Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Mueller: Trump Was Not Exonerated; Second Hearing With Robert Mueller Moments Away. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired July 24, 2019 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:30:00] JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Because of OLC memo, and he also made the argument that they could not find any prosecutable evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump team and the Russians.

That said there is another reality out there. This is the reality of the president's fans. And they deal in memes and they deal in edited videos. And I think that there is a lot that happened today when it comes to Mueller refusing to answer questions or acting perhaps a little befuddled at times. And look, again, all of us should look so good at 74. I mean, whatever, but nobody at 74 is the same person they were at 35.

And he did seem like he couldn't hear. I'm not making light of it and I don't mean to be ageist or disparaging. I think that those moments are going to be taken. And I think that they're going to be used against Mueller to try to undercut him, to try to discredit him regard -- they already are. Rudy Giuliani is on another channel talking about how he's not the Robert Mueller he knew.

But I'm just saying like there is another reality and another hearing that people are going to see, people who don't have the time to sit and watch 3 1/2 hours of cable TV news. And they might only see a mashup of Mueller refusing to answer questions or seeming like he's not even familiar with what's his own report.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Yes, I was going to say, yes, Jim, we're really halfway there because now the next part is about to begin. I'm sure he's resting up a little bit, having a little lunch, getting ready. But the Intelligence Committee has got a whole bunch of questions for him as well.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: They do to focus on that fundamental question of the extent, the systematic interference in the election. And what's interesting there, you did have one of the Republican members raised the question as to whether the troll farms were actually tied to and operated by the Russian government which is well-established by intelligence agencies but also bipartisan committees in both the House and the Senate.

So it'll be interesting if you see Republicans raising those questions again on the fundamental issue here, you know, the extent of the Russian interference, questions that the president has raised himself. PAMELA BROWN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: One thing I noticed, too, in watching -- just an observation was he didn't seem to confer with his counsel Aaron Zebley very much, if at all. I don't know if you guys notice otherwise. So it will be interesting to see in this next hearing how much Aaron Zebley who has been sworn in for this before the committee will actually be testifying.

And I think also in terms of looking ahead, previewing, Robert Mueller made it pretty clear we're not going to learn more about whether the Trump campaign or President Trump had advanced knowledge of the WikiLeaks dump. He made it very clear he doesn't want to go near that because of the ongoing Stone case.

TAPPER: So I just want to read this statement, I'm sorry, this is from President Trump's lawyer, Jay Sekulow and I'll come right to you after Laura. He said this morning's testimony exposed the troubling deficiencies of the special counsel's investigation. The testimony revealed that this probe was conducted by a small group of politically biased prosecutors who, as hard as they tried, were unable to establish other obstruction, conspiracy or collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It's also clear that the special counsel conducted this two-year investigation unimpeded. The American people understand that decision is over. They also understand that the case is closed, end quote.

Laura, what were you going to say? I'm sorry.

LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, nice try, first of all, I'm trying to re-craft and re-frame the way that it was actually described. He didn't make the actual allegations and the assertions there. What I want to make very clear, there was a moment in this particular second half of the testimony where Mueller confronted, I believe, Representative Biggs who challenged him with his eye expression and kind of looked at him like, you don't know you're talking about. He said do you question my knowledge here today?

He's well aware of the meme community you're talking about. Well aware of the Sekulows out there who will try to re-frame and re-cast in that way. But remember, there's a very big difference in how Mueller viewed obstruction versus the idea of Russian interference. In the nine minutes we heard from him in the first time, that was his singular focus. The idea essentially of look, this is a big problem, we got 2016 election, 2020 election coming forward.

But today, he began opening statement focusing again on this very issue. I would predict and I hate to predict but I predict that Mueller would actually show his zeal about an issue that Congress actually has an opportunity to legislate about. The ideas of whether impeachment is the word Voldemort to call it to him or not. I just don't know. It appeared to be.

But the idea of whether Congress called him here today to give them information about what they can actually do about an issue. This is where he should come alive. This where the bipartisanship should be on full display if it's not. And this is where I think his mind should not be challenged. PREET BHARARA, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It doesn't matter what

Mueller testifies to with respect to what Jay Sekulow or the president or any representative of the president will say about it. I mean, we've been talking correctly about how big a deal it was that Bob Mueller said in his own voice, his report doesn't totally exonerate the president from it.

It shouldn't be that shocking. It was in the report. Not only it was in the report, it was in the summary that Bill Barr that lots of people have concluded misled us about the report. The one thing it did not mislead us on was by quoting the no exoneration line and the president still said -- it's in the report, it's in the summary by his own handpicked attorney general who helps him, and the president still said total exoneration.

BLITZER: And so the question now, Dana, and let's get into this a little bit. It's one thing to read the 448-page report which most Americans clearly didn't read. It's another thing to hear from Mueller say much of what was in that 448-page report.

[12:35:05] Did, politically speaking, what we heard so far move the needle in changing public opinion, in changing attitudes in Congress?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're still halfway through. We don't know the answer to that yet. But just my impression in the short term is that their goal was to educate the public and more importantly bring the public -- when I say they, Democrats, bring the public along to support the idea of beginning an impeachment inquiry. Whether or not right off the bat, the special counsel saying, no, I didn't exonerate the president or more importantly him again putting some meat on the bone of obstruction is enough for that.

You know, it is unclear because that really is the key. Yes, you have 80-plus Democrats in the House who say, OK we're ready. But that's not a majority and that certainly isn't the part of the country, politically speaking, where they have to be careful because they aren't just rabid Democrat.

SCIUTTO: You know what you said, you saw them do today? One by one and clearly in coordination, they practiced for this. A succession of members, piece by piece, making the case to the American people. Sounded almost like an opening argument in an impeachment proceeding. Ticking through the instances, the attempt -- getting McGahn to fire Mueller, getting Sessions to unrecuse. The Lewandowski, the witness tampering, and then you saw Hakeem Jeffries, for instance, running through the three requirements for obstruction of justice, an obstructive act, that it has to be done in connection with within official proceeding, that there has to be corrupt intent. And you saw that repeated up through the Ted Lieu testimony.

They were making their case there. Now, you'd have to be a very astute listener to these proceedings, also interested in listening, you know --

BASH: Exactly. SCIUTTO: -- to be convinced by that. And right now, the public poll shows public support for impeachment proceedings going in the opposite way.

BASH: Going down. And what you just said was very cogent and very clear. And it definitely did not come across that way in the totality of today because it was very disjointed and very (INAUDIBLE).

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: I can imagine that the polls will change much about impeachment. The one thing that I think is clear from today, in one area where the Democrats did make some progress, is showing how absolutely indispensable it is to get Don McGahn to testify about this, to get Corey Lewandowski to testify. To have the actual participants, not someone who is literally giving third or fourth-hand information about what these people testified in his investigation. But Don McGahn can tell you what Donald Trump told him to do. And it's just outrageous that these people have not yet testified.

BLITZER: The White House is pressing to make sure he doesn't do that.

Let's go to Kaitlan Collins, our White House Correspondent. Any reactions so far?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, so far, White House officials and the president's Republican allies are walking away from this morning's hearing and viewing it as a success. They walked into this not knowing exactly was going to happen. They had this fear that Democrats were going to be able to get these effective sound bites of Robert Mueller, bringing his report to life. But instead, you saw the former special counsel there even hesitant to utter the word impeachment.

And that's what they were watching here, is this hearing going to move the needle on impeachment at all? And so far the people we've been speaking with have said no, they do not think that is the case.

Now going into this, our reporting showed that the president not only didn't want unflattering headlines coming out of this or any new information being revealed by Robert Mueller. He wanted his Republicans there, those Republican allies of his, to be able to turn the tables on the special counsel, talk about this alleged bias at the FBI and DOJ. And so far the people we've spoken with back here at the White House believe that was an effective strategy that they were able to use where either they were able to, at times, trip up the special counsel or at times make allegations about his investigation and about his work where he did not strongly push back on.

Now, one case where you did see Robert Mueller probably push back the strongest on President Trump was over this allegation that you even saw the president tweeting about this morning. When Robert Mueller came here to discuss the FBI director job with the president which President Trump is saying was an interview, essentially. And Robert Mueller said forcefully, several times throughout that hearing, no, this was not any kind of an interview like that. It was simply for him to get advice on what kind of person should be taking this job. And that's really something significant here because that was the reasoning the president tried to use back in the beginning for reasoning why Robert Mueller should be fired from this job, claiming he wanted his old job as FBI director back. And Robert Mueller said that is something that is just simply, in his opinion, not true.

BLITZER: Kaitlan, the president, what, during the 4:00 hour is going to be leaving the White House heading to a Republican fundraiser in West Virginia. It's then that we actually expect potentially him to stop and speak to reporters.

COLLINS: Yes. There's a chance we could hear from him on Twitter before then but right now there's nothing on his schedule. Our sources say he's been up in the residence, watching this hearing very closely as he was tweeting about it several times before Robert Mueller even took that chair. But we are going to hear from him in person.

[12:40:03] And judging based on what White House officials have been telling the president and Republicans that this was a success this morning, you can expect the president to come out and try to frame this as a positive victory for him, essentially, when he does come out. And judging on how this next hearing goes. That's something that officials are still a little hesitant to go, as far as to say it's a total victory because they want to wait and see everything that he says. But that will be the first time that we hear from the president in person as a reaction to Robert Mueller.

BLITZER: Yes, and I suspect he will stop and answer reporters' questions and make a statement.

TAPPER: He's already tweeted, no obstruction. That this hearing so far has proven no obstruction, or it's very clear that Mueller has not testified that there was no obstruction. He testified that there was no conclusion about obstruction and that the president was not exonerated.

BLITZER: Right.

TAPPER: And on the matter we were talking about before, Congressman Mark Meadows of North Carolina, chair of the Freedom Caucus was one of the president's closest aides and allies did an interview -- or just spoke to reporters and he said, I think the fact that Robert Mueller didn't appear to have a good grasp of the report that he authored indicated that there was not a firm understanding of everything in the 448 pages. Sadly I think there were a lot of members of Congress who had a better understanding of what was in the report than he did.

So, I mean, already you see -- and again, I mean, there were moments when Robert Mueller did seem unfamiliar with some of the material in the report. Also, plenty of moments where he was sharp as a tack and knew, you know, dates, and times and letters, et cetera. But you already see the president's allies harping on that, talking about that.

BLITZER: They're going to go after him. Preet, you wanted to make a point?

BHARARA: Yes. Look, people have great moments and less great moments, no matter how old you are, how young you are. I imagine that when I'm on later today that I'll be a little bit sharper, a less sharp because, you know, I haven't gotten --

TOOBIN: And what is it sharper or less sharp?

BHARARA: I think less sharp.

TAPPER: What page were you citing?

BHARARA: Oh I mean, less sharp than I was just a moment ago. And I know that's pretty bad news for everyone. Maybe I'll take the rest of the day off.

When he was asked a question that was logical and sensible and was grounded in reality and was asked at a reasonable pace, he knew exactly what was going on and he answered clearly and concisely.

BASH: Yes.

BHARARA: There were some folks who were rattling things off with him in word salads, and he had to ask the question, I'm sorry can you repeat it, and didn't immediately understand what was being asked. And I think a lot of people would be in that position. And so I think what's going on here, you know, is another dimension of character assassination that's been going on for two years now. And they have another front that they're opening up.

After trashing a guy who is a military hero for being -- and a Republican and appointed by Republican multiple times.

BLITZER: When you were the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, a prosecutor, did you know every detail of every case that the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District in New York went through?

BHARARA: You can't possibly. And as one member actually got out -- I don't remember what the exact point that was being made, but no individual on a large investigation where you have a large team knows every fact because no individual has read every document and interviewed every witness. It's the collective of the group that produces the product.

BLITZER: And we asked Jeffrey because you thought it was a big deal when his response to Chairman Jerry Nadler, when Jerry Nadler asked him the specific question, did you totally exonerate the president and Mueller said no. That was important.

In the report, the original Mueller report, it says this, "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

TOOBIN: I think this is a good example of why television matters. And why people don't always get the same kind of information from a, you know, the page, whatever it is, of that long report and hearing Mueller say that. In substance, they're identical. I mean, they are absolutely identical.

But the fact that at the very beginning of the hearing, under I thought, a very astute questioning by Jerry Nadler, he said this was not an exoneration. That serves as a complete counterpoint to everything the president has said for the past several months.

BASH: Can I just put --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and Ranking Republican Devin Nunes. You see them there on the screen right now. They're getting ready to begin part two, Dana, of this procedure with Robert Mueller. And they're going to focus this time on the Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.

BASH: That's right which is so obviously incredibly critical. And it was chilling to hear Robert Mueller in his opening statement this morning talk about how when all of his years looking at, you know, investigations and threats to national security, this was the biggest. Quick political point on what you were saying about the difference between television and reading. Political ads. You're going to see that exchange with Nadler and Robert Mueller into a television or a device near you in 2020.

[12:45:02] TAPPER: So let's go down the line here as we wait for the House Intelligence Committee hearing to begin. Very quickly, what are you looking for in this hearing which is going to focus on the attempt by the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election?

Jim?

SCIUTTO: Remember the context, this happened in 2016, there is no doubt about it. Don't listen to any partisan argument that there's doubt that Russia did this. There is no doubt. The facts are there. The evidences are there.

They tried it again in 2018. With certainty, they will attempt it again in 2020. And imagine that kind of attack in this even more hyperpartisan environment and what effect that could have on the election. Particularly if Russia takes a step that they've tried to before without success which is to affect the outcome of the election in some way. Imagine the effect of that. And that's quite a nightmare scenario but not out of the realm of possibility.

BLITZER: Pamela?

BROWN: Robert Mueller already made it clear in this past hearing how serious he thought the Russian interference was. What I'm looking for is if he talks about anything regarding whether the president then- candidate Trump or anyone on his campaign was compromised by Russia given all of the contexts back and forth.

COATES: Yes.

BASH: And I also think that if you look at the kind of partisanship that we've seen, maybe -- I'm going to say something optimistic and hopeful which is take away the collusion and all the questions about how they interacted. Maybe we'll actually see Republicans asking legitimate questions about how to keep the voting in Democratic systems safe from interference from Russia and other countries for the 2020 election. I know I'm probably going to be disappointed.

TOOBIN: I'm going to look at whether Mueller draws a meaningful distinction between no collusion and collusion but not enough to bring a criminal case. And that -- whether that distinction is made in a meaningful way that will transcend or last beyond today's hearing.

COATES: Yes, there's a gap between what we believe is wrong conduct, wrong ways for people and political parties or groups to operate and what is actually lawful behavior. I'm looking for him to make very clear what and how to close that particular gap. For example, that Trump Tower meeting would be a prime example of how to say what may not be unlawful but we want to legislate to make sure that it actually is.

BHARARA: Two things. One, further what we've been talking about from the first hearing now the second hearing is distinct. But this testimony that, you know, was out there and is looming about where or not the OLC opinion is the reason why there was no indictment. If that gets undone or that gets tweaked at all in this next hearing because I think that's a big deal.

And then the second, you know, continuing off of what Laura said, on a going-forward basis, what is the proper conduct the next time there is someone trying to arrange a meeting at the Trump Tower or something like that by either campaign or any campaign in the future? What is the proper conduct for someone on a campaign? That gets muddled. We talked earlier about how Bill Barr muddled that question and narrowed the question.

I think the American people deserve a clear answer from a law enforcement official or former law enforcement official that what is the thing that you do when someone brings you dirt on an opponent? And we should all be clear on that Democrats and Republicans alike.

TAPPER: Somebody from a foreign country and not just somebody --

BHARARA: Correct.

TAPPER: -- somebody in the United States.

BHARARA: Correct.

TAPPER: And Garret, what about you?

GARRETT GRAFF, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: So I want to build on Jeffrey's point and put a sharper edge on it which is, you know, whether effectively the obstruction into the Russian investigation worked. You know, what Mueller says in his report is that they did not establish that there was a conspiracy. He points out in many places in volume one the information he did not have access to, communications that were deleted, things that he did not get to the bottom of. We still don't know why Konstantin Kilimnik was given polling data. What that data -- what purpose that data was serving, where it was going, what Kilimnik was doing once Manafort gave it on an ongoing basis.

And I'm very curious whether Mueller will sort of talk about whether he has confidence in getting to the bottom of the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia.

BLITZER: And as we await the arrival of Robert Mueller. He's going to be walking into this hearing room momentarily. The Intelligence Committee will begin the questioning with opening statements from the chairman and the ranking member. Then they'll go through the process.

But let's remember three points in the Mueller report that are going to be the focus of this part of the hearing right now. One and I'm reading directly from the Mueller report, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in the election interference activities. Number two, the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from the Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts. And finally, the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a sweeping and systematic fashion.

[12:50:07] TAPPER: That is what Mueller is going to want to focus on.

BLITZER: Right.

TAPPER: Especially the latter point. Especially the idea that the Russians interfered in the election in sweeping and systematic ways, and they're going to try to do so again in 2020. What House Democrats are going to focus on is the following, Russians reached out to the Trump team to offer help. The Trump team expressed a willingness to accept that help and the Trump team repeatedly lied about it.

That is what Democrats -- that is in the same way we have those five points of obstruction that the Democrats wanted to establish in the Judiciary Committee hearing. I suspect those -- or I've been told those are the three you're going to try to hear from -- hear about in this hearing.

BASH: And even more than we saw in the first on this issue of the origins of the investigation, why --

TAPPER: The Steele dossier.

BASH: The Steele dossier but also others. The people who were working on the investigation. It's hard to imagine that Republicans aren't going hit him even harder on this committee.

BLITZER: All, he's walking in right now. Robert Mueller is walking in. He'll make a statement I assume and then he'll be sworn -- before that he'll be sworn in as was the case with the Judiciary Committee. The chairman, Adam Schiff of California will bring this session to order. He'll stand a little bit, let the photographers take some pictures as they always do, give them a photo opportunity. Then he'll sit down right in the middle of your screen. You see Adam Schiff, the committee chairman getting ready to bring this session to order.

We expect this to go about two hours or so. And that will be it in terms of the public session.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): This meeting will come to order.

At the outset, and on behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank you, Special Counsel Mueller, for a lifetime of service to your country.

Your report, for those who have taken the time to study it, is methodical and it is devastating, for it tells the story of a foreign adversary's sweeping and systemic intervention in a close U.S. presidential election.

That should be enough to deserve the attention of every American, as you well point out. But your report tells another story as well. The story of the 2016 election is also a story about disloyalty to country, about greed, and about lies.

Your investigation determined that the Trump campaign, including Donald Trump himself, knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built Russian meddling into their strategy and used it.

Disloyalty to country. Those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly shun it or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it and made full use of it?

That disloyalty may not have been criminal. Constrained by uncooperative witnesses, the destruction of documents and the use of encrypted communications, your team was not able to establish each of the elements of the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, so not a provable crime in any event.

But I think maybe something worse: The crime is the violation of law written by Congress. But disloyalty to country violates the very oath of citizenship, our devotion to a core principle on which our nation was founded that we, the people and not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide who governs us.

This is also a story about money, and about greed and corruption. About the leadership of a campaign willing to compromise the nation's interest not only to win, but to make money at the same time.

About a campaign chairman indebted to pro-Russian interests who tried to use his position to clear his debts and make millions. About a national security advisor using his position to make money from still other foreign interests.

[12:55:00]

And about a candidate trying to make more money than all of them put together through real estate project that to him was worth a fortune, hundreds of millions of dollars and the realization of a life-long ambition, a Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow. A candidate who, in fact, viewed his whole campaign as the greatest infomercial in history.

Donald Trump and his senior staff were not alone in their desire to use the election to make money. For Russia, too, there was a powerful financial motive. Putin wanted relief from U.S. economic sanctions imposed in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and over human rights violations.

SCHIFF: The secret Trump Tower meeting between the Russians and senior campaign officials was about sanctions. The secret conversations between Flynn and the Russian ambassador were about sanctions. Trump and his team wanted more money for themselves, and the Russians wanted more money for themselves and for their oligarchs.

But the story doesn't end here either, for your report also tells a story about lies. Lots of lies. Lies about a gleaming tower in Moscow and lies about talks with the Kremlin. Lies about the firing of FBI Director James Comey and lies about efforts to fire you, Director Mueller, and lies to cover it up. Lies about secret negotiations with the Russians over sanctions and lies about WikiLeaks. Lies about polling data and lies about hush money payments. Lies about meetings in the Seychelles to set up secret back channels and lies about a secret meeting in New York Trump Tower. Lies to the FBI, lies to your staff, and lies to this committee. Lies to obstruct an investigation into the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history.

That is where your report ends, Director Mueller, with a scheme to cover up, obstruct and deceive every bit as systematic and pervasive as the Russian disinformation campaign itself, but far more pernicious since this rot came from within.

Even now after 448 pages and two volumes, the deception continues. The president and his accolades say your report found no collusion, though your report explicitly declined to address that question, since collusion can involve both criminal and noncriminal conduct.

Your report laid out multiple offers of Russian help to the Trump campaign, the campaign's acceptance of that help, and overt acts in furtherance of Russian help. To most Americans that is the very definition of collusion, whether it is a crime or not.

They say your report found no evidence of obstruction, though you outlined numerous actions by the president intended to obstruct the investigation.

They say the president has been fully exonerated, though you specifically declare you could not exonerate him.

In fact, they say your whole investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt, that the Russians didn't interfere in our election, that it's all a terrible hoax. The real crime, they say, is not that the Russians intervened to help Donald Trump, but that the FBI investigated it when they did.

But worst of all, worse than all the lies and the greed, is the disloyalty to country, for that, too, continues.

When asked, "If the Russians intervene again, will you take their help, Mr. President?" "Why not?" was the essence of his answer. "Everyone does it."

No, Mr. President, they don't. Not in the America envisioned by Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton. Not for those who believe in the idea that Lincoln labored until his dying day to preserve, the idea animating our great national experiment, so unique then, so precious still, that our government is chosen by our people, through our franchise, and not by some hostile foreign power.

This is what is at stake, our next election, and the one after that for generations to come. Our democracy.

This is why your work matters, Director Mueller. This is why our investigation matters, to bring these dangers to light.

Ranking Member Nunes?

NUNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, everyone, to the last gasp of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.

As Democrats continue to foist this spectacle.

[13:00:00]