前特别顾问罗伯特·穆勒周三在国会作证时透露，在长达22个月的调查中，他没有向唐纳德·特朗普总统发出传票，因为他认为白宫的法律挑战会延长调查的完成时间。

米勒告诉众议院情报委员会的议员们，我们正在接近调查的尾声，但几乎没有成功。“我们决定不行使传票权力，因为有必要加快调查的结束。”

规则指导特别顾问的调查穆勒说，在整个调查过程中，他“不断向他的团队强调”这一点

“我们需要尽可能彻底、尽可能迅速地完成我们的工作，”他在众议院司法委员会的开幕词中说，他在众议院情报委员会作证时说。“完成调查符合公众利益，但不能超过必要的时间。”

正如448页的报告中记录的那样，特朗普回答了某些书面问题，但他拒绝回答基于该主题的其他问题。穆勒星期三作证说，总统也没有回答一轮后续问题。

前特别顾问罗伯特·穆勒在众议院情报委员会就他关于俄罗斯干涉2016年总统选举的报告作证，该报告于2019年7月24日在DC华盛顿的雷伯恩大厦举行。奇普索莫德比亚/盖蒂的照片

穆勒继续说，“我们的期望是，如果我们传唤总统，他会反对传唤，我们将在很长一段时间内处于调查之中。”

未能传唤总统令情报委员会成员代表拉贾·克里希纳摩尔蒂感到沮丧。

“我个人认为他应该花更长的时间。我不明白为什么这么着急，”伊利诺伊州民主党人告诉记者新闻周刊。“我认为当面采访或传唤总统是至关重要的，因为这是你确定总统意图的方式。我觉得这有点令人沮丧。”

米勒在关于质询总统的报告中说:“在我们的讨论过程中，总统确实同意就某些与俄罗斯有关的议题回答书面问题，他向我们提供了答案。他也不同意就阻碍话题或过渡期间事件的问题提供书面答案。”

“最终，虽然我们认为我们有权力和法律理由发出大陪审团传票来获得总统的证词，但我们选择不这样做，”报告继续说道。他说:「我们作出这项决定，是因为这项调查工作可能会在调查的后期阶段出现重大延误。我们还评估说，根据我们已经获得的关于总统行动的大量证据以及他描述或解释这些行动的公开和私下声明，我们有足够的证据理解相关事件，并在没有总统证词的情况下作出某些评估。”

ROBERT MUELLER REVEALS HE DID NOT SUBPOENA TRUMP IN ORDER TO 'EXPEDITE' INVESTIGATION

In his testimony before Congress Wednesday, former special counsel Robert Mueller revealed that during his 22-month-long investigation, he did not issue a subpoena to President Donald Trump because he believed legal challenges by the White House would prolong the completion of the probe.

"We were working toward the end of our investigation and we'd had little success," Mueller told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee of obtaining an in-person interview with Trump. "We decided that we did not want to exercise the subpoena powers because of the necessity of expediting the end of the investigation."

The rules governing investigations by special counsels state they are supposed to be "conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly," a point that Mueller said he "continually stressed" to his team "throughout the investigation."

"We needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as possible," he said in his opening remarks to the House Judiciary Committee, which he testified to prior to House Intelligence. "It was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete, but not to last a day longer than necessary."

As is documented in the 448-page report, Trump answered certain written questions, but he refused to answer others based on the topic. Mueller testified Wednesday that the president also did not respond to a round of follow-up questions.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Intelligence Committee about his report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election in the Rayburn House Office Building July 24, 2019 in Washington, DC.PHOTO BY CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY

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

The failure to subpoena the president frustrated Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

"I personally thought that he should take longer time. I didn't understand what the rush was," the Illinois Democrat told Newsweek. "I think that that in-person interview, or subpoenaing the president is vital because that's how you ascertain the President's intent. I find that to be a little frustrating."

In the report about questioning the president, Mueller stated: "During the course of our discussions, the President did agree to answer written questions on certain Russia-related topics, and he provided us with answers. He did not similarly agree to provide written answers to questions on obstruction topics or questions on events during the transition."

"Ultimately, while we believed that we had the authority and legal justification to issue a grand jury subpoena to obtain the President's testimony, we chose not to do so," the report continued. "We made that decision in view of the substantial delay that such an investigative step would likely produce at a late stage in our investigation. We also assessed that based on the significant body of evidence we had already obtained of the President's actions and his public and private statements describing or explaining those actions, we had sufficient evidence to understand relevant events and to make certain assessments without the President's testimony."