As far as I can tell, the only (not) crime that never-Trumpers point to is that Donald J. Trump won the 2016 election. In the collective progressive psyche, it was her turn and there was no way President Donald J. Trump could have legally won the election. The problem for people with this mindset begins with the fact that President Trump did win the election and he did win it legally.
In the wake of Robert Mueller's announcement that there will be no further indictments made by his Special Counsel, Chris Matthews, among many other talking heads, is complaining that without Donald Trump, Jr. being indicted or anyone else in President Trump's orbit, there is no path to impeaching the President of the United States. Matthews casually repeats this truth as if there has been a miscarriage of justice - that the Special Counsel has failed to indict the President and now we must all live with the outcome of the 2016 General Election.
Matthews' attitude is shared by many people in the United States. Since President Trump's election, people have dawned pink vagina hats, wrongly-accused a Supreme Court Justice of being a serial rapist and committed hate crimes by virtue of faking hate crimes - if the concept of a hate crime is to recognized by its legal definition at all, is a separate discussion.
So how did the People of the United States of America get here and why did the Department of Justice launch the Special Counsel investigation on the 17th of March 2017? Setting aside the mechanical and procedural technicalities for a moment, I believe it is valuable to understand the psychological process of how we arrived at the March 22nd, 2019 Special Counsel outcome of no election collusion. To do this, one needs to look no further than the FBI's own former Special Agent John E. Douglas who was a founding father of the field of criminal profiling. Douglas' The Anatomy of Motive was first published in 2000 as an autobiographical cum non-fiction crime investigation theory manual that promotes solving crimes be reverse-engineering a criminal motive or "cui bono"? Rather than hunting for evidence itself, the FBI criminal profiler will look at who would "benefit" from the commission of the crime to direct the investigation FOR evidence of evidence of the crime.
Crime > Motive > Investigate > Evidence > Indictment > Prosecution or Plea
Where the entire field of criminal profiling has a problem is that malicious people can capitalize on a honest ambitions like "I want to make more money", "I don't want to pay more than I have to" or "I want to be the President of the United States" to parallel construct crimes against their opponents in a dispute. This is to say, no crime is committed, but a crime can be alleged and then the malicious persons can cause an honest person to commit a crime by virtue of "lying to investigators" when he or she honestly didn't remember something exactly the way it happened. Even though the predicate crime allegation is found to be baseless, it is unimportant because a new process crime is committed that gives the malicious actors power and leverage over their opponent.
Motive > Investigate > Evidence > Crime > Indict > Prosecute or Plea
After extensive investigation, Paul Manafort was found to have not paid enough in taxes years ago, but he was not found to have colluded with the Russians and was not prosecuted for collusion with Russians. George Papadopoulos was sentenced to 14 days in prison for lying to FBI investigators, but he was not prosecuted for collusion with Russians. Michael Cohen, one of many attorneys that President Trump has worked with over a very long and successful business career, was prosecuted for not paying enough in taxes and for stating his income was higher than it actually was on a private mortgage application, but he was not found to have colluded with the Russians and, to this day, still has not visited Prague. (side note - If I was Michael Cohen, Prague would be my first trip after paying my debt to society.) Carter Page, who was targeted by the FBI with a FISA warrant for alleged Russian collusion, has not been charged with any crime and is in the process of suing some of the malicious actors for damages. Page's circumstances are particularly bizarre since he served the FBI as a confidential informant!
The last person swept up in the Special Counsel investigation is the first person to be charged with a crime: Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. On 30 November 2017, General Flynn plead guilty to making false statements (lying) to FBI investigators. Ironically, 16 months later General Flynn still has not been sentenced for these alleged false statements to which he made a guilty plea. Even more ironic, the Special Counsel has recommended no jail time due to General Flynn's cooperation with the Special Counsel in spite of the Special Counsel's nothing burger outcome. But what is evening more interesting is that the court seems to not want to sentence Flynn at all and has tried to intimidate him into withdrawing his guilty plea altogether. Keep an eye on General Flynn's case because none of it makes sense if you approach it at face value. There is a game afoot here and it appears to be an abuse of the justice system by virtue of parallel construction of crimes when possible and the production of process crimes when not. The process of solving a crime needs to start with a crime, but it needs to be based on evidence.
Crime > Evidence > Investigate > Motive > Investigate > Indictment > Prosecution or Plea
In summary, what was wrong with the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate President Trump and Russian collusion, is there was never a crime to investigate and the US taxpayer has spent tens of millions dollars directly on an investigation that should never have happened. Worse than the taxpayer resources expended on the Special Counsel investigation is the promulgation and perpetuation of a fraudulent accusation against the President of the United States for a crime he never committed and there was never any evidence of to predicate any formal investigation with. The promulgation of fraudulent allegations against the President of the United States has served to foment actual anti-social behavior among the general population of the world to the extent that people are protesting the fundamental check and balance against the tyranny of the majority by virtue of the Electoral College itself. At this moment in time it is imperative that each citizen of the United States of America contemplate the potential consequences of disenfranchising the non-urban citizens of the United States. A few questions to ask to seed the process would be:
Where do urban populations get their food from?
Where do urban populations get their natural resources from?
Where do urban populations get their energy from?
Where do urban populations get their goods from?
Can you even grow a tomato?
There are perceivable direct consequences as well as unknown and unquantifiable externalities to the actions many prominent people and politicians are promulgating today. On the other side of the fraudulent allegations made of our President and in consideration of the unconstitutional actions called for by these same talking heads and the disruption of civil society that they promote, should we be asking what their motive is? I believe so and hope everyone else will, too! God bless America!