Robert Mueller said he had not cleared Donald Trump of allegations of obstructing justice as the former special counsel testified before Congress about his investigation into the 2016 Trump presidential campaign’s ties with Russia.
His appearance before the House judiciary committee on Wednesday morning marked the first time he had been questioned in public about his 22-month probe. It served largely as a platform for Democrats and Republicans to amplify narratives about Mr Mueller’s investigation they have long pushed.
Over more than three hours, Mr Mueller said relatively little as Democrats read excerpts from his report and asked the former special counsel to confirm the most damning findings about Mr Trump’s conduct. Republicans on the committee redirected attention to Mr Mueller himself and the origins of the investigation, which the president has depicted as a “witch hunt” launched by his political foes.
Mr Mueller was terse by contrast. He frequently gave one-word answers, asked for the question to be repeated or referred back to his written findings, saying in various ways: “I stand by what’s in the report”. Mr Mueller spoke more extensively, and passionately, when defending the integrity of his team and their findings
“We strove to hire individuals who could do the job. I’ve been in the business for almost 25 years. In those 25 years, I’ve not had occasion once to ask about somebody’s political affiliation. It is not done. What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job seriously and quickly and with integrity.”
Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic House judiciary chair, sought to pin Mr Mueller down on whether he had “totally exonerated” the president, as Mr Trump has claimed. “No,” the former special counsel replied.
Mr Nadler asked whether justice department policy — which says a sitting president cannot be indicted — would allow Mr Trump to be “prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office”. Mr Mueller replied: “True.”
When asked later by Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California, whether that policy was the reason he did not indict Mr Trump, Mr Mueller responded: “That’s correct.”
It was not clear if Mr Mueller’s statement was an inadvertent mis-step. He has previously said he did not make a determination on whether the president could be charged with a crime.
Ken Buck, a Republican from Colorado, pressed Mr Mueller on why he did not make a decision on obstruction, despite describing at length several incidents of possible obstruction.
“You unfairly shifted the burden of proof to the president,” said Mr Buck, before asking him whether there was sufficient evidence to charge Mr Trump.
“We did not make that calculation,” said Mr Mueller. Despite Mr Mueller’s refusal to be drawn into a firmer conclusion than the one delivered in his report, Mr Trump tweeted during the hearing: “In other words, there was NO OBSTRUCTION.”
Mr Mueller emphasised the importance of his investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election in his opening remarks. He said the Russian government believed it would benefit if Mr Trump won the White House.
“Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious,” he said.
Mr Mueller refused to answer questions about the origins of the FBI’s investigation or about the actions of William Barr, the attorney-general, who issued a summary of the special counsel’s findings before the report was released. In a private March letter, Mr Mueller had complained that the attorney-general’s description had created “public confusion” about the results of the probe.
“The letter stands for itself,” said Mr Mueller.
The judiciary committee hearing was largely focused on the obstruction portion of Mr Mueller’s report. Mr Mueller’s performance was not always assured, with Mr Nadler repeatedly asking him to speak up or to speak into the microphone so he could be heard. At one point, Mr Mueller misremembered which president had appointed him as a US attorney in Massachusetts in the 1980s.
The intelligence committee hearing will focus more on portion of the report that dealt with contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.
In his prepared remarks, Adam Schiff, chairman of the intelligence committee, said the Trump campaign demonstrated “disloyalty to country” when it sought to take advantage of Russian meddling in the 2016 race.
Earlier, Mr Nadler hinted at the process of impeachment even as he avoided using the politically fraught word. “Director Mueller, we have a responsibility to address the evidence you have uncovered,” Mr Nadler said.
Mr Mueller refused to even utter the phrase, despite his report noting alternative avenues for addressing presidential misconduct other than indictment. “I’m not going to talk about that issue,” he said.
It was not the only instance where Mr Mueller showed himself alert to the risks of stumbling into dramatic moments that could be replayed on television or used in campaigning. He declined on two occasions offers from Democrats to read from his report aloud himself. “I would be happy for you to read it out,” he said.
The report from the former special counsel, who was director of the FBI for 12 years, did not establish any conspiracy between Mr Trump and the Russian government, though he detailed an array of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia as it interfered in the 2016 US election.
Mr Mueller’s report, largely unread by the American public, portrayed Mr Trump and his campaign as eager to benefit from Russia’s election meddling. He ultimately concluded there was not sufficient evidence to charge a crime.
The report, however, did not exonerate the president. Instead, he laid out in dramatic detail several instances where Mr Trump may have obstructed justice, adding: “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”
