first. that s not important. that sometimes work and it sometimes doesn t. isn t the counter argument to that, well, if you re willing to lie in front of congress about things that aren t important about asking for a pardon or whether or not you wanted a job in the white house then what does that mean about the things that are really important? at the end of a trial, a judge says to the jury something like, you re allowed to consider the overall credibility of the witness based on particular untruths they may have told. and that s the job to make the argument. overall, the people that are watching and paying attention have to be persuaded on the points that were important, the truth was told. we still don t have a report from robert mueller but regardless, the reality is the
should it be acceptable to the american people. in fact, a recent poll, a couple polls show more than 80% of the american people think the mueller report should be released in full by barr. and, in fact, 79% of republicans. so there should be complete, full disclosure, a public right to know, of the entire findings and evidence. not just the conclusions but all of the evidence and findings from the mueller report. and the american people deserve to see it because they paid for it. isn t the counter argument that unless there s an indictment usually you don t hear from authorities detailing every stone that s been overturned. it s either, yes, there s going to be somebody charged or, no, there s not. you re absolutely right. and i was united states attorney, the chief federal prosecutor in connecticut. i never did a report.
and the american people deserve to see it because they paid for it. isn t the counter argument that unless there s an indictment usually you don t hear from authorities detailing every stone that s been overturned. it s either, yes, there s going to be somebody charged or, no, there s not. you re absolutely right. and i was united states attorney, the chief federal prosecutor in connecticut. i never did a report. i never commented in substance on people s background or character, and the only comments we made generally were in cases of criminal charges. so the normal rule is either you indict or you shut up, but this is different because what we have here is a special counsel who is appointed only in the very rare and significant instances of abuse of trust, of public trust.
affordable college making college debt free and all of the issues which is why and i see the chair of the dnc here look how glad we are to be talking about the issues that matter most to people around their kitchen table. so do you think that that was a successful move by o malley to call out the dnc chair? to be honest i doent hug so because as we saw last night that hillary clinton crushed it. so the more debate performances that she is able to take part in the better she is going to demonstrate her skill, her experience on the debate stage. i m not saying isn t the counter argument the more opportunity the other folks have the better they get and the better they contrast to what a hillary clinton represents which is what basically is the issue o malley is calling out is that this is a walk in the park to get the nomination and limiting access