Don't be fooled Folks

[Truth Detector]

Of course, what Mueller wrote in his report doesn't mean a thing to you. The Mueller report contradicts Barr and demonstrates his guilt.

Nothing in Barr's summary is divergent from the Mueller Report. It's obvious you have read neither and merely parrot the idiot talking points you are fed like a gullible dunce from CNN.

[Truth Detector]

Trump has been busily corrupting the justice system in preparation for this day.

What has he done to corrupt it?

[Truth Detector]

Mueller laid out a bunch.

LIE and LAME. List the pages and paragraphs you think this was done.

[Truth Detector]

That is exactly what is happening. Mueller does not want it on TV live. He knows what the Repubs would do. They would make it into a show for the right, He wants a sane and reasonable panel. Not likely when the Reds see the cameras. However, he will testify honestly and fully then submit to questioning. Your far-right Republican deities will get their chance.

Good lord; you give new meaning to the word "moron."

[Truth Detector]

Trump fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

Trump didn't fire Comey you dumb twat. He acted on the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Trump didn't need any excuse to fire Comey; it is his prerogative.

Trump constantly acts like he's guilty.

Yet no one can seem to name what crime he is guilty of.

The investigation started before Trump took office, even before the election.

You mean the SPYING on an opposition campaign was started before Trump took office. Yes, and that is now under investigation.

[Truth Detector]

Mueller's written report makes Barr out to be a liar. There's no need for his testimony.

LIE and LAME.

[Truth Detector]

Purest delusion, as usual. There was plenty of evidence of collusion, which is not a crime, but should be. And there is plenty of evidence of obstruction, but Mueller was not allowed to indict a sitting President.

There was ZERO evidence of collusion or conspiracy and ZERO evidence of obstruction which was why there were no recommendations for indictments.

[Truth Detector]

Posted before. P 131 Mueller report,
Under analysis, Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the president, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation of powers questions.
That sound like exoneration to you? Are you able to bend facts that easily?

Page 131; it is obvious you haven't read anything in the report.

Analysis
In analyzing the President's conduct towards Flynn, Manafort,litia, the following evidence is relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice:

a. Obstructive act. The President's actions towards witnesses in the Special Counsel's investigation would qualify as obstructive if they had the natural tendency to prevent particular witnesses from testifying truthfully, or otherwise would have the probable effect of influencing, delaying, or preventing their testimony to law enforcement.

With regard to Flynn, the President sent private and public messages to Flynn encouraging him to stay strong and conveying that the President still cared about him before he began to cooperate with the government. When Flynn 's attorneys withdrew him from a joint defense agreement with the President, signaling that Flynn was potentially cooperating with the government, the President's personal counsel initially reminded Flynn's counsel of the President's warm feelings towards Flynn and said " that still remains." But when Flynn's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information under a joint defense agreement, the President's personal counsel stated that the decision would be interpreted as reflecting Flynn's hostility towards the President. That sequence of events could have had the potential to affect Flynn's decision to cooperate, as well as the extent of that cooperation. Because of privilege issues, however, we could not determine whether the President was personally involved in or knew about the specific message his counsel delivered to Flynn's counsel.

With respect to Manafort, there is evidence that the President' s actions had the potential to influence Manafort' s decision whether to cooperate with the government. The President and his personal counsel made repeated statements suggesting that a pardon was a possibility for Manafort, while also making it clear that the President did not want Manafort to "flip" and cooperate with the government. On June 15, 2018, the day the judge presiding over Manafort's D.C. case was considering whether to revoke his bail, the President said that he "felt badly" for Manafort and stated, "I think a lot of it is very unfair." And when asked about a pardon for Manafort, the President said, "I do want to see people treated fairly. That' s what it's allabout." Later that day, after Manafort ' s bail was revoked, t_he President called it a "tough sentence" that was "Very unfair! " Two days later, the President's personal counsel stated that individuals involved in the Special Counsel' s investigation could receive a pardon "if in fact the [P]resident and his advisors... come to the conclusion that you have been treated unfairly"- using language that paralleled how the President had already described the treatment of Manafort. Those statements, combined with the President's commendation ofManafort for being a "brave man" who "refused to ' break' ," suggested that a pardon was a more likely possibility if Manafort continued not to cooperate with the government. And while Manafort eventually pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, he was found to have violate d the agreement by lying to investigators.

The President's public statements during the Manafort trial, including during jury deliberations , also had the potential to influence the trial jury. On the second day of trial, for example, the President called the prosecution a "terrible situation" and a "hoax" that "continues to stain our country" and referred to Manafort as a "Reagan/Dole darling" who was "serving solitary confinement" even though he was "convicte d of nothing." Those statements were widely picked up by the press.

[Truth Detector]

From the report. "if we had confidence, after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on facts and legal applicable legal standards, [size]4]we are unable to reach that judgment."[/size]
No Trump was not exonerated. Mueller actually delineated several obstructive circumstances that Congress should follow. Obstruction is a beacon that Mueller suggested the House follow.

First; Trump doesn't need exoneration. He was never ACCUSED of doing anything illegal.

Secondly; what part of "we are unable to reach that judgment" are you still struggling with?

[Gonzomin]

There was ZERO evidence of collusion or conspiracy and ZERO evidence of obstruction which was why there were no recommendations for indictments.

Truth deflector," I did not read the report and do not know what is in and will prove it, How stupid am I let me post the ways. ".
Mueller in the report. "If we had confidence, after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on facts and applicable legal standards, we are unable to make that judgment,"
You are so proud of your ability to parrot right wing crap. That talent is enhanced with your penchant for doing it over and over plugging up threads with drivel.

[Truth Detector]

Truth deflector," I did not read the report and do not know what is in and will prove it, How stupid am I let me post the ways. ".
Mueller in the report. "If we had confidence, after a thorough investigation of the facts, that the president did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on facts and applicable legal standards, we are unable to make that judgment,"
You are so proud of your ability to parrot right wing crap. That talent is enhanced with your penchant for doing it over and over plugging up threads with drivel.

Dishonest dumb fuck; the statement "Based on facts and applicable legal standards, we are unable to make that judgment," is moronic. If you can't make a judgement based on the applicable legal standards, why the hundreds of pages of tormented legalese trying to find a way to justify it?

Alas, you're an idiot on steroids with a sad pathetic case of TDS so reality, facts, truth and honesty have no place in your whiny, pathetic attempts to distort the facts.