United States Government

"[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?"

"[B]ut you're here testifying about this investigation today, and I am asking you directly did any members of your team or did you interview Christopher Steele in the course of your investigation."

"You had two years to investigate. Not once did you consider it worthy to investigate how an unverified document, that was paid for by a political opponent, was used to obtain a warrant to spy on the opposition political campaign. Did you do any investigation into that whatsoever?"

"What would... be your characterization?"

"The FISA application makes reference to Source One, who is Christopher Steele, the author of the Steele Dossier. The FISA application says nothing [about] Source 1's reason for conducting the research into Candidate One's ties to Russia, based on Source One's previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source One provided reliable information to the FBI. The FBI believes Source One's reporting herein to be credible. Do you believe the FBI's representation that Source One's reporting was credible, to be accurate?"

"[Y]ou're not going to respond to any of the questions regarding or your interviews with him?"

"I don't understand how, if you interviewed an individual on the purview of this investigation, that you're testifying to us today that you've closed that investigation, how that's not within your purview to tell us about that investigation, and who you interviewed."

"[T]he American people want to know, and... I'm very hopeful and glad that A.G. Barr is looking into this, and the Inspector General is looking into this, because you're unwilling to answer the questions of the American people, as it relates to the very basis of this investigation into the President, and the very basis of this individual who you did interview. You're just refusing to answer those questions. [C]an't the President fire the FBI director at any time without reason, under... Article I of the Constitution?"

"Article II?"

"Can't he also fire U.S. Special Counsel at any time without any reason?"

"[Y]ou've testified that you weren't fired, you were able to complete your investigation in full. Is that correct?"

"...How many people on your staff did you fire during the course of the investigation?"

"...[A]ccording to Inspector General's report, attorney number two was let go, and we know was let go, correct?"

"Peter Strzok testified before this Committee on July 12, 2018 that... he was fired at least partially because you were... concerned about preserving the appearance of independence with the special counsel's investigation. Do you agree with that statement?"

"Did you fire him because you were worried about the appearance of independence of the investigation?"

"Do you agree that... your office did not only have an obligation to operate with independence, but to operate with the appearance of independence as well?"

"'s one of your top attorneys?"

"Did Weissmann have a role is selecting other members of your team?"

"Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton's election night party. Did you know that before or after he came onto the team?"

"On January 30, 2017, Weissmann wrote an email to Deputy Attorney General Yates stating, "I am so proud and in awe regarding her disobeying a direct order from the President." Did Weissmann disclose that email to you before he joined the team?"

"Is that not a conflict of interest?"

"Are you aware that Ms. represented Hillary Clinton in litigation regarding personal emails originating from Clinton's time as Secretary of State?"

"Did you know that before she came on the team?"

", the guy sitting next to you, represented Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who destroyed one of Clinton's mobile devices, and you must be aware by now that six of your lawyers donated $12,000 directly to Hillary Clinton. I'm not even talking about the $49,000 they donated to other Democrats, just the donations to the opponent [of] the target of your investigation."

"This isn't just about you being able to vouch for your team. This is about knowing that the day you accepted this role, you had to be aware, no matter what this report concluded, half of the country was going to be... skeptical of your team's findings. ...[T]hat's why we have recusal laws that define bias and perceive bias, for this very reason. 28 United States code 528 specifically lists not just political conflict of interest, but the appearance of political conflicts of interest. It's just simply not enough that you vouch for your team. The interests of justice demand that no perceived bias exists. I can't imagine a single prosecutor or judge that I have every appeared in front of would be comfortable with these circumstances where over half of the prosecutorial team had a direct relationship to the opponent of the person being investigated."

"And half of them had a direct relationship, political or personal, with the opponent of the person you were investigating, and that's my point. I wonder if not a single word in this entire report was changed, but rather the only difference was we switched Hillary Clinton and President Trump. If has texted those terrible things about Hillary Clinton instead of President Trump, if a team of lawyers worked for, donated thousands of dollars to, and went to Trump's parties instead of Clinton's, I don't think we'd be here trying to prop up an obstruction allegation. My colleagues would have spent the last four months accusing your team of being bought and paid for by the Trump campaign and we couldn't trust a single word of this report. They would still be accusing the President of conspiracy with Russia and they would be accusing your team of with that conspiracy. ..."

"[Y]ou performed as most of us expected. You've stuck closely to your report and you have declined to answer many of our questions on both sides. As the closer for the Republican side,.. I want to summarize the highlights of what we have heard, and what we know. You spent two years, and nearly $30 million taxpayer dollars, and unlimited resources to prepare a nearly 450 page report, which you describe today, as very thorough. Millions of Americans today maintain genuine concerns about your work, in large part, because of the infamous and widely publicized bias of your investigating team members, which we now know included 14 Democrats and 0 Republicans. Campaign finance reports later showed that team...[Robert Mueller attempted to speak here.]...of Democrat investigators, you hired, donated more than $60,000 to the Hillary Clinton campaign and other Democratic candidates. Your team also included and Lisa Page... and they had the... lurid text messages that confirm they openly mocked and hated Donald Trump and his supporters, and they vowed to take him out. Mr. Ratcliffe asked you earlier this morning... "Can you give me an example, other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?"... You answered, "I cannot." Sir, that is unprecedented. The President believed, from the very beginning, that you and your Special Counsel team had serious conflicts. This is stated in the report and acknowledged by everybody. And yet, President Trump cooperated fully with the investigation. He knew he had done nothing wrong, and he encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation, and produced more than 1.4 million pages of information, and allowed over 40 witnesses who are directly affiliated with the White House or his campaign. Your report acknowledges on page 61, Volume 2, that a volume of evidence exists of the President telling many people privately... "The President was concerned about the impact of the Russian investigation on his ability to govern, and to address important foreign relations issues, and even matters of national security." And on page 174, Volume 2 your report also acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held... "The President's removal powers are at their zenith with respect to principal officers, that is, officers who must be appointed by the President and who report to him directly. The President's exclusive and illimitable power of removal of those principal officers furthers 'the President's ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed'"... And that would even include the Attorney General. ...[I]n spite of all of that, nothing ever happened to stop or impede your special counsel's investigation. Nobody was fired by the President. Nothing was curtailed, and the investigation continued unencumbered for 22 long months. As you finally concluded in Volume 1, the evidence... "did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference"... And the evidence... "did not establish that the President, or those close to him, were involved in any Russian conspiracies, or had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official"... Over those 22 long months that your investigation dragged along, the President became increasingly frustrated, as many of the American people did, with its effects on our country and... his ability to govern. He vented about this to his lawyer and his close associates, and he even shared his frustrations... on Twitter. But while the President's social media accounts might have influenced some in the media, or the opinion of some the American people, none of those audiences were targets or witnesses in your investigation. The President never affected anybody's testimony. He never demanded to end the investigation, or demanded that you be terminated, and he never misled Congress, the DOJ, or the Special Counsel. Those, sir, are the undisputed facts. There will be a lot of discussion, I predict today, and great frustration throughout the country, about the fact that you wouldn't answer any questions... about the origins of this whole charade, which was the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, now proven to be totally bogus, even though it is listed and specifically referenced in your report. ...Mr. Mueller, there's one primary reason why you were called here today by the Democrat majority of our committee. Our colleagues... just want political cover. They desperately wanted you, today, to tell them they should impeach the President, but the one thing you have said very clearly today, is that your report is complete, and thorough, and you completely agree with and stand by its recommendations, and all of its content. Is that right?"

"...Your report does not recommend impeachment, does it?"

"It does not conclude that impeachment would be appropriate here, right?"