Just because no one acted doesn't mean that "they essentially found nothing".
The Muller report described Russian interference in the 2016 election as “sweeping and systemic.” The report spent a bunch of pages saying that there were “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.”
Which are you saying - that the Muller report didn't find things, despite it clearly finding things, or that it was a coup, even though it was under the Trump admin, by DAs placed by Trump?
Go watch the interview with Mueller at the end of the investigation. He was completely senile and knew nothing about the case. Mueller himself was a puppet for other people.
The "other people" being Trump's DAs? Why would that be the case? Do you believe that Muller did the entire report alone? Who was behind the coup? Why did it fail?
If you look through your last few messages you'll see that your argument is constantly changing. First that they investigated and found nothing, but then presented with evidence you try to discredit that source of evidence, first by saying they didn't find anything, and changing tactics to accuse Muller of senility. It as if the truth doesn't so much matter as maintaining your worldview does.
My argument isnt changing, its just there were so many holes in the investigation I dont even know where to start. I'm busy at work, but again, just go watch the end of the investigation interview with Muller. Watch how little he understands, how little he was involved. Then go watch all media coverage, and how they Gush over him. Go look at the facts of what actually came out. Why didnt they prosecute trump? If you cant look at the above points with open eyes and read between the lines, then you are clouded by ideology.
The muller interview doesnt disprove/get Trump off the hook at all. It was for me, just a shocking display of realizing that what was shown in the public eye about the invesitgation had nothing to do with the reality.
Much like everyone realizing biden isnt running the country, and probably has alzheimers.
I appreciate that you're repeating talking points about Muller, but that's ignoring that Muller had a whole team. Does Muller being feeble mean that the content in his report is wrong?
They didn't prosecute Trump because the report was presented to Barr. He had no interest in prosecuting, and there was a ton of constitutional questions regarding charging a sitting president.
Do you believe that all people charged and found guilty as an outcome of the investigation were innocent and it was all political theatre? There were a lot of people who weren't Trump, where there were no constitutional problems, who were found guilty.
To wit, Barr spread disinformation (otherwise known as "lies") about the report before it was even released to the public. Barr made sure the well was poisoned before anyone could get a drink.
> it was political theater, and essentially a coup
That's an interesting relabeling of what would normally be regarded as simply the gathering, vetting, and reporting of evidence — some reliable, some not — in accordance with established statutory- and constitutional processes and norms.
If it'd really been a coup, Trump would either have been imprisoned without trial or he'd have fled the country to Russia or someplace else without an extradition treaty.
The Muller report described Russian interference in the 2016 election as “sweeping and systemic.” The report spent a bunch of pages saying that there were “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.”