natalie dean. >> got you. sorry. >> thank you. i will be quoting your march 27th letter. sir, in that letter and at several other times, did you convey to the attorney general that, quote, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarized this office's work and conclusions, end quote? >> the letter itself speaks for itself. >> and those were your words in that letter. continuing with your letter, you wrote to the attorney general that, quote, the summary letter that the department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24th did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office's work and conclusions, end quote. is that correct? >> again, i rely on the letter itself for its terms.

>> thank you. what was it about the report's context, nature and substance that the attorney general's letter did not capture? >> i think we captured that in the march 27th responsive letter. >> and this is from the 27th letter. what were some of the specifics that you thought -- >> i will direct you to the letter itself. >> okay. you finished that letter by saying there is now public confusion about critical aspects as a result of our investigation. could you tell us specifically some of the public confusion you identified? >> not generally. again i go back to the letter and the letter speaks for itself. >> could attorney general barr have avoided public confusion if he had released your summaries and executive introduction and summaries? >> i don't feel comfortable speculating on that. >> shifting to may 30th, the attorney general, in an interview with cbs news, said that you could have reached, quote, you could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity, end quote, on

the part of the president. did the attorney general or his staff ever tell you that he thought you should make a decision on whether the president engaged in criminal activity? >> i'm not going to speak to what the attorney general was thinking or saying. >> if the attorney general had directed you or ordered you to make a decision on whether the president engaged in criminal activity, would you have so done? >> i can't answer that question in the vacuum. >> director mueller, again, thank you for being here. i agree with your march 27th letter. there was public confusion and the president took full advantage of that confusion by falsely claiming your report found no obstruction. let us be clear. your report did not exonerate the president. instead, it provided substantial evidence of obstruction of justice, leaving congress to do its duty. we shall not shrink from that duty. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. >> mr. chairman? i have a point of inquiry, on your left.

>> the gentleman will state his point of inquiry. >> was the point of this hearing to get mr. mueller to recommend impeachment? >> that is not a fair point of inquiry. the gentle lady from florida is recognized. >> mr. chairman? >> director mueller, to your -- >> to your point, the gentle lady from florida is recognized. >> thank you so much for coming here. you're a patriot. i want to point you now to volume ii, page 158. you wrote that, quote, the president's effort to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or concede to his requests. is that right? >> that is accurate. that is what we found. >> and you're basically referring to senior advisers who disobeyed the president's orders like white house counsel don mcgahn, former trump campaign manager corey lewandowski. is that right? >> we did not specify persons.

>> page 158 white house counsel don mcgahn, quote, did not tell the acting attorney general that the special counsel must be removed but, was instead prepared to resign over the president's orders. you also explain that an attempt to obstruct justice does not have to secede a crime. >> true. >> simply attempting to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct? >> yes. >> even though the president's aides refused to carry out his orders to interfere with your investigation, that is not a defense to obstruction of justice by this president, is it? >> i'm not going to speculate. >> so, to reiterate, simply trying to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct? >> yes. >> and you say that the president's efforts to influence the investigation were, quote, mostly unsuccessful. and that's because not all of his efforts were unsuccessful. right? >> are you reading into what i -- what we had written in the

report? >> i was going to ask you if you could tell me which ones you had in mind as successful when you wrote that sentence. >> i'm going to pass on that. >> yeah. director mueller, today we've talked a lot about the separate acts by this president but you also wrote in your report that, quote, the overall pattern of the president's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the president's acts and the inferences can be drawn about his intent. are correct? >> accurate recitation from the report. >> right. and i think it's important for everyone to note that the president's conduct had a significant change when he realized that it was the investigations were conducted to investigate his obstruction acts. so, in other words, when the american people are deciding

when the president committed obstruction of justice, they need to look at all of the president's conduct and overall pattern of behavior, is that correct? >> i don't disagree. >> thank you. dr. mueller -- director mueller. doctor also. i'll designate that, too. i certainly have made up my mind about what we have reviewed today meets the elements of obstruction, including whether there was corrupt intent and what is clear is that anyone else, including some members of congress, would have been charged with crimes for these acts. we would not have allowed this behavior from any of the previous 44 presidents. we should not allow it now, or for the future, to protect our democracy and, yes, we will continue to investigate because, as you clearly state at the end of your report, no one is above the law. i yield back my time. >> the gentle lady yields back. the gentle lady from texas?

>> director mueller, you wrote in your report that you, quote, determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, end quote. was that in part because of an opinion by the department of justice office of legal counsel that a sitting president can't be charged with a crime? >> yes. >> director mueller, at your may 29th, 2019 press conference, you explained that, quote, the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing, end quote. that process, other than the criminal justice system for accusing a president of wrongdoing, is that impeachment? >> i'm not going to comment on that. >> in your report, you also wrote that you did not want to, quote, potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential

misconduct, end quote. for the nonlawyers in the room, what did you mean by, quote, potentially preempt constitutional processes? >> i'm not going to try to explain that. >> that actually is coming from page one of volume ii in the footnote is the reference to this. what are those constitutional processes? >> i think i heard you mention at least one. >> impeachment. correct? >> i'm not going to comment. >> okay. that is one of the constitutional processes listed in the report in the footnote in volume ii. your report documents the many ways the president sought to interfere with your investigation and you state in your report on page ten, volume ii, that with a -- interfering with a congressional inquiry or investigation with corrupt intent can also constitute obstruction of justice.

>> true. >> well, the president has told us that he intends to fight all the subpoenas. his continued efforts to interfere with investigations of his potential misconduct certainly reinforce the importance of the process the constitution requires to, quote, formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing, as you cited in the report. and this hearing has been very helpful to this committee as it exercises its constitutional duty to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president. i agree with you, director mueller, that we all have a vital role in holding this president accountable for his actions. more than that, i believe we, in congress, have a duty to demand accountability and safeguard one of our nation's highest principles that no one is above the law. from everything that i have heard you say here today, it's clear that anyone else would

have been prosecuted, based on the evidence available in your report. it now falls on us to hold president trump accountable. thank you for being here. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> gentle lady yields back. >> personal privilege. >> we did get in our time after this was first, we both both did get in time. our side got our five minutes in. mr. mueller, thank you for being here. i join the chairman in thanking you for being here. >> thank you. director mueller, thank you for attending today's hearing. before we conclude i ask everyone to please remain seated and quiet while the witness exits the room. >> more than 3 1/2 hours after robert mueller walked into that room, is he walking out. next will be the house

intelligence committee. we expect another two hours there. it's very interesting, jake. on three major issues, he did make some significant news, saying that the report he prepared, 448 pages did not totally exonerate the president, as the president has claimed. he said the president could be charged after leaving office, a sitting president, according to current justice department guidelines, can't be charged or indicted but after leaving office could potentially be charged. and also that he wasn't charged specifically this time in response to questions from ted lou, democratic congressman from california, because of the office of legal counsel opinion that a sitting president can't be charged. that's going to be pretty significant, that statement that he made there. >> yeah. debate about whether or not he meant i would have charged if he weren't the president or no matter what i wanted to do, my hands were tied. it's unclear exactly what he meant. it was, at times, aggressive performance, often halted and

stilting performance. either 100 times he refused to answer the question or deferred. let's check in with our legal experts about what they thought was most significant. jeffrey toobin you thought the most important part of the hearing was when the chairman nadler from new york asked mr. mueller when or not he exonerated president trump as president trump repeatedly has claimed he did. let's play that clip and get your reaction. >> you were actually unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice. is that correct? >> well, we -- at the outset -- determined that when it came to the president's culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the olc opinion that indicated that a president, 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. >> jeffrey toobin, why is that significant to you? >> if you remember how this report became public, it was put forward not by mueller himself, but by attorney general barr in the context of a letter that he wrote that gave the very strong impression that this gave the president a clean bill of health. and the president, since march, has been saying over and over again that there was no obstruction, there was no collusion and that there was a total exoneration. right at the beginning of this hearing, the director mueller said that is not true. this was not an exoneration. and i think that is a very significant statement, since he's the one who ran the investigation. >> although he did underline that the no collusion does seem to be generally correct. at one point a congressman

pointed out that even though the report distinguishes between conspiracy and collusion at a different part it says that conspiracy and collusion, ch colloquially can mean the same thing. >> there was no criminal activity. >> prosecutable. >> prosecutable criminal activity involving the relationship between the trump campaign and russian interests. that is clear. there was no crime committed there, according to mueller. we'll hear more about that this afternoon. >> and, of course, obstruction and whether or not the president was exonerated, a different matter. and there was a significant part. lauren, i know you want to talk about when congressman ted lou, i believe a former jag, judge advocate in the military, talked to whether or not mueller -- the reason he wasn't prosecuted or indicted is because he was a president or not. let's roll that and get your

reaction. >> so to recap what we've heard, we've heard today that the president ordered former white house counsel don mcgahn to fire you. the president ordered don mcgahn to cover that up and create a false paper trail and now we heard that he told jeff sessions to limit your investigation so you stop investigating the president i believe a reasonable person, looking at these facts, could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met and i would like to ask you the reason again you did not indict donald trump, the olc opinion that says you cannot indict a sitting president. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> why do you find that significant? >> he walked through each of the elements as to what causes an obstruction of justice to be raised against a human being and mueller said yes but for this

report i would vin dieted the president. i know people think it's ambiguous. but i walked through each of the elements. olc opinion tied the hands of the special counsel's office. it's not a common occurrence to say you have all the tools in your belt but you cannot use the ones that actually involve the hammer being thrown down. that's what mueller was up against here. he said very clearly, walking through all the elements, i did not indict because the olc opinion. that, along with every other element he actually raised and, of course, lieu was talking about the intent without saying the word intent, contextual clues that show a pattern of behavior, that says somebody had the correct intent. >> mueller cautioned after that answer saying the only thing i want to add is i'm not -- i'm going through the elements with you. that does not mean i subscribe to what you're try ing ing to p through those elements. he did say that. but you think it was pretty clear?

>> i thought it was the closest thing. the purpose of this proceeding for the democrats is to make some case that they immediate to take some additional action. so the question is, is someone above the law or not? and if it is true that bob mueller thought there was no crime, then there's no argument to be made that the democrats do anything. in response to ted lieu's question, which is pretty clear. he didn't say it was a reason. he said the reason, the reason why he didn't indict donald trump was the olc opinion. and bob mueller, who sometimes paused and hesitated and didn't go along with lots of things put to him by both democrats and republicans answered immediately, that is correct. if it's the case that there's some ambiguity there, you would think some republican, given how significant that is, and how much of a basis it will give democrats to decide we can't have someone above the law. the only reason the president is not indicted is because of the olc opinion, you have to hold him accountable and we have

impeachment as something of a backup as that. a republican might have gone in, had plenty of opportunities to go back to that and say -- one member, i think, tried, and didn't succeed. there seems to be some conflict between this testimony that he gave to ted lieu and a statement put out by bill barr, in which bill barr said the special counsel sured me it wasn't but for the olc opinion. i don't know how you square that. i didn't see any republican go in and try to muddy it up, given how clear this was. and if they really thought that mueller didn't mean to say this, they would have asked that question. one reason he wasn't indicted, olc opinion. >> democrats didn't want to touch it. >> they have it. > they didn't want to ruin a good thing. i want to underscore something you said, laura. afterwards, maybe robert mueller didn't realize what he was

saying, maybe, because he sort of wrapped it all up by saying i want to add, i'm going through the elements with you. that does not mean i subscribe to what you're trying to prove through those elements. it could be when they see, when mueller sees this is how we are all interpreting it, because that is what he said earlier, i would have indicted him if this wasn't the ruling, maybe he will clarify. >> you interviewed bob mueller. how did you interpret his response to that? as preet points out, the question was pretty direct. the reason, again, you did not indict donald trump is because of the olc opinion? it could have been qualified. you could not, your hands were tied, no matter what? no. it was very direct and he said that is correct. >> and you saw throughout today that he was very quick to deflect or take issue with a question or try to clarify a question or sort of put a box around the answer. at the very beginning you saw him take a clear, definitive

stance. and especially, preet, when you layer that answer upon some of the other answers. it's not that we declined to prosecute, it's that we decided not to prosecute. >> to be clear, his actual answer was we made a decision not to decide. it seemed he was saying they didn't go there. he didn't make a judgment. and this was later. this was in the last hour. we made a decision not to decide. in other words, he didn't make that judgment. i defer to my lawyer friends here whether that's the same thing as saying the policy was the reason. >> i'm not saying it's 100% definitive. in a real courtroom, you would have more -- in a real courtroom you might have a judge intercede and say let me make sure i understand this and you're saying what it sounds like you're saying. of all the things that people

wondered what bob mueller thinks, of all the things he was prepared for, swirling around and confusing people, the central one was this. is the president not indicted because of that opinion, or is it something else? so it's hard to imagine that on this one question where you would be the most prepared, you would misunderstand the question. >> can i say why this is a big deal? why we are focusing on this exchange with ted lieu? what it means is if any other person had committed the acts that robert mueller identified, that person today would be awaiting criminal trial. >> well and -- >> it's because of the olc opinion, the opinion of the department of justice that presidents are, in effect, above the criminal law while they are in office, he didn't -- and that's a big deal. >> and on that subject, congressman ken buck of colorado, republican, showing why you don't ask a question in a hearing unless you actually know the answer ahead of time, demonstrating that in the negative way.

asked a question about what could theoretically happen to president trump, were he to leave office. let's play that clip. >> okay. but could you charge the president with a crime after he left office? >> yes. >> you believe he committed -- you could charge the president of the united states with okay instruction of justice after he left office? >> yes. >> it's theatrical, right? there are no sealed indictments. he did not charge the president. he could have done a sealed indictment, theoretically. >> i think the olc opinion precludes sealed indictments of signature presidents as well. >> yes. >> it's a theatrical? >> yes. >> it's quite direct. why you don't ask one question too many. many democrats avoided asking, put a nice bow on it. it seems to me, we must do this. what he essentially said was, and his reporting confirmed it, i'm preserving evidence and the

olc says i can continue to investigate a matter. he was well aware that there was a turf war going on between members of congress and their investigation and the parallel track by robert mueller. well aware of the stonewalling. people were not going to be forthcoming when they had jail on one hand and legislative action on the other. he preserved evidence, put it forward and said there's nothing about the olc opinion ever that said you cannot indict a future president as long as there is not limitations period. >> let's ask a former prosecutor. would they preserve evidence, looking ahead to after he leaves office? >> one of the things that bob mueller said in the report is we did our investigation while memories are fresh and documents are available for some future person. that's not hypothetical. the other thing i would say is right now, this testimony that was given contradicts what the attorney general told the public and it undermines the position of the president. what is he doing right now between the time that first hearing ended and the next

hearing of the intel committee is beginning? is he reaching out to bob mueller and asking to clarify? is he putting out a letter, a statement, is the president telling bill barr to put out a statement? the testimony as it stands is really bad. >> republican congresswoman was pressing him at one point, goeding him to say whatever barr said in the initial summary was accurate. it was one of the more combative exchanges. mueller said you're not mentioning my follow-up letter of the issues we raised with his characterization. >> there were times in the hearing he was sharp as a tack. we can't avoid the fact that there were times in the hearing he was not. there were times in the hearing when he didn't seem to either -- he couldn't hear what the questioner was asking, and sometimes they spoke very quickly and they were not particularly polite and respectful of the fact that this was a 74-year-old who obviously was having trouble -- >> let's ask aaron. he has written a book about it. >> what i was going to say, often times it seems he was unfamiliar with parts of the

investigation. he didn't seem familiar with the name -- with gps. right? >> or corey lewandowski. >> when that name was mentioned he didn't seem familiar with that. i don't know if he couldn't hear or actually he is not as well versed with this report as many of the people on this panel are right now. >> yeah. and i think i also saw a slightly different robert mueller in the second half of the hearing than we did in the first, where you sort of almost wonder whether there was a half time, locker room talk to tell him to be a little bit more forceful, a little bit more -- to take issue with some of the questions that republicans, particularly, were lauding at him. in the first hour, first hour and a half, he was very rheetict to say more than a one or two-word sentence. he began to punch back a little more in the second half. >> standard charges against bob mueller. granted, if you were looking for a made for tv kind of character,

mueller was not that, perhaps, today. but on those issues, over time, if you kept track, he hit back the 14 angry democrat saying, which we heard frequently from republicans. no, i only chose based on ability. and very clear terms, i never asked their party affiliation. that's not done. on the idea he wanted fbi job, something that the president has repeated without founding, he said no. i was asked to give input on what that job would take. he contradicted that charge. >> steve banon backs him on that, by the way. >> steve banon does back him on that. republican congressman, i don't think, meant to go here. he reminded her, look back at my march 27th letter where he said, mr. barr, your report did not fully get the context, nature and substance of his report. so, again, in the midst of this very long four-hour hearing, he did hit back at that. >> he did. it took him a while, i think, to get there, to finally hit back.

you make a good point. seems like he had locker room talk during the first break. >> not that kind of -- you know what i'm trying to say. >> pep talk. >> double espresso. >> exactly. but, you know, he became more emphatic in talking about how thorough his report was, how his prosecutors acted with integrity. i think that's what we were expecting to hear early on. he was pretty resolute. >> can i point out something that i think is important about -- very important discussion about whether or not the president can be indicted afterwards and whether or not there's evidence there? we're missing the interim time, which is now, which is the whole point of congress and the house democrats wanting this hearing and wanting him to come testify, which is the constitution says it is the house of representative representatives first and then, of course, senate. that's why the olc says it is

not the law but congress that can decide whether the president commits a high crime of misdemeanor. those questions, the democrats got pretty meaty answers to, on the issue of no, i didn't exonerate the president. yes, he did try to get me fired. and it was only stopped because the white house counsel said no, i'm not going to do this. and several other examples of obstruction of justice the democrats did go through t took them a while. it wasn't obvious, but they did i it. >> and, jeffrey, mueller went in, saying he was going to stick to the 448 pages, his report. did he do that or did he go beyond the words of the report? >> i think he overwhelmingly stuck to it. what's frustrating, it seems, to the democrats, is that as they went through these five, what they consider the most important

examples of obstruction of justice, they had to tell the story rather than have mueller tell the story. and they would read from the report. they would summarize the report and mueller would agree that that was what was in the report. but if you were telling a story, particularly through a congressional hearing, what you really want is the witness to tell the story. >> uh-huh. >> and he was not up there to narrate his report. he was there to verify when it was summarized by the questioners, which i think made it a little harder to follow, if you weren't already familiar with the subject. >> and one other thing i want to bring up, which is we were talking about the substance of this hearing, the 3 1/2-hour hearing. obviously, there will be another one in a few minutes. we've been talking about the fact that mueller very clearly said the report does not exonerate the president. he laid out a case that there was obstruction of justice. he couldn't bring charges no matter what he would have wanted to do because of the olc memo. or perhaps he was saying as

directly as that that he didn't because of the olc memo. and he also made the argument that they could not find any prosecutable evidence between the trump team and the russians. that said, there is another reality out there. this is the reality of the president's fans. and they deal in memes and edited videos and i think a lot happened today when it comes to mueller refusing to answer questions and acting befuddled at times and all of us should look so good at 74. nobody at 74 is the same person he could at 35. it seemed he couldn't hear. i'm not making light of it or want to be ageist or disparaging but those will be used against mueller to try to undercut him and discredit him. >> they already are. >> rudy giuliani is on another channel, talking about he's not the robert mueller he knew.

there's another reality, another hearing people are going to see that don't have time to sit and watch 3 1/2 hours of cable tv news and might only see a mash-up of mueller refusing to answer questions or seeming like he's not even familiar with his own report. >> jim, we're only halfway there. i'm sure he's resting up, having lunch. the intelligence committee has a whole bunch of questions for him as well. >> they do. to focus on that fundamental question of the extent, systematic interference in the election. it was interesting there. you did have one of the republican members raise the question as to whether the troll farms were tied to and operated by the russian government, well establish bid intelligence agencies but also bipartisan committees in both the house and the senate. it will be interesting if you see republicans raising those questions again on the fundamental issue here, the extent of the russian interference, questions that the president has raised, has raised

himself. >> one thing i noticed, too, in watching -- just an observation, he didn't seem to confer with his counsel aaron zebley very much, if at all. i don't know if you saw otherwise t will be interesting to see how much in this hearing aaron zebley, who has been sworn in before the committee, will actually be testifying. and i think also in terms of looking ahead, previewing, robert mueller made it clear we're not going to learn more about whether the trump campaign or president trump had advanced knowledge of the wikileaks dump. he made it very clear he doesn't want to go near that because of the ongoing stone case. >> i want to read this statement from president trump's lawyer, jay sekulow. this morning's testimony exposed troubling deficiencies of the special counsel's investigation. the testimony revealed that this probe was conducted by a small group of politically biased prosecutors who, as hard as they tried, were unable to establish obstruction, conspiracy or collusion between the trump team and russia. he conducted his two-year investigation unimpeded. the american people understand that this investigation is over and that the case is closed,

unquote. laura, what were you going to say? >> nice try, first of all, on trying to recraft and reframe the way it was described. one thing i want to make clear, there was a moment in this particular second half of the testimony where mueller confronted, i believe, representative biggs who challenged him with his eye expression and looked at him like you don't know what you're talking about. he said do you question my knowledge here today sne's well aware of the meme community, the sekulows who will try to reframe it in that way. the idea of russian interference. in the nine minutes we heard from him, that was his singular focus. the idea of this say big problem, 2016 election, 2020 election coming forward. he began opening statement focusing again on this very issue. i would predict -- i hate to predict but i predict mueller would actually show that congress had an opportunity to legislate about the ideas of whether impeachment is the word voldemort to him or not.

it appeared to be. i just koent know. the idea of whether congress called him here to today to give them information about what he can do about an issue. this is where he should come alive, where the bipartisanship should be on full display, if it's not and where his mind should not be challenged. >> it doesn't matter what he testifies to, regardless of what jay sekulow or any representative of the president says about it. we were talking about how bob mueller said in his own voice that the report doesn't fully exonerate the president. it was in the report and bill barr misled us about the report. by quoting the no exoneration line and the president still said it's in the report. it's in the summary by his own hand-picked attorney general who helps him and the president still said total exoneration. >> the question now, dana -- let's get into this a little bit. one thing to read the 448-page

report, which most americans clearly didn't read. it's another thing to hear from mueller saying much of what was in that 448-page report. politically speaking, what we heard so far, did it move the needle in changing public opinion in changing attitudes in congress? >> we're still halfway through. we don't know the answer to that yet. but just my impression in the short term is that their goal was to educate the public and bring the public -- when i say "they," democrats, to bring the public along to support the idea of impeachment inquiry. whether or not right off the bat the special counsel saying, no, i didn't exonerate the president or more importantly him again putting meat on the bone of obstruction is enough for that, you know, it is unclear. that really is the key.

yes, you have 80 plus democrats in the house that say we're ready but that's not the majority and that's not the part of the country, politically speaking -- they have to be careful. >> they practiced for this. a succession of members, piece by piece, making the case to the american people. almost like an opening argument. ticking through the instances, the attempt -- getting mcgahn to fire mueller, getting sessions to unrec couple of t krcunrecus. then you saw represent congressman lieu, that there has to be corrupt intent and saw it repeated throughout the ted lieu testimony. they were making their case there. you have to be an astute listener to these proceedings, also interested in listening. >> exactly. >> to be convinced by that. the public poll shows public support for impeachment

proceedings going the opposite way. >> going down. what you said was very clear. it did not come across that way in the totality of today. it was very disjointed. >> i can't imagine that the polls will change much about impeachment. one thing that i think is clear from today and one area is showing how absolutely indispensable it is to get don mcgahn to testify about this, to get corey lewandowski to testify, to have the actual participants, not someone who is literally giving third or fourth-hand information about what these people testified in his investigation, but don mcgahn can tell you what donald trump told him to do. and it's just outrageous that these people have not yet testified. >> white house is pressing to make sure he doesn't do that. let's go to kaitlyn collins, our white house correspondent. any reactions so far? >> reporter: so far, white house officials and the president's republican allies are walking

way from this morning's hearing and viewing it as a success. they walked into this, not knowing exactly what was going to happen. they had a fear that democrats would be able to get these effective sound bites of robert mueller, bringing his report to life. instead, you saw the former special counsel there even hesitant to utter the word impeachment. that's what they were watching, is it going to move the needle on impeachment at all? so far the people we've been speaking with have said no. they do not think that is the case. our reporting showed that the president not only didn't want unflattering headlines coming out of this or new information being revealed by robert mueller, he wanted his republicans there, republican allies of his, to be able to turn the tables on the special counsel, talk about this alleged bias at the fbi and doj. so far the people we've spoken with back here at the white house believe that was an effective strategy they were able to use. they were able to, at times, trip up the special counsel or make allegations about his investigation, about his work where he did not strongly push back on. now, one case where you did see him probably push back the

strongest on president trump was over this allegation that you even saw the president tweeting about this morning. when robert mueller came here to discuss the fbi director job with the president, which president trump is saying was an interview, essentially. and robert mueller said forcefully, several times throughout that hearing, no, this was not any kind of an interview like that. it was simply for him to get advice on what kind of person should be taking this job. and that's really something significant here. that was a reasoning the president tried to use back in the beginning for -- reasoning why robert mueller should be fired from this job, claiming he wanted his old job as fbi director back. robert mueller said that is something that is simply, in his opinion, not true. >> kaitlan, during the 4:00 hour, the president will be leaving the white house, heading to a republican fund-raiser in west virginia. it's then that we actually expect potentially him to stop and speak to reporters. >> yeah. there's a chance we could hear from him on twitter before then. right now there's nothing on his schedule. our sources say he has been up in the residence, watching this hearing closely as he was

tweeting about it several times before robert mueller even took that chair. we are going to hear from him in person. and judging based on what white house officials have been telling the president and republicans, that this was a success this morning, you can expect the president to come out and try to frame this as a positive victory for him, essentially, when he does come out. judging on how this next hearing goes. that's something that officials are still a little hesitant to go, as far as to say it's a total victory. they want to wait and see everything that he says. that will be the first time we hear from the president in person as a reaction to robert mueller. >> and i suspect he will stop and answer reporters' questions and make a statement. >> he has already tweeted no obstruction. that this hearing so far has proven no obstruction, or it's very clear that mueller has not testified that there was no obstruction. he testified that there was no conclusion about obstruction and that the president was not exonerated. and on the matter we were talking about before, congressman mark meadows of north carolina, chair of the freedom caucus, one of the president's closest aides and

allies did an interview -- or just spoke to reporters and he said i think the fact that robert mueller didn't appear to have a good grasp of the report that he authored indicated there was had not a firm understanding of everything in the 448 pages. sadly i think a lot of members of congress had a better understanding of what was in the report than he did. so already you see -- again, there were moments when robert mueller did seem unfamiliar with some of the material in the report, also plenty of moments where he was sharp as a tack and knew dates and times and letters, et cetera. but you already see the president's allies harping on that, talking about that. >> they're going to go after him. preet, you wanted to make a point? >> yeah. people have great moments and less great moments, no matter how old you are, how young you are. i imagine when i'm on later today i'll be a little less sharp because i haven't gotten -- >> sharper or less sharp? >> less sharp. >> what page were you citing? >> less sharp than i was a

moment ago. maybe i'll take the rest of the day off. when he was asked a question that was logical and sensible and was grounded in reality, and was asked at a reasonable pace, he knew exactly what was going on and answered clearly and concisely. >> yes. >> there were some folks who were rattling things off with him, word salads, and he had to ask the question, repeat it, and didn't immediately understand what was being asked. i think a lot of people would be in that position. what's going on here is another dimension of character assassination going on for two years now. and they have another front that they're opening up. after trashing a guy who is a military hero and a republican, and appoint bid a republican multiple times. >> you were the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york prosecutor, did you know every detail of every case that the u.s. attorney's office in the southern district in new york went through? >> you can't possibly. and as one member actually got out -- i don't remember the exact point that was being made,

but no individual on a large investigation when you have a large team knows every fact because no individual has read every document and interviewed every witness. it's the collective of the group that produces the product. >> you thought it was a big deal when the response to chairman jerry nadler, when he asked the specific question, did you totally exonerate the president and mueller said no. that was important. in the report, the original mueller report, it says this. while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. >> i think this is a good example of why television matters. and why people don't always get the same information from page whatever it is of that long report and hearing mueller say that. in substance, they're identical. i mean, they are absolutely identical. but the fact that at the very

beginning of the hearing, under i thought, astute questioning by jerry nadler, he said this is not an exoneration. that serves as a complete counterpoint to everything that the president has said for the past several months. >> adam schiff, chairman of the house intelligence committee, republican ranking member devin nun nunes, they're getting ready to begin part two and they're going to focus this time on the russian interference in the u.s. presidential election. >> that's right, which is so obviously incredibly critical. it was chilling to hear robert mueller in his opening statement this morning talking about in all of his years looking at investigations and threats to national security, this was the biggest. quick political point on what you were saying about the difference between television and reading. political ads. you're going to see that exchange with nadler and robert

mueller on a television or device near you in 2020. >> we wait for the house intelligence committee hearing to begin. very quickly, what are you looking for in this hearing, which is going to focus on the attempt by the russians to interfere in the 2016 election, jim? >> remember the context. this happened in 2016. there is no doubt about it. don't listen to any partisan argument that there's doubt that russia did this. there is no doubt. the fact there. the evidence is there. they tried it again in 2018. with certainty they will attempt it in 2020. imagine that kind of attack in this, even more hyper partisan environment and what effect that could have on the election, particularly if russia takes a step that they've tried to before without success, which is to affect the outcome of the election in some way. imagine the effect of that. and that's quite a nightmare scenario but not out of the realm of possibility. >> robert mueller made it clear this past hearing how serious he thought the russian interference

was. if he talks about anything regarding whether the president then candidate trump or anyone on his campaign was compromised by russia, given all the context back and forth. >> yeah, and i also think that if you look at the kind of partisanship that we've seen, i'm going to say something optimistic and hopeful, which is take away the collusion and all the questions about how they interacted. maybe we'll actually see republicans asking legitimate questions about how to keep the voting and democratic systems safe from interference from russia and other countries for the 2020 election. i know i'm probably going to be disappointed. >> i'm going to look at whether mueller draws a meaningful distinction between no collusion and collusion but not enough to bring a criminal case. and that -- whether that distinction is made in a meaningful way that will

transcend or last beyond today's hearing. >> there's a gap between what we believe is wrong conduct, wrong ways for people and political parties and groups to operate and what is lawful behavior. i'm looking for him to make very clear what and how to close that particular gap. for example, that trump tower meeting would be a prime example of how to say what might not be unlawful. but we want to legislate to make sure that it actually is. >> two things. one, further what we've been talking about from the first hearing. the second is distinct. but this testimony that's out there and is looming about olc opinion, the reason there's no indictment if, that gets undone or tweaked at all in this next hearing i think that's a big deal. and second, you know, continuing off of what laura said, on a going forward basis, what is the proper conduct the next time someone is trying to arrange a meeting at the trump tower, something like that, by either campaign or any campaign in the future? what is the proper conduct for someone on a campaign? that gets muddled. we talked about how bill barr

muddled the question and narrowed the question. i think the american people deserve a clear answer from a former law enforcement official that what is the thing that you do when someone brings you dirt on an opponent? and we should all be clear on that, democrats and republicans alike. >> somebody from a foreign country, not just somebody. >> correct. >> somebody in the united states. >> correct. >> garret, what about you? >> i want to build on jeffrey's point and put a sharper edge on it, which is whether effectively the obstruction into the russian investigation worked. what mueller says in his report is that the they did not establish there was obstruction. things that he did not get to the bottom of. we still don't know why konstantin kilimnik was given the polling information and what

was happening on an ongoing basis. i'm curious whether mueller will talk about whether he has confidence in getting to the bottom of the relationship between the trump campaign and russia. >> as we await the arrival of robert mueller, he will be walking in to this hearing room momentarily, the intelligence committee will begin the questioning with opening statements from the chairman, ranking member. then they'll go through the process. let's remember three points in the mueller report that will be the focus of this part of the hearing right now. one, and i'm reading directly from the report, the investigation did not that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in the russian interference activities. number two, the investigation established that the russian government perceived it would benefit from the trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome and benefit

electorally for information stolen and released through russian efforts and, finally, the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. >> that is what mueller will want to focus on, especially the latter point. especially the idea that the russians interfered in the election, sweeping and systematic ways and will try to do so again in 2020. what house democrats are going to focus on is the following. russians reached out to the trump team to offer help. the trump team expressed a willingness to accept that help and the trump team repeatedly lied about it. that is what -- that is in the same way we have the five points of obstruction that they wanted to establish in the judiciary committee hearing. i've been told those are the three you're going to try to hear from, hear about in this hearing. >> and even more than we saw in the first on this issue of the origins of the investigation, why -- >> steele dossier. >> also others, the people who

were working on the investigation. it's hard to imagine republicans aren't going to hit him even harder on this committee. >> he is walking in right now, robert mueller is walking in. he will make a statement, i assume, and then he will be -- before that, he will be sworn in, as was the case with the judiciary committee. the chairman, adam schiff, from california, will bring this session to order. he will stand a little bit, let the photographs take some pictures, as they always do, give them a photo opportunity. then he will sit down right in the middle of your screen. you see adam schiff, committee chairman, getting ready to bring this session to order. we expect this to go about two hours or so. that will be it in terms of public session.

