BEST And WORST Mueller Hearing Moments

>> 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.

50 thoughts on “BEST And WORST Mueller Hearing Moments

  1. President Trump is the only President in American history that Prayed and kissed the Jewish Holy Wall
    Moved US Embassy to Jerusalem
    President Trump is the only President in American history that set foot in DMZ NORTH KOREA
    TRUMP / PENCE 2020

  2. Do you UNDERSTAND what this does. You must prove his guilt not other way around. You morons. It’s not the FBI job to exonerate someone. It’s the job to show evidence of wrong doing and that’s it. And they showed nothing

  3. One major problem we're having is that sense the Republicons constantly lie they automatically think that Democrats are like that too.

  4. This is such a waste of time and own goal by Democrats. Even if Trump is corrupt and a liar
    He's no worse than either Obama or Clinton. Just fight Republicans on policies and win support legitimately

  5. SURE.. LIEU was the ONLY "hero" for the dems.
    Too bad Mueller took it all back..
    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aahaaa haahaha aha!


  7. I didn't watch the Mueller tetimoni but I get the feeling that nobody asked the right questions. "Mr Mueller, based on the evidence that you were able to acquire, with no further investigations, SHOULD Donald Trump,once no longer protected by the position that he holds, be indicted/ imprisoned for committing crimes? Should there be further investigation into the activities of Donald Trump once he is no longer protected by the position that he currently holds? So on and so forth.

  8. Are they KIDDING! Mueller changed what he told Ted Lieu because he is an old doddering man that DOESN'T know what he is doing. TYT is comedy gold.

  9. President Trump is the only President in American history that prayed and kissed the Jewish Holy Wall and he mowed US Embassy to Jerusalem
    President Trump is the only President in American history that set foot in DMZ NORTH KOREA

  10. terrible spin job, Mueller was supposed to indict wherever he found crimes, and he did. In the USA you are innocent until proven guilty, and the OLC decision is not involved. Trump is innocent, and you are helping him get re-elected in 2020 by ignoring this. Thank You for your service. MAGA!

  11. I wonder if John called it!
    2 years after Trump is out of office he will randomly pass away one night. (Well not so randomly… Ticking time bomb)

  12. I used to like TYT but ever since Trumps election they've gone down hill. I feel bad for anyone using this as there only news outlet they're giving you false hope on IMpeAChment. Please go watch Dan bonginos show on the Mueller hearing and you'll see how much of a major fail this really was for dems

  13. the reason this inquiry was to not get a gotcha moment, but to keep it to the fore front, to give americans hope for justice and push Pelosi into beginning the impeachment process.

  14. I think it's pretty clear by watching this who's side SHE'S 😅 on lol gotta love impartial journalism 😉

  15. I think the only reason TYT is popular is because of the conservatives who come here for comic relief. Can't wait for the election in 2020.

  16. What a shit show. TYT spent over 2 years promoting a clear bull shit story fed to them by the deep state. Also Mueller could never exonerate Trump of anything in the same way a jury can’t say innocent. It can only say not guilty. I hate Trump but this TYT propaganda of goofiness I think I hate more. We could have been focusing on real issues instead of pure nonsense. I hope you all apologize to Jimmy Dore. I would never sub to this channel although I did many years ago. I hope masses of people unsub and sub to Jimmy Dore. Fck these bull shit artists.

  17. One thing that people don't seem to be talking about is the fact that Mueller disclosed Trump Jr. is under investigation because of evidence uncovered by the investigation. Could be interesting.

  18. TYT please lead a protest for Moscow Mitch to bring the election security bill to a vote . He got committed with the Russians too. The worst enemy of our democracy.

  19. This is for odd conservative like me who watches this to make sure your not trapped in a conformation bubble…..The irony of the statesman what if Clinton had obstructed ( 33 thousand emails trashed, server bleachbit. Devices smashed, FBI NOT ALLOW to even look at the server that was a National Security breech supposedly by Russians) but boy if Clinton did anything……the hypocrisy is deep

  20. You're wrong here Young Turks, Dirt bag in chief is innocent until proven guilty. That leading testimony of Meuller doesn't prove he is innocent??? wtf. Can't impeach him now after this shit

  21. Notice how Buck cut off his original statement: “You believe that the president committed—“ He shifted gears because he didn’t want Mueller going on record saying he believed Trump committed obstruction of justice.


  23. Dude, John brings so little to this show. His childish insults on peoples appearance and sarcasm don't advance the discussion or the progressive message in any positive way.

  24. This was such a joke…congress is all talk and no action. You can see the pain in the face of Mueller as he answers their asinine questions.

  25. Even CNN, MSNBC and most of MSM say this was an utter disaster for the Left but… TYT spin this into a positive, really? You talk about blinded by hate, wow, these are the people and network without question.

  26. Watching this farce is a waste of my time and internet time. This is all distraction. From Epstein and Trump's real graft.

Leave a Reply

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