there is a possibility that sympathy for Trump being "persecuted" might build among independents...as happened with Hillary's hubby

delta1 wrote:

... the Meuller led investigation couldn’t find proof that anyone on the Trump team colluded with the Russkies to throw the election.

Abrignac wrote:

Anthony, you need to read Barrs summary, the following is a direct quote from it. The Special Counsels report states that " While this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him ".

Speyside wrote:

Avenatti indicted and also perhaps Marc Gerogos

Or

The fact that the Meuller led investigation couldn’t find proof that anyone on the Trump team colluded with the Russkies to throw the election.

Abrignac wrote:

First:

Then:

You're right: someone needs to read Barrs summary. But it ain't Anthony.

Or maybe you did read it, but chose to blur the facts?

I'll let you explain yourself.

tailgater wrote:

Spey, I don't think anyone on the right cares a bit about the part where Trump is not exonerated...their "reasoning" is that the obstruction allegations were tangential to an investigation that proved nothing and didn't result in indictments...

my take...this reminds me of OJ being acquitted because the prosecution couldn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, despite a lot of incriminating stuff...like it or not, Mueller's was a criminal investigation, and that is the standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, for a criminal indictment...

Trump still faces serious charges in other criminal investigations...SDNY, campaign finance, inauguration financial fraud, Trump's finances, etc...and related Congressional investigations...all the "investigations" into Hillary before the 2016 elections hurt her chances....

there is a possibility that sympathy for Trump being "persecuted" might build among independents...as happened with Hillary's hubby

delta1 wrote:

This was a much larger investigation than the OJ investigation. On the other hand, most Libs will believe he was guilty regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.

Abrignac wrote:

Weren't the democrats saying that the conservatives had to accept the results of the Mueller investigation?

And now that it doesn't go in their favor... it's a cover up.

MACS wrote:

Tail, I read the 4 page summary, it appears that you didn't read the one quoted sentence I pointed out. The one statement I quoted is a complete contradiction, not a vindication. Read that sentence. I was not taking a pot shot at Anthony, I was pointing out something. Neither am I saying Trump has been proven guilty of anything. I think Mueller punted. I thought his job was to prove or disprove a narrow scope of questions. Did the Trump campaign collude with the Russians? In the report summary the answer is a definitive no. Did Trump obstruct the Russian investigation. That one sentence is a non answer. Mueller was supposed to provide an answer.

Speyside wrote:

I don't believe there's been a cover-up. Mueller did a thorough job, but I'd like to read his report for myself. No offense to Barr's summarization skills, but wouldn't you rather have a rib-eye than my description of one?

delta1 wrote: