Tom Fitton: Robert Mueller needs to be investigated

Channel: Fox Business
Published: 05/30/2019

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton reacts to Robert Mueller’s comments on the Russia probe. FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York — the business capita...

Joining us tonight, judicial watch president tom fitton tom good to have you with us your thoughts about the performance of robert muller today. Well, i don't know what reputation he had that deserved any credence till now, but it's no longer there he's really destroyed. Whatever reputation he's had with this political attack on the president, turning the rule of law on its head, suggesting the pr ...
sident is guilty and because he can't prove otherwise, we should conclude that he should be impeached. It'S an abuse of power once again by the moller special counsel and his his per and him personally. You know he had some plausible deniability or was this gargantuan report out there? We knew hehad hired all these anti-trump errs, but he came out and personally endorsed this abusive attack on the president that doubling down on the corruption from the report, you know - and i think highly of attorney general barr, but i think he's been too deferential to the Moller special counsel: he should have shut this report down from ever even before it was even written and it's been abused, piled on top of abuse targeting president trump and the this mr. muller. He needs to be investigated as well. The office of professional responsibility should be asking: why did this justice department prosecutor come out and suggest wrongdoing by an innocent person without any foundation? Because there is no foundationif, there was a foundation there would have been indictments or a request for an indictment term, highlighting that outrageous. Turning our judicial system on its head, saying that you have to prove your innocence. In effect, particularly for the president of the united states, is it a coincidence? The james call me the dirty cop wrote an op-ed that was published just a day ahead of the muller remarks. Today is: doesn't that strike you as odd coincidental, perhaps well, i'm trying to figure out who's worse in terms of ethics, call me or muller and they're. Two peas in the same they're, two peas in a pod when it comes to attacking president trump.

I have some quietyou know. I do hope. Mr. muller testifies. I know some don't want to see him testify. He should be asked. Why is it despite his conflicts? Did he accept this appointment? Why is it despite the knowing that comey stole fbi records and then leaked them illegally to get him appointed? He continued to participate in that corrupt process. What about all these, the biased democrat and anti trump pro hillary clinton donors? He hired a when did he know there was no collusion. When did he know there was no collusion, even as you point out. Why didn't he shut it down then, and this relationship between james comey and robert muller many years in in its durationbut? Do you suppose it persisted even as the special counsel and the fired former fbi director could they have possibly been colluding? Should there be an investigation of that collusion, because there are too many coincidences, it seems to me. Well, we've asked for documents about that collusion. Remember mr.

muller allowed mr. comey to testify, despite his being in the middle of this massive obstruction investigation. We thought that was curious, yeah, and this is why there needs to be in the least, an internal ethics investigation of the way the mauler operation proceeded and its interaction with some of these witnesses. You know, mr. mullah, for instance, struck was caught. Red-Handed writing these anti-trump taxis pro hillaryclinton tax struck, testified. Muller, didn't ask him one question about whether or not his anti trump hatred influenced the investigation. Muller was disinterested in that. Isn'T that curious? It is curious, and, and and after today there are more questions about the witch-hunt is the parent, the president first characterized it, which i think is an apt description of what this turned out to be muller says that charging the president he at least tries to intimate That the charging, the president was never an option, so why did he persist at all? He didn't by the way there were no co-conspirators indicted, so why did he persist at all and if there are no co-conspirators and there isno evidence, he said he carried out an in pending criminal investigation, then why in the world did he have any kind of reservation About saying, clearly, no evidence whatsoever of obstruction or collusion well try to follow his. I suggest your listeners go and read what he said. It'S full of legal hegel piggle, just like the arga barga line' in his in his report about this obstruction he's all over the place. Mr.

barr is testified that muller did not say the justice department policy about the friesian that the print b indicted, what guided his decision-making here so now he's changed his tune, and it's all i think he wants to he's worried about the momentum. Ofimpeachment be kept moving forward, and this was about a political intervention in our system. Has any justice department employees ever done by the way? What we're hearing from the democrats as of right now is that they're frustrated with a muller performance and his the content of that performance, which obviously many democrats, as you heard earlier in this broadcast, i think, is inadequate to support their their enthusiasm for impeachment. Tom is always great to have you with us thanks so much tom welcome.

Watch Next