If you asked about political affiliations of people being hired that would be problematic. Hiring people who have a preference for a presidential candidate isn't really a problem.
He did change his answer 'We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime' This is whats in his report too and what he told Barr.
What's the point of posting tweets from talking heads who are just trying to coach people on how they should think about how the testimony went?
He did, then corrected himself and said he didn't come to a conclusion if Trump committed a crime. Dems are choosing not to show his correction.....
Repost and I'll use beautiful bold and fantastic underlining to help: Ken Buck: You believe he committed, you believe you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office? Robert Mueller: Yes ...and he didn't take that back.
Not criticizing you or anyone in particular. Just noticing how the twitterati make comments on comments on how events 'look' instead of saying what they themselves believe, and I expect to hear the characterization played back to me later as consensus fact. And that happens all the time in politics with the talking heads on PBS Newshour or radio shows or whatever. But, I don't understand why cf.net posters participate in this sort of thing, magnifying the voice of whomever on twitter instead of expressing what they themselves believe.
Buck is asking if it's legal to charge a president after they leave office (since Mueller thinks you cant indict a sitting president) . Mueller says 'yes you can'. Your position seems to be Mueller thinks trump should be charged despite the fact mueller says he has no opinion on if trump committed a crime.
