Interviews with political figures and news updates. Looking at. If you are looking at, as Robert Mueller had been known to do, how tweets fit into a larger pattern of obstruction of justice, the contrasting this weekends tweet and the statement that the president put out, helped put out in july of last year, obviously, will go to, you know, that argument. Does that constitute an illegal act or as jay sekulow says, is it not relevant to the law . And elli, what is elvent to the law . Its hard to tell what mueller is looking at. But we hear from a lot of reporting that youre looking at that june meeting. June 2016 meeting. Yeah, andrea, and they should be. If im prosecuting a case for soliciting illegal Foreign Campaign aid and a witness testified to exactly what the president tweeted yesterday, my next move is to say no further questions. Its really an astonishing admission by the president. He essentially admits to 95 of a crime and the other 5 is obvious. We can break it down. The pre
president saying, hey, russia, if you re listening and the timing from the mueller investigation indictment of when that first they first set up that fake russian what would you call it? the wikileaks dump? the wikileaks and also the trolling account. you re right. factually, that s a big gap we have to see if mueller is able to bridge. the eventual hacking and posting of wikileaks. but if there is no link ultimately, what you said right up front is correct. even if there was no ultimate delivery of dirt, you still have a crime. under federal law and i think every state law, just the agreement to commit a crime is a conspiracy. as long as there s an agreement plus some minimal action and here i d say the team of russians that flew half across the world is more than enough. just the agreement itself is a