[circlecity]

"Russia spent around $70k in online activities and this was a systematic interference in the 2016 election according to Mueller?"

and of that $70K between 40 an 50% was for pro-Hillary or anti-Trump ads.

[Phlyer]

He concluded it was systematic and favored Donald Trump.

The two biggest issues, and he's wrong on both. Less than 0.01% of the amount Hillary spent might be 'systematic' in that it was deliberate and targeted, but it had no significant effect so it's trivial.

More than that, I have never seen anyone with any logical reason that the Russians would favor Trump. Not then. Not now. If they interfered in any way they thought would matter, it would certainly have been in Hillary's favor.

If there was 'collusion' (and there wasn't, at least, not with the Trump campaign), whether it could be proven or not, where is the evidence or Russian bias toward Trump? That should be so obvious that the only question would be whether Trump knew about it. But there is no evidence it even happened - let alone that Trump was involved.

Yet it is taken as gospel by the Dims, because the alternative is that they lost fair and square, and that would require them to admit their ideas are not popular.

They're not popular - at least with the majority of American citizens - but to admit it would be the end of their party.

[SGCOS]

$70k? that’s it? geez, United States elections are going for pretty cheap these days. $70,000...

[Grampa Dave]

“”Russia spent around $70k in online activities and this was a systematic interference in the 2016 election according to Mueller?”

Geez! How much dol liberals spend on online activities to elect a mayor or city council member in city of 25K people?

This was the Russian internet expense?

Hey Frau Mueller, how much did the Mexican elitists spend meddling in just California’s internets in the past election.