"Go back to where you came from" are code words used for generations against Irish immigrants, Jews, African-Americans and now Latinos. Leave my neighborhood, my city or "my" country, like the speaker owns it. In today's world, it is hard to determine where "go back to" really is. IMMIGRATION (yes, there is a problem) has been made the red herring to take focus away from the environment, healthcare, tariffs, automation, infrastructure, and the list goes on. People thought this guy was going to solve it all. Eliminating Roe v Wade, environmental regulations, affordable health care, reliable allies, and the list goes on does not make America great-it sure will not make it Great again. I really don't like that frame of reference because it reflects back to a mythic past that never really existed. Our nation is a work in progress but we have been back tracking in the last three years.

Anyone ever use the stick on uv filters for Lumix point and shoots (see, this is what this forum is supposed to be about).

Elaine2025 wrote:
I never mentioned Hannity and Limbaugh. They are Pundits and more often than not, they get it right while the fake lying media is still standing there trying to wipe the egg off their faces.

The Mueller report had no charges. A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DOES NOT EXONERATE, THAT TERM HAS NO LEGAL MEANING. THERE IS A CRIME OR THERE ISN'T. IN THIS CASE THERE ISN'T. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

The scope of the report was not to charge, that is a possible conclusion after a congressional inquiry, as I understand the limits of Mueller's task.

The likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are entertainers, columnists at best, funded to the tune of millions by dark money, they are not journalists!

Please, the Mueller Report did not find him innocent, on the contrary, it found that there are 10 points that could not be declared so, but the limits of the jurisdiction, the authority of the report's team have to leave those points to Congress to investigate, and it initiated IIRC 14 other investigations for the (NY) Southern District to pursue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report
Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities" and did not pursue charges for others beyond Manafort and Gates under statutes governing conspiracy or foreign agents.[4][5] Investigators ultimately had an incomplete picture of what happened due to communications that were encrypted, deleted or unsaved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete or declined.[6][7][8] However, the report stated that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law".[9][10][11] It lists two methods by which Russia attempted to influence the election. Firstly, a social media campaign by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) which supported the Trump presidential campaign, attacked the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and aimed to “provoke and amplify political and social discord".[12][13][14] Secondly, Russian military intelligence agency GRU conducted computer hacking and strategically released damaging material stolen from the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations.[15][16][17] The campaign is further stated to have "welcomed" this ongoing interference as they “expected [to] benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts”.[18][19][20] It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,[21] about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations.[4] During the investigation, the special counsel recommended the indictment of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his former deputy Rick Gates, and they were found guilty of criminal offenses stemming from their prior lobbying work for the Ukrainian Party of Regions. Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American".[22]

Volume II of the report addresses obstruction of justice. The investigation intentionally took an approach that could not result in a judgment that Trump committed a crime.[23][24][25] The special counsel refrained from making a judgment about whether to criminally charge Trump because investigators abided by an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting president cannot stand trial,[26][27][28] and feared that charges would affect Trump's governing and possibly preempt his impeachment.[24][27][29] Consistent with standing DOJ policy,[30] investigators felt it would be unfair to accuse Trump of a crime without charges and without a trial in which he could clear his name.[26][27][31] As such, the investigation "does not conclude that the President committed a crime"; however, "it also does not exonerate him",[13][32] as investigators were not confident that Trump was innocent after examining his intent and actions.[33][34][35][36]

Mueller was to draw no conclusions from his report. He was to report strictly on what he found. He's not allowed to draw conclusions, or make inferences. He reports only on fact.

That he made a conclusion that he didn't have enough evidence to support any charges of obstruction was completely outside his purview. His conclusion was a "gotcha" on his way out, and he was clearly out of bounds when he stated the President could not be exonerated. None other than Andrew McCarthy, a former prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, stated as much.