You're assuming a strawman that doesn't exist

i'm not saying you're deliberately constructing the argument

i'm saying you're a useful idiot carrying water for the far right without realising it

Do you have something constructive to add?

👀

However I don't agree that having concerns equates to being a racist.

big "i'm just asking questions" energy

this is just borderline sealioning

so you waded into a conversation about the rioters to ask an unrelated question?

cool thank you for the valuable discourse

pretending that there's a question posed by these riots about immigration is just pretending that that's the question far right rioters are asking, which is just an attempt to rehabilitate blatant racism in the eyes of an uninformed observer, and by doing it you're just being a useful idiot

i'm sure the far-right rioters are concerned mainly with the detailed cost-benefit analysis of how current and future immigration strategy could impact the uk's fiscal outlook, and not with anything else at all

f35 is like a bee if you tell it it can't fly it will drop out of the sky

what about the winter games?

But, the report said, “because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.

i presume you're pulling that from volume 2 of the report, since you didn't link anything

volume 1 deals with election interference

volume 2 deals with obstruction of justice

or in other words, your quote isn't relevant to evidence for conspiracy with russia

the investigation established multiple links between Trump Campaign officials and individuals tied to the Russian government. Those links included Russia offers of assistance to the Campaign.

"establishing multiple links" isn't the same thing as concluding they conspired, but even if it was, the second line of my initial comment addresses this:

Even if the report had concluded they conspired, concluding they conspired isn't the same thing as having "sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges"

Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”

this is talking about obstruction again, not collusion

your linked article doesn't support the statement "mueller found enough evidence to convict trump" at any point, which means the journalist was correct

he still makes the horse carry him on the sleigh though

we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.

from here

maybe he did but that's the only definitive statement i can find from him on the matter

Concluding that Russia interfered with an election to Trump's benefit isn't the same thing as concluding that Trump conspired with the Russians

Even if the report had concluded they conspired, concluding they conspired isn't the same thing as having "sufficient evidence to seek criminal charges"

you actually have seen the second one, because it's somehow the same movie as the first one but wetter