What’s in the Mueller Report? | QT Politics

On Friday, March 22nd, Robert Mueller announced
the end of his investigation and submitted his final report to Attorney General William
Barr. Two days later, Barr released a four-page
letter summarizing the conclusions of Mueller’s report for both congress and the public. Since then, we’ve seen no shortage of spin
on the subject of the investigation’s conclusions, so in an effort to provide clarity, in this
video I will point out some of the clear partizan spin you might encounter surrounding the report,
and try to explain, as clearly as possible, from what is publicly known… What’s in the Mueller Report? With the release of Barr’s letter summarizing
the Special Counsel’s findings, a number of clear facts have emerged surrounding the hotly
discussed topic of Russian collusion. Here are some of the most important details: -The special counsel investigated but did
not find evidence of Russian collusion sufficient for an indictment of either Mr. Trump or his
campaign affiliates -They also did not come to a conclusion one
way or another on the issue of obstruction of justice
-AG William Barr and Rod Rosenstein decided not to prosecute Trump for obstruction, and
made the determination outside of constitutional considerations about whether a sitting president
may be indicted on criminal charges -The Special Counsel team has no future plans
to issue indictments, nor are there other indictments already in process, which were
not publicly known -And, it appears that Mueller never requested
an interview with Donald Trump In general, Barr’s letter seems to indicate
what is surely a victory for Trump. No collusion was found. Obstruction charges won’t be pursued as a
result of the evidence that Mueller uncovered. And, there is no evidence that the DOJ blocked
investigators’ access to Trump. Of course, Mueller’s probe is just one of
dozens of investigations the president and his organizations have been facing, but it
was almost certainly the most talked about. And, the fact that it has turned out fairly
positively for the president generally validates his new way of greeting the press. No collusion, no collusion Still, while Barr’s letter laid out a number
of key conclusions, we are presently seeing vastly different interpretations of these
conclusions from Democrats and Republicans. For the remainder of this video I will point
out what I believe are clear examples of bias or false statements, but first let me reiterate
my personal views on subjects pertaining to this so that you can be aware of my potential
bias. 1. While I support Donald Trump’s efforts to
make peace with North Korea, and in Syria, and agreed to his opposition to NAFTA and
TPP, I am generally opposed to his immigration policies and tax cuts. I regard him as under-qualified for the highest
office in the land, and I consider most of his viable 2020 opponents to be better suited
to be POTUS. 2. I would not like to see Mike Pence become
the President 3. While the Russian hack of the DNC may well
have violated US law, I believe that the information it revealed to the public, through wiki leaks,
to be extremely valuable. Like the Chelsea Manning leaks and those of
Edward Snowden, I believe there is a reasonable argument that any illegality involved may
be counterbalanced by the public good of informing citizens about the operations of their public
institutions. I believe the DNC leaks indicated that the
DNC internally supported Hilary Clinton’s primary campaign, one chiefly contested by
a campaign I supported, the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign. 4. While I have been releasing politics videos
quite regularly over the past few months, I have not made Mueller a central topic of
discussion in any video prior to the one you are watching right now. I have not, prior to its release, projected
or presumed any particular outcome of the investigation. 5. While I am not a member of any political party,
I generally identify as progressive, or as a social democrat, and am therefore generally
more ideologically aligned with Democrats than Republicans So, take what you will from all that. Now, let’s get into some of the spin that
I’ve observed, starting with the Democrats. Many Democrats have called for the release
of the full Mueller report, which I view as perfectly acceptable. But some have taken it a step further. Kamala Harris, for example, tweeted The Mueller report needs to be made public,
the underlying investigative materials should be handed over to Congress, and Barr must
testify. That is what transparency looks like. A short letter from Trump’s hand-picked Attorney
General is not sufficient. The call to ask Barr to testify seems unnecessary
if he hands over the the full report to congress. I’m all for transparency, and certainly don’t
believe politicians can be relied upon to be honest. But, it seems to me that Harris is implying
here that Barr lied in his letter, or likely left out key information. Congressional Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer
and Nancy Pelosi, in my view, have also impugned the credibility of Barr and his summary, pointing
to ‘bias’. They also argued that his letter “raises
more questions than it answers”. Indeed, Barr publicly defended Trump’s firing
