The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 387 - Mueller Collapses On Capitol Hill

Episode Date: July 24, 2019

Democrats’ hopes were dashed as Mueller disintegrated during congressional testimony. We examine what he did and didn't say. Then, a new poll shows Americans are concerned about one issue above all others. Finally, Colorado State publishes an Orwellian campus language guide. Date: 07-24-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Democrats' hopes were dashed as former counsel Robert Mueller disintegrated in real time on Capitol Hill today. We will examine what he said and more importantly what he didn't say. Then Gallup finds that Americans care about one issue above all the others as we head into 2020. We'll analyze what it means for President Trump and for the Democrats running against him. Finally, Colorado State University publishes an Orwellian inclusive language guide that reveals the truth about why the left loves political. correctness. All that and more. I'm Michael Knowles, and this is the Michael Knowles show. First of all, let's get one thing absolutely clear. Nobody cares about Robert Mueller. Nobody cares about the Mueller investigation. Nobody cares about the Russian collusion conspiracy. Nobody cares about

any of that. Okay, everyone has moved on other than people on Twitter and partisan Democrats who were upset that they weren't able to impeach the president, who were upset that the president wasn't a traitor who was working on behalf of Russia. That doesn't matter. What does matter, however, is what Robert Mueller's testimony today means for 2020. The investigation itself is old news. We've done it. It was old news before it even began. But the testimony today actually does matter.

And the main takeaway is this was an absolutely devastating day for Democrats. Now, I couldn't have predicted that. I figured what was going to happen is Mueller releases his report. It exonerates Trump on colluding with Russia. It refuses to exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice. So the DOJ finally had to come to that conclusion and say Trump didn't obstruct justice. They weren't going to go after him. Then Mueller has his press conference.

He writes his angry letter. So the Democrats at this point think, ah, Mueller's got some more fire left in him. Maybe we can bring him out and fill in all the gaps that we weren't able to get out of the Mueller report. So I would have expected there would be something, anything, for the Democrats to grab here. What happens surprised a lot of people today. which was that the guy just completely collapsed. He just fell apart, okay? There were two moments that the Democrats got today

that they're going to be playing over and over again on the left-wing cable news channels. They were excited for exactly two moments. The first one is when Bob Mueller says that you can indict a former president. The report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice. Is that correct? That is correct.

And what about total exact? Did you actually totally exonerate the president? No. Now, in fact, your reports expressly states that it does not exonerate the president. It does. Okay. That was actually the second moment. But the first moment is they say that you can indict a former president.

That's what Bob Mueller admits. Can you, you can't go after the president while he's in office, but you can't go, but you can go after the president after he's out of office. This is not a comment on Trump. this is a comment on the office of the president period. This is simply a procedural answer, a legal reality. Now, okay, that's fine. If Democrats wanted to hear that, I guess it sort of sounds like Mueller can go after Trump or they're going to go after Trump once he leaves office.

The only other thing that Democrats got was when Mueller said he didn't exonerate President Trump on obstruction, which we already knew. So this was the highlight for Democrats' testimony today. President Trump walks away from this episode, the victor. And here's why. Not even because certainly nothing that President Trump did, but because Bob Mueller looked weak and confused. The high point is Mueller says,

I didn't exonerate him entirely. Okay, you got that. We already knew that from the report. But already from the Mueller report, President Trump comes out looking pretty good. Mueller didn't totally exonerate him on obstruction, which was bad for Trump, but it did exonerate him on collusion,

which is the actual crime in question. So pretty good. Today made President Trump's victory cleaner because what it did, far from giving more fodder for partisan Democrats, it actually cast doubt on the Russia investigation itself on the whole thing. And frankly, on Mueller's role in the whole thing.

The biggest loser today, probably, was Bob Mueller, because the Democrats had pinned all of their hopes on Mueller and therefore, when he fell, the Democrats got hurt. To a lesser degree, Democrats were the big losers from today. Mueller wouldn't even grant Democrats, their main talking point from their own report. So Democrat Representative Hakeem Jeffries leapt in there to say that there is clear evidence that Donald Trump obstructed justice. After Mueller said, I didn't totally exonerate him, he comes in, he says, that's right,

he obstructed justice. Mueller actually shut him down. The investigation found substantial evidence that we were, When the president ordered Don McGahn to fire the special counsel and then lie about it, Donald Trump, one, committed an obstructive act. Two, connected to an official proceeding. Three, did so with corrupt intent. Those are the elements of obstruction of justice.

This is the United States of America. No one is above the law. No one. The president must be held accountable one way or the other. Let me just say if I might. I don't subscribe necessarily to the way you analyze that. I'm not saying it's out of the ballpark, but I'm not supportive of that analytical charge. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for saying that what I said is complete BS.

So it all went downhill from there for the Russia conspiracy theorists. The Republicans jump in. Republican Representative John Ratcliffe asked Bob Mueller about this issue of exonerating or not exonerated. And he pointed out that Mueller's language in this report is bizarre. It's bizarre to say, I couldn't totally perfectly conclude that he didn't commit a crime, so I don't exonerate him. And what Representative Ratcliffe asked is, is there any other case that he can recall of the DOJ choosing not to exonerate because innocence was not conclusively determined? example other than Donald Trump or the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined? I cannot, but this is a unique situation. You can't, time is short, I've got five minutes, let's just leave it at you.

You can't find it because I'll tell you why. It doesn't exist. Of course not. Of course it doesn't exist. Now, this is all just the setup because only now do things start to get really weird. and it raises big questions about Bob Mueller himself. We'll get to that in a second. But first, if you are not paying off your credit card bills every month, you are almost certainly paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars in interest every year. Let Lending Club help you out.

With Lending Club, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment. Since 2007, Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed-rate personal loans. I can speak a little bit from experience. It's not even that I'm so terrible with money. You know, I'm running up crazy debt. It's just that I, like most dudes that I know, are lazy when it comes to my finances. And I put it on the credit card and I forget about it and I don't think about how much money I am wasting when you just use those high interest credit cards.

Don't do it, guys. Take control of your finances. Make it really easy. There's no trips to the bank. There's no high interest credit cards. You just have to go to LendingClub.com and you will save a ton of money. Tell them about yourself. Tell them how much you want to borrow. Pick the terms that are right for you. And if you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days. This is my kind of service. I don't even want to walk out my door. Right into your bank account. That's why Lending Club is the number one peer-to-peer platform with over $35 billion in loans issued. Stop wasting money. It takes two seconds to get control of your finances and start making financial sense. Go to Lendingclub.com slash Noles, K-O-W-L-E-E-E-E-E. Check your rate in minutes, borrow up to $40,000.

That's Lendingclub.com slash Knowles. Lending club.com slash Knowles, KNAW-L-E-S, all loans made by Wembank member FDIC, equal housing lender. So you've got Mueller saying, I didn't totally exonerate Trump, but I'm not saying that he's guilty of committing obstruction and he's guilty of this crime. Then things start to get weird.

So Mueller just starts stonewalling. And this is particularly with regard to the infamous Steele dossier. That Steele dossier, you'll remember, was the report that was uncorroborated, never proven, totally bogus in many cases, report that this ex-intelligence guy, Christopher Steele made almost certainly with Russian intelligence services, and he made it for Fusion GPS, which is an opposition research firm that did work for Clinton and the Democrats. This is central to the whole Russia conspiracy hoax. And Mueller Stonewalls on it. Here is Representative Steve Shabbitt asking Mueller about fusion and about Christopher Steele. When discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, you reference, quote, the firm that produced Steele reporting, unquote. The name of that firm was Fusion GPS.

Is that correct? And you're on page 103? 103, that's correct, volume two. When you talk about the firm that produced the steel reporting, the name of the firm that produced that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct? I'm not familiar with that. Well, let me just help you. It was.

It's not a trick question. It was Fusion GPS. Now, Fusion GPS produced the opposition research document. widely known as the steel dossier, and the owner of fusion GPA was someone named Glenn Simpson. Are you familiar with? This is outside my purview. Okay. Outside of your purview, that's the whole investigation.

The steel dossier on which the entire thing is predicated is outside of your purview? The steel dossier is the beginning of the Russia conspiracy. The steel dossier was the predicated. for the spying that took place, the spying on members of the Trump campaign that started this whole three-year ordeal. And Mueller seems like he doesn't know. He seems like he's ignorant of it.

I mean, you have that line from the congressman. He says, okay, and this is all part of a few, this was put together by Fusion GPS. Is that right? And Mueller looks bewildered, dazed and confused. He says, well, I don't, I'm not totally. And the congressman has to lean in and say, it's not a trick question.

It is Fusion GPS. it's in your own report. Mueller seems totally ignorant of it. So then they go further. They start asking Mueller, not just about Fusion GPS, which is the firm that put it together, but Christopher Steele himself,

the ex-British intelligence analyst who put together the entire report. Mueller doesn't seem to know very much about Christopher Steele either. Can you state with confidence that the Steele dossier was not part of Russia's disinformation campaign? No, as I said in my opening statement,

That part of the building of the case predated me by at least 10 months. Yeah, I mean, Paul Manafort's alleged crimes regarding tax evasion predated you. You had no problem charging them. And matter of fact, this steel dossier predated the Attorney General, and he didn't have any problem answering the question. When Senator Cornyn asked the Attorney General the exact question I asked you, Director, the Attorney General said, and I'm quoting, no, I can't state that with confidence.

And that's one of the areas I'm reviewing. I'm concerned about it, and I don't think it's entirely speculative. Steele? Who? Christopher, I don't know. That name doesn't ring any bell, does it? This was a great question from Republican Congress from Matt Gates. Unfortunately, Gates went on a little bit too long in his question.

He should have just gone in there and gotten the clean hit. Because here's what he said. He said, let's talk about Christopher Steele. Mueller says, well, that predates my experience in the investigation. I can't talk about it. And Gates has that great follow-up. He says, well, Manafort's tax problems predate your entrance into the investigation. You're willing to talk about that. Why is it you're willing to talk about things that make Trump look bad, but you're not willing to talk about things that make Democrats look bad and maybe make Trump look pretty good? Why, it's pretty selective about

what you're willing to talk about and what you're not willing to talk about. It was a good hit. I don't mean to knock Congressman Gates too much, but it should have been a cleaner hit. He should have ended it right there and let Mueller stammer, which is what he did for much of the rest of the hearing. The fact remains, either way, Mueller totally punted on steel. This is pretty weird behavior. Two central figures and organizations in this Russia investigation, Fusion GPS, put the dossier together, took the Clinton's money, took the Democrats money, and Christopher Steele, the guy who actually wrote the thing. That research that they put together launches the spying, launches the investigation. And Bob Mueller, the head investigator,

the special counsel, doesn't seem to know anything about either of them. Not even that he's unwilling to talk about it. That he doesn't seem to, oh, steal who? Fusion GPS who? Yeah, I never heard of her. This is difficult to believe. It raises the question. Is Mueller playing dumb? Or does Mueller actually not know what's going on in his own investigation? How much does Bob Mueller know about his own investigation? I guess it could be either. He could be playing dumb because he doesn't want to put himself at risk of committing perjury. Or he doesn't want to make himself look too nakedly political.

Or because when you play dumb, it generally works to your advantage in politics. Bill Clinton has bragged about this. George Bush has bragged about this. Playing a little below your mark is very helpful. But I don't know. Maybe he's not playing dumb. Maybe he actually doesn't really know about these things. If that is the case, even if I'm willing to believe that, this raises a more troubling question.

If Bob Mueller doesn't know what's going on in his investigation, who does? Because this has been the argument the whole time, is that this investigation is extremely partisan. It's being staffed by never-Trumpers who hate the president's guts, who have been caught in leaked text messages saying that they want to undermine the 2016 election and prevent the people from electing Donald Trump. And all these guys have been caught as part of the Mueller investigation. And the response the whole time was, okay, sure, there are a couple bad apples. But Bob Mueller is a man beyond reproach. He's a former Marine.

He's an FBI director under Republicans. You couldn't possibly impugn his motives or his reputation or his competence. Well, I don't know. If he doesn't know anything about his own investigation, then I guess that kind of takes him off the table, doesn't it? If he doesn't know anything about his own investigation, who does? Peter struck, Andy McCabe, Lisa Page, who knows about it? Who was actually running it? Who actually

wrote this thing? If not Mueller? Or is Mueller playing dumb? Don't think this is some partisan attack. There are a lot of left-wingers who are joining me in this criticism. We'll get up to it in just one second. But first, I have got to tell you about one of the coolest products I have ever seen. And that is Paint Your Life. If you want to give an incredible gift, you have got to try. Paintyourlife.com. This is a gift that I gave to my stepbrother, for whom I was the best man. I gave this to him for his wedding

because it was the coolest gift I could possibly think of. You can have an original painting made of yourself, of your children, of your family members, of some special place you loved, of some pet, maybe poor old Fido ain't with us anymore. You can have a nice oil painting done of him at a price you can afford, and this is key, because commissioning art can be very, very expensive.

but Paint Your Life.com comes in and gives you an incredible product. It is a true painting done by hand by a world-class artist. It's not some fake, you know, just generated with smoke and mirrors. It's a real, genuine painting. Makes the perfect gift for birthdays or weddings or anniversaries. You choose the artist whose work you most admire. You work with him throughout the process until every detail is perfect. So you're getting proofs all the time.

There's no risk at all. If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded. This is great for decor. It's an actual work of art. In a world of just cheap commodities, this is a real special gift. I'm already, because I was so impressed with this painter in particular, I'm going to be commissioning another one of them. I just love it.

I can't speak highly enough of it. Right now is a limited time offer. You can get 30% off your painting. That is right. 30% off you. I'm telling you. I'm not going to say stop what you're doing because I want you to finish my show. But then once my show is over, go check this out.

It's going to blow your mind. You'll get 30% off free show. and get the special offer, the way to do it is to text Knowles. KNOW-L-E-S to 48-48-48-48-8. That is K-N-O-W-L-E-S to 48-48-48-48-Message and data rates may apply. So is Bob Mueller playing dumb, or does Bob Mueller really have no idea what's going on in his investigation? If it's the latter, then who ran the thing? Who wrote the thing?

Who is behind this witch hunt? Don't accuse me of having some partisan attack here that I'm carrying water for Republicans or something. People from both sides of the aisle were absolutely flummoxed by this performance today. Mike Cernovich, you know, the right-wing independent journalist. He suggested that the hearing be adjourned because it constituted elder abuse against Bob Mueller, looking a little long in the tooth. On the other side of the aisle, David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Barack Obama, He tweeted out simply, quote, this is very, very painful.

He even tweeted out later, he said, you know, this is a very delicate subject, but when Mueller testified before Congress six years ago, he was a lot sharper than he is today. At one point, I kid you not, at one point Mueller couldn't remember which president appointed him U.S. attorney in Boston. Director Mueller, I'm disappointed that some have questioned your motives throughout this process. and I want to take a moment to remind the American people of who you are and your exemplary service to our country. You are a Marine.

You served in Vietnam and earned a bronze star and a purple heart, correct? Correct. Which president appointed you to become the United States attorney from Massachusetts? Which senator? Which president? Oh, which president? I think that was President Bush. According to my notes, it was President Ronald Reagan, had the honor to do so.

Under who's my mistake. Oh, man, this is genuinely, you pity the guy. I mean, he evokes a lot of sympathy here. Even from the beginning, the question was, which president appointed you U.S. attorney? And he said, which senator? Senators don't appoint you U.S. attorney. Presidents do that.

No, which president? He goes, I don't know, Bush? No, Reagan. Like, it's not a trick question. The same thing with Fusion GPS. This isn't a trick question. We're just establishing your credibility. That was a friendly question from a Democrat.

Really bizarre. Look, he might be senile. He might have been off his meds or something. Or he might be playing dumb. Either way, the most revealing part of this testimony is that he punted on one question. So you saw buildup. He punts on Christopher Steele.

He punts on Fusion GPS. Oh, I don't know. What do I know? But then he's asked a very point of, question on how the investigation got started. And people aren't really covering this, but this is the key to the testimony. And it's a little bit complicated, so bear with me. Bob Mueller is asked why Joseph Mifsud, who lied to the FBI, was not charged with a crime. If that name Joseph Mifsud sounds familiar, he matters because he's this Maltese academic. He's a professor. He's in London. He's in Paris. He's in

Malta, he's in Rome, and he's clearly got ties to intelligence agencies. Some people say he's tied to Russian intelligence. Some people say he's tied to Western intelligence. Maybe he's tied to both. And he is the academic who told the Trump staffer, George Papadopoulos, that the Russians had dirt on Clinton. So this whole episode, the whole question of whether this Russian investigation was a setup from the very beginning comes down to this guy, Joseph Mifzud. How did George Papad the Trump staffer come to find out that, or here rather, whether it's true or not, how did he come to hear that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton? And then how did he come to pass that information along, which was the trigger that started

the investigation, which allowed the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign? How did that happen? Joseph Mifsud is at the center of this, and Mueller refuses to answer. The FBI interviewed Joseph Mifsud on February 10th, 26th. In that interview, Mr. Mifzid lied. You point this out on page 193, volume one, Mipzid denied. Mifsen also falsely stated. In addition, Mipzid omitted.

Three times he lied to the FBI, yet you didn't charge him with the crime. Excuse me, I'm sorry, did you say 193? Volume 1,193. He lied three times. You pointed out in the report. Why didn't you charge him with the crime? I can't get into internal deliberations with regard who would or would not be charged a lot of other people for making a false statement. Let's remember this.

