So let me get this straight...OOJ is a legal term that requires proof of guilt. But you want to say..."The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." Therefore because you say he obstructed justice with something he did not do (firing Mueller), he is guilty.
Mind boggling! Why don't they just start impeachment yesterday?
JR got a mulligan because Mueller thought he was an idiot who didn't know what he was doing.
BULLSHIT! And you know it. Mueller was not giving anybody a mulligan. He prosecuted people for not telling the truth about things that were not crimes. Why would he decline the prosecution of the person that bares his name and is target #1 outside of the President himself.
Prosecution of JR would associate a crime related to the President. Mueller would not forego that, it would have legitimized his entire investigation. You know an actual crime that occurred. Not one created by his investigation.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
