Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Robert Mueller Testifies Before Congress; CNN Panel Discusses Testimony During Recess. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired July 24, 2019 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:00]

JORDAN: Why didn't you charge him with a crime?

MUELLER: I can't get into internal deliberations with regard to who or who would not be charged.

JORDAN: You charged a lot of other people for making false statements. Let's remember this -- let's remember this, in 2016 the FBI did something they probably haven't done before, they spied on two American citizens associated with a presidential campaign.

George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. With Carter Page they went to the FISA court, they used the now famous dossier as part of the reason they were able to get the warrant and spy on Carter Page for a better part of a year.

With Mr. Papadopoulos, they didn't go to the court, they used human sources, all kinds of -- from about the moment Papadopoulos joins the Trump campaign, you've got all these people all around the world starting to swirl around him, names like Halper, Downer, Mifsud, Thompson, meeting in Rome, London, all kinds of places.

The FBI even sent -- even sent a lady posing as somebody else, went by the name Azmiturk (ph), even dispatched her to London to spy on Mr. Papadopoulos. In one of these meetings, Mr. Papadopoulos is talking to a foreign diplomat and he tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton.

That diplomat then contacts the FBI and the FBI opens an investigation based on that fact. You point this out on page 1 of the report. July 31st, 2016 they open the investigation based on that piece of information.

Diplomat tells Papadopoulos Russians have dirt -- excuse me, Papadopoulos tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton, diplomat tells the FBI. What I'm wondering is who told Papadopoulos? How'd he find out?

MUELLER: I can't get into the evidentiary filings.

JORDAN: Yes, you can because you wrote about it, you gave us the answer. Page 192 of the report, you tell us who told him. Joseph Mifsud, Joseph Mifsud's the guy who told Papadopoulos, the mysterious professor who lives in Rome and London, works at -- teaches in two different universities.

This is the guy who told Papadopoulos he's the guy who starts it all, and when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times and yet you don't charge him with a crime. You charge Rick Gates for false statements, you charge Paul Manafort for false statements, you charge Michael Cohen with false statements, you charge Michael Flynn a three star general with false statements, but the guy who puts the country through this whole saga, starts it all for three years we've lived this now, he lies and you guys don't charge him.

And I'm curious as to why.

MUELLER: Well I can't get into it and it's obvious I think that we can't get into charging decisions.

JORDAN: When the FBI interviewed him in February -- FBI interviews him in February, when the Special Counsel's Office interviewed Mifsud, did he lie to you guys too?

MUELLER: Can't get into that.

JORDAN: Did you interview Mifsud?

MUELLER: Can't get into that.

JORDAN: Is Mifsud western intelligence or Russian intelligence?

MUELLER: Can't get into that.

JORDAN: A lot of things you can't get into. What's interesting, you can charge 13 Russians no one's ever heard of, no one's ever seen, no one's ever going to hear of them, no one's ever going to see them, you can charge them, you can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements but the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can't charge him.

I think that's amazing.

MUELLER: I'm not certain I -- I'm not certain I agree with your characterizations.

JORDAN: Well I'm reading from your report, Mifsud told Papadopoulos, Papadopoulos tells the diplomat, the diplomat tells the FBI, the FBI opens the investigation July 31st, 2016.

And here we are three years later, July of 2019, the country's been put through this and the central figure who launches it all, lies to us and you guys don't hunt him down and interview him again and you don't charge him with a crime.

Now here's the good news, here's the good news, the president was falsely accused of conspiracy. The FBI does a 10 month investigation and James Comey when we deposed him a year ago told us at that point they had nothing.

You do a 22-month investigation, at the end of that 22 months you find no conspiracy and what's the Democrats want to do, they want to keep investigating, they want to keep going. Maybe a better course of action, maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusations started, maybe it's to go back and actually figure out why Joseph Mifsud was lying to the FBI.

And here's the good news, here's the good news, that's exactly what Bill Barr is doing. And thank goodness for that. That's exactly what the attorney general and John Durham doing, they're going to find out why we went through this three year...

NADLER: The time of the gentleman...

JORDAN: ...three year saga and get to the bottom of it.

NADLER: Time of the gentleman has expired. In a moment we will take a very brief five minute break. First I ask everyone in the room to please remain seated and quiet while the witness exit the -- exits the room.

I also want to announce to those in the audience that you may not be guaranteed your seat if you leave the hearing room at this time.

At this time, the committee will stand in a very short recess.

[10:05:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. So this is the first break that they're taking, the House Judiciary Committee, very, very explosive exchanges, very explosive information being released. There's a lot to discuss the initial statements from Robert Mueller in response to questioning from Jerry Nadler, the Committee Chairman, that the investigation -- his investigation, nearly a two-year investigation, did not totally exonerate President Trump despite what President Trump, Dana, has been saying.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Look, this has been well over an hour, almost actually an hour-and-a-half. And there have been a lot of questions in the weeds. But to think it's -- in some ways, the democrats could have stopped who were in charge, would have stopped the hearing after the Nadler exchange. Because in that exchange, they got what they wanted and what they needed, politically speaking, about the notion of obstruction and most importantly the notion of the President insisting over and over again that he was exonerated. He was not exonerated.

And you had the Special Counsel who did the two-year investigation answering that very clearly with very direct yes or no answers.

BLITZER: Specific -- very significant developments, Jeffrey Toobin.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. The Nadler questioning was by far the most illuminating and most important exchange so far. I think there's a large question hovering over what we have seen for the hour-and-a-half, which is is Mueller's phlegmatic, extremely limited answer a strategy or is it some inability he has to engage with the questioners? I mean, I think the question of how he's -- you know, this very limited short sentences, yes or no, is that a strategy or is that something he's just not capable of doing?

BLITZER: Well, Garrett, you know Robert Mueller very well, you've interviewed him, you've written a book about him. What do you think?

GARRETT GRAFF, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It's sort of hard to tell. I think I would expect Robert Mueller to be a little bit more combative than he has been during some of these exchanges, particularly the one with Representative Gohmert.

This is not necessarily the Robert Mueller that we have seen testify before Congress before, but we have seen him -- you know, he performed very strongly in his opening remarks and that opening exchange with Nadler. He has been shakier with some of these more complicated, little bit more obscure questions with citations back to the report.

And it's hard to know, as Jeffrey is saying, whether that's a strategy on his part, where he's trying to be very, very, very precise in what his report is actually saying. It could also be, you know, we're seeing him sort of shake off the rust of not testifying before Congress in six years.

BLITZER: Did the Chairman, Preet, accomplish what the democrats clearly wanted to try to accomplish?

PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Sure. In the opening round, yes. We're used to saying that members of Congress don't know how to ask questions well, they don't know how to be crisp about them. I during -- watching the testimony, I graded him an A. Maybe he deserved A-plus.

What's interesting about what has been discussed in the last couple of minutes is that whether it's some inability or it's a strategy they both point to the same direction and good for Robert Mueller who doesn't want to say much.

When he gets good, sharp questions that are clear, he answers in a good, sharp and clear way. I think at the beginning, I was just observing everyone at the panel here, when he was answering out of the box, yes, no, yes, yes, you don't see witnesses testify that way. Lots of witnesses, whether they're extremely sharp or not, go on and on and they filibuster. He doesn't do that.

I don't believe I have yet heard Bob Mueller give any kind of narrative answer that goes more than one sentence so far. I'd like to see the transcript later. He'll either answer yes or no if he gets a clear question or he says, I'll refer you to the report, and that it.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: And one of the clear points, obviously, from the Nadler exchange at the very top, Dana Bash, was that the report does not exonerate President Trump.

BASH: Exactly.

TAPPER: Other people, especially republicans, have made other points. But right now, I think that's the headline out of this this -- out of the hearing so far, that Mueller says that his report does not exonerate the President despite the President claiming so.

BASH: Absolutely. That is by far the headline. The person and the exchange that came close to that, I think it maybe it backs it up that kind of gives evidence behind that headline was the exchange that we just saw towards the end here with Congresswoman Karen Bass of California. And she had the same kind of very fast-paced. She asked the question, he answered, yes or no.

And what she got out of the exchange was the fact that his Counsel -- the President actually directed his Counsel to try to fire Robert Mueller.

[10:10:00]

And then following that, when that was reported by The New York Times, he tried to get Don McGahn, the Counsel we're talking about, to deny it and Don McGahn refused to do it because he said, no, the story is true. So that all speaks to probably exhibit A in the -- at the evidence of the obstruction case.

TAPPER: One of the -- one of the other points, Pamela, the republicans are trying to score some points. Congressman Ratcliffe making the point that it's not standard procedure for a prosecutor to say, I'm not exonerating this person even though I'm not charging them, Congressman Louie Gohmert accusing Mueller of perpetuating injustice, Congressman Jim Jordan asking a lot of questions about the mysterious Joseph Mifsud, who we've never really figured out what exactly his role in all of this is.

But I don't know that those are going to be headlines out of this report. I'm sure that they will, you know, merit some back slaps in the Fox greenroom. But I don't know that that actually is making any sort of a larger point here.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Right, or back slaps from the President. We have learned that Congressman Ratcliffe was auditioning for a job in the administration. According to our Kaitlan Collins, he was echoing an argument that we've heard from White House lawyers that this inverted standard of proof Mueller saying he couldn't be exonerated in the obstruction probe when you don't prove someone's innocence in the justice system, you prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So he's really focused on that. That is true.

But I do think part of the strategy also, the bigger strategy for republicans is they are trying to portray a confused witness who is not in command of his performance. I think that's the larger strategy we're seeing from the republicans.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: I think there are actually two answers to the questions here that are notable. One, of course, is the Nadler question. Was he exonerated? Clear answer from Mueller is no. In fact, he answered in those terms more than once.

When he was pressed on the conspiracy question, did the President conspire, et cetera, Mueller's answer was not no. It was, we found insufficient evidence of the President's culpability. That was an opportunity. The President could have said very clearly there's nothing there. He didn't. That's as far -- again, consistent with the report. By it shows you that he didn't dismiss that in the way he dismissed the President's claim of his -- on obstruction.

And I think -- listen, I think it could be unfair to look at Mueller's performance there and say that somehow he's not on top of things. I mean, you had -- you have a 400-page report here, members citing page citations and Mueller -- when there are particular citations that don't go (INAUDIBLE) -- well, let me look at the report. On the key questions of what he found, was there evidence, he gives a very clear answer on the conspiracy question, he gives a very clear answer repeatedly on the obstruction question, and those are the takeaways.

TAPPER: And one other item that I think is important, Jeffrey Toobin, is that he said that the investigation began into the obstruction of justice charges, began with the OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel memo, meaning, I gather, that they were never going to indict President Trump, ever.

TOOBIN: And that was -- that's news, actually. I mean, because the question of how and whether and when the Mueller team was going to abide by the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion that you can't indict a sitting president, when did they agree to that? Apparently, we now know from day one.

So they went into this investigation, according to the Special Counsel, knowing that they were never going to indict the President. And I think that shapes a lot of what follows.

The problem I think when you think about a narrative, if you were just a casual viewer today and someone were to ask you after an hour-and-a- half, well, what did the President do wrong here? It wouldn't be easy to answer that question because of the sort of -- he's not telling a story. He is ratifying a story that the questioners are asking him one question at a time.

And those of us who know the story, you know, we understand what they're getting at. But, you know, if he alternatively had said this is what Don McGahn told us, he walked -- and that is just not how he's approaching this --

TAPPER: No. he's saying, refer to the report if you want the details.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And part of the problem is that Trump has spent the better part of two and a half years telling you that this investigation was about him. When the reality, as he outlined at the very beginning of this discussion today about what his directive and mandate was, was to investigate the idea of foreign interference.

He identified the notion that he had under the OLC opinion, he said, you never know where the investigation is going to lead. So the notion of being able to continue the investigation was extraordinarily important for him to do so because it wasn't as if his -- even one of his considered targets was actually President Trump.

So I look at actual Mueller and how he operated today. I have to say, he was extraordinarily frustrating as a witness because he continually derailed everyone's soap box. He did not give an inch, he had not removed one. And in doing so, he essentially said, I told you before I got here.

[10:15:02]

I was going to be limited. I was going to be pointed. You want look at the actual document, fine. You want to hear my answer, fine. But I have a duty here to be precise. You must have a duty of actually asking a question you want answered as opposed to --

BLITZER: I want to point out that the Chairman is now back in the room. You see him speaking with one of the Counsels, Norm Eisen, who is there as well joining the rehearsals. Norm Eisen was playing Robert Mueller in tying to help the democrats make sure they ask the right questions.

TAPPER: Preet Bharara, were you surprised with the admission that, basically, from day one, they had decided, the Special Counsel's team, they would not and could not indict the President? Here's Jerry Nadler he's calling the hearing to order. You can answer that until we begin.

BHARARA: Yes. I was surprised. As Jeffrey said, that's news. I would have liked to heard -- I would like to hear a stronger answer as to why it was appropriate to continue the investigation. Because the implication of it is, as a lot of people have been speculating, you do the investigation even if you can't indict the President, the OLC opinion says you can continue to investigate and there's this body called congress that also has, you know, an interest in this, and also future prosecutions once the President leaves office. So it was not all for naught.

GRAFF: Yes. I think to Laura's point, I mean, one of the things that's fascinating, and, Preet, you helped to prep Jim Comey for some of these dramatic hearings before, this is not Jim Comey, you know? This is -- you know, you watch the way that Jim Comey has told these dramatic stories before about the President and you're not getting that with Robert Mueller. You know, Mueller is yes, no, refer to the report.

BROWN: I'm a little surprised at times he hasn't pushed back more when he was told that he was perpetuating injustice. He just said in response, I take your question. I think he said -- he went to say, I take your point.

But then later, he did tell one of the congressmen that he didn't agree with the assessment. So there's a little bit of --

TAPPER: But he's not fiercely defending his own integrity or the integrity of his team.

BROWN: He's not, and that's surprising to me. BLITZER: All right. Hold on because he's walking back in, Robert Mueller. They took a little break. They're going to resume, I think, for another hour-and-a-half now before the judiciary part of this investigation, this hearing concludes. And then they take another break and go before the Intelligence Committee.

NADLER: Gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond.

RICHMOND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mueller, Congressman Duetch addressed Trump's request to McGahn to fire you. Representative Bass talked about the president's request to McGahn to deny the fact that the president made that request.

So I want to pick up where they left off and I want to pick up with the president's personal lawyer. In fact, there was evidence that the president's personal lawyer was alarmed at the prospect of the president meeting with Mr. McGahn to discuss Mr. McGahn's refusal to deny The New York Time's report about the president trying to fire you, correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

RICHMOND: In fact, the president's counsel was so alarmed by the prospect of the president's meeting with McGahn that he called Mr. McGahn's counsel and said that McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the Oval Office that day, correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

RICHMOND: So it's accurate to say that the president knew that he was asking McGahn to deny facts that McGahn, quote, "had repeatedly said were accurate," unquote. Isn't that right?

MUELLER: Correct.

RICHMOND: Your investigation also found, quote, "by the time of the Oval Office meeting with the president, the president was aware, one, that McGahn did not think the story was false, two, did not want to issue a statement or create a written record denying facts that McGahn believed to be true. The president nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate." Isn't that correct?

MUELLER: (Inaudible)

RICHMOND: I believe that's on page 119. Thank you. In other words, the president was trying to force McGahn to say something that McGahn did not believe to be true.

MUELLER: That's accurate.

RICHMOND: I want to reference you to a slide and it's on page 120, and it says, "substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the special counsel terminated, the president acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the president's conduct towards the investigation."

MUELLER: It's accurate.

RICHMOND: Can you explain what you meant there?

MUELLER: I'm just going to leave it as it appears in the report.

RICHMOND: So it's fair to say the president tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?

[10:20:00]

MUELLER: I would say that is generally a summary.

RICHMOND: Would you that that action the president tried to hamper the investigation by asking staff to falsify records relevant to your investigation?

MUELLER: I'm just going to refer you to the report if I could for review of that episode.

RICHMOND: Thank you. Also, the president's attempt to get McGahn to create a false-written record, were related to Mr. Trump's concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry, correct?

MUELLER: I believe that to be true.

RICHMOND: In fact, at that same Oval Office meeting, did the president also ask McGahn why he had told - quote, "why he had told Special Counsels Office investigators that the president told him to have you removed," unquote?

MUELLER: What was the question, sir? I might (ph)...

RICHMOND: Let me go to the next one. The president, quote, "criticized McGahn for telling your office about the June 17, 2017 events when he told McGahn to have you removed," correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

RICHMOND: In other words, the president was criticizing his White House Counsel for telling law enforcement officials what he believed to be the truth?

MUELLER: I, again, go back to the text of the - of the report.

RICHMOND: Well, let me go a little bit further. Would it have been a crime if Mr. McGahn had lied to you about the president ordering him to fire you?

MUELLER: I don't want to speculate.

RICHMOND: OK. Is it true that you charged multiple people associated with the president for lying to you during your investigation? MUELLER: That is accurate.

RICHMOND: The president also complained that his staff were taking notes during the meeting about firing McGahn. Is that correct?

MUELLER: That's what the report says. Yes, the report.

RICHMOND: But, in fact, it's completely appropriate for the president's staff, especially his counsels, to take notes during a meeting correct?

MUELLER: I rely on the wording of the report.

RICHMOND: Well, thank you, Director Mueller, for you investigation into whether the president attempted to obstruct justice by ordering his White House Counsel, Don McGahn, to lie to protect the president and then to create a false record about it. It is clear that any other person who engaged in such conduct would be charged with a crime. We will continue our investigation. We will hold the president accountable because no one is above the law.

NADLER: Gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Florida.

GAETZ: Director Mueller, can you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia's disinformation campaign?

MUELLER: No. I said they - my opening statement that part of the building of the case predated me by at least 10 months.

GAETZ: Yes. I mean, Paul Manafort's alleged crimes regarding tax evasion predated you. You had no problem charging them, and a matter of fact, this Steele dossier predated the attorney general and he didn't have any problem answering the question when Senator Cornyn asked the attorney general the exact question I asked you, Director.

The attorney general said, and I'm quoting, "no. I can't state that with confidence, and that's one of the areas I'm reviewing. I'm concerned about it and I don't think it's entirely speculative."

Now, something is not entirely speculative that it must have some factual basis, but you identify no factual basis regarding the dossier or the possibility that it was part of the Russia disinformation campaign.

Now, Christopher Steele's reporting is referenced in your report. Steele reported to the FBI that senior Russian foreign ministry figures among with other - along with other Russia's told him that there was a - and I'm quoting from the Steele dossier - "extensive evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign team and the Kremlin."

GAETZ: So here's my question. Did Russians really tell that to Christopher Steele or did he just make it all up and was he lying to the FBI?

MUELLER: Let me back up a second if I could and say as I've said earlier, with regard to Steele, that's beyond my purview.

GAETZ: No it is exactly your purview Director Mueller and here's why. Only one of two things is possible, right? Either Steele made this whole thing up and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn't find or Russians lied to Steele. Now if Russians were lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our duly elected president, that would seem to be precisely your purview because you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to fully and thoroughly investigate Russia's interference but you weren't interested in whether or not Russians were interfering through Christopher Steele and if Steele was lying then you should have charged him with lying like you charged a variety of other people. But you say nothing about this in your report.

MUELLER: Well, sir...

[10:25:00] GAETZ: Meanwhile, Director, you're quite loquacious on other topics, you write 3,500 words about the June 9 meeting between the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya.

You write on page 103 of your report that the president's legal team suggested and I'm quoting from your report, "that the meeting might have been a set up by individuals working with the firm that produced the Steele reporting." So I'm going to ask you a very easy question Director Mueller, on the week of June 9, who did Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya meet with more frequently, the Trump campaign or Glenn Simpson who is functionally acting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee?

MUELLER: Well what I think is missing here is the fact that this is under investigation and -- elsewhere...

GAETZ: I get that...

MUELLER: And if I could finish, sir. And if I could finish, sir. And consequently it's not within my purview, the Department of Justice and FBI should be responsive to questions on this particular issue.

GAETZ: It is absurd to suggest that a operative for the democrats was meeting with this Russian lawyer the day before, the day after the Trump Tower meeting and yet that's not something you reference. Now Glenn Simpson testified under oath he had dinner with Veselnitskaya the day before and the day after this meeting with the Trump team. Do you have any basis as you sit here today to believe that Steele was lying?

MUELLER: As I said before and I'll say again, it's not my purview. Others are investigating what you...

GAETZ: It's not your purview to look into whether or not Steele is lying? It's not your purview to look into whether or not anti-Trump Russians are lying to Steele? And it's not your purview to look at whether or not Glenn Simpson was meeting with the Russians the day before and the day after you write 3,500 words about the Trump campaign meeting so I'm wondering how -- how these decisions are guided. I look at the inspector general's report. I'm citing from page 404 of the inspector general's report. It states, "Page (ph) stated, Trump is not ever going to be president, right? Right?" Strzok replied, "No he's not. We'll stop it." Also in the inspector general's report there's someone identified as "Attorney Number 2." Attorney Number 2, this is page 419 replied, "Hell no," and then added, "viva la resistance." Attorney Number 2 in the inspector general's report and Strzok both worked on your team, didn't they?

MUELLER: Pardon me, can you ask...

GAETZ: They both worked on your team didn't they?

MUELLER: I heard Strzok. Who else are we talking about?

GAETZ: Attorney Number 2 identified in the inspector general's report.

MUELLER: OK. And the question was?

GAETZ: Did he work for you? The guy who said, "Viva la resistance."

MUELLER: Peter -- Peter Strzok worked for me for a period of time, yes.

GAETZ: Yes, but so did the other guy that said, "Viva la resistance." And here's what I'm kind of noticing Director Mueller, when people associated with Trump lied, you threw the book at them. When Christopher Steele lied, nothing. And so it seems to be when Simpson met with Russians, nothing. When the Trump campaign met with Russians, 3,500 words. And maybe the reason why there are these discrepancies in what you focused on because the team was so biased...

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

GAETZ: ... (inaudible) resistance, pledged to stop Trump.

NADLER: Mr. Jeffries of New York is recognized.

JEFFRIES: Mr. Mueller, obstruction of justice is a serious crime that strikes at the core of an investigator's effort to find the truth. Correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

JEFFRIES: The crime of obstruction of justice has three elements, true?

MUELLER: True.

JEFFRIES: The first element is an obstructive act. Correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

JEFFRIES: An obstructive act could include taking an action that would delay or interfere with an ongoing investigation as set forth in Volume 2, page 87 and 88 of your report. True?

MUELLER: I'm sorry. Could you again repeat the question? JEFFRIES: An obstructive act could include taking an action that would delay or interfere with an ongoing investigation.

MUELLER: That's true.

JEFFRIES: Your investigation found evidence that President Trump took steps to terminate the special counsel. Correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

JEFFRIES: Mr. Mueller, does ordering the termination of the head of a criminal investigation constitute an obstructive act?

MUELLER: That would be -- I -- I -- I'll refer you to the report on that.

JEFFRIES: Let me refer you to page 87 and 88 of Volume 2 where you conclude the attempt to remove the special counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation in any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Correct?

MUELLER: Yes, I've got that now. Thank you.

JEFFRIES: Thank you. The second element of obstruction of justice is the presence of an obstructive act in connection with an official proceeding. True?

MUELLER: True.

JEFFRIES: Does the special counsel's criminal investigation into the potential wrong doing of Donald Trump constitute an official proceeding?

MUELLER: And that's an area which I cannot get into.

JEFFRIES: OK. President Trump tweeted on June 16, 2017, quote, "I am being investigated for firing the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director. Witch hunt." The June 16th tweet just read was cited on page 89 in Volume 2 constitutes a public acknowledgement by President Trump that he was under criminal investigation. Correct?

MUELLER: I -- I think generally correct.

[10:30:00]