This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/what-time-mueller-testimony.html
The article has changed 19 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 6 | Version 7 |
|---|---|
| Robert Mueller Testifies to Congress: Live Updates | Robert Mueller Testifies to Congress: Live Updates |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| The partisan war over Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election reached a messy and contentious climax on Wednesday when lawmakers spent hours grilling Mr. Mueller about his conclusions but extracted little information beyond what he had written in his voluminous report. | |
| The highly anticipated session before the House Judiciary Committee featured more sizzle than substance, as Mr. Mueller tried to rigorously to stick to the script — the 448-page report he produced in April. The report laid bare that President Trump was elected with the help of a foreign power and cataloged his frantic efforts to undermine the investigation into Russian interference. | |
| Mr. Trump has spent months characterizing the special counsel’s report as a “total exoneration,” though Mr. Mueller on Wednesday was careful to state that he and his team had drawn no such conclusion. But Mr. Mueller appeared to acknowledge, in a confusing exchange, that he and his investigators declined to decide whether Mr. Trump committed a crime because of existing Justice Department opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. | |
| Under questioning from Representative Ted Lieu, Democrat of California and an early proponent of impeachment, Mr. Mueller said that the reason he did not indict Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice is because of a Justice Department opinion stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. But it was unclear what he meant, or if he understood the question. | |
| “I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met,” Mr. Lieu said, referring to the Mueller report’s lengthy description of actions the president took to try to interfere with his investigation. | “I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met,” Mr. Lieu said, referring to the Mueller report’s lengthy description of actions the president took to try to interfere with his investigation. |
| “I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the O.L.C. opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” he asked, referring to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. | “I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the O.L.C. opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” he asked, referring to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. |
| “That is correct,” Mr. Mueller said. | “That is correct,” Mr. Mueller said. |
| Mr. Lieu was referring to a pair of opinions from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, drafted during the Nixon era and reaffirmed under Bill Clinton, that a sitting president could not be indicted. | Mr. Lieu was referring to a pair of opinions from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, drafted during the Nixon era and reaffirmed under Bill Clinton, that a sitting president could not be indicted. |
| Representative Debbie Lesko, Republican of Arizona, sought to clarify what Mr. Mueller meant, noting that the statement is at odds with what he had said in the past, including in his report and a brief news conference in May. In those instances, he said he had not reached a conclusion one way or the other about whether the president did or did not obstruct justice. But, asked directly by Ms. Lesko whether he stood by his previous comments, the former special counsel waffled. | Representative Debbie Lesko, Republican of Arizona, sought to clarify what Mr. Mueller meant, noting that the statement is at odds with what he had said in the past, including in his report and a brief news conference in May. In those instances, he said he had not reached a conclusion one way or the other about whether the president did or did not obstruct justice. But, asked directly by Ms. Lesko whether he stood by his previous comments, the former special counsel waffled. |
| “I would have to look at it more closely before I said I agree,” he said. | “I would have to look at it more closely before I said I agree,” he said. |
| Mr. Mueller, a reluctant witness who opened his testimony by repeating that he was not willing to go beyond his 448-page report, nonetheless obliged Democrats who prompted him to restate the most damning aspects of his findings to Mr. Trump. | Mr. Mueller, a reluctant witness who opened his testimony by repeating that he was not willing to go beyond his 448-page report, nonetheless obliged Democrats who prompted him to restate the most damning aspects of his findings to Mr. Trump. |
| “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mr. Mueller told Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the Judiciary Committee chairman, under questioning about his conclusions on whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice. | “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mr. Mueller told Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the Judiciary Committee chairman, under questioning about his conclusions on whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice. |
| It was one of the rare instances in which Mr. Mueller strayed outside of one-word answers or short phrases in response to lawmakers’ questions about his investigation. Mr. Mueller’s terse responses, constant referrals to his report, and unwillingness to go beyond it threaten are giving neither party what it wanted from the day’s hearings. Mr. Mueller appears unlikely to help Democrats with answers that will provide new sound bites from the former special counsel’s mouth. But he also will not help Republicans undermine the origins of his investigation. | It was one of the rare instances in which Mr. Mueller strayed outside of one-word answers or short phrases in response to lawmakers’ questions about his investigation. Mr. Mueller’s terse responses, constant referrals to his report, and unwillingness to go beyond it threaten are giving neither party what it wanted from the day’s hearings. Mr. Mueller appears unlikely to help Democrats with answers that will provide new sound bites from the former special counsel’s mouth. But he also will not help Republicans undermine the origins of his investigation. |
| An example: Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida, asked, “Why? Why did the president want you fired?” to which he responded, “I can’t answer that question.” | An example: Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida, asked, “Why? Why did the president want you fired?” to which he responded, “I can’t answer that question.” |
| But in a carefully steered line of questioning, Mr. Nadler got Mr. Mueller to agree with him that the president’s frequent declarations that the investigation had found “no obstruction” and had “completely and totally exonerated” Mr. Trump were false. | But in a carefully steered line of questioning, Mr. Nadler got Mr. Mueller to agree with him that the president’s frequent declarations that the investigation had found “no obstruction” and had “completely and totally exonerated” Mr. Trump were false. |
| “Right, that is not what the report said,” Mr. Mueller said. | “Right, that is not what the report said,” Mr. Mueller said. |
| Mr. Mueller spoke haltingly as he testified, blunting attacks on him by Republicans but also limiting Democrats’ efforts to elevate his words and raising questions about his acuity. | |
| [Who is Aaron Zebley, the aide sitting beside Mr. Mueller?] | [Who is Aaron Zebley, the aide sitting beside Mr. Mueller?] |
| The former special counsel stumbled at times during his testimony, often asking lawmakers to restate their questions or seeming not to hear them, and keeping his answers as narrowly focused as he could. | |
| “That’s a little bit out of our path,” he told Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, at one point, when she asked what he believed internal polling data obtained by the Russians might be used for. | |
| Democrats could not even get Mr. Mueller to read from his own report, instead performing their own dramatic recitations about the episodes they sought to highlight in which Mr. Trump was found to have tried to derail the investigation. Mr. Mueller’s team had informed both committees holding hearings on Wednesday that he would decline to read from the tome if asked to during the hearings. | Democrats could not even get Mr. Mueller to read from his own report, instead performing their own dramatic recitations about the episodes they sought to highlight in which Mr. Trump was found to have tried to derail the investigation. Mr. Mueller’s team had informed both committees holding hearings on Wednesday that he would decline to read from the tome if asked to during the hearings. |
| Later, asked by Representative Greg Stanton, Democrat of Arizona, which president had first appointed him as a United States attorney, Mr. Mueller could not remember, offering, “I think that was President Bush,.” | |
| “According to my notes, it was President Ronald Reagan who had the honor to do so,” Mr. Stanton replied. | |
| “My mistake,” Mr. Mueller answered. | |
| The performance drew concern from some Democrats. David Axelrod, the strategist who served as a senior adviser in Barack Obama’s White House, gently suggested that Mr. Mueller might not be up to his task. | |
| “This is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years,” Mr. Axelrod wrote on Twitter. “And he does not appear as sharp as he was then.” | |
| Republicans treated Mr. Mueller as a hostile witness and tried to trip him up with a prosecutorial approach, often hectoring the former special counsel about specific findings in the report. | |
| Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee’s senior Republican, challenged Mr. Mueller repeatedly on whether “collusion” and “conspiracy” were the same thing, prompting Mr. Mueller to ultimately respond, “I leave it with the report.” | Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee’s senior Republican, challenged Mr. Mueller repeatedly on whether “collusion” and “conspiracy” were the same thing, prompting Mr. Mueller to ultimately respond, “I leave it with the report.” |
| Mr. Collins also tried to focus what the investigation did not find, asking whether it was accurate that it did not establish that the president “was involved in underlying crime of Russia interference.” | Mr. Collins also tried to focus what the investigation did not find, asking whether it was accurate that it did not establish that the president “was involved in underlying crime of Russia interference.” |
| Mr. Mueller’s response was legalistic: “We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.” | Mr. Mueller’s response was legalistic: “We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.” |
| As Democrats dug into the details of Mr. Mueller’s report, Republican lawmakers focused on attacking the former special counsel, suggesting that his investigation had been tainted and misguided. The Republican questioning offered the most tense moments of the hearing. | As Democrats dug into the details of Mr. Mueller’s report, Republican lawmakers focused on attacking the former special counsel, suggesting that his investigation had been tainted and misguided. The Republican questioning offered the most tense moments of the hearing. |
| Representative John Ratcliffe of Texas berated Mr. Mueller for his handling of the probe, arguing that he had used an “inverted burden of proof” by choosing to detail the president’s conduct without charging him with any crime. | Representative John Ratcliffe of Texas berated Mr. Mueller for his handling of the probe, arguing that he had used an “inverted burden of proof” by choosing to detail the president’s conduct without charging him with any crime. |
| “You wrote 180 pages — 180 pages! — about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided,” Mr. Ratcliffe said. “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.” | “You wrote 180 pages — 180 pages! — about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided,” Mr. Ratcliffe said. “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.” |
| Republicans also sought to undercut the origins of the probe, trying without success to get Mr. Mueller to concede that he had acted in a biased way. Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio went on an extended diatribe about why Mr. Mueller did not choose to charge Joseph Mifsud, the London-based professor who told George Papadopoulos that the Russian government had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. | Republicans also sought to undercut the origins of the probe, trying without success to get Mr. Mueller to concede that he had acted in a biased way. Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio went on an extended diatribe about why Mr. Mueller did not choose to charge Joseph Mifsud, the London-based professor who told George Papadopoulos that the Russian government had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. |
| “You can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements, but the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can’t charge him,” Mr. Jordan said, his voice rising. “I think that’s amazing.” | “You can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements, but the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can’t charge him,” Mr. Jordan said, his voice rising. “I think that’s amazing.” |
| That drew a rare challenge from Mr. Mueller, who said quietly, “I’m not sure I agree with your characterization.” | That drew a rare challenge from Mr. Mueller, who said quietly, “I’m not sure I agree with your characterization.” |
| As the temperature rose in the hearing room, the president’s inner circle also sought to discredit Mr. Mueller. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a posting by Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative bomb thrower, who suggested that the real Mr. Mueller, 74, had been kidnapped and replaced with “a mentally retarded look-alike.” | As the temperature rose in the hearing room, the president’s inner circle also sought to discredit Mr. Mueller. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a posting by Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative bomb thrower, who suggested that the real Mr. Mueller, 74, had been kidnapped and replaced with “a mentally retarded look-alike.” |
| Mr. Trump himself was gentler but no less sparing in his assessment. | Mr. Trump himself was gentler but no less sparing in his assessment. |
| “This has been a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller,” he tweeted, attributing the statement to the Fox News anchor Chris Wallace. | “This has been a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller,” he tweeted, attributing the statement to the Fox News anchor Chris Wallace. |
| The following prepared remarks were released by Mr. Mueller’s office. | The following prepared remarks were released by Mr. Mueller’s office. |
| Good morning Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and members of the Committee. | Good morning Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, and members of the Committee. |
| As you know, in May 2017, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel. I undertook that role because I believed that it was of paramount interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the presidential election. | As you know, in May 2017, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel. I undertook that role because I believed that 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.” | 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: to work quietly, thoroughly, and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome. | My staff and I carried out this assignment with that critical objective in mind: to work quietly, thoroughly, and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome. |
| The order appointing me as Special Counsel directed our Office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. It also included investigating efforts to interfere with, or obstruct, the investigation. | The order appointing me as Special Counsel directed our Office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. It also included investigating efforts to interfere with, or obstruct, the investigation. |
| Throughout the investigation, I continually stressed two things to the team that we had assembled. | Throughout the investigation, I continually stressed two things to the team that we had assembled. |
| First, we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as possible. It was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete, but not to last a day longer than necessary. | First, we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as possible. It was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete, but not to last a day longer than necessary. |
| Second, the investigation needed to be conducted fairly and with absolute integrity. Our team would not leak or take other actions that could compromise the integrity of our work. All decisions were made based on the facts and the law. | Second, the investigation needed to be conducted fairly and with absolute integrity. Our team would not leak or take other actions that could compromise the integrity of our work. All decisions were made based on the facts and the law. |
| During the course of our investigation, we charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes, including 12 officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants have been convicted or pleaded guilty. | During the course of our investigation, we charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes, including 12 officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants have been convicted or pleaded guilty. |
| Certain of the charges we brought remain pending today. For those matters, I stress that the indictments contain allegations, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. | Certain of the charges we brought remain pending today. For those matters, I stress that 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 the 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. | 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 the 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. |
