Who came up with "collusion"? No where in the Mueller mandate does that word exist. This investigation has caught many criminals. Worth it?

There was an article I read a while back where the question popped up about who started using the word 'collusion' and it was said that a reporter for the Washington Examiner is the one that began using the word for reporting a story, after someone from the DNC had stated that Wikileaks had hacked the emails. Shortly thereafter, ABC started using the term and then others just followed - it was a domino effect.

Cancer catches many criminals. Worth it?

What about the innocent people that got caught up in this? What about the division in our country? Worth it?

Basically, you are asking if the ends justifies the means? Never, in a just society.

"Collusion is a secret cooperation or deceitful agreement in order to deceive others, although not necessarily illegal, as a conspiracy "

Multiple aides of Trump met with "Russians" in order to obtain information that might damage Clinton's campaign -- and subsequently, then lied and lied to federal investigators about it .

This is the definition of "collusion" -- it really isn't a difficult word to understand

Exception of the Russians who were indicted none of the crimes had anything to do with Russian interference in the election.

His investigation has levied more in fines than the cost of the investigation.

The mandate was about Russian interference. Trump jumped the gun and said "THERE WAS NO COLLUSION!" It would be like if your nachos disappeared, you wanting to know what happened to your nachos, and I immediately go in saying "I DIDN'T EAT YOUR NACHOS!"

after a decade-plus of low-thinking "my team good, your team baaad!" politics...and several decades of "affirmation ideologies" in schools... it shouldn't be any real surprise that Mueller (who was seen as part of the "evil Bush cabal" just a few years earlier) should suddenly become a hero to some folks convinced that his sole purpose was to affirm all their ill feelings towards trump....

the simple fact is that Mueller's task was never to "get trump" but instead to determine if there was anything done by anyone that could threaten the credibility of the establishment as a whole.. if he could find something to bring trump down without exposing more skeletons in the DC closets I'm sure he would have done so without hesitation, but again that was not his function...

the end of the Mueller probe signals that he, and his fellows in the establishment in both parties, feel that all "loose ends" have been tied up... they "caught" just enough people justify their budget and ensured that the next investigation will get the same funding...

that is the bureaucracy at work.... giving it a silly name like "the swamp" or "the deep state" doesn't make it go away... it exists to maintain, defend and enrich itself... our feelings of what they SHOULD be doing are pretty much immaterial to them.. that is why it is so important to consider matters of accountability rather than just ideology when electing the people who ARE tasked to represent us...

That was never the mandate of the Mueller investigation. They were looking into Russian interference into the US election. Collusion is a non-legal term for conspiracy or conspire. Shills like Guiliani use "collusion" because Fox "news" turned that word into a bumper sticker meme for Trump.

Anything found not related to Russian interference but worthy of further investigation was farmed out to other offices. There are still a number of investigations that Trump is trying to kill.

If Flynn , Manafort , Stone had worked for the Clinton campaign rather than helping Trump , they would all be free men .

The weaponizing of the US " Justice System " against political rivals .

CNN helped spread that narrative. They may have even invented it.

Manafort has been investigated in the past and the feds decided it wasn't worth it to prosecute. Suddenly its a priority because he was tied to Trump...