Definitely wasn’t lashing out, seemed to fit the criteria for “total exoneration,” though.
Mueller said today that if the President clearly hadn't committed a crime he would have said so.
Conversely then would that mean that if the President had committed a crime he would have said so?
Is the only reason indictment/prosecution wasn't recommended is because the OLC had suggested that a sitting President cannot (should not) be indicted?
I have not read the whole report, just snippets that held my interest as I do not have the patience or the give enough of a sh!t to read the whole thing. RockyTop85, you have said that you have read through the whole report and since you're an attorney, I believe that you understood what exactly is in that over 400 pages of legalese.
The question I have that I hope you can answer is this:
Does the Mueller report list those things that Trump has allegedly done, that if he were not President, would be an indictable crime?
If that is so, what exactly are those specific actions that Trump allegedly did that Mueller considers criminal?
Another question, not specifically for you, but just a musing on my part:
Why didn't Mueller specifically list those criminal acttions today , much in the way Comey did when Comey held his news conference regarding Hillary's email server?
Barr's interpretation of his conversation with Mueller makes me wonder if those two even speak the same language. Instead of clearing matters up, Mueller's conference today and his report in general, just muddied up the waters more, if that's possible.
Does anyone really know what the hell is going on anymore?