(May 30, 2019 at 1:40 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(May 30, 2019 at 10:31 am)Brian37 Wrote: The story you are about to see is true, A FOX NEWS legal analyst actually told the truth, said something the sane already knew, and what most legal experts have agreed with, in that if it were not for him being in office, he'd be indicted for obstruction.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/44601...n-indicted
Mueller never cleared Brokeahontas of obstruction, all he did was follow DOJ protocol and left it up to congress to do it's job.
But to see someone actually tell the truth on that network is well, makes me think I am in some parallel universe.
And of course the crybaby bully is shitting his pants in public today lying saying the only reason Mueller wanted was revenge for Trump not appointing him top AG. A blatant bullshit lie.
Actually, Napolitano did NOT say that Trump would have been indicted were he not president - he said that Mueller 'basically' said that. Read the article again, especially that first paragraph.
And no again: Trump wasn't lying about Mueller not getting the AG job, he was lying about Mueller getting the FBI director job (a job, by the way, the Mueller never applied for and was never interviewed for). I think it's important to keep Trump's lies straight, as daunting a task as that seems to be.
Boru
I watched the video myself, he was agreeing with Mueller's assessment. He never said, "I disagree with his assessment. " He was repeating legal protocol. Basically like a Sport's anchor talks about what constitutes a penalty. He wasn't disagreeing otherwise he would have said so.
You are correct about the FBI director job, but the point remains that Mueller was not being special council out of any sort of revenge for not getting a job he did not apply for.
