This is what you wrote, "Muller simply said there wasn't enough evidence to make the call" and it is untrue.
No. He said he wasn't going to make a call (a prosecutorial judgment), so he didn't get to the stage of assessing whether or not there was enough evidence to make a call. So what you said is false.
That must be your word of the day. And yet you still can't come up with a single clear example of DT ever obstructing. Your examples I think even you've got to admit were pathetic and had nothing to do with obstruction. And that I believe is where the exoneration comes in, after mega bucks and multiple years Mueller's report fails to come up with any substantive examples of actual obstruction.
I'd heard but never seen conclusive evidence that this was all part of team Hillary's plan to distract her donors from the fact that she'd just outspent 2 to 1 a political neophyte with the entire MSM out for his blood and still lost. Helps that for 2 years the Democrats didn't have to actually talk about policies people can get behind. Just platitudes like, "I'm with her". Heck. Even that means less, has less substance than MAGA.
Oh, you mean like increased manufacturing, rising wages, fewer taxes, more full time jobs, lowest minority unemployment in history, record federal revenues? You mean those things?
Mueller: No Collusion, no obstruction. Bill Barr: Agreed. Oh by the way, the investigation into spying on the Trump campaign is getting underway.
I cited Mueller's report and you don't like what Mueller sees as possible obstruction. Mueller: "In the summer of 2017, the President learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as 'part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.' On several occasions, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the emails would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited. Before the emails became public, the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr. by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with "an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign" and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. When the press asked questions about the President's involvement in Trump Jr.'s statement, the President's personal lawyer repeatedly denied the President had played any role." My contention is backed up by the Mueller report. See above, Mueller left Trump hsnging.
That's not what he really said. It was up to Mueller to recommend prosecution, it never happened. Right back at ya! Like with Hillary.......no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case against Trump.
You quoted stories reporting on Mueller's report. Read his report. He did not decide on the question of whether or not there was enough evidence to bring a case. "Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct." That is what he really said.
It's their job to draw conclusions and make recommendations to the DOJ whether to prosecute or not. Sorry the left's last hand was aces 'n eights.
We had to accept that the Obama Injustice Dept refusing to indict Hillary on he eMail server storing classified information on an unsecure internet connected server. You'll just need to swallow the decision on obstruction with Trump. Tough luck ole chap, try to keep a stiff upper lip.
You do realise, don't you, that the possibility remains open for Trump to be indicted as soon as he leaves office? Mueller set out the evidence for OOJ but didn't come to a conclusion. So a prosecutor might indict him in Jan. 2021.
