Thread by @BradMossEsq

This thread is beneath you, Congressman. Let me explain.

You say it was clear there was no collusion, that the Obama admin started the inquiry improperly and that Mueller should have clarified “no collusion” earlier. Hogwash.

The Trump team originally and condescendingly

https://twitter.com/repleezeldin/status/1134783592083668997

said in 2016/17 there were NO contacts with Russians. That was brazenly false. Volume I of Mueller report documents over one hundred interactions, up to and including senior campaign officials. That includes efforts to secure what campaign officials believed was info directly

from the Russian government, potentially in violation of federal law (Mueller only declined to indict Junior because proving “intent” to violate the law would be tricky).

Mueller outlined how the investigation started because of campaign officials running their mouths stupidly.

It continued as Trump did things like call for the Russians to hack Hillary, which they tried to do hours later. And on and on. There was more than enough smoke to justify investigating and Volume I outlined activities by a campaign repeatedly trying to coordinate with the

Russians.

What saved them was Mueller’s conclusion (with which I agree) that the campaign and the Russians were two ships passing in the night, and never the twain would meet despite the campaign’s efforts to do so. That’s not “no collusion”.

In addition, your justification

of the president’s obstruction is laughably partisan. That said, since you now believe it is perfectly appropriate for a president to try and shut down or restrict an investigation into himself, attempt to suborn perjury, and attempt to silence witnesses with intimidation or

by dangling pardons, I will happily advise future presidents that under the “Lee Zeldin” precedent all of those things are now viewed as perfectly acceptable by conservatives.

Thank you for the new legal precedent. I look forward to you agreeing that’s fine for a liberal to do.