Doesn't seem that way...especially since the events Mueller talked about, all were already publicly known
All we know from the Mueller report is that he didn't want these emails leaked to the press. There is no reason to believe that not leaking emails to the press would impede the investigation in any way. What you would like his intentions to be are nothing more than hyper-partisan speculation - no obstruction.
Agreed you haven't seen a letter from Mueller. So why do you keep posting a link that discuss the letter?
If they were leaked to the media, the authorities would know... I suspect Mueller is putting the emails into a pattern of behavior and drawing an inference from Trump's entire modus operandi.
But Mueller himself says there are other good explanations as to why DT would not want this information leaked to the press so this is clearly not anything we can claim as obstruction. Mueller was clearly documenting the most minute of possibilities, he clearly wanted to come up with something against DT, but you don't go before the American people claiming obstruction with something this weak and subjective. You need solid and clear evidence such as someone bleach-bitting and smashing hard-drives. Not someone trying to influence the media narrative - that is not obstruction.
Actually no. Maybe in DailyKos World, but perhaps this detailed write up will educate you. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ess-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied
Irrelevant... Lying is not a determination by the interviewers, when you have a prior tape to compare it to...
I don't see how you find motives about Mueller. One way or the other. If he really wanted to hang the Trump family by their balls, he'd have done it. He has the financials that the House is trying to get from Deutchbank that Trump's desperately trying to hide. Mueller just didn't find a trail of emails from the KGB to Trump Campaign HQ. End of story.
Did you provide the fact that Flynn pleaded guilty to the lie?? Or was it the mean FBI waterboarding his newborn child that forced that??
You still are refusing to review the step by step facts laid down in the link I shared? That image is spot on.
Reviewed that story when it came out last year... It's irrelevant what the FBI interviewers thought (although even that little bit of story has been misunderstood by the sheep)... If the lie couldn't be documented with audio evidence to corroborate it, it would have mattered what the FBI interviewers thought... ir·rel·e·vant /əˈreləvənt/ adjective not connected with or relevant to something.
No, I think it does seem that way. I don't know if I would vote to convict on a jury, but the balance favors obstruction.
He reportedly said Barr’s report was accurate. He was given a chance to review it prior to going to congress and refused
He's hiding material facts. Read the statute. If there's a discernible pattern to his behavior that includes the emails, he could be guilty.
Your Sisyphus imitation ... he could say everything he does, every lie he tells, is motivated by trying to avoid bad publicity. It doesn't warsh in Mizzoura. Maybe he was doing his job. I don't think it's weak. I think there's a fairly complete body of evidence.
Appears that Mueller nailed anyone else he could for even previously discarded financials around DT. Doubt he would have cut the Trump family any slack in that regards if he had found anything.
It says he kept them from the media, not from the investigation. Keeping them from the media is both legal and common sense.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for a criminal conviction whereas the balance of probabilities is the standard for civil cases. I don't know if I would convict Trump, by I think it's more likely than not he obstructed the investigation.
