We've come to the point where we decided on a man's integrity by the letter beside his name. That's wrong.

Pick one because the information is right there in front of you. If an investigative reporter with limited access to information is able to find it why isn't someone who has no such restrictions not knowing it.

You had a common sense post, try applying that so you can see the obvious, friend. Mueller was deceptive for not providing a complete report. If you left information out of a report your boss would consider it a false report, quite akin to a lie.

What did Mueller leave out of the report? To my knowledge all he left out was charging for obstruction.

If your children told you only half truths you'd know they didn't respect you enough to tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I believe Mueller was nothing more than a swamp rat who was hired to be a front man for Andy Weissman who was working with the FBI throughout the FBI's initial investigation.
You mix the word 'truth' so easily with 'I believe'. There is no credible evidence for what you believe, only your desire to believe it. Why would a Republican Asst. AD, handpicked by Trump himself pic a 'front-man' for anyone. Particularly a past subordinate? One must remember that the Special Council's primary objective was to investigate if and to what extent Russia attempted to interfere in our electoral process. You know, the great Hoax. Show me evidence, not opinion or wishful thinking, real facts.

BTW, the information regarded Russian/Trump collusion/conspiracy. Mueller did conclude when he reported he found no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Elsewise, the congressional dems would be holding impeachment hearings already.
That is completely untrue. Mueller never said that, Trump, Hannity and Carlson said that. Mueller said he couldn't find "credible evidence for a conspiracy". Collusion is not found in the legal code. As a matter of fact, Mueller found 141 different contacts between Russian entities and the campaign/transition/family." Credible evidence for a conspiracy must include a quid pro quo between the 2 parties. Mueller could find none.

When it comes to light that Mueller knew in the first few months of the investigation that there was no collusion yet continued to investigate for another 18+ months what will you say? Like Strzok told Page, there's 'no there there.'

That, again, simply isn't true. It was impossible to investigate so many contacts, issues and leads in 'a few months'. What your suggesting is that Mueller, contrary to his own interests both personal and professional, out of the blue, perpetrated a massive fraud in return for ???

You can believe what you want my friend, but you'll just be believing what you want.

I know, Hannity...

That's the entire point of the article. He was in a position to provide a report and recommendation to America via the justice system. He was a prosecutor just like those in the Watergate and Clinton impeachments. He had the same authority and he abused it.

Had he found a conspiracy he would have reported it. He did not and he intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence just as Andy Weissman did when he torture those ML accountants and lost a SCOTUS decision 0-9 which sent the case back to lower courts to be retried under law.

Weissman had people jailed for years who were later released because they were tried without justice. Weissman had worked with the FBI throughout the FBI investigation and spying on Trump's campaign. Mueller knew the day he hired Weissman, Strzok and Page exactly what evidence they had. He had the 302s and everything else at his fingertips and the exact people, Strzok and Page, who ran the FBI spying.

What part of obvious am I leaving out>