the fourth is lewandowski saying then the president said to sessions if you don't meet with me the president is going to fire you, and the fifth one is what the democrats consider to be witness tampering. inducements for manafort not to cooperate, inducements for cohen not to cooperate, and then threats to his family according to democrats after he did stop cooperating. do you think democrats could actually make that case with those five elements? >> it's a lot of stuff. it depends on how much mueller wants to stay, he wants to amplify. as we've been talking about, the best way might be to have a member of the democratic side recite the fact and just ask mueller to agree with him and maybe he'll embellish a little bit. it the way you laid it out, if bob mueller just laid it out as you said it and talk about how significant those things were, that will be a momentous thing. >> i want to welcome our viewers all around the united states and around the world. we have live special coverage of

robert mueller under oath. he is set to testify publicly about his investigation into russia's attack on the 2016 election here in the united states and allegations of obstruction by the president. i'm wolf blitzer. >> and i'm jake tapper. it is a doubleheader, of course. he'll before the judiciary committee. democrats there would like mueller to say whether president trump would have been charged if he was not a sitting president. but mule har has made it clear he wants to stick to the 448-page report and not deviate from it in any way. >> the judiciary hearing is expected to last about three hours and then the intelligence comittee will focus in on russia's election influence. >> this could potentially be a do or die moment f.

for republican, on the other hand, it could be a chance to close the book. for president trump the stakeerize huge. he has stepped up attacks. let's turn to cnn justice correspondent jessica schneider right now standing by at the justice department. jessica, what's the latest there. >> reporter: well, jake, we just saw robert mueller walk into capitol hill accompanying him at least one member of his security team. but i have learned that accompanying him in the actual hearing and for his testimony will be at least several members of the special counsel's team, members who have worked with him throughout the past two years working on this investigation, working to issue this 448-paige report. i talked to robert mueller's spokesman this morning. he said that several members of those teams will be accompanying robert mueller. they'll likely be sitting just behind him as he begins to testify. these are the same members of his team who will be helping

mueller diligently prepare for this testimony. i've learned over the past few days, past few weeks mueller has been using unoccupied space at the mueller's previous law firm to prepare for this. robert mueller's spokesperson wouldn't get into the content of it preparation but again reiterated robert mueller will stick to his report. wouldn't give much indication about his demeanor either other than saying robert mueller will be prepared as he always is. of course someone who will be next to robbery muter is his former deputy. and then we understand he will also be sworn in as a witness before the house intelligence committee in that second set of hearings. this is something that the department of justice objects to. it is against department practice to have attorneys in this type of setting sitting next to the special counsel testifying.

but of course since aaron dudley is a private citizen, there's really nothing more the department of justice can do than sort of informally object her. he would not comment as to whether the department of justice had issued any former objection, but there's nothing that can be done. he was the demty special counsel and was really in charge of the day to day operations and we know in this last minute late night request from robert mueller he did request aaron dudley with him for this testimony to peejsy help him answer any questions. we know aaron dudley will be there with him next to him at this first set of this hearing before the judiciary committee and then also will be sworn in as a witness potentially asking question as we go into that noon hour with the house intelligence committee. we know robert mueller showing

up very prepared today having prepped for days if not weeks with members of the special counsel's team, members who will likely be sitting behind him as he begins his testimony in less than half an hour. >> clearly, jake, the stakes are enormous right now especially over at the white house even as the president throws around his catchphrase "witch hunt." he also says he may watch a little of the mueller hearings. boris, the president obviously has been tweeting this morning. >> yeah, that's right, wolf. president trump has also been phoning allies asking them what they can expect, what he can expect from mueller's testimony. the president obviously interested in what mueller has to say. sources have told us he's not anxious about mueller's testimony, but he is irritated. i think the right way to describe the president right now is obsessed, consumed and you can tell by his twitter feed. the president sending out at least six tweets this morning about mueller's testimony bringing up all sorts of deep

state conspiracy theories we've heard this president peddle before and also suggesting robert mueller has a conflict of interest because he met with the president to potentially discuss taking on the role of fbi director, a position he'd held for 12 years. the president seeming to suggest mueller had a vendetta against president trump. the president also tweeting about aaron zedley, suggesting he's a never trumper, he has no clear political bias here. according to federal records he's never donated to either political party, but the president is continuing to smear the special counsel and suggest that this is all basically a deep state conspiracy out to get him. and so the question of whether or not the president is actually going to be watching, you mentioned he did play coy the other day and suggested he may watch bits and pieces of it. given just how much this president consumes news even

