The Daily - Robert Mueller Breaks His Silence

Episode Date: May 30, 2019

Robert Mueller, the special counsel, discussed his investigation of Russian election interference for the first time on Wednesday. He did not absolve President Trump of obstruction of justice, saying: “If we had enough confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who has been covering the special counsel investigation for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: The news conference presented an extraordinary spectacle of a top law enforcement official publicly stating that the president’s conduct warranted a criminal investigation, even though it was impossible to indict him for any crimes.Here’s the full transcript of Mr. Mueller’s statement.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, Robert Mueller breaks his silence. Quote, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We would have said so. It's Thursday, May 30th. Guys, I'm here.

Mike. Yeah. Hey. Schmidt. Hold on, I gotta take the headphones off for a second. Okay. Okay. Okay. Mike Schmidt, so what happens on Wednesday morning?

Around 9.30 a.m., the special counsel's office sends out an email saying that Robert Mueller will be holding a press conference in an hour and a half. This will be a statement only, no question and answer period to follow. We had not heard Robert Mueller's voice in the two years that he led this investigation. No press conferences, no public statements on courthouse steps, no media interviews, nothing. And all of a sudden, he's going to talk. I feel like I don't even know his voice. And we're a show where you kind of instinctively know everyone's voice after a while. And I couldn't even tell you what Robert Mueller's voice sounds like. Well, in Washington, his voice is fairly familiar because he was the FBI director for 12 years.

He was a very public figure. But during this investigation, he said nothing. He let the indictments speak for themselves. Occasionally, when a really high-profile moment came, the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, would say something publicly. But all we really knew about Mueller over the past two years were these snippets that sort of eked out. Early this morning, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was spotted arriving at his office building in Washington as we expect him to

finish his report any day now. Someone would see Mueller walking down the street. Oh, I saw Mueller today. Some breaking news for you this morning. Special counsel Robert Mueller was just spotted this morning coming out of church. Mueller was seen going to church.

He was seen going to his favorite restaurant. Guys, get this. Yesterday, Robert Mueller was spotted at an Apple store. When he said his computer is really slow, the employee said, like, normal slow or your investigation slow? But we heard nothing from him. Mueller wouldn't say anything. There was an upside to this silence.

anything. There was an upside to this silence. By saying nothing, Mueller appeared above the fray. He did not appear to be overly political. He did not appear to be trying to manipulate the media. He sort of was beyond reproach because of that. But there was a downside to it. The president tweeting this morning, quote, disgraced and discredited Bob Mueller and his whole group of angry Democrat thugs spent over 30 hours with the White House counsel. During all these periods of silence, the president exploited that void. The special counsel completed its report and found no collusion and no obstruction. Total exoneration. And then once the report is actually completed, of course,

Attorney General Bill Barr steps into the void as well with his take on what Mueller found. Yes. After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, the deputy attorney general and I concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. So when we hear this morning that Mueller is going to speak for the first time, it's like, what the heck is he going to say? Is he going to try and clarify the way that the president and Barr characterized his investigation? Mm-hmm. What is it that is such a big deal that Bob Mueller is going to break his silence?

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here. So Mueller, on time, walks out at 11 a.m. He basically says, the investigation's over, we're closing up shop. We are formally closing the special counsel's office. And as well, I'm resigning from the Department of Justice to return to private life. I'm retiring. And if you have questions about the report, read it, because there's not much that I can add to what's in there. But beyond these few remarks,

it is important that the office's written work speak for itself. And then he dives deep into the obstruction part of the report. The question about whether the president tried to impede the investigation. And there, he really gets into an explanation of why his office did not make a determination about whether the president broke the law. not make a determination about whether the president broke the law. And this is arguably the greatest source of confusion to people. So what does Mueller say? The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice.

And by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. The simple version of it is that because there's a Justice Department policy that says you cannot indict a sitting president, it would be wrong and unfair to even accuse a sitting president of breaking the law because the president would have no ability to go to court to clear their name then muller says something that is in the report, but when we hear it from him, it is even more powerful. If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. He essentially says, if we didn't think the president broke the law, we would say that. And we're not saying that.

Because Mueller is so literal, we have to read between the lines. We can't accuse the president of breaking the law because he's the president. If we could clear him, we would. And there's sort of only one logical conclusion. Which is that the president obstructed justice. That Mueller thinks the president obstructed justice. My sense is that when Bill Barr first came out and began to describe what was going to be in this report and then characterize it once the report was out,

his strong implication was that the reason why Mueller didn't make that determination is because there wasn't evidence of it, and there wasn't evidence of an underlying crime too abstract, not because of this Department of Justice rule. Barr specifically said when he released the report that Mueller had told him that the Justice Department policy about indicting a president had not played a factor in their decision. Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would

have found obstruction. But what Mueller is saying pretty clearly right here on Wednesday morning in front of these live television cameras is, I believe the president committed a crime regardless of why he chose to charge him or not charge him. He all but says that, yes. If you listen to what he says and follow his points to their rational conclusion, that's where you end up.

I feel like clear communication has not been emphasized enough throughout this process. It's clear from what Mueller has done over the past two years that he thought that if he laid things out in writing, the facts would stand for themselves. And here we are two years in, and I'm not sure that has been proven true.

We may not live in that era anymore. We may live in a time where you may actually need a bit of a James Comey approach, really drive the narrative behind what you believe the facts are. Because the facts have not always held on their own. And the political winds here are so strong that they may knock down some of the facts and make it harder for what Mueller wanted the message to be to come through.

Now, that may have turned out to be a miscalculation. Members of his team are disappointed by how the report has been received. And if Mueller had been someone like Jim Comey, who was never going to allow anyone else to sculpt the narrative of his work, would we be in a different place? Had Mueller been more aggressive, more forward-leaning, more explicit in his report, would that have made it more difficult for Barr to have done the things that he did, and would it have had more of an impact on the public discourse around whether the president broke the law

and should be impeached? We'll be right back. So after laying out a case for why he thinks the president has committed obstruction of justice, where does Mueller go from there? There is a logical question, if you're following at home,

that if the president can't be charged, why do the investigation? So he explains that. He says that even though the Justice Department policies say you can't charge the president, you can investigate him. And you can investigate him because— First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. You need to preserve the evidence in real time to make sure people's memories are still fresh to get a real take on what may have gone wrong. And it makes you wonder, it's like, OK, well, why do you need to collect the evidence now? If you can't charge the president now, what does that mean you think could happen

when the president leaves office? So what Mueller is saying is, why do we do an investigation of the president even if we can't charge the president? Because someday he might not be president. An obstruction of justice investigation into the president's firing of Jim Comey in 2017 is much easier in 2017 and 2018 and 2019 than it would be in 2021 if the president were to leave office. Mike, how does this news conference come to an end? Now, I hope and expect this to be the only time

that I will speak to you in this manner. I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter. He basically acknowledges that there is a desire for him to testify publicly on Capitol Hill. And then says... Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. Everything that I would say is in the report. What's the real need for calling me up there to speak?

Thank you. Thank you for being here today. Why do you think that Mueller is so definitive here in saying that he will not testify? Because Congress, especially the Democratic chairman of these oversight committees, say that they want him to testify.

And you would think that he would welcome a chance to clarify any confusion and explain this investigation he spent two years overseeing. I think it's still one of the great mysteries of what's going on right now. Robert Mueller has probably testified before Congress more so than any other American. FBI director for 12 years was likely testifying at least twice a quarter. So that's two, four, six, eight,

eight times a year for 12 years. He's got a team of folks that worked on something for two years and think at the very least that Barr has mischaracterized or downplayed their findings. But he's not going to testify? Why not? Instead, we get an eight minute or so press statement in which he doesn't take questions and essentially re-reads different sections of the report.

So why do you think he won't testify? You've just laid out all the reasons why it would be logical for him to show up before one of these congressional committees. I don't know. And he's not going to ever explain it. Well, if you heard him today, I don't think we're ever going to hear from him again. It's not like he's going to go on a speaking tour and write a book and go on Colbert and go on The Daily. That's not going to happen.

We saw today, though, the power of him simply saying out loud what's in the report. What do you mean? Well, he didn't say anything today that he didn't say in the report. He just said it in public on television where the average person could digest it. So if you're the Democrats and you saw that today, you'd think, man, we'd really like to get him up here because if he was able to sort of shake the trees and move the debate and we've seen the discussion on this move in just the hour since it happened, what would the impact be of him testifying for many hours publicly. Hmm. Because what you've had in the aftermath of his press statement... I think it's a fair inference from what we heard in that press conference that Bob Mueller was essentially referring impeachment to the United States Congress. We did not elect an authoritarian in chief.

He should be subject to the checks and balances of the Constitution. And in this case, he's not doing that. I have said that I support opening an impeachment inquiry. I believe that the president obstructed justice and I would vote to impeach. Is several prominent Democrats, including many that are running for president, come out and say it's time for impeachment. Using what Mueller said to say we should move forward with impeachment proceedings. So you're saying

if Mueller can move the public discourse that much with a pre-written statement that he delivers. That was essentially just like a glorified book report of his report. Right.

Then how much could he move the public discourse if he sits for authentic back and forth conversation with members of a congressional committee? Yes, because clearly some of Mueller's motivation today is to try and take his testimony off the table. But what he may have done is showed the power that his testimony could have. Hmm. If he would be willing to give it. he showed the power that his testimony could have. If he would be willing to give it. Correct.

He's never cleared the president. And to hear the person who has investigated the president for the past two years say that is a pretty big deal. I guess the question is, is it too late? Well, it's five weeks after the report came out. A lot has been cemented since then. And if he had spoken earlier, would it have moved the narrative in a different direction? We're hearing from Mueller,

but we're hearing from him in what looks like the bottom of the ninth inning. I don't know why we're hearing from him, but we now need to see whether it's actually going to do anything. So did Mueller, here at the last gasp, sort of push things over the top in the House? That's sort of where we are right now. And I guess we'll never really know what would have happened if he'd spoken earlier. No.

His style was to allow his word, his written word, to speak for itself. That may not have gotten this to where he wanted it. Does that mean that this is basically over? I don't know. What I do know is that it did not move the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has tried to stop her caucus from moving forward with impeachment. After Mueller's statement, she put out one of her own and she did not say this is time for impeachment.

So it certainly didn't move her. And she's one of the most important people in whether this goes forward. Mike, thank you very much. Thanks for having me. Here's what else you need to know today. On Wednesday night, seven weeks after Israelis voted in nationwide elections, Israel's government said that it would hold a new election because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to form a coalition government. It was a major embarrassment for Netanyahu failed to form a coalition government. It was a major embarrassment

for Netanyahu, who was convinced he had the influence to put together a government. But in the end, a power struggle broke out between secular and religious factions of his proposed coalition, blocking his path. And... Yes, sir. path. And... Yes, sir. Should a Supreme Court justice die next year, will your position be on killing that son? I'll be killing him. During a talk in his home state of Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that Republicans would confirm a Supreme Court justice if a vacancy opened up during next year's presidential campaign. That directly contradicted his rationale for not confirming a justice in the final year of the Obama presidency.

McConnell had argued that it was improper to hold confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland in an election year before a new president had been chosen and inaugurated. proper to hold confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland in an election year, before a new president had been chosen and inaugurated. Finally, Tornado on the ground. Tornado on the ground. Wait for the power flashes. There you go, power flashes. Tornado on the ground in Dayton, Ohio. An unusual outbreak of tornadoes has struck communities from Texas to Ohio,

killing at least seven people and destroying hundreds of buildings. The National Weather Service has reported more than 400 tornadoes over the past two weeks, with nearly 45 around Dayton, Ohio alone. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.