In fact, Mueller's claims of Russian meddling in his report are vague, contradictory, and are supported by no direct evidence. Remember, no law enforcement agency was ever allowed to examine the Democrat sever that was supposedly hacked, and all claims to that end are based on a redacted draft report prepared by a company under the employ of the Democrat party.
This following article explains just how poorly the Mueller report makes the case for Russian interference:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...stimony-239295
There's also the infamous incident when Mueller indicted the Russian trolls, but when they unexpectedly sent lawyers to contest the charges, Mueller all but admitted that he didn't actually have any evidence. It seems that Mueller was trying to score political points with indictments that would play well in the press but were never intended to go to trial.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...an-government/
To put this another way, if you were trying to prove Russian interference in court, and your evidence was the Mueller report, then you would have an uphill battle.
This following article explains just how poorly the Mueller report makes the case for Russian interference:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...stimony-239295
There's also the infamous incident when Mueller indicted the Russian trolls, but when they unexpectedly sent lawyers to contest the charges, Mueller all but admitted that he didn't actually have any evidence. It seems that Mueller was trying to score political points with indictments that would play well in the press but were never intended to go to trial.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...an-government/
To put this another way, if you were trying to prove Russian interference in court, and your evidence was the Mueller report, then you would have an uphill battle.
Comment