can you show me any evidence you even know how to read, especially something as legally complicated as the Mueller Report? If you had read the report, or even read a real newspaper article about it, or watched a real news media report, you would know that Mueller took great care to show the most grievous examples of collusion between the Russians and the Trumpsters who so willingly took meeting with them in secret and did not once refer these contacts and attempt at contacts with foreign agents to the FBI. And he laid down some serious foundations for these obvious acts of collusion to go one step further and be actual crimes - conspiracy against the US. With many examples...and then he gave cogent, clear and legal explanations of why he did not think these obvious examples of collusion had crossed the legal line into being criminal acts of conspiracy. He clearly said there was just not enough evidence to even indict the trump colluders with criminal conspiracy- as shown here from his report, which i have included a link to the PDF-
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.
The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts. In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of "collusion." In so doing, the Office recognized that the word "collude" was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation's scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.
BUT- when it came to the obvious examples of obstruction of justice, he just as clearly, cogently, legally laid out these obvious criminal acts of obstruction. AND THE DIFFERENCE IS- when it came to these indictable illegal acts, he never said there was just not enough evidence there to indict trump or his cohorts.....and went on to say this, in regards why he did not recommend an indictment for obstruction of justice in any of the 10 or so examples- and I quote-
Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General 's recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President's direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only - a temporal connection that suggests both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.
IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.
At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf