#RolandMartinUnfiltered - 7.24.19 #RMU: Deconstructing Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress

Episode Date: July 27, 2019

7.24.19 #RolandMartinUnfiltered: Robert Mueller testifies before Congress - #RolandMartinUnfiltered partner: 420 Real Estate, LLC To invest in 420 Real Estate’s legal Hemp-CBD Crowdfunding Campaign go to http://marijuanastock.org Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. to, yeah, banana pudding. If it's happening in business, our new podcast is on it. I'm Max Chastain. And I'm Stacey Vanek-Smith. So listen to Everybody's Business on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Sometimes as dads, I think we're too hard on ourselves. We get down on ourselves on not being able to, you know, we're the providers,

but we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you got to pray for the providers, but we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you got to pray for yourself as well as for everybody else, but never forget yourself. Self-love made me a better dad because I realized my worth. Never stop being a dad. That's dedication. Find out more at fatherhood.gov. Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes.

But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated on the get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English.

I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of starts that a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios.

Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Coming up on Roland Martin Unfiltered for Wednesday, July 24th, 2019. Roland is out today. I'm Monique Presley.

It's Mueller time. Robert Mueller's long-awaited testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and Intelligence Committees took place today. I'll break down some key moments with the panel, plus a look at what some of the 2020 presidential candidates had to say at the NAACP convention in Detroit. It's time to bring the funk on Roland Martin Unfiltered. Let's go. He's He's monkey's fresh, she's real the best, you know, he's fresh, he's real, the best, you know he's rolling, Martin. Martin. Former special counsel Robert Mueller began and ended his much-anticipated testimony today before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

In his opening statement, he reiterated what he has been saying all along. His report speaks for itself. Here's an excerpt from his opening statement. As you know, in May 2017, the Acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel. I undertook that role because I believed that it was of paramount interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the presidential election. As the acting attorney general said at the time, the appointment was necessary in order for the American people to have full confidence in the outcome. My staff and I carried out this assignment with that critical objective in mind – to

work quietly, thoroughly, and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome. The order appointing me as special counsel directed our office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. It also included investigating efforts to interfere with or obstruct our investigation. Throughout the investigation, I continually stressed two things to the team that we had

assembled. First, we needed to do our work as thoroughly as possible and as expeditiously as possible. It was in the public interest for our investigation to be complete and not to last a day longer than was necessary. Second, the investigation needed to be conducted fairly and with absolute integrity. Our team would not leak or take other actions that could compromise the integrity of our work. All decisions were made based on the facts and the law.

During the course of our investigation, we charged more than 30 defendants with committing federal crimes, including 12 officers of the Russian military. Seven defendants have been convicted or pled guilty. Certain of the charges we brought remain pending today, and for those matters, I stress that the indictments contain allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. But there are certain points that bear emphasis. First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired

with the Russian government in its election interference activities. We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and it was not. Third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable. Finally, as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the

President towards the investigation. Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then, and it remains our decision today. Over the course of my career, I have seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29th, this deserves the attention of every American. Joining me now with some analysis of today's events is my rock star panel. We have civil

rights attorney Robert Petillo, Dr. Neambi Carter, assistant professor of the political science department at the one and only Howard University H.U. You know, had to get that in. And Republican strategist Chris Pridome. Welcome to Roland Martin Unfiltered, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. What a day. I just want to say at the top, and I know all he's given is his preliminary remarks so far but I'd like to lay some ground rules I listened I watched I paid attention to the hearings today anybody else watching and paying attention I know you guys are paying attention right and then I listened and I paid attention to the so-called analysis and reporting afterward. So what I would prefer us

to do with this time that we have to give our people some information is stick to facts, sound analysis, reason-based arguments, right? I don't want to hear about who performed better, who's winning the war on the pissing contest between Mueller and the president, or any such shenanigans, because this time is precious. Can we agree to those ground rules? Agreed. All right. So, come on, Professor.

What he says is what he's been saying. But what was your main takeaway just from the opening when he had an opportunity to spend his three minutes any way that he wanted to, this is what he gave us? interfere, leaving aside whether the Donald Trump campaign participated in any of this or encouraged this behavior, but this idea that we should be concerned about the sanctity of our democracy and our elections as being an overarching concern. And I think that's not partisan. I think that's actually something that all people should care about. And I think that was the fact that he spent so much time talking about that rather than all of the other stuff and really hitting home that we have another election coming up.

This can happen again. And we haven't really done anything, I think, in intervening time to really shore up our democracy against these kinds of attacks. Right. OK. Now, and certainly he did that. And I think that that's where he ended when he gave his one statement about the hearing that came before today's testimony,

and that's where he started today. And every good lawyer at least knows that how you open and how you finish is what you want people to remember. But what did you think, Esquire, of his ground rules in terms of this is why I'm here and this is why I'm not here. Well, it's one of those interesting points. Listening to the media analysis and even some of the comments from our esteemed congresspeople, Seneca, the younger, said the disappointment is based on expectations.

And many people expected something different out of this hearing than what they got. Robert Mueller told us on the 29th when he did his press conference, I'm just going to read to you exactly what is in the report. He told us during his opening, I'm only going to talk about what is in the report. The letter from Attorney General Barr said we're only going to talk about what is in the report. He talked about exactly what was in the report. He did not answer questions outside the four corners of the report. He did not go into some of the wild goose chases that people wanted to take him on. He did not say what people wanted him to say on either

side of the aisle. He did exactly what he was supposed to do as a seasoned prosecutor. He stuck to the law, stuck to the facts, and people on both sides of the aisle seem upset about that. I think we live in such a partisan time that when somebody is just doing their job and being nonpartisan and not trying to pretend to be a cable news talking head that people are amazed like what do you mean like you're just talking about the facts why would you do that what's wrong with him and if you looked at social media people made it seem like he had dementia like he had alzheimer's or something i know he's just answering the question in a thoughtful and considerate matter he's determining

whether or not it's a privileged issue He's determining whether or not it's a privileged issue. He's determining whether or not it's confidential, whether or not it interferes with any other ongoing prosecutions or investigations. And he's saying, refer to the report. I'm not going to read to you from the 400-page report. You have the 400-page report. And other than that, leave me alone. I'm a 74-year-old man. I'm going home. And that's all he did. Well, no. And I have some issues about the ageism because I don't even know why the fact that he's 74 ever comes up with anybody because the job that he did and the way that he did it for somebody who's had to prep witnesses before

and somebody who's had to be in the lawyer chair as a witness in a case that I've supervised, that is the seat nobody, no I don't care top of your game not top of your game that seat is hotter than anybody can imagine just looking at it because your landmines are invisible when they're asking you the question you're like let me think you know you're tooling in your head how can I answer this and not say this, but still say that and be true to that all at the same time? But we're still on the opening, which means I get to come to my Republican friend for the day. God bless you. God bless you. And they put you so

close to me, which means I got to be extra nice. Um, here's the thing, Just from his opening remarks, to me, I couldn't understand why in a few minutes later, and we're going to see it right off of the gates, the good old GOP, the party of Reagan was like, it was like too much coffee. All he was saying is, here's what's in my report. Here's what's important. Here's what I plan to say. Here's what I don't plan to say. This is the job that I've been doing for the past quarter century of my life, period. What there could have gotten people so worked up? Well, again, back to Robert's point, look, we live in such a polarizing time. That's just really what it comes down to.

Look at Jim Jordan, when he was speaking, with such passion and enthusiasm. I was like, wait a minute. But going back to him and Comey's relationship, obviously it's common sense they work together. So Comey obviously is a friend. Again, a lot of this is just sensationalism, and I think it's really overproduced.

And unfortunately, I do think, obviously, it was a disaster. 2020 is going to be all about battleground states, and Pelosi seems to understand that. Many people on the left seem to not understand that. I think that's what they have to kind of get back and kind of center to. And this entire hearing was exactly what it was supposed to be, exactly what the report was. And I think people went into this hearing with expectations in the media on both sides. Horrible job at pumping it up as if, first of all, I don't think the majority of America really cares, but they almost in a way made you want to care and say this is

what is, pump it up as some big movie. And then when it happened, people's expectations were, well, wait a minute, you know, to Robert's point, Mueller, you know, spoke very methodically, which people interpreted that slowly, whatever the case may be, but he did the right thing. He wanted to be certain and sure because he knew every single word and every sentence he said would be ripped apart and ripped to pieces. He was an expert witness with which I would have had no problems. I would have been the lawyer in the back going, yes, you waited just like I told you to. But let's get to the rest of it in a minute. Let's kind of try to move on. Lawmakers on the House

Judiciary Committee spent hours grilling Mr. Mueller. I don't know if I would call it grilling, but OK, but didn't get much information beyond what was written in the bat between him and Judiciary Chair Representative Jerry Nadler. Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him. But that is not what your report said, is it? Correct, that is not what your report said, is it? Correct. That is not what the report said. And now reading from page two of volume two of your report that's on the screen, you wrote, quote, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts

and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment, close quote. Now, does that say there was no obstruction? No. In fact, you were actually unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice. Is that correct? Well, we, at the outset, determined that when it came to the president's culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a president, a sitting president, cannot be indicted. So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice. Is that correct?

That is correct. And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president? No. Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president. It does. So right off the bat, we have these months' worth of lies from an attorney general, a misleading written statement issued by that same attorney general,

GOP members who knew exactly what the report said and instead chose to follow that lying party line of no obstruction, no collusion, total exoneration, because we now live in that era, right, of those types of sound bites. I got to tell you, the thing that bothers me about it is I just don't believe that the American public is that stupid. I don't believe because I grew up in a family where people had varying levels of education and especially in communities of color where we had people who were first to go to this and first to go to that, but they still watched the news every single night. They still read the newspaper every single morning, and they did their best to find out the information for themselves.

So it really concerns me that even in somebody who's supposed to be trusted like an attorney general, he can come out and say, this is what it says, and it seems like millions of people just took it. I mean, let's go to Niamh before that. I was going to say, I think it can be overwhelming. I think the breadth and the depth of that report for the average person would just be a lot to take in. But I also think we're talking about finer points of language, right? Not because people don't understand what an exoneration is, but because he's saying, well,

conspiracy and collusion are roughly the same thing, but collusion is not legal and this is, and then there is no evidence to necessarily say he obstructed justice, but there's also nothing to say that he didn't, right? And I think that part is probably what leaves people with a bit of a murkiness about all of this, because then I think some people are often saying, too, well, what was this about anyway, exactly? And it's not because people are dumb, but I think because of the back and forth about it, there's not been a unanimous sort of voice speaking about what is this thing about, what is this process for, and what are we supposed to take away from that? And that should be, and I think we are all in agreement here, that should be nonpartisan because our job is to do the best for our citizens in bringing our citizens unbiased information.

To let people then make whatever decisions they want to make about who they favor or don't favor, what should happen next, is what we're supposed to be doing. But we see so much of this has been caught up with standing by your man, whoever that may be in this fight, and nobody is really helping people distill these finer points of what this actually means, because he did say there could still be charges pending at some point. That's right. But, Robert, here's the thing. In my opinion, the fatal flaw thus far of the ones who I believe are on the right side of justice on this, the Dems, is you can't leave that up to the chief investigator to make the case for you to the American people the chief investigator has given you everything you need in this document and

then it's your responsibility to convince your constituents that what's in here matters and translate it to plain language. So, for instance, it was huge for me today when I heard at the top where Mueller was acknowledging, no, there wasn't any complete exoneration. No, we didn't find that there was no obstruction of justice. But then what needs to be said to convert that to something that people can understand? One of my professors at Clark Atlanta, Professor Johnny Wilson, Political Science Department, said that the entire point of education is to learn how to translate, how to translate original language to ordinary language.

That's what Democrats fail at. That's what they fail at in every election cycle. They got outplayed, outflanked, and outmessaged the entire time of this Mueller investigation. Let's think about something. Michael Jordan is not the best basketball player to ever live. You know, Wilt Chamberlain has way more points. AND OUTMESSAGED THE ENTIRE TIME OF THIS MULLER INVESTIGATION. LET'S THINK ABOUT SOMETHING. MICHAEL JORDAN IS NOT THE BEST BASKETBALL PLAYER TO EVER LIVE. YOU KNOW, WILT CHAMBERLAND HAS WAY MORE POINTS. BILL RUSSELL HAS MORE CHAMPIONSHIPS. HE IS THE BEST MARKETED BASKETBALL PLAYER OF ALL TIME.

AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S AN ENTIRE GENERATION THAT THINKS HE'S THE BEST BASKETBALL PLAYER OF ALL TIME. WHAT REPUBLICANS REALIZED TWO YEARS AGO IS THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A PR BATTLE, NOT A LEGAL BATTLE. THAT'S WHY RUDY GIULIANI BECAME THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER, NOT FOR LEGAL STRATEGY, BUT FOR TELEVISION STRATEGY. is that this was going to be a PR battle, not a legal battle. That's why Rudy Giuliani became the president's lawyer, not for legal strategy, but for television strategy. And they realized if you message this as no obstruction, no collusion, people can understand that. I don't care what your level of education is. No corrupt, no collusion, no obstruction.

But then Democrats are coming with their messaging. Well, there's a meeting and a Steele dossier, and then there's Michael Flynn, then there's Gates. People can't digest that. So all that the president knew he had to do is prevent public opinion from turning against him to the point that the House would be able to start impeachment proceedings. The Mueller investigation said, I am not reaching any conclusion on this. It is in the House of Representatives to start impeachable proceedings to investigate this further so the president played this perfectly I know people try to pretend that he's an idiot but the Democrats keep getting outplayed by somebody that they say is

an idiot so at some point that reflects poorly upon you right but here's here's the thing and I'll switch idiot for fascist because isn't it true then that what a dictator does is say the same thing over and over again and shorter and shorter sound bites absent any explanation whatsoever and it doesn't matter that those things are not true it's just the cycle of repetition I mean that's what propaganda is based on that's what yellow journalism is about All of those things have at their core, say it over and over. Like I can meet you every day and tell you that you're wearing a red tie until you're probably at one point going to go in the mirror and be, this is still blue, isn't it? Because I'm the only voice that you're

hearing and the loudest one. Is that not what's been happening with this president? Because he hasn't been telling the truth. So look, I think there's both sides are doing exactly just that. Going back to what I was saying, when you look at the report, essentially what it is, is it's, yes, people have access to it. And you said they have the ability to look at the entire foreign affairs report. Yes, they do. However, it almost serves as kind of a cliff note, access to it. As you said, they have the ability to look at the entire Foreign Affairs report. Yes, they do. However, it almost serves as kind of a cliff note, so to speak. So when you speak about, Monique, about it's representatives,

it's their job to serve their constituents and let them understand it. But I don't think that's really feasible in the sense of because the media says, well, this is what it is, this is what you should care about, and that's a cliff note and that's that. And I think that is the deeper problem is that there is not opportunity to really look at the substance in the report itself, because we've already dictated and other media outlets have already dictated what this actually is and what you should be defining and looking at period. So when you're going into a hearing like this, you have two sides.

One side supports the president said, oh, he didn't do anything, and instructs, and the other side says, you certainly didn't do it, and we're going to prove it even more, and what you're saying is why. And so we really can't get to it. Back to your point, it's so all over the place that there really is no bottom line, okay, what exactly happened? What is the, what actually, what are we here for? And I think that is what the White House looked at today as a win, and what President Trump

talked about when he was on the way to West Virginia today is that he looks at it as when. There was no aspect of doing anything wrong and now look at culpability. What do you mean there was no aspect of doing anything wrong? Please, inform me. Sure. When you look at, for example, culpability, as Mueller talked about, it's kind of a fine line in the sense of President Trump, you have to be willing to you have to be knowledgeable and willing knowing in terms of cat in terms of a collusion whether I want to use

it's a for the campaign now were there other individuals who perhaps could have done things without his knowledge I mean that's not President Trump's fault so you're talking about the collusion and conspiracy part correct you're not saying that when he told his own White House counsel to lie about a directive that he gave him that he didn't know that was wrong. Like when he directed his own counsel to lie to the investigators at the FBI who are investigating him for obstruction and he sent a messenger to tell him and then after he sent a messenger to tell him, and then after he sent a messenger to tell him,

he called him and told him, and then he brought him into the Oval Office and told him, and wanted him to write something for the file saying, indeed, what I told you to do, get rid of Mueller, never happened. You're saying you don't understand. As opposed to getting rid of Mueller. I mean, you do have people around. No, but he don't understand. Resign as opposed to fighting, getting rid of me. I mean, you do have people around.

No, but he didn't resign. Right, right. He stayed for a year and a half after that happened. Correct, but we don't know all the dynamics of why and why not is what I'm saying. Yeah, I'm guessing on crazy man in the office, I better try to do what I can. He's right, though, right? Media is complicit in this. That's what we talked about at the top because we've had this messaging and for me I think

something that gets lost is, but guys, we're talking about a foreign power interfering in our election and the entire first volume of a report comes out listing in great detail how that happened and the reports that we're getting back are the whatabouts in the fine print of that, not the how do we keep this from happening again? This is what happened to you. Let us explain the news, which is what I tweeted today. I'm like, there's so much news in this hearing. Why isn't it being reported? Why are we talking about the way people appear and the optics and the look of it when there's a body of news that we know, as you said, is girthy for people to actually go through the report? What responsibility does media have? The media absolutely has a responsibility.

I'm telling you. Exactly. I mean, it really is the fourth branch. It's supposed to be, right? Their job is to inform the people regardless of the fallout. And I think what we've seen here is that Donald Trump, as you said, you know, I actually teach propaganda. One of the things that people do is repeat the same thing over and over. But it also requires the media to report that same thing over and over. And we saw it in 2016 and we see it now. He says anything he wants and people will report on it as if it's fact. I mean, sometimes you do have people coming around fact checking. But who is fact checking when they're listening to the person they like or they're listening to this person who looks like he's credible, right? He is in the office. He has the authority. He has all of the proper things that he's supposed to have as a president, which is this dedicated press corps that is content in a lot of cases to just say what he said and say it again and again and again, and then sort of in the fine print say, oh, but that wasn't really true, or that there's this sort of other context, right, to think about these comments.

And people aren't usually going to the fine print and to the footnotes. And I think what media has done is really become entertainment not all media i mean i think radio is a great place i call it entertainment but i mean definitely the media is about entertaining people it's about ratings it's about the juiciest bits which is why we're probably going to see the the screaming matches or i can't even call it a match the screaming at muller that occurred today rather than like you said some of the sort of more interesting nuanced comments that were made um because this is what the business of the news is now and it is a business in every sense of the word forget the interesting nuanced things let's go with the 126 separate contacts with russians by the campaign you know let's let's go with big

bright lines let's go with repeated lies let's go with where mull lines. Let's go with repeated lies. Let's go with where Mueller said in the written submission that the president sent, there were things on it that were false. Perjury, anybody? Perjury. Hello, Congress. As a kid of the 80s where the Soviet Union as a thing, right, and Russia as an entity was like our biggest fear. And there were movies about it. There's the Red Dawns and all this stuff. And to see this happening now, this looks like a movie script that was written in the 1980s about our biggest fear. And there were movies about it. There's the Red Dawns and all this stuff. And to see this happening now, this looks like a movie script that was written in the 1980s about

our worst fear. So the fact that it's here and people are sort of, it's sort of lost on people and we're kind of all loosey-goosey about this and not concerned that we have a foreign country circumventing our democracy and potentially a political figure as large as the president who may or may not have participated with these people or at least his operatives were participating. And nobody is alarmed and nobody seems to be. Right. And it's scary. Hold on, hold on, hold on, because we have plenty more for us to get to. I'm going to get right back to you. But the Dems had their plan and the Republicans certainly had theirs. And it was completely untethered from facts.

On the Republican side, the strategy seemed to be talk fast, scream a lot and protect the president. Isn't it true the evidence did not establish that the president or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer hacking or active measure conspiracies or that the president otherwise had unlawful relationships with any Russian official, Volume 2, page 76, correct? SECRETARY TILLERSON III I leave the answer to the report. SECRETARY TILLERSON III So it was a yes. You stated that you would stay within the report. I just stated your report back to you. And you said that collusion and conspiracy were not synonymous terms. That was your answer was no. SECRETARY TILLERSON III That's correct. SECRETARY TILLERSON's correct 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. I'm reading your report, sir. It's a yes or no answer. Page 180.

Page 180, volume one. This was from your report. Correct. And I 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. Did you ever look into other countries investigated in the Russians interference into our election? Were other countries investigated or found knowledge that they had interference in our election?

I'm not going to discuss other matters. Nipsey told Papadopoulos, Papadopoulos tells the diplomat, the diplomat tells the FBI, the FBI opens the investigation July 31st, 2016, and here we are three years later, July of 2019, the country's been put through this, and the central figure who launches it all lies to us, and you guys don't hunt him down and interview him again, and you don't charge him with a crime. The president was falsely accused of conspiracy. The FBI does a 10-month investigation. James Comey, when we deposed him a year ago,

told us at that point they had nothing. You do a 22-month investigation. At the end of that 22 months, you find no conspiracy. And what's the Democrats want to do? They want to keep investigating. They want to keep going. Maybe a better course of action, maybe a better course of action is to figure out how the false accusation started. Maybe it's to go back and actually figure out why Joseph Nipson was lying to the FBI.

And here's the good news. Here's the good news. That's exactly what Bill Barr is doing. And thank goodness for that. That's exactly what the Attorney General and John Durham are doing. And thank goodness for that. That's exactly what the attorney general and John Durham are doing. They're going to find out why we went through this three year saga and get to the bottom of it. Now, regarding collusion or conspiracy, you didn't find evidence of any agreement, I'm quoting you, among the Trump campaign officials and any Russia linked individuals to interfere with our US election, correct? Correct. So you also note in the report that an element of any of those obstructions you referenced

requires a corrupt state of mind, correct? Corrupt intent, correct. Right. And if somebody knows they did not conspire with anybody from Russia to affect the election and they see the big Justice Department with people that hate that person coming after them and then a special counsel appointed who hires a dozen or more people that hate that person and he knows he's innocent he's not corruptly acting in order to see that justice is done what he's doing is not obstructing justice he is pursuing

justice and the fact that you ran it out two years means you perpetuated injustice. I take your question. On the week of June 9, who did Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya 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 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 the Department of Justice and FBI should be responsive to questions on this particular issue.

It is absurd to suggest that a operative for the Democrats was meeting with this Russian lawyer the day before the day after the Trump Tower meeting. And yet that's not something you referenced. Now, Glenn Simpson testified under oath he had dinner with Veselnitskaya the day before and the day after this meeting with the Trump team. Do you have any basis as you sit here today to believe that Steele was lying? As I said before, I'll say again, it's not my purview. Others are investigating what you So it's not your purview to look into whether or not Steele's lying. It's not your purview to look into whether or not anti-Trump Russians are lying to Steele. And it's not your purview to look at whether or not Glenn

Simpson was meeting with the Russians the day before and the day after you write 3,500 words about the Trump campaign meeting. The guy who said viva la resistance. Peter struck work for me for a period of time. Yes. Yeah, but so did the other guy that said viva la resistance. And here's what I'm kind of noticing, Director Mueller. When people associated with Trump lied, you threw the book at them. When Christopher Steele lied, nothing. And so it seems to be that when Glenn Simpson met with Russians, nothing. When the Trump campaign met with Russians, 3,500 words. And maybe the reason why there are these discrepancies and what you focused on

So we were someplace between as Robert said auctioneering And just screaming like banshees and it left me knowing one There was no real concern about the American public understanding anything they were saying because it was Russian name here, Russian name there, FISA, when basically saying, why weren't these things in the report as opposed to asking about things that were actually in the report? And then unless they were performing for an audience of one, which I suspect they were, because the president in his sound bite on his way to West Virginia said, the way that they stuck up for me, you know, like that was their job as opposed to working for the American people. But here's my point.

And uncoached, right, because if you actually want people to hear you, you don't yell. If you're trying to get a point across, I mean, if you're trying to be effective at getting a point across, and I know they know how because when it's their witnesses, they don't do that but what's the net gain basically from all of those questions that nobody understood anything about well first off I think you kind of have to in a sense I think what Jim Jordan those guys were doing was kind of building a case outside so they can say look it's bigger than just let's talk about why this is even here and that's where they were giving names we were talking about during the break

of people haven't heard about names I was even here. And that's where they were giving names. We were talking about during the break of people having heard about names. I was like, wait, who's that again? But that's my point. We should focus on the facts of who are these individuals, why, and get to the root of what the actual issue is. And I think that- And why is it important for us to get to the root of the person who was at the meeting when he found out that the Russians were peddling information?

Why is it important whether that person got a deal, which of course we know he did but Mueller wouldn't say, and why that person ended up not charged, as opposed to the real root of, oh, what happened is Russia was peddling information. Isn't Russia the root, as opposed to the one person who actually brought the information to the FBI?

No, again, perhaps it's other individuals and things wrong that the public should know about, and maybe we don't know that they have access to information, too, perhaps. But I think the bigger thing is I don't think they were, so to speak, cheering for the president so he can watch them. I think that they were passionate and frustrated the past couple of years that this has been going on. I think they essentially were supporting the party, so to speak, and supporting what they actually believe in. I think the Democrats do the same thing.

I saw a hearing a few days ago, and they were just at a different ballgame, yelling and stuff. I mean, everybody does that. I think at the end of the day, there's passion, there's frustration, and that is why we got what we got in their speeches. And that's actually one of the things that they used in one of their little semi-closings today to justify why the president was running around lying and trying to get people to obstruct justice, that he was so innocent that he was frustrated.

I get so emotional type frustrated about it that his frustration led him to do things that maybe he shouldn't have and say things that he shouldn't have. I'm interested, I'm moving on, but I'm interested, Professor, in all these emotional men when I thought we were supposed to be the emotional creatures who were unfit to lead and serve because we would be like caught in our feelings and the men would be able to be so much more objective. What has done happened? Well, I mean, I think this is, I mean, I don't disagree with Chris in that this is the moment we're in. This is what passes for reasoned deliberation now, screaming at people. And I'm sorry, I think it's rich that this man who ran full-page ads calling for the death of innocent children in newspapers

is talking about how persecuted he is. He is the last person that I'm going to cry a tear over, in part because you have all these other men who are covering for him, and I think you're exactly right here. They are creating the defense for Donald Trump. They are raising these names and just effectively passing the ball. Who is Kislyak? Who is this person? Who is this person?

Lisa Page and Strzok had an affair? Like, what's that about? And creating all of of this reasonable doubt i think that's what it's called i'm not an attorney but essentially creating the terms that says well there were so many hands in the pot of course donald trump couldn't be guilty because all these other people were doing stuff and if your defense is but but but so and so got a deal and my god deal and my guy didn't get a deal, it's not fair. That's not much of a defense at all. And that's exactly what I heard all of these men and very few doing is trying to pass around enough guilt, right, because there are people on all sides who are doing bad things.

And I'm like, come on, people. If we can't actually have a conversation about a duly sworn legal document from a person that was brought in as a Republican by a Republican into the FBI talking about Robert Mueller and under the leadership of a James Comey and all these guys who were also Republicans and say that, hey, there might be something in this document worth excavating. Then what are we doing here other than political theater well but hold on hold on because i i agree with you and i agree with you that they were intentionally doing the outside thing but here's the thing this is one of the areas where i'm critical um of the democrats even though i must say and i'm looking at my notes right now last night i sat down and did some notes like okay okay, if they had had, like, any good sense and hired a strategist for what the game plan was going to be for today, here's what I think from a trial lawyer, crisis management perspective, the game plan should be. But I was pleasantly surprised because I was writing down, you should have your clear categories. You should have your assigned examiners.

You should share your time. You should do all. And they did all those things. But what I also wrote and I giggled about was if you don't have anybody who has like sensei level, Kamala Harris level examination skills, then you've got to stick to the script. And you've got to be talking to each other when there comes a time where you have to do something that's off the script. Here's where they failed that because Robert Mueller, one of the only times he was actually going to offer more.

He wanted to explain the fact that there were other investigations by other branches that address these things but whoever the dim was on the other side was like I'm short on time and I'm like when you have a witness who is as cagey and guarded and deliberate and disciplined as this man and he for one time says and another thing I'd be like AND I'M LIKE, WHAT'S HE GOING TO SAY? THE ISSUE WAS, AND THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRATS DO OFTEN, THE REPUBLICANS FOUND OUT THERE'S A BASEBALL GAME, SO THEY SHOWED UP WITH A BASEBALL GLOVE, SOME CLEATS AND A BASEBALL BAT.

THE DEMOCRATS FOUND OUT THERE'S A BASEBALL GAME, THEY CAME WITH SOME SOCCER SHORTS ON, THEY CAME WITH BASKETBALL AND A BAD MIDDLE RACKET. THE DEMOCRATS WERE NOT PLAYING THE GAME THAT REPUBLICANS WERE PLAYING. REPUBLICANS WERE PLAYING A GAME WHERE THEY REALIZED WE ARE ON DEATH, WE ARE ON THE GAME, WE shorts on, they came up with basketball, and a bad midden racket. The Democrats were not playing

the game that Republicans were playing. Republicans were playing a game where they realized we are on defense. We just need to run the clock out and muddy the water. So what they did was run the clock out and muddy the waters. Democrats had the affirmative burden to bear. They had to get Robert Mueller to show the American people that obstruction did indeed happen. And the only reason he did not charge President Trump was because of the DOJ memo. That was the only thing that they needed to get out of the hearing, and they failed to get that. Oh, did you think so? Because I thought that came in the first two minutes of the hearing. Oh, no, because what they kept trying to do, Democrat after Democrat kept trying to get Robert Mueller to affirmatively say that he would have

charged President Trump if he wasn't president. And they did not have a Kamala Harris there. They did not have somebody with a cross-examination skill. They needed Joe Biden on that moment. Except for he did affirmatively say it. He had to come back and walk back a little bit of it. But he did affirmatively say that it is because of the memorandum that they didn't even get to the estimation, but they continued the investigation because they wanted to preserve the record while it was fresh. It's

only really a low moron who can't understand. You don't go forward where there is no evidence. You investigate where there is. And then he laid out 10 areas of potential obstruction, and then they arrested people who lied about it. So to me, to say that the Dems went in there and didn't extract from this report, and I also take exception with it being a game. This isn't a game. This is people's lives. This is the United States of America. The Republicans definitely did their circus show job, but I believe the Dems should not have run offense in that manner because it was actually supposed to be a serious committee hearing. They were going back to the times where we actually tried to do business

and get information from the witnesses, but I got to go to break. We're going to talk about all these things and more when we come back on Roland Martin Unfiltered. Stay tuned. You want to check out Roland Martin Unfiltered? YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. There's only one daily digital show out here that keeps it black and keep it real.

It's Roland Martin Unfiltered. See that name right there? Roland Martin Unfiltered. Like, share, subscribe to our YouTube channel. That's YouTube.com forward slash Roland S. Martin. And don't forget to turn on your notifications so when we go live, you'll know it. All right, folks, you heard me talk a lot about

marijuana stock.org. Why? Because I want to keep you informed of investment opportunities that make sense. We have all watched the growth of the cannabis industry. A recent report by New Frontier Data estimates the global cannabis market at over $340 billion. We know that marijuana legalization is sweeping the country state by state. We also know that marijuana has a good cousin, the hemp plant, with a much higher concentration of CBD. That means hemp gives you all of the medical benefits

of marijuana without getting you high. Until recently, hemp farming was practically illegal in the U.S. and heavily regulated by the DEA. However, the 2018 Farm Bill changed all of that, making it legal to grow hemp CBD in the U.S. and creating one of the largest commodities worldwide. And they need land to grow all of the plants. Folks, this is not rocket science. It's just an investment, an incredible investment opportunity.

And that's where our good friends at 420 Real Estate come in. In their business model, it is not rocket science. It's just an investment, an incredible investment opportunity, and that's where our good friends at 420 Real Estate come in. In their business model, it is simple. They buy land that supports hemp CBD grow operations and lease it to licensed, high-paying tenants. That's right. They are hemp CBD landlords, and you can get in on the action. Our friends at 420 Real Estate decided to do something special for the Roland Martin unfiltered family.

Originally, the minimum investment level was $500. Right now, though, you can invest in the crowdfunding campaign for as little as $200. The range is from $200 to $10,000. Again, this is a $340 billion industry that is still growing, and you can get in with as little as $200. To invest, go to marijuana stock.org. That's marijuana stock.org. Get in the game and you can do it now. House intelligence, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff used his opening statement to attack President Trump. He said that it doesn't matter if his attempts to obstruct special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation amount to a crime.

They amounted to something worse, disloyalty to country. This is also a story about money, about greed and corruption, about the leadership of a campaign willing to compromise the nation's interest not only to win, but to make money at the same time. About a campaign chairman indebted to pro-Russian interests who tried to use his position to clear his debts and make millions. About a national security advisor using his position to make money from still other foreign interests.

And about a candidate trying to make more money than all of them put together through a real estate project that to him was worth a fortune, hundreds of millions of dollars, and the realization of a lifelong ambition, a Trump Tower in the heart of Moscow. A candidate who, in fact, viewed his whole campaign as the greatest infomercial in history. Donald Trump and his senior staff were not alone in their

desire to use the election to make money. For Russia, too, there was a powerful financial motive. Putin wanted relief from U.S. economic sanctions imposed in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and over human rights violations. The secret Trump Tower meeting between the Russians and senior campaign officials was about sanctions. The secret conversations between Flynn and the Russian ambassador were about sanctions. Trump and his team wanted more money for themselves, and the Russians wanted more money for themselves and for their oligarchs. But the story doesn't end here either. For your report also tells a story about lies. Lots of lies. Lies about a gleaming tower in Moscow and lies about talks with the Kremlin.

Lies about the firing of FBI Director James Comey and lies about efforts to fire you, Director Mueller, and lies to cover it up. Lies about secret negotiations with the Russians over sanctions and lies about WikiLeaks. Lies about secret negotiations with the Russians over sanctions and lies about WikiLeaks. Lies about polling data and lies about hush money payments. Lies about meetings in the Seychelles to set up secret back channels and lies about a secret meeting in New York Trump Tower. Lies to the FBI, lies to your staff, and lies to this committee. Lies to obstruct an investigation into the most serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history. Even now, after 448 pages and two volumes, the deception continues.

The president and his acolytes say your report found no collusion, though your report explicitly declined to address that question, since collusion can involve both criminal and non-criminal conduct. Your report laid out multiple offers of Russian help to the Trump campaign, the campaign's acceptance of that help, and overt acts in furtherance of Russian help. To most Americans, that is the very definition of collusion, whether it is a crime or not. They say your report found no evidence of obstruction, though you outline numerous actions by the president intended to obstruct the investigation. They say the president has been fully exonerated, though you specifically declare you could not exonerate him.

In fact, they say your whole investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt, that the Russians didn't interfere in our election, that it's all a terrible hoax. The real crime, they say, is not that the Russians intervened to help Donald Trump, but that the FBI had the temerity to investigate it when they did. But worst of all, worse than all the lies and the greed, is the disloyalty to country. For that, too, continues. When asked if the Russians intervene again, will you take their help, Mr. President? Why not, Was the essence of his answer. Everyone does it. No, Mr. President, they don't. Not in the America envisioned

by Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton. Not for those who believe in the idea that Lincoln labored until his dying day to preserve, the idea animating our great national experiment so unique then, so precious still, that our government is chosen by our people, through our franchise, and not by some hostile foreign power. This is what is at stake. Our next election and the one after that for generations to come. Our democracy. This is why your work matters, Director Mueller. This is why our investigation matters. To bring these dangers to light? What struck me through all of the morning session and then hit home for me with membership was this. And Roland teases me about my career motto because I told him

a few years ago it's saving America one black man at a time and what every member said at the end of their questioning in the morning was that they were certain but for it being the President of the United States, any other American who engaged in such conduct would have been charged with a crime. And when I listened to that list from Member Schiff and looked at the things people had been saying to me on Twitter, why does this matter to us? Why do we care? How does this relate to the black community? And we're on this show, so it's an appropriate conversation. What I kept trying to say back is, if we're going to fight for civil rights, Petillo. It has to matter that the President of the United States can

commit conduct that was it you or you or you or me we would have already seen the underbelly of a jail. How do we talk to our people and let them know this is why this matters enough even though I know you still don't have your health insurance right and I know you're still not making a minimum wage and I know you're still not getting treated fairly here and I know you still and yes I know so when you get pulled over by the cops but this right here should matter well you know one of my favorite closings I ever did at a trial was issue is or is you ain't and by that I mean that there's an affirmative duty to prove things. There's an affirmative duty to make sure people understand is you is.

And Democrats did a very poor job today of proving that and making that case. Chairman Schiff, Congressman Ted Lieu, and Lucy McBeth from Georgia did the best job all day of making it plain exactly what we're here for, exactly what we're talking about, and exactly what is at stake. Because if we do not have integrity in our elections, then nothing else matters. This is all just shell games. This is all just funny games because your tax dollars ultimately are not being decided by your congresspeople or by your duly elected representatives. It's being decided by corporate interests, it's being decided by foreign governments, it's being decided by an oligarchy which is not responsible to

the American people. And that's how you help people understand that this actually does affect you. On my social media, I saw more people in our community talking about Nicole Murphy than talking about the hearing today. And I think that the problem for Democrats has been converting these important issues, distilling it down the way that Brock could, where he would just say hope and change, the fierce urgency of now, things that people could hold on to. And even if you don't completely understand the full issue, you understand that it's something you need to be concerned about. Instead, they went on these deep sea fishing trips, which just muddied the waters.

Republicans were allowed to run the clock out to basically filibuster. Right, but it's not—I get your point, but it's not a Democratic failing. It's not a Democratic problem because, actually, every member of that committee was supposed to care about this. It's not the Democrats who are supposed to care about the judicial system or care about whether the president is able to commit a crime and get away with it or whether the American people have people who, you know, do their jobs as public servants. That's what the good grand old party is supposed to care about, too. Right. I mean, we're not supposed to be okay, are we, with that laundry list of things that were done factually? Those are findings of things that happened, or the lies that were told to cover it

up. Shouldn't everybody care about that? Well, I think more importantly, it's time for our nation to come together. It's time for everyone to look at a more unified approach. And it's challenging to do that when you have different media outlets saying different things and you have members of Congress. I don't know, not to be funny, I don't know what the formal word they call them, I don't know what their name is, but when you have members of Congress who call it an ox. Right, and they don't even have anything to do with this today. And they don't have anything to do with this hearing.

And I'm not even going to let you try it. What I'm asking you is, shouldn't the GOP care about whether a presidential campaign is cozying up to and receiving information from a foreign enemy? And shouldn't the GOP care about the lies that were told and the people who were arrested for that happening? Isn't that an obligation of your party? Well, I think it's an obligation of all parties. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So that's Democrats and Republicans, right? I don't think that they do not not care. I mean, I mean, they...

I couldn't follow all those negatives. Namby, we're running out of time. Closing thoughts. Well, my closing thought, I mean, I think to all of this is that it's not a political theater. It shouldn't be. But I do think Representative Schiff had the message of the day, and I think they have to repeat this over and over and over again. Unfortunately, Democrats are going to be the only ones repeating this

because Republicans see an allegation of a potential crime and Democrats see a crime. And I think what he talked about is this man violated his oath of office, right? He is actually derelict in his duty as president to lead this nation and to protect us from all enemies, foreign or domestic. And that, to me, is the bigger smoking gun than anything we got out of this day. So all people have to be mindful that our democracy is a very fragile thing. And if we don't protect it, then no one else will. And certainly for our communities, for black communities that are the most vulnerable, we must be at the front line of this fight in in the house in the senate and everywhere else yep all right well that's it for this edition of roland martin unfiltered i

certainly hope that you have enjoyed the show but more importantly than that i hope we've provoked something in you that causes you to want to know more, do more, hear more. The entire report is available online. Go read it. The entire hearing is available right now on C-SPAN and a whole bunch of other networks and channels. Go and look at it for yourself. Brumman, who's looking at me right now, you know what obstruction is more than anybody else because you're dealing with a trumped-ed up charge right now do you really want to know that your president and all of his cronies can get away with it when you can't do you want the fact that he is in the White House on the government dime to be the only reason that he's not under a jail is

that what you really want if you don't come on y'all dig in tune in check in lean in stand up do something to get in this fight. Because as the professor said, we're in the fight of our lives. Be sure to tune in again tomorrow when Roland will be back and I'll be off my soapbox with a deeper look at what the 2020 presidential candidates had to say at the NAACP convention in Detroit this week. Don't forget, if you want to continue to see this kind of quality program designed just for us, by us, support Roland Martin Unfiltered

by going to RolandSMartin.com and joining the Bring the Funk fan club. Until next time, which will be tomorrow, but I won't be hosting, I'm Monique Presley. Enjoy your evening. As Roland would say. Holla! A lot of times big economic forces show up in our lives in small ways. Four days a week I would buy two cups of banana pudding, but the price has gone up. So now I only buy one.

Small but important ways. From tech billionaires to the bond market to, yeah, banana pudding. If it's happening in business, our new podcast is on it. I'm Max Chastin. And I'm Stacey Vanek-Smith. So listen to Everybody's Business on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Sometimes as dads, I think we're too hard on ourselves. We get down on ourselves on not being able to, you know, we're the providers,

but we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you got to pray for yourself as well as for everybody else, but never forget yourself. Self-love made me a better dad because I realized my worth. Never stop being a dad. That's dedication. Find out more at fatherhood.gov. Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council.

I know a lot of cops. They get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. or wherever you get your podcasts. recording studios. Stories matter and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does.

It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.