I actually don’t buy that excuse lol.
Mullet could have indicted Trump and left it to the courts to settle the issue of whether a president can be indicted. Meanwhile, democrats would have all they need to impeach Trump. IOW, there was *nothing* to prevent Mullet from indicting Trump; rather, it’s a question of whether the indictment, once handed out, would remain valid under the constitution.
The left has been had by Mullet. He failed them. As I’ve pointed out before an obstruction charge against Trump would be weak for reasons I refuse to type out again lol. The ten instances of obstruction—or whatever, are click bait for Democrats in Congress and nothing more than instances where Trump could *conceivably* be charged with obstruction.
Big deal. Even several conservative commentators were saying some of Trump’s Tweets could be construed as obstruction as far back as last year or before. The problem is you have to consider other factors that would certainly be put before a jury that would jeopardize an *actual charge of obstruction*.
To borrow Comey’s phrase ‘no reasonable prosecutor would bring the charge’. In Trump’s instance it’s ‘no smart prosecutor would waste resources on it’.
Mullet would never bring that charge to a courtroom. And he punted on it so he wouldn’t have his name attached to it.
We tried to tell you he was a weasel.
