Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 54

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:19-cv-2379

DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by Plaintiff Committee
on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives (Judiciary Committee) against
Defendant Donald F. McGahn II. The suit, which the United States House of Representatives
has expressly authorized, arises out of the Judiciary Committee’s efforts to enforce a duly
authorized, issued, and served Congressional subpoena to McGahn (McGahn Subpoena). The
Judiciary Committee alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

In an unprecedented attack on our Nation’s democratic institutions, “[t]he Russian

government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.”1 In

1

Robert S. Mueller III, Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The
2016 Presidential Election, Vol. I at 1 (March 2019) (Report), https://perma.cc/DN3N-9UW8.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 54

his Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election
(Report), in his public statement of May 29, 2019, related to the Report, and in testimony before
the Judiciary Committee and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Special
Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has told Congress and the American people that President Donald
J. Trump repeatedly used his official power to attempt to thwart the Special Counsel’s
investigation into this interference—including into whether any individuals associated with his
own Presidential campaign coordinated with the Russian government.2 The Judiciary Committee
is now determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President based
on the obstructive conduct described by the Special Counsel. But it cannot fulfill this most
solemn constitutional responsibility without hearing testimony from a crucial witness to these
events: former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II. McGahn, however, has defied a
Congressional subpoena to appear before the Judiciary Committee, at the direction of President
Trump, who claims McGahn is “absolutely immune” from testifying, a claim with no basis in
law. The Judiciary Committee thus seeks to enforce the McGahn Subpoena in its entirety.
2.

The Report documents a recurring, troubling pattern of Presidential actions to

obstruct the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s far-reaching interference in the 2016
U.S. election. The Report describes, among other misdeeds, how President Trump attempted to
use his official power to oust Special Counsel Mueller and end his investigation; to force thenAttorney General Jeff Sessions to transgress Department of Justice (DOJ) ethics rules to limit the

2

Report, Vol. II; see also Exhibit A, Oversight of the Report on the Investigation Into
Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election: Former Special Counsel Robert S.
Mueller, III: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (July 24, 2019),
Hearing Tr. at 17; Robert S. Mueller, III, Special Counsel, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Statement on
Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election (May 29, 2019)
(Mueller Public Statement), https://perma.cc/7JY5-48XJ.
2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 54

scope of Mueller’s investigation; to demand that White House staff generate false accounts of the
President’s conduct; and to influence witnesses’ testimony or otherwise encourage witnesses not
to cooperate with the investigation.3 In total, the Report provides evidence of ten separate
episodes of potentially obstructive conduct by the President. As Special Counsel Mueller has
emphasized, when a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to
investigators, it “strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold
wrongdoers accountable.”4
3.

Despite the Special Counsel’s recitation of compelling evidence that President

Trump’s actions satisfied each of the elements of criminal obstruction of justice, a DOJ legal
interpretation preventing the indictment of a sitting President means that Congress is the sole
branch of government currently empowered to hold the President accountable. Indeed, the
Report unmistakably invokes Congress’s role, stressing the importance of “constitutional
processes for addressing presidential misconduct.”5 And in his May 29, 2019, statement, Special
Counsel Mueller confirmed that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal
justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.”6
4.

That process is underway. The Judiciary Committee is conducting an

investigation to understand the scope and extent of misconduct by President Trump, and that
investigation includes consideration of whether the Judiciary Committee should exercise its
Article I powers to recommend articles of impeachment. Articles of impeachment already have
been introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee in this Congress. To fulfill its duties,

3

Report, Vol. II at 7, 157.
Mueller Public Statement.
5
Report, Vol. II at 1.
6
Mueller Public Statement.
4

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 54

the Judiciary Committee must obtain testimony and evidence from witnesses to the President’s
actions to determine whether to recommend such articles against the President, or whether to
recommend additional or alternative articles that the Judiciary Committee may prepare.
5.

McGahn, who was the White House Counsel during the relevant period, is the

most important witness, other than the President, to the key events that are the focus of the
Judiciary Committee’s investigation. The Report makes clear that McGahn witnessed multiple
serious acts of potential obstruction of justice by the President—including demanding that
McGahn himself have the Special Counsel removed and then create a false record to conceal the
President’s obstructive conduct. Given his central role in these and other events outlined in the
Report, McGahn is uniquely positioned to explain those events, bring additional misconduct to
light, and provide evidence regarding the President’s intent.
6.

McGahn’s testimony is also essential to the Judiciary Committee’s other

constitutionally authorized legislative and oversight duties, including considering the need for
new legislation and amendments to existing laws addressing the types of misconduct the Report
describes, overseeing ongoing investigations arising from the Special Counsel’s initial
investigation, and ensuring the integrity of our elections in 2020 and beyond.
7.

Despite the Judiciary Committee’s clear need for McGahn’s testimony, President

Trump has openly declared his opposition to, and intent to block, the Judiciary Committee’s
exercise of these legislative, investigative, and oversight responsibilities—especially as they
relate to the President’s own potential misconduct. The President has declared, for instance, that

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 54

“We’re fighting all the subpoenas,”7 “I don’t want people testifying,”8 and “No Do-Overs!”9
Consistent with that approach, the President has sought to prevent McGahn—now a private
citizen—from testifying before the Judiciary Committee. The day before McGahn’s required
appearance before the Judiciary Committee pursuant to the subpoena at issue in this litigation,
the President purported to direct McGahn not to appear, claiming that McGahn is “absolutely
immune” from compelled testimony.10 The next day, without offering any accommodation,
McGahn failed to appear based on the President’s directive.
8.

The President’s claim that McGahn is entitled to “absolute immunity” has no

basis in law, and no court has ever accepted this type of blanket claim in response to a
Congressional subpoena. McGahn thus must appear before the Judiciary Committee and answer
all of its Members’ questions unless a valid basis for asserting executive privilege exists as to
any specific matter. To date, the President has not formally attempted to invoke executive
privilege. Moreover, by authorizing the public release of the Report and extensively
commenting about its substance after its release, among other statements and actions, the
President has waived any privilege about matters and information discussed in the Report. When
the Report was released publicly, Attorney General William Barr confirmed that the President
“would not assert privilege over the Special Counsel’s report” and, therefore, the Report

7

See Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure, White House (Apr. 24,
2019), https://perma.cc/W7VZ-FZ3T.
8
Robert Costa et al., Trump Says He Is Opposed to White House Aides Testifying to
Congress, Deepening Power Struggle with Hill, Wash. Post (Apr. 23, 2019),
https://perma.cc/FL3H-TUXL (“I don’t want people testifying to [House Democrats], because
that is what they’re doing if they do this.”).
9
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (May 22, 2019, 7:31 PM),
https://perma.cc/A5NM-F9B3.
10
Exhibit B, Letter from Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the President, to Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, at 1 (May 20, 2019).
5

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 54

contained “no material … redacted based on executive privilege.”11 And DOJ’s Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC) has acknowledged that the Attorney General’s release “of a redacted version of
the Special Counsel’s report (with the President’s consent) extinguish[ed] the Executive
Branch’s confidentiality interests in the precise information” revealed in the Report.12
9.

Notwithstanding the President’s broad declaration of his intent to defy all

subpoenas—and his purported direction that McGahn defy this one—the Judiciary Committee
has made every effort at accommodation to avoid the need for this litigation. The Judiciary
Committee has initiated multiple discussions with McGahn’s counsel, as well as the White
House, over several months in an attempt to reach a negotiated resolution—all to no avail. On
July 26, 2019, McGahn made clear that he will follow the President’s directive and will not
comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for public testimony. The accommodations
process is therefore at an impasse.
10.

McGahn’s refusal to testify harms the Judiciary Committee by depriving it of a

witness and information that are essential to its investigation, thereby impeding the Judiciary
Committee’s ability to facilitate the House’s fulfillment of its Article I functions. These
functions include the most urgent duty the House can face: determining whether to approve
articles of impeachment. That refusal also is impeding the Judiciary Committee in its ability to
assess the need for remedial legislation and to conduct oversight of DOJ. All of these tasks are
time-limited. The House, and with it the Judiciary Committee’s investigation, expires on

11

Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Att’y Gen. William P. Barr Delivers Remarks on
the Release of the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential
Election (Apr. 18, 2019), https://perma.cc/9GVL-G8XZ (Barr Public Statement).
12
Exhibit C, Memorandum from Steven A. Engel, Assistant Att’y Gen., Office of Legal
Counsel, to Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, Re: Testimonial Immunity Before
Congress of the Former Counsel to the President, at 13 (May 20, 2019).
6

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 54

January 3, 2021. The delay caused by McGahn’s refusal to testify thus severely impedes the
Judiciary Committee’s ability to do its time-sensitive work. Accordingly, to redress these
injuries, the Judiciary Committee asks this Court to order McGahn to comply with the subpoena
for his testimony and appear before the Judiciary Committee forthwith.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This case arises under

Article I of the Constitution of the United States, and implicates Article I, Section 2, Clause 5,
which provides the House of Representatives with “the sole Power of Impeachment,” and Article
I, Section 1, which vests “[a]ll legislative Powers” in the Congress of the United States.
12.

This Court has authority to issue a declaratory judgment and order other relief that

is just and proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
13.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
PARTIES

14.

Plaintiff Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of

Representatives is a standing committee of the House that, among other duties, exercises
jurisdiction over impeachment and with respect to federal criminal statutes, Presidential
succession, and activities that affect the internal security of the United States. The Judiciary
Committee also conducts oversight of the Department of Justice.
15.

Defendant Donald F. McGahn II served as White House Counsel to President

Trump from January 20, 2017, until he left the White House on October 17, 2018. McGahn
currently practices law at Jones Day, a law firm, in Washington, D.C.

7

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 54

ALLEGATIONS
I.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
16.

The Judiciary Committee has constitutional and other legal authority to legislate,

investigate, and conduct oversight, including into President Trump’s misconduct related to the
Special Counsel’s investigation.
17.

Article I of the Constitution provides that “[t]he House of Representatives … shall

have the sole Power of Impeachment.”13 Article I also vests Congress with “[a]ll legislative
Powers.”14 Congress’s powers include the authority to investigate matters relating to subjects
within its broad legislative purview; conduct oversight of Executive Branch agencies; examine
whether those agencies are faithfully, effectively, and efficiently executing the laws; and
determine whether changes to federal law are necessary and proper. The Supreme Court has
long recognized that the Constitution vests the House with the power of inquiry—with process to
enforce it—commensurate with the House’s Article I legislative authority to investigate any
subject on which “legislation could be had.”15
18.

The Constitution commits to each chamber of Congress the authority to

“determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”16 Pursuant to this authority, the House of
Representatives of the 116th Congress adopted the Rules of the House of Representatives (House
Rules), which govern the House during the current two-year term.17 The House Rules establish

13

U.S. Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. 5.
Id. § 1, cl. 1.
15
McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174, 177 (1927).
16
U.S. Const. Art. I, § 5, cl. 2.
17
See H. Res. 6 (116th Cong.) (2019) (adopting House Rules for 116th Congress); see
also Rules of the House of Representatives, 116th Congress (Jan. 11, 2019) (House Rules),
https://perma.cc/X5ZQ-ZZWD.
14

8

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 54

various standing committees, including the Judiciary Committee, and delegate to each committee
“jurisdiction and related functions.”18
19.

The Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction includes impeachment.19 Resolutions that

call for impeachment of eligible officials are normally referred by the Speaker of the House to
the Judiciary Committee,20 and are eligible for consideration pursuant to applicable House and
Committee Rules.21 The House also may choose to direct a particular manner for investigating
grounds for impeachment, and in such instances it has voted to refer such investigations to the
Judiciary Committee.22 Whether by direct referral to the Judiciary Committee or referral

18

House Rule X.1.
Jefferson’s Manual, H. Doc. 114-192 § 605, at 321 (2017) (“[R]esolutions … that
directly call for the impeachment of an officer have been referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary[.]”). As Jefferson’s Manual explains, “[i]n the House various events have been
credited with setting an impeachment in motion,” including “charges made on the floor”; “a
resolution introduced by a Member and referred to a committee”; or “facts developed and
reported by an investigating committee of the House.” Id. § 603 at 319.
20
See, e.g., 165 Cong. Rec. H211 (daily ed. Jan. 3, 2019) (referral to the Judiciary
Committee of H. Res. 13, 116th Cong., impeaching President Trump); 163 Cong. Rec. H9376
(daily ed. Nov. 15, 2017) (referral to the Judiciary Committee of H. Res. 621,115th Cong.,
impeaching President Trump); 163 Cong. Rec. H5759 (daily ed. July 12, 2017) (referral to the
Judiciary Committee of H. Res. 438, 115th Cong., impeaching President Trump); 162 Cong.
Rec. H4926 (daily ed. July 13, 2016) (referral to the Judiciary Committee of H. Res. 828, 114th
Cong., impeaching John Andrew Koskinen, Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service); 135
Cong. Rec. 2553 (1989) (referral to the Judiciary Committee of H. Res. 87, 101st Cong.,
impeaching Judge Walter Nixon); 133 Cong. Rec. 6522 (1987) (referral to the Judiciary
Committee of H. Res. 128, 100th Cong., impeaching Judge Alcee Hastings).
21
See House Rule XI.2(b) (“Each … committee shall meet for the consideration of a bill
or resolution pending before the committee or the transaction of other committee business on all
regular meeting days fixed by the committee[.]”); House Rule XI.2(c)(1) (“The chair of each
standing committee may call and convene, as the chair considers necessary, additional and
special meetings of the committee for the consideration of a bill or resolution pending before the
committee or for the conduct of other committee business, subject to such rules as the committee
may adopt.”); see also Rule II(c), Rules of the House Committee on the Judiciary for the 116th
Congress (Jan. 24, 2019) (Judiciary Committee Rules) (“The Chairman shall furnish each
Member of the Committee or Subcommittee with the date, place, and a list of bills and subjects
to be considered at a Committee or Subcommittee meeting.”).
22
See, e.g., H. Res. 581, 105th Cong. (1998) (instructing the Judiciary Committee to
19

9

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 54

following a vote, “[a]ll impeachments to reach the Senate since 1900 have been based on
resolutions reported by the Committee on the Judiciary.”23
20.

The Judiciary Committee’s legislative and oversight jurisdiction includes, among

other subjects, “[c]riminal law enforcement and criminalization,”24 including the criminal
statutes relevant to the Special Counsel’s investigation into the President’s conduct.25 The
Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction also encompasses “[t]he judiciary and judicial proceedings,
civil and criminal”; “presidential succession”; and “[s]ubversive activities affecting the internal
security of the United States.”26 Among other matters, the Judiciary Committee exercises
jurisdiction with respect to legislation regarding independent counsels and special counsels.27
The House Rules further mandate that “[a]ll bills, resolutions, and other matters relating to”
subjects within the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction be referred to the Judiciary Committee for
its consideration.28
21.

In addition, as a standing committee, the Judiciary Committee has “general

oversight responsibilities,” including with respect to the “operation of Federal agencies and

investigate grounds for impeachment against President Clinton); H. Res. 803, 93d Cong. (1974)
(instructing the Judiciary Committee to investigate grounds for impeachment against President
Nixon).
23
Charles W. Johnson et al., House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and
Procedures of the House, Ch. 27 § 6, at 615 (2017).
24
House Rule X.1(l)(7).
25
See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(b), (c)(2) (obstruction of justice, witness
tampering, and related offenses).
26
House Rule X.1(l).
27
See, e.g., H. Rep. No. 103-224 (1993) (describing the Judiciary Committee’s
consideration of legislation to reauthorize the independent counsel statute); 165 Cong. Rec. H208
(daily ed. Jan. 3, 2019) (referral of H.R. 197, the “Special Counsel Independence and Integrity
Act,” 116th Cong., to the Judiciary Committee).
28
House Rule X.1, XII.2.
10

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 54

entities” within its areas of jurisdiction.29 As such, the Judiciary Committee exercises oversight
regarding the structure and functions of the DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).30
The Judiciary Committee is charged with, among other responsibilities, reviewing “on a
continuing basis … the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of laws and
programs” within its jurisdiction.31 The Judiciary Committee must determine whether such laws
are being “implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of Congress,” and if there
are “any conditions or circumstances that may indicate the necessity or desirability of enacting
new or additional legislation.”32
22.

The House Rules empower the Judiciary Committee to “conduct at any time such

investigations and studies as it considers necessary or appropriate in the exercise of its
responsibilities” over matters within its jurisdiction.33 To aid these inquiries, the Judiciary
Committee is authorized to issue subpoenas for testimony and documents.34

29

House Rule X.2(a), (b)(1)(B).
See, e.g., Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice: Hearing Before the H. Comm.
on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (Feb. 8, 2019) (oversight hearing conducted with Matthew
Whitaker, Acting Attorney General, DOJ); Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Hearing before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. (Dec. 7, 2017) (oversight hearing
with Christopher Wray, Director, FBI).
31
House Rule X.2(b)(1).
32
Id.
33
House Rule XI.1(b)(1).
34
See House Rule XI.2(m)(1)(B); House Rule XI.2(m)(3)(A)(i); see also Judiciary
Committee Rule IV(a) (“A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman, in
accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct of any
investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the
Committee, following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”).
30

11

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 54

II.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The Special Counsel’s Report Exposes Compelling Evidence Of Presidential
Wrongdoing
23.

The Judiciary Committee’s urgent need for McGahn’s testimony arises out of

evidence uncovered in the Special Counsel’s investigation and detailed in the Report. That
Report describes unprecedented interference by Russia in the 2016 Presidential election and
attempts by the President of the United States to undermine an investigation into that
interference, including into whether individuals associated with his Presidential campaign
coordinated with the Russian government.
24.

On May 17, 2017, pursuant to DOJ regulations,35 Mueller was appointed as

Special Counsel to investigate “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016
presidential election,” including “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government
and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”; any other matters
“that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”; and “federal crimes committed in the
course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury,
obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.”36
25.

On March 22, 2019, Special Counsel Mueller completed his investigation and

provided a written report to Attorney General Barr.37 On April 18, 2019, Attorney General Barr
released a redacted version of the Report simultaneously to Congress and the public. The Report
is divided into two volumes. Volume I describes the evidence that Russia interfered in our

35

28 C.F.R. §§ 600 et seq. (2019).
Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Order No. 3915-2017, Appointment of Special
Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related
Matters (May 17, 2017); 28 C.F.R. § 600.4 (2019).
37
Exhibit D, Letter from William P. Barr, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to Jerrold
Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et al. (Mar. 22, 2019).
36

12

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 54

election to benefit President Trump, and that the Trump Campaign welcomed that interference.
Volume II documents that, once elected, President Trump took a series of actions to undermine
multiple investigations into Russia’s interference and his own possible misconduct. As the
Report recognizes, Congress is currently the sole body that can hold the President accountable
for these actions.
1. The Report Describes Russia’s Interference In The 2016 Presidential
Election And How The Trump Campaign Welcomed Russia’s Assistance
a. Russia Interferes In The 2016 Presidential Election To Benefit ThenCandidate Trump
26.

The Special Counsel’s Report describes a serious attack by a hostile foreign

government on our Nation’s 2016 Presidential election, executed “in sweeping and systematic
fashion” and intended to benefit the Trump Presidential campaign.38 Among other things, the
Russian government, through its main intelligence directorate, the GRU, used cyber intrusions
(hacking) to steal information from then-candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the
Democratic National Committee, as well as from “U.S. state and local entities, such as state
boards of elections … , secretaries of state, and county governments,” all of which were
“involved in the administration of the elections.”39 The Russian-funded Internet Research
Agency also used “information warfare” to “sow discord in the U.S. political system,” with a
“targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Trump and disparaged candidate
Clinton.”40 By the end of the 2016 election, the Internet Research Agency had the ability to
reach “tens of millions of U.S. persons” to further that agenda.41 The evidence obtained by the

38

Report, Vol. I at 1; see also id. Vol. I at 1-2.
Id. Vol. I at 36, 50.
40
Id. Vol. I at 4.
41
Id. Vol. I at 25-26.
39

13

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 14 of 54

Special Counsel relating to Russia’s interference resulted in criminal indictments of more than a
dozen defendants.42
b. The Trump Campaign Welcomes Russia’s Interference And Maintains
Significant Contacts With Russian Nationals
27.

The Report documents that the Trump Campaign both welcomed Russia’s

interference and did not report the campaign’s repeated contacts with Russian-affiliated
individuals to law enforcement. The Report assesses that the Russian government perceived that
“it would benefit from a Trump presidency,” and the Trump Campaign expected that “it would
benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”43
28.

The Report discusses several instances in which then-candidate Trump publicly

encouraged Russian interference efforts. On July 27, 2016, for example, then-candidate Trump
declared at a public rally: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”44 This
was “apparently a reference to emails … stored on a personal server that candidate Clinton had
used while serving as Secretary of State. Within approximately five hours of Trump’s statement,
GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton’s personal office.”45 Thereafter, then-candidate
Trump began publicly praising WikiLeaks, including after WikiLeaks released stolen emails
damaging to the Clinton Campaign. For instance, on October 7, 2016, the Washington Post
published an Access Hollywood video that depicted Trump years earlier in a way that was widely
expected to be damaging to his campaign. Less than an hour after the video’s release,
WikiLeaks released emails stolen from Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, that were
42

Id. Vol. I at 14 n.4; see also id. Vol. I at 174-75.
Id. Vol. I at 1-2.
44
Id. Vol. I at 49.
45
Id.
43

14

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 15 of 54

harmful to Clinton’s campaign.46 In response, on October 10, 2016, then-candidate Trump
tweeted: “This just came out. WikiLeaks! I love WikiLeaks!” and later: “This WikiLeaks stuff
is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it,” and “[b]oy, I love reading those
WikiLeaks.”47 During the Special Counsel’s July 24, 2019, testimony before the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Mueller explained that describing these tweets as
“‘problematic’ is an understatement,” including because they gave “hope or some boost to what
is and should be illegal activity.”48
29.

The Report also describes evidence suggesting that President Trump knew about

upcoming releases of stolen emails in advance. Deputy Campaign Manager Rick Gates, for
example, explained to the Special Counsel’s Office that after WikiLeaks had released its first set
of stolen emails in July 2016, then-candidate Trump “told Gates that more releases of damaging
information would be coming.”49 WikiLeaks in fact released more emails in October 2016.50
30.

The Report further recounts that, while Russia was interfering in the 2016

Presidential election and releasing stolen emails, senior members of the Trump Campaign were
maintaining significant contacts with Russian nationals and seeking damaging information on
candidate Hillary Clinton. For example, in the spring of 2016, Trump Campaign foreign policy
adviser George Papadopoulos met repeatedly with Russian officials and was told that Russia had
“dirt” on Clinton “in the form of thousands of emails.”51 Similarly, on June 3, 2016, publicist

46

Id. Vol. I at 58.
Exhibit E, Former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III on the Investigation into
Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election: Hearing Before the H. Permanent Select
Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. (July 24, 2019), Hearing Tr. at 49.
48
Id.
49
Report, Vol. I at 54.
50
Id. Vol. I at 58.
51
Id. Vol. I at 5-6.
47

15

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 16 of 54

Rob Goldstone, on behalf of Russian real estate developers, emailed Donald Trump Jr. to set up
a meeting to discuss Russian officials’ possession of “some official documents and information
that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful
to [Trump Jr.’s] father,” which Goldstone conveyed was “part of Russia and its government’s
support for Mr. Trump.”52 Trump Jr. responded, “if it’s what you say I love it.”53 Less than a
week later, Trump Jr. and other “senior representatives of the Trump Campaign met in Trump
Tower with a Russian attorney expecting to receive derogatory information about Hillary Clinton
from the Russian government.”54 Around this same time, Trump Campaign Chairman Paul
Manafort was offering private briefings on the campaign to a Russian oligarch55 and routinely
causing internal campaign polling data to be shared with a Russian national who has “ties to
Russian intelligence.”56
31.

In total, the Report details well over 100 contacts between individuals associated

with the Trump Campaign and Russian nationals or their agents during this period.57 There is no
indication that anyone from the Trump Campaign, including the candidate, reported any of these
contacts or offers of foreign assistance to U.S. law enforcement. As Mueller confirmed,
reporting such information is something that campaigns “would and should do,” including
because “knowingly accepting foreign assistance during a Presidential campaign” is a crime.58

52

Id. Vol. I at 113.
Id.
54
Id. Vol. I at 110.
55
Id. Vol. I at 137.
56
Id. Vol. I at 129; see id. at 133-34, 136-37.
57
See Karen Yourish and Larry Buchanan, Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections
Between Trump Campaign and Russians, N.Y. Times (April 19, 2019), https://perma.cc/756LCH2J (“Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian
nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, during the 2016 campaign and presidential
transition, according to a New York Times analysis.” (emphasis omitted)).
58
Exhibit E, Hearing Tr. at 30, 88.
53

16

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 17 of 54

2. The Report Details President Trump’s Attempts To Undermine The
Investigation Into Russia’s Election Interference And His Own Possible
Misconduct, Events To Which McGahn Is A Key Witness
32.

In Volume II, the Report describes substantial evidence that President Trump

repeatedly attempted to shut down the investigation into Russia’s interference in America’s 2016
election and to conceal his own involvement and potential misconduct from the public. The
Report identifies McGahn, who was the White House Counsel during the relevant time period, as
having been involved in or a witness to many of the most egregious instances of possible
obstructive conduct and attempted coverup.
33.

Specifically, the Report details at least ten separate episodes of potentially

obstructive conduct by the President, ranging “from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to
reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to
limit the scope of the investigation”;59 to demanding that McGahn create a false record;60 “to
direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony”;61 to
“encourag[ing] witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”62 These incidents were “often
carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power
outside of usual channels.”63 The most significant of these episodes, all of which McGahn
directly witnessed or otherwise was involved in, are set forth in additional detail below.
a. President Trump Fires His National Security Advisor And The FBI
Director During The Russia Investigation
34.

McGahn was a key witness to the events leading up to President Trump’s

decisions to terminate both National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and FBI Director James
59

Report, Vol. II at 157.
Id. Vol. II at 119.
61
Id. Vol. II at 157.
62
Id. Vol. II at 7.
63
Id. Vol. II at 157.
60

17

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 18 of 54

Comey in apparent attempts to end the investigation into Russian interference, which the FBI
was conducting at the time.
35.

The Report recounts that, during the transition period before President Trump

took office, incoming National Security Advisor Flynn made false statements to Vice Presidentelect Michael Pence and other incoming Administration officials regarding his communications
with the Russian ambassador about “sanctions on Russia for its election interference.”64 Those
incoming officials thereafter made public statements, based on Flynn’s representations to them,
that Flynn had not discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador.65 During the first week of
the new Administration, on January 24, 2017, Flynn also lied to FBI investigators about the
discussions. Two days later, DOJ informed McGahn that the statements made by Vice President
Pence and others—based on what Flynn had told them—were false, which “put Flynn in a
potentially compromised position because the Russians would know he had lied.”66 “That
afternoon, McGahn notified the President” of what he had been told, and explained that Flynn’s
false statements to federal investigators could constitute a federal crime.67 Flynn remained in his
position, however, for over two weeks until February 13, 2017, when the President requested his
resignation.68 President Trump told an outside adviser the next day, “[n]ow that we fired Flynn,
the Russia thing is over.”69
36.

McGahn was also a primary witness to President Trump’s efforts to shut down the

Russia investigation by attempting to influence, and ultimately removing, Comey. On February

64

Id. Vol. II at 3.
Id. Vol. II at 29-30.
66
Id. Vol. II at 31.
67
Id.
68
Id. Vol. II at 38.
69
Id.
65

18

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 19 of 54

14, 2017, the day after Flynn resigned, President Trump “cleared the [Oval Office]” to have a
one-on-one meeting with Comey.70 According to the Report, during this meeting the President
told Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”71 The
Report finds that “[e]vidence does establish that the President connected the Flynn investigation
to the FBI’s broader Russia investigation and that he believed, as he told [an adviser], that
terminating Flynn would end ‘the whole Russia thing.’”72
37.

Despite these conversations, on March 20, 2017, Comey testified for the first time

publicly before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that the FBI was
continuing to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, including any coordination
between Russia and the Trump Campaign during the interference.73 Three weeks after that
testimony, “the President told senior advisors, including McGahn … that he had reached out to
Comey twice in several weeks. The President acknowledged that McGahn would not approve of
the outreach to Comey because McGahn had previously cautioned the President that he should
not talk to Comey directly to prevent any perception that the White House was interfering with
investigations.”74 However, President Trump, against the advice of McGahn, repeatedly asked
“intelligence community officials,” including Comey, “to push back publicly on any suggestion
that the President had a connection to the Russian election-interference effort.”75 Comey refused

70

Id. Vol. II at 47.
Id. Vol. II at 40.
72
See id. Vol. II at 47.
73
Id. Vol. II at 52-53; see also Matthew Rosenberg et al., Comey Confirms F.B.I. Inquiry
on Russia; Sees No Evidence of Wiretapping, N.Y. Times (Mar. 20, 2017),
https://perma.cc/46WT-TVTC.
74
Report, Vol. II at 59.
75
Id. Vol. II at 55, 59 (after acknowledging he had reached out to Comey, “[t]he
President told McGahn that Comey had indicated the FBI could make a public statement that the
President was not under investigation if the Department of Justice approved that action”).
71

19

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 20 of 54

to do so and again confirmed the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference and any related
coordination with the Trump Campaign during testimony on May 3, 2017, before the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
38.

Six days later, the President fired Comey and subsequently provided conflicting

explanations for his dismissal, some of which the Special Counsel determined were
“pretextual.”76 McGahn was an integral witness to these events. For example, McGahn
participated in a May 8, 2017, meeting in which President Trump informed senior White House
aides that he “had decided to terminate Comey,” read aloud his draft termination letter—which
stated that the President was not personally under investigation—and told his aides that his
decision “was not up for discussion.”77 “In an effort to slow down the decision-making process,”
McGahn suggested that that he and other attorneys from the White House Counsel’s Office
should discuss the issue with Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein before the President took action.78 McGahn and another attorney in fact met with
Sessions and Rosenstein to obtain their views, and McGahn was present at another meeting later
that day when President Trump asked Rosenstein to draft a memorandum with his
recommendation to terminate Comey, and told him to “[p]ut the Russia stuff in the memo.”79
During a meeting the next day, McGahn and the rest of the White House Counsel’s Office
reached a consensus that President Trump’s initial draft termination letter should “not see the
light of day” and that it would be better to offer “[n]o other rationales” for Comey’s firing aside
from what was in Sessions’s and Rosenstein’s memoranda, which justified Comey’s firing only

76

Id. Vol. II at 62, 75, 77.
Id. Vol. II at 65-66.
78
Id. Vol. II at 66.
79
Id. Vol. II at 66-67.
77

20

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 21 of 54

on the ground that Comey had mishandled the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a
private email server.80
39.

After the White House released an official statement that “President Trump acted

based on the clear recommendations of” Sessions and Rosenstein,81 both “Sessions and
Rosenstein … spoke to McGahn and expressed concern that the White House was creating a
narrative that Rosenstein had initiated the decision to fire Comey.”82 As the Report notes,
“[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the President’s decision to fire Comey” was
actually “Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under
investigation, despite the President’s repeated requests that Comey make such an
announcement.”83 The Report finds evidence indicating that the President took these actions
because he “wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign.”84 Indeed, the
day after President Trump fired Comey, the President told Russian officials that he had “faced
great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”85
b. President Trump Orders McGahn To Remove The Special Counsel
40.

Once the media began reporting that the Special Counsel was investigating the

President for obstruction of justice, President Trump repeatedly sought McGahn’s help to
remove Special Counsel Mueller.

80

Id. Vol. II at 68 (brackets omitted).
Id. Vol. II at 69.
82
Id. Vol. II at 72-73.
83
Id. Vol. II at 75.
84
Id. Vol. II at 76.
85
Id. Vol. II at 71; see also id. Vol. II at 73 (noting that on May 11, 2017, President
Trump told Lester Holt, “I was going to fire regardless of recommendation … . [Rosenstein]
made a recommendation. But regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey … .
And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself—I said, you know, this Russia thing
with Trump and Russia is a made-up story”).
81

21

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 22 of 54

41.

On June 14, 2017, “the Washington Post published an article stating that the

Special Counsel was investigating whether the President had attempted to obstruct justice.”86 On
Saturday, June 17, President Trump twice called McGahn at home to direct him to fire Mueller.
During the June 17 calls, the President said to McGahn: “You gotta do this. You gotta call Rod
[Rosenstein]. … Mueller has to go. … Call me back when you do it.”87 Those calls were part
of a “continuous colloquy” of the President directing McGahn to have Mueller removed, and “a
continuous involvement of Don McGahn responding to the President’s entreaties.”88 After
receiving those calls, McGahn “recalled feeling trapped” and “decided he had to resign.”89 Only
after two of President Trump’s senior advisers “urged McGahn not to quit” did he decide to
remain.90 The Report does not explain what changed McGahn’s mind about his resignation.91
42.

The Report also explains that President Trump “knew that he should not have

made those calls to McGahn,” including because “McGahn had specifically told the President
that the White House Counsel’s Office—and McGahn himself—could not be involved in
pressing” claims that Mueller had “conflicts of interest.”92 Indeed, before the June 17 calls, the
President had urged McGahn to tell DOJ that Mueller had conflicts of interest.93 McGahn had
declined, telling the President that if he wanted to raise that issue he should do so through his

86

Id. Vol. II at 84.
Id. Vol. II at 85-86.
88
Exhibit A, Hearing Tr. at 54.
89
Report, Vol. II at 86.
90
Id. Vol. II at 87.
91
Id.
92
Id. Vol. II at 90.
93
Id. Vol. II at 81.
87

22

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 23 of 54

private attorney—and advising him that this “would ‘look like still trying to meddle in the
investigation’” and “would be ‘another fact used to claim obstruction of justice.’”94
43.

In fact, the Report finds “[s]ubstantial evidence” that the President’s “attempts to

remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that
involved the President’s conduct—and, most immediately, to reports that the President was being
investigated for potential obstruction of justice.”95
c. President Trump Demands That McGahn Create A False Record To
Cover Up His Attempt To Fire The Special Counsel
44.

The Report also describes significant measures that President Trump took to

conceal this and other misconduct from the public—including directing McGahn to create a false
record denying that the President had ordered him to fire Mueller. On January 25, 2018, news
reports broke that President Trump had ordered McGahn to have Mueller fired the previous
summer.96 Shortly thereafter, the President—first through his personal counsel and two aides,
and then by “personally [meeting] with McGahn in the Oval Office”—“tried to get McGahn” to
put out a public statement and “write a letter to the file ‘for [White House] records’” disputing
the event.97 Even when McGahn expressed that he “did not want to issue a statement or create a
written record denying facts that [he] believed to be true,” the “President nevertheless persisted
and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.”98

94

Id. Vol. II at 81-82 (quoting Donaldson’s notes) (brackets omitted); see also id. Vol. II
at 90 (“The evidence indicates that news of the obstruction investigation prompted the President
to call McGahn and seek to have the Special Counsel removed.”).
94
Id. Vol. II at 89.
95
Id. Vol. II at 89.
96
Id. Vol. II at 113.
97
Id. Vol. II at 113, 115 (quoting statement by staff secretary Robert Porter).
98
Id. Vol. II at 119.
23

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 24 of 54

45.

During the President’s meeting with McGahn about this issue, which Chief of

Staff John Kelly described as “‘a little tense,’” the President also asked McGahn “why he had
told [the Special Counsel] that the President had told him to have the Special Counsel
removed.”99 McGahn “responded that he had to and that his conversations with the President
were not protected by attorney-client privilege.”100 The President further asked, “[w]hat about
these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don’t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took
notes,” to which McGahn responded that he kept notes because he is a “real lawyer and
explained that notes create a record and are not a bad thing.”101
46.

The Report, as confirmed by Mueller’s testimony to the Judiciary Committee,

finds “substantial evidence support[ing] McGahn’s account that the President had directed him to
have the Special Counsel removed,” and, moreover, that the President’s direction to McGahn to
deny those facts was an effort “to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President’s conduct
towards the investigation.”102
d. President Trump Urges McGahn To Pressure Attorney General Sessions
To Transgress Federal Ethics Rules In An Effort To Limit The Scope Of
The Special Counsel’s Investigation
47.

The Report documents McGahn’s role in other efforts by President Trump to

interfere in the Russia investigation. For example, on March 2, 2017, the President enlisted
McGahn to tell Attorney General Sessions “not to recuse himself from the Russia
investigation.”103 When that effort failed, “McGahn was called into the Oval Office,” where the
President personally “expressed anger at McGahn about the recusal” and stated, “I don’t have a
99

Id. Vol. II at 117.
Id.
101
Id. (internal citations omitted).
102
Id. Vol. II at 118, 120; see also Exhibit A, Hearing Tr. at 70, 79-80.
103
Report, Vol. II at 49.
100

24

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 25 of 54

lawyer.”104 The President subsequently “spoke with Sessions about reversing his recusal so that
he could take over the Russia investigation and begin an investigation and prosecution of Hillary
Clinton.”105 On two other occasions, the President asked his former campaign manager, Corey
Lewandowski, to deliver a message to “Sessions to limit the Special Counsel investigation to
future election interference,” as opposed to investigating the President or his campaign’s
conduct.106
48.

According to the Report, “at least one purpose of the President’s conduct toward

Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a
way that would restrict its scope.”107 More specifically, the Report details evidence that the
President believed that, if Sessions assumed control of the investigation, he “would play a
protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia investigation.”108
49.

When the President asked Sessions to reverse his decision to recuse himself, he

was aware that DOJ had determined that federal ethics rules prohibited Sessions’s involvement
in the investigation; indeed, as DOJ publicly explained, those regulations state that a DOJ
attorney “should not participate in investigations” that pertain to individuals “with whom the
attorney has a political or personal relationship,” and Sessions had participated in the Trump

104

Id. Vol. II at 50.
See, e.g., id. Vol. II at 112 (“The President had previously and unsuccessfully sought
to have Sessions publicly announce that the Special Counsel investigation would be confined to
future election interference.”).
106
Id. Vol. II at 5.
107
Id. Vol. II at 112.
108
Id. Vol. II at 113. President Trump’s own public statements confirm the Special
Counsel’s findings. On July 29, 2017, the President told the New York Times: “Sessions should
have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before
he took the job, and I would have picked somebody else.” Peter Baker et al., Citing Recusal,
Trump Says He Wouldn’t Have Hired Sessions, N.Y. Times (July 19, 2017),
https://perma.cc/E9UU-SMV8.
105

25

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 26 of 54

Campaign,109 and even appeared at events on behalf of then-candidate Trump.110 The President
also ignored previous warnings from McGahn that “he should not communicate directly with the
Department of Justice to avoid the perception or reality of political interference in law
enforcement.”111
e. President Trump Attempts To Influence Witnesses Or Prevent Them
From Cooperating With The Special Counsel’s Investigation
50.

The Report describes evidence—including testimony from McGahn—that the

President’s efforts to obstruct the investigation also included attempts to prevent witnesses from
cooperating with the Special Counsel or otherwise influence their testimony. For example,
McGahn told the Special Counsel that the “President discussed with aides whether and in what
way [his former Campaign Chairman] Manafort might be cooperating with the Special Counsel’s
investigation, and whether Manafort knew any information that would be harmful to the
President.”112 The Report then discusses evidence suggesting that President Trump “intended to
encourage Manafort to not cooperate with the government.”113 Indeed, Manafort told his former
deputy, Gates, not to plead to any charges, because “he had talked to the President’s personal
counsel and they [are] ‘going to take care of us.’”114
51.

The Report recounts other evidence that, similarly, could “support an inference

that the President used inducements in the form of positive messages in an effort to get [the
109

Exhibit F, Department of Justice Issues Statement on Testimony of Former FBI
Director James Comey, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (June 8, 2017) (citing 28 C.F.R. 45.2 (2019)).
110
See, e.g., Ashley Parker and Matt Flegenheimer, Jeff Sessions, Virulent Opponent To
2013 Immigration Bill, Endorses Donald Trump, N.Y. Times (Feb. 26. 2016),
https://perma.cc/9EDL-ZA5J; Trump in Phoenix: 10-point Plan to End Illegal Immigration,
Ariz. Republic (Aug. 31, 2016), https://perma.cc/5AMK-YVEK.
111
Report, Vol. II at 33.
112
Id. Vol. II at 123.
113
Id. Vol. II at 132.
114
Id. Vol. II at 123.
26

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 27 of 54

President’s former personal attorney Michael] Cohen not to cooperate, and then turned to attacks
and intimidation to deter the provision of information or undermine Cohen’s credibility once
Cohen began cooperating.”115 On August 22, 2018, for instance, the day after Cohen pleaded
guilty to various campaign-finance violations and other charges, the President stated in a live
interview: “[Cohen] makes a better deal when he uses me, like everybody else.”116
3. President Trump Attacks The Special Counsel’s Investigation And
Denies McGahn’s Factual Account
52.

Both before and after the release of the Special Counsel’s Report, the President

has sought to cast doubt on the integrity of the Special Counsel’s investigation and has publicly
disputed McGahn’s account of the facts.
53.

On more than 300 occasions, the President has described the Special Counsel’s

investigation as a “Witch Hunt” or a “Hoax.”117 The President has called the investigation
“treason” or “treasonous” more than twenty times,118 accused the Special Counsel and his team
of being “highly conflicted” at least a dozen times,119 and targeted the FBI investigators and the
Special Counsel’s team as “very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious
crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason.”120

115

Id. Vol. II at 154.
Id. Vol. II at 126.
117
“Witch Hunt,” FactBase (last visited Aug. 6, 2019), https://perma.cc/7N6N-DTEH
(view live page); “Hoax,” FactBase (last visited Aug. 7, 2019), https://perma.cc/7BYU-KDAJ
(view live page).
118
“Treason,” FactBase (last visited Aug. 6, 2019), https://perma.cc/4AVC-FX4C (view
live page); “Treasonous,” FactBase (last visited Aug. 6, 2019), https://perma.cc/8VL7-ANE8
(view live page).
119
“Highly Conflicted,” FactBase (last visited Aug. 6, 2019), https://perma.cc/U4LNB8JG (view live page).
120
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Apr. 19, 2019, 1:47 PM),
https://perma.cc/8AHS-2AC5.
116

27

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 28 of 54

54.

The President also has publicly disputed the evidence described in the Report,

focusing his attacks on discrediting McGahn and his crucial interviews with the Special Counsel.
For example, shortly after the Report was made public, the President denied McGahn’s
statements to the Special Counsel, stating, “I never told then White House Counsel Don McGahn
to fire Robert Mueller, even though I had the legal right to do so. If I wanted to fire Mueller, I
didn’t need McGahn to do it, I could have done it myself.”121 He has further attacked McGahn’s
integrity, tweeting: “I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact,
he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration.
Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a
big fan!”122 And in a televised interview, the President stated: “I was never going to fire
Mueller. I never suggested firing Mueller. … I don’t care what [McGahn] says. It doesn’t
matter.”123 When asked why McGahn would “lie under oath,” the President responded:
“Because he wanted to make … himself look like a good lawyer. Or … he believed it because I
would constantly tell anybody that would listen … that Robert Mueller was conflicted.”124

121

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Apr. 25, 2019, 7:47 AM),
https://perma.cc/CLP3-RU9H; see also Philip Rucker et al., Trump Blames McGahn After
Mueller Paints Damning Portrait with Notes from White House Aides, Wash. Post (Apr. 19,
2019), https://perma.cc/MS5Z-KVRJ (President tweeting: “[w]atch out for people that take socalled ‘notes,’ when the notes never existed until needed,” contradicting the testimony of
multiple witnesses interviewed by the Special Counsel’s Office who described contemporaneous
notes including those taken by Annie Donaldson, McGahn’s chief of staff).
122
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (May 11, 2019, 6:39 PM).
https://perma.cc/6GHX-4ZPU.
123
Transcript: ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos’ Exclusive Interview with President
Trump, ABC News (June 16, 2019), https://perma.cc/3WL3-G8J9.
124
Id.
28

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 29 of 54

4. The Special Counsel Declines To Render A Prosecutorial Judgment,
Leaving Congress To Address Any Presidential Wrongdoing
55.

One consideration that guided the Special Counsel’s investigation was his

determination “not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” regarding whether to
recommend initiating or declining criminal charges against President Trump for obstruction of
justice.125 The Report explains that this decision derived from DOJ’s legal interpretation barring
the indictment of a sitting President, and the resulting “fairness” concerns of accusing the
President of a crime when no charges could be brought, leaving the President with no
opportunity to vindicate himself in court.126 Mueller confirmed in his testimony to the Judiciary
Committee on July 24, 2019, that he did not make a charging decision “because of [the] OLC
opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President.”127 The Report makes clear, however,
that if the Special Counsel’s Office “had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts
that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, [it] would so state.”128
56.

Absent a charging decision from the Special Counsel, while the President remains

in office, only Congress can address the Presidential wrongdoing described in the Report. As the
Special Counsel recognized, “no person is above the law.”129 It is therefore up to Congress to
hold the President accountable if appropriate after an independent investigation. The Special
Counsel recognized as much in his Report, noting that bringing charges against a sitting
President could “potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential

125

Report, Vol. II at 1.
Id. Vol. II at 1-2.
127
Exhibit A, Hearing Tr. at 109.
128
Report, Vol. II at 2.
129
Id. Vol. II at 8.
126

29

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 30 of 54

misconduct.”130 In his May 29, 2019, statement to the press, Mueller reaffirmed the notion that
Congress is the proper body to respond to the Report and the evidence of potential Presidential
misconduct: The “Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to
formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.”131
B.

The Judiciary Committee Has Commenced An Independent Investigation
Into Whether The President Has Engaged In Misconduct And McGahn’s
Testimony Is Necessary For The Judiciary Committee To Fulfill Its
Constitutional Functions

57.

The House of Representatives has a grave constitutional responsibility to address

this serious evidence of potential Presidential misconduct, and the Judiciary Committee is in the
process of fulfilling that duty. On March 4, 2019, the Judiciary Committee opened an
investigation into allegations of misconduct by the President and his associates. Pursuant to that
investigation, the Judiciary Committee is conducting oversight and hearings, including assessing
whether to exercise its Article I power to recommend articles of impeachment against the
President, including those articles already referred to the Judiciary Committee, and considering
significant remedial legislation and amendments to existing laws.132 But the Judiciary
Committee cannot fulfill these constitutional responsibilities without full access to critical
evidence, including testimony from McGahn, who was a key witness to many of the most
egregious obstructive acts described in the Special Counsel’s Report.

130

Id. Vol. II at 1 (citing the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution and OLC opinion
“discussing [the] relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting
President”).
131
Mueller Public Statement.
132
See 165 Cong. Rec. H211 (daily ed. Jan. 3, 2019) (referral of H. Res. 13, 116th Cong.
(2019)); see also H. Rep. No. 116-105, at 13 (2019) (purposes of the Committee’s investigation
include considering “whether the conduct uncovered may warrant amending or creating new
federal authorities” and “whether any of the conduct described in the [Mueller] Report warrants
the Committee in taking any further steps under Congress’ Article I power,” including
recommendation of “articles of impeachment”).
30

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 31 of 54

1. The Judiciary Committee’s Independent Investigation Into “Threats To
The Rule Of Law,” Including Presidential Misconduct
58.

An independent Judiciary Committee investigation into the conduct described in

the Special Counsel’s Report is well underway. Beginning in February 2019, Chairman Nadler
and the chairs of other committees with relevant jurisdiction alerted Attorney General Barr of
Congress’s need to review the full Report, once completed, as well as the underlying evidence
and investigative materials. As the Chairs explained, “because the Department has taken the
position that a sitting President is immune from indictment and prosecution, Congress could be
the only institution currently situated to act on evidence of the President’s misconduct.”133
59.

On March 4, 2019, as that evidence began to mount,134 the Judiciary Committee

officially opened a multi-faceted investigation into “threats to the rule of law” that would
encompass alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by
President Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration. As Chairman Nadler

133

See Exhibit G, Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et
al., to William P. Barr, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, at 2 (Feb. 22, 2019).
134
See, e.g., Mark Mazzetti et al., Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside
Trump’s Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him, N.Y. Times (Feb. 19, 2019),
https://perma.cc/7TR6-EN32 (“[Trump] asked whether Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States
attorney for the Southern District of New York and a Trump ally, could be put in charge of the
widening [hush payment] investigation”); Larry Buchanan & Karen Yourish, Trump Has
Publicly Attacked the Russia Investigation More Than 1,100 Times, N.Y. Times (Feb. 19, 2019),
https://perma.cc/RNJ5-HH5G (“The [President’s] attacks … are part of a strategy to beat back
the investigations. They include statements made on Twitter, in official speeches, at rallies and
during news media interviews and other press events.”); Matt Zapotosky et al., Cohen Tells
Congress Trump Knew About WikiLeaks’ Plans, Directed Hush-Money Payments, Wash. Post
(Feb. 27, 2019), https://perma.cc/VPV7-TUDS (Cohen described hush money payments, which
he admitted “violated campaign finance laws,” and he “emphasized that the ‘coverup’ of that
crime continued when Trump was president.”).
31

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 32 of 54

explained, “[i]nvestigating these threats to the rule of law is an obligation of Congress and a core
function of the House Judiciary Committee.”135
60.

On March 14, 2019, the House of Representatives approved H. Con. Res. 24,

calling for the release to Congress of the full Report, once completed, by a vote of 420-0.136 On
April 18, 2019, the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for the Report and underlying
evidence and investigative materials.137
61.

When Attorney General Barr failed to comply with the Judiciary Committee’s

subpoena for the full Report and underlying materials, the Judiciary Committee voted on May 8,
2019, to recommend that the Attorney General be held in contempt of Congress.138 In its
accompanying report, the Judiciary Committee detailed the purposes of its investigation and
need for the materials:
(1) [I]nvestigating and exposing any possible malfeasance, abuse of power,
corruption, obstruction of justice, or other misconduct on the part of the President
or other members of his Administration; (2) considering whether the conduct
uncovered may warrant amending or creating new federal authorities, including
among other things, relating to election security, campaign finance, misuse of
electronic data, and the types of obstructive conduct that the Mueller Report
describes; and (3) considering whether any of the conduct described in the Special
Counsel’s Report warrants the Committee in taking any further steps under
Congress’ Article I powers. That includes whether to approve articles of
impeachment with respect to the President or any other Administration official[.]139
135

Press Release, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, House Judiciary Committee Unveils
Investigation Into Threats Against the Rule of Law (Mar. 4, 2019), https://perma.cc/MPM83MAA.
136
Roll No. 125, 116th Cong. (Mar. 14, 2016).
137
See Exhibit H, Subpoena from the Judiciary Committee to William P. Barr, Att’y
Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Apr. 18, 2019); see also Exhibit I, Letter from Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et al., to William P. Barr, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, at 2-3 (Apr. 1, 2019) (explaining Congress’s need for these materials).
138
H. Rep. No. 116-105, at 17.
139
H. Rep. No. 116-105, at 13. The Judiciary Committee has stressed its authority and
the importance of its investigation on many other occasions. See, e.g., Exhibit J, Letter from
Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et al., to William P. Barr, Att’y Gen., U.S.
32

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 33 of 54

62.

Beginning in June 2019, the Judiciary Committee convened a series of hearings to

facilitate its investigation, including to assess the specific evidence of Presidential obstruction
documented in the Report and the constitutional processes for addressing such Presidential
misconduct.140 Chairman Nadler has explained that, in connection with this investigation, “[t]he
Committee seeks key documentary evidence and intends to conduct hearings with Mr. McGahn
and other critical witnesses testifying to determine whether the Committee should recommend
articles of impeachment against the President or any other Article I remedies, and if so, in what
form.”141 He also stressed that this evidence is necessary for the Judiciary Committee to
consider “whether the conduct uncovered may warrant amending or creating new federal
authorities.”142 Indeed, numerous bills related to the issues identified in the Report and to which

Dep’t of Justice, at 1 (Mar. 22, 2019); Exhibit K, Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, et al., to Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, at 1 (Mar. 22,
2019); Exhibit L, Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et al., to
William P. Barr, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, at 1-2 (Mar. 25, 2019); Exhibit M, Letter
from Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, et al., to William P. Barr, Att’y Gen.,
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, at 1 (Apr. 19, 2019); Exhibit N, Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, to William P. Barr, Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, at 3 (May 3,
2019); Exhibit II, Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary to William
A. Burck (May 7, 2019) (responding to Exhibit JJ, Letter from William A. Burck to Jerrold
Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (May 7, 2019)).
140
See, e.g., Lessons from the Mueller Report: Presidential Obstruction and Other
Crimes: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (June 10, 2019); Lessons
from the Mueller Report, Part II: Bipartisan Perspectives: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 116th Cong. (June 20, 2019); Exhibit O, Lessons from the Mueller Report, Part III:
“Constitutional Processes for Addressing Presidential Misconduct”: Hearing Before the H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (July 12, 2019) (statement of Rep. Nadler, Chairman, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary); see generally Exhibit A, Hearing Tr.
141
Exhibit P, Memorandum from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
to Members of the Committee on the Judiciary, at 3 (July 11, 2019).
142
Id. at 2.
33

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 34 of 54

McGahn’s testimony would be relevant have been introduced in the House and referred, pursuant
to House Rules X.1 and XII.2, to the Judiciary Committee for consideration.143

143

These include:

•

Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, H.R. 197, 116th Cong. (2019)
(limiting the removal of a special counsel only for cause and only by personal
action of an Attorney General confirmed by the Senate);

•

Special Counsel Reporting Act, H.R. 1357, 116th Cong. (2019) (requiring a special
counsel to submit a periodic report to Congress and requiring reports upon the
removal of the special counsel);

•

Special Counsel Transparency Act, H.R. 1356, 116th Cong. (2019) (requiring the
Attorney General to provide a written explanation to Congress for any material
classified or otherwise not made available to the public from a report by the special
counsel and requiring the special counsel to take all steps not prohibited by law to
disclose to Congress any information he or she believes should be disclosed as part
of the oversight role of Congress);

•

Trusted, Reliable, Unquestioned Method of Procedure for Special Counsel
Appointment, Limitations, and Powers Act of 2019, H.R. 47, 116th Cong. (2019)
(providing that only the Attorney General may remove or discipline the Special
Counsel and only for good cause);

•

Presidential Pardon Transparency Act, H.R. 1348, 116th Cong. (2019) (requiring
the Attorney General within three days of a presidential reprieve or pardon to
publish in the Federal Register and on the official website of the President the name
of the person pardoned, the date on which the reprieve or pardon issued, and the
full text of the reprieve or pardon);

•

Abuse of the Pardon Prevention Act, H.R. 1627, 116th Cong. (2019) (requiring the
Attorney General to submit to Congress all investigative materials related to an
offense for which the President pardons an individual if the offense arises from an
investigation in which the President, or a relative of the President, is a target,
subject, or witness);

•

Security from Political Interference in Justice Act of 2019, H.R. 3380, 116th Cong.
(2019) (requiring the White House and DOJ to log certain communications relating
to criminal and civil investigations and to disclose those logs to Congress, DOJ’s
Inspector General, and DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility);

•

Defending Elections against Trolls from Enemy Regimes Act, H.R. 3442, 116th
Cong. (2019) (amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that aliens
who engage in improper election interference are inadmissible and deportable);
and
34

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 35 of 54

63.

On July 24, 2019, the House adopted H. Res. 507 (116th Cong.) (2019),144 which

provides:
That the House of Representatives ratifies and affirms all current
and future investigations, as well as all subpoenas previously issued
or to be issued in the future, by any standing or permanent select
committee of the House, pursuant to its jurisdiction as established
by the Constitution of the United States and rules X and XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, concerning or issued directly
or indirectly to—
(1) the President in his personal or official capacity;
(2) his immediate family, business entities, or organizations;
(3) the Office of the President;
(4) the Executive Office of the President;
(5) the White House;
(6) any entity within the White House;
(7) any individual currently or formerly employed by or
associated with the White House;
(8) any Federal or State governmental entity or current or
former employee or officer thereof seeking information
involving, referring, or related to any individual or entity
described in paragraphs (1) through (7); or
(9) any third party seeking information involving, referring,
or related to any individual or entity described in paragraphs
(1) through (7).145

•

Duty to Report Act, H.R. 2424, 116th Cong. (2019) (requiring a political
committee and certain individuals to report to the FBI an offer of a prohibited
contribution, donation, expenditure, or disbursement from a foreign national).

144

See H. Res. 509, § 3 (116th Cong.) (2019) (“House Resolution 507 is hereby
adopted.”).
145
H. Res. 507 (emphasis added).
35

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 36 of 54

2. The Judiciary Committee’s Specific Need For McGahn’s Testimony To
Conduct An Independent Assessment Of The President’s Misconduct
64.

McGahn’s testimony is critical to the Judiciary Committee’s independent

assessment of President Trump’s conduct as described in the Special Counsel’s Report. Given
McGahn’s central role as a witness to the President’s wide-ranging potentially obstructive
conduct, the Judiciary Committee cannot fulfill its constitutional legislative, investigative, and
oversight responsibilities—including its consideration of whether to recommend articles of
impeachment—without hearing from him.
65.

As discussed above, McGahn witnessed or participated in events relevant to

nearly all of the most egregious episodes of possible Presidential obstruction and his statements
to the Special Counsel’s Office are mentioned in the Report more than 160 times. Accordingly,
McGahn is uniquely situated to answer questions critical to the Judiciary Committee’s
investigation regarding the President’s efforts to end or otherwise interfere with the Special
Counsel’s investigation, as well as the President’s attempts to conceal that conduct. McGahn can
give a firsthand account of his discussions with President Trump and other White House aides
about the President’s actions and their reactions to them. In addition, McGahn was responsible
for facilitating communications between the White House and DOJ, and advising the President
on the propriety of such communications.146 Further, McGahn can explain the extent to which
he raised concerns about the President’s behavior to others in the White House or to DOJ
personnel, and how or whether the President responded to these concerns. McGahn also was
present when President Trump inquired about the status of certain witnesses’ cooperation with
146

For example, on January 27, 2017, McGahn wrote a memorandum to White House
Staff governing communications restrictions between the White House and personnel at DOJ.
See Exhibit Q, Memorandum from Donald F. McGahn II, Counsel to the President, to White
House Staff (Jan. 27, 2017).
36

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 37 of 54

the government and can accordingly shed additional light on the President’s conduct and
potential attempts to influence their testimony.147
66.

In addition, McGahn’s testimony would provide significant evidence of the

President’s motivations for his actions. McGahn’s firsthand account of the specific words, tone,
emotional state, body language, and other actions of the President when he instructed McGahn to
have Special Counsel Mueller fired148—and then when the President ordered McGahn to create a
document falsely contradicting a press account of the incident149—would be of critical aid to the
Judiciary Committee in assessing the President’s intent, including the extent to which the
President may have used his position to intimidate his subordinates even after they raised
objections about the propriety of his actions. Because the President refused to sit for an
interview or answer written questions related to the investigation into obstructive conduct,
McGahn’s testimony regarding the context and severity of these events recounted in the Report
is particularly important.
67.

Finally, because President Trump has disputed significant portions of these

events, has openly accused McGahn of fabricating facts, and has made claims that conflict with
other facts gathered by the Special Counsel during the investigation, the Judiciary Committee
must hear from McGahn directly. The Judiciary Committee has an urgent interest in resolving
any factual disputes, including understanding McGahn’s responses to the President’s recent
allegations about him, and assessing McGahn’s credibility as a witness to these now-disputed
events.

147

See supra II(A)(2)(e) (citing Report, Vol. II at 123).
Report, Vol. II at 85-86.
149
Id. Vol. II at 115-16.
148

37

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 38 of 54

68.

For all of these reasons, live testimony from McGahn is essential to providing a

complete and independent understanding of the facts and resolving any conflicting accounts of
the evidence. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long recognized the importance of live testimony
for such purposes, including the necessity of cross-examining a witness in person, “the greatest
legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”150 Mueller similarly affirmed that “the
testimony of [a] witness[] goes to the heart of just about any criminal case.”151
3. The Judiciary Committee’s Unsuccessful Attempts To Reach An
Accommodation With McGahn
a. Efforts To Secure McGahn’s Testimony
69.

In an attempt to avoid the need to bring this lawsuit, the Judiciary Committee has

repeatedly tried to reach an accommodation to secure McGahn’s testimony. This effort has not
succeeded and has resulted in a stalemate.
70.

Upon opening its investigation, on March 4, 2019, the Judiciary Committee issued

voluntary document requests to McGahn, along with a number of other witnesses it believed to
possess relevant information.152 On March 18, 2019, private counsel for McGahn notified the
Judiciary Committee that he had forwarded the requests to the Trump Campaign and the White
House.153
71.

On April 3, 2019, when the White House did not respond to the Judiciary

Committee’s voluntary document request to McGahn and others, the Judiciary Committee
adopted a Resolution authorizing the issuance of subpoenas in connection with its investigation,

150

California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158 (1970).
Exhibit E, Hearing Tr. at 57.
152
Exhibit R, Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to
Donald F. McGahn II, at 1 (Mar. 4, 2019).
153
Exhibit S, Letter from William A. Burck to Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary (Mar. 18, 2019).
151

38

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 39 of 54

including the McGahn Subpoena.154 Chairman Nadler did not issue the subpoenas at that time in
order to allow those subject to the authorized subpoenas, including McGahn, the opportunity to
provide the materials voluntarily.
72.

On April 22, 2019, when the Judiciary Committee still had not received a single

document in response to its requests, Chairman Nadler issued the McGahn Subpoena with a
return date for McGahn’s testimony on May 21, 2019.155
73.

On May 15, 2019, the White House responded to the Judiciary Committee’s

March 4 voluntary requests, stating that “the appropriate course is for the Committee to
discontinue its inquiry discussed in the March 4 letter,” and refusing to provide any documents at
that time.156

154

Exhibit T, Markup of Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Subpoenas Before the H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (Apr. 3, 2019).
155
Exhibit U, Subpoena from Judiciary Committee to Donald F. McGahn II (Apr. 22,
2019). The McGahn Subpoena additionally sought documents in McGahn’s possession, custody,
or control by May 7, 2019. The Judiciary Committee has engaged in extensive negotiations with
the White House regarding McGahn’s document production to allow the Judiciary Committee to
review these documents, which are also in the possession of DOJ. The Judiciary Committee and
the White House reached an accommodation whereby the Judiciary Committee will be provided
the opportunity to review these documents on a rolling basis at specific times designated by DOJ
but will not be able to retain them or disclose the contents. On July 26, the Judiciary Committee
confirmed its acceptance of that agreement, and, on August 1, the White House said that it would
shortly be in touch on scheduling for the document review. Accordingly, this Complaint
addresses and seeks enforcement of the McGahn Subpoena only as it relates to McGahn’s
testimony.
156
Exhibit V, Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, to Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, at 3-4 (May 15, 2019) (stating that if “the Committee
intends to continue its inquiry, it would greatly advance that process if the Committee were to
narrow the scope of the requests in the March 4 letter and articulate the legislative purpose and
legal basis supporting each of the remaining requests”); see Exhibit KK, Letter from Jerrold
Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary to Letter to Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the
President (May 16, 2019) (responding, in part, to Exhibit V).
39

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 40 of 54

74.

On May 17, 2019, Chairman Nadler wrote to McGahn, noting that his presence

before the Judiciary Committee on May 21, 2019, was legally required pursuant to the April 22
subpoena.157 The letter explained that the Judiciary Committee intended “to focus on the very
topics covered in the Special Counsel’s Report,” over which “there can be no valid assertion of
executive privilege.”158
75.

On May 20, 2019, the afternoon before McGahn’s scheduled appearance, White

House Counsel Pat Cipollone wrote to Chairman Nadler. Cipollone’s letter stated that DOJ had
advised that “McGahn is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with
respect to matters occurring during his service as a senior adviser to the President.”159 The letter
attached an OLC opinion advising that “Congress may not constitutionally compel the
President’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.”160 That opinion acknowledged,
however, that the Attorney General’s public release “of a redacted version of the Special
Counsel’s report (with the President’s consent) does extinguish the Executive Branch’s
confidentiality interests in the precise information that has already been revealed” in the
Report.161 Based on OLC’s advice, Cipollone notified the Judiciary Committee that the
President had directed McGahn not to attend the hearing.162
76.

That same evening, private counsel for McGahn wrote to Chairman Nadler that

McGahn “finds himself facing contradictory instructions from two co-equal branches of

157

Exhibit W, Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to
Donald F. McGahn II, at 2 (May 17, 2019).
158
Id. at 1.
159
Exhibit B at 1.
160
Exhibit C at 1.
161
Id. at 13.
162
Exhibit B at 2.
40

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 41 of 54

government” and therefore would decline to appear at the next day’s hearing.163 McGahn’s
counsel further asserted that “McGahn remains obligated to maintain the status quo,” pending
any accommodation between the Judiciary Committee and the White House.164
77.

Chairman Nadler immediately responded to McGahn, stating that McGahn’s

appearance was compelled by law, regardless of the White House’s direction, including because
OLC’s analysis “has no support in relevant case law, and its arguments have been flatly rejected
by the courts.”165 Further, Chairman Nadler explained that President Trump’s order that
McGahn not appear was “unprecedented”—OLC did not point to any prior instance “where
Congress planned to ask [a] White House aide about possible crimes committed by the
President” and that aide “refused to testify.”166
78.

On May 21, 2019, the Judiciary Committee convened for its scheduled hearing.

Neither McGahn nor the White House had sought any legal recourse—McGahn simply refused
to appear. During opening statements, Chairman Nadler reiterated McGahn’s legal obligation to
appear, and offered McGahn the chance to “immediately correct his mistake.”167 McGahn did
not respond.

163

Exhibit X, Letter from William A. Burck to Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on
the Judiciary, at 1-2 (May 20, 2019).
164
Id. at 2.
165
Exhibit GG, Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to
Donald F. McGahn II, at 1 (May 20, 2019).
166
Id. at 1-2.
167
Exhibit Y, Oversight of the Report by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III: Former
White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn, II: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
116th Cong. (May 21, 2019) (statement by Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary), Hearing Tr. at 4.
41

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 42 of 54

79.

On May 31, 2019, Chairman Nadler again wrote to McGahn and Cipollone.168

Chairman Nadler offered “to discuss any reasonable accommodation(s) that would facilitate
McGahn’s appearance” before the Judiciary Committee, including “limiting [his] testimony,”
“identifying with greater specificity the precise areas of intended inquiry,” and “agreeing to the
presence of White House counsel during any testimony.”169 Chairman Nadler requested that
McGahn inform the Judiciary Committee whether he was willing to engage in accommodation
discussions by June 7, 2019.170 Neither McGahn nor Cipollone responded to the Judiciary
Committee’s letter.
80.

From mid to late June, the Judiciary Committee had a series of discussions with

attorneys in the White House Counsel’s Office to discuss the McGahn Subpoena and attempt to
reach a compromise regarding McGahn’s public testimony. During those discussions, the
Judiciary Committee offered to limit McGahn’s testimony to matters that overlap with the
Special Counsel’s Report. It also proposed withdrawing the McGahn Subpoena so that
McGahn’s appearance would be voluntary and agreed to consider any other reasonable
accommodation for McGahn’s public testimony that would be amenable to the President. These
offered accommodations were contingent on reaching an agreement for McGahn’s prompt
testimony. The White House Counsel attorneys agreed to consider the offers, and negotiations
continued through mid-July.
81.

On July 17, 2019, attorneys in the White House Counsel’s Office indicated that

they would not accept any of the proposed accommodations for McGahn’s public testimony.

168

Exhibit Z, Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, to
Donald F. McGahn II and Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President (May 31, 2019).
169
Id. at 2.
170
Id.
42

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 43 of 54

82.

On July 18, the Judiciary Committee reached out again to McGahn’s private

counsel to discuss whether the Judiciary Committee could offer any accommodation that would
cause McGahn to comply with the subpoena and to avoid the need for litigation.
83.

On July 26, McGahn’s counsel rejected all accommodation efforts for public

testimony and confirmed that McGahn would continue to follow the President’s instruction not
to appear. After months of attempted accommodation, the Judiciary Committee and McGahn are
therefore now at an impasse.
b. The Judiciary Committee’s Efforts To Secure Relevant Information
Through Other Means
84.

In addition to seeking a reasonable accommodation with McGahn for his

testimony, the Judiciary Committee has made efforts to secure information from other witnesses
to President Trump’s obstructive conduct described in the Report. The White House has blocked
those efforts as well.
85.

On May 21, 2019, the Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to Annie Donaldson

Talley, McGahn’s former chief of staff, and Hope Hicks, the former White House
communications director, both of whom were present for certain of the episodes of Presidential
obstruction described in the Report.171
86.

The White House has taken the position that Hicks, like McGahn, is “absolutely

immune” from being compelled to testify before Congress.172 Although Hicks voluntarily
appeared for an interview on June 19, 2019, lawyers from the White House and OLC objected

171

See Exhibit AA, Subpoena from Judiciary Committee to Annie Donaldson Talley
(May 21, 2019); see also Exhibit BB, Subpoena from Judiciary Committee to Hope Hicks (May
21, 2019).
172
Exhibit CC, Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, to Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, at 1 (June 18, 2019).
43

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 44 of 54

155 times to questions posed to Hicks on the asserted basis of “absolute immunity.”173 As to
Donaldson, although the Judiciary Committee reached an accommodation due to medical reasons
allowing her to submit written answers to its questions, her responses included a direction by the
White House not to answer over 200 of the questions because the answers would “implicate
constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”174
4. The Administration’s Purported Justifications For McGahn’s Refusal To
Testify
a.
87.

“Absolute Immunity”

McGahn, a private citizen, has defied the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena based

on a purported order from President Trump. The sole basis for this order and for McGahn’s
resulting refusal to testify is the assertion that McGahn, as a former Presidential adviser, is
“absolutely immune” from compelled testimony to Congress.175
88.

Specifically, the Executive Branch has taken the position that, under separation-

of-powers principles, “Congress may not constitutionally compel the President’s senior advisers
to testify about their official duties.”176 Under this theory, certain Presidential advisers are
absolutely immune from appearing before Congress to testify—even if Congress can
demonstrate a compelling need for the information.

173

See generally Exhibit EE, Transcribed Interview of Hope Hicks, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 116th Cong. (June 19, 2019).
174
Exhibit FF, Letter from Michael M. Purpura, Dep’y Gen. Counsel to the President, to
Sandra Moser, at 1 (July 5, 2019); see also Exhibit DD, Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to
the President, to Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, at 1 (June 4, 2019). The
White House, however, did not object to Ms. Donaldson answering other questions, including
whether she told the truth during her interview with the Special Counsel in response to questions
about specific statements attributed to her in the Report. See Exhibit HH, Letter from Sandra
Moser to Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, at 3-5 (July 5, 2019).
175
Exhibit B at 1; Exhibit C at 1.
176
Id.
44

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 45 of 54

89.

This “absolute immunity” doctrine has no grounding in the Constitution, any

statutes, or case law and never has been accepted by any court. Indeed, the only court ever to
consider the issue “reject[ed] the Executive’s claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential
aides,” explaining that the Executive Branch’s position would, among other things, “eviscerate
Congress’s historical oversight function.”177 Moreover, the President has cited no legal authority
for his purported ability to direct a private citizen to disobey a lawfully issued Congressional
subpoena other than an OLC opinion, which is not law and has no binding effect outside the
Executive Branch.
b. Executive Privilege
90.

The Executive Branch has long taken the position that the President can protect

certain Presidential communications from disclosure by asserting executive privilege.178 The
President, however, has not invoked executive privilege in response to the Judiciary Committee’s
McGahn Subpoena.
91.

Regardless, the President has waived executive privilege over much of the

testimony the Judiciary Committee seeks, including McGahn’s testimony about matters and
information discussed in the published Report. Courts, including the D.C. Circuit, have
recognized that the release of a document or information to a third party “waives [executive]
privilege[] for the document or information specifically released.”179
92.

Here, President Trump has waived executive privilege over the matters and

information discussed in the Special Counsel’s publicly released Report. In a press conference

177

Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53,
99, 103 (D.D.C. 2008).
178
See In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 736-40 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
179
Id. at 741.
45

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 46 of 54

accompanying Attorney General Barr’s public release of a redacted version of the Report, the
Attorney General confirmed that the President “would not assert privilege over the Special
Counsel’s report” and, therefore, the Report contained “no material … redacted based on
executive privilege.”180 Moreover, OLC has admitted that the Attorney General’s release “of a
redacted version of the Special Counsel’s report (with the President’s consent) … extinguish[ed]
the Executive Branch’s confidentiality interests in the precise information” revealed in the
Report.181
93.

By allowing the Special Counsel to interview White House aides and obtain

White House documents, President Trump also has waived executive privilege over the
information disclosed during those interviews and in those documents. Indeed, the President’s
personal attorney informed the Special Counsel that, “[i]n an effort to provide complete
transparency, the President waived the obviously applicable privileges” to allow relevant
witnesses to share information with the Special Counsel’s Office.182
94.

McGahn sat for at least five interviews with the Special Counsel’s investigators

from November 30, 2017, through February 28, 2019.183 According to a public statement issued
by McGahn’s counsel, “President Trump, through counsel, declined to assert any privilege over
Mr. McGahn’s testimony” when the Special Counsel’s team sought these interviews, “so Mr.

180

Barr Public Statement.
Exhibit C at 13.
182
Letter from John M. Dowd and Jay A. Sekulow to Robert S. Mueller, Re: Request for
Testimony on Alleged Obstruction of Justice (Jan. 29, 2018), https://perma.cc/HUW9-J4VD.
183
See, e.g., Report Vol. II at 31, 35, 52, 63, and 84 (citing FBI “302” reports of
McGahn’s interviews from five separate dates: Nov. 30, 2017; Dec. 12, 2017; Dec. 14, 2017;
Mar. 8, 2018; and Feb. 28, 2019).
181

46

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 47 of 54

McGahn answered the special counsel team’s questions fulsomely and honestly.”184 The White
House also provided McGahn and his counsel documents relating to his interviews, and upon
information and belief they retained these documents after McGahn left government service,
which would also waive any executive privilege over the information contained in those
documents.185
95.

Finally, even aside from the fact that it was waived here, executive privilege is a

qualified privilege that can be overcome by a sufficient showing of need.186 McGahn’s
testimony regarding President Trump’s potentially obstructive conduct is crucial to the Judiciary
Committee’s independent investigation and its decision whether to recommend articles of
impeachment. Additionally, President Trump’s conduct has diminished any legitimate
confidentiality interest he may have had over McGahn’s testimony, while underscoring the
Judiciary Committee’s need for that testimony. The President has, as set forth, repeatedly and
publicly addressed the events described in the Mueller Report—primarily by denying that he
ever attempted to fire Special Counsel Mueller. He has attacked McGahn’s character and
credibility, including by accusing McGahn of lying to Special Counsel Mueller in order to “make
… himself look like a good lawyer.”187 As the D.C. Circuit has long held, “a party may not use
privilege ‘as a tool for manipulation of the truth-seeking process.’”188 Therefore, even if the

184

Michael S. Schmidt & Maggie Haberman, White House Counsel, Don McGahn, Has
Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry, N.Y. Times (Aug. 18, 2018),
https://perma.cc/5MN4-JN52.
185
See In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 741-42.
186
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705-07 (1974).
187
See, e.g., Transcript: ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos’ Exclusive Interview with
President Trump, ABC News (June 16, 2019), https://perma.cc/3WL3-G8J9; see also supra
II(A)(3).
188
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 796 F.3d 137, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re
Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 807 (D.C. Cir. 1982)).
47

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 48 of 54

President were to assert executive privilege over McGahn’s testimony at this late date, the
Judiciary Committee’s need for the information outweighs any asserted Executive Branch
interest in confidentiality.189
5. Injury To The Judiciary Committee
96.

McGahn’s refusal without a lawful basis to testify before the Judiciary Committee

constitutes an ongoing and irreparable injury.
97.

McGahn is the Judiciary Committee’s most important fact witness in its

consideration of whether to recommend articles of impeachment and its related investigation of
misconduct by the President, including acts of obstruction of justice described in the Special
Counsel’s Report. President Trump has redoubled his efforts to prevent the Judiciary
Committee’s scrutiny of his conduct by attempting to block the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena
to McGahn. Indeed, he has publicly declared, “I don’t want people testifying to [House
Democrats],”190 and has announced, “We’re fighting all the subpoenas.”191 These actions, and
McGahn’s resultant refusal to testify, deprive the Judiciary Committee of its ability to exercise
its proper functions and strike at the core of Congress’s mandated role in our constitutional
system.
98.

In addition, the Judiciary Committee has an urgent oversight duty to protect

ongoing investigations from improper interference, to ascertain whether improper political
considerations are causing DOJ to open new investigations, and to consider potential legislation
before the Judiciary Committee on these issues. McGahn, who repeatedly advised the President
189

See id. at 707-13.
Robert Costa et al., Trump Says He Is Opposed to White House Aides Testifying to
Congress, Deepening Power Struggle with Hill, Wash. Post (Apr. 23, 2019),
https://perma.cc/FL3H-TUXL.
191
See Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure, White House (Apr.
24, 2019), https://perma.cc/W7VZ-FZ3T.
190

48

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 49 of 54

against interfering in DOJ investigations and was responsible for managing contacts between the
White House and DOJ, is uniquely situated to inform the Judiciary Committee’s current
oversight efforts with regard to these concerns.
99.

McGahn’s refusal to comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena interferes

with the House’s ability to perform these core constitutional functions in at least the following
specific ways:
100.

First, as set forth above, the Judiciary Committee has the responsibility of

determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President for possible
misconduct described in the Special Counsel’s Report—whether in the form of those articles
already referred to the Judiciary Committee,192 or through additional or other articles the
Judiciary Committee itself may choose to draft. Consideration of this remedy is an urgent task.
As DOJ itself has explained, “the Framers … specifically determined that the public interest in
immediately removing a sitting President whose continuation in office poses a threat to the
Nation’s welfare outweighs the public interest in avoiding the Executive burdens incident
thereto.”193 As discussed above, McGahn’s testimony is crucial to the Judiciary Committee’s
investigation—and by refusing to comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena, McGahn is
interfering with the House’s ability to exercise its constitutional responsibility. Without
McGahn’s firsthand testimony regarding the key episodes of potential Presidential misconduct
he observed, the Judiciary Committee is significantly hampered in assessing the full facts and
circumstances surrounding the President’s actions.

192

See 165 Cong. Rec. H211 (daily ed. Jan. 3, 2019) (noting referral of H. Res. 13 to
Comm. on the Judiciary).
193
A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op.
O.L.C. 222, 258 (2000) (emphasis added).
49

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 50 of 54

101.

Second, McGahn’s refusal to testify deprives the Judiciary Committee of

information urgently needed to conduct oversight of DOJ, including regarding any improper
political interference with ongoing investigations. The Report describes repeated efforts by the
President to influence and undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation. The Special
Counsel’s Office referred or transferred 25 additional matters to other offices within the
Department, many of which are ongoing.194 At least some ongoing matters may implicate the
President personally, such as the prosecution of Roger Stone and the reported investigation of the
President’s 2017 inaugural committee.195 Given the President’s extensively documented
attempts to interfere with the Special Counsel’s investigation, these matters may be equally
vulnerable to the President’s interference. For example, public reporting indicates that President
Trump may already have attempted to interfere in proceedings in New York involving his former
personal attorney, Michael Cohen.196
102.

Third, McGahn’s refusal to testify is impeding the Judiciary Committee’s ability

to fully assess potential remedial legislation relating to the types of obstructive conduct described
in the Special Counsel’s Report. For example, McGahn’s testimony would directly inform the
Committee’s consideration of whether existing regulatory protections for special counsels are
adequate. His testimony also would directly inform the Judiciary Committee’s consideration of

194

Report, App. D-1 to D-6.
Indictment, United States v. Roger Stone, No. 1:19-cr-18 (D.D.C. Jan. 24, 2019);
Maggie Haberman & Ben Protess, Trump Inaugural Committee Ordered to Hand Over
Documents to Federal Investigators, N.Y. Times (Feb. 4, 2019) (describing investigation of
President Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee), https://perma.cc/3F27-YLAZ.
196
Mark Mazzetti et al., Intimidation, Pressure and Humiliation: Inside Trump’s TwoYear War on the Investigations Encircling Him, N.Y. Times (Feb. 19, 2019),
https://perma.cc/7TR6-EN32.
195

50

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 51 of 54

pending legislation referred to the Judiciary Committee to protect the independence of special
counsel investigations.197
103.

Fourth, McGahn’s refusal to testify deprives the Judiciary Committee of

important evidence needed to (1) ensure that DOJ and the FBI are allocating appropriate
resources toward protecting America’s elections in 2020 and thereafter; and (2) consider fully
potential remedial legislation on election security, including requiring candidates to report
certain foreign contacts.
104.

These injuries to the Judiciary Committee are grave, ongoing, and irreparable.

Each day that McGahn refuses to testify, the Judiciary Committee is deprived of its ability to
carry out the significant Article I task of determining whether to recommend that the President
be impeached and potentially removed from office. Moreover, each day McGahn refuses to
testify, the Judiciary Committee is deprived of testimony that would inform its oversight of DOJ
and consideration of legislation that may be urgently needed.
105.

Furthermore, because the House is not a continuing body, the Judiciary

Committee’s investigation and the articles of impeachment referred to the Committee related to
that investigation will necessarily end on January 3, 2021. The Judiciary Committee requires a
substantial period in advance of that date to perform its constitutional duties. Every day that the
Judiciary Committee is without McGahn’s testimony further delays its ability to pursue its
inquiries on issues of national importance before the current Congress ends. Even assuming a
future Judiciary Committee were to decide to continue the investigation, it would have to

197

See, e.g., Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, H.R. 197, 116th Cong.

(2019).
51

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 52 of 54

reconsider any articles of impeachment and reissue similar requests and subpoenas, thus
resulting in even further delay.
SPECIFIC CLAIM FOR RELIEF
COUNT: ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION
106.

The Judiciary Committee incorporates by reference and realleges the preceding

paragraphs, as if set forth fully herein.
107.

The McGahn Subpoena was duly authorized, issued, and served pursuant to the

Judiciary Committee’s powers under Article I of the Constitution of the United States.
108.

The McGahn Subpoena required McGahn to appear for testimony before the

House Judiciary Committee on May 21, 2019, yet McGahn did not appear as required.
109.

The Judiciary Committee has attempted to make reasonable accommodations for

McGahn’s testimony, but those efforts are at an impasse and McGahn continues to refuse to
testify publicly before the Committee.
110.

There is no lawful basis for McGahn’s refusal to appear before the Judiciary

Committee.
111.

McGahn enjoys no absolute immunity from appearing before the Judiciary

Committee.
112.

The President has waived executive privilege as to the subpoenaed testimony that

relates to matters and information discussed in the Report.
113.

McGahn has violated and continues to violate his legal obligations by refusing to

appear before the Judiciary Committee as required by the subpoena and, moreover, by refusing
to answer questions where there has been no assertion of executive or other privilege or where
executive privilege has been waived.

52

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 53 of 54

114.

As a result, the Judiciary Committee has been, and will continue to be, injured by

McGahn’s actions.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Judiciary Committee respectfully prays that this Court:
A.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, enter declaratory and injunctive relief as

follows:
1. Declare that McGahn’s refusal to appear before the Committee in response to the
subpoena issued to him was without legal justification;
2. Issue an injunction ordering McGahn to appear and testify forthwith before the
Committee; and
3. Issue an injunction ordering McGahn to testify as to matters and information
discussed in the Special Counsel’s Report and any other matters and information
over which executive privilege has been waived or is not asserted.
B.

Retain jurisdiction to review any disputes that may arise regarding compliance

with this Court’s order.
C.

Grant the Committee such other and further relief as may be just and proper under

the circumstances.

53

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 54 of 54

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Douglas N. Letter
Douglas N. Letter (D.C. Bar No. 253492),
General Counsel
Todd B. Tatelman (VA Bar No. 66008),
Deputy General Counsel
Megan Barbero (MA Bar No. 668854),
Associate General Counsel
Josephine Morse (D.C. Bar No. 1531317),
Associate General Counsel
Sarah E. Clouse (MA Bar No. 688187),
Attorney
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL198
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Telephone: (202) 225-9700
Douglas.Letter@mail.house.gov
Annie L. Owens (D.C. Bar No. 976604)
Joshua A. Geltzer (D.C. Bar No. 1018768)
INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-9042
ao700@georgetown.edu
Counsel for Plaintiff Committee on the Judiciary of
the U.S. House of Representatives
August 7, 2019

198

Attorneys for the Office of General Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives are
“entitled, for the purpose of performing the counsel’s functions, to enter an appearance in any
proceeding before any court of the United States or of any State or political subdivision thereof
without compliance with any requirements for admission to practice before such court.” 2
U.S.C. § 5571. The Office of General Counsel wishes to acknowledge the assistance of law
clerks Lily Hsu, a student at The George Washington University Law School, Nate King, a
student at The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, and legal assistant
Henry Raffel, a student at the University of Michigan, in preparing this complaint. The Institute
for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection also wishes to acknowledge the assistance of law
clerk Nikita Lalwani, a student at Yale Law School.
54

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 177

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit A

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

1

RPTR ZAMORA
EDTR ZAMORA

OVERSIGHT OF THE REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN
INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: FORMER SPECIAL
COUNSEL ROBERT S. MUELLER, III
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 8:32 a.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present:

Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee,

Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries,
Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa,
Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell,
Escobar, Collins, Sensenbrenner, Chabot, Gohmert, Jordan, Buck,
Ratcliffe, Roby, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock,
Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, Armstrong, and Steube.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Staff Present:

2

Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Arya

Hariharan, Deputy Chief Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass,
Senior Counsel; John Doty, Senior Advisor; Lisette Morton,
Director Policy, Planning, and Member Services; Madeline Strasser,
Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach Advisor;
Susan Jensen, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel; Sarah Istel,
Oversight Counsel; Julian Gerson, Staff Assistant; Will Emmons,
Professional Staff Member; Brendan Belair, Minority Staff
Director; Bobby Parmiter, Minority Deputy Staff Director/Chief
Counsel; Jon Ferro, Minority Parliamentarian/General Counsel;
Carlton David, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel; Ashley Callen,
Minority Oversight Counsel; Danny Johnson, Minority Oversight
Counsel; Jake Greenberg, Minority Oversight Counsel; and Erica
Barker, Minority Chief Legislative Clerk.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

3

The Judiciary Committee will come to order.

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of
the committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on oversight of the
report on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016
Presidential election.

I will now recognize myself for a brief

opening statement.
Director Mueller, thank you for being here.
just a few words about our themes today:
integrity, and accountability.
model of responsibility.

I want to say

responsibility,

Your career, for example, is a

You are a decorated Marine officer.

You

were awarded a Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for valor in
Vietnam.

You served in senior roles at the Department of Justice,

and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, you served as director of
the FBI.
Two years ago, you return to public service to lead the
investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections.
You conducted that investigation with remarkable integrity.

For

22 months, you never commented in public about your work, even
when you were subjected to repeated and grossly unfair personal
attacks.

Instead, your indictments spoke for you and in

astonishing detail.
Over the course of your investigation, you obtained criminal
indictments against 37 people and entities.

You secured the

conviction of President Trump's campaign chairman, his deputy

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

4

campaign manager, his National Security Advisor, and his personal
lawyer, among others.

In the Paul Manafort case alone, you

recovered as much as $42 million so that the cost of your
investigation to the taxpayers approaches zero.
And in your report you offer the country accountability as
well.

In Volume I, you find that the Russian Government attacked

our 2016 elections, quote, in a sweeping and systematic fashion,
and that the attacks were designed to benefit the Trump campaign.
Volume II walks us through 10 separate incidents of possible
obstruction of justice where, in your words, President Trump
attempted to exert undue influence over your investigation.

The

President's behavior included, and I quote from your report,
quote, public attacks on the investigation, nonpublic efforts to
control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage
witnesses not to cooperate, close quote.
Among the most shocking of these incidents, President Trump
ordered his White House counsel to have you fired and then to lie
and deny that it had happened.

He awarded his former campaign

manager to convince the recused Attorney General to step in and to
limit your work, and he attempted to prevent witnesses from
cooperating with your investigation.
Although Department policy barred you from indicting the
President for this conduct, you made clear that he is not
exonerated.

Any other person who acted in this way would have

been charged with crimes, and in this Nation, not even the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

5

President is above the law, which brings me to this committee's
work:

responsibility, integrity, and accountability.

These are

the marks by which we who serve on this committee will be measured
as well.
Director Mueller, we have a responsibility to address the
evidence that you have uncovered.

You recognize as much when you

said, quote, the Constitution requires a process other than the
criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of
wrongdoing, close quote.

That process begins with the work of

this committee.
We will follow your example, Director Mueller.
with integrity.

We will act

We will follow the facts where they lead.

will consider all appropriate remedies.

We

We will make our

recommendation to the House when our work concludes.

We will do

this work because there must be accountability for the conduct
described in your report, especially as it relates to the
President.
Thank you again, Director Mueller.

We look forward to your

testimony.
It is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for
his opening statement.
[The statement of Chairman Nadler follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you,

Mr. Mueller, for being here.
For 2 years leading up to the release of the Mueller report
and in the 3 months since, Americans were first told what to
expect and then what to believe.

Collusion, we were told, was in

plain sight, even if the special counsel's team didn't find it.
When Mr. Mueller produced his report and Attorney General
Barr provided it to every American, we read no American conspired
with Russia to interfere in our elections but learned the depths
of Russia's malice toward America.
We are here to ask serious questions about Mr. Mueller's
work, and we will do that.

After an extended, unhampered

investigation, today marks an end to Mr. Mueller's involvement in
an investigation that closed in April.

The burden of proof for

accusations that remain unproven is extremely high and especially
in light of the special counsel's thoroughness.
We were told this investigation began as an inquiry into
whether Russia meddled in our 2016 election.
concluded they did.

Mr. Mueller, you

Russians accessed Democrat servers and

disseminated sensitive information by tricking campaign insiders
into revealing protected information.
The investigation also reviewed whether Donald Trump, the
President, sought Russian assistance as a candidate to win the
Presidency.

Mr. Mueller concluded he did not.

advisers did not.

His family or

In fact, the report concludes no one in the

6

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

7

President's campaign colluded, collaborated, or conspired with the
Russians.
The President watched the public narrative surrounding this
investigation [inaudible] assume his guilt while he knew the
extent of his innocence.

Volume II of Mr. Mueller's report

details the President's reaction to frustrating investigation
where his innocence was established early on.

The President's

attitude toward the investigation was understandably negative, yet
the President did not use his authority to close the
investigation.

He asked his lawyer if Mr. Mueller had conflicts

that disqualified Mr. Mueller from the job, but he did not shut
down the investigation.

The President knew he was innocent.

Those are the facts of the Mueller report.

Russia meddled in

the 2016 election, the President did not conspire with the
Russians, and nothing we hear today will change those facts.
one element of this story remains:
investigation into the President.

But

the beginnings of the FBI
I look forward to Mr. Mueller's

testimony about what he found during his review of the origins of
the investigation.
In addition, the inspector general continues to review how
baseless gossip can be used to launch an FBI investigation against
a private citizen and eventually a President.

Those results will

be released, and we will need to learn from them to ensure
government intelligence and our law enforcement powers are never
again used and turned on a private citizen or a potential -- or a

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

8

political candidate as a result of the political leanings of a
handful of FBI agents.
The origins and conclusions of the Mueller investigation are
the same things:

what it means to be American.

has a voice in our democracy.

Every American

We must protect the sanctity of

their voice by combatting election interference.

Every American

enjoys the presumption of innocence and guarantee of due process.
If we carry nothing -- anything away today, it must be that we
increase our vigilance against foreign election interference,
while we ensure our government officials don't weaponize their
power against the constitutional rights guaranteed to every U.S.
citizen.
Finally, we must agree that the opportunity cost here is too
high.

The months we have spent investigating from this dais

failed to end the border crisis or contribute to the growing job
market.

Instead, we have gotten stuck, and it's paralyzed this

committee and this House.
And as a side note, every week, I leave my family and kids,
the most important things to me, to come to this place because I
believe this place is a place where we can actually do things and
help people.

Six and a half years ago, I came here to work on

behalf of the people of the Ninth District in this country, and we
accomplished a lot in those first 6 years on a bipartisan basis
with many of my friends across the aisle sitting on this dais with
me today.

However, this year, because of the majority's dislike

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

9

of this President and the endless hearing and to a closed
investigation have caused us to accomplish nothing except talk
about the problems of our country, while our border is on fire, in
crisis, and everything else is stopped.
This hearing is long overdue.

We have had truth for months.

No American conspired to throw our election.

What we need today

is to let that truth bring us confidence, and I hope,
Mr. Chairman, closure.
With that, I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Collins follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

10

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

I will now introduce today's witness.
Robert Mueller served as Director of the FBI from 2001 to
2013, and most recently served as special counsel in the
Department of Justice overseeing the investigation into Russian
interference in the 2016 special election.
He received his BA from Princeton University and MA from
New York University, in my district, and his JD from the
University of Virginia.

Mr. Mueller is accompanied by his -- by

counsel, Aaron Zebley, who served as deputy special counsel on the
investigation.
We welcome our distinguished witness, and we thank you for
participating in today's hearing.
Now, if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you
in.
Raise your right hand, please.

Left hand.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of
your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative.
Thank you.

And please be seated.

Please note that your written statement will be entered into
the record in its entirety.

Accordingly, I ask that you summarize

your testimony in 5 minutes.
Director Mueller, you may begin.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

11

STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, SPECIAL COUNSEL, THE SPECIAL
COUNSEL'S OFFICE, THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, MAY 2017 TO MAY 2019

Mr. Mueller.

Good morning, Chairman Nadler and Ranking

Member Collins, and the members of the committee.
As you know, in May 2017, the Acting Attorney General asked
me to serve as special counsel.

I undertook that role because I

believed that it was of paramount interest to the Nation to
determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the
Presidential election.

As the Acting Attorney General said at the

time, the appointment was necessary in order for the American
people to have full confidence in the outcome.
My staff and I carried out this assignment with that critical
objective in mind:

to work quietly, thoroughly, and with

integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the
outcome.
The order appointing me as special counsel directed our
office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016
Presidential election.

This included investigating any links or

coordination between the Russian Government and individuals
associated with the Trump campaign.

It also included

investigating efforts to interfere with or obstruct our
investigation.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

12

Throughout the investigation, I continually stressed two
things to the team that we had assembled.

First, we needed to do

our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as
possible.

It was in the public interest for our investigation to

be complete but not to last a day longer than was necessary.
Second, the investigation needed to be conducted fairly and
with absolute integrity.

Our team would not leak or take other

actions that could compromise the integrity of our work.

All

decisions were made based on the facts and the law.
During the course of our investigation, we charged more than
30 defendants with committing Federal crimes, including 12
officers of the Russian military.
convicted or pled guilty.

Seven defendants have been

Certain other charges we brought remain

pending today, and for those matters, I stress that the
indictments contain allegations and every defendant is presumed
innocent unless and until proven guilty.
In addition to the criminal charges we brought, as required
by Justice Department regulations, we submitted a confidential
report to the Attorney General at the conclusion of our
investigation.

The report set forth the results of our work and

the reasons for our charging and declination decisions.

The

Attorney General later made the report largely public.
As you know, I made a few limited remarks about our report
when we closed the Special Counsel's Office in May of this year,
but there are certain points that bear emphasis.

First, our

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 14 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

13

investigation found that the Russian Government interfered in our
election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
Second, the investigation did not establish that members of
the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian Government in its
election interference activities.

We did not address collusion,

which is not a legal term; rather, we focused on whether the
evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with
taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and it was not.
Third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the
investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance.
Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government's
effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable.
Finally, as described in Volume II of our report, we
investigated a series of actions by the President towards the
investigation.

Based on Justice Department policy and principles

of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to
whether the President committed a crime.

That was our decision

then and it remains our decision today.
Let me say a further word about my appearance today.

It is

unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal
investigation.

And given my role as a prosecutor, there are

reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited.
First, public testimony could affect several ongoing matters.
In some of these matters, court rules or judicial orders limit the
disclosure of information to protect the fairness of the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 15 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

proceedings.

14

And consistent with longstanding Justice Department

policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way
that could affect an ongoing matter.
Second, the Justice Department has asserted privileges
concerning investigative information and decisions, ongoing
matters within the Justice Department, and deliberations within
our office.
respect.

These are Justice Department privileges that I will

The Department has released the letter discussing the

restrictions on my testimony.

I therefore will not be able to

answer questions about certain areas that I know are of public
interest.
For example, I am unable to address questions about the
initial opening of the FBI's Russia investigation, which occurred
months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called
Steele dossier.

These matters are subjects of ongoing review by

the Department.

Any questions on these topics should therefore be

directed to the FBI or the Justice Department.
As I explained when we closed the Special Counsel's Office in
May, our report contains our findings and analysis and the reasons
for the decisions we made.
investigation over 2 years.

We conducted an extensive
In writing the report, we stated the

results of our investigation with precision.
word.

We scrutinized every

I do not intend to summarize or describe the results of our

work in a different way in the course of my testimony today.

And

as I said on May 29, the report is my testimony, and I will stay

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 16 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

15

within that text.
And as I stated in May, I will not comment on the actions of
the Attorney General or of Congress.

I was appointed as a

prosecutor, and I intend to adhere to that role and to the
Department standards that govern it.
I will be joined today by Deputy Special Counsel Aaron
Zebley.

Mr. Zebley has extensive experience as a Federal

prosecutor and at the FBI, where he served as my chief of staff.
Mr. Zebley was responsible for the day-to-day oversight of the
investigations conducted by our office.
Now, I also want to, again, say thank you to the attorneys,
the FBI agents, the analysts, the professional staff who helped us
conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.
These individuals, who spent nearly 2 years working on this
matter, were of the highest integrity.
Let me say one more thing.

Over the course of my career, I

have seen a number of challenges to our democracy.

The Russian

Government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most
serious.

And as I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of

every American.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Mueller follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 17 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

16

Thank you.

We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions.
I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Director Mueller, the President has repeatedly claimed that
your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely
and totally exonerated him.

But that is not what your report

said, is it?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct, that is not what the report said.

Chairman Nadler.

In our reading from page 2 of Volume II of

your report that is on the screen, you wrote, quote, 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.

Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards,

however, we are unable to reach that judgment, close quote.
Now, does that say there was no obstruction?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Chairman Nadler.

In fact, you were actually unable to

conclude the President did not commit obstruction of justice.

Is

that correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, we at the outset, determined that

we -- when it came to the President's culpability, we needed
to -- we needed to go forward only after taking into account the
OLC opinion that indicated that a President -- a sitting President
cannot be indicted.
Chairman Nadler.

So the report did not conclude that he did

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 18 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

not commit obstruction of justice.
Mr. Mueller.

17

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Chairman Nadler.

And what about total exoneration?

Did you

actually totally exonerate the President?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Chairman Nadler.

Now, in fact, your report expressly states

that it does not exonerate the President?
Mr. Mueller.

It does.

Chairman Nadler.

And your investigation actually found,

quote, multiple acts by the President that were capable of
exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations,
including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.
Is that correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Chairman Nadler.

Now, Director Mueller, can you explain in

plain terms what that finding means so the American people can
understand it?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, the finding indicates that the President

was not -- that the President was not exculpated for the acts that
he allegedly committed.
Chairman Nadler.

In fact, you were talking about incidents,

quote, in which the President sought to use his official power
outside of usual channels, unquote, to exert undue influence over
your investigations.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that right?

That's correct.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 19 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

18

Now, am I correct, then, on page 7 of

Volume II of your report, you wrote, quote, the President became
aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an
obstruction of justice inquiry.

At that point, the President

engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on
the investigation, nonpublic efforts to control it, and efforts in
both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate
with the investigation, close quote.
So President Trump's efforts to exert undue influence over
your investigation intensified after the President became aware
that he personally was being investigated?
Mr. Mueller.

I stick with the language that you have in

front of you.
Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Mueller.

Which --

Which comes from page 7, Volume II.

Chairman Nadler.

Now, is it correct that if you concluded

that the President committed the crime of obstruction, you could
not publicly state that in your report or here today?
Mr. Mueller.

Can you repeat the question, sir?

Chairman Nadler.

Is it correct that if you had concluded

that the President committed the crime of obstruction, you could
not publicly state that in your report or here today?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I would say you could -- the statement

would be that you would not indict and you would not indict
because under the OLC opinion a sitting President cannot be

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 20 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

indicted.

19

It would be unconstitutional.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

So you could not state that because

of the OLC opinion if that had been your conclusion?
Mr. Mueller.

OLC opinion with some guide, yes.

Chairman Nadler.

But under DOJ -- under Department of

Justice policy, the President could be prosecuted for obstruction
of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

True.

Chairman Nadler.

Thank you.

Did any senior White House official refuse a request to be
interviewed by you and your team?
Mr. Mueller.

I don't believe so.

Well, let me take that back.

I would have to look at it, but

I'm not certain that that was the case.
Chairman Nadler.

Did the President refuse a request to be

interviewed by you and your team?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

Yes.

And is it true that you tried for

more than a year to secure an interview with the President?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

And is it true that you and your team

advised the President's lawyer that, quote, an interview with the
President is vital to our investigation, close quote?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

Yes.

And is it true that you also, quote, stated

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 21 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

20

that it is in the interest of the Presidency and the public for an
interview to take place, close quote?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

But the President still refused to sit for

an interview by you or your team?
Mr. Mueller.

True.

Chairman Nadler.

True.

And did you also ask him to provide written

answers to questions under 10 possible episodes of obstruction of
justice crimes involving him?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

Did he provide any answers to a single

question about whether he engaged in obstruction of justice
crimes?
Mr. Mueller.

I would have to check on that.

I'm not

certain.
Chairman Nadler.

Director Mueller, we are grateful that you

are here to explain your investigation and findings.

Having

reviewed your work, I believe anyone else would engage in the
conduct describing your report would have been criminally
prosecuted.

Your work is vitally important to this committee and

the American people because no one is above the law.
I'll now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And we are moving, I understand and just reiterate, on the
5-minute rule.

Mr. Mueller, I have several questions, many of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 22 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

21

which that you just answered will be questioned here in a moment,
but I want to lay some foundations.
fairly quickly.

I will talk slowly.

So we will go through these
I am said that I talk fast.

I will talk slowly.
Mr. Mueller.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Collins.

In your press conference, you stated any

testimony from your office would not go beyond our report.

We

chose these words carefully.

I will

The words speaks for itself.

not provide information beyond that which is already public in any
appearance before Congress.
Do you stand by that statement?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Collins.

Since closing the Special Counsel's Office in

May of 2019, have you conducted any additional interviews or
obtained any new information in your role as special counsel?
Mr. Mueller.

In the wake of the report?

Mr. Collins.

Since the closing of the office in May of 2019.

Mr. Mueller.

And the question was?

Mr. Collins.

Have you conducted any new interviews and any

new witnesses or anything?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Collins.

And you can confirm you're no longer special

counsel, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I am no longer special counsel.

Mr. Collins.

At any time with the investigation, was your

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 23 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

22

investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Collins.

Were you or your team provided any questions by

Members of Congress of the majority ahead of your hearing today?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Collins.

Your report states that your investigative team

included 19 lawyers and approximately 40 FBI agents and analysts
and accountants.

Are those numbers accurate?

Mr. Mueller.

Could you repeat that, please?

Mr. Collins.

Forty FBI agents, 19 lawyers, intelligence

analysts, and forensic accountants.

Are those numbers accurate?

This is included in your report.
Mr. Mueller.

Generally, yes.

Chairman Nadler.

Is it also true that you issued over 2,800

subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than
230 orders for communication records, and 50 pen registers?
Mr. Mueller.

That went a little fast for me.

Mr. Collins.

Okay.

In your report -- I will make this very

simple -- you did a lot of work, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

That I agree to.

Mr. Collins.

A lot of subpoenas?

Mr. Mueller.

A lot of subpoenas, yes.

Mr. Collins.

Okay.

Mr. Mueller.

A lot search warrants.

A lot of pen registers?

We will walk this really slow if we need

to.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 24 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Collins.
things.

All right.

23

A lot of search warrants, a lot of

So you are very thorough?

Mr. Mueller.

What?

Mr. Collins.

In your opinion, very thorough, you listed this

out in your report, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Collins.

Thank you.

Is it true the evidence gathered during your
investigation -- or given the questions that you have just
answered, 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 I, page 7?
Mr. Mueller.

We found insufficient evidence of the

President's culpability -Mr. Collins.

So that would be a yes.

Mr. Mueller.

-- with -- pardon?

Mr. Collins.

That would be a yes?

Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Collins.

Thank you.

Isn't it true the evidence did not establish that the
President or those close to him were involved in the charge of
Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that
the President otherwise had unlawful relationships with any
Russian official, Volume II, pages 76, correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 25 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

I leave the answer to our report.

Mr. Collins.

So that is a yes.

24

Is that true, your investigation did not establish that
members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the
Russian Government in the election interference activity, Volume
I, page 2, Volume I, page 173?
Mr. Mueller.

Thank you.

Mr. Collins.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Although your report states collusion is not a specific
offense, and you have said that this morning, or a term of art in
Federal criminal law, conspiracy is.
In the colloquial context, are "collusion" and "conspiracy"
essentially synonymous terms?
Mr. Mueller.

You're going to have to repeat that for me.

Mr. Collins.

Collusion is not a specific offense or a term

of art in the Federal criminal law; conspiracy is.
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Collins.

In the colloquial context, known public

context, "collusion" and "conspiracy" are essentially synonymous
terms, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Collins.

If no, on page 180 of Volume I of your report,

you wrote, as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely
synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the
general Federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371.

You said at

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 26 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

25

your May 29 press conference and here today, you choose your words
carefully.

Are you sitting here today testifying to something

different than what your report states?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, what I'm asking is, if you can give me

the citation, I can look at the citation and evaluate whether it
is accurate.
Mr. Collins.

Okay.

Let me just be clarifying.

that you have stayed within the report.
back to you.

You stated

I just stated your report

And you said that collusion and conspiracy were not

synonymous terms.

That was -- your answer was no.

Mr. Mueller.

That's correct.

Mr. Collins.

In that page 180 of Volume I of your report it

says, as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely
synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in general
conspiracy statute 18 U.S.C. 371.
words carefully.

Now, you said you chose your

Are you contradicting your report right now?

Mr. Mueller.

Not when I read it.

Mr. Collins.

So you change your answer to yes then?

Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Collins.

I'm reading your report, sir.

No.

If you look at the language -It's a yes or no

answer.
Mr. Mueller.

Page 180?

Mr. Collins.

Page 180, Volume I.

Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Collins.

So the report says, yes, they are synonymous.

This is from your report.

And I leave it with the report.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 27 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

26

Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Collins.

Hopefully, for finally, out of your own report,

we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy.
One last question as we're going through.

Did you ever look

into other countries investigated in the Russian's interference
into our election?

Were other countries investigated or found

knowledge that they had interference in our election?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to discuss other matters.

Mr. Collins.

With that, I yield back.

Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman yields back.

The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Lofgren.

Director Mueller, as you've heard from the

chairman, we're mostly going to talk about obstruction of justice
today.

But the investigation of Russia's attack that started your

investigation is why evidence of possible obstruction is serious.
To what extent did the Russian Government interfere in the
2016 Presidential election?
Mr. Mueller.

Could you repeat that, ma'am?

Ms. Lofgren.

To what extent did the Russian Government

interfere in the 2016 Presidential election?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, particularly when it came to computer

crimes and the like, the government was implicated.
Ms. Lofgren.

So you wrote, in Volume I, that the Russian

Government interfered in the 2016 Presidential election in
sweeping and systematic fashion.

You also described in your

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 28 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

27

report that the then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort shared
with a Russian operative, Kilimnik, the campaign strategy for
winning Democratic votes in Midwestern States and internal polling
data of the campaign.

Isn't that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Ms. Lofgren.

They also discussed the status of the Trump

campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in
Midwestern States.

Months before that meeting, Manafort had

caused internal data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing
continued for some period of time after their August meeting.
Isn't that correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Accurate.

Ms. Lofgren.

In fact, your investigation found that Manafort

briefed Kilimnik on the state of the Trump campaign and Manafort's
plan to win the election, and that briefing encompassed the
campaign's messaging, its internal polling data.

It also included

discussion of battleground States, which Manafort identified as
Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota.

Isn't that

correct?
Mr. Mueller.

That's correct.

Ms. Lofgren.

Did your investigation determine who requested

the polling data to be shared with Kilimnik?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I would direct you to the report and

adopt what we have in the report with regard to that particular
issue.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 29 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Lofgren.

We don't have the redacted version.

28

That's

maybe another reason why we should get that for Volume I.
Based on your investigation, how could the Russian Government
have used this campaign polling data to further its sweeping and
systematic interference in the 2016 Presidential election?
Mr. Mueller.

That's a little bit out of our path.

Ms. Lofgren.

Fair enough.

Did your investigation find that the Russian Government
perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Lofgren.

And which candidate would that be?

Mr. Mueller.

Well, it would be Trump --

Ms. Lofgren.

Correct.

Mr. Mueller.

-- the President.

Ms. Lofgren.

Now, the Trump campaign wasn't exactly

reluctant to take Russian help.

You wrote, it expected it would

benefit electorally from information stolen and released through
Russian efforts.

Isn't that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

That's correct.

Ms. Lofgren.

Now, was the investigation's

determination -- what was the investigation's determination
regarding the frequency with which the Trump campaign made contact
with the Russian Government?
Mr. Mueller.
on that.

Well, I would have to refer you to the report

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 30 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Lofgren.

29

Well, we went through and we counted 126

contacts between Russians or their agents and Trump campaign
officials or their associates.
Mr. Mueller.
believe it.

I can't say.

So would that sound about right?
I understand the statistic and I

I understand the statistic.

Ms. Lofgren.
and your report.

Well, Mr. Mueller, I appreciate your being here
From your testimony and the report, I think the

American people have learned several things.

First, the Russians

wanted Trump to win; second, the Russians went on a sweeping cyber
influence campaign.

The Russians hacked the DNC, and they got the

Democratic game plan for the election.

The Russian campaign

chairman met with Russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal
data, polling, and messaging in the battleground States.
So while the Russians were buying ads and creating propaganda
to influence the outcome of the election, they were armed with
inside information that they had stolen through hacking from the
DNC and that they had been given by the Trump campaign chairman,
Mr. Manafort.
My colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this
information from becoming public, but I think it's important for
the American people to understand the gravity of the underlying
problem that your report uncovered.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentlelady yields back.

The gentleman from Texas.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 31 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Ratcliffe.

Good morning, Director.

30

If you'll let me

quickly summarize your opening statement this morning.

You said

in Volume I on the issue of conspiracy, the special counsel
determined that the investigation did not establish that members
of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
Government in its election interference activities.

And then in

Volume II, for reasons that you explain, the special counsel did
not make a determination on whether there was an obstruction of
justice crime committed by the President.
Is that fair?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Ratcliffe.

All right.

Now, in explaining the special

counsel did not make what you called a traditional prosecution or
declination decision, the report on the bottom of page 2 of Volume
II reads as follows:

The evidence we obtained about the

President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that
prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct
occurred.

Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that

the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Now, I read that correctly?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Ratcliffe.

Yes.
All right.

Now, your report, and today, you

said that all times the special counsel team operated under was
guided by and followed Justice Department policies and principles.
So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 32 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

31

an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from
criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Ratcliffe.

Can you repeat the last part of that question?
Yeah.

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?
Director?

Where does that language come from,

Where is the DOJ policy that says that?

Let me make it easier.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Ratcliffe.

Can I answer?

Mr. Mueller.

Is there --

Mr. Ratcliffe.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Can you give me an example other than Donald

Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated
person was not exonerated because their innocence was not
conclusively determined?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Ratcliffe.

I cannot, but this is a unique situation.

I've got 5 minutes.

Okay.

Well, you can't -- time is short.

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's not in any of the documents.
appointment order.

It's not in your

It's not in the special counsel regulations.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 33 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

It's not in the OLC opinions.

32

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.

entitled to it, including sitting Presidents.

Everyone is

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 or declination
decisions reached by the special counsel.

That's the very first

word of your report, right?
Mr. Mueller.

That's correct.

Mr. Ratcliffe.

Here's the problem, Director.

counsel didn't do that.

On Volume I, you did.

The special

On Volume II, with

respect to potential obstruction 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

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 34 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

33

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 and 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 II 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 II of this report puts
him.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman's time is expired.

The gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 35 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Director Mueller, good morning.

34

Your exchange with the

gentlelady from California demonstrates what is at stake.

The

Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort was passing sensitive voter
information and poller data to a Russian operative.

And there

were so many other ways that Russia subverted our democracy.
Together with the evidence in Volume I, I cannot think of a
more serious need to investigate.

So now I'm going to ask you

some questions about obstruction of justice as it relates to
Volume II.
On page 12 of Volume II, you state, we determined that there
were sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate
potential obstruction of justice issues involving the President.
Is that correct?
Mr. Mueller.

And do you have a citation, ma'am?

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Mueller.

Page 12, Volume II.

And which portion of that page?

Ms. Jackson Lee.

That is, we determined that there was a

sufficient factual and legal basis to further investigate
potential obstruction of justice issues involving the President.
Is that correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

Your report also described at least 10

separate instances of possible obstruction of justice that were
investigated by you and your team.
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Is that correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 36 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Jackson Lee.

35

In fact, the table of contents serves as a

very good guide of some of the acts of that obstruction of justice
that you investigated, and I put it up on the screen.

On page 157

of Volume II, you describe those acts, and they range from the
President's effort to curtail the special counsel's investigation,
the President's further efforts to have the Attorney General take
over the investigation, the President's orders Don McGahn to deny
that the President tried to fire the special counsel, and many
others.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Director Mueller:

I direct you now to what you wrote,

The President's pattern of conduct as a whole

sheds light on the nature of the President's acts and the
inferences that can be drawn about his intent.
Does that mean you have to investigate all of his conduct to
ascertain true motive?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

And when you talk about the President's

pattern of conduct, that include the 10 possible acts of
obstruction that you investigated.

Is that correct?

When you

talk about the President's pattern of conduct, that would include
the 10 possible acts of obstruction that you investigated,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
characterized.

I direct you to the report for how that is

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 37 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Jackson Lee.

36

Thank you.

Let me go to the screen again.

And for each of those 10

potential instances of obstruction of justice, you analyzed three
elements of a crime of obstruction of justice:

an obstructive

act, a nexus between the act and official proceeding, and corrupt
intent.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

You wrote on page 178, Volume II in your

report, about corrupt intent:

Actions by the President to end a

criminal investigation into his own conduct to protect against
personal embarrassment or legal liability would constitute a core
example of corruptly motivated conduct.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

To the screen again.

Even with the

evidence you did find, is it true, as you note on page 76 of
Volume II, that the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI
investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the
President personally that the President could have understood to
be crimes or that would give rise to legal, personal, and
political concerns?
Mr. Mueller.

I rely on the language of the report.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
of justice?

Is that relevant to potential obstruction

Is that relevant to potential obstruction of justice?

Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

You further elaborate on page 157,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 38 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

37

obstruction of justice can be motivated by desire to protect
noncriminal personal interests to protect against investigations
where underlying criminal liability fall into a gray area or to
avoid personal embarrassment.
Mr. Mueller.

I have on the screen --

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that correct?

Is that correct on the screen?

Can you repeat the question, now that I have

the language on the screen?
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Is it correct, as you further elaborate,

obstruction of justice can be motivated by a direct desire to
protect noncriminal personal interests to protect against
investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a
gray area -Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Mueller.

And is it true that the impact -- pardon?

Can you read the last question?

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Mueller.

-- or to avoid -- is that true?

The last question was --

I want to make certain I got it accurate.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

No.

The last question was the language on

the screen asking you if that's correct.
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

Okay.

Does a conviction of obstruction of

justice result potentially in a lot of years of -- a lot of years

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 39 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

38

of time in jail?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Well, again, can you repeat the question just to make certain
that I have it accurate?
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Does obstruction of justice warrant a lot

of time in jail -Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Mr. Mueller.

-- if you were convicted?

Yes.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

And if --

Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentlelady is expired.

The gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by reading the special counsel regulations by
which you were appointed.

It reads, quote, at the conclusion of

the special counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney
General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or
declination's decisions reached by the special counsel.

Is that

correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Okay.

Now, when a regulation uses the

word "shall" provide, does it mean that the individual is, in
fact, obligated to provide what's being demanded by the regulation
or statute, meaning you don't have any wiggle room, right?
Mr. Mueller.

I'd have to look more closely at the statute.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 40 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Okay.

39

Well, I just read it to you.

Now, Volume II, page 1, your report boldly states, we

determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.

Is

that correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm trying to find that citation, Congressman.

Chairman Nadler.

Director, could you speak more directly

into the microphone, please?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

Thank you.

Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Mr. Mueller.

It's Volume II, page --

Mr. Chairman -- I am sorry.

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Volume II, page 1, it said, we determined

not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

That's right in the beginning.

Now, since you decided under the OLC opinion that you
couldn't prosecute a sitting President, meaning President Trump,
why did we have all of this investigation of President Trump that
the other side is talking about when you knew that you weren't
going to prosecute him?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, you don't know where the investigation is

going to lie, and the OLC opinion itself says that you can
continue the investigation even though you are not going to indict
the President.
Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Okay.

Well, if you're not going to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 41 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

indict the President, then you just continue fishing.

40

And

that's -- you know, that's my observation.
Mr. Mueller.

Well --

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

You know, sure -- my time is limited.

Sure you can indict other people, but you can't indict the sitting
President, right?
Mr. Mueller.

That's true.

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Okay.

Now, there are 182 pages in raw

evidentiary material, including hundreds of references to 302,
which are interviews by the FBI, for individuals who have never
been cross-examined and which did not comply with the special
counsel's governing regulation to explain the prosecution or
declination decisions reached.
Mr. Mueller.

And where are you reading from on that?

Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Mr. Mueller.

Correct?

I'm reading from my question.

Then could you repeat it?

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Okay.

You have 182 pages of raw

evidentiary material with hundreds of references to 302s who have
never been cross-examined and which didn't comply with the
governing regulation to explain the prosecution or
declaration -- declination decisions reached.
Mr. Mueller.

This is one of those areas which I decline to

discuss by -Mr. Sensenbrenner.
Mr. Mueller.

Okay.

Then let --

-- and would direct you to the report itself or

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 42 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

41

what is done on that -Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Well, I looked at 182 pages of it.

You know, let me switch gears.

Mr. Chabot and I were on this

committee during the Clinton impeachment.

Now, while I recognize

that the independent counsel statute under which Kenneth Starr
operated is different from the special counsel's statute, he in a
number of occasions in his report stated that the -- President
Clinton's actions may have risen to impeachable conduct,
recognizing that it is up to the House of Representatives to
determine what conduct is impeachable.
You never used the term "raising" to impeachable conduct for
any of the 10 instances that the gentlewoman from Texas did.

Is

it true that there's nothing in Volume II of the report that says
that the President may have engaged in impeachable conduct?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, we have studiously kept in the center of

our investigation the -- our mandate, and our mandate does not go
to other ways of addressing conduct.

Our mandate goes to

what -- developing the report and turning the report in to the
Attorney General.
Mr. Sensenbrenner.

With due respect, you know, it seems to

me, you know, that there are a couple of statements that you made,
you know, that said that this is not for me to decide, and the
implication is that this is for this committee to decide.
Now, you didn't use the word "impeachable" conduct like Starr
did.

There was no statute to prevent you from using the word

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 43 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

"impeachable" conduct.

42

And I go back to what Mr. Ratcliffe said,

and that is, is that even the President is innocent until proven
guilty.
My time is up.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman's time is expired.

The gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Cohen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd just like to restate what Mr. Nadler said about
your career.

It's a model of rectitude, and I thank you.

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

Thank you.
Based upon your investigation, how did

President Trump react to your appointment as special counsel?
Mr. Mueller.

Again, I send you the report for where that is

stated.
Mr. Cohen.

Well, there is a quote from page 78 of your

report, Volume II, which reads, when Sessions told the President
that a special counsel had been appointed, the President slumped
back in his chair and said, quote, oh, my god.
This is the end of my Presidency.

This is terrible.

I'm F'ed, unquote.

Did Attorney General Sessions tell you about that little
talk?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not sure --

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Mueller.

Director, please speak into the microphone.

Oh, surely.

My apologies.

I am not certain of the person who originally copied that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 44 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

43

quote.
Mr. Cohen.

Okay.

Well, Sessions apparently said it, and one

of his aides had it in his notes too, which I think you had, but
that's become record.

He wasn't pleased.

He probably wasn't

pleased with the special counsel and particularly you because of
your outstanding reputation.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

Correct.
Prior to your appointment, the Attorney General

recused himself from the investigation because of his role in the
2016 campaign.

Is that not correct?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

That's correct.
Recusal means the Attorney General cannot be

involved in the investigation.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

Is that correct?

That's the effect of recusal, yes.
And so instead, another Trump appointee, as you

know Mr. Sessions was, Mr. Rosenstein became in charge of it.

Is

that correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

Yes.
Wasn't Attorney General Sessions following the

rules and professional advice of the Department of Justice ethics
folks when he recused himself from the investigation?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

Yes.
And yet the President repeatedly expressed his

displeasure at Sessions' decision to follow those ethics rules to
recuse himself from oversight of that investigation.

Is that not

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 45 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

44

correct?
Mr. Mueller.

That's correct based on what is written in the

report.
Mr. Cohen.

And the President's reaction to the recusal, as

noted in the report, Mr. Bannon recalled that the President was
mad, as mad as Bannon had ever seen him, and he screamed at McGahn
about how weak Sessions was.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

Do you recall that from the report?

That's in the report, yes.
Despite knowing that Attorney General Sessions

was not supposed to be involved in the investigation, the
President still tried to get the Attorney General to unrecuse
himself after you were appointed special counsel.

Is that

correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

Yes.
In fact, your investigation found that at some

point after your appointment, quote, the President called Sessions
at his home and asked if he would unrecuse himself.

Is that not

true?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

It's true.
Now, that wasn't the first time the President

asked Sessions to unrecuse himself, was it?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

I know there were at least two occasions.
And one of them was with Flynn, and one of them

was when Sessions and McGahn flew to Mar-a-Largo to meet with the
President.

Sessions recalled that the President pulled him aside

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 46 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

to speak alone and suggest that he should do this unrecusal act,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

Correct.
And then when Michael Flynn -- a few days after

Flynn entered a guilty plea for lying to Federal agents and
indicated his intent to cooperate with that investigation, Trump
asked to speak to Sessions alone again in the Oval Office and
again asked Sessions to unrecuse himself.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

True?

I refer you to the report for that.
Page 109, Volume II.

Thank you, sir.

Do you know of any point when the President personally
expressed anger or frustrations at Sessions?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

I'd have to pass on that.
Do you recall -- and I think it's at page 78 of

Volume II, the President told Sessions, you were supposed to
protect me, you were supposed to protect me, or words to that
effect?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

Correct.
And is the Attorney General supposed to be the

Attorney General of the United States of America or the
consigliere for the President?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

United States of America.
Thank you, sir.

In fact, you wrote in your report that the President
repeatedly sought to convince Sessions to unrecuse himself so

45

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 47 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

46

Sessions could supervise the investigation in a way that would
restrict its scope.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

Is that correct?
I rely on the report.

How could Sessions have restricted the scope of

your investigation?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I'm not going to speculate.

If

he -- quite obviously if he took over as Attorney General, he
would have greater latitude in his actions that would enable him
to do things that otherwise he could not.
Mr. Cohen.

On page 113 you said the President believed that

an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and
could shield the President from the ongoing investigation.
Regardless of all that, I want to thank you, Director
Mueller, for your life of rectitude and service to our country.
It's clear from your report and the evidence that the President
wanted former Attorney General Sessions to violate the Justice
Department ethics rules by taking over your investigation and
improperly interfering with it to protect himself and his
campaign.

Your findings are so important because in America

nobody is above the law.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Nadler.

I thank the gentleman for yielding back.

The gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Chabot.

Thank you.

Director Mueller, my Democratic colleagues were very

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 48 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

disappointed in your report.

47

They were expecting you to say

something along the lines of, here's why President Trump deserves
to be impeached, as much as Ken Starr did relative to President
Clinton back about 20 years ago.

Well, you didn't.

So their

strategy had to change.
Now they allege that there's plenty of evidence in your
report to impeach the President but the American people just
didn't read it.

And this hearing today is their last best hope to

build up some sort of ground swell across America to impeach
President Trump.

That's what this is really all about today.

Now, a few questions.

On page 103 of Volume II of your

report, when discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, you
reference, quote, the firm that produced the Steele reporting,
unquote.

The name of that firm was Fusion GPS.

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Chabot.

Is that correct?

And you're on page 103?
103, that's correct, Volume II.

When you talk

about the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the
firm that produced that was Fusion GPS.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Chabot.
question.

Is that correct?

I'm not familiar with that.
Let me just help you.

Could you --

It was.

It's not a trick

It was Fusion GPS.

Now, Fusion GPS produced the opposition research document
widely known as the Steele dossier, and the owner of Fusion GPS
was someone named Glenn Simpson.
Mr. Mueller.

Are you familiar with --

This is outside my purview.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 49 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Chabot.

Okay.

48

Glenn Simpson was never mentioned in the

448-page Mueller report, was he?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, as I say, it's outside my purview, and

it's being handled in the Department by others.
Mr. Chabot.

Okay.

Well, he was not.

448 pages, the owner

of Fusion GPS that did the Steele dossier that started all this,
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,

Prevezon, which had been sanctioned by the U.S. Government.

Are

you aware of that?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Chabot.

That's outside my purview.
Okay.

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.
you aware of that?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Chabot.

Outside my purview.
Thank you.

But you didn't mention that or her connections to Glenn

Are

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 50 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Simpson at Fusion GPS in your report at all.
Let me move on.

Now, NBC News has reported the following:

quote, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya says she first
received the supposedly incriminating information she brought to
Trump Tower describing alleged tax evasion and donation to
Democrats from none other than Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS
owner.
You didn't include that in the report, and I assume --

49

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 51 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

50

RPTR BRYANT
EDTR SECKMAN
[9:32 a.m.]
Mr. Mueller.

-- it is a matter being handled by others at

the Department of Justice.
Mr. Chabot.

Thank you.

Now, your report spends 14 pages

discussing the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting.

It would be

fair to say, would it not, that you spent significant resources
investigating that meeting?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Chabot.

I refer you to the report.
Okay.

And President Trump wasn't at the

meeting?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Chabot.

No, he was not.
Thank you.

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.
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

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 52 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

51

pretty one-sided attack on the President?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I tell you, it is still outside my

purview.
Mr. Chabot.

And I would just note, finally, that I guess it

is just by chance, by coincidence that the things left out of the
report tended to be favorable to the President.
Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Chabot.

Your time has expired.

My time has expired.

Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

Thank you.

Director Mueller, I would like to get us back on track here.
Your investigation found that President Trump directed White House
Counsel Don McGahn to fire you.
Mr. Mueller.

Isn't that correct?

True.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

And the President claimed that he

wanted to fire you because you had supposed conflicts of interest.
Isn't that correct?
Mr. Mueller.

True.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
that required your removal.
Mr. Mueller.

You had no conflicts of interest
Isn't that a fact?

Also correct.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

And, in fact, Don McGahn advised the

President that the asserted conflicts were, in his words, silly
and not real conflicts.
Mr. Mueller.

Isn't that true?

I refer to the report on that episode.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 53 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
that.

52

Well, page 85 of Volume II speaks to

And, also, Director Mueller, DOJ Ethics officials confirmed

that you had no conflicts that would prevent you from serving as
special counsel.

Isn't that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

That is correct.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

But despite Don McGahn and the

Department of Justice guidance, around May 23, 2017, the
President, quote, prodded McGahn to complain to Deputy Attorney
General Rosenstein about these supposed conflicts of interest,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

And McGahn declined to call

Rosenstein -- or Rosenstein, I am sorry -- telling the President
that it would look like still trying to meddle in the
investigation and knocking out Mueller would be another fact used
to claim obstruction of justice.
Mr. Mueller.

Isn't that correct?

Generally so, yes.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

And, in other words, Director

Mueller, the White House counsel told the President that if he
tried to remove you that that could be another basis to allege
that the President was obstructing justice, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

That is generally correct, yes.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

Now, I would like to review what

happened after the President was warned about obstructing justice.
On Tuesday, June --

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 54 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

I am sorry, Congressman.

53

Do you have a

citation for that?
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Volume II, page 81 --

Thank you.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

-- and 82.

Now, I would like to

review what happened after the President was warned about
obstructing justice.

It is true that, on Tuesday, June 13, 2017,

the President dictated a press statement stating he had, quote, no
intention of firing you, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

But the following day, June 14th,

the media reported for the first time that you were investigating
the President for obstruction of justice, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

And then, after learning for the

first time that he was under investigation, the very next day the
President, quote, issued a series of tweets acknowledging the
existence of the obstruction investigation and criticizing it.
Isn't that correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Generally so.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

And then, on Saturday, June 17th, 2

days later, the President called Don McGahn at home from Camp
David on a Saturday to talk about you.
Mr. Mueller.

Isn't that correct?

Correct.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

What was the significant -- what was

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 55 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

54

significant about that first weekend phone call that Don McGahn
took from President Trump?
Mr. Mueller.

I am going to ask you to rely on what we wrote

about those incidents.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

Well, you wrote in you your report

that on -- at page 85, Volume II, that, on Saturday, June 17,
2017, the President called McGahn at home to have the special
counsel removed.

Now, did the President call Don McGahn more than

once that day?
Mr. Mueller.

Well --

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Mueller.

I think there were two calls.

Speak into the mike, please.

I am sorry about that.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

On page 85 of your report, you

wrote, quote, on the first call, McGahn recalled that the
President said something like, quote, "You got to do this, you got
to call Rod," correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

And your investigation and report

found that Don McGahn was perturbed, to use your words, by the
President's request to call Rod Rosenstein to fire him.

Isn't

that correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, there was a continuous colloquy.

There

was a continuous involvement of Don McGahn responding to the
President's entreaties.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 56 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
in the middle of that.

55

And he did not want to put himself

He did not want to have a role in asking

the Attorney General to fire the special counsel, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I would again refer you to the report and

the way it is characterized in the report.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

Thank you.

At Volume II, page 85,

it states that he didn't want to have the Attorney General -- he
didn't want to have a role in trying to fire the Attorney General.
So, at this point, I will yield back.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman's time is expired.

The

gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Gohmert.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mueller, well, first, let me ask unanimous consent, Mr.
Chairman, to submit this article "Robert Mueller:
the record.
Chairman Nadler.

Without objection.

Unmasked" for

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 57 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

[The information follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

56

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 58 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Gohmert.

57

Now, Mr. Mueller, who wrote the 9-minute

comments you read at your May 29th press conference?
Mr. Mueller.

I am not going to get into that.

Mr. Gohmert.

Okay.

So that is what I thought.

You didn't

write it.
A 2013 puff piece in The Washingtonian about Comey said,
basically, when Comey called, you would drop everything you were
doing.

It gave examples:

and daughter.

You were having dinner with your wife

Comey calls.

You drop everything and go.

The article quoted Comey as saying:

If a train were coming

down the track, and I quote, at least Bob Mueller will be standing
on the tracks with me.
You and James Comey have been good friends or were good
friends for many years, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

No, we were business associates.

We both

started off in the Justice Department about the same time.
Mr. Gohmert.

You were good friends.

You can work together

and not be friends, but you and Comey were friends.
Mr. Mueller.

We were friends.

Mr. Gohmert.

That is my question.

Thank you for getting to

the answer.
Now, before you were appointed as special counsel, had you
talked to James Comey in the preceding 6 months?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Gohmert.

When you were appointed as special counsel, was

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 59 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

58

President Trump's firing of Comey something you anticipated
investigating, potentially obstruction of justice?
Mr. Mueller.

I am not going to get into that, internal

deliberations at the Justice Department.
Mr. Gohmert.

Actually, it goes to your credibility, and

maybe you have been away from the courtroom for a while.
Credibility is always relevant.
goes for you too.

It is always material.

And that

You are a witness before us.

Let me ask you, when you talked to President Trump the day
before he appointed -- or you were appointed as special
counsel -- you were talking to him about the FBI Director position
again -- did he -Mr. Mueller.

That is not --

Mr. Gohmert.

-- mention the firing of James Comey --

Mr. Mueller.

-- not as a candidate.

Mr. Gohmert.

Did he mention the firing of James Comey in

I was asked --

your discussion with him?
Mr. Mueller.

I cannot remember.

Mr. Gohmert.

Pardon?

Mr. Mueller.

I cannot remember.

I don't believe so, but I

am not going to be specific.
Mr. Gohmert.

You don't remember.

But if he did, you could

have been a fact witness as to the President's comments and state
of mind on firing James Comey.
Mr. Mueller.

I suppose that is possible.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 60 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Gohmert.

Yeah.

59

So most prosecutors would want to make

sure there was no appearance of impropriety, but in your case, you
hired a bunch of people that did not like the President.
Let me ask you, when did you first learn of Peter Strzok's
animus toward Donald Trump?
Mr. Mueller.

In the summer of 2017.

Mr. Gohmert.

You didn't know before he was hired?

Mr. Mueller.

I am sorry?

Mr. Gohmert.

You didn't know before he was hired for your

Mr. Mueller.

Know what?

Mr. Gohmert.

Peter Strzok hated Trump.

Mr. Mueller.

Okay.

Mr. Gohmert.

You didn't know that before he was made part of

team?

your team.

Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Mueller.

No, I did not know that.

Mr. Gohmert.

All right.

Mr. Mueller.

And, actually, when I did find out, I acted

When did you first learn --

swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere in the FBI.
Mr. Gohmert.
that was.

Well, there is some discussion about how swift

But when did you learn of the ongoing affair he was

having with Lisa Page?
Mr. Mueller.

About the same time that I learned of Strzok.

Mr. Gohmert.

Did you ever order anybody to investigate the

deletion of all of their texts off of their government phones?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 61 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

Once we found that Peter Strzok was author

Mr. Gohmert.

Did you ever order --

Mr. Mueller.

May I finish?

Mr. Gohmert.

Well, you are not answering my question.

60

of --

Did

you order an investigation into the deletion and reformatting of
their government phones?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

There was an IG investigation ongoing.

Mr. Gohmert.

Listen.

Regarding collusion or conspiracy, you

didn't find evidence of any agreement -- I am quoting you -- among
the Trump campaign officials and any Russia-linked officials to
interfere with our U.S. election, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Gohmert.

So you also note in the report that an element

of any of those obstructions you referenced requires a corrupt
state of mind, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Corrupt intent, correct.

Mr. Gohmert.

Right.

And if somebody knows they did not

conspire with anybody from Russia to affect the election, and they
see the big Justice Department with people that hate that person
coming after them, and then a special counsel appointed who hires
a dozen or more people that hate that person, and he knows he is
innocent.
is done.

He is not corruptly acting in order to see that justice
What he is doing is not obstructing justice.

He is

pursuing justice, and the fact that you ran it out 2 years means

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 62 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

61

you perpetuated injustice.
Mr. Mueller.

I take your question.

Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman's time is expired.

The

witness may answer the question.
Mr. Mueller.

I take your question.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Deutch.

The gentleman from Florida.

Director Mueller, I would like to get back to

your findings covering June of 2017.

There was a bombshell

article that reported that the President of the United States was
personally under investigation for obstruction of justice.

And

you said in your report, on page 90, Volume II, and I quote:

News

of the obstruction investigation prompted the President to call
McGahn and seek to have the special counsel removed, close quote.
And then, in your report, you wrote about multiple calls from
the President to White House Counsel Don McGahn.
the second call, you wrote, and I quote:

And regarding

McGahn recalled that the

President was more direct, saying something like:

Call Rod, tell

Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be the special counsel.
McGahn recalled the President telling him:

Mueller has to go and

call me back when you do it.
Director Mueller, did McGahn understand what the President
was ordering him to do?
Mr. Mueller.

I direct you to the -- what we have written in

the report in terms of characterizing his feelings.
Mr. Deutch.

And in the report, it says, quote:

McGahn

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 63 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

62

understood the President to be saying that the special counsel had
to be removed.

You also say, on page 86, that, quote, McGahn

considered the President's request to be an inflection point, and
he wanted to hit the brakes, and he felt trapped, and McGahn
decided he had to resign.
McGahn took action to prepare to resign.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Deutch.

Isn't that correct?

I direct you again to the report.
And, in fact, that very day he went to the White

House, and quoting your report, you said, quote:

He then drove to

the office to pack his belongings and submit his resignation
letter, close quote.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Deutch.

That is directly from the report.
It is.

And before he resigned, however, he

called the President's chief of staff, Reince Priebus, and he
called the President's senior adviser, Steve Bannon.

Do you

recall what McGahn told them?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Deutch.

Whatever was said will appear in the report.
It is.

It is.

And it says on page 87, quote:

Priebus recalled that McGahn said that the President asked him to
do crazy expletive -- in other words, crazy stuff.

The White

House counsel thought that the President's request was completely
out of bounds.
crazy.

He said the President asked him to do something

It was wrong, and he was prepared to resign over it.

Now, these are extraordinarily troubling events, but you
found White House Counsel McGahn to be a credible witness.

Isn't

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 64 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

63

that correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Deutch.

Correct.
Director Mueller, the most important question I

have for you today is why?

Director Mueller, why did the

President of the United States want you fired?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Deutch.

I can't answer that question.
Well, on page 89 in your report on Volume II,

you said, and I quote:

Substantial evidence indicates that the

President's attempts to remove the special counsel were linked to
the special counsel's oversight of investigations that involved
the President's conduct and, most immediately, to reports that the
President was being investigated for potential obstruction of
justice, close quote.
Director Mueller, you found evidence, as you lay out in your
report, that the President wanted to fire you because you were
investigating him for obstruction of justice.
Mr. Mueller.

Isn't that correct?

That is what it says in the report, yes.

And I

go -- I stand behind the report.
Mr. Deutch.
America.

No President should be able to escape investigation by

abusing his power.
report.

Director Mueller, that shouldn't happen in

But that is what you testified to in your

The President ordered you fired.

knew it was wrong.

The White House counsel

The President knew it was wrong.

In your

report, it says there is also evidence the President knew he
should not have made those calls to McGahn.

But the President did

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 65 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

it anyway.

He did it anyway.

64

Anyone else who blatantly

interfered with a criminal investigation like yours would be
arrested and indicted on charges of obstruction of justice.
Director Mueller, you determined that you were barred from
indicting a sitting President.
today.

We have already talked about that

That is exactly why this committee must hold the President

accountable.
I yield back.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman yields back.

The gentlelady from Alabama.
Mrs. Roby.

Director Mueller, you just said, in response to

two different lines of questioning, that you would refer, as it
relates to this firing discussion, that I would refer you to the
report and the way it was characterized in the report.
Importantly, the President never said "fire Mueller" or "end
the investigation," and one doesn't necessitate the other.

And

McGahn, in fact, did not resign, he stuck around for a year and a
half.
On March 24th, Attorney General Barr informed the committee
that he had received the special counsel's report, and it was not
until April 18th that the Attorney General released the report to
Congress and the public.

When you submitted your report to the

Attorney General, did you deliver a redacted version of the report
so that he would be able to release it to Congress and the public
without delay, pursuant to his announcement of his intention to do

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 66 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

65

so during his confirmation hearing?
Mr. Mueller.

I am not going to engage in discussion about

what happened after the production of our report.
Mrs. Roby.

Had the Attorney General asked you to provide a

redacted version of the report?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

We worked on the redacted versions together.
Did he ask you for a version where the grand jury

material was separated?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

I am not going to get into details.
Is it your belief that an unredacted version of

the report could be released to Congress or the public?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

That is not within my purview.
In the Starr investigation of President Clinton,

it was the special prosecutor who went to court to receive
permission to unredact grand jury material, rule 6(e) material.
Why did you not take a similar action so Congress could view this
material?
Mr. Mueller.

We had a process that we were operating on with

the Attorney General's Office.
Mrs. Roby.

Are you aware of any Attorney General going to

court to receive similar permission to unredact 6(e) material?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

I am not aware of that being done.
The Attorney General released the special

counsel's report with minimal redactions to the public and an even
lesser redacted version to Congress.

Did you write the report

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 67 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

66

with the expectation that it would be released publicly?
Mr. Mueller.

No, we did not have an expectation.

We wrote

the report, understanding that it was demanded by the statute and
would go to the Attorney General for further review.
Mrs. Roby.

And pursuant to the special counsel regulations,

who is the only party that must receive the charging decision
resulting from the special counsel's investigation?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

With regard to the President or generally?
No, generally.

Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

Attorney General.
At Attorney General Barr's confirmation hearing,

he made it clear that he intended to release your report to the
public.

Do you remember how much of your report had been written

at that point?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

I do not.
Were there significant changes in tone or

substance of the report made after the announcement that the
report would be made available to Congress and the public?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

I can't get into that.
During the Senate testimony of Attorney General

William Barr, Senator Kamala Harris asked Mr. Barr if he had
looked at all the underlying evidence that the special counsel's
team had gathered.

He stated that he had not.

So I am going to ask you, did you personally review all of
the underlying evidence gathered in your investigation?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 68 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

67

Well, to the extent that it came through the

Special Counsel's Office, yes.
Mrs. Roby.

Did any single member of your team review all the

underlying evidence gathered during the course of your
investigation?
Mr. Mueller.

As has been recited here today, a substantial

amount of work was done, whether it be search warrants or -Mrs. Roby.

My point is there is no one member of the team

that looked at everything.
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

That is what I am trying to get at.
Okay.

It is fair to say that, in an

investigation as comprehensive as yours, it is normal that
different members of the team would have reviewed different sets
of documents and few, if anyone, would have reviewed all of the
underlying -Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

Thank you.

Yes.

How many of the approximately 500 interviews

conducted by the special counsel did you attend personally?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

Very few.
On March 27, 2019, you wrote a letter to the

Attorney General essentially complaining about the media coverage
of your report.

You wrote, and I quote:

The summary letter the

Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the
afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature,
and substance of this office's work and conclusions.

We

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 69 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

68

communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of
March 25th.

There is now public confusion about critical aspects

of the result of our investigation.
Who wrote that March 27th letter?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I can't get into who wrote it, the

internal deliberations.
Mrs. Roby.
Mr. Mueller.

But you signed it?
What I will say is the letter stands for

itself.
Mrs. Roby.

Okay.

Why did you write a formal letter since

you had already called the Attorney General to express those
concerns?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

I can't get into that, internal deliberations.
Did you authorize the letter's release to the

media, or was it leaked?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

I have no knowledge on either.
Well, you went nearly 2 years without a leak.

Why was this letter leaked?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Roby.

Well, I can't get into it.
Was this letter written and leaked for the

express purpose of attempting to change the narrative about the
conclusions of your report, and was anything in Attorney General
Barr's letter referred to as principal conclusions inaccurate?
Chairman Nadler.
Mrs. Roby.

The time of the gentlelady has expired.

May he answer the question, please?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 70 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

The question is?

Chairman Nadler.
Mrs. Roby.

69

Yes, you may answer the question.

Was anything in Attorney General Barr's letter

referred to as the principal conclusions letter dated March 24th
inaccurate?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I am not going to get into that.

Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentlelady has expired.

The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Bass.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Director Mueller, as you know, we are focusing on five
obstruction episodes today.

I would like to ask you about the

second of those five obstruction episodes.

It is in the section

of your report beginning on page 113 of Volume II entitled, quote,
"The President orders McGahn to deny that the President tried to
fire the special counsel," end quote.
On January 25th, 2018, The New York Times reported that,
quote:

The President had ordered McGahn to have the Department of

Justice fire you.
Is that correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

Correct.

And that story related to the events you already

testified about here today, the President's calls to McGahn to
have you removed, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

Correct.

After the news broke, did the President go on TV

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 71 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

70

and deny the story?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

I do not know.

In fact, the President said, quote:

Fake news,

folks, fake news, a typical New York Times fake story, end quote.
Correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

Correct.

But your investigation actually found substantial

evidence that McGahn was ordered by the President to fire you,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

Yes.

Did the President's personal lawyer do something

the following day in response to that news report?
Mr. Mueller.

I would refer you to the coverage of this in

the report.
Ms. Bass.

On page 114, quote:

On January 26, 2018, the

President's personal counsel called McGahn's attorney and said
that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying
that he had been asked to fire the special counsel, end quote.
Did McGahn do what the President asked?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

I refer you to the report.

Communicating through his personal attorney,

McGahn refused because he said, quote, that the Times story was
accurate in reporting that the President wanted the special
counsel removed.
Mr. Mueller.

Isn't that right?
I believe it is, but I refer you again to the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 72 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

71

report.
Ms. Bass.

Okay.

So Mr. McGahn, through his personal

attorney, told the President that he was not going to lie.

Is

that right?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

True.

Did the President drop the issue?

Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

I refer to the write-up of this in the report.

Okay.

Next, the President told the White House

staff secretary, Rob Porter, to try to pressure McGahn to make a
false denial.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

What did he actually direct Porter to do?

Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

That is correct.

And I send you back to the report.

Okay.

Well, on page 113, it says, quote:

The

President then directed Porter to tell McGahn to create a record
to make it clear that the President never directed McGahn to fire
you, end quote.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

That is as it is stated in the report.

And you found, quote, the President said he wanted

McGahn to write a letter to the file for our records, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

Correct.

And to be clear, the President is asking his White

House counsel, Don McGahn, to create a record that McGahn believed
to be untrue while you were in the midst of investigating the
President for obstruction of justice, correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 73 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

72

Generally correct.

And Mr. McGahn was an important witness in that

investigation, wasn't he?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

I would have to say yes.

Did the President tell Porter to threaten McGahn

if he didn't create the written denial?
Mr. Mueller.

I would refer you to the write-up of it in the

report.
Ms. Bass.

In fact, didn't the President say, quote, and this

is on page 116, "If he doesn't write a letter, then maybe I will
have to get rid of him," end quote?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

Yes.

Did Porter deliver that threat?

Mr. Mueller.

I again refer you to the discussion that is

found on page 115.
Ms. Bass.
he?

Okay.

But the President still didn't give up, did

So the President told McGahn directly to deny that the

President told him to have you fired.

Can you tell me exactly

what happened?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

I can't beyond what is in the report.

Well, on page 116, it says:

in the Oval Office.

Quote:

The President met him

The President began the Oval Office

meeting by telling McGahn that The New York Times story didn't
look good and McGahn needed to correct it.
Is that correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 74 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

73

As it is written in the report, yes.

The President asked McGahn whether he would do a

correction and McGahn said no, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Bass.

That is accurate.

Well, Mr. Mueller, thank you for your

investigation uncovering this very disturbing evidence.

My friend

Mr. Richmond will have additional questions on the subject.
However, it is clear to me if anyone else had ordered a witness to
create a false record and cover up acts that are the subject of a
law enforcement investigation, that person would be facing
criminal charges.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentlelady yields back.

The gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Jordan.

Director, the FBI interviewed Joseph Mifsud on

February 10, 2017.

In that interview, Mr. Mifsud lied.

this out on page 193, Volume I.
falsely stated.

Mifsud denied.

You point

Mifsud also

In addition, Mifsud omitted.

Three times he lied to the FBI, yet you didn't charge him
with a crime.

Why not?

Mr. Mueller.

Excuse me, did you say 1 -- I am sorry, did you

say 193?
Mr. Jordan.

Volume I, 193.

it out in the report.
Mr. Mueller.

He lied three times.

You point

Why didn't you charge him with a crime?

I can't get into internal deliberations with

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 75 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

74

regard to who would or would not be charged.
Mr. Jordan.
false statements.

You charged a lot of other people for making
Let's remember this, let's remember this:

In

2016, the FBI did something they probably haven't done before.
They spied on two American citizens associated with the
Presidential campaign:

George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.

With Carter Page, they went to the FISA court.

They used the

now famous dossier as part of the reason they were able to get the
warrant and spy on Carter Page for the better part of a year.
With Mr. Papadopoulos, they didn't go to the court.

They used

human sources, all kinds of -- from about the moment Papadopoulos
joins the Trump campaign, you got all these people all around the
world starting to swirl around him.

Names like Halper, Downer,

Mifsud, Thompson, meeting in Rome, London, all kinds of places.
The FBI even sent, even sent a lady posing as somebody else, went
by the name Azra Turk, even dispatched her to London to spy on
Mr. Papadopoulos.

In one of these meetings, Mr. Papadopoulos is

talking to a foreign diplomat, and he tells the diplomat Russians
have dirt on Clinton.

That diplomat then contacts the FBI, and

the FBI opens an investigation based on that fact.
You point this out on page 1 of the report.

July 31st, 2016,

they open the investigation based on that piece of information.
Diplomat tells Papadopoulos Russians have dirt -- excuse me,
Papadopoulos tells the diplomat Russians have dirt on Clinton.
The diplomat tells the FBI.

What I am wondering is who told

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 76 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Papadopoulos?

75

How did he find out?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jordan.

I can't get into the evidentiary -Yes, you can, because you wrote about it.

You

gave us the answer.

Page 192 of the report you tell us who told

him, Joseph Mifsud.

Joseph Mifsud is the guy who told Joseph

Papadopoulos, the mysterious professor who lives in Rome and
London, works and teaches at two different universities; this is
the guy who told Papadopoulos.

He is the guy who starts it all.

And when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times, and yet you
don't charge him with a crime.
You charge Rick Gates for false statements.
Manafort for false statements.
false statements.

You charge Paul

You charge Michael Cohen with

You charge Michael Flynn, a three-star general,

with false statements.

But the guy who puts the country through

this whole saga, starts it all -- for 3 years we have lived this
now -- he lies and you guys don't charge him.

And I am curious as

to why.
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I can't get into it.

And it is obvious I

think that we can't get into charging decisions.
Mr. Jordan.

When the FBI interviewed him in February -- the

FBI interviews him in February.

When the Special Counsel's Office

interviewed Mifsud, did he lie to you guys too?
Mr. Mueller.

I can't get into that.

Mr. Jordan.

Did you interview Mifsud?

Mr. Mueller.

I can't get into that.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 77 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Jordan.

76

Is Mifsud Western intelligence or Russian

intelligence?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jordan.
interesting:

I can't get into that.
A lot of things you can't get into.

What is

You can charge 13 Russians no one's ever heard of,

no one's ever seen.

No one's ever going to hear of them.

one's ever going to see them.

You can charge them.

No

You can

charge all kinds of people who are around the President with false
statements.

But the guy who launches everything, the guy who puts

this whole story in motion, you can't charge him.

I think that is

amazing.
Mr. Mueller.

I am not certain -- I am not certain I agree

with your characterization.
Mr. Jordan.
told Papadopoulos.
tells the FBI.

Well, I am reading from your report.
Papadopoulos tells the diplomat.

Mifsud

The diplomat

The FBI opens the investigation July 31st, 2016.

And here we are 3 years later, July of 2019.

The country's been

put through this, and the central figure who launches it all lies
to us, and you guys don't hunt him down and interview him again,
and you don't charge him with a crime.
Now, here is the good news.

Here is the good news.

President was falsely accused of conspiracy.
10-month investigation.

The FBI does a

And James Comey, when we deposed him a

year ago, told us at that point they had nothing.
22-month investigation.

The

You do a

At the end of that 22 months, you find no

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 78 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

conspiracy.

And what do the Democrats want to do?

keep investigating.

77

They want to

They want to keep going.

Maybe a better course of action, maybe a better course of
action is to figure out how the false accusations started.