That's right. He charged a lot of other people for making false statements. But you see, Mueller just keeps going back to this. I can't talk about internal deliberations. I can't talk about why I charged somebody, but I didn't charge any other people. Well, it's a little weird, Mr. Mueller, because on the one hand, you're charging Mike Flynn for lying. You're charging Papadopoulos. You're charging all of these guys associated with Trump. for in some cases very minor lies. But then this guy, this academic, Joseph Mifsud, who lies on three occasions to the FBI,

he doesn't get charged with a crime. Why not? The obvious implication is that he has worked with Western intelligence. The obvious implication is that he's got a longstanding relationship with the FBI and the intelligence community and the question that is being raised is, what was Mifsud's role? in talking to Papadopoulos.

Did Joseph Mifsud, this cosmopolitan academic who just flits around all over the world, just happened to bump into George Papadopoulos, just happened to say that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton, which just happened to prompt the events that led to the spying in the Trump campaign? Was that just an accident? Or was there some collusion? Not between Trump and the Russians,

but between the Obama administration, and guys like Joseph Mifsood. That's the question, and that's a key question that has not been answered. The FBI, did the FBI use Mifsud to prod Pappadopolis, who was working on the Trump campaign? That's a crucial question. And Jim Jordan, thankfully, does not let out.

So he sets up this whole scene, then he asks the question. Point blank, what is the relationship between the intelligence community and Professor Mifsud? You point this out on page one of the report. July 31st, 2016, they opened the investigation based on that piece of information. Diplomat tells Papadopoulos, Russians have dirt, excuse me, Papadopoulos tells a diplomat, Russians have dirt on Clinton, diplomat tells the FBI. What I'm wondering is, who told Papadopoulos?

How'd he find out? I can't get into the evidentiary filing. Yes, you can because you wrote about it. You gave us the answer. page 192 of the report you tell us who told him Joseph Mifson Joseph Mifson's a guy who told Papadopoulos the mysterious professor who lives in Rome and London

works at teaching two different universities this is the guy who told Papadopoulos he's the guy who starts at all and when the FBI interviews him he lies three times and yet you don't charge him with a crime you charge Rick Gates for false statements you charge Paul Manafort for false statements

You charge Michael Cohen with false statements. You charge Michael Flynn, a three-star general with false statements. But the guy who puts the country through this whole saga starts it all for three years we've lived this now. He lies, and you guys don't charge him. And I'm curious as to why. Absolutely stellar performance from Jim Jordan here. And he nails him. Just look at Mueller's reaction when he says, I want to get down to Mif Sood.

I want to know who told Papadopoulos on the Trump campaign that the Russians had dirt on Hillary. And you see, Mueller won't let him get the words out of his mouth. Mueller jumps in, I can't talk about that. This is nothing that I can talk about. And Jordan's got him right where he wants him because he says, of course you can talk about that. You already did. It's in your report. Or is it your report?

It's in the Mueller report. I don't know who wrote it. Clearly, you don't have much of a recollection of it. But you already admitted that it was. was Mifsud who told him. Again, raises the question, does Mueller know about his own report? Is he playing dumb? He clearly looks uncomfortable here. He clearly looks nervous. He's jumping and saying, we can't talk about how this whole thing started. The one common thread for all this testimony is this guy will not talk about how this investigation got started. I wonder why. Then Jim Jordan

goes in for the kill. We'll get to that in a second. We'll also get to the number one issue for Americans as we look down to 2020, according to Gallup polling, and the Orwellian inclusive language guide from Colorado State University. But first, I've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube. And I've got to tell you, guys, today, 7 p.m. Eastern, 4 p.m. Pacific, our latest episode of the conversation will be featuring the great Supreme Lord of the Multiverse, Andrew Claven. He will be answering your questions live. So make them good. As always, the episode is free to watch on YouTube and Facebook, only subscribers can ask the questions. Subscribe today at the Daily Wire. Get your questions answered by Drew Claven at 7 p.m. Eastern, 4 p.m. Pacific and join the

conversation. I also have to give a little plug to our buddy Bill Whittle's podcast. Bill Whittle, you know him, you've seen him before. He has an incredible podcast out on the Apollo 11 mission, the moon landing. The other day I put out a video talking to people about all the various theories of how we didn't actually go to the moon. Between 6 and 20% of Americans don't think we ever went to the moon because there's a lot of misinformation floating out there. Check out this podcast. It is informative. It is historical, but it's also incredibly inspiring because this month marks the 50th anniversary since we first put a man on the moon. This new podcast by Esoteric Radio Theater is called Apollo 11, what we saw. It shot immediately to number three on iTunes Apple Podcasts. It stayed there

in the top 10 for a week, and it's getting great. great reviews, almost one million people have listened to the podcast or watched it on YouTube. It's really just excellent. Don't tell Bill that I was so kind about it, but it is really, really good. And Bill is, he's an author, he's a pilot, he's a space enthusiast, he takes you on the journey of what it took to get to the moon, what happened when we got there and how we almost didn't get there at all. All four episodes are available right now, so you can binge it. Head over to Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Subscribe today to Apollo 11, what we saw. While you're there, please make sure.

that you subscribe to our show, the Michael Null's show, really helps us out when you subscribe. So please do that. Then you'll never miss even one syllable, one pearl of wisdom. You can watch all of that. You can also watch the podcast episodes

of Apollo 11 all over YouTube at the Esoteric Radio Theater YouTube channel. Head over there right now. Head over to DailyWire.com. We'll be right back with a lot more. So Jordan totally demolishes Mueller. He asks him the question. Mueller jumps.

He doesn't want to answer. answer the question. He says he can't talk about it. Jordan says, of course you can talk about it. You wrote it in the report that you apparently didn't even read. Then Jordan goes in for the kill. Here he is. When the FBI interviewed him in February, FBI interviews him in February, when the special counsel's office interviewed Mifson. Did he lie to you? Can't get into that. Did you interview Mifson? Can't get into that. Is Mifson Western intelligence or Russian intelligence? Can't get into that. A lot of things you can't get into. What's interesting, you can charge 13 Russians, No one's ever heard of.

No one's ever going to hear of them. No one's ever going to see him. You can charge them. You can charge all kinds of people who are around the president with false statements. But the guy who launches every, the guy who puts this whole story in motion, you can't charge him. I think that's amazing. I'm not certain I agree with your characterizations. Well, I'm reading from your report.

Ouch. That's pretty bad. I'm not sure I agree with your characterizations. They're not my characterizations, Mr. Mueller. They're yours. I'm reading from your report. This is brutal for the Democrats on Capitol Hill who brought Mueller up to testify. It shows us something that I had suspected, but I wouldn't have put money on, which is that the Democrats' best shot here was to just run on the Mueller report and keep Mueller himself quiet.

Just take the report. You can spin the report however you want and just keep Mueller quiet. But the Democrats couldn't do that because they were disappointed with the report because it more or less exonerated the president. You know, a little bit on the edges or obstruction or some tweety scent. So they could have used that. They could have taken those little bits and tried to say that Trump was guilty of all these things. Instead, they wanted more. They thought that they would get more by having Mueller testify.

And there were more unanswered questions than answers in the report. Namely, how did the investigation start? that question reflects very poorly on Democrats and it undermines whatever political win Democrats had with the report I mean they did have a little bit of a win

Trump did get dinged in this report he was not fully exonerated by Bob Mueller on obstruction they could have had it but they got greedy and now with this testimony it really is making the whole Russia report and the whole investigation seem illegitimate The only hope for Democrats in all of this is that no one cares about Mueller or Russia or collusion or any of it.

They've all moved on. The bad news for Democrats right now is, one, they've lost even a minor talking point. But two, Gallup polling shows that more people than ever are concerned about illegal immigration, which is a terrible issue for them and a great issue for Republicans and President Trump. Gallup polling shows more Americans than ever, ever before, are concerned about illegal immigration, and it's the top issue in the country. 27% of Americans identify immigration as the most important U.S. problem. This surpasses the previous high of 23% in June. To put that in perspective, because it seems like kind of a low number, you think the top issue would have 75% or 80%.

No, people are very fragmented about what issues they care about. very few issues since 2001, since they really started this polling, have ever eclipsed 27%. So this is a top issue even historically. Now, immigration is the biggest concern. The next biggest problem is government slash leadership. And this isn't just, it's a problem for Trump, but it's not only a problem for Trump. This has been the case since the second Obama term as well. So you've got 27% immigration, 23% government leadership.

The next highest issues are racism, race relations at 7% and health care at 7%. So way, way below. A quarter or a third what the number one and number two issues are. Now, this is a double-edged sword for Trump. This actually isn't just all good news for Trump because the good news is he owns the illegal immigration issue and this will help him because he owns it.

Except he hasn't built the wall. Fox News confirmed that CBP report the other day. Customs and Border Protection came out and said, President Trump has not built one mile of new border wall since he was elected president. And you heard some people pushing back, the people who will just defend the president regardless of what's actually happening.

They were pushing back and saying, no, there is wall, there's new wall. Fox News confirmed the report. So unless they have information, unless someone has information that I don't, right now it looks like he hasn't built any new border wall. Look, I get that it's hard. I get it's hard from an environmental

perspective. It's hard from a zoning perspective. Obviously, it's hard from a bureaucratic and a Democrat obstruction perspective. But if he hasn't built the wall, he doesn't look great on that issue. It's also bad for President Trump because he's the incumbent, which now makes him the object of everybody's ire, if you believe that the second biggest issue, according to Americans, is government and leadership. So there is a simple fix for this. It'll help him on the top biggest issue, and it'll help him on the second biggest issue. Build the wall. Easy.

Or if you can't build the wall because it's too hard, at least propose a plan to get the wall built, a clear plan. So that we don't need to just keep believing promises. Or if you can't do that, because I understand, very difficult to do that. Short of that, start deporting criminal aliens. Like, start really deporting them. We were told last week that the U.S. would be deporting millions of criminal aliens.

Remember that? On Sunday, there were all these protests all over the country. No, don't do it. There was a terrorist attack at an ice facility. And do you know how many people we arrested? 18. Not 18 million, not 18,000. 18 people.

There were orders of magnitude more protesters protesting the alleged mass arrests and deportation than there were people who actually got arrested to be deported. Even, forget President. Let's say he can't build the wall. Let's say he can't get a plan to build the wall. Even deporting lots and lots of criminal aliens publicly would help him on the subject of illegal immigration

and on the subject of government and leadership. It would show leadership. It would show progress on the top issue. President Trump had really good instincts in 2016 to focus on immigration. It wasn't just him. A few other people got this. Actually, Daily Wire God King, Jeremy Boring,

and our senior producer Jonathan Hay, he understood both of them understood that immigration was going to be the big issue. Back in 2014, they made a movie, a movie called the Arroyo, all about illegal immigration. Because they saw coming down the pike, this was going to be a big problem. President Trump saw that in 2015. When he came down that elevator at Trump Tower, he made that in many ways the defining issue of his campaign. Good moves, smart. Ever since then, the issue has moved even more in Trump's favor. Great. All the better. but you've got to show some leadership on it. Also, I mean, and time's running out, by the way. What is it already? I mean, we're already in the end of July 2019. Presidential campaigns move fast.

So there needs to be action on that if President Trump is going to capitalize on this new Gallup polling. Also important to remember, though, that people don't only care about political issues. They might not even primarily care about political issues. They also care about cultural issues. When I ask people why they voted for President Trump,

some of them will say immigration I want to get rid of illegal I want to border control some of them will say the economy I want jobs the Obama economy was awful many more people will say it wasn't that

that it was because they want to smash political correctness that they feel that political correctness is oppressive it's damaging them and they're done with it and we are now seeing political correctness to the extreme out of Colorado State University

this story was reported last October, and now there's a final version of it coming out now. Colorado State University has published something called an inclusive language guide. How Orwellian is that? It was from the Inclusive Language Committee or something. It's hosted on the Women and Gender Collaborative website. I know you've got that in your bookmark, so make sure to go check it out. I read through this guide.

I counted 131 words that you're not allowed to say. In the original draft of this, two of the words were American and America. This is at a public state fund at American University. They said, America is offensive. And American is offensive. If they find it so offensive, maybe they shouldn't take any taxpayer funding from America. Maybe they shouldn't take government subsidized and guaranteed loans from America. No, they're not willing to do that.

Now, fortunately, there was such a backlash to that in October. They took that out of the final version. But there are a lot of other crazy things in this guide. I mean, obviously, we don't have time for 131. But here's an example. Listen to just this logic. They say the word colored to refer to black people is offensive. Fair enough.

Yeah, people haven't used that word in a while. They say, colored is a highly offensive racial slur that was often used during segregation to separate people of color. Wait, what? Color. Colored is bad. Color is good. And if you use anything else, it's bad, I think.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? But it's just a euphemism cycle. You had colored. That was the term that everyone was supposed to use. Then that fell out of favor, and it became black. Then it became African American. Then it went back to black again. Now it's people of color, which is exactly the same as saying,

colored people, except if you say colored people, you're a racial bigot, and if you say people of color, you're super woke. For now, obviously it's going to change. Another phrase that you're not allowed to say is hip-hip hooray. This is true. They said, because hip-hip, hooray, developed from the German hep-hep, which, they write, was a harmless, adorable call shepherds would use when hurting their sheep. Okay, seems like there's no problem, right? No, but they go on. But during the Holocaust, German citizens started using it as a rallying cry when they would hunt down Jewish citizens

living in the ghettos. So if you use the phrase hip, hip, hooray, hip, hooray, if you use that, you are a Nazi. According to Colorado State University. They say you're not allowed to use the expression a long time, no see, because that's offensive to Native Americans. How? I have no idea. They say that you're not allowed to say no can do.

Hey, Michael, can you help me out? No can do. That apparently is offensive to Chinese people. Again, Why couldn't possibly tell you. What's wilder, though, than all of this, what you can say, what you can't say, the innocuous expressions that now, I guess, are evil and bigoted. What's more interesting than that is

how woke expressions fall out of fashion and are quickly deemed hateful. One example of this is they say, you're no longer allowed to say homosexual. I thought homosexual was the totally clinical PC term. No, they say you're not allowed to say homosexual, but you can say, and what you should say, is gay, okay, lesbian, okay, bisexual, all right, pansexual, whatever, or queer.

RBC Training Ground has discovered potential in over 20,000 Canadian athletes and counting. Your story could be next. If you've got the drive, they'll help you find your path to the Olympics. Let's see what you've got. Sign up for free at RBC Training Ground.com. Do you remember like five minutes ago when we were told that queer is the new N-word, that queer is a horrible racial slur, which is why that little twit Carlos Maza, that little bigoted leftist at Vox.com tried to get Stephen Crowder and a lot of other conservatives kicked off of YouTube. Do you remember that?

Queer, because queer is the N-word. I went on a television show. and when they used the word queer, when it was used in a video, they bleeped it out because we were now told queer is the new N-word. Except then we're told from Colorado State actually queer is the right word and homosexual is the wrong word. So if Crowder had said homosexual in his podcast or on his show, they'd go after him for that. And then if he says queer, they're going to go after him for that. And you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. What it shows, what all of this shows.

These language guides are not about helping in a grieved class. obviously not. We were talking about this yesterday on the show. The left moves past their aggrieved classes and ditches them as soon as it becomes politically useful. They used to prattle on about women's rights and feminism. Now they ditch all those women for the transgender so-called community. Now they force women out of business

if they won't wax the genitals of grown men wearing a dress. Now they won't let girls win high school scholarships to college because they force them to compete against men in women's sports. So that's over. They always ditch those groups. It's also not about civility. It's not about making a nicer community. The left is as vindictive and scolding as any when it comes to these words.

It's not about charity or civility. It's not even about the particular words because the words change all the time. What it's about is shutting you up. What it's about is forcing you to check in with the committee. Check in with your overlords at Colorado State or Twitter or YouTube wherever before you say anything, because it's not about the words, it's about the opinions that you're expressing. This was all summed up, and Alice in Wonderland. Excuse me, Alice in Wonderland has this scene in it where Alice is talking to Humpty Dumpty.

And Humpty Dumpty says to Alice, when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. And Alice says, the question is whether you can make words mean so many different things. And Humpty Dumpty knows better. he says, the question is, which is to be master? That is all. We've talked about it before, and you see it again clear as day out of Colorado State.

The left would master our culture by constantly changing and perverting the meaning of words. And the way that conservatives can master the culture is by using words correctly, using words to mean what they mean. When the left can't change the meaning of words, They totally obfuscate. I don't know.

I couldn't say. What does it mean? How do we know? You saw Bob Mueller doing it all day today. We need to insist on using precise language. We need to insist on asking precise questions. In the vague haziness of innuendo and emotion and smears and slander, the left will win. But in the precision of language, in the precision of questions, in the precision of what is the

truth. That's conservatives path forward. In the short run, when we insist on that, it hurts us. We might get expelled from Colorado State. We might have milkshakes thrown at us on the street. We might get squirted by weird super-soakers in Missouri and ruin my nice suit. But in the long run, that is the way that we will win. All right, that's our show. I had a great time today speaking to TPUSA here in Washington, D.C. I'm going to be doing a number of other media appearances so you can check them out while I'm here in D.C. And then I'll be speaking for the Young America's Foundation. week for their conference, and then I'll finally be back in La La Land. In the meantime, get your mailback questions in for tomorrow.

I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. I'll see you then. The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz and directed by Mike Joyner, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay. Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens. Edited by Danny Domeco. Audio is mixed by Dylan Case.

Hair and makeup is by Jesua Ulvera. and our production assistant is Nick Sheehan. The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019. Hey guys, over on the Matt Wall Show today, as we all suffer through another Robert Mueller news cycle, I'd like to turn our attention back to the story of Erica Thomas. She claimed, remember, that she was verbally assaulted

by a racist white man at the grocery store. Well, the police report is out, and it's not good for her. And I think when a race hoax is exposed, we should talk about it, rather than just move on as the media wants us to do. Also, we're going to talk about an actress who came out as pansexual, even though the term pansexual has no meaning. And also, Forever 21, unintentionally came up with the most hilarious marketing gimmick of all time.

And we'll talk about that also over on the Matt Wall Show.