Mueller Statement

[Brian4Liberty]

Video to come.

My summary of Mueller statement:

- Russians interfered in US election! Russians hacked the Democrats and Hillary, and gave the information to Wikileaks. Also non-government Russians trolled social media pretending to be Americans (shocking! Fakes and trolls on the internet! :rolleyes:)

- Sittng President could not be charged, so that was never an option. He did mention that “other processes would be used against a sitting President”. Open door to impeachment.

- Mueller isn’t going to say anything else on the subject, except what is in the report. Basically he was telling Congress and media, don’t even bother trying to get me to testify.

—————


Seems that Mueller had several goals with today’s statement...

- Make accusations about the Russians, thus justifying his investigation.
- Implicate Wikileaks and by extension, Assange.
- Give ammo to those who want impeachment.
- Ask Congress not to subpoena him to testify or attend a hearing.

[Brian4Liberty]

Spin is on. CNN already saying that because Trump was not explicitly cleared, then Trump definitely committed crimes.

“We have not charged Trump with robbing a 7/11, but we can’t say for sure that he has never robbed a 7/11”.

[Brian4Liberty]

Video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0SJ6wiIDHg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0SJ6wiIDHg

[Dary]

Mueller says that he can't say that Trump didn't commit a crime without there being a resolution based on a court trial.


Then on the other hand he says that if he had found evidence that trump didn't commit a crime, then he would have brought that evidence forward.


So he's saying that it would require a trial in order to determine guilt but no trial is needed in order to determine innocence.


That's a contradiction.


He couldn't even do his fracking job.

[PAF]

Mueller says that he can't say that Trump didn't commit a crime without there being a resolution based on a court trial.


Then on the other hand he says that if he had found evidence that trump didn't commit a crime, then he would have brought that evidence forward.


So he's saying that it would require a trial in order to determine guilt but no trial is needed in order to determine innocence.


That's a contradiction.


He couldn't even do his fracking job.

We have much more important things to worry about than this. Let Justin, Rand, Tom, et al, do what they need to do... it is up to us to continue to teach the young generation about true liberty.

Only when the hearts and minds change to embrace and practice liberty will it ever have a chance.

[donnay]

I would also like to know when Mueller came to all these conclusions. I am sure it was way before the midterm elections.

[Dary]

We have much more important things to worry about than this.

That's true.

But it doesn't mean that this isn't an important subject and isn't well worth discussing.

[Dary]

I would also like to know when Mueller came to all these conclusions. I am sure it was way before the midterm elections.

He says that he won't answer questions that aren't already answered in the report.

If he doesn't answer your question, then he should be held in contempt too.

[TheTexan]

Also non-government Russians trolled social media pretending to be Americans

heavenlyboy34

[ATruepatriot]

We have much more important things to worry about than this. Let Justin, Rand, Tom, et al, do what they need to do... it is up to us to continue to teach the young generation about true liberty.

Only when the hearts and minds change to embrace and practice liberty will it ever have a chance.

First there will be a need for universal self responsibility. This is the true challenge, until then humans are going to take the path of least resistance. We have two generations now who like to be taken care of rather than do it for themselves.

[nikcers]

I find it hard to believe that the Russians had anything to do with the election other than the fact that the democrats paid them to work on their platform because they couldn't beat Trump fairly.

[Zippyjuan]

"If Trump was cleared, we would have said so."

[nikcers]

"If Trump was cleared, we would have said so."
Isn't that a contradictory statement after already saying that there was no collusion and no obstruction? Or is he just saying that they have no way of proving it, but they know its true?

[Zippyjuan]

Isn't that a contradictory statement after already saying that there was no collusion and no obstruction? Or is he just saying that they have no way of proving it, but they know its true?

Turmp claimed no obstruction- Mueller did not say that. He said he was not allowed to charge the President but was careful to note that this did not mean he found the President was not potentially chargeable. The actual quote:


“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” he noted. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/29/mueller-to-make-public-statement-on-his-russia-probe-1346420

He stressed that he was not the venue to look farther into that (saying rules prohibited them from issuing any charges, even in secret, against a sitting president)- implying that another venue (Congress) should.


“The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” said Mueller, who did not take questions.


1133756898518470656

[nikcers]

Turmp claimed no obstruction- Mueller did not say that. He said he was not allowed to charge the President but was careful to note that this did not mean he found the President was not potentially chargeable. The actual quote:

no his original statement zippy he said that they could not find any obstruction. I can't find one of my left socks that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I figured that meant he could not charge because he could not prove it.

[goldenequity]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7wJjD2WsAACloQ.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

no his original statement zippy he said that they could not find any obstruction. I can't find one of my left socks that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I figured that meant he could not charge because he could not prove it.

Barr claimed they found no obstruction. That was contradicted by the summary in the Mueller report- which he repeated in his statement today that if Trump was clear, they would have said so. He did say that Trump did not collude with Russia but that Russia interfered with the election in many ways.

[enhanced_deficit]

"If Trump was cleared, we would have said so."

You put greater trust in words of Mueller than conclusions from Mueller Report drawn by Deputy AG Rosenstein and AG Barr (both of whom were MAGA appointed)?

Barr: "The report recounts ten episodes involving the president and discusses legal theories for connecting those activities," Barr said. "After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other department lawyers,the deputy attorney general and I concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not subject to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barr-committed-greatest-degree-transparency-consistent-law/story?id=62466298

Republican lawmakers led by Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus one of President Trump’s top allies in Congress, have drafted eight articles of impeachment (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/385713-rosenstein-knocks-republicans-who-wrote-draft-calling-for-his) against Rosenstein. The articles make a series of charges against Rosenstein and question his credibility, reputation and fitness to serve.
Rosenstein defiant as impeachment talk rises (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?521867-Rosenstein-defiant-as-impeachment-talk-rises&)

[goldenequity]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7vgKqIW0AMlXaL.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

You put greater trust in words of Mueller than conclusions from Mueller Report drawn by Deputy AG Rosenstein and AG Barr (both of whom were MAGA appointed)?

Barr: "The report recounts ten episodes involving the president and discusses legal theories for connecting those activities," Barr said. "After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other department lawyers,the deputy attorney general and I concluded that the evidence developed by the special counsel is not subject to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barr-committed-greatest-degree-transparency-consistent-law/story?id=62466298


Mueller was quoting his own report.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/what-the-mueller-report-says-about-obstruction/


Mueller emphasized, however, that his analysis of the evidence did not clear the president of obstruction. Said Mueller: “[I]f 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, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

Who should we go by? The Mueller Report? Or Mueller? Especially when they both say the exact same thing.

The spin- meisters are very busy on this one today.

[nikcers]

Barr claimed they found no obstruction. That was contradicted by the summary in the Mueller report- which he repeated in his statement today that if Trump was clear, they would have said so. He did say that Trump did not collude with Russia but that Russia interfered with the election in many ways.

I thought that part of the summary was a direct quote from the report?

[Zippyjuan]

I thought the summary was a direct quote from the report?

Barr's statement was not a quote from the report. Mueller said Barr misrepresented the report.

[Todd]

Video to come.

My summary of Mueller statement:

- Russians interfered in US election! Russians hacked the Democrats and Hillary, and gave the information to Wikileaks. Also non-government Russians trolled social media pretending to be Americans (shocking! Fakes and trolls on the internet! :rolleyes:)

- Sittng President could not be charged, so that was never an option. He did mention that “other processes would be used against a sitting President”. Open door to impeachment.

- Mueller isn’t going to say anything else on the subject, except what is in the report. Basically he was telling Congress and media, don’t even bother trying to get me to testify.


Then his investigation is total garbage. Anyone who has read anything about how the data was obtained knows it was not a hack.
Good riddance.

[nikcers]

Barr's statement was not a quote from the report. Mueller said Barr misrepresented the report.
I thought Meuller said that the media was misrepresenting what Barr was saying.

[nikcers]

Then his investigation is total garbage. Anyone who has read anything about how the data was obtained knows it was not a hack.
Good riddance.

It's a hack in the sense that Clintons let the Russians in by keeping her government secrets in a place where they could get it. Clinton was hacked and the FBI said it was gross negligance.

[Brian4Liberty]

"If Trump was cleared, we would have said so."

No need to watch CNN when Zippy can provide the Democrat talking points in real time.

So hard to prove a negative. “We can not definitely clear Trump of having robbed a 7/11 at some point.”

[Brian4Liberty]

Seems that Mueller had several goals with today’s statement...

- Make accusations about the Russians, thus justifying his investigation.
- Implicate Wikileaks and by extension, Assange.
- Give ammo to those who want impeachment.
- Ask Congress not to subpoena him to testify or attend a hearing.

[unconsious767]

He made this as clear as mud.

[nikcers]

“The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” said Mueller, who did not take questions.


according to Judge Napolitano that isn't even real a rule or a law its just a recommendation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbswCOpAUa8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbswCOpAUa8

[angelatc]

Spin is on. CNN already saying that because Trump was not explicitly cleared, then Trump definitely committed crimes.

“We have not charged Trump with robbing a 7/11, but we can’t say for sure that he has never robbed a 7/11”.

I guess this is one of those deals where we're mentally watching 2 different speeches, because I heard him say they did not proceed because of the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, but that Congress should step into it's oversight role.

[angelatc]

No need to watch CNN when Zippy can provide the Democrat talking points in real time.

So hard to prove a negative. “We can not definitely clear Trump of having robbed a 7/11 at some point.”

These days, talking to liberty lovers about this is a lot like talking to the Bush neocons about the Iraq war.

[nikcers]

These days, talking to liberty lovers about this is a lot like talking to the Bush neocons about the Iraq war.

Talking to the democrats is a lot like talking to the Bush neocons about Iraq Iran. BUT THERE IS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION I JUST CAN'T PROVE IT

[dannno]

Mueller said Barr misrepresented the report.

WRONG...

Barr called Mueller about the letter that very night and Mueller clarified that the report Barr wrote was accurate, but the way in which the media was reporting the 'summary' was inaccurate.

[Brian4Liberty]

I guess this is one of those deals where we're mentally watching 2 different speeches, because I heard him say they did not proceed because of the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, but that Congress should step into it's oversight role.

I was talking about CNN, not specifically the Mueller statement.

As far as the Mueller statement, my summary/paraphrase is stated differently than yours, but essentially the same:



- Sittng President could not be charged, so that was never an option. He did mention that “other processes would be used against a sitting President”. Open door to impeachment.

[heavenlyboy34]

@heavenlyboy34 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=20609)

Guilty as charged. :cool: Aren't you proud? :)

[nobody's_hero]

These days, talking to liberty lovers about this is a lot like talking to the Bush neocons about the Iraq war.

The deep state lied to get us into Iraq, why should we trust them on this Russia hoax? I still maintain that some people hate Trump so badly they don't realize who they're siding with. There are clowns, and then there are true threats to liberty.

[nikcers]

The deep state lied to get us into Iraq, why should we trust them on this Russia hoax? I still maintain that some people hate Trump so badly they don't realize who they're siding with.

I'm shocked you don't trust the deep state, shocked I tell ya. :redsmiling:

[donnay]

Mueller was set up to cover up the Obama administration's criminal activity--period.

I really hope the democrats and the RINO's that want to impeach President Trump, go for it. Political suicide.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm shocked you don't trust the deep state, shocked I tell ya. :redsmiling:

I'm just saying. Trump isn't going to be the one holding the liberty movement's head under water if it ever reaches the same momentum that it did in 2008. Just thinkin' long-term, is all.

