Robert Mueller closed shop finding no crimes and no collusion with the Russians, What has the 25 million dollar probe produced?
Louie Gohmert : “There is not one single indictment that could not have been done by the current justice department. ”
And how were these investigations carried out?
Sydney Powell（《特許撒謊》作者）：「FBI在淩晨搜查了麥納福的家，撬開了門鎖，把還在床上，剛被驚醒的麥納福夫妻二人，置於槍口之下，對身著睡衣的麥納福的妻子進行了搜身。我一聽就知道這是Andrew Weissman的一貫作風， 我認為這是檢察機關的恐怖行徑。」
Sydney Powell : “As soon as I heard that they raided Manafort’s home in the wee hours of the morning and picked the lock and had Manafort and his wife wake up in their bed with guns in their faces and search Manafort’s wife in the bed in her nightgown. That’s textbook Andrew Weissman. I call it prosecutorial terrorist tactics.”
The Democrats controlled House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena the unredacted Report. After the Mueller act is over, is it Congress’ turn to carry out Act II?
Christopher Farrell : “All these politicians are going to go out and try to do fundraising off of, ‘They are fighting to get the report’. ”
And just how deep is the interlocking of top political powers, national security agencies and the media during the 2016 campaign and afterwards?
Christopher Farrell : “and she wrote in this text message quote: ‘POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing’ close quote. Of course ‘POTUS’ means Mr. Obama.”
Christopher Farrell : “So my question is for Mr. Obama. What did he know, when did he know it? What did he direct? What did he approve? ”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：歡迎來到《世事關心》，我是蕭茗。特別檢察官羅伯特·穆勒最終判定，川普總統與俄國沒有勾結。有很多事可以仔細思考，我們要問，穆勒調查到底是針對俄國插手美國政治，還是國家安全機構反對美國總統？更重要的是，我們要知道，
Welcome to Zooming In, I am Simone Gao. There are many things to reflect on after Robert Mueller finally concluded there was no collusion between president Trump and Russia. We need to ask if the Mueller investigation was a sincere probe into Russian meddling in American politics or an extension of the national security agencies opposition to the president? More importantly, we need to know what exactly was the syndicate behind the Russian Collusion Hoax that included a presidential campaign, the FBI, the Justice Department and their allies in the media who injected tall-tales from the Russians into the country’s bloodstream. In this edition of “Zooming In,” we look for lessons learned for our new, post-Mueller world.
On March 24, Special Counsel Robert Mueller handed the final conclusion of his Russia probe to the Justice Department. The two-year investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. The report also concluded the evidence was “not sufficient" to establish that Trump had obstructed justice and leaves the attorney general with the task of determining “whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime." The Justice department concluded “There is no obstruction of justice.”
This chapter did not end here.
Three days later, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler called the Attorney General William Bar to request the full unredacted report by April 2 which the Attorney General did not commit. On April 3, The House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize a subpoena for the full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.
The committee also authorized subpoenas for members in the Trump orbit, including former White House counsel Don McGahn; McGahn’s former chief of staff Ann Donaldson; former adviser Steve Bannon; former spokesperson Hope Hicks; and former chief of staff Reince Priebus.
Meanwhile, The House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal filed a formal request with the Treasury Department for the tax returns of President Trump for the past six years.
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：美國根據《憲法》第一條，設立了聯邦政府的立法部門，即美國國會。今天，這個政府機構似乎更像是政客的“武器”。在這部永不落幕的劇本中，穆勒出演的第一幕結束後，是不是該輪到國會上演第二幕了?我訪問了前陸軍反間諜官員、司法觀察調查研究主管克裏斯托弗·法雷爾，請問他對通俄門調查的第二幕將如何展開。
Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Today, this body of government seems to be weaponized by politicians more than ever. In this never ending play, after Mueller’s Act I is over, is it Congress’ turn to carry out Act II? I asked Christopher Farrell, a former Army counterintelligence officer and the director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch, how Act II of the Russian Probe will play out.
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「您認為在眾議院司法委員會發出傳票後，司法部長並且請願在眾議院司法委員會發出傳票後，把穆勒的完整報告交給他們嗎？」
“Do you think the Attorney General should and would hand over the full mueller report to the house judiciary committee after they subpoena it. ”
Christopher Farrell: “Well there’s a process for the attorney general to handle the Mueller report and that process is governed by law. It’s also governed by regulations that come from the law itself and it’s very specific and it has a number of requirements that the attorney general must fulfill. And so in doing that, you know there’s sort of this political sideshow, this political theater that’s taking place in the House Judiciary Committee which has little or nothing to do with the law that governs the attorney general’s conduct. And so the attorney general is currently reviewing Mueller’s report. He has already pledged to make it public. But there are constraints on what he can make public. And so the law requires that the attorney general protect what’s referred to as “‘grand jury material" and that’s information that’s presented to a grand jury but it is not intended to ever be made public. Grand jury secrecy is a tenant. you know a foundation of our system of jurisprudence. There’s also classified information that has to be withheld and then there’s privacy related information. You’re an innocent person. So why should your name be dragged into something that you just happened to see, hear, etc. ”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「您的意思是說他們要求提供完整的報告原文是違法的。」
Simone: “ So you are specifically saying they are violating the law by asking for an unredacted version.”
Christopher Farrell: “Well they can ask for whatever they want. There’s a difference between politics and law. In this case they sort of intersect and so you have politicians with their own political agenda trying to use a legal tool to force the attorney general to violate the law. There’s an incredible contradiction in this and it’s nonsensical. But it’s not intended to make sense. It’s intended as a propaganda tool. It’s intended as a fundraising tool. All these politicians are going to go out and try to do fundraising off of, ‘They are fighting to get the report’. No they’re not. They’re doing a political stunt to generate and to energize interest in their political base. ”
Coming up, can a sitting president be indicted?
Part 2: Can a Sitting President be Indicted?
The U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted. This policy was adopted by the DOJ’s office of Legal Counsel In 1973 during President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal. Nixon resigned in 1974, under the impeachment pressure from the House of Representatives. This is why the House Judiciary Committee named Nixon as a quote “unindicted co-spirator”. It was also part of President Gerald Ford’s motivation to pardon Nixon to shield him from future indictments, since he no longer had the protection of being president.
DOJ reaffirmed the policy in a 2000 memo and concluded that criminal charges against a president would “violate the constitutional separation of powers” delineating the authority of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. government.
In practice, indicting a sitting president is subject to procedure conflict. In the case of the Mueller Probe, the special counsel and his staff were not independent of the Justice Department or its chain of command. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller and launched the investigation and throughout its active phase, Mueller reported to Rosenstein and his decisions were subject to Rosenstein’s approval. Because Rosenstein and Mueller and everyone else in the Justice Department works for the president, if Mueller indicted Trump for obstructing justice, he could order Mueller to withdrawn the charge or fire Mueller and hire someone else to withdraw the charge.
This is why the president cannot be indicted. Constitutionally, you cannot have the sovereign working against himself. As a practical matter, no president would allow one of his subordinates to prosecute him, let alone indict him.
For these reasons, the Framers placed the power to impeach, which is the constitutional equivalent of an indictment, with the House of Representatives. Once impeached, the president is literally put on trial in the Senate presided over by the chief justice.
The Mueller Probe is over, but constitutionally, the real action has always been in the House–and with Democrats winning control of the chamber in the 2018 midterms, House Democrats are taking center stage.
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：德克薩斯州共和黨議員路易·戈莫特是前州法院法官，同時也是眾議院司法委員會最資深的共和黨人之一。任何彈劾川普總統的動議必須經過他的司法委員會。他告訴《世事關心》節目組，民主黨人不會善罷甘休，停止與總統作對。但是，目前議會中的氛圍也不贊成彈劾總統。
Texas Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert is a former state judge and one of the most senior Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee. Any move to impeach President Donald Trump must go through his committee. He told “Zooming In” that Democrats are not moving on from their efforts to undermine the president. But the mood in congress is not for impeachment either at this moment.
