why don t we start with a statement from the president, an acknowledgment from the leadership and leadership from the president? why don t we get the guy with the biggest megaphone to say you know what? if anybody interferes in the e lerks, they re in big trouble. he doesn t do it. he doesn t lead on it. it s because he has insecurity about the legitimacy of the former election. that s what s the excuse for the president? it would be nice if leadership started at the top. what excuse he doesn t have to congratulate mr. putin for what he did and play with it in person and embarrass us on the world stage in helsinki. that s the appropriate question to be having, but we re not having it because we ve spent five months now since the beginning it s because the right runs away from it. i want to talk about something else. here s the distinction with a difference. i agree with mr. mueller. you didn t find proof of a criminal conspiracy.
Outcome. we do it for what is right right now. phil? two words. they should shut up. they might see some indication of wrong doing. a, as you re suggesting they will never reach the end of this in 15 months and it s going to divide america. if you can t reach a conclusion and it divides the country, do you think you should pursue this? i d say a, for reasons of america, shut up, and b, i m not a politician, but if you think americans are going to say i m going to watch this show, paint drying for another 15 months i watched this myself. i d say leave me alone. find something else like health care to worry about. mike? i do not think the needle moved at all today. i thought mueller s performance was uninspired. he was clipped and confused at times. he did not persuade anybody, that was why they had him. they had no other witnesses. the white house, you know, say what you will, they ve
Contacts multiple contacts if one wants to criticize the mueller none of us is defending anything the trump campaign did. they clearly were out of bounds. they re attacking you, not me. i m saying if people want to criticize the mueller probe, from the beginning it was flawed. we were told he s going to look into potential criminal interference except the president because he put in part two of his report, i m not allowed to prosecute the president. but everybody was expecting that. that was the flaw. you will not mention anything from mr. mueller that the president where is progress, what do you think the democrats should do next? i think at this point it s about duty. i m not a political analyst. i m about the rule of law. i think but you re smart. you worked at the fbi. you re a law professor. i think they need to begin an impeachment inquiry.
To investigate what they did and who if anyone aided them. that discussion was largely absent from today s political theater. in fairness one republican focussed almost solely on that, will hurd of texas used him time to discuss russian election interference and whether there will be a next time. in your investigation did you think that this was a single attempt by the russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they ll try to do it this again? it wasn t a single attempt. they re doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign. mueller also said it s not just russia either. many more countries are developing the same capability. the assessment was echoed by the man who currently holds the position who said yesterday russians are absolutely intent in trying to influence our elections. all of this sounds obvious to many, but president trump has
Right? and what was don junior say, if it s what you say, i love it, no question. but the evidence in the report is they had the meeting, and that information was not offered. so if i m sorry, michael, so if i decide if i m insider trading and somebody says hey, i m going to give you information about something that s going to go public in two days, and i m like yeah, let s get in this, i mean, that s a conspiracy. if we move forward that, even if it doesn t come to fruition, it s still wrong. it was wrong and questionably improper, but can you make a criminal case that something of value changed hands? his question was that s what mueller was doing. he was the special prosecutor to investigate crimes. right? and he as the prosecutor he concluded he could not make a criminal case out of that meeting or any of the other