fox-news/person/robert-mueller
Page: 3
“Fox News Sunday” anchor Chris Wallace said Friday Attorney General William Barr’s decision to make a conclusion on the question of obstruction of justice “seems even more troubling, and perhaps even more politically charged when you read the report.”
Wallace made the comment on “America’s Newsroom” Friday referencing Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ‘s determination there was not sufficient evidence on the obstruction front even though Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether President Trump committed this offense.
“When you read the report it becomes clear that the reason that Robert Mueller didn’t make a finding on obstruction wasn’t because he didn’t feel capable of doing it, but because he thought in direct contradiction to what Bill Barr said yesterday, that under department guidelines, there could not be an indictment of a sitting president, and he very much left it to Congress to make that decision,” said Wallace Friday.
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ISSUES SUBPOENA FOR ‘COMPLETE AND UNREDACTED’ MUELLER REPORT
“So the fact that Barr decided to interpose himself and to make this decision himself, although Congress obviously can go ahead and do what it wants, really seems to go against the grain of what Robert Mueller was suggesting in his own report.”
Wallace referenced Barr’s statements to the press before the redacted Mueller report on the Russia investigation was released to the public on Thursday.
Barr offered a staunch defense of President Trump on Thursday morning during the press conference where he previewed the report’s findings and explained why he and Rosenstein concluded that the president had not obstructed justice.
Wallace also reacted to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler’s push for Mueller’s “complete and unredacted” Russia report.
MUELLER REPORT IGNITES NEW DEM BATTLE OVER IMPEACHMENT
Nadler, D-N.Y., issued a subpoena Friday to obtain the “complete and unredacted” version of Mueller’s report, as well as the underlying materials.
Wallace said the release of the unredacted report “has to be decided by a court.”
“The main thing they’re talking about here is grand jury testimony. It is in fact the case that in the past, that attorneys general have gone to the courts and said — gotten a court to agree, a judge to agree to release that information, to give it to Congress to fulfill its constitutional duties. Bill Barr chose not to do that. It now is on Jerry Nadler as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,” said Wallace.
“This will end up in the courts, and it’s going to end up, I suspect, taking months if not longer to determine whether or not they’re going to release that information. But given the kind of ill will that there seems to exist now between House Democrats and the attorney general, the idea that they would simply sit down and wait and accept whatever Barr decided he was going to redact and not redact, that ship seems to have sailed.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
He added: “I think they are going to contest this and say we want to see everything that’s in there.”
Source: Fox News Politics
The Russia probe was “a coordinated effort by certain people at the top level of the government” to go after President Trump that needs to be examined, Rep. Peter King said Friday.
A day after the release of the redacted Muller report, the Long Island Republican told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom” Friday that he questions why the investigation was launched in the first place.
King said as a member of the House Intelligence Committee which conducted its own probe into Russia meddling during the 2016 presidential election, he never saw any evidence “at all” of collusion.
“To launch a law enforcement investigation–they called it counter-intelligence–but it was a law enforcement investigation with wiretaps and everything else based on the flimsiest of evidence,” King said of the FBI’s Russia probe.
TRUMP RAILS AGAINST ASSOCIATES WHO SPOKE TO MUELLER, CALLS CLAIMS ‘TOTAL BULL—T’
He believes that for people like former FBI director James Comey and former Deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, the investigation was just an excuse to probe Trump.
“This was to me a coordinated effort by certain people at top levels of the government and that should be investigated to find out how this came about,” King said.
“I would say the same thing if it was Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sander or anybody else,” he added.
King said it remains murky even now as to when the Russia probe began.
MUELLER REPORT IGNITES NEW DEM BATTLE OVER IMPEACHMENT
Even as Trump claimed vindication with the release of the Mueller report, King said there are certain things Muller left out of his 440-page document.
“He has in there that Russia wanted Trump to win,” King said. “From all that I’ve seen they never thought Donald Trump was going to win.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
He added, “What they wanted to do was damaged Hillary Clinton because they thought she was going to win and they wanted to weaken her if she was the president.”
Source: Fox News Politics
President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani on Friday blasted a key line in the Mueller report regarding obstruction, saying it “turns around 2,000 years of Roman, English and American law”.
The former New York City mayor on Friday took issue with the words “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.”
“When the hell did a prosecutor ever try to figure out if you didn’t do it?” Giuliani told ‘Fox & Friends’. “Prosecutors have to figure out did you do it.”
“That turns around 2,000 years of Roman, English and American law, the presumption of innocence,” Giuliani added. “He doesn’t have to prove his innocence. He doesn’t have to prove ‘I didn’t do it’. When can you prove a negative?”
The portion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report that Giuliani takes issue with. (AP)
Giuliani also echoed a tweet President Trump posted this morning, in which he said: “Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue.”
“There are a lot of things there that are not accurate as you would imagine,” Giuliani said while questioning the political allegiances of Mueller’s legal team.
“That was not a fairly written report, it was a one-sided, highly, highly biased report,” he claimed.
GIULIANI ON MUELLER RELEASE: ‘IT’S OVER, THEY JUST DON’T KNOW IT YET’
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Giuliani said overall: “If we were in court… of course we didn’t want a trial, but if we had a trial there would be a resounding not guilty.
“The jury would wonder why was this case brought in the first place because he didn’t do anything wrong.”
Source: Fox News Politics
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is suggesting Friday that Democrat Jerry Nadler’s push for a fully unredacted Mueller report — and his insistence to get the Special Counsel to testify on Capitol Hill – are desperation moves in an effort to save his job as House Judiciary Committee Chairman.
The comments from Gingrich come as Democrats are still floating the possibility of trying to impeach Trump, despite Mueller in his report not finding any evidence of collusion with Russia and not reaching a verdict on the obstruction issue.
“Look at poor Jerry Nadler’s problem,” Gingrich said Friday on ‘Fox & Friends’. “The left wing of his party is going berserk, they all want to find a way to keep this up, his presidential candidates are going berserk.
“He can’t as Chairman, not look like he is doing something – or they will, frankly, take away his chairmanship,” Gingrich added. “And that’s the dance in the House right now.”
NADLER VOWS TO SUBPOENA FULL MUELLER REPORT, DOES NOT RULE OUT IMPEACHMENT
U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chair of the House Judiciary Committee, speaks Thursday following the release of a redacted version of the Mueller report. (AP)
SEAN HANNITY: THE RUSSIA HOAX WAS THE BIGGEST CON JOB IN U.S. HISTORY – BUT EQUAL JUSTICE IS COMING
Nadler – a frequent Trump critic – said yesterday that the redacted version of the report released by the Justice Department “outlines disturbing evidence” that Trump engaged in misconduct and possibly obstructed justice. The New York Democrat also noted that Attorney General Bill Barr will be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee next month and he has requested that Robert Mueller also appear before the committee to testify on his findings.
“Let him testify. I don’t have a problem with that,” Gingrich said about Mueller. “Let him come in and say ‘hey, I spent two years, interviewed 500 people, had an entire team of lawyers, spent 25 million dollars’ – it ain’t there.
“My guess is that Mueller will be a pretty impressive witness,” Gingrich also said. “But he will be a witness for ending the process.”
Gingrich concluded his ‘Fox & Friends’ interview by saying that he believes President Trump will come out stronger following the Mueller report’s release.
“Here’s a guy who, while he has 90 percent negative press coverage and he has an ongoing investigation, he just plows ahead,” Gingrich said. “I think you have to assume, now that he has been exonerated in every possible way, he’s going to be stronger, his re-election is going to be more likely.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“People around the world are going to accommodate him,” he added. “They are going to start saying ‘you know, I gotta deal with this guy through 2024’.”
And that, Gingrich says, is “an enormous change from a week ago.”
Fox News’ Andrew O’Reilly contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News Politics
Former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos told “Fox and Friends” Friday morning that he was “shocked” Robert Mueller accurately described why he was “illicitly targeted” and reiterated the report’s findings that there was no collusion.
“I was actually really impressed and quite frankly shocked that Bob Mueller told the truth about why I was illicitly targeted and it really had nothing to do with Russia. It had to do with my ties to Israel,” Papadopoulos said.
“I was actually really impressed and quite frankly shocked that Bob Mueller told the truth about why I was illicitly targeted and it really had nothing to do with Russia. It had to do with my ties to Israel.”
TRUMP’S WRITTEN — AT TIMES SNARKY — ANSWERS TO MUELLER’S QUESTIONS REVEALED
“Now, this is why this is really important. Because if I was targeted for my ties to Israel, and I had all these various spies approaching me while I was just joining the campaign and they were discussing Israel with me,” he continued. “
“I think that’s very disturbing and probably is going to reveal quite frankly how this entire investigation started.”
Papadopoulos went on to respond to mainstream media outlets and media figures such as CNN’s Jim Acosta who pointed to his case, for which he was sentenced to 12 days in prison for making false statements to federal prosecutors, as the evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
“There was no collusion and of course I wasn’t colluding because I have never met a Russian official in my entire life. Let alone on the campaign or the transition team,” Papadopoulos said.
“There was no collusion and of course I wasn’t colluding because I have never met a Russian official in my entire life. Let alone on the campaign or the transition team.”
“Quite comically the guy at the epicenter of this fake collusion story Joseph Mifsud was outed yesterday by the Italians living next to the U.S. Embassy for the last year,” he added, referring to Maltese Professor Joseph Mifsud who Papadopoulos claimed told him in an April 2016 meeting that the Russians had “dirt” that could damage Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
SPECULATION RAGES OVER PAPADOPOULOS TIPSTER’S ROLE: WHO WAS MALTESE PROF WORKING FOR?
It has long been suggested – in court documents filed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, by Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the media – that Mifsud was connected to Russian intelligence, though others insist that he more closely associated with Western governments and their intelligence agencies, a view shared by Papadopoulos.
“Quite frankly, I don’t think anybody is buying that this guy was some Russian intermediary or Russian spy trying to collude with me. Quite frankly, even people like Rudy Giuliani are going public and stating that he was probably part of some sort of setup,” he said.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“That’s why my case is so fascinating and important moving forward, like I stated because there was targeting of me for my ties to Israel which attracted all of these spies and two who was running these guys and where did it come from?
“Was it the Obama administration? Was it the head of the U.K. Government? We’ll have to find out.”
Source: Fox News Politics
If you’ve watched cable news or read newspapers for the last two years, you know most of what’s in the Mueller report.
That was perhaps the biggest surprise in poring over it. Even the president’s lawyers were surprised by that.
On issue after issue, the special counsel’s report describes what we already know — about President Trump and Michael Cohen, Trump and Paul Manafort, Trump and Michael Flynn — and ultimately says no collusion with Russia and only inconclusive evidence of possible obstruction of justice.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE REDACTED MUELLER REPORT
To be sure, there’s a text message here or a voice mail there that paints a fuller picture. But for the most part, the report consists of lengthy legal arguments as to why the president could have obstructed justice, might arguably have obstructed justice — only to say that Mueller’s office makes no recommendation.
That means, in my view, there’s no one anecdote or admission that political and media critics can seize upon to change the overarching narrative, that Mueller is bringing no further charges.
In fact, the best single scene is when Jeff Sessions told Trump that a special counsel had been appointed, the president replied: “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m f—ed.” Then he demanded to know how Sessions could let this happen.
But of course, he railed against Sessions and his recusal so many times, until the AG was forced out, that we sort of knew that (minus the F-bomb).
MUELLER MADE 14 CRIMINAL REFERRALS, INCLUDING MICHAEL COHEN AND GREG CRAIG
All this is great fodder for the press, and for legal scholars, and for historians. But there’s very little that will change people’s minds as to whether Donald Trump engaged in misconduct.
Some examples:
— When Trump called Paul Manafort, during jury deliberations, a “very good person” and said “it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort,” the comments could “engender sympathy for Manafort among jurors” if they learned of the remarks. But there are “alternative explanations,” such as that he “genuinely felt sorry for Manafort” or was trying to influence public opinion, not the jury.
— “There is evidence” that the president knew Michael Cohen had testified falsely before Congress about continuing efforts during the campaign to win approval for a Trump Tower in Moscow. But the available evidence “does not establish that the president directed or aided Cohen’s false testimony.”
It’s like a legal seminar, as the report rehashes the mostly known facts, floats the most damaging interpretations, offers the counter-argument and concludes there is insufficient evidence.
BEN SHAPIRO: TRUMP ENGAGED IN ‘DEEPLY EMBARRASSING AND IMMORAL BEHAVIOR,’ BUT NOTHING CRIMINAL
Less flattering for Trump:
— His firing of Jim Comey, request to his White House counsel to have Bob Mueller fired, and direction to Corey Lewandowski to ask Sessions to limit the scope of Mueller’s probe all could be viewed as trying to undercut the investigation. But these efforts were largely unsuccessful because the people around Trump “declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
— When a reporter said the vast majority of FBI agents supported the just-fired Comey, Sarah Sanders said: “we’ve heard from countless members of the FBI who say very different things.” She told Mueller’s office this was a “slip of the tongue” that occurred “‘in the heat of the moment’ that was not founded on anything.”
DONALD TRUMP JR. CELEBRATES MUELLER REPORT RELEASE AND FINDINGS: ‘TOLD YA!!!’
— Trump told Mueller in written answers that he had no advance knowledge of the infamous Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer. In 2017, Hope Hicks and another aide — after discussions with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump — said the emails involved would inevitably leak and should be released. Hicks was shocked by the emails and thought they looked “really bad.” Jared, Ivanka and Hope urged the president to release the emails — Hicks said they could do it as part of an interview with “softball questions” — but he disagreed that they would leak.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
When The New York Times got onto the story, the president dictated that they should just say the meeting was about Russian adoptions. Don Jr. objected, asking that the word “primarily” be added because there was briefly a discussion about Hillary Clinton: “If I don’t have it in there it appears as though I’m lying later when they inevitably leak something.” The Times soon obtained the emails, leading to a wave of bad press.
But all this is pretty down in the weeds. And that’s in part because so much of what the president said and did in battling Mueller played out in public.
What is muting the report’s impact, in my view, is that expectations were so sky-high. The media, having invested so much capital in this probe for two years, only to be let down by the lack of criminal charges, were betting that the actual report would be explosive. And yet it was more popgun than big-time bomb.
Source: Fox News Politics
President Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani appeared on the “Ingraham Angle” Thursday and spoke about his main issues with the Mueller investigation and declared the Russia collusion narrative “over.”
“I think the report really displays the fact that this is over,” Giuliani told host Laura Ingraham.
“It’s not over. They are going to run on this for 2020,” Ingraham interjected.
“It’s over. They don’t know it yet,” Giuliani said.
GEORGE CONWAY CALLS TRUMP A CANCER
After two years, a redacted version of Mueller’s report was released Thursday showing investigators did not find proof of collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. But the report did reveal an array of controversial actions by the president that were examined as part of the investigation’s obstruction probe.
Democrats criticized Barr and demanded an unredacted version of the report while Republicans demanded an investigation into how the Russia collusion narrative began.
Giuliani said that his biggest problem with Mueller was the staff he picked to work on the investigation.
“I think, the people he hired. I will never understand how you hire a completely partisan, biased staff of people, one of whom was the counsel to the Clinton Foundation, to investigate President Trump. If I was investigating Hillary Clinton, I hired the head of the Trump Foundation, I think we’d be in a lot of trouble,” Giuliani said.
GIULIANI: THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY
The former mayor also took exception to how President Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen was portrayed in the report.
“The complete deception of trying to present the facts from Cohen as if they are true,” Giuliani said.
“I can tell you many of the things I have personal knowledge about on the report from Cohen are complete lies. To take him and put them there as if we are going to take his credibility over the president of United States is totally warped.”
Source: Fox News Politics
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and President Trump communicated directly at one point during the long-running investigation into Russian election interference, when the president’s legal team submitted written testimony in response to Mueller’s questions on a variety of topics in November 2018.
And in some cases, Trump and his attorneys brought the sass.
One of Mueller’s questions referred to a July 2016 campaign rally, when Trump said, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”
That was a reference to the slew of documents deleted from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server — one that prompted numerous accusations that Trump was improperly sending a signal to Russian hackers. Mueller’s report noted that hours after Trump’s remarks, a Russian-led attempt to access some Clinton-linked email accounts was launched, although there was no evidence Trump or his team directed or coordinated with that effort.
“Why did you make that request of Russia, as opposed to any other country, entity or individual?” Mueller’s prosecutors asked.
Mueller’s report noted that after Trump’s statement, future National Security Adviser Flynn contacted operatives in hopes of uncovering the documents, and another GOP consultant started a company to look for the emails.
“I made the statement quoted in Question II (d) in jest and sarcastically, as was apparent to any objective observer,” Trump’s attorneys shot back. “The context of the statement is evident in the full reading or viewing of the July 27, 2016, press conference, and I refer you to the publicly available transcript and video of that press conference.”
Separately, Mueller asked Trump why he previewed a speech in June 2016 by promising to discuss “all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons,” and what specifically he’d planned to talk about.
Trump didn’t hold back.
“In general, l expected to give a speech referencing the publicly available, negative information about the Clintons, including, for example, Mrs. Clinton’s failed policies, the Clintons’ use of the State Department to further their interests and the interests of the Clinton Foundation, Mrs. Clinton’s improper use of a private server for State Department business, the destruction of 33,000 emails on that server, and Mrs. Clinton’s temperamental unsuitability for the office of the president,” Trump responded.
After discussing other events, Trump concluded his reply: “I continued to speak about Mrs. Clinton’s failings throughout the campaign, using the information prepared for inclusion in the speech to which I referred on June 7, 2016.”
In all, Mueller’s 448-page report included 23 unredacted pages of Mueller’s written questions and Trump’s written responses. The special counsel’s team wrote that it tried to interview the president for more than a year before relenting and permitting the written responses alone.
An introductory note included in the report said the special counsel’s office found the responses indicative of “the inadequacy of the written format,” especially given the office’s inability to ask follow-up questions.
Click here for the full exchange between Mueller’s team and Trump.
Citing dozens of answers that Mueller’s team considered incomplete, imprecise or not provided because of the president’s lack of recollection — for instance, the president gave no response at all to the final set of questions — the special counsel’s office again sought an in-person interview with Trump, and he once again declined.
Mueller’s team said it considered seeking a subpoena to compel Trump’s in-person testimony, but decided the legally aggressive move would only serve to delay the investigation.
Fox News’ Brooke Singman and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News Politics
Former FBI Director James Comey had “so many answers” on Thursday following the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, after he initially tweeted that he had “so many questions.”
Comey claimed to have answers after the Justice Department publicly released a redacted version of Mueller’s report regarding his investigation into the Trump campaign and possible collusion with Russia. It marked the dramatic end of a lengthy and contentious investigation but also rang in a new round of partisan fighting.
Alongside having “so many answers,” Comey tweeted a photo of branches scattered across the ground.
He tweeted what appeared to be the first half of this thought on March 24, when Attorney General William Barr released a four-page letter detailing what he called the “principal conclusions” of the investigation.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
That tweet included Comey standing in a forest, looking up while surrounded by tall trees.
Mueller’s 448-page report found the campaign did not collude with Russia, but there was no clear verdict on whether Trump obstructed justice.
Trump tweeted throughout the day on Thursday about the report, continually arguing that there was “no collusion” and “no obstruction” of justice. By late afternoon, he was headed to his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida with first lady Melania.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source: Fox News Politics
Below are President Trump’s answers to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s written questions, detailed in the redacted version of Mueller’s report released Thursday.
___
I. JUNE 9, 2016 MEETING AT TRUMP TOWER
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
a. When did you first learn that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in June 2016 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton? Describe who you learned the information from and the substance of the discussion.
b. Attached to this document as Exhibit A is a series of emails from June 2016 between, among others, Donald Trump Jr. and Rob Goldstone. In addition to the emails reflected in Exhibit A, Donald Trump Jr. had other communications with Rob Goldstone and Emin Agalarov between June 3, 2016, and June 9, 2016.
i. Did Mr. Trump Jr. or anyone else tell you about or show you any of these communications? If yes, describe who discussed the communications with you, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).
ii. When did you first see or learn about all or any part of the emails reflected in Exhibit A?
iii. When did you first learn that the proposed meeting involved or was described as being part of Russia and its government’s support for your candidacy?
iv. Did you suggest to or direct anyone not to discuss or release publicly all or any portion of the emails reflected in Exhibit A? If yes, describe who you communicated with, when, the substance of the communication(s), and why you took that action.
c. On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner attended a meeting at Trump Tower with several individuals, including a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya (the “June 9 meeting”).
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report that includes written answers from President Donald Trump as released on Thursday, April 18, 2019, is photographed in Washington. (AP Photo/Jon Elswick)
i. Other than as set forth in your answers to I.a and I.b, what, if anything, were you told about the possibility of this meeting taking place, or the scheduling of such a meeting? Describe who you discussed this with, when, and what you were informed about the meeting.
ii. When did you learn that some of the individuals attending the June 9 meeting were Russian or had any affiliation with any part of the Russian government? Describe who you learned this information from and the substance of the discussion(s).
iii. What were you told about what was discussed at the June 9 meeting? Describe each conversation in which you were told about what was discussed at the meeting, who the conversation was with, when it occurred, and the substance of the statements they made about the meeting.
iv. Were you told that the June 9 meeting was about, in whole or in part, adoption and/or the Magnitsky Act? If yes, describe who you had that discussion with, when, and the substance of the discussion.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
Response to Question l, Parts (a) through (c): I have no recollection of learning at the time that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in June 2016 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton. Nor do I recall learning during the campaign that the June 9, 2016 meeting had taken place, that the referenced emails existed, or that Donald J. Trump Jr., had other communications with Emin Agalarov or Robert Goldstone between June 3, 2016 and June 9, 2016.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
d. For the period June 6, 2016 through June 9, 2016, for what portion of each day were you in Trump Tower?
i. Did you speak or meet with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner on June 9, 2016? If yes, did any portion of any of those conversations or meetings include any reference to any aspect of the June 9 meeting? If yes, describe who you spoke with and the substance of the conversation.
Attorney General William Barr leaves his home in McLean, Va., on Wednesday morning, April 17, 2019. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report on Russian interference in the 2016 election is expected to be released publicly on Thursday and has said he is redacting four types of information from the report. Congressional Democrats are demanding to see the whole document and its evidence. (AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz)
TRUMP:
Response to Question I, Part (d): I have no independent recollection of what portion of these four days in June of 2016 I spent in Trump Tower. This was one of many busy months during a fast-paced campaign, as the primary season was ending and we were preparing for the general election campaign.
I am now aware that my Campaign’s calendar indicates that I was in New York City from June 6-9, 2016. Calendars kept in my Trump Tower office reflect that I had various calls and meetings scheduled for each of these days. While those calls and meetings may or may not actually have taken place, they do indicate that I was in Trump Tower during a portion of each of these working days, and I have no reason to doubt that I was. When I was in New York City, I stayed at my Trump Tower apartment.
My Trump Organization desk calendar also reflects that I was outside Trump Tower during portions of these days. The June 7, 2016 calendar indicates I was scheduled to leave Trump Tower in the early evening for Westchester where I gave remarks after winning the California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, and South Dakota Republican primaries held that day. The June 8, 2016 calendar indicates a scheduled departure in late afternoon to attend a ceremony at my son’s school. The June 9, 2016 calendar indicates I was scheduled to attend midday meetings and a fundraising luncheon at the Four Seasons Hotel. At this point, I do not remember on what dales these events occurred, but I do not currently have a reason to doubt that they took place as scheduled on my calendar.
Widely available media reports, including television footage, also shed light on my activities during these days. For example, I am aware that my June 7, 2016 victory remarks at the Trump National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor, New York, were recorded and published by the media. I remember winning those primaries and generally recall delivering remarks that evening.
At this point in time, I do not remember whether I spoke or met with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner on June 9, 2016. My desk calendar indicates I was scheduled to meet with Paul Manafort on the morning of June 9, but I do not recall if that meeting took place. It was more than two years ago, at a time when I had many calls and interactions daily.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
e. Did you communicate directly or indirectly with any member or representative of the Agalarov family after June 3, 2016? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the communication.
TRUMP:
Response to Question I, Part (e): I have no independent recollection of any communications I had with the Agalarov family or anyone I understood to be a representative of the Agalarov family after June 3, 2016 and before the end of the campaign. While preparing to respond to these questions, I have become aware of written communications with the Agalarovs during the campaign that were sent, received, and largely authored by my staff and which I understand have already been produced to you.
In general, the documents include congratulatory letters on my campaign victories, emails about a painting Emin and Aras Agalarov arranged to have delivered to Trump Tower as a birthday present, and emails regarding delivery of a book written by Aras Agalarov. The documents reflect that the deliveries were screened by the Secret Service.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller exits St. John’s Episcopal Church after attending services, across from the White House, in Washington, Sunday, March 24, 2019. Mueller closed his long and contentious Russia investigation with no new charges, ending the probe that has cast a dark shadow over Donald Trump’s presidency. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
f. Did you learn of any communications between Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner and any member or representative of the Agalarov family, Natalia Veselnitskaya, Rob Goldstone, or any Russian official or contact that took place after June 9, 2016 and concerned the June 9 meeting or efforts by Russia to assist the campaign? If yes, describe who you learned this information from, when, and the substance of what you learned.
TRUMP:
Response to Question I, Part (f): I do not recall being aware during the campaign of communications between Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner and any member or representative of the Agalarov family, Robert Goldstone, Natalia Veselnitskaya (whose name I was not familiar with), or anyone I understood to be a Russian official.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
g. On June 7, 2016, you gave a speech in which you said, in part, “I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.”
i. Why did you make that statement?
ii. What information did you plan to share with respect to the Clintons?
iii. What did you believe the source(s) of that information would be?
iv. Did you expect any of the information to have come from the June 9 meeting?
v. Did anyone help draft the speech that you were referring to? If so, who?
vi. Why did you ultimately not give the speech you referenced on June 7, 2016?
TRUMP:
Response to Question I, Part (g): In remarks I delivered the night I won the California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, and South Dakota Republican primaries, I said, “I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.” In general, l expected to give a speech referencing the publicly available, negative information about the Clintons, including, for example, Mrs. Clinton’s failed policies, the Clintons’ use of the State Department to further their interests and the interests of the Clinton Foundation, Mrs. Clinton’s improper use of a private server for State Department business, the destruction of 33,000 emails on that server, and Mrs. Clinton’s temperamental unsuitability for the office of President.
In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware that the Campaign documents already produced to you reflect the drafting, evolution, and sources of information for the speech I expected to give “probably” on the Monday following my June 7, 2016 comments. These documents generally show that the text of the speech was initially drafted by Campaign staff with input from various outside advisors and was based on publicly available material, including, in particular, information from the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer.
The Pulse Nightclub terrorist attack took place in the early morning hours of Sunday, June 12, 2016. In light of that tragedy, I gave a speech directed more specifically to national security and terrorism than to the Clintons. That speech was delivered at the Saint Anselm College Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire, and, as reported, opened with the following:
“This was going to be a speech on Hillary Clinton and how bad a President, especially in these times of Radical Islamic Terrorism, she would be. Even her former Secret Service Agent, who has seen her under pressure and in times of stress, has stated that she lacks the temperament and integrity to be president. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss these important issues at a later time, and I will deliver that speech soon. But today there is only one thing to discuss: the growing threat of terrorism inside of our borders.”
I continued to speak about Mrs. Clinton’s failings throughout the campaign, using the information prepared for inclusion in the speech to which I referred on June 7, 2016.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
h. Did any person or entity inform you during the campaign that Vladimir Putin or the Russian government supported your candidacy or opposed the candidacy of Hillary Clinton? If yes, describe the source(s) of the information, when you were informed, and the content of such discussion(s).
TRUMP:
Response to Question I, Part (h): I have no recollection of being told during the campaign that Vladimir Putin or the Russian government “supported” my candidacy or “opposed” the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. However, I was aware of some reports indicating that President Putin had made complimentary statements about me.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
i. Did any person or entity inform you during the campaign that any foreign government or foreign leader, other than Russia or Vladimir Putin, had provided, wished to provide, or offered to provide tangible support to your campaign, including by way of offering to provide negative information on Hillary Clinton? If yes, describe the source(s) of the information, when you were informed, and the content of such discussion(s).
TRUMP:
Response to Question I, Part (i): I have no recollection of being told during the campaign that any foreign government or foreign leader had provided, wished to provide, or offered to provide tangible support to my campaign.
FILE – In this May 23, 2018, file photo, Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, leaves the Federal District Court after a hearing in Washington. Manafort faces his second sentencing hearing in his many weeks, with a judge expected to tack on additional prison time beyond the roughly four-year punishment he has already received. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
___
II. RUSSIAN HACKING/RUSSIAN EFFORTS USING SOCIAL MEDIA/WIKILEAKS
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
a. On June 14, 2016, it was publicly reported that computer hackers had penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and that Russian intelligence was behind the unauthorized access, or hack. Prior to June 14, 2016, were you provided any information about any potential or actual hacking of the computer systems or email accounts of the DNC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton, or individuals associated with the Clinton campaign? If yes, describe who provided this information, when, and the substance of the information.
TRUMP:
Response to Question II, Part (a): I do not remember the date on which it was publicly reported that the DNC had been hacked, but my best recollection is that I learned of the hacking at or shortly after the time it became the subject of media reporting. I do not recall being provided any information during the campaign about the hacking of any of the named entities or individuals before it became the subject of media reporting.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
b. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released nearly 20,000 emails sent or received by Democratic party officials.
i. Prior to the July 22, 2016 release, were you aware from any source that WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, DCLeaks, or Russians had or potentially had possession of or planned to release emails or information that could help your campaign or hurt the Clinton campaign? If yes, describe who you discussed this issue with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).
ii. After the release of emails by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016, were you told that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess additional information that could be released during the campaign? If yes, describe who provided this information, when, and what you were told.
TRUMP:
Response to Question II, Part (b): I recall that in the months leading up to the election there was considerable media reporting about the possible hacking and release of campaign-related information and there was a lot of talk about this matter. At the time, I was generally aware of these media reports and may have discussed these issues with my campaign staff or others, but at this point in time — more than two years later — I have no recollection of any particular conversation, when it occurred, or who the participants were.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
c. Are you aware of any communications during the campaign, directly or indirectly, between Roger Stone, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Rick Gates and (a) WikiLeaks, (b) Julian Assange, (c) other representatives of WikiLeaks, (d) Guccifer 2.0, (e) representatives of Guccifer 2.0, or (f) representatives of DCLeaks? If yes, describe who provided you with this information, when you learned of the communications, and what you know about those communications.
TRUMP:
Response to Question II, Part (c): I do not recall being aware during the campaign of any communications between the individuals named in Question II (c) and anyone I understood to be a representative of WikiLeaks or any of the other individuals or entities referred to in the question.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
d. On July 27, 2016, you stated at a press conference: “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.”
i. Why did you make that request of Russia, as opposed to any other country, entity, or individual?
ii. In advance of making that statement, what discussions, if any, did you have with anyone else about the substance of the statement?
iii. Were you told at any time before or after you made that statement that Russia was attempting to infiltrate or hack computer systems or email accounts of Hillary Clinton or her campaign? If yes, describe who provided this information, when, and what you were told.
TRUMP:
Response to Question II, Part (d): I made the statement quoted in Question II (d) in jest and sarcastically, as was apparent to any objective observer. The context of the statement is evident in the full reading or viewing of the July 27, 2016 press conference, and I refer you to the publicly available transcript and video of that press conference. I do not recall having any discussion about the substance of the statement in advance of the press conference. I do not recall being told during the campaign of any efforts by Russia to infiltrate or hack the computer systems or email accounts of Hillary Clinton or her campaign prior to them becoming the subject of media reporting and I have no recollection of any particular conversation in that regard.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
e. On October 7, 2016, emails hacked from the account of John Podesta were released by WikiLeaks.
i. Where were you on October 7, 2016?
ii. Were you told at any time in advance of, or on the day of, the October 7 release that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess emails related to John Podesta? If yes, describe who told you this, when, and what you were told.
iii. Are you aware of anyone associated with you or your campaign, including Roger Stone, reaching out to WikiLeaks, either directly or through an intermediary, on or about October 7, 2016? If yes, identify the person and describe the substance of the conversations or contacts.
TRUMP:
Response to Question II, Part (e): I was in Trump Tower in New York City on October 7, 2016. I have no recollection of being told that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess emails related to John Podesta before the release of Mr. Podesta’s emails was reported by the media. Likewise, I have no recollection of being told that Roger Stone, anyone acting as an intermediary for Roger Stone, or anyone associated with my campaign had communicated with WikiLeaks on October 7, 2016.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
f. Were you told of anyone associated with you or your campaign, including Roger Stone, having any discussions, directly or indirectly, with WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, or DCLeaks regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails? If yes, describe who had such contacts, how you became aware of the contacts, when you became aware of the contacts, and the substance of the contacts.
Special counsel Robert Mueller drives away from his Washington home on Wednesday, April 17, 2019. Outstanding questions about the special counsel’s Russia investigation have not stopped President Donald Trump and his allies from declaring victory. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)
TRUMP:
Response to Question II, Part (f): I do not recall being told during the campaign that Roger Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
g. From June 1, 2016 through the end of the campaign, how frequently did you communicate with Roger Stone? Describe the nature of your communication(s) with Mr. Stone.
i. During that time period, what efforts did Mr. Stone tell you he was making to assist your campaign, and what requests, if any, did you make of Mr. Stone?
ii. Did Mr. Stone ever discuss WikiLeaks with you or, as far as you were aware, with anyone else associated with the campaign? If yes, describe what you were told, from whom, and when.
iii. Did Mr. Stone at any time inform you about contacts he had with WikiLeaks or any intermediary of WikiLeaks, or about forthcoming releases of information? If yes, describe what Stone told you and when.
TRUMP:
Response to Question ll, Part (g): I spoke by telephone with Roger Stone from time to time during the campaign. I have no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1.2016 and November 8, 2016. 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, although I was aware that WikiLeaks was the subject of media reporting and campaign-related discussion at the time.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
h. Did you have any discussions prior to January 20, 2017, regarding a potential pardon or other action to benefit Julian Assange? If yes, describe who you had the discussion(s) with, when, and the content of the discussion(s).
TRUMP:
Response to Question II, Part (h): I do not recall having had any discussion during the campaign regarding a pardon or action to benefit Julian Assange.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
i. Were you aware of any efforts by foreign individuals or companies, including those in Russia, to assist your campaign through the use of social media postings or the organization of rallies? If yes, identify who you discussed such assistance with, when, and the content of the discussion(s).
TRUMP:
Response to Question II, Part (i): I do not recall being aware during the campaign of specific efforts by foreign individuals or companies to assist my campaign through the use of social media postings or the organization of rallies.
___
III. THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION MOSCOW PROJECT
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
a. In October 2015, a “Letter of Intent,” a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, was signed for a proposed Trump Organization project in Moscow (the “Trump Moscow project”).
i. When were you first informed of discussions about the Trump Moscow project? By whom? What were you told about the project?
ii. Did you sign the letter of intent?
b. In a statement provided to Congress, attached as Exhibit C, Michael Cohen stated: “To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Trump was never in contact with anyone about this proposal other than me on three occasions, including signing a non-binding letter of intent in 2015.” Describe all discussions you had with Mr. Cohen, or anyone else associated with the Trump Organization, about the Trump Moscow project, including who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).
c. Did you learn of any communications between Michael Cohen or Felix Sater and any Russian government officials, including officials in the office of Dmitry Peskov, regarding the Trump Moscow project? If so, identify who provided this information to you, when, and the substance of what you learned.
d. Did you have any discussions between June 2015 and June 2016 regarding a potential trip to Russia by you and/or Michael Cohen for reasons related to the Trump Moscow project? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).
e. Did you at any time direct or suggest that discussions about the Trump Moscow project should cease, or were you informed at any time that the project had been abandoned? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and why that decision was made.
f. Did you have any discussions regarding what information would be provided publicly or in response to investigative inquiries about potential or actual investments or business deals the Trump Organization had in Russia, including the Trump Moscow project? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).
g. Aside from the Trump Moscow project, did you or the Trump Organization have any other prospective or actual business interests, investments, or arrangements with Russia or any Russian interest or Russian individual during the campaign? If yes, describe the business interests, investments, or arrangements.
TRUMP:
Response to Question III, Parts (a) through (g): Sometime in 2015, Michael Cohen suggested to me the possibility of a Trump Organization project in Moscow. As I recall, Mr. Cohen described this as a proposed project of a general type we have done in the past in a variety of locations. I signed the non-binding Letter of Intent attached to your questions as Exhibit B which required no equity or expenditure on our end and was consistent with our ongoing efforts to expand into significant markets around the world.
I had few conversations with Mr. Cohen on this subject. As I recall, they were brief, and they were not memorable. I was not enthused about the proposal, and I do not recall any discussion of travel to Russia in connection with it. I do not remember discussing it with anyone else at the Trump Organization, although it is possible. I do not recall being aware at the time of any communications between Mr. Cohen or Felix Sater and any Russian government official regarding the Letter of Intent. In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware that Mr. Cohen sent an email regarding the Letter of Intent to “Mr. Peskov” at a general, public email account, which should show there was no meaningful relationship with people in power in Russia. I understand those documents already have been provided to you.
I vaguely remember press inquiries and media reporting during the campaign about whether the Trump Organization had business dealings in Russia. I may have spoken with campaign staff or Trump Organization employees regarding responses to requests for information, but I have no current recollection of any particular conversation, with whom I may have spoken, when, or the substance of any conversation. As I recall, neither I nor the Trump Organization had any projects or proposed projects in Russia during the campaign other than the Letter of Intent.
___
IV. CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA AND RUSSIA-RELATED ISSUES DURING THE CAMPAIGN
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
a. Prior to mid-August 2016, did you become aware that Paul Manafort had ties to the Ukrainian government? If yes, describe who you learned this information from, when, and the substance of what you were told. Did Mr. Manafort’s connections to the Ukrainian or Russian governments play any role in your decision to have him join your campaign? If yes, describe that role.
b. Were you aware that Paul Manafort offered briefings on the progress of your campaign to Oleg Deripaska? If yes, describe who you learned this information from, when, the substance of what you were told, what you understood the purpose was of sharing such information with Mr. Deripaska, and how you responded to learning this information.
c. Were you aware of whether Paul Manafort or anyone else associated with your campaign sent or directed others to send internal Trump campaign information to any person located in Ukraine or Russia or associated with the Ukrainian or Russian governments? If yes, identify who provided you with this information, when, the substance of the discussion(s), what you understood the purpose was of sharing the internal campaign information, and how you responded to learning this information.
d. Did Paul Manafort communicate to you, directly or indirectly, any posit ions Ukraine or Russia would want the U.S. to support? If yes, describe when he communicated those positions to you and the substance of those communications.
TRUMP:
Response to Question IV, Parts (a) through (d): Mr. Manafort was hired primarily because of his delegate work for prior presidential candidates, including Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole. I knew that Mr. Manafort had done international consulting work and, at some time before Mr. Manafort left the campaign, I learned that he was somehow involved with individuals concerning Ukraine, but I do not remember the specifics of what I knew at the time.
l had no knowledge of Mr. Manafort offering briefings on the progress of my campaign to an individual named Oleg Deripaska, nor do I remember being aware of Mr. Manafort or anyone else associated with my campaign sending or directing others to send internal Trump Campaign information to anyone I knew to be in Ukraine or Russia at the time or to anyone I understood to be a Ukrainian or Russian government employee or official. I do not remember Mr. Manafort communicating to me any particular positions Ukraine or Russia would want the United States to support.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
e. During the campaign, were you told about efforts by Russian officials to meet with you or senior members of your campaign? If yes, describe who you had conversations with on this topic, when, and what you were told.
TRUMP:
Response to Question IV, Part (e): I do not recall being told during the campaign of efforts by Russian officials to meet with me or with senior members of my campaign. In the process of preparing to respond to these questions, I became aware that on March 17, 2016, my assistant at the Trump Organization, Rhona Graff, received an email from a Sergei Prikhodko, who identified himself as Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Foundation Roscongress, inviting me to participate in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum to be held in June 2016. The documents show that Ms. Graff prepared for my signature a brief response declining the invitation. I understand these documents already have been produced to you.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
f. What role, if any, did you have in changing the Republican Party platform regarding arming Ukraine during the Republican National Convention? Prior to the convention, what information did you have about this platform provision? After the platform provision was changed, who told you about the change, when did they tell you, what were you told about why it was changed, and who was involved?
TRUMP:
Response to Question IV, Part (f): I have no recollection of the details of what, when, or from what source I first learned about the change to the platform amendment regarding arming Ukraine, but I generally recall learning of the issue as part of media reporting. I do not recall being involved in changing the language to the amendment.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
g. On July 27, 2016, in response to a question about whether you would recognize Crimea as Russian territory and lift sanctions on Russia, you said: “We’ll be looking at that. Yeah, we’ll be looking.” Did you intend to communicate by that statement or at any other time during the campaign a willingness to lift sanctions and/or recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea if you were elected?
i. What consideration did you give to lifting sanctions and/or recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea if you were elected? Describe who you spoke with about this topic, when, the substance of the discussion(s).
TRUMP:
Response to Question IV, Part (g): My statement did not communicate any position.
___
V. CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA AND RUSSIA-RELATED ISSUES DURING THE TRANSITION
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
a. Were you asked to attend the World Chess Championship gala on November 10, 2016? If yes, who asked you to attend, when were you asked, and what were you told about why your presence was requested?
i. Did you attend any part of the event? If yes, describe any interactions you had with any Russians or representatives of the Russian government at the event.
TRUMP:
Response to Question V, Part (a): I do not remember having been asked to attend the World Chess Championship gala, and I did not attend the event. During the course of preparing to respond to these questions, I have become aware of documents indicating that in March of 2016, the president of the World Chess Federation invited the Trump Organization to host, at Trump Tower, the 2016 World Chess Championship Match to be held in New York in November 2016. I have also become aware that in November 2016 , there were press inquiries to my staff regarding whether I had plans to attend the tournament , which was not being held at Trump Tower. I understand these documents have already been provided to you.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
b. Following the Obama Administration’s imposition of sanctions on Russia in December 2016 (“Russia sanctions”), did you discuss with Lieutenant General (LTG) Michael Flynn, K.T. McFarland, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, Erik Prince, or anyone else associated with the transition what should be communicated to the Russian government regarding the sanctions? If yes, describe who you spoke with about this issue, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).
c. On December 29 and December 31, 2016, LTG Flynn had conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the Russia sanctions and Russia’s response to the Russia sanctions.
i. Did you direct or suggest that LTG Flynn have discussions with anyone from the Russian government about the Russia sanctions?
ii. Were you told in advance of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation that he was going to be speaking with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, describe who told you this information, when, and what you were told. If no, when and from whom did you learn of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation with Ambassador Kislyak?
iii. When did you learn of LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak’s call on December 31, 2016? Who told you and what were you told?
iv. When did you learn that sanctions were discussed in the December 29 and December 31, 2016 calls between LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak? Who told you and what were you told?
d. At any time between December 31, 2016, and January 20, 2017, did anyone tell you or suggest to you that Russia’s decision not to impose reciprocal sanctions was attributable in any way to LTG Flynn’s communications with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, identify who provided you with this information, when, and the substance of what you were told.
e. On January 12, 2017, the Washington Post published a column that stated that LTG Flynn phoned Ambassador Kislyak several times on December 29, 2016. After learning of the column, did you direct or suggest to anyone that LTG Flynn should deny that he discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, who did you make this suggestion or direction to, when, what did you say, and why did you take this step?
i. After learning of the column, did you have any conversations with LTG Flynn about his conversations with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016? If yes, describe when those discussions occurred and the content of the discussions.
f. Were you told about a meeting between Jared Kushner and Sergei Gorkov that took place in December 2016?
i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting.
g. Were you told about a meeting or meetings between Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev or any other representative from the Russian government that took place in January 2017?
i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting(s).
h. Prior to January 20, 2017, did you talk to Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, or any other individual associated with the transition regarding establishing an unofficial line of communication with Russia? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of such an unofficial line of communication.
TRUMP:
(No answer provided.)
Source: Fox News Politics
MAGA One Radio