosecutor declining a case. And then holding a press conference to talk about the defendant. You noted eight times in your report that you had a legal duty under the regulations to either prosecute or decline charges. Despite this you disregarded that duty. As a former prosecutor I’m also troubled with your legal analysis you discussed ten separate factual it patterns involving alleged obstruction and then you failed to separately apply the elements. Of the applicables statutes. I looked at the the the ten factual situations I read the case law. And I have to tell you just looking at the flint matter for example — The the the for statues that you cited for a possible obstruction. Fifteen oh three fifteen oh five fifteen twelve be three in fifteen twelve see — To when I look at those concerning the plan matte- You fifteen or three is an apple go because it wasn’t a grand jury or trial jury impaneled. And director call me was not an officer of the court as defined by the statute. Six section fifteen oh five criminalizes acts that would obstruct or impede administrative proceedings as and those before Congress and ministry of agency- The department of justice criminal resource manual states of the FBI investigation is not a pending proceeding. Fifteen twelve be three talks about — Intimidation threats of force — To tamper with the witness general Flynn at the time was not a witness and and certainly director call me was not a witness. And fifteen twelve see to talks about — Tampering with the record of an as Joe Biden describe the statute as being big debate on the Senate floor – He call this AT — Statute criminalizing document shredding and there’s nothing in the in your report that alleges that the president — Destroyed any to any evidence. So what I have to ask you in a one eight I think people are working around in this hearing is — Is. I mean a little foundation for the ethical rules require the prosecutor have a reasonable probability of of conviction to bring a charge is that correct. Tell generally accurate. Okay. And the regulations — Concerning your your job as special counsel state that your job is to provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reach by your office. You recommended declining prosecution of president trump and anyone associated with his campaign because there was insufficient evidence to convict for a charge of conspiracy with Russian interference in the two thousand sixteen election is that fair. Was there a sufficient evidence to convict president trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice we did not make that calculation. How could you not of me the calculate regulate well see opinion we’ll see opinion office saloon council? Indicates that we cannot in data city presents are one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there. Okay. Let me just stop you made the decision on the Russian interference. You knew you couldn’t of indicted the president on that and you made the decision on that. But when it came to obstruction you through a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick. And that is what I would not — Characterization at all what we did is we provide to the Attorney General in the form of a confidential memorandum. Our understanding of the case and those cases that were brought those cases were declined. And the that one case. Where — The president cannot be charged with a crime. Okay but the could you charge the president with a prime after he left office yes. You believe that he committed you could charge the present nine states with obstruction of justice after left office yes. At the great under the ethical standards well I’m I’m glad I’m not sure exactly what with the ideal standards but we’ll see if in the opinion says that. The prosecutor why cannot bring a charge against a sitting president nonetheless again to continue the investigation to see if there any other — Person to have might be drawn into the considers the time of the gentleman has expired the gentleman from Rhode Island. Director. Direct as you know we are specifically focusing on five separate obstruction episodes here today I’d like to ask you about the third episode it’s a section of your report entitled. The president’s efforts to curtail the special counsel investigation beginning at page ninety by cartel you mean limit correct. My colleagues of walk throughout the president tried to have you fire to the White House counsel. Because Mister McGann refuse the order the president asked others to help limit your investigation is that correct correct and was Corey Lewandowski one such individual. As I get a can you remind me. What? Really does he’s the president’s former campaign manager correct. Do you have any official position the trump administration. I don’t believe so your report describes an incident in the oval office involving Mr windows he on June nineteenth two thousand and seventeen volume two page ninety one is that correct I’m sorry what two citations are. Page. Ninety one of the second volume yes. In a meeting in the oval office between those two and ask in the president okay. And I was just two days after the president called don began at home and ordered him to fire you is that correct. Early so so right after his White House counsel Mister McGee and refused to follow the president’s order to fire you the president came up with a new plan. Now is to go around all the senior advisers and government aides to have a private citizen try to limit your investigation what did the president tell Mr Lewandowski to do. You recall he told him he dictate a message to his own asking for trade general sessions that asked him to write it down is that correct. And your did you and your team see this hand written message [inaudible] Of I’m not to get into what we may or may not have — Included in our investigative message directed sessions to give and and I’m quoting from your report to give a public speech. Saying that he planned to me with a special prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the special prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections that’s a page ninety one is that correct yes I see that thank you yes it is. In other words Mr Lewandowski a private citizen was instructed by the president of the United States to deliver a message from the president. To the Attorney General that directed him to limit your investigation correc. At this time is to sessions was still were cues from oversight of your investigation correct. I’m sorry could you researcher journalists were cues from over. The Attorney General would have had to violate his own department’s rules in order to comply with the president’s order correct. Well I’m okay get into — The subsidiary details I just for for you again to page ninety one ninety two of the report and give the Attorney General had followed through with the president’s press Mr Malek. It would have effectively ended your investigation into the president and his campaign as you note on page ninety seven correct. Thank you. The day Johnny seven you right I quote taken together the president’s directive indicate that sessions was being instructed. To tell the special counsel to end the existing investigation into the president and his campaign with the special counsel being permitted to move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections. Is that correct very true yes Sir and it’s an unsuccessful attempt to obstruct justice is still a crime is that correct. That is correct and Mr Lewandowski I tried to meet with the Attorney General is that right. Any tried P. me with them in his office so he would be sure certain it wasn’t a public log of the visit according to what we gather for the report and the meeting never happened and the president raise the issue again with Mr windows key and this time he said. And I quote if sessions does not meet with you moon doubts you should tell sessions he was fired. Correct correct so immediately following the meeting with the president Lou windows key then ask Mister Dearborn to deliver the message who’s the a former at the trick. Is chief of staff to Mr sessions a misty Dearborn refuses deliver it. Because he doesn’t feel comfortable is not correct. Correct yes so just so we’re clear Mr mark two days after the White House counsel dom again refused to carry out the president’s order to fire you. The president directed a private citizen to tell the Attorney General of the United States who was accused at the time. To limit your investigation to future elections effectively ending your investigation into the two thousand sixteen trump campaign is that correct. Okay doctor characterization of saying that the fax is laid out in the report are accurate. But missile in your report you in fact right at page. Ninety nine ninety seven substantial evidence indicates that the president ever to have sessions limit the scope of the special counsel’s investigation to future elections interference was intended to prevent. Further investigative scrutiny of the president and his campaign conduct is that correct generally. And so missed more you have seen the letter F. thousand former Republican and democratic federal prosecutors have just read your report said. Anyone but the president committed those acts would be charged with obstruction of justice do you agree with those former colleagues a thousand prosecutors came to that conclusion [inaudible] Those [inaudible] Secure. Thank you chairman. Over here thank Mister Mister Miller — You guys your team wrote in the report quote on is the top of page two volume one also on page one seventy three by the way. You said that you’d come to the conclusion that quote the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired to coordinate with the Russian government and its selection interference activities close quote. That’s accurate statement right that’s accurate and I’m curious win did you personally come to that conclusion. Can you remind me. Which car record bring to help teach two on two volume. One okay. Of ahead. Exactly which program for you looking at on to best to get you did not establish. Of course I said yes. What was your question my question now is when did you personally reach that conclusio? Well a we were high on going for two years — Right you are on going the road is some point during that two year period but at some point you had come to conclusion. That — That I don’t think there’s a couple that there’s not a conspiracy going on here there was no conspiracy between this president — And not talk about the rest of the president’s team time at this president and the Russians. I as you understand. Any in developing a criminal case — You get piece of information piece of information witnesses. And the like. And as you make your case right and when you make a decision on a particular case depends on a number of factors. Right I’m going to say it specifically. That we reach a decision on a particular defendant — At a particular point time but it was sometime well before you wrote the report fair enough I mean you wrote the report daling with a whole myriad of issues certainly is sometime part of that report. Is when you reach the decision that okay with that with regard to the president himself I don’t find anything here. Or not well well well I’m not sure and I do agree with that. The way to the last man when you racks the rain points out okay we’ll know whether there are various. Aspects of the development of a a a and and and that’s my point there are various aspects that it can happen but somewhere along the pike. You will come to the conclusion. There’s not there’s no there there for this defendant. And all right so okay I catch me you can’t you can’t say when fair enough. Absolutely so no I’m not no I’m done. I’m asking the the sworn witnes. Mister Mister Miller evidence suggests that on may tenth twenty seventeen approximately seven forty five AM six days before the dag stepping Attorney General pointed you special counsel. Mr Rosenstein collagen mentioned the point of a special counsel not not necessarily that you’ll be appointed but that you had a discussion of that is that is that true — May tenth — Twenty seven five I don’t have a no I don’t have a knowledge of that occurring. You don’t have any knowledge you don’t recall. I don’t have any knowledge. The evidence also just given that orders radio are you questioning that. You will like I just find it intriguing let me just tell you that there is evidence that suggested that phone call took place in the does what was said. To the next question evidence suggests that also may twelfth twenty seventeen five days before the dagger point you special counsel. You met with Mr Rosenstein in person did you discuss deployment of special counsel then not initially you but that there would be a special counsel highlight gonna waters at I don’t allow me to give you the answer to that — Particular question relates to the internal discussions he would have in terms of indicting an individual business news indictment has to do with special counsel and whether you discussed with Mr Rosenstein. Evidence also suggests on may thirteenth four days before your point special counsel. He met with Attorney former Attorney General sessions and rose are saying and you spoke. About the special counsel do you remember that. Our panel. Okay and on may sixteenth the day before your point special counsel — You met with the president and rob Rosenstein do you remember having that meeting yes. And discussion of the position of FBI director took place do you remember that. Yes. And did you discuss serving time in that meeting — Mister Cummings termination [inaudible] Tell. Did you discuss any time that meeting — The potential appointment of a special counsel not to show you but it just. In general terms I can’t get in the discussions on that. How many times did you speak to Mr rose by before may seventeenth was the day you got appointed — Regarding appointed a special counsel how may times prior to that did you did you discuss I am I thought. You said because you don’t recall or you are you are you just I I do not recall okay. Thank you — How many times did you speak with Mr call me about any investigations pertaining dresser prior to me seventeen twenty seventeen did you have it all? Zero zero okay [inaudible] Now. The times. My time is expired so. Now I’m a gentleman is expired the gentleman from California. Director Miller going back to the president’s obstruction via Corey Lewandowski it was reference that. Thousand former prosecutors who served under Republican and democratic administrations with twelve thousand years a federal servic. Wrote a letter regarding the president’s conduct are you familiar with that letter. I’ve read about that letter yes in some of the individuals who signed that letter the statement a former prosecutors are people you work with is that right. I probably as people that you respect I probably yes. And in that letter they said all of this conduct trying to control an empty the investigation against the president by leveraging his authority over others. Is similar to conduct we’ve 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 mon. A very different case. Our director more thank you for your service going all the way back to the sixties when you courageously served in Vietnam because I have a seat on the intelligence committee all have questions later. Because our limited time I last to enter this letter into — The record under unanimous consent that the jokes my colleague from California Mister live. Thank you director mall or for your long history service to our country. Including your server is a marine corps you earn a bronze star with V. device like to now turn. To the elements of obstruction of justice as applied to the president’s attempts to curtail your investigation. The first element of obstruction of justice requires an obstructive asked correct correct they like to direct you to page ninety seven of volume two of your report. And you were out there on page ninety seven quote. Sessions was being instructed to tell the special counsel to end this thing investigation into the president and his campaign on quote. That’s in the report correct correct. That would be evidence of an obstructive act because they wouldn’t actually obstruct their investigation correct. Correct okay let’s turn now to the second element of the crime of social justice which requires a nexus to official proceeding. Again I went directly to page ninety seven the same page of volume. Two and you wrote quote. By the time the president’s initial one on one meeting with the windows gun June nineteenth. Twenty seventeen existence of a grand jury investigation supervised the special counsel was public knowledge that’s in the report correct correct. That would constitute evidence of a nexus to official proceeding because a grand jury investigation is an official proceeding correct well AS. Okay like to now turn to find a element of the crime of obstruction of justice. On that same page page ninety seven do you see were there is the intense section on that pag. So I do see on would you be willing to read the first sentence. And that was starting with substantial evidence. Indicates that the president if you read the first sentence would you be willing to that I’m happy to have you read okay our readers. You wrote quote substantial evidence. Indicates that the president’s effort to have sessions limit the scope of the special counsel’s investigation the future election appearance was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny. Of the president’s and his campaign’s conduct. On quote that’s in the report correct that is in the report I rely what’s in the report — To indicate — What’s happened in – The paragraph so we’ve been discussing thank you so to recap what we’ve hearda we have heard today. That the president ordered. Former White House counsel dom again to fire you. Present border down again didn’t cover that up and create a false paper trail and now we’ve heard the president ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff sessions to limit your investigation. That he you stop investigating the president. I believe result person looking at these facts. A could conclude that all three elements of the crime of a social justice have been that. And I like to ask you the reason again that you did not. Indicts Donald Trump is because of LC opinion stating that you can on a tight a sitting president correct. That is correct. The fact that. Your orders by the present were not carried out that is not a defense to of social justice because the statute itself was quite brought it says that. As always you endeavor or attempt to obstruct justice that would also constitute a crime. I get into that at this juncture okay thank you. And based on the evidence that we have heard today. I believe result person could conclude that at least three crimes of such and just as by the present. Occurred we’re gonna hear about judicial crimes and that will be the when is hampering of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort. The only thing I want to add is that I’m going through the elements with you do not mean. A does not mean that I subscrib- To the what you’re trying to prove through those elements the time of the gentleman has expired the gentlelady from — Arizona I’m sorry gentleman from California. Thank you Mister chairman no longer over here — Thanks for joining us today A you had three discussions with rob Rosenstein about your appointment as special counsel may tenth may twelfth in may thirteenth correct. If you say so I have no reason is to deceive data then you met with the president on the sixteenth with rob Rosenstein present. And then on the seventeenth your formally appointed a special counsel. We meeting with the president on the sixteenth with knowledge you are under consideration for appointment special counsel. I do not believe I was under consideration — For council — The I had served two terms. As FBI. The answer’s no and there’s no Grainger and describes your office as the team of participants — And is additional information is coming to light there’s a growing concern that political bias caused important facts to be omitted from your report in order to cast the president unfairly in a negative light for example. A John down the president’s lawyer leaves a message with Michael Flynn’s lawyer on November seventeenth twenty seventeen November. Twenty seventeen the edited version in your report makes it appear that he was improperly asking for confidential information and that’s all we know. From your report except that the judge in the plan case order the entire transcript released in which doubt makes it crystal clear that’s not what he was suggesting. So my question is what do you edit the transcript the hard the exculpatory part of the message. Turnover degree — With your characterization as a we did anything to hide. We will mail you minute you you called to the bar we says when you some kind of heads up just for the sake protecting all of our interests if we can but you will needed. For sure says without giving up any confidential information. Well I’m not gonna go further in terms of discussing the extensively discussed Constantine clinics activities with Paul mana for you describe is quote. A Russian Ukrainian political consultant in a long time employee of Paul Manafort assessed by the FBI to have ties to Russian intelligence. Again that’s all we know from your report except we’ve since learned from news articles that clinic was actually a U. S. state department intelligence source you know where in your report to see so identified. Why was that factor I don’t necessarily credit — What you’re saying occurred? Were you aware that clinic was saw. Unless you go in the ins and outs of what we had the core. Of course you. Austen Jane clinic or did you interview Constantine clinic I can’t go into the discussion of are behind us you to moves. And yet that is the the the the the basis of your report again the problem we’re having. Is we have to rely on your report for an accurate reflection of the evidence and we’re trying to find out that’s that’s not. True for example you you view your report famously links Russian international’s forms with the Russian government. Airing on may twenty eighth in the Concord management irate prosecution that you initiated. The judge excoriated both you and Mr bar for producing no evidence to support this claim. What do you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms one in court you’ve been unable to produce any evidence to support? Well I am not to get it at a for the night and then I already have. But you left the clear impression throughout the country through your report of the dog it was the Russian government behind the troll farms and yet when you’re called upon to provide actual evidence in court. You fail to do so well I will again. Dispute your characterization of what occurred in that in that proceeding in in in fact the judge considering considered holding prosecutors and criminal contempt she backed off only after hastily called press conference the next day in which you retroactively. Made the distinction between the Russian government and the Russia troll farms. Did your press conference may twenty ninth have anything to do stay for publicly misrepresenting the evidence. And what was the question. Is do the question is did your may twenty ninth press conference have anything to do with the fact that the previous day the judge. Threatened to hold your prosecutors in contempt for misrepresenting evidence though [inaudible] Now the the fundamental problem it is as I said we’re going to take your word your chain faithfully. Accurately impartially and completely described all of the underlying evidence in the mall report. And we’re finding more more instances where this just isn’t the case. And it’s starting to look like you’re having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the president. You made a political case instead you put in a paper sack lit it on fire drop it on our porch rang the doorbell and ran. I don’t think he will — Reviewed a report that is as thorough as fair. As consistent as a report that we have in front of us didn’t why is country. The gentleman is expired I mean from Maryland is recognized. Doctor Miller let’s go to a fourth episode of obstruction of justice in the form of a witness tampering. Which is urging witnesses not to cooperate with law enforcement either by persuading them were intimidating them. When is tempering the felony punishable by twenty years in prison? You found evidence that the president engaged in efforts and I quote to encourage witnesses not to cooperate. With the investigation is that right that’s correct the other citation that I’m page seven I’m going. To thank you. One of these witnesses was Michael calling the president’s personal lawyer who openly pled guilty to campaign violations. Based on secret hush money payments to decided to women the president knew and also to line Congress lying to Congress about the hope for one billion dollar trump tower deal. After the FBI searched Cohns home the president called my personally he said to check in in total in the quote hang in there. And stay strong is that right remember finding that if it’s in the report as as stated yes it is right yes also in the report actually our series of calls made by other friends of the president — One reached out to say he was with the Boston Mar a Lago and the president said he loves you his name is redacted another redacted friend called to say. The boss of loves you in a third productive friend called to say everyone knows the boss has your back. Remember finding that sequence of generally as when the news — In in in fact Colin said that following the receipt of these messages I’m quoting here — Page one forty seven point two he believed he had the support of the White House if he continued to toe the party line. And he determined to stay on message and be part of the team. That’s it page one forty seven you member generally finding at all yes [inaudible] Well — And Robert. Still a lawyer close to the presence legal team — Email going to say quote you are love. They are in our corner sleep well tonight. And you have friends in high places and that’s up on the screen page one forty seven you remember. Reading that okay now when the news first broke that Colin had arranged pay off to stormy Daniels — Common faithfully stock to this party line he said this publicly that neither the trump organization nor the trump campaign was a party to the transaction and neither reimbursed. Trump’s personal attorney at that point quickly — Text the Coen to say quote. Client says thank you for what you do — Mister Miller who is the capital city client thanking calling for what he does catching to the our okay the assumption the context. Suggest very strongly as president trump I can’t speak to that okay. Colin later broke in played guilty to campaign finance offenses in admitted fully they were made quote. Out the direction of candidate trump. Remember that yes. After Cohns guilty plea the president suddenly changed his tune towards Mr Cohen didn’t. I would say — I rely on what’s in the report when he made the suggestion that cone family members had committed crimes he targeted for example Cohen’s father in law and repeatedly suggested that he was guilty of committing crimes right. I generally accurate okay. On page one fifty four you give a powerful summary of these changing dynamics and you said I’m happy to have you read about happy to do it if not of in front of me thank you. Would you like to read it I would. Can you read it out loud to everybody. I would be happy to have you read up to fury over the movie at the same time the evidence concerning this sequence of events could supporting inference that the president used. Inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get co and not to cooperate and then turned to attacks and intimidation to determine the provision of information or to undermine Cohns credibility. Once co and began cooperating I believe that’s accurate okay and the in my view if anyone else in America engage in these actions they would have been charged with witness tampering we must enforce the principal in Congress. Did you emphasize so well in the very last sense of your report which is that in America no person is so high as to be above the law you’ll back Mister German. Thank you Mister chairman — Just recently Mr Miller you said that — To Mr Lou was asking you questions and Mister Lewis question I I quoted the reason you didn’t indict the president is because of the well see opinion. And you answered that is correc. But that is not what you said in the report and it’s not what you told Attorney General Barr and in fact in a joint statement that you released with the O. J. On may twenty nine after press conference you’re offered your office issued a joint statement with the department of justice that sad. The Attorney General has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that but for the I’ll see opinion he would have found the president obstructed justice. This special counsel his report in his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other whether the president committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements so Mr Miller do you stand by your joint statement with DOJ that you issued on may twenty ninth as you sit here today. I would have to look at it more closely before I went and said – I agree with. Well — At is so. The you know my conclusion is that what you told Mr Lou really contradicts what you said in the report and specifically what you said. Apparently repeatedly to Attorney General Barr that and then you issued a joint statement on may twenty ninth saying. That the Attorney General as previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying but for the all see a port. That we would have found the president obstructed justice so I just say there’s a conflict I do have some more questions Mr Miller. There’s been a lot of talk today about firing a special counseling curtailing the investigation were you ever fired Mr Miller. From what we ever fired a special concert rules Mr moderate out now. Were you were you allowed to complete your investigation unencumbered. Yes. And in fact you resigned as special counsel when you close at the office in in late may twenty twenty nineteen is that correct correct [inaudible] Thank you — Mister Miller. On April eighteenth the Attorney General held held a press conference in conjunction with the public release of your report. Did Attorney General Barr say anything in accurate either in his press conference or his March twenty fourth letter to Congress summarizing the principal conclusions of your report. Well — What you are not mentioning is a letter we sent on — March twenty seventh. To Mr bar that raised — Some issues. And that letter speaks for itself. But then I I don’t see how you could. That could be sans AG bars latter detailed the principal conclusions of your report. And you have said. Before in that. That. There wasn’t anything in an inaccurate in fact you have this during statement. But let me let me go on to another question. I’m Mr Miller rather than purely relying on the evidence provided by witnesses and documents I I think you relied a lot on media. I’d like to know how many times you cited The Washington Post in your report. How many times I want to fight in the Washington post in your report? Okay I do not have knowledge of that figure but I well that’s like I don’t have knowledge of that for you I counted about sixty times how many times did you say the New York times. I have. No idea I counted about seventy five times how many times to the site fox news. I had a lot of the other. Two I have no idea. About twenty five times I gotta say it looks like volume two is mostly regurgitated press stories I’m mostly there’s almost nothing in volume. Two that I couldn’t already here or no simply by having a fifty dollar cable news subscription. However your investigation cost American taxpayers twenty five million dollars — Mister Miller you stated media reports nearly two hundred times in your report then in a footnote a small footnote number seven page fifteen of volume to appear report you wrote I quote. This section summarizes inside various news stories not for the truth of the information contained in the stories but rather to place candidate trump’s response to those stories in context since nobody but lawyers reads footnotes. Are you concerned that the American public took the embedded news stories and I really generally is expired the gentle lady from Washington. And Mr Miller over the question no no we’re running short on time. I said the gentlelady from watching. Thank you director Miller let’s turn to the fifth of the obstruction episodes in your report and that is the evidence of whether president trump engaged and witness tampering with trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Whose foreign ties were critical to your investigation into Russia’s interference in our elections in this is starts at volume two page. One twenty three your office got indictments against metaphor and trump deputy campaign manager Rick gates in two different jurisdictions correct correct. And your office found that after a grand jury indicted them mana for told gates not to plead guilty to any charges because quote he had talked to the president. President’s personal counsel and they were going to take care of us is that correct. And according to your report one day after Manafort conviction on eight felony charges quote the president said that flipping was not fair and almost ought to be outlawed. That correct I’m aware that in this context director Miller what does it mean to flip. Has somebody cooperate in a criminal investigation and how essential is that cooperation to any efforts to combat crime. Can go beyond that characterizing thank you. In your report you concluded the president trump and his personal counsel Rudy guiliani quote made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for manta for while also making it clear that the president did not want Manafort to flip. And cooperate with the government end quote is that correct. And as you stated earlier witness tampering can be shown where someone with an improper motive encourages another person not to cooperate with law enforcement is that correct. Now on page one twenty three a volume to you also discuss the president’s motive and you say that as court proceedings move forward against manta for president trump. Quote discussed with aids whether and in what way mana for it might be cooperating and weather man afford new any information that would be harmful to the president and quote is that correct and that was a quote from. From page one twenty three volume. Two I have a thank you yes. And when someone tries to stop another person from working with law enforcement and they do it because they’re worried about what that person will say it seems clear. From what you wrote that this is a classic definition of witness tampering now Mr metaphor did eventually decide to cooperate with your office any entered into a plea agreement but then he broke that agreement. Can you describe what he did that cause you to tell the court that the agreement was off now I refer you to the court proceedings on that issue. So in page one page one twenty seven a volume to you told the court that Mr Manafort lied about a number of matters that were material to the investigation and you said that the metaphors lawyers also quote regularly briefed the president’s lawyers. On topics discussed and the information that Manafort had provided in interviews with the special counsel’s office does that sound right and the source of that is. That’s page one twenty seven volume two that’s a direct. Report yes I think. And two days after you told the court that Manafort broke his plea agreement by lying repeatedly did president trump tell the press that Mr man afford was quote very brave because he did not flip this is page one twenty eight of volume. Two if it’s in the report I supported and has it is — As it is set forth thank you director Miller in your report you make a very serious conclusion about the evidence regarding the president’s involvement with the metaphor criminal proceedings let me read to you from your report. Evidence concerning the president’s conduct toward man afford indicates that the president intended to encourage man afford to not to cooperate with the government. It is clear that the president both publicly and privately discourage Mister metaphors cooperation or flipping while also dangling the promise of a pardon if he stayed loyal and did not sure what he knew about the president. Anyone else who did these things would be prosecuted for them we must ensure that no one is above the law and I thank you for being here Druckenmiller. You’ll back. The gentleman from Pennsylvania. Thank you Mister chairman. Mr Miller. This run over here I’m sorry. Mister Miller are you familiar with the now expired independent counsel statute. It’s a statue on which can star was appointed. That I can started what I’m sorry are you familiar with the independent counsel statute. Are you talking about the one in trouble we operating under to now or a pre no longer which can star was appointed I am not that familiar with that but I get happy to take your questions. With the Clinton administration allowed the independent counsel statute to expire after Ken Starr’s investigation. The final report requirement was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire Even president Clinton’s AG Janet Reno. Expressed concerns about the final report requirements. And I’ll quote Eiji Reina. She said. On one hand the American people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation their highest officials. On the other hand the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of American law enforcement. Under our system we presume innocence and we value privacy. We believe the information obtained during Cremona assignation should. In most cases he made public only if there is an indictment and prosecution. Not the lengthy and detailed report filed after decision had has been made. Not to prosecute. The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a targets dirty laundry. It also creates yet another in San of independent counsel two over investigate. In order to justify his or hold her tenure in to avoid criticism that the independent counsel may have left a stone unturned. Mr Miller those are AG Reno’s words. Do you do exactly what AG Reno feared any published a lengthy report unfairly airing. The targets dirty laundry without recommending charges. I’ve been in the industry with that. Witnessing I’ve had a chance to be cross examined. Can I just finish my answer on quickly my operate under the current statute not the origination. Familiar with the current statute not the any of the witnesses have a chance because examined. If any of the witnesses are investigation yes. I’m not able to answer that did you allow the people mentioned in your report to challenge how they were characterized. I’m not gonna get into — He didn’t AG Barr stated multiple times during his confirmation hearing. He would make. As much of a report public as possible did you write your report knowing they would likely be shared with the public. Though did knowingly report could in likely would be made public that that alter the contents would you included I can’t speak to that. Despite the act expectations the report would be released to the public. You left out significant exculpatory evidence in other words it evidence favorable to the president cracked. Well I actually December would disagree with you I think we’d strove. To put into the report I think Michael Michael. I got into that with you were you said there was you said there was evidence you left out. Well you make a choice as to what goes into. Mr Miller is entries on page. One volume two you state. When you’re courting the statue the other obligations either prosecute or not prosecute? Or generally that is the case right although most cases are not. Done in the context of the president in his case he made a decision not to prosecute cracked. We made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not. So so essentially what you’re port in was everything that AG Reno warned against. I can’t. Agree with a character. What what you did is you compiled a nearly four hundred fifty you compound uli foreign fifty pages? Of the very worst information you gathered against the target your investigation who happens to be the present the United States. And you didn’t is knowing the you’re not going to recommend charges the report would be made public not true. Mister Mister Mayer as a former officer in the United States jag corps. I prosecute nearly a hundred shares in a Baghdad courtroom. I cross examine the butcher of Fallujah. In defense of our navy seals. As a civilian I was elected a magisterial district judge in Pennsylvania. So I’m very well versed the American legal system. The drafting in the publication of some of the information in this report. Without an indictment without prosecution. Frankly flies in the face of American justice. And I find those backs this entire process on American. Able to remainder my time to my colleague Jim Jordan — Mystery- Director Mahler the third Fizer renewal happens a month after your name special counsel what role did your office play in the third fights the renewal. Of card okay not a doctor that. I mean the general is expired the gentlelady from Florida. Director Muller a couple of my colleagues right here one to talk to you or ask you about lies the let’s talk about lies. According to your report page nine volume one witnesses lied to your office and to Congress. Those lies material leak impair the investigation of Russian interference according to your report other than the individuals who pled guilty to crimes based on their are lying to you or your team. Other witnesses lied to you. I think and they’re probably inspector witnesses and in terms of of those who — Not telling the full truth and those are all right liars thank you very much our right liars it is fair to say then. That there were limits on what evidence was available to your investigation of both Russia election interference and obstruction of justice. That’s true it is usually the case. And that laws by trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation. I would generally agree with that. Thank you so much director Miley ruby hearing more from me in the next year and so I yield the balance of my time to Mr Correa thank you. The smaller for small in the welcome you. Thank you for your service to our country your hero. Vietnam War that wounded board that we won’t forget to service to our country thank you Sir hi may began because of time limits we have gone in depth on only five possible episodes obstruction. There is there so much more and I want to focus in on another section of obstruction which is. The president’s conduct concerning Michael Flynn the president’s national security adviser. In early twenty seven the White House counsel and the president were informed that Mister Flynn had lied to government authorities. About as communications with the Russian ambassador. During the trump campaign in transition is this correct correct. If I hostile nation knows that a US official his light publicly. That can that can be used to blackmail that government official correct. Okay speak to that I don’t disagree with a necessarily but I’m not expecting any more to that issue thank you very much Sir — Flynn resigned on February thirteenth twenty sixteen and the very next day when the president was having lunch with New Jersey governor Chris Christie. That the president say open calls now that we fired full and the Russia thing is over close quote. Jack correct correct. And is it true that Christie responded by saying open quotes No Way and this Russia thing is far from over close quote that’s the way we have it in the report [inaudible] Thank you. And after president met with Christy later that some day it same day the president arranged to meet with an FBI director James call me. Alone in the oval office correc. Correct vertically of you have the citation to be ever page thirty nine forty volume two thank you very much. And according to call me the president told them. I hope open quote I hope you can see your way to clear. Two leading this thing go to letting Flynn go he’s a good guy and I hope you can let it go. Close quote. Age forty volume [inaudible] To after. What did call me understand the president to be asking? I’m I’m not gonna get into what was enough by Mister Cummings mind. Call me understood this to be a direction because of the president’s position. And the circumstances of the one to one meeting. Age forty volume two well I understand — Eight six in the report and I’ve support it. As being in the room as being in the report. Thank you Sir. Even though the public the president publicly denied telling call me to drop the investigation. You found open quote substantial evidence corroborating commies account. Over the president’s is this correct correct. The president fired call me on may ninth is that correct Sir. I believe that she accurate dat. That’s page seventy seven volum. Two you found substantial evidence that the catalyst for the president’s firing a call me was. Call me spoken quote on willingness to publicly state. That the president was not personally under investigation I’m not a great deal more of the details of what happened — If it’s in the record and then I’m supported because it’s already been reviewed appropriately. Appears in the report and that’s page seventy five volume thank you. In in fact the very next day the president told the Russian foreign