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 ago. all of these -- all of them have

one thing in common. they were designed to weaken or embarrass the president. every single one. never was it leaked. you found no evidence of inclusion. never was it leaked that the steele dossier was funded by the hillary clinton campaign. i could go on and on. are you aware of anyone from your team having given advanced knowledge on the raid of roger stone's home to the press including cnn. >> i'm not going to talk about specifics. i will mention, talk for a moment about persons who become involved in an investigation, and the understanding that a lengthy thorough investigation, some persons will be under a cloud, that they should not be under a cloud. and one of the reasons for emphasizing as i have, the speed of an election -- or not election, the speed of an

investigation, is that so those persons who are disrupted as a result of the -- >> i appreciate that. but i do have a series of questions. >> may i -- with the result of that investigation. >> it's an unfair clouding to dozens of people. are you aware of anyone providing information to the media about the raid on roger stone's home, including cnn? >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> you sent a letter to attorney general barr in which you claimed the memo did not characterize the content of the report. did you make any effort to determine who leaked this confidential letter? >> no, and i'm not sure -- this is the letter of march 27th? >> yes, sir. i did not believe we would be responsible for the leaks. >> i do believe we have done a good job in ensuring that no leaks occur.

>> we have 25 examples here of where you did not do a good job. not you, sir, but where your office did not do a good example. do you know anyone who made claims to the press about the march 24th letter to congress, misrepresented the basis of your report. >> do you know who aknown mousily made claims to the press that attorney general bar's march 24th letter to congress misrepresented the findings of your report? >> no. given these examples as well as others, you must have realized the leaks were coming from someone associated with the special counsel's office. >> i do not believe that. >> well, sir, this was your work. you're the only one, your office is the only one that had information regarding this that had to come from your office.

my question is, did you do anything about it? >> from the outside, we've taken steps to minimize leaks. >> i wish you had been more successful, sir. my time has expired, i yield back. >> mr. quigley. >> thank you for being here. earlier today, and throughout the day, have you stated the policy that a seated president cannot be indicted, correct? >> correct. >> and upon questioning this morning, you were asked that could a president be indicted after their service. >> correct. >> your answer was they could. >> they could. >> please speak into the microphone. >> i'm sorry, thank you. >> they could. >> the follow-up question that should be concerning is, what if

a president serves beyond the statute of limitations? >> i don't know the answer to that one. >> would it not indicate that if the statute of limitations on federal crimes such as this, that a president who serves a second term is under the policy above the law? >> i'm not sure i would agree with the conclusion. i'm not certain i can see -- >> the statue doesn't toll, is that correct? >> it clearly doesn't. as the american public is watching this and learning about many of these for the first time, we need to consider that, and the other alternatives are all that we have, but i appreciate your response earlier in questioning someone mentioned that was a question whether

anyone in the trump world publicized the emails, i want to refer to volume one page # 60, trump junior tweeted to the link of stolen podesta emails you're familiar with that? >> yes. >> that would be a republishing of this information, would it not? >> i'm not certain i would agree with that. >> director pompeo assessed wikileaks as the costco of intelligence. given your knowledge of what wikileaks did here, and what they do generally, would assess that to be accurate or something similar? how would you assess? what wikileaks does? >> absolutely, and they are currently under indictment. as julian assange. >> would it be fair to describe

them as you woe agree with this director pompeo that's what he was when he made that remark. if we could put up slide 6. i love wikileaks. donald trump. this wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. you have to read it. october 12th, 2016. this wiki leaks is like a treasure trove. donald trump october 31st, 2016. boy, i love reading those wikileaks. woe any of those quotes disturb you, mr. director? >>. >> i'm not certain i would say. >> how do you react to those? >> it's problematic is an under statement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some

hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity. >> page 59, donald trump junior had direct communications with wikileaks during the campaign period. on october 3rd, 2016, wikileaks cenned another message to trump junior, asking you guys to have a link to clinton. julian assange responded to that, he had already done so. this behavior at the very least disturbing? >> disturbing and also subject to investigation. >> could it be described as aide and comfort to a hostile service, sir? >> i wouldn't characterize it with any specificity. >> i yield the balance to the chairman, please.

>> i'm not sure i can make good use of 27 seconds, but director, you made it clear you think it unethical to put it politely to tout a foreign service like wikileaks publishing documents. >> it certainly calls for investigation. >> we're going to go to mr. crawford and after mr. crawford's five minutes, we'll take a five or ten minute break. >> thank you for being here. days after your appointment, there's no big there there. did struck or anyone else who work on the fbi's investigation, tell you about 10 months into the investigation, the fbi had no case for collusion? >> who? can you repeat that? >> peter strok. >> can you move the microphone closer? >> sure, there's a quote attributed to peter strok.

he testified that there's no big there there in the trump campaign investigation. did he or anyone else who worked on the investigation tell you that, around 10 months into the investigation, the fbi still had no case tore collusion in. >> no. >> is the inspector general report correct that the phones for lisa page were not retained after they left the special counsel's office? >> i don't -- it depends on what you're talking about, an investigation into those -- peter strok went on for a period of time, and i'm not certain what it encompasses. >> let me move on quickly, did you ask the department to authorize the origin of the trump/russia investigation? >> i'm not going to get into that. it goes to internal deliberations. >> the circumstances have yet to

be fully vetted. i'm certainly glad that attorney general barr and durham are looking into this matter, with that, i'd like to yield the balance of my time to ranking member nunez. >> thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. mueller i want to make sure you're aware of who fusion gps is, they are a political operations firm working directly for the hillary clinton campaign and the democrat national committee. they produced the dossier, so they paid steele who then went out and got the dossier, i know you don't want to answer any dossier questions, so i'm not going there. but your report mentions natalia 65 times, she meets in the trump tower, it's an infamous trump tower several times. the meeting was shorter than 20

minutes, i believe, correct? >> what we have in our report it reflects it was about that length. >> do you know, so fusion gps the main actor of fusion gps, the president of the company, or the owner of a company. working for hillary clinton glenn simpson, you know how many times glenn simpson met with natalia? >> no. >> would it surprise you to know the clinton campaign dirty ops arm met with natalia more times than the trump campaign did? >> i'm not going to get into it as i indicated at the outset. >> did you ever interview glenn simpson? >> i'm going to pass on that.

according to notes from the state department official kathleen cadillac. christopher steele told her that former russian intelligence head and putin adviser were sources for the steele dossier? knowing that these are not getting into whether these sources were real or not real was there any concern that there could have been disinformation that was going from the kremlin into the clinton campaign. and then being fed into the fbi? >> as i said before, this is an area i cannot speak to. >> is that because it's not in the report or because -- >> it's involved in other deliberations, other proceedings and the like. >> when andrew wiseman joined your team, were you aware that

bruce fuller, directly briefed the dossier allegations to them in the summer of 2016? >> again, i'm not going to speak to that issue. >> okay. >> before you arrested george papadopoulos in july of 2017, he was given $10,000 in cash in israel. do you know who gave him that cash? >> again, it's outside our gambit and questions such as that should go to the fbi or the department. >> it involved your investigation? >> it involved persons involved in my investigation. >> thank you, sir. >> we will stand in recess for five or ten minutes. please, folks, remain in your seats, allow the director and mr. zebley to exit the chamber. >> the first half of the second part of this day has concluded,

about 1:15 minutes or so. robert mueller opened up by trying to clarify about what he earlier said in response to ted lieu from california. the question being, you did not indict donald trump, is that because of the olc, the office of legal counsel stating you cannot indict a sitting president? correct? mueller said, that is correct. he opened up this statement today by saying that was not the correct way to phrase it. as we say in the report, as i said at the option, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. >> yeah, in fact i think we have that if we want to roll tape. this is robert mueller clarifying something he said that gave the mistaken impression that they would have definitively indicted president trump had it not been for the olc memo. that's not what he wanted to say it's not the impression he wanted to leave. so we're going to play for you

the first thing he said to ted liu in the earlier hearing, and then the cleanup which just happened moments ago. let's roll tape. >> to recap what we've heard, we have 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. now we heard that the president ordered lewandowski to tell jeff sessions to limit your investigation so that he -- you stop investigating the president. i believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of a crime of obstruction of justice have been met. i'd like to ask you, the reason again that you did not indict donald trump is because of olc opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president, correct? >> that is correct. >> i want to go back to one thing that was said this

