to jeremy s point, does tom nichols have a point? if you d inserted the name barack obama for donald trump in that questioning, there s no doubt that impeachment proceedings would have commenced immediately at the conclusion of those answers. it remains an incomprehensible feature of this presidency that there is nothing that trump can do that will seemingly dissuade his followers from going there. the notion that the republican party is willing to turn a blind eye to complicity if not conspiracy in russian activity designed to attack our election is really i think one of the mysteries that historians and political scientists will look back on for this couple of years. and just wonder and parse how it could have ever happened so quickly. hey, jeremy bash, just one more thing before we have to hit a break. if anyone wants drama or a bold stroke, you know, the speaker
intelligence committee chairman adam schiff totaled it all up from today. russia interfered in our election to help trump. russians made numerous contacts with the campaign. the campaign welcomed their help. no one reported these contacts or interference to the fbi. they lied to cover it up. that was the quote. that was the summation after a protracted presentation. mueller started the day in front of house judiciary, where he was asked about trump s claims of exoneration and his possible legal exposure once he leaves office. the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him. but that is not what your report said, is it? correct. it is not what the report said. so the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice. is that correct? that is correct.
was there sufficient evidence to convict president trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice? we did not make that calculation. how could you not have made the calculation because the olc opinion, office of legal counsel, indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president. could you charge the president with a crime after he left office? yes. you believe that he committed you could charge the president of the united states with obstruction of justice after he left office? yes. mueller continued his testimony before the intelligence committee, where the focus was his findings about russia s efforts to meddle in our 2016 presidential election. as that hearing got under way the chairman made a point of refuting trump s attacks on mueller and his conclusions. when donald trump called your investigation a witch hunt, that was also false, was it not? i d like to think so. yes. well, your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it? it is not a witch hunt.
obstruction of justice. is that correct? that is correct. was there sufficient evidence to convict president trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice? we did not make that calculation. how could you not have made the calculation because the olc opinion, office of legal counsel, indicates that we cannot indict a sitting president. could you charge the president with a crime after he left office? yes. you believe that he committed you could charge the president of the united states with obstruction of justice after he left office? yes. mueller continued his testimony before the intelligence committee, where the focus was his findings about russia s efforts to meddle in our 2016 presidential election. as that hearing got under way the chairman made a point of refuting trump s attacks on mueller and his conclusions. when donald trump called your investigation a witch hunt, that was also false, was it not? i d like to think so. yes. well, your investiga
hoax. intelligence committee chairman adam schiff totaled it all up from today. russia interfered in our election to help trump. russians made numerous contacts with the campaign. the campaign welcomed their help. no one reported these contacts or interference to the fbi. they lied to cover it up. that was the quote. that was the summation after a protracted presentation. mueller started the day in front of house judiciary, where he was asked about trump s claims of exoneration and his possible legal exposure once he leaves office. the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him. but that is not what your report said, is it? correct. it is not what the report said. so the report did not conclude that he did not commit