 When you talk about the firm that produced the steel reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct? I'm not familiar with that. Well, let me just help you. It was. It's not a trick question. It was Fusion GPS. I think this has been a disaster for the Democrats, and I think it's been a disaster for the reputation of Robert Mueller. The investigation into Russian collusion concluded four months ago and found no evidence that the Trump campaign worked with Russia to influence the election. But we live in a country where the mass media is dominated by one political party. So this will never end. And today was just the latest example of this farce. Both Democrats and Republicans clearly had agenda in their questioning of Mueller. Democrats don't seem to be interested in collusion at all anymore and are almost singularly focused on obstruction, constantly repeating the phrase, No one is above the law. The president or the fire Comey immediately and the order to initiate an investigation can't just fire Comey. Oh, yes, he can. Well, nobody except, of course, Democrats who ignore our immigration laws or who provide sanctuary to people in this country illegally or alert them to ICE raids or Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch or Hillary Clinton or any of the Democrats who weren't prosecuted to lying to the FBI or destroying equipment for Hillary Clinton. Seriously, every Democrat that spoke ended with that phrase. We'll get right back to discussing the charade. But first, let me take a quick moment to thank this channel's sponsors, ribtea.com. Come on, guys. We both know that you all need new undershirts and you're going to buy them anyway. So why not support a top shelf American made product from a company that actively supports free speech on YouTube? Your skin will definitely thank you. Their signature cool nylon silk will keep you dry and comfortable. Be at your best because you feel great. If you buy now, make sure that you use the promo code DRONETECH to get 20% off most of their items. After you buy, send me proof of the purchase and I can feature your website or your YouTube channel on my next video. Thanks for your time. Let's get back to the video. The Democrats and their media have made this entire thing really hard to follow. So I'm going to do my best to highlight all the most important points made during the hearing today. These won't be in any particular order. Just points that I think deserve closer attention. Considering Democrats so focused on obstruction right now, I found one of viewers answers to be quite revealing. He was simply asked if he was able to conclude his investigation unobstructed and he replied, yes. Given that the investigation was concluded without any obstruction and that no underlying crime was found, the push to indict Trump at this point just looks more and more like revenge for winning the election. And if there was obstruction, what exactly was obstructed if there was no underlying crime of collusion? Trump would call it a witch hunt and I don't think he's far off. Mueller's investigation consistent of a team where more than half of the investigators were either personally or politically connected to Hillary Clinton. A total of $60,000 was donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign by this group. Senator Weisman attended Hillary Clinton's election night party. Did you know that before or after he came on to the team? Don't know when I found that out. Weisman wrote an email to Deputy Attorney General Yates stating, I am so proud and in awe regarding her disobeying a direct order from the president. Did Weisman disclose that email to you before he joined the team? Yeah, I'm not going to talk about that. Is that not a conflict of interest? I'm not going to talk about that. Jeannie Rhee represented Hillary Clinton in litigation regarding personal emails originating from Clinton's time as Secretary of State? Yes. Did you know that before she came on the team? No. The guy sitting next to you represented Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who destroyed one of Clinton's mobile devices. And you must be aware by now that six of your lawyers donated $12,000 to Hillary Clinton. I'm not even talking about the 49,000 they donated to other Democrats, just the donations to the opponent who was the target of your investigation. We all know about the text messages between investigators that were discussing their plans to keep Trump from getting elected and then about the insurance policy after he was elected. What really stuck out to me about this line of questioning was Mueller's insistence that he didn't know any of these people were politically partisan or connected to Hillary Clinton. How does this big shot investigator who declared that his investigation was going to be impartial not know that any of these people are so closely connected to Hillary Clinton? He defended himself by saying, quote, it's not part of the process to ask what political affiliations the investigators have. Wait, what? You clearly stated that your purpose was to have an impartial investigation and you're investigating Donald Trump of all people. Yet asking about the political affiliations of your investigators isn't a priority? That doesn't make any sense. And in fact, it looks and sounds a lot like what the government would call plausible deniability. And in fact, it doesn't give me any confidence that this investigation wasn't anything other than that insurance policy that those Hillary Clinton connected investigators were discussing. Another big red flag appeared when Republicans pressed Mueller on why he claims the investigations didn't address collusion but rather conspiracy claiming that conspiracy is a legal term where collusion isn't. The question was posed to Mueller. Aren't these two words essentially the exact same thing? And you said that collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms. That was your answer was no. In that page 180 of volume one of your report, it says, as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in general conspiracy statute 18, USC 371. Now you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now? Not when I read it. So you would change your answer to yes then? No. If you look at the language, leave it with the report. So the report says yes, they are synonymous. Hopefully for finally out of your own report we can put to bed the collusion and conspiracy. Mueller responded that no, they're not the same thing, which was a big mistake because apparently he forgot that in the report he clearly states that the two terms are in fact the exact same thing. This is a clear contradiction between what's in the report and his testimony. Why would he do that? I mean, the only reason I can think of is just to give Democrats more ammunition to continue claiming that Trump colluded with Russia going into the 2020 election. It's yet another reason to seriously doubt the veracity of this investigation. The next thing really blew my mind and it was something that I had never heard before. Trump is apparently the only person to have ever been given the label unexonerated after an investigation found no evidence of guilt. That's because in this country we're all innocent until proven guilty. The council team operated under, was guided by and followed justice department policies and principles. So which DOJ policy or principle sets forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence from criminal conduct is not conclusively determined? Where does that language come from director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that? Let me make it easier. Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the justice department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined? I cannot, but this is a unique situation. If guilt cannot be proven, then you remain the innocent person you started out as. This is apparently not the case for President Trump. On the topic of a two tiered justice system it was also exposed that Mueller didn't charge a guy named Joseph Misad even though he lied to the FBI three times which is kind of strange considering he did charge Flynn, Manafort and a few others for supposedly lying to the FBI. Who is Joe Misad? And I hope I'm pronouncing his name right. He was an asset for the FBI who spied on both George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. When Papadopoulos told another FBI asset about the fact that he had heard Russia had Hillary's emails that's when the investigation began. The question posed by Jim Jordan and I think it's a good one is who told George Papadopoulos about these emails? Jim Jordan thinks it was Misad but of course, Mueller wouldn't give him any response. The big question remaining is how did Misad avoid being charged even after he lied to the FBI three times? And again, it would seem that this charge is reserved for the political opponents of the Democrat Party. In fact, the FBI interviewed Joseph Misad on February 10th, 2017. In that interview, Mr. Misad lied. You point this out on page 193, volume one, Misad denied. Mipsad also falsely stated. In addition, Mipsad omitted. Three times he lied to the FBI yet you didn't charge him with the crime. Excuse me, did you say one? I'm sorry, did you say I can't get into internal deliberations with regard who would or would not be charged? There's a lot of other people for making false statements. It's also worth noting that through the entire hearing Democrats keep trying to make the case that Trump meets all three requirements for criminal obstruction of justice. Near the end of the hearings, Mueller actually stated that he didn't agree with the conclusions that the Democrats were coming to in regards to obstruction. Kind of a strange thing to say when your report highly implies that there was obstruction and that the only reason that you didn't indict was because of the OLC opinion. This also relates to the fact that during testimony, Mueller keeps insisting that the only reason that Trump wasn't indicted was because of the OLC. I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Liu, who said, and I quote, you didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion. That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. Yet we know from Barr's testimony that Mueller had told both him and Rosenstein on multiple occasions that the OLC wasn't the reason that he wasn't indicted. He didn't dispute the testimony from Barr, so which is it? We have no answers, but no doubt the DNC media will just cover that right up and continue on with their narrative. There were many attempts by the Republicans to discredit the whole report out of hand saying that it wasn't impartial and it was completely biased. It was also pointed out that the Supreme Court has reversed many of the cases that Mueller and his team have investigating, saying that the legal theory that they used to come to their conclusions were extremely flawed. In fact, a judge savaged Mueller and his team for connecting Russian troll farms to the Russian government without a shred of evidence. The judge actually threatened to hold them in contempt if they didn't correct the record and then the next thing we know, Mueller's giving a press conference and correcting the record. He, of course, denies that incident had anything to do with his press conference. The Republicans also went into Fusion GPS and all the questions that surround that company and the people who founded it, with Mueller responding that he didn't know who they were. He also claimed complete ignorance to all the shadiness around the Trump Tower meeting. Mueller, can you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia's disinformation campaign? No, as I said in my opening statement, I'm that part of the... That the meeting might have been a setup by individuals working with the firm that produced the Steele reporting. So I'm going to ask you a very easy question, Director Mueller, on the week of June 9, who did Russian lawyer Vessel Nitskaya meet with more frequently? The Trump campaign or Glenn Simpson who is functionally acting as an operative for the Democratic National Committee? Well, what I think is missing here is the fact that this is under investigation other than elsewhere in the Justice Department. And if I can finish her and if I can finish her and consequently it's not within my purview. For example, that Glenn Simpson, founder of GPS, had multiple meetings with the Russian lawyer who organized the Trump Tower meeting in the first place. He had actually met with her before and after the meeting. It seems like something that should have been investigated or should at least be in the report but Mueller didn't agree. What sense does it make to have an investigation into Russian collusion but not into the people who got it started in the first place? I think all Mueller has done here is make half the country even more suspicious of this investigation. Mueller is either completely inept or he's playing dumb to cover up a corrupt investigation. On one hand, he's willing to ignore DOJ standards when it comes to saying the president isn't exonerated and an investigation where he was unable to prove his guilt but on the other hand, unwilling to answer any questions about this investigation based on DOJ standards for discussing the details of concluded investigations. The only people that this farce is gonna satisfy are left-wing Democrats who are only interested in bettering their chances for the 2020 election. That's all I have for you today, folks. Please hit that subscribe button, smash that like button and thunder-punch that bell notification. If you enjoy my content and you want to support this channel, please consider subscribing to me on Patreon or subscribe star. You can also send me a donation over PayPal and I appreciate it. Thank you.