Replies

I take it that’s a “NO! I did not read it”

I guess you can take it however you want, but yes I did read it.

“It seems way too specific to just be a bunch of conjecture dreamed up by the investigating agents and DOJ attorneys.”

Yeah, the Internet Research Agency indictment “seems specific” too, until you read the relevant magazine article expose on them long before Mueller got started and realize that literally everything in the indictment was pulled from that article.

The fact is, there is no actual evidence in the indictment. We have no idea what the basis for any of these assertions is. We will never see any of that evidence in a court of law either (if it ever existed), because:

a) None of these Russians are ever going to set foot in our jurisdiction now, and obviously Mueller knew that.
b) Even if they did somehow get apprehended, any actual intelligence sources that were used to prepare this indictment would be classified, which would make discovery in a criminal court a nightmare, and the case would likely be dropped.

Now we already know Mueller is a hack who spent years pursuing a politically motivated witch hunt. We also know he was not above using every dirty trick in the book to try to produce results for whoever he was really working for. Why should I believe that he wouldn’t just put a bunch of unverified BS into an indictment that he knew very well he would never have to produce the evidence for in court?

There is certainly ample reason to question the factual nature of many things Mueller asserts, just based on the publicly available facts about the case.