Wine-Banks Dissents from Mueller: ‘The Evidence Was Very Clear He Was Guilty’

RUSH EXCERPT:

WINE-BANKS: "That says a lot and something that needs to be foes you had on final opinion on that, we didn't have a conclusion about guilt. Petition said. You decide whether or not he should be impeached. We are not going to indict him in our case, because Lee Ann Joe woreski was to allow the political process to handle the guilt of the president rather than an indictment. So we turned it over without saying there was guilt, even though he was named an unindicted co-conspirator, and even though the evidence was very clear that he was guilty. That's number one. Number two, on the point of obstruction, it's very clear that an underlying crime is not required to have a case of obstruction. In the case of Richard Nixon, there is no evidence that he knew about the break-in until after it had happened. But it is clear that he object instructed justice, including asking people to per engineer themselves. Following the money would allow the White House and the president was involved in paying for the burglary, even though he didn't know about it. Before. So you can have obstruction without an underlying crime. And that's or not thing to know. The thirst thing that strikes me is that the roof of this not being a witch hunt is that Robert Mueller did not accuse him of a crime. He did went ahead said and there is no evidence of inclusion. And that there was never a wind hound, it was a search for justice, and justice hopefully will be done here. But there is this rooming responsibility for Congress to look at what is the full report. And everybody has pointed to this. We are seeing such a small fraeth. We need -- all the American peoplcertainly the Congress needs to see all the evidence that was put forward, and we'll weigh it as a political matter now.