Robert Mueller Testimony before House Intelligence Committee

"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?"

"[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?"

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

"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?"

"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?"

"[A]s Special Counsel did you review documents related to the origin of the investigation into the Trump campaign?"

"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?"

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

"[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?"

"[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..."

"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?"

"[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?"

"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?"

"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."

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

"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..."

"[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."

"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?"

"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 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?"

"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."

"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?"

"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?"

"And was that ever denied?"

"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?"

"[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?"

"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?"

"...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..."

"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."

"[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?"

"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."

"[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."

"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?"

"[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?"

"[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?"

"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?"

"[D]id you ever make a request to expand your office's mandate... at all?"

"[W]as there any limitation in your access to documents related to the counterintelligence... investigation?"