JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): Did you actually totally exonerate the president?

ROBERT MUELLER, Russia Probe Special Counsel: No.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it doesn't exonerate the president.

ROBERT MUELLER: It does.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Robert Mueller testifies.

The former special counsel appears before Congress answering questions about Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether President Trump obstructed justice.

Then, we devote most of the show to examining Mueller's testimony, what it means for the president and what it reveals about the scope of Russian interference.

All that, plus the day's other headlines, on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."

(BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: Two years of investigations, a 448-page report, and 34 indictments all culminated in a full day of testimony today by former special counsel Robert Mueller.

And, as William Brangham reports, the partisan war over the Mueller probe was on full display.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It was a historic day on Capitol Hill, two years in the making.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller testified before two House committees about his report on Russia interference in the 2016 election and President Trump's repeated attempts to end it.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York started off trying to rebut President Trump's assertions about Mueller's report: REP. JERROLD NADLER (D-NY): So, the report didn't conclude that he didn't commit obstruction of justice; is that correct?

ROBERT MUELLER, Russia Probe Special Counsel: That's correct.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: And what about total exoneration?

Did you actually totally exonerate the president?

ROBERT MUELLER: No.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it doesn't exonerate the president.

ROBERT MUELLER: It does.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Democrats zeroed in on a key point, why Mueller didn't determine if Mr. Trump obstructed justice or not.

REP. TED DEUTCH (D-FL): Director Mueller, you found evidence, as you lay out in your report, that the president wanted to fire you because you were investigating him for obstruction of justice; isn't that correct?

ROBERT MUELLER: That's what it says in the report, yes.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): You found evidence that the president engaged in efforts -- and I quote -- "to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation."

Is that right?

ROBERT MUELLER: That's correct.

REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D-RI): An unsuccessful attempt to obstruct justice is still a crime; is that correct?

ROBERT MUELLER: That is correct.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But Mueller said he was limited because of a longstanding Department of Justice memo written by the Office of Legal Counsel.

It dictates that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

ROBERT MUELLER: The OLC opinion, the OLC opinion, Office of Legal counsel, indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president, so one of the tools a prosecutor would use is not there.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Mueller also agreed that some witnesses misled investigators, which impacted his conclusions.

REP. VAL DEMINGS (D-FL): According to your report, page nine, volume one, witnesses lied to your office and to Congress.

Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russia interference, according to your report and that lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation.

ROBERT MUELLER: I would generally agree with that.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Multiple former associates of Mr. Trump's campaign and members of his administration were charged for lying to Mueller's team and to Congress.

The Judiciary Committee had almost four hours to question Mueller.

But one topic that was barely touched?

Impeachment.

No Democrats brought it up.

And Mueller declined to say his report was a blueprint for removing the president from office.

REP. DOUG COLLINS (R-GA): Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

The president didn't conspire with the Russians.

And nothing we hear today will change those facts.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For their part, the Republicans didn't spend much time addressing whether the president tried to slow or derail Mueller's probe.

Instead, they returned to their longstanding criticisms of the investigation, including that it was more political than legal.

REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK (R-CA): And it's starting to look like, having desperately tried and failed to make a legal case against the president, you made a political case instead.

You put it in a paper sack, lit it on fire, dropped it on our porch, rang the doorbell and ran.

ROBERT MUELLER: I don't think you will review a report that is as thorough, as fair, as consistent as the report that we have in front of us.

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): You hired people that didn't like the president.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Accusations of political partisanship among his legal team roused some of the strongest defenses from Mr. Mueller.

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG (R-ND): Andrew Weissmann is one of your top attorneys?

ROBERT MUELLER: Yes.

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG: Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton's election night party.

Did you know that before or after he came onto the team?

ROBERT MUELLER: I don't know when I found that out.

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG: And you must be aware by now that six of your lawyers donated $12,000 directly to Hillary Clinton.

I'm not even talking about the $49,000 they donated to other Democrats, just the donations to the opponent who was the target of your investigation.

ROBERT MUELLER: Can I speak tore a second to the hiring practices?

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG: Sure.

ROBERT MUELLER: We strove to hire those individuals that could do the job.

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG: OK. ROBERT MUELLER: I have been in this business for almost 25 years.

And in those 25 years, I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation.

It is not done.

What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Others, like Florida Republican Matt Gaetz, criticized Mueller for his unwillingness to investigate the role played by the notorious Steele dossier, a series of unproven allegations about Donald Trump's dealings in Russia compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): So, here's my question: Did Russians really tell that to Christopher Steele, or did he just make it up and was he lying to the FBI?

ROBERT MUELLER: Let me backup a second, if I could, and say, as I said earlier, with regard to Steele, that that's beyond my purview.

REP. MATT GAETZ: No, it is exactly your purview, Director Mueller.

And here's why.

Only one of two things is possible, right?

Either Steele made this whole thing up and there were never any Russians telling him of this vast criminal conspiracy that you didn't find, or Russians lied to Steele.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: After this morning's hearing, Mueller went before the House Intelligence Committee for another round.

REP. DEVIN NUNES (R-CA): Welcome, everyone, to the last gasp of the Russia collusion, conspiracy theory.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In the early days of the Russia investigation, Republicans on this same committee released their own report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

But their report came to a very different conclusion than Mueller's.

It determined Russia didn't interfere in the election to help Mr. Trump's campaign.

