//Fair enough, and that is why this investigation is far from over.

My questions are:

1. Why did the Trump campaign (Manafort, Gates, etc) share polling data with Russian entities (Kilimnik)?
2. Why did they specifically discuss 'battleground' states?
3. How much could Facebook, Botnet and hacking activities, along with dissemination of hacked data, possibly affect the election?

While considering this, it should also be considered just how narrow the margin was in several key states targeted by Russians.

I'm jumping around the document, so I still haven't gotten to information on #3 yet. Fascinating stuff, though... and disturbing.//

The Russian efforts are very troubling and the details are incredible. Unfortunately, our political climate is such that the 'Trump' topic will get all of the effort and attention, leaving the 'Russian' topic out of the spotlight. Perhaps when we elect a new POTUS we can get the powers that be focused on Russian interference and deal with it. Until then, Trump is the bullseye.

Barr didn't just give his answer. He said he asked Mueller and Mueller said the decision to prosecute or not had nothing to do with whether a sitting President can be indicted. He put words directly in Mueller's mouth.

I am asking for clarification on this because it would matter to me.

Source Barr saying this. I believe you are wrong and simply bamboozled by Barr's lawyer speak. But I am willing to be corrected.

Sure you can interpret what Comey said to be incorrect. He said given the same facts, no prosecutor would take the case. You are also the one who cant let Hillary go.

Here Mueller said it was up to congress to prosecute. And there was lots of evidence.

And also listing a series of times trump tried to obstruct justice while also saying that the investigation was hampered because of the obstruction and lies.

Um, didn't they identify and investigate 10 incidents that may have been obstruction, and found that they weren't (or at least insufficient evidence to conclude that they were).

I am asking for clarification on this because it would matter to me.

Source Barr saying this. I believe you are wrong and simply bamboozled by Barr's lawyer speak. But I am willing to be corrected.

They specifically stated that it was not up to them to make a conclusion.

They also said trumps team did not obstruct because they did not carry out his orders. If a superior gives an order to obstruct justice, that is obstructing justice whether it is carried out of not. There were 9 other sections written like this.

Then they said it’s up to congress. It is very showing that barr decided to lie and step in here.

Sure barr can make a determination. But it is meaningless. I can make a determination and so can you. As the doj has said you can’t indict a sitting president so even if he did find obstruction it wouldn’t have matter. As stated numerious times and by mueller, that’s why he didn’t make the determination.

As mueller stated congress can make the determination to impeach. Which is the key.

Legally he had to release it to congress. Also based on his confirmation. He has to release it.

It is really strange how a report saying that the campagin, at best, actively embraced Russia's attack on out election, were open to working with Russia on it, and worked with wikileaks (and at worst their active cooperation was hidden by their deletion of records that may explain elements Mueller can't explain) is exoneration. This report documents that they knew Russia was specifically trying to help trump and the campaign decided to help Russia by claiming Russia was not involved.

Can someone explain that to me?