article

Page: 2

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., plans to introduce a new bill next month that would raise the age to buy tobacco products to 21. It’s part of an effort to combat teen vaping, something he calls a “most serious threat.”

Speaking at the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky in Louisville on Thursday, McConnell said his new legislation will tackle the growing use of vaping products; more teens have been trading in cigarettes for the electronic counterparts, which some have branded safer.

FDA MOVES TO TIGHTEN E-CIGARETTE SALES

“For some time, I’ve been hearing from the parents who are seeing an unprecedented spike in vaping among their teenage children,” he said.

The bill will continue to hold retailers responsible for verifying the age of anyone buying tobacco products but will raise that age from 18 to 21. McConnell’s office said 12 states have already enacted laws raising the minimum legal age to 21.

VAPING BOOM: TWICE THE AMOUNT OF TEENS VAPING THAN LAST YEAR, SURVEY FINDS

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the use of e-cigarettes is perilous for young adults. In addition to nicotine and other tobacco products, vape products contain flavorings that may be safe to eat but not to inhale. They can also be harmful to the lungs in the long term.

The CDC said earlier this year that the vaping boom is the most likely reason that cigarette smoking rates among U.S. high school and middle school students has flattened in the past three years, after declining fairly steadily for decades.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

A survey conducted by the CDC last spring asked more than 20,000 middle and high school students if they had used any tobacco products in the previous month, and found that about 28 percent of high school e-cigarette users said they vaped 20 or more days in the previous month — nearly a 40 percent jump from the previous year.

“I hope and I expect this legislation to achieve strong bipartisan support in the Senate,” McConnell said. “As you all know, I’m in a particularly good position to enact legislation. And this is going to be a top priority that I’ll be working on.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: Fox News Politics

The Mueller Report covered 448 pages.

For context, the 1998 Starr Report about President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky consumed 445 pages.

Other works of popular literature clocking in at around 400 pages or so?

Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen (409 pages). The Shining by Stephen King (447). Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier (449). Ready Player One by Ernest Cline (374). The Neverending Story by Michael Ende (396).

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REDACTED MUELLER REPORT

Perhaps the last title is most pertinent here.

Attorney General Bill Barr released the Mueller Report in the middle of the first major Congressional recess of the year. Both the House and Senate usually break for more than two weeks in March or April to observe Good Friday, Easter and Passover.

Barr long ago announced he’d make the Mueller Report public in mid-April. But that decision frustrated Congressional Democrats, who viewed the timing as nefarious since Congress was out of session and lawmakers were spread to the four winds.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was in Europe, just concluding a speech to the Dail, or Irish parliament, in Dublin. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., was in Rwanda. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was in New York City.

“The logistics make the release much more difficult,” protested Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the Judiciary Committee. “The administration seems to be purposely creating obstacles and hurdles to prevent full disclosure.” Blumenthal added that Barr should have published the report ‘well before the recess. It should’ve been released the day before it was ready.”

Nadler argued that Barr’s decision to hold a press conference ahead of publicizing the report was villainous. Nadler portrayed this as an effort by the administration to seize control of the messaging in the absence of lawmakers prowling Capitol Hill. Nadler suggested Barr could then spin the conclusions on behalf of President Trump.

“The Attorney General is not letting facts speak for themselves, but baking in a narrative that benefits the White House and doing it before a holiday weekend so it would be hard for people to react,” said Nadler, who held a press conference in New York City late Wednesday to pre-empt Barr – then suggested the attorney general cancel his morning presser.

Releasing the report during the recess may mute some Congressional response. But satellite dishes and TV studios are available this time of year. Twitter remains operational. Most of the country doesn’t hang on every word out of Washington and know whether Congress is in or out of session. Many Americans wouldn’t interrupt their workday to cull through the Mueller Report, let alone actually read it. They’ll rely on others to divine meaning from the special counsel’s missive.

The timeframe didn’t matter to Lindsey Graham.

“The world keeps turning,” said Graham late last week as he departed the Capitol, en route to Africa. “I don’t need to know any more. I am done.”

There were only a few lawmakers on Capitol Hill when the report hit Washington Thursday morning.

The Constitution requires the House and Senate to convene every three days unless one body grants the other leave to abandon Washington. Otherwise, the House and Senate meet in brief, “pro forma” sessions, when each body just gavels in and gavels out. However, that requires the presence of at least one lawmaker.

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., drew the lot to serve as the GOP’s designated, in-person-at-the-Capitol-spokesman-on-the-Mueller-Report once he rapped the gavel at 11:46 a.m. Thursday. Journalists waited for Blunt in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building to get his views on the report. A couple of reporters sought out Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., who presided over the House’s pro forma session late Thursday afternoon.

Congressional Democrats now see a yawning chasm between the contents of the Mueller Report and the interpretation presented by Barr and want to explore that daylight. It starts with the attorney general appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 1 and the House Judiciary Committee on May 2. That’s followed by a prospective appearance by Mueller himself sometime next month.

Nadler believes Mueller left a Hansel and Gretel trail of breadcrumbs through the impeachment forest. When asked Thursday about impeachment, Nadler wouldn’t rule it out – despite previous statements by Pelosi to the contrary. A top Pelosi aide tells Fox that impeachment remains out of the question. We may hear more from Pelosi on this score in the wee hours of Friday morning when she appears in Belfast, Northern Ireland and takes part in a Q&A.

There is peril for Democrats if they continue to discuss impeachment, which is why they must drive down both sides of the street. Impeachment talk harms moderate Democrats from battleground districts and lots of them would prefer to focus on policy issues like health care, prescription drugs, infrastructure and even gun policy before discussing impeachment.

However, if liberals push impeachment, moderate Democrats have a chance to contrast themselves, not with Republicans, but with members of their own party. They can say “No. I’m not for impeachment. Let’s work on bread and butter issues.”

But there is a risk for Democrats if they overplay their hand. That’s why Republicans are more than happy to lump all Democrats together. The key is how Democrats finesse this to satisfy both wings of their caucus.

House Freedom Caucus leader Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told Fox News Thursday that Democrats won’t stop attacking the President. Republicans want Democrats to attack the President. That works for the GOP.

The Mueller Report will dominate the news cycle over the holiday weekend, then wane next week as Congress remains out of session. It could then rise like a phoenix when Congress returns at the end of the month, punctuated by Barr’s testimony. That could spark another round of media frenzy, which would then die down before ramping up again if or when Mueller testifies.

This is the downside for Democrats, especially moderates who need to hold their seats in challenging districts. Too much talk about the report diverts attention from other policy priorities. Remember that the only other big legislative item on the docket this year is an imbroglio over the debt ceiling, a government shutdown, and, you guessed it, the border wall.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The recess may have actually helped Republicans. They did not want to be in Washington for the release of the report. This is how some Republicans prefer to embrace President Trump: from afar. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said it was time to move on. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., said Democrats should apologize and quit harassing the President and his family.

But remember, the hot take is not always the lasting take. Public perception could shift on this, and that could be damaging to Republicans rushing to embrace what Barr said.

After all, this seems to be the never-ending story.

Source: Fox News Politics

Thursday’s release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation was supposed to be the end of a two-year-long probe but as the “The Five” discovered Thursday, it may be only the beginning of a continuing debate between Democrats and Republicans.

The issue of whether President Trump obstructed justice led to a very tense moment between co-hosts Marie Harf, Dan Bongino and Jessie Watters.

MUELLER REPORT SHOWS PROBE DID NOT FIND COLLUSION EVIDENCE, REVEALS TRUMP EFFORTS TO SIDELINE KEY PLAYERS

“Why are they not apologizing for being wrong?” Bongino asked Harf, wondering why Democrats don’t just “take the loss” and admit they were wrong about the president colluding with Russia or obstructing justice.

“They are not wrong,” Harf responded. “If you look at Part Two of the report which is on obstruction. Mueller outlines multiple attempts — “

“He didn’t collude,” Bongino interrupted.

“Can I finish?” Harf retorted.

Thursday’s release of the Mueller report highlighted the partisanship on Capitol Hill, with Democrats calling for the unredacted report and continuing investigations while Republicans claim vindication and now want to focus on how the Mueller probe started in the first place.

Harf and Watters continued to argue their perceptions of the report.

Mueller “didn’t say that in the report. He did not say that there was no collusion,” Harf said.

“You don’t need to succeed in obstruction or have an underlying crime legally for it to be obstruction.”

RUDY GIULIANI ON THE RELEASE OF THE MUELLER REPORT: ‘THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN TREATED TOTALLY UNFAIRLY’

“If that’s your argument, the audience can’t hear that. It’s gobbledygook,” Watters said.

“It happens to be the truth, Jesse,” Harf responded.

“Collusion was a very simple thing to sell. Everybody understood that. Attempted obstruction of a crime that never happened, you can’t sell that,” Watters said.

Source: Fox News Politics

CONCORD, N.H. — Beto O’Rourke isn’t the shiny new thing anymore in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Indeed, the media spotlight and the momentum appear to have shifted in recent weeks to South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, whose candidacy has surged over the past month.

O’ROURKE CONFRONTED AT TOWN HALL

But O’Rourke, a former three-term congressman from El Paso, Texas, says he’s not fretting.

“I feel great,” he told Fox News on Thursday. “I feel like we’re in a good place.”

He added: “I think more than any other candidate, we’ve been showing up answering questions. I think we’ve answered nearly 600 questions so far in a little bit more than a month. Have visited more communities. That’s what I want to do. That’s democracy.”

O’Rourke spoke with Fox News during stops in Derry and Concord, N.H., making his second trip since launching his campaign to the state with the first primary in the race for the White House.

THE LATEST 2020 REPORTS FROM FOX NEWS

O’Rourke was soaring in the polls and was posting eye-popping fundraising figures as he basked in generous media attention and large crowds on the campaign trail in the weeks after he declared his candidacy in last month.

But even if the sheen has diminished to some degree, O’Rourke remains a draw on the campaign trail. Derry’s Grind Rail Trail Cafe was packed with voters eager to get a look at the former congressman, who nearly upset Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas last year. And a crowd of a couple of hundred watched him at Gibson’s Bookstore in Concord, a key stop for Democratic White House hopefuls.

“We show up for everyone. We take no one for granted,” he told the audience.

In an interview after the event, O’Rourke pointed to the calendar, emphasizing that “we’re still roughly 10 months out from the first votes being cast. And that’s a lot of time, a lot of miles, a lot of hours, a lot of town halls, a lot of questions, and I’m up for it and I’m looking forward to it.”

He discounted early polling, saying, “I just am not concerned about, nor am I following, the polls. You may know that throughout the Senate campaign we never hired a pollster or participated in a focus group.”

O’Rourke raised more than $9 million in the 18 days from the launch of his campaign through March 31, which was the end of the first quarter of fundraising. Asked if he can keep up that pace in the second quarter, he noted that “there are more people who have given to us (in last year’s Senate campaign) that can give for the first time in this race, or who can give additional amounts. I think that speaks to our ability for capacity and pace.”

He said he’ll tap his nascent campaign war chest to increase staff in New Hampshire and other early-voting states, and “use that money doing what we’re doing here, ensuring that we have an ability to show up everywhere, in every part of every state that we go to.”

BIDEN JOINS STRIKING UNION MEMBERS AS 2020 SPECULATION MOUNTS

O’Rourke’s trip to the Granite State came days before a likely presidential announcement by onetime Vice President Joe Biden.

O’Rourke said Biden “would be a great addition to an already outstanding field of Democratic contenders. He certainly brings something to the conversation, to the debates.”

Ahead of O’Rourke’s arrival in New Hampshire, the Republican National Committee painted him as one more too-liberal Democrat supporting fringe proposals.

