Your takeaway from the day spent with Mueller?

NADLER: So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice? Is that correct?

MUELLER: That is correct.

NADLER: And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the President?

MUELLER: No.

NADLER: Now, in fact your report expressly states it does not exonerate the President?

MUELLER: It does.

Not Mueller's job to exonerate anyone. It is to either charge or not to charge. He did not charge.
No charge = Presumption of innocent in USA. This post was edited by my2cents at July 25, 2019 3:08 PM MDT

To be exonerated, you need to be charged.  If I say someone is stupid, are they considered smart until proven otherwise?. A prosecutor may know with absolute certainty that a person is guilty of something, but still may not charge them because of the circumstances.

You said above: 3. Because no decision under the law....means exhonerated. Innocent until proven guilty. No charge=not guilty

Mueller conducted an investigation that was seriously impeded by White House lack of cooperation.  That alone is obstruction of justice, but could not be proved because of the time frame involved.  

Nice to see you spelled 'exonerate" correctly in this answer.

No charge= Innocent

 The rest is semantics. 

Collins: "At anytime of the investigation was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?"

Mueller: "No."

Then we have:

Jeffries: “Donald Trump 1) committed an obstructive act, 2) connected to an official proceeding, 3) did so with corrupt intent. Those are the elements of obstruction of justice. This is the United States of America. No one is above the law. No one. The President must be held accountable one way or the other.”

Mueller: “Let me just say if I might, I don’t subscribe necessarily to your, to the way you analyzed that. I’m not saying it is out of the ballpark, but I’m not supportive of that analytical charge.”

Jeffries: “Thank you.” 

.....
Mueller himself blow up the whole obstruction charge in those 2 exchanges there. 

But at least he did not misspell a word. Lol

So why did His Royal Orangeness say (and I'm quoting him directly here), "This is the end of my Presidency. I'm f**ked"?

You have to keep reading it explains it in his next quote about it:
“Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.”
................
He thought he would not be able to do want he wanted with his agenda. It also can be argued that the investigation cost the House.

If he were not president he would be charged with crimes m2c. Why do you omit that FACT?

Because it was not said by Mueller. Dems said it but Mueller did not as had as they tried to get that old man to say if he did not.

What Mueller said was that because a sitting president could not be changed with a crime, and because the White House did not cooperate with Mueller's investigation, only the House could EFFECTIVELY indict the president after completing its own investigation, especially given the time frame involved.

No. That is what the Dems  to tried get him to say. What he said is his team did not make a decision on obstruction.

Mueller: "Now, before we go to questions, I want to add a correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’”
“That is not the correct way to say it.  As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

:):):)

I'm thinking you may have turned off the TV a bit too early in his testimony.

The afternoon session with the Intelligence Committee was pure gold and terrifying. Terrific and terrifying.

For the life of me I can't figure out why the DEM MAJORITY CONGRESS is doing nothing. It's like the Republicans bragging about the great insurance plan they have to replace the AHCA and to date(ten years and counting) they have DIDDLY. Talk is cheap and right now the Dems are looking mighty cheap. Sheesh. Thank you for your reply R!  :)

If a prosecutor files murder charges against a man (who is actually guilty) what good does it do if only the man's close and loving relatives who regular kiss hia a** comprise the jury and will officially proclaim him "not guilty."

The jury fix is "in" with the senators (jury nullification).  

I know tom. It's killing me but still and all I would stand up to be counted. The House has the majority and I would file Articles of Impeachment legislation or whatever the heck you call it just to get it on the record! I know Moscow Mitch that son of a b would table it ignore it not even allow it to come to the floor for debate. Even so I would do my duty as I see fit and I do think it is the DUTY of  Congress to start impeachment proceedings. Even though I know it won't go anywhere. Even though I know it's a lost cause unless Dems get the Senate Majority and Keep the House majority. Even so even though I would do it. Thank you for your reply!  :)

Doing what is right is always a good argument, Rosie.

But jury selection for the trial is not subject to voir dire (French for "to speak the truth." The process through which potential jurors from the venire (A panel of prospective jurors; A jury is eventually chosen from the venire) are questioned by either the judge or a lawyer to determine their suitability for jury service. 

In other words, all senators are deemed "suitable for jury service" regardless of the obvious reality. 

Until a majority of Republican senators get spinal transplants (or Trump somehow loses support almost overnight as Nixon did) conviction on impeachment charges will not happen.

Edit   Added a space between a word and a parenthesis. This post was edited by tom jackson at July 30, 2019 7:38 AM MDT

"Spinal Transplants". That's not all they need. They need injections/infusions of decency honesty and patriotism. Fat chance! Thank you for your helpful explanation. You know I have never actually been on a jury. I've gotten summons and been in the room where the potential jurors were to be interviewed but I was never called beyond that room. Was it something in my face? I have no idea. But at my age now I doubt I'd be called. I would have liked to have had the experience just to know what it's like first hand. Did you ever serve on one and what was the experience like? I'm gonna ask! :) This post was edited by RosieG at July 31, 2019 2:29 AM MDT

Got as far as the venire 3 times.  Picked once for petit jury.  We deliberated about 20 seconds and found him not guilty.

Wow! Slamdunk! So now deliberating for hours and days being sequestered and ending up with a hung jury? You know I've always wondered why it has be a complete consensus ? Why can't it be a majority decision? I'm gonna ask. Thank you for your reply tom!  :)