I wouldn't say so much using the NYT's credibility, so much as saying that if a writer at the NYT is admitting fault, that is a big deal.

He doesn't need to be exonerated. He starts from a place of innocence. The Mueller report said flat out that his motivations were not to hide something, but that he was angry and frustrated over the fact that all this was being done over nothing. Trump knew he didn't collude/coordinate. He was pissed that all this time/resource was being used on that. It makes sense.

And see once again that Mueller did not see any connection. I may want pizza. You may want to sell me pizza. And there may be a pizza party going on, but unless you see me order it and pay for it, I didn't buy it. It's a crappy analogy, that I'm sure is flawed in some way, but hopefully you see where I'm going.

Unfit to serve as President? I would consider a Socialist as being unfit right from the get go. I would consider someone who would be 80+ as unfit right from the get go. But neither of those are disqualifiers after the fact. Have you sat and thought about what he has been working against? Having the (supposed to be) unbiased media obviously working against you? Or how Clinton's own party torpedoed the other semi-viable candidate just to ensure she could make it? Or how the previous administration was actively helping the other candidate (Clinton) in a multitude of ways. The entire dossier that was unverified and paid for by Clinton, that was used to start an investigation? How that investigation was justified by "The media is talking about it!" from leaks that were planted for just that reason? The deck was completely stacked in her favor. And she still lost.

Come on dude....

~Jeordam