He didn't charge collusion and he didn't charge obstruction. Just like the jury did not exonerate OJ, it merely failed to find him guilty. We all understand that aspect of how American courts work. Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent. — fishfry

The Muller report is not a court though, it was meant as a probe to find and discover evidence. It found evidence of obstruction, but it did not find evidence of collusion

You haven't cited any facts in support of your view, other than Trump's fallacious assertion that he was totally exonerated by the Mueller report. So you can choose to believe that, but as a matter of fact - not opinion, not conjecture - the Mueller report says in plain English that it does not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice:

“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."

The Muller report is not a court though, it was meant as a probe to find and discover evidence. It found evidence of obstruction, but it did not find evidence of collusion — VagabondSpectre

May I quit now while I'm behind? Nothing I could say could change your mind; but more to the point, I really have nothing else to say. It's all a political process and there's an election coming up. We'll all find out in due time. Meanwhile, the question is whether the left and the Dems should keep up the Mueller drumbeat, or should maybe talk about the endless interminable wars, and immigration, and government spending, and inequality, and health care, and all those other issues of actual importance. If the Dems keep up the Mueller thing I predict the American people will hold it against them. That's my opinion.

It's really important that this gets through. Trump is establishing a meme, a lie, that 'the Mueller report exonerates him' when it doesn't - already it's being accepted, when it's a lie. And all the other issues fade into insignificance beside the fact that the office of the Presidency is occupied by a person unfit to hold that office.

You haven't cited any facts in support of your view, — Wayfarer

I have stated that I hear arguments on both sides; don't actually know; and don't care to find out. I agree that's not an appropriate stance for someone who is participating in this thread, which is why I'm trying to gracefully get out. I am pretty sure most Americans agree with my stance. Like I say, we'll find out on election day. It's a political process, not a matter of true or false factual issues.

the office of the Presidency is occupied by a person unfit to hold that office. — Wayfarer

Yes but the people saying that are the same people who have been saying that since before the 2016 election. The fact that Mueller found no collusion (I'll leave obstruction alone) has no effect on people who already didn't like Trump and still don't like Trump. Is that your ultimate argument? That you don't like Trump? That's the argument you're making. You don't like Trump therefore you hold a particular legal opinion. That's not rational. That's partisan.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justic, we would so state."

One could argue (I have seen it so argued) that Mueller erred in making this statement. The judge in the OJ case didn't say, "Well we still think the mofo did it no matter what the jury said." If you don't make a case then you don't smear the accused. It's exactly the same error Comey made when he gave his famous press conference "exonerating" Hillary and then enumerated all her crimes. When a prosecutor can't bring a charge yet chooses to smear the accused, those smears can not be cross-examined and adjudicated in a court of law. Therefore it was inappropriate for Comey to open his yap and likewise for Mueller to do the same. If you can't bring a case, then that's all you say. Anything more is prosecutorial misconduct or at least bad judgment.

Just a reminder that fishfry nearly a year ago wrote that Trump "made peace with North Korea", and so we shouldn't take him seriously.

I've decided to stop arguing with this point. I think you should keep it up all the way to November 2020. Reporters on the ground in Iowa and other early primary states report that nobody cares about Russiagate. All the Dems can do is get Trump reelected. Now I'm no fan of Mr. Trump. But compared to what the Dems are offering these days? Not much of a choice, but ... like I say ... keep it up till election day. See how it works out for you. — fishfry

What was my point again? Because I didn't even mention the Russians but pointed out your statement on obstruction was false. Even if I did mention the Russians, just because nobody in Iowa would care about it certainly isn't an argument for me not to care about it.

We can both care about "Russiagate" and conclude Republicans and Democrats are entrenched in their party loyalties for it not to matter for the election. They are separate things.

No, it's just pointless. Some people are really dug in on this point and it's not productive to argue with them. Impeachment and collusion and obstruction are not the issues on which the election will be decided. — fishfry

Do you really think that this is just about the elections?

Fuck the elections. The Democrats are already a disaster. They have been that since the condescending morons we know since they chose Hillary to be their candidate. Because of what? It was 'her time'? People hated that and Trump got elected. And their condescending attitude towards the MAGA-hatters is the thing why Trumpists love Trump.

No, the issue is your total inability to see this in any other context than as a campaign issue.

When the leader of the sole Superpower is in strange cahoots with the leadership of a country that thinks the US poses an existential threat to itself, it has a lot more effects than the next goddam elections. I'm not a Democrat. I just voted for the conservatives in my country. Be the US president a Republican or a Democrat isn't an issue here. What kind of a trainwreck the foreign policy the US has and will have is the issue. What's the standing of the US in the World is an issue. How effective NATO is an issue, even if my country doesn't belong to NATO. Is the US a justice state or a banana republic is an issue.

Who wins the next elections is another issue.

Bookmark this wrap up in The Atlantic for a summary of the many ways in which the Mueller Report contains evidence of impeachable offences.

It's all a political process and there's an election coming up. — fishfry

A process is political. The matter, though, is criminal. That Republicans play politics with this issue of criminality comes close to being criminal, if not actually criminal (accessory before/after the fact?). For "Trump," substitute, "the guy who did unspeakable things to my family." How reasonable does it sound now to wait for an election? Besides, an election is not a determination of fact by a court.

The Muller report is not a court though, it was meant as a probe to find and discover evidence. It found evidence of obstruction, but it did not find evidence of collusion — VagabondSpectre

Not true. There is indeed evidence of collusion. What Mueller did not find was a prosecutable case for criminal conspiracy. On the latter, there is some evidence that is suggestive of conspiracy when considered in the context of Trump's behavior toward Putin.

Working with Wikileaks and attempting to work directly with Russia on the Clinton dirt was collusion, but does not fit the legal definition of criminal conspiracy.

Trump's hinting at a pardon for Manafort, and Manafort's responding by lying implies they're hiding something - which could very well be actual conspiracy. Absolutely not prosecutable, but nevertheless highly suspicious.

Trump gets away with passing judgement on his opponents based on "hunch" (e.g. Obama spying on him), so turnabout seems fair play. He vilified Hillary for deleting emails, and he deserves vilifying for his alleged amnesia and hiding his finances.

Mueller Objected to Barr’s Description of Russia Investigation’s Findings on Trump

It's also very important to point out that public support for Nixon's removal in office during Watergate was at only 19% when the Watergate hearing started, and ended at 57% by the time he resigned over a year later, and I would imagine that decades after the fact, well over 57% of Americans now would agree it was best he exited the office.

Beat me to it! Just about to post the link to that story:

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William P. Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of Mueller’s work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by The Washington Post.

There is indeed evidence of collusion. — Relativist

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to pursue this line of reasoning. As you say, the report has not looked into collusion because it is not a criminal term. l. So you're applying some common sensical meaning to what collusion entails (we don't have a set legal definition and jurisprudence dealing with its interpretation) and then set out to shoehorn facts of the report into evidence for something for which no evidentiary barrier is set. Why go down that road at all?

" you're applying some common sensical meaning to what collusion entails (we don't have a set legal definition and jurisprudence dealing with its interpretation) and then set out to shoehorn facts of the report into evidence for something for which no evidentiary barrier is set. Why go down that road at all? "
To get the facts straight. Republicans continue to make the false assertion that Trump was exonerated of "collusion". The relevant facts are that there was not sufficient evidence for a prosecutable case of criminal conspiracy, but there was nevertheless a great deal of lying about the many interactions with Russians, as well as obstructive behavior that may have blocked finding the complete truth about conspiracy (particularly the manipulation of Manafort).

To get the facts straight. Republicans continue to make the false assertion that Trump was exonerated of "collusion". The relevant facts are that there was not sufficient evidence for a prosecutable case of criminal conspiracy, but there was nevertheless a great deal of lying about the many interactions with Russians, as well as obstructive behavior that may have blocked finding the complete truth about conspiracy (particularly the manipulation of Manafort). — Relativist

But can you get "the facts straight" when there's no clear understanding of what collussion is and how the facts described by Mueller would fit? It just seems like an invitation to get into a semantic discussion.

The semantic discussion can be avoided by sticking strictly to the facts and refraining from use of the misleading term "collusion." But if it is going to be brought up, it should be called out.

