olc opinion tied the hands of the special counsel's office. it's not a common occurrence to say you have all the tools in your belt but you cannot use the ones that actually involve the hammer being thrown down. that's what mueller was up against here. he said very clearly, walking through all the elements, i did not indict because the olc opinion. that, along with every other element he actually raised and, of course, lieu was talking about the intent without saying the word intent, contextual clues that show a pattern of behavior, that says somebody had the correct intent. >> mueller cautioned after that answer saying the only thing i want to add is i'm not -- i'm going through the elements with you. that does not mean i subscribe to what you're try ing ing to p through those elements. he did say that. but you think it was pretty clear? >> i thought it was the closest thing. the purpose of this proceeding for the democrats is to make some case that they immediate to take some additional action. so the question is, is someone above the law or

let me talk about the olc opinion. i've been interested in that for some time , and i'm wondering whether ms. fredrickson or mr. gerhardt, you believe that the olc opinion would cover activities, criminal activities for any president that occurred prior to that president assuming office. for example, spiro agnew was -- left his position for bribery that was engaged in while he was in maryland before he was vice president. what is your view on that? >> i think -- >> your microphone is not on. >> i say quick two things in the professor gerhardt probably is a more thorough answer. i'd say one thing is that i think the vice president is not covered. >> i understand that. -- but i think that is one of the weaknesses of the olc opinion. >> it does seem to indicate, insulate a president from the judicial process in a way that i think is not consistent and a rule of law as understood by the founders. >> one of the questions i've had is, in addition, professor gerhardt, is is there any limit to this? let's say someday in the fu

let me talk about the olc opinion. i've been interested in that for some time , and i'm wondering whether ms. fredrickson or mr. gerhardt, you believe that the olc opinion would cover activities, criminal activities for any president that occurred prior to that president assuming office. for example, spiro agnew was -- left his position for bribery that was engaged in while he was in maryland before he was vice president. what is your view on that? >> i think -- >> your microphone is not on. >> i say quick two things in the professor gerhardt probably is a more thorough answer. i'd say one thing is that i think the vice president is not covered. >> i understand that. -- but i think that is one of the weaknesses of the olc opinion. >> it does seem to indicate, insulate a president from the judicial process in a way that i think is not consistent and a rule of law as understood by the founders. >> one of the questions i've had is, in addition, professor gerhardt, is is there any limit to this? let's say someday in the fu

and i think i want to close by looking at those olc reports. they focus on the fact that the impeachment process is done by elected members of congress who are politically accountable. and it's that piece that i want to focus on. because if there issive deed anything in the mueller report that rises to the level of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, then the members of this body will likely be held politically if the house does not initiate impeachment proceedings, but the flipside is also true. if as i believe is clearly the case nothing identified in the mueller report remotely rises to that level, then the members of this body who continue to pursue impeachment investigations and even formal impeachment proceedings that manifestly appear to be to the public an attempt to distract the president from the performance of his constitutional duties or worse to negate the results of the 2000 election, then they too should be and likely will be held politically accountable. that's why the constitution assigns this awesome oversi

amy: olc being the office of legal counsel. >> right.ven if we are gotten to the place where we decided we could have charged him, then we would have but we did not get to that place. there was contemporaneous reporting that were prosecutors whode mueller's team disagree on this question. there were some that thoughght e elements were absolutely there and there were others who said they were not quite there and there could be kind of reasonable alternative explananations for trump's behavior. i think a a viewer can make ther own judgment on n this. that is the other thing that is so interesting about thihis is u have members of f congress and u have muellller notot only talkig about t a report that is public, but talking about behavior that significantly y was carried outn public or was reported o oin real time. "the new york times" reported trump ordered don mcgcgann to fe mueller. this was known before the report came out, as was a a lot of thi. it is s also indisputable that e asked don mcgann to cover upup e fact that he t tried to f

lu who said and i quote you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion. that is not the correct way to say it. as we say in the report and as i said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. >> which is consistent with language from his report but still leaves open the question what would mueller have done if not for the olc opinion. i spoke with congressman lu earlier tonight. congressman, your exchange with mueller produced clearly one of the more surprising responses from him of the day. were you surprised by his first answer this morning and then by his walk back later in the day? >> i was not surprised by his first answer because special counsel mueller himself who always brings up the olc opinion saying that he was instructed he could not indict a sitting president, and i simply walked special counsel mueller through the three elements of obstruction of justice. i showed that they were all met and then i asked him basically is the reason he didn't indict donald trump because of that opinion and h

