I suggest respectfully that the idea that idea that the detailed claims are unsubstantiated is not credible and doesn’t reflect an appreciation for the scrutiny that these documents receive and the requirement for full disclosure of sources and methods prior to release.

All legitimate points. But this doesn’t rectify the ultimate problem: that it is very unlikely the 12 Russian nationals named in the indictment will ever see trial for the obvious fact that no one seriously expects them to be extradited to the United States. So then when will we ever get to see Mueller’s proof for making such detailed claims? And in the case that they do seek to legally represent themselves as not guilty we’ve also seen that Mueller’s office is hesitant to disclose information to their lawyers even when it is legally necessary to do so as in the case of Concord Management and Consulting when they called his bluff and sought to move towards an arraignment. After they reviewing the actual facts of Mueller’s actual case their lawyers found allegations which didn’t even have a federal election law or regulation attached to it. Considering this, among other factors, one has to be skeptical about Mueller’s case until he shuts up and puts up his evidence either in a court of law or at least in a court of public opinion.

I’ve also addressed this “indictment” here the day it was made public after reading through it. The only new evidence presented in the entire document was a heavily edited correspondence between an “organization” (Wikileaks) and Guccifer 2.0 where the latter claimed they had new material for public dissemination with no presentation that Wikileaks knew they were receiving hacked information from the Russians.

The rest are a lot of very detailed claims whose evidence won’t probably ever be presented in a court of law. Mueller knows he’s indicting 12 foreign nationals the Department of Justice government won’t ever extradite or subpoena back to the United States. This proven modus operandi, illustrated when Washington-based lawyers representing one three Russian companies he indicted for using troll farms for inciting strife called his bluff and proceeded to request his disclosure of evidence, was revealed for the farce it really was when his office immediately tried to stall the case from moving forward to arraignment.

He presented a very very large amount of evidence which is all publically available:

This was a link to the Butina indictment, it has nothing to do with the “hacking” of the DNC server. Butina is being charged as an unregistered foreign lobbyist (there are many from various nations working both sides of the corrupt political aisle) supposedly in conspiracy with Putin. So, again, here is the problem with a lot of what is being said about this entire investigation. People are throwing whatever sticks to the wall to make a case that has nothing to do with the original claim of cyberwarfare – which on a sloppy CrowdStrike analysis made without any oversight because the DNC refused to let the FBI review its server and computer data.

It’s well known the US and every one of it’s allies spies on, hacks, and bugs each other. So of course rivals do also. The US government and intelligence community doesn’t just try to influence elections, it overthrows governments and assassinates leaders. The whole thing is laughable. It’s like suddenly the entire mainstream media is 13 years old and finding out for the first time that the world is a bad place and sometimes countries spy, steal information, and try to influence the politics elsewhere. These guys are either utter idiots or so bought and paid for it’s hard for me to imagine they ever get a good night’s sleep. We have a security issue, but the rest of it mostly nonsense.

To me, the only relevant fact in any of this is whether a US citizen HELPED a foreign power gain access to that information. In other words, was the DNC and Podesta information hacked by foreign sources who then handed it over to wikileaks (that’s a security issue on our side) or did an insider become a whistleblower and give that information to wikileaks (that can be treason depending on the information). But once it was in wikileaks hands, as a news organization they were free to publish it and as a consumer I was anxious to read it because I want to know how corrupt the political parties are and how corrupt my government is.

I’d say the evidence suggests our media, intelligence community, and government is so wildly corrupt and incompetent it’s even blowing my mind and I’m the biggest cynic here.

So no need to debate it here – or elsewhere. It’s not really debatable.