The Mueller report paints a very dark picture of Trump's behavior, irrespective of whether it fits prosecutable crimes. I'm aware of only 2 Republicans who acknowledge this. The rest simply dismiss the report under the veil that "it exonerates the President of collusion." In effect, lying doesn't matter to them as long as it wasn't under oath. Obstruction and witness tampering is irrellevant to them if it has not been proven to have affected the ability to prosecute a crime.

For "Trump," substitute, "the guy who did unspeakable things to my family." — tim wood

I get it. Orange Man Bad. Not everyone feels that way, even those of us who clearly see Trump's many flaws. I wish the Dems had run a better candidate in 2016. I hope they do in 2020. That's the system we've got. I like Tulsi Gabbard for her pro-civil liberties and anti-war stance. She's polling at 0.8%. Not much of a constituency for peace these days.

If I may ask: What unspeakable things did Trump do to your family?

If I may ask: What unspeakable things did Trump do to your family? — fishfry

Why must it be personal and not what he has done, oh, say, to immigrant families by separating kids from parents?

How many lies does a person have to tell before he's a bad person?

And that many still don't think he's bad seems to me to be a cultural problem in the US (no sense of morals anymore) and the worst excess of the insane tribalism that passes for a political system over there.

Pelosi is accusing Barr if a crime. Apparently Mueller wrote to him prior to his testimony to Congress, informing him that his summary-not-summary was inaccurate. But when asked, Barr testified that he had no idea whether Mueller supported his summary or not.

Another sacrifice for the volcano?

If I may ask: What unspeakable things did Trump do to your family? — fishfry

Unspeakable?

Well, I wouldn't want to start speaking about why the US President has these photos where his own daughter poses as a young girlfriend to my own children. Likely this sex offender will be exposed later in history books.

Apparently Mueller wrote to him prior to his testimony to Congress, informing him that his summary-not-summary was inaccurate. — VagabondSpectre

He didn't. He wrote that Barr's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office’s work and conclusions."

If I may ask: What unspeakable things did Trump do to your family? — fishfry

If you're an American you would not need to ask.

Apparently Mueller wrote to him prior to his testimony to Congress, informing him that his summary-not-summary was inaccurate.
— VagabondSpectre

He didn't. He wrote that Barr's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office’s work and conclusions."
6h — Michael

Had Barr's summary fully captured the "context, nature and substance" of Mueller's report, we would call the summary "accurate."

I assume you were perfectly fine with Bill Clinton's statement, " "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." IMO, lawyer-speak that misleads is just as dishonest as a direct lie, even if the lawyer-speak keeps you out of jail.

He didn't. He wrote that Barr's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this office’s work and conclusions." — Michael

And then when congress asked Barr if Mueller supported his summary of the principal conclusions, Barr lied and said he had no idea. That's the crime Pelosi is accusing him of.

If I may ask: What unspeakable things did Trump do to your family?
— fishfry
If you're an American you would not need to ask. — tim wood

I am an American and I do need to ask. You said Trump did unspeakable things to your family. I would like to hear what he did to your family. You made a claim. Back it up or retract it.

Likely this sex offender will be exposed later in history books. — ssu

Sex offender like Bubba, Teddy (who actually killed a girl) and JFK? Methinks your outrage is selective.

Trump did nothing to your family. Your kids are already seeing much worse on Pornhub. There's this thing called the Internet these days. You haven't made your point because you can't.

If I may ask: What unspeakable things did Trump do to your family?
— fishfry

Why must it be personal and not what he has done, oh, say, to immigrant families by separating kids from parents? — Benkei

Because the person I'm challenging explicitly said that Trump had done "unspeakable" things to his own family. I'm challenging that assertion.

As far as separating families, Obama did the same. Obama also put kids in cages. You could look it up. Obama had a horrific humanitarian crisis on the southern border in the summer of 2014. He separated families, caged kids, and turned many kids over to traffickers. (Documented cases)

Think of it this way. An adult shows up with a kid. No paperwork. They could be family. Or they could be a trafficker and his victim. How do you know? You separate them till you can sort out the truth. Would you just take the trafficker's word for it? What kind of policy is that?

In one recent case, the same kid was used three times by three different people to pretend to be a "family." In another case, a kid turned out to have been taken by his mother against the wishes of his father, who had a good job and income in their home country.

One need not endorse Trump's sometimes awful rhetoric on immigration to call out liberal hypocrisy on the issue.