AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS TO BE SWORN?
SWORN? ZBLMP DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM
THAT THE TESTIMONY ARE YOU ABOUT
TO GIVE AT THIS HEARING IS THE
WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE
TRUTH?
TRUTH? >> YES.
>> YES. >> THANK YOU.
THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THE
WITNESSES HAVE BEEN DULY SWORN.
RANKING MEMBER.
RANKING MEMBER. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS
IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR MILLIONR.
BE SWORN IN.
OUR COUNSEL WILL NOT BE ASKING
QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS. WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HIS PRIOR
REPRESENTATION OF THE HILLARY
CLINTON CAMPAIGN AIDE.
SO I JUST WANT TO VOICE THAT
CONCERN THAT WE DO HAVE.
WE WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING ANY
QUESTIONS TO MR. ZEBLEY TODAY.
>> I THINK THE RANKING MEMBER, I
REALIZED AS YOU PROBABLY DO,
MR. ZEBLEY, THAT THERE IS AN
ANGRY MAN DOWN THE STREET WHO IS
NOT HAPPY ABOUT YOUR BEING HERE
TODAY.
TODAY. BUT IT IS UP TO THIS COMMITTEE
AND NOT ANYONE ELSE WHO WILL BE
ALLOWED TO BE SWORN IN AND
TESTIFY AND YOU ARE WELCOME AS A
PRIVATE CITIZEN TO TESTIFY AND
MEMBERS MAY DIRECT THEIR
QUESTIONS TO WHOEVER THEY
CHOOSE.
CHOOSE. WITH THAT, DIRECTOR MUELLER, YOU
ARE RECOGNIZED FOR ANY OPENING
REMARKS YOU’D LIKE TO MAKE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN
SCHIFF, RANKING MEMBER NUNES AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
I TESTIFIED THIS MORNING BEFORE
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
I ASK THE OPENING STATEMENT I
MADE BEFORE THAT COMMITTEE BE
INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD
HERE.
HERE. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION, DIRECTOR.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS
COMMITTEE HAS A UNIQUE
JURISDICTION AND THAT YOU ARE
INTERESTED IN FURTHER
UNDERSTANDING THE
UNDERSTANDING THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE IMPLICATIONS
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR INVESTIGATION.
LET ME SAY A WORD ABOUT HOW WE
HANDLE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF
OUR INVESTIGATION ON
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE MATTERS.
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE MATTERS. AS WE EXPLAINED IN OUR REPORT,
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REGULATIONS
EFFECTIVELY GAVE ME THE ROLE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.
AS A RESULT, WE STRUCTURED OUR
INVESTIGATION AROUND EVIDENCE
FOR POSSIBLE USE IN PROSECUTION
OF FEDERAL CRIMES.
WE DID NOT REACH WHAT YOU WOULD
CALL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
CALL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CONCLUSIONS.
CONCLUSIONS. WE DID, HOWEVER, SET UP PROCESS
PROCESSES IN THE OFFICE TO
IDENTIFY AND PASS
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION ONTO THE IF IB FIB.
MEMBERS OF OUR OFFICE
PERIODICALLY BRIEFED THE FBI
ABOUT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ABOUT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.
INFORMATION. IN ADDITION, THERE WERE AGENTS
AND ANALYSTS FROM THE FBI WHO
ARE NOT ON OUR TEAM BUT WHOSE
JOB IT WAS TO IDENTIFY
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION IN OUR FILES AND TO DISSEMINATE
THAT INFORMATION TO THE FBI.
FOR THESE REASONS, QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHAT THE FBI HAS DONE WITH
THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM OUR
INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO THE FBI.
I ALSO WANT TO REITERATE A FEW
POINTS THAT I MADE THIS MORNING.
AND NOT MAKING ANY JUDGMENTS OR
OFFERING OPINIONS ABOUT THE
GUILT OR INNOCENCE IN ANY
PENDING CASE.
PENDING CASE. IT IS UNUSUAL FOR A PROSECUTOR
TO TESTIFY ABOUT A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION AND GIVEN MY ROLE
AS A PROSECUTOR, THERE ARE
REASONS WHY MY TESTIMONY WILL
NECESSARILY BE LIMITED.
FIRST, PUBLIC TESTIMONY COULD
AFFECT SEVERAL ONGOING MATTERS.
IN SOME OF THESE MATTERS, COURT
RULES OR JUDICIAL ORDERS LIMIT
THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO
PROTECT THE FAIRNESS OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.
PROCEEDINGS. AND CONSISTENT WITH
LONG-STANDING JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
POLICY, IT WOULD BE
INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO COMMENT
IN ANYWAY THAT COULD AFFECT AN
ONGOING MATTER.
ONGOING MATTER. SECOND, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
HAS ASSERTED PRIVILEGINGS
CONCERNING INVESTIGATIVE
CONCERNING INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION AND DECISIONS
ONGOING MATTERS WITHIN THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND
DELIBERATIONS WITHIN OUR OFFICE.
THESE ARE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
PRIVILEGES THAT I WILL RESPECT.
THE DEPARTMENT HEAD’S RECENT
LETTER HAS INSTRUCTIONS ON MY
TESTIMONY.
TESTIMONY. I, THEREFORE, WILL NOT BE ABLE
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT
CERTAIN AREAS THAT I KNOW ARE OF
PUBLIC INTEREST.
PUBLIC INTEREST. FOR EXAMPLE, I AM UNABLE ADDRESS
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPENING OF
THE FBI’S RUSSIA INVESTIGATION,
WHICH OCCURRED MONTHS BEFORE MY
APPOINTMENT.
APPOINTMENT. OR MATTERS RELATED TO THE
SO-CALLED STEELE DOSSIER.
THESE MATTERS ARE THE SUBJECT OF
ONGOING REVIEW BY THE
DEPARTMENT.
DEPARTMENT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE TOPICS
SHOULD, THEREFORE, BE DIRECTED
TO THE FBI OR THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT.
DEPARTMENT. THIRD, AS I EXPLAINED THIS
MORNING, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ME
TO ADHERE TO WHAT WE WROTE IN
OUR REPORT.
OUR REPORT. THE REPORT CONTAINS OUR FINDINGS
AND ANALYSIS AND THE REASONS FOR
THE DECISION WE MADE.
WE STATED THE RESULTS OF OUR
INVESTIGATION WITH PRECISION AND
I DO NOT INTEND TO SUMMARIZE OR
DESCRIBE THE RESULTS IN OUR WORK
IN A DIFFERENT WAY IN THE COURSE
OF MY TESTIMONY TODAY.
AS I STATED IN MAY, I ALSO WILL
NOT COMMENT ON THE ACTIONS OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR OF
CONGRESS.
CONGRESS. I WAS APPOINTED AS A PROSECUTOR
AND I INTEND TO ADHERE TO THAT
ROLE AND TO THE DEPARTMENT’S
STANDARDS THAT GOVERN.
FINALLY, AS I SAID THIS MORNING,
OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER,
I’VE SEEN A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES
TO OUR DEMOCRACY.
THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT’S EFFORTS
TO INTERFERE IN OUR ELECTION IS
AMONG THE MOST SERIOUS.
I AM SURE THAT THE COMMITTEE
AGREES.
AGREES. NOW, BEFORE WE GO TO QUESTIONS,
I’D WANT TO ADD ONE CORRECTION
TO MY TESTIMONY THIS MORNING.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE THING
THAT WAS SAID THIS MORNING BY
MR. LIEU, WHO SAID AND I QUOTE,
YOU DIDN’T CHARGE THE PRESIDENT
BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION?
THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT WAY TO
SAY IT.
SAY IT. AS WE SAY IN THE REPORT AND AS I
SAID AT THE OPENING, WE DID NOT
REACH A DETERMINATION AS TO
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED