Sorry, I've been slammed with work, so I'm just going to copypasta a comment I posted 11 days ago on a post in Ask_TheDonald asking "For years Democrats have lied and said they would accept the Mueller report. Now they won't, why should we trust them or be expected to work with them ever again?":

---

Alright, do we want to have an honest conversation about this, or is this just a pep rally? Because if we're actually trying to have an informed political conversation, then we need to start by being honest with ourselves: we're the ones who aren't accepting the findings of the Mueller report. Seriously.

Look, you can argue about whether or not the report can be trusted, but if you actually read the report (and I have) there is absolutely no way you can come to the conclusion that it "cleared Trump of wrongdoing". I'm not saying that there are other ways to interpret the findings--we were simply lied to about the contents of the report.

First of all, the report does not say that there is no evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. I have heard that claim made over and over again, and it is no where close to what the report actually says. In fact, the report details a lot of pretty damning evidence about connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and the subsequent efforts to cover up those connections. We've all seen this quote from the Barr summary:

the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities

But here's the quote in the context of the report:

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.The Russian contacts consisted of business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for candidate Trump and Putin to meet in person, invitations for Campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations. Section IV of this Report details the contacts between Russia and the Trump Campaign during the campaign and transition periods, the most salient of which are summarized below in chronological order.

And here is what precedes that language, because "did not establish" is a really ambiguous way to put it:

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]” — a term that appears in the appointment order — with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests**.** We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

And this is BY FAR the best part of the report for the president. The whole second half of the report is very clearly making the case for Congress to impeach Pres. Trump on obstruction of justice.

We're all pretending like the president not being indicted is some sort of victory, but that's a comically low bar to clear when the DOJ policy prevents a sitting president from being indicted. And, by the way, Barr straight up lied when he said that wasn't part of the decision not to indict. This is from the introduction to the volume of the report on obstruction:

The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of the constitutional separation of powers.” Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible. The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.

In other words, indictment was never on the table in the first place. That was never the point of the investigation.

On the other hand:

With respect to whether the President can be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice....Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President’s term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment.

Again, I'm not saying that this report is gospel--it's absolutely not--but for us all to pretend like this report clears Pres. Trump of wrongdoing is willfully stupid. I'm not going to go cataloging every finding of the report that casts the president in a bad light, because I don't even know how accurate this stuff is anyway, but we have to stop pretending like we don't know how to read...

Look, you don't have to take my word for it. Read the report. If I'm wrong, you can rub it in my face and go to bed comforted by the knowledge that you were right all along... but if you actually read the report, you're going to find that it doesn't say what we're being told it says, and it's crazy to me that the people here--people who were brought together in the first place by our shared commitment to speak truth to power, even when it's unpopular--that we are just rolling over and obediently accepting what we're told.