This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/jul/24/mueller-testimony-live-stream-trump-news-today-russia-obstruction-report-latest-updates-hearing

The article has changed 24 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Mueller says Trump could still be charged with obstruction once he leaves office – live Mueller says Trump could still be charged with obstruction once he leaves office – live
(32 minutes later)
Judiciary hearing likely to stretch long
Jerry Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House judiciary committee, just asked the remaining members of the panel to shorten their questioning due to time constraints.
The hearing was supposed to last three hours, which would mean it would end at 11:40 a.m. given the panel’s 10-minute break. But the likelihood of lawmakers shortening their questioning of Mueller seems ... slim.
Here is Washington bureau chief David Smith’s report from inside the room at Mueller’s hearing:
No wonder Robert Mueller was a reluctant witness. Washington’s partisan divide is again on full display in the packed committee room 2141 in the Rayburn building on Capitol Hill at a hearing unlikely to change many minds.Democrats are carefully guiding the former special counsel through Donald Trump’s various attempts to obstruct justice, including his effort to fire Mueller himself. Members are reading chunks of the report to him because he apparently declined to read it aloud:
One reason Dems are reading the report to Mueller, not the other way around: A congressional source involved in negotiations surrounding Mueller’s appearance says that Mueller’s team told the committees that he would decline to read from his report during the hearing
The downside of this is that the words come out of politicians’ mouths rather than carrying the neutral authority of Mueller’s own voice. He generally offers little more than “Yes”, “True”, “Correct” or “I refer you to the report”. The central Democratic case appears to be: “No one is above the law.”Republicans, for their part, have been grandstanding, often delivering speeches rather than asking questions, trying to chip away at Mueller’s credibility. They have suggested he overstepped by saying he could not exonerate Trump because he deserves the presumption of innocence as much as anyone else.There are about 70 people, many of them young, squeezed into public seating behind Mueller and his aides, watched over by police officers. Reporters are typing on laptops to one side. Whoever is speaking is shown on big TV screens on the walls.The only person who doesn’t want to be here is Mueller himself. Several times he has asked for questions to be repeated and he seems less familiar with his report than many of the members. Famously slow and methodical, these pinballing questions are not his forte. He is a star witness without star power.
Preet Bharara, a former US prosecutor who was fired by Trump, argued that Mueller nearly acknowledged that the president would have been indicted if he were not in office.
Citing an exchange between the special counsel and Representative Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California, Bharara said that Mueller was indicating that the only reason he didn’t charge Trump was because of a policy outlined by the Office of the Legal Counsel.
This is very very close to Mueller saying that but for the OLC memo, Trump would have been indicted https://t.co/gWuM1mEg2M
That OLC policy warns against indicting a sitting president. It reads: “The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”
Mueller replied to a question from Representative Ken Buck, a Republican from Colorado, that Trump could be charged after he leaves office.Mueller replied to a question from Representative Ken Buck, a Republican from Colorado, that Trump could be charged after he leaves office.
Congressman: "Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?"Mueller: "Yes."#MuellerHearing pic.twitter.com/ZCx89HWfE1Congressman: "Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?"Mueller: "Yes."#MuellerHearing pic.twitter.com/ZCx89HWfE1
Mueller has repeatedly said he did not feel he could charge Trump because of longstanding Justice Department policy warning against indicting a sitting president. But that policy would no longer apply after Trump leaves office.Mueller has repeatedly said he did not feel he could charge Trump because of longstanding Justice Department policy warning against indicting a sitting president. But that policy would no longer apply after Trump leaves office.
Trump has once again weighed in on Mueller’s hearing to repeat his claim of “no obstruction.”Trump has once again weighed in on Mueller’s hearing to repeat his claim of “no obstruction.”
“Mueller was asked whether or not the investigation was impeded in any way, and he said no.” In other words, there was NO OBSTRUCTION. @KatiePavlich @FoxNews“Mueller was asked whether or not the investigation was impeded in any way, and he said no.” In other words, there was NO OBSTRUCTION. @KatiePavlich @FoxNews
But Mueller has over and over again in his testimony emphasized that he did not consider it his team’s responsibility to determine whether Trump obstructed justice.But Mueller has over and over again in his testimony emphasized that he did not consider it his team’s responsibility to determine whether Trump obstructed justice.
Instead, Mueller laid out several instances in his report that may constitute obstruction of justice and left the decision up to Congress. He has also repeatedly emphasized that, in accordance with Justice Department policy, he did not believe he had the ability to indict a sitting president.Instead, Mueller laid out several instances in his report that may constitute obstruction of justice and left the decision up to Congress. He has also repeatedly emphasized that, in accordance with Justice Department policy, he did not believe he had the ability to indict a sitting president.
Under questioning from Representative Ken Buck, a Republican from Colorado, Mueller cited his inability to indict a sitting president.Under questioning from Representative Ken Buck, a Republican from Colorado, Mueller cited his inability to indict a sitting president.
“One of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there,” Mueller said of his team’s considerations of Trump’s potential obstruction of justice.“One of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there,” Mueller said of his team’s considerations of Trump’s potential obstruction of justice.
Mueller was citing a long-standing Justice Department policy outlined by the Office of Legal Counsel. The official policy reads: “The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”Mueller was citing a long-standing Justice Department policy outlined by the Office of Legal Counsel. The official policy reads: “The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”
But, but, but: the special counsel noted that Trump could be charged after he left office.But, but, but: the special counsel noted that Trump could be charged after he left office.
Mueller has deflected questions dozens of timesMueller has deflected questions dozens of times
Mueller has declined or deflected questions asked by House members 60 times already, according to a count by NBC News.Mueller has declined or deflected questions asked by House members 60 times already, according to a count by NBC News.
And CBS News noted that Mueller has provided one-word responses at least 41 times.And CBS News noted that Mueller has provided one-word responses at least 41 times.
Mueller confirmed in response to a question from Representative Cedric Richmond, a Democrat from Louisiana, that Trump asked staff to falsify records connected to the special counsel’s investigation.Mueller confirmed in response to a question from Representative Cedric Richmond, a Democrat from Louisiana, that Trump asked staff to falsify records connected to the special counsel’s investigation.
Rep. Richmond: "So it's fair to say that the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?"Mueller: "I would say that's generally a summary." pic.twitter.com/GhZepIkn7yRep. Richmond: "So it's fair to say that the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?"Mueller: "I would say that's generally a summary." pic.twitter.com/GhZepIkn7y
Booker: Report is enough to start impeachment proceedingsBooker: Report is enough to start impeachment proceedings
Our colleague Lauren Gambino reports from the NAACP convention in Detroit that presidential candidate Cory Booker said Mueller’s report “is enough of an indication that the House of representatives should begin impeachment proceedings against the president.”Our colleague Lauren Gambino reports from the NAACP convention in Detroit that presidential candidate Cory Booker said Mueller’s report “is enough of an indication that the House of representatives should begin impeachment proceedings against the president.”
You can expect to hear that line a lot from pro-impeachment Democrats if Mueller’s hearing doesn’t produce any bombshell moments.You can expect to hear that line a lot from pro-impeachment Democrats if Mueller’s hearing doesn’t produce any bombshell moments.
So far, Mueller’s testimony hasn’t advanced impeachment causeSo far, Mueller’s testimony hasn’t advanced impeachment cause
There seems to be a general consensus building that Mueller has so far not helped the cause of pro-impeachment Democrats.There seems to be a general consensus building that Mueller has so far not helped the cause of pro-impeachment Democrats.
The special counsel’s answers have been slow and deliberate, and he has stuck to his commitment to avoid going beyond the details of his report. There have seemingly been no bombshell moments for pro-impeachment Democrats to point to in their argument to start an inquiry.The special counsel’s answers have been slow and deliberate, and he has stuck to his commitment to avoid going beyond the details of his report. There have seemingly been no bombshell moments for pro-impeachment Democrats to point to in their argument to start an inquiry.
A longtime Washington Post congressional reporter put it bluntly:A longtime Washington Post congressional reporter put it bluntly:
No mincing words here: bad morning for pro-impeachment crowd. They needed a bravo testimony to sway public opinion (and Pelosi). That hasn’t happened, so far. Many hours remain. Let’s see.No mincing words here: bad morning for pro-impeachment crowd. They needed a bravo testimony to sway public opinion (and Pelosi). That hasn’t happened, so far. Many hours remain. Let’s see.
Unsurprisingly, the president is watching the special counsel’s hearing. He just tweeted a “quote” from Fox News anchor Chris Wallace. But Trump’s Twitter quotes should be taken with a grain of salt, given his penchant for being less than exact in his accuracy.Unsurprisingly, the president is watching the special counsel’s hearing. He just tweeted a “quote” from Fox News anchor Chris Wallace. But Trump’s Twitter quotes should be taken with a grain of salt, given his penchant for being less than exact in his accuracy.
“This has been a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller.” Chris Wallace @FoxNews“This has been a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller.” Chris Wallace @FoxNews
Representative Jim Jordan, a close congressional ally of Trump, is pushing Mueller on the origins of the investigation, even though he specifically said he would not touch on that.
The mild-mannered Mueller adopted perhaps his harshest tone so far. “I’m not sure I agree with your characterizations,” Mueller told the Ohio Republican as he lambasted the investigation.
