Mueller, you know, the guy that wrote the report, disagrees with you.

Here is what else is in the Mueller report:

"Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express - between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." (p. 10)

Of course, why it needs to be "more than two" parties is unclear. If it had been 'two or more parties' the case would've been clear cut, implied by this assessment:

"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 ." (p. 13)

And requires further information to make a final determination, because:

"...while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report." (p. 18)

So, to quote you: ‘“not guilty" does not mean "innocent”.’

In this case, the Trump campaign came to know that the Russians were interfering, quite possibly during a couple of meetings with Russian individuals (listed in the report), however, because that interference benefited the Trump campaign, they did nothing. That, I think you’ll find, is an impeachable offence. It is a sin of omission rather than commission. It was outside of the scope of what the Mueller report was able to act on, which, I presume, is why he says he didn’t exonerate Trump, but it is clearly stated.

To jump to calling me a conspiracy theorist on the basis of a couple of fragments of quoted text from a 448 report (per your link to the CNN copy - I believe that the un-redacted copy is longer), when other sections call your interpretation of those fragments into question suggests that you are attempting to wield Occam’s broom. It also makes you look like the conspiracist you claim that I am.

As to your demand for a Special Prosecutor for whether the election was free or fair: there’s a few points to make:

You said “most blatant is that millions of live ballots were sent out to dead voters and we do not know how many were returned and counted as legitimate mail-in votes. How can you prove none of the dead cast a vote?”

Here’s one response:

The false claim that deceased voters cast votes “comes up every election,” said Jason Roberts, a professor of political science at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-election-dead-voter-claims-fc7ba254fd37059f63ea764c18c2a4cb
And another:

“From our investigation, it's clear that in almost all of our 31 test cases [from the list of 10,000 posted by a Trump supporter], the data for genuine voters in Michigan has been combined with records of dead people with the same name and birth month and year from across the United States to yield false matches.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54874120

Why, it’s starting to look like YOU are the conspiracy theorist:!

Fundamentally, dead people don’t vote:
https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/dead-people-don-t-vote-study-points-extremely-rare-fraud

So, of course, you double down:

“If after an extensive investigation the investigator issues a report and says it was all clean as a whistle, I'll agree those allegations will have been debunked.”

Not your choice to make. Meanwhile, every state has done at least one recount, and 60+ legal cases failed to reach a sufficient bar to even get to a full hearing… and that was in courthouses with strong Republican leanings.

The original count was watchable online and viewed by many neutral AND partisan individuals; every exclamation of “fraud!” was shown to merely be illustrative of the claimants lack of knowledge of the voting process.

The only attempted fraud of any import in this whole sorry affair was Trump’s attempt to browbeat Raffensperger into finding 11800 votes after the state had done two recounts (one by hand).

Trump’s claims don’t gain credence just because a large number of people are stupid enough to believe and then parrot a serial liar. Repeating other people’s (wilful or mistaken) misinterpretations of events, and then demanding that they’re true and so other people must believe them, too, doesn’t make the original claim any more likely to be right. This is how religions get started.

Psychology graduate with interests in values and morality, cognition and executive function, and High Functioning Depression. Kiwi living in London, UK.

Psychology graduate with interests in values and morality, cognition and executive function, and High Functioning Depression. Kiwi living in London, UK.