insufficient evidence of. the president's call culpability. so that would be a yes without a part b. yes yes thank you isn't it true the evidence did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in the charge russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the present other was an unlawful relationship will be any russian official volume 2 page $76.00 correct i believe the answer to the report so early is is that the a true investigation did not establish that members of the drum campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in the election interference activity volume one page 2 volume one page 173 thank you yes yes thank you. although your report states coalition is not so specific i fancy and you said that this morning or a term of art in federal criminal law of conspiracy is in the colloquial tongue takes our collusion and conspiracy essentially synonymous terms. to repeat that for me.

collusion is not a specific of finance or a term of art in the federal criminal law conspiracy is yet in the colloquial context no public context collusion collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms correct. if no on page 180 of volume one of your report you wrote as defined in legal dictionaries collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in a general federal conspiracy statute 18 u.s.c. 371 and you said at your may 29th press corps and here today you choose your words carefully are you sitting here today testifying something different than what your report states. well what i'm asking is if you can give me the citation i can look at the citation and evaluate whether it is ok let me just be clear front you stated that you stay within the report i just stated your report back to you and you said that collusion collusion conspiracy were not synonymous terms that was

your answer was no where in that page 180 of volume one of your report it's is as defining legal big areas collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as it crime is set forth in general conspiracy statute 18 u.s.c. 371 now you said you chose your words carefully are you contradicting your report right now when i read it so you change your answer to yes then you know. if you look at the language. i'm reading your report sir it's a yes or no answer page 180 page 100 volume one this was from your report correct and i. leave it with the report so the report says yes they are synonymous hopefully for finally out of your own report we can put to bed the collusion because piers the one last question is we're going through did you ever look into other countries investigated in the russians for interference in our election where other countries investigated or found knowledge that they had parents our election

i'm not i discuss other matters i'm not a you know but kerry many years back the gentle lady from california director muller as you've heard from the chairman were mostly going to talk about obstruction of justice today but the investigation of russia's attack that started your investigation is why evidence of possible obstruction is serious to what extent did the russian government interfere in the 2016 presidential election i could you repeat that ma'am to what extent did the russian government interfere in the 2016 presidential election. particular when i came to computer crimes and the like the government was implicated so you wrote on in volume one that the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion you also described in your report that then from campaign chairman paul

a man of 40 shared with a russian operative clinic the campaign strategy for winning democratic votes in midwestern states in internal polling data of the campaign isn't that correct correct they they also discussed the status of the trump campaign amana for its strategy for winning democratic votes in midwestern states months before that meeting man of fort hood caused internal data to be shared with clinic and the sharing continued for some period of time. after their august meeting isn't that correct accurate in fact your investigation found that manaf one brief kalanick on the state of the trump campaign and man of ford's plan to win the election and that briefing encompasses the campaign's messaging its internal polling data it also included discussion of battleground states which man afforded dandified is michigan wisconsin pennsylvania and minnesota isn't that correct a threat if your investigation determine who requested the polling data to be

shared with the clinic. i would. direct you to the report and out what we have in the report it with regard to that particularly if we don't have the redacted version that's maybe another reason why we should get that for by him one based on your investigation how could the russian government have used this campaign polling data to further its sweeping and systematic interference in the 2016 presidential level but out of. a half fair enough. did your investigation find that the russian government proceeds it would benefit from one of the candidates winning yes and which candidate would that be. well it would be pretty trouble correct right now the trump campaign wasn't exactly reluctant to take russian help you wrote it expected it would benefit elect who are really from information stolen and released through russian efforts isn't that

correct at wreck now was the investigations a determination rick what was the investigations determination regarding the frequency with which the trump campaign made contact with the russian government. i would have to refer you to the report on where we went through and we counted 126 car contacts between russians or their agents and trump campaign officials or their associates so with that sound about right. i can say i understand this statistic and. i believe it or senator tester well mr meller i appreciate your being here and your report from your testimony and the report i think the american people have learned several things 1st the russians want to trump when 2nd the russians went on

a sweeping cyber influenced campaign the russians hacked the d.n.c. and they got the democratic game plan for the election the russian campaign chairman met with russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data holing and messaging in the battleground states so while the russians were buying ads and creating propaganda to influence the outcome of the election they were armed with inside information that they had stolen through hacking from the d.n.c. and they had been given by the trump campaign chairman mr mann afford my colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this information from becoming public but i think it's important for the american people to understand the gravity of the underlying problem that your report uncovered and with that mr chairman i would yield back you know way. good morning director

if you let me quickly summarize your opening statement this morning he said in volume one on the issue of conspiracy the special counsel determined that the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government its election interference activities and then in volume 2 for reasons that you explain the special counsel did not make a determination on whether there was an obstruction of justice crime committed by the president is that fair. right now in explaining that special counsel did not make what you call the traditional prosecution or declination decision the report on the bottom of page 2 of volume 2 reads as follows the evidence we have change about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred accordingly while this report was not conclude that the president committed a crime it also does not exonerate him now i read that correctly yes right now your

report and today you said at all times the special counsel team operated under was guided by and followed justice department policies and principles so which d.o.j. policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal criminal conduct is not conclusively determine can you repeat the question yeah which d.o.j. policy or principle set forth a legal standard that investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal criminal conduct is not conclusively determined. is that language come from director where is the d.o.j. policy that says that. can you let me make it easier it is there is it can you give me an example other than donald trump where the justice department to determine that an investigative person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determine. i cannot but this if you mean ok well you

can't time is short i've got 5 minutes let's just leave it you can't find it because i'll tell you why it doesn't exist the special counsel's job nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine dollar terms in a sense or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him it's not in any of the documents it's not in your appointment order it's not in the special counsel regulations it's not in the o l c opinions it's not the justice manual and it's not the principles of federal prosecution no where do those words appear together because respectfully respectfully director it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine donald trump's innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence exist for everyone everyone is entitled to it including sitting presidents and because there is a presumption of innocence prosecutors never ever need to conclusively determine it now director the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that i can't

find and use it doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies and he used it to write a report and the very 1st line of your report the very 1st line of your report says and you as you read this morning it authorizes a special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declamation decisions reached by the special counsel that's the very 1st word of your report right. here's the problem director the special counsel didn't do that. on volume one you did volume 2 with respect to potential of obstruction of justice the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declaration decision you made no decision you told us this morning and in your report that you made no determination so respectfully director you didn't follow the special counsel regulations it clearly says write a confidential report about decisions reached no where in here does it say write

a report about decisions that were reached you wrote $180.00 pages $180.00 pages about decisions that weren't reached about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided and respectfully respectfully by doing that you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that are charged so americans need to know this as they listen to the democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle as they do dramatic readings from this report that volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written it was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the justice department and it was written in violation of every d.o.j. principle about extra prosecutorial commentary i agree with the chairman this morning when he said donald trump is not above the law he's not but he did i'm sure

shouldn't be below the law which is where volume 2 of this report puts him. thank you mr chairman director mueller that morning your exchange with the gentle lady from california demonstrates what is at stake the trump campaign to your palm and for passing sensitive voter information in polling data to a russian operative and there were so many other ways that russia subverted democracy together with the evidence in volume one i can think of a more serious need to investigate so now i'm going to ask you some questions about obstruction of justice as a relates to volume 2 on page 12 of volume 2 you state we determined that there were sufficient factual and legal bases to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the president is that correct. you have

a citation page 12 volume 2. that is we determine that there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the president is that correct. your report also describes at least 10 separate instances of possible obstruction of justice that were investigated by you and your team is that correct in fact the tape of canton serves as a very good got rid of some of the acts that obstruction of justice and to investigate it and i put it up on the screen on page $157.00 of volume 2 you describe those acts and they range from the president's effort to curtail the special counsel's investigation the president further and the attorney general take over the investigation the president's orders again to deny that the president tried to fire the special counsel and many others is that correct. i direct you now

to what you wrote the rectum of the president parent of kind as a whole shares light on the nature of the president's act and the inference is that can be drawn about his intent does that mean you have to investigate all of his conduct to ascertain true motives. and when you talk about the president's parent of conduct that include the 10 possible acts of obstruction that you investigated is that correct when you talk about the present pattern of conduct that would include the 10 possible obstruction that you investigated correct i direct you to the report for how that is characterized thank you let me go to the screen again for each of those potential instances of obstruction of justice you analyze 3 elements of the crime of obstruction of justice and obstructive act a nexus between the act in an official proceeding and corrupt intent is that

correct you wrote on page 178 volume 2 in your report about corrupt intent actions by the president to end a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct is that correct you have. to the screen again even with the evidence you did find is it true as you note on page $76.00 of volume 2 that the evidence does indicate that a thorough f.b.i. investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally that the president could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to legal personal and political concerns. to the reporter is that relevant to potential obstruction of justice is that relevant to potential obstruction of justice. you further elaborate on page 157 obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interest to protect against investigations

were underlying criminal i believe falls into a great area or to avoid personal embarrassment is that correct you. have on the screen. is that correct on the screen and can you repeat the question now that i have the language.

this very committee has offered has submitted tons of subpoenas by this point to various members of the trump administration and it would be illegal for robert mueller to decline that subpoena that's a legal requirement to appear before a congressional. hearing for example the justice department of the attorney general should attorney general barr wilbur ross the commerce department secretary they've both been held in contempt for defying subpoenas from congress they could very

theoretically but probably not in actuality face jail time or face some kind of penalty robert mueller would also face those kinds of consequences if he didn't show up so you're absolutely right he is not very happy to be there i think we can see that in the pictures that we were looking at a ready he looks he looks very much like he wants to get this over with he was very quiet during the whole investigation let's not forget he made one time he made public statements that was after the conclusion of the report otherwise he was not seen at all except for maybe getting a spice chai latte at the local starbucks in washington otherwise he was absent not to be seen for these 2 years of this investigation but he's a man of very few words and he's a man of very precise language but at the same time you're listing to the killing off questioning is pretty high and the asking speaking of a quickly and very very often he's off them repeat what you've said is that a tactic or is he genuinely uncomfortable to be in this situation i would say it's a combination of both there are some this is a highly legal highly complex language and be very careful that he does stick to

what the facts that he found show that he can't be seen tripping up and contradicting himself it would undermine his reputation undermine the investigations reputation. but at the same time of course there are political tactics on both sides muller indeed wants to avoid stepping beyond the bounds of the report as you said republicans want to show that this report this is closed and therefore there's a lot of taxes going on a lot of parading happening and we can see that when you have a fixed 5 minutes the democrats of course want to make the most of their 5 minutes the republicans want to get those 5 minutes over with us. it is possible because what do you make of the tone of questioning because this hearing was meant to be last week and it was postponed because the democrats wanted more time to ask these questions so you as you said each person has 5 minutes and so it's going to last about 5 ask what do you make of what the tone of questions yes interesting i mean we have both sides have a narrative they're trying to push the democrats want to show that although the

report did not fly conclusive evidence of trump wrongdoing or his campaign's wrongdoing that there's enough circumstantial evidence or enough evidence that in another case it was dealing with the president would amount to a criminal conviction or a criminal charges and republicans want to the exact opposite of how that report is interpreted which is that there is no conclusive evidence case closed moving beyond this now but both sides have a very tricky pass to go down the democrats have to be upholding. the veracity and the integrity of both muller and the investigation while trying to get him to give more than he wants to give and republicans also need to show that this investigation was thorough and complete but at the same time if they can take miller down a notch if they get the american people to think that he's biased or any way partisan that may hurt his reputation but at the same time then people might think well maybe the investigation isn't as closed the case as we'd like as republicans would like to believe. if you just want to just like you to view is that we are actually also monitoring the situation of what's happening in london got our

cameras trained on 10 downing street where prime minister if to the prime minister is a man is due to make a final address and speech as prime minister of britain before she goes to buckingham palace and officially hands in resignations of it keeping an eye on the story and soon as to them it comes out in front of 10 downing street we take you straight there returning to now william from what i can understand at the heart of this whole thing is it's not black and white this monitor report is not black and white that the report seems to suggest that the president. committed no crime but it doesn't exonerate him completely now given that from what we've heard so far has anything new in much to now if it were very much sticking within the confines of the of this report right now but many americans including some of the congresspeople ask these questions haven't read the reports or for many people this is the 1st time they're hearing it that's what democrats want to focus on get this back into the front of people's minds of americans minds right now polls are showing people are starting to forget news move quickly topics change issues change

or moving the 2020 election there's lots of other political issues of course trump and his supporters want to completely forget about this and move into the future with with this behind them so the idea is even if there's no lead new legal case to make that politically speaking the democrats can score points by reminding people of what the actual facts are what the investigation did find it and putting it into very simple language that people can understand i one thing i noted was that lawyers effort to make things very simple he didn't say d.o.j. the abbreviation for department of justice he said department of justice so to make it very clear for any americans who might be watching that make them very clear what's happening so they can understand it because ultimately this will or could influence polls and we're good looking at a 2020 election that's going to be even more raucous probably than the past midterm in 2018 in the presidential to the 60 the q.b. i think we've been able to establish a line to washington correspondent on of a senate he joins me now now whenever you have been listening in to the mother testimony in washington what have been your initial reactions to what he said.

oh very interesting how the chairman gerry nalla went into this after as opening remarks and then the 1st set of questions he asked the former special counsel robert muller and he essentially took a quote of donald trump trump has been repeating over and over again insisting on him being not guilty of course and the quote was total exoneration that donald trump claims for himself and what jerry navl or did then was simply asking him can you confirm that donald trump is totally exonerated and the answer was pretty simple it was no he cannot confirm it because that is what the report states the mother report states that there was no collusion to be proven at least by trump's team but also that trump could not be exonerated for obstructing justice and now that is what he reached here and he has that sound bite and that is very crucial

and very important because until now the mother report was only last international day on it without having any sickly to me for interrupting you but let's go straight to 10 downing street to resume is making fun in advance as by minute new ministration. i repeat my warm congratulations to boris on winning the conservative leadership election i wish him and the government he will lead every good school in the months and he is ahead. their successes will be our country's successes and i hope that they will be many their achievements will build on the work of nearly a decade of conservative or conservative led government. during that time our economy has been restored our public service is reformed and our values defended on the world stage of course much remains to be done the immediate priority being to complete our exit from the european union in a way that works for the whole united kingdom. with success in that task can come

a new beginning for our country a national renewal that can move us beyond the current time past into the bright future the british people deserve to serve as prime minister of the united kingdom is the greatest honor the heavy responsibility is our outweighed by the huge potential to serve your country. but you achieve nothing. and as i leave downing street my final words are of sincere thanks to my colleagues in government and parliament to everyone in the building behind me and across the civil service to the men and women of our armed forces and security services. and to the public servants in our schools our n.h.s. our police and the other emergency services all are inspired by the noble wish to

serve their country in the national interest. i also want to thank the british people everyone who loves our great country who works hard for their family and wants their children and grandchildren to enjoy greater opportunity than date it sank you for putting your face in me and giving me the chance to serve. this is a country of aspiration and opportunity. and i hope that every young girl who has seen a woman prime minister now knows for sure that there are no limits to what they can achieve. finally and most of all i want to thank my husband phillip who's been my greatest supporter and my closest companion. come up to me here and. i think the answer to that is i think not i'm about to leave downing

street but i'm proud to continue as the member of parliament for maidenhead i will continue to do all i can to serve the national interest and play my part in making our united kingdom a great country with a great future a country that truly works for everyone. who was british back. because she's standing in front of 10 downing street with her husband philip she described as her greatest supporter and friend their final goodbye. before the couple of head for backing and palin.