 that you discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office. On April 26, 2019, the Washington Post reported that after the New York Times report, you were in danger of losing your job. According to the Post, when President Trump called you for an explanation, you tried to assure the President you were on his team. When discussing special counsel Mueller's investigation, you reported he said, quote, I give the investigation credibility, end quote, and quote, I can land the plane. Mr. Rosenstein, did you tell the President I can land the plane regarding special counsel Mueller's investigation? You packed a lot into that question, Senator. And I hope you allow me to answer. Number one, the idea that I was involved in some conspiracy to get the President is ridiculous. And I think that I worked for two years with. Well, you know what? You can respond to my specific questions regarding the wearing of the wire. But this first question is, did you tell the President I can land the plane? I do not believe I've ever used those words, I can land the plane, Senator. And I have not ever talked about my personal communications with the President. But what I can tell you is what I always said when anyone asked me about the investigation, which was that we would complete it appropriately and expeditiously. And I made no inappropriate commitments. Let me ask you the question about did you suggest or hint as secretly recording President Trump? I did not suggest or hint at secretly recording President Trump. I have you. Have you ever discussed with anyone the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove this President from office? I have never in any way suggested that the President should be removed from office under the 25th Amendment. I can give you more detailed explanation if you have time. We all know that Attorney General Barr made certain characterizations of the Mueller report, which I would say were not accurate. But he did say in a letter that he wrote to Congress, he said, Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein, and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense. Did Attorney General Barr accurately present your view regarding the obstruction of justice? Senator, I do not believe that the evidence collected by the Special Counsel warrants prosecution of the President. That is correct. Oh, that was not my question. It has nothing to do with whether collusion was found. We also know that President Trump did not cooperate fully with Mueller's investigation on that point. No, he did note a number of obstruction of justice actions by this President. So did you agree with Barr's letter that you agree that there was no obstruction of justice involved? I'm sorry, Senator, that's what I tried to answer the first time. The answer is, yes, I do not believe that the President committed a crime that warrants prosecution. And that's the issue that we review as prosecutors. No, excuse me. The Mueller report said that they did not find enough evidence to go after the President for collusion. And we all know that the Office of Legal Counsel said that the President, a sitting president, cannot be indicted. But they did raise a number of obstruction of justice actions by the President and left open the issue of whether or not that would be inditable. But we all know that the Office of Legal Counsel said you can't indict a sitting president. Wrong. Reason again that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct? That is correct. I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lu who said, and I quote, you didn't charge the President because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report, and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. More than 1,000 former federal prosecutors who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations disagreed with you regarding the obstruction of justice issue. And they wrote that maybe the President Trump's conduct described in Special Counsel Amala's report would result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. And quote, they emphasized that these are not matters of professional judgment. They further noted that to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice runs counter to logic and experience. So can you explain why you are right? And more than 1,000 former DOJ prosecutors are wrong on the issue of obstruction of justice by this President. Senator, we have a lot more than 1,000 former DOJ prosecutors. And I don't know whether all those people read the entire report or were familiar with all the evidence. But I was, and I believe Attorney General Barr has already explained his conclusion. And Senator, I think it's very important when we complete investigations, we reach conclusions. And the Department either determines a case merits prosecution or it does not. And we determine that that case does not merit prosecution. Now, people are free to express contrary opinions. And because I think I have to repeat myself again, I've read the Mueller report. They did not say that there was not enough evidence with regard to obstruction of justice. They noted. And I disagree with Mueller. I don't know why he didn't come to the conclusion that there are there was actually enough evidence on the obstruction of justice issue. But that they could not they could not indict the President. That part is really clear. Thank you very much. Thank you. If I may. Thank you. No, that's good. I think that's unfair, Senator, because the investigation was concluded. It was appropriately reviewed. No one recommended in favor of prosecution. The Attorney General and I determined the prosecution was not warranted. And that is I think that question has been asked and answered. I appreciate it very much.