From wiki
The ongoing Special Counsel investigation (also referred to as the Mueller Probe)[1] is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. This investigation includes any possible links or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." In addition, the scope of the investigation reportedly includes potential obstruction of justice by Trump and others.[2] The investigation, since it began in May 17, 2017, has been conducted by the United States Department of Justice Special Counsel's Office, headed by Robert Mueller, a Republican and former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As part of the investigation, Mueller also took over several other existing FBI investigations, including those of former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.[3]
The investigation has resulted in dozens of indictments for federal crimes, and at least eight guilty pleas, or convictions. In August 2018, Manafort was found guilty on eight felony counts of financial crimes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia[4] and, a month later, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruct justice, in a plea bargain for his full cooperation with prosecutors.[5][6] The investigation also led to Flynn pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI and, as part of a December 2017 plea deal, he is required to be a cooperating witness in the investigations.[7] Mueller further secured guilty pleas from Manafort's business partner, Rick Gates, Dutch attorney Alex van der Zwaan,[8] former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, lobbyist W. Samuel Patten,[9] and Richard Pinedo;[10] all, except Van der Zwaan, have become cooperating witnesses for investigators. In February 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russian citizens and three Russian entities, most notably the Internet Research Agency and, in June 2018, added an indictment of Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort's business partner. In July 2018, 12 members of the Russian GRU cyber espionage group known as Fancy Bear, responsible for the 2016 DNC email hacking, were indicted. Investigations into Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, were referred to the US Attorney's office of the Southern District of New York.
While initially enjoying bipartisan support,[15] the special counsel investigation became subject to criticism by Trump and his supporters.[16] Some allegations of investigators' misconduct have been raised and were almost immediately debunked.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Trump, and his supporters, criticized the cost of the investigation; by December 2018, the investigation had cost approximately $25 million, while gaining approximately $48 million through legal asset seizures.[26][27]
Ok Z .. so wiki aint the source of all truth.
But you claimed the charges that arise from the Mueller Investigation were mainly process charges. The facts themselves challenge that. Note boldest areas above.
You say that Mueller has an agenda at play .. but what would that be? Hes a Republican.
Sure corruption exists but Mueller has an established reputation that I personally find persuasive of his possessing integrity.
Corruption is an issue but one doesnt start from an expectation of corruption .. UNLESS there is evidence sufficiently compelling to suggest corruption.
As an outsider looking in .. Mueller has complied with statutory requirements governing his investigation.
Had he not .. had he even one example of corruption or even of a conflict of interest ... ANY defense lawyer worth his salt would have challenged the veracity of indictments laid.
Its not about CNN or refusing to see .. thats manipulative BS. Its about evidence, what is reasonable .. and you are giving air time to Trump talking points.
I watched the Peter what's his name hearing and it went a little differently to that you suggest. He was credible. He was stupid absolutely.. and even IF it is as you suggest .. it would be impossible to secure successful prosecutions if there were insufficient evidence to support them, let alone the fact that defense counsels involved would have challenged the veracity of charges had that been possible.
Its the facts that suggest you can not even remotely be correct.