of James Comey, and claimed that two Special Counsel Team members, Jennie Rhee and Bruce
Ohr were conflicted. However, his letter has little evidence of
spin: some details contained are politically expedient for the president, while others
are certainly not. As for raising more questions that it answers—that’s
only true about his letter insofar as it is true about anything. The fact is, Barr laid out plenty of new information. Congressional democrats who imply that Barr’s
letter is deceitful may be making a political mistake. If he indeed releases the full report in coming
days, and no deception is found, the implication that he is bending the truth will very likely
look like unfounded partisan attacks. Again, it’s totally acceptable to call on
Barr to release the full report. Obviously he should. But, suggestions that he’s twisted the contents
of the report cannot be substantiated until that full report is released. Then, there’s Democratic presidential hopeful,
Beto O’Rourke who argued, “It is beyond a shadow of doubt that, once
in office, the president of the United States sought to obstruct justice. First, by firing the principal investigator
into what happened in the 2016 election and then, in the light of day, tweeting at his
attorney general to stop the Russia investigation.” This is not the case. Since the president has the legal authority
to fire the director of the FBI and the legal authority to direct the actions of the Attorney
General, those actions alone cannot be easily seen as obstruction. If we accept that using lawful powers of command
to stop an investigation is necessarily obstruction of justice, then nearly every police chief
and Sherif in the country is guilty, because most have in some way impeded an investigation
by firing, promoting or demoting officers conducting investigations, and most have directly
ended investigations by ordering officers to investigate one crime rather than another. You can definitely say that Trump was behaving
sketchily or stupidly, or both, when he made these orders, but the minimum standard for
obstruction is to endeavor “to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration
of justice” Trump’s constant insistence that he thought
the investigation was a ‘witch hunt’ indicates that he believes the investigation was a waste
of resources. He may well have been lying, but without an
admission to that affect, or some other evidence—which the Mueller investigation apparently did not
produce—the claim that Trump sought to obstruct justice is clearly not ‘beyond a shadow of
a doubt’. Also, little thing here, but legally, there’s
no distinction between obstructing and seeking obstruction. I get the sense that Beto didn’t read the
law to which he was referring. So, Beto is presenting a problematic narrative. On the other hand, Trump’s spin on the Mueller
report rises to absurdity. Let’s break down how many lies he made in
the span of 30 seconds: (Total exoneration) No. It was not a complete and total exoneration. Far from it. It is still questionable whether he was exonerated
on the first potential charge—conspiracy with the Russians to interfere with the 2016
US presidential election. Depending on how you read Barr’s letter, you
could reasonably argue that Trump and his campaign were fully exonerated or partially
exonerated from that charge. Barr explains that the Mueller team investigated
disinformation campaigns and hacking operations conducted by Russian operatives. Trump and his campaign associates were investigated
in connection to these actions. Quoting the Special Counsel’s report, Barr
wrote, “[T]he investigation did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in
its election interference activities.” You could interpret this as a full exoneration,
in that they were investigated and a conspiracy was not established. Or, you could see this as a partial exoneration,
as no where does Barr indicated that Mueller claimed they were exonerated, nor did he cite
evidence that they could not have possibly coordinated or conspired. The legal standard underlying the investigation
is of course, finding evidence that would indicate a conspiracy beyond a reasonable
doubt. They looked for this and could not find it. If you want to call that exoneration, fine. “Complete and total exoneration” is a
bit of a stretch. On the second potential charge, Trump’s lie
here is absolutely brazen. Barr’s letter clearly states that the Report
includes arguments that favor indictment on obstruction of justice, as well as opposing
arguments. Barr again quotes the report in his letter: “while this report does not conclude that
the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” It’s quite clear that the report did not exonerate
him on obstruction of justice crimes. What ever your judgement on the conspiracy
charges are, fair enough. But it is explicit stated, even by Trump’s
own AG, that he was not exonerated on the the obstruction charge. In fact, it was Barr himself that determined
not to go forward with an indictment of Trump based on the evidence found by Mueller. Given that the Special Council provided evidence
for both potential paths, it’s clear that the Special Counsel believed that a reasonable
AG may have been able to make a different determination. I had to go through this for even before the
election… Did Trump have to go through this investigation
even before he was elected? No, not really. Maybe I’m nitpicking here, but Rod Rosenstein
appointed Robert Mueller to serve as Special Counsel on May 17, 2017. While this investigation was in effect, a
continuation of Comey’s FBI investigation of Russian interference, a coherent separation
can be made, and even Comey’s investigation did not likely begin before the election,
as it was an investigation of the election. Comey first publicly acknowledged an investigation
into possible collusion on March 20, 2017, although sources had already been speculating
that an investigation was underway weeks prior. The investigation was illegal… There are no reasonable claims that the Mueller
probe w as illegal. A Russian company that had been previously
charged due to evidence uncovered by the Mueller probe argued in federal court that the investigation
had to have been appointed directly by the President and confirmed by the Senate in order
to be legal. That argument failed in court several times. Federal judges TS Ellis, Amy Berman Jackson,
and Dabney Friedrich all independently dismissed that argument. A three-judge panel in the DC Circuit Court
of Appeals also upheld the constitutionality of Mueller’s probe. The investigation was an illegal takedown
that failed… Well, if you believe that the Mueller probe
was an illegal takedown, then sure, it failed. It failed to take down the president, and
it failed to be illegal. But, if you look at the actual purpose of
the Mueller probe, to investigate potential links or coordination with the Russian government
and associates of the Trump campaign, and any matters arising from this investigation,
and to, if necessary, prosecute crimes arising from these investigations, then Mueller’s
probe did not fail. He clearly did investigate these issues, and
did prosecute people who were found to commit crimes: -A Russian troll farm was charged with distributing
Russian propaganda -Russian spies were charged with stealing
DNC emails -Trump campaign official, Paul Manifort was
found guilty on 8 counts of criminal behavior -Konstantin Kilimnik was charged with conspiracy
and obstruction of justice -Roger Stone was charged for lying to Congress
-Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to investigators -Rick Gates, Alex van der Zwaan, and George
Papadopoulos pled guilty to the same crime -Michael Cohen pled guilty to tax and bank
fraud related charges, campaign finance violations, and lying to congress
-Richard Pinedo pled guilty to identity theft -Sam Patten pled guilty to failing to register
as a foreign lobbyist -Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin were charged
for conspiring to violated lobbying laws But Trump is not the only person on the right
spinning the meaning and context of the Mueller report. Ben Shapiro, in my view, accurately pointed
out in a recent appearance on Fox News that Democrats ought not to imply that Barr is
being less than forthright in his summary, and seems to have every intention of releasing
as much of the Mueller report as he legally can. But, he also went beyond reasonable criticism,
to claim that Democrats have been promising the Mueller investigation would somehow lead
to an end of Trump’s presidency. Democrats have been promising their base that
Mueller’s investigation would lead to him being dragged out of the white house in hand
cuffs… That’s absolute nonsense. You could reasonably argue that there was
too much coverage of the Special Counsel’s probe on CNN and MSNBC, creating an implied
false promise about what Mueller might uncover. But there was no explicit promise made, certainly
not by actual Democratic officials. Very recently, in fact, Nancy Pelosi disappointed
many Trump opponents by directly and, unequivocally opposing impeachment under
any circumstances. To argue that Pelosi, and therefore Democratic
leadership, was promising that the Mueller probe would lead to Trump’s removal from office,
then, is not only not true, the exact opposite is the case. Pelosi didn’t just not promise that the probe
would lead to Trump’s impeachment, she took the possibility of impeachment off the table. Even those in the house who disagree with
Pelosi’s stand, and have argued for impeachment, have been careful to separate impeachment
from the Mueller report. As Rashida Tlaib and John Bonifaz wrote in
the Detroit Free Press: “The Framers distinguished the impeachment
power from the power of a criminal prosecution. While Congress has the impeachment power to
prevent future harm to our government, prosecutors have the power to seek punishment for those
who commit crimes. But it is not Mueller’s role to determine
whether the president has committed impeachable offenses. That is the responsibility of the US Congress.” The facts don’t care about your feelings What I’ve talked about so far is just the
spin we’ve seen from a four page summary provided by the Attorney General. Be on the look out for much, much more once
the full report sees the light of day. But until that time, we still don’t have a
full and thorough answer to this question: What’s in the Mueller Report? Thanks for watching.

Maurice Vega

100 Responses

  1. While it isn't technically conplete and total exoneration, it is about as close as you can get. Based on what the letter said, that probably wasn't the best choice of words for the President, but it is effectively true. If after 2 years of investigating, they found no evidence to support obstruction of collusion, it LIKELY doesnt exist. The word likely is extremely important. To exonerate Trump, they would have to effectivley state that they had proven the negative, and had evidence to show that his campaign Did NOT collude or obstruct justice. As an example, if someone is accused of any given crime, and the jury rules not guilty, that doesn't neccesarily mean the jury has proven that the defendant is innocent, but it is a far cry from saying they are guilty. It is very difficult to prove a negative and that is why they used the inspecific language. Their job is not to find Trump guilty or innocent, but to see if there is any evidence. While he isn't technically exonerated, he is in essence.

  2. What he means by "illegal takedown" is not that the Mueller probe is illegal but the basis for the probe was illegal. This investigation started because the Clinton campaign obtained information that has been proven false (I am sure you have heard of the Steele dossier, if not, just look it up) and used it to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. This is what he means by looking at the other side, because. The Clinton people have likely committed a crime because they knowingly used false information to premise all of this

  3. It has all been a big joke Trump is invensible because he has mob protection . Once your dealing with mobsters the 2020 election will be another joke . We may have a permanent dictator and his cult will PRAISE JESUS for Trump

  4. Are you really suggesting that Democrats didn't over promise on the Mueller probe? I mean, I guess you at least tried to be objective.

  5. there's a whole year and 8 months before the election anything could happen between now and then and with the way the stock market is a constant roller coaster. and the way we are raking up debt and deficits each month. the Muller report might not even be what people are talking about later on.

  6. DNC leaks, there was no Russian hack of the DNC. Please don't make that mistake because you will misinform a lot of people if you repeat what is a thoroughly debunked lie. Or even if you want to say hacks, refer to them as alleged hacks and make it clear there is no evidence having proved the DNC was actually hacked by Russians. I believe you also don't want to misinform your audience.

  7. great vid, dissagree with you in some parts as usual but still incredible quality of information. most watchable lefty on YT ive seen by far

  8. Wait a minute. Although they didn't sit down for a face to face, didn't Trump have to answer Mueller's questions in writing? Anybody who doesn't see this for what it is, is brain dead. The real fun is over to your left.

  9. I love your personal position disclosure at the front 😀 mad respect my dude. We ALL have biases and opinions. It's important to communicate them because then it's easier to separate them from the facts. That's a big deal.
    You're like Philip DeFranco for politics XD

  10. Sources:


  11. It's hard not to call it exoneration. It's akin to having a trial end in a not-guilty verdict. Sure, that does not mean that they are innocent inherently, but the justice system is based on an assumption of innocence. If there's been an investigation with no proof, that means that he is innocent.

  12. Awesome video. So you identify as a social democrat, huh? Social democracy is a great ideology, I’m also assuming that you watch Secular Talk and or The Majority Report? The David Pakman Show? Or just other left-leaning commentators. Anyway, great channel, hope you post much more in the future.

  13. im not american and my opinion probally wont matter but i does raise alot of red flags with this investigation. i adgree that its hard to prove beyond a resonable doubt but what about balance of probabilities?? Trump has a bad history in the civil judical system…would his civil issues deem him "quote on quote" unfit for office?

  14. Your videos are absolutely amazing and a must watch for anyone who is interested in politics. Hope you grow even more in the 2020 election, you deserve it!
    Also, Claire de lune. Outstanding music choice 🙂

  15. don't compare Trump's attempts at the ending of the investigation to other officials ending investigations that don't directly focus upon them. There is a big difference between ending an investigation and ending an investigation that is focusing on your own potential illegal actions.

  16. Good job being neutral! I really enjoyed this. It's funny how both sides are changing their opinions of Mueller based on the investigation, and your coverage was exceptional.

