Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,


Mueller Report Part II, p. 13; overall p. 225 in pdf (excerpt).

Our executive summary re interview: Mueller knew that Trump wouldn’t comply so he didn’t even try to subpoena!

US Congressman “Sean Patrick Maloney
>> MR. MUELLER, THANK YOU. I KNOW IT’S BEEN A LONG DAY. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR HOW MUCH RESPECT I HAVE FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR YOUR EXTRAORDINARY CAREER. I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND MY QUESTIONS IN THAT CONTEXT, SIR.

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. IT’S REALLY THE ONLY SUBJECT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT, SIR. WHY DIDN’T YOU SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT?

Mueller
>> WELL, AT THE OUTSET AFTER WE TOOK OVER AND INITIATED THE INVESTIGATION —
00:00:37

Maloney
>> IF I COULD ASK YOU TO SPEAK INTO THE MIC.
00:00:41

Robert S. Mueller III
>> OF COURSE AT THE OUTSET AFTER WE TOOK OVER THE INVESTIGATION AND BEGAN IT AND PURSUED IT, QUITE HONESTLY ONE OF THE THINGS WE ANTICIPATED WANTING TO ACCOMPLISH WAS GETTING THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT. WE NEGOTIATED WITH HIM FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR. AND I THINK WHAT YOU THE APPENDIX LAYS OUT OUR EXPECTATIONS AS A RESULT OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. FINALLY WE WERE ALMOST TOWARD 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. 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.

Sean Patrick Maloney
>> 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. YOU’RE RIGHT, APPENDIX C LAYS THAT OUT. INDEED, I BELIEVE YOU DESCRIBED THE IN-PERSON INTERVIEW AS VITAL. THAT’S YOUR WORD. OF COURSE YOU MADE CLEAR YOU HAD THE AUTHORITY AND LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO DO IT. AS YOU POINT OUT, YOU WAITED A YEAR. YOU PUT UP WITH A LOT OF NEGOTIATIONS. YOU MADE NUMEROUS ACCOMMODATIONS SO THAT HE COULD PREPARE AND NOT BE SURPRISED. I TAKE THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO BE FAIR TO THE PRESIDENT. BY THE WAY, YOU WERE GOING TO LIMIT THE QUESTIONS WHEN YOU GOT TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO RUSSIA ONLY.

IN FACT, YOU DID GO WITH WRITTEN QUESTIONS AFTER ABOUT NINE MONTHS, SIR, RIGHT? AND THE PRESIDENT RESPONDED TO THOSE. YOU HAVE SOME HARD LANGUAGE FOR WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF THOSE RESPONSES. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE PRESIDENT’S WRITTEN RESPONSES, MR. MUELLER?

Mueller
>> CERTAINLY NOT AS USEFUL AS THE INTERVIEW WOULD BE.
00:02:39

Sean Patrick Maloney
>> 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, NO CURRENT RECOLLECTION. I TAKE IT BY YOUR ANSWER IT WASN’T AS HELPFUL. THAT’S WHY YOU USED WORDS LIKE INCOMPLETE, IMPRECISE, INADEQUATE, INSUFFICIENT. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY OF WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF THOSE WRITTEN ANSWERS?

Mueller
>> THAT IS A FAIR SUMMARY.
00:03:06

Maloney
>> AND I ASK THAT RESPECTFULLY — BY THE WAY, THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T EVER CLAIM THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, DID HE?
00:03:13

Mueller
>> I’M NOT GOING TO TALK TO THAT.
00:03:15

Sean Patrick Maloney
>> FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, SIR, AT ONE POINT IT WAS VITAL AND ANOTHER POINT IT WASN’T VITAL. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHY DID IT STOP BEING VITAL? I CAN ONLY THINK OF THREE EXPLANATIONS. ONE IS SOMEBODY TOLD YOU YOU COULDN’T DO IT.
00:03:31

Mueller
>> WE UNDERSTOOD WE COULD SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT. WE COULD SERVE A SUBPOENA.
00:03:35

Maloney
>> THE ONLY OTHER EXPLANATIONS. WELL TWO OTHERS, ONE THAT YOU JUST FLINCHED. YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT AND YOU DIDN’T DO IT. YOU DON’T STRIKE ME AS THE KIND OF GUY WHO FLINCHES.

Mueller
>> I HOPE NOT.

Sean Patrick Maloney
>> I HOPE NOT TOO, SIR. THE THIRD EXPLANATION IS YOU DIDN’T THINK YOU NEEDED IT. WHAT CAUGHT MY EYE WAS PAGE 13 ON VOLUME TWO WHERE YOU SAID, IN FACT, YOU HAD A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF EVIDENCE. AND YOU CITE A BUNCH OF CASES 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. 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?

Mueller
>> THERE’S A BALANCE. IN OTHER WORDS, HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAVE THAT SATISFIED THE LAST ELEMENT AGAINST HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU WILLING TO SPEND IN THE COURTS LITIGATING THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT.
00:04:34

Maloney
>> IN THIS CASE, YOU FELT THAT YOU HAD ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT’S INTENT?
00:04:40

Mueller
>> WE HAD TO MAKE A BALANCED DECISION IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH EVIDENCE WE HAD COMPARED TO THE LENGTH OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THIS.

Maloney
>> YOU THOUGHT IF YOU GAVE IT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR TO THIS CONGRESS, THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS BETTER THAN THAT DELAY?
00:04:55

Mueller
>> CAN YOU STATE THAT AGAIN?
00:04:57

Maloney
>> OR THAT IT WAS BETTER THAN THE DELAY TO PRESENT THE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, YOUR TERM, OF THE PRESIDENT’S INTENT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND TO THIS COMMITTEE. ISN’T THAT WHY YOU DIDN’T DO THE INTERVIEW?

Mueller
THE REASON THAT WE DIDN’T DO THE INTERVIEW IS THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ATTENDANT TO THAT” From mostly uncorrected closed caption. See original and video here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4809856/representative-maloney-questions-mueller