Mueller Knocks Down Trump’s ‘No Obstruction’ Claim | The Last Word | MSNBC


RON IS HERE AND HELD MORE IMPORTANT JOBS INCLUDING THE IMPORTANT JOBS INCLUDING THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE. THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE. WE WILL GET THEIR ANALYSIS AFTER WE WILL GET THEIR ANALYSIS AFTER WE REVIEW THE VIDEO. WE REVIEW THE VIDEO. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO COULDN’T FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO COULDN’T WATCH ALL SEVEN HOURS OF WATCH ALL SEVEN HOURS OF HEARINGS, IN OTHER WORDS, ALMOST HEARINGS, IN OTHER WORDS, ALMOST ALL OF YOU, WE WILL PRESENT A ALL OF YOU, WE WILL PRESENT A BOTH SUMMARY OF BOTH HEARINGS BOTH SUMMARY OF BOTH HEARINGS BEFORE OUR PANEL OF EXPERTS BEFORE OUR PANEL OF EXPERTS CONTRIBUTES ON WHAT HAPPENED CONTRIBUTES ON WHAT HAPPENED TODAY. TODAY. BEFORE WE WILL BE JOINED BY BEFORE WE WILL BE JOINED BY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY AND THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE WHO AND THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE HEARINGS. PARTICIPATED IN THE HEARINGS. IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT IN THE IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT IN THE FIRST HEARING AT THE JUDICIARY FIRST HEARING AT THE JUDICIARY HEARING, ROBERT MUELLER ACCEPTED HEARING, ROBERT MUELLER ACCEPTED THE GROUND RULES SUGGESTED TO THE GROUND RULES SUGGESTED TO HIM IN A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HIM IN A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LETTER THIS WEEK. LETTER THIS WEEK.>>THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS>>THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS ASSERTED PRIVILEGES CONCERNING ASSERTED PRIVILEGES CONCERNING INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION AND INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION AND DECISIONS. DECISIONS. ONGOING MATTERS WITHIN THE ONGOING MATTERS WITHIN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND DELIBERATIONS WITHIN OUR OFFICE. DELIBERATIONS WITHIN OUR OFFICE. THESE ARE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THESE ARE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PRIVILEGES THAT I WILL RESPECT. PRIVILEGES THAT I WILL RESPECT.>>AND WITH THAT, ROBERT MUELLER>>AND WITH THAT, ROBERT MUELLER GUARANTEED THAT HE WOULD END UP GUARANTEED THAT HE WOULD END UP REFUSING TO ANSWER DOZENS AND REFUSING TO ANSWER DOZENS AND DOZENS OF QUESTIONS AND ENDED UP DOZENS OF QUESTIONS AND ENDED UP USING THE GROUND RULES TO REFUSE USING THE GROUND RULES TO REFUSE TO ANSWER OVER 100 QUESTIONS, TO ANSWER OVER 100 QUESTIONS, MOSTLY BECAUSE THE ANSWERS WOULD MOSTLY BECAUSE THE ANSWERS WOULD HAVE REQUIRED HIM TO REVEAL HAVE REQUIRED HIM TO REVEAL “DELIBERATIONS WITHIN OUR “DELIBERATIONS WITHIN OUR OFFICE,” AS HE PUT IT. OFFICE,” AS HE PUT IT. THAT LEFT TIME TO FRAME YES OR THAT LEFT TIME TO FRAME YES OR NO QUESTIONS THAT WERE CONFINED NO QUESTIONS THAT WERE CONFINED TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN REVEALED IN THE MUELLER REPORT. REVEALED IN THE MUELLER REPORT. CHAIRMAN NADLER BEGAN WITH CHAIRMAN NADLER BEGAN WITH TAKING APART PRESIDENT TRUMP’S TAKING APART PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CLAIM THAT ROBERT MUELLER DID CLAIM THAT ROBERT MUELLER DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION NOT FIND EVIDENCE OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND THE MUELLER OF JUSTICE AND THE MUELLER REPORT TOTALLY EXONERATED THE REPORT TOTALLY EXONERATED THE PRESIDENT. PRESIDENT.>>HE DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION>>HE DID NOT COMMIT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, IS THAT CORRECT? OF JUSTICE, IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>WHAT ABOUT TOTAL EXONERATION.>>WHAT ABOUT TOTAL EXONERATION.>>NO.>>NO.>>CHAIRMAN NADLER DEMOLISHED>>CHAIRMAN NADLER DEMOLISHED THE CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT THE CLAIM THAT THE PRESIDENT FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION.>>DID THE PRESIDENT REFUSE TO>>DID THE PRESIDENT REFUSE TO REQUEST TO BE INTERVIEWED BY YOU REQUEST TO BE INTERVIEWED BY YOU AND YOUR TEAM? AND YOUR TEAM?>>YES.>>YES.>>IS IT TRUE YOU TRIED FOR MORE>>IS IT TRUE YOU TRIED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR TO SECURE AN THAN A YEAR TO SECURE AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT? INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT?>>YES.>>YES.>>IS IT TRUE THAT YOU AND YOUR>>IS IT TRUE THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM ADVISED THE LAWYER THAT AN TEAM ADVISED THE LAWYER THAT AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT IS INTERVIEW WITH THE PRESIDENT IS VITAL TO OUR INVESTIGATION? VITAL TO OUR INVESTIGATION?>>YES.>>YES.>>IS IT TRUE THAT YOU ALSO>>IS IT TRUE THAT YOU ALSO STATED THAT IT IS IN THE STATED THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC TO TAKE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC TO TAKE PLACE? PLACE?>>YES.>>YES.>>HERE STILL REFUSED TO SIT FOR>>HERE STILL REFUSED TO SIT FOR AN INTERVIEW WITH YOU OR YOUR AN INTERVIEW WITH YOU OR YOUR TEAM? TEAM?>>TRUE.>>TRUE.>>THE REPUBLICANS SEEMED TO>>THE REPUBLICANS SEEMED TO SUGGEST THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD SUGGEST THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD NOT BE GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF NOT BE GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IF HE TRIED TO FIRE JUSTICE IF HE TRIED TO FIRE ROBERT MUELLER, BUT DID NOT ROBERT MUELLER, BUT DID NOT SUCCEED IN FIRING ROBERT SUCCEED IN FIRING ROBERT MUELLER. MUELLER.>>WAS YOUR INVESTIGATION>>WAS YOUR INVESTIGATION CURTAILED OR STOPPED OR CURTAILED OR STOPPED OR HINDERED? HINDERED?>>NO.>>NO.>>HE IDENTIFIED WHAT THE>>HE IDENTIFIED WHAT THE RUSSIAN OBJECTIVE WAS IN RUSSIAN OBJECTIVE WAS IN ATTACKING OUR ELECTION PROCESS. ATTACKING OUR ELECTION PROCESS.>>DID YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND>>DID YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM ONE OF THE CANDIDATES WINNING? ONE OF THE CANDIDATES WINNING?>>YES.>>YES.>>WHICH CANDIDATE WOULD THAT>>WHICH CANDIDATE WOULD THAT BE? BE?>>WELL, IT WOULD BE TRUMP.>>WELL, IT WOULD BE TRUMP.>>NO REPUBLICAN IN EITHER>>NO REPUBLICAN IN EITHER HEARING TODAY WAS EVEN SLIGHTLY HEARING TODAY WAS EVEN SLIGHTLY INTERESTED IN WHY THE RUSSIANS INTERESTED IN WHY THE RUSSIANS WANTED DONALD TRUMP TO WIN THE WANTED DONALD TRUMP TO WIN THE ELECTION. ELECTION. THEY WORKED AS HARD AS THEY DID THEY WORKED AS HARD AS THEY DID TO HELP DONALD TRUMP WIN. TO HELP DONALD TRUMP WIN. SOME REPUBLICANS COULD NOT SOME REPUBLICANS COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY A PROSECUTOR UNDERSTAND WHY A PROSECUTOR WOULD BE INVESTIGATING THE WOULD BE INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IF THE PROSECUTOR WAS JUSTICE IF THE PROSECUTOR WAS NOT ALLOWED, ACCORDING TO NOT ALLOWED, ACCORDING TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RULES, TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT RULES, TO INDICT THE PRESIDENT FOR INDICT THE PRESIDENT FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. MUELLER HAD THE ANSWER FOR THEM. MUELLER HAD THE ANSWER FOR THEM.>>YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE THE>>YOU DON’T KNOW WHERE THE INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO LIE INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO LIE AND OLC OPINION ITSELF SAID YOU AND OLC OPINION ITSELF SAID YOU CAN CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION CAN CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE NOT GOING TO EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE NOT GOING TO INDICT THE PRESIDENT. INDICT THE PRESIDENT.>>SEVERAL REPUBLICANS ON THE>>SEVERAL REPUBLICANS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WANTED TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE FBI INVESTIGATION TALK ABOUT THE FBI INVESTIGATION OF THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR OF THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR ELECTION THAT BEGAN DURING THE ELECTION THAT BEGAN DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN 2016. ELECTION CAMPAIGN IN 2016. ROBERT MUELLER WAS NOT INVOLVED ROBERT MUELLER WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THAT INVESTIGATION THAT IN THAT INVESTIGATION THAT OCCURRED DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL OCCURRED DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND REFUSED TO ANSWER CAMPAIGN AND REFUSED TO ANSWER ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS. ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS. NO REPUBLICAN WAS INTERESTED IN NO REPUBLICAN WAS INTERESTED IN THE DETAILS OF THE OBSTRUCTION THE DETAILS OF THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE EVIDENCE THAT THE OF JUSTICE EVIDENCE THAT THE MUELLER REPORT OUTLINED AGAINST MUELLER REPORT OUTLINED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT. BUT THE DEMOCRATS WERE. BUT THE DEMOCRATS WERE.>>BASED UPON YOUR>>BASED UPON YOUR INVESTIGATION, HOW DID TRUMP INVESTIGATION, HOW DID TRUMP REACT TO YOUR APPOINTMENT OF REACT TO YOUR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL? SPECIAL COUNSEL?>>AGAIN, I WILL SEND YOU THE>>AGAIN, I WILL SEND YOU THE REPORT WHERE THAT IS STATED. REPORT WHERE THAT IS STATED.>>THERE IS A QUOTE FROM PAGE>>THERE IS A QUOTE FROM PAGE ESTATE 78 OF VOLUME TWO. ESTATE 78 OF VOLUME TWO. WHEN SESSIONS TOLD THE PRESIDENT WHEN SESSIONS TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAD BEEN APPOINTED, THE PRESIDENT BEEN APPOINTED, THE PRESIDENT SLUMPED BACK IN HIS CHAIR AND SLUMPED BACK IN HIS CHAIR AND SAID “OH, MY GOD, THIS IS SAID “OH, MY GOD, THIS IS TERRIBLE. TERRIBLE. THIS IS THE END OF MY THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESIDENCY. PRESIDENCY. I’M F’ED.” I’M F’ED.” . .>>YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT NEWS>>YOU SAID IN YOUR REPORT NEWS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION PROMPTED THE PRESIDENT TO CALL PROMPTED THE PRESIDENT TO CALL McGAHN AND SEEK TO HAVE THE McGAHN AND SEEK TO HAVE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED. SPECIAL COUNSEL REMOVED. DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE MOST DIRECTOR MUELLER, THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION I HAVE FOR IMPORTANT QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU TODAY IS WHY? YOU TODAY IS WHY? DIRECTOR MUELLER, WHY DID THE DIRECTOR MUELLER, WHY DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WANT YOU FIRED? WANT YOU FIRED?>>OH.>>OH. I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.>>THAT SHOULDN’T HAPPEN IN>>THAT SHOULDN’T HAPPEN IN AMERICA. AMERICA. NO PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO NO PRESIDENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ESCAPE INVESTIGATION BY ABUSING ESCAPE INVESTIGATION BY ABUSING HIS POWER. HIS POWER. BUT THAT’S WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO BUT THAT’S WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO IN YOUR REPORT. IN YOUR REPORT. THE PRESIDENT ORDERED YOU FIRED. THE PRESIDENT ORDERED YOU FIRED. THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL KNEW IT THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL KNEW IT WAS WRONG. WAS WRONG. THE PRESIDENT KNEW IT WAS KNOCK. THE PRESIDENT KNEW IT WAS KNOCK. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THOSE CALLS TO BEGAN, BUT MADE THOSE CALLS TO BEGAN, BUT HE DID IT ANYWAY. HE DID IT ANYWAY. HE DID IT ANYWAY. HE DID IT ANYWAY.>>SIMPLY TRYING TO OBSTRUCT>>SIMPLY TRYING TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE CAN BE A CRIME? JUSTICE CAN BE A CRIME?>>YES.>>YES.>>IT COULD INCLUDE TAKING AN>>IT COULD INCLUDE TAKING AN SBRKZ THAT WOULD DELAY OR SBRKZ THAT WOULD DELAY OR INTERFERE WITH AN ONGOING INTERFERE WITH AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION.>>THAT’S TRUE.>>THAT’S TRUE.>>YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND>>YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK STEPS TO TERMINATE THE TOOK STEPS TO TERMINATE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT? SPECIAL COUNSEL, CORRECT?>>CORRECT.>>CORRECT.>>CORRUPT INTENT EXIST FIST THE>>CORRUPT INTENT EXIST FIST THE PRESIDENT ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT PRESIDENT ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT AN OFFICIAL TO PROTECT HIS OWN AN OFFICIAL TO PROTECT HIS OWN INTEREST, CORRECT? INTEREST, CORRECT?>>GENERALLY CORRECT.>>GENERALLY CORRECT.>>AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO>>AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IS STILL A OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IS STILL A CRIME, IS THAT CORRECT? CRIME, IS THAT CORRECT?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>THE OFFICIALS AND>>THE OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS IMPEDED ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS IMPEDED YOUR INVESTIGATION. YOUR INVESTIGATION.>>I WOULD GENERALLY AGREE WITH>>I WOULD GENERALLY AGREE WITH THAT. THAT.>>I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE>>I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE REASON THAT YOU DID NOT INDICT REASON THAT YOU DID NOT INDICT DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF OLC DONALD TRUMP IS BECAUSE OF OLC OPINION SAYING YOU COULD NOT OPINION SAYING YOU COULD NOT INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT, IS INDICT A SITTING PRESIDENT, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT CORRECT?>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>THAT IS CORRECT.>>FOR REASONS KNOWN TO HIMSELF,>>FOR REASONS KNOWN TO HIMSELF, KEN BUCK DECIDED TO EMPHASIZE KEN BUCK DECIDED TO EMPHASIZE AND REEMPHASIZE THAT THE AND REEMPHASIZE THAT THE PRESIDENT COULD BE INDICTED PRESIDENT COULD BE INDICTED AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE. AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE.>>COULD YOU CHARGE THE>>COULD YOU CHARGE THE PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME AFTER HE PRESIDENT WITH A CRIME AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE? LEFT OFFICE?>>YES.>>YES.>>YOU BELIEVE YOU COULD CHARGE>>YOU BELIEVE YOU COULD CHARGE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH OBSTRUCTION OF STATES WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE? JUSTICE AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE?>>YES.>>YES.>>AT THE BEGINNING OF THE>>AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND HEARING IN THE SECOND HEARING IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMPLETE, CHAIRMAN INTELLIGENCE COMPLETE, CHAIRMAN ADAM SCHIFF SAID THAT THE ADAM SCHIFF SAID THAT THE HEARING WOULD BE ABOUT HEARING WOULD BE ABOUT DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY. DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY.>>DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY ARE>>DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY ARE STRONG WORDS, BUT HOW ELSE DO WE STRONG WORDS, BUT HOW ELSE DO WE DESCRIBE THE CAMPAIGN OF A DESCRIBE THE CAMPAIGN OF A FOREIGN OFFER OF DIRT ON THE FOREIGN OFFER OF DIRT ON THE OPPONENT THAT DID NOT PUBLICLY OPPONENT THAT DID NOT PUBLICLY SHUN IT OR TURN IT AWAY, BUT SHUN IT OR TURN IT AWAY, BUT INVITED IT AND ENCOURAGED IT AND INVITED IT AND ENCOURAGED IT AND MADE FULL USE OF IT. MADE FULL USE OF IT. THAT DISLOYALTY MAY NOT HAVE THAT DISLOYALTY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CRIMINAL, CONSTRAINED BY BEEN CRIMINAL, CONSTRAINED BY UNCOOPERATIVE WITNESSES AND THE UNCOOPERATIVE WITNESSES AND THE DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ENKRI79ED COMMUNICATIONS. ENKRI79ED COMMUNICATIONS. YOUR TEAM WAS NOT ABLE TO YOUR TEAM WAS NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE CRIME OF ESTABLISH THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY BEYOND A REASONABLE CONSPIRACY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. DOUBT. NOT A PROVABLE CRIME IN ANY NOT A PROVABLE CRIME IN ANY EVENT. EVENT. BUT I THINK MAYBE SOMETHING BUT I THINK MAYBE SOMETHING WORSE. WORSE. A CRIME IS THE VIOLATION OF LAW A CRIME IS THE VIOLATION OF LAW WRITTEN BY CONGRESS, BUT WRITTEN BY CONGRESS, BUT DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY VIOLATES DISLOYALTY TO COUNTRY VIOLATES THE VERY OATH OF CITIZENSHIP, THE VERY OATH OF CITIZENSHIP, OUR DEVOTION TO A CORE PRINCIPAL OUR DEVOTION TO A CORE PRINCIPAL ON WHICH OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED ON WHICH OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED THAT WE, THE PEOPLE AND NOT SOME THAT WE, THE PEOPLE AND NOT SOME FOREIGN POWER THAT WISHES US FOREIGN POWER THAT WISHES US ILL, WE DECIDE WHO GOVERNS US. ILL, WE DECIDE WHO GOVERNS US.>>ROBERT MUELLER BEGAN BY GOING>>ROBERT MUELLER BEGAN BY GOING BACK TO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS BACK TO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HE WAS ASKED IN THE THAT HE WAS ASKED IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING. PREVIOUS HEARING.>>I WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE>>I WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE THING SAID THIS MORNING BY THING SAID THIS MORNING BY MR. LIU WHO SAID “YOU DIDN’T MR. LIU WHO SAID “YOU DIDN’T CHARGE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF CHARGE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF THE OLC OPINION.” THE OLC OPINION.” THAT’S NOT THE CORRECT WAY TO THAT’S NOT THE CORRECT WAY TO SAY IT. SAY IT. AS WE SAY IN THE REPORT AND AS I AS WE SAY IN THE REPORT AND AS I SAID AT THE OPENING, WE DID NOT SAID AT THE OPENING, WE DID NOT REACH A DETERMINATION AS TO REACH A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED WHETHER THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME. A CRIME.>>WHERE THEY CONCENTRATED ON>>WHERE THEY CONCENTRATED ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THEY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, THEY CONCENTRATED ON THE RUSSIAN CONCENTRATED ON THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR ELECTION. ATTACK ON OUR ELECTION.>>DIRECTOR, WHO DID THE RUSSIAN>>DIRECTOR, WHO DID THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN ULTIMATELY SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN ULTIMATELY INTEND TO BENEFIT. INTEND TO BENEFIT. HILLARY CLINTON OR DONALD TRUMP? HILLARY CLINTON OR DONALD TRUMP?>>DONALD TRUMP.>>DONALD TRUMP.>>DONALD TRUMP, OCTOBER 31st,>>DONALD TRUMP, OCTOBER 31st, 2016, BOY, I LOVE READING THE 2016, BOY, I LOVE READING THE WIKILEAKS. WIKILEAKS. DO ANY OF THOSE QUOTES DISTURB DO ANY OF THOSE QUOTES DISTURB YOU, MR. DIRECTOR? YOU, MR. DIRECTOR?>>I’M NOT SURE I WOULD SAY –>>I’M NOT SURE I WOULD SAY –>>HOW DO YOU REACT?>>HOW DO YOU REACT?>>IT’S PROBLEMATIC IS AN UNDER>>IT’S PROBLEMATIC IS AN UNDER STATEMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT IT STATEMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT IT DISPLAYS IN TERMS OF GIVING DISPLAYS IN TERMS OF GIVING SOME — I DON’T KNOW, HOPE OR A SOME — I DON’T KNOW, HOPE OR A BOOST TO WHAT IS AND SHOULD BE BOOST TO WHAT IS AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.>>I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE>>I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE WRITTEN RESPONSES THAT THE WRITTEN RESPONSES THAT THE PRESIDENT PROVIDED TO LIE AND PRESIDENT PROVIDED TO LIE AND COVER UP WHAT HAPPENED DURING COVER UP WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE 2016 ELECTION. THE 2016 ELECTION. WHERE WERE THE PRESIDENT’S WHERE WERE THE PRESIDENT’S ANSWERS COMMITTED UNDER OATH? ANSWERS COMMITTED UNDER OATH?>>YES.>>YES.>>WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE ABOUT>>WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE ABOUT THE PRESIDENT’S CREDIBILITY? THE PRESIDENT’S CREDIBILITY?>>THAT I CAN’T GET INTO.>>THAT I CAN’T GET INTO.>>SHAWN PATRICK MALONEY ASKED A>>SHAWN PATRICK MALONEY ASKED A QUESTION I SAID I HOPED WOULD BE QUESTION I SAID I HOPED WOULD BE ASKED. ASKED.>>WHY DIDN’T YOU SUBPOENA THE>>WHY DIDN’T YOU SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT? PRESIDENT?>>WE WERE ALMOST TOWARDS THE>>WE WERE ALMOST TOWARDS THE END OF OUR INVESTIGATION AND HAD END OF OUR INVESTIGATION AND HAD LITTLE SUCCESS IN PUSHING TO GET LITTLE SUCCESS IN PUSHING TO GET THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT. THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT. WE DECIDED THAT WE DID NOT WANT WE DECIDED THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO EXERCISE A SUBPOENA POWER TO EXERCISE A SUBPOENA POWER BECAUSE OF NECESSITY OF BECAUSE OF NECESSITY OF EXPEDITING THE END OF THE EXPEDITING THE END OF THE INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION.>>THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T EVER>>THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T EVER CLAIM THE FIFTH AMENDMENT? CLAIM THE FIFTH AMENDMENT?>>I WILL NOT TALK TO THAT.>>I WILL NOT TALK TO THAT.>>NOBODY TOLD YOU COULDN’T>>NOBODY TOLD YOU COULDN’T SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT. SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT.>>NO.>>NO.>>DID YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT>>DID YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO OBSTRUCT EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO OBSTRUCT JUSTS AND I IS THAT WHY YOU JUSTS AND I IS THAT WHY YOU DIDN’T DO THE ENTRY?INTERVIEW. DIDN’T DO THE ENTRY?INTERVIEW.>>THE LAST ELEMENT AGAINST HOW>>THE LAST ELEMENT AGAINST HOW MUCH TIME ARE YOU WILLING TO MUCH TIME ARE YOU WILLING TO SPEND IN THE COURTS LITIGATING SPEND IN THE COURTS LITIGATING THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT. THE INTERVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT. THE REASON WE DIDN’T DO THE THE REASON WE DIDN’T DO THE INTERVIEW IS BECAUSE OF THE INTERVIEW IS BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO LENGTH OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ATTENDED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES ATTENDED TO THAT. THAT.>>THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME IN THE>>THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME IN THE HEARINGS WHEN ROBERT MUELLER DID HEARINGS WHEN ROBERT MUELLER DID DISCUSS AT ANY LENGTH THE DISCUSS AT ANY LENGTH THE LIBERATIONS OF HIS TEAM. LIBERATIONS OF HIS TEAM. WE WILL SURELY SPENT THE NEXT WE WILL SURELY SPENT THE NEXT FEW YEARS OR SEVERAL YEARS FEW YEARS OR SEVERAL YEARS LEARNING MORE AND MORE ABOUT THE LEARNING MORE AND MORE ABOUT THE DELIBERATIONS OF ROBERT MUELLER DELIBERATIONS OF ROBERT MUELLER AND HIS TEAM. AND HIS TEAM. WHY WERE THEY CONCERNED ABOUT WHY WERE THEY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE TO ENFORCE THE SUBPOENA COMPELLING ENFORCE THE SUBPOENA COMPELLING THE PRESIDENT’S TESTIMONY? THE PRESIDENT’S TESTIMONY? THERE WAS NO TIME LIMIT ON THE THERE WAS NO TIME LIMIT ON THE INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION. WITH THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY WITH THE PRESIDENT PUBLICLY ATTACKING THE MUELLER ATTACKING THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION AS A WITCH HUNT INVESTIGATION AS A WITCH HUNT FOR YEARS, WERE THEY CONCERNED FOR YEARS, WERE THEY CONCERNED THEY MIGHT WAKE UP SOME DAY AND THEY MIGHT WAKE UP SOME DAY AND FIND THEMSELVES ALL FIRED BY THE FIND THEMSELVES ALL FIRED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? HOW DID THAT CONCERN AFFECT HOW DID THAT CONCERN AFFECT THEIR INVESTIGATION? THEIR INVESTIGATION? DID THEY SPEED UP THE DID THEY SPEED UP THE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THEY WERE INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED THE PRESIDENT WOULD CONCERNED THE PRESIDENT WOULD FIRE THEM? FIRE THEM? WHEN THEY DISCOVERED THROUGH DON WHEN THEY DISCOVERED THROUGH DON McGAHN’S TESTIMONY THAT THE McGAHN’S TESTIMONY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD ALREADY ORDERED PRESIDENT HAD ALREADY ORDERED THE REPEATED FIRING OF ROBERT THE REPEATED FIRING OF ROBERT MUELLER, DID THAT CHANGE THEIR MUELLER, DID THAT CHANGE THEIR INVESTIGATIVE TACTICS? INVESTIGATIVE TACTICS? NO SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TEAM IN NO SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TEAM IN HISTORY EVER FACED SUCH PUBLIC HISTORY EVER FACED SUCH PUBLIC HARASSMENT ON ALMOST A DAILY HARASSMENT ON ALMOST A DAILY BASIS BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. BASIS BY THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. AND NO SPECIAL PROSECUTING TEAM AND NO SPECIAL PROSECUTING TEAM HAS BEEN DEALING WITH A MORE HAS BEEN DEALING WITH A MORE UNSTABLE AND RECKLESS PRESIDENT. UNSTABLE AND RECKLESS PRESIDENT. HOW DID THAT APPROACH THE WAY? HOW DID THAT APPROACH THE WAY? ALL OF THOSE WERE QUESTIONS ALL OF THOSE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT ROBERT MUELLER AND ABOUT WHAT ROBERT MUELLER AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WOULD THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WOULD CALL “THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE CALL “THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE MUELLER TEAM.” MUELLER TEAM.” THERE WERE NO ANSWERS TO THOSE THERE WERE NO ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS IN TODAY’S HEARINGS. QUESTIONS IN TODAY’S HEARINGS. ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS WOULD ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS WOULD LEAD TO OTHER QUESTIONS THAT LEAD TO OTHER QUESTIONS THAT COULD NOT BE ASKED TODAY. COULD NOT BE ASKED TODAY. THE REAL HISTORY OF THE MUELLER THE REAL HISTORY OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WILL NOT BE INVESTIGATION WILL NOT BE WRITTEN UNTIL WE KNOW ANSWERS TO

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *