Return to Transcripts main page


Robert S. Mueller Testifies At House Hearing About His Report Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Election. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired July 24, 2019 - 11:00   ET


MUELLER: Do you have a citation?

RASKIN: On page 7, on Volume 2.

MUELLER: Thank you.

RASKIN: Now, one of these witnesses was Michael Cohen, the president's personal lawyer, who ultimately plead guilty to campaign violations based on hush money payments to -- to -- when the president knew, and also to lying Congress -- lying to Congress about the hope (ph) for $1 billion Trump tower deal. After the FBI searched Cohen's home, the president called him up personally, he said to check in, and told him to, quote, "hang in there and stay strong." Is that right? Do you remember finding that?

MUELLER: It's in the report as stated. Yes, it is right.

RASKIN: Yes. Also in the report actually are a series of calls made by other friends of the president. One reached out to say he was with the boss in Mar-a-Lago and the president said, he loves you. His name is redacted. Another redacted friend called to say he boss loves you and the third redacted friend called to say everyone knows the boss has your back. Do you remember finding that sequence of calls?

MUELLER: Generally, yes.

RASKIN: When the news -- and in fact, Cohen said that following the receipt of these messages, I'm quoting here page 147 of Volume 2, he believed he had the support of the White House if he continued to toe the party line. And he determined to stay on message and be part of the team. That's page 147. Do you remember generally finding that?

MUELLER: Generally, yes.

RASKIN: Well, and Robert Costello, a lawyer close to the president's team emailed Cohen to say, quote, you are loved. They are in our corner. Sleep well tonight. And you have friends in high places. And that's up on the screen, page 147. Do you remember reporting that

MUELLER: I see that.

RASKIN: OK. Now, when the news first broke that Cohen had arranged payoffs to Stormy Daniels, Cohen faithfully stuck to this party line. He said that publicly that neither the Trump organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction and neither reimbursed him. Trump's personal attorney at that point quickly texted Cohen to say, quote, "Client says thank you for what you do." Mr. Mueller, who is the capital "C" client thanking Cohen for what he did (ph)?

MUELLER: Can't speak to that.

RASKIN: The assumption in the context suggests very strongly its President Trump.

MUELLER: I can't speak to that.

RASKIN: OK. Cohen later broke and pled guilty to campaign finance violations and admitted fully they were made, quote, "at the account of candidate Trump." Do you remember that?


RASKIN: After Cohen's guilty plea, the president suddenly changed his tune towards Mr. Cohen, didn't he?

MUELLER: I would say I rely on what's in the report.

RASKIN: Well, he made the suggestion that Cohen family members had crimes. He targeted, for example, Cohen's father-in-law and repeatedly suggested that he was guilty of committing crimes, right?

MUELLER: That's generally accurate.

RASKIN: OK. On page 15,4 you give a powerful summary of this change in dynamics. And you said -- I'm happy to have you read it, but I'm happy to do it, if not.

MUELLER: I have it in front of me, thank you.

RASKIN: Would you like to read it?

MUELLER: I would.

RASKIN: Could you read it out loud to everybody?

MUELLER: I would be happy to have you read it.

RASKIN: OK, very good, we'll read it at the same time. The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support an inference that the president used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate and then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of information or to undermine Cohen's credibility one Cohen began cooperating.

MUELLER: I believe that's accurate.

RASKIN: OK. And in my view, if anyone else in America engaged in these actions, they would have been charged with witness tampering. We must enforce the principle in Congress that you emphasize so well in the last sentence of your report which is that in America, no person is so high as to be above the law. I yield back. NADLER: (OFF-MIC)

LESKO: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just recently, Mr. Mueller, you said -- Mr. Lieu was asking you questions. And Mr. Lieu's question, I quote, "the reason you didn't indict the president was because of the OLC opinion. And you answered, that is correct. But that is not what you said in the report and it's not what you told Attorney General Barr.

In fact, in a joint statement that you released with DOJ on may 29th after your press conference, your -- your office issued a joint statement with the Department Of Justice that said, "the attorney general has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the president obstructed justice.

[11:05:00] The special counsel's report and his statement today made clear the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other whether the president committed a crime. There is no conflict between these statements." So Mr. Mueller, do you stand by your joint statement with DOJ you issued on May 29th as you sit here today?

MUELLER: I would have to look at it more closely before I say I agree with it (ph).

LESKO: Well, so -- you know, my conclusion is that what you told Mr. Lieu really contradicts what you said in the report. And specifically what you said, apparently repeatedly, to Attorney General Barr that -- and then you issued a joint statement on may 29th saying that the attorney general has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying but for the OLC report that we would have found the president obstructed justice. So I say there's a conflict. I do have some more questions. Mr. Mueller, there's been a lot of talk today about firing the special counsel and curtailing the investigation. Were you ever fired, Mr. Mueller?

MUELLER: Was I what?

LESKO: Were you ever fired as special counsel, Mr. Mueller?


LESKO: Were you allowed to complete your investigation unencumbered?


LESKO: And in fact, you resigned as special counsel when you closed up the office in late May of 2019. Is that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

LESKO: Thank you. Mr. Mueller, on April 18th, the attorney general held a press conference in conjunction with the public release of your report. Did Attorney General Barr say anything inaccurate either in his press conference or his March 24th letter to Congress summarizing the principle conclusions of your report? MUELLER: Well, what you are not mentioning is the letter we sent on

March 27th to Mr. Barr that raised some issues. And that letter speaks for itself.

LESKO: But then I don't see how you could -- that could be since A.G. Barr's letter detailed the principle conclusions of your report and you have said before that -- that there wasn't anything inaccurate. In fact, you had this joint statement. But let me -- let me go on to another question. Mr. Mueller, rather than purely relying on the evidence provided by witnesses and documents, I think you relied a lot on media. I'd like to know how many times you cited "The Washington Post" in your report.

MUELLER: How many times I what?

LESKO: Cited "The Washington Post" in your report.

MUELLER: I did not have knowledge of that figure, but -- I don't have knowledge of that figure.

LESKO: I counted about 60 times. How many times did you cite "The New York Times"? I counted...

MUELLER: Again, I have no idea.

LESKO: I counted about 75 times. How many times did you cite Fox News?

MUELLER: As with the other two, I have no idea.

LESKO: About 25 times. I've got to say it looks like Volume 2 is mostly regurgitated press stories. Honestly, there's almost nothing in Volume 2 that I couldn't already hear or know simply by having a $50 cable news subscription. However, your investigation cost American taxpayers $25 million. Mr. Mueller, you cited media reports nearly 200 times in your report then in a footnote, a small footnote, number 7, page 15 of Volume 2 of your report you wrote. I quote, "this section summarizes and cites various news stories not for the truth of the information contained in the stories but rather to place Candidate Trump's response to those stories in context." Since nobody but lawyers reads footnotes, are you concerned that the American public took the embedded news stories...

NADLER: The time of the gentlelady has expired. The gentlelady from Washington.

LESKO: Can Mr. Mueller answer the question?

NADLER: No. No. No, we're running short on time. I said the gentlelady from Washington.

JAYAPAL: Thank you. Director Mueller, let's turn to the fifth of the obstruction episodes in your report and that is the evidence of whether President Trump engaged in witness tampering with Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort whose foreign ties were critical into your investigation into Russia's interference in our elections and this starts at Volume 2, page 123. Your office got indictments against Manafort and Trump Deputy Campaign Manager Rick Gates in two different jurisdictions. Correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

JAYAPAL: And your office found that after a grand jury indicted them, Manafort told Gates not to plead guilty to any charges because quote, "he had talked to the president -- president's personal counsel and they were going to take care of us." Is that correct?

[11:10:00] MUELLER: That's accurate.

JAYAPAL: And according to your report, one day after Manafort's conviction on eight felony charges, quote, "The president said that flipping was not fair and almost ought to be outlawed." Is that correct?

MUELLER: I'm aware of that.

JAYAPAL: In this context Director Mueller, what does it mean to flip?

MUELLER: To have somebody cooperate in a criminal investigation.

JAYAPAL: And how essential is that cooperation to any efforts to combat crime?

