Horse 2524 - Mueller's Report Found No Collusion For A Good Reason.

Unless you have been living under a rock (and in which case I might envy you), the news that the Mueller Report into the 2016 Presidential Campaign found no evidence that Donald Trump had colluded or conspired with the Russians and that there's not really anything which might make a provable case for obstruction of justice, will have been fired at you like drinking from a fire hose. Naturally Mr Trump as you'd expect, is carrying on like the chess playing pigeon who has pooped all over the board, knocked over the pieces and claimed victory.
This means that Mr Trump has jumped up at least two spaces up my personal list of the worst presidents, coming above James Buchanan and Richard Nixon but maybe not higher than Warren Harding. He is likely the third worst president and maybe might be the fourth worst.
My Twitbook and FaceSpace feeds have more or less exploded again, changing from the perpetual argument trying to excuse guns following the murders of fifty people in Christchurch, to a return to the usual perpetual argument where Democrat and Republican voters just yell at each other forever.  Unlike just about everyone in my social media feeds, I am actually not all that surprised that Donald Trump wasn't found to have colluded with the Russians; I also wouldn't have been surprised if he had been either.

I think that it has been comprehensively proven that Mr Trump's administration is generally incompetent. He has a few people on board who have previous experience in running government departments and so it is not quite an absolute omnishambles but it is sufficiently understaffed that it lets governance wither. In some cases, there are still unfilled positions in senior offices; which is insane considering that we are two years out from the beginning of this term and have rounded the corner towards the campaign for the next presidential election¹.
It is that level of incompetence which explains why I am not surprised that Mueller's report couldn't find evidence of collusion. For there to have been collusion, I think that there would have had to have been sufficient competence to be able to do so, and from what we have seen that competence has simply never existed.

Remember Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Mr Trump, the consummate showman, more PT Barnham at putting on a show and more Harry Houdini at escaping from trouble than Herbert Hoover at running a government, had such a skeleton staff during the 2016 Presidential Campaign that it was mostly run from a single room. The thing that he was and is fantastically skilled at, is saying things so terrible and sucking all of the oxygen out of the room that nobody else can get a word in edgeways. This was best displayed during the debates in 2016 with Hilary Clinton when you had on one side of the debate, the single most qualified and competent politician to run for president since FDR on one side, and a man who had been declared bankrupt and whose career was only really resurrected because of a television show on the other.
I think that it should come as no surprise to anyone that someone who has had several eponymous casinos go bankrupt and into administration, did not collude with the Russians because that would at very least require running an internal organisation which was capable of doing so and I just don't think that that was ever the case.
If you have a pie which is made almost exclusively from whipped cream, you then can't take turn around and expect to find any meat in there. If you put your face into it, which is what the American people have essentially done by hiring this unfunny clown, then you can't expect to chew anything of substance.

At any rate, the basic questions that there has been collusion are pretty well much established at law:
1. Does an arrangement exist between two or more parties?
2. Is there a formal agreement or arrangement?
3. Is the arrangement supported by payment or kind?
4. Is the arrangement supported by undue influence?

For there to be a provable case at law requires there to have been mens rea, a guilty mind, that is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime or that lack thereof would otherwise cause a crime to be committed through inaction. With Trump, I'm not even sure that we have a mens conscia recti², a mind aware of what is right. He personally doesn't seem to be aware of what the difference between truth and lies actually is, so answering the basic questions of guilt might be bordering on the impossible.
I don't know if you believe in God or not but given the opening years of the twenty-first century where the United States went to wars on the premise of lies, for them to elect a president who doesn't know the difference between truth and lies, kind of looks like some sort of divine retribution.

Mueller's report couldn't find evidence of collusion probably because Trump's campaign was too stupid to have done it. I have no doubt that there are plenty of Russian agents who may have used Twitter and Facebook to influence millions of people but all that serves to prove is that a great many of the more than 62 million people who voted for this orange headed chess playing pigeon, are as useful idiots as the chap himself. Mueller's Report into the 2016 Presidential Campaign found no evidence that Donald Trump had colluded or conspired with the Russians; if it had been charged with trying to look for the sheer incompetence and stupidity of the campaign, then the report would probably still be collating evidence by the end of 2119 because it is practically limitless.

¹Although Trump never stopped campaigning.
²See The Aeneid, by Virgil.