United States Government

"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?"

"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?"