Speaker 1: The Armstrong and Getty show. The Special Council's Office as
Speaker 1: part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it
Speaker 1: was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with
Speaker 1: a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
Speaker 1: So that was just a department policy. Those were the
Speaker 1: principles under which we operated, and from them we concluded
Speaker 1: that we would not reach a determination one way or
Speaker 1: the other about whether the president committed a crime. There
Speaker 1: you have, it's so old man himself. So I'm looking
Speaker 1: at the text line a little bit before we get
Speaker 1: to one of our favorite analysts. Quote, my report was
Speaker 1: perfectly clear. He's both maybe maybe guilty and maybe maybe innocent.
Speaker 1: I hope this will end all speculation unquote. That's pretty
Speaker 1: well said. My friend also got a number of these.
Speaker 1: If we thought he was innocent, we'd have said that,
Speaker 1: but we didn't say he was innocent. Connect the dots,
Speaker 1: the nation of idiots from the UH Trump he quitted
Speaker 1: a crime. Crowd. Mueller was, Look, there's another way to
Speaker 1: do this. Lots of information there again in Dyke, there's
Speaker 1: another policy. Idiots. Are you following me? Are you tracking?
Speaker 1: It seems like he might be doing that. It rhymes
Speaker 1: with slim peachment. David Drucker, senior political correspondent for The
Speaker 1: Washington Examiner, joins us David, welcome, sir, It's good to
Speaker 1: talk to you. What was your takeaway, Well, it was
Speaker 1: a little bit more interesting than I expected. On one hand,
Speaker 1: I feel like what Muller did was basically reiterate what
Speaker 1: was in his written report. But the two items that
Speaker 1: are going to make a lot of news and that
Speaker 1: he appeared to put a lot of emphasis on, we're
Speaker 1: one the fact that he was following Justice departments in
Speaker 1: guideline that that say a city president cannot be charged
Speaker 1: with the crime, and he used the reasoning that the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel's Office, being that it is a part of
Speaker 1: the Artment of Justice, was bound by those guidelines. Not
Speaker 1: everybody agrees, but that's the choice Mueller made. To me,
Speaker 1: The bigger one was his quote where he said, and
Speaker 1: I tweeted this quickly, so I think I have it right,
Speaker 1: but other people also have this. If we had had
Speaker 1: confidence that the president had clearly not committed a crime,
Speaker 1: we would have said so. Now this is directly in
Speaker 1: the face of what the president has been saying about
Speaker 1: the Moulla report, generating him it also contradicts Attorney General
Speaker 1: Bill Barrs Rosie summary of the Mola report, and it's
Speaker 1: going to, on the one hand, probably infuriate the president,
Speaker 1: but on the other hand, make it harder for Speaker
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi too to put the brakes on impeachment. Okay,
Speaker 1: That's what I was gonna ask you about, because I'm
Speaker 1: seeing a bunch of speculation from the smartest talking heads.
Speaker 1: Joe also said he thinks it's more likely to impeachment happens.
Speaker 1: Now do you agree with that? Well, certainly the pressure
Speaker 1: to make it happens, it will be ratching it up
Speaker 1: on David. Sorry, yeah, no, I mean I I think Look,
Speaker 1: I think Pelosi has been smart about trying to avoid impeachment.
Speaker 1: There is not broad political support for impeachment. The Senate,
Speaker 1: controlled by Republicans, most of whom are very loyal to Trump,
Speaker 1: are not going to provide the votes to impeach, and
Speaker 1: so that the president is not going to be removed.
Speaker 1: And in a weird way, politically, the president could um
Speaker 1: come out ahead via an impeachment inquiry unless they're able
Speaker 1: to dig up information that we're not aware of that
Speaker 1: would change public opinions. So I think the Speaker has
Speaker 1: been smart about this. Just just engage in aggressive oversight,
Speaker 1: avoid the politics, the risky politics of impeachment. There's an
Speaker 1: election next year. Beat him at the ballot box. That's
Speaker 1: the best way to go. Um. This makes it harder, though,
Speaker 1: because Democrats have been hitching for impeachment more and more
Speaker 1: in the House, responding both their liberal base but also
Speaker 1: they're reading of the Mulla report itself, and this is
Speaker 1: just going to be more fuel on that fire. When
Speaker 1: what Muller said, it doesn't make it easier for Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi today to keep the holl On Maha quiet. Well,
Speaker 1: here's the cynical view. If I was say AOC, I
Speaker 1: would say, listen, the leadership is cowardly. They're not going
Speaker 1: to do this unless there is overwhelming support among the
Speaker 1: American people, and that will force the Republicans to do
Speaker 1: the right thing. The non cynical view of it is,
Speaker 1: the American people have heard all of this, maybe in
Speaker 1: slightly different form, but we've we know all of it.
Speaker 1: It's baked in the poll numbers have not changed and
Speaker 1: probably will not change. And frankly, if the people are
Speaker 1: not calling for impeachment, you could make the case that
Speaker 1: the people end up being the jury through their representatives anyway,
Speaker 1: so don't impeach. I think as a matter of political
Speaker 1: strategy that Democrats would be much better off engaging in
Speaker 1: very aggressive oversight, which I don't think hurts them at
Speaker 1: all and in many ways helps. But but stopping short
Speaker 1: of impeachment from a political standpoint, especially because there's an
Speaker 1: election next year, and in this way they can let
Speaker 1: the American people be the judge, I think that is
Speaker 1: better for our system. But it also I think would
Speaker 1: protect Democrats from overreach. But I don't think they're going
Speaker 1: to be able to stop themselves from overreach. Um, if
Speaker 1: the information flow continues the way it is. Well, Davidrucker,
Speaker 1: we sure appreciate you coming on on short notice on this,
Speaker 1: and we'll be following your Twitter and your columns and
Speaker 1: all that sort of stuff. We appreciate it. Yeah, go
Speaker 1: get them. Thanks, all right. I wanted to point out
Speaker 1: on Trump side, and for anybody who's supporting Trump, this
Speaker 1: this idea of Mueller coming out and saying if we
Speaker 1: could have proved him innocent, we would we would have
Speaker 1: said it, but we couldn't. That's a ridiculous standard. Piving
Speaker 1: anybody innocent. That's that's almost the proving a negative. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's well, yeah, you you'd be impossible. So him saying that,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that's a fair thing for any prosecutor
Speaker 1: to say. If I could prove unison, I would have
Speaker 1: and I couldn't. Well, that's not the way this justice
Speaker 1: system works. Yeah, I find that very strange, and I
Speaker 1: find it strange how little that's being challenged. Um, but
Speaker 1: it's it's just people are people are gonna run with
Speaker 1: that all day long, especially on CNN, and that's a
Speaker 1: ridiculous standard. Well, this is all political and that's politics too.
Speaker 1: So but Muller, what you got coming up in your
Speaker 1: news Marshall, Well, we got Robert Mueller's first public statement
Speaker 1: on his Russian investigation. We will review some more of
Speaker 1: those highlights and Robert Bolton's coming out saying Iran is
Speaker 1: behind terror acts and then with against the Southeast coming up.
Speaker 1: All right, got that on his plate to Mr that's right.
Speaker 1: The rest of the world. Arm Strong and Getty show
Speaker 1: are strong and we're standing. Department policy. A president president
Speaker 1: cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is
Speaker 1: in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is
Speaker 1: kept under sealed and hidden from public view, that too
Speaker 1: is prohibited. Sorr. We are we talking now? I don't know?
Speaker 1: Um uh so A. Mueller gave his report a little
Speaker 1: bit ago. We're gonna jaw about it. Let's get the
Speaker 1: news now with Marshall. Yeah. For the first time in
Speaker 1: more than two years, Special Counsel Robert Mueller talked publicly
Speaker 1: about the key findings in his Russia investigation. Mueller summarizing
Speaker 1: those a few minutes ago, saying that one thing, charging
Speaker 1: President Trump with a crime was not going to be
Speaker 1: an option because of d O J guideline. We did, not, however,
Speaker 1: make a determination as to whether the president did commit
Speaker 1: a crime. The introduction to the Volume two of our
Speaker 1: report explains that decision. It explains that, under longstanding Department policy,
Speaker 1: a president president cannot be charged with a federal crime
Speaker 1: while he is in office. Now. Miller also went on
Speaker 1: to say, if we had had confidence that the president
Speaker 1: clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.
Speaker 1: As for the Russian mentaling in the election, Mueller said,
Speaker 1: as alleged by the Grand Jury in an indictment, Russian
Speaker 1: intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military launched
Speaker 1: a concerted attack on our political system. The indictment alleges
Speaker 1: that they use sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers
Speaker 1: and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private
Speaker 1: information and then released that information through fake online and
Speaker 1: identities and through the organization wiki leaks. Yeah, we we
Speaker 1: know all that stuff. Um the I'm reading through a
Speaker 1: rereading big chunks of the Muller Report about the alleged,
Speaker 1: um well, sort of kind of alleged obstruction of justice,
Speaker 1: and and I've got to read the whole thing because
Speaker 1: it's a bit of a head scratcher, page after page
Speaker 1: after page of discussion of the President and or Hope
Speaker 1: Picks and or Don Jr. Or whomever um issuing statements
Speaker 1: to the press that were misleading according the report about
Speaker 1: the infamous June ninth meeting at Trump Tower with the
Speaker 1: Russian gall and who said, I guess that they had,
Speaker 1: you know, dirt on Hillary. But it's page after page
Speaker 1: after page of this draft of the email. Then the
Speaker 1: President said to Hope Picks, and Hope Picks was concerned,
Speaker 1: and then her assistant said blah blah blah, and then
Speaker 1: the analysis is most of that was directed or all
Speaker 1: of that was directed at the press, and we didn't
Speaker 1: find any of the president or as people trying to
Speaker 1: halt access to this to our investigation or Congress or
Speaker 1: anybody official. So all of that was directed to the press.
Speaker 1: Now that's some serious investigating, and it's kind of interesting
Speaker 1: to hear how the spin room works. But he has
Speaker 1: pages of stuff that is irrelevant to his investigation. It's
Speaker 1: obstruction of the media. So, like I said, I gotta
Speaker 1: read the rest of it. Where does he get there?
Speaker 1: He talks a lot about the president saying a Corey
Speaker 1: Lewindowski or whatever, you gotta talk to Sessions, we gotta
Speaker 1: get rid of the sky. Then people saying yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll get on that, but not getting on it. So
Speaker 1: and I'm telling you the question of our will they
Speaker 1: impeach and will and it's gonna be obstruction to justice
Speaker 1: name then impeach on so far that it's just weak.
Speaker 1: The evidence is weak unless you think a blustery businessman
Speaker 1: saying you gotta fire the guy and his assistant saying now,
Speaker 1: we're not going to do that is obstruction to justice.
Speaker 1: Maybe you do, I don't know. Meanwhile, we've got Nationals
Speaker 1: Purity Advisor John Bolton saying Navy minds almost certainly from
Speaker 1: Iran word of blame for the oil tanker damage earlier
Speaker 1: this month in the Gulf of Oman. He's made it
Speaker 1: claim today during a visit to the United Arab Embrutson
Speaker 1: told reporters it is clear that Iran is behind the attack.
Speaker 1: He didn't provide any specific evidence to support the allegation.
Speaker 1: Four ships were sabotaged to the gulf on May twelve,
Speaker 1: two from Saudi Arabia, one from Norway, one from the
Speaker 1: U a E. So Bolton is saying, yes, yes, we're
Speaker 1: sure or certainly almost sure that these uh, these attacks
Speaker 1: were guided by Iran. By the way, I'm just looking
Speaker 1: at the text line on the whole Mueller thing, and
Speaker 1: I'm guessing looking at the text and then I can
Speaker 1: see previous texts from these people. It's yet another event
Speaker 1: to the Mueller thing that no human being is going
Speaker 1: to feel any different than they felt before. From the
Speaker 1: Mueller statement. Yeah, that's probably true. People that support Trump
Speaker 1: feel the same way they felt before, and the people
Speaker 1: that thought Trump should be booted out felt the same way,
Speaker 1: feel the same way they felt Yeah, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: there's anything that would move the needle at all. So
Speaker 1: which makes you wonder why we go through all this? Well,
Speaker 1: I think Drucker is probably right. The Democrats know that
Speaker 1: impeaching the guy would be a mistake because they just
Speaker 1: don't have the American people with them, um, and so
Speaker 1: they will posture, they will investigate, there will be aggressive oversight,
Speaker 1: and that's it. Well, I don't know where that leaves us.
Speaker 1: Got a new report by the Associated Press, it finds
Speaker 1: that managers with the foreign arm of Perdue Pharma have
Speaker 1: been caught up in an opioid corruption probe in Italy.
Speaker 1: They allegedly paid a pain doctor hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: dollars to help them sell more drugs. One American congresswoman's
Speaker 1: responding with concern that international health organizations have not learned
Speaker 1: the lesson of the US addiction epidemic. It's the first
Speaker 1: known case outside the US where managers of the vast
Speaker 1: pharma empire have been criminally implicated. Yeah, this this story
Speaker 1: is far from over. What's really compelling about it is
Speaker 1: that we're not talking about, well, you made a drug
Speaker 1: that's addictive, and now people are addicted and we're mad
Speaker 1: at you. I mean, it isn't the idiotic you made
Speaker 1: a ladder and somebody fell off of it type of lawsuit.
Speaker 1: Or now they have to have stickers on every ladder
Speaker 1: saying gravity will pull you to the earth rapidly if
Speaker 1: you fall off and hurt. You know these are material
Speaker 1: uh you know, there's material evidence of lies and misleading
Speaker 1: doctors in the public about the addictive quality equalities because
Speaker 1: they've done the studies, and then bribing of doctors to
Speaker 1: pump out as much as they possibly can, and all
Speaker 1: sorts of evil doing specific evil doing. One last note,
Speaker 1: something completely different. Although we did talk a little bit
Speaker 1: earlier about what your smartphone and the apps are learning
Speaker 1: about you while you sleep. Well, soon you're going to
Speaker 1: be able to play Pokemon in your sleep. The game
Speaker 1: company is saying that it's developed a mobile app called
Speaker 1: Pokemon Sleep. The new app will keep track of how
Speaker 1: long the user sleeps when they wake up and then
Speaker 1: use that data to change the game play. Wonder what
Speaker 1: else they'll be collecting on you while you sleep? Boy,
Speaker 1: there you go, that your news. I'm Marshall Philips y
Speaker 1: Arms Stalking Guinta show the conscience of the Nation. Thank you, Marshall.
Speaker 1: I guess I got ahead of myself. I should have
Speaker 1: described what I'm thinking about. There are is a substantial
Speaker 1: group of Democrats, especially that thinks the President ought to
Speaker 1: be impeached, and they'll be trying to make the case
Speaker 1: for obstruction of justice to get the American people to
Speaker 1: go along with it. I think they're doomed. I think
Speaker 1: everybody's attitudes about the President are baked in. But I'm
Speaker 1: looking at what appears to be to me the media
Speaker 1: ist parts or one of the meaty parts of the
Speaker 1: Mulla report that you could use to charge obstruction, and
Speaker 1: it's it's the president drags drags. He calls lord, uh,
Speaker 1: what's his name, Corey Corey Ludandowski into the small into
Speaker 1: the Oval office and says, listen, you gotta tell us
Speaker 1: the Sessions. I want you to go talk to Jeff Sessions,
Speaker 1: because you know, tell him to say I know I
Speaker 1: recused myself, but our president is being treated very unfairly.
Speaker 1: He shouldn't have a special Prosecutor Council because he hasn't
Speaker 1: done anything wrong. I was with him. There are no
Speaker 1: Russians involved with him. We gotta limit the scope of
Speaker 1: this to future elections because this is crazy. And then
Speaker 1: it's I haven't gotten to the pirate, where it explains
Speaker 1: whether Lewandowski, oh um, he wanted to pass the message
Speaker 1: Sessions in person other instead of over the phone. Lewandowski
Speaker 1: called an arranged from meeting, but Sessions had to counsel
Speaker 1: canceled due to a last minute of conflict. Shortly thereafter,
Speaker 1: Lewandowski left Washington, d C. Without having an opportunity to
Speaker 1: meet with Sessions to convey the message, and so he
Speaker 1: stored the notes at his home and more or less
Speaker 1: forgot about it. So listen, and I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: tell you the answer I think I well, I know
Speaker 1: the answer politically, the answers No, here's the question, can
Speaker 1: the Democrats convince enough Americans and thereby such a flood
Speaker 1: of opinion that it convinces enough Republican Senators that telling
Speaker 1: Corey Lewandowski to go talk to Jeff Sessions to unrecuse
Speaker 1: himself because I didn't collude, And this whole thing is
Speaker 1: stupid and Lewandowski just getting turned down once and staying
Speaker 1: at a hell with it and going home if that's
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice, If you think it is, then you
Speaker 1: gotta impeach. I guess, well, you certainly could impeach, but
Speaker 1: I'm telling you that is not nearly compelling enough to
Speaker 1: sway the minds of enough Americans. So you're gonna hear
Speaker 1: people howling for it. But you know, you get to
Speaker 1: howl in America, Jack, it's the First Amendment, the freedom
Speaker 1: of howling. There's an America get there. So what's his name?
Speaker 1: The guy who does the media show on Fox. He
Speaker 1: was talking about the other day how the media should
Speaker 1: catch on to the fact that the the the House
Speaker 1: Democrats are conducting impeachment without calling an impeachment. That's what
Speaker 1: they're currently doing. Good description, and more people should catch
Speaker 1: on to that. That is, that is what actually what's happening,
Speaker 1: and it might be a good political employ Well, I
Speaker 1: think that's the best one they have. You dodge the
Speaker 1: whole you impeach the president thing. Do you get all
Speaker 1: the benefit of it for your side? Yeah, except for
Speaker 1: booting a guy out of office. Has an election for
Speaker 1: that like sixteen months, and that's not on the table anyway.
Speaker 1: That's not gonna happen because the Senate wouldn't convict. That's
Speaker 1: what we're just talking about. Yeah, there there are Democrats
Speaker 1: who are going to try to build the case that
Speaker 1: this is clearly obstruction America. Come on, who's with me?
Speaker 1: They will fail in that effort, But should the impeachment
Speaker 1: without calling an impeachment? I think is your best option
Speaker 1: if you're a Democrat, super Well, that's gonna keep the
Speaker 1: anchors and anchor ats of CNN and MSNBC employed for
Speaker 1: at least another year and a half. And it's a
Speaker 1: tough way to make a living, so I congratulate them
Speaker 1: on their continued employment. God, we need this election. We
Speaker 1: need this election to happen sooner. Can we move it
Speaker 1: up as if we have a parliament. I'm going for
Speaker 1: Snapolis just to get it settled once and for all.
Speaker 1: If there's enough people that want to keep trumpet office,
Speaker 1: then he stays, and then you gotta shut up about it.
Speaker 1: You just have to shut up about it and have
Speaker 1: him serve a five month and five months the five
Speaker 1: year and five months term. Because we moved up the
Speaker 1: election just to shut everybody up. I wonder if this
Speaker 1: idea has been floated, we go ahead. I think we've
Speaker 1: got it solved. Actually,