in fact, that s a word that bob mueller and his team, explicitly in his report say we re not talking about. what s your conclusion, for normal people, about what we should read in volume one? we know russia waged the attack on the election system, it wasn t criminal conspiracy but what was it? it s a hostile act it s a threatening act, it s an act of aggression. mueller uses the word attack. a concerted attack against the united states, against the most fundamental part of our democra democracy, which is the system of elections we have. if you read the constitution, a lot if not most of the constitution is about who gets elected and how that works. this was a fundamental effort to undermine our system. i guess i mean more, if the actions of the trump campaign, the president, his associates, didn t rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy, there s still a lot of untoward behavior that s described in the report on their part, and what are we
foreign power, right, that was trying to undermine our democracy. and the trump campaign folks, they got these treaties, essentially, from the russians. we know president trump was out there publicly encouraging it in essence, by saying russia, if you re listening to me. so, again, there s a lot of suspicious activity. and some of it, frankly, improper for a presidential campaign to be doing. he also you know, he also writes that they didn t conspire. right. so while, you know, donald trump junior had the meeting in trump tower, he didn t dismiss the meeting. he took the meeting, but mueller s finding is that he didn t conspire with the russians. commit a crime. and that didn t rise to the level of a crime. we can t forget the fact that a lot of people lied about all of this, right? michael cohen lied, papadopoulos lied. and we have to keep in mind what investigators must have been thinking when they re seeing all
vladimir putin s dirty tricks operator. we know that was happening. we ve indicted roger stone. we ve brought others to trial. the only question is what was the depths of the conspiracy. will those things come out right away? probably not. but there are details we must know was this president working hand in hand or under the sway of a foreign leader, and is the united states at risk because of it? now, the possibility and you ve been a prosecutor, is that clearly as malcolm said, something happened. clearly some have pled to some involvement in something happening. is it possible and we have no idea, but is it possible that the president may have had some levels of knowledge that didn t rise to the bar of criminality but certainly can be questioned in terms of his judgment and whether or not it was appropriate for a presidential
well, of course. it runs completely counter to the oath they swear to take to uphold the constitution, to follow through on valid investigations. i mean, they sign documents, and they attest to the fact that they are not supposed to take political considerations into prosecutions. they get a memo on sensitivities all of the time, reminding of the very facts that donald trump wants them to ignore, apparently. what s ironic about this, wolf, in certain ways, the investigations that he wants and he s calling for, at least according to this article of comey and for clinton, are already going on. but just perhaps not in the ways that he wants. you know, the inspector general, as we have reported here, is looking at how comey handled his memos. we reported that months ago, and as far as we know, that s still going on. we know that the inspector general issued a scathing report about comey, but clearly that didn t rise to the level of what he wanted here. he clearly wants something far
we will see. and it s great to see you guysf so michael, does this what sarah is laying out, does this look like i don t know witness tampering to you? maybe. and i think the context does matter. yeah. i think sarah is correct to say that if this is just conversations between two friends who are no longer friends because one may be cooperating with the special counsel in a way that the other one doesn t like, that in and of itself might not give rise to witness tampering or obstruction of justice. if, however, roger stone is trying to intimidate anyone into not cooperating or to change their testimony, similar to what we saw in the microsoanafort indictment. mueller charged manafort for reaching out to two perspective witnesses saying to them, remember, this is how i want you to testify.