tv Robert Mueller Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee CSPAN July 24, 2019 8:20am-10:01am EDT
question, maybe four sessions, what were the articles of discrimination when this was headed off to mueller -- handed off to mueller? now, wee last call for will continue with covers throughout the day of the mueller testimony before the house judiciary starting minutes from now and at noon eastern time, the house intelligence committee, and we will get your reaction to that. watch on c-span starting now, c-span3, c-span.org, or download the free c-span radio app to listen wherever you are. we will bring you into the house judiciary committee for live coverage of robert mueller's testimony.
rep. nadler: the judiciary .ommittee will come to order without objects in the chair is authorized to the great recesses of the committee at any time, we welcome everyone to the hearing on oversight of the report in the investigation into russia interference in the 2016 presidential election. i will now recognize myself for a brief opening statement. director mueller, thank you for being here. i want to say a few words about our themes today, responsibility, integrity, and accountability. your career is a model of responsibility. you are a decorated marine officer, awarded a purple heart and a bronze star for valor in vietnam. you served in senior roles at the department of justice and the beaded aftermath of 9/11 as director of the fbi. two years ago you return to public service to lead the investigation into russia
interference in the 2016 elections. you conducted that investigation with remarkable integrity. 22 months you never commented in public about your work, even when subjected to repeated and grossly unfair personal attacks. instead, your indictments spoke for you and in astonishing detail. over the course of your investigation you obtain criminal indictments against 37 people and entities. you secured the conviction of president trump's campaign chairman, deputy campaign manager, national security advisor, and his personal lawyer, among others. alone,paul manafort case you recovered as much as $42 million, the cost of your investigation to the taxpayers approaches zero. annual your report you offered the country accountability. in volume one, you find the
russian government attacked the 2016 election's "in a sweeping and systematic fashion." and the attacks were designed to benefit the trump campaign. volume two walks us through 10 separate instances of possible obstruction of justice where in your words president trump id. to do exert undue influence over your investigation. the president's behavior attacks on the investigation, nonpublic efforts to control it, and efforts in public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate." among the most shocking incidents, president trump ordered his white house counsel to have you fired. and to lie and deny it happened. he ordered his former campaign manager to convince the recused attorney general to step in and limit you work and attempted to
event witnesses from cooperating with your investigation. department policy stop you from indicting the president for this conduct you made clear that he is not exonerated. any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes. in this nation, not even the president is above the law he would wait -- above the law. our work, responsibility, integrity, accountability, these are the marks by which we who serve on this committee will be measured as well. we have aueller, responsibility to invest the evidence you have uncovered. youecognize as much when said "because it usually requires a process other than the criminal justice system do formerly accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing." that process begins with the work of this committee. you will follow your example, you will act with integrity, you
will follow the facts where they lead, you will consider all appropriate remedies, we will make a recommendation to the house when our work includes. we will do this work -- work concludes. we will do this work because there must be accountability, especially as it relates to the president. thank you again, director mueller, we look forward to your testimony. it is now my pleasure to recognize the braking member of the judiciary committee from georgia, mr. collins, for his opening statement. rep. collins: thank you. leading up to the report and in three months since, americas were first full what to expect and what to believe, collision was in plain sight, even if the special counsel did not find it, when mr. mueller produced his report and attorney general barr reported, we read no russian interfered but their malice for
america. we are here to ask serious questions about mr. mueller's work and we will do that. after an extended and unhampered investigation today marking the end of his involvement in the investigation that closed in april. the burden of proof for accusation that remain unproven is extremely high and especially in light of the special counsel. we are told this investigation began as an inquiry into whether russia meddle in our 26 elections. mr. mueller, you concluded they did. they access democrat servers and disseminated scented information by tricking campaign insiders into revealing protecting information. the investigation reviewed whether donald trump sought russian assistance as a candidate to win the presidency, he concluded he did not. his family or advisors did not. in fact, the report concludes no one in the presence cap and colluded, collaborated, or conspired with the russians. the president narrative ,urrounding the investigation
others assumed his guilt while he knew his innocence. volume two of the report detailed the president's reaction to frustrating investigation where innocence was established early on. the president's attitude toward the investigation was understandably negative. yet the president did not use his authority to close investigation, asking his lawyer if mr. mueller was disqualified but he did not shutdown the investigation. the president knew he was innocent. those are the facts of the mueller reports. russia meddle in the 2016 election and the president did not conspire with russia and nothing we hear today will change those facts. one element remains, the beginning of the fbi investigation into the president, i look forward to mr. mueller's testimony of what he found during the review of the origins of investigation and the inspector general continues to review how baseless gossip can be used to watch an fbi investigation against a private citizen. and eventually a president.
those results will be released and we will need to learn to make sure government and law enforcement powers are never privateed in -- on a citizen or potential political candidate as the result of the political leanings of a handful of fbi agents. the origins and the conclusion of the, what it means to be american come every america has a voice in our democracy and we must protect the sanctity of their voice by combating election in france and every american enjoys the presumption of innocence and guarantees of due process. itcarry nothing away today, must be to increase vigilance against foreign election interference will make you for the government officials do not weaponize their power against the constitutional rights guaranteed to every u.s. citizen. finally, we must agree the opportunity is too high, the months we have spent inestigating has failed to the border crisis or contribute to the growing job market and instead we have gotten stuck in his paralyzed this committee and this house. note, every week i
leave my family and kids, the most important things to me to come here because i believe we can do things and help people. 6.5 years ago i came to work on behalf of the people of the ninth district and we have accomplished a lot in the first six years on a bipartisan basis with many of my friends at was the aisle sitting with me today. however, this year, because the majority dislike the president and the endless hearings into a closed investigation have caused us to a cop was nothing but talk about the problems of our country while our border is on fire and crisis and everything else is stop. , we hearing is long overdue have had truth for months, note american conspired to throw our election and we need to let the truth bring us confidence and i hope, mr. chairman, closure. rep. nadler: thank you, mr. collins. i will now introduce the witness, robert mueller served as director of the fdr from
2001-2013 and was recently special counsel and the department of justice, overseeing the investigation into the russian interference in .he 2016 special election he received his ba from princeton and jd from virginia and he is accompanied by counsel aaron zebley who was that the special calcium on the investigation. we welcome the witness and thank you for participating in the hearing. if you would please rise i will begin by swearing you in. hand,you raise your right please? do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and believe, so help you god? the witness answered affirmatively, thank you and please be seated. please note, your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety.
i asked that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. you may begin. good morning, chairman nadler. and ranking member collins and the members of the committee. 2017 theow, in may of acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel. because ik the role believe it was of paramount interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the presidential election. as the acting attorney general said at the time, the appointment was necessary in order for the american people to have full confidence in the outcome. my staff and i carried out this assignment with that critical objective in mind. thoroughly, and with integrity so that the public would have full
confidence in the outcome. the order appointing the as special counsel directed our office to investigate russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. this included investigated any links or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the trump campaign. abstractded efforts to our investigation. -- abstract our investigation. we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as possible as it was an republicans is for the investigation to be complete and not to last a day longer than it was necessary. needed to betion conducted fairly and with
integrity. our team when not leak or take any other actions to compromise the integrity of our work. all decisions were made based on the facts and the law. during the course of our investigation, we charge more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes. including 12 officers of the russian military. seven defendants having convicted or pled guilty. certain charges we brought remain pending today. for those matters i stress, the indictments contain allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. in addition to the criminal charges we brought, as required by justice department regulations, we submitted a confidential report to the attorney general at the conclusion of our investigation. the report set forth the results of our work and the reasons for our charging and declination
decisions. the attorney general later made the report largely public. know, a mate a few limited remarks about our report when we close the special counsel office in may of this year. there are certain points of emphasis. investigation found that the russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. second, the investigation did not establish members of the trump campaign conspired with the russian government in the election interference activities. collusion,address not a legal term, rather focusing on the evidence and whether it was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. it was not.
third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lying to investigators was of critical importance. strikesion of justice at the core of the government effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. finally, as described in volume two of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the president towards the investigation. based on justice department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed any crimes. it was our decision then and remains our decision today. let me say a further word about my appearance today. it is unusual why prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation. ,iven my role as a prosecutor there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited.
first, public testimony could affect several ongoing matters. matters, courte rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings. consistent with long-standing justice department policy would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter. second, 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 religious i will respect. the department has released the on mys with restrictions testimony and i will not answer questions about certain areas i know or of -- are of public
interest. for example, i am unable to address questions about the initial opening of the fbi russian investigation which occurred months before my appointment. for matters related to the , theseed steele dossier matters are subject of ongoing review by department, any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the fbi or the justice department. explained when we closed the special counsel office in may, our report contains our , andngs, and analysis reasons for the decisions we made. we conducted an extensive investigation over two years, writing the report, we stated the results of our investigation with precision. we scrutinized every word. we do not intend to summarize or describe the work of the results
in a different way in my testimony today. as i said on may 29, the report is my testimony and i will stay within that text. may, i 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 it. i will be joined today by deputy special counsel aaron zebley who has extensive experience as a federal prosecutor and at the fbi where he served as my chief of staff. aaron zebley was responsible for the day-to-day oversight of the investigations conducted by our office. i also want to say thank you to the attorneys, fbi agents, analysts, facial staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.
these individuals who spend nearly two years working on this matter were of the highest integrity. . over the course of my career, i have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. government's efforts to interfere in our election is among the most serious. as i said on may 29, this deserves the attention of every american. thank you, mr. chairman. rep. nadler: thank you. we will now proceed under the five-minute will of questions. i will recognize myself for five minutes. director mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and a completely and totally exonerated him. that is not what your report said, is it?
mr. mueller: correct, not what the report said. rep. nadler: you wrote "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state, based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are not able to reach that judgment." does that say there was no obstruction? mr. mueller: no. rep. nadler: you were unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct? mr. mueller: at the outset we determined that when it came to the president: ability -- president's culpability we need to go forward only after taking into account the opinion that indicated a president -- sitting president cannot be indicted. rep. nadler: the report did not
conclude he did not commit obstruction of justice? is that correct? mr. mueller: that is correct. rep. nadler: what about total exoneration, did you totally exonerate the president? mr. mueller: no. rep. nadler: the report states that. mr. mueller: it does. rep. nadler: your investigation found "multiple acts by the present that were capable of asserting undue influence over law-enforcement investigations, including the russian interference and obstruction investigations." is that correct? mr. mueller: correct. rep. nadler: can you explain what that finding mean so the american people can understand it? mr. mueller: the finding indicates that the president was excavated for the act he allegedly committed. rep. nadler: in fact, you were
talking about incidents in which the president sought to use this official power outside of usual channels to exert undue influence over your investigations. is that right? mr. mueller: correct. rep. nadler: on page seven of volume two you wrote "the president became aware that his own contact was being investigated in an abstraction of justice inquiry. at that point the president engaged in the second phase of conduct involving public attacks on the investigation, nonpublic efforts to control it, and efforts in public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation." president trump's effort to exert undue influence over the investigation intensified after the president became aware he personally was being investigated? mr. mueller: i stick with the language in front of you. page seven, volume two.
rep. nadler: is it correct that if you concluded the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today? mr. mueller: can you repeat the question? rep. nadler: is a corrected you concluded the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today? you --ller: i would say the statement would be that you would not indict and you would not indict because , under olc, you under the cannot indict a sitting president. rep. nadler: under department of justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct? mr. mueller: true. rep. nadler: did any senior white house official refusal request to be interviewed by you or your team?
mr. mueller: i do not believe so. let me take that back. i would have to look at it. not certain that was the case. city president refused to be interviewed by you or your team? mr. mueller: yes. rep. nadler: try for year to secure an interview? mr. mueller: yes. rep. nadler: advise the lawyer that an interview with the president is vital to our investigation? mr. mueller: yes. rep. nadler: is it true that you stated it is in the interest of the presidency and the public for an interview to take place? mr. mueller: yes. rep. nadler: the present is to refuse to sit for an interview? mr. mueller: through. -- drew. rep. nadler: did you can provide written answers under 10 possible episodes of obstruction of justice crimes? mr. mueller: yes. rep. nadler: did he provide answers? mr. mueller: i would have to check on that.
rep. nadler: we are grateful you are here to explain your investigation and findings. anyone else would have been criminally prosecuted, your work is finally important to this committee, the american people because no one is above the law. i recognize the general from georgia -- gentleman from georgia. collins: i have several questions, many you just answered with the questions, i will talk slowly, i have been told i talk fast. your testimony from your office would not go beyond your, we chose these words carefully, they speak from their selves and i would not try to get information besides what is public, you stand behind that statement? mr. mueller: yes. >> have you conducted any additional interviews or update
any new affirmations in your role as special counsel? mr. mueller: in the wake of the report? >> since the closing of the office in may of 2019? have you conducted any new interviews? mr. mueller: no. >> you cannot confirm you are no longer special counsel. mr. mueller: i am no longer special counsel. >> was your investigation curtailed or stop or hindered? mr. mueller: no. >> did you provide questions from members of congress i had your hearing today? mr. mueller: no. >> your best it team included 19 lawyers and 40 fbi agents, are those numbers accurate? 40 fbi agent and 90 lawyers and analysts and for his sake accountants does forensic accountants, are those numbers accurate? mr. mueller: yes. >> 2800 subpoenas and 500 search warrant and obtained 230 orders for to medication records? mr. mueller: that went fast for
me. >> in this report, you did a lot of work, correct? mr. mueller: yes. >> lot of subpoenas. we will go slow if we need to. mr. mueller: a lot of search warrant. >> you are very thorough. mr. mueller: correct. >> thank you. is it true, the evidence gathered during your investigation, given the question you just answered come is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish the president was involved in the underlying crime related to russia election interference as stated in volume one, page seven? mr. mueller: we found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability. >> that would be a yes. mr. mueller: pardon? >> that would be a yes, thank you. is it true the evidence did not gosaid the present did not
in conspiracies or the president otherwise unlawful relationships with any russian official, volume two, page 76, correct? mr. mueller: i believe the answer to the report. investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or connoted -- coordinated with russians for election activity. >> thank you. yes. >> although your report states collusion is not the specific offense and you said that this morning or a term of art and federal law. conspiracy is in the colloquial context, are collusion and conspiracy synonymous terms? >> you are going to have to repeat that for me. >> collusion is not a specific offense. or a term of art in the federal criminal law. context,he colloquial in the colloquial context,
and conspiracy -- you said at your may turning ninth press conference and here today you choose your words carefully. are you sitting here today testifying something different than what your report states? if you i'm asking is could give me the citation i can look at the citation and evaluate whether it is. >> let me clarify. you stated that you have said in the report. i just stated your report back to you. you said collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms. >> that's correct. >> in page 180 of volume one of your report, it says as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as the crime is set forth in general conspiracy statute 18 usc 371. you said you chose your words
carefully. are you contradicting your report right now? >> not when i read it. >> so went -- you would change your answer to yes then. >> know. if you look at the language. >> i'm reading the report sir. it's a yes or no answer. >> -- page 180. >> page 180, volume one. hopefully we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy. one last question is we are going through. did you ever look into other countries investigating in the russian interference into our election? were other countries investigated? >> i'm not going to discuss other matters. >> i yield back. >> the gentlelady from california. , as you haveueller heard from the chairman we are mostly going to talk about obstruction today. with the investigation of russia's attack that started
your investigation is why evidence of possible obstruction is serious. the what extent did the russian government interfere in the 2016 presidential election? >> could you repeat that ma'am? >> to what extent of the russian government interfere in the 2016 presidential election? >> particularly when it came to computer crimes and the like, the government was applicator. >> you wrote in volume one that the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. you also described in your report that the then trump campaign chairman paul manafort shared with a russian operative the campaign strategy for winning democratic votes in midwestern states. and internal polling data of the campaign. isn't that correct? >> correct. thehey also discussed status of the trump campaign and manafort's strategy for winning
democratic votes in midwestern states. months before that meeting, manafort had caused internal data to be shared and the sharing continued for some period of time after their august meeting. isn't that correct? >> accurate. >> your investigation found that manafort briefed him on the state of the trump campaign and manafort's plan to win the election and that briefing encompassed the campaigns messaging, its internal polling data. it also includes discussion of battleground states which manafort identified as michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania and minnesota. >> that's correct. >> did your investigation determine who requested the polling data to be shared? >> i would direct you to the report. that's what we have in the report. >> we don't have the redacted version. based on your investigation how could the campaign used this
data to serve its sweeping and systematic interference in the 2016 election? >> that's a little bit out of path. >> fair enough. did your investigation to find that the russian government perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning? >> yes. >> and which candidate would that be. >> well, it would be trump. campaign wasn't exactly reluctant to take russian help. you said it expected it would benefit electorally from information released through russian efforts. >> that's correct. >> it was it the investigations determination, what was the investigation's determination regarding the frequency with which the trump campaign made contact with the russian government? >> i would have to refer you to the report on that. >> we went through and counted
russians or between their agents and trump campaign officials or their associates. with that sound about right? >> i can't say. i understand the statistic and believe it. i understand the statistic. >> i appreciate your being here and your report. from your testimony and report, i think the american people have learned several things. first, the russians wanted trump to win. second, the russians went on a sweeping cyber influence campaign. the russians hacked the dnc and they got the democratic game plan for the election. the russian campaign chairman met with russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data, polling and messaging in the battleground states.
so while the russians were buying ads and creating propaganda to influence the outcome of the election, they were armed with inside information that they had stolen through hacking from the dnc and that they had been given by the trump campaign chairman, mr. manafort. my colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this information from becoming public , but i think it's important for the american people to understand the gravity of the underlying problem that your report uncovered. and with that, i would yield back. >> good morning, director. if you will let me quickly summarize your opening statement this morning, you said in volume one on the issue of conspiracy the special counsel determined the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or recorded with the russian government, its election interference activities and then
in volume two for reasons that you explain the special counsel did not make a determination on whether or not there was an obstruction of justice crime committed by the president. is that fair? >> yes sir. >> and explain the special counsel did not make what you call a traditional proclamation, the report on the bottom of page two of volume two 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. i read that correctly? >> yes. saidur report antedate you at all times the special counsel and followeded by justice department policies and principles per twitch doj policy or principle sets forth a legal stand for -- standard bennett investigated person is not exonerate if their innocence from criminal conduct is not
conclusively determined? >> can you repeat the last part of that? >> 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? where does that wing which come from, director? -- language come from, director? let me make it easier. >> go ahead. >> can you give me an example other than donald trump where the justice department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined? >> i cannot, but this is a unique situation. >> time is short. you can't find it because i will tell you why. it doesn't exist. the special counsel's job nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine donald trump's innocence or that the special counsel should determine whether or not exonerate him.
it's not in any of the documents, your appointment order, the special counsel regulations, the justice manual or the principles of federal prosecution. nowhere do those words appear together because respectfully, respectfully, director, it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine donald trump's innocence or exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. success 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 it doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies and you used it to write a report. in 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 special counsel to provide the
attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declamation decisions reached by the special counsel. that's the very first word of your report. >> that's correct. >> here's the problem, director. the special counsel didn't do that. on volume one, you did. volume two with respect to potential obstruction of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declamation decision picked 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. aboutote 180 pages decisions that weren't reached. about potential crimes that weren't charged. or decided. and respectfully, respectfully, by doing that you managed to
violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged. thisericans need to know as they listen to the democrats and socialists on the others of the aisle as they do dramatic readings from this report. that volume two 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 principal about extra prosecutorial commentary. i agree with the chairman this morning when he said donald trump is not above the law. he's not. share shouldn't be below the law which is where volume two of this report puts him. >> thank you mr. chairman. director mueller, good morning per year exchange with the gentlelady from california demonstrates what's at stake.
paul manafort was passing sensitive voter information and poll data to a russian operative and there were so many other ways that russia subverted our democracy. together with the evidence in volume one, i cannot think of a more serious need to investigate. so now i'm going to ask you some questions about obstruction of justice as it relates to volume two. on page 12, who state we determined that there were sufficient factual and legal bases to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the president. is that correct? >> do you have the citations? >> page 12, volume two. >> which portion of that page? >> we determined there was a sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate potential obstruction of justice issues involving the president. is that correct? >> yes.
>> your report also described at least 10 separate instances of instruction -- obstruction of justice that were investigated by you and your team. the table of contents serves as a very good guide and i put it up on the screen. on page 150 seven of volume two you describe those acts and they range from the president's effort to curtail the special counsel's investigation, the presidents further efforts to have the attorney general take over the investigation, the president's orders don mcgahn to deny the president tried to fire the special counsel and many others. is that correct? >> yes. >> i direct you now to what you wrote. the president's pattern of conduct as a whole sheds light on the nature of the presidents acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. does that mean you have to investigate all of his conduct
to ascertain true motive? >> no. >> and when you talk about the presidents pattern of conduct that includes the 10 possible acts of obstruction that you investigated, is that correct. when you talk about the presidents pattern of conduct that would include the 10 possible acts of obstruction that you investigated. >> i direct you to the report for how that is characterized. >> thank you. let me go to the screen again. those 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice, you analyzed three elements of a crime of obstruction of justice. an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and official proceedings, and corrupt intent. is that correct. >> yes. >> you wrote about corrupt intent. to end by the president a criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core example of corruptly motivated conduct. is that correct?
>> yes. with the evidence you did fine, is it true as you note on page 76 that the evidence does indicate that a thorough fbi investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the president personally that the president could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to legal, personal and political concerns? >> i rely on the language of the report read >> is that relevant to potential obstruction of justice? >> yes. >> you further elaborate on page 157 obstruction of justice can be motivated by desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations or underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area or personal embarrassment. is that correct? screen --on the that's correct on the screen. >> can you repeat the question now that i have the language?
it correct, obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect noncriminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability thousand two a gray area, or to avoid personal merriment. is that true? >> yes. can you read the last question? >> the last question was the language on the screen asking you if that's correct. >> yes. >> ok. does the conviction of obstruction of justice result potentially in a lot of years of time? in jail? >> yes. you repeatin, can the question just to make sure that i have it accurate? >> does obstruction of justice warrant a lot of time in jail? if you were convicted? >> yes. >> the time of the gentlelady has expired.
you very much, mr. chairman p let me begin by reading the special counsel regulations by which you were appointed. the conclusion of the special counsel's work, he or she shall provide the atorney general with confidential report explaining the prosecution or declamations decisions reached by the special counsel. is that correct? >> yes. >> ok. when a regulation uses the word shall provide, does it mean that the individual is in fact obligated to provide what is being demanded by the regulation or statute meaning you don't have any wiggle room. right? >> i would have to look more closely at the statute. >> i just read it to you. ok. volume two page one. your report boldly states we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. is that correct? >> i'm trying to find that
citation. congressman. >> director, could you speak more directly into the microphone please. >> yes. >> volume two page one, it says we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. >> yes. >> that's right at the beginning. the since you decided under olc opinion that you couldn't president, sitting meaning president trump, why did we have all of this investigation of president trump that the other side is talking about when you knew that you weren't going to prosecute him? >> you don't know where the investigation is going to lie and the olc opinion itself says that you can continue the investigation even if you are not going to indict the president. >> ok well, if you are not going to indict the president then you
just continue fishing. that's my observation. limited.s sure you can indict other people, but you can't indict the sitting president. right? >> that's true. 100 82 pages in raw evidentiary material including hundreds of references to 302 which are interviews by the fbi for individuals who have never been cross-examined and which did not comply with the special counsel's governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declamations decisions reached. correct? >> where are you reading from on that? >> i'm reading from my question. >> then could you repeat it? >> ok. we have 182 pages of raw evidentiary material with hundreds of references to 302's who have never been cross-examined and which didn't comply with the governing
regulation to explain the prosecution or declination decisions reached. >> this is one of those areas which i declined to discuss. >> ok. the would direct you to report itself. >> ok. well i looked at 182 pages of it. let me switch gears. mr. schappert and i were on this committee during the clinton impeachment. while i recognize that the independent counsel statute under which kenneth starr operated is different from the special counsel statute, he and a number of occasions in his presidentted that the clinton's actions may have risen to impeachable conduct. recognizing that it is up to the house of representatives of conducthat kind is impeachable. we never used the term raising to impeachable conduct for any of the 10 instances that the gentlewoman from texas did.
is it true that there is nothing in volume two of the report that says that the president may have engaged in impeachable conduct? -- we have previously kept in the center of our investigation our mandate. and our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct. our mandate goes to developing the report into the attorney general. >> with all respect, it seems to me that there are a couple of statements that you made that said that this is not for me to decide and the implication is that this is for this committee to decide. now, you didn't use the word impeachable conduct. there was no statute to prevent you from using the word impeachable conduct. and i go back to what mr. radcliffe said, and that is that
even the president is innocent until proven guilty. my time is up. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you mr. chair. first i would just like to briefly restate what mr. nadler said about your career. it's a model of rectitude and i thank you. investigation, how did president trump react to your appointment as special counsel? >> i can send you the report for where that is stated. >> there is a quote from page 78 of your report volume two 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 effed." did attorney general sessions tell you about that little talk?
>> director, please speak into the microphone. >> surely. my apologies. certain of the person who originally copied that quote. >> sessions apparently said it and one of his aides had it in his notes, which i think you had. that has become record for he wasn't pleased. pleased withasn't the special counsel and particularly you because of your outstanding reputation. the attorney general recused himself in the investigation because of his role in the 2016 campaign. >> correct. >> that means the attorney general cannot be involved in the investigation. recusal, the effect of yes. >> and so another trump appointing, mr. rosenstein became in charge of it. 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.
president the repeatedly expressed his displeasure at sessions decision to follow those rules by recusing himself. >> that's accurate based on what is written in the report. >> and the president's reaction to the recusal as noted in the report, mr. bannon recalled that the president was mad, as mad as annan had ever seen him, and he screamed at mcgann about how we can sessions was. >> that's in the report. >> despite knowing attorney general sessions was not supposed to be involved in the investigation, the president still tried to get the attorney general to an recuse himself after you were appointed special counsel. is that correct? that atestigation found some point after your appointment, the president called sessions at his home and asked if he would an recuse himself. is that not true? >> that's true. >> that wasn't the first time the president asked session to un-recuse himself.
>> there were at least two occasions. >> one was when sessions and mcgann flew to mar-a-lago. the president pulled him aside and suggested he should do this un-recusal act. >> correct. >> then went michael 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 recuseked him again to un- himself. >> i refer you to the report for that. >> page 109 volume two. do you know of any point where the president personally expressed anger or frustration at sessions? >> i would have to pass on that. 78your recall on page president told sessions, you were supposed to protect me. or words to that effect. >> correct. >> is the attorney general supposed to the -- be the
attorney general of the united states of america or the consiglio ari for the president? >> of the unites states of america. >> you wrote that the president sought to repeatedly convince recuse himself so he could supervise the investigation in a way that would restrict its scope. how could sessions have restricted the scope of your investigation? >> i'm not going to speculate. quite obviously if you 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 the attorney general could play a protective role and conceal the president from the ongoing investigation. i want to thank you for your life of rectitude and service to our country. it's clear from your report and the evidence that the president wanted form attorney general
sessions to violate the justice department ethics rules i 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. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you. director mueller, my democratic colleagues were very disappointed in your report. they were expecting you to say something along the lines of here's why president trump deserves to be impeached. much as ken starr did relative to president clinton 20 years ago. well, you didn't. so there strategy had to change. now they allege that there's plenty of evidence in your report to impeach the president, but the american people just didn't read it. and this hearing today is their last best hope to build up some sort of groundswell across america to impeach president trump. that's what this is really all about today. now a few questions.
on page 103 of volume two of your report, when discussing the june 2016 trump tower meeting, you reference the firm that produced steel reporting. the name of that firm was fusion gps. is that correct? >> you are on page 103? >> volume two. when you talk about the firm that produced the steel firmting, the name of the that produced that was fusion gps. is that correct? >> i'm not familiar with that. you.t me just help it's not a trick question. it was fusion gps. fusion gps produced the opposition research document widely known as the steele fusion and the owner of gps was someone named glen simpson to darya familiar? -- glen simpson.
are you familiar. >> this is outside my purview. >> glen simpson was never mentioned in the mueller report he? said, it's outside my purview. >> he was not. 448 pages. that did of fusion gps the steele dossier that started all this, he's not mentioned. let me move on. time, fusion gps was working to collect opposition research on donald trump from foreign sources on behalf of the clinton plan pain -- campaign and the democratic national committee. it also was representing a russian based company which had been sanctioned by the u.s. government. are you aware of that? >> that's outside my purview. >> thank you. one of the key players -- i will go to something different. one of the key players in the june 2016 trump tower meeting was natalia does in iesco who you described as a russian
attorney who advocated for the repeal of the magnitsky act. she had been working with none other than glen simpson and fusion gps since at least early 2014. are you aware of that? >> outside my purview. >> thank you. herdidn't mention that or connections to glen simpson at fusion gps in your report at all. let me move on. nbc news has reported the following. says she first received the supposedly incriminating information she brought to trump tower describing alleged tax evasion and donation to democrats from none other than glen simpson, the fusion gps owner." you didn't include that in the report. >> that is a matter being handled by others at the department of justice. >> your report spends 14 pages
the june 9, 2016 trump tower meeting. it would be fair to say would it not, that you spend significant resources investigating that meeting? >> i refer you to the report. >> ok. president trump wasn't at the meeting. >> no. >> thank you. in stark contrast to the actions of the trump campaign, we know that the clinton campaign did pay fusion gps to gather dirt on the trump campaign from persons associated with foreign governments. but your report doesn't mention anything about fusion gps in it and you didn't investigate fusion gps's connections to russia. so let me just ask you this. can you see that trump neglecting to mention lynn simpson and fusion gps -- glen simpson and fusion gps's involvement with the trump campaign -- to ignore and the
clinton campaign's own ties to you yours, why some report as a pretty one-sided attack on the president? it is stillll you, outside my purview. >> i would just note finally that i guess this is by chance, by coincidence that the things left out of the report tended to be favorable to the president prayed my time has expired. -- president. my time has expired. >> director mueller, i would like to get us back on track here. your investigation found that president trump directed white house counsel don mcgahn to fire you. isn't that correct? >> true. >> the president claimed that he because youre you had supposed conflicts of interest. isn't that correct? >> true. >> you had no conflicts of interest that required your removal print isn't that a fact? >> correct. >> and in fact, don mcgahn advised the president that the asserted conflicts were in his
words, silly and not real conflicts. isn't that true? report on thathe episode. >> page 85 of volume two speaks to that. and also director mueller, doj ethics officials confirmed that you had no conflicts that would prevent you from serving as special counsel. isn't that correct? >> that's correct. >> but despite don mcgahn and the department of justice guidance, around may 23, 2017, mcgannsident "prodded" to complain to deputy attorney general rosenstein about these supposed conflicts of interest. >> correct. >> mcgann declined to call rosenstein, telling the president that it would look like still trying to meddle in the investigation and knocking would be another
fact used to claim obstruction of justice. isn't that correct? >> generally so, yes. >> and in other words, the white house counsel told the president that if he tried to remove you that that could be another basis to allege that the president was obstructing justice. correct? >> that is generally correct, yes. >> i would like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justice. >> i'm sorry -- do you have a citation? >> yes. page 81.o >> thank you. >> i would like to review what happened after the president was warned about obstructing justice. that on tuesday, june 13th, 2017, the president dictated a press statement stating he had "no intention of firing you."
day, june 14,ing the media reported for the first time that you were investigating the president for obstruction of >> correct. -- obstruction of justice. >> correct. >> the very next day, the a series ofsued tweets acknowledging the existence of the obstruction investigation and criticizing it. isn't that correct? >> generally so. on saturday, june 17, two days later, the president called don mcgahn at home from camp david on a saturday to talk about you. isn't that correct? >> correct. --what was the significant what was significant about that first weekend phone call that don mcgahn took from president trump? >> i'm going to ask you to rely on what we wrote about those. thatu wrote in your report
at page 85 that on saturday, june 17, 2017 the president called mcgann at home to have the special counsel removed. now did the president call don mcgahn more than once that day? think it was two calls. on page 85 of your report you mcgannon the first call recalled that the president said something like "you've got to do this. you've got to call rod." correct? >> correct. >> your investigation found that don mcgahn was perturbed by the president's request to call rod rosenstein to fire him. isn't that correct? --there was a continuous there was a continuous involvement of don mcgahn
responding to the president's entreaties. >> he did not want to put himself in the middle of that. he did not want to have a role in asking the attorney general to fire the special counsel. correct? >> i would again refer you to the report and the way it is characterized in the report. >> thank you. page 85, it states that he didn't want to have the attorney general, he didn't want to have a role in trying to fire the attorney general. so at this point, i would yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. mueller, let- mr. me ask you unanimous consent, mr. chairman, to submit this article, robert mueller unmasked for the mac -- for the record. >> without objection. >> mr. mueller, who wrote the comments you read at your may 29
press conference. >> i'm not going to get into that. >> ok preet so that's what i thought. you didn't write it. a 2013 puff piece in the washingtonian about coma said basically when comey called, you dropped everything you are doing pete gave examples print having dinner with your wife and daughter. comey calls, you drop everything and go. the article quoted comey as a saying if a train were coming down the track and i quote, at least bob mueller would be standing on the tracks with me. beennd james comey have good friends or were good friends for many years. correct? >> we were business associates prayed we both started off at the justice department -- >> you were good friends. you can work together and not be friends but you and comey were friends >> we were friends. >> that's my question. thank you for get into the answer. before you were appointed as special counsel, had you talked to james comey in the preceding six months? >> no.
>> when you were appointed as presidentunsel, was trump's firing of comey something you anticipated investigating? >> i'm not going to get into that. that's internal deliberations of the justice department. >> actually it goes to your credibility and maybe you've been away from the courtroom for a while. credit ability is always relevant, it's always material and that goes for you, too. you are a witness before us. let me ask you. when you talked to president trump the day before you were appointed as special counsel, you were talking to him about fbi director position again. did he mention the firing of james comey? >> not as a candidate. >> did he mention the firing of james comey in your discussion with him? >> i cannot remember. >> pardon? >> i cannot remap her, i don't believe so. >> you don't remember. but if he did, you could have been a fact witness as to the president's comments and state
of mind on firing james comey. >> i suppose that's possible. wantst prosecutors would to make sure there is no appearance of impropriety. in your case, you hired a bunch of people that did not like the president. when did you first learn of peter strzok's animus towards donald trump? of 2017. summer >> you didn't know before he was hired? >> know what? >> peter strzok hated trump. >> ok. >> you didn't know that before he was made part of your team? >> i did not know that. and when i did find out, i acted swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere. >> there is some discussion about how swift that was. when did you learn of the ongoing affair he was having with lisa page?
>> at about the same time. >> did you ever order anybody to investigate the deletion of all of their texts off of their government phones? >> once we found that peter strzok was author of -- may i finish? >> you have not answered my question. did you order an investigation into deletion and reformatting of their government phones? >> no. there was an ig investigation ongoing. >> regarding collusion or conspiracy, you didn't find evidence of any agreement, i'm quoting you, among the trump campaign officials and any russia link individuals to interfere with our u.s. election. >> correct. >> so you also note in the report that an element of any of those obstructions you referenced requires a corrupt
state of mind. correct? >> corrupt intent. correct. >> and if somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from russia to affect the election and they see the big justice department with people that hate that person coming after them and then a special counsel appointed who hires a dozen or more people that hate that person, and he knows he's innocent, he's not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done. what he's doing is not obstructing justice. he is pursuing justice and the means youyou -- perpetuated in dusters. >> the time has expired. the witness may answer the question. >> i take your question. >> the gentleman from florida.
>> director mother, i would like to get back to your findings covering june of 2017. there was a bombshell article that reported that the president of the united states was personally under investigation for obstruction of justice. and you said in your report on page 90, news of the obstruction investigation prompted the president to call mcgann and seek to have the special counsel removed. youthen in your report wrote about multiple calls from the president to white house counsel don mcgahn and regarding the second call, you wrote, mcgann recalled that the president was more direct, saying something like call rod, tell rod that mother has conflicts and can't be the special counsel. mcgann recalled the president telling him, mueller has to go. and call me back when you do it. mueller, did mcgann understand what the president
was ordering him to do? >> i direct you to what we have written in the report in terms of characterizing his feelings. >> in the report that says mcgann understood the president to be saying that the special counsel had to be removed. thatlso said on page 86 mcgann considered the president's request to be an inflection point and he wanted to hit the brakes and he felt trapped and mcgann decided he had to resign. prepare toion to resign. isn't that correct? >> i direct you again to the report. >> that very day he went to the white house and quoting your report, you said he then drove to the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation letter. that is directly from the report. >> it is. and before he resigned however, he called the president's chief of staff, reince priebus. he called the president's senior advisor, steve bannon. do you recall what he told them?
was said will appear in the report. >> it is. it says on page 87, priebus recalled that mcgann said that the president asked him to do crazy expletive. in other words, crazy stuff. the white house counsel thought that the president's request was completely out of bounds. he said the president asked him to do something crazy. it was wrong. and he was prepared to resign over it. now, these are extraordinarily troubling events. found white house counsel mcgann to be a credible witness. isn't that correct? >> correct. >> director mother, the most important question i have for you today is why? director mother, why did the president of the united states want you fired?
i can't answer that question. report,ge 89 in your you said and i quote, substantial evidence indicates attempts tosident's remove the special counsel were linked to the special counsel's oversight of investigations that involve the president's conduct and most immediately to reports that the president was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice. , you foundeller evidence as you lay out in your report that the president wanted to fire you because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice. isn't that correct? >> that's what it says in the report, yes. i stand behind the report. >> director mueller, that
shouldn't happen in america. no president should be able to escape investigation by abusing his power. but that's what you testified to in your report. the president ordered you fired. the white house counsel knew it was wrong. the president was wrong. in the report it says the president should not have made those calls. but he did it anyway. he did it anyway. anyone else who blatantly interfered with a criminal investigation like yours would be arrested and indicted on charges of obstruction of director mother, you determined -- director mueller, you determined that you were barred from indicting a sitting president. we have already talked about that today. that is exactly why this committee must hold the president accountable. i yield back.
>> the gentle men yields back. the gentlelady from alabama. >> director mother, you just said in response to two different lines of questioning that you would refer as it relates to the firing discussion that i would refer you to the report and the way it was characterized in the report. importantly, the president never said fire mueller or in the investigation and one doesn't necessitate the other. and mcgann in fact did not resign, he stuck around for a year and a half. attorney general barr informed the committee that he had received the special counsel's report. it was not until april 18 that the attorney general released the report to congress and the public. ton you summit your report the attorney general, did you deliver a redacted version of the report so that he would be able to release it to congress and the public without delay pursuant to his announcement of his intention to do so during his confirmation hearing? engage in going to
discussion about what happened after the production of our report. >> had the attorney general asked do to provide a redacted version of the report? >> we worked on redacted versions together. >> did he ask you for a version with a grand jury material separated? >> not going to get into details. >> is it your belief that an unredacted version of the report could be released to congress or the public? >> that's not in my purview. >> why did you not take a similar action so congress could see this material? >> we had a process that we were operating on with the attorney general's office. >> are you aware of any attorney general going to report -- court to receive permission to unredacted the material? >> i'm not aware of that being done. >> the attorney general released
the special counsel's report with minimal reductions. did you write the report with the expectation that it would be released publicly? >> we did not have an expectation. we wrote the report understanding that it was demanded by the statute and would go to the attorney general for further review. >> and pursuant to special counsel regulations, who -- receives the charges resulting from the investigation? regard to the president or generally? >> generally. >> attorney general. >> at attorney general barr's confirmation hearing he made it clear he intended to release a report to the public. do your member how much had been written at that point? >> i do not. >> were there significant changes in tone or substance made after the announcement that the report would be made available to congress or the public? >> i can't get into that.
>> it during the testimony of william barr, senator kamala harris asked him if he had looked at the underlying evidence that the special counsel's team had gathered. he stated that he had not. so i'm going to ask you, did you personally review all the evidence gathered in your investigation? if it came through the special counsel's office, yes. >> did any member of your team review all the underlying evidence gathered during the course? today, a been recited substantial amount of work was done. >> my point is there was no one member of the team who looked at everything. >> that's what i'm trying to get at. anit's fair to say that investigation as comprehensive as yours, it's normal that different members of the team would have reviewed front sets of documents and few if anyone would have reviewed all of the underlying. >> yes. >> how many of the approximately 500 interviews conducted by the special conference did you attend personally? >> very few.
two thousand 19, he wrote a letter to the attorney general essentially complained about the media coverage of your report. you wrote, the summary letter the department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24 did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of the office work. we communicated to the morning of march 26. there is now public confusion about critical aspects of the result of our investigation. who wrote that march try seven letter? -- march 27 letter? >> i can't get into who wrote it. >> but you signed it. >> what i will say is the letter stands for itself. >> why did you write a formal letter since you had already called the attorney general to express those concerns? >> can't get into that. >> did you authorize the release to the media or was it leaked? >> i have no knowledge on either. >> you went nearly two years without a leak. why was this letter leaked?
>> i can't get into it. letterthis writer -- written and leaked to change the narrative about the conclusions of your report and was anything in attorney general barr's letter referred to as principal conclusions inaccurate? >> the time of the gentlelady has expired or >> may he answer the question please? in attorney general barr's letter referred to as the principal conclusions letter dated march 24 inaccurate? >> i am not going to get into that. >> the time of the gentle he has expired. the gentlelady from california. mueller, we are focusing on five obstruction episodes today. i would like to ask you about the second of those five obstruction episodes. it is in the section of your report beginning on page 113 of volume two entitled, the president orders mcgann to deny that the president tried to fire the special counsel. 25 2018, the new york
times reported that the president had ordered mcgann to have the department of justice fire you. is that correct? >> correct. >> and that story related to the events you already testified here today, the president's calls to mcgann to have you removed, correct? >> correct. >> to the president go on tv and deny the stories? >> i do not know. >> the president said, fake news , folks, fake news. a typical new york times fake story. correct? >> correct. investigation actually found substantial evidence that don mcgahn was ordered by the president to fire you, correct? >> yes. >> did the president's personal lawyer do something the following day in response to that news report? >> i would refer you to the coverage of this in the report. on january 26, 2018, the president's personal counsel called don mcgahn's
attorney and said that the president wanted don mcgahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the special counsel. thedon mcgahn do what president asked? >> i refer you to the report. >> communing -- communicating through his personal attorney, mcghan said the president wanted the special counsel removed. isn't that right? >> i refer to the report. mcgannon -- said he was not going to live. the -- dropt did the issue? >> i refer to the report. >> the president told rob porter to try to pressure mcgahn to make a false denial. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> what did he actually direct porter to do? >> i would send you back to the
report. page 113, it says the president then directed porter to tell him again to create a record -- tell magan to create a gahn to-- magan create a record -- he wanted him to write a letter for the file for our records. president is asking his white house counsel don mcgahn to create a record that mccann -- mcgahn believed to be untrue while you are in the midst of investigating the president for obstruction of justice. >> generally correct. anand mr. mcginn was important witness in that investigation, wasn't he? >> yes. tell porterresident to threaten mcgahn?
>> i refer you to the report. >> didn't the president say, if he doesn't write a letter than maybe i will have to get rid of him? >> yes. >> did porter deliver that threat? >> i again refer you to the page 115. found on >> ok. but the president still didn't give up, did he? so the president told mcgahn directly to deny that the president told him to have you fired. can you tell me exactly what happened? >> i can't beyond what's in the report. page 116 it says the president met him in the oval office. the ovaldent began office meeting by telling mcgahn that the new york times story didn't look good and mccann needed to correct it. is that correct? >> as it's written in the report, yes. >> the president asked me and
whether he would do a correction and mccann said no. correct? >> that's accurate. >> mr. mueller, thank you for your investigation uncovering this very disturbing evidence. my friend will have additional questions on the subject. however, it is clear to me if anyone else had ordered a witness to create a false record and cover up acts that are subject of a law enforcement investigation, that person would be facing criminal charges. i yield back my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. >> director of the fbi said on february 10 2017, in the interview, he lied. he points this out in 193. inhs and also falsely stated addition, in addition he omitted. three times he lied to the fbi you didn't charge him with a crime. why not? >> did you say 193?
>> volume one, 193 p lied three times. >> we will leave this year. the u.s. house is coming into session and we take you live there now on c-span. robert mueller's testimony continues live on our companion network, c-span3, online at c-span.org and with the free c-span radio app. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 24, 2019. i hereby appoint the honorable henry cuellar to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2019, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties. all time shall be equally allocated between the parties and in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip shall be