I’M GOING TO BE ASKING YOU ABOUT APPENDIX C TO YOUR REPORT, AND
IN PARTICULAR, THE DECISION NOT
TO DO A SWORN INTERVIEW WITH THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. TRULY THE ONLY SUBJECT I WANT TO
TALK TO YOU ABOUT, SIR.
WHY DIDN’T YOU SUBPOENA THE
PRESIDENT?
PRESIDENT? >> WELL, AT THE OUTSET, AFTER WE
TOOK OVER AND INITIATED THE
INVESTIGATION --
INVESTIGATION -- >> IF I COULD ASK YOU TO SPEAK
INTO THE MIC.
>> OF COURSE.
AT THE OUTSET, AFTER WE TOOK
OVER THE INVESTIGATION AND BEGAN
IT AND PURSUED IT, QUITE
OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE THINGS WE
ANTICIPATED TO ACCOMPLISH IS
GETTING -- HAVING THE INTERVIEW
OF THE PRESIDENT.
WE NEGOTIATED FROM WITHIN FOR A
LITTLE OVER A YEAR, AND I THINK
WHAT YOU AVERTED TO IN THE
APPENDIX LAYS OUT OUR
EXPECTATIONS AS A RESULT OF
THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.
THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. BUT FINALLY, WE WERE ALMOST
TOWARDS THE END OF OUR
INVESTIGATION AND WE’D HAD
LITTLE SUCCESS IN PUSHING TO GET
THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT,
WE DECIDED THAT WE DID NOT WANT
TO EXERCISE THE SUBPOENA POWERS
BECAUSE OF THE NECESSITY OF
EXPEDITING THE END OF THE
INVESTIGATION.
INVESTIGATION. >> WAS THAT -- EXCUSE ME.
DID YOU --
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, THE
EXPECTATION WAS IF WE DID
SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT HE WOULD
FIGHT THE SUBPOENA, AND WE WOULD
BE IN THE MIDST OF THE
INVESTIGATION FOR A SUBSTANTIAL
PERIOD OF TIME.
>> RIGHT, BUT AS WE SIT HERE,
YOU’VE NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
TO ASK THE PRESIDENT IN PERSON
QUESTIONS UNDER OATH, AND SO
OBVIOUSLY THAT MUST HAVE BEEN A
DIFFICULT DECISION, AND YOU’RE
RIGHT.
RIGHT. APPENDIX C LAYS THAT OUT AND I
BELIEVE YOU DESCRIBED THE
IN-PERSON INTERVIEW AS VITAL.
THAT’S YOUR WORD, AND OF COURSE
YOU MAKE CLEAR YOU HAD THE
AUTHORITY AND THE LEGAL
JUSTIFICATION TO DO IT AS YOU
POINT OUT.
POINT OUT. YOU WAITED A YEAR.
YOU PUT UP WITH A WILL THE OFLOT
NEGOTIATIONS.
NEGOTIATIONS. YOU MADE NUMEROUS ACCOMMODATIONS
YOU LAID OUT SO HE COULD PREPARE
AND NOT BE SURPRISED.
I TAKE IT YOU WERE TRYING TO BE
FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT.
AND BY THE WAY YOU WERE GOING TO
LIMIT THE QUESTIONS WHEN YOU GOT
TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO RUSSIA
ONLY, AND IN FACT YOU DID GO
WITH WRITTEN QUESTIONS AFTER
ABOUT NINE MONTHS, RIGHT, AND
THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO
THOSE, AND YOU HAVE SOME HARD
LANGUAGE FOR WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF
THOSE RESPONSES.
THOSE RESPONSES. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE
PRESIDENT’S WRITTEN RESPONSES,
MR. MUELLER?
MR. MUELLER? >> IT WAS CERTAINLY NOT AS
USEFUL AS THE INTERVIEW WOULD
BE.
BE. >> IN FACT, YOU POINTED OUT --
AND BY MY COUNT THERE WERE MORE
THAN 30 TIMES WHEN THE PRESIDENT
SAID HE DIDN’T RECALL.
HE DIDN’T REMEMBER, NO
INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION.
INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION. NO CURRENT RECOLLECTION, AND I
TAKE IT BY YOUR ANSWER THAT IT
WASN’T AS HELPFUL.
THAT’S WHY YOU USED WORDS LIKE
INCOMPLETE, IMPRECISE,
INCOMPLETE, IMPRECISE, INADEQUATE, INSUFFICIENT.
INADEQUATE, INSUFFICIENT. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OF WHAT
YOU THOUGHT OF THOSE WRITTEN
ANSWERS?
ANSWERS? >> THAT IS A FAIR SUMMARY.
I PRESUME THAT COMES FROM THE
REPORT.
REPORT. >> AND YET, SIR, AND I ASK THIS
RESPECTFULLY -- BY THE WAY, THE
PRESIDENT DIDN’T EVER CLAIM THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT, DID HE?
>> I’M NOT GOING TO TALK TO
THAT.
THAT. >> FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, SIR, AT
ONE POINT IT WAS VITAL AND
ANOTHER POINT IT WASN’T VITAL,
AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHY
DID IT STOP BEING VITAL?
AND I CAN ONLY THINK OF THREE
EXPLANATIONS.
EXPLANATIONS. ONE IS THAT SOMEBODY TOLD YOU
YOU COULDN’T DO IT, BUT NOBODY
TOLD YOU YOU COULDN’T SUBPOENA
THE PRESIDENT IS THAT RIGHT?
>> NO, WE UNDERSTOOD WE COULD
SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT.
>> ROSENSTEIN DIDN’T TELL YOU,
WHITTAKER DIDN’T TELL YOU, BARR
DIDN’T TELL YOU.
>> WE COULD SERVE THE SUBPOENA.
>> THE ONLY OTHER EXPLANATION,
YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND YOU
DIDN’T DO IT BUT YOU DON’T
STRIKE ME AS THE KIND OF GUY WHO
FLINCHES.
FLINCHES. >> I HOPE NOT.
>>.
>>. THE THIRD EXPLANATION, I HOPE
NOT TOO SIR.
THE THIRD EXPLANATION I CAN
THINK OF IS THAT YOU DIDN’T
THINK YOU NEEDED IT.
WHAT CAUGHT MY EYE WAS PAGE 13
ON VOLUME 2.
YOU SAID YOU HAD A SUBSTANTIAL
BODY OF EVIDENCE AND YOU CITE A
BUNCH OF CASES THERE ABOUT HOW
YOU OFTEN HAVE TO PROVE INTENT
TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE WITHOUT AN
IN-PERSON INTERVIEW THAT’S THE
KIND OF NATURE OF IT.
AND YOU USED TERMS LIKE A
SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF EVIDENCE,
SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE OF THE
PRESIDENT’S INTENT.
PRESIDENT’S INTENT. SO MY QUESTION SIR, IS DID YOU
HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE
PRESIDENT’S INTENT TO OBSTRUCT
JUSTICE AND IS THAT WHY YOU
DIDN’T DO THE INTERVIEW?
>> THERE’S A BALANCE.
IN OTHER WORDS HOW MUCH EVIDENCE
YOU HAVE THAT SATISFY THE LAST
ELEMENT AGAINST HOW MUCH TIME
ARE YOU WILLING TO SPEND IN THE
COURTS LITIGATING A -- THE
INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT.
>> AND IN THIS CASE YOU FELT
THAT YOU HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF
THE PRESIDENT’S INTENT?
>> WE HAD TO MAKE A BALANCE
DECISION IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH
EVIDENCE WE HAD COMPARED TO THE
LENGTH OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE --
>> ASK SIR, BECAUSE I HAVE
LIMITED TIME, YOU THOUGHT IF YOU
GAVE IT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OR THIS CONGRESS THAT THERE WAS
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS
BETTER THAN THAT DELAY?
>> OKAY.
>> OKAY. STATE THAT AGAIN?
>> THAT IT WAS BETTER THAN THE
DELAY TO PRESENT THE SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE IN YOUR TERMS OF THE
PARKING LIGHT’S INTENT TO
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND THIS COMMITTEE.
ISN’T THAT WHY YOU DIDN’T DO THE
INTERVIEW?
INTERVIEW? >> THE REASON WE DIDN’T DO THE
INTERVIEW IS BECAUSE OF THE
LENGTH OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO