1) How does what Trump says about legal jeopardy now mean he knew the same thing 9 months ago?
2) Trump fired the guy, he says for lying, but no reason was required. The President can fire an appointee because it’s Monday. The FBI prosecuted him for the same lies. This is obstruction of justice?
3) To go after Trump, Mueller would have to show that Trump was actually obstructing justice I regard to a real crime. There isn’t one.
4) Comey himself wrote that the President can fire the FBI Director whenever he pleases. So Trump could have fired him for suspicion of obstructing the Hillary Clinton investigation and leaking; no proof is required. But this “Lawfare” (is that like warfare or welfare?) guy thinks a vague implication that Trump might have had obstruction on his mind overrides that? BS. Mueller prosecuted Flynn. Trump did nothing to prevent it, and merely asked Comey not to persecute Flynn the absolute zero Mueller’s case turned out to be.
5. That which is generally known may not reach legal proof. Trump knew there was a serious problem and as executive had to remove Flynn; that doesn’t mean the transgression was legally actionable at the time.