made neither a prosecution decision or a declaration decision you made no decision you told us this morning and in your report that you made no determination so respectfully director you didn't follow the special counsel regulations it clearly says write a confidential report about decisions reached no where in here does it say write a report about decisions that were reached you wrote 180 pages 180 pages about decisions that were reached about potential crimes that weren't charged or decide it and respectfully respectfully by doing that you managed to violate every principle and the most sacred traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that are charged so americans need to know this as they listen to the democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle as they do dramatic readings from this report that volume 2 of this report

was not authorized under the law to be written it was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the justice department and it was written in violation of every d.o.j. principle about extra prosecutorial commentary i agree with the chairman this morning when he said donald trump is not above the law he's not but he did i'm sure shouldn't be below the law which is where volume 2 of this report puts him. thank you mr chairman director mueller that morning your exchange with the gentle lady from california demonstrates what is at stake the trim campaign chair paul manner for it was passing sensitive voter information in polling data to a russian operative and there were so many other ways that russia subverted democracy together with the evidence in volume one i cannot think of a more serious need to investigate so now i'm going to ask you some questions about obstruction of justice as

a relates to volume 2 on page 12 of volume 2 you state we determined that there were so sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the president is that correct. you have a citation page 12 volume 2 which portion. that is we determined that there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the president is that correct. your report also describes at least 10 separate instances of possible obstruction of justice that were investigated by you and your team is that correct in fact the type of content serves as a very good guy of some of the acts that obstruction of justice that you investigated and i put it up on the screen on page $157.00 of volume 2 you describe those acts

and they range from the president's effort to curtail the special counsel's investigation the president further efforts to have the attorney general take over the investigation the president's orders done again to deny that the president tried to fire the special counsel and many others is that correct. i direct you now to what you wrote directed mo the president's pattern of kind as a whole sheds light on the nature of the president's act and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent does that mean you have to investigate all of his conduct to ascertain true motives. and when you talk about the president's pattern of conduct that include the 10 possible acts of obstruction that you investigated is that correct when you talk about the present pattern of conduct that would include the 10 possible obstruction that you investigated correct i direct you to their report or all that is characterized thank you let me go to the screen again

for each of those 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice you analyze 3 elements of the crime of obstruction of justice and obstructive act a nexus between the act in an official proceeding and corrupt intent is that correct you wrote on page 178 volume 2 in your report about corrupt intent actions by the president to end a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct is that correct. to the screen again even with the evidence you did find is it true as you note on page $76.00 of volume 2 that the evidence does indicate that a thorough f.b.i. investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally that the president could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to legal personal and political concerns rely on the language of the report is that

relevant to potential obstruction of justice is that relevant to potential obstruction of justice. you further elaborate on page 137 obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interest to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a great area or to avoid personal embarrassment is that correct have on the screen. correct on the screen and can you repeat the question now that i have the language on the screen is that correct as you further elaborate obstruction of justice can be motivated by direct desire to protect non-criminal personal interests to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area to avoid is that true and is it true that the impact. you read the last question last question was i want to make certain i got it accurate.

ok. time in jail yes. again here repeat the question just to make sure and i have an accurate. does obstruction of justice warrant a lot of time in truck and jail if you are convicted and in trying to. thank you very much mr chairman let me begin by reading the special counsel regulations by which you were appointed it reads. he or she shall provide the attorney general of the county natural reports explaining the prosecution or declinations decisions reach by this special counsel after cracked yes ok i want to regulation uses the word shall provide this it means the

individual is in fact obligated to provide what's being demanded by the regulation of statute meaning you don't have any wiggle room right i have to look more closely at the statute i just read it to you. ok. volume 2 page one your report boboli states we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial prosecutorial judgment. correct. try to find that citation. directly could use speak more directly into the microphone please thank you it's volume 2 pay their share but i'm sorry if i am to page one it said we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. that's right but beginning now since you decided under the oil see opinion that you couldn't prosecute

a sitting president meeting president trump why did we have all of this investigation of president trump that the other side is talking about when you knew that you weren't going to prosecute him. you don't know where the investigation's going to lie and see opinion itself says that you could continue the investigation even though you're not going to die to present ok well if you're not going to ignite the president then you just continue and that's you know that's my object i have servatius you know are you sure you sure you are my time is limited sure you can and i other people would you can't indict the sitting president right that's true ok now there are 182 pages in raw evidence should remain tiriel including hundreds of references to 3 o 2 which are interviews by the f.b.i.

for individuals who've never been cross-examined and which did not comply with the special counsel's governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declamation decisions reached correct. you know where your reading problem that i'm reading from my question. could you repeat it ok if you have a 182 pages arrive it ensure you material hundreds of references the 3020 are never been cross-examined in which didn't comply with the governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declaration next the nation decisions reached it's one of those areas which i declined to discuss ok and let me add direct you to the report itself. i look at stuff about 182 pages and you know let me switch gears mr shabbat and i were on this committee during the clinton impeachment now i recognize that the independent counsel statute under which kind

of starr operated is different from the special counsel statute he and number of occasions in his report stated that the president clinton's actions may have risen to impeachable conduct recognizing that it is up to the house of representatives to determine what conduct is impeachable you never use the term raising to impeachable conduct for any of the 10 instances that the gentlewoman from texas right. did is it true that there is nothing in volume 2 of the report that says that the president may have engaged in impeachable conduct. we have seen. it is fully. kept in. the center of our investigation our mandate and our mandate does not go to other

ways of addressing conduct our mandate goes to what. developing the report and during the report into the attorney general respect you know it's it seems to me you know that there are couple of statements that you made you know that said that this is not for me to decide in the implication is this it is for this committee to decide now you didn't use the word impeachable conduct like star did there is no stance you do prevent you from using the word impeachable crime that and i go back to what mr radcliffe said and that is that even the president is innocent until proven guilty and my time is up it is time is expired we're gentleman from tennessee thank you mr chairman 1st i'd just like to be in a state that mr never said about your career it's a model of rectitude and i thank you. based upon your investigation how did president trump react to your appointment as special counsel. and you the report.

where that is stated well there is a quote from page $78.00 of your report volume 2 which reads when sessions told the president that a special counsel had been appointed the president slumped back in his chair and said oh oh my god this is terrible this is the end of my presidency. after unquote. did it tourney general sessions tell you about that little. i'm not going to please speak into the microphone. my my apologies. i am not certain of the the person new original. quote. ok was sessions apparently said in one of his aides and in his notes to which i think you had but that's become record he wasn't pleased he probably wasn't pleased with the special counsel and particularly you because of your outstanding reputation prior to your point in the tourney john recused himself from the

investigation because of his role in the 2016 campaign is that not correct correct recusal means the attorney general cannot be involved in the investigation is that correct that's the effect of recusal yeah and so instead another trump appointee as you know mr sessions was mr rosenstein became in charge of it is that correct. wasn't attorney general sessions following the rules and professional advice of the department of justice ethics folks when he recused himself from the investigation. and yet the president repeatedly expressed his displeasure at session's decision to follow that lead thinks rules to recuse himself from oversight of that investigation is that correct attacker it based on what is written in the report and the president's reaction. to the recusal as noted in the report mr bannon recall that the president was mad as mad as ban it had ever seen him and he screamed at my gann about how weak sessions was do you recall that from the report

and the report. despite knowing the trade journal sessions was supposed to be and was not supposed to be involve the investigation the president still tried to get the attorney general to an recuse himself after you were appointed special counsel is that correct yes in fact your investigation found at some point after your point while the president called sessions at his home and asked if he would an recuse himself is that not true it's true now that wasn't the 1st time the president asked sessions to refuse him selfe was it i know there were at least 2 occasions and one of them was with flan and one of them was when sessions and again flew to mara lago to meet with the president sessions recall the president pulled him aside to speak alone and suggested he should do this and refused to act direct correct and then when michael flan beauty's after flynn entered a guilty plea for lying to federal agents and indicated his intent to cooperate with that investigation tried to ask to speak to sessions alone again in the oval

office and again as sessions to an recuse himself true or afraid to the report for that page one on our volume 2 thank you sir you know of any point when the president personally expressed anger or frustrations at sessions i'd have to pass on that. here because it all i work taking you now to london from the wrong hearing where the british prime minister outgoing prime minister reason may is making a last speech this is the graduations to boris on winning the conservative leadership election i wish him and the government he will lead every good fortune in the months and years ahead their successes will be our country's successes and i hope that today will be many their achievements will build on the work of nearly a decade of conservative or conservative led government. during that time our economy has been restored our public service is reformed and our values defended on

the world stage of course much remains to be done the immediate priority being to complete our exit from the european union in a way that works for the whole united kingdom with success in that task can come a new beginning for our country a national renewal that can move us beyond the current time past into the bright future the british people deserve to serve as prime minister of the united kingdom is the greatest honor the heavy responsibilities are out weighed by the huge potential to serve your country but you achieve nothing. and as i leave downing street my final words are of sincere thanks to my colleagues in government and parliament to everyone in the building behind me and across the civil service to the men and women of our armed forces and security services and to the public

servants in our schools our n.h.s. our police and the other emergency services all are inspired by the noble wish to serve their country in the national interest. i also want to thank the british people everyone who loves our great country who works hard for their family and wants their children and grandchildren to enjoy greater opportunity than they did. thank you for putting your faith in me and giving me the chance to serve. this is a country of aspiration and opportunity. and i hope that every young girl who has seen a woman prime minister now knows for sure that there are no limits to what they can achieve finally and most of all i want to thank my husband philip who has been my

greatest supporter and my closest companion. i wasn't. i think the answer to that is i think not i'm about to leave downing street but i'm proud to continue as the member of parliament for maidenhead i will continue to do all i can to serve the national interest and play my part in making our united kingdom a great country with a great future a country that truly works for everyone. the greatest arnaud was to serve as prime minister the final words there of to reason may as britain's prime minister. will step down and clear the stage for boris johnson to take over as britain's prime minister she extended says

sincere thanks to her government to the civil service to the nation and the armed forces and she also wished the best for boris johnson as he takes over the post of prime minister and leader of the united kingdom she also noted that she hopes her she has served as an example an inspiration for girls to believe that there are no limits to what they can achieve let's cross over now to lawrence lean standing by at number 10 downing street so the sort of perhaps speech that you would be expected to say at this point but it leaves boris johnson with the same difficult path ahead that she's just exiting is it not. yet i mean just just a quick quick couple of thoughts about the bouncer is amazing she's now got in the car and shot to the queen to resign and then she'll go back to our constituents in

maidenhead west of london to the very peculiar life that's a former prime minister leads to go from being the most important person in the country to someone busy who just doesn't have anyone any more agency at all you know and if you look back at this. short time in office in terms of things that she said she was going to do when i watched her standing in. the incoming prime minister to tackle what she called all the burning injustices in the united kingdom and to make sure that bracks it helps the poorest you can only say that on all of those counts it has been a complete failure premiership was marked really by a lot of deep controversial things that of the windrush immigrant generation. terrible response of the grenfell tower block fire these sorts of messed up things she really didn't get a grip of but most of all she felt comprehensively to go to deliver and breaks it because she obviously completely misjudged the mood of her own party and things are

now really in more of a mess regardless of what she said then than they were when when she took office and as you say boris johnson is now going to take this up he was the face of the vote leave campaign and over the course of treason most premiership the entire focus of what brics it means has really shifted from things to do with the trade deal and some sort of relationships of the with the european union to an idea now of abandoning the european union entirely and the shape and nature of boris johnson's inner circle and his team has has that intent absolutely get out and cut ties with them can they do it's many people think it's impossible but this i'm going to try and it is it is a completely new direction inside the u.k. aimed at even a new direction for the u.k. the european union lines i'd love to chat more about this is plenty more to discuss but we're going to take our viewers back to that hearing in the u.s. house somewhere or form a special counsel robert testified before the judiciary committee track you your

investigation found that president trump directed white house counsel don mcginn to fire you you know career through. and the president claimed that he wanted to fire you because you had supposed conflicts of interests in that correct tro you had no conflicts of interest that required your removal in that of fact are correct and in fact done mcgann it viands to president that the asserted conflicts were in his words silly and not real conflicts in that true i have never refer to the report on that episode well page 85 of volume 2 speaks to that and also director muller d.o.j. ethics officials confirmed that you had no conflicts that would prevent you from serving in special counsel in that correct. but despite dianne mcgann and the department of justice guidance around may 23rd 2017 the president

quote provided mcgann to complain to deputy attorney general rosenstein about these supposed conflicts of interest correct. and mcgann declined to call rosenstein or rosenstein i'm sorry telling the president that it would look like still trying to meddle in the investigation and knocking out muller would be a nother fact used to claim obstruction of justice in that correct generally tell us and in other words the director muller of the white house counsel told the president then if he tried to remove you that that could be another basis to allege that the president was obstructing justice correct. that is generally correct yes now i'd like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justice on tuesday you know i'm sorry congressman do you have

a citation for. on. yes volume 2 page 81 thank you and 82 now i'd like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justice. it's true that on tuesday june 13th 2017 the president dictated a press statement stating he had quote no intention of firing you correct. but the following day june 14th the media reported for the 1st time that you were investigating the president for obstructing of justice correct correct and then after learning for the 1st time that he was under investigation the very next day the president quote issued a series of tweets acknowledging the existence of the obstruction investigation and

criticizing it in that correct ellie so and then on saturday june 17th 2 days later the president called don mcgann at home from camp david on a saturday to talk about you not correct. what was the significant. what was significant about that 1st weekend phone call bit done mcgann took from president trump i'm going to ask you to rely on what we wrote about those and you wrote in your report that on. page 85 volume 2 that on saturday july 17th 2017 the president called mcgann at home to have the special counsel removed now did the president call done mcgann more than once that day. think it was to cause. i'm sorry about that on page 85 of your report you wrote quote on the 1st koan mcgann recalled that the president said something like

quote you've got to do this you've got to call rudd correct rock a new investigation and report found that done mcgann was perturbed. to use your words by the president's request to call right rosenstein to fire him midnight correct well their way there was a continuous. now it was a continuous involvement of donegan and he responding to the president's entreaties and he did not want to put himself in the middle of that he did not want to have a role in asking the attorney general to fire the special counsel correct well i would again refer you to the report and the way it is characterized in the report thank you it volume 2 page $85.00 it states that he didn't want to have the attorney general he didn't want to have

a role in trying to fire the attorney general so at this point i would yield back. thank you mr chairman mr moller well 1st let me ask you now and as consent mr chairman to submit this article robert muller and mast for the record that objection now mr moller who wrote the 9 minute comments you read edger may 29th press conference. back again and ok so that's what i thought you didn't write it a 2013 puff piece in the washingtonian about komi said basically when komi called you drop everything you were doing it gave examples you haven't dinner with your wife and daughter comit called you drop everything and go. article quoted komi is saying of a train were coming down the track and i quote at least bob mahler will be standing

on the tracks with me. you and james comey at been good friends or work good friends for a for many years correct our business associates started off in the justice department about you were good friends you can work together not be friends but you were how many were friends we were friends of my question thank you for the answer now before you were appointed a special counsel. had you talked to james komi in the preceding 6 months know when you were appointed as special counsel. was president trump's firing of komi something un dissipated investigating potentially obstruction of justice get into. at the internal deliberations of the justice department actually it goes to your credibility and maybe you've been away from the courtroom for a while credibility is always relevant it's always material and that goes for you jim you're a witness before us let me ask you when you talked to president trump the day

before you appointed or you were appointed as special counsel you were talking to him about f.b.i. director position again. did he mention the firing of james not as a candidate was asked did he mention the firing of james komi in your discussion with him and i remember pardon and not remember it i don't believe so i could be speech don't remember but if you did you could be in a fact witness as to the president's comments and state of mind on firing james komi. i suppose that's possible so those products q 2 which want to make sure there was no appearance of impropriety but in your case you hired a bunch of people that did not like the president let me ask you when did you 1st learn of peter struck animus toward donald trump in the summer of. 2017 you didn't know before he was hired i'm sorry you didn't know before he was

hired for your team. you know what peter struck hated trump ok. you didn't know that before he was made part of your cheek that what you're saying did not know that all right joe when did you know that you learned when they did find out i acted swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere and you know there's some discussion about. all right let's bring in. jane she's standing by capitol hill. listening as we all along to these hearings so far following this sort of pattern as one might expect they're hearing a lot of points being made by the republican side to try and the mind perhaps. some of the conclusions that democrats would like to make opponents of the president and we hear in the opposite from democrats right. exactly how we thought

it would play out although i think both sides are just starting to maybe come to the realization that for both of them this hearing is not exactly playing out the way they might have hoped for the democratic side this was their chance this is their chance to let the american people know what robert mueller and his team found over those 22 months because the vast majority of the american public hasn't read the $400.00 plus pages most of members of congress have missed it they haven't read it so what the democrats are hoping is that robert mueller would come out and spell out what his report found which there was more than $100.00 contacts between russians and the truck campaign and that there were several at least 10 in that file his estimate. obstruction of justice by the president robert muller is not spelling any of that out so what we're seeing here is the democratic members of congress are basically reading his report and he is basically saying true this is not exactly must what must see t.v. public and do you see louie gohmert there the republican trying to go after more of

his team his credibility and trying to basically say that he shouldn't have even looked at obstruction of justice because that wasn't his mandate because muller is basically saying look. president could face obstruction of justice charges which is no longer president but the justice department says the sitting president can't be indicted that's probably the biggest takeaway from the hearing that's far which i think a lot of people expected would be a little bit more. a little bit more exciting than it actually did. pass the let's go over down to elizabeth sign because she's an associate professor of american studies and political science at george washington university joins us from washington d.c. good to have you with us let me start 1st of all elizabeth with the question of how do we end this thing where we would never really expect to get the bombshells to drop here but anything that takes perhaps the public perception at least in a new direction that. well i think the hearing started out in

a really interesting way when the democratic chairman jerrold nadler said 3 times repeating you did not exonerate trump and muller said yes to all 3 of those answers so in many ways he's challenging trying to narrative of what has actually happened and i think that that's something that the democrats will definitely use to continue to emphasize both from mischaracterize what the report said and also that the report does have a lot of really. challenging evidence to show that there are many points where trump obstructed justice we now see the democrats are continuing to try to emphasize that to state it in plain language because very few people have actually read the report to try to pick out the most egregious examples of potential of struction to get mahler to acknowledge them to to restate them in plain terms for a larger public as to whether that information well really galvanize.