minister opened quote. I just fired the head of the FB. He was crazy a real not job. I face great pressure because of Russia. That’s take enough. I’m not under investigation close quote is that correct. That’s what was. Written. Yes time of the gentleman has expired — Thank you Sir gentleman from Virginia. Thank you Mister chairman. This call Mister Muller we’ve heard a lot about what you’re not going to talk about today so let’s talk about something that you should be able to talk about the law itself. Into lying instruction statute your creative legal analysis. The statues by in. To take your earlier interpretation of eighteen USC fifteen twelve see. Section fifteen twelve see is an obstruction of justice statute created. As part of auditing financial regulations for public companies and as you right on page one hundred sixty four volume. Two this provision was added as a floor amendment in the Senate and explained as closing a certain loophole with respect to document shredding. And to read the statute whoever corruptly alters destroys mutilates or conceals a record document or other object or tends to do so with the intent to impair the objects integrity. Or availability for use in a fit an official proceeding or otherwise obstructs influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so so we find of the stature in prison not one twenty years or both. Your analysis an application the statute proposes to give clause see to a much broader interpretation and commonly used first analysis proposes to read closely to an isolation reading it is a fee standing all encompassing provision prohibiting. Any acts influencing of proceeding if done with an improper motive and second your analysis of the statute to apply the sweeping probe proposes to apply the sweeping prohibition to lawful acts taken by public officials. Exercising their discretionary powers if those acts influence a proceeding. So Mister Moore and ask you. In analyzing the obstruction used. State that you recognize. That the department of justice in the courts have not definitively resolve these issues correct read. You agree that not everyone in the justice department agreed with your legal theory of the obstruction of justice state rex I’m not going — To involved discussion on on that at this juncture in fact the Attorney General himself disagrees with your interpretation of the law correct. Haley that to the Attorney General deidentified. And you would agree the prosecutor sometimes incorrectly applied the law correct. I would have to agree with that. One and members of your legal team in fact have had convictions overturned because they were based on an incorrect legal theory correct. I don’t know to what she would virtually all. Well I’m time and under trenches trying cases of not want everyone of those cases I only ask about one in particular when you top prosecutors and Weissman obtain a conviction I guess offering from Arthur Andersen lower court. Which was subsequently overturned in a unanimous Supreme Court decision it rejected the legal theory advanced by Weisman correct. Well I am I can get in a deli and it will be read from that maybe may I just remember. I just finished yes answer to say that I’m not going to be. Getting all the discussion on that I will refer you. To that citation that you gave me at the outset for that lengthy discussion on just what you’re talking about and to the extent that I have stating to say about it. It is what we’ve already put into the report on and I am reading from your report — When discussing the section I’ll read from the disk decision the Supreme Court unanimously reversing Mister Weisman — When he said indeed is it it’s striking how little culpability the instructions required for example the jury was told that even a petitioner honestly and sincerely believe this kind of was lawful the jury could convict? Instructions also diluted the meaning of corruptly such that it covered innocent conduct. Hello milk me to say that. We move on I’m and I’m limited time your report take. This possible reading of this provision and applying it to the president’s official acts and I’m concerned about the implications of your theory for over criminalizing conduct by public officials and private citizens of like. So to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is I want to ask about a few examples on October eleventh twenty fifteen during the FBI investigation Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. President Obama said I don’t think it posed a national security problem he later said I can tell you that this is not a situation which America’s national security was in danger. Assuming for a moment that is comments did influence the investigation. Couldn’t president Obama the charge on your interpretation with obstruction of justice. Well I again I refer you — To the report but let me say with Andrew Weissmann is one of the more talented tourney to we have and not have on board. Will take that over a period of time he is run a number. All units — And I had a very long time. In August twenty fifteen a very senior DOJ official called FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe expressing concern FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton foundation pro. DOJ officials apparently very pissed off quote unquote. The cave question this official asking are you telling me I need to shut down the valley predicated investigation. To which the official replied of course not this seems to be a clear example of somebody within the executive branch attempting to influence an S. B. ibis investigation. So under your theory — We couldn’t that person be charged with obstruction as long as a prosecutor could come up with a potentially correct corrupt motives I I refer you to our lengthy dissertation on exactly those issues and fears and the and the end of the road in a report. Mister mind argue that — It says about the Supreme Court justice under law gentlemen is expired not straight into it wa. Our intent was to conclude this hearing in three hours. Given the break that would bring us to approximately. Eleven forty with director Mahler’s indulgence we will be asking a remaining democratic members to voluntarily limit their time below the five minutes so that we can complete our work is close. To that time frame as possible they recognize the generally from Pennsylvania. Thank you director Miller — I want to ask you some questions about the president’s statements regarding advance knowledge of the wikileaks dumps. So the president refused to sit down with your investigators for an in person interview correct correct. So the only answer is we have to questions from the president are contained in appendix CTR report correct okay so looking at appendix C. on page. Five U. S. the president over a dozen questions about whether he had knowledge that we keep leak. Possessed or might possess the emails that were stolen by the Russians I apologize can you start again. Okay sure and so we’re looking at appendix C. — And it appendix the page five you ask the president about a dozen questions about whether he had knowledge that wikileaks posses. The stolen emails that might be released in a way helpful to his campaign or harmful to the Clinton campaign is that correct to ask those questions okay. In February of this year Mister. Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen testified to Congress under oath that quote Mister trump’s new from Roger stone in advance about the wikileaks drop of emails and quote. That’s a matter of public record isn’t it. Well the aged and are you referring to the record or some other public practice was testimony before Congress by Mr calling do you know if he told. Familiar with this and it’s explicitly familiar with — What he testified to by a before Congress okay? Let’s look in an event described on page eighteen of volume two of your report. Now according and we’re gonna put it up on the slide I think according to deputy campaign manager Rick gates. In the summer of twenty sixteen he in Canada trump were on the way to an airport shortly after wikileaks released its first set of stolen emails. And gates told your investigators that candidate trump was on the phone call. And when the call ended trump told gates. That more releases of damaging information would be coming and quote do you recall that from the report — If it’s in the report I support okay and that’s on page eighteen of volume. Two now on page seventy seven of volume to your report also stated quote. In addition some witnesses said that trump privately sought information about future wikileaks releases and quote is that correct correct. Now in appendix C. where the president did answer some written questions he said quote. I do not recall discussing with the leaks with him nor do I recall being aware of Mr stone having discussed wikileaks with individuals. Associated with my campaign and quote is that correct. I have it from the report it is correct okay so is it fair to say the president denied ever discussing wikileaks with Mr stone and denied being aware — That anyone associated with his campaign discussed wikileaks was stone. I’m sorry could you repeat that one is it fair then that the president denied on knowledge of himself or anyone else discussing wikileaks dumps with Mister. Yes okay — And with that I would deal back. Thank you ma’am. Thank you Mister chair. Mister Miller over here. Mr mother did you indeed interview for the FBI director job one day before your point a special counsel. My understanding does not — Applying for the job. I was asked to give up my on what it would take to do the job which trigger the interview you’re talking about so you don’t recall on may sixteenth twenty seventeen that you interviewed with the president regarding the FBI director job. I interview with the president and it was about the job and not about me applying for the job. To receive your severe steaming here today is that you didn’t interview. To apply for the FBI director job that’s correct. So. Did you tell the vice president of the FBI director position will be the one job that you would come back. To for no recall that one you don’t recall that. Are giving your twenty two months of investigation tens of million dollars spent in millions of documents review did you obtain any evidence at all. That any American voter change their vote as a result of Russians election interference. And I can speak to that you can’t speak to that. After twenty two months of investigations and there’s not any evidence in that document before us did any voter change their vote because of their interference and I’m asking you based on all the documents that. You got was outside our purview. Russian meddling was outside. But the the impact of that meddling was undertaken by othe. Agencies. Okay he stated in your opening statement that you would not get into the details of the steel dossier however multiple times in volume two on page twenty three twenty seven and twenty eight you mentioned the under verified allegations. How long did it take you to route to reach the conclusion that it was unverified? Legacy to it’s in it’s actually in your report multiple times is unverified and you’re telling me that you’re not willing to tell us how you came to the conclusion that it was unverified. When you become aware that the unverified still dossier was included in the five applications bound Carter page? And I’m sorry what was the what was the question when did you become aware that the unverified steel dossier was intended was included in the five applications spinal Carter page- Okay speak to that. Your team interviewed Christopher steals at correct now can get into that you can. Tell this committee as to whether or not you interview Christmas DO any twenty two month investigation with eighteen lawyers. As I said at the outset that is one of those — One of the investigations that is. Is being handled by others in the department of justice in which you’re here testifying about this investigation today and I am asking directly did any members of your team or did you interview Christopher still on the course of your investigation and I’m not going to answer that question Sir. You had two years to investigate not once did you consider where the investigate how in under unverified document it was paid for by a political opponent was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition political campaign. Did you do any investigation that was will not accept your characterization one Kerr what would you what would be your exam or do it so you can’t be getting more to it but you’re not gonna agree with my characterization. Is that correct yes. The fines application makes reference to source one who is Christopher steely author the still dossier defies application says nothing sources ones reason for conducting the research into Canada wants ties Russia. Based on sources one previous reporting history with FBI where my source one provide a reliable information the FBI. The FBI believes source ones reporting here and to be credible do you believe the FBI’s representation that source ones reporting was credible to be accurate. Okay at the it’s so you’re not going to respond to any of the questions regarding Christopher steel or your interviews with them well I’ve as I said at the outset this morning — That was one of the investigations at the I could not speak to well I I don’t understand how if you interviewed an individual in the purview of this investigation that you’re testifying to us today that you close an investigation. That’s not within your purview to tell us about that investigation and who you interviewed. I have nothing to add. Okay well the I got I can guarantee that the American people want to now and I’m and I’m very hopeful I’m glad the G. bars looking into this inspector general’s looking into this because you’re on willing to answer the questions. Of the American people as it relates to the very basis of this investigation into the president and the very basis of this individual who you did interview you’re just refusing to answer those questions — Can camp the president fire the FBI director at any time without reason under article one of the constitution yes article. Two yes that’s correct he also fire U. S. special counsel anytime without any reason I believe that to be the case under article. Hold on to say. I know you said without any reason I I know the special counsel can be fired. But I’m not certainly stands — To for whatever region. Is given one you’ve testified that you weren’t fired you were able to complete your investigation in full is that correct. Okay. Add to what I’ve stated before. My time’s expired. It is time is expired the gentlelady from Pennsylvania [inaudible] Texas. Thank you Mister chairman and thank you Mr Miller for being with us this after the second up close to the afternoon now. Director Martin I would like to ask you about the president’s answers relating to Roger stone. Roger stone was indicted for multiple federal crimes in the indictment alleges that Mr ston. Discussed the future we can Lakes email releases with the trump campaign. Understanding there’s a gag order on the stone case I will keep my questions restricted to publicly available information. Mr shows. Say the alpha I don’t mean to be disruptive that — I’m not. I would like some the demarcation of that which is accessible to this but also in such a way that it does not hinder — From the other prosecution is taking place in DC I understand that I’m only going to be talking about the questions that you asked — In writing to the president the man that relate to Mr stone. A Mister stone’s indictment states among other things the following quote. Stone was contacted by senior troubled Fishel’s to inquire about future releases of organization. One organization one being wikileaks. The indictment continues quote stone there after told the trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by wikileaks. So in short. The indictment alleges that stone was asked by the trump campaign to get information. About more we could Lakes releases and that stone in fact. Did tell the kid trump campaign about potential future releases correct. Yes ma’am — AC according from the indictment even though the indictment is a public document. I feel uncomfortable discussing anything having to do is of the stone a prosecution. Right the indictment is is of record and I pulled we pulled it off of the street apartment. Well for turning back to the president’s answers your questions and on this very subject the president and I were discussing future we wikileaks releases with stone. And denied knowing whether anyone else and his campaign had those discussions with stone. If you have learned that other witnesses produce putting aside the president. I’ve other witnesses had lied to investigators in response to Pacific’s questions. Whether he whether in writing or in an interview. Could they be charged with false statement crimes. Well I’m. I’m not going to speculate is I think you’re asking for me to speculate — Given a seven circumstance would it more specific record if I had made a false statement to an investigator on your team. Could I go to jail for up to five years yes. Yes hello there is just it’s Congress so. Though isn’t it. One is above the law three not you not the Congress is certainly not the president — In I think it’s just troubling to have to hear some of these things — And that’s why the American people deserve to learn the full facts of the misconduct described in your report. For which any other person would have been charged with crimes so thank you for being here and again. This the point has been on because under scored many times but I’ll repeat it no one is above the law thank you thank you ma’am. It’s time to the gentleman at the German from North Dakota is recognized Mister Mauler how many people did you fire how many people on your staff to fire during the course of the investigation. How many people do fire? Okay — Discuss at the fire to terror accordingly — Inspector general’s report attorney number two was let go and we know Peter Sturrock was like a crack. Yes and there may have been other persons on other issues that have been — Either transfer fired. Peter struck testified before this committee on July twelfth two thousand eighteen that he was fired because you were concerned about preserving the appearance of independence you read this testimony. Say that again if you could. That he said he was fired at least partially because you were you were worried about a concerned about preserving the appearance of independence with the special counsel’s investigation you agree with that statement. Any statement was by home Peter Sturrock at this hearing. And I am not familiar with that. Did you fire because you were worried about the appearance of independence of the end of the investigation — He was a transferred as a result of instances involving — Oma attacks. Do you agree that do you agree that your office did not only have an obligation to operate with them independence but to operate wih the appearance of independence as well absolutely we struggle to do that over the two years. And right to that was making certain that Andrew Weissmann twenty or top attorneys. Yes did Weissman have a role in selecting other members of your team he has several the nine and a major role and Weisman attended Hillary Clinton’s Alexian I party did you know that before after you came on to the team. Don’t know what I found that ou. On January thirtieth two thousand seventeen Weissman wrote an email to deputy Attorney General Yates stating I am so proud and in awe regarding her disobeying a direct order from the president did Weissman disclose that. Email to you before you joined the team. Okay talk about that. Is that not a conflict of interest. Not a good andnot going to talk about that are you aware that Mister genie re represented Hillary Clinton litigation regarding personal emails are returning originating from Clinton’s time as secretary of state. Yes did you know that before she came on the toe. Erin’s only the guy sitting next year represented Justin Cooper a Clinton aide who destroyed one of Clinton’s mobile devices and you must be aware by now that six of your lawyers donated twelve thousand dollars directly to Hillary Clinton. I’m not even talking about the forty nine thousand a donated other Democrats just the donations to the opponent who was the target of your investigation. For a second to the hiring practices — Though we’ve strove to hire those individuals that could do the job — I bass okay been in this business for almost twenty five years and in those twenty five years I have not had occasion. Wants to ask someone about their political affiliation it is not done what I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly. And seriously and with integrit. But that’s what I’m saying Mr Miller this isn’t just about you being able to voucher team this is about knowing that the day you accepted this role you had to be aware no matter what this report concluded half of the country was going to be scheduled. Skeptical your team’s findings and that’s why we have accuse a loss that define bias in perceived bias for this very reason twenty eight United States code five twenty eight specifically lists not just political conflict of interest but the appearance of political contracted conflict of interest. It’s just simply not enough that you vouch for your team. The interested dass demand that no perceived buys exists I can’t imagine a single prosecutor are judged that I have ever appeared in front of would be comfortable with these circumstances where over half of the prosecutorial team. Had a direct relationship to the opponent of the person being investigated. I put on the table that is who we hired nineteen lawyers over the period of time. Of those nineteen lawyers fourteen of them were transferred from elsewhere the department of justice. Only five came from outside. Had a direct relationship political or personal with the opponent of the person you were investigating and that’s my point I wonder if not a single word in this entire report was changed but rather the only difference was we switched Hillary Clinton president trump. If Peter Sturrock contested those terrible things about Hillary Clinton instead of president trump if a team of lawyers work for donated thousands of dollars to and went to trends trump’s parties instead of Clinton’s. I don’t think we’d be here trying to prop up an obstruction allegation my colleagues would have spent the last four months accusing your team of being bought and paid for by the trump campaign and we couldn’t trust a single word of this report. They would still be accusing the president of conspiracy with Russia and they would be accusing your team of aiding and abetting and that was with that conspiracy and with that I yield back. Jail meals back the gentleman from Colorado. Doctor Miller. Thank you for your service to our country I’d like to talk to you about one of the other incidents of obstruction. And it’s the evidence in your report showing the president directing his son is communications director issue a false public statement in June of twenty seventeen about a meeting between his campaign and Russian individuals. At trump tower in June of twenty sixteen according to your report Mr trump junior. Was the only trump associates who participated in that meeting and who declined to be voluntarily interviewed by your office is that correct. Did Mr trump junior or his counsel ever communicate to your office any intent to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. Okay at the you did pose written questions to the president about his knowledge of the trump tower meeting — You included also asked him about whether or not he had directed a false press statement the president did not answer all that question correc- I don’t have it in front of me but I I take your I can represent to you that appendix C. specifically C.. Thirteen states as much according to page one hundred of volume two of your report your investigation found that hope Hicks. The president communications director in June of twenty seventeen was shown emails that set up the trump tower meeting and she told your office that she was quote shocked. By the emails because they looked quote really bad true the other citation sure it’s page one hundred of volume. Two well you’re a flipping to that page director more also tell you that according to page ninety nine of volume. Two those emails in question stated according to your report at the crown prosecutor of Russia had offered to provide the trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary in her dealings with Russia. As part of Russia and its government support for Mr trump. Trump junior responded if it’s what you say I love it. And he culture and man for met with the Russian attorneys and several other Russian individuals at trump tower on June ninth twenty sixteen end quote correct generally actor. Isn’t it true that ms Hicks told your office. But she went multiple times to the president to quote urging him that they should be fully transparent about the June ninth meeting and quote but the president each time said no. Correct after. And the reason was because of those emails which the president quote. Believed would not leak correct. Well I’m not certain I am now it’s characterized the jelly correct. Did the president directed ms Hicks to say quote only that Trump junior took a brief meeting and it was about Russian adoption end quote. Because trump juniors statement for The New York Times quotes said too much rain one page one hundred to a volume. To okay correct. Let me add one we just check one thing. Yes. And according to mistakes the president still directed her to see the meeting was only about Russian adoption correct yes despite knowing that to be untrue thank you director Miller I yield back the balance of my time. Mr Miller you’ve been asked over here on the on the far right Si. Well you’ve been asked a lot of questions here today to be Fran- You performed as most of us expected. You start closer to Europe and you had declined to answer many of our questions on both sides. As a closer for the Republican side and are you glad to get to close I want to summarize the highlights of what we have heard and what we know. You spent two years in nearly thirty million taxpayer dollars an unlimited resources to prepare in nearly four hundred fifty page report which you describe today as very thorough. Millions of Americans today maintain genuine concerns about your work in large part because of the infamous in widely publicized bias of your investigating team members. Which we now know included fourteen Democrats and zero Republicans. Campaign finance reports later showed team excuse me Montana that team a Democrat investigators you hard donated more than sixty thousand dollars to the Hillary Clinton campaign and other democratic candidates. Your team also included Peter struck in Lisa page which have been discussed today. And they had the lawyers take lurid text messages the confirmed the openly mocked in hated Donald Trump and his supporters and they vowed to take him out. Mister Radcliffe fast your earlier this morning quote can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the justice department determined that an investigative person was not exonerated. Because they’re in a sense was not conclusively determined on quote you answered I cannot. Sir that is unprecedented. The president believes in the very beginning that you and your special counsel team had serious conflicts this is stated in the report acknowledged by everybod. And yet president trump cooperated fully with the investigation he knew he had done nothing wrong and he encourage all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation and produce. More than one point four million pages of information and allowed over forty witnesses who are directly affiliated with the White House or is campaign. Your reporting knowledge is on page sixty one volume to the volume of evidence exist. Of the president telling many people privately quote the president was concerned about the impact of the Russian investigation on his ability to govern. And to address important foreign relations issues and even matters of national security. And on page one seventy four volume to report also acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held quote the president’s removal powers are at their zenith with respect to principal officers that is. Officers who must be appointed by the president and who report to him directly the president’s exclusive and eliminate all power of removal of those principal officers furthers the president’s ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed on quote. And that would even include the Attorney General. Look in spite of all of that. Nothing ever happened to stop or impede special counsel’s investigation nobody was fired by the president nothing was curtailed the investigation continued unencumbered for twenty two long months. As you finally concluded in volume one the evidence quote did not establish that the president was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference on quote. And the evidence quote did not establish that the prsident or those close to him were involved in any Russian conspiracies or had an on off relationship with any Russian official on court. Over those twenty two long months of your investigation dragged along the president became increasingly frustrated as many the American people did with its effects on our country in and his ability to govern. He vented about this to his lawyer in as close associates and even shared his frustrations as we all know on Twitter. But while the president social media accounts might have influenced some in the media or the opinion of some of the American people none of those audiences were targets or witnesses in your investigation. The president never affected anybody’s testimony he never demanded to in the investigation or demanded that you be erminated and he never misled Congress the DOJ or the special counsel those server undisputed facts. There will be a lot of discussion I predict today angry frustration route the country gins of this whole charade. Which was the infamous Christopher still dossier now proven to be totally bogus even though it is listed and specifically referenced in your report. But as our hearing is concluding we apparently will get no comment on that from you. Mr Miller there’s one primary reason why you were called here today and by the by the Democrat majority of our committee our colleagues on the other side of the al just want political cove. They desperately wanted you today to tell them they should impeach the president. But the one thing you have said very clearly today is that your report is complete and thorough and you completely agree with and stand by its recommendations and all of its content. Is that right [inaudible] Pro. Mr Miller one last important question. Your report does not recommend impeachment does it. I’m not a talked about — Road recommendations it does not include impeach would be appropriate here. I’m not gonna talk about that — That is at issue. That’s one of the many things you wouldn’t talk about today but I think we can all draw our own conclusions I do thank you for your service to the country. I’m glad this rate will come to an end soon we can get back to the important business of this committee with its broad jurisdiction of so many important issues for the country without a your back. Jim meals back I want to announce that our intent was to conclude this hearing at around. Eleven forty five all of the Republican members of now is there questions but we have a few remaining democratic member. They would be limiting their questions so with director mows indulgence respected finish within fifteen minutes. The gentlelady from and Georges recognized thank you Mister chairman and thank you director mall are your investigations of the Russian attack on our democracy in the book structure of Justin’s justice were extraordinarily. Productive in under two years you charge at least thirty seven people or entities with crimes you convicted seven individuals five of homeward top. Trump campaign a White House aides charges remain pending against more than two dozen. Russian persons or entities and against others let me start with those five trump campaign or administration aides the two convicted. A would you agree with me that they are palm and a for president trump’s campaign manager. Rick gates president trump’s deputy campaign manager Michael Flynn president trump’s former national security adviser. Michael Cohen the president’s personal attorney George Papadopoulos president trump’s former campaign foreign policy adviser. Right right and the six top associate will fate will face trial later this year correct. And that person would be Roger stone right. Right thank you but I am not certain what you said based on what he is — In yet another court system as I indicated before exactly his honor and going out one discuss current thank you. And there are many other charges as well correct. So Sir I just want to thank you so much my limited time today for your team the work that you did in your dedication and less than two years. Your team was able to uncover an incredible amount of information related to Russia’s attack on our elections and to obstruction of justice. And there’s still more that we have to learn despite facing unfair attacks by the president and even here today. Your work has been substantive and fair. The work has laid the critical foundation for investigation of for that. Thank you. I thank you. With that I yield back the balance of my ten lady as back the gentleman from Arizona. Thank you director Mahler. I’m disappointed that some have question your motives. Throughout this process and I want to take a moment. To remind the American people of who you are in your example every service to our country. You are marine. You served in Vietnam and earned a bronze star and a Purple Heart correct. Correct. Which president appointed you to become the United States Attorney for Massachusetts. Which senator which president a which president. Does President Bush — According to my notes it was president Ronald Reagan had the honor to do so. Under whose it by mistake. Under whose administration did you serve as the assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ’s criminal division — Which president yeah that would be. George Bush one that is correct president George HW bush after that you took a job at a prestigious law firm after only a couple years. You did something extraordinary you left that lucrative position to re enter public service prosecuting homicides here in Washington DC is that correct correct. When you were named director of the FBI which president? First appointed you bush. And the Senate confirmed you with a vote of ninety eight to zero correct surprising. And you were sworn in as director just one week before the September eleventh attacks. Help to protect this nation against another attack you did such an outstanding job that when your ten year term expired the Senate unanimously voted to extend your term. For another two years correct. When you were asked in two thousand seventeen to take a job a special counsel the president had just fired FBI director James call me? The justice department and the FBI were in turmoil. You must have known there would be an extraordinary challenge why did you accept. Well I mean I can get into that’s a little bit off track [inaudible] The challenge. Some people have attacked the political motivations of your team even suggested your investigation was a witch hunt when you consider people to join your team did you ever even onc. Ask about their political affiliation. Everyone. In your entire career as a law enforcement official have you ever made a hiring decision basedupon a person’s political affiliation [inaudible] L.. I’m not. By might just interject. Capabilities that we have shown in a report that’s been discussed here today. Was a result of a I am a team of agents and hand — Lawyers who are actually exemplary. And we’re higher because of the value they can contribute to getting the job done and getting it done expeditiously Sir your patron clear to me in reading your report and listen your testimony today. You acted fairly with free shipping there are circumstances where you could have filed charges against other people mentioned report but you decline not every prosecutor does that. Certainly and one on which on the tax me to get you and your team intensified because your report is and I believe you did on cover substantial evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. Let me also say something else that you are right about the only remedy for this situation is for Congress to take action I yield back. There are many of the back the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. Morning director mother smaller battling dean. Sorry. Thank you. I wanted to ask you about public confusion connected with Attorney General bars release of your report. I will be quoting your March twenty seventh letter. Sir in that letter and several other times did you convey to the Attorney General that the quote introductions an executive summaries of our two volume report accurately summarize this offices work and conclusions and quote. And I’d have. To say the letter itself — Speaks for itself and those were your words in that letter. Continuing with your letter he wrote to the Attorney General that quote the summary letter the letter that the department sent to Congress and released to the public late. In the afternoon on March twenty fourth did not to fully capture the context nature and substance of this offices work and conclusions and quote is that correct again I rely on the letter itself. For its terms. Thank you. What was it about the reports context nature substance that the attorney general’s letter did not capture I think we captured that and — March twenty seventh — Responsive letter. And this is from the twenty seven letter. What were some of the specific said tell you thought — Directed in the letter itself okay [inaudible] I you finish that letter by saying there is now public confusion about critical aspects as a result of our investigation could you tell us specifically some of the public confusion you identified — Generally again I go back to letter anti letter speaks for itself and could Attorney General Barr have avoided public confusion if he had released your summaries and executive — Introduction and some race I don’t feel comfortable speculating on the shifting to may thirty at the Attorney General in an interview with CBS news said that you could have reached quote you could have reached. A decision as to whether it was criminal activity and quote on the part of the president. Did the Attorney General or his staff ever tell you that he thought you should make a decision on whether the president engaged in criminal activity. I’m not going to speak — To what the tourney general was thinking or saying. If the Attorney General had directed you were ordered you to make a decision on whether the president engaged in criminal activity would you have so done. I can’t answer that question in the thank you. Doctor Miller again I thank you for being here I agree with March twenty seventh letter there was public in confusion and the president took full advantage of that confusion by falsely claiming your report found no obstruction. Let us be clear your report did not exonerate the president instead it provided substantial evidence of obstruction of justice leaving Congress to do its duty we shall shall not shrink from that duty I yield back. Gentlelady yields back measurement Mister chairman Arafat one of and Cory over on the left. Dylan was this point of entry. Was the point of this hearing to get Mister Muller to recommend impeachment. That is not a fair point of increase. The the gentle lady from Florida is recognized chairman when Roger Miller. To your point the gentle lady all right is recognized for coming here you’re a patriot. I want to refer you now to volume two page. One fifty eight you wrote that quote the president’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful but that is largely because of the persons who surrounded the president declined. To carry out orders or exceed to his request is that right. That is accurate and that is what we found. And you’re basically referring to senior advisers who disobeyed the president’s orders like White House — Council don McGann former trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is that right well we have not specified. The person button. Well in and page one fifty eight White House counsel done again hello did not tell the acting Attorney General that the special counsel must be removed but was instead prepared to resign over the president’s orders. You also explain that an attempt to obstruct justice does not have to succeed to be a crime right [inaudible] Simply attempting to obstruct justice can be a crime correct yes. So even though the president’s aides refused to carry out his orders to interfere with your investigation that is not a defense to obstruction of justice by this president is it. Okay speculate. So to reiterate simply trying to obstruct justice can be a crime correct yes. And you say that the president’s efforts to influence the investigation were quote mostly unsuccessful and that’s because not. All of his efforts were unsuccessful right. Are you reading into what I what we read in the report — I was gonna ask you if you could just tell me which ones you had in mind as successful when you wrote that sentence. I have to pass on that — Director Miller today we’ve talked a lot about the separate acts by this president but you also wrote in your report that. Quote. The overall pattern of the president’s conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the president’s tax and the inferences can be drawn about. His intent correct accurate recitation from the and report. Right and and on page one fifty eight again I think it’s important for everyone to note that. The president’s conduct had a significant change when he realized that it was the investigations were — Conducted to investigate his obstruction axe so in other words. When the American people are deciding? Whether the president committed obstruction of justice they need to look at all of the president’s conduct and overall pattern of behavior is that correct [inaudible] Thank you. Doctor Miller director Miller Dr also — Designate that — Too I have certainly made up my mind about whether we what we have review today meets the elements of obstruction including whether there was corruption tent and what is clear is that. Anyone else including some members of Congress would have been charged with crimes for these acts. We would not have allowed this behavior from any of the previous forty four presidents we should not allow it now or for the future to protect our democracy. And yes we will continue to investigate because as you clearly state at the end of your report. No one is above the law. I yield back my time generally the years back the gentle lady from Texas. Director Mahler. You wrote your report that you quote determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment and quote. Was that in part because of an opinion by the department of justice office of legal counsel that a sitting president can be charged with a crime. Yes. Director Miller at your may twenty nine twenty nineteen press conference you explained that quote. The opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accused the sitting president of wrongdoing end quote. That process other than the criminal justice system for choosing a president of wrongdoing is that impeachment. A record of a comment on that. In your report you also wrote that you did not want to quote. Potentially preamps constitutional process these for dressing presidential misconduct and quote. For the non lawyers in the room what did you mean by quote potentially preamp constitutional processes — That actually is coming from page one of volume. To in the footnote is that the reference to this — What are those constitutional process sees — I think I heard you mention at least. One impeachment correct I’m not a common — Okay that is one of the constitutional process these listed in the report in the footnote in volume. To your report documents the many ways the president sought to interfere with your investigation. And you state in your report on page ten volume. To that with a interfering with a congressional inquiry or investigation with corrupt intent can also constitute obstructed obstruction of justice. Well the president has told us that he intends to fight all the subpoenas. His continued efforts to interfere with investigations of his potential misconduct certainly reinforced the importance of the process the constitution requires two quote. Formally accuse the sitting president of wrongdoing as you cited in the report. And in this he and this hearing has been very helpful to this committee as it exercises its constitutional duty to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president. I agree with you director mother that we all have a vital role in holding this president accountable for his actions. More than that I believe we in Congress have a duty to demand accountability and safeguard one of our nation’s highest principles. But no one is above the law. From everything that I have heard you say here today. It’s clear that anyone else would have been prosecuted based on the evidence available in your report. It now falls on us to hold president trump accountable thank you for being here. Chairman I yield back

100 Comments

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *