Attorney, Sir Mister Turner, Mike Turner discussed on Newell Normand


Should not divulging information if it's far government assistance thank you Sir Mister Turner Mike Turner remote Ohio opening statement and in the beginning of your opening statement you indicate that pursuant to justice department regulations that you submitted a confidential report to the Attorney General at the conclusion of the investigation what I'd like you to confirm his report that you did that is the subject matter of this hearing was to the Attorney General yes but you also state in this opening statement that you threw overboard the word collusion because it's not a legal term you would not conclude because collusion was not a legal term well it depends on how you want to use the the work in the general parlance people can think of it that way but if you're talking about a criminal statute arena you can't because some it really is it's much more actually and accurately described as conspiracy right so your words or it's not a legal term so you didn't put in your conclusion correct that's what you're all right Mr Miller I want to talk about your powers and authorities now the Attorney General and the appointment order gave you powers and authorities that reside in the Attorney General now the Attorney General has no ability to give you power and authority greater than the powers and an authority of the train general correct I don't believe I've mail I think that up is correct this will I want to focus on one word in your report it's a second to the last word in the report it's exonerate the report states accordingly while this report does not include that the president committed a crime it does not exonerate him now in the judiciary hearing in your prior testimony you've already agreed with Mister Ratcliffe that exonerate is not a legal term but there is not a legal test for this so I have a question for Mister mark Mr Miller does the Attorney General have the power or authority to exonerate wanna putting up here is the United States code this is where the Attorney General gets his power and the constitution and the annotated Burke cases of these which we start we went to your law school because I went to case western but I thought maybe years law school teacher differently and we got the criminal law textbook from your law school Mister Muller no where in these because we had them scanned is there a process or description on exonerate there's no office of exoneration to turn general's office there's no certificate at the bottom of his desk Mister Moore would you agree with me that the Attorney General does not have the power to exonerate I'm gonna pass on that why because it's better Broyles us in a legal discussion I'm not prepared to do a little bit of discussion that arena well Mister Mister Miller you would you would not disagree with me when I say that there is no place that the Attorney General has the power to exonerate and he's not been given that authority you would know that I'm not gay if I I take your questions well the one thing that I guess is that the Attorney General probably knows that he can't exonerate either and and that's the part the kind of confuses me because if the attorney generals and have the power to exonerate then you don't have the power to exonerate and I believe he knows he doesn't have the power to exonerate and so this is the part that I understand if your report is to the Attorney General and the Attorney General doesn't have the power to exonerate and he does not and he knows that you do not have that power you don't have to tell him that you're not exonerating the president he knows this already so then that kind of change the contact no we included in the report for exactly that reason you may not know and he should know do you believe that the tourney bill Barr believes that somewhere in the hallways of the department of justice there's an office of exoneration no that's not what I said well I believe he knows and I don't believe you put that in there for for Mr bar I think you put that in there for exactly what I'm going to discuss next and that is to the Washington post yesterday when speaking of your report the article said trump could not be exonerated of trying to obstruct the investigation itself trump could not be exonerated now that statement is correct Mr Miller isn't and that no one can be exonerated reporter wrote this is this reporter can't be exonerated the smaller you can't be exonerated in fact in our criminal justice system there is no power or authority to exonerate this is my concern is more this is the headline on all of the news channels while you were testifying today Muller trump was not exonerated Mr Miller what you know is that this can't say molar exonerated trump is you don't have the power authority to exonerate trump you have no more power to declare him exonerated then you have the power to declare him innocent Cooper so the problem that I have here is that since there's no one in the criminal justice system has a power the president pardons he doesn't exonerate courts and juries don't declare innocent they declare not guilty they don't even declare exoneration the statement about exoneration is misleading and it's meaningless and it it colors this investigation one work out of the entire portion of your report and it's a meaningless word that has no legal meaning and it has colored your entire Amazon is expired this Carson person a Democrat Indiana your years of service to our country I'm gonna look more closely Sir at the trump campaign chairman Paul man a fort in individual why believe betrayed our country who lied to a grand jury who tampered with witnesses and who repeatedly tried to use his position with the trump campaign to make more money let's focus on the betrayal and greet your investigation Sir found a number of troubling contacts between Mr man afford and Russian individuals during and after the campaign is that right Sir right in addition to the June ninth meeting just discussed metaphor also met several times with a man named Constantine Clement well the FBI assess to have ties with Russian intelligence is that right Sir correct in fact Mr man a fort didn't just meet with him he sure private trump campaign polling information with this man linked to Russian intelligence is that right Sir that is correct and in turn the information was shared with their Russian oligarch tight to Vladimir Putin is that right Sir allegedly director molar up meeting with him wasn't enough Schering internal polling information wasn't enough Mr metaphor went so far as to offer this Russian oligarch tight to Putin a private briefing on the campaign is that right Sir yes Sir and finally Mr metaphor also discussed internal campaign strategy one four battleground states Michigan Wisconsin and Sylvania and Minnesota with the Russian intelligence link individual did you not Sir that's reflected in the report as well there were the items you listed previously director Muller based on your decades of years of experience at the F. B. I. would you agree Sir that it creates a national security risk when a presidential campaign chairman shares private polling information on the American people private political strategy related to winning the votes of the American people and private information about American battleground states with a foreign adversary is that the question Sir yes Sir I'm not gay speculate along those lines hi to the extent that it's within the lines of that report then I supported hating beyond that is not part above that which I would support well I think it does Sir I think it shows an infuriating lack of patriotism from the very people seeking the highest office in the land director Muller metaphor didn't share this information exchange for nothing did he Sir I can't answer that question without knowing more about the the question well it it's clearly he hoped to be paid back money he was old by Russian or Ukrainian oligarchs in return for the passage of private campaign information correct that is true director Miller is my colleague Mister heck we'll discuss later agreed corrupts would you agree Sir that the sharing of private campaign information in exchange for money represents a particular kind of corruption a one that presents a national security risk for our country Sir like I applied on that and I don't have the expertise in that arena to really help line would you agree Sir that metaphors contacts with Russians close to Vladimir Putin and his efforts to exchange private information on Americans for money left him vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians I take a generally so that would be the case would you agree Sir that these acts demonstrated a betrayal of the democratic values of our country rests on I can't agree with that direct not that is not true when I cannot be with it yes Sir Roger Miller well I can tell you that in my years of experience as a law enforcement officer and as a member of Congress fortunate to serve on the Intel committee I know enough to say yes trading political secrets for money with a foreign adversary can corrupt and it can leave you open to blackmail and it certainly represents a betrayal the values underpinning our democracy I want to thank you for your service again director mother we appreciate you for coming today I yield back term you start one strip Brad when struck Republican of Ohio day the smaller is it accurate to say your investigation found no evidence that members of the trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of Clinton campaign related emails I can you read or can you repeat the question is it accurate to say your investigation found no evidence that members of the trump campaign were involved in the theft or publication of the Clinton campaign related emails I don't know I don't know hello what Dave well well well you one page five the investigation did not establish that members of the trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities so it would therefore be an accurate based on this to describe that finding as open to doubt that finding being give that a try campaign was involved with after publication of the Clinton campaign emails the following that the good do believe I'm following it but it is that portion of that matter it does not fall within our jurisdiction all right I or and fall within our this well basically which which you your report says volume one page five I just want to be clear that open to doubt is how the committee Democrats described this finding in their minority views two of our twenty eighteen report and it it it kind of flies in the face of what you have and in in your report what so is it accurate to also to say the investigation found no documentary evidence that George Papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the trump campaign about Joseph Mrs claims that the Russians had dirt on Canada Clinton let me turn that over to Mr sadly I I'd like to ask you Sir this is your report in and that's what I'm basing this on and then could you repeat the question for me again yeah is it accurate to say the investigation found no documentary evidence the George Papadopoulos told anyone affiliated with the trump campaign about Joseph misfits claims that the Russians had dirt on candidate Clinton I believe add appearing in the report that is accurate okay so it yeah and the report it says no documentary evidence that Papadopoulos share this information with the campaign it's there for an actor to conclude that by the time of the June nine twenty sixteen trump tower meeting quote the campaign was likely already on notice via George Papadopoulos's contact with Russian agents that Russia in fact had damaging information on trump's opponent would you say that that is an accurate to say that it's it's likely are ready I directed it I could direct you to report well I appreciate that because the Democrats jump to this in contract incorrect collusion in their minority views again which contradicts what you have in in your report I am concerned about a number of statements I'd like you to clarify because a number of Democrats had made some statements that I have concerns with and maybe you can clear him up so a member of this committee said president trump was a Russian agent after your report was publicly released that statement is not supported by your report correct that is accurate supported multiple Democrat members have asserted that Paul mana for met with Julian asides in twenty sixteen before wikileaks released the NC emails implying mana for colluded with the signs because your report does not mention finding evidence at manta for met with the signs I would assume that means you found no evidence of this meeting is that assumption correct I'm not sure I agree with that assumption would you make no mention of it in your report what would you agree with that.

Coming up next