Mark Penn — Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist during her 2008 presidential campaign — writes special counsel Robert Mueller’s report vindicates those who affirmed no collusion occured between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia, arguing that the investigation should have never considered the question of obstruction.
From The Hill:
The walls were not coming down. They were not closing in. There was, at the end of the day, no evidence whatsoever of any collusion — and there was nothing but a president frustrated at being wrongly accused and wrongly investigated over a very effective hoax.
Most people don’t understand what it is to not only to be personally investigated for something you didn’t do but to have your friends, family members and associates placed in legal jeopardy over it. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team systematically targeted the people around the president, squeezing them like lemons, indicting them on mostly process crimes created by the investigation itself. They reviewed everyone’s emails, text messages, phone calls, bank statements — and yet, their conclusion on collusion was clear and definitive. It has to be believed.[…]
Even if you believe Mueller should have been appointed given the swirl of questions kicked up about Russia, Volume 2 of the Mueller report should not exist at all, once investigators determined there was no collusion and they were not issuing any charges. Most likely it was a compromise by Mueller with his aggressive prosecutors, including former Clinton counsel, to get agreement on the report and its strong language on the lack of collusion. It was a bone for the Democrats that was unfortunate, as it would have been much better for the country had they simply said that a bewildered president contemplated some strong actions but, in fact, did nothing to impede the investigation.
Read the full article here.