Donald Trump

"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?"