Congress Is Now Investigating Whether Trump Lied to Mueller

“This is a key part of the impeachment inquiry.”

Trump delivers remarks at the White House on November 15, 2019.Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

House impeachment investigators are looking into whether President Donald Trump lied last year in written answers to special counsel Robert Mueller, a top congressional lawyer said in federal court Monday.

“Did the President lie?” House general counsel Douglas Letter said to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, CNN reported. “Was the President not truthful in his responses to the Mueller investigation?” Letter was arguing that the House needs access to grand jury material Mueller collected as part of Mueller’s Russia probe. The Justice Department has refused to share that information with Congress.

Letter didn’t say which written answers he was talking about. But testimony in the recent trial of longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone suggested that Trump likely lied when he claimed not to remember hearing directly or indirectly from Stone about WikiLeaks’ plans for releasing Democratic emails hacked by Russia. Stone was convicted Friday on charges of making false statements to Congress, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering.

Trump told Mueller in writing that he did not recall “discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.” Trump also told Mueller that he did not remember hearing that “Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question [including WikiLeaks] regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.” Trump, who has boasted about his supposedly excellent memory, even claimed that he had “no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1, 2016,” and Election Day. 

But at Stone’s trial, Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign staffer, described a phone call between Trump and Stone that took place on July 31, 2016—not long after WikiLeaks released a slew of Democratic National Committee emails. Immediately after hanging up with Stone, Trump told Gates that “more information would be coming,” Gates recalled.

Gates also testified that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort told Gates that he intended to brief Trump on information from Stone about WikiLeaks’ plan. Former Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon also testified during Stone’s trial that Stone, who Bannon described as the campaign’s “access point” to WikiLeaks, kept the campaign updated on what Wikileaks planned in the summer and fall of 2016.

The Mueller report refers to Manafort speaking with Trump after WikiLeaks’ first release of documents, in July 2016. But the relevant passage is redacted because it is based on Manafort’s grand jury testimony—some of the same grand jury information that Democrats are seeking.

Manafort’s “situation shows so clearly that there is evidence, very sadly, that the President might have provided untruthful answers and this is a key part of the impeachment inquiry,” Letter said Monday, according to CNN.

In his statements to Mueller, Trump also downplayed his knowledge of an effort during the 2016 campaign to complete a deal to a build a Trump-branded tower in Moscow. Trump lied publicly about this subject, claiming repeatedly that he had “no business” in Russia after he had signed a letter of intent to pursue the Moscow deal. Responding to Mueller’s questions, Trump also gave written answers that were probably false. Trump told Mueller that he did not recall discussing the possibility of traveling to Russia during the campaign. Michael Cohen—the Trump attorney who spearheaded the project—has testified that Trump told him to consult with Trump campaign chief Corey Lewandowski about setting up such a trip.

Trump also told Mueller he was aware that Cohen had sent “an email regarding the Letter of Intent” to a top Putin aide, Dmitry Peskov, “at a general, public email account, which should show there was no meaningful relationship with people in power in Russia.” But Trump failed to mention that Cohen received a response from Peskov through an aide, and that Cohen spoke to that aide, Elena Poliakova, on the phone about the tower deal. Cohen has said he briefed Trump on this call just after it occurred.

Trump refused to agree to an in-person interview with Mueller’s team. The president’s attorneys said that was because Trump feared a perjury trap—in other words, that he would be unable to testify without lying. When Trump eventually agreed to answer some questions in writing, he still refused to answer queries about allegations that he had obstructed justice.

The Mueller report called Trump’s written answers inadequate and incomplete. Asked by Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) during a July congressional hearing if Trump “wasn’t always being truthful” in his answers, Mueller responded: “I would say, generally.” Mueller’s office later said the special counsel did not necessarily intend to call Trump’s answers false and referred back to the report’s more measured language. After the damning revelations from Stone’s trial, lawmakers are once again trying to answer Demings’ question.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate