Skip to main content

Transcript for Podcast: "I Feel Snitty," Episode 3: "Mueller, Mueller, Mueller, Mueller..."

Podcast: "I Feel Snitty"

Episode 3: "Mueller, Mueller, Mueller, Mueller..."

Premiere Date: 7/30/19

Length: 14:40 (2,534 words)

Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/mueller-mueller-mueller-mueller/

Transcript:

Welcome to I Feel Snitty. I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki. Today I’ll be talking about golf and how to wash your balls just right. Okay, so I’ll be talking about Robert Mueller. I mean, what else is there to talk about, right?

Now I’d like to start today by seeing just how much you know about Robert Mueller and his investigation. That’s right, it’s a pop quiz.

1) With which party is Robert Mueller affiliated?
A) Republican (correct answer)
B) Demonrat
C) Codependent
D) Toga

2) Who initially started the funding of the Steele Dossier?
A) The conservative-leaning Washington Free Beacon (correct answer)
B) The liberal-leaning back of math textbooks
C) The moderate-leaning Encyclopedia Britannica
D) Your crazy Uncle John

3) Which president appointed Robert Mueller U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts in 1986?
A) Ronald Reagan (correct answer)
B) Saddam Hussein Obama
C) Shrub, Jr.
D) George Washington’s father

4) How many people did Robert Mueller indict?
A) 34 (correct answer)
B) 0
C) -7
D) Alternative numbers

5) Robert Mueller was investigating Donald Trump on the charges of obstruction and what?
A) Conspiracy (correct answer)
B) Theft from a Dollar Store
C) Fondling a walrus
D) Covfefe

Before I go into my thoughts on the Mueller hearing, allow me to share with you a writing I concocted following the release of the Mueller report. It was written on May 2nd of this year and is entitled, “Mueller Time: Less Filling or Tastes Great?”

The Mueller report has become like the Bible, where most people seem to cherry-pick scriptures which support their agenda, and fail to stand back and see the larger picture. This has especially been the case with the most ardent of Trump supporters.

Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. His 2-year investigation resulted in 34 indictments, which included several Russian nationals and Trump aides and advisors. This has led to multiple guilty pleas and verdicts, and with that, prison time. The most striking conclusion in the Mueller report is that Russia did heavily interfere in our election and it will likely happen again unless we do something about it. Did Russia's interference ultimately determine the election's outcome? That's impossible to conclude with any degree of certainty at the moment. What's not difficult to conclude, however, is that Russian interference did impact the 2016 election, and with that, our democracy. If our leaders twiddle their thumbs about the matter until the 2020 election, rest assured the cycle will repeat itself.

While some may say, "Hey, that was already common knowledge! Everyone knew Russia interfered in the election!," Donald Trump has yet to admit that to the public, which has continued to leave roughly 30-40% of the population in the dark regarding the matter. Also, it's one thing to just generally state, "Russia interfered in our election" and it's quite another to provide vivid detail on how this interference came about, who orchestrated it, and how we can prevent the likelihood of such an occurrence in the future. Sadly, I haven't heard many Congressional leaders speak up about this at all. They've instead used the report as a political football in an attempt to rile their base and drum up support for next year's elections.

When it comes to Donald Trump and his inner-circle's level of conspiracy with the Russians and obstruction of the Mueller report, Republican leaders have tended to look at things from a pure black-and-white perspective, and once again, I think this fails when attempting to examine the full picture.

Even before the Mueller report was officially released, Trump went on the record saying, "No collusion! No obstruction!" After the report's release, he and his supporters have repeated these claims. The problem is 448-page reports on Russian interference of U.S. presidential elections tend to be more nuanced than a simple yes or no.

For the record, collusion, which the president and his supporters keep spouting, is more a general term than a legal one. To say the president didn't commit the crime of collusion would be like saying Mike Pence didn't commit the crime of walking. Once we add the detail that he jaywalked, however, then it becomes a different story. The actual crime that was under investigation was conspiracy. While Special Counsel Mueller and his team said there was not enough evidence to prove Trump and/or his inner-circle conspired with Russians to impact the outcome of the election, he did note there was some evidence to suggest such and that the overall scope of said investigation had been limited due to individuals either refusing to cooperate with the Special Counsel or lying to him. It'd be like a murder trial, where there's some evidence to suggest the defendant is guilty, but key witnesses plead the 5th while on the stand or commit perjury. While the defendant may indeed be guilty, there is not enough evidence to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, so the jury finds him not guilty. As I've always said, though, not guilty is not the same as innocent, and for conservative Congressmen and women and talking heads to deny any conspiring occurred for the simple fact Trump wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is pure hogwash. That'd be like saying, "Yeah, that guy probably committed murder, but due to the gangsters who took the stand and lied to the jury on his behalf, he can't be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so therefore he's completely innocent!" Like I said, pure hogwash.

While Mueller may not have been able to complete his investigation and therefore make a final determination on the act of conspiracy, he was able to provide quite the detailed road map for obstruction. He laid out ten examples of possible obstruction by the president and handed this road map to the attorney general (AG) to release unto the public and Congress, thinking the latter would have the final say. AG William Barr didn't do this, of course, and until we hear the Special Counsel testify in front of Congress, we're left in a Rorschach debate over Mueller's ultimate intent. Having said that, unlike with conspiracy, I think there is enough evidence to prove Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with regard to obstruction. Attorney General Barr's main two arguments on why Trump isn't guilty of obstruction are: 1) He was falsely accused of collusion, which makes obstruction of a non-existent crime not a crime, and 2) He openly obstructed, was ignorant of the technicalities of the crime. If a defendant obstructs his own murder case, while he may be deemed as not guilty of murder, he can still be found guilty of obstruction. These are two separate crimes. Just because A is one thing, doesn't mean B will be as well. That's pure ignorance of math and the law. Also, just because a person stupidly shows the world he obstructed justice doesn't make him innocent of the crime. If a person records themselves killing a person and then sends that video to the authorities, does that then make him innocent of murder? I don't think so. So whether or not Donald Trump could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy (not collusion, Mr. Barr), that's irrelevant to the case of obstruction. Also, how can Barr sensibly intertwine the two in such a manner? If he's going to do so, he should go about it another way. Donald Trump obstructed justice. Period. This could very well have played a factor in Mueller being unable to complete his investigation into conspiracy. Barr seems to think, "Hey, he's not guilty of collusion; he's not guilty of obstruction." No. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. Trump is guilty of obstruction, which may have led to him being found not guilty of conspiracy.

Donald Trump may not have been indicted for conspiracy or obstruction, as the GOP has declared ad nauseum, but they're not seeing the forest, merely the trees. The Office of Legal Counsel (which Mueller noted in his report) has long held that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Between this and the lack of cooperation and/or honesty by many, Donald Trump is currently safe from legal prosecution. This doesn't excuse him from being guilty of any crimes while in the Oval Office, however, and soon after he's out of office, he'll discover that, as too will Lindsey Graham, William Barr, and the rest of the Republican Party, who has ultimately decided to place party over country. Check that, they've decided to place country over country - Russia over the United States of America.

Moving onto the Mueller hearing, it too seemed to wind up being like a political Rorschach test, as more Democrats are calling for impeachment and more Republicans are calling for the Bible to be revised in order to add the books of One and Two Trumpalonians. GOPers tended to go the alternative conspiracy route, as they falsely equated collusion with conspiracy and decided inquiring and ranting about debunked conspiracies was the only form of conspiracy worth discussing.

Here’s the basic rundown of the hearing. Mueller didn’t exonerate Trump of anything. He even seemed to hint that Trump was in fact guilty of both obstruction and perjury, saying that he could be indicted once he leaves office. In addition to this, he strongly declared that, without a doubt, Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election; that they wanted Donald Trump to win; and that Trump, at the very least, encouraged and warmly embraced our foreign adversary’s aid and support.

But since the 74-year-old Robert Mueller came across like a 74-year-old man, the media largely decided to focus their attention on that and the so-called “optics disaster” that it was, as opposed to the substance presented within the 7-hour testimony.

What were these talking heads expecting? I mean, really? They reacted like a film critic who just saw Grease and then criticized it for not being more like Rambo. Robert Mueller was just being Robert Mueller. Sadly, that wasn’t good enough for many in the media, and instead of saying, “Wow, Mueller didn’t exonerate Trump and even thinks he could one day face jail-time,” they said, “So, like, that old dude looked and sounded like his age and shit. How whack is that, ya’ll?!?”

Mueller was also criticized for not answering close to 200 questions during the 7 hours of testimony. Why is he shouldering all of the blame? The Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Attorney General William Barr, told Mueller to “remain within boundaries of redacted report.” Psst, there were 900 redactions…

So, let’s cool it with the stupid “optics” talk, alright? Mueller did what he was set out to do. Period.

Now, if you were curious about those 900 redactions, I now present you with a Letterman-like Top Ten List I concocted.

 The Top Ten Redactions in the Mueller Report

10. "The only time Donald Trump was truthful with the Special Counsel was when he admitted to often using the fake name Don Mexico."

9. "Putin knew Trump would be an easy target as soon as Donald started telling him Two-Corinthians-went-to-a-bar jokes."

8. "Trump's campaign team was forced to order more lawn signs after the first batch read, 'Putin America First.'"

7. "Trump's responses were written at a 4th-grade level, making it incredibly likely a lawyer of his not named Giuliani wrote them."

6. "Right after she discovered that Robert Mueller had been appointed, Melania yelled at Donald for 15 straight minutes in a language he couldn't understand - English."

5. "The Trump Tower meeting was actually about whether or not Vladimir Putin would be willing to adopt Donald Trump, Jr."

4. "Trump doesn't recall ever saying he has one of the world's greatest memories."

3. "Trump's first communication with Putin was in a 'Happily Married' AOL chat room, where Vlady's username was WeHaveTheBestHookers."

2. "Initially, Trump thought 'WikiLeaks' meant 'golden showers on the internet.'"

1. (drumroll) "In his first State of the Union speech post-Mueller appointment, Trump had initially planned on saying, 'I'm f*cked. You're f*cked. We're all f*cked. The state of the union is strong. God bless you & God bless the USA.'"

For my “From Snark to Finish” segment this week, I thought it’d be fun to place Donald Trump in Robert Mueller’s spot from last week’s hearing and make a little skit out of it.

Congress: “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”

Trump: “Yeah, sure, whatever”

Congress: “Mr. Trump, is there anything you’d like to say before we start the questioning?”

Trump: “No obstruction! No collusion!”

Congress: “Okay then. First thing’s first, do you know what ‘obstruction’ and ‘conspiracy’ are?”

Trump: “Obstruction means to obstruct and conspiracy means to collude.”

Congress: “Not exactly”

Trump: “Yes, exactly. Look, I know more about words than even the fancy words people do, believe me!”

Congress: “Did you commit obstruction or conspiracy?”

Trump: “No obstruction! No collusion!”

Congress: “I said conspiracy.”

Trump: “I said collusion. What’s your point?”

Congress: ‘Did you even read the Mueller report?”

Trump: “Yes, every sil-ah-ble.”

Congress: “What’s in it?”

Trump: “Words, lots of words.”

Congress: “What kinds of words?”

Trump: “Big, small, tall, short, black, white, male, female, at least one Asian.”

Congress: “An Asian word? Nevermind. How long was this report you read? How many pages?”

Trump: “1”

Congress: “The report is 448 pages long.”

Trump: “Fake news. Fake numbers. Fake pages.”

Congress: “I have the report right here. Do you see it? Does that look like a single page to you?”

Trump: “Bigly”

Congress: “Really? Have you ever read a book, or better yet, seen one before?”

Trump: “I’ve written them.”

Congress: “Did you actually do the writing?”

Trump: “Yes, under a different name, with a different set of hands, a different face…”

Congress: “So someone else wrote them for you?”

Trump: “I said no!”

Congress: “You do realize you’re under oath, right?”

Trump: “I know what oats are. I’m not under any. Do you see any oats up there?”

Congress: “Oath. That’s oath. O-A-T-H. Oath.”

Trump: “Yeah, oats…”

Congress: “Do you realize you’ve already committed perjury several times?”

Trump: “Per what? You’re not a jury.”

Congress: “How stupid are you?”

Trump: “I’m like the smartest person the world has ever seen. My English is good, like really good. I’m a very genius stable, I mean, very stable genius.”

Congress: “Now that’s an alternative fact.”

Trump: “So you’re saying it’s true?”

Congress: “No, you moron!”

Trump: “That’s maroon. It’s a shade of green.”

Congress: “I give up. He’s guilty of every damn thing!”

Trump: “No obstruction! No collusion!”

Congress: “Whatever”

Trump: “So I can go now?”

Congress: “Please do.”

Trump: “Good. I’ve gotta take a call from my BFF and handsyman Vlady on rigging the next election.”

Congress: “What?”

Trump: “Oh, nothing’. No obstruction! No collusion!”

Congress: “Yeah, just wait until you’re out of office, dotard…”

…and scene…

That’s it for today’s episode. I’ll see you again next week. Until then, check me out on PodBean, Twitter, Amazon, and Blogpsot. This has been I Feel Snitty with Craig Rozniecki. Take care.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"