Jimbo quoting Kellyanne Conway, probably wrote:Mueller’s indictments of Russian officials is akin to the shady doings that he and the rest of his profession always engage in. After more than one year of investigation Mueller succeeded only in proving that Paul Manafort is a crook and that Donald Trump, Jr. is stupid. The charges against Manafort and Trump attorney Michael Cohen have nothing to do with the Russian collusion story at all. The indictments make a political rather than a criminal case and are a weak effort to prove that the year-long charade was worth carrying out at all.
Mueller names 12 Russian nationals as military intelligence officers and also says that they conducted the hacking and leaking. He provides no evidence so the claims must be taken on blind faith.
I'm finding it hard to believe this argument is being offered in good faith, but perhaps the author merely neglected to actually read, or even read about, the indictment. Devin Nunes actually argued that there was so much factual detail in it that is was too hard to understand, LOL. (apologies, I can't find attribution for that assertion, but I'm positive I read it somewhere today)
The total for the Ken Starr Clinton investigation, which lasted four and a half years, was $39.2 million, which apparently is around $58 million in today’s dollars. Mueller's spent, apparently, $7 million since May, 2017, so I don't even want to hear about it.
Anyway, I would expect a counter-narrative to offer something more than just yelling about how the official stay is fake. Even the flat-Earth and gravity-is-just-a-theory conspiracy websites have some sort of alternative explanation for the topic at hand.
Do you actually disbelieve the unanimous conclusions of all our experts, or do you just think it's more fun to imagine that consensus reality is some kind of charade?