| As you know, I made a few limited remarks about our report when we closed the Special Counsel’s Office in May of this year. There are certain points that bear emphasis. | As you know, I made a few limited remarks about our report when we closed the Special Counsel’s Office in May of this year. There are certain points that bear emphasis. |
| First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. | First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. |
| Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address “collusion,” which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not. | Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address “collusion,” which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence 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 lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable. | Third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable. |
| Finally, as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the President toward 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 a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today. | Finally, as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the President toward 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 a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today. |
| Let me say a further word about my appearance today. | Let me say a further word about my appearance today. |
| It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited. | It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited. |
| First, public testimony could affect several ongoing matters. In some of these matters, court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings. And consistent with longstanding Justice Department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter. | First, public testimony could affect several ongoing matters. In some of these matters, court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the proceedings. And consistent with longstanding Justice Department policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an ongoing matter. |
| Second, the Justice Department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department, and deliberations within our office. These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect. The Department has released the letter discussing the restrictions on my testimony. | Second, the Justice Department has asserted privileges concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department, and deliberations within our office. These are Justice Department privileges that I will respect. The Department has released the letter discussing the restrictions on my testimony. |
| I therefore will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that I know are of public interest. For example, I am unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called “Steele Dossier.” These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the Department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the F.B.I. or the Justice Department. | I therefore will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that I know are of public interest. For example, I am unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called “Steele Dossier.” These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the Department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the F.B.I. or the Justice Department. |
| As I explained when we closed the Special Counsel’s Office in May, our report contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We conducted an extensive investigation over two years. In writing the report, we stated the results of our investigation with precision. We scrutinized every word. | As I explained when we closed the Special Counsel’s Office in May, our report contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We conducted an extensive investigation over two years. In writing the report, we stated the results of our investigation with precision. We scrutinized every word. |
| I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. As I said on May 29: the report is my testimony. And I will stay within that text. | I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today. As I said on May 29: the report is my testimony. And I will stay within that text. |
| And as I stated in May, I also will not comment on the actions of the Attorney General or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor, and I intend to adhere to that role and to the Department’s standards that govern it. | And as I stated in May, I also will not comment on the actions of the Attorney General or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor, and I intend to adhere to that role and to the Department’s standards that govern it. |
| I will be joined today by the Deputy Special Counsel, Aaron Zebley. Mr. Zebley has extensive experience as a federal prosecutor and at the F.B.I., where he served as chief of staff. Mr. Zebley was responsible for the day-to-day oversight of the investigations conducted by our Office. | I will be joined today by the Deputy Special Counsel, Aaron Zebley. Mr. Zebley has extensive experience as a federal prosecutor and at the F.B.I., where he served as chief of staff. Mr. Zebley was responsible for the day-to-day oversight of the investigations conducted by our Office. |
| I also want to again say thank you to the attorneys, the F.B.I. agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years working on this matter, were of the highest integrity. | I also want to again say thank you to the attorneys, the F.B.I. agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years working on this matter, were of the highest integrity. |
| And let me say one more thing. Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American. | And let me say one more thing. Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American. |
| Nicholas Fandos, Katie Benner and Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting |