I have a copy of the publicly available version of Special Council Mueller’s report on the “collusion” of the century and I’ve read the first hundred pages or so. (It is an entirely snore-worthy item of literature and will take a while to finish reading between naps.)
Early in the report, Mueller describes the size and makeup of the Special Council’s staff. If 40 FBI agents, 20 lawyers, 5 paralegals, and other related staff armed with more than 2500 subpoenas, and over 500 search and seizure warrants, which by all reports were quite thorough, cannot find enough evidence of a conspiracy by the President and/or his inner circle to commit election finance fraud over the course of two and half years, who could?
What I find striking here is not necessarily what is in the report, but what isn’t. There is one sentence in the section that discusses social media activities by the IRA group that provides an ever so subtle hit that perhaps the framing of the entire investigation is off, and it has to do with the fact that the group itself was anti-Hillary, supporting Bernie Sanders until the point when the primary elections concluded and Hillary became the presumptive nominee for her party, and the group then switched its support to Trump. Yet the investigation that it purported to be broadly about Russian election meddling is centered on Trump and the report has nothing to say about activities of the Bernie campaign during the primaries when DNC information hacking incidents took place. The summary concludes that the Russian government and interested individuals saw some benefit from a potential Trump Presidency and sought to secure that outcome, though throughout the report of Russian-based incidents, there isn’t any evidence to support that motive.
There’s also a lack of information in the report about historical entanglements between Trump and Mueller, and the conflicts presented by Rob Rosenstein who wrote the recommendation to fire James Comey and then ordered the investigation into activities that could be construed as obstruction, such as the firing of Comey. If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect that the investigation was stacked from the get-go.
Though I have not read report in its entirety, I’m having trouble figuring out what all the recent rancor over the report is about. To read the headlines on many of the mainstream media sites, one might think that the report says something about guilt that it does not say. Perhaps it is easier to imagine a Mueller report that indicts the president than it is to be embarrassed for having already put him in prison stripes for the last 24 months or so. It seems to me like the investigation was not much more than a waste of money when nobody in the media or those trending toward the left can respect the conclusion, and the rancor says more about them than it does anyone else.
PS: If you’d like to read the report for yourself, you can secure a copy for free from the US Government Book Store.