What do you think?
Rate this book
Transcripts of the Mueller Hearings: House Committee on the Judiciary & House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Hearings
On July 24, 2019, Robert S. Mueller III testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary & House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence after being subpoenaed. This book documents the complete transcripts for both hearings.
254 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 29, 2019
2 people are currently reading
About the author
U.S. House of Representatives
27k books12 followersThe United States House of Representatives is one of the two houses of the United States Congress (a bicameral legislature) alongside the Senate.
The composition and powers of the House are established in Article One of the United States Constitution. The major power of the House is to pass federal legislation that affects the entire country, although its bills must also be passed by the Senate and further agreed to by the U.S. President before becoming law (unless both the House and Senate re-pass the legislation with a two-thirds majority in each chamber). The House has some exclusive powers: the power to initiate revenue bills, to impeach officials (impeached officials are subsequently tried in the Senate), and to elect the U.S. President in case there is no majority in the Electoral College.
Each U.S. state is represented in the House in proportion to its population as measured in the census, but every state is entitled to at least one representative. The most populous state, California, currently has 53 representatives. On the other end of the spectrum, there are seven states with only one representative each (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming). The total number of voting representatives is fixed by law at 435. In addition there are six non-voting Representatives who have a voice on the floor and a vote in committees, but no vote on the floor.
The Speaker of the House, who presides over the chamber, is elected by the members of the House, and is therefore traditionally the leader of the House Democratic Caucus or the House Republican Conference, whichever party has more voting members. The House meets in the south wing of the United States Capitol.
The composition and powers of the House are established in Article One of the United States Constitution. The major power of the House is to pass federal legislation that affects the entire country, although its bills must also be passed by the Senate and further agreed to by the U.S. President before becoming law (unless both the House and Senate re-pass the legislation with a two-thirds majority in each chamber). The House has some exclusive powers: the power to initiate revenue bills, to impeach officials (impeached officials are subsequently tried in the Senate), and to elect the U.S. President in case there is no majority in the Electoral College.
Each U.S. state is represented in the House in proportion to its population as measured in the census, but every state is entitled to at least one representative. The most populous state, California, currently has 53 representatives. On the other end of the spectrum, there are seven states with only one representative each (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming). The total number of voting representatives is fixed by law at 435. In addition there are six non-voting Representatives who have a voice on the floor and a vote in committees, but no vote on the floor.
The Speaker of the House, who presides over the chamber, is elected by the members of the House, and is therefore traditionally the leader of the House Democratic Caucus or the House Republican Conference, whichever party has more voting members. The House meets in the south wing of the United States Capitol.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 21, 2022
Deep state blew it big time. Mother lode of proof. Remember, he said "outside my purview"
September 13, 2019
I think congress asking Mueller details about his report was the greatest congressional investigation/questing I’ve ever witnessed in my life time and this publication helps to establish it’s all been clearly exposed as it’s been a scam. I also thought it interesting that republicans all pointed out that they were happy the IG was investigating this mess all while the democrats were claiming no one was above the law as though the POTUS was guilty although everyone of them heard what Muller had to say as example by some passages found in this publication.
Congress asked: At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?
MUELLER: No.
Congress asked: Is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?
MUELLER: We found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability.
Congress: So that would be a yes.
MUELLER: Pardon?
Congress:That would be a yes.
MUELLER: Yes.
Congress asked: So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?
MUELLER: Can you repeat the last part of that question?
Congress: Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can -- let me make it easier. Is...
MUELLER: May -- can I -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
Congress: ... can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated...
MUELLER: I -- I...
Congress: ... because their innocence was not conclusively determined?
MUELLER: I cannot, but this is a unique situation.
Congress: OK. Well, I -- you can't -- time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at, you can't find it because -- I'll tell you why: It doesn't exist. The special counsel's job -- nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It not in any of the documents. It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the Justice Manual. And it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully -- respectfully, Director, it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or to exonerate him. Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it. Now, Director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can't find and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies. And you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel." That's the very first word of your report, right?
MUELLER: That's correct.
Congress: Here's the problem, Director: The special counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached." You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided. And respectfully -- respectfully, by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged. So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle, as they do dramatic readings from this report: that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman this morning, when he said, "Donald Trump is not above the law." He's not. But he damn sure shouldn't be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him.
Congress: If -- you have 182 pages of raw evidentiary material with hundreds of references to 302s who are -- never been cross-examined, which didn't comply with the governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declaration -- declination decisions reached.
MUELLER: This is one of those areas which I decline to discuss...
Congress asked: When you talk about the -- the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?
MUELLER: Yeah, I -- I'm not familiar with -- with that. I (inaudible)
Congress: (inaudible) It's not -- it's not a trick question, right? It was Fusion GPS. Now, Fusion GPS produced the opposition research document wide -- widely known as the Steele dossier, and the owner of Fusion GPA (sic) was someone named Glenn Simpson. Are -- are you familiar with...
MUELLER: This is outside my purview.
Congress asked: OK. Glenn Simpson was never mentioned in the 448-page Mueller report, was he?
Mueller: Well, as I -- as I say, it's outside my purview and it's being handled in the department by others.
Congress: OK. Well, he -- he was not. In the 448 pages the -- the owner of Fusion GPS that did the Steele dossier that started all this, he -- he's not mentioned in there. Let me move on. At the same time Fusion GPS was working to collect opposition research on Donald Trump from foreign sources on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, it also was representing a Russian-based company, Probison (ph), which had been sanctioned by the U.S. government. Are you aware of that?
MUELLER: It's outside my purview.
Congress: OK, thank you. One of the key players in the -- I'll go to something different. One of the key players in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was Natalia Veselnitskaya, who you described in your report as a Russian attorney who advocated for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Veselnitskaya had been working with none other than Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS since at least early 2014. Are -- are you aware of that?
MUELLER: outside my purview
Congress: Now, in stark contrast to the actions of the Trump campaign, we know that the Clinton campaign did pay Fusion GPS to gather dirt on the Trump campaign, from persons associated with foreign governments. But your report doesn't mention a thing about Fusion GPS in it, and you didn't investigate Fusion GPS' connections to Russia (ph). So let me just ask you this. Can you see that from neglecting to mention Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS' involvement with the Clinton campaign, to focusing on a brief meeting at the Trump Tower that produced nothing, to ignoring the Clinton campaign's own ties to Fusion GPS, why some view your report as a pretty one-sided attack on the president?
Mueller: Well, I'll tell you, this is still outside my purview.
Mueller said it was outside of his purview a lot, uh? Why would that be?
This publication is most strongly recommended for the identification and understanding what are state crimes against the constitutional republic as this publication has revealed one of the greatest political Political scandals to have rocked this nation at least for the last 18 years or so as Mueller was head man in charge of the FBI on 9/11 and he claimed the FBI had no forewarning about what would eventually happen that day but Congress called that one out too but don't expect the MSM to tell you about it. You can find this info here: Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001
https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-C...
September 13, 2019
I think congress asking Mueller details about his report was the greatest congressional investigation/questing I’ve ever witnessed in my life time and this publication helps to establish it’s all been clearly exposed as it’s been a scam. I also thought it interesting that republicans all pointed out that they were happy the IG was investigating this mess all while the democrats were claiming no one was above the law as though the POTUS was guilty although everyone of them heard what Muller had to say as example by some passages found in this publication.
Congress asked: At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?
MUELLER: No.
Congress asked: Is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?
MUELLER: We found insufficient evidence of the president's culpability.
Congress: So that would be a yes.
MUELLER: Pardon?
Congress:That would be a yes.
MUELLER: Yes.
Congress asked: So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?
MUELLER: Can you repeat the last part of that question?
Congress: Yeah. Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Can -- let me make it easier. Is...
MUELLER: May -- can I -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
Congress: ... can you give me an example other than Donald Trump, where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated...
MUELLER: I -- I...
Congress: ... because their innocence was not conclusively determined?
MUELLER: I cannot, but this is a unique situation.
Congress: OK. Well, I -- you can't -- time is short. I've got five minutes. Let's just leave it at, you can't find it because -- I'll tell you why: It doesn't exist. The special counsel's job -- nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It not in any of the documents. It's not in your appointment order. It's not in the special counsel regulations. It's not in the OLC opinions. It's not in the Justice Manual. And it's not in the Principles of Federal Prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together because, respectfully -- respectfully, Director, it was not the special counsel's job to conclusively determine Donald Trump's innocence or to exonerate him. Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. And because there is a presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it. Now, Director, the special counsel applied this inverted burden of proof that I can't find and you said doesn't exist anywhere in the department policies. And you used it to write a report. And the very first line of your report, the very first line of your report says, as you read this morning, it "authorizes the special counsel to provide the attorney general with a confidential report explaining the prosecution of declination decisions reached by the special counsel." That's the very first word of your report, right?
MUELLER: That's correct.
Congress: Here's the problem, Director: The special counsel didn't do that. On Volume 1, you did. On Volume 2, with respect to potential of justice, the special counsel made neither a prosecution decision or a declination decision. You made no decision. You told us this morning, and in your report, that you made no determination. So respectfully, Director, you didn't follow the special counsel regulations. It clearly says, "Write a confidential report about decisions reached." Nowhere in here does it say, "Write a report about decisions that weren't reached." You wrote 180 pages, 180 pages about decisions that weren't reached, about potential crimes that weren't charged or decided. And respectfully -- respectfully, by doing that, you managed to violate every principle in the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra-prosecutorial analysis about potential crimes that aren't charged. So Americans need to know this, as they listen to the Democrats and socialists on the other side of the aisle, as they do dramatic readings from this report: that Volume 2 of this report was not authorized under the law to be written. It was written to a legal standard that does not exist at the Justice Department. And it was written in violation of every DOJ principle about extra-prosecutorial commentary. I agree with the chairman this morning, when he said, "Donald Trump is not above the law." He's not. But he damn sure shouldn't be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him.
Congress: If -- you have 182 pages of raw evidentiary material with hundreds of references to 302s who are -- never been cross-examined, which didn't comply with the governing regulation to explain the prosecution or declaration -- declination decisions reached.
MUELLER: This is one of those areas which I decline to discuss...
Congress asked: When you talk about the -- the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?
MUELLER: Yeah, I -- I'm not familiar with -- with that. I (inaudible)
Congress: (inaudible) It's not -- it's not a trick question, right? It was Fusion GPS. Now, Fusion GPS produced the opposition research document wide -- widely known as the Steele dossier, and the owner of Fusion GPA (sic) was someone named Glenn Simpson. Are -- are you familiar with...
MUELLER: This is outside my purview.
Congress asked: OK. Glenn Simpson was never mentioned in the 448-page Mueller report, was he?
Mueller: Well, as I -- as I say, it's outside my purview and it's being handled in the department by others.
Congress: OK. Well, he -- he was not. In the 448 pages the -- the owner of Fusion GPS that did the Steele dossier that started all this, he -- he's not mentioned in there. Let me move on. At the same time Fusion GPS was working to collect opposition research on Donald Trump from foreign sources on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, it also was representing a Russian-based company, Probison (ph), which had been sanctioned by the U.S. government. Are you aware of that?
MUELLER: It's outside my purview.
Congress: OK, thank you. One of the key players in the -- I'll go to something different. One of the key players in the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was Natalia Veselnitskaya, who you described in your report as a Russian attorney who advocated for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Veselnitskaya had been working with none other than Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS since at least early 2014. Are -- are you aware of that?
MUELLER: outside my purview
Congress: Now, in stark contrast to the actions of the Trump campaign, we know that the Clinton campaign did pay Fusion GPS to gather dirt on the Trump campaign, from persons associated with foreign governments. But your report doesn't mention a thing about Fusion GPS in it, and you didn't investigate Fusion GPS' connections to Russia (ph). So let me just ask you this. Can you see that from neglecting to mention Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS' involvement with the Clinton campaign, to focusing on a brief meeting at the Trump Tower that produced nothing, to ignoring the Clinton campaign's own ties to Fusion GPS, why some view your report as a pretty one-sided attack on the president?
Mueller: Well, I'll tell you, this is still outside my purview.
Mueller said it was outside of his purview a lot, uh? Why would that be?
This publication is most strongly recommended for the identification and understanding what are state crimes against the constitutional republic as this publication has revealed one of the greatest political Political scandals to have rocked this nation at least for the last 18 years or so as Mueller was head man in charge of the FBI on 9/11 and he claimed the FBI had no forewarning about what would eventually happen that day but Congress called that one out too but don't expect the MSM to tell you about it. You can find this info here: Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001
https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-C...
Displaying 1 of 1 review