EN VIVO: El exfiscal especial Robert Mueller testifica sobre la investigación de la trama rusa

I recommend you to no but worley question and yes how about good morning we interrupt our usual programming to go directly to the capitol where the expected public testimony of former special prosecutor Robert Muller who directed the investigation into the so-called Russian plot begins in minutes the expectation is not It could be higher throughout the country. It will be the first time that he answers questions from congressmen in public about his conclusions about Russian interference in the 2016 elections. There we see the arrival of Robert Muller, the special prosecutor who will be sworn in in a few minutes in the plenary session. of the capitol something unusual will be sitting next to charly who is also his right hand man to his special assistant when the director of the fbi died but also in this investigation into the russian plot the two will be sitting and the arrival of the former attorney general to the congressional chamber where two different committees will be in charge of the questions to

robert

interesting model who are both republicans and democrats on each side has their different questions conclusions that they want to see better has said that this document of more than 400 pages on the Russian plot in the 2016 elections is in fact his testimony, it is expected that he will speak very little that is not directly related to this document and now we see prior to Robert's swearing-in along with both Republican and Democratic congressmen of two committees that will be in charge of the questions it is expected that he will first be sworn in and then there will be comments by the majority leader of the committee in charge of the question session who will be a Democrat then the leader of that committee the minority Republican will also give his first appearance and then Robert muller will be in charge of a statement yesterday the justice department asked him to limit himself directly to the conclusions of his report that took more than two years to produce and already president chapa has been tweeting incessantly about this already today he has published at least eight messages on his 'twitter' account insisting, among other things, that there has not been, according to collusion and obstruction, javier vega is in the capitol cycle good morning how are you doing jose indeed very good morning active president tromba although he had said that This appearance by special prosecutor Robert Mueller was not going to continue and we are watching these images live through the Telemundo signal.

There is a lot of expectation that has been generated here in Washington. From very early on, we observed long lines of people who were stationed at the different entrances. of the legislative buildings to try to enter this chamber to this judicial committee of the House of Representatives - and also to try to have a place on the intelligence committee, which is where he will go after a three-hour recess, first in the judicial committee and then a brief recess to go to the intelligence committee and answer the questions of the congressmen. We know that the Democratic congressmen met to do a kind of simulation that they have some answers to some questions already written among them, for example because the investigators summoned us to donald trump juniors to the president's son to ask them about this meeting on June 16 in the tromp tower with a Russian lawyer who had offered them information against Hillary Clinton's campaign but also a question that the Democrats consider fundamental if the president of back would not have the presidential inauguration if he had or would have charges or would face charges for obstruction of justice, that will be one of the insistences of the Democrats this day and it is practically one of the last opportunities they have to argue it to the American public opinion on this issue.

Republicans, on the other hand, have also made their speech public and have said that Milan cannot say anything more and they will point out that Russian interference in any case in the election comes and was allowed since the administration of Barack Obama, yes, with these live images and with what has been possible to advance in this regard, we return the microphones to the Jose studio in Javier Vega, thank you very much, the leader of the majority of this committee is already beginning to establish the rules today, the congressman from New York who is the leader of this this congressional investigation is already talking about investigation the president's behavior included successes of his report public attacks on the investigation efforts such as public to control public and private attempts to encourage witnesses not to collaborate with each other In the most surprising cases, President Trump ordered his lawyer to fire him and after he issued a statement on the matter, his former campaign manager asked him to convince the attorney general to limit his work and tried to prevent everyone from collaborating with his investigation, although The department's policy did not allow him when the president, for this reason you indicated that this did not exonerate him, anyone else acting in this way would have been accused of a crime and in this nation not even the president is above the law, which takes him to the work of this commission responsibility integrity and clarity of these are the characteristics of the work of this commission and how they are going to evaluate us null director we have the responsibility to analyze the initial that he gives discovered he recognizes it when he says that the constitution requires a different process in the criminal justice system to formally accuse a president of acting inappropriately this is how the work of this commission begins we will follow the example of victor muller we will act with integrity we will analyze the facts that lead us we will consider all the appropriate remedial mechanisms we will be recommendations to the chamber when our work is completed we are going to do this work because there must be responsibility for the conduct described in your report

especial

ly as it concerns the president thank you again mining director we are eager to hear your testimonies I have the pleasure of give the floor to the minority leader on the commission mr. hollins of georgia for his opening statement thank you mr. president thank you for being here for two years until the moment when the report was released in bulería in the three months since then The country has been told to wait and believe, it was said that there really was collusion, although the investigator did not find it.

When the report was released, you said that no Russian or American had conspired with Russia to interfere in the elections, but that He had acted like 'Alice against the United States. We are here to ask questions about the report and we will do so after this extensive investigation. This culminates Mr. Mula's participation in this investigation. The proof of the accusations that are still pending is very high,

especial

ly with our cases. has said that this investigation began as an investigation into what people asked for in the 2016 elections. Its unique conclusion is that Russia penetrated Democratic Party servers that revealed information associated with the campaign.

It was also revealed that if the cheating candidate had sought help from Russia his conclusion was that it was not like that his family advisors did not do it the report concludes that no one in the president's campaign acted in collusion or constitution with Russia the president wanted this analysis of the report to determine his innocence in the eyes of the American public where His innocence was established. The president had a comprehensively negative attitude toward the investigation. The president asked his lawyer if there were conflicts that could disqualify him from the job, but he did not put an end to the investigation.

The president knew he was innocent. Those are the facts. Fournier the intervention of Russia that there was no continuation of the president and nothing that we hear today you can say those facts but there is an element that is still pending how this FBI investigation into the president began I want to hear the testimony of the gentleman to read about the origin of the investigation just as it continues to be investigated how unfounded gossip can be used to launch an FBI investigation against a private citizen or a president those results will be made known and we have to understand to know how our police agencies can be used to interfere in the lives of a private citizen a potential political candidate due to the political leanings of some members of the FBI it will still determine what it means to be an American every American has a voice in our democracy and must protect the sanctity of their way of thinking every American has the right to presumption of innocence if we do nothing else today we have to be more alert about foreign interference ensuring that the powers of public officials are not used as weapons to undermine the constitutional rights of citizens we also have to take advantage of this opportunity the months dedicated to this investigation have contributed to situations that we have in the country.

We found ourselves stuck in the work of the commission and the chamber. Every week that I leave my family and my children, I do so to come to this very important place because I believe that here we can do things that were difficult for the population when I came to work here, we have achieved a lot in those first six years of working in a bipartisan manner with many of my friends in another party and who are here despite this year since the majority does not like this president, we have achieved nothing except talking over and over again about this investigation when our country faces multiple crises that must be resolved.

This audience decided a long time ago to tell the truth and now we have known for a long time what we have to do today is let that truth give us confidence. and I hope, Mr. President, that we can put an end to this process, thank you, Marco, I will present to you the witness today Robert Mueller Serbs as director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013, most recently he was a special prosecutor in the Department of Justice supervising the investigation into interference of Russia in the 2016 presidential elections. He graduated from Princeton University and then obtained a master's degree from the University of New York and the University of Virginia.

Mr. Mailer is accompanied by his lawyer, A Bronze Bleu, who was his special prosecutor, he pointed out in this investigation we welcome our witness we thank him for participating in this session if he stands up he will take the oath he raised his hand of pure penalty of perjury that the testimony he is going to give is the truth with the help of god the witness You have responded affirmatively, please take into account that your written statement will be incorporated into the file in its entirety. Therefore, I ask you to summarize your testimony in five minutes.

You can begin, director, my blog. Good morning, Mr. President, Mr. Collins, members of the commission, as you know, in May 2017, the acting secretary of justice suggested that he be seen as a special prosecutor. I took on that task because it seemed to me that it was of utmost importance for the action to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the presidential elections as he told me at that time. At the time the acting attorney general this was necessary so that the American people could have such confidence in the outcome my staff and I accomplished this task objectively we worked discreetly silently and with integrity so that the public could have full confidence in the outcome The order appointing me as special counsel directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

This included investigating any nexus or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. It also included investigating efforts to interfere or obstruct our investigation throughout the investigation of this that two points the team we had formed first we had to do our job as thoroughly as possible and as quickly as possible it was in the public interest that our investigation be completed and that It will not last a day longer than necessary. Second, the investigation had to be conducted fairly and with absolute integrity. Our team was not going to leak or take any other action that would compromise the integrity of our work.

All decisions were based on the facts and the information. law during the course of our investigation we brought charges with more than 30 individuals who had committed federal crimes including 12 officers of the russian armed forces 7 have pleaded guilty some of the charges that we brought independently and for those matters I must highlight that in the indictments there are allegations and that each defendant has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in addition to the criminal charges that we formulated as required by the regulations of the department of justice we presented a confidential report to the secretary of justice at the conclusion of our investigation the report establishes the results of our work the reasons for our decisions to file or not to file charges the attorney general most of that report as you know I have made some limited statements about the report when we closed the special prosecutor's office in May of this year and there are some points that need to be highlighted first our investigation determined that the russian government interfered in our elections in a broad and systematic manner second the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign had conspired with the russian government in these interference activitieselection we did not address the issue of collusion which is not a legal term we focused on whether there was sufficient evidence to charge any member of the campaign with having participated in a criminal conspiracy third our investigation into efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was Of paramount importance, obstruction of justice affects the government's efforts to determine the truth and hold those responsible accountable.

As described in volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the president toward the investigation based on policies and principles of the department of justice we decided that we could not determine whether the president had committed a crime that was our decision at the time he is still today I should say something more about my appearance today it is unusual for a prosecutor presents testimony about a criminal investigation and given my role as a prosecutor there are reasons why my testimony necessarily has to be limited first a public testimony can touch on different matters or matters still pending some of these matters by court orders judicial orders are limited the dissemination of information to protect the integrity of the process in accordance with long-standing policies of the department of justice it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way on pending matters second the department of justice has invoked privileges on certain information and decisions on pending matters in the department of justice and deliberations within our office these are privileges of the department that I will respect the department has released a letter discussing the limitations on my testimony therefore I will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that I know are of public interest for example I cannot refer to questions about her the beginning of the FBI investigation and about Russia that occurred months before my appointment or matters related to 12 steve this is currently being investigated by the department any questions about these topics by Therefore, it should be directed to the FBI or the Department of Justice, as I explained when we closed the special prosecutor's office in May, the determinations of our report in the analyzes and decisions and the reasons for these decisions are indicated there, we did an in-depth investigation for two years and we prepared the report we precisely indicated the results of our investigation we were careful with every word I am going to try to make a summary of that investigation in my testimony today as I said on May 29, the report is my testimony and I stick to it To your text, as I said in May, I cannot comment on the activities of the congressional attorney general.

I was appointed prosecutor and I intend to continue in that role and the standards that come with it. The deputy prosecutor is with us today. He has extensive experience as a federal prosecutor. And at the FBI, where he was my chief of staff, he is responsible for the day-to-day management of the extinction team. I also want to thank again the lawyers, agents of the FBI News, analysts and the professional staff who helped us carry out this investigation. in a fair and independent manner these individuals spent almost two years working on these issues with the utmost integrity let me say something else over the course of my career i have seen numerous challenges to our democracy the efforts of the russian government to interfere in our elections They are among the most serious, as I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, with the 5-minute rule, we move on to the questions. I will begin by fixing and reporting the statements of the governor, former special prosecutor in the Russian plot that he said in effect and I am going to quote him the report is my testimony it is expected to remain within the parameters of those 448 pages of investigation that were published a few months ago I am maloof lawyer analyst is with us this morning joseph in the model special prosecutor's statement is clearly saying that apart from what those 448 pages are, he is not going to delve into anything at all and it is something very important to him.

