Keep reading. Mueller explains with more detail as you go. It didn't paste well for some reason. But as you can see, he lists the difficult issues here at a high level. The next 200 pages provides more detail. None of this screams innocent. It just says being the president and the manner of Trump's actions would make the intent part tricky to prove in a traditional obstruction case. Mueller said nothing about not proving a negative. Those are your words. That's not what happened here. We have plenty of FACTS. And we have plenty of EVIDENCE. What we have is a unique situation. Here's a simple case of obstruction. You rob a store. You then shoot a witness to avoid them identifying you. They survive and are able to testify that not only did you rob the store, but when you shot them, you said, this is so you won't ID me in court. That's as basic and obvious as obstruction gets. Obviously, in that scenario there are other more pressing crimes to worry about. What Mueller says above is that being president means the president has constitutional authority to influence all federal investigations. That makes it tricky. The evidence is largely in the open which is also unusual as the president could argue that means it can't be obstruction. There are few other things in here. Lately, Mueller can't do anything but indict people. He isn't judge and jury. No matter what, anything he says is alleged. You are arguing for a higher bar. All Mueller said is he can't indict, and if he did, it would be a tricky case to prosecute. He didn't say there weren't facts that said he can't prosecute. Those words never appear in the report.
According to the report DT did not want Mueller fired because he wanted to stop the investigation but because Mueller had conflicts of interest, which he did.
Right - the evidence, not DOJ procedure, prevented him from concluding that Trump committed a crime. At the same time, 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. That is, he could not prove the President did not commit a crime -- he could not prove a negative. So what? But the evidence does not amount to proof because of its nature, not because of DOJ procedure. Because of the evidence... Because of the evidence.
It is the Mueller report that state DT's reason for wanting Mueller fired. I've got no reason to disbelieve this but you apparently do.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... Oh well, dissecting this dead parrot will at least keep the Orange Man Baddies off the streets for a few weeks. Months. Years.
it shows trump did many bad impeachable things... the question is... are their enough moral republicans in the senate that do not fear a Pence Presidency
I believe you're referring to him asking to fire Mueller because he had conflicts of interest. They chose not to because of the political ramifications not because it was against the law. He apparently dropped it. That would've been completely legal. Not sure where you're getting these goofy ideas.
So, you're okay with stealing private property? How about beating people up? How about government "spying" of the Orange Oaf's campaign? All good?
https://nypost.com/2019/04/18/trump-cracks-term-limit-joke-after-mueller-report-released/ Six more years. The soft coup has failed. Now the traitors need to be indicted. I can't wait to go to the gym today (where CNN is always on the tube) and watch the CNN libs cry in their beer. but...but....but...Russians..... Bahahahahahaha.
