Thread by @studentactivism

Page 2: "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government."

Also page 2: "A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

The question of whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian govt has never been one I've been all that interested in. But if you say Mueller exonerated them on that charge, you're mistaken. Or lying.

On page 10, the report says some witnesses pled the Fifth, and others lied or omitted evidence. The investigation was thwarted in trying to obtain documents. Evidence was destroyed. Some witnesses couldn't be questioned.

Given all that, the report concludes, "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."

One last thing: The report sometimes uses the phrase "there is no evidence" in reference to allegations. Elsewhere it uses the phrase "the investigation did not establish." The two are not synonymous. Note the distinction.

"A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

Let's be clear: This is a prosecutor's document, and I'm absolutely not saying that prosecutors' allegations and insinuations should be taken at face value. And again, the underlying allegations are only a small sliver of Trump's malfeasance, even if proven.

But there's a difference between agnosticism and exoneration, particularly where the person making the statement explicitly says that they were intentionally thwarted in getting completely access to the evidence they needed.

If you're out there saying that Mueller exonerated Trump and his people on collusion, you're a stooge. And if you're ostensibly anti-Trump and you're doing it, well, that's just pathetic.