Whenever you see the word 'substantial' in the Mueller report it means 'indictable': Ex-federal prosecutor
Special counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller. (Image via Tim Sloan/AFP.)

Former federal prosecutor Cynthia Alksne told MSNBC on Friday that the clear language of the Mueller report shows that, were it not for Department of Justice rules protecting him, President Donald Trump would likely be indicted on multiple counts of obstruction of justice.


"This is basically a prosecutive memo," Alksne said, characterizing the report. "Repeatedly he uses the term 'substantial evidence' to support the claim that Trump tried to get McGahn to fire Mueller, 'substantial evidence' that Trump tried to get McGahn to lie about whether or not he tried to fire Mueller, 'substantial evidence' about whether or not he tried to get the investigation limited."

"Whenever you see that substantial evidence language, that's basically language that said he could indict but for this rule from the Department of Justice," she went on, adding that it might be time to review that opinion.

"As I look at this in its entirety, what I see is Mueller saying 'this is what I would have done,'" Alksne said. "He would have been indicted whenever you see that substantial evidence, but for the OLC memo, and tease it up to Congress to do what they think is appropriate to follow what justice needs."

Watch the video below.