You realize that modern wants politics, this he wants to maintain his integrity and his reputation and simply report the investigation that he did as an investigator not not advocating to impeach the president or not and it is important to see that he is uncomfortable he does not want to be there he clearly wants to prevent his report from becoming a political game between the Democrats and the Republicans and obviously that It is inevitable, of course, when talking about the four points that he says he is going to limit himself to delving into today's morning first and that is important to emphasize, he definitely says that Mother Russia intervened in the 2016 elections.

Absolutely, I think that is the most important thing for Möller wants to alert the country that the interference of russia whether to help donald trump with a future to help a democratic candidate is a significant problem and probably brings up the most important thing in all of this where politicians want to talk about how to impeach the president more than anything else if each side has their fundamental points that they want to emphasize independently sometimes of what this report says about the Russian plot in the other three points that mention returning first of all that the report found that no one in President Trump's campaign neither coordinated nor cooperated with the Russians In this intervention that they had in the 2016 elections but that then obstruction or not on the part of the president in terms of the investigation and the investigators, a conclusion was not reached as well as whether or not the president caused the obstruction of the investigation into the investigators during this process but now these hours that the former prosecutor is going to him apparently appears to be on two different 22 different committees if he keeps strictly mentioning what they say these 448 pages that the congressmen are going to do it will be difficult clearly what the Congressmen want it to be more than what Modera just mentioned.

They want to know why he did not accuse the president of obstruction of justice. Was it because of the policy of the Department of Justice or was it because the evidence was insufficient? Let's remember what was sent by the attorney general, the past said. that a president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice because the president is in charge of justice something that is not correct but that the president uses to maintain his position that he cannot be guilty of obstruction so pushing love is going to be important in order to determine if those ten scenarios that he mentions were serious enough scenarios to begin an impeachment trial because he mentioned the process in Congress or if they were simply insufficient evidence with collusion that is obviously not legal and that is why he mentions there was no conspiracy but it was Of all that, obviously we have to wait to see what else they can get from them.

Thank you very much for being with us this morning here at Noticias Telemundo. We will have much more about these statements from the engine today at Noticias Telam and not at 6 35 30 centers. For now, what the prosecutor has said is that the words that are here in this 448-page study are his testimony, we will be leandro and you can see this live through news telemundo.com see you on world news at 630 536 graphic questions about 10 instances of obstruction of justice and he gave some answers to some of those questions you would have to verify us director mulas we thank you for coming to explain your investigation and determinations I have reviewed it and I believe that anyone who committed this conduct would be criminally prosecuted that work is vital to this condition and the American people because no one is above the law now I give the floor to Mr.

Coles thank you Mr. President we follow this five minute rule we are going to have some basis for those questions I am going to try of speaking more slowly the corral in your press conference you said that any money from your office could beyond the report that the word common sense and since you were not going to give information about anything additional to that you had already said everything you have to say that's how it is the office was closed on May 29 since then he has given interviews obtained new information as a special prosecutor from the moment the office was closed in May he helped himself by doing interviews and can confirm that he is not still a special prosecutor I am not one in at some point the investigation was limited your investigation was stopped or your investigation was harmed you or your team gave you more questions members of congress before today's session tell me that the team included lawyers about fbi agents 140 those 40 agents From the FBI, lawyers, intelligence analysts and forensic accountants participated, if you did not carry out more than 200 combinatorial raids, you carried out raids and requested communications and records very quickly in your report, you did a lot of work, many combinatorial raids, in your opinion, a detailed extract, that's right, it's true. that the evidence collected during the investigation is true that that investigation does not establish that the present was not involved in Russian political interference in the elections we find insufficient evidence of the president's guilt the answer would be yes if it did not establish that the president or his associates would have participated in the active activities or the penetration of computer systems perpetrated by Russia in summary two pages 76 I refer to what the report says your investigation did not determine that members of the back campaign had conspired in coordination with the Russian government in the interference electoral thank you and although your report indicates that collusion is not a specific crime, you say that conspiracy is, in colloquial terms, solutions and conspiracy are synonyms, you have to repeat in your question solution is not a specific crime or a term in common use in the general law conspiracy if in the colloquial context collision and conspiracy are essentially sinologists correct in your report you describe that as defined in legal dictionaries corruption and conspiracy are almost the minimum you said in your press conference and eight words carefully you are saying something different To what the report says, if you repeat the quote, I can evaluate what it allows to mix.

You said that it followed the report of excitement. Your report in the report. You say that corruption and conspiracy are nothing but good on page 180 of the volume, you say. how legal dictionaries define collusion is mostly synonymous with conspiracy as established by US law you said you had chosen your words carefully you are contradicting the report and not if you look at the language I am reading your report action or page 180 this is from your report and I refer to the report then if they are synonymous then through your own report we can eliminate the issue of corruption and conspiracy at some point you analyzed other countries mentioned in the investigation other countries were investigated I cannot discuss others the lady from California director me smell, as the president of the commission said when we talked about obstruction of justice today, the investigation into the Russian attacks that began its investigation is where the investigation into possible obstruction exploded to what extent the Russian government interfered in the presidential elections and you can repeat the extent to which the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential elections well, particularly regarding computer crimes were involved in volume 1 you say that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential elections in a broad way and systematic, you also describe in the report that the president of the Transformá Brooch campaign shared with a Russian agent who was selling the campaign strategy to get Democratic votes in the states of the center of the country and survey data from the correct campaign also spoke about the status of Trump's campaign and Marta Fort's strategy to win Democratic votes in the center of the country months before that meeting, Maná Force shared internal data with Lenin and continued to do so for some time after the August meeting. determines that Marta Fort informed him that clips about Trump's campaign and plans to win the elections and that included campaign messages polling data and discussed states that were crucial that emaná forum identified as michigan wisconsin pennsylvania and minnesota correct her investigation determined who requested that this information be shared, I would have to refer me to the report, we do not have the revised version based on your investigation, clearly, how could the Russian government have used this data to increase its interference in the campaign, but not your investigation determined that the Russian government Russia thought it would benefit if it beat any of the candidates which candidate the president the trump campaign showed thanks to receiving help from russia expected to benefit from information stolen and made known through russia's efforts correct the investigation what was what The investigation determined regarding the frequency of contacts between the trump campaign and the russian government would have to refer me toGood report, we reviewed it and counted 126 contacts between Russia and its agents and officials of the associated thrombus campaign.

That sounds correct. I can't tell you, I understand the statistics. I thank you for being here and for presenting your report of your testimony and I believe the report. that the American people have discovered many things first that the Russians wanted to be sure that the Russians launched a vast campaign to educate the elections they penetrated the Democratic party and obtained the Democratic plan of action for the elections there were meetings between campaign officials and Russia - sharing with them internal data polls and other information so while the Russians were generating propaganda to influence the outcome of the elections they were armed with internal information that the Democratic Party had stolen from information they had received from Mr.

Manna Strong in the campaign of the troll my colleagues to investigate the efforts to cover this information from public view but I think it is important for the country to learn the seriousness of the underlying problem discovered in your report and with that said the word lover is given and allows me to summarize your statement this morning you say that the monument on the issue of conspiracy the prosecutor determined that it had not been established that members of the trump campaign had conspired coordinated with the russian government in its interference activities in volume 2 you say that the special could not determine whether a crime of justice had been committed by the right president that's when you say that he was not making a traditional statement and the prosecution at the bottom of page 12 attempts says the following the evidence we obtained about the sections of the president of intention present difficult issues that prevent us from reaching the conclusion of criminal conduct.

Therefore, this report does not conclude that the president has committed a crime, nor does it exonerate him. Reading your report correctly, you say at all times, your team by policies and principles of the department of justice that policies or principles of the department of justice establish the legal precedent that a person is not exonerated if not proven guilty may repeat the last part of its policy or principle of the department of justice and establishes the legal standard that a person investigated He is not exonerated if he cannot be proven guilty of criminal conduct. That's where it comes from.

I imagine, where is that policy that says that? To me, I'll give you an example where the Department of Justice has already determined that a person under investigation is not exonerated. because his innocence was not determined I can but I only have five minutes let's say I can't find him I say why because the job of the special prosecutor does not exist in one part it says that you must determine the innocence of determining his investment was that is not in any document neither in its orders nor in the regulation does it mean the special neither in the preceding opinions nor in the jurisprudence of work nor special prosecutor because it does not exist because with all due respect the director it was not the job of the special prosecutor's office to determine the innocence of donald trump for have it because the founding principle of our system of injustice is the presumption of innocence that applies to everyone everyone has the right to that including sitting presidents there is no presumption of innocence prosecutors never ever have to determine director the special prosecutor applied this inverted formula that I cannot find and that does not exist as you have said in department policies and I use it to write a report and in the first line of your report the first line of the report says how you read it this morning the prosecutor was authorized special to give the secretary of justice a confidential report explaining whether decisions were made to prosecute or not in the special prosecutor's office, this is how the correct report begins, he commented, this is the director's problem, the special prosecutor did not do that in volume one, he does it in volume 2 with respect to potential obstruction of justice you do not make a determination to prosecute or decline no decision is reached you have not told us this morning you say in the report that you did not make any determination all respect director did not follow the regulations that say write a confidential report on decisions reached nowhere does it say write a report on decisions that were not made you wrote 180 pages 180 pages on decisions other than those that were not reached about potential crimes that were not caused and with all due respect in doing that you violated each of the most sacred principles of the tradition of our prosecutors by not doing external analyzes on potential crimes the country has to know this while listening to the democrats and socialists on the other side when they do these dramatized readings of this report the volume 2 was not authorized in under the law a legal standard was written that does not exist in the department of justice and was registered in contravention of the principles of the department of justice on extrapolation of the prosecution I agree with the president when also that Don Alto is not above the law but it certainly should not be below it either, which is where you put it in part 2, volume 2 of this report, thank you, Mr.

President, director, what is it that the president of the house of the trump campaign is giving crucial information? to an agent from romania there were many other ways russia undermines our democracy along with the evidence in volume 1 i can't think of a more serious need to investigate so i'm going to ask you some questions on the topic of destruction of justice in what concerning volume 2 on page 12 of volume 2 you indicate that there was sufficient legal basis to investigate potential obstruction of an indication concerning the president correct page 12 volume 2 to which portion of the page you refer we determined that there was sufficient legal basis to investigate potential obstruction of justice by the president go through the report also describes at least 10 incidents of potential imprisonment of justice not investigated by you and your team right if in fact in the summary if it does not serve as a guide one of these acts of destruction from who investigated and I have put them on the screen on page 157 you describe his actions and they range from the president's efforts to limit the special counsel's investigation the president's efforts to have the attorney general take over the investigation the president's orders to deny that he had ordered the dismissal of the special prosecutor and others, that is not correct, I refer you now to what you wrote, director, the pattern of the president's conduct in general casts on the president's sections and what can be inferred from his intention does that mean that you You have to investigate all of his conduct to determine motivation and when you talk about the role of the president's conduct including ten possible cases of obstruction that you when I talk about pattern of conduct that includes this Diaz possible cases of obstruction that I investigate I have to refer me to the report by the characterization let's return to the screen in each of those ten potential instances of obstruction of justice you analyze three elements of obstruction of justice act this obstruction and a link between the act and the official function and intention correct you write on page 178 of the volume 2 of the report for the president's actions to end the criminal investigation his own conduct to protect himself embarrassing descriptions or legal problems would be corrupt conduct correct opening the screen even with the evidence you found on page 176 volume 2 the evidence which indicates that a thorough FBI investigation could shed light on the actions of the president and his campaign that would constitute criminal actions of political concern.

I refer to the language of the report. that is potential obstruction of justice. It is relevant if on page 157 you say that the Obstruction of justice may be to protect someone's interests, limit liability or avoid personal embarrassment. Correct, you can repeat your question now that I have the language on the screen. It is correct that obstruction of justice may be motivated by the desire to protect interests. of an individual against investigations that could reveal criminal investigations go gray and you can actually read me the last question is the question of the last question is was about the language on the screen asking him if that was correct and a guilty plea to obstruction of justice could lead to prolonged imprisonment, correct again, can you repeat the question to make sure that I answer you accurately, obstruction of justice can lead to a prison sentence, if the gentleman from Wisconsin runs out of time, thank you, Mr.

President, I will begin by reading the regulation with special prosecutor under which he was assigned, at the end of his investigation, the secretary of justice will give him a confidential report explaining the non-prosecution decisions reached special and when he says he must provide, it means that the individual is obliged to deliver what he was assigned asks you have no room I would have to read the statute I just read it to you in your report it indicates we have decided not to make a traditional prosecutorial determination I am trying to find that quote you can speak directly into the microphone in volume 26 we decided not to make a traditional prosecutorial determination fair and at the beginning it's something that you decided that they couldn't cause a sitting president to the president because we have all this investigation into president trump that the other side is talking about when you knew you couldn't channel it you don't know where it's going to stop the investigation and the opinion itself says that the investigation can continue even if the president is not prosecuted, if they are not going to prosecute the president, then they continue fishing.

Observation, they can certainly cause other people, but they cannot cause a president in correct office, true, there is 182 pages of evidence including hundreds of references to FBI interviews of individuals who were never cross-examined and where special tax regulations to explain prosecution decisions or our foundation of where you are reading me I am reading you read my question can be repeated In 182 pages of evidence there are hundreds of references to 302 where there was no clear explanation to explain the prosecution's decision and this is one of those areas that I cannot discuss and I would send you a report, look, there are 182 pages, Mr.

Saturday and I was on this commission during Clinton's impeachment trial. I recognize that the special counsel's regulations under which I am under are different from what they are now. On multiple occasions in his report he indicated that President Clinton could have committed actions that merited a impeachment but it was up to the House of Representatives to determine how to proceed. You never use that term of conduct that tells me an impeachment, as the lady from 'dancing said, it is true that there is nothing in volume 2 of the line report that the president may have committed conduct that warranted impeachment, we maintained the focus of our investigation, the mandate that had been given to us not to analyze other conduct, the mandate that we received was to develop this report with all due respect, it seems that there are a couple of statements What you have done is not up to me to decide what the commission should decide, you do not use the term conduct that contemplates an impeachment trial if nothing prevented you from doing then I repeat what Mr.

Rap ​​said even the president is innocent until If his guilt is proven, it turns me around, thank you, Mr. President. The first is what Mr. Nobody said about his career. He is a model of rectitude based on his investigation. How the President Tram reacted to his appointment. He referred you to the report, wherever you look, there is a quote on page 78 where it says when the president was told that the special prosecutor had been appointed, the president sat back in his chair and said my God, this is terrible, this is the end of my presidency, I'm that's what the secretary told him.

I do not know with certainty that people of origin are not like that, apparently it was in some notes from a sessions assistant. He was not satisfied with the appointment of the special prosecutor of Zaldupe because of his reputation. The secretary of justice appealed for his participation in the correct campaign. recusal indicates that the secretary cannot be part of the investigation correct that is the consequence of the recusal therefore another individual appointed by tram Mr. rózsa is in took charge inside the secretary was not following the ethics rules of the department of justice when the investigation was appealed but the president repeatedly criticized sessions' decision to return from this investigation is correct based on what the report says and on the president's reaction to the recusal as indicated in the report Mr.

Baron says that the president was furious, more furious than ever and that he was shouting about the weakness of sessions, it is said in the report knowing that the secretary was scared that he could get involved in the investigation, the president was still trying to get him to revoke his recusal after his correct appointment if made his investigation determine that at some point after his appointment the president called sessions at his home to ask him if he could revoke his recusal right because this was this is the first time the president asked him these facts wereon at least two occasions, once with flame and again with the magician sessions until the president called him to speak to him privately and told him that he should reverse his recusal right and after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents he said that he was going to cooperate with the investigation trump asked to speak with sessions alone in the oval office to ask him to revoke his recusal I refer to the report do you know at any time when the president has expressed frustration or anger towards sessions' action on the page 78 volume 2 the president told stamps you should have protected me or something like region the attorney general is the attorney general of the United States or is the president's lawyer representing the United States in fact you write that the president tried to convince to sessions to revoke his recusal so that he could supervise the investigation to limit its scope I refer the report as he could have done sessions I am not going to speculate obviously as the secretary of justice had greater latitude in his actions he could have done things that he otherwise would not have could have done, it is said that the president thought that the news secretary could protect him from this investigation into the sea.

I thank you for all of this, Mr. Miller, for your life of repetition. The country made it clear from your report that it is clear that the president wanted them to be secretaries. violated department ethics rules by assuming control of his investigation interfered appropriately to protect himself and his campaign his terminations are very important in the US no one is above the law director miller my Democratic colleagues were disappointed with your report they expected you to say Something like this is why the cheating president deserves an impeachment trial, as was done with President Clinton 20 years ago, it was not like that, so he had to change his strategy.

Now they say that there is ample evidence in their report for an impeachment trial of the president. but the American people did not read it and this hearing is the last hope they have of generating this wave in the United States to impeach President Trump that is what this session is about some questions on page 103 volume 2 of your report when you talk about the meeting at trump tower you say the firm that prepared the report is uncle the name of that firm is using gps correct page 103 volume 2 when you talk about the firm that prepared the report style the firm's name is fusion gps correct i'm not trying to confuse the gps function gender 12 is dude and they mention clan sense is familiar with that is out of my league glen simpson was never mentioned in the miller report i need like i said it's out of my league it was handled by other people in 448 pages the owner of fusion gps who prepared the steel report who released all this is not mentioned at the same time that fusion gps was seeking information about donald trump from outside sources on behalf of the clinton campaign and the democratic national committee and represented a russian company review sanctioned by the us government did you know about that it is beyond my reach one of the key participants moved on to other topics a crucial participant in the meetings at trump tower was natalia bis iniesta you describe her as a lawyer russia what would be the revocation of the act more aunt is that she was working with klein in sant and confusion and gps since 2014 I knew you are out of my reach but you do not mention that your connections with glen simpson by bike the following site was not reported the Russian native lawyer, the great-granddaughter said that she received the supposedly incriminating information that reached Trump Tower about tax evasion in shares of Glen Simpson, the owner of Fusion, and that PS that is not in the report, that was handled by others in the Department of Justice, her report.

He dedicates 14 pages to the meeting of July 9, 2016 at Trump Tower. That would mean that he dedicated extensive resources to investigating that meeting. I refer to the report. The top president was not at that meeting, in contrast to the measures of the campaign's actions. tron we know that the clinton campaign did pay fusion chips to obtain information about people associated with the trump campaign but the report does not mention anything about fusion gps and you did not investigate fusion feet's connections with russia from you who al not mention cree simpson and the fusion that ps and its relationship with the clinton campaign to concentrate on a brief meeting in the throne tower from which nothing came of ignore the links of the clinton campaign confusion gps in a way your report is biased It is an attack on the president, I repeat, it is beyond my reach.

I do not know if it is a coincidence, ok, but there are certain things that were left out of the report that are favorable to the president. Thank you, Director Moler, putting us back in office. Your investigation determines that the president broke instructions. to the white house lawyer to fire you correct if the president said he wanted to fire you because you had an alleged conflict of interest to the rest you did not have a conflict of interest in running and in fact don hahn recommended to the president that this was nonsense and there was no such conflict of interest I refer to the web report page 85 volume 2 that is also referenced director miller justice department officials confirmed that there was no conflict that prevented him from serving as special prosecutor correct but even though he said atomic and harsh guidelines from the department of justice in approximately 2017 the president told megan that he will complain to secretary rosas about these alleged conflicts of interest that is not the case magán refused to call rosetti no rosas telling the president that it would look like trying to interfering in the investigation and that he will get better would be one more element to allege destruction of justice in the right to find out, in other words, the senior director is the White House lawyer told the president that it was about arresting him and that would be a basis for alleging that the president was obstructing justice correct now I would like to review what happened after the president was warned about the cushion of justice excuse me you have a quote volume two pages 81 82 I want to review what happened after the president was warned destruction of justice it is true that the president In June 2017 you said that you had no intention of firing him but the next day on July 14 the media reported for the first time that you were investigating the president for another right action of justice and after you learned that you were under investigation the next day the president In a series of Twitter messages he talks about the investigation and criticism and two days later the president speaks to him about where he earns his house.

I called him from Caranavi on a Saturday to talk about you. It's not like that. It's correct. It means what is the importance of that call? telephone that you received from the president, troop, I would ask you to repeat what you conceived, you write in your report on page 85 monuments that on June 17, 2017, the president called Magán at his house so that the special prosecutor was dismissed, the president called to take more at one time that day I think there were two calls on page 85 of the report you write in the first call remember that the president said something that you have to do this you have to call and your investigation and report that the man did not agree with taking Rosa Time to fire him, here is water, there was a continuous action by exchange with the president, he did not want to intervene in that sense, he did not want to interfere and ask that the special prosecutor be fired, again I refer to the report and how the report characterizes it thanks to the volume 12 page 85 it is said that he did not want the secretary of justice to have anything to do with the attractive farewell and special prosecutor so at this point I would like to request by consensus Mr.

President that this article be submitted for the file for the rest of my time

robert

muller from saint flour sir who wrote in the nine minute comment that you read at your press conference on june 9 in washington already in an article about jose when as he called you let go of everything and set an example and was in a scene with his wife and his daughter called him the one who ran away then everything says that if a train came on the rails because you couldn't count on robben euros to stand in front of you and since you have been friends for many years right we were partners you were yes before he was appointed special prosecutor, you had spoken with james com and in the previous months when he was appointed special prosecutor the president is not for you that the tropical president has to ask kong and shenzhen part of the direction is integration treatment of justice you were talking about his credibility that is crucial is a witness that we when you spoke with president trump the day before his appointment as special prosecutor that you spoke with him about the position of the director of the fbi he mentioned the dismissal of me I don't remember I think not but no I remember, I cannot be specific.

If I had done it, you would have been an exceptional witness regarding the president's comments to dismiss, if possible, the lives of the prosecutors. They want the perception of improper actions, but you hired many people who did not care. you liked the president when you found out about pierce troll's animosity towards donald trump in the summer of 2017 before hiring him you didn't know it before hiring him you didn't know it you knew he hated trump you didn't know that before you hired him you didn't know it I knew and when I found out I acted expeditiously to make it happen when you learned that he had a relationship with Lisa Page around the same time and you ordered someone to investigate the deletion of his government phone texts when we learned that Pistorius was the author can I finish you have not answered my question you do not have an investigation into the deletion and reformatting of official phones there was no investigation underway regarding collusion or conspiracy you can find no evidence of any agreement between the trump campaign and linked individuals with abuse about the correct elections and that some of those elements any of its elements required corrupt intent and if someone knew that he had not conspired with Russia to affect the elections and seeing how the department of justice has people who hate that person and go after that person and then a special prosecutor was appointed who hires two or more people who hate that person knowing that he is innocent that he is not acting correctly what he is doing is not obstruction of justice he is seeking justice and then of two waters you perpetuate injustice haiti question your question director going back to June 2017 there was an article that reported that the president of the United States was being personally investigated by said justice and you say your report on the news page of the investigation led the president to deal with also talks about multiple calls from the president atomic with respect to that second call and remembers that the president was more direct vicedo as road calls tell him that miller has conflicts and cannot be the special prosecutor the president will have said he does not have to leave Call me when you have achieved it I understood what he is ordering the president I refer to what the report says because of the characterization in the report and they are paid he understood that the president was telling him that the special prosecutor should be the one dismissed on page 86 and he says that he did not consider that it will be a turning point, he wanted to stop and felt trapped and decided that he had to restart. his belongings and present his resignation at the end of the appointment that comes from the report before resigning he called big cousins ​​the secretary of the presidency and his advisor are in charge remember what I told him well whatever was said they would be that the president asked him to do crazy things the white house lawyer thought that what the dolphin was asking him was totally out of line that it was crazy that he was wrong and he was prepared to resign that's why these are extraordinary events do you consider that Mr.

Megan He is a credible witness, correct, the most important question I have for you, Uruguay, is why, because the president of the United States wanted to fire you, I cannot answer you on page 89 of the report, you say that the president's dismissed special prosecutor had to do with the investigations that had to do with the president's conduct from the most immediate to reports that the president was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice in order to the simple director you found evidence that the president wanted to fire you because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice correct justice that is what the correct report says and I refer to the director's report violating that should not happen in this country a president should be able to escape an investigation using software but that is what is indicated in his memory the president ordered that it they fired you the white house lawyer knew it was wrong the president knew it was wrong but the president did it anyway he tried and anyone who tried to interfere with a criminal investigation he was doing would be arrested and prosecuted for obstruction of justice, let's see you determine why you couldn't direct a sitting president, we've already talked about that, that's exactly why this commission must make the president answer, you said, putting two lines of questioning.Regarding this discussion, I refer to the report and what the important report says.

The president never said, fire thousands or put an end to the investigation, one thing does not require the other and tomorrow I will not resign. He remained in office for a year and a half plus the board secretary. said that it was not until April 19 when the report was released to the public when you presented your report to the attorney general there were deliberately elements excluded so that they could give it to the public immediately after you said that they had the equation of do it at his confirmation hearing I'm not going to discuss what happened after we issued the sport they asked him for a revised version we worked on it together he asked for pressure to separate the content from the grand jury I can't tell you details in an unrestricted version of the document can be given to the public to congress that does not depend on me what because he took a similar measure so that congress could see that we have a process on which we operate the secretary of justice has to ask the court to give him material the secretary of justice released the report with a minimum of corrections extractions you wrote the report expecting it to be released publicly we had no expectations we wrote it with the understanding that this is what the law required and that the report would be for the secretary of justice for the review of attention to these regulations who is the person who should receive the result of this investigation the special prosecutor regarding the president the secretary at the confirmation hearing the secretary said that he was going to make it known to the public when it had been written of his At that time, there were only significant changes in the tone of the report after it was announced that the report would be released to Congress.

The public cannot see Senate testimony. Senator Kamala Harris asked Secretary Gol if he had analyzed all the information. underlying evidence of the special prosecutor said that no you personally reviewed all the underlying evidence of your investigation if any member of your team reviewed all the underlying evidence we have said a lot of work was done member of the team that it can be said that an investigation as extensive as this is It is normal for different members of the team to be in charge of different areas of documents and rarely would someone review everything of the 500 interviews that were carried out that you attended.

On March 27, 2019, the secretary of justice wrote complaining about the journalistic coverage of his report You said the summary that the department sent to Congress and was released on March 24 does not fully capture the nature of the work of this office and without conclusions we communicated that to the department on the morning of March 25. Now there is confusion of the public about the result of our investigation who wrote that letter may be that the letter or porcine why would you write this letter if you had already expressed concern to the secretary of the 15 internal deliberations you authorized the public dissemination of the letter or it was leaked and well there was no nothing leaked for almost two years as this letter is leaked and this letter was made to try to change the narrative about the conclusions of the report there was something in the secretary's letter referring to the conclusions can you answer the question is there something in the secretary's letter Regarding the main conclusions of the report that were imprecise as we are concentrating on five episodes, I would like to ask you about the second of those instances, it is in a section of your report and begins on page 113 volume 2 titled the president of order threatens to deny the g7 tried to fire the special prosecutor from the appointment of January 25, 2019, the york times reports that the president of the had ordered mccann to arrange for the justice department to fire him and in that story the president called lacan to have him impeached and after a news story comes out the president denied this story on television in fact the president said fake news fake news a fake story typical of the end of the appointment correct but his investigations find substantial evidence that they have received orders to fire him the president's personal lawyer did something the next day regarding that press report to the remisería report on page 214 27 in 2018 the president's lawyer calls alvacal and says that the president I think they packed issued the declaration of expenses that he had asked him to fire the prosecutor special and only that the president sent me the report communicated through his personal lawyer, mccann refuses, saying that it is the story of 'the times' and relevant and that the president wanted his dismissal, I think so, but Mr.

Meken sent me through from his lawyer the same president again the president blurted out the issue I refer to what the report says the president told Oporto that he will try to mention lower so that he could issue a negative which is what he asked for input page 113 it is said that the president he instructed porter to tell the gala to create a record making it clear that the president never asked him to be fired he says the president wanted them to say add a letter to the correct record and to be clear the president is asking the lawyer of the white house that does not agree with them when the president is being investigated construction of justice correct in general and the gentleman lower the car considered important since investigation is not like that I must say that if the president told him to cut that threaten mccann If I did not believe this is negative, I refer to what is said in the report.

In fact, the president does not say on page 116 that if I did not write the letter, perhaps I would have to leave the end of the 100 db of correct porter, the community today knows I refer. to the discussion outlined on the page I feel classy but the president did not happen it is not like that the president directly told Pagán to deny that he had asked him to ask for it but it could be exactly what happened I cannot go beyond what the report says On page 116 it is said that the president met with him in the president's office and began the meeting by telling him to pay that the new york times story he looked macri wanted him to correct it right so the president asked megan if It was going to be a correction and Megan told him no, sir, no, thank you for your investigations and for revealing this disturbing evidence.

Mr. Ruiz has exactly one question, but of course, if someone had ordered a witness for me to create a false record to cover up acts that harm any investigation that person would face criminal charges the rest of my time in 2017 in an interview the document on three occasions 193 you indicate it in the report that you issued three times because it is not cause I cannot enter internal deliberations on what we do remember this in 2016 the fbi did something before two american citizens associated with presidential george papadopoulos and carter carter page went to pheasant court to open an investigation into carter page with Mr. bought by the human sources did not go to court simply from the moment What I have done based on the Trump campaign they started looking for all these people all over the world, seeing each other in different places, the FBI said they even sent a woman to induce them to pass themselves off as someone else, they sent her to London to spy on Mr.

Papadopolo in one of these meetings has already escaped Polus talks to a foreign diplomat and tells that diplomat Russia has compromising information about Clinton that diplomat contacts the FBI and the FBI opens the investigation it says it on page one of the record and the nastic casey stoner based on that information, the investigation was opened by a papadopulos diplomat, the diplomatic edition that has compromising information about clinton and the diplomat tells it to him, the fbi, my question is who told it to papado, because as his people, I cannot go into the answer, you say that you He said it, he is the person who told Papadopoulos by a professor who lives in Rome, London remains and the need for a university, this is the guy who told Papadopoulos, he was the one who started this whole snowball and then he lies to him for three times but you cause me another with false claims and michael cohen a maicon link to a three star general but the guy who put the country in the middle of this disaster and vice the lie but you are not at home I wonder why I can't enter In details, obviously, when we interviewed you, I can't tell you, he is an intelligence agent, I can't tell you many things, you can accuse three Russians that no one has seen, no one knows, no one will ever know about them, you can't accuse them, you can. accuse many people who surround the president but the guy who throws all this storm at that one, they can't reach him, it seems surprising to me, I think I don't agree with his characterizations, reading from his report, he tells papadopoulos, the pure papacy tells it to diplomat the diplomat tells him the fbi and here we are three years later in July 2019 the central person and you do not interview him again or prosecute him for something this is the good news the president was falsely accused of conspiracy and he told us that You had nothing, you did a 22 month investigation that there is no conspiracy and what the Democrats want to do and they want to continue investigating perhaps the best course of action because they do not determine where these false accusations start because it is not determined why josh smith he lied to the fbi and this is the good news that is exactly what he is doing but thank God this is what the attorney general is doing to determine why we went through this for three years shortly we are going to take a five minute break I want to ask everyone in the room to remain while the witness leaves the room I want to announce to the members of the public that we cannot guarantee their seat if they leave the room at this time sometimes although I do not know and always closely thank you Mr.

President He referred to the request that the personal lawyer of the president who was at the meeting with the president would like to take back time to talk about the refusal of the personal lawyer who was in the meeting with the president. Mr. Wang to deny the New York Times report that the president tried to fire him, the president's lawyer, and said that he could not resign because of what had happened in the Oval Office that day. Miguel to deny facts that he had repeatedly said were correct, so his investigation also determines that when the Oval Office meeting was held, the president knew that one of them, however, did not think the story was false and did not want statements denying what they thought they did to me. that it was correct, however the president insisted and asked mccann to deny facts that he considered to be correct pajín a hundred nauert in other words the president wanted to apply to pay to say something that they did he thought was not correct that's what I want to refer to to page 120 where it is stated that there is substantial medical evidence that by repeatedly asking Gana to deny that he had been asked to remove his soul, the president tried to influence the largest versions to avoid further changes in his behavior in the face of the investigation.

Can you explain what you meant by what you say? The president tried to protect himself from his personal record about an ongoing investigation. Would you say that this action was intended to falsify relevant records? The investigation, I refer to the report; also the president's attempt to create a record. false writing has to do with his investigation of obstruction of justice the president says that when the president said he wanted you to be removed the president criticized telling his office around the 2017 meeting when he told him to pay to remove him correct in adwords in another paid the forces the president criticizes to overcome him for telling police officials what is the truth I refer to the objection it would be a crime if Mr.

Beckham had lied to you about the president's orders to replace him you accused multiple people to society with the president for lying to them right the president will be complaining that there were staff members taking notes in the meetings about the dismissal of meters for being that is what the report says in fact it is appropriate that the people of the president of boarding schools what the president says report thank you for your investigation into the attempt and nutrition of justice when mccann was asked to issue to proceed to the president and I have created and retained disease or anyone else who had done something of this nature would be announced in crimes we will continue our investigation and we believe that The president responds because no one is above the law.