Maybe

it is to go back and actually figure out why Joseph Mifsud was
lying to the FBI.
news.

And here is the good news.

Here is the good

That is exactly what Bill Barr is doing, and thank goodness

for that.

That is exactly what the Attorney General and John

Durham are doing.

They are going to find out why we went through

this 3-year -Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Jordan.

The time of the gentleman --

-- saga and get to the bottom of it.

Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

In a moment, we will take a very brief 5-minute break.
First, I ask everyone in the room to please remain seated and
quiet while the witness exits the room.

I also want to announce

to those in the audience that you may not be guaranteed your seat
if you leave the hearing room at this time.

At this time, the

committee will stand in a very short recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Nadler.

People, please take their seats before the

special counsel returns.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Richmond.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mueller, Congressman Deutch addressed Trump's request to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 79 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

McGahn to fire you.

78

Representative Bass talked about the

President's request of McGahn to deny the fact that the President
made that request.
I want to pick up where they left off, and I want to pick up
with the President's personal lawyer.

In fact, there was evidence

that the President's personal lawyer was alarmed at the prospect
of the President meeting with Mr. McGahn to discuss Mr. McGahn's
refusal to deny The New York Times report about the President
trying to fire you, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Richmond.

Correct.
In fact, the President's counsel was so

alarmed by the prospect of the President's meeting with McGahn
that he called Mr. McGahn's counsel and said that McGahn could not
resign no matter what happened in the Oval Office that day,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Richmond.

Correct.
So it is accurate to say that the President

knew that he was asking McGahn to deny facts that McGahn, quote,
had repeatedly said were accurate, unquote.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Richmond.

Isn't that right?

Correct.
Your investigation also found, quote:

By the

time of the Oval Office meeting with the President, the President
was aware, one, that McGahn did not think the story was false;
two, did not want to issue a statement or create a written record
denying facts that McGahn believed to be true.

The President

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 80 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

79

nevertheless persisted and asked McGahn to repudiate facts that
McGahn had repeatedly said were accurate.
Isn't that correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Richmond.

Generally true.
I believe that is on page 119.

Thank you.

In

other words, the President was trying to force McGahn to say
something that McGahn did not believe to be true.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Richmond.

That is accurate.
I want to reference you to a slide, and it is

on page 120, and it says:

Substantial evidence indicates that in

repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have
the special counsel terminated, the President acted for the
purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or
prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the
investigation.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Richmond.
Mr. Mueller.

That is accurate.
Can you explain what you meant there?
I am just going to leave it as it appears in

the report.
Mr. Richmond.

So it is fair to say the President tried to

protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an
ongoing investigation?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Richmond.

I would say that is generally a summary.
Would you say that that action, the President

tried to hamper the investigation by asking staff to falsify

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 81 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

80

records relevant to your investigation?
Mr. Mueller.

I am just going to refer you to the report, if

I could, for review of that episode.
Mr. Richmond.

Thank you.

Also, the President's attempts to

get McGahn to create a false written record were related to Mr.
Trump's concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Richmond.

I believe that to be true.
In fact, at that same Oval Office meeting, did

the President also ask McGahn why he had told -- quote, "why he
had told Special Counsel's Office investigators that the President
told him to have you removed," unquote?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Richmond.

And what was the question, sir, if I might?
Let me go to the next one.

The President,

quote, criticized McGahn for telling your office about the June
17, 2017, events when he told McGahn to have you removed, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Richmond.

Correct.
In other words, the President was criticizing

his White House counsel for telling law enforcement officials what
he believed to be the truth.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Richmond.

I again go back to the text of the report.
Well, let me go a little bit further.

Would

it have been a crime if Mr. McGahn had lied to you about the
President ordering him to fire you?
Mr. Mueller.

I don't want to speculate.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 82 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Richmond.

Okay.

81

Is it true that you charged multiple

people associated with the President for lying to you during your
investigation?
Mr. Mueller.

That is accurate.

Mr. Richmond.

The President also complained that his staff

were taking notes during the meeting about firing McGahn.

Is that

correct?
Mr. Mueller.

That is what the report says.

Yeah, the

report.
Mr. Richmond.

But, in fact, it is completely appropriate for

the President's staff, especially his counsels, to take notes
during a meeting, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I rely on the wording of the report.

Mr. Richmond.

Well, thank you, Director Mueller, for your

investigation into whether the President attempted to obstruct
justice by ordering his White House counsel, Don McGahn, to lie to
protect the President and then to create a false record about it.
It is clear that any other person who engaged in such conduct
would be charged with a crime.

We will continue our

investigation, and we will hold the President accountable because
no one is above the law.
Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Gaetz.

Director Mueller, can you state with confidence

that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia's disinformation

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 83 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

82

campaign?
Mr. Mueller.

As I said in my opening statement, that part of

the building of the case predated me and by at least 10 months.
Mr. Gaetz.

Paul Manafort's alleged crimes regarding tax

evasion predated you.

You had no problem charging them.

As a

matter of fact, this Steele dossier predated the Attorney General,
and he didn't have any problem answering the question.

When

Senator Cornyn asked the Attorney General the exact question I
asked you, Director, the Attorney General said, and I am quoting:
No, I can't state that with confidence.
areas I am reviewing.

And that is one of the

I am concerned about it, and I don't think

it is entirely speculative.
Now, if something is not entirely speculative, then it must
have some factual basis, but you identify no factual basis
regarding the dossier or the possibility that it was part of the
Russia disinformation campaign.
Now, Christopher Steele's reporting is referenced in your
report.

Steele reported to the FBI that senior Russian Foreign

Ministry figures, along with other Russians, told him that there
was -- and I am quoting from the Steele dossier -- extensive
evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign team and the
Kremlin.
So here is my question:

Did Russians really tell that to

Christopher Steele, or did he just make it all up, and was he
lying to the FBI?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 84 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

83

Let me back up a second, if I could, and say,

as I said earlier with regard to Steele, that that is beyond my
purview.
Mr. Gaetz.
and here is why:

No, it is exactly your purview, Director Mueller,
Only one of two things is possible, right?

Either Steele made this whole thing up and there were never any
Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you
didn't find, or Russians lied to Steele.

Now, if Russians were

lying to Steele to undermine our confidence in our duly elected
President, that would seem to be precisely your purview because
you stated in your opening that the organizing principle was to
fully and thoroughly investigate Russia's interference.

But you

weren't interested in whether or not the Russians were interfering
through Christopher Steele.

And if Steele was lying, then you

should have charged him with lying, like you charged a variety of
other people.

But you say nothing about this in your report.

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Gaetz.
other topics.

Well, sir -Meanwhile, Director, you are quite loquacious on

You write 3,500 words about the June 9 meeting

between the Trump campaign and Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya.

You

write on page 103 of your report that the President's legal team
suggested -- and I am quoting from your report -- that the meeting
might have been a setup by individuals working with the firm that
produced the Steele reporting.
So I am going to ask you a very easy question, Director

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 85 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mueller.

84

On the week of June 9, who did Russian lawyer

Veselnitskaya meet with more frequently, the Trump campaign or
Glenn Simpson, who was functionally acting as an operative for the
Democratic National Committee?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, what I think is missing here is the fact

that this is under investigation elsewhere in the Justice
Department -Mr. Gaetz.

I --

Mr. Mueller.

-- and if I can finish, sir, and if I can

finish, sir -- and consequently, it is not within my purview.

The

Department of Justice and FBI should be responsive to questions on
this particular issue.
Mr. Gaetz.

It is absurd to suggest that an operative for the

Democrats was meeting with this Russian lawyer the day before and
the day after the Trump Tower meeting, and yet that is not
something you reference.
Now, Glenn Simpson testified under oath he had dinner with
Veselnitskaya the day before and the day after this meeting with
the Trump team.

Do you have any basis, as you sit here today, to

believe that Steele was lying?
Mr. Mueller.
not my purview.
Mr. Gaetz.

As I said before and I will say again, it is

Others are investigating what you address.
So it is not your purview to look into whether or

not Steele is lying.

It is not your purview to look into whether

or not anti-Trump Russians are lying to Steele.

And it is not

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 86 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

85

your purview to look at whether or not Glenn Simpson was meeting
with the Russians the day before and the day after you write 3,500
words about the Trump campaign meeting.
So I am wondering how these decisions are guided.
the inspector general's report.
inspector general's report.

I am citing from page 404 of the

It states:

ever going to be President, right?
he is not.

I look at

Page stated:

Right.

Trump's not

Strzok replied:

No,

We will stop it.

Also in the inspector general's report, there is someone
identified as attorney No. 2.

Attorney No. 2 -- this is page

419 -- replied, "Hell no," and then added, "Viva la resistance."
Attorney No. 2 in the inspector general's report and Strzok
both worked on your team, didn't they?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Mueller.

Pardon me, can you -They both worked on your team, didn't they?
I know -- I heard Strzok.

Who else were you

talking about?
Mr. Gaetz.

Attorney No. 2 identified in the inspector

general's report.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Gaetz.

And the question was?
Did he work for you?

The guy who said, "Viva la

resistance."
Mr. Mueller.

Peter Strzok worked for me for a period of

time, yes.
Mr. Gaetz.

Yeah, but so did the other guy that said, "Viva

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 87 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

la resistance."
Mueller:

86

And here is what I am kind of noticing, Director

When people associated with Trump lied, you throw the

book at them.

When Christopher Steele lied, nothing.

And so it

seems to be that when Glenn Simpson met with Russians, nothing.
When the Trump campaign met with Russians, 3,500 words.

And maybe

the reason why there are these discrepancies in what you focused
on is because the team was so biased -Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Gaetz.

The time of the --

-- pledged to the resistance, pledged to stop

Trump.
Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. Jeffries of New York is recognized.
Mr. Jeffries.

Mr. Mueller, obstruction of justice is a

serious crime that strikes at the core of an investigator's effort
to find the truth, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

Correct.
The crime of obstruction of justice has three

elements, true?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

True.
The first element is an obstructive act,

correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

Correct.
An obstructive act could include taking an

action that would delay or interfere with an ongoing
investigation, as set forth in Volume II, page 87 and 88 of your

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 88 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

87

report, true?
Mr. Mueller.

I am sorry.

Could you again repeat the

question?
Mr. Jeffries.

An obstructive act could include taking an

action that would delay or interfere with an ongoing
investigation.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

That is true.
Your investigation found evidence that

President Trump took steps to terminate the special counsel,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

Correct.
Mr. Mueller, does ordering the termination of

the head of a criminal investigation constitute an obstructive
act?
Mr. Mueller.

That would be -- I would refer you to the

report on that.
Mr. Jeffries.

Let me refer you to page 87 and 88 of Volume

II, where you conclude:

The attempt to remove the special counsel

would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct
the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow
from the inquiry, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

Yes.

I have got that now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The second element of obstruction

of justice is the presence of an obstructive act in connection
with an official proceeding, true?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 89 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

88

True.
Does the special counsel's criminal

investigation into the potential wrongdoing of Donald Trump
constitute an official proceeding?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.
2017, quote:

And that is an area which I cannot get into.
Okay.

President Trump tweeted on June 16,

I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director

by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director.

Witch hunt.

The June 16th tweet just read -- was cited on page 89 in
Volume II -- constitutes a public acknowledgement by President
Trump that he was under criminal investigation, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

I think generally correct.
One day later, on Saturday, June 17th,

President Trump called White House Counsel Don McGahn at home and
directed him to fire the special counsel, true?
Mr. Mueller.

I believe it to be true.

I think we have

been -- I may have stated in response to questions some -Mr. Jeffries.

That is correct.

President Trump told Don

McGahn, quote, Mueller has to go, close quote.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

Correct?

Correct.
Your report found, on page 89, Volume II, that

substantial evidence indicates that, by June 17th, the President
knew his conduct was under investigation by a Federal prosecutor
who could present any evidence of Federal crimes to a grand jury,
true?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 90 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

89

True.

Mr. Jeffries.

The third element -- the second element having

just been satisfied, the third element of the crime of obstruction
of justice is corrupt intent, true?
Mr. Mueller.

True.

Mr. Jeffries.

Corrupt intent exists if the President acted

to obstruct an official proceeding for the improper purpose of
protecting his own interests, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

That is generally correct.

Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Mueller.

Thank you.
The only thing I would say is we're going

through the three elements of the proof of the obstruction of
justice charges when the fact of the matter is we got -- excuse
me, just one second.
Mr. Jeffries.
interest of time.

Thank you.

Mr. Mueller, let me move on in the

Upon learning about the appointment of the

special counsel, your investigation found that Donald Trump stated
to the then Attorney General, quote:
This is the end of my Presidency.

Oh my God, this is terrible.

I am F'd.

Is that correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

Correct.
Is it fair to say that Donald Trump viewed the

special counsel's investigation into his conduct as adverse to his
own interests?
Mr. Mueller.

I think that generally is true.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 91 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Jeffries.

90

The investigation found evidence, quote, that

the President knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to
fire the special counsel.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

Correct?

And where do you have that quote?
Page 90, Volume II:

There is evidence that

the President knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn,
close quote.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

I see that.

Yes, that is accurate.

The investigation also found substantial

evidence that President Trump repeatedly urged McGahn to dispute
that he was ordered to have the special counsel terminated,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Jeffries.

Correct.
The investigation found substantial evidence

that, when the President ordered Don McGahn to fire the special
counsel and then lie about it, Donald Trump, one, committed an
obstructive act; two, connected to an official proceeding; three,
did so with corrupt intent.
Those are the elements of obstruction of justice.
the United States of America.

This is

No one is above the law, no one.

The President must be held accountable one way or the other.
Mr. Mueller.

Let me just say, if I might, I don't subscribe

necessarily to your -- the way you analyze that.

I am not saying

it is out of the ballpark, but I am not supportive of that
analytical charge.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 92 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Jeffries.

Thank you.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Buck.

91

The gentleman from Colorado.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mueller, over here.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Buck.
service.

Hi.

Hi.

I want to start by thanking you for your

You joined the Marines and led a rifle platoon in

Vietnam, where you earned a bronze star, purple heart, and other
commendations.

You served as an assistant United States attorney

leading the homicide unit here in D.C., U.S. attorney for the
District of Massachusetts and later Northern District of
California, Assistant Attorney General for DOJ's Criminal
Division, and the FBI Director.

So thank you, I appreciate that.

But having reviewed your biography, it puzzles me why you
handled your duties in this case the way you did.

The report

contradicts what you taught young attorneys at the Department of
Justice, including to ensure that every defendant is treated
fairly, or, as Justice Sutherland said in the Berger case, a
prosecutor is not the representative of an ordinary party to a
controversy but of a sovereignty whose interest in a criminal
prosecution is not that it shall win a case but that justice shall
be done and that the prosecutor may strike hard blows, but he is
not at liberty to strike foul ones.
By listing the 10 factual situations and not reaching a
conclusion about the merits of the case, you unfairly shifted the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 93 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

92

burden of proof to the President, forcing him to prove his
innocence while denying him a legal forum to do so.

And I have

never heard of a prosecutor declining a case and then holding a
press conference to talk about the defendant.

You noted eight

times in your report that you had a legal duty under the
regulations to either prosecute or decline charges.

Despite this,

you disregarded that duty.
As a former prosecutor, I am also troubled with your legal
analysis.

You discussed 10 separate factual patterns involving

alleged obstruction, and then you failed to separately apply the
elements of the applicable statutes.
I looked at the 10 factual situations, and I read the case
law.

And I have to tell you, just looking at the Flynn matter,

for example, the four statutes that you cited for possible
obstruction, 1503, 1505, 1512(b)(3), and 1512(c)(2), when I look
at those concerning the Flynn matter, 1503 is inapplicable because
there wasn't a grand jury or trial jury impaneled, and Director
Comey was not an officer of the court as defined by the statute.
Section 1505 criminalizes acts that would obstruct or impede
administrative proceedings as those before Congress or an
administrative agency.

The Department of Justice criminal

resource manual states that the FBI investigation is not a pending
proceeding.
1512(b)(3) talks about intimidation, threats of force to
tamper with a witness.

General Flynn at the time was not a

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 94 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

93

witness, and certainly Director Comey was not a witness.
And 1512(c)(2) talks about tampering with a record.

And as

Joe Biden described the statute as it was being debated on the
Senate floor, he called this a statute criminalizing document
shredding, and there is nothing in your report that alleges that
the President destroyed any evidence.
So what I have to ask you and what I think people are working
around in this hearing is -- let me lay a little foundation for
it.

The ethical rules require that a prosecutor have a reasonable

probability of conviction to bring a charge.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Buck.

Is that correct?

It sounds generally accurate.

And the regulations concerning your job as special

counsel state that your job is to provide the Attorney General
with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or
declination decisions reached by your office.
You recommended declining prosecution of President Trump and
anyone associated with his campaign because there was insufficient
evidence to convict for a charge of conspiracy with Russian
interference in the 2016 election.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Buck.

Is that fair?

That is fair.

Was there sufficient evidence to convict President

Trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Buck.

We did not make that calculation.

How could you not have made the calculation with

the regulation --

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 95 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

94

As the OLC opinion, the OLC opinion, Office of

Legal Counsel, indicates that we cannot indict a sitting
President.

So one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not

there.
Mr. Buck.

Okay.

But let me just stop.

decision on the Russian interference.

You made the

You couldn't have indicted

the President on that, and you made the decision on that, but when
it came to obstruction, you threw a bunch of stuff up against the
wall to see what would stick, and that is really unfair.
Mr. Mueller.
all.

I would not agree to that characterization at

What we did is provide to the Attorney General, in the form

of a confidential memorandum, our understanding of the case, those
cases that were brought, those cases that were declined, and that
one case where the President cannot be charged with a crime.
Mr. Buck.

Okay.

Could you charge the President with a crime

after he left office?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Buck.

Yes.

You believe that he committed -- you could charge

the President of the United States with obstruction of justice
after he left office?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Buck.

Yes.

Ethically, under the ethical standards?

Mr. Mueller.

Well, I am not certain because I haven't looked

at the ethical standards, but the OLC opinion says that the
prosecutor, while he cannot bring a charge against a sitting

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 96 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

95

President, nonetheless, he can continue the investigation to see
if there are any other persons who might be drawn into the
conspiracy.
Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline.

Director, as you know, we are specifically

focusing on five separate obstruction episodes here today.
would like to ask you about the third episode.

I

It is the section

of your report entitled "The President's efforts to curtail the
special counsel investigation," beginning at page 90.

And by

"curtail," you mean limit, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Cicilline.

My colleagues have walked through how the

President tried to have you fired through the White House counsel,
and because Mr. McGahn refused the order, the President asked
others to help limit your investigation.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Mr. Cicilline.

And was Corey Lewandowski one such

individual?
Mr. Mueller.

Again, can you remind me what --

Mr. Cicilline.

Well, Corey Lewandowski is the President's

former campaign manager, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Cicilline.
Trump administration?

Did he have any official position with the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 97 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

96

Mr. Cicilline.

I don't believe so.
Your report describes an incident in the Oval

Office involving Mr. Lewandowski on June 19, 2017, at Volume II,
page 91.

Is that correct.

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cicilline.

I am sorry.

What is the citation, sir?

Mr. Mueller.

Page 91.

Mr. Cicilline.

Of the second volume?

Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Cicilline.

And where?
A meeting in the Oval Office between

Mr. Lewandowski and the President.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cicilline.

Okay.
And that was just 2 days after the President

called Don McGahn at home and ordered him to fire you.

Is that

correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cicilline.

Apparently so.
So, right after his White House counsel,

Mr. McGahn, refused to follow the President's order to fire you,
the President came up with a new plan, and that was to go around
to all of his senior advisers and government aides to have a
private citizen try to limit your investigation.
What did the President tell Mr. Lewandowski to do?

Do you

recall he told him -- he dictated a message to Mr. Lewandowski for
Attorney General Sessions and asked him to write it down.
correct?

Is that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 98 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

97

True.

Mr. Cicilline.

And did you and your team see this

handwritten message?
Mr. Mueller.

I am not going to get into what we may or may

not have included in our investigation.
Mr. Cicilline.

Okay.

The message directed Sessions to

give -- and I am quoting from your report -- to give a public
speech saying that he planned to meet with the special prosecutor
to explain this is very unfair and let the special prosecutor move
forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.
That is at page 91.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that correct?

Mr. Cicilline.

Yes, I see that.

Thank you.

Yes, it is.

In other words, Mr. Lewandowski, a private

citizen, was instructed by the President of the United States to
deliver a message from the President to the Attorney General that
directed him to limit your investigation, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cicilline.

Correct.
And at this time, Mr. Sessions was still

recused from oversight of your investigation, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cicilline.

I am sorry.

Could you restate that?

The Attorney General was recused from

oversight.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cicilline.

Yes, yes.
So the Attorney General would have had to

violate his own Department's rules in order to comply with the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 99 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

98

President's order, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
details.

Well, I am not going to get into the subsidiary

I just refer you again to page 91, 92 of the report.

Mr. Cicilline.

And if the Attorney General had followed

through with the President's request, Mr. Mueller, it would have
effectively ended your investigation into the President and his
campaign, as you note on page 97, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Could you --

Mr. Cicilline.

At page 97, you write, and I quote:

Taken

together, the President's directives indicate that Sessions was
being instructed to tell the special counsel to end the existing
investigation into the President and his campaign, with the
special counsel being permitted to move forward with investigating
election meddling for future elections.
Mr. Mueller.

Generally true, yes, sir.

Mr. Cicilline.

And an unsuccessful attempt to obstruct

justice is still a crime.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Mr. Cicilline.
Attorney General.

Is that correct?

And Mr. Lewandowski tried to meet with the

Is that right?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cicilline.

True.
And he tried to meet with him in his office

so he would be certain there wasn't a public log of the visit.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cicilline.

According to what we gathered for the report.
And the meeting never happened and the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 100 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

President raised the issue again with Mr. Lewandowski.

99

And this

time, he said, and I quote, if Sessions does not meet with you,
Lewandowski should tell Sessions he was fired, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cicilline.

Correct.
So immediately following the meeting with the

President, Lewandowski then asked Mr. Dearborn to deliver the
message, who is the former chief of staff to Mr. Sessions.

And

Mr. Dearborn refuses to deliver it because he doesn't feel
comfortable.

Isn't that correct?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cicilline.

Generally correct, yes.
So, just so we are clear, Mr. Mueller, 2 days

after the White House Counsel Don McGahn refused to carry out the
President's order to fire you, the President directed a private
citizen to tell the Attorney General of the United States, who was
recused at the time, to limit your investigation to future
elections, effectively ending your investigation into the 2016
Trump campaign.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

I am not going to adopt your characterization.

I will say that the facts as laid out in the report are accurate.
Mr. Cicilline.

Well, Mr. Mueller, in your report you, in

fact, write at page 99 -- 97:

Substantial evidence indicates that

the President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the
special counsel's investigation to future election interference
was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the
President and his campaign conduct.

Is that correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 101 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

100

Generally.

Mr. Cicilline.

And so, Mr. Mueller, you have seen a letter

where a thousand former Republican and Democratic Federal
prosecutors have read your report and said, anyone but the
President who committed those acts would be charged with
obstruction of justice.

Do you agree with those former

colleagues, a thousand prosecutors who came to that conclusion?
Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mueller, you guys, your team wrote in the report,
quote -- this is at the top of page 2, Volume I, also on page 173,
by the way.
quote:

You said that you had come to the conclusion that,

The investigation did not establish that members of the

Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
Government in its election interference activities, close quote.
That is an accurate statement, right?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.

That is accurate.
And I am curious, when did you personally come to

that conclusion?
Mr. Mueller.

Can you remind me which paragraph you are

referring to?
Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.

Top of page 2.
On two.
Volume I.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 102 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

Okay.

101

And exactly which paragraph are you

looking at on 2?
Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Mueller.

The investigation did not establish -Of course.

I see it, yes.

What was your

question?
Mr. Biggs.

My question now is, when did you personally reach

that conclusion?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.

Well, we were ongoing for 2 years.
Right, you were ongoing, and you wrote it at some

point during that 2-year period, but at some point, you had to
come to a conclusion that I don't think there -- that there is not
a conspiracy going on here.
President.
team.

There was no conspiracy between this

I am not talking about the rest of the President's

I am talking about this President and the Russians.
Mr. Mueller.

As you understand, in developing a criminal

case, you get pieces of information, pieces of information,
witnesses, and the like as you make your case.
Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Mueller.

Right.
And when you make a decision on a particular

case depends on a number of factors.
Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Mueller.

Right, I understand.
So I cannot say specifically that we reached a

decision on a particular defendant at a particular point in time.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 103 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

102

RPTR MERTENS
EDTR ZAMORA
[10:44 a.m.]
Mr. Biggs.
report.

But it was sometime well before you wrote the

Fair enough?

whole myriad of issues.

I mean, you wrote the report dealing with a
Certainly, at some time prior to that

report is when you reached the decision that, okay, with regard to
the President himself, I don't find anything here.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.

Fair enough?

Well, I'm not certain I do agree with that.
So you waited till the last minute when you were

actually writing the report and say, oh, okay -Mr. Mueller.

No.

But there were various aspects of the

development and -Mr. Biggs.

Sure.

And that's my point.

There are various

aspects that happen, but somewhere along the pike, you come to a
conclusion there's nothing -- there's no there there for this
defendant.

Isn't that right?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Zebley.
Mr. Biggs.

I can't -- I can't speak to that.
You can't say when.

Fair enough.

Mr. Biggs -So -- no, I'm not -- no.

I'm asking the sworn

witness.
Mr. Mueller, the evidence suggests that on May 10, 2017, at
approximately 7:45 a.m., 6 days before the DAG, the Deputy

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 104 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

103

Attorney General, appointed you special counsel, Mr. Rosenstein
called you and mentioned the appointment of the special counsel.
Not necessarily that you'd be appointed, but that you had a
discussion to that.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that true?

May 10, 2017.

I don't have any -- no, I don't have any

knowledge of that occurring.
Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Mueller.

You don't have any knowledge or you don't recall?
I don't have any knowledge.
The evidence also suggests -Given that what I saw you do, are you

questioning that?
Mr. Biggs.

Well, I just find it intriguing.

Let me just

tell you that there's evidence that suggests that that phone call
took place and that that is what was said.
So let's move to the next question.

The evidence suggests

that also on May 12, 2017, 5 days before the DAG appointed you
special counsel, you met with Mr. Rosenstein in person.

Did you

discuss the appointment of the special counsel then, not
necessarily you, but that there would be a special counsel?
Mr. Mueller.

I've gone into waters that don't allow me to

give you an answer to that particular question.

It relates to the

internal discussions he would have in terms of indicting an
individual.
Mr. Biggs.

This has nothing to do with the indictment.

It

has to do with special counsel and whether you discussed that with

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 105 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

104

Mr. Rosenstein.
The evidence also suggests that on May 13, 4 days before you
were appointed special counsel, you met with attorney -- former
Attorney General Sessions and Rosenstein, and you spoke about
special counsel.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.

Do you remember that?
Not offhand, no.
Okay.

And on May 16, the day before you were

appointed special counsel, you met with the President and Rod
Rosenstein.

Do you remember having that meeting?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.
took place.

Yes.
And discussion of the position of FBI Director

Do you remember that?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.

Yes.
And did you discuss at any time in that meeting

Mr. Comey's termination?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.

No.
Did you discuss at any time in that meeting the

potential appointment of a special counsel, not necessarily you,
but just in general terms?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.

I can't get into the discussions on that.
How many times did you speak to Mr. Rosenstein

before May 17, which is the day you got appointed, regarding the
appointment of special counsel?

How many times prior to that did

you discuss that?
Mr. Mueller.

I can't tell you how many times.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 106 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Biggs.

Is that because you don't recall or you just --

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.

105

I do not recall.
Okay.

Thank you.

How many times did you speak with Mr. Comey about any
investigations pertaining to Russia prior to May 17, 2017?

Did

you have any?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.

None at all.
Zero.

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Biggs.

Zero.
Okay.

Chairman Nadler.

My time has expired, so -The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from California.
Mr. Swalwell.

Director Mueller, going back to the

President's obstruction via Corey Lewandowski, it was referenced
that a thousand former prosecutors who served under Republican and
Democratic administrations with 12,000 years of Federal service
wrote a letter regarding the President's conduct.

Are you

familiar with that letter?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

I've read about that letter, yes.
And some of the individuals who signed that

letter, the statement of former prosecutors, are people you worked
with.

Is that right?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Mueller.

Quite probably, yes.
People that you respect?
Quite probably, yes.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 107 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Swalwell.

106

And in that letter, they said all of this

conduct trying to control and impede the investigation against the
President by leveraging his authority over others is similar to
conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and
people in powerful positions.
Are they wrong?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

They had a different case.
Do you want to sign that letter, Director

Mueller?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

They had a different case.
Director Mueller, thank you for your service

going all the way back to the sixties when you courageously served
in Vietnam.

Because I have a seat on the Intelligence Committee,

I will have questions later.

And because of our limited time, I

will ask to enter this letter into the record under unanimous
consent.
Chairman Nadler.

Without objection.

[The information follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 108 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Swalwell.

107

And I yield to my colleague from California,

Mr. Lieu.
Mr. Lieu.

Thank you, Director Mueller, for your long history

of service to our country, including your service as a Marine
where you earned a Bronze Star with a V device.
I'd like to now turn to the elements of obstruction of
justice as applied to the President's attempts to curtail your
investigation.
The first element of obstruction of justice requires an
obstructive act, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Lieu.

Correct.

Okay.

II of your report.

I'd like to direct you to page 97 of Volume

And you wrote there on page 97, quote,

Sessions was being instructed to tell the special counsel to end
the existing investigation into the President and his campaign,
unquote.

That's in the report, correct?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Lieu.

Correct.

That would be evidence of an obstructive act

because it would naturally obstruct the investigation, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Lieu.

Correct.

Okay.

Let's turn now to the second element of the

crime of obstruction of justice which requires a nexus to an
official proceeding.

Again, I'm going to direct you to page 97,

the same page in Volume II, and you wrote, quote, by the time the
President's initial one-on-one meeting with Lewandowski on June

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 109 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

108

19, 2017, the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised
by the special counsel was public knowledge.
That's in the report, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Lieu.

Correct.

That would constitute evidence of a nexus to an

official proceeding because a grand jury investigation is an
official proceeding, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Lieu.

Yes.

Okay.

I'd like to now turn to the final element

of the crime of obstruction of justice.

On that same page,

page 97, do you see where there is an intent section on that page?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Lieu.

I do see that.

All right.

Would you be willing to read the first

sentence?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Lieu.

Substantial evidence.

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Lieu.

And that was starting with?

Indicates that the President's?

If you could read that first sentence.

Would you

be willing to do that?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Lieu.

I'm happy to have you read it.

Okay.

I will read it then.

You wrote, quote, substantial evidence indicates that the
President's effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the special
counsel's investigation to future election interference was
intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 110 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

109

President's and his campaign's conduct, unquote.
That's in the report, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

That is in the report.

And I rely what's in

the report to indicate what's happening in the paragraphs that
we've been discussing.
Mr. Lieu.

Thank you.

So to recap what we've heard, we have heard today that the
President ordered former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire
you.

The President ordered Don McGahn to then cover that up and

create a false paper trail.

And now we've heard the President

ordered Corey Lewandowski to tell Jeff Sessions to limit your
investigation so that he, you, stop investigating the President.
I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could
conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of
justice have been met.

And I would like to ask you, the reason,

again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC
opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting President,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Lieu.

That is correct.

The fact that the orders by the President were not

carried out, that is not a defense to obstruction of justice
because the statute itself is quite broad.

It says that as long

as you endeavor or attempt to obstruct justice, that would also
constitute a crime.
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to get into that at this

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 111 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

110

juncture.
Mr. Lieu.

Okay.

Thank you.

And based on the evidence that we have heard today, I believe
a reasonable person could conclude that at least three crimes of
obstruction of justice by the President occurred.

We're going to

hear about two additional crimes, and that will be the witness
tamperings of Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort.
I yield back.
Mr. Mueller.

The only thing I want to add is that on going

through the elements with you do not mean -- or does not mean that
I subscribe to what you're trying to prove through those elements.
Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentlelady from Arizona.
I'm sorry.

The gentleman from California.

Mr. McClintock.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mueller, over here.

Thanks for joining us today.

You

had three discussions with Rod Rosenstein about your appointment
as special counsel:
Mr. Mueller.

May 10, May 12, and May 13, correct?
If you say so.

I have no reason to dispute

that.
Mr. McClintock.

Then you met with the President on the 16th

with Rod Rosenstein present.

And then on the 17th, you were

formally appointed as special counsel.

Were you meeting with the

President on the 16th with knowledge that you were under
consideration for appointment to special counsel?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 112 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.
counsel.

111

I did not believe I was under consideration for

I had served two terms as FBI Director --

Mr. McClintock.
Mr. Mueller.

The answer is no.

Mr. McClintock.
team of partisans.

The answer is no.

Greg Jarrett describes your office as the

And as additional information is coming to

light, there's a growing concern that political bias caused
important facts to be omitted from your report in order to cast
the President unfairly in a negative light.

For example, John

Dowd, the President's lawyer, leaves an message with Michael
Flynn's lawyer on November 17 of -- November of 2017.

The edited

version in your report makes it appear that he was improperly
asking for confidential information, and that's all we know from
your report, except that the judge in the Flynn case ordered the
entire transcript released in which Dowd makes it crystal clear
that's not what he was suggesting.
So my question is, why did you edit the transcript to hide
the exculpatory part of the message?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I'm not sure I would agree with your

characterization that we did anything to hide.
Mr. McClintock.

Well, you omitted it.

You quoted the part

where he says we need some kind of heads-up just for the sake of
protecting all of our interests, if we can, but you omitted the
portion where he says without giving up any confidential
information.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 113 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

112

Well, I'm not going to go further in terms of

discussing the -Mr. McClintock.

Let's go on.

You extensively discussed

Konstantin Kilimnik's activities with Paul Manafort.

And you

describe him as, quote, a Russian-Ukrainian political consultant
and long-time employee of Paul Manafort assessed by the FBI to
have ties to Russian intelligence.

And, again, that's all we know

from your report, except we've since learned from news articles
that Kilimnik was actually a U.S. State Department intelligence
source, yet nowhere in your report is he so identified.

Why was

that fact omitted?
Mr. Mueller.

I don't necessarily credit what you're saying

occurred.
Mr. McClintock.

Were you aware that Kilimnik was a U.S.

State Department source?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to go into the ins and

outs -- I'm not going to go into the ins and outs of what we had
in the course of our investigation.
Mr. McClintock.
Mr. Mueller.

Pardon?

Mr. McClintock.
Mr. Mueller.

Did you interview Konstantin Kilimnik?

Did you interview Konstantin Kilimnik?

I can't go into the discussion of our

investigative moves.
Mr. McClintock.

And yet that is the basis of your report.

Again, the problem we're having is we have to rely on your report

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 114 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

113

for an accurate reflection of the evidence, and we're starting to
find out that's not true.
For example, your report famously links Russian internet
troll farms with the Russian Government.

Yet at a hearing on May

28 in the Concord Management IRA prosecution that you initiated,
the judge excoriated both you and Mr. Barr for producing no
evidence to support this claim.

Why did you suggest Russia was

responsible for the troll farms, when in court you've been unable
to produce any evidence to support it?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I'm not going to get into that any

further than I already have.
Mr. McClintock.

But you have left the clear impression

throughout the country through your report that it was the Russian
Government behind the troll farms, and yet when you're called upon
to provide actual evidence in court, you fail to do so.
Mr. Mueller.

Well, again, I dispute your characterization of

what occurred in that proceeding.
Mr. McClintock.

In fact, the judge considered holding the

prosecutors in criminal contempt.

She backed off only after your

hastily called press conference the next day in which you
retroactively made the distinction between the Russian Government
and the Russia troll farms.

Did your press conference of May 29

have anything to do with the threat to hold your prosecutors in
contempt the previous day for publicly misrepresenting the
evidence?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 115 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

114

What was the question?

Mr. McClintock.

The question is, did your May 29 press

conference have anything to do with the fact that the previous
day, the judge threatened to hold your prosecutors in contempt for
misrepresenting evidence?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. McClintock.

Now, the fundamental problem is, as I said,

we've got to take your word.

Your team faithfully, accurately,

impartially, and completely described all of the underlying
evidence in the Mueller report, and we're finding more and more
instances where this just isn't the case.

And it's starting to

look like, you know, having desperately tried and failed to make a
legal case against the President, you made a political case
instead.

You put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire, dropped it

on our porch, rang the doorbell and ran.
Mr. Mueller.

I don't think you reviewed a report that is as

thorough, as fair, as consistent as the report that we have in
front of us.
Mr. McClintock.

Then why is contradictory information --

Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Raskin.

Director Mueller, let's go to a fourth episode

of obstruction of justice in the form of witness tampering, which
is urging witnesses not to cooperate with law enforcement, either
by persuading them or intimidating them.

Witness tampering is a

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 116 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

felony punishable by 20 years in prison.

115

You found evidence that

the President engaged in efforts, and I quote, to encourage
witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Raskin.

That's correct.

Is that right?

Have you got a citation?

I'm at page 7 on Volume II.
Thank you.
Now, one of these witnesses was Michael Cohen,

the President's personal lawyer, who ultimately pled guilty to
campaign violations based on secret hush money payments to women
the President knew and also to lying to Congress about the hope
for a $1 billion Trump Tower deal.
After the FBI searched Cohen's home, the President called him
up personally, he said, to check in, and told him to, quote, hang
in there and stay strong.

Is that right?

Do you remember finding

that?
Mr. Mueller.

If it's in the report as stated, yes, it is

right.
Mr. Raskin.

Yes.

Also in the report, actually, are a series

of calls made by other friends of the President.

One reached out

to say he was with the boss at Mar-a-Lago, and the President said
he loves you.

His name is redacted.

called to say, the boss loves you.

Another redacted friend

And the third redacted friend

called to say, everyone knows the boss has your back.
Do you remember finding that sequence of calls?
Mr. Mueller.

Generally, yes.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 117 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Raskin.

116

When the news -- and, in fact, Cohen said that

following the receipt of these messages -- I'm quoting here,
page 147, Volume II -- he believed he had the support of the White
House if he continued to toe the party line, and he determined to
stay on message and be part of the team.

That's at page 147.

Do

you remember generally finding that?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Raskin.

Generally, yes.
Well, and Robert Costello, a lawyer close to the

President's legal team, emailed Cohen to say, quote, you are
loved, they're in our corner, sleep well tonight, and you have
friends in high places.

And that's up on the screen, page 147.

Do you remember reporting that?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Raskin.

I see that.
Okay.

Now, when the news first broke that Cohen

had arranged payoffs to Stormy Daniels, Cohen faithfully stuck to
this party line.

He said publicly that neither the Trump

Organization nor the Trump campaign was a part of the transaction
and neither reimbursed him.

Trump's personal attorney at that

point quickly texted Cohen to say, quote, client says thank you
for what you do.
Mr. Mueller, who is the capital C client thanking Cohen for
what he does?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Raskin.

I can't speak to that.
Okay.

The assumption in the context suggests

very strongly it's President Trump.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 118 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Raskin.

117

I can't speak to that.
Okay.

Cohen later broke and pled guilty to

campaign finance offenses, and admitted fully they were made,
quote, at the direction of candidate Trump.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Raskin.

Do you remember that?

Yes.
After Cohen's guilty plea, the President

suddenly changed his tune towards Mr. Cohen, didn't he?
Mr. Mueller.

I would say I rely on what's in the report.

Mr. Raskin.

Well, he made the suggestion that Cohen family

members had committed crimes.

He targeted, for example, Cohen's

father-in-law and repeatedly suggested that he was guilty of
committing crimes, right?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Raskin.

Generally accurate.
Okay.

On page 154, you give a powerful summary

of these changing dynamics, and you said -- I'm happy to have you
read it, but I'm happy to do it if not.
Mr. Mueller.

I have it in front of me.

Mr. Raskin.

Would you like to read it?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Raskin.

Thank you.

I would.
Can you read it out loud to everybody?
I would be happy to have you read it out loud.
Okay.

Very good.

We'll read it at the same

time.
The evidence concerning this sequence of events could support
an inference that the President used inducements in the form of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 119 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

118

positive messages in an effort to get Cohen not to cooperate and
then turned to attacks and intimidation to deter the provision of
information or to undermine Cohen's credibility once Cohen began
cooperating.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Raskin.

I believe that's accurate.
Okay.

And in my view, if anyone else in America

engaged in these actions, they would have been charged with
witness tampering.

We must enforce the principle in Congress that

you emphasize so well in the very last sentence of your report,
which is that in America, no person is so high as to be above the
law.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman leads back.

The gentlelady from Arizona.
Mrs. Lesko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just recently, Mr. Mueller, you said -- Mr. Lieu was asking
you questions.

And Mr. Lieu's question, I quote, the reason you

didn't indict the President is because of the OLC opinion.
you answered, that is correct.

And

But that is not what you said in

the report, and it's not what you told Attorney General Barr.
And, in fact, in a joint statement that you released with DOJ
on May 29, after your press conference, your office issued a joint
statement with the Department of Justice that said:

The Attorney

General has previously stated that the special counsel repeatedly
affirmed that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 120 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

would have found the President obstructed justice.

119

The special

counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the
office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the
other whether the President committed a crime.

There is no

conflict between these statements.
So, Mr. Mueller, do you stand by your joint statement with
DOJ that you issued on May 29 as you sit here today?
Mr. Mueller.

I would have to look at it more closely before

I said I agree with it.
Mrs. Lesko.

Well, so, you know, my conclusion is that what

you told Mr. Lieu really contradicts what you said in the report,
and specifically what you said apparently repeatedly to Attorney
General Barr that -- and then you issued a joint statement on May
29 saying that the Attorney General has previously stated that the
special counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying but for
the OLC report that we would have found the President obstructed
justice, so I just say there's a conflict.
I do have some more questions.

Mr. Mueller, there's been a

lot of talk today about firing the special counsel and curtailing
the investigation.
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Lesko.

Were you ever fired, Mr. Mueller?
Was I what?
Were you ever fired as special counsel,

Mr. Mueller?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Lesko.

Not that I -- no.
No.

Were you allowed to complete your

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 121 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

120

investigation unencumbered?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Lesko.

Yes.
And, in fact, you resigned as special counsel

when you closed up the office in late May 2019.
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Lesko.

Is that correct?

That's correct.
Thank you.

Mr. Mueller, on April 18, the Attorney General held a press
conference in conjunction with the public release of your report.
Did Attorney General Barr say anything inaccurate, either in his
press conference or his March 24 letter to Congress, summarizing
the principal conclusions of your report?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, what you are not mentioning is a letter

we sent on March 27 to Mr. Barr that raised some issues, and that
letter speaks for itself.
Mrs. Lesko.

But then I don't see how you could -- that could

be since AG Barr's letter detailed the principal conclusions of
your report, and you have said before that -- that there wasn't
anything inaccurate.

In fact, you have this joint statement.

But

let me go on to another question.
Mr. Mueller, rather than purely relying on the evidence
provided by witnesses and documents, I think you relied a lot on
media.

I'd like to know how many times you cited The Washington

Post in your report.
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Lesko.

How many times I what?
Cited The Washington Post in your report.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 122 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

I do not have knowledge of that figure, but

I -- well, that's it.
Mrs. Lesko.

121

I don't have knowledge of that figure.

I counted about 60 times.

How many times did you cite The New York Times?
Mr. Mueller.

Again, I have no idea.

Mrs. Lesko.

I counted about 75 times.

I counted --

How many times did you cite Fox News?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Lesko.

As with the other two, I have no idea.
About 25 times.

I've got to say it looks like Volume II is mostly
regurgitated press stories.

Honestly, there's almost nothing in

Volume II that I didn't already hear or know simply by having a
$50 cable news subscription.

However, your investigation cost the

American taxpayers $25 million.
Mr. Mueller, you cited media reports nearly 200 times in your
report.

Then in a footnote, a small footnote, No. 7, page 15 of

Volume II of your report, you wrote, I quote, this section
summarizes and cites various news stories, not for the truth of
the information contained in the stories, but rather, to place
candidate Trump's response to those stories in context.
Since nobody but lawyers reads footnotes, are you concerned
that the American public took the embedded news stories -Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentlelady has expired.

The gentlelady from Washington.
Mrs. Lesko.

Can Mr. Mueller answer the question?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 123 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

No.

No.

No.

122

We're running short on time.

I said the gentlelady from Washington.
Ms. Jayapal.

Thank you.

Director Mueller, let's turn to the fifth of the obstruction
episodes in your report, and that is the evidence of whether
President Trump engaged in witness tampering with Trump campaign
chairman Paul Manafort, whose foreign ties were critical to your
investigation into Russia's interference in our elections.

And

this starts at Volume II, page 123.
Your office got indictments against Manafort and Trump deputy
campaign manager Rick Gates in two different jurisdictions,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Ms. Jayapal.

And your office found that after a grand jury

indicted them, Manafort told Gates not to plead guilty to any
charges because, quote, he had talked to the President's personal
counsel, and they were going to take care of us.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

That's accurate.

Ms. Jayapal.

And according to your report, 1 day after

Manafort's conviction on eight felony charges, quote, the
President said that flipping was not fair and almost ought to be
outlawed.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

I'm aware of that.

Ms. Jayapal.

In this context, Director Mueller, what does it

mean to flip?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 124 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

123

Have somebody cooperate in a criminal

investigation.
Ms. Jayapal.

And how essential is that cooperation to any

efforts to combat crime?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to go beyond that, characterizing

that effort.
Ms. Jayapal.

Thank you.

In your report, you concluded that President Trump and his
personal counsel, Rudy Giuliani, quote, made repeated statements
suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort, while
also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to
flip and cooperate with the government, end quote.

Is that

correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Ms. Jayapal.

And as you stated earlier, witness tampering

can be shown where someone with an improper motive encourages
another person not to cooperate with law enforcement.

Is that

correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Ms. Jayapal.

Now, on page 123 of Volume II, you also discuss

the President's motive, and you say that as court proceedings
moved forward against Manafort, President Trump, quote, discussed
with aides whether and in what way Manafort might be cooperating
and whether Manafort knew any information that would be harmful to
the President, end quote.

Is that correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 125 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

124

Mr. Mueller.

And that was a quote from?

Ms. Jayapal.

From page 123, Volume II.

Mr. Mueller.

I have that.

Ms. Jayapal.

And when someone tries to stop another person

Thank you.

Yes.

from working with law enforcement and they do it because they're
worried about what that person will say, it seems clear from what
you wrote that this is a classic definition of witness tampering.
Now, Mr. Manafort did eventually decide to cooperate with
your office, and he entered into a plea agreement, but then he
broke that agreement.

Can you describe what he did that caused

you to tell the court that the agreement was off?
Mr. Mueller.

I refer you to the court proceedings on that

issue.
Ms. Jayapal.

So on page 127 of Volume II, you told the court

that Mr. Manafort lied about a number of matters that were
material to the investigation, and you said that Manafort's
lawyers also, quote, regularly briefed the President's lawyers on
topics discussed and the information that Manafort had provided in
interviews with the Special Counsel's Office.

Does that sound

right?
Mr. Mueller.

And the source of that is?

Ms. Jayapal.

That's page 127, Volume II.

That's a direct

quote.
Mr. Mueller.

If it's from the report, yes, I support it.

Ms. Jayapal.

Thank you.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 126 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

125

And 2 days after you told the court that Manafort broke his
plea agreement by lying repeatedly, did President Trump tell the
press that Mr. Manafort was, quote, very brave because he did not
flip?

This is page 128 of Volume II.
Mr. Mueller.

If it's in the report, I support it as it

is -- as it is set forth.
Ms. Jayapal.

Thank you.

Director Mueller, in your report, you make a very serious
conclusion about the evidence regarding the President's
involvement with the Manafort criminal proceedings.

Let me read

to you from your report.
Evidence concerning the President's conduct toward Manafort
indicates that the President intended to encourage Manafort to not
cooperate with the government.

It is clear that the President,

both publicly and privately, discouraged Mr. Manafort's
cooperation or flipping, while also dangling the promise of a
pardon if he stayed loyal and did not share what he knew about the
President.
for them.

Anyone else who did these things would be prosecuted
We must ensure that no one is above the law.

And I thank you for being here, Director Mueller.
I yield back.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Reschenthaler.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mueller, I'm over here.

I'm sorry.

Mr. Mueller, are you familiar with the now expired

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 127 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Independent Counsel Statute?

126

It's the statute under which Ken

Starr was appointed.
Mr. Mueller.

That Ken Starr did what?

Mr. Reschenthaler.

I'm sorry.

Are you familiar with the Independent

Counsel Statute?
Mr. Mueller.

Are you talking about the one we're operating

now or a previous?
Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Mueller.

No, under which Ken Starr was appointed.

I am not that familiar with that, but I'd be

happy to take your question.
Mr. Reschenthaler.

Well, the Clinton administration allowed

the Independent Counsel Statute to expire after Ken Starr's
investigation.

The final report requirement was a major reason

why the statute was allowed to expire.

Even President Clinton's

AG, Janet Reno, expressed concerns about the final report
requirement.

And I will quote AG Reno.

She said:

On one hand, the American people have an interest

in knowing the outcome of an investigation of their highest
officials.

On the other hand, the report requirement cuts against

many of the most basic traditions and practices of American law
enforcement.
privacy.

Under our system, we presume innocence, and we value

We believe that information obtained during criminal

investigations should, in most cases, be made public only if
there's an indictment and prosecution, not in a lengthy and
detailed report filed after a decision has been made not to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 128 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

prosecute.

127

The final report provides a forum for unfairly airing

any target's dirty laundry.

It also creates yet another incentive

for an independent counsel to overinvestigate in order to justify
his or her tenure and to avoid criticism that the independent
counsel may have left a stone unturned.
Again, Mr. Mueller, those are AG Reno's words.
exactly what AG Reno feared?

Didn't you do

Didn't you publish a lengthy report

unfairly airing the target's dirty laundry without recommending
charges?
Mr. Mueller.

I disagree with that, and I -- may I finish?

Mr. Reschenthaler.

Did any of your witnesses have a chance

to be cross-examined?
Mr. Mueller.

Can I just finish my answer on this?

Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Mueller.

Quickly.

I operate under the current statute, not the

original statute, so I am most familiar with the current statute,
not the older statute.
Mr. Reschenthaler.

Did any of the witnesses have a chance to

be cross-examined?
Mr. Mueller.

Did any of the witnesses in our investigation?

Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

I'm not going to answer that.

Mr. Reschenthaler.

Did you allow the people mentioned in

your report to challenge how they were characterized?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to get into that.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 129 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Reschenthaler.

Okay.

128

Given that AG Barr stated multiple

times during his confirmation hearing that he would make as much
of your report public as possible, did you write your report
knowing that it would likely be shared with the public?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Reschenthaler.

Did knowing that the report could and

likely would be made public, did that alter the contents which you
included?
Mr. Mueller.

I can't speak to that.

Mr. Reschenthaler.

Despite the expectations that your report

would be released to the public, you left out significant
exculpatory evidence, in other words, evidence favorable to the
President, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I actually would disagree with you.

I

think we strove to put into the report the exculpatory evidence as
well.
Mr. Reschenthaler.

One of my colleagues got into that with

you where you said there was evidence you left out.
Mr. Mueller.

Well, you make a choice as to what goes into an

indictment.
Mr. Reschenthaler.

Isn't it true, Mr. Mueller, isn't it true

that on page 1 of Volume II, you state when you're quoting the
statute you have an obligation to either prosecute or not
prosecute?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, generally that is the case, although most

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 130 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

129

cases are not done in the context of the President.
Mr. Reschenthaler.

And in this case, you made a decision not

to prosecute, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

We made a decision not to decide whether

to prosecute or not.
Mr. Reschenthaler.

So, essentially, what your report did was

everything that AG Reno warned against?
Mr. Mueller.

I can't agree with that characterization.

Mr. Reschenthaler.

Well, what you did is you compiled nearly

450 pages of the very worst information you gathered against the
target of your investigation, who happens to be the President of
the United States, and you did this knowing that you were not
going to recommend charges and that the report would be made
public.
Mr. Mueller.

Not true.

Mr. Reschenthaler.

Mr. Mueller, as a former officer in the

United States JAG Corps, I prosecuted nearly 100 terrorists in a
Baghdad courtroom.

I cross-examined the butcher of Fallujah in

defense of our Navy SEALS.

As a civilian, I was elected a

magisterial district judge in Pennsylvania, so I am very well
versed in the American legal system.
The drafting and the publication of some of the information
in this report without an indictment, without prosecution,
frankly, flies in the face of American justice.
facts and this entire process un-American.

And I find those

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 131 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

130

I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, Jim Jordan.
Mr. Jordan.

Director Mueller, the third FISA renewal happens

a month after you're named special counsel.

What role did your

office play in the third FISA renewal of Carter Page?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to talk to that.

Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentlelady from Florida.
Mrs. Demings.

Director Mueller, a couple of my

colleagues -- right here -- wanted to talk to you or ask you about
lies, so let's talk about lies.

According to your report, page 9,

Volume I, witnesses lied to your office and to Congress.

Those

lies materially impaired the investigation of Russia interference,
according to your report.
Other than the individuals who pled guilty to crimes based on
their lying to you and your team, did other witnesses lie to you?
Mr. Mueller.

I think there are probably a spectrum of

witnesses in terms of those who are not telling the full truth and
those who are outright liars.
Mrs. Demings.

Thank you very much.

Outright liars.

It is fair to say, then, that there were

limits on what evidence was available to your investigation of
both Russia election interference and obstruction of justice?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

That's true and is usually the case.
And that lies about Trump campaign officials

and administration officials impeded your investigation?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 132 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

131

I would generally agree with that.
Thank you so much, Director Mueller.

You will

be hearing more from me in the next hearing.
So I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Correa.
Mr. Correa.

Thank you.

Mr. Mueller, first of all, let me welcome you.

Thank you for your service to our country.
war vet, a wounded war vet.

You're a hero, Vietnam

We won't forget your service to our

country.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Correa.

Thank you, sir.
If I may begin.

Because of time limits, we have

gone in depth on only five possible episodes of obstruction.
There's so much more, and I want to focus on another section of
obstruction, which is the President's conduct concerning Michael
Flynn, the President's National Security Advisor.
In early 2017, the White House Counsel and the President were
informed that Mr. Flynn had lied to government authorities about
his communications with the Russian Ambassador during the Trump
campaign and transition.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Correa.

Is this correct?

Correct.
If a hostile nation knows that a U.S. official

has lied publicly, that can be used to blackmail that government
official, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to speak to that.

I don't

disagree with it necessarily, but I'm not going to speak any more
to that issue.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 133 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Correa.

132

Thank you very much, sir.

Flynn resigned on February 13, 2016, and the very next day,
when the President was having lunch with New Jersey Governor Chris
Christie, did the President say, open quotes, now that we fired
Flynn, the Russia thing is over, close quote?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Correa.

Is that correct?

Correct.
And is it true that Christie responded by

saying, open quotes, no way, and this Russia thing is far from
over, close quote?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Correa.

That's the way we have it in the report.
Thank you.

And after the President met with Christie, later that same
day, the President arranged to meet with then FBI Director James
Comey alone in the Oval Office, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct, particularly if you have the citation

to the report.
Mr. Correa.

Page 39-40, Volume II.

Mr. Mueller.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Correa.

And according to Comey, the President told him,

open quote, I hope you can see your way clear to letting this
thing go, to letting Flynn go.
can let it go, close quote.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Correa.
asking?

He's a good guy, and I hope you

Page 40, Volume II.

Accurate.
What did Comey understand the President to be

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 134 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

133

I'm not going to get into what was in

Mr. Comey's mind.
Mr. Correa.

Comey understood this to be a direction because

of the President's position and the circumstances of the
one-to-one meeting?
Mr. Mueller.

Page 40, Volume II.
Well, I understand it's in the report, and I

support it as being in the report.
Mr. Correa.

Thank you, sir.

Even though the President publicly denied telling Comey to
drop the investigation, you found, open quote, substantial
evidence corroborating Comey's account over the President's.

Is

this correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Correa.

That's correct.
The President fired Comey on May 9.

Is that

correct, sir?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Correa.

I believe that's the accurate date.
That's page 77, Volume II.

You found substantial evidence that the catalyst for the
President's firing of Comey was Comey's, open quote, unwillingness
to publicly state that the President was not personally under
investigation.
Mr. Mueller.
what happened.

I'm not going to delve more into the details of

If it's in the report, again, I'll support it

because it's already been reviewed and appropriately appears in
the report.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 135 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Correa.

134

And that's page 75, Volume II.

Mr. Mueller.

Thank you.

Mr. Correa.

Thank you.

And, in fact, the very next day, the President told the
Russian foreign minister, open quote, I just fired the head of the
FBI.

He was crazy, a real nut job.

because of Russia.

That's taken off.

investigation, close quote.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that correct?

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Thank you, sir.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Cline.

I'm not under

If that's what was written in the report, yes.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Correa.

I faced great pressure

The gentleman from Virginia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mueller, we've heard a lot about what you're not going to
talk about today.

So let's talk about something that you should

be able to talk about, the law itself, the underlying obstruction
statute and your creative legal analysis of the statutes in Volume
II, particularly an interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 1512 C.
Section 1512 C is an obstruction of justice statute created as
part of auditing financial regulations for public companies.

And

as you write on page 164 of Volume II, this provision was added as
a floor amendment in the Senate and explained as closing a certain
loophole with respect to document shredding.
And to read the statute, whoever corruptly alters, destroys,
mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object or

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 136 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

135

attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity
or availability for use in an official proceeding or otherwise
obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or
attempts to do so shall be fined under the statute and imprisoned
not more than 20 years or both.
Your analysis and application of the statute proposes to give
clause C2 a much broader interpretation than commonly used.
First, your analysis proposes to read clause C2 in isolation,
reading it as a freestanding, all-encompassing provision
prohibiting any act influencing a proceeding if done with an
improper motive.

And second, your analysis of the statute

proposes to apply the sweeping prohibition to lawful acts taken by
public officials exercising their discretionary powers if those
acts influence a proceeding.
So, Mr. Mueller, I'd ask you, in analyzing the obstruction,
you state that you recognize that the Department of Justice and
the courts have not definitively resolved these issues, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cline.

Correct.
You would agree that not everyone in the Justice

Department agreed with your legal theory of the obstruction of
justice statute, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to be involved in a discussion on

that at this juncture.
Mr. Cline.

In fact, the Attorney General himself disagrees

with your interpretation of the law, correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 137 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

136

I leave that to the Attorney General to

identify.
Mr. Cline.

And you would agree that prosecutors sometimes

incorrect apply the law, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cline.

I would have to agree with that one, yes.
And members of your legal team, in fact, have had

convictions overturned because they were based on an incorrect
legal theory, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I don't know to what you aver.

We've all spent

time in the trenches trying cases and not won every one of those
cases.
Mr. Cline.

Well, let me ask you about one in particular.

One of your top prosecutors, Andrew Weissmann, obtained a
conviction against auditing firm Arthur Andersen, lower court,
which was subsequently overturned in a unanimous Supreme Court
decision that rejected the legal theory advanced by Weissmann,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I'm not going to get into that, delve

into that.
Mr. Cline.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cline.
Mr. Mueller.

Well, let me read from that and maybe it will -May I just finish?

May I just finish --

Yes.
-- my answer to say that I'm not going to

be -- get involved in a discussion on that.

I will refer you to

that citation that you gave me at the outset for the lengthy

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 138 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

discussion on just what you're talking about.

137

And to the extent

that I have anything to say about it, it is what we've already put
into the report on that issue.
Mr. Cline.
this section.

I am reading from your report when discussing

I will read from the decision of the Supreme Court

unanimously reversing Mr. Weissmann when he said, indeed, it's
striking how little culpability the instructions required.

For

example, the jury was told that even if petitioner honestly and
sincerely believed its conduct was lawful, the jury could convict.
The instructions also diluted the meaning of corruptly such that
it covered innocent conduct.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cline.

Well, let me just say -Let me move on.

I have limited time.

Your report takes the broadest possible reading of this
provision in applying it to the President's official acts, and I'm
concerned about the implications of your theory for
overcriminalizing conduct by public officials and private citizens
alike.
So to emphasize how broad your theory of liability is, I want
to ask you about a few examples.

On October 11, 2015, during an

FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email
server, President Obama said, I don't think it posed a national
security problem.

And he later said, I can tell you that this is

not a situation in which America's national security was
endangered.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 139 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

138

Assuming for a moment that his comments did influence the
investigation, couldn't President Obama be charged, under your
interpretation, with obstruction of justice?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, again, I'd refer you to the report.

But

let me say with Andrew Weissmann, who is one of the more talented
attorneys that we have on board -Mr. Cline.
Mr. Mueller.

Okay.

Well, I'll take that as --

-- over a period of time, he has run a number

of units.
Mr. Cline.

I have very little time.

In August 2015, a very senior DOJ official called FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe expressing concern that FBI agents were
still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe.

The DOJ

official was apparently very pissed off, quote/unquote.

McCabe

questioned this official, asking, are you telling me I need to
shut down a validly predicated investigation, to which the
official replied, of course not.
This seems to be a clear example of somebody within the
executive branch attempting to influence an FBI investigation.
under your theory, couldn't that person be charged with
obstruction as long as the prosecutor could come up with a
potentially corrupt motive?
Mr. Mueller.

I refer you to our lengthy dissertation on

exactly those issues that appears at the end of the report.
Mr. Cline.

Mr. Mueller, I'd argue that it says above the

So

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 140 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

139

Supreme Court equal justice -Chairman Nadler.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Our intent was to conclude this hearing in 3 hours.
the break, that would bring us to approximately 11:40.

Given

With

Director Mueller's indulgence, we will be asking our remaining
Democratic members to voluntarily limit their time below the
5 minutes so that we can complete our work as close to that
timeframe as possible.
And I recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Scanlon.

Thank you.

Director Mueller, I want to ask you some questions about the
President's statements regarding advance knowledge of the
WikiLeaks dumps.

So the President refused to sit down with your

investigators for an in-person interview, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Ms. Scanlon.

So the only answers we have to questions from

the President are contained in Appendix C to your report?
Mr. Mueller.

That's correct.

Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

So looking at Appendix C on page 5, you

asked the President over a dozen questions about whether he had
knowledge that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess the emails
that were stolen by the Russians.
Mr. Mueller.

I apologize.

Ms. Scanlon.

Sure.

Mr. Mueller.

Can you start it again?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 141 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

Mr. Mueller.

Thank you.

Ms. Scanlon.

So we are looking at Appendix C.

Mr. Mueller.

Right.

Ms. Scanlon.

And at Appendix C, page 5, you ask the

140

Sure.

President about a dozen questions about whether he had knowledge
that WikiLeaks possessed the stolen emails that might be released
in a way helpful to his campaign or harmful to the Clinton
campaign.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

You asked those questions?

In February of this year, Mr. Trump's

personal attorney, Michael Cohen, testified to Congress under oath
that, quote:

Mr. Trump knew from Roger Stone in advance about the

WikiLeaks drop of emails, end quote.
That is a matter of public record, isn't it?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, are you referring to the report or some

other public record?
Ms. Scanlon.
Mr. Cohen.

This was testimony before Congress by

Do you know if he told you --

Mr. Mueller.

I am not familiar with -- explicitly familiar

with what he testified to before Congress.
Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

Let's look at an event described on page

18 of Volume II of your report.

Now, according -- and we are

going to put it up in a slide, I think.

According to Deputy

Campaign Manager Rick Gates, in the summer of 2016, he and

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 142 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

141

candidate Trump were on the way to an airport shortly after
WikiLeaks released its first set of stolen emails.

And Gates told

your investigators that candidate Trump was on a phone call, and
when the call ended, Trump told Gates that more releases of
damaging information would be coming, end quote.

Do you recall

that from the report?
Mr. Mueller.

If it is in the report, I support it.

Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

And that is on page 18 of Volume II.

Now, on page 77 of Volume II, your report also stated, quote:

In

addition, some witnesses said that Trump privately sought
information about future WikiLeaks releases, end quote.

Is that

correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Ms. Scanlon.

Now, in Appendix C where the President did

answer some written questions, he said, quote:

I do not recall

discussing WikiLeaks with him, nor do I recall being aware of
Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated
with my campaign, end quote.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

If it is from the report, it is correct.

Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

So is it fair to say the President

denied ever discussing WikiLeaks with Mr. Stone and denied being
aware that anyone associated with his campaign discussed WikiLeaks
with Stone?
Mr. Mueller.

I am sorry.

Could you repeat that one?

Ms. Scanlon.

Is it fair, then, that the President denied

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 143 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

142

knowledge of himself or anyone else discussing WikiLeaks dumps
with Mr. Stone?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

Mr. Mueller.

Thank you, ma'am.

Chairman Nadler.

Yes.
And, with that, I would yield back.

The gentlelady yields back.

The gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Steube.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mueller, did you indeed interview for the FBI Director
job one day before you were appointed as special counsel?
Mr. Mueller.
job.

In my understanding, I was not applying for the

I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the

job, which triggered the interview you are talking about.
Mr. Steube.

So you don't recall on May 16, 2017, that you

interviewed with the President regarding the FBI Director job?
Mr. Mueller.

I interviewed with the President, but it wasn't

about the Director job.
Mr. Steube.
Mr. Mueller.

The FBI Director job?
It was about the job but not about me applying

for the job.
Mr. Steube.

So your statement here today is that you didn't

interview to apply for the FBI Director job?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

That is correct.
So did you tell the Vice President that the FBI

Director position would be the one job that you would come back

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 144 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

143

for?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

I don't recall that one.
You don't recall that?

Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Steube.

Okay.

Given your 22 months of investigation,

tens of millions of dollars spent, and millions of documents
reviewed, did you obtain any evidence at all that any American
voter changed their vote as a result of Russian's election
interference?
Mr. Mueller.

I can't speak to that.

Mr. Steube.

You can't speak to that?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

No.
After 22 months of investigation, there is not

any evidence in that document before us that any voter changed
their vote because of their interference, and I am asking you
based on all of the documents that you reviewed.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.
Mr. Mueller.

That was outside our purview.
Russian meddling was outside your purview?
The impact of that meddling was undertaken by

other agencies.
Mr. Steube.

Okay.

You stated in your opening statement that

you would not get into the details of the Steele dossier.
However, multiple times in Volume II on page 23, 27, and 28, you
mentioned the unverified allegations.

How long did it take you to

reach the conclusion that it was unverified?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 145 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

144

I am not going to speak to that.
It is actually in your report multiple times as

unverified, and you are telling me that you are not willing to
tell us how you came to the conclusion that it was unverified?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

True.
When did you become aware that the unverified

Steele dossier was included in the FISA application to spy on
Carter Page?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

I am sorry.

What was the question?

When did you become aware that the unverified

Steele dossier was intended -- was included in the FISA
application to spy on Carter Page?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

I am not going to speak to that.
Your team interviewed Christopher Steele.

Is

that correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I am not going to get into that.

As I said at

the outset -Mr. Steube.

You can't tell this committee as to whether or

not you interviewed Christopher Steele in a 22-month investigation
with 18 lawyers?
Mr. Mueller.

As I said at the outset, that is one of

those -- one of the investigations that is being handled by others
in the Department of Justice.
Mr. Steube.

Yeah, but you're here testifying about this

investigation today, and I am asking you directly, did any members

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 146 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

145

of your team or did you interview Christopher Steele in the course
of your investigation?
Mr. Mueller.

And I am not going to answer that question,

sir.
Mr. Steube.

You had 2 years to investigate.

Not once did

you consider or even investigate how an unverified document that
was paid for by a political opponent was used to obtain a warrant
to spy on the opposition political campaign.

Did you do any

investigation on that whatsoever?
Mr. Mueller.

I do not accept your characterization of what

occurred.
Mr. Steube.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

What would be your characterization?
I am not going to speak any more to it.
So you can't speak any more to it, but you are

not going to agree with my characterization.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

Is that correct?

Yes.
The FISA application makes reference to Source

1, who is Christopher Steele, the author of the Steele dossier.
The FISA application says nothing Source 1's reason for conducting
the research into Candidate 1's ties to Russia based on Source 1's
previous reporting history with FBI whereby Source 1 provided
reliable information to the FBI.

The FBI believes Source 1's

reporting herein to be credible.

Do you believe the FBI's

representation that Source 1's reporting was credible to be
accurate?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 147 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

146

I am not going to answer that.
So you are not going to respond to any of the

questions regarding Christopher Steele or your interviews with
him?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, as I said at the outset this morning,

that was one of the investigations that I could not speak to.
Mr. Steube.

Well, I don't understand how if you interviewed

an individual in the purview of this investigation that you are
testifying to us today that you've closed that investigation, how
that is not within the purview to tell us about that investigation
and who you interviewed.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

I have nothing to add.
Okay.

Well, I can guarantee that the American

people want to know, and I am very hopeful and glad that AG Barr
is looking into this and the inspector general is looking into
this because you are unwilling to answer the questions of the
American people as it relates to the very basis of this
investigation into the President and the very basis of this
individual who you did interview.
those questions.

You are just refusing to answer

Can't the President fire the FBI Director at any

time without reason under Article I of the Constitution?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

Yes.
Article II.
Yes.
That is correct.

Can he also fire you as

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 148 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

147

special counsel at any time without any reason?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Steube.

Under Article II.

Mr. Mueller.
any reason.

I believe that to be the case.

Well, hold on just a second.

You said without

I know that special counsel can be fired, but I am

not sure it extends to whatever reason is given.
Mr. Steube.
fired.

Well, and you've testified that you weren't

You were able to complete your investigation in full.

Is

that correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I am not going to add to what I have stated

before.
Mr. Steube.

My time has expired.

Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman's time has expired.

The gentlelady from Pennsylvania -- from Texas.
Ms. Garcia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,

Mr. Mueller, for being with us.

It is close to the afternoon now.

Director Mueller, now I would like to ask you about the
President's answers relating to Roger Stone.

Roger Stone was

indicted for multiple Federal crimes, and the indictment alleges
that Mr. Stone discussed future WikiLeaks email releases with the
Trump campaign.

Understanding there is a gag order on the Stone

case, I will keep my questions restricted to publicly available
information.

Mr. Stone's --

Mr. Mueller.

Let me just say at the outset.

I don't mean to

disrupt you, but I am not -- I would like some demarcation of that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 149 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

148

which is applicable to this but also in such a way that it does
not hinder the other prosecution that is taking place in D.C.
Ms. Garcia.

I understand that.

I am only going to be

talking about the questions that you asked in writing to the
President -Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Garcia.

Thank you, ma'am.
-- that relate to Mr. Stone.

Mr. Stone's

indictment states, among other things, the following quote:

Stone

was contacted by senior Trump officials to inquire about future
releases of Organization 1, Organization 1 being WikiLeaks.
indictment continues, quote:

The

Stone thereafter told the Trump

campaign about potential future release of damaging material by
WikiLeaks.

So, in short, the indictment alleges that Stone was

asked by the Trump campaign to get information about more
WikiLeaks releases and that Stone, in fact, did tell the Trump
campaign about potential future releases, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
indictment.

Yes, ma'am, but I see you are quoting from the

Even though the indictment is a public document, I

feel uncomfortable discussing anything having to do with the Stone
prosecution.
Ms. Garcia.

Right.

The indictment is of record, and we

pulled it off the -Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Garcia.

I understand.
I am reading straight from it.

Well, turning

back to the President's answers to your questions, then, on this

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 150 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

149

very subject, the President denied ever discussing future
WikiLeaks releases with Stone and denied knowing whether anyone
else on his campaign had those discussions with Stone.

If you had

learned that other witnesses -- putting aside the President, if
other witnesses had lied to your investigators in response to
specific questions, whether in writing or in an interview, could
they be charged with false statement crimes?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I am not going to speculate.

I think you

are asking for me to speculate given a set of circumstances.
Ms. Garcia.

Well, let's make it more specific.

What if I

had made a false statement to an investigator on your team?

Could

I go to jail for up to 5 years?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Garcia.
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Garcia.

Yes.
Yes.
Well, although -- it is Congress, so -Well, that is the point, though, isn't it, that

no one is above the law?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Garcia.
President.

That is right.
Not you, not the Congress, and certainly not the

And I think it is just troubling to have to hear some

of these things, and that is why the American people deserve to
learn the full facts of the misconduct described in your report
for which any other person would have been charged with crimes.
So thank you for being here, and again, the point has been
underscored many times, but I will repeat it.

No one is above the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 151 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

law.

150

Thank you.
Mr. Mueller.

Thank you, ma'am.

Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman from North Dakota is

recognized.
Mr. Armstrong.

Mr. Mueller, how many people did you fire?

How many people on your staff did you fire during the course of
the investigation?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Armstrong.

How many people?

Mr. Mueller.

Did you fire?

Mr. Armstrong.

I am not going to discuss that.
According to the inspector general's report,

Attorney No. 2 was let go, and we know Peter Strzok was let go,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes, and there may have been other persons on

other issues that have been either transferred or fired.
Mr. Armstrong.

Peter Strzok testified before this committee

on July 12, 2018, that he was fired because you were concerned
about preserving the appearance of independence.

Do you agree

with his testimony?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Armstrong.

Say that again, if you could.
He said he was fired at least partially

because you were worried about, concerned about preserving the
appearance of independence with the special counsel's
investigation.

Do you agree with that statement?

Mr. Mueller.

The statement was by whom?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 152 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Armstrong.

151

Mr. Mueller.

Peter Strzok at this hearing.
I am not familiar with that.

Mr. Armstrong.

Did you fire him because you were worried

about the appearance of independence of the investigation?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

He was transferred as a result of

instances involving texts.
Mr. Armstrong.

Do you agree that your office did not only

have an obligation to operate with independence but to operate
with the appearance of independence as well?
Mr. Mueller.

Absolutely.

We strove to do that over the 2

years.
Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Mueller.

Andrew Weissmann -Part of that was making certain that --

Mr. Armstrong.

Andrew Weissmann is one of your top

attorneys.
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Armstrong.

Did Weissmann have a role in selecting other

members of your team?
Mr. Mueller.

He had some role but not a major role.

Mr. Armstrong.

Andrew Weissmann attended a Hillary Clinton's

election night party.

Did you know that before or after he came

onto the team?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Armstrong.

I don't know when I found that out.
On January 30, 2017 Weissmann wrote an email

to Deputy Attorney General Yates stating,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 153 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

152

"I am so proud and in awe," regarding her disobeying a direct
order from the President.
Did Weissmann disclose that email to you before he joined the
team?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Armstrong.

I am not going to talk about that.

Mr. Mueller.

Is that not a conflict of interest?

Mr. Armstrong.

I am not going to talk about that.
Are you aware that Ms. Jeannie Rhee

represented Hillary Clinton in litigation regarding personal
emails originating from Clinton's time as Secretary of State?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Armstrong.

Yes.
Did you know that before she came on the

team?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Armstrong.

No.
Aaron Zebley, the guy sitting next to you,

represented Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide, who destroyed one of
Clinton's mobile devices.

And you must be aware by now that six

of your lawyers donated $12,000 directly to Hillary Clinton.

I am

not even talking about the $49,000 they donated to other
Democrats, just the donations to the opponent who was the target
of your investigation.
Mr. Mueller.

Can I speak for a second to the hiring

practices?
Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Mueller.

Sure.
We strove to hire those individuals that could

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 154 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

153

do the job.
Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Mueller.

Okay.
I've been in this business for almost 25 years.

And in those 25 years, I have not had occasion once to ask
somebody about their political affiliation.

It is not done.

What

I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and
do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity.
Mr. Armstrong.

But that is what I am saying, Mr. Mueller.

This isn't just about you being able to vouch for your team.

This

is about knowing that the day you accepted this role, you had to
be aware, no matter what this report concluded, half of the
country was going to be skeptical of your team's findings, and
that is why we have recusal laws that define bias and perceived
bias for this very reason.

28 United States Code 528 specifically

lists not just political conflict of interest but the appearance
of political conflict of interest.

It is just simply not enough

that you vouch for your team.

The interest of justice demands

that no perceived bias exist.

I can't imagine a single prosecutor

or judge that I have ever appeared in front of would be
comfortable with these circumstances where over half of the
prosecutorial team had a direct relationship to the opponent of
the person being investigated.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 155 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

154

RPTR ZAMORA
EDTR ZAMORA
[11:43 a.m.]
Mr. Mueller.

Let me -- one other fact that I put on the

table, and that is we hired 19 lawyers over a period of time.

Of

those 19 lawyers, 14 of them were transferred from elsewhere in
the Department of Justice.

Only five came from outside.

So we

did not have -Mr. Armstrong.

And half of them had a direct relationship,

political or personal, with the opponent of the person you were
investigating.

And that's my point.

I wonder if not a single

word in this entire report was changed, but rather, the only
difference was we switched Hillary Clinton and President Trump.
If Peter Strzok had texted those terrible things about
Hillary Clinton instead of President Trump, if a team of lawyers
worked for, donated thousands of dollars to, and went to Trump's
parties instead of Clinton's, I don't think we'd be here trying to
prop up an obstruction allegation.
My colleagues would have spent the last 4 months accusing
your team of being bought and paid for by the Trump campaign and
we couldn't trust a single word of this report.

They would still

be accusing the President of conspiracy with Russia, and they
would be accusing your team of aiding and abetting with that
conspiracy.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 156 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

155

And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman yields back.

The gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Neguse.
our country.

Director Mueller, thank you for your service to

I'd like to talk to you about one of the other

incidents of obstruction, and that's the evidence in your report
showing the President directing his son and his communications
director to issue a false public statement in June of 2017 about a
meeting between his campaign and Russian individuals at Trump
Tower in June of 2016.
According to your report, Mr. Trump, Jr. was the only Trump
associate who participated in that meeting and who declined to be
voluntarily interviewed by your office.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Neguse.

Is that correct?

Yes.
Did Mr. Trump, Jr. or his counsel ever

communicate to your office any intent to invoke his Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Neguse.

I'm not going to answer that.
You did pose written questions to the President

about his knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting.

You

included -- also asked him about whether or not he had directed a
false press statement.

The President did not answer at all that

question, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
word.

I don't have it in front of me.

I take your

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 157 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Neguse.

156

I can represent to you that appendix C,

specifically C13, states as much.
According to page 100 of Volume II of your report, your
investigation found that Hope Hicks, the President's
communications director, in June of 2017 was shown emails that set
up the Trump Tower meeting, and she told your office that she was,
quote, shocked by the emails because they looked, quote, really
bad.

True?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Neguse.

Do you have the citation?
Sure.

It's page 100 of Volume II.

While you're flipping to that page, Director Mueller, I will
also tell you that according to page 99 of Volume II, those emails
in question stated, according to your report, that the crown
prosecutor of Russia had offered to provide the Trump campaign
with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia as part of Russia
and its government support for Mr. Trump.
Trump Jr. responded, if it's what you say, I love it.

And

he, Kushner, and Manafort, met with the Russian attorneys and
several other Russian individuals at Trump Tower on June 9, 2016,
end quote.

Correct?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Neguse.

Generally accurate.
Isn't it true that Ms. Hicks told your office

that she went multiple times to the President to, quote, urge him
that they should be fully transparent about the June 9 meeting,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 158 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

end quote, but the President each time said no.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Neguse.

157

Correct?

Accurate.
And the reason was because of those emails which

the President, quote, believed would not leak, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I'm not certain how it's characterized,

but generally correct.
Mr. Neguse.

Did the President direct Ms. Hicks to say,

quote, only that Trump Jr. took a brief meeting and it was about
Russian adoption, end quote, because Trump Jr.'s statement to The
New York Times, quote, said too much, according to page 102 of
Volume II?
Mr. Mueller.

Okay.

Mr. Neguse.

Correct?

Mr. Mueller.

Let me just check one thing.

Yes.
Mr. Neguse.

And according to Ms. Hicks, the President still

directed her to say the meeting was only about Russian adoption,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Neguse.

Yes.
Despite knowing that to be untrue.

Thank you, Director Mueller.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Mueller.

The gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

Mr. Mueller, you've been

asked -- over here on the far right, sir.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 159 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

You've been asked a lot of questions here today.
frank, you've performed as most of us expected.

158

To be

You've stuck

closely to your report, and you have declined to answer many of
our questions on both sides.
As the closer for the Republican side -- I know you're glad
to get to the close -- I want to summarize the highlights of what
we have heard and what we know.
You spent 2 years and nearly $30 million taxpayer and
unlimited resources to prepare a nearly 450-page report which you
describe today as very thorough.

Millions of Americans today

maintain genuine concerns about your work, in large part, because
of the infamous and widely publicized bias of your investigating
team members, which we now know included 14 Democrats and zero
Republicans.
Campaign finance reports later showed that team -Mr. Mueller.

Can I --

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

Excuse me.

It's my time.

That

team of Democrat investigators you hired donated more than $60,000
to the Hillary Clinton campaign and other Democratic candidates.
Your team also included Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, which have
been discussed today, and they had the lurid text messages that
confirmed they openly mocked and hated Donald Trump and his
supporters and they vowed to take him out.
Mr. Ratcliffe asked you earlier this morning, quote, can you
give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 160 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

159

Department determined that an investigated person was not
exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively
determined, unquote.

You answered, I cannot.

Sir, that is

unprecedented.
The President believed from the very beginning that you and
your special counsel team had serious conflicts.
in the report and acknowledged by everybody.

This is stated

And yet

President Trump cooperated fully with the investigation.

He knew

he had done nothing wrong, and he encouraged all witnesses to
cooperate with the investigation and produce more than 1.4 million
pages of information and allowed over 40 witnesses, who were
directly affiliated with the White House or his campaign.
Your report acknowledges on page 61, Volume II, that a volume
of evidence exists of the President telling many people privately,
quote, the President was concerned about the impact of the Russian
investigation on his ability to govern and to address important
foreign relations issues and even matters of national security.
And on page 174 of Volume II, your report also acknowledges
that the Supreme Court has held, quote, the President's removal
powers are at their zenith with respect to principal officers,
that is officers who must be appointed by the President and who
report to him directly.

The President's exclusive and illimitable

power of removal of those principal officers furthers the
President's ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully
executed, unquote.

And that would even include the Attorney

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 161 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

160

General.
Look, in spite of all of that, nothing ever happened to stop
or impede your special counsel's investigation.

Nobody was fired

by the President, nothing was curtailed, and the investigation
continued unencumbered for 22 long months.
As you finally concluded in Volume I, the evidence, quote,
did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying
crime related to Russian election interference, unquote.

And the

evidence, quote, did not establish that the President or those
close to him were involved in any Russian conspiracies or had an
unlawful relationship with any Russian official, unquote.
Over those 22 long months that your investigation dragged
along, the President became increasingly frustrated, as many of
the American people did, with its affects on our country and his
ability to govern.

He vented about this to his lawyer and his

close associates, and he even shared his frustrations, as we all
know, on Twitter.
But while the President's social media accounts might have
influenced some in the media or the opinion of some of the
American people, none of those audiences were targets or witnesses
in your investigation.

The President never affected anybody's

testimony; he never demanded to end the investigation or demanded
that you be terminated; and he never misled Congress, the DOJ, or
the special counsel.

Those, sir, are undisputed facts.

There will be a lot of discussion, I predict, today and great

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 162 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

161

frustration throughout the country about the fact that you
wouldn't answer any questions here about the origins of this whole
charade, which was the infamous Christopher Steele dossier, now
proven to be totally bogus, even though it is listed and
specifically referenced in your report.

But as our hearing is

concluding, we apparently will get no comment on that from you.
Mr. Mueller, there's one primary reason why you were called
here today by the Democrat majority of our committee.

Our

colleagues on the other side of the aisle just want political
cover.

They desperately wanted you today to tell them they should

impeach the President.

But the one thing you have said very

clearly today is that your report is complete and thorough, and
you completely agree with and stand by its recommendations and all
of its content.

Is that right?

Mr. Mueller.

True.

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.
question.

Mr. Mueller, one last important

Your report does not recommend impeachment, does it?

Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to talk about the

recommendations.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

It does not conclude that

impeachment would be appropriate here, right?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to talk -- I'm not going to talk

about that issue.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

That's one of the many things you

wouldn't talk about today, but I think we can all draw our own

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 163 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

162

conclusions.
I do thank you for your service to the country.

And I'm glad

this charade will come to an end soon and we can get back to the
important business of this committee with its broad jurisdiction
of so many important issues for the country.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman yields back.

I want to announce that our intent was to conclude this
hearing at around 11:45.

All of the Republican members have now

asked their questions, but we have a few remaining Democratic
members.

They will be limiting their questions, so with Director

Mueller's indulgence, we expect to finish within 15 minutes.
The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized.
Mrs. McBath.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Director Mueller.

Your investigations of the

Russian attack on our democracy and of obstruction of justice were
extraordinarily productive.

And under 2 years, you charged at

least 37 people or entities with crimes.

You convicted seven

individuals, five of whom were top Trump campaign or White House
aides.

Charges remain pending against more than 2 dozen Russian

persons or entities and against others.
Now, let me start with those five Trump campaign
administration aides that you convicted.

Would you agree with me

that they are Paul Manafort, President Trump's campaign manager;
Rick Gates, President Trump's deputy campaign manager; Michael

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 164 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

163

Flynn, President Trump's former National Security Advisor; Michael
Cohen, the President's personal attorney; George Papadopoulos,
President Trump's former campaign foreign policy adviser, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mrs. McBath.

And the sixth Trump associate will face trial

later this year, correct?

And that person would be Roger Stone,

correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mrs. McBath.

Thank you.

Mr. Mueller.

Well, I'm not certain what you said about

Stone, but he is in another court system, as I indicated before.
Mrs. McBath.

Exactly.

He's still under investigation.

Mr. Mueller.

And I do not want to discuss.

Mrs. McBath.

Correct.

Thank you.

And there are many other charges as well, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mrs. McBath.

So, sir, I just want to thank you so much, in

my limited time today, for your team, the work that you did, and
your dedication.

In less than 2 years, your team was able to

uncover an incredible amount of information related to Russia's
attack on our elections and to obstruction of justice.
And there is still more that we have to learn.

Despite

facing unfair attacks by the President and even here today, your
work has been substantive and fair.

The work has laid the

critical foundation for our investigation, and for that, I thank

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 165 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

you.

164

I thank you.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentlelady yields back.

The gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Stanton.

Thank you.

Director Mueller, I'm disappointed that some have questioned
your motives throughout this process, and I want to take a moment
to remind the American people of who you are and your exemplary
service to our country.
You are a Marine, you served in Vietnam and earned a Bronze
Star and a Purple Heart, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Stanton.

Which President appointed you to become the

United States attorney for Massachusetts?
Mr. Mueller.

Which Senator?

Mr. Stanton.

Which President?

Mr. Mueller.

Oh, which President.

I think that was

President Bush.
Mr. Stanton.

According to my notes, it was President Ronald

Reagan had the honor to do so.
Under whose -Mr. Mueller.

My mistake.

Mr. Stanton.

Under whose administration did you serve as the

assistant attorney general in charge of the DOJ's Criminal
Division?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 166 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Mueller.

Under which President?

Mr. Stanton.

Yep.

Mr. Mueller.

That would be George Bush I.

Mr. Stanton.

That is correct, President George H.W. Bush.

165

After that, you took a job at a prestigious law firm, and
after only a couple years, you did something extraordinary.

You

left that lucrative position to reenter public service prosecuting
homicides here in Washington, D.C.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Stanton.

When you were named Director of the FBI, which

President first appointed you?
Mr. Mueller.

Bush.

Mr. Stanton.

And the Senate confirmed you with a vote of 98

to 0, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Surprising.

Mr. Stanton.

And you were sworn in as Director just one week

before the September 11 attacks.
Mr. Mueller.

True.

Mr. Stanton.

You helped to protect this Nation against

another attack.

You did such an outstanding job that when your

10-year term expired, the Senate unanimously voted to extend your
term for another 2 years, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

True.

Mr. Stanton.

When you were asked in 2017 to take the job as

special counsel, the President had just fired FBI Director James

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 167 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Comey.

The Justice Department and the FBI were in turmoil.

must have known there would be an extraordinary challenge.

166

You
Why

did you accept?
Mr. Mueller.
bit off track.

I'm not going to get into -- that's a little

It was a challenge, period.

Mr. Stanton.

Some people have attacked the political

motivations of your team, even suggested your investigation was a
witch hunt.

When you considered people to join your team, did you

ever even once ask about their political affiliation?
Mr. Mueller.

Never once.

Mr. Stanton.

In your entire career as a law enforcement

official, have you ever made a hiring decision based upon a
person's political affiliation?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Stanton.

I'm not surprised --

Mr. Mueller.

And if I might just interject, the capabilities

that we have shown in the report that's been discussed here today
was a result of a team of agents and lawyers who were absolutely
exemplary and were hired because of the value they could
contribute to getting the job done and getting it done
expeditiously.
Mr. Stanton.

Sir, you're a patriot.

And clear to me in

reading your report and listening to your testimony today, you
acted fairly and with restraint.

There were circumstances where

you could have filed charges against other people mentioned in the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 168 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

report but you declined.

167

Not every prosecutor does that,

certainly not one on a witch hunt.
The attacks made against you and your team intensified
because your report is damning.

And I believe you did uncover

substantial evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Let me also say something else that you were right about.
The only remedy for this situation is for Congress to take action.
I yield back.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman yields back.

The gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Dean.

Good morning, Director Mueller.

Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Dean.

Ah, gotcha.

Madeleine Dean.

Sorry.

Thank you.

I wanted to ask you about public confusion connected with
Attorney General Barr's release of your report.

I will be quoting

your March 27 letter.
Sir, in that letter, and at several other times, did you
convey to the Attorney General that the, quote, introductions and
executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize
this office's work and conclusions, end quote?
Mr. Mueller.

I have to say that the letter itself speaks for

itself.
Ms. Dean.

And those were your words in that letter.

Continuing with your letter, you wrote to the Attorney
General that, quote, the summary letter that the Department sent

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 169 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

168

to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of
March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance
of this office's work and conclusions, end quote.

Is that

correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Again, I rely on the letter itself for its

terms.
Ms. Dean.

Thank you.

What was it about the report's context, nature, substance
that the Attorney General's letter did not capture?
Mr. Mueller.

I think we captured that in the March 27

responsive letter.
Ms. Dean.

And this is from the 27th letter.

What were some

of the specifics that you thought -Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Dean.

I direct you to the letter itself.

Okay.

You finished that letter by saying, there

is now public confusion about critical aspects as a result of our
investigation.

Could you tell us specifically some of the public

confusion you identified?
Mr. Mueller.

Not generally.

Again, I go back to the letter.

The letters speaks for itself.
Ms. Dean.

And could Attorney General Barr have avoided

public confusion if he had released your summaries and executive
introduction and summaries?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Dean.

I don't feel comfortable speculating on that.

Shifting to May 30, the Attorney General, in an

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 170 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

169

interview with CBS News, said that you could have
reached -- quote, you could have reached a decision as to whether
it was criminal activity, end quote, on the part of the President.
Did the Attorney General or his staff ever tell you that he
thought you should make a decision on whether the President
engaged in criminal activity?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to speak to what the Attorney

General was thinking or saying.
Ms. Dean.

If the Attorney General had directed you or

ordered you to make a decision on whether the President engaged in
criminal activity, would you have so done?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Dean.
here.

I can't answer that question in the vacuum.

Director Mueller, again, I thank you for being

I agree with your March 27 letter.

There was public

confusion, and the President took full advantage of that confusion
by falsely claiming your report found no obstruction.
Let us be clear, your report did not exonerate the President;
instead, it provided substantial evidence of obstruction of
justice leaving Congress to do its duty.

We shall not shrink from

that duty.
I yield back.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentlelady yields back.

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

The --

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of

inquiry, over on your left.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentleman will state his point of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 171 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

170

inquiry.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

Was the point of this hearing to

get Mr. Mueller to recommended impeachment?
Mr. Mueller.

That is not a fair point of inquiry.

The gentlelady from Florida is recognized.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentlelady from Florida is recognized.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
coming here.

Mr. Chairman?

Director Mueller, thank you so much for

You're a patriot.

I want to refer you now to Volume II, page 158.

You wrote

that, quote, the President's efforts to influence the
investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely
because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry
out orders or accede to his request.
Mr. Mueller.

That is accurate.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Is that right?
That is what we found.

And you're basically referring to

senior advisers who disobeyed the President's orders, like
White House Counsel Don McGahn, former Trump campaign manager
Corey Lewandowski.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that right?
Well, we have not specified the persons

mentioned.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Well, in page 158, White House Counsel

Don McGahn, quote, did not tell the Acting Attorney General that
the special counsel must be removed but was instead prepared to
resign over the President's orders.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 172 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

171

You also explained that an attempt to obstruct justice does
not have to succeed to be a crime, right?
Mr. Mueller.

True.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Simply attempting to obstruct justice

can be a crime, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

So even though the President's aides

refused to carry out his orders to interfere with your
investigation, that is not a defense to obstruction of justice by
this President, is it?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to speculate.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

So to reiterate, simply trying to

obstruct justice can be a crime, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

And you say that the President's

efforts to influence the investigation were, quote, mostly
unsuccessful.

And that's because not all of his efforts were

unsuccessful, right?
Mr. Mueller.

Are you reading into what I -- what we have

written in the report?
Ms. Dean.

I was going to ask you if you could just tell me

which ones you had in mind as successful when you wrote that
sentence.
Mr. Mueller.

I'm going to pass on that.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Yeah.

Director Mueller, today, we've

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 173 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

172

talked a lot about the separate acts by this President, but you
also wrote in your report that, quote, the overall pattern of the
President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on
the nature of the President's acts, and the inferences can be
drawn about his intent, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Accurate recitation from the report.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Right.

And on page 158 again, I think

it's important for everyone to note that the President's conduct
had a significant change when he realized that it was -- the
investigations were conducted to investigate his obstruction acts.
So in other words, when the American people are deciding
whether the President committed obstruction of justice, they need
to look at all of the President's conduct and overall pattern of
behavior.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.

I don't disagree.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Thank you.

Dr. Mueller -- Director

Mueller -- Doctor also, I'll designate that too -- I have
certainly made up my mind about whether we -- what we have
reviewed today meets the elements of obstruction, including
whether there was corrupt intent.

And what is clear is that

anyone else, including some Members of Congress, would have been
charged with crimes for these acts.

We would not have allowed

this behavior from any of the previous 44 Presidents.

We should

not allow it now or for the future to protect our democracy.

And,

yes, we will continue to investigate because, as you clearly state

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 174 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

173

at the end of your report, no one is above the law.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Nadler.

The gentlelady yields back.

The gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Escobar.

Director Mueller, you wrote in your report that

you, quote, determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment, end quote.

Was that in part because of an opinion by

the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting
President can't be charged with a crime?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Escobar.

Director Mueller, at your May 29, 2019, press

conference, you explained that, quote, the opinion says that the
Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice
system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing, end
quote.

That process other than the criminal justice system for

accusing a President of wrongdoing, is that impeachment?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to comment on that.

Ms. Escobar.

In your report, you also wrote that you did not

want to, quote, potentially preempt constitutional processes for
addressing Presidential misconduct, end quote.

For the nonlawyers

in the room, what did you mean by, quote, potentially preempt
constitutional processes?

II.

Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to try to explain that.

Ms. Escobar.

That actually is coming from page 1 of Volume

In the footnote is the reference to this.

What are those

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 175 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

174

constitutional processes?
Mr. Mueller.

I think I heard you mention at least one.

Ms. Escobar.

Impeachment, correct?

Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to comment.

Ms. Escobar.

Okay.

That is one of the constitutional

processes listed in the report in the footnote in Volume II.
Your report documents the many ways the President sought to
interfere with your investigation.

And you state in your report

on page 10, Volume II, that with a -- interfering with a
congressional inquiry or investigation with corrupt intent can
also constitute obstruction of justice.
Mr. Mueller.

True.

Ms. Escobar.

Well, the President has told us that he intends

to fight all the subpoenas.

His continued efforts to interfere

with investigations of his potential misconduct certainly
reinforce the importance of the process the Constitution requires
to, quote, formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing, as
you cited in the report.
And in this -- and this hearing has been very helpful to this
committee as it exercises its constitutional duty to determine
whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the
President.
I agree with you, Director Mueller, that we all have a vital
role in holding this President accountable for his actions.
than that, I believe we in Congress have a duty to demand

More

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 176 of 177

UNOFFICIAL COPY

175

accountability and safeguard one of our Nation's highest
principles that no one is above the law.
From everything that I have heard you say here today, it's
clear that anyone else would have been prosecuted based on the
evidence available in your report.
President Trump accountable.

It now falls on us to hold

Thank you for being here.

Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chairman?

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Collins.

Just one point of personal privilege.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Collins.

The gentlelady yields back.

Point of personal privilege.

I just want to thank the chairman.

We did get

in our time.

After this was first developed to us, we did both

get in time.

Our side got our 5 minutes in.

Also, Mr. Mueller, thank you for being here, and I join the
chairman in thanking you for being here.
Chairman Nadler.

Thank you.

Director Mueller, we thank you for attending today's hearing.
Before we conclude, I ask everyone to please remain seated
and quiet while the witness exits the room.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witness or
additional materials for the record.
And without objection, the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

 Case Document 1-1 Filed 08/07/19 Page 177 of 177
UNOFFICIAL COPY 176

Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit B

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 3

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

May 20, 2019
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Nadler:
I write in further reference to the subpoena issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the
United States House of Representatives (the "Committee") to Donald F. McGahn II on April 22,
2019. My previous letter, dated May 7, 2019, informed you that Acting Chief of Staff to the
President Mick Mulvaney had directed Mr. McGahn not to produce the White House records
sought by the subpoena because they remain subject to the control of the White House and
implicate significant Executive Branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege.
Accordingly, I asked that the Committee direct any request for such records to the White House.
The subpoena also directs Mr. McGahn to appear to testify before the Committee at 10:00 a.m. on
Tuesday, May 21, 2019.
The Department of Justice (the "Department") has advised me that Mr. McGahn is
absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with respect to matters occurring
during his service as a senior adviser to the President. See Memorandum for Pat A. Cipollone,
Counsel to the President, from Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal
Counsel, Re: Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President (May
20, 2019). The Department has long taken the position-across administrations of both political
parties-that "the President and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial
compulsion by a Congressional committee." Immunity of the Former Counsel to the President
from Compelled Congressional Testimony, 31 Op. O.L.C. 191, 191 (2007) (quoting Assertion of
Executive Privilege with Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op. O.L.C. 1, 4 (1999) ( opinion of
Attorney General Janet Reno)); Immunity of the Counsel to the President from Compelled
Congressional Testimony, 20 Op. O.L.C. 308, 308 (1996). That immunity arises from the
President's position as head of the Executive Branch and from Mr. McGahn's former position as
a senior adviser to the President, specifically Counsel to the President.
There is no question that the position of Counsel to the President falls within the scope of
the immunity. The three previous opinions cited above directly addressed the immunity of Counsel
to the President: Harriet Miers was a former Counsel to President George W. Bush, Beth Nolan
was the current Counsel to President Clinton, and Jack Quinn was the current Counsel to President
Clinton. Accordingly, Mr. McGahn cannot be compelled to appear before the Committee because
"[s]ubjecting a senior presidential advisor to the congressional subpoena power would be akin to
requiring the President himself to appear before Congress on matters relating to the performance

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-2 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 3

The Honorable Je1rnld Nadler
Page 2
of his constitutionally assigned executive functions." Assertion of Executive Privilege with
Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op. O.L.C. at 5. The constitutional immunity of current and
fom1er senior advisers to the President exists to protect the institution of the Presidency and, as
stated by Attorney General Reno, "may not be overborne by competing congressional interests."
Id.
Because of this constitutional immunity, and in order to protect the prerogatives of the
Office of the Presidency, the President has directed Mr. McGalm not to appear at the Committee's
scheduled hearing on Tuesday, May 21, 2019. This long-standing principle is firmly rooted in the
Constitution's separation of powers and protects the core functions of the Presidency, and we are
adhering to this well-established precedent in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively
execute the responsibilities of the Office of the Presidency. I attach the legal opinion provided by
the Department of Justice for the Committee's review.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions or would like to
discuss this matter.

cc: The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit C

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 16

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Washington, D.C. 20530

May 20, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR PAT A. CIPOLLONE
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

Re: Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of
the Former Counsel to the President
On April 22, 2019, the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives
subpoenaed Donald F. McGahn II, the former Counsel to the President, to testify about matters
described in the report of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. You have asked whether Mr.
McGahn is legally required to appear.
We provide the same answer that the Department of Justice has repeatedly provided for
nearly five decades: Congress may not constitutionally compel the President's senior advisers to
testify about their official duties. This testimonial immunity is rooted in the constitutional
separation of powers and derives from the President's independence from Congress. As
Attorney General Janet Reno explained, "[s]ubjecting a senior presidential advisor to the
congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the President himself to appear before
Congress on matters relating to the performance of his constitutionally assigned executive
functions." Assertion of Executive Privilege with Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op. O.L.C.
1, 5 (1999) ("Reno Opinion"). Yet Congress may no more summon the President to a
congressional committee room than the President may command Members of Congress to appear
at the White House. See Memorandum for Edward C. Schmults, Deputy Attorney General, from
Theodore B. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel at 2 (July 29, 1982)
("Olson Memorandum").
Although the White House has opposed sending senior advisers to testify for almost as
long as there has been an Executive Office of the President, Assistant Attorney General William
Rehnquist first described the legal basis for immunity in a 1971 memorandum. See
Memorandum for John D. Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, from
William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office ofLegal Counsel, Re: Power of
Congressional Committee to Compel Appearance or Testimony of "White House Staff" (Feb. 5,
1971) ("Rehnquist Memorandum"). The Rehnquist Memorandum has been consistently
reaffirmed by administrations of both political parties, most recently during the Obama
Administration. See, e.g., Immunity of the Assistant to the President and Director of the Office
of Political Strategy and Outreach from Congressional Subpoena, 38 Op. O.L.C. _, * 1 & n. l
(July 15, 2014) ("Immunity of the Assistant to the President").

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 16

We believe that these established principles apply to bar the Committee from compelling
Mr. McGahn to testify. The Counsel to the President clearly qualifies as a senior adviser entitled
to testimonial immunity. Attorney General Reno reached that conclusion in her 1999 opinion,
and this Office has made the same determination on at least three other occasions. We have also
recognized that the immunity continues to apply after the Counsel leaves the White House. See
Immunity of the Former Counsel to the President from Compelled Congressional Testimony, 31
Op. O.L.C. 191, 192 (2007) ("Immunity of the Former Counsel").
The Chairman of the Committee has suggested that the justification for Mr. McGahn's
testimonial immunity is undermined by the President's decision not to assert executive privilege
over the redacted version of the Special Counsel's report that the Attorney General released last
month. See, e.g., Letter for Donald F. McGahn II, from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on
the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives at 1 (May 17, 2019) ("Nadler Letter"). But the
question whether an adviser need comply with a subpoena purporting to require an appearance is
different from the question whether the adviser's testimony would itself address privileged
matters. Therefore, the public disclosure of the Special Counsel's report does not have any legal
bearing upon the force of the congressional subpoena. For these reasons, and consistent with
nearly 50 years of executive branch precedent, we conclude that Mr. McGahn is not legally
required to appear and testify before the Committee.

I.
Since the 1970s, this Office has consistently advised that "the President and his
immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional
committee" on matters related to their official duties. Memorandum for All Heads of Offices,
Divisions, Bureaus and Boards of the Department of Justice, from John M. Harmon, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Executive Privilege at 5 (May 23,
1977) ("Harmon Memorandum"); see also Rehnquist Memorandum at 7 ("The President and his
immediate advisers-that is, those who customarily meet with the President on a regular or
frequent basis-should be deemed absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a
congressional committee."). Indeed, this Office has endorsed that legal principle on more than a
dozen occasions, over the course of the last eight presidential administrations.1

See Immunity of the Assistant to the President, 38 Op. O.L.C. at *1; Letter for Fred F. Fielding, Counsel
to the President, from Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel at
1-2 (Aug. 1, 2007) ("Bradbury Letter"); Immunity of the Former Counsel, 31 Op. O.L.C. at 191; Reno Opinion, 23
Op. O.L.C. at 4; Immunity of the Counsel to the President from Compelled Congressional Testimony, 20 Op. O.L.C.
308, 308 (1996) ("Immunity of the Counsel to the President"); Letter for Jack Brooks, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, from Nicholas E. Calio, Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs
at 1 (June 16, 1992) ("Calio Letter"); Olson Memorandum at 2; Memorandum for Rudolph W. Giuliani, Associate
Attorney General, from Theodore B. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re:
Congressional Demand for Deposition of Counsel to the President Fred F. Fielding at 2 (July 23, 1982)
("Congressional Demand for Deposition of Counsel"); Memorandum for Fred F. Fielding, Counsel to the President,
from Theodore B. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Congressional Testimony by
Presidential Assistants at 1 (Apr. 14, 1981); Memorandum for Margaret McKenna, Deputy Counsel to the President,
from John M. Harmon, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Dual-Purpose Presidential
Advisers at 5 (Aug. 11, 1977); Harmon Memorandum at 5; Letter to Phillip E. Areeda, Counsel to the President,
1

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 16

This testimonial immunity is distinct from, and broader than, executive privilege. Like
executive privilege, the immunity protects confidentiality within the Executive Branch and the
candid advice that the Supreme Court has acknowledged is essential to presidential decision­
making. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705 (1974) ("Human experience teaches that
those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern
for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.").
But the immunity extends beyond answers to particular questions, precluding Congress from
compelling even the appearance of a senior presidential adviser-as a function of the
independence and autonomy of the President himself. In this regard, the President's immediate
advisers are constitutionally distinct from the heads of executive departments and agencies,
whose offices are created by acts of Congress, whose appointments require the Senate's advice
and consent, and whose responsibilities entail the administration of federal statutes. Those
officers can and do testify before Congress. The President's immediate advisers, however,
exercise no statutory authority and instead act solely to advise and assist the President. Their
independence from Congress reflects that of the President.

A.
The President stands at the head of a co-equal branch of government. Yet allowing
Congress to subpoena the President to appear and testify would "promote a perception that the
President is subordinate to Congress, contrary to the Constitution's separation of governmental
powers into equal and coordinate branches." Immunity ofthe Assistant to the President, 38 Op.
O.L.C. at *3. As Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson explained in 1982: "The President
is a separate branch of government. He may not compel congressmen to appear before him. As
a matter of separation of powers, Congress may not compel him to appear before it." 0 Ison
Memorandum at 2. The President's immediate advisers are an extension of the President and are
likewise entitled to absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony.
In 2014, our most recent opinion on the topic described the bases for this immunity in
detail. "For the President's absolute immunity to be fully meaningful," we explained, "and for
these separation of powers principles to be adequately protected, the President's immediate
advisers must likewise have absolute immunity from congressional compulsion to testify about
matters that occur during the course of discharging their official duties." Immunity ofthe
Assistant to the President, 38 Op. O.L.C. at *2. The demands of the office require the President
to rely on senior advisers who serve "as the President's alter ego, assisting him on a daily basis
in the formulation of executive policy and resolution of matters affecting the military, foreign
affairs, and national security and other aspects of his discharge of his constitutional
responsibilities." Id. at *3 (quoting Reno Opinion, 23 Op. O.L.C. at 5); see also In re Sealed

from Antonin Scalia, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (Sept. 25, 1974) (enclosing a
memorandum, hereinafter "Scalia Memorandum"); Memorandum for John W. Dean III, Counsel to the President,
from Roger C. Cramton, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Availability of Executive
Privilege Where Congressional Committee Seeks Testimony of Former White House Official on Advice Given
President on Official Matters at 6 (Dec. 21, 1972) ("Cramton Memorandum"); Memorandum for John W. Dean III,
Counsel to the President, from Ralph E. Erickson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re:
Appearance of Presidential Assistant Peter M Flanigan Before a Congressional Committee at 1 (Mar. 15, 1972)
("Erickson Memorandum"); Rehnquist Memorandum at 7.

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 16

Case, 121 F.3d 729, 750 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ("The President himself must make decisions relying
substantially, if not entirely, on the information and analysis supplied by advisers.").
There are dozens of congressional committee and subcommittees with the authority to
conduct hearings and subpoena witnesses. Recognizing a congressional authority to compel the
President's immediate advisers to appear and testify at the times and places of their choosing
would interfere directly with the President's ability to faithfully discharge his responsibilities. It
would allow congressional committees to "wield their compulsory power to attempt to supervise
the President's actions, or to harass those advisers in an effort to influence their conduct, retaliate
for actions the committee disliked, or embarrass and weaken the President for partisan gain."
Immunity of the Assistant to the President, 38 Op. O.L.C. at *3. And in the case of the
President's current advisers, preparing for such examinations would force them to divert time
and attention from their duties to the President at the whim of congressional committees. This
"would risk significant congressional encroachment on, and interference with, the President's
prerogatives and his ability to discharge his duties with the advice and assistance of his closest
advisers," ultimately subordinating senior presidential advisers to Congress rather than the
President. Id; see also Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 757 (1996) ("Even when a branch
does not arrogate power to itself . . . the separation-of-powers doctrine requires that a branch not
impair another in the performance of its constitutional duties.").
The immunity of senior presidential advisers also protects the Executive Branch's strong
interests in confidentiality as well as the President's ability to obtain sound and candid advice.
As the Supreme Court has recognized, "[a] President and those who assist him must be free to
explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a
way many would be unwilling to express except privately." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 708. While a
senior presidential adviser, like other executive officials, could rely on executive privilege to
decline to answer specific questions at a hearing, the privilege is insufficient to ameliorate
several threats that compelled testimony poses to the independence and candor of executive
councils.
First, compelled congressional testimony "create[s] an inherent and substantial risk of
inadvertent or coerced disclosure of confidential information," despite the availability of claims
of executive privilege with respect to the specific questions asked during such testimony.
Immunity of the Assistant to the President, 38 Op. O.L.C. at *4. As we explained in 2014, senior
presidential advisers
could be asked, under the express or implied threat of contempt of Congress, a wide
range of unanticipated and hostile questions about highly sensitive deliberations and
communications. In the heat of the moment, without the opportunity for careful
reflection, the adviser might have difficulty confining his remarks to those that do not
reveal such sensitive information. Or the adviser could be reluctant to repeatedly invoke
executive privilege, even though validly applicable, for fear of the congressional and
media condemnation she or the President might endure.

Id.; see also Congressional Demand for Deposition of Counsel, supra note 1, at 2 ("A witness
before a Congressional committee may be asked-under threat of contempt-a wide range of
unanticipated questions about highly sensitive deliberations and thought processes. He therefore
4

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 16

may be unable to confine his remarks only to those which do not impair the deliberative
process.").
Second, even "[t]he prospect of compelled interrogation by a potentially hostile
congressional committee about confidential communications with the President or among the
President's immediate staff could chill presidential advisers from providing unpopular advice or
from fully examining an issue with the President or others." Immunity ofthe Assistant to the
President, 38 Op. O.L.C. at*4. This is true whether or not the President might ultimately assert
executive privilege over the testimony in question, given the adviser's uncertainty over whether a
particular matter will become the subject of future congressional inquiry and whether the
President would choose to incur the political costs associated with invoking the privilege.
Finally, given the frequency with which the testimony of a senior presidential adviser­
whose sole and daily responsibility is to advise and assist the President-would fall within the
scope of executive privilege, compelling the adviser's appearance is not likely to promote any
valid legislative interests. Coercing senior presidential advisers into situations where they must
repeatedly decline to provide answers, citing executive privilege, would be inefficient and
contrary to good-faith governance. The President's immediate advisers, if compelled to testify,
are unlikely to answer many of the Members' questions, suggesting that the hearing itself will
not serve any legitimate purpose for the Committee.

B.
The Executive Branch's position on testimonial immunity reflects historical practices
dating back nearly to the 1939 establishment of the Executive Office of the President. As
Assistant Attorney General Antonin Scalia explained in a 1974 memorandum, "at least since the
Truman Administration," presidential advisers "have appeared before congressional committees
only where the inquiry related to their own private affairs or where they had received
Presidential permission." Scalia Memorandum, supra note 1, at 6. Although Presidents have
occasionally permitted such testimony, the long-standing policy has been to decline invitations
for voluntary appearances and to resist congressional subpoenas for involuntary ones.
In surveying the history through 1971, Assistant Attorney General Rehnquist described
the earliest application of the policy to be inconclusive and at times inconsistent. See Rehnquist
Memorandum at 4-6. But even when senior presidential advisers did appear, those appearances
were frequently accompanied by a claim of legal privilege not to do so. Assistant Attorney
General Rehnquist thus described the claim as an absolute testimonial immunity for the
President's immediate advisers, see id. at 7, and this Office has reaffirmed and expanded upon
that conclusion in the decades since. The following examples, while not exhaustive, demonstrate
the strong historical foundation for the Executive Branch's position that Congress may not
compel the President's senior advisers to appear and testify.
In 1944, during the Administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a subcommittee of the
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry subpoenaed Jonathan Daniels, an Administrative
Assistant to President Roosevelt, to testify about his reported attempts to compel the resignation
of the Rural Electrification Administrator. See Administration ofthe Rural Electrification Act:
Hearing on S. 197 Before a Subcomm. ofthe S. Comm. on Agric. and Forestry, 78th Cong., pt. 3,
5

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 16

at 611-28, 629 (1944). Mr. Daniels appeared at the hearing but advised that he could not answer
questions that would concern his confidential relationship with the President. Id After the
hearing ended with the subcommittee threatening contempt, Mr. Daniels wrote to the
subcommittee and reiterated his belief that the subcommittee could not compel his testimony.
See id at 740. However, he stated that the President had determined that his testimony would
not be contrary to the public interest and that he therefore was willing to appear in the future.
See id; see also id at 695-740. The New York Times reported that "[w]ith Daniels' agreement to
testify disappeared the possibility of using his previous defiance as the first test of the division
between executive and legislative power before the Senate." Daniels to Answer Senators'
Queries: President Agrees, N.Y. Times, Mar. 5, 1944, at 1.
The first outright refusal of a presidential adviser to appear apparently occurred during
the Truman Administration, in 1948, when a special subcommittee of the House Committee on
Education and Labor twice subpoenaed John R. Steelman, an Assistant to the President, to testify
about his communications with President Truman regarding administration of the Taft-Hartley
Act during a strike. See Investigation ofGSI Strike: Hearing Before a Special Subcomm. ofthe
H Comm. on Educ. and Labor, 80th Cong. 347-53 (1948). Mr. Steelman declined to comply
and returned the subpoenas with a letter stating: "[I]n each instance the President directed me, in
view of my duties as his Assistant, not to appear before your subcommittee." H.R. Rep. No. 801595, at 3 (1948).
During the Eisenhower Administration, in 1955, a subcommittee of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary invited the President's Chief of Staff, Sherman Adams, to testify
about a contract between the Atomic Energy Commission and two power companies. He
declined, citing in part his "official and confidential relationship with the President." Power
Policy, Dixon-Yates Contract: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Antitrust and Monopoly ofthe
S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 84th Cong., pt. 2, at 675-76, 779 (1955). Later, in 1958, Mr. Adams
testified, with President Eisenhower's approval, before a House subcommittee concerning
allegations of impropriety relating to his relationship with a New England industrialist.
Investigation ofRegulatory Commissions and Agencies: Hearing Before a Subcomm. ofthe H
Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 85th Cong., pt. 10, at 3712-40 (1958).
During the Administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1968, the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary requested the testimony of Associate Special Counsel to the
President W. DeVier Pierson to testify concerning the nomination of Associate Justice Abe
Fortas to be Chief Justice of the United States. The inquiry concerned whether Justice Fortas
had inappropriately participated in developing certain legislation. Mr. Pierson responded that
"[i]t has been firmly established, as a matter of principle and precedents, that members of the
President's immediate staff shall not appear before a Congressional committee to testify with
respect to the performance of their duties on behalf of the President." Nominations ofAbe
Fortas and Homer Thornberry: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 90th Cong., pt. 2,
at 1348 (1968). He continued: "This limitation, which has been recognized by the Congress as
well as the Executive, is fundamental to our system of government. I must, therefore,
respectfully decline the invitation to testify in these hearings." Id.
In 1972, during the Nixon Administration, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary invited
Peter M. Flanigan, an Assistant to the President, to testify. This Office advised that Mr. Flanigan
6

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 16

occupied "a close and confidential relationship with the President and share[d] the President's
immunity from congressional process." Erickson Memorandum, supra note 1, at 1. Our
disposition was clear: "[I]t has been firmly established that members of the President's
immediate staff may not appear before a congressional committee to testify with respect to the
performance of their duties." Id. 2
In 1979, during the Carter Administration, Special Assistant to the President Sarah
Weddington was invited to testify before the Senate Human Resources Committee as part of a
hearing on "Women in the Coming Decade." At the instruction of the Counsel to President, she
declined to appear, explaining that "it is White House policy for personal aides to the President
to decline invitations to testify before Congressional committees." Letter for Harrison A.
Williams, U.S. Senate, from Sarah Weddington, Special Assistant to the President at 1 (Jan. 31,
1979) ("Weddington Letter"). She offered, however, to meet informally with committee
members or staff to discuss related programs and proposals. Id. at 2.
In 1980, the Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Committee on Armed Services
requested the testimony of Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs David
Aaron concerning leaks to The Washington Post. President Carter directed Mr. Aaron not to
appear. The Counsel to the President, Lloyd N. Cutler, explained that "Congress has always
respected the privilege of the President to decline requests that the President himself or his
immediate White House advisors appear to testify before Congressional committees," instead
provided a sworn affidavit by Mr. Aaron denying the allegations, and offered to make Mr. Aaron
available for an interview or deposition under oath. Letter for Samuel S. Stratton, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Investigation of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of
Representatives, from Lloyd N. Cutler, Counsel to the President at 1-2 (Sept. 30, 1980).
In 1982, during the Reagan Administration, the Senate Labor and Human Resources
Committee sought the testimony of Counsel to the President Fred F. Fielding concerning
allegations of corruption against Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan. Mr. Fielding declined
to appear and testify. See Olson Memorandum at 1-4 (explaining the legal basis for that
decision). Deputy Attorney General Edward C. Schmults notified the Committee that, "[a]s an
institutional matter, the President cannot permit his Counsel to provide sworn testimony to the
Legislative Branch regarding the performance of his duties," but offered to arrange for written
responses to a reasonable number of written inquiries. Letter for Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman,
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate, from Edward C. Schmults, Deputy
Attorney General at 2-3 (Apr. 19, 1983) ("Schmults Letter").
In 1992, during the George H.W. Bush Administration, the House Committee on the
Judiciary requested that C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, and Nicholas Rostow,
In connection with the Watergate investigations, President Nixon reached an agreement with the Senate's
Watergate Select Committee to authorize current and former White House officials to appear voluntarily and under
oath before the committee in closed session. See Remarks Announcing Procedures and Developments in
Connection With the Watergate Investigations (Apr. 17, 1973), Pub. Papers of Pres. Richard Nixon 298, 298-99
(1973). President Nixon later determined that he would not claim executive privilege over the subject matters of the
testimony and would allow the witnesses to testify in open hearings. See Statements About the Watergate
Investigations (May 22, 1973), Pub. Papers ofPres. Richard Nixon at 547, 554 (1973). He therefore waived the
testimonial immunity to authorize those appearances.
2

7

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 16

Special Assistant to the President and a Senior Director for Legal Affairs at the National Security
Council, testify concerning Bush Administration policies towards Iraq prior to the first Gulf War.
The White House declined, citing "the longstanding practice of the Executive Branch to decline
requests for testimony by members of the President's personal staff." Calio Letter, supra note 1,
at 1.
In 1999, President Clinton directed Counsel to the President Beth Nolan not to appear in
response to a subpoena from the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
concerning a clemency decision. President Clinton relied on an opinion from Attorney General
Reno that concluded that "the Counsel serves as an immediate adviser to the President and is
therefore immune from compelled congressional testimony" on matters related to the
performance of official duties. Reno Opinion, 23 Op. O.L.C. at 4.
In 2007, during the George W. Bush Administration, the House Committee on the
Judiciary subpoenaed former Counsel to the President Harriet Miers to testify about the
Department of Justice's decision to request the resignation of certain United States Attorneys.
President Bush directed Ms. Miers not to testify after this Office concluded that she was
"immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters . . . that arose during her tenure
as Counsel to the President and that relate to her official duties in that capacity." Immunity of the
Former Counsel, 31 Op. O.L.C. at 193.
Also in 2007, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary subpoenaed the testimony of Karl
Rove, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff, on the same subject. This Office confirmed that
Mr. Rove was "immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters (such as the U.S.
Attorney resignations) that arose during his tenure as an immediate presidential adviser and that
relate to his official duties in that capacity." Bradbury Letter, supra note 1, at 1-2. In 2008, a
subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary also subpoenaed Mr. Rove, and he was
again directed not to testify. See Letter for Robert D. Luskin, Patton Boggs LLP, from Fred F.
Fielding, Counsel to the President at 1 (July 9, 2008).
In 2014, during the Obama Administration, the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform issued a subpoena to David Simas to testify about matters related to his
official responsibilities as Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Political
Strategy and Outreach. In particular, the committee requested testimony regarding "the role and
function of the White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach" and the question
"whether the White House [was] taking adequate steps to ensure that political activity by
Administration officials complies with relevant statutes, including the Hatch Act." Immunity of
the Assistant to the President, 38 Op. O.L.C. at *1 (internal quotation marks omitted). This
Office concluded that Mr. Simas was "immune from compulsion to testify before the
[c]ommittee on these matters," id. , and he declined to testify.
The foregoing historical record demonstrates that the immunity of senior presidential
advisers from congressional testimony is long-standing and has been repeatedly asserted against
the requests of Congress. These examples do not indicate that senior presidential advisers have
always declined to testify before Congress. The practice of asserting testimonial immunity-just
like the practice of asserting executive privilege-has long reflected the "spirit of dynamic
compromise" that reflects the "efficient and effective functioning" of the political branches of
8

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 16

government. United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. , 567 F.2d 121, 127 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
Presidents have occasionally made senior advisers available to accommodate congressional
requests, even while defending their legal authority to decline such requests. But these
accommodations between the political branches do not compromise the underlying immunity of
the President or his senior presidential advisers from compelled congressional testimony. Nor do
they nullify the many instances where Presidents have successfully asserted immunity and
affirmatively directed their immediate aides not to testify before Congress.

C.
While the Executive Branch has asserted for 75 years that senior presidential advisers
may decline to testify before Congress, and has formally asserted an immunity for nearly 50
years, neither the Supreme Court nor any court of appeals has specifically addressed the
question. This is because disputes over congressional demands for information from the
Executive Branch are inherently political, and the historical practice has been to resolve such
questions in the political arena. When such conflicts have arisen, Congress has either acceded to
the President's claims of immunity or the Executive Branch has accommodated the
congressional interest in some fashion. Only one district court has ever addressed the testimonial
immunity of the President's senior advisers, and that decision did not come until 2008. See
Comm. on the Judiciary, U S. House ofRepresentatives v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C.
2008). Although the district court held that presidential advisers were not entitled to absolute
immunity from compelled congressional testimony, the court of appeals stayed that decision
pending appeal, and the parties settled without any appellate decision on the merits.
Nonetheless, this Office has recognized that the Executive Branch's long-standing
position is consistent with related Supreme Court precedent. See Immunity ofthe Assistant to the
President, 38 Op. O.L.C. at *5. InGravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), the Court held
that legislative aides share in the constitutional immunity enjoyed by Members of Congress
under the Speech or Debate Clause. Id. at 616-1 7. The Court reasoned that the Clause "was
designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and
deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch," and "protect[ion] . . .
against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process." Id. at 616.
Because "it is literally impossible . . . for Members of Congress to perform their legislative tasks
without the help of aides and assistants," the Court recognized that such aides "must be treated as
the [Members'] alter egos." Id. at 616-17. For purposes of immunity, the Court concluded,
Members of Congress and their aides should be "treated as one." Id. at 616 (internal quotation
marks omitted). The same logic applies with respect to the President and his senior advisers.
The failure to recognize the extension of the President's immunity from compelled congressional
testimony to senior advisers would call into question the well-established extension of derivative
immunity to congressional staffers.
It is true that in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), the Court declined to extend
Gravel's alter-ego reasoning to a civil suit for damages against senior presidential advisers, and
instead concluded that such advisers are entitled only to qualified immunity in those civil
actions. Id. at 810- 1 1, 813-15. Harlow thus distinguished the President's immediate advisers
from the President himself, whom the Court held (in another decision issued the same day) to be
absolutely immune from civil suits based on official acts. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731,
9

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 16

749 (1982). Yet we have previously declined to extend Harlow to the context of testimonial
immunity because the prospect of compelled congressional testimony raises separation of powers
concerns that are not present in a civil damages lawsuit brought by a private party. Immunity of
the Assistant to the President, 38 Op. O.L.C. at *5-7. Compelled congressional testimony
"threatens to subject presidential advisers to coercion and harassment, create a heightened
impression of presidential subordination to Congress, and cause public disclosure of confidential
presidential communications in a way that the careful development of evidence through a
judicially monitored [proceeding] does not." Id at *6. In a private lawsuit, the court "acts as a
disinterested arbiter of a private dispute, not as a party in interest to the very lawsuit it
adjudicates," and it "is charged with impartially administering procedural rules designed to
protect witnesses from irrelevant, argumentative, harassing, cumulative, privileged, and other
problematic questions." Id By contrast, congressional hearings involving the President's
immediate advisers contain none of those assurances, and they threaten the President's autonomy
and ability to receive sound and candid advice in a way that private civil damages suits do not.
Cf Archibald Cox, Executive Privilege, 122 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1383, 1429 (1974) (stating that as
compared to a civil action, "[t]he need to protect aides and subordinates from reprisals on Capitol
Hill and in the media of public debate is a thousand-fold greater in the case of congressional
hearings, which are often the preserves of individual Senators and Congressmen not all of whom
are invariably characterized by judicious self-restraint").
We recognize that in Miers, a federal district court read Harlow to imply that senior
presidential advisers do not enjoy absolute immunity from congressionally compelled testimony.
See Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 100-03. But we believe that the court did not adequately consider
the different and heightened separation of powers concerns bearing upon the testimony of the
President's immediate advisers before Congress. Moreover, the district court's decision was
stayed pending appeal. See Comm. on the Judiciary ofthe U S. House of Representatives v.
Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 910-11 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam). The case settled and the appeal was
dismissed before any further action by the court of appeals. Comm. on the Judiciary ofthe U S.
House ofRepresentatives v. Miers, No. 08-5357, 2009 WL 3568649, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 14,
2009). For the reasons set forth above, and in greater detail in our 2014 opinion, Immunity ofthe
Assistant to the President, 38 Op. O.L.C. at *5-9, we respectfully disagree with the district
court's conclusion in Miers and adhere to this Office's long-established position that the
President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony.

II.
Having reaffirmed the existence of the testimonial immunity of the President's immediate
advisers, we now consider its application to Mr. McGahn, the former Counsel to the President.
Plainly, the Counsel to the President qualifies as an immediate adviser to the President. As
Attorney General Reno recognized, "the Counsel serves as an immediate adviser to the President
and is therefore immune from compelled congressional testimony." Reno Opinion, 23 Op.
O.L.C. at 4. Indeed, we have recognized the Counsel's immunity from congressional testimony
on multiple occasions. See, e. g. , Immunity ofthe Former Counsel, 31 Op. O.L.C. at 192 ("[T]he
Counsel to the President ' serves as an immediate adviser to the President and is therefore
immune from compelled congressional testimony."' (quoting Reno Opinion, 23 Op. O.L.C.
at 4)); Immunity ofthe Counsel to the President, 20 Op. O.L.C. at 309 ("There is no question that
the Counsel to the President falls within Assistant Attorney General Rehnquist's description of
10

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 16

the type of Presidential advisers who are immune from testimonial compulsion."); Congressional
Demand for Deposition of Counsel, supra note 1, at 2 ("I believe the Counsel to the President
possesses an absolute privilege not to testify with regard to any matters relating to his official
duties as legal adviser to the President.").
In addition, we have recognized that testimonial immunity continues after the tenure of a
particular Counsel to the President. As we explained in 2007, "[s]eparation of powers principles
dictate that former presidents and former senior presidential advisers remain immune from
compelled congressional testimony about official matters that occurred during their time as
President or senior presidential advisers." Immunity of the Former Counsel, 31 Op. O.L.C. at
192-93. The Supreme Court has explicitly recognized this principle in the context of executive
privilege. The privilege must outlast the tenure of a particular President because, absent a
guarantee of lasting confidentiality, "a President could not expect to receive the full and frank
submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of his duties depends." Nixon
v. Adm 'r of Gen. Servs. , 433 U.S. 425, 449 (1977) (adopting the view of the Solicitor General);
see also United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966) (applying the Speech or Debate Clause to
a former Member of Congress).
In concluding that the former Counsel to the President retained her testimonial immunity,
we relied upon the actions of former President Truman, who explained his own refusal to appear
and testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the following terms: "[I]f
the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the Presidency is to have any
validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a President after his term of office has expired
when he is sought to be examined with respect to any acts occurring while he is President."
Immunity of the Former Counsel, 31 Op. O.L.C. at 193 (quoting Texts of Truman Letter and
Velde Reply, N.Y. Times, Nov. 13, 1953, at 14 (reprinting Nov. 12, 1953 letter by President
Truman)). It is "just as important to the independence of the Executive that the actions of the
President should not be subjected to the questioning by the Congress after he has completed his
term of office as that his actions should not be questioned while he is serving as President." Id.
(quoting Text of Address by Truman Explaining to Nation His Actions in the White Case, N.Y.
Times, Nov. 17, 1953, at 26). Because the immunity of senior presidential advisers derives from
the immunity of the President, this same logic extends to them as well.
Our 2007 conclusion in Immunity of the Former Counsel was consistent with the analysis
of the immunity interests of former officials during the George H.W. Bush and Nixon
Administrations. See Letter for Arthur B. Culvahouse, O'Melveny & Myers, from C. Boyden
Gray, Counsel to the President at 1 (June 17, 1992) ("[I]t is long-standing White House policy
not to a,ssent to formal testimony to Congressional committees by former White House officials
about matters occurring during their White House service."). It is true that the President does not
have the same need for the daily advice and assistance of his former advisers, as with his current
advisers, yet the confidentiality interests associated with the advisers' former role remain just as
strong. See Cramton Memorandum, supra note 1, at 5-6 ("If advice from a staff member were
protected from congressional and public scrutiny only for so long as the staff member remained
employed in the White House, the protection would be significantly reduced. It would only be a
question of time when staff turnovers or a change in administration would remove the shield.").

11

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 16

Even more significantly, the risk to the separation of powers and to the President's
autonomy posed by a former adviser's testimony on official matters continues after the
conclusion of that adviser's tenure. See id at 6 ("[T]he same considerations that were persuasive
to former President Truman would apply to justify a refusal to appear by such a former staff
member, if the scope of his testimony is to be limited to his activities while serving in that
capacity. "). Accordingly, consistent with our prior precedents, we find no material distinction
between the compelled congressional testimony of current and former senior advisers to the
President. Mr. McGahn's departure as Counsel to the President does not alter his immunity from
compelled congressional testimony on matters related to his service to the President.
III.
In this instance, the Committee seeks to question Mr. McGahn concerning matters
addressed in the report of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, on the Investigation into
Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. The Chairman of the Committee has
suggested that the White House's voluntary cooperation with this investigation and the
President's decision not to assert executive privilege over the Special Counsel's report may
undermine any claim that Mr. McGahn is immune from compelled testimony. Nadler Letter at 1.
However, the concept of immunity is distinct from, and broader than, the question whether
executive privilege would protect a witness's response to any particular question. See Rehnquist
Memorandum at 4 (recognizing the "distinction between a claim of absolute immunity from even
being sworn as a witness, and a right to claim privilege in answer certain questions in the course
of one's testimony as a witness").3 The President does not waive an adviser's immunity from
compelled congressional testimony by authorizing disclosure of any particular information. To
the contrary, Presidents have frequently authorized aides to share information as an
accommodation to Congress, notwithstanding claims of immunity.
The immunity from compelled congressional testimony implicates fundamental
separation of powers principles that are separate from the confidentiality of specific information.
See supra Part I.A. The constitutional interest in protecting the autonomy and independence of
the Presidency remains the same no matter whether the compelled testimony from a presidential
adviser would implicate public or potentially privileged matters. The President does not waive
his own immunity from compelled congressional testimony by making public statements on a
given subject. It follows then that the derivative immunity of senior presidential advisers is not
waived either.
Were the rule otherwise, Presidents could not offer partial accommodations to Congress
without waiving all privileges or immunities bearing upon the subject. Such a rule would
severely hinder the "spirit of dynamic compromise" and "implicit constitutional mandate to seek
optimal accommodation" that currently facilitates resolution of inter-branch disputes over
information. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. , 567 F.2d at 127. And such a rule would stand in marked
The Reno Opinion described the testimonial immunity as "a separate legal basis that would support a
claim of executive privilege for the entirety of the Counsel's testimony, thereby eliminating any need for her to
appear at the hearing." 23 Op. O.L.C. at 4. We think that the Rehnquist Memorandum's distinction between an
immunity and a privilege reflects the more precise formulation, but the distinction appears to be merely a semantic
one.
3

12

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 14 of 16

contrast to many instances of historical practice in which senior advisers declined to testify
before Congress, but instead offered accommodations through informal meetings or written
responses. See, e. g. , Schmults Letter at 2-3; Weddington Letter at 1-2. Yet no one has viewed
such accommodations, or the testimony of other executive advisers on similar subjects, to
constitute a general waiver of immunity.
The Chairman's suggestion that Mr. McGahn can no longer claim immunity appears to
be based upon the assumption that the President waived executive privilege by authorizing Mr.
McGahn and his senior aides to cooperate with the Special Counsel's investigation. But the
question of privilege is distinct from the issue of immunity. And in any event, the premise of the
Committee's position is incorrect. The sharing of information between one arm of the Executive
Branch and another does not compromise the President's interest in confidentiality. Indeed, in
Nixon v. Administrator ofGeneral Services, the Supreme Court rejected a separation of powers
objection to the disclosure of presumptively confidential information because "[t]he Executive
Branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, and . . . the materials can be released
only when release is not barred by some applicable privilege inherent in that branch." 433 U.S.
at 444. Information that was shared with the Special Counsel was shared within the Executive
Branch. Such voluntary sharing does not waive confidentiality or the underlying privilege.
This conclusion is consistent with past assertions of executive privilege. In Assertion of
Executive Privilege Concerning the Special Counsel 's Interviews ofthe Vice President and
Senior White House Sta.ff, 32 Op. O.L.C. 7 (2008), Attorney General Michael Mukasey advised
that the President could assert executive privilege against Congress over memoranda recording
interviews of White House witnesses with Department of Justice investigators. Id. at 9-13. As
he explained, "[w]ere future presidents, vice presidents or White House staff to perceive that
such voluntary cooperation would create records that would likely be made available to Congress
(and then possibly disclosed publicly outside of judicial proceedings such as a trial), there would
be an unacceptable risk that such knowledge could adversely impact their willingness to
cooperate fully and candidly in a voluntary interview." Id. at 11. Implicit in that explanation
was the understanding that the White House's voluntary cooperation with the Department's
investigation did not constitute a waiver of privilege against third parties outside the Executive
Branch. So, too, the White House's voluntary cooperation with the Special Counsel's
investigation did not effect a waiver of privilege, much less a waiver of testimonial immunity.
In contrast with the White House's cooperation with the Special Counsel, the Attorney
General's public release of a redacted version of the Special Counsel's report (with the
President's consent) does extinguish the Executive Branch's confidentiality interests in the
precise information that has already been revealed. But, as the D.C. Circuit has held, the
"release of a document only waives [executive] privileges for the document or information
specifically released, and not for related materials." In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 741; see id.
("[An] all-or-nothing approach has not been adopted with regard to executive privileges
generally, or to the deliberative process privilege in particular."). As Assistant Attorney General
Scalia explained, the purposes underlying executive privilege "would be jeopardized if harmful
information had to be disclosed merely because the President permitted the release of related
information that could be revealed safely." Scalia Memorandum, supra note 1, at 6-7. Such a
result "would have the effect of requiring the concealment of much information which would be
released, merely because it was connected with sensitive information." Id. at 7.
13

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 15 of 16

Thus, the public disclosure of particular information does not waive the Executive
Branch's confidentiality interests over the subject matters involved in the prior disclosure. See,
e. g. , Assertion of Executive Privilege Concerning the Dismissal and Replacement of US
Attorneys, 31 Op. O.L.C. 1, 8 (2007) (opinion of Acting Attorney General Paul Clement) ("The
Department[ of Justice]'s accommodation with respect to some White House-Department
communications does not constitute a waiver and does not preclude the President from asserting
executive privilege with respect to White House materials or testimony concerning such
communications."). Consequently, the public disclosure of the Special Counsel's report did not
constitute a general waiver concerning Mr. McGahn's communications with the President on
those subjects or on any other subjects. And in any event, as discussed above, the disclosure's
impact on executive privilege does not ultimately bear on Mr. McGahn's underlying immunity
from compelled testimony.

IV.
Because Congress may not constitutionally compel Mr. McGahn to testify about his
official duties, the President may lawfully direct him not to appear in response to the House
Judiciary Committee's subpoena. Should the President provide that direction, Mr. McGahn may
not constitutionally be penalized, civilly or criminally, for following it.
The Department of Justice has long recognized "that the contempt of Congress statute
was not intended to apply and could not constitutionally be applied to an Executive Branch
official who asserts the President's claim of executive privilege." Prosecution for Contempt of
Congress ofan Executive Branch Official Who Has Asserted a Claim ofExecutive Privilege,
8 Op. O.L.C. 101, 102 (1984) ("Prosecution for Contempt "); see also Application of 28 U S C.
§ 458 to Presidential Appointment ofFederal Judges, 19 Op. O.L.C. 350, 356 (1995) ("[T]he
criminal contempt of Congress statute does not apply to the President or presidential
subordinates who assert executive privilege."). As Assistant Attorney General Olson explained,
"the Constitution does not permit Congress to make it a crime for an official to assist the
President in asserting a constitutional privilege that is an integral part of the President's
responsibilities under the Constitution." Prosecution for Contempt, 8 Op. O.L.C. at 140. To do
so "would be to deter the President from asserting executive privilege and to make it difficult for
him to enlist the aid of his subordinates in the process," thereby "burden[ing] and immeasurably
impair[ing] the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional duties." Id. at 134, 137. Assistant
Attorney General Walter Dellinger adhered to that reasoning in 1995, recounting that the
"application of the contempt statute against an assertion of executive privilege would seriously
disrupt the balance between the President and Congress." Application of 28 U S C. § 458 to
Presidential Appointment of Federal Judges, 19 Op. O.L.C. at 356.
This Office has further confirmed that the same "principles . . . similarly shield a current
or former senior adviser to the President from prosecution for lawfully invoking his or her
immunity from compelled congressional testimony." Whether the Department ofJustice May
Prosecute White House Officials for Contempt of Congress, 32 Op. O.L.C. 65, 68 (2008).
Subjecting a senior presidential adviser to prosecution for asserting a good-faith claim of
testimonial immunity would equally impose upon the President " ' the untenable position of
having to place a subordinate at the risk of a criminal conviction and possible jail sentence in
order for the President to exercise a responsibility he found necessary to the performance of his
14

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-3 Filed 08/07/19 Page 16 of 16

constitutional duty."' Id. (quoting Prosecution for Contempt, 8 Op. O.L.C. at 136). In sum,
'"[t]o seek criminal punishment for those who have acted to aid the President's performance of
his duty would be . . . inconsistent with the Constitution."' Id. at 69 (quoting Prosecution for
Contempt, 8 Op. O.L.C. at 142).
We similarly believe that Congress could not lawfully exercise any inherent contempt
authority against Mr. McGahn for asserting immunity. The constitutional separation of powers
bars Congress from exercising its inherent contempt power in the face of a presidential assertion
of executive privilege. An attempt to exercise inherent contempt powers in such a circumstance
would be without precedent and "would immeasurably burden the President's ability to assert the
privilege and to carry out his constitutional functions." Prosecution for Contempt, 8 Op. O.L.C.
at 136. This is so because, as Assistant Attorney General Olson concluded, "the same reasoning
that suggests that the [criminal contempt] statute could not constitutionally be applied against a
Presidential assertion of privilege applies to Congress' inherent contempt powers as well." Id. at
140 n.42. Congress may not impede the President's ability to carry out his constitutionally
assigned functions by "arrest[ing], bring[ing] to trial, and punish[ing] an executive official who
asserted a Presidential claim of executive privilege." Id. The same rationale applies equally to
an exercise of inherent contempt powers against a senior aide who has complied with a
presidential direction that he not provide testimony to a congressional committee.

V.
The immunity of the President's immediate advisers from compelled congressional
testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises
from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers. This immunity applies to the former
White House Counsel. Accordingly, Mr. McGahn is not legally required to appear and testify
about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.
Please let us know if we may be of further assistance.

STEVEN A. ENGEL
Assistant Attorney General

15

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-4 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit D

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-4 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 2

The Attorney General
Washington, D.C.

March 22, 2019
The Honorable Lindsey Graham
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
2132 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Doug Collins
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
1504 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member
Collins:
I write to notify you pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(a)(3) that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller
III has concluded his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters. In
addition to this notification, the Special Counsel regulations require that I provide you with "a
description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General" or acting Attorney
General "concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted
under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued." 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(a)(3).
There were no such instances during the Special Counsel's investigation.
The Special Counsel has submitted to me today a "confidential report explaining the
prosecution or declination decisions" he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). I am
reviewing the report and anticipate that I may be in a position to advise you of the Special Counsel's
principal conclusions as soon as this weekend.
Separately, I intend to consult with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Special Counsel
Mueller to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public
consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department's long-standing
practices and policies. I remain committed to as much transparency as possible, and I will keep you
informed as to the status of my review.
Finally, the Special Counsel regulations provide that "the Attorney General may determine that
public release of' this notification "would be in the public interest." 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(c). I have so
determined, and I will disclose this Jetter to the public after delivering it to you.

��

William P. Barr
Attorney General

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 94

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit E

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 94

RPTR FORADORI
EDTR SECKMAN

FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT S. MUELLER III ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO
RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives,
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:50 p.m., in Room HVC-304, Capitol
Visitor Center, the Honorable Adam Schiff (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present:

Representatives Schiff, Himes, Sewell, Carson, Speier, Quigley,

Swalwell, Castro, Heck, Welch, Maloney, Demings, Krishnamoorthi, Nunes, Conaway,
Turner, Wenstrup, Stewart, Crawford, Stefanik, Hurd, and Ratcliffe.

1

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 94

The Chairman.

The committee will come to order.

2

At the outset and on behalf

of my colleagues, I want to thank you, Special Counsel Mueller, for a lifetime of service to
the 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 systematic
intervention in a close U.S. Presidential election.
attention of every American, as you well point out.

That should be enough to deserve the
But your report tells another story

as well.
For 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 an 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 provable crime in any event.
But I think maybe something worse.
A 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, about greed and corruption, about the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 94

3

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 advisory using his position to make money from still other foreign
interests.

And about a candidate trying to make more money than all of them put

together through a 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 economic sanctions imposed in the wake of Russia's invasion of
Ukraine and over human rights violations.
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.
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.
hush money payments.

Lies about polling data and lies about

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 your staff.

And lies to this committee.

Lies to the FBI.

Lies to obstruct an investigation into the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 94

4

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.
after 448 pages and 2 volumes, the deception continues.

Even now,

The President and his acolytes

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 outline 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 is all a
terrible hoax.

The real crime, they say, is not that the Russians intervened to help

Donald Trump but that the FBI had the temerity to investigate 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.
help, Mr. President?

When asked if the Russians intervene again, will you take their

Why not, was the essence of his answer; everyone does it.

No, Mr. President, they don't.
Madison, and Hamilton.

Not in the America envisioned by Jefferson,

Not for those who believe in the idea that Lincoln labored until

his dying day to preserve the idea animating our great national experiments so unique
then, so precious still, that our government is chosen by our people through our
franchise, and not by some hostile foreign power.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 94

5

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.
[The statement of The Chairman follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 94

Mr. Nunes.

6

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, everyone, to the last gasp of the Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
As Democrats continue to foist this spectacle on the American people, as well as you, Mr.
Mueller, the American people may recall the media first began spreading this conspiracy
theory in the spring of 2016 when Fusion GPS, funded by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton
campaign, started developing the Steele dossier, an collection outlandish accusations that
Trump and his associates were Russian agents.
Fusion GPS, Steele, and other confederates fed these absurdities to naive or
partisan reporters, and to top officials in numerous agencies, including the FBI, the
Department of Justice, and the State Department.

Among other things, the FBI used

dossier allegations to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, despite
acknowledging dossier allegations as being salacious and unverified.

Former FBI

Director James Comey briefed those allegations to President Obama and President-elect
Trump, those briefings conveniently leaked to the press, resulting in the publication of
the dossier and launching thousands of false press stories based on the word of a foreign
ex-spy.

One who admitted he was desperate that Trump lose the election, and who was

eventually fired as an FBI source for leaking to the press.
After Comey himself was fired, by his own admission, he leaked derogatory
information on President Trump to the press for the specific purpose, and successfully so,
of engineering the appointment of a special counsel who sits here before us today.
The FBI investigation was marred by further corruption and bizarre abuses.

Top

DOJ official Bruce Ohr, whose own wife worked on Fusion GPS' anti-Trump operation, fed
Steele's information to the FBI, even after the FBI fired Steele.
The top FBI investigator and his lover, another top FBI official, constantly texted

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 94

7

about how much they hated Trump and wanted to stop him from being elected.

And

the entire investigation was opened based not on Five Eyes intelligence but on a tip from
a foreign politician about a conversation involving Joseph Mifsud.

He is a Maltese

diplomat who's widely portrayed as a Russian agent but seems to have far more
connections with Western governments, including our own FBI and our own State
Department, than with Russia.
Brazenly ignoring all these red flags as well as the transparent absurdity of the
claims they are making, the Democrats have argued for nearly 3 years that evidence of
collusion is hidden just around the corner.

Like the Loch Ness monster, they insist it's

there, even if no one can find it.
Consider this, in March 2017, Democrats on this committee said they had more
than circumstantial evidence of collusion, but they couldn't reveal it yet.
was soon appointed, and they said he would find the collusion.

Mr. Mueller

Then when no collusion

was found in Mr. Mueller's indictments, the Democrats said we'd find it in his final report.
Then when there was no collusion in the report, we were told Attorney General Barr was
hiding it.

Then when it was clear Barr wasn't hiding anything, we were told it will be

revealed through a hearing with Mr. Mueller himself.
And now that Mr. Mueller is here, they're claiming that the collusion has actually
been in his report all along, hidden in plain sight.

And they're right.

in plain sight: collusion between Russia and the Democratic Party.
colluded with Russian sources to develop the Steele dossier.

There is collusion

The Democrats

And Russian lawyer Natalia

Veselnitskaya colluded with the dossier's key architect, Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson.
The Democrats have already admitted, both in interviews and through their usual
anonymous statements to reporters, that today's hearing is not about getting information
at all.

They said they want to, quote, bring the Mueller report to life and create a

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 94

8

television moment through ploys like having Mr. Mueller recite passages from his own
report.
In other words, this hearing is political theater.

It's a Hail Mary attempt to

convince the American people that collusion is real and that it's concealed in the report.
Granted, that's a strange argument to make about a report that is public.

It's almost like

the Democrats prepared arguments accusing Mr. Barr of hiding the report and didn't
bother to update their claims once he published the entire thing.
Among congressional Democrats, the Russia investigation was never about finding
the truth.

It's always been a simple media operation.

operation continues in this room today.

By their own accounts, this

Once again, numerous pressing issues this

committee needs to address are put on hold to indulge the political fantasies of people
who believed it was their destiny to serve Hillary Clinton's administration.
It's time for the curtain to close on the Russia hoax.
dead.

The conspiracy theory is

At some point, I would argue, we're going to have to get back to work.

then, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Mr. Nunes follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

Until

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 94

The Chairman.

9

To ensure fairness and make sure that our hearing is prompt -- I

know we got a late start, Director Mueller -- the hearing will be structured as follows.
Each member of the committee will be afforded 5 minutes to ask questions, beginning
with the chair and ranking member.

As chair, I will recognize thereafter, in an

alternating fashion and descending order of seniority, members of the majority and
minority.
After each member has asked his or her questions, the ranking member will be
afforded an additional 5 minutes to ask questions, followed by the chair, who will have
additional 5 minutes for questions.

The ranking member and the chair will not be

permitted to delegate or yield our final round of questions to any other member.
After six members of the majority and six members of the minority have
concluded their 5-minute rounds of questions, we'll take a 5- or 10-minute break, that we
understand you've requested, before resuming the hearing with Congressman Swalwell
starting his round of questions.
Special Counsel Mueller is accompanied today by Aaron Zebley, who served as
deputy special counsel from May 2017 until May 2019 and had day-to-day oversight of
the special counsel's investigation.

Mr. Mueller and Mr. Zebley resigned from the

Department of Justice at the end of May 2019 when the Special Counsel's Office was
closed.
Both Mr. Mueller and Mr. Zebley will be available to answer questions today and
will be sworn in consistent with the rules of the House and the committee.

Mr. Mueller

and Mr. Zebley's appearance today before the committee is in keeping with the
committee's long-standing practice of receiving testimony from current or former
Department of Justice and FBI personnel regarding open and closed investigative matters.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 94

10

As this hearing is under oath and before we begin your testimony, Mr. Mueller
and Zebley, would you please rise and raise your right hands to be sworn.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give at this hearing is
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Zebley.

I do.
I do.

The Chairman.

The record will reflect that the witnesses have been duly sworn.

Ranking member?
Mr. Nunes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

unusual for Mr. Zebley to be sworn in.
He's here as counsel.

I just want to clarify that this is highly

We're here to ask Director Mueller questions.

Our side is not going to be directing any questions to Mr. Zebley,

and we have concerns about his prior representation of the Hillary Clinton campaign aide.
So I just want to voice that concern that we do have, and we will not be addressing any
questions to Mr. Zebley today.
The Chairman.

I thank the ranking member.

I realize, as you probably do, Mr.

Zebley, that there is an angry man down the street who's not happy about you being here
today, but it is up to this committee and not anyone else who will be allowed to be sworn
in and testify, and you are welcome, as a private citizen, to testify, and members may
direct their questions to whoever they choose.
With that, Director Mueller, you are recognized for any opening remarks you
would like to make.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 94

11

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT S. MUELLER III, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL

Mr. Mueller.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman Schiff, Ranking Member

Nunes, and members of the committee.
Judiciary Committee.

I testified this morning before the House

I ask that the opening statement I made before that committee be

incorporated into the record here.
The Chairman.

Without objection, Director.

[The information follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 94

Mr. Mueller.

12

I understand that this committee has a unique jurisdiction and that

you are interested in further understanding the counterintelligence implications of our
investigation.

So let me say a word about how we handled the potential impact of our

investigation on counterintelligence matters.
As we explained in our report, the special counsel regulations effectively gave me
the role of United States Attorney.

As a result, we structured our investigation around

evidence for possible use in prosecution of Federal crimes.
would call counterintelligence conclusions.

We did not reach what you

We did, however, set up processes in the

office to identify and pass counterintelligence information on to the FBI.
Members of our office periodically briefed the FBI about counterintelligence
information.

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
to disseminate that information to the FBI.

For these reasons, questions about what the

FBI has done with the counterintelligence information obtained from our investigation
should be directed to the FBI.
I also want to reiterate a few points that I made this morning.

I am not making

any judgments or offering opinions about the guilt or innocence in any pending case.

It

is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a
prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited.
First, public testimony could affect several ongoing matters.

In some of these

matters, court rules or judicial orders limit the disclosure of information to protect the
fairness of the proceedings.

And consistent with longstanding Justice Department

policy, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any way that could affect an
ongoing matter.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 14 of 94

13

Second, the Justice Department has asserted privileges concerning investigative
information and decisions, ongoing matters within the Justice Department, and
deliberations within our office.
respect.

These are Justice Department privileges that I will

The Department has released a letter discussing the restrictions on my

testimony.

I, therefore, will not be able to answer questions about certain areas that I

know are of public interest.
For example, I am unable to address questions about the opening of the FBI's
Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related
to the so-called Steele dossier.
Department.

These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the

Any questions on these topics should, therefore, be directed to the FBI or

the Justice Department.
Third, as I explained this morning, it is important for me to adhere to what we
wrote in our report.

The report contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for

the decisions we made.

We stated the results of our investigation with precision.

I do

not intend to summarize or describe the results of our work in a different way in the
course of my testimony today.
As I stated in May, I also will not comment on the actions of the Attorney General
or of Congress.

I was appointed as a prosecutor, and I intend to adhere to that role and

to the Department's standards that govern.
Finally, as I said this morning, over the course of my career, I have seen a number
of challenges to our democracy.

The Russian Government's efforts to interfere in our

election is among the most serious, and I am sure the committee agrees.
Now, before we go to questions, I want to add one correction to my testimony
this morning.

I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu, who

said, and I quote:

You didn't charge the President because of the OLC opinion.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 15 of 94

That is not the correct way to say it.

As we say in the report, and as I said at the

opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a
crime.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to answer questions.
[The statement of Mr. Mueller follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

14

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 16 of 94

The Chairman.

15

Thank you, Director Mueller.

I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Director Mueller, your report describes a sweeping and systemic effort by Russia
to influence our Presidential election.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

Is that correct?

That is correct.
And during the course of this Russian interference in the election,

the Russians made outreach to the Trump campaign, did they not?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

That occurred over the course of -- yeah, that occurred.
It's also clear from your report that, during that Russian outreach

to the Trump campaign, no one associated with the Trump campaign ever called the FBI
to report it.

Am I right?

Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
occurred.

I don't know that for sure.
In fact, the campaign welcomed the Russian help, did they not?
I think we reported in our -- in the report indications that that

Yes.

The Chairman.

The President's son said when he was approached about dirt on

Hillary Clinton that the Trump campaign would love it?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

That is generally what was said.

Yes.

The President himself called on the Russians to hack Hillary's

emails?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

There was a statement by the President in those general lines.
And numerous times during the campaign, the President praised

the releases of the Russian-hacked emails through WikiLeaks.
Mr. Mueller.

That did occur.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 17 of 94

The Chairman.

16

Your report found that the Trump campaign planned, quote, a

press strategy, communications campaign, and messaging, unquote, based on that
Russian assistance?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

I am not familiar with that.
That language comes from Volume I, page 54.

Apart from the Russians wanting to help Trump win, several individuals associated
with the Trump campaign were also trying to make money during the campaign and
transition.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

That is true.
Paul Manafort was trying to make money or achieve debit

forgiveness from a Russian oligarch?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

Generally, that is accurate.
Michael Flynn was trying to make money from Turkey?
True.
Donald Trump was trying to make millions from a real estate deal

in Moscow?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

To the extent you're talking about the hotel in Moscow?
Yes.
Yes.
When your investigation looked into these matters, numerous

Trump associates lied to your team, the grand jury, and Congress?
Mr. Mueller.

A number of persons that we interviewed in our investigation it

turns out did lie.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.

Mike Flynn lied?
He was convicted of lying, yes.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 18 of 94

The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

17

George Papadopoulos was convicted of lying?
True.
Paul Manafort was convicted of lying?
True.
Paul Manafort, in fact, went so far as to encourage other people

to lie?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

That is accurate.
Manafort's deputy, Rick Gates, lied?
That is accurate.
Michael Cohen, the President's lawyer, was indicted for lying?
True.
He lied to stay on message with the President?
Allegedly by him.
And when Donald Trump called your investigation a witch hunt,

that was also false, was it not?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

I like to think so, yes.
Well, your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it?
It is not a witch hunt.
When the President said the Russian interference was a hoax,

that was false, wasn't it?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.

True.
When he said it publicly, it was false?
He did say publicly that it was false.

Yes.

And when he told it to Putin, that was false, too, wasn't it?
That I'm not familiar with.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 19 of 94

The Chairman.

18

When the President said he had no business dealings with Russia.

That was false, wasn't it?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

I'm not going to go into the details of the report along those lines.
When the President said he had no business dealings with Russia,

in fact, he was seeking to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, was he not?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

I think there's some question about when this was accomplished.
Well, you would consider a billion dollar deal to build a tower in

Moscow to be business dealings, wouldn't you, Director Mueller?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

Absolutely.
In short, your investigation found evidence that Russia wanted to

help Trump win the election, right?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

I think, generally, that would be accurate.
Russia informed campaign officials of that?
I'm not certain to what conversation you're referring to.
Well, through an intermediary, they informed Papadopoulos that

they could help with the anonymous release of stolen emails.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.

Accurate.
Russia committed Federal crimes in order to help Donald Trump?
When you're talking about the computer crimes charged in our

case, absolutely.
The Chairman.

The Trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging

strategy, around those stolen documents?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.

Generally, that's true.
And then they lied to cover it up?
Generally, that's true.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 20 of 94

The Chairman.

19

Thank you.

Mr. Nunes.
Mr. Nunes.

Thank you.

Welcome, Director.

As a former FBI Director, you'd agree that the FBI is the

world's most capable law enforcement agency?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

I would say we're -- yes.
The FBI claims the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump

campaign began on July 31, 2016, but in fact, it began before that.

In June 2016, before

the investigation officially opened, Trump campaign associates Carter Page and Stephen
Miller, a current Trump advisor, were invited to attend a symposium at Cambridge
University in July of 2016.

Your office, however, did not investigate who was

responsible for inviting these Trump Associates to this symposium.
Your investigators also failed to interview Steven Schrage, an American citizen
who helped organize the event and invited Carter Page to it.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

Is that correct?

Can you repeat the question?
Whether or not you interviewed Steven Schrage, who organized -Those areas I'm going to stay away from.
The first Trump associate to be investigated was General Flynn.

Many of the allegations against him stem from false media reports that he had an affair
with a Cambridge academic, Svetlana Lokhova, and that Lokhova was a Russian spy.
Some of these allegations were made public in a 2017 article written by British
intelligence historian Christopher Andrew.

Your report fails to reveal how or why

Andrew and his collaborator, Richard Dearlove, former head of Britain's MI6, spread
these allegations.
Is that correct?

And you failed to interview Svetlana Lokhova about these matters.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 21 of 94

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

20

I'm not going to get into those matters to which you refer.
You had a team of 19 lawyers, 40 agents, and an unlimited budget,

correct, Mr. Mueller?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

I would not say we had an unlimited budget.
Let's continue with the ongoing or the opening of the investigation

supposedly on July 31, 2016.

The investigation was not open based on an official

product from Five Eyes intelligence, but based on a rumor conveyed by Alexander
Downer.

On Volume I, page 89, your report describes him blandly as a representative of

a foreign government, but he was actually a long-time Australia politician, not a military
or intelligence official, who had previously arranged a $25 million donation to the Clinton
Foundation and has previous ties to Dearlove.
So Downer conveys a rumor he supposedly heard about a conversation between
Papadopoulos and Joseph Mifsud.

James Comey has publicly called Mifsud a Russian

agent, yet your report does not refer to Mifsud as a Russian agent.

Mifsud has extensive

contacts with Western governments and the FBI.
For example, there is a recent photo of him standing next to Boris Johnson, the
new Prime Minister of Great Britain.

What we're trying to figure out here, Mr. Mueller,

is if our NATO allies or Boris Johnson have been compromised.
out, Comey says Mifsud is a Russian agent; you do not.

So we're trying to figure

So do you stand by what's in the

report?
Mr. Mueller.

I stand by that which is in the report, and not so necessarily with

that which is not in the report.
Mr. Nunes.

I want to return to Mr. Downer, he denies that Papadopoulos

mentioned anything to him about Hillary Clinton's emails.
mentioning that to Papadopoulos.

And, in fact, Mifsud denies

He denies that Papadopoulos mentioned anything to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 22 of 94

21

him about Hillary Clinton's emails, and in fact, Mifsud denies mentioning them to
Papadopoulos in the first place.
So how does the FBI know to continually ask Papadopoulos about Clinton's emails
for the rest of 2016?

Even more strangely, your sentencing memo on Papadopoulos

blames him for hindering the FBI's ability to potentially detain or arrest Mifsud.

But the

truth is Mifsud waltzed in and out of the United States in December 2016.
The U.S. media could find him.

The Italian press found him.

And he's a

supposed Russian agent at the epicenter of the purported collusion conspiracy.

He's the

guy who knows about Hillary Clinton's emails and that the Russians have them.

But the

FBI failed to question him for a half a year after officially opening the investigation.
And then, according to Volume I, page 193 of your report, once Mifsud finally was
questioned, he made false statements to the FBI.
that correct?

But you declined to charge him.

Is

You did not indict Mr. Mifsud?

Mr. Mueller.

Well, I'm not going to speak to the series of happenings as you

articulated them.
Mr. Nunes.

But you did not indict Mr. Mifsud?

The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

Pardon?
You did not indict Mr. Mifsud?

Mr. Mueller.

True.

The Chairman.
Mr. Himes.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. Himes.

Director Mueller, thank you for your lifetime of service to this

country, and thank you for your perseverance and patience today.

Director, your report

opens with two statements of remarkable clarity and power.
The first statement is one that is, as of today, not acknowledged by the President

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 23 of 94

of the United States, and that is, quote:

22

The Russian Government interfered in the 2016

Presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.
The second statement remains controversial amongst Members of this body,
same page on your report, and I quote:

The Russian Government perceived it would

benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome.

Do I have that

statement right?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.
two operations.

I believe so.
Director Mueller, this attack on our democracy involved, as you said,

First, a social media disinformation campaign, this was a targeted

campaign to spread false information on places like Twitter and Facebook.

Is that

correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.

That's correct.
Facebook estimated, as per your report, that the Russian fake

images reached 126 million people.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.

Is that correct?

I believe that's the sum that we record.
Director, who did the Russian social media campaign ultimately

intend benefit, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.
Mr. Mueller.

Donald Trump.
The second operation, Director -Let me just say Donald Trump, but there were instances where

Hillary Clinton was subject to much the same behavior.
Mr. Himes.

The second operation in the Russian attack was a scheme, what we

call the hack and dump, to steal and release hundreds of thousands of emails from the
Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.
Mr. Mueller.

That is.

Is that a fair summary?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 24 of 94

Mr. Himes.

23

Did your investigation find that the releases of the hacked emails

were strategically timed to maximize impact on the election?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.

I'd have to refer you to our report on that question.
Page 36, I quote:

The release of the documents were designed and

timed to interfere with the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.

Mr. Mueller, which

Presidential candidate was Russia's hacking and dumping operation designed to benefit,
Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.

Mr. Trump.
Mr. Mueller, is it possible that this sweeping and systematic effort by

Russia actually had an effect on the outcome of the Presidential election?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.

Those issues are being or have been investigated by other entities.
126 million Facebook impressions, fake rallies, attacks on Hillary

Clinton's health, would you rule out that it might have had some effect on the election?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.

I'm not going to speculate.
Mr. Mueller, your report describes a third avenue of attempted

Russian interference.

That is the numerous links and contacts between the Trump

campaign and individuals tied to the Russian Government.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.

Is that correct?

Could you repeat that question?
Your report describes what is called a third avenue of Russian

interference, and that's the links and contacts between the Trump campaign and
individuals tied to the Russian Government?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.
reads:

Yes.
Let's bring up slide one, which is about George Papadopoulos, and it

On May 6, 2016, 10 days after that meeting with Mifsud, much discussed today,

Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 25 of 94

24

campaign had received indications from the Russian Government that it could assist the
campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to
Hillary Clinton.
And, Director, that's exactly what happened 2 months later, is it not?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I can speak to the excerpt that you have on the screen as

being accurate from the report, but not the second half of your question.
Mr. Himes.

Well, the second half, just to refer to Page 6 of the report, is that, on

July 22, through WikiLeaks, thousands of these emails that were stolen by the Russian
Government appeared, correct?

That is on page 6 of the report.

This is the WikiLeaks

posting of those emails.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.

I can't find it quickly, but I'm -- please continue.
Okay.

So, just to be clear, before the public or the FBI ever knew,

the Russians previewed for a Trump campaign official, George Papadopoulos, that they
had stolen emails that they could release anonymously to help Donald Trump and hurt
Hillary Clinton.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.

I'm not going to speak to that.
Director, rather than report this contact with Joseph Mifsud and the

notion that there was dirt that the campaign could use, rather than report that to the FBI,
that I think most of my constituents would expect an individual to do, Papadopoulos in
fact lied about his Russian contact to you.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Himes.

Is that not correct?

That's true.
We have an election coming up in 2020, Director, if a campaign

receives an offer of dirt from a foreign individual or a government, generally speaking,
should that campaign report those contacts?
Mr. Mueller.

Should be -- can be, depending on the circumstances, a crime.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 26 of 94

Mr. Himes.

25

I will yield back the balance of my time.

The Chairman.

Mr. Conaway.

Mr. Conaway.

Thank you.

Mr. Mueller, did anyone ask you to exclude anything from your report that you
felt should have been in the report?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Conaway.

I don't think so, but it's not a small report.
But no one asked you specifically to exclude something that you

believe should have been in there?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Ratcliffe.

Not that I can recall.

No.

I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Ratcliffe.

Thank you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Good afternoon, Director Mueller.

In your May 29 press conference, and again

in your opening remarks this morning, you made it pretty clear you wanted the special
counsel report to speak for itself.

You said at your press conference that that was the

office's final position, and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals
about the President.
Now, you spent the last few hours of your life from Democrats trying to get you to
answer all kinds of hypotehticals about the President, and I expect that it may continue
for the next few hours of your life.

I think you've stayed pretty much true to what your

intent and desire was, but I guess, regardless of that, the Special Counsel's Office is
closed, and it has no continuing jurisdiction or authority.

So what would be your

authority or jurisdiction for adding new conclusions or determinations to the special
counsel's written report?
Mr. Mueller.

As to the latter, I don't know or expect a change in the conclusions

that we included in our report.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 27 of 94

Mr. Ratcliffe.

26

So, to that point, you addressed one of the issues that I needed to,

which was from your testimony this morning, which some construed as a change to the
written report.

You talked about the exchange that you had with Congressman Lieu.

wrote it down a little bit different.

I

I want to ask you about it so that the record is

perfectly clear.
I recorded that he asked you, quote, "The reason you did not indict Donald Trump
is because of the OLC opinion stating you cannot indict a sitting President," to which you
responded, "That is correct."
your written report.
report.

That response is inconsistent, I think you'll agree, with

I want to be clear that it is not your intent to change your written

It is your intent to clarify the record today.
Mr. Mueller.

As I started today, this afternoon, and added either a footnote or

an end note, what I wanted to clarify is the fact that we did not make any determination
with regard to culpability, in any way.
Mr. Ratcliffe.

Terrific.

We did not start that process down the road.

Thank you for clarifying the record.

A stated purpose of your appointment as special counsel was to ensure a full and
thorough investigation of the Russian Government efforts to interfere in the 2016
Presidential election.

As part of that full and thorough investigation, what

determination did the Special Counsel Office make about whether the Steele dossier was
part of the Russian Government efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election?
Mr. Mueller.

Again, when it comes to Mr. Steele, I defer to the Department of

Mr. Ratcliffe.

Well, first of all, Director, I very much agree with your

Justice.

determination that Russia's efforts were sweeping and systematic.
concern every American.
those efforts were.

I think it should

That's why I want to know just how sweeping and systematic

I want to find out if Russia interfered with our election by providing

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 28 of 94

27

false information through sources to Christopher Steele about a Trump conspiracy that
you determined didn't exist.
Mr. Mueller.
Steele.

Well, again, I'm not going to discuss the issues with regard to Mr.

In terms of a portrayal of the conspiracies, we returned two indictments in the

computer crimes arena, one GRU, and another, active measures, in which we lay out in
excruciating detail what occurred in those two -Mr. Ratcliffe.

And I --

Mr. Mueller.

-- large conspiracies.

Mr. Ratcliffe.

I agree with respect to that, but why this is important is an

application and three renewal applications were submitted by the United States
Government to spy or surveil on Trump campaign Carter Page, and on all four occasions,
the United States Government submitted the Steele dossier as a central piece of evidence
with expect to that.
Now, the basic premise of the dossier, as you know, was that there was a
well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian
Government.

But the special counsel investigation didn't establish any conspiracy,

correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, what I can tell you is that the events that you are

characterizing here now is part of another matter that is being handled by the
Department of Justice.
Mr. Ratcliffe.

But you did not establish any conspiracy, much less a

well-developed one?
Mr. Mueller.

Again, I pass on answering that.

Mr. Ratcliffe.

The special counsel did not charge Carter Page with anything?

Mr. Mueller.

Special counsel did not.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 29 of 94

Mr. Ratcliffe.

All right.

The Chairman.
Ms. Sewell.

My time is expired.

28

I yield back.

Ms. Sewell.

Director Mueller, I'd like to turn your attention to the June 9, 2016,

Trump Tower meeting.

Slide two, which should be on the screen now, is part of an

email campaign between Don Jr. -- Donald Trump, Jr., and a publicist representing the son
of a Russian oligarch.
2016, meeting.

The email exchange ultimately led to the now infamous June 9,

The email from the publicist to Donald Trump, Jr., reads in part:

The

crown prosecutor of Russia offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official
documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia,
and is a part of Russia and its government's support of Mr. Trump.
In this email Donald Trump, Jr., is being told that the Russian Government wants
to pass along information which would hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump.

Is

that correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Sewell.
quote:

That's correct.
Now, Trump, Jr.'s, response to that is slide three.

He said, and I

If it is what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.
Then Donald Jr. invited senior campaign officials Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner

to the meeting, did he not?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Sewell.

He did.
This email exchange is evidence of an offer of illegal assistance, is it

not?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Sewell.

I cannot adopt that characterization.
But isn't it against the law for a Presidential campaign to accept

anything of value from a foreign government?
Mr. Mueller.

Generally speaking, yes, but -- generally the cases are unique.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 30 of 94

Ms. Sewell.

29

You say, on page 184 in Volume II, that the Federal

campaign-finance law broadly prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions, et
cetera, and then you say that foreign nationals may not make a contribution or donation
of money or anything of value, it said clearly in the report itself.
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Sewell.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Now, let's turn to what actually happened at the meeting.

When

Donald Trump, Jr., and other got to the June 9th meeting, they realized that the Russian
delegation didn't have the promised, quote/unquote, dirt.

In fact, they got upset about

that, did they not?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Sewell.
we doing here?

Generally, yes.
You say in Volume II, page 118, that Trump, Jr., asked:

What do they have on Clinton?

What are

And during the meeting, Kushner

actually texted Manafort saying it was, quote, a waste of time, end quote.

Is that

correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Sewell.

I believe it's in the report along the lines you specify.
So, to be clear, top Trump campaign officials learned that Russia

wanted to help Donald Trump's campaign by giving him dirt on his opponent.
Jr., said:

Loved it.

Trump,

And then he and senior officials held a meeting with the Russians to

try to get that Russian help, but they were disappointed because the dirt wasn't as good
as they had hoped.
So, to the next step, did anyone to your knowledge in the Trump campaign ever
tell the FBI of this offer?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Sewell.
from the Russians?

I don't believe so.
Did Donald Trump, Jr., tell the FBI that they received an offer of help

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 31 of 94

Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Sewell.

30

I'm going to -- that's about all I'll say on this aspect of it.
Wouldn't it be true, sir, that if they had reported it to the FBI or

anyone in that campaign during the course of your 2-year investigation, you would have
uncovered such a -Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Sewell.

I would hope, yes.
Yes.

Sir, is it not the responsibility of political campaigns to inform

the FBI if they receive information from a foreign government?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Sewell.

I would think that that's something they would and should do.
Well, not only did the campaign not tell the FBI, they sought to hide

the existence of the June 9th meeting for over a year.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that not correct?

On the general characterization, I would question it.

If you're

referring to a later initiative that flowed from the media then -Ms. Sewell.

No, what I'm suggesting is that you've said in Volume 2, page 5:

On several occasions, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the email
setting up the June 9th meeting.
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Ms. Sewell.

Thanks.

That is accurate.
Sir, given this illegal assistance by Russians, you chose,

even given that, you did not charge Donald Trump, Jr., or any of the other senior officials
with conspiracy.

Is that right?

Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Ms. Sewell.

And while --

Mr. Mueller.

If you're talking about other individuals, you're talking about the

attendees of June 9, that's accurate.
Ms. Sewell.

Yes, that's right.

So, Mr. Mueller, even though you didn't charge

them with conspiracy, don't you think that the American people would be concerned that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 32 of 94

31

these three senior campaign officials eagerly sought a foreign adversary's help to win
elections, and don't you think reporting that is important that we don't set a precedent
for future elections?
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Sewell.

I can't accept that characterization.
Well, listen, I think that it seems like a betrayal of the American

values to me, sir, that someone with -- if not being criminal, it is definitely unethical and
wrong, and I would think that we would not want to set a precedent that political
campaigns should not divulge of information of its foreign government assistance.
Thank you, sir.
The Chairman.
Mr. Turner.

Mr. Turner.

Mr. Mueller, I have your opening statement, and in the beginning of

your opening statement, you indicate that, pursuant to Justice Department regulations,
that you submitted a confidential report to the Attorney General at the conclusion of the
investigation.

What I'd like you to confirm is the report that you did that is the subject

matter of this hearing was to the Attorney General?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Turner.

Yes.
You also state in this opening statement that you threw overboard

the word "collusion" because it's not a legal term.

You would not conclude because

collusion was not a legal term?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, it depends on how you want to use the word.

In the

general parlance, people can think of it that way, but if you're talking about in a criminal
statute arena, you can't because it's much more accurately described as conspiracy.
Mr. Turner.
conclusion, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

In your words, it's not a legal term so you didn't put it in your
That's what your opening statement -That's correct.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 33 of 94

Mr. Turner.

32

Mr. Mueller, I want to talk about your powers and authorities.

Now, the Attorney General in the appointment order gave you powers and authorities
that reside in the Attorney General.

Now, the Attorney General has no ability to give

you powers and authority greater than the powers and authority of the Attorney General,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Turner.

Yeah, I think that is correct.
Mr. Mueller, I want to focus on one word in your report.

second to the last word in the report; it's "exonerate."

The report states:

It's the

Accordingly,

while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it does not
exonerate him.
Now, in the Judiciary Hearing, in your prior testimony, you have already agreed
with Mr. Ratcliffe that "exonerate" is not a legal term, that there is not a legal test for
this.

So I have a question for you, Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Mueller, does the Attorney General have the power or authority to

exonerate?

Now, what I'm putting up here is the United States Code.

This is where

the Attorney General gets his power and the Constitution and the annotated cases of
these, which we've searched.

We even went to your law school because I went to Case

Western, but I thought maybe your law school teaches it differently, and we got the
criminal law textbook from your law school.
Mr. Mueller, nowhere in these, because we had them scanned, is there a process
or description on exonerate.
office.

There's no Office of Exoneration at the Attorney General's

There's no certificate at the bottom of his desk.

Mr. Mueller, would you agree

with me that the Attorney General does not have the power to exonerate?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Turner.

I'm going to pass on that.
Why?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 34 of 94

Mr. Mueller.

33

Because it embroils us in a legal discussion, and I'm not prepared

to do a legal discussion in that arena.
Mr. Turner.

Well, Mr. Mueller, you would not disagree with me when I say that

there is no place that the Attorney General has the power to exonerate and he's not been
given that authority?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Turner.

Again, I'm not going to -- I take your question.
Well, the one thing that I guess is that the Attorney General

probably knows that he can't exonerate either, and that's the part that kind of confuses
me.

Because if the Attorney General doesn't have the power to exonerate, then you

don't have to power to exonerate, and I believe he knows he doesn't the have power to
exonerate.
So this is the part I don't understand.

If your report is to the Attorney General,

and the Attorney General doesn't have the power to exonerate, and he does not -- and he
knows that you do not have that power, you don't have to tell him that you're not
exonerating the President; he knows this already.

So then that kind of changed the

context of the report.
Mr. Mueller.

No, we include it in the report for exactly that reason.

He may

not know it, and he should know it.
Mr. Turner.

So you believe that Attorney Bill Barr believes that somewhere in

the hallways of the Department of Justice, there's an Office of Exoneration?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Turner.
Mr. Barr.

No, that's not what I said.
Well, I believe he knows, and I don't believe you put that in there for

I think you put that in there for exactly what I'm going to discuss next.

And

that is, in The Washington Post yesterday, when speaking of your report, the article said:
Trump could not be exonerated of trying to obstruct the investigation itself.

Trump

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 35 of 94

34

could not be exonerated.
Now, that statement is correct, Mr. Mueller, in that no one can be exonerated.
The reporter wrote this -- this reporter can't be exonerated.
exonerated.
exonerate.

Mr. Mueller, you can't be

In fact, in our criminal justice system, there is no power or authority to
Now, this is my concern, Mr. Mueller.

news channels while you were testifying today:

This is the headline on all of the

"Mueller:

Trump was not

exonerated."
Now, Mr. Mueller, what you know is that this can't say, "Mueller exonerated
Trump," because you don't have the power or authority to exonerate Trump.

You have

no power to declare him exonerated than you have the power to declare him Anderson
Cooper.

So the problem that I have here is that since there's no one in the criminal

justice system that has that power -- the President pardons; he doesn't exonerate.
Courts and juries don't declare innocent; they declare not guilty.
declare exoneration.

They don't even

The statement about exoneration is misleading, and it's

meaningless, and it colors this investigation.

One word out of the entire portion of your

report, and it's a meaningless word that has no legal meaning, and it has colored your
entire report.
I yield back.
The Chairman.
Mr. Carson.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. Carson.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Director Mueller, for your years of service to our country.

I want to

look more closely, sir, at the Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, an individual who
I believe betrayed our country, who lied to a grand jury, who tampered with witnesses,
and who repeatedly tried to use his position with the Trump campaign to make more
money.

Let's focus on the betrayal and greed.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 36 of 94

35

Your investigation, sir, found a number of troubling contacts between Mr.
Manafort and Russian individuals during and after the campaign.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Carson.

Is that right, sir?

Correct.
In addition to the June 9th meeting just discussed, Manafort often

met several times with a man named Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assessed to have
ties with Russian intel agencies.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Carson.

Is that right, sir?

Correct.
In fact, Mr. Manafort didn't just meet with him; he shared private

Trump campaign polling information with this man linked to Russian intelligence.

Is that

right, sir?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Carson.
to Vladimir Putin.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Carson.

That is correct.
And in turn, the information was shared with a Russian oligarch tied
Is that right, sir?
Allegedly.
Director Mueller, meeting with him wasn't enough.

internal polling information wasn't enough.

Mr. Manafort went so far as to offer this

Russian oligarch tied to Putin a private briefing on the campaign.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Carson.

Sharing

Is that right, sir?

Yes, sir.
And, finally, Mr. Manafort also discussed internal campaign strategy

on four battleground States -- Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota -- with
the Russian-intelligence-linked individual.
Mr. Mueller.

Did he not, sir?

That's reflected in the report, as were the items you listed

previously.
Mr. Carson.

Director Mueller, based on your decades of years of experience at

the FBI, would you agree, sir, that it creates a national security risk when a Presidential

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 37 of 94

36

campaign chairman shares private polling information on the American people, private
political strategy related to winning the votes of the American people, and private
information about American battleground States with a foreign adversary?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Carson.

Is that the question, sir?
Yes, sir.

Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to speculate along those lines.

it's within the lines of the report, then I'd support it.

To the extent that

Anything beyond that is not part of

that which I would support.
Mr. Carson.

Well, I think it does, sir.

I think it shows an infuriating lack of

patriotism from the very people seeking the highest office in the land.

Director Mueller,

Manafort didn't share this information exchange for nothing, did he, sir?
Mr. Mueller.

I can't answer that question without knowing more about the

question.
Mr. Carson.

Well, it's clear that he hoped to be paid back money he was owed

by Russian or Ukrainian oligarchs in return for the passage of private campaign
information, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Carson.
corrupts.

That is true.
Director Mueller, as my colleague, Mr. Heck, will discuss later, greed

Would you agree, sir, that the sharing of private campaign information in

exchange for money represents a particular kind of corruption, one that presents a
national security risk to our country, sir?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to opine on that.

I don't have the expertise in that

arena to really opine?
Mr. Carson.

Would you agree, sir, that Manafort's contacts with Russians close

to Vladimir Putin and his efforts to exchange private information on Americans for money

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 38 of 94

37

left him vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Carson.

I think generally so that would be the case.
Would you agree, sir, that these acts demonstrated a betrayal of the

democratic values our country rests on?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Carson.

I can't agree with that.
Director Mueller --

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Carson.

Not that it's not true, but I cannot agree with it.
Yes, sir.

Director Mueller, well, I can tell you that, in my years as a

law enforcement officer and as a Member of Congress, fortunate to serve on the Intel
Committee, I know enough to say, yes, trading political secrets for money with a foreign
adversary can corrupt, and it can leave you open to blackmail.

And it certainly

represents a betrayal of the values underpinning our democracy.
I want to thank you for your service again, Director Mueller, we appreciate you for
coming today.

I yield back, chairman.

The Chairman.

Dr. Wenstrup.

Dr. Wenstrup.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Mueller, for being here today.

Mr. Mueller, is it accurate to say

your investigation found no evidence of members of the Trump campaign were involved
in the theft or publication of Clinton campaign-related emails?
Mr. Mueller.
Dr. Wenstrup.

Can you repeat the question?
It is accurate to say your investigation found no evidence that

members of the Trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of the Clinton
campaign-related emails?
Mr. Mueller.
Dr. Wenstrup.

I don't know the -- I don't know.

I -- well --

Well, Volume II, page 5, the investigation did not establish that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 39 of 94

38

members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government
in its election interference activities.

So it would, therefore, be inaccurate, based on

this, to describe that finding as open to doubt, and that finding being that the Trump
campaign was involved with theft or publication of the Clinton campaign emails.

Are

you following that, sir?
Mr. Mueller.

I do believe I'm following it, but it is -- that portion or that matter

does not fall within our jurisdiction or fall within our investigation.
Dr. Wenstrup.

Well, basically, what your report says, Volume II, page 5, I just

want to be clear that open to doubt is how the committee Democrats describe this
finding in their minority views of our 2018 report, and it kind of flies in the face of what
you have in your report.

So is it accurate also to say the investigation found no

documentary evidence that George Papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the Trump
campaign about Joseph Mifsud's claims that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton?
Mr. Mueller.
Dr. Wenstrup.

Let me turn that over to Mr. Zebley.
I'd like to ask you, sir.

This is your report, and that's what I'm

basing this on.
Mr. Mueller.
Dr. Wenstrup.

Then could you repeat the question for me again?
Yeah, is it accurate to say that the investigation found no

documentary evidence that George Papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the Trump
campaign about Joseph Mifsud's claims that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton?
Mr. Mueller.
Dr. Wenstrup.

I believe it appearing in the report, that it is accurate.
So, in the report, it says, no documentary evidence that

Papadopoulos shared this information with the campaign.

It's, therefore, inaccurate to

conclude that by the time of the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, quote:

The

campaign was likely already on notice via George Papadopoulos' contact with Russian

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 40 of 94

39

agents that Russia in fact had damaging information on Trump's opponent.
Would you say that that is inaccurate to say that it's likely already -Mr. Mueller.

I direct you to the report.

Dr. Wenstrup.

Well, I appreciate that because the Democrats jumped to this

incorrect conclusion in their minority views, again, which contradicts what you have in
your report.
I'm concerned about a number of statements I'd like you to clarify because a
number of Democrats have made some statements that I have concerns with and maybe
you can clear them up.

So a member of this committee said President Trump was a

Russian agent after your report was publicly released.

That statement is not supported

by your report, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Dr. Wenstrup.

That is accurate.

It's not supported.

Multiple Democrat Members have asserted that Paul Manafort

met with Julian Assange in 2016 before WikiLeaks released DNC emails, implying
Manafort colluded with Assange.

Because your report does not mention finding

evidence that Manafort met with Assange, I would assume that means you found no
evidence of this meeting.

Is that assumption correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 41 of 94

40

RPTR ZAMORA
EDTR HOFSTAD
[1:52 p.m.]
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not certain I agree with that assumption.

Dr. Wenstrup.

But you make no mention of it in your report.

Would you agree

with that?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes, I would agree with that.

Dr. Wenstrup.

Okay.

Mr. Mueller, does your report contain any evidence that President Trump was
enrolled in the Russian system of kompromat, as a member of this committee once
claimed?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, to -- what I can speak to is information -- evidence that we

picked up as the special counsel.
Dr. Wenstrup.

And I think that's accurate, as far as it goes.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

So let's go for a second to scope.

Did you ask the Department of Justice to

expand the scope of the special counsel's mandate related to August 2, 2017, or
August 20, 2017, scoping memoranda?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, there -- without looking at the memoranda, I could not

answer that question.
Dr. Wenstrup.

Well, let me ask you, did you ever make a request to expand your

office's mandate at all?
Mr. Mueller.
Dr. Wenstrup.
Mr. Mueller.

Generally, yes.
And was that ever denied?
I'm not going to speak to that.

It goes to --

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 42 of 94

Dr. Wenstrup.
Mr. Mueller.

41

You're not going to speak to that?
-- the internal deliberations.

Dr. Wenstrup.

Well, I'm just trying to understand process.

Does expanding the

scope come from the Acting Attorney General or -Mr. Mueller.

I'm not --

Dr. Wenstrup.

-- Rod Rosenstein?

Or does it come from you?

Or can it come

from either?
Mr. Mueller.

Yeah, I'm not going to discuss any other alternatives.

Dr. Wenstrup.

Thank you, Mr. Mueller.

The Chairman.

Ms. Speier.

Ms. Speier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mueller, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that you are the
greatest patriot in this room today, and I want to thank you for being here.
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Speier.

Thank you.
You said in your report -- and I'm going to quibble with your

words -- that the Russian intervention was sweeping and systematic.

I would quibble

with that because I don't think it was just an intervention; I think it was an invasion.

And

I don't think it was just sweeping and systematic; I think it was sinister and scheming.
But having said that, one of my colleagues earlier here referred to this Russian
intervention as a hoax.

And I'd like to get your comment on that.

On page 26 of your report, you talk about the Internet Research Agency and how
tens of millions of U.S. persons became engaged with the posts that they made, that
there were some 80,000 posts on Facebook, that Facebook itself admitted that 126
million people had probably seen the posts that were put up by the Internet Research
Agency, that they had 3,800 Twitter accounts and had designed more than 175,000

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 43 of 94

42

tweets that probably reached 1.4 million people.
The Internet Research Agency was spending about $1.25 million a month on all of
this social media in the United States in what I would call an invasion in our country.
Would you agree that it was not a hoax that the Russians were engaged in trying
to impact our election?
Mr. Mueller.

Absolutely.

That was not a hoax.

The indictments we returned

against the Russians, two different ones, were substantial in their scope, using the
"scope" word again.
And I think one of the -- we have underplayed, to a certain extent, that aspect of
our investigation that has and would have long-term damage to the United States that we
need to move quickly to address.
Ms. Speier.

Thank you for that.

I'd like to drill down on that a little bit more.

The Internet Research Agency actually started in 2014 by sending over staff as
tourists, I guess, to start looking at where they wanted to engage.

And there are many

that suggest, and I'm interested in your opinion, as to whether or not Russia is presently
in the United States looking for ways to impact the 2020 election.
Mr. Mueller.
Ms. Speier.

I can't speak to that.

That would be in levels of classification.

All right.

Let me ask you this.
the forest for the trees.

Oftentimes when we engage in these hearings, we forget

You have a very large report here of over 400 pages.

Americans have not read it.

We have read it.

Most

Actually, the FBI Director yesterday said

he hadn't read it, which was a little discouraging.
But, on behalf of the American people, I want to give you a minute and 39 seconds
to tell the American people what you would like them to glean from this report.
Mr. Mueller.

Well, we spent substantial time ensuring the integrity of the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 44 of 94

43

report, understanding that it would be our living message to those who come after us.
But it also is a signal, a flag to those of us who have some responsibility in this area to
exercise those responsibilities swiftly and don't let this problem continue to linger as it
has over so many years.
Ms. Speier.

All right.

You didn't take the total amount of time, so I'm going to

yield the rest of my time to the chairman.
The Chairman.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Director Mueller, I wanted to ask you about conspiracy.

Generally, a conspiracy

requires an offer of something illegal, the acceptance of that offer, and an overt act in
furtherance of it.

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

Correct.
And Don Jr. was made aware that the Russians were offering dirt

on his opponent, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I don't know that for sure, but one would assume, given his

presence at the meeting.
The Chairman.

And when you say that you would love to get that help, that

would constitute an acceptance of the offer?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

It's a wide-open request.
And it would certainly be evidence of an acceptance if you

say -- when somebody offers you something illegal and you say, "I would love it," that
would be considered evidence of an acceptance.
Mr. Mueller.

I'm going to stay away from any -- addressing one particular or two

particular situations.
The Chairman.

Well, this particular situation -- well, I'll have to continue in a bit.

I now yield to Mr. Stewart.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 45 of 94

Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Mueller, it's been a long day.

44

Thank you for being here.

I do have a series of important questions for you, but before I do that, I want to
take a moment to reemphasize something that my friend Mr. Turner has said.
heard many people state, "No person is above the law."

I've

And many times recently, they

add "not even the President," which I think is blazingly obvious to most of us.
Mr. Mueller.

I'm having a little problem hearing you, sir.

Mr. Stewart.

Is this better?

Mr. Mueller.

That is better.

Mr. Stewart.

I want you to know I agree with the statement that no person is

above the law.

Thank you.

But there's another principle that we also have to defend, and that is the

presumption of innocence.

And I'm sure you agree with this principle, though I think the

way that your office phrased some parts of your report, it does make me wonder, I have
to be honest with you.
For going on 3 years, innocent people have been accused of very serious crimes,
including treason -- accusations made even here today.

They have had their lives

disrupted and in some cases destroyed by false accusations for which there is absolutely
no basis other than some people desperately wish that it was so.
But your report is very clear:
coordination.

no evidence of conspiracy, no evidence of

And I believe we owe it to these people who have been falsely accused,

including the President and his family, to make that very clear.
Mr. Mueller, the credibility of your report is based on the integrity of how it is
handled.

And there's something that I think bothers me and other Americans.

I'm

holding here in my hand a binder of 25 examples of leaks that occurred from the Special
Counsel's Office from those who associated with your work dating back to as early as a
few weeks after your inception and the beginning of your work and continuing up to just

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 46 of 94

45

a few months ago.
All of these -- all of them have one thing in common:
weaken or to embarrass the President.
you'd found no evidence of collusion.

Every single one.

They were designed to
Never was it leaked that

Never was it leaked that the Steele dossier was a

complete fantasy, nor that it was funded by the Hillary Clinton.

I could go on and on.

Mr. Mueller, are you aware of anyone from your team having given advance
knowledge of the raid on Roger Stone's home to any person or the press, including CNN?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I'm not going to talk about specifics.

I will mention -- but

talk for a moment about persons who become involved in an investigation and the
understanding that, in a lengthy, thorough investigation, some persons will be under a
cloud that should not be under a cloud.
And one of the reasons for emphasizing, as I have, the speed of an election -- or,
not election -- the speed of an investigation is that so those persons who are disrupted as
a result of their -Mr. Stewart.

I appreciate that, but I do have a series of questions.

Mr. Mueller.

May -- with the result of that investigation.

Mr. Stewart.

Thank you.

And you're right, it is a cloud, and it's an unfair cloud

for dozens of people.
But, to my point, are you aware of anyone providing information to the media
regarding the raid on Roger Stone's home, including CNN?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to speak to that.

Mr. Stewart.

Okay.

Mr. Mueller, you sent a letter dated March 27 to Attorney General Barr in which
you claimed the Attorney General's memo to Congress did not fully capture the context
of your report.

You stated earlier today that response was not authorized.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 47 of 94

46

Did you make any effort to determine who leaked this confidential letter?
Mr. Mueller.

No, and I'm not certain -- this is the letter of March 27?

Mr. Stewart.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Mueller.

Okay.

I'm not certain when it was publicized.

I did know it was

publicized, but I do not believe we would be responsible for the leak.
Mr. Stewart.

Well --

Mr. Mueller.

I do believe that we have done a good job in assuring that no leaks

occur -Mr. Stewart.

We have 25 examples here of where you did not do a good

job -- not you, sir; I'm not accusing you at all -- but where your office did not do a good
job in protecting this information.
One more example.

Do you know anyone who anonymously made claims to the

press that Attorney General Barr's March 24 letter to Congress had been misrepresented
or misrepresented the basis of your report?
Mr. Mueller.

What was the question?

Mr. Stewart.

Do you know who anonymously made claims to the press that

Attorney General Barr's March 24 letter to Congress had misrepresented the findings of
your report?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Stewart.

Sir, given these examples as well as others, you must have realized

that leaks were coming from someone associated with the Special Counsel's Office.
What I'd like to ask is, did you -Mr. Mueller.

I do not believe that.

Mr. Stewart.

Well, sir, this was your work.

the only one who had information regarding this.

You're the only one -- your office is
It had to come from your office.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 48 of 94

Putting that aside -- which leads me to my final question:

47

Did you do anything

about it?
Mr. Mueller.

From the outset, we've undertaken to make certain that we

minimize the possibility of leaks.

And I think we were successful over the 2 years that

we were in operation.
Mr. Stewart.

Well, I wish you'd been more successful, sir.

I think it was

disruptive to the American people.
My time has expired.
The Chairman.
Mr. Quigley.

I yield back.

Mr. Quigley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director, thank you for being here.

This, too, shall pass.

Earlier today and throughout the day, you have stated the policy that a seated
President cannot be indicted, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Quigley.

And upon questioning this morning, you were asked, could a

President be indicted after their service, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Quigley.

And your answer was that they could.

Mr. Mueller.

They could.

The Chairman.

Director, please speak into the microphone.

Mr. Mueller.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

They could.

Mr. Quigley.

So the followup question that should be concerning is:

What if a

President serves beyond the statute of limitations?
Mr. Mueller.

I don't know the answer to that one.

Mr. Quigley.

Would it not indicate that if the statute of limitations on Federal

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 49 of 94

48

crimes such as this are 5 years that a President who serves a second term is therefore,
under the policy, above the law?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not certain I would agree with the conclusion.

I'm not certain

that I can see the possibility that you suggest.
Mr. Quigley.

But the statute doesn't toll.

Mr. Mueller.

I don't know specifically.

Mr. Quigley.

It clearly doesn't.

Is that correct?

And I just want -- as the American public is watching this and perhaps learning
about many of these for the first time, we need to consider that and that the other
alternatives are perhaps all that we have.
But I appreciate your response.
Earlier in questioning, someone mentioned that -- it was a question involving
whether anyone in the Trump political world publicized the emails, whether or not that
was the case.
I just want to refer to Volume I, page 60, where we learn that Trump Jr. publicly
tweeted a link to the leak of stolen Podesta emails in October of 2016.

You're familiar

with that?
Mr. Mueller.

I am.

Mr. Quigley.

So that would at least be a republishing of this information, would

Mr. Mueller.

I'm not certain I would agree with that.

Mr. Quigley.

Director Pompeo assessed WikiLeaks, at one point, as a hostile

it not?

intelligence service.
Given your law enforcement experience and your knowledge of what WikiLeaks
did here and what they do generally, would you assess that to be accurate or something

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 50 of 94

similar?

49

How would you assess what WikiLeaks does?

Mr. Mueller.

Absolutely.

And they are currently under indictment; Julian

Assange is.
Mr. Quigley.

But would it be fair to describe them as -- you would agree with

Director Pompeo -- that's what he was when he made that remark -- that it's a hostile
intelligence service, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Quigley.

If we could put up slide 6.

"This just came out.

WikiLeaks!

I love WikiLeaks!"

Donald Trump,

October 10, 2016.
"This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable.
it."

It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read

Donald Trump, October 12, 2016.
"This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove."
"Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks."

Donald Trump, October 31, 2016.
Donald Trump, November 4, 2016.

Would any of those quotes disturb you, Mr. Director?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not certain I would say --

Mr. Quigley.

How do you react to them?

Mr. Mueller.

Well, it's -- "problematic" is an understatement in terms of what it

displays in terms of giving some -- I don't know -- hope or some boost to what is and
should be illegal activity.
Mr. Quigley.

Volume I, page 59:

"Donald Trump, Jr., had direct electronic

communications with WikiLeaks during the campaign period."
"On October 3, 2016, WikiLeaks sent another direct message to Trump Jr., asking
'you guys' to help disseminate a link alleging candidate Clinton had advocated a drone to
target Julian Assange.

Trump Jr. responded that, quote, he already 'had done so.'"

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 51 of 94

Same question.

50

This behavior, at the very least, disturbing?

Mr. Mueller.

Disturbing and also subject to investigation.

Mr. Quigley.

Could it be described as aid and comfort to a hostile intelligence

service, sir?
Mr. Mueller.

I wouldn't categorize it with any specificity.

Mr. Quigley.

I yield the balance to the chairman, please.

The Chairman.

I'm not sure I can make good use of 27 seconds, but, Director, I

think you made it clear that you think it unethical, to put it politely, to tout a foreign
service, like WikiLeaks, publishing stolen political documents in a Presidential campaign?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

Certainly calls for investigation.
Thank you, Director.

We're going to go now to Mr. Crawford.

And then after Mr. Crawford's

5 minutes, we'll take a 5- or 10-minute break.
Mr. Crawford.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Mueller, for being here.
Days after your appointment, Peter Strzok texted about his concern that there's,
quote, "no big there there" in the Trump campaign investigation.
Did Strzok or anyone else who worked on the FBI's investigation tell you that
around 10 months into the investigation the FBI still had no case for collusion?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Crawford.
Mr. Mueller.

Who?

Can you repeat that?

Peter Strzok.
And could you -- I'm sorry.

little closer?
Mr. Crawford.
Mr. Mueller.

Sure.
Thank you.

Can you move the microphone up a

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 52 of 94

Mr. Crawford.

There's a quote attributed to Peter Strzok.

51

He texted about his

concern that there is, quote, "no big there there" in the Trump campaign investigation.
Did he or anyone else who worked on the FBI's investigation tell you that around
10 months into the investigation the FBI still had no case for collusion?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Crawford.

Is the inspector general report correct that the text messages

from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's phones from your office were not retained after they
left the Special Counsel's Office?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I don't -- it depends on what you're talking about.

The

investigation into those -- Peter Strzok went on for a period of time, and I am not certain
what it encompasses.
Mr. Crawford.

It may well have encompassed what you're adverting to.
Okay.

Let me move on just real quickly.

Did you ask the Department to authorize your

office to investigate the origin of the Trump/Russia investigation?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to get into that.

Mr. Crawford.

It goes to internal deliberations.

So the circumstances surrounding the origin of the investigation

have yet to be fully vetted then.

I am certainly glad that Attorney General Barr and

U.S. Attorney Durham are looking into this matter.
And, with that, I'd like to yield the balance of my time to Ranking Member Nunes.
Mr. Nunes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Mueller, I want to make sure you're aware of who Fusion GPS is.

Fusion GPS

is a political operations firm that was working directly for the Hillary Clinton campaign
and the Democrat National Committee.

They produced the dossier.

So they paid

Steele, who then went out and got the dossier.
And I know you don't want to answer any dossier questions, so I'm not going

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 53 of 94

there.

But your report mentions Natalia Veselnitskaya 65 times.

Trump Tower -- it's this infamous Trump Tower meeting.

52

She meets in the

It's in your report.

You've

heard many of the Democrats refer to it today.
The meeting was shorter than 20 minutes, I believe.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

Is that correct?

I think what we have in our report reflects it was about that length.
So do you know -- so Fusion GPS, the main actor at Fusion GPS, the

president of the company, or the owner of the company, is a guy named Glenn Simpson,
who's working for Hillary Clinton.

Glenn Simpson -- do you know how many times Glenn

Simpson met with Natalia Veselnitskaya?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

Myself?

No.

Would it surprise you that the Clinton campaign dirty-ops arm met

with Natalia Veselnitskaya more times than the Trump campaign did?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, this is an area that I'm not going to get into, as I indicated at

the outset.
Mr. Nunes.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

Did you ever interview Glenn Simpson?
I'm, again, going to pass on that.
According to -- I'm going to change topics here.

According to notes

from the State Department official Kathleen Kavalec, Christopher Steele told her that
former Russian intelligence head Trubnikov and Putin advisor Surkov were sources for the
Steele dossier.
Now, knowing that these are -- not getting into whether these sources were real
or not real, was there any concern that there could've been disinformation that was going
from the Kremlin into the Clinton campaign and then being fed into the FBI?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

Well, as I said before, this is an area that I cannot speak to.
Is that because you're -- it's not in the report or you're just -- or

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 54 of 94

53

because of an ongoing deliberations?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

Internal deliberations, other proceedings, and the like.
Okay.

When Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad joined your team, were you aware
that Bruce Ohr, a Department of Justice top official, directly briefed the dossier
allegations to them in the summer of 2016?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

Again, I'm not going to speak to that issue.
Okay.

Before you arrested George Papadopoulos in July of 2017, he was given $10,000 in
cash in Israel.

Do you know who gave him that cash?

Mr. Mueller.

Again, that's outside our ambit, and questions such as that should

go to the FBI or the Department.
Mr. Nunes.

But it involved your investigation.

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

It involved persons involved in my investigation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman.

The committee will stand in recess for 5 or 10 minutes.

Please,

folks, remain in your seats, allow the Director and Mr. Zebley to exit the chamber.
[Recess.]
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

The committee will come to order.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Director.

Mr. Swalwell, you're recognized.
Mr. Swalwell.

Thank you.

Director Mueller, as a prosecutor, you would agree that if a witness or suspect lies
or obstructs or tampers with witnesses or destroys evidence during an investigation that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 55 of 94

generally that conduct can be used to show a consciousness of guilt.

54

Would you agree

with that?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

Yes.
Let's go through the different people associated with the Trump

campaign and this investigation who lied to you and other investigators to cover up their
disloyal and unpatriotic conduct.
If we could put exhibit 8 up.
Director Mueller, I'm showing you campaign chairman Paul Manafort; political
advisor Roger Stone; deputy campaign manager Rick Gates; National Security Advisor
Michael Flynn; Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen; and foreign policy
advisor George Papadopoulos.
These six individuals have each been charged, convicted, or lied to your office or
other investigators.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that right?
Yes, although I look askance at Mr. Stone, because he is -- he is in a

different case here in D.C.
Mr. Swalwell.

So National Security Advisor Flynn lied about discussions with the

Russian Ambassador related to sanctions.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.
Moscow.

Is that right?

That's correct.
Michael Cohen lied to this committee about Trump Tower

Is that correct?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

Yes.
George Papadopoulos, the President's senior foreign policy

advisor, lied to the FBI about his communications about Russia's possession of dirt on
Hillary Clinton.

Is that right?

Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 56 of 94

Mr. Swalwell.

The President's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, lied about

meetings that he had with someone with ties to Russian intelligence.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

Mr. Swalwell.

And your investigation was hampered by Trump campaign
Is that right?

We believe that to be the case.
You also believe to be the case that your investigation was

hampered by the deletion of electronic messages.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that correct?

That's true.

officials' use of encryption communications.
Mr. Mueller.

55

It would be, yes.

Is that correct?

And, generally, any case would be if those kinds

of communications are used.
Mr. Swalwell.

For example, you noted that deputy campaign manager Rick

Gates, who shared internal campaign polling data with a person with ties to Russian
intelligence at the direction of Manafort, that Mr. Gates deleted those communications
on a daily basis.

Is that right?

Mr. Mueller.

I take your word -- I'd say I don't know specifically, but if it's in the

report, then I support it.
Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

That's right, Director.

It's Volume I, page 136.

Thank you.
In addition to that, other information was inaccessible because

your office determined it was protected by attorney-client privilege.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

Is that correct?

That is true.
That would include that you do not know whether

communications between Donald Trump and his personal attorneys Jay Sekulow, Rudy
Giuliani, and others discouraged witnesses from cooperating with the government.
that right?

Is

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 57 of 94

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

56

I'm not going to talk to that.
That would also mean that you can't talk to whether or not

pardons were dangled through the President's attorneys because -- the shield of
attorney-client privilege.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

I'm not going to discuss that.
Did you want to interview Donald Trump, Jr.?
I'm not going to discuss that.
Did you subpoena Donald Trump, Jr.?
And I'm not going to discuss that.
Did you want to interview the President?
Yes.
Director Mueller, on January 1, 2017, through March 2019,

Donald Trump met with Vladimir Putin in person 6 times, called him 10 times, and
exchanged 4 letters with him.

Between that time period, how many times did you meet

with Donald Trump?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

I'm not going to get into that.
He did not meet with you in person.

Is that correct?

He did not.
As a result of lies, deletion of text messages, obstruction, and

witness tampering, is it fair to say that you were unable to fully assess the scope and scale
of Russia's interference in the 2016 election and Trump's role in that interference?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not certain I would adopt that characterization in total.

There

may be pieces of it that are accurate, but not in total.
Mr. Swalwell.

But you did state in Volume I, page 10, that "while this report

embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 58 of 94

57

complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot
rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light."

Is

that correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Swalwell.

That is correct.

We don't know what we don't know.

Why is it so important that witnesses cooperate and tell the truth

in an investigation like this?
Mr. Mueller.

Because the testimony of the witnesses goes to the heart of just

about any criminal case you have.
Mr. Swalwell.

Thank you.

And, Mr. Chairman, I'd yield back.
And thank you, Director Mueller.
The Chairman.
Ms. Stefanik.

Ms. Stefanik.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mueller, as special counsel, did you review documents related to the origin of
the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign?
Mr. Mueller.

On occasion.

Ms. Stefanik.

Was the Steele dossier one of those documents that was

reviewed?
Mr. Mueller.

And I can't discuss that case.

Ms. Stefanik.

I'm just asking a process question.

Have you read the Steele

dossier?
Mr. Mueller.

And, again, I'm not going to respond to that.

Ms. Stefanik.

You were tasked, as special counsel, to investigate whether there

was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign associates to interfere with the
2016 election.

And the FBI, we know, has relevant documents and information related

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 59 of 94

to the opening of the CI investigation.

58

Were you and your team permitted to access all

of those documents?
Mr. Mueller.

And, again, I can't get into that investigative -- what we collected

and what we're doing with investigation materials.
Ms. Stefanik.

Let me ask it this way.

Was there any limitation in your access to

documents related to the counterintelligence investigation?
Mr. Mueller.

That's such a broad question.

I have real trouble answering it.

Ms. Stefanik.

Did the Special Counsel's Office undertake any effort to investigate

and verify or disprove allegations contained in the Steele dossier?
Mr. Mueller.

Again, I can't respond.

Ms. Stefanik.

The reason I'm asking, for the American public that is watching, it's

apparent that the Steele dossier formed part of the basis to justify the FBI's
counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
know, it was used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.

As we

This is why I'm asking these

questions.
Did your office undertake any efforts to identify Steele's sources or sub-sources?
Mr. Mueller.

Again, the same answer.

Ms. Stefanik.

Were these tasks referred to any other agencies?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 60 of 94

59

[2:35 p.m.]
Mr. Mueller.

Again, I can't speak to it.

Ms. Stefanik.

Did your office consider whether the Russian Government used

Steele's sources to provide Steele with disinformation?
Mr. Mueller.

Again, I can't speak to that.

Ms. Stefanik.

I understand.

I'm asking these questions just for the record, so

thanks for your patience.
Shifting gears here, did any member of the Special Counsel's Office staff travel
overseas as part of the investigation?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes, but I can't go further than that.

Ms. Stefanik.

I'm going to ask, to which countries?

Mr. Mueller.

And I can't answer that.

Ms. Stefanik.

Did they meet with foreign government officials?

Mr. Mueller.

Again, it's out of our bailiwick.

Ms. Stefanik.

Did they meet with foreign private citizens?

Mr. Mueller.

Again, same response.

Ms. Stefanik.

Did they seek information about a U.S. citizen or any U.S. citizens?

Mr. Mueller.

Again, territory that I cannot go to.

Ms. Stefanik.

Thank you for answering on the record.

These are important

questions for the American public, and we're hopeful that the IG is able to answer these
questions.
I will yield the balance of my time to the ranking member.
Mr. Nunes.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Mueller, I want to go back to -- we started off with Joseph Mifsud, who is at

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 61 of 94

the center of this investigation.
really is the epicenter.

60

He appears in your report a dozen times or more.

He's at the origin of this.

He

He's the man who supposedly knows

about Clinton's emails.
You've seen on the screen, the Democrats have continually put up all the
prosecutions that you made against Trump campaign officials and others, but I'm
struggling to understand why you didn't indict Joseph Mifsud, who seems to be the man
in the middle of all of this.
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I think you understand that you cannot get into either

classified or law enforcement information without a rationale for doing it.

And I have

said all I'm going to be able to say with regard to Mr. Mifsud.
Mr. Nunes.

Were you aware of Kathleen Kavalec's involvement, that she had

met with Mr. Steele?

The State Department official.

Mr. Mueller.

And, again, I can't respond to that question.

It's outside my

jurisdiction.
Mr. Nunes.

Okay.

The Carter Page FISA warrant was re-upped three times.
re-upped was under your watch.

The last time it was

So were you in the approval process of that last time

that the Carter Page warrant was -Mr. Mueller.

Well, I can't speak specifically about that warrant, but if you ask

was I in the approval chain, the answer is no.
Mr. Nunes.

Okay.

That's very helpful.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman.
Mr. Castro.

I yield back.

Mr. Castro.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Special Counsel Mueller, for your testimony and for your service to our

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 62 of 94

61

country.
Donald Trump, over the years, has surrounded himself with some very shady
people, people that lied for him, people that covered up for him, people that helped him
enrich himself.

I want to talk specifically about one of those instances that's in your

report.
Specifically, let's turn to the Trump Tower Moscow project, which you described in
your report as a, quote, "highly lucrative deal" for The Trump Organization.

Is that

right?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Castro.

I would have to look at the quote from the report, if you have it.
Sure.

It's on Volume II, page 135.

It's described as highly

lucrative.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Castro.

Okay.
Yeah.

I have it.

Thank you, sir.

No problem.

Your office prosecuted Michael Cohen -- and Michael Cohen was Donald Trump's
lawyer -- for lying to this committee about several aspects of The Trump Organization's
pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow deal.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Castro.

Is that right?

That's correct.
According to your report, Cohen lied to, quote, "minimize links

between the project and Trump," unquote, and to, quote, "stick to the party line,"
unquote, in order not to contradict Trump's public message that no connection existed
between Trump and Russia.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Castro.

Is that right?

That's -- yes.

That's correct.

Now, when you're talking about the party line here, the party line in

this case -Mr. Mueller.

If I could interject, the one thing I should've said at the outset:

If

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 63 of 94

62

it was in the report, then, consequently, I do believe it to be true.
Mr. Castro.

Thank you.

The party line, in this case, was that the deal ended in January 2016.

In other

words, they were saying that the deal ended in January 2016, before the Republican
primaries.

In truth, though, the deal extended to June 2016, when Donald Trump was

already the presumptive Republican nominee.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Castro.

Is that correct?

That's correct.
The party line was also that Cohen discussed the deal with Trump

only three times, when, in truth, they discussed it multiple times.
Mr. Mueller.

Is that right?

Also true, and the basis for -- and part of the basis for that plea

that he entered for lying to this entity.
Mr. Castro.

Thank you.

And thank you for prosecuting that.

The party line was also that Cohen and Trump never discussed traveling to Russia
during the campaign, when, in truth, they did discuss it.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Castro.

Is that right?

That's accurate.
And the party line was that Cohen never received a response from

the Kremlin to his inquiries about the Trump Tower Moscow deal.

In fact, Cohen not

only received a response from the Kremlin to his email but also had a lengthy
conversation with a Kremlin representative who had a detailed understanding of the
project.

Is that right?

Mr. Mueller.

If it's in the report, that is an accurate recitation of that piece of

the report.
Mr. Castro.

So you have the candidate Trump at the time saying he had no

business dealings with Russia, his lawyer who was lying about it, and then the Kremlin
who during that time was talking to President Trump's lawyer about the deal.

Is that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 64 of 94

63

right?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Castro.

I can't adopt your characterization.
Not only was Cohen lying on Trump's behalf, but so was the Kremlin.

On August 30, 2017, 2 days after Cohen submitted his false statement to this committee
claiming that he never received a response to his email to the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin's
press secretary told reporters that the Kremlin left the email unanswered.
That statement by Putin's press secretary was false, wasn't it?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Castro.

I can't speak to that.
Although it was widely reported in the press.

Mr. Mueller.

Again, I can't speak to that, particularly if it was dependent upon

media sources.
Mr. Castro.
committee.

But it was consistent with the lie that Cohen had made to the

Is that right?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Castro.

I'm not certain I could go that far.
So Cohen, President Trump, and the Kremlin were all telling the

same lie.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Castro.

I defer to you on that.

That's -- I can't get into the details.

Special Counsel Mueller, I want to ask you something that's very

important to the Nation.

Did your investigation evaluate whether President Trump

could be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians because the Kremlin knew that Trump
and his associates lied about connections to Russia related to the Trump Tower deal?
Mr. Mueller.

I can't speak to that.

Mr. Castro.

I yield back, Chairman.

The Chairman.
Mr. Hurd.

Mr. Hurd.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 65 of 94

64

Director Mueller, you've been asked many times this afternoon about collusion,
obstruction of justice, and impeachment, and the Steele dossier.

And I don't think your

answers are going to change if I ask you about those questions.
So I'm going to ask about a couple of press stories, because a lot of what the
American people have received about this have been on press stories, and some of that
has been wrong, and some of those press stories have been accurate.
On April 13, 2018, McClatchy reported that you had evidence Michael Cohen
made a secret trip to Prague during the 2016 Presidential election.
the committees here in Congress that that was incorrect.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Hurd.

I think he told one of

Is that story true?

I can't -- well, I can't go into it.

Gotcha.

On October 31, 2016, Slate published a report suggesting that a server at Trump
Tower was secretly communicating with Russia's Alfa Bank, and then I quote, "akin to
what criminal syndicates do."
Do you know if that story is true?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Hurd.

Do not --

You do not?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Hurd.

Do not.

-- know whether it's true.

So did you not investigate these allegations which are suggestive of a

potential Trump-Russia -Mr. Mueller.
investigated.

Because I believe it not true doesn't mean it would not be

It may well have been investigated.

Although my belief at this point, it's

not true.
Mr. Hurd.

Good copy.

Thank you.

As a former CIA officer, I want to focus on something I think both sides of the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 66 of 94

65

political aisle can agree on -- that is, how do we prevent Russian intelligence and other
adversaries from doing this again.
And after overseeing counterintelligence operations for 12 years as FBI Director
and then investigating what the Russians have done in the 2016 election, you've seen
tactics, techniques, and results of Russian intelligence operations.
Our committee made a recommendation that the FBI should improve its victim
notification process when a person, entity, or campaign has fallen victim to an
active-measures attack.
Mr. Mueller.

Would you agree with this?

It sounds like a worthwhile endeavor.

I will tell you, though, that

the ability of our intelligence agencies to work together in this arena is perhaps more
important than that.

And adopting whatever -- and I'm not that familiar with the

legislation -- but whatever legislation will encourage us working together -- by "us," I
mean the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the rest -- it should be pursued aggressively, early.
Mr. Hurd.

Who do you think should be responsible within the Federal

Government to counter disinformation?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Hurd.

I'm no longer in the Federal Government, so I --

But you've had a long, storied career, and I don't think there's

anybody who better understands the threat that we are facing than you.

Do you have

an opinion as a former FBI officer?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Hurd.

As to?

As to who should be the coordinating point within the Federal

Government on how to deal with disinformation.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Hurd.

I don't want to wade in those waters.

Good copy.

One of the most striking things in your report is that the Internet Research Agency

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 67 of 94

66

not only undertook a social media campaign in the U.S. but they were able to organize
political rallies after the election.
Our committee issued a report and insight on saying that Russian active measures
are growing with frequency and intensity and including their expanded use of groups such
as the IRA, and these groups pose a significant threat to the United States and our allies in
upcoming elections.
Mr. Mueller.

Would you agree with that?
Yes.

In fact, one of the other areas that we have to look at are

many more companies -- not companies -- many more countries are developing capability
to replicate what the Russians have done.
Mr. Hurd.

You alluded to making sure all the elements of the Federal

Government should be working together.

Do you have a suggestion on a strategy to do

that, to counter this disinformation?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Hurd.

Not overarching.

In your investigation, did you think that this was a single attempt by

the Russians to get involved in our election, or did you find evidence to suggest they will
try to do this again?
Mr. Mueller.

Oh, it wasn't a single attempt.

They're doing it as we sit here.

And they expect to do it during the next campaign.
Mr. Hurd.

Director Mueller, I appreciate your time and indulging us here in

multiple committees.
And I yield back to the ranking member if he has -- I yield back to the chairman.
The Chairman.
Mr. Heck.

Mr. Heck.

Director Mueller, I'd like to go to the motives behind the Trump

campaign encouragement and acceptance of help during the election.

Obviously, a

clear motivation was to help them in what would turn out to be a very close election.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 68 of 94

67

But there was another key motivation, and that was, frankly, the desire to make money.
I always try to remember what my dad, who never had the opportunity to go
beyond the 8th grade, taught me, which is that I should never, ever underestimate the
capacity of some people to cut corners and even more in order to worship and chase the
almighty buck.
And this is important, because I think it, in fact, does go to the heart of why the
Trump campaign was so unrelentingly intent on developing relationships with the
Kremlin.
So let's quickly revisit one financial scheme we just discussed, which was the
Trump Tower in Moscow.

We indicated earlier that it was a lucrative deal.

Trump, in

fact, stood, he and his company, to earn many millions of dollars on that deal, did they
not, sir?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.

True.

And Cohen, Mr. Cohen, his attorney, testified before this committee

that President Trump believed the deal required Kremlin approval.

Is that consistent

with what he told you?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not certain whether it's Mr. Trump himself or others associated

with that enterprise that had discussed the necessity of having the input from the state,
meaning the Russian Government, in order for it to go forward successfully.
Mr. Heck.

Isn't it also true that Donald Trump viewed his Presidential campaign,

as he told top campaign aides, that the campaign was an infomercial for The Trump
Organization and his properties?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.

I'm not familiar with that.

Then let's turn to Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort.

Did, in fact,

your investigation find any evidence that Manafort intended to use his position as

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 69 of 94

68

Trump's campaign chair for his own personal financial benefit?
Mr. Mueller.

I would say there was some indication of that, but I won't go

further.
Mr. Heck.

I think you'll find it on page 135 of Volume I.

During the transition, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met with Sergey Gorkov,
the head of a Russian-owned bank that was under -- is under U.S. sanctions.

And

according to the head of the bank, he met with Kushner in his capacity as CEO of Kushner
Companies to discuss business opportunities.
Is that correct, sir?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.

It was --

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.

I'm not certain --

I'm not certain about that.

Let me just put it that way.

It was asserted thusly in your report, Volume I, on pages 161 and 162.

Your report notes that, at the time, Kushner Companies were trying to renegotiate a
billion-, with a "B," a billion-dollar lease of their flagship building at 666 5th Avenue,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.

I am not familiar with those financial arrangements.

Also on page 162 where Kushner Companies, it was asserted, had

debt obligations coming due on the company.
Erik Prince, a supporter close to Trump -Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.

-- campaign and administrative --

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.

A supporter -- I'm sorry.

I just -- a supporter.

Yes.

I was --

He met in the Seychelles during the transition with Kirill

Dmitriev, who was the head of a sanctioned Russian Government investment arm which

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 70 of 94

69

had close ties to Vladimir Putin, correct, sir?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.

Yes.

Your investigation determined that Mr. Prince had not known nor

conducted business with Dmitriev before Trump won the election, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.

Well, I defer to the report on that.

Yet -- it does.

And yet Prince, who had connections to top Trump

administration officials, met with Dmitriev during the transition period to discuss business
opportunities, among other things.
But it wasn't just Trump and his associates who were trying to make money off
this deal, nor hide it, nor lie about it.

Russia was too.

That was the whole point, to

gain relief from sanctions which would hugely benefit their incredibly wealthy oligarchs.
For example, sanctions relief was discussed at that June 9 meeting in the Trump
Tower, was it not, sir?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.

Yes.

But it was not a main subject for discussion.

Trump administration National Security Advisor-designate Michael

Flynn also discussed sanctions in a secret conversation with the Russian Ambassador, did
he not?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.

Correct.

So, to summarize, Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort,

Jared Kushner, Erik Prince, and others in the Trump orbit all tried to use their connections
with The Trump Organization to profit from Russia, which was openly seeking relief from
sanctions.

Is that true, sir?

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Heck.
was un-American.

I'm not -- I'm not certain I can adopt what you articulate.

Well, I will.

And I'd further assert that was not only dangerous, it

Greed corrupts.

Greed corrupts, and it is a terrible foundation for

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 71 of 94

70

developing American foreign policy.
The Chairman.
Mr. Ratcliffe.

Mr. Ratcliffe.
Director Mueller, given your constraints on what you're able or

allowed to answer with respect to counterintelligence matters or other matters that are
currently open and under investigation, you're not going to be able to answer my
remaining questions.
So I thank you for your courtesies in the answers that you have given to my prior
questions, and I do thank you for your extraordinary career and record of service, and
yield back the balance of my time to the ranking member.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ratcliffe.

And, Mr. Mueller, let me associate my words with Mr. Ratcliffe.
I've got a few more questions.

I want to clean up a little bit about the Erik Prince

Seychelles meeting.
So Erik Prince testified before this committee that he was surveilled by the U.S.
Government and that information from this surveillance was leaked to the press.

Did

you investigate whether Prince was surveilled and whether classified information on him
was illegally leaked to the media?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

Did you say "did you" or "will you"?
Well, I know you can't.

I know you're not going to join --

So I can't discuss it either way.
-- back up in the ranks.

But did you refer -- were you aware

that -- you know, Prince has made these allegations that he was surveilled.
concerned that there were leaks about the surveillance.
about these leaks?

He's

Did you make any referrals

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 72 of 94

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

71

No, and I can't get into discussion on it.
Okay.

I also want to -- General Flynn.
with the Russian Ambassador.

I know you came after the leak of his phone call

Your time at FBI, it would be a major scandal, wouldn't it,

for the leak of the National Security Advisor and anyone in any government -Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

I can't -- I can't adopt that hypothesis.
Did your report name any people who were acting as U.S.

Government informants or sources without disclosing that fact?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

I can't answer that.
Okay.

On Volume I, page 133 of your report, you state that Konstantin Kilimnik has ties
to Russian intelligence.

His name came up quite often today.

But your report omits to

mention that Kilimnik has long-term relationships with U.S. Government officials,
including our own State Department.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

I can't be -- I can't get into that.
I know it's not in the report, but, you know, if Kilimnik is being used

in the report to say that he was possibly some type of Russian agent, then I think it is
important for this committee to know if Kilimnik has ties to our own State Department,
which it appears that he does.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

Again, it's the same territory that I'm loathe to get into.
Okay.

You were asked this earlier about Trump attorney John Dowd, that pieces of his
phone call were omitted from the report.
evidence.
Are you concerned about --

It was what Mr. Dowd calls exculpatory

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 73 of 94

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

I'm not certain I would agree with that characterization.
Okay.

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Nunes.

72

I think I said that before.
Yes.

An American citizen from the Republic of Georgia, who your report misidentifies
as a Russian, claims that your report omitted parts of a text message he had with Michael
Cohen about stopping the flow of compromising tapes of Donald Trump.

In the omitted

portions, he says he did not know what the tapes actually showed.
Was that portion of the exchange left out of the report for a reason?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

We got an awful lot into the report, but we did not get every

intersection or conversation and the like.

So I am not familiar with that particular

episode you're talking about.
Mr. Nunes.

Thank you, Mr. Mueller.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman.
Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch.

Director Mueller, did you find there was no collusion between the

Trump campaign and Russia?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, we don't use the word "collusion."

I think the word we

usually use is the -- well, not "collusion" but one of the other terms that fills in when
"collusion" is not used.
In any event, we decided not to use the word "collusion" inasmuch as it has no
relevance to the criminal law arena.
Mr. Welch.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

The term is "conspiracy" that you prefer to use?
That's it, "conspiracy."
You help me, I'll help you.

Exactly right.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 74 of 94

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

73

Thank you.
It's an agreement.

Thank you.

And, in fact, you had to then make a charging decision after your investigation
where, unless there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you
wouldn't make a charge, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

Generally, that's the case.
But making that decision does not mean your investigation failed to

turn up evidence of conspiracy.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

Absolutely correct.
And, in fact, I will go through some of the significant findings that

your exhaustive investigation made.
You found, as I understand it, that from May 2016 until the end of the campaign,
campaign chairman Mr. Manafort gave private polling information to Russian agents,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

Could you speak into the microphone?
Yep, I will.

My apologies.

Thank you.

And your investigation found that, in June 2016, Donald Trump, Jr., made an
arrangement to meet at Trump Tower, along with Jared Kushner and others, expecting to
receive dirt on the Hillary Clinton campaign, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

Correct.
And you found in your investigation that, on July 27, candidate

Trump called on Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails, something that for the first time
they did about 5 hours later, correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 75 of 94

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

74

That's correct.
And you also found that, on August 2, Mr. Manafort met with a

person tied to Russian intelligence, Mr. Kilimnik, and gave him internal campaign strategy,
aware that Russia was intending to do a misinformation social media campaign, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

I'm not certain of the tie there.
But the fact of that meeting you agree with?
The fact that the meeting took place is accurate.
And your investigation, as I understand it, also found that, in late

summer of 2016, the Trump campaign in fact devised its strategy and messaging around
WikiLeaks releases of materials that were stolen from the Democratic National
Committee, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

Is that from the report?
Yes.
Yes.
It's according to Mr. Gates.
Yes.
Yes.

Thank you.

And you also talked earlier about the finding in your investigation that, in
September and October of 2016, Donald Trump, Jr., had email communications with
WikiLeaks, now indicted, about releasing information damaging to the Clinton campaign,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

True.
All right.

So I understand you made the decision, a prosecutorial decision, that this would
not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But I ask if you share my concern.

And

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 76 of 94

my concern is:

75

Have we established a new normal from this past campaign that is going

to apply to future campaigns so that if any one of us running for the U.S. House, any
candidate for the U.S. Senate, any candidate for the Presidency of the United States,
aware that a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report
that to the FBI or other authorities -Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

Well, I hope --- that -- go ahead.
Well, I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is.
-- and would, in fact, have the ability without fear of legal

repercussion to meet with agents of that foreign entity hostile to the American election?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.
they did this again.

I'm sorry.

What is the question?

Is that an apprehension that you share with me?
Yes.
And that there would be no repercussions whatsoever to Russia if
And as you stated earlier, as we sit here, they're doing it now.

Is

that correct?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Welch.

You're absolutely right.
Do you have any advice to this Congress as to, together, what we

should do to protect our electoral system and accept responsibility on our part to report
to you or your successor when we're aware of hostile foreign engagement in our
elections?
Mr. Mueller.

I would say, a basis -- first line of defense, really, is the ability of the

various agencies who have some piece of this to not only share information but share
expertise, share targets, and use the full resources that we have to address this problem.
Mr. Welch.

Thank you, Director Mueller.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 77 of 94

76

I yield back.
The Chairman.
Mr. Maloney.

Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Mueller, thank you.

I know it's been a long day.

And I

want to make clear how much respect I have for your service and for your extraordinary
career, and 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?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, at the outset, after we took over and initiated the

investigation -Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Mueller.

If I could ask you to speak into the mike.
Yeah.

Of course.

At the outset, after we took over the investigation and began it and pursued it,
quite obviously, one of the things we anticipated wanting to accomplish in that is having
the interview of the President.

We negotiated with him for a little over a year, and I

think what you adverted to in the appendix lays out our expectations as a result of those
negotiations.
But, finally, when we were almost towards 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.
Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Mueller.

Was that -- excuse me.

Did you --

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

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 78 of 94

77

for a substantial period of time.
Mr. 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.
interview as vital.

And

And, indeed, I believe you describe the in-person

That's your word.

And, of course, you make clear you had the authority and the 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, which you lay out, so that he could prepare and not be
surprised.

I take it you were trying to be fair to the President.

And, by the way, you were going to limit the questions, when you got to written
questions, to Russia only.
9 months, sir, right?

And, in fact, you did go with written questions after about

And the President responded to those.

And you have some hard language for what you thought of those responses.
What did you think of the President's written responses, Mr. Mueller?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 79 of 94

78

RPTR FORADORI
EDTR HOFSTAD
[3:05 p.m.]
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Maloney.

Certainly not as useful as the interview would be.
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.
And I take it by your answer that it wasn't as helpful.
like "incomplete," "imprecise," "inadequate," "insufficient."

That's why you used words
Is that a fair summary of

what thought of those written answers?
Mr. Mueller.

That is a fair summary.

And I presume that comes from the

report.
Mr. Maloney.

And yet, sir -- and I ask this respectfully -- by the way, the

President didn't ever claim the Fifth Amendment, did he?
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Maloney.

I'm not going to talk to that.
Well, from what I can tell, sir, at one point it was vital and then at

another point it wasn't vital.

And my question to you is, why did it stop being vital?

And I can only think of three explanations.
couldn't do it.

One is that somebody told you you

But nobody told you you couldn't subpoena the President.

Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Maloney.

No.

Is that right?

We understood we could subpoena the President.

Rosenstein didn't tell you, Whitaker didn't tell you, Barr didn't tell

you you couldn't -Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Maloney.

We could serve a subpoena.
So the only other explanation -- well, there's two others, I guess:

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 80 of 94

79

one, that you just flinched, that you had the opportunity to do it and you didn't do it.
But, sir, you don't strike me as the kind of guy who flinches.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Maloney.

I'd hope not.
Well, then the third explanation -- I hope not, too, sir.

And the

third explanation I can think of is that you didn't think you needed it.
And, in fact, what caught my eye was page 13 of Volume II, where you said, in fact,
you had a substantial body of evidence.

And you cite a bunch of cases there, don't you,

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.
So 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?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, there's a balance -- in other words, how much evidence you

have that satisfy the last element against how much time are you willing to spend in the
courts litigating the interview of the President.
Mr. Maloney.

And, in this case, you felt that you had enough evidence of the

President's intent.
Mr. 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 the -Mr. Maloney.

And, sir, because I have limited time, you thought that if you gave

it to the Attorney General or to this Congress that there was sufficient evidence, that it
was better than that delay.
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Maloney.

Can you state that again?
Well, 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

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 81 of 94

General and to this committee.
Mr. Mueller.

No.

80

Isn't that why you didn't do the interview?

The reason we didn't do the interview is because of the

length of time that it would take to resolve the issues attendant to that.
Mr. Maloney.

Thank you, sir.

The Chairman.

Mrs. Demings.

Mrs. Demings.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

And, Director Mueller, thank you so much for being a person of honor and
integrity.

Thank you for your service to the Nation.

We are certainly better for it.

Director Mueller, I, too, want to focus on the written responses that the President
did provide and the continued efforts to lie and cover up what happened during the 2016
election.
Were the President's answers submitted under oath?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

They were.

Were these all the answers your office wanted to ask the President about Russian
interference in the 2016 election?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

No, not necessarily.
So there were other -Yes.
-- questions that you wanted to answer.

Did you analyze his written answers on Russian interference to draw conclusions
about the President's credibility?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

It was perhaps one of the factors, but nothing more than

that.
Mrs. Demings.

It was one of the factors.

So what did you determine about the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 82 of 94

81

President's credibility?
Mr. Mueller.

And that I can't get into.

Mrs. Demings.

Director Mueller, I know based on your decades of experience

you've probably had an opportunity to analyze the credibility of countless witnesses, but
you weren't able to do so with this witness?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, with every witness, particularly a leading witness, one

assesses the credibility day by day, witness by witness, document by document.
that's what happened in this case.
ended up with a fair amount.
Mrs. Demings.

And

So we started with very little, and, by the end, we

My -- yeah, a fair amount.

Thank you.

Well, let's go through some of the answers to take a

closer look at his credibility, because it seems to me, Director Mueller, that his answers
were not credible at all.
Did some of President Trump's incomplete answers relate to Trump Tower
Moscow?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

Yes.
For example, did you ask the President whether he had at any

time directed or suggested that discussions about Trump Moscow project should cease?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

Should what?
Cease.
Do you have a citation?
Yes.

We're still in Appendix C, section 1-7.

The first page?
Uh-huh.

It says:

"The President 'did not answer whether he

had at any time directed or suggested that discussions about the Trump Moscow project
should cease...but he has since made public comments about that topic.'"

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 83 of 94

Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

Okay.

82

And the question was?

Did the President -- let me go on to the next.

Did the President

fully answer that question in his written statement to you about the Trump Moscow
project ceasing?

Again, in Appendix C.

Mr. Mueller.

And can you direct me to the particular paragraph you're adverting

to?
Mrs. Demings.

It would be Appendix C, C-1.

But let me move forward.

Nine days after he submitted his written answers, didn't the President say publicly
that he, quote, "decided not to do the project," unquote?
Mr. Mueller.

And that is in your report.

I'd ask you, if you would, to point out the particular paragraph that

you're focused on.
Mrs. Demings.

Okay.

We can move on.

Did the President answer your followup questions?

According to the report,

there were followup questions because of the President's incomplete answers about the
Moscow project.

Did the President answer your followup questions, either in writing or

orally?
And we're now in -Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

No.
-- Volume II, page 150 through 151.
No.
He did not.

In fact, there were many questions that you asked the President that he simply
didn't answer.

Isn't that correct?

Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

True.
And there were many answers that contradicted other evidence

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 84 of 94

you had gathered during the investigation.
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

83

Isn't that correct --

Yes.
-- Director Mueller?

Director Mueller, for example, the President, in his written answers, stated he did
not recall having advance knowledge of WikiLeaks releases.
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

Is that correct?

I think that's what he said.
But didn't your investigation uncover evidence that the President

did, in fact, have advance knowledge of WikiLeaks public releases of emails damaging to
his opponent?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

And I can't get into that area.
Did your investigation determine after very careful vetting of Rick

Gates and Michael Cohen that you found them to be credible?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

That we found the President to be credible?
That you found Gates and Cohen to be credible in their

statements about WikiLeaks?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

Those areas I'm not going to discuss.
Okay.

Could you say, Director Mueller, that the President was credible?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

I can't answer that question.
Director Mueller, isn't it fair to say that the President's written

answers were not only inadequate and incomplete, because he didn't answer many of
your questions, but where he did, his answers showed that he wasn't always being
truthful?
Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

There I would say generally.
Generally.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 85 of 94

84

Director Mueller, it's one thing for the President to lie to the American people
about your investigation, falsely claiming that you found no collusion or no obstruction.
But it's something else altogether for him to get away with not answering your questions
and lying about them.

And as a former law enforcement officer of almost 30 years, I

find that a disgrace to our criminal justice system.
Thank you so -Mr. Mueller.
Mrs. Demings.

Thank you, ma'am.
-- much.

I yield back to the chairman.
The Chairman.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Director Mueller, thank you for your devoted service to

your country.
Earlier today, you described your report as detailing a criminal investigation,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Director, since it was outside the purview of your

investigation, your report did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding the
subject matter of your report.
Mr. Mueller.

That's true.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

For instance, since it was outside your purview, your report

did not reach counterintelligence conclusions regarding any Trump administration
officials who might potentially be vulnerable to compromise or blackmail by Russia,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Those decisions probably were made in a counter -- in the FBI.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

But not in your report, correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 86 of 94

Mr. Mueller.

Not in our report.

85

We advert to the counterintelligence goals of

our investigation, which were secondary to any criminal wrongdoing that we could find.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Let's talk about one administration official in

particular -- namely, President Donald Trump.

Other than Trump Tower Moscow, your

report does not address or detail the President's financial ties or dealings with Russia,
correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Similarly, since it was outside your purview, your report

does not address the question of whether Russian oligarchs engaged in money laundering
through any of the President's businesses, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

And, of course, your office did not obtain the President's

tax returns, which could otherwise show foreign financial sources, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to speak to that.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

I'm not going to speak to that.

In July 2017, the President said his personal finances were

off limits or outside the purview of your investigation, and he drew a, quote/unquote,
"red line" around his personal finances.
Were the President's personal finances outside the purview of your investigation?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to get into that.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Were you instructed by anyone not to investigate the

President's personal finances?
Mr. Mueller.

No.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Mr. Mueller, I'd like to turn your attention to

counterintelligence risks associated with lying.
Individuals can be subject to blackmail if they lie about their interactions with

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 87 of 94

86

foreign countries, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

True.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

For example, you successfully charged former National

Security Advisor Michael Flynn of lying to Federal agents about his conversations with
Russian officials, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

Correct.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Since it was outside the purview of your investigation, your

report did not address how Flynn's false statements could pose a national security risk
because the Russians knew the falsity of those statements, right?
Mr. Mueller.

I cannot get into that mainly because there are many elements of

the FBI that are looking at different aspects of that issue.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
Mr. Mueller.

Currently?

Currently.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Thank you.

As you noted in Volume II of your report, Donald Trump repeated five times in one
press conference, Mr. Mueller, in 2016, quote, "I have nothing to do with Russia."
Of course, Michael Cohen said Donald Trump was not being truthful because, at
this time, Trump was attempting to build Trump Tower Moscow.
Your report does not address whether Donald Trump was compromised in any
way because of any potential false statements that he made about Trump Tower
Moscow, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I think that's right.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

I think that's right.

Director Mueller, I want to turn your attention to a couple

other issues.
You've served as FBI Director during three Presidential elections, correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 88 of 94

Mr. Mueller.

87

Yes.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

And during those three Presidential elections, you have

never initiated an investigation at the FBI looking into whether a foreign government
interfered in our elections the same way you did in this particular instance, correct?
Mr. Mueller.

I would say I, personally, no.

But the FBI, quite obviously, has

the -- how you defense an attack such as the Russians undertook in 2016.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Now, Director Mueller, is there any information you'd like

to share with this committee that you have not so far today?
Mr. Mueller.

Boy, that's a broad question.

answer to it, but I'll say:

And it'd take me a while to get an

No.

Mr. Krishnamoorthi.

Mr. Mueller, you said that every American should pay very

close attention to the systematic and sweeping fashion in which the Russians interfered in
our democracy.
Are you concerned that we are not doing enough currently to prevent this from
happening again?
Mr. Mueller.

Well, I'll speak generally and what I said in my opening statement

this morning and here, that, no, much more needs to be done in order to protect against
this intrusion, not just by the Russians but others as well.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
The Chairman.

Thank you, Director.

We have two 5-minute periods remaining, Mr. Nunes and myself.

Mr. Nunes, you are recognized.
Mr. Nunes.
great career.

Mr. Mueller, it's been a long day for you.

And you've had a long,

I want to thank you for your longtime service, starting in Vietnam,

obviously in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Department of Justice, and the FBI.

And I want

to thank you for doing something you didn't have to do; you came here upon your own

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 89 of 94

free will.

And we appreciate your time today.

With that, I yield back.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

Thank you, sir.
Director Mueller, I want to, to close out my questions, turn to

some of the exchange you had with Mr. Welch a bit earlier.

I'd like to see if we can

broaden the aperture at the end of the hearing.
From your testimony today, I gather that you believe that knowingly accepting
foreign assistance during a Presidential campaign is an unethical thing to do.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

And a crime -And a crime.
-- in certain circumstances.

Yes.

And to the degree it undermines our democracy and our

institutions, we can agree that it's also unpatriotic.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

True.
And wrong.
True.
The standard of behavior for a Presidential candidate or any

candidate, for that matter, shouldn't be merely whether something is criminal; they
should be held to a higher standard.
Mr. Mueller.

You would agree?

I will not get into that because it goes to the standards to be

applied by other institutions besides ours.
The Chairman.

Well, I'm just referring to ethical standards.

We should hold

our elected officials to a standard higher than mere avoidance of criminality, shouldn't
we?
Mr. Mueller.

Absolutely.

88

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 90 of 94

The Chairman.

You have served this country for decades.

to defend the Constitution.
Mr. Mueller.

89

You've taken an oath

You hold yourself to a standard of doing what's right.

I would hope.

The Chairman.

You have.

I think we can all see that.

I'm sure your reward will be unending criticism.

And befitting the times,

But we are grateful.

The need to act in an ethical manner is not just a moral one but, when people act
unethically, it also exposes them to compromise, particularly in dealing with foreign
powers.

Is that true?

Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

True.
Because when someone acts unethically in connection with a

foreign partner, that foreign partner can later expose their wrongdoing and extort them?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

True.
And that conduct, that unethical conduct, could be of a financial

nature if you have a financial motive or an elicit business dealing.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

Am I right?

Yes.
But it can also just involve deception.

If you're lying about

something that can be exposed, then you can be blackmailed.
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

Also true.
In the case of Michael Flynn, he was secretly doing business with

Turkey, correct?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

Yes.
And that could open him up to compromise, that financial

relationship?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

I presume.
He also lied about his discussions with the Russian Ambassador.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 91 of 94

90

And since the Russians were on the other side of that conversation, they could've
exposed that, could they not?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

Yes.
If a Presidential candidate was doing business in Russia and

saying he wasn't, Russians could expose that too, could they not?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

I leave that to you.
Well, let's look at Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for the

Kremlin, someone that the The Trump Organization was in contact with to make that deal
happen.
Your report indicates that Michael Cohen had a long conversation on the phone
with someone from Dmitry Peskov's office.

Presumably the Russians could record that

conversation, could they not?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.

Yes.
And so, if Candidate Trump was saying "I have no dealings with

the Russians" but the Russians had a tape recording, they could expose that, could they
not?
Mr. Mueller.
The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.

Yes.
That's the stuff of counterintelligence nightmares, is it not?
Well, it has to do with counterintelligence and the need for a

strong counterintelligence entity.
The Chairman.

It does indeed.

And when this was revealed, that there were these communications
notwithstanding the President's denials, the President was confronted about this, and he
said two things:

first of all, "That's not a crime."

But I think you and I have already

agreed that that shouldn't be the standard, right, Mr. Mueller?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 92 of 94

Mr. Mueller.

91

True.

The Chairman.
those opportunities?"

And the second thing he said was, "Why should I miss out on all
I mean, why indeed, merely running a Presidential campaign,

why should you miss out on making all that money, was the import of his statement.
Were you ever able to ascertain whether Donald Trump still intends to build that
tower when he leaves office?
Mr. Mueller.

Was that a question, sir?

The Chairman.

Yes.

Were you able to ascertain -- because he wouldn't answer

your questions completely -- whether or if he ever ended that desire to build that tower?
Mr. Mueller.

I'm not going to speculate on that.

The Chairman.

If the President was concerned that if he lost his election, he

didn't want to miss out on that money, might he have the same concern about losing his
reelection and -Mr. Mueller.

Again --

The Chairman.
Mr. Mueller.

-- missing out on that money?
-- speculation.

The Chairman.

The difficulty with this, of course, is we are all left to wonder

whether the President is representing us or his financial interests.
That concludes my questions.
Mr. Nunes, do you have any concluding remarks?
Mr. Nunes.

I don't.

The Chairman.

Director Mueller, let me close by returning to where I began.

Thank you for your service, and thank you for leading this investigation.
The facts you set out in your report and have elucidated here today tell a
disturbing tale of a massive Russian intervention in our election, of a campaign so eager

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 93 of 94

92

to win, so driven by greed that it was willing to accept the help of a hostile foreign power
in a Presidential election decided by a handful of votes in a few key States.
Your work tells of a campaign so determined to conceal their corrupt use of
foreign help that they risked going to jail by lying to you, to the FBI, and to Congress
about it.

And, indeed, some have gone to jail over such lies.

And your works speaks of a President who committed countless acts of
obstruction of justice that, in my opinion and that of many other prosecutors, had it been
anyone else in the country, they would've been indicted.
Notwithstanding the many things you have addressed today and in your report,
there were questions you could not answer given the constraints you're operating under.
You would not tell us whether you would've indicted the President but for the OLC
opinion that you could not.

And so the Justice Department will have to make that

decision when the President leaves office, both as to the crime of obstruction of justice
and as to the campaign finance fraud scheme that Individual 1 directed and coordinated
and for which Michael Cohen went to jail.
You would not tell us whether the President should be impeached, nor did we ask
you, since it is our responsibility to determine the proper remedy for the conduct outlined
in your report.

Whether we decide to impeach the President in the House or we do not,

we must take any action necessary to protect the country while he is in office.
You would not tell us the results or whether other bodies looked into Russian
compromise in the form of money laundering, so we must do so.
You would not tell us whether the counterintelligence investigation revealed
whether people still serving within the administration pose a risk of compromise and
should never have been given a security clearance, so we must find out.
We did not bother to ask whether financial inducements from any Gulf nations

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-5 Filed 08/07/19 Page 94 of 94

93

were influencing U.S. policy since it is outside the four corners of your report, and so we
must find out.
But one thing is clear from your report, your testimony, from Director Wray's
statements yesterday:

The Russians massively intervened in 2016, and they are

prepared to do so again in voting that is set to begin a mere 8 months from now.

The

President seems to welcome the help again, and so we must make all efforts to harden
our elections infrastructure, to ensure there is a paper trail for all voting, to deter the
Russians from meddling, to discover it when they do, to disrupt it, and to make them pay.
Protecting the sanctity of our elections begins, however, with the recognition that
accepting foreign help is disloyal to our country, unethical, and wrong.

We cannot

control what the Russians do, not completely, but we can decide what we do and that
this centuries-old experiment we call American democracy is worth cherishing.
Director Mueller, thank you again for being here today.

And before I adjourn, I

would like to excuse you and Mr. Zebley.
Everyone else, please remain seated.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-6 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit F

 8/5/2019

Department
of Justice Issues Statement Document
on Testimony of 1-6
Former Filed
FBI Director
James Comey
  OPA2  Department
of Justice
Case
1:19-cv-02379-BAH
08/07/19
Page
of 3

JUSTICE NEWS
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Department of Justice Issues Statement on Testimony of Former FBI Director James
Comey
In response to testimony given today by former FBI Director James Comey, Department of Justice Spokesman Ian Prior
issued the following statement:
Shortly after being sworn in, Attorney General Sessions began consulting with career Department of
Justice ethics officials to determine whether he should recuse himself from any existing or future
investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.
Those discussions were centered upon 28 CFR 45.2, which provides that a Department of Justice attorney
should not participate in investigations that may involve entities or individuals with whom the attorney has a
political or personal relationship. That regulation goes on to define “political relationship” as:
“[A] close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office,
a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal
official thereof ***”
Given Attorney General Sessions’ participation in President Trump’s campaign, it was for that reason, and that
reason alone, the Attorney General made the decision on March 2, 2017 to recuse himself from any existing or
future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.
In his testimony, Mr. Comey stated that he was “not *** aware of” “any kind of memorandum issued from
the Attorney General or the Department of Justice to the FBI outlining the parameters of [the Attorney
General’s] recusal.” However, on March 2, 2017, the Attorney General’s Chief of Staff sent the attached
email specifically informing Mr. Comey and other relevant Department officials of the recusal and its
parameters, and advising that each of them instruct their staff “not to brief the Attorney General *** about,
or otherwise involve the Attorney General *** in, any such matters described.”

During his testimony, Mr. Comey confirmed that he did not inform the Attorney General of his concerns
about the substance of any one-on-one conversation he had with the President. Mr. Comey said,
following a morning threat briefing, that he wanted to ensure he and his FBI staff were following proper
communications protocol with the White House. The Attorney General was not silent; he responded to
this comment by saying that the FBI and Department of Justice needed to be careful about following
appropriate policies regarding contacts with the White House.

Despite previous inaccurate media reports, Mr. Comey did not say that he ever asked anyone at the
Department of Justice for more resources related to this investigation.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-issues-statement-testimony-former-fbi-director-james-comey

1/2

 8/5/2019

Department
of Justice Issues Statement Document
on Testimony of 1-6
Former Filed
FBI Director
James Comey
  OPA3  Department
of Justice
Case
1:19-cv-02379-BAH
08/07/19
Page
of 3

In conclusion, it is important to note that after his initial meeting with career ethics officials regarding
recusal (and including the period prior to his formal recusal on March 2, 2017), the Attorney General has
not been briefed on or participated in any investigation within the scope of his recusal.
Component(s):
Office of the Attorney General
Press Release Number:
17-631
Updated June 8, 2017

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-issues-statement-testimony-former-fbi-director-james-comey

2/2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-7 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit G

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-7 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 4

<!tnngrrss nf t4t lllnitth @>tat.ts
]!{nu.st nf ilttprtstntatiut.s
Bla.slttngtnn. IKlt 20515
February 22, 2019
The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
'
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
Recent reports suggest that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be nearing the end of his
investigation into "any links an�/or coordination between the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and other matters that
may have arisen directly from the investigation. 1 As you know, Department of Justice
regulations require that, "[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall
i
provide the Attorney General with a confdential report explaining the prosecution or declination
decisions reached by the Special Counsel."2
After nearly two years of investigation-accompanied by two years of direct attacks on
the integrity of the investigation by the President-the public is entitled to know what the
Special Counsel has found. We write to you to express, in the strongest possible terms, our
expectation that the Department of Justice will release to the public the report Special Counsel
Mueller submits to you-without delay and to the maximum extent permitted by law.
There also remains a significant public interest in the full disclosure of information
learned by the Special Counsel about the nature and scope of the Russian government's efforts to
undermine our democracy. To the extent that the Department believes that certain aspects of the
report are not suitable for immediate public release, we ask that you provide that information to
Congress, along with your reasoning for withholding the information from the public, in order
for us to judge the appropriateness of any redactions for ourselves.
We also expect that the Department will provide to our Committees, upon request and
consistent with applicable law, other information and material obtained or produced by the
Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and
Related Matters, Order No. 3915-2017, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, May 17, 2017.
1

2

26 C.F.R. § 600.8(c).

1
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-7 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 4

Special Counsel regarding certain foreign actors and other individuals who may have been the
subject of a criminal or counterintelligence investigation. This expectation is well-grounded in
the precedent set by the Department in recent years. In other closed and pending high-profile
cases alleging wrongdoing by public officials, both the Department and the FBI have produced
substantial amounts of investigative material, including classified and law enforcement sensitive
information, to the House of Representatives.
Finally, although we recognize the policy of the Department to remain sensitive to the
privacy and reputation interests of individuals who will not face criminal charges, 3 we feel that
it is necessary to address the particular danger of withholding evidence of misconduct by
President Trump from the relevant committees.
If the Special Counsel has reason to believe that the President has engaged in criminal or
other serious misconduct, then the President must be subject to accountability either in a court or
to the Congress. But because the Department has taken the position that a sitting President is
immune from indictment and prosecution, 4 Congress could be the only institution currently
situated to act on evidence of the President's misconduct. To maintain that a sitting president
cannot be indicted, and then to withhold evidence of wrongdoing from Congress because the
President will not be charged, is to convert Department policy into the means for a cover-up.
The President is not above the law.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Chairman
House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence

hairman
House Committee on the Judiciary

9itr;,.�

Rep. Elijah Cummings
Chairman
House Committee on Oversight and Reform
3

Chairman
House Foreign Affairs Committee

See, e.g., United States Attorneys' Manual 9-27.790 and 9-11.130.

See Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; Amenability of
the President, Vice President, and Other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24,
1973).

4

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-7 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 4

Rep. Maxine Waters
Chairwoman
House Committee on Financial Services

Rep. Richard.Neal
Chair
House Ways and Mearis Committee

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-8 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit H

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-8 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 9

SUBPOENA
BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The Honorable William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States
,,..
10
You are hereby commanded to be and appear before the
Committee on the Judiciary

of the House of Representatives of the United States at the place, date, and time specified below.

0

to produce the things identified on the attached schedule touching matters of inquiry committed to said
committee or subcommittee; and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee ..
Place of production: 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515
Date: May 1, 20 19

D

Time: 1 0:00am

to testify at a deposition touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or subc�m1111ittee;
and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of testimony: _______________________________
Date: _________(_and continuing until completed)

D

Time: -----------

to testify at a hearing touching matters of inqui�y committed to said committee or subcommittee; and
you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of testimony:
Date:

---------

Time: _ _________

To any authorized staff member or the U.S. Marshals Service
to serve and make return.
Witness my hand and the seal of the House of Representatives of the United States, at
the city of Washington, D.C. this 18th

' 20 19 .

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-8 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 9

PROOF OF SERVICE

Subpoena for
The Honorable William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States
Address United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington DC, 20530
before the Committee on the Judiciary

US. House ofRepresentatives
I 16th Congress

----------------------------

Served by (print name) Aaron Hiller

Title Deputy Chief Counsel, House Judiciary Committee
Manner of service Electronic

Date 04/19/2019

�L"""''L�...--------------------­

Signature of Server ____.,Q_.,.._�-�¥.....
/\

Address 2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-8 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 9

SCHEDULE
You are hereby required to produce the following in accordance with the attached Definitions
and Instructions:
1. The complete and unredacted version of the report submitted on or about March 22, 2019 by
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, pursuant to his authority under 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), entitled,
"Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election" ("the
Report"). This includes, but is not limited to, all summaries, exhibits, indices, tabl�s of contents
or other tables or figures, appendices, supplements, addenda or any other attachments whether
written or attached in a separate electronic format.
2. All documents referenced in the Report.
3. All documents obtained and investigative materials created by the Special Counsel's Office.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-8 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 9

DEFINITIONS
As used in this subpoena, the following terms shall be interpreted in accordance with these
definitions:
1. "And," and "or," shall be construed broadly and either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring
within the scope of this subpoena any information that might otherwise be construed to be
outside its scope. The singular includes plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes
the feminine and neutral genders.
2. "Any" includes "all," and "all" includes "any."
3. "Communication(s)" means the transmittal of information by any means, whether oral,
electronic, by document or otherwise, and whether in a meeting, by telephone, facsimile, mail,
releases, electronic message including email, text message, instant message, MMS or SMS
message, encrypted message, message application, social media, or otherwise.
4. "Employee" means any past or present agent, borrowed employee, casual employee, consultant,
contractor, de facto employee, detailee, fellow, independent contractor, intern, joint adventurer,
loaned employee, officer, part-time employee, permanent employee, provisional employee,
special government employee, subcontractor, or any other type of service provider.
5. "Document" means any written, recorded, or graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless
of how recorded, and whether original or copy, including, but not limited to, the following:
memoranda, reports, expense reports, books, manuals, instructions, financial reports, working
papers, records, notes, letters, notices, confirmations, telegrams, receipts, appraisals, pamphlets,
magazines, newspapers, prospectuses, interoffice and intra-office communications, electronic
mail ("e-mail"), instant messages, calendars, contracts, cables, notations of any type of
conversation, telephone call, meeting or other communication, bulletins, printed matter,
computer printouts, invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns, summaries, minutes, bills,
accounts, estimates, projections, comparisons, messages, correspondence, press releases,
circulars, financial statements, reviews, opinions, offers, studies and investigations,
questionnaires and surveys, power point presentations, spreadsheets, and work sheets. The term
"document" includes all drafts, preliminary versions, alterations, modifications, revisions,
changes, and amendments to the foregoing, as well as any attachments or appendices thereto.
6. "Documents in your possession, custody or control" means (a) documents that are in your
possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents, employees,
or representatives acting on your behalf; (b) documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that
you have a right to copy, or to which you have access; and (c) documents that have been placed
in the possession, custody, or control of any third party. This includes but is not limited to
documents that are or were held by your attorneys.
7. "Each" shall be construed to include "every," and "every" shall be construed to include "each."
8. "Including" shall be construed broadly to mean "including, but not limited to."
9. "Investigative materials" means any document created, generated, authored, or obtained by the
Special Counsel's Office pursuant to the Special Counsel's Investigation, including but not
limited to, prosecution memoranda, FBI 302 interview reports, signals intelligence, witness
interviews, written interrogatories and responses, search warrants, subpoenas, Foreign

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-8 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 9

Intelligence Surveillance Act applications, notes, transcripts, reports, whether classified or
unclassified.
10. "Person" or "persons" means natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations, corporations,
subsidiaries, division, departments, joint ventures proprietorships, syndicates, or other legal
business or government entities, and all subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches,
or other units, thereof.
11. "Referenced" means cited, quoted, mentioned, described, alluded to, contained, incorporated,
reproduced, or identified in any manner whatsoever.
12. "Relating to" shall mean discussing, describing, reflecting, containing, analyzing, studying,
reporting, commenting, evidencing, constituting, comprising, showing, setting forth, considering,
recommending, concerning, or pertinent to that subject in any manner whatsoever.
13. "Special Counsel's Office" means the office created pursuant to Department of Justice Order No.
3915-17 issued by the Acting Attorney General on May 17, 2017 appointing Robert S. Mueller
III as Special Counsel, and its employees.
14. "Special Counsel's Investigation" mean,s the investigation conducted by the Special Counsel's
Office pursuant to Department of Justice Order No. 3915-17 issued by the Acting Attorney
General on May 17, 2017.
15. "The Report" means the complete and unredacted version of the report submitted on or about
March 22, 2019 by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, pursuant to his authority under 28 C.F.R. §
600.8(c), entitled, "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential
Election."

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-8 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 9

INSTRUCTIONS
1. In complying with this subpoena, you should produce all responsive documents in unredacted
form that are in your possession, custody, or control or otherwise available to you, regardless of
whether the documents are possessed directly by you. If a document is referenced in the Report
in part, you should produce it in full in a complete and unredacted form.
2. Documents responsive to the subpoena should not be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred,
or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.
3. In the event that a document is withheld in full or in part on any basis, including a claim of
privilege, you should provide a log containing the following information concerning every such
document: (i) the reason the document is not being produced; (ii) the type of document; (iii) the
general subject matter; (iv) the date, author, addressee, and any other recipient(s); (v) the
relationship of the author and addressee to each other; and (vi) any other description necessary to
identify the document and to explain the basis for not producing the document. If a claimed
privilege applies to only a portion of any document, that portion only should be withheld and the
remainder of the document should be produced. As used herein, "claim of privilege" includes, but
is not limited to, any claim that a document either may or must be withheld from production
pursuant to any law, statute, rule, policy or regulation.
4. Any objections or claims of privilege are waived if you fail to provide an explanation of why full
compliance is not possible and a log identifying with specificity the ground(s) for withholding
each document prior to the subpoena compliance date.
5. In complying with the subpoena, be apprised that the Committee does not recognize: any
purported non-disclosure privileges associated with the common law including, but not limited to
the deliberative-process privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and attorney work product
protections; or any purported contractual privileges, such as non-disclosure agreements.
6. Any assertion of any such non-constitutional legal bases for withholding documents or other
materials, shall be of no legal force and effect and shall not provide a justification for such
withholding or refusal, unless and only to the extent that the Committee has consented to
recognize the assertion as valid.
7. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(d), the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and any statutory
exemptions to FOIA shall not be a basis for withholding any information.
8. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9), the Privacy Act shall not be a basis for withholding
information.
9. If any document responsive to this subpoena was, but no longer is, in your possession, custody,
or control, or has been placed into the possession, custody, or control of any third party and cannot
be provided in response to this subpoena, you should identify the document (stating its date,
author, subject and recipients) and explain the circumstances under which the document ceased
to be in your possession, custody, or control, or was placed in the possession, custody, or control
of a third party, including, but not limited to (a) how the document was disposed of; (b) the name,
current address, and telephone number of the person who currently has possession, custody, or

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-8 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 9

control over the document; (c) the date of disposition; and (d) the name, current address, and
telephone number of each person who authorized said disposition or who had or has knowledge
of said disposition.
10. If any document responsive to this subpoena cannot be located, describe with particularity the
efforts made to locate the document and the specific reason for its disappearance, destruction or
unavailability.
11. In the event that any entity, organization, or individual named in the subpoena has been, or is
currently, known by any other name, the subpoena should be read also to include such other
names under that alternative identification.
12. All documents should be produced with Bates numbers affixed. The Bates numbers must be
unique, sequential, fixed-length numbers and must begin with a prefix referencing the name of
the producing party (e.g., ABCD-000001). This format must remain consistent across all
productions. The number of digits in the numeric portion of the format should not change in
subsequent productions, nor should spaces, hyphens, or other separators be added or deleted. All
documents should be Bates-stamped sequentially and produced sequentially.
13. Documents produced pursuant to this subpoena should be produced in the order in which they
appear in your files and should not be rearranged. Any documents that are stapled, clipped, or
otherwise fastened together should not be separated. Documents produced in response to this
subpoena should be produced together with copies of file labels, dividers, or identifying markers
with which they were associated when this subpoena was issued. Indicate the office or division
and person from whose files each document was produced.
14. Responsive documents must be produced regardless of whether any other person or entity
possesses non-identical or identical copies of the same document.
15. Produce electronic documents as created or stored electronically in their original electronic
format. Documents produced in electronic format should be organized, identified, and indexed
electronically, in a manner comparable to the organization structure called for in Instruction 13
above.
16. Data may be produced on CD, DVD, memory stick, USB thumb drive, hard drive, or via secure
file transfer, using the media requiring the least number of deliverables. Label all media with the
following:
a. Production date;
b. Bates range;
c. Disk number (1 ofX), as applicable.
17. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this subpoena referring to a document,
communication, meeting, or other event is inaccurate, but the actual date or other descriptive detail
is known to you or is otherwise apparent from the context of the subpoena, you should produce
all documents which would be responsive as if the date or other descriptive detail were correct.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-8 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 9

18. The subpoena is continuing in nature and applies to any newly discovered document, regardless
of the date of its creation. Any document not produced because it has not been located or
discovered by the return date should be produced immediately upon location or discovery
subsequent thereto.
19. Two sets of each production shall be delivered, one set to the Majority Staff and one set to the
Minority Staff. Production sets shall be delivered to the Majority Staff in Room 2138 of the
Rayburn House Office Building and the Minority Staff in Room 2142 of the Rayburn House
Office Building. You should consult with Committee Majority Staff regarding the method of
delivery prior to sending any materials.
20. If compliance with the subpoena cannot be made in full by the specified return date, compliance
shall be made to the extent possible by that date. An explanation of why full compliance is not
possible shall be provided along with any partial production. In the event that any responsive
documents or other materials contain classified information, please immediately contact
Committee staff to discuss how to proceed.
21. Upon completion of the document production, please submit a written certifi�ation, signed by you
or by counsel, stating that: (1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in your
possession,· custody, or control which reasonably could contain responsive documents; (2)
documents responsive to the subpoena have not been destroyed, modified, removed, transferred,
or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee since the date of receiving the Committee's
subpoena or in anticipation of receiving the Committee's subpoena, and (3) all documents
identified during the search that are responsive have been produced to the Committee, identified
in a log provided to the Committee, or otherwise identified as provided herein.
22. A cover letter should be included with each production including the following information:
a. List of each piece of media (hard drive, thumb drive, DVD or CD) included in the
production by the unique number assigned to it, and readily apparent on the physical
media;
b. List of fields in the order in which they are listed in the metadata load file;
c. The paragraph(s) and/or clause(s) in the Committee's subpoena to which each document
responds;
d. Time zone in which emails were standardized during conversion (email collections only);
e. Total page count and bates range for the entire production, including both hard copy and
electronic documents.
23. You need not produce documents which are readily publicly available.
24. As to Item 3 in the Schedule, please consult with the Committee to determine a reasonable time
period for compliance.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit I

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 13

C!tnn9ress nf tqe l!niteh �fates
lltlla111Jington, ilQJ: 20515

April 1, 2019
The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Barr:
On March 25, 2019, we sent you a letter requesting that you produce to Congress the full
report of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and its underlying evidence by Tuesday, April 2,
2019. "To the extent you believe the applicable law limits your ability" to produce the entire
report, we urged that you "begin the process of consultation with us immediately" to resolve
those issues without delay. 1 On Wednesday, April 3, 2019, the House Judiciary Committee
plans to begin the process of authorizing subpoenas for the report and underlying evidence and
materials. While we hope to avoid resort to compulsory process, if the Department is unwilling
to produce the report to Congress in unredacted form, then we will have little choice but to take
such action.
As Chairman Nadler explained in his phone conversation with you on March 27,
Congress requires a complete and unedited copy of the Special Counsel's report, as well as
access to the evidence and materials underlying that report. During your confirmation hearing in
January, you stated that your "goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent
with the law." As such, if the Department believes it is unable to produce any of these materials
in full due to rules governing grand jury secrecy, it should seek leave from the district court to
produce those materials to Congress-as it has done in analogous situations in the past. To the
extent you believe any other types of redactions are necessary, we again urge you to engage in an
1 Letter from Chairpersons Jerrold Nadler, H Comm. on the Judiciary, Elijah Cummings H. Comm. on Oversight &
Reform, Adam Schiff, H. Perm. Select. Comm. on Intelligence, Maxine Waters, H. Comm. on Fin. Servs., Richard
Neal, House Comm. on Ways & Means, and Eliot Engel, H. Comm. on Foreign Affairs, to Att'y Gen. William P.
Barr (Mar. 25, 2019). See also Letter from Chairpersons Jerrold Nadler, H Comm. on the Judiciary, Elijah
Cummings H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, Adam Schiff, H. Perm. Select. Comm. on Intelligence, Maxine
Waters, H. Comm. on Fin. Servs., Richard Neal, House Comm. on Ways & Means, and Eliot Engel, H. Comm. on
Foreign Affairs, to Att'y Gen. William P. Barr, informing him of their expectation that he will make Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's report public "without delay and to the maximum extent permitted by law" (Feb. 22,
2019).

1
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 13

immediate consultation to address and alleviate any concerns you have about providing that
information to Congress. 2
We also reiterate our request that you appear before the Judiciary Committee as soon as
possible-not in a rrionth, as you have offered, but now, so that you can explain your decisions to
first provide Congress with your characterization of the Mueller report as opposed to the report
itself; to initiate a redaction process that withholds critical information from Congress; and to
assume for yourself final authority over matters within Congress's constitutional purview. In
addition, as Chairman Nadler also requested on his call with you, we ask for your commitment to
refrain from interfering with Special Counsel Mueller testifying before the Judiciary
Committee-and before any other relevant committees-after the report has been released
regarding his investigation and findings.
Congress is, as a matter of law, entitled to each of the categories of information you
proposed to redact from the Special Counsel's report in your March 29 letter.3 In the attached
appendix we provide a more complete legal analysis of each of the potential redaction categories
your letter identified. We expect the Department will take all necessary steps without further
delay-including seeking leave from the court to disclose the limited portions of the report that
may involve grand jury materials-in order to satisfy your promise of transparency and to allow
Congress to fulfill its own constitutional responsibilities.4
Full release of the report to Congress is consistent with both congressional intent and the
interests of the American public. On March 14, 2019, by a vote of 420-0, the House unanimously
passed H. Con. Res. 24, a resolution calling for "the full release" of the Special Counsel's report
to Congress, as well as the public release of the Special Counsel's report except to the extent the
disclosure of "any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law." The American people have
also consistently and overwhelmingly supported release of the full report. The President himself
has likewise called for its release in full.
The allegations at the center of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation strike at the core
of our democracy. Congress urgently needs his full, unredacted report and its underlying
evidence in order to fulfill its constitutional role, including its legislative, appropriations, and
Congress is authorized by law and equipped to receive and examine the U.S. government's most sensitive
materials and information. The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation have long provided to
relevant congressional committees sensitive law enforcement and investigatory information and records in complete
and unredacted form, including those involving classified information, that are not provided to the general public.
2

3
Letter from Att'y Gen. William P. Barr to Chairman Lindsey Graham, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Chairman
Jerrold Nadler, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Mar. 29, 2019).

At a minimum, the Department should produce a detailed log of each redaction and the reasons supporting it in
order to facilitate the accommodation process and to provide sufficient clarity for Congress to evaluate the
Department's claims.
4

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 13

oversight responsibilities. Congress can and has historically been provided with sensitive,
unredacted, and classified material that cannot be provided to the general public. In addition, the
American people deserve to be fully informed about these issues of extraordinary public interest,
and therefore need to see the report and findings in Special Counsel Mueller's own words to the
fullest extent possible.
For all these reasons, we hope you will produce to Congress an unredacted report and
underlying materials to avoid the need for compulsory process.
Sincerely,

�il!'Jman
House Committee on Ways and Means

t1LC3f2LiM-

Adam Schiff
Chairman

Chairwoman
House Committee on Financial Services

�&.c.-...

�.,:2

Elijah . Cummings
Chairman
House Committee on Oversight and Reform

Chairman
House Committee on Foreign Affairs

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 13

Appendix:
The Department of Justice Must Produce the Full MueJler Report

Congress urgently needs the full Special Counsel's report and the underlying evidence in
order to fulfill its Article I constitutional functions, including its legislative, appropriations, and
oversight responsibilities. Moreover, there is no basis for withholding from Congress the four
categories of information described by the Attorney General in his March 29 letter to the House
and Senate Judiciary Committees. 1
1. Congress Urgently Requires the Full Report and the Evidence
The Attorney General's March 24 letter indicates that the Special Counsel found that
President Trump may have criminally obstructed the Department's investigation of Russia's
interference in the 2016 election and related matters.2 The Special Counsel pointedly stated that
the evidence the investigation uncovered "does not exonerate" the President of obstruction, and
includes potentially criminal acts not yet known to the public.3 It is difficult to overstate the
seriousness of those actions if, in the wake of an attack by a hostile nation against our
democracy, President Trump's response was to seek to undermine the investigation rather than
take action against the perpetrators.
The longer the delay in obtaining this information, the more harm will accrue to
Congress's independent duty to investigate misconduct by the Presid�nt and to assure public
confidence in the integrity and independence of federal law enforcement operations. These are
not only matters of addressing the harm that has occurred; they are urgent ongoing concerns. As
has been publicly reported and referenced in the March 24 letter, multiple open investigations
referred by the Special Counsel to other U.S. Attorneys' offices may implicate the President or
his campaign, transition, inauguration, or businesses. These critically important inquiries could
be compromised if the President is seeking to interfere with them. Among other things,
Congress has considered and continues to consider legislation �o protect the integrity of these
type of investigations against precisely the sorts of interference in which the President appears to
have engaged.4
Letter from Att'y Gen. William P. Barr to Chairman Lindsey Graham, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Chairman
Jerrold Nadler, H. Comm. on the Judiciary (Mar. 29, 2019).
1

Letter from Att'y Gen. William P. Barr to Chairman Lindsey Graham and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, S.
Comm. on the Judiciary, and Chairman Jerrold Nadler and Ranking Member Doug Collins, H. Comm. on the
Judiciary (Mar. 24, 2019) (hereinafter "March 24 Letter").

2

March 24 Letter at 3 (the report "addresses a number of actions by the President-most ofwhich have been the
subject of public reporting") (emphasis added).

3

See H.R. 197 and S. 71, Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, I 16th Cong (2019); see also H.R. 1357,
Special Counsel Reporting Act, 116th Cong. (2019); H.R. 1627, Abuse of Pardon Prevention Act, 116th Cong.
(2019); H.R. 1348, Presidential Pardon Transparency Act, 116th Cong. (2019).

4

1

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 13

Moreover, the Judiciary Committee i� engaged in an ongoing investigation of whether the
President has undermined the rule of law, including by compromising the integrity of the Justice
Department. Other committees are engaged in investigations related to whether the President,
his associates, or members of his administration have engaged in other corrupt or unethical
activities or are subject to foreign influence or compromise by actors abroad. Congress's
authority "to inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration or inefficiency in agencies
of the Government " has been unquestioned since "the earliest times in its history."5 That interest
is at its height when Congress's oversight activities pertain to potentially illegal acts by the
President. As a court determined in another context involving the release of a report about
potential obstruction of justice by a President, "[i]t would be difficult to conceive of a more
compelling need than that of this country for an unswervingly fair inquiry based on all the
pertinent information. "6
The March 24 letter also claims that the Special Counsel's decision not to reach a
definitive legal conclusion about obstruction "leaves it to the Attorney General to determine
whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime."7 That view is fundamentally
flawed. As a coequal branch of government-indeed, as the only branch of government that is
expressly empowered by the Constitution to hold the President accountable-Congress must be
permitted to assess the President's conduct for itself. The Attorney General cannot unilaterally
make himself judge and jury. That is particularly so where the Attorney General has already
expressed the view-in arguing against a theory of obstruction in this very investigation-that
"there is no legal prohibition ...against the President's acting on a matter in which he has a
personal stake. "8
The Attorney General's pre-confirmation memorandum on this topic also stated that "the
determination of whether the President is making decisions based on 'improper' motives or
whether he is 'faithfully' discharging his responsibilities is left to the people, through the
election process, and the Congress."9 Neither the American people nor Congress, however, can
make any such a determination without all of Special Counsel Mueller's evidence, analysis, and
findings-unfiltered and in his own words.
5

Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 200 n.33 (1957) (internal quotations omitted)

In re Report & Rec. ofJune 5, 1972 Grand Jury Concerning Transmission ofEvidence to House of
Representatives, 370 F. Supp. 1219, 1230 (D.D.C. 1974).
6

7

March 24 Letter at 3.

William P. Barr, Memorandum Re: Mueller's "Obstruction" Theory at 10, June 8, 2018 (emphasis omitted).
Additionally, although the Attorney General's March 24 letter states that the absence of an underlying crime bears
upon the President's intent, it is black-letter law that there need not be an underlying crime for obstruction ofjustice
to occur. See, e.g., United States v. Hopper, 177 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1999).
8

9

Id at 11.

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 13

The Special Counsel's investigation also confirmed that Russia engaged in extensive
efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and Congress's need for that information is
no less urgent. The Special Counsel's report, according to the Attorney General, describes
"crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with these
efforts," including "efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and
disseminate information to influence the election."10
These hostile acts are ongoing: The Department has indicated in at least one other case ·
that Russian influence efforts continued into the 2018 midterm elections.11 The Director of
National Intelligence likewise testified last year in regard to the 2018 midterm elections that
Russia would continue to use "persistent and disruptive cyber operations" and would target
"elections as opportunities to undermine democracy" both here and against our allies in
Europe.12 More recently, Director Coats warned that Russia and other adversaries "probably are
already looking to the 2020 U.S. election" to conduct malign influence operations and that
"Moscow may employ additional influence toolkits-such as spreading disinformation,
conducting hack-and-leak operations, or manipulating data-in a more targeted fashion to
influence U.S. policy, actions, and elections." 13 It is imperative that Congress have access to the
Special Counsel's full descriptions and evidence of these crimes and malign influence operations
that the Russian government or associated actors perpetrated against our democracy.
Moreover, the Attorney General's March 24 letter acknowledges "multiple offers from
Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign." 14 The facts and circumstances
uncovered by the Special Counsel's Office surrounding these and any other overtures by foreign
actors, as well as the individuals associated with them and how they responded to such offers, are
of vital importance to Congress. The Foreign Affairs Committee, for example, requires access to
these facts as it investigates whether the foreign and financial entanglements of the President and
his associates may be improperly influencing foreign policy in ways that serve their private
interests rather than the national security of the United States. Moreover, the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence must have access to the full facts as it evaluates
counterintelligence threats and risks during and since the 2016 U.S. election, and as it considers

10

March 24 Letter at 2.

See Criminal Complaint 114, United States v. Khusyaynova, No. 1: 18-mj-464 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2018) (alleging
Russian national participated in a conspiracy "to interfere with U.S. political and electoral processes, including the
2018 U.S. elections").

11

Patricia Zengerle and Diona Chaicu, US. 2018 Elections 'Under Attack' by Russia: US. Intelligence Chief,
Reuters, Feb. 13, 2018.

12

Worldwide Threats: Hearing before the S. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. (Jan. 29, 2019) (Statement
of Daniel R. Coats, Director ofNational Intelligence).

13

14

March 24 Letter at 2.

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 13

remedies necessary to prevent, or mitigate to the greatest extent possible, the vulnerability of
campaigns, or persons associated with them, to foreign influence or compromise operations.
Congressional committees have conducted multiple hearings regar_ding foreign influence
operations and the security of our election systems and have proposed numerous legislative
reforms to address vrilnerabilities. 15 In an appropriations bill enacted into law last year,
Congress allocated much-needed funding to support election security initiatives. 16 It is critical to
legislation that has or will be introduced this year to understand foreign intelligence
disinformation campaigns, risks to our election infrastructure security, evolving methods of voter
targeting and suppression, and the manner in which foreign adversaries seek to exploit campaign
vulnerabilities as well as the technology industry in our elections moving forward.
In addition, the House of Representatives' appropriations process for the next fiscal year
is already underway-including for funding any election security, cybersecurity, and offensive
or defensive counterintelligence operations needed to combat attacks during the 2020 election­
with submission deadlines scheduled for April and appropriations packages expected to reach the
House floor in June. 17 However, Congress cannot fully address the scope of these threats
(whether through appropriations or other legislation) without a thorough accounting by the
Special Counsel's Office of the attack that occurred in 2016. Indeed, it is difficult to envision
any function of Congress more important than ensuring the integrity of our democratic elections,
authorizing and appropriating funding for the relevant federal authorities, and authorizing critical
national security programs.
2. The Application of Rule 6(e) is Limited and Does Not Bar Disclosures to Congress
The Attorney General has indicated that the Department is reviewing the Special
Counsel's report to identify material whose disclosure may be limited by Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 6(e), which prohibits certain disclosures of "matter[s] occurring before the
grand jury." Iri a call with Chairman Nadler, the Attorney General suggested that redactions
made in accordance with Rule 6(e) will be substantial. But even assuming Rule 6(e) applies with
respect to disclosures to Congress, 18 the law clearly forbids the Department from making
15
See, e.g., Secure America from Russian Interference Act, H.R. 6437, 115th Cong. (2018); Defending Elections
from Threats by Establishing Redlines Act, H.R. 4884, 115th Cong. (2018); Bot Disclosure Accountability Act,
S. 3127, 115th Cong. (2018); H.R. 5011, Election Security Act, 115th Cong. (2018); For the People Act, H.R. 1,
116th Cong (2019).
16

Pub. L. No. 115-141, Div. E, tit. V (2018).

See Hearings, H. Comm. on Appropriations, 116th Cong. (2019); Paul M. Krawzak, House appropriations may
start markup in April, RollCall, Mar. 19, 2019.
17

See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Inv. of Ven-Fuel, 441 F. Supp. 1299, 1302, 1304-08 (M.D. Fla. 1977) (holding that
Congress has "an independent right" under the Constitution to obtain requested documents regardless of whether
they are subject to Rule 6(e)); In re Proceedings ofGrand Jury No. 81-1 (Miami), 669 F. Supp. 1072, 1075 (S.D.
18

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 13

sweeping designations as to any evidence that happens to have been presented to a grand jury or
was obtained through a grandjury subpoena.
Rule 6(e) "does not 'draw a veil of secrecy ...over all matters occurring in the world
that happen to be investigated by a grandjury."'19 "The mere fact that information has been
presented to the grand jury does not" mean that the information is prohibited from disclosure.20
Further, as the D.C. Circuit has made clear, the fact that evidence was obtained through a grand
jury subpoena does not necessarily mean that it is barred from disclosure by Rule 6(e). 21 As a
result, the Department cannot withhold documents or information simply because they were
produced in response to a grandjury subpoena. Because a person receiving the documents
would not know whether they were obtained through a grandjury subpoena or other means,
"subpoenaed documents would not necessarily reveal a connection to a grandjury."22 Just last
. year, the D.C.Circuit reaffirmed this principal in Bartko v. Dep 't ofJustice, where it made clear
that "copies of specific records provided to a federal grandjury" were not covered by Rule 6(e)
because '"the mere fact the documents were subpoenaed fails tojustify withholding under Rule
6(e).'" 23
For this reason, it is clear the Department cannot withhold portions of the Special
Counsel's report merely because they discuss information that was presented to the grandjury or
documents that were obtained through a grand jury subpoena. Likewise, the Department cannot
withhold underlying evidence simply because it was presented to the grandjury or obtained
through a grand jury subpoena. That is particularly so because the Special Counsel's Office
obtained a great deal of evidence by other means. The Special Counsel's team interviewed
numerous witnesses on a voluntary basis and acquired voluminous records without resorting to
grand jury subpoenas.24 Other evidence was obtained through different types of mandatory legal
process, such as through the issuance of nearly 500 search warrants. 25 That evidence can of
course be disclosed without implicating Rule 6(e). And because so much evidence was obtained
Fla. 1987) (similar). But see In re Grand Jury Investigation of Uranium Indus., Misc. 78-173, 1979 WL 1661, at *4
(D.D.C. Aug. 16, 1979). No circuit court has squarely addressed this issue.
Labow v. Dep 't ofJustice, 831 F.3d 523, 529 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Senate of the Com. ofPuerto Rico v. Dep 't
ofJustice, 823 F.2d 574, 582 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (R.B. Ginsburg, J.)).
20 Id.
at 529.
19

21
22
23

Id. at 529-30.
Id. at 529.
898 F.3d 51, 73 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (quoting Labow, 831 F.3d at 530).

See, e.g., Philip Rucker et al., A Mueller Mystery: How Trump Dodged a Special Counsel Interview-and a
Subpoena Fight, WASH. POST, Mar. 28, 2019 (quoting the President's attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, who stated, "We
allowed [the Special Counsel's office] to investigate everybody, and [the White House] turned over every document
they were asked for: 1.4 million documents.").
24

25

March 24 Letter at I.

5

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 13

through these other means, the Department would have no basis to withhold materials or
descriptions of materials that it happens to have gathered by issuing grand jury subpoenas. So
long as those materials do not on their face "'reveal a connection to a grand jury,"' Rule 6(e)
does not bar their disclosure.26
As to testimony or other grand jury materials that are genuinely subject to Rule 6(e), the
Department can and should work with the House Judiciary Committee to obtain the permission
of the district court overseeing the grand jury to make disclosures to Congress on a confidential
basis, as it has done in the past in analogous circumstances. The Department took that precise
path after the grand jury considering evidence in the Watergate affair issued a report describing
potentially criminal acts by President Nixon. The Justice Department filed briefs fully
supporting disclosure of the report to the House Judiciary Committee, and made the obvious
point that "[t]he need for the House to be able to make its profoundly important judgment on the
basis of all available information is as compelling as any that could be conceived."27
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr likewise sought the court's authorization to disclose grand
jury material regarding President Clinton to the House ofRepresentatives.28
The district court would have ample authority to permit disclosure of relevant materials
to Congress. As ChiefJudge Howell, the judge overseeing this grand jury, explained in a recent
opinion, "numerous courts have recognized [that] a district court retains an inherent authority to
unseal and disclose grand jury material not otherwise falling within the enumerated exceptions to
Rule 6(e). "29 Indeed, every federal court of appeals to have considered this question has reached
that conclusion. 3° Congress's need for these materials is beyond compelling, and the public
interest in Congress receiving these materials is at its height. President Trump, moreover, has

26

Barko, 898 F.3d at 73 (quoting Labow, 831 F.3d at 529).

Mem. for the United States on Behalf of the Grand Jury at 16, In re Report & Rec. ofJune 5, 1972 Grand Jury,
Misc. No. 74-21 (D.D.C. Mar. 5, 1974).

27

28

See Order,In re Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Assoc., Div. No. 94-1 (D.C. Cir. Special Div. July 7,1998).

29 In

re App. to Unseal Dockets Related to the Independent Counsel's 1998 Investigation ofPresident Clinton, 308
F. Supp. 3d 314,323 (D.D.C. 2018).

Id at 323-24. See Carlson v. United States, 837 F.3d 753, 763 (7th Cir. 2016); In re Craig, 131 F.3d 99, 103 (2d
Cir. 1997); In re Pet. to Inspect & Copy Grand Jury Materials, 735 F.2d 1261,1268 (11th Cir. 1984); see also Pitch
v. United States, 915 F.3d 704,708-09 (11th Cir. 2019); Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714,715 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
(court was "in general agreement with" the district court's decision to release the Watergate grand jury's report to
Congress). The D.C. Circuit heard argument last fall in a case involving a historian who seeks the release of grand
jury material involving an incident that occurred in the 1950s pursuant to the court's inherent authority to release
materials otherwise covered by Rule 6(e). McKeever v. Barr, No. 17-5149. The facts of that case are obviously
distinct from those presented here. As the Department explained in its brief in McKeever, "[t]he question in this
appeal is whether . . . a district court may order the disclosure of secret grand jury records solely for reasons of
historical or academic interest."
30

6

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 13

expressed public support for the report's release.31 As such, the Department should immediately
request that these materials be released to Congress.
The Attorney General has refused thus far to work with Congress in _that regard. At his
confirmation hearing, however, the Attorney General stated: "I ... believe it is very important
that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the special counsel's work. My goal
will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law. "32 The most efficacious
way to honor that commitment would be to join with the House Judiciary Committee in seeking
expedited disclosure of any Rule 6(e) material to Congress, and to refer any questions about the
scope of Rule 6(e)'s application to independent court review.
3. Any Potential Claim of Executive Privilege Has Been Waived
Although the Attorney General's March 24 letter made no mention of executive
privilege, his March 29 letter states that "there are no plans to submit the report to the White
House for a privilege review," because the President "intends to defer" to the Attorney General
on those issues. Whatever that may mean, it would be highly improper for the Department to
conceal portions of the report based on claims of executive privilege on behalf of the President.
As an initial matter, the Department's own long-standing policy is that executive privilege
"should not be invoked to conceal evidence of wrongdoing or criminality on the part of
executive officers."33
In any event, the President and the White House have waived any claims of executive
privilege. The White House voluntarily disclosed millions of documents to the Special
Counsel's office and permitted multiple senior officials to be interviewed by the Special
Counsel's team, without asserting any type of privilege. 34 Having voluntarily disclosed this
evidence, the President cannot now seek to invoke executive privilege to block its release. As
the D.C. Circuit has held in an analogous context, regarding waiver of attorney-client privilege,
"[t]he client cannot be permitted to pick and choose among his opponents, waiving the privilege
for some and resurrecting the claim of confidentiality to obstruct others."35 Moreover, the White
House has similarly shared information and documents with numerous former White House
Liam Stack, Trump Says Mueller Report Should Be Made Public: 'Let People See It,' N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 20,
2019.

31

The Nomination of the Honorable William Pelham Barr to be Attorney General ofthe United States, hearing
before the S. Comm. on.the Judiciary, Jan. 15, 2019 (statement of the Hon. William Barr).

32

33

Robert B. Shanks, Office of Legal Counsel, Congressional Subpoenas ofDepartment ofJustice Investigative

Files, 8 Op. O.L.C. 252, 267 (1984).

See Rucker et al., supra note 24; Michael Schmidt and Maggie Haberman, White House Counsel, Don McGahn,
Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 18, 2018 (noting that no privilege was asserted).
34

35

Permian Corp. v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

7

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 13

officials and their private counsel. 36 The D.C. Circuit has expressly held that the White House
"waive[s] its claims of privilege in regard to [] specific documents that it voluntarily reveal[s] to
third parties outside the White House."37
Lastly, in the unlikely event that the White House has preserved privilege as to any of the
evidence underlying the Mueller report, the public interest in disclosure would still
overwhelmingly outweigh the President's interest in secrecy. The privilege pertaining to
presidential communications is not absoh1;te. Just as the Supreme Court determined in United
States v. Nixon, the public interest here in the "fair administration ofjustice" outweighs the
President's "generalized interest in confidentiality."38
4. Ongoing Investigations, Classified Information. and Privacy and Reputational
Interests of Third Parties Should Not Prevent Release to Congress
The fact that certain investigations remain ongoing cannot justify the Department
withholding critical evidence from Congress that pertains to Russia's interference in our federal
elections or obstruction ofjustice by the President. Indeed, during the previous Congress, the
Department produced to congressional committees !housands of pages of highly sensitive law
enforcement and classified investigatory and deliberative records.39 Many of these were related
to this very same investigation-. which of course was open and ongoing at the time.
Similarly, the mere presence of classified information in the Mueller.report or in
underlying evidence cannot justify withholding evidence from Congress, which is well equipped
to handle classified information and does so on a daily basis. The Department can provide any
classified materials to the appropriate committees for handling in secure facilities. It can also
permit the Intelligence Community to review the report on an expedited basis in order to share
with Congress whatever equities the Intelligence Community feels may be implicated by the
release of specific information contained in the report or any underlying materials. Additionally,
to the extent the Special Counsel's Office is in possession of underlying evidence that is
particularly sensitive, the relevant committees are in a position to work with the Department to
reach an accommodation to ensure appropriate handling as Congress has in the past on numerous
occasions. However, the Department should not be able to simply invoke the same reasons for
redacting the report from public view as a shield against disclosure to a coequal branch of
government.

36

See, e.g., Schmidt and Haberman, supra note 34.

37

In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 741-42 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

38

418 U.S. 683, 713 (1974).

39

See, e.g., DOJ hands over new classified documents on Russia probe to Congress, Associated Press, June 23,
2018; Charlie Savage, Carter Page FISA Released by Justice Department, N.Y. TIMES, July 21, 2018

8

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-9 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 13

Finally, the Department also should not be able to keep from Congress information
related to the "reputational interests of peripheral third parties" as referenced in the Attorney
General's March 29 letter. To the extent the Special Counsel has developed information relative
to President Trump's family members (including those employed by the White House) or his
associates, campaign employees, consultants, advisers, and others within the scope of the
investigation, that should not be withheld from Congress. It is precisely the type of information
that the relevant committees need to perform their oversight, legislative, and other
responsibilities. There is no constitutionally recognized privilege that would apply in such
instances, and there is ample precedent for provision of such information, as recently as the last
Congress.

9

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-10 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit J

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-10 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 4

QI:on9r.e1ls of tq.e lltnit.eh §tat.en
lltlfa.a!Jington, IDC!t 20515

March 22, 2019
The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Barr:
We understand that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has now concluded his
investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and of "any
links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the
campaign of President Donald Trump." 1 We also understand that Special Counsel Mueller has
issued a report to you pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c).
We ask that you immediately take steps to preserve (1) Special Counsel Mueller's report;
(2) all evidence underlying the report; and (3) all related work product and investigatory
materials compiled by the Special Counsel's Office. This request applies to all documents,
records, memoranda, correspondence, or other communications, or any portion thereof relevant
to the work of the Special Counsel's Office. We remind you that concealing, removing, or
destroying such records may constitute a crime. 2
Committees of the United States Congress are conducting investigations parallel to those
of the Special Counsel's Office, and preservation of these records is critical to ensure that we are
able to do our work without interference or delay. We therefore ask that you immediately
confirm that the Department of Justice is preserving these records and that you provide us with
all orders, notices, and guidance regarding preservation of information related to these matters
and investigations.
1
Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and
Related Matters, Order No. 3915-2017, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, May 17, 2017.
2 18 U.S.C. § 2071.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-10 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 4

We look forward to your prompt attention and response to our request.
Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary

Chairman
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Mark Warner
Ranking Member
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Chairman
House Committee on Oversight and Reform

Maxine Waters
Chairwoman
House Committee on Financial Services

tA,a,l,

�.

£�

Chairman
House Committee on Ways and Means

Eliot L. Engel
Chairman
House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Ron Wyden
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Finance

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-10 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 4

Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
'
'

cc:

Rod Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
John' Demersi
Assistant Attorney General for National Security
U;S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania,Avenue, NW
Washington, D,C. 20530

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-11 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit K

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-11 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 4

otnngress nf tt,e Nniteh j;fates
masqington, mar 20515

March 22, 2019
Mr. Pat A. Cipollone
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20006
Dear Mr. Cipollone:
We understand that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has now concluded his
investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election and of "any
links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the
campaign of President Donald Trump." 1 We also understand that Special Counsel Mueller has
issued a report to Attorney General Barr pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.S(c).
We ask that you immediately take steps to preserve any of the following materials in the
White House's possession: (1) all copies of Special Counsel Mueller's report; (2) all evidence or
other investigatory materials supplied to the Special Counsel's Office, or any copies thereof; and
(3) all related work product or other materials generated by the White House to assist the Special
Counsel's Office in its investigation. This request applies to all documents, records, memoranda,
correspondence, or other communications, or any portion thereof relevant to the work of the
Special Counsel's Office. We remind you that concealing, removing, or destroying such records
may constitute a crime.2
Committees of the United States Congress are conducting investigations parallel to those
of the Special Counsel's Office, and preservation of these records is critical to ensure that we are
able to do our work without interference or delay. We therefore ask that you immediately
confirm that the White House is preserving these records and that you provide us with all orders,
notices, and guidance regarding preservation of information related to these matters and
investigations.
1
Appointment ofSpecial Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and
Related Matters, Order No. 3915-2017, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, May I 7, 2017.
2
I 8 U.S.C. § 2071.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-11 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 4

We look forward to your prompt attention and response to our request.
Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Chairmap
House Committee on the Judiciary

/11.1J

le 4)"'*1

Chairman
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Mark Warner
Ranking Member
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Elijah E. Cummings
Chairman
House Committee on Oversight and Reform

Maxine Waters
Chairwoman
House Committee on Financial Services

Chairman
House Committee on Ways and Means

Chairman
House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Senate Committee on Foteign Relations

Ron Wyden
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Finance

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-11 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 4

Sherrod Brown
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
cc:
The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
�50 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC, 20530

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-12 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit L

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-12 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 4

0Lnn9rc11s of tl7c l!tnitch �fates
lltila.a!Jington,

mm 20515

March 25, 2019
The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Barr:
Your March 24 letter concerning Special Counsel Mueller's report leaves open many
questions concerning the conduct of the President and his closest advisors, as well as that of the
Russian government during the 2016 presidential election. Accordingly, we formally request
that you release the Special Counsel's full report to Congress no later than Tuesday, April 2. We
also ask that you begin transmitting the underlying evidence and materials to the relevant
committees at that time.
As you know, on March 14, the full House of Representatives approved H. Con. Res. 24,
calling for the release of the Special Counsel's report by ·a vote of 420-0. 1 Each of our
committees is currently engaged in oversight activities that go directly to the President's conduct,
his attempts to interfere with federal and congressional investigations, his relationships and
communications with the Russian government and other foreign powers, and/or other alleged
instances of misconduct.
Your four-page summary of the Special Counsel's review is not sufficient for Congress,
as a coequal branch of government, to perform this critical work. The release of the full report
and the underlying evidence and documents is urgently needed by our committees to perform
their duties under the Constitution. Those duties include evaluating the underlying facts and
determining whether legislative or other reforms are required-both to ensure that the Justice

1

Roll Call Vote No. 125, 116th Cong., Mar. 14, 2019.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-12 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 4

Depai1ment is able to carry out investigations without interference or obstruction by the
President and to protect our future elections from foreign interference.
First, Congress must be permitted to make an independent assessment of the evidence
regarding obstruction of justice. The determinations you have reached regarding obstruction and
the manner in which you chose to characterize the Special Counsel's investigation only raise
fm1her questions, particularly in light of the Special Counsel's decision to refrain from making
"a traditional prosecutorial judgment."2 We also cannot evaluate your determination that "the
report identifies no actions" that meet the elements of obstruction in the absence of the report,
evidence and other materials. 3
Second, we have no reason to question that Special Counsel Mueller made a well­
considered prosecutorial judgment in two specific and narrow areas-whether the Trump
campaign conspired to join Russia's election-related online disinformation and hacking and
dissemination efforts. But it is vital for national security purposes that Congress be able to
evaluate the full body of facts and evidence collected and evaluated by the Special Counsel,
including all information gathered of a counterintelligence nature.
The provision of the report-in complete and unredacted form-and the underlying
evidence and materials would be fully consistent with the Justice Department's practice and
precedent with Congress, which the Department reinforced in recent years. With respect to the
Hillary Clinton email investigation, the Department and the FBI released more than 880,000
pages of documents, publicly identified career officials involved in the case, and produced
volumes of internal deliberative materials, including sensitive investigatory and classified
materials. 4 In response to congressional requests and subpoenas regarding allegations of bias in
the Russia investigation, the Department produced to congressional committees thousands of
pages of highly sensitive law enforcement and classified investigatory and deliberative records
related to that investigation-which remained open and ongoing at the time. Mo.reover, the
Department produced to congressional committees in full, and then took the unprecedented step
of releasing to the public in redacted form, multiple documents related to the surveillance of a
United States person under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 5

Letter from U.S. Attorney General William Barr to Chairman Jerrold Nadler, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et al.,
Mar. 24, 2019.

2

3

Id.

4 See, e.g., A Review ofAllegations Regarding Various Actions by the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation and
Department ofJustice in Advance ofthe 2016 Election, hearing before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, June 28,
2018 (statement of FBI Director Christopher Wray).
5
Byron Tau, et al., Trump Orders Declassification ofIntelligence Documents Related to Former Adviser Carter
Page, WALL ST. JOURNAL, Sept. 17, 2018.

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-12 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 4

We look forward to receiving the report in full no later than April 2, and to begin
receiving the underlying evidence and documents that same day.6 To the extent that you believe
applicable law limits your ability to comply, we urge you to begin the process of consultation
with us immediately in order to establish shared param�ters for resolving those issues without
delay.
Sincerely,

l�jah E. Cumnung
Chairman
House Committee on Oversight and Reform

Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary

Chairman
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Maxine Waters
Chairwoman
House Committee on Financial Services

,�El:·L!g�
Chairman
House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Chairman
House Committee on Ways and Means

As to materials that are subject to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, there is precedent for the
release of such materials to Congress under similar circumstances. We look forward to discussing this issue to
determine if we can reach a mutually acceptable accommodation.
6

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-13 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit M

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-13 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 3

Otnngres.s of fl1e llniteh �fates
Basltington, ilat 20515
April 19, 2019
The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Barr:
We write in response to your proposal regarding restricted access to a less redacted version of
Special Counsel Mueller's report. Unfortunately, your proposed accommodation-which among
other things would prohibit discussion of the full report, even with other Committee Members­
is not acceptable.
In order for Congress to fulfill its functions as intended by the Constitution, it must operate as a
coequal and coordinate branch of government. Given the comprehensive factual findings
presented by the Special Counsel's Report, some of which will only be fully understood with
access to the redacted material, we cannot agree to the conditions you are placing on our access
to the full report. Nor can we agree to an arrangement that does not include a mechanism for
ensuring access to grand jury material.
As the Special Counsel stated, "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to
the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of
checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law." The Department now has
a duty to submit the full report and underlying evidence to Congress so that it can fulfill its
constitutional responsibilities. This includes considering whether legislation is needed in light of
the findings contained in Special Counsel Mueller's report and the Attorney General's
determination that no prosecution is warranted despite those facts .
.While the current proposal is not workable, we are open to discussing a reasonable
accommodation with the Department that would protect law enforcement sensitive information
while allowing Congress to fulfill its constitutional duties.

Q

7�·

Nancy�
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives

Sincere

�1tu.�
Chuck Schumer
Democratic Leader
U.S. Senate

Page 1 of2
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-13 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 3

hairman
House Committee on the Judiciary

Adam Schiff
Chairman
House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence

cc:

--�1anne Feinstein
Ranking· Member
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Mark Warner
Ranking Member
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Honorable Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives
Honorable Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, Senate
Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary
Honorable Lindsey Graham, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Honorable Devin Nunes, Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence
Honorable Richard Burr, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Page 2 of2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-14 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit N

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-14 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 4

JERROLD NADLER, New York
CHAIRMAN

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RANKING MEMBER

ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
HENRY C. "HANK" JOHNSON, JR., Georgia
TED DEUTCH, Florida
KAREN BASS, California
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ERIC SWALWELL, California
TED LIEU, California
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
PRAMi LA JAYAPAL, Washington
VAL DEMINGS, Florida
LOU CORREA, California
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
JOSEPH NEGUSE, Colorado
LUCY McBATH, Georgia
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL·POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JIM JORDAN, Ohio
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT GAETZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
TOM McCLINTOCK, California
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia
KELLY ARMSTRONG, Alabama
GREG STEUBE, Florida

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

([ongrcss of the tinitcd �tatcs
iA,ousr of 1Rcprrscntatiocs
COMMITIEE ON THE JUDICIARY
2138

RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

WASHINGTON,

DC 20515-6216

(202) 225-3951

http://www.house.gov/judiciary

May 3, 2019

The Honorable William P. Barr
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Barr:
I write to respond to the Department's letter of May 1, 2019 refusing to comply with the
Judiciary Committee's subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report, the documents it cites, and
other underlying materials. As you know, the Committee has repeatedly engaged with your staff
in writing, by telephone and in person to discuss a way forward on the subpoena.
At the outset, we note that the Department has never explained why it is willing to allow
only a small number of Members to view a less-redacted version of the report, subject to the
condition that they cannot discuss what they have seen with anyone else. The Department also
remains unwilling to work with the Committee to seek a court order permitting disclosure of
materials in the report that are subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). And the
Department has offered no reason whatsoever for failing to produce the evidence underlying the
report, except for a complaint that there is too much of it and a vague assertion about the
sensitivity of law enforcement files.
Nonetheless, the Committee remains willing to negotiate a reasonable accommodation
with the Department. First, the Committee requests that the Department reconsider its refusal to
allow all Members of Congress and appropriate staff to view redacted portions of the report that
are not subject to Rule 6(e) in a secure location in Congress. As the Committee has already
indicated, Congress has ample means of providing for safe storage of these materials; and it is
routinely entrusted with the responsibility to protect classified and other sensitive information.

1

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-14 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 4

Second, the Committee renews its request that the Department work jointly with
Congress to seek a court order permitting disclosure of materials covered by Rule 6(e). The
Department has asserted that Rule 6(e) "contains no exception" that would permit such
disclosure, but courts have provided Rule '6(e) materials to Congress under the rule's "judicial
proceeding" exception in the past, 1 and other exceptions may also be available.2
Third, the Committee is willing to prioritize a specific, defined set of underlying
investigative and evidentiary materials for immediate production. As indicated in item two of
the Committee's subpoena, the Committee has a heightened interest in obtaining access to the
investigative and evidentiary materials specifically cited in the report. This discrete and readily
identifiable set of documents includes reports from witness interviews (commonly known as
"302s") and items such as contemporaneous notes taken by witnesses of relevant events. Since
these materials are publicly cited and described in the Mueller report, there can be no question
about the Committee's need for and right to this underlying evidence in order to independently
evaluate the facts that Special Counsel Mueller uncovered and fulfill our constitutional duties.
As the Mueller report makes clear, this need is amplified where, as here, Department policy
prohibits the indictment of a sitting President and instead relies upon Congress to evaluate
whether constitutional remedies are appropriate. In addition, to the extent these materials are
classified or contain sensitive law enforcement information, we are prepared to maintain their
confidentiality as we regularly do with similar information.
Fourth, as we have already indicated in the instructions to the subpoena, we are also
prepared to discuss limiting and prioritizing our request in item three of the subpoena for other
underlying evidence obtained by the Special Counsel's office.
Accommodation requires negotiation that takes into account the legitimate interests and
responsibilities of both Congress and the Department. Your proposed conditions are a departure
from accommodations made by previous Attorneys General of both parties. As recently as last
Congress, the Department produced more than 880,000 pages of sensitive investigative materials
pertaining to its investigation of Hillary Clinton, as well as much other material relating to the
then-ongoing Russia investigation. That production included highly classified material, notes
from FBI interviews, internal text messages, and law enforcement memoranda. The volume of
documents cited in the Special Counsel's report is surely smaller, and the Committee is willing
See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Grand Jury No. 81-1 (Miami), 669 F.Supp. 1072, 1075-76 (S.D. Fla.
1987):
1

See Fed. R. Crim.P. 6(e)(3)( D) (allowing disclosure of grand jury materials "involving foreign intelligence,
counterintelligence ..., or foreign intelligence information" to "any federal law enforcement, intelligence, ...or
national security official to assist the official receiving the information in'the performance of that official's duties");
id. (allowing disclosure of grand jury materials relating to "a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign
power or its agent ... , or clandestine intelligence gathering activities by an intelligence service or network of a
foreign power or by its agent" to "any appropriate federal ... official").
2

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-14 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 4

to work with the Department to prioritize production of materials even within that defined
category. Additionally, in the most recent prior instance in which the Department conducted an
investigation of a sitting President, Kenneth Starr produced a 445-page report to Congress along
with 18 boxes of accompanying evidence.
Lastly, it cannot go unremarked that, in refusing to comply with congressional oversight
requests, the Department has repeatedly asserted that Congress's requests do not serve
"legitimate" purposes. This is not the Department's judgment to make. Congress's
constitutional, oversight and legislative interest in investigating misconduct by the President and
his associates cannot be disputed. The Committee has ample jurisdiction under House Rule X(l)
to conduct oversight of the Department, undertake necessary investigations, and consider
legislation regarding the federal obstruction ofjustice statutes, campaign-related crimes, and
special counsel investigations, among other things.
The Committee is prepared to make every realistic effort to reach an accommodation
with the Department. But if the Department persists in its baseless refusal to comply with a
validly issued subpoena, the Committee will move to contempt proceedings and seek further
legal recourse.
We request a response by 9 a.m. on Monday, May 6, 2019. Please do not hesitate to
contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,

House Committee on the Judiciary
cc:

The Hon. Doug Collins
Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judicia�y

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 110

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit O

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

1

RPTR JOHNSON
EDTR ZAMORA

LESSONS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT, PART III:
"CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES FOR ADDRESSING
PRESIDENTIAL MISCONDUCT"
Friday, July 12, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:10 a.m., in Room 2141,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [chairman of the
committee] presiding.
Present:

Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen,

Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin,
Jayapal, Demings, Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, Stanton, Dean,
Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Collins, Gohmert, Jordan, Gaetz, Johnson of
Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Lesko, Cline, Armstrong, and Steube.
Staff Present:

Arya Hariharan, Deputy Chief Oversight Counsel;

David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Lisette Morton, Director Policy,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

2

Planning and Member Services; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Moh
Sharma, Member Services and Outreach Advisor; Susan Jensen,
Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel; Sophie Brill, Counsel; Matt Morgan,
Counsel; Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director; Bobby Parmiter,
Minority Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel; Jon Ferro, Minority
Parliamentarian/General Counsel; Paul Taylor, Minority Chief Counsel,
Constitution Subcommittee; and Andrea Woodard, Minority Professional
Staff Member.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.
order.

3

The Judiciary Committee will please come to

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses

of the committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Lessons from the Mueller
Report, Part III:

Constitutional Processes for Addressing

Presidential Misconduct.
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
The title of today's hearing is Lessons from the Mueller Report,
Part III:
Misconduct.

Constitutional Processes for Addressing Presidential
As many of you may already know, the subtitle is a quote

taken directly from Volume II of the Mueller report where the special
counsel describes why he did not reach a, quote, prosecutorial
judgment, close quote, regarding President Trump's conduct.
There the special counsel explained that as an attorney operating
within the Department of Justice, he is bound by Department policy,
including an Office of Legal Counsel opinion that asserts that a
President is immune from prosecution while in office.
The special counsel, quote, recognized that a Federal criminal
accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on
the -- undue burdens on the -- or burdens on the President's capacity
to govern, close quote.

Yet the Mueller report also acknowledged that

such an accusation could, quote, potentially preempt constitutional
processes for addressing Presidential misconduct, close quote.
The special counsel's mention of these constitutional processes

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

should not be taken lightly.

4

It goes to the heart of Congress' role

in our constitutional system of checks and balances, and that is the
subject of today's hearing.
As the Mueller report's frequent references to Congress make
clear, Congress has a role in investigating the potential Presidential
misconduct he uncovered so that it may determine how best to exercise
its Article I authorities to act as check on the abuse or misuse of
executive branch power.
In light of its jurisdiction and past precedent, this committee
in particular has a constitutional duty to investigate allegations of
misconduct by executive branch officials, including the President of
the United States, and is currently investigating allegations of abuse
of power, public corruption, and obstruction of justice within the
Trump administration.
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the range of
constitutional remedies available for addressing Presidential
misconduct under its authority Article I authorities.

Today's

discussion will aid the committee in determining the remedies available
to it as the investigation unfolds.
Under its Article I authorities, Congress has a number of
responses to Presidential misconduct available to it.

With regard to

the committee's responsibility to determine whether to recommend
Articles of Impeachment against the President, Articles of Impeachment
are already -- I'm sorry -- Articles of Impeachment are under
consideration as part of the committee's investigation, although no

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

5

final determination has made.
In addition, the committee has the authority to recommend its own
Articles of Impeachment for consideration by the full House of
Representatives.
The committee seeks documentary evidence and intends to conduct
hearings with Mr. McGahn and other critical witnesses testifying
before us.

That is necessary to determine whether the committee should

recommend Articles of Impeachment or any other Article I remedies, and,
if so, in what form.
The committee is also considering other responses to the conduct
under investigation.

While censure of the President is rare, Congress

has previously passed measures expressing disagreement with specific
Presidential conduct.

The committee is considering several pieces of

legislation that would address the allegations of misconduct uncovered
by the special counsel's investigation and other serious policy
concerns raised by the Mueller report.
Legislative proposals to determine misconduct described in the
Mueller report include measures that would increase transparency with
regard to White House communications concerning law enforcement
investigations.

Those proposals also include measures to impose

additional safeguards to protect the integrity and independence of
future special counsel investigations.
The committee also has been referred proposals to amend the
Constitution to limit the scope of executive clemency and legislation
to increase transparency regarding Presidential pardons, which

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

6

responds to additional fact patterns described in the report.
Volume I of the Mueller report also documented numerous troubling
contacts between the Trump campaign and individuals associated with
the Russian Government.

As a result, several Members have introduced

legislation that would impose a duty on campaigns to report their
contacts with foreign governments.
With regard to possible criminal, civil, or administrative
referrals, the Justice Department has discretion as to whether to act
upon a referral by Congress for prosecution or civil enforcement.

As

even DOJ policy acknowledges, a President is not immune from criminal
prosecution after leaving office, and I have introduced legislation
that would toll the statute of limitations on Federal offenses during
a President's term in office.
State authorities may also enforce State laws against the
President.

The congressional referral process serves the important

purpose of creating a record and preserving evidence for such time as
prosecution, civil enforcement, or other administrative response is
feasible.
The committee cannot, however, determine which Article I remedies
are appropriate without first ascertaining all of the relevant facts,
and it cannot do so when the administration refuses to cooperate with
legitimate congressional oversight.

That is why today's hearing will

also give the committee the opportunity to consider the lawfulness of
the administration's efforts to limit congressional oversight
requests.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

7

The Trump administration has asserted that several current and
former government officials are, quote, absolutely immune, unquote,
from having to comply with congressional subpoenas for testimony.
However, the only court to ever consider such claims rejected them in
a case involving this very committee's past effort to seek information
about inappropriate White House involvement in the firing of several
U.S. attorneys.
In addition to asserting claims of absolute immunity, in quotes,
the White House has instructed several witnesses not to comply with
the committee's duly issued subpoenas for documents or to answer
questions on the basis that the documents and answers are subject to
executive privilege or would otherwise, quote, implicate
constitutionally based executive branch confidentiality interests,
close quote.

Needless to say, these assertions raise a host of

problematic legal and constitutional issues.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses who can help us sort
through the various constitutional processes implicated by the Mueller
report, and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
It is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for his
opening statement.
[The statement of Chairman Nadler follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Collins.

8

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was sorry I was -- for a moment, I was -- you ever have one of
those dreams, and there have been movies about this.

You have a dream

that you wake up and you're back in school, you're back in high school.
For me, it was back in Ms. McCall's class in North Hall High School
government, American Government class.

And it's the proper role of

government and the different checks and balances and, you know, what
is Congress' role and what's the President's role and what's the
judiciary's role.
We can stop this hearing right now, because the chairman just laid
out all of the congressional routes and avenues that Congress has to
it.

And we're going to have a time -- and I'm glad the panel's here.

Y'all are great folks.

You've got scholarly work.

some, you know, wonderful things.

We're going to hear

But we've stopped right here.

The

problem is we're just dragging this on.
It's not that you want to come to impeachment.
talked about impeachment.

The chairman

If that's what you want to do, then that's

the part -- we don't need to discuss is this a constitutional right
of Congress to do impeachment.
to do.

That is exactly what Congress' right

The constitutional processes are very well addressed in the

Constitution and in our processes.
But instead, we come here today to have another almost impeachment
hearing but not an impeachment hearing.
to do this.

We want to get facts; we want

No, we're just waiting on and on.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

I'm trapped back in 9th grade.

Ms. McCall was a wonderful

teacher, but I don't want to go back through it again.
and white.

9

This is black

We know this problem here.

So what are we not doing?

Instead of this morning at 9 o'clock

on a Friday, on a fly-out day, when we are actually -- the chairman
and I have a bill on the floor here in just a little bit that actually
touches real people's lives in New York from the 9/11 fund, which is
a very valid thing that we need to be doing.
Yesterday, we spent this entire committee time arguing over
subpoenas and the discussion on the border, but yet why wouldn't we
use this 9 o'clock time to actually have a markup of actual immigration
bills such as mine that addresses border issues?

Now, you may discuss

agree with what I propose, but that's what markups are for.
what actually is taking this time.
up.

And you have a bill.

That's

Put your bills

Let's actually get to actually solving real issues instead of

having theoretical college discussions on what is Congress' power.

If

we don't know what Congress' power is now, this hearing is not going
to help us.

In fact, it's ridiculous.

Legislation.

I agree with the chairman.

The chairman talked

about election -- which actually the Mueller report actually found
election interference.

Why aren't we putting those bills forward

instead of having our authority taken over by the House Admin Committee
on election bills because they don't want to run it through here?

Let's

solve problems.
Process.

Here's our biggest thing from yesterday.

And maybe

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

this is it, is what the process is.

We know what the process is.

10

The

majority just can't find their way to figure out what they want to do
with that process.
And so next week, we have Robert Mueller coming in here, and the
whole bottom row is disenfranchised, for the most part.
is some more negotiations going on.

I guess there

I've read that in the media.

Maybe I need to call Chairman Schiff and make sure that that was okay,
because they were undoubtedly driving this ship, because they all get
to talk next week.
side get to talk.

My side doesn't and neither does the Democratic
It disenfranchises Florida, it disenfranchises

North Dakota, it disenfranchises everyone.
But instead of that, we're doing this.
the mind.

But I will say this:

It just, frankly, boggles

If there's anybody on this

committee -- and there are very wonderful people on both sides of this
committee who are very, very intelligent.

And you can ask your

questions today, and we can talk about the constitutional process, and
you have got some great folks here to talk to you about it.
But in all due respect, we know what the constitutional process
is here.

We just want to dance around it so we can keep another round

of stories going that the Judiciary Committee is pursuing harassment
and doing what it needs to do to make sure this administration is held
accountable because we don't like him.
The economy is good, life is going better, and we don't like it
because we don't like the November 2016 election.
about.

We found that out again yesterday.

That's all this is

We're going to find it out

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

11

again this morning.
So for everybody who didn't get to the wonderful ability to be
in Ms. McCall's 9th grade American Government class at North Hall High
School, this may be your opportunity.
study books out.

Get your hornbooks out, get your

This is going to be a constitutional process of what

we already know is our processes, but we're going to have some experts
tell us what those processes are.
Mr. Chairman, there's a lot of things you could be calling today.
This isn't one of them.

Why don't we actually take up real legislation

to fix the border crisis, to fix the issues that we all talk up about
here?

Instead, we have hearings.
Our body is to actually legislate.

before.

You and I have legislated

Let's start legislating and stop the show.

again -- the popcorn is cooking.

But it is

It's time, as I've always said, let

the show begin.
I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Collins follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

12

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

And I will now introduce today's witnesses.
Caroline Fredrickson is president of the American Constitutional
Society for Law and Policy.

Previously, she was the director of the

American Civil Liberty Union's Washington legislative office, held
various positions in the Senate and served in the Clinton
administration.
Ms. Fredrickson received her JD from Columbia Law School, in my
district, and her BA from Yale University.
John Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community
Service and the former dean at Chapman University's Dale Fowler School
of Law.

He also serves as director of the Center for Constitutional

Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute.

Previously, Dr. Eastman

served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and to Judge J. Michael
Luttig.
Dr. Eastman received his Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate School,
his JD from the University of Chicago Law School, and his BA from the
University of Dallas.
Michael Gerhardt is the Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor in
Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law
in Chapel Hill.

Professor Gerhardt served on then President-elect

Bill Clinton's Justice Department transition team and drafted the
administration's judicial selection policy.

He later served as

special counsel to the Clinton administration and the Senate Judiciary

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 14 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

13

Committee.
Professor Gerhardt received his JD from the University of Chicago
Law School, his MS from the London School of Economics, and his BA from
Yale University.
We welcome our distinguished witnesses, and we thank you for
participating in today's hearing.
Now if you would please rise, I'll begin by swearing you in.
Would you raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury the testimony
you're about to give is true and correct, to the best of your knowledge,
information, and belief, so help you God?
Thank you.
Let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
And thank you and please be seated.
Please note that your written statements will be entered into the
record in its entirety.

Accordingly, I ask that you summarize your

testimony in 5 minutes.

To help you stay within that time, there's

a timing light on your table.

When the light switches from green to

yellow, you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony.

When the light

turns red, it signals your 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. Fredrickson, you may begin -- Ms. Fredrickson -- I'm
sorry -- you may begin.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 15 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

14

TESTIMONY OF CAROLINE FREDRICKSON, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CONSTITUTION
SOCIETY; JOHN EASTMAN, HENRY SALVATORI PROFESSOR OF LAW AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, CHAPMAN
UNIVERSITY, FOWLER SCHOOL OF LAW; AND MICHAEL GERHARDT, SAMUEL ASHE
DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW

TESTIMONY OF CAROLINE FREDRICKSON

Ms. Fredrickson.

Good morning.

My name is Caroline Fredrickson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm the president of the

American Constitution Society.
ACS has worked to promote informed public evaluation of the
investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

It is

with this background that I'm pleased to testify on the constitutional
processes for addressing Presidential misconduct.
The final report issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller on
Russian interference in the 2016 election reached several chilling
conclusions.

Russia conducted wide-ranging attacks on our Nation's

election system.

The Trump campaign had multiple contacts with

Russian nationals and did not report these interactions to U.S.
authorities.

And there's substantial evidence that President Trump

repeatedly attempted to thwart the investigation, including through
his unheeded requests to the White House Counsel to fire the special

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 16 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

15

counsel, create a false paper trail, and make public misrepresentations
regarding this incident.
To say these findings are troubling is an understatement.
Congress' constitutional duty to respond.

It is

Close examination of how

Russia executed these interference strategies is necessary to inform
this committee and other committees of jurisdiction how to best tailor
a wide range of legislative initiatives on subjects from electronic
data protections to the provision of additional funding or resources
for U.S. agencies responsible for monitoring and investigating foreign
interference, to the integrity of special counsel inquiries, to
ensuring limits on political interference with Department of Justice
decisionmaking.
Although congressional oversight might eventually lead to
impeachment, it does not have to do so.

The Supreme Court has long

held that Congress' oversight authorities are inherent in the Article
I legislative powers.

These authorities are broad and encompass

matters including, quote, the administration of existing laws,
proposed or possibly needed statutes, and probes to expose corruption,
inefficiency, and waste.

Indeed, the Court has emphasized that

oversight is essential to the conduct of government.
This committee has additional constitutional authorities to
conduct oversight, under Article I, Section 2, stating that the House
of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment.
Congressional investigations often lead to new laws, but some
investigations have led Congress to conclude that enacting new laws

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 17 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

16

is not necessary to address issues identified in the inquiry.
Sometimes congressional oversight has led to executive branch reforms.
Other times, inquiries into alleged administration corruption have
resulted in resignations, referrals, House or Senate resolutions
memorializing disapproval of Presidential or other administration
misconduct, or impeachment proceedings.
Congressional oversight history is replete with investigations
into alleged White House misconduct that did not involve impeachment.
Many involved testimony from top White House aides, including White
House counsels, chiefs of staff to the President, National Security
Advisors, and top advisors to the Vice President and First Lady.
Impeachment proceedings have begun without any formal vote of the
House.
In addition, for Presidential impeachments, the Judiciary
Committee has conducted hearings to determine whether or not to
recommend articles to the full House.

In the impeachment of President

Nixon, the House Judiciary Committee had been considering Articles of
Impeachment for close to a year before there was a full House vote in
February 1974.
With respect to the Mueller report and related information,
several key unanswered questions demand rigorous congressional review.
For example, how can Congress best protect our elections from future
attacks by Russia or other hostile nations?

Why did Trump campaign

officials, associates, and then-candidate Trump continue to have
contact with Russians after becoming aware of the hacking?

Why did

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 18 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

17

some lie to investigators about these contacts, and why did they suggest
publicly that Trump, quote, had nothing to do with Russia?

Does the

substantial evidence of obstruction of justice and other misconduct
merit further congressional action, including legislation, censure,
impeachment, or referrals?

And finally, does the content behind the

Mueller report redactions and gaps in evidence suggest any additional
wrongdoing by the President or others?
Congress' job has been made substantially harder by the
administration's intransigence in resisting congressional oversight
at every turn, instructing officials to disobey congressional
subpoenas, and invoking broad claims of executive privilege.

And it

has gone so far as to claim that this committee even lacks authority
to investigate these matters in the first instance.
Given the gravity of the Mueller report conclusions and the
related information that has emerged publicly to date, a failure by
Congress to examine these issues would constitute an abdication of
Congress' fundamental constitutional oversight responsibilities.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Fredrickson follows:]

******** INSERT 1-1 ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 19 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

18

Thank you.

Dr. Eastman.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN EASTMAN

Mr. Eastman.
committee.

Thank you, Chairman Nadler and members of the

I'm delighted to be here to participate in this hearing.

But before turning to the substance of my remarks and addressing
the precise question you've posed, I think it's important to take issue
with the underlying assumption of the hearing contained in the full
title of this hearing.
By tying the question of Presidential misconduct to the Mueller
report, you imply that the Mueller report identified Presidential
misconduct that should trigger whatever constitutional processes might
be available.

As a factual matter, I could not disagree more, for I

do not find anything in that report even remotely rising to the level
that would trigger the one constitutional path designed to address
Presidential misconduct, and that's impeachment.
I should also note that this is not the first time the
judiciary -- a congressional judiciary committee has considered this
question.

In 1998, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on

the Constitution, held a hearing on impeachment or indictment.

I

commend the proceedings of that hearing to your attention, particularly
the extremely persuasive testimony and submitted scholarly work of Yale

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 20 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

law professor, Akhil Amar.

19

The conclusion he reached then is the same

one I reach now, and it is the same one that has been reached by the
Office of Legal Counsel in both Democrat and Republican administrations
spanning nearly a half a century.
Because of the unique role the Constitution assigns to the Office
of President, a sitting President cannot be indicted.

That does not

place the President above the law, as some have claimed, but it does
recognize that the sole remedy envisioned by the Constitution for
illegal conduct by a President, while he is President, is the
impeachment process outlined in Article I, Section 3.
As Professor Amar so aptly put it, the grand jury in such a case
is the House, the indictment is the Articles of Impeachment, and the
Senate is the petit jury.
I won't go through the -- the conclusions of those two OLC
reports, other than to very quickly summarize them.

The notion that

the President can be himself a criminal defendant in a Federal
prosecution would put him on both sides of the criminal prosecution.
He is, after all, the Chief Executive of the Nation, responsible for
the prosecutorial function of the Federal Government.
It's also true that he has unique official duties that no one else
in the government has, most of which, as the OLC report in 2000 under
the Clinton administration acknowledged, most of which cannot be
exercised by anybody else.

That strongly counseled them, both OLCs,

to conclude that the President could not -- not only not be tried or
incarcerated if convicted, but not even indicted, because it would

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 21 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

20

amount to such a fundamental intrusion on his executive duties, and
therefore, impact greatly the entire Nation.
But there's a third thing that the OLC report in 2000 offered that
I think is even more dispositive:

The President's role as guardian

and executor of the 4-year popular mandate expressed in the most recent
balloting for the Presidency.

To allow a single prosecutor or a single

grand jury regionally drawn in someplace in the country the ability
to incapacitate a President who had been chosen through a national
election by the people -- by the whole people of the United States is
really contrary to our basic system of government.

That's why the OLC

concluded the decision to terminate the mandate is more fittingly
handled by the Congress than by a jury.
And I think I want to close by looking at those OLC reports.

They

focus on the fact that the impeachment process is done by elected
Members of Congress who are politically accountable.
piece that I want to focus on.

And it's that

Because if there is indeed anything

in the Mueller report that rises to the level of treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors, then the Members of this body will
likely be held accountable politically if the House does not initiate
impeachment proceedings.
But the flip side of that coin is also true.

If, as I believe

is clearly the case, nothing identified in the Mueller report remotely
rises to that level, then the Members of this body who continue to pursue
impeachment investigations and even formal impeachment proceedings
that manifestly appear to the public to be an attempt to distract the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 22 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

21

President from the performance of his constitutional duties, or worse,
to negate the results of the 2000 election, then they too should be
and likely will be held politically accountable.

That's why the

Constitution assigns this awesome oversight authority to this body,
but it comes with a political accountability that flows from that.
We can get into the question and answer about the specific
instances, but I think that the various instances that are alleged for
obstruction of justice or Russia collusion pale in comparison to some
of the things we know occurred by the prior administration.

And it's

that level of comparison that I think the American people will
ultimately choose to make as the political accountability for this
committee and every Member of the House of Representative if they
continue to pursue these things.
Thank you for your attention.
[The statement of Mr. Eastman follows:]

******** INSERT 1-2 ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 23 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

22

Thank you.

Professor Gerhardt.

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL GERHARDT

Mr. Gerhardt.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's an honor to be here today and an honor to participate in
today's hearings and to be a part of an important discussion about
constitutional processes for Presidential misconduct.
A good place to begin our discussion, I believe, is with the
Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 decision by
the Supreme Court that held that the President is immune to civil
lawsuits seeking damages based on his official conduct.
Near the end of its opinion, the Supreme Court talks
about -- recognizes a number of other ways in which the Constitution
allows for the President to be held accountable for his misconduct.
There are formal mechanisms, for example, such as impeachment,
such as congressional oversight, such as popular elections, that allows
for considerable opportunity and, in fact, legitimacy for this
committee and Congress to consider which, if any, possible ways it wants
to consider for holding a President accountable for his misconduct.
There's long history here, but let me cut to the chase.

The first

mechanism, congressional oversight, is, of course, a longstanding
legitimacy.

The Constitution does not require that this house follow

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 24 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

23

any particular procedures in trying to determine whether or not and
how it may hold a President accountable for his misconduct.

In fact,

just the opposite.
Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution vests each body of
Congress -- the House, the Senate -- with the authority to determine
its own internal rules of governance.

The committee today is doing

nothing more than following through in -- following through in
accordance with the House rules.

That's all that's happening.

It's

as simple as that.
Besides congressional oversight, there are, as we recognize,
other mechanisms.

One of them, of course, is impeachment.

I won't

dally on that right now, but one thing to recognize about the
possibility of impeachment is that the House, and particularly this
committee, is fully entitled to consider what evidence there may be
on whether a President committed misconduct, but also, what other
evidence needs to be determined in order to reach a decision about
whether or not to proceed further on any particular process relating
to Presidential misconduct.

It's that simple.

The Constitution does not require a series of hoops that this
committee has to go through in order to make its determinations about
what, if anything, to do with Presidential misconduct.
opposite, as I said.

Just the

The Constitution vests considerable authority

in each Chamber to determine its rules of governance, and here the
committee's following through on that.
Another mechanism we haven't discussed but could is censure.

I

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 25 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

24

have longed believed that censure is a legitimate option for this
committee to consider, if and when it encounters or finds that a
President or any other official has engaged in misconduct.

The

authority isn't just derived from the fact the Constitution doesn't
disallow censure; the authority is established by longstanding
traditions and exercise of power within this body.
For example, when Abraham Lincoln was a Member of the House of
Representatives, he introduced a resolution criticizing President
Polk's initiating, in his opinion, the illegal Mexican War.

His

resolution didn't pass, but he did vote for a resolution that did pass
82-81 holding President Polk accountable for unnecessarily initiating
an unlawful war.
That's good enough for me.

If President Lincoln thinks it's good

enough for the House, I think it's longstanding authority we can follow.
Other mechanisms, of course, involve possible lawsuits.

Civil

lawsuits based on unofficial misconduct have been recognized, in
Clinton v. Jones, as legitimate and they may proceed.

In addition,

of course, there may be the possibility of criminal trials.
One thing to understand about the possibility of criminal trials
is, as Dr. Eastman just suggested, that there's a longstanding debate
of whether or not a sitting President may be subject to criminal
process.
statement.

I believe so.

I've set forth my arguments in my written

I won't expound on them here, but I'm happy to answer

questions about it.
And, of course, the -- a final thing I hope you'll allow me to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 26 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

25

just finish with is something that Raoul Berger, long recognized as
one of the great authorities on impeachment, said 30 years ago in The
New York Times.

He said by refusing to comply with the subpoenas of

the House Judiciary Committee, President Clinton is setting himself
above the Constitution.

No President is above the law.

No President

can use his authority or any of his powers to thwart the powers of this
body and therefore to be above and beyond any accountability to the
law.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.
[The statement of Mr. Gerhardt follows:]

******** INSERT 1-3 ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 27 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

26

The committee will now stand in recess for

5 minutes, and Democratic members will meet over here and the
Republican members on their side.
This will be a 5-minute recess.
[Recess.]
Ms. Scanlon.

[Presiding.]

The committee will now resume.

And we'll now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions, and
I'll begin by recognizing Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins.

And I thank the chairwoman for doing that.

We've

got to go to the floor and take up the 9/11 bill, so I appreciate that.
And I won't be long.
But, Mr. Eastman, let's talk just for a moment.

Do you think

there's any possibility that this group of attorneys and nonattorneys
on this Judiciary Committee have any -- or their staffs have any problem
understanding the constitutional role of Congress and oversight of the
administration, on any administration?
Mr. Eastman.

I don't know the background of every member, but

I think the usual member ought to know the answer to that.
Mr. Collins.

And that would come from just, if nothing else, life

growing up and taking, you know, government classes growing up,
correct?
One of the things I want to be interested in -- and there's a lot
of things that people will talk about today, and we'll get into a lot
of different things.

But one of the problems that I've had here -- and

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 28 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

we talk about constitutional process.

27

We also talk and the professor

here talked about our internal processes and going on.

And one of the

things that I've just been very disappointed in our committee for the
last 6 months is our way we handle subpoenas and the way that we have
went through contempt and how we have rushed through this process and
how we've instead of -- you're familiar with subpoenas, correct?
Mr. Eastman.

Yes.

Mr. Collins.

And how they should operate.

Has a subpoena ever

been -- and from a perception that you ever had, could a -- would a
Black's Law Dictionary of a subpoena say that it is an opening to a
dialogue?
Mr. Eastman.

No.

Mr. Collins.

Would it ever be said that a subpoena should be to

enhance your standing in court?
Mr. Eastman.

No.

Mr. Collins.

Okay.

If that be true, then my question is, do you

believe that it hurts us as an institution when we rush through these
issues of contempt and subpoena?

And I would love for you to talk about

that for a minute.
Mr. Eastman.

Well, look, you know, I want to take up -- I agree

with most of what Professor Gerhardt said.

The one point of

disagreement I have is I don't think he gave enough credit to the notion
that these fights over congressional subpoenas and congressional
testimonies by the executive are ones that arise out of a deliberate
design function of the Constitution, which is a separation and a

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 29 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

28

counterbalance of powers.
Yes, the Congress has oversight authority, but there are limits
to that authority, and those limits we typically classify generally
as executive privilege.

And so most of the fights in our Nation's

history over the issuance of subpoenas and the testimony of
high-ranking executive officials deal with that counterbalancing
authority that the executive has.

Congress cannot, in its oversight

capacity, intrude on the executive functions, including the
confidentiality of Presidential communications.

And I think that's

well established as well.
And the fight, then, is over whether these current round of
subpoenas and demands for testimony are really designed to intrude on
the executive in an unconstitutional way.

And I think that's where

the conversation has to focus.
Mr. Collins.

You talk about conversation and dialogue.

And

this is one of the things that I've been in Congress, not my life, but
the last 6-1/2 years, and I've noticed the battles that go between both
Democrat and Republican administrations in the Hill.

This has been

going on forever.
Do you believe it's good -- and I've got several questions.

Do

you believe it's good for a committee just to lead, with no conversation
with an individual, to lead with a subpoena?
Mr. Eastman.

I don't.

I think there's a lot of negotiation that

has historically gone on on those issues.
Mr. Collins.

And we went to the floor for contempt on very

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 30 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

29

limited terms, especially with the Attorney General in a shortened time
here.
The question that I would have here is -- if you look at this from
a judge's perspective, when they say -- and we talk about -- and by
the way, this committee seems to be unique in this, because other
committees, such as the Intel Committee, actually negotiated and began
to get stuff in the proper way of back and forth and back and forth.
When we go to -- if we were to try and enforce one of these contempts
that we have done with lack of foundation, lack of background, do you
believe it hurts this committee and this institution as a whole?
Mr. Eastman.

I think it would certainly undermine the claims in

the court that the subpoenas or the efforts were made in good faith,
and that would certainly undermine any -- any court's plan on giving
enforcement effort to those things.
Mr. Collins.

I appreciate it.

I know in my home county

of Hall

County, my judges would look at me and say go back and do your job before
you bring it to me.
So with that, I do appreciate the chair's indulgence.

And with

that, I'll yield back.
Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

Thank you.

The chair recognizes Representative Lofgren for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren.

Thanks very much.

I think this is an important hearing.

I noted the ranking

member's comment that we should be taking up other subjects instead
of this one.

And I can't help but recall that the Democrats, in terms

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 31 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

30

of election security, as a first order of business, introduced H.R.
1 about election security and got no help from the minority party.

And

my own bill, the SAFE Act, that we just passed 2 weeks ago to harden
election systems got only one Republican vote.

So I think that's a

bit disingenuous.
Let me talk about the OLC opinion.

I've been interested in that

for some time, and I'm wondering whether, Ms. Fredrickson or
Mr. Gerhardt, you believe that the OLC opinion would cover
activities -- criminal activities for any President that occurred
prior to that President assuming office.
For example, Spiro Agnew was -- left his position for bribery that
was engaged in while he was in Maryland, before he was Vice President.
What is your view on that?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, I think -- just say two quick things, and

then I think Professor Gerhardt probably has a more thorough answer.
It's a -- one thing is that I think the Vice President is not
covered.
Ms. Lofgren.

No, I understand that.

I just meant that as an

example.
Ms. Fredrickson.

But I think that's just one of the weaknesses

of the OLC opinion, is it does seem to indicate that -- insulate a
President from judicial process in a way that I think is not consistent
with the rule of law as understood by the Founders.
Ms. Lofgren.

One of the questions I've had, if I can throw at

you, in addition, Professor Gerhardt, is, is there any limit to this?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 32 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

31

Let's say some day in the future, President A is annoyed with the Vice
President, pulls out a gun, shoots the Vice President in the head in
the Oval Office.

That would be a Federal crime.

Would that President

A in the future be immune from prosecution?
Mr. Gerhardt.

I hope -- I hope not.

with the OLC opinion.

And I respectfully disagree

Obviously, OLC does fantastic work.

not right about everything.

They're

Everybody is subject to scrutiny.

And

in this case, I think they got it wrong.
I've long thought that the President is not special.
in government is subject to criminal process.

Everybody

And should anybody in

government commit a crime, they're not entitled to any immunity.

I

think that's the Constitution we have.
In fact, to go back to your earlier question about whether or not
a President -- we can just -- let's keep it hypothetical -- commits
a crime before he is elected and nobody knows about it.

If we find

out about it later, it's -- it becomes almost absurd to imagine that
the country has to somehow sit tight for 4 or 8 years until he leaves
office before he is subject to a criminal trial.

If that crime has

any relationship to his election, and it almost certainly does because
it would have affected people's votes to know about it, then I think
the Constitution gets turned on its head.
Ms. Lofgren.

Let me ask you this.

In terms of the OLC opinion,

obviously they're just looking at Federal prosecutions.
States.

We have 50

If the President A shoots somebody who is not a Federal

official, in a State, that would be a violation of State law.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 33 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

32

Would -- do you believe that the Constitution prohibits a State
prosecution of a President for a State law violation?
Mr. Gerhardt.

I don't believe it does, but I also should just

point out, for the record, that this committee and this House of
Representatives has confronted this issue already, to some extent, in
the case of Thomas Porteous.
Ms. Lofgren.
Mr. Gerhardt.

Right.
Thomas Porteous was a Federal district judge who

nobody knew -Ms. Lofgren.

We were on the committee during the impeachment,

Mr. Gerhardt.

I won't go into details, if you don't want, but

so --

I think they're quite pertinent.

The point is he committed criminal

misconduct before he entered his office as a Federal district judge.
He didn't tell the Senate about it, and that turned out basically to
be fraud against the Senate and was the basis for his impeachment.
Ms. Lofgren.

Let me just ask a final question.

If the DOJ

opinion is correct, it seems a logical extension is that the Federal
prosecutors could not be expected to actually investigate a President.
When you think back to the Nixon impeachment, Jaworski was -- you
know, provided information to the Congress.
provided us information.

Certainly, Ken Starr

I was on the committee at that time.

Presumably, that would not be permitted if you could not prosecute a
sitting President.
Is that -- what do you think of that?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 34 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Scanlon.

33

Time has expired, but you can answer.

Mr. Gerhardt.

Well, I think if a prosecutor finds evidence of

obstruction, for example, then that may be an appropriate time to
consider the propriety and legitimacy of criminal process.
I think that no one -- the very principle of no one being above
the law means just what it says.

Nobody's above the law.

A President

can't obstruct an impeachment, you know, a House committee looking into
the possibility of whatever misconduct he has committed, because if
he could do that, then he really is above the law.
Ms. Lofgren.

Thank you.

Ms. Scanlon.

Thank you.

My time has expired.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gaetz.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Eastman, you've commented on the potential harms that can
come with a special counsel that's unbridled.

Is there anything you'd

like to add to that?
Mr. Eastman.

Well, I mean, you know, I want to pick up on

something that Professor Gerhardt said, the notion that the President
would be above the law.

One of the things that has troubled me about

the OLC opinions, which I think are correct, is that potential criminal
liability may not exist at all for a sitting President for conduct
either -- criminal conduct either while in office or before, given the
statute of limitations problems.
Both OLC memos recommended to Congress that they could address
that issue, and I would encourage you to do so.

That would ensure that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 35 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

no President is above the law at the end of the day.

34

But it would also

ensure -- and I think this is what the OLC memos are both based on,
and they would apply whether the criminal conduct occurred while in
office or before -- the unique responsibilities of the President in
our system of government and the ability of a single prosecutor or a
single grand jury to interfere with that.

And I think that's why the

OLC memos are correct.
But to remedy the one shortcoming from that, you could address
the statute of limitations thing.

And I think Chairman Nadler in his

opening statement mentioned that that was one of the things that might
be worth considering.

And I would endorse that.

I do think, though, that the reasoning of the OLC memos,
implicitly in the first one and explicitly in the second, also extends,
although for different -- not separation of powers reasons, but for
federalism reasons, to State authorities being able to indict the
President.

And I think they're right about that as well.

That door

is closed as well for the same reasons that a Federal indictment against
the President, while he is sitting, is closed.
And I think that's right.

It's a balancing act.

But the

balance, given the unique nature of the President's role and the unique
nature of his election, the only one, save for the Vice President, who
is elected nationally, those two things have contributed to this
immunity that OLCs of both sides of the political aisle have recognized,
like I said earlier, over a span of 50 years.
That doesn't keep the President off the hook, but it does shift

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 36 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

35

the discussion to a politically accountable body where people can be
held to account if they abuse the investigative process.
Mr. Gaetz.

You made mention of the President's unique powers and

how they interface with an analysis of proper versus improper conduct,
and you also make reference to the dealing with Director Comey.

Is

there anything you'd like to add on that front?
Mr. Eastman.

Well, you know, something that Chairman Nadler said

in his opening that I disagree with, and I think is important to get
out here, one of the pieces of legislation that is being considered
is to expose White House communications with the Department of Justice
to identify whether the President is having any role in prosecutorial
decisions.

I think that idea fundamentally misunderstands the nature

of Article II of the Constitution, which says the executive power, all
of it, is vested in the President of the United States.
The Attorney General, in its prosecutorial functions at the
Department of Justice, holds that power derivatively from the
President.

The FBI, in its investigative power, holds that power

derivatively from the President.

The notion that the President can't

be the one to make the prosecutorial or the investigative decisions
is to completely undermine that core aspect of Article II.

And so I

think that idea is just simply misguided.
Now, if the President decided that Director Comey -- and I outline
in my testimony why I think both sides of the political aisle in Congress
were upset enough with Mr. Comey to have warranted removing him long
before the President did, but the President had that authority himself.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 37 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

36

And, you know, I don't think that -- exercising an authority that he
constitutionally has rises to the level of obstruction of justice.
Mr. Gaetz.
Ms. Scanlon.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I yield back.

The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas for

5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

I thank the chair very much.

I'm going to read partly a statement by the former -- by former
Federal prosecutors.

And I would also like to add, having been here

in 1998 and also for a number of impeachment proceedings regarding
Federal judges, when Mr. Starr handed our friends on the other side
of the aisle the Starr report, they immediately began impeachment
proceedings.

That was the historical record that was created.

I

don't know if they were concerned about any factual basis other than
the Starr report.
In this instance, we are meticulously listening to scholars and
interviewing individuals by way of subpoena and building -- the
building blocks of the constitutional process and as well the building
blocks of the understanding of the American people.
Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described
in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report would, in the case of any
other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against
indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for
obstruction of justice.

They recount the President's efforts to fire

Mueller and to falsify evidence about that report, about that effort,
the President's efforts to limit the scope of Mueller's investigation

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 38 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

37

to exclude his conduct, and the President's effort to prevent witnesses
from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.
Professor Fredrickson, do you find agreement with 1,025
prosecutors, the possibility of such?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, I have to say I've never been a

prosecutor, but I think it's a very impressive list of some of our
Nation's most illustrative prosecutors who have engaged in lengthy
careers.

And I think -- I take what they say very seriously.

I think

it is very important for this committee to go further and examine the
allegations that were laid out in the Mueller report.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Thank you.

And I ask the chairwoman to ask unanimous consent to place the
statement by former Federal prosecutors, part of what I just read, 1,025
indicate that the President would be subject to felony charges if he
was not the President of the United States.
Let me also make mention -Ms. Scanlon.

Without objection.

[The information follows:]

******** COMMITTEE INSERT ********

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 39 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Jackson Lee.

38

Thank you very much -- of H. Res. 396,

Resolution of Investigation, Professor Gerhardt -- and welcome to all
of you, by the way, thank you so very much for your presence.

It

recounts -- it's under our rules 6 and 7 of House practices -- it is
an instruction for the Judiciary Committee to investigate.

But

included in the resolution, it indicates various elements of
investigation, violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the United
States Constitution, violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause of
the United States Constitution, obstruction of justice, abuse of power,
misfeasance in public office, malfeasance in public office, failure
to protect the confidentiality of national secrets from enemies,
foreign and domestic -- just a litany similar almost to one -- Articles
of Impeachment.
But let me ask you this.

In your written testimony, you note that

the theme that clearly emerges from early discussions of the scope of
impeachable offenses are that they are not neatly delineated but depend
on context and gravity, of which the responsibility of this is housed
in the Judiciary Committee, and not all crimes are impeachable and not
all impeachable offenses are crimes.
But I would ask you, is impeachment limited to criminal acts?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Not at all, Congresswoman.

In fact, it's

important to understand that one of the most -- that a significant theme
in the Constitutional Convention was that when the delegates thought
of possible impeachable offenses, they were trying to figure out the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 40 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

scope of them.

39

They never listed something that wasn't actually a

crime; they listed things that were not crimes.

And, in fact, many

impeachments have been based on things that are not crimes.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

I'm going to go on to another -- can a President

be impeached for conduct related to improper exercise of his Article
II powers, such as removing a subordinate Federal officer?

And let

me add, would all communications between the President and, say, the
Department of Justice always be protected, always be not subject to
review or suggesting that they were inappropriate?
Mr. Gerhardt.

I think it's an overreach to suggest the President

somehow can insulate all his communications with anybody from
congressional inquiry.

That essentially makes the Presidency

unaccountable.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

And so can he be impeached for the improper

exercise of Article II?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Absolutely.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

And can the President be impeached at least

partly on his conduct or her conduct before assuming office?
Mr. Gerhardt.

I believe if -- I've suggested both through my

statement and other writings that I think a Presidency could be subject
to impeachment for that.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

And, clearly, the Mueller report, in Volume I,

has talked about a number of incidences dealing with the Russian
intrusion into our elections that seemingly this administration and
the Office of the President was involved in.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 41 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Gerhardt.
look into things.

40

At the very least, this committee is entitled to
So you have got the Mueller report.

The Mueller

report obviously contains a lot of different things, such as possible
acts of obstruction of justice.

It's quite reasonable and legitimate

for a committee -- for this particular committee to look at that and
to ask whether or not more investigation is needed.
There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes the
committee.

In fact, there's a lot in the Constitution that supports

this committee looking at that material and deciding whether or not
it does provide evidence of misconduct or whether or not it needs more
evidence.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

I thank the chairwoman.

I yield back.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 42 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

41

RPTR WARREN
EDTR ZAMORA
[10:16 a.m.]
Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

Thank you.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McClintock.

I thank you, Madam Chairman.

Dr. Eastman, the more that comes out on the Mueller report, the
more I become concerned that it appears to me that they couldn't make
a legal case against the President.

So they decided instead to try

to make a political case, and they did so by seriously misrepresenting
the evidence that they had.

Give you a few examples.

The John Dowd conversation, the President's lawyer, calls
Robert Kelner, Michael Flynn's lawyer.

The Mueller report quotes only

a small portion of the conversation that leaves the impression that
Dowd's trying to influence testimony.

It deliberately omitted a very

large part of the conversation where Dowd made it absolutely crystal
clear that it was not what he was suggesting.
Another example.

Konstantin Kilimnik is repeatedly referenced

as a Russian Government operative in his interactions with
Paul Manafort.

What Mueller knew but failed to mention in his report

was that Kilimnik was, in fact, a U.S. intelligence asset.
There was an article just published in The Federalist.

It notes

the recent developments in the Concord case that involves the Internet
Research Agency, the internet troll farm at the center of the Russian

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 43 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Government interference narrative.

42

The judge in that case asked

prosecutors to address also the specific tie to the Russian Government,
and the DOJ responded the report doesn't say that.

It was that next

day that Mueller held his press conference where he walked back the
linkage that he had made between the Russian Government and the internet
troll farms.
So I have to tell you, having reviewed some of the material behind
the report, I'm concerned this report seriously misrepresents the
supporting evidence that it's supposed to be based upon.

So I'd like

to hear your opinion of the nature of the report itself and what does
it say of the integrity of the report if exculpatory evidence was
deliberately omitted from that report.
Mr. Eastman.

Congressman McClintock, we've seen a number of

stories about the political biases of the members of Mr. Mueller's team
that have, you know, occupied our Nation's attention for some time now,
and I think one of the allegations that the President attempted to
obstruct judges was his alleged direction to White House Counsel Don
McGahn to notify Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to fire Mueller
because of his alleged conflict of interest.

And I think this is

critical and I think it may well full explain why we don't have in that
report some of the triggering events that led to the report that any
competent investigation would have explored.
And Department of Justice guidelines specifically say that people
ought not to be leading an investigation when they have
personal -- close, personal relationships with targets or key

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 44 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

43

witnesses of the investigation or with an organization of the
investigation, and Mr. Mueller had both.

He had very close, personal

relationships with FBI Director Comey who, of course, whose own leak
of information to The New York Times is what triggered the appointment
of Mr. Mueller in the first place and who was a key witness in one of
the allegations against the President about, you know, can you see your
way to letting the case drop against Mr. Flynn?

He suffered enough.

He had a close relationship with Mr. Rosenstein who was a signer on
one of the FISA warrants that triggered the whole Russia collusion story
in the first place.
Those things alone ought to have forced Mr. Mueller to recuse
himself because they are conflicts of interest that would have not led
to his appointment under Department of Justice guidelines in the first
place.

For the President as the top national executive to raise the

question about those conflicts is not obstruction of justice; it's
doing his job.

If he had said, because of that conflict, we're going

to shut down the whole investigation because I don't like it going after
me, then you might have had obstruction of justice, but that's not what
we have here.
And the perpetuation of this myth is rising to the level of farce,
and it is distracting, not only the President and the country
domestically, but on the world stage.

In fact, we are perilously close

to the ongoing proceedings here rising to this very same level that
is why the Department of Justice has over a half a century twice
concluded the President ought not to be indicted while he's in office.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 45 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

44

They recognize that the impeachment proceeding is a necessary evil that
would suffer those consequences but on things that are much more grave
than we have at issue here.
Mr. McClintock.

Is it fair to say that this report was corrupted

both by personal relationships and by political biases?
Mr. Eastman.

When you see the things that are omitted from it,

that's the conclusion that one has to go.
Mr. McClintock.

And this is, so far, just the tip of the iceberg.

They're dribbling out all the time and of grave concern.
Mr. Eastman.

And I think when Mr. Horowitz' full IG report comes

out on the origins of this thing, I think we're going to be shocked
to learn how much more there is.
Mr. McClintock.
Ms. Scanlon.

Thank you.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee

for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Firstly, I'd just like to comment the question about exculpatory
evidence being put in and questioning Mr. Mueller's compliance.
Mr. Mueller made clear that he did not suggest the President should
be indicted or was indicted because of the OLC's opinion that he
couldn't be indicted.

That's pretty much dealing -- taking

exculpatory evidence when you put that in.

We're not indicting him

because we can't do it, not because we didn't find evidence of criminal
activity; and if we did, we would have said so.

So that's firstly.

And, secondly, the question about his closeness to Mr. Rosenstein

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 46 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

and Mr. Comey.

He was also close to Mr. Barr.

45

So maybe Mr. Barr

shouldn't have taken the job.
Although existing regulations governing the appointment and
removal of a special counsel already provides some limitations on the
removal of the Attorney General, those can be rescinded or modified
because they're the Attorney General's regulations.

They can modify

those protections against unwarranted removal.
The chair has introduced a bill, H.R. 197, that's called the
Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, which would codify
those protections and would permit the special counsel who believes
his or her removal was unlawful to contest that removal in court.
Ms. Fredrickson, what are the benefits of enacting the current
protections that the Department has for unwarranted removal of a
special counsel and make them statutory law?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Thank you so much for the question.

So, I

mean, I think there are a number of benefits, and one is it's clear
that the Attorney General could repeal the existing regulations, and
there was quite a bit of worry that that might happen.

I know -- I

believe Senator Graham on the Senate side has introduced a partner to
this legislation for the very same reasons, that the regulations lay
out some important protections for the independence of the special
counsel but they're not enough because they're not actually insulated
from action by an Attorney General who might himself want to see, or
herself, want to see an investigation curtailed.
important piece of legislation to consider.

So I think it's an

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 47 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

46

I did also just want to go back to the prior question regarding
the factual disputes and the accusation that Special Counsel Mueller
was biased and omitted important information.

You know, I don't want

to speak to that, but I do want to say it seems to me that that's actually
an extremely strong reason, if people believe that, to want to get as
much of this information into the public hands as possible but certainly
into for this committee to review.
Mr. Cohen.

I'm sure we'll do that.

How would providing a special counsel a private right of action
to contest his or her unlawful removal deter some of the conduct
described in the Mueller report?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, I mean, I think that, you know, to have

some kind of a legal recourse to ensure that a special counsel isn't
removed for less than good cause, I think, is an important mechanism
to protect that authority and to protect the integrity of an
investigation that might be necessary.
Mr. Cohen.

And then maybe some of the instances that were cited

in the report that might amount to obstruction of justice wouldn't have
occurred because they would have known that they could -- Mr. Mueller
could have gone to court to contest those in an open hearing.
Ms. Fredrickson.

Absolutely.

And I think Mr. Mueller laid out

numerous examples of where he was thwarted along the way and was
threatened that if he had had some additional legal recourse -Mr. Cohen.

And let me ask.

We're going to run out of time.

You've read the Mueller report, have you not?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 48 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Fredrickson.
Mr. Cohen.

47

Yes.

All right.

How many instances of obstruction of

justice do you believe were shown where all three elements of
obstruction of justice were met?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, I think the report itself describes it

in extremely good detail, but there are certainly several examples
dealing with the efforts to get the White House Counsel to fire
Mr. Mueller.
Mr. Cohen.

That's one.

And then telling Mr. McGahn to lie about

it?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Telling him to lie about it and to tell him to

create a fake paper trail.
Mr. Cohen.

I think all of those are --

What are some others?

Ms. Fredrickson.

The effort -- the removal of the FBI Director.

There are -Mr. Cohen.

Asking Mr. Sessions to unrecuse himself?

Ms. Fredrickson.

Exactly.

Or asking Corey Lewandowski to go to

the Attorney General to tell him to resign, holding the resignation
letter for future use.
Mr. Cohen.
four or five.

So you don't have a specific number.

That's at least

Do you think there are seven or eight or four or five

or 10, or how many do you think there are?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, you know, I think that is something for

this committee to consider is -Mr. Cohen.

Thank you.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 49 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

48

Professor Gerhardt, do you have an opinion on how many there are?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Cohen.

I'm sorry.

I missed part of the --

How many cases of obstruction of justice were in the

Mueller report that you think all elements were met?
Mr. Gerhardt.

While I've read it, I can't say off the top of my

head how many instances there are, but I do think it's important to
recognize that there is certainly evidence of possible obstruction in
there.

There's no question about that.

The report doesn't exonerate the President.

Instead, it

actually suggests at several moments that one of the processes that's
important to consider, given the limitations the prosecutor felt that
were imposed on him, was for Congress or this committee to look into
possible evidence of misconduct.

That's perfectly within the power

and legitimacy of this committee.
Mr. Cohen.

Thank you.

And I yield back the time I do not have.
Ms. Scanlon.

Thank you.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gohmert.

Thank you.

I appreciate y'all being here.

Dr. Eastman, in looking at page 2 -- well, it's page 2 because
you had a cover sheet, but talks about you're not -- you
implied -- you're talking about the title of this hearing, that the
Mueller report identified Presidential misconduct that would trigger
whatever constitutional process might have been available.
factual matter, I could not disagree more.

As a

I don't find anything

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 50 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

49

remotely rising to the level that would trigger the one constitutional
path designed to address Presidential misconduct, namely impeachment.
But I want to take you back to the prior administration, something
that was called Fast and Furious.

We know crimes were committed.

We

had people within our Justice Department who forced people to sell guns
that we knew the sales constituted a crime because we knew they were
going to end up in criminal hands, and they were required to do it and
we know at least one Federal agent was killed as a result.

Somebody

somewhere in the Justice Department had to say, we're not going
to -- we're not going to prosecute that.
investigate it.

We know what happened.

We're not going to
And, of course, some of us

here that reviewed e-mails that were disclosed, made public thanks to
Judicial Watch, there were crimes being committed and nobody
prosecuted.
During the Clinton administration, my U.S. Attorney friends back
in Texas were telling me they'd been given -- and I couldn't tell you,
some of them -- I couldn't tell you whether they vote Democrat or
Republican, but I know they cared about justice.

But they were saying

they'd been directed, let's back off of the pursuit of drug crimes.
Let's start pursuing white-collar crime.

They got that directive.

Somebody within the Department of Justice who knew there were
crimes, drug crimes being committed with regard to Fast and Furious,
knew crimes were committed and at least one Federal agent died, had
directed, we're not going to pursue those.

Just leave them alone.

This is where we want to concentrate, because obviously, no Department

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 51 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

50

of Justice can pursue every single crime.
In your opinion, just knowing what we know from the public
information, would you say Eric Holder or President Obama, his boss,
obstructed justice?
Mr. Eastman.

Congressman, I think there's an important

distinction to be made here -Mr. Gohmert.

Exactly.

Mr. Eastman.

-- between prosecutorial discretion and shielding

high-ranking officials.

I've outlined in my testimony several other

examples -Mr. Gohmert.

But the drug -- shifting from drug prosecution to

white-collar crime, that's prosecutorial discretion.
Mr. Eastman.

That's right.

But preventing an investigation in

order to shield the person that committed the crime because he was a
high-ranking official or to alter the FBI investigative report on the
advent of the email personal server and Hillary Clinton's conduct, to
remove the language of one of the elements of the crime, I think that
rises to obstruction of justice rather than prosecutorial discretion.
Mr. Gohmert.

So you're talking about when James Comey

eliminated the mental state necessary -Mr. Eastman.
not.

The -- he said mental state was an element; it was

The FBI original draft of the report called it gross negligence,

which is an element of the crime.
to avoid the element of the crime.
discretion.

He changed that language in order
That's not prosecutorial

I think those things do rise and have an intent to obstruct

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 52 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

51

or interfere with the investigation.
Mr. Gohmert.

Well, that brings up another issue.

You know,

Mueller was required to -- or we know -- I'm not supposed to really
get into the scopes memos I've reviewed, but -- well, at least some
of them.

But we know publicly he was allowed to pursue things

that -- crimes that came to his attention during the investigation.
Hillary Clinton's emails, private server, disclosure of
classified information, those surely came to his attention.

He would

have been authorized, just from what you know publicly, to pursue and
investigate Hillary Clinton, would he not?
Mr. Eastman.

Well, he would.

And even more directly, the use

of campaign funds funneled through a law firm illegally, not reported
to the Federal Election Commission, to pay for the Steele dossier, which
we now know had as his sources high Russian-level officials that
triggered the entire narrative, that certainly was within his
jurisdiction, and that's not investigated at all.
Mr. Gohmert.

Yes.

Well, I appreciate the effort that you took.

I know all three of you got paid well for being here today.
Mr. Eastman.

I missed that.

Mr. Gohmert.

And for those that don't know that, didn't get paid

at all.

But thank you all for the time you took to prepare.

Thank

you.
Ms. Scanlon.

The chair recognizes Mr. Johnson from Georgia --

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Ms. Scanlon.

I thank the chairwoman.

-- for 5 minutes.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 53 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

And I've heard more and more Republicans

starting to pronounce Director Mueller's name as Mueller.
hearing that over the past few weeks.

No.

I've been

Is that some kind of Republican

attempt to somehow besmirch Director Mueller?
Mr. Eastman.

52

Dr. Eastman?

Maybe it's bit of my German heritage.

My

mother's maiden name was Stein, and the Mueller is the German
pronunciation.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

It's Mueller, and I've heard so many

people saying Mueller on the other side.

It just seems like there's

something that -- there's some kind of secret memo flowing out there.
But, listen, you are a -- an officer.

You are the chairman of

The Federalist Society's Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice
Group, are you not?
Mr. Eastman.

I am, Congressman.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

And so there's no doubt that you are a

Republican or perhaps a Libertarian, but I suspect more Republican.
Mr. Eastman.

The Federalist Society is a nonpartisan

organization.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

And it raises about $20 million a year

for its various purposes, correct?
Mr. Eastman.
Society.

I've not looked into the budget of the Federal

I'm a chairman of one of its practice groups.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Mr. Eastman.

I understand.

And I should say that I'm not here speaking on

behalf of The Federalist Society.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 54 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

Certainly.

53

Certainly.

And you're familiar with Director Mueller and his reputation.
You know that he is a former Marine officer, that he has practiced law
both in government, outside of government, former U.S. attorney,
United States Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division,
a homicide prosecutor in Washington, D.C.

He's been the Acting United

States Deputy Attorney General and he's been appointed to
Senate-confirmed positions by Presidents George Herbert Walker Bush,
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

And he's a Republican

too.
You're familiar with that, right?
Mr. Eastman.

I know he's got a long resume.

I didn't know he

was a Republican.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

You didn't know he was a registered

Republican?
Mr. Eastman.

It doesn't matter on my criticism of the report.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

Well, I mean, a man of that kind of

distinction, you do -- you may disagree with some of the conclusions
that he reached, but you have no -- you have no problem with his
truthfulness and veracity, do you?
Mr. Eastman.

Congressman, I have a real problem with his

flipping the burden of proof in Part II of the volume.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

That's not my question.

My question,

you believe him to be a man of good character?
Mr. Eastman.

I don't know his character.

I've never met the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 55 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

man.

54

I will say this -Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Mr. Eastman.

-- he staffed his office with people --

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Mr. Eastman.

Let me ask --

Let me ask this.

-- who had an obvious political bias, and that's

troubling to me.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

Let me ask you this.

You're at a

congressional hearing, the title of the hearing being about the various
constitutional processes for addressing Presidential misconduct.
Now, certainly this hearing that we're having today, you don't
think we're overstepping our bounds by having this hearing, do you?
Mr. Eastman.

I do.

I have never said that Congress doesn't have

oversight authority.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Mr. Eastman.

But, I mean --

But it can be abused, and I think --

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

For this hearing, you think that we're

overstepping?
Mr. Eastman.

I do.

This matter has become a farce.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
Mr. Eastman.

Well, question --

It has become a farce.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

Question asked and answered.

Okay.

Thank you.
Let me ask Professor Gerhardt.

Sir, in your written testimony,

you note that the theme that clearly emerges from early discussions
of the scope of impeachable offenses are that they are not neatly

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 56 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

55

delineated but depend on context and gravity, and that you say also
that not all crimes are impeachable and not all impeachable offenses
are crimes.
I want to ask you this question:

Is impeachment limited only to

criminal acts?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Not at all.

If you'll allow me, I just want to

make sort of two points to clarify a couple of things.
I've not been paid at all.

The first is

I've got three kids, one in college.

It

would be great, you know, but -Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

You're not being paid either to be here,

right?
Mr. Gerhardt.
paid to be here.

I'm not being paid to come here.

I'm not being

It's an honor.

The second point I just want to make is that kind of follows a
little bit from what you've just suggested is a concern I have, and
that is if the President -- and I think that concern has been sort of
overshadowed by the efforts to deflect the attention away from the
purpose of this hearing.
But if the President of the United States can remove the special
prosecutor, not comply with lawful subpoenas, and is immune to criminal
prosecution while he's in office, that's the definition of being above
the law.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

Thank you.

And I yield back.
Ms. Scanlon.

And the chair recognizes the gentleman from

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 57 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

56

Virginia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cline.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time out of their
schedules, without pay, to be here today to participate in this
exercise.

I want to also apologize to them because this is little more

than an attempt, a blatant attempt to keep on life support this ongoing
impeachment by any other name.

And as you can see from the audience,

which is half full and the committee which is half full, I'm -- there
are other things going on on the Hill today that are of importance as
well.

There's a hearing about the border that is down the hall.

I

think that is a critical issue about the humanitarian crisis going on
at the border.

I would like to see this committee use its jurisdiction

to look into the humanitarian crisis that's going on at the border.
I see the TV cameras here, and I want to apologize to people at
home who've tuned in and think they're looking at a repeat of a past
hearing because, no, it's not a repeat.

It's just the same pundits,

journalists, and academics here opining about Volume I or Volume II
of the Mueller report, not moving the ball forward at all, just really
spinning the wheels of this committee, using up time and using up
resources to come to no conclusion, other than the fact that the
Democrats want to impeach this President but they don't have really
enough to go on in the Mueller report.

And there are other issues that

are of primary importance facing this country that are being addressed
by other committees around this Congress.
And as a member of this committee, I worked hard to get on this

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 58 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

committee.

57

It is very disappointing to me that we continue just to

spin the wheels of this committee.
So, Professor Eastman, I will ask you, as a former prosecutor,
I was very confused by Volume II and the Mueller report, 400 pages of
no charges, no recommendations for charges.

Robert Mueller

determined he could not exonerate President Trump of the allegations
that he obstructed justice.
I've never seen this as a prosecutor.

Have you ever seen a

prosecutor use that line of logic?
Mr. Eastman.

No, I haven't.

disagreement with Part II.

And that's my fundamental

It reassigns the burden of proof to the

object of the investigation having to prove his innocence, rather than
the prosecutor having to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
And that violates one of our most fundamental precepts of fairness and
justice in the criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence.
For him to have said that the President couldn't convince me he
didn't do any of this, when his job was to determine whether he had
enough information to bring an indictment or to present to this body
things that would lead to either an impeachment or a post
President-in-office indictment, that's what his job was.

And I think

that is the greatest flaw in Volume II of the Mueller report.
Mr. Cline.

So in our systems, prosecutors either indict or not

indict, and leave it at that.
So Mueller here is putting the burden on the President to prove
his innocence instead of the burden being on Mueller to prove his guilt.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 59 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

58

Professor Eastman, can a President obstruct justice by simply
exercising his Article II powers?
Mr. Eastman.

That's a close question.

The reason it's close and

the reason I'm hesitating and not giving you an unqualified no is if
the President exercised his powers with a deliberate intent to
prevent -- but we have no evidence of his intent here at all.

What

we do have is documented in the report itself, things like, can you
clear the way to let Flynn go because he suffered enough.

That's

perfectly within the President's authority, and there's no even hint
of bad intent there.
conflicts of interest?

Can you get rid of Mueller because of his
No bad intent; that's clearly within the

President's authority.
Mr. Cline.

When Bill Clinton tried to alter witness testimony

before a grand jury, that -Mr. Eastman.
troubling.

That had the necessary intent and was rightly

Deliberately changing an FBI report to remove an element

of a crime of trafficking into classified information in order to shield
the Presidential candidate I prefer, that's an obstruction of justice
with the requisite intent.
Mr. Cline.

Section 4 of Article II says the President, Vice

President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed
from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Do you see anything in Volume II that rises to that level?
Mr. Eastman.

I do not, because I don't see anything in there that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 60 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

59

demonstrates a requisite intent that would otherwise alter the
President's perfect authority to control the executive branch.
Mr. Cline.

Thank you.

I yield back.
Ms. Scanlon.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for

5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Gerhardt, your testimony describes several categories of
formal remedies for Presidential misconduct:

congressional oversight

activities, impeachment, censure, election, civil suits, criminal
trials.
Was Special Counsel Mueller able to pursue any of these remedies
for potential misconduct by President Trump?
Mr. Gerhardt.

No, he was not.

He was not in the sense of being

able to do anything more than issue his report.
Mr. Deutch.

His investigation, just to be clear, was a criminal

investigation, right?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Deutch.

Right.

It certainly was, yes.

And if he found criminal wrongdoing by the

President, could he pursue a trial?
Mr. Gerhardt.

He could, or he might have thought he might be able

to, but he was also -- he also plainly felt, as he said, that he was
restricted by Department of Justice policy on this.
Mr. Deutch.

Well, he said he was restricted by the OLC policy,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 61 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

60

didn't he?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Deutch.

Right.
Right.

That's what I'm saying, yeah.
So Presidential misconduct uncovered by

Mueller didn't come with an inherent remedy, did it?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Deutch.

No, it did not come with an inherent remedy.
So the Mueller report itself, the Mueller report

itself was never going to hold the President of the United States
accountable?
Mr. Gerhardt.

That is absolutely true.

And, in fact, a couple

of times, a couple of key times when discussing obstruction of justice,
he mentions Congress.
Mr. Deutch.

Right.

So if -- exactly.

So, Mr. Gerhardt, if the

special counsel cannot hold the President accountable, who can?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Deutch.

The answer is nobody.
Nobody can hold the President accountable?

Mr. Gerhardt.

Well, that is to say if the President -- I may have

misunderstood.
Mr. Deutch.

Mr. Gerhardt, Congress can hold the President

accountable, can't it?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Deutch.

Right.

Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Deutch.

Of course.

And I just --

I just wanted to clarify that.

Yeah.

Ms. Fredrickson, in your testimony, you note that

special counsel couldn't exonerate President Trump, but he also
couldn't proceed with a criminal remedy because he accepted the OLC

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 62 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

61

policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.
Without those options, what did Mr. Mueller do in his report?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, I think he did the appropriate thing,

which was to refer to Congress to pursue its constitutional processes,
which is, in fact, what this committee is doing now.
Mr. Deutch.

Right.

He preserved evidence.

So you -- he conducted the investigation.

He provided analysis of that.

And then, as

you quote from the report and as you've just said now, the separation
of powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings
including, those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive
acts, regardless of their source.

Further, Special Counsel Mueller

closes Volume II by stating, and I quote, the protection of the criminal
justice system from corrupt acts by any person, including the
President, accords with the fundamental principle of our government
that no person in this country is so high that he is above the law.
Ms. Fredrickson, do you read these sections of the report as a
referral to Congress to pick up where Mr. Mueller left off?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, I certainly read it as a -- as saying to

Congress that there is important -- this was -- these allegations are
incredibly disturbing, indicate actions by the President and his
associates that are very destructive to rule of law and that Congress
needs to examine.
Mr. Deutch.

I think it has a congressional duty to -Thank you very much.

Mr. Gerhardt, on May 30, President Trump said he can't be
impeached because there was no crime.

It appeared he was suggesting

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 63 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

62

that he would need to be found guilty in a criminal trial in order to
be impeached.
Is that how impeachment works?

Is that what impeachment

requires?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Deutch.

Impeachment -Yes or no.

Mr. Gerhardt.

Impeachment does not require what the President

said.
Mr. Deutch.

Right.

And you described, in fact, how the Framers

thought of high crimes as violations of public trust and violations
of a duty to our society.

Some have argued the President can't commit

the crime of obstruction of justice when he's exercising his Article II
powers.

We've heard that here today.

Regardless of the merits of that argument in a criminal trial,
isn't the corrupt use of power exactly the sort of abuse that the Framers
and historical Presidents show qualified as a high crime?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Deutch.

Absolutely.
Right.

That's why we have it.

So let me finish with this.

Professor Gerhardt, we heard that impeachment proceedings have
begun without any formal vote for impeachment.

Who has the power to

set the proceedings for this body, for Congress to implement a
constitutional power such as impeachment?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Deutch.

Congress.
Right.

And do the House rules require a formal

authorization of an impeachment inquiry?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 64 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Deutch.

Absolutely not.

63

It doesn't say that in any place.

Professor Gerhardt, does the United States

Constitution require a formal authorization of an impeachment inquiry?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Absolutely not.

The words "impeachment inquiry"

are not in the Constitution.
Mr. Deutch.

Thank you.

I yield back.
Ms. Scanlon.

Thank you.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Gerhardt, over here on your right.

Yeah, sorry.

We've got

a big committee.
You said in a recent interview with The New Yorker magazine that,
quote, if the President has misled people, unquote, then it could be
the basis for impeachment.
President Obama made a statement that became rather famous
regarding ObamaCare, and he said, quote, if you like your healthcare
plan, you can keep it, unquote.

It was famously called the lie of the

year by PolitiFact.
So I don't mean this to be flippant.
about your intellectual consistency.
Mr. Gerhardt.

I want to ask you a question

Is that an impeachable offense?

I would not say so, and it's partly because I think

the President made a mistake.
any impeachment inquiry.

Acting in good faith is pertinent to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 65 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

64

Well, but didn't you just explain in

your last set of answers here that a violation of the public trust is
an impeachable offense?
Mr. Gerhardt.

I just heard you say that a few minutes ago.

That's true.

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

Absolutely true.
So is that not a violation of the

public trust when half of America relied upon that great promise?
Mr. Gerhardt.

I don't think I would say it violated public trust.

I think you need two things at least.
doing a bad act.

That's one of the things required.

is you need to have bad intent.
obviously are mistaken.
at all.

One is you need to have -- be
But the other

I think there are times when Presidents

I don't think that was a deliberate falsehood

I think that an inquiry would be justified any time that this

committee or the House has concern about whether or not the President
had said or done something with bad faith and that was a bad act.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

Okay.

In a 1999 article that was

entitled, The Lessons of Impeachment History, you quoted Alexander
Hamilton in Federalist 65, and you wrote, quote, in the Federalist No.
65, Alexander Hamilton warned that impeachments often would begin in
a partisan atmosphere.

Consequently, Hamilton counseled the further

along an impeachment proceeded, the more that Members of Congress
needed to find a nonpartisan basis on which to resolve the proceedings,
unquote.

That's what you wrote.

Mr. Gerhardt.

Yes.

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.
been out for almost 3 months.

The Mueller report, of course, has
As of June 30, there were 79 elected

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 66 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Democrats calling for impeachment and zero Republicans.

65

Our friend,

Representative Amash, is now a registered Independent.
So the question is, if this body were to take Alexander Hamilton's
advice, shouldn't impeachment be off the table at this point because
there's no way that we find a nonpartisan basis to proceed?
Mr. Gerhardt.

The answer is no.

And part of the reason for that

is because if one party decides to obstruct something, that is to say,
doesn't agree, can't find common ground, that can't hamstring the
institution.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

Wait a minute.

So are you suggesting

the Republicans are obstructing this now?
Mr. Gerhardt.

I'm sorry if that's overstated, but the point

is -Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

It's greatly overstated.

Thank you

for acknowledging, yes.
Mr. Gerhardt.

But the point is that if -- it may or may not begin

in a partisan atmosphere.

You need fact-finding.

You need

investigation to determine the evidence and the gravity.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.
report, right?
this.

That's what we had with the Mueller

Two years and $30 million and endless resources to do

Didn't we have that?
Mr. Gerhardt.

committee.

Congressman, the Mueller report does not bind this

It does not bind --

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.
manner.

No, but that was begun in a nonpartisan

He was famously the objective arbiter of all this.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 67 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

66

Let me move on.
Mr. Gerhardt.

I don't think he was the supreme arbiter of this.

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

All right.

Well, I mean, we've known

your true colors now when you say we're obstructing, so I guess -Mr. Gerhardt.

I'm sorry for that phraseology.

But the point is

that it can become a strategy, let's say, to be able to prevent
bipartisanship by simply choosing not to go along if there are other
political motivations for that.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

I got it.

I'm just saying, based upon

your earlier scholarship, Alexander Hamilton would want this farce to
end.

Okay.
Ms. Fredrickson, on March 22, 2019, your group, the American

Constitution Center, issued a press release entitled, quote, Mueller
Report, How far up the chain did the Trump campaign's efforts to
conspire with Russia go?

It quoted you.

And you said, quote, the

question isn't whether members of the Trump campaign conspired with
Russia to sway the 2016 elections.

We already know they did, unquote.

As you may know, conspiracy to commit an offense or to defraud
the U.S. is a Federal crime under 18 U.S. Code, Section 371.

I just

want to know if you can remind this committee which members of the Trump
campaign were charged and prosecuted for conspiring with Russia.
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, and first, I'd like to say that I think

it's unfortunate that so many on your side of the aisle don't seem to
want to get to the bottom of what happened in terms of the Russian
interference in our election.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 68 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

To the contrary.

67

To the contrary.

Just answer the question.
Ms. Fredrickson.

And that all of our intelligence agencies have

indicated that there was sweeping attacks on our elections, that they
were renewed in 2018 with some impact, and that there are anticipated
attacks in 2020.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

So you disagree with the Mueller

report's findings, Volume I?
Ms. Fredrickson.

I think there is much more work for this

Congress to do to understand what Russia has attempted, what they were
successful at, and what they're planning.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.
just to follow up on that.

I got it, but I'm out of time.

But

So with all the vast resources, the

$30 million, the endless supply of investigators, the 500 witnesses,
everything that the Mueller report had, did, and was involved in for
2 years, you think there's yet more for the people on this -Ms. Fredrickson.

I do.

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.
Ms. Fredrickson.
destroyed evidence.
interview.

I do.

-- dais to dig into, right?

I think there were many people who had

There were people who Mueller was not allowed to

And so I do think there's -- I mean, look, I'm deeply

worried about the integrity of our elections, and I hope Congress is
as well.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.
integrity of your organization.

Well, I'm deeply worried about the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 69 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Scanlon.

68

The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.
Ms. Scanlon.

I'm out of time.

I yield back.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode

Island for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cicilline.
comment.

Thank you, Ms. Fredrickson, for your last

I know there are many on this committee who share your concern

and frustration with the obstruction from our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle.

And I think if Alexander Hamilton, great Founder

who my friend mentioned, were alive, they would be appalled, frankly,
at the conduct of this committee and their unwillingness to take on
these very serious issues.
So I thank the chairman for convening this hearing on this very
important question.
The hearing is entitled, Lessons from the Mueller Report:
"Constitutional Processes for Addressing Presidential Misconduct."
Ms. Fredrickson, could you tell me what is the principle
constitutional process available for addressing Presidential
misconduct?
Mr. Eastman.
Mr. Cicilline.

I'm sorry.

Was that addressed to me?

No, it was addressed to Ms. Fredrickson.

Ms. Fredrickson.
Congress' authorities.

Well, I mean, there -- Article I lays out
And they're multiple, but certainly the

legislative power includes oversight as an essential part of it.
also in Article I is the power to impeach.
alternative.

They're --

Those tools are not

But

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 70 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Cicilline.

69

And is it fair to say impeachment is the principal

process to address Presidential misconduct?
Ms. Fredrickson.

I think it's one of the processes.

think that -- I think there's more of a continuum.

I don't

As I mention in

my testimony, during the Nixon -- during the Watergate hearings, there
was actually -- almost a year went by before there was a referral to
the full House for a vote on the articles.

So I think it's hard to

separate, I would say.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Gerhardt.
just said.

Okay.
I agree.

Professor.
I think that I agree with everything she

I believe that it is completely within the discretion of

this committee and the power of this committee to be able to, not just
read the Mueller report, but to ask the very reasonable question whether
we need to know anything else in order to undertake the constitutional
responsibilities we have.
Mr. Cicilline.

And related to that, many of our -- many of

our -- Congress' ability to hold the President accountable rely on the
executive branch providing Congress with information that it needs to
legislate, to conduct oversight, or to consider remedies like
impeachment or censure.
Could you begin, Ms. Fredrickson, to describe generally what the
Supreme Court has said about Congress' power to conduct investigations
and to collect documents and testimony, including by use of subpoena,
how the Court has described our power in that context?
Ms. Fredrickson.

The Court has been -- has used very sweeping

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 71 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

language to describe Congress' power.

70

Again, it's inherent and the

legislative power is the power to conduct oversight and investigations.
Mr. Cicilline.

And the Court has, in fact, said the power to

secure needed information is an attribute of the power to legislate,
which is a core function of Congress.
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, exactly.

I mean, Congress would not

know how to respond to statutory gaps if it can't examine what the
statutory gaps are.
Mr. Cicilline.

And the perils of Congress being unable to do its

constitutionally required work if an executive branch decides to
prevent witnesses from coming forward or to instruct witnesses not to
cooperate or to not make the documents available is significant.
Professor, would you speak a little bit about, Professor
Gerhardt, what the consequences of that would be for Congress?

I mean,

we have a President, for example, who's told -- said publicly that he
is going to fight all efforts by Congress to get information, that he's
going to tell witnesses not to come and defy subpoenas.

What are the

implications of that?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Well, they're not good.

I mean, the implications

of that is, at the very least, Congress should be concerned.
Obviously, this committee should be concerned.

And this committee is

acting perfectly reasonably to consider what evidence -- I don't know
if this has been put forward in the report or anywhere else.

If I may,

can I read one sentence from the report from Mr. Mueller that just goes
along these lines?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 72 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

71

He says, with respect to the President -- with respect to whether
the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising
his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that
Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his
authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of
justice.
Congress has that authority.
Mr. Cicilline.

This committee has that authority.

So we have had a number of examples, both with

respect to the White House Counsel Don McGahn and the former White House
Communications Director Hope Hicks, where the White House asserted
something called -- that they claim is absolute immunity, which is
basically our right to prevent you from hearing anything relevant from
these witnesses.
Would that sort of obstruction that we're seeing in an effort to
prevent witnesses from appearing before the committee or producing
documents in and of itself be an appropriate basis for an article of
impeachment against a President, if proved?
Yes, Ms. Fredrickson.
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, I think if you look again at the Nixon

impeachment, you'll see that that exact kind of obstruction formed one
of the articles in that.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Gerhardt.

And, Professor Gerhardt.
Clearly, the Constitution allows this body and

this committee to consider whether or not obstruction's happened.
It's just important to really emphasize that it doesn't have to be a

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 73 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

technical violation of a statute.

72

It still may be a problem if the

President obstructs justice in any way.
Mr. Cicilline.

Thank you.

I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Scanlon.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California

for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lieu.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Fredrickson, you were asked earlier a question about Russia.
So for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, 34 individuals were
indicted.

Isn't that correct?

Ms. Fredrickson.
Mr. Lieu.
convicted.

Yes, that's correct.

And at least eight have either pled guilty or been

Isn't that correct?

Ms. Fredrickson.
Mr. Lieu.

That's correct.

And the Mueller report identifies that Paul Manafort

gave internal polling date to the Russians.
Ms. Fredrickson.
Mr. Lieu.

Isn't that correct?

That's correct.

And the Mueller report also shows numerous contacts

between Russians and Trump campaign officials.
Ms. Fredrickson.
Mr. Lieu.

Isn't that correct?

That's correct.

And a fair reading of Volume I of the report would be

that the Trump campaign knew about the Russian interference, welcomed
it, embraced it, gave them internal information, and knew it was going
to help Donald Trump win the election.
Ms. Fredrickson.

That is correct.

Isn't that correct?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 74 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Lieu.

Okay.

73

Let's move to Volume II now which focuses on

obstruction of justice.

In the Nixon impeachment hearings, the first

article of impeachment, what was that on?

It was obstruction of

justice, wasn't it?
Ms. Fredrickson.
Mr. Lieu.

It was obstruction, yes.

All right.

Obstruction of justice, certainly under

the Nixon hearings, was important enough to be the very first article
of impeachment.

So if there was obstruction of justice related to

Donald Trump, that would also certainly qualify as important enough
to be an article of impeachment if it was established, correct?
Ms. Fredrickson.

It certainly could be.

Mr. Lieu.

Let me talk to you now, Professor Gerhardt,

Okay.

about the obstruction we're seeing from the Trump administration to
congressional oversight investigations.
Mueller report; it's on everything.

And it's not just on the

So we want to know, for example,

why is the Trump administration supporting the lawsuit to eliminate
healthcare coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions?
can't get that information.
lie about the census?

We

We wanted to know why did Trump officials

We couldn't get that information.

We can't even

get witnesses simply to show up here even under subpoena.
And the Trump administration is asserting something called
absolute immunity.
Mr. Gerhardt.

No court has ever found that, correct?
No court has ever found that the President has kind

of absolute immunity you're talking about, no.
Mr. Lieu.

Okay.

So given the assertions of this sort of fake

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 75 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

74

immunity, do you agree that if these witnesses don't show up, they would
be subject, not just to the lawful subpoena, but also to any potential
other consequences, and that they themselves would be liable for not
showing up?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Absolutely.

the power to issue subpoenas.

And the committee and the chair have

Subpoenas are lawful orders.

And it's

a question of whether or not they're complying with the law when they're
considering whether or not to comply with the subpoena.
Mr. Lieu.

Okay.

And then let's talk specifically again about

obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report lays out multiple

instances of obstruction of justice.

And then the special counsel

goes, all right, here's three elements to establish obstruction of
justice.

And in multiple cases, he shows that there's significant

evidence of all three elements.
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Lieu.

Isn't that correct?

Right.

And on the issue of intent, you can certainly infer

intent from the very words of Donald Trump.
Mr. Gerhardt.

Isn't that right?

Well, you can infer intent from words, from

circumstances, from context.
Mr. Lieu.

And when Trump fired Comey, he stated that he was

receiving great pressure from the Russia investigation and that that
pressure's been taken off.

That's certainly evidence of intent, isn't

it?
Mr. Gerhardt.

It's perfectly reasonable to wonder about what's

going on when he says something like that, yes.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 76 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Lieu.

75

When the President goes on national TV and says he

fired Comey because of the Russia thing, that's certainly evidence of
intent, isn't it?
Mr. Gerhardt.

It could be evidence of intent, absolutely.

It's

certainly the statement of something that sounds like obstruction.
Mr. Lieu.

When the President orders one of their senior

officials to create a fake document, that's certainly evidence of
intent?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Lieu.

I'm sorry.

I missed that.

When the President orders one of his officials to

create a fake document, that's certainly evidence of intent, isn't it?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Yeah, that's -- that's hugely problematic.

one, it's obstruction.

And,

And I might also go further to say that one

of the consequences of vesting the President with so many entitlements,
such as absolute executive privilege, absolute immunity, means that
if there's any delay that relates to something criminal 4 years or
longer, what happens to the evidence?

That's a tremendous concern.

And so that's why I have argued that I don't think the President's immune
to the criminal process or other processes.
Mr. Lieu.

And in the Mueller report, Special Counsel Mueller

doesn't even put out any burden of proof.

He doesn't shift the burden.

He simply says, because I could not indict under the DOJ policy, I'm
not going to make that prosecutorial judgment.
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Lieu.

That's correct.

I yield back.

Isn't that right?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 77 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Scanlon.

76

The chair recognizes Mr. Raskin for 5 minutes.

Mr. Raskin.

Madam Chair, thank you very much.

Professor Gerhardt, let me start with you.

Why does the Congress

have the power to impeach the President but the President doesn't have
the power to dissolve the Congress or to impeach individual Members?
Why does the Congress have the power to impeach justice in the Supreme
Court but they don't have the power to remove Members of Congress?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Well, that's all part of checks and balances.

And, of course, Congress has the power, in part, because Congress is
accountable politically.
Mr. Raskin.

Yeah.

Mr. Gerhardt.

And the idea is clearly behind those restrictions

and is, as you well know, the effort to actually prevent the President
or prevent the COURT from becoming all-powerful.
Mr. Raskin.

Do you agree with the rhetoric of coequal branches?

Every time the President tramples another constitutional right or value
or principle of separation of powers, one of my colleagues would get
up and say, we're coequal branches, Mr. President.

Please pay

attention to us.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Raskin.

I do agree.

Before you go on, let me just say I disagree with

it, and I want to tell you why.
I'm a Member of Congress now.
law, I disagreed with it.

And I don't think it's just because

When I was a professor of constitutional

That's not the way I see the Constitution.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 78 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

77

The Preamble starts with, We, the people, in order to form a more perfect
union, and so on, established the Constitution.

The very next sentence

says, All legislative powers are vested in the Congress of the United
States.
Then you get pages of description of what the powers of Congress
are, and they are comprehensive.

We have the power to declare war,

to regulate domestic commerce -Mr. Gerhard.

Right.

Mr. Raskin.
impeach.

-- international commerce.

We have the power to

We have the power to control the seat of government, post

office, copyright, you name it.

All of it's in there.

Then for the President, the President is the Commander in Chief
in times of actual conflict, and his job is to take care that the laws
are faithfully executed.
So the reason I ask the question about impeachment is, don't we
have the power to impeach the President because this is a representative
democracy and Article I puts Congress first and the President works
to implement the laws that we've adopted?
Mr. Gerhardt.

I think what you've said makes imminent sense.

And I don't want us to be talking past each other.
Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Gerhardt.

Yeah.
I think that each branch, of course, is vested with

certain powers, and no other branch can interfere or undermine those
powers.
Mr. Raskin.

Right.

But I think at least it's constitutionally

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 79 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

78

important to note that it's Congress that has the power to impeach
everybody else and they don't have the power to impeach the Congress -Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Raskin.

-- because we are elected by the people.

Mr. Gerhardt.
Mr. Raskin.

Absolutely right.

That's correct.

I want to ask you, Ms. Fredrickson, a question about

impeachment, about law and politics.
in the country about this.

There's been a lot of confusion

Some people say, well, look, it's very clear

that there were 9 or 10 episodes of Presidential obstruction of justice.
It's very clear from everything that the special counsel wrote and from
what he did in sending two letters of protest to the Attorney General
for misstating and distorting the contents of the report and for -- from
his having a press conference to come out and say the reason that we
didn't indict the President was because of the DOJ policy that we can't
indict the President.
So some people are saying it's very clear there's Presidential
obstruction of justice.
impeach?
question.

Why doesn't Congress just go ahead and

And then others say, well, you know, it's not just a legal
It's a political question because it's invested with

Article I, with Congress.
have the power to do it.

It's not in the courts.

The courts don't

Congress has to do it.

And so Members of Congress have to take into account, with
everything else we're doing, with the border crisis, with trying to
lower prescription drug prices.
opinion.

We've got to think about public

We've got to think about our districts.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 80 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

79

Are those political considerations really proper and appropriate
in terms of what Congress should think about?

Should we be trying to

think about this just as judges or should we think about it in the
context of everything else we're trying to do?
Ms. Fredrickson.

I think Professor Gerhardt did an excellent job

of explaining the language in the Constitution, what are high crimes
and misdemeanors.

And they're not necessarily crimes.

They could be

crimes, but they could be other types of activity that might be fully
lawful but might have really harmed the fabric of the Nation.

And so

it's a judgment call, and it's one that Congress has to make, among
all of its other responsibilities.
Mr. Raskin.

Okay.

Very good.

Professor Gerhardt, let me come back to you.
of public opinion here?

What about the role

Some people have said, well, only 19 percent

of the people supported impeaching Richard Nixon before the
impeachment hearings got started.

Forty-six percent of the people

support impeachment today, which is extraordinary given that we haven't
formally launched impeachment inquiry.
in the polls.

He's never reached 50 percent

He's the only President since World War II who never

has gotten up to 50 percent in his approval ratings.
Some people say, take that into account.
committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
should take that into account.
irrelevant.

The President has

He's a sitting duck, and we

Others say public opinion is

And lots of Republicans, the majority of the Republicans

still oppose it.

We should take that into account instead.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 81 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

80

What is the role of public opinion in this decision?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Well, it's a great question.

I think the role of

public opinion is something, of course, that you should take -- you're
fully entitled to take into account.
to happen.

It makes imminent sense for that

At the same time, there are fiduciary duties within each

Chamber of Congress to consider how to exercise their respective
powers, and public opinion, hopefully, will support that.

That's what

Congress, of course, hopes for.
But as in the Watergate situation, as you just mentioned, it took
a year at least to be able to figure out through an investigation, with
no help from the President, on whether or not he had committed any kind
of misconduct.

And it's entirely possible that public opinion

wouldn't necessarily support Congress or the House or any
particular -- as it moves along, but the evidence might inform public
opinion and it might turn around, just like it did with President Nixon.
Mr. Raskin.

Finally, I have a yes-or-no question.

Does anyone

here think that the -- that President Clinton should have been
impeached for what I consider a low crime and misdemeanor, lying about
sex?

Does anybody think that he -- that the House was correct in

impeaching him?
Mr. Eastman.
Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Eastman.
Mr. Raskin.
Ms. Scanlon.

I think he was.

It was not a low crime.

It was --

So yes, you believe that.
It was obstruction of justice.
Let me follow up with you then, Mr. Eastman.
Time's up.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 82 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

81

The chair recognizes Mr. Armstrong for 5 minutes.
Mr. Armstrong.

Thank you.

And I think that line of questioning is interesting in a lot of
different reasons.

One, I think that's where you get the distinction

between political and legal, because I think lying under oath is lying
under oath, and it's a political distinction as to whether or not it's
a minor crime or a major crime, so -- and I think Mr. Raskin and I could
have long esoteric debates about this issue in a different format.
But, Professor Eastman, just I want to go to the obstruction stuff
because we were just talking about it a little bit.

Do you think any

of the 10 potential episodes of obstruction outlined in the Mueller
report constitute obstruction of justice?
Mr. Eastman.

I do not, because I don't think any of them

demonstrate the necessary intent to obstruct.

I think they are all

well within the President's Article II authorities.
Mr. Armstrong.

Well, and I have two different questions about

that, and one starts with the Article II authority.

And, I mean, so

when you're -- I mean, the answer is any President can't be guilty of
obstruction just for exercising their Article II authority.

I mean,

otherwise, we'd get into this whole separation of powers, and
there's -- I mean, we all want the President treated like everybody
else because that makes everybody sound, I mean, like it is, but there's
actually real sound separation of powers and policy reasons why that's
not the case.
So can you elaborate on that just a little bit?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 83 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Eastman.

I agree.

82

And I think the two OLC memos that I focus

on extensively in my written testimony outline why that's the case.
The President -- and I'll go back to something Mr. Raskin said.
powers given to the Congress are enumerated.
President is unenumerated.
of it.

The

The power given to the

It is the executive power, the entirety

And the Framers of the Constitution did that deliberately

because the system they had before that under the articles of
confession -- confederation was not working because we did not have
an energetic executive who could execute the law both domestically and
deal with anything that arose on the international scene.

That's not

a part of a legislative power; that is a core executive power.
Mr. Armstrong.

Well, and then that goes to why that memo exists.

I mean, without that memo in place and the President getting indicted,
can you explain, I mean, where we end up on separation of powers and
how that would affect, I mean, essentially governing structure of the
United States?
Mr. Eastman.

It would be fundamentally altered.

prosecutor in any State or in any Federal U.S.

Any individual

Attorney's Office could

effectively unravel the results of an election.

And to think that

those processes themselves won't become politicized is, I think, naive
in the extreme.

And I think that's why the OLC memos, both under the

Nixon administration and under the Clinton administration -- I want
to point out.

This is a bipartisan conclusion by different

administrations by the Office of Legal Counsel.
Mr. Armstrong.

Now, and I want to go back to now let's assume

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 84 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

the OLC memo doesn't exist.

83

Does your answer change on obstruction

of justice?
Mr. Eastman.

No.

No.

And this goes back to the earlier comment

I made about I think the fundamental flaw in the analysis in Part II
of the report is that it put the burden on the target of the
investigation to prove his innocence, rather than the normal
prosecutorial function which is to lay out a case to a grand jury -- in
this case, the grand jury would be the House -- to lay out a case of
why I have probable cause to bring an indictment that would lead me
to think I could get, you know, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The standard is not criminal, I agree with Professor Gerhardt on
that, but it also rises to the level of impeachment.

And I don't think

anything here, particularly in comparison to things we've witnessed
recently in recent administrations, I don't think anything gets close
to that standard.
Mr. Armstrong.

Well, and so there's been a lot made -- and I

practiced law in Federal court and done criminal law in my life, and
one of the things is we all understand you can have obstruction even
if the underlying crime doesn't exist.
occurs, and that is actually true.
this conversation.

There is a legal way that

But intent becomes a huge part of

It's also true that it's very rarely charged when

you find out there's not an underlying offense, and one of the reasons
is is illegitimate purpose and legitimate purpose.
And under the best or worst reading of any of these 10 obstruction
charges, can you -- I mean, can you find any one of those that doesn't

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 85 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

84

have a legitimate purpose?
Mr. Eastman.

You know, I don't find any of them that don't have

a perfectly legitimate purpose, and it's a much more plausible purpose
than any of the other stories that are being spun out to try and prove
that there was an illegitimate purpose.
Mr. Armstrong.

Thank you.

With that, I yield back.
Ms. Scanlon.

The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from

Washington for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jayapal.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Fredrickson, let me start with you.

In his written

testimony, Dr. Eastman argues that a sitting President is immune from
prosecution and that, therefore, impeachment is the only
constitutional remedy for Presidential misconduct.
Do you agree that a President is immune from prosecution?
Ms. Fredrickson.

No, I don't believe so.

I think, you know,

again, just Professor Gerhardt laid out, I think rather extensively,
the arguments with the OLC memo.

But, you know, I would say, however,

that there is something interesting about this idea of sort of the
structural arguments that make the President immune.

That is it's too

cumbersome on his or her, hopefully someday, responsibilities and that,
therefore, we just have to then find not in the text and not in the
historical information an immunity for the President.
If that were the case, we should be able to find inherent in that
text as well an automatic tolling of statute of limitations for criminal

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 86 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

prosecutions.

85

You should really need to pass -- have to pass

legislation to do that.

So I think there's -- it's certainly very

disputed that the President is immune.

I think there have been many

scholars who have contested that, and certainly those who would also
indicate that perhaps there can't be a prosecution but there could be
an indictment.

Would an indictment actually be that cumbersome for

a President?
So I think they are very important questions.

Again, I think it's

indicative of how important it is for Congress to continue to examine
the evidence underlying the Mueller report.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 87 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

86

RPTR JOHNSON
EDTR ZAMORA
Ms. Jayapal.

I mean, you've sort of answered this, but let me

ask the question anyway for anyone who might be listening that hasn't
been following.
Can a President violate Federal criminal law through his exercise
of Article II powers?
Ms. Fredrickson.
Ms. Jayapal.

Oh, absolutely.

Okay.

So, for example, could -- could a President

violate Federal bribery statutes if he or she were to offer a pardon
to a witness in exchange for refusing to cooperate with a Federal
investigator?
Ms. Fredrickson.
Ms. Jayapal.

Yes.

Okay.

And, Professor Gerhardt, do you agree with

Dr. Eastman that the only constitutional remedy for Presidential
misconduct is impeachment?
Mr. Gerhardt.
on that.

Just briefly.

Not at all.

No, he and I respectfully disagree

I tried to lay out in my written statement a variety of other

processes for handling or addressing Presidential misconduct.
Impeachment obviously is one, but there may be others, depending upon
the severity and gravity of the offense and what else this committee
determines through legitimate investigation.
Ms. Jayapal.

So let me turn to another subject, and I'll stay

with you, Professor Gerhardt.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 88 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

87

Court held that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from
damages liability based on his official acts.

Anticipating concerns

that that finding would leave Nixon -- it would leave the Nation without
sufficient -- and these are quoted words -- without sufficient
protection against misconduct by the Chief Executive, and quote, the
Court articulated several formal and informal checks on Presidential
misconduct in addition to the constitutional remedy of impeachment.
And the Court described those checks as constant press scrutiny,
vigilant oversight by Congress -Mr. Gerhardt.
Ms. Jayapal.

Yes.
-- the desire to earn reelection, and the need to

maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a
President's traditional concern for his historical stature.
So can you elaborate on this -- this concept of informal checks?
Mr. Gerhardt.

I'll try to as briefly as possible.

So there are

things that are spelled out in the Constitution that clearly are formal
mechanisms for addressing Presidential misconduct.
obviously sort of mentioned those.

The quote

Among them are the things you just

mentioned as well, impeachment, public opinion among them.
Congressional oversight's a key element of that.
But the informal checks are things that are not done by government
or -- or done in any kind of official way, but they nevertheless might
constrain a President.

So they would include some of the things that

you just mentioned.
For example, concern about maintaining influence; you know,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 89 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

popularity is important for a President to succeed in office.

88

At the

same time, Presidents are in that unique position of thinking about
what kind of influence or impact they'll have on the office itself or
the Constitution over time.

And those things might constrain them as

well.
Ms. Jayapal.

And let's talk about press for a second.

Because

President Trump has repeatedly referred to the press as the enemy of
the people, but the Court in Fitzgerald named the press as a really
important check on the Presidency.
Mr. Gerhardt.
Ms. Jayapal.

Yes.
So when you have a President who openly encourages

violence against the press, praised Representative Gianforte for
assaulting a reporter, regularly attacks judges who rule against his
policies, and refuses to release his tax returns, what effect does that
have?
Mr. Gerhardt.

A terrible effect.

course, to take into account as well.

And that's something, of
But the point you're making,

I think, is a very sound one, that the press serves a very important
function in this country of trying to put a spotlight on government
and trying to actually allow for transparency in government.

And

efforts to obstruct that -- I hope I'm using the word correctly in that
context -- I think would be matters of great concern.
Ms. Jayapal.

Thank you, Professor.

I yield back.
Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

The chair recognizes Mrs. Lesko for

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 90 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

89

5 minutes.
Mrs. Lesko.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I have a question for Professor Eastman.

And it is basically,

Professor Eastman, did the Office of Legal Counsel memo that holds a
sitting President cannot be indicted stop Mueller from ending his
report with a suggestion that President Trump should be indicted for
obstruction of justice?

Was there anything preventing him from doing

that?
Mr. Eastman.
Mrs. Lesko.

No, there was not.
And I think this has been asked before maybe, because

I was in the other room in the other committee actually being a witness.
But, you know, when I went -- have read through the Mueller report
several times now, and what popped out to me was the thing about corrupt
intent, that there was no underlying crime, no corrupt intent.

I don't

know if you have anything to add on that, how it would be difficult,
is what Mr. Mueller said, my reading, to prove corrupt intent when
there's no underlying crime.
Mr. Eastman.

Well, it's difficult.

Gerhardt that it's not impossible.

I agree with Professor

But we normally look at when there

are two explanations for inaction, one's perfectly legitimate and the
other a stretch to get to corrupt intent.

We tend to Occam's razor,

take the short path to say the legitimate one is probably the right
one.
Mrs. Lesko.

Well, good.

And, Mr. Eastman, since I wasn't here

the whole time, is there anything that hasn't been said that you would

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 91 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

90

like to add for our record?
Mr. Eastman.

I think the bottom line conclusion of both OLC

memos that I think is absolutely correct is precisely why they came
to the conclusion that a sitting President, while he remains President,
cannot be indicted, that the constitutional remedy is impeachment,
because it puts the issue into a body that is itself politically
accountable.

And I think that is the most important piece to take away

this.
If the members of this committee and of this House truly believe
that the things that Mr. Mueller has identified rise to the level of
high crimes and misdemeanors, you would be being derelict in your duty
not to bring impeachment charges.

So bring it on.

I don't think there's anything in here -- and I don't think the
American people will agree that there's anything here that rises to
that level.
The political accountability on that works both ways.

If you

don't bring actions against a President who has committed high crimes
and misdemeanors, you will be held to political account.

If you do

pursue investigations on things that do not remotely rise to that level,
you will also be held to political account.

That's the beauty of our

system, and I think that's why the OLC memos reach the conclusion that
they do.
Mrs. Lesko.

Thank you, Mr. Eastman and the other witnesses.

And I yield back my time.
Ms. Scanlon.

Thank you.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 92 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

91

I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Professor Gerhardt, you know, the purpose of these hearings are
not just to educate Members of Congress but also the general public
on topics they may not have had the opportunity to look at.

So I wanted

to take a couple minutes to tap your expertise as a constitutional
scholar and talk about what the authors of the Constitution considered
to be impeachable offenses.
We had a little bit of quotation of Alexander Hamilton in the
Federalist papers earlier, but I wanted to focus on his declaration
that impeachable offenses are, and I quote, those offenses which
proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, the abuse
or violation of the public trust.
Could you comment on what the Founders of our country meant to
be impeachable offenses and any examples they discuss that might be
relevant to our inquiry today?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Well, I'll try, certainly.

Alexander Hamilton

obviously gets it right; that is to say his formulation or his
understanding of the scope of impeachable offenses is very consistent
with what we learn from the Constitutional Convention and what we can
infer from the structure of our Constitution.
So the core elements or core, I guess, paradigms of impeachable
offenses become things like abuse of power, things like a breach of
public trust, things that seriously injure the republic.
So those won't be limited just to technical crimes.

They'll be

limited to the kinds of unique things that a President is able to do.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 93 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

He has the pardon power.

92

But in the Constitutional Convention, it's

mentioned that if the pardon power is used to shield somebody with whom
the President is in criminal conspiracy with -- I'm
paraphrasing -- that's an impeachable offense.

And I think almost

everybody would agree that that would be an abuse of power.
And so the terms that Mr. Hamilton used and the terms that others
such as Justice James Wilson used in describing the scope of impeachable
offense set up categories, if you will, set up the kinds of things that
would have to be proved in order to constitute an impeachable offense.
Ms. Scanlon.

Thank you.

Turning to the history of impeachment proceedings in this
country, and you may have touched on this a little bit already.

Given

what you know of the facts laid out in the Mueller report, would it
be appropriate for us to draw any parallels between the current moment
and previous impeachment inquiries?
Mr. Gerhardt.
justice.

Absolutely.

The most obvious is obstruction of

There was an obstruction of justice article approved by the

House Judiciary Committee against President Nixon.
I will hope that that's not serious.
Ms. Scanlon.
Mr. Gerhardt.

Happens all the time.
Okay.

There was an impeachment article approved

by the House against President Clinton.
It's well settled that obstruction of justice may provide a basis
for Presidential impeachment.

It's Presidential misconduct of the

worst kind, invading, undermining the other branches as they try to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 94 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

93

exercise their legitimate powers to try and make -- try and determine
the President's accountability.
Ms. Scanlon.

And we've heard a little bit of discussion about

whether or not this particular President intended to obstruct justice.
You have reviewed the Mueller report, right?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Ms. Scanlon.

I've read it, yes.
And you know that the President refused to answer

any questions regarding the allegations of obstruction of justice,
right?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Ms. Scanlon.

Right.
So we wouldn't have those words from his mouth

unless he tweeted them.
Mr. Gerhardt.

That's correct.

And it's important to remember,

the Mueller report doesn't just not bind this committee or the House,
it doesn't displace this committee or the House.

So the committee

certainly has the authority to inquire into these things.
Ms. Scanlon.

So I come to this proceeding with really profound

concerns that misconduct by this President isn't limited to some
ill-advised tweets but that his defiance of congressional subpoenas
and the Constitution and the rule of law places our country in jeopardy.
Call me old-fashioned, but I strongly have the opinion that the highest
duty of the President is to serve the public and not to serve himself
or to see how much he can get away with.
Can you speak to, you know, what our oversight or impeachment or
other powers have to do with, you know, reigning in an administration

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 95 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

94

that might be defying the rule of law?
Mr. Gerhardt.

They have everything to do with trying to make sure

that a President is accountable under law and pursuant to the
Constitution.

And so I think that there -- I won't go into a long line

of hypotheticals, but the important thing to understand is that it's
perfectly reasonable for the committee to be able to inquire into the
gravity of things, to look at evidence.

And if that evidence takes

them to -- if that evidence supports approval of Articles of
Impeachment, that's your job to consider.
There may be a variety of different processes, and we talked about
them, that may be appropriate for holding a President accountable for
misconduct, and we shouldn't lose sight of all of those different
things.

I think all those different things empower the committee to

do what it's doing.
Ms. Scanlon.

Thank you.

With that, I would recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Garcia.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you to the

witnesses for being here this morning.
And let me just say that, for me, it's refreshing to hear some
good dialogue about the important role of Congress and the role that
we have in this process, not only in oversight, as has been laid out
by Professor Gerhardt, but in continuing to look at this, and Ms.
Fredrickson, for you to also outline that these things do take time.
I know that the ranking member made a show of talking about the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 96 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

95

show that he thinks this is and bringing out the popcorn, and if we're
going to do an impeachment, we ought to just say it, and this is an
impeachment want-to-be -- inquiry want-to-be.

But we've done the

opposite and met the first day -- or the second time we met and
immediately gone and said it's time for impeachment, here's what we're
going to do.

Everybody would have said we rushed to judgment one day.

So it's about striking a balance and making sure that we're thorough
and that we look at everything.
And one thing that has really concerned me as a lawyer and as a
former judge -- and, Professor Gerhardt, I'll ask you the question,
is this whole notion of the absolute immunity.

And it struck me that

you said that no court has ever opined on that.
Mr. Gerhardt.
Ms. Garcia.

Right.

Is that because no President has ever exerted this

complete absolute immunity?
Mr. Gerhardt.
Ms. Garcia.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Gerhardt.
Ms. Garcia.

Immunity to criminal process?

Not yet.

Or even from testifying.

If you recall, I was -- I,

for one, was totally frustrated when Hope Hicks a couple of weeks ago
came to -- to testify, and she walks in with, I forget, four or five
lawyers, they objected to just about every question we asked.
they objected like about 155 times.

I think

And it was anything having to do

from the beginning of her -- the minute she walks in the White House,
that she has absolute immunity and she can't testify about it.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 97 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Gerhardt.
Ms. Garcia.

96

No -And it just seemed to me to be one of the most

ridiculous assertions of any kind of privilege.
Mr. Gerhardt.

That would be an abuse of privilege, in my opinion.

So privilege, executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, neither
of these protects anyone, including the President or anybody that works
for the President, to engage in criminal activity.
You wouldn't have the privilege to maintain the confidentiality
of that.

In fact, the privilege is maybe not just waived but doesn't

apply to conversations that -- or actions that may relate to criminal
activity.
Ms. Garcia.

But in her case, it was more than just

criminal -- potential criminal activity.
Have you read the transcript?

I mean, it was even talking about

her job.
Mr. Gerhardt.
Ms. Garcia.

Right.

I mean, do you think that she's at a level of position

that is so sensitive that she couldn't just say what she did at the
White House?
Mr. Gerhardt.
President.

And nobody is in that position, not even the

Executive privilege may well apply to certain

conversations that happened, but they're fairly narrowly defined.

It

certainly does not apply to everything the President does or the
executive branch does.

If it did, then that -- then in the executive

branch, the President would be immune from any kind of check and balance

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 98 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

97

that can be imposed by either of the other branches.
Ms. Garcia.

And it certainly -- you know, we've also seen many

other Trump administration officials either be ordered not to come or
they come and they don't really respond to many of our questions.

You

know, what does that do to this check and balance that you're referring
to?

I mean -Mr. Gerhardt.
Ms. Garcia.

It impedes the authority.
Can you explain so that the average American

understands just why really it's important for us to have Mr. Mueller
come here next week, for Hope Hicks to come, for Jared Kushner, and
all of the subpoenas?

I mean, this isn't about harassment; this is

about getting to the truth.

Because if we don't do that, what might

happen?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Yes.

I think it is immensely important.

constitutional law professor, my client's the Constitution.
about the Constitution.

As a
I care

I care about it being appropriately read and

appropriately applied and understood.

And among the things that we

would -- should understand about the Constitution is the fact that
impeachment is something that happens at the end of a process.

It's

not required at the beginning of a process.
You need to be able to have a process, of which this committee
clearly, legitimately has the authority to conduct, to determine what
happened, the gravity of what happened, and whether or not Articles
of Impeachment are appropriate or some other mechanism is appropriate
for addressing them.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 99 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Garcia.

98

And as you said, impeachment inquiry is not in the

Constitution, the words?
Mr. Gerhardt.

No.

But impeachment, of course, is.

But Article

I, Section 5, vests this committee with the -- vests this Congress the
authority to -- to adopt rules for its internal governance.
That's -- it's the rules that govern the process that each committee
conducts.
Ms. Garcia.

All right.

One final question.

If you were here

next week with us, what question would you ask Mr. Mueller?
Ms. Scanlon.
Mr. Gerhardt.
Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Garcia.
Mr. Gerhardt.

I'm sorry, it's time.
Thank you.
You may finish -- did you have a quick answer?
Do you have a quick answer?

She's --

Oh, well, I can think of a lot of questions.

I

do think it's important to clarify and make sure you probably understand
the moments in his report when he defers to Congress and is passing
the ball to Congress.
Ms. Garcia.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

Thank you.
I yield back.

I recognize the gentlewoman from Florida

for 5 minutes.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to ask -- start by asking Mr. Gerhardt a question.
According to the Mueller report, and among other things, President
Trump requested then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 100 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

99

recusal from the special counsel investigation with an eye toward
curtailing its scope.

Once President Trump learned that he was under

investigation for potential obstruction of justice, President Trump
then ordered White House Counsel Don McGahn to have Special Counsel
Mueller removed altogether.
So President Trump finds out of Jeff Sessions' recusal, he's
extremely upset about this, then he asks Don McGahn to remove the
special counsel.

Would this be considered, in your opinion,

impeachable conduct?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Well, it certainly raises serious concerns.

And

I would -- I would suggest that those actions do raise legitimate
suspicions about, not just the motivation, but about the effort to
obstruct the investigations into obstructing inquiries that
Mr. Mueller was authorized to conduct.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

And can you elaborate on your opinion on

whether obstruction has also occurred after this President took office
as we in this committee have requested for several fact witnesses to
appear before us but they have been ordered by the President to not
appear before us?
Mr. Gerhardt.
attempting.

How would you constitute that?
Well, that's an exercise of power that he's

The question is whether or not that's an abuse of power.

To be able to direct people, not just who are currently in government,
but who used to be in government, from speaking at all to the committee
strikes me as a matter of great concern.

That could be an abuse of

power, because it stymies the committee's ability to gather evidence

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 101 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

100

and to make determinations based on that evidence.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

And do you have a view on the Miers holding

that there's no absolute immunity for a Presidential aide?

What is

your view on that?
Mr. Gerhardt.

Now, immunity from what?

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Mr. Gerhardt.

I just want to clarify.

From testifying.

Oh, from testifying.

I think that -- this is one

of those areas where it has to be kind of carefully circumscribed.

So

a President obviously has some ability to protect certain things, such
as legitimate material protected by executive privilege.

But he -- it

doesn't extend to preventing people from doing their constitutional
duty, I would say, to be able to comply with a subpoena and come before
the committee and talk about things that might have crossed the line
and might have been illegal or unconstitutional.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Okay.

A couple of more questions.

Thank you.
If the executive branch has taken

this position that a sitting President can't be indicted as a matter
of constitutional law, then Congress probably can't change it through
a statute.
Mr. Gerhardt.

Right.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

But we can at least ensure that the statute

of limitations for any offense doesn't run out before the President
leaves office.
So this is for Ms. Fredrickson.

If the President is immune from

prosecution while in office, do you agree that it would make sense for

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 102 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

101

us to pass a law tolling the statute of limitations for any offenses,
to ensure that there will ultimately be a mode of accountability?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, it certainly seems like something

Congress should examine.

And I think Professor Eastman actually had

said that he supports that legislation, so maybe it's a place where
you can get strong bipartisan support.
But I would hate to think that our Constitution insulates the
President from -- from any kind of accountability while he's President.
And so I think it's very important for Congress to consider how to ensure
that the President is not above the law.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Thank you.

And, Mr. Gerhardt, are there any other types of legislation that
Congress could enact that would help ensure some measure of
accountability in situations where the Justice Department is refusing
to bring charges against a sitting President?
Mr. Gerhardt.

I said quite possibly.

For example, I understand

there may be legislation under consideration about protecting special
prosecutors, special counsels from being easily terminated.

That

would be one obvious thing to try to do to try and protect the person
whose job it is to consider whether or not there's any misconduct
undertaken by the President or anybody at his direction that -- that
is criminal or possibly impeachable.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Thank you.

I yield back my time.
Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

I just want to remind our committee members

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 103 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

102

that House rules and precedents require us to refrain from making
inappropriate personal references to protected parties, including the
President, and this includes accusations of dishonesty, criminality,
treason, or other unethical or improper motive.
And with that, I would recognize Mr. Jordan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Fredrickson, what's the name of the organization that
you -- you head up?
Ms. Fredrickson.
Mr. Jordan.

The American Constitution Society.

American Constitution Society.

Before the Mueller report was made public, and actually 2 days
before Attorney General Barr did his first letter to tell us anything
about the report, which was March 24 of this year, 2 days prior to that,
on March 22, 2019, you said this.

You said, the question isn't whether

members of the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to sway the 2016
elections.

We already know they did.

How did you know that before the report even came out?
Ms. Fredrickson.

We had seen multiple indictments as well as

prosecutions and convictions of people associated with Russia.
Mr. Jordan.

But shouldn't normally someone who's heading up the

Constitution Society, don't you normally wait until an investigation
is over?

Isn't -- in this great Nation, people are presumed to be

innocent until -- till proven otherwise, and you are already making
a finding, stating a finding as the head of the American Constitution
Society before we even had the report by the special counsel's office.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 104 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Fredrickson.
the record.

103

There was quite a lot of evidence already in

And I think the Mueller report then goes further to lay

out multiple instances of contacts between Trump administration -Mr. Jordan.
Mueller report.

What's interesting -- you just mentioned the
What's interesting is that same day that you said the

question isn't whether members of the Trump campaign conspired with
Russia to sway the elections, we already know they did -- even though
we didn't know that because the report wasn't done -- that same day
you wrote an op-ed -- you just mentioned the Mueller report, but you
wrote an op-ed that same day, March 22, 2019, where you said we don't
need to read the Mueller report.

And now you're telling us we do.

So before the report came out, before Bill Barr said anything,
you said we already know he's guilty and, oh, by the way, don't read
the report.
Ms. Fredrickson.
Mr. Jordan.

Sir, I --

Now you're telling us we should read the report?

Ms. Fredrickson.

The point was a rhetorical one, that there is

already so much evidence out there that Congress needs to examine.
Mr. Jordan.
there.

That's not what -- I've got the headline right

We don't need to read the Mueller report.

You wrote that,

right?
Ms. Fredrickson.

I didn't write the title actually.

If you read

the body of the opinion piece, you will see that it says Congress needs
to get this report.
Mr. Jordan.

So --

Here's what you wrote -- just -- second paragraph.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 105 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

104

Mr. Mueller's report may never go public, but we don't need to peek
at the recommendations anyway.
So did you write that?
Ms. Fredrickson.
Mr. Jordan.

I did.

Okay.

So you did.

But now you're telling us we

should read the report?
Ms. Fredrickson.
Mr. Jordan.

There is much more in there.

Let's read the report --

Ms. Fredrickson.
more.

I do, yes.

We knew a fair amount already, but now we know

And I think Congress needs to actually see the full report and

the evidence underlying it.
Mr. Jordan.

Let's read the report.

Ms. Fredrickson.
elections.

And -Let's read the report.

-- understand how Russia interfered in our

Which, again, I will state, I think it's troubling that

your side of the aisle doesn't seem to want to examine -Mr. Jordan.

I think it's troubling that the head of the American

Constitution Society said we already know that he did something before
the report was final.

Now you're telling us to read the report.

I'm going to read it on page 2.

Page 2, the investigation did

not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or
coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference
activity.
So now that you -- first, you said don't read the report.
you're saying read the report.

Now

I'm reading the report, and it directly

contradicts what you said as the head of the American Constitution

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 106 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

105

Society.
And, of course, the Democrats think it's fine and appropriate to
have the head of the American Constitution Society come in here and
lecture us today and tell us today how we need to move towards
impeachment.

I mean, I just -- I fail to get it.

I fail to get it.

So what do you say about that sentence right there on page 2, that
now that you've changed your mind and say we should read the report,
where Bob Mueller says -- the special counsel's office says the
investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign
conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election
interference activities?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, I think it's unfortunate that you

actually haven't read the opinion piece, which does say that Congress
needs to see the full Mueller report.

That is what the opinion piece

says.
Mr. Jordan.

We're talking about what you wrote, what you said,

and what Bob Mueller said.
Ms. Fredrickson.

You said that --

Exactly what the opinion piece says, that

Congress needs to get the full Mueller report.
Mr. Jordan.

I think -- Mr. Chairman, here's what's interesting.

Here's what's interesting.

We have a witness today, who before the

Mueller report was out, said we already know the President's guilty.
Before Bill Barr issued his first statement on the report, says we
already know he's guilty.

That same day that she said those things,

she writes an op-ed piece saying don't read the Mueller report, because

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 107 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

106

if you do, you'll find out what she claimed is absolutely not true.
Ms. Fredrickson.
Mr. Jordan.

I would actually --

And she's an expert witness today.

Ms. Fredrickson.

-- once again, would recommend that you

actually read the piece so that you can see what it says.
Mr. Jordan.

I read your piece.

Ms. Fredrickson.

I read the whole --

Apparently not, because it does say that

Congress -Mr. Jordan.

I did just a few minutes ago.

Because I remember

the exchange we had a few months ago right after -- right after Bill
Barr had sent his March 24 letter we had a little discussion about this
same type -- I can't believe the Democrats invited you back.
I yield back.
Ms. Fredrickson.

As I said, it's really unfortunate you don't

actually bother to read beyond the title.
Mr. Jordan.
seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I've got 20 seconds -- I've got 4

I did read -- and you know what?

I read the Mueller report.
Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

I did not follow her advice.

She's telling people not to.
And I know that the Mueller report then goes

on to say that his conclusions would change if he were given access
to additional evidence.
I now recognize Mr. Swalwell for 5 minutes.
Mr. Swalwell.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Professor Fredrickson, is there a difference between criminal
conspiracy, something that could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 108 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

107

and conspiracy?
Ms. Fredrickson.

Well, there's certainly a distinction in how

the public talks about it and our understanding.

And one of the things

I had, you know, was hoping to engage in with your colleague here from
the other side of the aisle, is an understanding that all of our
intelligence agencies have indicated that the Russians had made
sweeping attacks on our election systems.

There were multiple

contacts with Trump campaign officials that there were indictments,
there were prosecutions.

There's an enormous need for Congress to

actually probe more deeply into how this happened and how to prevent
it from happening again.
Mr. Swalwell.

And when you read the 200 pages of Volume I that

lay out the multiplicity of contacts between the Trump campaign and
the Russians, do you see a failure of imagination by prior Congresses
to write laws that would protect us from this type of conduct and to
have a criminal remedy?

Do you see gaps that occurred, like being

approached and not telling the FBI that foreign adversaries are trying
to -Ms. Fredrickson.
such legislation.

I know that Members of Congress are proposing

I think it's important to, again, I think as part

of your authorities, to examine what happened, to see if in fact the
laws were too weak and that allowed hostile foreign powers to have undue
influence on campaign officials and to understand how influence might
have been reached.
And so, yes, I think it's a very important part of your duties

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 109 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

108

to protect the integrity of our elections.
Mr. Swalwell.

Thank you, Professor.

And, Professor Gerhardt, recognizing that the Mueller report says
criminally the laws that we have now, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt
that there was conspiracy in Volume I.

However, functionally, as a

Congress and constitutionally, because of the conduct that's laid out,
is there recourse through impeachment -- just in what you have seen
in how the Founders have described impeachment and how prior Congresses
have engaged on impeachment, do you see a recourse for impeachment based
on the 200 pages of just Volume I conduct?
Mr. Gerhardt.

I think it's reasonable -- quite reasonable to

consider the propriety of it.

I think that it is reasonable to inquire,

to investigate, to determine evidence and, again, to be able to hear
witnesses and put together a record that is helpful to Congress to
understand the gravity of whatever's happened, and as well as just
whatever did happen.
One other thing I would just sort of emphasize in this context
is something we've repeated a few times today, but it's really important
to remember, and that is impeachable offenses don't have to be actual
crimes.

And so this committee, this House, or another committee or

another House another time, may decide that there is something that's
really serious, and they may want to call it conspiracy or they might
want to call it something else, and they're entitled to do that.

And

they can take -- they have the authority to conduct proceedings to
figure out what's happened.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-15 Filed 08/07/19 Page 110 of 110

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Swalwell.

109

And in your reading of the report, would you agree,

Professor Gerhardt, that the Mueller team did not look at financial
compromise of the President or anyone on his team?
Mr. Gerhardt.

That's correct.

And, again --

Mr. Swalwell.

And I'll just let you -- let me add on to that.

And would you agree that an impeachment inquiry would not prohibit the
inquiring body from looking at financial compromise?
Mr. Gerhardt.

That's correct.

Mr. Swalwell.

Great.

Thank you.

And I would yield back.
Ms. Scanlon.
Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This will conclude today's hearing.

the witnesses for attending.

I want to thank all

We really appreciate your insights.

And without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional
materials for the record.
Without objection, the hearing's adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit P

 JERROLD NADLER, New York

Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 13

CHAIRMAN

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

m.~. J}ouse of l\epresentatibes
<!Committee on tbe Jfubiciarp
m!ta~bington, !B<lt 20515-6216
@nc f!)unbreb ~txtccntb <ltongress
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Re:

Members of the Committee on the Judiciary
Chairman Jerrold Nadler
July 11, 2019
Lessons from the Mueller Report, Part III: "Constitutional Processes for Addressing
Presidential Misconduct"

The Committee on the Judiciary on Friday, July 12, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. in room 2141 of the
Rayburn House Office Building will hold a hearing on "Lessons from the Mueller Report, Part III:
'Constitutional Processes for Addressing Presidential Misconduct.'" The Majority witnesses are
Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society; and Michael Gerhardt, Samuel Ashe
Distinguished Professor in Constitutional Law, University of North Carolina School of Law. The
Minority witness is Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service
Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dale E. Fowler School of Law.

I.

Congress' Article I Authorities

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the range of constitutional remedies for addressing
presidential misconduct available to Congress under its Article I powers.
By way of background, the redacted version of the "Report On The Investigation Into Russian
Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election" ("Mueller Report" or "the Report") finds that the
Russian government attacked the 2016 U.S. presidential election in "sweeping and systematic fashion."
The Mueller Report, released on April 18, 2019, also describes multiple instances of possible
obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump that were investigated by Special Counsel Robert S.
Mueller, III. As the Special Counsel states in the Mueller Report:
[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and
the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The
evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that
prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it
also does not exonerate him. 1
The Committee on the Judiciary has a constitutional duty to investigate credible allegations of
misconduct by executive branch officials, includ1ng the President of the United States. The Mueller
1

Mueller Report, Vol. II at 2.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 13

Report explicitly acknowledged Congress's role in investigating and potentially rectifying presidential
misconduct. In explaining why the Report did not reach a "traditional prosecution or declination
decision" regarding the President's conduct outlined in Volume II, the Special Counsel "recognized that
a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity
to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct."2
That passage is the source for tomorrow's hearing title and reflects the Special Counsel's recognition
that under our Nation's tripartite system of government each branch acts as a check on the power of the
others. As the Mueller Report's frequent references to Congress make clear, Congress has a role in
investigating the potential presidential misconduct he uncovered so that it may determine how best to
exercise its Article I powers to act as a check on the abuse or misuse of Executive Branch power.
Acc.ordingly, the Committee has sought to obtain the full version of the Mueller Report, in
addition to key underlying evidentiary and investigative materials. 3 The Committee has also sought to .
obtain documents and testimony from former White House Counsel Donald McGahn4 and others as part
of its "investigation into the alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power
by President Donald Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration and related concerns." 5
The Committee has previously specified that the purpose of this investigation is to independently
ascertain the relevant facts in order to determine the appropriate steps to take pursuant to its Article I
powers:
The purposes of this investigation include: (1) investigating and exposing any possible
malfeasance, abuse of power, corruption, obstruction of justice, or other misconduct on
the part of the President or other members of his Administration; (2) considering whether
the conduct uncovered may warrant amending or creating new federal authorities,
including among other things, relating to election security, campaign finance, misuse of
electronic data, and the types of obstructive conduct that the Mueller Report describes;
and (3) considering whether any of the conduct described in the Special Counsel's Report
warrants the Committee in taking any further steps under Congress' Article I powers.
That includes whether to approve articles of impeachment with respect to the President ot
any other Administration official, as well as the consideration of other steps such as

2

Mueller Report, Vol. II at 1 (citing U.S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6) (emphasis added).
On April 19, 2019, the Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General Barr seeking an unredacted copy of the Mueller
Report and underlying materials. The Attorney General failed to comply with subpoena. The Committee voted to hold him
in contempt on May 8, 2019. The specific factual circumstances surrounding the Barr subpoena are described in House
Report 116-105, which was filed by the Judiciary Committee on June 6, 2019. On June 10, 2019, the Department of Justice
agreed to begin complying with this subpoena by setting up a process by which all Members of the Committee are permitted
to review key underlying documents referenced in the Mueller Report and to review a less-redacted version of Volume II of
the Mueller Report, excluding grand jury information. The Department's production of underlying documents remains
ongoing, and enforcement of the subpoena therefore remains pending. The Committee's effort to obtain these materials is
consistent with the views expressed by the House in H. Con. Res. 24, which passed the House unanimously and called for
"the full release to Congress of any report, including findings, Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General."
4
The Mueller Report revealed that Mr. McGahn was a witness to multiple instances of potential obstruction of justice. As
such, on April 22, 2019, Chairman Nadler issued a subpoena for testimony and documents from Mr. McGahn. The subpoena
requested that Mr. McGahn produce documents shared with him or his counsel by the White House during the Special
Counsel's investigation by May 7, 2019 and appear to testify before the Committee on May 21, 2019. On May 21, 2019 the
Judiciary Committee held its scheduled hearing and Mr. McGahn did not appear. More specific details surrounding the
McGahn subpoena are set forth in the relevant section of House Report 116-108.
5
H. Rep. No. I 16-105, at 13 (2019).
3

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 13

censure or issuing criminal, civil or administrative referrals. No determination has been
made as to such further actions, and the Committee needs to review the unredacted
report, the underlying evidence, and associated documents so that it can ascertain the
facts and consider its next steps. 6
H. Res. 430, authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial
proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas and for other purposes, as passed by the House on June 11,
2019 affirmed "[t]hat in connection with any judicial proceeding brought under the first or second
resolving clauses, the chair of any standing or permanent select committee exercising authority
thereunder has any and all necessary authority under Article I of the Constitution." 7
As described above, this Committee is currently investigating allegations of presidential
misconduct described in the Mueller Report and other potential abuses of power. With regard to the
Committee's responsibility to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the
President, articles of impeachment have already been introduced in this Congress and referred to the
Judiciary Committee. 8 They are under consideration as part of the Committee's investigation, although
no final determination has been made. In addition, the Committee has the authority to recommend its
own articles of impeachment for consideration by the full House of Representatives. The Committee
seeks key documentary evidence and intends to conduct hearings with Mr. McGahn and other critical
witnesses testifying to determine whether the Committee should recommend articles of impeachment
against the President or any other Article I remedies, and if so, in what form. With respect to the grand
jury information included in the Mueller Report, because the Committee has not been provided access to
any grand jury matel'ials, H. Res. 430 also authorized the Committee to petition the federal court to
provide it with access to that information. 9 As such, the hearing discussion may cover the question of
how to best safeguard any grand jury materials the Committee receives.
While censure of the President is rare, Congress has previously passed measures expressing
disagreement with specific presidential conduct. 10 Examples include an 1834 Senate resolution
repudiating President Andrew Jackson for removing his Treasury Secretary because of his refusal to
withdraw government deposits from the Bank of the United States, and an 1842 House committee report
criticizing President John Tyler's use of the veto, accusing him of a "gross abuse of constitutional
power." 11 There is also precedent for a more formal version of censure, in which a house of Congress
adopts a resolution not only stating its disagreement with presidential conduct, but also announcing that
it finds the conduct worthy of an explicit and official reprimand. 12 In 1860, for example, the House

Id.
As explained in House Report 116-108 accompanying H. Res. 430, "this clause confirms that each committee has the full
authority of the House of Representatives to enforce its subpoenas' and that "Committees may, in connection with exercising
the ir authority under this resolved clause, choose to specify the precise constitutional powers upon which they are relying, as
well as the legitimate legislative purposes and details of their work witlfrn the fu ll bounds of their authority under Article I,
whether at or in connection with hearings, in Committee reports, memoranda, or through other means."
8
H. Res. 13, 116th Cong. (2019).
9
H. Res. 430, 116th Cong. (2019).
10
Todd Garvey, The Constitutionality of Censuring the President, CRS Legal Side Bar LSB 10096, at 2 (Mar. 12, 2018)
(referred to as CRS Legal Side Bar LSB 10096).
II Id.
12 Id.
6
7

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 13

adopted a resolution stating that President James Buchanan deserved the "reproof of this House" for
awarding federal contracts to party loyalists. 13
With regard to a possible criminal, civil, or administrative referral, the Department of Justice has
discretion as to whether to act upon a referral by Congress for prosecution or civil enforcement.
Moreover, with regard to presidential misconduct, the Department's policy prohibiting the prosecution .
of a sitting president is an obstacle to DOJ holding him or her accountable for misconduct while in
office. 14 State authorities may be more willing to consider enforcing state laws against a president to the
extent they deem appropriate under applicable law. Nonetheless, the President is not immune from
criminal prosecution after leaving office, and the Supreme Court has already held that a sitting President
may be sued in his or her personal capacity for conduct that occurred before taking office. 15 Thus, th~
congressional referral process serves the important purpose of creating a record and preserving and
referring evidence for such time as prosecution, civil enforcement, or other administrative- response is
feasible.
In addition to these Article I authorities, the hearing is also expected to consider a range of
legislative responses to allegations of presidential misconduct, including the operation of the special
counsel regulations, and the Administration's efforts to use expansive theories of absolute immunity,
executive privilege, and other legal theories to block and limit congressional investigations. These
matters raise important constitutional questions.

II.

Possible Legislative Remedies Related to Presidential Misconduct

The following is a non-exclusive list of possible legislative responses that fall within the
Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction.
·

A.

Transparency With Regard to White House/DOJ Communications Concerning Law
Enforcement Investigations

As described in Volume II of the Mueller Report, President Trump repeatedly attempted to
curtail or impede the Special Counsel's investigation. According to the Report, among other things,
President Trump requested then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal from the Special
Counsel investigation with an eye toward curtailing its scope. 16 Once President Trump learned that he
was under investigation for potential obstruction of justice President Trump ordered White House
Counsel Don McGahn to have Special Counsel Mueller removed altogether. 17
Id.
See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictmerit and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000) ("2000 OLC
Memo").
·
15
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997).
16
Mueller Report, Vol II at 5.
17
Id. Vol. II at 4. In an exchange with Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) at a May 1, 2019 hearing, Attorney General Barr
struggled to answer whether "the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested" that he "open an
investigation of anyone," stating "I'm, I'm trying to grapple with the word 'suggest.' I mean, there have been discussions of,
of matters out there that, uh-they have not asked me to open an investigation, but ... " The Department ofJustice's
Investigation of Russian Interference wUh the 2016 Presidential Election: hearing before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary,
116 th Cong. (2019). Additionally, at a February 8, 2019 hearing before this Committee, Acting Attorney General Matthew
Whitaker would not explicitly deny that he had any contacts with the President or the White House regarding ongoing
Trump-related investigations in the Southern District of New York .in response to direct questions posed by numerous
13

14

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 13

A number of legislative proposals would address this type of interference in law enforcement
investigations. H.R. 3380, the "Security from Political Interference in Justice Act," introduced by Rep.
Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), would serve to deter further White House interference in law enforcement
investigations through the imposition of transparency and recordkeeping requirements on the White
House and the Justice Department related to certain communications between the two. The legislation
would require the White House and the Department of Justice to log certain covered communications
between their personnel relating to criminal and civil investigations, and to periodically share those logs
with Congress, along with the Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional
Responsibility. Additionally, the head of each of these investigative offices would be required to notify
Congress if after reviewing the logs they determine that a covered communication is inappropriate from
a law enforcement perspective or raises concerns about improper political interference.

B.

Special Counsel Reform Legislation; Tolling of Statutes of Limitation

Various bills have been introduced that would impose additional safeguards designed to protect
the integrity and independence of future special counsel investigations. Although, existing regulations
governing the appointment and removal of a special counsel already provide some limitations on his or
her removal, the Attorney General may ultimately rescind or modify these protections against
unwarranted removal. H.R. 197, the "Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act," introduced by
Chairman Nadler (D-NY), would codify those protections by statute and would permit a special counsel
who believes his or her removal was unlawful to contest that removal in court. Senator Lindsey Graham
(R-SC), Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, has proposed similar legislation that would
also codify other aspects of existing special counsel regulations. 18 Another related bill, H.R. 47, the
"TRUMP Special Counsel Act," introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), would also impose
additional safeguards.
Attorney General Barr's oversight of the Special Counsel's investigation and his handling of the
Mueller Report's release have also raised several additional policy concerns. Under current Department
of Justice regulations, the Attorney General is not required to release the report of a special counsel to
Congress or the public. While Attorney General Barr eventually publicly released a redacted version of
the Report, he published a letter purportedly summarizing the Report's chief conclusions prior to its
release. Additionally, immediately before he released the Report to the public and Congress, Attorney
General Barr held a press conference at which he publicly characterized the Special Counsel's findings.
Furthermore, Attorney General Barr initially only provided a redacted version of the Report to Congress.
While the Committee ·eventually negotiated greater Member access to a less redacted version of Volume
II of the Report, those efforts entailed months of negotiations and the threat of a criminal contempt
referral. To date, no Member of Congress has seen the full unredacted Report.
To address these transparency concerns, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) introduced H.R. 1356, the
"Special Counsel Transparency Act," which requires a Special Counsel's report to be given directly to
the Chair and Ranking Member of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, while being made
Members of the Committee. See, e.g., Aaron Blake, Matthew Whitaker's testimony about Trump trying to influence the
Cohen inquiry was cagey. Now we might know why, WASH. POST, Feb. 20, 2019; Mark Mazzetti et al., Intimidation, Pressure
and Humiliation: Inside Trump's Two-Year War on the Investigations Encircling Him, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 19, 2019.
18 S. 71, the "Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act," I 16 th Cong. (2019).

5

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 13

available to the public in a manner consistent with the Freedom oflnformation Act. H.R. 1357, the
"Special Counsel Reporting Act," also introduced by Rep. Doggett, would additionally require the
Special Counsel to update certain Members of Congress during the course of an investigation, among
other congressional reporting requirements.
In addition, Attorney General Barr's decision declining to charge the President has raised
important public policy issues. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has
concluded that a sitting President cannot be indicted or prosecuted. 19 In his May 24, 2019 letter
summarizing the principal conclusions of the Special Counsel's report, Attorney General Barr wrote
"that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that
the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense," and that this "determination was made
without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and
criminal prosecution of a sitting president." The decision by Attorney General Barr, a political
appointee of the President, to nonetheless make an express declination determination favoring the
President raises significant policy issues. Moreover, the Special Counsel raised those very
"constitutional considerations" in the Report to explain why he had declined to make a traditional
prosecutorial judgment. There, he noted that Department policy forbids the prosecution of a sitting
president and that "[f]airness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no
charges can be brought. " 20
The circumstances created by this policy also raise significant questions regarding Congress's
ability under Article I to enact legislation to create accountability for presidential misconduct, as a
president may be technically criminally liable for conduct in office yet remain effectively above the law.
While potential legislation directly negating the policy raises potential constitutional concerns, there is
little debate that the President may be prosecuted after leaving office. As such Chairman Nadler has
introduced H.R. 2678, the "No President is Above the Law Act," which would toll the statute of
limitations on any offense committed by a president, whether before or during his or her term of office,
to ensure that he or she is ultimately held accountable for any criminal wrongdoing.

C.

Pardon Legislation

As part of the investigation into potential obstruction of justice, the Special Counsel also
examined the President's conduct toward witnesses such as Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen. Volume
II of the Mueller Report noted that the "President's acts directed at witnesses" included "discouragement
of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible pardons," many of which took place in
plain view. 21 Additionally, in June 2018, in the midst of the Special Counsel investigation, President
Trump implied that he may pardon himself in relation to the investigation, tweeting "As has been stated
by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when
I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and
Conflicted Democrats (& others) .... " 22
19

2000 OLC Memo; see also Memorandum from Robert G. Dixon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel,
Re: Amenability of the President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office
(Sept. 24, 1973).
20
Mueller Report, Vol. I at 2.
21
Mueller Report, Vol. II at 5-6.
22
Caroline Kenny, Trump : '/ have the absolute right to pardon myself, CNN (Jun. 4, 2018) available at
1Jttp ://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/p li tics/donal 1-Lrump-pardon-t wee inde . .html.
6

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 13

Several Members of Congress have introduced legislation either proposing an amendment to the
Constitution to limit the scope of executive clemency or to increase transparency regarding presidential
pardons. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) has introduced a proposed amendment to the Constitution that
would prohibit the President from granting clemency to him or herself, certain specified close family
members, or "to any current or former member of the President's administration, or to anyone who
worked on the President' s presidential campaign as a paid employee. " 23 Rep. Al Green (D-TX) has
introduced a similar proposed amendment that would only prohibit the President from granting
clemency to him or herself. 24 Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) has introduced legislation to require the
Department of Justice within 30 days after a pardon to produce to the appropriate Congressional
committees all investigative materials related to an offense that arises from an investigation involving
the President or a President's relative for whom a pardon is granted. 25 Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL)
has introduced legislation to require the Attorney General within three days of a presidential reprieve or
pardon to publish in the Federal Register and on the official website of the President the name of the
person, the date on which the reprieve or pardon issued, and the full text of the reprieve or pardon. 26

D.

Foreign Contacts

Volume I of the Mueller Report, which begins by describing the Russian government's extensive
attacks against the integrity of the 2016 presidential election, also describes certain conduct by the
Trump Campaign and individuals associated with the Campaign that could constitute evidence of
potential coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government. The Mueller Report
documents numerous Russian contacts, which "consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to
the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign
officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved
U.S.-Russian relations." 27
·
The Trump Campaign's conduct during the 2016 presidential election therefore presents
significant concerns regarding the influence of foreign governments over candidates for federal office.
As such, several Members of Congress have introduced legislation that would require campaigns to
report their contacts with foreign governments. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) has introduced legislation
that would impose on political committees, their agents, or the committee of a candidate for federal
office an affirmative duty: 1) to report to the Federal Election Commission any offers of prohibited
contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements may by a foreign national; and 2) to disclose
the identity and purpose of any meeting with a foreign government or agent of a foreign power, with
23

H.J. Res. 8, 116th Cong. (2019).
H.J. Res. 13, 116th Cong. (2019).
25
H.R. 1627, 116th Cong. (2019).
26
H.R. 1348, I 16th Cong. (2019).
27
Mueller Report, Vol. 1 at 5. During a recent interview, in response to a question on whether his campaign would accept
information damaging to his opponent from foreign governments or report such an offer to the FBI, President Trump said, "I
think maybe you do both." He went on to say, "It's not an interference, they have information -- I think I'd take it. .. Ifl
thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI -- if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody
comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, 'oh let's call the FBI.' The FBI doesn't have enough
agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that's the way
it is. It's called oppo research." ABC News' Oval Office interview with President Trump, Jun. 13 , 2019 available at
24

IHtps://abcncw.. go.com/ Poli l ics/abc-ncws-oval-omce-inLcrv iew-pre idcnt-donald- trnmp/ storv?id=6368 8943 .

7

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 13

failure to comply with these reporting resulting in criminal penalties. 28 Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (R-TX)
has introduced a similar bill, H.R. 2353, the "Duty to Refuse and Report Foreign Interference in
American Elections Act of2019." Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) has also introduced S.1562, the
"Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act."

E.

Subpoena Enforcement

The Trump Administration's refusal to comply with many Congressional subpoenas also raises
constitutional concerns. In the 115th Congress, the Committee considered H.R. 4010, the
"Congressional Subpoena Compliance and Enforcement Act of 2017," introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa
(R-CA). 29 This legislation provided expedited procedures for Congress to enforce a subpoena in court
and would impose monetary penalties on the head of an agency that refused to comply with a subpoena.
The Judiciary Committee reported H.R. 4010 unanimously and it passed by voice vote on the House
floor. Representative Madeleine Dean (D-PA) plans to reintroduce the legislation in the I 16th
Congress.

IIL

Additional Legal and Constitutional Issues Presented
A.

Presidential Immunity from Prosecution

The Special Counsel specifically cited the OLC opinion about whether a sitting President can be
prosecuted as one of the principal grounds for his decision not to reach a traditional prosecutorial
judgment regarding President Trump's conduct outlined in Volume II of the Report. As noted
previously, this policy gives rise to significant concerns about whether the President is effectively placed
above the law while in office. Because OLC s opinion is based on constitutional considerations, it also
gives rise to significant concerns about Congress's own Article I abilities to enact legislation ensuring
accountability for presidential misconduct.
In 1973 OLC issued a memorandum concluding that a sitting President cannot be indicted or
prosecuted while in office. 30 OLC s 1973 opinion acknowledged that no explicit textual provision of the
Constitution precludes the prosecution of the President. OLC also considered but did not ultimately
accept the argument that the President's position as head of the executive branch precludes him or her
from being prosecuted by officers who are, as a structural matter, the President's subordinates. Instead,
OLC based its reasoning on the notion that facing criminal charges would "unduly interfere in a direct or
formal sense with the conduct of the Presidency." 31 OLC assessed that having to face a criminal trial
and possible prison sentence would essentially incapacitate the President, making it impossible to
perform essential constitutional functions. It also noted that "under our constitutional plan as outlined in
Article I, sec. 3, only the Congress by the formal process of impeachment, and not a court by any
process should be accorded the power to interrupt the Presidency or oust an incumbent. " 32

28

H.R. 2424, 116th Cong. (2019).

29

H.R. 4010, 115th Cong. (2017).
30
Memorandum from Robert 0. Dixon Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel Re: Amenability of the
President, Vice President and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office (Sept. 24, 1973).
Id. at 27.
32
Id. at 28.
31

8

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 13

In 2000, OLC reaffirmed its analysis and its conclusion. 33 Its lengthy opinion first described the
1973 opinion in detail, followed by a description of a brief filed by then-Solicitor General Robert Bork
(also in 1973) arguing that then-Vice President Spiro Agnew was amenable to prosecution while in
office. That brief, consistent with the 1973 OLC opinion, argued that only the President was immune
from prosecution while in office. 34 Next, OLC assessed whether any intervening case law warranted
changing its conclusions, and it determined that three relevant decisions were "largely consistent" with
its prior analysis. 35
OLC examined three Supreme Court decisions: (1) United States v. Nixon, 36 in which the Court
recognized the existence of executive privilege but held that the privilege was not absolute and affirmed
a judgment ordering President Nixon to tw·n over various tape recordings to Special Prosecutor
Jaworksi; (2) Nixon v. Fitzgerald,37 in which the Court held that the President is absolutely immune
from civil damages suits based upon his official acts while in office; and (3) Clinton v. Jones, 38 in which
the Court held that the President can be sued for civil damages while in office over claims based on his
personal conduct before he became President. OLC described all three cases as having "balance[d] the
constitutional interests underlying a claim of presidential immunity against the governmental interests in
rejecting that immunity."39 In OLC's view, the same balancing analysis supports a conclusion that a
President cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office because of the unique burdens that such
proceedings-and, potentially, an actual sentence of imprisonment-would impose. 40
OLC acknowledged the "important national interest in ensuring that no person-including the
President-is above the law. " 41 It also acknowledged the importance of avoiding the possibility that the
statute oflimitations could run out by the time the President leaves office. 42 However, it noted that "a
President suspected of the most serious criminal wrongdoing might well face impeachment and removal
from office before his term expired, permitting crirpinal prosecution at that point." 43 Additionally, it
noted that the statute of limitations could be tolled by a court--or that Congress "could overcome any
such obstacle by imposing its own tolling rule." 44 As to the argument that impeachment itself might
pose the same or similar types of burdens on the President's exercise of his or her constitutional duties,
OLC stated that this risk is "expressly contemplated by the Constitution," and that "the Framers
themselves specifically determined that the public interest in immediately removing a sitting President
whose continuation in office poses a threat to the Nation's welfare outweighs the public interest in
avoiding the Executive burdens incident thereto." 45
Some scholars have criticized OLC's analysis and conclusions. Professor Laurence Tribe, for
example, has argued that it is untenable that a President could commit a crime in order to win an
.
election, escape accountability while in office, and then benefit from a pardon from a hand-picked Vice
33

2000 OLC Memo.
See id. at 232-36.
35
Id. at 238.
36
418 U.S. 683 (1974).
37
457 U.S. 731 (1982).
38
520 U.S. 681 (1997).
39
2000 OLC Memo at 244.
40
Id. at 246-58.
41
Id. at 255.
42
Id. at 256.
34

43
44

45

Id.
Id.

Id. at 258.
9

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 13

President upon the President's resignation or impeachment. 46 Walter Dellinger, who served as the
Assistant Attorney General in charge of OLC from 1993 to 1996, has argued that the President could
potentially be indicted while in office even if not prosecuted. 47 Nonetheless, Special Counsel Mueller
stated that his office accepted OLC's conclusions for purposes of their investigation. 48
OLC opinions are generally considered to be binding upon the executive branch. On rare
occasions, OLC has rescinded prior opinions if it later determines their reasoning to be fundamentally
unsound. This occurred, for example, with respect to several opinions authored by former Deputy
Assistant Attorney General John Yoo regarding the treatment of detainees, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, and other national security matters. 49 The Attorney General also has the authority to
override OLC, and he or she could conceivably rescind prior OLC opinions. The President, as chief
executive, could also conceivably instruct the Attorney General to take such actions, although it is
unclear whether any President has done so previously.

B.

White House Officials' Purported "Absolute Immunity" from Compelled Testimony
and Excessive use of Executive Privilege

1.

Absolute Immunity

In several recent instances, the Trump administration has asserted that various former White
House officials are "absolutely immune" from having to comply with congressional subpoenas for
testimony. On this basis, President Trump instructed former White House Counsel Don McGahn not to
appear before this Committee in response to its subpoena. He also instructed former White House
Communications Director Hope Hicks not to answer any questions in a transcribed interview that related
to her service in the White House. Additionally, the Trump administration has indicated that the
President may assert "absolute immunity" with respect to White House adviser Kellyanne Conway in
response to a subpoena from the Committee on Oversight and Reform. 50
On May 20, 2019, OLC issued an opinion (the "Engel Memorandum") supporting this position
with respect to Mr. McGahn.51 The Engel Memorandum correctly notes that administrations of both
parties have claimed that White House officials are "absolutely immune" from having to provide
compelled testimony before Congress. One well-known instance occurred when President George W.
Bush took this position with respect to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who was
subpoenaed by this Committee in the course of its investigation into the firings of several U.S.
Attorneys. President Obama also took this position with respect to then-White House adviser David
Simas, who was subpoenaed by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the course of
an investigation into possible Hatch Act violations. 52 The basis for such a claim was first described in a
46

Laurence H. Tribe, Constitution Rules Out Immunity for Sitting Presidents, BOSTON GLOBE, Dec. 12, 2018.
Walter Dellinger, Indicting a Sitting President Is Not Foreclosed: The Complex History, Lawfare Blog, June 18, 2018.
48
Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential
Election, Vol. II at 3 (March 2019).
49
See Steven G. Bradbury, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Memorandum Re: Status
of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (Jan. 15, 2009).
50
See Letter to Elijah E. Cummings, Chair, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, from Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the
President (June 24, 2019) (stating that Ms. Conway would decline a voluntary invitation for testimony. In response, the
committee voted to authorize a subpoena.).
51
Memorandum from Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Testimonial Immunity
Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President (May 20, 2019) ("Engel Memorandum").
52
See Immunity of the Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach from
Congressional Subpoena, 38 Op. O.L.C. _ (July 15, 2014).
47

10

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 13

1971 memorandum written by William Rehnquist, who was then serving as the Assistant Attorney
General in charge of OLC. 53
The Engel Memorandum principally argues that requiring senior White House officials to testify
before Congress would interfere in various ways with the separation of powers. It asserts that this would
create an opportunity for Congress to try to "supervise the President's actions," because senior White
House aides essentially serve as the President's "alter egos." 54 It also claims that having to testify in
front of Congress could divert senior White House aides from their primary responsibilities to the
President. Additionally, OLC claims that such compelled testimony would create an inherent risk of
disclosing privileged material, notwithstanding the witness's ability to assert privilege on a question-byquestion basis. 55
However, the only court ever to consider these arguments has decisively rejected them. When
this Committee sued to compel Ms. Miers's testimony, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, in an opinion issued by Judge Bates, held that the "absolute immunity" doctrine had no basis
in any case law. 56 To the contrary, Judge Bates pointed out that in the most closely analogous case,
Harlow v.·Fitzgerald, 57 the Supreme Court had concluded that senior White House aides are not
absolutely immune from civil damages suits. 58 In doing so, the Court had rejected the idea that such
advisers serve as "alter egos" to the President-a central underpinning of OLC's rationale for absolute
immunity from compelled testimony. Judge Bates concluded that the rationales for excusing White
House aides from congressional testimony are in fact weaker t~an those for excusing them from civil
damages suits, noting that other senior administration officials, such as Cabinet officials in charge of
various departments and agencies, testify before Congress on a regular basis. 59
The Engel Memorandum also states that the administration's position is "the same answer that
the Department of Justice has repeatedly provided for nearly five decades." 60 However, although the
Department has maintained a position that senior White House aides are immune from compelled
testimony, the record of the White House permitting senior aides to testify before Congress-whether on
a voluntary basis or through some other accommodation reached with the relevant congressional
committee-is decidedly more mixed. The Congressional Research Service, for example, has
catalogued dozens of instances in recent decades in which senior White House aides have testified
before various committees. 61 Thus, although the Department and OLC have maintained their position as
a theoretical matter that a White House aide cannot be forced to testify over the President's objections,
as a practical matter such objections have often been reserved or withdrawn in the face of congressional
subpoenas or other pressures.

2.

Executive Privilege

53

See Engel Memorandum at 2.
Id. at 5; see id. at 13.
55
Id. at 5-6.
56
Comm. on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008).
57
457 U.S. 800 (1982).
58
Miers, 558 F. Supp. at 100-01.
59
Id. at 101.
60
Engel Memorandum at 1.
61
See Harold C. Relyea & Todd B. Tatelman; Presidential Advisers' Testimony Before Congressional Committees: An
Oversight, Congressional Research Service, Apr. 10, 2007.
54

11

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-16 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 13

In addition to asserting dubious claims of "absolute immunity" as to certain witnesses, the White
House has instructed several witnesses-including Mr. McGahn, Ms. Hicks, and former White House
attorney Annie Donaldson-not to comply with the Committee's duly issued subpoenas for documents
or (in Ms. Donaldson's case) written answers to questions on the basis that the documents and answers
would "implicate constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests." 62 The White
House's legal assertions are untenable for several reasons. To begin, in the face of a congressional
subpoena, the President must actually assert a claim of executive privilege with respect to any portion of
a witness's testimony or specific documents. The bare assertion that a witness's response to a question a
document might implicate "confidentiality interests" does not absolve the subpoenaed party of his or her
duty to comply. To the contrary, the law is clear that a witness is "not excused from compliance with
the Committee's subpoena by virtue of a claim of executive privilege that may ultimately be made. " 63
Nor can a "blanket assertion of privilege" over a broad set ofrecords suffice, without a "showing ...
that any of the individual records satisf[ies] the prerequisites for the application of the privilege." 64
Moreover, the White House has no valid basis to assert executive privilege with respect to
matters specifically described in the Mueller Report. The White House long ago made the strategic
decision to not invoke executive privilege with respect to numerous witnesses' interviews with the
Special Counsel's office, and then to the publication of the Report. The Mueller Report in fact includes
numerous passages describing statements made by the witnesses in their interviews and citing to specific
reports of those interviews. Often, the Report contains verbatim quotations of statements that witnesses
made to the Special Counsel's office. The Report also describes and quotes from certain documents
voluntarily provided to the Special Counsel's office, such as handwritten notes taken by Ms. Donaldson
and others. The D.C. Circuit has expressly held that the White House "waive[s] its claims of
privilege in regard to [] specific documents that it voluntarily reveal[ s] to third parties outside the
White House." 65 The court has also made clear that the release of a particular document "waives []
privileges for the document or information specifically released. " 66 In that case, the White House
had voluntarily disclosed a docwnent to the private attorney for a former cabinet official. 67 Here,
the White House has voluntarily authorized the release of the redacted Mueller Report to the public
at large and has also shared numerous documents with private counsel for various witnesses. As a
result, any executive privilege claims related to matters described in the Mueller Report or in
documents shared with third parties has clearly been waived. Nevertheless, the White House has
improperly prevented several witnesses from answering questions regarding that same information.

Letter to Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, R Comm. on the Judiciary, from Sandra L. Moser, Quinn Emanuel, Jul. 5; 2019
(enclosing Annie Donaldson's written answers to Committee's interrogatories, and stating that the White House has objected
on a question-by-question basis); See also Letter to Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, from Pat
Cipollone, Counsel to the President, May 7, 2019 (directing Don McGahn not to comply with subpoena for documents on the
grounds that "[t]he White House records remain legally protected from disclosure under longstanding constitutional
principles, because they implicate significant Executive Branch confidentiality interests and .executive privilege").
63 Comm. on the Judiciary, US. House of Reps. v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 106 (D.D.C. 2008).
64
Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform, US. House of Reps. v. lynch, 156 F. Supp. 3d 101, 104 (D.D.C. 2016).
65 In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 741-42 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
66
Id. at 741.
67
See id. at 740.
62 See

12

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-17 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit Q

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-17 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 3

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

January 27, 2017
MEMORANDUM TO ALL WHITE HOUSE STAFF
FROM:

Donald F. McGahn II – Counsel to the President

SUBJECT:

Communications Restrictions with Personnel at the Department of Justice

This Memorandum outlines important rules and procedures regarding communications between
the White House (including all components of the Executive Office of the President) and the
Department of Justice. These rules exist to ensure both efficient execution of the Administration’s
policies and the highest level of integrity with respect to civil or criminal enforcement proceedings
handled by DOJ. In order to ensure that DOJ exercises its investigatory and prosecutorial
functions free from the fact or appearance of improper political influence, these rules must be
strictly followed.
A.

Limitations on discussing ongoing or contemplated cases or investigations

DOJ currently advises the White House about contemplated or pending investigations or
enforcement actions under specific guidelines issued by the Attorney General. As a general matter,
only the President, Vice President, Counsel to the President, and designees of the Counsel to the
President may be involved in such communications. These individuals may designate subordinates
to engage in ongoing contacts about a particular matter with counterparts at DOJ similarly
designated by DOJ. Any ongoing contacts pursuant to such a designation should be handled in
conjunction with a representative of the Counsel’s office.
The White House often coordinates more broadly with DOJ (including its Office of Legal Counsel,
Office of the Solicitor General, and Civil Division) where the government is or may be a defendant
in litigation. These communications must first be cleared by the Counsel’s Office.
If DOJ requests the views of the White House on any litigation, you must consult with the
Counsel’s Office before responding, and any response must be made in consultation with the
Counsel’s Office. This ensures that the White House provides a coherent response that takes
account of both the Counsel’s Office legal views and the President’s broader policy objectives.
Communications with DOJ about individual cases or investigations should be routed through the
Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, or Solicitor General,
unless the Counsel’s Office approves different procedures for the specific case at issue. In their
discretion, and as appropriate for the handling of individual cases, those DOJ officials may
authorize additional DOJ attorneys to discuss individual cases or investigations with members of
the Counsel’s Office. The President, Vice President, Counsel to the President, and Deputy Counsel
to the President are the only White House individuals who may initiate a conversation with DOJ
about a specific case or investigation.
1

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-17 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 3

These rules recognize the President’s constitutional obligation to take care that the laws of the
United States are faithfully executed, while ensuring maximum public confidence that those laws
are administered and applied impartially in individual investigations or cases.
B.

Limitations on discussing other matters

The White House may communicate with DOJ about matters of policy, legislation, budgeting,
political appointments, public affairs, intergovernmental relations, administrative matters, or other
matters that do not relate to a particular contemplated or pending investigation or case. You must
route these communications through the offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General,
or Associate Attorney General unless you have received clearance from the Counsel’s office to
follow different procedures.
C.

Restrictions on soliciting an OLC opinion

The White House often relies upon the Office of Legal Counsel to issue formal legal opinions.
Requests for such opinions must be limited to specific legal questions impacting particular matters
before the Executive Branch. Such requests must be authorized by the President, the Vice
President, the Counsel to the President, or a Deputy Counsel to the President. These individuals
may also designate others who may engage in ongoing contacts with OLC where a request for a
formal legal opinion has been authorized. If this designation extends to individuals outside the
Counsel’s Office, it should be in writing, and the ongoing contacts should be handled in
conjunction with a member of the Counsel’s office. All requests for an OLC opinion shall be
directed to the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General for OLC, or one of their
designees.
D.

National Security Exceptions

Frequent communications between the White House and DOJ will be necessary on matters of
national security and intelligence, including counter-terrorism and counter-espionage issues.
Accordingly, communications that relate to urgent and ongoing national-security matters may be
handled by specifically designated individuals. This exception does not relate to a particular
contemplated or pending investigation or case absent written authorization from the Counsel to the
President. In emergencies for which application of these procedures would pose a serious threat
to national security, White House personnel may receive from DOJ communications necessary to
protect against such threats. The Counsel to the President shall be informed about any such
contacts as promptly as is practicable.
E.

Consultation

If you have any questions or do not believe that a potential contact with DOJ fits neatly into any
of these categories, you must consult the Counsel’s office for guidance. Moreover, unless you are
certain that the particular contact is permissible, you must consult with the Counsel’s Office before
proceeding.

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-18 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit R

 JERROLD NADLER, New York
CHAIRMAN

Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-18 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 3
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

m.�. ;!Jou.ue of l\epresentatibes
<!Committee on tbe J/ubtctarp
wmta{)btngton, iJB<IC 20515-6216
®ne ,t.Junbreb �ixteentb C!tongress

March 4, 2019
Donald McGahn, Esq.
c/o William A. Burck, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
1300 I Street NW
Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. McGahn,
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating a number ofactions that thr.eaten our
nation's longstanding commitment to the rule oflaw, including allegations ofobstruction of
justice, public corruption, and other abuses ofpower. As part ofthat work, I write to request that
you provide the documents set forth in the attached Document Requests no later than March 18,
2019.
This is a critical time for our nation. President Trump and his administration face wide­
ranging allegations ofmisconduct that strike at the heart ofour constitutional order. Congress
has a constitutional duty to serve as a check and balance against any such excesses. We have an
obligation to investigate evidence ofabuses ofexecutive power, public corruption, and acts of
obstruction designed to undermine both our laws and the credibility ofthe agencies that enforce
those laws. We are also responsible for passing laws to address, and prevent the recurrence, of
any such misconduct.
Under the Rules ofthe House ofRepresentatives, the Committee's jurisdiction includes
the judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil liberties, criminal law enforcement, and questions of
constitutional law. The Committee is the main oversight authority for the Department ofJustice,
including its component agencies, its personnel, and its law enforcement activities. The
Committee has also played a historic role as the primary forum for hearings on the abuse of
executive power.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-18 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 3

Given this charge, over the course ofour investigation, the Committee is determined to
ask critical questions, gather all ofthe relevant information, judiciously assess the evidence, and
present our findings to the American people, whatever those findings may be.
To that end, I respectfully ask that you produce the documents set forth in the Document
Requests. As you will see, I have limited the initial production to materials that have already
been produced in other proceedings to reduce the burden on you and so that they may be
provided to us by March 18. My staff will work with you on a mutually agreeable schedule for
the production ofthe remainder ofthe documents in Schedule A.
Thank you for your prompt attention to these requests.
Sincerely,

hairman
House Committee on the Judiciary
cc:

Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-19 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit S

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-19 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 2

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers   washington, dc

1300 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3314   TEL (202) 538-8000 FAX (202) 538-8100

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
(202) 538-8120
WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS
williamburck@quinnemanuel.com

March 18, 2019
VIA E-MAIL

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
United States House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC 20515-6216
HJUD.Correspondence@mail.house.gov
Re:

March 4, 2019 Document Requests

Dear Chairman Nadler,
This responds to your letter of March 4, 2019, requesting the production of documents
from Donald F. McGahn. As relevant to Mr. McGahn, the requested documents concern the period
during which he was outside counsel to the Trump Campaign and Transition and served as Counsel
to the President in the White House. The Campaign and the White House are the appropriate
authorities to decide the scope of access to these documents, including whether a claim of
executive, attorney-client and/or attorney work product privilege would protect such information
from disclosure. Accordingly, we have forwarded your requests to the Campaign and the White
House for their consideration.
Sincerely,

William A. Burck

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES   NEW YORK   SAN FRANCISCO   SILICON VALLEY   CHICAGO   WASHINGTON, DC   HOUSTON   SEATTLE   BOSTON   SALT LAKE CITY
LONDON   TOKYO   MANNHEIM   HAMBURG   PARIS   MUNICH   SYDNEY   HONG KONG   BRUSSELS   ZURICH   SHANGHAI   PERTH   STUTTGART

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 73

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit T

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1

1

ALDERSON COURT REPORTING

2

SHAYLAH LYNN BURRILL

3

HJU093000

4

MARKUP OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS.

5

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

6

House of Representatives

7

Committee on the Judiciary

8

Washington, D.C.

9

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:01 a.m., in

10

Room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, Honorable Jerrold Nadler

11

[chairman of the committee] presiding.

12

Present:

Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee,

13

Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, Jeffries,

14

Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa,

15

Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Murcarsel-

16

Powell, Escobar, Collins, Sensenbrenner, Chabot, Gohmert,

17

Jordan, Buck, Ratcliffe, Roby, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana,

18

Biggs, McClintock, Lesko, Reschenthaler, Cline, Armstrong,

19

and Steube.

20

Staff present:

Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Arya

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

2

21

Hariharan, Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass, Senior

22

Counsel; John Doty, Senior Advisor; Lisette Morton, Director

23

of Policy, Planning, and Member Services; Madeline Strasser,

24

Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach

25

Advisor; Susan Jensen, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel; Sophie

26

Brill, Counsel, Constitution Subcommittee; Will Emmons,

27

Professional Staff Member, Constitution Subcommittee; Brendan

28

Belair, Minority Chief of Staff; Robert Parmiter, Minority

29

Deputy Chief of Staff; Jon Ferro, Minority Parliamentarian;

30

Andrea Woodard, Minority Professional Staff Member; Carlton

31

Davis, Minority Oversight Counsel; Jake Greenberg, Minority

32

Professional Staff Member; Ashley Callen, Minority

33

Professional Staff Member; and Danny Johnson, Minority

34

Professional Staff Member.

35

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 73

HJU093000

36

PAGE

Chairman Nadler.

3

The Judiciary Committee will please

37

come to order, a quorum being present.

Without objection,

38

the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.

39

Pursuant to Committee Rule 2 and House Rule XI, Clause

40

2, the chair may postpone further proceedings today on the

41

question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an

42

amendment for which a recorded vote for the yeas and nays are

43

ordered.

44

Pursuant to notice, I now call up the chair's resolution

45

authorizing the issuance of certain subpoenas for documents

46

and testimony for purposes of markup and move that the

47

committee agree to the resolution.

48

The clerk will report the resolution.

49

Ms. Strasser.

Resolution offered by Chairman Jerrold

50

Nadler, "Resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution,

51

the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized

52

to issue subpoenas" --

53
54
55
56

Chairman Nadler.

Without objection, the resolution is

considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[The resolution follows:]

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 73

HJU093000

57
58

PAGE

Chairman Nadler.

4

I will begin by recognizing myself for

an opening statement.

59

In late 1973, the Nixon Administration had an idea.

60

When special counsel, Archibald Cox, asked the White House to

61

turn over recordings of conversations held in the Oval

62

Office, President Nixon offered instead to provide the tapes

63

to Senator John Stennis of Mississippi.

64

Stennis, who was famously hard of hearing, would listen to

65

the recordings himself, then provide summaries of the tapes

66

to the special prosecutor.

67

justified the proposal as a means to protect sensitive

68

information that would not ordinarily be made part of the

69

record.

70

Nixon had ulterior motives.

71

do.

72

himself, and he refused the President's offer.

73

Nixon ordered him fired the next day.

74

Nixon proposed that

The Nixon Administration

In hindsight, of course, we know that President
In any event, Cox had a job to

That job required him to evaluate the full record for
President

The dynamics of the Stennis compromise, as it became

75

known, should sound familiar to us.

The Trump Administration

76

has an idea.

77

they provide it to Congress.

78

the proposal is a means to protect sensitive information that

79

would not ordinarily be made part of the record, but we have

80

reason to suspect this Administration's motives.

81

report probably isn't the "total exoneration" the President

They want to redact the Mueller report before
The Department of Justice says

The Mueller

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

5

82

claims it to be.

83

to do.

84

President accountable for alleged official misconduct.

85

job requires us to evaluate the evidence for ourselves, not

86

the Attorney General's summary, not a substantially redacted

87

synopsis, but the full report and the underlying evidence.

88

And in any event, the committee has a job

The Constitution charges Congress with holding the
That

The Attorney General proposes to redact four categories

89

of information from the Mueller report:

grand jury

90

information, classified information, information related to

91

ongoing prosecutions, and "information that may unduly

92

infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests

93

of peripheral third parties."

94

to withhold that information from this committee.

95

is entitled to all of the evidence.

96

This isn't just my opinion.

The Department is wrong to try
Congress

It is also a matter of law.

97

For precedent on 3 of the 4 categories, we need look no

98

further than the summer of 2016 when pursuant to

99

congressional subpoena, the Department and the FBI began to

100

transfer more than 880,000 documents related to the Clinton

101

investigation to the House of Representatives.

102

production included classified information which we held in

103

our secure facility and which we handled every day.

104

included information related to ongoing investigations, and

105

it included information related to numerous third parties,

106

many of whom this committee later interviewed as part of the

That

It

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 73

HJU093000

107
108

PAGE

6

Republican investigation into the investigation.
The other category of information the Attorney General

109

proposes to redact is grand jury information, normally

110

protected under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

111

Procedure.

112

Congress argue that the law does not allow grand jury

113

information to be shared outside the Justice Department.

114

That analysis is incomplete if not outright incorrect.

115

true that Rule 6(e) ordinarily prohibits the Department from

116

sharing grand jury information with the public.

117

true that with proper authorization and under court order the

118

Department must share grand jury information with this

119

committee.

Many who seem eager to keep this information from

It is

It is also

120

That was the case in 1974 when Judge Sirica authorized

121

the release of the Watergate road map to this committee at

122

the request of special counsel, Leon Jaworski.

123

case in 1998 when a Federal court permitted Ken Starr to

124

release grand jury information along with his report to

125

Congress.

126

committee went directly to the grand jury twice to get

127

information relevant to our investigation of Judge Thomas

128

Porteous.

It was the

It was the case in 2008 and 2009 when this

129

On multiple occasions, I have asked Attorney General

130

Barr to work with us, to go to the Court and obtain access to

131

materials the Department deems covered by Rule 6(e).

He has

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

7

132

so far refused.

133

if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no

134

choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials.

135

the Department still refuses, then it should be up to a

136

judge, not the President and not his political appointee, to

137

decide whether or not it is appropriate or the committee to

138

review the complete record.

139

I will give him time to change his mind, but

And if

The resolution before us today authorizes subpoenas for

140

two categories of information.

First, the resolution

141

authorizes subpoenas for documents and testimony related to

142

the full and unredacted report of Special Counsel Mueller.

143

believe the committee must have access to this information in

144

order to perform its constitutionally-mandated

145

responsibility.

146

this proposition when last month it voted 420-0 in support of

147

a resolution that demanded the release of the full report.

I

The House of Representatives agreed with

148

Second, the resolution authorizes subpoenas for

149

documents and testimony of former White House employees.

150

Each of these individuals has had more than a month to

151

produce documents to this committee voluntarily.

152

that these individuals may have received documents from the

153

White House in preparation for their interviews with the

154

special counsel.

155

have turned this information over to their private attorneys.

156

Under applicable Federal law, President Trump waived his

We believe

We also believe that these individuals may

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

8

157

claims to executive privilege once this information was

158

transmitted to outside counsel.

159

court to obtain the complete text of the special counsel's

160

report, and because the President may attempt to invoke

161

executive privilege to withhold that evidence from us, it is

162

imperative that the committee take possession of these

163

documents and others without delay.

164

Because we may have to go to

Yesterday the President presented me with the high honor

165

of not one, but three separate mentions on Twitter.

166

talked about our relationship, which goes back several years,

167

in a press conference yesterday afternoon.

168

seems to think in 1998 I was opposed to public release of the

169

Starr report and that he has caught me changing my mind on

170

the subject.

171

debate was not about Congress receiving evidence.

172

had already received the full 445-page report and 17 boxes of

173

additional documents, including grand jury material.

174

owed that same opportunity today.

175

He also

President Trump

Let met set the record straight.

In 1998, the
Congress

We are

In 1998, the central debate was about the public release

176

of some of the materials accompanying the Starr report,

177

materials that Congress already had and that described

178

private sexual acts in lurid detail.

179

business broadcasting accounts of the President's sex life.

180

It was inappropriate in 1998.

181

today.

Congress has no

It would be inappropriate

Our focus should be on the law.

That is where our

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 73

HJU093000

182

PAGE

9

focus will remain so long as I am chairman.

183

We are dealing now not with the President's private

184

affairs, but with a sustained attack on the integrity of the

185

republic by the President and his closest advisers.

186

committee requires the full report and the underlying

187

materials because it is our job, not the Attorney General's,

188

to determine whether or not President Trump has abused his

189

office.

190

or another, the country will move on from President Trump.

191

We must make it harder for future presidents to behave this

192

way.

193

do that work.

194

the resolution.

This

And we require the report because one day, one way

We need a full accounting of the President's actions to
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support

195

I now recognize the ranking member of the Judiciary

196

Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for his

197

opening statement.

198

Mr. Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before we begin

199

today, I want to point out something that I never thought

200

would actually happen.

201

about something.

202

that there is a crisis on our southern border.

203

so, we actually agree that we need to do something about it.

204

Unfortunately, as we saw in the first quarter of this month,

205

and we are starting the second quarter of this committee off

206

in the same vein, and that is desperately searching for

Jeh Johnson and I actually agree

The former Secretary and I actually agree
And by doing

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

10

207

something on the President.

208

begin to look because instead of today, instead of dealing

209

with issues that this committee is authorized and should be

210

dealing with, we are moving on to subpoenas, and that for

211

several reasons I cannot support.

212

When we understand this, then we

The first, the subpoena for the Mueller report and its

213

underlying evidence commands the Attorney General to do

214

really what the unthinkable is.

215

to remind folks.

216

investigation were not under the same authorization.

217

conflating that around here.

218

we need to understand that.

219

is we are going to ask the Attorney General to break his

220

regulation, to break the law.

221

Remember, this is something

The Starr report and the Mueller
We keep

They were not, and this is why
Basically what we are now saying

The Attorney General's entire mandate is to enforce the

222

law, and he is expressly forbidden from providing grand jury

223

outside the Department in very limited and narrow exceptions.

224

Congress is not one of the exceptions, and the chairman knows

225

it, and I would disagree with his characterization.

226

respect my chairman, but I disagree with his characterization

227

of the Starr report because they are under different

228

regulations.

229

came to grand material, it was material that by law must be

230

secret.

231

which may or may not be true by various witnesses -- I wish

I

They were put out and sent out, but when it

It is grand jury material.

It represents statements

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

11

232

many would understand that -- salacious material, all kinds

233

of material that would be unfair to release.

234

Those are not Doug Collins' words.

Those are my

235

chairman's words.

236

idea.

237

against hope that we are going to find something.

238

just actually said.

239

down to the courtroom because we know we are not going to

240

find anything.

241

just a moment ago, that there may be -- and I love how we do

242

this -- may be things in there that is not up to the Attorney

243

General to decide right or wrong.

244

Mueller's investigation that the Attorney General passed on.

245

Here is what we found.

246

This is a time in which this is not a new

Right now the only thing is, is there is a hope
It was

We need to start now so we can begin to

And even if we did, and I love the comment

It was not.

It was

This is the problem we are seeing right now.

But you

247

know something?

A different political landscape compels the

248

chairman to adopt new standards of fairness, ignoring

249

existing law and demanding material he once considered unfair

250

to release to be released.

251

want to view this material as the fundamental underpinning of

252

our justice system, we cannot.

253

he finds inconvenient, the chairman demands our Nation's top

254

law enforcement officer to break the rules and the

255

regulations and the law.

256

irresponsible, and it is disingenuous.

As much as the chairman and I may

In the face of laws and rules

This is reckless, it is

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 73

HJU093000

257

PAGE

12

It is also confusing since the Attorney General is doing

258

exactly what he said he would be doing, making as much of the

259

report public as possible under Federal law and departmental

260

policy, under regulations -- understand this for the media

261

here -- under regulations written by Janet Reno and other

262

Democrats don't require to do this, but in the name of

263

transparency he is.

264

as next week, yet the chairman plows ahead.

265

He may even furnish the report as early

What is the rush?

Spring break probably.

We don't want

266

to wait until May.

267

comes out.

268

going to provide exactly the regulations say he is to

269

provide.

270

are going to out of town and we don't want anybody to forget

271

we are doing something.

272

name people.

273

We don't want to wait until the report

The Attorney General has never said he is not

Why are we doing this again?

Because I guess we

We need a press release.

We need to

The interesting thing here is, second, the subpoenas in

274

this wonderfully vague deal that we are voting on today aimed

275

at five individuals are completely misguided.

276

they are to the wrong people.

277

ready to tell you.

278

with an ill-advised investigation -- remember the 81 letters

279

-- have provided over 3,000 pages of documents.

280

is rewarding their cooperation by announcing their subpoenas

281

before even notifying their lawyers.

Quite simply,

Understand what I am getting

Two of the individuals are cooperating

The chairman

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 14 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

13

282

The other three individuals responded to Chairman

283

Nadler's initial inquiry and have indicated willingness to

284

cooperate.

285

either.

286

some of the individuals on the 81 initial letters than the

287

majority has.

288

documents responsive to the original request because those

289

responsive documents all came during their time at the White

290

House, making them presidential records.

291

have custody of responsive documents.

292

this as well because they have received letters on this.

293

Democrats never followed up with their lawyers

In fact, my investigators have had more contact with

These three individuals could not have any

None of these three

The chairman knows

Why would we ignore such obvious facts?

Because

294

Judiciary Democrats conduct oversight via press release.

295

Their investigation into 81 Trump associates has yielded not

296

the dividends they were looking for.

297

revelation is something we knew already.

298

embarrassed themselves by prejudging conclusions that the

299

President obstructed justice.

300

next stop in the grinding political axes in the government.

After 1 month, the only
They have

Now we have acknowledged the

301

What is amazing here is the fact nearly 30 others who

302

have received the Chairman's letter have not responded at all

303

and despite everything going on.

304

Here is what is happening.

305

committee, you will get a subpoena.

306

Democrats will return the favor.

So the message is clear.

If you cooperate with this
If you ignore it,

This seems like a

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 15 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

14

307

counterintuitive way to conduct oversight, but it does sound

308

familiar.

309

Whitaker, who agreed to come, who agreed to sit here, and was

310

yet rewarded with a subpoena.

311

ever got here, we caved.

312

Remember the acting attorney general, Mr.

And, oh, by the way, before he

We just did away with the subpoena.

I am not sure the purpose of the subpoena with this

313

majority.

314

good, but yet when it comes down we don't want to use it, and

315

now we are back at it again because this is all preemptive.

316

Five of the people who have been actually listed in the list

317

of subpoenas today have been cooperating or have given advice

318

to this committee, but have never really been followed up.

319

And what they have said is we are helping, but you are now

320

giving us a subpoena.

321

It seems to be we want to use it because it sounds

And as far as the Attorney General has gone, he said I

322

am giving you the Mueller report.

323

should under regulations, but undoubtedly that is not enough.

324

Undoubtedly that doesn't make enough press releases.

325

guess what we do is put people's names on a press release.

326

We tell them that we are going to subpoena them now, although

327

they have actually already cooperated.

328

me of what I am having here, and I have made this comment

329

many times.

330
331

I am giving it to you as I

So I

You know, it reminds

I respect my chairman, but we just disagree on this, and
that is the way that it will be, and that is the way we are

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 16 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

15

332

going to have it.

333

my hometown when they wanted to go fishing and nothing was

334

biting.

335

Nothing was biting, and one day this old guy just got tired

336

of it.

337

just reaches in his back pocket and pulls out a piece of

338

dynamite and throws it in the pond.

339

so I am just going to blow up everything and maybe something

340

will come to the top.

341

But it reminds me of the old guys back in

They would take a big fishing trip and go out.

Instead of catching anything the way he should, he

I can't find anything,

This committee is better than this.

This committee can

342

do this better.

Why are we here today doing preemptive

343

subpoenas?

344

are not going to be here for a while, and we need to keep the

345

story rolling.

346

There are some possibilities that may be in this report, but

347

we can't wait to see it.

348

friends is this:

349

present that they bought early.

350

are dying to open another present.

Because we are going to be out for a while.

We

The story rolling is there is some innuendo.

Unfortunately what will happen, my

Christmas will come again.

They opened the

Nothing was there.

Now they

351

At the end of the day, this President and what the

352

report of the Mueller investigation said was no collusion.

353

No obstruction.

354

forward with that, if we can't get what we want, we will try

355

and try again.

356

committee, the little train that kept looking for something

And when we understand that, when we move

Maybe that is the new thing of this

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 17 of 73

HJU093000

357
358

PAGE

16

that says I will try and I will try and I will try.
But at the end of the day, the President is still

359

president.

360

regulations that we put in place are there.

361

point in time, the Attorney General, although he is being

362

smeared repeatedly, is doing exactly what the regulation

363

says.

364

you get a subpoena.

365

The economy is still moving forward.

The

And at this

And for that, congratulations, Mr. Attorney General,
With that, I yield back.

Chairman Nadler.

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Without

366

objection, all other opening statements will be included in

367

the record.

368

I now recognize myself for purposes of offering an

369

amendment in the nature of a substitute.

370

report the amendment.

371

Ms. Strasser.

The clerk will

Amendment in the nature of a substitute

372

to a resolution offered by Mr. Nadler.

373

resolving clause and insert the following.

374

Chairman Nadler.

Strike all after the

Without objection, the amendment in

375

the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and

376

shall be considered as --

377

Mr. Buck.

378

Chairman Nadler.

379

Mr. Buck.

380

Chairman Nadler.

381

amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I object.
-- as base text --

Mr. Chairman, I object.

I will --

I would like to --

-- as base text for purposes of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 18 of 73

HJU093000

382
383
384
385

Mr. Collins.

PAGE

17

Mr. Chairman, there is an objection to

the -Chairman Nadler.

I will finish the sentence, and then I

will recognize the objection.

386

Mr. Collins.

Thanks.

387

[Laughter.]

388

Chairman Nadler.

Well, go right ahead.

Without objection, the amendment in

389

the nature of a substitute will be considered as read and

390

shall be considered as base text for purposes of amendment.

391
392

[The amendment of Chairman Nadler follows:]

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 19 of 73

HJU093000

393
394

PAGE

Chairman Nadler.

Mr. Buck.

396

Chairman Nadler.
well.

Yeah, I want it read.

Mr. Buck.

399

Chairman Nadler.

401

I object.

You want the resolution read?

Very

The clerk will read the resolution.

398

400

Will the gentleman explain his

objection?

395

397

18

Thank you.
The clerk will read the amendment in

the nature of a substitute.
Ms. Strasser.

Amendment in the nature of a substitute

402

to a resolution offered by Mr. Nadler.

403

resolving clause and insert the following:

404

adoption of this resolution, the chairman of the Committee of

405

the Judiciary is authorized to issue subpoenas for documents

406

and testimony relating to the following:

407

authored by the Office of the Special Counsel, Robert S.

408

Mueller, III, pursuant to Order Number 3915-2017, and any

409

accompanying exhibits, annexes, tables, appendices, other

410

attachments, and all evidence referred to in the report; and

411

underlying evidence collected, materials prepared, or

412

documents used by the Office of the Special Counsel, Robert

413

S. Mueller, III, in the investigation conducted pursuant to

414

Order Number 3915, 2017.

415

Strike all after the
"That upon the

final report

In addition, the chairman at his discretion and as he

416

determines necessary, is authorized to issue subpoenas for

417

documents and testimony to the following individuals or to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 20 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

19

418

agents who may have received documents from White House

419

relevant to the investigation on Special Counsel Robert S.

420

Mueller, III, conducted pursuant to Order Number 3915-2017,

421

thereby effecting a waiver of potential applicable

422

privileges:

423

Reince Priebus;, Ann Donaldson.

Donald F. McGahn, II; Steven Bannon; Hope Hicks;

424

This resolution is adopted pursuant to Rule 3 of the

425

Committee on the Judiciary and Clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the

426

U.S. House of Representatives."

427
428
429

Chairman Nadler.

I will recognize myself to explain the

amendment.
This amendment makes only technical changes to the

430

underlying resolution.

431

elaborate on the point made in my opening statement, that

432

there is ample precedent from other investigations involving

433

allegations of wrongdoing by the President for the Judiciary

434

Committee to receive not just the full report, but all of the

435

underlying evidence, including grand jury material.

436

I would like to use my time to

In the investigation of Bill Clinton, the independent

437

counsel, Ken Starr, produced to Congress a 445-page report,

438

several thousand pages of appendices, and 17 boxes of

439

underlying evidence and other materials.

440

included all of the grand jury information protected by Rule

441

6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

442

These boxes

The Starr report and the underlying evidence and

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 21 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

20

443

materials produced to this committee fill up volume after

444

volume of the record in the Clinton impeachment proceedings.

445

I am holding up only two of these many volumes that contain

446

some of the evidence and materials underlying the Starr

447

report that he produced to Congress.

448

2 and 3 that contain supplemental materials from the Starr

449

report.

450

immediately Ken Starr completed the report.

451

Here is Volume 4, Part

All of these materials were delivered to the House

Looking at Volume 4, Part 3, it is filled with the grand

452

jury testimony and other evidence from the Starr

453

investigation that was produced to the House Judiciary

454

Committee.

455

testimony of Stacy Desmond Porter.

456

There were boxes and boxes of such information produced by

457

Ken Starr.

458

court overseeing the grand jury to share the grand jury

459

materials with Congress.

460

to receive the grand jury materials in the Mueller

461

investigation can and should be obtained here.

462

For example, on page 3341, there is grand jury
Here is a copy of it.

Starr sought and obtained authorization from the

A similar order permitting Congress

The materials produced to Congress by Starr also

463

included the interview memoranda of the witnesses who agreed

464

to be voluntarily interviewed by Starr's office during his

465

investigation, all of which were produced to the House

466

Judiciary Committee.

467

of the many memorandum investigation interviews of witnesses

For example, on page 3523, there is one

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 22 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

21

468

by Starr and his staff.

This one is of Deborah Ann Schiff.

469

Here is a copy of it.

470

produced by Ken Starr.

471

be produced here, especially when there were approximately

472

500 witnesses interviewed in the Mueller investigation as the

473

Attorney General stated in his March 24th letter to the House

474

and Senate Judiciary Committees.

There were boxes of such information
The same type of information has to

475

In the Watergate investigation, the Justice Department

476

did exactly the same thing after the grand jury considered

477

evidence and issued a report describing potentially criminal

478

acts by President Nixon.

479

fully supporting disclosure of the report to the House

480

Judiciary Committee, and made the point that, "The need for

481

the House to be able to make its profoundly important

482

judgment on the basis of all available information is as

483

compelling as any that could be conceived."

484

just two of the volumes from the Nixon impeachment

485

proceedings that include some of the grand jury material,

486

just some of the grand material that was produced to

487

Congress, Volumes 7 and 8 from the hearings before the House

488

Judiciary Committee.

489

The Justice Department filed briefs

And here are

Looking at Volume 7, it is filled with grand jury

490

testimony and other evidence from the investigation that was

491

produced to the House Judiciary Committee.

492

page 688 of Volume 8, there is the grand jury testimony of

For example, on

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 23 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

493

Rosemary Woods.

494

and volumes of such information produced in the Watergate

495

investigation to the House Judiciary Committee.

496

Here is a copy of it.

22

There were volumes

These examples of Congress receiving all of the relevant

497

evidence in other analogous investigations helps show how

498

unprecedented it would be for Attorney General Barr to

499

withhold from Congress potentially significant portions of

500

Special Counsel Mueller's report and the underlying evidence

501

and materials.

502

be produced here.

503
504
505
506

The same type of information can and should

I ask unanimous consent to include these materials in
the record.
[The information follows:]

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 24 of 73

HJU093000

507

PAGE

Chairman Nadler.

23

This subpoena authorization gives this

508

committee the ability to compel production of the full report

509

and related documents if the Attorney General departs from

510

these and other precedents and refuses to produce to Congress

511

the complete record of Special Counsel Mueller's

512

investigation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

513

I now recognize the ranking member of the Judiciary

514

Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for any

515

comments he may have on the amendment in the nature of a

516

substitute.

517

Mr. Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As far as the

518

substitute, that is fine, but I am glad we are using props

519

today because this is what happening here.

520

wants you to look at one thing when the reality is another

521

thing.

522

say this is full, and then he is wanting you to look at this

523

bottle of water and say it is full, too.

524

You can't say the Starr report, or even going back to

525

impeachment which we will get to in a minute, and then come

526

along and say Mueller is full, too.

527

They are not the same.

528

The chairman

He is wanting you to look at this bottle of water and

It doesn't work.

You see, it is the same.

And as long as we perpetrate this fraud of saying that

529

they are the same, then we are going to continue this process

530

of saying that we have got a problem here because the Starr

531

report, which actually came out, let's actually speak to what

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 25 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

24

532

it said.

533

Counsel Act, 28 U.S.C. 595, to advise the House of

534

Representatives of any substantial credible information which

535

may constitute grounds for an impeachment.

536

Starr had a requirement under the Independent

Remember, it was the Janet Reno Justice Department after

537

the Starr report that rewrote the regulations that we are

538

under today.

539

we understand this, then we can understand the problem we

540

have here.

541

analogy that just won't work.

542

he possibly can.

Starr, Mueller, two different things.

I feel for the chairman.

And if

He is trying to make an

He is doing as good a job as

It just doesn't work.

543

The other interesting thing in here is he has used two

544

precedents for getting this information, both of which are

545

impeachment.

546

information, then he can go to what I believe many in their

547

heart desire is open the impeachment inquiry.

548

what we are going to get to today.

549

precedent of impeachment, not the precedent of subpoenas,

550

then there is a problem.

551

If the chairman truly wanted to get at this

Maybe that is

But if you use the

And we have got to understand this is nothing.

If this

552

was simply about the Mueller report today and we had waited

553

until after we got the Mueller report and we said there is

554

still stuff we don't like, then I could see this happening.

555

I could see why would we would come together and ask for

556

subpoenas.

Any attorney, that is what you do.

When you

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 26 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

25

557

don't get what you want, you ask for the subpoenas, not

558

beforehand when the Attorney General has already said I am

559

going to do this.

560

So the problem is, look, it is a tough problem.

I feel

561

for him.

562

and the empty and say they are both full, that is going to be

563

a problem.

564

isn't about the Attorney General and the Mueller report,

565

because he went ahead and added five other individuals.

566

those five other individuals?

567

names.

568

But as long as you are trying to compare the full

The problem also I have with this is, is it just

Why

Let's take a look at the

The five other individuals:

Don McGahn, Steve Bannon,

569

Hope Hicks, Reince Priebus, and Ann Donaldson, all of which

570

either gave information or answered and responded to their

571

initial letters.

572

President.

573

writes about it.

574

President and they get a subpoena.

575

it is.

576

getting it for our side because this is great political

577

theater.

578

this one and this one are the same, then we are going to down

579

the same sad road.

580
581

Why these five?

They are close to the

The closer you get to the President, the press
The press writes about associates of the
Let's take this for what

We don't have our popcorn machine yet.

We are

But as long as they are trying to convince you that

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman Nadler.
comment on one thing.

I thank the gentleman.

I just want to

The argument is made that the prior

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 27 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

26

582

history is irrelevant because Mr. Jaworski and Mr. Starr

583

operated under a different law than Mr. Mueller is operating.

584

That fact is true.

585

rights as the committee did in those days, and we have the

586

same constitutional duty as the committee did in those days.

587

And we have the right and the necessity to get all the

588

information to fulfill our constitutional duty.

589
590

However, we have the same constitutional

Are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute?

591

[No response.]

592

Chairman Nadler.

593

Mr. Buck.

594

Chairman Nadler.

595

Mr. Cicilline.

596

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.

order.
Chairman Nadler.

598

Mr. Collins.

599

Chairman Nadler.

601

The clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of

597

600

Hearing none --

The gentlelady --

The gentleman.
The gentleman reserves a point of

order.
Ms. Strasser.

Amendment to the amendment in the nature

602

of a substitute, offered by Representative Ken Buck, of

603

Colorado.

604

paragraph:

605

authorizing the chairman to issue a subpoena for the

606

production of information where such production would violate

At the end of the resolution, insert the following
"This resolution shall not be construed as

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 28 of 73

HJU093000

607
608
609

PAGE

27

Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."
[The information follows:]

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 29 of 73

HJU093000

610
611
612

PAGE

Chairman Nadler.

28

The gentleman is recognized to explain

his amendment.
Mr. Buck.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in

613

Greek mythology, Prometheus looked down from the heavens and

614

saw man eating raw meat.

615

heavens, came to earth, and gave fire to man so man could

616

cook his food.

617

used fire to forge metal into swords.

618

went to war.

619

consequences, a lesson we should be mindful of today.

Out of pity, he stole fire from the

This gift had unintended consequences.

Man

With new weapons man

This is a cautionary tale about unintended

620

The current special counsel regulations were adopted in

621

1999 after Congress allowed the old independent counsel law

622

to expire.

623

of Robert Mueller as special counsel and guided his

624

investigation.

625

they strike a balance between disclosure and protection of

626

classified and grand jury information.

This resolution,

627

however, leads us down the wrong path.

The resolution fails

628

to ensure certain information remains protected.

629

have unintended consequences.

630

These Clinton-era regs authorized the appointment

They also limit what the AG can release.

So

This will

First, this resolution risks politicizing future special

631

counsel investigations.

By protecting grand jury information

632

from public release, the regs encourage the special counsel

633

to produce a candid report for the AG.

634

of an unredacted report, however, the committee risks

By compelling release

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 30 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

29

635

chilling future investigations and jeopardizes the special

636

counsel process.

637

undermine it.

638

This will not serve justice.

It will

Second, the public release of the full report could

639

compromise intelligence sources and methods.

640

expressed concern about this issue in a March 29th letter to

641

Chairman Nadler.

642

President, I would hope you love America more.

643

trumps hate, we should afford the AG time to redact

644

classified information before providing us with a report that

645

could be shared with the public.

646

General Barr

As much as Democrats may hate the
If love

Third, this resolution fails to protect grand jury

647

information from disclosure.

648

needs to be protected as confidential.

649

AG is required to redact this information.

650

wrote to the chairman on March 29th that, "We are preparing

651

the report for release, making the redactions that are

652

required.

653

process.

654

identifying and redacting the following:

655

to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) that by law cannot

656

be made public."

657

This is information that by law
Under the regs, the
General Barr

The special counsel is assisting us in this
Specifically, we are well along in the process of
materials subject

Rule 6(e) is information produced in front of the grand

658

jury.

As a former prosecutor, I hold the grand jury process

659

and the protection against disclosure sacrosanct.

I would

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 31 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

30

660

urge my colleagues do not undermine the grand jury process

661

for the sake of politics.

662

that is dangerously short-sighted.

663

This sets a dangerous precedent

My amendment is simple.

It modifies the resolution to

664

limit the subpoena to exclude production of any information

665

related to grand jury materials.

666

consistent with the special counsel regs that have been in

667

place for 20 years over which time Democrats and Republicans

668

in Congress during two Democratic administrations and two

669

Republican administrations have respected.

670

This amendment is

This amendment is also completely consistent with H.

671

Con. Res. 24, Chairman Nadler's resolution that the House

672

passed by a vote of 420-0 on March 14th.

673

Chairman Nadler's resolution 3 weeks ago, you essentially

674

voted for the special counsel regulations, and you also voted

675

to protect grand jury information from disclosure, the

676

principle found in my amendment.

677

consistency, you should report my amendment today.

678

help ensure we avoid unintended consequences.

If you voted for

For the sake of
It will

679

I ask unanimous consent that Attorney General Barr's

680

letter of March 29th, 2019 to Chairman Nadler to be included

681

in the record.

682

Chairman Nadler.

683

[The information follows:]

684

Without objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 32 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

685

Mr. Buck.

686

Chairman Nadler.

687

31

I urge a yes vote on the amendment.
Does the gentleman from Rhode Island

insist on his point of order?

688

Mr. Cicilline.

689

Chairman Nadler.

I do not, Mr. Chairman.
The gentleman from Rhode Island does

690

not insist on his point of order.

I will now recognize

691

myself in opposition to the amendment.

692

The amendment says that "This resolution shall not be

693

construed as authorizing a subpoena for the production of

694

Rule 6(e) information."

695

jury materials, which is to say the 6(e) information, is

696

fully consistent with past instances which I have outlined in

697

my initial comments in which the Justice Department has

698

provided this information to Congress.

699

Department can provide these materials to Congress by seeking

700

authorization from the District Court as it has in the past.

701

This committee's request for grand

The Justice

In response, for example, to Republican-led

702

congressional requests, the Justice Department turned over

703

unprecedented levels of materials in the 114th and 115th

704

Congress, including classified materials, deliberative

705

process documents, and information related to ongoing

706

investigations.

707

constitutional obligations, period.

708

obligation is to hold the President accountable, especially

709

in an instance where the Department of Justice says it cannot

We need these materials to fulfill our
Our chief constitutional

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 33 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

32

710

hold the President accountable because, as a matter of law,

711

you cannot indict a president and in which the Attorney

712

General tells us that a president cannot commit obstruction

713

of justice.

714

Those judgments must be made by Congress, not by a

715

political appointee, the Attorney General.

716

information to make those judgments, and the interests can be

717

protected by this Congress deciding which of that information

718

can be released publicly.

719

it, and, therefore, I ask opposition to this amendment.

720

Is there any other discussion on the amendment?

721

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

722

Chairman Nadler.

723

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

724

We need this

But Congress is entitled to all of

Mr. Chairman?
The gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the

last word.

725

Chairman Nadler.

726

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Chairman, the chair and his

727

supporters are putting the cart before the horse.

728

draw the attention of the committee to today's Roll Call,

729

hardly a Republican mouthpiece.

730

"Mueller magic not in subpoenas.

731

message, but it is one without teeth."

732

myself to become a dentist for the next 4-and-a-half minutes.

733
734

And I just

And what does it say?
Democrats can send a
I will delegate

The chairman of the committee, the distinguished
gentleman from New York, you know, says there was grand jury

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 34 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

33

735

material that was submitted both in the Nixon and Clinton

736

impeachments.

737

was submitted only after the court in D.C. allowed it to be

738

shared with Congress and made public.

739

in this case if there is any grand jury material in the

740

Mueller report, and I think we all know that there is grand

741

material in the Mueller report.

742

That is correct, but that grand jury material

That has not happened

So the thing to do to put teeth into a subpoena is for

743

Congress and this committee to go to court and to ask for an

744

order allowing for the release of the grand jury material.

745

Otherwise, you are going to see the Justice Department move

746

to quash the subpoena that I am sure will be issued today,

747

and it will be in courts for months and maybe years until the

748

Supreme Court decides this issue because it is a dispute

749

between the legislative and executive branches of government.

750

Chairman Nadler.

751

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Will the gentleman yield?
Let me finish, please.

And I will

752

be happy to be a co-plaintiff in the motion before the

753

district court as I am sure all of us would be because the

754

resolution that was passed 3 weeks ago was passed

755

unanimously.

756

colleagues voted for it.

757

that is sought by this subpoena quickly, promptly, and

758

without extended litigation is to go to court and get the

759

same kind of order that Mr. Starr got when he sent his

I voted for it.

All of my Republican

And the way to get the material

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 35 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

34

760

material over as independent counsel and what Mr. Jaworski

761

got when he sent his material over as special prosecutor in

762

the Richard Nixon impeachment.

763

Now, secondly, I think we all want to get to the bottom

764

of this, and it is only full disclosure, in my opinion, that

765

will get to the bottom of this.

766

be certain conditions precedent to get that full disclosure,

767

one of which, as far as the grand jury material and Rule 6(e)

768

of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, is going to court

769

and getting the order, if the court should so desire and be

770

required to, to allow the Justice Department to release this

771

material.

772

the same position as a grand jury witness who breaks the

773

secrecy rule and releases his or her testimony before the

774

grand jury, and that is a Federal crime.

775

The law requires that there

Otherwise, the Justice Department puts itself in

So, you know, it seems to me that if we want to protect

776

witnesses under the same rule that the Justice Department is

777

being protected, we ought to do what we need to do first, and

778

that is go to court and let the judge make the decision.

779

now I am happy to yield to the chairman.

780

Chairman Nadler.

And

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

781

We will, as appropriate, go to court.

We think we need a

782

subpoena first, but we will go to court.

783

Attorney General to go to court.

784

our request, but we will do whatever is necessary, be it

We have asked the

He has thus far declined

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 36 of 73

HJU093000

785
786

PAGE

35

subpoena or courts, to get this material.
Mr. Sensenbrenner.

You know, reclaiming my time, you

787

know, the thing is, is Mr. Starr got the appropriate order

788

without us being on his back.

789

order without the Judiciary Committee being on its back.

790

that material was used in both the Nixon and in the Clinton

791

impeachments.

792

Mr. Cicilline.

793

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Jaworski got the appropriate
And

Will the gentleman yield for a question?
No, I will not.

And as I recall

794

there were obstruction of justice articles of impeachment

795

voted out by this committee, and, in the case of Clinton,

796

approved by the House of Representatives, and that was an

797

issue in both of those impeachments.

798

look at Roll Call, you know.

799

by the Koch brothers, and it says "Democrats can send a

800

message, but it's one without teeth."

801

when we want to send a message, we send one with teeth, and

802

hopefully the rest of the news media will not be duped as

803

Roll Call was not in getting it right.

804
805
806

Chairman Nadler.

So, you know, again,

Again, Roll Call is not printed

It is about time that

Thank you.

The gentleman's time has expired.

The

gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

I thank the gentleman, and I thank my

807

colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, who sit on this

808

committee to do justice and to adhere to the rule of law.

809

I read the resolution proposed by the chair and the majority,

As

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 37 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

36

810

it provides an authorization.

It does not dictate an

811

issuance of a subpoena.

812

really some of the underlying reasons why we need to move

813

forward on a subpoena.

814

may respond and present us with the Mueller report in its

815

totality today at the end of business.

And I refer to my colleagues to

For all we know, the Attorney General

816

But in his letter on March 24th, the Attorney General

817

started out by saying that it was his intent to summarize the

818

principle conclusions reached by the special counsel.

819

course he tried to walk that back, but, in essence, he tried

820

to give us 4 pages as a complete summary of the entire

821

Mueller report.

822

obstruction of justice that the DOJ did not make a

823

traditional prosecutorial judgment.

824

but the standards that you adhere to by the second

825

constitutional body, the executive in Article II, has larger

826

parameters as to whether or not the Administration followed

827

the rule of law and actually adhered to guidelines or actions

828

appropriate for a president of the United States.

829

And of

He goes on to say on the question of

That may be accurate,

Further, the Attorney General attempted to swat away the

830

idea of any Russian coordination.

He did that by suggesting

831

that the attorney, Mueller, did not find an underlying crime,

832

and, therefore, refused to move forward on the obstruction,

833

refused to move forward on the obstruction on the basis of

834

not an indictment or a crime.

And we also know that Attorney

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 38 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

37

835

General Barr has already made his point very clear about his

836

position on the indictment of a President.

837

here in the role of a grand jury to indict the President, but

838

we sit here as a body that to proceed with its constitutional

839

duties to provide oversight and transparency.

840

We do not sit

Let me share with my colleagues what has happened in the

841

past.

Dan Burton, former chair of the Oversight Committee,

842

issued a thousand unilateral subpoenas in the 1990s regarding

843

the Clinton Administration.

844

Committee issued 25 subpoenas in his first year of

845

chairmanship.

846

subpoenas in 21 years.

847

subpoenas, exceeding by over 20 percent the number of

848

subpoenas from Dems and Republicans, lawmakers of any

849

committee.

850

Committee, who sent U.S. marshals to 70 witness' homes

851

without asking one of them to come voluntarily.

852

believe that we are being both fair and balanced in our

853

efforts --

Lamar Smith of the Science

Before 2015, this committee had not issued one
Chairman Issa issued 100-plus

And then Chairman Gowdy of the Benghazi

854

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

855

Ms. Jackson Lee.

856

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

I, frankly,

Would the gentlewoman yield?
I would be happy to yield.
Just for the record, I was chair of

857

this committee for 6 years, and I didn't sign one subpoena at

858

all.

859

without having to compel it.

You know, I got what I needed out of the Administration
So there is a difference

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 39 of 73

HJU093000

860
861

PAGE

38

between nice and being less than nice.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Mr. Sensenbrenner, thank you.

862

restoring my time.

863

know, you have not been mentioned.

864

mentioned, nor has the Judiciary Committee been mentioned.

865

But the point being made is that there has been a history of

866

subpoenas offered in other areas in other committees.

867

I am reclaiming my time.

I am

As you well

You have not been

And in this instance, I think the Judiciary Committee is

868

being extremely fair.

869

clarification that Chairman Sensenbrenner did not, but in

870

this instance, I believe that the committee is being fair.

871

Mr. Nadler is being fair.

872

the issuance of a subpoena, and I ask my colleagues to

873

support this resolution.

874

Chairman Nadler.

875
876

So thank you so very much for that

This is a resolution to authorize

I yield back.

Thank you.

The gentleman from

Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is recognized.
Mr. Biggs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I ask unanimous

877

consent that an article published April 1st, 2019 in the

878

Atlantic written by Ben Wittes and entitled, "Bill Barr Has

879

Promised Transparency," be entered into the record.

880

Chairman Nadler.

881

[The information follows:]

882

Without objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 40 of 73

HJU093000

883

PAGE

Mr. Biggs.

Thank you.

39

Wittes is the editor-in-chief of

884

Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

885

That is the same think tank where Norm Eisen, a member of the

886

chairman's staff, is also a senior fellow, and Barry Berke,

887

another member of the chairman's staff, has published

888

extensively.

889

Colorado, Mr. Buck.

890

Mr. Buck.

And with that, I yield to the gentleman from

I thank the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr.

891

Chairman, we are discussing basically what the standard is

892

for the release of grand jury testimony in the context of an

893

independent counsel or special counsel investigation.

894

thankfully you announced the standard on September 9th, 1998

895

when you appeared on the Charlie Rose Show.

896

day that independent counsel, Ken Starr, and I will repeat

897

that, the same day that independent counsel, Ken Starr,

898

delivered his report into the Clinton investigation to

899

Congress.

900

And

That is the same

Here is what you said when explaining why it would be

901

unwise and unfair to release grand jury materials.

"Now, Mr.

902

Starr in his transmittal letter to the Speaker and the

903

Minority Leader made it clear that much of this material is

904

Federal Rule 6(e) material.

905

unless contravened by a vote of the House, must be kept

906

secret.

907

which may or may not be true by various witnesses, salacious

That is material that by law,

It is grand jury material.

It represents statements

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 41 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

40

908

material, all kinds of material that it would be unfair to

909

release."

910

that interview that certain material "must not be released at

911

all."

912

Our chairman even went so far as to suggest in

I do want to mention that under the independent counsel

913

statute, Congress held a statutory role of oversight so it

914

would have at least been proper for Congress to consider if

915

grand jury materials should be released, but that law has

916

expired.

917

with the responsibility of protecting grand jury materials, a

918

different person responsible for deciding, a different

919

responsibility all together.

920

chairman's concerns from 1998 about the questionable value in

921

releasing grand jury material and the need to protect those

922

materials are still true today.

Under current law, the Attorney General is left

Despite changes in the law, the

923

The chairman's position was also on display 3 weeks ago

924

when the House unanimously approved his resolution, H. Con.

925

Res. 24, calling for the release of the special counsel

926

report while excluding from disclosure any information

927

protected by law which would necessarily protect grand jury

928

material.

929

the chairman wrote, "The Department of Justice has an

930

obligation to provide it," meaning the full Mueller report,

931

"in its entirety without delay."

932

Nevertheless, in a New York Times op-ed this week,

Mr. Chairman, you had it right over 20 years ago.

You

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 42 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

41

933

supported the protection of grand jury information, and I

934

agree with that.

935

this committee voted for your resolution to protect against

936

the release of 6(e) materials.

937

General Barr agrees with you.

938

tell that he was working with the special counsel to redact

939

grand jury materials.

You had it right 3 weeks ago.

Everyone on

Mr. Chairman, Attorney
Last week he wrote to you to

940

Your historic standard, one you held for 7,492 days,

941

from September 8th, 1998 at least until March 14th, 2019, is

942

the same standard that can be found in my amendment.

943

standards says the grand jury materials should not be

944

disclosed.

945

committee to adopt the standard.

946

gentleman from Arizona.

That is the right standard, and I urge the

947

Mr. Biggs.

948

Mr. Cicilline.

949

Chairman Nadler.

950

Mr. Biggs.

951

The

And I yield back to the

Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Chairman?
The gentleman from Rhode Island.

Excuse me.

I still have time.

I reclaimed

my time.

952

Chairman Nadler.

953

Mr. Biggs.

954

Chairman Nadler.

955

Mr. Biggs.

Oh, I am sorry.

Thank you.
Mr. Biggs, continue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I support the Ken

956

Buck, Representative Buck's, amendment to the amendment in

957

the nature of a substitute to the resolution.

And one thing

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 43 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

42

958

I want to point out is that when I hear people intimate that

959

the chairman merely has the authorization to issue a

960

subpoena, I get this feeling that maybe this isn't a done

961

deal.

962

response to the gentleman from Wisconsin said very clearly

963

that before going to court we are going to issue a subpoena.

964

But it is a done deal because the chairman in his

So the normal process would naturally be to go to the

965

court and ask for this information to be made available, but

966

that is not what is going to happen here.

967

see subpoenas issued, and they are going to be issued

968

because, as the chairman said in his opening statement, the

969

Attorney General may do this, and I am paraphrasing of

970

course, and President Trump may do that.

971

would suggest that this would be conditional, but he is

972

acting and this resolution is going to go forward regardless

973

of what Mr. Barr provides, even if it is in compliance with

974

Rule 6(e).

In other words, he

My time has expired.

975

Chairman Nadler.

976

Mr. Cicilline.

977

You are going to

The gentleman from Rhode Island.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move to

strike the last word.

978

Chairman Nadler.

979

Mr. Cicilline.

The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make two

980

brief points.

One is the gentleman from Wisconsin referenced

981

the Starr report and the Jaworski report as precedent for not

982

issuing a subpoena and, in fact, going to court.

It should

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 44 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

43

983

be noted that in both of those cases the special and

984

independent counsel went to court to seek authorization for

985

the release of the grand jury testimony before it was

986

delivered to Congress.

987

didn't require Congress to litigate it.

They did that on their own.

It

988

So those individuals recognized that it was important

989

when they delivered the report to also deliver the underlying

990

documents, and they sought permission from the court to do

991

it.

992

has done just the opposite.

993

information from Congress.

994

wait and sort of pray and hope that Mr. Barr will suddenly

995

find his way to the courthouse to seek authorization, I

996

think, is foolish.

997

that action because as the gentleman from Wisconsin said, he

998

could move to quash the subpoena.

999

action.

That has not happened in this case.

In fact, Mr. Barr

He has attempted to keep this
So the notion that we should just

This subpoena will require him to take

That is one course of

He could also go to court and move for the

1000

production of 6(e) materials so he can comply with the

1001

subpoena, and that is what we are hoping he will do if, in

1002

fact, they are interested in getting this information for

1003

Congress.

1004

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, to set

1005

the precedent so that, in fact, this committee can get the

1006

full report and all the supporting materials so we can do our

1007

oversight responsibility.

And as the chairman said, our

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 45 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

44

1008

constitutional responsibilities have not changed even if some

1009

regulation has.

1010

the balance of my time to the chairman.

I urge a no vote on the amendment and yield

1011

Chairman Nadler.

I thank the gentleman.

1012

I just want to point out that I was right 21 years ago,

1013

I am right now, and it is totally consistent, because we are

1014

urging now that the underlying 6(e) material be produced to

1015

the committee.

1016

the Congress, and what we were discussing was its release to

1017

the public.

1018

public, it has to be reviewed if some of it should not be

1019

released to the public for privacy and other reasons.

1020

that determination was made then by Congress, and it should

1021

be made now by Congress.

1022

In 1998, that material had been produced to

And before 6(e) material is released to the

But

We are asking now that the material be given to Congress

1023

so we can fulfill our constitutional responsibilities.

In

1024

1998, the material had been given prior to that debate to

1025

Congress so Congress could fulfill its constitutional

1026

responsibilities, and my comments on the floor then and the

1027

debate then was not about whether the material should go to

1028

Congress; it already had.

1029

released to the public in its entirety, and I said then that

1030

you cannot release 6(e) material entirely to the public

1031

without reviewing it, and that is still true.

1032

then and should be now released to the Congress, to this

It was about whether it should be

But it was

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 46 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1033

committee, in its entirety.

1034

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

1035

Chairman Nadler.

1036

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

45

Would the gentleman yield?
Yes, I will yield.
Would the gentleman report releasing

1037

to the public the material that we redacted in the Clinton

1038

impeachment?

1039

Mr. Cicilline.

I will reclaim my time.

1040

focus on the issue before this committee.

1041

time, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to

I am reclaiming my

1042

But I again want to suggest that this is an important

1043

responsibility to this committee to ensure that no one is

1044

above the law, that we follow the facts where they lead us,

1045

that this investigation was conducted on behalf of the

1046

American people.

1047

foreign adversary, we fought hard to protect Mr. Mueller so

1048

he could complete his work free from political interference,

1049

and now we have a right, this committee has the right and the

1050

responsibility to see the full contents of this report and

1051

the supporting materials, and I urge a no on this amendment

1052

and yield the balance of my time to the Chairman.

When our democracy was attacked by a

1053

Chairman Nadler.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

1054

Again, we have the right and the duty to protect certain

1055

material from public disclosure.

If we redacted it from the

1056

public 20 years ago, I assume we had good reason to do that.

1057

But the question before us now is not public release of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 47 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

46

1058

information.

It is release to Congress to do our

1059

constitutional duties, and it is a very different situation.

1060

I yield back to the gentleman.

1061

Mr. Cicilline.

1062

Chairman Nadler.

1063

Ratcliffe, is recognized.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr.

1064

Mr. Ratcliffe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1065

I move to strike the last word.

1066

Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the arguments

1067

this morning.

1068

Was it last week when within 24 hours of the Attorney General

1069

issuing his summary of the Mueller findings I listened to the

1070

Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff,

1071

demand the immediate full release of the Mueller report

1072

without consideration for classified information?

1073

Chairman of the Intelligence Committee telling all 17

1074

intelligence agencies over which he had oversight essentially

1075

I do not give a damn about classified information, I want the

1076

full release of that report.

1077

I have been trying to decide what is worse.

The

Or was it this week, when I am sitting here today

1078

listening to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee say I do

1079

not care what the law says, I do not care what the Special

1080

Counsel regulations say, I do not care that the Attorney

1081

General has complied with both, that the Attorney General has

1082

done everything the law requires, everything the Special

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 48 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

47

1083

Counsel regulations require, and is promising to do more, but

1084

that is not good enough, and now he is going to be subpoenaed

1085

for that.

1086

In that theater of the absurd, I am still trying to

1087

decide which of those is worse.

1088

comply with the Democrats’ arbitrary April 2nd demand

1089

deadline because he cannot comply, because the law precludes

1090

him from complying, because the Attorney General was not

1091

going to commit crimes to comply with that deadline.

1092

The Attorney General did not

Mr. Chairman, today I heard you say over and over again

1093

Congress requires, Congress requires, there are

1094

constitutional rights, or there is a necessity for this

1095

information.

1096

Counsel -- where in the Special Counsel regulation does it

1097

say that the Attorney General must turn over an un-redacted

1098

full Special Counsel report?

1099

does not say that.

What I did not hear was what law the Special

The Special Counsel regulation

No law says that.

1100

The Attorney General has promised to provide as much

1101

transparency as he possibly can, but I am afraid that is

1102

never going to be good enough for some in here, and that is

1103

because we are here having this argument because some, not

1104

all, of my Democratic colleagues promised the American people

1105

evidence that never existed.

1106

shouted fire in the theater of the American public, feeding a

1107

false Trump-Russia collusion narrative that never existed and

Some, not all, Democrats

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 49 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

48

1108

that, in fact, some Democrats created with a fake, phony

1109

dossier.

1110

Now Special Counsel Mueller, who some Democrats demanded

1111

be protected so that he could do his job, did his job, and

1112

the minute that he finished doing that job and said no

1113

collusion, that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative does not

1114

exist, is not real, protect Bob Mueller suddenly has become

1115

to hell with Bob Mueller.

1116

I have always believed that Bob Mueller could write the

1117

definitive narrative on how Russia tried to meddle in our

1118

election.

1119

that regard a witch hunt.

1120

findings to the Attorney General, who has accurately

1121

summarized those.

1122

I have never called what Bob Mueller was doing in
But Bob Mueller has provided his

And with respect to Trump-Russia collusion, Bob Mueller

1123

has said there are no witches.

1124

should end.

1125

subpoenas today.

1126

We should move on.

So these investigations
We should not be issuing

But if we are going to issue subpoenas today, let’s not

1127

issue a subpoena for the Mueller report.

1128

Bob Mueller.

Let’s issue one for

1129

Mr. Cohen.

Would the gentleman yield?

1130

Mr. Raskin.

1131

Mr. Ratcliffe.

1132

Let Bob Mueller come and let’s ask Bob Mueller whether

Would the gentleman yield?
Let me finish this thought.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 50 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

49

1133

or not he thinks that the report that he created should be

1134

disclosed without considerations of redactions of classified

1135

national security information or without redactions for grand

1136

jury information or other information relating to ongoing

1137

investigations.

1138

in certain regards, but I have never questioned his

1139

integrity, and I would be happy to hear his answer under oath

1140

before this committee with respect to that issue.

1141
1142

I may have questioned Bob Mueller’s actions

So I urge all my colleagues to follow the law and to
therefore support the Buck amendment.

1143

And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

1144

Chairman Nadler.

1145

Mr. Ratcliffe.

1146

Chairman Nadler.

1147

Mr. Cohen.

1148

I was just going to say that Mr. Ratcliffe, who I

The gentleman’s time has expired.
I yield back.
The gentleman from Tennessee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1149

respect greatly, said that Mr. Barr accurately described the

1150

Mueller report.

1151

see it, so we can know if he accurately did.

1152

he went through fire.

1153

those fire throwers.

1154

I want the public to see it too.

We do not know that.

That is why we want to
He talked about

He might be suggesting I am one of
I want to find out if I was wrong, and

1155

I yield back the balance of my time.

1156

Chairman Nadler.

1157

Mr. Gohmert.

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 51 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

50

1158

I have to say, I witnessed one of the proof positive of

1159

the brilliant mental acumen of our Chairman as he explained

1160

adroitly how he was right 21 years ago and is right today,

1161

just a work of beauty and argument.

1162

As Chairman said, 21 years ago, we should always

1163

remember this as a prosecutor’s report by its nature.

1164

one-sided.

1165

of material that it would be unfair to release.

It is

I also said it was salacious material, all kinds

1166

I would point out the gentleman did not know exactly

1167

what all the material was at that time, and we do not know at

1168

this time either.

1169

article, our current Chairman called the Starr report and

1170

impeachment efforts a “partisan coup d’état.”

1171

In February 1999, a New York Times

What has gone on in this country did absolutely,

1172

unequivocally, no doubt about it involve collusion of people

1173

at the highest level with a foreign entity to try to bring

1174

down a candidate and then bring down a sitting president.

1175

That was collusion between top FBI officials, Justice

1176

officials, a former MI6 intelligence officer who has been

1177

discredited by those same Justice officials, FBI officials,

1178

but they colluded with him to try to bring down a candidate

1179

and now a sitting president.

1180

Enough is enough.

At some point, we have to say what

1181

will be written in the annals of history of this country as

1182

an outrageous attempt at a real coup d’état was unsuccessful.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 52 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

51

1183

The truth came out about who really colluded with foreign

1184

agents.

1185

And by the way, they did involve the Democrats’ campaign

1186

and a foreign agent who was colluding with some of Putin’s

1187

agents, in all likelihood, as he was not even in Russia but

1188

was talking by phone to Russian agents in his efforts to help

1189

the Clinton campaign and top Justice officials bring down a

1190

sitting president.

1191

assault on the office of president, even after the truth has

1192

come out that there was no conspiracy by the Trump campaign

1193

or President Trump or anybody in his family with Russia, and

1194

to continue to push, we are still going to make a big deal

1195

out of this, we cannot stand the fact that the facts show it

1196

was the Democrats that colluded with foreign agents to try to

1197

change the outcome of the election.

1198

And for us to continue this outrageous

Enough is enough, for heaven’s sake.

Let’s please move

1199

on.

There was a time when I loved and appreciated the

1200

current Chairman’s desire to protect privacy rights.

1201

that dramatically eroded during the Obama Administration, but

1202

I am still hoping and praying that our now-Chairman’s once

1203

great desire to protect privacy rights and to try to hold

1204

back the bounds of what Orwell described as happening now --

1205

obviously, the only thing you got wrong was the year, because

1206

we have seen what the Obama Administration did with those

1207

Orwellian abilities to spy on American citizens.

I saw

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 53 of 73

HJU093000

1208

PAGE

52

It is time to go back and clean up the mess that has

1209

been made over years of abuse.

1210

subpoenas is not what we need to be voting for, and I support

1211

my friend’s amendment.

1212

I yield back.

1213

Chairman Nadler.

1214

The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.

1215

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

1216

Chairman Nadler.

1217

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

1218

And this subpoena, the

The gentleman yields back.

I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman is recognized.
I yield to the gentle lady from

Texas.

1219

Ms. Jackson Lee.

Thank you very much.

1220

I wanted to read into the record the information

1221

regarding the Chairman of the Benghazi committee sent U.S.

1222

Marshalls to witness without asking that witness to come in

1223

voluntarily.

1224

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

1225

Chairman Nadler.

1226

Does the gentleman from Georgia yield

back?

1227

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

1228

Chairman Nadler.

1229

I yield back.

The gentle lady from Arizona, Ms.

Lesko.

1230

Mrs. Lesko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1231

I want to move to strike the last word.

1232

Chairman Nadler.

The gentle lady is recognized.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 54 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

53

1233

Mrs. Lesko.

Thank you.

1234

Mr. Chairman, I support Representative Buck’s amendment.

1235

What basically we are doing here is, in my opinion, the

1236

Democrats are asking Attorney General Barr to violate the

1237

law.

1238

criminal to disclose grand jury material without a court

1239

order.

It is not only against the law, but it would even be

1240

It is obvious to me that this is just a continuation of

1241

an attempt to undermine the President of the United States.

1242

For the last two years, members on this committee have said

1243

that there has been collusion with the Trump Administration

1244

and President Trump with Russia to undermine the 2016

1245

election, and as revealed in the summary, this is absolutely

1246

not true.

1247

So I really wish that we could work on big issues

1248

instead of continuing this circus on undermining the

1249

President of the United States.

1250

and on every single committee it is obvious from the very

1251

first organizational meeting that there is a coordinated

1252

attempt by the Democrats to undermine the President of the

1253

United States, and this is all about the 2020 presidential

1254

election.

1255

I serve on three committees,

The public really wants us to work on big issues

1256

together, and I ask my Democratic colleagues to do that and

1257

quit this circus.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 55 of 73

HJU093000

1258
1259
1260
1261
1262

PAGE

54

I will yield time to the gentleman, Mr. Jordan, from
Ohio.
Mr. Jordan.

I thank the gentle lady for yielding, and I

too wish to support the Buck amendment.
I would just ask the fundamental question:

Why are we

1263

here?

1264

was not what the Democrats thought it was going to be.

1265

fact -- in fact -- it was just the opposite.

1266

It seems to me we are here because the Mueller report

What did the Attorney General tell us that the principal

1267

findings of Mr. Mueller’s report were?

1268

no sealed indictments, no collusion, no obstruction.

1269

Mr. Cicilline.

1270

Mr. Jordan.

1271

Mr. Cicilline.

I only got a little bit of time because -I only have a short question.

reference to the Mueller report.

1273

we have not.

1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280

Mr. Jordan.

No new indictments,

Would the gentleman yield?

1272

1274

In

You made

Have you seen it?

Because

I have seen the principal findings from the

Attorney General.
Mr. Raskin.
question?

Would the gentleman yield for a quick

I promise it is short.

You reported that the report states that there is no
obstruction.

What is your basis for saying that?

Mr. Jordan.

The sentence where he said they did not

1281

find obstruction.

I understand the sentence you are

1282

referring to where he talks about no exoneration either, but

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 56 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

55

1283

then there are three paragraphs after where he points out

1284

that there was not the elements of obstruction.

1285

In fact, the report -- excuse me -- the letter from the

1286

Attorney General referencing the Special Counsel report said

1287

no new indictments, no sealed indictments, no collusion, and

1288

as I just pointed out, did not find obstruction.

1289

On the question of collusion, it was very clear.

He

1290

said there were multiple opportunities for Trump associates,

1291

people associated with the Trump campaign to collude, and

1292

they did not.

1293

was placed in front of them and they did not bite.

1294

So multiple times where the forbidden fruit

I would also point out this.

There has been reference

1295

from the Democrats relative to Watergate and the Clinton

1296

Special Counsel.

1297

Clinton, there was perjury.

1298

Special Counsel’s investigation, there was no collusion.

1299

Watergate, there was a break-in.

But here we are today.

With

With the chief charge of this

Well, actually three weeks ago,

1300

the Chairman of the committee launched 81 letters to 60-some

1301

different individuals, and now today we are going to subpoena

1302

documents that the AG said he will give us in a matter of

1303

days.

1304

But maybe the most important point, I think, is the one

1305

that my colleague from Texas made, Mr. Ratcliffe.

The idea

1306

that the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee said he wants

1307

everything made public, including classified information, and

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 57 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

56

1308

the idea that the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, the House

1309

Judiciary Committee said last week, or this week, that he

1310

wants everything made public, including grand jury material,

1311

that is maybe the scariest thing of all.

1312

So the Attorney General has said he is going to turn

1313

this over in a matter of days.

1314

information, and then let’s look at it then.

1315
1316

Let’s wait.

Let’s get the

With that, I would yield back the remaining 20 seconds
to the gentle lady from Arizona.

1317

Mrs. Lesko.

I yield back my time.

1318

Chairman Nadler.

1319

Mr. Gaetz.

1320

Chairman Nadler.

1321

Mr. Gaetz.

1322

When the human body sees life expire within it, one of

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz.

Move to strike the last word.
The gentleman is recognized.

Thank you.

I support the Buck amendment.

1323

the final sounds that it can make in dramatic and loud

1324

fashion is a death rattle, and I would suggest to the

1325

American people that what they are witnessing is the death

1326

rattle of the Democrats’ Russia collusion lie.

1327

For 22 months my colleagues on the other side, many of

1328

them said there was actual evidence of collusion.

1329

now, clearly seeing that that is not true, we observe our

1330

colleagues moving through the stages of grief.

1331
1332

First we saw shock and surprise.

And so

My colleagues would

huddle together after the findings of the Mueller report

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 58 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

57

1333

release wondering what to do next, what play to run after

1334

losing all credibility with the American people.

1335

And after shock, we now are in the stage of denial,

1336

where the principal findings of the Mueller report, they just

1337

cannot be true, they cannot be accepted, they must be false,

1338

there must be more information we can discover.

1339

I know we are beginning the baseball season, so perhaps

1340

a baseball analogy would be appropriate.

1341

saying, well, we have lost the game, but we have to tweeze

1342

through the box score to see if we won the third inning.

1343

That is what is essentially happening with the desire of

1344

Democrats in the production of these subpoenas and voting on

1345

them today.

1346

This would be like

It also represents a stark departure from the standards

1347

and statements that my own Democratic colleagues have laid

1348

out just last Congress and this Congress.

1349

from the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

1350

2018 she said, “President Trump has surrendered his

1351

constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief by

1352

releasing highly classified and distorted intelligence.

1353

not protecting intelligence sources and methods, he just sent

1354

his friend Putin a bouquet.”

1355

I am quoting now
In February of

By

Well, there was no bouquet, no untoward relationship

1356

with Vladimir Putin, but there was a statement from the

1357

Speaker of the House acknowledging that if you do not review

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 59 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

58

1358

sources and methods, you are derelict in your duty to the

1359

country.

1360

of grief, perhaps we are approaching bargaining, because now

1361

they are trying to bargain away their own standards.

1362

But it is not just the Speaker of the House.

Well, now that they are going through their stages

Let’s look

1363

to statements from the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,

1364

the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler.

1365

28th of 2018, “Republicans are requesting documents they know

1366

they cannot have.”

1367

Republicans, “Right is rightly denied.

1368

best to undermine the credibility of the Department of

1369

Justice.”

He said on June

He continued, speaking of the
They will do their

1370

Well, Mr. Chairman, you are now asking for documents you

1371

know you cannot have, and you are doing so in order to erode

1372

confidence in the Attorney General who leads the Department

1373

of Justice because he has concluded that there was not

1374

collusion and that your principal Russian narrative was not

1375

truthful, was not credible.

1376

and the American people know it.

1377

We were right, you were wrong,

And so as we proceed now on this unfocused, 81-pronged

1378

investigation of the Judiciary Committee has launched, as we

1379

continue to have these mindless votes on unnecessary

1380

subpoenas, I sincerely hope that the American people will

1381

remember what things the Democrats were saying just months

1382

ago, that there was collusion, that there was actual evidence

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 60 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

59

1383

of collusion, and that sources and methods could never be

1384

disclosed as a consequence of our fidelity to our oath and to

1385

the people of this country.

1386

Let’s have some consistency, and let’s at least have

1387

some acknowledgment that you all were not telling the truth

1388

to the American people for an extended period of time.

1389

were, and you should not be trusted.

We

1390

I yield back.

1391

Chairman Nadler.

1392

All those in favor of the Buck amendment will signify by

1393

The question occurs on the amendment.

saying aye.

1394

Those opposed, no.

1395

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.

1396

The noes have it.

1397

Mr. Collins.

1398

Chairman Nadler.

1399

As your name is called, all those in favor will signify

1400

The amendment is not agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.
A roll call vote has been requested.

by saying aye; opposed, no.

1401

The Clerk will call the roll.

1402

Ms. Strasser.

1403

Chairman Nadler.

1404

Ms. Strasser.

1405

Ms. Lofgren?

1406

Ms. Lofgren.

1407

Ms. Strasser.

Mr. Nadler?
No.

Mr. Nadler votes no.

No.
Ms. Lofgren votes no.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 61 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1408

Ms. Jackson Lee?

1409

Ms. Jackson Lee.

1410

Ms. Strasser.

1411

Mr. Cohen?

1412

Mr. Cohen.

1413

Ms. Strasser.

1414

Mr. Johnson of Georgia?

1415

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

1416

Ms. Strasser.

1417

Mr. Deutch?

1418

Mr. Deutch.

1419

Ms. Strasser.

1420

Ms. Bass?

1421

Mr. Richmond?

1422

Mr. Richmond.

No.

1423

Ms. Strasser.

Mr. Richmond votes no.

1424

Mr. Jeffries?

1425

Mr. Jeffries.

No.

1426

Ms. Strasser.

Mr. Jeffries votes no.

1427

Mr. Cicilline?

1428

Mr. Cicilline.

1429

Ms. Strasser.

1430

Mr. Swalwell?

1431

Mr. Swalwell.

No.

1432

Ms. Strasser.

Mr. Swalwell votes no.

No.

Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.

No.
Mr. Cohen votes no.

No.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes no.

No.
Mr. Deutch votes no.

No.
Mr. Cicilline votes no.

60

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 62 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1433

Mr. Lieu?

1434

Mr. Lieu.

1435

Ms. Strasser.

1436

Mr. Raskin?

1437

Mr. Raskin.

1438

Ms. Strasser.

1439

Ms. Jayapal?

1440

Ms. Jayapal.

1441

Ms. Strasser.

1442

Mrs. Demings?

1443

Mrs. Demings.

No.

1444

Ms. Strasser.

Mrs. Demings votes no.

1445

Mr. Correa?

1446

Mr. Correa.

1447

Ms. Strasser.

1448

Ms. Scanlon?

1449

Ms. Scanlon.

1450

Ms. Strasser.

1451

Ms. Garcia?

1452

Ms. Garcia.

1453

Ms. Strasser.

1454

Mr. Neguse?

1455

Mr. Neguse.

1456

Ms. Strasser.

1457

Mrs. McBath?

No.
Mr. Lieu votes no.

No.
Mr. Raskin votes no.

No.
Ms. Jayapal votes no.

No.
Mr. Correa votes no.

No.
Ms. Scanlon votes no.

No.
Ms. Garcia votes no.

No.
Mr. Neguse votes no.

61

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 63 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1458

Mrs. McBath.

No.

1459

Ms. Strasser.

1460

Mr. Stanton?

1461

Mr. Stanton.

1462

Ms. Strasser.

1463

Ms. Dean?

1464

Ms. Dean.

1465

Ms. Strasser.

1466

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?

1467

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

1468

Ms. Strasser.

1469

Ms. Escobar?

1470

Ms. Escobar.

1471

Ms. Strasser.

1472

Mr. Collins?

1473

Mr. Collins.

1474

Ms. Strasser.

1475

Mr. Sensenbrenner?

1476

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

1477

Ms. Strasser.

1478

Mr. Chabot?

1479

Mr. Chabot.

1480

Ms. Strasser.

1481

Mr. Gohmert?

1482

Mr. Gohmert.

Mrs. McBath votes no.

No.
Mr. Stanton votes no.

No.
Ms. Dean votes no.

No.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes no.

No.
Ms. Escobar votes no.

Yes.
Mr. Collins votes yes.

Aye.

Mr. Sensenbrenner votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Chabot votes aye.

Aye.

62

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 64 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1483

Ms. Strasser.

1484

Mr. Jordan?

1485

Mr. Jordan.

1486

Ms. Strasser.

1487

Mr. Buck?

1488

Mr. Buck.

1489

Ms. Strasser.

1490

Mr. Ratcliffe?

1491

Mr. Ratcliffe.

1492

Ms. Strasser.

1493

Mrs. Roby?

1494

Mr. Gaetz?

1495

Mr. Gaetz.

1496

Ms. Strasser.

1497

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?

1498

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

1499

Ms. Strasser.

1500

Mr. Biggs?

1501

Mr. Biggs.

1502

Ms. Strasser.

1503

Mr. McClintock?

1504

Mr. McClintock.

1505

Ms. Strasser.

1506

Mrs. Lesko?

1507

Mrs. Lesko.

63

Mr. Gohmert votes aye.

Yes.
Mr. Jordan votes yes.

Aye.
Mr. Buck votes aye.

Yes.
Mr. Ratcliffe votes yes.

Aye.
Mr. Gaetz votes aye.

Aye.

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Biggs votes aye.

Aye.

Mr. McClintock votes aye.

Aye.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 65 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1508

Ms. Strasser.

1509

Mr. Reschenthaler?

1510

Mr. Reschenthaler.

1511

Ms. Strasser.

1512

Mr. Cline?

1513

Mr. Cline.

1514

Ms. Strasser.

1515

Mr. Armstrong?

1516

Mr. Armstrong.

1517

Ms. Strasser.

1518

Mr. Steube?

1519

Mr. Steube.

1520

Ms. Strasser.

1521

Chairman Nadler.

1522

One more?

1523

Ms. Strasser.

1524

Chairman Nadler.

1525

The Clerk will report.

1526

Ms. Strasser.

1527

Mr. Chairman, the vote is 16 ayes and 24 noes.

1528

Chairman Nadler.

1529
1530
1531
1532

64

Mrs. Lesko votes aye.

Aye.

Mr. Reschenthaler votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Cline votes aye.

Yes.
Mr. Armstrong votes yes.

Yes.
Mr. Steube votes yes.
The Clerk will report.

The Clerk will suspend.
Ms. Bass votes no.
Has everyone else voted?

Ms. Jackson Lee is recorded as no.

A majority having voted against the

amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there any other amendments?
amendment?
The gentleman is recognized.

Is there another

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 66 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1533

Mr. McClintock.

1534

Chairman Nadler.

1535

Mr. McClintock.

1536
1537

65

I move to strike the last word.
The gentleman is recognized.
Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I called for

the -Chairman Nadler.

1538

the amendment.

1539

Voice.

1540

Chairman Nadler.

1541

Go ahead.

1542

Mr. McClintock.

Wait a minute.

The Clerk will report

There is no amendment.
I am sorry.

Mr. Chairman, I called for the

1543

appointment of a Special Counsel to look into charges of

1544

collusion before Mr. Mueller was appointed because I believed

1545

the President was completely innocent of these outlandish

1546

charges and that a full and independent investigation would

1547

show that.

1548

Now it has, and I too want to see as much of the report

1549

made public as quickly as humanly possible to put the lie to

1550

these politicians who have been telling us for more than two

1551

years that they held in their hands irrefutable evidence of

1552

coordination between the Russian government and the Trump

1553

campaign.

1554

responsible for using it to tear this country apart and to

1555

interfere with the legitimate election of the President.

1556
1557

I want to know all aspects of this lie and who was

What I do not want to do is illegally release material
in that report that is related to ongoing investigations into

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 67 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

66

1558

political corruption at the highest levels of the FBI and the

1559

Justice Department.

1560

It is clear that high-ranking officials entrusted with

1561

the law enforcement powers of our country abused this trust

1562

to influence the 2016 presidential election and ultimately to

1563

undermine its outcome.

1564

investigation did not look into the fake Steele dossier that

1565

was the source of these outlandish charges and that was

1566

knowingly invoked by these officials in their attempt to

1567

delegitimize the constitutional right of the American people

1568

to elect their president.

1569

It is inconceivable that the Mueller

The premature release of such information while the

1570

Inspector General is conducting investigations into this

1571

matter, and while future prosecutions of these officials is

1572

possible, would itself be a deliberate and calculated attempt

1573

to obstruct justice by this committee, and I am opposed to

1574

the motion.

1575
1576

Chairman Nadler.

The question occurs on the amendment

in the nature of a substitute.

1577

All those in favor, respond by saying aye.

1578

Opposed, no?

1579

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the

1580
1581
1582

amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
A reporting quorum being present, the question is on the
motion to agree to the resolution as amended.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 68 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1583

Those in favor, respond by saying aye.

1584

Those opposed?

1585

The ayes have it.

1586

Mr. Collins.

1587

Chairman Nadler.

1588

67

The resolution --

Roll call.
A recorded vote has been requested,

and the Clerk will call the roll.

1589

Ms. Strasser.

Mr. Nadler?

1590

Chairman Nadler.

1591

Ms. Strasser.

1592

Ms. Lofgren?

1593

Ms. Lofgren.

1594

Ms. Strasser.

1595

Ms. Jackson Lee?

1596

Mr. Cohen?

1597

Mr. Cohen.

1598

Ms. Strasser.

1599

Mr. Johnson of Georgia?

1600

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

1601

Ms. Strasser.

1602

Mr. Deutch?

1603

Mr. Deutch.

1604

Ms. Strasser.

1605

Ms. Bass?

1606

Mr. Richmond?

1607

Mr. Richmond.

Aye.

Mr. Nadler votes aye.

Aye.
Ms. Lofgren votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Cohen votes aye.

Aye.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Deutch votes aye.

Aye.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 69 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1608

Ms. Strasser.

Mr. Richmond votes aye.

1609

Mr. Jeffries?

1610

Mr. Jeffries.

Aye.

1611

Ms. Strasser.

Mr. Jeffries votes aye.

1612

Mr. Cicilline?

1613

Mr. Cicilline.

1614

Ms. Strasser.

1615

Mr. Swalwell?

1616

Mr. Swalwell.

Aye.

1617

Ms. Strasser.

Mr. Swalwell votes aye.

1618

Mr. Lieu?

1619

Mr. Lieu.

1620

Ms. Strasser.

1621

Mr. Raskin?

1622

Mr. Raskin.

1623

Ms. Strasser.

1624

Ms. Jayapal?

1625

Ms. Jayapal.

1626

Ms. Strasser.

1627

Mrs. Demings?

1628

Mrs. Demings.

Aye.

1629

Ms. Strasser.

Mrs. Demings votes aye.

1630

Mr. Correa?

1631

Mr. Correa.

1632

Ms. Strasser.

Aye.
Mr. Cicilline votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Lieu votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Raskin votes aye.

Aye.
Ms. Jayapal votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Correa votes aye.

68

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 70 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1633

Ms. Scanlon?

1634

Ms. Scanlon.

1635

Ms. Strasser.

1636

Ms. Garcia?

1637

Ms. Garcia.

1638

Ms. Strasser.

1639

Mr. Neguse?

1640

Mr. Neguse.

1641

Ms. Strasser.

1642

Mrs. McBath?

1643

Mrs. McBath.

1644

Ms. Strasser.

1645

Mr. Stanton?

1646

Mr. Stanton.

1647

Ms. Strasser.

1648

Ms. Dean?

1649

Ms. Dean.

1650

Ms. Strasser.

1651

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?

1652

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

1653

Ms. Strasser.

1654

Ms. Escobar?

1655

Ms. Escobar.

1656

Ms. Strasser.

1657

Mr. Collins?

Aye.
Ms. Scanlon votes aye.

Aye.
Ms. Garcia votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Neguse votes aye.

Aye.
Mrs. McBath votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Stanton votes aye.

Aye.
Ms. Dean votes aye.

Aye.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes aye.

Aye.
Ms. Escobar votes aye.

69

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 71 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1658

Ms. Bass?

1659

Ms. Bass.

1660

Ms. Strasser.

1661

Mr. Collins.

1662

Ms. Strasser.

1663

Mr. Sensenbrenner?

1664

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

1665

Ms. Strasser.

1666

Mr. Chabot?

1667

Mr. Chabot.

1668

Ms. Strasser.

1669

Mr. Gohmert?

1670

Mr. Gohmert.

1671

Ms. Strasser.

1672

Mr. Jordan?

1673

Mr. Jordan.

1674

Ms. Strasser.

1675

Mr. Buck?

1676

Mr. Buck.

1677

Ms. Strasser.

1678

Mr. Ratcliffe?

1679

Mrs. Roby?

1680

Mrs. Roby.

1681

Ms. Strasser.

1682

Mr. Gaetz?

Aye.
Ms. Bass votes aye.
No.
Mr. Collins votes no.

No.

Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.

No.
Mr. Chabot votes no.

No.
Mr. Gohmert votes no.

No.
Mr. Jordan votes no.

No.
Mr. Buck votes no.

No.
Mrs. Roby votes no.

70

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 72 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1683

Mr. Gaetz.

1684

Ms. Strasser.

1685

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?

1686

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

1687

Ms. Strasser.

1688

Mr. Biggs?

1689

Mr. Biggs.

1690

Ms. Strasser.

1691

Mr. McClintock?

1692

Mr. McClintock.

1693

Ms. Strasser.

1694

Mrs. Lesko?

1695

Mrs. Lesko.

1696

Ms. Strasser.

1697

Mr. Reschenthaler?

1698

Mr. Reschenthaler.

1699

Ms. Strasser.

1700

Mr. Cline?

1701

Mr. Cline.

1702

Ms. Strasser.

1703

Mr. Armstrong?

1704

Mr. Armstrong.

1705

Ms. Strasser.

1706

Mr. Steube?

1707

Mr. Steube.

71

No.
Mr. Gaetz votes no.

No.

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes no.

No.
Mr. Biggs votes no.

No.
Mr. McClintock votes no.

No.
Mrs. Lesko votes no.

No.

Mr. Reschenthaler votes no.

No.
Mr. Cline votes no.

No.
Mr. Armstrong votes no.

No.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-20 Filed 08/07/19 Page 73 of 73

HJU093000

PAGE

1708

Ms. Strasser.

1709

Chairman Nadler.

1710

Mr. Steube votes no.
Has every member voted who wishes to

vote?

1711

Ms. Jackson Lee.

1712

Ms. Strasser.

1713

Ms. Jackson Lee.

1714

Ms. Strasser.

1715

Chairman Nadler.

1716

Ms. Strasser.

1717

Chairman Nadler.

1718

Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?

Ms. Jackson Lee, you are not recorded.
Aye.

Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.
The gentleman from Texas?

Mr. Ratcliffe votes no.
Does any other member wish to vote who

has not voted?

1719

The Clerk will report.

1720

Ms. Strasser.

1721
1722
1723
1724
1725

72

Mr. Chairman, the vote is 24 ayes, 17

noes.
Chairman Nadler.

The ayes have it.

The resolution is

amended as agreed to.
This concludes our business for today.

Thanks to all of

our members for attending.

1726

The mark-up is adjourned.

1727

[Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit U

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 13

SUBPOENA
BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
To Donald F. McGahn II
You are hereby commanded to be and appear before the
Committee on the Judiciary

of the House of Representatives of the United States at the place, date, and time specified below.

0

to produce the things identified on the attached schedule touching matters of inquiry committed to said
committee or subcommittee; and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.

Place of production: 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515
Date: May 7, 2019

D

Time: 10:00am

to testify at a deposition touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee;

and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.

Place of testimony: _____________________________
Date: ________(_and continuing until completed)
[Z]

Time: __________

to testify at a hearing touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee; and

you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.

Place of testimony: 2141 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515
Date: May 21, 2019

Time: 1O:OOam

To any authorized staff member or the U.S. Marshals Service
to serve and make return.
Witness my hand and the seal of the House of Representatives of the United States, at
the city of Washington, D.C. this 2 2 __ day of A_.p ril
______ , 20 19
__
_ _ _

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 13

PROOF OF SERVICE

Subpoena for
Donald F. McGahn II
Address c/o William A. Bur"ck, Esq., Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, & Sullivan, LLP
1300 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC, 20005
before the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. House ofRepresentatives
I I 6th Congress

Served by (print name) ---------------------------Aaron Hiller
Title Deputy Chief Counsel, House Judiciary Committee
Manner of service Electronic

Date Apri I 22, 2019

__....(_..A-__""'· -------------------­
:....=�
=---Q);;

Signature of Server __

-=----

Address 213 8 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 13

SCHEDULE
In accordance with the attached Definitions and Instructions, you are hereby required to produce
all documents and communications in your possession, custody or control referring or relating to:
1. Statements by Michael Flynn to the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding contacts with
Sergey Kislyak.
2. The Federal Bureau oflnvestigation and Department of JustiGe's investigation of Michael Flynn.
3. Meetings with Department of Justice officials or employees relating to Michael Flynn and
underlying evidence relating to Michael Flynn.
4. The resignation or termination of Michael Flynn.
5. Sean Spicer's February 14, 2017 public statements about Michael Flynn's resignation.
6. President Trump's contacts with James Corney on or about January 27, 2017, February 14, 2017,
March 30, 2017, and April 11, 2017.
7. The termination of James Corney, including but not limited to any documents or communications
relating to draft termination letters, White House Counsel memoranda, or the May 9, 2017 Rod
Rosenstein memorandum to Jeff Sessions entitled "Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI."
8. Meetings or communications involving Federal Bureau of Investigation or Department of Justice
officials or employees relating to the resignation or termination of James Corney.
9. Jeff Sessions's recusal from any matters arising from the campaigns for President of the United
States.
10. Reversing or attempting to reverse Jeff Sessions's recusal from any matters.
11. The resignation or termination, whether contemplated or actual, of Jeff Sessions.
12. The resignation or termination, whether contemplated or actual, of Rod Rosenstein.
13. The resignation or termination, whether contemplated or actual, of Special Counsel Robert
Mueller.
14. Your resignation or termination, whether contemplated or actual.
15. The appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
16. Alleged conflicts of interest on the part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller or other employees of
the Special Counsel's Office.
17. Public statements and/or requests to correct the record or deny reports that President Trump
asked for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to be removed as Special Counsel.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 13

18. Memoranda directing White House officials or employees to avoid direct contact or
communication with the Department of Justice or Jeff Sessions.
19. Meetings or communications with Dana Boente or other Department of Justice officials or
employees relating to whether the President was being investigated by the Department of Justice
or Federal Bureau of Investigation.
20. Meetings or communications with Department of Justice officials or employees relating to James
Corney's testimony before Congress.
21. The President maintaining possession of Jeff Sessions's resignation letter.
22. Communications about Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, including but not limited to
whether any action taken, proposed oi: discussed by President Trump or anyone acting on his
behalf may constitute obstruction ofjustice or any violation of law.
23. President Trump's exposure in the Special Counsel Investigation relating to "other contacts,"
"calls," or "ask re Flynn" as mentioned in Volume II, page 82 of the Report.
24. Statements or communications relating to press reports that President Trump was under
investigation.
25. Paul Manafort's cooperation with the Special Counsel's Office.
26. The June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
27. The July 8, 2017 statement and related statements released in the name of Donald Trump Jr.
regarding the Trump Tower meeting.
28. Prosecuting or investigating James Corney or Hillary Clinton.
29. Presidential pardons, whether possible or actual, for Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Michael
Cohen, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, or
individuals involved in matters before the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York.
30. Selecting Jeff Sessions' s replacement through a recess appointment or appointing an Acting
Attorney General under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
31. The SDNY Investigations, the recusal of U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman from the SDNY
Investigations, or the reassignment or potential reassignment of SDNY employees from the
SDNY Investigations.
32. Statements by Michael Cohen or White House officials to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the timing
of the Trump Organization's efforts to develop a property in Moscow, including but not limited
to drafts of such statements and communications about such drafts or final statements.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 13

33. Any payment, or potential payment, to any person or entity by Michael Cohen, Essential
Consultants LLC, or American Media Inc. ("AMI") for the benefit of Donald Trump or the
Trump Campaign, including but not limited to any documents relating to the reimbursement of
Cohen, Essential Consultants LLC, or AMI for any such payments, and any documents relating
to the omission or inclusion of information about liabilities associated with such payments on
Donald Trump's Public Financial D.isclosure Reports (OGE Form 278e) filed in 2017 and 2018.
34. Communications relating to United States imposed sanctions or potential sanctions against the
Russian Federation from June 16, 2015 to October 18, 2018, including but not limited to the
sanctions imposed pursuant to the Magnitsky Act.
35. Communications with the Executive Office of the President regarding your response to the
March 4, 2019 document request by the House Committee on the Judiciary.
36. Any documents referenced in the Report.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 13

DEFINITIONS
As used in this subpoena, the following terms shall be interpreted in accordance with these
definitions:
1. "581h Presidential Inaugural Committee" means the entity registered under FEC ID# C00629584
as well as its parent companies, subsidiary companies, affiliated entities, agents, officials, and
instrumentalities.
2. "And," and "or," shall be construed broadly and either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring
within the scope of this subpoena any information that might otherwise be construed to be
outside its scope. The singular includes plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes
the feminine and neutral genders.
3. "Any" includes "all," and "all" includes "any."
4. "Communication(s)" means the transmittal of information by any means, whether oral,
electronic, by document or otherwise, and whether in a meeting, by telephone, facsimile, mail,
releases, electronic message including email, text message, instant message, MMS or SMS
message, encrypted message, message application, social media, or otherwise.
5. "Employee" means any past or present agent, borrowed employee, casual employee, consultant,
contractor, de facto employee, detailee, fellow, independent contractor, intern, joint adventurer,
loaned employee, officer, part-time employee, permanent employee, provisional employee,
special government employee, subcontractor, or any other type of service provider.
6. "Document" means any written, recorded, or graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless
of how recorded, and whether original or copy, including, but not limited to, the following:
memoranda, reports, expense reports, books, manuals, instructions, financial reports, working
papers, records, notes, letters, notices, confirmations, telegrams, receipts, appraisals, pamphlets,
magazines, newspapers, prospectuses, interoffice and intra-office communications, call records,
electronic mail ("e-mail"), instant messages, calendars, contracts, cables, notations of any type of
conversation, telephone call, meeting or other communication, bulletins, printed matter,
computer printouts, invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns, summaries, minutes, bills,
accounts, estimates, projections, comparisons, messages, correspondence, press releases,
circulars, financial statements, reviews, opinions, offers, studies and investigations,
questionnaires and surveys, power point presentations, spreadsheets, and work sheets. The term
"document" includes all drafts, preliminary versions, alterations, modifications, revisions,
changes, and amendments to the foregoing, as well as any attachments or appendices thereto.
7. "Documents in your possession, custody or control" means (a) documents that are in your
possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents, employees,
or representatives acting on your behalf; (b) documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that
you have a right to copy, or to which you have access; and (c) documents that have been placed
in the possession, custody, or control of any third party. This includes but is not limited to
documents that are or were held by your attorneys.
8. "Each" shall be construed to include "every," and "every" shall be construed to include "each."

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 13

9. "Government" shall include any government's present and former agencies, branches, units,
divisions, subdivisions, districts, public corporations, employees, elected and appointed officials,
ambassadors, diplomats, emissaries, authorities, agents, assignees, and instrumentalities. This
includes, but is not limited to, any government-controlled business entities, entities in which the
government has a financial interest, and any person acting or purporting to act on the
government's behalf.
10. "Including" shall be construed broadly to mean "including, but not limited to."
11. "Person" or "persons" means natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations, corporations,
subsidiaries, division, departments, joint ventures proprietorships, syndicates, or other legal
business or government entities, and all subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches,
or other units, thereof.
12. "Referenced" means cited, quoted, mentioned, described, alluded to, contained, incorporated,
reproduced, or identified in any manner whatsoever.
13. "Relating to" shall mean discussing, describing, reflecting, containing, analyzing, studying,
reporting, commenting, evidencing, constituting, comprising, showing, setting forth, considering,
recommending, concerning, or pertinent to that subject in any manner whatsoever.
14. "The Russian Federation" shall include the Government of the Russian Federation, as the term
"Government" is defined above.
15. "Special Counsel's Office" means the office created pursuant to Department of Justice Order
No. 3915-17 issued by the Acting Attorney General on May 17, 2017 appointing Robert S.
Mueller III as Special Counsel, and its employees.
16. "Special Counsel's Investigation" means the investigation conducted by the Special Counsel's
Office pursuant to Department of Justice Order No. 3915-17 issued by the Acting Attorney
General on May 17, 2017.
17. "SDNY Investigations" shall include any investigation or prosecution conducted by the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York relating to: (i) Michael Cohen; (ii) the
Trump Organization; (iii) the Trump Campaign; and (iv) the 581h Presidential Inaugural
Committee.
18. "The Report" means the complete and unredacted version of the report submitted on or about
March 22, 2019 by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, pursuant to his authority under 28 C.F.R. §
600.8(c), entitled, "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential
Election."
19. "Trump Campaign" for purposes of this subpoena shall include Donald J. Trump for President,
Inc., as well as its parent companies, subsidiary companies, affiliated entities, agents, officials,
and instrumentalities.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 13

20. The "Trump Organization" for purposes of this subpoena shall include the Trump Organization,
Inc., The Trump Organization LLC, and their parent companies, subsidiary companies, affiliated
entities, agents, officials, and instrumentalities.
21. The "Trump Tower Meeting" for purposes of this subpoena shall reference the June 9, 2016
Trump Tower meeting attended by the following Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Kushner,
Natalia Veselnitskaya, Rob Goldstone, and Rinat Akhmetshin.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 13

INSTRUCTIONS
1. In complying with this subpoena, you should produce all responsive documents in unredacted
form that are in your possession, custody, or control or otherwise available to you, regardless of
whether the documents are possessed directly by you. If a document is referenced in the Report
in part, you should produce it in full in a complete and unredacted form.
2. Documents responsive to the subpoena should not be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred,
or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.
3. In the event that a document is withheld in full or in part on any basis, including a claim of
privilege, you should provide a log containing the following information concerning every such
document: (i) the reason the document is not being produced; (ii) the type of document; (iii) the
general subject matter; (iv) the date, author, addressee, and any other recipient(s); (v) the
relationship of the author and addressee to each other; and (vi) any other description necessary
to identify the document and to explain the basis for not producing the document. If a claimed
privilege applies to only a portion of any document, that portion only should be withheld and the
remainder of the document should be produced. As used herein, "claim of privilege" includes,
but is not limited tq, any claim that a document either may or must be withheld from production
pursuant to any law, statute, rule, policy or regulation.
4. In the event that a document is withheld in full or in part on the basis of a privilege asserted by
or on behalf of the White House, or at the request of the White House, please also include the
following information in your privilege log:
a. The date on which you or any attorney representing you received the document or any
copy thereof from the White House, received access to that document from the White
House, or removed that document or any copy thereof from the White House;
b. The name of the person or persons who provided the document to you or your attorney;
c. The name of any lawyer or other agent or third party outside the White House who, to
your knowledge, reviewed the document.
d. You should log each responsive document as to which you have directed us to the White
House, and each document that was previously in your attorneys' possession, custody or
.control.
5, Any objections or claims of privilege are waived if you fail to provide a:n explanation of why
full compliance is not possible and a log identifying with specificity the ground(s) for
withholding each withheld document prior to the request compliance date.
6. In complying with the request, be apprised that (unless otherwise determined by the Committee)
the Committee does not recognize: any purported non-disclosure privileges associated with the
common law including, but not limited to the deliberative-process privilege, the attorney-client
privilege, and attorney work product protections; any purported privileges or protections from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act; or any purported contractual privileges, such
as non-disclosure agreements.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 13

7. Any assertion of any such non-constitutional legal bases for withholding documents or other
materials, shall be of no legal force and effect and shall not provide a justification for such
withholding or refusal, unless and only to the extent that the Committee has consented to
recognize the assertion as valid.
8. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(d), the Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) and any statutory
exemptions to FOIA shall not be a basis for withholding any information.
9. Pursuant to 5 U. S.C. § 552a(b)(9), the Privacy Act shall not be a basis for withholding
information.
10. If any document responsive to this subpoena was, but no longer is, in your possession, custody,
or control, or has been placed into the possession, custody, or control of any third party and
cannot be provided in response to this subpoena, you should identify the document (stating its
date, author, subject and recipients) and explain the circumstances under which the document
ceased to be in your possession, custody, or control, or was placed in the possession, custody, or
control of a third party, including, but not limited to (a) how the document was disposed of; (b) the
name, current address, and telephone number of the person who currently has possession,
custody, or control over the document; (c) the date of disposition; and (d) the name, current
address, and telephone number of each person who authorized said disposition or who had or
has knowledge of said disposition.
11. If any document responsive to this subpoena cannot be located, describe with particularity the
efforts made to locate the document and the specific reason for its disappearance, destruction or
unavailability.
12. In the event that any entity, organization, or individual named in the subpoena has been, or is
currently, known by any other name, the subpoena should be read also to include such other
names under that alternative identification.
13. All documents should be produced with Bates numbers affixed. The Bates numbers must be
unique, sequential, fixed-length numbers and must begin with a prefix referencing the name of
the producing party (e.g., ABCD-000001). This format must remain consistent across all
productions. The number of digits in the numeric portion of the format should not change in
subsequent productions, nor should spaces, hyphens, or other separators be added or deleted. All
documents should be Bates-stamped sequentially and produced sequentially.
14. Documents produced pursuant to this subpoena should be produced in the order in which they
appear in your files and should not be rearranged. Any documents that are stapled, clipped, or
otherwise fastened together should not be separated. Documents produced in response to this
subpoena should be produced together with copies of file labels, dividers, or identifying markers
with which they were associated when this subpoena was issued. Indicate the office or division
and person from whose files each document was produced.
15. Responsive documents must be produced regardless of whether any other person or entity
possesses non-identical or identical copies of the same document.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 13

16. Produce electronic documents as created or stored electronically in their original electronic
format. Documents produced in electronic format should be organized, identified, and indexed
electronically, in a manner comparable to the organization structure called for in Instruction 13
above.
17. Data may be produced on CD, DVD, memory stick, USB thumb drive, hard drive, or via
secure file transfer, using the media requiring the least number of deliverables. Label all media
with the following:
a. Production date;
b. Bates range;
c. Disk number (1 of X), as applicable.
18. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this subpoena referring to a document,
communication, meeting, or other event is inaccurate, but the actual date or other descriptive
detail is known to you or is otherwise apparent from the context of the subpoena, you should
produce all documents which would be responsive as if the date or other descriptive detail were
correct.
19. The subpoena is continuing in nature and applies to any newly discovered document, regardless
of the date of its creation. Any document not produced because it has not been located or
discovered by the return date should be produced immediately upon location or discovery
subsequent thereto.
20. Two sets of each production shall be delivered, one set to the Majority Staff and one set to the
Minority Staff. Production sets shall be delivered to the Majority Staff in Room 2138 of the
Rayburn House Office Building and the Minority Staff in Room 2142 of the Rayburn House
Office Building. You should consult with Committee Majority Staff regarding the method of
delivery prior to sending any materials.
21. If compliance with the subpoena cannot be made in full by the specified return date, compliance
shall be made to the extent possible by that date. An explanation of why full compliance is not
possible shall be provided along with any partial production. In the event that any responsive
documents or other materials contain classified information, please immediately contact
Committee staff to discuss how to proceed.
22. Upon completion of the document production, please submit a written certification, signed by
you or by counsel, stating that: (1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in
your possession, custody, or control which reasonably could contain responsive documents; (2)
documents responsive to the subpoena have not been destroyed, modified, removed, transferred,
or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee since the date of receiving the Committee's
subpoena or in anticipation of receiving the Committee's subpoena, and (3) all documents
identified during the search that are responsive have been produced to the Committee, identified
in a log provided to the Committee, or otherwise identified as provided herein.
23. A cover letter should be included with each production including the following information:

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-21 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 13

a. List of each piece of media (hard drive, thumb drive, DVD or CD) included in the
production by the unique number assigned to it, and readily apparent on the physical
media;
b. List of fields in the order in which they are listed in the metadata load file;
c. The paragraph(s) and/or clause(s) in the Committee's subpoena to which each document
responds;
d. Time zone in which emails were standardized during conversion (email collections
only);
e. Total page count and bates range for the entire production, including both hard copy and
electronic documents.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit V

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 13

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

May 15, 2019
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chainnan Nadler:
I write in response to your letter of March 4, 2019. As I have previously stated, we will
work in good faith to accommodate Congress's legitimate requests for info1mation while at the
same time respecting the separation of powers and the constitutional prerogatives of the President.
Our approach is guided by long-standing precedent and a desire to seek accommodation and
cooperation where possible, consistent with mutual respect for the constitutional roles of each
branch of government.
Since the I 16th Congress convened on January 3, 2019, this Administration has gone to
great lengths to respond to congressional infmmation requests. Indeed, in under five months, the
Administration has provided hundreds of responses to congressional requests and produced tens
of thousands of pages of documents to Congress. Administration officials have testified at
congressional hearings well over 100 times, and they have provided hundreds of briefings to
congressional committees and individual members of the House and Senate. Your recent assertion
that the Administration is acting in "blanket defiance of Congress's constitutionally mandated
duties" is demonstrably false. Statement of Chairman Jerrold Nadler (May 7, 2019). Similarly,
your claim that "virtually all document requests are going unsatisfied" is contradicted by the facts.
Statement of Chairman Jerrold Nadler (May 8, 2019).
The Administration's significant efforts to accommodate Congress's information requests
extend to the House Committee on the Judiciary' s current investigation. As you know, the Special
Counsel's Office recently concluded its investigation into the subjects discussed in your March 4
letter. By any measure, the investigation was exhaustive. Indeed, the evidence considered by the
Special Counsel's Office was derived from approximately 2,800 subpoenas, 500 executed search
warrants, 230 orders for communication records, and 500 witness interviews. Report of Special
Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III, Vol. I at 13 (Mar. 2019); Letter from William P. Barr, Attorney
General, to Chaitman Lindsey Graham, Chaitman Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member Dianne
Feinstein, and Ranking Member Doug Collins 1 (Mar. 24, 2019) (hereinafter Mar. 24, 2019 Barr
Letter). Media reports indicate that the Special Counsel's investigation could cost taxpayers "up
to $35 million." John Haltiwanger, The Mueller investigation could cost up to $35 million once
all the expense reports are in, Business Insider (Mar. 25, 2019).

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 13

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Page2
On April 18, 2019, the Attorney General went well beyond what is required by law and
made the Special Counsel's report available to Congress and the public with minimal redactions.
This was an extraordinaiy accommodation in light oflong-standing Department of Justice policies
regai·ding the confidentiality of investigations that do not result in prosecution. The report
powerfully demonstrates that the Special Counsel found no evidenee that any Americans­
including any member of the President's campaign-conspired or coordinated with Russia to
interfere with the 2016 election. The Attorney General and then-Deputy Attorney General also
"concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that
the President eommitted an obstruction-of-justice offense." Remarks of Attorney General William
P. Barr (Apr. 18, 2019); see also Mar. 24, 2019 Barr Letter at 3.
In the interest of transparency, the President did not assert executive privilege over any part
of the Speeial Counsel's repmt released on April 18, 2019, even though-as the Attorney General
correctly statedc�"he would have been well within his rights to do so." Remarks of Attorney
General William P. Barr (Apr. 18, 2019); see also Letter from Emmet T. Flood, Special Counsel
to the President, to Williain P. Barr, Attorney General 3-4 (Apr. 19, 2019) (hereinafter Flood
Letter) (the President's deeision not to assert executive privilege over any of the presumptively
privileged portions of the Special Counsel's report "is not a waiver of executive privilege for any
other material or for any other purpose"). Accordingly, the only redactions in the repo1t were
made by the Depaitment of Justice (with the assistance of the Special Counsel's Office and the
intelligence eommnnity) to protect sensitive information that is safeguarded by law, court orders,
or long-standing Department of Justice policy regarding open investigations. Remarks ofAttorney
General William P. Barr (Apr. 18, 2019).
Moreover, the Attorney General indicated that he would "make available to a bipartisan
group ofleaders from several Congressional committees a version of the report with all redactions
removed except those relating to grand-jury information," which the Department of Justice is
prohibited by law from disclosing under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Id
(explaining that "these members of Congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for
themselves- with the limited exception of that which, by law, cannot be shared"). He also offered
to testify voluntai·ily at a public hearing and to answer questions from all members of tbe
Committee. You refused even to review the less redacted version of the report before declaring
that it was inadequate, ai1d you rejected the Attorney General's offer to testify unless he agreed to
unprecedented conditions. Instead, you issued a subpoena to the Attorney General demanding not
only the "complete and unredacted report," but also "[ a]ll documents referenced in the Report"
and "[a]ll documents obtained and investigation materials created by the Special Counsel's
Office." Subpoena to William P. Barr, Attorney General (Apr. 18, 2019). Thus, the subpoena's
plain language covers grand-jmy information that the Committee knows the Attorney General
cannot provide ,vithout violating the law. See id
Even though the Committee had rebuffed a good faith offer to accommodate Congress's
interests by disclosing the entire report-except for grand-ju1y infonnation-to congressional
leadership, the Department of Justice proposed further accommodations, including ofiers "to
expand the number of staff members who may review the minimally redacted report; to allow
Members of Congress who have reviewed the minimally redacted report to discuss the material
freely among themselves; and to allow Members to take and retain their notes following their

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 13

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Page 3
review." Letter from Stephen E. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General, to Chairman Jerrold Nadler 1
(May 7, 2019). The Committee summarily rejected these additional accommodations, abrnptly
terminated ongoing negotiations, and prematurely voted to recommend that the Attorney General
be held in contempt of Congress-a mere 19 days after the Committee served its subpoena on the
Attorney General. Id; Letter from Stephen E. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General, to Chairman
Jerrold Nadler 1 (May 8, 2019).
In other words, the Committee rushed to vote on contempt for failing to provide I 00% and
immediate compliance with a subpoena that seeks millions of pages of documents from a
prosecutor's files. Moreover, the Committee-for the first time in American history-has voted
to recommend that the Attorney General be held in contempt because he refused to violate the law
by turning over grand-jury materials that he may not lawfully disclose. The Committee took these
drastic actions in under three weeks without making any reasonable attempt to engage in the
constitutionally mandated accommodation process to narrow its requests.
Lost in the Committee's legally indefensible rnsh to recommend a contempt citation is the
reality that the Committee has not articulated any proper legislative purpose for pursuing inquiries
that duplicate matters that were the subject of the Special Counsel's inquiry. Congressional
investigations are intended to obtain infmmation to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to
harass political opponents or to pursue an unauthorized "do-over" of exhaustive law enforcement
investigations conducted by the Department of Justice.
Under the circumstances, the appropriate course is for the Committee to discontinue the
inquiry discussed in the March 4 letter. Unfortunately, it appears that you have already decided to
press ahead with a duplicative investigation, including by issuing subpoenas, to replow the same
ground the Special Counsel has already covered. I ask that you reconsider that approach. With
the Special Counsel's investigation behind us, the President and his team stand ready to work with
the Committee cooperatively to advance a legislative agenda for the benefit of the American
people.
If the Committee continues to pursue its inquiry, the requests in the Committee's March 4
letter suffer from numerous legal defects and reflect little, if any, respect for the legitimate interests
of the Executive Branch or for the accommodation process that governs congressional requests for
inf01mation from the Executive. The Executive Branch interests at stake are not new and have
been uniformly recognized and respected by the President's predecessors-from President
Washington to President Obama. The principal legal flaws in the Committee's requests are
summarized here and discussed in greater detail below.
•

First, the letter implicates all four components of executive privilege, seeking core
Executive Branch communications that are not subject to disclosure under settled legal
principles. This includes (i) confidential communications between the President and his
advisors; (ii) confidential deliberations among Executive Branch officials; (iii) information
relating to law enforcement investigations; and (iv) confidential communications between
the President and foreign leaders. The President's decision to cooperate with the Special
Counsel's investigation and not to assert executive privilege over any of the presumptively
privileged portions of the Special Counsel's report, as released on April 18, 2019, "is not

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 13

The Honorable Je1rnld Nadler
Page4
a waiver of executive privilege for any other material or for any other purpose." Flood
Letter at 3-4.
•

Second, the letter requests information about functions that the Constitution assigns
exclusively to the Executive, which are traditionally deemed beyond the reach of
congressional oversight.

•

Third, it appears that the Committee's inquiry is designed, not to further a legitimate
legislative purpose, but rather to conduct a pseudo law enforcement investigation on
matters that were already the subject of the Special Counsel's long-running investigation
and are outside the constitutional authority of the legislative branch. The only purpose for
this duplication seems to be harassing and seeking to embarrass political opponents after
an exhaustive two-year investigation by the Department of Justice did not reach the
conclusion that some members of the Committee apparently would have preferred. That,
of course, is not a permissible purpose for demanding confidential info1mation from the
Executive.

• Finally, when the requests are evaluated in light of these cumulative defects showing no
regard for the legitimate interests of the Executive Branch--combined with the sweeping
scope of the requests-it becomes apparent that they bear no relation to any miiculated
goal of legitimate congressional oversight. Instead, they amount to little more than an
unprecedented effort to interfere with the President's ability to perform his constitutional
duties. As a result, the requests raise serious concerns of violating the separation of powers
enshrined in the Constitution.
As I have repeatedly made clear, we respect the authority of Congress to make legitimate
requests for information to aid it in the task of legislating and will work with the Committee
through the constitutionally mandated accommodation process to provide the Committee with
information it can properly seek. It would greatly advance the first step in that process if the
Committee were to narrow the sweeping scope of the requests in the letter and articulate the
legislative pu1pose and legal support for each of the disparate requests it wishes to pursue,
including by addressing each of the legal deficiencies that I raise in this letter.
Finally, I reiterate my concern that the Committee has sent letters directly to current and
former White House officials, including several individuals who served in the Office of the White
House Counsel. As I have consistently emphasized in my correspondence with other committees,
any contact with current or fonner White House officials should be through the Office of the White
House Counsel, so that we may ensure appropriate accommodation of the Committee's
informational needs while protecting the important constitutional interests of the Executive. As a
matter of basic courtesy and respect for a co-equal branch of our government, I request that you
direct your staff to work through my office to request information from current or former White
House officials. Prior administrations have made the smne request. See, e.g., Letter from Kathryn
H. Ruemmler, Counsel to President Obama, to Chailman Fred Upton, Chairman Cliff Stearns,
Chailman Joseph R. Pitts, and Vice Chairman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (Nov. 14, 2011) ("[A]ny
requests from Committee or Committee staffto speak witl1 current or fmmer White House officials
about their official responsibilities at the White House should be directed to the Office of the White

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 13

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Page 5
House Counsel."). Consulting with my office will ensure that the Committee efficiently obtains
access to the information and individuals to which it is entitled and that any disclosure ofprivileged
information to Congress is properly authorized.
I.

The Committee's Requests Unreasonably Target Matters at the Core of Well-Settled
Executive Branch Confidentiality Interests.

It has long been recognized that robust confidentiality protections are essential for the
proper functioning of the Executive Branch. Those protections are firmly rooted in the
Constitution and can be overcome by Congress, ifat all, only in limited circumstances. See Senate
Select Comm. on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 731 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
(en bane) (requiring a showing that confidential Executive Branch documents are "demonstrably
critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committee's functions"). The importance of defending
this constitutionally based protection for the Executive Branch has been consistently recognized
by administrations of both political pmties. For example, in response to congressional requests for
documents, the Obama Administration strenuously argued that,"[a]s comis have long recognized,
the Executive Branch's role in enforcing the law requires that some materials remain confidential
so that the Executive's proper functioning lmder the Constitution is preserved and protected."
Mem. in Supp. ofDef.'s Mot. for Smmn. J. 14, Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform v. Holder,
No. 12-cv-1332, 2014 WL 12662665 (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2014); see also Letter from W. Neil
Eggleston, Counsel to President Obama, to Chainnan Darrell E. Issa (July 15, 2014) (highlighting
the need to "preserv[e] the President's independence and autonomy, as well as his ability to obtain
candid advice and counsel to aid him in the discharge ofhis constitutional duties"). As the Obama
Administration rightly explained--eontrary to the assertions in your March 4 letter-even "a claim
of'misconduct' does not invalidate" these protections. Mem. in Supp. ofDef.'s Mot. for Summ.
J. 36, Comm. on Oversight & Gov'/ Reform, 2014 WL 12662665; see also Senate Select Comm.,
498 F.2d at 732-33. These rnles apply regardless ofwho occupies the Oval Office or controls the
majority in the House or Senate.
Despite bipartisan recognition of the Executive Branch's need to maintain confidentiality
with regard to certain kinds ofcommunications, the Committee's requests target four categories
ofExecutive Branch infonnation that are plainly protected from disclosure to Congress. I address
each category in turn here and request that the Committee clarify what info1mation it is actually
seeking and the justification for pursuing such information. A clear statement of the Committee's
needs will enable us to explore developing an appropriate accommodation.

First, many of the requests in the letter expressly seek documents involving
communications between the President and his most senior advisors. For instance, Request l(a)
seeks communications between the President and the Counsel to the President; Request l(d) seeks
communications involving the President, Vice President, White House Chief of Staff, and other
senior advisors to the President; and Request 1(I) seeks communications between the President
and the Acting Attorney General. The President has a constitutionally grounded interest in being
able to consult with his advisors in a confidential manner. See Immunity of the Assistant to the
President and Director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach From Congressional
Subpoena, 38 Op. O.L.C. _, at *6 (July 15, 2014) ("[S]ubjecting an immediate presidential
adviser to Congress's subpoena power would threaten the President's autonomy and his ability to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 13

The Honorable Jen-old Nadler
Page 6
receive sound and candid advice."); Letter from W. Neil Eggleston, Counsel to President Obama,
to Chairman Jason Chaffetz (May 16, 2016) (noting the importance of the President's "ability to
receive candid advice and counsel in the discharge of his constitutional duties.").
The courts have limited Congress's ability to seek disclosure of presidential
communications, and for good reason. Infmmed decisionmaking requires the candid exchange of
ideas, and "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their
remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the
detriment of the decisionmaking process." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705 (1974). As
a result, the Supreme Court has long recognized the Executive's interest in the confidentiality of
decisionmaking as a central component of the constitutional separation of powers:
A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the
process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would
be unwilling to express except privately. . . . The [presidential communications]
privilege is fuudamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in
the separation of powers under the Constitution.

Id. at 708. Accordingly, we ask that the Committee articulate the legislative purpose that justifies
the Committee's extraordinary requests seeking disclosure of presidential communications.
Second, the Committee requests documents exposing internal predecisional deliberations.
For example, numerous requests seek documents reflecting internal discussions concerning the
development of public statements, Executive Branch personnel decisions, and the exercise of
various Executive powers. See Letter Schedule A. But congressional needs generally do not
oven-ide the Executive Branch's confidentiality interests with respect to documents that are
predecisional and deliberative, even if they do not involve communications with the President.
Protections ensuring that the deliberative process can remain confidential apply to the entire
Executive Branch and cover documents that reflect "advisory opinions, recommendations and
deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are
formulated"-precisely the types of documents requested by the Committee. In re Sealed Case,
121 F.3d 729, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1997). This position has been consistently recognized by
administrations of both political parties. See Assertion of Executive Privilege Over Documents
Generated in Response to Congressional Investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, 36 Op.
O.L.C. _, at *3 (June 19, 2012) ("The tln·eat of compelled disclosure of confidential Executive
Branch deliberative material can discourage robust and candid deliberations .... "); Assertion of
Executive Privilege Over Communications Regarding EPA 's Ozone Air Quality Standards and
California's Greenhouse Gas Waiver Request, 32 Op. O.L.C. I, 2 (2008) ("Documents generated
for the purpose of assisting the President in making a decision are protected" and these protections
also "encompass[] Executive Branch deliberative communications that do not implicate
presidential decisionmaking"); Assertion ofExecutive Privilege Regarding White House Counsel's
Office Documents, 20 Op. O.L.C. 2, 3 (1996) ("The Supreme Court has expressly (and
unanimously) recognized that the Constitution gives the President the power to protect the
confidentiality of White House communications.").

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 13

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Page 7
Third, the Executive Branch has a compelling interest in protecting materials associated
with law enforcement investigations. The Committee's requests acknowledge the existence of
related law enforcement investigations and expressly seek "documents [the White House]
furnished" as pmi of those investigations. See Letter Document Requests. It is well settled that
the Executive Branch has authority to withhold from Congress documents from law enforcement
files in order "to preserve the integrity and independence of criminal investigations and
prosecutions"-including "documents related to a closed criminal investigation." Assertion of
Executive Privilege Concerning the Special Counsel's Interviews ofthe Vice President and Senior
White House Staff, 32 Op. O.L.C. 7, 10 (2008).
The Committee has no legitimate role in collecting law enforcement materials with the aim
of simply duplicating a law enforcement inquiry because it does not like either (i) the conclusions
reached by the Depatirnent of Justice or (ii) the confidential nature of the investigation, which
limits the Committee's ability to access infmmation that is protected from disclosure under
existing law. Pe1mitting congressional committees to demand the duplication of information in
law enforcement files every time a high-profile and politically charged investigation was underway
would i1Tedeemably undem1ine the integrity and independence of actual law enforcement
investigations. See id. Mere "exposure" is not a legitimate use of congressional investigative
authority. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178,200 (1957) ("We have no doubt that there is no
congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure."). In addition, even after an investigation
is completed, congressional access to investigative files raises both "a general concern about the
prospect of committees of Congress obtaining confidential records from Justice Department
criminal investigative files for the purpose of addressing highly politicized issues in public
committee hearings" and, in the cu1Tent context, a "[m]ore specific[] ... concern[]" that access
would "significantly impair the Department's ability to conduct future law enforcement
investigations that would benefit from full White House cooperation." Special Counsel's
Interviews ofthe Vice President and Senior White House Staff, 32 Op. O.L.C. at 10-11.
The Committee's demand for materials associated with law enforcement investigations is
pmiicularly unwarranted here, where the Committee already has access to the Special Counsel's
repoti, as released on April 18, 2019. Any additional materials are thus not "demonstrably critical"
to the Committee's work. Senate Select Comm., 498 F.2d at 731.
Fourth, the Committee is seeking documents concerning communications between the
President and a foreign leader. See Request 4(k). As I recently explained in response to similar
requests from other House committees, it is settled law that the Constitution entrusts the conduct
of foreign relations exclusively to the Executive Branch, as it makes the President "the sole organ
of the federal government in the field of international relations." United States v. Curtiss-Wright
Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936); see also Chicago & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S.
Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 109 (1948) ("The President also possesses in his own right ce1iain powers
conferred by the Constitution on him as ... the Nation's organ in foreign affairs."); Letter from
Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, to Chahman Elijah E. Cunnnings, Chairmat1 Eliot
Engel, and Chairman Admn B. Schiff (Mm·. 21, 2019) (smne). In keeping with Supreme Comi
precedent, the Executive Brat1ch has consistently taken the position, across administrations of both
political pmiies, that the President has exclusive authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign
nations. See, e.g., Assertion ofExecutive Privilege for Documents Concerning Conduct ofForeign

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 13

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Page 8
Affairs with Respect to Haiti, 20 Op. O.L.C. 5, 7 (1996) ("[T]he conduct of foreign affairs is an
exclusive prerogative of the executive branch."); Bill to Relocate United States Embassy ji-om Tel
Aviv to Jerusalem, 19 Op. O.L.C. 123, 124 (1995) ("It is well settled that the Constitution vests
the President with the exclusive authority to conduct the Nation's diplomatic relations with other
States."); Common Legislative Encroachments on Executive Branch Authority, 13 Op.O.L.C. 248,
256 (1989) ("The President has the responsibility, under the Constitution, to determine the form
and manner in which the United States will maintain relations with foreign nations.").
The President must be free to engage in discussions with foreign leaders without fear that
those communications will be disclosed and used as fodder for pattisan political purposes. And
foreign leaders must be assured of this as well. No foreign leader would engage in private
conversations with the President, or the President's senior advisors, if such conversations were
subject to public disclosure (or disclosure to committees of Congress). Indeed, President George
Washington made this point when he declined a House committee's request for copies of
documents relating to the negotiation of the Jay Treaty with Great Britain. See History ofRefi1sals
by Executive Branch Officials to Provide Information Demanded by Congress, 6 Op. O.L.C.751,
753 (1982) (noting that President Washington sent a letter to Congress stating, "[t]o admit, then, a
right in the House of Representatives to demand, and to have, as a matter of course, all the papers
respecting a negotiation with a foreign Power, would be to establish a dangerous precedent"). This
Administration intends to adhere to the same confidentiality principles that have governed
American diplomacy for well over 200 years.
II.

The Committee Has No Authority to Inquire into the President's Discharge ofDnties
Assigned Exclusively to the Executive by the Constitution.

The Committee's requests repeatedly run afoul of the Constitution by encroaching upon
authorities that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the Executive Branch. These requests have
no legitimate legislative purpose and exceed Congress's limited authority. The Supreme Comt
explained decades ago that "[s]ince Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may
potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive
province of one of the other branches of the Government." Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S.
109, 111-12 (1959).
For exat11ple, the Committee has announced its intention to investigate "the pat·don power."
See March 4, 2019 Press Release. But the pardon power is exclusively in the province of the
Executive. The power "flows from the Constitution alone, not from any legislative enactments,
and ...it caunot be modified, abridged, or diminished by the Congress." Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S.
256,266 (1974); see also Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 380 (1866) ("This power of the President
is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon, nor exclude
from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot
be fettered by any legislative restrictions."). Thus, Congress's oversight authority does not extend
to the President's pardon power. See Assertion ofExecutive Privilege With Respect to Clemency
Decision, 23 Op.O.L.C. 1, 3-4 (1999) ("[I]t appears that Congress' oversight authority does not
extend to the process employed in connection with a particular clemency decision, to the materials
generated or the discussions that took place as patt of that process, or to the advice or views the
President received in connection with a clemency decision.").

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 13

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Page 9
Similarly, the Committee's plan to "investigate" "other presidential authorities," see March
4, 2019 Press Release, plainly crosses the line to inquire into functions exclusively assigned to the
President, including communications between the President and foreign leaders (e.g., Request
4(k)) and presidential personnel decisions (e.g., Requests l(b), l(d), l(e), l(f), l(h)). See Curtiss­
Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. at 320 ("[T]he President [is] the sole organ of the federal
government in the field of international relations-a power which does not require as a basis for
its exercise an act of Congress."); Ass 'n ofAm. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton, 997 F .2d
898, 909 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ("Article II ... gives [the President] the flexibility to organize his
advisors and seek advice from them as he wishes."). Because Congress lacks authority in these
areas of exclusive presidential authority, there is no legitimate legislative purpose for the
Committee's information requests. See Barenblatt, 360 U.S. at 111-12.
III.

The Committee's Efforts to Conduct a Law Enforcement Investigation for the
Purpose of Embarrassing, Harassing, or Punishing Political Opponents arc
Improper.

As presently framed, the Committee's inquiries transparently amount to little more than an
attempt to duplicate-and supplant-law enforcement inquiries, and apparently to do so simply
because the actual law enforcement investigations conducted by the Depmtment of Justice did not
reach a conclusion favored by some members of the Committee. That is not a proper legislative
purpose. As you know, the Conunittee is not a law enforcement agency. Thus, the Committee
cannot justify its inquiry simply by asserting that it is searching for possible evidence of its false
claims of "obstrnction ofjustice" or-more vaguely-that it is launching an investigation into
nonexistent purported "threats against the rule oflaw." See March 4, 2019 Press Release. Pursuing
investigations into alleged violations of the criminal code is indisputably a "function[] of the
executive and judicial depmtments of government." Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187 (explaining that
Congress is not "a law enforcement or !Tia! agency"); see also Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S.
155, 161 (1955) (Congress's "power to investigate must not be confused with any of the powers
of law enforcement; those powers m·e assigned under our Constitution to the Executive and the
Judiciary"). The Department of Justice-not the Committee on the Judiciary-is the appropriate
authority to conduct law enforcement investigations.
Nor can the Committee justify its requests simply by asse1ting that it intends to expose for
the sake of exposure. See Letter at 1 (pledging to "present our findings to the American people,
whatever those findings may be"). The Supreme Comt long ago made clear that congressional
investigations premised on that purported authority are an abuse of power because "there is no
congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure," and there is no "general power to expose
where the predominant result can only be an invasion ofthe private rights ofindividuals." Watkins,
354 U.S. at 200; see also Quinn, 349 U.S. at 161 (congressional investigations "cannot be used to
inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid legislative purpose"). As then-Attorney General
Eric Holder explained during the Obama Administration, "Congress's legislative function does
not imply a freestanding authority to gather information for the sole purpose of informing 'the
American people."' Congressional Investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, 36 Op. O.L.C.
_, at *7 (internal quotation marks omitted). To the contrary, the "only infmming function" of
Congress "is that ofinforming itselfabout subjects susceptible to legislation, not that ofinforming

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 13

The Honorable Je1rnld Nadler
Page 10
the public." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, it is well settled that
"[i]nvestigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to
'punish' those investigated are indefensible." Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187.
Instead, the Committee's inquiries must be tied to a valid legislative purpose-that is, they
must be tied to evaluating or formulating potential legislation on some subject within the
Committee's authority. As then-Attorney General Holder explained in articulating the Obama
Administration's position, congressional information requests "must be in furtherance of
Congress's legitimate legislative responsibilities" because"[c]ongressional oversight of Executive
Branch actions is justifiable only as a means of facilitating the legislative task of enacting,
amending, or repealing laws." Congressional Investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, 36
Op. O.L.C. _, at *5 (alteration and emphasis in original). And it is critical to the constitutionally
mandated accommodation process that the Committee articulate its legislative purpose. Only with
that purpose in mind can this office evaluate in good faith the Committee's need for information,
formulate potential accommodations to address the Committee's need for information, and
evaluate, in light of the Executive's constitutionally based interests in preserving confidentiality,
what information is "demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committee's
functions." Senate Select Comm., 498 F.2d at 731.
In addition, even if the Committee were to attempt to articulate a legitimate legislative
purpose for some of its inquiries, the authority of congressional committees to explore in detail
any particular case of alleged wrongdoing is limited. In restricting the scope of legitimate
congressional oversight, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has
explained that "legislative judgments nmmally depend more on the predicted consequences of
proposed legislative actions and their political acceptability, than on precise reconstrnction of past
events." Id. at 732. To the extent the Committee's current press statements and list of inquiries
suggest a probe akin to that undertaken by the Executive Branch, I respectfully submit that they
reflect a misunderstanding of the Committee's legitimate functions. Under settled law, it is not
the Committee's legislative function to conduct a detailed inquiry into a particular event or series
of events in order to reconstrnct a precise picture of the facts. Id. Thus, demands for such detail
will rarely be "demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of the Committee's functions."
See id. at 731.
I also find it particularly disturbing that the Committee is not only improperly setting out
to duplicate law enforcement investigations when some Committee members disagree with the
conclusions of these investigations without articulating any properly defined legislative purpose,
but it is doing so having already announced a predetermined conclusion. See, e.g., Interview with
Chaiiman Jerrold Nadler, ABC's "This Week" (Mar. 3, 2019). In contrast, the Department of
Justice reached its conclusions after the Special Counsel exhaustively conducted an investigation
for nearly two years. The Attorney General, who previously served as Attorney General and is
one of the nation's most respected lawyers, and the then-Deputy Attorney General, a career public
servant who has spent nearly thirty years as a federal prosecutor, reviewed the Special Counsel's
report and made decisions based on the evidence, Department of Justice guidelines, and their
collective experience. See Remarks of Attorney General William P. Barr (Apr. 18, 2019); Mar.
24, 2019 Barr Letter 1, 3. The White House will not pmticipate in the Committee's "investigation"

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 13

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Page 11
that brushes aside the conclusions of the Department of Justice after a two-year-long effort in favor
of political theater pre-ordained to reach a preconceived and false result.
IV.

The Committee's Sweeping Document Requests, Uumoored from Any Properly
Defined Legislative Purpose, Violate the Separation of Powers.

Overall, the March 4 letter must be understood in light of the cumulative effect of the
numerous defects outlined above. Viewed in that light, the sweeping requests spelled out in the
letter in their cmTent fmm run afoul of the constitutional principle that a co-equal branch of
government cannot abnse its role under the Constitution by undertaking actions that amount to "an
unwarranted impaiiment of another branch in the performance of its constitutional duties." Cheney
v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 390 (2004); see also Loving
v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 757 (1996) ("Even when a branch does not arrogate power to itself,
... the separation-of-powers doctrine requires that a branch not impaii- another branch in the
performance of its constitutional duties."); Scope of Congressional Oversight and Investigative
Power With Respect to the Executive Branch, 9 Op. O.L.C. 60, 62 (1985) (" Congress' power of
inquiry must not be pe1mitted to negate the President's constitutional responsibility for managing
and controlling affairs committed to the Executive Branch.").
The Supreme Court has applied this broad separation of powers principle to document
requests that affect the functioning of the Executive. In Cheney, plaintiffs in civil litigation served
overly broad discovery requests on a presidential task force chaired by the Vice President. 542
U.S. at 372, 387. The Court held that the defendants were not required to undertake the burden
associated with responding to such requests before the requests were properly limited based on
separation-of-powers concerns. Id. at 388. In reaching its conclusion, the Court noted that "special
considerations control when the Executive Branch's interests in maintaining the autonomy of its
office and safeguarding the confidentiality of its communications are implicated." Id. at 385. The
Court further noted that "[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the ChiefExecntive ... is
a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding, including the timing and scope
of discovery," and that "the Executive's constitutional responsibilities and status [are] factors
counseling judicial deference and restraint in the conduct oflitigation against it." Id. (alteration in
original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, the Conrt remanded the
case to the U.S. Conrt of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to dete1mine whether the
discovery orders were improper because they constituted an "unwan·anted impairment" of the
Executive Branch. Id. at 390, 392.
Under the principle applied in Cheney, the Committee's sweeping document requests
violate the separation of powers. The nearly thirty document requests in the letter (some with
multiple subpaiis) are not only incredibly vohnninous, but also breathtaking in scope, covering a
sweeping array of events, communications, topics, time periods, and individuals. The
Committee's requests do not come close to reflecting restraint in volume and scope, as required
under Cheney�paiiicularly when those requests are directed at the President. As outlined above,
the requests repeatedly and directly target documents at the core of each of the four recognized
components of executive privilege. Based on the sheer number and scope of the Committee's
requests, it is clear that the Committee is trying to unduly burden the Office of the President so as

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-22 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 13

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Page 12
to impair the President's ability to carry out his constitutional duties. The Constitution does not
permit Congress to undermine the President in this manner.
*

*

*

As the Supreme Comi has recognized, "[t]he power of the Congress to conduct
investigations is inherent in the legislative process," but this "power of inquiry . . . is not
unlimited." Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187. Indeed, "[n]o inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related
to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress." Id. We respect Congress and its
authority to seek information to aid it in considering legislation, and we stand ready to work to
accommodate all congressional committees that have a legitimate legislative interest in seeking
information. We do not believe the investigation discussed in the March 4 letter is a legitimate
exercise of oversight authority; patiicularly now that the Special Counsel's Office of the
Depatiment of Justice has completed its work. As discussed, it seeks information that directly
implicates core separation of powers and Executive Branch confidentiality interests. Our
responsibility to the constitutionally based prerogatives of the Executive Branch, our obligation to
protect those prerogatives for all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, and our respect
for the rule oflaw require that we resist the overbroad demands in the Committee's letter.
As I have said numerous times, my office will work with the Committee through the
constitutionally mandated accommodation process to provide the Committee with materials it can
properly request. If the Committee intends to continue its inquiry, it would greatly advance that
process if the Committee were to narrow the scope of the requests in the Mat·ch 4 letter and
articulate the legislative purpose and legal basis supporting each of the remaining requests.
Thank you for your attention to the impo,, __.issues discussed above. I welcome the
opportunity to discuss any of these points.

. Cipollone
ounsel to the Preside
cc: The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-23 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit W

 JERROLD NADLER, New York
CHAIRMAN

Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-23 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 3

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

II.�. r!,ouse of l\epresentattbes
C!Commtttee on tbe Jubtctarp
�asbington, !.D<tC 20515-6216
(!&nc JI,unbrcb �ixtcmtb <!Congress

May 17, 2019

Donald F. McGahn II, Esq.
c/o William A. Burck, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
1300 I St. NW
Suite 9000
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. McGahn:
The Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on "Oversight of the Report by
Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III: Former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn, II,"
on May 21, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., in Room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building. As you
know, your presence is required pursuant to the subpoena the Committee served on you
compelling your testimony for that date. 1
On May 7, 2019, I wrote to your counsel and made clear that, absent a court order
directing otherwise, you must appear or the Committee will proceed to hold you in contempt. 2
We have received no information indicating that any such order has been sought, much less
obtained. In fact, the Committee has not even been provided a Department of Justice, Office of
Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion articulating a legitimate legal basis that prevents you from
providing testimony about the subject matters disclosed in the Special Counsel's report. This is
not surprising given that you have already discussed these subjects at length as part of an
investigation for which the President expressly waived privilege, has publicly commented on,
and even has disputed not only your account of the relevant events but also your good faith.
As I have previously stated, the Committee intends to focus on the very topics covered in
the Special Counsel's Report. For that reason, there can be no valid assertion of executive
privilege given that President Trump "declined to assert any privilege over Mr. McGahn's
testimony,"3 or over any portion of the Report itself. 4
Subpoena by Authority of the House of Representatives of the United States of America to Donald F. McGahn for
documents and testimony, signed by Representative Jerrold Nadler, April 22, 2019. Enclosed please find additional
information related to your testimony.
1

2

Letter to William A. Burck from Chairman Jerrold Nadler (May 7, 2019).

3 Michael S. Schmidt & Maggie Haberman, White House Counsel, Don McGahn, Has Cooperated Extensively in
Mueller Inquiry, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 18, 2018.

In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 741 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (holding that publication of information "waives []
privileges for the document or information specifically release[d].").

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-23 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 3

Moreover, the subject of your testimony is critical to this Committee's ongoing
investigative, oversight, and legislative efforts. 5 Since the Committee's last letter, the President
on May 11, 2019, tweeted: "I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller.
. . . Actually, Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big
fan!" The President's personal attorney, Rudolph Guiliani, likewise previously stated in an
interview that your accounting of events "can't be taken at face value" and "could be the product
of an inaccurate recollection or could be the product of something else."6 Your testimony
regarding these events-which the President and his counsel now unequivocally dispute-is thus
critical to the Committee's ongoing investigation. In addition, the Committee is committed to
providing you the opportunity to address the scurrilous allegations by the President and his
counsel that you were not truthful or accurate in your interviews with the Special Counsel.
For all these reasons, the Committee looks forward to your testimony on May 21. To be
clear, even if the President-supported by an OLC Opinion-invokes executive privilege over
your testimony, and you decide to abide by that improper assertion, you are still required under
the law and the penalty of contempt to "appear before the Committee to provide testimony, and
invoke executive privilege where appropriate."7
Sincerely,

Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary
cc:

Doug Collins
Ranking Member
House Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee's need for this information is indisputably of the highest order, including fulfilling its.
constitutionally mandated legislative and oversight duties relating to election security, and investigating allegations
of Presidential obstruction of justice. See Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find
William P. Barr, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, In Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply
with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on the Judiciary, House, 116th Cong. 1.
(2019).
5

Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman, Giuliani Attacks McGahn 's Account to Mueller, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 19,
2019.

6

7

See Mem. Op., Comm. on Judiciary v. Miers, No. 08-cv-0409-JDB (D.D.C. Jul. 31, 2008), at 106.

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-24 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit X

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-24 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 3

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers   washington, dc

1300 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3314   TEL (202) 538-8000 FAX (202) 538-8100

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
(202) 538-8120
WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS
williamburck@quinnemanuel.com

May 20, 2019
VIA E-MAIL
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
United States House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC 20515-6216
HJUD.Correspondence@mail.house.gov

Dear Chairman Nadler,
I am in receipt today of two documents provided by the White House Counsel’s Office: first, a
letter from the Honorable Pat A. Cipollone, the current Counsel to the President of the United
States, informing me that the President has directed that my client, Donald F. McGahn, not
appear at the Committee’s hearing scheduled for tomorrow, Tuesday, May 21, 2019, at 10:00am
EDT; and second, a memorandum from the Honorable Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, to Mr. Cipollone advising
him that Mr. McGahn, as a former senior advisor to the President, is immune from compelled
congressional testimony.
As you know, OLC performs the vital role of providing legal advice to the President and
executive branch agencies. Consistent with that advice as reflected in Mr. Engel’s
memorandum, the President has unambiguously directed my client not to comply with the
Committee’s subpoena for testimony. As with the subpoena for documents, Mr. McGahn again
finds himself facing contradictory instructions from two co-equal branches of government. The
direction from the President finds further support in Mr. Engel’s detailed and persuasive
memorandum. Under these circumstances, and also conscious of the duties he, as an attorney,
owes to his former client, Mr. McGahn must decline to appear at the hearing tomorrow.
Mr. McGahn understands from your prior correspondence that the Committee would vote to hold
him in contempt should he not appear tomorrow and the House of Representatives may follow
suit. While we disagree with the Committee’s position and hope it will instead seek an
accommodation with the White House, Mr. McGahn also must honor his ethical and legal
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES   NEW YORK   SAN FRANCISCO   SILICON VALLEY   CHICAGO   WASHINGTON, DC   HOUSTON   SEATTLE   BOSTON   SALT LAKE C ITY
LONDON   TOKYO   MANNHEIM   HAMBURG   PARIS   MUNICH   SYDNEY   HONG KONG   BRUSSELS   ZURICH   SHANGHAI   PERTH   STUTTGART

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-24 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 3

obligations as a former senior lawyer and senior advisor to the President. In short, it is our view
that the Committee’s dispute is not with Mr. McGahn but with the White House.
Mr. McGahn remains obligated to maintain the status quo and respect the President’s instruction.
In the event an accommodation is agreed between the Committee and the White House, Mr.
McGahn will of course comply with that accommodation.

Sincerely,

William A. Burck

cc: Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member
Enclosures

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit Y

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

1

ALDERSON COURT REPORTING

2

SHAYLAH LYNN BURRILL

3

HJU141000

4

OVERSIGHT OF THE REPORT BY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT S.

5

MUELLER III:

6

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

7

House of Representatives

8

Committee on the Judiciary

9

Washington, D.C.

10

FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DONALD F. MCGAHN II

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in

11

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler

12

[chairman of the committee] presiding.

13

Present:

Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee,

14

Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Bass, Richmond, Cicilline, Lieu,

15

Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse,

16

McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Collins,

17

Chabot, Gohmert, Jordan, Buck, Ratcliffe, Gaetz, Johnson of

18

Louisiana, McClintock, Reschenthaler, Cline, Armstrong, and

19

Steube.

20

Staff Present:

Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Arya

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

21

Harlharan ,Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass, Senior

22

Counsel;

23

of Policy, Planning, and Member Services; Madeline Strasser,

24

Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach

25

Advisor; Susan Jensen, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel; Sophie

26

Brill, Counsel; Will Emmons, Professional Staff Member;

27

Brendan Belair, Minority Chief of Staff; Jon Ferro, Minority

28

Parliamentarian; Carlton Davis, Minority Chief Oversight

29

Counsel; Ashley Callen, Minority Senior Adviser and Oversight

30

Counsel; and Erica Barker, Minority Chief Legislative Clerk.

31

John Doty, Senior Advisor; Lisette Morton, Director

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

32
33
34
35
36

Chairman Nadler.

The Judiciary Committee will come to

order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Oversight of

37

the Report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller III:

38

White House Counsel Donald McGahn II.

39

myself for an opening statement.

40

Former

I will now recognize

More than a year ago, White House counsel Don McGahn sat

41

for the first of several interviews with special counsel

42

Robert Mueller.

43

described how the President directed him to have the special

44

counsel fired.

45

lie about it.

46

incidents outlined in the special counsel's report.

47

Over the course of those interviews, he

He described how the President ordered him to
He described several other obstructive

The President, in contrast, refused to be interviewed by

48

the special counsel or even to answer written questions about

49

his attempts to obstruct the investigation.

50

address the allegations spelled out by Mr. McGahn and

51

outlined in the report, President Trump relied on his

52

preferred mode of communication.

53

Mr. McGahn a liar.

54

do the same, to call Mr. McGahn a liar.

55
56

Instead, to

He took to Twitter to call

His lawyers went on cable television to

There are reports of the President and his lieutenants
exerting other kinds of pressure on Mr. McGahn.

In short,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

57

the President took it upon himself to intimidate a witness

58

who has a legal obligation to be here today.

59

not remotely acceptable.

60

This conduct is

The White House asserts that Mr. McGahn does not have to

61

appear today because he is entitled to "absolute immunity"

62

from our subpoenas.

63

course, because the executive branch has tried this approach

64

before.

65

similarly broad and unjustified assertion of executive

66

privilege and asked his former counsel Harriet Miers to

67

ignore a subpoena issued by this committee.

68

did not appear at her scheduled hearing.

69

We know this argument is wrong, of

In 2007, President George Bush attempted to invoke a

Ms. Miers also

Judge John Bates, who was appointed by President Bush,

70

slapped down that argument fairly quickly.

71

cannot identify a single judicial opinion that recognizes

72

absolute immunity for senior presidential advisers in this or

73

any other context.

74

repeating.

75

entirely unsupported by the case law," from the judicial

76

decision.

77

"The executive

That simple, yet critical fact bears

The asserted absolute immunity claim here is

In other words, when this committee issues a subpoena,

78

even to a senior presidential adviser, the witness must show

79

up.

80

obligation to be here for this scheduled appearance.

81

does not immediately correct his mistake, this committee will

Our subpoenas are not optional.

Mr. McGahn has a legal
If he

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

82
83

have no choice but to enforce the subpoena against him.
Mr. McGahn did not appear today because the President

84

prevented it, just as the President has said that he would

85

"fight all subpoenas" issued by Congress as part of his

86

broader efforts to cover up his misconduct.

87

stonewalling makes it all the more important to highlight

88

some of the incidents that Mr. McGahn is said to have

89

witnessed.

90

This

Let me recount some of them.

We know that the President directed Mr. McGahn to

91

prevent then Attorney General Sessions from recusing himself

92

from overseeing the investigation into Russian election

93

interference.

94

General Jeff Sessions did recuse himself from the Russia

95

investigation, the President summoned Mr. McGahn to the Oval

96

Office.

97

opened the conversation by saying, 'I don't have a lawyer.'"

98
99

On March 3, 2017, shortly after Attorney

According to the Mueller report, "The President

The President told Mr. McGahn that he wished that Roy
Cohn was his attorney instead.

Roy Cohn, of course, is known

100

principally as the chief architect of the Army-McCarthy

101

hearings that destroyed so many lives back in 1954, an actual

102

political witch hunt, not the imaginary kind that the

103

President decries.

104

Mr. Cohn served as President Trump's lawyer for a long

105

time, defending the President against Federal discrimination

106

suits before he -- that is, Mr. Cohn -- was ultimately

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

107
108

disbarred for unethical practices in 1986.
Mr. McGahn refused to follow blindly into unethical

109

behavior.

110

of Justice ethics officials had weighed in and that

111

Mr. Sessions would not unrecuse himself, and he advised the

112

President not to have any contact with Mr. Sessions on the

113

matter.

114

Mr. McGahn told the President that the Department

Days later, the President did exactly the opposite.

He summoned Mr. McGahn and Mr. Sessions to Mar-a-Lago,

115

where the President again "expressed his anger."

116

wanted Mr. Sessions to act as his fixer.

117

Mr. Sessions to undo his recusal and to limit the scope of

118

the investigation.

119

President's orders.

120

He said he

He said he wanted

But Mr. Sessions, too, refused the

On June 17, 2017, the President took his displeasure a

121

step further.

122

to order Rod Rosenstein to fire Robert Mueller.

123

to go," the President barked, "Call me back when you do it."

124

He called Mr. McGahn at home and directed him

Once again, Mr. McGahn refused.

"Mueller has

This time, Mr. McGahn

125

felt the President's behavior was so inappropriate that he

126

said he would rather resign than trigger a constitutional

127

crisis.

128

In early 2018, after press reports described the

129

President's attempt to force Mr. McGahn to remove the special

130

counsel on his behalf, the President repeated his pattern.

131

He summoned Mr. McGahn to his office, and he got angry.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

132

"This story doesn't look good.

133

You are the White House counsel," President Trump told

134

Mr. McGahn.

135

"What about these notes?

You need to correct this.

Why do you take notes?" the

136

President said to Mr. McGahn, inquiring why Mr. McGahn had

137

documented their conversation.

138

The President then told Mr. McGahn to tell the American

139

people something that was not true.

140

those reports publicly.

141

President's order.

142

to the American people on the President's behalf.

143

later, the President announced that Mr. McGahn would be

144

leaving the White House.

145

He asked him to deny

Mr. McGahn again refused the

He refused the President's order to lie
Six months

The special counsel found Mr. McGahn to be "a credible

146

witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate, given the

147

position he held in the White House."

148

Mueller report.

149

That is from the

The special counsel also found the following,

150

"Substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, 2017, the

151

President knew his conduct was under investigation by a

152

Federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of Federal

153

crimes to a grand jury.

154

the President's attempts to remove the special counsel were

155

linked to the special counsel's oversight of investigations

156

that involved the President's conduct and, most immediately,

Substantial evidence indicates that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

157

to reports that the President was being investigated for

158

potential obstruction of justice.

159

"Substantial evidence indicates --" and these are all

160

quotes from the report.

161

in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to

162

have the special counsel terminated, the President acted for

163

the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to

164

deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's

165

conduct towards the investigation.

166

indicates that the President's efforts to have Sessions limit

167

the scope of the special counsel's investigation to future

168

election interference was intended to prevent further

169

investigative scrutiny of the President and his campaign's

170

conduct."

171

report.

172

"Substantial evidence indicates that

Substantial evidence

Those are all quotes from the special counsel's

I believe that each of these incidents, documented in

173

detail in the Mueller report, constitutes a crime.

But for

174

the Department of Justice's policy of refusing to indict any

175

sitting President, I believe the President would have been

176

indicted and charged with these crimes.

177

I am not alone in this belief.

Over 900 former Federal

178

prosecutors from across the political spectrum whose job was

179

to determine when the elements of a crime have been satisfied

180

have stated -- have agreed that the President committed

181

crimes that would have been charged if he were not the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

182

sitting President.

183

conduct since the report was released, with respect to

184

Mr. McGahn's testimony and other information we have sought,

185

has carried this pattern of obstruction and cover-up well

186

beyond the four corners of the Mueller report.

187

And I believe that the President's

The President has declared out loud his intention to

188

cover up this misconduct.

He told Mr. McGahn to commit

189

crimes on his behalf.

190

After the report came out, the President claimed that

191

Mr. McGahn lied to the special counsel about what happened.

192

Then he directed Mr. McGahn not to come here today so that

193

the public would not hear his testimony and so that we could

194

not question him.

He told Mr. McGahn lie about it.

195

President Trump may think he can hide behind his lawyers

196

as he launches a series of baseless legal arguments designed

197

to obstruct our work.

198

will prevail in court, but he can think he can slow us down

199

and run out the clock on the American people.

200

Let me be clear.

He cannot think these legal arguments

This committee will hear Mr. McGahn's

201

testimony, even if we have to go to court to secure it.

202

will not allow the President to prevent the American people

203

from hearing from this witness.

204

We

We will not allow the President to block congressional

205

subpoenas, putting himself and his allies above the law.

We

206

will not allow the President to stop this investigation.

And

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

207

nothing in these unjustified and unjustifiable legal attacks

208

will stop us from pressing forward with our work on behalf of

209

the American people.

210

accountable, one way or the other.

211

We will hold this President

It is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of

212

the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Georgia,

213

Mr. Collins, for his opening statement.

214
215

Mr. Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

all that have gathered here again.

216

Here we go again.

217

summations are coming in.

218

running over the norms of congressional oversight.

219

dabbing at the edges of running roughshod on the

220

Constitution, asking for things that we don't.

221

The theater is open, and the
In fact, right now we are again

But I am glad about one thing.

We are

I am glad that the

222

chairman read into the record today the Mueller report.

223

glad that he quoted, as he said, this is a quote directly

224

from the Mueller report.

225

actually go read the rest of it that he has been offered to

226

read, which he has chosen not to read.

227

I am

I just wish my chairman would

But he did leave out one thing.

He left out something

228

in the Mueller report from just now.

He read McGahn's

229

testimony beautifully, did everything right.

230

what he doesn't want to have to come back to and the

231

frustrating thing that has brought us here again and again

But he left out

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

232

and again, and that is the conclusions.

233

collusion.

234

nothing here.

235

There was no

There was no obstruction charge.

There is

After 2 years of doing this, we can read it in, you can

236

talk about how you don't like it, you can talk about what you

237

would like to have.

238

interesting we will read in the quotes that make the

239

headlines, but we are also not going to read in the bottom

240

line of what was actually concluded.

241

But at the end of the day, it is

So the Democrats are here trying again.

The Mueller

242

report concluded there was no collusion, no obstruction.

243

Because the report failed to provide damning information

244

against the President, the majority claims we need to dig

245

deeper, deeper than the 2 years of investigation conducted by

246

what is considered a prosecutorial dream team because that

247

probe ended without criminal charges against the President or

248

his family.

249

The special counsel closed up shop without giving

250

Democrats anything to deliver to their base.

251

Democrats are trying desperately to make something out of

252

nothing, which is why the chairman has again haphazardly

253

subpoenaed today's witness.

254

ensured the witness will not testify.

255
256

Now the

That move, though, has actually

You know, this is becoming a pattern.

The chairman knew

this, I believe, when he sent the subpoena last month.

But

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

257

instead of inviting the witness to testify voluntarily and

258

working with McGahn's counsel to find mutual agreeable time

259

and scope for the testimony, the chairman rushed to maximize

260

headlines by issuing a subpoena.

261

in just 4 months, more subpoenas than the prior chairman

262

issued in 6 years.

263

That subpoena was the third

The chairman had several ways out here.

He took none of

264

them.

265

voluntarily.

266

White House counsel testified before Congress.

267

chairman did not do that.

268

the witness without any consultation or follow-up with the

269

witness' lawyer.

270

The chairman could have invited the witness to testify
That was the practice in the 1990s when the
But the

Instead, he launched a subpoena at

The chairman could have invited the witness to testify

271

behind closed doors, but that would have been politically

272

expedient, and you would not have been here, and the show

273

would not have been as exciting.

274

would not have generated those headlines and everything that

275

we are looking at today.

276

without a witness is theatrical.

277

A closed-door conversation

Even gaveling in today's hearing

The cameras love a spectacle, and the majority loves the

278

chance to rant against the administration.

279

today to see that we don't have chicken on the dais.

280
281

I just am glad

The chairman orchestrated today's confrontation when he
could have avoided it because he is more interested in the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 14 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

282

fight than the fact finding.

283

we have already heard quoted from.

284

Justice Department has offered to the chairman.

285

entire month, the chairman refused to take a look at it.

286

Take the Mueller report, which
More than 99 percent the
For an

The Attorney General who volunteered to testify before

287

the committee, the chairman changed the rules for the first

288

time in the committee's 200-year history, thus blocking

289

General Barr from testifying.

290

I cannot emphasize this enough.

The track record

291

demonstrates he does not actually want information.

292

the fight, but not the truth.

293

to obtaining information, the further we run from it.

294

He wants

The closer he actually comes

The Democrats claim to need today's witness to

295

investigate obstruction of justice, but that investigation

296

was already done.

297

and then closed it.

298

legislative body that does have valid congressional

299

oversight.

300

just a second.

301

Mueller report was actually -- within 24 hours of coming out,

302

the chairman and the majority subpoenaed for all of the

303

documents.

304

Robert Mueller spent 2 years running it
We are not a prosecutorial body, but a

But let us talk about that Mueller report for
It is really interesting to me that the

In fact, we have a legal subpoena that asked the

305

Attorney General to provide documents he cannot legally

306

provide.

That has been covered in this committee for the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 15 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

307

last 2 weeks exhaustively, and even the panel that was with

308

us last week agreed that the subpoena asked the Attorney

309

General to do something illegal by exposing 6(e) information.

310

That was his own witnesses said that last week.

311

But you know what is interesting to me is that we have

312

subpoenaed the documents.

313

underlying documents.

314

get.

315

Mr. Mueller himself, the one who wrote it.

316

We have subpoenaed that we want

We have subpoenaed stuff that we can't

But you know the one thing we seem to avoid is

We have asked since April about Mr. Mueller coming.

But

317

every time we seem to get close to Mueller, Mueller just gets

318

pushed on a little bit.

319

this is what is really amazing.

320

subpoenas in a moment.

321

Hadn't seen a subpoena here, and

But just think about that.

We will get back to

You wanted the work of the

322

author, but you don't want to talk to the author.

323

pinned for just a moment.

324

of the information is at the Democrats' fingertips, and it is

325

the Mueller report the Attorney General offered to Speaker

326

Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, and others to have seen it, but they

327

refuse.

328

So don't be fooled.

Keep that

When we look at this, 99 percent

The majority wants the fight.

329

want the drama.

330

claims to be seeking.

331

of information available to this committee, the chairman

They

He does not actually want the information he
After the administration made volumes

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 16 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

332

issued overbroad subpoenas and now harangues the

333

administration for being unable to comply with those

334

subpoenas.

335

In fact, it is the Democrats who are not engaging in the

336

accommodation process, abruptly cutting off negotiations,

337

rejecting olive branches by the administration.

338

-- I want to come back to something my chairman just said a

339

moment ago.

340

subpoenas are not optional.

341

This is what

His quote was in his opening statements that our

Well, we found out a lot about subpoenas over the last

342

month or so in this committee.

I found out that subpoenas

343

maybe now are not optional.

344

Subpoenas are also a discussion starter.

345

give us better standing in court.

346

chairman's quotes.

347

So what is it?

Let us add to the list.
A subpoena is to

Not my quotes, the

Is a subpoena the legal document that we

348

have talked about all along in here and the forceful document

349

that all attorneys in this country actually use, or is it a

350

discussion starter?

351

is it we don't want it ignored?

Is it to help our standing in court, or

352

At this time, it is amazing to me that the accommodation

353

process -- and we talk about the committee, and the chairman

354

forcefully talked about our oversight.

355

chairman on this point.

356

Congress have oversight responsibility, but it is also the

I agree with the

This committee and all committees in

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 17 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

357

sacred responsibility of the chairman and the majority to use

358

it properly and to not headlong rush into subpoenas when you

359

don't get what you want.

360

That is all we have seen in 5 months here.

When we

361

don't get what we want, we subpoena.

362

Acting Attorney General.

363

off.

We caved.

Then everything else has become a race to

364

get a headline.

The accommodation process, not happening.

365

The accommodation process, never here.

366

So don't be fooled.

The first one was the

We subpoenaed, and then we backed

You may have come wanting -- you

367

may have an opinion that says everything is wrong today with

368

the Mueller report and the President is guilty, but don't

369

undercut congressional oversight because you can't wait.

370

That is the problem we have right now.

371

And so the question is, are we tearing at the fabric of

372

congressional oversight?

373

some of that last week.

374

issued subpoenas that ask the Attorney General to do

375

something illegal, when you have the subpoenas when no

376

accommodation process has been put in place, when you have

377

contempt issues that have been in part with no process and no

378

time going through, I just submit to you this.

379

It was really interesting to hear
When you have a committee that has

Whatever your opinion on the Mueller report, great.

380

Glad you have it.

But you didn't get it here today, and you

381

are not getting it from this committee because this committee

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 18 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

382

undoubtedly doesn't like the author or want to talk to the

383

author of the report.

384

report and make innuendo and attack the President at the

385

middle of the day when this committee, who has charge of

386

immigration, who has charge of intellectual property, who we

387

have touched none of with a crisis at the border.

388

They just want to talk about the

We have an admission that the economy is good, jobs are

389

happening, unemployment is at its lowest rate.

390

the end of the day, we can't find something that the Mueller

391

report lets them hang their I-word, "impeachment," on, which

392

they can't even agree on, because the President is continuing

393

to do his job.

394

force.

And we are here again with the circus in full

395

With that, I yield back.

396

Mr. Cohen.

397

Mr. Chabot.

398

Chairman Nadler.

399

I guess at

Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman?
Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Who seeks

recognition?

400

Mr. Cohen.

Move to strike the last word.

401

Chairman Nadler.

402

Mr. Cohen.

403

Chairman Nadler.

404

Mr. Chabot.

405

Chairman Nadler.

406

All in favor?

The gentleman from Tennessee?

Move to adjourn.
Motion is made to adjourn.

Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman?

Motion to adjourn is not debatable.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 19 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

407

Opposed?

408

Mr. Chabot.

409

Chairman Nadler.

410

Recorded vote.

vote?

411

Mr. Chabot.

412

Chairman Nadler.

413

Do I hear a request for a recorded

Request for recorded vote.
The clerk will call the roll on the

motion to adjourn.

414

Ms. Strasser.

Mr. Nadler?

415

Chairman Nadler.

416

Ms. Strasser.

417

Ms. Lofgren?

418

Ms. Lofgren.

419

Ms. Strasser.

420

Ms. Jackson Lee?

421

Ms. Jackson Lee.

422

Ms. Strasser.

423

Mr. Cohen?

424

Mr. Cohen.

425

Ms. Strasser.

426

Mr. Johnson of Georgia?

427

Mr. Johnson of Georgia.

428

Ms. Strasser.

429

Mr. Deutch?

430

Ms. Bass?

431

Ms. Bass.

Aye.

Mr. Nadler votes aye.

Aye.
Ms. Lofgren votes aye.

Aye.

Ms. Jackson Lee votes aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Mr. Cohen votes aye.

Aye.

Mr. Johnson of Georgia votes aye.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 20 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

432

Ms. Strasser.

Ms. Bass votes aye.

433

Mr. Richmond?

434

Mr. Richmond.

Aye.

435

Ms. Strasser.

Mr. Richmond votes aye.

436

Mr. Jeffries?

437

Mr. Cicilline?

438

Mr. Cicilline.

439

Ms. Strasser.

440

Mr. Swalwell?

441

Mr. Lieu?

442

Mr. Lieu.

443

Ms. Strasser.

444

Mr. Raskin?

445

Mr. Raskin.

446

Ms. Strasser.

447

Ms. Jayapal?

448

Ms. Jayapal.

449

Ms. Strasser.

450

Mrs. Demings?

451

Mrs. Demings.

Aye.

452

Ms. Strasser.

Mrs. Demings votes aye.

453

Mr. Correa?

454

Mr. Correa.

455

Ms. Strasser.

456

Ms. Scanlon?

Aye.
Mr. Cicilline votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Lieu votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Raskin votes aye.

Aye.
Ms. Jayapal votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Correa votes aye.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 21 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

457

Ms. Scanlon.

Aye.

458

Ms. Strasser.

459

Ms. Garcia?

460

Ms. Garcia.

461

Ms. Strasser.

462

Mr. Neguse?

463

Mr. Neguse.

464

Ms. Strasser.

465

Mrs. McBath?

466

Mrs. McBath.

467

Ms. Strasser.

468

Mr. Stanton?

469

Mr. Stanton.

470

Ms. Strasser.

471

Ms. Dean?

472

Ms. Dean.

473

Ms. Strasser.

474

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell?

475

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

476

Ms. Strasser.

477

Ms. Escobar?

478

Ms. Escobar.

479

Ms. Strasser.

480

Mr. Collins?

481

Mr. Collins.

Ms. Scanlon votes aye.

Aye.
Ms. Garcia votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Neguse votes aye.

Aye.
Mrs. McBath votes aye.

Aye.
Mr. Stanton votes aye.

Aye.
Ms. Dean votes aye.

Aye.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell votes aye.

Aye.
Ms. Escobar votes aye.

No.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 22 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

482

Ms. Strasser.

Mr. Collins votes no.

483

Mr. Sensenbrenner?

484

Mr. Chabot?

485

Mr. Chabot.

486

Ms. Strasser.

487

Mr. Gohmert?

488

Mr. Gohmert.

489

Ms. Strasser.

490

Mr. Jordan?

491

Mr. Jordan.

492

Ms. Strasser.

493

Mr. Buck?

494

Mr. Buck.

495

Ms. Strasser.

496

Mr. Ratcliffe?

497

Mr. Ratcliffe.

498

Ms. Strasser.

499

Mrs. Roby?

500

Mr. Gaetz?

501

Mr. Gaetz.

502

Ms. Strasser.

503

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?

504

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana.

505

Ms. Strasser.

506

Mr. Biggs?

No.

And this is disgraceful.

Mr. Chabot votes no.

No.
Mr. Gohmert votes no.

No.
Mr. Jordan votes no.

No.
Mr. Buck votes no.

No.
Mr. Ratcliffe votes no.

No.
Mr. Gaetz votes no.

No.

Mr. Johnson of Louisiana votes no.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-25 Filed 08/07/19 Page 23 of 23

UNOFFICIAL COPY

507

Mr. McClintock?

508

Mr. McClintock.

509

Ms. Strasser.

510

Mrs. Lesko?

511

Mr. Reschenthaler?

512

Mr. Reschenthaler.

513

Ms. Strasser.

514

Mr. Cline?

515

Mr. Cline.

516

Ms. Strasser.

517

Mr. Armstrong?

518

Mr. Armstrong.

519

Ms. Strasser.

520

Mr. Steube?

521

Mr. Steube.

522

Ms. Strasser.

523

Chairman Nadler.

524

No.
Mr. McClintock votes no.

Mr. Reschenthaler votes no.

No.
Mr. Cline votes no.

No.
Mr. Armstrong votes no.

No.
Mr. Steube votes no.

[No response.]

526

Chairman Nadler.

527

Ms. Strasser.

529
530
531

Is there anyone who wishes to vote who

hasn't voted?

525

528

No.

The clerk will report.

Mr. Chairman, there are 21 ayes and 13

noes.
Chairman Nadler.

There are 21 ayes and 13 noes.

The

motion to adjourn is adopted, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:27 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit Z

 JERROLD NADLER, New York

Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 12

CHAIRMAN

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia

RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

mt.�. 1!,ouse of l\epresentatibes
Qtommtttee on tbe Jubtctarp
�asbington, 1D<tC 20515-6216
l!&nc ;i)unbrcb �,xtccntb <!.ongrcn

May 31, 2019
Donald F. McGahn II, Esq.
c/o William A. Burck, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
1300 I St. NW
Suite 9000
Washington, D.C. 20005
Mr. Pat Cipollone
Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Dear Mr. McGahn and Mr. Cipollone:
I write to follow up on the Committee's prior correspondence to Donald F. McGahn II
and/or his counsel dated May 7, 2019, May 17, 2019, and May 20, 2019 (all of which are
attached), regarding the Judiciary Committee's April 22, 2019 subpoena to Mr. McGahn.
First, with respect to the production of documents, counsel for Mr. McGahn informed us
on May 7, 2019 that he would not produce documents in his possession responsive to the
Committee's subpoena. The stated reason for the failure to produce responsive documents was
that the White House directed that such materials be withheld "'because they implicate
significant Executive Branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege.'" As explained in
the Committee's May 7 letter to Mr. McGahn's counsel, the Committee does not consider a
direction by the White House to be a proper or legitimate assertion of any legal privilege.
Moreover, the Committee disputes that any valid claim of privilege exists as to documents
provided by the White House to Mr. McGahn and/or his counsel. Finally, as the May 7 letter
made clear, regardless of the White House's direction, the Committee's subpoena to Mr.
McGahn obligates him to produce a log as to any documents in his possession, custody, or
control that are being withheid on the grounds of privilege.
We have not yet received such a log, which was due on May 7. To facilitate the
resolution of this dispute regarding the log, the Committee is prepared to accept a modified log

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 12

that sets forth only the author, recipient (s), and the genera} subject matter of the record being
withheld, as well as the basis for the assertion of the privilege. That is the minimum amount of
information that has been accepted by the federal courts. 1 We request that Mr. McGahn produce
a modified log not later than June 7, 2019, as well as any documents responsive to the subpoena
for which no claim of privilege is being asserted.
Turning to Mr. McGahn's testimony, for all the reasons explained in the Committee's
May 7, May 17, and May 20 letters, it was unlawful for Mr. McGahn to fail to �ppear altogether
before the Committee on May 21. He, like any other witness, "must appear before the
Committee to provide testimony, and invoke executive privilege where appropriate."2 In
addition, the Committee intends to inquire about certain events that postdate Mr. McGahn's time
at the White House, such as the President's p�blic statements regarding Mr. McGahn and the
White House's communications with and requests of Mr. McGahn or his counsel. The
Committee views these subjects as not subject to any possible claim of privilege. Nevertheless,
the Committee remains willing to discuss any reasonable accommodation(s) that would facilitate
Mr. McGahn's appearance before the Committee, ii:icluding limiting the testimony to the specific
events detailed in the Special Counsel's report, identifying with greater specificity the precise
areas of intended inquiry, and agreeing to the presence of White House counsel during any
testimony, so that Mr. McGahn may consult regarding the assertion of executive privilege.
Please let us know whether you are willing to engage in such accommodation discussions by no
later than June 7.
Sincerely,

House Committee on the Judiciary
cc:

The Hon. Doug Collins
Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary

Enclosures
1 Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform v. Holder, No.. CV 12-1332 (ABJ), 2014 WL 12662665, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug.
20, 2014), modified, No. CV 12-1332 (ABJ), 2014 WL 12662666 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2014) (citing Comm. on the
Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 107 (D.D.C. 2008)).
Comm. on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 107 (D.D.C. 2008). See also U.S. v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323,
331 (I 950) ("persons summoned as witnesses by competent authority have certain minimum duties and obligations
which are necessary concessions to the public interest in the orderly operation of legislative and judicial
machinery").

2

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 12
JERROLD NADLER, New York
CHAIRMAN
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texes
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
HENRY C. "HANK" .JOHNSON, JR., Georgia
TED DEUTCH, Florida
KAREN BASS, California
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ERIC SWALWELL, California
TED LIEU, California
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
VAL DEMINGS, Florida
LOU CORREA, California
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
JOSEPH NEGUSE, Colorado
LUCY McBATH, Georgia
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
• DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RANKING MEMBER

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

[ongrcss of the �nitrd �tatrs
iltousc of 1rlrprcscntatioes
COMMITIEE ON THE JUDICIARY

2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR,, Wisconsin
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JIM JORDAN, Ohio
KEN BUCK, Colorodo
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATI GAETZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
TOM McCLINTOCK, California
DEBBIE LESKO, Ari,ona
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia
KELLY ARMSTRONG, Alabama
GREG STEUBE, Florida

(202) 225-3951
http://www.house.gov/judiciary

May 7, 2019
William A. Burck, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
1300 I St. NW
Suite 9000
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Burck:
On Monday, April 22, the House Committee on the Judiciary served a subpoena on your
client, former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II, compelling the production of
documents in Mr. McGahn's possession or control by May 7, and his testimony on May 21,
2019. We write in response to your letter received this morning regarding that subpoena.
As an initial matter, regarding the subpoenaed documents, the White House Counsel's
letter did not actually invoke executive privilege, but rather merely suggested at the 11th hour without providing any supporting authority - that all requested documents "implicate significant
Executive Branch confidential interests and executive privilege."1 This blanket suggestion of
potential privilege is entirely insufficient. As the district court for the District of Columbia held
in Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, a subpoena recipient is "not excused from compliance
with [a] Committee's subpoena by virtue of a claim of executive privilege that may ultimately be
made. "2 Nor can a "blanket assertion of privilege over all records generated after a particular
date, , . pass muster," without a "showing . . . that any of the individual records satisf[y] the
prerequisites for the application of the privilege. "3
Even if the President were to properly invoke privilege, any claim of executive privilege
has been waived as to documents that the White House voluntarily disclosed to Mr. McGahn and
1
2
3

Letter to Chairman Nadler from Pat A. Cipollone (May 7, 2019) (emphasis added),
Mem. Op., Comm. on Judiciary v. Miers, No. 08-cv-0409-JDB (D.D.C. Jul. 31, 2008), at 91 (emphasis added).
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House ofRepresentatives v. Miers, 558 F, Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008).

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 12

his counsel . The D.C. Circuit expressly held in In re Sealed Case (Espy) that the White House
"waive [s ] its claims of privilege in r egard to specific documents that it voluntarily reveal [s ] to .
third parties outside the White House."4 In Espy, as is the case here , the disclosure at issue was
to the attorney for a former government official. 5 Thus , given that there has been neither an
actual assertion of executive privile ge, nor an individualized showing that the privilege would
apply to the subpoenaed records, the Committee continues to insist upon compliance with the
subpoena.
As to Mr. McGahn' s own document production obligations, the subpoena plainly directs
that your client must provide a privilege log containing specific information for any document in
his possession or control that "is withheld in full or in part on any basis," including on "the basis
of a privilege asserted b y or on behalf of the White House, or at the request of the White
House."6 As the instructions also make clear, any "obj ections or claims of privilege are waived
if you fail to provide an explanation of why full compliance is not possible and a log identifying
with specificity the ground(s) for withholding each withheld document prior to the request
compliance date. " 7 In accordance with the requirements laid out in our subpoena, we expect a
full privilege lo g specifyin g each document withheld, the asserted basis for so doing and the
other information demanded, to b e provided forthwith.
Turning to the other requirement of the subpoena - that Mr . McGahn appear before the
Committee to provide testimony in two weeks - I fully expect that the Committee will hold Mr.
McGahn in contempt if he fails to appear before the Committee, unless the White House secures
a court order directing otherwise. 8 Further, even if Mr. McGahn is authorized by court order to
invoke executive privilege as to certain testimony, he still is required by law to "appear before
the Committee to provide testimony, and invoke executive privilege where appropriate."9
Consistent with the rules of the House of Representatives, and as the Supreme Court has
admonished, " [a] subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game of hare and hounds,
in w hich the witness must testify only if cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case,
then , indeed , the great power of testimonial compulsion, so necessary to the effective functioning
of courts and legislatures , would be a nuluty.' 10 And the Supreme Court has "often iterated the
4 In re Sealed Case, 1 2 1 F.3d 729, 74 1 -42 (D.C. Cir. 1 997).
5 See id.
6 Subpoena by Authori ty of the House ofRepresentatives of the United States of America to Donald F. McGahn for
documents and testimony, si gned by Representative Jerrold Nadler, April 22, 201 9.
7

Id.

e.g., United States v. Btyan, 339 U.S. 323, 332 ( l 950) (reasonin g that a party cannot fail to comp ly witli a
subpoena absent a "return of the writ" providin g reasons for non-compliance, because to "deny the Committee the
op p ortunity to consider the obj ection or remedy it is in itself a contempt of its authority and an obstruction of its
processes").
9 Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 1 06 (D.D.C. 2008).
10
Bryan, 339 U.S. at 33 1.
8 See,

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 12

importance of this public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is
bound to perform when properly summoned." 1 1
A s I am sure you are aware, the President recently declared that h e is "fighting all the
subpoenas" issued by Congress, evidently without regard to whether he has any legal basis to do
so.12 To be clear, a letter from the White House in service of the President' s apparent goal of
blocking or delaying testimony that the President b elieves would be politically damaging is not a
basis for Mr. McGahn to violate his legal obligation to appear before the Committee. Rather, if
the Presiqent wishes to block Mr. McGahn's appearance in the face of a duly issued subpoena,
the burden rests with the White House to file an action in court to attempt to do so.
Moreover, with regard to Mr. McGahn's testimonial obligations, there is no valid
executive privilege invocation that could be asserted in good faith regarding the subject of the
Special Counsel ' s investigation and report. President Trump had the opportunity to assert
executive privilege over Mr. McGahn's interviews with the Special Counsel and, for strategic
reasons, "declined to assert any privilege over Mr. McGahn' s testimony," allowing Mr. McGahn
to answer the Special Counsel ' s questions "fulsomely and honestly." 1 3 Thereafter, the White
House made the same strategic decision with regard to publication of the report itself not to
assert executive privilege over any portion of the report, including portions describing Mr.
McGahn's communication s with the President and other senior officials in extensive detail. 14 As
the D .C. Circuit has already recognized, publication of such information "waives [] privileges for
the document or information specifically released." 1 5
The President and his personal counsel have also routinely commented publicly regarding
the President's communication s with Mr. McGahn, and the content of Mr. McGahn 's testimony
to the Special Counsel. By way of example, on April 25, shortly after the Report was released,
President Trump denied a central event described by Mr. McGahn, tweeting, "I never told the
White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Robert Mueller." 1 6 As has long been recognized, no
person-not even the President-can employ privilege as both a sword and a shield, selectively
cherry picking which information to tout pub licly in his defense, and which information to
deliberately withhold from the American people, 1 7

' ' Id.

Charlie Savage, Trump Vows Stonewall of 'A ll ' House Subpoenas, N.Y. Times, Apr. 24, 20 1 9 (emphasis added).
Michael S. Schmidt & Maggie Habennan, White House Counsel, Don McGahn, Has Cooperated Extensively in
Mueller lnq11ily, N .Y. TLMES, Aug. 1 8, 20 1 8.
14
Attorney General Ban- Press Conference on April 1 8, 20 1 9 (the Presioent confirmed that "he would not assert
privilege over the Special Counsel's report . . . [and] no material has been redacted based on executive privilege.").
1 5 In re Sealed Case, 1 2 1 F.3d. at 74 J .
1 6 Donald J. Trump (@rea!Dona!dTrump), Twitter (Apr. 25, 20 1 9, 4:47 AM).
17
See, e. g. , Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 7 1 7-1 8 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (considering public statements by President
Nixon to be a factor undermining the White House claimed need for confidentiality in related conversations).
12
13

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 12

Lastly, this Committee is currently engaged in an investigation into alleged obstruction of
justice, public corruption and other abuses of power by the President and his administration.
Even in its redacted form, the Special Counsel's report offers substantial evidence and analysis
that the President did, in fact, engage in multiple acts of obstruction. Mr. McGahn provided
critical information that appears throughout Volume II of the Special Counsel's report, detailing
incidents in which, inter alia, the President: sought to stop former Attorney General Sessions
from recusing himself from the Russia investigation and then to have Sessions reverse his recusal
decision 1 8 ; directed Mr. McGahn to have Special Counsel Mueller fired 1 9 ; directed Mr. McGahn
to deny that attempted firing 20 ; and sought to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel's
investigation . 2 1 Where, as here, there is substantial evidence indicating that the President
engaged in such misconduct, the public interest in the "fair administration of justice" outweighs
the President's "generalized interest in confidentiality . "22
For all these reasons, Mr. McGahn is required to appear and provide testimony before the
Committee absent a court order authorizing non-compliance, as well as provide a privilege log
for any documents withheld. Otherwise, the Committee will have no choice but to resort to
contempt proceedings to ensure that it has access to the information it requires to fulfill its
constitutionally mandated duties.
Sincerely,

Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary
cc:

Doug Collins
Ranking Member
House Committee on the Judiciary

18 Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016
Presidential Election, Vol. II, at 48-5 1 , 1 07-1 1 (hereinafter "Mueller Report").
19 Id. Vol. II, at 77-87.
20 Id. Vol. II, at 90-94.
21
Id Vol. II, at 1 1 3- 1 8.
22 United States v. Nixon, 4 1 8 U.S. 683, 7 1 3 (1 974).

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 12
JERROLD NADLER, Nl!w York
CHAIRMAN

DOUG COLLINS, GE?orgia
T
RANKING MINORI Y MEM0ER

it.�. J,ouse of l\epresentatibes
(ttommittee on tbe 3Jubidarp
Dasbfngton. :mctt 20515-6216
'1Dnr f.f) unbt·cb �ixteentb (l[ongrcB'!l'

May 1 7, 201 9

Donald F. McGahn II, Esq.
c/o William A. Burck, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
1300 I St. NW
Suite 9000
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. McGahn:
The Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on "Oversight of the Report by
Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III: Former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn, II,"
on May 2 1 , 2019 at 1 0:00 a.m., in Room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building. As you
know, your presence is required pursuant to the subpoena the Committee served on you
compelling your testimony for that date. 1
On May 7, 201 9, I wrote to your counsel and made clear that, absent a court order
directing otherwise, you must appear or the Committee will proceed to hold you in contempt.2
We have received no information indicating that any such order has been sought, much less
obtained. In fact, the Committee has not even been provided a Department of Justice, Office of
Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion articulating a legitimate legal basis that prevents you from
providing testimony about the subject matters disclosed in the Special Counsel's report. This is
not surprising given that you have already discussed these subjects at length as part of an
investigation for which the President expressly waived privilege, has publicly commented on,
and even has disputed not only your account of the relevant events but also your good faith.
As I have previously stated, the Committee intends to focus on the very topics covered in
the Special Counsel's Report. For that reason, there can be no valid assertion of executive
privilege given that President Trump "declined to assert any privilege over Mr. McGahn's
testimony,"3 or over any portion of the Report itself. 4
1
Subpoena by Authority of the House of Representatives of the United States of America to Donald F. McGahn for
documents and testimony, signed by Representative Jerrold Nadler, April 22, 201 9. Enclosed please find additional
information related to your testimony.

2 Letter to

William A. Burck from Chairman Jerrold Nadler (May 7, 201 9).

3

Michael S. Schmidt & Maggie Haberman, White House Counsel, Don McGahn, Has Cooperated Extensively in
Mueller Inquiry, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 1 8, 201 8.
4 Jn re Sealed Case,

121 F.3d 729, 741 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (holding that publication of information "waives [J
privileges for the document or information specifically release[d].").

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 12

Moreover, the subject of your testimony is critical to this Committee's ongoing
investigative, oversight, and legislative efforts. 5 Since the Committee's last letter, the President
on May 1 1 , 2019, tweeted: "I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller.
. . . Actually, Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big
fan!" The President's personal attorney, Rudolph Guiliani, likewise previously stated in an
interview that your accounting of events "can't be taken at face value" and "could be the product
of an inaccurate recollection or could be the product of something else. "6 Your testimony
regarding these events-which the President and his counsel now unequivocally dispute-is thus
critical to the Committee's ongoing investigation. In addition, the Committee is committed to
providing you the opportunity to address the scurrilous allegations by the President and his
counsel that you were not truthful or accurate in your interviews with the Special Counsel.
For all these reasons, the Committee looks forward to your testimony on May 21 . To be
clear, even if the President-supported by an OLC Opinion-invokes executive privilege over
your testimony, and you decide to abide by that improper assertion, you are still required under
the law and the penalty of contempt to "appear before the Committee to provide testimony, and
invoke executive privilege where appropriate. "7
Sincerely,

Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary
cc:

Doug Collins
Ranking Member
House Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee' s need for this information is indisputably of the highest order, including fulfilling its .
constitutionally mandated legislative and oversight duties relating to election security, and investigating allegations
of Presidential obstruction ofjustice. See Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find
William P. Barr, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, In Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply
with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on the Judiciary, House, 1 16th Cong. I .
(20 1 9).
5

Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman, Giuliani Attacks McGahn 's Account to Mueller, N. Y. TIMES, Apr. 1 9,
20 19.
6

7

See Mem. Op., Comm. on Judiciary v. Miers, No. 08-cv-0409-JDB (D.D.C. Jul. 3 1, 2008), at 106.

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 12
JEJ:\ROLD NADLER, Now York
CtlAIPIMAN

DOUG COLLINS, Georyla
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

mt.�. 11,oust of l\eprtsentattbes
<ttommtttee ·on tbe Jubiciarp
-m!nsbington, tJBQI: 20515-6216
a&ne ;J!) mtllrell �ixteentb <to11gresll'
May 20, 20 1 9
Donald F. McGahn II, Esq.
c/o William A. Burck, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
1300 I St. NW
Suite 9000
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. McGahn:
As you know, your presence is required tomorrow morning for a hearing before the
Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to a subpoena compelling your testimony. 1 This afternoon,
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone informed me that President Trump has ordered you not to
testify. 2 President Trump's order-which seeks to block a former official from informing a
coequal branch of goverrunent about his own misconduct-is unprecedented and, contrary to the
letter received from your counsel this evening, does not excuse your obligation to appear before
the Committee.
First, although the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has produced an
opinion purporting to excuse you from testifying, that opinion has no support in relevant case
law, and its arguments have been flatly rejected by the courts. As Judge Bates previously
explained, the notion that a former White House Counsel is "absolutely immune" from a
congressional subpoena has been "virtually foreclosed by the Supreme Court," which held
several decades ago that senior White House aides do not enjoy such immunity even from civil
damages suits.3 OLC' s most recent opinion-which relies almost entirely on its own prior
opinions--0ffers no persuasive reasoning for distinguishing Judge Bates's ruling or relevant
Supreme Court case law. 4
1

Subpoena by Authority of the House of Representatives of the United States of America to Donald F. McGahn for
documents and testimony, signed by Representative Jerrold Nadler, April 22, 2019.
2

Letter to Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary from Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel
(May 20, 201 9).

Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House ofReps. v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 100 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)).
3

See Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Testimonial Immunity Before Congress
of the Former Counsel to the President (May 20, 20 1 9) ("Engel Op.").

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 12

Second, the Justice Department's own longstanding policy is that "executive privilege . . .
should not be invoked to conceal evidence of wrongdoing or criminality on the part of executive
officers."5 Tellingly, the Department's opinion ignores that policy entirely. Yet as I have
already made clear, the Committee plans to ask you about instances in which the President took
actions or ordered you to take actions that may constitute criminal offenses, including
obstruction ofjustice. Despite the Department's apparent efforts to catalogue every instance in
which a White House aide has refused to testify before Congress, the Department can cite no
example where Congress planned to ask that White House aide about possible crimes committed
by the President. Perhaps that is because-until now-no President would have engaged in such
a transparent effort to block his own former aides from testifying about the President's
misconduct.
Third, in addition to the President not asserting executive privilege with respect to your
account of the relevant events that was published in the Special Counsel's report, the President
himself has already called your credibility into question. He tweeted less than 1 0 days ago that
he "was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller," denying a central event that you described to Special
Counsel Mueller under penalty of felony. At the same time, he has asked you to state publicly
that he did not engage in obstruction ofjustice. 6 In attacking your credibility and asking you to
make public comments about these events, the President has not only further waived any
-p ossible privilege with regard to your testimony; he has also created substantial concerns about
acts of witness intimidation and further obstruction of Congress's ongoing investigations.
Because these incidents post-date your service as White House Counsel and occurred while you
were a private citizen, the Committee is plainly entitled to ask you about them without raising
even potential privilege issues.

Fourth, nowhere in OLC's 1 5-page opinion or in Mr. Cipollone's letter to me is there
mention of President Trump actually invoking executive privilege. OLC's opinion deals
exclusively with your purported "immunity" from testimony and concludes (erroneously) that
you are "not legally required to appear and testify."7 Mr. Cipollone' s letter to me reiterates that
conclusion and states that "the President has directed Mr. McGahn not to appear" at tomorrow's
hearing. 8 But-in marked contrast to the letter sent by the White House to former White House
Counsel Harriet Miers (which itself was rejected as improper by the court)-Mr. Cipollone's
5

Robert B. Shanks, Congressional Subpoenas ofDepartment ofJustice Investigative Files, 8 Op. O.L.C. 252, 267
(1984).
Michael S. Schmidt, White House Asked McGahn to Declare Trump Never Obstructed Justice, N.Y. Times, May
1 0, 2019.

6

7
8

Engel Op. at 15.

Letter to Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary from Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel
(May 20, 201 9).

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-26 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 12

letter does not state that President Trump has asserted executive privilege with respect to your
testimony, nor cpuld he. 9 At most, the Department's conclusions :re garding your "immunity"
(even if accepted as correct, which they are not) mean that the decision whether
to. comply with
.
the Committee's lawful subpoena rests solely in your hands.

Fifth, contrary to the reference in your counsel's letter, there has been no suggestion by
President Trump or by anyone speaking on his behalf that attorney-client privilege poses an
obstacle to your testimony. In fact, any invocation of attorney-client privilege in these
circumstances is foreclosed by the D.C. Circuit case law, which makes clear that the privilege is
inapplicable with respect to White House attorneys where the investigation relates to criminal
wrongdoing. 10
Finally, the Justice Department has no place informing you about the potential remedies
that Congress may pursue in the exercise of its own Article I powers. 1 1 The Committee has
made clear that you risk _serious consequences if you do not appear tomorrow. As the district
court already held with respect to Ms. Miers, you are "not excused from compliance with the
Committee's subpoena by virtue of a claim of executive privilege that may ultimately be
made." 12 Instead, you "must appear before the Committee to provide testimony, and invoke
executive privilege where appropriate." 13 Should you fail to do so, the Committee is prepared to
use all enforcement mechanisms at its disposal.
Sincerely,

House Committee on the Judiciary
cc:

The Hon. Doug Collins
Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary

See Letter to·George T. Marming, Esq. from Fred F. Fielding, Counsel to the President (July 9, 2007), attached as
Exhibit 20 in Miers, No. 08-409, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C); see also Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 62 (White House
Counsel informed Miers that President Bush "had decided to assert executive privilege over the substance of Ms.
Miers' s testimony").
9

10
11

In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263, 127 1-78 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
See Engel Op. at 1 5

12 Miers,
13

Id.

558 F. Supp. 2d at 1 06.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit AA

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 13

SUBPOENA
BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
To Annie Donaldson Talley
You are hereby commanded to be and appear before the
Committee on the Judiciary

ofthe House ofRepresentatives of the United States at the place, date, and time specified below.

0

to produce the things identified on the attached schedule touching matters ofinquiry committed to said
committee or subcommittee; and you are not to depart without leave ofsaid committee or subcommittee..
Place ofproduction: 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515
Date: June 4, 2019

[Z]

Time: 10:00am

to testify at a deposition touching matters ofinquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee;
and you are not to depart without leave ofsaid committee or subcommittee.
Place oftestimony: 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515
Date: June 24, 2019

D

(and continuing until completed)

Time: 10:00am

to testify at a hearing touching matters ofinquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee; and
you are not to depart without leave ofsaid committee or subcommittee.
Place oftestimony:
Date:

---------

Time: __________

To any authorized staff member or the U.S. Marshals Service
to serve and make return.
Witness my hand and the seal ofthe House ofRepresentatives ofthe United States, at
the city ofWashington, D.C. this 21 __ day of M a y_ ___
' 20 19.
__
__
__ _ _

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 13

PROOF OF SERVICE

Subpoena for
Annie Donaldson Talley
Address Luther Strange & Associates, LLC
850 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 200, Birmingha, AL 35209
before the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. House of Representatives
116th Congress

----------------------------

Served by (print name) Aaron Hiller

Title Deputy Chief Counsel, House Judiciary Committee
Manner of service Electronic

Date May 21, 2019
Signature of Server __vQ
, -=----------------------­
'--_"'"Uc;;
T"""""-"
Address 2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 13

SCHEDULE
In accordance with the attached Definitions and Instructions, you are hereby required to produce
all documents and communications in your possession, custody, or control, referring or relating to:
1. All notes referenced in the Report.
2. Any other documents referenced in the Report.
3. Statements by Michael Flynn to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding contacts
with Sergey Kislyak.
4. The Federal Bureau oflnvestigation and Department of Justice's (DOJ) investigation of Michael
Flynn.
5. Meetings with DOJ officials or employees relating to Michael Flynn and underlying evidence
relating to Michael Flynn.
6. The resignation or termination of Michael Flynn.
7. Sean Spicer's February 14, 2017 public statements about Michael Flynn's resignation.
8. President Trump's contacts with James Corney on or about January 27, 2017, February 14, 2017,
J\1arch 30, 2017, and April 11, 2017.
9. The termination of James Corney, including but not limited to any documents or communications
relating to draft termination letters, White House Counsel memoranda, or the May 9, 2017 Rod
Rosenstein memorandum to Jeff Sessions entitled "Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI."
10. Meetings or communications involving FBI or DOJ officials or employees relating to the
resignation or termination of James Corney.
11. President Trump's statements or communications regarding James Corney in March or April
2017.
12. Jeff Sessions' s recusal from any matters arising from the campaigns for President of the United
States.
13. Reversing or attempting to reverse Jeff Sessions's recusal from any matters.
14. The resignation or termination, whether contemplated or actual, of (a) Jeff Sessions; (b) Rod
Rosenstein; (c) Special Counsel Robert Mueller; (d) Don McGahn.
15. Your resignation or termi�1ation, whether contemplated or actual.
16. The appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
17. Alleged conflicts of interest on the part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller or other employees of
the Special Counsel's Office.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 13

18. Public statements and/or requests to correct the record or deny reports that President Trump
asked for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to be removed as Special Counsel.
19. Memoranda directing White House officials or employees to avoid direct contact or
communication with the Department of Justice or Jeff Sessions.
20. Meetings or communications with Dana Boente or other DOJ officials or employees relating to
whether the President was being investigated by either DOJ or the FBI.
21. Meetings or communications with DOJ officials or employees relating to James Corney's
testimony before Congress.
22. The President maintaining possession of Jeff Sessions's resignation letter.
23. Communications about Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, including but not limited to
whether any action taken, proposed or discussed by President Trump or anyone acting on his
behalf may constitute obstruction of justice or any violation of law.
24. McGahn's statement that President Trump's "biggest exposure" was not firing Corney but his
"other contacts," "calls," and "ask re Flynn" as mentioned in Volume II, page 82 of the Report.
25. Statements or commup.ications relating to press reports that President Trump was under
investigation.
26. Any briefings the White House Counsel's Office received on the status of FBI's investigation of
Russian interference in the 2016 election.
27. Paul Manafort's cooperation with the Special Counsel's Office.
28. The June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
29. The July 8, 2017 statement and related statements released in the name of Donald Trump Jr.
regarding the Trump Tower meeting.
30. Prosecu�ing or investigating James Corney or Hillary Clinton.
31. Presidential pardons, whether possible or actual, for Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Michael
Cohen, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, or
individuals involved in matters before the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York (SDNY).
32. Selecting Jeff Sessions's replacement through a recess appointment or appointing an Acting
Attorney General under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
33. The SDNY Investigations, the recusal of U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman from the SDNY
Investigations, or the reassignment or potential reassignment of SDNY employees from the
SDNY Investigations.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 13

34. Statements by Michael Cohen or White House officials to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the timing
of the Trump Organization's efforts to develop a property in Moscow, including but not limited
to drafts of such statements and communications about such drafts or final statements.
35. Any payment, or potential payment, to any person or entity by Michael Cohen, Essential
Consultants LLC, or American Media Inc. ("AMI") for the benefit of Donald Trump or the
Trump Campaign, including but not limited to any documents relating to the reimbursement of
Cohen, Essential Consultants LLC, or AMI for any such payments, and any documents relating
to the omission or inclusion of information about liabilities associated with such payments on
Donald Trump's Public Financial Disclosure Reports (OGE Form 278e) filed in 2017 and 2018.
36. Communications relating to United States imposed sanctions or potential sanctions against the
Russian Federation from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, including but not limited to the
sanctions imposed pursuant to the Magnitsky Act.
Please note your obligation to provide a full privilege log, as well as identify responsive
documents no longer in your possession, as set forth in the Instructions.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 13

DEFINITIONS
As used in this subpoena,. the following terms shall be interpreted in accordance with these
definitions:
1.

"And," and "or," shall be construed broadly and either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring
within the scope of this subpoena any information that might otherwise be construed to be
outside its scope. The singular includes plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes
the feminine and neutral genders.

2. "Any" includes "all," and "all" includes "any."
3. "Communication(s)" means the transmittal of information by any means, whether oral,
electronic, by document or otherwise, and whether in a meeting, by telephone, facsimile, mail,
releases, electronic message including email, text message, instant message, MMS or SMS
message, encrypted message, message application, social media, or otherwise.
4. "Employee" means any past or present agent, borrowed employee, casual employee, consultant,
contractor, de facto employee, detailee, fellow, independent contractor, intern, joint adventurer,
loaned employee, officer, part-time employee, permanent employee, provisional employee,
special government employee, subcontractor, or any other type of service provider.
5. "Document" means any written, recorded, or graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless
of how recorded, and whether original or copy, including, but not limited to, the following:
memoranda, reports, expense reports, books, manuals, instructions, financial reports; working
papers, records, notes, letters, notices, confirmations, telegrams, receipts, appraisals, pamphlets,
magazines, newspapers, prospectuses, interoffice and intra-office communications, call records,
electronic mail ("e-mail"), instant messages, calendars, contracts, cables, notations of any type of
conversation, telephone call, meeting or other communication, bulletins, printed matter,
computer printouts, invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns, summaries, minutes, bills,
accounts, estimates, projections, comparisons, messages, correspondence, press releases,
circulars, financial statements, reviews, opinions, offers, studies and investigations,
questionnaires and surveys, power point presentations, spreadsheets, arid work sheets. The term
"document" includes all drafts, preliminary versions, alterations, modifications, revis;ions,
changes, and amendments to the foregoing, as well as any attachments or appendices thereto.
6. "Documents in your possession, custody or control" means (a) documents that are in your
possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents, employees,
or representatives acting on your behalf; (b) documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that
you have a right to copy, or to which you have access; and (c) documents that have been placed
in the possession, custody, or control of any third party. This includes but is not limited to
documents that are or were held by your attorneys.
7. "Each" shall be construed to include "every," and "every" shall be construed to include "each."
8. "Government" shall include any government's present and former agencies, branches, units,
divisions, subdivisions, districts, public corporations, employees, elected and appointed officials,
ambassadors, diplomats, emissaries, authorities, agents, assignees, and instrumentalities. This

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 13

includes, but is not limited to, any government-controlled business entities, entities in which the
government has a financial interest, and any person acting or purporting to act on the
government's behalf.
9.

"Including" shall be construed broadly to mean "including, but not limited to."

10. "Person" or "persons" means natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations, corporations,
subsidiaries, division, departments, joint ventures proprietorships, syndicates, or other legal
busine�s or government entities, and all subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches,
or other units, thereof.
11. "Referenced" means cited, quoted, mentioned, described, contained, incorporated, reproduced, or
identified in any manner whatsoever.
12. "Relating _to" shall mean discussing, describing, reflecting, containing, analyzing, studying,
reporting, commenting, evidencing, constituting, comprising, showing, setting forth, considering,
recommending, concerning, or pertinent to that subject in any manner whatsoever.
13. "The Russian Federation" shall include the Government of the Russian Federation, as the term
"Government" is defined above.
14. "Special Counsel's Office" means the office created pursuant to Department of Justice Order
No. 3915-17 issued by the Acting Attorney General on May 17, 2017 appointing Robert S.
Mueller III as Special Counsel, and its employees.
15. "Special Counsel's Investigation" means the investigation conducted by the Special Counsel's
Office pursuant to Department of Justice Order No. 3915-17 issued by the Acting Attorney
General on May 17, 2017.
16. "SDNY Investigations" shall include any investigation or prosecution conducted by the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York relating to: (i) Michael Cohen; (ii) the
Trump Organization; (iii) the Trump Campaign; and (iv) the 5g t1i Presidential Inaugural
Committee.
17. "The Report" means the complete and unredacted version of the report submitted on or about
March 22, 2019 by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, pursuant to his authority under 28 C.F.R. §
600.8(c), entitled, "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential
Election."
18. "Trump Campaign" for purposes of this subpoena shall include Donald J. Trump for President,
Inc., as well as its parent companies, subsidiary companies, affiliated entities, agents, officials,
and instrumentalities.
19. The "Trump Organization" for purposes of this subpoena shall include the Trump Organization,
Inc., The Trump Organization LLC, and their parent companies, subsidiary companies, affiliated
entities, agents, officials, and instrumentalities.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 13

20. The "Trump Tower Meeting" for purposes of this subpoena shall reference the June 9, 2016
Trump Tower meeting attended by the following Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Kushner,
Natalia Veselnitskaya, Rob Goldstone, and Rinat Akhmetshin.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 13

INSTRUCTIONS
1. In complying with this subpoena, you should produce all responsive documents in unredacted
form that are in your possession, custody, or control or otherwise available to you, regardless of
whether the documents are possessed directly by you. If a document is referenced in the Report
in part, you should produce it in full in a complete and unredacted form.
2. Documents responsive to the subpoena should not be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred,
or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.
3. In the event that a document is withheld in full or in part on any basis, including a claim of
privilege, you should provide a log containing the following information concerning every such
document: (i) the reason the document is not being produced; (ii) the type of document; (iii) the
general subject matter; (iv) the date, author, addressee, and any other recipient(s); (v) the
relationship of the author and addressee to each other; and (vi) any other description necessary
to identify the document and to explain the basis for not producing the document. If a claimed
privilege applies to only a portion of any document, that portion only should be withheld and the
remainder of the document should be produced. As used herein, "claim of privilege" includes,
but is not limited to, any claim that a document either may or must be withheld from production
pursuant to any law, statute, rule, policy or regulation.
4. In the event that a document is withheld in full or in part on the basis of a privilege asserted by
or on behalf of the White House, or at the request of the White House, please also include the
following information in your privilege log:
a. The date on which you or any attorney representing you received the document or any
copy thereof from the White House, received access to that document from the White
House, or removed that document or any copy thereof from the White House;
b. The name of the person or persons who provided the document to you or your attorney;
c . The name of any lawyer or other agent or third party outside the· White House who, to
your knowledge, reviewed the document.
d. You should log each responsive document as to which you have directed us to the White
House, and each document that was previously in your attorneys' possession, custody or
control.
5. Any objections or claims of privilege are waived if you fail to provide an explanation of why
full compliance is not possible and a log identifying with specificity the ground(s) for
withholding each withheld document prior to the request compliance date.
6. In complying with the request, be apprised that (unless otherwise determined by the Committee)
the Committee does not recognize: any purported non-disclosure privileges associated with the
common law including, but not limited to the delib�rative-process privilege, the attorney-client
privilege, and attorney work product protections; any purported privileges or protections from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act; or any purported contractual privileges, such
as non-disclosure agreements.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 13

7. Any assertion of any such non-constitutional legal bases for withholding documents or other
materials, shall be of no legal force and effect and shall not provide a justification for such
withholding or refusal, unless and only to the extent that the Committee has consented to
recognize the assertion as valid.
8. Pursuant to 5 U. S.C. § 552(d), the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and any statutory
exemptions to FOIA shall not be a basis for withholding any information.
9. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9), the Privacy Act shall not be a basis for withholding
information.
10. If any document responsive to this subpoena was, but no longer is, in your possession, custody,
or control, or has been placed into the possession, custody, or control of any third party and
cannot be provided in response to this subpoena, you should identify the document (stating its
date, author, subject and recipients) and explain the circumstances under which the document
ceased to be in your possession, custody, or control, or was placed in the possession, custody, or
control of a third party, including, but not limited to (a) how the document was disposed of; (b) the
name, current address, and telephone number of the person who currently has possession,
custody, or control over the document; (c) the date of disposition; and (d) the name, current
address, and telephone number of each person who authorized said disposition or who had or
has knowledge of said disposition.
11. If any document responsive to this subpoena cannot be located, describe with particularity the
efforts made to locate the document and the specific reason for its disappearance, destruction or
unavailability.
12. In the event that any entity, organization, or individual named in the subpoena has been, or is
currently, known by any other name, the subpoena should be read also to include such other
names under that alternative identification.
13. All documents should be produced with Bates numbers affixed. The Bates numbers must be
unique, sequential, fixed-length numbers and must begin with a prefix referencing the name of
the producing party (e.g., ABCD-000001). This format must remain consistent across all
productions. The number of digits in the numeric portion of the format should not change in
subsequent productions, nor should spaces, hyphens, or other separators be added or deleted. All
documents should be Bates�stamped sequentially and produced sequentially.
14. Documents produced pursuant to this subpoena should be produced in the order in which they
appear in your files and should not be rearranged. Any documents that are stapled, clipped, or
otherwise fastened together should not be separated. Documents produced in response to this
subpoena should be produced together with copies of file labels, dividers, or identifying markers
with which they were associated when this subpoena was issued. Indicate the office or division
and person from whose files each document was produced.
15. Responsive documents must be produced regardless of whether any other person or entity
possesses non-identical or identical copies of the same document.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 13

16. Produce electronic documents as created or stored electronically in their original electronic
format. Documents produced in electronic format should be organized, identified, and indexed
electronically, in a manner comparable to the organization structure called for in Instruction 13
above.
17. Data may be produced on CD, DVD, memory stick, USB thumb drive, hard drive, or via
secure file transfer, using the media requiring the least number of deliverables. Label all media
with the following:
a. Production date;
b. Bates range;
c. Disk number (1 of X), as applicable.
18. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this subpoena referring to a document,
communication, meeting, or other event is inaccurate, but the actual date or other descriptive
detail is known to you or is otherwise apparent from the context of the subpoena, you should
produce all documents which would be responsive as if the date or other descriptive detail were
correct.
19. The subpoena is continuing in nature and applies to any newly discovered document, regardless
of the date of its creation. Any document not produced because it has not been located or
discovered by the return date should be produced immediately upon location or discovery
subsequent thereto.
20. Two sets of each production shall be delivered, one set to the Majority Staff and one set to the
Minority Staff. Production sets shall be delivered to the Majority Staff in Room 2138 of the
Rayburn House Office Building and the Minority Staff in Room 2142 of the Rayburn House
Office Building. You should consult with Committee Majority Staff regarding the method of
delivery prior to sending any materials.
21. If compliance with the subpoena cannot be made in full by the specified return date, compliance
shall be made to the extent possible by that date. An explanation of why full compliance is not
possible shall be provided along with any partial production. In the event that any responsive
documents or other materials contain classified information, please immediately contact
Committee staff to discuss how to proceed.
22. Upon completion of the document production, please submit a written certification, signed by
you or by counsel, stating that: (1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in
your possession, custody, or control which reasonably could contain responsive documents; (2)
documents responsive to the subpoena have not been destroyed, modified, removed, transferred,
or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee since the date of receiving the Committee's
subpoena or in anticipation of receiving the Committee's subpoena, and (3) all documents
identified during the search that are responsive have been produced to the Committee, identified
in a log provided to the Committee, or otherwise identified as provided herein.
23. A cover letter should be included with each production including the following information:

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-27 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 13

a. List of each piece of media (hard drive, thumb drive, DVD or CD) included in the
production by the unique number assigned to it, and readily apparent on the physical
media;
b. List of fields in the order in which they are listed in the metadata load file;
c. The paragraph(s) and/or clause(s) in the Committee's subpoena to which each document
responds;
d. Time zone in which emails were standardized during conversion (email collections
only);
e. Total page count and bates range for the entire production, including both hard copy and
electronic documents.
24. With respect to your production of your notes cited in the Mueller Report, please provide your
complete notes taken in connection with each meeting referenced.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit BB

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 13

SUBPOENA
BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
To Hope Hicks
You are hereby commanded to be and appear before the
Committee on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives of the United States at the place, date, and time specified below.

0

to produce the things identified on the attached schedule touching matters of inquiry committed to said
committee or subcommittee; and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of production: 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515
Date: June 4, 2019

D

Time: 1O:OOam

to testify at a deposition touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or. subcommittee;
and you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of testimony: _____________________________
Date:

[Z]

---------(and continuing until completed)

Time: _ _________

to testify at a hearing touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee or subcommittee; and
you are not to depart without leave of said committee or subcommittee.
Place of testimony:

2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515

Date: June 19, 2019

Time: 1:OOpm

To any authorized staff member or the U.S. Marshals Service
to serve and make return.
Witness my hand and the seal of the House of Representatives of the United States, at
the city of Washington, D.C. this 21
, 20 19
day of M a y
_ _ __. _______
_ _ _----,.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 13

PROOF OF SERVICE

Subpoena for
Hope Hicks
Address c/o Robert P. Trout, Trout Cacheris & Solomon PLLC
1627 Eye Street NW, Suite 1130, Washington, DC 20006
before the Committee on the Judiciary

US. House ofRepresentatives
I I 6th Congress

----------------------------

Served by (print name) Aaron Hiller

Title Deputy Chief Counsel, House Judiciary Committee
Manner of service Electronic

Date May 21, 2019
Signature of Server

fl_;
i
�
- --=+-M" .........,_, __________

Address 2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 13

SCHEDULE
In accordance with the attached Definitions and Instructions, you are hereby required to produce
all documents and communications in your possession, custody, or control, referring or relating to:
1. All notes referenced in the Report.
2. Any other documents referenced in the Report.
3. Statements by Michael Flynn to the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation (FBI) regarding contacts
with Sergey Kislyak.
4. The Federal Bureau oflnvestigation and Department of Justice's (DOJ) investigation of Michael
Flynn.
5. Meetings with DOJ officials or employees relating to Michael Flynn and underlying evidence
relating to Michael Flynn.
6. The resignation or termination of Michael Flynn.
7. Sean Spicer's February 14, 2017 public statements about Michael Flynn's resignation.
8. President Trump's contacts with James Corney on or about January 27, 2017, February 14, 2017,
March 30, 2017, and April 11, 2017.
9. The termination of James Corney, including but not limited to any documents or communications
relating to draft termination letters, White House Counsel memoranda, or the May 9, 2017 Rod
Rosenstein memorandum to Jeff Sessions entitled "Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI."
10. Meetings or communications involving FBI or DOJ officials or employees relating to the
resignation or termination of James Corney.
11. President Trump's statements or communications regarding James Corney in March or April
2017.
12. Jeff Sessions's recusal from any matters arising from the campaigns for President of the United
States.
13. Reversing or attempting to reverse Jeff Sessions's recusal from any matters.
14. The resignation or termination, whether contemplated or actual, of (a) Jeff Sessions; (b) Rod
Rosenstein; (c) Special Counsel Robert Mueller; (d) Don McGahn.
15. Your resignation or termination, whether contemplated or actual.
16. The appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
17. Alleged conflicts of interest on the part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller or other employees of
the Special Counsel's Office.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 13

18. Public statements and/or requests to correct the record or deny reports that President Trump
asked for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to be removed as Special Counsel.
19. Memoranda directing White House officials or employees to avoid direct contact or
communication with the Department of Justice or Jeff Sessions.
20. Meetings or communications with Dana Boente or other DOJ officials or employees relating to
whether the President was being investigated by either DOJ or the FBI.
21. Meetings or communications with DOJ officials or employees relating to James Corney's
testimony before Congress.
22. The President maintaining possession of Jeff Sessions's resignation letter.
23. Communications about Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, including but not limited to
whether any action taken, proposed or discussed by President Trump or anyone acting on his
behalf may constitute obstruction of justice or any violation of law.
24. McGahn's statement that President Trump's "biggest exposure" was not firing Corney but his
"other contacts," "calls," and "ask re Flynn" as mentioned in Volume II, page 82 of the Report.
25. Statements or communications relating to press reports that President Trump was under
investigation.
26. Any briefings the White House Counsel's Office received on the status of FBI's investigation of
Russian interference in the 2016 election.
27. Paul Manafort's cooperation with the Special Counsel's Office.
28. The June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
29. The July 8, 2017 statement and related statements released in the name of Donald Trump Jr.
regarding the Trump Tower meeting.
30. Prosecuting or investigating James Corney or Hillary Clinton.
31. Presidential pardons, whether possible or actual, for Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Michael
, Cohen, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, or
individuals involved in matters before the U. S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York (SDNY).
32. Selecting Jeff Sessions's replacement through a recess appointment or appointing an Acting
Attorney General under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
33. The SDNY Investigations, the recusal of U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman from the SDNY
Investigations, or the reassignment or potential reassignment of SDNY employees from the
SDNY Investigations.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 13

34. Statements by Michael Cohen or White House officials to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the timing
of the Trump Organization's efforts to develop a property in Moscow, including but not limited
to drafts of such statements and communications about such drafts or final statements.
35. Any payment, or potential payment, to any person or entity by Michael Cohen, Essential
Consultants LLC, or American Media Inc. ("AMI") for the benefit of Donald Trump or the
Trump Campaign, including but not limited to any documents relating to the reimbursement of
Cohen, Essential Consultants LLC, or AMI for any such payments, and any documents relating
to the omission or inclusion of information about liabilities associated with such payments on
Donald Trump's Public Financial Disclosure Reports (OGE Form 278e) filed in 2017 and 2018.
36. Communications relating to United States imposed sanctions or potential sanctions against the
Russian Federation from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, including but not limited to the
sanctions imposed pursuant to the Magnitsky Act.
Please note your obligation to provide a full privilege log, as well as identify responsive
documents no longer in your possession, as set forth in the Instructions.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 13

DEFINITIONS
As used in this subpoena, the following terms shall be interpreted in accordance with these
definitions:
1.

"And," and "or," shall be construed broadly and either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring
within the scope of this subpoena any information that might otherwise be construed to be
outside its scope. The singular includes plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes
the feminine and neutral genders.

2. "Any" includes "all," and "all" includes "any."
3. "Communication(s)" means the transmittal of information by any means, whether oral,
electronic, by document or otherwise, and whether in a meeting, by telephone, facsimile, mail,
releases, electronic message including email, text message, instant message, MMS or SMS
message, encrypted message, message application, social media, or otherwise.
4. "Employee" means any past or present agent, borrowed employee, casual employee, consultant,
contractor, de facto employee, detailee, fellow, independent contractor, intern, joint adventurer,
loaned employee, officer, part-time employee, permanent employee, provisional employee,
special government employee, subcontractor, or any other type of service provider.
5. "Document" means any written, recorded, or graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless
of how recorded, and whether original or copy, including, but not limited to, the following:
memoranda, reports, expense reports, books, manuals, instructions, financial reports, working
papers, records, notes, letters, notices, confirmations, telegrams, receipts, appraisals, pamphlets,
magazines, newspapers, prospectuses, interoffice and intra-office communications, call records,
electronic mail ("e-mail"), instant messages, calendars, contracts, cables, notations of any type of
conversation, telephone call, meeting or other communication, bulletins, printed matter,
computer printouts, invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns, summaries, minutes, bills,
accounts, estimates, projections, comparisons, messages, correspondence, press releases,
circulars, financial statements, reviews, opinions, offers, studies and investigations,
questionnaires and surveys, power point presentations, spreadsheets, and work sheets. The term
"document" includes all drafts, preliminary versions, alterations, modifications, revisions,
changes, and amendments to the foregoing, as well as any attachments or appendices thereto.
6. "Documents in your possession, custody or control" means (a) documents that are in your
possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents, employees,
or representatives acting on your behalf; (b) documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that
you have a right to copy, or to which you have access; and (c) documents that have been placed
in the possession, custody, or control of any third party. This includes but is not limited to
documents that are or were held by your attorneys.
7. "Each" shall be construed to include "every," and "every" shall be construed to include "each;"
8. "Government" shall include any government's present and former agencies, branches, units,
divisions, subdivisions, districts, public corporations, employees, elected and appointed officials,
ambassadors, diplomats, emissaries, authorities, agents, assignees, and instrumentalities. This

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 13

includes, but is not limited to, any government-controlled business entities, entities in which the
government has a financial interest, and any person acting or purporting to act on the
government's behalf.
9.

"Including" shall be construed brocl-dly to mean "including, but not limited to."

10. "Person" or "persons" means natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations, corporations,
subsidiaries, division, departments, joint ventures proprietorships, syndicates, or other legal
business or government entities, and all subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches,
or other units, thereof.
11. "Referenced" means cited, quoted, mentioned, described, contained, incorporated, reproduced, or
identified in any manner whatsoever.
12. "Relating to" shall mean discussing, describing, reflecting, containing, analyzing, studying,
reporting, commenting, evidencing, constituting, comprising, showing, setting forth, considering,
recommending, concerning, or pertinent to that subject in any manner whatsoever.
13. "The Russian Federation" shall include the Government of the Russian Federation, as the term
"Government" is defined above.
14. "Special Counsel's Office" means the office created pursuant to Department of Justice Order
No. 3915-17 issued by the Acting Attorney General on May 17, 2017 appointing Robert S.
Mueller III as Special Counsel, and its employees.
15. "Special Counsel's Investigation" means the investigation conducted by the Special Counsel's
Office pursuant to Department of Justice Order No. 3915-17 issued by the Acting Attorney
General on May 17, 2017.
16. "SDNY Investigations" shall include any investigation or prosecution conducted by the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York relating to: (i) Michael Cohen; (ii) the
Trump Organization; (iii) the Trump Campaign; and (iv) the 58111 Presidential Inaugural
Committee.
17. "The Report" means the complete and unredacted version of the report submitted on or about
March 22, 2019 by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, pursuant to his authority under 28 C.F.R. §
600.8(c), entitled, "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential
Election."
18. "Trump Campaign" for purposes of this subpoena shall include Donald J. Trump for President,
Inc., as well as its parent companies, subsidiary companies, affiliated entities, agents, officials,
and instrumentalities.
19. The "Trump Organization" for purposes of this subpoena shall include the Trump Organization,
Inc., The Trump Organization LLC, and"their parent companies, subsidiary companies, affiliated
entities, agents, officials, and instrumentalities.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 13

20. The "Trump Tower Meeting" for purposes of this subpoena shall reference the June 9, 2016
Trump Tower meeting attended by the following Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Kushner,
Natalia Veselnitskaya, Rob Goldstone, and Rinat Akhmetshin.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 13

INSTRUCTIONS
1. In complying with this subpoena, you should produce all responsive documents in unredacted
form that are in your possession, custody, or control or otherwise available to you, regardless of
whether the documents are possessed directly by you. If a document is referenced in the Report
in part, you should produce it in full in a complete and unredacted form.
2. Documents responsive to the subpoena should not be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred,
or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.
3. In the event that a document is withheld in full or in part on any basis, including a claim of
privilege, you should provide a log containing the following information concerning every such
document: (i) the reason the document is not being produced; (ii) the type of document; (iii) the
general subject matter; (iv) the date, author, addressee, and any other recipient(s); (v) the
relationship of the author and addressee to each other; and (vi) any other description necessary
to identify the document and to explain the basis for not producing the document. If a claimed
privilege applies to only a portion of any document, that portion only should be withheld and the
remainder of the document should be produced. As used herein, "claim of privilege" includes,
but is not limited to, any claim that a document either may or must be withheld from production
pursuant to any law, statute, rule, policy or regulation.
4. In the event that a document is withheld in full or in part on the basis of a privilege asserted by
or on behalf of the White House, or at the request of the White House, please also include the
following information in your privilege log:
a. The date on which you or any attorney representing you received the document or any
copy thereof from the White House, received access to that document from the White
House, or removed that document or any copy thereof from the White House;
b. The name of the person or persons who provided the document to you or your attorney;
c. The name of any lawyer or other agent or third party outside the White House who, to
your knowledge, reviewed the document.
d. You should log each responsive document as to which you have directed us to the White
House, and each document that was previously in your attorneys' possession, custody or
control.
5. Any objections or claims of privilege are waived if you fail to provide an explanation of why
full compliance is not possible and a log identifying with specificity the ground(s) for
withholding each withheld document prior to the request compliance date.
6. In complying with the request, be apprised that (unless otherwise determined by the Committee)
the Committee does not recognize: any purported non-disclosure privileges associated with the
common law including, but not limited to the deliberative-process privilege, the attorney-client
privilege, and attorney work product protections; any purported privileges or protections from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act; or any purported contractual privileges, such
as non-disclosure agreements.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 13

7. Any assertion of any such non-constitutional legal bases for withholding documents or other
materials, shall be of no legal force and effect and shall not provide a justification for such
withholding or refusal, unless and only to the extent that the Committee has consented to
recognize the assertion as valid.
8. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(d), the Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) and any statutory
exemptions to FOIA shall not be a basis for withholding any information.
9. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(9), the Privacy Act shall not be a basis for withholding
information.
10. If any document responsive to this subpoena was, but no longer is, in your possession, custody,
or control, or has been placed into the possession, custody, or control of any third party and
cannot be provided in response to this subpoena, you should identify the document (stating its
date, author, subject and recipients) and explain the circumstances under which the document
ceased to be in your possession, custody, or control, or was placed in the possession, custody, or
control of a third party, including, but not limited to (a) how the document was disposed of; (b) the
name, current address, and telephone number of the person who currently has possession,
custody, or control over the document; (c) the date of disposition; and (d) the name, current
address, and telephone number of each person who authorized said disposition or who had or
has knowledge of said disposition.
11. If any document responsive to this subpoena cannot be located, describe with particularity the
efforts made to locate the document and the specific reason for its disappearance, destruction or
unavailability.
12. In the event that any entity, organization, or individual named in the subpoena has been, or is
currently, known by any other name, the subpoena should be read also to include su�h other
names under that alternative identification.
13. All documents should be produced with Bates numbers affixed. The Bates numbers must be
unique, sequential, fixed-length numbers and must begin with a prefix referencing the name of
the producing party (e.g., ABCD-000001). This format must remain consistent across all
productions. The number of digits in the numeric portion of the format should not change in
subsequent productions, nor should spaces, hyphens, or other separators be added or deleted. All
documents should be Bates-stamped sequentially and produced sequentially.
14. Documents produced pursuant to this subpoena should be produced in the order in which they
appear in your files and should not be rearranged. Any documents that are stapled, clipped, or
otherwise fastened together should not be separated. Documents produced in response to this
subpoena should be produced together with copies of file labels, dividers, or identifying markers
with which they were associated when this subpoena was issued. Indicate the office or division
and person from whose files each document was produced.
15. Responsive documents must be produced regardless of whether any other person or entity
possesses non-identical or identical copies of the same document.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 13

16. Produce electronic documents as created or stored electronically in their original electronic
format. Documents produced in electronic format should be organized, identified, and indexed
electronically, in a manner comparable to the organization structure called for in Instruction 13
above.
17. Data may be produced on CD, DVD, memory stick, USB thumb drive, hard drive, or via
secure file transfer, using the media requiring the least number of deliverables. Label all media
with the following:
a. Production date;
b. Bates range;
c. Disk number (1 of X), as applicable.
18. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this subpoena referring to a document,
communication, meeting, or other event is inaccurate, but the actual date or other descriptive
detail is known to you or is otherwise apparent from the context of the subpoena, you should
produce all documents which would be responsive as if the date or other descriptive detail were
correct.
19. The subpoena is continuing in nature and applies to any newly discovered document, regardless
of the date of its creation. Any document not produced because it has not been located or
discovered by the return date should be produced immediately upon location or discovery
subsequent thereto.
20. Two sets of each production shall be delivered, one set to the Majority Staff and one set to the
Minority Staff. Production sets shall be delivered to the Majority Staff in Room 213 8 of the
Rayburn House Office Building and the Minority Staff in Room 2142 of the Rayburn House
Office Building. You should consult with Committee Majority Staff regarding the method of
delivery prior to sending any materials.
21. If compliance with the subpoena cannot be made in full by the· specified return date, compliance
shall be made to the extent possible by that date. An explanation of why full compliance is not
possible shall be provided along with any partial production. In the event that any responsive
documents or other materials contain classified information, please immediately contact
Committee staff to discuss how to proceed.
22. Upon completion of the document production, please submit a written certification, signed by
you or by counsel, stating that: (1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in
your possession, custody, or control which reasonably could contain responsive documents; (2)
documents responsive to the subpoena have not been destroyed, modified, removed, transferred,
or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee since the date of receiving the Committee's
subpoena or in anticipation of receiving the Committee's subpoena, and (3) all documents
identified during the search that are responsive have been produced to the Committee, identified
in a log provided to the Committee, or otherwise identified as provided herein.
23. A cover letter should be included with eE!,ch production including the following information:

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-28 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 13

a. List of each piece of media (hard drive, thumb drive, DVD or CD) included in the
production by the unique number assigned to it, and readily apparent on the physical
media;
b. List of fields in the order in which they are listed in the metadata load file;
c. The paragraph(s) and/or clause(s) in the Committee's subpoena to which each document
responds;
d. Time zone in which emails were standardized during conversion (email collections
only);
e. Total page count and bates range for the entire production, including both hard copy and
electronic documents.
24. With respect to your production of your notes cited in the Mueller Report, please provide your
complete notes taken in connection with each meeting referenced.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-29 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit CC

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-29 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 3

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

June 18, 2019
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chahman Nadler:
I write concerning the subpoena issued by the Committee on the Judiciary (the
"Committee") to Hope Hicks on May 21,2019. The subpoena directs Ms. Hicks to testify before
the Committee on Wednesday, June 19, 2019. As you are aware, Ms. Hicks served as a senior
adviser to the President in the White House, holding the titles of Assistant to the President and
Director of Strategic Communications, as well as Assistant to the President and White House
Communications Director. The subpoena appears to seek testimony from Ms. Hicks concerning
her service in the White House. As explained below,Ms. Hicks is absolutely immune from being
compelled to testify before Congress with respect to matters occmTing during her service as a
senior adviser to the President.
The Department of Jvstice ("Department") has advised me that, with respect to the
subpoena issued by the Committee on May 21, 2019, Ms. Hicks is absolutely immune from
compelled congressional testimony with respect to matters occmTing during her service as a senior
adviser to the President. As you know, "[t]he Department has long taken the position-across
administrations of both political parties-that 'the President and his immediate advisers are
absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional Committee."' Letter from
Pat A. Cipollone, Counsel to the President, to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (May 20, 2019) (quoting
Immunity of the Former Counsel to the President from Compelled Congressional Testimony, 31
Op. 0.L.C. 191, 191 (2007)); see also, e.g., Immunity of the Counsel to the President from
Compelled Congressional Testimony, 20 Op. O.L.C. 308,308 (1996). That immunity arises from
the President's position as head of the Executive Branch and from Ms. Hicks's former position as
a senior adviser to the President. "Subjecting a senior presidential advisor to the congressional
subpoena power would be akin to requiring the President himself to appear before Congress on
matters relating to the performance of his constitutionally assigned executive functions." Assertion
of Executive Privilege with Respect to Clemency Decisions, 23 Op. O.L.C. 1,5 (1999).
As the Depmtment has recognized, "[w]hile a senior presidential adviser, like other
executive officials, could rely on executive privilege to decline to answer specific questions at a
hearing, the privilege is insufficient to ameliorate several threats that compelled testimony poses
to the independence and candor of executive councils." Memorandum for Pat A. Cipollone,
Counsel to the President, from Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal
Counsel,Re: Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President, 43

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-29 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 3

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Page 2
Op. O.L.C. _, *6 (May 20, 2019). "[C]ompelled congressional testimony 'create[s] an inherent
and substantial risk of inadvertent or coerced disclosure of confidential information,' despite the
availability of claims of executive privilege with respect to the specific questions asked during
such testimony." Id. (quoting Immuniry ofthe Assistant to the President and Director ofthe Office
ofPolitical Strategy and Outreach from Congressional Subpoena, 38 Op. O.L.C. _, *4 (July 15,
2014)). In addition, the threat of compelled interrogation about confidential communications with
the President or his senior staff"could chill presidential advisers from providing unpopular advice
or from fully examining an issue with the President or others." Id. Finally, given the frequency
with which testimony of a senior presidential adviser would fall within the scope of executive
privilege, compelling such an adviser's appearance is unlikely to promote any valid legislative
interests. Id. at *6-7.
Because of this constitutional immunity, and in order to protect the prerogatives of the
Office of President, the President has directed Ms. Hicks not to answer questions before the
Committee relating to the time of her service as a senior adviser to the President. The long­
standing principle of immunity for senior advisers to the President is firmly rooted in the
Constitution's separation of powers and protects the core functions of the Presidency, and we are
adhering to this well-established precedent in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively
execute the responsibilities of the Office of President. It is our understanding that Ms. Hicks's
limited testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence was not inconsistent with this principle of immunity.
We recognize the Committee has also expressed an interest in questioning Ms. Hicks about
her time working for the President-elect during the presidential transition. Much of Ms. Hicks's
work during this period involved discussions with the President-elect and his staff relating to the
decisions the President-elect would be making once he assumed office. Accordingly, her
responses to specific questions about this period would likely implicate executive branch
confidentiality interests concerning that decisionmaking process. In order to preserve the
President's ability to assert executive privilege over such information, a member of my office will
attend Ms. Hicks's testimony on June 19.
Finally, I note that the Committee and the Department are engaged in an ongoing
accommodation process, and that accommodation process may resolve the Committee's requests
for info1mation. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions or would
like to discuss this matter further.

cc:

The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-30 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit DD

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-30 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 3

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

June 4, 2019
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Nadler:
I write in reference to subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary (the
"Committee") on May 21, 2019 to Annie Donaldson Talley and Hope Hicks, which request the
production of documents by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 4.
The subpoenas seek documents related to matters that were subjects of the investigation
conducted by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. Those documents include White House
records that remain legally protected from disclosure under longstanding constitutional principles,
because they implicate significant Executive Branch confidentiality interests and executive
privilege. Because Ms. Talley and Ms. Hicks do not have the legal right to disclose the White
House records to third parties, I would ask that the Committee direct any request for such records
to the White House, the appropriate legal custodian.
As part of the same investigation, the Committee issued a subpoena to Attorney General
William P. Barr on May 1, 2019, essentially seeking access to all infonnation developed by the
Special Counsel in the course of his investigation. We understand that the Committee recently
proposed to narrow that subpoena to address the materials of the greatest interest to its
investigation, and that the Department of Justice ("Department") has indicated a willingness to
discuss a process by which the Depmiment could accommodate the Committee's requests, in a
manner consistent with the law and the confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch. We hope
that these discussions between the Committee and the Department will result in a reasonable
accommodation of the Committee's requests and the Executive Branch's confidentiality interests.
Because the outcome of the negotiations between the Committee and the Department may
potentially resolve this matter, we suggest deferring any discussions, if necessaty, with the White
House until the accommodation process with the Department is complete. Needless to say, the
White House records at issue involve significant Executive Branch confidentiality interests, and
the ongoing accommodation process with the Depatiment may satisfy the Committee's
infonnational needs. Accordingly, Acting Chief of Staff to the President Mick Mulvaney has
directed Ms. Talley and Ms. Hicks not to produce documents in response to the Committee's May
21 subpoenas that relate in any way to the White House. The Department is aware of and concurs
with this legal position.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-30 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 3

The Honorable Jenold Nadler
Page2
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,

at A. Cipollone
Counsel to the President
cc:

The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 274

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit EE

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHINGTON, D.C.

INTERVIEW OF:

HOPE HICKS

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Washington, D.C.

The interview in the above matter was held in Room 2237,
Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 9:02 a.m.
Members Present:

Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson

1

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

2

Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Cicilline, Swalwell,
Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse,
McBath, Stanton, Dean, Mucarsel-Powell, Escobar, Collins, Chabot,
Gohmert, Jordan, Ratcliffe, Gaetz, Biggs, McClintock, Lesko,
Armstrong, and Steube.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

Good morning.

3

Let's go on the record.

This is a transcribed interview of Ms. Hope Hicks, former
communications director for the White House.

I requested this

interview as part of our investigation into allegations of
corruption and abuse of power and other misconduct by the Trump
administration.
Would the witness please state her name and position in the
White House for the record?
Ms. Hicks.

My name is Hope Hicks, and I was the

communications director at the White House.
Chairman Nadler.
today.

I wish to thank you for appearing here

I appreciate your willingness to appear voluntarily.

Most committees encourage witnesses who appear for a
transcribed interview to freely consult with counsel if they so
choose, and you are appearing today with private counsel.
Could counsel please state your name and current position for
the record?
Mr. Trout.

Yes.

My name is Robert Trout.

I'm with the firm

of Trout Cacheris & Solomon in Washington, D.C., and I'm
representing Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Solomon.

Gloria Solomon, also with Trout Cacheris &

Solomon, also representing Ms. Hicks.
Chairman Nadler.

Thank you.

I note that you are also

appearing today with representatives from the White House
Counsel's Office.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

4

Could those counsels please state their names and current
positions for the record?
Mr. Purpura.

Mr. Chairman, Michael Purpura, deputy counsel

to the President.
Mr. Philbin.

And Patrick Philbin, deputy counsel to the

President.
Chairman Nadler.

Thank you.

You are also appearing today with representatives from the
Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel.

I note that the

committee does not typically permit agency counsel to be present
in a transcribed interview involving nonagency employees.
However, in the interest of accommodating both the witness and the
White House an exception is being made in this one case, and the
Department's presence is permitted.
Could those counsels please state their names and current
positions for the record?
Mr. Gannon.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Curtis Gannon,

principal deputy assistant attorney general.
Chairman Nadler.

That's the only one?

Okay.

Thank you.
I am Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee.

I am joined today by several members of the committee

as well as by counsel for the committee.

I will now ask everyone

else from the committee who is present to introduce themselves,
starting with the members.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Scanlon.

Mary Gay Scanlon, vice chair of the Judiciary

Committee.
Ms. Dean.

Madeleine Dean, a member from Pennsylvania's

Fourth Congressional District.
Mr. Neguse.

Joe Neguse, Colorado's Second Congressional

District.
Ms. Garcia.

Sylvia Garcia, Texas 29, the Houston area.

Ms. Escobar.

Veronica Escobar, El Paso.

Mr. Gohmert.

Louie Gohmert, Texas.

Mr. Deutch.

I'm Ted Deutch from Florida.

Mrs. McBath.
Mr. Lieu.

Lucy McBath, Georgia's Sixth.

Ted Lieu, southern California.

Ms. Jayapal.

Pramila Jayapal, Washington's Seventh.

Mrs. Demings.

Val Demings, Florida.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Mr. Gaetz.

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Florida.

Matt Gaetz, Florida.

Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Collins.

Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota.
Doug Collins, Georgia.

Chairman Nadler.

Our ranking member.

And other people in the room from the committee not members
should identify themselves now.
Mr. Eisen.

Norman Eisen for the majority committee.

Ms. Hariharan.
Mr. Berke.

Arya Hariharan, majority staff.

Barry Berke, the majority staff.

Ms. McElvein.

Elizabeth McElvein, majority staff.

5

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Gayle.

Charlie Gayle, majority staff.

Ms. Istel.

Sarah Istel, majority staff.

Chairman Nadler.

Anybody else?

Mr. Hiller.

Aaron Hiller, majority staff.

Mr. Morgan.

Matt Morgan, majority staff.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Parmiter.

Anybody from the minority staff?

Robert Parmiter, minority staff.

Mr. Stewart.

Brice Stewart, minority staff.

Mr. Johnson.

Danny Johnson, minority staff.

Mr. Greenberg.

Jacob Greenberg, minority staff.

Mr. Davis.

Carlton Davis with Mr. Collins.

Ms. Barker.

Erica Barker, minority staff.

Mr. Ferro.

6

Jon Ferro, minority staff.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

And we've been joined by Mr. Cohen

of Tennessee and also Mr. Biggs of Arizona.

And Ms. Hicks and her

counsel have already identified themselves.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply in this
setting, but there are some guidelines that we follow that I will
now go over.
Our questioning will proceed in rounds.

The majority will

ask questions first for an hour, and then the minority will have
an opportunity to ask questions for an equal period of time if
they choose.

We will go back and forth in this manner until there

are no more questions and the interview is over.
Typically we take a short break at the end of each hour of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

7

questioning, but if you would like to take a break apart from
that, please let us know.

We will also take a break for lunch at

the appropriate point, some appropriate point.
As you can see, there is an official reporter taking down
everything we say to make a written record, so we ask that you
give verbal responses to all questions.
Ms. Hicks.

Do you understand that?

Yes, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

Thank you.

So that the reporter can take down a clear record, we will do
our best to limit the number of members and staff directing
questions at you during any given hour.

It is important that we

do not talk over one another or interrupt each other and that goes
for everybody present at today's interview.
We want you to answer our questions in the most complete and
truthful manner possible, so we will take out time.

If you have

any questions or if you do not understand one of our questions,
please let us know.

And if you honestly do not know the answer to

a question or do not remember it, it's best not to guess.

Just

give us your best recollection.
It is okay to tell us if you learned information from someone
else.

Just indicate how you came to know that information.

If

there are things you do not know or cannot remember, just say so,
and please inform us who, to the best of your knowledge, might be
able to provide a more complete answer to the question.
Ms. Hicks, you should also understand that although this

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

8

interview is not under oath you are required by law to
answer questions from Congress truthfully.

I assume you

understand that?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

This applies also to questions posed by

congressional staff as well, and I assume you understand that as
well?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

Witnesses who knowingly provide false

testimony could be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or
for making false statements.
Ms. Hicks.

Do you understand that?

Yes, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

Is there any reason you are unable to

provide truthful answers to today's questions?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

As part of the accommodations process

surrounding the May 21st, 2019, subpoena served on Ms. Hicks by
the Judiciary Committee, she has agreed to voluntarily appear for
a transcribed interview, and the committee has agreed that her
appearance satisfies her testimonial obligation under the
May 21st, 2019, subpoena.
Ms. Hicks, through her counsel and the committee, have agreed
that any disputes regarding privilege assertions or other
objections will be treated as if they occurred during testimony
compelled by the May 21st, 2019, subpoena.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

9

Finally, I would like to read from our protocols for
transcribed interviews recently agreed to by Ranking Member
Collins, quote:

To encourage candid testimony by the witnesses,

transcribed interviews will be conducted in a confidential,
closed-door setting.

Members and committee staff should endeavor

to maintain confidentiality regarding the substance of the
testimony.
At the appropriate time, in consultation with the ranking
member, the committee will release the transcript of this
interview.

We anticipate that in the next 48 hours, as soon as we

can do that.
Between now and then, I will ask everybody present to conduct
themselves with the appropriate discretion before we release the
transcript in the next couple days.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

Very well.

The time is now 9:09, and our

first hour of questioning will begin.
Ms. Hicks, who is Corey Lewandowski?
Ms. Hicks.

He was Mr. Trump's campaign manager from

January 2015 to June 2016.
Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.

And when and where did you meet him?

I believe I met him traveling from New York to

Iowa -- sorry, is that better? -- I believe I met him traveling
from New York to Iowa, January 24, 2015.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

10

And how often did you interact with

Mr. Lewandowski during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

Every day.

Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.

We probably spoke frequently.

Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.

And what about during the transition?

Does that mean daily?

Weekly?

Probably daily.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

Can you describe the relationship

between Lewandowski and the President during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

As I said, Corey was his campaign manager.

Is

there any other specifics you're looking for?
Chairman Nadler.

Well, were they friendly?

Were they

antagonistic?
Ms. Hicks.

They had a close relationship.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

And the same question, what about

during the transition?
Ms. Hicks.

I believe they maintained a close relationship.

Chairman Nadler.

Did there come a time when that

relationship changed?
Ms. Hicks.

Not that I'm aware of.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

After Trump was elected, was

Mr. Lewandowski hired to work on the transition in any capacity?
Ms. Hicks.

Not that I'm aware of.

Chairman Nadler.
office?

And what about after the President took

Was Mr. Lewandowski hired as an executive branch

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

11

official?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Mr. Chairman, I --

It's a matter of public record.

Why would

you object?
Mr. Purpura.

Mr. Chairman, as we explained in

Mr. Cipollone's letter yesterday, as a matter of longstanding
executive branch precedent in the Department of Justice practice
and advice, as a former senior adviser to the President, Ms. Hicks
may not be compelled to speak about events that occurred during
her service as a senior adviser to the President.

That question

touched upon that area.
Chairman Nadler.

With all due respect, that is absolute

nonsense as a matter of law.
Are you asserting any other basis for declining to answer the
question -Mr. Purpura.

No, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nadler.

-- besides absolute immunity, which the

gentleman just said?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

No, sir.

Are you asserting any privileges in declining to answer the
question?
Mr. Purpura.

We are not, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.

Ms. Lewandowski?

As a former senior adviser to the President, I'm

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

12

following the instructions from the White House.
Chairman Nadler.

No, no, I asked are you asserting any

specific privilege, like executive privilege or anything else, or
are you just simply asserting the absolute immunity that
Mr. Purpura just announced?
Mr. Trout.

Mr. Chairman, if I could say.

She is not in a

position to -- she's not a government employee, and she's not in a
position to exercise any privilege, so she is -Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Trout.

So she is not asserting?

She is not asserting privilege.

privilege to assert.

It's not her

And so she is simply following the guidance

of the White House.
Chairman Nadler.

So she is not asserting any privileges.

She's not asserting executive privilege.
Okay.

So let me make it clear.

You are declining to answer

the question?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

This committee, as I said a moment ago,

disagrees on the question on the applicability of absolute
immunity.

The witness must answer questions or assert privileges

on a question-by-question basis.

This assertion of absolute

immunity is improper.
How often did you communicate with or meet with
Mr. Lewandowski after he left the Trump campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

Communicated regularly, met with very

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 14 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

13

infrequently.
Chairman Nadler.
a month?

When you say regularly, once a week?

Once

I mean --

Ms. Hicks.

No.

Probably daily.

Chairman Nadler.

Probably daily.

Were these communications

or meetings related to official matters of the Trump
administration?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Purpura.

Overruled.

Again, same direction as explained in

Mr. Cipollone's letter.

And with the chairman's permission, I

would like to have Mr. Cipollone's letter marked as an exhibit and
entered into the record.
Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Purpura.

Do we have a copy of it?

We have copies, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nadler.

Then Mr. Cipollone's letter will be entered

into the record, I suppose.
[Hicks Exhibit No. 1
Was marked for identification.]
Mr. Purpura.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nadler.
the administration.

But the question doesn't seem to ask about

I'm asking about her communications.

they related to official matters of the administration?

Were
That

would not seem to fall under your -Mr. Philbin.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, whether

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 15 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

14

they were related to her official duties, that's within the
immunity.
Chairman Nadler.

All right.

Well, these communications were

made -- after Mr. Lewandowski left the campaign, you said you had
regular communications with him.

Does that include during the

transition period?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

The Mueller report describes Corey

Lewandowski as, quote, a devotee, unquote, of the President,
finding that he was, quote, close, unquote, to the President.

Is

that an accurate description of Trump's -- of the President's
relationship with Lewandowski during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

And is that an accurate description of

their relationship right after the election?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

And are you aware of any instance in which

the President described Mr. Lewandowski as a surrogate for his
administration?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm not aware of him describing him that way.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

Did you -- I'm sorry.

Did anyone

else call Mr. Lewandowski, that you're aware of, did anyone else
that you're aware of call Mr. Lewandowski that or something
similar?
Ms. Hicks.

I guess I would have to understand what capacity

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 16 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

he would be -- that the term "surrogate" is being used in.

15

As in

media appearances or elsewhere?
Chairman Nadler.

No.

Well, media appearances would be one

aspect, but I would -Ms. Hicks.

So, yes, he was, I would say, a devoted surrogate

in terms of his media appearances.

Other than that, no, I've

never heard anybody use that term to describe him.
Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

He's a surrogate in media, yes, and

anything else, no?
Ms. Hicks.

Correct.

Chairman Nadler.

And to the best of your knowledge, did

Mr. Lewandowski consider himself a surrogate of the President?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't know.

That's something you would have to

ask him.
Chairman Nadler.

And since leaving your official position in

the White House, have you communicated or met with
Mr. Lewandowski?
Ms. Hicks.

Never.

Chairman Nadler.
incident in June 2017.
at that time.

Okay.

I'd like to focus now on a specific

You were still employed in the White House

Is that correct?

Ms. Hicks.

Yes, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

During that time, where in the West Wing

did you sit in relation to the Oval Office?
Mr. Purpura.

I'm going to object here, Mr. Chairman.

Again,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 17 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

16

this talks about -Chairman Nadler.

And I'll ask what privilege is being

asserted to object to that question other than the nonexistent
Presidential -- general immunity or whatever you call it?
Mr. Purpura.

Mr. Chairman, I understand you disagree with

the position and the advice provided by the Department of Justice
that's gone back quite a while and has been used by
administrations in both parties.
Chairman Nadler.

I'm not going to debate it.

It's nonsense,

but we'll -Mr. Purpura.

I understand, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nadler.

I think we'll win in court on that one, but

there's no point in wasting time on that now.
Mr. Purpura.

I understand.

Chairman Nadler.

I'm asking, are you asserting any other

privilege?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

Now, are you asserting any other

basis than so-called absolute immunity for declining to answer the
question?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Chairman Nadler.

Thank you.

And remember, you can't shake.

You have to speak.
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

Are you asserting any privileges in

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 18 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

17

declining to answer the question?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Chairman Nadler.

Are you asserting executive privilege in

declining to answer the question?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Chairman Nadler.

Will you provide any details about this

matter so that the committee can assess the applicability of
privileges?
Mr. Trout.

Mr. Chairman, she'll answer whatever questions

that the -- that are not objected to by the White House and the
executive branch.
Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

I think that answers the next -- I

should ask you the same questions, I am told.

As her attorney,

are you asserting any other basis for declining to answer the
question?
Mr. Trout.

So, Mr. Chairman, I do not represent the

White House or the executive branch, and it's not my role to
assert on behalf of the White House or the executive branch
executive or any other privilege.
Chairman Nadler.

Is your client asserting any other basis

for declining to answer the question?
Mr. Trout.

No.

Chairman Nadler.

Is your client asserting any privileges in

declining to answer the question?
Mr. Trout.

No.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 19 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

Is your client asserting executive

privilege in declining to answer the question?
Mr. Trout.

No.

Chairman Nadler.

Now, Mr. Purpura, on behalf of the

White House, are you asserting any other basis for declining to
answer the question other than absolute immunity?
Mr. Purpura.

No.

As explained in Mr. Cipollone's letter,

that's the only basis.
Chairman Nadler.

Are you asserting -- we have

Mr. Cipollone's letter.

Are you asserting any privileges in

declining to answer the question?
Mr. Purpura.

Not at this time.

Chairman Nadler.

Are you asserting executive privilege in

declining to answer the question?
Mr. Purpura.

Not at this time.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Trout.

Okay.

Will you --

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Ms. Hicks, yesterday

afternoon I did send a letter to you and to the minority, and I
would like that letter to be part of the record.
Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Istel.

Do we have that letter?

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

It will be inserted into the record.
[Hicks Exhibit No. 2
Was marked for identification.]

Mr. Trout.

Thank you.

18

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 20 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

19

Now, I will insert our letter dated

June 18th, which is yesterday, in reply to Mr. Cipollone's letter
rejecting absolute immunity.

And I'll have this entered into the

record, too.
[Hicks Exhibit No. 3
Was marked for identification.]
Chairman Nadler.

So did Mr. Lewandowski visit

President Trump at the White House after January 2017?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Objection.

Do you recall Corey Lewandowski meeting with President Trump
on or around June 19th, 2017?
Objection.

Mr. Purpura.

Chairman Nadler.

I'd like now to introduce as our next

exhibit, whatever the number is, page 90 of volume 2 of the
report.

Do we have that?
[Hicks Exhibit No. 4
Was marked for identification.]

Ms. Istel.

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

Could you -- can you please, Ms. Hicks,

read aloud -- read out loud the highlighted portion from that
page?

Page 91.
Mr. Philbin.

Mr. Chairman, if copies are being distributed,

may we have a copy?
Ms. Hicks.

Thank you.

During the June 19th meeting, Lewandowski

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 21 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

20

recalled that after some small talk the President brought up
Sessions and criticized his recusal from the Russia investigation.
The President told Lewandowski that Sessions was weak and that if
the President had known about the likelihood of recusal in
advance, he would not have appointed Sessions.
The President then asked Lewandowski to deliver a message to
Sessions and said, write this down.

That was the first time the

President had asked Lewandowski to take dictation, and Lewandowski
wrote as fast as possible to make sure he captured the content
correctly.
Mr. Philbin.

I'm sorry.

Chairman Nadler.

We've been given the wrong page.

Ms. Lewandowski -- sorry -- Ms. Hicks, read

the next two sentences also if you have it.
Ms. Hicks.

Sure.

The President directed that Sessions

should give a speech publicly announcing -- the dictated message
went on to state.
Mr. Trout.

So this is -- to be clear, this is page 91, and

I'm not sure which volume we're talking about.
Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Istel.

Volume two.

Volume two.

Chairman Nadler.

I think everything -- okay.

Are you familiar with the events described in that excerpt
from the special counsel's report that you just read?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

And you are objecting on what basis, sir?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 22 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Purpura.

21

The same basis that would call for her

knowledge of events that occurred during her time as senior
adviser to the White House.
Chairman Nadler.

In other words, you are asserting absolute

immunity that she cannot testify as to any knowledge of anything
that occurred after the President was inaugurated?
Mr. Purpura.

During her time as adviser to the President she

cannot be -Chairman Nadler.

She cannot refer to anything -- your

contention is that as a result of absolute immunity she cannot
state anything about her knowledge of anything during the period
of time in which she was employed in the White House?
Mr. Purpura.

For the purpose of this hearing, yes.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

When Mr. Lewandowski visited the

White House on June 19th, 2017, he was not an employee of the
White House or the administration, correct?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

That's a matter of public knowledge.

It

has nothing to do with whether she was a member -- a White House
staff person or not.

She would know that in any event, so it

should not be covered by this.
Mr. Purpura.

Under the terms of the absolute immunity

described in Mr. Cipollone's letter, she may not speak about
anything that occurred during the time of her employment in the
White House as a close adviser to the President.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 23 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Purpura.

22

Anything that occurred during that time?

During her service as close adviser to the

President.
Chairman Nadler.

Did a war break out between Israel and

Egypt during that time period?
Mr. Purpura.

Same objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Same objection.

Well, I'll ask these questions for the record so you can
object for the record.
Do you recall if you knew why Mr. Lewandowski was at the
White House that day?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Were you present for any portion of that

meeting?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Do you know if anyone else was present for

any portions of that meeting?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Have you discussed that meeting with

anyone -- do you know if anyone else was present for any portion
of that meeting?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Have you discussed that meeting with anyone

outside of the White House?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 24 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

23

Well, that could happen after she left the

White House.
Have you discussed that meeting with anyone outside of the
White House?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection to the extent that it did not occur

during her time as an official -- close adviser to the President.
Mr. Trout.

Mr. Chairman, I would object to any

questions -- conversations she may have had with her counsel.
Chairman Nadler.

I'm sorry?

Oh, with her counsel.

Aside

from that.
Mr. Trout.

I don't know whether --

Chairman Nadler.

Have you discussed that meeting with anyone

other than your counsel outside of the White House since you left
the White House?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

And you haven't discussed it with

the special counsel?
Mr. Trout.

You can answer.

Mr. Purpura.

Again, Mr. Chairman, after -- from the time

when she was not a close adviser to the President.
Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

With your -- you don't have to

repeat the whole thing every time.
same objection?

Oh.

Mr. Philbin.
Mr. Trout.

With your personal attorneys,

Go ahead.

I believe Mr. Trout objected to that.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want her and I would

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 25 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

24

instruct her not to answer any questions about her conversations
with her personal counsel.
Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

Fair enough.

Did you discuss that meeting with Mr. Lewandowski?
Mr. Philbin.

The same objection, Mr. Chairman, finding

various ways to probe about getting into the events in the
White House during the time that she was a senior adviser.
Chairman Nadler.

I think if she -- it wouldn't be within the

scope of your objection if she discuss -- answering yes or no with
respect to whether she discussed this with Mr. Lewandowski after
she left the White House.

The substance of the conversation might

be a different question, but whether she -Mr. Purpura.
Ms. Hicks.

That's fine.

Answer.

As I said earlier, I have not spoken to

Mr. Lewandowski since then at the White House.
Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.

With anyone else?

I already answered that question.

Chairman Nadler.

Have you -- well, have you discussed that

meeting with anyone else since you left the White House?
Ms. Hicks.

Again, no.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

Do you recall at some point learning about a specific script
that on June 19th, 2019, the President asked Mr. Lewandowski to
deliver to then Attorney General Jeff Sessions?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 26 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Purpura.

25

Same basis?

Yes.

Chairman Nadler.

Please take a moment to review the second

highlighted portion of the exhibit.

Would you read it out loud,

please?
Ms. Hicks.

I note that I recused myself from certain things

having to do with specific areas, but our President of the United
States is being treated very unfairly.

He shouldn't have a

special prosecutor-slash-counsel because he hasn't done anything
wrong.

I was on the campaign with him for 9 months.

no Russians involved with him.
there.

There were

I know it for a fact because I was

He didn't do anything wrong except he ran the greatest

campaign in American history.
Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the
United States.

I'm going to meet with the special prosecutor to

explain this is very unfair and let the special prosecutor move
forward with investigating election meddling for future elections
so that nothing can happen in future elections.
Chairman Nadler.

Yeah.

Ms. Lewandowski, I think, in reading

this -Ms. Hicks.

My name is Ms. Hicks.

Chairman Nadler.

I'm sorry, Ms. Hicks.

I'm preoccupied.

I think in reading this you skipped the first sentence, which
reads:

The President directed that Sessions should give a speech

publicly announcing --

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 27 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

Sorry.

26

There wasn't an indication that I was

supposed to read that.
The President directed that Sessions should give a speech
publicly announcing the portion I just read.
Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.

Okay.

Does that refresh your recollection?

No.

Chairman Nadler.

After the June 19th meeting, did you see

the President?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Can you describe his reaction to that

meeting?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did you at any point discuss with the

President any of the matters raised during the meeting?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did the President at any point ever tell

you he dictated that message to Mr. Lewandowski?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

According to the report, the President told

Mr. Lewandowski to tell Sessions that if Sessions delivered that
statement, he would be the, quote, most popular guy in the
country, unquote, from volume 292 -- page 92 of the Mueller
report.
Did the President tell you he said that?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 28 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

27

Did Lewandowski tell you the President told

him that?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

After -- and let me state for the record,

again, that all these objections are not based on any assertion of
privilege but on the claim of so-called absolute immunity,
correct?
Mr. Purpura.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nadler.

All right.

Where were we?

After the June 19th meeting, did you at any point discuss
with Mr. Lewandowski any of the matters raised during the meeting?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did Mr. Lewandowski express any concerns

coming out of that meeting?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Please describe anything else

Mr. Lewandowski said about the June 19th meeting.
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Do you recall when the next time

Mr. Lewandowski came to the White House was?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

I'd like to introduce into the record page

93 and page 94 of volume two, including footnote 625, as the next
exhibit.
[Hicks Exhibit No. 5

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 29 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

28

Was marked for identification.]
Chairman Nadler.

And can you please read out loud the

highlighted portion into the record?
Ms. Hicks.

Immediately following the meeting with the

President, Lewandowski -Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.

It's --

Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.

You skipped the first sentence.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Immediately following the meeting with the

President, Lewandowski saw Dearborn in the anteroom outside the
Oval Office and gave him a typewritten version of the message the
President had dictated to be delivered to Sessions.

Lewandowski

said he asked Hope Hicks to type the notes when he went into the
Oval Office and then retrieved the notes from her partway through
the meeting with the President.
Chairman Nadler.

Is the account that Mr. Lewandowski gave

the special counsel quoted here about asking you to type up his
notes from his June 19th meeting accurate?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

You object even though this is recounted in

the special counsel's report?
Mr. Purpura.

I object, Mr. Chairman, respectfully to -- the

question asked her to characterize whether it was accurate, which
would then cause her to talk about things she witnessed and
observed during her time as a close adviser to the President.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 30 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

29

Do you recall if you knew why

Mr. Lewandowski was at the White House that day?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

And when did you first learn of the

meeting?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Were you present for any portion of the

July 19th meeting?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Was anyone else present for the meeting

between Lewandowski and the President?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

To the best of your recollection, please

describe exactly what Mr. Lewandowski said to you when he handed
you these notes?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Do you recall what Mr. Lewandowski's notes

said or generally what they were about?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

To the best of your recollection, did the

special counsel's report accurately describe what Mr. Lewandowski
asked you to type up?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Purpura.

Where did you type the notes?

Objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 31 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

30

Was anyone else present when

Mr. Lewandowski handed you the notes?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

After you typed the notes, did you give it

back to Mr. Lewandowski?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did he say anything to you during that

exchange?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did he then return to the meeting with the

President?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did you show anyone else the notes or keep

copies for yourself?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did you discuss this exchange with the

Special Counsel's Office?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

That would be after she was at the

White House.
Mr. Trout.

No.

All of her interviews with special counsel

were while she was at the White House.
Chairman Nadler.

And your objection includes even things

having nothing to do with the White House?
Mr. Trout.

Well, I am not --

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 32 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.
before.

31

We went through the Israel-Egyptian nonwar

Okay.

Did you discuss this exchange with the special counsel's
office while you were at the White House?
Objection.

Mr. Purpura.

Chairman Nadler.

Did you discuss this exchange with the

special counsel's office after you were at the White House?
Ms. Hicks.

I didn't meet with the special counsel after I

was at the White House.
Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.

Nor talk to him?

So your answer is no?

Correct.

Chairman Nadler.

Did you share any notes or documents with

the special counsel regarding this meeting?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did you at any point discuss with the

President the notes or Mr. Lewandowski's request to type them?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

During your tenure at the White House, did

you know if Mr. Lewandowski did, in fact, deliver the note to
Attorney General Sessions or another administration official?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Have you ever discussed -- have you ever

discussed this incident with anyone outside of the special counsel
and your attorney?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 33 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

You can't object to that.

32

The word is

"ever" not "while" she was at the White House.
Mr. Purpura.

Fair point, Mr. Chairman, with the caveat of

not discussing events that occurred while she was in the
White House.
Chairman Nadler.

Have you ever discussed this incident with

anyone outside of the special counsel and your attorney?
Ms. Hicks.

Not to my recollection.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

Were there any other times when the

President asked Mr. Lewandowski to deliver a message for him
specifically to other administration officials or former
officials?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Were there any other times when the

President asked someone outside of the White House or the
administration other than Mr. Lewandowski to deliver a message
to -- for him to other administration officials or former
officials?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

What about after you were at the

White House?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm not aware of any of those directives.

Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.

Did anyone at the White --

Sorry.
We're having a hard time hearing.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 34 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

33

Did anyone at the White House give you

documents about this incident in preparation for meeting with the
special counsel?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

The meeting with special counsel also

occurred while you were at the White House?

Okay.

Do you find it unusual at -- I'm sorry -- did you find it
unusual at the time that the President asked Mr. Lewandowski to
deliver a message to the Attorney General?

Did the President's

request raise any concerns for you at the time?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

What about now?

Let me rephrase the question.

Did the President's request at

that time raise any concerns for you now?

Are you concerned about

it in retrospect?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm not going to answer a hypothetical question.

Chairman Nadler.

It's not a hypothetical question.

I'm

asking are you concerned about it?
Mr. Trout.

Mr. Chairman, can we confer just briefly?

Chairman Nadler.

Sure.

[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. Hicks.

I haven't given it any thought.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

Well, let me rephrase the question.

Sitting here today, do you find it concerning that the
President -- today -- that the President asked Mr. Lewandowski to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 35 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

34

deliver a message to the Attorney General?
Ms. Hicks.

"Concerning" would not be the word I would use to

describe how I view that.
Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.

I view it as odd.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Philbin.

Well, in any way problematic?

Odd.

And why do you view it as odd?

Mr. Chairman, we're going to object to further

line of questioning on this -Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Philbin.

On what basis?

Because it's based on knowledge that she

obtained while she was a senior adviser to the President and it's
probing into that past and her -Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Philbin.

She is -- I'm asking her about it --

-- to characterize those events.

And she's

immune from testifying about those events whether factually or by
giving her characterization of them after the fact.
Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Philbin.

I'm sorry.

Repeat that last sentence.

She is immune from testifying about those

events and things that she learned in her role as senior adviser
to the President whether by relating the events themselves or by
giving a characterization or analysis of them after the fact.
Chairman Nadler.
obviously.

Well, number one, we disagree with that,

But number two, I am not asking her about her attitude

then or about the events then.

I'm asking her if she is now -- if

she finds -- why she finds it odd, as she said a moment ago she

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 36 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

35

did, based on reading the public record.
Mr. Philbin.

Well, the same objection stands.

And she may

not -Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Philbin.

No, it doesn't.

She does, Mr. Chairman.

I respectfully

disagree.
Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Trout.

I ask that you answer the question.

There has been an objection.

We have indicated

that we will -Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Trout.

We've noted the objection.

And consistent with the letter that I wrote to

you yesterday, she is not going to answer any questions as to
which the White House objects.
Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

Do you recall the President giving a

live interview the same day as the July 19th, 2017, meeting with
Mr. Lewandowski, the meeting where you typed the notes?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

I'd like to introduce pages 93 to 94 of

volume two, including footnote 636 of the Mueller report, as the
next exhibit.
[Hicks Exhibit No. 6
Was marked for identification.]
Chairman Nadler.

Can you please read out loud the

highlighted portion into the record?
Ms. Hicks.

Within hours of the President's meeting with

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 37 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

36

Lewandowski on July 19th, 2017, the President gave an unplanned
interview to The New York Times in which he criticized Sessions'
decision to recuse from the Russia investigation.

The President

said that, quote, Sessions should never have recused himself, and
if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before
he took the job and I would have picked somebody else, close
quote.
Sessions' recusal, the President said, was very unfair to the
President.

How do you take a job and then recuse yourself?

If he

would have recused himself before the job, I would have said,
Thanks, Jeff, but I can't, you know, I'm not going to take you,
close quote.

It's extremely unfair, and that's a mild word to the

President.
Hicks, who was present for the interview, recalled trying to,
quote, throw herself between the reporters and the President to
stop parts of the interview, but the President, quote, loved the
interview.
Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Purpura.

Is that description of the events accurate?

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did you discuss this incident with the

special counsel?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did you tell the special counsel you tried

to throw yourself between the reporters and the President, in
quotes, to stop parts of the interview?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 38 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Purpura.

37

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Is the special counsel's report accurate,

to your knowledge?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Is the special counsel's report inaccurate,

to your knowledge?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did you tell the truth to the special

counsel?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Objection?

Let me restate the question.

Did you perjure yourself to the

special counsel?
Mr. Purpura.

Same objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Same objection.

Why did you want to stop the New York Times interview?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Do you recall discussing the interview with

Lewandowski?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

What about anyone else outside the

White House or the special counsel's office?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

I'd like to read the second highlighted

portion from that -- I'd like you to read the second highlighted

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 39 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

38

portion from that page into the record.
Ms. Hicks.

Later that day Lewandowski met with Hicks and

they discussed the President's New York Times interview.
Lewandowski recalled telling Hicks about the President's request
that he meet with Sessions and joking with her about the idea of
firing Sessions as a private citizen if Sessions would not meet
with him.
As Hicks remembered the conversation, Lewandowski told her
the President had recently asked him to meet with Sessions and
deliver a message that he needed to do, quote, the right thing and
resign.

While Hicks and Lewandowski were together, the President

called Hicks and told her he was happy with how coverage of his
New York Times interview criticizing Sessions was playing out.
Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Purpura.

Is that what you told the special counsel?

Is that description of the events accurate?

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Do you recall speaking with Lewandowski

that day?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did Lewandowski tell you that the President

asked him to meet with Sessions to deliver the note you typed up?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.
message?

Did he tell you if he delivered that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 40 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Purpura.

39

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Did you ever follow up with him and ask him

if he delivered the message?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Purpura.

Did you ask him not to deliver the message?

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

Do you believe what you said to the special

counsel?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Philbin.

I'm asking her what she believes now.

The same objection.

It's an attempt to have

her characterize the testimony that was given during her time as a
senior adviser to the President.
Chairman Nadler.

I'm asking you if you believe what you said

to the special counsel.
Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

Chairman Nadler.

I assume you would say that you testified

truthfully to the special counsel.
Mr. Philbin.
stated.

Do you object to that, too?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons we've

These are all attempts to have her characterize the

testimony that was given which relates to the events at the time
she was a senior adviser to the President.

She's immune from

being compelled to testify about those events whether in the first
instance or by characterizing the testimony she gave about those
events.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 41 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Chairman Nadler.

40

Ms. Hicks, again, are you asserting any

other basis for declining to answer these questions -- this
question or any of the other questions?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Chairman Nadler.

Are you asserting any privileges in

declining to answer the question, any specific privileges?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Chairman Nadler.

Are you asserting executive privilege in

declining to answer the question?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Chairman Nadler.

And will you answer any other questions

about this matter?
Mr. Philbin.

Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Trout made it clear

in his letter yesterday -Chairman Nadler.

I'm asking Ms. Hicks.

I'll ask Mr. Trout

in a moment.
Ms. Hicks.

I'd like to answer whatever is not objected to.

Chairman Nadler.
Ms. Hicks.

Okay.

Not objected to by whom?

By the White House.

Chairman Nadler.

By the White House.

Now, to the White House counsel, are you asserting any other
basis for declining -- for advising Ms. Hicks to decline to answer
these questions?
Mr. Purpura.

Not at this time.

Chairman Nadler.

So your answer is no?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 42 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Purpura.

41

Correct.

Chairman Nadler.

Are you asserting any privileges in

declining to -- in advising Ms. Hicks to decline to answer these
questions?
Mr. Purpura.

Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Nadler.
Mr. Purpura.

What?

Not at this time, Mr. Chairman, no.

Chairman Nadler.

Are you asserting executive

privilege -- are you advising Ms. Hicks in refusing to answer
these questions on the basis of executive privilege?
Mr. Purpura.

Not at this time, Mr. Chairman, no.

Chairman Nadler.

And will you permit her to answer any other

questions about this matter?
Mr. Purpura.

No, Mr. Chairman, not at this time.

Chairman Nadler.

Okay.

Thank you.

I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee,
for questions.
Mr. Trout.

Mr. Chairman, I think there are a number of

people taking pictures here, and I just want to say that I think
it's making the witness uncomfortable.

And I would very much

appreciate it as a courtesy, if nothing else, if we could -Chairman Nadler.

That's fine.

If people will please refrain

from taking pictures.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Good morning, Ms. Hicks.

I am Sheila

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 43 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

42

Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

Good morning.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

I'm going to have one or two questions

and -- I've done it again -- one or two questions in a number of
different areas.
Let me first start with the report.

According to the report,

by late summer of 2016 the Trump campaign was planning a press
strategy, a communications campaign and messaging, based on the
possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.

Who was involved

in that strategy?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't recall.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

I thought you were intimately involved in

the campaign.
Ms. Hicks.

I was.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
was involved there?
Ms. Hicks.

It's not something I was aware of.

What about the communications campaign, who

Do you not recall or do you not know?

To my recollection, it's not something I was

aware of.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

So you're saying you do not know?

I'm saying, to the best of my recollection, I was

not aware of that at the time.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

What about the actual messaging, who was

involved there?
Ms. Hicks.

There were several different people that were

involved in different parts of the campaign throughout various

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 44 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

43

phases.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

So you'd have to be more specific.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

What are their names?

What are their names?

There was obviously a lot of turnover, as has

been widely reported.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

But in the messaging what would be the core

people that you remember?
Ms. Hicks.

Again, if there was a more specific timeframe,

that would be helpful.

Post-Republican National Convention, that

would be helpful.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Who specifically was engaged with the

Russian strategy, messaging strategy, post the convention, late
summer 2016?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm sorry.

I don't understand the question.

I'm

not aware of a Russian messaging strategy.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

So specifically it goes to the release of

the various WikiLeaks information.
Ms. Hicks.

Who was engaged in that?

So, I mean, I assume you're talking about late

July?
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

Late July, late summer, July, August 2016.

So there were several people involved.

It

was -- I think a "strategy" is a wildly generous term to describe
the use of that information, but -Ms. Jackson Lee.

But you were engaged in the campaign.

What

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 45 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

44

names, what specific persons were involved in that strategy of the
impact of Russia and the issuance of the WikiLeaks effort late
summer?
Ms. Hicks.

Again, you --

Ms. Jackson Lee.
strategy?

Were you part of the

You have a communications emphasis.

Ms. Hicks.
question.

Were you involved?

I'm sorry.

I'm just not understanding the

You're talking about a Russian strategy.

The campaign

didn't have a Russian strategy.
There was an effort made by the campaign to use information
that was publicly available, but I'm not aware of a Russian
strategy, communications or otherwise.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Well, what names were engaged in the

strategy that you remember, messaging based on the possible
release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks, which is what I said?
Ms. Hicks.

Sorry.

I'd like to confer with my counsel.

Thanks.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Thank you.

[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Gaetz.

Ms. Jackson Lee, while Ms. Hicks is speaking with

her counsel, I just want to let you know of a dynamic back here on
the back row.

We're having a little bit of a hard time hearing,

and so if you guys could get right up on the microphone.

And then

there's a good amount of sort of murmuring and people shuffling in
the row directly in front of us.

It's probably Mr. Cicilline.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 46 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

45

But if we could -Mr. Cicilline.
Mrs. Demings.

Gasping in disbelief.
You can't hear anybody speaking, so if

everybody could speak up.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
possibly can.

Mr. Gaetz, I will speak as loudly as I

Can you hear me now?

Mr. Gaetz.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

We're all the better for

it.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

Outstanding.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you want to repeat your question

one more time?
Ms. Jackson Lee.
comment.

Yes.

I'm going to read from my earlier

According to the report, by late summer of 2016 the

Trump campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications
campaign, and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton
emails by WikiLeaks, volume 1, 54.

Were you involved in deciding

how the campaign would respond to press questions about WikiLeaks?
Ms. Hicks.

I assume that I was.

I have no recollection of

the specifics that you're raising here.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

With that in mind, would you agree that the

campaign benefited from the hacked information on Hillary Clinton?
Ms. Hicks.

This was publicly available information.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

Were you -- would you agree that the

campaign benefited from the hacked information on Hillary Clinton?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't know what the direct impact was of the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 47 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

46

utilization of that information.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Well, let me follow up with, did this

information help you attack the opponent of Mr. Trump?
Ms. Hicks.

I take issue with the phrase "attack."

I think

it allowed the campaign to discuss things that would not otherwise
be known but that were true.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

So the campaign -- is it your position the

campaign benefited from the hacked emails of Ms. Clinton?
Ms. Hicks.
those emails.

It is not my position that we benefited from

It's my position that we used publicly available

information in the course of the campaign -Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

-- to differentiate between candidates.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

And the campaign benefited from it?

Did Mr. Trump win?

Yes, he did.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

Then it is likely that he would have

benefited?
Ms. Hicks.

I think that is a -- I think that's a big jump.

I think there are many other reasons that Mr. Trump won that
election.

I'm not sure that you can attribute it to one factor.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
regarding Mr. Cohen.

Let me move to another line of questioning
Can you describe Mr. Trump's relationship

with Michael Cohen during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.
Organization.

Michael was an employee of The Trump

He continued in that role throughout the campaign.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 48 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

47

And I would say that their contact and interactions were minimal
during that time given Mr. Trump's extensive travel schedule.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

How often would they speak?

I'm not aware of the frequency with which they

spoke.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

Do you think Mr. Trump trusted Mr. Cohen?

I am not going to speculate about the feelings or

motivations of others.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

I am not -Were you ever present when Trump and Cohen

discussed Stormy Daniels?
Ms. Hicks.

No, ma'am.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

You were never present when they discussed

Stormy Daniels?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

I'm going to say it again.

Were you ever

present when Trump and Mr. Cohen discussed Stormy Daniels, since
it was all over the news that that occurred?
Mr. Philbin.

Let me just object to make -- my understanding

is this question is limited to during campaign.

That's the line

of questioning.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

So, no is my answer.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

That's correct, sir.

So do you know what they would say?

I'm sorry.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

I don't understand.

You don't know what would have been said?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 49 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

48

You don't have any recollection -Ms. Hicks.

I was never present --

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

-- of hearing what was the discussion?

I was never present for a conversation --

Ms. Jackson Lee.

If Cohen was making a public statement,

would he get approval from you first?
Ms. Hicks.

That would be my preference, however, that was

not always the case.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

When did he not get your approval?

I can't recall a specific example, but there were

many times he would make television appearances or speak to
reporters without checking with anybody on the campaign.

He would

do so on his own.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Were you ever upset about what Mr. Cohen

might have said publicly?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

And when was that?

When he would say things that weren't accurate or

that were direct contradictions of campaign messaging.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.
advertisement.

Do you have some examples?

One example I recall, the campaign produced an
There was a mistake in the footage, or a perceived

mistake rather, in the footage that was used.

The campaign's

position was that this was an intentional use of footage that was
not representative of the United States southern border, but

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 50 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

49

rather representative of what could happen if Mr. Trump was not
elected President.
Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

What was the footage you're referring to?

It was footage of people crossing the border.

And Michael did an interview without anyone's knowledge and went
on TV and said that this was not an intentional use of that
footage but it was, in fact, a mistake.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

All right.

Let me ask you this.

Did

you -- did Mr. Trump ever direct you to make public
statements -- public statements about the hush money payments
during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

Sorry.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

Can you repeat the question?

Did Mr. Trump ever direct you to make

public statements about the hush money payments during the
campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

Can I confer with my attorney, please?

[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. Hicks.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Go ahead and repeat your

question one last time.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Did Mr. Trump ever direct you to make

public statements about the hush money payments during the
campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

I was directed to make a public statement denying

that a relationship existed between Mr. Trump and a woman named
Karen McDougal.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 51 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

50

What about hush payments?

I don't believe I commented on the arrangement

that the National Enquirer or American Media had with this woman.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

What statement were you directed to make

about Karen McDougal?
Mr. Philbin.

I want to make clear, this is all during the

campaign, correct?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

I don't -- I don't recall my specific words, but that there
was no relationship between the two of them.
Ms. Jackson Lee.

Did you ask the President whether that was

true?
Ms. Hicks.

Not to my recollection.

Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Hicks.

We will continue.

Thank you so very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Gohmert.

Just to clarify, though, when you say did she

ask the President, that sounds like you're asking about while he
was President.

You're talking about did she ask candidate Trump?

Ms. Jackson Lee.

These questions I asked were pertaining to

the campaign.
Mr. Neguse.

Good morning, Ms. Hicks.

I want to ask you

about a different topic, but just finishing up on that topic with
respect to what Representative Gohmert mentioned.
during the campaign.
Ms. Hicks.

So this was

Who directed you to make this statement?

Mr. Trump.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 52 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Neguse.

51

When -- so switching gears -- when did you first

become aware that the Russian Government was attempting to
interfere in the 2016 elections?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

Whenever that was made publicly available.
You have no direct recollection of in terms of a

time period that you learned that that was happening?
Ms. Hicks.

I have recollections of when it was first raised,

I believe, by the Clinton campaign during the Democratic National
Convention.

And I don't recall specifically when an assessment

was made by anybody outside of the Clinton campaign, but when the
information was available publicly that that would be when I
learned about it.
Mr. Neguse.

Do you recall being told at any point prior to

the election that anyone at the Trump campaign had been offered
information on Secretary Clinton?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

No, not to my knowledge.
You don't, you don't believe that that happened,

that you were told at any point prior to the election that that
had occurred?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

I don't have any recollection of that.
Did you discuss who might have hacked Secretary

Clinton's campaign emails with anyone during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.
within the media.
Mr. Neguse.

I believe it was a topic of discussion generally
I'm sure it was discussed amongst staffers.
And with respect to the discussions that you had

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 53 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

52

with staffers on the campaign, what did those discussions entail?
What were the view of folks on the campaign in terms of who hacked
Secretary Clinton's emails?
Ms. Hicks.

There's no definitive point of view that comes to

mind.
Mr. Neguse.

Did you --

Ms. Hicks.

Speculation.

Mr. Neguse.

Did you discuss it ever with Mr. Trump prior to

the election?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

I don't recall any specific conversations.
So you don't recall ever speaking with Mr. Trump

regarding whether Russia and the Russian Government had hacked
Secretary Clinton's emails?
Ms. Hicks.

Oh, excuse me.

Sorry.

Thank you for rephrasing

the question.
I think that there were conversations about that that I
remember specifically prior to debates, and nothing was said
privately that he hasn't said publicly.
Mr. Neguse.

So -- but I -- I am wanting to know your

recollection as to those conversations of what did he say to you
regarding the hack -Ms. Hicks.

Like I said, nothing that was said to me

privately that he hasn't also repeated publicly.
Mr. Neguse.
Ms. Hicks.

And what would that be?
I hope I'm not botching his quote, but I believe

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 54 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

53

that it was something to the effect of it could have been Russia,
it could have been China, it could have been somebody at home in
their basement.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 55 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

54

[10:02 a.m.]
Mr. Neguse.

So those comments that he said publicly, that

was his position to you privately in your conversations with
him -Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

Exactly.
-- during the campaign?
Yes.
At the time, who did you think did the hack?

Did you agree with him?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

I don't have an opinion on that.
You didn't have any opinion on that then?
Correct.
You do have an opinion on that now, I presume?
Yes.
And what is your opinion now?
I'm not here to discuss my opinions.
You're here to testify under oath about your

views of the matters at issue in this -Mr. Trout.

I actually don't think that she is under oath,

but she is going to tell the truth.
Mr. Neguse.

Under 18 USC 1001, as Chairman Nadler

articulated in the beginning of the hearing.

In any event, you're

declining to answer your opinion as to the -Ms. Hicks.
community.

I agree with the assessment of the intelligence

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 56 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Philbin.

Hold on.

I'd like to object.

55

To the extent

this question is asking for views formed, based on information she
learned while senior adviser to the President, I'm going to
object.
Mr. Neguse.

That is not the nature of the question, and I

think counsel knows that.

So in any event, we'll move on.

Do you want to complete your answer?

I think you were

essentially -Ms. Hicks.

I agree with the assessment of our intelligence

community.
Mr. Neguse.

Thank you.

Do you recall receiving requests for interviews from Russian
individuals in the summer of 2015?
Ms. Hicks.

I've reviewed materials over the process that has

ensued in the last few years.

So, yes, I'm aware of those.

I

didn't -- nothing was remarkable about them when I received them
at the time.
Mr. Neguse.

Let's just jump -- we'll jump to a page in the

report just to refresh your recollection, and then we
can -- because I think we're referring to the same thing.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

Sure.
So on Page 55, Volume 1, footnote 288, quote,

August 18, 2015, on behalf of the editor in chief of the internet
newspaper Vzglyad, I believe, Georgi Asatryan e-mailed campaign
press secretary Hope Hicks asking for a phone or in-person

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 57 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

candidate interview.

56

One day earlier the publication's founder

and former Russian parliamentarian Konstantin Rykov had registered
two Russian websites, Trump2016.ru and DonaldTrump2016.ru.

No

interview took place.
Does that refresh your recollection?

Do you recall receiving

that request?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't.

I received hundreds of interview

requests, sometimes daily, but at the very least weekly, and I
don't recall receiving that request.
Mr. Neguse.

You don't recall receiving that particular

request?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

No.
According to the report, on June 3rd, 2016, Rob

Goldstone, on behalf of Russian real estate developers, emailed
Donald Trump, Jr., as you know, to set up a meeting to discuss
Russian officials' possession of, quote, some official documents
and information that would incriminate Hillary in her dealings
with Russia and would be very useful to, bracketed, Donald Jr.'s
father, end quote, which Mr. Goldstone conveyed was, quote, part
of Russia and its government support for Mr. Trump, end quote.
This is on Page 113 of Volume 1.
Donald Trump, Jr. responded, quote, if it's what you say, I
love it, end quote.

Again, this is Page 113, and I believe you

have a copy of the report there at the desk.
Did you have knowledge of those emails that I just referenced

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 58 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

57

at the time that they were written?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

I did not.
Did you ever speak to Mr. Trump Jr. about the

campaign receiving information, potentially, from foreign
officials that would incriminate Secretary Clinton?
Mr. Philbin.

And again just to --

Mr. Purpura.

Just during the campaign period?

Mr. Neguse.

During the campaign period, prior to the

election.
Mr. Purpura.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

Thank you, sir.
No, did I not.
Never, in 2016, prior to the election, had you

spoken with Mr. Trump Jr. about this incident in question?
Ms. Hicks.

I have no recollection of any conversations that

would fall in that category, no.
Mr. Neguse.

So are you saying you didn't have those

conversations or you don't remember whether you had those
conversations?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm saying that to the best of my recollection

here today, I do not recall ever having those conversations.
Mr. Neguse.

Do you know why he didn't tell you about those

emails?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Neguse.

Objection.

Again, if it's --

During -- prior to the election.

Again, I

understand your -- I would reiterate, obviously, the committee's

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 59 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

58

vigorous disagreement with your assertion of absolute immunity.
But in any event.
Ms. Hicks.

No, I'm not go to opine on somebody's motivations

for why they did or didn't tell me something.
Mr. Neguse.

Do you have any information as to his motives,

in terms of providing such information or not providing such
information to you, given your role as the senior communications
strategist on the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't understand the question.

But it sounds

like a question for -- for him.
Mr. Neguse.

Did Mr. Trump during the campaign ever tell you

that he had knowledge that additional information would be
released with respect to the leaks or -- excuse me -- the hacks
done by WikiLeaks and so forth?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't recall any statements or conversations to

that effect, no.
Mr. Neguse.

Let me give you one specific example, and then I

think we have to end this portion of the hearing.
According to the report, the special counsel's report, in
late summer of 2016, then candidate Trump and Mr. Gates were
driving to LaGuardia Airport and had a phone call.

After that

phone call -- there's a portion of the report that's
redacted -- it says, quote, Candidate Trump told Gates that more
releases of damaging information would be coming.
54 of Volume 1 of the report.

This is on page

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 60 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

59

Were you aware of that conversation?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't have any recollection of that

conversation.
Mr. Neguse.

Do you recall Mr. Trump telling anyone at the

campaign in your presence that more information would be leaked?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

No, I don't.
Again, you don't recall, or you are saying that

those conversations didn't take place?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm saying I'm not aware of any conversations

that are as you describe.
Ms. Hariharan.

All right.

We'll go off the record now.

It's the end of the first hour.

It is 10:10 a.m.

[Recess.]
Mr. Collins.

All right, starting time, 10:21.

I'm Congressman Doug Collins from Georgia.

I'm the ranking

member of the Judiciary Committee.
And a few things that I want to state up front before we get
started.
I do want to say that I am concerned, and making this known
to the majority staff and also the chairman as well, that we did
have an agreement on members and committee staff to be in here.
And it was disturbing to me to find that the majority's press
staff was in here for the majority of the first round of
questioning, not what I would have considered within the scope of
pertinent staff availability in this room at that point.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 61 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

60

It just goes, frankly, from my opinion, to show that this is
more for a press availability than it is for actual information,
and I do, you know, object to that.

I think it has been cleared

up at this point, they are no longer in the room, but needed to be
pointed out as we go forward.
But before I get started with my questions, Ms. Hicks, is
there anything from the previous hour that you would like to -- I
want to give you an opportunity to clarify or, you know, elaborate
on.
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, sir.

The last question I was asked

pertaining to candidate Trump being aware of releases of
information prior to, or the discussion of that.

I don't think I

was clear enough in saying that there were discussions based on
public speculation.
So if people in the media were saying things like, if there
were more emails to be distributed, that would be devastating to
the Clinton campaign, certainly that was something that he
would -- he would opine on, but nothing that wasn't in the public
domain.
Mr. Collins.

So nothing out -- it was just basically

responding to what was being out in the press?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Collins.

Yes, sir.
All right.

We'll go through these.
fast.

Well, I have a few questions.

And I am accused at times of talking

I am from Georgia, so I do talk slow occasionally.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 62 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

61

So let's go through a few things, and, again, we'll go
through this.
I just have a question.

How many times have you testified

before Congress about your time in the campaign and the
transition?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Collins.

Okay.

Did you -- and I'm going to continue

this line here -- did you testify before the House Select
Intelligence Committee?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Collins.

So how long?

How long ago?

And how long did

you testify before them?
Mr. Lieu.

We can't hear that objection.

Mr. Philbin.

Just to clarify, the objection is, these

questions about her testimony relate to her time as a senior
adviser to the President.

She was a senior adviser to the

President when these incidents of testimony took place.

It's

covered under the immunity that we described earlier.
Mr. Collins.

At this point in time, I'll remind the minority

that this is not the minority's time, however, and if they would
like to have an extra time, they will have their time at this
point.

But I will continue to ask questions at this point.

Did you testify voluntarily?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

was testimony that occurred --

I think we can stipulate that there

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 63 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Collins.

Okay.

Mr. Purpura.

-- and go from there.

Mr. Collins.

All right.

There was testimony that occurred,

both in the House and the Senate?
Mr. Purpura.

62

Stipulate to that?

Stipulate to that, during her time as a senior

adviser.
Mr. Collins.
voluntarily?

Okay.

The question, did you testify

Or in --

Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Collins.

Yes, sir.
You did.

Okay.

Testified voluntarily.

And

I'm assuming you brought a lawyer with you.
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Collins.

Okay.

Did you provide documents to either

committee?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Collins.

And did you provide those documents

voluntarily?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Collins.

Let me ask a different question.

Have you

cooperated with every formal investigation over the past 2 years
when your documents or testimony have been sought?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Collins.

Okay.

Changing directions here a little bit.

And this is some questions that you may or may not have knowledge

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 64 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

63

of, but I wanted to find out.
March 4th, 2019, Chairman Nadler -- did Chairman Nadler send
you a letter requesting documents?
Mr. Trout.
Mr. Collins.

The answer is yes.
Okay.

Did you provide documents pursuant to

this letter?
Mr. Trout.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. Trout.
Mr. Collins.

Her counsel did.
Did you provide these documents voluntarily?
Yes.
Now that the mike is fixed.

Did Chairman Nadler issue you a subpoena for documents and
testimony?
Mr. Trout.
Mr. Collins.

Yes.

He issued a subpoena to Ms. Hicks.

Did you provide the documents pursuant to that

subpoena?
Mr. Trout.

We provided some documents and withheld other

documents pursuant to -- and described all of that in a letter to
the chairman and to the minority.

I believe it was June 4th,

2019.
Mr. Collins.

Okay.

So twice the chairman has asked you for

documents, and twice you have provided them.

Would that be

correct?
Mr. Trout.

Well, we have provided those documents that we

were at liberty to provide.
Mr. Collins.

Okay.

Going back to the original 81 letters.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 65 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

64

Do you -- were you aware that Chairman Nadler was going to issue a
subpoena, or did that strike you as strange, considering the
documents that you had already turned over?
Mr. Trout.

Well, the documents that we turned over, there

was a specific category of documents that we were requested to
turn over that did not include everything that was covered by the
subpoena.

So I did not regard the subpoena as remarkable.

Mr. Collins.

Okay.

Was the subpoena necessary given that

you had already produced the -- these documents voluntarily?
Mr. Trout.

Well, I don't -- I don't speak for the chairman

or for the committee, so I don't know whether it was necessary.
Mr. Collins.

Okay.

But do you feel like the requests that

have been made to you, that you have made a good-faith effort to
comply with?
Mr. Trout.

Yes.

We have always conducted ourselves in good

faith in discussions with the committee, as well as with the White
House.
Mr. Collins.

On March 4th -- couple of questions -- March

4th, Chairman Nadler also sent a letter to Julian Assange
requesting documents.

Ms. Hicks, do you know if Julian Assange

produced these documents pursuant to the chairman's request?
I'll help you.

He didn't.

He did not respond.

March 4th, did Chairman Nadler send a letter to -- and these
are others that was in the 81, you were a popular group
there -- Carter Page requesting documents?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 66 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

65

I'm not aware of any other requests that were

fulfilled -Mr. Collins.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Collins.

So were you aware --- outside of my own obligations.
I apologize.

So you would be aware if they did

not produce any documents for that?
Ms. Hicks.

Again, I'm only aware of my own actions.

I'm

sorry.
Mr. Collins.

Okay.

And let me just clarify, he did not.

And for the record, did not.
Alexander Nix was another one that was asked during this 81
request, that was asked for documents, and I'm going to go ahead
and help you, did not also.

Rob Goldstone was another one that

was actually requested, did not produce anything, and didn't even
respond to the chairman's request.
Do you know why the chairman sent you a subpoena, even though
you had cooperated with his inquiry, but he did not send a
subpoena to the ones that I have just mentioned -- Julian Assange,
Carter Page, Alexander Nix, and Rob Goldstone -- who totally
ignored the chairman's inquiry.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Collins.

I do not know the reason.
Let me ask you this, in the sense, from the

perspective of actually doing your best, as was stated earlier,
that you did a good-faith effort to comply with everything that
the chairman sent you, didn't it seem that if you choose to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 67 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

66

cooperate here, it seems like that if you choose to cooperate,
you're going to get a subpoena, and if you choose not to
cooperate, the chairman will ignore you.
Ms. Hicks.

I'd like to confer with my counsel.

I'm teasing.

[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. Hicks.

I'm not going to speculate about others.

Mr. Collins.
at the record.

I think the speculation is obvious by looking

What we are seeing in those regards is that -- and

we have seen this consistently -- that if you make a better press
hit in this hub, we are seeing that subpoenas are issued for you.
But if you just choose to willingly ignore, what we're finding is
that you don't get a subpoena and you're allowed to ignore these.
A couple more questions that I want to go down, and this
would be considered -- and would go back to your subpoenas of your
documents.
Are you a custodian of documents created by you in your
official duties as a White House official?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

The chief of staff to the White

House is the official custodian of White House records.
Mr. Collins.

Thank you for clarifying that.

chief of staff would be the custodian of that.

And so the

If the chairman

wanted documents from your time in the White House, wouldn't it
be -- the White House be the appropriate entity to ask for those
documents?
Mr. Trout.

I think you'd have to ask the White House about

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 68 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

67

that.
Mr. Purpura.

And the White House would say yes.

Mr. Collins.

Very clear.

Do you know if Chairman Nadler has asked the White House for
these documents?
Mr. Trout.

Do you know?

Ms. Hicks.

I don't know.

Mr. Trout.

Okay.

Ms. Hicks.

I don't know.

Mr. Collins.

Speak into the --

Are you the custodian of documents created by

you in your official duties as an employee of Donald Trump's
campaign for President?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Collins.

No, sir.
Okay.

Isn't the campaign, in fact, the

custodian of those documents?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Collins.

Yes, sir.
Okay.

If the chairman wanted documents from

your time on the campaign, wouldn't the campaign be the
appropriate entity to ask for those documents?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Collins.

Yes, sir.
Do you know if Chairman Nadler has asked for

those documents from the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Collins.

I do not.
Do you know if Chairman Nadler has asked for

any campaigns for any of the documents that we requested so far?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 69 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

68

I do not.

Mr. Collins.

I have -- probably will have more.

At this

time I'm going to pause, and I'm going to yield to the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert.

Thank you.

Before you accepted employment with the Trump White House,
Ms. Hicks, did you have any idea that the Clinton campaign had
helped fund opposition research getting false information from
Russians that would be used against Donald Trump?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Mr. Gohmert.
really curious.
your country.

And I know you don't want to speculate, but I'm

Now you've been through a great deal on behalf of
I can't help but be curious, if you had known the

hell that you would be put through as a result of the Clinton
campaign hiring a foreign agent to get information from Russians
and that people within the FBI and the DOJ and potentially intel
would be working against the President, would you still have gone
to work for the President?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm extremely grateful for the opportunity I had

to serve, and, yes, I would do it all over again.
Mr. Gohmert.
Ms. Hicks.

Even knowing you had to hire these lawyers?
Even knowing that.

I would do anything to make a

positive contribution for our country, and I'm very grateful I had
that opportunity.

I'm proud of my service, and I thank all of you

for your service as well.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 70 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gaetz.

69

Well, thank you for your service.
I have no questions for Ms. Hicks, but it seems

worth noting for the record that this is a preposterous
proceeding.

The special counsel had an unlimited budget, an

unlimited amount of time, 19 prosecutors, dozens of Federal
agents, over 2,000 witness statements, over 500 subpoenas, and the
concept that a dozen or so Members of Congress are going to sit
around with Ms. Hicks over the course of a day and uncover some
fact that was left out of the Mueller report belies any common
sense.
And given that we are now through the majority's first hour
and they have not uncovered a single fact from Ms. Hicks that was
not evident in the Mueller report, it seems indicative that this
is largely about posturing and not about any development of any
facts.
Mr. Biggs.

Thank you.

Congressional District.

Andy Biggs from Arizona's Fifth

I thank you for being here today,

Ms. Hicks.
And I will say Mr. Gaetz took a lot of my statement, but I
will -- I want to add on to something, one aspect of this.
In reviewing the Mueller report, you will find that
Ms. Hicks' testimony or 302s have been referenced 27 times,
extensively and exhaustively, in the Mueller report.
In fact, the majority keeps wanting you to read what you were
quoted as saying in the Mueller report or other quotations from

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 71 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

70

the Mueller report.
This is really a farce, quite frankly.
time, it's a waste of our time.

It's a waste of your

Because what we see here is the

majority wants to relitigate the Mueller investigation.

And they

believe that the extensive resources that were expended on the
Mueller investigation, including the 22 months that it took, the
countless interviews, the subpoenas, 1.4 million documents
reviewed -- and I keep waiting for them to expand their -- expand
what they want to do here.
But we're going to bring you in.

They're going to ask you

questions that they know that you can't answer.

And it's, quite

frankly, it's an abuse of process, quite frankly, an abuse of the
congressional process.
And so, I've called on my colleagues on the majority to get
back to work, get back to work.
And with that, I yield back, Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. Collins.
Okay.

Mr. Armstrong?

I want to come back just for a moment.

what has been said has been interesting.

And I think

And I will have to say,

is what we have seen so far in the hearings of the, what I'll call
the summer of reruns and the relitigation of a report put out from
a few weeks ago.

So, you know, there's no -- nothing coming out

now, and we're doing reruns of things that we've already read.
And really it's a shame that we're going back through the
processes here of what's already been said and already been

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 72 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

71

stated, but I will have to say, you do a wonderful dramatic
reading of the Mueller report, and it seems like the majority
wants to have that happen as we go forward.
In this regard, we'll just continue to state, you know, the
objection that this was nothing more than a press hit.
nothing more than the ones standing outside.
back to me, and I'm going to comment on this.

This is

And, again, it goes
And one of the

reasons I put you through the questions of things that you didn't
know about was all the document requests from the 81 has been
forgotten now.

It has been forgotten from this event.

So if we were actually doing an investigation, my question
is, what happened to them?

They never provide anything, but yet

they subpoena you.
I think it goes to the motive a great deal of how we look at
this going forward and how we look at our questions and how we
look at the process here.
I appreciate that the majority would like to find something,
would like to do oversight, as was stated by my colleague from
Florida.

This has been done.

But in this process, what we're

simply hearing is a rehash, good dramatic reading, but
no -- nothing new and, frankly, a waste of the committee's time.
And with that, no one else on our side, we will yield our
first hour back.
Ms. Hicks.
[Recess.]

Thank you very much.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 73 of 274

Mr. Eisen.

All right.

Welcome back.

a lawyer for the staff committee.
my watch, a quarter of 11.

UNOFFICIAL COPY

72

I'm Norman Eisen.

I'm

And the time is, according to

I'm just going to ask a couple of

followup questions about Mr. Collins'

questions just for the

record.
Mr. Collins.

Could I just -- I apologize, and I know we

talked about this before.
you a full hour.

And we'll stop the clock, we'll give

But it's also been discussed in here that this

was -- and the chairman made a great elaborate statement as we
started this about being confidential and keeping that through
the day.
But Mr. Lieu is live-tweeting this.

So I mean, if he's

willing to break his own chairman, I want it noted for the record
that the Member of the Democratic Party in this committee is
live-tweeting what his own chairman had asked him to keep
confidential.
Now, if this is the way we want to play it, we've now proven
that this is nothing but a political stunt.
opportunity.

It is a press avail

And if Mr. Lieu would like to go outside and testify

to the press, that's fine.

But simply doing this like it is, it's

a mockery.
And I don't care what the answer will be.
the chairman had said at the outset.

This was not what

And unless there was a

meeting for a dramatic reading of what the chairman said, this is
ridiculous.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 74 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Lieu.

73

I've been live-tweeting their objections because

they are so absurd.
Mr. Collins.

Did you have trouble understanding the

chairman?
Mr. Lieu.

The objections --

Mr. Collins.

Did you have trouble understanding your

chairman?
Mr. Lieu.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Collins.
Mr. Neguse.

Did you have any trouble with your chairman?
Mr. Chairman, this is the majority's hour.

Mr. Collins.
Mr. Neguse.

And I said stop the clock.
The ranking member's objection has been noted.

I think at this point, start back the clock, Mr. Eisen can proceed
with the questions.
Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Neguse.

I'd like to make a statement.
It's not -- this isn't -- this isn't the

minority's hour to make a statement.
Mr. Cicilline.

Let's be respectful of the witness' time and

proceeding with this proceeding.
Mr. Neguse.

You'll have an opportunity --

You're free to make your statement during your

hour.
Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Neguse.

Well -Mr. Eisen.
EXAMINATION

BY MR. EISEN:

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 75 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Q

Okay.

74

Ms. Hicks, you were asked by Ms. Jackson Lee

about a statement in the Mueller report that by late summer of
2016 the Trump campaign was planning a press strategy, a
communications campaign, and messaging based on the possible
release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks, and you answered to the
effect that it was wildly inaccurate to call it a strategy.

Do

you remember that answer?
A

I believe I said that I wasn't aware of any kind of

coordinated strategy like the one described in the report and
quoted by Ms. Jackson Lee.
Regardless, the efforts that were under way, to take publicly
available information and use that to show a differentiation
between Mr. Trump as a candidate and Mrs. Clinton as a candidate,
I would say that it would be wildly generous to describe that as a
coordinated strategy.
Q

How would you describe it?

A

I would describe it just as I did, which is taking

publicly available information to draw a contrast between the
candidates.
Q

What do you remember about any specific occasions when

that was discussed?
Mr. Purpura.

Again, just to clarify, we're talking about

during the campaign?
Mr. Eisen.

Yes, during the campaign, is the question.

Ms. Hicks.

I don't have any specific recollections.

I could

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 76 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

speculate.

75

I won't, but I don't have any specific recollections.
BY MR. EISEN:

Q

Do you have general recollections?

A

Yes, I do.

Q

Tell me what you remember, everything you remember about

A

The things I remember would be just the days

that.

that -- that news was made, right?

That there was a new headline

based on new information that was available, and how to either
incorporate that into a speech or make sure that our surrogates
were aware of that information and to utilize it as talking points
in any media availabilities, interviews, and what other
opportunities there might be to, again, emphasize the contrast
between candidates.
Q

Did you ever discuss that with Mr. Trump during the

campaign?
A

Again, I don't recall a -- I don't recall discussions

about a coordinated strategy.

But more specifically, to your last

point about when there were moments that allowed for us to
capitalize on new information being distributed, certainly I'm
sure I had discussions with him.
Q

Do you remember any of those discussions?

A

I don't.

Q

Do you remember anyone else you discussed that with?

A

Other members of the campaign, specifically,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 77 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

76

speech-writing, staff members, or research folks to check the
accuracy of any information, surrogate networks, folks in the
message-development team that were either responsible for
communicating desired messages to our surrogates and other folks
who would be speaking on behalf of the campaign or developing the
message itself.
Q
occurred?
A

Can you tell me about how often these conversations
Was it a daily occurrence?
Sure.

There were daily conversations with the

communications team.

So I imagine this was on the agenda, as it

was happening.
Q

And can you tell me the names of any of the people?

just identified the general categories.

You

individuals -- who are those individuals?

Who would those
Again, I'm confining

myself to the campaign at this time.
A

Other members of the campaign communications team would

be Jason Miller -Q

Ms. Hicks, I'm going to ask you to speak -- to bring the

microphone closer and to speak up.

Although the room is not quite

as large as it was before, people do want to hear.
A

Other members of the communications team that I recall

would be Jason Miller, Cliff Sims, Steven Cheung, Andrew Surabian.
And there was, you know, there was a combined effort between
the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee.
there were other staffers that were -- would be technically

So

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 78 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

77

designated as employees of the RNC that would have been involved.
I'm not as familiar with them.

They were obviously based in D.C.

Q

Do you recall any of their names?

A

Raj Shah, Andrew Hemming, Michael Short are the few that

I remember.
Q

And was there ever any time in any of those

conversations or instances when you learned of any information
about a WikiLeaks release before it was public?
A

No, sir.

Q

And did Eric Trump ever discuss anything relating to

WikiLeaks or other releases of hacked information with you?
A

May I confer with my counsel, please.

[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. Hicks.

Can you repeat the question, please?

Mr. Eisen.

Can I have the court reporter read back the

question, please?
Reporter.

Did Eric Trump ever discuss anything relating to

WikiLeaks or other releases of hacked information with you?
Ms. Hicks.

I believe I received an email from Eric or some

written communication regarding an opposition research file that
was, I guess, leaked on the internet.
available when he sent it to me.

I believe it was publicly

It was about Donald Trump.

BY MR. EISEN:
Q

And do you know if it was publicly available when he

sent it to you?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 79 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

A

I don't recall.

Q

What's the basis for your belief that it was publicly

78

That's my recollection.

available?
A

I believe there was a link that was included, and I was

able to click on that and access the information.
Q

How did he transmit that to you?

A

I don't remember if it was an email or a text message.

Q

Was there also a document attached to that transmission?

A

I don't remember.

Q

Do you remember the date?

A

Spring of 2016.

Q

Spring of 2016.

Just a couple questions about Mr. Collins' examination, the
minority examination of you in the previous block.
The White House asserted, Mr. Purpura asserted a number of
objections.

Do you understand those objections to be based on

absolute immunity?
A

Yes, sir.

Q

Will you answer those questions?

A

I'm going to follow the guidance provided by the White

House.
Q

Are you providing any other basis for declining to

answer the questions to which Mr. Purpura objected, that
Mr. Collins posed?
A

No, sir.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 80 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

79

Q

And are you asserting any privileges here today in doing

A

No, sir.

Q

Are you asserting executive privilege?

A

No, sir.

Q

And will you answer any other questions about those

so?

matters that Mr. Collins was examining you on that drew the
objections?
A

I will answer anything that is not objected to.

Mr. Eisen.

Mr. Purpura, can we stipulate for the record that

your answers to those questions are the same, that it's absolute
immunity, no other basis, not asserting any other privileges in
refusing to answer, and not asserting executive privilege in
refusing to answer?
Mr. Purpura.

We can stipulate that the answer is, we're not

asserting any privileges at this time, and we are asserting the
basis of immunity at this time.
Mr. Eisen.

All right.

And not asserting any other basis at

this time?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Not at this time, correct.
And will you allow the witness to answer

additional questions if I ask followup questions to Mr. Collins'
questions in those subject matter areas that he raised?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Not at this time.
Okay.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 81 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

80

BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Oh, one last question on Mr. Collins' question.

sorry to take so long.

I'm

Then I'm going to turn it over to the

members.
Mr. Collins asked you about a voluntary document request that
we made to you and then about a subpoena, correct?
A

Yes, sir.

Q

To your understanding, documents were withheld at the

instruction of the White House in response to our voluntary
request, the first one.

Is that correct?

A

Yes, sir.

Q

And documents were withheld at the request of the White

House in response to our subpoena.
A

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisen.

I'll ask the White House if they're prepared to

turn over those documents today that Mr. Collins was asking about.
Mr. Purpura.

We are not.

Mr. Eisen.

Okay.

With that --

Mr. Davis.

Has the chairman asked the White House for those

documents?
Mr. Eisen.

Yes.

For the record, yes.

The chairman has

asked the White House -Mr. Davis.

Specifically?

Mr. Eisen.

-- did a document request to the White House.

Mr. Purpura.

Well, those are two different things, and those

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 82 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

are part of our ongoing discussions.

81

It's part of the

accommodation, as you know.
So the question was, are we prepared to turn them over today?
The answer is no, because we're in discussions -Mr. Eisen.

Yes.

Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

-- as you and I well know.
So just for record, I'll make it clear for the

record, there are ongoing discussions that encompass those
documents with the White House.
over as of today.
accommodations.

They have declined to turn them

We shall see what becomes of our
We're hopeful that they succeed.

And with that, I will turn it over to Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren.

Thank you.

Ms. Hicks, it's good to see you, and I know this is not an
easy situation to be here answering questions.

We thank you for

appearing and doing your best to tell us what you remember of your
experiences.
I have some questions.

You know, when you take a look at the

Mueller report, as well as some of the other information available
in various indictments, it looks like, in the Mueller report,
there are 170 contacts between the Trump team and Russia-linked
operatives, including 28 meetings.

And if you look at some of the

indictments, it's probably 272 contacts and 38 names.

That's a

lot of contacts between Russia and the campaign, and I'm
interested about that.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 83 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

82

One of the things that struck me in reading the Mueller
report -- and it's found on page 136 and 137 of the report -- the
disclosure that the chairman of the campaign and Mr. Gates
repeatedly provided sensitive polling data from swing States to
the Russians.
Now, there was an excuse made in the report about Mr.
Manafort wanting to be reinstated in the good graces of a
Ukrainian oligarch, but it just seemed to me odd that the way he
would do that would be to take internal polling data.
I'm wondering, did you see the internal polling data that was
sent to the Russians?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm not aware of anything that Mr. Manafort or

Mr. Gates were doing.
Ms. Lofgren.

Let me ask you this.

There's a famous

photograph of Mr. Putin at a Russian TV event, and present at the
event were some other Russian operatives, important Russian
oligarchs, Michael Flynn, and Jill Stein.
I'm wondering, did you ever hear from the President a
discussion of Jill Stein in the course of his campaign and how
efforts might be made to eat into the Clinton campaign by
diverting voters to the Stein campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

I think any candidate would be aware of either

the risk or benefit when there's a third-party candidate in the
race.
Ms. Lofgren.

So the President did discuss the Stein campaign

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 84 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

83

with you, or you overheard his discussion of that?
Ms. Hicks.

There was no concerted effort to capitalize on

her candidacy, but certainly, yes, there was an awareness that
that could play into the results of the election.
Ms. Lofgren.

Now, did you ever hear from other campaign

operatives, Mr. Manafort or others, anyone in the campaign, about
a strategy to enhance Ms. Stein's vote total at the expense of
Mrs. Clinton's campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

I heard no serious discussions about that.

Ms. Lofgren.

Were you or anyone in the campaign aware that

the Internet Research Agency, which has been identified as really
the Russian spy agency that meddled in our campaign, posted over a
thousand times the phrase "Jill Stein," and the posts were
accompanied by the hashtag, "grow a spine, vote Jill Stein," and
that this was particularly oriented towards African American
voters as a roster of themes that the IRA was pursuing?
Ms. Hicks.

No, I was not aware of that.

Ms. Lofgren.

So you never heard anything about what the

campaign was doing about this other campaign, or efforts in the
internet, Facebook, or any other platform, that the Russians were
doing to meddle in our elections?
Ms. Hicks.

Like I said, I'm not aware of any concerted

effort to do anything to enhance her candidacy.
Ms. Lofgren.
about the campaign?

So did you ever see tweets or Facebook posts
Was that something you ever saw in your

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 85 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

84

position?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Lofgren.

No, ma'am.
You never saw it.

What did you do in your

position?
Ms. Hicks.

My title was the press secretary, but I don't

think that I did many things that fell under the traditional, you
know, expectations of what one might think that role entails.
My role was changed on a daily basis, but primarily I
traveled with the candidate, and I organized, coordinated amongst
different parts of the campaign, whether it was speech-writing or
travel, messaging, general strategy, and certainly was available
to the candidate whenever he needed any kind of counsel.
Ms. Lofgren.

Do you know -- did you have to complete a

background check before joining the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Lofgren.

No.
Do you know if anyone on the campaign completed

a background check or conflicts check on others who worked in the
campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't.

I was probably a little bit of a unique

case, given that I was already an employee of The Trump
Organization and had worked with the Trump family for several
years.

So --

Ms. Lofgren.

Was there any vetting process for senior

members of the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm not aware of --

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 86 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Lofgren.

85

That you were aware.

Who did you report to?

In addition, obviously, the President

you knew before, but who else in the campaign did you -I reported directly to Mr. Trump.

Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Hicks.

Only to the President, not to anyone else?
Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Lofgren.

All right.

Ms. Hariharan.

Thank you very much.

Really quickly, the pages that Ms. Lofgren

mentioned earlier, we entered them into the record as exhibit 7.
[Hicks Exhibit No. 7
Was marked for identification.]
Mr. Lieu.

Oh, I got it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Hicks, for being here.

Most of my questions

are going to be about your tenure during the campaign.

However,

I'm going to ask you a few questions at the beginning about your
tenure at the White House to show how absurd the objections from
the White House actually are.

I apologize in advance for some of

these questions, but absolute immunity is actually not a thing, it
doesn't exist.

So I'm going to ask these questions for the

purposes of the court proceeding that's going to follow.
On your first day of work at the White House, was it a sunny
day or a cloudy day?
Mr. Purpura.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

You can answer.
It was a cloudy day.

And -- yeah.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 87 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.
by the way.

86

That's probably not helping my reputation, much

I think people are going to laugh at this.

Mr. Lieu.

And in the White House, where is your office

located?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

Pardon?
In the White House, where is your office located?

Mr. Philbin.
Mr. Lieu.

We'll object to that.

Okay.

During your tenure at the White House,

where would you normally have lunch?
Mr. Purpura.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

You can answer.
At my desk.

Okay.

And would the President ever come in while

you're having lunch?
Mr. Philbin.
Mr. Lieu.

Objection.

How often would you talk to the President on a

given day?
Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Lieu.

All right.

I want to go to questions about your

tenure during the campaign.
According to news reports, on September 20th, 2016, Jared
Kushner forwarded you an email, and this email was about WikiLeaks
had contacted Donald Trump, Jr. with information about
PutinTrump.org or a pro-Trump PAC.
Why would Jared Kushner forward such an email to you?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 88 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Purpura.

Excuse me.

I'm sorry, sir.

87

I didn't hear the

date of the email.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

Yes.

September 20th, 2016.

Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Trout.

I --

Thank you.
I'm sorry.

Could you repeat the question?

I

apologize.
Mr. Lieu.

Sure.

According to news reports, on September

20th, 2016, Jared Kushner forwarded you, Ms. Hicks, an email.
That email was about WikiLeaks contacting Donald Trump, Jr. with
information about PutinTrump.org and a pro-Trump PAC.
Why would Kushner forward that email to you?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

Most likely for situational awareness.
Do you remember if Jared Kushner explained why he

forwarded that email to you?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

I do not.
Do you remember sending that email to anyone else?
I don't.
Did you discuss that email with candidate Trump?

Ms. Hicks.

No.

Mr. Lieu.

Okay.

Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

Do you have a copy of that email?

Not in my possession.
Okay.

I'm sure the campaign --

What's the reason you didn't discuss that

email with candidate Trump?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't recall my thinking at the time.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 89 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

88

Did you discuss it with anyone else?
Probably discussed it with Corey Lewandowski.
Okay.

Thank you.

Anybody else, other than Corey?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.

Not to my -Why would you discuss that with Corey Lewandowski?
We kept in touch and shared information about

things going on in the campaign and perhaps any information that
might be a moment of levity amongst an intense set of
circumstances.
Mr. Lieu.

Did you ever receive information -- I'm sorry.

So you mentioned a moment of levity.

Why would you

characterize it that way?
Ms. Hicks.

Just that -- well, I'll say this.

If I received

a link of that nature, I probably would not pursue it.
Mr. Lieu.

But you had a conversation with Corey Lewandowski

about it, right, that you said?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.
Why would you not pursue it?
I can't say for sure, but just it would be the

kind of thing that would set off a red flag in my head, perhaps.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.

Do you know if Corey pursued it?
Oh, I have no idea.

That was not -- that was not

the intent of my sharing the information with him.
Mr. Lieu.

What, other than levity, what was the nature of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 90 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

89

the conversation you had with Corey about -Ms. Hicks.

That was the entirety of the tone of the

conversation.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

And do you know if Donald Trump, Jr. pursued it?
I have no idea.
Okay.

And you had said earlier it was a red flag.

Why would you characterize it as a red flag?
Ms. Hicks.

Just clicking on a link from an unknown sender

amidst a Presidential election, given that there had already been
information about hacks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.

The sender was Jared Kushner, though.
Pardon?
The sender of that email was Jared Kushner to you.
Yes.
But he's a known sender, right?
Right.

But the information that was in the body

of the email -Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.

I got it.
-- that it was described how that was obtained,

which was an unknown sender.
Mr. Lieu.

What did Corey say to you when you discussed this

email?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't recall his exact -- any exact words used,

but, you know, similar reaction.
Mr. Lieu.

Did you receive other emails like this from Jared

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 91 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

90

Kushner?
Ms. Hicks.

There's one other email I can recall.

I believe

it was -- I believe the sender purported to be Guccifer 2.0.
don't know if it actually was.
the -- the name said.

I

That's what -- that's what

And it was basically a demand for

information about Mr. Trump's finances in the days leading up to
the campaign.
Mr. Lieu.

So this was an email Jared Kushner forwarded to

you that Guccifer -Ms. Hicks.
he received.

I don't know if he forwarded to me.

We were to the plane together.

showing it to me.

It was one

I remember him

He asked me what I thought about it, if it was

legitimate, what he should do with it.
My understanding is that he showed it to the Secret Service
to see if they had any advice on who he should share it with, to
make sure that he hadn't been hacked or that the information
wasn't going to compromise his intellectual property.
And that was the last I heard of it.

I don't know what he

actually did with the email.
Mr. Lieu.

And that email was Guccifer basically allegedly

threatening to blackmail candidate Trump during the campaign,
correct?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.

That's my recollection of it, yes.
Okay.

Did you show that email to anyone else?

Again, I just described the series of events, and

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 92 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

91

I had no other involvement.
Mr. Lieu.

Okay.

Did you show the emails that we were

talking about at all to the Secret Service?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.

Which emails?
The September 20th, 2016, email.
No.
How about the one from Guccifer?
I did not.

Mr. Kushner did.

Mr. Kushner showed it to Secret Service?
Yes.

Mr. Lieu.

And how do you know that?

Ms. Hicks.

We were on the plane --

Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
I apologize.

Air Force One?
No.

This was during the campaign.

I'm sorry.

Of course, it was during the campaign.

Okay.

So the Secret Service is there on the plane, and you watched
Jared Kushner do this or did he tell you later that he showed it
to Secret Service?
Ms. Hicks.

I watched him do it.

I didn't follow up on how

they reacted or what advice they gave.

There was a lot going on,

but I do know that he went over and shared it with them.
Mr. Lieu.

Did Donald Trump, Jr., or anyone else in the Trump

family or on the Trump campaign, report any other emails to the
Secret Service, to your knowledge, about the release of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 93 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

92

information about Hillary Clinton?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

Not to my knowledge.
So were you surprised by this email when you read

it?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

You know, it looked like junk email, but -I'm sorry, what?
It looked like spam, junk email, but -But it was important enough for Jared Kushner to

show it to the Secret Service?
Ms. Hicks.

I think he was being cautious.

just a few days away from the election.

I believe we were

I think he was more

concerned less with the validity of the email and wanting to make
sure -- and more concerned with wanting to make sure that his
information hadn't been compromised.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.

Did you know who Guccifer was at the time?
I don't have specifics.

Obviously, I had heard

things in the media about him being sort of somebody who practiced
the dark arts of the internet, I guess you would say.
Mr. Lieu.

Okay.

During the campaign, you were also working

for The Trump Organization, correct?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

Yes, sir.
During the campaign, did The Trump Organization

have any financial ties to Russia?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

Not that I was aware of.
In 2008, Donald Trump, Jr. was quoted as saying:

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 94 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

93

In terms of high-end product influence -- influx into the U.S.,
Russia -- Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section
of a lot of our assets.

We see a lot of money pouring in from

Russia.
Were you aware of that statement at the time?
Ms. Hicks.

In 2008?

No, I wasn't working for the Trumps in

2008.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.

But during the campaign, were you aware that -Yes.
-- Donald Trump, Jr. had made that statement?

Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Mr. Lieu.

Okay.

Did you ever discuss that statement with

Donald Trump, Jr.?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, I did.
What did he tell you?
He explained the context of the remark and, you

know, was asking for my help in making sure that the media wasn't
misrepresenting the remark or presenting it in any misleading way.
Mr. Lieu.

And what would be the accurate representation of

that remark?
Ms. Hicks.

My understanding is that he was describing the

kinds of clientele that were purchasing luxury apartments, both in
New York City, Chicago, and in south Florida, all where they were
either operating or in the process of developing luxury
properties.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 95 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.

94

And that clientele, they were Russians?
I think it's well known in luxury real estate

markets, especially in New York, that Russians, Chinese, there's a
lot of foreign money that comes in and purchases these very
expensive luxury apartments.
Mr. Lieu.
Ms. Hicks.

During the campaign, was that still happening?
You know, not to my knowledge.

wasn't privy to the finances of the organization.

I obviously
Speaking -- my

previous statements are based on information that I obtained
obviously through my conversations with Donald Trump, Jr. and then
information that I was aware of, based on my role as a director of
communications for a residential real estate and hospitality
company, understanding the trends of the market and who the
clientele was.

It's all very publicly available.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 96 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

95

[11:17 a.m.]
Mr. Lieu.

And how was the media mischaracterizing Donald

Trump, Jr.'s remarks?
Ms. Hicks.

I think it made it seem like there was Russian

money coming into The Trump Organization in a way that was
inappropriate or somehow sinister.

You know, they're a luxury,

globally recognized real estate company.

I think it would be odd

if they weren't selling to people just because they're affiliated
with Russia.

And there's perhaps a political perception that

might complicate that.
Mr. Lieu.

So you don't dispute that there was Russian money,

as you said, pouring into The Trump Organization from the sale of
those luxury properties?
Ms. Hicks.
Organization.

Again, I'm not privy to the finances of The Trump

I can only describe what was relayed to me in terms

of the context of the remark.
I can also say that I believe in 2008 Mr. Trump sold one of
his homes for several -- I believe the price was upwards of
$90 million, and it was sold to a Russian individual.

So that

would also be a statement that would be categorized and align with
Donald Trump, Jr.'s words.
Mr. Lieu.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm going to turn it over to Congressman Neguse.
Mr. Neguse.
Ms. Hicks.

Good morning, Ms. Hicks.
Hi.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 97 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Neguse.

96

And thank you for the clarification that you

provided to the ranking member regarding my -Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Mr. Neguse.

-- question during the first hour.

I just have a few questions, and then I'm going to yield to
my colleague here.
Just to clarify Representative Lieu's questioning around the
emails, I think there are two emails that we're talking about,
correct?

There's the September 20th, 2016, email --

Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

And then --

-- that Jared Kushner forwarded to you.
-- he asked me if there were any other emails

that Jared Kushner forwarded to me.

The second email I referenced

was one -- I'm not sure if it was forwarded.

I know I looked at

it on a computer screen.
Mr. Neguse.

Exactly.

Ms. Hicks.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Neguse.

Okay.

And that's the one in October.

So with respect to that October email, is

there a chance that that email was sent to Donald Trump, Jr.,
rather than Jared Kushner?
Ms. Hicks.

Do you recall who the email went to?

My understanding is it went directly to Jared

Kushner.
Mr. Neguse.

Okay.

And the email to Mr. Kushner, as Mr. Lieu said, this email
related to an attempted effort by someone claiming to be Guccifer

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 98 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

97

to blackmail then-candidate Trump.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

That's right.
Okay.

And did this have anything to do with

then-candidate Trump's tax returns?
Ms. Hicks.

I can't remember specifically if it said "tax

returns" in the email, but it was definitely relating to financial
information, financial disclosures.
Mr. Neguse.

It threatened release of then-candidate

Trump's -Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

That's accurate, yes.
Okay.

And you mentioned that that was reported

to Secret Service by Mr. Kushner.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

That's right.
Okay.

The email from June 3rd, 2016, from Mr. Goldstone to
Mr. Trump, Jr., providing potential information regarding
Secretary Clinton, was that email reported to Secret Service?
Ms. Hicks.

I wasn't aware of the email at the time.

I'm not

aware of it being reported.
Mr. Neguse.

The email on September 20th, 2016, where,

essentially, Mr. Kushner is forwarding to you an email where
WikiLeaks is contacting Mr. Trump, Jr., with information about a
pro-Trump or Putin -- what is it -- I guess it's
PutinTrump.org -- to you, that was enough of a -- I think you used
the words "red flag," correct, the phrase "red flag"?

That email

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 99 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

98

was a red flag to you?
Ms. Hicks.

I just want to be clear.

The red flag that I say

I saw in my peripheral vision was not necessarily due to substance
but more of just a knee-jerk reaction not to click on links where
you don't know the sender.
Mr. Neguse.

Sure.

As you said, during the height of a

Presidential campaign, receiving an email from a foreign -- in
this case, WikiLeaks, communicating to the campaign, it was a red
flag to you to not click on that link.
testimony.

That is my sense of your

Is that --

Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

That is what I recall, yes.
And that email was not reported to Secret

Service either, correct?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

Not by me.

I am not aware of what others did.

Is it troubling to you that all of these other

emails were not reported to Secret Service or law enforcement and
yet this one email that you mentioned to Mr. Kushner that involved
this threatened blackmail was, in fact, reported to Secret
Service, where the others were not?
Ms. Hicks.
process.

No.

I think you learn as you go through the

And I'm sure Jared had a lot more information at the

time he received the Guccifer email than just a month prior when
Don received that link and anything else that took place prior.
So you learn as you go.
Mr. Neguse.

Although it was enough of a red flag for you in

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 100 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

99

September, at least you personally.
Ms. Hicks.

Again, it wasn't a red flag in terms of the

nature of the message.

It was more about, like, just not clicking

on links from people you don't know.
I shared in other testimony that I've provided that, early on
in the campaign, in 2015, I clicked on a link in my personal email
and, you know, compromised my personal email.

So, somewhere in

the dark corners of the internet, there's lots of pictures of my
family dog.
But, anyway, yeah, lesson learned for me there.

And, like I

said, people learn as they go.
Mr. Neguse.

With that, I'll yield to -- thank you,

Ms. Hicks -- yield to Representative Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Hicks.
Did Mr. Trump ever ask you to lie during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

I've never been asked to lie about any matters of

substance or consequence.
Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

My question is, were you asked to lie at all?

Look, I addressed this in my previous testimony.

I think everyone is aware of what I said.

And I'd like to just

reiterate that I've never been asked to lie about matters of
substance or consequence -Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

Well --

Could you let me finish?

I would appreciate it.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 101 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

But I'm also part of a press operation.

100

And as I'm sure the

press person that was in here earlier would attest to, we're often
asked to put a positive spin on things, present the best possible
version of events.

But I believe I always did so with integrity.

And I'd like to also note that, just a few minutes after I
was warned about the confidential nature of the session in which I
shared that information, that information was being discussed on
cable news, and it was my integrity that was up for debate.
Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

Okay.

So I stand by my earlier characterization of

telling white lies, which I believe to be things like "No, the
President is not available right now" when he is.

But, no, I've

never been asked to lie about matters of substance or consequence.
Mr. Cicilline.

Okay.

So, to be clear, you're referring to

testimony before the House Intel Committee, not this committee,
correct?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Cicilline.

Okay.

So I'm going to get back to my original question.

I

appreciate your discussion, but my question is a very specific
one.

I'm not asking you to decide what you think is an important

lie or not important lie.

My question is, did Mr. Trump ever ask

you to lie during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

Sir, I've answered the question.

Mr. Cicilline.

So the answer is, yes, you have been asked to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 102 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

101

tell lies on non- -- what you characterize as not substantial?
You call them white lies, which I take is still a lie, right?
Ms. Hicks.

I've answered the question.

I stand by my

earlier -Mr. Cicilline.

I'm asking a new question, Ms. Hicks.

You

have excluded a whole bunch of stuff you're not going to answer,
which is fine.
otherwise.

We have to accept that until a court says

We get to ask questions, and you're required to answer

them.
My question is a very simple one.

Did Mr. Trump ever ask you

to lie during the campaign?
Mr. Trout.

And she has answered that question.

Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Trout.

Yes, she has.

Mr. Cicilline.
the campaign?

She hasn't answered the question.

The question is, did he ask you to lie during

That's a "yes" or a "no."

Ms. Hicks.

I answered the question, sir.

I'm not going

to -Mr. Cicilline.

So in any instances where the President did

ask you to lie, what were those?
Ms. Hicks.

I have described those.

They are not matters of

substance or consequence.
Mr. Cicilline.

What are they?

Please tell us what lies the

President asked you to tell during the campaign.
Ms. Hicks.

I've provided an example.

I've said that the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 103 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

President was busy when he wasn't.
conflict when he didn't.

102

I've said that he had a

I've said that he would love to

participate in an interview when I know that that would not be his
first choice.
Mr. Cicilline.

So has the President ever asked you to lie

since you've left the White House?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

You've read the Mueller report, I take it?

No, sir.

I lived the Mueller report.

I have

not -Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

Never read it?

No.

Mr. Cicilline.

Okay.

Did you ever witness Mr. Trump asking anyone else to lie
during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

Not that I can recall.

Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

What about during the transition?

No.

Mr. Cicilline.

What about during your time at the White

House?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

Mr. Cicilline.

I take it you are not answering that question

because the President and the White House has ordered you not to
answer that question?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 104 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

103

I'm following the guidance of the White House.

Mr. Cicilline.

But when you say "guidance," it's not

guidance; it's a directive, isn't it?

They're not just giving you

advice; they're telling you not to answer it.
Mr. Philbin.

Congressman, the White House is making clear

that she's not to -Mr. Cicilline.

Right.

Understood.

There's a witness before

us who gets to answer the question.
Are you being advised or ordered not to answer the question?
Mr. Trout.

She's being directed by the White House --

Mr. Cicilline.

Directed.

Your lawyer said directed.

Okay.
That's sufficient for me.

And that basis for refusing to answer the question is not
based on a privilege, correct?
Mr. Trout.

Correct.

Mr. Cicilline.

It's not based on an assertion of any other

basis other than this newly found, expansive, complete immunity
which is alleged in the letter, correct?
Mr. Trout.

Yes, I think the record is clear --

Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Philbin.

Okay.

And rejected by the committee.

Congressman, just to clarify, this is not a

newly found -Mr. Cicilline.

Well, that's for a court to decide.

I think

it's pretty clear it's newly found.
But I'll move on to my next question.

So it's one thing not

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 105 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

104

to get answers from witnesses, but I certainly don't have to take
answers from lawyers who are not part of this proceeding in terms
of answering questions.
I want to turn now to the Trump campaign's -- or let
me -- you would agree, would you not, Ms. Hicks, that the
campaign, the Trump campaign, benefited from the hacked
information on Hillary Clinton?
Ms. Hicks.

Is that a fair statement?

No more so than the Clinton campaign benefited

from the media helping them and providing information about
Mr. Trump.
Mr. Cicilline.

Okay.

But you agree, though, I think, in

that question, that the Trump campaign benefited from the hacked
information on Hillary Clinton.
Ms. Hicks.

I don't know what the direct impact was.

Mr. Cicilline.

Okay.

You would agree that the campaign was

happy to receive information damaging to Hillary Clinton, correct?
Ms. Hicks.

I think that "happy" is not -- I don't think

that's a fair characterization.

I think "relief that we weren't

the only campaign with issues" is more accurate.
Mr. Cicilline.

I mean, you're aware of Mr. Trump, Jr.,

saying, "If it's what I think, I love it."

That's an expression

of admiration or fondness for information, isn't it?
Ms. Hicks.
about.

That has nothing to do with what you just asked

You asked about WikiLeaks.

Mr. Cicilline.

I'm asking about hacked information.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 106 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

105

But I don't -- did those emails describe hacked

information?
Mr. Cicilline.

Well, they -- well, what did those email

describe?
Ms. Hicks.
don't.

You have the papers in front of you, sir.

I

But I don't believe they described hacked information.

Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

They described --

If it was that specific, then I'm wrong, but --

Mr. Cicilline.

Okay.

During the campaign, were you aware of anyone at the campaign
communicating with individuals from Russia?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

You're sure of that?

Look, it's obviously been a few years, and there

is a lot of conflation between other testimony I've provided,
what's publicly available, media reports.

But my recollection is,

during the campaign, throughout that time period, I was not aware
of any individuals that were communicating with foreign officials
from Russia.
Mr. Cicilline.

Okay.

During the campaign, did anyone from

Russia attempt to contact you?
Ms. Hicks.

Based on preparation for other interviews that

I've given, I know that I was -- you know, it was also previously
mentioned here today, somebody reached out to me regarding an
interview.

I believe that may have happened on more than one

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 107 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

occasion.

106

And after the campaign, on the night of the election, I

was contacted by a Russian Ambassador, or somebody that worked for
the Embassy.
Mr. Cicilline.

During the campaign, did you ever discuss

with Mr. Trump news reports that the Trump campaign was
coordinating with Russia?
Ms. Hicks.

I think certainly there was discussion about how

to push back on claims, unsubstantiated claims, that were being
made either by the Clinton campaign or speculated about in the
media.
Mr. Cicilline.

So, in your role as a communications

official, you had some discussions with the President about these
public reports and how to respond to them.

Is that a fair

statement?
Mr. Purpura.

I'm sorry.

Just to clarify, during the

campaign?
Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

During the campaign.

That's accurate.

Mr. Cicilline.

And what did Mr. Trump say in those

conversations?
Ms. Hicks.

You'd have to be more specific.

everything that was said in every conversation.
remember.

I can't repeat
I obviously don't

But if you have a specific day that you --

Mr. Cicilline.

What do you remember?

To the best of your

knowledge, what were some of the things that you can remember that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 108 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

107

the President said about public reports that the Trump campaign
was coordinating with Russia in the conversations you had with him
about this?
Ms. Hicks.

That it was nonsense and that -- at the time,

obviously, no one was certain that it was, in fact, Russia, and
that it appeared as though it was something that the Clinton
campaign had made up to deflect from the information that they
viewed as harmful to their candidate, to their campaign.

And it

just seemed more sporadic than something that was the result of an
intelligence assessment or some kind of detailed knowledge of what
took place.
Mr. Cicilline.

And is that what Mr. Trump told you in that

conversation?
Ms. Hicks.

That was the nature of the conversation, yes.

Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

And did you believe him?

I believed that the claims, unsubstantiated

claims, that we were coordinating with Russia was an attempt to
distract and deflect.

Obviously, we knew that wasn't the case.

And if I was on the other campaign, I probably would have taken a
similar strategy.
Mr. Cicilline.

How about the claims that the Russians were

interfering in an effort to help Mr. Trump and harm Hillary
Clinton?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't recall when that information was

first -- when that theory was first proposed publicly.

So if

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 109 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

108

someone could help me with the date you're referencing, that would
be helpful.
Mr. Cicilline.

I'm asking, did the President -- did you have

an opportunity to discuss with the President reporting that
the -- public reporting that the Russians were interfering in the
American Presidential election in a way to help Mr. Trump and harm
Secretary Clinton?
Ms. Hicks.

What I'm asking is, when did that information

become publicly available?

Because I don't know if that was

available after -Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

Well, at any time during the campaign.

Again, I don't know if that was something -- I'm

just asking for you to clarify the dates.

I don't know if that

was something that was brought up during the campaign or if it was
after the fact.
Mr. Cicilline.

Well, do you remember at any point during the

campaign becoming aware of public reporting that -Ms. Hicks.

I don't.

That's why I'm asking for

clarification.
Mr. Cicilline.

Okay.

Did you ever discuss -- you said you had some discussions
with the President about news reports that the Trump campaign was
coordinating with Russia, and you described that conversation.
Did you discuss those reports with anyone else at the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't have a vivid recollection of those

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 110 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

109

conversations, but certainly I would have discussed them with
other folks on the communications team and other senior members of
the campaign.
Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

I don't recall discussing with Don.

Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

Eric Trump, did you discuss it with him?

I don't recall discussing with Eric.

Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

How about with Donald, Jr.?

Paul Manafort?

You know, I don't.

I know that sounds odd.

I

didn't spend a lot of time or interact with Paul very much, so -Mr. Cicilline.

Rick Gates?

Did you ever discuss it with

him?
Ms. Hicks.

Not to my recollection.

Mr. Cicilline.

So you said there were other people you

discussed it with besides the President.

Who did you discuss it

with?
Ms. Hicks.

Like I said, members of the communications team,

some of the folks I mentioned earlier, likely Jason Miller being
one of them, folks that worked at the RNC in the war room that
would have been compiling research -Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

Who would those people be?

I listed their names earlier:

Raj Shah, Michael

Short, Andrew Hemming, Jason Miller, Cliff Sims, Steven Cheung.
Mr. Cicilline.

You stated in response to one of my questions

that these were unsubstantiated claims about Russian interference

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 111 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

110

in the American Presidential election -Ms. Hicks.

No, I said that the claims that there was

coordination between the Trump campaign and Russians was
unsubstantiated.
Mr. Cicilline.

Did you say contacts between the Russians and

the Trump campaign were unsubstantiated?
Ms. Hicks.

No, I said -- when you asked me about speculation

that there was coordination between Russians and the Trump
campaign, I said that those were unsubstantiated claims and we
regarded them as nonsense, obviously, knowing -Mr. Cicilline.

Do you still regard them as unsubstantiated

claims?
Ms. Hicks.

That there was coordination between Russia and

the Trump campaign?
Mr. Cicilline.

Yes, I do.
How about that the Trump campaign spoke with

and had contact with Russians during the course of the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

If you could be more specific about who you

consider to be part of the Trump campaign and the alleged contacts
they had, that would be helpful to me.
Mr. Cicilline.

Paul Manafort?

You don't today believe that

Paul Manafort didn't have contacts with Russians during the course
of the campaign, do you?
Ms. Hicks.
doing.

Like I said, I wasn't aware of what Paul was

I wasn't --

Mr. Cicilline.

But you are aware today?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 112 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

111

I am now, yes, sir.

Mr. Cicilline.

Okay.

So, today, you don't say that contacts

between the Trump -- or claims that there were contacts between
the Trump campaign and Russian operatives is no longer
unsubstantiated.
Ms. Hicks.

It's, in fact, fully -I didn't say that.

Mr. Cicilline.

I didn't say that.

So I'm asking you that question.

You agree

that there were, in fact, contacts between the Trump campaign and
Russian operatives?
Ms. Hicks.

Like I said, I haven't read the part of the

report you're referencing, but based on what you said earlier, I
have no reason to dispute that.
[Hicks Exhibit No. 9
Was marked for identification.]
Mr. Cicilline.

Let me just finally go to Volume I, page 102,

and look at footnote 589.
And I ask if we can make that available to Ms. Hicks.
If you can read into the record the sentence starting
"Following the Convention" and ending with "We have no knowledge
of activities past or present and he now officially has been
removed from all lists etc."
Mr. Trout.

I'm sorry.

Could you give me the page number

again?
Mr. Cicilline.

Yes.

This is page 102.

You asked for an example of one of, I think, almost 200

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 113 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives.

112

This is one

example I'd like you to read into the record.
Ms. Hicks.

And where were --

Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

Exhibit 9 it is.

Sorry.

Mr. Cicilline.

Where would you like me to begin reading?

If you can start at "Following the

Convention" -Ms. Hicks.

Oh.

Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

-- and read through the paragraph.

"Following the Convention, Page's trip to Moscow

and his advocacy for pro-Russia foreign policy drew the media's
attention and began to generate substantial press coverage.

The

Campaign responded by distancing itself from Page, describing him
as an 'informal foreign policy advisor' who did 'not speak for
Mr. Trump or the campaign.'

On September 23, 2016, Yahoo! News

reported that U.S. intelligence officials were investigating
whether Page had opened private communications with senior Russian
officials to discuss U.S. sanctions policy under a possible Trump
Administration.

A Campaign spokesperson told Yahoo! News that

Page had 'no role' in the Campaign and that the Campaign 'was not
aware of any of his activities, past or present.'

On

September 24, 2016, Page was formally removed from the Campaign."
Mr. Cicilline.

And you agree now that that is an example of

a contact with Russians from a member of the Trump -Ms. Hicks.

Well, I take issue with the description provided

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 114 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

113

here, as it says that the campaign responded by distancing itself
from Page.

I don't recall any instance where we were close.

There was no additional distance needed to be placed between
Carter Page and the campaign.
Mr. Cicilline.
Ms. Hicks.

Well --

But if you categorize Carter Page as somebody who

was involved with the Trump campaign, and, you know, certainly he
had Russian contacts, then that is fine.
Mr. Cicilline.

But didn't you instruct that inquiries about

Mr. Page, if you look the footnote 589, should be answered with,
and I quote, "He was announced as an informal advisor in March.
Since then, he has had no role or official contact with the
campaign.

We have no knowledge of activities past or present and

he now officially has been removed from all our lists"?
Ms. Hicks.

I think we're saying the same thing.

Mr. Cicilline.

Thank you.

I now yield to Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch.

Thank you very much, Mr. Cicilline.

Thanks, Ms. Hicks, for being here.
You said earlier that you hadn't read any of the Mueller
report because you lived it.

Did you review any of the portions

that described you?
Ms. Hicks.

My counsel has done that.

And, yes -- I have not

done a thorough job, admittedly, but, yes, I have.
Mr. Deutch.

Do you know how many times you're mentioned in

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 115 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

the Mueller report?
Ms. Hicks.
27 pages.

I don't.

I believe somebody said earlier

Is that right?

Mr. Deutch.

Yeah.

And you told us earlier that you'd like to answer any
questions not objected to by the White House when you were here
today.

Did the White House make any claims of absolute immunity

from being compelled to testify before the special counsel?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

No.
Do you know if the White House -- were there

discussions with the White House about the possibility that you
might not speak to the special counsel because of the absolute
immunity that they could assert?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Deutch.

Objection.
So, to confirm, there was no discussion about

absolute immunity to testify before Muller?
Mr. Philbin.

That's not correct.

question, and she did not answer.

We objected to the

You're asking for whether or

not she had discussions with the White House while she was a
senior -Mr. Deutch.

I am.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Are you aware of any absolute immunity -Mr. Davis.
Mr. Deutch.

They're part of the -No, I understand.

because I've heard it multiple times.

I understand the objection
Thank you very much.

114

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 116 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

115

And you aware of -- and were you aware that the possibility
existed that absolute immunity could have been claimed to prevent
you from testifying before the Mueller investigation?
Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Deutch.
to this.

Ms. Hicks, I'd like to -- well, let me just turn

On the evening of June 14th, 2017, The Washington Post

reported the special counsel was investigating the President's
conduct for possible obstruction of justice.
Were there any discussions that took place with the President
about his refusal to cooperate with the special counsel on
obstruction-of-justice claims?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Deutch.

Objection.
Were you in any meetings where there were any

discussions with the President of the United States about his
refusal to answer any questions about obstruction of justice?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Deutch.

Objection.
The Mueller report states that the President

called Don McGahn that weekend, on Saturday, June 17th, to direct
him to have the special counsel removed because of the asserted
conflicts of interest.
I'd like to introduce into the record as exhibit 10 page 86
of Volume II of the Mueller report, which describes what the
President said to McGahn when he called, including, and I quote,
"Call Rod, tell Rod that Mueller has conflicts and can't be the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 117 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

116

Special Counsel"; "Mueller has to go"; and "Call me back when you
do it."
[Hicks Exhibit No. 10
Was marked for identification.]
Mr. Deutch.

Did the President tell you that he was making

those calls to Mr. McGahn?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Deutch.

Objection.
Did you ever learn that Mr. McGahn was

considering resigning after that weekend as a result of the
President's calls?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Deutch.

Objection.
Will you refuse to answer any other questions

about whether the President directed his White House counsel to
fire the special counsel?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Deutch.

Objection.
I'm just asking whether you're refusing to

answer any questions.
Mr. Purpura.

Again, sir, her absolute immunity applies.

That was during her time at the White House as a close advisor to
the President, and she will not answer those questions.
Mr. Deutch.

So perhaps I should ask counsel whether it's

your intent to -Mr. Philbin.
Mr. Deutch.
very much.

We will object to all of those questions.
-- object to all of those questions.

Thank you

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 118 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

117

I refer you back to our list of privilege questions that we
entered as exhibit 1, beyond this assertion of absolute immunity.
You're going to decline to answer all of those questions, whether
you're asserting any privileges -- now, I can go through these
again, or I'll read them one time and you can tell me -- sorry?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Deutch.

I'm sorry.

I apologize.

Then I would like to

enter into the record as exhibit 11 the questions that have been
asked -- the first one, correct?

Yeah.

[Hicks Exhibit No. 11
Was marked for identification.]
Mr. Deutch.

The first question is:

Are you asserting any

other basis for declining to answer the question?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

No.
Are you asserting any privileges in declining to

answer the question?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

No.
Are you asserting executive privilege in

declining to answer the question?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

No.
Will you provide any details about this matter

so that the committee can assess the applicability of privileges?
Ms. Hicks.

I will answer any questions that are not objected

Mr. Davis.

I'm sorry.

to.
Where did you get this document,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 119 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

exhibit 11?

118

I don't know what this is.

Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Deutch.

It's a list of questions that I'm -Where did it come from?
It's a list of questions that I'm asking now

that I will then submit -Mr. Davis.

So this is a document that your staff created

during the interview that you're now entering as an exhibit?

Is

that right?
Mr. Deutch.

It's the series of questions that I'm asking

right now to be entered into the record.
Mr. Philbin.

I would note, just for the record, that this is

simply a list of questions that will be reflected in the record as
they are read out loud.

So the purpose of entering this as an

exhibit -Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Deutch.

Great.

Then -- okay.

It's simply being -So, then, I'll just -- please.
Go ahead.
I'll just finish asking the questions.

Will you provide any details about this matter so that the
committee can assess the applicability of privileges?
Ms. Hicks.

I will answer any questions that are not objected

Mr. Deutch.

Will you answer any other questions about this

to.

matter?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 120 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

119

As long as they're not objected to.

Mr. Deutch.

On January 25th, 2018, The New York Times

reported that, back in June of 2017, the President had ordered
Mr. McGahn to have the special counsel removed.
And I'd like to introduce as exhibit 12 pages 114 through 117
of Volume II of the report.
[Hicks Exhibit No. 12
Was marked for identification.]
Mr. Deutch.

While we're finding those, since we're going to

be running up against lunch, I'll go ahead and read this, and you
can follow along.
Beginning "On January 26":

"On January 26, 2018, the

President's personal counsel called McGahn's attorney and said
that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying
that he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel and that he had
threatened to quit in protest.

McGahn's attorney spoke with

Mr. McGahn about that request and then called the President's
personal counsel to relay that McGahn would not make a statement.
McGahn's attorney informed the President's personal counsel that
the Times story was accurate in reporting that the President
wanted the Special Counsel removed.

Accordingly, McGahn's

attorney said, although the article was inaccurate in some other
respects, McGahn could not comply with the President's request to
dispute the story.

Hicks recalled relaying to the President that

one of his attorneys had spoken to McGahn's attorney about the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 121 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

120

issue."
Now, is that what you said to the special counsel?
Mr. Philbin.
Mr. Deutch.

Objection.
Did you know the President was attempting to get

Mr. McGahn to deny that the President asked him to fire the
special counsel, even though Mr. McGahn confirmed that the
President did ask him to fire the special counsel?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Deutch.

Objection.
Did the President ask you to help him get Mr.

McGahn to deny the story by communicating with Mr. McGahn's
lawyers?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Deutch.

Objection.
You've been instructed not to answer any

questions about the President instructing his White House counsel
to create a false record.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Deutch.

That's correct?

Objection.
Let me just finish with this.
Can you read back that question?
I'll restate.

You have been instructed not to answer any questions about
the President instructing his White House counsel to create a
false record.

Is that correct?

Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Deutch.

Have you had any discussions, Ms. Hicks, with

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 122 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

121

Donald Trump's personal lawyers, including Jay Sekulow, about any
of your testimony here today?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

No, sir.
Have you had any discussions with any of the

President's personal lawyers about your testimony?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

Here today?

No, sir.

Have you had any discussions with the

President's -- any discussions with -- sorry -- the President's
personal lawyers about cooperating with the government at any
point?
Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

To the extent you're asking

questions about her time as a senior advisor to the President and
the White House, we object to that question.
Mr. Deutch.

Great.

And as to the rest of your time and your longstanding
relationship with the President, have you had any discussions with
the President's personal lawyers about cooperating with the
government at any point?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

No.
No discussion -- you've not spoken about this

investigation or any efforts by Congress or efforts by the Mueller
team to probe the activities that are covered in the Mueller
report?
Mr. Trout.

Congressman, I think her answer is really limited

to the period that she was not at the White House.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 123 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Deutch.

122

I understand that.

With respect to that period, you've had no discussions with
any of the President's personal lawyers?
Ms. Hicks.

That's --

Mr. Trout.

No.

I'm sorry.

I may have confused the matter.

I think she is not answering as to the period of time when she was
at the White House.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Trout.
Mr. Deutch.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

Right.
Her answer is for every other time.
I understand.
And I'm saying no.
Okay.

And no one associated with the President has asked to review
your testimony before congressional committees prior to giving
your testimony?
Mr. Purpura.
Ms. Hicks.

Objection.
I'm not reading anything.

I don't have anything

to review.
Mr. Deutch.

Well -- right.

Have you had

discussions -- again, excluding the period during which you were a
senior advisor to the President, have you had discussions with
anyone from the President's team about the testimony you would
provide to Congress?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

I have not, no.
Okay.

And so, just to then clarify, as to your

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 124 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

123

time while serving in the White House as a senior official, did
you have any discussions with the President's personal lawyers,
including Jay Sekulow or others about your testimony?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

Mr. Deutch.

And while serving in White House in a senior

position, did you -- while serving in the White House or since,
have you had any conversations with the President's personal
lawyers about the time that you served as special counsel in the
White House -- as a senior official?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

Sorry.

I'm not following that question.

I understand the objection.

I just want to make

clear that you've had no discussions with any personal lawyer of
the President about the time either while you were serving in the
White House or after leaving about the time you were serving in
the White House?
Mr. Philbin.
we'll object.

Congressman, the question is compound, and

Ask as to her time at the White House, and ask as

to another time.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

Yeah.
Did you speak with any of the President's

personal lawyers while at the White House about your cooperation
with Congress and the investigations?
Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 125 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Deutch.

124

And did you speak with any of the President's

personal lawyers after you left the White House about the time
that you were in the White House?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

No.
You did not.

When was the last time you spoke with the President?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

April.
Who initiated that phone call?

Mr. Philbin.
Mr. Deutch.

We'll object.
Why?

Mr. Philbin.

Based on?

Presidential communications that -- the

President -- to preserve the opportunity for the President to be
able to consider -Mr. Deutch.

She's not a senior official in the White House,

and it wasn't during her time as a senior official in the White
House.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

It wasn't a phone call.

We had dinner.

You had dinner in April.

What did you discuss

at dinner?
Ms. Hicks.

We discussed -- it was more of a reminiscing

about events from the campaign, rallies, things like that.
Mr. Deutch.

Did you reminisce about any of the things that

you've been asked about during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

Not that I recall.
What was the tone of the conversation?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 126 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

I just said that.

125

It was reminiscent of previous

experiences.
Mr. Deutch.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

Did you discuss your testimony before Congress?
No.
Did you discuss any of the President's comments

about the congressional investigation that had been made?
Mr. Philbin.

We'll object to that.

To the extent the

questions are going into matters that relate to the President's
duties, there should be an opportunity to consider whether there
would be a claim of privilege.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Deutch.

Are you asserting privilege over those?
Not at this time.
Okay.

So then the witness can answer whether

there was a discussion with the President at dinner in April about
any of the congressional testimony not relating to the time that
Ms. Hicks was a senior White House official, correct?
So were there any discussions about that?
Mr. Purpura.

No, that's not --

Mr. Philbin.

No.

The President should have the opportunity

to consider whether these communications are considered
privileged.

To the extent that they are concerning -- if there

was any discussion, we don't know.

But matters relating to

discharge of his duties -- we're not asserting privilege now.
That is up to the President to do.

But to preserve the

President's ability to consider that, we are objecting to the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 127 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

126

question at this point.
Mr. Deutch.

So, if I understand, you won't allow the witness

to answer because you're reserving the right to assert privilege
about a conversation at some point in the future?
Ms. Hicks.

That is correct.

Mr. Deutch.

I would ask one last time for the witness to

answer.
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Mr. Deutch.

If you wanted to get a hold of the President,

how would you do that?
Ms. Hicks.

Sorry.

Mr. Deutch.

Yeah.

Can you repeat -If you wanted to reach the President, how

would you get him?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

I would call him.
Since leaving the White House, how many times

have you spoken with him?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

Five?

Ten?

Twenty?

I would say somewhere between 5 and 10.
And, again -- well, have you spoken with the

President -- April was the last time.

You've not spoken with the

President since you agreed to testify before this committee?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

April was the last time I spoke to him.
So you've not spoken with him since agreeing to

testify before the committee.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

That would be accurate.
Has anyone from the President's legal team,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 128 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

127

staff, or his family reached out to you about your testimony
today?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

No.
And, finally, do you have thoughts on the

President's reaction to your testimony?

Do you think the

President will be angry that you're testifying before Congress?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

I don't want to speculate or hypothesize.
Based on your lengthy and extensive relationship

with the President, do you think, based on that, just based solely
on your experiences with him, that he might be angry about your
testifying before Congress today?
Ms. Hicks.

I think the President knows that I would tell the

truth, and the truth is there was no collusion.

And I'm happy to

say that as many times as is necessary today.
Mr. Deutch.

And, also, the President said there was

essentially no obstruction.

Does that mean -- what do you think

he meant by that?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Deutch.

I'm here to talk about the campaign.
No, I understand, but you just told me the

things the President's been repeating.

So he's also been

repeating comments about obstruction of justice where he says
there's essentially no obstruction of justice.

What do you think

he means by that?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm here to comment on events that happened

during the campaign.

That's what I'm doing.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 129 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Davis.

Right.

128

So --

I think your hour is up, sir.

Mr. Deutch.

I understand.

So, just finally, you're prepared to say no collusion, which
was clearly about the campaign, but you refuse to answer any
questions about obstruction of justice, which also has to do with
the campaign.
Ms. Hicks.

I'm not refusing.

Is there a specific question

that you're asking?
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Davis.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Your time is --

Mr. Deutch.

Absolutely.

You've offered up that there was no

collusion in talking about the campaign.

I asked about the

President's comments, "essentially no obstruction," why do you
think he used the word "essentially"?

And on that, you're saying

you won't answer because it has to do with the campaign.

I'm

pointing out the fact that you were willing to talk about one and
not the other.
Ms. Hicks.

That is not what I said.

Mr. Trout.

I will object.

what she has said.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Deutch.

I think that mischaracterizes

I think it mischaracterizes the questioning.
I don't, but --

Sir, but the hour is -I understand.

And guess what.

this when we come back after lunch.

We'll continue

But I thought it would be

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 130 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

129

appropriate to try to clear the air because of what we just heard
before we take this break, but I'm glad to break for lunch.
Ms. Hariharan.

We will go off the record now.

[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. Hariharan.
[Recess.]

We will come back at 1 o'clock.

It is 12:01.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 131 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

130

[1:07 p.m.]
Mr. Eisen.

We are back on the record at 1:07, and it is the

minority's hour.
Mr. Collins.

Thank you.

Member Judiciary.

And, again, Doug Collins, Ranking

As we come along with this, I think the

interesting thing that I wanted to settle out, because there is a
conflict here with -- coming up with votes and I know there will
be some questioning on -- is just reiterating, you know, some of
the things that have been very frustrating for me in this hearing,
especially that started out when the chairman laid forth a very
long statement on decorum and issues.
And we had -- the witness' counsel had to be, you know,
reminded -- there were members taking pictures at this.
also live tweeting of this event.
takes away from the decorum.

There was

This is -- again, it really

And whether you agree with this,

which I don't, or don't agree with it is irrelevant.

The decorum

here was botched and became really what I've said this was
is -- for a long time is a photo opportunity and a show.
At this point, I do always like to open up -- when we switch
back, I will open it up.

You've had several lines of questioning

now from both majority and minority side.

Is there anything that

you would like to expound upon that you feel like you didn't get
enough ability to answer?

Is there anything that you would like

to say, Ms. Hicks?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 132 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Collins.
continue this.

Okay.

All right.

No problem.

131

And we will

At this time, I do want to yield to the gentlelady

from Arizona for just a few moments.
Mrs. Lesko.

Thank you.

And just for the record, I'm

Congresswoman Debbie Lesko from Arizona, and mine is more of a
statement instead of a question, Ms. Hicks.

It's very frustrating

to me this continual probes, subpoenas, contempt of Congress,
actions taken by my Democratic colleagues after almost 2 years of
special counsel investigating, you know, claims that there was
collusion, coordination, conspiracy with Russia, 2,800 subpoenas,
500 bench warrants, 40 FBI agents, I forget how many attorneys, 19
attorneys.
For my Democratic colleagues to think they are going to come
up with something more than all these FBI agents and attorneys and
something is -- I just don't understand it.

And so, in the time

that I was here today listening to some of the questions, I felt
like they are trying to come up with something that all of these
subpoenas, bench warrants, attorneys weren't able to come up with.
And the fact is that the Mueller report, which I have, you
know, several copies of right here, has said there was no
collusion, coordination, conspiracy with the Trump administration,
nor any American with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

And

also, there were no charges of obstruction of justice.
So, again, I call on my Democratic colleagues to please,
let's move on with America's business.

I was elected to get big

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 133 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

132

things done, not to continually relitigate this for publicity
purposes.

And I believe my Democratic colleagues are trying to

influence the 2020 presidential election, using taxpayer expense,
and I just think it's a terrible thing.
Mr. Collins.

All right.

With our side, that will be -- from

this round on our side, we, again, will have another round if need
be, but this is our round, we will yield back to the majority.
Mr. Eisen.

Okay.

The majority is going back on the record

at 1:13.
BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Ms. Hicks, are you aware of media reports that you

maintained a diary during your -- at any time during your work
with Donald Trump?
A

Yes, I'm aware of those reports.

Q

And what are you aware of?

A

Just exactly what you described, that I maintained a

diary during my time working for Mr. Trump.
Q

And did you?

A

I did not, no.

Q

Did you maintain any form of keeping notes during your

time working for Donald Trump?
Mr. Philbin.

Can we clarify whether this question is

extending to all time periods or only up to the time she became
senior adviser to the President?
BY MR. EISEN:

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 134 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Q

I'm going to break the question down.

the period up to and including the election.

133

Let's start with

Did you maintain any

form of note taking, regularized note taking during that period?
A

I guess it would depend on your -- the kind of note

taking you're describing.

If you're talking about notes

pertaining to my professional responsibilities, obviously yes.

If

you're talking about notes like, dear diary, great day, no, I did
not.
Q

Do you have any idea how this -- these media reports

that you maintained a diary originated?
A

I don't know.

Q

And let me ask the same question as to the transition

period.

Did you maintain any regularized form of note taking

during the transition?
A

No, sir.

Q

Did you -- I'll ask this on both the campaign and the

transition.

Did you have a little notebook that you carried

around with you like people sometimes do to keep running track of
events?
A

Not that I recall.

You know, loose papers maybe.

Things were -- they were happening on the fly most of the time.
I'm sure I have a lot of Trump Hotel stationery, loose papers
somewhere.
Q

And how did you maintain those loose papers during the

period of the campaign?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 135 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

A

134

Usually I had a to-do list, and I would write down, you

know, requests for the President, the candidate at the time, or
people I needed to speak to, mostly reporters, other things I
needed to get done, and I would sort of check off as I go, and
once the items on the list either expired or were completed, I
would start a new list.
Q

And have you retained those campaign documents?

A

Not that I'm aware of, those.

Q

Same question on the transition.

I don't think so, no.
How did you keep track

of things day-to-day?
A

Same, same way.

Q

And where are those transition materials, those papers

you wrote on, if you know?
A

I don't know where those are.

Q

Did you have a practice of retaining any of that

paperwork?

I'll ask now for the campaign and the transition in

the interest of time.
A

No.

I mean, these were notes probably only I would

understand, both given my handwriting and the words that I would
jot down, like maybe just the initials of a reporter or the name
of an outlet, things like that.
Q

And I'm not going to go too deep into the details, but

did you maintain any personal form of note taking or recording
events during the campaign or the transition?
A

Not with any regularity, no.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 136 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Q

135

When you say not with any regularity, were there some

things that you did on a less-than-regular basis in that regard?
A

I think there were a couple of occasions where I jotted

down things I wanted to remember, especially as we sort of
approached the final weeks of the campaign, you know, memorable
interactions with supporters of the candidate or special details
of events, but nothing -- like I said, it was very infrequent,
sporadic, nothing remarkable.
Q

And those infrequent and sporadic memorable jottings,

where are those today?
A

They -- most of them, I believe, are located on my

laptop.
Q

And were those reviewed for the purposes of the document

and production that was made in response to the voluntary request
or the subpoena, if you know?
A

My lawyers handled the document production, and --

Mr. Trout.

I believe they were reviewed and all responsive

documents were -- have been produced.
Mr. Eisen.

Okay.

about the White House.

I'd like to ask you the same questions
We're going to pause to see if there is an

objection to asking those -- that identical series of questions
regarding Ms. Hicks' White House tenure.
Mr. Philbin.

If you could --

[Discussion off record.]
Mr. Philbin.

We would object to questions about maintaining

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 137 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

136

regular series of notes connected with her service as a senior
adviser to the President, things related to her job.

If there is

a question, did you maintain a purely personal diary about
entirely personal things, we would not object.
BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Did you, during your tenure in the White House, maintain

a purely personal diary in whatever form?

You understand when I

ask that question I mean -A

I did not, no.

Q

-- I'm including the periodic jottings, memorable events

and other things of the kind we've talked about?
A

I did not, no.

Q

Have you done that since leaving the White House?

A

Yes, I have, actually.

Q

And in the materials that you have created of this kind

since leaving the White House, could you describe to me what they
are?
A

Very similar to what I previously described, anything

memorable, you know, notable interactions that were special to me
or -- that left an -- you know, an impact on me and things that I
wanted to obviously remember from my time there, hopefully to
share with people more familiar to me than the faces I'm looking
at now down the road.

But I believe those were also reviewed by

my counsel in response to the request for documents.
Q

We won't take any offense to your desire to share that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 138 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

137

information with more familiar faces than ours.
The -- do those materials, which, if I understand correctly,
they were created post your White House service.

Just remind me

what day you left the White House?
A

March 30.

Q

We're talking about post March 30.

Mr. Trout.

2018.

BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Of 2018.

What form do you maintain those materials in?

A

They are notes on my iPhone.

Q

You use the Apple iPhone Notes --

A

Yes, sir.

Q

-- the thing that looks like a little notepad?

A

Yes, sir.

Q

And how voluminous are those?

A

They are not voluminous.

Q

And have your attorneys been through those to look for

responsive documents?
A

Yes, sir.

Q

And do those -- do some of the materials in there relate

to your time in the White House?

We will just take a yes or no,

and we will give you an opportunity to -A

Yeah, I'm just -- I'm just thinking.

You know, a lot of

it is things from the campaign that I remembered, but I'm sure
there's things in there that pertain to my time in the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 139 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

138

White House.
Q

And is there any transition material in there as well,

if you know?
A

I don't know.

Q

And roughly, how many of those -- do you have it all in

one note, or is it multiple?
A

There's probably about three or four separate notes, and

it's like a list of words, basically, that just jot my -- jog my
memory to remember a certain series of events, a person, a place.
Q

And other than these three or four notes, any other

materials that you've maintained post White House service that
would record or recollect events before that?
A

Not that -- no.

Q

And forgive me for asking, but do you have any plans to

write a memoir of your time with Mr. Trump?
A
do.

It depends how many more of these sessions we have to

These guys are expensive.

I do not, no.

Q

Have you ever prepared a proposal to do that?

A

I have not, no.

Q

Give me one second.

Okay.

We were in and out some of these questions.

I just

want to establish for the record the -- we do sometimes enjoy a
soundtrack here at the committee.

I just want to establish for

the record just quickly, how did you first become involved with
the Trump family?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 140 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

A

Sure.

139

So I worked at a public relations firm, and

Ivanka Trump was one of the clients that I was assigned to work
with there, so I got to know her.

And my role with her expanded

over time, and I met the rest of the family and started to work
more broadly with the Trump Organization, and their real estate
hospitality and golf assets.
Q

When did you first meet Donald Trump?

A

June of 2013.

Q

And when did your work switch to the Trump Organization?

A

I was hired in August of 2014.

Q

How did you become involved in the Trump campaign?

A

I was working at the Trump Organization at the time as

the director of communications, and Mr. Trump asked me if I would
join the campaign, that he was thinking about running for
President, and would I like to be his press secretary, and I said
yes, and that was it.
Q

Did you take a trip to Iowa in January 2015?

A

We did, yes, sir.

Q

Can you just briefly tell me about that?

A

It was my first trip with Mr. Trump in this capacity.

We had traveled for our Trump Organization work together before,
but we went with a small number of people to, I believe, an event
called the Freedom Summit in Des Moines, Iowa, and it was my first
exposure to any kind of political conference, and certainly my
first exposure to the events leading up to the Iowa caucus a year

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 141 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

140

later.
Q

Was that trip to Iowa before or after you were formally

designated as press secretary?
A

You know, it was -- it was before I was formally

designated as press secretary, but after he had asked if I wanted
to participate in the campaign if he ran for President.
Q

Was there any allocation of your time or expenses as

between the Trump Organization and the campaign in connection with
that Iowa trip?
A

No, not that I'm aware of.

Shortly afterwards though,

once an exploratory committee was formed, there was a conversation
about how my time would be split, how that would be designated in
terms of my salary, and what my obligations were to make certain
folks aware of how I was spending my time and all of those good
rules that we followed.
Q

And about when was that, if you recall?

A

The exploratory committee was formed in early March

of 2015, so leading up to that, so probably sometime in mid to
late February.
Q

And I take it that you were given a set of instructions

on how to allocate time and expenses in connection with the
exploratory committee?
A

That's accurate.

Q

And can you give me a sense of the breakdown between the

Trump Organization and the exploratory committee around the, let's

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 142 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

141

say in the -- that quarter when the distinction was first made, in
your time and expenses?
A

Sure.

No expenses that I'm aware of, that I recall.

And time, you know, it was really split out during the week.
Monday through Friday, I worked at the Trump Organization,
probably spent about 10 percent of my day attributing resources to
the presidential exploratory committee, and then we traveled on
the weekends to different summits and speaking opportunities.
Q

And could I ask you, please, to characterize your

relationship, just describe it in your own words, with Donald
Trump during the campaign period.

If it evolved over time, feel

free to tell us how it evolved.
A

Sure.

So early on, I was an employee, and I, you know,

did everything I could to try to accommodate his needs and his
requests from a communications standpoint.

He obviously has

very -- he has a lot of experience in dealing with the media, so
he was willing to provide a lot of guidance to me, which was much
appreciated, given how inexperienced I was.
obviously, we grew closer.

And over time,

The relationship became stronger.

And, you know, I think we both trusted each other and worked very
well together.
Q
him.

And you've been described publicly like a daughter to

Do you agree with that characterization?
A

You would have to ask Mr. Trump that.

Q

Did he ever tell you how to describe your relationship

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 143 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

with him?

142

During the campaign now, I'm asking.

A

No.

Q

And did the relationship change between the campaign and

the transition in any material ways?
A

No.

Q

And I'm not going to ask you to get into the substance

of the following question -- I see Mr. Philbin perched on the edge
of his chair -- but I am going to ask you, did the relationship
change between the White House and what came before?
Don't -- just yes or no.

You won't get into the substance.

A

No.

Q

And how has the relationship changed since you left the

White House?
A
employee.

Well, I don't see him every day.

I'm no longer an

So fundamentally, it's very different, but I don't have

anything specific to add.
Q

Were there ever times when you were making public

statements about Mr. Trump in the campaign or transition when you
checked with him first before making those statements about him?
A

Yes.

Q

Was that a general matter?

Would you check with him

before making public statements about him?
A

I wouldn't say it was a requirement, but if I had the

opportunity to check with him, of course, I would rather say
something that he wanted me to say rather than say something that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 144 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

143

he was less than pleased with.
Q

And were there -- how frequent were the occasions when

you made public statements without checking with him first?
Again, just the general order of magnitude.
A

Well, so you're asking two different things.

You asked

if I made statements about him specifically without checking with
him, to which I answered that I would -- my preference was to
check with him.

My preference was to check with him regarding

statements that weren't specifically about him as well, however,
it was much more frequent that just the demand for the job
required -Q

Got it.

Got it.

A

-- a faster response.

Q

And there's a point in the Mueller report -- and I'm

actually not going to ask you yet about the page in the Mueller
report, but there is a page in the Mueller report where there is a
description of you suggesting to Mr. Trump that something be taken
out of an interview.

And I'm going to ask you some questions

about that with respect to the campaign and the transition, if I
may.
Mr. Philbin.

Sorry.

If you could clarify, when was the

interview?
BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Do you want me to -- do you want me to do the Mueller

report now?

I'm going to hold that -- I'm going to -- I'll hold

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 145 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

144

that for later.
I'll ask the witness, do you know the episode in the Mueller
report that I'm referring to?
A

I do, sir.

Q

So I'm going to save that -- the Mueller report itself

for later.

But I want to ask more generally about the practice of

asking a reporter to take something out after it has been said.
Can you describe what your practice was in that regard in the
campaign and transition, if you had one?
A

Sure.

I think it's pretty common practice amongst

communications professionals that they try to ensure that their
principle comes across as good as possible, as an effective
messenger, and as someone who is hopefully relaying something
specific.

After all, that's generally the purpose of an

interview.

And anything that distracts from that core message is

sometimes best not included.
And I think anybody that has any experience in PR would say
that that is fairly common practice to make that request.

I would

say that it's very rare for the request to be fulfilled, but
there's no harm in asking.
Q

And just -- if you can think of any occasions when you

made that request to a print reporter or radio, television during
the campaign or transition, can you think of any times when that
happened?
A

Sure, yeah.

Look, most of the time it's -- it is maybe

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 146 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

145

not a request to omit the information altogether, but if there's
going to be something released at one point, and then a latter
portion of the interview released at another point in time, Hey,
would you mind putting this in this section of the interview, we
have something coming up and we want this to be the primary
message of the day, things like that.
Q

What about holding and getting the reporter to hold it

back altogether?

Were there occasions when that happened in the

campaign or transition that you can think of?
A

Only if I was really lucky.

occasions.

No, I'm sure there were

Nothing is coming to mind, but --

Mr. Eisen.

Okay.

We have members who are back with us, so

Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen.

Thank you.

I'm Steve Cohen from Memphis, and we

had another hearing, which I chaired.

I don't know if these

questions were asked, but if they weren't, I want to ask them.
During the campaign, there was a meeting at Trump Tower with one
of the sons, I think it was Jr., and the Russian lady that came
and the alleged story about we have information that might be bad
about Hillary Clinton, and then they talked and they -- whatever.
Do you know the meeting I'm talking about?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Cohen.

Did you have any knowledge of that meeting before

it was scheduled?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 147 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Cohen.

146

Were you on the Air Force One at the time that

President Trump, then-Candidate Trump maybe consulted with some
people about the answer that Donald Jr. should give to the press?
Mr. Trout.

Well, just --

Mr. Philbin.
Mr. Cohen.

Objection.
He wasn't President.

Mr. Purpura.

No, he was.

You said Air Force One.

That's

what we're trying to clarify.
Mr. Cohen.
Trump One.

Well, he wasn't on the Air Force.

He was on

Sorry.

Ms. Hicks.
you're confused.

But you're -- I think -- I'm sorry.
That took place on Air Force One.

I think
He was

President.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Cohen.

Right.
And the Trump Tower meeting was before -- was it

that time?
Mr. Philbin.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Philbin.

I believe that the meeting was in 2016.
Right.
But the discussion that I believe you're

referring to didn't take place until 2017.
Mr. Cohen.

So when he drew up a response on the airplane

and -Mr. Neguse.

That was in 2017.

Mr. Cohen.

That was in 2017?

Mr. Trout.

Yes.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 148 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Cohen.

147

So before he was President, did you know anything

about that meeting?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Mr. Cohen.

None whatsoever?

Did you have any knowledge of any meetings that Mr. Trump had
with Mr. Kislyak?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Mr. Cohen.

How about anybody else with the campaign and

Mr. Kislyak?
Ms. Hicks.

At the time they occurred?

After?

Can you be

more specific?
Mr. Cohen.

No.

Just tell me what you know about any

meetings that the campaign had with Mr. Kislyak, if you would.
Mr. Philbin.

Well, let's limit the answer to what you knew

during the campaign or in the transition.
Mr. Cohen.

Right.

Ms. Hicks.

I don't -- I don't recall being aware of the

meetings that took place at the time, but later learned about, I
believe, the meeting General Flynn and Jared Kushner had with
Ambassador Kislyak during the transition.
Mr. Eisen.

I just want to make clear for the record, you're

objecting -- the White House is objecting to the question to the
extent it covers post January 20, 2017?
Mr. Purpura.

Right.

Mr. Philbin.

Now, to the extent that the question is to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 149 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

148

elicit information she learned in her capacity as the senior
adviser to the President after January 20, yes.
Mr. Eisen.
record.

So we probably should stipulate this for the

It will make things go much faster and it will speed up

our review of the morning transcript as well.

When the

White House says objection, that is an absolute immunity objection
and none other, correct?
Mr. Philbin.

For the most part.

There was an incident

earlier where we were talking about something that occurred during
the transition period that could relate to the President-elect's
preparation for making decisions as a President where we might
assert a different privilege.

So for the most part, the objection

will be based on absolute immunity.
Mr. Eisen.

All right.

privilege earlier.

But you didn't assert the different

So far, the privilege, when you've objected,

it has been absolute immunity so far.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

That's correct.
So we're going to stipulate for the record,

barring an objection from anyone -- I apologize to Mr. Cohen, but
I just want to have a clean transcript -- that when there's a
White House objection, that's an absolute immunity objection,
unless otherwise stated.
that question.
and over again.
Mr. Trout.

And Ms. Hicks is declining to answer

It saves us from having to go through that over
Is that agreeable, Ms. Hicks?
Agreeable.

Mr. Trout?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 150 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Eisen.

Okay.

Mr. Philbin.

149

White House?

Yes, unless we specify something else, a

single-word objection will be absolutely amenable.
Mr. Cohen.

All right.

So with all those caveats, before

January 20, 2017, did you have any knowledge of any discussions of
Russian sanctions?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Mr. Cohen.

There was no discussions at all with Mr. Trump

and you weren't privy to them about Russian sanctions that we had
issued?

You're sure of that?

Ms. Hicks.

Think about it.

I am thinking.

Thank you.

You know, there

was -- there was a phone call obviously between General Flynn and
the Russian ambassador.

There was news reports after that where

it was unclear what was discussed, but that would have been the
only context in which Russian sanctions were brought up in my
capacity as communications adviser.
Mr. Cohen.

Anything about adoptions?

The Russian adoptions

by American citizens come up during your time before January 20,
2017?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Mr. Cohen.

So that wasn't an issue either?

something you all discussed?

It wasn't

It wasn't something the President

thought was an important issue?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Mr. Cohen.

Did the meeting -- you had no knowledge of that

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 151 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

150

meeting, or you did have knowledge of the meeting in Trump Tower?
Ms. Hicks.

I did no knowledge of that meeting.

Mr. Cohen.

You had no knowledge of it.

You only had

knowledge of it after the -Ms. Hicks.

I learned about the meeting in June of 2017.

Mr. Cohen.

Okay.

Okay.

During the campaign did you learn

anything at all about Mr. Stone and his relationship with
WikiLeaks?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Mr. Cohen.

That never came up at all?

There was no

discussion of Mr. Stone and his connections with Mr. Assange?
Ms. Hicks.

Not with me, no.

Mr. Cohen.

Did anybody else where you overheard a

conversation?
Ms. Hicks.

Not that I'm aware of.

Mr. Cohen.

And you don't remember any discussions at all

about WikiLeaks?

Well, you do know about WikiLeaks.

discussed that earlier.

You

What did you know about WikiLeaks and

their divulgence of information about the emails of Hillary
Clinton and Mr. Podesta?
Ms. Hicks.

I know what was publicly available and nothing

Mr. Cohen.

Nothing in the campaign at all?

Ms. Hicks.

Pardon?

Mr. Cohen.

You never heard anything at all being privy to

more.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 152 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Trump -- you were with him every day.

151

Were you not?

Ms. Hicks.

I was, yes, sir.

Mr. Cohen.

And you never heard anything from him about

WikiLeaks?
Ms. Hicks.

That's not what I said.

I said the information I

knew about WikiLeaks was what was publicly available.
Mr. Cohen.

So you didn't know anything from being

around -- you never heard Mr. Trump talk about it?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Mr. Cohen.

Did you hear anybody in the campaign talk about

Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Mr. Trout.

You mean other than what was discussed in the

it?

public domain?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Earlier I made a clarification that, you

know, sometimes there would be speculation about if there would be
more emails or information released, but that was prompted by
things in the media so -- and, obviously, it wasn't, you know,
certain certainty.
Mr. Cohen.

It was with speculation and skepticism.

And I was here earlier, and you said you'd had no

knowledge -- any information about hush payments to Ms. Stormy
Daniels.

How about to Ms. -- was it -- McDougal, Miss August?

Ms. Hicks.

I wasn't aware of anything -- I wasn't aware of a

hush payment agreement.

I was aware of an arrangement she had

with the National Enquirer based on their statement that they

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 153 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

152

provided to The Wall Street Journal when the article was written
on November 3 or 4 of 2016.
Mr. Cohen.

And did you have that knowledge from discussions

or overhearing discussions with Mr. Trump or other members of the
campaign as the family?
Ms. Hicks.

I had that knowledge as David Pecker provided the

statement that they planned to provide to The Wall Street Journal
to me just before it was given to the reporter as a heads-up.
Mr. Cohen.

You never met either Ms. Daniels or

Ms. McGuire -- McDougal?
Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Mr. Cohen.

Time flies.

Mr. Collins.

I was in high school in 2005.

That hurts.

Mr. Cohen.

Time flies, yeah.

Ms. Hicks.

I had to get one in.

You guys have been at me

all day.
Mr. Cohen.

Yeah.

You'll be happy to know Paul McCartney,

who was in Wings, had his birthday recently, yeah.
I think I'm going to let you do that.

I'm going to go vote,

otherwise John Stewart will say bad things about me.

Thank you,

Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Hicks.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Eisen.

Mr. Neguse.

Mr. Neguse.

Good afternoon, Ms. Hicks.

I just want to

follow up on a point this morning that we talked about, and

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 154 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Cohen kind of followed up as well.

153

I think you've confirmed

for the record that you weren't aware of the -- we will call it
the Trump Tower meeting in June of 2016, that you didn't learn
about that until the following year, as well as a variety of other
instances that we've talked about this morning and this afternoon.
You are aware -- have you read the special counsel's report?
Ms. Hicks.

Not in its entirety.

I've read little pieces of

it.
Mr. Neguse.

Okay.

Earlier in response to a question from my

colleague, Representative Cicilline, you said there was no
collusion.

Is that right?

That was what you said in response to

a question.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

That's accurate, yes.
You have not read in full volume one of the

special counsel's report, correct?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

That's correct.
In volume one, I represented to you that there

is detail surrounding over 120 contacts between members of the
Trump campaign, and various Russian operatives and satellites and
so forth.

You wouldn't have anything to dispute that, correct?

Ms. Hicks.

Again, I don't know the exact nature of those

contacts and how I might characterize the relationship of the
folks described in and what their actual affiliation with the
campaign or lack thereof would be, but I have no reason to dispute
that those contacts took place.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 155 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Neguse.

154

Well, you know, the two examples that have come

up most frequently today, right, the President's, then
candidate's, son and senior adviser meeting with someone who is
purporting to provide information from the Russian Government
regarding the then-candidate's opponent and the campaign chairman,
Mr. Manafort, sharing polling data with a foreign national.

Those

would clearly be within the ambit of people who were affiliated
with the campaign directly or indirectly, correct?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Mr. Neguse.

Okay.

My question is, you'll recall this

morning we talked about the notification to the Secret Service
around the October 2016 email to Mr. Kushner.

If you had received

the email from Mr. Goldstone in June of 2016, would you have
notified Secret Service?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm not going to speculate on a hypothetical.

Mr. Neguse.

Well, I -- it's -- I'm not asking to speculate.

I'm asking whether or not you would if -Ms. Hicks.

I think that's speculation.

Mr. Neguse.

-- a foreign national --

Ms. Hicks.

I'm not a lawyer, but --

Mr. Neguse.

Well, okay, let me take a step back.

In October

of 2016, you clearly agreed with Mr. Kushner alerting Secret
Service regarding the email he had received, correct?
Ms. Hicks.

I didn't -- I didn't say that.

words in my mouth.

You're putting

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 156 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Neguse.

155

Did you not -- you don't agree with him

notifying Secret Service?
Ms. Hicks.
another.

I didn't have an opinion on it one way or

It was --

Mr. Neguse.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

You have no opinion of it today?
-- his choice to do that.

I --

So you have no opinion as to whether or not

Mr. Kushner should have or should have not alerted Secret Service
regarding the October 2016 email?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Neguse.

I -Presumably you would agree that he should notify

Secret Service, which is what he did?
Mr. Trout.
Mr. Neguse.

Objection.
Well, you can answer the question.

So your

position is you have no opinion one way or the other about what
he -Ms. Hicks.

I've never put much thought into it, is the

honest answer.
Mr. Neguse.

I guess I'm asking you, sitting here today, as

you put thought into it whether or not you agree or disagree.
Mr. Trout.

I'm going to object to that.

I just don't think

it has any relevance at all as to what her opinion is today about
events that have occurred.

She is here to answer questions about

things that she observed in real time.
Mr. Neguse.

Your objection is noted.

And it sounds like

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 157 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

156

you're refusing to answer the question and so that's -- we will
move forward.

I would say that as a fact witness during this

event in question, it's fair to ask her whether or not she agreed
when she was shown an email from Gucifer or someone purporting to
be Gucifer, and when Mr. Kushner said I'm going to alert the
Secret Service whether or not she agreed with him taking that step
as a senior campaign official.

But if she refuses to answer the

question, we can proceed -Ms. Hicks.

I'm happy to answer the question.

a fine thing for him to do.

I think it was

I think that, like I said earlier,

better safe than sorry, especially in these last days of the
campaign.

I just -- I probably wouldn't have put as much validity

behind it as he did, but I think his caution is a good thing, and
I don't have anything else to add.
Mr. Neguse.

Thank you.

And applying that same reasoning,

would you apply that same reasoning to the June 2016 email that
went to Mr. Trump Jr.?
Ms. Hicks.

I think they are two very different situations,

and like I said before, I'm not going to speculate on a
hypothetical.
Mr. Neguse.

Thank you.

I am going to turn it back to

Mr. Eisen.
BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Okay.

On June 12, 2016, Julian Assange claimed in a

televised interview to have emails relating to Hillary Clinton

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 158 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

which are pending publication.

157

Do you recall that on or about

that time?
A

I don't, no.

Q

Do you recall any public announcements by anyone

associated with WikiLeaks in the summer of 2016 that documents
would be forthcoming?
A

I don't, no.

Q

When is the first that you remember learning that

WikiLeaks might have documents relevant to the Clinton campaign?
A

Whenever it became publicly available.

I think my first

recollection is just prior to the DNC Convention.
Q

And what was your reaction when you learned that?

A

I don't recall.

I think before I described a general

feeling surrounding this topic of not happiness, but a little bit
of relief maybe that other campaigns had obstacles to face as
well.
Q

And I know we've touched on this but I just want to make

sure we get it into the record.

What's your first recollection of

discussing this issue with Mr. Trump?
A

Probably around that same time.

Q

What do you remember about that discussion?

A

I don't recall anything specific.

Q

Do -- can you remember anything about his affect, how

he -- his affect?
A

No.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 159 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Q

158

Did you have a view on whether WikiLeaks actually had

that material?
A

I don't understand.

Q

Did you believe it was a true report that WikiLeaks

actually had material on -A

I believe that when I've learned about this, that they

were already releasing material, so I had no reason to question
whether or not it was real.
Q

And what do you recall, if anything, about Mr. Trump's

reaction to the release of those materials?
A

Again, I don't recall anything specific.

Q

And we've talked a little bit about exchanges with

members of the Trump family, and either I or someone else asked
you about Eric Trump and the receipt of an opposition research
file.

And I'll take that exhibit -- took advantage of the lunch

break to get it for you.
Ms. Istel.

What exhibit are we on?

We will mark it as Exhibit 13.
[Hicks Exhibit No. 13
Was marked for identification.]

Mr. Philbin.

Do you have copies for the minority members and

for us?
Mr. Eisen.

If the White House lawyers want to come up to the

table to look at the copy, they are welcome to.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

We're okay.

We have a set.

Oh, you've got one.

Good.

Okay.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 160 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

159

BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Ms. Hicks, would you take a look at exhibit 13, please.

A

Page 13?

No.

This document that your lawyer has handed

you, this big document as exhibit No. 13.

It starts with the

table of contents.
Mr. Philbin.

And just for the record, this is a 211-page

document.
BY MR. EISEN:
Q

I do not intend to ask the witness about all 211 pages.

I'll try to limit myself to 199.
Just have a look at the first few pages, if you would for me,
Ms. Hicks, table of contents on just the beginning of it.

Is this

the -- ready?
A

Yes, sir.

Q

Is this the document that Eric Trump sent you?

A

I don't know.

Q

I'll just ask you to speak into the microphone for

I would have to see the email, but --

the -A

I can't say for sure.

at the email.

I would have to go back and look

That was 3 years ago, and I'm going to guess

several thousand emails ago, but it does look familiar.
Q

The email, do you know where we could get a copy of that

email?
A

The campaign would have that email.

Q

That was on your official -- was sent to you on your

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 161 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

160

official campaign account?
A

My guess is yes.

We obviously searched my phone, so

this has got my text messages.
Q
campaign.
A

Okay.

Very good.

We will endeavor to get that from the

Do you -But as you'll note, this information is all publicly

sourced, so it isn't exactly a bombshell opposition research
document.

It's a compilation of publicly sourced articles, but --

Q

Did you ever discuss this document with Donald Trump?

A

If this is the document that Eric shared with me, yes, I

Q

Tell me about that conversation, please.

A

You know, he asked what was contained in the document

did.

based on a quick glance.

I said essentially what I just said to

you, that this is a summary of publicly sourced information,
number one; and number two, it's all out there.

It already has

been, but now it's just all out there at once versus somebody's
attempt to perhaps bread crumb this out over the months ahead.
Q

And what was his response to that?

A

Not much.

Q

Was he pleased or displeased?

A

I think he was indifferent.

Q

And do you know what the source of this document was?

A

I don't, no.

Q

Do you recall what the source of the document Eric sent

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 162 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

161

you was?
A

I don't.

I recall Eric's message maybe mentioning

something about the source being either the DNC, or affiliated
with the DNC, something of that nature.

But I don't recall the

exact phrasing.
Q

In your experience as a campaign official, is it

valuable to have the opposing political party's opposition
research dossier, even if it's -- even if everything in it is
public?
A

Well, you know, we have this thing called Google now, so

it's certainly helpful, I guess, to have it compiled in one place,
but I would say, jump ball on this one.
Q

Is it helpful to know, again, asking during

your -- asking given your experience as a campaign official, is it
helpful to know what your opponent, or the political party of an
opponent might think is the opposition research as to your
candidate?
A

Yeah.

Look, I -- maybe if the candidate wasn't Donald

Trump, someone who had been in the arena for 40 years and just
gone through a year-long primary where he defeated 17 professional
politicians, this might be more helpful.

But at that point in

time, we were pretty familiar with the kinds of criticisms and
attacks that any opponent would put to Mr. Trump.
Q

Did you do anything else with the opposition research

report that Eric Trump passed to you in the --

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 163 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

A

I did not personally.

162

It's possible that either Eric or

myself passed it onto the war room at the RNC, but, no, I didn't
personally do anything with it.
Q

And what's your basis for stating that it's possible

that you or Eric might have passed it onto the RNC?
A

I guess that's me speculating about what the next step

might be to -- you know, when you get a 200-page document, so -Q

I want to go back -- I want to go back to the -- to the

questions of the campaign reporting, any information about Russian
contacts.

To your knowledge, did the campaign ever report any

information about contacts of any kind with Russia to any law
enforcement official?
A

Report to law enforcement when?

During the campaign?

Q

During the campaign.

A

Not to my knowledge.

Q

Did you receive a defensive, what's called a defensive

FBI briefing or any kind of a law enforcement briefing while you
were in the campaign?
A

I did not, no.

Q

Are you aware of whether the campaign received such a

briefing?
A

I'm not aware.

Q

Do you understand what I mean by defensive FBI --

A

I do, yes, sir.

Q

-- briefing?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 164 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

163

What does that mean to you, Ms. Hicks?
A

It means to have law enforcement make you aware of

potential risks, and how best to protect yourself, if those risks
exist already, or if they might present themselves at some time in
the future.
Q

On July 27, 2016, Mr. Trump publicly stated, "Russia, if

you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails
that are missing.
by our press."

I think you will probably be rewarded mightily

Do you recall that statement?

A

I do, yes, sir.

Q

Did you have any discussions with Mr. Trump about that

statement prior to the statement being made?
A

Not prior to, no.

Q

Did you have any discussions with him about the

statement after it was made?
A

I did, yes.

Q

Were you with him at the time he made the statement?

A

I was, yes, sir.

Q

And when did you discuss it with him?

A

When we got back on the plane to go to our next

location.
Q

And what was that discussion?

A

The discussion was me informing him that some in the

media had taken the expression quite literally, and that they were
concerned he was encouraging foreign governments to, you know,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 165 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

164

locate those emails, and that that was obviously something that
the media felt was extremely inappropriate and demanded a response
from Mr. Trump and the campaign as to what exactly he meant by
that.
Q

And did you have a view on the appropriateness of this

statement?
A

You know, it was my understanding from both the way he

made the remark, and the discussions afterwards, that this was a
little bit tongue-in-cheek.

This was not a comment that was

intended as an instructive or a directive to a foreign government.
It was a joke.

And that was the intent, based on my conversation

with him, and that was it.
Q

And what did he say in that conversation about the

statement?
A

Just what I just said, that it was intended as a

light-hearted comment.
Q

The President last week told George Stephanopoulos that

he would take information about an opponent from a foreign
adversary in the next election.
listening.

There's nothing wrong with

It's not an interference.

think I'd take it.

They have information.

I

If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go

maybe to the FBI, if I thought there was something wrong.

Do you

think that was a joke?
A

I don't know.

President.

I have not discussed that remark with the

I didn't -- I didn't see the entire interview, so I

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 166 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

saw the clip you're referencing.
additional context.

165

I don't know if there was

I don't think that was a joke based on what I

saw.
Q

All right.

In your experience now, knowing all that you

do, you've reflected on it, would you take -- I'm asking you this
based on your experience and the expertise you've developed, would
you take foreign oppo information from a foreign government, if
that were offered when working on a political campaign?
A

You know, knowing how much chaos has been sowed as a

result of something like the Steele dossier, no, I would not.
Q

And, again, I'm asking you about your expert opinion.

Would you advise another person to do that if they were in a
position to do so?
A

No, I would not.

Q

Would you call the FBI if you were offered such

information?
A

If I felt it was legitimate enough to have our law

enforcement dedicate their time to it, sure.
Q

If you felt it was genuine or credible, you would call

the FBI, right?
A

Yes.

Q

I'll ask you the same question as to the campaign.

According to Mr. Mueller's report there were over 120 contacts
between the Trump campaign and individuals associated with the
campaign and Russia.

That's Russian individuals, that's during

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 167 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

the campaign.

166

I want to ask you a couple questions about specific

particular ones, and I am going to direct you -- I'm going to
direct you to page 66 of volume one of the Mueller report.
Okay.

And I am going to introduce -- this might make it a

little more helpful.
[Hicks Exhibit No. 14
Was marked for identification.]
BY MR. EISEN:
Q

I'm going to introduce as exhibit 14 a selection of

excerpts of the Mueller report.

I've handed one to the witness.

I'll hand one back to our administration counsel and -- okay.

I

wanted to try to get this in before the break that we're going to
go in 2 minutes.
A

That's okay.

Q

Okay.

Let's just keep going.

And -- so this is exhibit 14.

I've highlighted

at the bottom of page 66 in note 288 a portion of the report.

If

you would just read that, start with the words "for example," and
read those three lines, please, Ms. Hicks.
A

"For example, on August 18, 2015, on behalf of the

editor in chief of the internet newspaper" -- I'm sorry I can't
pronounce the title of that publication.

Contrary to popular

belief, I do not speak Russian -- "campaign press secretary Hope
Hicks was emailed asking for a phone or in-person candidate
interview by an individual associated with this publication."
Q

And it's the internet newspaper Vzglyad, and the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 168 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

person's name is Georgi Asatryan.
email from Asatryan to Hicks.

And that refers to an 8/18/15

Do you recall this episode?

A

Only because we discussed it earlier.

Q

Do you have anything else you want to add to what you

said before about this matter?
A

No, sir.

Q

Okay.

I am going to -- if my -- if my counsel

will -- my co-counsel will indulge me, I'm going to try to
breeze -- no.
2 minutes.

We better take our break.

Okay.

I can't do it in

Well, we will pick up after a 5-minute break.

A

Do we have to take the break?

Q

Majority and minority counsel are consulting.

Mr. Hiller.
Mr. Eisen.

Let's go off the record for a minute, please.
Going off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

167

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 169 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

168

[2:10 p.m.]
Mr. Eisen.

Back on the record at 2:10.

BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Okay.

I'll direct you to the next page, page 102, of

Volume I of the Mueller report, and you'll see some language is
highlighted in footnote 589.

You'll recall that we -- would you

take a look at that footnote, please, Ms. Hicks?

Have you done

so?
A

Yes, sir.

Q

You'll recall there were some questions about Carter

Page earlier today.

Do you remember that?

A

Yes, sir.

Q

Do you remember this September 25th email from you to

Mr. Conway -A

It's Ms. Conway.

Q

-- Ms. Conway and Mr. Bannon?

A

Yes, sir.

Q

And is this an accurate description of that email?

A

Yes, sir.

Q

Was it your understanding that Mr. Page was announced as

an informal advisor in March?
A

He was.

Although I don't believe he ever did anything

to remotely fulfill the definition of even an informal advisor.
Q

What was the point at which he ceased serving as an

informal advisor?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 170 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

A

I don't believe he ever served.

Mr. Page.

169

I've never met

I know that he admits he's never spoken to Mr. Trump.

I'm not sure what advice he provided, if any, or in what capacity,
but -Q

Let me put it this way.

What was the point at which the

announcement to the world that this man was an informal advisor to
the Trump campaign, if any, was rescinded?
A

So he was announced as an informal advisor amongst a

group sometime in March of 2016.

And, you know, again, contact

was limited; there was no service provided by him.

But it was

made clear in the fall of 2016 that he, in fact, had no role with
the campaign.
Q

And I'm going to direct your attention to the next page,

page 115.

And we have highlighted a portion of this material.

Will you have a look at it, please?

It starts in the body text

after 704 and runs through note 706 in the body text.
A

Yes, sir, I see it.

Q

Okay.

And do you recall the meeting that is written

about here?
A

I don't recall this specific meeting, given this

description.

But I know we had regular Monday morning meetings

with this group, so -Q

Do you recall at any time Paul Manafort warning that

Monday morning group that a meeting would not yield vital
information and they should be careful?

Any note of caution of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 171 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

170

that kind that you remember coming up at one of these meetings?
A

No, sir.

Q

Okay.

And do you remember discussing this subject with

Special Counsel Mueller or his representatives?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

What is the basis for the objection?

Mr. Purpura.
House advisor.

Objection.

This occurred during her time as a senior White

I instruct her not to answer.

Mr. Eisen.

Absolute immunity.

BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Will you follow the instruction not to answer?

A

I will, yes, sir.

Q

Would you answer any other questions about the subject

matter set forth here on page 115?
Mr. Philbin.

Let's be clear what you're asking, the

question.
Mr. Eisen.

Let me be more specific.

Would you answer any

other questions about your interviews with Robert Mueller, one of
which is reflected here in note 706 of page 115?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

We would object.
And the basis for the objection is absolute

immunity?
Mr. Purpura.

Yes.

To the extent you're asking her about the

interviews, if you want to ask her about what she knew in 2016 -Mr. Eisen.

Yes.

We've exhausted what she knew.

Now I'm

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 172 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

171

moving to the interviews and attempting to close out the Mueller
interviews.
BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Will you follow the instruction not to answer any

questions about your interviews with Special Counsel Robert
Mueller or the Special Counsel's Office based on the
absolute-immunity instruction of the White House?
A

Yes.

This is like "Inception."

I'm answering questions

about interviews and interviews and interviews.
Q

Yes.

A

I will follow the instructions of the White House.

Q

Okay.

Would you answer any questions designed -- would you answer
any questions about where those interviews took place, when they
took place, who attended those interviews, who you discussed those
interviews with, or any other questions intended by us to explore
the basis for the absolute-immunity assertion with respect to your
interviews with the Special Counsel's Office?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

We would object to all of those questions.
Object on the basis of absolute immunity.

And will you follow that instruction?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Eisen.

Are there any other privileges that are being

asserted at this time as to the Mueller interviews?
Mr. Philbin.

Not at this time.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 173 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Purpura.

172

Not at this time.

Ms. Hicks.

No, sir.

Mr. Eisen.

None by you.

Okay.

Good.

BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Okay.

I'm going to pivot over now to the -- we'll do

one more from Volume I.
colleagues.

Then I'm going to hand you over to my

Anytime you need a break, just say so.

I'm going to ask you some questions about outreach from the
Russian Government, starting with approximately 3:00 a.m. on
election night.

Do you remember receiving a telephone call at

that time?
A

Yes, sir.

Q

What do you remember about that telephone call?

A

I couldn't understand much, but I remember hearing the

name "Putin" and an attempt to offer congratulations, a request
for a forum in which to do that.
Q

And what device did the phone arrive on?

A

The phone call arrived on my personal iPhone, which was

the phone I'd used throughout the campaign, and its number was
well-known, so -Q

Did you have a view at the time the call arrived of what

the source of the call was?
A

Meaning the number?

Q

Meaning who was calling.

A

No.

Did --

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 174 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Q

-- you have any idea?

173

Could you tell if they were a

domestic or foreign individual?
A

I believe the number was a 202 number.

Q

And tell me everything that you remember the person

saying, to the extent you could hear and understand it.
A

Sure.

I just did.

I responded by requesting that this

individual send me an email because it was difficult to understand
them, and they did that.
Q

And when did they send you that email?

A

I believe it was shortly after the phone call took

place.
Q

That same day?

A

It was the same day, because we're talking about

4 o'clock in the morning.

Do you remember the date?

I can't remember if it was an hour

later or if it was when I woke up at 6:00, 2 hours later.
Q

If you'll take a look at exhibit 14, Volume I, page 145,

you'll see that footnote 967 indicates there was an email to you
at 5:27 a.m.

Does that refresh your recollection as to the time?

A

Yes.

Q

Okay.

A

I suppose it was the person on the phone, identified as

And who sent that email?

Sergey Kuznetsov.
Q

And who is Sergey Kuznetsov?

A

An official from the Russian Embassy.

Q

Do you know what role he has at the Russian Embassy?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 175 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

A

I don't, no.

Q

And other than the engagement that we asked you about,

174

the email in Volume I, page 66, note 288 of exhibit 14, was this
the only other time, up to this date, that you had received a
direct contact from someone associated with Russia on the
campaign?
A

I believe I had also received an email in February of

2016 from maybe the same individual or somebody from the Russian
Embassy requesting -- trying to coordinate an interview with a
Russian news outlet, I believe.
Q

Tell us what you remember about that.

A

That is what I remember.

And I believe I responded

saying that we would not be participating and have a nice day.
Q

And do you remember what account the email arrived from?

A

What account the email arrived from?

Q

This -- I'm back on November 9th now.

A

What it arrived from?

Q

Yes.

A

I don't remember, but I have this paper in front of me.

It was a Gmail address.
Q

Does it refresh your recollection, or are you just

reading for me off it?
A

I'm just reading off the page.

Q

Well, don't do that.

I don't remember.

We don't like that.

Do you recall what account the gentleman sent it to you from?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 176 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

175

A

I don't.

Q

You don't have an independent recollection.

A

No.

Q

Okay.

A

There was an attachment that was a congratulatory letter

Do you recall anything else about the email?

from Putin to the President-elect.
Q

And what languages was it in?

A

Russian and English.

Q

And do you recall your reaction when you got this email

purporting to be a note from Mr. Putin in Russian and English?
A

I wasn't sure if it was legitimate.

Wanted to find out

how we could validate the sender and the information attached and
make sure that the President-elect wasn't getting any false
information.
Q

And what did you do?

A

I sent the email to Jared Kushner to ask for his help in

identifying this individual, ensuring that they were affiliated
with the Embassy, and then passing it along to the transition
officials that would now be maintaining these records and
coordinating these communications.
Q

And did you learn at the time whether the email was

genuine or not?
A

My recollection was that Jared reached out to somebody,

a contact that he had, that might know individuals at the Russian
Embassy and that that was not -- the person that the email was

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 177 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

176

sent from was not the Russian Ambassador, but didn't have a
comment, necessarily, on the validity of the email itself.
Q

Did you do anything with the -- after checking with

Mr. Kushner, did you do anything further?
A

Like I said, I believe I shared the email with the

transition officials that were now in charge of the
President-elect's communications with foreign leaders.

He was

obviously taking a lot of congratulatory calls in the days after
the election, and that was all beginning to be run through a
formal process, so I believe they took over from there.
Q

I would like to ask you some -- if I were to ask you the

same questions about the special counsel interview on this
subject, it would be the same objection, correct?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Yes.
Okay.

I think that we're going to jump right to

it or -- okay.
Ms. Istel.

Unless you'd like to take a break.

Ms. Hicks.

No, that's okay.

Ms. Istel.

So I'll introduce myself for the record.

Sarah

Istel with the majority staff.
Good afternoon, Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Hicks.

Hi.

Ms. Istel.

I'm going to apologize, because we're going to be

jumping around a little.
that happened.

We'll try to clarify a couple things

And I want to make sure I get your words right, so

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 178 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

177

if I repeat something that you testified to earlier, you can just
let me know if that's correct.
Ms. Hicks.

Sure.

Ms. Istel.

Thank you.

So a Congresswoman asked you earlier about whether the
President had asked you to make any statements regarding his
relationship with Karen McDougal and with Stormy Daniels, and you
had said that the President asked you to deny that he had an
affair with Karen McDougal.
Mr. Philbin.

Is that correct?

This is referring to during the campaign?

Ms. Istel.

During the campaign.

Ms. Hicks.

I believe the statement that I issued said that

they did not have a relationship.
BY MS. ISTEL:
Q

Okay.

So did you ever ask him if they had -- a

relationship, can we agree that that encompasses an affair?
A

Yes.

Q

Great.

A

I did not.

Q

Did you generally make public statements that he asked

And did you ask him if that was true?

you to make without asking him if those statements were true?
A

No, but I wasn't in the business of -- I wasn't in the

business of questioning him.

This was not something that I would

have direct knowledge of, so I took his word.
Q

But he did tell you that it was not true.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 179 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

A

That's accurate.

Q

Okay.

So we're going to go back a little bit.

178

We talked earlier

about your relationship with Michael Cohen during the campaign and
the President's relationship with Michael Cohen during the
campaign.
I take it you're aware that Michael Cohen has now pled guilty
to multiple Federal charges on campaign finance violations?
A

I'm aware.

Q

Have you seen the information where the allegations

against Mr. Cohen are laid out?
A

Yes.

Q

Okay.

I'll let your counsel confer.
Mr. Trout.

Yeah.

There is information which is a charge, a

formal charge -Ms. Istel.

Right, so --

Mr. Trout.

-- and then there's information which everybody

else uses -Mr. Eisen.

She means the information --

Ms. Istel.

I do.

And, actually, we have that as an exhibit,

so we'll just introduce it now so that you can just see.
Mr. Trout.

I'm not sure that --

Ms. Istel.

I'm just going to read one sentence from it

really quickly to make sure we're all on the same page as to what

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 180 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

179

that refers to.
BY MS. ISTEL:
Q

"But the complaint alleges that Individual One directed

Mr. Cohen to make hush-money payments to women who had affairs
with Individual One during Individual One's Presidential
campaign."
Are you familiar with that allegation?
A

Yes, I am.

Q

Do you have any knowledge of whether the President knew

that Mr. Cohen had made payments to Stormy Daniels during the
campaign?
A

I don't have any direct knowledge.

Q

Did you ever witness Mr. Cohen and the President discuss

payments to any women during the campaign?
A

I did not.

Q

Were you ever present when Mr. Cohen and the President

had meetings about the President's relationship with other women
during the campaign?
A

Actually, there is one discussion that I was part of, in

terms of -- you know, that involved Mr. Trump, Michael, myself,
and it was regarding another woman.

Her name was Jill Harth.

She had made allegations about something she claimed had
happened, I believe, 20 years prior, but, you know, at the same
time, had been sending requests to Mr. Trump's office for jobs,
other, I believe, gifts, stating her support for his candidacy,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 181 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

180

and generally just praising him for being a friend and a good
person over the years, and then shortly thereafter, you know,
changed her tune a bit publicly.
So that was the one conversation I was part of with that
group of people.
Q

When you say "changed her tune," can you describe what

that means for the record?
A

She began publicly to disparage Mr. Trump and, again,

make claims about some things she said happened 20 years prior.
Q

Do you have any knowledge of whether she made any

demands on Mr. Trump?
A

Like I said, she was making requests for various jobs

that were not fulfilled, but I don't know if there were any other
sort of more extreme requests or attempts to elicit help from him.
Q

So, just to clarify, did she ever say, if you don't do X

for me, then I will continue to disparage you publicly, to your
knowledge?
A

Not to my knowledge.

Q

What did Mr. Trump respond, or -- at the time, respond?

A

The nature of our conversations was just to ensure that,

you know, any media outlets that were interviewing this person or
attempting to write her story, that they were also aware of this
additional context.
Most of the communications, you know, describing her support
for Mr. Trump and his candidacy, saying how she had attended

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 182 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

181

rallies, requesting jobs, things like that, she had put in emails
to his office.

So wanting to make sure that the reporters had

access to that information as well and, if they were going to
proceed with the story, that they would present a full picture of
all of the information.
Q

Thank you.

Now, earlier you mentioned that, before receiving a story,
David Pecker emailed you to give you a heads-up.
A

Is that right?

This was specific to the Wall Street Journal story, I

guess November 3rd or November 4th.

I wasn't aware of the

circumstances described to me by the reporter, as what -- as what
they were planning to write.
Media.

It obviously involved American

I reached out to David Pecker to see if he was engaging

with the reporter and if he knew what they were talking about,
since I didn't, and he wasn't available.
He called me back and let me know that he had been made aware
of the story and that his communications team was going to respond
and shared the statement with me that they had provided to The
Wall Street Journal or were in the process of.
Q

Did he regularly tell you in advance of stories

published about Mr. Trump?
A

This was the only instance.

Q

Did you have any other contact with him during the

campaign?
A

I had contact in the sense that he was an acquaintance

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 183 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

of Mr. Trump.

182

So sometimes -- you know, Mr. Trump doesn't email

and was often extremely busy, so sometimes when we were on the
road I would send a message to him or give his office a call to
relay something for Mr. Trump -- dinner plans, a positive article
that Mr. Trump wanted David to read, something interesting, maybe
a picture from our travels on the campaign.
Q

And I'll come back to that in a second, but you

mentioned that Mr. Trump didn't email during the campaign.

Did he

ever tell you why he didn't send emails during the campaign?
A
period.

He just doesn't -- it's not specific to the campaign
He just doesn't use email.

Q

Have you ever seen him write an email?

A

No.

Q

Did you ever ask him why he doesn't write emails?

A

I just know he prefers to speak on the phone.

He

prefers the interaction.
Q

Does he text?

A

Not that I'm aware of.

Q

So if you want to reach him, the only way to do so is to

call him?
A

That's my understanding, unless something's changed.

Q

If he doesn't pick up and it's urgent, how would you get

in touch with him during the campaign?
A

He usually picks up.

But, you know, there's usually

somebody else with him that you can try to reach out to as

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 184 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

well -- security, an advance person, right?

183

There's always people

around.
Q

And we'll come back to that in a second, but I want to

just finish on this issue while we can.
You mentioned that that was the only time that David Pecker
had reached out to you or discussed a negative story about Trump
in advance of the story.

Did you have any discussions with anyone

else at AMI about a negative story and Trump prior to the release
during the campaign?
Ms. Solomon.

I'm sorry.

Can we just clarify?

about David Pecker reaching out.

You mentioned

I'm not sure that that correctly

describes Ms. Hicks' testimony.
Ms. Istel.

Sure.

I think she said -- and you can correct

the record.
Ms. Hicks.

I reached out --

Ms. Istel.

Yeah.

Ms. Hicks.

-- to Mr. Pecker based on the inquiry I received

from The Wall Street Journal, which described American Media's
involvement in the situation.

I wasn't aware of any of the

circumstances surrounding the situation they described.

So, to

get more information -- Mr. Trump was on stage giving a speech at
the time, so I reached out to David to see if he knew about this.
Like I said, he acknowledged that his communications team had
also been made aware by The Wall Street Journal of the story
coming out and that they had responded or were in the process of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 185 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

184

responding with the statement that he read to me.
BY MS. ISTEL:
Q

So I'll just clarify, then, for the record --

A

I didn't offer any changes or suggestions.

It was

purely an information-gathering phone call.
Q

That's helpful.

Thank you.

And can we ask the same question about Dylan Howard or anyone
else at AMI?

Did you speak with anyone at AMI about a negative

story about Trump prior to its release?
A

Not that I'm aware of.

Q

Did you have any contact with Keith Davidson during the

campaign?
A

Not that I'm aware of.

Q

Okay.

So I think, if we can go back and talk through a little bit
more about the campaign, I just want to clarify for the record:
Mr. Eisen asked you about who kept your schedule during the
campaign.

Do you know who kept Mr. Trump's schedule -- or if he

wrote down notes during the campaign.

So I'd like to ask similar

questions about Mr. Trump's time during the campaign.

Do you know

who kept his schedule?
A

Sure.

So there were multiple people.

Rhona Graff, his

longtime executive assistant and senior vice president at The
Trump Organization, kept a record of his meetings.

And,

obviously, the campaign had a scheduler that primarily handled

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 186 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

185

travel.
Q

So if someone wanted to reach Mr. Trump, who would they

contact?
A

Most likely Rhona.

Obviously, things evolved a little

bit as we worked on the road more, and sometimes they would
contact me.

Sometimes they would contact Mr. Trump directly.

Keith Schiller.
Q

And did Rhona also keep Mr. Trump's phone messages

during the campaign?
A

She did, yeah.

Q

And what about the rest of the senior staff's schedule?

If you wanted to reach Manafort on a given day, during the
campaign, how would you do that?
A

I have no idea.

Q

So you were with Mr. Trump during most days on the

campaign.

Is that correct?

A

Yes.

Q

And if he said, I'd like to get in touch with Manafort

or my Deputy Chairman Gates, how would you do that?
A

I would call Paul's, I guess, cell phone number.

Mr. Trout.

Paul Manafort?

Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

BY MS. ISTEL:
Q

Okay.

So is it fair to say that you -- at a given day

during the campaign, would you know where the senior staff members

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 187 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

186

were, of the campaign?
A

Most senior staff traveled with the candidate.

know, we were a very small team.

You

And other members of the

campaign, either -- if you worked in the States, pretty obvious
where we might find you.
more difficult perhaps.

And someone like Paul was a little bit
He split his time between New York and

Washington and was also running the convention, so he spent quite
a bit of time in Cleveland.
Q

Did you have weekly senior staff meetings during the

campaign?
A

Like I said earlier, we usually met Monday mornings.

This started around the time that Paul took on more
responsibility.
Q

Was Mr. Trump at those meetings?

A

No.

Q

Did anyone brief him about those meetings after they

occurred?
A

Sometimes he would be briefed on changes to his

schedule, like if there was a travel day added or a rally, but -Q

What about the substance of those meetings?

Did you

ever talk about messaging or any big issues that occurred?
A

Again, it was mostly travel-based, so, like, you know,

we're going to be traveling on Thursday, we're going to
North Carolina, this is going to be a great opportunity for you to
give a speech on X.

But that was the primary reason for

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 188 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

187

debriefing him on those meetings.
Q

Do you recall a senior staff meeting on the week of June

9th, 2016?
A

I don't.

Q

So, if we can --

A

I mean, I'm sure it -- I'm not saying it didn't happen.

I just don't remember anything remarkable about it.
Q

Yeah, no, that makes total sense.

So if we can, let's go to Volume I, page 115.
the passage where Mr. Eisen read you previously.
discusses the meeting that day.
we could just -- it says:

I think that's

And so it just

And I just wanted to clarify, if

In the days before June 9, 2016, Trump,

Jr., announced at a regular meeting of senior staff he had a lead
on negative information about the Clinton Foundation.

Gates

believed that Trump, Jr., said the information was coming from a
group in Kyrgyzstan and that he was introduced to the group by a
friend.

Gates recalled that the same meeting was attended by

Trump, Jr.; Eric Trump; Paul Manafort; Hope Hicks; and, joining
late, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

According to Gates,

Manafort warned the group that the meeting likely would not yield
vital information and they should be careful.
Mr. Philbin.
Ms. Istel.
Mr. Philbin.

Is this the same -Yeah, it's the same one we just went over before.
Hicks denied any knowledge of the June 9th

meeting before 2019.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 189 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Istel.

188

Yes.

So just a quick followup, which is just, did you tell the
President about that meeting, Mr. Trump, at the time?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't remember the meeting taking place.

Ms. Istel.

Okay.

So I think we're going to pivot to the transition.
Sorry.

I'm just going to ask my colleagues if they have

other questions before we continue.
I'm going to yield back to Mr. Eisen.
BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Okay.

exhibit No. 14.

We were on the Mueller report, Volume II, back in
And I'm going to direct you now to page 21 and

the page after that, which is page 23, for some questions about
the transition, Ms. Hicks.
Do you recall the President -- and I don't want you to
divulge any information.
question.

I'm just asking you a yes-or-no

Do you recall that the intelligence community publicly

released an assessment with respect to the Russian attack on the
elections during the transition?

Do you remember a public IC

assessment being released on that subject?
A

Yes, sir.

Q

And over on page 23, do you remember discussing that

public IC assessment with President Trump?
Mr. Trout.

President-elect Trump or President Trump?

Mr. Eisen.

President-elect Trump.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 190 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Mr. Eisen.

Tell me about that conversation.

Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

189

If you're going to be asking

broadly about what the President-elect thought or had to say about
an intelligence community assessment, even if it later became
public, it was communication from the intelligence community to
the President-elect prior to taking office.
So, if you want to narrow your question, we can see if we
have objections.
Mr. Eisen.

Did the President tell you that he viewed the

intelligence community assessment as his Achilles' heel because,
even if Russia had no impact on the election, people would think
Russia helped him win, taking away from what he accomplished?
Ms. Hicks.

He did not say that to me.

Mr. Eisen.

Did he say that in some form of words, not those

exact words, but some form of words?
Mr. Philbin.

Mr. Trout, you might want to have the witness

read that paragraph.
Mr. Eisen.

He's asking questions about that paragraph.

Perfectly fine for the witness to read the

paragraph.
The question is, do you recall that the President-elect
viewed the intelligence community assessment as his Achilles'
heel?
Ms. Hicks.

I think the following statement is most accurate,

that the President thought the Russia story was developed to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 191 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

190

undermine the legitimacy of his election.
Mr. Eisen.

And, at this time, did you agree with that?

Ms. Hicks.

I think --

Mr. Trout.

Let's confer.

[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. Hicks.

Sorry about that.

So I think that to say that it was developed as a means to
undermine the legitimacy of his election is not accurate.

But to

say that the assessment of the intelligence community, which I
already testified I agree with -- I feel that it has been
weaponized by certain people with an agenda for the purpose of
trying to undermine his legitimacy.
BY MR. EISEN:
Q

At this time during the transition, did the President

accept the IC's assessment?
A

I think that the President has been consistent in his

private and public statements regarding his thoughts on the
assessment of the intelligence community on this topic.
Q

So his private -- he expressed the same doubts privately

that he has publicly?
A

Yes.

And I think, primarily, at that time, his

hesitation was, as he has stated, that this assessment was being
made by the previous administration officials.

And once his

officials were in place, he had greater confidence in their
assessments.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 192 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Q

191

Have you discussed this matter with the President since

leaving the White House?
A

I have not, no.

Q

Did you discuss this matter with the President -- the

intelligence community assessment, did you discuss it with the
President while you were a White House official?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Objection.
Will you answer any questions at all on the

subject matter of the IC's views about the Russian attack on the
2016 election based on your time in the White House?
Mr. Purpura.

We would object.

BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Okay.

Who was Michael Flynn?

A

Michael Flynn was somebody that supported Mr. Trump.

He

was at one point in time considered a possible Vice Presidential
candidate.

And he became somebody who frequently traveled with

the candidate and introduced him at rallies.
Q

And are you aware that President Obama made comments

about Mr. Flynn to the -A

Yes.

Q

-- the President-elect?

A

Yes.

Q

And how did the President-elect receive those comments?

Mr. Purpura.
Ms. Hicks.

You can answer.
I think he was a bit bewildered that, you know,

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 193 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

192

of all the things that the two of them could have been discussing,
that that was something that came up.
Mr. Eisen.

And did you feel that President Obama's comments

sat with the President-elect more than you expected?
Ms. Hicks.

I did, yes.

Mr. Eisen.

Can you -- go ahead.

Ms. Hicks.

That's okay.

Sorry.

I cut you off.

I feel like it maybe tainted his

view of General Flynn just a little bit.
Mr. Eisen.

Did there come a time when the President formed

the opinion -- during the transition; I'm asking now about the
transition -- that Flynn had bad judgment?
Mr. Philbin.

Could you give us a moment there?

[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Eisen.
Okay.

Can you read the question back, please?

I've asked the court reporter to read the question

back.
[The reporter read back the record as requested.]
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Mr. Eisen.

Tell me about that.

Ms. Hicks.

I don't think this was an overall

characterization.

I think that this was something where he felt

like there were a few things that maybe caused him to think that
he was capable of being a person who exercised bad judgment.
Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Philbin.

What were those things?
I'm sorry.

Can I again suggest that, since the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 194 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

193

question seemed to be based on footnote 155, page 32, Ms. Hicks
have a chance to review that footnote?
Ms. Hicks.

Yeah.

I mean, primarily the comment by President

Obama and the incident with General Flynn's son concerning a fake
news story and some of the tweets that were posted surrounding
that.
BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Posted by?

A

I believe they were posted by his son, and then it led

to reporters also looking back at tweets that General Flynn had
posted.
Q

Do you recall David Ignatius writing a column about a

Michael Flynn phone conversation with the Russian Ambassador
during the transition?
A

Yes.

Q

And what do you remember about that?

A

I don't remember much about the substance of the column,

to be honest, but I remember several email exchanges between the
National Security Advisor, General Flynn at the time, and some of
his national security staffers, a desire to perhaps have David
Ignatius clarify some things in that column, and a failure to do
so.
Q

Were you involved in the clarification efforts?

A

I was on the email thread, so I was following the

discussion that ensued, but I was not involved in any kind of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 195 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

194

message development or outreach to Mr. Ignatius.
Q

Did you have any advance knowledge of a phone call

between Mr. Flynn and the Russian Ambassador that was the subject
of this Ignatius reporting?
A

I believe I was aware of it the day that it took place.

I don't know if it was before or after.

But I recall being at

Mar-a-Lago, and Flynn, I think -- sorry.

Off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. Hicks.

I think it was afterwards.

Perhaps even several

days afterwards.
Mr. Eisen.

When did you first learn that there was an issue

about -- if you learned -- actually, let me rephrase that
question.

Did Mr. Flynn talk to you after the column was

published about the column?
Mr. Philbin.
Mr. Eisen.

And we're still asking -We're asking transition.

We're about to come to

the post-transition period.
Ms. Hicks.

I don't recall any direct conversations with him,

only the email thread that I described.
Mr. Eisen.

During the transition, did you develop any

additional information about the truth or falsity of anything in
the Ignatius column?
Ms. Hicks.

Not to my recollection.

Mr. Eisen.

What about after the transition?

Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 196 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Purpura.

195

Objection.

BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Okay.

When did you first become aware of the "Access

Hollywood" tape?
A

About an hour before it was made public.

Q

And what was your reaction to it?

A

Honestly, my reaction was, it was a Friday afternoon,

and I was hoping to get home to see my family for the first time
in a few months, and that wasn't happening.
Q

Did you have any other reactions?

A

Look, I obviously knew that it was going to be a

challenge from a communications standpoint.
Q

Did you discuss it with Mr. Trump?

A

I did, yes.

Q

Tell me about those discussions, please.

A

I made him aware of the email I received from The

Washington Post which described the tape.

And I don't know if the

initial email did this, but certainly one of the subsequent emails
and exchange provided a transcript of the tape.

So, described

those different components to Mr. Trump and tried to evaluate the
situation.
Q

And how did he react to that?

A

You know, he wanted to be certain, before we engaged,

that it was legitimate.

And I think we all felt it was important

that we request to see the actual tape or listen to the audio

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 197 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

196

before responding.
Q

Was he upset?

A

Yes.

I think everybody was in, like, a little bit of

shock.
Q

And did he ask you how -- did he seek your advice on how

to respond?
A

Yes.

There were quite a few of us, so it was very much

a group discussion, given that this unfolded at a debate-prep
session.
Q

And do you remember who else you discussed the tape

A

Who else was present there?

Q

Yeah, at that time.

A

Sure.

with?

Reince Priebus, Chris Christie, Jeff Sessions,

Stephen Miller, Jason Miller, Steve Bannon, David Bossie,
Kellyanne Conway.

Later, Jared Kushner.

I think that's it.

Q

Do you recall reaching out to Michael Cohen about the

A

My recollection of reaching out to Michael took place

tape?

the following day.

And it wasn't about the tape; it was

about -- this is going to get confusing, but the day after the
tape, there were rumors going around -- I'm not sure exactly
where -- I heard it from our campaign spokesperson, Katrina
Pierson, who was sort of like a -- she had a lot of contacts,
grassroots.

And she had called to tell me that -- or maybe sent

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 198 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

197

me a message about rumors of a tape involving Mr. Trump in Moscow
with, you know -- can I say this?
[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. Hicks.

-- with Russian hookers, participating in some

lewd activities.
And so, obviously, I didn't -- I felt this was exactly how it
had been described to me, which was a rumor.

Nonetheless, I

wanted to make sure that I stayed on top of it before it developed
any further, to try to contain it from spiraling out of control.
And the person that made me aware of the rumor said that TMZ
might be the person that has access to this tape.

I knew Michael

Cohen had a good relationship with Harvey Levin, who works at TMZ.
So I reached out to Michael to ask if he had heard of anything
like this; if Harvey contacted him, if he could be in touch with
me.
BY MR. EISEN:
Q

And do you recall anything happening in connection with

WikiLeaks at this time?
A

Yes.

Q

And what happened in that connection, Ms. Hicks?

A

I believe the same day that the tape was released,

WikiLeaks also released emails from John Podesta's account.
Q

Do you have any information about how those came to be

released at that time?
A

No.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 199 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Q

Okay.

198

And any other reason you reached Mr. Cohen

besides the Harvey Levin connection?
A

No.

I know what Michael said in his testimony about

reaching out to him to help, quote, spin reporters.

Number one, I

wouldn't reach out to Michael for help spinning reporters at that
point in time.

And, number two, you know, there was really no

spinning that tape.
Q

Did there come a point at which you learned during the

transition about the press reporting on hush-money payments?
A

During the transition?

Q

I'm asking during the campaign and transition.

A

No.

Q

Okay.

Do you remember a Wall Street Journal article from November
4th, 2016?
A

Yes.

Q

What do you remember about that?

A

Like we already discussed, I remember receiving a

request from The Wall Street Journal asking if candidate Trump had
a relationship with a woman named Karen McDougal.

I forget the

exact phrasing of the email, but obviously it led me to American
Media, where David Pecker said that they were responding to the
story and that their response was going to indicate that they had
a relationship with Ms. McDougal, who had done work for them in
the past.

They had a contract with her to provide content.

I

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 200 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

199

believe it was, you know, fitness and nutrition-related content.
And that was the extent of their response.
Q

Did Mr. Cohen, to your knowledge, have a relationship

with AMI or any -A

He did, yes.

Q

-- of its personnel?

A

Yes.

Q

And what was the basis -- or what was that relationship?

A

I don't know.

firsthand.
both.

I never witnessed the relationship

I don't know if it was professional or personal or

I don't know.
Q

How did you become aware of it?

A

I don't know exactly.

Q

Okay.

report.

I'm going to come back over to the Mueller

That's exhibit No. 14.

questions.

And I'm going to ask a series of

We're just going to go through.

I'm now going to take you to -- and I'm going to go in order
through the report, for the sake of moving as briskly as we can.
I'm going to take you to page number 44 of Volume II.
Do you recall -- this is note number 268.

Do you know who

Jim Comey is?
A

Yes.

Q

Do you recall the President telling you that he had

never asked Jim Comey to stay behind in his office?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 201 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Eisen.

200

Okay.

The White House objects on the basis of absolute immunity.
Will you follow that instruction?
Ms. Hicks.

I will.

Mr. Eisen.

Refuse to answer?

Ms. Hicks.

I will.

Mr. Eisen.

Will you answer any questions at all about the

subject matter set forth in note 268 of page 44?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

We would object to that subject matter.
Would you answer any questions designed to

establish the predicate for the absolute immunity, such as who was
present, where the conversation happened, the purpose of the
conversation, or any other predicate questions?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

We would object to all those questions.
Are you asserting any other privilege as to my

question?
Mr. Philbin.

Not at this time from the White House.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 202 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

201

[3:06 p.m.]
Mr. Eisen.

On to page 47.

Now I'm going to ask a series of

questions about Mr. Flynn within the White House.
Are you willing to answer any questions about the President
becoming unhappy with Mr. Flynn before he was forced to resign?
Now I'm asking about the White House period.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

And we object.
And the answers to questions about establishing

the predicate and other privileges would be the same.

We'll just

stipulate that going forward.
Mr. Philbin.

Let me clarify.

I mean, the absolute immunity

applies to a senior adviser to the President, given the senior
adviser role in proximity to the President overall.

So the

premise of the question seems to be that we would have to pick
apart each incident as to whether the immunity applies to that
incident.

We disagree with that premise.

It applies to the

senior adviser in the role, in connection with service and
discharge of their duties as senior adviser to the President.
Mr. Eisen.

Understood.

That's the White House's view.

We

take a different view in the committee.
My question is, other than the assertion of absolute
immunity, are you willing to ask -- to answer any questions about
the subject matter of Mr. Flynn, the President's views towards
Mr. Flynn, starting with the January 20th, 2017?
Mr. Purpura.

Object -- we would object.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 203 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Eisen.

Okay.

202

Do you recall that after Attorney General

Sessions recused himself, the President became angry and scolded
the Attorney General in your presence?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Objection.
Okay.

Same basis?

The basis is immunity, yes.
Asserting any privileges in that regard beyond

absolute immunity at this time?
Mr. Purpura.

Not at this time.

Mr. Eisen.

And will you answer the question?

Ms. Hicks.

I will not, no.

Mr. Eisen.

Okay.

earlier.

On to page 59, which we alluded to

Have it here in exhibit 14 as well.

Do you recall telling the President after an interview that
his comment about Mr. Comey should be removed from the broadcast
of that interview, but the President wanted to keep it in, which
you thought was unusual?

Will you answer any questions about

that?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Objection.
Do you recall the President telling his

communication team that he was unhappy with the press coverage of
Comey's termination and ordering them to go out and defend him?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Objection.
Will you answer any questions on that subject

matter or on the subject matter set forth in the preceding pages

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 204 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

203

of the Mueller report, Volume II?
Mr. Purpura.

Well, I guess, sort of to clarify,

you -- couple things run together.

If the subject matter is the

President's reaction and direction to the press team as to the
firing of Director Comey, we would provide -- we would have the
same objection.
Mr. Eisen.

Let's specify what the subject matters are:

the

Sessions recusal; the President's reaction to the Sessions
recusal; the subject of Jim Comey post-January 20; the President's
firing of Jim Comey; press coverage of that; all of those subject
matters that are covered in the Mueller report, Volume II.
Would you object to Ms. Hicks answering questions on those
subject matters based on absolute immunity?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Yes.
Okay.

Also in connection with the firing of Mr.

Comey, there are a series of statements, Ms. Hicks, on page 71 of
Volume II.
If it's easier, exhibit 14 has the relevant portions
highlighted.
Ms. Hicks.

I'm just going to move this, because I know I'm

going to spill it.
Mr. Eisen.

Sorry.

Okay.

Take that off the record.

Would you answer any questions about the

President's reactions to reports on his meeting with Mr. Lavrov
regarding Mr. Comey?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 205 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

204

Any questions at all regarding the Comey firing?
Objection.
Okay.

Now we'll pivot to the subject of the special counsel's
appointment and the President's reaction to that.
Would you answer any questions on that subject?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Objection.
You told the special counsel that you saw the

President shortly after Sessions departed and described the
President as being extremely upset by the special counsel's
appointment and that you had only seen the President like that one
other time, when the "Access Hollywood" tape came out during the
campaign.
Will you answer any questions about that?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

We would object.
Any questions at all about your special counsel

interviews?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

We would object.
Do you remember the President on his flight from

Saudi Arabia to Tel Aviv removing Sessions' resignation letter
from his pocket and showing it to a group of senior advisers and
asking them what he should do about it?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.
matter?

Objection.
Will you answer any questions about that subject

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 206 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

205

We would object to those questions.
The chairman asked you a series of questions this

morning about some notes that Mr. Lewandowski told the special
counsel he asked you to type when he went into the Oval Office in
a discussion, again, relating to Mr. Sessions and that he
retrieved the notes from you part way through his meeting.

This

is on page 93 of the special counsel's report, note 625.
Would you answer any questions about that subject matter?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

We would object.
On page 94, exhibit 14 has some portions

highlighted relating to your conversations with Mr. Lewandowski
about the New York Times interview and about firing Sessions.
Will you answer any questions about that?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

There will be an objection.
To all related subject matter?
Yes.
Do you remember ever discussing a recess

appointment of a replacement for Mr. Sessions with the President?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.
Okay.

Objection.
And that is Volume II, page 94, note 636.

Will you answer any questions relating to your time at

the White House or your conversations with the office of the
special counsel about the campaign arranging a meeting between
Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, and a Russian
attorney?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 207 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

206

This is the -- sometimes referred to as the Trump Tower
meeting.

But now I'm asking her knowledge during the White House

period.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Objection.
Have you had any conversations about that

subject, the Trump Tower meeting, post your White House service
with anyone at all, other than your lawyers?
Ms. Hicks.

Not to my recollection.

Mr. Eisen.

Okay.

Not to my recollection.

Will you answer any questions about the

subject matter of the Trump Tower meeting on June 9th, 2016, with
respect to information you learned or actions you took while you
were a White House employee?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Objection.
On page 100 through 103 of the Mueller report

there is a discussion of direction by the President to his
communications staff not to publicly disclose information about
the June 9th meeting and the response to press -- the President
directing Donald Trump, Jr.'s response to press inquiries about
the June 9th meeting and related matters.
Will you answer any questions about the special counsel's
statements on page 100 to page 103?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

There would be an objection.
Will you answer any questions relating to that

subject matter at all?
Mr. Purpura.

There will also be an objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 208 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Eisen.

Okay.

207

Moving to -- do you remember telling

Mr. Corallo that certain materials will never get out?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Objection.
Okay.

We're going to pause.

Ms. Dean has joined

us from the votes as other members are coming and have questions.
Ms. Dean.

Thank you, Counsel.

Good afternoon.
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.
apologize.

Hi.
I know it's been a long day for you, and I

If I ask something that will wind up being a slight

repeat of what you have been asked, we also were in hearings on
reparations, important hearings on reparations.

So I apologize

for my running between these two important meetings.
Ms. Hicks.

I totally understand.

repetitions over the last several years.
Ms. Dean.

And this is one of many
So go ahead.

And you know something about a crazy schedule like

that?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.

Yes, ma'am.
I wanted to ask you about the time of transition

and immediately after the election.

And what was your role at

that time?
Ms. Hicks.

My title was press secretary, and my role was

very similar to my role on the campaign.

I served as sort of a

liaison between the different leadership positions and the
different components that go into preparing the President-elect to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 209 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

208

take office, and maintaining a public presence at that time, and
starting to execute his agenda, as well as communicating with the
media.
Ms. Dean.

Terrific.

And during the transition, who was

principally responsible for messaging in response to the
allegations of Russian interference?
Ms. Hicks.

There were several people involved.

Mr. Trump

was involved directly and Jason Miller -Ms. Dean.
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.
Ms. Hicks.

Jason -- go ahead.
Sorry.

I was just waiting for the door to close.

Oh, thank you.
Stephen Miller, myself, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne

Conway, Sean Spicer, to name a few.
Ms. Dean.

And so in your role on that front, during the

transition, did you discuss with the President-elect how to
message about Russia's interference with our election?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.

Yes.
And could you tell us about that conversation?

This was during transition.
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.
Could you tell us about that?
I believe the response that he put out, the

statement, was something to the effect of, you know, that these
are the same intelligence agencies that determined Saddam Hussein
had weapons of mass destruction, perhaps [inaudible].

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 210 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

The Reporter.
Ms. Hicks.

I'm sorry.

209

The audio has gone out.

-- an approach would be the best.

[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.

I guess that's it.
So in response to that, the President -- rather

than talking about Russian interference with the 2016 election, he
made the comparison to a falsehood of the past?

That's what he

said?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't believe that's a falsehood.

But yes,

that's what he said.
Ms. Dean.

Okay.

Was he concerned?

Did he express concern

to you about the Russians' interference with our 2016 elections?
Ms. Hicks.

I think he was concerned, but I think he was

simultaneously concerned that folks with a political agenda, were
going to weaponize that assessment to try to undermine the
legitimacy of this election.
Ms. Dean.

And two days after the President was elected, what

was your statement to the press about the Trump campaign and any
kind of meetings or contacts with Russia during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

Sure.

So -- yeah, I was responding to a

statement made by a Russian official.

I believe his statement is

not verbatim, but it was something to the effect of we were in
constant communication or constant contact with members of Trump's
inner circle throughout the campaign.
You know, to my knowledge, that was not true.

That had not

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 211 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

been my experience.

210

I think I missed a total of 4 days throughout

the entire primary and general election season, if you will,
cycle.

It was an overbroad answer that obviously didn't account

for other communications with foreign officials from places like
Mexico, where we took a very -- campaign-affiliated trip;
Scotland; meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu during U.N.
General Assembly week.
So it was an overbroad answer, but, you know, even to this
day, knowing some of the contact that members of Mr. Trump's inner
circle had with Russian officials, I don't believe that that
characterization made by that diplomat or whoever that was
speaking was accurate.

It seems like one of those

situations -- maybe -- I'm sure everyone has had one of these
before, where those interactions meant a lot more to them than it
did to us.

These were handshakes at events and things of that

nature.
Mr. Philbin.

And just to clarify the record, Ms. Hicks, when

you referred to members of Mr. Trump's inner circle, you were
making air quotes with your hands, were you not?
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Philbin.
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.
Could you explain what that means, because -I guess everyone has a varying definition of who

would be considered part of the inner circle, but I would consider
that to be people that regularly traveled with the candidate, had
decisionmaking roles, things like that.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 212 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Philbin.

And it was your point that those people were

not part of the inner circle?
Ms. Hicks.

211

Is that what the air quotes were?

My point is that I'm not aware of anybody that

regularly interacted with Mr. Trump that was a decisionmaker that
advised him on a frequent basis that had, quote, regular contacts
with any Russian officials.

I wasn't aware of any contacts with

Russian officials until some of this has been made publicly
available, so -Ms. Dean.

And that's my next area of questions.

You, as you just described, you were an important part of the
campaign for all but 4 days.

And in your experience, what, if

any, contacts did anybody on the campaign have with Russians,
Russian officials, nonofficials?
Ms. Hicks.

What, if any?

Are you asking about my knowledge of it during

the campaign or now after the fact?
Ms. Dean.
Ms. Hicks.

Let's start with during the campaign.
During the campaign, I wasn't aware of any -- of

any contact, but I also wouldn't describe something -- like an
email I received with an interview with a Russian outlet to be
contact with Russian officials.

It's a totally insignificant,

random -Ms. Dean.

My question was broader than that.

Any Russians or Russian officials?
Ms. Hicks.

So there were emails?

Again, I understand what you're asking.

I

just -- I don't feel as though the interactions that I learned of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 213 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

212

later, as it pertains to key members of the campaign, were
substantive.
Ms. Dean.

I'm really unclear what that means.

So there were

meetings, there were interactions, there was some engagement,
whether it was by email or phone or in person.

But you decided

they're not substantive, therefore, they didn't happen?
Mr. Trout.

Objection, I think that mischaracterizes --

Ms. Hicks.

That is not what I said at all.

If you want to repeat your question so we can get on the same
page, that might be best.
Ms. Dean.

What, if any, communications, contact, was there

between the Trump campaign and Russians or Russian officials?
Ms. Hicks.
of any contacts.
did.

Like I said, during the campaign, I wasn't aware
That is why I answered the question the way I

Later, having learned about some of the contacts that have

been described in media reports, like Jeff Sessions meeting
Ambassador Kislyak at a foreign policy speech event, I think that
I would still characterize the answer I gave in response to a
question about, quote, constant contact with members of Trump's
inner circle.
Ms. Dean.

I didn't ask you about constant contacts.

I asked

you what, if any, contact.
Ms. Hicks.

I'm answering the question as best as I can.

wasn't aware of any during the campaign.
aware of now is irrelevant to me.

And the contact I'm

I

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 214 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Dean.

213

But to be honest, you immediately cited at least

one example of email contact that you had from Russia -- from
Russians.
So what other contacts were there like that that you're
dismissing from my question, but I'm just interested in -Ms. Hicks.
irrelevant.

I'm not dismissing it.

I just -- it's

It was an email that I received from --

Ms. Dean.

Maybe we get to decide what is relevant in our

oversight.
So the question is factual; it's not -- it's not your opinion
based.

It is what, if any, contacts.

Mr. Trout.

Objection.

Ms. Hicks has answered the question

and -Ms. Hicks.

And everything that goes on in this committee is

factual and not opinion-based?
Ms. Dean.

We're trying to get facts.

That's what I know my

ambition is.
Ms. Hicks.

That is not the purpose of today's hearing or

anything that has gone on concerning this committee's work
and -- and this investigation -Ms. Dean.
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.
Ms. Hicks.

Again, this is --- from my perspective.
I know that.
So if you all wanted to get facts, you know, I

would say that those are available in this report, of which most

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 215 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

214

of this session has consisted of repeating, which I'm happy to do.
We can do a reading of that.

But if you want facts, I think I'm

trying to answer your question.

I'm telling you I wasn't aware in

the campaign of any contacts with Russian officials after the
fact.
Ms. Dean.
officials.

I didn't ask you just about just Russian

Ms. Hicks, I'm really asking you, just stick with the

parameters of my question, not your opinion as to what we're doing
here.
Ms. Hicks.

Okay.

I -- let me try this again.

During the campaign, I was not aware of any contacts with
Russian individuals or Russian officials.
Ms. Dean.

Your one testimony to the contrary.

You vetted

emails from possible Russia outlets.
Ms. Hicks.

I learned of that after the fact.

I wasn't aware

when I was communicating with that person or receiving their email
request that this was an individual from Russia.
Ms. Dean.
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.

And you were the press secretary?
Yes, ma'am.
Usually the press secretary would find out what

outlet this is contacting us.
Ms. Hicks.
campaign.

Am I correct?

I was the only press staffer for the Donald Trump

So I received hundreds of press requests in a day.

And

we weren't participating in interviews, so it was not relevant to
me who the outlet was.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 216 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Dean.

215

I have empathy for how you must have been swamped.

That was a very busy campaign.
Ms. Hicks.

I'm not asking for empathy.

I'm just asking for

you to understand the context.
Ms. Dean.
about then.

So to your question, you said I was asking you

Now, what do you know to be the truth as to the

number of contacts -- what, if any, contacts between the campaign
that you were press secretary for and Russia or Russia -- Russian
officials, that you know now?
Mr. Philbin.

If you're asking about material that she

learned in her role as a senior adviser to the President while at
the White House, we'll object.
Ms. Dean.

I understand that objection.

How about outside of that?
citizen.

Because you are now a private

You're outside of that role.

What do you now understand to have been the extent of
contacts between the campaign that you were press secretary for
and Russia?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't -- I don't have a -- I couldn't repeat

back to you all of the contacts that are described in the Mueller
report, if that's what you're asking.
Ms. Dean.
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.

So you had a chance to read Volume I?
I have not read the entirety of the report.
What extent do you now know of the context between

the campaign and Russia?

Could you summarize maybe or guesstimate

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 217 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

the number?
talking 100?

Are we talking dozens or are we talking 50?

Are we

Are we talking more?

Ms. Hicks.
today.

216

I think someone mentioned upwards of 100 earlier

I don't know if that's accurate or if that's an accurate

recollection.
Ms. Dean.

Are you surprised to learn that?

Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.

Yes, very surprised.
Why?

Ms. Hicks.

Because I, like I said, wasn't aware of any

contacts during my time on the campaign.
Ms. Dean.

And when you made the statement to the

press -- this will be my final question so other people can get to
the things that they're interested in learning about.
But when you made the statement to the press that there were
no contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia -- I'm
paraphrasing a little -- I appreciate that it's November the 8th
of election year.

Did you have a conversation with the President

before or after that statement?
Ms. Hicks.

I did not speak to him before.

I spoke to others

on the campaign, other senior officials.
Ms. Dean.

And what was their guidance in terms of making

that answer?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.
contacts?

That there were no contacts.
And who was it who told you there were no

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 218 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

I believe I spoke to several people.

Miller, Jared Kushner.

217

Jason

I believe Jason Miller may have reached

out to Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon.
Ms. Dean.
Ms. Hicks.

How about Donald Trump, Jr.?
I did not seek his guidance before responding to

that question.
Ms. Dean.

And my final question is, what did the

President -- you said you did not talk to the President before the
statement.

What was your conversation with the President-elect

after that statement?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Dean.

I don't recall any specific conversations.
You and he in transition did not talk about your

statements to the press regarding Russia?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm sure there were conversations.

I just don't

recall anything specific that I could relay to you.
Ms. Dean.

Thank you.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Ms. Hicks, my name is Debbie

Mucarsel-Powell, and I represent Florida's 26th District.
Thank you for coming.
here today.

I really do commend you for coming

I know it's a very difficult situation to be in, you

know, having the Judiciary Committee questioning you.
grateful that you decided to come in and testify.

So I'm

And I apologize

if we've heard this before, but we've been in and out, so I just
want to regroup a little bit.
You were hired by the campaign when exactly?

What was the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 219 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

218

date?
Ms. Hicks.

I started working -- well, the campaign didn't

exist until later in the spring.

But I started working on

campaign-related events in January of 2015.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

And when you started working for the

campaign, what was -- did you have a title?
responsibilities?
Ms. Hicks.

What were your job

What was asked of you?
I was the press secretary and primarily consisted

of coordinating media opportunities at speaking engagements.
There were a lot of summits that Mr. Trump attended as a
prospective candidate and then as a candidate, as well as, you
know, days spent in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, and media
opportunities associated with those trips.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

And you reported to the President,

President Trump, from the very beginning?
Ms. Hicks.

I did, yes.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

And were you with him, you say, on a

daily basis, communicating with him personally on the part of the
senior team advising him on the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Who in the campaign was responsible for

the messaging strategy?
Ms. Hicks.

Primarily Mr. Trump.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Okay.

What do you think was the

message that was ultimately the winning message for the campaign?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 220 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

219

I think that he -- I think he gave people who

lost faith a reason to keep fighting for what they believed in,
and I think he offered change, because he was an outsider and he
was going to come here and shake up the system.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Were there any conversations that you

were involved in that dealt with anti-immigration campaign
messaging?
[Discussion off the record.]
I don't believe any of Mr. Trump's messaging is

Ms. Hicks.
anti-immigrant.

I believe he's very pro-legal immigration.

believe he's opposed to illegal immigration.

I

And I think he's

made that distinction.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Were there any points during the

campaign that you thought he was saying things that were not
appropriate or that you felt uncomfortable with?
Ms. Hicks.

Yeah.

I don't know anybody that agrees 100

percent with what their boss says and does.
ridiculous standard.

I think that's a

So of course there are things.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
nobody disobeys my orders.

So the President has tweeted that
Would you say that that's true?

Is

that correct?
Mr. Philbin.

To the extent that the question is relating to

her time in the White House as a senior adviser to the President,
I object to -Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

It's a question of whether he

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 221 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

220

thinks -- that that's an accurate statement from the President.
It's not when she was working, as today.

And I'm asking the

question.
Mr. Philbin.

But if it's based on knowledge, you're asking

about what -Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Mr. Philbin.
House.

I'm asking what she believes today.

Based on knowledge being while at the White

To the extent you're asking about that, we object.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Mr. Philbin.

So are you claiming privilege?

We're claiming that she has an absolute

immunity, as we've gone through many times already today, to be
compelled to testify.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Mr. Philbin.

On her opinion?

To be compelled to testify about her time as a

senior adviser from the President.

If you're asking about her

opinions formed during her experience during that time, we object.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Okay.

Thank you.

If Mr. Trump asked you to do something that you felt was
improper, would you have told him no during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm not going to speculate on that hypothetical.

If you have a specific example.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Have you ever told the President that

you don't agree with him directly?
Ms. Hicks.

Of course.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

When you were -- during the campaign?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 222 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

221

Of course.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

You did.

And what was the President's

reaction at the time?
Ms. Hicks.

The President is very willing to listen.

he likes dissenting voices.
different perspectives.

I think

I think he likes to hear many

Ultimately he does what he feels is best,

but he's always willing to listen.

I always felt very respected

in that regard.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Can you give me an example of a time

that you told him you didn't agree with him on something?
Mr. Philbin.

On the campaign?

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Ms. Hicks.

Yeah, on the campaign.

I can't think of anything right now, but

certainly -- certainly many times, I'm certain, that -Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

You can't recall one example of the

many times during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

You know, most of them related to things

like -- certain messages, whether or not to pursue certain
opportunities, whether or not to engage with certain individuals,
whether they be opponents or, you know, reporters, journalists,
those kinds of things.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Okay.

Now, one question.

If the

President-elect had asked you to do something that you felt was
improper, would you have told him no during the transition?
Ms. Hicks.

I'm not going to speculate on a hypothetical.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 223 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

222

Did you ever tell him that during the

transition, if he was doing something that you felt was improper?
Mr. Trout.

Objection.

She's answered that.

She's not going

to speculate about -Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

No, no.

It's not speculating.

I'm

asking if she ever has told him no during the transition, if he
was asking her to do something that was improper or if he was
conducting himself in an improper manner.
Mr. Trout.

Well, it assumes that he did ask her something

that was improper.
Ms. Istel.

She's asking if that's true, though, did he ever

ask her to do something improper during the transition.
Ms. Hicks.

Not that I recall.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Did you ever see anybody during the

campaign telling Mr. Trump no when he asked them to do something?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Ms. Hicks.

Can you give me a specific example?

I don't want to speak for others' experience.

I've shared my experiences, and I'm good with that.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Let me move on to your time -- your

current employment.
So what are you doing right now?

What is your current

employment?
Ms. Hicks.

The executive vice president and chief

communications officer for the Fox Corporation.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 224 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Ms. Hicks.

Okay.

223

And how did you get that job?

I interviewed for that job with Lachlan Murdoch.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Did you discuss the job with the

President before taking it?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Mr. Purpura.
Ms. Hicks.

Okay.

This is after she resigned.
Thank you.

I did discuss it with him after I'd been offered

the position.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
you?

And what was his -- what did he say to

What was his reaction?
Ms. Hicks.

Congratulations.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Anything else?

That was the nature of our conversation.

I

was calling to let him know that I planned to accept the offer and
that I was moving on to my next step.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Ms. Hicks.

And did you list him as a reference?

I don't believe I listed any references.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

They didn't ask for references when

they interviewed you for the job?
Ms. Hicks.

Not that I provided.

Obviously quite public,

much to my chagrin, and I believe that most of the people that
they spoke with were actually reporters, journalists, those types
of people.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

And when you joined the Fox team, do

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 225 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

224

you recall issuing a statement supporting the First Step Act?
Ms. Hicks.

The Fox Corporation did that, yes.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

And you were a part of the team that

issued that statement?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Okay.

And did you -- prior to doing

that, did you discuss it with anybody from the Trump
administration?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Ms. Hicks.

And who was that person?

Jared Kushner.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Okay.

So -- because you knew that he

supported -- publicly supported that act?
Ms. Hicks.

That's not a question.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

That's a statement.

Did you know that Jared Kushner

publicly supported that act?
Ms. Hicks.
that.

I knew that the Trump administration supported

Jared conveyed that to me.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

But I also follow the news.

And did he ask you to support it and to

release a statement?
Ms. Hicks.

Not me personally.

He asked if this would be

something that Fox would be interested in supporting legislation.
It's something Fox has done previously, offer their support to
legislation.
new.

At least that's my understanding.

I'm obviously

And it was something that our government relations team had

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 226 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

spoken to other Members of Congress about.

225

So that's how that

unfolded.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

According to some of the news articles,

Kushner called you about the act prior to issuing your statement
in support.

Is that true?

Ms. Hicks.

I just said that, yes.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Okay.

And since joining the Fox team,

has anyone from the Trump administration, the Trump family, anyone
working for the President, asked you to make any public
statements?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

Okay.

Who is right now paying your

lawyer fees?
[Discussion off the record.]
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Mr. Trout.

Does the RNC pay for the --

I think it's a matter of public record that the

RNC pays -Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
Mr. Trout.

Is it the RNC?

Yes, and it's been publicly disclosed.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

And has anybody else paid for your

legal fees during this process?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

So it seems that the news had reported

that the RNC paid nearly half a million dollars to Trout Cacheris
& Janis, which is your law firm, to pay for legal fees for members

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 227 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

of the Trump campaign.
fees?

226

Do you know if the RNC paid for these

You confirm that?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.

I'm going to move now to some of the

special counsel investigation interviews.
You interviewed with the special counsel three times,
correct?
Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

All of the interviews with the

special counsel took place when Ms. Hicks was a senior adviser to
the President.

And as was explained earlier today, questions

about those interviews and her role as a senior adviser is subject
to immunity.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell.
now further.

All right.

I don't have anything right

Thank you.

Ms. Hariharan.

We just want to quickly address on the

record, while the ranking member is here, he had flagged the
protocols that govern this interview and some concerns that he had
and he raised them on the record.

And just want to say that we

appreciate that he raised them and that they were addressed
immediately and -Mr. Collins.

You had a member live tweeting and taking

pictures.
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Gaetz.

I'll reclaim a portion of the minority's time,

just to seek clarification on that last point you made.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 228 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

227

What event were you referencing and how was it handled, just
for the sake of the record?
Ms. Hariharan.

My understanding is that it involved a member

taking a picture and a member tweeting about the transcribed
interview, and we put a stop to it.
Mr. Gaetz.

So will there be any remediation on those -- like

the deletion of tweets or any further action?

Or was it merely a

directive to the member to stop?
Ms. Hariharan.

If I may, sir, that is above my pay grade,

but -Mr. Gaetz.

Would it be okay if we saw that verification,

just for the sake of the record?
Ms. Hariharan.
Mr. Gaetz.
Ms. Scanlon.

Yes.

Thank you.

We'll yield back.

Ms. Hicks, Mary Gay Scanlon from Pennsylvania's

Fifth Congressional District.
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Scanlon.

Hi.
Can we just -- just to clarify, what was the

date you started working in the White House?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Scanlon.

January 20th, 2017.
Okay.

And when did you leave the employment of

the White House?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Hicks.

May 30th, 2018.
May 30th, 2018.
Excuse me -- March.

March 30th.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 229 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Scanlon.

228

March 30th, 2018.

So that's when you left the White House?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Scanlon.

Yes.
And upon advice of White House counsel, you're

not answering any questions regarding any events that occurred
while you were working at the White House.
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Hicks.

Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.
What's your opinion of Don McGahn?
I don't believe I'm here to offer opinions.

Ms. Scanlon.

But I'm asking your opinion.

Mr. Philbin.

And this question is based solely on her

experience with him at the campaign?
Ms. Scanlon.

At the campaign and the transition and any

contact she's had with him since she left the White House.
Ms. Hicks.
the White House.

I haven't had any contact with him since I left
And my opinion of him during the campaign and

transition was that he was a good lawyer.
Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Hicks.

Has he ever lied to you?
I don't know.

You would have to ask Don McGahn

that.
Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Scanlon.

So you're unaware if he ever lied to you?
Again, I don't know.
Okay.

You would have to ask Don.

Are you aware of him ever having lied to

you?
Mr. Trout.

I think she's answered this.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 230 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Scanlon.
Mr. Trout.

Is that a yes or a no?

229

It's pretty simple.

No.

Ms. Scanlon.

Do you know if Mr. McGahn has ever lied to you?

Yes or no?
[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Trout.

I think she's indicated that she doesn't

know -- she doesn't know.
Ms. Scanlon.

Are you aware of any instance in which he told

you an untruth, to your knowledge?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't --

Mr. Philbin.

During the campaign or transition?

Ms. Scanlon.

Or since then.

Ms. Hicks.

During the campaign or transition, no.

Since

then, I don't know.
Ms. Scanlon.

Have you -- during the campaign or transition

or since then, are you aware of him ever having lied to anyone
else, from your personal knowledge?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Scanlon.

Not during the campaign or transition.
Okay.

Are you aware of him having lied to

anyone else, to your personal knowledge?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Scanlon.

I don't know the answer to that.
Okay.

Do you have any reason to doubt the

truth of his account of his time in the White House as described
in the special counsel's report?
Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

It's inherently a question about

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 231 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

the events in the White House.

230

She can't answer it without

referring to her knowledge from her time in the White House.

So

it's -Ms. Scanlon.

So White House counsel is instructing her not

to answer based upon this unsubstantiated claim of absolute
immunity?
Mr. Philbin.

We're saying that she is immune under

longstanding opinions of the Department of Justice across both
Republican and Democratic administrations dating at least to the
1970s, and we are asserting that immunity here.
Mr. Collins.

Going back to -- reclaiming -- going back, this

has been stipulated to by your staff attorney.

We went through

this while people were not here so that we didn't have to go
through this.

So if they do make the objection, it's already

stated in the record this is why it's for, and there's no need to
lay a foundation any longer for this witness.

Staff counsel on

your side agreed to that characterization.
Mr. Eisen.

Mr. Collins, I think that the question is a

legitimate one, but they have -- I have continued to ask those
questions in order to close out the area, as the Congresswoman has
done.
Mr. Collins.

But -- so if we wanted to, then we could refer

back to the -- or I'll reclaim my whole hour and go back to this.
But this is exactly -- we spent the whole time -- we spent about
10 minutes of this about 2 hours ago stipulating to this.

And if

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 232 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

231

he's not stipulating to it, then why do we go through the
exercise?
Ms. Scanlon.

I'm happy to move --

Mr. Collins.

No.

Ms. Istel.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. Berke.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. Eisen.

I want Mr. Berke to answer this.

That's Mr. Eisen.
I apologize.

Your counsel right there.

I can ask Mr. Berke, too.
Mr.

Berke, do you want to answer this as well?

I have a lot to say.

I don't have a mike though.

You didn't stipulate.

He did.

I think that -- that we've agreed that when the

White House counsel says objection, that implicates absolute
immunity.

I do think it will -- all you need to say is objection.

That has been stipulated -- that has been stipulated for the
record.
The Congresswoman is entitled to her questions.
Mr. Collins.

But you also -- the reason you stipulated was

so we could move this forward.

Is that not correct?

So your exact words, I believe, were so that we would not
have to spend time on this.
Mr. Trout.

So could I interject?

Ms. Hicks has a flight out of Dulles at 7 o'clock, and as a
matter of courtesy, I would hope that we can expedite the
questioning and allow her to take her flight.
Mr. Collins.

I've got no problem with that.

We've spent the

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 233 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

232

last 35 minutes asking questions that were asked earlier.
Ms. Scanlon.

I'm ready to move on, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Collins.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

All right.

Have you spoken with Mr. McGahn since he left the
White House?

Since you left the White House?

Ms. Hicks.

I'm sorry.

No.

Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

Did you ever see Mr. McGahn or

anyone -- anyone else taking notes during meetings during the
campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

I wasn't often in meetings with Mr. McGahn during

the campaign, so I don't have any recollection of that.

He was

based in Washington, D.C.
Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

So you never saw Mr. McGahn taking notes

during campaign meetings?
Ms. Hicks.

I just don't have any recollection of it.

There

were very rare occasions, so -Ms. Scanlon.

Did you observe anyone else taking notes during

campaign meetings?
Ms. Hicks.
Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Hicks.

Anyone on the campaign?

I'm --

Who?
Advance team members writing down instructions,

schedulers writing down dates.
Ms. Scanlon.

Sure.

Okay.

I mean --

Did you ever see Mr. McGahn's Chief of

Staff Ann Donaldson taking notes, whether during the campaign or

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 234 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

233

during the transition period?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't believe I met Ann in person until we

started working at the White House.
Ms. Scanlon.

Okay.

Do you now or have you had any joint

defense agreements with anyone in connection with your activities
either during the campaign or since then?
Mr. Trout.

Objection.

Ms. Hicks.

Be privileged with my counsel.

Mr. Trout.

I'm not going to answer that.

Ms. Scanlon.

I believe you're not going to answer, but is

she going to answer it?
Mr. Trout.
Ms. Scanlon.
Mr. Trout.
Ms. Scanlon.
Mr. Trout.
Ms. Scanlon.

No.
Okay.

On what basis?

On privilege.
What kind of privilege.
Joint defense privilege.
The fact of having a joint defense agreement is

not -Mr. Trout.
Ms. Scanlon.

I will -- it will be privileged.
So you're not going to answer whether or not

she has a joint defense agreement?
Mr. Trout.
Ms. Scanlon.

Right.
Okay.

I think I'm through.

Thank you.
Mr. Trout.

Thank you.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 235 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Eisen.

234

Go off the record for 1 second.

Mrs. Demings.

I'm sorry.

Not quite, but I won't be all day.

Again, Ms. Hicks, thank you so much for being here.
I'm just going to make this statement.

I worked a lot of

years around a lot of good men and women who took oaths to protect
and defend the Constitution.
Ms. Hicks.
department.

And I read about your service in the police

It's very impressive.

Mrs. Demings.
Ms. Hicks.

Thank you.

But I was talking about others.

Yes.

Mrs. Demings.

Because I like to give credit away.

I've attended a lot of law enforcement funerals of people who
died, people of integrity, people of honor, people who have a
relationship with the truth and lost their lives trying to defend
it.
And so this -- again, I'm honored to serve on the Judiciary
Committee.

But there are some things that this committee is

working hard for every day to try to protect, and it's those
things that those men and women lost their lives for.
So I do thank you for coming in today, because there has
been, as you know very well, a move to totally ignore the
authority that has been given to this committee and to ignore
subpoenas.
I'd just like to start off by -- why did you come today?
did you show up today?

Why

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 236 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

235

Because I was asked to be here, and I, like you,

have great respect for those that have served, to protect the
freedoms and institutions which you all serve and sacrifice on
behalf of.

And so it's my pleasure to be here.

I just want to

make sure we use our time as efficiently as possible.

That was my

only comment earlier.
Mrs. Demings.

I don't have a problem with that.

I believe

time is our greatest resource.
Ms. Hicks.

Yeah.

Mrs. Demings.

But sometimes getting to the bottom of exactly

what happened can take its time.
Ms. Hicks.

I totally understand.

Mrs. Demings.

And that's why we're here.

Going back to -- and thank you for your answer, because
that's refreshing and encouraging, the reason why you're here
today.
Going back to your time during the campaign.
Ms. Hicks.

Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. Demings.

And it's been interesting listening to all of

the objections that we've had here today, because I really believe
investigations and questioning cannot only -- you know, we're in
search of the truth, right?

So in order for us to be able to get

there, I think we need to hear all of the information.
So it's been interesting to listen to all of the objections
coming from the White House about anything that you are asked

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 237 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

236

during that time, because I believe it could be used as a way to
clear up any suspicions of things that may have taken place or
that you may have been involved in.
So I really see it, as a former law enforcement officer, as a
disservice to the White House for you not to be able to talk about
anything or any experience, good or bad, that you had there.
But anyway, getting back to your time on the campaign, did
you ever have any conversations or overhear then candidate Trump
talk about or acknowledge Russia's interference in the election or
any other state actor interfering in the 2016 election?

Did you

ever hear any conversations?
Ms. Hicks.

I think I said this earlier --

Mrs. Demings.
Ms. Hicks.

I'm sorry, I --

That's okay -- that any discussion about the

hacked emails or interference, any discussion privately, only
echoed what he stated publicly.
So, for example, some of those conversations were around
debate prep, how he would answer that question in the debate.

And

I will tell you the answer that he said privately is exactly what
he said publicly.
Mrs. Demings.

In terms of messaging, you were the press

secretary and the only one.

We've certainly heard that.

Did you

ever hear him exhibit any frustration, as someone who was running
for President of the United States and is responsible for
protecting our Nation against cyber attacks or any other type of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 238 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

237

attacks, did you ever hear him during the campaign indicate any
frustration at even the possibility of Russia or any other foreign
actor attacking the United States of America?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

And I hesitate to speculate, but I believe

that -Mrs. Demings.
conversations.
Ms. Hicks.

I'm just asking if you overheard

You don't have to speculate.
I did.

I did.

And I hesitate to speculate.

But

I'd also add that I believe that Mr. Trump feels and many others
feel that we would all be better served if that is what we were
all focused on rather than -Mrs. Demings.
Ms. Hicks.

I'm focused on it right now.

I know you are -- rather than, you know, if

anything untoward happened with the campaign.
Mrs. Demings.

I'm focused on it right now, because this is

where this all started, right, an attack on the United States of
America.

And we should all be concerned about that.

Ms. Hicks.

Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. Demings.

So during the campaign, as the press

secretary, do you remember then candidate Trump expressing any
frustration at the very thought of Russia or any other foreign
actor attacking the country that he wanted to be the President of?
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

I think that was -- I think that was

inherent in his responses.
Mrs. Demings.

And what were some of those?

Could you give

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 239 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

238

me some examples of what his responses would have been to
demonstrate that frustration or any action that he would take
should he win the Presidency?
Ms. Hicks.
certainly.

I don't recall any -- anything verbatim

But, you know, I think that it was inherent in his

message about being respected again as a power on the world stage
and that he would take action to ensure that America was respected
again and that we weren't subject to these kind of attacks.
Mrs. Demings.

Did you ever hear him again talk about

specifically, since Russia's name was being thrown around, that he
would hold Russia accountable should he win the Presidency?
Ms. Hicks.

I don't recall him --

Mrs. Demings.

That would have been a major part of his

messaging?
Ms. Hicks.

Yeah, I don't -- I don't recall him making any

kind of assertions like that.

I know he was hesitant to do things

like draw, quote, redlines, right?

So I don't recall him stating

any specific action he would take if that were, in fact, true.
But I'm happy to go back and look and see what was said.

And I'm

sure you all will do that as well.
Mrs. Demings.

During your time with the campaign -- let me

make that clear -- did you ever hear mention of the Trump Tower
Moscow project?
Ms. Hicks.

So just to clarify, I worked at The Trump

Organization as well.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 240 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mrs. Demings.
Ms. Hicks.

239

Okay.

And Trump Tower Moscow was somewhat of a pipe

dream over the years.

So I did hear, you know, through reviews of

past projects or deals in pipelines or things that were
pursued -- not directly from him, perhaps, but I did hear of past
attempts to enter that market.

But I did not hear any discussion

from any Trump Organization employees or Mr. Trump about an
ongoing effort to pursue a potential Trump Tower Moscow at that
time.
Mrs. Demings.

Is that where you met Mr. Trump, was during

that -- and if you have already answered, I apologize for
that -- but is that where you met Mr. Trump, was during your
employment at The Trump Organization?
Ms. Hicks.
employee there.

I met Mr. Trump before I became a full-time
But I was working with the organization and the

family via an agency that I was employed by.
Mrs. Demings.

So you didn't hear any mention or don't

remember any mention of the Trump Tower Moscow deal directly from
Mr. Trump?
Ms. Hicks.

That's correct.

Mrs. Demings.

Did you ever hear any mention of that deal

from Michael Cohen?
Ms. Hicks.

I did not.

Mrs. Demings.
Ms. Hicks.

Or Donald Jr.?

I did not.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 241 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mrs. Demings.

Okay.

Moscow Tower project.

240

And how many -- so back to the Trump

You heard it as pipe dream; this was

something he was very interested in.
Do you remember in your time at the organization -Ms. Hicks.

That's not -- that's not totally accurate.

Mrs. Demings.
Ms. Hicks.

Oh, okay.

I heard it as -- it was mentioned as, you know, a

marketplace that had been previously pursued, when we would talk
about growth pipelines for the hotel, which was -- the hotel
division of the company was undergoing sort of a rapid expansion.
I think they had over 80 potential deals in the pipeline at the
time I joined the company.

So, you know, in talking about the

strategy and growth.
Mrs. Demings.

Who did you hear that from, those discussions

about the possibilities in -Ms. Hicks.

A combination of people, people that worked on

the development side of the company, the marketing side of the
company, license -- the license division of the company.
So it was more of an historical reference, if anything, to
something that had been pursued in the past.

But again, nothing

current from anyone at The Trump Organization, including the
President or Michael Cohen or Don Jr.
Mrs. Demings.
Ms. Hicks.

Okay.

Do you know who Felix Sater is?

Only from media reports and --

Mrs. Demings.

You never heard the name prior to any media

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 242 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

241

reports?
Ms. Hicks.

I did not, no.

Mrs. Demings.
Ms. Hicks.

Okay.

I obviously discussed media reports with people

at The Trump Organization.

Like I got a request about this

person, who is it, or there's this article, do we know this
person, things like that.

But prior to seeing his name, either

from a media request or in the press, no, I did not.
Mrs. Demings.

Okay.

And during your time with the campaign,

did you ever hear the name Felix Sater associated with the
campaign?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 243 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

242

[4:07 p.m.]
Ms. Hicks.

Associated with the campaign?

Mrs. Demings.

Or during the campaign, during the time of the

campaign.
Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

You know, there were often media requests

sort of asking about his past affiliation with The Trump
Organization, what exactly his role was, who he worked with, what
he did, if he was affiliated with The Trump Organization.

I think

there was some confusion about that.
The one specific thing is I think he may have made an online
donation to the campaign that we weren't aware of until the press
pointed it out to us, and that was sort of a storyline.

I might

be mixing him up with someone else, but I believe that's accurate.
Mrs. Demings.

And excuse me, but who was talking about Felix

Sater during the campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

Who would that have been?

Nobody in the campaign -- this is purely in

response to media requests or media reports.
Mrs. Demings.

Okay.

Okay.

So the only discussions that you

had or overheard or know of about Felix Sater was from The Trump
Organization -Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Mrs. Demings.
Ms. Hicks.

-- those who worked --

Yes.

The Trump Organization, there was a lawyer

there that I would often work with, crafting responses to
questions, as he understood Felix's involvement with The Trump

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 244 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

243

Organization years prior to my role there.
Mrs. Demings.

Okay.

During the campaign, did Mr. Trump or Michael Cohen or
Donald, Jr., or anyone associated with the campaign ever advise
you to not be truthful about The Trump Organization's
relationships or dealings or conversations or timeline as it
pertained to the Trump Tower project?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Like I said, I wasn't aware of the project.

So I couldn't be advised to lie about something I didn't know
about.
Mrs. Demings.

Okay.

Did anybody associated with that long

list -- because I know we're on a timeline here -- that I just
went through -- don't make me do it again -Ms. Hicks.

Yeah.

Mrs. Demings.

-- talk to you about not even discussing in

any fashion anything about Moscow or the possibility of building
something lucrative or making a deal in Moscow?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

And, again, I don't want to speculate, but I'd just like to
say that, knowing Mr. Trump the way I do, I think that if there
were anything more than just the pursuit of a deal, I believe it
would be something, regardless of the location, Moscow or not,
that he would view as a success and he would be touting it.
I think the only reason that it wasn't discussed openly was
because it wasn't -- it was nothing.

It was a letter of intent.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 245 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

244

There are dozens of those signed by real estate companies on a
daily basis.
Mrs. Demings.

Right.

When did you learn of the letter of

intent?
Ms. Hicks.

In the fall of 2017.

Mrs. Demings.

Do you remember any discussions at all about

any dealings of any kind during the campaign with Russia?
Ms. Hicks.

We went through this earlier and --

Mrs. Demings.
Ms. Hicks.

I'm sorry.

No, that's okay -- described conversations I had

with Don, Jr., contextualizing statements he made in 2008
regarding what I believe he said was Russian money pouring in.
And that was it.
Mrs. Demings.
Ms. Hicks.

And Don, Jr., made that statement?

In 2008, yes, and the press wrote about it.

Mrs. Demings.

And you never heard him discuss anything about

dealings or business deals in Russia after 2008 that you remember?
Ms. Hicks.
in 2008.

No.

And, again, you know, I wasn't an employee

I just meant that I discussed during the campaign the

context of that comment that he made.
Mrs. Demings.

Did you ever remember any conversations either

directly with Mr. Trump or others associated with him during the
campaign regarding him traveling -- Mr. Trump, that is -- to
Russia?
Ms. Hicks.

Just for the Miss Universe Pageant.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 246 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mrs. Demings.
ever heard.

Okay.

245

That was the only conversation that you

Nothing to do with any deals, projects, or any of

that?
Ms. Hicks.

No, ma'am.

Mrs. Demings.

Okay.

Thank you.

Did you ever discuss with anyone the possibility or overhear
a discussion about the possibility during the campaign of
then-candidate Trump meeting with Vladimir Putin?
Ms. Hicks.

No.

No.

Obviously, as part of this process,

I've reviewed emails which indicate that that was being discussed
perhaps in the press at a point in September 2015.

But I never

heard anything directly from anyone, and obviously it didn't
happen.
Mrs. Demings.

Okay.

And do you have any knowledge of a foreign government
providing cash or any other thing of value to Mr. Trump during the
campaign?
Ms. Hicks.

No, ma'am.

Mrs. Demings.
Sorry.

Okay.

Just give me just one second here.

You made a comment to Ms. Dean, the woman who was sitting
here, blond hair -Ms. Hicks.

Uh-huh.

Mrs. Demings.
it right now.

-- and I made a note about it.

I can't find

But it said something to the effect of questioning

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 247 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

246

the purpose of this interview today.
What did you mean by that?

You said that the purpose -- you

questioned the purpose of the interview.

I mean, what do you

believe or what do you feel the purpose of this interview is
today?
Ms. Hicks.

To be honest, I'm not really sure.

I don't

believe I've provided -Mrs. Demings.

I'm sure your attorneys -- you have several

here that are either representing the White House and others.
What do you believe, based on your conversations with them or
whatever, in any discussions you've had with others, about the
purpose of your being here today?

What do you believe --

Ms. Hicks.

Well, as we discussed --

Mr. Trout.

Just to be clear --

Ms. Hicks.

I'm sorry, Bob.

Mr. Trout.

-- the attorneys in the White House do not

represent her.

She's represented by Gloria Solomon and myself

alone.
Ms. Hicks.

And as --

Mrs. Demings.

She certainly looked to them for guidance

today, but -Mr. Trout.

She's made this clear and we've made this clear,

that because she is a former employee she is going to accept the
guidance of the executive branch about what questions are
appropriate for her to answer and that, absent any objection from

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 248 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

247

the White House, she would answer questions.
Mrs. Demings.

Okay.

So, Ms. Hicks, back to you.

Thank you so much for being

willing to answer the questions.
Ms. Hicks.

Yeah, sure.

Like we exchanged earlier, I'm happy

to -- it's my pleasure to be here.

It was a privilege to serve,

and if this is part of my ongoing responsibilities as part of that
service, I'm more than happy to show up here and answer questions
and hopefully be helpful to you.
And all I meant by questioning the purpose was just that I
don't believe that I've provided any new information that I
haven't provided to multiple different bodies investigating this
very same thing.

Hopefully you all feel differently and you got

something out of this, but that was all I meant by that.
Mrs. Demings.

It probably could've been more productive had

we not heard "objection" a thousand times.

But, anyway, thank you

so much for your cooperation.
Ms. Hicks.

You're welcome.

Mrs. Demings.

Thank you.

BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Ms. Hicks, returning to the Mueller report, Volume II, I

believe we were on or around page 104, the Don, Jr., statement
about the Trump Tower meeting.
Mr. Corallo.
A

There's a reference to

Who is Mr. Corallo?

I don't really know him, to be honest.

He was part of

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 249 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

the team the President assembled of outside lawyers.
believe he was serving in a counsel role.

248

I don't

He was primarily in a

communications role.
Q

And he was not a government employee at that time,

correct?
A

That's my understanding.

Q

Not a government official --

A

That is my understanding.

Q

-- at the time of these communications.

Okay.

On to page 105.

Will you answer any questions about the special counsel's
statement that on, at least three occasions in June and July
of 2017, the President directed you and others not to publicly
disclose information?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

We would object to those questions.
And would you assert absolute immunity as to this

entire area of subject matter?
Mr. Purpura.

Well, again, the subject matter being the

statements and subjects that are described in -Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Philbin.

Yes, this section of the special counsel report.
Just to be clear, by "section" are you

referring to the subsection lettered A that begins on page 105 and
extends to 106 or subsections B and C as well?
Mr. Eisen.

I'm referring to the entire section on the

subject matter of Ms. Hicks' activities in the White House

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 250 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

249

relating to the Don, Jr., statement about the Trump Tower meeting,
that entire subject matter in the Mueller report.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

We would object to those questions.
Okay.

And just for the record, Ms. Hicks, would you answer any
information about the President's efforts to have Mr. McGahn
dispute the press reports as set forth on page 114?

There's a

recollection about what you relayed to the President.
Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

I was already asked this, and they objected.
Objection.
Same objection as to this entire, again, subject

matter -Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Yes.
-- this entire subject matter.

Do you remember calling Michael Flynn during your White House
service to relay on behalf of the President that the President
hoped Flynn was okay?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.
Same objection as the entire subject matter?
Meaning any phone calls or discussions relaying

a message to -Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.
Mr. Purpura.

Yes.
-- General Flynn?
Yes.
Yes.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 251 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Eisen.

250

All communications concerning Michael Flynn while

she was serving in the White House.
Mr. Purpura.

Yes.

BY MR. EISEN:
Q

Okay.

Did you hear candidate Trump tell Mr. Gates, Rick

Gates, to keep an eye on Manafort at any point during the
campaign?
A

Yes.

Q

Tell me about that incident.

A

It was sometime after the Republican Convention.

I

think Mr. Trump was displeased with the press reports regarding
the platform change, the confusion around the communications of
that, Paul sort of stumbling in some interviews and then trying to
clarify later and it just being messy.

So he was frustrated with

that.
I don't think that Mr. Trump understood the longstanding
relationship between Rick and Paul.

I think he, you know,

obviously knew that Rick was Paul's deputy but not maybe to the
extent of -- you know, didn't understand the extent of their
relationship.
And he said something to the effect of -- you know, I'm very
much paraphrasing here, so I want to be very careful -- but sort
of questioned Paul's past work with other foreign governments,
foreign campaigns, and said that, you know, none of that would be
appropriate to be ongoing during his service with the Trump

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 252 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

251

campaign and that Rick needed to keep an eye on that and make sure
Mr. Trump was aware if anything led him to believe that was
ongoing.
Q

What do you mean by the "platform change"?

A

Whatever was reported in the press.

To be honest, I had

no knowledge of it during the actual convention.
Q

Is it a reference to the change in the RNC platform

concerning arming Ukraine?
A

Again, I'm not familiar with the details.

Mr. Davis.
flow.

Quick question.

I'm sorry to interrupt your

I'm just trying to get a gauge for how much you have left.

We're on hour 8.
Mr. Eisen.

Very little.

Mr. Davis.

Okay.

That's great.

Thank you.

I just want to

be mindful of northern Virginia traffic on the way to Dulles,
which is getting worse by the day.
Mr. Eisen.

We are mindful.

Ms. Hicks.

I still have to get my bags.

Mr. Eisen.

Did you have any question while serving as a

government -- any conversations while serving as a government
employee in the White House about Paul Manafort?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

Objection.
Would you answer any questions on the subject

matter of Paul Manafort while serving in the White House?
Mr. Purpura.

We would assert the objection.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 253 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

252

Mr. Eisen.

Okay.

We're just going to --

Ms. Hicks.

I'm happy to answer any outside of my government

service.
Mr. Eisen.

I think we've stipulated -- okay.

going to ask a couple of last questions.

Ms. Istel is

We're going to do the

documents and call it a day.
Ms. Istel.

So I'll be as quick as I can.

you a copy of your production that you gave us.
couple of clarifying questions.

I'm going to give
We just have a

I have a copy for your counsel or

the White House counsel or whichever counsel.
Mr. Collins.

Do you have extra copies of that?

Thank you.
Ms. Istel.

I'm happy to share mine.

Mr. Collins.

We are still here, so thank you.

BY MS. ISTEL:
Q

Okay.

So HCH1 through 08 looks like an amended SF-86

A

Correct.

Q

The first page is a letter to Ms. Rodgers from

form?

Jay -- you'll have to excuse my pronunciation.
A

Malcynsky.

Q

-- Malcynsky.

Thank you.

had amended your SF-86 form.

And this describes that you

Is that correct?

A

Yes.

Q

Who told you to amend that form?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 254 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

A

253

I don't recall.

Mr. Trout.

Yeah, don't get into conversations you had with

Mr. Malcynsky, her attorney at the time.

But, otherwise --

BY MS. ISTEL:
Q

Well, how did you become aware that you needed to submit

amended answers to this form, if you recall?
A

I believe it was instigated by my agreement to respond

to -- you know, my agreement to voluntarily respond to questions
from the Senate Intel Committee in writing, which you see here,
and, when going through those questions, realized that I had left
off some contacts that needed to be shared.
Q

And just so we can clarify for the record, Ms. Hicks is

referring to HCH09 through 011, which is -- I guess you're saying
that these questions were written in response to an inquiry from
the Senate Intelligence Committee.
A

That's right.

Q

Yes.

Is that correct?

The questions are there provided as well.

Thank you.

And did you provide the Senate Intelligence Committee any
other documents in connection with that testimony?
A

Bob?

To my recollection, not to this initial voluntary response,
but Bob can answer more fully regarding the followup that ensued.
Mr. Trout.

Yeah.

I think that HCH12 and, I believe,

following to -Ms. Istel.

Through 30 is the first production you gave to

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 255 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

254

us.
Mr. Trout.

Through 14.

Ms. Istel.

Okay.

Mr. Trout.

Yes, as part of this supplemental.

Ms. Istel.

When you say "supplemental," was there an initial

Were those the one documents provided?

production that you provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee?
Mr. Trout.

Well, in other words, this is supplementing the

amendment to the SF-86.
Ms. Istel.

But so, just to clarify, did you provide any

other documents aside from what's in this packet to the Senate
Intelligence Committee?
Mr. Trout.

No.

Ms. Istel.

Did the White House provide you any documents in

preparation for your testimony with the Senate Intelligence
Committee?
Mr. Philbin.

Objection.

Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Philbin.

That was during her time when she served as a

senior advisor, and any interactions with the White House would be
subject to the immunity.
Ms. Istel.

Did the White House provide you any documents in

connection with preparation for your testimony for this hearing?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Ms. Istel.

That's since she left the White House, correct?

Mr. Trout.

No, the White House has not provided documents.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 256 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Istel.

255

I imagine I'll get the same response, but did the

White House provide any documents in connection with Ms. Hicks'
interviews with the special counsel?
Mr. Purpura.
Ms. Istel.

Objection.
Did the White House assert any privilege over

Ms. Hicks's testimony to the special counsel?
Mr. Purpura.

Objection.

Mr. Philbin.

Well, we're asserting immunity here.

If you

want to ask us our legal views about immunity and privilege, we
could get into that, but the objection -Ms. Istel.

I think I'll spare Ms. Hicks from that dialogue.

We'll move on.
HCH12, 13, and 14 are emails to Ms. Hicks from various
individuals.

And they were referenced in footnotes in the Mueller

report that Mr. Eisen read into the record, so we won't waste
anyone's time on those.
But I just want to ask whether there will be an objection to
Ms. Hicks testifying about these documents.

January 27th, 2017,

and -Mr. Philbin.

Well, for anything after January 20th, 2017, at

noon, we would object to her testifying about the documents
unless -- and we're only seeing these for the first time -- unless
these are personal, which they don't appear to be.
Ms. Istel.

Okay.

HCH0015, to clarify for the record, is an email chain.

The

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 257 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

256

first email is on Sunday, August 27th, from Tom Hamburger to
Michael Cohen, and it asks a series of questions relating to Trump
Tower Moscow project.

Mr. Cohen forwarded that email to

Ms. Hicks, Jay Sekulow, and Stephen Ryan on August 27th, 2017.
Do you recall why Michael Cohen forwarded you that email?
Mr. Philbin.
Ms. Istel.

We'll object to that.
Did Michael Cohen forward you any emails during

the transition relating to Trump Tower Moscow?
Ms. Hicks.

Not that I'm aware of, no.

The first time I

recall learning about this project was in August of 2017.
Ms. Istel.

Was this email the first time you learned about

the project?
Ms. Hicks.

No, but just prior to is my recollection.

Ms. Istel.

I just want to clarify for the record that the

White House is objecting to our examination of documents that have
already been produced.
Mr. Philbin.

Is that correct?

We are objecting to her answering questions

about communications that she had while she was a senior advisor
to the President even if this document has been produced.

She is

immune from being compelled to testify about her service as a
senior advisor to the President.
This is the first time that we've seen this document, here
live.

And as we've discussed with Eisen, after today, we may be

able to talk about things.

But for today, for purposes of the

subpoena and for this hearing, we are asserting immunity.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 258 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Istel.

257

All right.

And just to clarify for the record, the email exchange goes,
actually, through -Mr. Purpura.

To be clear, we have seen the documents before

in relation to what was produced to this committee.
Mr. Trout.
Mr. Purpura.

Right.
But we are saying the first time we are seeing

it today is -- you know, there was no discussion of what documents
may be shown or what discussions there may be.

And so, consistent

with what Mr. Philbin said on the immunity, we're not going to
allow questioning on the documents today during the time of her
service as a close advisor to the President.

But reiterating what

Mr. Philbin said and consistent with our conversations with
Mr. Eisen and Mr. Berke, these may be subject to our further
discussions.
Ms. Istel.
am.

It's okay with me, but Norm is not as nice as I

So okay.
Okay.

HCH015 through 017, for the record, that's the email

exchange over which we were just discussing.
HCH018 and HCH019 and HCH020 and 021 and 022 and 23 are all
text message exchanges between you and Michael Cohen.

Is that

correct?

year.

Ms. Hicks.

Yes.

Ms. Istel.

These say January 8th, but they don't have a

Do you recall if this is 2016 or 2017?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 259 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Ms. Hicks.

It's 2018.

Ms. Istel.

2018.

258

Will you answer questions on these text

messages?
Mr. Purpura.
Mr. Eisen.

No.

We would object for the same reason.

Was Mr. Cohen a government employee at the time

you exchanged these text messages with him?
Ms. Hicks.

He was never a government employee.

BY MS. ISTEL:
Q

HCH024 is a text message exchange with Brian and the

initials B.L.

Who is Bryan L.?

A

Bryan Lanza.

He's a surrogate.

Q

A surrogate for?

A

The Trump administration.

He worked on the Trump

campaign.
Q

And these are also from January.

Is this also

January 2018?
A

Yes, that's 2018.

Q

Will you answer questions relating to this text message?

Mr. Purpura.

We will assert an objection.

BY MS. ISTEL:
Q

Was Bryan L. a Trump administration official?

A

No.

Q

Okay.

HCH025 is an email from Josh Raffel to Ms. Hicks

on April 10th, 2018.

It's a forward originally from Peter

Nicholas to Josh Raffel.

Who is Josh --

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 260 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

259

A

It's Josh Raffel.

Q

-- Raffel?

A

He's a friend.

Q

Does he have any connection to the Trump administration?

A

Yes.

Q

What about the White House?

Raffel.

Sorry.

He was the deputy communications director.
Does he have any connection

in the White House?
A

Yes.

He worked in the White House, yes.

Q

Okay.

A

But this is after our service to the White House, and

he's just asking if he can give this reporter my new contact
information.
Q

That's all.

Did you still comment on behalf of the White House after

you left your formal position?
A

No, I didn't.

I think they were just asking me to weigh

in for my perspective.
Q

Okay.

Thank you.

A

Obviously, Josh said to ignore, and that's what I did.

Q

Did you ignore?

A

I don't believe I did, no.

Q

Okay.

Did you respond to that email?

Thank you.

HCH026, 027, 028, 029 are all text messages between you,
Ms. Hicks, and Charles H.
message as Charles Harder.
A

Yes, you did.

He introduces himself in the first
Did I get his last name right?

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 261 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Q

Okay.

A

He is one of the President's attorneys.

Q

Personal attorney or White House attorney?

A

Personal.

Q

Will you answer questions on these text messages?

260

And who is Charles Harder?

Mr. Philbin.

Could we clarify the date?

Ms. Istel.

Sure.

Ms. Hicks.

It's May 2018.

Ms. Istel.

That was after Ms. Hicks' time at the

White House.
Mr. Philbin.
Ms. Istel.

Can you give us just a moment to look?
Sure.

[Discussion off the record.]
Mr. Purpura.

No objection.

BY MS. ISTEL:
Q

Can you provide context for when Mr. Harder says, "Sorry

to bother you.

If you have a minute, can you give me a call?"

you recall if you called him on that date?
A

I did.

Q

Do you recall what you discussed?

A

I do.

Q

Can you describe that for us, please?

A

He wanted my advice about information he had regarding

Michael Avenatti and how to best get that information into the
press.

Do

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 262 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Q

Can you read HCH027, please, into the record?

A

Sure.

261

"Charles, just reading the front page story in the New York
Times about contradicting statements.

The story says the payment

was made by Cohen at a time when media outlets were poised to pay
Daniels for a story about an alleged affair.

I don't believe this

point has been raised in interview or tweets and not sure if it
helps you, but I would say, 'Why is it acceptable for media
outlets to pay to publicize mere accusations, but not OK for a
person to pay to keep false allegations from being made public?
Would these media outlets have disclosed the payment and would it
have been considered a contribution to the Crooked Clinton
Campaign, whom they were already working so hard on behalf of?'"
Q

Do you mind just finishing the text message on page 028?

A

Sure.

"The WSJ reported that she was shopping her story to
GMA -- not a tabloid.

'Mr. Davidson also represented Stephanie

Clifford, a former adult-film star whose professional name is
Stormy Daniels and who was in discussions with ABC's "Good Morning
America" in recent months to publicly disclose what she said was a
past relationship with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar
with the talks.'
"Anyways I need to stay out of this and will leave with you,
but just a thought in terms of changing the narrative a bit from
who knew what when."

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 263 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Q

262

Did you discuss that text with anyone before you sent it

to him?
A

I did not.

Q

Did you discuss the subject matter of this text with the

President?
A

I did not.

Q

You mentioned that you'd spoken to him 5 to 10 times in

addition to your April dinner.

In any of those conversations did

you discuss Stormy Daniels?
A

Never.

Q

Hush money payments at all?

A

Never.

Q

Okay.

HCH029, he texted you again on May the 10th -- well, he first
asked, "Thanks.
response.

When are you coming to LA?"

Then May 10th:

"Hi.

There was no

Sorry to bother you, but do you

have 5 minutes to talk?"
Do you recall if you called him when he sent you that
message?
A

I already answered that question.

Q

This is the same one as before?

A

Yes.

Q

I think it's a different --

A

No, it's the same.

Q

The first one was from May 1st, and it says, "If you

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 264 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

have a minute, can you give me a call?"
May 10th, and it says, "Hi.

263

And then this one is on

Sorry to bother you, but do you have

5 minutes to talk?"
A

Oh, I'm sorry.

You're right.

Q

That's all right.

A

I don't recall what this second text is.

Q

But you sent him that article.

It's been a long day.

Do you recall sending

that article to him?
A

Yes.

Q

Did you discuss that article with anyone before sending

it to him?
A

You know what?

Perhaps this was the conversation

that -Q

That you meant originally from --

A

Yes.

Q

Okay.

Mr. Eisen.

And this, I don't know what that was about.

Just for the record, when you say "this, I don't

know what that was about" -Ms. Hicks.

Sorry.

That was 27.

Mr. Eisen.

That's all right.

I'll do it for you.

The witness was pointing to 27 and 28, right?
BY MS. ISTEL:
Q

The May 1st conversation in response to asking for a

call, that's when she was -- okay.
Okay.

HCH030, it's a text message exchange between Ms. Hicks

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 265 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

and Sarah H.

264

Who is Sarah H.?

A

Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Q

What is your relationship with Sarah Huckabee Sanders?

A

She's a close friend.

Q

And this is Wednesday, April 18th.

Do you recall the

year of this conversation?
A

I believe it was 2018.

Q

Were you still communicating with White House officials

in providing advice on how to respond to the press at that time?
A

I don't think she's asking for my advice.

just curious if I know anything about this.

I think she's

I had just left the

White House, and some things were -Q

Overlapping?

A

-- still up in the air in terms of who to go to on

things.
Q

And you say, "No idea," so I'm not going to ask you if

you have any idea.
HCH031 and 032, for the record, are two drafts of emails from
Hope Hicks to Hope Hicks on November 4th, 2016.
Would you mind just reading both of them into the record?
Because they're slightly different, and I just want to understand
the difference between them.
A

Sure.

"We have no knowledge of this false story allegedly being
shopped around, although it comes as no surprise -- yet another

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 266 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

265

publicity hungry individual with a get rich and famous quick
scheme at the expense of Mr. Trump.

We suggest you reach out to

the parties involved as we have nothing to do with this final
attempt by the liberal elite to disparage Donald Trump and stop
this historic movement."
The second version, HCH0032:

"We have nothing to do with

this final attempt by the liberal elite to disparage Donald Trump
and stop this historic movement.

We have no knowledge of this

false story allegedly being shopped around, although it comes as
no surprise -- yet another publicity hungry individual with a get
rich and famous quick scheme at the expense of Mr. Trump."
Q

Do you know what this was in reference to?

A

I believe these were statements considered as we, you

know, formulated a response to the Wall Street Journal inquiry
about Karen McDougal.
Q

Did anyone have input in these statements?

A

Yes.

Michael Cohen did.

And I don't recall who else,

but -Q

What about the President, or Mr. Trump at the time?

A

He ultimately had input in what was said to The Wall

Street Journal, but not in crafting these statements.
Q

Did you show him these statements?

A

Most likely I did.

Q

So I won't ask if you recall his reaction to them.

A

Well, we gave a different statement, so if I did, it

I don't remember, but most likely.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 267 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

266

probably wasn't good.
Q

Okay.

Last one, HCH033.

It's another text message exchange between

yourself and Michael Cohen, November 5th, 2016.
Do you recall what you were discussing in this exchange?
Would it be helpful to read out loud into the record?

I just

was going to spare you, but -A

No.

No.

That's okay.

Thank you.

Yes, I remember.

We

were discussing the traction the Wall Street Journal story
regarding Karen McDougal was getting.
Q
praying!!

So when you say -- I guess Cohen sent to you, "Keep
It's working!"

When he says "it's working," do you

recall what he meant by that?
A

I guess that our prayers were being answered.

Q

He also says, "I have a statement by Storm denying

everything and contradicting the other porn stars statement."

Do

you recall how he got that statement?
A

I have no idea.

Q

Did you ask him?

A

I did not.

I don't recall speaking to him about Stormy

other than to relay what the reporter said to me, that she would
be mentioned in story, but there was no additional context.
Q

Did you discuss with the President having a statement

from Stormy Daniels denying the incident?
A

I don't recall that.

I know the President had

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 268 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

267

conversations with Michael separate from me, so it's possible it
was part of those.

I don't recall being part of those

conversations.
Q

When they were having those conversations, did they ever

ask you to leave the room?
A

The conversations were had while we were traveling.

Michael wasn't with us.

And I was not present when the person was

speaking to Michael on the phone.
Q

We've asked ad nauseam about the President's

relationship with Karen McDougal, but did you ever ask him if he
had a relationship with Stormy Daniels?

During the campaign.

I

see the movement from behind you.
A

Again, I had no knowledge of Stormy Daniels other than

to say she was going to be mentioned in the story amongst people
that were shopping stories around.

There were no specifics

offered by the reporter, and I didn't have any other information
other than what was being relayed to me by the reporter.

So, no,

I did not.
Q

When you made statements during the campaign that the

President did not have any relationship with Stormy Daniels, did
you have a basis for saying that?

Did the President tell you that

he did not have a relationship?
A

Again, I was relaying information from the reporter to

the different parties involved, primarily Michael and Mr. Trump,
and that was the response that was dictated to me.

I didn't ask

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 269 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

268

about the nature of the relationships.
Q

Okay.

So, going forward in the exchange, it looks like Michael
Cohen asks for David Pecker's cell and -- or, actually, you ask
for David Pecker's cell and say, "I have it but he thinks it's
wrong."

And then he, I imagine, provides the cell phone number.

And you say, "Same one!

Thanks!"

And Michael Cohen says, "He

called me from this number this morning."
spoke.

All good!"

And then you say, "They

Or, it's "The spoke," but I imagine you meant

"they."
Do you recall who "they" was?
A

The President and David Pecker.

Q

Do you recall what they discussed during that call?

A

No.

Q

So how did you know to say "all good"?

A

I was referring to the fact that we didn't need to

search for a phone number, that I was all set.

They spoke and we

were good.
Q

Okay.

Does any of my counsel at any table have any followups?
Mr. Collins.

Reclaiming my time.

After almost 8 hours, and over the last 2 hours of which,
especially among many questions were repetitive, not just in
content but actual word and verse on many of these questions, I
think this is something that we will take up in the next, you

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 270 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

know -- hopefully not, but in negotiations.

269

This was,

frankly -- I want to put it on the record -- a waste of time, the
last part.

Members, understandably -- I am one, so we do like our

5 minutes to question, but it was, unfortunately, a very much
repetitive situation.
In light of everything and the fact we've gone through -- and
also forcibly reading documents, the question I have is, the
majority, through this witness, are we expecting another call from
a woman who has testified now three times before Congress and been
a part of this and also went through numerous documents?

Is the

counsel for the majority willing to make a statement about that?
Mr. Eisen.

Mr. Collins, we heard a large number of absolute

immunity claims that not only the majority believes are unfounded
but that the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia has rejected on absolute immunity.

The necessity to put

that on the record stems from the assertion of those claims.
We appreciate the White House willingness to continue
conversations on this matter, but we feel very strongly that but
for the assertion of absolute immunity we would have been able to
avoid the necessary creation of a record.

So that has a

contributed to the situation in which we find ourselves.
I will note that the White House has expressed -- that's
another reason we need the transcript, is the White House has
expressed a willingness to review the questions that are asked,
the objection.

We've tried to create a complete transcript for

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 271 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

270

that purpose.
I think Mr. Collins knows better than I do the exigencies of
having Members who do want to have the firsthand, percipient
testimony and dealing with the challenges of votes.
If the minority will indulge us, I do think -- I see some
restless movement from our witness.
Ms. Hicks.

No.

Sorry.

Mr. Eisen.

No.

No.

I --

You're entitled.

And I would like to excuse the witness so she can make her
flight.
Mr. Collins.

At this point, I appreciate that.

I will not

have an objection that she will be excused.
I will note that your long and eloquent conversation we just
now had absolutely nothing to do with my answer -- that the
question was actually answered.

I appreciate no one actually

discussing -- Ms. Hicks, I have no problem -Ms. Hicks.

I'm happy to stick around if we're going to

resolve the answer to that question.
Mr. Collins.

Yeah.

I mean, I think the interesting issue

is, again, not -- I have no -- and we've had to go back and forth
on this concerning the foundation of the opinion from the
White House.

That was never the question I asked, and it was

never the concern that I had about multiple questions.

You did

attempt, at least toward the end, to make a head nod toward that.
My question was, and you did not answer it, are you through

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 272 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

with this witness, not just today but in the future?

271

What is the

plans of this committee?
Mr. Eisen.

The next step is to engage in an accommodation

process on the many, many, many questions in the record that we
believe absolute immunity was -- we respectfully disagreed with
the view of absolute immunity.

It is, in our view and the view of

the courts, we believe, unfounded.

And then we will make an

assessment of next steps.
I appreciate the recognition of my gesture.

I thought it was

not just a head nod but a full-body move towards expediting.
And I want to express my appreciation to the witness, to her
counsel, and to the White House lawyers also for -- as we sped
through, I think we covered Volume II of the Mueller report in
record time.
And, of course, the minority was on our call, the
accommodations call, yesterday, and we'll continue to be a part of
that.

And we'll try to proceed with all due courtesy to everyone.
We're very appreciative of you being here, Ms. Hicks.
Mr. Philbin.

If we could make one observation in response to

the ranking member's comments also and to Mr. Eisen's comments,
the usual process -- and it would've been much more -- the usual
process -- and it would've been much more respectful to Ms. Hicks'
time -- is to talk about accommodations and engage in negotiations
before a subpoena is issued.

And that would've avoided the need

to have this hearing today under subpoena and then try to go about

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 273 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

272

the process as it's usually handled.
Mr. Collins.
majority wants.

But reclaiming my time, that is not what this

They prefer the subpoena-first approach.

And

they can roll their eyes and sigh, but that's exactly what
happened.

As proven earlier today when I asked about ones who

never were responsive to any of your requests and they've never
been subpoenaed.
I want to go back to this quick, and I'm going to solve this
so you can get home.

Two questions, straightforward:

Are you

through with her or not?

And number two is, when will the

transcript be available?

That's all I'm asking.

Mr. Eisen.

We've asked that the transcript be made

available -- to take the easy one first -- with all deliberate
speed.
And that really goes to the answer to number one.

We're now

going to engage in an accommodation process, including whether we
can get answers to some of these questions, and that will
determine next steps here.
I do take strong exception to the White House's
characterization of the accommodation efforts.

I think there's a

long trail of letters, unilateral offers on our part.
engaged in it.

But we're

We're going to proceed with it.

We're very grateful to the witness for being here today.
with that, I'd like to release her, with the permission of the
ranking member.

And

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-31 Filed 08/07/19 Page 274 of 274

UNOFFICIAL COPY

Mr. Collins.

273

Well, seeing that I did not still get an

answer, I'll take that as a no.

I'll have to talk to the

chairman, who will decide this.

But it is interesting that you

will not answer the question whether you were through with her not
just today but in the future.
possible.

We'll get the transcript as soon as

Again, accommodations is something we can talk about at

another time.
Mr. Eisen.

Thank you, Ms. Hicks.

And we want to thank your

counsel as well.
Ms. Hicks.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the interview was concluded.]

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-32 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit FF

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-32 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 4

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

July 5, 2019

Sandra Moser, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Ms. Moser:
Iwrite in reference to written questions that your client, Annie Donaldson Talley,received
from the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives (the
"Committee") on June 26, 2019, pursuant to a subpoena issued to you by the Committee on May
21, 2019.
Upon review of the questions, we believe that the questions listed below would call for
responses that implicate constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests.
Accordingly, the White House directs Ms. Talley not to provide substantive responses to the
following questions.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

12.d , e., i., j.
13.b , c., d., e., f., g., h.
14.a.,c., d.
15.a., b.,c., d., e.
16.b.,c.
17.a. (If yes, ....") 1 , b., c., d., e., f., g., h.
18.a., b., C.
19.b., c., d., e., f.
20.a., b., c., d., e., f., g., h.
21.b.
22.a , b.,c.
23.a., b.
24.
25.b., C.
26.b., c., d.
27.b.,c.
28.a., b.,c., d., e., f.
29.a., b., c., d., e., f., g., h.
30.b., f., g., h.

Portion of question quoted would call for a response that implicates constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests and therefore should not be answered.
1

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-32 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 4
Sandra Moser, Esq.
Page2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o
•
•
•
•
•
•

31.b., c., d.
32.b.
33.b.
34.b., c., d.
35.a., c., d., e., f., g.
36.c.
37.b., c., d.
38.b., C.
39.b., C.
40.b., f., g., h., i., j., k., 1., m., n., o.
41.b., c., d., e.
42.b. ("If yes, ...."), c. ("If yes, ...."), d.
43.c.
44.
45.
46.a., b., c., d., e., f.
47.
48.
49.c., d.
50. ("If yes, ...."), b., d., f., h.
51.a., b., c., d., e., g., h., i.
52.a., b., d., e., f.
53.a., b.
54.a., b., C.
55.b., C.
56.c., e.
57.b., c., d.
58.a., b., c.
59.b., C.
60.b., C.
61.b.
62.a., b., c., d., e.
63.a., b., c., d., e.
64.a., b., c., d.
65.a., b., c., d.
66.c., d., e., f.
67.a., b., c., d., e., f., g.
68.a., b., C.
69.
70.a., b.
71.b , c., d., e.
75.b., c., d., e.
76.a. ("If yes, ...."), b.
77.b , C.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-32 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 4

Sandra Moser, Esq.
Page 3
•
•

78.a. ("If yes, ...."), b.

•

79.b, C.
80.a. ("If yes, .... "), b.
81.b.

•

83.a.

•

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,

?1;�1, -,e,�
Michael M. Purpura
Deputy Counsel to the President

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-33 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit GG

 JERROLD NADLER, New York
CHAIRMAN

Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-33 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 4

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER

m.�. 1!,ouse of l\epresentattbes
<ttommittee on tbe 3Jubiciarp
mallasbtngton, tJB<!t 20515-6216
<!&ne f!,unbreb �ixteentb C!Congress

May 20, 2019
Donald F. McGahn II, Esq.
c/o William A. Burck, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
1300 I St. NW
Suite 9000
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. McGahn:
As you know, your presence is required tomorrow morning for a hearing before the
Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to a subpoena compelling your testimony. 1 This afternoon,
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone informed me that President Trump has ordered you not to
testify.2 President Trump's order-which seeks to block a former official from informing a
coequal branch of government about his own misconduct-is unprecedented and, contrary to the
letter received from your counsel this evening, does not excuse your obligation to appear before
the Committee.
First, although the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has produced an
opinion purporting to excuse you from testifying, that opinion has no support in relevant case
law, and its arguments have been flatly rejected by the courts. As Judge Bates previously
explained, the notion that a former White House Counsel is "absolutely immune" from a
congressional subpoena has been "virtually foreclosed by the Supreme Court," which held
several decades ago that senior White House aides do not enjoy such immunity even from civil
damages suits.3 OLC's most recent opinion-which relies almost entirely on its own prior
opinions-offers no persuasive reasoning for distinguishing Judge Bates's ruling or relevant
Supreme Court case law. 4
Subpoena by Authority of the House of Representatives of the United States of America to Donald F. McGahn for
documents and testimony, signed by Representative Jerrold Nadler, April 22, 2019.
1

Letter to Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary from Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel
(May 20, 2019).

2

Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Reps. v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 100 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)).
3

See Steven A. Engel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Testimonial Immunity Before Congress
of the Former Counsel to the President (May 20, 2019) ("Engel Op.").

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-33 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 4

Second, the Justice Department's own longstanding policy is that "executive privilege...
should not be invoked to conceal evidence of wrongdoing or criminality on the part of executive
officers. "5 Tellingly, the Department's opinion ignores that policy entirely. Yet as I have
already made clear, the Committee plans to ask you about instances in which the President took
actions or ordered you to take actions that may constitute criminal offenses, including
obstruction of justice. Despite the Department's apparent efforts to catalogue every instance in
which a White House aide has refused to testify before Congress, the Department can cite no
example where Congress planned to ask that White House aide about possible crimes committed
by the President. Perhaps that is because-until now-no President would have engaged in such
a transparent effort to block his own former aides from testifying about the President's
misconduct.
Third, in addition to the President not asserting executive privilege with respect to your
account of the relevant events that was published in the Special Counsel's report, the President
himself has already called your credibility into question. He tweeted less than 10 days ago that
he "was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller," denying a central event that you described to Special
Counsel Mueller under penalty of felony. At the same time, he has asked you to state publicly
that he did not engage in obstruction of justice. 6 In attacking your credibility and asking you to
make public comments about these events, the President has not only further waived any
·possible privilege with regard to your testimony; he has also created substantial concerns about
acts of witness intimidation and further obstruction of Congress's ongoing investigations.
Because these incidents post-date your service as White House Counsel and occurred while you
were a private citizen, the Committee is plainly entitled to ask you about them without raising
even potential privilege issues.

Fourth, nowhere in OLC's 15-page opinion or in Mr. Cipollone's letter to me is there
mention of President Trump actually invoking executive privilege. OLC's opinion deals
exclusively with your purported "immunity" from testimony and concludes (erroneously) that
you are "not legally required to appear and testify."7 Mr. Cipollone's letter to me reiterates that
conclusion and states that "the President has directed Mr. McGahn not to appear" at tomorrow's
hearing.8 But-in marked contrast to the letter sent by the White House to former White House
Counsel Harriet Miers (which itself was rejected as improper by the court)-Mr. Cipollone's
5

Robert B. Shanks, Congressional Subpoenas of Department of Justice Investigative Files, 8 Op. O.L.C. 252, 267
(1984).
Michael S. Schmidt, White House Asked McGahn to Declare Trump Never Obstructed Justice, N.Y. Times, May
IO, 2019.

6

7

Engel Op. at 15.

Letter to Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary from Pat Cipollone, White House Counsel
(May 20, 2019).
8

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-33 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 4

letter does not state that President Trump has asserted executive privilege with respect to your
testimony, nor could he.9 At most, the Department's conclusions regarding your "immunity"
(even if accepted as correct, which they are not) mean that the decision whether to comply with
the Committee's lawful subpoena rests solely in your hands.
Fifth, contrary to the reference in your counsel's letter, there has been no suggestion by
President Trump or by anyone speaking on his behalf that attorney-client privilege poses an
obstacle to your testimony. In fact, any invocation of attorney-client privilege in these
circumstances is foreclosed by the D.C. Circuit case law, which makes clear that the privilege is
inapplicable with respect to White House attorneys where the investigation relates to criminal
wrongdoing. 10
Finally, the Justice Department has no place informing you about the potential remedies
that Congress may pursue in the exercise of its own Article I powers. 11 The Committee has
made clear that you risk serious consequences if you do not appear tomorrow. As the district
court already held with respect to Ms. Miers, you are "not excused from compliance with the
Committee's subpoena by virtue of a claim of executive privilege that may ultimately be
made." 12 Instead, you "must appear before the Committee to provide testimony, and invoke
executive privilege where appropriate." 13 Should you fail to do so, the Committee is prepared to
use all enforcement mechanisms at its disposal.

Sincerely,

House Committee on the Judiciary
cc:

The Hon. Doug Collins
Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary

See Letter to George T. Manning, Esq. from Fred F. Fielding, Counsel to the President (July 9, 2007), attached as
Exhibit 20 in Miers, No. 08-409, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C); see also Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 62 (White House
Counsel informed Miers that President Bush "had decided to assert executive privilege over the substance of Ms.
Miers's testimony").

9

10
11

In re Lindsey, 158 F.3d 1263, 1271-78 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
See Engel Op. at 15

12

Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 106.

13

Id.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 58

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit HH

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 58

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers   washington, dc

1300 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3314   TEL (202) 538-8000 FAX (202) 538-8100

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
(202) 538-8333
WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS
sandramoser@quinnemanuel.com

July 5, 2019
VIA E-MAIL
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
United States House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC 20515-6216
HJUD.Correspondence@mail.house.gov
Re:

Written Questions for Ann Donaldson

Dear Chairman Nadler,
Pursuant the agreement between the United States House of Representatives, Committee
on the Judiciary, and my client Ann Donaldson, reached in connection with the Committee’s
subpoena for her to appear for a deposition, enclosed please find Ms. Donaldson’s written
responses to the written questions received from Counsel to the Majority Staff of the Committee
on June 27, 2019.
Also enclosed is a letter from Michael M. Purpura, the current Deputy White House
Counsel to the President of the United States, confirming that the White House has directed
Ms. Donaldson to refrain from providing substantive responses to certain questions. As agreed to
by the Committee, the White House has objected on a question-by-question basis, as if
Ms. Donaldson had appeared in person.
Sincerely,

Sandra L. Moser
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES   NEW YORK   SAN FRANCISCO   SILICON VALLEY   CHICAGO   WASHINGTON, DC   HOUSTON   SEATTLE   BOSTON   SALT LAKE CITY
LONDON   TOKYO   MANNHEIM   HAMBURG   PARIS   MUNICH   SYDNEY   HONG KONG   BRUSSELS   ZURICH   SHANGHAI   PERTH   STUTTGART

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 58

Enclosures
cc:

The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member
Barry H. Berke, Esq., Counsel to the Majority Staff
Michael M. Purpura, Esq., Deputy White House Counsel to the President

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 58

Responses by Ann Donaldson
To Questions from
Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives
July 5, 2019
1.

Describe the process of how you were hired to work on the Donald J. Trump for
President campaign (the “Trump Campaign”).
RESPONSE: I was never hired to work on the Trump Campaign. Rather, I was
an associate at Jones Day and, in that capacity, provided legal services to the
Trump Campaign as a client of Jones Day.

2.

Did you meet then-candidate Trump prior to joining the Trump Campaign? When did
you first meet then-candidate Trump and under what circumstances?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 1.
I first met then-candidate Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention
in Cleveland, Ohio while he was completing paperwork to access the ballot in
various states as the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

3.

Confirm the dates during which you worked for the Trump Campaign.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 1.

4.

List all job titles you held for the Trump Campaign.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 1.

5.

Confirm the dates you worked at the White House.
RESPONSE: January 20, 2017 – December 21, 2018

6.

List all job titles you held while at the White House and the corresponding dates of each
job title held.
RESPONSE: Deputy Assistant to the President, Special Counsel to the President
and Chief of Staff to the White House Counsel, January 20, 2017 – February 22,
2018
Deputy Assistant to the President, Deputy Counsel to the President and Chief of
Staff to the White House Counsel, February 22, 2018 – August 5, 2018
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President, August 5,
2018 – December 21, 2018

1

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 58

7.

Describe the process of how you were hired for the job of chief of staff for Don
McGahn?
RESPONSE: After discussing joining the Office of the White House Counsel with Mr.
McGahn—while still an associate at Jones Day—I subsequently was hired to work for
the Executive Office of the President as Deputy Assistant to the President, Special
Counsel to the President, and Chief of Staff to the White House Counsel. I participated
in a background check and onboarding process for White House staff during the
Transition.

8.

Did you know Mr. McGahn prior to speaking with him about the position of his chief of
staff?
RESPONSE: Yes.

9.

Describe your job responsibilities as chief of staff for Mr. McGahn.
RESPONSE: My responsibilities as Deputy Assistant to the President, Special Counsel
to the President, and then Deputy Counsel to the President, and Chief of Staff to the
White House Counsel varied as circumstances warranted over time. It is not possible to
parse out which duties necessarily corresponded with to the “Chief of Staff to the White
House Counsel” portion of the title versus the others.
In general terms, my responsibilities included handling a portfolio of legal issues and
other matters for the Counsel’s Office, providing advice regarding operational and
administrative functions of the White House and various other matters, interfacing with
various White House staff, and regularly participating in senior level decision-making on
a wide range of issues. In addition, I was responsible for managing day-to-day functions
of the Counsel’s Office, which included, but was not limited to interfacing with White
House Counsel’s Office staff, coordinating among the various deputies, managing
information flow, preparing advice for the President, and advising and assisting
Mr. McGahn in his execution of duties of the White House Counsel. Regularly, this also
involved sitting in on meetings or calls involving Mr. McGahn or appearing on his behalf
if he was not available to attend.

10.

Describe where your office was located relative to that of Mr. McGahn.
RESPONSE: My office was located on the second floor in the West Wing, in the suite
traditionally assigned to the White House Counsel. At times, I occupied an office across
from the White House Counsel’s Office reception area outside Mr. McGahn’s office, then
the office immediately adjacent to Mr. McGahn’s.

11.

Identify the approximate number of times you met directly with President Trump, either
alone or with others, during your tenure at the White House Counsel’s office.
RESPONSE: I was in meetings directly with President Trump fewer than ten times.

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 58

12.

Special Counsel Mueller’s Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference In the
2016 Presidential Election (hereinafter “the Mueller Report” or “the Report”)1 references
a set of notes that you maintained during your tenure as chief of staff to Mr. McGahn.
The Bates Number prefix for these notes is SC_AD_0000.
a.

When did you first decide to take these notes and do you recall the first date on
which you took notes?
RESPONSE: It has been my longstanding practice to take notes attendant to my
professional responsibilities, which often require me to handle multiple
substantive issues within a day.
Consistent with my regular practice, the first date on which I made any
handwritten notes during my time at the White House would have been January
20, 2017.

b.

Describe the purpose for which you maintained these notes.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 12a.

c.

Describe your criteria for deciding which discussions or events to record in your
notes.
RESPONSE: There were no criteria as to which discussions or events were the
subject of my handwritten notes (which were not “recordings”)2; it was my
regular practice to take notes attendant to my professional responsibilities.

d.

Did Mr. McGahn or anyone else ask you to take notes at any point? If yes,
describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

1

Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Report are to Volume II of the Report.

Throughout the Committee’s questions, there are sporadic references to my notes as
“recordings.” I would not characterize my handwritten notes as “recordings” or akin to
transcripts of events or discussions that took place during my time in the White House, but rather
as running working notes. In order to provide answers to questions referencing “recordings,” I
have responded as if the question had instead asked about my handwritten notes.
2

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 58

e.

Did President Trump or anyone else ever ask you not to take notes of any
discussions or events? If yes, describe those discussions or events.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

Did you ever decide not to take notes because of the subject matter of the
discussions or nature of the events? If yes, describe those circumstances.
RESPONSE: I never refrained from taking handwritten notes as to specific
discussions or events, see Response to Question 12c, though starting in or around
May 2017, I made an effort to write notes that were more succinct and precise in
nature.

g.

Did you always make your notes contemporaneous to the discussions or events
you were documenting? If not, describe how and when you created your notes.
RESPONSE: No. At times, I made notes following a discussion or event, after I
had considered an issue, or to ensure that I remembered an idea I had, an item todo, or something that required follow-up.

h.

Describe whether your notes were handwritten, typed or both..
RESPONSE: Handwritten.

i.

Identify each individual with whom you shared your notes or copies of your notes
and the related circumstances, including whether you were asked to provide the
notes, which notes you provided and when you provided those notes.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

j.

When you left the White House, did anyone discuss with you retaining your
notes? If so, describe with whom you had such discussions and the nature of
those conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

k.

Did you retain your notes or copies of your notes when you left the White House?
RESPONSE: Yes.

l.

Did anyone from the White House, Department of Justice, or anyone else provide
you and/or your counsel with copies of your notes after you left the White House?

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 58

If so, describe any particular terms or conditions under which those copies were
provided to you.
RESPONSE: No.
m.

Do you or your counsel currently have your notes or copies of your notes from the
White House? If so, describe how you received those notes.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 12(k).

13.

Page 49 of the Mueller Report indicates that on March 2, 2017 when President Trump
became aware that former Attorney General Sessions was considering recusing himself
from the Russia investigation, “the President called McGahn and urged him to contact
Sessions to tell him not to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.”
a.

Were you with Mr. McGahn when the President called him on that date?
RESPONSE: I do not, today, have an independent recollection of whether or not
I was with Mr. McGahn at the time of the cited telephone call.3

b.

If so, describe what occurred on that call.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did you discuss that call subsequently with Mr. McGahn?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

3

It bears noting that more than two years have passed since the events in question, and more
than 18 months since the time I was first questioned about such events. While at times I was a
direct participant in certain meetings or telephone calls, at other times my knowledge of certain
events may have been acquired indirectly. Therefore I do not, today, have an independent
recollection of the bases for my knowledge as to certain events that are the subject of these
questions. My voluntary statements to the Special Counsel’s Office likely reflect a firmer
recollection given the closer proximity in time to the events; however, I am not in possession of
any documents memorializing the voluntary statements I made to the Special Counsel’s Office
when interviewed about these events, and I have not re-reviewed my handwritten notes that were
provided to the Special Counsel’s Office in responding to the Committee’s questions.

5

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 58

d.

If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Were you ever with Mr. McGahn on any other date when the President discussed
Mr. Sessions’ recusal from the Russia investigation?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

If so, describe each such occurrence.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

g.

Did the President or anyone else ever call you and ask you to contact Mr. Sessions
regarding his recusal and/or the Russia investigation?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

h.

If so, describe each such occurrence.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

14.

Page 49 of the Report states that “McGahn understood the President to be concerned that
a recusal would make Mr. Sessions look guilty for omitting details in his confirmation
hearing; leave the President unprotected from an investigation that could hobble the
presidency and derail his policy objectives; and detract from favorable press coverage of
a Presidential Address to Congress the President had delivered earlier in the week.”
a.

Did you share Mr. McGahn’s understanding of the President’s concerns regarding
Mr. Sessions’ recusal?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

6

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 10 of 58

b.

Were you present for any discussions involving the President about his concerns
regarding Mr. Sessions’ recusal? If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: I was not involved in any direct discussions with the President
about Mr. Sessions’ recusal.

c.

Did you discuss Mr. McGahn’s understanding of the President’s concerns
regarding Mr. Sessions’ recusal with Mr. McGahn? If yes, describe those
discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Did you discuss Mr. McGahn’s understanding of the President’s concerns
regarding Mr. Sessions’ recusal with anyone other than Mr. McGahn? If yes,
describe those discussions and who was present for each discussion.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

15.

Footnote 279 on page 49 of the Mueller Report references an entry in your notes
(SC_AD_00123) stating, “just in the middle of another Russia Fiasco.” The footnote cites
back to a discussion on March 2, 2017 between the President and Mr. McGahn, during
which “McGahn understood the President to be concerned that a recusal would make
Sessions look guilty for omitting details in his confirmation hearing; leave the President
unprotected from an investigation that could hobble the presidency and derail his policy
objectives; and detract from favorable press coverage of a Presidential Address to
Congress the President had delivered earlier in the week.”
a.

Describe what you are referring to in this entry stating “just in the middle of
another Russia Fiasco.”
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of my handwritten notes.
I affirm the accuracy of the voluntary statements I made when being interviewed
by the Special Counsel’s Office. See footnote 3.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

7

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 11 of 58

b.

How did you learn about the events you describe as “another Russia fiasco?”
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Why did you use the term “fiasco” to describe what you observed?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Your notes say it was “another Russia fiasco;” what other discussions or events
are you referring to as also qualifying as a “Russia fiasco?”
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

If this entry described on SC_AD_00123 was based on discussions or events for
which you were present, identify any additional persons present.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

16.

Page 49 of the Mueller Report indicates that Mr. McGahn reached out to Mr. Sessions on
March 2, 2017 and reported that the President was not happy about the possibility of Mr.
Sessions’ recusal.
a.

Were you present when Mr. McGahn had this discussion with Mr. Sessions?
RESPONSE: It is possible, but I do not, today, have an independent recollection
of whether or not I was with Mr. McGahn at the time of the cited discussion.

b.

If yes, describe what was said and who else, if anyone, was present for those
discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did Mr. McGahn discuss this conversation with Mr. Sessions with you? If yes,
describe your discussions with Mr. McGahn.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

8

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 12 of 58

17.

Page 49 of the Mueller Report describes Mr. McGahn’s efforts on March 2, 2017 “on
behalf of the President to avert Sessions’ recusal by speaking to Sessions’ personal
counsel, Sessions’ chief of staff, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and by
contacting Sessions himself two more times.” The accompanying citation (footnote 283)
references an entry in your notes (SC_AD_00121).
a.

Did you personally observe or hear any or all of Mr. McGahn’s efforts as
described on page 49 of the Report? If yes, describe what you observed or heard.
RESPONSE: Yes.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Did Mr. McGahn discuss with you any of his efforts described on page 49 of the
Report? If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Why did Mr. McGahn speak to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Describe the substance of Mr. McGahn’s conversation with Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell as it related to efforts on behalf of the President to avert
Mr. Sessions’ recusal.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Describe the substance of Mr. McGahn’s conversation with Mr. Sessions’
personal counsel as it related to efforts on behalf of the President to avert Mr.
Sessions’ recusal.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

9

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 13 of 58

f.

Describe the substance of Mr. McGahn’s conversation with Mr. Session’s chief of
staff as it related to efforts on behalf of the President to avert Mr. Sessions’
recusal.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

g.

Were you present for any other discussions with Mr. Sessions about his recusal?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

h.

If yes, describe those discussions and who else was present.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

18.

The Report, on pages 49 and 50, states that on the afternoon of March 2, 2017,
Mr. Sessions announced his decision to recuse “from any existing or future investigations
of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.
Sessions believed the decision to recuse was not a close call, given the applicable
language in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).”
a.

Did you agree with Mr. Sessions’ decision?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

b.

Did you discuss that decision with Mr. McGahn?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

19.

Page 50 of the Report states that on March 2, 2017, “[s]hortly after Sessions announced
his recusal, the White House Counsel’s office directed that Sessions should not be
contacted about the matter.”

10

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 14 of 58

a.

Is this statement accurate?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of my handwritten notes or its description of the voluntary
statements I made to it, although I do not have access to its records of my
statements.

b.

Was that directive conveyed to the President? If so, who conveyed that direction,
what exactly was said, and who else was present for those conversations?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Was that directive conveyed to anyone else? If so, whom?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Did you ever witness the President contacting Mr. Sessions about the matter,
directly or indirectly? If so, describe what you witnessed.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Did you ever learn that this directive was violated by the President seeking to
contact Mr. Sessions about the matter, directly or indirectly? If so, what did you
learn?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

Did you ever discuss with Mr. McGahn or anyone else any efforts by the
President to contact Mr. Sessions, directly or indirectly, about the Russia
investigation or his recusal? If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

20.

Footnotes 289 and 290 on page 50 of the Report reference entries in your notes
(SC_AD_00123) from March 2, 2017 stating, “No contact w/Sessions” and “No
comms/Serious concerns about obstruction.”

11

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 15 of 58

a.

Who made those statements?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of my handwritten notes.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Describe the discussions reflected in those notes and the individuals present for
those discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did you participate in any discussions in which personnel in the White House
Counsel’s office expressed “serious concerns” about obstruction? If yes,
describe all of those discussions and who was present for those discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Identify all individuals who expressed “serious concerns about obstruction”
during those meetings.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Describe the concerns that were expressed about obstruction.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

Did those “serious concerns about obstruction” relate to the President’s conduct?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

12

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 16 of 58

g.

Did you have “serious concerns about obstruction” based on the President’s
conduct?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

h.

Can you recall any other occasion when members of the White House Counsel’s
office expressed concerns about obstruction by the President or other members of
the White House staff?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

21.

Page 50 of the Report states that on March 3, 2017, Mr. McGahn was called into the Oval
Office where the President “expressed anger at Mr. McGahn” for not fighting for him and
compared him unfavorably to the President’s former lawyer, Roy Cohn.
a.

Were you present for that meeting on March 3, 2017? If so, does the Report
accurately describe what was said at the meeting?
RESPONSE: No, I was not present.

b.

Did you speak with Mr. McGahn about the above discussions that occurred when
he went to the Oval Office that day? If yes, describe those conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

22.

Page 51 of the Report states that during the weekend of March 3–5, 2017, Mr. Sessions
and Mr. McGahn flew to Mar-a-Lago to meet with the President and the President
attempted to get Mr. Sessions to “unrecuse” from the Russia investigation?
a.

Did you speak with Mr. McGahn about the President’s attempts to get Mr.
Sessions to “unrecuse” from the Russia investigation? If yes, what did Mr.
McGahn tell you?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

13

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 17 of 58

b.

Did Mr. McGahn ever tell you that he thought it was improper for the President to
try to persuade Mr. Sessions to unrecuse himself? If yes, why did he feel that
way?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did you believe it was improper for the President to try to persuade Mr. Sessions
to unrecuse himself? If yes, why did you feel that way?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

23.

Page 107 of the Report states that at some point in the spring of 2017, the President again
sought to have Mr. Sessions reverse his recusal: “the President called [Attorney General
Sessions] at home and asked if Sessions would “unrecuse” himself.”
a.

At some point, were you made aware that the President did this? If yes, describe
how and when you learned of the President’s actions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

b.

Describe any other discussions you had regarding the President’s attempts to
persuade Mr. Sessions to unrecuse himself.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

24.

Did you believe the President’s efforts to pressure Mr. Sessions to: (1) ignore ethical
guidelines and maintain control over the Russia investigation and then (2) reverse his
decision to recuse himself involved potentially criminal conduct or were otherwise
improper? If yes, why?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question because
of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests that are
implicated.

25.

Page 31 of the Report states that on January 26th, 2017, the Justice Department informed
Mr. McGahn that there was evidence that Michael Flynn may have made false statements
about his contacts with Russian officials during the campaign.

14

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 18 of 58

a.

Were you present when the Justice Department informed Mr. McGahn about
Michael Flynn’s statements about his contacts with Russian officials? If so, what
was said?
RESPONSE: No, I was not present.

b.

Did Mr. McGahn inform the President? If so, what did he say when he spoke to
the President?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did Mr. McGahn inform the President that Flynn’s statements violated or may
have violated a federal statute? If so, what did he say in that regard?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

26.

Page 38 of the Mueller Report states: “Talking points on [Michael Flynn’s] resignation
prepared by the White House Counsel’s office and distributed to the White House
communications team stated that McGahn had advised the President that Flynn was
unlikely to be prosecuted, and the President had determined that the issue with Flynn was
one of trust.”
a.

Is this statement accurate?
RESPONSE: Although I recall that talking points related to General Flynn’s
resignation were prepared, I do not, today, have an independent recollection of to
whom they were distributed or the specific substance of the talking points.

b.

Did you participate in drafting the talking points?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did you believe the referenced talking points regarding the Flynn resignation
were accurate?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

15

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 19 of 58

d.

Identify all other individuals involved in drafting the talking points.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Identify all individuals who were given a copy of the talking points, including any
investigators.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 26a.

f.

Describe the substance of the talking points.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 26a.

27.

Citing to your notes at Bates Number SC_AD_000137, page 51 of the Report states that
“[o]n March 5, 2017, the White House Counsel’s office was informed that the FBI was
asking for transition-period records relating to Flynn—indicating that the FBI was still
actively investigating him.”
a.

Does this statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of my handwritten notes or my voluntary statements to it,
although I do not have access to its records of my statements.

b.

Describe what if any knowledge you have about the FBI’s requests for transitionperiod records relating to Michael Flynn.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Between the dates of March 5 and May 9, 2017, did you speak with Mr. McGahn
about the FBI investigation into Michael Flynn? If yes, describe those
discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Between the dates of March 5 and May 9, 2017, were you present for any
conversations in which the President discussed the FBI investigation into Michael
Flynn? If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: I was not physically present for any in-person meetings with the
President where the FBI investigation into Michael Flynn was discussed. It is
possible I was present for telephone conversations in which the President may

16

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 20 of 58

have discussed with Mr. McGahn or others the FBI investigation into Michael
Flynn.
28.

Page 51-52 of the Report states that on March 5, 2017, President Trump “told advisors he
wanted to call the Acting Attorney General [Dana Boente] to find out whether the White
House or the President was being investigated.” The accompanying citation (footnote
306) cites to an entry in your notes, Bates Number SC_AD_000168, stating “POTUS
wants to call Dana/Is investigation/No/We know something on Flynn/GSA got contacted
by FBI/There’s something hot.”
a.

Describe the meaning of this entry.
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of my handwritten notes.
I affirm the accuracy of the voluntary statements I made when being interviewed
by the Special Counsel’s Office. See footnote 3.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Describe what discussions or events are being recorded here.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Whose words were you recording in Footnote 306?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Who else was present when those words were stated?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Describe why the President “want[ed] to call Dana.”
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

17

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 21 of 58

f.

Did the President or anyone acting on his behalf call Mr. Boente?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

29.

Page 52 of the Report quotes an entry in your notes (footnote 308, Bates Number
SC_AD_00188) which states: “POTUS in panic/chaos . . . . Need binders to put in front
of POTUS. (1) All things related to Russia.”
a.

Describe the meaning of this entry.
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of my handwritten notes or its description of the voluntary
statements I made to it, although I do not have access to its records of my
statements.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Describe what discussions or events are being recorded here.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Why was the President in “panic/chaos”?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

How did you learn that the President was in “panic/chaos”?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Was anyone present when that was said?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

18

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 22 of 58

f.

What binders were to be put in front of the President and for what purpose?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

g.

What does the entry “[a]ll things related to Russia” mean?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 29a.

h.

Were there any other items listed after (1) on that entry?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

30.

Page 52 of the Report indicates that the week after Mr. Comey briefed congressional
leaders “about the FBI’s investigation of Russian interference, including the
identification of the principal U.S. subjects of the investigation” on March 9, 2017, one of
the leaders briefed, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Senator Richard
Burr, was in contact with the White House Counsel’s office, which “appears to have
received information about the status of the FBI investigation.” You are quoted in
Footnote 309 as saying that Senator Burr identified “4-5 targets.”
a.

Is this statement accurate?
RESPONSE: I was not present for Mr. Comey’s briefing to the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, and therefore I cannot confirm whether the
description of his briefing to congressional leaders is accurate.
I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s Office’s
quotation of “4-5 targets” from my notes.
I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s Office’s
description of the voluntary statements I made to it, although I do not have access
to its records of my statements.
Any characterization of my voluntary statements set forth in the Report is that of
the Special Counsel’s Office and may be derived, in part, from sources other than
my statements.
As stated by the Special Counsel’s Office in the Report, at the time, I “believed
these were targets of [the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence].”

19

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 23 of 58

b.

Who initiated the contact between the White House Counsel’s office and Senator
Burr?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Where did the March 16, 2017 briefing from Senator Burr take place?
RESPONSE: To the extent this question refers to contact between Senator Burr
and the Office of the White House Counsel on or about March 16, 2017 (I would
not characterize this contact as a formal “briefing”), that conversation took place
by telephone.

d.

Why did Senator Burr provide this briefing to the White House Counsel’s office
about the investigation into Russian election interference?
RESPONSE: I do not know. I cannot speak to Senator Burr’s state of mind.

e.

Were you present for Senator Burr’s March 16, 2017 briefing to the White House
Counsel’s office?
RESPONSE: To the extent this question refers to a telephone call between
Senator Burr and the Office of the White House Counsel on or about March 16,
2017, I was in Mr. McGahn’s office during, but not a participant on, the telephone
call.

f.

Who else was present?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

g.

Describe the substance of Senator Burr’s March 16, 2017 briefing to the White
House Counsel’s office.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

h.

Were the contents of Senator Burr’s briefing shared with the President? If so,
describe who shared the contents of the meeting and if you were present for those
discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

20

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 24 of 58

31.

Page 31 of the Report indicates that Mr. McGahn asked John Eisenberg to examine
potential legal issues raised by Flynn’s FBI interview and his contacts with Russian
ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
a.

Were you present when Mr. McGahn asked Mr. Eisenberg to do this?
RESPONSE: I do not, today, have an independent recollection of whether or not
I was present.

b.

Did you discuss with Mr. McGahn his reasons for asking Mr. Eisenberg to
conduct this research?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did Mr. McGahn believe that Mr. Flynn’s actions involved potentially criminal
conduct?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Did you believe that Mr. Flynn’s actions involved potentially criminal conduct?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

32.

Page 32 of the Report indicates that on January 27, 2017, Mr. Eisenberg informed
Mr. McGahn that there was a possibility that Flynn had violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and the
Logan Act.
a.

Were you present for this conversation? If yes, describe the substance of the
conversation.
RESPONSE: I do not, today, have an independent recollection of whether or not
I was present.

b.

If you were not present, did you ever discuss the results of Mr. Eisenberg’s
research with Mr. McGahn? If yes, describe the substance of that conversation.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

33.

Page 33 of the Report indicates that on the morning of January 27, 2017, Mr. McGahn
asked Sally Yates to return to the White House to discuss Flynn again.

21

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 25 of 58

a.

Were you present for that meeting between Mr. McGahn and Ms. Yates? If yes,
identify all individuals that participated in that meeting between Mr. McGahn and
Ms. Yates and describe what was said.
RESPONSE: No, I was not present.

b.

Did you discuss that meeting with Mr. McGahn? If yes, describe what was
discussed.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

34.

Page 33 of the Report indicates that Mr. McGahn told Ms. Yates that “the White House
did not want to take action that would interfere with an ongoing FBI investigation of
Flynn.”
a.

Is that statement accurate?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 33a. I am unable to confirm whether
that statement is accurate.

b.

Did Mr. McGahn ever express that sentiment to you?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Was it your understanding at the time that the White House did not want to take
action that would interfere with an ongoing FBI investigation of Michael Flynn?
If yes, explain why the White House took that position.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Did you ever come to understand that the President had a different view?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

35.

Page 33 of the Report states that “McGahn had previously advised the President that he
should not communicate directly with the Department of Justice to avoid the perception
or reality of political interference in law enforcement.”

22

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 26 of 58

a.

Is this statement accurate?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

b.

Were you present when Mr. McGahn advised the President that he should not
“communicate directly with the Department of Justice to avoid the perception or
reality of political interference in law enforcement?” If yes, describe those
discussions.
RESPONSE: I was not present for any meeting between the President and
Mr. McGahn concerning whether or not to “communicate directly with the
Department of Justice to avoid the perception or reality of political interference in
law enforcement.”
I do not, today, independently recall whether I was present for any such
communication that may have occurred over the telephone.

c.

Did you discuss Mr. McGahn’s advice to the President with Mr. McGahn?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Did you believe that Mr. McGahn’s advice to the President was correct?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

Why or why not?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

g.

Did President Trump follow Mr. McGahn’s advice?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

23

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 27 of 58

36.

Page 45 of the Report indicates that Mr. McGahn told the Special Counsel that the
President confirmed to Mr. McGahn that he “in fact spoke to Comey about Flynn in their
one-on-one meeting.”
a.

Were you present when the President confirmed to Mr. McGahn that he “in fact
spoke to Comey about Flynn in their one-on-one meeting?”
RESPONSE: I was not present for any in-person communication between the
President and Mr. McGahn concerning whether or not the President “in fact spoke
to Comey about Flynn in their one-on-one meeting.”
I do not, today, independently recall whether I was present for any such
communication that may have occurred over the telephone.

b.

If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 36a.

c.

Did you ever speak to Mr. McGahn about the President confirming to Mr.
McGahn that the President “in fact spoke to Comey about Flynn in their one-onone meeting?” If yes, describe that conversation.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

37.

Page 53 of the Mueller Report states, “according to McGahn and Donaldson, the
President had expressed frustration with Comey before his March 20 testimony, and the
testimony made matters worse.”
a.

Is this accurate?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of the voluntary statements I made to it, although I do not
have access to its records of my statements.
Any characterization of my voluntary statements set forth in the Report is that of
the Special Counsel’s Office and may be derived, in part, from sources other than
my statements.

b.

Describe all conversations for which you were present in which the President
expressed frustration with Mr. Comey and who if anyone else was present for
those discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

24

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 28 of 58

c.

Describe all conversations you had with Mr. McGahn regarding the President’s
frustration with Mr. Comey and identify any other individuals present for those
discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Describe what President Trump said or how he reacted in response to Mr.
Comey’s March 20, 2017 testimony, or what anyone told you about the
President’s reaction that led you to believe that it “made matters worse.”
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

38.

Page 54 of the Report states that following Mr. Comey’s March 20 testimony, “McGahn,
Donaldson, and senior advisor Stephen Miller recalled that the President was upset with
Comey’s testimony and the press coverage that followed because of the suggestion that
the President was under investigation.”
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of the voluntary statements I made to it, although I do not
have access to its records of my statements.

b.

Describe all conversations for which you were present in which the President
expressed frustration about the suggestion that he was under investigation and
identify any other individuals present for those conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Describe all conversations you had with Mr. McGahn regarding the President’s
frustration about the suggestion that he was under investigation and identify any
other individuals present for those conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

39.

Page 54 of the Report, citing to your notes at Bates Number SC_AD_00213, states that
“notes from the White House Counsel’s office dated March 21, 2018 indicate that the
President was beside himself over Comey’s testimony.” Footnote 323 on the same page
quotes your notes at Bates Number SC_AD_00206 as indicating the President “referred
to the ‘Comey Bombshell’ which ‘made [him] look like a fool.’”

25

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 29 of 58

a.

Is that account accurate?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of my handwritten notes.

b.

Describe what you recall about the President’s statements reflected in your notes.
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of my handwritten notes.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

c.

Describe what President Trump said or the manner in which he acted, or what
anyone else told you about the President’s reaction, that led you to conclude that
he was “beside himself” over Mr. Comey’s testimony?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 39(b).

40.

Page 54 of the Report indicates that on March 21, 2017 “[t]he President called McGahn
repeatedly that day to ask him to intervene with the Department of Justice, and, according
to the notes, the President was ‘getting hotter and hotter, get rid?’”
a.

Is that account accurate?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of “getting hotter and hotter, get rid” from my handwritten
notes.

b.

Describe what you meant when you wrote in your notes that the President was
“getting hotter and hotter, get rid?”
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of “getting hotter and hotter, get rid” from my handwritten
notes.
I affirm the accuracy of the voluntary statements I made when being interviewed
by the Special Counsel’s Office. See footnote 3.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

26

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 30 of 58

c.

Does that mean the President wanted to get rid of Mr. Comey?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of “getting hotter and hotter, get rid” from my handwritten
notes. However, I cannot speak to the President’s state of mind.

d.

Did you observe or hear any of the discussions between President Trump and
Mr. McGahn that day?
RESPONSE: I do not, today, have an independent recollection of whether I
directly observed or heard any discussions between the President and Mr.
McGahn on March 21, 2017.

e.

If yes, what did the President say?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 40d.

f.

Did you discuss with Mr. McGahn the President’s calls to Mr. McGahn asking
him to intervene with the Department of Justice?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

g.

If yes, what did Mr. McGahn say about those calls?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

h.

Describe Mr. McGahn’s reaction to President Trump’s repeated efforts to get
Mr. McGahn to intervene with the Department of Justice.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

i.

Did you discuss with anyone else the President’s calls to Mr. McGahn asking him
to intervene with the Department of Justice?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

27

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 31 of 58

j.

If yes, who did you discuss it with and what did you say about those calls?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

k.

How many times did President Trump contact Mr. McGahn directly or indirectly
to ask that Mr. McGahn intervene with the Department of Justice?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

l.

Did you observe or hear any other discussions between President Trump and
Mr. McGahn in which the President asked Mr. McGahn to intervene with the
Department of Justice in the Special Counsel’s investigation?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

m.

If so, describe those discussions and who was present.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

n.

Did anyone else ever tell you about discussions between President Trump and
Mr. McGahn in which the President asked Mr. McGahn to intervene with the
Department of Justice in the Special Counsel’s investigation?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

o.

If so, describe those discussions and who was present.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

41.

Page 54 of the Report states that on March 21, 2017, “[o]fficials in the White House
Counsel’s office became so concerned that the President would fire Comey that they
began drafting a memorandum that examined whether the President needed cause to
terminate the FBI director.”

28

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 32 of 58

a.

Does this statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: Part of my and other White House Counsel’s Office staff’s duties
included conducting legal research as to Executive powers and rendering advice
on the same. These functions were job requirements, not responses to
“concern[ ]”.

b.

What actions did President Trump take that led officials in the White House
Counsel’s office to become concerned that President Trump would fire
Mr. Comey?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Identify the officials in the White House Counsel’s office that were concerned
that President Trump would fire Mr. Comey.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Describe all conversations you recall about these concerns.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Did you participate in drafting the memorandum described?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

Do you have a copy of that memorandum?
RESPONSE: No.

42.

Pages 54 and 55 of the Report, citing to your notes at Bates Number SC_AD_00210,
indicate that on March 21, 2017 President Trump “sought to speak with Acting Attorney
General Dana Boente directly, but McGahn told the President that Boente did not want to
talk to the President about the request to intervene with Comey.”
a.

Does this statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of my handwritten notes or its description of the voluntary

29

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 33 of 58

statements I made to it, although I do not have access to its records of my
statements.
b.

Were you present for those discussions between the President and Mr. McGahn?
If yes, describe those conversations.
RESPONSE: I was not present for any in-person discussions between the
President and Mr. McGahn on this day concerning Mr. Comey or Mr. Boente. It
is possible that I was present in Mr. McGahn’s office for, but not a participant in,
a telephone discussion between the President and Mr. McGahn.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

c.

Were you present for Mr. McGahn’s discussions with Mr. Boente? If yes,
describe those conversations.
RESPONSE: Yes, I was present for at least some telephone calls between Mr.
Boente and Mr. McGahn on March 21, 2017.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

d.

Did you discuss with Mr. McGahn his conversation with Mr. Boente? If yes,
describe those conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

43.

Page 62 of the Report states that Mr. McGahn “recalled that in the week leading up to”
Mr. Comey’s May 3, 2017 testimony before Congress, “the President said that it would
be the last straw if Comey did not take the opportunity to set the record straight by
publicly announcing that the President was not under investigation.”
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I do not, today, have an independent recollection of whether any
such statement was made during the week prior to May 3, 2017, and, if it was,
whether or not I was present.

b.

Were you present when the President made that statement? If yes, describe
everything you recall the President saying and who else was present.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 43a.

30

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 34 of 58

c.

Did you discuss the President’s statement with Mr. McGahn? If yes, describe
those discussions.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 43a.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

44.

Did the White House Counsel’s office instruct President Trump to refrain from
contacting Mr. Comey about the FBI’s investigation into Russia? If yes, who contacted
the President, who was present for those conversations and what was the President was
told?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question because
of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests that are
implicated.

45.

Did President Trump contact Mr. Comey with respect to the FBI’s investigation into
Russia against the advice of the White House Counsel’s office?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question because
of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests that are
implicated.

46.

Footnote 385 of Page 62 of the Report references an entry in your notes at
SC_AD_00265 that states “P called Comey – Day we told him not to? ‘You are not under
investigation’ NK/China/Sapping Credibility.”
a.

Describe the meaning of the notes in that entry and the date of the events
described.
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of my handwritten notes, which were taken on or around April
11, 2017.
I affirm the accuracy of the voluntary statements I made when being interviewed
by the Special Counsel’s Office. See footnote 3.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

How did you learn what was said on the President’s call with Mr. Comey?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

31

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 35 of 58

c.

Did you or Mr. McGahn tell the President not to call Mr. Comey? If yes, describe
those conversations, including who was present.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Why did you or Mr. McGahn tell the President not to call Mr. Comey?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Did you discuss with Mr. McGahn that the President disregarded what you or
Mr. McGahn told him about not calling Mr. Comey? If yes, describe those
conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

Did you believe it was improper for the President to make such a call to Mr.
Comey?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

47.

Page 65 of the Report describes a meeting on the morning of Monday, May 8, 2017, in
which the President informed Mr. McGahn and others that he decided to terminate Mr.
Comey, “read aloud the first paragraphs of the termination letter he wrote with Stephen
Miller, and conveyed that the decision had been made and was not up for discussion.”
Did you discuss that meeting with Mr. McGahn? If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question because
of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests that are
implicated.

48.

Page 66 of the Report states that on May 8, 2017, Mr. McGahn attempted to “slow down
the decision-making process” by telling the President that “DOJ leadership was currently
discussing Comey’s status” and suggesting that “White House Counsel’s Office attorneys
should talk with Sessions and Rod Rosenstein who had recently been confirmed as the
Deputy Attorney General.” Did you discuss this event with Mr. McGahn? If yes,
describe those discussions and who else was present.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question because
of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests that are
implicated.

32

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 36 of 58

49.

Page 66 of the Report states that at noon on May 8, 2017, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Rosenstein,
and Jody Hunt met with Mr. McGahn and White House Counsel’s office attorney Uttam
Dhillon at the White House to discuss firing Mr. Comey.
a.

Did you attend this meeting?
RESPONSE: No.

b.

If yes, describe the substance of the meeting.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 49a.

c.

If you did not attend the meeting, did you discuss the events that occurred during
the meeting with any of its attendees?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

If yes, identify the person or persons with whom you discussed the meeting and
describe the substance of your discussions with these individuals.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

50.

Page 66 of the Report states that on May 8, 2017 “[a]t around 5 p.m., the President and
several White House officials met with Sessions and Rosenstein to discuss Comey.” Did
you attend this meeting or discuss the meeting with Mr. McGahn? If yes, describe those
discussions.
RESPONSE: No, I did not attend this meeting.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to this
question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.
a.

Page 67 of the Report states that during the meeting, the President “then
distributed copies of the termination letter he had drafted with Miller, and the
discussion turned to the mechanics of how to fire Comey and whether the
President’s letter should be used.”

b.

Is this statement accurate?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 50.

33

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 37 of 58

c.

Page 67 of the Report states that during the meeting, Mr. McGahn and Mr.
Dhillon urged the President to permit Mr. Comey to resign, but the President was
adamant that he be fired.

d.

Is this statement accurate?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 50.

e.

Page 67 of the Report states that during the meeting, the group discussed the
possibility that Rosenstein and Sessions could provide a recommendation in
writing that Mr. Comey should be removed.

f.

Is this statement accurate?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 50.

g.

Page 67 of the Report states that during the meeting, Mr. Rosenstein, in response
to the President saying “[p]ut the Russia stuff in the memo,” stated that the Russia
investigation was not the basis of his recommendation, so he did not think Russia
should be mentioned.”

h.

Is this information accurate?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 50.

51.

Page 68 of the Report states, “Notes taken by Donaldson on May 9 reflected the view of
the White House Counsel’s Office that the President’s original termination letter should
‘[n]ot [see the] light of day’ and that it would be better to offer “[n]o other rationales” for
the firing than what was in Rosenstein’s and Sessions’ memoranda.” The accompanying
citation (footnote 442) cites your notes, Bates Number SC_AD_00342.
a.

Does this statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of my handwritten notes.
I affirm the accuracy of the voluntary statements I made when being interviewed
by the Special Counsel’s Office. See footnote 3.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Identify the individuals who participated in the discussions that led to the view of
the White House Counsel’s office regarding the President’s original termination
letter reflected in your notes.

34

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 38 of 58

RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.
c.

Who stated that the original termination letter should not “see the light of day”
and what was the basis for that statement?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Did anyone disagree with that statement and if so, who and what the basis for
disagreement?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Describe everything you recall about the discussions and events recorded in
SC_AD_00342, including who made the statements referenced in the notes.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

Where did the events and conversations that were recorded in SC_AD_00342
relating to the rationales for terminating Mr. Comey as FBI Director take place?
RESPONSE: At least some of the conversations took place in Mr. McGahn’s
office. I do not, today, have an independent recollection of whether the events or
conversations also took place in other locations as well.

g.

Did the rationale offered for firing Mr. Comey as set forth in the original
termination letter reflect the President’s actual reasons for firing Mr. Comey?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

h.

Did the rationale offered for firing Mr. Comey as set forth in the Rosenstein
memorandum reflect the President’s actual reasons for firing Mr. Comey?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

35

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 39 of 58

i.

Did you discuss with Mr. McGahn the conversations and events recorded in
SC_AD_00342? If yes, describe those conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

52.

Footnote 442 on Page 68 of the Report states that on Bates Number SC_AD_00342, your
notes state, “[i]s this the beginning of the end?” and indicates you said you wrote this
because you were “worried that the decision to terminate Comey and the manner in
which it was carried out would be the end of the presidency.”
a.

Does this accurately reflect your recollection of what you wrote and why you
wrote it?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of “[i]s this the beginning of the end?” from my handwritten
notes.
I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s Office’s
description of the voluntary statements I made to it, although I do not have access
to its records of my statements.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

What about the decision to terminate Mr. Comey and/or the manner in which it
was carried out made you worried that it would mean the end of the presidency?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Explain what you meant when you used the words “end of the presidency?”
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of the voluntary statements I made to it, although I do not
have access to its records of my statements.

d.

Did you believe at the time that President Trump’s decision to terminate Mr.
Comey involved potentially criminal conduct?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

36

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 40 of 58

e.

Did you discuss these concerns with anyone?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

If so, with whom did you have those discussions and what specifically was
discussed?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

53.

Page 69 of the Report, citing your notes at SC_AD_00342 (footnote 446) indicates that
Mr. Dhillon made a final pitch to the President that Mr. Comey should be permitted to
resign, but the President refused.
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotation of my handwritten notes or its description of the voluntary
statements I made to it, although I do not have access to its records of my
statements.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Describe anything you recall about what Mr. Dhillon told the President about
permitting Mr. Comey to resign.
RESPONSE: I was not present for Mr. Dhillon’s conversation with the
President.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

54.

Page 70 of the Report indicates that Mr. Sessions informed the White House Counsel’s
office that Mr. Rosenstein was upset that his memorandum was being portrayed as the
reason for Mr. Comey’s termination.
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of the voluntary statements I made to it, although I do not
have access to its records of my statements.

37

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 41 of 58

In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.
b.

Describe any conversation(s) you had regarding whether Mr. Rosenstein or
anyone at the Department of Justice was upset about how the Department’s
memorandum was being portrayed.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did you believe his memorandum was used improperly or unfairly?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

55.

Page 71 of the Report states that “[w]hen Mr. McGahn asked the President about his
comments to [Russian Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov, the President said it was good
that Comey was fired because that took the pressure off by making it clear that he was
not under investigation so he could get more work done.”
a.

Were you present for any part of that conversation between Mr. McGahn and the
President? If yes, describe what was said and who was present.
RESPONSE: No, I was not present.

b.

Did you discuss that conversation with Mr. McGahn? If yes, describe what was
said.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did the President’s statements to Mr. Lavrov or anyone else about the reason(s)
he fired Mr. Comey concern you at the time? If yes, describe your concerns.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

56.

Page 72 of the Report recount a meeting that occurred the morning of May 10, 2017 at
the White House involving former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and the
President in which the President said he “received ‘hundreds’ of messages from FBI
employees indicating their support for terminating Comey” and “asked McCabe who he
had voted for in the 2016 Presidential election.” Footnote 477 notes that the account of
the meeting is consistent with your notes at Bates Number SC_AD_00347.

38

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 42 of 58

a.

Did you attend that meeting involving Mr. McCabe and the President?
RESPONSE: No.

b.

Did you take notes at the meeting?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 56a.

c.

Is the account in the Report of what took place at the meeting consistent with your
recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of my handwritten notes.
Any characterization of my notes set forth in the Report is that of the Special
Counsel’s Office and may be derived, in part, from sources other than my notes.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

d.

Describe everything you recall about that meeting.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 56a.

e.

Describe all conversations you had with Mr. McGahn or anyone else about that
meeting.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

Identify the other individuals who attended the meeting.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 56a.

57.

On pages 72 and 73, the Report states that on May 10, 2017, Mr. Sessions and
Mr. Rosenstein “each spoke to McGahn and expressed concern that the White
House was creating a narrative that Rosenstein had initiated the decision to fire
Comey.”
a.

Were you present for any parts of those conversations?
RESPONSE: It is possible, although I do not, today, have an independent
recollection of whether or not I was present for the cited discussions.

39

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 43 of 58

b.

Does the Report accurately describe those conversations based on your
recollection of events?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of my voluntary statements to it, although I do not have
access to its records of my statements.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

c.

Describe everything you recall being said.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Identify all individuals who participated in those conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

58.

Page 73 of the Report states that “[t]he White House Counsel’s Office agreed that it was
factually wrong to say that the Department of Justice had initiated Comey’s termination.”
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of my voluntary statements to it, although I do not have
access to its records of my statements.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Who in the White House Counsel’s office agreed to this?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did you or anyone else express those concerns to the President at the time? If so,
who was present for those discussions and what was said?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

40

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 44 of 58

59.

Page 73 of the Report states that Mr. McGahn asked attorneys in the White House
Counsel’s office to work with the press office to correct the narrative.
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: Yes.

b.

Did the White House Counsel’s office take steps to correct the narrative? If so,
who took those steps and what was done?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to these questions
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did you have any concerns about the false narrative created by President Trump
regarding the reasons for Mr. Comey’s termination?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

60.

Page 73 of the Report references the President’s May 11, 2017 interview with Lester
Holt. The Report states that the President told White House Counsel’s office attorneys in
advance of the interview that the communications team could not get the story right, so
he was going on Lester Holt to say what really happened.
a.

Did you participate in that conversation with President Trump? If yes, describe
everything you recall about that conversation?
RESPONSE: I did not participate in any such conversation.

b.

Identify all individuals that participated in that conversation.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did you have any discussions with Mr. McGahn or anyone else about the
President’s interview with Lester Holt following the interview? If yes, describe
those conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

61.

On May 23, 2017, the Department of Justice announced that ethics officials cleared
Robert S. Mueller, III to serve as the Special Counsel. Page 81 of the Report states that

41

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 45 of 58

Mr. McGahn “recalled that around the same time, the President complained about the
asserted conflicts and prodded McGahn to reach out to Rosenstein about the issue.”
a.

Were you present for any of the conversation(s) between Mr. McGahn and the
President on this subject? If yes, describe everything you recall being said.
RESPONSE: I was not present for any in-person discussions between the
President and Mr. McGahn on this day. It is possible that I was present in
Mr. McGahn’s office for, but not a participant in, a telephone discussion between
the President and Mr. McGahn.

b.

Did you discuss the subject of Special Counsel Mueller’s purported “conflicts”
with Mr. McGahn? If yes, describe everything you recall about those
conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Do you witness the President’s reaction to this news?
RESPONSE: No.

d.

If yes, describe the President’s reaction, what was said, and who else was present.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 61(c).

62.

Footnote 540 on page 81 references an entry in your notes, at Bates Number
SC_AD_00361, recording a May 23, 2017 conversation between Mr. McGahn and the
President in which Mr. McGahn “told the President that he would not call Rosenstein”
and “suggest[ed] that the President not make such a call either.”
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of my handwritten notes or my voluntary statements to it,
although I do not have access to its records of my statements.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Identify each person who participated in the conversation.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

42

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 46 of 58

c.

Did you discuss that conversation with Mr. McGahn? If so, describe what was
discussed.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Did you discuss that conversation with anyone else?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

If so, describe what was discussed.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

63.

The Report, on pages 81 and 82 citing to your notes at Bates Number SC_AD_00361,
states (footnote 541) that Mr. McGahn “advised that the President could discuss the issue
[of whether Mr. Mueller had conflicts of interest] with his personal attorney but it would
“‘look like still trying to meddle in [the] investigation’ and ‘knocking out Mueller’ would
be ‘[a]nother fact used to claim obst[ruction] of justice.’”
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotations of “look like still trying to meddle in [the] investigation”;
“knocking out Mueller”; and “[a]nother fact used to claim obst[ruction] of
justice” from my handwritten notes.
I affirm the accuracy of the voluntary statements I made when being interviewed
by the Special Counsel’s Office. See footnote 3.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Describe what your notes mean.
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of my handwritten notes or my voluntary statements to it,
although I do not have access to its records of my statements.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

43

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 47 of 58

c.

Did you agree that President Trump’s conduct exposed him to potential
obstruction of justice allegations? If yes, did you discuss that belief with anyone
else and, if so, who did you discuss it with and what was said?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Were you concerned at the time that the President may have committed
obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation? If yes, did you discuss
that concern with anyone else and, if so, with whom did you discuss it and what
was said?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Did you have any discussions about the statements reflected in these notes with
Mr. McGahn or anyone else? If yes, describe those conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

64.

Page 82 of the Report states that Mr. McGahn also “told the President that his ‘biggest
exposure’ was not his act of firing Comey but his ‘other contacts’ and ‘calls,’ and his ‘ask
re: Flynn.’” The accompanying citation (footnote 542) refers to your notes,
SC_AD_00361.
a.

Does the term “biggest exposure” refer to the President’s potential legal liability
for obstruction of justice?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s quotations of “biggest exposure”; “other contacts”; “calls”; and “ask re:
Flynn,” from my handwritten notes.
I affirm the accuracy of the voluntary statements I made when being interviewed
by the Special Counsel’s Office. See footnote 3.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

If not, to what does it refer?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 64(a).

44

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 48 of 58

c.

Which “other contacts” or “calls” are being referenced?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 64(a).

d.

Which “ask re: Flynn” is being referenced?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 64(a).

65.

Footnote 539 on page 81 states that “McGahn and Donaldson said that after the
appointment of the Special Counsel, they considered themselves potential fact witnesses
and accordingly told the President that inquiries related to the investigation should be
brought to his personal counsel.”
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of the voluntary statements I made to it, although I do not
have access to its records of my statements.
I was not a participant in any such conversation with the President. Any
characterization of my voluntary statements set forth in the Report is that of the
Special Counsel’s Office and may be derived, in part, from sources other than my
statements.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Did you discuss with Mr. McGahn this conversation with the President, either
before or after you had it? If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

At the time, did you consider the events you observed regarding President
Trump’s conduct to be evidence of potential criminal conduct?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Did the President follow the advice you and Mr. McGahn gave to the President
and avoid discussing the investigation with you and Mr. McGahn?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

45

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 49 of 58

66.

Page 85 of the Report indicates that on Saturday, June 17, 2017, President Trump called
Mr. McGahn and “directed him to have the Special Counsel removed.”
a.

Did you personally hear any part of these conversation(s)?
RESPONSE: No.

b.

If yes, describe everything that the President said on the call(s).
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 66(a)

c.

Did Mr. McGahn speak to you about these call(s)?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

If yes, describe everything that Mr. McGahn told you.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Did Mr. McGahn express to you any concerns about the President’s call(s)?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

If yes, what concerns did Mr. McGahn express?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

67.

Page 86 of the Report indicates that Mr. McGahn called you on or about June 17, 2017 to
inform you that he had decided to resign.
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of the voluntary statements I made to it, although I do not
have access to its records of my statements.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

46

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 50 of 58

b.

Describe everything you recall Mr. McGahn saying to you on the call and what
you said in response.
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 67a.

c.

Did Mr. McGahn express his concern that the President was asking him to do
something that he believed was unlawful or improper?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Did you tell anyone else what Mr. McGahn had told you?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

If so, who did you tell and what did you say?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

f.

Did Mr. McGahn tell you if he told anyone else that he planned to resign?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

g.

If so, who else did he tell and what did he tell you he said?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

68.

Page 86 of the Report states that “Donaldson recalled that McGahn told her the President
had called and demanded he contact the Department of Justice and that the President
wanted him to do something that McGahn did not want to do.”
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of the voluntary statements I made to it, although I do not
have access to its records of my statements.

47

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 51 of 58

In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.
b.

Did Mr. McGahn state why he did not want to do it?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did Mr. McGahn express in words or substance a concern that the President was
asking him to help interfere with or obstruct the ongoing investigation?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

69.

Page 86 of the Report states that Mr. McGahn told Donaldson that the President had
called at least twice and in one of the calls asked “have you done it?” Does that statement
accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of the voluntary statements I made to it, although I do not have
access to its records of my statements.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to this
question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

70.

Page 87 of the Report states that you inferred that the President’s directive was related to
the Russia investigation.
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: I have no reason to question the accuracy of the Special Counsel’s
Office’s description of the voluntary statements I made to it, although I do not
have access to its records of my statements.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Describe the underlying facts that led you to infer that the President’s directive to
Mr. McGahn related to the Russia investigation.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

48

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 52 of 58

71.

Page 87 of the Report states that “Donaldson prepared to resign along with McGahn.”
a.

Does that statement accurately reflect your recollection?
RESPONSE: Yes.

b.

Why did you prepare to resign along with Mr. McGahn?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did you tell anyone else you planned to resign?
RESPONSE: I have been instructed by my counsel not to answer this question
because it implicates common law privilege.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

d.

If so, who and what exactly did you say?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 71c.

e.

Did you believe the President was asking Mr. McGahn to do something that was
unlawful or improper? If yes, explain why you felt that way.
RESPONSE: I have been instructed by my counsel not to answer this question
because it calls for speculation and is vague as to “improper.”
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

72.

Did you record any portion of your conversation(s) with Mr. McGahn about the events of
June 17, 2017 in your notes? If not, why didn’t you record the conversation?
RESPONSE: No. To the best of my recollection, these events occurred on a weekend
and I was not in possession of my running handwritten notes.

73.

Do you know why Mr. McGahn decided not to resign?
RESPONSE: No, I do not know why Mr. McGahn decided not to resign.

74.

If so, why and what is the basis for your knowledge?
RESPONSE: See Response to Question 73.

49

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 53 of 58

75.

Pages 116-17 of the Report describes a February 6, 2018 conversation in the Oval Office
involving the President, Mr. McGahn, and Chief of Staff John Kelly in which the
President ordered Mr. McGahn to “correct” reports that the President had ordered
Mr. McGahn to fire the Special Counsel.
a.

Did you participate in that meeting?
RESPONSE: No.

b.

Did you ever learn from Mr. McGahn or otherwise that the President had asked
him to deny that the President had told him to fire the Special Counsel at that
meeting or on any other occasion? If yes, describe everything that you learned
about what the President told Mr. McGahn and how you learned it.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

Did you discuss with Mr. McGahn that the President had asked him to deny that
the President had told him to fire the Special Counsel? If yes, describe everything
that Mr. McGahn said to you.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

d.

Did you discuss with Mr. McGahn what Mr. McGahn said in response to the
President’s request that he deny that the President had told him to fire the Special
Counsel? If yes, describe everything that Mr. McGahn said to you.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

e.

Did you ever learn from Mr. McGahn or otherwise that the President had asked
him to create a letter denying the President had told him to fire the Special
Counsel? If yes, describe everything that you learned about what the President
told Mr. McGahn and how you learned it?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

76.

Page 95 of the Report states that on July 22, 2017, President Trump told then-White
House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to get Mr. Sessions to resign “immediately,”
because Mr. Sessions would not reverse his decision to recuse himself from the Russia
investigation. The Report further states that Priebus thought this was, “all wrong,” so he
asked Mr. McGahn for advice on what to do.

50

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 54 of 58

a.

Do you have direct personal knowledge regarding this event? If yes, describe
what you know and how you know it.
RESPONSE: I was not present for any such conversation between President
Trump and Mr. Priebus on or about July 22, 2017.
I am aware of a conversation between Mr. Priebus and Mr. McGahn, although I
do not, today, have an independent recollection of whether or not I was present
for any such conversation between Mr. Priebus and Mr. McGahn, or subsequently
learned about this event.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Did you speak with Mr. McGahn about this event? If yes, describe the substance
of those conversations.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

77.

Page 113 of the Report states that on January 25, 2018, the New York Times reported
that in June 2017, the President had ordered Mr. McGahn to have the Department of
Justice fire the Special Counsel. Page 114 of the Report states that on January 26, 2018,
the President’s personal counsel called Mr. McGahn’s personal attorney and said that the
President wanted Mr. McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to
fire the Special Counsel and that he had threatened to quit in protest.
a.

Do you have any personal knowledge regarding these events?
RESPONSE: I was not present for any such telephone call on or about January
26, 2018.
I affirm the accuracy of the voluntary statements I made when being interviewed
by the Special Counsel’s Office. See footnote 3.

b.

Did you ever speak to Mr. McGahn about efforts to have him dispute the January
25, 2018 New York Times report?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

c.

If so, describe the substance of those conversations.

51

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 55 of 58

RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.
78.

Page 115 of the Report also indicates that Sarah Sanders contacted Mr. McGahn about
the January 25, 2018 New York Times report.
a.

Do you have personal knowledge regarding the conversation between
Ms. Sanders and Mr. McGahn? If yes, describe that discussion?
RESPONSE: I do not, today, have an independent recollection of whether or not
I was present for any such conversation.
It is possible that I subsequently learned of such a conversation.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Did Mr. McGahn speak to you about his conversation with Ms. Sanders about the
January 25, 2018 New York Times report? If yes, describe your conversation
with Mr. McGahn on that subject.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

79.

Page 116 of the Report indicates that Rob Porter told Mr. McGahn that he had to write a
letter to dispute that he was ordered to terminate the Special Counsel, and that if he did
not, the President may fire Mr. McGahn.
a.

Do you have personal knowledge regarding this event?
RESPONSE: I am generally aware such a conversation took place. I do not,
today, have an independent recollection of whether or not I was present for any
such conversation or subsequently learned of it, nor do I have an independent
recollection of the precise contents of the conversation.

b.

Did you speak to Mr. McGahn about Mr. Porter’s instructions from the President?
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

52

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 56 of 58

c.

If yes, describe the substance of your conversation with Mr. McGahn about the
President’s instructions to write a letter disputing that he was never ordered to
terminate the Special Counsel.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

80.

Page 116 of the Report states that on February 6, 2018, Mr. McGahn met with the
President in the Oval Office to discuss the New York Times article.
a.

Do you have personal knowledge regarding the discussions that occurred during
this meeting? If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: I am aware of these discussions. I was not present in the Oval
Office for any such discussion on or about February 6, 2018, but I subsequently
learned of it.
In addition, the White House has directed that I not provide any further answer to
this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch
confidentiality interests that are implicated.

b.

Did you ever speak to Mr. McGahn about what occurred during this meeting? If
yes, describe your conversation with Mr. McGahn about this subject.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

81.

Page 116 of the Report states that on the morning of February 6, 2018, the President’s
personal counsel called Mr. McGahn’s attorney and said that “the President was going to
be speaking with McGahn and McGahn could not resign no matter what happened in the
meeting.”
a.

Do you have personal knowledge regarding this call? If yes, describe what was
said on the call.
RESPONSE: I was not present for any such telephone call on or about February
6, 2018. I do not, today, have an independent recollection of whether I
subsequently learned of it.

b.

Did you speak with Mr. McGahn about this event? If yes, describe your
conversation with Mr. McGahn about this subject.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

53

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 57 of 58

82.

State each date on which you were interviewed by the Special Counsel, who was present
for those interviews and where those interviews took place.
RESPONSE: I was interviewed on November 6, 2017, and April 2, 2018.
Present were my personal counsel and representatives from the Special Counsel’s Office.
Those interviews took place in a Department of Justice office.

83.

Were you or your counsel provided any documents in advance of your interviews with
the Special Counsel by the White House?
RESPONSE: Yes.
a.

If so, who provided those documents, what documents were provided and where
are those documents now.
RESPONSE: The White House has directed that I not respond to this question
because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests
that are implicated.

84.

Were you or your counsel provided any documents in advance of your interviews with
the Special Counsel by the Special Counsel’s Office? If so, who provided those
documents, what documents were provided and where are those documents now.
RESPONSE: No.

85.

Did anyone at the White House, including the President, direct you not to answer any
questions during those interviews?
RESPONSE: No. I was encouraged by the White House to cooperate fully with
the Special Counsel’s Office.

86.

Did anyone at the White House, including the President, direct you not to provide or
discuss any documents during those interviews?
RESPONSE: No. I was encouraged by the White House to cooperate fully with
the Special Counsel’s Office.

87.

Did anyone invoke privilege over any of your testimony to the Special Counsel’s Office?
RESPONSE: As to my role as a private attorney advising the Trump campaign,
the Trump campaign has not waived attorney-client privilege in connection with
my provision of a voluntary statement to the Special Counsel’s Office.
As to my employment at the White House, I was advised and understood that the
position of the White House and the Department of Justice was that an interview
with the Special Counsel, as a subordinate Executive Branch officer to the
President, did not implicate constitutionally-protected Executive Branch
54

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-34 Filed 08/07/19 Page 58 of 58

confidentiality interests and therefore my participation would not constitute a
waiver of executive privilege for other purposes.
88.

Did you ever discuss these interviews with the President? If yes, describe those
discussions.
RESPONSE: No.

89.

Did you discuss the substance of your interviews with anyone outside the Special
Counsel’s Office or your attorney? If yes, describe those discussions.
RESPONSE: No.

90.

Did you ever witness President Trump asking anyone to make a statement that was not
true during your time at the White House?
RESPONSE: I did not witness the President direct anyone to make any
statement that was, to my knowledge, untrue.

91.

When was the last time you spoke with the President? Who initiated that contact and
what was discussed?
RESPONSE: I last spoke with the President when I posed for a “departure
photo” with him in the Oval Office shortly before leaving my employment at the
White House. The President and I exchanged pleasantries and he thanked me for
my service, but as far I recall, we had no substantive discussions.

92.

Has anyone from the President’s legal team, staff or his family reached out to you about
your answers to these questions? If yes, who contacted you and what was said?
RESPONSE: No.

55

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-35 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit II

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-35 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 5

JERROLD NADLER, New York
CHAIRMAN

ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
HENRY C. "HANK" JOHNSON, JR., Georgia
TED DEUTCH, Florida
KAREN BASS, California
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ERIC SWALWELL, California
TED LIEU, California
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
VAL DEMINGS, Florida
LOU CORREA, California
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
JOSEPH NEGUSE, Colorado
LUCY McBATH, Georgia
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RANKING MEMBER

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

[:ongrrss of thr tinitrd �tatrs
iR.ousc of 'Rcprcsrntatiocs
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
2138

RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

WASHINGTON,

DC 20515-6216

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JIM JORDAN, Ohio
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATI GAETZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
TOM McCLINTOCK, California
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia
KELLY ARMSTRONG, Alabama
GREG STEUBE, Florida

(202) 225-3951
http://www.house.gov/judiciary

May 7, 2019
William A. Burck,Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
1300 I St.NW
Suite 9000
Washington,D.C.20005
Dear Mr.Burck:
On Monday,April 22,the House Committee on the Judiciary served a subpoena on your
client,former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II,compelling the production of
documents in Mr.McGahn's possession or control by May 7, and his testimony on May 21,
2019. We write in response to your letter received this morning regarding that subpoena.
As an initial matter, regarding the subpoenaed documents,the White House Counsel's
letter did not actually invoke executive privilege, but rather merely suggested at the 11th hour without providing any supporting authority - that all requested documents "implicate significant
Executive Branch confidential interests and executive privilege." 1 This blanket suggestion of
potential privilege is entirely insufficient. As the district court for the District of Columbia held
in Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, a subpoena recipient is "not excused from compliance
with [a] Committee's subpoena by virtue of a claim of executive privilege that may ultimately be
made."2 Nor can a "blanket assertion of privilege over all records generated after a particular
date ...pass muster," without a "showing ...that any of the individual records satisf[y] the
prerequisites for the application of the privilege. "3
Even if the President were to properly invoke privilege,any claim of executive privilege
has been waived as to documents that the White House voluntarily disclosed to Mr.McGahn and
1
2

3

Letter to Chairman Nadler from Pat A. Cipollone (May 7, 2019) (emphasis added).
Mem. Op., Comm. on Judiciary v. Miers, No. 08-cv-0409-JDB (D.D.C. Jul. 31, 2008), at 91 (emphasis added).
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House ofRepresentatives v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008).

 Case Document 1-35 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 5

his counsel. The DC. Circuit expressly held in In re Sealed Case (Espy) that the White House
?waive[s] its claims of privilege in regard to speci?c documents that it voluntarily reveal[s] to .
third parties outside the White House.?4 In Espy, as is the case here, the disclosure at issue was
to the attorney for a former government official.5 Thus, given that there has been neither an
actual assertion of executive privilege, nor an individualized showing that the privilege would
apply to the subpoenaed records, the Committee continues to insist upon compliance with the
subpoena.

As to Mr. McGahn?s own document production obligations, the subpoena plainly directs
that your client must provide a privilege log containing specific information for any document in
his possession or control that ?is withheld in hill or in part on any basis,? including on ?the basis
of a privilege asserted by or on behalf of the White House, or at the request of the White
House.?6 As the instructions also make clear, any ?objections or claims of privilege are waived
if you fail to provide an explanation of why full compliance is not possible and a log identifying
with speci?city the ground(s) for withholding each withheld document prior to the request
compliance date.?7 In accordance with the requirements laid out in our subpoena, we expect a
full privilege log specifying each document withheld, the asserted basis for so doing and the
other information demanded, to be provided forthwith.

Turning to the other requirement of the subpoena that Mr. McGahn appear before the
Committee to provide testimony in two weeks I fully expect that the Committee will hold Mr.
McGahn in contempt if he fails to appear before the Committee, unless the White House secures
a court order directing otherwise.8 Further, even if Mr. McGahn is authorized by court order to
invoke executive privilege as to certain testimony, he still is required by law to ?appear before
the Committee to provide testimony, and invoke executive privilege where appropriate.?9

Consistent with the rules of the House of Representatives, and as the Supreme Court has
admonished, subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game of hare and hounds,
in which the witness must testify only if cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case,
then, indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so necessary to the effective functioning
of courts and legislatures, would be a nullity.?10 And the Supreme Court has ?often iterated the

 

4 In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 741-42 (DC. Cir. 1997).

5 See id.

6 Subpoena by Authority of the House of Representatives of the United States of America to Donald F. McGahn for
documents and testimony, signed by Representative Jerrold Nadler, April 22, 2019.

7 Id.

8 See, e. g, United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 332 (1950) (reasoning that a party cannot fail to comply with a
subpoena absent a ?return of the writ? providing reasons for non-compliance, because to ?deny the Committee the
opportunity to consider the objection or remedy it is in itself a contempt of its authority and an obstruction of its
processes?).

9 Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 106 (D.D.C. 2008).

'0 Bryan, 339 U.S. at 331.

Case Document 1-35 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 5

importance of this public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is
bound to perform when properly summoned.?11

As I am sure you are aware, the President recently declared that he is ??ghting all the
subpoenas? issued by Congress, evidently without regard to whether he has any legal basis to do
so.12 To be clear, a letter from the White House in service of the President?s apparent goal of
blocking or delaying testimony that the President believes would be politically damaging is not a
basis for Mr. McGahn to violate his legal obligation to appear before the Committee. Rather, if
the President wishes to block Mr. McGahn?s appearance in the face of a duly issued subpoena,
the burden rests with the White House to ?le an action in court to attempt to do so.

Moreover, with regard to Mr. McGahn?s testimonial obligations, there is no valid
executive privilege invocation that could be asserted in good faith regarding the subject of the
Special Counsel?s investigation and report. President Trump had the opportunity to assert
executive privilege over Mr. McGahn?s interviews with the Special Counsel and, for strategic
reasons, ?declined to assert any privilege over Mr. McGahn?s testimony,? allowing Mr. McGahn
to answer the Special Counsel?s questions ?fulsomely and honestly.?13 Thereafter, the White
House made the same strategic decision with regard to publication of the report itself not to
assert executive privilege over any portion of the report, including portions describing Mr.
McGahn?s communications with the President and other senior of?cials in extensive detail.14 As
the DC. Circuit has already recognized, publication of such information ?waives privileges for
the document or information speci?cally released.?15

The President and his personal counsel have also routinely commented publicly regarding
the President?s communications with Mr. McGahn, and the content of Mr. McGahn?s testimony
to the Special Counsel. By way of example, on April 25, shortly after the Report was released,
President Trump denied a central event described by Mr. McGahn, tweeting, never told the
White House Counsel Don McGahn to ?re Robert Mueller.?16 As has long been recognized, no
person?not even the President?can employ privilege as both a sword and a shield, selectively
cherry picking which information to tout publicly in his defense, and which information to
deliberately withhold from the American people. 17

 

11 1d.

?2 Charlie Savage, Trump Vows Stonewall of ?All? House Subpoenas, NY. Times, Apr. 24, 2019 (emphasis added).
13 Michael S. Schmidt Maggie Haberman, White House Counsel, Don McGahn, Has Cooperated Extensively in
Mueller Inquiry, NY. TIMES, Aug. 18, 2018.

'4 Attorney General Barr Press Conference on April 18, 2019 (the President con?rmed that ?he would not assert
privilege over the Special Counsel?s report . . . [and] no material has been redacted based on executive privilege?).
?5 In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d. at 741.

16 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Apr. 25, 2019, 4:47 AM).

?7 See, e. g, Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 717-18 (DC. Cir. 1973) (considering public statements by President
Nixon to be a factor undermining the White House claimed need for con?dentiality in related conversations).

3

Case Document 1-35 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 5

Lastly, this Committee is currently engaged in an investigation into alleged obstruction of
justice, public corruption and other abuses of power by the President and his administration.
Even in its redacted form, the Special Counsel?s report offers substantial evidence and analysis
that the President did, in fact, engage in multiple acts of obstruction. Mr. McGahn provided
critical information that appears throughout Volume II of the Special Counsel?s report, detailing
incidents in which, inter alia, the President: sought to stop former Attorney General Sessions
from recusing himself from the Russia investigation and then to have Sessions reverse his recusal
decision1 3; directed Mr. McGahn to have Special Counsel Mueller fired?; directed Mr. McGahn
to deny that attempted ?ring?; and sought to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel?s
investigation.21 Where, as here, there is substantial evidence indicating that the President
engaged in such misconduct, the public interest in the ?fair administration of justice? outweighs

the President?s ?generalized interest in con?dentiality.?22

For all these reasons, Mr. McGahn is required to appear and provide testimony before the
Committee absent a court order authorizing non?compliance, as well as provide a privilege log
for any documents withheld. Otherwise, the Committee will have no choice but to resort to
contempt proceedings to ensure that it has access to the information it requires to ful?ll its
constitutionally mandated duties.

Sincerely,

WM

errold Nadler
Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary

 

cc: Doug Collins
Ranking Member
House Committee on the Judiciary

 

?8 Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller 111, Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016
Presidential Election, Vol. II, at 48-51, 107-11 (hereinafter ?Mueller Report?).

19 Id. Vol. II, at 77-87.

20 Id. Vol. 11, at 90-94.

21 Id. v01. 11, at 113-18.

32 United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 713 (1974).

Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-36 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit JJ

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-36 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 4

quinn emanuel trial lawyers   washington, dc
1300 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3314   TEL (202) 538-8000 FAX (202) 538-8100

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
(202) 538-8120
WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS
williamburck@quinnemanuel.com

May 7, 2019
VIA E-MAIL
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
United States House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC 20515-6216
HJUD.Correspondence@mail.house.gov
Re:

April 22, 2019 Subpoena

Dear Chairman Nadler,
As you know, I previously accepted service of the subpoena for documents issued by the
United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (hereinafter, the
“Committee”), with return time and date of 10:00 am EDT, today May 7, 2019, on behalf of my
client Donald F. McGahn, former Counsel to the President of the United States. Upon receipt of
the subpoena, I forwarded it to the White House Counsel’s Office as it seeks, as relevant to Mr.
McGahn, production of White House documents and other materials relating to Executive Branch
equities (collectively, “White House documents”). Subsequently, representatives from the White
House Counsel’s Office and the Department of Justice reviewed the documents in question.
This morning, I received the enclosed letter from current Counsel to the President, Pat A.
Cipollone. In it, Mr. Cipollone explains that Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, who I
understand is the custodian of documents for the White House, has directed that Mr. McGahn not
produce the White House documents “because they implicate significant Executive Branch
confidentiality interests and executive privilege.” Mr. Cipollone’s letter goes on to note that “the
Department of Justice is aware of and concurs with this legal position.”
As you will appreciate, Mr. McGahn, as a former Assistant to the President and the most
senior attorney for the President in his official capacity, continues to owe certain duties and
obligations to the President which he is not free to disregard. Here, the Committee seeks to compel
Mr. McGahn to produce White House documents the Executive Branch has directed that he not
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES   NEW YORK   SAN FRANCISCO   SILICON VALLEY   CHICAGO   WASHINGTON, DC   HOUSTON   SEATTLE   BOSTON   SALT LAKE CITY
LONDON   TOKYO   MANNHEIM   HAMBURG   PARIS   MUNICH   SYDNEY   HONG KONG   BRUSSELS   ZURICH   SHANGHAI   PERTH   STUTTGART

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-36 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 4

produce. Where co-equal branches of government are making contradictory demands on Mr.
McGahn concerning the same set of documents, the appropriate response for Mr. McGahn is to
maintain the status quo unless and until the Committee and the Executive Branch can reach an
accommodation. Please note Mr. Cipollone writes that his office will respond to the Committee
about the White House documents.
Finally, I apologize that my response is later than requested in the subpoena. I did not
receive Mr. Cipollone’s letter until after 10:00 am EDT today. Although I was informed by phone
earlier this morning that the White House would be taking this position, I believed it was important
that the Committee receive Mr. Cipollone’s letter contemporaneously with mine for Mr. McGahn.
I am, of course, available to you or Committee staff if you have any questions.
Sincerely,

William A. Burck
cc: Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member
Enclosure

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-36 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 4

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

May 7, 2019
Mr. William A. Burck
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
1300 I Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Burck:
I write per your request in reference to a subpoena issued to your client, Donald F. McGahn
II, by the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives (the
"Committee") on April 22, 2019. That subpoena requests the production of documents by
10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 7.
The subpoena seeks certain White House records provided to Mr. McGahn while he was
Counsel to the President that are related to Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III's investigation.
As you know, the White House provided these records to Mr. McGahn in connection with its
cooperation with the Special Counsel's investigation and with the clear understanding that the
records remain subject to the control of the White House for all purposes. The White House
records remain legally protected from disclosure under longstanding constitutional principles,
because they implicate significant Executive Branch confidentiality interests and executive
privilege.
For these reasons, the Acting Chief of Staff to the President, Mick Mulvaney, directs Mr.
McGahn not to produce these White House records in response to the Committee's April 22
subpoena. The Department of Justice is aware of and concurs with this legal position. My Office
will respond to the Committee concerning its interest in the records.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Mike
Purpura if you have any questions.

t A. Cipollone
Counsel to the Presiden

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-37 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:19-cv-2379
v.
DONALD F. MCGAHN II,
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001,
Defendant.

Exhibit KK

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-37 Filed 08/07/19 Page
2 of 9
DOUG CO LLI NS, Georgia

JERROLD NADLER, New York
CHAIRMAN

ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
HENRY C, "HANK" JOHNSON, JR., Georgia
TED DEUTCH, Florida
KAREN BASS, California
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
HAKEEM S, JEFFRIES, New York
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
ERIC SWALWELL, California
TED LIEU, California
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
VAL DEMINGS, Florida
LOU CORREA, California
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas
JOSEPH NEGUSE, Colorado
LUCY McBATH, Georgia
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

RA NKING M EMBER

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

(tongrrss of thr tinitrd ~tatrs
iA-ousc of 1Rcprcsmtatiocs
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
2138

RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

WASHINGTON,

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JIM JORDAN, Ohio
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT GAETZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
TOM McCLINTOCK, California
DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
BEN CLINE, Virginia
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
GREG STEUBE, Florida

DC 20515-6216

(202) 225-3951
judiciary.house.gov

May 16, 2019
Mr. Pat Cipollone
Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Dear Mr. Cipollone:
I write to reply to your May 14 and May 15, 2019 letters. As a threshold matter, your
failure to comprehend the gravity of the Special Counsel's findings is astounding and
dangerous. The Mueller Report found that Russia interfered in our elections and outlined our
nation's acute vulnerability to another attack. The Special Counsel also found that the President
engaged in multiple acts to exert undue influence over law enforcement
investigations. Recently, more than 900 former federal prosecutors of both parties wrote that
such conduct, but for the Office of Legal Counsel policy against charging sitting presidents
(followed by the Special Counsel), would have resulted in the indictment of Donald Trump for
serious crimes. As the prosecutors wrote: "As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that
prosecuting obstruction of justice cases· is critical because unchecked obstruction-which allows
intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished-puts our whole system
of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of
professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the
Mueller Report." 1
Accordingly, the Committee has the right- indeed the duty under the Constitution-to
investigate these and other related circumstances. Recent developments indicate that the objects
of our investigation as to both past and current actions are needed more urgently than ever. Both
the Russian threat to our elections and the President's threat to the rule oflaw continue.
Against this backdrop, your sweeping claim that the Committee has no right to seek
documents and information related to the issues investigated by the Special Counsel is
unprecedented and unsupported by law, history and practice. The Administration's position that
the President cannot be indicted by the Department of Justice, and that Congress cannot
1

May 6, 2019 Statement by Former Federal Prosecutors.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-37 Filed 08/07/19 Page 3 of 9

investigate him, effectively places the President above the law. That claim, like your demand
that the Committee "discontinue its inquiry," 2 is inconsistent with the most basic principles
underlying our constitutional system of government. We can only conclude that the President's
recent pronouncement that he will "fight all the subpoenas" issued by Congress 3 is what
prompted that portion of your May 15 missive responding to the Committee's letter sent over
two months prior.
Your letters also inaccurately describe the documents the Committee seeks in its
subpoena, and the Committee's accommodation efforts to date. To clarify the record, I set forth
below the exact terms of the current offer of accommodation. I urge the Administration to
resume negotiations to resolve this dispute, which were abruptly broken off by the Department of
Justice when it rejected the Committee's most recent counter-offer.
The Committee' s April 18. 2019 Subpoena and Accommodation Process
Your May 14, 2019 letter references and attaches only letters from the Department to the
Committee; it does not attach any of the letters from the Committee to the Department, including
the most recent letter dated May 10, 2019 (attached), summarizing in.detail the extensive
negotiations regarding the subpoena. 4
The Committee has agreed, and remains prepared, to limit its request for the underlying
documents to those specifically referenced in the Muller Report (request 2 in the April 18
subpoena), and relieve the Department of the obligation to produce the other underlying
documents responsive to request 3 (which instruction 24 to the April 18 subpoena states were
only subject to consultation regarding the time period for compliance). In addition, the
Committee has offered the additional accommodation of providing a defined set of the highest
priority referenced documents for initial production, thereby making the Department's review
less burdensome to perform. It was against this backdrop that the Department refused to engage
in further discussions, or even respond to the Committee's offer. Instead, on May 7, 2019, the
Department sent its eleventh-hour threat that if the contempt markup was not postponed, the
Attorney General would request that the President invoke executive privilege as to every
document responsive to the subpoena - a threat the President, of course, promptly followed
through on the following morning.
For these reasons, your claim that "the Committee rushed to vote on contempt for failing
to provide 100% and immediate compliance with a subpoena that seeks millions ofpages of
documents from a prosecutor's files" 5 is demonstrably false. As described above, the Committee
agreed not only to limit its request to those documents that were publicly referenced in the
Special Counsel report, but also further agreed to prioritize that limited set of documents.

2

May 15, 2019 Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, p.3.

3

Charlie Savage, Trump Vows Ston<Mall of 'All' House Subpoenas, N.Y. Times, April 24, 2019 (emphasis added).

4

May 10, 2019 Letter from Chairman Nadler to Attorney General William P. Barr.

~

May 15, 2019 Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, p.3.

2

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-37 Filed 08/07/19 Page 4 of 9

Similarly, your claim that "the Committee - for the first time in American history - voted
to recommend that the Attorney General be held in contempt because he refused to violate the
law by turning over grand-jury materials that he may not lawfully disclose" 6 is also false. First,
the subpoena recognizes in the instructions that the Department may withhold any document for
which it believes there is an operative privilege, a legal impediment, or other valid reason not to
produce, so long as it provides a log describing the document and basis for the withholding.
Second, as I have repeatedly stated, the Committee is requesting only that the Department join in
an application to the Court for authorization to release documents withheld pursuant to Rule 6(e),
and not that it unilaterally produce them. Third, the Committee did not pursue contempt based
on the Department's refusal to join in that application. That point was made clear by me at the
Committee's contempt proceeding,7 as well as in the bipartisan support for an amendment
reinforcing that the contempt was not based on Rule 6(e). 8 Your inaccurate claim to the contrary
regarding Rule 6(e) is a red herring.

If the Attorney General feels there are Rule 6(e) materials he cannot produce, he is free to
say so, log them pursuant to the subpoena's instructions, and withhold them pending judicial
review. We have previously cited the relevant legal authorities. Thus, the Rule 6(e) dispute
need not detain us any longer.
To ensure there is no further misunderstanding, in accord with our attached May 10 letter,
we remain ready, willing, and able to continue the accommodations process with the goal of
resolving the only two matters at issue - the specific documents referenced in the report, and the
non-Rule 6(e) redactions.
Legislative Purpose of the Committee' s Investigation9
Your May 15 letter also claims that "the Committee has not articulated any proper
legislative purpose for pursuing inquiries that duplicate matters that were the subject of the
Special Counsel's inquiry." 10 As an initial matter, the Committee's work is not limited to the
specific areas covered by the Special Counsel's investigation, both in terms of legislative

7

May 8, 2019 Judiciary Committee Mark-up of the Contempt Report at p. 114 ("[I]t has never been our intention, as
we have stated before, to ask the Attorney General to violate the law. We have always intended and we have made
it very clear that we wanted him to come to court with us to ask for an exemption to Rule 6(e)."); p. 117 ("But the
contempt citation is for his ignoring the subpoena, in effect. It was never intended to put him in jeopardy by saying
you have to give us 6(e) material."); p. 175 ("We have no intention and never had any intention of enforcing -- of
trying to force the Attorney General or anyone else to give us 6(e) material without going to court.").
8
Id. at 186-87 ("We have made clear that the 6(e) material is not included for purposes of the subpoena. And if that
wasn't clear enough, when we accepted Mr. Gaetz's amendment, that is made super clear.").
9

This text is adapted from the Committee Report accompanying the contempt resolution against the Attorney
General.
·
10

May 15, 2019 Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, p.3 .

3

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-37 Filed 08/07/19 Page 5 of 9

purpose and oversight activities. Regardless, the Committee has previously articulated in great
detail the legislative purpose behind its requests and actions, and there can be no doubt about the
copious legislative, oversight and Constitutional purposes at issue. 11
The investigation into the alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other
abuses of power by President Donald Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration
and related concerns is being undertaken pursuant to the full authority of the Committee under
Rule X(l) and applicable law. The purposes of this investigation include but are not limited to:
1) investigating any possible malfeasance, abuse of power, corruption, obstruction of justice, or
other misconduct on the part of the President or other members of his Administration; 2)
considering whether the conduct uncovered may warrant amending or creating new federal
authorities, including among other things, relating to election security, campaign finance, misuse
of electronic data, and the types of obstructive behavior and other misconduct the Mueller Report
describes; 12 and 3) considering whether any of the conduct described in the Special Counsel's
Report warrants the Committee taking any further steps under Congress's Article I powers.
Notably, the Mueller Report presents grave concerns about the susceptibility of the
nation's governing institutions to foreign disinformation campaigns and the vulnerability of our
election infrastructure. It also demonstrates a compelling need to strengthen laws to improve
election security. The redacted Mueller Report, however, does not provide sufficient details for
the Committee to perform its own constitutional duty and engage in a thorough and independent
investigation based on that Report's findings. It is therefore imperative that the Committee have
access to the additional documents, information and testimony necessary for it to effectively
investigate possible misconduct, and to consider appropriate legislative, oversight, or other
constitutionally warranted responses. The Administration's refusal to comply with the
Committee's subpoena and other efforts to obtain information, or to engage in a meaningful
accommodations process, therefore continues to thwart the Committee's ability to fulfill its
constitutional duties.
The urgency of the Committee's work is highlighted because Russia's hostile actions
against the United States and its election process are ongoing. The Justice Department has
indicated that Russian influence efforts continued into the 2018 midterm elections. 13 With the
2020 elections looming, this threat to our republic is at risk of recurrence, and Congress must act
immediately to address it. Just recently, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned that Russia
continues to pose a "very significant counterintelligence threat," and that the U.S. government

11

For example, the Committee has previously discussed legislative purpose in Committee Report accompanying the
resolution to hold the Attorney General in contempt.
12

Several bills relevant to the legislative purpose of this investigation have already been introduced and referred to
the Committee, including but not limited to: the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act, H.R. 197, 116th
Cong (2019); the Special Counsel Reporting Act, H.R. 1357, 116th Cong. (2019); the Presidential Pardon
Transparency Act, H.R. 1348, 116th Cong. (2019); and the For the People Act of 2019, H.R. 1, 116th Cong. (2019)
(now pending in the Senate).

See Criminal Complaint ,r 14, United States v. Khusyaynova, No. l:18-mj-464 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2018) (alleging
Russian national participated in a conspiracy "to interfere with U.S. political and electoral processes, including the
2018 U.S. elections").
13

4

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-37 Filed 08/07/19 Page 6 of 9

"view[ed] 2018 as just kind of a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020." 14 Earlier this year,
the Director of National Intelligence similarly warned that Russia and other adversaries
"probably are already looking to the 2020 U.S. election" to conduct malign influence operations
and that "Moscow may employ additional influence toolkits-such as spreading disinformation,
conducting hack-and-leak operations, or manipulating data-in a more targeted fashion to
influence U.S. policy, actions, and elections." 15
In the face of these efforts, and with the 2020 elections approaching, the Committee
requires a more complete understanding of Russia's influence and hacking operations. Among
other things, the Committee must be permitted to assess whether the Department and the FBI are
devoting sufficient resources to the growing threat, and to consider remedial legislation such as
criminal penalties targeting election inference activities or the use of illegally acquired data. For
example, in its current form, sections of the Mueller Report describing the structure and actions
taken by the Internet Research Agency are heavily redacted. 16 Sections of the Mueller Report
describing the hacking activities undertaken by Russian intelligence services likewise contain
significant redactions, which impair the ability of the Committee to gain a complete
understanding of Russia's actions. 17 Without this information, the Committee is unable to fully
perform its responsibility to protect the impending 2020 elections-and thus our republic itselffrom a recurrence of foreign interference.
President Trump's repeated efforts to interfere with and derail the Special Counsel's
investigations also pose grave concerns. Volume II of Special Counsel Mueller's Report details
"multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law
enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations." 18
The President's efforts increased in intensity over time. Once he "became aware that his own
conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry, he engaged in a second
phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it,
and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the
investigation." 19 These actions "ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to
reverse the effect of the Attorney General's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to
limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the
potential to influence their testimony." 20 To carry out this campaign of obstruction, President
Trump "sought to use his official power outside of usual channels," including by conducting
"one-on-one meetings" with Administration officials or other advisors and by contacting the

14

Transcript, A Conversation with Christopher Wray, Council on Foreign Relations (Apr. 26, 2019).
Daniel R. Coats, Director of National Intelligence, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence
Community (Jan. 29, 2019).
15

16

Mueller Report, Vol. I, at 15-35.

17

Id. Vol. I, at 35-51.

18

Id. Vol. II, at 157.

19

Id. Vol. II, at 7.

20

Id. Vol. II, at 157.

5

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-37 Filed 08/07/19 Page 7 of 9

Attorney General about the Russia investigation after he had been explicitly counseled against
doing so. 21
The Mueller Report contains evidence that in the wake of an attack by a hostile nation
against American institutions, President Trump's response was to undermine the investigation
rather than take action against the perpetrators. The facts recounted in the Mueller Report make
clear the Committee's interest in obtaining more detailed information. The President's "position
as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful means of
influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers, and potential witnesses." 22
To protect the rule of law, the Committee requires an immediate and more detailed
accounting of these and other actions taken by the President. The Special Counsel "conducted a
thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and
documentary materials were available."23 As a result, the Committee has sought access to a
discrete subset of the fruits of that work - including investigative materials, such as interview
reports, as well as evidence, such as contemporaneous notes taken by fact witnesses - that are
referenced in the report. The Committee urgently requires access to those materials to perform
its core constitutional functions. The Special Counsel has expressly noted the need to avoid
"preempt[ing] constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,"24 and affirmed
that "Congress can validly make obstruction-of-justice statutes applicable to corruptly motivated
official acts of the President without impermissibly undermining his Article II functions." 25
As the Special Counsel further noted, the Department has a policy against indicting a
sitting president, which the Special Counsel "accepted for purposes of exercising prosecutorial
jurisdiction."26 Congress is therefore the only branch of government able to hold the President to
account for improper conduct in our tripartite system, and urgently requires the subpoenaed
material to determine whether and how to proceed with its constitutional duty to provide checks
and balances on the President and Executive Branch. Otherwise, the President remains insulated
from legal consequences and sits above the law. As the Special Counsel emphasized, in our
system, "no person in this country is so high that he is above the law."27

he

21

Id.; see also e.g., id. Vol. II at 50-51 (President Trump pulled Attorney General Sessions aside to ask that
"unrecuse" himself from the Russia investigation after the White House Counsel's office directed that Sessions
should not be contacted about the matter).

22

Id. Vol. II, at 7.

23

Id. Vol. II, at 2.

24

Id. Vol. II, at 1.

25

Id. Vol. II, at 171.

26

Id.

27

Id. Vol. II at 181-82 (citations, quotation marks and brackets omitted).

6

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-37 Filed 08/07/19 Page 8 of 9

The Administration s Efforts to Frustrate Congress' Constitutional Role
You assert in your May 15 letter that my "claim that 'virtually all document requests are
going unsatisfied' is contradicted by the facts." 28 But "facts are stubborn things" 29 and a review
of them reveals the truth about the Administration's compliance with the President's declaration
of war against all of Congress' lawful requests. The following are only a few recent examples of
the Judiciary Committee's requests to which the Administration has been unresponsive:
•

January 11, 2019 document request from Chairman Nadler to the Department of Justice
relating to the Administration's Zero Tolerance Policy.

•

February 15, 2019 document request from Chairman Nadler and Subcommittee Chairs
Lofgren, Cicilline, Johnson, Cohen, Bass, and Vice Chair Scanlon to President Trump
relating to the President's decision to declare a national emergency to fund the border
wall.

•

March 7, 2019 document request from Chairman Nadler and Subcommittee Chairman
Cicilline to the Department of Justice relating to President Trump's interference with
antitrust law enforcement.

•

March 22, 2019 follow-up document request from Chairman Nadler and Subcommittee
Chair Cohen to the Department of Justice and the White House relating to the President's
decision to declare a national emergency to fund the border wall.

•

April 8, 2019 document request from Chairs Nadler, Scott, Neal, Cummings, and Pallone
to the Department of Justice, Department of Health & Human Services, and the White
House relating to the Administration's decision not to defend the Affordable Care Act.

•

April 8, 2019 request for information from Chairman Nadler, Subcommittee Chair Bass,
and Reps. Jeffries, Jackson Lee, and Richmond to the Department of Justice and the
Bureau of Prisons for information about the implementation of the "First Step Act."

•

April 15, 2019 request for documents and information from Chairs Nadler, Cummings,
and Thompson to the White House and the Department of Homeland Security relating to
the Administration's plan to use political retribution as to the basis for relocating detained
immigrants and misusing related funds.

•

April 16, 2019 request for documents and information from Chairman Nadler and
Subcommittee Chairs Cohen and Lofgren to the Department of Homeland Security
relating to the President's comments about offering pardons to Department personnel.

28

May 15, 2019 Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, p. 1.

29

John Adams, "Adams' Argument for the Defense: 3--4 December 1770," Founders Online, National Archives.

7

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-37 Filed 08/07/19 Page 9 of 9

•

April 25, 2019 request for documents and information from Chairs Nadler, Cummings,
and Thompson to the Department of Homeland Security relating to the removal of
members of the Department's senior leadership.

Given your statement that your office is prepared to "work with the Committee through
the constitutionally mandated accommodation process to provide the Committee with materials it
can properly request," 30 the Committee's staffis prepared at any time to resume discussions
regarding the open issues related to the April 18 subpoena, as well as the many other outstanding
requests, such as those listed above, to which the Administration has not responded. To attempt
to cut through our disputes, I am prepared to make my staff available at a mutually convenient
time to meet with your staff regarding these issues. I hope you will take us up on that offer.
Sincerely,

Jerrold Nader
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

cc: Hon. Doug Collins, Ranking Member

30

May 15, 2019 Letter from Pat A. Cipollone, p. 12.

8

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-38 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS-44 (Rev. 6/17 DC)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of
Representatives

Donald F. McGahn II
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT _____________________
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF _____________________
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)

Douglas N. Letter
Office of General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives
219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

o

1 U.S. Government
Plaintiff

o

2 U.S. Government
Defendant

o

William A. Burck
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
1300 I St. NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX FOR

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

o

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of
Parties in item III)

PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!
PTF
DFT

Citizen of this State
Citizen of Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

o1 o1
o2 o2
o3 o3

Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in This State
Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business in Another State
Foreign Nation

PTF

DFT

o4 o4
o5 o5
o6 o6

IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an X in one category, A-N, that best represents your Cause of Action and one in a corresponding Nature of Suit)

o

A. Antitrust
410 Antitrust

o

o

o

B. Personal Injury/
Malpractice
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product Liability
320 Assault, Libel & Slander
330 Federal Employers Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability
360 Other Personal Injury
362 Medical Malpractice
365 Product Liability
367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury Product Liability
368 Asbestos Product Liability

E. General Civil (Other)

Real Property
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
Personal Property
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal Property
Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability

C. Administrative Agency
Review
151 Medicare Act

Social Security
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
Other Statutes
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
890 Other Statutory Actions (If
Administrative Agency is
Involved)

OR
Bankruptcy
422 Appeal 27 USC 158
423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Prisoner Petitions
535 Death Penalty
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Conditions
560 Civil Detainee – Conditions
of Confinement
Property Rights
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
835 Patent – Abbreviated New
Drug Application
840 Trademark

o

o

D. Temporary Restraining
Order/Preliminary
Injunction

Any nature of suit from any category
may be selected for this category of
case assignment.
*(If Antitrust, then A governs)*

F. Pro Se General Civil
Federal Tax Suits
870 Taxes (US plaintiff or
defendant)
871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC
7609
Forfeiture/Penalty
625 Drug Related Seizure of
Property 21 USC 881
690 Other
Other Statutes
375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
430 Banks & Banking
450 Commerce/ICC
Rates/etc.
460 Deportation

462 Naturalization
Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
470 Racketeer Influenced
& Corrupt Organization
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Satellite TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of State
Statutes
890 Other Statutory Actions
(if not administrative agency
review or Privacy Act)

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-38 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 2

o

G. Habeas Corpus/
2255

o

K. Labor/ERISA
(non-employment)
710 Fair Labor Standards Act
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations
740 Labor Railway Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act

*(If pro se, select this deck)*

*(If pro se, select this deck)*

o

o

L. Other Civil Rights
(non-employment)

o

I. FOIA/Privacy Act
895 Freedom of Information Act
890 Other Statutory Actions
(if Privacy Act)

442 Civil Rights – Employment
(criteria: race, gender/sex,
national origin,
discrimination, disability, age,
religion, retaliation)

530 Habeas Corpus – General
510 Motion/Vacate Sentence
463 Habeas Corpus – Alien
Detainee

o

o

H. Employment
Discrimination

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of
Judgment
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholder’s Suits
190 Other Contracts
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

441 Voting (if not Voting Rights
Act)
443 Housing/Accommodations
440 Other Civil Rights
445 Americans w/Disabilities –
Employment
446 Americans w/Disabilities –
Other
448 Education

152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loan
(excluding veterans)

o

M. Contract

J. Student Loan

N. Three-Judge
Court
441 Civil Rights – Voting
(if Voting Rights Act)

V. ORIGIN

o 1 Original o 2 Removed o 3 Remanded
Proceeding

from State
Court

from Appellate
Court

o 4 Reinstated o 5 Transferred o 6 Multi-district o 7 Appeal to
or Reopened

from another
district (specify)

Litigation

District Judge
from Mag.
Judge

o 8 Multi-district
Litigation –
Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.)

Violation of U.S. Const., Art. 1; duly authorized, issued, and served Congressional subpoena.
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS
ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $
JURY DEMAND:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY

(See instruction)

YES

August 7, 2019
DATE: _________________________

✘

NO

Check YES only if demanded in complaint

YES

NO

✘

If yes, please complete related case form

/s/ Douglas N. Letter
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD _________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44
Authority for Civil Cover Sheet

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and services of pleadings or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the
Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed.
Listed below are tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet.
I.

COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of residence: Use 11001 to indicate plaintiff if resident
of Washington, DC, 88888 if plaintiff is resident of United States but not Washington, DC, and 99999 if plaintiff is outside the United States.

III.

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction
under Section II.

IV.

CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best
represents the primary cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only one category. You must also select one corresponding
nature of suit found under the category of the case.

VI.

CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of the primary cause.

VIII.

RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from
the Clerk’s Office.

Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should ensure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form.

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-39 Filed 08/07/19 Page 1 of 2
$2      5HY         '&        6XPPRQV LQ D &LYLO $FWLRQ

81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857
IRU WKH

District of Columbia
BBBBBBBBBB 'LVWULFW RI BBBBBBBBBB 

Committee on the Judiciary,
United States House of Representatives
3ODLQWLII V 

Y 

Donald F. McGahn II
'HIHQGDQW V 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

&LYLO $FWLRQ 1R  1:19-cv-2379

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
7R   'HIHQGDQW¶V QDPH DQG DGGUHVV  Donald F. McGahn II
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
c/o William A. Burck
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
1300 I St. NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005; williamburck@quinnemanuel.com

$ ODZVXLW KDV EHHQ ILOHG DJDLQVW \RX 
:LWKLQ    GD\V DIWHU VHUYLFH RI WKLV VXPPRQV RQ \RX  QRW FRXQWLQJ WKH GD\ \RX UHFHLYHG LW  ² RU    GD\V LI \RX
DUH WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV RU D 8QLWHG 6WDWHV DJHQF\  RU DQ RIILFHU RU HPSOR\HH RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV GHVFULEHG LQ )HG  5  &LY 
3      D     RU     ² \RX PXVW VHUYH RQ WKH SODLQWLII DQ DQVZHU WR WKH DWWDFKHG FRPSODLQW RU D PRWLRQ XQGHU 5XOH    RI
WKH )HGHUDO 5XOHV RI &LYLO 3URFHGXUH   7KH DQVZHU RU PRWLRQ PXVW EH VHUYHG RQ WKH SODLQWLII RU SODLQWLII¶V DWWRUQH\ 
ZKRVH QDPH DQG DGGUHVV DUH  Douglas N. Letter
General Counsel
Office of General Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives
219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

,I \RX IDLO WR UHVSRQG  MXGJPHQW E\ GHIDXOW ZLOO EH HQWHUHG DJDLQVW \RX IRU WKH UHOLHI GHPDQGHG LQ WKH FRPSODLQW  
<RX DOVR PXVW ILOH \RXU DQVZHU RU PRWLRQ ZLWK WKH FRXUW 

$1*(/$ '  &$(6$5  &/(5. 2) &2857
'DWH 
6LJQDWXUH RI &OHUN RU 'HSXW\ &OHUN

 Case 1:19-cv-02379-BAH Document 1-39 Filed 08/07/19 Page 2 of 2
$2      5HY          6XPPRQV LQ D &LYLO $FWLRQ  3DJH   

&LYLO $FWLRQ 1R  1:19-cv-2379
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
7KLV VXPPRQV IRU  QDPH RI LQGLYLGXDO DQG WLWOH  LI DQ\ 
ZDV UHFHLYHG E\ PH RQ  GDWH 

 

u , SHUVRQDOO\ VHUYHG WKH VXPPRQV RQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO DW  SODFH 
RQ  GDWH 

  RU

u , OHIW WKH VXPPRQV DW WKH LQGLYLGXDO¶V UHVLGHQFH RU XVXDO SODFH RI DERGH ZLWK  QDPH 
  D SHUVRQ RI VXLWDEOH DJH DQG GLVFUHWLRQ ZKR UHVLGHV WKHUH 
RQ  GDWH 

  DQG PDLOHG D FRS\ WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO¶V ODVW NQRZQ DGGUHVV  RU
  ZKR LV

u , VHUYHG WKH VXPPRQV RQ  QDPH RI LQGLYLGXDO 
 GHVLJQDWHG E\ ODZ WR DFFHSW VHUYLFH RI SURFHVV RQ EHKDOI RI  QDPH RI RUJDQL]DWLRQ 
RQ  GDWH 

  RU

u , UHWXUQHG WKH VXPPRQV XQH[HFXWHG EHFDXVH

  RU

u 2WKHU  VSHFLI\  
 
0\ IHHV DUH  

IRU WUDYHO DQG  

IRU VHUYLFHV  IRU D WRWDO RI  

, GHFODUH XQGHU SHQDOW\ RI SHUMXU\ WKDW WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ LV WUXH 

'DWH 
6HUYHU¶V VLJQDWXUH

3ULQWHG QDPH DQG WLWOH

6HUYHU¶V DGGUHVV

$GGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ DWWHPSWHG VHUYLFH  HWF 

0.00