soooo.... russia?

[uh-oh]

Hey diode, no need to dirty your corduroys jumping into the fray with these plebs

On the topic of obstruction, if there was evidence of it would mueller have not at the least recommended charges/indictments/whatever?

Also on the topic of collusion to those who still believe there was, why would mueller who everyone celebrated as the guy for the job, the one who would take down trump, yadda yada, throw away his intensive 2 plus year investigation under some false pretense that he was shook of barr?

[Diode]

Originally Posted by uh-oh

Hey diode, no need to dirty your corduroys jumping into the fray with these plebs

On the topic of obstruction, if there was evidence of it would mueller have not at the least recommended charges/indictments/whatever?

Also on the topic of collusion to those who still believe there was, why would mueller who everyone celebrated as the guy for the job, the one who would take down trump, yadda yada, throw away his intensive 2 plus year investigation under some false pretense that he was shook of barr?

there is a lot of debate over whether an indictment can be filed against a sitting president, with most scholars erring on the side of it not being feasible. hence leaving it up to the AG to decide. shocking that barr would opt not to, i know.

nobody that i know of thinks mueller did anything to his report out of deference to the AG. if barr's summary is accurate (MAJOR FUCKING ASTERISK), mueller did not find enough evidence of collusion to charge or indict anyone for a crime. does that mean it didn't happen? no. but it means that there was not a strong enough case to file for this specific charge (which would effectively be treason - a MASSIVELY HUGE, HIGH BAR).

anyway... trump has bigger problems now, namely in new york.