when he's abroad visiting foreign leaders we know he likes to weigh in when it concerns him. it is likely we will see the president continue tweeting as mueller is testifying and we will certainly hear from the president later today. he has a fund-raiser in west virginia and there's no question we're going to hear from him as he departs the white house. >> that's going to be around 4:00 p.m. eastern when he's scheduled to leave the white house. >> originally this hearing was supposed to be a week ago and the president put together a little counter programming which i believe ended up being the green bill north carolina rally and ended up being somewhat controversial because of the "send her back "chants. >> somewhat controversial? >> manu, tell us what you're seeing. >> reporter: yeah, anticipation building in these hallways. people have been camped out overnight waiting for a chance

to get in this room. those are just the people in the audience in this tiny hearing room. democrats and republicans recognize the state of this hearing as well for days preparing intensely more than any hearing in recent memory holding mock hearings and narrowing down their line of questioning. democrats in the house judiciary committee plan to focus on a handful of episodes of obstruction of justice and try to drill home the idea that the president was engaged in criminal conduct in the white house, trying to focus on witness tampering, allegations, he tried to fire the special counsel, potentially that the president tried to limit the scope of the investigation to exclude him. republicans have a different objective. they want to raise questions about the credibility of mueller's team, the credibility why this investigation started in the first place. and also drill home the point that nobody on the trump team was charged with a criminal conspiracy with the russians. ultimately, though, the question is how much has this changed the perception in the minds of voters and the public. the democrats right now, some

are raising expectations believing it can change the course of the house on impeachment proceedings of this president. others saying the american public is dead set in its views of the president trying to say there's not a whole lot that would change. but nevertheless everyone waiting for robert mueller to see what he has to say, how much he provides this committee still an open question. he arrived moments ago and did not answer questions. of course we'll see how many questions he ultimately agrees to answer in open session in just a matter of minutes. >> manu raju, thanks so much. wolf, one of the key sentences in the mueller report the investigation tid not establish members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in election interference activities. if that was the only sentence on it we hear today, that would be great the president trump. there are a whole lot of details unseemly even if they're not illegal. >> and they're going to be

pressing the democrats for a whole bunch of answers from mueller. the republicans will have a very, very different agenda and we'll see unfold. our coverage will continue right after this quick break. at t-mobile, for $40/line for four lines, it's all included for the whole family, starting with unlimited data. use as much as you want, when you want. and if you like netflix, it's included on us. plus no surprises on your bill. taxes and fees are included. and now for a limited time, with each new line, get one of our latest smartphones included. that's right, only $40/line for four lines and smartphones are included for the whole family. has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company,

hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

we're just a few minutes away now from the start of special counsel robert mueller's unprecedented testimony up on capitol hill. let's bring back our correspondents and analysts. you're watching some specific indicators right now. >> that's right. we just went back to find it, page 8 of volume 2 in case anyone is playing along at home. this is such a key question, and the key question for us is whether or not democrats can get robert mueller to elaborate on it which is when he said at the same time if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the fact the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. so fleshing that out in any way shape or form, well, why don't

you have confidence that the president of the united states did not commit a crime? it's a bit of a double negative but that could be key for any question of whether or not there is legitimacy for an impeachment inquiry to begin. having said that, knowing and studying robert mueller the way all of us have, it's probably unlikely he's going to go there because he's more likely to say i didn't feel that i had enough -- i couldn't prosecute the president so therefore i didn't look into it, so it's not appropriate for me to talk about it. but if they can get even a nugget out of him it would be huge for democrats. >> and i think one of the things that democrats could hone in with that is an apparent inconsistency. because before that he also says it would be unfair to accuse the president of a crime when he wouldn't have the legal recourse to clear his name because we can't charge him because we're bound by the olc memo. so they can hone in on that. then you go onto say if we were confident he didn't commit a