[nikcers]

I'm just saying. Trump isn't going to be the one holding the liberty movement's head under water if it ever reaches the same momentum that it did in 2008. Just thinkin' long-term, is all.

Yeah I can't believe anyone couldn't see the deep state doing this to a president Rand Paul.

[KEEF]

These days, talking to liberty lovers about this is a lot like talking to the Bush neocons about the Iraq war.
+1 rep! I have to spread some more rep before I can get you Angela. But this is so true.

[ATruepatriot]

I'm just saying. Trump isn't going to be the one holding the liberty movement's head under water if it ever reaches the same momentum that it did in 2008. Just thinkin' long-term, is all.

That is a fact. As we speak the left is trying to give the sole power of voting for President to just the cities of LA and NY, no one else's vote will count anymore unless you happen to live in these two cities. Why folks can't see this is a much much deeper hole to fall into I have no clue. Why vote then? Won't be able to beat this once it's done anyways, it will be the end of both the Liberty movement and conservatives forever. The Liberty movement along with all the principles is going to die for sure in this coming communist environment if it prevails.

[nikcers]

That is a fact. As we speak the left is trying to give the sole power of voting for President to just the cities of LA and NY, no one else's vote will count anymore unless you happen to live in these two cities. Why folks can't see this is a much much deeper hole to fall into I have no clue. Why vote then? Won't be able to beat this once it's done anyways, it will be the end of both the Liberty movement and conservatives forever. The Liberty movement along with all the principles is going to die for sure in this coming communist environment if it prevails.

Your vote is only worth 1/3 of their vote...

[ATruepatriot]

Your vote is only worth 1/3 of their vote...

No, Every vote not for a liberal will be zip... nada... null... unless you happen to live in these two cities. The communist indoctrination agenda has worked well. They now out populate all other parties put together.

[nikcers]

No, Every vote not for a liberal will be zip... nada... null... unless you happen to live in these two cities. The communist indoctrination agenda has worked well. They now out populate all other parties put together.

Sounds like a shit way to break up the union. Hey states we need to join together because otherwise we will get invvaded by other countries but don't worry we won't take away your representation by doing this, you will be independent.

[angelatc]

+1 rep! I have to spread some more rep before I can get you Angela. But this is so true.

Here is an analysis by a libertarian lawyer. I think it's a good read. https://niskanencenter.org/blog/reckoning-with-the-mueller-report-volume-two/

[Swordsmyth]

Barr's statement was not a quote from the report. Mueller said Barr misrepresented the report.
No he didn't.

[Dary]

Any and all money that was paid to Mueller for this so called report should be immediately returned.

Is there any way we can sue?


He can't say that Trump didn't commit a crime.


He can't say that Trump did commit a crime.


WTF did we pay him for?


Julian Assange has already said that it wasn't the Russians and I'd believe him long before I'd believe Mueller.


Julian has something to lose. Mueller could only gain.

[ATruepatriot]

Sounds like a $#@! way to break up the union. Hey states we need to join together because otherwise we will get invvaded by other countries but don't worry we won't take away your representation by doing this, you will be independent.

What I suggest is a tax revolt. No more federal taxes paid until vote representation is protected again. Without the power of the vote we will no longer be represented in whole. It will be taxation without representation. The threat of a tax revolt needs to go viral now, right away before this ploy to eliminate the electoral college goes any further. They need to be put in a position of thinking twice about it.

[nikcers]

Any and all money that was paid to Mueller for this so called report should be immediately returned.

Is there any way we can sue?


He can't say that Trump didn't commit a crime.


He can't say that Trump did commit a crime.


WTF did we pay him for?


Julian Assange has already said that it wasn't the Russians and I'd believe him long before I'd believe Mueller.


Julian has something to lose. Mueller could only gain.
You paid for the show, and the show is over, you already watched it. You can't go see a movie and then ask for a refund afterwards because it is a shit show.

