Subject: I've been watching the live feed from the NY Times all morn

Comment:

See Original Content on OpEdNews in article titled "Mueller Hearing Open Thread"

I've been watching the live feed from the NY Times all morning. Reporters are commenting along the way, and citing previous articles. This one from 2 years ago caught my attention because it seems to show that, contrary to Muller's testimony, a sitting president CAN be indicted. This comes from a 56 page memo by Ken Starr during the Clinton investigation.

So, Mueller is being selective...again, in what he chooses to interpret. Mueller is being castigated over that interpretation.

While I find parts of the findings thorough, there are major areas of the investigation that have not been pursued.

The idea that the Russians "hacked" the DNC server, is just taken as given, even though The Nation magazine, and VIPS, featured in that article, and elsewhere, have said that it was not physically possible for Russia to have hacked such a large volume of data in such a short period of time.

In general, the Democrats are focusing on the obstruction charge, while the Republicans are focusing on the underlying charges. Clearly, the Democrats do not believe there is sufficient evidence to charge the president with the underlying crime, for the most part. I agree there was obstruction to the investigation itself on the part of Trump, mostly in trying to fire the A.G. or impede the investigation.

Mueller is halting, hesitant and uncertain, also hard of hearing or can't always follow questions. He may be past his prime, and the NYT reporters say he was not like this in previous 80+ appearances before Congress, the last of which were 12 years ago. Mueller is deferring to the report a lot. It's a bit unfair to have 41 Congresspersons grill a single witness, no matter how expert, but Mueller's performance is clearly not inspiring.