Former FBI special counsel Robert Mueller, who has been painted as a crusader for justice by the Democrat Party and the fake news media, could not even answer basic questions about the contents of his own report during a Congressional hearing today that is still ongoing.

While getting questioned by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) in the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller displayed ignorance about the details of his report.

“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?” Jordan asked Mueller.

Trending: BOMBSHELL: Whistleblowers Present Hundreds of Pages of Evidence Alleging Illicit Behavior of Clinton Foundation

“I can’t into the evidentiary findings,” Mueller stammered.

“Yes, you can because you wrote about it! You gave us the answer. On page 192 of the report, you tell us who told him: Joseph Mifsud!” Jordan remarked back.

“Joseph Mifsud is the guy told Papadopoulos, the mysterious professor who lives in Rome and London, works and teaches at two different universities. This is the guy who told Papadopoulos. He’s the guy who starts it all, and when the FBI interviews him, he lies three times, and yet you don’t charge him with a crime,” Jordan added.

The embarrassing exchange can be seen in full here:

Rep. Jim Jordan: Papadopoulos tells diplomat ‘Russians have dirt on Clinton.’ Diplomat tells the FBI. What I’m wondering is, who told Papadopoulos?”

Mueller: “I can’t get into it.”

Jordan: “Yes you can because you wrote about it… you tell us who told him, Joseph Mifsud.” pic.twitter.com/8PE26trRup

— The Columbia Bugle ???????? (@ColumbiaBugle) July 24, 2019

Mueller did not fare much better while receiving questions from other lawmakers. Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) made Mueller look foolish when grilling him about the unprecedented nature of his investigation on President Trump’s potential Russian collusion.

“Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked Mueller.

“I cannot, but this is a unique situation,” Mueller responded.

“You can’t find it, because I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist. The special counsel’s job nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence, or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him. It’s not in any of the documents,” Ratcliffe explained.

“It was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is the presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents,” Ratcliffe said to conclude his remarks.

Rep. Ratcliffe: “Can you give me an example other than @POTUS where DOJ determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?”

Mueller is unable to

Rep: “You can’t because it doesn’t exist.” pic.twitter.com/7XX4iYKsGq

— The Columbia Bugle ???????? (@ColumbiaBugle) July 24, 2019

Today’s hearings, meant to fuel the fire of Democratic Party efforts to impeach Trump over supposed obstruction of justice, seem to be backfiring as Mueller is crumbling under the pressure.

You Might Like

• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
•