So far, every crucial moment that has come along in the whole Muller investigation thing has been letting air out of the Trump impeachment balloon, right, so far, not inflating it. Yeah. Yeah, And we'll see if there's yet another one of those tomorrow when Muller testifies in front of two House committees. Rosalind Helderman is a Washington Post reporter focusing on political enterprise story and stories and investigations, and joins us. Now, Rosalind,
how are you? I'm good? How are you excellent? I noticed there in your your curriculum, vite, he says, trying to to appear to be your equal, A p A in history from Harvard Hunt. Do you have a favorite era? I love history of all kinds. I like the modern era. Um, but yeah, that's a that's a long ago resume point. Well that's all right. We just we're both history freaks and what we like talking about it with anybody wants to, but you clearly don't. So listen, let's talk about the
Muller testimony tomorrow. And I've read some of your reporting in the good stuff that Devilon Barrett and Matt Zappatosky have written. In the post um, the more I learned, the less I expect. Is that wrong? I don't think so necessarily. I mean, you know, we only heard from
Bob Moore once across this entire investigation. He gave that public statement in May announcing that he was closing the investigation that was less than ten minutes long, and he said several times in the course of that statement that he did not especially wish to testify before Congress, that he considered his report to be his testimony, uh, and that he found additional testimony to be unnecessary. So you're
dealing kind of with a with a hostile witness. His goal is to not share anything beyond his report and to not make any any news. Now that having been said, he really didn't make any news at that press conference in May either. He didn't say any sing that wasn't in the report then either, And yet for a lot of people that was still surprising just to hear him say the things that were in the report made a
lot of news open some people's eyes. So Democrats are sort of hopeful that if they can just get him to talk about what's actually in the report, maybe it will sort of refocus Americans attention on some of the day. So far, every crucial moment that has come along in the whole Mueller investigation thing has been letting air out of the Trump impeachment balloon right so far, at least not inflating it. Yeah. Yeah, And we'll see if there's yet another one of those tomorrow when Mueller testifies in
front of two House committees. Rosalind Helderman is a Washington Post reporter focusing on political enterprise story and stories and investigations, and joins us. Now, Rosalind, how are you. I'm good? How are you excellent? I noticed there in your your curriculum vte, he says, trying to to appear to be your equal A BA in history from Harvard Hunt. Do you have a favorite era? I love history of all kinds. I like the modern era. Um, but yeah, that's a
that's a long ago resume point. Well, that's all right. We just we're both history freaks, and so we like talking about it with anybody wants to, but you clearly don't. So listen, let's talk about the Mueller testimony tomorrow. And I've read some of your reporting in the good stuff that Devlin Barrett and Matt Zappatosky have written in the post um, the more I learned, the less I expect. Is that wrong? I don't think so necessarily. I mean, you know, we only heard from Bob Moore once across
this entire investigation. He gave that public statement in May announcing that he was closing the investigation that was less than ten minutes long, and he said several times in the course of that statement that he did not especially wish to testify before Congress, that he considered his report to be his testimony, uh, and that he found additional testimony to be unnecessary. So you're dealing kind of with
a with a hostile witness. His goal is to not share anything beyond his report and to not make any any news. Now that having been said, he really didn't make any news at that press conference in May either. He didn't say anything that wasn't in the report then either, And yet for a lot of people that was still surprising just to hear him say the things that were in the report made a lot of news open some
people's eyes. So Democrats are sort of hopeful that if they can just get him to talk about what's actually in the report, maybe it will sort of refocus Americans attention on some of the damaging details that are actually contained in that document. Kind of reminds you the Battle of Hastings, doesn't history major trying to drag you back into baby So yeah, I think I get it that I saw one report where they're gonna cut up portions
of Democrats. So this is a good idea. Are going to cut up portions of Mueller's testimony, which is just basically the Muller Report, but nobody's read it, uh and and get that out on social media and hope there's this is a second chance to get out the information that he gathered, thinking it will be damaging to the president.
Is that the goal? Yeah, I mean I think we've heard a little bit that the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, who are likely to be focused a little bit more on what the Russians did during the investigation and the moments where the Trump campaigns seemed to sort of welcome the Russian assistance, even if there was not a criminal conspiracy um, which we know from the report. Uh So, there's some sense that they may try to push Mower to provide some new facts to go a
little bit beyond the four corners of the report. The Judiciary Committee Democrats, who are apparently going to focus on the second volume of the report, dealing with possible obstruction of justice, have signaled that they intend to stick much more closely to what's actually in the document and basically try to get Bob Moller to narrate some of these rather dramatic moments where the president really did appear to try to interfere in the investigation and kind of just
lay out those facts and so that Americans better understand, uh, some of the president's behavior. Not I fully get that. Now, which one's first, the which committees first? I believe Judiciary is okay, So, and that's the one where they're going to try to get him to narrate the report. As you just said, Yeah, a little backward, feel like you start with Russia and then go to obstruction. But I think I think it's going to go in the other order. But is there any reason he's going to go along
with that? I mean, he doesn't have to be the dancing monkey that reads the reporter. Really just say it's on page you could I don't feel like it. Yeah, I mean we'll know in twenty four hours, you know, we do have some sense of him that, you know, he does not like partisan nonsense. He doesn't want to be there. He's he's already been given some restrictions by the Department of Justice on what they think he should
be talking about. On the other hand, you know, I don't think that the Special Counsel's Office and the prosecutors in that office wrote report, uh just for their own sense of fun. Like I do think that they want Americans to read it, and they want Americans to understand
what's in it. That's a good point. So, you know, so we may find that he is a little less hostile than you would think from that may press conference that if the Democrats don't push him too hard, if they don't sort of try to get him to go somewhere that's not in the report in terms of like declaring that the president committed a crime, he may be willing to do a certain amount of just describing what's in the report. Right although I think, and I just
learned this this morning. He Mueller asked, and we're talking about Rosalyn Hilderman of the Washington Post um about the Mueller hearings tomorrow. But Mueller asked to be subpoenaed, and I just realized I found out why. It's so he's now got to follow in effect the rules of a Justice Department employee, which include, for instance, not um not impugning unindicted uncharged third parties, not in fact not even
discussing them. Established policy I'm quoting from the post now also precludes any comment on the facts developed in legal conclusions by the Special Counsel's Office with respect and uncharged individuals. I mean, it really sounds like the rules are pretty he's pretty well climbed down by them. Well, so he's got this letter now in hand. So if he encounters questions he doesn't want to answer, he has sort of the ability to fall back and say, the Department of
Justice has indicated I shouldn't be answering these. But at the end of the day, it's going to be him. They're live and it will be up to him what to answer. There's very little sort of recourse the Department of Justice would have against him, uh if he didn't
follow those guidelines. And what's more, you know, you might remember the Attorney General came out maybe a week or two ago and actually said that he thought that the Special Council shouldn't have to testify at all, and sort of signal that if Bob Mueller wanted to say, wanted to refuse, the Department of Justice would fight on his behalf. He kind of signaled that, you know, they would have his back if he wanted to tell Congress, I'm not
going to show up, there's no need for this. Then there's this whole series you'll recall of other administration to face hills who are in that posture, who have refused to show up in the Department of Justice is going to fight in court on their behalf to not appear. And it appears as though Special Council Miller has not taken the Department of Justice up on that sort of vague offer to fight for him. He is going to
show up. And so you know, a lot of this is in the mind of Bob Miller and none of us. None of that's the place, none of us live, Just like the Enlightenment. Wouldn't you say better one than that when you stole my Rosalind Helderman Washington Post A reporter, Well, I guess we'll find out together. Rosalind enjoyed the chat as always very much. Thanks for the time. Thank you so much for having me. What we'll make tomorrow's history tomorrow?
All right, I'll jump that down. That's very clever. I got a couple of chuckles out of the history nerd from Harvard, so that's what was my goal. So I was gonna ask this interview, was your Waterloo Rosland? That's better than what I said, significantly better. Um oh, and you know what I wanted to go with, what was the disastrous campaign that the Churchill led World War Only? Yeah, except I wasn't a hundred percent sure how to pronounce it. I thought it was Gallipoli, So that's fun to say.
Let's say it together. We didn't get to the other side of the aisle, which you know I should ask her. But uh, Republicans. The claim is Republicans. This is their opportunity to drill down on how when did you know the Steele dossier was bogus? And why did you keep going all this sort of Does he need to answer those questions or does he The short answer is no, and we made reference to him. I'm sorry, we probably
should have explained it better. But this letter from the Justice Department instructing Old Bob Muller on what he can and cannot say and should and should not say. It really limits him. It's from the Deputy Attorney General. Mueller requested earlier this month guidance on how to handle questions quote concerning privilege or other legal bars applicable to potential testimony in connection with the subpoenis and and the report and the letter notes Mueller had resisted testifying. The Department
agrees that you shouldn't be testifying anyway. It's unnecessary and that will remind you. Don't say anything about unindicted individuals or uncharged individuals. Um, you've got to follow all the court orders and blah blah blah, and just in other words, shut your mouth. And I expect him to give little. Now I'm trying to think through, based on my legal education, which included almost applying to law school, whether if they asked him, when did you know the still dossier was fake?
If he probably just sayd I'm not prepared to discuss that. You might hear that phrase over and over again. Justice Department rules preclude me from discussing that. You better get prepared, buddy. That's that's what my yes to. All right, Well, Okay
asked whether Mueller intended to speak beyond his report. One of the media people involved in in his his getting ready to testify referred to a main news conference in which Mueller said he would not, and added, as he made pretty clear, then you can expect him to stick pretty close to the four walls of the report. This
could be almost laughably uncomfortable tomorrow. Then that would be perfect when like the fifth person in a row asked him as a question and he says again with a sigh, as I've said previously, I'm most I would refer you to the report. If the president was any other person, would you have indicted him. I'm not prepared to testify as to the hypothetical blah blah blah he probably in. Actually, we'll probably have a stock phrase that doesn't even go
that far. It'll be down beyond the scope of the report and go to lunch or bringing a bringing a comedian to do a do an act for a little time, or stretch stretch. Ye, I don't know. It could be laughably weird tomorrow. If he just refuses to answer any questions, that'd be perfect. Or he could say I act all right. Finally, I bet I've been aching to tell you this. Listen to that I picked the guy, you know, that's sort of thing. It