And page. They have conveniently disappeared. I dont make this up. The messages the fbi claims to have lost. Theyre from a critical, crucial time in the Russia Investigation. Here is what happened. During that five months this. Is from december 14th, 2016 to may 17, 2017. President trump claimed he was wiretapped at trump towers. We dont have what they were gossiping about at that point. January 11th buzzfeed. The russian phony dossier to get the filing against the trump campaign. January 24th now Lieutenant General Michael Flynn is interviewed by the fbi. I hope flynns attorneys are watching tonight. There was one person in the room, peter strzok, who made it clear he despises all things
destroy evidence . That doesnt make sense. According to the same reporting of the plea deal the fbi wasnt allowed to search emails after the server was public. So the fbi couldnt look at possible Obstruction Of Justice by clinton and aides. Its obvious that happened. Then here, the Washington Post rep
Separate. And why your reporting is ev even he didnt read the letter and approve it. In the letter friday he said it would be muellers principle conclusions. Thats not the case. On page three he didnt have a principal collusion. Its barrs that there wasnt obstruction of justice. Everybody stand by. This is cnn breaking news. I want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. I am wolf blitzer in washington. After nearly two years, we now know the main conclusions of Robert Muellers russia information. A fourpage singlespaced summary was released by the Attorney General of the United States, bill barr. Part of the report reading and im quoting now. The investigation did not kid not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or
coordinated with the russians government in its election interference activities. Rudy giuliani told us the findings were better than he expected and President Trump just responded as well. It was a complete and total exoneration.
Volume 1, 193. He lied three times. Why didnt you charge him with a crime . I cant get into internal deliberations as to what or would not be you charged a lot of people from making false statements. Lets remember this. In 2016 the fbi did something they probably havent done before. They spied on two american citizens associated with the president ial campaign. George papadopoulos and carter page. Was carter page who then went to the g the fisa court. With mr. Papadopoulos they didnt go to the court. They used human sources. From about the moment papadopoulos joins the Trump Campaign you have all of these people All Around The World starting to swirl around him. Names like halper, downer, misfeud, thompson. Meeting in rome, london, all
kinds of places and the fbi even sent a lady posing as somebody else. Went by the name turk to spy on papadopoulos. In one of the meetings he is talking to a foreign diplomat and he says that the russians have dirt on clinton. That Diplomat Contacts the
This from like the ivory towers of your law school but it makes actual people in this country when the president calls you dont get to interrupt me on this time. And when you suggest that you invoke the president s son name here and try to make a joke at referencing baron trump that does not lend credibility to your argument, it makes you look mean and attacking someones family. The minor child of the president of the United States. So lets see if we could get into the facts. To all of the witnesses. If you have personal knowledge of a single Material Fact in the schiff report, please raise your hand. And let the record reflect no personal knowledge of a single fact. And you know what, that continues on the tradition we saw from adam schiff where ambassador taylor could not identify an Impeachment Offense and mr. Kent never met with the president and fiona hill never mentioned military aid and mr. Hill was not aware of any
nefarious aid and Colonel Vindman said that bribery was invoked
of justice case with the sacking alone. the president has clear legal authority and it was proper or at least other reasons put forward for firing him and yet what we have here is this insistence by mr. gerhardt that this that was impeachable. that is that article i ll refer to you, may 17, 2017, bbc. what i m suggesting to you today is a reckless bias coming in here. you re not fact witnesses. you re supposed to be talking about what the law is. but you came in with a preconceived notion and bias and i want to read one last thing here if i can find it. from one of our witnesses here. and it s dealing with something that was said in a maryland law review article in 1999.