This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/what-time-mueller-testimony.html

The article has changed 19 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 13 Version 14
Major Moments of Robert Mueller’s Testimony to Congress Major Moments of Robert Mueller’s Testimony to Congress
(32 minutes later)
The partisan war over Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election reached a messy and contentious climax on Wednesday as lawmakers spent hours grilling Mr. Mueller about his conclusions but extracted little information beyond what he had written in his voluminous report. WASHINGTON — Robert S. Mueller III offered no new revelations on Wednesday into Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections or President Trump’s attempts to derail his probe. But he offered a stark warning on Russian election tampering — “They’re doing it as we sit here” — and a sober assessment of where politics are after the Trump campaign welcomed foreign interference in 2016.
In highly anticipated back-to-back sessions before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Mr. Mueller tried rigorously to stick to his script — the 448-page tome he produced in April — and declined repeatedly to offer his opinion of key questions or even to read directly from his report. But Democrats did get him to confirm the most damaging elements of his findings for President Trump, denying that the president had been cleared of obstructing justice or completely exonerated as he has so often declared. “I hope this is not the new normal,” he told Representative Peter D. Welch, Democrat of Vermont, “but I fear it is.”
Mr. Mueller also defended the investigation that produced the report, which laid bare that Mr. Trump was elected with the help of a foreign power and cataloged his frantic efforts to undermine the investigation into Russian interference. In seven hours of highly anticipated back-to-back hearings before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Mr. Mueller, the special counsel who led the probe into Russia’s interference and whether Trump associates participated in it, hewed tightly to his script — the 448-page report he and his team produced in April. He declined repeatedly to offer his opinion on key questions or even to read directly from the voluminous document.
Democrats did get him to confirm the most damaging elements of his findings. Under intense questioning, Mr. Mueller said the president had not been cleared of obstructing justice, nor had he been completely exonerated, as Mr. Trump has so often declared; he said that the president had been untruthful in some of his under-oath responses during the probe; and he called Mr. Trump’s encouragement of WikiLeaks “problematic,” to say the least.
But the former special counsel, who sometimes appeared confused or at a loss for words and frequently responded to questions with one-word answers — “no,” “true,” “that’s accurate” — was a reluctant witness whose deflections sucked some of the punch out of his most damning findings, especially as Republicans sought repeatedly to undermine him and his investigation.
Mr. Mueller, for his part, defended his work and sought to drive home to lawmakers and the public the grave implications of his report, which laid bare that Mr. Trump was elected with Russia’s help and cataloged the president’s frantic efforts to undermine the investigation into Moscow’s election interference.
“It’s not a witch hunt,” Mr. Mueller told the Intelligence panel, under questioning from the chairman, Representative Adam Schiff of California.“It’s not a witch hunt,” Mr. Mueller told the Intelligence panel, under questioning from the chairman, Representative Adam Schiff of California.
Mr. Mueller declined repeatedly during the hearings to detail what went into his decision not to compel the president to sit for an in-person interview during his investigation, but he made it clear near the end that he did not believe that Mr. Trump had been honest or transparent in his written responses. Mr. Schiff said Mr. Mueller’s sparse answers demanded more aggressive attempts by Congress to investigate the president, an indication that the matter is not over, even if the special counsel is.
Asked by Mr. Schiff whether some of the president’s answers had been incomplete and untruthful, Mr. Mueller responded, “Generally.” “You would not tell us whether the president should be impeached, nor did we ask you, since it is our responsibility to determine the proper remedy for the conduct outlined in your report,” he said. “Whether we decide to impeach the president in the House or we do not, we must take any action necessary to protect the country while he is in office.”
[Read Mr. Mueller’s opening remarks to House Intelligence and House Judiciary.]
Mr. Mueller said little about his decision not to compel the president to sit for an in-person interview during his investigation, telling lawmakers he opted against issuing a subpoena for Mr. Trump in order to “expedite” the probe. But he made it clear near the end that he did not believe that Mr. Trump had been honest or transparent in his written responses. Asked by Representative Val Demings, Democrat of Florida, whether it was “fair to say” that the president’s answers had been incomplete and those he did supply were not always truthful, Mr. Mueller responded, “Generally.”
As the Intelligence Committee hearing drew to a close, Mr. Mueller became increasingly stark in his warnings about Russia’s attack on the 2016 presidential election, and how future efforts could roil American politics.As the Intelligence Committee hearing drew to a close, Mr. Mueller became increasingly stark in his warnings about Russia’s attack on the 2016 presidential election, and how future efforts could roil American politics.
“I hope this is not the new normal,” he told Representative Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont, after the congressman asked him whether future political campaigns could accept foreign interference, “but I fear it is.” “I hope this is not the new normal,” he told Representative Peter D. Welch, Democrat of Vermont, after the congressman asked him whether future political campaigns could accept foreign interference, “but I fear it is.”
Mr. Mueller has made little secret of his belief that the public has not fully grasped the elaborate and targeted nature of Russia’s attacks on the 2016 elections that were detailed in his report, nor has the government taken sufficient steps to address it or prevent such an assault from occurring again.Mr. Mueller has made little secret of his belief that the public has not fully grasped the elaborate and targeted nature of Russia’s attacks on the 2016 elections that were detailed in his report, nor has the government taken sufficient steps to address it or prevent such an assault from occurring again.
On Wednesday, invited by Representative Jackie Speier, Democrat of California, to tell the American people the most important aspect of his findings, Mr. Mueller pleaded for more attention to Russia’s attack.On Wednesday, invited by Representative Jackie Speier, Democrat of California, to tell the American people the most important aspect of his findings, Mr. Mueller pleaded for more attention to Russia’s attack.
“We spent substantial time ensuring the integrity of the report, understanding that it would be a living message to those who came after us,” he said. “It is a signal, a flag to those of us who have responsibility to exercise that responsibility, not to let this kind of thing happen again.”“We spent substantial time ensuring the integrity of the report, understanding that it would be a living message to those who came after us,” he said. “It is a signal, a flag to those of us who have responsibility to exercise that responsibility, not to let this kind of thing happen again.”
Representative Will Hurd, Republican of Texas, wondered aloud whether Russia might be planning another set of attacks. He received an ominous response from Mr. Mueller.Representative Will Hurd, Republican of Texas, wondered aloud whether Russia might be planning another set of attacks. He received an ominous response from Mr. Mueller.
“It wasn’t a single attempt,” he said. “They’re doing it as we sit here” “It wasn’t a single attempt,” he said. “They’re doing it as we sit here.”
Mr. Mueller spent most of his time on Wednesday avoiding expressing his opinion on the president’s conduct or anything else, but that changed when Representative Mike Quigley, Democrat of Illinois, questioned him on Mr. Trump’s response to WikiLeaks.Mr. Mueller spent most of his time on Wednesday avoiding expressing his opinion on the president’s conduct or anything else, but that changed when Representative Mike Quigley, Democrat of Illinois, questioned him on Mr. Trump’s response to WikiLeaks.
Asked for his reaction to candidate Trump’s praise for WikiLeaks during the campaign, Mr. Mueller did not mince words.Asked for his reaction to candidate Trump’s praise for WikiLeaks during the campaign, Mr. Mueller did not mince words.
“It’s problematic — is an understatement, in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity,” Mr. Mueller responded.“It’s problematic — is an understatement, in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity,” Mr. Mueller responded.
The special counsel also vigorously defended his investigation and his team, denying that they had been responsible for leaks and flatly rejecting the president’s incessant undercutting of his probe.The special counsel also vigorously defended his investigation and his team, denying that they had been responsible for leaks and flatly rejecting the president’s incessant undercutting of his probe.
“Absolutely, it was not a hoax,” Mr. Mueller said, adding that the indictments his team brought related to Russia’s interference were “substantial” and had been “underplayed, to a certain extent.”“Absolutely, it was not a hoax,” Mr. Mueller said, adding that the indictments his team brought related to Russia’s interference were “substantial” and had been “underplayed, to a certain extent.”
Mr. Mueller used his opening statement before the House Intelligence Committee to correct his earlier testimony before the Judiciary panel, in which he appeared to suggest that he believed that Mr. Trump should have been indicted.Mr. Mueller used his opening statement before the House Intelligence Committee to correct his earlier testimony before the Judiciary panel, in which he appeared to suggest that he believed that Mr. Trump should have been indicted.
In the earlier hearing during an exchange with Representative Ted Lieu, Democrat of California and an early proponent of impeachment, Mr. Mueller seemed to say that the reason he did not indict Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice was because of a Justice Department opinion stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. It was unclear what he meant, or whether he understood the question.In the earlier hearing during an exchange with Representative Ted Lieu, Democrat of California and an early proponent of impeachment, Mr. Mueller seemed to say that the reason he did not indict Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice was because of a Justice Department opinion stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. It was unclear what he meant, or whether he understood the question.
“I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met,” Mr. Lieu said, referring to the Mueller report’s lengthy description of actions the president took to try to interfere with his investigation.“I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met,” Mr. Lieu said, referring to the Mueller report’s lengthy description of actions the president took to try to interfere with his investigation.
“I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the O.L.C. opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” he asked, referring to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.“I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the O.L.C. opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” he asked, referring to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
“That is correct,” Mr. Mueller said.“That is correct,” Mr. Mueller said.
That assertion directly contradicted the report itself and Mr. Mueller’s statement in May describing it, in which he said that he and his team had decided not to decide whether to charge the president because of the O.L.C. opinions. The exchange referred to a pair of opinions from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, drafted during the Nixon era and reaffirmed under Bill Clinton, that a sitting president could not be indicted.That assertion directly contradicted the report itself and Mr. Mueller’s statement in May describing it, in which he said that he and his team had decided not to decide whether to charge the president because of the O.L.C. opinions. The exchange referred to a pair of opinions from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, drafted during the Nixon era and reaffirmed under Bill Clinton, that a sitting president could not be indicted.
By afternoon, Mr. Mueller walked back the inconsistency, saying that Mr. Lieu had incorrectly described his decision.By afternoon, Mr. Mueller walked back the inconsistency, saying that Mr. Lieu had incorrectly described his decision.
“What I wanted to clarify is the fact that we did not make any determination with regard to culpability in any way,” Mr. Mueller said.“What I wanted to clarify is the fact that we did not make any determination with regard to culpability in any way,” Mr. Mueller said.
Mr. Mueller, a reluctant witness who opened his testimony by repeating that he was not willing to go beyond his 448-page report, nonetheless obliged Democrats who prompted him to restate the most damning aspects of his findings to Mr. Trump.Mr. Mueller, a reluctant witness who opened his testimony by repeating that he was not willing to go beyond his 448-page report, nonetheless obliged Democrats who prompted him to restate the most damning aspects of his findings to Mr. Trump.
“The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mr. Mueller told Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the Judiciary Committee chairman, under questioning about his conclusions on whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice.“The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mr. Mueller told Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the Judiciary Committee chairman, under questioning about his conclusions on whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice.
It was one of the rare instances in which Mr. Mueller strayed outside of one-word answers or short phrases in response to lawmakers’ questions about his investigation. Mr. Mueller’s terse responses, constant referrals to his report, and unwillingness to go beyond it threaten are giving neither party what it wanted from the day’s hearings. Mr. Mueller appears unlikely to help Democrats with answers that will provide new sound bites from the former special counsel’s mouth. But he also will not help Republicans undermine the origins of his investigation. It was one of the rare instances in which Mr. Mueller strayed outside of one-word answers or short phrases in response to lawmakers’ questions about his investigation. Mr. Mueller’s terse responses, constant referrals to his report, and unwillingness to go beyond its findings gave neither party what it wanted from the day’s hearings. Mr. Mueller appears unlikely to help Democrats with answers that will provide new sound bites from the former special counsel’s mouth. But he also will not help Republicans undermine the origins of his investigation.
An example: Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida, asked, “Why? Why did the president want you fired?” to which he responded, “I can’t answer that question.” An example: Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida, asked, “Why? Director Mueller, why did the president of the United States want you fired?” to which he responded, “I can’t answer that question.”
But in a carefully steered line of questioning, Mr. Nadler got Mr. Mueller to agree with him that the president’s frequent declarations that the investigation had found “no obstruction” and had “completely and totally exonerated” Mr. Trump were false.But in a carefully steered line of questioning, Mr. Nadler got Mr. Mueller to agree with him that the president’s frequent declarations that the investigation had found “no obstruction” and had “completely and totally exonerated” Mr. Trump were false.
“Right, that is not what the report said,” Mr. Mueller said. “Correct, that is not what the report said,” Mr. Mueller said.
Mr. Mueller spoke haltingly as he testified, blunting attacks on him by Republicans but also limiting Democrats’ efforts to elevate his words and raising questions about his acuity.Mr. Mueller spoke haltingly as he testified, blunting attacks on him by Republicans but also limiting Democrats’ efforts to elevate his words and raising questions about his acuity.
[Who is Aaron Zebley, the aide sitting beside Mr. Mueller?][Who is Aaron Zebley, the aide sitting beside Mr. Mueller?]
The former special counsel stumbled at times during his testimony, often asking lawmakers to restate their questions or seeming not to hear them, and keeping his answers as narrowly focused as he could.The former special counsel stumbled at times during his testimony, often asking lawmakers to restate their questions or seeming not to hear them, and keeping his answers as narrowly focused as he could.
“That’s a little bit out of our path,” he told Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, at one point, when she asked what he believed internal polling data obtained by the Russians might be used for.“That’s a little bit out of our path,” he told Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, at one point, when she asked what he believed internal polling data obtained by the Russians might be used for.
Democrats could not even get Mr. Mueller to read from his own report, instead performing their own dramatic recitations about the episodes they sought to highlight in which Mr. Trump was found to have tried to derail the investigation. Mr. Mueller’s team had informed both committees holding hearings on Wednesday that he would decline to read from the tome if asked to during the hearings.Democrats could not even get Mr. Mueller to read from his own report, instead performing their own dramatic recitations about the episodes they sought to highlight in which Mr. Trump was found to have tried to derail the investigation. Mr. Mueller’s team had informed both committees holding hearings on Wednesday that he would decline to read from the tome if asked to during the hearings.
Later, asked by Representative Greg Stanton, Democrat of Arizona, which president had first appointed him as a United States attorney, Mr. Mueller could not remember, offering, “I think that was President Bush,.” Later, asked by Representative Greg Stanton, Democrat of Arizona, which president had first appointed him as a United States attorney, Mr. Mueller could not remember, offering, “I think that was President Bush.”
“According to my notes, it was President Ronald Reagan who had the honor to do so,” Mr. Stanton replied.“According to my notes, it was President Ronald Reagan who had the honor to do so,” Mr. Stanton replied.
“My mistake,” Mr. Mueller answered.“My mistake,” Mr. Mueller answered.
The performance drew concern from some Democrats. David Axelrod, the strategist who served as a senior adviser in Barack Obama’s White House, gently suggested that Mr. Mueller might not be up to his task.The performance drew concern from some Democrats. David Axelrod, the strategist who served as a senior adviser in Barack Obama’s White House, gently suggested that Mr. Mueller might not be up to his task.
“This is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years,” Mr. Axelrod wrote on Twitter. “And he does not appear as sharp as he was then.”“This is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years,” Mr. Axelrod wrote on Twitter. “And he does not appear as sharp as he was then.”
Republicans treated Mr. Mueller as a hostile witness and tried to trip him up with a prosecutorial approach, often hectoring the former special counsel about specific findings in the report.Republicans treated Mr. Mueller as a hostile witness and tried to trip him up with a prosecutorial approach, often hectoring the former special counsel about specific findings in the report.
Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee’s senior Republican, challenged Mr. Mueller repeatedly on whether “collusion” and “conspiracy” were the same thing, prompting Mr. Mueller to ultimately respond, “I leave it with the report.”Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee’s senior Republican, challenged Mr. Mueller repeatedly on whether “collusion” and “conspiracy” were the same thing, prompting Mr. Mueller to ultimately respond, “I leave it with the report.”
Mr. Collins also tried to focus what the investigation did not find, asking whether it was accurate that it did not establish that the president “was involved in underlying crime of Russia interference.”Mr. Collins also tried to focus what the investigation did not find, asking whether it was accurate that it did not establish that the president “was involved in underlying crime of Russia interference.”
Mr. Mueller’s response was legalistic: “We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.”Mr. Mueller’s response was legalistic: “We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.”
As Democrats dug into the details of Mr. Mueller’s report, Republican lawmakers focused on attacking the former special counsel, suggesting that his investigation had been tainted and misguided. The Republican questioning offered the most tense moments of the hearing.As Democrats dug into the details of Mr. Mueller’s report, Republican lawmakers focused on attacking the former special counsel, suggesting that his investigation had been tainted and misguided. The Republican questioning offered the most tense moments of the hearing.
Representative John Ratcliffe of Texas berated Mr. Mueller for his handling of the probe, arguing that he had used an “inverted burden of proof” by choosing to detail the president’s conduct without charging him with any crime.Representative John Ratcliffe of Texas berated Mr. Mueller for his handling of the probe, arguing that he had used an “inverted burden of proof” by choosing to detail the president’s conduct without charging him with any crime.
“You wrote 180 pages — 180 pages! — about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided,” Mr. Ratcliffe said. “By doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged.”“You wrote 180 pages — 180 pages! — about decisions that weren’t reached, about potential crimes that weren’t charged or decided,” Mr. Ratcliffe said. “By doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren’t charged.”
Republicans also sought to undercut the origins of the probe, trying without success to get Mr. Mueller to concede that he had acted in a biased way. Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio went on an extended diatribe about why Mr. Mueller did not choose to charge Joseph Mifsud, the London-based professor who told George Papadopoulos that the Russian government had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.Republicans also sought to undercut the origins of the probe, trying without success to get Mr. Mueller to concede that he had acted in a biased way. Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio went on an extended diatribe about why Mr. Mueller did not choose to charge Joseph Mifsud, the London-based professor who told George Papadopoulos that the Russian government had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.
“You can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements, but the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can’t charge him,” Mr. Jordan said, his voice rising. “I think that’s amazing.”“You can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements, but the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can’t charge him,” Mr. Jordan said, his voice rising. “I think that’s amazing.”
That drew a rare challenge from Mr. Mueller, who said quietly, “I’m not sure I agree with your characterization.”That drew a rare challenge from Mr. Mueller, who said quietly, “I’m not sure I agree with your characterization.”
As the temperature rose in the hearing room, the president’s inner circle also sought to discredit Mr. Mueller. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a posting by Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative bomb thrower, who suggested that the real Mr. Mueller, 74, had been kidnapped and replaced with “a mentally retarded look-alike.”As the temperature rose in the hearing room, the president’s inner circle also sought to discredit Mr. Mueller. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a posting by Dinesh D’Souza, the conservative bomb thrower, who suggested that the real Mr. Mueller, 74, had been kidnapped and replaced with “a mentally retarded look-alike.”
Mr. Trump himself was gentler but no less sparing in his assessment.Mr. Trump himself was gentler but no less sparing in his assessment.
“This has been a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller,” he tweeted, attributing the statement to the Fox News anchor Chris Wallace.“This has been a disaster for the Democrats and a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller,” he tweeted, attributing the statement to the Fox News anchor Chris Wallace.
Several candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president responded to Mr. Mueller’s testimony on Wednesday, including Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who reiterated her belief that his report amounts to an impeachment referral and that Congress should begin the proceedings.Several candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president responded to Mr. Mueller’s testimony on Wednesday, including Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who reiterated her belief that his report amounts to an impeachment referral and that Congress should begin the proceedings.
“We have to make clear, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States,” Ms. Warren said at an N.A.A.C.P. candidate forum in Detroit, a day after the group called on the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump.“We have to make clear, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States,” Ms. Warren said at an N.A.A.C.P. candidate forum in Detroit, a day after the group called on the House to begin impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump.
“Some things are above politics, and one of them is our constitutional responsibilities to do what is right,” Ms. Warren added. “And the responsibility of the Congress of the United States of America, when a president breaks the law, is to bring impeachment charges against that president.”“Some things are above politics, and one of them is our constitutional responsibilities to do what is right,” Ms. Warren added. “And the responsibility of the Congress of the United States of America, when a president breaks the law, is to bring impeachment charges against that president.”
Some of her rivals for the Democratic nomination weighed in as well.Some of her rivals for the Democratic nomination weighed in as well.
“We know for a fact that the president did everything that he could to obstruct the Mueller investigation,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said, adding that he was not surprised to hear that Mr. Mueller had testified that his report did not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice allegations.“We know for a fact that the president did everything that he could to obstruct the Mueller investigation,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said, adding that he was not surprised to hear that Mr. Mueller had testified that his report did not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice allegations.
Senator Kamala Harris of California said that based on what she had heard about his testimony, “there is no exoneration.”Senator Kamala Harris of California said that based on what she had heard about his testimony, “there is no exoneration.”
“No matter what this current attorney general and the president of the United States try to say, the American people are smart enough to know what is and what is not truth,” she added.“No matter what this current attorney general and the president of the United States try to say, the American people are smart enough to know what is and what is not truth,” she added.
The following excerpts are from remarks that were released by Mr. Mueller’s office.
As you know, in May 2017, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel. I undertook that role because I believed that it was of paramount interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the presidential election.
As the Acting Attorney General said at the time, the appointment was “necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome.”
My staff and I carried out this assignment with that critical objective in mind: to work quietly, thoroughly, and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome.
The order appointing me as Special Counsel directed our Office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. It also included investigating efforts to interfere with, or obstruct, the investigation.
Throughout the investigation, I continually stressed two things to the team that we had assembled.
First, we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as possible. It was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete, but not to last a day longer than necessary.
Second, the investigation needed to be conducted fairly and with absolute integrity. Our team would not leak or take other actions that could compromise the integrity of our work. All decisions were made based on the facts and the law.
[Read the complete opening statement.]
As I explained this morning, it is important for me to adhere to what we wrote in our report. The report contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. We stated the results of our investigation with precision.
I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the course of my testimony today.
And as I stated in May, I also will not comment on the actions of the Attorney General or of Congress. I was appointed as a prosecutor, and I intend to adhere to that role and to the Department’s standards that govern it.
Finally, as I said this morning, over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. I am sure that this Committee agrees.
[Read the complete opening statement.]
Nicholas Fandos, Katie Benner and Eileen Sullivan contributed reportingNicholas Fandos, Katie Benner and Eileen Sullivan contributed reporting