this meeting will come to order. at the outset and on behalf of my colleagues, i want to thank you, special counsel mueller, for a lifetime of service to the country. your report, for those who have taken the time to study it, is methodical and it is devastating. it retells the story of a foreign adversary sweeping and

systematic intervention in a close u.s. presidential election. that should be enough to deserve the attention of every american, as you well point out. but your report tells another story as well, the story of the 2016 election is also a story about disloyalty to country, about greed and about lies. your investigation determined that the trump campaign, including donald trump himself, knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built russian meddling into their strategy and used to. disloyalty to country. those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly shun it or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it and made full use

of it? that disloyalty may not have been criminal, constrained by uncooperative witnesses, the destruction of documents and use of encrypted communications. your team was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. so not a provable crime in any event. but i think maybe something worse. a crime is the violation of law, written by congress. but disloyalty to country violates the very oath of citizenship, our devotion to a principle upon which our nation is founded that we, the people, and not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide who governs us. this is also a story about money. about greed and corruption, about the leadership of a campaign willing to compromise the nation's interests, not only to win but to make money at the same time.

about a campaign chairman indebted to pro-russian interests who try to use his position to clear his debts and make millions. about a national security adviser using his position to make money from still other foreign interests. and about a candidate, trying to make more money than all of them put together. real estate project that, to him, was worth a fortune. hundreds of millions of dollars and the realization of a life-long ambition. a trump tower in the heart of moscow. a candidate who, in fact, viewed his campaign as the greatest infomercial in history. donald trump and his senior staff were not alone in their desire to use the election to make money. in russia, too, there was a powerful financial motive. putin wanted relief from u.s. sanctions imposed in the wake of russia's invasion of ukraine and over human rights violations. the secret trump tower meeting between the russians and senior campaign officials was about

sanctions. the secret conversations between flynn and the russian ambassador were about sanctions. trump and his team wanted more money for themselves and the russians wanted more money for themselves. and for their oligarchs. the story doesn't end here either. your report also tells a story about lies. lots of lies. lies about tower in moscow and talks with the kremlin, lies about the firing of the fbi director comey and firing you, special counsel mueller. lies about wikileaks, polling data, hush money payments, lies about meetings in the seychelles and a secret meeting in new york trump tower. lies to the fbi. lies to your staff and lies to this committee.

lies to obstruct an investigation into the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history. that is where your report ends, director mueller, with a scheme to cover up, destruct and deceive, but far more pernicious since this rot came from within. even now after 448 pages and two volumes, the deception continues. the president and his acolytes say your report found no collusion. your report specifically declined to address that. your report laid out multiple offers of russian help to the trump campaign, the campaign's acceptance of that help and overt acts to furtherance of russian help. to most americans that is the

very definition of collusion, whether it's a crime or not. your report found no evidence of obstruction, though you outline numerous they say the president has been fully exonerated though you specifically declare you could not exonerate him. in fact, they say your whole investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt, that the russians didn't interfere in our election, that it's all a terrible hoax. the real crime, they say, is not that the russians intervened to help donald trump, but that the fbi had the tumerity to investigate it when they did. but worst of all, worse than all the lies and the greed is the disloyalty to country. for that, too, continues. when asked if the russians intervene again, will you take their help, mr. president, why not was the essence of his

answer. everyone does it. no, mr. president, they don't. not in the america envisioned by jefferson, madison and hamilton, not those who believe that lincoln to preserve the idea our spirit so unique then, still precious still that our government is chosen by our people, through our franchise and not by some hostile, foreign power. this is what is at stake, our next election and the one after that. for generations to come, our democracy. this is why your work matters, director mueller. this is why our investigation matters. to bring these dangers to light. ranking member nunez?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, everyone, to the last gasp of the russia collusion conspiracy theory. as democrats continue to voice this expect tackle on the american people as well as you, mr. mueller, the american people may recall the media first began spreading this conspiracy theory in the spring of 2016 when fusion gps, funded by the dnc and the hillary clinton campaign started developing the steele dossier, a question of outlandish accusations that trump and his associates were russian agents. fusion gps, steele and other confederates fed these theorys to naive reporters and top officials in numerous government agencies, including the fbi, department of justice and the state department. among other things, the fbi used