Not from what I’m reading from this articleActually, it's quite clear. Crystal clear.
I agree, but from what I’m seeing from this article Mueller didn’t go one way or the other, Barr made the call on that.If he obstructed, he would have been charged.
I’m not denying anything, I’m just stating what I’m seeing in the article I linked above from The Associated Press. Like I said, I welcome the outcome of no collusion, it’s undeniable that Trump not allying with a historically malicious country is a good thing.You sound like CNN and MSNBC. You're all floating in the river of denial.
Collusion, like I said, no. Obstruction, again is less clear on Mueller’s end.There is no collusion. There is no obstruction.
To quote a few excerpts from the article:
Personally, I don’t like the call either. Trump appointed Barr, Mueller or a neutral party should have made the call.WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Robert Mueller spent 22 months examining whether Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Russia to sway the 2016 election.
His conclusion? No collusion.
But the question of whether Trump obstructed justice wasn’t so clear cut. In laying out Mueller’s findings , Attorney General William Barr said the special counsel didn’t weigh in on the question. Instead, Barr ultimately made the call that Trump didn’t violate the law, a move that quickly drew criticism from House Democrats who say the president is hardly in the clear.
NO SMOKING GUN ON OBSTRUCTION. BUT NO EXONERATION, EITHER
Mueller punted on whether Trump obstructed justice, deciding not to make a judgment “one way or the other.”
“While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” Mueller wrote in his report.
Instead, the special counsel laid out the evidence on both sides of the question.
According to Barr, Mueller left unresolved what he viewed as the ”‘difficult issues’ of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction.”
Ok, fine, but like I said, I feel that a third party, or Mueller himself should also weigh in and make a judgment of their own.BARR MADE THE CALL ON PROSECUTING OBSTRUCTION
Absent a recommendation from Mueller, Barr said he stepped in.
Barr, who was appointed by Trump, says he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence to establish that the president obstructed justice.
That conclusion was based on Mueller’s investigation, Barr said. It was not a reflection of the Justice Department’s view that a sitting president can’t be indicted.
Barr said he determined that none of Trump’s actions amounted to obstruction and that there was not sufficient evidence to show he acted with a “corrupt intent.”
He also noted there wasn’t an underlying crime involving Trump.
This is partly related too, the Cohen thing is still going on and that whole kerfuffle needs to conclude/be resolved.IS TRUMP OUT OF THE WOODS?
Trump also plays a central role in a separate case in New York, where prosecutors have implicated him in a crime. They say Trump directed his personal lawyer Michael Cohen to arrange illegal hush-money payments as a way to quash potential sex scandals during the campaign. New York prosecutors also are looking into Trump’s inaugural fund.
Congressional investigations also are swirling around the president. Democrats have launched a sweeping probe of Trump that threatens to shadow the president through the 2020 election season.
And they’re now demanding that Barr turn over Mueller’s confidential report and the underlying evidence he gathered so they can draw their own conclusions.
They’re also calling for Barr to testify on Capitol Hill.
I’m not denying that he did or didn’t, but Mueller never said whether or not he did. It was Barr’s call and Trump appointed him, THAT’S mainly what I take issue with.
As much as I hate the guy, no argument here. He may represent the country I live in but he far from represents my views.he's still your President.