>> Your investigation find that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from
one of the candidates winning?
>> Yes.
>> And which candidate would that be?
>> Well, it would be Trump.
>> There is a little highlight from the Mueller testimony today, right before the House Judiciary
Committee.
Now we will share our analysis on that in just a minute.
But I think it's important to show the distinction, between the line of questioning which we saw
from Democrats versus Republicans.
That clip that you just saw there was represented of Zoe Lofgren, a Senior Democrat within the
committee who wanted to really hone in on the fact that the Russians certainly did have
a preference when it came to the election.
And they certainly did reach out to members of the campaign.
However, there based on the Mueller report, obviously, he claimed that there wasn't enough
evidence to charge him with conspiracy.
>> Yeah.
>> Now, one important piece of information before we move on to the rest of the videos.
Mueller was told that he is not able to press charges against the president, right?
That is not his job, his job was to do this investigation, that is his prosecutorial duty
in this case.
But through this investigation, he is supposed to hand over the evidence to members of Congress.
And then they make a decision as to what they do with the evidence that he's provided.
>> Mm-hm >> It did not exonerate Donald Trump, when
it came to the issue of obstruction of justice.
In fact, according to the report there were at least ten instances that could be considered
obstruction of justice.
So that's something that everyone should know as we move forward.
Because right now, today, Donald Trump is running around, doing a victory lap, and pretending
as though he's been completely exonerated by this report, and that is not the case.
>> Everything that you just said is not what I read on Twitter, so I reject it out of hand.
>> Well, I mean, we gotta believe what Twitter said.
>> Yeah, very important that he kept referring to the OLC, Office of Legal Counsel, which
if you're from outside of the US, or you haven't been through probably side classes, is more
important than the Constitution.
OLC has been around for several thousand years, a mystical organization that we must bow down
to, never question, certainly never change.
If they had a memo at some point, half a century ago, case closed, got to be the end of it.
>> Right, so obviously, John's being sarcastic for anyone who might not pick up on that sarcasm.
But nonetheless, I do wanna move on to the first video.
This is representative Ted Lieu from California, and I think he did an excellent job in his
line of questioning, that can't be said of every Democrat.
But I wanna give you a sense of how good he was in just revealing what the Mueller report
actually said.
>> Quote, Sessions was being instructed to tell the special council to end the specific
investigation, and to the President and his campaign, unquote.
That's in the report, correct?
>> Correct.
>> Okay, that would be evidence of an obstructive act because it would naturally obstruct their
investigation, correct?
>> Correct.
>> And you wrote, quote, by the time the President's initial one on one meeting with Lewandowski
on June 19th 2017, The existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the special
counsel was public knowledge, that's in the report, correct?
>> Correct.
>> That would constitute evidence of a nexus to an official proceeding because a grand
jury investigation is an official proceeding, correct?
>> Well, Yes.
>> Do you see where there's the intense section on that page?
I do see that, >> You wrote quote, substantial evidence indicates
that the President's effort to have sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel's investigation
to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny
of the President's, and his campaign's conduct, unquote.
That's in the report, correct?
>> That is in the report.
>> I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three
elements of the crime of obstruction justice have been met.
And I'd like to ask you, the 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.
>> So Ted Lieu came prepared, and we can't show you all of what happened today because
we would literally be here, I don't know.
Was it still happening?
>> It was five or six hours, yeah.
>> It was five or six hours, but I felt like throughout this entire testimony there was
evidence.
At least it seemed to me that there was evidence that Democrats didn't get together, and have
a real strategy, and if they did that strategy fell short.
Ted Lieu came prepared, I think that he was concise, he had the specific excerpts from
the actual report that he could referred to, and to be fair other democrats did as well.
But he knew exactly what he was doing, he knew exactly how to do so in a very concise
way.
And it perfectly demonstrated how the Mueller report did not in any way exonerate Donald
Trump of obstruction, and he gave specific examples why
>> Yeah, if there was a strategy, I don't think it was very well thought out necessarily,
he did a good job.
I mean I think most of the democrats, when they were playing what they were gonna say,
that was what they were gonna do.
>> Exactly.
>> They were gonna sketch it out, and what they were gonna do was they were going to
demonstrate that Trump had done all of these things to break the law, and that's bad.
And Republicans would change their mind, because they live in Fantasia, and that's a thing
that could happen, it's not a thing that could happen, a.
And the frustrating thing here is,although we do have to acknowledge that, that last
little quote there, Mueller did to some extent walk back what he said there just to be fair.
But everybody- >> Did do elaborate on that a little more?
>> Yes, so the last question was the reason you didn't indict was because of the OLC memo,
and he said yes.
Which he sort of modeled later on saying we didn't make a decision to indict or not.
The question that he was asked, and his answer made it seem as if that was the only reason
there wasn't an indictment.
That was the reason there wasn't a choice about an indictment.
>> Got it.
>> Which is not the same thing to be fair.
But everybody weighing to this, at least the Democrats thinking, we're gonna get something
big and new.
And the thing is, what do you expecting to get?
You just saw something that's not big and not new, and not exciting, and nobody cares,
a perfect laid out example of how the President obstructed justice.
But we already knew that and nobody cares about obstruction of justice anymore.
Nobody cares if the president broke the law anymore.
And so what were you really hoping to get out of this?
We already know everything we need to know.
>> I 100% agree with that analysis.
I think that this was an attempt at political theatre.
And keep in mind that the main reason why Nancy Pelosi does not want to open an impeachment
inquiry is because she thinks that it will hurt Democrats politically.
Now there's, look, the political aspect of this is what democratic leadership is hyper
focused on.
And so, do you think that this type of political theater is any different?
Because what did Trump do right after this?
What did he do as it was happening?
He did a victory lap, and he can do the victory lap because most people, a, don't care about
what's happening during this testimony.
People have already chosen which camp they're on.
There's the camp that wants to completely reject any and all evidence, and assume that
Donald Trump is being completely exonerated.
And there's the camp that sees the clear instances of obstruction of justice, and they're wondering
why aren't they opening up an impeachment inquiry against the president?
So I don't understand the political calculation here, I don't think it's working.
I think this attempt at political theater was a complete nutter disaster.
>> Mm-hm.
>> But before we get to more of that analysis, I do want to juxtaposed, Ted Lieu's line of
questioning with Louie Gohmert line of questioning.
>> If somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to affect the election.
And that you see the big justice department with people that hate that person.
Coming after him, and then a Special Counsel appointed who hires a dozen or more people
that hate that person, and he knows he's innocent.
He's not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done.
What he is doing is not obstructing justice, he is pursuing justice, and the fact that
you ran it out two years means you perpetuated injustice.
>> I take your question- >> The Gentleman's time is expired, the witness
may answer the question.
>> I take your question.
>> So John, is there any logic behind what Louie Gohmert said there, maybe I'm too biased
against Representative Gohmert maybe- >> Yes
>> That was intelligent, and I'm completely unaware.
>> It wasn't intelligent, but it's the best that you can expect from an ear with a human
growing on it.
So it does make logic if your starting point is Donald Trump cannot do any wrong.
So he knows he is innocent because of course hes innocent, that is our starting point.
And so anything he does in pursuit of proving his innocence, he can do whatever he wants,
because at the end of the day hes innocent.
We would never approach any other case or investigation that fashion.
He certainly would not if it was we were investigating President Clinton, or whatever.
He would not say, so Bill Clinton was he was harassing witnesses behind the scenes.
He was trying to hamper for the investigation cuts his funding.
He probably just knew he was innocent.
So much of what you heard is on its face not a double standard that they don't assume that
the possibility of hypocrisy like there was that.
>> Mm-hm.
>> There was the guy who is going through the political donations of some of the lawyers
on the Mueller team.
And saying, how is it?
That some of them have supported Democrats as if, what are you gonna do?
Find people who've worked their entire lives in DC, in the Department of Justice, and have
no political opinions?
And so, and they all of them, every single person that you saw there, are now say, William
Barr needs to go after the people that started this.
>> Right.
>> His hunt them down and Investigate them.
And so I await those same Republicans grilling every member of his team, every attorney to
make sure that they've never registered for a party.
That they've never made a political donation, because they've now set up a standard that
you can't have any partisans working on these investigations.
Do you think that he's got to do that?
>> Of course, not.
>> Of course not, this is ridiculous.
>> Yeah, look, I wanna look at the bigger picture for a second, because I don't think
that, that conversation is really happening right now.
And it's important to have that conversation.
Everything that's happening, and everything that the GOP is fighting aggressively for
is increasing the power and the authority of the executive branch, right?
This is essentially, what they want William Barr to do in investigating the investigators
is essentially a way of intimidating anyone from every wanting to open an investigation
into possible criminal behavior by the commander and chief.
That is not something that's indicative or representative of a so called democracy.
If you have that much power as the presidents of the United States, and anyone who even
dares to question you, or investigate you is gonna be investigated themselves.
I mean, well, we've been in incredibly dangerous waters, and it's so short sighted because
while they consolidate power and the executive branch, and the GOP is doing that.
Imagine if a Democratic president try to pull these stunts.
Now Democrats are, well, let's just keep it real, they're not as obsess with power and
authoritarianism as the Republicans are.
So I don't see them doing what Republics are doing right now.
>> They can certainly break the law though.
>> They can certainly break the law, but just can you imagine if the tables were turned,
right?
Because if you're a Republican right now, and you're okay with what's going on, are
you gonna be okay with what's going on if you have, I don't know, President Hilary Clinton?
Any other democratic president.
>> But they don't have to be because it doesn't matter what they say now, it's not-
>> It's so dumb.
>> We always expect, uh-ha, it's gonna come back to bite you some day but it's not, it's
got no teeth and nobody will remember it.
It doesn't matter, you can play it right in front of them, and it won't change anything.
>> All right, so I wanna go to another Republican lawmaker, Representative Ken Buck.
And just yes, we wanna pay attention to the substance but I think the optics matter more.
That's what Americans pay close attention to.
So just take a look at his demeanor the way he asked his question.
>> The OLC opinion, Office of Legal Counsel, indicates that we cannot indict a sitting
president.
So one of the tools that a prosecutor would use is not there.
>> Okay, but let me just stop, you made the decision on the Russian interference.
You couldn't have indicted the President on that, and you made the decision on that.
But when it came to obstruction, you threw a bunch of stuff up against the wall to see
what would stick.
>> I would not agree to that characterization at all.
>> Okay, but could you charge the president with a trial after he left office?
>> Yes.
>> You believe that you could charge the President of United States with obstruction of justice
after he left office?
>> Yes.
>> So that last part is the substance that we should be paying attention to.
But you've gotta also keep in mind that you'll have two different people watch that clip,
and come up with two completely different conclusions.
Because the outrage that you see from Representative Buck is what's gonna speak to republican voters.
For us, we listen to that last part and we think, yeah, if this guy was not the president
he would be indited.
>> Yeah.
>> He is a criminal okay, he has obstructed justice.
There are specific examples in the Mueller report detailing how the president tried to
obstruct justice, including attempting to fire a Mueller himself.
And then of course, White House Counsel Don McCann was like, you, bro, don't do that,
it's a bad idea.
I'm gonna quit if you do that, and Trump decided not to.
>> Yeah, and I know some people watch that, and I hate to be the person who kills hope
or whatever, but the idea that okay- >> It's gone already.
>> As bad as everything is, when he get's out of office we're gonna pursue him, nobody's
gonna pursue him.
We were gonna protest Kavanaugh after he got on the supreme court.
Did that actually happen?
Remember, Obama?
>> Yeah.
>> All the war crimes that were committed in Iraq.
We're looking forward without looking backward, nothing is gonna happen to him.
He's gonna live for another two years, and then he's gonna keel over in the middle of
the night, that's what's gonna happen.
And that moment, which was one of the strongest moments I guess in terms of Mueller laying
out here is the thing that could happen.
One of the things that's so frustrating about having a government that's stuffed full of
rabid conspiracy theories is that they're dumb conspiracy theories, and there's two
on display today.
There's the fact that the FBI was trying to stop Trump from becoming president, the lovers
texts and all that.
And then there's Mueller just doing a coup or whatever.
And in both cases than, why is he President?
Why didn't they do anything before the election?
Why didn't they reveal they were investigating him?
They revealed some stuff about Clinton week before the election, but they were really
mom, I guess that they just said that they're watch is wrong for revealing the big plot
to stop him before he became president.
And now if the whole thing was a big witch hunt, a two year plot to get him out of office.
Somebody should have reminded Mueller that when he finished the report, it diverted the
OLC memo, which he definitely did not have to do.
He could have said anything, anything, and the thing today was like, well come on, obviously,
he committed crimes.
He could've laid out a clear path to impeachment he chose not to.
He wouldn't even defend himself let alone attack Trump.
And that guy who's just trying not to offend anyone is the mastermind of a deep state coup
to take out Donald Trump.
That's what was being screamed at Mueller all day long, and both of those hearings.
>> It's madness, it's absolute madness.