路易·戈莫特（德克薩斯州共和黨議員）： 「至於彈劾，我認為已經不再具有任何實際意義。從特別檢察官辦公室內部人員中傳出一些流言，說報告的實際內容比綜述中提出的還要多。但是，不論特別檢察官辦公室內部的什麼人傳出的這些流言，你得這樣理解，他們散佈這些流言，他們本人很可能就是罪犯。所以，如果你願意相信特別檢察官辦公室那些可能是罪犯的人說的話，那你去相信好了。不過，我認為我們需要對罪犯散佈的所有傳言進行調查，因為那些罪犯本身負有嚴查深究，匡扶正義的責任， 實際上真正的作惡者是他們自己。」
Louie Gohmert:“ Well as far as impeachment I don’t think that’s at all practical anymore. There are rumors from people within the special counsel’s office that are leaking out that there’s more than the summary indicated. But you also have to understand anybody in the special counsel’s office that’s leaking that information may well be criminals themselves for leaking that information. So if you want to take the word of potential criminals who were working in the special counsel’s office then that’s fine. But I think we need an investigation into all the leaking that’s going on by criminals that are supposed to be ferreting out and punishing (in)justice when actually they’re the perpetrators. ”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「對於司法部長巴爾處置納德勒的作法以及穆勒的調查報告，你有何看法？」
“what is your take on how Attorney General Barr is handling himself with Nadler and the Mueller Report?”
Louie Gohmert: “ I know there were a lot of Republicans that, that thought a lot of Attorney General Barr even when he was nominated. I just don’t know the man and I didn’t know the man well enough. I mean I could read about him but that’s not really knowing him like I know Mueller after years of asking him questions and years of research on him so, I know him well and that’s one of the reasons I was very upset when he was appointed as special counsel. But as far as attorney general Barr’s conduct since being confirmed and made attorney general. I was a bit skeptical because I knew he had been there before and was friends with some of the people that I considered deep state problems. But I think he’s comported himself extremely well and, and is actually restoring some of the dignity to the office as head of the Department of Justice.”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「他提出將於5月2日到您的委員會作證。您會向他提什麼樣的問題？」
Simone: “He offered to testify before your committee May 2, what are your questions that you are going to ask him?”
Louie Gohmert: “Well I don’t know. I have more questions for Mueller than I do Barr. I would really like to have Mueller back in front of our committee. He hasn’t been here to testify before our committee since he became special counsel. He had all kinds of bases for recusal himself, all kinds of reasons he should never have accepted the job, if he were an ethical, moral person concerned about justice. But he did. We do also know absolutely that there was a conspiracy between a foreign agent named Steele and the people who were foreign agents in Russia with whom he worked with the Clinton campaign and with high level officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI. That’s where the criminal conspiracy needs to be investigated. That’s where the real problem is. And I hope now we’ll get around to doing that. ”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「這個有多大的可能會發生？ 這個調查有多大的可能會發生？」
Simone: “How likely is that going to happen? That investigation.”
Louie Gohmert: “ It will not be as a result of a demand from the Judiciary Committee as I would have hoped, because our chairman has made clear…He takes a very very partisan approach to the investigation and the Department of Justice so… It fits an investigation into Clinton who is found to have perjured himself. He wants to protect the president and his administration at all costs as he did with President Clinton. But when it’s in the case of President Trump, a Republican where no criminality is found by anyone, no indictments, no criminality regarding anyone, including the president, with any type of conspiracy with Russia…He still wants to persist and prevent a true investigation into the real crimes that occurred. But the truth is you look at all the indictments that came as a result of the special counsel. There is not one single indictment that could not have been done by the current justice department. ”
Coming up, Is the Deep State the new Fourth Estate?
Part 3: Is the Deep State the new Fourth Estate?
France’s Louis XVI called for the assembly of the kingdom’s three estates to resolve the financial crisis that crippled his government. The three estates were the nobility, the clergy and the commoners. In the 1960s, American reporters began referring to the media as the so-called Fourth Estate, an extra-constitutional body with a veto over the government and society. During the Russia Probe, yet another powerful estate surfaced, namely, the national security agencies.
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）： Sydney Powell，《特許撒謊》一書的作者。她曾在德克薩斯州和弗吉尼亞州的司法部工作了10年，在第五巡迴上訴法院擔任500多起上訴案件的首席律師。Powell告訴我，在過去兩年裡這種勾結論是毫無根據的。
Sydney Powell is the author of Licensed to Lie. She served in the Department of Justice for ten years in Texas and Virginia, and has been lead counsel in more than 500 appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Powell told me she knew for the past two years that the collusion narrative was groundless.
Sydeny Powell（《特許撒謊》作者）：「兩年前我就知道他們整個的勾結的過程。我一開始在我看來就很明顯，因為我認識Andrew Weissmann。他是穆勒特別工作組的首席檢察官，事實上，他是我2014年出版的《特許說謊: 揭露司法部的腐敗》一書中的頭號反派。他極具造事的能力，他編造了針對Arthur Andersen的罪行，毀掉了這家公司和八萬五千個工作崗位。直到三年以後，最高法院才推翻該判決。他還編造了針對Merrill Lynch四名高管的罪行，將他們無故關押了一年。所以，我親自觀察他的工作，我能從他們說的話和他們做事的方式上看出來,特別是當我看到嚴重節選過的，在『對外國情報監控』法庭申請的對carter page 的監控申請裡，什麼實質內容都沒有，沒有法官應該在那上面簽字，這絕對令人震驚。所以我本來以爲會發現他們與俄羅斯沒有勾結。但我也在期待，因爲穆勒挑出了Weismann和一群厭惡川普的人，穆勒他們向民主黨人喂料，試圖爲他們的彈劾行動提供素材。所以對穆勒他們沒有肯定地說出絕對沒有妨礙司法公正的證據，我並不感到驚訝。儘管他們應該這麼說，本質上，他們並不建議總統因此而受到起訴。這和免責是一回事。但是，他們繼續向民主黨人喂料，說我們不能爲他開脫，這是胡扯。」
Sydney Powell: “I’ve known for two years that they made up the entire collusion narrative that was obvious for me from the beginning because I know Andrew Weissmann, the lead prosecutor on Mr. Mueller’s task force. He’s actually the lead villain in my book “‘License to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice", that came out in 2014. And he’s very capable of making things up. He made up crimes against Arthur Andersen and destroyed that company and 85,000 jobs only to be reversed by the Supreme Court unanimously three years later. And he made up crimes against four Merrill Lynch executives and sent them to prison for a year for nothing. So I’ve seen his work up close and personal. And I could just tell from the things they said and the way they went about doing it, especially when I saw the heavily redacted FISA application, the one on Carter Page, that they didn’t have anything. No judge should have signed off on that. It was absolutely appalling. So I was expecting a finding of no collusion with Russia. But I was also expecting because it was Weismann and a group of people who absolutely loathe President Trump that Mr. Mueller picked for his special council operation, that they would throw all kinds of red meat to the Democrats to try to give’em fodder for the impeachment effort. So I’m not surprised that they didn’t affirmatively say there was absolutely no evidence of obstruction of justice. Although that’s what they should have said. They essentially said that they’re not suggesting that he be indicted for that. That’s the same thing as an exoneration really. But yet they go on to throw red meat to the Democrats by saying well we can’t really exonerate him. That’s just baloney.”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「您的書是2014年出版的。」
Simone: “Your book came out 2014. ”
Sydeny Powell（《特許撒謊》作者）：「是的 」
Sydney Powell: “Yes.”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「那麼你揭露了Weissman。」
Simone: So you exposed Weissman then.
Sydney Powell:“ I do. ”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「那麼，我就在想這個時間，爲什麼當時沒有引起穆勒的警覺呢?」
Simone:“ And then, I am just thinking about the timeline. Why didn’t that sound alarm for Mueller? ”
Sydney Powell: “Well I should have. But Mr. Mueller spent protecting and promoting Mr. Weisman for 20 years. ”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「嗯！」
Sydeny Powell（《特許撒謊》作者）：「穆勒先生把他安置在安然特遣部隊，在那裡他犯下了我在書中談到的所有暴行。之後穆勒先生把他帶回聯邦調查局擔任他的總法律顧問。儘管我們對韋斯曼提出了非常令人信服的申訴，儘管美國第五巡迴上訴法院發現韋斯曼明顯隱瞞了有利於辯方的證據，但穆勒一直在護著他。 接著，我在書中提到的另一個人萊斯利·卡爾德威爾，把韋斯曼帶回了司法部。當時是洛雷塔·林奇擔任部長。韋斯曼、卡爾德威爾和林奇這三個人成為了我稱之為『深層政府交接團隊』的一幫人。他們和克里斯托弗·斯蒂爾、布魯斯·歐爾裡應外合，搞出來這個黑卷宗。把黑卷宗弄到聯調局和司法部，都是在韋斯曼成為特別檢察官小組成員之前很久的事情。我是說真的是韋斯曼和 Ahmad插手過的每一件事情，Ahmad也和克里斯托弗·斯蒂爾配合搞黑卷宗。每一件他們插手過的案件，都應該以政府極端行為不當為由予以撤銷。」
Sydney Powell: “Mr. Mueller had a hand in putting him on the Enron Task Force where he committed all the atrocities that I talk about in my book. And then Mr. Muller brought him back into the FBI as his general counsel after that. And even though we filed a grievance against Mr. Weissman that was very compelling, and even though the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Mr. Weissman plainly suppressed evidence favorable to the defense, Mr. Muller kept protecting him. And then Leslie Caldwell who is also in the book, brought him back into the Department of Justice when Loretta Lynch was attorney general and they became what I call the “Deep State Transition Team" that then went about running the back channel with Christopher Steele and Bruce Ohr, to do the dossier…getting it to the FBI and through the DOJ and all that, long before Weismann went on the special counsel force. I mean really everything Weissman and Ms. Ahmad touch…She was running the back channel with Christopher Steele too. Everything they touch should be thrown out for egregious government misconduct. ”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「所以你認爲穆勒知道這一切，他完全瞭解韋斯曼。」
Simone: “And so you think Mueller knew all this and he knew Weismann from the inside out. ”
Sydney Powell: “Oh yeah I think that’s why he picked him for the special counsel operation. Because he knew what a dirty prosecutor he is. As soon as I heard that they raided Manafort’s home in the wee hours of the morning and picked the lock and had Manafort and his wife wake up in their bed with guns in their faces and search Manafort’s wife in the bed in her nightgown. That’s textbook Andrew Weissman. I call it prosecutorial terrorist tactics.”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「在奧巴馬執政期間，招收新人時保守派人士是很難進入司法部的，是嗎?」
Simone:“ Is it true that during the Obama time, when they hired new people, it was very hard for the Conservatives to go into the Justice Department?”
Sydney Powell: “Not necessarily. I think the Department of Justice has gotten progressively worse over the last 20 years. It’s been a slow process. Obama probably doubled it and ramped it up in terms of allowing prosecutors to run rampant over people’s rights and target people. I mean I’ve never seen such politicization and weaponization of all federal agencies as we’ve witnessed during the Obama administration. I mean from the Environmental Protection Agency to the IRS to the State Department to the DOJ. He literally put SWAT teams in the EPA. I mean militarized SWAT team for the EPA and other federal agencies. ”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）： 在美國曆史上，國家安全機構從未如此密切地與一位總統候選人合作，卻與另一位總統候選人對抗。而且，在他們支持的候選人競選失敗後，這種對抗還依然繼續。這些國家機構沒有成為第五級，卻與左翼媒體聯手，成為了一個新的更強大的第四級，差點推翻了一位合法當選的總統。更多細節，我與Farrell接著來談。
Never before in American history have the national security agencies worked so closely with one presidential candidate and against another–and then, continuing that opposition after their candidate lost the election. Rather than becoming a Fifth Estate, these agencies and the left-wing media joined forces forming a new more powerful Fourth Estate that nearly ousted a duly-elected president. For more details, Here is the rest of my conversation with Farrell.
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「聯邦法律和憲法規定，未經授權不得對美國公民進行監視。 但是，奧巴馬政府的人取消了對幾百位這樣被偶然監視到的美國人身份的隱蔽。這是怎麼回事呢？」
Simone: “Federal law and the Constitution forbid unwarranted surveillance of U.S. citizens, so when Americans are picked up incidentally, their identity is masked. Yet, members of the Obama administration made hundreds of requests to “unmask” US citizens accidentally picked up in surveillance–what was going on?”
Christopher Farrell: “That’s a great question. We know that the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power… I think at least a couple of hundred unmasking requests have come either from her or from her office. That’s astonishing. First of all she, I mean really as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., She has no business accessing extremely classified, signals intelligence information. It’s just not in her portfolio. It’s not part of her job.”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「蘇珊·賴斯是可以理解的。但是她…」
Simone Gao: “Susan Rice is understandable. But her… ”
Christopher Farrell: “Yeah. And so，Again this is a， It’s a curiosity. It begs… begs for a criminal investigation by the attorney general because we’ve seen the abuse of law enforcement techniques and intelligence techniques the likes of which we have never seen in our history. You know the sort of the I guess the benchmark political crisis of all, that everything is sort of measured against is Watergate. The Nixon era scandal and crisis that forced his resignation. What we’ve seen with this manufactured hoax, Russia hysteria, makes Watergate look like a joke. I mean this is a really, very grave threat to the Constitution. It’s a criminal, corrupt abuse of our law enforcement and intelligence services to go after a political candidate. And really to try to manufacture or orchestrate a coup. We’ve never had that sort of a planned deliberate revolt emanating from our government against the sitting president. Nothing like it. ”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「這些人是奧巴馬政府故意針對的嗎?」
Simone: “Are these individuals intentionally targeted, that is my question, by the Obama administration? ”
Christopher Farrell（司法觀察/調查研究所主任）：「是的，我覺得這不是偶而為之，不是一種漫不經心之舉。比如今天下午你沒有別的事要做，幹嘛不去披露一些人呢。這是一個非常嚴重、非常深思熟慮的過程，真的應該給國家安全局敲響警鐘，因爲這很罕見，很特殊，有非常具體的要求。這不是經常做的。當你看到 Samantha Power提交了200個奇怪的請求時，你可能會想，某些地方的某些人很反常，我們以前從未見過這種情況，爲什麼這個人這麼急切地想盯這些人。這是一個異常現象，非常令人擔憂。」
Christopher Farrell: “Yeah I mean it’s not something that you just sort of do by accident or you know… It’s a not a cavalier sort of you know… You have nothing else to do this afternoon. So why not go unmask some people. It’s a very serious, very deliberate process that really should have set off alarm bells at the National Security Agency because it is rare, it is exceptional, there are very specific requirements. It’s not done very often. And you know when you see Samantha Power submitting 200 and some odd requests, somebody somewhere, you would think, would have said you know, this is highly irregular. We have never seen this before. Why from this person with such urgency looking at these people. It is a… It’s an aberration that is extremely alarming. ”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：「您如何描述克林頓競選團隊、國家安全機構和媒體在2016年競選期間及之後的相互關聯?」
Simone: “How would you describe the interlocking of the Clinton campaign, national security agencies and the media during the 2016 campaign and afterwards? ”
Christopher Farrell（司法觀察/調查研究所主任）：「 如果你在尋找一個陰謀，一個真正的陰謀，看看克林頓競選團隊官員、司法部和聯邦調查局人員、檔案偽造者之間的非常熟絡的關係。我認爲這能說明問題，尤其是當你考慮到司法部和聯邦調查局在得知克林頓觸犯了《美國法典》第18章第793節時，他們否決了對她的電子郵件調查。毫無疑問，這是對涉及國防信息的不正當處理。科米先生根據法律提出了一項新要求，涉及法律中沒有的意圖。但他們竭盡全力爲她開脫，因爲他們不想讓民主黨的總統候選人被起訴，對吧? 我是說，有點公關的味道。但我認爲，即使是更大、更大、最大的問題要追溯到麗莎·佩奇發給彼得·史卓克的一條短信。她非常激動地寫給他，因爲她正在爲FBI局長科米準備談話要點，好讓他向總統簡要介紹他們調查川普的活動，她在短信中寫道: “POTUS想知道我們正在做的一切”。當然，POTUS的意思是奧巴馬先生，對吧?當時是總統。這是麗莎·佩奇，她寫短信的時候想的就是爲FBI局長準備的簡報，因爲她知道科米要去見總統。她告訴史卓克，這一切的首席調查員，『總統想知道我們正在做的一切』，時間是2016年9月。所以，我有問題要問奧巴馬先生：他知道了什麼？什麼時候知道的？他作出了什麼指示？批準了什麼?」
Christopher Farrell: “Sure. I mean if you’re looking for a conspiracy, a real conspiracy, look at the very cozy relationships between Clinton campaign officials, various persons in the Department of Justice and the FBI, the manufacturers of the phony dossier…and I mean, what that really gets to I think, particularly when you take into account that Department Justice and the FBI threw out the Clinton email investigation when they knew that she had committed crimes and very specifically I can tell you,18 United States Code Section 793 F. Which is the mishandling of national defense information. Without a doubt. Mr. Comey manufactured a new requirement under the law something concerning intent which is not in the law. But they bent over backwards to absolve her of any wrongdoing because they didn’t want to have the Democratic nominee for the president to be indicted. Right? I mean, a little bit of a public relations problem there. But I think even the larger, the greater, the greatest question goes back to a text that Lisa Page sent to Peter Strzok. And she wrote to him, very excitedly, because she was preparing talking points for the director of the FBI, Mr. Comey, to go brief the president on their activities going after Trump and she wrote in this text message quote: POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing" close quote. Of course ‘POTUS’ means Mr. Obama, Right? The president at the time. So here’s Lisa Page. She’s thinking about this briefing she’s preparing for the FBI director because she knows he’s going to go see the president. And she tells Strzok, who’s the chief investigator in all this, ‘POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing’, and that was in September of 2016. So my question is for Mr. Obama. What did he know, when did he know it? What did he direct? What did he approve?”
蕭茗（Host/ Simone Gao）：有關民主黨人及其在政府中的盟友以及媒體如何試圖逆轉2016大選結果的內幕，仍未大白於天下。請持續關注《世事關心》，我們將一如既往地深度報道各方面的進展。請在Twitter上關註我們 ( @ZoomingInSimone )，並分享您的看法。您也可以關注我們的臉書專頁並訂閱我們的Youtube頻道： Zooming In With Simone Gao。
The story of how Democrats and their allies inside government and media tried to overturn the 2016 presidential election is still unfolding. Stay with “Zooming In” as we continue to cover all the developments in depth. Let me know what you think on Twitter @ZoomingInSimone. You can also join the conversation on our Facebook page and subscribe to our YouTube channel: Zooming In With Simone Gao. Good bye until next time.
Producer ：Simone Gao
Writer ：Simone Gao
Editors ： Bonnie Yu, Frank Lin, Melodie Von, York Du
Narrator ：Rich Crankshaw
Translation ：Greg Yang, Juan Li, Xiaofeng Zhang,
Bin Tang, Chu Yue
Transcription ：Jim Battaglini
Cameraman ：York Du, Teddy Lin, Ken Li
Special Effects ：Harrison Sun
Assistant producer ：Bin Tang, Merry Jiang
Host accessories are sponsored by Yun Boutique
New Tang Dynasty Television