Jordan specifically dug into the role that Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud played in sparking the special counsel’s investigation. The Washington Post has more on Mifsud:
The Maltese-born academic has not surfaced publicly since [October 2017], days after Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about details of their interactions. Among them, Papadopoulos told investigators, was an April 2016 meeting in which Mifsud alerted him that the Russians had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton in the form of ‘thousands of emails.’
The conversation between Mifsud and Papadopoulos, eventually relayed by an Australian diplomat to U.S. government officials, was cited by [Mueller] as the event that set in motion the FBI probe into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
With [Barr’s] review of the counterintelligence investigation underway, the origins of the inquiry itself are now in the spotlight — and with them, the role of Mifsud, a little-known figure.
In Mifsud’s absence, a number of President Trump’s allies and advisers have been floating a provocative theory: that the Maltese professor was a Western intelligence plant.
Mueller’s new tagline: “I can’t get into that”
Sticking to his opening statement, Mueller is strenuously avoiding discussing internal Justice Department deliberations.
Representative Martha Roby, a Republican from Alabama, repeatedly tried to press Mueller on his discussions with Attorney General William Barr after the completion of the special counsel’s investigation.
Democrats have criticized Barr for his characterization of Mueller’s report before the redacted version of it was publicly released. They claimed the attorney general had purposely tried to craft a public impression more favorable to Trump than the details of the report actually allowed.
Mueller sent a letter to Barr raising concerns about his summary of the report, a letter that was later leaked to the press. Roby asked Mueller about how the letter found its way into the press, but he declined to discuss that or anything else about his discussions with Barr after the investigation concluded. “I can’t get into that,” Mueller repeatedly told Roby.
Well, that was predictable. Representative Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas, grilled Mueller on the anti-Trump views of former FBI agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
While Strzok was working on the special counsel’s investigation, he exchanged text messages criticizing Trump with Page, with whom he was having an extramarital affair.
Republicans have repeatedly pointed toward Strzok’s anti-Trump views to argue that the probe was biased from the beginning.
But Mueller told the committee that he did not know Strzok hated Trump when he was hired and that the special counsel “acted swiftly” to remove him from the investigation once the messages were discovered.
Gohmert took less than kindly to Mueller’s responses, as a CNN reporter noted.
Gohmert yells at Mueller saying, “You perpetuated injustice!”
Mueller told the House judiciary committee that he had no conflicts of interest preventing him from serving as special counsel.
Trump has repeatedly claimed, most recently this morning, that Mueller was “highly conflicted,” in part because he applied to retake his post as FBI director. But there’s no evidence that Mueller wanted to become the director of the FBI again after serving in the post for 12 years.
Trump has also claimed other members of the special counsel’s teams were “Angry Democrats,” but Mueller used his opening statement to emphasize that all of his staffers were of the “highest integrity.”
Democrats confirming most damning portions of report while Republicans criticize process
So far, most Democrats on the House judiciary committee have used their time to confirm some of the most damning portions of Mueller’s report.
For example, Democratic Representative Hank Johnson is walking through Trump directing former White House counsel Don McGahn to fire the special counsel.
But Republicans like John Ratcliffe have largely used their time to question the scope of Mueller’s investigation and whether his probe followed Justice Department regulations.
Mueller declined to say whether anything in the second volume of his report, which focuses on Trump’s potential obstruction of justice, is impeachable conduct.
“Our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct,” Mueller said in response to a question from Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican.
Mueller addresses jail time for obstruction
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democratic congresswoman from Texas, asked Mueller whether obstruction of justice would warrant substantial jail time.
“Yes,” Mueller replied.
John Ratcliffe, a Republican on the House judiciary committee, is using his five minutes of questions to ... not ask many questions.
Ratcliffe is emphasizing the presumption of innocence in the US justice system, arguing that that presumption extends to sitting presidents. And he is accusing the special counsel of violating every principle set forth for prosecutors.
His rant left little to no opportunity for Mueller to respond.
Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House judiciary committee, asked Mueller to confirm that his report did not exonerate the president, despite Trump’s repeated claims of “no collusion” and “no obstruction”.
“Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” Nadler asked. “No,” Mueller replied.
Mueller said, “It is correct that my report does not exonerate President Trump for obstruction of justice.”
“Did you actually totally exonerate the president?” –House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Nadler“No.” –Robert Mueller pic.twitter.com/m6HxyJqJdK
Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House judiciary committee, is hammering Mueller on the distinction between the terms collusion and conspiracy.
“I’m reading your report, sir,” Collins said sternly as he noted the use of the term collusion in Mueller’s report, which the congressman said was equated to conspiracy.
The distinction may seem trivial, but it matters a great deal to Trump, who has started a mantra of “no collusion” to dismiss Mueller’s investigation. But the special counsel said in his opening statement that his report did not touch on collusion because it was “not a legal term.”