Are you referring to the email hacking thing? Because that's a bad joke at the worst.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-mueller-clarifie...
> … Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as
> to whether the president committed a crime."
>
> That statement was more in line with his report, and
> with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary
> Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department
> policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would
> not make a determination as to whether the President
> committed a crime. That was our decision then and it
> remains our decision today."
0 - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/did-mueller-me...
Does anyone have a reference to support the "conclusion of the Mueller report was that the president would have been indicted if it weren't for a standing policy that the president cannot be indicted"?
But enough about Hillary, am I right?
Also keep in mind how many associates have been indicted. Is it possible that they acted alone without direction or influence from Trump? Sure. Plausible? Not to me.
Also, a nitpick, but I'm pretty sure it was 2 years not 3 years.
I'm not a fan of either parties establishment members, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the obvious.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-mueller-clarifie...
Regarding indictments -- staff indictments were for unrelated crimes, and the indicted foreign entities were found to be unconnected to the campaign. The legal system cares about deductive logic, not inductive.
The specific section is here: https://youtu.be/mk4KR02iF5M?t=280
Mueller: "That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
Fair enough. He doesn't mention whether it was a deciding factor unless I'm missing some earlier quote? The OLC opinion (assuming he abided by it, which seems to be the case) means he has no business even making a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. It's very frustrating that the OLC opinion prevents us from really learning more, but I'll grant you we have to live with it, and shouldn't legally assume any more than what was presented.
We'll see what history decides. I'm pretty sure he's a crook, but I'm pretty sure OJ is guilty too. Hope I'm wrong.
Yes there is, and there are facts and truth.
News is what it is. Facts and truth may be found but not by turning on the TV. Journalists working by themselves and for themselves still exist. We have to seek them out; they don't get any airtime with billion dollar media conglomerates.
NBC News employs a Bush daughter, and previously employed a Clinton daughter in one of those no-show jobs that the mafia loves. A McCain daughter is at ABC news, but they make her appear on "The View" so that may not be such a great deal. The Vanderbilt scion figurehead at CNN is a former CIA recruit. ("Mr. Cooper, we feel your talents would be more suited to a slightly different role with our agency.") When retired admirals and generals appear on the shows as respected experts, their management roles and board membership at armaments manufacturers is not disclosed.
"News" isn't a product you can just take out of the box and use. "Some assembly is required" and that's what citizens are expected to do (unless they're graduates of Trump "University", I guess).
And why, if all "news" is simply fact-free narrative, have you chosen to believe the the Trumpian narrative? Do you believe that all news that casts a negative light on POTUS is simply fabricated?