To Understand Mueller Report, Ignore Talking Heads And Read It

[Billie.jeens]

While cable TV segments spent Thursday haggling over the meaning of exoneration and the standard for obstruction of justice, the public’s best use of time involved the consumption of the report itself. Robert Mueller’s masterwork is a meandering tale of tantalizing connections and volatile tensions involving America and Russia, the Trump White House and its various subsets, and a rogue’s gallery of friends, lawyers, and associates of the President.

The Mueller team has drawn praise and criticism, but whether it is a Boy Scout troop of straight arrows or a den of partisans, no one doubts that it tried with all its might to find everything that could be found in its examination of Trump and Russia. That’s why the bottom line of “no collusion, no obstruction” is the most dominant development as this chapter draws to a close.

https://townhall.com/columnists/markdav ... p=22151825

[Quorra2.0]

I agree with the sentiment behind this posts title. I downloaded it to slowly read more out of curiosity than anything. I read fast but it has to be a novel I’m into, lol, it’ll take me a while to get through all 448 pages. But one thing one must remember is that even if people actually read it, not just an article with a summation of key points, we aren’t necessarily going to interpret it exactly the same. Take, for example, the summary, some have read it and felt Trump was totally and completely exonerated, others have taken it as exonerated of collusion but that there may have been some obstruction, while others take it to conspiracy level extremes. Of course there are varying interpretations in between.

[Billie.jeens]

I agree with the sentiment behind this posts title. I downloaded it to slowly read more out of curiosity than anything. I read fast but it has to be a novel I’m into, lol, it’ll take me a while to get through all 448 pages. But one thing one must remember is that even if people actually read it, not just an article with a summation of key points, we aren’t necessarily going to interpret it exactly the same. Take, for example, the summary, some have read it and felt Trump was totally and completely exonerated, others have taken it as exonerated of collusion but that there may have been some obstruction, while others take it to conspiracy level extremes. Of course there are varying interpretations in between.

Knowing that a prosecutor does not have the job of exenorating people, you clearly were not looking for statements of exenorating evidence. Correct?

[Quorra2.0]

I agree with the sentiment behind this posts title. I downloaded it to slowly read more out of curiosity than anything. I read fast but it has to be a novel I’m into, lol, it’ll take me a while to get through all 448 pages. But one thing one must remember is that even if people actually read it, not just an article with a summation of key points, we aren’t necessarily going to interpret it exactly the same. Take, for example, the summary, some have read it and felt Trump was totally and completely exonerated, others have taken it as exonerated of collusion but that there may have been some obstruction, while others take it to conspiracy level extremes. Of course there are varying interpretations in between.

Knowing that a prosecutor does not have the job of exenorating people, you clearly were not looking for statements of exenorating evidence. Correct?

This is true. Unfortunately, not everyone comprehends this and have held different expectations. The HJC has not helped with their talk of subpoenas. It’s a highly disappointing and extremely poor strategy that has created even more biases that may discourage people from reading the actual report and opting for opinionated narratives.