Before I start this thread, I repeat what I said when Mueller was appointed: he was a good choice bc he had credibility, trust at FBI, and was perceived as non-partisan.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/us/politics/robert-mueller-russia-investigation.html …
-
-
The other aspect of Mueller's background that few have noted--but which is central to understanding RU investigation--is that FBI was relying on Felix Sater as informant WHILE he was part of Trump world. Why didn't the corruption get prosecuted at that time?
Show this thread -
As to these comments about Mueller not testing a new theory? I think that undersells how much effort Mueller has put into a strategy that has side-effect of reinvigorating protections on Democracy, w/appellate staff of 4/17.pic.twitter.com/XyEGkiAQUN
Show this thread -
And the notion that subpoenaing the president (by a guy whose FBI got Cheney in a quasi Grand Jury appearance?) would test limits of executive power? Maybe work on a more obvious theory.pic.twitter.com/qrOZiMcE9g
Show this thread -
Having just credited Rudy G's tripe, NYT here -- on issue of final report -- doesn't (smartly). Add in the fact that Rosenstein keeps saying overandoverandover indictments will do the talking.pic.twitter.com/voZAAMqfhs
Show this thread -
Anyway, I still think Mueller was the right choice for the job. My guess though -- and that's all this is -- is that this investigation is different for him.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe he did challenge it and was not able to reveal it at the time due to security concerns. Keeping our national security secure was far more important during that time in history than it seems to be now. Trump and company have no respect for keeping it secure.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.