General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: History called for Robert Mueller to stand up for his country. [View all]deist99
(122 posts)I've read all of part one and most of Part II. It clearly says in the summary of Part I that "the investigation could not establish that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired with the Russians in their election interference activities". In fact it goes further in another part saying that the Russians wanted Trump elected and Trump wanted elected but it appears they were working in parallel not with each other (I'm paraphrasing that part). So there is no way Mueller was gong to say they likely colluded. I'm not a lawyer but I think that when being investigated for a crime "could not establish" is about the same as did not happen.
And we needed to establish that Trump worked with the Russians. It was the only way that we could hope to get any repukes to jump ship and go against Trump. Without proof of that conspiracy they will say how can he be obstructing justice if no crime was committed. So Pelosi is right not to impeach. Unless they can dig up evidence proving Trump conspired with the Russians. Which if Mueller couldn't do it I don't think the House will be able to, unless someone starts talking.