You can say that the 2nd and still was not part of Russia's disinformation campaign as I said in my initial statement and that basis of the Preda case after my administration almost 10 times but Paulmann a way they went through a section that drafted his appointment there were no problems when senator cornyn asked the secretary of justice corresponding to the same questions the secretary of justice said no I can't say that and that is one development reviewing worries me and I don't believe that it be speculative if something is not speculation then it must have some factual basis but you say that there is no factual basis about this dossier or the possibility that it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign reported by christopher style mentioned in his report yes told him to the fact thatsenior officials in the russian foreign ministry told him that they were removing evidence of conspiracy from the dossier the russians told that to christ festive or he made it up he was lying if I may go back a little bit as to whether that is out of reach it is not within its technical scope because there are only two possibilities or this all this and there were never Russians who talked about this conspiracy that you we or the Russians lied to them styles if the geese referred to steel to undermine confidence in the president that would be precisely the scope of your investigation because you said that the fundamental principle was to determine Russian interference but he was not interested in whether Russia was interfering with Christopher Styles and if he was lying and if he was lying because they did not accuse him like they did with our people but he did not say none of the work report you are very eloquent in other areas you write 3500 words about the June 9 meeting in the troop campaign and they make Russia escalate where your report you say that the president's legal team is superior and I quote from your report that the The meeting could have been a plot of individuals working with the firm that prepared the report.

I am going to ask a very simple question in the week of June 9, with whom did the lawyer Niscayah meet with the Trump campaign or with Glenn Session who was serving as an agent of the I believe that what is missing here that this is all under investigation if you allow me to finish if you allow me to finish consequently it is not my responsibility the department of justice and the fbi should respond on this particular point it is absurd to suggest that a democrat party agent was meeting with this russian lawyer the day before the trump tower meeting and he told them under oath that he had met with scaglia the day before this meeting with trump's team if there is any basis to believe that he was lying to him as I said before but it is not within my scope there are others investigated and you know then the court is not responsible for determining that style he was lying if there were anti-Rom agents working with the democrats the English had met with students of that meeting that you are not in anymore in 3500 words and how these decisions were made I see the inspector general's report on page 40 46 maika is going to be president we are not going to stop him also in the report it says that someone identified as Lawyer number 2 Lawyer number 2 who said demon did not say long live the resistance that those two people were removed from their cult but lawyer number 2 worked and the question of work for me but also this other person the directive the resistance when the people associated with treatment this throws everything at them when this environment does nothing when simpson meets with the russians nothing happens when the campaign to settle with russians writes 3500 words of justice it is a serious crime that affects the ability to find the truth on the part of the unit it has three elements it is not like that alam in the first element it is an act of obstruction this can include any action that delays or interferes with an investigation as provided in volume 287 of your correct report you can withdraw the question an act of obstruction may include an action that defers or interferes with an ongoing investigation your investigation finds evidence that the president measures to end the order of the head of a criminal investigation would be an act of obstruction I refer to page 28 72 88 confusion arrives to deal with of removing the special prosecutor be an investigative act if the investigation or any correct grand jury process had concluded second element is the presence of an act of obtaining in relation to the official action runs the arm with his special cufflinks his criminal investigation we talk about promoting the misconduct of our is an official act is an area in which I cannot enter the president was a said on Twitter on June 6, 2017 anyway, they are investigating me for firing the director of the FBI, for example, he told me to fire the director of the FBI of Uruguay then and it is on page 189 the volume that is a public recognition of the president throne that he was under criminal investigation correct in general later on Saturday the 17th president calls for instructions to fire the prosecutor correct the president says mailer has that exit end of quote correct correct on page evidence that the president knew that his conduct was being investigated by a special prosecutor who could present evidence to an investigative level the third element is the third element of justice is the intention to protect his interests in general this is correct the only thing I would tell you is that we are going through the three elements to test the tricks of justice the fact is that and he says that it is correct he said my god this is terrible this is the end of my presidency I am donald trump considered that his investigation into his conduct was adverse to his interests.

I believe that in general the investigation the investigation found evidence saying that the president knew that he should not include that he fired him from where it is evidence that the president knew that he should not have called tomorrow if in the investigation also finds the social says the president throne repeatedly this to pay that so I'm going to ask him to write the correct gay without support there is also substantial evidence when the president asked tonga to be fired and special prosecutor and then tried to interfere in an official process and a third party did it with corrupt intent those are the elements of obstruction of justice we are in the United States of America no one is above the tongue no one president must respond in one way or another if you allow me I do not necessarily agree with your analysis I do not support the line of analysis service you were in Columbia you were in Massachusetts and in my northern district of California the deputy prosecutor of the department of justice and director of the axis of the has reviewed your biography and I am surprised because in this case he handled himself In this way, the cut contradicts what you tell young people about the mistreatment of justice by saying that each accused must be treated fairly.

A prosecutor does not represent that part as a sovereign power whose interest is not in winning or losing a case but rather in getting it done. justice, the prosecutor may be hit hard but not fair by not reaching a conclusion on the experts in the case, you precisely put the burden of proof on the president, putting yourself in the situation of having to prove his innocence without giving him a legal recourse to do so. and you have never heard of a prosecutor who rejected a case and then talked about the defendant eight times in his report you say you have an obligation to prosecute a person you abandon that prosecutorial responsibility it is of concern legal analysis you talk about 100 factual patterns that They have to do with obstruction, but the elements of the statutes do not apply to those instances.

I analyze those cases. The law must tell you in the final case. For example, the statute says that it is possible that those elements of obstruction are possible in the case that applies because they do not. The director had been sworn in as an investigator, since he was not a court official, according to the law, it is the criminalization of actions that prevent actions of the congressional government and that is not the case. They talk about intimidation, threats of witnesses and the director 1512, they talk about affecting the records, they talk about criminalization of documents and there is nothing in his report that says that the president would have destroyed any evidence so you have to ask him I think what people are trying to use in this hearing are the ethical standards that require the prosecutor to have a reasonable probability of finding an indictment and that it works.

The regulations regarding his work as an official prosecutor indicate that his job is to give the attorney general a confidential report explaining the indictment decisions in or from his office recommending indicting the president within our campaign. because there is insufficient evidence to accuse him of conspiring with russia and interference in the elections there was enough evidence to convict president throne or someone else and prosecute him news projection we did not make those assertions with the opinion of the office indicates that we cannot prosecute the president in office so one of the necessary tools was not there but he made the decision about Russian interference and one could cause the president for that they decided but in construction of justice you throw a number of elements to see what sticks and I I don't agree with your characterization what we did was give the attorney general a confidential memorandum what our understanding of the case the cases that were considered the cases that were reviewed and one particular case is that the president cannot be indicted he can indict the deposed president of office and believes that he can accuse him of obstruction of justice after he leaves office under the ethical rules he would have to analyze the standards but in the opinion of the department that charges cannot be made in causing the sitting president the investigation can continue if another person It may be as you know we are concentrating on five instances in number three the president tries to affect the library and special cal tries to limit my colleagues how the president tried to get them to write to them how Mr.

Pays refused and the recent asked him that will limit your investigation these people had any official government position in their report from the oval office with the June 29, 91 meeting in the oval office between Mr. Windows that the president two days that the president will call two women to ask him fired him so just after the lawyer refuses to live with the president's order that he has another plan than if he leaves his advisors and assistants so that a citizen who was after limit his investigation that the president told Mr. Lo in two that he gave you a message for him to write you and your team saw this message that I cannot go into details and say publicly that he wanted to meet with the special prosecutor to explain that this was unfair and let him continue with the investigation in elections titles page 91 yes I see it thanks to yes in other words Mr.

Windows that a private citizen receives instructions from the president to give a message from the president to the secretary of justice instructed to limit the investigations and continue to supervise the investigation the secretary had recused himself for having had to violate the department's rules to comply with the president's orders and I will not go into the details and subsidiary and refer you to the pages of the report if the attorney general obvious in the president's institution has effectively put an end to your investigation into the president of the correct campaign you write as a whole the instructions of president camps ask the secretary of justice to end the special investigation of the president and his campaign and to be allowed to move forward investigating the election investigation future and this attempt is still a leader and Mr.

Windows who tried to meet with the secretary of justice and right in his office so that there was no public record of the sport and in the meeting the president does not meet with you after that meeting with the president of the scj and tells Mr. Timón to deliver the message. He is Mr. Sessions's secretary, correct, so to be clear, sir, he sent it to me the day after the president's lawyer refuses to comply with the order to fire him, the present trial of a private citizen to tell the secretary of justice who had recused himself to limit his investigation of future elections effectively for the same purposes of investigation into the 2006 campaign, I am not going to go into characterizations, I repeat myself to what is written in the recount in the report you write page 99 97 there are substantial Americans who say that the president tried to limit the scope of the investigation into future election interference was to prevent further investigations of the president and his campaign in general right so you gave a letter where my Former Republican and Democratic prosecutors say that anyone who had committed these acts would be prosecuted.

I agree with you and those thousand of your colleagues and your team write in the reinforcement on page 2 that the investigation did not establish that the member of the shock campaign had conspired coordinated with the Russian government in electoral interference that is presences he asked me at what moment did you personally reach that conclusion you can remind me here for photo refers page 2 volume 1 the investigation does not establish what my question is when did you reach that song we carry two years in that conclusion I believe that there is no conspiracy between this president I am not talking about the rest of the team between the president and the Russians with you will have in a criminal case you do not obtain partial information witnesses and others it is as the case progresses it takes a decision on the case depends on many factors I cannot tell you specifically that we reached the decision on a particular individual moment but it was before the correct sport was written you describe the report to me dealing with multiple obviously when I the decision with the president It was before writing the correct contribution I don't know if so I waited until the last minute there are several aspects in the development of multiple but at some point you came to the conclusion that there was no combination with this I can't tell you when I'm talking the evidence suggests that six days before these treatments theMr.

Ross Stein called you and mentioned that if he appointed you as a special prosecutor, it wouldn't necessarily be you, but they talked about the right topic on May 10, 2017. I don't know. I'm not aware of that. The evidence suggests that the evidence suggests that on May 12, 2017. five days before your appointment you met I don't know Mr. rózsa styles you personally discussed the appointment of a special prosecutor I cannot answer that particular question regarding internal discussions about this the evidence also suggests that four days before your appointment you he met with the secretary sessions and they talked about a special prosecutor remember that the president remembers that meeting and they talked about the position of the director of the axis in that meeting they talked about the institution of the gentleman and they talked about containment appointment of a special prosecutor for you necessarily but in general I can't go into those things regarding the movement as a special prosecutor he doesn't remember it I don't remember it sometimes I talk to the man about the investigation before his appointment serna returning to the presidential mental obstruction through the man the two family in prosecutors who served under Republican and Democratic administrations wrote a letter about the president's conduct some of those individuals are people you have worked with probably yes people you respect probably yes and in that letter they say all of this behavior is trying to control or invent a investigation of the president using his authority over others is similar to what we have seen that has motivated the targeting of other powerful public officials being wrong they have different cases it is a different case thank you director and returning to your service a few years later and the interest of the time I will ask that this letter be added to the record thank you director level for your long service to our country especially your service to the marines I will return to the topic of the president's attempt to limit his investigation the third element requires a act of obstruction on page 97 volume 2 of your report you write there page 97 and summoned the session, you were asked to tell the special prosecutor to end the investigation of the president and his campaign end of the quote because it is in the correct report and This would be evidence of a degree of obstruction because it would obstruct an investigation.

