tv House Intel Mueller Hearing Part 1 CSPAN July 25, 2019 4:54am-6:20am EDT
consecutive. use c-span.org to watch the hearings on demand. the video is searchable with speaker -- by speaker with key points highlighted. >> former special counsel robert mueller testified on capitol hill about the russian investigation and report released by his office. this was the second of two hearings and focused on findings related to russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
this meeting will come to order. >> come to order. thank you for a lifetime of service. to your country. it tells the story of a foreign adversary sweeping and systemic intervention in a close u.s. election. that should be enough to deserve the attention of every american as you well point out. but your report tells another story as well. the story of the 2016 election is also a story about disloyalty to country. about greed, and about lies. your investigation determined the trump campaign including donald trump himself knew that a
foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built russian meddling into their strategy and used it. disloyalty to country. those are strong words but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent which did not publicly shun it or turn it away but which instead invited it, encouraged it and made full use of it. that disloyalty may not have been criminal, constrained by uncooperative witnesses, the destruction of documents and the use of encrypted communications, your team was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, so not a provable crime in any event. but i think maybe something worse, a crime is the violation of law written by congress, but
disloyalty to country violates the very oath of citizenship, our devotion to a core principle on which our nation was founded that we, the people and not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide who governs us. this is also a story about money. about greed and corruption. about the leadership of a campaign willing to compromise the nation's interest not only to win but to make money at the same time. about a campaign chairman indebted to pro russian interests who tried to use his position to clear his debts and make millions. about a national security adviser using his position to make money from still other foreign interests. and about a candidate trying to make more money than all of them put together through real estate project that to him was worth a fortune. hundreds of millions of dollars and the realization of a life-long ambition, a trump tower in the heart of moscow.
a candidate who, in fact, viewed his whole campaign as the greatest infomercial in history. donald trump and his senior staff were not alone in their desire to use the election to make money. for russia too there was a powerful financial motive. putin wanted relief from u.s. economic sanctions imposed in the wake of russia's invasion of ukraine and over human rights violations. the secret trump tower meeting between the russians and senior campaign officials was about sanctions. the secret conversations between flynn and the russian ambassador were about sanctions. trump and his team wanted more money for themselves, and the russians wanted more money for themselves. and for their oligarchs. but the story doesn't end here either. for your report also tells a story about lies. lots of lies. lies about a gleaming tower in moscow and lies about talks with
the kremlin. lies about the firing of james comey and lies about efforts to fire you, and lies to cover it up. lies about secret negotiations with the russians over sanctions and lies about wikileaks. lies about polling data and lies about hush money payments. lies about meetings in the se shells and about a secret meeting in trump tower. lies to the fbi. lies to your staff, and lies to this committee. lies to obstruct an investigation into the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history. that is where your report ends, direct mueller. with a scheme to cover up obstruct and deceive every bit as system attic as the russian campaign itself but far more pernicious since this rot came from within. even now after 448 pages and two
volumes, the deception continues. the president and his accolades say your report found no collusion, though your report explicitly declined to address that since it can involve criminal and noncriminal conduct. your report laid out offmultipl offers of russian help and furtherance to most americans that's the very definition of collusion. whether it is a crime or not. they say your report found no evidence of obstruction though you outlined numerous actions by the president intended to obstruct the investigation. they say the president has been fully exonerated though you declare you could not exonerate him. in fact, they say your whole investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt. that the russians didn't interfere in our election, that it's all a terrible hoax. the real crime, they say, is not
that the russians intervened to help donald trump but that the fbi investigated it when they did. but worst of all, worse than all the lies and the greed is the disloyalty to country. for that, too, continues. when asked if the russians intervene again, will you take their help, mr. president? why not was the essence of his answer. everyone does it. no, mr. president, they don't. not the america envisioned by jefferson, madison and hamilton. not for those who believe in the idea that lincoln labored until his dying day to preserve the idea animating our great national experiments so unique then, so precious still that our government is chosen by our
people through our franchise, and not by some hostile foreign power. this is what is at stake. our next election, and the one after that for generations to come. our democracy. this is why your work matters, director mueller. this is why our investigation matters. to bring these dangers to light. ranking member nunez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, everyone, to the last gasp of the russia collusion conspiracy theory. as democrats continue to foist this spectacle on the american people as well as you, mr. mueller, the american people may recall the media first began spreading this serious theory in the spring of 2016 when fusion gps funded by the dnc and the hillary clinton campaign started
developing the steele dossier. a collection of outlandish accusations that trump and his associates were russian agents. fusion gps, steele, and other confederates fed this to naive or partisan reporters and to top officials in numerous government agencies including the fbi, the department of justice and the state department. among other things the fbi used dossier allegations to obtain a warrant to spy on the trump campaign. despite acknowledging dossier allegations as being salacious, and unverified, former fbi director james comey briefed the allegations to president obama and president-elect trump. those briefings conveniently leaked to the press. resulting in the publication of the dossier and launching thousands of false press stories based on the word of a foreign
exspy. one who admitted he was desperate that trump lose the election and who was eventually fired as an fbi source for leaking to the press. after comey himself was fired by his own admission, he leaked derogatory information on president trump to the press for the specific purpose and successfully so, of engineering the appointment of a special counsel who sits here before us today. the fbi investigation was marred by further corruption and business zar abuses. top doj officials whose wife worked on fusion gps anti-trump -- fed information even after the fbi fired steele. the top fbi investigator and his lover, another top fbi official constantly texted about how much they hated trump and wanted to stop him from being elected.
and the entire investigation was open based not on intelligence but on a tip from a foreign politician. about a conversation involving joseph nif have a, he's a diplomat who is widely portrayed as a russian agent but seems to have for more connections with western governments including our own fbi and our own state department than with russia. ignoring the red flags as well as the transparent absurdity of the claims they're making, the democrats have arguing for nearly three years that evidence of collusion is hidden just around the corner. they insist it's there'ven if no one can find it. consider this. in march of 2017 democrats on this committee said they had more than circumstantial evidence of collusion but they couldn't reveal it yet. mr. mueller was soon appointed and they said he would find the
collusion. then when no collusion was found, and mr. mueller's indictments, the democrats said we'd find it in his final report. then when there was no collusion in the report, we were told attorney general barr was hiding it. then when it was clear barr wasn't hiding anything, we were told it will be revealed through a hearing with mr. mueller himself. and now that mr. mueller is here, they're claiming the collusion has actually been in his report all along. hidden in plain sight, and they're right. there is collusion in plain sight. collusion between russia and the democratic party. the democrats have already admitted both in interviews and through their usual anonymous statements to reporters that today's hearing is not about
getting information at all. they said they want to, quote, bring the mueller report to life. and create a television moment through ploys like having mr. muell mueller recite passages from his own report. it's theater. it's trying to convince the american people that collusion is real and concealed in the report. granted, that's a strange argument to make about a report that is public. it's almost like the democrats prepared arguments accusing mr. barr of hiding the report and didn't bother to update their claims once he published the entire thing. among congressional democrats the russia investigation was never about finding the truth. it's always been a simple media operation by their own accounts this operation continues in this room today. once again, numerous pressing issues this committee needs to address are put on hold to
indulge the political fantasies of people who believed it was their destiny to serve hillary clinton's administration. it's time for the curtain to close on the russia hoax. the conspiracy theory is dead. at some point i would argue we're going to have to get back to work. until then, i yield back the balance of my time. >> to ensure fairness and make sure that our hearing is prompt, i know we got a late start, director mueller. the hearing will be structured as follows. each member of the committee will be afforded five minutes to ask questions beginning with the chair and ranking member. as chair, i will recognize thereafter in alternating fashion and members of the majority and minority. after each member asks their questions, the ranking member will be afforded an additional five minutes followed by the chair with additional five minutes for questions. ranking member and the chair
will not be prepared to delegate or yield our five minutes to any other member. after six members of the majority and six members of minority have concluded their round of questions, we'll take a five or ten minute break. we understand you've requested it, before resuming the swal well round of questions. aaron zebley served as deputy counsel until may 2019 and had day today oversight of the special counsel's investigation. mr. mueller and mr. zebley resigned at the end of may 2019 when the special counsel's office was closed. both mr. mueller and mr. zebley will be available to answer questions today and will be sworn in consistent with the rules of the house and the committee. their appearance before the committee is in keeping with the long standing practice of receiving testimony from current or former department of justice
and fbi personnel regarding open and closed investigative matters. as this hearing is under oath and before we begin your testimony, mr. mueller and zebley, would you please rise and raise your right hands to be sworn? do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give at this hearing is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. the record will reflect the witnesses have been duly sworn. ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to clarify that this is highly unusual for mr. zebley to be sworn in. we're here to ask director mueller questions. he's here as counsel. our side is not going to be directing any questions to mr. zebley, and we have concerns
about his prior representation of the hillary clinton campaign aide, so i just want to voice that concern that we do have. and we will not be presenting any questions to mr. zebley today. >> i thank the ranking member. i realize as probably do mr. zebley that there is an angry person not happy about you being here today, but it is up to this committee and not anyone else who will be allowed to be sworn in and testify, and you are welcome as a private citizen to testify and members may direct their questions to whoever they choose. with that, director mueller, you're recognized for any opening remarks you'd like to make. >> good afternoon, chairman schiff and members of the committee. i testified this morning before the house judiciary committee. i asked that the opening statement i made before that committee be incorporated into
the record here. >> without objection, director. >> i understand that this committee has a unique jurisdiction. that you are interested in further understanding the counterintelligence implications of our investigation. so let me say a word about how we handle the potential impact of our investigation on counterintelligence matters. as we explain in our report, the special counsel regulations effectively gave me the role of united states attorney. as a result, we structured our investigation around evidence for possible use in prosecution of federal crimes. we did not reach what you would call counterintelligence conclusions. we did, however, set up processes in the office to identify and pass counterintelligence information onto the fbi. members of our office periodically brief the fbi about
counterintelligence information. in addition there were agents and analysts from the fbi who are not on our team but whose job it was to identify counterintelligence information in our files and to disseminate that information to the fbi. for these reasons, questions about what the fbi has done with the counterintelligence information obtained from our investigation should be directed to the fbi. i also want to reiterate a few points that i made this morning. i am not making any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence in any pending case. it is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation. and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited. first public testimony could effect several ongoing matters. in some of these matters court
rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings. and consistent with long-standing justice department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could effect an ongoing matter. second, the justice department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and decisions ongoing matters within the justice department, and deliberations within our office. these are justice department privileges that i will respect. the department has released a letter discussing the restrictions on my testimony. i, therefore, will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that i know are of public interest. for example, i am unable to address questions about the opening of the fbi's russia investigation which occurred months before my appointment. or matters related to the
so-called steele dossier. these matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. any questions on these topics should, therefore, be directed to the fbi or the justice department. third as i explained this morning, it is important for me to adhere to what we wrote in our report. the report contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. we stated the results of our investigation with precision. i do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. as i stated in may, i also will not comment on the actions of the attorney general or of congress. i was appointed as a prosecutor, and i intend to adhere to that role and to the department standards that govern. finally as i said this morning, over the course of my career i
have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. the russian government's efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious. i am sure the committee agrees. now, before we go to questions, i want to add a correction to my testimony this morning. i want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by mr. lou 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. and with that, mr. chairman, i'm ready to answer questions. >> thank you, director mueller. i recognize myself for five minutes. director mueller your report describes a sweeping effort by russia to influence our presidential election. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and during the course of this
russian interference in the election, the russians made outreach to the trump campaign. did they not? >> that occurred over the course of -- yeah, that occurred. >> it's also clear from your report that during that russian outreach to the trump campaign, no one associated with the trump campaign ever called the fbi to report it. am i right? >> i don't know that for sure. >> in fact, the campaign welcomed the russian help, did they not? >> i think we report in our -- in the report indications that that occurred, yes. >> the president's son said when he was approached about dirt on hillary clinton that the trump campaign would love it. >> that is generally what was said, yes. >> the president himself called on the russians to hack hillary's emails? >> there was a statement by the president in those general lines. >> numerous times during the campaign the president praised the releases of the russian-hacked emails through
wikileaks. >> that did occur. >> your report found that the trump campaign planned, quote, a press strategy, communications campaign and messaging, unquote, based on that russian assistance? >> i am not familiar with that. >> that language comes from volume one, page 54. apart from the russian's wanting to help trump win, several individuals associated with the trump campaign were also trying to make money during the campaign in transition. is that correct? >> that is true. >> paul manafort was trying to make money or achieve debt forgiveness from a russian oligarch? >> that's generally accurate. >> flynn was trying to make money from turkey? >> true. >> donald trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in moscow. >> to the extent you're talking about the hotel deal in moscow? >> yes. >> yes. >> when your investigation looked into these matters, numerous people lied --
>> number of persons that we interviewed in our investigation it turns out did lie. >> mike flynn lied? >> he was convicted of lying, yes. >> george pap drop louse was convicted of lying? >> yes. >> paul manafort went so far as to encourage other people to lie. >> that's accurate. >> rick gates lied? >> that's accurate. >> michael cohen, the president's lawyer was indicted for lying? >> true. >> he lied to stay on message with the president? >> allegedly by him. >> and when donald trump called your investigation a witch hunt, that was also false, was it not? >> i'd like to think so, yes. >> well, your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it? >> it is not a witch hunt. >> when the president said the russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it? >> true. >> when he said it publicly it was false? >> he did say publicly that it was false, yes. >> and when he told it to putin,
that was false too, wasn't it? >> that i'm not familiar with. >> when the president said he had no business dealings with russia, that was false, wasn't it? >> i'm not going to go into the details of the report along these loans. >> when the president said he had no business dealings with russia he was seeking to build a trump tower in moscow, was he not? >> i think there's some question about when this was accomplished. >> you would consider a billion dollar deal to build a tower in moscow to be business dealings, wouldn't you? >> absolutely. >> in short, your investigation found evidence that russia wanted to help trump win the election? >> i think generally that would be accurate. >> russia informed campaign officials of that? >> i'm not certain to what conversation you're referring to. >> well, through an intermediary they informed papadopoulos they could help with the unanimous release of stolen emails?
>> accurate. >> russia committed federal crimes to help donald trump? >> when you're talking about the computer crimes charged in our case, absolutely. >> the trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging strategy around the stolen documents? >> generally that's true. >> and then they lied to cover it up? >> generally that's true. >> thank you. mr. nunez. >> thank you. welcome, director. as a former fbi director, you'd agree that the fbi is the world's most capable law enforcement agency? >> i would say we're -- yes. >> the fbi claims the counterintelligence investigation of the trump campaign began on july 31st, 2016. but, in fact, it began before that. in june of 2016 before the investigation officially opened, trump campaign associates carter page and stephen miller were
invited to attend a symposium at came bridge university in july of 2016. your office, however, did not investigate who was responsible for inviting the trump associates to this symposium. your investigators also failed to interview an american citizen who helped organize the event and invited carter page to it. is that correct? >> can you repeat the question? >> whether or not you interviewed stephen shre dp gy. >> in those areas i'm going to stay away from. >> the first trump associate to be investigated was general flynn. many of the allegations against him stem from false media reports that he had an affair with a cambridge academic. and that lokava was a russian spy. some of the allegations were made public in a 2017 article written by british intelligence historian christopher andrew.
your report fails to reveal how or why andrew and his collaborator, former head of britain's mi-6 spread these allegations. and you failed to interview lokava about these matters. is that correct? >> i'm not going to get into those matters to which you refer. >> you had a team of 19 lawyers, 40 agents and an unlimited budget. correct, mr. mueller? >> i would not say we had an unlimited budget. >> let's continue with the ongoing or the opening of the investigation supposedly on july 31st, 2016. the investigation was not open based on an official product from five eyes intelligence but based on a rumor conducted by alexander downer on as a rule yum one, page 89 your report describes him blandly as a representative of a foreign government. he was actually a long-time
australian politician, not a military or intelligence official who had previously arranged a 25 million donation to the clinton foundation and has previous ties to deerlove. downer conveys a rumor he supposedly heard about a conversation between papadopoulos and another. james comey has publicly called miffsid a russian agent, yet your report does not refer to him as a russian agent. he has extensive contacts with russian governments and the fbi. there's a recent photo of him standing next to boris johnson, the new prime minister of great britain. what we're trying to figure out here, mr. mueller, is if our nato allies or boris johnson have been compromised. we're trying to figure out comey says miffsin is a russian agent. you do not. do you stand by what's in the report? >> i stand by that which is in the report, and not so
necessarily with that which is not in the report. >> i want to return to mr. downer. he denies that papadopoulos mentioned anything to him about hillary clinton's emails, and in fact, miffsa denies mentioning that to papadopoulos. he denies papadopoulos mentioned anything to him about clinton's emails. how does the fbi know to continuously ask papadopoulos about clinton's emails for the rest of 2016? even more strangely, your sentencing on pop cop louse blames him for hindering the fbi's ability to detain or arrest miffsin, but the truth is miffsid came in and out of the united states in december of 2016. the u.s. media could find him. the italian press found him, and he's the supposed russian agent at the epicenter of purported
collusion. but the fbi failed to question him for a half a year after officially opening the investigation. and then according to volume one, page 193 of your report, once miffsid finally was questioned he made false statements to the fbi. but you declined to charge him. is that correct? you did not indict mr. miffsid? >> i'm not going to speak to the series of happenings as you articulated them. >> but you did not -- >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> pardon? >> you did not indict mr. miffsid? >> true. >> mr. himes. >> director mueller, thank you for your commitment to the country. director, your report opens with two statements of remarkable clarity and power. the first statement is one that is as of today not acknowledged
by the president of the united states. that is, quote, the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. the second statement is controversial among members of this body. same page, the russian government perceived it would benefit from a trump presidency and work to secure that outcome. do i have that statement right? >> i believe so. >> director mueller, this family member on our democracy involved as you said two operations. first a social media disinformation campaign. this was the a targeted campaign to spread false information on places like twitter and facebook. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> facebook estimated as per your report that the russian fake images reached 126 million people. is that correct? >> i believe that's the sum we record. >> director, who did the russian social media campaign ultimately intend to benefit?
hillary clinton or donald trump? >> donald trump. >> the second operation -- >> let me say donald trump but there were instances where hillary clinton was subject to much the same behavior. >> the second was a scheme what we call the hack and dump to steal and release hundreds of thousands of emails from the democratic party and the clinton campaigns. is that a fair summary? >> it is. >> did your investigation find that the releases of the hacked emails were strategically timed to maximize impact on the election. >> i'd have to refer you to our report. >> page 36, the release of the documents designed to time with the then presidential election. mr. mueller, which presidential candidate was russia's hacking and dumping operation designed to benefit, hillary clinton or donald trump? >> mr. trump. >> mr. mueller, is it possible that this sweeping effort by
russia had an effect on the outcome of the presidential election? >> those issues are being or have been investigated by other entities. >> 126 million facebook impressions. fake rallies. attacks on hillary clinton's health. would you rule out that it might have had some effect on the election? >> i'm not going to speculate. >> mr. mueller your report describes a third avenue of attempted russian interference, the numerous links and contacts between the trump campaign and individuals tied to the russian government. is that correct? >> could you repeat the question? >> your report describes what is called a third avenue of russian interference. that's the links and contacts between the trump campaign and individuals tied to the russian government? >> yes. >> let's bring up slide one which is about gorge papadopoulos. it reads on may 6, 2016 ten days after that meeting with miffsud, papadopoulos suggested to the representative of a foreign
government that the trump campaign received information from the russian government it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to hillary clinton. director, that's exactly what happened two months heard, is it not? >> well, i can speak to the excerpt that you have on the screen as being accurate from the report, but not the second half of your question. >> the second half to refer to page six of the report is that on july 22nd through wikileaks thousands of these emails that were stolen by the russian government appeared. correct? that's on page 6 of the report. this is the wikileaks posting of those emails. >> i can't find it quickly, but i -- please continue. >> okay. just to be clear, before the public or the fbi ever knew the russians reviewed for a trump campaign official, papadopoulos,
that they had stolen emails that they could release anonymously to help donald trump and hurt hillary clinton. >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> director, rather than report this contact with joseph missud and the notion that there was dirt the campaign could use. rather than report that to the fbi papadopoulos lied about his russian contacts to you? >> that's true. >> we have an election coming up in 2020, director. if a campaign receives an offer of dirt from a foreign individual or a government, generally speaking, should that campaign report those contacts? >> should be and can be depending on the circumstances or crime. >> i will yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. conway. >> thank you. mr. mueller, did anyone ask you to exclude anything from your
report that you felt should have been in the report? >> i don't think so. but it's not a small report. >> i don't want to ask you specifically to -- no one asked you specifically to exclude something? >> not that i recall, no. >> i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you for yielding. good afternoon. in your may 29th press archs in your opening remarks this morning you made it clear you wanted the report to speak for itself. you said at your press conference that that was the office's final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the president. now, you spent the last few hours of your life from democrats trying to get you to answer all kind of hypotheticals about the president. i expect it may continue for the next few hours of your life. i think you've stayed pretty much true to your intent and desire, but i guess regardless
of that, the special counsel's office is closed, and it has no continuing jurisdiction or authority. so what would be your authority or jurisdiction for adding new conclusions or determinations to the special counsel's written report? >> as the latter, i don't know or expect a change in conclusions that we included in our report. >> so to the point you addressed one of the issues that i needed to which was from your testimony this morning which some construed as a change to the written report. you talked about the exchange that you had with congressman lou. i wrote it down different. i recorded that he asked you, quote, the reason you did not indict donald trump is because of the olc opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting president to which you responded that is correct. that response is inconsistent, i think you'll agree with your
written report. i want to be clear that it is not your intent to change your written report. it is your intent to clarify the record today? >> as i started today, this afternoon and added a footnote or end note, what i wanted to clarify is the fact that we did not make any determination with regard to culpability. we did not start that process. >> terrific. thank you for clarifying the record. a stated purpose of your appointment as special counsel was to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election as part of that full and thorough investigation, what determination did the special counsel office make about whether the steele dossier was part of the russian government efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election? >> when it comes to mr. steele, i defer to the president of justice. >> well, first of all, director, i very much agree with your
determination that russia's efforts were sweeping and systematic. i think it should concern every american. that's why i want to know how sweeping the efforts were. i want to find out if russia interfears wi -- interfered witr election by providing false information about a conspiracy you determined didn't exist. >> i'm not going to discuss the issues with regard to mr. steele. in terms of a portrayal of the conspiracies, we returned two indictments, in the computer crimes arena. one gru, and another active measures in which we lay out in detail -- >> i you said -- >> what occurred in those two under large conspiracies. >> i agree with respect to that. why this is important is an application and three renewal
applications were submitted to spy or surveil on carter page, and on all four occasions the united states submitted the steele dossier as a central piece of evidence with respect to that. the basic premise of dossier was there was a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the trump campaign and the russian government, but the special counsel investigation didn't establish any serious, correct? >> well, i can tell you the events that you are characterizing here now is part of another matter that is being handled by the department of justice. >> but you did not establish any conspiracy, much less a well developed one? >> again, i pass on answering that question. >> the special counsel did not charge carter page with anything. correct? >> special counsel did not. >> all right. my time is expired. i yield back. >> director mueller, i'd like to turn your attention to the june 9th, 2016, trump tower
meeting. slide two which should be on the screen now is part of an email chain between don junior and a publicist representing the son of a russian oligarch. it led to the infamous june 9th, 2016, meeting. the email reads in part the crown prosecutor of russia offered to provide the trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate hillary in her dealings with russia and is a part of russia and its government's support of mr. trump. in this email donald trump junior is being told the russian government wants to pass along information that would hurt hillary clinton and help donald trump. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now, trump junior's response to the email is slide three. he said, and i quote, if it is what you say, i love it. especially later in the summer.
then donald junior invited senior campaign officials paul manafort and jared kushner to the meeting, did he not? >> he did. >> this email exchange is evidence of an offer of illegal assistance, is it not? >> i cannot adopt that characterization. >> isn't it against the law for a presidential campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign government? >> generally speaking, yes, but -- generally the cases are unique. >> you say in page 184 in volume one that the federal campaign finance law broadly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, et cetera, and then you say that foreign nationals may not make a contribution or donation of money or anything of value. it says clearly in the report itself. >> thank you. >> now, let's turn to what actually happened at the meeting. when donald trump junior and the others got to the june 9th meeting they realized the russian delegation didn't have the promised quote unquote dirt.
they got upset about that, did they not? >> generally, yes. >> you say in volume one, page 118 that trump junior asked what are we doing here? what do they have on clinton? and during the meeting kushner actually texted manafort saying it was, quote, a waste of time, end quote. >> i believe that'sty long the lines you specify. >> top trump campaign officials learned russia wanted to help donald trump's campaign by giving him dirt on his opponent. trump junior said loved it. then he and senior officials held a meeting with the russians to try to get the russian help but they were disapointed because the dirt wasn't as good as they hoped. to the next step, did anyone to your knowledge in the trump campaign ever tell the fbi of this offer? >> i don't believe so. >> did donald trump junior tell the fbi that they received an
offer of help from the russians? >> that's about all i'll say on this aspect of it. >> would it be true, sir, that if they had reported it to the fbi or anyone in the campaign during the course of your two-year investigation, you would have uncovered -- >> i would hope, yes. >> sir, is it not the responsibility of political campaigns to inform the fbi if they receive information from a foreign government? >> i would think that that is something they would and should do. >> not only did the campaign not tell the fbi, they sought to hide the existence of the june 9th meeting for over a year. is that not correct? >> on the general characterization, i would question it. if you're referring to later initiative that flowed from the media, then -- >> no, what i'm suggesting is you've said in volume 2, page 5 on several occasions the president directed aides not to publicly disclose the email
setting up the june 9th meeting. >> that's accurate. >> thanks. given this illegal assistance by russians, you chose even given that, you did not charge donald trump junior or any of the other senior officials with conspiracy. is that right? >> correct. >> and while -- >> when you're talking about -- if you're talking about other individuals, you're talking about the attendees on june 9th, that's accurate. >> mr. mueller, even though you didn't charge them with conspiracy, don't you think the american people would be concerned these three senior campaign officials eagerly sought a foreign adversary's help to win elections and don't you think that reporting that is important that we don't set a precedent for future elections? >> i can't accept that characterization. >> well, listen, i think that it seems like a betrayal of american values to me, sir, that someone with -- not being criminal is unethical and wrong, and i would think that we would not want to set a precedent that political campaigns would not
divulge information if it's foreign government assistance. thank you, sir. >> mr. turner? >> i have your opening statement and in the beginning of your opening statement you indicate pursuant to justice department relations that you submitted a confidential report to the attorney general at the conclusion of the investigation. what i'd like you to confirm is the report that you did that is the subject matter of this hearing was to the attorney general. >> yes. >> you also state in this opening statement that you threw overboard the word collusion because it's not a legal term. you would not conclude because collusion was not a legal term? >> well, it depends on how you want to use the word. in a general parlance, people can think of it that way, if you're talking about in a criminal statute arena, you can't. because it really -- it's much more accurately described as
conspiracy. >> in your words, it's not a legal term, so you didn't put it in your conclusion. correct? >> that's correct. >> mr. mueller, i want to talk about your powers and authorities. now, the attorney general and the appointment order gave you powers and authorities that reside in the attorney general. now, the attorney general has no ability to give you powers of authority greater than the powers and authority of the attorney general. correct? >> i don't believe -- yeah. i think that is correct. >> i want to focus on one word in your report. it's a second to the last word in the report. it's exonerate. the report states accordingly while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him. now, in the judiciary hearing in your prior testimony, you've already agreed with mr. rat cliff that exonerate is not a legal term. that there is not a legal test for this. i have a question for you, mr. mueller. mr. mueller, does the attorney general have the power or authority to exonerate? what i'm putting up here is the
united states code. this is where the attorney general gets his power and the constitution and the annotated cases of these we even went to your law school. i went to case western, but i thought maybe your law school teaches it differently. we got the criminal law textbook from your law school. nowhere in these because we had these scanned is there a process or description on exonerate. there's no office of exoneration at the attorney general's office. there's no certificate at the bottom of his desk. mr. mueller, would you agree with me that the attorney general does not have the power to exonerate? >> i'm going to pass on that. >> why? >> because it embroils us in a legal discussion, and i'm not prepared to do a legal discussion in that arena. >> you would not disagree with me when i say that there is no place that the attorney general has the power to exonerate and he's not been given that authority? >> i'm not going to -- i take your question. >> great. the one thing that i guess second down the attorney general
probably knows he can't exonerate either, and that's the part that kind of confuses me. if the attorney general doesn't have the power to exonerate, then you don't have the power to kpob rate, and i believe he knows he doesn't have the power to exonerate. this is what i don't understand. if your report is to the attorney general, and the attorney general doesn't have the power to exonerate and he does not -- and he knows you do not have that power, you don't have to tell him that you're not exonerating the president. he knows this already. so then that kind of changes the context of the report. >> no. included in the report for exactly that reason. he may not know it and should. >> so you believe bill barr believes somewhere in the hallways of the department of justice there's an office of exoneration? >> no, that's not what i said. >> well i believe he knows and i don't believe you put that in there for mr. barr. i think you put that in there for exactly what i'm going to discuss next, and that is to the washington post yesterday when speaking of your report, the article said trump could not be
exonerated of trying to obstruct the investigation itself. trump could not be exonerated. that statement is correct, mr. mueller isn't it in that no one can be exonerated? the reporter wrote this. this reporter can't be exonerated. mr. mueller, you can't be exonerated. in fact, in our criminal justice system, there is no power or authority to exonerate. this is my concern, mr. mueller. this is the headline on all of the news kpachannels whierl you were testifying today. mueller, trump was not exonerated. mr. mueller, what you know is this kpaecan't say mueller exonerated trump. you don't have the power or authority to exonerate trump. you had no more power to declare him exonerate than you have to declare him anderson cooper. they don't even declare exoneration. the statement about exoneration is misleading. and it's meaningless, and it
colors this investigation one word out of the entire portion of your report, and it's a meaningless word that has no legal meaning, and it has colored your entire report. >> time has expired. >> i yield back. >> mr. carson. >> thank you, chairman. thank you director mueller for your years of service to our country. i want to look more closely at the trump campaign chairman paul manafort, an individual who i believe betrayed our country, who lied to a grand jury and tampered with witnesses and who repeatedly tried to use his position with the trump campaign to make more money. let's focus on the betrayal and greed. your investigation, sir, found a number of troubling contacts between mr. manafort and russian individuals during and after the campaign. is that right, sir? >> correct. >> in addition to the june 9th meeting just discussed, manafort also met several times with a man, kilimnik who the fbi
assessed to have ties with russian intel agencies. >> correct. >> in fact, mr. manafort didn't just meet with him. he shared private trump campaign polling information with this man linked to russian intention. is that right? >> that is correct. >> and in turn the information was shared with a russian oligarch tied to vladimir putin. is that correct? >> allegedly. >> director mueller, meeting with him wasn't enough. sharing internal polling information wasn't enough. mr. manafort went so far as to offer this russian oligarch tied to putin a private briefing on the campaign. is that right, sir? >> yes, sir. >> and finally, mr. manafort also discussed internal campaign strategy on four battle ground states, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, and minnesota. but the russian intelligence linked individual, did he not? >> that's reflected in the report as the items you listed previously.
>> director mueller, based on your decades and years of experience at the fbi, would you agree it creates a national security risk when a presidential campaign chairman shares private polling information on the american people? private political strategy related to winning the votes of the american people, and private information about american battle ground states with a foreign adversary? >> is that the yes, sir? >> yes, sir. >> i'm not going to speculate along those lines to the extent it's within the lines of the report and i support it. i think beyond that is not part of that which i would support it. >> i think it does, sir. i think it shows a lack of patriotism from the people seeking the highest office in the land. manafort didn't share this information for nothing, did he j sir? >> i can't answer that question without knowing more about the
question. >> it's clear he hoped to be paid back money he was owed by russian or ukrainian oligarchs for the return of campaign information? >> that is true. >> director mueller, as my colleague will discuss later, greed corrupts. would you agree that the sharing of private campaign information in exchange for money represents a particular kind of corruption, one that presents a national security risk to our country? >> i'm not going to opine on that. i don't have the expertise in that arena to really opine. >> would you agree that manafort's contacts with people close to putin -- left him vulnerable to blackmail by the russians? >> generally so, that would be the case. >> would you agree, sir, that these acts demonstrated a betrayal of the democratic values of our -- our country rests on. >> i can't agree with that. not that it's not true, but i
cannot agree with it. >> yes, sir. director mueller, i can tell you in my years of experience as a law enforcement and member of congress, fortunate to serve on the intel committee, i know enough to say yes. trading political secrets for money with a foreign adversary can corrupt. and it can leave you open to blackmail, and it certainly represents a betrayal of the underpinnings of our democracy. i appreciate you for coming today. i yield back, chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. mueller for being here today. is it accurate to say your investigation found no evidence members of trump campaign were involved or theft of client campaign related emails? >> can you read or can you repeat the question? >> is it accurate to say your investigation found no evidence that members of the trump campaign were involved in the
theft or publication of the clinton campaign related emails? >> i don't know. >> well, volume one, page five the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in its election interference activities. so it would, therefore, be an accurate based on this to tribe -- inaccurate to describe that finding as open to doubt. that finding being that trump campaign was involved with theft or publication of the clinton campaign emails. are you following that, sir? si? >> i do believe i'm following it, but it is -- that portion of that matter does not fall within our jurisdiction or fall within our investigation. >> well, basically what your report says volume one page five, i just want to be clear that open to doubt is how the committee democrats find the finding in their minority views
to our 2018 report, and it kind of flies in the face of what you have in your report. so, is it accurate also to say the investigation found no documentary evidence that george papadopoulos told anyone about the trump campaign about the claims that the russians had dirt on candidate clinton. >> let me turn that over to mr. zebley -- >> i would like to ask you, sir. this is your report, and that's what i'm basing this on. >> can you repeat the question again? >> is it accurate to say the investigation found no documentary evidence that george papadopoulos told anyone involved with the trump campaigns that the russians had dirt on candidate clinton. >> i believe in the report, that's accurate. >> yeah, in the report, it says no documentary evidence that papadopoulos shared this information with the campaign.
it's therefore inaccurate to conclude that by the time of the june 9, 2016 trump tower meeting, quote, the campaign was likely already on notice via george papadopoulos's contact with russian agents that russia in fact had damaging information on trump's opponent. would you say that's inaccurate to say it's likely -- >> i direct you to the report. >> i appreciate that because the democrats jump to this incorrect collusion in their minority views again which contradicts what you have in your report. i'm concerned about a number of statements i'd like you to clarify because a number of democrats have made statements that i have concerns with and maybe you can clear them up. a member of this committee said president trump was a russian agent after your report was publicly released. that statement is not supported by your report, correct? >> that is accurate. not supported. >> multiple democrat members have asserted that paul manafort
met with julian assange before wikileaks released emails. because your report does not provide evidence, you would assume that means you found no evidence of this meeting. is that assumption correct? >> i'm not sure i agree with that assumption. >> but you make no mention of it in your report, would you agree with that? >> yes, i would agree with that. >> does your report contain any evidence that president trump was enrolled in the russian system as come promat as a member of this committee once claimed. >> what i can speak to is information and evidence that we picked up as the special counsel. and i think that's accurate as far as it goes. >> thank you. i appreciate that. so, let's go for a second to scope. did you ask the department of justice to expand the mandate
related to august 2017 scoping memoranda? >> well, without looking at the memoranda, i could not answer that question. >> did you ever make a request to expand your office's mandate at all? >> generally, yes. >> and was that ever denied? >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> you're not going to speak to that? >> it goes to internal deliberation. >> i'm trying to understand process. is it expanding the scope come from the acting attorney general? or -- >> i'm not -- >> rosenstein or you or either? >> i'm not going to discuss any other alternatives. >> thank you, mr. mueller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mueller, i think i can say without fear of contradiction that you're the greatest patriot in this room today, and i want to thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> you said in your report --
and i'm going to quibble with your words -- that the russian intervention was sweeping and systematic. i would quibble with that because i don't think it was just an intervention. i think it was an invasion. and i don't think it was just sweeping and systematic. i think it was sinister and scheming. but having said that, one of my colleagues earlier here referred to this russian intervention as a hoax. and i'd like to get your comment on that. on page 26 of your report, you talk about the internet research agency and how tens of millions of u.s. persons became engaged with the posts that they made, that there were some 80,000 posts on facebook, that facebook itself admitted that 126 million people had probably seen the posts that were put up by the internet research agency, that they had 3,800 twitter accounts
and had designed more than 175,000 tweets that probably reached 1.4 million people. the internet research agency was spending about $1.25 million a month on all of this social media in the united states in what i would call an investigation in our country. would you agree that it was not a hoax that the russians were engaged in trying to impact our election? >> absolutely. it was not a hoax. the indictments we returned against the russians, two different ones, were substantial in their scope, using that scope word again. and i think one of the -- we have underplayed to a certain extent that aspect of the investigation that has and would have long term damage to the
united states that we need to move quickly to address. >> thank you for that. i would like to drill down on that a little bit more. the internet research agency actually started in 2014 by sending over staff as tourists, i guess, to start looking at where they wanted to engage. and there are many that suggest -- and i'm interested in your opinion -- as to whether or not russia is presently in the united states looking for ways to impact the 2020 election. >> i can't speak to that. that would be in levels of classification. >> all right. let me ask you this. often times when we engage in these hearings, we forget the forest for the trees. you have a very large report here of over 400 pages. most americans have not read it. we have read it. actually the fbi director yesterday said he hadn't read it
which was a little discouraging. but on behalf of the american people, i want to give you a minute and 39 seconds to tell the american people what you would like them to glean from this report. >> well, we spent substantial time assuring the integrity of the report, understanding it would be our living message to those who come after us. but it also is a signal, a flag, to those of us who have some responsibility in this area to exercise those responsibilities swiftly and don't let this problem continue to linger as it has over so many years. >> all right. you didn't take the whole amount of time so i'm going to yield the rest of my time to the chairman. >> i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. director mueller, i wanted to ask you about conspiracy. generally conspiracy offers an offer of something illegal,
acceptance of that offer in overt act and furtherance of it, is that correct? >> correct. >> and don jr. was made aware that the russians were offering dirt on his opponent, correct? >> i don't know that for sure, but one would assume given the presence at the meeting. >> and when you say that you would love to get that help, that would constitute acceptance of the offer? >> it's a wide open request. >> and it would certainly be evidence of acceptance if you say when somebody offers you something illegal and you say i love it, that would be considered evidence of acceptance. >> i can stay away from addressing one or two particular situations. >> well, this particular situation i'll have to continue in a bit. now yield to mr. stewart. >> mr. mueller, it's been a long day. thank you for being here. i do have a series of important questions for you, but before i do that, i want to take a moment to re-emphasize something that
my friend mr. turner has said. i've heard many people state no person is above the law. and many times they had recently not even the president which i think is blazenly obvious to most of us. >> i'm having trouble hearing you, sir. >> is this better? >> that is better, thank you. >> i want you to know that i agree with this statement that no person is above the law. we also have to defend presumption of innocence. i'm sure you agree with this principle. though i think the way your office phrased some parts of your report, it does make me wonder. for going on three years innocent people have been accused of very serious crimes including treason, accusations made here today. they have made their lives disrupted and in some cases destroyed for false accusations for which there is no basis other than some people desperately wish it was so. but your report is very clear. no evidence of conspiracy. no evidence of coordination. and i believe we owe it to these
people who have been falsely accused, including the president and his family, to make that very clear. mr. mueller, the credibility of your report is based on the integrity of how it is handled. and there's something that i think bothers me and other americans. i'm holding here in my hand a binder of 25 examples of leaks that occurred from the special counsel's office from those who associated with your work dated back to as early as a few weeks after your inception of the beginning of your work and continuing to a few months ago. all of these, all of them, have one one thing in common. they were designed to weaken or embarrass the president, every one. never was it leaked that you had found no evidence of collusion. never was it leaked that the steel dossier was a complete fantasy nor that it was funded by the hillary clinton campaign. i could go on and on. are you aware of anyone on your team having given advanced knowledge of the raid on roger
stone's home to any person or the press including cnn. >> i'm not going to talk about specifics. i will mention or talk more a moment about persons who become involved in an investigation. and the understanding that in a lengthy thorough investigation some persons will be under a cloud that should not be under a cloud. and one of the reasons for emphasizes as i have the speed of an election -- not election -- the speed of an investigation is that so those persons who are disrupted as a result of -- >> i appreciate that. but i do have a series of questions. >> -- with the result of that investigation. >> thank you. and it is a cloud. and it's an unfair cloud for dozens of people. to my point, are you aware of anyone providing information to anyone regarding the raid on anyone's home including cnn. >> i'm not going to speak to that. >> okay. you sent a letter dated march
27th to attorney general barr in which you acclaim his comments did not capture the context of the report. you stated today that was not authorized. did you make effort to determine who leaked this confidential letter? >> no, and i'm not sure -- this is a letter of march 27? >> yes, sir. >> i'm not sure it was publicized. i do not believe we would be responsible for the leaks. i do believe we have done a good job in assuring that no leaks occur. >> we have 25 examples here of where you did not do a good job. not you, sir. i'm not accusing you at all. but where your office did not do a good job protecting this information. one more example, do you know anyone who anonymously made claims to the press that attorney general's barr's letter to congress had been misrepresented or misrepresented your basis of your report? >> what was the question? >> do you know who anonymously made claims to the press that
attorney general barr's march 24th letter to congress had misrepresented the findings of your report? >> no. >> sir, given these examples as well as others, you must have realized that leaks were coming from someone associated with the special counsel's office. >> i do not believe that. >> well, sir, this was your work. you're the only one -- your office is the only one who had information regarding this. it had to come from your office. putting that aside which leads me to my final question, did you do anything about it? >> from the outset, we've undertaken to make certain that we minimized the possibility of leaks, and i think we were successful over the two years that we were in operation. >> well, i wish you had been more successful, sir. i think it was disruptive to the american people. my time has expired. >> mr. quigley. >> director, thank you for being here.
this too shall pass. earlier today and throughout the day you have stated the policy that a seated president cannot be indicted, correct? >> correct. >> and upon questioning this morning you were asked could a president be indicted after their service, correct? >> yes. >> and your answer was that they could. >> they could. >> director, please speak into the microphone. >> i'm sorry. thank you. they could. >> so, the follow up question that should be concerning is what if a president serves beyond the statute of limitations? >> i don't know the answer to that one. >> would it not indicate that if the statute of limitations on federal crimes such as this or five years that a president who serves a second term is therefore under the policy above the law? >> i'm not certain i would agree with -- i'm not certain i would agree with the conclusion. i'm not certain that i can see
the possibility that you suggest. >> but the statute doesn't toll, is that correct? >> i don't know specifically. >> it clearly doesn't. as the american public is watching this and learning about many of these for the first time, we need to consider that and that the other alternatives are perhaps all that we have. but i appreciate your response. earlier in questioning, someone mentioned that -- it was a question involving whether anyone in the trump political world publicized the emails, whether or not that was the case. i just want to refer to volume one page 60 where we learn that trump jr. publicly tweeted a link to the leak of stolen podesta emails in october of 2016. you're familiar with that? >> i am. >> so, that would at least be a republishing of this information, would it not? >> i'm not certain i would agree with that.
>> director pompeo assessed wikileaks in one point as a hostile intelligence service. given your law enforcement experience and your knowledge of what wikileaks did here and what they do generally, would you assess that to be accurate or something similar? how would you assess what wikileaks does? >> absolutely. and they are currently under indictment, julian assange is. >> would it be fair to describe them as -- you would agree with director pompeo -- that's what he was when he made that remark -- that it's a hostile intelligence service. >> yes. >> if we could put up slide six. this just came out. wikileaks. i love wikileaks. donald trump, october 10, 2016. this wikileaks stuff is unbelievable. it tells you the inner heart. you've got to read it.
donald trump, october 12, 2016. this wikileaks is like a treasure trove. donald trump, october 21, 2016. boy, i love reading those wikileaks. donald trump, november 4th, 2016. would any of those quotes disturb you, mr. director? >> i'm not certain i would say -- >> how do you react to that? >> well, it's probably -- problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some, i don't know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity. >> volume one, page 59. donald trump jr. had direct electronic communications with wikileaks during the campaign period. on october 3rd, 2016, wikileaks sent another direct message to trump jr. asking you guys to help disseminate a link alleging candidate clinton had advocated a drone to attack julian
assange. trump jr. responded that, quote, he had already done so. same question. this behavior at the very least disturbing? your reaction? >> disturbing and also subject to investigation. >> could it be described as aide and comfort to a hostile intelligence? >> i wouldn't categorize with any specificity. >> i yield the balance to the chairman, please. >> i'm not sure i can make good use of 27 seconds. but director, i think you made it clear that you think it unethical to put it politely to tout a foreign service like wikileaks publishing stolen political documents to the presidential campaign? >> certainly calls for investigation. >> thank you, director. we go now to mr. crawford. and then after mr. crawford's five minutes, we'll take a five
or ten-minute break. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, mr. mueller for being here. there's no big there there in the trump campaign or investigation, did struck or anyone else tell you that around ten months into the investigation the fbi still had no case for collusion? >> who? can you repeat that? >> peter stronzok. >> could you move the microphone closer? >> sure, there's a quote attributed to peter strzok. there's no big there there in the investigation. did he or anyone else tell you that around ten months into the investigation the fbi still had no case for collusion? >> no. >> is the inspector general report that the text messages from peter strzok and lisa paige's office were not retained after they left the special counsel's office. >> well, i -- i don't -- depends
on what you're talking about. investigation into those peter strzok went on for a period of time. and i am not certain what it encompasses. it may well have e encompassed what you're averting to. >> did you ask the department to investigate the origin of the trump/russia investigation? >> i'm not going to get into that. it goes to internal deliberations. >> so, the circumstances surrounding the origin of the investigation have yet to be vetted yet. i'm glad attorney general barr and dunham are looking into that. i would like to yield the balance of my time to ranking member nunez. >> thank you, gentleman for yielding. mr. mueller i want to make sure you're aware of who fusion gps is. fusion gps is a political operations firm that was working directly for the hillary clinton
campaign and the democrat national committee. they produced the dossier. so, they paid steel who then went out and got the dossier. i know you don't want to answer any dossier questions, so i'm not going there. but your report mentions na talia 65 times. she meets in the trump tower. it's this infamous trump tower meeting. it's in your report. you've heard many democrats refer to it today. the meeting was shorter than 20 minutes, i believe. is that correct? >> i think what we have in our report reflects it was about that length. >> so, do you know -- so, fusion gps, the main actor of fusion gps, the president of the company or owner of the company is a guy named glenn simpson who's working for hillary clinton. glen simpson -- do you know how many times glenn simpson met
with natalia? >> myself? no. >> would it surprise you that the clinton campaign dirty ops arm met with her more times than the trump campaign did? >> i'm not going to get into as i indicated at the outset. >> did you ever interview glenn sy simpson? >> i'm again going to pass on that. >> according to -- i'm going to change topics here. according to notes from the state department official kathleen cavalack, christopher steel told her that former russian intelligence head and putin adviser were sources for the steel dossier. now, knowing that these are not getting into whether these sources were real or not real, was there any concern that there
could have been disinformation that was going from the kremlin into the clinton campaign and then being fed into the fbi? >> as i said before, this is an area that i cannot speak to. >> is that because you're -- it's not in the report or because -- >> it's deliberations, other proceedings, and the like. >> okay. when andrew weissman and okman joined your team, were you aware that bruce ohr directly briefed the dossier allegations to him in the summer of 2016. >> again, i'm not going to speak to that issue. >> okay. before you arrested george papadopoulos in july of 2017, he was given $10,000 in cash in israel. do you know who gave him that cash? >> again, that's outside our
questions. you should go to the fbi or department. >> but it involved your investigation. >> it involved persons involved in my investigation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we will stand a recess for five or ten minutes. please, folks, remain in your seats. allow the director mr. zebley to exit the chamber. youou made a political case rang the doorbell and ran. >> i don't think you reviewed a report that is as fair, as consistent as the report we have in front of us. of robert watch all
mueller's testimony now on c-span and c-span2, both hearings airing continuously. c-span2.on of on use c-span.org to watch the hearings on demand. the video is searchable by speaker with key points highlighted. c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that affect you. coming up this morning, we will open the phones and take your comments and reactions to special counsel robert mueller's testimony yesterday. on his report of russian interference and the 26 -- in the 2016 presidential election. join the conversation all morning with your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal," coming up at 7:00 this morning.
announcer: house minority leader kevin mccarthy held a news conference to discuss robert mueller's test of how many before congress. this is 20 minutes. rep. mccarthy: good evening. today was a historical day. i listened to the speaker. it was a historical day because today is the day we close the book on this investigation. it is time that america turns the page. it is time for america to move forward. the democrats have to stop wasting time in trying to have a do over of the 2016 presidential ec