Robert Mueller Testimony before House Intelligence Committee

"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?"