*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

MMM. I'm not going to respond in snippets anymore, it's too long now. Let me just see if I can rephrase your argument exactly as I understand it, and demonstrate to you how silly it is. Instead of legalese, we will use scientific terms that I'm sure you understand.

Oh thank god.
Please, lets do this.

Mueller, because of his patriotic interpretation of the constitution, has the legal ability to investigate the physical properties of any substance and declare it either solid...or not a solid.

So Mueller looks at some ice. He sees that it has firm surfaces, holds its shape, resists penetration, etc. So he reports that it's solid.

then he looks at some water and sees that it doesn't have a firm surface, and it takes the shape of it's container, so he says it's not solid.

Then he looks at some steam. And for whatever reason he can't collect it, he can't look at it under a microscope, he can't determine if the vapor in the air is tiny solid particles like dust or if it's actually a vapor. So reports no finding on steam.

By your logic, that means that steam is not not solid.

No.

By my logic, he hasn't drawn a conclusion about steam, and that's interesting. It doesn't mean solid or not solid. The false dichotomy is exposed for what it is. There is more to this than black and white.
Funny, 'cause that's your argument, not mine. Where he drew no conclusion, you're saying there is a conclusion drawn.


Back from the metaphor:
The fact that he has openly cleared the pres of some, but not all accusations is interesting.
You're the one who's claiming that since he didn't nail the pres to a wall, then there's no evidence to do so. That's simply not in the report.
IF in the report, he'd cleared the pres of each accusation under investigaion, then you'd be correct in your position. However, that's simply not what he wrote. I find the fact that Mueller clearly was willing to clear the president on some, but not all, charges, in no uncertain terms is noteworthy. Where he drew no conclusion is interesting.

I'm not the one saying there's a conclusion where there is none. You're the one who doesn't seem to really understand that Mueller literally could not say anything, in the report or otherwise, that would indicate the sitting POTUS committed a crime. That's a fact that is also interesting.

The obvious implication is that he can't report anything that would tie his hands into drawing the conclusion that a crime was committed by the sitting POTUS. Because to do so would be treason.
Do you agree that this is an obvious implication of his belief?

I'm not drawing any conclusions beyond this. Just asking if you agree with this.

Assuming so,
I'm still not saying that there are conclusions to be drawn where the MR draws none. I'm just saying there are these 2 interesting facts sitting here. They raise more questions than they provide answers.