Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Report on The Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election was released to the public on April 18th, 2019, capping off a nearly two-year-long investigation into the allegations of collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and Russian government officials during the 2016 election. The conclusions of the report are divided into two volumes. Volume I details the extent to which Russia attempted to influence the outcome of the election. Volume II addresses the claims of obstruction of Justice. What do the conclusions mean for the Trump Administration and the country going forward?

Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Subscribe to The Federalist Society's Teleforum in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There is 1 comment.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. LibertyDefender Member

    I’m still curious to learn why everyone is so willing to accept Mueller’s assertion that the DNC email server was hacked by “the Russians.”

    1. The DNC’s email server was never turned over for inspection;

    2. Julian Assange, who published the DNC emails on WikiLeaks, has continually maintained that he did not receive the DNC emails from “the Russians;” and

    3. A group of retired/former intelligence agents wrote that they had examined the WikiLeaks raw data, and were convinced that the embedded information revealed a download rate that was impossible to accomplish via hacking, and concluded that the likeliest download mechanism was to a thumb drive on the computer of a user who was logged in to the DNC email system.

    (My pet theory is that it was a Bernie Sanders sympathizer at the DNC, who wanted to blow the whistle on the rigged nomination.)

    • #1
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.