Why did Mueller allow his investigation to continue for two years?

Why did Mueller allow his investigation to continue for two years?

I’m not sure how to measure this, but I would submit that one of the 10 most famous quotes in American political history came from the lips of Sen. Howard Baker Jr. (R-Tenn.), a member of Sam Ervin’s Senate committee investigating Watergate: “What did the president know, and when did he know it?” Baker asked.

Well, I have read the Mueller report and I have a two-part question that I hope someday becomes as memorable as Sen. Baker’s:

At what moment in time — what day, month and year — did special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) MuellerCNN's Toobin warns McCabe is in 'perilous condition' with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting The Hill's 12:30 Report: New Hampshire fallout MORE conclude there was no “collusion” between President TrumpDonald John TrumpNew Biden campaign ad jabs at Trump's reported 0 income tax payments Ocasio-Cortez: Trump contributed less in taxes 'than waitresses and undocumented immigrants' Third judge orders Postal Service to halt delivery cuts MORE and Russia to throw the 2016 election, and why did Mueller’s investigation continue for one minute more beyond that moment?


I placed the word “collusion” in quotation marks because right in the opening of his report, Mueller places the word in quotation marks. In his table-setting for the reader, Mueller writes:

“In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ‘collusion.’ In so doing, the Office recognized that the word ‘collud[ e ]’ was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.”

Reading further, Mueller tells us that since there is no such thing as “collusion,” the investigation focused on potential “conspiracy” (an actual crime) between the Russians and the Trump campaign. How did Mueller and the team define conspiracy? Well, by looking for signs of “coordination,” of course. More quotation marks. It seems that coordination and collusion are legal versions of street dancing; anything goes, as long as it spins fast.

Mueller’s 448-page report is broken into two sections. The first deals with things that don’t really exist, such as “collusion” and “coordination.” The second part deals with whether President Trump and/or the administration obstructed the investigation into the first two things that don’t actually exist.

If we were to describe Mueller’s report as literature, we would have to say it is “based on a true story.”

Given the length of the investigation — more than two years — and the length of the written report (over half the size of Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”), it wasn’t just in early March of this year that Mueller concluded that there was no “collusion” or “coordination” between the campaign and the Russians.

Whenever it was, at that moment the special counsel and his team should have wrapped up their investigation. If no crime had been committed, nothing else should have mattered.

So, I return to my question, asking this time in another, abbreviated form: Why did Mueller allow his investigation to continue for more than two years?

Did Mueller know there was no crime committed before he had former national security adviser Michael Flynn indicted for lying about a meeting that wasn’t an illegal meeting in the first place?

Did Mueller know there was no crime committed before he directed his investigation toward former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates for unrelated activities?

Here’s one: Did Mueller know there was no crime committed before the 2018 midterm elections?

At this point, everyone knows — and many ignore — that this investigation arose from the somewhat fictitious “Steele dossier,” opposition research paid for by the Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonAppeals court pauses 6-day extension for counting Wisconsin absentee ballots Trump, Pentagon collide over anti-diversity training push Sunday Shows: Trump's court pick dominates MORE campaign and then promulgated by the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former FBI Director James Comey. This became known to us lay people very early on, which means that it was known to Mueller and his investigative team even sooner.

Yet, they pressed forward, dividing the nation and giving Democrats an issue on which to run in their attempt to take back control of the House and Senate.

The Mueller investigation has been more than a miscarriage of justice; it has been an unintentional lampooning of the entire American legal process. The dossier that started it was a farce. The investigation was built on such a farcical premise that it needs to be placed in quotation marks when explained. And, the media coverage of getting to “the truth” has been a farce.

Over the past two years, legal experts who have taken to the airwaves to criticize the Mueller investigation (and there have been many) typically preface their comments by saying, “I know Bob Mueller and he is a man of great integrity.”

Really? It seems to me that a man of great personal integrity never would have forced me to ask the burning question that should resonate with everyone.

Charlie Kirk is the founder and president of Turning Point USA, a conservative nonprofit that aims to educate students on free-market values. You can follow him on Twitter @CharlieKirk11.