“the report does not conclude he committed a crime but does not exonerate him”
Aren’t those the only two possibilities? I men, if the report showed evidence that he committed a crime, then he committed a crime. In the absence of such evidence, then no crime was committed.
There isn’t a third option that states: “We think he committed a crime, but since there’s no evidence, he must be really really good at it.
Gimme an effin break.
Dan Bongino postulates that the entire Mueller probe was never going to be about “collusion” but was intended from the start to be about “obstruction”.
In his opinion (and there may be some creedence to it) collusion would be a “black and white” issue...there is either proof of collusion, or there isn’t. In his words, like a bank robbery, the bank was either robbed or it wasn’t.
Obstruction is a judgement call.