>>6618243, >>6618248 Mueller Transcript

From Mueller's transcript in PB, did anyone notice this?

>And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

Does this not confirm that this was a coup against the president? Of sedition and treason against the United States? Or can anyone randomly decide that they don't like the constitutional remedies for cause X so I'm going to have an opinion the Constitution is insufficient and therefore I need to add some tyrannical stuff on top if it?

Is this major news? Does anyone care?

>>6618664

Yes. And the way they phrased the dog whistle it means that any extra-constitutional measures that need to be taken will be taken in the future because they know better than you.

This is the definition of a constitutional crisis, and people are more concerned about the dog whistle.

Utterly bizarre.