“Beto’s socialist schemes would kill jobs, hike taxes and reverse our country’s roaring economic success,” RNC spokesperson Mandi Merritt told Fox News.

Source: Fox News Politics

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman, Tom Perez, seemed to sidestep a question on Thursday about whether it was wise for his party to file articles of impeachment in the months leading up to the 2020 presidential election.

“Do you think politically, as the chairman of the Democratic Party, that that is the right thing for the Democratic Party to do?” Fox News host Bret Baier asked during his show, “Special Report.”

Perez didn’t give a “yes” or “no” answer, instead saying that Democrats could “walk and chew gum” by pushing policies, like coverage for pre-existing conditions, while conducting effective oversight in Congress. “I think that there are more questions to be asked here,” Perez said after Baier repeated the question.

“We don’t know whether obstruction occurred. There were 954 redactions,” he said in reference to the investigative report released by the Justice Department earlier in the day.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM MUELLER’S REPORT ON RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

While Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report did not formally accuse Trump of obstructing justice, it also didn’t “exonerate” the president. Instead, the report listed 10 items concerning potential obstruction — details that congressional Democrats could well use to continue pressing the administration.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., has already requested that Mueller testify before his committee, and said he would subpoena the full, unredacted report. Although some Democrats have previously raised the prospect of impeachment, the House Democratic leadership recently rejected the idea.

Impeachment proceedings could arise out of further investigation into whether the president committed obstruction of justice. And according to Perez, that was still a possibility. He pointed to Mueller’s own language, which indicated his team wasn’t confident that Trump hadn’t obstructed justice.

FOX NEWS POLL: INTEREST IN 2020 ALREADY AT ELECTION DAY LEVELS

“The notion that there’s no obstruction is just hogwash,” Perez asserted. He also suggested that Rudy Giuliani, the president’s attorney, jumped the gun in arguing that the president didn’t have corrupt intent.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Source: Fox News Politics

Hours after the Department of Justice on Thursday released a redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia investigation, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez committed to adding her name to an impeachment resolution aimed at President Trump.

The New York Democrat revealed her intentions on Twitter, vowing to sign onto the resolution put forward by fellow freshman lawmaker Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., last month.

The proposal calls on the House Judiciary Committee to probe whether or not the president committed any offenses that rise to the level of impeachment.

MUELLER REPORT SHOWS PROBE DID NOT FIND COLLUSION EVIDENCE, REVEALS TRUMP EFFORTS TO SIDELINE KEY PLAYERS

In announcing her decision, Ocasio-Cortez addressed the report, writing it “is clear in pointing to Congress’ responsibility in investigating obstruction of justice by the President.”

“While I understand the political reality of the Senate + election considerations, upon reading this DoJ report, which explicitly names Congress in determining obstruction, I cannot see a reason for us to abdicate from our constitutionally mandated responsibility to investigate,” she wrote in a follow-up tweet.

TRUMP DECLARES VICTORY AS MUELLER REPORT DROPS: ‘NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION’

The report showed that investigators did not find evidence of collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia. Mueller, however, did not reach a conclusion on whether the president’s conduct amounted to obstruction, stating: “[W]hile this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

Ocasio-Cortez continued on Twitter, explaining that she doesn’t often speak about the matter of impeachment and would rather focus her attention on other matters. But the report’s release brought the subject to the forefront, she argued.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

“Many know I take no pleasure in discussions of impeachment. I didn’t campaign on it, & rarely discuss it unprompted,” she tweeted. “We all prefer working on our priorities: pushing Medicare for All, tackling student loans, & a Green New Deal.”

“But the report squarely puts this on our doorstep,” she wrote.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman and Liam Quinn contributed to this report.

Source: Fox News Politics

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said on “The Todd Starnes Show” that Dems’ obsession with the Mueller report exists for good reason: to cover up their own misdeeds.

Said the lawmaker, “As long as the Democrats in their minds … can drag this thing out, and keep throwing rocks at Trump, then the better chance that no Democrats will be going to prison.”

The release of the full investigative report, with redactions, on Thursday was, to some observers, a moment of closure nearly two years in the making. At the same time, though, others saw it as just the start of a new round of partisan conflict.

READ THE ROBERT MUELLER REPORT

The report aligned with the findings revealed in Attorney General Bill Barr’s four-page memo from a month ago — no collusion with Russia, no clear verdict on obstruction. But it also added new layers of detail about Trump’s purported efforts to thwart the investigation.

Looking ahead, both sides were already using the findings to reiterate and amplify arguments about Trump’s conduct, Republicans cast him as a victim of harassment, while Dems painted the president as stepping far over the line to derail the investigation.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: Fox News Politics

Sen. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, appearing Thursday on “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” said the Trump campaign’s refusal to accept “forbidden fruit” while interacting with Russian operatives intent on influencing the 2016 election was a good thing for America.

“”What I take away from this multiple times — and the attorney general was clear about this — multiple times they dangled forbidden fruit in front of people, in front of the Trump campaign, and they didn’t bite,” Jordan told Cavuto.

MUELLER REPORT SHOWS PROBE DID NOT FIND COLLUSION EVIDENCE, REVEALS TRUMP EFFORTS TO SIDELINE KEY PLAYERS

“That is reassuring. That … reflects well on the president of the United States. Multiple times they had opportunities to collude, and they didn’t take them up on it, which is critically important information.”

Jordan and Meadows were reacting to the Mueller report’s release on Thursday. The report did point to an array of controversial actions and requests made by the president that were examined as part of the investigation’s obstruction inquiry, though it ultimately made no finding of collusion with Moscow.

Cavuto asked the senator and congressman what they could do stop Russian interference in future elections, or if they would be concerned with any 2020 campaign staff taking meetings with Russian officials.

RUDY GIULIANI ON THE RELEASE OF THE MUELLER REPORT: ‘THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN TREATED TOTALLY UNFAIRLY’

Meadows said the Obama administration was aware that the Russians were looking to interfere in the 2016 election, even as Donald Trump was in the dark.

“Interesting enough that the only people who knew the Russians were involved during the 2016 election were the Obama administration. It wasn’t the president of the United States today. It was the president back then,” Meadows said.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Source: Fox News Politics

Axios’ editor in chief, Nicholas Johnston, said on Thursday that controversy surrounding the Russia investigation was far from over, given the criminal referrals and the copious redactions in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

“This is the beginning of the beginning,” Johnston said of the report, which included 14 criminal referrals and concerns about obstruction of justice.

“There are 14 referrals from the Mueller investigation — we know what two of them are. There are 12 more that were completely unknown which can also lead to other criminal prosecutions,” Johnston told Fox News host Shepard Smith.

“There are at least … nine ongoing investigations in Congress and on state and local levels,” he added on “Shepard Smith Reporting.”

Johnston’s comments came just hours after President Trump declared “Game Over” in the Russia investigation.

White House adviser Kellyanne Conway also appeared to take a victory lap on Thursday when she told reporters she would accept their apologies and that the report ended the “lie” they’d “let fly” for the first two years of Trump’s presidency.

MUELLER REPORT SPARKS NEW DC WAR OVER RUSSIA PROBE: SUBPOENAS, PAYBACK AND MORE

While the Mueller report didn’t find evidence of collusion with Russia, it did highlight 10 concerns related to potential obstruction of justice.

Both Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that the report didn’t show sufficient evidence to warrant obstruction charges, although Mueller said he didn’t “exonerate” the president.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Democrats are expected to continue pursuing the obstruction concerns as part of ongoing congressional investigations and in connection with their strategy for defeating Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

Johnston said Mueller provided a “roadmap” for Congress to continue investigating the president, but predicted the report itself wouldn’t create much change in polling on the issue.

Source: Fox News Politics


[There are no radio stations in the database]
%d bloggers like this: