Legal reasoning is interesting, careful, and mostly dispassionate. Today The Wall Street Journal runs a longish article in which a former White House counsel's office and Justice Department attorney and a law professor jointly examine the extent to which the Mueller probe into Russian election influence is so tainted by prior bias as to be hopelessly compromised.
Their use of "the fruit of the poisoned tree" argument appears persuasive, at least to those of us who believe passionate bias existed a priori, that is, before the investigation began. The recent DOJ inspector general's report established unequivocally that such prior bias did exist.
While the IG was unable to prove bias influenced investigative actions and decisions, he doesn't deny its existence or possible influence, merely that no one would admit to acting from bias and no documents he reviewed showed it beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you are serious about the illegality of the Mueller witch hunt, you should make time to read the entire article.
