What favor did President Trump request of Ukraine President Zekensky?

If there’s not enough evidence, a person cannot be convicted, hence he’s innocent. Any logical person would say he’s innocent.

The not exonerated talking point is stupid and only serves as a base for more investigation in the hopes they get Trump the next time.

it's that Mueller *did* find crimes contrary to what ethang5 claims.

he's done some pretty shifty things that sit in a grey area within the law that he cannot be exonerated on.

...about half of them still agree with the interpretation that Trump did something wrong.

...the majority of the American populace agree that Trump did something wrong.

The reality is the Trump did something wrong, judging by your quality of argument.

Trump was impeached

2. Mueller did find crimes

3. The senate does not represent the majority of the country

4. The chambers of congress follow their own agenda. While this agenda is often lead by their constituents desires, quite often it is not.

Correct. But they are based upon evidence

I vaguely recall that you bash other politicians from time to time?

Tell where me in the books of law does it state that a person must make a sworn tape confession in order to be convicted.

...a thumbprint found in the scene of the crime belonging to the thief is the evidence. The conclusion that the thief must've been at the scene of the crime is the inference.

So yes, murderers are convicted upon inferences.

For example, a large amount of Americans just aren't well informed enough.

That said, as previously mentioned, you're actually in a minority in this matter, and your views are incredibly extreme despite having access to all the facts of the matter. Hence you are biased.

"..., it also does not exonerate him" - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182

Yes, Mueller ended with 30+ indictments, and some convictions, but the target of the Mueller investigation was Trump, and not a single indictment names anyone wearing the Trump name. Other targets do not count as none had a farthing of relation to the subject of a favor requested by Trump on 7/25 to President Zelensky. You cannot broaden the scope of this string just to justify your opinion. As its instigator, I declare your entire commentary in this post as superfluous. Stay on point. I'll allow you discussion of Mueller as relevant, because the president mentioned Mueller in the 7/25 conversation, but your conclusion about the Report is demonstrably wrong. Mueller did mention several areas of concern, but defined none of them as indictable crimes, and he did not indict on their suggestion.

Why didn’t he convict then

is a legal and syntactic faux pas by virtue of the previous claim of a non-crime. The latter statement is, as is your argument, superfluous by non sequitur. By concluding there is no crime, it does not follow that there is no exoneration. What precedes, moreover, is that Mueller found himself at the end of a two-year, $30M-plus investigation of having to inflate a bozone-filled wish balloon of what might have been. Sorry.

If, by the law, there is "gray area," then you'e going to have to cite what you're talking about, specifically. The law, my friend, appears to you to have "gray area" because the law is pretty black regarding what is not legal, leaving plenty of white that is. If you want to call some white gray, that is your privilege, but don't expect the court to necessarily agree. Loopholes are what satisfies the public in their ignorance of the law as that which should be closed, made black, but currently is not. Since not everyone who identifies loopholes agrees by what shade of back to fill them [i.e. by definition of severity in terms of negative effect on the public and commensurate punishment], violà, the acceptable to the public, but legally unsupportable gray.

...the majority of the American populace agree that Trump did something wrong.

Standing OLC opinion and practice dictates that presidents may not be indicted.

per definition, exoneration is not necessarily predicated by crime.

how do the actions detailed in the report fit in with the law when they are both crimes and unactionable?

Have a care to understand who your "majority of Americans" really are. Political polls almost always make registered voters their target audience for polling. Who are registered voters? In 2016, there were 250M of them. Only 51%, 127M, of them actually voted, split between Trump and Hillary. Meaning 123M of them never bothered to vote, having no will to make their voice, and opinion, heard. They are included in your "majority."

In fact those 123M ARE your majority; people who have no valid opinion. You trust them? You want likely voters, not just registered, but you won't know who they are for another 6 months, minimum.

He has the power to go to Congress and ask for impeachment right? Cause that’s what happened in the case of Special Counsel Ken Starr. Why didn’t he do that? Oh wait, he didn’t have enough evidence and therefore could convict.

Even assuming for your assumed poll methodology, this is a baseless assumption.

I believe he left the decision for congress.

Some questions are biased, leading to an expected answer to meet an agenda.

Yet nothing was done? Very few of them believe Trump should have been impeached, even the ones who agreed his behavior was not the best.

The majority of the American populace agree that Trump should not have been impeached. Playing with words will not help you win.

The reality is that Trump did nothing wrong, judging by reality itself. Reality matters Clem.

By democrats. A single party. And that foolishness was thrown out by the Senate.

No crimes of Trump.

Yes they do. Every part of the country has a Senator. And they are more representative than a single party.

If you had evidence, you wouldn't need inference to convict, you'd use the evidence.

Please stop being dense. The law says people will be convicted on a preponderance of evidence, not on bias and inference.

You have no thumbprints. You only have baseless inference.

In China, Cuba, and North Korea sure. Not in America since 1957.

Yes. Deplorables. I heard of them.

I guess my views would seem extreme to a far left liberal. But sorry, I am not in the minority. You need to watch more varied news outlets.

And reality agrees with me, that's why Meuller found no crimes of Trump. And the Senate quashed the fake single party impeachment, and why Trump will be reelected in November.

An unindicted person needs no exoneration.

I'm quite sure at the very least that half of the senate agree that Trump should've been impeached.

You're the one trying to expand the argument.

The inferences are based upon the thumbprints.

I agree with that statement, however, it is a good start. Moreover, an exoneration statement is not legally, nor syntacticly a necessary follow-up statement to the declaration that there was no crime. As said, it is a non sequitur.

Therefore, Mueller's exoneration statement is the opinionated statement, not mine. Opinionated, because Mueller's entire investigation of Trump was backassward. One initiates a criminal investigation by first identifying that a crime absolutely was committed, and then begin a pursuit for suspects. In this case, Trump was assumed to have committed a crime, but no one could pinpoint what, exactly, it was. It was an investigation for a crime that Mueller admitted, ultimately, and to his shame [the Congressional testimony in July was evidence of that], was not found.

They [the actions] fit with the law because, though you claim otherwise [your opinion], they are not both crimes and unactionable. That's the point of Mueller's argument. They were not crimes, and therefore were not actionable.

I happen to be a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Look it up. In this arena of statistics, I have exceeding proof of capable knowledge, so your opinions fail against my steel wall. I don't care who operated the poll. I stated the facts of sub-standard political polling. The flaws of the typical political poll are:

1. Lack of a sufficient polling sample size. Hint, it's not a large number, but most polls, including yours, fall short of that number.

2. Lack of the correct sample group [registered v. likely voters in your example].

3. Lack of equal sub-groups within the sample.

4. Lack of a sufficiently low MOE to establish statistical accuracy within a 95% confidence level.

5. Too many questions [10 is the suggested limit. 40 is the typical minimum political poll number of questions]

6. Some questions are biased, leading to an expected answer to meet an agenda.

"He," being Mueller. Why would Mueller, a professional prosecutor, and, then, a contract employee of DOJ, consider leaving a case for Congress to solve?

He had the power of indictment for a criminal offense, and decided he did not have the evidence to do so, by his statements in his Report that I have already cited.

You may be sure, but, apparently, more than half of the Senate does not agree with you, unless you believe more than half of the Senate violated their oath. Prove that. As you do not wear their knickers, I'll submit you cannot.

Oh. And you Senate accusation above is not expansion? 

If that were true, you'd have more than inferences.

But, if you want to argue that inferences are sufficient to convict, where's the conviction? You keep blowing bozone into your wish balloon, someday it's going to take flight. Bon voyage.