>> 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 dossier allegations to obtain a

warranty to spy on the trump campaign. despite acknowledging dossier allegations as being salacious and unverified, former fbi director james comey briefed those allegations to president obama and president-elect trump. those briefings conveniently leaked to the press, resulting in the publication of the dossier and launching thousands of false press stories based on the word of a foreign ex-spy, one who admitted he was desperate that trump lose the election and who was eventually fired as an fbi source for leaking to the press. after comey was fired, by his own admission, he leaked derogatory information to the press and successfully so of engineering the appointment of a special counsel, who sits here before us today.

the fbi investigation was marred by further corruption and abuses. top official bruce orr, who his own wife worked on fusion gps's anti-trump operation, fed steele's information to the fbi, even after the fbi fired steele. top fbi investigator and his lover, another top fbi official constantly texted about how much they hated trump and wanted to stop him from being elected. and the entire investigation was opened, based not on intelligence but on a tip from a foreign politician about a conversation involving a maltese diplomat widely portrayed as a russian agent but seems to have far more connections with western governments, including our own fbi and our own state department than with russia. braisingly ignoring all these

red flags, as well as the transparent absurdity of the claims they're making, democrats have argued for nearly three years that evidence of collusion is hidden just around the corner. like the lochness monster, they insist it's there, even if no one can find it. consider this. in march 2017, democrats on this committee said they had more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, but they couldn't reveal it yet. mr. mueller was soon appointed and they said he would find the collusion. then when no collusion was found and mr. mueller's indictments, the democrats said we would find it in his final report. then when there was no collusion in the report, we were told attorney general barr was hiding it. then when it was clear barr wasn't hiding anything, we were told it will be revealed through a hearing with mr. mueller himself. and now that mr. mueller is here, they're claiming that the collusion has actually been in his report all along.

hidden in plain sight. and they're right. there is collusion in plain sight. collusion between russia and the democratic party. the democrats cloouded with russian sources to develop the steele dossier, russian lawyer gnat ala veselnitskaya cloouded with glenn simpson. through interviews and usual anonymous statements to reporters that today's hearing is not about getting information at all. they said they want to, quote, bring the mueller report to life and create a television moment through ploys, like having mr. mueller recite passages from his own report. this is political theater, hail mary attempt to convince the american people that collusion is real and that it's concealed in the report. granted, that's a strange argument to make about a report that is public. it's almost like the democrats

prepared arguments, accusing mr. barr of hiding the report and didn't bother to update their claims once he published the entire thing. among congressional democrats, the russian investigation was never about finding the truth. it's always been a simple media operation by their own accounts, this operation continues in this room today. once again, numerous pressing issues this committee needs to address are put on hold to indulge the political fantasies of people who believed it was their destiny to deserve hillary clinton's administration. it's time for the curtain to close on the russia hoax, the conspiracy theory is dead. at some point, i would argue, we're going to have to get back to work. until then, i yield back the balance of my time. >> to ensure fairness and make sure that our hearing is prompt, i know we got a late start,

director mueller, the hearing will be structured as follows. each member of the committee will be afforded five minutes to ask questions, beginning with the chair and ranking member. as chair, i will recognize thereafter in alternating fashion and descending order members of the majority and minority. as each member is asked his or her questions, the ranking member will be afforded an additional five minutes, followed by the chair, who will an additional five minutes for questions. ranking member and the chair will not be permitted to delegate or yield our final round of questions to any other member. after six members of the majority and six members of the minority have concluded their five-minute rounds of questions, we'll take a five or ten-minute break. we understand you've requested before resuming the hearing with congressman swalwell, starting his round of questions. special counsel mueller is accompanied today by aaron zebley, who served as deputy special counsel from may 2017 until may 2019 and had

day-to-day oversight of the investigation. mr. zebley resigned end of may 2019 when the special counsel's office was closed. both mr. mueller and mr. zebley will be available to answer questions today and will be sworn in, consistent with the rules of the house and the committee. mr. mueller and mr. zebley's appearance is in keeping with the committee's longstanding practice of receiving testimony from current or former department of justice and fbi personnel regarding open and closed investigative matters. as this hearing is under oath and before we begin your testimony, mr. mueller and zebley, would you please rise and raise your right hands to be sworn? >> do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give at this hearing is the whole truth and nothing but the

truth? thank you. the record will reflect that the witnesses have been duly sworn. ranking member? >> thank you, mr. chair. i just want to clarify that this is highly unusual for mr. zebley to be sworn in. we're here to ask director mueller questions. he is here as counsel. our side is not going to be directing any questions to mr. zebley and we have concerns about his prior representation of hillary clinton campaign aide. i just want to voice that concern that we do have and won't be addressing any questions to mr. zebley today. >> i thank the ranking member. i realize as probably do mr. zebley that there is an angry man down the street who is not happy about your being here tod today, but it is up to this committee and not anyone else who will be allowed to be sworn in and testify and you are

welcome as a private citizen to testify and members may direct their questions to whoever they choose. with that, director mueller, you are recognized for any opening remarks you would like to make. >> good afternoon, chairman schiff, ranking member nunes and members of the committee. i testified before the house judiciary committee this morning and asked that that opening statement be incorporated into the record here. >> without objection. >> unique jurisdiction and you are interested in further understanding the counterintelligence implications of our investigation. let me say a word about how we handled the potential impact of our investigation on counter intelligence matters. as we explained in our report, special counsel regulations effectively gave me the role of

united states attorney. as a result, we structured our investigation around evidence for possible use in prosecution of federal crimes. we did not reach what you would call counterintelligence conclusions. we did, however, set up processes in the office to identify and pass counterintelligence information on to the fbi. members of our office periodically briefed the fbi about counterintelligence information. in addition, there were agents and analysts from the fbi who are not on our team, but whose job it was to identify counterintelligence information in our files and to disseminate that information to the fbi. for these reasons, questions about what the fbi has done with the counter intelligence information obtained from our investigation should be directed to the fbi. i also want to reiterate a few

points that i made this morning. i am not making any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence in any pending case. it is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about 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 ongoing matters, limiting the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings and consistent with longstanding 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 regarding information, decisions, on did ls going 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, discussing the restrictions on my testimony. i, therefore, will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that i know are of public interest. for example, i am unable to address questions about the opening of the fbi's russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called steele dossier. these matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. any questions on these topics should, therefore, be directed to the fbi or the justice department. third, as i explained this morning, it is important for me to adhere to what we wrote in our report. the report contains our findings, analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. we stated the results of our

investigation with precision. 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 stated in may, i also will 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 role and to the department standards that govern. flienl as i said this morning over the course of my career, i've seen a number of challenges to our democracy. the russian government's efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious. i am sure that the committee agrees. now before we go to questions i want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by mr. lieu who said, and i quote, you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion.

that is not the correct way to say it. as we say in the report, and as i said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. with that, mr. chairman, i'm ready to answer questions. >> thank you, director mueller. i recognize myself for five minutes. director mueller, your report describes a sweeping and systematic effort by russia to influence our presidential election. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and during the course of this russian interference in the election, the russians made outreach to the trump campaign, did they not? >> that occurred over the course of -- yeah, that occurred. >> it's also clear from your report that during that russian outreach to the trump campaign, no one associated with the trump campaign ever called the fbi to report it, am i right? >> i don't know that for sure. >> in fact, the campaign welcomed the russian help, did

they not? >> i think we report in our report indications that that occurred, yes. >> the president's son said when he was approached on dirt about hillary clinton, the trump campaign would love it? >> that's generally what was said, yes. >> the president himself called on the russians to hack hillary's emails? >> there's a statement by the president in those general line lines. >> numerous times during the campaign, the president praised the releases of the russian-hacked emails through wikileaks? >> that did occur. >> your report found that the trump campaign planned, quote, a press strategy, communications campaign and messaging, unquote, based on that russian assistance. >> i am not familiar with that. >> that language comes from volume i, page 54. apart from the russians wanting to help trump win, several individuals associated with the trump campaign were also trying to make money during the campaign and transition, is that

correct? >> that is true. >> paul manafort was trying to make money or achieve debt forgiveness from a russian oligarch? >> generally that is accurate. >> michael flynn was trying to make money from turkey? >> true. >> donald trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in moscow? >> to the extent you're talking about the hotel in moscow? >> yes. >> yes. >> when your investigation looked into these matters, numerous individuals lied? >> number of persons we interviewed in the investigation, it turns out, did lie. >> mike flynn lied? >> he was convicted of lying, yes. >> george papadopoulos was convict fd lying? >> true. >> paul manafort was convicted of lying? >> true. >> in fact, went so far as to encourage other people to lie? >> that is accurate. >> deputy rick gates lied? >> that is accurate. >> michael cohen, the president's lawyer, was indicted

for lying. >> true. >> he lied to stay on message with the president? >> allegedly, by him. >> when donald trump called your investigation a witch hunt, that is also false, is it not? >> i like to think so, yes. >> your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it? >> it is not a witch hunt. >> when the president said the russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it? >> true. >> when he said it publicly, it was false. >> he did say it publicly that it was false, yes. >> when he told it to putin, that was false, too, wasn't it? >> that, i'm not familiar with. >> when the president said he had no business dealings with russia, that was false, wasn't it? >> i'm not going to go into the details of the report along those lines. >> when the president said he had no business dealings with russia, in fact, he was seeking to build a trump tower in moscow, was he not? >> i think there is some question about when this was accomplished. >> you would consider a billion

dollar deal to build a tower in moscow to be business dealings. wouldn't you, mr. mueller? >> absolutely. >> in short your investigation found evidence that russia wanted to help trump win the election, right? >> generally, i think that would be accurate. >> russia informed campaign officials of that? >> i'm not certain to what conversations you're referring to. >> intermediary informed papadopoulos that they could help in stolen emails? >> accurate. >> committed crimes in order to help donald trump. >> you're talking about the computer crimes charged in our case? >> yes. >> absolutely. >> the trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging strategy around those stolen documents? >> generally, that's true. >> and then they lied to cover it up? >> generally, that's true. >> thank you, mr. nunes.

>> thank you. welco welcome, director. as a former fbi director, you would agree that the fbi is the world's most capable law enforcement agency? >> i would say we're -- yes. >> the fbi claims the counter intelligence investigation of the trump campaign began july 31st, 2016. but, in fact, it began before that. in june 2016 before the investigation officially opened, trump campaign associates carter page and steven miller, a current trump adviser, were invited to attend a symposium at cambridge university in july 2016. your office, however, did not investigate who was responsible for inviting them to this symposium. they also failed to interview an american citizen who organized the event and invited carter page to it. is that correct? >> can you repeat the question? >> whether or not you interviewed steven schraege who

orged the cambridge -- >> those areas i'm going to stay away from. >> the first trump associate to be investigated was general flynn. many allegations against him stem from false media reports that he had an affair with a cambridge academic, lokova, who was a russian spy. some of these allegations were made public in a 2017 article written by british historian christopher andrew. your report fails to reveal how or why andrew, and his collaborator, richard dearlove, head of mi-6 spread these allegations and you failed to interview svetlana lokova about these matters. is that correct? >> i'm not going to get into those matters to which you refe refer. >> you had a team of 19 lawyers, 40 agents and unlimited budget.

correct, mr. mueller? >> i would not say we had an unlimited budget. >> let's continue with the opening of the investigation, supposedly on july 31st, 2016. the investigation was not opened based on an official but based on a rumor by alex ander downer. volume i, page 89, your report describes him blandly as a representative of a foreign government. he was actually a long-time australian politician, not a military or intelligence official who previously arranged a $25 million donation to the clinton foundation and, has previous ties to dearlove. so, downer conveys a rumor he supposedly heard about a conversation between papadopoulos and mifsa, calling mifsa a russian agent, yet your report does not refer to him as a russian agent. he has extensive contacts with

western governments and the fbi. for example, a recent photo of him standing next to boris johnson, the new prime minister of great britain. what we're trying to figure out here, mr. mueller, is if our nato allies or boris johnson have been compromised. comey says mifsin is a russian agent. you do not. do you stand by what's in the report? >> i stand by that which is in the report and not so necessarily with that which is not in the report. >> i want to return to mr. downer. he denies papadopoulos mentioned anything to him about hillary clinton emails and denies that he took that to papadopoulos. mifsin denies mentioning them to papadopoulos in the first place. how does the fbi know to continually ask papadopoulos

about clinton's emails for the rest of 2016? even more strangely, your sentencing memo on papadopoulos blames him for hindering the arrest or detain mifsid, who waltzed in and out of the united states in december 2016. the u.s. media could find him. italian press found him. a supposed russian agent at the epicenter of the purported collusion conspiracy. he is the guy who knows about the hillary clinton emails and that the russians have them but the fbi failed to question him for half a year after aofficially opening the investigation. and then according to volume i, once mifsid was finally questioned he made false statements to the fbi. but you declined to charge him. is that correct? you did not indict mr. mifsin?

>> i'm not going to speak to the series of happenings as you articulate them. >> you did not indict mr. mifsin? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> pardon? >> you did not indict mr. mifsid? >> true. >> mr. mueller, thank you for your perseverance and patience today. director, your report opens with two statements of remarkable clarity and power. the first statement is one that as of today is not acknowledged by the president of the united states. and that is, quote, the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. the second statement remains controversial amongst members of this body, same page on your report. i quote, the russian government perceived it would benefit from a trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome. do i have that statement right? >> i believe so. >> director mueller, this attack

on our democracy involved, as you said, two operations. first, a social mediainformation campaign. this was a targeted campaign to spread false information on places like twitter and facebook. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> facebook estimated, as per your report, that the russian fake images reached 126 million people. is that correct? >> i believe that's the sum we recorded. >> director, who did the russian social media campaign ultimately intend to benefit, hillary clinton or donald trump? >> donald trump. >> the second operation -- >> let me say donald trump. there were instances where hillary clinton was subject to much the same behavior. >> the second operation was a scheme, what we call the hack and dump, to steal and release hundreds of thousands of emails from the democratic party and the clinton campaign. is that a fair summary? >> that is. >> did your investigation find that the releases of the hacked emails were strategically timed

to maximize impact on the election? >> i would have to refer you to our report on that question. >> page 36, i quote, the release of the documents were designed and timed to interfere with the 2016 u.s. presidential election. mr. mueller, which presidential candidate was russia's hacking and dumping operation designed to benefit, hillary clinton or donald trump? >> mr. trump. >> is it possible that this sweeping and systematic effort by russia actually had an effect on the outcome of the presidential election? >> those issues are being or have been investigated by other entities. >> 126 million facebook impressions, fake rallies, attacks on hillary clinton's health. would you rule out it might have had some effect on the election? >> i'm not going to speculate. >> mr. mueller, your report describes a third avenue of attempted russian interference. that is the numerous links and contacts between the trump campaign and individuals tied to

the russian government. >> would you repeat that question? >> your report describes a third avenue of russian interference, links and contacts between the trump campaign and individuals tied to the russian government. >> yes. >> let's bring up slide one, which is about george papadopoulos. it reads on may 6, 2016, ten days after that meeting with mifsid, papadopoulos represented to representative of a foreign government that the trump campaign had received indications from the russian government it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to hillary clinton. director, that's exactly what happened two weeks later, did it not? >> i can speak to the screen being accurate as what is in the report but not the second half of the question. >> on july 22nd through

wikileaks, thousands of emails stolen by the russian government appeared, correct? that's on page six of the report. this is the wikileaks posting of those emails. >> i can't find it quickly but please continue. >> okay. so just to be clear, before the public or the fbi ever knew, the russians previewed for a trump campaign official, george papadopoulos that they had stolen emails they could release anonymously to help donald trump and hurt hillary clinton, correct? >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> director, rather than report this contact with joseph mifsid and the notion that there was dirt that the campaign could use, rather than report that to the fbi, which most of my constituents would expect an individual to do, mr. papadopoulos lied about his

russian contacts, correct? >> that's true. >> we have an election coming up in 2020, director. if a campaign receives an offer of dirt from a foreign individual or government, generally speaking, should that campaign report those contacts? >> should be. can be, depending on the circumstances, a crime. >> i will yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. conway? >> thank you. mr. mueller, did anyone ask you to exclude anything from your report that you felt should have been in the report? >> i don't think so but it's not a small report. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank the gentleman for yooeding. good afternoon, director mueller. in your opening remark this is morning you made it pretty clear you wanted the special counsel

report to speak for itself. you said that was the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. you spent the last three hours of your life from democrats trying to get you to answer all kinds of hypotheticals about the president, and i suspect it might continue the next three hours of your life. i think you stayed pretty much true to what your intent and dire was, but regardless of that, the special counsel's office is closed and has no continuing jurisdiction or authority. what would be your authority or jurisdiction for adding new conclusions or determinations to the special counsel's written report? >> as to the latter, i don't know or expect changes in conclusions that we included in our report.

>> some construed a change to the written report. you talked about the exchange you had with congressman lieu. i wrote it down a little bit different. i want the record to be perfectly clear. he asked you, quote, the reason you did not indict donald trump is because of the olc opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president, to which you responded, that is correct. that response is inconsistent, i think you'll agree, with your written report. i want to be clear. it is not your intent to change your written report? it is your intent to clarify the record? >> as i start ed today, this afternoon, either a footnote or end note. what i wanted to clarify is that we did not make any determination with regard to culpability in any way. we did not start that process down the road. >> terrific. thank you for clarifying the record. a stated purpose of your appointment as special counsel

was to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, as part of that full and thorough investigation, what determination did the special counsel office make about whether the steele dossier was part of the russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election? >> again, when it comes to mr. steele, i defer to the department of justice. >> well, first of all, director, i very much agree with your determination that russia's efforts were sweeping and systematic. i think it should concern every american. that's why i want to know just how sweeping and systematic those efforts were. i want to find out if russia interfered with our election by providing false information through sources to christopher steele about a trump conspiracy that you determined didn't exist. >> well, again, i'm not going to discuss the issues with regard to mr. steele.

in terms of a portrayal of the conspiracies, we returned two indictments in the computer crimes arena. one gru and another active malaysias in which we lay out in excruciating detail what occurred in those two rather large conspiracies. >> i agree with respect to that. but why this is important is an application and three renewal applications were submitted by the united states government to spy or surveil on trump campaign associate carter page and the steele dossier was submitted as a central piece of evidence to that. the premise was that there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the trump campaign and russian government but the special counsel investigation didn't establish any conspiracy, correct? >> well, what i can tell you is that the events that you are

characterizing here, now, is part of another matter that is being handled by the department of justice. >> but you did not establish any conspiracy, much less a well-developed one? >> again, i pass on answering that question. >> the special counsel did not charge carter page with anything, correct? >> special counsel did not. >> all right. my time is expired. i yield back. >> director mueller, i would like to turn your attention to the june 9th, 2016, trump tower meeting. slide two, which should be on the screen now, is part of an email chain between don junior -- donald trump jr. and a publicist, representing the son of a russian oligarch. the email exchange ultimately led to the now infamous june 9th, 2016, meeting. the email from the publicist to donald trump jr. reads in part, the crown prosecutor of russia offered to provide the trump campaign with some official documents and information that

would incriminate hillary and her dealings with russia and is part of russia and its government's support of mr. trump. in this email, donald trump jr. is being told that the russian government wants to pass along information which would hurt hillary clinton and help donald trump. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now, trump junior's response to that email is slide three. he said, and i quote, if it is what you say, i love it. especially later in the summer. then donald junior invited senior campaign officials paul manafort and jared kushner to the meeting. did he not? >> he did. >> this email exchange is evidence of an offer of illegal assistance. is it not? >> i cannot adopt that characterization. >> isn't it against the law for a presidential campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign government? >> generally speaking, yes, but generally the cases are unique.

>> you say in page 184 volume i that the federal campaign finance law broadly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, et cetera. and then you say that foreign nationals may not make a contribution or donation of money or anything of value. it says clearly in the report itself. >> thank you. >> now, let's turn to what actually happened at the meeting. when donald trump jr. and the others got to the june 9th meeting, they realized that the russian delegation didn't have the promised, quote, unquote, dirt. in fact, they got upset about that. did they not? >> generally, yes. >> you say in volume i, page 118, that trump junior asked what are we doing here? what do they have on clinton? and during the meeting kushner actually texted manafort saying it was a waste of time, quote, unquote. correct? >> i believe it's in the report along the lines you specify. >> to be clear top trump

campaign officials learned that russia wanted to help donald trump's campaign by giving him dirt on his opponent. trump junior said, loved it. then he and senior officials held a meeting with the russians to try to get that russian help, but they were disappointed because the dirt wasn't as good as they had hoped. so, to the next step, did anyone, to your knowledge, in the trump campaign ever tell the fbi of this offer? >> i don't believe so. >> did donald trump jr. tell the fbi that they received an offer of help from the russians? >> that's about all i'll say on this aspect of it. >> wouldn't it be true, sir if, they had reported it to the fbi or anyone in that campaign during the course of your two-year investigation, you would have uncovered such a -- >> i would hope, yes. >> yes. sir, is it not the responsibility of political campaigns to inform the fbi if they receive information from a foreign government? >> i would think that is something they would and should do. >> not only did the campaign not

tell the fbi, they sought to hide the existence of the june 9th meeting for over a year, is that correct? >> on the general characterization, i would question it. if you're referring to later initiative that flowed from the media, then -- >> no. what i'm suggesting is that you said in volume ii, page 5, on several occasions the president directed aides to not publicly disclose the email setting up the june 9th meeting. >> yes, that's accurate. >> thanks. sir, given this illegal assistance by russians, you chose, even given that, you did not charge donald trump jr. or any of the other senior officials with conspiracy. is that right? >> correct. >> and while -- >> when you're talking about -- if you're talking about other individuals, you're talking about the attendees. >> that's right. >> of june 9th. >> that's right. even though you didn't charge them with conspiracy, don't you

