Mueller: Investigators did not have confidence the president did not commit a crime
“If we had confidence that the president had not committed a crime, we would have said so,” he said. He added, citing a DOJ policy: “Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.”

If Mueller and his team had confidence that the President HAD committed a crime he would have said so.
His protégé, Comey, stood up in front of the American people and declared Hillary Clinton DID BREAK LAWS...and then used the ridiculous, brain-dead excuses that she was TOO STUPID TO KNOW SHE WAS BREAKING LAWS (as if ignorance of the law is a defense for breaking them) as justification for HIS DECISION that Hillary should not be charged with a crime. (IT was NEVER his decision to make!)
Not being able to charge a President with a crime did not prevent him from making the definitive statement that he and his team came to the conclusion that the President Broke The Law - which he did NOT do - despite not being able to charge him with the crime!
Again this is another BS statement made without being under oath to substantiate and explain this false statement. Mueller just stated he did NOT declare President Trump had broken the Law in his report but wants to say 'but I thought he did...I just did not have the balls (or the evidence) to declare it openly.
If he wants anyone reasonable to believe this statement, all he has to do is agree to testify. (He had no problem grilling the sh!t out of Trump associates but he does not have the courage to testify to defend his findings under oath before Congress.
No, that is not what the HRC prosecution was about.
It was about INTENT. Did she have criminal intent? That is a subjective judgement.
Criminal INTENT is necessary to prosecute, and that is the same thing that is hinging on whether or not to prosecute Trump.
It is, in the end, all political.
Intention (criminal law) - Wikipedia
SO...
Hillary Clinton lying to the FBI by telling them thousands of e-mails she attempted to delete were 'personal' and not official documents does not prove an INTENT to Obstruct Justice?
Attempting to delete over 15,000 OFFICIAL SUBPOENAED e-mails - WHICH THE FBI DECLARED THEY SUCCESSFULLY RECOVERED - which proved Hillary Clinton violated both the FOIA and Federal Records Act by refusing to run in official documents for mandatory archival as required by both laws is NOT evidence of an INTENT to break the law?
ILLEGALLY smashing official government classified devices with hammers - in violation of the laws pertaining to the handling and destruction of classified - and the removal and refusal to turn in subpoenaed official SIM cards does not prove an INTENT to obstruct justice and break laws?
IN WHAT UNIVERSE?
Oh yeah, the SNOWFLAKE Alternate Reality Universe.
Hey, I agree with you.
It is pretty obvious. Anybody that followed her behavior on all of her other scandals, the MENA drug running, the Whitewater affair, everything? They know damn well why she had a private server in the first place and what her intent was from the beginning.
She was a sleazy piece of shit from the very first days of her being a prosecutor. It is why they kicked her off of the prosecutorial team going after Nixon. Everyone knew then how crooked she was, it is why Bill was attracted to her. Cute and corrupt, just the way he likes them. Evil as sin.
Only ignorant folks that watch TEE VEE don't know her true nature. The only person more evil than she is probably Kissinger.
Now, as to Trump's intent? Who knows?
We know he is innocent of collusion and conspiracy, and he knew it too. He was just sick and tired of having his presidency bogged down. Was he guilty of trying to absolutely stop the investigation? meh? Would the left care if Hillary or Obama tried to stop such nonsensical investigations as well? Probably not. Neither would the press. However, Trump's inexperience led him into hot water. D.C. power players were hoping for that. They were counting on it. So should the people be disenfranchised of the legally voted in representative b/c he didn't know what he was doing?
A process crime at best. If the left wants to nail him on that, simply b/c they hate him? After the ENTIRE nation now knows he was innocent of everything else to begin with? Then everyone should not let them near the reigns of power. The left can be now seen to be the evil authoritarians they accuse everyone else of being.
This shit is getting out of hand and it is STUPID. Like I said, determining intent is SUBJECTIVE. The left will tell both of us, Hillary was investigated by the right, and found not guilty, so she MUST be not guilty. What they don't understand, is those doing the investigating had motive to find no intent. The Clinton Machine has long tentacles, like the mob, all over the place. What is legal, and what is lawful are different.
In D.C., government trials and hearings only prove who has the most leverage, and the more loyal friends, it doesn't prove guilt, innocence, or truth. Not anymore.
The Mueller report? With out having the so-called hacked record examined by a bevy of non-biased experts, and going only on the word of the victims? Is not worth anymore than the toilet paper in my bathroom. It is a propaganda piece meant to distract you, and subvert the national conversation. It is all lies and Mueller is a Deep State fixer.
Are you seriously going to trust the likes of
Crowd Strike and
Christopher Steele for facts?

This is the premise from which the investigation began.
Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence
https://nypost.com/2017/08/15/new-report-claims-dnc-hack-was-an-inside-job-not-russia/