Jimbo wrote:First of all I don't need counter evidence. The burden of proof is on you, the accuser.
I'm not the accuser, Mueller is. You said the evidence in last indictment seemed
damning but "then we got some evidence and again and again [Mueller's] assertions crumble." I was just wondering what-all you were talking about.
Your Hill piece was in response to reporting by NBC. NBC has nothing to do with Mueller's investigation. If they botched a story, I don't particularly care and I'm not going down a rabbit hole of he-said-she-said news media reporting with you.
The purpose of the recent indictment wasn't to bring the twelve Russians to justice, but for Mueller to play some cards - to announce that he knows what they did and how they did it. None other than Donald Trump himself responded: "The Russians are nailed."
Peter Strzok's observation is over a year old and he was a foot soldier. I'll give his boss the benefit of the doubt w/r/t how this thing moves along from here.
Your weapons inspector guy's field of expertise is pretty far from cyber-crime, so I don't know if he can speak authoritatively on that topic.
Manafort, treason? Well, he hasn't been charged with that, but it does appear he may have been acting counter to American foreign policy (with these pro-Russian elements in Ukraine that he was collecting zillions from). We'll see.