tv Reaction To Robert Mueller Testimony CSPAN July 24, 2019 3:32pm-4:50pm EDT
appearance before congressional committee in his career. here on c-span 3 we are going to take your calls and comments and c-span radio as well. here's how to join the conversation. democrats call 202-748-8920. republicans 202-748-8921. for all others 202-748-8922. we plan to show the hearing as well, both hearings today, to re-air the hearings in their entirety on the c-span network. if you missed any of the earlier testify, we'll have it for you much later this evening after the house gavels out. let's go if you arefirst to joh
francisco on our others line. john, san francisco, go ahead, you're on the air. >> caller: disappointing as everybody thought it was going to be, but i was wondering that it seemed someone should have asked if he -- report because his -- >> john, you're breaking up on us a little bit. i'm going to let you go here and go to jackie in irvine, california, democrats line. jackie in, irvine gor, go ahead >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i am so proud to have the opportunity to participate in democracy. can you hear me? >> go ahead, jackie. >> caller: okay. i am so proud to have this opportunity to watch c-span and listen to the hearing and participate in democracy the way i have this morning.
i have to say that to see figures such as chairman schiff and mr. mueller, they are gentlemen of integrity, someone that can make every american very proud. it really breaks my heart, to be honest, that when i see the president speak, when i see how he conducts himself, when i see how he represents us as americans, i cringe. now, i think they did a very good job of bringing forward to all americans key points of fact that we should be concerned about. it's clear that trump has a corrupt presidency and he had a corrupt campaign. and with all of the answers of the questions, i'm hoping that independents and undecideds out there really take it to heart
and really understand the threat that we're facing. >> that's jackie from california. the president departing shortly from the white house headed out to a fund-raiser, a private fund-raiser in wheeling, west virginia. we may hear some comments from the president at that time. as we are able, we'll bring them to you as we can. if you don't see them here shortly, we'll have them laettnlater in our coverage. we'll reair both of the hearings tonight. let's go to kyle in portland. kyle's on our republican line. 202-748-8921. hey there, kyle. >> caller: hi. thank you for having me. i just have to say that this testimony and having actually been one of the few americans to have read the report myself, i have to agree completely with justin amash and his conclusions. the president's behavior is shocking. the testimony regarding don mcgahn and the instruction by
the president to remove mueller from office and obstruct justice in which his aides and his legal counsel were forced to ignore out of compromise to themselves ultimately leading to mcgahn's filing are incredibly damning. i encourage everyone within the gop to look beyond party politics and the party of donald trump at this stage and see within themselves to do what is right on behalf of america and decry this as wrong. it is morally objectionable. it is wrong. if this man were not the sitting president of the united states, he would have already been indicted and punishment would be pursued for these actions. >> as we're taking your calls, you're seeing on your screen our cameras, waiting to hear possible comments from members of the intelligence committee. they've just wrapped up their questions of robert mueller, his second appearance of the day. kenney's next up in seattle,
washington, others line. >> caller: hello. >> hi, kenny. go ahead. >> caller: anybody that thinks that this president is is for america has got their head screwed on wrong. it's obvious he's out for himself. it's obvious that he didn't want to be president to begin with and it's obvious he was going to use it as an infomercial for his product line. i just find it disgusting about how the republicans back his every word, and i really hope that the coming president doesn't use his behavior as a way to keep the president in line. >> the president was very active this morning on twitter ahead of the hearings this morning.
after the judiciary wrapped up, tweeting just a few moments ago, "truth is a force of nature." let'slinda, northport, florida, the republican line. donna. i'm sorry go ahead. donna in east norwich, new york. go ahead. >> caller: thank you very much for taking my call. i didn't have a very high bar. i was able to watch both hearings fortunately. i came away with several things. one, my frustration with mr. mueller even though i felt very empathetic with him at times, at times he just seemed like my befuddled uncle. but he is a true patriot. but i was very frustrated that he would not go out of the lines of the report itself. i was very proud of the way the democrats comported themselves and i have to say that i was
deeply moved by adam schiff's opening and closing statements both. i learned nothing new. actually, i have read the report and i follow trump's presidency from the inception and i just pray that we can wash this all clean in 2020. thank you for taking my call. >> thank you for your call. donna pointed out director mueller pretty much stayed within the lines of what the report revealed. that was fairly well known ahead of the testimony. a few new tidbits of information toward the end in terms of whether the president would be called to testify before the special counsel. the special counsel said, we negotiated with president for a little over a year, had little success in negotiating to get the interview and decided we did not want to exercise subpoena powers because of the necessity
of expediting the end of the investigation. linda, northport, florida, republican line. >> caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. i heard congressman greg stubby. he's my congressman. get right to the point this morning asking mueller point-blank about the christopher cross investigation. the $30,000, the last two years investigating is based almost entirely on christopher cross. he's a liar and he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. and also i'd like to compliment the louisiana republican, congressman johnson, on his questioning of mueller. i'd also like to say i'm proud of my congressman. i'm proud of my president, donald trump and he's going to win the next election in a landslide. thank you. >> thank you, linda.
202-748-8920 is the number for democrats. 202-748-8921 for republicans. all ovthers 202-748-8922. among the guests this afternoon will be gomert. also isikou michael isikoff. that's coming up on washington today 5:00 p.m. eastern. let's go to manhattan, kansas, scott's on the line with us. >> caller: thank you for having me. i have two points really. the first is i felt as though both testimonies were seriously compromised by the memorandum
from attorney general barr limiting mr. mueller's responses to questions that were not already clarified in the report and how that allowed -- which leads into my second point, which is in a very similar vein to the president offering commentary following sworn testimony, that he himself was not willing to be sworn in to offer, kind of pits his opinion against what other people have already, i guess, staked their reputation and their lives on through sworn testimony. in the same manner that today i felt the republicans' agenda was more aligned with just throwing things out that they knew mr. mueller could not respond to in an effort to -- as an independent voter, what i would like to see is just putting this whole thing to bed by connecting dots and allow whatever affects the president and his administration to be handled as
a separate topic. really those are my comments. thank you very much. >> let's hear from ann from trenton, michigan, on our democrats line. go ahead, ann. >> caller: good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> caller: i would like to thank c-span for this broadcast. i have to say that mr. mueller is a man of very strong integrity. he loves his country and you could tell that. i think part of it was very showy when they knew he couldn't answer questions, they directly asked those questions. and i just felt that he sat there for hours and just took direct questioning. i do believe that this does answer the question of is our
president guilty of some conspiracy. and i think the answer is obvious to every american. god help us all and we need a change. i thank you very much for this opportunity. >> on the specific testimony, thanks for that call. brad a republican from ohio did ask director mueller specifically, so your report says that president trump is not a russian agent? and special counsel mueller reported back, quote, that is accurate. let's go to lucy from deerborne, michigan. >> caller: i did watch the mueller hearing. i'm very proud of the republican politicians today. they covered everything hopefully for attorney general barr to continue with what is left over, the origins of the
case and hopefully some charges. i'm a new republican voter because of how corrupt hillary clinton became. >> when did you become a republican voter? did that happen in 2016? >> yes. >> go ahead. >> caller: and lastly, it's a shame how the dirty immoral majority democrats have created and promoted a new trump hate crime. that's just a shame for america. that's all i have to say. thank you so much. >> we'll hear from steve in glenn oak, maryland. >> caller: thanks again to c-span. you guys are the best in the world. really appreciate you. but my observation leads me to believe that the general public
did not read the complete report and this exercise gives some insight into the factual matters of that report of which the republicans never challenged. i counted at least 60 times factual matters were presented as to possible criminal activity and they were never addressed by any republican member. so i appreciate the hearings and thank again to c-span. >> we'll go to kansas city next and hear from jeannie on our democrats line. >> caller: hi. thank you for having me. i have read the mueller report three times and as a veteran i was just horrified. i follow politics very closely
and i was horrified. i find something in the mueller report, something different each time. i thank you for airing this today. >> so did you hear anything different -- you've read it three times, you said. the special counsel was asked obviously pretty closely about a lot of its specific page references and volume references in that 448-page report, oftentimes he said, it's in the report. did you hear anything new from the former special counsel in his testimony today? >> caller: what i was struck by was when the former special counsel said that he could be indicted once he left office. >> right. i think that was the response to congressman lieu's question in
the first hearing. by the way, when we finish up with our phone calls here in just a few minutes, we're going to show you the judiciary hearing from earlier today. we'll go to chris next from walkersville, maryland. >> caller: i really want to thank the democratic party because they have pretty much ensured that donald trump is going to be reelected in 2020. this fiasco that schiff has been putting on since the election ended has pretty much solidified what most of the country outside of what the meainstream media wants people to believe to be false. i want to thank the democratic party. i encourage them to go forward with impeachment. good luck to them in 2020. thanks. >> okay. we'll go to gretchen next, montauk, new york. oh we're getting some comments from members. we'll go there now.
>> inadequate responses anyway. >> have you changed where you stand? >> no. i was already there. i think it's pretty clear cut. we will never, i think, hopefully have a president that monarch or a dictator as we have right now. >> do you -- >> both sections made a good enough of a -- did a good enough job of having the people understand exactly what was in the report. >> i think the public has a better understanding today than they had yesterday. whether or not they feel that it's a grounds for impeachment, if there's grounds, i don't know that that's the case, but, you know, it's not our job to look at a poll and decide whether or not someone has created a high crime and misdemeanor in their action. that's something we should do based on the facts in front of us. >> when the guy this morning said i call the democrats
socialist, why isn't there a comeback as far as the republicans being oligarchs? >> well, we oftentimes are dismissive of some of the name calling that they're throwing from the other side. >> look, there was a hope that director mueller would bring this report to light in the words. given his limitations there today, did that happen? >> in part, i think it did happen. i mean, there were elements, certainly by the members kind of setting the stage and giving him the opportunity to say yes or no, there were issues that were raised. i mean, for one thing i didn't do that i would have done in hindsight is i would have painted the picture of paul manafort and rick gates going into this private club in downtown manhattan to have a
meeting with ckonstatin kilimni and pass detailed polling data they could then have him use to use with the i.r.a. or any other e enti entity. they did it two time in person and many times in email. then, of course, would trash the emails the same day. so there is such overwhelming evidence that there was conspiracy. now, that was a conspiracy, donald trump's two top campaign aides meeting with a russian ope operative about the campaign and sharing data. that was a conspiracy. did it rise to a criminal conspiracy for mr. mueller? probably not because he never got to interview the president. >> it looked as though the republican side was more muted
in the afternoon. >> yeah, it does seem that way. >> is it just the gravity of what was being discussed in this one? that somehow, you know, especially going part into 2020, the election is a little bit more serious than he talked -- >> i don't know because they still try to raise the idea that it was a hoax. >> yeah. >> that russia didn't engage in this gross cyber war. so i can't really say that -- but they were certainly not the top of their game. >> i love you. >> hi. >> okay. so which way do i go? >> california democratic congresswoman jackie speier, a member of the house intelligence committee, speaking to reporters. one of several locations on capitol hill where we're getting some reaction from members as
the hearings wind up this afternoon. 202-748-8920. for democrats. 202-748-8921. for republicans. and all others, 202-748-8922. still some reporters and others waiting for comments. we look forward to your comments as well. just a quick response from the trump campaign on the hearings today. brad parscale sending out this release saying, "these hearings were a disaster for democrats. this entire spectacle has always been about the democrats trying to undo the legitimate result of the 2016 election and today they, again, failed miserably. robert mueller confirmed what we already knew, no collusion, no obstruction, and the way president trump has been treated is unprecedented. almost 3 years and $10 million have been wasted on this witch hunt and now it is more apparent the democrats r s are completel consumed with their hatred of the president." part of the statement from the trump campaign. let's go to gretchen who's been
waiting in montauk, new york, on our democrats line. >> caller: hi. thank you, c-span. you're the best. i have two points to make. really three. one, obama did not warn america about the russians enough. two, hillary won. and trump keeps saying that this is a witch hunt. it's really a war -- he's a w warlock. he is not a witch. i'm a woman and i don't want to have anything to do with that guy. thank you, c-span. i love you. bye. >> all right. to jim, manchester, new hampshire. our others line. >> caller: yeah, this is jim. first of all, i want to thank c-span because that's my primary things i watch on television. but i think somebody should say something about this adam schiff character. you know, the speech he gave at the first -- on the intelligence thing -- he was discredited right away.
especially with, who was it, that democrat, nunes, and he said -- he said, just sort of discounts him and everybody that asked questions forgot what he said to start with and he had to be quiet. but for the last two years i've been watching this schiff character. i don't think people should vote for him for sure. >> jim, let me ask you about adam schiff because very in there, he said -- he said this about the report from robert mueller. he said, "this is a disturbing tale of a massive russian intervention in our election." would you agree with congressman schiff on that? >> caller: well, there's always been a russian intervention. i'm over 70 years old and i've seen russian intervention, you know, since i've been voting, since, you know, like '68 on. >> you think the russians have
been interfering for that long? >> caller: yes. easily. >> jim in new hampshire, thanks. let's go to lisa, shreveport, louisiana, democrats' line. >> caller: hi. that happen was exactly right. they have been in our elections for many, many, many years. i will never, ever, become a democrat again. >> lisa, you there? all right. we'll go to scott. excuse me, dan. watertown, new york, on our democrats' line. dan in new york. you're on the air. >> caller: very interesting series of calls, isn't it? lightning. you know, this whole thing, i watched this from start to finish and i've read the mueller report twice, at least. i guess that's my old military background being an intelligence officer. i like to read stuff and analyze it. but, you know, it's very astonishing what we heard. it was very enlightening. very educational for the people
who might have been on the margins. let me just say, the hatred for democrats, i've been a democrat my whole life but i voted for republicans when i thought they were on the best side, it's still very strong in this kun tra country. the misinformation and disinformation we talk about seems to be stronger than ever. put that aside for a minute. you know, mr. mueller, i'm really proud of him. by the way, we were both lieutenants in vietnam together, so i don't know him personally but i know how loyal our service is, we're both marine lieutenants. this is a wake-up call for anybody that was concerned about the obstruction of justice. the intent was there, the purpose was there and actuality was there and that's what we need to be focused on. and i think mr. trump's in big trouble because i think impeachment is going to follow. i may be wrong, but i think it is. >> all right. to our republicans' line, this is somersworth, new hampshire, hear from scott. we'll take a couple more calls. go ahead with your comments.
>> caller: good afternoon. i appreciate you having me. >> sure. >> caller: yeah, it was a really outstanding, you know, four-plus hours. a couple things i did hear new bauds i've been listening neni this for a long time. i think every american who cares about their patriotic flood flowing through their veins cares about this whole situation. the one thing that i heard that was new today and is news to me was if i believe i heard it right is mueller had said that the trump campaign called on russia to hack hillary's email. from everything i've researched for a very long time now, matter of fact, all the research you've done, i've done as well, i would just submit to all of you fine people, you know, hillary created her own email server and ultimately created a leak that led to a russian hack. i'd hardly put that on trump. his business dealings in russia
being what they are, i can understand him putting a stop to that, but what i would say is that for two years, this has always been based upon the steele dossier, which was fabricated. i mean, we're basically being -- all of us american citizens in all 50 states regardless of what party you follow, we're all being taken as fools, you know, like we all got holes in our backs with strings tied to our lips and it's really not the case. i would just like to thank all of them today and to include bob mueller because i've gained a lot of respect for him through this whole hearing. >> okay. >> caller: as well as a lot of the other congressmen and senators. >> thanks for your comments, scott. we'll go to pete in edgerton, ohio, on our others line. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i watched this and i've been following this year for the last year and a half. and i was a little disappointed
in some of the questioning today. i was kind of hoping that someone would have asked them about if they interviewed anybody in this investigation from the obama administration because everybody seems to forget all this russian hacking took place under president obama's watch before trump even became president. so i was kind of disappointed in that, the fact that nobody's got the guts to ask anybody else, you know, why hasn't anybody in obama's staff been questioned on this. and other than that, you know, i think -- i think we're back to square one. so i just wanted to give my opinion and thank you very much. >> all right. we're going to continue to take your phone calls. your reaction to today's hearing. 202-748-8920 is the number to call for democrats. 202-748-8921 that's for republicans. and all others, 202-748-8922 and just to let you know our
plans in about an hour or so, we'll simulcast c-span radio's "washington today" program, the program heard every day on c-span radio and c-span radio app nationwide, 5:00 p.m. eastern, all about today's testimony by robert mueller. we'll be joined by louie gomert. we'll also be joined by michael isikoff who's an investigative reporter with yahoo! news. that's coming up at 5:00 eastern. we hope to show you some of the hearing in between now and then as well from the judiciary gathering this morning. we'll show all of the hearings, both of the hearings, i should say, all of them all the way through in their entirety tonight on the c-span networks. we'll continue to call s and her from russell in las vegas. go ahead. >> caller: yeah, i just thought it was really interesting that mueller actually stuck with the doj letter opinion that he should kind of, like, you know, tone his testimony down and
stick to some guidelines. i thought he was really going to step outside the box and really answer some hardball questions and he didn't. i really wanted to see one of the congressmen ask him if the reason why he didn't charge was because he was leaving open for impeachment because he believed the president's behavior, you know, required that kind of recommend. other than that, i mean, it was kind of mellow. i thought it was going to be a lot more exciting. >> all right. jack is up next. he's on our republican line in naples, florida. >> caller: hi. i just want to say first of all, thanks for taking the call. i just think we were promised for two years that the mueller report would show definitively that the president had committed crimes, and it didn't. the findings weren't what democrats hoped, and these sham hearings are simply an attempt to get soundbites that could harm the president. i think mueller's report selectively left out information that could have helped the president's case. i.e., certain parts of text messages. they just included parts that
would be damaging instead of providing the full context. i think what mueller did and what the report did by shifting the burden onto the accused, i think it was a disgrace. innocence until proven guilty is certainly the bedrock of the justice system in this country, and the report turned that on its head by turning the burden on the accused -- >> jack, to your point about what you think this hearing was all about, was soundbites, then who won the soundbite battle, if you will, in these hearings? the republicans or democrats? or was it a flaw for both of them? >> caller: to be hocnest with you, i don't think either side particularly won. i think democrats lost. i don't think republicans got anything out of it, either. i think mueller couldn't give democrats the answers they wanted, and he wouldn't give republicans the answer s they wanted, so it was just a pointless endeavor, in my opinion. he stuck to the report. the findings in the report. he said from the outset that the
report was it and he wouldn't go beyond that. so these hearings are just, in my opinion, a waste of everyone's time and money. >> appreciate that. let's hear from larry next up. he's on our others line in oxford junction, illinois. oxford junction. go ahead. >> caller: yes. my name's larry. so, basically, my take of it is that a lot of people that i talk to generally haven't read the report. i read it the first day. i also work on d.o.d. contracts. and i keep on getting this feel from people on the democratic and republican side that aren't understanding that there was a frustration with the two-party system, and that's what also led to trump. but as i watched the hearing, i kept on seeing -- as they kept on going with mueller's questioning, the democrats kept on getting confirmation for
basically what they're talking about is impeachable offenses with obstruction. whenever i looked on the republican side, it kept on being distraction. they would talk about something they knew that mueller wouldn't talk about or had no perview to to try to distract somebody and confuse people. i saw friends, because we're in a facebook chat group as we're watching your content, and it basically came down to they were getting confused on the republican side because they had no idea what it meant, basically getting distracted by people like the representative from ohio, that's really wiry. i forget his name. but basically -- >> are you talking about jim jordan from earlier? >> caller: he's a really wiry guy and he loves to go on tangents and actually misrepresent stuff is what i found. but my opinion, the democrats
won massively. i think that they'll probably go ahead with inquiring impeachment, and they should. this conducting if it was anyone else, if this was obama, they would have -- day one they would have had impeachment hearings already. trump needs to be held to the same standard. i'm the guy that works at the d.o.d., so this is, like, one of those summbjects i don't like t get overly political. >> and larry, you said you read the report as well, right? when it first came out? >> caller: yeah, i read it multiple times. >> uh-huh. >> caller: i'm interested in it. i got injured in afghanistan. got back home. so i follow the government, everything they do, when i go overseas and stuff like that as well. >> i'll let you go there, larry. we'll go to jennifer. this time we are going to go to oxford junction -- oxford junction, iowa? i hope i got that right, jennifer. on our others line. >> caller: yes. you did get that right. >> okay.
you're on the air. >> caller: first of all -- >> yeah, there you go. >> caller: i'd like to first of all thank you so much for taking my call. >> you bet. >> caller: i was -- i actually have a question and just a comment. i'd like to know if there's any possible way to put a lock on the election for the 2020 -- or for the 2020 election where trump and pence are absolutely forbidden and if that could be a possible solution so when his presidency is done, then we can go and we can press charges on him. i think it would be -- i think it would be an injustice to charge him as a standing president. it would make our country look like a laughingstock. and shame on any republican who wants to bring hillary clinton and her past into this when we're talking about the collusion of donald trump, no, i'm sorry, not collusion, but conspiracy, right out of mueller's mouth, conspiracy of the donald trump campaign. >> well, jennifer, i think the campaign is going full speed ahead for donald trump and vice
president mike pence. the president departing the white house shortly this afternoon heading for a fund-raiser in wheeling, west virginia. in fact, we may hear some comments from the president as he leaves the white house. as he often will do, speak to reporters ahead of getting on the waiting marine one helicopter on the south lawn of the white house. here on c-span3, we're going to continue taking your phone calls and comments for another half hour or so. 202-748-8920 for democrats. 202-748-8921 for republicans. and all others, 202-748-8922. we'll simulcast c-span radio's "washington today" at 5:00 p.m. eastern. raleigh, north carolina, bruce, democrats line. bruce, you're on the air, go ahead. >> caller: yes. yeah. go ahead. i thought that -- that mueller was biased toward the democrats in their questions.
it seemed like he had to have the republicans repeat more. it seemed like he couldn't remember as much and he was more deit definitive in his answers when the democrats were questioning him. also, i was really interested in the comment that the republican senator from texas made, and i can't remember his name, about a -- about a statute that mueller didn't seem to know anything about, and yet if he knew about it, it would have been -- he wouldn't have looked very good. as he processed and did this -- and did his work. but, anyway. i don't know, do you remember that democrat, was in the first -- in the first go-around. anyway. >> not sure who that was -- >> caller: thank you. >> thanks, bruce. we'll go to linda, juneau, call.
linda, go ahead. you're on at air on our democrats line. juneau, alaska. go ahead. linda, you there? >> sorry, yes, i am. can you hear me? >> we don't want to lose you. you're calling from far away. democrats line, linda from juneau, alaska. yes, you're on the air. >> caller: i want to say, i'm disappointed for the republicans of wanting to hang the messenger and not listen to the message. i'm 61 years old. i remember when nixon got impe impeached. i remember clinton getting impeached for far lesser. and my grandmother used to tell me if ignorance is bliss, his foley could be wise. and that's my message to republicans. >> all right. peter, henderson, nevada, on a republican line. what did you hear today, peter? >> caller: how you doing? i heard a lot what i was hoping to hear from mueller, and i'm
very proud of the way he presented himself today. and i do hope that we actually do kind of impeach the president because he is wrong. if that was someone like myself or you that committed that crime, immediately, we will be put right behind bars. >> okay. >> caller: it's not fair that just because he's the president that he's not going to get the statement treatment. >> okay. we'll hear one more call here from damascus, sue is in damascus, maryland. good afternoon, sue, go ahead. >> caller: hi, good afternoon. i justwanted to -- i watched everything. love c-span. i wanted to make a couple quick comments. number one, i felt very sorry for robert mueller because it became very clear to me that he did not write that report. he did not do the hiring. he was not in charge of anything. that was an andrew weisman thing that was going on with that. when they asked a question to him and he was not familiar with
fusion gps, that became very clear to me that he does not know what's in that report because he did not write it. now, this is a person who's a veteran, and he's an elderly man, and i felt like the democrats were humiliating him by bringing him in there. they knew he did not know anything about that report because it was obvious he did not write it. and how do you do an investigation and spend that kind of money and then not understand the dossier, not understand -- say you're not familiar with fusion gps? say that you didn't bring anyone in from the obama administration when those peter strzok text messages clearly said that obama wanted to know everything that they were doing. how do you do an investigation like that? this is so political, and to me, this is the gift that keeps on giving. this guy and this whole fiasco
today has just re-elected donald trump in the biggest landslide this country's ever seen. >> that's sue in damascus, maryland. thank you for that. there are several members both on the yjudiciary committee and intelligence committee. one of those is congressman radcliffe, republican of texas, who spoke and questioned in both of the hearings today. here's a look at come of his questioning earlier before the judiciary committee. >> director, if you'll let me quickly summarize your opening statement this morning, you said in volume 1 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 in its election interference activities then in volume 2, for reasons that you explained the special counsel did not make a determination on whether there was an obstruction of justice crime committed by the president. is that fair? >> yes, sir. >> all right. now in explaining the special counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution
or declaration decision, the report on the bottom of page 2 of volume 2 reads as follows. "the evidence we obtained 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 does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." now, i read that correctly? >> yes. >> now, your report, and today you said that all times the special counsel team operated under, was guided by, and followed justice department policies and principles. so which doj policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? >> can you repeat that last part of that question? >> yeah. which doj policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not
conclusively determined? where does that language come from, director? where is the doj policy that says that? can you -- let me make it easier. >> can -- >> sorrying go ahead. can you give me an example, other than dronald trump, the justice department determined -- because their innocence was not conclusively determined? >> i cannot but this is a unique situation. >> you can't -- time is short. i got five minutes. let's just leave it at you can't find it because i'll tell you why. it doesn't exist. the special counsel's job, nowhere does it say you were to conclusively determine donald trump's innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. it's not in any of the document. it's not in your appointment order. not in the special counsel regulations. it's not in the justice manuals. nowhere do those words appear together but 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 declination, decisions reached by the special counsel." that's the very first word of your report, right? >> that's correct. >> here's the problem, director. the special counsel didn't do
that. on volume 1, you did. on volume 2, with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special quounl made neither a prosecution decision or a declination 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." nowhere in here does it say "write a report about decisions that weren't reached." you wrote 180 pages. 180 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 and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't 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 doj principle about extraprosecutorial commentary. i agree with the chairman, this morning, when he said donald trump is not above the law. he's not. but he damn sure shouldn't be below the law which is where volume 2 of this report puts him. >> some of the questioning from earlier, texas congressman, republican john rat clifcliff, the judiciary committees, also on the house intelligence committee as well. here on c-span3 we're going to continue taking your calls and comments. up to 5:00 eastern. when we'll bring you "washington today" simulcasting that with c-span radio coming up at 5:00 eastern. in between now and then we might also hear from donald trump as he leaves the white house headed
to west virginia at a fund raiser there. also a briefing coming up at 4:45 eastern. we understand with house speaker nancy pelosi and the chair of the house intelligence committee, adam schiff. we'll try to go to that if that starts on time. able to show you some of that before the radio ram this afterno afternoon. 202-748-8920 for democrats. republicans use 202-748-8921 and all others, 202-748-8922. we'll go to rene first up, i indianapolis, democrats line. your thank you for taking my call. i just want to say i think mueller did an excellent job and just going over the questions, i know it was long for him. he did state he couldn't talk about anything other than what was in the mueller report because of ongoing investigation and cases. anything new that attorney barr -- i mean, attorney general
barr is doing, is something that he's not privy of because he's not there anymore. but overall, i believe him. i believe him because he has such integrity. i believe him that they took one thing, a small thing, and went from -- they followed the dots. from person to person. and as they were going up the ladder, they found more evidence on this person, that person's in jail, this person, that person's in jail. even though they lied, they tried to misinstruct different information to him, they got rid of some information, it didn't matter. the truth prevails. and whether i'm a democrat or republican or not, i'm in united states of america and i tell you, if we had to get bombed or we were invaded by another country, i don't think that country is going to come in and say, wait a minute, don't kill
them, they're republicans. they're going to kill us. they're going to hurt us because we are all americans. >> well, let's move on. let's move on next to our republican line and hear from mary in florida. mary, go ahead. >> caller: oh, hey, hey, thank you for taking my call. i really appreciate it. i agree with your last call that we're all americans, but what she doesn't understand about mueller, what i learn eed eed t mueller suddenly had hearing problems whenever there was a threatening question, uncomfortable question, republic republicans. that was quite obvious. and he was bias. and, yes, i agree, some of the things he could not answer. i support the president 100%. just because somebody gets arrested doesn't mean you're guilty. there's no evidence. he was not guilty of a crime. it's ridiculous. the people that -- democrats have got their head in the sand.
they're not seeing what the big picture is. they just want to get the president because they don't like him. period. he's doing more for this country than obama ever did. also, obama, there was spying on americans under obama. why didn't obama do anything about it? that's what people don't understand. they're in denial. democrats are in denial. and they don't want to admit it. >> all right. we'll hear next from cameron. cameron's calling from mckoos bay, oregon, on our others line. >> caller: hi there. thanks for taking my call. look, i just wanted to -- i just wanted to call because -- sorry -- because this whole investigation, look, what i took from mueller today was that trump's probably going to be -- have crimes on him once he gets out of office, but the big point
that i want to make is i don't think that this whole investigation, this whole political tit for tat game, really matters a lot for the american people. and i think that they're going it get trump after he's out of office and right now what we should be focusing on is making sure trump doesn't get to another term. i mean, look, there's a whole bunch of 2020 candidates right now in the democratic party. i think that we really have to look through and get the right one. and i really believe that that's bernie sanders. that's my race right now, i'm really trying to push the race for the primary. you know, i hear vote blue noca this hearing just on the political side of things, the presidential political side of things, just further solidifies people's opinions of the democratic view of the russia investigation and the republican view of the russia investigation? nobody's opinion was changed much, you think?
your wel >> caller: well, look, i'm sure people who are paying attention to this investigation, it matters to a lot of people especially people who are worried about our election and how scaiafe it is but i think working-class people and poor people are worrying about health care, their worrying about their student debt. they're worrying about their everyday lives and how it impacts them and i don't think they care much about this russia-gate. >> cameron, thanks for calling in this afternoon. more of your calls coming up in a moment. as we mentioned, we'll join c-span radio's "washington today" at 5:00 p.m. eastern. want to show you next, though, comments from democrat steve cohen on the judiciary committee. questioning the former special counsel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i'd just like to restate that mr. nadler said about your career, it's a model of rectitude, and i thank you.
based upon your investigation, how did president trump react to your appointment as special counsel? >> again, i sent you the report for where that is stated. >> a quote from page 78 of your report, volume 2, which reads, "when sessions told the president that a special counsel had been appointed, the president slumped back in his chair and said, "oh, my god, this is terrible, this is the end of my presidency. i'm f'd." did attorney general sessions tell you about that little talk? >> i'm not -- >> please speak into the microphone. >> oh, surely. my apologies. i am not certain of the person who originally copied that quote. >> okay. well, sessions apparently said it in oand one of his aides had in his notes. that's become report. he wasn't pleased. probably wasn't pleased with the
special counsel and particularly you because of your outstanding reputation. >> correct. >> prior to your appointment, the attorney general recuse ed himself from the investigation because of his role in the campaign. is that correct? >> correct. >> recusal means the attorney general can't be involved in the prosecution. is that the -- >> that's the effect of the recusal, yes s. >> instead, another trump appointee, as you know, mr. rosenstein became in charge of it, is that correct? >> yes. >> wasn't attorney general sessions following the rules and professional advice of the department of justice ethics folks when he recused himself from the investigation? >> yes. >> and yet, the president repeatedly expressed his displeasure at sessions' decision to follow those ethics rules to recuse himself from oversight of that investigation, is that not correct? >> that's accurate based owen what is written in the report. >> and the president 's reactio to the recusal as noted in the report, bannon reports the president is as mad as bannon has ever seen him and screamed
about mcgahn about how weak sessions was. do you recall that from the report? >> that's in the report, yes. >> despite knowing attorney general sessions was supposed to be -- was not supposed to be involved in the investigation, the president still tried to get the attorney general to unrecuse himself after you were appointed special counsel. is that correct? >> yes. >> in fact, your investigation found that at some point after your appointment, quote, the president called sessions at his home and asked if he would unrecuse himself. is that true? >> it's true. >> now, that wasn't the first time the president asked sessions to unrecuse himself, was it? >> i know there are at least two occasions. >> one of them was with flynn and one was when sessions and mcgahn flew to mar-a-lago to meet with the president, sessions recalled the president pulled him aside to speak alone and suggested he should do this unrecusal act. correct? >> correct. >> and then when michael flynn a few days after flynn entered a guilty plea for lying to federal agents and indicated his intent to cooperate with that
investigation, trump asked to speak to sessions alone again in the oval office and again asked sessions to unrecuse himself. true? >> i refer you to the report for that. >> page 109, volume 2. thank you, sir. you know of any point when the president personally expressed anger or frustrations at sessions? >> i have to pass on that. >> do you recall, i think it's page 78 of volume 2, the president told sessions you were supposed to protect me, you were supposed to protect me, or words to that effect? >> correct. >> and is the attorney general supposed to be the attorney general of the united states of america or the concigulory? >> correct. >> so sessions could supervise the investigation in a way that would restrict its scope. is that correct? >> rely on the report. >> how could sessions have restricted the scope of your
investigation? >> well, i'm not going to speculate. if he -- quite obviously, if he took over or was attorney general, he would have greater latitude in his actions that would enable him to do things that otherwise he could not. >> on page 113, you said the president believed that an unrecused attorney general would play a protective role and conceal the president from the ongoing investigation. regardless of all that, i want to thank you, director mueller, for your life of recolletitude service to our country. it's clear the president wanted sessions to violate the justice department ethics rules by taking over your investigation and improperly interfering with it to protect himself and his campaign. your findings are so important because in america, nobody is above the law. >> and just to update you on our programming here on c-span3, a tweet from alex moe of nbc, "we are told speaker pelosi will join house intelligence committee chair schiff and house
judiciary chair nadler for a press conference at approximately 4:45 p.m. following today's two mueller hearings per a committee spokesperson." and our cameras are at the briefing room here on capitol hill. we will have that news conference at 4:45. or when it gets started. until then, we're going to continue to take your phone calls. and your thoughts and reaction to today's two hearings. 202-748-8920 for democrats. 202-748-8921 republicans. and all others, 202-748-8922. let's hear from wade on our democrats line in loisburg, north carolina. >> caller: yes. hello. how you doing today? >> fine, thanks. >> caller: i just wanted to say that i'm a lifelong democrat, and i've been on the fence for quite a while, but i've got to say after this hearing i agree with several callers back, the lady that called in and said that mueller basically was a figurehead, that he had underlings under hill.
he didn't know anything about this report. he couldn't attest to anything that was in the report. i've been on the fence, like i said, i've been a lifelong democrat, but after listening to mr. rat clicliff today and mr. jordan and a few other on the republican side, i got to say, they made a convincing case that, you know, between the questions that were being asked by my fellow democrats on all this stuff, obstruction, and when you had hillary clinton and all this stuff in with the dossiers dealing with outside entities with russia and everything else, but yet they want to come back on our president and try to say that he has done something that's been totally, you know, disrespectful to us as americans, i think is way out of line and i believe at this point in time, like i said, i fell off the other side of the fence and i will have to vote with our president on this go-round in 2020. >> all right. let's go to our republican and hear from jerry next up in port
charlotte, florida. jerry, go ahead. >> caller: thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you for taking my call. the one thing i have to say i learned from this, watching these hearings again today, is that mueller has not made a complete investigation. he did not follow the evidence correctly. it was sure proven, jim jordan, thank you for, you know, the line of questioning from the republican side was fantastic. you saw mueller was nervous. you saw he didn't want to answer questions, but it's mainly -- it's not a complete investigation. he didn't follow the marks. >> and, jerry, where do you think he should have followed it to? he talked a number of times about things being outside the scope of his directive, of the scope of his investigation. >> caller: yeah, some of the things may have been out of his scope, but it goes back to fusion. it goes back to fusion gps. and too many people that are involved in his investigation
were involved with fusion. he should have been able to make the connection. the russian lawyer. it just -- he -- to miss those things, it's just obvious that he intentionally had missed them. and looked over them. >> all right. >> caller: very disappointing. >> let's hear from our others line. daniel in virginia. suffolk, virginia. you're on the air. >> caller: yes, sir, thanks for taking my call. listen, i'm 75 years old and i've never missed an election, and it's a privilege to vote. i'm going to tell you what's the truth. i'm getting sick of this mess. this all started out with a lie to begin with, and it's just snowballed and snowballed. if the democrats went for a smoking gun, mueller didn't help them find it. and i hope it's over with, we can get on with running this country and i'll just say this to the democrats and republicans alike. you don't have to like trump. he's our president.
hillary clinton wasn't electable to begin with. and they've -- trump proved it. you know, you don't have to like him. that's fine. i didn't like obama. but he was still my president. and i still pray for him every day. same as i do for trump. whether i like everything he does or whether i don't. i think this whole investigation is just a farce. i listened to the whole thing today. i heard nothing, nothing out there that was a smoking gun for democrats. they ought to give it up and go back to governing this country instead of doing what they're doing now. that's all i got to say. >> if you're just joining us this afternoon, the two hearings are done. this morning, the judiciary hearing. this afternoon, house intelligence committee hearing. we will air them in their entirety tonight on the c-span network. we're waiting to hear from house speaker pelosi and the chairs of both of those committees in a briefing come up at 4:45 eastern. we'll have that live then or when it starts ahead of our planned simultaneous cast at 5:00 p.m. this afternoon with c-span radio's "washington today" program. let's hear next from elsa,
newington, connecticut, on the democrats line. >> caller: hi, how are you? >> fine, thank you. >> caller: good. i have just been listening to some of these republicans and i'm a lifelong democrat, myself, and they just, they can't see, it's like their eyes are closed. this man has done so many things, had said so many things, has lied time and time again and proven, i believe he's obstructed justice and, you know, they -- these republicans just don't -- they, because of their tax breaks and this economy, i don't feel nothing about this economy. this economy hasn't done nothing for me. i'm still getting paid the same. i'm still doing the same thing i was doing when obama was -- still got the same health care. i mean, they make it sound like he made he rich, and he didn't. and so so he's constantly lying.
how could you -- how could you believe that this guy did not do what he did? that, you know, the people that mueller arrested were all his campaign advisers and people who he surrounded himself with are crooks. all are corrupt. they're all doing illegal stuff. i mean, you know, it's like they say, like my mom used to say, you know, you tell me who you hang with and i'll tell you who you are. and that's just him. i mean, he's constantly lying. >> all right. elsa, we'll let you go there and go to joe on our republican line in norwalk, connecticut. joe, go ahead. >> caller: oh, hey. thank you very much. yeah, you know, i'm just -- i knew two years ago about who fusion gps was. those are "wall street journal" guys. former editor from "wall street journal." other guy from fusion gps was the latin america editor for
"wall street journal." those are deep state. those are republicans. it was a ycoup going against ou president. the fact -- then we see mueller today. i don't think he's lying when he said he didn't know gps. i think the guy's just so old and out of it. the deep state put muler in the there, everybody respects mueller. everybody. ryan liked mueller. schumer liked mueller. installed him and then they load the investigators up with wiseman and a bunch of democrat operatives. they knew they need some guys who will get trump out of there. the republicans and democrats wanted the president out of there, man. they're going to lose their cheap labor. democrats are going to lose their future votes. they didn't want a private sector in there. trump didn't know anybody from washington. see, mueller, he look so old. they just installed this dude. that guy from south carolina was right, they just installed mueller. that's why we haven't heard from him all this time.
you know, there seemed to be so much injustice going on, you never heard from mueller until, like, you know, until, like, a month ago. >> all right. that's joe. that is joe in connecticut. on our republican line. just to let you know that the briefing with house speaker nancy pelosi and the chairs of the two committees has now been pushed back to about 5:15 eastern. we're planning on bringing you live coverage. we'll continue to take your calls and comments. 202-748-8920 for democrats. 202-748-8921 for republicans. and all others, it's 202-748-8922. republicans, 202-748-8921. we'll re-air the two hearings in their entirety tonight on the c-span networks. let's go next to ft. pierce, florida, and on our others line, this is james. go ahead. >> caller: yeah, hey there, bill. i actually had three relevant questions that i really hope c-span can shed some light on about this. would a potential presidential candidate, not anyone in particular, just a potential one, be disqualified from
running if charged with obstructions of justice? and then if re-elected, are the -- if trump's re-elected, are there circumstances that allow for suspensions on statute of limitations and does this not create the possibility of witness tampering in a future case of giving names of people who are not being charged with a crime in the investigation as they may be cooperating witnesses in an upcoming criminal case? >> what do you think? >> caller: i'm hoping i can get some kind of professional advice on this from somebody who knows more than i do. >> you put it out there, maybe somebody will have the answer for us. what's your other question? >> caller: that was three in a r row. i rattled them off. i wasn't going to suck up your time. >> thanks for that. tina in astoria, new york. you're on the air.
go ahead. >> caller: hi there. i do appreciate you taking my call. i just want to say how proud i am both of the chairpeople and their statements. they for the most part outlined what they were going to cover, and then mueller had his opening statement and i -- i really encourage people to read the full report because there are people that have called earlier saying there's no smoking gun. the report outlines all of the evidence. mueller, himself, said he was not going to divulge anything new. he was just going to state what was in the report and his strategy really worked where he wanted the burden of proof to be
on the people of the congresspeople asking for them to cite the actual report which i think worked well. and the -- >> did -- tina, do you think that he illuminated. you read the report, you said. >> caller: yes. >> in his answers, the ones where he did expand a little on the report, what stuck out in your mind that, as notable, from the former special counsel? >> caller: well, just the mere fact that, you know, he said, yes, that the president lied, i mean, that in and of itself, whether you're republican, democrat, independent, i mean, that holds weight. so i would hope people whom have read or have not read the report to at least, you know, take that
into consideration and know that the man currently in office is a liar by all accounts. >> thanks for that. we'll go next if bto brian, san ro rosa, california. good afternoon. what did you think about the hearings today? >> caller: oh, well, i don't think we did learn much new from the mueller testimony except that we weren't going to find out what mueller knew and when he knew it, like how long ago was it that he determined trump was not colluding with russia? we did also learn that the new standard is not not guilty is a thing. so when he doesn't clear trump of obstruction but says he's -- that he can't say he's not not
guilty, that's a new low. so we got that. to joe who called in earlier, wow, dude, you really nailed it. that is correct. we have experienced something worse than watergate and the public is yet to get their minds wrapped around it. i think we're waiting for the special counsel investigations which are still ongoing to reveal that, yes, this was an attempted coup, that, yes, british intelligence was involved. we have to ask the question, now, what was the motivation? i think we have -- as a nation, have to recognize that china interests are involved. trump's tariff policy was probably the most mobilizing thing for the animus against him, really, why the most important people in our media and the power structures in the
republic can party included, wh these factions developed against trump is he upset the order of things where china was going to become the manufacturer of the world and the united states was going to be nothing but a consumer in debt nation. that's what's really going on here here, i think, at the core, and we got to be realizing that this was bigger than watergate, this attempted eed coup. we got british intelligence involved. >> of course, the qualm pacampa >> caller: we have yet to hear that. >> the campaign obviously well under way with democratic debates, another set of them coming up next week. the president already with several campaign rallies, in fact, this evening he's heading to wheeling, west virginia, this time for a fund-raiser there, a party fund-raiser. president did speak to reporters before departing. . we hope to be able to show you some of that, and we're also planning to bring you the news conference with house speaker nancy pelosi and the chairs of the judiciary and intelligence
committees in the house. now been moved back a bit to 5:15 eastern. we'll stay here live and continue to take your phone calls and take you to the news conference when that gets under way. let's go to denver and hear from peggy who's on our republican line. >> caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. >> sure. >> caller: i am a registered independent who has read the report and honestly, the big question that i am left with after today is why i keep hearing some republicans bringing up the taxpayer cost of the report. >> right. >> caller: which at the very least has shown some serious security flaws in a major part of our democracy which should not be a partisan issue. especially when you compare that cost to the recreational golf trips that this president has taken on taxpayer dollars. to me, that doesn't make any sense. and it just doesn't line up. >> all right, peggy. here's steve. he's in largo, florida. also on our republican line.
steve, go ahead. >> caller: yeah, i just want to call and say i've been listen g listening, it's hilarious. >> what's hilarious, steve? >> caller: just listening to these people. man, it all goes back to the beginning of trump. i mean, all you have to do is google "donald trump." go back to the '70s. see what kind of person he is. it's not what kind of president he is. it's what kind of person he is. just look at the way he's treated people. the way he's stolen. the way he's broken families up. the way he's done people wrong. why would anybody -- i never, ever thought in this country that we'd ever have someone like that ruling this country. i mean, not ruling, he wants to be a ruler, but the president of this country and it goes back to way back when he said he should shoot someone on 5th avenue and he'd get away with it. that's for the trump clowns out there.
>> we'll hear from david next calling us from austin, texas, republican line. david, hello there. >> caller: yes. hi, bill. thank you. thank you for taking my call. you know, my family has been farming up here in texas for well over 100 years. my whole family votes republican. my extended family votes republican. i've always voted republican. i gave -- i gave president trump a chance the first time around, and, you know, he's made it -- he's made it hard for us. i appreciate the bailout that he's given up. i think what he's attempting to do with china makes a lot of sense, but, you know, i just -- i didn't read the report, but -- >> do you -- >> caller: -- i listened to attorney barr -- >> do you think you'll go read it now? >> caller: well, you know, not a whole lot of time on my hands to be reading 400 pages. >> okay. >> caller: but i listened to attorney barr and his conclusion and just, i'm having a hard time
circling that square after hearing the testimony of mueller today. you know, when representative buck was talking, he said, you know, something along the lines of, you know, was there sufficient evidence to convict the president with, or anyone else, with obstruction of justice? then he continued on saying -- >> hey, david, go the to let you go there. we're getting remarks from president trump as he's leaving the white house. let's take a look.