| My SLANT??? |
Are you serious?? Have you actually READ the report, or are you just going by what conservative media is telling you?
Here is a direct quote from the Executive Summary on page 2 of Volume 2, which is about the question of obstruction (all emphasis mine):
"If we had concluded after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President CLEARLY did not commit obstruction of justice, WE WOULD HAVE SAID SO. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment... Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, IT ALSO DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM."
Where is the SLANT there, Rich? It's simple English - the biggest word he used was "accordingly". Mueller didn't indict him because he believed that he was not allowed to, but he EXPLICITLY says that POTUS could NOT be exonerated. I didn't make that up, and I didn't twist Mueller's words to fit my own opinion - there they are in black and white. Where are you having a problem comprehending what Mueller's report says?
Read the report, especially Volume 2. There are 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice, and at least 4 of them are serious enough that over 1000 former federal prosecutors - from both parties - have signed onto a letter saying there is sufficient evidence to indict. Bill Barr's decision to claim that Trump was completely exonerated is BS - the actual report doesn't say that.
And your saying that this is just my SLANT on the report tells me you have no idea whatsoever about what's in it. I've read it, have you? I can send you a copy of it if you can't find one.