I find it more odd that people hand-wave a political campaign meeting with a foreign government for political dirt on an opponent. That is truly genuinely concerning.

I think your failure to acknowledge the difference between a private company paid for services and a foreign government offering their services for free says who is the partisan one here.

I'm sorry but as far as I'm concerned "If it is what you say it is, I love it", which they admitted was a true thing written in email and meant what it obviously meant, completely justified the entire Mueller investigation.

People will still insist that Saddam Hussain did 9/11.

The Mueller investigation didn't find hard proof that Trump et al. conspired with Russia because there was plenty of perjury and obstruction. When a investigation is limited by politics and vague policies, you can't blame the investigator. Mueller declared in his public hearing that he would have indicted Trump, if he wasn't president.

The fact that the Senate committee (led by the Republicans) also found plenty of connections between the Russia government and the Trump campaign says enough.

>Mueller declared in his public hearing that he would have indicted Trump, if he wasn't president.

Is that true though? He didn't present any evidence of a crime. Congress could have impeached Trump successfully with some hard evidence, so was Muller protecting Trump by only insinuating there was evidence but not presenting any? I don't think vague connections "says enough". If the president really was conspiring with Russia I would want the FBI to present its findings instead of giving more vague insinuation.

"Mueller: A president can be charged with obstruction of justice after leaving office" [1]

Statements that Congress could have impeached Trump can only be viewed as stated in bad faith. Congress did impeach Trump, but for political reasons the Senate refused to remove him.

[1] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/24/rober...