I was watching a clip on the Chris Hayes show tonight in which Mueller was being questioned on why he did not subpoena president traitor. Questioning was by Sean Patrick Mahoney. Corrupt internet is often the hardest element of obstruction of justice to prove. And Mahoney asked why Mueller wouldn't subpoena Trump to get more evidence on that, the last element he needed to prove obstruction? Was the reason that Mueller felt he had all the evidence he needed?
Mueller's response was interesting. He said that it was a question of balance - balancing the need for the testimony against the length of time it would take to litigate Trump's effort to resist the subpoena. This is awfully close to an admission that Mueller had enough evidence to prove that last critical element - intent - without needing to fight for the subpoena. Video here, from CNN:
www.cnn.com/...