In the June 4 letters in The Astorian, "Impeachment? Really?" and "Negative evidence," it is implied that the Mueller report documented no evidence supporting impeachment, and that the investigation was a politically motivated scam. I assume the authors have not read the report, since saying so would have reinforced their arguments.
I must admit that I haven't read it either, but I did not hear Robert Mueller say there was no evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, the investigation resulted in several indictments of Trump administration officials, and conviction of his campaign manager and personal lawyer, who testified in court that President Donald Trump lied concerning hush money to a prostitute.
Do you really expect me to believe that if Gov. Kate Brown's lawyer had admitted that under oath, that Republicans would not be howling for her removal? What Mueller said was that the Justice Department is prohibited by the Constitution from accusing the president of anything.
What would you think if our mayor, after a very close election, in which he publicly invited the governor of Washington to hack into his opponent's email, called the chief of police into a private meeting and demanded the chief's personal loyalty? Especially if the chief was a respected professional, who had been the first to report wrongdoing by the mayor's opponent.
There was good cause for an investigation. I don't really care if the House chooses to impeach or not, but as our representatives they have the perfect right, and a Constitutional duty, to make that determination.