“
Did you want to interview Donald Trump Jr.? [or] ...Did you subpoena Donald Trump, Jr.?
— Robert Mueller Testimony before House Intelligence Committee
Did you want to interview Donald Trump Jr.? [or] ...Did you subpoena Donald Trump, Jr.?
Did you want to interview the President?
[O]n January 1, 2017 through March 2019, Donald Trump met with Vladimir Putin, in person 6 times, called him 10 times, and exchanged 4 letters with him. Between that time period, how many times did you meet with Donald Trump?
He did not meet with you in person. Is that correct?
As a result of lies, deletion of text messages, obstruction, and witness tampering, is it fair to say that you were unable to fully assess the scope and scale of Russia's interference in the 2016 election, and Trump's role in that interference?
But you did state in Volume 1, page 10, that while this report embodies factual and legal determinations, the office believes it to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible. Given these identified gaps, the office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light. Is that correct?
Why is it so important that witnesses cooperate and tell the truth in an investigation like this?
Your office prosecuted Michael Cohen—and Michael Cohen was Donald Trump's lawyer—for lying to this Committee about several aspects of the Trump organization's pursuit of the deal, is that right?
According to your report, Cohen lied to... "minimize links between the project and Trump" and to... "stick to the party line"... in order not to contradict Trump's public message that no connection existed between Trump and Russia," is that right?
Now when you're talking about the party line here, the party line in this case...
The party line, in this case, was that the deal ended in January 2016. In other words, they were saying that the deal ended... before the Republican primaries. In truth though, the deal extended to June 2016, when Donald Trump was already the presumptive Republican nominee, is that correct?
The party line was also that Cohen discussed the deal with Trump only three times, when in truth they discussed it multiple times, is that right?
The party line was also that Cohen and Trump never discussed traveling to Russia during the campaign, when in truth, they did discuss it, is that right?
And the party line was that Cohen never received a response from the Kremlin to his inquiries about the Trump Tower Moscow deal. In fact, Cohen not only received a response from the Kremlin to his e-mail, but also had a lengthy conversation with a Kremlin representative who had a detailed understanding of the project, is that right?
So you... had the candidate Trump... saying he had no business dealings with Russia, his lawyer, who was lying about it, and then the Kremlin, who during that time was talking to President Trump's lawyer about the deal. Is that right?
Not only was Cohen lying on Trump's behalf, but so was the Kremlin. On August 30, 2017, two days after Cohen submitted his false statement to this Committee claiming that he never received a response to his e-mail to the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin's Press Secretary told reporters that the Kremlin left the e-mail unanswered. That statement by Putin's Press Secretary was false, wasn't it?
Although it was widely reported in the press.
But it was consistent with the lie that Cohen had made to the Committee, is that right?
So Cohen, President Trump and the Kremlin were all telling the same lie?
[D]id your investigation evaluate whether President Trump could be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians, because the Kremlin knew that Trump and his associates lied about connections to Russia, related to the Trump Tower deal?
...Mr. Cohen, his attorney, testified before this committee that President Trump believed the deal required Kremlin approval. Is that consistent with what he told you?
Isn't it also true that Donald Trump viewed his presidential campaign, as he told top campaign aides, that the campaign was an infomercial for the Trump organization and his properties?
Let's turn to Trump Campaign Chair Paul Manafort. Did... your investigation find any evidence that Manafort intended to use his position as Trump's campaign chair for his own personal financial benefit?
I think you'll find it on page 135 of Volume 1.During the transition, Trump's son-in-law, met with , the head of a Russian-owned bank that... is under U.S. sanctions. And according to the head of the bank, he met with Kushner, in his capacity as CEO of , to discuss business opportunities, is that correct, sir?
It was asserted... Volume 1... pages 161 and 162.Your report notes that at the time, Kushner Companies were trying to renegotiate a... billion dollar lease of their flagship building at 666 5th avenue, correct?
Your investigation determined that Mr. Prince had not known nor conducted business with Dmitriev before Trump won the election, correct?
Trump administration National Security Advisor designate also discussed sanctions in a secret conversation with the Russian ambassador. Did he not?
So to summarize, Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, , , and others in the Trump orbit, all tried to use their connections with the Trump organization to profit from Russia, which was openly seeking relief from sanctions. Is that true, sir?
Well, I will, and I'd further assert that was not only dangerous, it was un-American. Greed corrupts. Greed corrupts, and it is a terrible foundation for developing American foreign policy.
[D]id you find there was no between the Trump campaign and Russia?
The term is conspiracy that you prefer to use?
You help me, I'll help you. ...It's an agreement.
And in fact, you had to then make a charging decision after your investigation, where, unless it was enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt, you wouldn't make a charge, correct?
But making that decision does not mean your investigation failed to turn up evidence of conspiracy.
I'll go through some of the significant findings that your exhaustive investigation made. You found... that from May 2016 until the end of the campaign, campaign chairman Mr. Manafort gave private polling information to Russian agents, correct?
And your investigation found that in June 2016, Donald Trump Jr. made an arrangement to meet at Trump Tower, along with and others, expecting to receive dirt on the Hillary Clinton campaign. Correct?
And you found in your investigation, that on July 27, candidate Trump called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's e-mail, something that for the first time they did, about five hours later. Correct?
And you also found that on August 2, Mr. Manafort met with the person tied to Russian intelligence, Mr. Kilimnik, and gave him internal campaign strategy, aware that Russia was intending to do a misinformation social media campaign, correct?
But the fact of that meeting, do you agree with?
And your investigation, as I understand it, also found that in late summer of 2016 the Trump campaign... devised its strategy in messaging, around WikiLeaks releases of materials that were stolen from the . Correct?
Yes. It's according to Mr. Gates.
And you also talked earlier about the finding in your investigation that in September and October of 2016, Donald Trump Jr. had e-mail communications with WikiLeaks, now indicted, about releasing information damaging to the Clinton campaign, correct?
And [any candidate] would... have the ability, without fear of legal repercussion, to meet with agents of that foreign entity hostile to the American election? ...Is that an apprehension that you share with me?
And that there would be no repercussions whatsoever to Russia, if they did this again, and as you've stated earlier, as we sit here, they're doing it now. Is that correct?
Do you have any advice to this Congress, as together, what we should do to protect our electoral system, and accept responsibility on our part, to report to you or your successor, when we're aware of hostile foreign engagement in our elections?
I'm going to be asking you about appendix C to you report and, in particular, the decision not to do a sworn interview with the President. It's really the only subject I want to talk to you about, sir. Why didn't you subpoena the President?
In fact... you pointed out, and by my count, there were more than 30 times when the president said he didn't recall, he didn't remember, no independent recollection, no current recollection, and I take it by your answer that it wasn't as helpful. That's why you used words like incomplete, imprecise, inadequate, insufficient. Is that a fair summary of what you thought of those written answers?
And yet... the President didn't ever claim the Fifth Amendment, did he?
Well... from what I can tell sir, at one point it was vital, and then at another point it wasn't vital. ...[W]hy did it stop being vital, and I can only think of three explanations. One is, that somebody told you, you couldn't do it, but nobody told you couldn't subpoena the President, is that right?
Rosenstein didn't tell you, Whitaker didn't tell you, Barr didn't tell you, you couldn't subpoena the President.
So, the only other explanation—well, there's two others I guess—one, that you just flinched. That you had the opportunity to do it, and you didn't do it. But sir, you don't strike me as the kind of guy who flinches.
In this case, you felt that you had enough evidence of the president's intent?
[Y]ou thought that if you gave it to the Attorney General or to this Congress, that there was sufficient evidence, that it was better than that delay? ... [T]hat it was better than the delay to present the sufficient evidence, your term of the President's intent to obstruct justice, to the Attorney General, and to this committee. Isn't that why you didn't do the interview?
I too want to focus on the written responses that the President did provide and the continued efforts to lie and cover up what happened during the 2016 election. Were the President's answers submitted under oath?
Were these all the answers your office wanted to ask the President about Russia interference in the 2016 election?
So there were other questions that you wanted to answer.
Did you analyze his written answers on Russian interference to draw conclusions about the President's credibility?
So, what did you determine about the president's credibility?
[Y]ou've probably had an opportunity to analyze the credibility of countless witnesses, but you weren't able to do so with this witness?
[L]et's go through some of the answers to take a closer look at his credibility, because it seems to me... that his answers were not credible at all. Did some of President Trump's incomplete answers relate to ?
[T]here were many questions that you asked the President that he simply didn't answer, isn't that correct?
[T]here were many answers that contradicted other evidence you had gathered during the investigation, isn't that correct Director Mueller?
[T]he President has written answers stating he did not recall having advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks releases, is that correct?
[I]sn't it fair to say that the President's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete— because he didn't answer many of your questions—but where he did, his answers show that he wasn't always being truthful.
"Generally," Director Mueller, it's one thing for the President to lie to the American people about your investigation, falsely claiming that you found no collusion and no obstruction, but it's something else altogether for him to get away with not answering your questions and lying about them. And as a former law enforcement officer of almost 30 years, I find that a disgrace to our criminal justice system.
Earlier today you described your report as "detailing a criminal investigation," correct?
[S]ince it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding the subject matter of your report.
[S]ince it was outside your purview, your report did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding any Trump administration officials who might potentially be vulnerable to compromise or blackmail by Russia, correct?
But not in your report, correct?
Let's talk about one administration official in particular, namely President Donald Trump. Other than Trump Tower Moscow, your report does not address or detail the President's financial ties or dealings with Russia, correct?
Similarly, since it was outside your purview, your report does not address the question of whether Russian oligarchs engaged in through any of the President's businesses, correct?
And, of course, your office did not obtain the President's tax returns, which could otherwise show foreign financial sources, correct?
In July 2017 the President said his personal finances were off limits, or outside the purview of your investigation, and he drew a "red line," around his personal finances. Were the President's personal finances outside the purview of your investigation?
Were you instructed by anyone not to investigate the president's personal finances?
I'd like to turn your attention to counterintelligence risks associated with lying. Individuals can be subject to blackmail if they lie about their interactions with foreign countries, correct?
[Y]ou successfully charged former National Security Advisor of lying to federal agents about his conversations with Russian officials, correct?
Since it was outside the purview of your investigation, your report did not address how Flynn's false statements could pose a national security risk because the Russians knew the falsity of those statements, right?
Currently?
You've served as FBI Director during three presidential elections, correct?
And during those three presidential elections, you have never initiated an investigation at the FBI looking into whether a foreign government interfered in our elections, the same way you did in this particular instance, correct?
[Y]ou said that every American should pay very close attention to the systematic and sweeping fashion in which the Russians interfered in our democracy. Are you concerned that we are not doing enough currently to prevent this from happening again?
But... You did not indict Mr. Mifsud.
So... the main actor [in] Fusion GPS, the president of the company, or owner of the company is a guy named Glenn Simpson, who's working for Hillary Clinton. ...[D]o you know how many times Glenn Simpson met with Natalia Veselnitskaya?
Would it surprise you that the Clinton campaign, dirty ops arm, met with Natalia Veselnitskaya more times than the Trump campaign did?
When and joined your team, were you aware that , Department of Justice top official, directly briefed the dossier allegations to them in the summer of 2016?
Before you arrested in July of 2017, he was given $10,000 in cash in Israel. Do you know who gave him that cash?
But it involved your investigation.
The FISA warrant was... re-upped three times, the last time it was re-upped was under... your watch. So... were you in the approval process of that last time that the Carter Page warrant was..?
There are a few more questions I want to clean up... about the Erik Prince Seychelles meeting. ...Erik Prince testified before this Committee that he was surveilled by the U.S. government; and the information from the surveillance was leaked to the press. Did you investigate whether Prince was surveilled, and whether classified information on him was illegally leaked to the media?
...Were you aware that Prince has made these allegations that he was surveilled. He's concerned that there were leaks about this surveillance. Did you make any referrals about these things?
...[O]n General Flynn, I know you came after the leak of his phone call with the Russian ambassador. Your time at FBI, it would be a major scandal, wouldn't it, for the leak of the national security advisor and anyone...
Did your report name any people who were acting as U.S. government informants or sources, without disclosing that fact?
On Volume 1, page 133... you state that has ties to Russian intelligence. His name... came up quite often today. The report omits to mention that Kilimnik has long-term relationships with U.S. government officials including our own State Department.
