Robert Mueller has nothing to do with the Democrats. Nothing. People need to understand that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now private citizens with no more power than you or I. They aren't running some government in exile pulling Robert Mueller's strings like a puppet. But furthermore, Democrats hold, at this moment, exactly ZERO power in the federal government. Zero. The Republicans control the House, Senate, the Supreme Court (thanks to a stolen seat) and the Executive Branch. Blaming Democrats from ANYTHING happening in Washington right now is like blaming a player who sat on the end of the bench for 4 quarters for his team losing a basketball game.I must sound like a broken record at times, but truly, is there anything more to say? Those who want to believe will accept circumstantial evidence as acceptable and those who are skeptical will not. Nothing has changed that dynamic as of now.I agree with the second sentence above, but in relation to the first I think the answer is still awaited. Maybe nothing further will come out, but maybe it will. Your post suggests that nothing has changed over the last few months, but that's not the case. Some events, such as sacking the FBI Director over that 'Russian thing', certainly fall under the circumstantial heading at the moment. However, as was discussed previously I think what has already been admitted by Trump Jr about his Russian meeting was direct evidence of illegality. At the moment that would fall under the technical infringement category and therefore I don't think would be likely to affect the support of Republicans in Congress, but that assumes there's nothing further to discover.
What would concern me if I were an American is that it appears that a background briefing / whispering campaign has begun with the aim of laying the foundation for dismissing Robert Mueller. This is a man who is exceptionally unusual in recent US politics as being accepted by all sides as virtually apolitical (he was confirmed unanimously when appointed by Bush despite being a registered Republican). So why might he be dismissed?
- one possibility would be that he's doing a very poor job, but that would seem to require a pretty hasty judgment.
- another possibility would be that he's making a public nuisance of himself. I don't follow US news sources, but I'm not aware of any leaks at all that have made it into the UK press about what progress he's made since being appointed as a special prosecutor, so this seems an unlikely rationale.
On the face of it dismissing him would seem a crazy decision as it gives such an appearance of guilt. Applying Occam's razor the obvious explanation would be that he had been making progress in his investigations and giving the appearance of guilt would be better than allowing him to produce confirmation of guilt.
I'm not ruling out the possibility at the moment that this is just a dirty tricks campaign by the Democrats to make the President look bad. However, clearly if that is the case then Mueller will not in fact be dismissed. If he is dismissed that will be circumstantial evidence that Trump is guilty of something serious. While I agree that won't be convincing to everyone circumstantial evidence can be used to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. As an example footprints, fingerprints and DNA evidence can all be used to attempt to establish presence at a crime scene. No jury would be likely to convict purely on the circumstantial evidence of footprints, but convictions can and have been made just on the basis of DNA evidence (some of those are being challenged over time, which is a whole different topic, but I'm just making the point that circumstantial evidence can be accepted by a jury as strong enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). If the circumstantial evidence of guilt does ever become strong enough I think it is conceivable that Trump would lose the support of Congress and without that his position would be untenable.