morning. by mr. liu. he 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 option, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. >> so a cleanup there, it seemed as though in the earlier hearing, that robert mueller had said something. the democrats were excited about. but he walked it back and he's back where the report is which is to say that before they could ever make a conclusion about whether or not they thought the president obstructed justice, they knew that they would not be able to indict him, so they never even reached a conclusion. but there was some news and some illumination that took place during the beginning of the house intelligence committee hearing, at the top of it, adam schiff from california, asked some probing questions, basically trying to make the case that even if there was no prosecutable evidence of

conspiracy between the trump team and russia, there were things that happened that were wrong. take a listen. >> 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 portion 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 have. we reported our report indications that that occurred, yes. gloria borger, let me bring you in here. not illegal, but not good news, not what president trump and his team want to be out there on television. >> he went on later to say it's a responsibility of political campaigns to inform the fbi if they get this kind of

communication from a foreign government offering help, so he did go there. one other thing that i thought was kind of pushing the envelope here for bob mueller at least, i think it was more forceful on the russian interference in a way than he was this morning. but when he was read by congressman quigley, the congressman's tweets and transcribing what the president said about wikileaks, i love you and all the rest. and mueller was asked, well, what did you think about that? and mueller said, problematic is an understatement. and then when schiff brought it up again, schiff being the prosecutor here. he brought it up again, and asked about it, and mueller called these communications disturbing and also subject to investigation. which i think is kind of interesting, because it's the first time we heard him sort of take on the president and say, that was completely out of line and problematic. >> but again, he's making the

case that they did not find anything they could have prosecuted in terms of actual tangible evidence of conspiracy with russia? >> right. >> and again, there's an evidentiary center they have to reach here, and i think that's where the issue lies for politicians who want to win elections. and in some cases, want to win at all costs. the question is, does what happened in 2016 and does this report, does it make it okay for future campaigns to do this again? i think that's where mueller is having trouble. you're seeing him go beyond what i thought he would do, where he said problematic is an understatement. i think you heard that from him, certainly when he made that press statement, but i think he believes that volume one and the findings here are things he wants us to all focus on. but at the same time it wasn't enough to bring charges against anyone as a conspiracy charge or

anything like that. i think he wants to tell people that this is not okay. that's what he wants people to take away. >> the fbi director said if someone comes to a campaign of a foreign government. especially a hostile foreign government. that says we have information on your opponent, that could be helpful to you. >> it's an important thing. >> a lot of republicans on this panel are not going to say that, nobody wants to say that, nobody wants to certainly incur the wrath of the president. or say the 2016 election was illegitimate. that's where the president gets most unnerved and that's what drives so much of his reaction. >> he might do it again. that's why the republicans don't want to cross him, i think this is where there's been a lot of questioning about why does robert mueller not answer these questions. why does he seem unfamiliar at times with his own report. he was the ceo of the operation

if you will. other people are questioning, is he all there if you will. where he's been most passionate is on questions about the credibility of the investigation. and the credibility of his team. he's defended the people on his team, saying he hires the best of the best. and on this issue here. donald trump jr. took this meeting, of course we investigated that, george papadopoulos came back and told the campaign they had emails, of course we investigated that, the president of the united states is tweeting, it's giving hope or a boost to illegal activity. i love wikileaks, what else does wiki leaks have. of course we would look into that, knowing they're a hostile actor. this is where he's been the most passionate, we did this for a reason, we had every right to do it, because the republicans are trying to say, you shouldn't have been here to begin with. >> to go back to the clarification that director mueller made about why they did not indict president trump, that's something the democrats had gotten excited about, they thought that this was big news. >> for good reason, and we all

noted at the lunch break, because the idea that there was proof of a crime committed by the president, and the only reason it was not prosecuted by robert mueller is because of the justice department decision you cannot indict a sitting president. he came back and walked that back it's not like we made it up that it was a big deal, it was a big deal. >> you could not be clearer. >> in his cleanup, mueller blamed ted liu he said that's not the correct way to say it. that's not the correct way to say it, it's a question. the thing that was incorrect was about mueller's answer. >> he did say a few times, that after the president leaves office. after he's no longer a sitting

president he could be indicted. >> which is what we talk about, there to preserve evidence and need to preserve evidence you never know what's going to leave. can you indict someone who's no longer the president of the united states, all that says to me, is that it was a walk back of 1,000 yards by the way, when he did so, he was essentially saying, look, you can lead a horse to water, but i can't make it drink. i just outlined 11 instances of why there was obstruction of conduct. i let you know about whether you should have illegal activity. yes, you should act. i'm not going to take it that far here's a green light. what else do you need me to say. the ball is in your court. >> what do you think has been the most important so far? >> i agree, i think the mueller

report, and the way he's comporting himself here, he's served up to the judiciary committee the meal. all they have to do is eat it, the facts are there, all they have to do is take action on it. i'm thinking about the watergate road map. it's fact after fact after fact. and the house judiciary committee in 74 was able to interpret it. >> i think the contrast to watergate is so interesting here, you didn't have jaworski or cox as the witnesses, you had the actual witnesses. that's what's missing here. >> members are about to come back into the hearing room. kaitlan collins has new

information. >> the president is keeping a close eye on this hearing, he's going to be watching this second one closely. we're seeing a change in the president's attitude. he started out so irritated about the idea of robert mueller going on capitol hill and testifying. after watching that hearing this morning, the president's mood has changed from one of agitation to one he feels more triumphant. they're still watching closely to see what it is robert mueller may say during this second hearing. we'll be hearing i assume from the president, when he walks out on the south lawn of the white house he's off to west virginia tonight for a political fund-raiser. he's going to be leaving here soon, keeping a close eye, the president's ally from capitol hill, mark meadows who is sitting in behind robert mueller this morning, just showed up here at the white house a short time ago, the president is now

in the west wing watching all of this unfold. we will see the president in about an hour and a half or so, when he leaves the white house to go to that fund-raiser in west virginia, the first thing that's been on the president's schedule all day. right now he feels pretty good about how the outcome of this hearing has gone. >> thanks so much. you see former special counsel former fbi director robert mueller re-entering the hearing room. and we're going to take it live the second part of the house intelligence committee hearing with robert mueller about the mueller report. let's listen in.

>> the meeting will come to order. >> thank you, sir. mr. swalwell you're recognized. >> director mueller, as a prosecutor you agree that if a witness or suspect lies or obstructs or tampers with evidence or destroys evidence during an investigation. generally that conduct will be used to show a consciousness, would you agree with that? >> yes. let's go through the people associated with the trump campaign and the people that lied to you. please put exhibit 8 up. i'm showing you campaign

chairman paul manafort, political adviser roger stone, deputy campaign manager rick gates, national security adviser michael flynn, donald trump's personal attorney, michael coen, and foreign policy adviser george papadopoulos. these six individuals have each been charged, convicted for lying to your office or other investigators, is that right? >> that's right. i can't answer to mr. stone, because he is in a different case here in d.c. >> the national security adviser flynn lied about discussions with russian ambassador related to sanctions, is that right? >> that's correct. >> michael cohen lied to this committee about trump tower moscow, is that correct? >> yes. >> george papadopoulos, the president's senior foreign policy adviser lied to the fbi about his communications about russia's possession of dirt on hillary clinton, is that right is it. >> yes. >> the president's campaign

chairman paul manafort lied about meeting ez he had with someone with ties to russian intelligence, is that correct? >> that's true. >> your investigation was hampered by trump officials use of encryption communications, is that right? >> we believe that to be the case. >> you also believe to be the case that your investigation was hampered by the deletion of electronic messages, is that correct? >> it would be, yes. generally any case would be if those kinds of communications are used. >> for example, you noted that deputy campaign manager rick gates who shared internal campaign polling data with the person with ties to russian intelligence at the direction of manafort, that mr. gates deleted those communication on a daily basis, is that right? >> i don the know specifically, but if it's in the report, i support it. >> it's volume one page 136. >> thank you. >> in addition to that, other

information was inaccessible because your office determined it was protected by attorney client privilege, is that correct? >> that is true. >> that would include that you do not know whether communications between donald trump and his personal attorneys jay secolo, rudy giuliani and others discouraged cooperation with the government, is that right? >> i'm not going to talk to that. >> you can't talk to wage pardons were dangled? >> i'm not going to discuss that. >> did you want to interview donald trump jr.? >> i'm not going to discuss that. >> did you subpoena donald trump jr.? >> i'm not going to discuss that. >> did you want to interview the president? >> yes much. >> director mueller, on january 1st, 2017 through march 2019, donald trump met with vladimir

putin in person six times, called him ten times and exchanged four letters with him, between that time period how many times did you meet with donald trump? >> i'm not going to get into that. >> he did not meet with you in person, is that correct? >> he did not. >> as a result of lies, deletion of text messages, obstruction and witness tampering, is it fair to say you were unable to fully assess the scope of scale of russia's interference in the 2016 election, and trump's role in that interference. >> i'm not sure about that characterization. in total, there may be pieces of it that are accurate, but not in total. >> you did state in volume one page 10, this report embodies factual information, the office believes it to be accurate given

these absences. >> we don't know what we don't know. >> why is it so important that witnesses cooperate and tell the truth in an investigation like this? >> because the testimony of the witnesses goes to the heart of any criminal case you have. >> thank you, and i yield back, thank you, director mueller. >> miss stephanic. >> mr. mueller, as special counsel did you review documents related to the origin of the counter intelligence investigation to the trump campaign? >> on occasion. >> was the steele dossier one of those documents reviewed? >> i can't discuss that case. >> i'm asking a process question, have you read the steele dossier. >> i'm not going to respond to that. >> you were tasked to investigate whether there was collusion between russia and the trump campaign to interfere with the 2016 election, and the fbi we know has relevant documents and information relating to the opening of the cia having.

were you and your team permitted to access all of those documents? >> and again, i can't get into that investigative -- what we collected and what we're doing with investigation. investigative materials. >> let me ask it this way, was there any limitation in your access to documents, related to the counter intelligence. >> it's such a broad question, i have trouble answering it. >> did the special counsel's office undertake any efforts to investigate and verify or disprove allegations contained in the steele dossier? >> again, i can't respond. >> the reason i'm asking for the american public that is watching, it's apparent that the steele dossier formed part of the basis to justify the fbi's counter intelligence investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election, as we know it was used to obtain a fisa warrant on carter page. this is why i'm asking these

questions. did your office take any efforts to identify steele sources or sub sources. >> again, the same answer. >> were these tasks referred to any other agencies? >> again, i can't speak to it. >> did your office determine whether the trump administration used the steele dossier for information -- >> i can't answer. >> did any part of your staff travel overseas as part of the investigation? >> yes. but i can't go further than that. >> to which countries? >> i can't answer that. >> did they meet with foreign government officials? >> out of our bailiwick. >> did they meet with foreign private citizens? >> again, same response. >> did they seek information about a u.s. citizen or --

>> it's a territory i cannot go to. >> thank you for answering on the record. these are important questions for the american public, and we're hopeful that the i.g. is able to answer these questions. i will yield the balance of my time to the ranking member. >> thank you for yielding. mr. mueller i wanted to go back to, we started off with joseph misfud at the center of your investigation, he appears in your report a dozen times or more. he really is the epicenter, he's at the origin of this, he's the man who supposedly knows about clinton's emails, you see on the screen, the democrats can put up all the prosecution cushions that you made against trump campaign officials and others. but i'm struggling to understand

why you didn't indict joseph is mifsud, who seems to be in the middle of all of this. >> i think you understand, you cannot get into classified or law enforcement information without a rationale for doing it, and i have said on -- going to be able to say, with regard to mr. mifsud. >> were you aware of kathleen cadillac's involvement that she had met with steele -- >> i can't answer that question, it's outside my jurisdiction. >> okay. the carter page fisa warrant was reupped three times, the last time it was reupped was under your watch. so you -- did you -- were you in

the approval process of that the last time the carter page warrant was. >> well, i can't speak specifically about that warrant, if you ask, was i in the approval chain, the answer is no. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. castro. >> thank you for your testimony, and for your service to our country. donald trump over the years has surrounded himself with some very shady people, people that lie for him, people that covered up for him. people that helped him enrich himself. i want to talk about one of those instances that's in your report. specifically, let's turn to the trump tower moscow project which you described as a "highly lucrative deal for the trump organization." is that right? >> i would have to look at the quote from the report if you have it. >> sure, it's in volume two, page 135.