[oyarde]

Mueller is going to resign and go on vacation and not give anymore cooperation.

[donnay]

Any and all money that was paid to Mueller for this so called report should be immediately returned.

Is there any way we can sue?


He can't say that Trump didn't commit a crime.


He can't say that Trump did commit a crime.


WTF did we pay him for?


Julian Assange has already said that it wasn't the Russians and I'd believe him long before I'd believe Mueller.


Julian has something to lose. Mueller could only gain.

I couldn't agree more. Julian Assange is definitely key, and yet our CIA (Deep State) doesn't want him to speak. I believe Assange also knows who murdered Seth Rich.

[Swordsmyth]

"If Trump was cleared, we would have said so."
If Zippy was cleared of gross violations of the site rules I would say so.

We'd better ban him just to be sure.

[Swordsmyth]

Barr claimed they found no obstruction. That was contradicted by the summary in the Mueller report- which he repeated in his statement today that if Trump was clear, they would have said so. He did say that Trump did not collude with Russia but that Russia interfered with the election in many ways.
Shifting the burden of proof to the accused is bad enough but claiming that doing so is the same as finding obstruction is laughable.

[Swordsmyth]

I guess this is one of those deals where we're mentally watching 2 different speeches, because I heard him say they did not proceed because of the DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president, but that Congress should step into it's oversight role.
"I couldn't find anything, maybe you guys will have better luck, we gotta impeach this guy for something..............anything"
"Show me the man and I'll find you a crime"

[Dary]

You can't go see a movie and then ask for a refund afterwards because it is a shit show.

Yes you can.

[nikcers]

Yes you can.

Most theaters I have been too require you to not watch the entire show. You know like Cinemark and Regal the biggest ones?

[nikcers]

Yes you can.

Most theaters I have been to require you to not watch the entire show. You know like Cinemark and Regal the biggest ones? I think it flies under the natural law of no take backs.

[ATruepatriot]

Here is an analysis by a libertarian lawyer. I think it's a good read. https://niskanencenter.org/blog/reckoning-with-the-mueller-report-volume-two/

I read this nice lady. And unfortunately still no detailed specific why content. The blanket situation and the legalities but no "questionable action" points or infractions listed.

[fcreature]

Mueller is a real piece of shit.

The Senate Republicans need to drag this man in front of a committee and force him to perjure himself. These people need to be jailed.

[spudea]

Barr's statement was not a quote from the report. Mueller said Barr misrepresented the report.

Lies. Barr's letter specifically lays it all out, the evidence of potential obstruction, the special council unable to reach a judgment and he literally quoted from the report the is not exonoration part. Except what you and Mr Mueller fail to understand is its not the job of a prosecutor to prove innocence, it is to prove a crime occurred. Mueller failed in that respect, and this new statement and the entire report is him covering his ass, to justify $40 million spent on a hoax as he knew early on there was no conspiracy.

[Danke]

Julian Assange has already said that it wasn't the Russians and I'd believe him long before I'd believe Mueller.


Julian has something to lose. Mueller could only gain.

I heard from many news outlets that the speed the files were transfered would be impossible unless it was to a flash drive by an insider.

[nikcers]

I couldn't agree more. Julian Assange is definitely key, and yet our CIA (Deep State) doesn't want him to speak. I believe Assange also knows who murdered Seth Rich.
America is responsbile for the murder of Seth Rich because we let it go unpunished. Just like if they murder Assange it will be on our souls and St. Peter will ask you why you willingly participated.

[Swordsmyth]

I read this nice lady. And unfortunately still no detailed specific why content. The blanket situation and the legalities but no "questionable action" points or infractions listed.
That's all anyone has.

"I don't like what you did" isn't an impeachable offense to anyone with any brains or honor but TDS victims don't care.

[Wooden Indian]

I can't say he did commit a crime.
I cant say he didn't commit a crime.
Doesnt matter because a rule that may not be a rule says we cant charge.
Don't ask me to testify.
I resign.

BRAVO GOOD SIR!

[Swordsmyth]

Bob Mueller Misstates Law & Resigns (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?535077-Bob-Mueller-Misstates-Law-amp-Resigns)

[angelatc]

I read this nice lady. And unfortunately still no detailed specific why content. The blanket situation and the legalities but no "questionable action" points or infractions listed.

The entire second half of Mueller's report *is* the list of infractions. Is it too long? Too complicated? Too mant big words? What? What keeps people from actually reading the report?

[angelatc]

Lies. Barr's letter specifically lays it all out, the evidence of potential obstruction, the special council unable to reach a judgment and he literally quoted from the report the is not exonoration part. Except what you and Mr Mueller fail to understand is its not the job of a prosecutor to prove innocence, it is to prove a crime occurred. Mueller failed in that respect, and this new statement and the entire report is him covering his ass, to justify $40 million spent on a hoax as he knew early on there was no conspiracy.



Mueller essentially said a crime occurred, but he didn't have the authority to prosecute due to the longstanding policy of not indicting a sitting president. That's a pretty significant difference. He went on TV to beg people to read the darned report.

And this investigation was technically about Russian interference in our elections, which so far has resulted in the indictment of 12 Russian intelligence agents, 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian companies. So the "fruit of the poisonous tree" exemption won't apply here.

[ATruepatriot]

The entire second half of Mueller's report *is* the list of infractions. Is it too long? Too complicated? Too mant big words? What? What keeps people from actually reading the report?

How can I read it through the eyes of Justin Amash and understand what his personal perspective and interpretation is? How could anyone?

[tfurrh]

Why is his last name pronounced MUHler and not MEWler like Ferris Bueller? I feel like these last several years could have been way better.

[Pauls' Revere]

I couldn't agree more. Julian Assange is definitely key, and yet our CIA (Deep State) doesn't want him to speak. I believe Assange also knows who murdered Seth Rich.

+rep

It all begins here when/how/why Seth Rich leaked the emails about Hillary and how the 2016 election was rigged to her favor. If this truth ever got out or understood I would hope more Americans would scream for revolution.

[nikcers]

The entire second half of Mueller's report *is* the list of infractions. Is it too long? Too complicated? Too mant big words? What? What keeps people from actually reading the report?

if you are saying its the half of the report, a 300 page report, its a little long in the sense that I can write a 300 page essay that says NOTHING what so ever, it was something they taught me in public schools. Can you tell me one of them, like the worse one, in your opinon? 300 pages is a little TLDR can you give me just one that warrants impeachment that was proven absolutely?

[ATruepatriot]

if you are saying its the half of the report, a 300 page report, its a little long in the sense that I can write a 300 page essay that says NOTHING what so ever, it was something they taught me in public schools. Can you tell me one of them, like the worse one, in your opinon? 300 pages is a little TLDR can you give me just one that warrants impeachment that was proven absolutely?

Not even the media with paid armies of researchers have done this yet, and they have had plenty of time. Why? because there just is no smoking gun.

[Swordsmyth]

Mueller essentially said a crime occurred, but he didn't have the authority to prosecute due to the longstanding policy of not indicting a sitting president. That's a pretty significant difference. He went on TV to beg people to read the darned report.

He has nothing which is why he and all the people parroting him never give any details.


And this investigation was technically about Russian interference in our elections, which so far has resulted in the indictment of 12 Russian intelligence agents, 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian companies. So the "fruit of the poisonous tree" exemption won't apply here.
Garbage indictments that are the fruit of a poisonous tree don't heal the tree.

[Pauls' Revere]

https://news.yahoo.com/it-was-a-coup-mueller-critics-demand-deep-state-investigation-obama-testimony-202827569.html

WASHINGTON — An hour before Robert Mueller prepared to give his one — and apparently only — public statement on the findings of his investigation into Russian electoral interference, calls for a very different sort of probe were taking place at an event organized by a conservative organization closely aligned with President Trump.

There were calls for President Obama to testify before Congress, as well as suspicions about FBI Director Christopher Wray. Trump, meanwhile, was a “crime victim,” while alleged spying on the Trump campaign by law enforcement entities in the Obama administration was nothing short of “terrorism.”

These were some of the assertions made during a panel hosted on Wednesday morning by Judicial Watch titled “Investigating the Investigators,” an evident reference to Mueller, who was appointed by the Department of Justice to investigate allegations that the Trump presidential campaign may have worked with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

“It is time to look into the politicization of the DOJ and the intelligence community in their effort to undermine the president,” said a press release for the event, which took place at the studio of One America News, a conservative media outlet.

With the Mueller report now a public document — and a highly contentious one at that — the event was a window into how Trump’s supporters plan to reframe the debate over the president’s possible wrongdoing into an attack on the origins of the investigation. That approach appears to be directed by the White House, with Trump last week authorizing Attorney General William Barr to declassify documents related to potential surveillance on the Trump campaign. Barr has previously expressed concerns that the FBI may have conducted unauthorized “spying” during the 2016 election.

“Something very horrible went terribly wrong,” said another of the panelists, Christopher J. Farrell, also of Judicial Watch. “A hoax has been perpetrated upon” the American people, Farrell said, speaking of the Mueller report.

“It was a coup,” Farrell went on to say, albeit one without tanks in the streets. “It was an effort to unseat or destabilize the Trump administration.”

He said that that effort — much of it overseen by Trump’s own Department of Justice — was a worse abuse of power than Watergate or any other presidential scandal.

Victoria Toensing, a conservative lawyer, meanwhile accused FBI Director Wray of “stonewalling.” Wray was virtually the only Trump administration official to be criticized by the Judicial Watch panelists, who charged that he was more interested in protecting the FBI’s credibility than he was in letting Barr conduct a full investigation into “spying” by the bureau into the Trump campaign.

The most notable of the panelists was Carter Page, a foreign policy expert with the Trump campaign who authorities believed was trying to make contacts with Russia during the 2016 campaign. The FBI in 2016 obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to surveil Page, who has been largely unrepentant about his role in the Trump campaign. On Wednesday, he said he was the victim of “civil rights abuses.”

Sitting before a poster board that listed the priorities of the FBI, Page said he was less concerned with issues of spying — on him and the Trump campaign — than with “literally the terrorism associated with this.” He then proceeded to argue that what he called “false reports” and “attacks” against him and the Trump campaign met the definition of terrorism.

“We’re really all victims in this,” Page said, seeming to refer to the broader Trump movement and its affiliates.

Tom Fitton, the Judicial Watch head, who regularly defends Trump on Fox News, blasted the “dishonesty of the Mueller report.” A press release sent ahead of the panel said that same report “has exonerated President Trump of the false accusations of collusion and obstruction.”

Trump himself has claimed such exoneration, an apparent reference to a lack of new indictments stemming from Mueller’s findings. The Mueller report did not find evidence the Trump campaign conspired with Russia, and did not draw conclusions about whether the president should be charged with obstruction of justice.

Whatever the interpretation of the Mueller report, the panelists focused on attacking the investigation itself, and suggested that former Democratic officials need to now be investigated, some three years after the activity in question may have taken place.

Trump’s foe in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, remained a primary target. At one point, Fitton said that she was “working directly with Russian intelligence,” referring to the dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele.

Though the Steele dossier was commissioned by the Democratic National Committee, the initial investigation into Trump's business dealings was paid for by a Republican publisher and donor, Paul Singer.

And while Democrats in the House of Representatives would like Mueller to testify, the Judicial Watch panelists wanted to see another former public servant troop up Capitol Hill.

“I want to know: What did Obama know? What did he approve? What did he tacitly nod his head for? What did he explicitly authorize?” Farrell wondered. “Let’s get Mr. Obama under oath.”