  17. I agree that the Mueller report should be released in the most complete form that it can.

    But "released the complete report with absolute transparency" is a political manoeuvre, since they know that can't happen and are hoping some people don't notice. The report likely contains private information of numerous individuals that are not indicted for any. crimes

  18. Clair de Lune (the music playing at the beginning and end) really captures the mood of this whole thing coming to close for some weird reason. For those unfamiliar, Clair de Lune is the type of song you listen to when you’re in your bag and watch the stars and moon glow on another lonely night.

  19. No because very few police chiefs have ever stopped an investigation into themselves. That's the problem, it's weird that you didn't get that.

  20. The special council investigated but did not find evidence of Russian collusion sufficient for an indictment of trump or his campaign affiliates.

    By not 'sufficient' do you mean zero, half, or 90%?

    Napoleon said the best thing to do when an enemy is making a mistake is to not get in their way, so I guess I'm a fool to tell you how blinded you are by bias.

    5 years and 9 months of President Trump await you.

  21. Considering RM a republican and friends with Bill Barr and only took out a few staffers and indicted 13 Russians which is proof there WAS criminal activity going on, and our election WAS influenced by the Russians in favor of Trump, but he never interviewed a single person in the Trump family….my guess is…. little more than that is in the report. All just fodder for the MSM. Deflection from the MAGA Madame and Epstein's child sex trafficking ring and their GOP clients.

  22. I think you are misspeaking on Trump's claim that 'this was an illegal take down.' To my mind Trump is really referring to the illegal FISA warrant, info FBI used from Fusion GPS paid for by the HRC campaign, and the misdeeds of Stzrok, MacCabe, Ohr, Page at the FBI, all of which qualify as enabling an illegal take down. You make no mention of this distinction in your video.

  23. I think Trumps attempt at peace is not such, it's trump trying to use the presidency to self enrich. Any deal with North Korea is going to be something Trump benefits from but not the people of NK or US, if you call that "peace", it isn't worth it. Besides Trump only seems to want to cuddle up to evil dictators, and not our allies.

    Similarly Russian collusion was never a real issue with me, Trump has way more important issues with corruption even if Trump was found to be guilty, it's just that most of Trumps corruption probably isn't illegal or at least not actionable. So if tax returns is the only way to get a organized crime boss, fine. But I don't care about the taxes, I care about stopping them from preying on the people. Like I care about Trump shitting on the nation, not Russian influence. So you couldn't get him on this, whatever this was, oh well.

  24. "If we accept that using lawful powers of command to stop an investigation is necessarily obstruction of justice, then nearly every police chief and sheriff in the country is guilty."
    ….I mean, yeah, I'd say they are if and when they or their cohorts are the ones being investigated.

  25. Obviously, the Russia stuff isn't with a damn. If Trump goes down on anything, it will be for financial crimes like tax evasion.

  26. So are they finally gonna charge the DNC for rigging the primaries against Bernie now or am I getting a special prosecutor investigating me for "collusion" now for pointing that out? We've spent too much time as a nation focused on how the emails we're released instead of whats actually in them.

  27. 15 minutes of BS to reach the answer to the question posed in the video title. The answer is a simple, "Only a few people know." Why all of the beating around the bush. Oh, I get that you needed to take a shot or two at Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke who are possibly the biggest threats to your hero Sanders, but, in reality, this was a total waste of time.

  28. I think in 10:08 what Trump meant with "I had to go through this even before the election" was that he has to face accusations even before 2020, as if the Mueller report was some sort of Democrats campaign ad (or a WiTcH hUnT)

  29. I know your bias is pretty clear, but if you look at James Comey's testimony, he even said that there was no evidence of collusion then. So why do I feel like your trying to spin things more with this video? I just think you need to look at the bigger problem:

    I was told a year and a half ago there was no collusion by someone who hated Trump. So why did the Democrats run with it since?

  30. Trump said he was going to withdraw from Syria, and you think he did it don't you? Well he didn't and he's bombing 7 countries.

  31. Remember Barr's son in-law was added to Trump's legel team almost immediatley after being confirmed. Barr was knows as "The Cover-up General" during the Iran-Contra scandal, because when he instructed Bush on how to put the kibosh on that investigation. Trump chose him for a reason.

  32. I love how this channel provides such a healthy neutral angle. Your comment sections are always full of people from all sides of the political spectrum. Cheers for bringing people together, channels like this are a godsend.

  33. Please turn off the background music. I would rather focus all my effort in listening to your excellent analysis rather than wasting a lot of that effort in trying to ignore the annoying background music. I almost never comment on YouTube clips, but the background music was so annoying that I had to comment this time.

  34. Man, Question Time didn't mention Larry Hogan in the 5 Republicans video, how about I leave a comment on the Biden video asking him to talk about Hogan?
    Leaves Comment
    Question Time responds
    Yay he'll talk about Hogan!
    Next video is about Green New Deal
    Dang it! Maybe he was busy with this video, Maybe now he'll start talking about Hogan!
    4 non-Hogan videos later
    Ok how about I remind him or Hogan after leaving my opinion on Yang?
    Question Time says he'll make Hogan video
    2 non-Hogan videos later
    Leaves Comment on how his next video MIGHT be about Hogan
    He asks me if I want to hear about Hogan
    Replies Yup Yup Yup
    He's gonna do it-
    Mueller Report video
    Dang it!

  35. Mueller, the same dude that testified there were WMD's in Iraq. He must be part of that club, George Carlin, spoke of. A club that we the people are not in.

  36. Yo, Question Time dude what does Trumps di$k taste like? Trumps son Don Jr worked with Trump on air force one to build a BS back stop so they could lie to the American people, Republicans (do not say you are not a 100% Republican) am sick of the Republican's claiming that Democrats are full of it! he is being run by his KGB but buddy's! who needs a bank when you have an in with a man worth 200 billion US dollars! Just ask your self, why can he say China is rapping us but no matter what he NEVER stands up for America, I think if its jail time for Trump he will run to Russia! WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S TO LATE!

  37. I am simply amazed that the greatest people in alternate media have failed too realize that PRESIDENT TRUMP has allowed the MUELLER INVESTIGATION, because he is using the brilliant strategy of the book (the Art of War) His favorite book. In which the strategy being employed here is…. 'NEVER INTERFERE WITH YOUR ENEMY WHILE THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DESTROYING THEMSELVES" PRESIDENT TRUMP is brilliant. He is in the top 2% Of humanity of IQ. MAYBE even higher than this. When he has finished playing the 98% of humanity for the FOOLS they are; he will have all the evidence uncovered by the MUELLER investigation at his disposable to ARREST and try every TRAITOR in the DEEP STATE in a MILITARY TRIBUNAL and executed.

  38. You come across as totally normal. We need that, you don't hesitate to assume we can follow, keep up, and seeing comments on here, you have the best audience because they don't dish on the content or throw low blows. Be sure to watch the first episodes on Netflix The Seventies. Foreshadow of these times. DontheCon has been not concerned about wasting our tax dollar resources, on his own selfish crapjob ego show, and oh, Chinese patents anyone? Does every president give his dingbat daughter and slimey soninlaw a security clearance who heads to Saudi and tried to get billions while pretending to WORK at the nations highest office? Would trumpTweeter ding bat in chief, leave it alone if Obama did even one day's worth of the shit this bagof wind who needs to shut up has been doing, fleecing our budgets so he can whip up white supremists and that should be ILLEGAL. We have to pay for these little concerts trump puts on and its not NORMAL. we need to say all the things an American president does not behave like or do. He is a joke, with zero class. And he is a coward. A baby and has no charisma, or charm. He is a slow moving wreck.

  39. I'm not a fan of Shapiro, but he never sepcified Polosi. He specified leadership. And leadership has a PLETHORA of quotes citing their approval of impeachment of Trump. These quotes span across media appearances, twitter accounts, on the record conversations, interviews all spanning back to 2016. Impeachment of Trump has been a hot topic, and one explored in practical terms and hypothetical wishing, by Democrat and Republican leadership groups and by individuals, over the last 4 years. Polosi's current stance, is not reflective of the last 4 years aggregate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment