Damn, you can't even fucking spell Mueller right and yet you try to falsely criticize me about not reading it. It's been proven that it was a hoax on the conviction the the FBI agent that falsified the paperwork. It's been bolstered by the work of Durham and his latest indictment of Sussman.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ongress-attorney-general-william-barr-n986611
"Mueller finds no proof of Trump collusion with Russia"
Oh damn, I made a typo/spelling error, as I was in a hurry and had to go work and didn't proof read. And somehow you extrapolate that as having something to do with false criticism, then go to prove that it wasn't false at all.
You even throw up an article that pushes the same lie Barr pushed and Trump pushed about no collusion. (Did you not comprehend where the courts have already ruled that Barr mislead on what the report said.. aka lied, which is the lie your article is based on).
You have a comprehension problem, as you can't comprehend simple sentence, much less any report. All you have shown is you did not read the muller reports and/or have no compression of what it says. Mueller himself says otherwise, you know the author of the report... All you have given is right wing propaganda talking points, and proving you really are an idiot and a sheep, who is led around by Trump's cock you have stuck in your mouth.
"It was not"......... end of that story.
Yep! You have a comprehension problem, as you can't even comprehend those words are more about members of his campaign, and not so much Trump. You ignored what he actually said about Trump:
"The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that
Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office."
Now how can someone be indicted if there isn't evidence to do so???
You also ignored where Mueller said it was not his place to charge a sitting President. Actually of the top of my head, it had something to do with a long standing policy for the DOJ not to go after a sitting President.. IIRCC.
Just think of how much MORE evidence there would be if Trump didn't committ multiple instances of obstruction, which included destroying evidence?
You don't need to answer that, as you have already declared Trump innocent on multiple crimes he did Infront of the world for everyone to see, trying to convince us to believe the same false reality. As if you have this belief that we are as stupid and braindead as you are.