liu who said, and i quote you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion.hat is not the correct way to say it. as we say in the report and as i said at the opening we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. >> you know, pete, we were all actually around the table wondering if mueller heard both parts of liu's question. and we wondered whether he was saying what we thought liu thought he said and of course ends up walking that back. >> i think there were several examples of that today. and just to be clear the olc's opinion is of course a factor, the one that says you can't indict a sitting president. but it is not the situation that the team decided that donald trump committed crimes but they couldn't say so because of the olc opinion. quite the contrary. what the report says and what mueller made clear a couple of times at the hearing today is that having marshaled the potential obstruction of justice examples, they deliberately said we can't even decide whether these constitute a crime because of the olc opinion. so it

and the olc prevernltsed them from indicting him. >> he lied.his is a man who decided to impeach him two years ago. he was caught on the amtrak, he's got a big mouth and sort of a small brain. he was saying something like we are going to indict him, this is the schedule. this is a hanging judge who made the determination -- basically nadler and schiff. even nadler more than schiff -- so what nadler says basically is, you know, you are guilty, doesn't matter what mueller says. you are guilty and now we'll give you have a trial. that's why he shouldn't cooperate with the hearings. it's an unfair process determined to nail him. a guy like elijah cummings can have cohen come in who committed perjury seven times. and he has the gal to appear and pontificate. he's saying i'm going to nail you if you lie. people can lie about donald trump and get away with it because they want to railroad him. judge jeanine: the president didn't fire anyone. yet nadler wants to remove the president for obstruction when the president didn't fire anybody. >> and mueller

unconstitutional. >> you cannot state that because of the olc opinion? >> the olc opinion with some guide, yes. >> under the department of justice policy, the president could be indicted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, right? >> true. >> in another exchange that followed, the former special counsel seemed to strengthen this idea that he had the evidence to indict the president on obstruction of justice charges, but then in the afternoon session a short time ago, the former special counsel clarified his earlier testimony. >> i want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by mr. lieu, he said you don't charge the president because of the olc opinion. that is not the correct way to say it. as we said in the report and as i said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. >> the special counsel found that there was no conspiracy between the trump campaign and russian officials. as you know, neil, they didn't reach a decision whether there was obstruction of justice by th

you say the olc memo prevents you from indicting. but give us the punch line. do you have you enough evidence to charge him with obstruction of justice. i think there is. >> our viewers are familiar with you saying a lot of things that kind of go at trump. >> hard, hard. >> sounds to me like your bottom line is, some of the republicans had a point on that today. >> absolutely. >> all right. let me play one of them. congressman radcliff and david kelley, i think we're scared away. take a good listen. let's look at that. >> the i'm not going to go beyond that. i would refer you to the court proceedings on that issue. i don't recall that one. i'm not going to answer that. i'm not going to talk about that. about that issue. i'm not going to comment on that. i'm not going to try to explain that. >> david? >> yeah. >> your view on the same issue gene just discussed. should mr. mueller in the report today been more clear? >> i can take the other side but i can see him not pushing it that far because once you take off the table the indictment by the olc memo, you're th

acknowledge that the olc policy -- >> had you brung it up and they denied it?> mueller when we first met was not. >> will you read the letters. can i see them? >> no, of course not. >> would i ask for your letters? >> yes. we have had this conversation. >> you're not accusing mueller of being a bad actor or bad faith. >> what he did was clear today. he didn't have a command of the facts. >> what's your reaction? >> well, i can't comment on letters that jay sekulow might have. i think it's also reasonable to assume that mueller and his team went into this investigation aware of the olc opinion. but not maybe completely decided on where they would come out on that on day one. i don't know what process or period of time it took to come to the ultimate conclusion. i certainly take director mueller at his word. and i don't take everybody at their word. >> mueller wouldn't address anything related to what the fbi currently investigating. and the inspector general. he wouldn't talk about certain aspects. you open the counter intelligence investigation. would should am

saying i quote you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion.he correct way to see it. as we say in the report and the opening, we didn't reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. >> so, ryan, was the first one a slip. how did you view this? >> he's confused everyone. everyone that read the report interpreted the decision the way he answered the first time. the case for obstruction of justice was strong enough to indict the president. in his second answer he is just seems to be saying i only want to stick to the wording of the report. i don't want to add some new way of saying this. i think it left everyone confused as to what the real answer is. because the report doesn't say that. it's implicit. i disagree with john about the performance. i think history will judge mueller somewhat harshly here. he wrote a report 500 pages. democrats promise this was going to be the movie version of the book. the book had a lot of dramatic moments. this was the worst adaptation of a book. we have seen. he didn't seem to have the deta

why didn't you go to olc? they what's they do. when you have a question about policy, you say is this what you meant. >> right. this investigation, the special counsel was about in the russian interference. it wasn't initially about the president's behavior. the president's behavior came about because of this investigation. >> looks like we're getting ready to reconvene. we'll continue to conversation until chairman nadler reconvenes formally. he has to come around to answer, why did you investigate. he said you should investigate but republicans are saying that doesn't fit within the parameters of your mandate. if you weren't going to allege or indict then why all this time to look into the president's behavior. there's an argument for that because the president's behavior is a legitimate place of e inquiry. i think he ought to be able -- >> can i make one other point? the president repeatedly on news organizations reported instances that he directed don mcgahn, his white house counsel, to fire the special counsel. those were pre

the olc report. he testified but for the olc report. we have that now. however, barr, was the "but for." we want i want to get a louie gohmert. get it go back and forth it was interesting. the point where -- was occlusion, was it conspiracy? that whole convoluted conversation that went on between mueller and another lawmaker. >> tom: that was addressing. i think the point of that exchange was to basically try and rebut the president's tweets saying they found no collusion. the point that i think they are trying to bring out at the hearing is that collusion is defined in the federal criminal code is not the the dash i thot it was fairly effective. when people speak colloquially in plain english they will often say "collusion, experience a don't act on my confederacy " it basically means the same thing. i think it was basic at the point. >> harris: it seems like he was saying it for us that they were kind of, as you say, colloquialism. kind of equal. then legally not equal. it was really confusing. >> tom: that was one of the points. it seemed like merely

liu who said and i quote you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion. that is not the correct way to say it. as we say in the report and as i said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. >> evan, liu's question at first was clear. answer was shocking. it appeared to be a bombshell. it wasn't a minor answer. >> no. no. as you said it was a clear question. i can tell you right after that answer and certainly when they took a break there were a lot of phone calls being made between the special skounl's team between mueller's team on the justice department saying what the hell just happened? and the decision was made that he he needed to clean it up, come back and fix it because the justice department certainly on march 5th there was a briefing mueller's team on bill barr who had just taken office and during that meeting one of the deputies there said specifically it wasn't a but for. at least three times during that meeting. >> right it was but for no edition, right not but for no charge. >> there is

olc, the office of legal counsel, the guidelines put out by the office were of much discussion todayt, you're guided against indicting a sitting president. that was a point of confusion that the special counsel you know tried to clarify in his afternoon testimony saying when he said he wasn't going to indict because of those guidelines he was not making a judgment whether a crime was committed. earlier on it appeared to some yeah, the president committed a crime of obstruction i would have indicted him as sitting president. apparently, james he didn't mean to say that. >> he bit on a question this morning where he essentially said we could have indicted but for the olc opinion. and then the first thing he does after lunch, gets it right. no, that is not what we mean. the report itself, read it a dozen times, it is not really clear what standard they're using other than saying here are some facts, here are some problems. and we're not indicting. so it's a tough call but he tried to fix the one substantive thing he gave the democrat in the morning. connell: another comment just in from

>> the olc opinion indicates we cannot indict a sitting president. so one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there. >> okay, but let me stop. you made the decision on the russian interference. you couldn't have indicted the president on that and you made the decision on that. but when it came to obstruction you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick and that is unfair. >> i would not agree to that characterization at all. what we did is provide to the attorney general in the form of a confidential memorandum our understanding of the case. those cases that were brought and those cases that were declined and the -- that one case where the president cannot be charged with a crime. >> okay. but could you charge the president with a crime after he left office? >> yes. >> you believe that he committed -- you could charge the president of the united states with obstruction of justice after he left office. >> yes. >> ethically under the ethical standards. >> i'm not certain. i haven't looked at the ethical standards.

when mueller said he would have indicted if not for the olc ruling, that was a big deal. democrats seem to feel it was a great compliment was mueller said he did not exonerate the president. we have known that since that day in march when bill barr summarized the major dominic major findings of the report. he concluded that they are and we've known it ever since. >> bret: let alone the argument about the standards. talked about with congressman look radcliffe is the right standard to apply here. your thoughts? >> i agree with byron and look, i don't think any of us knew that bob mueller was so fragile. this was a slow-motion train wreck anyone could have seen from the day the mueller report came out. it was clear for most americans this was about a conspiracy with russia to undermine our democracy and once it was established by the mueller report that that did not happen then the democrats should have said case closed, let's move on. there was a poll in april and may when this moved out, herbert harris poll, 80% of americans say they want their congressional representativ

mueller said this in his report, he cannot charge them because of the olc memorandum. >> martha: we areng to agree to disagree just based on the facts. i'm only going on what robert mueller said today. i am not a criminal defense attorney and you are. however, i know what he said today, that's what he said. you may believe that there is -- that there's obstruction in the president may be held to a higher standard, but he certainly shouldn't be subjected to a lower standard than the rest of american citizens. >> nobody in this country is above the law. we are a country of laws. the president must be held accountable for his misconduct. it is incumbent on the congress to hold him accountable and that's what we attend to do. >> martha: david, it always good to see her, thanks for coming in. here now, trey gowdy, former member of the house intelligence committee and former house oversight committee chair and andy mccarthy, former federal prosecutor, both are fox news contributors. gentlemen, your reaction, first of all to that conversation and those comments from the congressman. >> they're

>> the olc opinion with some guide, yes. >> under department of justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct? >> true. >> thank you. did any senior white house official refuse a request to be interviewed by you or your team? >> i don't believe so. well, let me take that back. i would have to look at it, but i'm not certain that that was the case. >> did the president refuse a request to be interviewed by you and your team? >> yes. >> is it true you tried for more than a year to try to secure an interview with the president? >> yes. >> is it true you and your team advised the president's lawyer that, quote, an interview with the president is vital to our investigation, closed quote? >> yes. >> is it true that you also, quote, stated it is in the interest of the presidency and the public for an interview to take place, closed quote? >> yes. >> but the president still refused to sit for an interview by you and your team. >> true. >> did you also ask him to provide written answers to questions under ten possible episode

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. >> an

president's kulpability we needed to -- we needed to go forward only after taking into account the olc opinion that indicated that a president -- sitting president cannot be indicted. >> so the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and what about total exon ration. did you actually totally exonerate the president? >> no. >> now in fact your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president. >> it does. >> and your investigation actually found quote multiple acts by the president that were capable much exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations including the russian interference and obstruction investigations. is that correct? >> correct. >> now, director mueller, can you explain in plain terms what that finding means so the american people can understand it? >> well, the finding indicates that the president was not -- that the president was not exkulp eighted for the acts that he allegedly committed. >> in fact, you were talking about incidents in which the president sought to use

>> you could not state that because of the olc opinion if that had been your conclusion? >> olc opinion with some guide, yes. >> under department of justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct? >> true. >> thank you. did any senior white house official refuse a request to be interviewed by you or your team? >> i don't believe so. i take that -- let me take that back. i would have to look at it. i'm not certain that that was the case. >> did the president refuse a request to be interviewed by you and your team? >> yes. >> yes. and is it true you tried more than a year to secure an interview with the president? >> yes. >> and is it true that you and your team advised the president's lawyer that, quote, an interview with the president is vital to our investigation, close quote? >> yes. yes. >> and is it true that you also, quote, stated that it is. >> yes. >> but the president still refused to sit for an interview by you or your team? >> true. >> didn't you also ask him to provide written answers to ques

it's very different than saying they were ready to charge but for the olc ruling, isn't it? when he had to go back and clean that up. >> on ted liu's question, yes. he's obviously being very cautious and very careful and he's trying not to do the job of congress. it's clear if there is a process that's going to be undertaken to surprise the president of the united states, who is sitting in the white house, that congress has to do it and he doesn't want to lose his job. >> people believe there should be a process open up to make that determination. >> you heard nancy pelosi, the speaker, say relatively it r-- reiterate her go slow with impeachment proceedings. you disagree with her? >> i have great respect for the speaker and her perspective. ultimately it is her decision whether we start an impeachment inquiry or not. we've seen the number of democrats who support the impeachment inquiry. >> let's dig deeper with our analysts. gloria, you were listening to all seven hours of that testimony earlier today. do you think that testimony will have an impact in changing the speaker

it would be unconstitutional. >> so you could not state because of the olc opinion if that would haveeen your conclusion? >> yes. >> but under doj department policy the president could be committed to obstruction of justice crimes. could any official refuse to be interviewed by you or your team? >> i don't believe so. let me take that back. i would have to look at it, but i'm not certain that was the case. >> did the president refuse to request to be interviewed by you and your team? >> yes. >> is it true you tried for more than a year to secure an interview with the president? >> yes. >> is it true you and your team advised the president's lawyer that, quote, an interview with the president's lawyer is vital to our investigation, closed quote? >> yes. >> and is it true you also, quote, stated it is the interest of the president and public for an interview to take place, closed quote? >> yes. >> but the president still refused to sit for on interview by you and your team? >> true. >> and did you also ask him to provide written answers to questions on ten possible obstruction of justic

lu who said, and i quote, you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion. say it. as we say in the report and as i said in the opening. we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. >> so president trump was asked about whether he's concerned about potentially being indicted once he leaves office in the wake of the answer on the matter. watch this. >> are you concerned you could be indicted out of office? >> when you saw robert mueller's statement and then he did a recap, a correction later on in the afternoon. you know what that correction was and you still ask the question. you know why, you are fake news. you are one of the most. let me tell you, the fact that you even asked that question. you are fake news. >> mueller struggled through this questions at times the questions crystallized the greed inside the campaign. >> several individuals involved with the campaign were also trying to make money during the transition is that true. >> that's true. >> michael flynn was trying to make money from turkey? >> true. >> trump w

as olc memos go, it's i think pretty mucky and policy-driven. i think the weight of scholarly opinion is that it, per se, is not that. the bottom line might be right, might not. but the memo itself is pretty threadbare. >> all right, carol lam and harry litman, thank you both. >> thank you. >>> joining me now democratic congresswoman maxine waters of california. your view, congresswoman on this matter, which is to say evidence the president has committed crimes or at least sufficient evidence for an indictment were he not the president. but he is the president, so there is no indictment. and now we just sort of wait, i guess. >> well, as i have said for a long time, i think that this president is eligible for, you know, impeachment. now, after you've said everything, you understand that the constitution puts the ultimate power in the hand of the members of congress. >> right. >> it doesn't matter whether there is an opinion that talks about the president is not indictable. it doesn't matter that the president has committed crimes that we cannot

he identified the notion he had under the olc opinion he said you never know where the investigation is going to lead. so a notion of being able to continue the investigation was extraordinarily important for him to do so because it wasn't as if his -- one of the targets was actually president trump. i look at actual mueller and how he operated today. i have to say he was extraordinarily frustrating as a witness because he continually derailed everyone's soap box. he did not give an inch or remove one. in doing so, he said i told you before i got here, i was going to be limited. i was going to be pointed. look at the actual document, fine. you want to hear my answer, fine, but i have a duty here to be precise. you must ask a question you want answered as opposed to -- >> i want to point out that the chairman is now back in the room. you see him speaking with one of the counsels, norm isen and he was playing robert mueller in helping the democrats make sure they ask the right questions. >> preet bharara, were you surprised that they could not indict the president -- here's jerry nadle

he said, notwithstanding this olc guidance, he said, the olc does envision that you do an investigation to create and preserve a factual record either for impeachment, hep doesn't use that record, the constitutional process that might be relevant or for a subsequent prosecution after aroun official is out of office. >> neal, here's what i don't understand, why do democrats feel comfortable with letting mueller get away with basically saying, i'm not going to talk about my conversations with barr? what's the legislative branch supposed to do if they're not? >> it's poor oversight responsibility. even if you don't want to get into the actual details, at least ask the question. barr took office, did anything about your investigation change. did he do anything? >> should they force him to do this. he's under subpoena. should they at least be saying, should we take this in closed session? >> absolutely. you want to be deferential, and of course mueller will be to all of that. but to force him to answer those simple questions -- >> that seemed to be totally off. >> they even asked him about t

. >> i'd like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict donald trump is because of olc opinion can't indict a sitting president, correct? >> that is correct. >> i want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. as we say in the report and i said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. cheryl: it all comes down to that obstruction of justice question mark. what did you make of the clarification by mueller and what does this mean for president trump when he leaves office eventually? >> there's a lot of criticism on mueller right here on this point because he could have come to a decision. one way or the other. and a prosecutor, his decision was to prosecute or not prosecute. and he did neither. but he elected to lay out ten things that could be obstruction of justice. and he made clear he's relying on the olc, office of legal counsel's directive, in the doj, that a sitting president can't be charged. cheryl: right. >> but you cannot have this conversation without talking about what ag barr and deputy attorney genera

quote, the reason you didn't indict the president was because of the olc opinion. and you answered, that is correct. but that is not what you said in the report and it's not what you told attorney general barr. in fact, in a joint statement that you released with doj on may 29th after your press conference, your office issued a joint statement with the department of justice that said, the attorney general has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that but for the olc opinion, he would have found the president obstructed justice. the special counsel's report and his statement today made clear the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other whether the president committed a crime. there is no conflict between these statements. so mr. mueller, do you stand by your joint statement with doj you issued on may 29th as you sit here today? >> i would have to look at it more closely. >> well, so -- you know, my conclusion is that what you told mr. lieu really contradicts what you said in the report.

they just can't do it because of the olc memo said they can't. >> quickly, could this be the southernmaterial to a possible impeachment investigation? >> that's a great point. just as bob mueller said he wouldn't come out and say the president committed obstruction of justice offenses, that was up to the congress. there is a parallel between that and the southern district of new york saying okay, here are all the materials. our investigation concluded, but we can't charge anybody. so congress, why don't you take it from here? you are the one empowered by the constitution to hold this president accountable. >> glen, thank you very much. appreciate it. >> when we come back, should the next attorney general appointed by the next president reopen the case of individual one? i will ask presidential candidate julian castro, next. l candidate julian castro, next. ♪ ♪ award winning interface. award winning design. award winning engine. the volvo xc90. the most awarded luxury suv of the century. [ text notification now that you have] new dr. scholl's massaging gel advanced insoles with softer,

liu, who said and i quote, you did not charge the president because of the olc opinion. that's not the correct way to say it. as we say in the report and i said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. with that, mr. chairman, i am ready to answer your questions. >> thank you director mueller. i recognize myself for five minutes. your report describes a sweeping and systematic effort by russia to influence our presidential election, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> during the course of this russian interference in the election, the russians made outreach to the trump campaign, did they not? >> yes, that occurred. >> it is 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 welcomes the russian help, did they not? >> i think we reported in our report indications that did occur. >> yes. >> the president's son says when he was approach dirt

liu who said "you didn't charge the president because of the olc opinion." that's not the correct way to say it. as we say in the report and as i said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. >> where they concentrated on obstruction of justice, they concentrated on the russian attack on our election. >> director, who did the russian social media campaign ultimately intend to benefit. hillary clinton or donald trump? >> donald trump. >> donald trump, october 31st, 2016, boy, i love reading the wikileaks. do any of those quotes disturb you, mr. director? >> i'm not sure i would say -- >> how do you react? >> it's problematic is an under statement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some -- i don't know, hope or a boost to what is and should be illegal activity. >> i want to focus on the written responses that the president provided to lie and cover up what happened during the 2016 election. where were the president's answers committed under oath? >> yes. >> what did you determine about the pre

>> because the olc opinion - the olc opinion, office of legal counsel, indicates that we cannot indictng president. >> okay. but the -- could you charge the president with a crime after he left office? >> yes >> you believe that he committed -- you could charge the president of the united states with obstruction of justice after he left office >> yes >> seth: oh, those were very fast yeses [ light laughter ] "and would you like to be there the day he's arrested? "yes." that guy was a republican. [ cheers and applause was a republican - who accidentally got robert mueller to say on national television that after trump leaves office, he can be charged with a crime you know when trump heard that, he started pushing the sofa in front of the door. "you'll never take me alive. [ laughter ] the bottom line from today's hearings is the same as it's always been. we just got to see it played out live on tv russia interfered in the election to help trump trump welcomed and encouraged that help. and then he almost certainly committed crimes to obstruct the investigation of that help mueller couldn

. >> this was the whole thing when he did the play back of but for the olc opinion we would have dones not the standard. >> it was the standard. that's why he didn't consider prosecution of the president. >> breaking news here. >> i'd love it. >> bob mueller testified today. no one is accusing him of lying. testified today that from the outset this was the -- they knew the olc opinion and they were bound by it. that's not the truth. >> how so? >> i have letters in my file when we were negotiating this where they did not until may of last year. maybe it was april of last year, acknowledge that the olc policy -- >> had you been bringing it up and they denied it? >> yes. >> you're saying bob mueller changed his position? >> i'm saying bob mueller when he -- >> can i see the letters? >> no. >> would i ask you for your letters? >> yeah. >> we've had this conversation, too. i don't do that to you. >> this is what i'm saying. you're not accusing mueller of being a bad actor or in bad faith? >> no. i think it was clear today, as your network said 100 times, he did not have command of the fact

>> olc opinion, the olc opinion, office of legal counsel, indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president. so one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there. >> okay. but let me just stop. you made the decision on the russi russian interference. you couldn't have indicted the president on that and you made the decision on that, but when it came to obstruction you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see what would stick. >> i would not agree to that characterization at all. what we did is provide to the attorney general in the form of a confidential memorandum our understanding of the case. those cases that were brought, those cases that were declined, and that one case where the president cannot be charged with a crime. >> okay. but could you charge the president with a crime after he left office? >> yes. >> you believe that he committed -- you could charge the president of the united states with obstruction of justice after he left office? >> yes. >> ethically, under the ethical standards. >> i'm not certain because i haven't looked at the ethical standards but olc o

. >> i would like to ask you again the reason you did not indict donald trump is because of olc opinion saying you cannot indict a sitting president, is that correct. >> that is correct. >> reporter: but he later clarified. >> we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. >> reporter: still it is clear justice department guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted weighed heavily on mueller's decision-making. >> and you have the decision to prosecutor not prosecute. >> generally that is the case. although most cases are not done in the context of the president. >> and in this case you made a decision not to prosecute, correct? >> no, we made a decision not to decide whether to prosecutor not. >> you could charge the president with a crime after he left office? >> yes. >> reporter: mueller also wouldn't say whether he intended for congress to pursue impeachment proceedings? >> you never used the term raising to impeachable conduct. >> our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct. >> reporter: for their part, republicans scoffed

its not in any of the documents, not in your point order, the olc opinion, not in the justice manual and not in the principles of federal prosecution. nowhere 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. it exists 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 you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies and you used it to write a report. and the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says as you read this morning, it authorizes the 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 ve

chris: that's not not what he said, he said we didn't because of the olc, office of legal counsel compliance we didn't even make a decision. >> he got asked the question about congressman lou who i know, would you have indicted him, yes, we would, at the beginning of the second hearing -- chris: that's when he said, yes, i agree, but what he said was that we -- i wouldn't have made -- we didn't even make that decision because the compliance prevented us from doing that. >> i think you're wrong on that. chris: i think the record will show you what it shows, i promise you are wrong. >> they don't, because there was no obstruction. you can go through details. chris: okay, let's look at that because despite the president's claim of total vindication, the special counsel and his testimony was not a moment in history but made it clear he's not saying the president did nothing wrong, take a look. >> the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice; is that correct? >> that is correct. >> did you actually totally exonerate the president? >> no. >> your investigation is not a