 So, as of today, the 400-plus page Mueller report has been released, although Attorney General William Barr has left large portions of it redacted, and when I say he's left large portions of it redacted, I mean, there are literally pages that are fully blacked out because the information would supposedly cause harm to an ongoing manner. I don't really buy it, and I think it's really comical, but with that being said, even in spite of all of the redactions, there is still information in this report that we can extract out that I think is really important and, for the most part, devastating to Donald Trump, because as we initially were told, this doesn't fully exonerate Donald Trump, and that's certainly the case based on what we know about it thus far, based on what articles have been written and what I've read, but this actually includes information that could potentially be devastating. How devastating? That's an open question because there's an argument to be made that there's enough details in here that provides House Democrats with evidence that Trump on numerous occasions tried to obstruct justice, that they actually could pursue impeachment because of this. So this is big. Now, I want to share a Vox article with you that highlights 10 instances where President Donald Trump potentially tried to obstruct justice. This includes asking James Comey to let Michael Flynn go. Trump's reaction to the Russia investigation, primarily his anger that Jeff Sessions recused himself, the firing of James Comey, obviously, Mueller's appointment and efforts to oust him, efforts to curtail the Russia investigation, attempts to stop the public from seeing the evidence. Trump trying to get Jeff Sessions to take back control of the investigation. Trump telling Don McGahn to deny that the president had wanted the special counsel removed. Trump's team asking Flynn for a quote heads up on information and commending Paul Manafort for not quote flipping. The president's changing behavior towards Michael Cohen, particularly Trump's team coaching him to quote stay on message. So these are all, I think, evidence of criminality. Now whether or not this legally would prove that Donald Trump is guilty, that's an open question. But do Democrats in the House have enough in this report to pursue impeachment? I think the answer is yes. And Mehdi Hassan of the Intercept makes a pretty strong argument as to why that's the case. This is his message to Democrats quote, you have access to the report itself. And even the lightly redacted 448 pages provide you with a clear and detailed roadmap for impeaching Donald Trump in line with Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. The president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Listen to special counsel Robert Mueller with respect to whether the president can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article 2 of the Constitution. We concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a president's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice, he writes, adding the conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office, accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances, and the principle that no person is above the law. Without that, the special counsel, who listed 10 instances of potential obstruction of justice in his report and refused to quote exonerate the president, placed the decision firmly in your court. This is the impeachment referral you claimed you were waiting for. Trump, in Mueller's view, may not have committed an underlying crime in relation to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, but this is frankly irrelevant to the case for impeachment. So basically to reiterate the point that Mehdi Hasan is making here, just because there's no collusion does not mean that there was no obstruction. And in fact, a key takeaway, which I think is probably the most important takeaway from this report thus far, reads, quote, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state, based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. So that's really big. So just as a matter of the legality and whether or not House Democrats can pursue impeachment, can they do that? Absolutely. I think that they have more than enough in this Mueller report, which kind of gives you an indication as to why Trump and Republicans were trying to delay the release of this report and even potentially block it. It's because it is damaging to the president. I was not expecting collusion. I expected something and I kind of feel vindicated now because this does prove that there's something there. It wasn't like there was no there there. This investigation in and of itself was important. And I think even most Russiagate skeptics admitted myself, Kyle Kalinsky, we admitted that this was important because obviously Donald Trump, I mean, if you want to find something on him, you just have to look because he's a corrupt businessman. He acquired his wealth by committing a tax scheme that allowed his father to hide away money so it wouldn't be taxed when he passed it on to his kids. So Donald Trump is a career criminal and I'm really not surprised. Now let me just pose this question here. In the event we weren't talking about Donald Trump and Robert Mueller was investigating some random Joe, is it likely that this would have been enough here to indict him and put him away? It's very possible because let me remind you, we live in a two-tiered justice system where wealthy, powerful people like the president are able to get away with crimes. But a normal individual, if there were this many instances of potentially obstructing justice, would that normal peasant get away with it? Unquestionably not. Now there are separate questions that people tend to bring up when we're talking about the prospect of impeachment. Should Democrats pursue this politically? Is this something that would serve them strategically? And whether or not it behooves them to pursue impeachment? The question as to whether or not they have a case, I think it's been answered here. They absolutely do. And I've always remained firmly in the camp that even if politically speaking, it may not necessarily be the best decision to try to impeach Donald Trump because I think this will kind of create this rally around Trump effect, kind of like a spin on the rally around the flag effect. And it will get his base ramped up. But with that being said, I think that it seems immoral to not pursue him just because of the political ramifications that may or may not come to fruition. I think that if you commit a crime like every other American, you should be tried. So that's my take on it. And based on that, I think that impeachment is something that Democrats should pursue, but Nancy Pelosi has stated before, not really going to be on the table. So do I think this will lead anywhere? Probably not. But with that being said, I think it's important that the American people know what happened here. There are numerous instances where Donald Trump potentially obstructed justice. And I say potentially, even if I'm convinced that he did because we don't know if that is legally provable. So that's why there's the potential there. But for the most part, we know what he was trying to do. You don't have to be extra charitable here. He wanted to shut down this investigation. So I'll leave that there. One last thing I want to share, something on page 290 that I found really interesting. Quote, when Sessions told the president that a special counsel had been appointed, the president slumped back in his chair and said, oh, my God, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked. The president became angry and lambasted the attorney general for his decision to recuse from the investigation, stating, how could you let this happen, Jeff? This is the worst thing that ever happened to me. Damn. So now we know why Donald Trump, you know, tried to shut down the Mueller investigation. Do I think he was worried about collusion? No, because as I predicted, there was no collusion. But the firing of James Comey, if I did what Trump did, I would be shitting my pants. The corrupt business dealings that we know he has, the conflicts of interest that his business has posed, I'd be shitting my pants if I were him. So it seems like he was at least smart enough to realize the gravity of the situation there. And after he just vetoed the bill that would withdraw U.S. support to military, to Saudi's military incursion in Yemen, which I think is tantamount to literal genocide, it makes me feel a little bit happy to see him or to hear that he was worrying here. I don't take pleasure in human suffering, even mental distress, but this is someone who's a monster. Donald Trump is a morally reprehensible human being and really, I don't think he has any morals. I just think that he is an amoral individual who's purely driven by self-interest. I mean, we're all driven by self-interest as human beings, but we also have other considerations. We have morality. We have the potential impact of our actions on others. I genuinely believe that Donald Trump doesn't have that. He may literally be a sociopath. So that's basically, I think, the crux so far of what we found. Again, this is a very, very long report and I expect to see more little tidbits pop up, but I'm excited to kind of dig in and read a little bit more here because this is fascinating to me and I hope that other people will take the time to read the direct report and not just other secondhand analyses, but with that being said, we all have lives, 449 pages. Jesus Christ, that's a lot. So this really is a bombshell. It's devastating to Trump, in my view. And yeah, whether or not Democrats want to do anything, the ball's in their court. It's just a matter of if they want to act. We'll see.