Right, let's talk about the second element of obstruction of justice that requires a connection with a legal case. You write about the moment in which the meeting with Mr. Windows - that and the existence of an investigation delayed investigator was a correct known fact that constituted evidence that is the attempt of an official process because the actions of a docker leader is such a thing, let's then go through other elements on page 97 when it talks about intention on that page you can read us the first first the first sentence of evidence his identity that first sentence there is substantial evidence of the president's efforts to limit the special counsel's investigation into future elections to avoid further scrutiny of the president and his campaign end of quote that's in the report yo I stick to what the report says in reference to what, recapitulating, then you have heard that the president ordered the former White House lawyer to see him, he ordered Don Magán to cover up this by creating a false record and now we hear that the president of fiba with the 2 kings to tell jeff sessions that he will limit his investigation so that any reasonable person who sees these facts would come to the conclusion that the requirements for the crime of justice are met and I would like to ask him why he decided not to prosecute donald trump for that opinion that says that they cannot cause a president from the correct exercise of the fact that the president's orders were not carried out is not a defense of the course of justice because the statute is very clear and already says that attempted obstruction of justice constitutes a crime but that I cannot be at this moment based on the evidence that we have heard today a reasonable person would conclude that at least he fled after this destruction of justice by the president we will hear about others later interference with witnesses michael what I want to add is that reviewing the elements consulted does not mean that I adhere to what you are discussing.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for joining us today. Listen, you had three discussions with Sting about your appointment on the 10th, 12th and the 13th. You say so and you met with the president on day 16 in the presence of rosas and then they named him special prosecutor in his meeting with the president you knew that he was not being considered as a special prosecutor and bauer I did not think that they were considering me for the position I had served two terms as response director he says that his office was a team of partisan operatives and there is growing concern that a political jerk may have led to admitting elements of the report to paint the president in a negative light.

The president's lawyer for example left a message with the lawyers in the edited version of his report it seems that he was asking for appropriate confidential information and that is all we can choose from his report when the full transcript was ordered there it is evident that he was always being pushed if you ask why eliminate the exculpatory element of the message I do not agree with his simulated characterization for dissatisfied, they were not giving him activation information, I am not going to go into it, but you are talking about the activities of 5 a political consultant from Ukraine who entered Marta Fort and who had had contact with Russian intelligence in the report, but later we discovered according to press reports that this was a source from the state department nowhere does it identify him so why not necessarily because I am not going to go into details about the deliberations in the course of the investigation you interviewed acosta tickets I cannot tell you about our actions of investigation but it is the basis of your report we have to base ourselves on your report so that it reflects the evidence but I find that your report does not exist, for example linked to certain entities with the Russian government in the case that you initiated the royal flight I am to Mr.

Guard for not presenting evidence that will substantiate his assertion because he thinks that Russia managed these groups when they do not have evidence that they cannot. I cannot give you more details of what is in the report but with your report you leave the impression in the country that the russian government was behind all of this but when they ask you to present evidence the court does not do so i have to dispute your characterization of this session because you even considered holding them in contempt except that the next day you retroactively made a distinction between the russian government of Russia and these entities did it after they told him that they could declare him in contempt of court, what is the question and the question is whether his press conference had to do with the fact that the day before after he threatened to declare him in contempt for not presenting evidence the fundamental problem is that we have to accept his word that his team acts impartially describing all the relevant evidence in the report but there are more and more cases where this is not the case and it begins to give the impression that he desperately tried to build a legal case against the president turning it into a political case you put it in a bag set it on fire you have it at the door I think you have not reviewed a report fourth episode of obstruction of justice of affecting witnesses and negotiations by not meeting with This is a crime punishable correctly by approaching you against evidence that the present efforts to encourage artists to collaborate with the correct investigation page seven beautiful mana this way' by xesús michael one of those witnesses in alcohol with the president's lawyer who ultimately pleaded guilty to campaign violations based on unpaid payments to women the president had met and lying to congress about Trump Tower after the FBI raided the president's home called him and told him strong remember that There are a series of calls from other friends of the president who said he was with the boss in Málaga and the president says what do you want and another says everyone knows that the boss supports you remember that sequence of coepris that when he received these messages I am quoting page 147 volume 2 notice that he believed he had the support of the white house if he continued with the dignity of the party and maintained the message it was part of the trial page 147 and costello a lawyer close to the president's team says they love you they are with us sleep peacefully and you have friends in positions of importance is on the screen when it was said that a young man had arranged payments to storni damages and as that line showed he publicly said that neither the organization nor the campaign had been part of the transaction and had not reimbursed him at that time the personal trauma lawyer sent a message to the young man and said the client thanks you for what you have done if you want that client thanking you that I can tell him from context it is suggested that he is the president work then he pleads guilty to violations and having done instructions instances the president says that the man with says that the president changed the line I repeat what the pp says it happened to me that they had committed crimes for example Cohen's father suffering that he had been guilty of committing crimes in general on page 1 54 between giving a summary of this age change and here I have it from the record and you can read it aloud the evidence concerning this sequence reflects that the president tried to induce with positive messages so that they will not cooperate and then moved on to intimidation attacks to discourage the release of information or undermine his credibility after cohen began to cooperate i think the precise plan in my opinion anyone who does this would have been charged with interfering with my witness you have pointed this out in your report saying that in the United States no one has been so high that they are above the law recently sir they were asking you questions those questions is the reason why you prosecuted the president it was because of the opinion of the lc correct but that is not what what he says in the report and it is not what he told the secretary board and in fact fair legislation as the department of justice on May 29 after his press conference in his office for a joint statement with the department is said if the Secretary of Justice has said that the special prosecutor has repeatedly indicated that he was not saying that he would have found another self with his accident.

Justice in his statement made it clear that the office came to the conclusion that he had not reached a determination one way or the other. If he is present and has committed a crime there is no conflict between gender states then you continue to agree with the joint statement you would have to see it in detail before telling him that your conclusion is that what Angel said to Mr. Luz contradicts what he indicates in the report specifically when it says that he repeatedly said the secretary bar and then according to the joint statement on May 29 says that the attorney general has said that this prosecutor was not saying that under other circumstances the president guilty of obstruction of justice I have more questions mr colette there has been a lot of talk today about firing the special prosecutor limiting the investigation were you ever fired at some point were you fired as a special prosecutor were you able to complete your investigation without feet or yes in fact you resigned from the position when you closed the office in May 2019 That is correct, Mr.

Blair, on April 18, the Secretary of Justice in a press conference about the dissemination of his report, there was some inaccuracy in the web secretary's press conference or in his letter to Congress summarizing the main relationships of his report. registered I mentioned the letter that we sent on March 27 to Mr. Burns raising some concerns draw a table for yourself go to irons and YouTube I can see then how it can be if the letter from the board secretary talks about the main conclusions of your report and you had I said earlier that there were no inaccuracies and you have this joint statement but let me move on to another question instead of merely relying on the evidence presented by witnesses little holes you relied on media how many times if you are at the washington post in the washington report I did not find some 60 times how many times I reference the 'new york times' at least 75 how many times foxnews cites the same as us cases I have no ideas I must say that it seems that volume 2 is mostly a retelling of press stories there is nothing in volume 2 that I cannot know without having a cable subscription, but your investigation cost US taxpayers $25 million.

You say, Mr. Müller, that media reports are cited in a society, sometimes the report is in a footnote. you write these sections a summary of various press stories not for the truth contained in those stories but to talk about mr trump's response and put it in context are you concerned that the american people are taking this news as evidence can you answer the question no we are running out of time thank you director returning to the fifth element of attraction in your report is whether the president tried to influence gunpowder witnesses whose details will be crucial to your investigation into Russian interference in our elections in the canvasesvolume two birds 123 louisoffice determined that after the referral to form he told him here that he does not plead guilty to any charge because he had spoken with the president and the lawyer the president is going to take charge of his report one day after the pregnancy conviction the president says that this had not been fair in this context director müller what flipy refers to when someone cooperates with a criminal investigation and then that investigation as an aid in the fight against crime I will not go to your report you conclude that the president is trump and his lawyer rudy giuliani made repeated statements saying that it was possible that they would last in manacor and making it clear that the president did not want to burn fort turned around and truthfully and as you said before you can talk about influence over witnesses when someone with inadequate motives tries to influence an invitation on page 123 volume 2 they also discuss the president's motives you say that as the processes against managua advance, president trump sito discussed with assistants if perhaps in what human way ford could collaborate and without bad force of something that could do the same to them presides that is a quote when someone tries to prevent another person from collaborating with the authorities and they do it because they are worried about what that person is going to say it seems evident from what you write that it is the classic definition of interference with witnesses eventually emana fort decided to cooperate with your pool and reached an agreement but then what brute can describe what it was that you did that led you to tell the court that the agreement was withdrawn if I am going to refer to a court document in the page 127 euro that you tell the court that Mr.

Vara For lied about multiple matters that were key to the investigation and you say that Maná Ford's lawyers also regularly informed the president's lawyers about issues discussed and information that Marta Fort had given in relation to working girl the special the source page 127 monuments if it is in the report if the days after you said that it emanates strong had broken agree the president is trump told the press that Mr. para force was very brave because he did not break down if it is in the report in your report you reach a very serious conclusion about the president's interference in the case of marc ford says evidence it happens that the president acted in such a way that the president had the intention to Encourage Mara For not to cooperate with the government.

It is evident that the president publicly and privately tried to dissuade Mr. Martí's cooperation, even going so far as to offer him a potential pardon if he remained loyal to the president. This could constitute a case of obstruction. We must come to the conclusion that no one is above the law yes sir do you know the special counsel statute about which are you familiar with the special counsel statute the current one I am not familiar with your question the clinton administration allowed this to expire before that the investigation should end, which is why the statute was allowed to expire.

Even President Clinton's prosecutor, Janet Noisio, expressed concern about the final report if she was quoted. She said that on the one hand, the American people are interested in knowing what an investigation of an official is about. high level on the other hand there are some of the fundamental traditions of the law in these people under our system an essence is presumed and privacy is valued we think that the information obtained in a criminal investigation dv in most cases be published only if there is a pending indictment is not made after it is decided that an indictment will not proceed basically this is a dissemination and the appropriation of confidential personal information to try to justify a person's actions and avoid criticism of the special prosecutor's office these Are they the words of the mean secretary or did you do exactly what she had published a report disseminating the dirty laundry of the person under investigation allow me to finish I can finish well I remember I was operating under the current statute so I am familiar with the current line of wii necessary some of the witnesses were you to question your characterizations I am not going to go into that the bar secretary said many times in his freezing hearing he would disclose everything he could about edwin report you wrote it in your report thinking The cooked part of the colic knew that the report would be made public and that would have changed the content of the video.

I cannot respond despite the expectations that you left out existential exculpatory evidence. In other words, everything falls on the president. I agree with you. I think that sport reflects what you said that there was evidence that you left out, well one has to decide and you say no, it is not true on page 1 volume 2 because it indicated when you cite the statute it says that they have the obligation to proceed or not. Proceeding with the prosecution of the generals is the case, although most of the cases have a different context than that of the president. In this case, you decided not to proceed.

We decided not to speak out, whether it is warranted or not. What you did was prepare 150 pages of the worst information they had. about the target of his investigation and he did so knowing that they were not going to recommend charges and that the report would be public I have prosecuted multiples I examined the butcher of Fallujah as a civilian I was chosen to run a penitentiary center and Pennsylvania I know the legal system well the writing and publication of the information age control of this sport if a prosecution without the prosecution this goes against a criminal justice system in the United States but the director was not a special prosecutor grade the faisal law was not renewed he gentleman's time is up, the lady from florida director pain a couple of my colleagues wanted to talk to you about the witnesses who lied to the offices with those lies initially applied to the investigation of russian interference to part of the individuals who were left guilty of crimes based on a witness, I think there are multiple witnesses in that spectrum, some told the complete truth and another lied, so we can say that there are limits on the evidence that you had an imposition in the investigation on Russian interference and on the starting point and this has to do with trump government officials who tried to prevent your investigation your widow investigation i agree with that in general terms thank you director müller in the next session you will hear more of my thirst or the rest of my time to the cordial sir Mr. müller allow me first nothing to welcome you you have outstanding service to the country I'm going to start due to time constraints we can only talk about five cases of obstruction of justice but there is much more I want to concentrate on another section of justice instruction the conduct of the president concerning mike conley the president's national security advisor, the lawyer and the visual preceptor that Mr.

Fin had lied to government authorities about his communication with the Russian ambassador during the campaign and the transition of a hostile nation knows that an official has lied publicly that can be use to blackmail your citizens I don't totally disagree but I can't talk about this issue thank you Clint resigned on February 13, 2016 and the next day when the president was having lunch with governor Chris Christie the president said quote now we took out Flynn the rus issue is over and it is over correct and it is correct that christina way not at all the russia problem is not over that is what we have in the report thank you and after the president met with sad that same day the president coordinated to meet with the director sent only in the oval office correct correct in volume 2 page 3 40 according to com and the president and I hope they find a way to leave flash to heaven a good guy and I hope they can leave him alone end of the quote page 40 volume 2 that the president broom was asking him for, I cannot tell you what he was thinking, how he thought he was being given instructions due to the president's position, the circumstances of the meeting are in the report and even though the president publicly said that I had not asked you with me to release the investigation you found substantial evidence corroborating the comics version correct the president of estiba com and May 9 correct I think that is the date page 77 you find special evidence that the catalyst for his dismissal It was the lack of willingness to eat to say publicly that the president was not being investigated in his personal capacity.

I cannot go into the details. If it is in the report, I support it, just like this page 75 volumes. The next day the president told the foreign minister of Russia fired the head of the FBI, he was crazy, crazy as a goat, that's over, they're no longer investigating me, correct, that's what the report says, your time is up, thank you, Mr. President, we've heard a lot of things that you can't mention today. but if you can't talk about the law of the statutes of justice and its creative analysis especially its interpretation of the accession in 1512 the statute of justice referring to private and public companies tells you this clause was added as an amendment in the senate and was explained to close certain legal loopholes regarding document instructions the statute says anyone who alters mutile conceals relevant documents to impede the integrity of an official investigation or obstructs any legal procedure can be punished up to 20 years in prison his analysis the intervention more broad let's read it as a general clause any act is prohibited inappropriate motives to try to apply this prohibition legal acts of an official discretionary official and that affects when analyzing the issue of the action you have said that you recognize that the department of justice has not resolved these correct issues do not all agree with his legal theory about your shock justice I am not going to get into a discussion but the secretary of justice himself disagrees I will let him refer to that and sometimes the law prosecutors members of his legal team have had to cause coated winds I don't know which one you are referring to but a lawyer wins all the wiseman cases the achievement of indictment against arthur andersen and then it was reversed due to consideration of the legal analysis as evaluated by the supreme court can I respond to that quote that you gave me for that broad meaningless discussion that if I had to educate myself about it, this is what is already written in the report, I am going to read about the Supreme Court's decision when it renounced an indictment of Mr.

Wise. For example, in that case, the jury was told that they could find I have limited time. You are applying these concepts to the analysis of the president's behavior. You are criminalizing actions. I would like to ask you for some examples during the investigation. From the FBI I learned Hillary Clinto in the use of the public servant Obama did not say I do not think it is a national security problem and then this is not a situation that has compromised the national security of the United States if his comment influenced the investigation the president could not be accused obama obstruction of justice andrew watson is one of the most talented lawyers who has handled multiple in 2015 and said that they were still investigating the clinton foundation there was upset in the department of justice I have to close an investigation and this is a clear example of someone in the executive trying to include a theory of justice possible reason there is an extensive dissertation on the system at the end of the report time is running out it is time to complete our work as soon as we can within that window the lady from Pennsylvania director I have any questions regarding the president's statement concerning knowledge of the disclosure of documents on wikileaks the president refused to meet with his investigators for a so the only responses we have from the president are in the appendix to his rebound being that appendix on page 5 you He asked the president the 12 questions about whether he knew that Wikileaks had or could have had emails stolen by the Russians.

I apologize, you can start again. Appendix page 5. The president was asked about 12 questions if he knew that Wikileaks had the stolen emails. and that this could benefit his campaign or affect Hillary's campaign, Mr. Tromba's personal lawyer, that young man said more than a year ago, Mr. Trans learned from Roger Stones that Wikileaks was going to disseminate these documents. The public refers to the testimony report of the income of the Sir, with your testimony, let's see an event described on page 18 of volume 2 of your report and we will have it displayed according to Rico Gates, campaign manager in the summer of 2016 and candidate Trump, they were going to an airport after Wikileaks published the first stolen and gay emails said that candidate trump is talking on the phone and when the call ended trump told kate that there would be more information remember that if it is in the report like this on page 18 points on page 77 of volume 2 his report also says that in addition some witnesses say that trump privately tried to get information about other documents that wikileaks was going to disseminate correct in appendix 6 when the president answers some questions in writing he says and I don't remember having discussed the issue of uniting with him I don't even remember that Mr.

Stone has discussed the issue of Wikileaks.with individuals associated with my campaign is that correct if they are between port that is to say then the president denied having discussed the issue of wikileaks with sir I am fine he denied knowing if anyone associated with his campaign discussed this with ashton and can he repeat his question can we say then that the president denied having knowledge that anyone his campaign had discussed the issue of a concert clicks at headquarters the rest of my time you were interviewed to head the fbi before your appointment you were proposing it seems like work to me but they are seeing me suggestions about What in this position does not remember an interview with the president about the position of the director of the FBI I had an interview with him but it was about the position and not about me as a candidate for that position in your statement that you were not applying for those actions he told you to the vice president that you would return if they offered that position I don't remember that after tens of millions of dollars spent and 20 months of investigation you obtained some concrete evidence that some American voter changed their vote due to Russian interference I can't tell you after 29 this investigation has no evidence in their document that anyone changed their vote due to russian interference based on all the documents they have seen that was outside the scope of our investigation russian interference the impact of that interference was analyzed by other lists but many times 23 27 and 28 you mention these unverified allegations how long did it take you to come to the conclusion that this was not jump multiple times in your report you say this is not verified how did you come to the conclusion when you knew this had been incorporated to the false request when you learned that this being verified had been included in the false request against carter page of your team you interviewed Christ version in those 22 months as I said at the beginning that is one of the investigations you are doing but You are talking about mitigation today and I am asking directly a member of your team.

You interviewed action. I cannot answer that moment if you had two years to investigate and you have an unverified document paid for by a political adversary and how this was used to obtain authorization to use a bell I do not agree with your characterization if I am not going to talk about it you do not agree with my interpretation but you are not going to talk about the subject it is already like that the false request speaks from source one the author of the god He says there are no reasons for Dicastillo's investigation introduction with Russia based on other sources the account code 1 information the FBI considers source one to be credible do you consider that representation to be accurate so he is not going to answer questions about festive Christ or his interviews with him, as I said at the beginning this morning, that is one of the investigations that I cannot speak well about but I do not understand how to interview an individual, however, of this investigation that is not being talked about, an investigation that It is closed, how come you can't tell us anything about that investigation, I have nothing to add.

Well, I think the American people want to know and I hope and trust that this issue will be analyzed because you don't want to answer these questions that have to do with with the very basis of this investigation of the president and based on this individual that you interviewed but refuses to answer questions and can the president fire the director of the FBI in a discretionary manner under the article of the constitution acidity can you fire him as a special prosecutor I think That's the case, wait a minute, you said for no reason, I understand that the special prosecutor may be behind this noise, but don't worry about the reasons, you said that he had not been fired, that he completed his investigation, I have nothing to add to what I already said. jacques and thank you mr president thank you sir I would like to ask you about the president's responses conserva in development at stone rolling stones was indicted for multiple federal crimes and the indictment says that mr stone discussed the dissemination of information on wikileaks with the trump campaign in the case this there are no limits so I am going to limit myself to the information that is publicly known let me say at the beginning of life I do not want to interrupt it but and I would like to know if that is applicable in this case but I do not want to affect other investigations I understand that we are going to be speaking of these questions that you the president mr. stones in the indictment it is said that the following was contacted by trump campaign officials about the future dissemination of by the organization wikileaks the indictment says that this was told to the trump campaign that there would be more dissemination of pernicious or harmful material.

It is also said in the indictment that the throne campaign asked if it could obtain information about other documents that Wikileaks was going to publish and in fact this told the Troms campaign that there would be others. documents that were going to be published correct that's right I think you are quoting from the indictment cause it is a public document but I don't want to discuss anything concerning the case but the indictment is public I understand going back to the president's answers to your questions the president says he never you discussed the dissemination of documents on wikileaks and said that no one in your campaign had had these conversations with zidane if you had not known that other witnesses had lied to your investigators about specific questions in writing or in interviews they would be accused of false testimony i think i would You are asking that because I read I am not going to speculate let's make it more specific if I lie to an investigator on your team I can go to jail for up to five years well it's Congress that's the point so no one is above the law not you in the entire congress and certainly not the president so it is disturbing to hear these things and that is why the American people deserve to know all the facts of the evil that is outlined in your report and for which anyone else would have been prosecuted thank you for be here and again the point has been made clear no one is above the law to active municipal and how many people on his team did he have to fire during the investigation how many people did he fire according to him lewis mike the comptroller general's office we know what pits troll and someone else were fired there may have been other races of transfers and former petersons of this condition who were fired because you were concerned about maintaining the perception of independence you agree he says he was fired in part because you are concerned about the appearance of independence of the investigation I agree with that and that was what Peter Strike said.

He did not fire him because he was concerned about the perception of independence. No, he was transferred due to situations concerning text. He believes that his office should operate independently and we tried to do that. The lawyers selected his team. He was to hillary clinton's party the secretary period saying I am so proud that you disobeyed the president told him it is not a conflict of interest I am not going to talk about you I represent hillary clinto in the study on personal correspondence during clinton's administration I knew it d but the eggs that new money to hillary clinton and the democratic party donations to the opponent of the target of your investigation I can tell you about hiring we hired individuals who could do their job but I have been in this business for almost 25 years in In 25 years there has never been an occasion where I have asked someone what their political affiliation is it is not done I am concerned about the individual's ability to do their job quickly in a serious manner with integrity it is not the deal that you can Talking to your team is about the moment you assumed this responsibility, you had to understand that whatever the conclusion, half the country was going to be skeptical, that's why there are recusal laws, precisely why the laws establish that it's not just about the conflict. of political interest but the appearance of a conflict of interest, it is not enough for you to endorse your team that there is no perception, no judge would feel comfortable with these circumstances where half of the tax team has a direct relationship with the adversary of the person under investigation.

We hired 19 lawyers throughout this time, 14 of those lawyers were transferred from within the Department of Justice, five and half of them had a direct relationship with the political adversary of the person investigated in all of sports, if nothing changes, simply if we changed, do you want? take the client for 22 if peter struck had written those things about hillary clinton if the lawyers had donated thousands of dollars to 30's campaign instead of clinton's campaign we wouldn't be here trying to analyze these allegations my colleagues would have used their team of being bought and paid for by the trump campaign and we cannot believe the word of the report they would continue to accuse the president of conspiring with Russia and his team of having been part of that conspiracy and with that said thank you for your service to our country I want to talk about another incident in the investigation evidence in your report that the president instructed his son and communications director to issue false statements about a meeting between his campaign and an individual from Russia at the 2016 trump tower fix donald trump's son was the only participant of the meeting and he refused to be interviewed by his office, that's how we correct Mr.

Trump, his lawyer said, they contacted his office to invoke the fifth amendment, I cannot answer you, I am sending written questions to the president about what he knew about the meeting in the tower trump well asked him if he had given instructions for a false statement the president answered correctly I don't have it in front of me in the appendix point 13 it says on the page the volume of his report increases his investigation says that job ex director of communications for being president received emails about the meeting and told her office that she was surprised by the emails because it looked very bad has a quote page 100 volume 2 in dragon with the page to the director return I must tell you that in the page 99 of the volume all those emails also say according to the report that the Russian prosecutor's office offered to give official information to the trump campaign of compromising information about hillary clinton he said if that's what you say I love it he don't dare to fort met with a Russian lawyer and other individuals at Trump Tower on June 9 end of the meeting in general it is not true that Ms.

Hicks told her office she went several times to tell the president that he should be transparent about this meeting and each time the president said no and the reason is that the president thought that they were not going to spread. I don't know how to characterize lopera. It seems correct to him. The president told the lady, only one son attended the meeting to talk about adoptions in Russia. because in his extraction too much was said, let me verify one thing, siex coordinated and according to Mrs. Hicks, the president instructed him to say that the meeting had been about adoptions in Russian, although it was not true, thank you board, but the rest of my time was They have asked you multiple questions today you have performed as we expected we have had your report and you have not answered many of our questions from the summary that we have heard and what we have heard you spent two years and almost 30 million dollars unlimited resources to prepare a 250-page report that you say that the meticulous millions of Americans remain concerned about your work largely because of that of some members of your team that team of investigators of new of 60 thousand dollars to the clinton campaign and another candidate from the messages where they made fun of Donald Trump and his followers.

Can you give me an example of someone other than Donald Trump? It has been determined that a person under investigation is not exonerated because his innocence cannot be determined. How can I? That's it. something unprecedented, the president believed at the beginning that you and your team had serious conflicts, that is saving a well-known Portuguese, however, the president was still largely aware of the investigation that he had done nothing wrong and encouraged all witnesses to cooperate with the investigation. investigation to generate more than 1,400,000 pages of information in its report page 61 recognizes that a large amount of evidence exists the president telling many people in private that he was concerned about the impact of the russia investigation on his ability to govern and to address important issues of national cumbias and international relations, its report also recognizes that the supreme court means that the president could act with high-level officials, officials who serve the distinction of the president, the president has the discretionary power to fire these officials which allows the president to guarantee that the law is followed and that includes the secretary of justice despite all this nothing prevented his investigation no one was fired by the president nothing was limited and the investigation continued without limit for 22 times as you conclude It was not established that the president was involved in a crime related to Russia or electoral interference and the evidence does not establish that the president or those close to him had been involved in a combination with Russia had any illegal relationship with Russian officials in those long 22 months. heThe president was frustrated enough with many Americans that he was frustrating the country and his ability to govern, but while this may have the opinions of people in the public while his investigation the president did not affect the testimony of anyone he never asked that The investigation was eliminated after you were eliminated.

Those are the human beings. I think there will be a lot of discussion and debate throughout the country in the sense that you have not responded about the origin of the foundation, although it is specifically mentioned in your report. But this hearing is concluding, I will not have any further comment. Suárez is fundamental for the Democratic majority of the commission. They want political coverage. They wanted you to tell them that they should impeach the president, but something that you have said very clearly is that your report is broad and thorough and you agree with all your recommendations, this is not correct, customs is taken, one last question in your report, you do not recommend impeachment, I am not going to talk about recommendations, I did not reach the conclusion about an impeachment, I am not going to talk about one of the points, but We can draw our conclusions.

I thank you for your service to the country and I am glad that this farce will end soon so I can return to the important work of this commission. I will give you the rest of my time. at 1145 all the Republican books have asked questions but some Democratic members are going to limit their questions we hope to complete the trial minutes thank you Mr. President thank you director levels your investigation into the attacks by Russia our democracy and destruction of justice has been extraordinarily productive two years you prosecuted different organizations and individuals some important officials of the white house of the trump campaign there are still pending indictments account of another 24 entities and people from russia let's talk about those 5 officials of the camps government or his campaign bolivar to ford the boss campaign ricketts vice campaign manager michael flynn former national security adviser to president trump michael young personal lawyer to president george papacy for the former foreign policy adviser to the president and a sixth official will be indicted this year roll stone correct not sure about what you say about this but he is under investigation and there are other accusations pending so sir I want to thank you in the limited time I have for your team for your work your dedication in less than two years your team was able to uncover an incredible amount of information about this attack to our elections and the investigation of justice and now there is much more that we need to know despite these unfair attacks from the president your work has been substantial and fair in laying a solid foundation for our investigation and I thank you thank you and I am disappointed that some issues your motives in this process I want to take a moment to remind the American people who you are and your exemplary service to our country you are a former Marine without a doubt we were in the military received the Bronze Star and the Raven that President named you the most of massachusetts which president I think was president 2 under which government was in charge of the criminal division of the department of justice under which president george bush senior after that you took a job a prestigious law firm and then did something extraordinary you left this lucrative position to return to public service prosecuting homicides in washington when they were pau director of the fbi and whoever appointed him and the senate confirmed him 98 to 0 surprisingly and he was sworn in a week before the attacks of 9/11 he had to protect this country from Another attack is an exceptional job when his 10 years end, the Senate unanimously extended his term for another two years.

In 2017, they asked him to assume the position of special prosecutor. The president had just fired people and there were many problems in the Department of Justice had to have anticipated that there was going to be a challenge because it accepted I'm not going to enter the streets because we would get off the path editions some have questioned the political motivation of your team saying your investigation was a witch hunt when you were looking for people to your team asked someone about their political affiliation and their career and have you ever decided to hire someone based on an individual's political affiliation not if I can add anything what we have shown and what is on the team in the report that We have indicated is the result of the work of exemplary lawyers who were hired so they could contribute to doing the job and do it by an expert 105 simón josh who acted with justice and equity in cases where she could have brought charges against other people but did not. did in a witch hunt the work intensified I think you have discovered substantial evidence from afar and serious let me say something else and you are right the only remedy for this situation and that is for congress to act became true good morning straight to the pain I wanted to ask you about public confusion regarding the bar secretary's version of your report in your letter, and on other occasions you told the attorney general that the summaries in the two-volume report were not an accurate summary of your report in the letter. speak for yourself those were your words in your letter you describe to the attorney general that the summary they sent to Congress that was released on the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context and substance of the office's work and your conclusions, again, I refer to the letter that there were these elements that the summary mentioned to us that I am going to remove from justice, that I have already discussed, it is in the letter, specifically what you were referring to, I refer the letter, you strike down that letter by saying that now There is public confusion about crucial aspects as a result of the investigation.

What was he referring to? Again, I refer to the letter. The letter speaks volumes and the secretary could have avoided this confusion if he had released his summaries. I cannot speculate on that. I feel like on May 30 the attorney general said on CBC News that you could have reached a decision about whether there had been criminal activity on the part of the president. The secretary or his staff ever told you that you could make these types of decisions. If the president was involved with the criminal, I am not going to talk about what the secretary was thinking, saying that if the attorney general had given him instructions to determine if there has been criminal activity by the president, he would have done so, I cannot answer this question in the void again the director problem thank you for coming I agree with your letter there was public confusion and the president took advantage of that confusion by claiming that no evidence of obstruction had been found your report does not exonerate the president if there is no substantial evidence of obstruction of justice leaving to the congress doing its job we cannot carry that responsibility you Mr.

President the objective of this session was that the gentleman will recommend an impeachment trial thank you director müller you are a patriot I want to refer to page 158 of volume 2 you write and cited the efforts of the president to influence the investigation were not successful but to a large extent it is because the people who surrounded the president did not execute his orders or his request that was what we determined and refers to advisors who disobeyed the president's orders as taken in holly lumen auzqui correct we did not specify anyone on page 158 don magán did not tell the acting secretary that the special prosecutor had to be eliminated and that he was prepared to resign the president's order also says that trying to obstruct justice and trying to do justice does not have to succeed to be a crime the simple attempt to destroy justice is a crime so it is so even though those close to the president did not execute his orders that is no defense to say that there was no obstruction of justice on the part of the president I cannot speculate by reiterating only the intent to investigate justice is a crime and you say that the president's actions to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful and that does not mean that all of his attempts were unsuccessful you are reading from those in report I wanted to ask you what you were referring to when you talked about cases where those who were successful today spoke directly to the level of this president's actions but also spoke in your report about the general pattern of the president's conduct toward the investigation that may shed light on the nature of the president's acts in which inferences can be made about his intention.

This is what you are reading from the report. I think it is important for everyone to know that the president's behavior changed significantly when he realized that his acts of objection were being investigated. In other words, when the American people decide whether the president offered justice they must analyze the president's conduct and his pattern of correct behavior director painful h and I have made a decision on which we have seen whether this meets the requirements of obstruction of justice and corrupt intent arrived and what What is clear to me is that any other person I have books of the curious would have been accused of crimes by this section, we would not have accepted this behavior from any of the 44 previous presidents, they cannot allow it now, a future to protect our democracy and yet we are going to continue investigating because as you have clearly stated at the end of your report, no one is above the law.

You write in your report that you did not want to make a traditional prosecutorial decision. It was due to an opinion from the Department of Justice that a sitting president would not could be impeached in your press conference you explained that the opinion indicates that the constitution requires a different process than the criminal justice system to accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing that process to impeach a president is impeachment I'm not going To comment on your report, you say that you don't want to sit down or you don't want to avoid potential constitutional remedies to address the bad behavior of a president.

What were you referring to when you talk about this? For those who are in health care, they are not lawyers, I am not going to try to explain. what that comes from page 1 of volume 2 in the footnote is the reference what those constitutional processes are I think you have mentioned at least one the impeachment trial I am not going to comment on is one of the constitutional processes indicated in the report in the footnote your report documents the various cases in which the president tried to intervene in the investigation you say in your report on page 10 interfering with a congressional investigation an investigation with corrupt intent can also constitute obstruction of true justice, the president has told us that he wants to combat congressional combinatories, he continues to interfere with the investigation into potential misconduct, highlighting the importance of the resources provided for in the constitution to accuse a sitting president of misconduct, this hearing has helped him This commission, in exercising its constitutional responsibility to determine whether and the articles of impeachment against the president, I agree with you, director, seeing that we all have a fundamental role in holding the president accountable for his actions.

Even more, I believe that in Congress we have the responsibility. to demand accountability and to safeguard one of the fundamental principles of our country that no one is above the law from everything I have heard said it is evident that any other person would have been prosecuted based on the evidence contained in the report now it depends on us to make president trump respond thank you for coming to try to be on time thank you director thank you for coming to this hearing before we conclude I want to ask everyone to please remain seated and quiet while the witness leaves the room and not all books have five days to present additional questions to witnesses to incorporate them into the file the session has concluded