crime we would so state, and hone in on this idea that if he wasn't president would you have charged him. i think that's a key question. >> was the policy, was the office of legal counsel memo that prevented him from doing that? because he cites nearly a dozen incidences of possible obstruction which is some evidence. was the decision based on there not being sufficient evidence to proceed or on the policy? that's an obvious question for democrats. will he give them an answer remains to be seen. >> and this to me is the biggest clue in that road map to potential impeachment we talked about. what he is saying i couldn't do it. it's your job. >> by the way, he made a decision not to do it, but why did you make that decision, robert mueller. was it because you had an eye to a future indictment, a future praugs cushion of a now nonsitting president? wasn't it because you wanted to provide to congress, look, i can't do it, but they haven't spoken to you, they will stone

wall you? what was the reason and when did you decide would be a very important question for mueller. >> and obviously the intelligence community is going to be focus on the question of russian election interference and democrats on the committee are going to try to make the case, look, russian offered help, and the trump team lied about it. and whether or not there was any demonstrable way to prosecute them, which there was not according to robert mueller, those facts are unassailable. again it's a public education campaign. >> i think that's very important. and i think bob mueller, some of those forceful things he's said both in the report and when he did his press conference was about these simple unassailable facts you just recited. the russians attacked them, interfered in our elections and it can't happen again. another thing important is to establish if you can what the conduct is for campaigns through

22020. some asked this question to try to get the sitting attorney general of the united states to state on the record what is your view of what a campaign should do if it is approached in the 2020 election with information that's derogatory about an opponent from a foreign government. and actually bill barr narrowed his answer to say it was from a foreign power when the intelligence service said you should call the fbi. i'd like to see some members of the house go really strong with bob mueller about it so that he says in an unequivocal way that the proper conduct and the proper patriotism for a campaign is the moment you get approached by someone who seems to have some connection with a foreign government about dirt on an opponent you go straight to the fbi. >> the reason why barr's answer was hugely problematic as we saw in the russian interference in the election in 2016 the lines between russian intelligence and russian businessmen, oligarchs,

et cetera are blurred. they speak to the kremlin. they are under the control of the kremlin or they feel influenced by it. so his answer saying they're with the intelligence, what does that mean exactly? we know many ofputens friends are in contact with trump and many people here in the u.s. have ties to the russian intelligence services. it was an opportunity for the attorney general to make it clear. he did not. >> one of the other things going on here i suspect we're going to hear in both hearings is republicans have this counter narrative. not necessarily grounded in fact, but grounded in theory that the obama administration -- again, this is not based on fact. the obama administration basically set trump up, that this is all just a hoax. this is what president trump refers to treasonous falsely. this is what he's talking about. and i imagine we're going to hear some of that today. >> yeah, i think you're going to

hear over the next couple of hours lots of shouting about peter struck and lisa page and christopher steele, you know, and george papadopoulos getting ra railroaded. it's important to remember donald trump's campaign got themselves into this trouble. it was their action, it was their willingness. and the criminality that we have already seen out of the trump campaign in 2016, you know, that alone should be one of the biggest political scandals in american political history. you had a campaign manager who was indicted as an agent of a foreign power. you had a demputy campaign manager, the security advisor as a separate agent. this is sort of unprecedented levels of political corruption. >> and yet no charges for conspiracy, for conspiring with russia to interfere in the election even if there was a lot of smoke. >> and that's why the

republicans if they can keep off their tinfoil hat, have a lot to work with here. because they can say to mueller you had an unlimited budget. you had dozens of fbi agents working for you. you had no political interference from the trump administration, and yet you still couldn't find any criminality in terms of the relationship between the russians and the trump campaign. that's true, and it doesn't require them to go off into crazy land with christopher steele and all the rest. >> you made this point in your podcast that oats not just, yes, they said very clearly in this report that they couldn't charge him with anything, charge anybody with anything on collusion or conspiracy. it doesn't say that they didn't find evidence of conspiracy. and that's a key question. >> prosecutable evidence. what are the six words that we hear from donald trump over and over again? that no collusion, no

obstruction, total exoneration. are those six words true? >> no. >> that's right. and the question is will mueller -- will mueller acknowledge or assert that the president has been lying about his report over and over again? >> and that's also one of the main points that house democrats talk about is they think that the last three months has been a big misinformation campaign from president trump, from attorney general barr as well about what's in this report. that it basically is the salesmanship has been repeated over and over no obstruction, no collusion, total exoneration which is not the case. >> jake, and you know what? it works. it is not an accident that bill barr came out and set the narrative before anyone saw the report. it is not an accident bill barr came out and said things like the president was exonerated, and that's not what this report says. he knew what he was doing

politically. they knew what they were doing dragging their feet to get any counter narrative out there for months and months and months to bake this into the public. >> we're look at live pictures from the house judiciary committee hearing room. you see the witness table, the photographers standing in front of the witness table. that's where robert mueller will walk in and he will be seated. there are two chairs there, and that's significant because his long time deputy is also going to be seated, and they're going to be consulting presumably during the course of the next three hours. >> yeah, that's right. and it's not unusual someone like robert mueller will have his counsel there with him to confer with him over the questions. but what is unusual is aaron zebley is both a witness and counsel. and in the first hearing with the house judiciary committee he's going to be sitting along side him but then in the second one he's been sworn in, and we

could also be testifying alongside robert mueller, and so that is pretty unique. the president has been tweeting about this this morning. clearly this is on his mind. he's making a big deal out of the fact this is request from robert mueller and he's going to be helping with some of the answers, which is pretty rich because the president also conferred with his lawyers. >> and one of the questions i assume will be asked and maybe you can help us on this, why didn't you demand a sit down interview with the president of the united states? why did you only allow written questions and written answers? >> bob mueller addressed that in part in the report reciting how there are a lot of cases in which you either bring or decide not to bring an obstruction case without talking to the potential target. my view has always been he had a tough decision to make and that the timing of it was such that if you went down this road to try to force the testimony, compel the testimony by going to

court and multiple courts because of appeals that might drag on until the middle of next year, closer to the election. and they didn't want to hold up everything else for the purpose of getting the president's compelled testimony, it was going to be such a long fight. and there would have been a lot of criticism about mueller and the investigation and it would have dragged on. that the end of which there was still the possibility that you get to that point and the president pleads the fifth and then you've wasted a lot of time. >> so i want to go down the line in the five minutes we have before the hearings begins and get a quick reaction from each of you what is the one thing you're looking for in the hearing about to begin in five minutes. >> the answer to the logic problem, i would have exonerated the president if i could, i haven't, what does that mean, bob mueller. >> preet? >> the same. i don't know he'll answer it, but this weird conundrum he was in that he couldn't say i

believe there was obstruction of justice. it'll take clear and clever questioning to get an answer to that. >> to show the president of the dwroouns and his response and lack of cooperation was because he's angry with the media, was that your rationale as well or something more? >> persuasive public evidence that the president committed crimes. do you think he will -- >> that's why i'm watching with you. that's what i want to see. >> dana? >> a green light and maybe even a nudge to members of congress that they should pick this up because that is what the constitution prescribes when you're talking about the president of the united states. because the way he read it obviously not because the way the department and office of legal counsel read it is they had a wall that they hit in looking at the president of the united states because that's congress' job. >> so basically confirmation this is referral to congress. >> precisely. >> pamela?

>> this is clearly a wish list, but if he wasn't president, would you have charmed him, would you consider a sealed indictment? >> on russian interference the main topic of this report, can he pierce the partisan bubble on this grave, clear and present danger. it will happen in 2016, it will happen again in 2020. can mueller pierce that bubble and get the president to act definitively on this? >> let's go down the line once again and garret, i'll start with you. if you could ask mueller one question, what would that be? >> that's the question dana raises which is did you intend for congress to pick this up. and i think he sort of danced around answering that but i think that's the most important message congress needs to hear. >> i like that question too but he's not going to answer. i would like a simple question along the lines jeffrey said, which is did your investigation find evidence of obstruction of justice by the president. followl followed up by.

>> has the president been lying about your report for the past six months? >> that's a big one. >> i don't think he's going to answer that. >> uaskyou me what i happened. >> i also would think it'd be interesting to hear him answer the question from republicans why did you hire people who donated to democrats, what was the reason behind that? all we heard is the republican pounding on him. well, why did you do it? >> what i said earlier but also did you not make a decision on obstruction because you wanted congress to take this up? >> was it the evidence or department policy that kept you from indicting the president. >> i'd like to hear a little more focus on him on what the russians did and what he thinks the trump campaign should have done in response since obviously they did not find prosecutable evidence of conspiracy with the russians. does that mean that any other campaign in a similar situation

would, should, could, do the exact same thing and not get in trouble for it the way it happened here. >> since the president has said he would accept. >> he said information from foreign governments, he would definitely take a look at. >> robert mueller is about to walk into the house judiciary committee hearing room. it's a packed room right now. the members -- a lot of the members are already there. they've arrived. they're going to be asking the questions. the jerry nadler will open with a statement, the ranking member, the republican representative collins will then have an opening statement. mueller will be sworn in. he will make his opening statement, jake. and then it's q&a. it's questions by the members, answers by mueller. >> one of the things we've gotten used to in washington, d.c. is people asking questions to members of congress asking questions and they're not really asking questions. they're giving little speeches. they don't actually care what the answer will be. i suspect especially when it comes to the democrats, they

will want to have robert mueller speak as much as possible because they want mueller to convict the president for want of a better term. they want sound bites from robert mueller. i don't know what republicans will be doing. >> this is jerry nadler, the democrat from new york city, he's the chairman. they're very well organized on the house judiciary committee. they're starting pretty much on time. it's 8:30 a.m. here on the east coast right now. this is supposed to begin right now. three hours we're told of questioning. we'll see if there's a break in between, and then there will be a half-hour break we're told before the former special counsel goes before the house intelligence committee. and dana, we're told they will meet in the same room so logistically it'll be a little easier. >> yeah, and look how many hearings have we seen over the years where we say this is big, this is momentous. this is big, this is momentous.

there are so many wow moments of the trump presidency i would venture to say this is, even if it doesn't go beyond the four corners, just the theater and the implications of actually hearing from robert mueller and seeing him questioned under oath, probably one of the biggest moments so far. >> here we go. >> here comes robert mueller, former fbi director, special counsel. somebody that democrats have been trying to get to this hearing room for months and months and months. finally mueller made it straer clear they would have subpoena him if they wanted him to come before the hearing, and he is finally here. he asked for the justice department to give him some sort of instructions as to what to talk about. they told him to stay within the confines of the report, the mueller report. >> he is going to be seated. there will be the opening statements. i believe after the opening statements by the chairman and the ranking member he will be sworn in. he will then deliver his opening statement and then respond to

questions. this is a little -- and dana, you've covered congress a long time. they always do a photo op. >> and how many times have you said he testified in. >> 88 times. >> and every single day in a white shirt. >> and a heckler is trying to disrupt already. >> i'd like to add bob mueller has spent almost hoyears with the department of justice and testified with congress 88 times. i think if bob mueller has his way this is the last time he'll speak in public in his life. >> i see andrew goldstein who used to work in my office as the chief of corruption. he say one of the people on the special counsel's team as was reported earlier with him today. >> as you noted it's going to be interesting to see if robert mueller defends the integrity of his team. they have seen their names

dragged through the mud by president trump and by republicans in the house for their alleged partisan affiliation and more. >> the judiciary committee will come to order. without objection the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. we welcome everyone to today's hearing on oversight of the report and the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. i will now recognize myself for a brief opening statement. director mueller, thank you for being here. i want to say just a few words about our themes today. responsibility, integrity, and accountability. your career, for example, is a model for responsibility. you are a decorated marine officer. you were awarded a purple heart and the bronze star for valor in vietnam. you served in senior roles at the department of justice, and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 you served as director of the fbi. two years ago you returned to

public service to lead the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 elections. you conducted that investigation with remarkable integrity. for 22 months you never commented in public about your work even when you were subjected to repeated and grossly unfair personal attacks. instead your indictments spoke for you and in astonishing detail. over the course of your investigation you obtained criminal indictments against 37 people and entities. you secured the conviction of president trump's campaign chairman, his deputy campaign manager, his national security advisor, and his personal lawyer among others. in the paul manafort case alone you recovered as much as $42 million throughout the course of your investigation to the taxpayers approaches zero. and in your report you offer the

country accountability as well. in volume 1 you find that the russian government attacked our 2016 elections, quote, in a sweeping and systematic fashion and that the attacks were designed to benefit the trump campaign. volume 2 walks us through ten separate incidents of possible obstruction of justice where in your words president trump attempted to exert undue influence over your investigation. the president's behavior included and i quote from your report, quote, public attacks on the investigation, nonpublic efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate, closed quote. among the most shocking of these incidents president trump ordered his white house counsel to have you fired and then to lie and deny that it had happened. you ordered his former campaign manager to convince the recused attorney general to step in and

limit your work. and he attempted to prevent witnesses from cooperating with your investigation. although department policy barred you from indicting the president for this conduct you made clear that he is not exonerated. any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes. and in this nation not even the president is above the law. which brings me to this committee's work, responsibility, integrity and accountability. these are the marks by which we who serve on this committee will be measured as well. director mueller, we have a responsibility to address the evidence that you have uncovered. you recognize as much when you said, quote, the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing, closed quote. that process begins with the work of this committee. we will follow your example,

director mueller. we will act with integrity. we will follow the facts where they lead. we will consider all appropriate remedies. we will make our recommendation to the house when our work concludes. we will do this work because there must be accountability for the conduct described in your report especially as it relates to the president. thank you again, director mueller. we look forward to your testimony. it is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you mr. mueller, for being here. for two years leading up to the release of the mueller report and for three months since americans were first told what to expect and what to believe. collusion, we were told was in plain sight even if the special counsel's team didn't find it. when mr. mueller produced his report and attorney general barr read it to the americans we

learned the depths of russia's malice towards america. we are here to ask serious questions about mr. mueller's work and we will do that. after an extended unhampered investigation today marks the end of an investigation that closed in april. the burden of proof for accusations that remain unproven is extremely high and especially in light of special counsel's thoroughness. wee told this investigation began as an inquiry into whether russia meddled in our 2016 election. mr. mueller, you concluded they did. and disseminated sense tv information by tricking campaign insiders into revealing protected information. the investigation also reviewed whether donald trump the president sought russian assistance as a candidate to win the presidency. mr. mueller concluded he did not. his family or advisers did not. in fact the report no one in the campaign colluded or conspired with the russians. the president watched the

narrative surrounding this investigation and assumed his guilt while he knew the extent of his innocence. volume 2 of mueller's report details the act of his investigation where his innocence was established early on. the president's attitude towards the investigation was understandably negative. yet the president did not use his authority to close the investigation. he asked his lawyer if mr. mueller had conflicts that disqualified mr. mueller from the job, but he did not shutdown the investigation. the president knew he was innocent. those are the facts of the mueller report. russia meddled in the 2016 election, the president didn't did not conspire with the russians and nothing we hear today will change those facts. but one element to this story remains, the beginnings of the fbi investigation into the president. i look forward to mr. mueller's testimony about what he found during his review of had origins of the investigation. in addition, the inspector general continues to review how baseless gossip can be used to

launch an investigation against a sitting citizen and eventually the president. the results will be released and we'll need to hear from them to make sure they're never again used and turned on a private citizen or a political candidate as a result of a political leadings of a handful of fbi agents. the origins and conclusions of the mueller investigation are the same things, what it means to be american. every american has a voice in our democracy and we must protect the sanctity of their voice by combating election interference. every american enjoys the presumption of innocence and guarantee of due process. if we carry anything away today, it must be we increase our vigilance in foreign election interference while we ensure our government doesn't use their power. finally the months we have spent investigating from this dis failed to end the border crisis or contribute to the job market. instead we've gotten stuck and

paralyzed this committee and this house. and as a side note every week i leave my family and kids, the most important things to me to come to this place because i believe this place is a place we can actually do things and help people. six years ago i came, and we had accomplished a lot in those six years on a bipartisan basis with many of my friends across the aisle sitting on this dias today. while our border is on fire in crisis and everything else is stopped. this hearing is long overdue. we've had truth for months no american conspired in our election. what we need today is to let that truth bring us confidence and i hope mr. chairman, closure. with that i yield back. >> thank you, mr. collins. i will now introduce today's witness. robert mueller served as director of the fbi from 2001 to

2013. and most recently serve said as special counsel in the department of justice overseeing the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 special election. he received his b.a. from princeton university, an m.a. from new york university in my district, and his j.d. from university of virginia. mr. mueller is accompanied by counsel aaron zebley who served as deputy on the special counsel. now if you would please rise i will begin by swearing you in. raise your right hand, please. do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief so help you god? let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative. thank you and please be seated. please note that your written statement will be entered into

the record in its entirety. accordingly i ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. director mueller, you may begin. >> good morning, chairman nadler and ranking member collins and members of the committee. as you know in may 2017 the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel. i undertook that role because i believed that it was of paramount interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the presidential election. as the acting attorney general said at the time the appointment was necessary in order for the american people to have full confidence in the outcome. my staff and i carried out this assignment with that critical objective in mind. to work quietly, thoroughlily

and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome. the order appointing me as special counsel directed our office to investigate russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. this included investigating any links or coordination between the russian government and individuals associate would the trump campaign. it also included investigating efforts to interfere with or obstru obstruct our investigation. throughout the investigation i continually stressed two thing tuesday the team that we had assembled. first, we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as possible. it was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete and not to last a day longer than was necessary. second the investigation needed to be conducted fairly and with

absolute integrity. our team would not leak or take other actions that could compromise the integrity of our work. all decisions were made based on the facts and the law. during the course of our investigation we charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes including 12 officers of the russian military. seven defendants have been convicted or pled guilty. certain other charges we brought remain pending today. and for those matters i stress that the indictments contain allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. in addition to the criminal charges we brought, as required by justice department regulations we submitted a confidential report to the attorney general at the conclusion of our investigation. the report set forth the results of our work and the reasons for

our charging and declamation decisions. the attorney general leader made the report largely public. as you know i made a few limited remarks about our report when we closed the special counsel's office in may of this year. there are certain points that bear emphasis. first, our investigation found that the russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. second, the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired with the russian government in its election interference activities. we did not address collusion, which is not a legal term. rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and it was

not. third, our investigation on efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable. finally, as described in volume 2 of our report we investigated a series of actions by the president towards the investigation. based on justice department policy and principles of fairness we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. that was our decision then and it remains our decision today. let me say a further word about my appearance today. it is unusual for a prosecutor to testify on a criminal investigation. and given my role as a prosecutor there are reasons why

my testimony will necessarily be limited. first, public testimony could affect several ongoing matters. in some of these matters court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings. and consistent with long-standing justice department policy it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter. second, the justice department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and decisions. ongoing matters within the justice department and deliberations within our office. these are justice department privileges that i will respect. the department has released a letter on instructions on my testimony. i therefore will not be able to answer questions on certain

areas that i know are of public interest. for example, i am unable to address questions about the initial opening of the fbi's russia investigation which occurred months before my appointment or matters relate today the so-called steele dossier. these matters are subject of ongoing review by the department. any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the fbi or the justice department. as i explained when we closed the special counsel's office in may, our report contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. we conducted an extensive investigation over two years. in writing the report we stated the results of our investigation with precision. we scrutinized every word. i do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work

in a different way in the course of my testimony today. as i said on may 29th, the report is my testimony and i will stay within that text. and as i statementd in may i wi not comment on the actions of the attorney general or of congress. i was appointed as a prosecutor and i intend to adhere to that rule and to the department standards that govern it. we're joined today by the deputy special counsel aaron zebley. mr. zebley has extensive experience as a prosecutor and at the fbi where he served as my chief of staff. mr. zebley was responsible for the day to day oversight of the investigations conducted by our office. i also want to again say thank you to the attorneys, the fbi agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us

conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. these individuals who spent nearly two years working on this matter were of the highest integrity. let me say one more thing. over the course of my career i have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. the russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. as i said on may 29th this deserves the attention of every american. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we will now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. i will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes. director mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him. but that is not what your report

said, is it? >> right, that is not what the report said. >> and from reading from page 2 of volume 2 of your report that's on the screen you wrote, quote, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice we would so state. based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment, closed quote. now, does that say there was no obstruction? >> no. >> in fact, you are actually unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct? >> well, we at the outset determined that we -- when it came to the president's culpability we needed to -- we needed to go forward only after taking into account the olc opinion that indicated that a president -- a sitting president

cannot be indicted. >> so the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice? is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and what about total exoneration? did you actually totally exonerate the president? >> no. >> now, in fact your report expressly states it does not exonerate the president? >> it does. >> and your investigation actually found, quote, multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations including the russian interference and obstruction investigation. is that correct? >> correct. >> now, director mueller, can you explain in plain terms what that finding means so the american people can understand it? >> well, the finding indicates that the president was not -- that the president was not exculpated for the acts he

allegedly committed. >> in fact, you were talking about incidents, quote, in which the president sought to use his official power outside of usual channels, unquote, to exert undue influence over your investigations. is that right? >> that's correct. >> if i'm correct on page 7, volume 2 of your report, quote, the president became aware his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction of justice inquiry. at that point the president engaged in the second phase of conduct involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation, closed quote. so president trump's efforts to exert undue influence over your investigation intensified after the president became aware he personally was being investigated sph. >> and steak with the language that you have in front of you.

from page 7, volume 2. >> now, is it correct if you concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction you could not publicly state that in report or here today in. >> can you repeat the question, sir? >> is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicity state that in your report or here today? >> i would say you -- the statement would be that you would not indict, and you would not indict because on an olc opinion a sitting president cannot be indicted. it would be unconstitutional. >> so you could not state because of the olc opinion if that would have been your conclusion? >> yes. >> but under doj department policy the president could be committed to obstruction of justice crimes.

could any official refuse to be interviewed by you or your team? >> i don't believe so. let me take that back. i would have to look at it, but i'm not certain that was the case. >> did the president refuse to request to be interviewed by you and your team? >> yes. >> is it true you tried for more than a year to secure an interview with the president? >> yes. >> is it true you and your team advised the president's lawyer that, quote, an interview with the president's lawyer is vital to our investigation, closed quote? >> yes. >> and is it true you also, quote, stated it is the interest of the president and public for an interview to take place, closed quote? >> yes. >> but the president still refused to sit for on interview by you and your team? >> true. >> and did you also ask him to provide written answers to questions on ten possible obstruction of justice crimes involving him. >> yes. >> did he provide any answers on

whether he engaged in obstruction of justice crimes in. >> i'd have to check on that. i'm not sure. >> having reviewed your work i believe anyone else would have engaged in the conduct described in your report would have been criminally prosecuted. your work is vitally important to this committee and the american people because no one is above the law. i'll now recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. >> thank you mr. chairman, and we're moving on the five minute rule. mr. mueller i have several questions. many of you which you just answered but i want to lay some foundations. and we'll go through these fairly quickly. i'll talk slowly. i'm told i talk fast. in your press conference we chose these words carefully, the word speaks for itself, i would not provide information which is already public before any appearance before congress, do you standby that statement? >> yes, sir.

>> sense closing the special counsel's office in 2019 have you conducted any additional interviews or obtained any new information. >> in the wake of the report? >> since the closing of office in 2019? >> and the question was -- >> have you conducted any new interviews or any new witnesses? >> no. >> and you can't confirm you're no longer special counsel? >> i'm no longer special counsel. >> at any point was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered? >> your report states your investigative team included 19 lawyers and approximately 40 fbi agents and analysts and accountants. are those numbers accurate? >> could you repeat that please? >> 40 fbi agents, 19 analysts and forensic accountants, are those numbers accurate? >> generally, yes. >> is it also true you issued 208 subpoenas, taub inned more than 200 orders for

communication records and pin records? >> that went a little fast for me. >> okay, in your report i'll make this very simple, you do a lot of work, a lot of subpoenas. >> a lot of search warrants. >> okay, a lot of search warnlts, so you're very thorough. in your opinion you're very thorough? >> yes. >> thank you. is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation, given the question you've just answered is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish the president was involved in the underlying crime related to russian election interference as stated in volume 11, page 7? >> we found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability. >> so that'll be a yes? >> pardon? >> that'll be a yes?

>> yes. >> thank you. volume 2, page 76, correct? >> i'll leave the answer to our report. >> so that's a yes? is it true your investigation did not establish that any members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in election interference activity, volume 1, page 2. volume 1, page 73? >> yes. >> thank you. although your report states collusion is not a specific offense and you said that this morning or a term of our in federal criminal law and experience is, in the colloquial context are collusion and experience essentially synonymous terms. >> you're going to have to row peat that for me. >> collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. conspiracy is. in the colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially syn