You. For going on three years innocent people have been accused of very serious crimes, including treason. Accusations made even here today. They have had their lives disrupted and in some cases destroyed by false accusations for which there is absolutely no basis other than some people desperately wish that it was so. But your report is clear. No evidence of conspiracy, no evidence of coordination. I believe we owe it to these people, who have been falsely accused, including the president and his family, to make that very clear. Mr. Mueller, the credibility of your report is based on integrity of how it is handled. Theres something that i think bothers me and other americans. Im holding a binder of 25 examples of leaks that occurred from the Special Counsels office and those associated with you dating back to a few weeks after your inception and beginning of your work and continuing up to just a few months ago. All of these, all of them, have
one thing in common. They were designed to
to in the report in volume 2, yet when robert mueller was asked about him repeatedly, he said he can t talk about it, even though it is in the four corners of the report. moving forward, the question and message is today, this comes down to the presumption of innocence. robert mueller admitted today in the earlier first panel that they had a different standard because it was a special circumstance surrounding the presumption of innocence and guilt in this case. they prescribed tkpwoeult president trump. the exoneration which now robert mueller doesn t want to define. he said we didn t exonerate the president, but when he s asked about what that means, he won t say. he won t go into details. the president was not charged with a crime. he made the clarification that this was not because of the olc guidance. so essentially, if he was a private citizen, there wasn t enough evidence to charge him with a crime. so the question is, do we believe in the presumption of innocence or not? and tha
reasons, some of which we haven t talked about here tonight. going back to why in god s name did the white house keep this guy on for 18 days after sally yates went to the white house and said this guy is a national security risk. it s one of the many weird and unanswered questions in this investigation. it s interesting because white house even after michael flynn was allowed to resign, the day after i think it was, sean spicer said, it had there was no illegal behavior. it was just the fact that he had lied to the vice-president. there was a loss in confidence. there was he had done nothing wrong previous to that, which is interesting. sally yates says there was underlying illegality. she won t go into details. michael flynn requested immunity through his lawyer in exchange for testimony. do you think he should be granted immunity? you know, as these connections and questions about michael flynn mount up, the answer to that question more and more is, boy, what else does he
there is a difference in each state. the president is being smart and going out to talk about the shops, and it does not matter if it is the fifth pivot to jobs and middle american incomes have been losing money, and the disparity of the haves and the have nots have grown under this presidency, it is irrelevant, because he is using the bully pulpit of the presidency to use it. i am not saying it is warranted or not, but it is effective. he won t go into north carolina to campaign with kay hay ginn or landrieu in louisiana or in arkansas, so he is going around the country to talk about the job jobs and not focusing on the negatives of his own administration or the downfall of the things that have hurt the democrats, but focusing on the republican brand. i have seen him in the speeches. he is outstanding and bebops and scats all over the crowds, and