think that the american people would be concerned that these three senior campaign officials eagerly sought a foreign adversary's help in an election and don't you think that we set a precedent for future elections? >> i can't accept that kind of characterization. >> it seems like a betrayal of american values, to me, sir. if not being criminal it's definitely unethical and wrong and i would think we would not want to set a precedent that political campaigns would not want to divulge information to foreign adversarial governments. >> pursuant to regulations you submitted a confidential report to the attorney general at the conclusion of the investigation. what i would like you to confirm is the report that you did, that is the subject matter of this hearing was to the attorney

general? >> yes. >> you also say you threw overboard the word collusion because it's not a legal term. you would not conclude because collusion was not a legal term? >> well, it depends how you want to use the word. in the general parlance, people can think of it that way. if you're talking about criminal statute arena, you can't, because some -- it's much more accurately described as conspiracy. >> right. your words are, it's not a legal term so you didn't put it in your conclusion, correct? >> that's correct. >> mr. mueller, i want to talk about your powers and authorities. the attorney general in the appointment order gave you powers and authorities that reside in the attorney general. the attorney general has no ability to give you powers and authority greater than the powers and authority of the attorney general, correct? >> i don't believe. yeah. i think that is correct. >> mr. mueller i want to focus

on one word in your report. it's the second to the last word in the report. it's "exonerate." the report states, accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him. now, in the judiciary hearing, in your prior testimony, you've already agreed with mr. ratcliffe that exonerate is not a legal term, that there is not a legal test for this i have a question for you, mr. mueller. does the attorney general have the power or authority to exonerate? what i'm putting up here is the united states code. this is where the attorney general gets his power, and the constitution, and the annotated cases of these. we even went to your law school i went to case western but i thought maybe your law school teaches it differently. we got the criminal law textbook from your law school. mr. mueller, nowhere in these -- because we had them scanned, is there a process or description on exonerate. there's no office of exoneration at the attorney general's office, no certificate at the bottom of his desk. mr. mueller, would you agree with me that the attorney general does not have the power

to exonerate? >> i'm going to pass on that. >> why? >> because it embroils us in a legal discussion. i'm not prepared to deal with a legal discussion in that arena. >> mr. mueller, you would not disagree with me when i say that there is no place that the attorney general has the power to exonerate? he has not been given that authority. >> i take your question. >> great. the one thing that i guess is that the attorney general probably knows that he can't exonerate either. and that's the part that kind of confuses me. if the attorney general doesn't have the power to exonerate, then you don't have the power to exonerate. and i believe he knows he doesn't have the power to exonerate. so this is the part i don't understand. if your report is to the attorney general and the attorney general doesn't have the power to exonerate and he does not -- he knows that you do not have that power, you don't have to tell him that you're not exonerating the president. he knows this already.

so then that kind of changes the context of the report. >> no. we included in the report for exactly that reason. he may not know it. he should know it. >> you believe that attorney bill barr believes that somewhere in the hallways of the department of justice there's an office of exoneration? >> no, that's not what i said. >> i believe he knows. and i don't believe you put that in there for mr. barr. i think you put that in there for exactly what i'm going to discuss next. "the washington post" yesterday when speaking of your report, the article said trump could not be exonerated of trying to obstruct the investigation itself. trump could not be exonerated. that statement is correct, mr. mueller, isn't it, in that no one can be exonerated? the reporter who wrote this, this reporter can't be exonerated. mr. mueller, you can't be exonerated. in our criminal justice system there is no power or authority to exonerate. this is my concern, mr. mueller. this is the headline on all the news channels while you were testifying today. mueller, trump was not

exonerated. mr. mueller, what you know is that this can't say mueller exonerated trump. because you don't have the power or authority to exonerate trump. you have no more power to declare him exonerated than you have the power to declare him anderson cooper. the problem i have here is that since there's no one in the criminal justice system who has that power, the president pardons, he doesn't exonerate. courts and juries don't declare innocent, they declare not guilty. the statement about exoneration is misleading and meaningless and colors this investigation. one word out of the entire portion of your report and it's a meaningless word that has no legal meaning and it has colored your entire report. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> mr. carson? >> thank you, chairman. thank you, director mueller, for your years of service to our country. i want to look more closely, sir, at the trump campaign chairman paul manafort, an individual who i believe

betrayed our country, lied to the grand jury, tampered with witnesses and who repeatedly tried to use his position with the trump campaign to make more money. let's focus on the betrayal and greed. your investigation, sir, found a number of troubling contacts between mr. manafort and russian individuals before and after the campaign. is that right, sir? >> right. correct. >> in addition to the june 9th meeting just discussed, manafort also met several times with a man named konstantin kilimnik, who was found to have ties to the russian government. >> correct. >> he didn't just meet with him but shared private trump campaign polling information with this man linked to russian intelligence. is that correct, sir? >> that is correct. >> in return, the information was shared with a russian oligarch tied to vladimir putin. is that correct, sir? >> allegedly. >> director mueller, meeting with him wasn't enough. sharing internal polling

information wasn't enough. mr. manafort went so far as to offer this russian oligarch tied to putin a private briefing on the campaign. is that right, sir? >> yes, sir. >> and, finally, mr. manafort also discussed internal campaign strategy on four battleground states, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania and minnesota. the russian intelligence linked individual. did he not, sir? >> that's reflected in the report, as were the items you listed previously. >> director mueller, based on your decades of years of experience at the fbi, would you agree, sir, it creates a national security risk when a presidential campaign sharm shares private polling information on the american people? private political strategy related to winning the votes of the american people and private information about american battleground states with a foreign adversary? >> is that the question, sir? >> yes, sir. >> i'm not going to speculate along those lines. to the extent it's within the

lines of the report, i support it. anything beyond that is not part of that which i would support. >> i think it does, sir. i think it shows an infuriating lack of patriotism from the very people seeking the highest office in the land. director mueller, manafort didn't share this information in exchange for. >> i can't answer that question without knowing more about the questio question. >> it's clear he was hoped to be paid back money he was owed by russian olgarchs for the passing of campaign information. >> that true. >> as my colleague, mr. heck, will discuss later, greed corrupts. sharing private campaign information in exchange for money represents a particular kind of corruption, one that presents a national security risk to our country, sir? >> i'm not going to reply on that. i don't have the expertise in

that arena to really opine. >> would you agree, sir, manafort's contacts with russians close to vladimir putin and his efforts to exchange private information on americans for money left him vulnerable to blackmail by the russians? >> generally so, i think that would be the case. >> would you agree, sir, these acts demonstrated a betrayal of the democratic values our country rests on? >> i can't agree with that. not that it's not true, but i cannot agree with it. >> yes, sir. director mueller, in my years of experience as a law enforcement officer and a member of congress, fortunate to serve on the intel committee, i know enough to say yes. trading political secrets for money with a foreign adversary can corrupt and can leave you open to blackmail. it certainly represents a betrayal of the values underpinning our democracy. thank you for your service again, director mueller. appreciate you coming today. i yield back my time.

>> dr. winstrop? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. mueller, for being here today. is it accurate to say your investigation found no evidence that members of the trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of clinton campaign-related emails? >> can you read or can you repeat the question? >> is it accurate to say your investigation found no evidence that members of the trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of the clinton campaign-related emails? >> i don't know. well -- >> volume i, page 5, the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinate ed with the russian government in its election interference activities. so, it would, therefore, be inaccurate, based on this to describe that finding as open to doubt, that finding being that

trump campaign was involved with theft or publication of the clinton campaign emails. are you following that? >> i do believe i'm following it, but it is -- that portion, that matter does not fall or fall within our investigation. >> basically what your report says, volume i page 5. open to doubt is how the committee democrats describe this finding in their minority views in a 2018 report. and it kind of flies in the face of what you have in your report. the investigation found no documentary evidence that george papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the trump campaign about claims that the russians had dirt on candidate clinton? >> let me turn that over to mr. -- >> i'd like to ask you, sir, this is your report, that's what

i'm basing this on. >> can you repeat it. ? >> the investigation found no documentary evidence that george papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the trump campaign about joseph misfit's claims that the russians had dirt on candidate clinton. >> if it appears in the report, it's accurate. >> in the report it says no documentary evidence that papadopoulos shared this information with the campaign. it's inaccurate to conclude that by the time of the june 9, 2016 tower meeting, the campaign was likely already on notice via george papadopoulos's contact that russia in fact had damaging information on trump's opponent. would you say that that is an inaccurate to say it's likely already -- >> i direct you to the report. >> i appreciate that, the

democrats jump to this conclusion, which contradicts what you have in your report. i have a number of statements i'd like you to clarify. president trump was a russian agent after your report was publicly released. that statement is not supported by your report, correct? that is accurate. >> multiple members have asserted that manafort met with julian assange. because your report does not mention finding evidence that manafort met with assange, i would assume that means you found no evidence of this meeting, is that assumption correct? >> i'm not sure i agree with that assumption. >> but you make no mention of it in your report? >> yes, i would agree with that.

>> does your report contain any evidence that president trump was enrolled in the russian system as a member of this committee once claimed? >>. >> what i can speak to is evidence that we picked up as the special counsel. >> thank you, i appreciate that. did you ask the department of just is to expand the scope of the special counsel's mandate august 20th, 2017 scoping peo e memoran memoranda? >> without looking at the memoranda, i could not answer that -- >> did you ever make a request to expand your office's mandate at all? >> generally, yes. >> and was that ever denied? >> i'm not going to speak to that. it goes into internal deliberations. >> i'm trying to understand process, is expanding the scope am coulding from the acting

attorney general or rosenstein or does it come from you, or can it come from either? >> i'm not going to discuss any other alternatives. >> thank you, mr. mueller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mueller, i think i can say without fear of contradiction that you're the greatest patriot in this room today, and i want to thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> you said in your report, and i'm going to quibble with your words that the russia system was sweeping and systematic. ity think it was an invasion. i don't think it was sweeping and systematic, i think it was sinister and scheming. having said that, one of my colleagues referred to this russian intervention as a hoax. i'd like to get your comment on

that you talk about the internet research agency. and how tens of millions of u.s. persons became engaged with the posts that they made, there were some 80,000 posts on facebook that facebook itself admitted 126 million people have probably seen the posts that were put up by the internet research agency. they had 3800 twitter accounts. and had designed more than 75,000 tweets that reached 1.4 million people. the internet research agency was spending about $1.25 million a month on all of this social media in the united states in what i would call an invasion in our country. would you agree that it was not a hoax?

that the russians were engaged in trying to impact our election? >> absolutely, it was not a hoax. the indictments we returned against the russians were substantial in their scope using the scope we're in. and i think one of the -- we have underplayed to a certain extent that aspect of our investigation that has and would have long term damage to the united states that we need to move quickly to address. >> thank you for that. i'd like to drill down on that a little more. the internet research agency actually started in 2014 by sending over staff as tourists, i guess, to start looking at where they wanted to engage. there are many that suggest and i'm interested in your opinion as to whether or not russia is presently in the united states looking for ways to impact the

2020 election. >> that would be in levels of class and communication. >> let me ask you this. often times when we engage in these hearings, we forget the forest for the trees. you have a very large report here of over 400 pages, most americans have not read it. we have read it, the fbi director yesterday said he hadn't read it, which is discouraging, but on behalf of the american people, i want to give you 1:39 to tell the american people what you would like them to glean from this report. >> well, i -- we spent substantial time ensuring the integrity of the report. it also is a signal, a flag to those of us who have some responsibility in this area to

exercise those responsibilities swiftly and don't let this problem continue to linger as it has over so many years. >> all right. you didn't take the whole amount of time, i'm going to yield the rest of my time to the chairman. >> i thank the gentle woman for yielding. director mueller, i wanted to ask you about conspiracy. generally a conspiracy requires an offer of something illegal, acceptance of that offer and an overt act and further answer of it, is that correct? >> correct. >> don junior was aware that the russians were offering dirt on his opponent, correct? >> i don't know that for sure, but one would assume. >> when you say that you would love to get that help, that would constitute acceptance of the offer? >> it's a wide open request. >> and it would certainly be evidence of acceptance, when you say, i would love it, that would be considered evidence of an

acceptance. >> you stay away from any one or two particular situations. >> this particular situation, i'll have to continue in a bit i now yield to mr. stewart. >> i do have a series of important questions for you, before i do that. i want to take a moment to emphasize something my friend mr. turner has said. no person is above the law. many times they had not even the president which is i think is blazingly obvious to most of us. >> i'm having a problem hearing you, sir. >> i agree with this statement, that no person is above the law, there's another principle we have to defend and that is it the presumption of innocence. i think the way that your office phrased some parts of your report, it makes me wonder, i

have to be honest with you. if we're going on three years, innocent people have been accused of serious crimes, including treason. they have had their lives disrupted and in some cases destroyed by false accusations for which there is no basis other than some people wish it was so. your report is clear, no evidence of conspiracy, no evidence of coordination and i believe we owe it to these people who have been falsely accused to the president and his family to make that clear. the credibility of your report is based on the integrity of how it's handled. i'm holding here in my hand a binder of 25 examples of leaks that occurred from the special counsel's office dating back to as early as a few weeks of your inception and the beginning of your work, and continuing up to just a few months