Trump vs Biden debate

[Irreligious Atheist]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-...rr-n986611

The conclusion of the Mueller report is a lot more complicated than that. On the first page (numbered, 9 of 448 in the PDF) of the report:

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations.  First, a Russian entity carried out asocial media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.  Second, a Russian intelligence service  conducted  computer-intrusion  operations  against  entities,  employees,  and  volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.  The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.  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.

Unfortunately, what Mueller did not find was a smoking gun that proved that the Trump campaign willfully violated the law on this front. That said, he did find a lot of acts that could be described as collusion, but he couldn't prove any charges of conspiracy, which Mueller points out does not let Trump off the hook, especially with all the collusion they did establish. Seriously, Mueller lays all this out in the introduction to Volume One of his report. You might not have the time to read the whole 448 pages, but at least read those two pages (1-2 numbered, 9-10 out of 448) before talking what the Mueller Report did or did not establish about Russia and the 2016 election.

Indeed, the conclusion outright states (repeated in full because it's one paragraph long and it's public domain):

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate  conclusions  about  the  President’s  conduct.  The  evidence  we  obtained  about  the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.  At the same time,if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.  Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.  Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

It doesn't matter if he wasn't "exonerated". That's not the way the law works. It's innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty until proven innocent. The evidence is not there.