It is implied that if Mueller cannot do anything as stated by Jakk then Congress will have to judge if any impeachable act was committed and not the AG.
If that is the case, then why even investigate and publicize the non-findings, since he was anyways not able to charge a sitting president with a crime.
Do prosecutors investigate and disclose their opinions or possibilities that a crime might or might have not occurred when they are not charging anyone with a crime, regardless of the reasoning?
It so seems that there is more going on here than it seems, this is not someone just doing their job, this is someone justifying something that has legal experts scratching their minds.
And with regards to Congress, its politics as usual, the Democrats have already stated in public that a crime has occurred, some have even used criminal terms even without the president being charged with anything let alone being tried.
Which basically means, that the standard applied to our president, is that until he is exonerated (which is not something that prosecutors do) we cannot say for sure a crime has not occurred, therefore he needs to be charged.
The target of an investigation does not get to decide whether the investigation is warranted. Nor does he get to complain about the money spent on it.
This investigation was due to a cyber attack against our country by an enemy nation that affected the most basic right of every citizen in the democracy – the right to vote and elect democratic (not the party) leaders.
Trump’s whining about it shows how unfit he is to be president.