This morning, I read the op-ed in the New York Times which claims to explain why the latest indictments of 12 Russians is "bad news for the President". Since I've read the indictment, I was curious to see how the Times put it together with other facts to make it into bad news for President Trump. After all, Trump is not mentioned in the indictment; nor is anyone from his campaign involved in the wrongdoing according to the indictment. That sounds like good news for Trump, not bad news. But the pundits in the Times don't agree. They point out that the indictment indicates that the special prosecutor with this indictment shows that he believes that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC computer systems. Also, they point out that many of the highest people in the Trump campaign have yet to be interviewed by the special counsel. Supposedly, this makes the indictment bad news for Trump.
Are they kidding? Did anyone in the world actually think that Mueller thought it was someone other than the Russians who hacked the DNC? Remember, just because Mueller believes that doesn't make it so. The only way to know that for sure would be for the DNC computer system to be examined and proof produced to show that the hackers were Russian. Even if Russia ended up with all the information from the DNC computer, it would mean that the Russians were the hackers. For instance, if it were the Chinese who hacked the DNC but they then gave the data to the Russians, none of the accused Russian "hackers" would be guilty of anything. Mueller knows this. That's why it took over a year to get to the point of indicting these men who Mueller knows will never be brought to trial in the USA. He gets to release the indictment without having to prove anything.
And the lack of interviews with some high campaign officials doesn't mean much of anything. They may never be interviewed. It surely doesn't mean Mueller is "closing in" on Trump.
For the last year and a half, we have been told again and again about the collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. To date, there has not been any evidence put forward to support that conspiracy theory. The indictment doesn't change that even slightly; there is still no evidence of collusion. That is the key takeaway from the indictment. For the President, it's a non-event. No matter how hard the New York Times tries to twist the truth, it cannot create evidence where none exists. It's time to move on.
Are they kidding? Did anyone in the world actually think that Mueller thought it was someone other than the Russians who hacked the DNC? Remember, just because Mueller believes that doesn't make it so. The only way to know that for sure would be for the DNC computer system to be examined and proof produced to show that the hackers were Russian. Even if Russia ended up with all the information from the DNC computer, it would mean that the Russians were the hackers. For instance, if it were the Chinese who hacked the DNC but they then gave the data to the Russians, none of the accused Russian "hackers" would be guilty of anything. Mueller knows this. That's why it took over a year to get to the point of indicting these men who Mueller knows will never be brought to trial in the USA. He gets to release the indictment without having to prove anything.
And the lack of interviews with some high campaign officials doesn't mean much of anything. They may never be interviewed. It surely doesn't mean Mueller is "closing in" on Trump.
For the last year and a half, we have been told again and again about the collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. To date, there has not been any evidence put forward to support that conspiracy theory. The indictment doesn't change that even slightly; there is still no evidence of collusion. That is the key takeaway from the indictment. For the President, it's a non-event. No matter how hard the New York Times tries to twist the truth, it cannot create evidence where none exists. It's time to move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment