>>6617981 (lb) Schlapp tweet
>Something does not add up here folks.
No it doesn't. Mueller contradicts Barr's sworn testimony about the reasons for him punting on obstruction and states he is unwilling to testify under oath.
That's what you call a drive-by smear.
>>6618398 (lb) Brit Hume
>We can see that there is something faulty in his argument, but it is going to be picked up and cited as evidence that there was obstruction, you see. And, only Department guidelines prevented Mueller from reaching that conclusion.”
We can also see someone who is too arrogant to accept that his reasoning is faulty.