it's described as highly lucrati lucrative? >> okay, i have it. thank you, sir. >> no problem. your office prosecuted michael cohen, and michael cohen was donald trump's lawyer for lying to this committee about several aspects of the trump organization's pursuit of the trump tower moscow deal, is that right? >> that's correct. >> accord to your report, cohen lied to minimize links between the project and trump. and to stick to the party line in order not to contradict trump's public message that no connection existed between trump and russia. is that right? >> yes. that's correct. >> now when you're talking about the party line here, the party line if this case -- >> if i can interject, the one thing i should have said at the

outset, it was in the report and i do believe it to be true. >> thank you. the party line in this case is that the deal ended in january 2016. in other words, they were saying the deal ended in january 2016, before the republican primaries, in truth, the deal extended to june of 2016, when donald trump was already the presumptive republican nominee, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> the party line was also that cohen discussed the deal with trump only three times, when in truth they discussed it multiple times, is that right? >> also true and part of the basis for that plea that he entered for lying to this entity. >> thank you. and thank you for prosecuting that. the party line was also that cohen and trump never discussed traveling to russia during the campaign, when in truth they did discuss it, is that right?

>> that's accurate. >> and the party line was that cohen never received a response from the kremlin to his inquireinquire ryes about the trump tower moscow deal. but the truth is, he had a lengthy conversation with a kremlin representative who had a detailed understanding of the project, is that right? >> if it's in the report, that is accurate, recitation of that piece of the report. >> so you have candidate trump at the time saying he had no business dealings with russia, his lawyer who was lying about it, and then the kremlin who during that time was talking to president trump's lawyer about the deal, is that right? >> i can't adopt a characterization. >> not only was cohen lying on trump's behalf, but so was the kremlin, on august 30th, 2017, two days after cohen submitted his false statement to this committee, claiming he never

received a response to his email to the kremlin, vladimir putin's press secretary told reporters the kremlin left the email unanswered. that statement by putin's press secretary was false, wasn't it? >> i can't speak to that. >> although it was widely reported in the press in. >> i can't speak to that, if it was dependent upon media sources. >> it was consistent with the lie that cohen had made to the committee, is that right? >> i'm not certain i could go that far. >> so cohen, president trump and the kremlin were all telling the same lie? >> i defer to you on that, i can't get into the details. >> special counsel mueller, i want to ask you something that's very important to the nation? did your investigation evaluate whether president trump could be vulnerable to blackmail by the russians because the kremlin knew that trump and his associates lied about connections to russia related to

the trump tower deal? >> i can't speak to that. >> i yield back, chairman. >> mr. hurt. >> thank, you mr. chairman. director mueller, you've been asked many times this afternoon about collusion, obstruction of the justice, and impeachment in the steele dossier, and i don't think your answers are going to change if i ask you about those questions, so i'm going to ask about a couple press stories, a lot of what the american people have received about this have been on press stories, some of that has been wrong, and some of those press stories have been accurate. on april 13th, 2018, mcclatchy reported that you had had evidence michael cohen made a secret trip to prague during the 2016 presidential election. i think he told the committees in congress that was incorrect. is that story true? >> i can't -- well, i can't go into it. >> got you. on october 31st, 2016, slate

published a report suggesting that a server at trump tower was secretly communicating with russia's alpha bank, and i quote, akin to what criminal syndicates do. do you know if that story is true? >> do not. do not know whether it's true. >> did you not investigate these allegations which are suggestive of potential trump russia -- >> because i believe it's not true, doesn't mean it wasn't investigated. it may well be investigated. although my belief at this point is it's not true. >> as a former cia officer, i want to focus on something both sides of the political aisle can agree on, that is how do we prevent russian intelligence and other adversaries from doing this again. and after overseeing counter intelligence operations for 12 years as fbi director. and then investigating what the russians have done in the 2016 election, you've seen tackic its, techniques and results of russian intelligence operations.

our committee made a recommendation that the fbi should improve its victim notification process, when a person entity or campaign has fallen victim to active measures attack. would you agree with this? >> it sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. i will tell you, though, that the ability of our intelligence agencies to work together in this arena is perhaps more important than that. and adopting whatever -- and i'm not that familiar with that legislation, whatever legislation will encourage us working together. the fbi, cia, nsa and the rest, should be pursued. aggressi aggressively, early. >> who do you think should be responsible within the federal government to counter disinformation? >> well, i'm no longer in the federal government, so i -- >> but you've had a long -- a storied career, and i don't

think there's anybody who better understands the threat that we are facing than you, do you have an opinion as a former fbi officer? >> as to -- >> as to who should be coordinating points within the federal government on how to deal with -- >> i don't want to wade in those waters. >> one of the most striking things in your report is that the internet research agency, not only undertook a social media campaign you asked, they were able to organize political rallies after the election. our committee issued a report and insight on saying that russian active measures are growing with frequency and intensity, and including their expanded use of groups such as the ira, and these groups pose a significant threat to the united states and our allies in upcoming elections, would you agree with that? >> yes. >> in fact one of the other

areas we have to look at, and many more countries developing capability to replicate what the russians have done. >> you alluded to making sure the other -- all the elements of the federal government should be working together. do you have a suggestion on a strategy to do that to counter the information? >> not overarching. >> is this -- in your investigation, did you think that this was a single attempt by the russians to get involved in our election? or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again. >> it wasn't a single attempt. they're doing it as we sit here. and they expect to do it during the next campaign. >> director mueller, i appreciate your time in indulging us here in multiple committees, i yield back to the ranking member if he has -- i yield back to the chairman.

>> mr. heck. >> director mueller, i'd like to go to the motives behind the trump campaign encouragement and acceptance of help during the election. obviously a clear motivation was to help them in what would turn out to be a very close election. but there was another key motivation, and that was the desire to make money. i always try to remember what my dad, who never had the opportunity to go beyond the eighth grade taught me, i should never ever understatement the capacity of some people to cut corners and even more in order to worship and chase the almighty buck. this is important. i think it's why the trump campaign was unrelenting intent on developing relationships with the kremlin. let's revisit one financial scheme we discussed which was the trump tower in moscow. we indicated earlier it was a lucrative deal. trump stood to earn many

millions of dollars on that deal, did they not, sir? >> true. >> and cohen -- mr. cohen his attorney testified before this committee that president trump believed the deal required kremlin approval. is that consistent with what he told you? >> i'm not certain whether it's mr. trump himself or others associated with the enterprise had discussed the necessity of having the input from the state in the russian government in order to go forward successfully. >> isn't it also true that donald trump viewed his presidential campaign as he told top campaign aids that the campaign was an infomercial for the trump organization and his properties? >> i'm not familiar with that. >> let's turn to trump campaign chair paul manafort. did your investigation find any evidence that manafort intended to use his position as trump's

campaign chair for his own personal financial benefit? >> i would say there was some indication of that, but i won't go further. >> i think you'll find it on page 135 of volume i. during the transition, trump's son in law, jared kushner met with the head of a russian owned bank that was under -- is under u.s. sanctions. according to the head of the bank, he met with kushner in his capacity as ceo of kushner companies to discuss business opportunities. is that correct, sir in. >> i'm not certain about that. let me put it that way. >> it was asserted in your report, volume i pages 161 and 162. your report notes that at the time, kushner companies were trying to renegotiate a billion dollar lease of their flag ship building at 666 5th avenue,

correct? >> i'm not familiar with those financial arrangements. >> also on page 162, where kushner company it was asserted had debt obligations coming due on the company. eric prince, a supporter close to trump -- >> a supporter. >> he met in the seychelles during the transition with the head of a sanctioned russian government investment arm, which had close ties to vladimir putin, correct, sir? >> yes. >> your investigation determined they were not aware of the connections before the election?

>> i'm not aware of that. >> he met with dmitriev during the transition period to discuss business opportunities among other things. but it wasn't just trump and his associates that were trying to make money off this deal nor hide it or lie about it, russia was too. that was the whole point to gain relief from sanctions which would hugely benefit their incredibly wealthy oligarch's. sanctions relief was discussed at that june 9th meeting, in the trump tower, was it not, sir? >> yes, so it's not a main subject for discussion. >> trump administration national security adviser michael flynn also discussed sanctions in a secret conversation with the russian ambassador, did he not? >> right. >> so to summarize, donald trump, michael cohen, paul manafort, jared kushner, eric prince and others in the trump orbit all tried to use their

connections with the trump organization to profit from russia, which was openly seeking relief from sanctions, is that true, sir? >> i'm not certain i can adopt what you're -- >> i will. and i further assert that was not only dangerous, it was unamerican. greed corrupts. greed corrupts, and it is a terrible foundation for developing american foreign policy. >> mr. radcliffe? >> director mueller, given your constraints on what you're able or allowed to answer with respect to counter intelligence matters or other matters that are currently open and under investigation. you're not going to be able to answer my remaining questions. so i thank you for your courtesies in the answers that you have given to my prior questions. and i do thank you for your

extraordinary career and record of service and yield the balance of my time to the ranking member. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. radcliffe. and mr. mueller, let me associate my words with mr. radcliffe. a few more questions i want to clean up a little bit about the eric prince seychelles meeting. he testified before this committee that he was sur veiled by the u.s. government and information from the surveillance was leaked to the press. did you investigate whether prince was sur veiled and whether classified information on him was illegally linked to the media? >> did you say did you or will you? >> well, i know you can't. >> i can't. >> did you refer, were you aware that prince made these investigations that he was sur veiled. there were leaks about this

surveillance, did you make any referrals about these. >> i can't get into a discussion on it. >> also ognjen flynn, i know you came after the leak of his phone call with the russian ambassador. your time at the fbi, it would be a major scandal for the leak of the national security adviser and anyone -- >> i can't adopt that hypothe s hypothesis. >> does your report name any people who were acting as u.s. government informants or sources without disclosing that fact? >> i can't answer that. >> on volume i page 133 of your report. you state that konstantin kilimnik has ties to russian intelligence. his name came up quite often

today, your report omits to mention that kilimnik has long term relationships with u.s. officials, including our own state department. >> i can't -- i can't get into that. >> i know it's not in the report, but if kilimnik is being used in the report to say that he was possibly some type of russian agent, i think it is important for this committee to know if kilimnik has ties to our own state department which it appears that he does. >> again. at the same territory that i loathe to get into. >> you were asked this earlier about trump attorney john dowd that pieces of his phone call were omitted from the report it was -- what mr. dowd calls

exculpatory evidence. are you concerned about -- >> i'm not certain i would agree with that characterization. i think i said that before. >> yes. an american citizen from the republic of georgia who your report misidentifies as a russian claims that your report omitted parts of a text message he had with michael cohen about stopping the flow of compromising tapes of donald trump. and the omitted portions, he says he did not know what the tapes actually showed. was that portion of the exchange left out of the report for a reason? >> no. we have an awful lot in the report, we did not get every intersection or conversation and like -- i'm not familiar with that particular episode you're talking about. >> thank you, mr. mueller, thank

you, mr. chairman. >> mr. welch. >> director mueller, did you find there was no collusion between the trump campaign and russia? >> well, we don't use the word collusion. the word we usually use is the -- not collusion, but one of the other terms that fills in when collusion is not used. in any event, the -- we decided not to use the word collusion in as much as it has no relevance to the criminal law arena. >> the term is conspiracy that you prefer to use? >> that's exactly right. >> you help me i'll help you. >> thank you. you. >> had to make a charging decision after your

investigation where unless there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you wouldn't make a charge, correct? >> making that decision godoes t mean your investigation failed to turn up evidence of conspiracy? >> that's correct. >> i'll go through some of the significant findings that your exhaustive investigation made. you found as i understand it, that from may 2016 until the end of the campaign. campaign chairman mr. manafort gave private polling information to russian agents, correct? >> correct. >> can you speak into the microphone? >> yes, i will. my apologize. >> in june 2016, donald trump junior made an arrangement to meet at trump tower expecting to receive dirt on the hillary clinton campaign, correct? >> correct. >> and you found in your

investigation that july 27th, candidate trump called on russia to hack hillary clinton's email, something for the first time they did five hours later, correct? >> correct. >> and you also found that on august 2nd, mr. manafort met with a person tied to russian intelligence. mr. kilimnik gave him internal campaign strategy aware that russia was intending to do a misinformation social media campaign. correct? >> not certain of the time. >> but the fact that that meeting. >> the meeting took place is accurate. >> and your investigation as i understand it, also found that in late summer of 2016, the trump campaign in fact devised its strategy and messaging around wiki leaks releases of materials that were stolen from the democratic nat