United States government

"I had never before argued a Supreme Court case on my own. Since arguments in that court are thirty minutes in length per side, and since most of the time consumed in argument is taken up with responses to questions of the Court, Dean [Ringel] and I devoted most of our preparation to three overlapping issues, ones that have consumed my attention in every later Supreme Court argument as well. The first was jurisprudential in nature. What rule of law were we urging the Court to adopt? How would it apply in any future case? What would be its impact on First Amendment legal doctrine?"

"In my conception of it, the primary role of the Court is to decide cases. From the decision of cases, of course, some changes develop, but to try to create or substantially change civil or criminal procedure, for example, by judicial decision is the worst possible way to do it. The Supreme Court is simply not equipped to do that job properly."

"The first opinion the Court ever filed has a dissenting opinion. Dissent is a tradition of this Court... When someone is writing for the Court, he hopes to get eight others to agree with him, so many of the majority opinions are rather stultified."

"The Court's great power is its ability to educate, to provide moral leadership."

"Nine, nine... There have been nine men there for a long, long time, right? So why not nine women?"

""At the Supreme Court, those who know don’t talk, and those who talk don’t know,” Ginsburg was fond of saying."

"This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added."

"Civil liberties had their origin and must find their ultimate guaranty in the faith of the people. If that faith should be lost, five or nine men in Washington could not long supply its want."

"The court is the least abstract of institutions. It is nine men, nine very human men, participating in a process that can be impressive or disturbing, grave or funny. And contrary to the general impression, the process is more visible than most of what goes on in government."

"It is true that diminished legitimacy may be restored, but only slowly. Unlike the political branches, a Court thus weakened could not seek to regain its position with a new mandate from the voters, and even if the Court could somehow go to the polls, the loss of its principled character could not be retrieved by the casting of so many votes. Like the character of an individual, the legitimacy of the Court must be earned over time. So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Their belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals. If the Court's legitimacy should be undermined, then, so would the country be in its very ability to see itself through its constitutional ideals. The Court's concern with legitimacy is not for the sake of the Court but for the sake of the Nation to which it is responsible."

"For nearly 40 years, the Supreme Court has been evading the 14th Amendment's provision of "equal protection" of the law for all, in order to let government-imposed group preferences and quotas continue, under the name of "affirmative action." Equal rights under the law have been made to vanish by saying the magic word "diversity," whose sweeping benefits are simply assumed and proclaimed endlessly, rather than demonstrated."

"All general business corporation statues appear to date from well after 1800.. The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans they had in mind. The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it…. Unlike natural persons, corporations have ‘limited liability’ for their owners and managers, ‘perpetual life,’ separation of ownership and control, ‘and favorable treatment of the accumulation of assets….’ Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled. ...It might be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."

"(TH: In Justice Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United, he pointed out that corporations in their modern form didn’t even exist when the Constitution was written in 1787 and got its first ten amendments in 1791, including the First which protects free speech)"

"In addition to this immediate drowning out of noncorporate voices, there may be deleterious effects that follow soon thereafter. Corporate ‘domination’ of electioneering can generate the impression that corporations dominate our democracy. When citizens turn on their televisions and radios before an election and hear only corporate electioneering, they may lose faith in their capacity, as citizens, to influence public policy. A Government captured by corporate interests, they may come to believe, will be neither responsive to their needs nor willing to give their views a fair hearing. The predictable result is cynicism and disenchantment: an increased perception that large spenders ‘call the tune’ and a reduced ‘willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance.’ To the extent that corporations are allowed to exert undue influence in electoral races, the speech of the eventual winners of those races may also be chilled. Politicians who fear that a certain corporation can make or break their reelection chances may be cowed into silence about that corporation. On a variety of levels, unregulated corporate electioneering might diminish the ability of citizens to ‘hold officials accountable to the people,’ and disserve the goal of a public debate that is ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’"

"After World War II] the Court started chipping away at the “separate but equal” doctrine, exposing as it went along the inequality of the practices sheltered by it. Then in 1954, the case of Brown v. Board of Education presented the basic question of whether a segregated public school system with equal physical facilities was constitutionally permissible under that doctrine. The Court held that the separation of the races in the public schools placed a badge of inferiority upon the minority group; that it was a denial of the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws; that the doctrine of separate but equal could have no application, and specifically disapproved Plessy v. Ferguson in that regard. The Court thus opened the door to all phases of civil rights, and in rapid succession applied the same reasoning to other instances of racial discrimination."

"Once in office, Ronald Reagan sought to nominate candidates to the federal judiciary who would roll back liberal judicial decisions and promote his favored constitutional values, which included opposition to abortion. Not entirely coincidentally, the 1984 Republican Party platform “applaud[ed] President Reagan’s fine record of judicial appointments, and … reaffirm[ed] [the party[’s] support for the appointment of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” By the time Justice Lewis Powell retired in 1987, the Supreme Court’s original seven-person majority in Roe had swindled to four Justices who supported abortion rights: William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun (the original author of Roe), and John Paul Stevens, who had replaced William O. Douglas in 1976. Reagan’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sandra Day O’Connor, replaced Potter Stewart in 1981. O’Connor strongly criticized Roe’s trimester framework in her 1983 dissent in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health and argued that abortion restrictions should be tested by a more lenient standard: whether they imposed an “undue burden” on women’s ability to obtain abortions. In 1986, Reagan nominated William Rehnquist, one of the original dissenters in Roe, to become Chief Justice, replacing Warren Burger, and nominated Antonin Scalia, a vocal opponent of Roe, to fill Renquist’s position as Associate Justice. These three Justices joined Byron White, the other original dissenter in Roe. To replace Powell, Reagan nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Robert Bork, an outspoken critic of Roe who championed the jurisprudence of original intention. The choice of Bork appeared to provide the crucial fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Bork nomination produced a national controversy, and ultimately the senate failed to confirm him. Pro-choice groups mobilized to help defeat the nomination. Eventually the Senate confirmed Reagan’s third nominee, Anthony Kennedy, a conservative circuit judge from California who was generally regarded as more moderate than Bork. In hindsight, the failure of the Bork nomination was a turning point in the constitutional struggles over abortion. It raised the stakes in succeeding Supreme Court nominations and showed that they could be bitter and politically costly to a president. Bork’s defeat also demonstrated that pro-choice forces had considerable muscle that could be harnessed in the political arena if the public thought that abortion rights were truly threatened. It gave notice that Republican politicians might pay more heavily than they had previously believed if they tried to overturn Roe."

"Roe’s fate seemed even bleaker when two of the Court’s most liberal Justices, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, left the Court due to failing health. Brennan resigned on July 20, 1990, and was replaced by David Souter, a bookish jurist from New Hampshire about whom little was known when he was nominated. President George H.W. Bush, attempting to avoid a replay of the Bork nomination, hoped that Souter would be able to avoid a politically difficult confirmation battle. Thurgood Marshall, the great civil rights lawyer who had argued Brown v. Board of Education, announced his retirement on June 27, 1991. To replace him, President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, a conservative African American judge on the D.C. Circuit. Thomas was widely believed to be hostile to Roe v. Wade but stated at his confirmation hearings that he had never debated it and had no personal opinion on the subject. The Thomas nomination was bitterly contested by senators who doubted Thomas’s qualifications and his commitment to civil rights and civil liberties, including the right to abortion. Matters were thrown into an uproad when Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by a former employee at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Anita Hill. After weeks of controversy, Thomas was finally confirmed by a 52-48 vote, the narrowest margin in Supreme Court history."

"I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay, have a good day."

"Why would we cut off the national debate about this next justice? Why would we squelch the voice of the people? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the make-up of the Supreme Court?"

"In an election year, we have a long tradition, that a lame-duck president doesn't get to jam a Supreme Court nominee through on the very end."

"I want you to use my words against me. If there is a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, "Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination." And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

"When an election is under way the American people are about to weigh in on who's going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever it may be, who ought to be making this appointment."

"We will move forward without delay and in deliberate fashion. We will process the president's nominee and I believe that we will confirm that nominee as well."

"I believe the right thing to do is for the Senate to take up this nomination and to confirm the nominee before election day."

"I will support President @realDonaldTrump in any effort to move forward regarding the recent vacancy created by the passing of Justice Ginsburg."

"The Senate has more than sufficient time to process a nomination. History and precedent make that perfectly clear."

"The exceptionally urgent need to reduce the risk of COVID-19 exposure for Medicare and Medicaid patients given the anticipated winter surge in infections tips the equities overwhelmingly in favor of a stay"

"Clarence doesn't discuss his work with me, and I don't involve him in my work"

"Supreme Court eras are often identified with their chief justices, as is true of the current period that began with Roberts nearly two decades ago. But the Court can be measured also by presidential influence. Certain presidents, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, who appointed eight justices in his twelve years in office, had a disproportionate effect on the Court. Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon also stood out for their imprint. The Trump effect, especially in terms of the individuals chosen and the resulting shift in the balance of power, has been incomparable. He is gone from office and they are here for life."

"Every generation, while finding its own uses for the Court, has preserved the Court as a symbol of the need for limits and for continuity in a nation of novelties. The Supreme Court thus become the American political conscience, a kind of secular papacy, a new search in every generation for what the more large-minded and more foresighted of the Founders might have meant if they were alive. It is the Great Remembrancer of our foundations."

"There are limits to analyzing the reasoning of published Supreme Court opinions, to say nothing of drafts. Logic and syllogisms don’t carry us very far in the law."

"None of us are safe from the extreme anti-women and anti-L.G.B.T.Q. ideology that now dominates this court."

"Madison’s “harmonious system of mutual frustration,” as the historian Richard Hofstadter called it, survived in continuity through many changes. The constitutional debates of 1787–88 fed into the contests of political modernity, giving it new terms and new metaphors. The Constitution itself became a stake in the American version of the contest between liberalism and conservatism. Appointments to its legal guardian, the Supreme Court, were fought over in partisan terms by the White House and Senate. The justices decried the labels, which they said caricatured their work. For the bulk of legal disputes that reached them, the point was fair, but for the rarer but headline cases of deep political division and high constitutional controversy—slavery, business and labor, personal morals, institutional powers—the complaint missed the mark, as a historic record of reliable partisanship along liberal-left and conservative-right lines suggested."

"Decades ago, Justice Louis D. Brandeis declared that "the reason the public thinks so much of the Justices of the Supreme Court is that they are almost the only people in Washington who do their own work." Today, no knowledgeable observer of the court would make a similar claim. As late as 1940, most clerks acted primarily as secretaries. In some cases a clerk might contribute an important footnote to an opinion, but not until Justice Frank Murphy and Chief Justice Fred Vinson joined the court in the 1940s did clerks take the lead in writing opinions and sometimes determine a justice's vote. As the number of clerks increased from two to three and, finally, to four, so did their involvement in their justice's work."

"Conservatives on the Supreme Court have repeatedly gutted provisions of the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), most famously in 2010 with their notorious Citizens United decision. With that stroke, over the loud objections of the four “liberals” on the Court, corporations were absolutely deemed as “persons” with full constitutional rights, and billionaires or corporations pouring massive amounts of money into campaign coffers was changed from “bribery and political corruption” to an exercise of the constitutionally-protected “right of free speech.”... Increasingly, because of the Supreme Court’s betrayal of American values, it’s become impossible for people... to rise from social worker to the United States Senate without big money behind them. Our media is absolutely unwilling to call this what even Andrew Jackson would have labeled it: political corruption. But that’s what it is and it’s eating away at our republic like a metastasized cancer... While the naked corruption of Sinema and Joe Manchin is a source of outrage for Democrats across America, what’s far more important is that it reveals how deep the rot of money in American politics has gone, thanks entirely to a corrupted Supreme Court."

"In Justice Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United, he pointed out that corporations in their modern form didn’t even exist when the Constitution was written in 1787 and got its first ten amendments in 1791, including the First which protects free speech.... Noting that corporations “inescapably structure the life of every citizen,” Stevens continued: “It might be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their ‘personhood’ often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.” Even worse than the short-term effect of a corporation’s dominating an election or a ballot initiative, Stevens said (as if he had a time machine to look at us now), was the fact that corporations corrupting politics would, inevitably, cause average working Americans — the 95 percent who make less than $100,000 a year — to conclude that their “democracy” is now rigged."

"Donald Trump is an astoundingly dangerous candidate for president. He is a pathological liar …"

"We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution -- not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men."

"Throughout American history, the Supreme Court, often derided as the least democratic branch of the federal government, has, paradoxically, best maintained its legitimacy when it has functioned as the most democratic branch—that is, when it has deferred to the constitutional views of Congress, the president, and the country as a whole. For all the invective initially generated by Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed school segregation, the decision was supported by more than half of the country when it was handed down in 1954, a time when southern minorities were blocking Congress from enacting the civil-rights legislation that the public supported. Many of the most famous decisions by the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts similarly reflected the popular will: a survey of eighty-eight civil-rights and civil-liberties cases between 1953 and 1994 found that, in most instances, the Supreme Court was generally in sync with public opinion. When public opinion opposed a particular rights claim, so, by and large, did the Supreme Court."

"In the United States at the present day, the reverence which the Greeks gave to the oracles and the Middle Ages to the Pope is given to the Supreme Court. Those who have studied the working of the American Constitution know that the Supreme Court is part of the forces engaged in the protection of the plutocracy. But of the men who know this, some are on the side of the plutocracy, and therefore do nothing to weaken the traditional reverence for the Supreme court, while others are discredited in the eyes of the ordinary quiet citizens by being said to be subversive and Bolshevik."

"Leaks of any kind are rare at the Supreme Court, and Totenberg says there hasn't been such a massive breach in modern history. She called it a "bomb at the court" that undermines everything the body stands for internally and institutionally, including its members' trust in their law clerks and in each other. "No fully-formed draft opinion has been leaked to the press or outside the court," Totenberg says. "Once or twice there may have been leaks that say how is something going to turn out, or after-the-fact that somebody may have changed his or her mind. But this is a full-flown, Pentagon Papers-type compromise of the court's work.""

"And as I say to you, whenever you put a man on the Supreme Court, he ceases to be your friend, you can be sure of that."

"The Supreme Court is a clown show. The idea that these nine individuals carry incredible wisdom is being debunked in real time."

"It is Congress that has prevented educational reforms, health service reforms and welfare reforms that would have helped the many millions of your citizens who live below the poverty line. It is Congress which provides the weapons that allow Israel to commit mass murder against Palestinians and the billions of dollars that help that country build settlements on stolen land, while, at the same time, allocating relatively little money for the renovation of the many decaying inner cities across the United States. Your armed forces are ever at the ready to bomb other countries and overthrow or install their leaders. At the same time, your internal security forces have proved themselves incapable of combating organized crime or defeating the drug lords who, in practical terms, control large parts of your major cities."

"The House is composed of very good men, not shining, but honest and reasonably well-informed, and in time they will be found to improve, and not to be much inferior in eloquence, science, and dignity, to the British Commons. They are patriotic enough, and I believe there are more stupid (as well as more shining) people in the latter, in proportion."

"You send me to Washington to represent you in the senate. But you do not send me there because you are interested in grave questions of national or international policy. When I come back to Arizona, you never ask me any questions about such policies; instead you ask me: “What about my pension?” or “What about that job for my son?” I am not in Washington as a statesman. I am there as a very well paid messenger boy doing your errands. My chief occupation is going around with a forked stick picking up little fragments of patronage for my constituents."

"The U.S. corporate media usually report on Israeli military assaults in occupied Palestine as if the United States is an innocent neutral party to the conflict... But U.S. media and politicians betray their own lack of neutrality by blaming Palestinians for nearly all the violence and framing flagrantly disproportionate, indiscriminate and therefore illegal Israeli attacks as a justifiable response to Palestinian actions. The classic formulation from U.S. officials and commentators is that "Israel has the right to defend itself," never "Palestinians have the right to defend themselves," even as the Israelis massacre hundreds of Palestinian civilians, destroy thousands of Palestinian homes and seize ever more Palestinian land... US policy must be reversed to reflect international law and the shifting US opinion in favor of Palestinian rights. Every Member of Congress must be pushed to sign the bill introduced by Rep. Betty McCollum insisting that US funds to Israel are not used "to support the military detention of Palestinian children, the unlawful seizure, appropriation, and destruction of Palestinian property and forcible transfer of civilians in the West Bank, or further annexation of Palestinian land in violation of international law." Congress must also be pressured to quickly enforce the Arms Export Control Act and the Leahy Laws to stop supplying any more U.S. weapons to Israel until it stops using them to attack and kill civilians... U.S. leaders and politicians must now confront their country's and, in many cases, their own personal complicity in this catastrophe, and act urgently and decisively to reverse U.S. policy to support full human rights for all Palestinians."

"He votes as a Southern man, and votes sectionally; I am also a Southern man, but vote nationally on national questions."

"CONGRESS, n. A body of men who meet to repeal laws."

"REPRESENTATIVE, n. In national politics, a member of the Lower House in this world, and without discernible hope of promotion in the next."

"“So as I prepare to step foot on that trail blazed by three strong Black women senators who came before us,” Blunt Rochester said. “I have a message to the young people who are standing up, speaking up and giving your all for your country and the world. I see you, I’m grateful to you, and you got next.”"

"I never know what South Carolina thinks of a measure. I never consult her. I act to the best of my judgment, and according to my conscience. If she approves, well and good. If she does not, or wishes any one to take my place, I am ready to vacate. We are even."

"Congress locked down as protesters descend on U.S. Capitol"

"Congress seems drugged and inert most of the time. Even when the problems it ignores build up to crises and erupt in strikes, riots, and demonstrations, it has not moved. Its idea of meeting a problem is to hold hearings or, in extreme cases, to appoint a commission."

"A few years ago Gen. Francis Marion Cockrell, for thirty consecutive years a prominent Senator from Missouri, denominated the United States Senate as “the greatest legislative body in the world,” whereupon Senator John C. Spooner, of Wisconsin, an eminent constitutional lawyer and considerable of a wit, said: “The Senate is not the greatest legislative body in the world. It is one of the branches of, I think, perhaps the greatest legislative body in the world, and the Senate may be the greatest part of the greatest legislative body in the world. I am not disposed to dispute that. We all admit that ourselves.”"

"The truth is being more and more realized by the public that, other things being equal or anywhere near equal, the value of the Representative or Senator increases in proportion to his length of service. A man must learn to be a Representative or Senator, just as he must learn to be a farmer, carpenter, blacksmith, merchant, engineer, lawyer, doctor, preacher, teacher, or anything else. Of course some men learn quicker than others—some of exceptional ability and powers of observation very speedily, and some not at all. The best plan for a constituency to pursue is to select a man of good sense, good habits, and perfect integrity, young enough to learn, and re-elect him so long as he retains his faculties and is faithful to his trust. Such a man grows into power and high position as surely as the sparks fly upward. As a rule, in both House and Senate, the best places go to men of long service, provided they are capable, sober, industrious, vigilant, and punctual in the discharge of their duties. No man should be sent to either House of Congress solely to gratify his own ambition, but because he has qualifications for the position which he seeks—indeed, better qualifications than any of his opponents."

"There is a tradition that, on his return from France, Jefferson called Washington to account at the breakfast-table for having agreed to a second chamber. "Why," asked Washington, "did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" "To cool it," quoth Jefferson. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.""

"I am now here in Congress... I am at liberty to vote as my conscience and judgment dictates to be right, without the yoke of any party on me, or the driver at my heels, with his whip in hand, commanding me to ge-wo-haw, just at his pleasure. Look at my arms, you will find no party hand-cuff on them!"

"The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

"Too often critics seem more intent on seeking new ways to alter Congress than to truly learn how it functions. They might well profit from the advice of Thomas Huxley, who said a century ago: "Sit down before facts as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion — or you shall learn nothing.""

"I know well the coequal role of the Congress in our constitutional process. I love the House of Representatives. I revere the traditions of the Senate despite my too-short internship in that great body. As President, within the limits of basic principles, my motto toward the Congress is communication, conciliation, compromise, and cooperation."

"Congress is, after all, not a body of laymen unfamiliar with the commonplaces of our law. This legislation was the formulation of the two Judiciary Committees, all of whom are lawyers, and the Congress is predominately a lawyers' body."

"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."

"Two generations ago, Gladstone called the Senate of the United States "that remarkable body, the most remarkable of all the inventions of modern politics"."

"Congress lets business owners, investors and landlords play by one set of rules, which are filled with opportunities to hide income, fabricate deductions and reduce taxes. Congress requires wage earners to operate under another, much harsher set of rules in which every dollar of income... is reported to the government, and taxes are withheld... to make sure [they] pay in full."

"Members of Congress routinely vote on tax bills that they have never read, much less understood even on a superficial level. Sanford J. Schlesinger... says that "there hasn't been a member of Congress with a comprehensive understanding of the laws since ...""

"We are supporting Saudi Arabia while they inflict unthinkable human rights violations on the Yemeni people. Congress must do its job and stop providing military support and arm sales to the Saudi government."

"Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation; and whereas, it is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truths announced in the Holy Scriptures, and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord; and, inasmuch as we know that, by his divine law, nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God, we have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us! It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness."

"Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens—and then everybody disagrees."

"On June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War, the Israeli military attacked the USS Liberty, an American spy ship which had been monitoring Israeli transmissions about the conflict. Intercepted Israeli communications indicated that the goal was to sink the Liberty and leave no survivors. Warplanes and torpedo boats had already killed 34 and wounded 174, when Halbardier slid over the Liberty’s napalm-glazed deck to jury-rig an antenna and get an SOS off to the Sixth Fleet. The Israelis intercepted the SOS and broke off the attack immediately. In effect, Halbardier prevented the massacre of all 294 onboard. Still, the infamy of the attack on the Liberty was two-fold. First, the Liberty, a virtually defenseless intelligence collection platform prominently flying an American flag in international waters, came under deliberate attack by Israeli aircraft and three 60-ton Israeli torpedo boats off the coast of the Sinai on a cloudless June afternoon during the six-day Israeli-Arab war. Second, President Lyndon Johnson called back carrier aircraft dispatched to defend the Liberty lest Israel be embarrassed, the start of an unconscionable cover-up, including top Navy brass, that persists to this day. Does all this have relevance today? Of course. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understands that there is little that Israel could do that would earn the opprobrium of the U.S. Congress or retaliation from the White House, whether it’s building illegal settlements or slaughtering civilians in Gaza. The Israelis seem convinced they remain in the catbird’s seat, largely because of the Israel Lobby’s influence with U.S. lawmakers and opinion makers."

"Right now Freshman members of Congress are at a “Bipartisan” orientation w/ briefings on issues. Invited panelists offer insights to inform new Congressmembers‘ views as they prepare to legislate. # of Corporate CEOs we’ve listened to here: 4; # of Labor leaders: 0"

"Our “bipartisan” Congressional orientation is cohosted by a corporate lobbyist group. Other members have quietly expressed to me their concern that this wasn’t told to us in advance. Lobbyists are here. Goldman Sachs is here. Where‘s labor? Activists? Frontline community leaders?"

"The age difference between myself (29) + oldest House members is ~60 yrs. For better or worse, young people will live in the world Congress leaves behind. That’s why I focus on our future: addressing climate change & runaway income inequality, ending school-to-prison pipelines, etc."

"Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens. And when he sits down, everybody disagrees."

"Average Americans have little or no influence over the making of U.S. government policy. ... Wealthy Americans wield a lot of influence. By investing money in politics, they can turn economic power into political power."

"an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power and must be vacated."

"I take the view that equality is equality … and that I am a member of Congress as good as anybody else. As long as it is within the law, it's not wrong... If the law is wrong, change the law. I do not do any more than any other member of the Congress, but by the Grace of God, I'll not do less!"

"Papers say: "Congress is deadlocked and can't act." I think that is the greatest blessing that could befall this country."

"I could study all my life and not think up half the amount of funny things they can think of in one Session of Congress."

"This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer."

"So when all the yielding and objections is over, the other Senator said, "I object to the remarks of a professional joker being put into the Congressional Record." Taking a dig at me, see? They didn't want any outside fellow contributing. Well, he had me wrong. Compared to them I'm an amateur, and the thing about my jokes is that they don't hurt anybody. You can say they're not funny or they're terrible or they're good or whatever it is, but they don't do no harm. But with Congress — every time they make a joke it's a law. And every time they make a law it's a joke."

"Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what's going to happen to us with both a Senate and a House?"

"The rest of the people know the condition of the country, for they live in it, but Congress has no idea what is going on in America, so the President has to tell 'em."

"And kid Congress and the Senate, don't scold 'em. They are just children thats never grown up. They don't like to be corrected in company. Don't send messages to 'em, send candy."

"I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a congress."

"To my mind Judas Iscariot was nothing but a low, mean, premature Congressman."

"A jay hasn’t got any more principle than a Congressman. A jay will lie, a jay will steal, a jay will deceive, a jay will betray; and four times out of five, a jay will go back on his solemnest promise."

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."

"I think I can say, and say with pride, that we have legislatures that bring higher prices than any in the world."

"Suppose you were a member of Congress. And suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself."

"We have been taught to regard a representative of the people as a sentinel on the watch-tower of liberty."

"If you had the opportunity to save a million people from preventable death, would you do it? … This is not merely a rhetorical question, but one that members of the Congress will have to answer in the present. … Right now, legislation has already passed the House of Representatives that would do just that. And it was included in the newly released COVID relief bill that is being negotiated between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. It would require the Treasury Department, which represents our government at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to support a multi-trillion dollar relief package from the Fund. These funds are not loans and therefore will not have to be repaid. They have no conditions attached to them. And they do not cost the U.S. government anything at all — not now, and not at any time in the future."

"The IMF leadership, and almost all of the 189 member countries — including U.S. allies such as Germany and Canada — are ready to allocate the aid that Congress is considering. The reason it hasn’t already been approved at the IMF is that the U.S. Treasury has said no, and the U.S. — alone — has a veto at the IMF on this matter. .. [I]t’s not at all clear why the Treasury is blocking this desperately needed aid. … Nor is there any reason that it should be a partisan issue … Of course the Congress has a lot on its plate, and is having trouble passing further relief that millions of Americans need to pay their bills and for many, even have enough to eat. But all indications are that Congress will pass major spending bills before the end of the year, including funding to avoid a government shutdown. It would take almost no effort to include the House or Senate bill that would unblock Treasury’s hold on the IMF funding…"

"All I've done since I've been in Washington has been to sit around and try to look wise, and that's what any man has to do who isn't willing to barter his convictions for political expediency. ... No man who wants to be intellectually honest has any business in Congress."

"Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress at work."

"Since pro means the opposite of con, can you give me an illustration? Progress and Congress."

"During the American Revolution, George Washington used to call out for "beef, beef, beef," but the Continental Congress called out for "pork, pork, pork.""

"One of the standing jokes of Congress is that the new Congressman always spends the first week wondering how he got there and the rest of the time wondering how the other members got there."

"The best legislator is the one who votes for all appropriations and against all taxes."

"One of the countless drawbacks of being in Congress is that I am compelled to receive impertinent letters from a jackass like you in which you say I promised to have the Sierra Madre mountains reforested and I have been in Congress two months and haven't done it. Will you please take two running jumps and go to hell."

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger.""

"To the old Union they had said that the Federal power had no authority to interfere with slavery issues in a state. To their new nation they would declare that the state had no power to interfere with a federal protection of slavery. Of all the many testimonials to the fact that slavery, and not states rights, really lay at the heart of their movement, this was the most eloquent of all."

"I tell you that, while I believe with you in the doctrine of states rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union."

"To those who say, 'My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights', I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say? To those who say that, 'this civil-rights program is an infringement on states' rights'? I say this, The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights."

"There is no Constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong—deadly wrong–to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country. There is no issue of States' rights or National rights. There is only the struggle for human rights."

"I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man's rights, that each community, as a State, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within that State that interfere with the right of no other State, and that the general government, upon principle, has no right to interfere with anything other than that general class of things that does concern the whole."

"No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass."

"While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the states' rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, states' rights for what purpose? States' rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle."

"Secession was required to preserve slavery. Why should non-slaveholders care? Because slavery was the will of God, and those who opposed the institution–the abolitionists–were by definition anti-God. More to the point, secession was necessary to preserve white supremacy, to avoid a race war, and to prevent racial amalgamation. For Southerners to remain in the Union, be they slave-owners or non-slave-owners, meant losing their property, their social standing, and the 'sacred purity of our daughters'. Tariffs appear nowhere in these sermons and speeches, and 'states' rights' are mentioned only in the context of the rights of states to decide whether some of their inhabitants can own other humans."

"Is the United States going to decide, are the people of this country going to decide that their Federal Government shall in the future have no right under any implied power or any court-approved power to enter into a solution of a national economic problem, but that that national economic problem must be decided only by the States?… We thought we were solving it, and now it has been thrown right straight in our faces. We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce."

"Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money. Separately each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men, a post of honour that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. The vast number of such places it is that renders the British Government so tempestuous. The struggles for them are the true sources of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the Nation, distracting its Councils, hurrying sometimes into fruitless & mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonorable terms of peace. And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre-eminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate; the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your Government and be your rulers."

"On May 14, 1787, the Constitutional Convention with George Washington presiding officer, the work of framing the new nation's constitution proceeded with fifty-five persons and only two were not employers!"

"The preponderant weight of economic power in the Constitutional Convention, while conceding the outward forms of political democracy, went on at once to curb the exercise of the very power it had just granted; it crippled the force of democratic power at the source by parceling up this power by a marvelously dexterous system of barriers to its expression. Thus political equality under the ballot was granted on the unstated but factually double-locked assumption that the people must refrain from seeking the extension of that equality to the economic sphere. In short, the attempted harmonious marriage of democracy to capitalism doomed genuinely popular control from the start."

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. ...In June [2016], the [DNC]... announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials—hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November."

"[S]oon after WikiLeaks's first release of stolen documents, a foreign government contacted the FBI about... Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor . Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to... Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July 31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the Russian government..."

"That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government "directed recent compromises of e-mails... intended to interfere with the US election process." After the election... the United States imposed sanctions... By early 2017, several congressional committees were examining Russia's interference..."

"[I]nvestigatory efforts... led to the May 2017 appointment of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. The order... authorized him to investigate "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," including any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign."

"Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First... a social media campaign... favored... Trump and disparaged... Clinton. Second, ...computer-intrusion operations against... the Clinton Campaign and... then released stolen documents."

"The investigation... identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency... and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

"In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "." ...But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability... in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy... we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign "coordinat[ed]"—a term that appears in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating... that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

"Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel's investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign. Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special Counsel's charging decisions."

"Volume II addresses the President's actions towards the FBI's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the Special Counsel's investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations that guided that investigation."

"The (IRA) carried out the earliest Russian interference operations identified...—a social media campaign designed to provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States. The IRA... received funding from Russian oligarch and companies he controlled. Prigozhin is widely reported to have ties to... Putin."

"In mid-2014, the IRA sent employees to the United States on an intelligence-gathering mission..."

"The IRA later used social media accounts and interest groups to sow discord... through... "." The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed... to undermine the U.S. electoral system... The IRA' s operation also included the purchase of political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities, as well as the staging of political rallies... To organize those rallies, IRA employees posed as U.S. grassroots entities and persons and made contact with Trump supporters and Trump Campaign officials... Section II... details... the Russian social media campaign."

"[T]he Russian government employed a second form of interference: cyber intrusions (hacking) and releases of hacked materials damaging to the Clinton Campaign. ...the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Army (GRU) carried out these operations. ...The GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. ...disseminating stolen materials through the fictitious online personas " " and "." The GRU later released additional materials through the organization WikiLeaks."

"The ...("Trump Campaign" or "Campaign") showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton."

"WikiLeaks began releasing Podesta's stolen emails on October 7, 2016, less than one hour after a U.S. media outlet released video considered damaging to candidate Trump. Section III... details... Russian hacking operations, as well as other efforts by Trump Campaign supporters to obtain Clinton-related emails."

"The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials... Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated..."

"The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet... invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations."

"Section IV of this Report details the contacts between Russia and the Trump Campaign..."

"2015. Some of the earliest contacts were made in connection with a Trump Organization... project... . Candidate Trump signed a Letter of intent for Trump Tower Moscow by November 2015, and in January 2016... Michael Cohen emailed and spoke about the project with the office of Russian government press secretary . The Trump Organization pursued the project through at least June 2016, including by considering travel to Russia by Cohen and candidate Trump."

"Spring 2016. Campaign foreign policy advisor made early contact with , a London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016. Immediately upon his return to London from that trip, Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had "dirt" on Hillary Clinton..."

"One week later, in the first week of May 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. Throughout... and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government. No meeting took place."

"Summer 2016. Russian outreach to the Trump Campaign continued... as... Trump was becoming the presumptive Republican nominee.... On June 9, 2016, for example, a Russian lawyer met with senior Trump Campaign officials Donald Trump Jr., , and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to deliver... "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary." The materials were offered to Trump Jr. as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." ...the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist candidate Trump's electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer's presentation did not provide such information. Days after the June 9 meeting... a cybersecurity firm and the DNC announced that Russian government hackers had infiltrated the DNC and obtained access to opposition research on candidate Trump, among other documents."

"In July 2016, Campaign foreign policy advisor traveled... to Moscow and gave the keynote address at the . Page had lived and worked in Russia between 2003 and 2007. After returning... Page became acquainted with at least two Russian intelligence officers... Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow and his advocacy for pro-Russian foreign policy drew media attention. The Campaign then distanced itself from Page and, by late September 2016, removed him from the Campaign."

"On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks posted thousands of internal DNC documents revealing information about the Clinton Campaign. ...[W]ithin a week of the release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign. On July 31, 2016... the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign."

"August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate , who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver... a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged... was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period... after..."

"Fall 2016. On October 7, 2016, the media released video of candidate Trump speaking in graphic terms about women years earlier... considered damaging to his candidacy. Less than an hour later, WikiLeaks made its second release: thousands of John Podesta' s emails that had been stolen... in late March 2016. The FBI and... U.S. government institutions were... continuing their investigation of suspected Russian government efforts to interfere... That same day, October 7, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint public statement "that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails..." Those "thefts" and the "disclosures"... the statement continued, "are intended to interfere with the US election process.""

"Post-2016 Election. Immediately after the... election, Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new administration. ...The Russian Embassy made contact hours after the election to congratulate the President-Elect and to arrange a call with President Putin. Several Russian businessmen picked up the effort from there."

", the chief executive officer of Russia's sovereign wealth fund, was among the Russians who tried to make contact... In early December, a business associate steered Dmitriev to , a supporter of the Trump Campaign and an associate of senior Trump advisor Steve Bannon. Dmitriev and Prince later met face-to-face in January 2017 in the and discussed U.S.-Russia relations. ...another business associate introduced Dmitriev to a friend of ... Dmitriev and Kushner's friend collaborated on a short written reconciliation plan for the United States and Russia, which Dmitriev implied had been cleared through Putin. The friend gave that proposal to Kushner before the inauguration, and Kushner later gave copies to Bannon and incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson."

"On December 29, 2016, then-President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for having interfered in the election. Incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn called Russian Ambassador and asked Russia not to escalate the situation in response to the sanctions. The following day, Putin announced that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the sanctions at that time. Hours later, President-Elect Trump tweeted, "Great move on delay (by V. Putin)." The next day, on December 31, 2016, Kislyak called Flynn and told him the request had been received at the highest levels and Russia had chosen not to retaliate as a result of Flynn's request."

"On January 6, 2017, members of the intelligence community briefed President-Elect Trump on a joint assessment-drafted and coordinated among the Central Intelligence Agency, FBI, and National Security Agency-that concluded with high confidence that Russia had intervened in the election through a variety of means to assist Trump's candidacy and harm Clinton's. A declassified version of the assessment was publicly released that same day."

"Between mid-January 2017 and early February 2017, three congressional committees... announced that they would conduct inquiries, or had... been conducting inquiries, into Russian interference... Then-FBI Director James Comey later confirmed... the existence of the FBI's investigation into Russian interference that had begun before the election. On March 20, 2017, in open-session testimony before HPSCI, Comey stated: I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia' s efforts .... As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.The investigation continued under... Comey for the next seven weeks until May 9, 2017, when... Trump fired Corney as FBI Director—an action which is analyzed in Volume II of the report."

"On May 17, 2017, Acting Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel and authorized him to conduct the investigation that Comey had confirmed... as well as matters arising directly from the investigation, and... efforts to interfere with or obstruct the investigation."

"Trump reacted negatively to the Special Counsel's appointment. He told advisors that it was the end of his presidency, sought to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation and to have the Special Counsel removed, and engaged in efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation and prevent the disclosure of evidence to it, including... contacts with potential witnesses. Those and related actions are described and analyzed in Volume II..."

"In reaching the charging decisions described in Volume 1... the Office determined whether the conduct it found amounted to a violation of federal criminal law chargeable under the Principles of Federal Prosecution. ...The standard set forth in the Justice Manual is whether the conduct constitutes a crime; if so, whether admissible evidence would probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction; and whether prosecution would serve a substantial federal interest that could not be adequately served by prosecution elsewhere or through non-criminal alternatives."

"Section V of the report provides detailed explanations of the Office's charging decisions, which contain three main components."

"First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election—the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations—­violated U.S. criminal law. Many of the individuals and entities involved in the social media campaign have been charged with participating in a conspiracy to defraud the United States... Russian intelligence officers who carried out the hacking into Democratic Party computers and the personal email accounts... have been... charged."

"Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. ...the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. ...[E]vidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks's releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation. ...[E]vidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election."

"Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation... The Office charged some of those lies as violations of the federal false­ statements statute. ...Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying about his interactions with... Kislyak during the transition period. ... pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about, inter alia, the nature and timing of his interactions with , the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. Former Trump Organization attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress about the Trump Moscow project. ...And ...the U.S. District Court found that Manafort lied to the Office and the grand jury concerning his interactions and communications with about Trump Campaign polling data and a peace plan for Ukraine."

"[I]nteractions between Russian Ambassador Kislyak and Trump Campaign officials both at the candidate's April 2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and during the week of the Republican National Convention were brief, public, and non-substantive. ...[T]he investigation did not establish that one Campaign official's efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia. The investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Kislyak and Sessions in September 2016... included any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign."

"The investigation did not always yield admissible information or testimony, or a complete picture of the activities undertaken... Some individuals invoked their Fifth Amendment right... and were not, in the Office' s judgment, appropriate candidates for grants of immunity. The Office limited its pursuit of other witnesses and information—such as information known to attorneys or individuals claiming to be members of the media—in light of internal Department of Justice policies... Some of the information obtained via court process... was presumptively covered by legal privilege and was screened from investigators by a filter (or "taint") team. Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete, leading to some of the false—statements charges described above. And the Office faced practical limits on its ability to access relevant evidence as well—numerous witnesses and subjects lived abroad, and documents were held outside the United States."

"[S]ome of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated—including some associated with the Trump Campaign—deleted relevant communications... using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records. In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts."

"Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report."

"On May 17, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein... appointed the Special Counsel "to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters." ...[and was] "...authorized to conduct the investigation including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). ...Section 600.4 affords the Special Counsel "the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses." ...The authority to investigate "any matters that arose... directly from the investigation,"... covers similar crimes that may have occurred during the course of the FBI's confirmed investigation before the Special Counsel's appointment. "If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate," the Order further provided, "the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.""

"The Acting Attorney General further clarified the scope... A memorandum dated August 2, 2017, explained that the Appointment Order... "...permit[s] its public release without confirming specific investigations involving specific individuals." ...the Special Counsel had been authorized... to investigate allegations that three Trump campaign officials—, Paul Manafort, and —"committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election." The memorandum also confirmed the Special Counsel's authority to investigate...other matters, including... allegations involving Manafort (crimes arising from payments he received from the Ukrainian government and crimes arising from his receipt of loans from a bank whose CEO was then seeking a position in the Trump Administration); allegations that Papadopoulos committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli government; and four sets of allegations involving Michael Flynn..."

"On October 20, 2017, the Acting Attorney General confirmed... the Special Counsel's investigative authority as to... First, ...to investigate "the pertinent activities of Michael Cohen, Richard Gates, [redacted name], Roger Stone, and [redacted name]" ...Second, with respect to Michael Cohen... to investigate " leads relate[d] to Cohen' s establishment and use of Essential Consultants LLC to, inter alia, receive funds from Russian-backed entities." Third, ...authority to investigate individuals and entities who were possibly engaged in "jointly undertaken activity" with existing subjects of the investigation, including Paul Manafort. Finally, ...into "allegations that [then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions] made false statements to the... Senate[,]" ..."

"There was substantial evidence immediately available to the Special Counsel at the inception of the investigation in May 2017 because the FBI had, by that time, already investigated Russian election interference for nearly 10 months."

"Certain proceedings associated with the Office's work remain ongoing. [T]he Office has transferred responsibility for... remaining issues to other components of the Department of Justice and FBI. Appendix D lists those transfers."

"Two district courts confirmed the breadth of the Special Counsel's authority to investigate Russia election interference and links and/or coordination with the Trump Campaign. ...[T]he Office periodically identified evidence of potential criminal activity that was outside the scope of the Special Counsel's authority... [T]he Office referred that evidence to appropriate law enforcement authorities, principally other components of the Department of Justice and to the FBI. Appendix D summarizes those referrals."

"[T]he Office issued more than 2,800 subpoenas under the auspices of a grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia; executed nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants; obtained more than 230 orders for communications records... obtained almost 50 orders authorizing use of s; made 13 requests to foreign governments pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties; and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses, including almost 80 before a grand jury."

"[T]he Office recognized that its investigation could identify foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information relevant to the FBI's broader national security mission. FBI personnel who assisted the Office established procedures to identify and convey such information to the FBI. The FBI's Counterintelligence Division met with the Office regularly for that purpose... [T]he FBI also embedded personnel at the Office... to review the results of the investigation... [C]ommunications and other correspondence between the Office and the FBI contain information derived from the investigation, not all of which is contained in this Volume. This Volume is a summary. It contains... information necessary to account for... prosecution and declination decisions and to describe the investigation's main factual results."

"The first form of Russian election influence came principally from the , LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and companies he controlled, including Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering (collectively "Concord")."

"The IRA and its employees began operations targeting the United States as early as 2014. Using fictitious U.S. personas, IRA employees operated social media accounts and group pages designed to attract U.S. audiences."

"By early to mid-2016, IRA operations included supporting the Trump Campaign and disparaging candidate Hillary Clinton. ...Some IRA employees, posing as U.S. persons... communicated electronically with individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities, including the staging of political rallies."

"By the end of the 2016 U.S. election, the IRA had the ability to reach millions of U.S. persons through their social media accounts. Multiple IRA-controlled Facebook groups and Instagram accounts had hundreds of thousands of U.S. participants. IRA-controlled Twitter accounts separately had tens of thousands of followers, including multiple U.S. political figures who retweeted IRA-created content."

"Beginning in 2017, the President of the United States took a variety of actions towards the ongoing FBI investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters that raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice. The Order appointing the Special Counsel gave this Office jurisdiction to investigate matters that arose directly from the FBI's Russia investigation, including whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with Russia-related investigations. The Special Counsel's jurisdiction also covered potentially obstructive acts related to the Special Counsel's investigation itself. This Volume of our report summarizes our obstruction-of-justice investigation of the President."

"First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." ...[T]his Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. ...[W]e recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct."

"Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible. ...[A] President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. ...[W]e conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."

"Third, ...we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct " constitutes a federal offense." ...Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. ...In contrast, a prosecutor's judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator."

"The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime... could carry consequences... beyond the realm of criminal justice. ...Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term, OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment' s] secrecy," and if an indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to govern." ...[T]he possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the person's conduct constitutes a federal offense.""

"Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment."

"This report on our investigation consists of four parts. Section I provides an overview of obstruction-of-justice principles and summarizes certain investigatory and evidentiary considerations. Section II sets forth the factual results of our obstruction investigation and analyzes the evidence. Section III addresses statutory and constitutional defenses. Section IV states our conclusion."

"Our obstruction-of-justice inquiry focused on a series of actions by the President that related to the Russian-interference investigations, including the President's conduct towards the law enforcement officials overseeing the investigations and the witnesses to relevant events."

"The key issues and events we examined include the following:"

"The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump. During the 2016 presidential campaign... Trump publicly expressed skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information [redacted section] about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for... ."

"Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn. In mid-January 2017, incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn falsely denied to the Vice President, other administration officials, and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador about Russia's response to U.S. sanctions on Russia for its election interference. On January 27, the day after the President was told that Flynn had lied to the Vice President and had made similar statements to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Comey to a private dinner at the White House and told Corney that he needed loyalty. On February 14, the day after the President requested Flynn's resignation, the President told an outside advisor, "Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over." The advisor disagreed and said the investigations would continue."

"Later that afternoon, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Comey. Referring to the FBI's investigation of Flynn, the President said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Shortly after requesting Flynn's resignation and speaking privately to Comey, the President sought to have Deputy National Security Advisor draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a 's Office attorney thought that the request would look like a for an ambassadorship she had been offered."

"The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation. Tn February 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaign­related investigations because of his role in the Trump Campaign. Tn early March, the President told White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing. And after Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at the decision and told advisors that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him. That weekend, the President took Sessions aside at an event and urged him to "unrecuse." Later in March, Comey publicly disclosed at a congressional hearing that the FBI was investigating "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," including any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. In the following days, the President reached out to the and the leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the (NSA) to ask them what they could do to publicly dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also twice called Comey directly, notwithstanding guidance from McGahn to avoid direct contacts with the Department of Justice. Comey had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President asked Comey to "lift the cloud" of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly."

"The President's termination of Comey. On May 3, 2017, Comey testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Comey. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release, state[d] that Comey had informed the President that he was not under investigation. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Comey's termination resulted from independent recommendations from the and Deputy Attorney General that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But the President had decided to fire Corney before hearing from the Department of Justice. The day after firing Corney, the President told Russian officials that he had "faced great pressure because of Russia," which had been "taken off" by Corney's firing. The next day, the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Comey regardless of the Department of Justice's recommendation and that when he "decided to just do it," he was thinking that "this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story." In response to a question about whether he was angry with Comey about the Russia investigation, the President said, "As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," adding that firing Comey "might even lengthen out the investigation.""

"The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him. On May 17, 2017, the Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation appointed a Special Counsel to conduct the investigation and related matters. The President reacted to news that a Special Counsel had been appointed by telling advisors that it was "the end of his presidency" and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions submitted his resignation, but the President ultimately did not accept it. The President told aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and suggested that the Special Counsel therefore could not serve. The President's advisors told him the asserted conflicts were meritless and had already been considered by the Department of Justice."

"On June 14, 2017, the media reported that the Special Counsel's Office was investigating whether the President had obstructed justice. Press reports called this "a major turning point" in the investigation: while Comey had told the President he was not under investigation, following Corney's firing, the President now was under investigation. The President reacted to this news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel's investigation. On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential ."

"Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation. Two days after directing McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager , a trusted advisor outside the government, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. The message said that Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation, the investigation was "very unfair" to the President, the President had done nothing wrong, and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and "let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections." Lewandowski said he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do."

"One month later, in another private meeting with Lewandowski on July 19, 2017, the President asked about the status of his message for Sessions to limit the Special Counsel investigation to future election interference. Lewandowski told the President that the message would be delivered soon. Hours after that meeting, the President publicly criticized Sessions in an interview with the New York Times, and then issued a series of tweets making it clear that Sessions's job was in jeopardy. Lewandowski did not want to deliver the President's message personally, so he asked senior White House official to deliver it to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and did not follow through."

"Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence. In the summer of 2017, the President learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." On several occasions, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the emails would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited. Before the emails became public, the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr. by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with "an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign" and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. When the press asked questions about the President' s involvement in Trump Jr.' s statement, the President's personal lawyer repeatedly denied the President had played any role."

"Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation. In early summer 2017, the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal. In October 2017, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to "take [a] look" at investigating Clinton. In December 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, the President met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested... that if Sessions unrecused and took back supervision of the Russia investigation, he would be a "hero." The President told Sessions, "I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly." In response, Sessions volunteered that he had never seen anything " improper" on the campaign and told the President there was a "whole new leadership team" in place. He did not unrecuse."

"Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting, the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle."

"Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort, [redacted name]. After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, the President' s personal counsel left a message for Flynn' s attorneys reminding them of the President's warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said "still remains," and asking for a "heads up" if Flynn knew "information that implicates the President." When Flynn' s counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President's personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn's actions reflected " hostility" towards the President. During Manafort's prosecution and when the jury in his criminal trial was deliberating, the President praised Manafort in public, said that Manafort was being treated unfairly, and declined to rule out a pardon. After Manafort was convicted, the President called Manafort "a brave man" for refusing to "break" and said that "flipping" "almost ought to be outlawed." [Followed by a redaction]"

"Conduct involving Michael Cohen. The President's conduct towards Michael Cohen, a former Trump Organization executive, changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President's involvement in the project, to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness. From September 2015 to June 2016, Cohen had pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed candidate Trump on the project numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal. In 2017, Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project, including stating that he had only briefed Trump on the project three times and never discussed travel to Russia with him, in an effort to adhere to a "party line" that Cohen said was developed to minimize the President's connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony, Cohen had extensive discussions with the President's personal counsel, who, according to Cohen, said that Cohen should "stay on message" and not contradict the President. After the FBI searched Cohen's home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not "flip," contacted him directly to tell him to "stay strong," and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President's personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a "rat," and suggested that his family members had committed crimes."

"Overarching factual issues. We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President's conduct."

"Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of­-justice cases."

"First, the investigation concerned the President, and some of his actions, such as firing the FBI director, involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time, the President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses—all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis."

"Second, unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime, the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct."

"Third, many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same."

"Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent."

"In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. The first phase covered the period from the President's first interactions with Comey through the President's firing of Corney. During that time, the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation."

"Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation."

"Judgments about the nature of the President's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence."

"The President's counsel raised statutory and constitutional defenses to a possible obstruction-of-justice analysis of the conduct we investigated. We concluded that none of those legal defenses provided a basis for declining to investigate the facts."

"Statutory defenses. ...No principle of statutory construction justifies narrowing... to cover only conduct that impairs the integrity or availability of evidence. Sections 1503 and 1505... offer broad protection against obstructive acts directed at pending grand jury, judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings, and they are supplemented by a provision in Section 1512(b) aimed specifically at conduct intended to prevent or hinder the communication to law enforcement of information related to a federal crime."

"Constitutional defenses. ...Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice."

"Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers. The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source."

"[A]ny inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term "corruptly" sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of "corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article II powers."

"[T]he proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment, avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary, a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It... aligns with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws."

"Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President' s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

"In a press conference... July 27, 2016... Trump said that the assertion that Russia had hacked the emails was unproven, but stated that it would give him "no pause" if Russia had Clinton's emails. Trump added, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." ...and in response to a question about whether he would recognize Crimea as Russian territory and consider lifting sanctions, Trump replied, "We'll be looking at that. Yeah, we'll be looking.""

"[Footnote 36, to the above quote] Donald Trump News Conference, Doral, Florida, C-SPAN (July 27, 2016). Within five hours of Trump's remark, a Russian intelligence service began targeting email accounts associated with Hillary Clinton for possible hacks. See Volume I, Section III, supra. In written answers submitted in this investigation, the President stated that he made the "Russia, if you're listening" statement "in jest and sarcastically, as was apparent to any objective observer." Written Responses of Donald J. Trump (Nov. 20, 2018), at 13 (Response to Question II, Part (d))."

"Intent. ...Evidence does establish that the President connected the Flynn investigation to the FBI's broader Russia investigation and that he believed, as he told Christie, that terminating Flynn would end "the whole Russia thing." ...Multiple witnesses recalled that the President viewed the Russia investigations as a challenge to the legitimacy of his election. The President paid careful attention to negative coverage of Flynn and reacted with annoyance and anger when the story broke disclosing that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Just hours before meeting one-on-one with Comey, the President told Christie that firing Flynn would put an end to the Russia inquiries. And after Christie pushed back, telling the President that firing Flynn would not end the Russia investigation, the President asked Christie to reach out to Comey and convey that the President liked him and he was part of "the team." That afternoon, the President cleared the room and asked Comey to "let[blank] Flynn go.""

"When the President first learned about the FBI investigation into Flynn, he told McGahn, Bannon, and Priebus not to discuss the matter with anyone else in the White House. The next day, the President invited Comey for a one-on-one dinner against the advice of an aide who recommended that other White House officials also attend. At the dinner, the President asked Comey for " loyalty" and, at a different point in the conversation, mentioned that Flynn had judgment issues. When the President met with Comey the day after Flynn's termination—shortly after being told by Christie that firing Flynn would not end the Russia investigation—the President cleared the room, even excluding the Attorney General, so that he could again speak to Comey alone. The President's decision to meet one-on-one with Comey contravened the advice of the White House Counsel that the President should not communicate directly with the Department of Justice to avoid any appearance of interfering in law enforcement activities. And the President later denied that he cleared the room and asked Comey to " let[blank] Flynn go"—a denial that would have been unnecessary if he believed his request was a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion."

"[T]he President's effort to have McFarland write an internal email denying that the President had directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak highlights the President' s concern about being associated with Flynn's conduct. The evidence does not establish that the President was trying to have McFarland lie. The President's request, however, was sufficiently irregular that McFarland—who did not know the full extent of Flynn' s communications with the President and thus could not make the representation the President wanted—felt the need to draft an internal memorandum documenting the President's request, and Eisenberg was concerned that the request would look like a in exchange for an ambassadorship."

"Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President's decision to fire Comey was Comey's unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite the President's repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement. ...The President's other stated rationales for why he fired Comey are not similarly supported by the evidence. ...Other evidence ...indicates that the President wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign. The day after learning about the FBI's interview of Flynn, the President had a one-on-one dinner with Comey, against the advice of senior aides, and told Comey he needed Comey's "loyalty." When the President later asked Comey for a second time to make public that he was not under investigation, he brought up loyalty again, saying "Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know." After the President learned of Sessions's recusal from the Russia investigation, the President was furious and said he wanted an Attorney General who would protect him ...The President also said he wanted to be able to tell his Attorney General "who to investigate." ...[T]he evidence... indicate[s] that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns. Although the President publicly stated during and after the election that he had no connection to Russia, , through Michael Cohen, was pursuing the proposed project through June 2016 and candidate Trump was repeatedly briefed on the progress of those efforts."

"Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involved the President's conduct—and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being investigated for potential . ...When the President learned of the appointment of the Special Counsel on May 17, 2017, he expressed... concern about the investigation, saying "[t]his is the end of my Presidency." The President also faulted Sessions for recusing, saying "you were supposed to protect me.""

"On June 14, 2017, when the Washington Post reported that the Special Counsel was investigating the President for obstruction of justice, the President was facing what he had wanted to avoid: a criminal investigation into his own conduct that was the subject of widespread media attention. The evidence indicates that news of the obstruction investigation prompted the President to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed. By mid-June, the Department of Justice had already cleared the Special Counsel's service and the President's advisors had told him that the claimed conflicts of interest were "silly" and did not provide a basis to remove the Special Counsel. On June 13, 2017, the Acting Attorney General testified before Congress that no good cause for removing the Special Counsel existed, and the President dictated a press statement to Sanders saying he had no intention of firing the Special Counsel. But the next day, the media reported that the President was under investigation for obstruction of justice and the Special Counsel was interviewing witnesses about events related to possible obstruction—spurring the President to write critical tweets about the Special Counsel's investigation. The President called McGahn at home that night and then called him on Saturday from Camp David."

"There... is evidence that the President knew that he should not have made those calls to McGahn... after McGahn had specifically told the President that the White House Counsel's Office—and McGahn himself—could not be involved in pressing conflicts claims and that the President should consult with his personal counsel if he wished to raise conflicts. Instead of relying on his personal counsel... the President sought to use his official powers to remove the Special Counsel. And after the media reported on the President's actions, he denied that he ever ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel terminated and made repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story, as discussed in Volume II, Section II.I, infra. Those denials are contrary to the evidence and suggest the President's awareness that the direction to McGahn could be seen as improper."

"Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct. ...The President ...knew that the investigation had broadened to include his own conduct and whether he had obstructed justice. Those investigations would not proceed if the Special Counsel's jurisdiction were limited to future election interference only. ...[H]e sought that result. The President's initial direction that Sessions should limit the Special Counsel's investigation came just two days after the President had ordered McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed ...[T]he President sought to exclude his and his campaign's conduct from the investigation' s scope. ...[T]he President gave an unplanned interview to the New York Times in which he publicly attacked Sessions and raised questions about his job security. Four days later, on July 22, 2017, the President directed Priebus to obtain Sessions's resignation. That evidence could raise an inference that the President wanted Sessions to realize that his job might be on the line as he evaluated whether to comply with the President's direction..."

"Intent. There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President's conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope. By the summer of 2017, the President was aware that the Special Counsel was investigating him personally for obstruction of justice. And in the wake of the disclosures of emails about the June 9 meeting between Russians and senior members of the campaign, see Volume II, Section II.G, supra, it was evident that the investigation into the campaign now included the President's son, son-in-law, and former campaign manager. The President had previously and unsuccessfully sought to have Sessions publicly announce that the Special Counsel investigation would be confined to future election interference. Yet Sessions remained recused. In December 2017, shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty, the President spoke to Sessions... with only Porter present and told Sessions that he would be a hero if he unrecused. Porter linked that request to the President's desire that Sessions take back supervision of the Russia investigation and direct an investigation of Hillary Clinton. The President said in that meeting that he "just want[ed] to be treated fairly," which could reflect his perception that it was unfair that he was being investigated while Hillary Clinton was not. But a principal effect of that act would be to restore supervision of the Russia investigation to the Attorney General... A reasonable inference... is that the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation."

"Evidence 2. The President Seeks to Have McGahn Dispute the Press Reports ...The President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file "for our records" ...Porter recalled the President saying something to the effect of, "If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him." Later that day... Porter told McGahn that he had to write a letter to dispute that he was ever ordered to terminate the Special Counsel. McGahn shrugged off the request, explaining that the media reports were true. McGahn told Porter that the President had been insistent on firing the Special Counsel... Porter told McGahn that the President suggested that McGahn would be fired if he did not write the letter. McGahn dismissed the threat, saying that the optics would be terrible... The next day, on February 6, 2018, Kelly scheduled time for McGahn to meet with him and the President in the Oval Office to discuss the Times article. ...The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that the New York Times story did not "look good" and McGahn needed to correct it. McGahn recalled the President said, "I never said to fire Mueller. I never said 'fire.' This story doesn't look good. You need to correct this. You're the White House counsel." McGahn responded, "What you said is, 'Call Rod [Rosenstein], tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be the Special Counsel.' " The President responded, "I never said that." The President said he merely wanted McGahn to raise the conflicts issue... McGahn told the President he did not understand the conversation that way and instead had heard, "Call Rod. There are conflicts. Mueller has to go." The President asked McGahn whether he would "do a correction," and McGahn said no. ... The President also asked McGahn in the meeting why he had told Special Counsel's Office investigators that the President had told him to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn responded that he had to and that his conversations with the President were not protected by attorney-client privilege. The President... asked, "What about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don't take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes." McGahn responded that he keeps notes because he is a "real lawyer" and explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing."

"Obstructive act The President's repeated efforts to get McGahn to create a record denying that the President had directed him to remove the Special Counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness if he testified consistently with his memory... The President's assertion in the Oval Office meeting that he had never directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed... runs counter to the evidence."

"Nexus to an official proceeding. ...If the President were focused solely on a press strategy in seeking to have McGahn refute the New York Times article, a nexus to a proceeding or to further investigative interviews would not be shown. But the President's efforts to have McGahn write a letter "for our records" approximately ten days after the stories had come out—well past the typical time to issue a correction for a news story—indicates the President was not focused solely on a press strategy, but instead likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it."

"Intent. Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation."

"Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events-such as advance notice of WikiLeaks's release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians­ could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family."

"As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III..."

"[T]he Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations."

"The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation... [T]he Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments... Below, I summarize the principal conclusions..."

"Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. ...The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government... The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia... As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.""

"The... investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. ...attempts by a Russian organization, the (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. ...The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. ...Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks."

"Obstruction of Justice. the report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President... investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. ...[T]he Special Counsel... did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. ...[T]he report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.""

"The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. ...Deputy Attorney General and I have concluded that the evidence ...is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."

"Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. ...[T]he report identifies no actions that... constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent... beyond a reasonable doubt..."

"[M]y goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies."

"[T]he schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. ...I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices."

"I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you."

"I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. We also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly."

"Accordingly, the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and Department policies. I am requesting that you provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time."

"[T]he introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this Office's work and conclusions. The summary letter the [Justice] Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations."

"While we understand that the Department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release... that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials. Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation."

"Mr. Barr took Mr. Mueller’s words out of context to suggest the president had no motive to obstruct justice."

"Mr. Barr omitted words suggesting that there was complicit conduct that fell short of “coordination”."

"Similarly, Mr. Barr truncated the special counsel explanation of what “coordination” meant — and didn’t mean From William P. Barr In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign ‘coordinated’ with Russian election interference activities. The special counsel defined ‘coordination’ as an ‘agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference.’ From Robert S. Mueller III Vol. I, Page 2: We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than [that which the evidence indicates, i.e.,] the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. [From Charlie Savage] In the second sentence, which Mr. Barr omitted, Mr. Mueller... emphasized that there can be a type of complicit conduct that falls short of how the special counsel defined coordination."

"The President committed crimes. ...Mueller does not accuse the president of crimes. ...But the facts he recounts describe criminal behavior. ...[T]hey describe obstructive activity that does not involve facially valid exercises of presidential power... Lewandowski was not a government employee, so this was not... exercising his powers to manage the executive branch. ...He tried to get a private citizen to lobby the attorney general on his behalf for substantive outcomes to an investigation... [T]he step he asked Lewandowski to press Sessions to take was... unethical. ...Limiting the jurisdiction of the special counsel to future elections would have ...precluded the indictments Mueller later issued for Russia’s hacking and social-media operations. It would have precluded the prosecutions of Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Mike Flynn, , and ... [I]t is unlawful obstruction of justice. Full stop."

"Mueller reports that after the news broke that Trump had sought to get then–White House Counsel to fire the special counsel, Trump sought to get McGahn to deny the story. He also sought to get him to create an internal record denying the story. ...It is hard to imagine a plausible defense based on the idea that pressuring an employee to create false government records by way of influencing his ability to tell the truth is within the president’s constitutional authority."

"[T]he report leaves me with little doubt that the president engaged in criminal obstruction of justice on a number of occasions."

"The president also committed impeachable offenses. ...The president... seven days after taking office, demanded loyalty from his FBI director. Shortly thereafter, he isolated Comey in order to ask that he drop a sensitive FBI investigation in which Trump had a personal interest. The president then leaned on Comey to make public statements about his own status in the investigation. And when he couldn’t get Comey to do so, he recruited the deputy attorney general to create a pretext for Comey’s removal. ...[T]here simply is no plausible way to understand this fact pattern as a good-faith exercise of presidential power. It describes a frank abuse of power... this was impeachable conduct at the time. The Mueller report reinforces that belief. ...Ditto the effort to get Sessions to investigate Hillary Clinton. ...Even as he was trying to get Sessions to protect him from the FBI, Trump was also trying to induce Sessions to investigate his political opponents. This is... the initiation of injustice. ...molten-core impeachment territory. ...trying to induce the attorney general ...to initiate a criminal investigation based on no known criminal predicate against a private citizen whom he happened to dislike. ...The president hinted that Manafort should not “flip” and that he would take care of him—and Manafort acted in a fashion consistent with his relying on those assurances. ...[T]his activity ...is criminal. It is also a grotesque abuse of power for impeachment purposes. ...[R]epeatedly urging witnesses not to cooperate with federal law enforcement and entertaining the notion of using his Article II powers to relieve them of criminal jeopardy or consequences ...This is ...the sort of conduct the impeachment clauses were written to address."

"Trump’s complicity in the Russian hacking operation and his campaign’s contacts with the Russians present a more complicated picture. ...If there wasn’t collusion on the hacking, it sure wasn’t for lack of trying. ...[T]he Mueller report makes clear that Trump personally ordered an attempt to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails; and people associated with the campaign pursued this believing they were dealing with Russian hackers. Trump... engaged in discussions about coordinating public-relations strategy around WikiLeaks releases of hacked emails. At least one person associated with the campaign was in touch directly with... ... Russian military intelligence. ...Donald Trump Jr. was directly in touch with WikiLeaks—from whom he obtained a password to a hacked database. ...[T]he picture it all paints of the president’s conduct is anything but exonerating. Call it Keystone Kollusion."

"[I]f you haven't looked at it [Mueller Report] you really should. I'm definitely going to make it must reading for at least one, if not both of the courses that I teach here. ...Integrity, ability and veracity, when you speak about Mueller, is not at issue here. This report is a product of an incredibly talented team of investigators that did an incredible amount of work. ...Volume I talks about the Russia investigation... It documents over 100 pages of contacts between individuals associated with the [Trump] campaign and people on the Russian side. Volume II then looks at obstruction... if there's not obstruction in Volume II, I don't know what it is."

"[W]hen Boris Yeltsin... was under the gun for corruption, he made Vladimir Putin the director of the FSB, which is really the ... Putin started blackmailing people that were investigating Yeltsin for corruption, and suddenly the word compromat, or compromising blackmailable material came into the lexicon... [H]e started with the equivalent of the Attorney General of Russia. He had a video of him with two prostitutes, and he played it on national television... [which] ended all corruption investigations into... Yeltsin. Boris Yeltsin was so happy, he made him the... Deputy Prime Minister of Russia... [T]hen Yeltsin stepped down and Vladimir Putin became the president of Russia and then he turned it into a... capitalist dictatorship which Benito Mussolini used to call Fascism, a corporate dictatorship of the ultra-right. That is where Russia is today, but if you read the Mueller Report, especially section 1, you will find..."

"On page 2 it says, "There is no legal term called . Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the ... We address the factual question of whether members of the Trump campaign coordinated. Like collusion, coordination does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We applied the term coordination in the sense that... That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were 'informed by' or 'responsive to' other actions or interests." So the next time you rob a bank, don't discuss it. Have one guy open the door, and you come in with a gun and you just stand there, and when everybody hands the money to the other guy and you all walk out the door... You did not collude, you did not coordinate, and you did not conspire because... I will read it again, "That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to other actions or interests.""

"Section [Volume] I is 448 pages of conspiracy and collusion, but it did not meet the legal standard that the Special Counsel established for criminal conspiracy. Everyone else in this room will have gone to prison... but for the purposes of this investigation, they built in their own parameters."

"Why... that long... discussion about Vladimir Putin, baby spy? Because this section [Volume I] catalogues all of the Russian contacts with the people in the Trump campaign, but more importantly, it shows that Russia... in order to benefit one person, starting as far back as 2013 (in my books it's earlier)... flooded the zone with every type of intelligence activity imaginable. It's all here [in the Mueller Report]. ...[S]omebody joked on Twitter [that] they should call this the Malcolm Report because I... read it all in Plot to Hack America and Plot to Destroy Democracy. No, there's more stuff in here. First... we all know about the hackings. The hackings were the easy part. ...All intelligence is information warfare. ...I drop a cruise missile on top of you because you don't know that I know that every Thursday at 7 o'clock... you go out and smoke a shisha at a certain bar... We kill people with intelligence. ...But in the world, which this report involves, that's what we call... spy hunting... I was ridiculed... It's all a conspiracy theory, but I said this on national television... This investigation started because we had suspicions that American citizens were working with a foreign intelligence agency and may have been trying to affect the fundamental system of our democracy, elections."

"[T]he investigation itself seemed to have... pulled a lot of punches. There were things in here [Meller Report] that... I have some of the greatest legal scholars in the United States sit in the green room with me and go, "How is this not what it is?"... [C]ollusion is a term that the president has chosen... but what... most of this report will tell you in great detail is that there was a massive, ginormous, multi-year Russian intelligence operation to break the American system of democracy and to choose a president of the United States."

"I was expecting ... to come busting through the door... and start arresting some people. ...When Al Capone ordered the ... he was in Florida. ...There was a garage full of dead bodies in Chicago. ...But he was seen. He had witnesses. None of the evidence tied it to him... but he ordered the... Massacre. ...But Al Capone would be convicted and sent to prison on tax evasion... [T]hat is how justice works. This report, for some people, was supposed to be the end-all, be-all... They [Russians] did flood the zone of this nation... [T]hey started a strategic framework around this election... [T]he report says 2015, and that the started in 2014. We have evidence from other hearings that showed [it] hired its top managers two months before the pageant in 2014. ...This operation ... most likely started right after the election of Barack Obama for his second term. ... ...wrote a Facebook post about it where he said that night he and Donald Trump were DMing [Direct Messaging] each other and Trump said we should be marching on Washington. How could we allow this guy... to win and beat Mitt Romney. ...Rykov said to him... Donald, if you want to run for president, I will support you. Donald Trump DM'd him giving the double thumbs-up. One week later he registered Make America Great Again PAC. That's November of 2012. So the Internet Research Agency starts up 10 months later. Two months after that the pageant happens, and we know is being discussed in there. ...Trump is already talking about giving Vladimir Putin a 50 million dollar bribe in the form of a penthouse on top of it. Then Russia invades Crimea in the spring of 2014. Donald Trump will not criticize him but criticizes Barack Obama. Then in 2014 the Mueller Report identifies the Internet Research Agency starts full-scale operations. The election's not even for two years. This is called strategic framing. ...We've also seen that they started... co-opting the National Rifle Association in 2010, by sending and to the United States... Then Evangelicals in 2010. Russia had a strategic plan and this report spells out, in horrific detail, how they moved from strategic framing, used the Internet Research Agency to do... meta-narrative framing... where you build an information bubble around your opponents. ...[T]he information bubble they started with in ...2014 was "Russia good, Hillary bad, Donald Trump good." That's it. ...In this report they said Facebook had 740 accounts that put out over 80,000 posts that reached 126 million Americans. Twitter had some insane number like 7,000 accounts that put out 1.5 million tweets that all framed those three things, "Russia good, Hillary bad, Donald Trump... president of the United States.""

"This was a multi-year effort, before we ever get into when they started flooding the zone with humans. ...Kislyak, the diplomat, to give prime cover to all of these people. He would be first point of contact, He would go and they would meet people like Michael Flynn, bring them to Russia, give him a speech where he earns... $50,000. Sit him next to Vladimir Putin, former Director of Defense Intelligence Agency. Jill Stein is on the other end of that table. ...All of this occurred in 2015. Donald Trump hadn't even announce that he was running for president. is going into full steam. Every aspect of the American experience with this election, on one side of the ledger, had the word "Russia" attached to it."

"I was recently called... a conspiracy theorist. ...A conspiracy theorist is someone who works in no facts, or takes those facts and molds them. ...Well, I have one reference now to all of my books [holds up the Mueller Report]... I've got 440 pages of reference. By the way, my last book Plot to Destroy Democracy [had] 600 references, because in my world... I have to show my work. I don't make these things up. What you saw with your own eyes exists. Just because Bill Barr jumped up and said "No collusion! No obstruction!" there's this report here, and it says... They found that there were 77... instances of lying [to the FBI] where they did not want to talk about what would most likely have shown . Good example, . They said for all of the two months that he was working, back and forth, with a guy who was suspected of being an asset of [the Russian government], and a mysterious woman [Olga Polonskaya] who was claimed to be Vladimir Putin's niece... trying to arrange a summit with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, trying to get dirt on Hillary Clinton back to Donald Trump, they concluded there was no collusion or conspiracy because they could not identify if he had turned or briefed anyone on the campaign. ...The problem is, it also says in the next sentence that people destroyed evidence, people lied to the Special Counsel, and information could not be found because people were deliberately obstructing them. ...[T]here's a sentence here [in the Mueller Report]... page one or two... because so many people lied, destroyed information, put things on encrypted apps, and then deleted them, that this information could not be validated or verified. ...Now in my crazy world, where there's a little gap in information ...I will make the little leap, and if you say he went through all this effort for months... to get dirt on Hillary Clinton and didn't tell anybody. How many of you believe that? Why would multiple... "dirty tricks teams", there were identified six separate dirty tricks teams: , the Trump Tower and Michael Cohen trying to do a peace plan for the Ukraine that would essentially give half of the Ukraine to Russia, trying to lift sanctions, each one of these teams was looking for dirt on Hillary Clinton, and it all had a nexus in Russia, and it's all in [the Mueller Report] this book."

"As Members of Congress and former prosecutors, we believe that respect for the law and duty to honor the truth are of utmost importance. Given the recent release of a document written by Special Counsel Mueller to the Attorney General objecting to his severe mischaracterization of the Special Counsel's report, it appears the the Attorney General has at best misled Congress and the American people, and at worst perjured himself before the Senate and House. As such, we formally request an ethics investigation by the Virginia State Bar and the District of Columbia Bar into Mr. Barr's conduct for review and possible disbarment."

"In a letter to Congress on March 24th, 2019 characterizing the Special Counsel's report, Mr. Barr stated: "In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgement, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent..." ...In reality we know that Special Counsel Mueller found "substantial evidence" of criminal intent and nexus to a specific proceeding as it relates to at least four, if not more, obstructive acts taken by the President of the United States. We know he directed aides to fabricate internal documents, lie about their actions, attempted to fire the Special Counsel, get then-Attorney General Sessions to "un-recuse" himself so as to exert greater control over the investigation's direction, and likely tamper with witnesses."

"While it would be despicable enough if the Attorney General had thus mischaracterized the report, we now have evidence he appears to have lied to Congress twice about the extent of his knowledge of the Special Counsel's reaction to Barr's mischaracterization... "No, I don't," Barr said, when asked by Rep. ... whether he knew what was behind the reports that members of Mueller's team were frustrated by the attorney general's summary... "I don't know," he said the next day, when asked by Sen. ... whether Mueller supported his finding that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that President Trump had obstructed justice."

"[A] letter dated March 27, 2019 from Special Counsel Mueller to Attorney General Barr... requested that the Attorney General, rather than summarize... immediately release executive summaries crafted by Mueller's team. Second, he wrote that Barr's summary sent to Congress "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of the Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25...""

"We agree with Robert Mueller when he says that this behavior "threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel.""

"As you know, the Virginia State Bar and D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3 "Candor Toward the Tribunal" prevents a lawyer from making "a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal." Furthermore, Rule 8.4(c) states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to "engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.""

"[T]he conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice."

"The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include: · The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort; · The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and · The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign."

"Despite being advised by... that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. ...Trump made "repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story" — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination."

"The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this... was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages..."

"[T]hese are not matters of close professional judgment. ...to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience."

"[P]rosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk."

"[T]he case was about Russia. ...Period. Full stop. That was the focus of the investigation. So, when the Papadopoulos information comes across our radar screen, it's coming across in the sense that we were always looking at Russia. ...The FBI predates the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation and so we've been thinking about Russia as a threat actor... for decades... So, this information comes in against that backdrop... This information, the Papadopoulos information, is what triggered us going down this path."

"It would've been... a dereliction of our duty not to investigate this information. ...[W]e'd been focused on the Russians as threat actors for a long, long time. Given what was going on with respect to e-mail dumps and hacking and the connection with those to the Russians in that summer and then, this thing drops. I think it would've been malpractice, a dereliction of duty... It would've been highly, highly inappropriate for us not to pursue it, and pursue it aggressively."

"This is a conversation that you and I have been having for months and months now. ...You said to me, it was about Russia. The investigation was always about Russia. [W]hen you said that, what I really take to be your meaning is that it wasn't really an investigation of the Trump folks at all. The focus of the investigation was of Russian intelligence activity."

"[T]he FBI... exists, among other things, to investigate federal crime, threats to the national security, and to collect foreign intelligence. ...That's what we're focused on. [W]ith respect to Russia in this context, our job is to detect, deter, disrupt, and defeat their operations. Lawfully... [A]s we are focused on Russia, we have groups of people that constantly... their job is to focus on nothing but Russia. As we're staring at the Russian problem, to the extent that other people, third country nationals, or Americans, or anybody else comes across our radar screen, and has a connection to the Russians in some way that looks nefarious to us, and falls within the scope of the Attorney General guidelines that authorize us to conduct investigations... If that comes across the radar screen, then we... investigate that, and run it down wherever it goes. ...[A]nd we'll deal with other Russian threats simultaneously. You're constantly staring at that problem, and to the extent that any Americans cross... our radar screen, then we will investigate that."

"I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work, but... it is important the the office's written work speak for itself."

"As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization Wikileaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate."

"[T]he grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election."

"These indictments contain allegations and we are not commenting on guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty."

"The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood, and that is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation, or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable."

"The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president."

"The order appointing me [as] special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. ...[A]s set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision."

"It [our report] explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited. The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. The department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report and I will describe two of them for you."

"First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president, because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents [are] available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now. And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing."

"And beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge."

"So that was Justice Department policy. Those were the principles under which we operated, and from them we concluded that we would not reach a determination, one way or the other, about whether the president committed a crime. That is the office's final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president."

"At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released . The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once, and we appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. ...I certainly do not question the Attorney General's good faith in that decision."

"I hope and expect this to be the only time that I speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify, or speak further about this matter. There has been discussion about, and appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully and the work speaks for itself, and the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office. So beyond what I have said here today, and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress..."

"A Bill To address the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations for the institution of slavery, its subsequent de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.... enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled... This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act’’."

"H.R. 40 - Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act is a United States House of Representatives bill, first proposed by Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. (U.S. Representative for Michigan, now deceased) calling for the creation of Commission to study and submit a formal report to Congress and the American people with it's findings and recommendations on remedies and reparation proposals for African-Americans, as a result of"(1) the institution of slavery... which included the Federal and State governments which...supported the institution of slavery; (2) the de jure and de facto discrimination against freed slaves and their descendants from the end of the Civil War to the present...; (3) the lingering negative effects of the institution of slavery...; (4) the manner in which textual and digital instructional resources and technologies are being used to deny the inhumanity of slavery and the crime against humanity of people of African descent...; (5) the role of Northern complicity in the Southern based institution of slavery; (6) the direct benefits to societal institutions, public and private, including higher education, corporations, religious and associational; (7) and thus, recommend appropriate ways to educate the American public of the Commission’s findings;(8) and thus, recommend appropriate remedies in consideration of the Commission’s findings...""

"(a) Findings.—The Congress finds that— (1) approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865; (2) the institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the Government of the United States from 1789 through 1865; (3) the slavery that flourished in the United States constituted an immoral and inhumane deprivation of Africans’ life, liberty, African citizenship rights, and cultural heritage, and denied them the fruits of their own labor; (4) a preponderance of scholarly, legal, community evidentiary documentation and popular culture markers constitute the basis for inquiry into the on-going effects of the institution of slavery and its legacy of persistent systemic structures of discrimination on living African-Americans and society in the United States; and (5) following the abolition of slavery the United States Government, at the Federal, State, and local level, continued to perpetuate, condone and often profit from practices that continued to brutalize and disadvantage African-Americans, including share cropping, convict leasing, Jim Crow, redlining, unequal education, and disproportionate treatment at the hands of the criminal justice system; and (6) as a result of the historic and continued discrimination, African-Americans continue to suffer debilitating economic, educational, and health hardships including but not limited to; having nearly 1,000,000 Black people incarcerated; an unemployment rate more than twice the current White unemployment rate; and an average of less than 1⁄16 of the wealth of White families, a disparity which has worsened, not improved over time."

"Purpose.—The purpose of this Act is to establish a commission to study and develop Reparation proposals for African-Americans as a result of— (1) the institution of slavery, including both the Trans-Atlantic and the domestic “trade” which existed from 1565 in colonial Florida and from 1619 through 1865 within the other colonies that became the United States, and which included the Federal and State governments which constitutionally and statutorily supported the institution of slavery; (2) the de jure and de facto discrimination against freed slaves and their descendants from the end of the Civil War to the present, including economic, political, educational, and social discrimination; (3) the lingering negative effects of the institution of slavery and the discrimination described in paragraphs (1) and (2) on living African-Americans and on society in the United States; (4) the manner in which textual and digital instructional resources and technologies are being used to deny the inhumanity of slavery and the crime against humanity of people of African descent in the United States; (5) the role of Northern complicity in the Southern based institution of slavery; (6) the direct benefits to societal institutions, public and private, including higher education, corporations, religious and associational; (7) and thus, recommend appropriate ways to educate the American public of the Commission’s findings; (8) and thus, recommend appropriate remedies in consideration of the Commission’s findings on the matters described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6); and (9) submit to the Congress the results of such examination, together with such recommendations."

"Years ago, during a meeting with The Record editorial board, I recall then-Mayor Cory Booker almost tearing up as he told stories of an elementary school in one of Newark’s poorest neighborhoods. The school lacked resources, he said, and was in physical disrepair due to neglect. He related how “it breaks my heart to walk into a classroom and see the children stand, put hands to their hearts and say the Pledge of Allegiance, say the words ‘liberty and justice for all’ and to know that it’s a lie.” It was his way of saying that despite strides, we still suffer the effects of a great racial divide, and from income inequality. That divide, that inequality, are still with us, and they were seared into Booker’s mind and heart again on Wednesday as he testified before a House subcommittee to speak in favor of reparations for slavery. “I say that I am brokenhearted and angry right now... (about) decades of living in a community where you see how deeply unfair this nation is still, to so many people who struggle, who work hard, who do everything right but who still find themselves, disproportionately, with lead in their water, Superfunds in their neighborhoods, schools that don’t serve their genius, and health care disparities that affect their body and their well-being.”"

"Booker, a Democrat and one of just three African Americans in the U.S. Senate... is a prime sponsor of the reparations bill introduced in that chamber. It would, among other things, “address the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality and inhumanity of slavery in the United States” and “establish a commission to study and consider a national apology and proposal for reparations.” ...The fact that there has been such an outcry already sort of makes Booker’s point about the need for the bill. The rush to condemn it is part of “the silence” Booker spoke of on Wednesday, part of a nation’s refusal to own up to its violent, racist past, or to its unjust present. No, I don’t know how any sort of “reparations program” would work, and neither does anyone else. I don’t know, for instance, whether I, a descendant of slave owners, would be moved to the front of the line to write a check. But that’s not really the point. The point is the reckoning, the recognition, on this 400th anniversary of the arrival of African slaves at the Jamestown colony in Virginia, that remnants of slavery continue to haunt our nation today. The injustices that still exist among our black population today, from health care disparity to inadequate schools to higher rates of unemployment, all date to our original sin of slavery. No doubt, there will be more to come on the reparations issue, more voices speaking loudly and rudely against even having the conversation. Booker is right, though: We must have the conversation."

"I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago, for whom none of us currently living are responsible, is a good idea. We’ve, you know, tried to deal with our original sin of slavery by fighting a civil war, by passing landmark civil rights legislation. We’ve elected an African-American president. I think we’re always a work in progress in this country, but no one currently alive was responsible for that. And I don’t think we should be trying to figure out how to compensate for it. First of all, it would be pretty hard to figure out who to compensate. We’ve had waves of immigrants, as well, who have come to the country and experienced dramatic discrimination of one kind or another. So, no, I don’t think reparations are a good idea."

"The cumulative damages inflicted on black Americans who were enslaved and their descendants of course include slavery, but they also encompass almost 100 years of Jim Crow legal segregation and persistent racism in the post-Civil Rights era continuing to the present. The latter is manifest in mass incarceration, police executions of unarmed blacks (de facto lynchings), discrimination in employment, and, significantly, the enormous racial wealth divide between black and white Americans. Monetary restitution has been a centerpiece of virtually all other cases of reparations, both at home and abroad. While some commentators are concerned that money is “not enough,” money is precisely what is required to eliminate the most glaring indicator of racial injustice, the racial wealth divide. Respect for black American citizenship will be signaled by monetary compensation. Payment of the debt is, as Charles Henry puts it, “long overdue.” H.R. 40 provides an opportunity to begin the process of fulfilling the long-standing national obligation."

"Members of the Project 21 black leadership network said that the legislative proposal to study giving reparations to descendants of slaves is a “sham,” calling the idea both unnecessary and divisive. The proposal in question is Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-TX) bill HR 40, which would set up a commission to study reparations strategies. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties held a hearing on the bill on Wednesday... But Project 21 members said in a statement the black Americans have the same opportunities to live the American Dream as all Americans and that the proposal is a “crass political move to drum up black support and will only hurt race relations... Reparations is a sham" Congress should be reminding blacks that opportunities do exist for them and have existed for generations,” Project 21 member Emery McClendon said. “It’s up to individuals to discover these opportunities to succeed. Let’s flip the script from reparations to personal responsibility.”"

"Those who can't see the importance of Wednesday's congressional hearing and the H.R. 40 bill, usually argue that slavery was "so long ago." Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell thinks reparations are not a good idea, claiming "it would be pretty hard to figure out who to compensate," and claims "none of us currently living are responsible" for what happened 150 years ago. McConnell believes America made up for slavery by electing Barack Obama, and passing civil rights legislation -- though he sees no need to restore the Voting Rights Act, and calls efforts to expand voting rights a "half-baked, socialist proposal." Such arguments only belittle the issue, ignore history and the present, and are designed to obfuscate and change the subject. America always was -- and continues to be -- a divisive place, built on the enslavement of Africans and the genocide of native people."

"For the first time, most major Democratic presidential contenders are talking about whether the U.S. government should consider paying reparations to the descendants of African Americans who were enslaved and suffered from large-scale racial discrimination. At least three of these candidates... support the creation of a commission that would study the impact of slavery and the Jim Crow discrimination against black Americans that continued after emancipation. The commission would make recommendations about how to compensate black Americans for those injustices... A major justification for the government paying reparations directly to individuals or establishing other forms of compensation, such as investment in majority-black communities, lies in the harsh reality of the labor stolen from millions of enslaved people from 1619 to 1865. That justification extends to many more millions severely oppressed for the next century and a half – whether through racist segregation laws or informal discrimination authorities did nothing to stop... Since 1619, when the first enslaved Africans were taken to Jamestown, Virginia, the oppression of black people by whites has been embedded in America’s economic, political, educational and other institutions... Trillions... in wealth was effectively stolen from black Americans not just because of enslavement prior to 1776 but during the Jim Crow era through employment discrimination and decades of bureaucratic finagling that caused them to lose farmland... the total cost to black Americans over four centuries of slavery, Jim Crow laws and more contemporary discrimination...in the $10-$20 trillion range."

"Opponents of this reparations effort, which would require support from the university’s board to take effect, voiced two common arguments against it: Slavery happened too long ago and not all white Americans have slave-owning ancestors. Similar arguments are now commonplace. The assumption that those debts are owed by and to people now deceased ignores all the money, property and other wealth white Americans alive today inherited from their forebears, including slave owners and many others responsible for depriving blacks of economic and educational opportunities through discrimination. The latter included white overseers, sheriffs and merchants... Most whites can trace their roots back at least three generations, with many going back between four and 20 generations... White-implemented government home-ownership programs after World War II, including mortgage programs for veterans, discriminated on a large scale against blacks. These government programs enabled many millions of white families to move into the middle class. The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these whites have since inherited wealth due to the ensuing growth in the value of that housing... In contrast, black families usually endured housing discrimination after World War II. They were unable to obtain mortgages and were barred by restrictive covenants from buying homes in white areas where housing values rose....Today’s wealth gap between white and black Americans is substantially the result of government-supported housing and employment discrimination. The median net worth of black families is less than 15% of that of white families, according to the Federal Reserve."

"Legislation that would establish a commission to study the consequences and impacts of slavery and make recommendations for reparations proposals is likely to get a vote this year from the full Congress, Democratic lawmakers said... A spokesperson for Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who is the sponsor of the legislation, said she is "confident" the bill will receive a vote in the House during this Congress, though its future is uncertain at the moment. "In response to our current focus on Black inequality, H.R. 40 allows for the first constructive, scholarly conversation on race that is clearly needed in the U.S. today," Remmington Belford, a spokesperson for Jackson Lee, told CNN. "It offers full discussion on the analysis of economic, political, psychological, scientific, and sociological effects of slavery in the US."... The bill's next stop is a full committee hearing, followed by a vote in the House... A potential reexamining of the proposal comes as the United States is reeling from the recent deaths of several black Americans at the hands of the police, including Floyd, who died in Minneapolis last month after a white police officer knelt on his neck for more than eight minutes. Widespread protests across the country have called for codified change in how the law treats the black community."

"The bill would create a commission of 13 members who would compile a report of findings and recommendations on the issue and send it to Congress. Former Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who served until 2017, had previously introduced legislation on reparations repeatedly over the span of multiple sessions of Congress.... Jackson Lee said in a press release that "the Commission aims to study the impact of slavery and continuing discrimination against African-Americans, resulting directly and indirectly from slavery to segregation to the desegregation process and the present day." The issue of reparations also gained steam through the 2020 Democratic primary, with several candidates endorsing some form of reparations. Several endorsed Jackson Lee's bill, including Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden."

"Four hundred years ago, ships set sail from the west coast of Africa and in the process, began one of mankind’s most inhumane practices: human bondage and slavery. For two centuries, human beings – full of hopes and fears, dreams and concerns, ambition and anguish – were transported onto ships like chattel, and the lives of many forever changed. The reverberations from this horrific series of acts – a transatlantic slave trade that touched the shores of a colony that came to be known as America, and later a democratic republic known as the United States of America – are unknown and worthy of exploration. Approximately 4,000,000 Africans and their descendants were enslaved in the United States and colonies that became the United States from 1619 to 1865."

"The institution of slavery was constitutionally and statutorily sanctioned by the Government of the United States from 1789 through 1865. American Slavery is our country’s original sin and its existence at the birth of our nation is a permanent scar on our country’s founding documents, and on the venerated authors of those documents, and it is a legacy that continued well into the last century. The framework for our country and the document to which we all take an oath describes African Americans as three-fifths a person. The infamous Dred Scott decision of the United States Supreme Court, issued just a few decades later, described slaves as private property, unworthy of citizenship. And, a civil war that produced the largest death toll of American fighters in any conflict in our history could not prevent the indignities of Jim Crow, the fire hose at lunch counters and the systemic and institutional discrimination that would follow for a century after the end of the Civil War."

"The mythology built around the Civil War—that victory by the North eradicated slavery and all of its vestiges throughout our nation—has obscured our discussions of the impact of chattel slavery and made it difficult to have a national dialogue on how to fully account for its place in American history and public policy. While it is nearly impossible to determine how the lives touched by slavery could have flourished in the absence of bondage, we have certain datum that permits us to examine how a subset of Americans – African Americans – have been affected by the callousness of involuntary servitude. We know that in almost every segment of society – education, healthcare, jobs and wealth – the inequities that persist in America are more acutely and disproportionately felt in Black America."

"Reparations are ultimately about respect and reconciliation — and the hope that one day, all Americans can walk together toward a more just future. We owe it to those who were ripped from their homes those many years ago an ocean away; we owe it to the millions of Americans- yes they were Americans – who were born into bondage, knew a life of servitude, and died anonymous deaths, as prisoners of this system. We owe it to the millions of descendants of these slaves, for they are the heirs to a society of inequities and indignities that naturally filled the vacuum after slavery was formally abolished 154 years ago. Today represents the first time in history that the House of Representatives will host a hearing on H.R. 40."

"It is perhaps fitting that the hearing occurs on the 19th of June, also known to many in this room, as Juneteenth – the day that, 154 years ago, General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas and announced the freedom of the last American slaves; belatedly freeing 250,000 slaves in Texas nearly two and a half years after Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Juneteenth was first celebrated in the Texas state capital in 1867 under the direction of the Freedmen's Bureau. Juneteenth was and is a living symbol of freedom for people who did not have it. Today, Juneteenth remains the oldest known celebration of slavery's demise. It commemorates freedom while acknowledging the sacrifices and contributions made by courageous African Americans towards making our great nation the more conscious and accepting country that it has become."

"And let me end as I began, noting that this year is the 400th commemoration of the 1619 arrival of the first captive Africans in English North America, at Point Comfort, Virginia. With those dates as bookends to today’s hearing, let us proceed with the cause of this morning with a full heart, with the knowledge that this work will take time and trust. Let us also do so with the spirit of reconciliation and understanding that this bill represents.”"

"Yesterday, when asked about reparations, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offered a familiar reply: America should not be held liable for something that happened 150 years ago, since none of us currently alive are responsible... This rebuttal proffers a strange theory of governance, that American accounts are somehow bound by the lifetime of its generations. But well into this century, the United States was still paying out pensions to the heirs of Civil War soldiers. We honor treaties that date back some 200 years, despite no one being alive who signed those treaties... But we are American citizens, and thus bound to a collective enterprise that extends beyond our individual and personal reach."

"As historian Ed Baptist has written, enslavement, quote, “shaped every crucial aspect of the economy and politics” of America, so that by 1836 more than $600 million, or almost half of the economic activity in the United States, derived directly or indirectly from the cotton produced by the million-odd slaves. By the time the enslaved were emancipated, they comprised the largest single asset in America—$3 billion in 1860 dollars, more than all the other assets in the country combined. The method of cultivating this asset was neither gentle cajoling nor persuasion, but torture, rape and child trafficking. Enslavement reigned for 250 years on these shores. When it ended, this country could have extended its hallowed principles—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—to all, regardless of color. But America had other principles in mind. And so, for a century after the Civil War, black people were subjected to a relentless campaign of terror, a campaign that extended well into the lifetime of Majority Leader McConnell. It is tempting to divorce this modern campaign of terror, of plunder, from enslavement. But the logic of enslavement, of white supremacy, respects no such borders, and the god of bondage was lustful and begat many heirs—coup d’états and convict leasing, vagrancy laws and debt peonage, redlining and racist GI bills, poll taxes and state-sponsored terrorism."

"We grant that Mr. McConnell was not alive for Appomattox. But he was alive for the electrocution of George Stinney. He was alive for the blinding of Isaac Woodard. He was alive to witness kleptocracy in his native Alabama and a regime premised on electoral theft. Majority Leader McConnell cited civil rights legislation yesterday, as well he should, because he was alive to witness the harassment, jailing and betrayal of those responsible for that legislation by a government sworn to protect them. He was alive for the redlining of Chicago and the looting of black homeowners of some $4 billion. Victims of that plunder are very much alive today. I am sure they’d love a word with the majority leader. What they know, what this committee must know, is that while emancipation dead-bolted the door against the bandits of America, Jim Crow wedged the windows wide open. And that is the thing about Senator McConnell’s “something.” It was 150 years ago. And it was right now. The typical black family in this country has one-tenth the wealth of the typical white family. Black women die in childbirth at four times the rate of white women. And there is, of course, the shame of this land of the free boasting the largest prison population on the planet, of which the descendants of the enslaved make up the largest share."

"You know, the two great crimes in American history is obviously...the near destruction...of this country’s Native American population, the theft of their land, and on to work that land was brought in native Africans into this country, beginning in 1619. Those twin processes profoundly altered the shape of the world and made this country possible. Obviously, first of all, you know, the land on which America and Americans currently reside was the land of Native Americans, but the people brought in to break that land just transformed it."

"The profits derived from slavery are more extreme than I think are commonly acknowledged. As I said yesterday, in 1860, the combined worth of the 4 million enslaved black people in this country was some $3 billion, nearly $75 billion in today’s share of dollars. Cotton, in 1860, was this country’s largest export—not just its largest export, it was the majority of exports out of this country. So, from a financial perspective, just the economics of it, it’s absolutely impossible to imagine America without enslavement."

"The onset of the Civil War, the greatest preponderance, the greatest population per capita of millionaires and multimillionaires in this country was in the Mississippi River Valley. It wasn’t in Boston, wasn’t in Chicago, wasn’t in New York. The richest people in this country were slaveholders."

"Most of our earliest presidents were slaveholders. And the fact that they were presidents is not incidental to the fact that they—to their slaveholding. That was how they built their wealth. That was how Thomas Jefferson built his wealth. That was how George Washington built his wealth. Individual slaves were the equivalent of, say, owning a home today. They were people, but turned into objects of extreme wealth. So, just from the economic perspective, there’s that."

"“Wealthy African Americans” are not the equivalent of, quote-unquote, “wealthy white Americans”...The average African-American family in this country making $100,000... actually lives in the same kind of neighborhood that the average white family making $35,000 a year lives in. That is totally tied to the legacy of enslavement and Jim Crow and the input and the idea in the mind that white people and black people are somehow deserving of different things."

"If I injure you, the injury persists even after I actually commit the act. If I stab you, you may suffer complications long after that initial actual stabbing. If I shoot you, you may suffer complications long after that initial shooting. That’s the case with African Americans... that are still suffering from the after-effects of that."

"This whole thing about who should get a check, and should we cut checks, you know, I understand those questions. That’s great. Those people should support H.R. 40, though, because that’s what H.R. 40 does. It tries to get that figured out, and get that math figured out, and figure out the best way to do it. But if we don’t actually have a study, we can’t actually answer those questions. You can’t ask a doctor to make a diagnosis before there’s an actual examination."

"And in terms of poverty and race in this country, again, you know, one of the things that I really, really wanted to stress is, the level of poverty specifically that you see in the African-American community is not accidental. It’s not accidental. This is part of the process. The process of enslavement involves stealing something from someone. It involves taking something from someone."

"Jim Crow was theft. First and foremost, it was theft. If I tax you or if tell you you have to be loyal to this country and pledge fealty to its laws, but then I don’t give you the same degree of protection, I don’t give you the same access to resources that I give to another group of people, I have effectively stolen something from you. I have stolen your tax money. I have stolen your fealty."

"So, when the state of Mississippi, for instance, taxes black people and then builds one facility for education and another for—one facility for education for whites and then an inferior facility for blacks, that’s theft. That’s theft. If I build a public pool system and then tell you you can’t use that public pool system, that’s theft."

"And so, that is the long history of this country, that doesn’t end, again, conservatively, until 1968. And so, there are people who are very, very much alive who have experienced that, who are suffering the after-effects and effects of that. And that’s what, you know, as far as I’m concerned, the whole movement around reparations is about."

"Mitch McConnell... does not want to be responsible for enslavement that happened 150 years ago, but, yet and still, wants the right to operate his business or operate his career in a building that was built by enslaved people."

"But when you start talking to people about actually paying that back or actually some sort of evenness around that... a lot of discomfort comes up. I understand that... But...you can’t... be a fair-weather friend to your country."

"You can’t decide that your past only matters... when you’re being called to be responsible for what made it possible for that country to be called “land of the free” in the first place, to act like you don’t owe anybody anything or you’re not part of it, especially... when a lot of this happened in your own lifetime. It isn’t the past. It happened while you were alive..."

"I think the testimony was that one should not receive payment that would properly be due to the enslaved. But this country is, to this very day, receiving payment that was due to its enslavers. That’s the way inheritance works in this country..."

"If I assemble a mass of money, I have the right to pass that on to my kid. My kid has the right to do whatever and then pass it on to their kid. And so, there’s something fundamentally unjust if I have secured that money by taking it from one group, and then I pass that money on to my kid."

"This didn’t end with enslavement. Reparations isn’t just about enslavement. There was the 250 years of enslavement, that period of theft. After that, there was a hundred years of terror, that period of theft. And... I would argue... our present system of mass incarceration emerges right out of that... This is tremendous that we would recognize our ties to the past when it comes to certain things, but not other things."

"Our research points to a multigenerational legacy of white supremacy in asset building and wealth concentration — a history that includes the African slave trade, Jim Crow and systematic discrimination in wealth-building opportunities right on up to the present. That trend is getting worse, not better. Between 1983 and 2016, the median net worth for Black Americans actually went down by 50 percent. Paired with a growing Latin population that also lags far behind whites in household wealth, the U.S.’s overall median wealth trended downward over those decades, even as median white wealth increased.... A major reason for the growing wealth divide isn’t that white people “worked harder.” It’s that the government worked harder for them."

"The key point is that unpaid labor by millions of people of African heritage was a foundation of the social wealth in the United States. Immigrants with European heritage directly and indirectly benefited from this foundation of social wealth and white supremacy, even if they never had anything to do with slavery."

"While many whites were able to board an express train to middle-class wealth between 1945 and 1975, people of color were left waiting for a train that never showed up. As a result of government subsidies, white homeownership rates steadily rose to as high as 75 percent in 2005, while Black rates peaked at 46 percent the same year — a 30-point gap that persists to this day.Since then, subsequent generations of white families have been able to help their children buy homes and go to college through what sociologists call the “intergenerational transmission of advantage,” while Black families lacked the financial stability to do the same...."

"We have the method and the means to fund a reparations program. Only the political will is missing -Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for instance, has proposed a 2 percent annual tax on wealth over $50 million, with the rate rising to 3 percent on wealth over $1 billion. Such a proposal would generate an estimated $2.75 trillion over the next decade. -A progressive tax on inheritances over $10 million, meanwhile, would also generate substantial revenue, almost entirely from extremely wealthy families that have benefited from generations of white advantage in wealth building. -Second, we propose hefty penalties on wealthy individuals and corporations that hide their wealth offshore or in complicated trusts to avoid taxation. Part of the austerity many of our communities face is the result of the estimated 8 to 10 percent of all global wealth that’s now hidden offshore. A tax on wealth and stiffer penalties on tax dodging would have beneficial impacts on the larger economy for all workers, not just those who face racial exclusion. -A third source of financing would be to redesign existing wealth-building subsidies. The current U.S. tax code provides over $600 billion a year in tax subsidies — such as homeownership subsidies and retirement savings programs — that are skewed dramatically to the wealthiest households. Shifting these expenditures toward wealth-building programs for low-wealth people, particularly those of color, would have a monumental impact. In short, we have the method and the means to fund a reparations program. Only the political will is missing."

"In 1988, President Ronald Reagan formally apologized for the U.S. internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and, under the Civil Liberties Act, paid $20,000 in reparations each to over 800,000 victims. Over $1.1 billion was initially allocated, with additional appropriations later. At the international level, Germany has paid over $89 billion in reparations to victims of the Holocaust. German officials continue to meet with groups of survivors and their advocates to revisit guidelines and ensure that survivors receive the benefits."

"There’s no reason to believe a similarly viable program couldn’t be designed for Americans living with the ongoing effects of slavery, violence and discrimination. (Or, we should add, genocide. We believe there’s a similarly compelling case for reparations to America’s First Nations that deserves its own treatment.)"

"[The findings indicate North Korea] has developed a robust acquisition network capable of circumventing, without detection, sanction regimes that have been in place for nearly two decades"

"We have extended our hand, but North Korea will not unclench its fist."

"[I]n May 2017, the acting Attorney General asked me to serve as special counsel. I undertook that role because I believed that it was of paramount interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the Presidential election. ...My staff and I carried out this assignment with [the] critical objective in mind: to work quietly, thoroughly, and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome."

"The order appointing me as special counsel directed our office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. It also included investigating efforts to interfere with or obstruct our investigation. Throughout the investigation I continually stressed two things to the team... First) we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and expeditiously as possible. ...Second) the investigation needed to be conducted fairly and with absolute integrity. Our team would not leak, or take other actions that could compromise the integrity... All decisions were made based on the facts and the law. ...[W]e charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes, including 12 officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants have been convicted or pled guilty."

"Certain of the charges we brought remain pending today. And for those matters... the indictments contain allegations, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. In addition to the criminal charges... as required... we submitted a confidential report to the attorney general... The report set forth the results of our work and the reasons for our charging and declination decisions. The attorney general later made the report largely public. ...I made a few limited remarks... about our report when we closed the special counsel's office in May... [C]ertain points... bear emphasis. First) our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Second) the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address , which is not a legal term; rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and it was not. Third) our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable. Finally) as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions, by the President, towards the investigation. Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a decision as to whether the President committed a crime. ...it remains our decision today."

"It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony... will necessarily be limited. First) public testimony could affect several ongoing matters. In some of these matters, court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect... the fairness of the proceedings, and consistent with longstanding Justice Department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter. Second) the Justice Department has asserted privileges, concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department, and deliberations within our office. These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect. The department has released the letter discussing the restrictions of my testimony. I, therefore, will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that I know are of public interest. For example, I am unable to address questions about the initial opening of the FBI's Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment; or matters related to the so-called Steele dossier. These matters are subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should, therefore, be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department. ...[O]ur report contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We conducted an extensive investigation over two years. In writing the report, we stated the results of our investigation with precision. We scrutinized every word. I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. ...[T]he report is my testimony, and I will stay within that text. ...I will not comment on the actions of the attorney general or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor, and I intend... to adhere to that role and to the department's standards that govern it."

"I'll be joined today by Deputy Special Counsel . Mr. Zebley... served as my chief of staff. Mr. Zebley was responsible for the day-to-day oversight on the investigations conducted by our office. ...I also want to... say thank you to the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts and professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent matter. These individuals... were of the highest integrity."

"Two years ago you returned to public service to lead the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. ...Over the course of your investigation you obtained criminal indictments against 37 people and entities. You secured the conviction of President Trump's campaign chairman, his deputy campaign manager, his national security advisor and his personal lawyer, among others. In the Paul Manafort case alone you recovered as much as $42 million, so that the cost of your investigation to the taxpayers approaches zero. ...In Volume 1, you find that the Russian government attacked our 2016 elections... "in a sweeping and systematic fashion," and that the attacks were designed to benefit the Trump campaign. Volume 2 walks us through 10 separate incidents of possible obstruction of justice, where... "President Trump attempted to exert undue influence over your investigation." The President's behavior included... "public attacks on the investigation, nonpublic efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate"... Among the most shocking... President Trump ordered his White House counsel to have you fired, and then to lie and deny that it had happened, he ordered his former campaign manager to convince the recused attorney general to step in and limit your work, and he attempted to prevent witnesses from cooperating with your investigation."

"Although department policy barred you from indicting the President for this conduct, you made clear that he is not exonerated. Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes, and in this nation, not even the President is above the law. Which brings me to this committee's work. Responsibility, integrity and accountability: These are the marks by which we who serve on this committee will be measured as well. Director Mueller, we have a responsibility to address the evidence that you have uncovered. You recognized as much when you said, quote, "The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing"... That process begins with the work of this committee. We will follow your example... We will act with integrity. We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. ...We will do this work because there must be accountability for the conduct described in your report, especially as it relates to the President."

"Director Mueller, the President has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?"

"[R]eading from page 2 of Volume 2... "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment"... does that say there was no obstruction?"

"[Y]ou were actually unable to conclude the President did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?"

"So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?"

"And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the President?"

"Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the President."

"And your investigation actually found... "multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations." Is that correct?"

"[C]an you explain in plain terms what that finding means so the American people can understand it?"

"[Y]ou were talking about incidents... "in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels"... to exert undo influence over your investigations, is that right?"

"Now, am I correct that on page 7 of Volume 2... "The President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction of justice inquiry. At that point, the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation"... So President Trump's efforts to exert undo influence over your investigation intensified after the President became aware that he personally was being investigated?"

"Now, is it correct that if you concluded that the President committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report, or here today?"

"But... under Department of Justice policy, the President could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?"

"Did the President refuse a request to be interviewed by you and your team?"

"And is it true that you tried for more than a year to secure an interview with the President?"

"And is it true that you and your team advised the President's lawyer that... "an interview with the President is vital to our investigation"..?"

"And is it true that you also... "stated that it is in the interest of the presidency and the public for an interview to take place"..?"

"But the President still refused to sit for an interview by you or your team?"

"And did you also ask him to provide written answers to questions on the 10 possible episodes of obstruction of justice crimes involving him?"

"Did he provide any answers to a single question about whether he engaged in obstruction of justice crimes?"

"Having reviewed your work, I believe anyone else who would engage in the conduct described in your report would have been criminally prosecuted. Your work is vitally important to this committee and the American people because no one is above the law."

"[T]he investigation of Russia's attack that started your investigation is why evidence of possible obstruction is serious. To what extent did the Russian government interfere in the 2016 Presidential election?"

"You've also described in your report that the then Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, shared with a Russian operative, Kilimnik, the campaign strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states, and internal polling data of the campaign. Isn't that correct?"

"Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for a some period of time after their August meeting. Isn't that correct?"

"[Y]our investigation found that Manafort briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump campaign and Manafort's plan to win the election, and that briefing encompassed the campaign's messaging, its internal polling data. It also included discussion of battleground states, which Manafort identified as Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Isn't that correct?"

"Did your investigation determine who requested the polling data to be shared with Kilimnik? ...We ...don't have the redacted version. That's maybe another reason why we should get that for Volume 1. Based on your investigation, how could the Russian government have used this campaign polling data to further its sweeping and systematic interference in the 2016 Presidential election?"

"[T]he Trump campaign wasn't exactly reluctant to take Russian help. You wrote it expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, isn't that correct?"

"From your testimony and the report, I think the American people have learned several things. First, the Russians wanted Trump to win. Second, the Russians went on a sweeping cyber influence campaign. The Russians hacked the DNC and they got the Democratic game plan for the election. Russian [sic, Trump's] campaign chairman met with Russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data, polling, and messaging in the battleground states. So while the Russians were buying ads and creating propaganda to influence the outcome of the election, they were armed with inside information that they had stolen through hacking from the DNC, and that they had been given by the Trump campaign chairman, Mr. Manafort. My colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this information from becoming public, but I think it's important for the American people to understand the gravity of the underlying problem that your report uncovered."

"On page 12 of Volume 2... "We determined that there was sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the President" is that correct?"

"Your report also describes at least 10 separate instances of possible obstruction of justice that were investigated by you and your team, is that correct?"

"[T]he table of contents serves as a very good guide of some of the acts of that obstruction of justice that you investigated. ...On page 157 of Volume 2, you describe those acts. And they range from the President's effort to curtail the special counsel's investigation, the President's further efforts to have the attorney general take over the investigation, the President orders Don McGahn to deny that the President tried to fire the special counsel, and many others, is that correct?"

"I direct you now to... "The President's pattern of conduct as a whole sheds light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent." Does that mean you have to investigate all of his conduct to ascertain true motive?"

"For each of those 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice, you analyzed three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice: an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and official proceeding, and corrupt intent, is that correct?"

"You wrote on page 178, Volume 2 in your report about corrupt intent, "Actions by the President to end a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct," is that correct?"

"Do you recall, and I think it's at page 78 of volume 2, the President told Sessions, "You were supposed to protect me. You were supposed to protect me," or words to that effect?"

"And is the attorney general supposed to be the attorney general of the United States of America, or the consigliere for the President?"

"On page 113... the President believed that an un-recused attorney general would play a protective role and conceal the President from the ongoing investigation. ...It's clear, from your report and the evidence, that the President wanted former Attorney General Sessions to violate the Justice Department ethics rules by taking over your investigation and improperly interfering with it, to protect himself and his campaign."

"Your investigation found that President Trump directed White House Counsel to fire you. Isn't that correct?"

"And the President claimed that he wanted to fire you because you had supposed conflicts of interest, isn't that correct?"

"Now, you had no conflicts of interest that required your removal, isn't that a fact?"

"Don McGahn advised the President that the asserted conflicts were, in his words, "silly and not real conflicts" ...page 85 of Volume 2 speaks to that. ...DOJ ethics officials confirmed that you had no conflicts that would prevent you from serving as special counsel, isn't that correct?"

"But despite Don McGahn and the Department of Justice guidance, around May 23, 2017, the President... "Prodded McGahn to complain to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein about these supposed conflicts of interest," correct?"

"And McGahn declined to call Rosenstein... telling the President that... knocking out Mueller would be another fact used to claim obstruction of justice, isn't that correct?"

"Volume 2, page 81... and 82... after the President was warned about obstructing justice... on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, the President dictated a press statement, stating he had... "no intention of firing" you, correct?"

"But the following day, June 14, the media reported for the first time that you were investigating the President for obstructing of justice, correct?"

"[A]fter learning for the first time that he was under investigation, the very next day, the President... "issued a series of tweets acknowledging the existence of the obstruction investigation, and criticizing it." Isn't that correct?"

"[T]wo days later... page 85, Volume 2... "on Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home to have the special counsel removed." ...On page 85 ..."On the first call, McGahn recalled that the President said something like... 'You've got to do this. You've got to call Rod.' " Correct?"

"At Volume 2, page 85... [McGahn] "...didn't want to have a role in trying to fire the attorney general.""

"I'd like to get back to your findings covering June of 2017. ...page 90 of Volume 2 ..."news of the obstruction investigation prompted the President to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed" ...you wrote about multiple calls ...[R]egarding the second call ..."McGahn recalled that the President was more direct, saying something like [page 86, Vol II] 'Call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be... the Special Counsel'. McGahn recalled the President telling him, 'Mueller has to go' and 'Call me back when you do it.' " ...And in the report ..."McGahn understood the President to be saying that the Special Counsel had to be removed." ...[A]lso ...on page 86 ..."McGahn considered the President's request to be an inflection point, and he wanted to hit the brakes, and he felt trapped, and McGahn decided he had to resign." ..."he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter""

"And before he resigned, however, he called the President's Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, and he called the President's senior advisor, Steve Bannon. ...page 87 ..."Preibus recalled that McGahn said that the President asked him to do crazy [expletive]." In other words, crazy stuff. The White House Counsel thought that the President's request was completely out of bounds. He said the President asked him to do something crazy, it was wrong, and he was prepared to resign over it. Now these are extraordinarily troubling events, but you found White House Counsel McGahn to be a credible witness, isn't that correct?"

"[W]hy did the President of the United States want you fired?"

"[O]n page 89... Volume 2... "substantial evidence indicates that the President's... attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel's oversight of investigations that involve the President's conduct, and most immediately to reports that the President was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice"... Director Mueller, you found evidence... that the President wanted to fire you, because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice. Isn't that correct?"

"[T]hat shouldn't happen in America. No President should be able to escape investigation by abusing his power, but that's what you testified to in your report. The President ordered you fired. The White House Counsel knew it was wrong. The President knew it was wrong. In your report, it says there's also evidence the President knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn. But the President did it anyway. ...Anyone else who blatantly interfered with a criminal investigation, like yours, would be arrested and indicted on charges of obstruction of justice. Director Mueller, you determined that you were barred from indicting a sitting President. ...That is exactly why this committee must hold the President accountable."

"[W]e are focusing on five obstruction episodes today. I would like to ask you about the second... page 113 of Volume 2... "The President Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel"... On January 25th, 2018, The New York Times reported that, quote, "The President had ordered McGahn to have the Department of Justice fire you." Is that correct?"

"And that story related to the events you already testified about here today. The President's calls to McGahn to have you removed. Correct?"

"In fact [after the news broke, the President was televised as denying the story, where] the President said... "Fake news, folks. Fake news, a typical New York Times fake story"... Correct?"

"But your investigation... found substantial evidence that McGahn was ordered by the President to fire you. Correct?"

"[P]age 114... [The following day,] "On January 26th, 2018, the President's personal counsel called McGahn's attorney and said that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the special counsel"... Communicating through his personal attorney, McGahn refused, because he said... "That the Times story was accurate in reporting that the President wanted the special counsel removed." Isn't that right?"

"Mr. McGahn, through his personal attorney, told the President that he... was not going to lie. Is that right?"

"Next, the President told the White House Staff Secretary to try to pressure McGahn to make a false denial. Is that correct?"

"[P]age 113... "The President then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record to make it clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire you"... Is that correct?"

"And you found... "The President said he wanted McGahn to write a letter to the file for our records." Correct?"

"[T]he President is asking his White House Counsel Don McGahn to create a record that McGahn believed to be untrue, while you were in the midst of investigating the President for obstruction of justice. Correct?"

"Mr. McGahn was an important witness in that investigation, wasn't he?"

"[D]idn't the President say [to Porter, speaking about McGahn]... on page 116... "If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I'll have to get rid of him" ..?"

"[P]age 116... the President met him [McGahn] in the Oval Office... "The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that The New York Times story didn't look good and McGahn needed to correct it." Is that correct?"

"The President asked McGahn whether he would do a correction and McGahn said no. Correct?"

"[T]hank you for your investigation uncovering this very disturbing evidence. ...[I]t is clear to me, if anyone else had ordered a witness to create a false record and cover up acts that are subject of a law enforcement investigation, that person would be facing criminal charges."

"[I]t's accurate to say that the President knew that he was asking McGahn to deny facts that McGahn... "had repeatedly said were accurate"... Isn't that right?"

"Your investigation also found... "by the time of the Oval Office meeting with the President, the President was aware [1] that McGahn did not think the story was false and [2, that McGahn] did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true. The President nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate." ...that's on page 119 ...In other words, the President was trying to force McGahn to say something that McGahn did not believe to be true."

"[R]eference... a slide... [Vol. II] on page 120... "Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation.""

"So it's fair to say the President tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?"

"[T]he President's attempt to get McGahn to create a false-written record, were related to Mr. Trump's concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry, correct?"

"[T]hank you... for your investigation into whether the President attempted to obstruct justice by ordering his White House Counsel, Don McGahn, to lie to protect the President, and then to create a false record about it. It is clear that any other person who engaged in such conduct would be charged with a crime. ...[W]e will hold the President accountable ..."

"[O]bstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of an investigator's effort to find the truth. Correct?"

"The crime of obstruction of justice has three elements... The first element is an obstructive act. ...An obstructive act could include taking an action that would delay or interfere with an ongoing investigation... True? ..."

"Your investigation found evidence that President Trump took steps to terminate the special counsel. Correct?"

"[D]oes ordering the termination of the head of a criminal investigation constitute an obstructive act? ...Let me refer you to page 87 and 88 of Volume 2 where you conclude "The attempt to remove the special counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation in any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry." Correct?"

"The second element of obstruction of justice is the presence of an obstructive act in connection with an official proceeding. ...President Trump tweeted on June 16, 2017... "I am being investigated for firing the FBI director... Witch hunt." The... tweet just read... page 89 in Volume 2 constitutes a public acknowledgement by President Trump that he was under criminal investigation. Correct?"

"One day later on Saturday, June 17, President Trump called White House counsel Don McGahn at home, and directed him to fire the special counsel. True?"

"President Trump told Don McGahn... "Mueller has to go"... Correct?"

"Your report found on page 89, Volume 2 that substantial evidence indicates that by June 17 the President knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor, who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. True?"

"The third element—second element having just been satisfied— ...of the crime of obstruction of justice, is corrupt intent. True?"

"Corrupt intent exists if the President acted to obstruct an official preceding for the improper purpose of protecting his own interest. Correct?"

"Upon learning about the appointment of the Special Counsel, your investigation found that Donald Trump stated to the then Attorney General... "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm f'ed." Is that correct?"

"Is it fair to say that Donald Trump viewed the Special Counsel's investigation into his conduct as adverse to his own interest?"

"The investigation found evidence... "that the President knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to fire the Special Counsel." ...Page 90, Volume 2, "There's evidence that the President knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn"..."

"The investigation also found substantial evidence that President Trump repeatedly urged McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, correct?"

"The investigation found substantial evidence that when the President ordered Don McGahn to fire the special counsel, and then lie about it, Donald Trump 1) committed an obstructive act, 2) connected to an official proceeding, 3) did so with corrupt intent. Those are the elements of obstruction of justice. ...The President must be held accountable, one way or the other."

"[W]e are specifically focusing on five separate obstruction episodes here today. I'd like to ask you about the third... the section of your report entitled "The President's Efforts to Curtail the Special Counsel Investigation" beginning at page 90. And by "curtail" you mean limit, correct?"

"My colleagues have walked through how the President tried to have you fired through the White House Council, and because Mr. McGahn refused the order, the President asked others to help limit your investigation, is that correct?"

"Your report describes an incident in the Oval Office involving Mr. Lewandowski on June 19, 2017... Volume 2 page 91... And that was just two days after the President called Don McGahn at home and ordered him to fire you. ..."

"So right after his White House Council Mr. McGahn refused to follow the President's order to fire you, the President came up with a new plan. And that was to go around all of his senior advisors and government aids, to have a private citizen try to limit your investigation. What did the President tell Mr. Lewandowski to do? Do you recall? He called him, he dictated a message to Mr. Lewandowski for Attorney General Sessions, and asked him to write it down, is that correct?"

"The message directed Sessions to give... a public speech saying that he planned to "meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections." ...page 91 [Vol. II]. Is that correct?"

"In other words, Mr. Lewandowski, a private citizen, was instructed by the President of the United States to deliver a message from the President to the Attorney General, that directed him to limit your investigation. Correct?"

"And at this time, Mr. Sessions was still recused from oversight of your investigation. ...The attorney general was recused from oversight."

"So the Attorney General had to violate his own Department's rules in order to comply with the President's order... And if the Attorney General had followed through with the President's request... it would have effectively ended your investigation into the President and his campaign ...page 97. ..."Taken together, the President's directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign, with the Special Counsel being permitted to 'move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.' " Is that correct?"

"And... , is that correct?"

"And Mr. Lewandowski tried to meet with the attorney general. ...in his office so he would be... certain there wasn't a public log of the visit?"

"And the meeting never happened. And the President raised the issue again with Mr. Lewandowski and... said...[page 93] "If Sessions does not meet with you, Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired" correct?"

"So immediately following the meeting with the President, Lewandowski then asked Mr. Dearborn to deliver the message, who's the former chief of staff to Mr. Sessions. And Mr. Dearborn refuses to deliver it, because he doesn't feel comfortable. Isn't that correct?"

"So... two days after the White House Counsel Don McGahn refused to carry out the President's order to fire you, the President directed a private citizen to tell the Attorney General of the United States—who was recused at the time—to limit your investigation to future elections, effectively ending your investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign. Is that correct?"

"....page ...97 ..."Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the special counsel's investigation to future elections interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President and his campaign conduct." Is that correct?"

"...1,000 former Republican and Democratic federal prosecutors have read your report and said, anyone but the President who committed those acts would be charged with obstruction of justice. ..."

"[G]oing back to the President's obstruction via , it was referenced that a thousand former prosecutors who served under Republican and Democratic administrations with 12,000 years of federal service wrote a letter regarding the President's conduct. Are you familiar with that letter?"

"...And in that letter they said all of this conduct, trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others, is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions. Are they wrong?"

"Do you want to sign that letter, Director Mueller?"

"I'd like to now turn to the elements of obstruction of justice as applied to the President's attempts to curtail your investigation. The first element of obstruction of justice requires an obstructive act, correct?"

"...page 97 of Volume 2 ..."Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign"... That's in the report, correct?"

"That would be evidence of an obstructive act because it would naturally obstruct the investigation, correct?"

"Let's turn now to the second element of the crime of obstruction of justice, which requires a nexus to an official proceeding. Again ...page 97 ...Volume 2. ..."by the time of the President's initial one-on-one meeting with Lewandowski on June 19, 2017, the existence of a investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge." That's in the report, correct?"

"That would constitute evidence of a nexus to an official proceeding because a investigation is an official proceeding, correct?"

"I'd like to now turn to the final element of the crime of obstruction to justice. On that same page... 97, do you see... an "Intent" section on that page? ..."

"..."Substantial evidence indicates that the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President's and his campaign's conduct."... That's in the report, correct?"

"[T]o recap what we've heard... today... the President ordered former White House Counsel, , to fire you. The President ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and create a false paper trail. And now we've heard the President ordered to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your investigation so that... you [would] stop investigating the President. I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met. ...I'd like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President, correct?"

"itself is quite broad. It"

"[B]ased on the evidence that we have heard today, I believe a reasonable person could conclude that at least three crimes of obstruction of justice by the President occurred. We're going to hear about two additional crimes. That would be the s of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort, and I yield back [to Mr. Swalwell]."

"[L]et's go to a fourth episode of obstruction of justice in the form of a witness tampering, which is urging witnesses not to cooperate with law enforcement, either by persuading them or intimidating them. Witness tampering is a felony, punishable by 20 years in prison. You found evidence that the President engaged in efforts... "To encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation." Is that right?"

"...page 7 ...Volume 2. ...[O]ne of these witnesses was Michael Cohen, the President's personal lawyer, who ultimately pled guilty to campaign violations based on secret hush money payments... to women the President knew, and also to... lying to Congress... about the hope for [a] $1 billion Trump Tower deal. After the FBI searched Cohen's home, the President called him up personally. He said to check in, and told him to... "hang in there and stay strong." Is that right? Do you remember finding that?"

"Also in the report... are a series of calls made by other friends of the President. One reached out to say he was with the boss in and the President said, he loves you. His name is redacted. Another redacted friend called to say the boss loves you and the third redacted friend called to say everyone knows the boss has your back. Do you remember finding that sequence of calls?"

"When the news... and, in fact, Cohen said that following the receipt of these messages, ...page 147... Volume 2, "he believed he had the support of the White House if he continued to toe the party line, and he determined to stay on message and be part of the team." ...Do you remember generally finding that?"

"Robert Costello, a lawyer close to the President's team, emailed Cohen to say... "You are 'loved'...they are in our corner...Sleep well tonight," and "you have friends in high places." And that's up on the screen... Do you remember reporting that?"

"[W]hen the news first broke that Cohen had arranged payoffs to , Cohen faithfully stuck to this party line. He said that publicly that neither the Trump organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction and neither reimbursed him. Trump's personal attorney at that point quickly texted Cohen to say... "Client says thank you for what you do." ...[W]ho is the capital "C" client thanking Cohen for what he does?"

"The assumption in the context suggests very strongly it's President Trump."

"Cohen later broke and pled guilty to campaign finance offenses, and admitted fully they were made... "at the direction of candidate Trump." Do you remember that?"

"After Cohen's guilty plea, the President suddenly changed his tune towards Mr. Cohen, didn't he?"

"[H]e made the suggestion that Cohen family members had committed crimes. He targeted, for example, Cohen's father-in-law and repeatedly suggested that he was guilty of committing crimes, right?"

"On page 154 you give a powerful summary of this changing in dynamics. And you said... "The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or to undermine Cohen's credibility once Cohen began cooperating.""

"[I]n my view, if anyone else in America engaged in these actions, they would have been charged with witness tampering. We must enforce the principle in Congress that you emphasize so well in the last sentence of your report, which is that in America, no person is so high as to be above the law."

"[L]et's turn to the fifth of the obstruction episodes in your report, and that is the evidence of whether President Trump engaged in witness tampering with Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, whose foreign ties were critical into your investigation into Russia's interference in our elections... Volume 2, page 123. Your office got indictments against Manafort and Trump Deputy Campaign Manager, Rick Gates, in two different jurisdictions. Correct?"

"And your office found that after a grand jury indicted them, Manafort told Gates not to plead guilty to any charges because... "he had talked to the... President's personal counsel, and they were going to take care of us." Is that correct?"

"And according to your report, one day after Manafort's conviction on eight felony charges... [page 127, Vol. 2] "The President said that flipping was not fair and almost ought to be outlawed." Is that correct?"

"In this context... what does it mean to flip?"

"In your report you concluded that President Trump and his personal counsel Rudy Giuliani... "made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort, while also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to 'flip' and cooperate with the government"... Is that correct?"

"And as you stated earlier, witness tampering can be shown where someone with an improper motive encourages another person not to cooperate with law enforcement. Is that correct?"

"[O]n page 123 of Volume 2 you also discuss the President's motive and you say that as court proceedings moved forward against Manafort, President Trump... "discussed with aides whether and in what way Manafort might be cooperating... and whether Manafort knew any information that would be harmful to the President." ...Is that correct? ..page 123, Volume 2."

"And when someone tries to stop another person from working with law enforcement, and they do it because they're worried about what that person will say, it seems clear, from what you wrote, that this is a classic definition of witness tampering. Now Mr. Manafort did eventually decide to cooperate with your office, and he entered into a plea agreement, but then he broke that agreement. Can you describe what he did that caused you to tell the court that the agreement was off."

"[O]n page 127 of Volume 2 you told the court that Mr. Manafort lied about a number of matters that were material to the investigation and you said that Manafort's lawyers also... "regularly briefed the President's lawyers on topics discussed and the information that Manafort had provided in interviews with the Special Counsel's Office." Does that sound right? ...That's page 127, Volume 2. That's a direct quote."

"[T]wo days after you told the court that Manafort broke his plea agreement by lying repeatedly, did President Trump tell the press that Mr. Manafort was... "very brave because he did not flip." This is page 128 of Volume 2."

"[I]n your report you make a very serious conclusion about the evidence regarding the President's involvement with the Manafort criminal proceedings. ...[page 132, Vol. II] "Evidence concerning the President's conduct toward Manafort indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government." It is clear that the President both publicly and privately discouraged Mr. Manafort's cooperation or flipping, while also dangling the promise of a pardon, if he stayed loyal and did not share what he knew about the President. Anyone else who did these things would be prosecuted for them. We must ensure that no one is above the law..."

"[L]et's talk about lies. According to your report, page 9, Volume 1, witnesses lied to your office and to Congress. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russia interference, according to your report. Other than the individuals who plead guilty to crimes based on their lying to you and your team, did other witnesses lie to you?"

"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."

"And that lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation?"

"I want to focus on another section of obstruction which is the President's conduct concerning Michael Flynn, the President's national security advisor. In early [2017], the White House Counsel and the President were informed that Mr. Flynn had lied to government authorities about his communications with the Russian ambassador during the Trump campaign in transition. Is this correct?"

"If a hostile nation knows that a U.S. official has lied publicly... that can be used to blackmail that government official, correct?"

"Flynn resigned on February 13, 2016, and the very next day when the President was having lunch with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, did the President say... "now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over"..."

"And is it true that Christie responded by saying... "no way, and this Russia thing is far from over"..."

"And after the President met with Christie, later... that same day the President arranged to meet with then FBI Director James Comey, alone in the Oval Office. Correct?"

"Page 39-40, Volume 2. ...And according to Comey, the President told him... "I hope you can see your way to clear to letting this thing go, to letting Flynn go. He's a good guy and I hope you can let it go."... Page 40, Volume 2."

""Comey understood this to be 'a direction' because of the President's position and the circumstances of the one-to-one meeting"? Page 40, Volume 2."

"Even though the President publicly denied telling Comey to drop the investigation, you found... "substantial evidence corroborating Comey's account over the President's." Is this correct?"

"The President fired Comey on May 9. Is that correct, sir?"

"That's page 77, Volume 2. You found substantial evidence that the catalyst for the President's firing of Comey was Comey's... "unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation"? ...And that's page 75, Volume 2."

"And in fact, the very next day the President told the Russian Foreign Minister...[page 62, Vol. II] "I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off. ...I'm not under investigation."... Is that correct?"

"I want to ask you some questions about the President's statements regarding advanced knowledge of the WikiLeaks dumps. So the President refused to sit down with your investigators for an in-person interview, correct?"

"So the only answers we have to questions from the President are contained in Appendix C to your report."

"Appendix C, page 5, you asked the President about a dozen questions about whether he had knowledge that WikiLeaks possessed the stolen emails that might be released in a way helpful to his campaign, or harmful to the Clinton campaign. Is that correct, you asked those questions?"

"In February of this year, Mr. Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen testified to Congress under oath that... "Mr. Trump knew from Roger Stone in advance about the WikiLeaks dump."... That's a matter of public record, isn't it?"

"[P]age 18 of Volume 2... According to Deputy Campaign Manager Rick Gates, in the summer of 2016, he and Candidate Trump were on the way to an airport, shortly after WikiLeaks released its first set of stolen e-mails. And Gates told your investigators that Candidate Trump was on a phone call, and when the call ended, "Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming."... Do you recall that from the report?"

"[O]n page 77 of Volume 2... "In addition, some witnesses said that Trump privately sought information about future WikiLeak releases".... Is that correct?"

"[I]n Appendix C, where the President did answer some written questions, he said... "I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with him, nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign".... Is that correct?"

"Is it fair then, that the President denied knowledge of himself or anyone else [in his campaign] discussing WikiLeaks dumps with Mr. Stone?"

"I would like to ask you about the President's answers relating to Roger Stone. Roger Stone was indicted for multiple federal crimes and [the] indictment alleges that Mr. Stone discussed future WikiLeaks e-mail releases with the Trump campaign. Understanding there's a gag order on the Stone case, I will keep my questions restricted to publicly available information. Mr. Stone's indictment..."

"Mr. Stone's indictment states among other things... "Stone was contacted by senior Trump officials to inquire about future releases of organization 1", organization 1 being . The indictment continues... "Stone thereafter told the Trump campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by WikiLeaks". So... the indictment alleges that Stone was asked by the Trump campaign to get information about more WikiLeaks releases, and that Stone in fact did tell the Trump campaign about potential future releases. Correct?"

"[T]he President denied ever discussing future WikiLeaks releases with Stone and denied knowing whether anyone else in his campaign had those discussions with Stone. If you had learned that other witnesses, putting aside the President,.. had lied to your investigators in response to specific questions whether... in writing or in interview, could they be charged with false statement crimes?"

"[L]et's put it more specific. What if I had made a false statement to an investigator on your team. Could I go to jail for up to five years?"

"Well, that's the point, though, isn't it that no one is above the law."

"Not you, not the Congress, and certainly not the President, and I think it's just troubling to have to hear some of these things, and that's why the American people deserve to learn the full facts of the misconduct described in your report, for which any other person would have been charged with crimes. ....No one is above the law. ..."

"I'd like to talk to you about one of the other incidents of obstruction, and that's the evidence in your report showing the President directing his son and his communications director to issue a false public statement in June of 2017 about a meeting between his campaign and Russian individuals at Trump Tower in June of 2016. According to your report, Mr. Trump Jr. was the only Trump associate who participated in that meeting... who declined to be voluntarily interviewed by your office. Is that correct?"

"Did Mr. Trump Jr. or his counsel ever communicate to your office any intent to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination?"

"You did pose written questions to the President about his knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting. You... also asked him about whether or not he had directed a false press statement. The President did not answer... that question, correct?"

"Appendix C, specifically C13 states as much. According to page 100 of Volume 2 of your report, your investigation found that , the President's communications director, in June of 2017, was shown emails that set up the , and she told your office that she was... "shocked by the emails" because they looked... "really bad." True? ...While you're flipping to that page... I will also tell you that according to page 99 of Volume 2... those emails in question stated, according to your report, that the crown prosecutor of Russia had offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia, as part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump. Trump Jr. responded, "if it's what you say, I love it. And he, Kushner, and Manafort, met with the Russian attorneys and several other Russian individuals at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016"... Correct?"

"Isn't it true that Ms. Hicks told your office that she went multiple times to the President to... "urge him that they should be fully transparent about the June 9th meeting,"... but the President, each time, said No. correct?"

"And the reason was, because of those emails which the President... believed "would not leak." Correct?"

"Did the President direct Ms. Hicks to say... "Only that Trump Jr. took a brief meeting and it was about Russian adoption"... because Trump Jr.'s statement to The New York Times... "said too much" according to page 102, of Volume 2?"

"And according to Ms. Hicks, the President still directed her to say the meeting was only about Russian adoption. Correct?"

"Despite knowing that to be untrue."

"Your investigations of the Russian attack on our democracy and of obstruction of justice were extraordinarily productive and in under two years you charged at least 37 people or entities with crimes. You convicted seven individuals, five of whom are top Trump campaign or White House aides. Charges remain pending against more than two dozen Russian persons or entities and against others. Now let me start with those five Trump campaign or administration aides that you convicted. Would you agree with me that they are Paul Manafort, President Trump's campaign manager; Rick Gates, President Trump's deputy campaign manager; , President Trump's former National Security Advisor; Michael Cohen, the President's personal attorney; , President Trump's former campaign foreign policy advisor? Correct?"

"And the sixth Trump associate will face... trial later this year. ...And that person would be Roger Stone. Correct?"

"And there are many other charges as well, correct?"

"[I]n less than two years your team was able to uncover an incredible amount of information related to Russia's attack on our elections, and to obstruction of justice, and there is still more that we have to learn. Despite facing unfair attacks by the President, and even here today, your work has been substantive and fair. The work has laid the critical foundation for our investigation, and for that I thank you..."

"I'm disappointed that some have questioned your motives throughout this process, and I want to take a moment to remind the American people of who you are, and your exemplary service to our country. You are a Marine. You served in Vietnam and earned a Bronze Star and Purple Heart, correct?"

"Which President appointed you to become the United States Attorney for Massachusetts? ...President Ronald Reagan had the honor to do so. ...Under whose administration did you serve as the assistant Attorney General in charge of the DOJ's criminal division?"

"...After that you took a job at a prestigious law firm, and after only a couple of years, you did something extraordinary. You left that lucrative position to re-enter public service, prosecuting homicides here in Washington, D.C. Is that correct?"

"When you were named Director of the FBI, which President first appointed you?"

"And the Senate confirmed you with a vote of 98 to 0, correct?"

"And you were sworn in as Director just one week before the September 11th attacks. You helped to protect this nation against another attack. You did such an outstanding job that when your 10-year term expired, the Senate unanimously voted to extend your term for another 2 years, correct?"

"When you were asked in 2017 to take the job as Special Counsel, the President had just fired FBI Director James Comey. The Justice Department and the FBI were in turmoil. You must have known there would be an extraordinary challenge. Why did you accept?"

"Some people have attacked the political motivations of your team, even suggested your investigation was a witch hunt. When you considered people to join your team, did you ever, even once, ask about their political affiliation?"

"In your entire career as a law enforcement official, have you ever made a hiring decision based upon a person's political affiliation?"

"[Y]ou're a patriot. And [it's] clear to me in reading you report, and listening to your testimony today, you acted fairly and with restraint. There were circumstances where you could have filed charges against other people mentioned in the report, but you declined. Not every prosecutor does that, certainly not one on a witch hunt. The attacks made against you and your team intensified, because your report is damning, and I believe you did uncover substantial evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. Let me also say something else that you are right about. The only remedy for this situation, is for Congress to take action."

"I wanted to ask you about public confusion connected with Attorney General Barr's release of your report. I will be quoting your March 27th letter. ...[I]n that letter and at several other times, did you convey to the Attorney General, that the... "Introductions and Executive Summaries of our two volume report accurately summarized this Office's work and conclusions."?"

"Continuing with your letter, you wrote to the Attorney General that... "The summary letter... the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24th did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office's work and conclusions."... Is that correct?"

"What was it about the report's context, nature, substance, that the attorney general's letter did not capture?"

"[C]ould Attorney General Barr have avoided public confusion if he had released your... executive introduction and summaries?"

"...May 30th, the Attorney General in an interview with CBS News said that... you "could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity"... on the part of the President. Did the Attorney General or his staff ever tell you that he thought you should make a decision on whether the President engaged in criminal activity?"

"I agree with your March 27th letter. There was public confusion, and the President took full advantage of that confusion by falsely claiming your report found no obstruction. Let us be clear, your report did not exonerate the President. Instead, it provided substantial evidence of obstruction of justice, leaving Congress to do its duty. We shall... not shrink from that duty."

"...Volume 2, page 158. ..."The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." Is that right?"

"And you're basically referring to senior advisors who disobeyed the President's orders like White House Counsel , Former Trump Campaign Manager . Is that right?"

"...page 158, White House Counsel Don McGahn ..."did not tell the acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the President's orders." You also explained that an attempt to obstruct justice does not have to succeed to be a crime, right?"

"Simply attempting to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct?"

"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?"

"So to reiterate, simply trying to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct?"

"[Y]ou say that the President's efforts to influence the investigation were... "mostly unsuccessful" and that's because not all of his efforts were unsuccessful, right?"

"I was going to ask you if you could just tell me which ones you had in mind, as successful, when you wrote that sentence."

"[T]oday we've talked a lot about the separate acts by this President, but you also wrote in your report that... "[T]he overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences [that] can be drawn about his intent." Correct?"

"[O]n page 158... it's important for everyone to note that the President's conduct had a significant change when he realized that... the investigations were conducted to investigate his obstruction acts. So, in other words, when the American people are deciding whether the President committed obstruction of justice, they need to look at all of the President's conduct and overall pattern of behavior. Is that correct?"

"Dr. Mueller/Director Mueller... I have certainly made up my mind about whether... what we have reviewed today meets the elements of obstruction, including whether there was corrupt intent. ...[A]nyone else, including some members of Congress, would have been charged with crimes for these acts. We would not have allowed this behavior from any of the previous 44 Presidents. We should not allow it now, or for the future, to protect our democracy. ...[Y]es, we will continue to investigate, because as you clearly state at the end of your report: No one is above the law."

"[Y]ou wrote in your report that you... "determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment"... Was that, in part, because of an opinion by the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, that a sitting President can't be charged with a crime?"

"[A]t your May 29, 2019 press conference, you explained that... "the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing"... That process... is that impeachment?"

"In your report you also wrote that you did not want to... "potentially preempt Constitutional processes for addressing Presidential misconduct"... For the non-lawyers in the room, what did you mean by... "potentially preempt constitutional processes"?"

"That actually is... from page 1 of Volume 2. In the footnote... What are those constitutional processes?"

"Impeachment, correct?"

"That is one of the Constitutional processes listed in the report in the footnote, in Volume 2. Your report documents the many ways the President sought to interfere with your investigation, and you state in your report on page 10, Volume 2, that... "interfering with a congressional inquiry or investigation with corrupt intent can also constitute obstruction of justice.""

"[T]he President has told us that he intends to fight all the subpoenas. His continued efforts to interfere with investigations of his potential misconduct certainly reinforce the importance of the process the Constitution requires to... "formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing" as you cited in the report. ...[T]his hearing has been very helpful to this Committee as it exercises its Constitutional duty to determine whether to recommend against the President. I agree with you... that we all have a vital role in holding this President accountable for his actions. More than that, I believe we in Congress have a duty to demand accountability, and safeguard one of our nation's highest principles, that no one is above the law. From everything that I have heard you say here today, it's clear that anyone else would have been prosecuted based on the evidence available in your report. It now falls on us to hold President Trump accountable. ..."

"For two years leading up to the release of the Mueller report, and in the three months since, Americans were first told what to expect, and then what to believe. Collusion, we were told, was in plain sight, even if the special counsel's team didn't find it. When Mr. Mueller produced his report and Attorney General Barr provided it to every American, we read, "No American conspired with Russia to interfere in our elections," but learned the depths of Russia's malice toward America."

"The burden of proof for accusations that remain unproven is extremely high, and especially in light of the special counsel's thoroughness. We were told this investigation began as an inquiry into whether Russia meddled in our 2016 election. Mr. Mueller, you concluded they did. Russians accessed Democrat servers and disseminated sensitive information by tricking campaign insiders into revealing protected information. The investigation also reviewed whether Donald Trump, the President, sought Russian assistance as a candidate to win the presidency. Mr. Mueller concluded he did not. His family or advisers did not. In fact, the report concludes no one in the President's campaign colluded, collaborated or conspired with the Russians. The President watched the public narrative surrounding this investigation that assumes... his guilt while he knew the extent of his innocence."

"Volume 2 of Mr. Mueller's report details the President's reaction to a frustrating investigation where his innocence was established early on. The President's attitude toward the investigation was understandably negative, yet the President did not use his authority to close the investigation. He asked his lawyer if Mr. Mueller had conflicts that disqualified Mr. Mueller from the job, but he did not shut down the investigation. The President knew he was innocent. Those are the facts of the Mueller report. Russia meddled in the 2016 election. The President did not conspire with the Russians and nothing we hear... today will change those facts. But one element of this story remains: the beginnings of the FBI investigation into the President. I look forward to Mr. Mueller's testimony about what he found during his review of the origins of the investigation."

"[T]he inspector general continues to review how baseless gossip can be used to launch an FBI investigation against a private citizen, and eventually a President. Those results will be released, and we will need to learn from them to ensure government intelligence and law enforcement powers are never again used and turned on a private citizen... or a political candidate as a result of the political leanings of a handful of FBI agents."

"The origins and conclusions of the Mueller investigation are the same things: what it means to be American. Every American has a voice in our democracy. We must protect the sanctity of their voice by combating election interference. Every American enjoys the presumption of innocence and guarantee of due process. If we carry... anything away today, it must be that we increase our vigilance against foreign election interference, while we ensure our government officials don't weaponize their power against the constitutional rights guaranteed to every U.S. citizen."

"Finally, we must agree that the opportunity cost here is too high. The months we have spent investigating from this dais failed to end the border crisis or contribute to the growing job market. Instead, we have gotten stuck and it's paralyzed this committee and this House."

"...I believe this place is a place where we can actually do things and help people. Six and a half years ago, I came here to work on behalf of the people of the 9th District and this country. And we accomplished a lot in those first six years on a bipartisan basis, with many of my friends across the aisle sitting on this dais with me today. However, this year, because of the majority's dislike of this President, and the endless hearings into a closed investigation have caused us to accomplish nothing except talk about the problems of our country while our border is on fire, in crisis, and everything else is stopped. This hearing is long overdue. We've had the truth for months. No American conspired to throw our election. What we need today is to let that truth bring us confidence, and I hope Mr. Chairman, closure."

"I want to lay some foundation. ...In your press conference you said "any testimony from your office would not go beyond our report. We chose these words carefully. The work speaks for itself. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress." Do you stand by that statement?"

"Since closing the special counsel's office in May of 2019, have you conducted any additional interviews or obtained any new information in your role as special counsel? ...Have you conducted any new interviews, any new witnesses, anything?"

"At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed... or stopped, or hindered?"

"Were you or your team provided any questions by members of Congress, [or] the majority, ahead of your hearing today?"

"Given the questions that you've just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the President was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?"

"So that would be a yes."

"Isn't it true the evidence did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charge of Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had unlawful relationships with any Russian official, Volume 2, page 76? Correct?"

"So that is a yes. Is [it]... true your investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russian government in the election interference activity: Volume 1, page 2; Volume 1, page 173?"

"Although your reports states, "collusion is not some... specific offense," and you said that this morning, "or a term of art in federal criminal laws, conspiracy is." In the colloquial context, are collusion and conspiracy essentially synonymous terms? ...on page 180 of Volume 1 of your report, you wrote, "As defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 USC 371.""

"So the report says yes, they are synonymous."

"Hopefully, for finally, out of your own report, we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy. ...Did you ever look into... other countries investigated in the Russians'... interference into our election? Were other countries investigated... or found knowledge that they had interference in our election?"

"[I]n explaining, the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or declination decision, the report, on the bottom of page 2, Volume 2, reads as follows: "The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Now, I read that correctly?"

"[W]hich DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? ...Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? ...Let me make it easier. ...Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated... because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"

"[Y]ou can't find it because... It doesn't exist. The special counsel's job... Nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It's not in any of the documents. It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the Justice Manual, and it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together, because... it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence, or to exonerate him, because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it including sitting Presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never - ever need to conclusively determine it. Now... the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof, that I can't find, and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies; and you used it to write a report; and the very first line of your report... says, as you read this morning, it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the special counsel." That's the very first word of your report, right?"

"Here's the problem... The special counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So... you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached." You wrote 180 pages... about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged, or decided. And... by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged. So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle... that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized, under the law, to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman... when he said, "Donald Trump is not above the law." He's not. But he damn sure shouldn't be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him."

"Now, since you decided under the OLC opinion that you couldn't prosecute a sitting President, meaning President Trump, why do we have all of this investigation of President Trump that the other side is talking about when you know that you weren't going to prosecute him?"

"[I]f you're not going to indict the President then you just continue fishing. ...[Y]ou can indict other people, but you can't indict the sitting President, right?"

"Mr. Chabot and I were on this committee during the Clinton impeachment. Now, while I recognize that the independent counsel statute under which Kenneth Starr operated is different from the special counsel statute, he, in a number of occasions in his report, stated that... "President Clinton's actions may have risen to impeachable conduct," recognizing that it is up to the House of Representatives to determine what conduct is impeachable. You never used the term "raising to impeachable conduct" for any of the 10 instances... Is it true that there's nothing in Volume 2 of the report that says that the President may have engaged in impeachable conduct?"

"[T]here are a couple of statements that you made... that said that, "This is not for me to decide," and the implication is that this is for this committee to decide. Now, you didn't use the word "impeachable conduct" like Starr did. There was no statute to prevent you from using the word "impeachable conduct." ...I go back to what Mr. Ratcliffe said... even the President is innocent until proven guilty."

"[M]y Democratic colleagues were very disappointed in your report. They were expecting you to say something along the lines of here's why President Trump deserves to be impeached, much as did relative to President Clinton back about 20 years ago. Well, you didn't, so their strategy had to change. Now they allege that there's plenty of evidence in your report to impeach the President, but the American people just didn't read it. And this hearing today is their last best hope to build up some sort of groundswell across America to impeach President Trump. That's what this is really all about today."

"On page 103 of Volume 2 of your report, when discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, you referenced... "the firm that produced Steele reporting". The name of that firm was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?"

"Fusion GPS produced the opposition research document... widely known as the Steele dossier, and the owner of Fusion GPA [sic Fusion GPS] was... Glenn Simpson. Are... are you familiar with..."

"Glenn Simpson was never mentioned in the 448 page Mueller report, was he?"

"[H]e's not mentioned in there. ...At the same time Fusion GPS was working to collect opposition research on Donald Trump from foreign sources on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, it also was representing a Russian-based company, Prevezon, sanctioned by the U.S. government. Are you aware of that?"

"One of the key players in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was , who you described in your report as a Russian attorney who advocated for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Veselnitskaya had been working with none other than Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS since at least early 2014. Are -- are you aware of that?"

"But you didn't mention that, or her connections to Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS in... your report at all. ...NBC News has reported [in a story by Ken Dilanian] the following:... "Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya says she first received the supposedly incriminating information she brought to Trump Tower—describing alleged tax evasion and donation to Democrats—from..." none other than "Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS owner,..." [who had been hired to conduct research in a New York federal court case.] You didn't include that in the report, and I assume you..."

"[Y]our report spends 14 pages discussing the June 9th, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. ...It would be fair to say, would it not, that you spent significant resources investigating that meeting?"

"[I]n stark contrast to the actions of the Trump campaign, we know that the Clinton campaign did pay Fusion GPS to gather dirt on the Trump campaign, from persons associated with foreign governments. But your report doesn't mention a thing about Fusion GPS in it, and you didn't investigate Fusion GPS' connections to Russia. So let me just ask you this. ...Can you see, that from neglecting to mention Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS' involvement with the Clinton campaign, to focusing on a brief meeting at the Trump Tower that produced nothing, to ignoring the Clinton campaign's own ties to Fusion GPS, why some view your report as a pretty one-sided attack on the President?"

"I guess it's just by chance, by coincidence, that the things left out of the report tended to be favorable to the President."

"[L]et me ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to submit this article, "Robert Mueller Unmasked", for the record."

"You and James Comey have been good friends or were good friends for a -- for many years, correct?"

"[B]efore you were appointed as special counsel, had you talked to James Comey in the preceding six months?"

"When you were appointed as special counsel, was President Trump's firing of Comey something you anticipated investigating, potentially obstruction of justice?"

"Actually, it goes to your credibility and maybe you've been away from the court room for a while. Credibility is always relevant. It's always material, and that goes for you, too. You're a witness before us."

"[W]hen you talked to President Trump the day before... you were appointed as Special Counsel, you were talking to him about the FBI Director position again..."

"Did he mention the firing of James Comey in your discussion with him?"

"But if he did, you could've been a fact witness as to the President's comments and state of mind on firing James Comey."

"[M]ost prosecutors want to make sure there was no appearance of impropriety, but in your case, you hired a bunch of people that did not like the President. Now let me ask you, when did you first learn of 's animus toward Donald Trump?"

"You didn't know before he was hired for your team? ...Peter Strzok hated Trump!"

"[W]hen did you [first] learn of the ongoing affair he was having with Lisa Page?"

"Did you ever order anybody to investigate the deletion of all of their texts off of [and reformatting] their government phones?"

"Regarding collusion or conspiracy, you didn't find evidence of any agreement, and I'm quoting you, "among the Trump campaign officials and any Russia linked individuals to interfere with our U.S. election" correct?"

"[A]n element of any of those obstructions you referenced requires a corrupt state of mind, correct?"

"[I]f somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to affect the election, and they see the big Justice Department with people that hate that person coming after them, and then a Special Counsel appointed who hires a dozen or more people that hate that person, and he knows he's innocent, he's not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done, what he's doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice, and the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuated injustice."

"Importantly, [in the report] the President never said, "fire Mueller" or "end the investigation", and one doesn't necessitate the other. ...McGahn, in fact, did not resign; he stuck around for a year and a half."

"When you submitted your report to the attorney general, did you deliver a redacted version of the report so that he would be able to release it to Congress and the public without delay, pursuant to his announcement of his intention to do so during his confirmation hearing?"

"Had the attorney general asked you to provide a redacted version of the report?"

"Is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to Congress or the public?"

"Did you write the report with the expectation that it would be released publicly?"

"Were there significant changes in tone or substance of the report made after the announcement that the report would be made available to Congress and the public?"

"During the Senate testimony of Attorney General ... Senator Kamala Harris asked Mr. Barr if he had looked at all the underlying evidence that... the special counsel's team had gathered. He stated that he had not. ...It's fair to say that in an investigation as comprehensive as yours, it's normal that different members of the team would have reviewed different sets of documents and few, if anyone, would have reviewed all of the underlying [evidence]?"

"How many of the approximately 500 interviews conducted by the Special [Counsel's Office] did you attend personally?"

"On March 27, 2019, you wrote a letter to the attorney general essentially complaining about the media coverage of your report. You wrote, and I quote, "The summery letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25th. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the result of our investigation." ...Did you authorize the letter's release to the media or was it leaked?"

"[T]he FBI interviewed Joseph Mifsud on February 10th, 2017. In that interview, Mr. Mifsud lied. You point this out on page 193, Volume 1, Mifsud denied, Mifsud also falsely stated. In addition, Mifsud omitted. Three times, he lied to the FBI; yet, you didn't charge him with a crime. Why?"

"You charged a lot of other people for making false statements. Let's remember this... in 2016 the FBI did something they probably haven't done before. They spied on two American citizens associated with a Presidential campaign: and . With Carter Page they went to the FISA court, they used the now famous dossier as part of the reason they were able to get the warrant and spy on Carter Page for a better part of a year. With Mr. Papadopoulos, they didn't go to the court, they used human sources, all kinds... from about the moment Papadopoulos joins the Trump campaign, you've got all these people all around the world starting to swirl around him, names like Halper, Downer, Mifsud, Thompson, meeting in Rome, London, all kinds of places. The FBI even sent... a lady posing as somebody else, went by the name Azra Turk], even dispatched her to London to spy on Mr. Papadopoulos. In one of these meetings, Mr. Papadopoulos is talking to a foreign diplomat and he tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton. That diplomat then contacts the FBI, and the FBI opens an investigation based on that fact. You point this out on page 1 of the report. July 31st, 2016 they open the investigation based on that piece of information. ... Papadopoulos tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton, diplomat tells the FBI. What I'm wondering is who told Papadopoulos? How'd he find out?"

"Yes, you can, because... Page 192.... 's the guy who told Papadopoulos, the mysterious professor who lives in Rome and London, works and teaches in two different universities. This is the guy who told Papadopoulos. He's the guy who starts it all, and when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times and yet you don't charge him with a crime. You charge Rick Gates for false statements. You charge Paul Manafort for false statements. You charge Michael Cohen with false statements. You charge Michael Flynn, a three star general, with false statements, but the guy who puts the country through this whole saga, starts it all—for [the] three years we've lived this now—he lies and you guys don't charge him. And I'm curious as to why."

"Is Mifsud western intelligence or Russian intelligence?"

"A lot of things you can't get into. What's interesting, you can charge 13 Russians no one's ever heard of, no one's ever seen. No one's ever going to hear of them. No one's ever going to see them. You can charge them, you can charge all kinds of people who are around the President with [making] false statements, but the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can't charge him. I think that's amazing."

"Well I'm reading from your report, Mifsud told Papadopoulos, Papadopoulos tells the diplomat, the diplomat tells the FBI, the FBI opens the investigation [on] July 31st, 2016. And here we are three years later, July of 2019, the country's been put through this, and the central figure who launches it all, lies to us and you guys don't hunt him down and interview him again, and you don't charge him with a crime. Now here's the good news... The President was falsely accused of conspiracy. The FBI does a 10 month investigation and James Comey, when we deposed him a year ago told us, at that point, they had nothing. You do a 22-month investigation... you find no conspiracy and what... [do the] the Democrats want to do? They want to keep investigating. They want to keep going. Maybe a better course of action... is to figure out how the false accusations started. Maybe it's to go back and actually figure out why Joseph Mifsud was lying to the FBI. And here's the good news... That's exactly what Bill Barr is doing. And thank goodness for that. That's exactly what the attorney general and John Durham doing, they're going to find out why we went through this three year... saga and get to the bottom of it."

"[T]he third FISA renewal happens a month after you're named Special Counsel. What role did your office play in the third FISA renewal... of ?"

"[C]an you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia's disinformation campaign?"

"Yea, but Paul Manafort's alleged crimes regarding tax evasion predated you. You had no problem charging them, and as a matter of fact, this Steele dossier predated the Attorney General, and he didn't have any problem answering the question. When Senator Cornyn asked the Attorney General the exact question I asked you... [he] said... "No, I can't state that with confidence, and that's one of the areas I'm reviewing. I'm concerned about it, and I don't think it's entirely speculative." Now, if something is not entirely speculative, then it must have some factual basis, but you identify no factual basis regarding the dossier or the possibility that it was part of the Russia disinformation campaign. Now, 's reporting is referenced in your report. Steele reported to the FBI that senior Russian foreign ministry figures,.. along with other Russians, told him "that there was"—and I'm quoting from the Steele dossier—"extensive evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign team and the Kremlin." So here's my question. Did Russians really tell that to Christopher Steele, or did he just make it all up, and was he lying to the FBI?"

"No, it is exactly your purview... and here's why. Only one of two things is possible... Either Steele made this whole thing up and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn't find, or Russians lied to Steele. Now if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our duly elected President, that would seem to be precisely your purview, because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russia's interference, but you weren't interested in whether or not Russians were interfering through Christopher Steele, and if Steele was lying, then you should have charged him with lying like you charged a variety of other people. But you say nothing about this in your report. ...Meanwhile, Director, you're quite loquacious on other topics. You write 3,500 words about the June 9 meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya. You write on page 103... that the President's legal team suggested... "that the meeting might have been a set up by individuals working with the firm that produced the Steele reporting." So I'm going to ask you... on the week of June 9, who did Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya meet with more frequently, the Trump campaign or Glenn Simpson, who was functionally acting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee?"

"It is absurd to suggest that a operative for the democrats was meeting with this Russian lawyer the day before, the day after the Trump Tower meeting and yet that's not something you reference. Now Glenn Simpson testified under oath he had dinner with Veselnitskaya the day before and the day after this meeting with the Trump team. Do you have any basis as you sit here today to believe that Steele was lying?"

"So it's not your purview to look into whether or not Steele is lying? It's not your purview to look into whether or not anti-Trump Russians are lying to Steele? And it's not your purview to look at whether or not Glenn Simpson was meeting with the Russians the day before and the day after you write 3,500 words about the Trump campaign meeting. So I'm wondering... how these decisions are guided. I look at the Inspector General's report. I'm citing from page 404... It states, "[Lisa] Page stated, Trump is not ever going to be President... Right?" Strzok replied, "No he's not. We'll stop it." Also in the inspector general's report there's someone identified as "Attorney Number 2." ...page 419, replied, "Hell no," and then added, "viva la resistance." Attorney Number 2 in the inspector general's report and Strzok both worked on your team, didn't they? ..."

"Yea, but so did the other guy that said, "Viva la resistance." And here's what I'm... noticing Director Mueller. When people associated with Trump lied, you threw the book at them. When Christopher Steele lied, nothing, and so it seems to be when Simpson met with Russians, nothing. When the Trump campaign met with Russians, 3,500 words, and maybe the reason why there are these discrepancies in what you focused on is because the team was so biased. Pledged to the resistance. Pledged to stop Trump."

"The report contradicts what you taught young attorneys at the Department of Justice, including to ensure that every defendant is treated fairly, or as Justice Sutherland said in the Berger [v. United States case,] "A prosecutor is not the representative of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty, whose interest in a criminal prosecution is not that shall win a case, but that justice shall be done" and that "the prosecutor may strike hard blows, but he is not at liberty to strike fowl ones." By listing the 10 factual situations and not reaching a conclusion about the merits of the case, you unfairly shifted the burden of proof to the President, forcing him to prove his innocence, while denying him a legal forum to do so. ...I've never heard of a prosecutor declining a case, and then holding a press conference to talk about the defendant. You noted eight times in your report that you had a legal duty under the regulations to either prosecute or decline charges. Despite this, you disregarded that duty."

"As a former prosecutor, I'm also troubled with your legal analysis. You discussed 10 separate factual patterns involving alleged obstruction, and then you failed to separately apply the elements of the applicable statutes. I looked at the 10 factual situations and I read the case law, and... just looking at the [Michael Flynn|Flynn]] matter, for example, the four statutes that you cited for possible obstruction, 1503, 1505, 1512(b)(3) and 1512(c)(2). When I look at those concerning the Flynn matter, 1503 is inapplicable because there wasn't a grand jury or trial jury impaneled, and Director Comey was not an officer of the court, as defined by the statute. Section 1505 criminalizes acts that would obstruct or impede administrative proceedings, as those before Congress, or an administrative agency. The Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual states that the FBI investigation is not a pending proceeding. 1512(b)(3) talks about intimidation, threats, force, to tamper with a witness. General Flynn at the time was not a witness, and certainly Director Comey was not a witness. ...1512(c)(2) talks about tampering with the record, and as Joe Biden described the statute—as [it was] being debated on the Senate floor—he called this a statute criminalizing document shredding, and there's nothing in... your report that alleges that the President destroyed any evidence."

"[T]he ethical rules require that a prosecutor have a reasonable probability of conviction to bring a charge, is that correct?"

"[T]he regulations concerning your job as special counsel state that your job is to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by your office. You recommended declining prosecution of President Trump, and anyone associated with his campaign, because there was insufficient evidence to convict for a charge of conspiracy with Russian interference in the 2016 election. Is that fair?"

"Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice?"

"How could you not have made the calculation when the regulation..?"

"[Y]ou made the decision on the Russian interference. You couldn't have indicted the President on that, and you made the decision on that. But when it came to obstruction, you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick, and that is fundamentally unfair."

"OK, but... could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?"

"Ethically, under the ethical standards?"

"[Y]our team wrote... at the top of page 2, Volume 1... also on page 173..."The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities"... That's [an] accurate statement, right?"

"And I'm curious, when did you personally come to that conclusion?"

"Mr. Mueller, evidence suggests that on May 10th, 2017 at approximately 7:45 a.m., six days before the DAG, that's Deputy Attorney General, appointed you special counsel, Mr. Rosenstein called you and mentioned the appointment of a special counsel, not... necessarily that you would be appointed, but that you had a discussion of that. Is that... true?"

"[T]here's evidence that suggests that... phone call took place and that... is what was said. So let's move to the next question. Evidence suggests that also on May 12th, 2017, five days before the DAG appointed you special counsel, you met with Mr. Rosenstein in person. Did you discuss the appointment of special counsel then, not necessarily you, but that there would be a special counsel."

"It has nothing to with the indictment. It has to do with Special Counsel, and whether you discussed that with Mr. Rosenstein. Evidence also suggested, on May 13th, four days before you were appointed special counsel, you met with... former Attorney General Sessions and Rosenstein, and you spoke about Special Counsel. Do you remember that?"

"...And on May 16th, the day before you were appointed special counsel, you met with the President and . ...And the discussion of the position of the FBI director took place. Do you remember that?"

"And did you discuss at any time in that meeting Mr. Comey's termination?"

"Did you discuss at any time in that meeting the potential appointment of a Special Counsel? Not necessarily you, but just in general terms?"

"How many times did you speak to Mr. Rosenstein before [May 17, which is the day you got appointed, regarding the appointment of special counsel? ..."

"How many times did you speak with Mr. Comey about any investigations pertaining to the Russia prior to May 17, 2017? ..."

"You had three discussions with about your appointment as special counsel May 10, May 12, and May 13, correct?"

"Then you met with the President on the 16th with present. And then on the 17th, you were formally appointed as Special Counsel. Were you meeting with the President on the 16th with knowledge that you were under consideration for appointment of Special Counsel?"

"The answer is no?"

"describes your office as the team of partisans. And as additional information's coming to light, there's a growing concern that political bias caused important facts to be omitted from your report in order to cast the President unfairly in a negative light. For example, John Dowd, the President's lawyer, leaves a message with Michael Flynn's lawyer... November 2017. The edited version in your report makes it appear that he was improperly asking for confidential information, and that's all we know from your report, except that the judge in the Flynn case ordered the entire transcript released; in which Dowd makes it crystal clear that's not what he was suggesting. So my question's why did you edit the transcript to hide the exculpatory part of the message?"

"Well, you omitted... it. You quoted the part where he says "we need some kind of heads up just for the sake of protecting all of our interests, if we can", but you omitted the portion where he says, "without giving up any confidential information.""

"You... extensively discussed 's activities with Paul Manafort. And you described him as... "A Russian/Ukrainian political consultant," and "longtime employee of Paul Manafort, assessed by the FBI to have ties to Russian intelligence." And again, that's all we know from your report, except we've since learned from news articles that Kilimnik was actually a U.S. State Department intelligence source, yet nowhere in your report is he so identified. Why was that fact omitted?"

"Did you interview Konstantin Kilimnik?"

"And... yet that is... the basis of your report. Again, the problem we're having is we have to rely on your report for an accurate reflection of the evidence, and we're starting to find out... that's not... true. For example... your report famously links Russian Internet troll farms with the Russian government. Yet, at a hearing on May 28th in the Concord Management IRA prosecution that you initiated, the judge excoriated both you and Mr. Barr for producing no evidence to support this claim. Why did you suggest Russia was responsible for the troll farms, when, in court, you've been unable to produce any evidence to support it?"

"But... you have left the clear impression throughout the country, through your report, that... it was the Russian government behind the troll farms. And yet, when you're called upon to provide actual evidence in court, you fail to do so."

"In... fact, the judge... considered holding prosecutors in criminal contempt. She backed off only after your hastily called press conference the next day, in which you retroactively made the distinction between the Russian government and the Russia troll farms. Did your press conference on May 29th have anything to do with the threat to hold your prosecutors in contempt, the previous day, for publicly misrepresenting the evidence? ..."

"The fundamental problem... is that... we've got to take your word [that] your team faithfully, accurately, impartially and completely described all of the underlying evidence in the Mueller report. And we're finding more and more instances where this just isn't the case. And it's starting to look like... having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the President, you made a political case instead. You put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire, dropped it on our porch, rang the doorbell, and ran."

"Then... why is contradictory information continuing to come out?"

"Mr. Lieu was asking you... "the reason you didn't indict the President was because of the OLC opinion." And you answered, that is correct. But that is not what you said in the report, and it's not what you told Attorney General Barr. ...[I]n fact, in a joint statement that you [your office] released with DOJ on may 29th after your press conference... a joint statement with the Department Of Justice... "the Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other, whether the President committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements." So Mr. Mueller, do you stand by your joint statement with DOJ you issued on May 29th..?"

"[M]y conclusion is that what you told Mr. Lieu really contradicts what you said in the report; and specifically, what you said, apparently repeatedly, to Attorney General Barr... and then you issued a joint statement, on May 29th, saying that the Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying but for the OLC report, that we would have found the President obstructed justice. So I just say there's a conflict. ...Mr. Mueller, there's been a lot of talk today about firing the Special Counsel and curtailing the investigation. ...Were you ever fired as Special Counsel, Mr. Mueller?"

"Were you allowed to complete your investigation unencumbered?"

"[Y]ou resigned as Special Counsel when you closed up the office in late May... 2019. Is that correct?"

"[O]n April 18th, the Attorney General... held a press conference in conjunction with the public release of your report. Did Attorney General Barr say anything inaccurate either in his press conference or his March 24th letter to Congress summarizing the principle conclusions of your report?"

"I don't see how... that could be since A.G. Barr's letter detailed the principle conclusions of your report and you have said before, ...that there wasn't anything inaccurate. In fact, you had this joint statement. But... let me go on to another question. ...[R]ather than purely relying on the evidence provided by witnesses and documents, I think you relied a lot on media. ...[H]ow many times you cited "The Washington Post" in your report?"

"I counted about 60 times. How many times did you cite "The New York Times"? ..."

"I counted about 75 times. How many times did you cite Fox News?"

"About 25 times. ...[I]t looks like Volume 2 is mostly regurgitated press stories. ...[T]here's almost nothing in Volume 2 that I couldn't already hear or know simply by having a $50 dollar cable news subscription. However, your investigation cost American taxpayers $25 million dollars. ...[Y]ou cited media reports nearly 200 times.., then in a... small footnote, number 7, page 15... Volume 2 ..."this section summarizes and cites various news stories not for the truth of the information contained in the stories but rather to place Candidate Trump's response to those stories in context." Since nobody but lawyers reads footnotes, are you concerned that the American public took the embedded news stories..."

"[A]re you familiar with the now expired independent counsel statute. It's a statue under which was appointed."

"[T]he Clinton Administration allowed the independent counsel statute to expire after Ken Starr's investigation. The final report requirement was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. Even President Clinton's A.G., , expressed concerns about the final report requirement... She said, "On one hand, the American people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. On the other hand, the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of American law enforcement. Under our system, we presume innocence and we value privacy. We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most cases, be made public only if there's an indictment and prosecution, not any lengthy and detailed report filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute. The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target's dirty laundry. And it also creates yet another incentive for an independent counsel to over-investigate—in order, [again] to justify his or her tenure, and to avoid criticism that the independent counsel may have left a stone unturned." ...Didn't you do exactly what A.G. Reno feared? Didn't you publish a lengthy report unfairly airing the target's dirty laundry without recommending charges?"

"Did any of the witnesses have a chance to be cross examined? ..."

"Did you allow the people mentioned in your report to challenge how they were characterized?"

"Given that A.G. Barr stated multiple times during his confirmation hearing that he would make as much of your report public as possible, did you write your report knowing that it would likely be shared with the public?"

"Did knowing that the report could and likely would be made public... alter the contents which you included?"

"Despite the expectations that your report would be released to the public, you left out significant exculpatory evidence. In other words, evidence favorable to the President, correct?"

"I think... Mr. McClintock got into that with you where... you said there was evidence you left out."

"Isn't it true that on page 1 of Volume 2, you state, when you're quoting the statute, that you have the obligation to either prosecute or not prosecute?"

"[I]n this case you made a decision not to prosecute, correct?"

"So essentially, what your report did was everything that A.G. Reno warned against?"

"[Y]ou compiled... nearly 450 pages of the very worst information you gathered against the target of your investigation, who happens to be the President of the United States, and you did this knowing that you were not going to recommend charges, and that the report would be made public."

"[A]s a former officer in the United States JAG Corps I prosecuted nearly 100 terrorists in a Baghdad courtroom. I cross-examined the Butcher of Fallujah in defense of our Navy SEALs. As a civilian, I was elected a magisterial district judge in Pennsylvania, so I'm very well-versed in the American legal system. The drafting and the publication of some of the information in this report without an indictment, without prosecution, frankly flies in the face of American justice, and I find those facts and this entire process un-American. I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague Jim Jordan."

"[L]et's talk about... the law itself, the underlying obstruction statute, and your creative legal analysis of the statutes in Volume 2. Particularly, your interpretation of 18 USC 1512(c). Section 1512(c) is an obstruction of justice statute created as part of auditing and financial regulations for public companies. [A]s you write on page 164 of Volume 2, this provision was added as a floor amendment in the Senate and explained as closing a certain loophole with respect to document shredding. And to read the statute, "Whoever appropriately alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document or other object, or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding, or otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, shall be fined under the statute or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." Your analysis and application of the statute proposes to give clause (c2) a much broader interpretation than commonly used. First) your analysis proposes to read clause (c2) in isolation, reading it as a free standing all-encompassing provision, prohibiting any act influencing a proceeding, if done with an improper motive. And second) your analysis of the statute... proposes to apply this sweeping prohibition to lawful acts taken by public officials, exercising their discretionary powers, if those acts influence a proceeding. So, Mr. Mueller, I'd ask you, in analyzing the obstruction, you state that you recognize that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitely resolved these issues, correct?"

"You'd agree that not everyone in the Justice Department agreed with your legal theory of the obstruction of justice statutes, correct?"

"In fact, the Attorney General himself disagrees with your interpretation of the law, correct?"

"And you would agree that prosecutors sometimes incorrectly apply the law. Correct?"

"And members of your legal team, in fact, have had convictions overturned because they were based on an incorrect legal theory, correct?"

"[L]et me ask you about one in particular. One of your top prosecutors, Andrew Weissmann, obtained a conviction against auditing firm , in lower court, which was subsequently overturned in a unanimous Supreme Court decision that rejected the legal theory advanced by Weissmann, correct?"

"And I am reading from your report when discussing this section. Now I'll read from the decision of the Supreme Court unanimously reversing Mr. Weissmann, when he said, "Indeed, it's striking how little culpability the instructions require. For example, the jury was told that even a petitioner who honestly and sincerely believed that his conduct was lawful, the jury could convict. The instructions also diluted the meaning of 'corruptly,' such that it covered innocent conduct." ...Let me move on, I have limited time. Your report takes the broadest possible reading of this provision in applying it to the President's official acts, and I'm concerned about the implications of your theory for over-criminalizing conduct by public officials and private citizens alike. So to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is, I want to ask you about a few examples. On October 11, 2015 during the FBI investigation into the Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, President Obama said, "I don't think it posed a national security problem." And he later said, "I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America's national security was endangered." Assuming for a moment that his comments did influence the investigation, couldn't President Obama be charged under your interpretation with obstruction of justice?"

"In August 2015, a very senior DOJ official called FBI Deputy Director , expressing concern that FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe. The DOJ official was apparently "very pissed off," quote/unquote. McCabe questioned this official, asking, "Are you telling me I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?" To which the official replied, of course not. This seems to be a clear example of somebody within the executive branch attempting to influence an FBI investigation. So under your theory, couldn't that person be charged with obstruction as long as a prosecutor could come up with a potentially corrupt motive?"

"Mr. Mueller, I'd argue that it says above the Supreme Court, equal justice under the law, not stretch to fit."

"[D]id you indeed interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as Special Counsel?"

"So you don't recall on May 16th, 2017 that you interviewed with the President regarding the FBI Director job?"

"So your statement here today is that you didn't interview to apply for the FBI director job?"

"[D]id you tell the Vice President that the FBI director position would be the one job that you would come back... for?"

"Given your 22 months of investigation, tens of million[s of] dollars spent and millions of documents reviewed, did you obtain any evidence, at all, that any American voter changed their vote, as a result of Russians' election interference?"

"[Y]ou stated in your opening statement that you would not get into the details of the Steele Dossier. However, multiple times in Volume 2 on pages 23, 27 and 28, you mentioned the unverified allegations. How long did it take you to reach the conclusion that it was unverified?"

"[Y]ou're not willing to tell us how you came to conclusion that it was unverified?"

"When did you become aware that the unverified Steele Dossier was included in the FISA application to spy on ?"

"Your team interviewed , is that correct?"

"[B]ut you're here testifying about this investigation today, and I am asking you directly did any members of your team or did you interview Christopher Steele in the course of your investigation."

"You had two years to investigate. Not once did you consider it worthy to investigate how an unverified document, that was paid for by a political opponent, was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition political campaign. Did you do any investigation into that whatsoever?"

"What would... be your characterization?"

"The FISA application makes reference to Source One, who is Christopher Steele, the author of the Steele Dossier. The FISA application says nothing [about] Source 1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate One's ties to Russia, based on Source One's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source One provided reliable information to the FBI. The FBI believes Source One's reporting herein to be credible. Do you believe the FBI's representation that Source One's reporting was credible, to be accurate?"

"[Y]ou're not going to respond to any of the questions regarding or your interviews with him?"

"I don't understand how, if you interviewed an individual on the purview of this investigation, that you're testifying to us today that you've closed that investigation, how that's not within your purview to tell us about that investigation, and who you interviewed."

"[T]he American people want to know, and... I'm very hopeful and glad that A.G. Barr is looking into this, and the Inspector General is looking into this, because you're unwilling to answer the questions of the American people, as it relates to the very basis of this investigation into the President, and the very basis of this individual who you did interview. You're just refusing to answer those questions. [C]an't the President fire the FBI director at any time without reason, under... Article I of the Constitution?"

"Article II?"

"Can't he also fire U.S. Special Counsel at any time without any reason?"

"[Y]ou've testified that you weren't fired, you were able to complete your investigation in full. Is that correct?"

"...How many people on your staff did you fire during the course of the investigation?"

"...[A]ccording to Inspector General's report, attorney number two was let go, and we know was let go, correct?"

"Peter Strzok testified before this Committee on July 12, 2018 that... he was fired at least partially because you were... concerned about preserving the appearance of independence with the special counsel's investigation. Do you agree with that statement?"

"Did you fire him because you were worried about the appearance of independence of the investigation?"

"Do you agree that... your office did not only have an obligation to operate with independence, but to operate with the appearance of independence as well?"

"'s one of your top attorneys?"

"Did Weissmann have a role is selecting other members of your team?"

"Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton's election night party. Did you know that before or after he came onto the team?"

"On January 30, 2017, Weissmann wrote an email to Deputy Attorney General Yates stating, "I am so proud and in awe regarding her disobeying a direct order from the President." Did Weissmann disclose that email to you before he joined the team?"

"Is that not a conflict of interest?"

"Are you aware that Ms. represented Hillary Clinton in litigation regarding personal emails originating from Clinton's time as Secretary of State?"

"Did you know that before she came on the team?"

", the guy sitting next to you, represented Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who destroyed one of Clinton's mobile devices, and you must be aware by now that six of your lawyers donated $12,000 directly to Hillary Clinton. I'm not even talking about the $49,000 they donated to other Democrats, just the donations to the opponent [of] the target of your investigation."

"This isn't just about you being able to vouch for your team. This is about knowing that the day you accepted this role, you had to be aware, no matter what this report concluded, half of the country was going to be... skeptical of your team's findings. ...[T]hat's why we have recusal laws that define bias and perceive bias, for this very reason. 28 United States code 528 specifically lists not just political conflict of interest, but the appearance of political conflicts of interest. It's just simply not enough that you vouch for your team. The interests of justice demand that no perceived bias exists. I can't imagine a single prosecutor or judge that I have every appeared in front of would be comfortable with these circumstances where over half of the prosecutorial team had a direct relationship to the opponent of the person being investigated."

"And half of them had a direct relationship, political or personal, with the opponent of the person you were investigating, and that's my point. I wonder if not a single word in this entire report was changed, but rather the only difference was we switched Hillary Clinton and President Trump. If has texted those terrible things about Hillary Clinton instead of President Trump, if a team of lawyers worked for, donated thousands of dollars to, and went to Trump's parties instead of Clinton's, I don't think we'd be here trying to prop up an obstruction allegation. My colleagues would have spent the last four months accusing your team of being bought and paid for by the Trump campaign and we couldn't trust a single word of this report. They would still be accusing the President of conspiracy with Russia and they would be accusing your team of with that conspiracy. ..."

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

"...Your report does not recommend impeachment, does it?"

"It does not conclude that impeachment would be appropriate here, right?"

"That's one of the many things you wouldn't talk about today, but I think we can all draw our own conclusions. ...I'm glad this charade will come to an end soon and we can get back to the important business of this committee, with its broad jurisdiction of so many important issues for the country. ..."

"Mr. Chairman, I have a point of inquiry... Was the point of this hearing to get Mr. Mueller to recommend impeachment?"

"Mueller still struggling to answer even basic questions. He can’t accurately remember facts, evidence, or even his own conclusions. Folks—this guy didn’t run the investigation. His team of Resistance Democrats did. And they used it as a weapon to target a President they hated."

"[T]he President is, as he usually is, or often is, disgusting and racist. He makes these charges with no [basis] at all, and they are designed to distract attention from the very serious allegations about his conduct that came from the Committee hearings this week. The fact is, the President accepted help from the Russians to attack our election. His campaign worked with the Russians. That is undisputed, and he worked hard to cover up those crimes. He committed more crimes in working to cover them up, in lying and urging other people to lie to investigators. ...[H]e's just trying to change the subject, which is what he usually does."

"I testified this morning before the House Judiciary Committee. I ask that the opening statement I made before that Committee be incorporated into the record here. ...I understand that this Committee has a unique jurisdiction, and that you are interested in further understanding the implications of our investigation. So let me say a word about how we handled the potential impact of our investigation on counterintelligence matters. ...the Special Counsel regulations effectively gave me the role of United States Attorney. As a result, we structured our investigation around evidence for possible use in prosecution of federal crimes. We did not reach... counterintelligence conclusions. We did, however, set up processes... to identify and pass counterintelligence information... to the FBI. Members of our office periodically briefed the FBI about counterintelligence information. In addition, there were agents and analysts from the FBI who were not on our team, but whose job it was to identify counterintelligence information in our files, and to disseminate that information to the FBI. With these reasons, questions about what the FBI has done with the counterintelligence information obtained from our investigation should be directed to the FBI. I also want to reiterate a few points that I made this morning. I am not making any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence in any pending case. It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited. First) public testimony could effect several ongoing matters, in some of these matters court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information, to protect the fairness of the proceedings. And consistent with longstanding Justice Department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment, in any way that could effect an ongoing matter. Second) the Justice Department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department, and deliberations within our office. These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect. The department has released a letter discussing the restrictions on my testimony. I therefore will not be able to answer questions about certain areas... of public interest. For example, I am unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI's Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the... Steele dossier. These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the FBI, or the Justice Department. Third) ...it is important for me to adhere to what we wrote in our report. The report contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We stated the results of our investigation with precision. I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way... today. And as I stated in May, I also will not comment on the actions of the Attorney General, or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor and I intend to adhere to that role, and to the department's standards that govern it. Finally) ...over the course of my career I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious, and I am sure that the committee agrees. ... I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. I wanted to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu. It was said... "you didn't charge the President because of the OLC opinion." That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. ..."

"[Y]our report describes a sweeping and systematic effort by Russia to influence our Presidential election. Is that correct?"

"And during the course of this Russian interference in the election, the Russians made outreach to the Trump campaign, did they not?"

"It's also clear from your report that during that Russian outreach to the Trump campaign, no one associated with the Trump campaign ever called the FBI to report it. Am I right?"

"In fact, the campaign welcomed the Russian help, did they not?"

"The President's son said, when he was approached about dirt on Hillary Clinton, that the Trump campaign would love it?"

"The President himself called on the Russians to hack Hillary's emails?"

"Numerous times during the campaign the President praised the releases of the Russian-hacked emails through WikiLeaks?"

"Your report found that the Trump campaign planned... "a press strategy, communications campaign, and messaging"... based on that Russian assistance?"

"That language comes from Volume 1, page 54. Apart from the Russians wanting to help Trump win, several individuals associated with the Trump campaign were also trying to make money during the campaign and transition. Is that correct?"

"Paul Manafort was trying to make money or achieve debt forgiveness from a Russian oligarch?"

"was trying to make money from Turkey?"

"Donald Trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in Moscow?"

"When your investigation looked into these matters, numerous Trump associates lied to your team, the grand jury, and to Congress?"

"Mike Flynn lied?"

"was convicted of lying?"

"Paul Manafort was convicted of lying?"

"Paul Manafort... went so far as to encourage other people to lie?"

"Manafort's deputy, Rick Gates, lied?"

"Michael Cohen, the President's lawyer, was indicted for lying?"

"He lied to stay on message with the President?"

"And when Donald Trump called your investigation a witch hunt, that was also false, was it not?"

"Well, your investigation is not a witch hunt. Is it?"

"When the President said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it?"

"When he said it publicly, it was false?"

"And when he told it to Putin, that was false, too, wasn't it?"

"When the President said he had no business dealings with Russia, that was false, wasn't it?"

"When the president said he had no business dealings with Russia, in fact he was seeking to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, was he not?"

"You would consider a billion dollar deal to build a tower in Moscow to be business dealings, wouldn't you, Director Mueller?"

"In short, your investigation found evidence that Russia wanted to help Trump win the election, right?"

"Russia informed campaign officials of that? ...through an intermediary that informed Papadopoulos that they could help with the anonymous release of stolen emails?"

"Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump?"

"The Trump campaign officials built their strategy—their messaging strategy—around those stolen documents?"

"And then they lied to cover it up."

"Generally, a conspiracy requires an offer of something illegal, the acceptance of that offer and an overt act and furtherance of it, is that correct?"

"And Don Jr. was made aware that the Russians were offering dirt on his opponent, correct?"

"And when you say that you would love to get that help, that would constitute acceptance of the offer?"

"And it would certainly be evidence of acceptance if you say, when somebody offers you something illegal and you say I would love it. That would... be considered evidence of acceptance."

"I think you made it clear that you think it unethical, to put it politely, to tout a foreign service like WikiLeaks publishing stolen political documents of a presidential campaign?"

"I want to... turn to some of the exchange you had with Mr. Welch a bit earlier. I'd like to see if we can broaden the aperture at the end of your hearing. From your testimony today I'd gather that knowingly accepting assistance from a foreign government is an unethical thing to do."

"And to the degree that it undermines our democracy and our institutions, we can also agree that it's unpatriotic. ...And wrong."

"The standard behavior for a presidential candidate, or any candidate for that matter, shouldn't be merely whether something is criminal, it should be held to a higher standard... I'm just referring to ethical standards. We should hold our elected officials to a standard higher than mere avoidance of criminality, shouldn't we?"

"You have served this country for decades, you've taken an oath to defend the Constitution. You hold yourself to a standard of doing what's right. ...[W]e can all see that. And befitting the times, I'm sure your reward will be unending criticism, but we are grateful. The need to act in an ethical manner is not just a moral one, but when people act unethically it also exposes them to compromise, particularly in dealing with foreign powers, is that true?"

"Because when someone acts unethically in connection with a foreign partner, that foreign partner can later expose their wrongdoing and extort them."

"And that... unethical conduct can be of a financial nature, if you have a financial motive or elicit business dealing, am I right?"

"It could also just involve deception. If you are lying about something that can be exposed, then you can be blackmailed."

"In the case of , he was secretly doing business with Turkey, correct?"

"And that could open him up to compromise that financial relationship."

"He also lied about his discussions with the Russian ambassador, and since the Russians were on the other side of the conversation, they could have exposed that, could they not?"

"If a presidential candidate was doing business in Russia and saying he wasn't, Russians could expose that too, could they not?"

"[L]et's look at , the spokesperson for the Kremlin, someone that the Trump organization was in contact with to make that deal happen. Your report indicates that Michael Cohen had a long conversation on the phone with someone from Dmitry Peskov's office. Presumably, the Russians could have tape recorded that conversation, could they not?"

"[S]o we have Candidate Trump who's saying "I have no dealings with the Russians," but if the Russians had a tape recording, they could expose that, could they not?"

"That's the stuff of counterintelligence nightmares, is it not?"

"And when this was revealed, that there were these communications, notwithstanding President's denials, the President was confronted about this and he said two things. First... that's not a crime. But I think you and I have already agreed that shouldn't be the standard. Right, Mr. Mueller?"

"The second thing he said was, why should I miss out on all those opportunities? I mean, why indeed. Merely running a Presidential campaign, why should you miss out on making all that money, was the import of his statement. Were you ever able to ascertain whether Donald Trump still intends to build that tower when he leaves office? ...Were you able to ascertain, because he wouldn't answer your questions completely, whether or if he ever ended that desire to build that tower?"

"If the President was concerned that if he lost his election, he didn't want to miss out on that money, might he have the same concern about losing his reelection?"

"The difficulty with this... is we are all left to wonder whether the President is representing us or his financial interests. ...The facts you set out in your report and have elucidated here today tell a disturbing tale of a massive Russian intervention in our election, of a campaign so eager to win, so driven by greed, that it was willing to accept the help of a hostile foreign power, and a presidential election decided by a handful of votes in a few key states. Your work tells of a campaign so determined to conceal their corrupt use of foreign help, that they risked going to jail by lying to you, to the FBI, and to Congress about it and, indeed, some have gone to jail over such lies. And your work speaks of a president who committed countless acts of obstruction of justice, that in my opinion and that of many other prosecutors, had it been anyone else in the country, they would have been indicted. Notwithstanding the many things you have addressed today and in your report, there were some questions you could not answer given the constraints you're operating under. You would not tell us whether you would have indicted the president, but for the OLC opinion that you could not. And so the Justice Department will have to make that decision when the President leaves office, both as to the crime of obstruction of justice, and as to the campaign finance fraud scheme that individual [number] one directed and coordinated, and for which Michael Cohen went to jail. You would not tell us whether the president should be impeached, nor did we ask you, since it is our responsibility to determine the proper remedy for the conduct outlined in your report. Whether we decide to impeach the President... or we do not, we must take any action necessary to protect the country, while he is in office. You would not tell us the results or whether other bodies looked into Russian compromise in the form of , so we must do so. You would not tell us whether the counterintelligence investigation revealed whether people still serving within the administration pose a risk of compromise, and should never have been given a security clearance, so we must find out. We did not bother to ask whether financial inducements from any Gulf nations were influencing this U.S. policy, since it is outside the four corners of your report, and so we must find out. But one thing is clear from your report [and] your testimony from Director Wray's statements yesterday. The Russians massively intervened in 2016, and they are prepared to do so again, in voting that is set to begin a mere eight months from now. The President seems to welcome the help, again. And so, we must make all efforts to harden our election's infrastructure, to ensure there is a paper trail for all voting, to deter the Russians from meddling, to discover it when they do, to disrupt it, and to make them pay. , however, We cannot control what the Russians do, not completely, but we can decide what we do, and that the centuries old experiment we call American democracy is worth cherishing."

"[Y]our report opens with two statements of remarkable clarity and power. The first statement is one that is, as of today, not acknowledged by the President of the United States, and that is... "the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion". The second statement remains controversial amongst members of this body, same page... "the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome". Do I have that statement right?"

"[T]his attack on our democracy involved, as you said, two operations. First, a social media disinformation campaign... a targeted campaign to spread false information on places like Twitter and Facebook. Is that correct?"

"Facebook estimated, as per your report, that the Russian fake images reached 126 million people, is that correct?"

"[W]ho did the Russian social media campaign ultimately intend to benefit, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?"

"The second operation in the Russian attack was a scheme—what we called the hack and dump—to steal and release hundreds of thousands of e-mails from the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. Is Is that a fair summary?"

"Did your investigation find that the releases of the hacked e-mails were strategically timed to maximize impact on the election? ...Page 36 ..."the release of the documents were designed and timed to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election." ...[W]hich presidential candidate was Russia's hacking and dumping operation designed to benefit, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?"

"[I]s it possible that this sweeping and systematic effort by Russia actually had an effect on the outcome of the Presidential election? ...One hundred and twenty-six million Facebook impressions, fake rallies, attacks on Hillary Clinton's health, would you rule out that it might have had some effect on the election?"

"Your report describes... a third avenue of Russian interference, and that's the links and contacts between the Trump campaign and individuals tied to the Russian government."

"[S]lide one... is about and it reads "On May 6th, 2016, 10 days after that meeting with Mifsud,"... much discussed today... "Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton." And... that's exactly what happened two months later, is it not?"

"[T]he second half... page six... is that on July 22nd, through WikiLeaks, thousands of these emails that were... stolen by the Russian government appeared, correct? ...This is the WikiLeaks posting of those e-mails. ...[B]efore the public or the FBI ever knew, the Russians previewed for a Trump campaign official, George Papadopoulos, that they had stolen e-mails that they could release anonymously to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. Is that correct?"

"[R]ather than report this contact with , and the notion there that was dirt that the campaign could use, rather than report that to the FBI—that I think most of my constituents would expect an individual to do—Papadopoulos... lied about his Russian contacts to you. Is that correct?"

"We have an election coming up in 2020... If a campaign receives an offer of dirt from a foreign individual or a government, generally speaking, should that campaign report those contacts?"

"I'd like to turn your attention to the June 9th, 2016 . Slide two... [Vol. I. p. 113] is part of an e-mail chain between... Donald Trump Jr. and a publicist representing the son of a . The e-mail exchange ultimately led to the now infamous June 9th, 2016 meeting. The e-mail from the publicist... reads... "The Crown prosecutor of Russia... offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and... is part of Russia and its government's support of Mr. Trump." In this e-mail, Donald Trump Jr. is being told that the Russian government wants to pass along information which would hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. Is that correct?"

"Trump Jr.'s response to that e-mail is slide three. He said... "If it is what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer." Then Donald Jr. invited senior campaign officials Paul Manafort and to the meeting, did he not?"

"This e-mail exchange is evidence of an offer of illegal assistance, is it not?"

"But isn't it against the law for a presidential campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign government."

"[P]age 184 in Volume 1... the Federal Campaign Finance Law broadly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, etc., and... foreign nationals may not make a contribution or donation of money or anything of value. It says clearly in the report itself."

"[L]et's turn to what actually happened at the meeting. When Donald Trump Junior and the others got to the June 9th meeting, they realized that the Russian delegation didn't have the promised... "dirt." ...[T]hey got upset about that, did they not?"

"Volume 1, page 118... Trump Junior asked what are we doing here? What... do they have on Clinton? And during the meeting, Kushner... texted Manafort saying it was... "a waste of time"... Is that correct?"

"[T]op Trump campaign officials learned that Russia wanted to help Donald Trump's campaign by giving him dirt on his opponent. Trump Junior said, loved it. Then he and senior officials held a meeting with the Russians to try to get the Russian help, but they were disappointed because the dirt wasn't as good as they hoped. ...[D]id anyone to your knowledge in the Trump campaign ever tell the FBI of this offer?"

"Wouldn't it be true, sir, that if they had reported it to the FBI or anyone in the campaign during the course of your two-year investigation, you would have uncovered such a..."

"[I]s it not the responsibility of political campaigns to inform the FBI if they receive information from a foreign government?"

"Not only did the campaign not tell the FBI, they sought to hide the existence of the June 9th meeting for over a year. Is that not correct?"

"No, what I'm suggesting is that you've said in Volume 2, page 5, on several occasions the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the email, setting up the June 9th meeting."

"[G]iven this illegal assistance by Russians... even given that, you did not charge Donald Trump Junior or any of the other senior officials with conspiracy. Is that right?"

"[E]ven though... you didn't charge them with conspiracy, don't you think the American people would be concerned these three senior campaign officials eagerly sought a foreign adversary's help to win elections, and don't you think that reporting that [to the FBI] is important, [so] that we don't set a precedent for future elections?"

"I think that it seems like a betrayal of American values... if not being criminal, [it] is unethical and wrong, and... we would not want to set a precedent that political campaigns would not divulge... foreign governments' assistance."

"I want to look more closely, sir, at the Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, an individual who I believe betrayed our country, who lied to a grand jury, who tampered with witnesses, and who repeatedly tried to use his position with the Trump campaign to make more money. Let's focus on the betrayal and greed. Your investigation, sir, found a number of troubling contacts between Mr. Manafort and Russian individuals during and after the campaign. Is that right sir?"

"In addition to the June 9th meeting just discussed, Manafort... met several times with... , who the FBI assessed to have ties with Russian intel agencies. Is that right, sir?"

"Mr. Manafort didn't just meet with him. He shared private, Trump campaign polling information with this man linked to Russian intelligence. Is that right, sir?"

"And in turn, the information was shared with a Russian oligarch tied to Vladimir Putin. Is that right, sir?"

"[M]eeting with him wasn't enough. Sharing internal polling information wasn't enough. Mr. Manafort went so far as to offer this Russian oligarch, tied to Putin, a private briefing on the campaign. Is that right, sir?"

"Mr. Manafort also discussed internal campaign strategy on four battleground states—Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota—with the Russian intelligence linked individual. Did he not, sir?"

"[B]ased on your decades of years of experience at the FBI, would you agree, sir, that it creates a national security risk, when a Presidential campaign chairman shares private polling information on the American people, private political strategy related to winning the votes of the American people, and private information about American battleground states with a foreign adversary?"

"Well, I think it does [create a national security risk], sir. I think it shows an infuriating lack of patriotism from the very people seeking the highest office in the land. Director Mueller, Manafort didn't share this information in exchange for nothing. Did he, sir?"

"[I]t's clear that he hoped to be paid back money he was owed by Russian or Ukrainian oligarchs in return for the passage of private campaign information. Correct, sir?"

"[A]s my colleague Mr. Heck will discuss later, greed corrupts. Would you agree, sir, that the sharing of private campaign information in exchange for money, represents a particular kind of corruption. One that presents a national security risk to our country, sir?"

"Would you agree, sir, that Manafort's contacts with Russians close to Vladimir Putin, and his efforts to exchange private information on Americans for money, left him vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians?"

"Would you agree, sir, these acts demonstrated a betrayal of the democratic values that our country rests on?"

"I can tell you that in my years of experience as a law enforcement officer and as a member of Congress, fortunate to serve on the Intel Committee, I know enough to say yes. Trading political secrets for money with a foreign adversary can corrupt, and it can leave you open to blackmail, and it... represents the betrayal of the values underpinning our democracy. ..."

"I can say without fear of contradiction that you are the greatest patriot in this room today..."

"You said in your report... that the Russian intervention was sweeping and systematic. ...I don't think it was just an intervention. I think it was an invasion. ...I don't think it was just sweeping and systematic. I think it was sinister and scheming. ...[O]ne of my colleagues earlier here referred to this Russian intervention as a hoax, and I'd like to get your comment on that. On page 26... you talk about the , and how tens of millions of U.S. persons became engaged with the posts that they made, that there were some 80,000 posts on Facebook; that Facebook itself admitted that 126 million people had probably seen the posts, that were put up by the Internet Research Agency... [T]hey had 3,800 Twitter accounts and had designed more than 175,000 tweets, that probably reached 1.4 million people. The Internet Research Agency was spending about $1.25 million a month on all of this social media in the United States, in what I would call an invasion in our country. Would you agree that it was not a hoax, that the Russians were engaged in, trying to impact our election?"

"The Internet Research Agency actually started in 2014, by sending over staff (as tourists, I guess) to start looking at where they wanted to engage. ...[T]here are many that suggest—and I'm interested in your opinion—as to whether or not Russia is presently in the United States looking for ways to impact the 2020 election."

"Often times when we engage in these hearings, we forget the forest for the trees. You have a very large report here of over 400 pages, most Americans have not read it. We have read it. Actually the FBI director yesterday said he hadn't read it, which was a little discouraging. But on behalf of the American people, I want to give you a minute and 39 seconds to tell the American people what you would like them to glean from this report."

"Earlier... and throughout today you have stated the policy that a seated president cannot be indicted, correct?"

"And upon questioning this morning, you were asked... could a president be indicted after their service, correct?"

"And your answer was that they could."

"So the follow up question that should be concerning is what if a president serves beyond the statute of limitations?"

"Would it not indicate that if the statute of limitations on federal crimes such as this are five years, that a president who serves a second term is therefore, under the policy, above the law?"

"The statute doesn't toll, is that correct?"

"It clearly doesn't. ...[A]s the American public is watching this and perhaps learning about many of these for the first time, we need to consider that, and that the other alternatives are perhaps all that we have, but I appreciate your response. Earlier in questioning, someone mentioned that... it was a question involved whether anyone in the Trump political world publicized the emails—whether or not that was the case. I just want to refer to Volume 1, page 60, where we learned that Trump Jr. publicly tweeted a link to the leak of stolen Podesta emails in October of 2016. You familiar with that?"

"So that would at least be a republishing of this information, would it not?"

"Director Pompeo assessed WikiLeaks... as a hostile intelligence service. Given your law enforcement experience and your knowledge of what WikiLeaks did here, and what they do generally, would you assess that to be accurate, or something similar? How would you assess what WikiLeaks does?"

"Would it be fair to describe them, as you would agree with Director Pompeo... that it's a hostile intelligence service, correct?"

"If we could put up slide six. "This just came out... WikiLeaks. I love WikiLeaks," Donald Trump, October 10, 2016, "This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it," Donald Trump, October 12, 2016. "This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove," Donald Trump, October 31, 2016. "Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks," Donald Trump, November 4, 2016. Do any of those quotes disturb you, Mr. Director? ...How do you react?"

"Volume 1, page 59, "Donald Trump Jr. had direct electronic communications with WikiLeaks during the campaign period." ...[page 60] "On October 3, 2016, WikiLeaks sent another direct message to Trump Jr., asking 'you guys' to help disseminate a link alleging candidate Clinton had advocated a drone to attack Julian Assange. Trump Jr. responded that... 'he had already done so' ". Same question. Is this behavior, at the very least, disturbing? Your reaction?"

"Would it be described as aid and comfort to a hostile intelligence service, sir?"

"[A]s a prosecutor you would agree that if a witness or suspect lies, or obstructs, or tampers with witnesses, or destroys evidence during an investigation, that generally that conduct can be used to show a consciousness of guilt. Would you agree with that?"

"Let's go through the different people associated with the Trump campaign and this investigation, who lied to you and other investigators to cover up their disloyal and unpatriotic conduct. If we could put Exhibit 8 up. Director Mueller, I'm showing you Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, Political Advisor Roger Stone, Deputy Campaign Manager Rick Gates, National Security Advisor , Donald Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen, and Foreign Policy Advisor . These six individuals have each been charged, convicted or lied to your office or other investigators. Is that right?"

"So National Security Advisor Flynn lied about discussions with a Russian ambassador related to sanctions. Is that right?"

"Michael Cohen lied to this committee about . Is that correct?"

", the President's Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, lied to the FBI about his communications about Russia's possession of dirt on Hillary Clinton. Is that right?"

"The President's campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied about meetings that he had with someone with ties to Russian intelligence. Is that correct?"

"And your investigation was hampered by Trump campaign official's use of communications. Is that right?"

"You also believe to be the case that your investigation was hampered by the deletion of electronic messages. Is that correct?"

"For example, you noted that deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, who shared internal campaign polling data with the person with ties to Russian intelligence at the direction of Manafort, that Mr. Gates deleted those communications on a daily basis. Is that right?"

"That's right Director. It's Volume 1, page 136. ...In addition to that, other information was inaccessible because your office determined it was protected by attorney-client privilege. Is that correct?"

"That would include that you do not know whether communications between Donald Trump and his personal attorneys , Rudy Giuliani, and others, discouraged witnesses from cooperating with the government. Is that right?"

"That would also mean that you can't talk to whether or not pardons were dangled through the President's attorneys because [of] the shield of attorney-client privilege."

"Did you want to interview Donald Trump Jr.? [or] ...Did you subpoena Donald Trump, Jr.?"

"Did you want to interview the President?"

"[O]n January 1, 2017 through March 2019, Donald Trump met with Vladimir Putin, in person 6 times, called him 10 times, and exchanged 4 letters with him. Between that time period, how many times did you meet with Donald Trump?"

"He did not meet with you in person. Is that correct?"

"As a result of lies, deletion of text messages, obstruction, and witness tampering, is it fair to say that you were unable to fully assess the scope and scale of Russia's interference in the 2016 election, and Trump's role in that interference?"

"But you did state in Volume 1, page 10, that while this report embodies factual and legal determinations, the office believes it to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible. Given these identified gaps, the office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light. Is that correct?"

"Why is it so important that witnesses cooperate and tell the truth in an investigation like this?"

"Donald Trump over the years has surrounded himself with some very shady people. People that lied for him. People that covered up for him. People that helped him enrich himself. I want to talk specifically about one of those instances that's in your report. Specifically let's turn to the project, which you described in your report as... "a highly lucrative deal for the Trump Organization," is that right? ...[I]t's on volume two, page 135. It's described at highly lucrative."

"Your office prosecuted Michael Cohen—and Michael Cohen was Donald Trump's lawyer—for lying to this Committee about several aspects of the Trump organization's pursuit of the deal, is that right?"

"According to your report, Cohen lied to... "minimize links between the project and Trump" and to... "stick to the party line"... in order not to contradict Trump's public message that no connection existed between Trump and Russia," is that right?"

"Now when you're talking about the party line here, the party line in this case..."

"The party line, in this case, was that the deal ended in January 2016. In other words, they were saying that the deal ended... before the Republican primaries. In truth though, the deal extended to June 2016, when Donald Trump was already the presumptive Republican nominee, is that correct?"

"The party line was also that Cohen discussed the deal with Trump only three times, when in truth they discussed it multiple times, is that right?"

"The party line was also that Cohen and Trump never discussed traveling to Russia during the campaign, when in truth, they did discuss it, is that right?"

"And the party line was that Cohen never received a response from the Kremlin to his inquiries about the Trump Tower Moscow deal. In fact, Cohen not only received a response from the Kremlin to his e-mail, but also had a lengthy conversation with a Kremlin representative who had a detailed understanding of the project, is that right?"

"So you... had the candidate Trump... saying he had no business dealings with Russia, his lawyer, who was lying about it, and then the Kremlin, who during that time was talking to President Trump's lawyer about the deal. Is that right?"

"Not only was Cohen lying on Trump's behalf, but so was the Kremlin. On August 30, 2017, two days after Cohen submitted his false statement to this Committee claiming that he never received a response to his e-mail to the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin's Press Secretary told reporters that the Kremlin left the e-mail unanswered. That statement by Putin's Press Secretary was false, wasn't it?"

"Although it was widely reported in the press."

"But it was consistent with the lie that Cohen had made to the Committee, is that right?"

"So Cohen, President Trump and the Kremlin were all telling the same lie?"

"[D]id your investigation evaluate whether President Trump could be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians, because the Kremlin knew that Trump and his associates lied about connections to Russia, related to the Trump Tower deal?"

"I'd like to go to the motives behind the Trump campaign encouragement and acceptance of help during the election. Obviously a clear motivation was to help them in... what would turn out to be a very close election. But there was another key motivation, and that was, frankly, the desire to make money. I always try to remember what my dad, who never had the opportunity to go beyond the 8th grade, taught me, which was that I should never ever underestimate the capacity of some people to cut corners and even more, in order to worship and chase the almighty buck. And this is important, because I think it... does go to the heart of why the Trump campaign was so unrelentingly intent on developing relationships with the Kremlin. So, let's quickly revisit one financial scheme, we just discussed, which was the Trump Tower in Moscow. We indicated earlier that it was a lucrative deal. Trump, in fact, stood in his company, to earn many millions of dollars on that deal, did they not, sir?"

"...Mr. Cohen, his attorney, testified before this committee that President Trump believed the deal required Kremlin approval. Is that consistent with what he told you?"

"Isn't it also true that Donald Trump viewed his presidential campaign, as he told top campaign aides, that the campaign was an infomercial for the Trump organization and his properties?"

"Let's turn to Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort. Did... your investigation find any evidence that Manafort intended to use his position as Trump's campaign chair for his own personal financial benefit?"

"I think you'll find it on page 135 of Volume 1. During the transition, Trump's son-in-law, met with , the head of a Russian-owned bank that... is under U.S. sanctions. And according to the head of the bank, he met with Kushner, in his capacity as CEO of , to discuss business opportunities, is that correct, sir?"

"It was asserted... Volume 1... pages 161 and 162. Your report notes that at the time, Kushner Companies were trying to renegotiate a... billion dollar lease of their flagship building at 666 5th avenue, correct?"

"Also on page 162... Kushner Companies, it was asserted, had debt obligations coming due on the company. Erik Prince, a supporter close to Trump, a campaign and administrative... met in the during the transition, with , who was the head of a sanctioned Russian government investment arm, which has close ties to Vladimir Putin, correct, sir?"

"Your investigation determined that Mr. Prince had not known nor conducted business with Dmitriev before Trump won the election, correct?"

"[I]t does, and yet Prince, who had connections to top... Trump administration officials, met with Dimitriev, during the transition period, to discuss business opportunities, among other things. But it wasn't just Trump and his associates who were trying to make money off this deal, nor hide it, nor lie about it. Russia was, too. That was the whole point, to gain relief from sanctions, which would hugely benefit their incredibly wealthy oligarchs. For example, sanctions relief was discussed at that June 9 meeting in the Trump Tower. Was it not, sir?"

"Trump administration National Security Advisor designate also discussed sanctions in a secret conversation with the Russian ambassador. Did he not?"

"So to summarize, Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, , , and others in the Trump orbit, all tried to use their connections with the Trump organization to profit from Russia, which was openly seeking relief from sanctions. Is that true, sir?"

"Well, I will, and I'd further assert that was not only dangerous, it was un-American. Greed corrupts. Greed corrupts, and it is a terrible foundation for developing American foreign policy."

"[D]id you find there was no between the Trump campaign and Russia?"

"The term is conspiracy that you prefer to use?"

"You help me, I'll help you. ...It's an agreement."

"And in fact, you had to then make a charging decision after your investigation, where, unless it was enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt, you wouldn't make a charge, correct?"

"But making that decision does not mean your investigation failed to turn up evidence of conspiracy."

"I'll go through some of the significant findings that your exhaustive investigation made. You found... that from May 2016 until the end of the campaign, campaign chairman Mr. Manafort gave private polling information to Russian agents, correct?"

"And your investigation found that in June 2016, Donald Trump Jr. made an arrangement to meet at Trump Tower, along with and others, expecting to receive dirt on the Hillary Clinton campaign. Correct?"

"And you found in your investigation, that on July 27, candidate Trump called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's e-mail, something that for the first time they did, about five hours later. Correct?"

"And you also found that on August 2, Mr. Manafort met with the person tied to Russian intelligence, Mr. Kilimnik, and gave him internal campaign strategy, aware that Russia was intending to do a misinformation social media campaign, correct?"

"But the fact of that meeting, do you agree with?"

"And your investigation, as I understand it, also found that in late summer of 2016 the Trump campaign... devised its strategy in messaging, around WikiLeaks releases of materials that were stolen from the . Correct?"

"Yes. It's according to Mr. Gates."

"And you also talked earlier about the finding in your investigation that in September and October of 2016, Donald Trump Jr. had e-mail communications with WikiLeaks, now indicted, about releasing information damaging to the Clinton campaign, correct?"

"And [any candidate] would... have the ability, without fear of legal repercussion, to meet with agents of that foreign entity hostile to the American election? ...Is that an apprehension that you share with me?"

"And that there would be no repercussions whatsoever to Russia, if they did this again, and as you've stated earlier, as we sit here, they're doing it now. Is that correct?"

"Do you have any advice to this Congress, as together, what we should do to protect our electoral system, and accept responsibility on our part, to report to you or your successor, when we're aware of hostile foreign engagement in our elections?"

"I'm going to be asking you about appendix C to you report and, in particular, the decision not to do a sworn interview with the President. It's really the only subject I want to talk to you about, sir. Why didn't you subpoena the President?"

"Right, but as we sit here, you've never had an opportunity to ask the President, in person, questions under oath, and so obviously that must have been a difficult decision. And you're right, Appendix C lays that out, and indeed, I believe you describe the in-person interview as vital. That's your word. And of course you make clear, you had the authority and the legal justification to do it, as you point out. You waited a year. You put up with a lot of negotiations. You made numerous accommodations, which you lay out, so that he could prepare and not be surprised. I take it you were trying to be fair to the President. And... you were going to limit the questions, when you got to written questions, to Russia only. And... you did go with written questions after about nine months, sir, right? And the President responded to those, and you have some hard language for what you thought of those responses. What did you think of the President's written responses, Mr. Mueller?"

"In fact... you pointed out, and by my count, there were more than 30 times when the president said he didn't recall, he didn't remember, no independent recollection, no current recollection, and I take it by your answer that it wasn't as helpful. That's why you used words like incomplete, imprecise, inadequate, insufficient. Is that a fair summary of what you thought of those written answers?"

"And yet... the President didn't ever claim the Fifth Amendment, did he?"

"Well... from what I can tell sir, at one point it was vital, and then at another point it wasn't vital. ...[W]hy did it stop being vital, and I can only think of three explanations. One is, that somebody told you, you couldn't do it, but nobody told you couldn't subpoena the President, is that right?"

"Rosenstein didn't tell you, Whitaker didn't tell you, Barr didn't tell you, you couldn't subpoena the President."

"So, the only other explanation—well, there's two others I guess—one, that you just flinched. That you had the opportunity to do it, and you didn't do it. But sir, you don't strike me as the kind of guy who flinches."

"Well then the third explanation... I can think of is that... you didn't think you needed it. And in fact, what caught my eye was page 13 of Volume 2, where you said, in fact, you had a substantial body of evidence, and you sight a bunch of cases there... about how you often have to prove intent to obstruct justice without an in-person interview. That's the kind of nature of it, and you used terms like a substantial body of evidence, significant evidence, of the president's intent. So, my question sir is, did you have sufficient evidence of the president's intent to obstruct justice, and is that why you didn't do the interview?"

"In this case, you felt that you had enough evidence of the president's intent?"

"[Y]ou thought that if you gave it to the Attorney General or to this Congress, that there was sufficient evidence, that it was better than that delay? ... [T]hat it was better than the delay to present the sufficient evidence, your term of the President's intent to obstruct justice, to the Attorney General, and to this committee. Isn't that why you didn't do the interview?"

"I too want to focus on the written responses that the President did provide and the continued efforts to lie and cover up what happened during the 2016 election. Were the President's answers submitted under oath?"

"Were these all the answers your office wanted to ask the President about Russia interference in the 2016 election?"

"So there were other questions that you wanted to answer."

"Did you analyze his written answers on Russian interference to draw conclusions about the President's credibility?"

"So, what did you determine about the president's credibility?"

"[Y]ou've probably had an opportunity to analyze the credibility of countless witnesses, but you weren't able to do so with this witness?"

"[L]et's go through some of the answers to take a closer look at his credibility, because it seems to me... that his answers were not credible at all. Did some of President Trump's incomplete answers relate to ?"

"[D]id you ask the President whether he had... at any time, directed or suggested that... discussions about Trump Moscow project should cease? ..We're still in Appendix C, Section 1.7. ...Because the President did not answer whether he had, at any time, directed or suggested that discussions about the Trump Moscow project should cease, but he has since made public comments about this topic. ...Did the President fully answer that question in his written statement to you about the Trump Moscow project ceasing? Again, in Appendix C. It would be Appendix... C1, but let me move forward. Nine days after he submitted his written answers, didn't the president say publicly that he... "decided not to do the project"... And that is in your report. ...Did the President answer your follow-up questions? According to the report there were follow-up questions because of the President's incomplete answers about the Moscow project. Did the President answer your follow up questions either in writing or orally? ...[W]e're now in Volume 2, page 150-151."

"[T]here were many questions that you asked the President that he simply didn't answer, isn't that correct?"

"[T]here were many answers that contradicted other evidence you had gathered during the investigation, isn't that correct Director Mueller?"

"[T]he President has written answers stating he did not recall having advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks releases, is that correct?"

"[The following questions remained unanswered by Robert Mueller, for reasons given in his introductory comments.] [1.] But didn't your investigation uncover evidence that the President did... have advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks public releases of e-mails damaging to his opponent? [2.] Did your investigation determine, after very careful vetting of Rick Gates and Michael Cohen... that you found them to be credible? ...That you found Gates and Cohen to be credible in their statements about WikiLeaks... [3.] Could you say Director Mueller that the President was credible?"

"[I]sn't it fair to say that the President's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete— because he didn't answer many of your questions—but where he did, his answers show that he wasn't always being truthful."

""Generally," Director Mueller, it's one thing for the President to lie to the American people about your investigation, falsely claiming that you found no collusion and no obstruction, but it's something else altogether for him to get away with not answering your questions and lying about them. And as a former law enforcement officer of almost 30 years, I find that a disgrace to our criminal justice system."

"Earlier today you described your report as "detailing a criminal investigation," correct?"

"[S]ince it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding the subject matter of your report."

"[S]ince it was outside your purview, your report did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding any Trump administration officials who might potentially be vulnerable to compromise or blackmail by Russia, correct?"

"But not in your report, correct?"

"Let's talk about one administration official in particular, namely President Donald Trump. Other than Trump Tower Moscow, your report does not address or detail the President's financial ties or dealings with Russia, correct?"

"Similarly, since it was outside your purview, your report does not address the question of whether Russian oligarchs engaged in through any of the President's businesses, correct?"

"And, of course, your office did not obtain the President's tax returns, which could otherwise show foreign financial sources, correct?"

"In July 2017 the President said his personal finances were off limits, or outside the purview of your investigation, and he drew a "red line," around his personal finances. Were the President's personal finances outside the purview of your investigation?"

"Were you instructed by anyone not to investigate the president's personal finances?"

"I'd like to turn your attention to counterintelligence risks associated with lying. Individuals can be subject to blackmail if they lie about their interactions with foreign countries, correct?"

"[Y]ou successfully charged former National Security Advisor of lying to federal agents about his conversations with Russian officials, correct?"

"Since it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not address how Flynn's false statements could pose a national security risk because the Russians knew the falsity of those statements, right?"

"Currently?"

"As you noted in Volume two of your report, Donald Trump repeated five times in one press conference... in 2016, "I have nothing to do with Russia." Of course Michael Cohen said Donald Trump was not being truthful, because at this time Trump was attempting to build . Your report does not address whether Donald Trump was compromised in any way because of any potential false statements that he made about Trump Tower Moscow, correct?"

"You've served as FBI Director during three presidential elections, correct?"

"And during those three presidential elections, you have never initiated an investigation at the FBI looking into whether a foreign government interfered in our elections, the same way you did in this particular instance, correct?"

"[Y]ou said that every American should pay very close attention to the systematic and sweeping fashion in which the Russians interfered in our democracy. Are you concerned that we are not doing enough currently to prevent this from happening again?"

"Welcome everyone, to the last gasp of the Russia collusion . As Democrats continue to foist this spectacle on the American people... the American people may recall, the media first began spreading this conspiracy theory in the spring of 2016, when , funded by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, started developing the Steele dossier, a collection of outlandish accusations that Trump and his associates were Russian agents. Fusion GPS, Steele and other confederates fed these absurdities to naive or partisan reporters, and to top officials in numerous government agencies, including the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the State Department. Among other things, the FBI used dossier allegations to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. Despite acknowledging dossier allegations as being salacious and unverified, former FBI Director James Comey briefed those allegations to President Obama, and President-elect Trump. Those briefings, conveniently leaked to the press, resulting in the publication of the dossier and launching thousands of false press stories based on the word of a foreign ex-spy. One who admitted he was desperate that Trump lose the election, and who was eventually fired, as an FBI source, for leaking to the press. After Comey himself was fired, by his own admission, he leaked derogatory information on President Trump, to the press, for the specific purpose... of engineering the appointment of a Special Counsel who sits here before us today. The FBI investigation was marred by further corruption and bizarre abuses. Top DOJ official , whose own wife worked on Fusion GPS' anti-Trump operation, fed Steele's information to the FBI, even after the FBI fired Steele. The top FBI investigator and his lover, another top FBI official, constantly texted about how much they hated Trump and wanted to stop him from being elected. And the entire investigation was opened, based not on intelligence, but on a tip from a foreign politician about a conversation involving . He's a Maltese diplomat who's widely portrayed as a Russian agent, but seems to have far more connections with Western governments, including our own FBI and... State Department, than with Russia. Brazenly ignoring all these red flags as well as the transparent absurdity of the claims they are making, the Democrats have argued for nearly three years that evidence of collusion is hidden just around the corner. Like the Loch Ness monster, they insist it's there, even if no one can find it. ...[I]n March of 2017, Democrats on this committee said they had more than of collusion, but they couldn't reveal it yet. Mr. Mueller was soon appointed and they said he would find the collusion. Then when no collusion was found in Mr. Mueller's indictment, the Democrats said we'd find it in his final report. Then when there was no collusion in the report, we were told Attorney General Barr was hiding it. Then when it was clear Barr wasn't hiding anything, we were told it will be revealed through a hearing with Mr. Mueller himself. Now that Mr. Mueller is here, they are claiming that the collusion has actually been in his report all along, hidden in plain sight, and they're right. There is collusion in plain sight, collusion between Russia and the Democratic party. The Democrats colluded with Russian sources to develop the Steele dossier, and Russian lawyer colluded with the dossiers key architect, Fusion GPS Head, Glenn Simpson. The Democrats have already admitted, both in interviews and through their usual anonymous statements to reporters, that today's hearing is not about getting information at all. They said they want to "bring the Mueller report to life." And create a television moment through ploys, like having Mr. Mueller recite passages from his own report. In other words, this hearing is political theater, it's a Hail Mary attempt to convince the American people that collusion is real, and it's concealed in the report. Granted, that's a strange argument to make about a report that is public. It's almost like the Democrats prepared arguments accusing Mr. Barr of hiding the report, and didn't bother to update their claims once he published the entire thing. Among Congressional Democrats, the Russia investigation was never about finding the truth. It's always been a simple media operation, by their own accounts. This operation continues in this room today. Once again, numerous pressing issues this Committee needs to address are put on hold to indulge the political fantasies of people who believed it was their destiny to serve Hillary Clinton's administration. It's time for the curtain to close on the Russia hoax. The conspiracy theory is dead. At some point... we're going to have to get back to work..."

"The FBI claims the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign began on July 31, 2016. But in fact, it began before that. In June 2016 before the investigation officially opened, Trump campaign associates and Stephen Miller, a current Trump advisor, were invited to attend a symposium at Cambridge University in July 2016. Your office, however, did not investigate who was responsible for inviting these Trump associates to this symposium. Your investigators also failed to interview , and American citizen who helped organize the event and invited Carter Page to it. Is that correct? ..."

"The first Trump associate to be investigated was General Flynn. Many of the allegations against him stem from false media reports that he had an affair with a Cambridge academic Svetlana Lokhova, and that Lokhova was a Russian spy. Some of these allegations were made public in a 2017 article written by British intelligence historian Christopher Andrew. Your report fails to reveal how or why Andrew and his collaborator, , former head of Britain's MI6, spread these allegations. And you failed to interview Svetlana Lokhova about these matters. Is that correct?"

"Let's continue with the... opening of the investigation, supposedly on July 31st, 2016. The investigation was not opened, based on an official product from intelligence, but based on a rumor conveyed by . On Volume 1, page 89, your report describes him blandly as a representative of a foreign government. But he was actually a long time Australian politician—not a military or intelligence official—who had previously arranged a $25 million donation to the , and has previous ties to Dearlove. So Downer conveys a rumor he supposedly heard about a conversation between Papadopoulos and . James Comey has publicly called Mifsud a Russian agent, yet your report does not refer to Mifsud as a Russian agent. Mifsud has extensive contacts with western governments and the FBI. For example, there is a recent photo of him standing next to Boris Johnson, the new prime minister of Great Britain. What we're trying to figure out... is if our NATO allies or Boris Johnson have been compromised. ...Comey says Mifsud is a Russian agent, you do not. So... do you stand by what's in the report?"

"I want to return to Mr. Downer. He denies that Papadopoulos mentioned anything to him about Hillary Clinton's e-mails, and... Mifsud denies mentioning... that to Papadopoulos. He denies that Papadopoulos mentioned anything to him about Hillary Clinton's e-mails, and... Mifsud denies mentioning them to Papadopoulos in the first place. So how does the FBI know to continually ask Papadopoulos about Clinton's e-mails for the rest of 2016? Even more strangely, your sentencing memo on Papadopoulos blames him for hindering the FBI's ability to potentially detain or arrest Mifsud. But... Mifsud waltzed in and out of the United States in December 2016. The U.S. media could find him, the Italian press found him, and he's a supposed Russian agent at the epicenter of the purported collusion conspiracy. He's the guy who knows about Hillary Clinton's e-mails and that the Russians have them. But the FBI failed to question him for a half a year after officially opening the investigation. And then according to Volume 1, page 193... once Mifsud finally was questioned, he made false statements to the FBI. But you declined to charge him. Is that correct, you did not indict Mr. Mifsud?"

"But... You did not indict Mr. Mifsud."

"I want to make sure you're aware of who is. Fusion GPS is a political operations firm that was working directly for the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee. They produced the dossier, so they paid Steele who then went out and got the dossier. And I know you don't want to... answer any dossier questions, so I'm not going there, but your report mentions 65 times. She meets in the Trump Tower. It's this infamous that's in your report. You've heard many of the Democrats refer to it today. The meeting was shorter than 20 minutes, I believe. Is that correct?"

"So... the main actor [in] Fusion GPS, the president of the company, or owner of the company is a guy named Glenn Simpson, who's working for Hillary Clinton. ...[D]o you know how many times Glenn Simpson met with Natalia Veselnitskaya?"

"Would it surprise you that the Clinton campaign, dirty ops arm, met with Natalia Veselnitskaya more times than the Trump campaign did?"

"Did you ever interview Glenn Simpson?"

"According to notes from the State Department Official Kathleen Kavalec, told her that former Russian intelligence head Trubnikov and Putin adviser, Surkov, were sources for the Steele dossier. ...[N]ot getting into whether these sources were real or not real, was there any concern that there could have been disinformation that was going from the Kremlin into the Clinton campaign and then being fed into the FBI?"

"When Andrew Weissmann and joined your team, were you aware that , Department of Justice top official, directly briefed the dossier allegations to them in the summer of 2016?"

"Before you arrested in July of 2017, he was given $10,000 in cash in Israel. Do you know who gave him that cash?"

"But it involved your investigation."

"I want to go back to [where] we started off, with , whose at the center of this investigation. He appears in your report a dozen times or more. He really is the epicenter. He's at the origin of this. He's the man who supposedly knows about Clinton's e-mails. You've seen on the screen, the Democrats can only put up all the prosecutions that you made against Trump campaign officials, and others. But I'm struggling to understand why you didn't indict Joseph Mifsud, who seems to be the man in the middle of all of this?"

"Were you aware of [the State Department official] Kathleen Kavalec's involvement, that she had met with [Mr.] Steele."

"The FISA warrant was... re-upped three times, the last time it was re-upped was under... your watch. So... were you in the approval process of that last time that the Carter Page warrant was..?"

"There are a few more questions I want to clean up... about the Erik Prince Seychelles meeting. ...Erik Prince testified before this Committee that he was surveilled by the U.S. government; and the information from the surveillance was leaked to the press. Did you investigate whether Prince was surveilled, and whether classified information on him was illegally leaked to the media?"

"...Were you aware that Prince has made these allegations that he was surveilled. He's concerned that there were leaks about this surveillance. Did you make any referrals about these things?"

"...[O]n General Flynn, I know you came after the leak of his phone call with the Russian ambassador. Your time at FBI, it would be a major scandal, wouldn't it, for the leak of the national security advisor and anyone..."

"Did your report name any people who were acting as U.S. government informants or sources, without disclosing that fact?"

"On Volume 1, page 133... you state that has ties to Russian intelligence. His name... came up quite often today. The report omits to mention that Kilimnik has long-term relationships with U.S. government officials including our own State Department."

"I know it's not in the report, but... if Kilimnik is being used in the report to say that he was possibly some type of Russian agent, then I think it is important for this Committee to know if Kilimnik has ties to our own State Department, which it appears... he does."

"You were asked this earlier about Trump attorney, John Dowd, that pieces of his phone call were omitted from the report. It was what Mr. Dowd calls . Are you concerned about..."

"An American citizen from the Republic of Georgia, who your report misidentifies as a Russian, claims that your report omitted parts of a text message he had with Michael Cohen, about stopping the flow of compromising tapes of Donald Trump. In the omitted portions, he says he did not know what the tapes actually showed. Was that portion of the exchange left out of the report for a reason?"

"[D]id anyone ask you to exclude anything from your report that you felt should've been in the report? ...[N]o one asked you specifically to exclude something that you believe should've been in there?"

"In your May 29th press conference and, again... this morning, you made it pretty clear you wanted the Special Counsel report to speak for itself. You said at your press conference... that was the office's final position, and [would] not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President. Now, you spent the last few hours... [with] Democrats trying to get you to answer... hypotheticals about the President... I think you've stayed pretty much true to what your intent and desire was, but... regardless of that, the Special Counsel's office has closed, and it has no continuing jurisdiction or authority. So, what would be your authority or jurisdiction for adding new conclusions or determinations to the Special Counsel's written report?"

"[T]o that point, you addressed one of the issues that I needed to, which was from your testimony this morning, which some construed as a change to the written report. You talked about the exchange that you had with Congressman Lieu. I wrote it down a little bit different. I want to ask you about it so that the record's perfectly clear. I recorded that he asked you... "The reason you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president," to which you responded, "That is correct." That response is inconsistent—I think you'll agree—with your written report. I want to be clear that it is not your intent to change your written report. It is your intent to clarify the record today."

"The stated purpose of your appointment as Special Counsel was to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. As part of that full and thorough investigation, what determination did the Special Counsel office make about whether the Steele dossier was part of the Russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election?"

"I very much agree with your determination that Russia's efforts were sweeping and systematic. I think it should concern every American. That's why I want to know just how sweeping and systematic those efforts were. I want to find out if Russia interfered with our election by providing false information through sources to Christopher Steele about a Trump conspiracy that you determined didn't exist."

"I agree, with respect to that. But... an application and three renewal applications were submitted by the United States government to spy or surveil on Trump campaign... associate... , and on all four occasions, the United States government submitted the Steele dossier as a central piece of evidence... Now, the basic premise of the dossier... was that there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, but the Special Counsel investigation didn't establish any conspiracy, correct?"

"But you did not establish any conspiracy, much less a well-developed one?"

"The Special Counsel did not charge with anything, correct?"

"[G]iven your constraints on what you're able or allowed to answer, with respect to counterintelligence matters or other matters that are currently open under investigation, you're not going to be able to answer my remaining questions..."

"[I]n... your opening statement you indicate that pursuant to Justice Department regulations... you submitted a confidential report to the Attorney General at the conclusion of the investigation. What I'd like you to confirm is, the report that you did—that is the subject matter of this hearing—was to the Attorney General."

"You also state, in this opening statement, that you threw overboard the word because it's not a legal term. You would not conclude because collusion was not a legal term?"

"So in your words, it's not a legal term, so you didn't put it in your conclusion. Correct?"

"I want to talk about your powers and authorities. ...[T]he Attorney General and the appointment order gave you powers and authorities that reside in the Attorney General. Now, the Attorney General has no ability to give you powers and authority greater than... the Attorney General. Correct?"

"I want to focus on one word in your report. It's the second to the last word in the report. It's exonerate. The report states... while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it does not exonerate him. ...[I]n the judiciary hearing, in your prior testimony, you've already agreed with Mr. Ratcliffe that exonerate is not a legal term; that there is not a legal test for this. ...[D]oes the Attorney General have the power or authority to exonerate? What I'm putting up here is the United States code—this is where the Attorney General gets his power—and the Constitution, and the annotated... cases of these... We even went to your law school, because I went to Case Western, but I thought maybe your law school teaches it differently... [W]e got the criminal law textbook from your law school. ...[N]owhere in these—because we had these scanned—is there a process, or description on exonerate. There's no office of exoneration at the Attorney General's office. There's no certificate at the bottom of his desk. Mr. Mueller, would you agree with me that the Attorney General does not have power to exonerate?"

"[Y]ou would... not disagree with me when I say that there is no place that the Attorney General has the power to exonerate and he's not been given that authority?"

"[T]he Attorney General probably knows that he can't exonerate either, and that's the part that... confuses me. Because if the Attorney General doesn't have the power to exonerate, then you don't have the power to exonerate, and I believe he knows he doesn't have the power to exonerate. And so this is that I don't understand. If your report is to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General doesn't have the power to exonerate—and he does not, and he knows you do not have that power—you don't have to tell him that you're not exonerating the President. He knows this already. [T]hat.. changed the context of the report."

"So you believe that... Bill Barr believes that somewhere in the hallways of the Department of Justice, there's an office of exoneration?"

"Well I believe he knows, and I don't believe you put that in there for Mr. Barr. I think you put that in there for exactly what I'm going to discuss... "The Washington Post" yesterday, when speaking of your report... said Trump could not be exonerated of trying to obstruct the investigation... Trump could not be exonerated. Now, that statement is correct... isn't it, in that no one can be exonerated? ...This reporter can't be exonerated. Mr. Mueller, you can't be exonerated. In fact, in our criminal justice system, there is no power or authority to exonerate. ...[T]his is the headline on all of the news channels while you were testifying today... [slide showing CNN headline] "Mueller: Trump was not exonerated." ...[W]hat you know is that this can't say "Mueller: Exonerated Trump", because you don't have the power or authority to exonerate Trump. You had no more power to declare him exonerated than you have the power to declare him Anderson Cooper. ...[S]ince there's no one in the criminal justice system that has that power. The President pardons, he doesn't exonerate, courts and juries don't declare innocent, they declare not guilty, they don't even declare exoneration. The statement about exoneration is misleading and it's meaningless. And it... colors this investigation. One word out of the entire portion of your report, and it's a meaningless word that has no legal meaning, and it has colored your entire report."

"[I]s it accurate to say your investigation found no evidence that members of the Trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of Clinton campaign-related emails?"

"Volume 1, page 5: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." So it would therefore be inaccurate, based on this, to describe that finding, as open to doubt. That finding being that the Trump campaign was involved with theft or publication of the Clinton campaign emails. You following that, sir?"

"Well basically [that is] what your report says—Volume 1, page 5—I just want to be clear that "open to doubt" is how the Committee Democrats describe this finding, in their minority views of our 2018 report, and it kind of flies in the face of what you have in your report. So... is it accurate also to say the investigation found "No documentary evidence..." that told anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign about 's claims that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton?"

"[Y]es. In the report it says "no documentary evidence... that Papadopoulos shared this information with the campaign." It's therefore inaccurate to conclude that by the time of the June 9, 2016 ... "the campaign was likely already on notice via George Papadopoulos's contact with Russian agents that Russia, in fact, had damaging information on Trump's opponent." Would you say that that is inaccurate to say that it's likely already..."

"Well, I appreciate that because the Democrats jumped to this incorrect collusion in their minority views, again, which contradicts what you have in your report. I'm concerned about a number of statements I'd like you to clarify, because a number of Democrats have made some statements that I have concerns with, and maybe you can clear them up. So a member of this Committee said President Trump was a Russian agent after your report was publicly released. That statement is not supported by your report, correct?"

"Multiple Democrat members have asserted that Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange in 2016 before WikiLeaks released DNC emails, implying Manafort colluded with Assange. Because your report does not mention finding evidence that Manafort met with Assange, I would assume that means you found no evidence of this meeting. Is that assumption correct?"

"But you make no mention of it in your report. Would you agree with that?"

"[D]oes your report contain any evidence that President Trump was enrolled in the Russian system of , as a member of this Committee once claimed?"

"Did you ask the Department [of] Justice to expand the scope of the Special Counsel's mandate related to August 2, 2017 or August 20, 2017 scoping memoranda?"

"[D]id you ever make a request to expand your office's mandate... at all?"

"And was that ever denied?"

"I'm just trying to understand the process. Does expanding the scope come from the acting Attorney General, or , or does it come from you, or can it come from either?"

"I want to take a moment to re-emphasize something that my friend Mr. Turner has said. I've heard many people state, no person is above the law. And many times recently, they add, not even the President, which I think is blazingly obvious to most of us. ...I agree with this statement that no person is above the law. But there's another principal that we also have to defend, and that is the presumption of innocence. And I'm sure you agree with this principle, though I think the way that your office phrased some parts of your report, it does make me wonder... For going on three years, innocent people have been accused of very serious crimes, including treason. Accusations made, even here today. They have made their lives disrupted, and in some cases destroyed by false accusations, for which there is absolutely no basis, other than some people desperately wish that it was so. But your report is very clear. No evidence of conspiracy. No evidence of coordination. And I believe we owe it to these people, who have been falsely accused, including the President and his family, to make that very clear. Mr. Mueller, the credibility of your report is based on the integrity of how it is handled. And there's something that I think bothers me and other Americans. I'm holding here in my hand a binder of 25 examples of leaks that occurred from the Special Counsel's office—from those who associated with your work—dating back to as early as a few weeks after your inception... and continuing up to just a few months ago. All of these... have one thing in common. They were designed to weaken or embarrass the President, every single one. Never was it leaked that you had found no evidence of collusion. Never was it leaked that the Steele dossier was a complete fantasy, nor that it was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign. I could go on and on. Mr. Mueller, are you aware of anyone from your team having given advance knowledge of the raid on Roger Stone's home to any person or the press, including CNN?"

"[Y]ou're right, it is a cloud, and it's an unfair cloud for dozens of people. But to my point, are you aware of anyone providing information to the media regarding the raid on Roger Stone's home, including CNN?"

"[Y]ou sent a letter, dated March 27th, to Attorney General Barr, in which you claim the Attorney General's memo to Congress did not fully capture the context of your report. You stated earlier today that response was not authorized. Did you make any effort to determine who leaked this confidential letter?"

"We have 25 examples here of where you did not do a good job. Not you, sir. I'm not accusing you at all, but where your office did not do a good job protecting this information. ...Do you know who anonymously made claims to the press that Attorney General Barr's March 24th letter to Congress had misrepresented the findings of your report?"

"[G]iven these examples, as well as others, you must have realized that leaks were coming from someone associated with the Special Counsel's office. What I'd like to ask..."

"[T]his was your work. ...[Y]our office is the only one who had information regarding this. It had to come from your office. Putting that aside... [D]id you do anything about it?"

"Days after you appointment, texted... [technical communication problems] There's a quote attributed to Peter Strzok. He texted about his concern that there is... "no big there there in the Trump campaign investigation." Did he or anyone else who worked on the FBI's investigation tell you that, around 10 months into the investigation, the FBI still had no case for collusion?"

"Is the Inspector General report correct that the text messages from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's phones, from your office, were not retained after they left the Special Counsels Office?"

"Did you ask the department to authorize your office to investigate the origin of the Trump Russia investigation?"

"So the circumstances surrounding the origin of the investigation have yet to be fully vetted then. I'm... glad that Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham are looking into this matter."

"[A]s Special Counsel did you review documents related to the origin of the investigation into the Trump campaign?"

"[The following questions remained unanswered by Robert Mueller, for reasons given in his introductory comments.] [1.] Was the Steele dossier one of those documents that was reviewed? [2.] I'm just asking a process question. Have you read the Steele dossier? [3.] You were tasked as Special Counsel to investigate whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign associates to interfere with the 2016 election... [T]he FBI... has relevant documents and information related to the opening of the CIA investigation. Were you and your team permitted to access all of those documents?"

"[W]as there any limitation in your access to documents related to the counterintelligence... investigation?"

"[The following questions remained unanswered by Robert Mueller, for reasons given in his introductory comments.] [4.] Did the Special Counsel's office undertake any efforts to investigate and verify, or disprove allegations contained in the Steele dossier? [5.] The reason I'm asking for the American public that's watching. ...[T]he Steele Dossier formed part of the basis to justify the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. As we know, it was used to obtain a FISA warrant on . This is why I'm asking these questions. Did your office undertake any efforts to identify Steele's sources or subsources? [6.] Were these tasks referred to any other agencies? [7.] Did your office consider whether the Russian government used Steele's sources to provide Steele with disinformation?"

"[D]id any member of the Special Counsel's office staff travel overseas as part of the investigation?"

"[The following questions remained unanswered by Robert Mueller, for reasons given in his introductory comments.] [8.]I'm going to ask to which countries? [9.] Did they meet with foreign government officials? [10.] Did they meet with foreign private citizens? [11.] Did they seek information about a U.S. citizen, or any U.S. citizens?"

"Thank you for answering on the record. These are important questions for the American public and we're hopeful that the I.G. is able to answer these questions."

"[Y]ou've been asked many times this afternoon about collusion, obstruction of justice, and impeachment, and the Steele dossier... I don't think your answers are going to change if I ask you about those questions. So I'm going to ask about a couple of press stories, because a lot of what the American people have received about this, have been... press stories, and some of that has been wrong and... some of... those press stories have been accurate. On April 13, 2018 McClatchy reported that you had evidence Michael Cohen made a secret trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential election. I think he told... one of the Committees here in Congress that was incorrect, is that story true?"

"On October 31st, 2016, Slate published a report suggesting that a server at Trump tower was secretly communicating with Russia's . And I quote, "akin to what criminal syndicates do." Do you know if that story is true?"

"So did you not investigate these allegations which are suggestive of potential Trump-Russia..."

"As a former CIA officer, I want to focus on something I think both sides of the political aisle can agree on. That is, how do we prevent Russian intelligence and other adversaries from doing this again? ...[A]fter overseeing counterintelligence operations for 12 years as FBI director, and then investigating what the Russians have done in the 2016 election, you've seen tactics, techniques, and results of Russian intelligence operations. Our committee made a recommendation that the FBI should improve its victim notification process when a person, entity, or campaign has fallen victim to active measures of tack. Would you agree... with this?"

"Who do you think should be responsible, within the federal government, to counter disinformation? ...As to who should be the coordinating points within the federal government on how to deal with disinformation?"

"One of the most striking things in your report is that the , not only undertook a social media campaign in the U.S., but they were able to organize political rallies after the election. Our committee issued a report insight on saying that Russian active measures are growing with frequency and intensity, and including their expanded use of groups, such as the IRA. And these groups pose a significant threat to the United States and our allies in upcoming elections. Would you agree with that?"

"You... alluded to making sure... all the elements of the federal government should be working together. Do you have a suggestion on a strategy to do that, to counter this disinformation?"

"...In your investigation, did you think this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election, or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again?"

"In a remarkable exchange with House Intelligence chairman Adam Schiff during the final moments of the hearing, Mueller agreed that accepting foreign assistance to a presidential campaign would be “unethical,” before independently raising the possibility that it could be “a crime.” By contrast, Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in June that if offered foreign information, “I think I’d take it.”"

"The factory farm industry and its armies of lobbyists wield great influence in the halls of federal and state power, while animal rights activists wield virtually none. This imbalance has produced increasingly oppressive laws, accompanied by massive law enforcement resources devoted to punishing animal activists even for the most inconsequential nonviolent infractions — as the FBI search warrant and raid in search of “Lucy and Ethel” illustrates. The , of course, has always protected and served the interests of industry. Beginning when most of the nation was fed by small farms, federal agencies have been particularly protective of [[w:Agriculture in the United States|agricultural] industry. That loyalty has only intensified as family farms have nearly disappeared, replaced by industrial factory farms where animals are viewed purely as commodities, instruments for profit, and treated with unconstrained cruelty. [...] Though it receives modest attention, this revolving door spins faster, and in more blatantly sleazy ways, when it comes to the USDA and its mandate to safeguard animal welfare. The USDA is typically dominated by executives from the very factory farm industries that are most in need of vibrant regulation. For that reason, animal welfare laws are woefully inadequate, but the ways in which they are enforced is typically little more than a bad joke. Industrial farming corporations like Smithfield know they can get away with any abuse or “mislabeling” deceit (such as misleading claims about their treatment of animals) because the officials who have been vested with the sole authority to enforce these laws — federal USDA officials — are so captive to their industry. Courts have repeatedly ruled that private individuals, animal rights groups, and even state authorities have no right to sue to enforce animal welfare laws, because the “exclusive authority” lies with the U.S. government, which has no real interest in actually enforcing those laws. [...] In sum, with industry insiders dominating the sole agency (USDA) with the authority to regulate factory farms, animals that are captive, abused, tortured, and slaughtered en masse have little chance, even when it comes to just applying existing laws with a minimal amount of diligence. The politics of the U.S. — including the fact that a key farm state, Iowa, plays such a central role in presidential elections — means there are massive forces arrayed behind factory farms, and very few in support of animal welfare."

"UDN Grand Rounds are open to the public. Presentations from UDN sites and cores describe the clinical phenotype and multidisciplinary, personalized diagnostic evaluation of one or more UDN participants. Students, trainees, advocates, and others are welcome to attend, ask questions, and offer insights on cases. CME credits are available at no charge for attendees."

"Diagnosis at the edges of our knowledge calls upon clinicians to be data driven, cross-disciplinary, and collaborative in unprecedented ways. Exact disease recognition, an element of the concept of precision in medicine, requires new infrastructure that spans geography, institutional boundaries, and the divide between clinical care and research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund supports the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN) as an exemplar of this model of precise diagnosis. Its goals are to forge a strategy to accelerate the diagnosis of rare or previously unrecognized diseases, to improve recommendations for clinical management, and to advance research, especially into disease mechanisms. The network will achieve these objectives by evaluating patients with undiagnosed diseases, fostering a breadth of expert collaborations, determining best practices for translating the strategy into medical centers nationwide, and sharing findings, data, specimens, and approaches with the scientific and medical communities. Building the UDN has already brought insights to human and medical geneticists."

"Approximately 25–30 million individuals in the United States are living with a rare disease. ... Many children with rare diseases remain undiagnosed throughout life, leading to excess medical care, expensive diagnostic odysseys, and frustration for patients and their families. ... Advances in genomic technology have allowed for more comprehensive genetic analyses of patients with rare diseases. In an effort to better characterize patients with rare and undiagnosed diseases, the National Institutes of Health launched a single-site project, the Undiagnosed Diseases Program, to improve our understanding of the etiology of these disorders. Following initial success, the program expanded to encompass additional clinical and research institutions, thus establishing the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. ... The UDN is a network of investigators across 13 institutions designated to serve public need by bringing expertise in clinical diagnostics, translational research, and multi-omics technologies to solve medical mysteries ..."

"Undiagnosed diseases are defined as constellations of findings that remain refractory to medical diagnostic approaches. Undiagnosed diseases affect approximately 30 million Americans and include (a) rare diseases that are difficult to identify, (b) atypical presentations of known disorders, and (c) yet to be described diseases ... Undiagnosed diseases typically manifest with objective findings, which are clinically measurable on physical examination or through medical testing and these provide tangible targets for further diagnostic approaches (e.g. dysmorphic facies, abnormal biochemical profiles, physical exam demonstrating weakness or abnormal gait). Approximately 80% of rare and undiagnosed disorders have a genetic basis ..."

"With its broad sweep, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced us into an unprecedented national emergency. This emergency, however, results from a deeper and much longer term crisis — that of poverty and inequality, and of a society that ignores the needs of 140 million people who are poor or a $400 emergency away from being poor. [...] We cannot return to normal. Addressing the depth of the crises that have been revealed in this pandemic means enacting , expanding social welfare programs, ensuring access to water and sanitation, cash assistance to poor and low income families, good jobs, s and an annual income and protecting our democracy. It means ensuring that our abundant s are used for the general welfare, instead of war, walls, and the wealthy."

"Before COVID-19, nearly 700 people died everyday because of poverty and inequality in this country. The frontlines of this pandemic will be the poor and dispossessed - those who do not have access to healthcare, housing, water, decent wages, stable work or - and those who are continuing to work in this crisis, meeting our health care and other needs. It should not have taken a pandemic to raise these resources. In June 2019, we presented a Poor People’s Moral Budget to the House Budget Committee, showing that we can meet these needs for this entire country. If you had taken up this Moral Budget, we would have already moved towards infusing more than $1.2 trillion into the economy to invest in health care, good jobs, living wages, housing, water and sanitation services and more. This is not the time for trickle-down solutions. We know that when you lift from the bottom, everybody rises. There are concrete solutions to this immediate crisis and the longer term illnesses we have been battling for months, years and decades before. We will continue to organize and build power until you meet these demands. Many millions of us have been hurting for far too long. We will not be silent anymore."

"Even with the immense growth of governmental levels in recent decades, the fact remains that five out of every six jobs in this country are still in the private sector. Simple arithmetic tells us this is the place to look for new jobs and for better jobs. This is where the people have been laid off and where they must first go back on the payroll. I don't need to say that twice here in Michigan, where automobile workers and all the other jobs that depend upon them have been especially hard hit. The good news, however, is that the United States automobile industry is turning around. And in the first 20 days of 1976, new car sales were up 37.2 percent over 1975. But even the most sincere proponents of Federal public works and public service job programs don't contend that the cure for unemployment in the American automobile industry is to build Federal factories to make Federal cars. I doubt that the United States Government could make a Model T for less than $50,000."

"If the traditional was clearly in the ranks of a liberal-progressive orientation, calling for more effective national governmental action, some advocates of Black Power could easily conclude that such action had reached its limits: Once the national government removed the legal barriers to advancement, the task was then up to blacks themselves to devote more of their energies and resources to helping themselves. They needed to engage more in “self-help” and seek to develop organizations and institutions that would rely less on government “handouts” and more on their own intra-communal efforts. After all, wasn’t this the way other groups had made it in the society? As many blacks received advantages in education and jobs, they should “reach back” and help their less fortunate sisters and brothers. And do so without the constant complaining about the lack of governmental economic assistance. They should stop seeing themselves as perpetual victims, and take more initiative on their own to assume responsibility for alleviating their plight."

"The plight of impoverished children anywhere should evoke sympathy, exemplifying as it does the suffering of the innocent and defenseless. Poverty among children in a wealthy country like the United States, however, should summon shame and outrage as well. Unlike poor countries (sometimes run by leaders more interested in lining their pockets than anything else), what excuse does the United States have for its striking levels of child poverty? [...] The conservative response to all this remains predictable: You can’t solve complex social problems like child poverty by throwing money at them. Besides, government antipoverty programs only foster dependence and create bloated bureaucracies without solving the problem. It matters little that the success of American social programs proves this claim to be flat-out false."

"Americans raised in poor families do markedly less well compared to those from middle class or affluent homes—and it doesn’t matter whether you choose college attendance, employment rates, or future household income as your measure. And the longer they live in poverty the worse the odds that they’ll escape it in adulthood; for one thing, they’re far less likely to finish high school or attend college than their more fortunate peers. [...] Yet childhood circumstances can be (and have been) changed—and the sorts of government programs that conservatives love to savage have helped enormously in that process."

"Our own history and that of other wealthy countries show that child poverty is anything but an unalterable reality. The record also shows that changing it requires mobilizing funds of the sort now being wasted on ventures like America’s multitrillion-dollar forever wars."

"Programs that reduce child poverty help even in years when poor or near-poor parents gain and, of course, are critical in bad times, since sooner or later booming job markets also bust."

"The Trump administration has, for good measure, rewritten the eligibility rules for such programs in order to lower the number of people who qualify. The supposed goal: to cut costs by reducing dependence on government. (Never mind the subsidies and tax loopholes Trump’s crew has created for corporations and the super wealthy, which add up to many billions of dollars in spending and lost revenue.)"

"Even before Donald Trump’s election, only one-sixth of eligible families with kids received assistance for childcare and a paltry one-fifth got housing subsidies. Yet his administration arrived prepared to put programs that helped some of them pay for housing and childcare on the chopping block. No point in such families looking to him for a hand in the future. He won’t be building any for them. Whatever “Make America Great Again” may mean, it certainly doesn’t involve helping America’s poor kids. As long as Donald Trump oversees their race into life, they’ll find themselves ever farther from the starting line."

"Worse, Donald, who understands nothing about history, constitutional principles, diplomacy (or anything else, really) and was never pressed to demonstrate such knowledge, has evaluated all of this country's alliances, and all of our social programs, solely through the prism of money, just as his father taught him to do. The costs and benefits of governing are considered in purely financial terms, as if the US Treasury were his personal piggy bank. To him, every dollar going out was his loss, while every dollar saved was his gain. In the midst of obscene plenty, one person, using all the levers of power and taking every advantage of his disposal, would benefit himself and, conditionally, his immediate family, his cronies, his sycophants; for the rest, there would never be enough to go around, which was exactly how my grandfather ran our family."

"Our basic premise is that money and jobs are not the final answer to the black man’s problems. Without in any sense denying the overwhelming reality of poverty, we must affirm that the basic goal is not “,” as some have called the anti-poverty and other federal programs, but the inclusion of black people at all levels of decision-making. We do not seek to be mere recipients from the decision-making process but participants in it. [...] It is our hope that the day may soon come when black people will reject because they have understood that these programs are geared to pacification rather than to genuine solutions. We hope that the rising level of consciousness may bring a rejection of such doles. This will strike many readers as fantastic, but they might recall that once in India, Gandhi rejected relief food shipments from England precisely because he saw them as tools of pacification."

"On Christmas Eve, two FBI agents arrived at Olden Manor and seized control of Oppenheimer's remaining classified papers. That same day, Oppenheimer received the AEC's letter of formal charges, dated December 23, 1953. ... The inclusion of Oppenheimer's opposition to the Super reflected the depth of McCarthyite hysteria that had enveloped Washington. Equating dissent with disloyalty, it redefined the role of government advisers and the very purpose of advice. The AEC's charges were not the kind of narrowly crafted indictment likely to bring conviction in a court of law. This was, rather, a political indictment and Oppenheimer would be judged by an AEC review panel appointed by the chairman of the AEC, Lewis L. Strauss."

"The US Atomic Energy Commission, created by Congress in 1946, grew into a uniquely powerful, mission-oriented bureaucracy. One of its main goals was the creation of a flourishing commercial nuclear power program. By the late 1950s, the AEC began to acquire frightening data about the potential hazards of nuclear technology. It decided, nevertheless, to push ahead with ambitious plans to make nuclear energy the dominant source of the nation's electric power by the end of the century. The AEC proceeded to authorize the construction of larger and larger nuclear reactors all around the country, the dangers notwithstanding. The AEC gambled that its scientists would, in time, find deft solutions to all the complex safety difficulties."

"Now, six years after the Commission had assumed responsibility for the nation's atomic energy commission, industry was becoming restive over the delay in realizing the commercial applications of nuclear power. While most of the nation was preoccupied with the election campaign during autumn 1952, a clamor for a greater role in the development of atomic energy was rising among power equipment manufacturers and the electric utility industry."

"Because I've been a professor of Constitutional law for three decades I know there are... people... dreading endless lectures about ... Please breath easy... I remember well W. H. Auden's line that a professor is someone who speaks while other people are sleeping."

"You will not be hearing extended lectures from me, because our case is based on cold hard facts. It's all about the facts."

"President Trump has sent his lawyers here today to try to stop the Senate from hearing the facts of this case. They want to call the trial over before any of its evidence is even introduced."

"Their argument is that if you commit an impeachable offense in your last few weeks in office, you do it with Constitutional impunity. You get away with it. ...[C]onduct that would be a high crime and misdemeanor in your first year as president, in your second... in your third... and for the vast majority of your fourth year as president, you can suddenly do, in your last few weeks in office, without facing any Constitutional accountability at all. This would create a brand new January exception to the Constitution of the United States of America."

"[E]verybody can see immediately why this is so dangerous. It's an invitation to the president to take his best shot at anything he may want to do on his way out the door, including using violent means to lock that door; to hang on to the at all costs, and to block the peaceful transfer of power."

"In other words, the January exception is an invitation to our Founders' worst nightmare..."

"[I]f we buy this radical argument that president Trump's lawyers advance, we risk allowing January 6th to become our future."

"What will the January exception mean to the future generations if you grant it?"

"Senators, the president was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 13th for doing that. You ask what a high crime and misdemeanor is under our Constitution. That's a high crime and misdemeanor. If that's not an impeachable offense, then there is no such thing, and if the president's arguments for a January exception are upheld, then even if everyone agrees that he's culpable for these events, even if the evidence proves, as we think it definitively does, that the president incited a violent insurrection on the day Congress met to finalize the Presidential election, he would have you believe there is absolutely nothing the Senate can do about it. No trial! No facts!"

"He wants you to decide that the Senate is powerless at that point. That can't be right."

"The transition of power is always the most dangerous moment for democracy. Every historian will tell you that. We just saw it in the most astonishing way. We lived through it. ...The Framers of the Constitution knew it. That's why they created a Constitution with an oath written into it that binds the President from his very first day in office, until his very last day in office, and every day in between."

"Under that Constitution, and under that oath, the... President of the United States is forbidden to commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the people at any point that he's in office. Indeed, that's one specific reason the impeachment conviction and disqualification powers exist: to protect us against presidents who try to overrun the power of the people in their elections, and replace the rule of law with the rule of mobs. These powers must apply, even if the president commits his offenses in his final weeks in office. ...[T]hat's precisely when we need them the most, because that's when elections get attacked."

"Everything that we know about the language of the Constitution, the Framers' original understanding and intent, prior Senate practice, and common sense confirms this rule."

"Let's start with the text of the Constitution, which in Article I, section II gives the House "the sole Power of Impeachment" when the President commits high crimes and misdemeanors. We exercised that power on January 13th. The president, it is undisputed, committed his offense while he was president, and it is undisputed that we impeached him while he was president. There can be no doubt that this is a valid and legitimate impeachment; and there can be no doubt that the Senate has the power to try this... impeachment. We know this because Article I, section III gives the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments."

"The Senate has the... sole power to try all impeachments."

"All means all, and there are no exceptions to the rule."

"Because the Senate has jurisdiction to try all impeachments, it most certainly has jurisdiction to try this one."

"It's really that simple. The vast majority of all Constitutional scholars who studied the question and weighed in on the proposition being advanced by the president, this January exception heretofore unknown, agree with us. ...[T]hat includes the nation's most prominent conservative legal scholars, including former tenth circuit judge Michael McConnell, the co-founder of the , Steven Calabresi, president Reagan's Solicitor General , luminary Washington lawyer Charles Cooper, among hundreds of other constitutional lawyers and professors. I commend... their recent writings to you, in the newspapers over the last several days."

"In all of the key precedents, along with detailed explanation of the constitutional history and textual analysis, appear in the trial brief we filed last week and the reply brief that we filed very early this morning. ...I want to highlight a few key points from constitutional history... compelling in foreclosing president Trump's argument that there's a secret January exception hidden... in the Constitution."

"[A]s Hamilton wrote, England provided "the model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed" and it would have been immediately obvious to anyone familiar with that history that former officials could be held accountable for their [previous] abuses while in office."

"Every single impeachment of a government official that occurred during the Framers' lifetime concerned a former official."

"[T]he most famous of these impeachments occurred while the Framers gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution. It was the impeachment of ... a corrupt guy. ...[T]he Framers knew all about it, and they strongly supported the impeachment. In fact, the Hastings case was invoked at the Convention. It was the only specific impeachment case that they discussed at the Convention. It played a key role in their adoption of the high crimes and misdemeanors standard. ...[E]ven though everyone there surely knew that Hastings had left office two years before his impeachment trial began, not a single framer ...raised a concern when ...George Mason held up the Hastings impeachment as a model for us in the writing of our Constitution."

"The early state constitutions supported the idea too. Every single state constitution in the 1780s either specifically said that former officials could be impeached, or were entirely consistent with the idea."

"In contrast, not a single state constitution prohibited trials of former officials."

"As a result, there was an overwhelming presumption in favor of allowing legislatures to hold former officials accountable... Any departure from that norm would have been a big deal, and yet there's no sign anywhere that... ever happened."

"Some states, including Delaware, even confined impeachment only to officials who had already left office."

"This confirms that removal was never seen as the exclusive purpose of impeachment in America. The goal was always about accountability, protecting society and deterring official corruption."

"Delaware matters for another reason. Writing about impeachment in The Federalist Papers, Hamilton explained that "the president of... America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware." He thus emphasized that the president is even more accountable than officials in Delaware, whereas I noted that the Constitution clearly allowed impeachment of former officials."

"[N]obody involved in the Convention ever said that the Framers meant to reject this widely accepted, deeply rooted understanding of the word "impeachment" when they wrote it into our Constitution."

"The Convention debates... confirm this interpretation. There, while discussing impeachment, the Framers repeatedly returned to the threat of presidential corruption aimed directly at elections, the heart of self-government."

"Almost perfectly anticipating president Trump, William Davie... explained impeachment was for a president who spared "no effort[s] or means whatever to get himself re-elected.""

"Hamilton in Federalist I said "the greatest danger to republics in the liberties of the people comes from political opportunists who begin as demagogues and end as tyrants, and the people who are encouraged to follow them.""

"President Trump may not know a lot about the Framers, but they certainly knew a lot about him."

"Given the Framers' intense focus on danger to elections and the , it is inconceivable that they designed impeachment to be a dead letter in the president's final days in office. When opportunities to interfere in the peaceful transfer of power would be most tempting, and most dangerous as we just saw."

"Thus as a matter of history and original understanding there is no merit to... president Trump's claim that he could incite an insurrection and then insist weeks later that the Senate lacks the power to even hear evidence at a trial, to even hold a trial."

"The true rule was stated by... John Quincy Adams when he categorically declared "I hold myself as long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by [the] House for everything I did during the time I held any public office.""

"It's a moment of truth for America. My late father, once wrote, "Democracy needs a ground to stand upon and that ground is the truth." America needs the truth about ex-president Trump's role in inciting the insurrection on January 6th because it threatened our government, and it disrupted... it easily could have destroyed the in the United States for the first time in 233 years."

"It was suggested yesterday by President Trump's counsel that this is really like a very bad accident, or a natural disaster... and society is just out looking for someone to blame... a natural and normal human reaction, but he says it's totally unfair in this case."

"President Trump, according to Mr. Castor, is just an innocent bystander who got swept up in this catastrophe, but did nothing wrong. In this assertion, Mr. Castor unerringly echoes his client... who declared after the insurrection that his conduct in the affair "was totally appropriate" and therefore we can only assume he could do, and would do the exact same thing again..."

"So now the factual inquiry of the trial is squarely posed for us. The jurisdictional, constitutional issue is gone. Whether you were persuaded by the president's constitutional analysis yesterday, or not. The Senate voted to reject it, and so the Senate is now properly exercising its jurisdiction, and sitting as a court of impeachment, conducting a trial on the facts."

"We are having a trial on the facts."

"The House says ex-president Donald Trump incited a violent insurrection against Congress, and the Constitution, and the People."

"The presedent's lawyers and the president say his conduct was "totally appropriate" and he's essentially an innocent victim of circumstances, like the other innocent victims that we'll see, getting caught up in all the violence and chaos..."

"The evidence will show you that ex-president Trump was no innocent bystander... that he clearly incited the January 6th insurrection... that Donald Trump surrendered his role as commander-in-chief and became the inciter-in-chief of a dangerous insurrection, and this was... "the greatest betrayal of a Presidential Oath in the history of the United States."

"The evidence will show you that he saw it coming, and was not remotely surprised by the violence, and when the violence inexorably and inevitably came as predicted, and overran this body and the House of Representatives with chaos, we will show you that he completely abdicated his duty as commander-in-chief to stop the violence, and protect the government... our officers and... our people."

"He violated his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, the government and the people of the United States."

"The evidence will show you that he assembled, inflamed and incited his followers to descend upon the Capitol to "Stop the Steal", to block Vice President Pence and Congress from finalizing his opponent's election victory over him."

"We will show that he had been warned that these followers were prepared for a violent attack targeting us at the Capitol, through media reports, law enforcement reports, and even arrests."

"In short, we will prove that the impeached president was no innocent bystander whose conduct was "totally appropriate" and should be a standard for future presidents, but that he incited this attack, and he saw it coming."

"To us it may have felt like chaos and madness, but there was method in the madness that day."

"This was an organized attack on the counting of the electoral college votes in under the Twelfth Amendment and under the , to prevent Vice President Mike Pence and to prevent us... from counting sufficient electoral college votes to certify Joe Biden's victory of 306 to 232... a margin that President Trump had declare "a landslide" in 2016."

"[W]e know this case is not about blaming an innocent bystander for the horrific violence and harm that took place on January 6th. This is about holding accountable the person that is singularly responsible for inciting the attack."

"Let's start with December 12th. You will see during this trial, a man who praised, and encouraged, and cultivated violence. "We have just begun to fight!" he says, more than a month after the election has taken place, and that's before the second Million MAGA March, a rally that ended in serious violence, and even the burning of a church, and as the president forecast, it was only the beginning."

"On December 19th, 18 days before January 6th, he told his base about where the battle would be that they would fight next. January 6th would be wild, he promised, "Be there, will be wild!" said the President of the United States of America, and that too, turned out to be true."

"You'll see in the days that followed, Donald Trump continued to aggressively promote January 6th to his followers."

"The event was scheduled at the precise time that Congress would be meeting in joint session to count the electoral college votes, and to finalize the 2020 Presidential Election."

"[I]n the days leading up to the attack, you'll learn there were countless social media posts, news stories, and most importantly, credible reports from the FBI and Capitol police, that the thousands gathering for the President's Save America March were violent, organized with weapons, and were targeting the Capitol."

"This mob got organized so openly because, as they would later scream in these halls, and as they posted on forums before the attack, they were sent here by the President; they were invited here by the President of the United States of America."

"And when they showed up, knowing of these reports that the crowd was angry, and it was armed... President Trump whipped the crowd into a frenzy, exhorting followers, "...if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country any more" and then he aimed straight at the Capitol declaring, "You'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.""

"He told them to fight like Hell, and they brought us Hell on that day."

"Incited by President Trump, his mob attacked the Capitol. ...According to those around him at the time, this is how President Trump reportedly responded to the attack that we saw him incite in public: Delight, enthusiasm, confusion as to why others around him weren't as happy as he was."

"Trump incited the January 6th attack, and when his mob overran and occupied the Senate, and attacked the House, and assaulted law enforcement, he watched it on TV like a reality show."

"He reveled in it, and he did nothing to help us as commander-in-chief. Instead he served as the inciter-in-chief, sending Tweets that only further incited the rampaging mob."

"He made statements lauding and sympathizing with the insurrectionists. At 4:17 PM, over three hours after the beginning of the siege, for the very first time he spoke out aloud, not on Twitter... he spoke to the American people. Here is what he said."

"So you might be saying all right, the President is going to console us now. He is going to reassure America. He knows our pain. He knows we're hurt. We've just seen these horrific images of officers being impaled and smashed over the head... We've just been under attack for three hours, but here's what he actually goes on the say."

"So, you think he's about to decry the mayhem and violence, the unprecedented spectacle of this mob attack on the U.S. Capitol, but he's still promoting the big lie that was responsible for inflaming and inciting the mob in the first place!"

"If anyone had any doubt about his focus that day, it was not to defend us, it was not to console us, it was to praise and sympathize and commiserate with the rampaging mob! It was to continue to act as inciter-in-chief, not commander-in-chief, by telling the mob that their election had been stolen from them."

"Even then, after that vicious attack, he continued to spread the big lie, and as everyone here knows, Joe Biden won by more than 7 million votes, and 306 to 232 in the electoral college, but Donald Trump refused to except his loss, even after this attack, and he celebrated the people who violently interfered with the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history, and [who] did that at his urging, and when he did, in this video, finally tell them to go home in peace, he added this message. "We love you. You're very special.""

"Distinguished members of the Senate, this is a day that will live in disgrace in American history, that is, unless you ask Donald Trump, because this is what he Tweeted before he went to bed that night at 6:01 PM. Not consoling the nation, not reassuring everyone that the government was secure, not a single word that entire day condemning the violent insurrection. This is what he says. "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landscape election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!""

"In other words, this was all perfectly natural and foreseeable to Donald Trump. At the beginning of the day he told you it was coming. At the end of the day he basically says, I told you this would happen, and then he adds, "Remember this day forever!" but not as a day of disgrace, a day of horror and trauma, as the rest of us remember it, but as a day of celebration, a day of commemoration, and if we let it be, it will be a day of continuation. A call to action, and a rallying cry for the next rounds of insurrection or injustice, because all of this was "totally appropriate.""

"Senators, the stakes of this trial could not be more serious. Every American, young and old, and in between is invited to participate with us in this essential journey to find the facts and share the truth. Trials are public events in a Democracy, and no trial is more public or significant than an impeachment trial. Because the insurrection brought shocking violence, bloodshed and pain in the nation's Capitol, and we will be showing relevant clips of the mob's attack on police officers and other innocent people... The impeachment managers will try to give warnings before the most graphic and disturbing violence that took place as shown."

"We believe that the managers' comprehensive and meticulous presentation will lead to one powerful and irresistible conclusion. Donald Trump committed a massive crime against our Constitution and our People, and the worst violation of the presidential oath of office in the history of the United States of America."

"For this he was impeached by the House of Representatives and he must be convicted by the United States Senate."

"I want to address a Constitutional issue still lingering from yesterday's argument. The president, obviously is still exploring ways to change the subject, and talk about anything other than his responsibility for inciting the attack. We heard a lot yesterday about his claim that this incitement of the insurrection was perfectly appropriate because it's somehow protected by the First Amendment, and this little diversion caught my eye because I've been a professor of constitutional law and the First Amendment for decades."

"[T]he factual premise and the legal underpinnings of that claim are all wrong. They present president Trump as merely like a guy at a rally expressing a political opinion that we disagree with, and now we're trying to put him in jail for it. That has nothing to do with the reality of these charges or his constitutional offense."

"The particular political opinions being expressed are not why we impeached the president, and have nothing to do with it. It makes no difference what the ideological content of the mob was, and if we license and forgive incitement to violent insurrection by militant Trump followers this week, you can be sure that there will be a whole bunch of new ideological flavors coming soon."

"As we'll demonstrate with overwhelming evidence, portraying Trump as a guy on the street being punished for his ideas is the false description of his actions, his intent, and the role that he played on January 6th when he willfully incited... an insurrectionary mob to riot at the Capitol."

"Last week 144 constitutional scholars, including , a ferocious defender of free speech, , president Reagan's solicitor general, Steven Calabresi, the co-founder of the , released a statement calling the president's First Amendment arguments legally frivolus... adding "We all agree that the First Amendment does not prevent the Senate from convicting president Trump, in disqualifying him from holding future office." They went on to say, "No reasonable scholar or jurist could conclude that president Trump had a First Amendment right to incite a violent attack on the seat of the legislative branch, or then to sit back and watch on television, as Congress was terrorized and the Capitol sacked.""

"Incitement to violence is, of course, not protected by the First Amendment. That's why most Americans have dismissed Donald Trump's First Amendment rhetoric simply by referring to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' handy phrase "You can't shout fire in a crowded theater" but even that time-honored principle doesn't begin to capture how off-base the argument is."

"This case is much worse than someone who falsely shouts "Fire" in a crowded theater. It's more like a case where the town fire chief, who's paid to put out fires, sends a mob, not to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, but to actually set the theater on fire, and who then, when the fire alarms go off, and the calls start flooding into the fire department asking for Help, does nothing but sit back, encourage the mob to continue its rampage, and watch the fire spread on TV with glee and delight."

"So then we say this fire chief shouldn't ever be allowed to hold this public job again, and you're fired, and you're permanently disqualified, and he objects, and... says we're violating his free speech rights just because he's "pro-Mob" or "pro-Fire" or whatever... Come on!"

"You really don't need to go to law school to figure out what's wrong with that argument. Here's the key. Undoubtedly a private person can run around on the street expressing his or her support for the enemies of the United States and advocating the overthrow of the United States government. You've got a right to do that under the First Amendment, but if the president spent all of his days doing that, uttering the exact same words, expressing support for the enemies of the United States and for overthrowing the government, is there anyone here who doubts that this would be a violation of his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that he or she could be impeached for doing that."

"If your president of the United States and you've chosen a side with your oath of office, and if you break it, we can impeach, convict, remove and disqualify you permanently from holding any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."

"As Justice Scalia once said, memorably, "You can't ride with the cops and root for the robbers" and if you become inciter-in-chief to the insurrection, you can't expect to be on the payroll as commander-in-chief for the Union."

"Trump was the President of the United States and he had sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. He had an affirmative, binding duty. One that set him apart from everyone else in the country, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, including all the laws against assaulting federal officers, destroying federal property, violently threatening members of Congress and the Vice President, interfering with federal elections and dozens of other federal laws that are well known to all of you."

"When he incited insurrection on January 6th, he broke that oath. He violated that duty, and that's why we're here today, and that's why he has no credible Constitutional defense."

"One of our Capitol officers who defended us that day was a long-time veteran of our force, a brave and honorable public servant who spent several hours battling the mob, as part of one of those blue lines defending the Capitol in our Democracy. For several hours straight, as the marauders punched and kicked and mauled and spit upon and hit officers with baseball bats and fire extinguishers, cursed the cops and stormed our Capitol, he defended us and he lived every minute of his oath of office. And afterwards, overwhelmed by emotion, he broke down in the Rotunda, and he cried for fifteen minutes, and he shouted out "I got called an N-word fifteen times today" and then he reported, "I sat down with one of my buddies, another Black guy, and tears just started streaming down my face and I said, What the F— man? Is this America?" That's the question before all of you in this trial."

"Is this America?"

"Can our country and our Democracy ever be the same, if we don't hold accountable the person responsible for inciting the violent attack against our country, our Capitol and our Democracy, and all of those who serve us so faithfully and honorably? Is this America?"

"Like many of you, I'm an attorney... tried a lot of cases... never a case as important than this one, nor a case with such a... weighty constitutional question... Thankfully... the Framers answered that question... and you don't need to be a constitutional scholar to know that the argument president Trump asks you to adopt is not just wrong. It's dangerous."

"This body... the United States Senate has reached that same conclusion... over the past 200 years on multiple occasions... Over 150 constitutional scholars, experts, judges, conservative, liberal... overwhelmingly have reached the same conclusion that of course, you can try, convict and disqualify a former president."

"[T]he text of the Constitution makes clear: there is no January exception to the impeachment power, that presidents can't commit grave offenses in their final days and escape any congressional response. That's not how our Constitution works."

"The nation's very first impeachment case... was actually of a former official. In 1797... a senator... ... was caught conspiring with the British to try to sell Florida and Louisiana. ...President Adams caught him. He turned over the evidence to Congress. Four days later the House of Representatives impeached him. A day after that... the United States Senate expelled him from office, so he was very much a former official. Despite that, the House went forward with its impeachment proceeding in order to disqualify him from ever again holding federal office. ...[T]he Senate proceeded with the trial with... Thomas Jefferson presiding. ...Blunt argued that the Senate couldn't proceed because he had already been expelled. ...He expressly disavowed any claim that former officials can't ever be impeached. Unlike president Trump, he was very clear. He respected and understood that he could not even try to argue that ridiculous position. Even impeached Senator Blunt recognized the inherent absurdity of that view. Here is what he said. "I certainly never shall contend that an officer may first commit an offense, and afterwards avoid [punishment] by resigning his office." ...[T]here was no doubt because the Founders were around to confirm that that was their intent and the obvious meaning of what is in the Constitution"

"The trial of... William Belknap... in 1876 the House discovered that he was involved in a massive kickback scheme. Hours before the House committee had discovered this conduct released its report documenting the scheme, Belknap... rushed to the White House to... tender his resignation to president Ulysses Grant to avoid any further inquiry into his misconduct and... to avoid being disqualified from holding federal office in the future. ...[A]ware of that resignation ...the House moved forward and unanimously impeached him, making clear its power to impeach a former official, and when his case reached the Senate... Belknap made the... same argument the president Trump is making today, that you all lack jurisdiction, any power to try him, because he's a former official. ...[M]any senators, at that time, when they heard that argument ...were outraged by that argument. Outraged. You can read their comments in the record. They knew it was a dangerous... argument with dangerous implications. It would literally mean that a president could betray their country, leave office, and avoid impeachment and disqualification entirely. [T]hat's why... the United States Senate decisively voted that the Constitution required them to proceed with the trial."

"The Belknap case is clear precedent that the Senate must proceed with this trial since it rejected pretrial dismissal, affirmed its jurisdiction and moved to a full consideration of the merits. ...Belknap was ultimately not convicted, but only after a thorough public inquiry into his misconduct, which created a record of his wrongdoing. It insured his accountability and deterred anyone else from considering such corruption, by making clear that it was intolerable. The trial served important constitutional purposes."

"Given that precedent. Given all that that precedent imparts, you could imagine [our] surprise as we were reviewing the trial brief filed by the president, in which his counsel insists that the Senate... didn't decide anything in the Belknap case. They say... "It cannot be read as foreclosing an argument that they never dealt with." Never dealt with? The Senate... debated this very question for two weeks. The Senate spent an additional two weeks deliberating on the jurisdictional question, and at the end of those deliberations they decided decisively that the Senate has jurisdiction, and... that it must proceed to a full trial."

"[U]nlike Belknap... president Trump was not impeached for run of the mill corruption, misconduct. He was impeached for inciting a violent insurrection. An insurrection where people died in this building. An insurrection that desecrated our seat of government, and if Congress were just to stand completely aside in the face of such an extraordinary crime against the Republic, it would invite future presidents to use their power without any fear of accountability, and none of us... no matter our party or politics, wants that."

"A hallmark of our Republic since the days of George Washington has been the . For centuries we've accepted it as fact. Unfortunately, sadly we know now that we can no longer take that for granted, because... on January 6th, the peaceful transition of power was violently interrupted when a mob stormed this Capitol and desecrated this chamber."

"As you'll see during the course of this trial, that mob was summoned, assembled, and incited by the former president of the United States, Donald Trump; and he did that because he wanted to stop the transfer of power, so that he could retain power, even though he had lost the election; and when the violence erupted, when they were here in our building with weapons, he did nothing to stop it."

"If we are to protect our Republic and prevent something like this from ever happening again, he must be convicted."

"I want to be very clear about what we will show you during the course of this trial. ...It will be helpful to think about president Trump's incitement of insurrection in three distinct parts: The Provocation, the Attack and the Harm."

"Let's start with the provocation. We will show... that this attack was provoked... incited by the president, and it was predictable... foreseeable."

"This mob was well orchestrated. Their conduct was intentional. They did it all in plain sight, proudly, openly, and loudly, because they... truly believed that they were doing this for him, that this was their patriotic duty. They even predicted that he would protect them, and for the most part, they were right."

"In his unique role as commander-in-chief of our country, and as the one person that the mob was listening to and following orders from, he had the power to stop it, and he didn't."

"Now some have said that president Trump's remarks, his speech on January 6th was just a speech. ...When in our history has a speech led thousands of people to storm our nation's Capitol with weapons, to scale the walls, break windows, kill a Capitol police officer?"

"This was not just a speech. It didn't just happen, and as you evaluate the facts... it will become clear, exactly where that mob came from...."

"President Trump's words, as you'll see, on January 6th, in that speech, just like the mob's action, were carefully chosen. Those words had a very specific meaning to that crowd... because in the weeks prior to, during, and after the election he used the same words over and over and over again."

"You will hear, over and over, three things: ...[1] The Big Lie that the Election was Stolen, full of fraud, rigged. You will hear, over and over, him using that lie to urge his supporters to never concede, and [2] Stop the Steal; and finally you will hear the call to arms, that it was his supporters' patriotic duty to [3] Fight Like Hell... to Stop the Steal, to stop the election from being stolen, by showing up in this very chamber to stop you, to stop us."

"I respectfully ask that you remember those three phrases as you consider the evidence today. The Election was Stolen, Stop the Steal, and Fight like Hell, because they did not just appear on January 6th."

"Let's start with "The Big Lie." You will see during this trial that the president realized... by last Spring that he could lose... the election. So... he started planting the seeds to get some of his supporters ready by saying that he could only lose the election, if it was stolen."

"[W]hat he did was create a no-lose scenario. Either he won the election, or he would have some angry supporters, not all, but some, who believed that if he lost, the election had to be rigged; and they would be angry because he was telling Americans that their vote had been stolen; and in America, our vote is our voice."

"So his false claims about election fraud, that was the drum-beat being used to inspire, instigate, and ignite them, to anger them."

"We all know what happened after that. He lost. He lost the election, but remember, he had that no-lose scenario... He told his base that the election was stolen, as he had forecast... and then he told them, your election has been stolen, but you cannot concede. You must stop the steal."

"Now while he's inciting his supporters, he's also simultaneously doing everything he possible can to overturn the election. First he begins with the courts, a legitimate avenue... to challenge the election, but he ignores all of their adverse rulings when all of his claims are thrown out."

"Then he moves on to trying to pressure state election officials to block the election results for his opponent, even though he lost in their states. You'll hear my fellow-managers discuss that..."

"Then he tries to threaten state election officials to actually change the votes to make him the winner, even threatening criminal penalties if they refused."

"He had the justice department investigate his claims. Even they found no support for those claims."

"So he tried to persuade some members of his party in Congress to block the certification of his vote, with attacks in public forums."

"When that failed, he tried to intimidate the Vice President of the United States of America to refuse to certify the vote, and send it back to the states."

"None of it worked. So... with his back against the wall, when all else has failed, he turns back to his supporters who he'd already spent months telling them that the election was stolen; and he amplified it further, he turned it up a notch. He told them that they had to be ready, not just to "Stop the Steal" but to "Fight like Hell.""

"You will see that in the months since the president made these statements, people listened. Armed supporters surrounded election officials' homes. The Secretary of State for Georgia got death threats."

"Officials warned the president that his rhetoric was dangerous and it was going to result in deadly violence; and that's what makes this so different because when he saw first-hand the violence that his conduct was creating, he didn't stop it. He didn't condemn the violence. He incited it further, and he got more specific."

"He didn't just tell then to fight like hell. He told them how, where, and when. He made it sure they had advance notice, 18 days advance notice. He sent his "save the day" for January 6th. He told them to march to the Capitol and fight like Hell."

"On January 6th... the exact same day that we were certifying the election results."

"What time was that rally scheduled for? The exact same time that this chamber was certifying the election results in joint session."

"When did he conclude his speech? Literally moments before Speaker Pelosi had gavelled us into session."

"Many of us were in the House during that joint session of Congress. ...and as we were standing there, fulfilling our solemn oath to the Constitution, the president was finishing his speech just a couple of miles away."

"How did he conclude that infamous speech? With a final call-to-action. He told them to march down Pennsylvania Avenue to come here; that it was their patriotic duty because the election had been stolen, and when they heard his speech they understood his words and what they meant, because they had heard it before."

"Let's take just a minute and... look at his words on January 6th as he spoke at the Save America Rally..."

"[E]ach of you heard those words before, so had the crowd. The president had spent months telling his supporters that the election had been... stolen, and he used this speech to incite them further, to inflame them to Stop the Steal, to stop the certification of the election results."

"Finally, the president used this speech as a call to arms. It was not rhetorical. Some of his supporters had been primed for this over many months."

"As you'll learn, days before this speech... there were vast reports across all major media outlets that thousands of people would be armed, that they'd be violent. You'll learn that Capitol police and the FBI reported in the days leading up to the attack, that thousands in the crowd would be targeting the Capitol specifically, that they had arrested people with guns, the night before the attack, on weapons charges. And this is what our commander-in-chief said to the crowd in the face of those warnings, right before they came here."

""You have to get your people to fight." He told them."

"Senators, this clearly is not just one speech. It didn't just happen. It was part of a carefully planned, months long effort with a very specific instruction. Show up on January 6th and get your people to fight the certification. He incited it. It was foreseeable."

"The president's former chief of staff... a retired Marine four star general, was confirmed by this body to be the Secretary of Homeland Security... That man was John Kelly, and on the day after the insurrection he said this."

"No surprise. The president had every reason to know that this would happen because he assembled the mob, he summoned the mob, and he incited the mob."

"He knew when he took that podium that fateful morning that those in attendance had heeded his words, and they were waiting for his orders to begin fighting."

"I do want to be clear about what happened during that terrible attack... president Trump, once again failed us, because when the violence erupted, when we and the law enforcement officials protecting us, protecting you, were under attack as each of you were being evacuated from this chamber from a violent mob, as we were being evacuated from the House, he could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. It was his duty as commander-in-chief to stop the violence, and he alone had that power. Not just because of his unique role as commander-in-chief, but because they believed that they were following his orders. They said so."

"You heard it from them. They were doing what he wanted them to do. They wouldn't have listened to you, to me, to the the Vice President of the United States who they were attacking. They didn't stop in the face of law enforcement, police officers fighting for their lives to stop them. They were following the President."

"He alone, the commander-in-chief, had the power to stop it, and he didn't."

"You will hear evidence... throughout the trial, about his refusal, as commander-in-chief, to respond to numerous desperate pleas, on the phone, across social media, begging him to stop the attack; and you will see his relentless attack on Vice President Pence, who was at that very moment hiding with his family as armed extremists were chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" calling him a traitor."

"You will see that even when he did finally, 3 1/2 hours into the attack, tell these people to go home, in peace. He added... "You're very special. We love you.""

"Think... of the lives lost that day, of the more than 140 wounded police officers and ask yourself, if as soon as this had started President Trump had simply gone on the TV, just logged onto Twitter and said, "Stop the Attack." If he had done so with even half as much force as he said "Stop the Steal!" How many lives would we have saved? Sadly he didn't do that."

"At the end of the day the president was not successful in stopping the certification. That we know, thanks to the bravery of our law enforcement, and to the bravery of the Senators in this room, each of you who still fulfilled your Constitutional duty, even under the threat of mortal peril."

"But there can be no doubt of the grave harm that he caused to our elected leaders, to us, our families, to all who work in the Capitol, our staff, your staff, to our brave Capitol police who defend us tirelessly with little thanks, who believed that they had a Commander in Chief who would defend and protect them, and instead put them in harm's way, to those killed for heeding his command, to our Democracy and the system which ensures that we have a President elected by the People, to our national security and our standing in the World."

"The harm was real! The damage was real!"

"Five people lost their lives, on that terrible tragic day!"

"A woman was shot dead fifty feet from where we later certified the Election results."

"And for those who question just how bad it was, criminal complaints recently unsealed by the Department of Justice are more than revealing. You'll see one of the documents on the screen. In the charging affidavit of one of the leaders of the "Proud Boys" we learned that members of this group said "they would have killed Mike Pence if given the chance." In another we learned of a Tweet in real time while they were in the building stating "We broke into the Capitol... we got inside, we did our part. ...We were looking for Nancy Pelosi to shoot her in the friggin' brain but we didn't find her.""

"And for anyone who suggests otherwise, these defendants themselves have told you exactly why they were here. You'll see this in the trial, that in the halls of the Capitol, on social media, in news interviews and in charging documents, they confirm, they were following the President's orders. You can see some of the statements on that screen. One who said "Trump wants all able bodied Patriots..." Another, that "President Trump is calling us to FIGHT! ...This isn't a joke." Another one, "I thought I was following my President. I thought I was following what we were called to do..." [A man heard in a live stream video that showed him standing within the Capitol building said,] "Our president wants us here... We wait and take orders from [our] president.""

"He made them believe over many weeks that the election was stolen, and they were following his command to take back their country."

"I remember us finishing our task at four in the morning, and as I walked off the floor I was... so grateful for the opportunity to thank the Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence for his actions, for standing before us and asking us to follow our oath, and our faith, and our duty."

"Early the next day I called my Dad, who came to this country... as an immigrant forty years ago, and I told him that the proudest moment, by far, of serving in Congress... was going back onto the floor with each of you, to finish the work that we had started."

"I'm humbled to be back with you today, and just as on January 6th when we overcame that attack on our Capitol, on our country, I'm hopeful that at this trial we can use our resolve and our resilience to again uphold our Democracy by faithfully applying the law, vindicating the Constitution, and holding president Trump accountable for his actions."

"The last time a body such as the United States Senate sat at the pinnacle of government with the responsibility that it has today was happening in Athens, and it was happening in Rome. Republicanism... the form of government... throughout history has always, and without exception, fallen because of fights from within, because of partisanship from within, because of bickering from within, and in each one of those examples... and there are certainly others, probably, that are smaller countries that lasted for less time... [O]nce there was the vacuum created that the greatest deliberative bodies, the senate of Greece.... and the senate of Rome, the moment that they devolved into such partisanship... It's not as though they ceased to exist. They ceased to exist as representative democracy. Both replaced by totalitarianism."

"Paraphrasing the famous quote from Benjamin Franklin... "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security. If we restrict liberty to attain security, we will lose both." And isn't the way we have enshrined in the Constitution, the concepts of liberty that we think are critical, the very concepts of liberty that drove us to separate from Great Britain, and I can't believe these fellows are quoting what happened pre-revolutin as though that's somehow of value to us. We left the British system. If we're really ogoing to use pre-revolutionary history in Great Britain, then the prededent is, we have a Parliament and we have a king. Is that the precedent that we are headed for?"

"It's not an accident that the very first liberty in the First article of the Bill of Rights... is the First Ammendment which says "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech," etc... the very first one, the most important one. The ability to have free and robust debate, free and robust political speech."

"Something that Mr. Raskin and his team... brought up, is that it's... somehow a suggestion from former president Trump's team that when various former public officials were not denouncing the violence... over the summer, that that was somehow, the former president equating that speech to his own. Not at all! Exactly backwards!"

"I saw a headline, representative so-and-so seeks to walk-back comments about... something that bothered her. I was devastated when I saw that she thought it was necessary to go on television yesterday or the day before and say she needs to walk-back her comments. She should be able to comment as much as she wants, and she should be able to say exactly as she feels... [I]f she feels that the supporters of president Trump... are not worthy of having their ideas considered, she should be able to say that, and anybody who agrees should be permitted to say they agree."

"That's what we broke away... from Great Britain in order to be able to do. To be able to say what we thought in the most robust political debate."

"I don't expect, and I don't believe that the former president expects anybody to walk-back any of the language. If that's how they feel about the way things transpired over the last couple of years in this country, they should be allowed to say that, and I will go to court and defend them, if anything happens to them as a result. If the government takes action against that... U.S. representative who wants to walk-back her comments, if the government takes action against her, I have no problem in defending her right to say those things, even though I don't agree with them."

"This trial is not about trading liberty for security. ...It's about suggesting that it is a good idea that we give up those liberties that we have so long fought for. We have sent armies to other parts of the world to convince those governments to implement the freedoms that we enjoy."

"This trial... is about trading liberty for security from the mob? Honestly, no! It can't be! We can't be thinking about that. We can't possibly be suggesting that we punish people for political speech in this country, and if people go and commit lawless acts as the result of their beliefs, and they cross the line, they should be locked up!"

"I've seen... quite a number of the complaints that were filed against the people who breached the capitol. Some of them charged [with] conspiracy. Not a single one... charged with conspiracy with the forty-fifth president of the United States, probably because prosecutors have an ethical requirement that they are not allowed to charge people with criminal offenses without probable cause. You might consider that."

"[I]f we go down the road that... Mr. Raskin asks you to go down, the flood gates will open."

"I was going to say, originally, it will release the whirlwind... a biblical reference, but I subsequently learned... that that particular phrase is already taken..."

"[T]he political pendulum will shift one day. This chamber and the chamber across the way will change one day, and partisan impeachments will become commonplace."

"[U]ntil the no one alive had ever lived through a presidential impeachment, not unless some of you are 150 years old. Not a single person alive had lived through a presidential impeachment. Now most of us have lived through three of them. This is supposed to be the ultimate safety valve. The last thing that happens. The most rare treatment, and a session in where this body is sitting as a court of impeachment, among the most rare things it does."

"So the slippery slope principle will have taken hold if we continue to go forward with what is happening today and scheduled to happen later this week... [A]fter we are long done here, and after there has been a shift in the political winds, and after there is a change in the makeup of the United States House of Representatives, and maybe a change in the makeup of the United States Senate, the pressure from those folks back home, especially for members of the House, is going to be tremendous, because remember, the Founders recognized that (the argument that I started with that) political pressure is driven by the need for immediate action, because something under contemporary community standards really horrific happened and the people represented by the United States House of Representatives become incensed! And what do you do in a federal issue if you're back in suburban Philadelphia, and something happens that makes the people who live there insensed? You call your congressman, and your congressman, elected every two years with their pulse on the people in their district... they respond. A congressman calls you back. A staffer calls you back. You get all the information they have on the issue. Sometimes you even get invited to submit language that would improve whatever the issue is."

"[W]hen the pendulum swings, perhaps the next person impeached and is sent here for you to consider is Eric Holder, during "Fast and Furious"... or any other person that the other party considers to be a political danger to them down the road because of their avowed abilities, ...and being articulate, and having a résumé... that shows that they are capable. ...The Republicans might regain the House in two years. History does tend to suggest that the party out of power in the White House does well in the mid-term elections, and certainly the... 2020 elections... the House majority narrowed, and there was a gain of the Republicans."

"[T]he members of the House, they have to worry about these consequences, because if they don't react to whatever the "problem of the day" is, somebody in that jurisdiction... is going to say, "If you make me the congressman, I'll react to that." And that means that the sitting member has to worry about it, because their terms are short. And it's not just the members of the House of Representatives with their short... terms. I saw on television the last couple of days, the honorable... Mr. Sasse... faced backlash back home because of a vote he made some... weeks ago. ...[T]he political party was complaining about a decision he made... Nebrask is quite... a judicial thinking place, and just maybe Senator Sasse is on to something. You'll hear about what it is that the Nebraska courts have to say about the issue that you all are deciding this week. There seem to be some pretty smart jurists in Nebraska, and I can't believe that a United States senator doesn't know that."

"A senator like the gentleman from Nebraska whose supreme court history is ever-present in his mind, and rightfully so, he... faces the whirlwind, even though he knows what the judiciary in his state thinks."

"People back home will demand their House members continue the cycle as political fortunes rise and fall. The only entity that stands between the bitter infighting that led to the downfall of the Greek republic, and the , and the American Republic is the Senate of the United States."

"Shall the business of the Senate and thus the nation come to a halt? Not just for the current weeks, while a new president is trying to fill out his administration, but shall the business of the Senate and the nation come to a halt because impeachment becomes the rule, rather than the rare exception?"

"I know you can see this as a possibility because not a single one of you thought you would be doing a second impeachment inside of thirteen months. And the pressure will be enormous to respond in kind."

"To quote Everett Dirksen, "The gallant men and women of the Senate will not allow that to happen, and this Republic will endure" because the top responsibility of a United States Senator, and the top characteristic that you all have in common... there isn't a single one of you who A, doesn't consider yourself a patriot of the United States, and two, there isn't a single one of you who doesn't consider the other 99 to be patriots of the United States. And that is why this attack on the Constitution will not prevail."

"The document that is before you is flawed. The rule of the Senate concerning impeachment documents, Articles of Impeachment, Rule 23 says that "such documents cannot be divided." You might have seen that we wrote that... It might have been a little legalistic or legalese for the newspapers to opine on very much, but there is some significance. The House managers, clever fellows that they are, they cast a broad net. They need to get 67 of you to agree they're right. And that's a good strategy. I would use the same strategy, except there is a rule that you can't use that strategy. ...[R]ule 23 says that... the articles of impeachment's indivisible, and the reason why that's significant is [that] you have to agree that every single aspect of the entire document warrants impeachment, because it's an all-or-nothing document. You can't cut out parts that you agree with [that] warrant impeachment and parts that don't, because it's not divisible."

"It flat out says in the Senate Rules it's not divisible. Now, previous impeachments like President Clinton said... the president shall be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for engaging in one or more of the following, and then gives the list. So... all you had to do was win one. But you didn't do that here. It has to be all or nothing, and some of these things that you are asked to consider might be close calls in your mind. But one of them is not."

"The argument about the Fourteenth Amendment is absolutely ridiculous."

"The House managers tell you that the president should be impeached because he violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and here's what the Fourteenth Amendment says, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or any other State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or [as] a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution [of the United States], [and] shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may [by a] vote [by] of two-thirds of each House, [to] remove such disability.""

"Now, it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to recognize that that's written for people who fought for the Confederacy who are previous military officers who are in the government in or of the Confederacy, and it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to require that they be convicted first, in a court, with due process of law. So... that question can never be ripe until those things have happened. Now, if you agree with those arguments, and I know you'll all get your constitutions out and you'll read it; and if you agree with those arguments, the suggestion that the Fourteenth Amendment applies here is ridiculous! And if you come to that conclusion then, because the managers have not separated out the... any counts within the article of impeachment, the whole thing falls. I didn't write that. They are married to that."

"I wrote it out in individual responses because I didn't know how to respond to the... "cast a wide net" effort. And fortunately, senators some time in the past realized that you can't do that because you passed... a rule that says, "Hey, you can't do that!" So that's why it's flawed, and it's flawed in other ways too..."

"[W]hy are the House managers afraid, and why is the majority of the House of Representatives afraid of the American people?"

"Let's understand why we are really here. We are really here because the majority in the House of Representatives does not want to face Donald Trump as a political rival in the future. That's the real reason we're here. That's why they have to get over the jurisdictional hurdle (which they can't get over) but that's why they have to get over that, in order to get to that part of the Constitution that allows removal. ...Nobody says it that plainly but unfortunately I have a way of speaking that way."

"[T]he reason I am having trouble with the argument is the American people just spoke, and they just changed administrations. So in the light most favorable to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here, their system works. The people are smart enough, in the light most favorable to them, they're smart enough to pick a new administration if they don't like the old one, and they just did, and he's down there on Pennsylvania Avenue right now, probably wondering, "How come none of my stuff is happening up at the Capitol?""

"Why do the members of the House of Representatives, the majority of the House... Why are they afraid of the very people that sent them to do this job, the people they hope will continue to send them back here? Why are they afraid that those same people who were smart enough to pick them as their Congressmen, aren't smart enough to pick somebody who is a candidate for president of the United States?"

"Why fear that the people will all of a sudden forget how to choose an administration in the next few years? And in fact, this happens all the time when there are changes in administrations from one-term presidents to others. Well, Nixon was sort of a 1 1/2 term, but Nixon to Ford, Ford to Carter, Carter to Reagan, Bush 41 to Clinton; it happens! The people get tired of an administration they don't want, and they know how to change it! And they just did!"

"So why think that they won't know how to do it in 2024, if they want to? Or is that what the fear is... that the people in 2024 will, in fact will want the change, and will want to go back to Donald Trump, and not the current occupant of the White House, President Biden? Because all these other times the people were smart enough to do it (choose who the president should be) and all these other times they're smart enough to choose who their members of Congress were, and by way. choose you all as well, but they're not smart enough to know how to change the administration, especially since they just did. So it seems pretty evident to me that they do know how."

"It has worked 100% of the time. 100% of the time, in the United States, when the people... had been fed up with, and had enough of the occupant of the White House, they change the occupant of the White House."

"Now I know that one of the strengths of this body is its deliberative action, and I saw Senator Manchin on the TV the other night talking about the , and the main point was that... this body has an obligation to try to reach consensus across the aisle, to legitimize the decisions it makes. ....I think ...that is a good way of saying why the Senate of the United States is different than other places. You know, the Constitution is a document designed to protect the rights of the minority, not the rights of the majority. Congress shall make no law abridging all of these things. That's because those were the things that were of concern at the time."

"It's easy to be in favor of liberty, and equality, and free speech when it's popular."

"We changed what we were going to do on account that the House managers' presentation was well done, and I wanted you to know that we have responses to those things. I thought that what the first part of the case was, which was the equivalent of a motion to dismiss, was going to be about jurisdiction alone, and... one of the... fellows who spoke for the House managers, who is a former criminal defense attorney, seemed to suggest that there is something nefarious that we were discussing jurisdiction in trying to get the case dismissed, but this is where it happens in the case, because jurisdiction is the first thing that has to be found."

"We have counter-arguments to everything that they raised, and you will hear them later... but on the... scholarly issue of jurisdiction... Article I, section 3 says "Judgements in cases of impeachment shall not extend further that to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, profit in the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment trial, judgement and punishment according to law." So this idea... of a January amnesty is nonsense. If my colleagues on this side of the chamber actually think that president Trump committed a criminal offense, and let's understand, a high crime is a felony, a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. The words haven't changed that much over time. After he's out of office, you go and arrest him. So there is no opportunity where the president of the United States can run rampant in January at the end of his term, and just go away Scott free. The Department of Justice does know what to do with such people, and so far I haven't seen any activity in that direction, and not only that, the people who stormed this building and breached it were not accused of conspiring with the president."

"But the section I read, judgement, in other words, the bad thing that can happen, the judgement, in cases of impeachment, i.e., what we are doing, "shall not extend further than removal from office..." What is so hard about that? ...Which of those words are unclear? "Shall not extend further than removal from office..." President Trump is no longer in office. The object of the Constitution has been achieved. He was removed by the voters!"

"Cassidy was one of six Republican senators to vote with Democrats to say that it was constitutional to impeach a former president even after he has left office. The other five Republican senators had done so in a similar vote last month."

"Trump’s team lost a crucial bid to halt the trial on constitutional grounds. Senators confirmed, 56-44, their jurisdiction over the trial, the first of a president no longer in office."

"Yes, Ayanna and I both decided not to attend (Donald Trump’s State of the Union address)... Ultimately, we knew what was going to come. We knew it was going to be racist, Islamophobic, classist, you know, history-denying. I just didn’t feel like spending my evening legitimizing that or entertaining it. But again, there’s no wrong way to protest. And for me, that’s kind of how — that’s where I sat with it. But it was a struggle, because do you choose to be in that space, or do you choose not to be in that space? Either way, you’re doing it in the same spirit, and you’re doing it with the same rationale and intention."

"Well, good afternoon, everyone...I made the decision to attend (Donald Trump’s State of the Union address), one, because I represent 708,000 constituents, and I felt that it was important not to only be present on their behalf, but also to be present and visibly present on behalf of many of the marginalized identities that I represent, that are constantly being attacked by this president. I felt like being in that room, showing him that no matter how much he decides to speak about us in the most hateful ways, we are resilient, we are present, and we will not be disregarded."

"I couldn’t sit through some of it, and we ended up leaving, especially when they just went just full-out applause when they put that medal around Rush... So, it was a very difficult time, I think, for me even being there... But, yeah, I think it’s so much worse in person."

"The occupant of this White House has contempt for the American people, for the role of Congress as a coequal branch, as checks and balance, contempt for our Constitution. And so it was a sham of a State of the Union to me. ...I already know how he feels about me and our folk... we already know the state of the union. It’s in complete chaos and disarray."

"We turn now to... a rare joint interview with the Squad. That’s the group of four freshwomen Democratic congresswomen who have taken Capitol Hill by storm: Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are the first Muslim women elected to Congress. Ilhan Omar is a former refugee from Somalia. Tlaib is the first female Palestinian-American member of Congress. Ayanna Pressley is the first African-American woman elected to Congress from Massachusetts. And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was just 29 years old when she took office last year, making her the youngest woman to serve in Congress. Born to a mother from Puerto Rico and father from the South Bronx, AOC has quickly become one of the most popular lawmakers in the country. All four members of the Squad have been active on the presidential campaign trail. Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Omar have been campaigning for Bernie Sanders. Ayanna Pressley has backed Elizabeth Warren. Last week, Congresswomen Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley boycotted President Trump’s State of the Union. Rashida Tlaib walked out during the speech. Ilhan Omar stayed, saying, quote, “My presence tonight is resistance.”"

"This draft would be the Foreign Service’s first formal dissent cable (hundreds more would follow over the years from diplomats around the globe), and while it probably would not shift policy, it was guaranteed to enrage powerful people in Washington.... On April 6, two weeks into the slaughter, Blood transmitted his consulate’s vehement dissent. The telegram detonated in all directions, to diplomats in Washington, Islamabad, Karachi, and Lahore. The confidential cable, with the blunt subject line of “Dissent from U.S. policy toward East Pakistan,” was probably the most blistering denunciation of U.S. foreign policy ever sent by its own diplomats: [W]ith the conviction that U.S. policy related to recent developments in East Pakistan serves neither our moral interests broadly defined nor our national interests narrowly defined, numerous officers of Am[erican] Con[sulate] Gen[eral] Dacca … consider it their duty to register strong dissent with fundamental aspects of this policy. Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak dominated government and to lessen likely and deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy, ironically at a time when the USSR sent President Yahya a message defending democracy, condemning arrest of leader of democratically elected majority party (incidentally pro-West) and calling for end to repressive measures and bloodshed.… [W]e have chosen not to intervene, even morally, on the grounds that the Awami conflict, in which unfortunately the overworked term genocide is applicable, is purely [an] internal matter of a sovereign state. Private Americans have expressed disgust. We, as professional public servants express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our nation’s position as a moral leader of the free world."

"Our Mission: The U.S. Department of State leads America’s foreign policy through diplomacy, advocacy, and assistance by advancing the interests of the American people, their safety and economic prosperity."

"Our History: The U.S. Department of State has grown significantly over the years. The first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, oversaw a small staff of one chief clerk, three other clerks, a translator, and a messenger. They maintained only two diplomatic posts, in London and Paris, as well as 10 consular posts. More than 230 years later, the Department’s workforce includes some 13,000 members of the Foreign Service, 11,000 Civil Service employees, and 45,000 locally employed staff at more than 270 diplomatic missions worldwide."

"We now work to fight terrorism, protect U.S. interests abroad, and implement foreign policy initiatives while building a more free, prosperous, and secure world."

"Maintaining a war machine that outspends the 12 or 13 next largest militaries in the world combined actually makes us less safe, as each new administration inherits the delusion that the United States' overwhelmingly destructive military power can, and therefore should, be used to confront any perceived challenge to U.S. interests anywhere in the world — even when there is clearly no military solution and when many of the underlying problems were caused by past misapplications of U.S. military power in the first place. While the international challenges we face in this century require a genuine commitment to international cooperation and diplomacy, Congress allocates only $58 billion, less than 10 percent of the Pentagon budget, to the diplomatic corps of our government: the State Department. Even worse, both Democratic and Republican administrations keep filling top diplomatic posts with officials indoctrinated and steeped in policies of war and coercion, with scant experience and meager skills in the peaceful diplomacy we so desperately need."

"This only perpetuates a failed foreign policy based on false choices between economic sanctions that UN officials have compared to medieval sieges, coups that destabilize countries and regions for decades, and wars and bombing campaigns that kill millions of people and leave cities in rubble, like Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria. The end of the Cold War was a golden opportunity for the U.S. to reduce its forces and military budget... U.S. officials instead set out to exploit the post-Cold War "power dividend," a huge military imbalance in favor of the United States, by developing rationales for using military force more freely and widely around the world. During the transition to the new Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright famously asked Gen. Colin Powell, then chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" In 1999, as secretary of state under Bill Clinton, Albright got her wish, running roughshod over the UN Charter with an illegal war to carve out an independent Kosovo from the ruins of Yugoslavia."

"Twenty-two years later, Kosovo is the third-poorest country in Europe (after Moldova and post-coup Ukraine) and its independence is still not recognized by 96 countries. Hashim Thaçi, Albright's hand-picked main ally in Kosovo and later its president, is awaiting trial in an international court at the Hague, charged with murdering at least 300 civilians under cover of NATO bombing in 1999 to extract and sell their internal organs on the international transplant market. Clinton and Albright's gruesome and set the precedent for more illegal U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, with equally devastating and horrific results."

"Today, as news reports indicated that the U.S. Department of State will – for the first time ever – designate a white supremacist group as a terrorist organization, experts from ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) and George Washington University’s Program on Extremism released a joint report on white supremacist terrorism, urging the government to take further steps to address this emerging threat. The report notes that, for now, none of the 69 organizations designated by the U.S. Department of State as Foreign Terrorist Organizations are white supremacist organizations, despite the dramatic uptick in that threat. The State Department’s expected announcement could alter that status – a historic shift in policy and one that ADL has long supported and applauds."

"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo faced internal opposition to U.S. support for the war in Yemen from State Department staff, according to a recent report. The staffers had become concerned by the rising civilian death toll in the war being carried out by Persian Gulf monarchies, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — not only owing to bombings of densely populated areas, but also a humanitarian crisis exacerbated by the fighting, with up to 8.4 million people at risk of starvation. Those concerns, however, were overruled after Pompeo discussed the matter with the State Department’s legislative affairs team. The legislative affairs staff, according to the Wall Street Journal, argued that restricting U.S. support would endanger billions of dollars in future weapons sales, including a massive sale of precision-guided munitions between Raytheon, a U.S. weapons manufacturer, and Saudi Arabia and the UAE."

"If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition, ultimately. So I think it’s a cost-benefit ratio. The more that we put into the State Department’s diplomacy, hopefully the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene."

"Hillary Clinton has completed her four-year tenure as Secretary of State to the accolades of both Democratic and Republican Congressional champions of the budget-busting “military-industrial complex,” that President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell address. Behind the public relations sheen, the photo-opportunities with groups of poor people in the developing world, an ever more militarized State Department operated under Clinton’s leadership. A militarized State Department is more than a repudiation of the Department’s basic charter of 1789, for the then-named Department of Foreign Affairs, which envisioned diplomacy as its mission. Secretary Clinton reveled in tough, belligerent talk and action on her many trips to more than a hundred countries. She would warn or threaten “consequences” on a regular basis... As reported in the Wall Street Journal on December 10, 2011, “In place of the military, the State Department will assume a new role of unprecedented scale, overseeing a massive diplomatic mission through a network of fortified, self-sufficient installations.” To call this a diplomatic mission is a stretch. The State Department has hired thousands of private security contractors for armed details and transportation of personnel. Simply guarding the huge U.S. embassy in Iraq and its personnel costs more than $650 million a year – larger than the entire budget of the Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OSHA), which is responsible for reducing the yearly loss of about 58,000 lives in workplace-related traumas and sickness."

"Another State Department undertaking is to improve the training and capability of Iraq’s police and armed forces. Countless active and retired Foreign Service officers believe expanded militarization of the State Department both sidelines them, their experience and knowledge, in favor of contractors and military people, and endangers them overseas Blurring the distinction between the Pentagon and the State Department in words and deeds seriously compromises Americans engaged in development and diplomatic endeavors. When people in the developing countries see Americans working to advance public health or clean drinking water systems within their countries, they now wonder if these are front activities for spying or undercover penetrations. Violent actions, fueled by this suspicion, are already jeopardizing public health efforts on the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan."

"We might add now that we do have an authoritative account of why the United States bombed Serbia in 1999. It comes from Strobe Talbott, now the director of the Brookings Institution, but in 1999 he was in charge of the State Department-Pentagon team that supervised the diplomacy in the affair. He wrote the introduction to a recent book by his Director of Communications, John Norris, which presents the position of the Clinton administration at the time of the bombing. Norris writes that "it was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform - not the plight of Kosovar Albanians - that best explains NATO's war". In brief, they were resisting absorption into the U.S. dominated international socioeconomic system. Talbott adds that thanks to John Norris, anyone interested in the war in Kosovo "will know … how events looked and felt at the time to those of us who were involved" in the war, actually directing it. This authoritative explanation will come as no surprise at all to students of international affairs who are more interested in fact than rhetoric. And it will also come as no surprise, to those familiar with intellectual life, that the attack continues to be hailed as a grand achievement of humanitarian intervention, despite massive Western documentation to the contrary, and now an explicit denial at the highest level; which will change nothing, it's not the way intellectual life works."

"Discomforting."

"Surely, no American administration would ever use the power of government to sit in judgement on the First Amendment speech of its own citizens. Sadly, I was mistaken, you have chosen to make policing Americans’ speech your priority."

"They didn’t need a ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ until Elon Musk threatened their control over the narrative."

"Joseph Goebbels had a Ministry of Truth. Joseph Stalin had a Ministry of Truth. Joseph Biden has a Ministry of Truth."

"Will Hunting: Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm workin' at the N.S.A. and somebody puts a code on my desk, somethin' no one else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it, maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. And once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels are hidin'. Fifteen hundred people that I never met, I never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', 'Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area,' 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called 'cause they were out pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie over there takin' shrapnel in the ass. He comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so that we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the little skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helpin' my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, maybe they even took the liberty of hirin' an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs. It ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work. He can't afford to drive, so he's walkin' to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks because the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorroids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure, fuck it, while I'm at it, why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president."

"Like a black hole, NSA pulls in every signal that comes near, but no electron is ever allowed to escape."

"The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife's phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards."

"A lot of these allegations crop up again and again over history. I think it's statistically unrealistic to think it isn't given the vastness of the universe."

"AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics. In the event sufficient scientific data were ever obtained that a UAP encounter can only be explained by extraterrestrial origin, we are committed to working with our interagency partners at NASA."

"AARO is working with the military departments and the joint staff to normalize, integrate, and expand UAP reporting beyond the aviators to all service members, including mariners, submariners, and our space guardians. AARO is working to take in more UAP reporting and analysis from the interagency, FAA, NOAA Coast Guard and the Department of Energy to name a few."

"The China adversary is not waiting. They are advancing and they are advancing quickly. They are less risk averse at technical advancement than we are. They are just willing to try things and see if it works."

"I will create a government efficiency commission tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government"

"There is more government regulatory smothering every year. If this continues, all large projects in the United States will be illegal."

"The Department of Government Efficiency is the only path to extending life beyond Earth."

"The right of broadcasters to speak freely is rooted in the First Amendment. Threats against broadcast stations for airing content that conflicts with the government’s views are dangerous and undermine the fundamental principle of free speech."

"The daily journal of the United States government"

"Public inspection: Tomorrow's documents today"

"Reader aids: Insight into the FR ecosystem"

"The Federal Register: What it is and how to use it - FOR: Any person who uses the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations"

"The Federal Register - Daily supplement to the Code of Federal Regulations..."

"A point in time eCFR system"

"would you like to know if any changes made in these regulations since the revision date of this book without reading the FEDERAL REGISTER every day? If so, you may wish to subscribe to the "Cumulative List of CFR Sections Affected.""

"The new daily known as the Federal Register, is to be devoted exclusively to the rules, orders, regulations, specifications, and judicial interpretations of the executive branch of the government. There will be no editorial comment of any kind, and news will be strictly limited to the official utterances of responsible authorities in connection with the newly proclaimed orders, the texts of which will be printed in full."

"Merely the text of administrative orders runs to approximately 200,000 words a month, while interpretations and rulings add at least as much verbage."

"The New Deal's newspaper"

"...it is difficult to discern the any prospective wide popularity for the Federal Register. It contains no sports, no comics, no features of any kind."

"Many will consider it a pity that the Register cannot take the place of the Record."

"Anyway, the Federal Register is all ready to go to press, the material has been or is being assembled, and all Uncle Sam wants now are some subscribers—for this periodical is going to be sold, not given away."

"US Issues Register of All New Laws"

"Federal Register Draws Criticism - Cost of Government's Daily Held Too High"

"Mr. Ludlow said it will cost more than a quarter of a million annually to print the Register and that in his opinion the publication is utterly useless."

"History will record that the first executive order in column one of the first issue of the Federal Register had to do with Bulls Island."

"The daily issue of the Federal Register will be furnished to subscribers free of postage by the superintendent of documents government printing office, Washington, D.C., for five cents a copy, one dollar a month, or ten dollars a year."

"USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die."

"Evangelical and other Christian charities have not been spared these cuts. Among the organizations that lost funding are such Christian behemoths as World Vision, International Justice Mission, Samaritan's Purse, and Catholic Relief Services, which at $476 million, was the largest USAID recipient in 2024. Because of the vagueness of the language around which programs would still be funded, some groups pulled back their spending, just in case. "World Vision is responding to the executive order that pauses U.S. foreign assistance funding—with the exception of emergency food assistance—for the next 90 days, while programs are reviewed for alignment with the current administration’s foreign policy," said the international relief organization in a statement to TIME."

"Most of USAID’s budget goes to grants for specific development projects, including at Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, World Relief, Catholic Relief Services, and many other faith-based groups. It supports local Christian health clinics in Malawi and groups providing orphan care."

"“It is exceptionally painful to watch all this,” said Kent Hill, a former top official at USAID who also worked at World Vision and in Christian higher education as the president of Eastern Nazarene College. If USAID has specific problems, shutting the whole agency down instead of addressing the problems is a “tremendous overreaction” and “inhumane,” he said."