United States Government

"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?"

"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?"

"[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..."

"So did you not investigate these allegations which are suggestive of potential Trump-Russia..."

"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."

"So you believe that... Bill Barr believes that somewhere in the hallways of the Department of Justice, there's an office of exoneration?"

"[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?"

"[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?"

"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?"

"[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."

"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?"

"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?"

"[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."

"So in your words, it's not a legal term, so you didn't put it in your conclusion. Correct?"

"The Special Counsel did not charge with anything, correct?"

"But you did not establish any conspiracy, much less a well-developed one?"

"[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 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?"

"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?"

"[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."

"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?"

"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?"

"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?"

"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..."

"[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?"

"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."

"Did your report name any people who were acting as U.S. government informants or sources, without disclosing that fact?"

"...[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..."

"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 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?"

"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."

"[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..."

"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?"

"...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?"

"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?"

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

"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?"

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

"was trying to make money from Turkey?"

"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?"

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

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

"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. ..."

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

"Before you arrested in July of 2017, he was given $10,000 in cash in Israel. Do you know who gave him that cash?"

"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?"

"But it involved your investigation."