I know it's not in the report, but... if Kilimnik is being used in the report to say that he was possibly some type of Russian agent, then I think it is important for this Committee to know if Kilimnik has ties to our own State Department, which it appears... he does.
You were asked this earlier about Trump attorney, John Dowd, that pieces of his phone call were omitted from the report. It was what Mr. Dowd calls . Are you concerned about...
An American citizen from the Republic of Georgia, who your report misidentifies as a Russian, claims that your report omitted parts of a text message he had with Michael Cohen, about stopping the flow of compromising tapes of Donald Trump. In the omitted portions, he says he did not know what the tapes actually showed. Was that portion of the exchange left out of the report for a reason?
[D]id anyone ask you to exclude anything from your report that you felt should've been in the report? ...[N]o one asked you specifically to exclude something that you believe should've been in there?
The 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?
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 just how sweeping and systematic those efforts were. I want to find out if Russia interfered with our election by providing false information through sources to Christopher Steele about a Trump conspiracy that you determined didn't exist.
But you did not establish any conspiracy, much less a well-developed one?
The Special Counsel did not charge with anything, correct?
[G]iven your constraints on what you're able or allowed to answer, with respect to counterintelligence matters or other matters that are currently open under investigation, you're not going to be able to answer my remaining questions...
[I]n... your opening statement you indicate that pursuant to Justice Department regulations... 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.
You also state, in this opening statement, that you threw overboard the word because it's not a legal term. You would not conclude because collusion was not a legal term?
So in your words, it's not a legal term, so you didn't put it in your conclusion. Correct?
I want to talk about your powers and authorities. ...[T]he 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 and authority greater than... the Attorney General. Correct?
[Y]ou 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?
So you believe that... Bill Barr believes that somewhere in the hallways of the Department of Justice, there's an office of exoneration?
[I]s it accurate to say your investigation found no evidence that members of the Trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of Clinton campaign-related emails?
Volume 1, page 5: "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 inaccurate, based on this, to describe that finding, as open to doubt. That finding being that the Trump campaign was involved with theft or publication of the Clinton campaign emails. You following that, sir?
[Y]es. 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 ... "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 that is inaccurate to say that it's likely already...
Multiple Democrat members have asserted that Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange in 2016 before WikiLeaks released DNC emails, implying Manafort colluded with Assange. Because your report does not mention finding evidence that Manafort met with Assange, I would assume that means you found no evidence of this meeting. Is that assumption correct?
But you make no mention of it in your report. Would you agree with that?
[D]oes your report contain any evidence that President Trump was enrolled in the Russian system of , as a member of this Committee once claimed?
Did you ask the Department [of] Justice to expand the scope of the Special Counsel's mandate related to August 2, 2017 or August 20, 2017 scoping memoranda?
[D]id you ever make a request to expand your office's mandate... at all?
And was that ever denied?
I'm just trying to understand the process. Does expanding the scope come from the acting Attorney General, or , or does it come from you, or can it come from either?
[Y]ou're right, it is a cloud, and it's an unfair cloud for dozens of people. But to my point, are you aware of anyone providing information to the media regarding the raid on Roger Stone's home, including CNN?
[Y]ou sent a letter, dated March 27th, to Attorney General Barr, in which you claim the Attorney General's memo to Congress did not fully capture the context of your report. You stated earlier today that response was not authorized. Did you make any effort to determine who leaked this confidential letter?
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. ...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?
[G]iven these examples, as well as others, you must have realized that leaks were coming from someone associated with the Special Counsel's office. What I'd like to ask...
[T]his was your work. ...[Y]our office is the only one who had information regarding this. It had to come from your office. Putting that aside... [D]id you do anything about it?
Days after you appointment, texted... [technical communication problems] There's a quote attributed to Peter Strzok. He texted about his concern that there is... "no big there there in the Trump campaign investigation." Did he or anyone else who worked on the FBI's investigation tell you that, around 10 months into the investigation, the FBI still had no case for collusion?
Is the Inspector General report correct that the text messages from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's phones, from your office, were not retained after they left the Special Counsels Office?
Did you ask the department to authorize your office to investigate the origin of the Trump Russia investigation?
So the circumstances surrounding the origin of the investigation have yet to be fully vetted then. I'm... glad that Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney Durham are looking into this matter.
[A]s Special Counsel did you review documents related to the origin of the investigation into the Trump campaign?
[W]as there any limitation in your access to documents related to the counterintelligence... investigation?
[D]id any member of the Special Counsel's office staff travel overseas as part of the investigation?
Thank you for answering on the record. These are important questions for the American public and we're hopeful that the I.G. is able to answer these questions.
So did you not investigate these allegations which are suggestive of potential Trump-Russia...
Who do you think should be responsible, within the federal government, to counter disinformation? ...As to who should be the coordinating points within the federal government on how to deal with disinformation?
You... alluded to making sure... all the elements of the federal government should be working together. Do you have a suggestion on a strategy to do that, to counter this disinformation?
...In your investigation, did you think this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election, or did you find evidence to suggest they'll try to do this again?
[Y]our report describes a sweeping and systematic effort by Russia to influence our Presidential election. Is that correct?
And during the course of this Russian interference in the election, the Russians made outreach to the Trump campaign, did they not?
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?
In fact, the campaign welcomed the Russian help, did they not?
The President's son said, when he was approached about dirt on Hillary Clinton, that the Trump campaign would love it?
The President himself called on the Russians to hack Hillary's emails?
Numerous times during the campaign the President praised the releases of the Russian-hacked emails through WikiLeaks?
Your report found that the Trump campaign planned... "a press strategy, communications campaign, and messaging"... based on that Russian assistance?
That language comes from Volume 1, page 54. Apart from the Russians wanting to help Trump win, several individuals associated with the Trump campaign were also trying to make money during the campaign and transition. Is that correct?
Paul Manafort was trying to make money or achieve debt forgiveness from a Russian oligarch?
was trying to make money from Turkey?
Donald Trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal in Moscow?
When your investigation looked into these matters, numerous Trump associates lied to your team, the grand jury, and to Congress?
was convicted of lying?
Paul Manafort was convicted of lying?
Paul Manafort... went so far as to encourage other people to lie?
Manafort's deputy, Rick Gates, lied?
Michael Cohen, the President's lawyer, was indicted for lying?
He lied to stay on message with the President?
And when Donald Trump called your investigation a witch hunt, that was also false, was it not?
Well, your investigation is not a witch hunt. Is it?
When the President said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it?
When he said it publicly, it was false?
And when he told it to Putin, that was false, too, wasn't it?
When the President said he had no business dealings with Russia, that was false, wasn't it?
When the president said he had no business dealings with Russia, in fact he was seeking to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, was he not?
You would consider a billion dollar deal to build a tower in Moscow to be business dealings, wouldn't you, Director Mueller?
In short, your investigation found evidence that Russia wanted to help Trump win the election, right?
Russia informed campaign officials of that? ...through an intermediary that informed Papadopoulos that they could help with the anonymous release of stolen emails?
Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump?
The Trump campaign officials built their strategy—their messaging strategy—around those stolen documents?
And then they lied to cover it up.
Generally, a conspiracy requires an offer of something illegal, the acceptance of that offer and an overt act and furtherance of it, is that correct?
And Don Jr. was made aware that the Russians were offering dirt on his opponent, correct?
And when you say that you would love to get that help, that would constitute acceptance of the offer?
And it would certainly be evidence of acceptance if you say, when somebody offers you something illegal and you say I would love it. That would... be considered evidence of acceptance.
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 of a presidential campaign?
I want to... turn to some of the exchange you had with Mr. Welch a bit earlier. I'd like to see if we can broaden the aperture at the end of your hearing. From your testimony today I'd gather that knowingly accepting assistance from a foreign government is an unethical thing to do.
And to the degree that it undermines our democracy and our institutions, we can also agree that it's unpatriotic. ...And wrong.
The standard behavior for a presidential candidate, or any candidate for that matter, shouldn't be merely whether something is criminal, it should be held to a higher standard... I'm just referring to ethical standards. We should hold our elected officials to a standard higher than mere avoidance of criminality, shouldn't we?
You have served this country for decades, you've taken an oath to defend the Constitution. You hold yourself to a standard of doing what's right. ...[W]e can all see that. And befitting the times, I'm sure your reward will be unending criticism, but we are grateful. The need to act in an ethical manner is not just a moral one, but when people act unethically it also exposes them to compromise, particularly in dealing with foreign powers, is that true?
Because when someone acts unethically in connection with a foreign partner, that foreign partner can later expose their wrongdoing and extort them.
And that... unethical conduct can be of a financial nature, if you have a financial motive or elicit business dealing, am I right?
It could also just involve deception. If you are lying about something that can be exposed, then you can be blackmailed.
In the case of , he was secretly doing business with Turkey, correct?
And that could open him up to compromise that financial relationship.
He also lied about his discussions with the Russian ambassador, and since the Russians were on the other side of the conversation, they could have exposed that, could they not?
If a presidential candidate was doing business in Russia and saying he wasn't, Russians could expose that too, could they not?
[L]et's look at , the spokesperson for the Kremlin, someone that the Trump organization was in contact with to make that deal happen. Your report indicates that Michael Cohen had a long conversation on the phone with someone from Dmitry Peskov's office. Presumably, the Russians could have tape recorded that conversation, could they not?
[S]o we have Candidate Trump who's saying "I have no dealings with the Russians," but if the Russians had a tape recording, they could expose that, could they not?
That's the stuff of counterintelligence nightmares, is it not?
And when this was revealed, that there were these communications, notwithstanding President's denials, the President was confronted about this and he said two things. First... that's not a crime. But I think you and I have already agreed that shouldn't be the standard. Right, Mr. Mueller?
If the President was concerned that if he lost his election, he didn't want to miss out on that money, might he have the same concern about losing his reelection?
[T]his attack on our democracy involved, as you said, two operations. First, a social media disinformation campaign... a targeted campaign to spread false information on places like Twitter and Facebook. Is that correct?
Facebook estimated, as per your report, that the Russian fake images reached 126 million people, is that correct?
[W]ho did the Russian social media campaign ultimately intend to benefit, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
The second operation in the Russian attack was a scheme—what we called the hack and dump—to steal and release hundreds of thousands of e-mails from the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. Is Is that a fair summary?
Did your investigation find that the releases of the hacked e-mails were strategically timed to maximize impact on the election? ...Page 36 ..."the release of the documents were designed and timed to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election." ...[W]hich presidential candidate was Russia's hacking and dumping operation designed to benefit, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
[I]s it possible that this sweeping and systematic effort by Russia actually had an effect on the outcome of the Presidential election? ...One hundred and twenty-six 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?
Your report describes... a third avenue of Russian interference, and that's the links and contacts between the Trump campaign and individuals tied to the Russian government.
[R]ather than report this contact with , and the notion there that was dirt that the campaign could use, rather than report that to the FBI—that I think most of my constituents would expect an individual to do—Papadopoulos... lied about his Russian contacts to you. Is that correct?
We have an election coming up in 2020... If a campaign receives an offer of dirt from a foreign individual or a government, generally speaking, should that campaign report those contacts?
Trump Jr.'s response to that e-mail is slide three. He said... "If it is what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer." Then Donald Jr. invited senior campaign officials Paul Manafort and to the meeting, did he not?
This e-mail exchange is evidence of an offer of illegal assistance, is it not?
But isn't it against the law for a presidential campaign to accept anything of value from a foreign government.
[P]age 184 in Volume 1... the Federal Campaign Finance Law broadly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, etc., and... foreign nationals may not make a contribution or donation of money or anything of value. It says clearly in the report itself.
[L]et's turn to what actually happened at the meeting. When Donald Trump Junior and the others got to the June 9th meeting, they realized that the Russian delegation didn't have the promised... "dirt." ...[T]hey got upset about that, did they not?
Volume 1, page 118... Trump Junior asked what are we doing here? What... do they have on Clinton? And during the meeting, Kushner... texted Manafort saying it was... "a waste of time"... Is that correct?
[T]op Trump campaign officials learned that 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 disappointed because the dirt wasn't as good as they hoped. ...[D]id anyone to your knowledge in the Trump campaign ever tell the FBI of this offer?
Wouldn't 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 such a...
[I]s it not the responsibility of political campaigns to inform the FBI if they receive information from a foreign government?
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?
No, what I'm suggesting is that 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.
[G]iven this illegal assistance by Russians... even given that, you did not charge Donald Trump Junior or any of the other senior officials with conspiracy. Is that right?
[E]ven 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 [to the FBI] is important, [so] that we don't set a precedent for future elections?
I think that it seems like a betrayal of American values... if not being criminal, [it] is unethical and wrong, and... we would not want to set a precedent that political campaigns would not divulge... foreign governments' assistance.
In addition to the June 9th meeting just discussed, Manafort... met several times with... , who the FBI assessed to have ties with Russian intel agencies. Is that right, sir?
Mr. Manafort didn't just meet with him. He shared private, Trump campaign polling information with this man linked to Russian intelligence. Is that right, sir?
And in turn, the information was shared with a Russian oligarch tied to Vladimir Putin. Is that right, sir?
[M]eeting 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?
Mr. Manafort also discussed internal campaign strategy on four battleground states—Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota—with the Russian intelligence linked individual. Did he not, sir?
[B]ased on your decades of years of experience at the FBI, would you agree, sir, that 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 battleground states with a foreign adversary?
Well, I think it does [create a national security risk], sir. I think it shows an infuriating lack of patriotism from the very people seeking the highest office in the land. Director Mueller, Manafort didn't share this information in exchange for nothing. Did he, sir?
[I]t's clear that he hoped to be paid back money he was owed by Russian or Ukrainian oligarchs in return for the passage of private campaign information. Correct, sir?
[A]s my colleague Mr. Heck will discuss later, greed corrupts. Would you agree, sir, 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, sir?
Would you agree, sir, that Manafort's contacts with Russians close to Vladimir Putin, and his efforts to exchange private information on Americans for money, left him vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians?
Would you agree, sir, these acts demonstrated a betrayal of the democratic values that our country rests on?
I can tell you that in my years of experience as a law enforcement officer and as a 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... represents the betrayal of the values underpinning our democracy. ...
I can say without fear of contradiction that you are the greatest patriot in this room today...
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. ...[T]here 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.
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.
Earlier... and throughout today you have stated the policy that a seated president cannot be indicted, correct?
And upon questioning this morning, you were asked... could a president be indicted after their service, correct?
And your answer was that they could.
So the follow up question that should be concerning is what if a president serves beyond the statute of limitations?
Would it not indicate that if the statute of limitations on federal crimes such as this are five years, that a president who serves a second term is therefore, under the policy, above the law?
The statute doesn't toll, is that correct?
So that would at least be a republishing of this information, would it not?
Director Pompeo assessed WikiLeaks... 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?
Would it be fair to describe them, as you would agree with Director Pompeo... that it's a hostile intelligence service, correct?
Would it be described as aid and comfort to a hostile intelligence service, sir?
[A]s a prosecutor you would agree that if a witness or suspect lies, or obstructs, or tampers with witnesses, or destroys evidence during an investigation, that generally that conduct can be used to show a consciousness of guilt. Would you agree with that?
So National Security Advisor Flynn lied about discussions with a Russian ambassador related to sanctions. Is that right?
Michael Cohen lied to this committee about . Is that correct?
, the President's Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, lied to the FBI about his communications about Russia's possession of dirt on Hillary Clinton. Is that right?
The President's campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied about meetings that he had with someone with ties to Russian intelligence. Is that correct?
And your investigation was hampered by Trump campaign official's use of communications. Is that right?
You also believe to be the case that your investigation was hampered by the deletion of electronic messages. Is that correct?
For example, you noted that deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, who shared internal campaign polling data with the person with ties to Russian intelligence at the direction of Manafort, that Mr. Gates deleted those communications on a daily basis. Is that right?
That's right Director. It's Volume 1, page 136. ...In addition to that, other information was inaccessible because your office determined it was protected by attorney-client privilege. Is that correct?
That would include that you do not know whether communications between Donald Trump and his personal attorneys , Rudy Giuliani, and others, discouraged witnesses from cooperating with the government. Is that right?
That would also mean that you can't talk to whether or not pardons were dangled through the President's attorneys because [of] the shield of attorney-client privilege.
