Mueller testimony: Former special counsel wraps up two back-to-back hearings

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III testified before two house committees today. It’s the first time he’s answered questions in public since taking over the Russia investigation more than two years ago.

Analysis: Mueller’s testimony seems unlikely to boost impeachment — but could vindicate Pelosi

Robert S. Mueller III did little on Wednesday to boost the prospects of impeaching President Trump.

The former special counsel’s highly anticipated testimony before Congress did not deliver the sort of splashy moment that circulates on cable TV. Instead, as he promised, he stuck carefully to the text of his investigative report, occasionally — at times haltingly — offering a nuance, but often providing one-word answers to questions.

The result seemed likely do little more than harden the opinions held by the public — and lawmakers — on President Trump and whether he should be removed from office.

For House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that result may come as a vindication. Despite pressure from some Democrats, Pelosi has held her caucus back from starting an impeachment inquiry out of concern that it could politically backfire without broad, bipartisan support.

Mueller finishes a day of testimony

Mueller says he didn’t pursue a subpoena because of likely court fight

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III said he did not pursue a sworn interview and subpoena of President Trump because he reasoned it would likely result in a lengthy court battle that would further drag out the investigation.

“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,” Mueller said under questioning from Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.).

Maloney suggested that Mueller might not have issued the subpoena because he had enough evidence to already indicate that the president obstructed justice. Mueller did not directly agree with the statement and instead said he had to balance the interest in an interview with the evidence that his team had already compiled.

“We had to make a balanced decision in terms of how much evidence we had compared to the length of time [in court],” Mueller said.

Mueller reiterated that he had legal authority to issue the subpoena and was under negotiation for the interview for over a year. He refused to say whether the president claimed the 5th Amendment to avoid incriminating himself under oath

Mueller criticizes Trump’s praise of WikiLeaks: ‘Problematic is an understatement’

Robert Mueller has been reluctant to render moral judgment on Trump’s conduct, but he made an exception when asked about the president’s previous praise for WikiLeaks.

When the organization was releasing hacked Democratic Party emails during the 2016 campaign, Trump routinely helped spread the damaging information about Hillary Clinton, and declared, “I love WikiLeaks!” The emails had been stolen by Russian military intelligence officers, according to the special counsel’s office.

Asked about Trump’s comments on WikiLeaks by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Mueller said, “Problematic is an understatement.” He said they could provide “some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”

Moscow mystery remains following the Mueller report

One mystery about the Russia investigation has endured even after the Mueller report was released — what happened to the counterintelligence probe?

The investigation began in July 2016 not as a criminal case, but as an examination of Moscow’s covert meddling in U.S. politics. It eventually developed into a series of prosecutions that Robert S. Mueller III led after being appointed special counsel in May 2017.

Because his office was focused on prosecuting crimes, Mueller told the House Intelligence Committee that it never reached conclusions on counterintelligence questions.

Instead, relevant information was passed back to the FBI.

“Members of our office periodically briefed the FBI about counterintelligence information,” he said. “In addition, there were agents and analysts from the FBI who were not on our team, but whose job it was to identify counterintelligence information in our files and disseminate that information to the FBI.”

He declined questions about the counterintelligence probe, leaving the rest of its mysteries intact.

Schiff opens questioning during House Intelligence hearing

Robert Mueller did not establish a criminal conspiracy between President Trump’s campaign and Russia, but Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) focused his opening questions on the symbiotic relationship between the two.

He pointed out that Mueller’s report showed Trump welcomed Moscow’s interference, which included hacked Democratic Party emails that were released by WikiLeaks.

“The Trump campaign officials built their messaging strategy around those stolen documents?” Schiff asked.

“Generally that’s true,” Mueller responded.

“And then they lied to cover it up?” Schiff asked.

“Generally that’s true,” Mueller said again.

Read Mueller’s opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III delivers his opening statement to the House Intelligence Committee.

Robert Mueller Opening Statement to House Intel.pdf

Read former special counsel Robert Mueller’s second opening statement, read before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

Mueller issues ‘correction’ to earlier exchange with Rep. Ted Lieu

Torrance Republican Rep. Ted Lieu wants to know the bottom line on why the Mueller report did not indict President Trump.

Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III this afternoon issued a “correction” to perhaps one of the splashiest moments from his morning appearance before Congress.

He said that he incorrectly told Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) that he didn’t charge the president with a crime because of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel opinion that prohibits indicting a sitting president. The statement went further than anything Mueller or his report had previously said, and Democrats viewed it as an important admission.

But at the start of his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Mueller walked back the statement.

“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

Watch: Is there an echo in the House? ‘No one is above the law’ is repeated at Mueller testimony

The phrase “no one is above the law” was invoked repeatedly by House members during the Judiciary Committee hearing in which former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III testified.

The phrase “no one is above the law” was invoked repeatedly by House members during the Judiciary Committee hearing in which former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III testified.

Mueller testimony: Read the prepared opening statement from House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff

Read the prepared opening statement from Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, here.

During the break between the two hearings, both parties put their spin on the proceedings

House Republicans declared victory, saying that the former special counsel’s testimony didn’t bolster the case for impeachment and likely shifted public opinion toward President Trump.

“No one could have watched the hearing and walked away believing that Director Mueller had a firm grasp of the details of the 448-page report,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said.

“It’s probably predetermined where the Democrats want to go with this, but at the same time I think the American people will see it as time to turn the page, close the book, finish the chapter, and get on with life.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz called the hearing “unequivocally a great day for Republicans.”

“One thing that I’m certain of is that Trump’s tenure in office may very well have been extended by four years as a consequence of this hearing,” he said. “The American people see that the entire origin of this investigation was so corrupt and so rotten that even Robert Mueller wouldn’t answer questions about it.”

On the Democratic side, Rep. Al Green of Texas, a prominent advocate of impeachment, said he didn’t think the hearing had been necessary because Mueller’s report already provided evidence of impeachable offenses.

“Mr. Mueller has given us a road map to impeachment,” he said.

“We’re starting to engage with the paralysis of analysis, such that at some point we’ll say, ‘Too late to impeach. Let’s defeat at the polls.’ And then the suffering that [Trump] has caused will be minimized to the extent that history won’t be kind to us,” he said.

We’ve reached halftime at the House

Conservative students stop by to express support for Trump

For a group of students who are in town for the Turning Point USA Convention, today’s hearing marks an opportunity to support a president whom they favor.

“We were just at the convention and heard about the hearing and thought, ‘Why not come support our president, who had no obstruction and no collusion?’” said Cole Larson, who traveled to Washington from Utah.

Larson said he doesn’t think the Mueller inquiry was fair. But he thinks the special counsel’s findings exonerated the president — a conclusion Larson said he agrees with.

“They found out what they were supposed to find out — that he’s not guilty,” Larson said.

Mueller resisted responding to criticisms — until this moment

Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of California chastises Mueller report: “You put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire .. rang the doorbell and ran.”

Republicans largely played to Trump’s base throughout the first several hours of today’s hearing, defending the president and attempting to undermine former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s credibility.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) accused Mueller’s team — which once included FBI agent Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump text messages later became public — of being biased against the president. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove) chastised the report as a partisan statement.

“It’s starting to look like, having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the president, you made a political case instead,” McClintock said. “You put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire, dropped it on our porch, rang the doorbell and ran.”

Throughout the hearing, Mueller did little to push back on the criticisms of his report, but McClintock’s comment prompted him to respond.

“I don’t think you have reviewed a report that is as thorough, as fair, as consistent as the report that we have in front of us,” he said.

Score one for the Democrats

Democrats may have just secured the moment they wanted from today’s testimony. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) was questioning Robert Mueller about his investigation into obstruction of justice when he asked him about Justice Department guidelines that prevent indicting a sitting president.

“The reason you did not indict Donald Trump is because of [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president?” Lieu said.

“That is correct,” Mueller responded.

The statement matters because Trump and his supporters have asserted that Mueller’s report found “no obstruction.” Democrats, by contrast, have argued that “anyone else” who did what Trump did would have been indicted.

Republicans appeared concerned about Mueller’s answer, and Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) modified her prepared questions to accuse Mueller of contradicting himself.

“That is not what you said in the report,” she said.

Mueller’s report said prosecutors did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump broke the law because a sitting president cannot be charged.

Mueller declines to say when his team reached conclusion that Trump had not conspired with the Russians

Robert S. Mueller III declined to say when his team reached the conclusion that President Trump had not conspired with the Russians to interfere into the 2016 elections.

Republicans have suggested that Mueller’s office determined early in the 22-month investigation that Trump hadn’t colluded with Moscow. Nevertheless, Mueller waited until his report was released in April to disclose that key finding.

“When did you personally reach that conclusion?” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) asked Mueller. “At some point you had to come to a conclusion that I don’t think there is not a conspiracy going on here, between this president … and the Russians.”

“Developing a criminal case you get pieces of information, witnesses and the like as you make your case, and when you make a decision on a particular case depends on a number of factors,” Mueller said. “I cannot say specifically when we reached a decision on a particular defendant at a particular point in time.”

“But it was sometime well before you wrote the report?” Biggs asked. “Certainly at some time prior to that report, you reached that decision, in regard to the president, ‘I don’t find anything here.’ Fair enough?”

“I’m not certain I do agree with that,” Mueller replied.

Democrats want Mueller testimony to paint a narrative. Mueller isn’t cooperating

Democrats wanted to use today’s hearing to connect the dots in Robert S. Mueller III’s report, using a constellation of facts spread across a 448-page document to show that President Trump obstructed justice.

Mueller’s answers have not always been helpful for that task, and he’s fallen into a clear rhythm when responding to Democrats. He’ll confirm specific facts from his report but stop short of supporting their attempts to paint a larger narrative.

For example, Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) asked Mueller about Trump’s effort to have Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, tell Jeff Sessions, then the attorney general, limit the Russia investigation.

With monosyllabic answers, Mueller confirmed the details of the case. But when Cicilline tried to string them all together into a single question, the former special counsel balked.

“I’m not going to adopt your characterization, but I would say the facts that are laid out in the report are accurate,” he said.

What do public opinion and polling say about Mueller’s testimony?

For weeks leading up to today’s hearing, both sides have wondered whether Robert S. Mueller III’s testimony would sway public opinion on the question of whether Congress should impeach President Trump.

Even before Mueller began to speak, the odds were strongly against that, as the public reaction to previous episodes in the investigation showed. For example, on May 29, when Mueller made his last public statement and announced he would step down, he said, “If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

Polling by YouGov showed that 90% of Hillary Clinton voters who said they had seen or heard Mueller’s statement concluded that Mueller’s report “did not clear Trump of any wrongdoing.”

But among Trump voters, only 15% shared that conclusion. Three-quarters of Trump voters who said they had seen or heard Mueller’s statement still said the report “clears Trump of any wrongdoing,” the poll found.

Voters who pay the most attention to news and public affairs are, overwhelmingly, the most partisan Americans. And, as years of public opinion studies have shown, partisans on both sides tend to find ways to fit new pieces of evidence into their preexisting views.

Streaming, reading and tic-tac-toe as would-be spectators accept their fate

A little more than an hour into Robert S. Mueller III’s testimony, people at the end of the line to enter the hearing room are starting to lose hope.

Some have been camped out for hours, but they say it’s unlikely they’ll get in.

Hashim Syed, who was near the end of the line as of 9:45 a.m. Eastern, said he’s “not that optimistic anymore.”

“When I came in, the line moved a little bit and then right now, it hasn’t moved,” he said. “It’s looking like a no.”

In the meantime, people in line are trying to amuse themselves. They’re chatting, reading and playing tic-tac-toe. And many are streaming Mueller’s testimony on their phones.

“I’ve been looking at videos, seeing what’s going on, obsessing over the line,” said Ryan Couture, who said he’s holding out hope that he’ll make it into the hearing room. “That’s basically all you can do.”

Mueller dismisses conflict of interest claims by Trump

Former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III dismissed claims by President Trump that he had conflicts of interest that should have blocked him from leading the investigation into Russia’s interference into the 2016 election and Trump’s possible obstruction of justice.

Under questioning by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Mueller also denied he had been a candidate to lead the FBI after Trump fired director James B. Comey in 2017. Mueller confirmed that he discussed the FBI director job with Trump but “not as a candidate.” Mueller also said that the Justice Department cleared him of any conflicts of interests before he took the job.

Trump has alleged that Mueller was a candidate for the FBI director’s post. Earlier Wednesday, Trump tweeted that if Mueller denied under oath that he had interviewed for the FBI job, Vice President Mike Pence could serve as a witness to refute Mueller. Trump’s close advisors told Mueller’s investigators that they had tried to tell Trump that accusations of conflicts of interest were ridiculous, according to the special counsel’s report.

Another allegation thrown at Mueller by Republicans is that he was a close friend of Comey’s. Mueller downplayed such ties, noting he hadn’t spoken to Comey in the six months before he was appointed. At first, he said they were only “business associates” but later confirmed they had, indeed, been “friends.”