MUELLER: I'm not going to go beyond that -- characterizing that effort.

JAYAPAL: Thank you. In your report you concluded that President Trump and his personal counsel Rudy Giuliani quote, "made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort while also making it clear that the president did not want Manafort to flip and cooperate with the government," end quote. Is that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

JAYAPAL: And as you stated earlier, witness tampering can be shown where someone with an improper motive encourages another person not to cooperate with law enforcement. Is that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

JAYAPAL: Now on page 123 of Volume 2 you also discuss the president's motive and you say that as court proceedings moved forward against Manafort, President Trump quote, "discussed with aides whether and in what way Manafort might be cooperating and whether Manafort knew any information that would be harmful to the president," end quote. Is that correct?

MUELLER: And that was a quote from...

JAYAPAL: From page 123, Volume 2.

MUELLER: I have it. Thank you. Yes.

JAYAPAL: And when someone tries to stop another person from working with law enforcement and they do it because they're worried about what that person will say, it seems clear from what you wrote that this is a classic definition of witness tampering. Now Mr. Manafort did eventually decide to cooperate with your office and he entered into a plea agreement but then he broke that agreement. Can you describe what he did that caused you to tell the court that the agreement was off.

MUELLER: Now I'm referring to the court proceedings on that issue.

JAYAPAL: So in -- on page 127 of Volume 2 you told the court that Mr. Manafort lied about a number of matters that were material to the investigation and you said that Manafort's lawyers also quote, "regularly briefed the president's lawyers on topics discussed and the information that Manafort had provided in interviews with the special counsel's office." Does that sound right?

MUELLER: And the source of that is?

JAYAPAL: That's page 127, Volume 2. That's a direct quote.

MUELLER: If it's on the report, yes I support it.

JAYAPAL: Thank you. And two days after you told the court that Manafort broke his plea agreement by lying repeatedly, did President Trump tell the press that Mr. Manafort was quote, "very brave because he did not flip." This is page 128 of Volume 2.

MUELLER: If it's in the report I support it as it is -- as it is set forth.

JAYAPAL: Thank you. Director Mueller in your report you make a very serious conclusion about the evidence regarding the president's involvement with the Manafort criminal proceedings. Let me read to you from your report. "Evidence concerning the president's conduct toward Manafort indicates that the president intended to encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government."

It is clear that the president both publicly and privately discouraged Mr. Manafort's cooperation or flipping while also dangling the promise of a pardon if he stayed loyal and did not share what he knew about the president. Anyone else who did these things would be prosecuted for them. We must ensure that no one is above the law and I thank you for being here Director Mueller.


JAYAPAL: I yield back.

NADLER: The gentleman from Pennsylvania.

RESCHENTHALER: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller. I'm over here, I'm sorry. Mr. Mueller, are you familiar with the now expired independent counsel statute. It's a statue under which Ken Starr was appointed.

MUELLER: That Ken Starr did what? I'm sorry.

RESCHENTHALER: Are you familiar with the independent counsel statute?

MUELLER: Are you talking about the one we're operating under now or previous?

RESCHENTHALER: No. Under which Ken Starr was appointed.

MUELLER: I am not that familiar with that but I'd be happy to take your question.

RESCHENTHALER: Well the Clinton Administration allowed the independent counsel statute to expire after Ken Starr's investigation. The final report requirement was a major reason why the statute was allowed to expire. Even President Clinton's A.G. Janet Reno expressed concerns about the final report requirement and I'll quote A.G. Reno. She said, "On one hand the American people have an interest in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest officials. On the other hand, the report requirement cuts against many of the most basic traditions and practices of American law enforcement. Under our system, we presume innocence and we value privacy. We believe that information obtained during a criminal investigation should, in most cases be made public only if there's an indictment and prosecution not any lengthy and detailed report filed after a decision has been made not to prosecute. The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing a target's dirty laundry and it also creates yet another incentive for an independent counsel to over investigate in order to justify his or her tenure and to avoid criticism that the independent counsel may have left a stone unturned."

