The audio track on WaPo is better, but take your pick of sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/25/watch-trump-deny-mueller-said-things-he-definitely-said/?utm_term=.da5bb51d4068
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/454614-trump-lashes-out-at-reporter-after-being-asked-if-hes-worried-he
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/you-are-untruthful-trump-lashes-out-at-reporters-after-mueller-testimony
http://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/fact-check-trump-after-mueller-hearing/index.html
Fact check: Trump falsely says Mueller corrected statement that he could be indicted once out of office
.
"Trump called two reporters “fake news” for correctly saying that Mueller said Trump could be indicted after leaving office. Trump then falsely said Mueller corrected his comments during the second hearing about Trump facing a possible indictment after his presidency."  
"Asked about Mueller suggesting that some of Trump’s answers were “untruthful,” Trump replied: “He didn’t say that at all. … You are untruthful.”" Mueller did say that Trump's answers were not truthful.
"Trump said his campaign did nothing wrong. Mueller said Trump’s touting of WikiLeaks “calls for investigation.”
"Trump said WikiLeaks was a hoax. Mueller said it wasn’t."
""And told that Mueller did not exonerate him, Trump shot back, “He didn’t have the right to exonerate.” Four months ago, Trump had a much different view of “exoneration” when he was asked about the completion of Mueller’s investigation. “It’s complete exoneration. No collusion. No obstruction.”"
.
I think there would be agreement here on P&R that a printed report or a subdued, carefully worded statement of fact or any amount of fact-checking does not provide any counterbalance whatsoever to Trump's misleading tweets or lie-laden helicopter interviews or bellicose conspiracy rants (Witch hunt! Russian hoax!) at his campaign rallies and Rose Garden and Oval Office statements. How do you expose the lies to those who don't want to know the truth?

-- Modified on 7/26/2019 12:38:54 AM

how did he give "untruthful" answers?

Trump provided written answers as part of a compromise with Mueller. The fact that they were probably crafted by his lawyers means nothing since they were submitted as his own words and are legally his responsibility and testimony. And Mueller agreed during his testimony Trump was not truthful in his answers.
Were you drunk when you wrote this idiocy? Or just stupid like Wu?

but he had a chance to give at least ONE example of Trump being untruthful, but he chose not to.  That sounds like an empty charge to me.  You wouldn't let me get away with that here without calling me out for it, so why are you giving Mueller, an experienced prosecutor so much slack?

Poor Bob From State Farm can't remember what he had for breakfast, much less what Trump said in his written answers to him. Of course Trump didn't really write those answers himself, and Jake Mueller didn't actually ever read them himself either, so I guess we can call that one a draw.

 
You really need to cut Jake some slack too, he's proven over and over that his memory is no better than Muellers, just look at how many times he can't remember what he wrote only a few minutes prior, even when his post is clearly there for all to see. Just like when he demanded that you come up with the name of ANY Dem, and then once you did so he claimed that you were claiming ALL Dems felt that way. Poor Jake, it's one thing to see someone like Bob Mueller lose it after all these years, it's quite another to watch Jake fall apart right in front of us. ROFL

Mueller was asked a simple question: was Trump untruthful? His answer was "yes." If you want to read examples of Trump's untruthful answers go back and read Mueller's report. It really amazes me that anyone can defend Trump's lies. He lies about EVERYTHING. And you and Wu just gobble up his shit sandwiches.
Yum.

You sound just like one of those Russian bots on Facebook the way you lie and twist reality. I doubt you remember most of what you write because you really don't care. You are especially droll when you mis-remember (or just lie) about an earlier thread where you and cdl were totally WRONG but doubled down. As you always do.
Back to Moscow, Putinka.

with Mueller not remembering what's in his own report.  Why are you coming down on ME for not remembering.  Lol

Your debating skills seem to be puerile and feeble. Mueller answer the question with a simple "yes" that Trump lied. So sad that confuses you.

He also answered over 50 other questions with "I don't know", "I'm not familiar with that", I'd have to check the report" and other excuses.  He gave two yesses against all of that fumbling.  Its questionable whether he even understood the question he was answering "yes" to.  Even CNN says he was a disaster as a witness.  No credibility.  Do you grasp at straws much?

So now  you need to basically say "But, but, but he must have misunderstood."
Desperate much????

Or else you think you are being as cute as your BFF with your use or rather your "misuse" of quotation marks.

 
Yes, Mueller said "YES" to a lot of questions that he may or may not have even understood, but he NEVER said "YES, Trump lied" Yes I know that's not what you wrote, but it's what you were hoping we would "think" you said. Bob From State Farm was led around by the nose by both Nadler and Schiff who made a bunch of statements that BFSF could simply answer yes or no to. You aren't trying to take lemons and make lemonade out of them, you are trying to make a key lime pie out of rotten lemon peels, and failing miserably at it to boot.

Dear Pinhead:
I wrote
"Yes," Trump lied  
which is NOT the same as what you wrote,
"Yes, Trump lied."
Putting the last two words in quotes as if I put the last two words in Mueller's mouth when they were my own totally distorts what Mueller said.
So, was your hysterical, blatant "misuse" of quotation marks intentional, making you a liar? Or was your hilarious and obvious misuse of quotation marks just one more example of what a total idiot you are?
Either way, you take an early (and probably insurmountable) lead in this week's Pot=Kettle=Black Award race.
Some things never change.

Mueller issued a correction to his answer to Ted Lieu regarding the OLC (can't indict a sitting POTUS) memo.  Mueller has had several days to issue further corrections or clarifications of any incorrect or unclear statements.  
.
Transcript:  
.
NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed your report found there was no obstruction and completely and totally exonerated him. That is not what your report said, is it?
MUELLER: Correct, not what the report said.
NADLER: You wrote, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are not able to reach that judgment.” Does that say there was no obstruction?
MUELLER: No.
NADLER: Your investigation found “multiple acts by the president that were capable of asserting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.” Is that correct?
MUELLER: Correct.
NADLER: Can you explain what that finding means so the American people can understand?
MUELLER: The finding indicates that the president was not exonerated for the act he allegedly committed.
NADLER: In fact, you were talking about incidents in which the president sought to use this official power outside of usual channels to exert undue influence over your investigations. Is that right?
MUELLER: Correct.
NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded POTUS committed the crime of obstruction, you couldn't publicly state that?
MUELLER: The statement would be that you would not indict because of the OLC opinion.  
NADLER: But he could be prosecuted after he leaves office?
MUELLER: True
.
Mueller has not issued any retractions, corrections, or clarifications of those replies.  
.
The only problem that I see is that Nadler SHOULD have asked, "Can you explain what that finding means so the American people, ***INCLUDING GaG and CDL,*** can understand?"  
.
EDIT: I address the question of Mueller's assessment of Trump's truthfulness in a separate reply to CDL, above.

-- Modified on 7/29/2019 4:07:55 PM

I answered GaG, below, about Mueller's testimony but I didn't address the "untruthful" part.  Trump submitted WRITTEN answers, under oath, to the Special Counsel, Appendix C in the Mueller Report.
.
From the recent transcripts:
.
DEMINGS: Director Mueller, a couple of my colleagues right here wanted to talk to you or ask you about lies, so let's talk about lies. According to your report, page 9, Volume 1, witnesses lied to your offices and to Congress. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russia interference according to your report other than the individuals who plead guilty to crimes based on their lying to you and your team. Did other witnesses lie to you?
MUELLER: I think there are probably a spectrum of witnesses in terms of those who are not telling the full truth and those who are outright liars.
DEMINGS: Thank you very much, outright liars. It is fair to say then that there were limits on what evidence was available to your investigation of both Russia election interference and obstruction of justice.
MUELLER: That's usually the case.
DEMINGS: And that lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation?
MUELLER: I would generally agree with that.
DEMINGS: Thank you so much, Director Mueller. You will be hearing more from me in the next hearing,  
...........
...........
DEMINGS: OK, we can move on. Did the president answer your follow-up questions? According to the report there were follow-up questions because of the president's incomplete answers about the Moscow project. Did the president answer your follow up questions either in writing or orally? We're now in Volume 2, page 150-151.
MUELLER: No.
DEMINGS: He did not. In fact, there were many questions that you asked the president that he simply didn't answer, isn't that correct?
MUELLER: True.
DEMINGS: And there were many answers that contradicted other evidence you had gathered during the investigation, isn't that correct Director Mueller?
MUELLER: Yes.
DEMINGS: Director Mueller, for example the president is written as or stated (ph) he did not recall having advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks releases, is that correct?
MUELLER: I think that's what he said.
DEMINGS: But didn't your investigation uncover evidence that the president did in fact have advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks public releases of e-mails damaging to his opponent?
MUELLER: And I can't get in to that area.
[many other specifics - read the complete transcript]
.
DEMINGS: Director Mueller, isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did his answers show that he wasn't always being truthful.
MUELLER: There (ph) -- I would say generally.
DEMINGS: "Generally." Director Mueller it's one thing for the president to lie to the American people about your investigation, falsely claiming that you found no collusion and no obstruction -- but its (ph) something else altogether for him to get away with not answering your questions and lying about them.  
.
Most of Mueller's "I can't get into that" replies to Demings were related to what Trump claimed to know (or not know) and ongoing cases, e.g., Roger Stone and others. That is, Mueller indicated that he had contradictory testimony and evidence (still not made public to protect the ongoing investigations and trials) that made it clear to him that Trump was, generally, not being truthful in his replies to the Special Counsel's questions.  
.
Imp: Director Mueller, in May 2019, "during a Rose Garden speech, Trump again proclaimed himself “the most transparent president” in U.S. history, adding to the reporters gathered before him, “I think most of you would agree.”" Based on your experiences, would you say that that claim of  "transparency" is an untruthful statement?
MUELLER: Yes, it is an untruthful statement.  
Imp: Thank you, Director. I yield my time.

What Nadler SHOULD have asked  "Can you explain what that finding means so the American people know that YOU understand what is in your own report?"

 
I think that given the yes or no nature of that question, Bob From State Farm would have been forced to answer a resounding "burp, fart, mumble, cough cough, err Could you repeat the question please?" lmao

 
It's true that Mueller has had several days now, I doubt seriously that he has used any of them to even consider making any retractions, corrections, or clarifications to anything he said the other day. I am sure his ONLY comment has been to say "I TOLD you I didn't want to do this" and now we all know why. My advice to you is the same I gave to Jake Mueller the other day "Just take the L and move on" Even you have to know this is a losing cause, but I hope you also know how much fun I am having.  At least he didn't fall asleep in the middle of the hearings. Now THAT would have been the only thing that could have made things worse for your side. rofl

I CLEARLY said I knew that is NOT what you said, just what you "hoped" we would think you had said so you could make your "gotcha" post. I see that even though I did NOT fall for it hasn't stopped you for claiming "gotcha" any how. The problem of course is that my words are still there for all to see, but then again when has absolute proof that you were either wrong or lying ever stopped you in the past?  

 
I see why you and LTM&L have gotten so chummy lately, he's the only one here less intellectually honest than yourself.

I never "'hoped' we would think you had said" anything. So, as usual, you just continue to make shit up. Try again.
Then again, don't bother.