But Democrats today again pushed back against that idea and the assertion by the president and other that the investigation was a waste.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): And when Donald Trump called your investigation a witch-hunt, that was also false, was it not?

ROBERT MUELLER: I would like to think so, yes.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, your investigation isn't a witch-hunt, is it?

ROBERT MUELLER: It is not a witch-hunt.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn't it?

ROBERT MUELLER: True.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: When he said publicly, it was false?

ROBERT MUELLER: He did say publicly that it was false, yes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Another question, one that's been on the minds of many since Mueller's report was issued, why wasn't the president interviewed under oath?

New York Democrat Sean Patrick Maloney: REP. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY (D-NY): Why didn't you subpoena the president?

ROBERT MUELLER: We negotiated with from -- him for a little over a year.

The expectation was, if we did subpoena the president, he would fight the subpoena and we'd be in the midst of the investigation for a substantial period of time.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Representative Will Hurd, Republican of Texas, turned the hearing back to what Robert Mueller has always cited as one of the most serious issues raised by his investigation: the past and future threat of meddling in our elections.

REP. WILL HURD (R-TX): Our committee issued a report and insight on saying that Russian active measures are growing with frequency and intensity.

Would you agree with that?

ROBERT MUELLER: Yes.

In fact, many more countries are developing the capability to replicate what the Russians have done.

REP. WILL HURD: In your investigation, did you think this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election, or did you find evidence to suggest they will try to do this again?

ROBERT MUELLER: Oh, it wasn't a single attempt.

They're doing it as we sit here.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For the "PBS NewsHour" I'm William Brangham.

JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump spent most of today at the White House and was tweeting his reaction during the Mueller hearings.

Late this afternoon, he spoke to reporters on the White House South lawn.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: So, we had a very good day today, the Republican Party, our country.

There was no defense of what Robert Mueller was trying to defend, in all fairness to Robert Mueller.

Whether his performance was a bad one or a good one, I think everybody understands that.

I think everybody understands what's going on.

There was no defense for this ridiculous hoax, this witch-hunt that's been going on for a long time, pretty much front he time I came down the escalator with our first lady.

And it's a disgrace, what happened.

But I think today proved a lot to everybody.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Our Yamiche Alcindor was there when the president was speaking and has been tracking White House reaction all day.

So, Yamiche, you did hear all what the president had to say.

What are you taking away from the White House?

YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The president, his personal lawyers and White House aides all agree that the president feels like he's in a better position today than he was yesterday.

He sees this hearing as really doubling down and being proof of what he's been saying, which is this was all a witch-hunt and a waste of time.

He said the Democrats were in a worse position today because they came away with nothing.

Democrats, of course, take issue with that.

They think that getting Robert Mueller on the record saying he didn't exonerate the president and that he also could be charged when he leaves office was a win for them.

But the president overall was pretty confident that he thinks that this is going to help him win the 2020 election.

I also put the question to the president directly.

Robert Mueller said that generally the questions and the answers that you gave him were untrue.

The president got very, very upset and said that the question was untruthful.

When I pressed him some more, he said that campaign aides and White House aides hadn't lied to the president, hadn't lied to Robert Mueller.

But Robert Mueller, of course, said the exact opposite.

So this was really in a lot of ways a total repudiation of what the president was saying.

But he's out there continuing to say, mostly falsely, that he was exonerated, and that this was a full defense of what he's been saying.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Yamiche, you're addressing one of the questions I was going to ask you, in that what Robert Mueller said in answer to a number of different questions from different members of Congress was that he did find the president's answers not always credible.

Not generally truthful was another question he answered.

So you're saying the White House is simply pushing back on all of this.

YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The White House and the president personally, to me, are pushing back on the idea that Robert Mueller said that the president's answers, written answers were generally untruthful, and that campaign aides and White House aides lying impeded the Mueller investigation.

The president is, I think, very upset with the idea that Robert Mueller on the record before millions of people essentially were saying that the people around him and himself were lying.

The president really feels as though he -- he has to now defend his character.

He called Republicans today incredible warriors for him and said that his party really was coming to his defense, as everyone was really trying to attack him.

But when you look at what Robert Mueller said, he really did push back on so many claims that President Trump has been making over the last two years.

The president said this was a witch-hunt carried out by 12 Democrats.

The president said that this was all a hoax and that there was no Russian interference.

All of that, Robert Mueller said, is wrong and that wasn't true.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yamiche Alcindor, following it all from the White House, thank you, Yamiche.

So, this evening, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reacted to the hearing.

Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, she said the House is still not prepared to pursue an impeachment inquiry against the president.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): My position has always been whatever decision we made in that regard would have to be done with our strongest possible hand.

And we still have some outstanding matters in the courts.

It's about the Congress, the Constitution and the courts.

And we are fighting the president in the courts.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Sorry about that, that end of that comment from the speaker.

But our Lisa Desjardins, whom you see next to me, she was in the hearing room today.

Lisa has been following the response on Capitol Hill.

Lisa, in general, what are Democrats saying, first of all?

LISA DESJARDINS: Well, Democrats say they feel that their members prepared and then that preparation really mattered, that they were able to focus Mr. Mueller in a way that they think helped.

They also liked their mantra of, no one is above the law, of course, talking about the president at that point.

Now, it's interesting, though, that there's a divide among Democrats when you speak to them privately over how Mr. Mueller did.

Many of them say, listen, this is a huge report for him, 448 pages' long, he shouldn't be expected to know every detail of it.

But others admitted to me frankly -- these are Democrats involved in the investigation - - that they felt that Mr. Mueller wasn't quite as sharp as they expected him to be.

Now, the reaction in the caucus is interesting as well.

They just had a Democratic-only meeting.

And I'm told that it wasn't really especially lively.

There were a lot of thanks to committee chairmen, but there didn't seem to be overall enthusiasm.

The caucus is still sort of discussing what this moment means.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And so we heard -- Lisa, we just heard Speaker Pelosi say they are not ready to move ahead with impeachment.

That suggests that they don't think what Mr. Mueller had to say today moved the ball down the field very much.

LISA DESJARDINS: I get that suggestion.

I think that they are mulling it over right now.

We know a couple of things are going to happen, talking to sources in both committees.

The Judiciary Committee next is going to move to push forward subpoenas on Don McGahn, who, of course, his name came up a lot today because he is the witness who told Mueller that the president instructed him to fire Mr. Mueller.

They want him to appear in public.

He is saying he cannot, so they're going to court over that.

The House Intelligence Committee, Judy, is planning to call more witnesses, including Rick Gates, in September, they are hoping.

He's, of course, the former deputy campaign chairman to Donald Trump.

And then finally, Judy, they're going to focus more, they say, on financial investigations in the Intelligence Committee, not just focus on the Mueller report.

But I think you're right.

Overall, this is a big question of impeachment, yes or no.

I'm told behind closed doors tonight, Speaker Pelosi told her Democrats that, if they are now in favor of impeachment, because they feel that their district goes that way, that she will respect that.

Essentially, Judy, she's sending them home for their August recess, which begins Friday, and saying talk to your members in your districts.

We will see what happens when you come back.

She still doesn't want to begin an impeachment inquiry.

But August is going to be important.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Lisa -- and you mentioned Don McGahn.

Of course, he's the special -- the former counsel, legal counsel to President Trump.

LISA DESJARDINS: Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But what you're saying suggests Democrats are not dropping this, they are moving ahead, but they're picking and choosing how they're going to do that.

LISA DESJARDINS: That's right.

They see this as one huge step in a large series of parts of the investigation.

This is something they absolutely wanted to do.

But it's interesting.

At the same time, Judy, Republicans feel very good about what happened today.

They don't feel like they were able to really take down Mr. Mueller's credibility, which some of them wanted to do.

They don't feel like they were successful at that.

But they do think that the greater burden was on Democrats, and they have a point, that Democrats needed to move public opinion in their direction if they're going to force impeachment, which Speaker Pelosi has said.

And today Republicans think that what happened, whether it confirms the parts of the report that Democrats think are important or not, they don't think, Republicans, that it moved the dial, that there were no electrifying moments that might have galvanized public opinion or thought.

We will see what happens, but Republicans feel that this was a win for them and that Democrats didn't get what they wanted.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Lisa Desjardins at the Capitol, thank you, Lisa.

LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And now at the table with me here in our studio for the hearings and remaining with me now, John Carlin.

He ran the Justice Department's National Security Division from 2013 to 2016.

Before that, he served as chief of staff to then FBI Director Robert Mueller.

And Mary McCord, she was acting head of the National Security Division in 2016 and '17.

She is mentioned in Mueller's report as part of the team that went to the White House to voice warnings about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

They both have worked at Justice in both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Hello to both of you.

We have been together all day long.

But let's try to sum it all up.

John Carlin, what, for you, is the main takeaway?

We heard Robert Mueller saying at several points today, it's not normal for a prosecutor to be testifying before Congress.

JOHN CARLIN, Former Justice Department Official: That's right.

And you saw different agendas.

I think you saw the Democrats trying to use this moment to make the American people more aware of certain parts of the report and use it as theater in that regard.

You saw the Republicans, by and large, special in the early morning, try to attack the credibility of Mr. Mueller and his team.

And you saw Mr. Mueller with his agenda.

And his agenda, I think, was, number one, to stick with the Department of Justice guidance in this unusual situation for a prosecutor, and stick to the four corners of the report, number two, to defend his team and come across credibly, and not give either side a sound bite, which I think he did as well.

And, number three, you saw him try to raise the alarm bell about Russian interference.

And those words rare moments where he was moved off-script and beyond the four corners of the report were all around sounding that alarm bell on Russian interference, expressing displeasure and disbelief that the president, along with others, were welcoming foreign interference, and pushing back on attacks on his team.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And definitely pushing back on attacks.

We heard some of that in the sound bite that we played earlier.

Mary McCord, he did try to stick, as John said, within, as we said, the four corners of the report.

But there were these interesting exchanges where he raised his voice in saying the president wasn't completely credible in his answers.

MARY MCCORD, Former Justice Department Official: I think one of the sort of most memorable parts of the day came toward the very end, when Representative Demings asked him a series of questions about the president's written responses to questions.

And he was very pointed when asked, first of all, did the president always respond?

And his answer was, there were many questions he simply didn't answer.

He said true to that.

She asked, there were many answers that contradicted other evidence that you accumulated during your investigation.

And he said yes to that.

And then, pointedly, she asked, isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete, because he often didn't answer, but that, when he did answer, many of his answers were not always truthful?

And, to that, Mr. Mueller took a second of breath and said, I would say, generally, so agreeing really for the first time publicly that the president's own written responses not only contradicted the facts developed through the extensive investigation, as shown in these 448 pages, but that they weren't always truthful, in his opinion.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, John, does that conform, do you think, to what Robert Mueller wanted to do when he came before the members of Congress today?

JOHN CARLIN: I think the -- not being used by either side and not creating a sound bite was definitely a goal today, and trying to put people's attention back onto the report that, as he said, was one of the most thorough and consistent reports in history.

And, in that way, if you read the report, getting people's focus on Russian interference, I think Mary makes a good point, though.

I'm not sure it was intentional, that that exchange for me as well was quite memorable, that -- because it's not as clear in the report what he said today in the hearing about the president's credibility.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mary, something else that you and I were discussing before we went on the air again tonight has to do with what Robert Mueller's mission was and whether he did or didn't find President Trump guilty of a crime.

MARY MCCORD: Or charged with a crime.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.

Right.

MARY MCCORD: So, I think one of the unfortunate misimpressions or misdirections from all of the discussion about the Mueller report has been the focus on whether a crime occurred.

And that's partly because, as a result of the special counsel regulations, he was required to submit a confidential report to the attorney general, which we call in prosecution, DOJ circles, a prosecution memo, which has to recommend either prosecution or declination.

So that caused him -- and he answered this at one point during the testimony -- to focus on whether crimes were committed.

But his actual appointment only had sort of as an afterthought the fact that he could pursue criminal charges, if appropriate.

The actual mandate was to see if there were any links or coordination between members of the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

And, certainly, part one shows all kinds of links .

And I think these might -- these didn't get to the point of a chargeable offense, but what Americans should be very concerned about is, again -- and I think Representative Schiff went through this very nicely in his - - in his very first set of questions -- Russia made outreach to the campaign.

The campaign welcomed that outreach.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.

MARY MCCORD: Trump Jr. said, we delight in it.

Trump called on the Russians to hack into the e-mails.

He called on -- he praised WikiLeaks for what WikiLeaks was doing.

The campaign planned their press strategy around the hacking and the disclosure of e-mails, and that then, apart from helping Trump win, people in his orbit, in his campaign also had a financial motive, including himself, Manafort, Flynn, Trump, and that, when investigated, they lied about it.

So that might not equal conspiracy under the law for a prosecution, but it's a whole lot of links.

It's a whole lot of unethical and un-American and undemocratic behavior.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And thank you for correcting me when I was referring to not finding him guilty, but charging him one way or another... MARY MCCORD: Charging.

JUDY WOODRUFF: ... which was within the purview of what he was doing.

John Carlin, there were also parts of -- parts of his testimony that gave us an understanding of how frustrating it was for him that he never was able to sit down with President Trump, that that just didn't happen, despite more than a year of trying to get the White House to agree to this.

JOHN CARLIN: Yes, he really did walk through that in detail in a series of exchanges and, in that exchange, explained that, in some ways, that made the investigation more difficult, to not be able to sit down and ask the president questions.

And that's what I think led to the exchange as well where the written answers for the questions that were answered, where he said, very remarkably, I think, when referring to the written answers under oath from the president of the United States, he said that they were not consistent with the evidence that they found in the report.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It was a direct answer to questions about, did you get the answers -- how much more did you want to know from the president that you weren't able to get, in essence, was what the members were trying to get.

So, Mary McCord, John Carlin, thank you both.

MARY MCCORD: Thank you.

JOHN CARLIN: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And now let us get reaction from lawmakers from both political parties.

We start with Representative Mike Johnson, Republican from Louisiana.

He is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Before his election to Congress in 2016, he was a constitutional attorney for 20 years.

He questioned Robert Mueller earlier today.

And he joins us now from Capitol Hill.

So, Congressman Johnson, your main takeaway from the former special counsel's testimony?

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): The main takeaway is, there were not many surprises.

Many of us expected that Mr. Mueller would stick to the four corners of his document.

He said as much in the weeks preceding today's events.

And he did exactly that.

I don't think he offered anything new.

And I think that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, our Democrat friends, expected much more of today.

And I don't think they got what they were after.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You said earlier today -- I was looking at a quote from an interview you gave.

You said there would be great frustration that you couldn't answer any questions about - - this is what you said to Robert Mueller - - that he couldn't answer any questions about the origins of what you called this charade.

Why were you focused on the origins?

REP. MIKE JOHNSON: Well, there's a lot of people in this country that are deeply concerned about that, because it goes to the integrity of the investigation itself.

The origin of it is what everyone has heard now, the dirty dossier, the Christopher Steele dossier, that had a political origin.

It was a document that was created as a hack job, and it has no real credibility.

That was the foundation for what started the whole Russian collusion investigation.

He mentioned it in his report in a number of places, but he was unwilling to talk about it today.

And I think that's a source of frustration for a lot of people.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How credible did you find Robert Mueller?

REP. MIKE JOHNSON: Look, Mr. Mueller as an individual is someone who deserves all of our admiration and respect.

He served his country admirably in the military and in so many respects, in so many positions.

But I think today was a difficult day for him.

I think it showed in his face, on his countenance.

I think the weight of this has been pretty heavy on him.

I think he's very relieved today.

But I think his performance is something that everyone will be talking about and critiquing for some time.

And I'm not sure, again, it's what Chairman Nadler and our Democrat friends wanted to come out of it today.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, did it concern you, though, when he said on several occasions that he didn't find the president's answers -- this is particularly toward the end of the day - - when he said he didn't find the president's answers -- that he had been given written questions because he couldn't get an in-person interview.

He didn't find all those answers credible and that, generally, he found some of the president's answers to be not truthful.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON: Well, look, everyone has -- is able to read the report now.

We have all now seen the daylong hearing, and people are going to draw their own conclusions.

As an individual, he has that same right.

And prosecutors do that every day.

He did have the ability to subpoena the president.

And there was an exchange today where he explained, I think, why he chose not to do that.

But if the written responses were not what he was expecting, he could have gone further.

He didn't.

And now we have to live with the results of the report.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But didn't he say very clearly that that was because he was under pressure not to let this investigation go on any longer than necessary?

REP. MIKE JOHNSON: Well, look, it went on for 22 months.

He spent $30 million and an inordinate amount of time and resources, taxpayer dollars that are precious resources.

Look, he had an unlimited an exhaustive amount of time and everything he needed to follow the facts where they led.

He came up with a report.

It's nearly 450 pages' long.

And now we have all gone through it in gross detail.

I'm not sure there's much more to do or to talk about here.

And we hope that we can move on to the important work of the American people.

The Judiciary Committee, where we have the hearing today, has one of the broadest jurisdictions in Congress and so many pressing issues, including immigration and border security, that we have not been able to get to, because we have been mired in all of this.

We hope that we can turn the page and move on to something else.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think the president should have met with Mr. Mueller in person, answered questions in person?

REP. MIKE JOHNSON: I think any president in his position probably would have avoided that.

It's a trap often in situations like that, certainly when you're talking about a chief executive.

And I know why his lawyers advised him not to do it.

But we will all have our own opinions about that decision, ultimately, and what it means for the report.

JUDY WOODRUFF: At this point, we are hearing from our Lisa Desjardins, who covers the Capitol for us, that Democrats plan to try to subpoena Don McGahn, who was the president's former White House counsel, other people close to or who worked for the president.

Are those -- from your perspective, are those going to be productive steps?

REP. MIKE JOHNSON: No.

I think that we are losing the patience of the American people.

I think at least half the country and maybe a growing number is ready for us to move on, because we're miring, as I said, the time of this important committee into all of these endless hearings.

I do think the Democrats, for political reasons, want to drag this into the election cycle, because I think it's part of their strategy.

But I don't think it's going to work.

And I think it's going to frustrate more and more people.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But don't you -- let me just play devil's advocate.

Don't you think it's important to try to get to the bottom of some of these important questions, even if it means bringing people before the Congress to directly answer questions?

REP. MIKE JOHNSON: Well, if the special counsel, with a huge team of investigators, lawyers and agents and 500 witness depositions and everything they did for nearly two years and $30 million, could not get down to the bottom of it, I'm not sure what a handful of members of Congress are going to be able to do in a limited hearing time.

So I think we have gotten enough of this.

And I think, at the end of the day, that will be the conclusion.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana, we thank you very much.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we stay on Capitol Hill and turn now to a lawmaker who sits on both the Judiciary and the Intelligence committees.

She is only one of three members of Congress today to question Robert Mueller twice.

Her exchange in the second hearing was one of the most commented on of the day.

Representative Val Demings is a Democrat from Florida.

And she joins me now.

Congresswoman Demings, thank you very much for talking with us.

Your principal takeaway from today's testimony?

REP. VAL DEMINGS (D-FL): Well, I think that special counsel Mueller's testimony today just confirmed what I have known for the last four months, is that Russia interfered with our election.

They interfered in a sweeping and systematic way, according to the report, that the president on multiple occasions attempted to interfere with the investigation into Russia's interference, that he obstructed or attempted to obstruct justice, that special counsel Mueller could not exonerate or clear the president, clear him from wrongdoing, and that, in the president's written responses, as you have already stated, that he refused to do a sit-down or in-person interview, which was extremely disappointing.

The special counsel tried for over a year to get him to do that.

But, in his written responses, that the president wasn't completely truthful in those responses.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I'm sure you know, or perhaps you haven't heard, but President Trump's comment on all this today was that it was a disaster for Democrats, that the special counsel, the former special counsel, had really nothing new to add, that it was a weak performance, and that, essentially, Democrats have hurt their case by bringing him before the Congress.

REP. VAL DEMINGS: Well, it doesn't surprise me.

Of course President Trump would say that.

And what's also very amazing, for the president to not even comment on the part about Russia systematically interfering with our election.

You would think, as opposed to attacking Democratic members of Congress or attacking special counsel Mueller, that he would at least focus on that.

So it doesn't surprise me, especially after today, what the president is saying or is not saying.

And, also, if I may comment too, it also pains me when other members of the committee, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the president try to make this a partisan issue.

I do believe the American people do care about what happened in the 2016 election.

I believe the American people do want to hold the president accountable, if he was engaged in wrongdoing.

And this is not a partisan issue.

This should be a bipartisan issue.

And I tell you what.

We're not going to stop until we do just that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what does that mean?

REP. VAL DEMINGS: That means that we will continue our investigations.

I know you asked the question earlier about attorney McGahn, who played a major role in the investigation.

According to attorney McGahn, who the special counsel confirmed today is a very credible, was a very credible witness, the president tried on multiple times to get attorney McGahn to call Assistant Attorney General Rosenstein to fire Mueller.

Matter of fact, the president said something to the effect Mueller has to go on multiple times, and then, to me, like a mobster, then asked the question, has it been done yet?

Have you -- has it been done yet?

And so I believe that attorney McGahn's testimony about this attempted obstruction on the part of the president is extremely important to the additional work ahead of us.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you see this all leading to, Congresswoman Demings?

Do you see it leading to impeachment proceedings, something short of that?

How do you see the building blocks coming together?

We heard Speaker Pelosi saying today again that the House -- she is not ready for the House to take that next step.

REP. VAL DEMINGS: Yes.

And I have said before, leadership has to have the ability to see the entire field.

They have to be able to see the big picture and make decisions based on that.

I said four months ago, after reading the special counsel's report, that I believed that there was enough in the report to begin an impeachment inquiry at that time.

So, we're going to continue our investigations.

We're going to hopefully provide information for the American -- additional information for the American people and other members of Congress, so we can do really what the forefathers expected us to do.

And that is to really hold the president accountable.

And I also heard my colleague before me talk about the American people being tired of this.

I don't believe so.

I don't -- I do not believe that.

I mean, that's his opinion.

He's entitled to that.

But the provision was put in our Constitution that, when additional accountability needed to be exercised, that responsibility is given to Congress to do that.

And we intend to do that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you believe the case for impeachment was advanced today by Robert Mueller?

REP. VAL DEMINGS: I certainly do, because, now, remember, I believe it four months ago.

As a former police chief, a former police detective, when I saw the report, the elements of crimes on multiple occasions, the number of people who lied, the abuse of power, I believed we had enough then.

But, certainly, listening to attorney Mueller today confirm some very special points in the case, and also, again, talk about the president not being completely truthful in his written response, I certainly believe that the ball was advanced down the field today.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congresswoman Val Demings of Florida, we thank you very much.

REP. VAL DEMINGS: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: For more on today's hearings, we turn now to Garrett Graff.

He has written extensively about Robert Mueller for over a decade.

Garrett Graff is the author of "The Threat Matrix: Inside Robert Mueller's FBI."

And David Rivkin, he served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel's Office in the Reagan and George H.W.

Bush administrations.

Hello to both of you.

And I should point out, David Rivkin, that it was -- it emerged in today's hearing that it was President Reagan who initially nominated Robert Mueller for his first job as a prosecutor, and President George H.W.

Bush, Bush 41, who nominated him for another position at the FBI.

David Rivkin, what is your main takeaway, though, from today?

DAVID RIVKIN, Former Associate White House Counsel: My main takeaway, that it was a good day, I think, for all sides.

I think... JUDY WOODRUFF: You say all sides?

DAVID RIVKIN: All sides.

I think the special counsel did a good job.

He stuck to the report.

I happen to think that the main takeaways were the same as you can get from the report.

I think the effort to suggest that he has indicated something that is damaging to the president is partisan spin.

I, frankly, don't think the Republicans have done much damage to Mr. Mueller's credibility.

And I have a lot of regard for him.

I, frankly, think it was a nonevent.

It was kind of an intellectual equivalent of a nine -- of the Y2K.

Much anticipated.

Not much took place.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Did you say nonevent?

I just want to make sure I understood.

DAVID RIVKIN: Yes.

I think, substantively, it was a nonevent.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Garrett Graff, you have been following Robert Mueller for a long time.

How did you read his performance today and how he advanced or changed our understanding of what happened?

GARRETT GRAFF, Author, "The Threat Matrix: Inside Robert Mueller's FBI and the War on Global Terror: I think I actually agree, largely, with David, with the exception that I think, by sticking so closely to the report, Mueller made clear that, actually, the report had incredibly damning information about the president's behavior in volume one on obstruction, and then the candidate Trump and the Trump campaign's willingness to accept Russian help in the second part.

But I do think, along with David, that I'm not really sure that this substantially moved the needle for either side today, in part because Mueller really went out of his way time and time again to avoid saying anything or giving any of the sort of incriminatory sound bites that I think the Democrats were waiting for.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And yet, as we have been discussing, David Rivkin, you did -- we did hear Robert Mueller answer a series of questions about how truthful, how credible he found the president's answers.

At this point, does that change our understanding of what happened in all of this?

DAVID RIVKIN: I don't.

With all respect to special counsel Mueller, he expressed concern, in a sense that he didn't think that the answers he got from the president mirrored other information he's gotten.

Let me just say, the job of the prosecutor, special counsel, is, if he thinks that somebody is lying to him, it's a process crime.

It's called 18-USC-1001.

Mr. Mueller actually indicted a number of people for that, properly so.

If he felt that, he would have written in a confidential report to attorney general if he thinks that the president, despite the temporary immunity the president enjoys, under OLC teaching, would have written a report that he thinks the president could be charged with that offense.

He didn't.

So we have to put this in a proper context.

By the way, the notion that he didn't exonerate the president is correct, but exonerating the president is never a task of any criminal investigation.

We are all exonerated.

We're all presumed innocent.

The task of a prosecutor is to come up with a recommendation to indict.

So I didn't find it troubling.

And troubling is an effort to spin into something, which is -- this is not.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It is the case, Garrett Graff, that Robert Mueller made it very clear when he was asked, no, I have not exonerated the president.

The Republicans later challenged him, in effect, saying, it's not your role to exonerate the president.

But he made it very clear the president is still subject to prosecution potentially after he leaves office.

GARRETT GRAFF: Let me just cut in.

It is absolutely correct that the president is not above the law.

We have heard it many times.

The president is also not beneath the law, OK?

I don't know of any criminal investigation whose job it is to exonerate somebody.

So the fact he's not exonerated, this is a very important due process.

Let's get beyond partisanship here.

It's a due process issue.

Nobody in America is supposed to be exonerated by the government.

A person is presumed to be innocent, including this president.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Something I want you both to hear.

And this is an excerpt from the hearing in which a member of -- one -- a member of Congress was asking the former special -- it had to do with WikiLeaks.

I want you to listen to this.

Then I will ask you about it.

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL): Director Pompeo assessed WikiLeaks in one point as a hostile intelligence service.

Given your law enforcement experience and your knowledge of what WikiLeaks did here and what they do generally, would you assess that to be accurate or something similar?

How would you assess what WikiLeaks does?

ROBERT MUELLER, Russia Probe Special Counsel: Absolutely.

And they are currently under indictment.

Julian Assange is.

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY: But would it be fair to describe them as -- you would agree with Director Pompeo - - that's what he was when he made that remark - - that it's a hostile intelligence service, correct?

ROBERT MUELLER: Yes.

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY: If we could put up slide six: "This just came out, WikiLeaks.

I love WikiLeaks," Donald Trump, October 10, 2016.

"This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable.

It tells you the inner heart.

You got to read it," Donald Trump, October 12, 2016.

"This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove," Donald Trump, October 31, 2016.

"Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks," Donald Trump, November 4, 2016.

Would any of those quotes disturb you, Mr. Director?

ROBERT MUELLER: I'm not certain I would say... REP. MIKE QUIGLEY: How do you react to them?

ROBERT MUELLER: Well, it is probably -- problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays, in terms of giving some, I don't know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, clearly, Garrett Graff, an attempt here to get the former special counsel to look at the president's praising what WikiLeaks was doing, which was information that had been stolen from Hillary Clinton.

GARRETT GRAFF: Yes, I think this was as close as we got today to a raw personal opinion from Robert Mueller.

In almost all other instances, he was pretty monosyllabic.

Over 100 times, he told people to go back to the report.

This was a rare moment where you saw, I think, Robert Mueller's own personal feelings about how troubled he was about the president's behavior during the 2016 campaign.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David Rivkin, troubled, but not enough to go beyond that and say the president... (CROSSTALK) DAVID RIVKIN: Not only not enough.

It doesn't incriminate at all.

Let me say for the record that I'm disgusted by many things WikiLeaks has done.

Let me also say for the record, if you look at some of the previous statements by Democrats about WikiLeaks' previous leaks, long before Trump got into office, there's a lot of praise there.

But, to me, there's something fundamentally wrong as a matter of process to do something that really is a critique of a president's personality, a president's policy statements, and wrap it into the context of an indictment.

As a lawyer, I don't know of any legal argument why praising somebody doing bad things or illegal things can amount even to an element of an offense.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Where do you... GARRETT GRAFF: So... JUDY WOODRUFF: Go ahead, yes.

GARRETT GRAFF: If I can respond to that, though, I do think that there's a fair question in this about whether we should -- you know, there's a question of what's legal.

And that's part of this, but then what is... (CROSSTALK) DAVID RIVKIN: ... does the criminal investigation.

(CROSSTALK) GARRETT GRAFF: But that's not what Mueller's answer was here.

And I do think that there's a fair question of whether the president and elected leaders should be held to a higher moral and ethical standard in their behavior in terms of the behavior that we want to condone in our democratic society.

DAVID RIVKIN: I don't mind the criticism of the president.

I very much mind, as a lawyer and as American citizen, when this criticism comes in the context of a multiyear criminal and law enforcement investigation of a president.

The context is wrong.

The process is wrong.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Where do you see this going from here, Garrett Graff?

I mean, we have now that had this long-awaited testimony.

The special counsel -- former special counsel has spoken.

What do you see?

GARRETT GRAFF: I think it's a very difficult question, Judy, in part because, you know, next week, we're heading into the August recess.

You know, sort of whatever momentum Congress built up today is going to dissipate.

Members are going back to their districts.

They're going to hear from their constituents in town meetings.

And then, of course, the current plan for House Democrats is to convene a new series of hearings in the fall involving some of the witnesses like Don McGahn.

But I think we're really going to see the August recess help shape whether people really believe Congressman Johnson or Congresswoman Demings and sort of whether the American people have a stomach for this.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Have an appetite, have an appetite for this.

And that is something that we will all be... (CROSSTALK) DAVID RIVKIN: I agree.

But my only point is, if you want to criticize the president what he says about Chairman Kim or Chairman Xi, I don't begrudge Democrats doing that.

But do it as a policy exercise.

Trying to put it in the context of breaking the law, I think, in my view, is abhorrent and wrong and sets -- poisons our politics even more.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David Rivkin, Garrett Graff, we thank you both.

As all this was going on in Washington, it was a chaotic day in Puerto Rico.

The island's governor, Ricardo Rossello, had been expected to resign all day amid a political scandal that has enraged Puerto Ricans.

Amna Nawaz has the latest.

AMNA NAWAZ: That's right, Judy.

Well, Arelis Hernandez is a staff writer for The Washington Post, where she has reported from Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.

She is following the all-out political turmoil that has engulfed Governor Ricardo Rossello's administration in recent days.

She joins me now on the phone from San Juan.

Arelis, thanks for being with us.

Let's start with the latest that we know of.

A spokesman for the governor came out just a short while ago.

Did he have any news on whether Governor Rossello will resign or not?

ARELIS HERNANDEZ, The Washington Post: He did not say one way or the other.

But it sounds like the governor is going to deliver a message and address the people of Puerto Rico this evening.

We don't know how.

We don't know when.

And he didn't take any questions.

But, at some point, Rossello will be on television or on Facebook Live to talk to the people of Puerto Rico, presumably because he's going to resign or appoint a secretary of state to succeed him.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, Arelis, give us a sense of sort of what it's like on the ground right now.

Obviously, we have been following those protests, historic in their nature and their scope, tens of thousands of people taking to the streets.

They're still out there today, many of them gathered outside of the governor's mansion.

To say that the last day has been chaotic is an understatement, though.

Give us a sense of what's happened just over the course of today.

ARELIS HERNANDEZ: A giant understatement, in fact.

I'm in front of the governor's mansion right now.

And you can hear the protesters down the street.

They sound like the crowd has gotten much bigger.

But, basically, this all started around last night, as local media center reporting rumors that the governor's resignation was imminent.

And so people have been in a frenzy since then, waiting for this announcement, whether through a video recording or through a press statement of some kind.

I talked to bunches of people today who are just, like, Puerto Rico is not sleeping right now.

Everyone is sort of in this anxious place trying to understand what comes next.

So we heard 10:00 a.m., we heard noon that this recorded farewell message would be transmitted.

But nothing came over.

Then we heard that the president of the House of Representatives here in Puerto Rico, Carlos Mendez Nunez, called an emergency meeting of the Progressive -- New Progressive Party, which is the statehood party that Rossello belongs to.

And as a result of that particular meeting, people were speculating what was going on.

He gave a press conference this afternoon at the capitol building, basically saying that the impeachment inquiry that he had sort of commissioned or a week ago or so had come back with a conclusion and recommendation that there were indeed grounds for impeachment within the evidence from these leaked chat messages.

So, since then, in that message, Mendez Nunez has also mentioned that he -- he was ready to begin impeachment proceedings against Governor Ricardo Rossello, but that he wanted -- essentially - - he's essentially giving the governor a chance to resign first, so the country, as people call it here, or the island, wouldn't have to go through that process.

But it sounds like he has the votes to get the two-thirds majority that he would need to start a formal impeachment process.

AMNA NAWAZ: And we will be following, Arelis Hernandez, your reporting on the ground and see what Governor Rossello has to say in that statement later tonight.

Thank you so much for joining us -- Judy, back to you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And thank you, Amna.

In the day's other news: The U.S. Justice Department declined to pursue criminal contempt charges against Attorney General Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

Democrats in the House of Representatives had voted to cite them for contempt for refusing to turn documents on adding a citizenship question to the census.

The Justice Department says that act didn't constitute a crime.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., refused today to block new restrictions on those seeking legal asylum at the southern border while a court challenge plays out.

The ruling permits the Trump administration to require that migrants seek asylum in countries they pass through before reaching the U.S.

It is aimed at stopping the surge of migrants from Central America.

In Britain, Boris Johnson took over as the United Kingdom's prime minister today.

He succeeds Theresa May, who appeared before Parliament a final time as prime minister and Conservative Party leader.

Later, she spoke outside her official residence.

THERESA MAY, Outgoing British Prime Minister: I'm about to leave Downing Street, but I'm proud to continue as member of Parliament for Maidenhead.

I will continue to do all I can to serve the national interest and to play my part in making our United Kingdom a great country with a great future, a country that truly works for everyone.

JUDY WOODRUFF: As May departed, crowds waved European Union flags, marking her failed attempts to reach a Brexit deal with the bloc.

Then, Johnson, a Brexit advocate, arrived at 10 Downing, saying his leadership will put things right.

BORIS JOHNSON, British Prime Minister: After three years of unfounded self-doubt, it is time to change the record, to recover our natural and historic role as an enterprising, outward-looking and truly global Britain.

No one in the last few centuries has succeeded in betting against the pluck and nerve and ambition of this country.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The new prime minister has vowed to deliver Brexit by Halloween, with or without an E.U.

deal.

There's word that North Korea has carried out a new weapons test.

South Korea's military says the North fired at least two projectiles early Thursday about 270 miles across the Sea of Japan.

It's the first such incident since North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, met with President Trump at the boundary between the two Koreas last month.

Back in this -- the president -- this evening, I should say, President Trump vetoed a congressional resolution that would have barred some arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

It passed both House and Senate, but not with a veto-proof majority.

In May, the White House announced that it would invoke emergency authority to push through $8 billion worth of sales.

In this country, Facebook will pay $5 billion in a sweeping settlement with the Federal Trade Commission involving privacy violations.

Today's announcement is the FTC's largest penalty ever for a tech company.

Facebook didn't admit any wrongdoing, but it will face a slew of new requirements.

Those include increased transparency and oversight by an independent privacy committee.

And on Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 79 points to close at 27270.

The Nasdaq rose 70 points, to a new record close, and the S&P 500 added 14, also finishing at a record close.

And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you, and we'll see you soon.