investigation that in july 27, candidate trump called on russia to hack hillary clinton's e-mails, something for the first time they did about five hours later, correct? >> that's correct. >> and you also found that on august 2, mr. manafort met with a person tied to russian intelligence, mr. kilimnik, and gave him internalstrategy, awars going to do social meet meadia campaign. >> i'm not sure of the time. but the fact that 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 wikileaks' releases of materials that were stolen from the democratic national committee. correct? >> is that from the report? >> yes. it's according to mr. gates. >> yes. >> ythank you.

and you also talked earlier about the finding in yr and october of 2016, donald trump jr. had email communications with wikileaks, now indicted, about releasing information damaging to the clinton campaign. correct? >> true. >> so-- >> true. >> so i understand you made a decision, a prosecutorial decision, that this would not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but i ask if you share my concern? my concern is hasv we established a new normal from this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns so that if any one of us running for the u.s. house any candidate hostrewengs. influence an election, has no duty to report that to the f.b.i. or other authorities?

>> i hope-- >> go ahead. >> i hope this is not the norm-. but i fear it is. >> and would, in fact, have the ability, without fear of legal repercussion, to meet with agents of that foreign entity, hostile to the american election? >> i'm sorry, what is the question? >> is that an apprehension that you share with me? >> yes. >> and that there would be no repercussions whatsoever to russia if they did this again, and as you've stated earlier, as we sit here, they're doing it now; is that correct? >> you're absolutely right. >> do you have any advice to this congress as together what we should do to protect our electoral system, and accept responsibility on our part to report to you or your successore foreign engage independent our

elections? >> i would say the basis-- the first line of defense really is the ability of the various agencies who have some piece of this to not only share information, but share expertise, share targets and use the full resources that we have to address this problem. >> thank you, director mueller. i yield back. >> mr. maloney. >> >> mr. mueller, thank you. i know it's been a long day, and i want to make clear how much respect i have for your service and for your extraordinary career. and i want you to understand my questions in that context, sir. i'm going to be asking you about appendix "c," to your report, and in particular, the decision is not to do a sworn interview with the president. it's really the only subject i want to talk to you about, sir. why didn't you subpoena the

president? >> well, at the outset, after we took over and nushted the investigation-- >> if i could as ask you to spek bot microfen. >> of course. at the outset after we took over the investigation, began it, pursued it, quite obviously, one of the things we anticipated wanting to accomplish and that was get ago having the interview of the president. we negotiated with him for a little over a year, and i think what you averted to in the appendix, lays out our expectations as a result of those negotiations. but finally, when it-- we were almost towards the end of our investigation, and we'd had little success in pushing to get the interview of the president, we disiewded that we did not want to exercise the subpoena powers because of the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation. >> was that-- was that-- excuse me. did you want to-- >> i was going to say, the

expectation was, if we did subpoena the president, he would fight the subpoena, and we would be in the midst of the investigation for a substantial period of time. >> right, but as we sit here, you've never had an opportunity to ask the president in person questions under oath, and so, obviously, that must have been a difficult decision. and you're right, appendix "c" lays that out. and indeed, i believe you describe the in-person interview as vital. that's your word. and of course you make clear you had the authority and the legal justification to do it, as you point out, you waited a year. you put up with a lot of negotiations. you made numerous accommodations which you lay out, so that he could prepare and not be surprised. i take it you were trying to be fair to the president. and, by the way, you were going to limit the questions when you got to written questions to russia only. and in fact you did go with written questions about after nine months, sir, right? and the president responded to those, and you have some hard language for what you thought of those responses. what did you think of the

president's written responses, mr. mueller? >> certainly not as useful as the interview would be. >> in fact, in fact you pointed out-- and by my count, there were more than 30 times where the president said he didn't recall, he didn't remember, no independent recollection, no current recollection. and i take it by your answer that it wasn't as helpful. that's why you used words like "incomplete, imprecise, inadequate, insufficient." is that a fair summary of what you thought of those written answers? >> that is a fair summary. and i presume that comes from the report. >> and yet, sir, and i ask this respectfully-- by the way, the president didn't ever claim the fifth amendment did, he? >> i'm not going to talk to that. >> well, from what i can tell, sir, at one point it was vital, and then at another point it wasn't vital. and my question to you is why did it stop being vital? and i can only think of three explanations. one is that somebody told you you couldn't do it. but nobody told you, you couldn't subpoena the president, is that right? >> we understood we could subpoena the president. >> rohingy rosenstein didn't te.

there are two other suggestions. one, you flinched. but you don't strike me as the kind of guy who flinches. >> i would hope not. >> and the third explanation-- i hope not, too, sir. and the third explanation i could think of was you didn't think you needed it. was caught my eye was page 13 of volume two was in fact you had a substantial body of evidence and you cite a bunch of cases, don't you, where you often vato prove intent to obstruct justice without the in-person interview. and you used substantial evidence of the president's intent. did you have sufficient evidence of the president's intent to obstruct justice? and is that why you didn't do the interview? >> there's a balance. in other words, how much evidence you have to satisfy the last element against how much time are you willing to spend in the courts lit gaith a-- litigating the interview with

the president. >> in this case you felt that you had enough evidence of the president's intent. >> we had to make a balanced decision in terms of how much evidence we had, compared to the length of time it would take-- >> circ because i have limited time. you thought that if you gave it to the attorney general or this congress, that there was sufficient evidence that it was better than that delay? >> can you state that again? >> that it was better than the delay to present the sufficient evidence, your term, of the president's intent to obstruct justice to the attorney general and the committee. isn't that why you didn't do the interview? >> the reason we didn't do the interview was because of the length of time it would take to resolve the issues attendant to that. >> thank you, sir. >> miss demings. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, and director mueller, thank you so much for being a person of honor and integrity. thank you for your service to the nation. we are certainly better for it. director mueller, i, too, want

to focus on the written responses that the president did provide and the continued efforts to lie and cover up what happened duringlet 2016 election. were the president's answers submitted under oath? >> >> were these all the questions you wanted to ask the president about the interference of the 2016 election. >> no. >> so there were other questions you wanted to answer. did you analyze his answers on russian interference to draw conclusions about the president's credibility? >> no, it was perhaps one of the factors, but nothing more than that. >> it was one of the factors. so what did you determine about the president's credibility? >> and that i can't get into. >> director mueller, i know, based on your decades of experience, you probably had an opportunity to analyze the credibility of countless witnesses. but you weren't able to do so with with this witness.

>> well, with every witness, particularly a leading witness, one assesses the credibility day by day, witness by witness, document by document. and that's what happened in this case. so we started with very little, and by the end, we ended up with a fair amount. yeah, fair amount. >> thank you. well, let's go through some of the answers and take a closer look at his credibility because it seems to me, director mueller, that his answers were not credible at all. do some of president trump's incomplete answers relate to trump moscow? >> yes. >> did you can the president if he had at any time directed our suggested that discussions about trump moscow project should cease? >> should what? >> cease. >> do you have a citation? >> yes. we're still in appendix "c," section 1. 7. >> the for us page? >> >> uh-huh it says the president did not

answer whether he had at at any time direct should the trump tower project cease. >> and the question was? >> did the president-- let me go on to the next question. did the president fully answer that question in his written stawment to you about the trump moscow project ceasing? again, in appendix "c." >> you can direct me to the particular paragraph you're averting to? >> it could be appendix c,-c1. let me move forward. nine days after he submitted his written answers, didn't the president say publicly that he, "decided not to do the project." and that is in your-- report. >> i-- i'd ask you-- i'd ask you, if you would, to point out the particular paragraph that you're focused on? >> okay. we can move on. did the president answer your

follow-up questions-- according to the report, there were follow-up questions because of the president's incomplete answers about the moscow project. did the president answer your follow-up questions, either in writing or orally? and we're now in volume 2, page 150-151. >> no. >> he did not in fact, there were many questions that you asked the president that he simply didn't answer. isn't that correct? >> true. >> and there were many answers that contradicted other evidenye investigation. isn't that correct, director mueller? >> yes >> for example, the president has written answers stated he did not recall having advanced knowledge of wikileaks releases. is that correct? >> i think that's what he said. >> but didn't your investigation uncover evidence that the president did in fact have advanced know of wikileaks public releases of emails damaging to his opponent? >> i can't get into that area. >> did your investigation

determine, after very careful vetting of rick gates and michael cohen, that you found them to be credible? >> that we found the president to be credible? >> that you found gates and cohen to be credible in their statements about wikileaks? >> those are areas i'm not going to discuss. >> okay. that the president was credible? >> i can't answer that question. >> director mueller, isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn't always being truthful? >> i would say... generally. >> generally. director mueller, it's one thing for the president to lie to the american people about investigation, falsely claiming you found no collusion and no obstruction, but it's something else altogether for him to get away with not answering your questions and lying about them. and as a former law enforcement

officer of almost 30 years, i find that a disgrace to our criminal justice system. thank you so much. i yield back to the chairman. >> thank you ma'am. >> mr. murthy. >> director mueller. thank you for your devoted service to your country. earlier today, you describe your report as detailing a criminal investigation. correct? >> yes. yes. >> director, since it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not reach counter-intelligence conclusions regarding the subject matter of your report. >> that's true. >> for instance, since it was outside your purview, your report did not reach counter-intelligence conclusions regarding any trump administration officials who might potentially be vnee to compromise or blackmail by russia, correct? >> those decisions probably were

made in a-- by the f.b.i. >> but not in your report, correct? >> not in our report. we avert to the counter-- counter-intelligence goals of our investigations which were secondary to any criminal wrongdoing that we could find. >> let's talk about one administration official in particular, namely president donald trump. other than trump tower moscow, your report does not address or detail the president's presiden' financial ties or dealings with russia, correct zoo correct. >> similarly since it was outside your purview, your report does not direct question of whether russian oligarchs engageengaged in money launderig through any of the president's businesses, correct? >> correct. >> and, of course, your office did not obtain the president's tax returns, which could otherwise show foreign financial

sources, correct? >> i'm not going to speak to that. i'm not going to speak to that. >> in july 2017, the president said his personal finances were off limits or outside the purview of your investigation. and he drew a-- quote, unquote-- red line around his personal finances. were the president's personal finances outside the purview of your investigation? >> i'm not going to get into that. >> were you destruct of destructed by anyone not to investigate the president's personal finances? >> no. >> mr. mueller, i'd like to turn your attention to counterintelligence risks associated with lying. individuals can be subject to blackmail if they lie about their interactions with foreign countries, correct? >> true. >> for example, you successfully charged former national security adviser michael flynn of lying to federal agents about his conversations with russian officials, correct? >> correct. >> since it was outside the purview of your investigation,

your report did not address how flynn's false statements could pose a national security risk because the russians knew the falsity of those stawments, right? >> i cannot get into that, mainly because there are many elements of the f.b.i. that are looking at different aspects of that issue. >> currently? >> currently. >> thank you. as you noted in volume 2 of your report, donald trump repeated five times in one press conference, mr. mueller, in 2016, "i have nothing to do with russia. " of course, michael cohen said donald trump was not being truthful, because at this time, trump was attempting to build trump tower moscow. your report does not address whether donald trump was compromised in any way, because of any potential false statements that he made about trump tower moscow, correct? >> that's right. i think that's right. >> director mueller, i want to

turn your attention to a couple of other issues. you've served as f.b.i. director during three presidential elections, correct? >> yes. >> and during those three presidential elections, you have never initiated an investigation at the f.b.i. looking into whether a foreign government urnt feared in our elections the same way you did in this particular instance, correct? >> i would say i personally know, but the f.b.i. quite obviously has the attacks such as russia took in 2016. >> now, director mueller, is there any information you'd like to share with this committee that you have not so far today? >> that's a broad question. and it will take me a while to get an answer to it, but i'll say no. >> mr. mueller, you sahd that

every american should pay very close attention to the systematic and sweeping fashion in which the russians interfered in our democracy. are you concerned that we are not doing enough currently to prevent this from happening again? >> i'll speak generally, and what i said in my opening statement this morning and here, that no, much more needs to be done in order to protect against this intrusion, not just by the russians, but others as well. >> thank you, director. >> we have two five-minute periods remaining. mr. niewn expes myself. mr. nunes, you are recognized. >> mr. mueller, it's been a long day for you. and you've had a long great career. i want to thank you for your longtime service, starting in vietnam, obviously in the u.s. attorney's office, the department of justice, and the f.b.i. and i want to thank you for

doing something you didn't have to do. you calm here upon your own free will, and we appreciate your time today. i will yield back. >> thank you, sur. >> director mueller, i want to close out my questions and turn to some of the exchange you had with mr. welch a bit earlier. i'd like to see if we can broaden the apure tur at the end of the hearing. from your testimony today, i gather you believe knowingly accepting foreign assistance during a presidential campaign is an unethical thing to do. >> and a crime and a crime, under given circumstances. >> and to the agree that it undermines our democracy and our institutions, we can agree that it's also unpatriotic. >> true. >> and wrong. >> true. >> the standard of behavior for a presidential candidate or any candidate, for that matter,

shouldn't be merely whether something is criminal. they should be held to a higher standard, you would agreel t get because it goes to the standards to be applied by other institutions besides ours. >> well, i'm just referring to ethical standards. we should hold our elected official foz a standard higher than mere avoidance of criminality, shouldn't we? >> absolutely. >> you have served this country for decades. you've taken an oath to defend the constitution. you hold yourself to a standard of doing what's right. >> i would hope. >> you have. i think we can all see that. and befitting the times, i'm sure your reward will be uninding criticism, but we are grateful. the need to act in an ethical manner is not just a moral one, but when people act unethiccably, it also exposes

them to compromise. particularly in dealing with foreign powers. is that true? >> true. >> because when someone acts unethically in connection way foreign partner, that foreign partner can later expose their wrongdoing and extort them. >> true. >> and that conduct, that unethical conduct can be of a financial nature, if you have a financial motive or illicit financial dealing, am i right? >> yes. >> but it culs involve deception. if you are lying about something that can be exposed, then you can be blackmailed. >> also true. >> in the case of michael flynn, he was secretly doing business with turkey, correct? >> yes. >> and that could open him up to compromise, that financial relationship. >> i presume. >> he also lied about his discussions with the russian ambassador. and since the russians were on the other side of that conversation, they could have exposed that, could they not? >> yes. >> if a presidential candidate

was doing business in russia and saying he wasn't, russians could expose that, too, could they not? >> i leave that to you. >> well, let's-- let's look at dmitri peskov, the spokesperson for the kremlin, someone the trump organization was in contact with to make that deal happen. your report indicates that michael cohen had a long conversation on the phone with someone from dmitri preskov's office, presumably the russians could record that conversation, could they not? >> yes. >> and so if candidate trump was saying,ip" have no dealings request the russians," but the russians had a tape recording, they could expose that, could they not? >> yes. >> that's the stuff of counter-intelligence niewrms, is it not? >> well, it has to do with counter-intelligence and the need for strong counter-intelligence entity. >> it does, indeed. and when this was revealed that there were these communications not withstanding the president's

denials, the president was confronted about this, and he said two things. first of all, "that's not a crime." but i think you and i have already agreed that that shouldn't be the standard, right, mr. mueller? >> true. >> and the second thing he said was, "why should i miss out on all those opportunities?" i mean, why, indeed? merely running awe presidential campaign, why should you miss out on making all that money was the import of his statement. were you ever able to ascertain whether donald trump still intends to build that tower when he leaves office? >> is that a question, sir? >> yes. were you able to ascertain? because he wouldn't answer your questions completely-- whether or if he ever ended the of that desire to build that tower? >> i'm not going to speculate on that. >> if the president was concerned that if he loofs his election, he didn't want to miss

out on that money. might he have the same concern about losing his re-election? >> again, that's speculation. >> the difficulty with this, of course, is we are all left to wonder whether the president is representing us or his financial interests. that concludes my questions. mr. nunes, do you have any concluding remarks? >> director mueller let me close by returning to where i began. thank you for your service. and thank you for your leading this investigation. the facts you set out in your report and have elucidated here today tell a disturbing tale of a massive russian intervention in our election, of a campaign so eager to win so driven by greed that it was willing to accept the help of a hostile foreign power, in a presidential election decideed by a hand full of votes in a few key states. your work tells of a campaign so

determined to conceal their corrupt use of foreign help, that they risked going to jail by lying to you, to the f.b.i., and to congress about it, and, indeed, some have gone to jail over such lies. and your work speaks of a president who committed countless acts of obstruction of justice, that in my opinion and that of many other prosecutors, had it been anyone else in the country, they would have been indicted. not withstanding the many things you have addressed today and in your report, there were some questions you could not answer given the constraints you're operating under. you would not tell us whether you would have indicted president but for the o.l.c. opinion that you could not. and so the justice department will have to make that decision when the president leaves office, both as to the crime of obstruction of justice and as to the campaign finance fraud scheme that individual one directed and coordinate, and for which michael cohen went to jail. you would not tell us whether the president should be

impeached. nor did we ask you, since it is our responsibility to determine the proper remedy for the conduct outlined in your report. whether we decide to impeach the president in the house or we do not, we must take any action necessary to protect the country while he is in office. you would not tell us the results or whether other bodies looked into russian compromise in the form of money laundering, so we must do so. you would not tell us whether the counter-intelligence investigation revealed whether people still serving within the administration pose a risk of compromise and should never have been given a security clearance, so we must fiewnd out we did not bothering to ask whether financial inducements from gulf nations, since it is outside so we must find out. but one thing is clear from your

report, your testimony, from director ray's statements yesterday, the russians massively intervened in 2016, and they are set to do so again in voting that is set to begin a mere eight months from now. the president seems to welcome the help again, and so we must make all efforts to harden our elections' infrastructure, to ensure there is a paper trail for all voting, to detert russians from meddling, to discover it when they do, to disrupt it and to make them pay. protecting the sanctity of our elections begins, however, with the recognition that accepting foreign help is disloyal to our country, unethic aand wrong. we cannot control what the russians do, not completely, but we can decide what we do. and that this centuries-old experiment we call american democracy is worth cherishing. director mueller, thank you again for being here today. and before i adjourn, i would

like to excuse you and mr. zebley. everyone else, please remain seated. >> woodruff: and that wraps ass. everyone else remain seated. >> an incredible day of hearings. 74-year-old muller. the second longest severing fbi director. he was the special council to investigation the russian collusion. this was almost six hours between two committees. we learned a great deal not only what was in the report but mueller tried to keep it tight with his answers. sometimesc @&c @&ce can the president be prosecuted when he is out of office and he

answered yes. he said the president hasn't been exonerated by this report. he was also asked about the political nature of this. we heard him say this was not a witch hunt. we heard him explainruqq states. where does this now leave congress? >> with a couple of formidable questions to answer. first of all, is lack of ciminality the only standard we apply to an american president. related to the discussion, what is the new normal? is it a new normal in america for political actors, congress seeking reelection, senators, governors, president, to accept dirt or compromising information from a hostile foreign power? robert mueller says i hope it isn't, but i fear it might be. >> that it's the new normal, mm-hmm. >> is this the new normal? what angacn