[11:15:00] Again, Mr. Mueller, those are A.G. Reno's words. Didn't you do exactly what A.G. Reno feared? Didn't you publish a lengthy report unfairly airing the target's dirty laundry without recommending charges?

MUELLER: I disagree with that and ...

RESCHENTHALER: OK. Did any -- did any of your witnesses ...

MUELLER: Can I finish?

RESCHENTHALER: ... have the chance to be cross examined?

MUELLER: Can I just finish my answer on that?

RESCHENTHALER: Quickly. My time...

MUELLER: We operate under the current statute not the original statute so I'm most familiar with the current statute not the older statute.

RESCHENTHALER: OK. Did any of the witnesses have a chance to be cross examined?

MUELLER: Did any of the witnesses in our investigation?


MUELLER: I'm going to answer that.

RESCHENTHALER: Did you allow the people mentioned in your report to challenge how they were characterized? MUELLER: I'm not going to get into that.

RESCHENTHALER: Given that A.G. Barr stated multiple times during his confirmation hearing that he would make as much of your report public as possible, did you write your report knowing that it would likely be shared with the public?


RESCHENTHALER: Did knowing that the report could and likely would be made public, did that alter contents would you include it?

MUELLER: I can't speak to that.

RESCHENTHALER: Despite the expectations that your report would be released to the public, you left out significant exculpatory evidence. In other words, evidence favorable to the president correct?

MUELLER: Well, I actually would disagree with you. I think we strove to put into the report exculpatory (inaudible) as well...

RESCHENTHALER: (inaudible) got into that with you where he said there was -- you said there was evidence you left out.

MUELLER: Well, you make a choice as to what goes into a indictment.

RESCHENTHALER: Isn't it true -- Mr. Mueller, isn't it true that on page 1, Volume 2 you state when you're quoting the statute the obligation to either prosecute or not prosecute?

MUELLER: Well, generally that is the case.


MUELLER: Although most cases are not done in the context of the president.

RESCHENTHALER: In this case you made a decision not to prosecute, correct?

MUELLER: No. We made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute or not.

RESCHENTHALER: So essentially what your report did was everything that A.G. Reno warned against?

MUELLER: I can't agree with that characterization.

RESCHENTHALER: OK, well what you did is you compiled a nearly 450 -- you compiled nearly 450 pages of the very worst information you gathered against the target of your investigation who happens to be the President of the United States and you did this knowing that you were not going to recommend charges and that the report would be made public.

MUELLER: Not true. RESCHENTHALER: Mr. Mueller, as a former officer in the United States JAG Corps I prosecuted nearly 100 terrorists in a Baghdad courtroom. I cross-examined the Butcher of Fallujah in defense of our Navy SEALS. As a civilian, I was elected a magisterial district judge in Pennsylvania, so I'm very well-versed in the American legal system.

The drafting and the publication of some of the information in this report without an indictment, without prosecution frankly flies in the face of American justice and I find those facts and this entire process un-American. I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague Jim Jordan.

JORDAN: Mister -- Director Mueller, the third FISA renewal happens a month after you're named special counsel. What role did you office play in the third FISA renewal of Carter Page.

MUELLER: I'm not going to talk to that.

NADLER: The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentlelady from Florida.

DEMINGS: Director Mueller, a couple of my colleagues right here wanted to talk to you or ask you about lies, so let's talk about lies. According to your report, page 9, Volume 1, witnesses lied to your offices and to Congress. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russia interference according to your report other than the individuals who plead guilty to crimes based on their lying to you and your team. Did other witnesses lie to you?

MUELLER: I think there are probably a spectrum of witnesses in terms of those who are not telling the full truth and those who are outright liars.

DEMINGS: Thank you very much, outright liars. It is fair to say then that there were limits on what evidence was available to your investigation of both Russia election interference and obstruction of justice.

MUELLER: That's usually the case.

DEMINGS: And that lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation?

MUELLER: I would generally agree with that.

DEMINGS: Thank you so much, Director Mueller. You will be hearing more from me in the next hearing, so I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Correa. Thank you.

CORREA: Mr. Mueller, first of all let me welcome you. Thank you for your service to our country. You are a hero, Vietnam War vet, wounded war vet. We won't forget your service to our country.

MUELLER: Thank you, sir.

[11:20:00] CORREA: I may begin because of time limits we have gone in depth on only five possible episodes of obstruction. There's so much more. And I want to focus on another section of obstruction which is the president's conduct concerning Michael Flynn, the president's national security advisor.

In early 27, the White House Counsel and the president were informed that Mr. Flynn had lied to government authorities about his communications with the Russian ambassador during the Trump campaign in transition. Is this correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

CORREA: If a hostile nation knows that a U.S. official has lied publicly that can be used to blackmail that government official, correct?

MUELLER: I'm not going to speak to that. I don't disagree with it necessarily, but I'm not going to speak to -- anymore to that issue.

CORREA: Thank you very much, sir. Flynn resigned on February 13, 2016, and the very next day when the president was having lunch with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, did the president say, open quotes, "now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over," close quote. Is that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

CORREA: And is it true that Christie responded by saying, open quotes, "no way, and this Russia thing is far from over," close quote?

MUELLER: That's the way we have it in the report.

CORREA: Thank you. And after the president met with Christie, later that same day the president arranged to meet with then FBI Director James Comey along in the Oval Office, correct?

MUELLER: Correct. Particularly if you have the citation to the...

CORREA: Page 39-40, Volume 2.

MUELLER: Thank you very much.

CORREA: And according to Comey, the president told him I hope -- open quote, "I hope you can see your way to clear to letting this thing go, to letting Flynn go. He's a good guy and I hope you can let it go," close quote. Page 40, Volume 2.

MUELLER: Accurate.

CORREA: What did Comey understand the president to be asking?

MUELLER: I'm not going to get into what was in Mr. Comey's mind.

CORREA: Comey understood this to be a direction because of the president's position and the circumstances of the one-to-one meeting, page 40, Volume 2?

MUELLER: Well, I understand it's in the report and I support it as being in the report.

CORREA: Thank you, sir. Even though the president publicly denied telling Comey to drop the investigation you found, open quote, "substantial evidence corroborating Comey's account over the president's." Is this correct?

MUELLER: It's correct.

CORREA: The president fired Comey on May 9. Is that correct, sir?

MUELLER: I believe that's the accurate date.

CORREA: That's page 77, Volume 2. You found substantial evidence that the catalyst for the president's firing of Comey was Comey's, open quote, "unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation"?

MUELLER: I'm not going to delve more into the details of what happened. If it's in the report, then I support it because it's already been reviewed appropriately appears in the report.

CORREA: And that's page 75, Volume 2.

MUELLER: Thank you.

CORREA: Thank you. And in fact, the very next day the president told the Russian Foreign Minister, open quote, "I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I face great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off. I'm not under investigation," close quote. Is that correct?

MUELLER: That's what was written in the -- written in the report, yes.

NADLER: Time of the -- time of the gentleman has expired.

CORREA: Thank you, sir.

NADLER: Gentleman from Virginia.

CLINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller, we've heard a lot about what you're not going to talk about today, so let's talk about something that you should be able to talk about -- the law itself, the underlying obstruction statute, and your creative, legal analysis of the statutes in Volume 2, particularly your interpretation of 18 USC (ph) 1512-c. Section 1512-c is a statute created as part of auditing financial regulations for public companies. And as you write on page 164 of Volume 2, this provision was added as a a floor amendment in the Senate and explained as closing a certain loophole with respect to document shredding.

And to read the statue, "Whoever appropriately alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document or other object, or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding, or otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so shall be fined under the statute or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

You analysis and application of the statute proposes to give clause C2 a much broader interpretation than commonly used. First, your analysis proposes to read clause C2 in isolation, reading it as a free standing all-encompassing provision, prohibiting any act influencing a proceeding if done with an improper motive.

[11:25:00] And second, your analysis of the statute to apply this way (ph) -- proposes to apply this sweeping prohibition to lawful acts taken by public officials, exercising their discretionary powers if those acts influence a proceeding.

So, Mr. Mueller, I'd ask you, in analyzing the obstruction, you state that you recognize that the Department of Justice and the courts have not definitely resolved these issues, correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

CLINE: You'd agree that not everyone in the Justice Department agreed with your legal theory of the obstruction of justice statues, correct?

MUELLER: I'm not going to be involved in a discussion on -- on that at this juncture.

CLINE: In fact, the attorney general himself disagrees with your interpretation of the law, correct?

MUELLER: I leave that to the attorney general to identify.

CLINE: And you would agree that prosecutors sometimes incorrectly apply the law, correct?

MUELLER: I would have to agree with that one.

CLINE: And members of your legal team in fact have had convictions overturned because they were based on an incorrect legal theory, correct?

MUELLER: I don't know to what you (inaudible) -- we've all spent time in the trenches trying casing, have not won every one of those cases.


CLINE: Well, let me ask you about one in particular. One of your top prosecutors, Andrew Weissmann, obtained a conviction against auditing firm Arthur Anderson, lower court, which was subsequently overturned and a unanimous Supreme Court decision that rejected the legal theory advanced by Weissmann, correct?

MUELLER: Well, I'm not going to get into that -- delve into that...

CLINE: Well let me read from that, maybe...


MUELLER: May I just finish? May I just finish my answer? CLINE: Yes.

MUELLER: To say I'm not going to be --get involved in a discussion on that. I will refer you to that citation that you gave me at the outset for the lengthy discussion on just what you're talking about. And to the extent I have anything to say about it, it is what we've already put into the report on that.

CLINE: And I am reading from your report when discussing this section. Now I'll read from the decision of the Supreme Court unanimously reversing Mr. Weissmann, when he said, "Indeed, its striking how little culpability the instructions require. For example, the jury was told that even a petitioner who honestly and sincerely believed that his conduct was lawful, the jury could convict. The instructions also diluted the meaning of 'corruptly,' such that it covered innocent conduct."

MUELLER: Let me just say...


CLINE: Let me move on, I have limited time. Your report takes the broadest possible reading of this provision in applying it to the president's official acts, and I'm concerned about the implications of your theory for over-criminalizing conduct by public officials and private citizens alike.

So to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is, I want to ask a few examples. On October 11, 2015 during the FBI investigation into the Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, President Obama said, "I don't think it posed a national security problem." And he later said, "I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America's national security was endangered."

Assuming for a moment that his comments did influence the investigation, couldn't President Obama be charged under your interpretation with obstruction of justice?

MUELLER: Well, again, I refer you to the report. But let me say, with Andrew Weissmann, he's one of the more talented attorneys we have on board...

CLINE: OK, well, I'll take that as...

MUELLER: ... over a period of time he has run a number of units...


CLINE: I have very limited time.

In August 2015, a very senior DOJ official called FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, expressing concern that FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe. The DOJ official was apparently "very pissed off," quote/unquote. McCabe questioned this official, asking, "Are you telling me I need to shut down a validly predicted investigation?" To which the official replied of course not. This seems to be a clear example of somebody within the executive

branch attempting to influence a FBI investigation. So under your theory, couldn't that person be charged with obstruction as long as a prosecutor could come up with a potentially corrupt motive?

MUELLER: I refer to you to our lengthy dissertation on exactly those issues that appears in the -- at the end of the report.

CLINE: Mr. Mueller, I'd argue that it says above the Supreme Court...


NADLER: Time of the gentleman has expired. Our intent -- our intent was to conclude this hearing in three hours. Given the break, that would bring us to approximately 11:40. With Director Mueller's indulgence, we will be asking our remaining Democratic members to voluntarily limit their time below the five minutes so that we can complete our work as close to that timeframe as possible.

I recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania.

SCANLON: Thank you. Director Mueller, I want to ask you some questions about the president's statements regarding advanced knowledge of the WikiLeaks dumps. So the president refused to sit down with your investigators for an in-person interview, correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

SCANLON: So the only questions we have from the president are contained in Appendix C to your report.

MUELLER: That's correct.

[11:30:00] SCANLON: OK. So looking at Appendix C on page 5, you asked the president over a dozen questions about whether he had knowledge that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess the emails that were stolen by the Russians.