
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House intelligence committee is set to interview Russia-born business executive Felix Sater about his behind-the-scenes role in Donald Trump’s effort to build a skyscraper in Moscow during the presidential election.
The staff-led, closed-door interview is part of the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Special counsel Robert Mueller said there was no evidence of a conspiracy between Russia and Trump’s campaign, but noted dozens of contacts between the two. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has said he wants the committee to investigate some of those contacts.
Schiff, D-Calif., has said he wants to talk to Sater and “other witnesses related to Moscow Trump Tower” in future interviews.
Sater told The Associated Press he has testified extensively about the Russia project in the past and there was little new to add.
Still, he said, he understood the committee’s interest in the project, which he helped kickstart during Trump’s 2016 White House campaign, and he was amenable to answering more questions.
“As I always have, I intend to give complete and truthful answers to any questions asked of me,” Sater said.
In his own testimony, Cohen said Sater talked with him about having Trump visit Russia during the campaign and pitched the idea of offering Russian President Vladimir Putin a free penthouse in the planned tower as a marketing stunt to drive up the price of condos.
Early in Mueller’s investigation, Trump critics seized on Sater’s Nov. 3, 2015, email to Cohen: “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it. I will get all of Putin’s team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”
Sater later said he was referring to exploiting Trump’s popularity and Putin’s interest in the Moscow development to boost the project, not any attempts to influence the outcome of the election.
Sater — who stood to make upwards of $100 million on the deal, which never went through — contended it was strictly business.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less