Separate. And why your reporting is ev even he didnt read the letter and approve it. In the letter friday he said it would be muellers principle conclusions. Thats not the case. On page three he didnt have a principal collusion. Its barrs that there wasnt obstruction of justice. Everybody stand by. This is cnn breaking news. I want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. I am wolf blitzer in washington. After nearly two years, we now know the main conclusions of Robert Muellers russia information. A fourpage singlespaced summary was released by the Attorney General of the United States, bill barr. Part of the report reading and im quoting now. The investigation did not kid not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or
coordinated with the russians government in its election interference activities. Rudy giuliani told us the findings were better than he expected and President Trump just responded as well. It was a complete and total exoneration.
americans have not updated our assumptions about australia in a while and the reality is a little different than what we imagined. case in point, two years ago, june, 2019, the federal police in sydney raided the offices of the australian broadcasting corporation, the australian broadcaster, abc. they were not unclear at all about why they raided. they said it out loud. days before the raid, abc broadcast allegations of a whistleblower that embarrassed the government of australia. the military leaders had killed civilians in afghanistan including children and had lied about it. the abc broadcast, that story, it wasn t a crime to broadcast the story in australia s police didn t pretend it was. instead, they served the broadcaster from the warrant that authorized them, the police, to cover up any evidence of the australia military s misconduct. think about that for a minute. the warrant, we re quoting it, allowed the police to quote,
someone. but nobody thought of impeaching because he had killed hamilton in a duel. it was a crime, but it wasn t a crime against the state. it wasn t a crime against the american people. and therefore that s not impeachable. by contrast, you can have things that aren t crimes but are obviously impeachable. suppose the president wakes up tomorrow and says, you know, i want a new canada. well, you know, there isn t necessarily a criminal statute that forbids that. but it s an impeachable offense. the framers use the words bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. bribery is one of the few things they did enumerate. we may want to talk about that is something that president trump is alleged to have done. one more question before we get to the current case which is one thing you hear people say is, oh, we have an election coming up. let the election decide. but as you note, fwen, specifically in the discussions about putting this in the constitution, that s not what the f
got so many shifting stories. he tried this and that. saying nato didn t provide enough aid or it s all hearsay. i think everything that the whistle-blower said has now been corroborated. the idea is that the president withheld congressionally appropriated taxpayer paid for aid in order to advance the private, personal agenda. and now many are using the word bribery now. the framers do use that word. what does it mean in this context in. bribery wasn t even a crime in 1787 but it was one of those impeachable offenses. it s the same idea of self-dealing, putting your interests above the american people. when you have a president who says, hey, i ll let you have this $400 million in aid but i need a favor, though, first. and that favor is a personal favor. that s the problem. because if a president can use his awesome powers as commander in chief under the constitution to do these kinds of things,
mind and says absolutely we need to have some sort of impeachment in there to prevent a president from, you know, borrowing getting help from a foreign government. so it s the pair mount case. they don t mean crime as in criminal code. exactly. what do they mean? they mean an abuse of the public trust. whether you look at 1787 or the way mike pence when he was in the house of representatives in 2008 put it in what i call in the book the pence rule. when a president is putting his interests above those of the american people, that s what a high crime and misdemeanor is. mike pence literally said that out loud. he did in 2008. so the book begins with that. it s the epigraph. i just ask that simple question. that s why i wrote the book. look, americans i know we have republicans and democrats and independents. just think about this by flipping the identity of the political parties. imagine it wasn t president trump alleged to do this.