As have I. I have the report right here, we're simply drawing different conclusions from what was written. Being prissy is not a good exit, but you're more than welcome to discontinue this exchange if you're so bothered by my approach. I'm merely relying on what was written in the official report, I'm not particularly bothered by hearsay from third-hand sources. I'm not interested in any post factum "reporting" that may be taking place while the stars of the show are enjoying their brief moment in the limelight.
Now, if your reading comprehension is sound, you will notice that "he would not make a determination on whether or not the President has committed a crime", which of course he wouldn't because he's not a judge. He does however reserve the right to declare the President's actions to be a "federal offense" where appropriate, which he hasn't done due to his concerns regarding fairness and the adversarial process of the justice system, which is indeed fair. I'm not particularly bothered by whether the report exonerates Trump or not because, as you're probably aware, the presumption of innocence principle allows me to simply state that he is innocent until proven guilty. Not that I need to pull that card out since, again, no charges were pressed. You're still a couple steps removed from your actual assertion, that being that the president has "committed crimes". I reiterate, that was not established, and there is no further investigation in progress to ascertain whether that's the case. In other words, he at best "allegedly committed crimes", you're welcome to use that term going forwards, but I'm not bothered either way.
I'm also not "mischaracterising your position", your position is very obvious to anyone, even the most casual observer.
Just to tie a nice bow on the conversation, I'll simply drop what Barr had to say about your supposed intent:
Perfectly reasonable explanation. To reiterate:
- There was no agreement between Barr, Rosenstein and Mueller regarding the alleged obstruction
- President Trump had a multitude of motivations besides corrupt intent to end the investigation as quickly as possible
- He cooperated with the investigators every step of the way besides the few incidents named in the report, including transferring requested documents, allowing investigators to interview whomever they pleased
- President Trump did not use his executive privilege to terminate the investigation or fire Mueller, and even if he did, he would still be exercising his constitutional right to do so
But yes, I suppose all this is inconclusive as, in contrast to Iran-Contra, we don't have a call for impeachment or any meaningful conclusion to the report, making it a complete dud, at least in my estimation.
The pun was not accidental, well done!