[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Quote Barr said it did not establish enough evidence to indict anyone with conspiracy or coordination.

Exactly. If there is not enough evidence to indict, there is no mandate or reason to go further. That's how the law works. Case closed.

As to obstruction Mueller neither concluded or exonerated the President. All we have to date is hearsay.

He did not find enough evidence to make a conclusion. Same as above. Not enough evidence, case closed. If your saying that Mueller's conclusions or lack of them are only to be considered hearsay, then there is no purpose for such an investigation.

Pete: I would put forth that the other half of the fracture is the media et al, since 30 years ago we would have known little, if anything of either issue and that the first half is not just the Trumplicans but both of the political tribes.

The article you linked didn't make the same distinctions.

So?

So if you disagree with some of your article how much confidence should I have either in you or the article--an article, BTW, which is basically a slanted and misleading peace of political crap to begin with.

I would love to know Muellers opinion of Trump, since they are almost exact opposites.

Do you have the information to conclude that? Any way, Mueller's personal opinion of Trump doesn't interest me. It's irrelevant other than a conversation piece.

Only from biographical pieces on both, I find it very interesting

Whenever you've shared some biographical or anecdotal information about Trump its either been negative or contradictory. Whereas I have read or seen bio info about him that was quite positive. So I guess that you've either only read one side or just believe what you want to believe. I have read or seen enough biographies to realize that most of them are part or mostly fiction along with slanted contextualization of facts. Comparing such bios of Trump to Mueller would seem more like an entertainment rather than an elucidation. But, whatever floats your boat.

If Mueller followed his usual formula, he knows everything about Trump that he could possibly find out and then decided what of that was applicable to the investigation he was asked to make.
He is a very talented investigator and likely found questionable things Don the Con did.
If they were bad enough, I would think he would have been quite conflicted about not doing something about it.
What could he do?
Will the report tell?

And if he found a pattern of behavior, not indictable but that he felt was untenable for a person in that position, what would/could he do?

Thankfully, the world does not operate on the basis of what either you or Mueller think is not indictable but somehow untenable. I personally think it would be untenable for a President if he was constantly farting and burping and picking his nose.