In the criminal case against alleged Russian operatives - Internet Research Agency and Concord Management and Consulting LLC - a Federal judge has declared that Robert Mueller has not offered one piece of solid evidence that these defendants were involved in any way with the Government of Russia.
' In short, the US Government cannot come out and declare that Concord Management, for example, was acting on behalf or or in collaboration with the Russian Government without presenting actual evidence.
Concord's main contention is that the Special Counsel's Report, as released to the public, and the Attorney General's related public statements improperly suggested a link between the defendants and the Russian government and expressed an opinion about the defendants' guilt and the evidence against them.
He pointed out some glaring discrepancies between the Mueller Report and the actual indictment: The Special Counsel Report describes efforts by the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.... But the indictment ... does not link the defendants to the Russian government.
By attributing IRA's conduct to 'Russia' - as opposed to Russian individuals or entities - the Report suggests that the activities alleged in the indictment were undertaken on behalf of, if not at the direction of, the Russian government.
The Attorney General drew a link between the Russian government and this case during a press conference in which he stated that '[t]he Special Counsel's report outlines two main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.
' Mate's article, as I mentioned in a previous piece, does an excellent job of showing that the Mueller Report is based on heartfelt beliefs but devoid of corroborating evidence.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/july/12/mueller-does-not-have-evidence-that-the-ira-was-part-of-russian-government-meddling/
' In short, the US Government cannot come out and declare that Concord Management, for example, was acting on behalf or or in collaboration with the Russian Government without presenting actual evidence.
Concord's main contention is that the Special Counsel's Report, as released to the public, and the Attorney General's related public statements improperly suggested a link between the defendants and the Russian government and expressed an opinion about the defendants' guilt and the evidence against them.
He pointed out some glaring discrepancies between the Mueller Report and the actual indictment: The Special Counsel Report describes efforts by the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.... But the indictment ... does not link the defendants to the Russian government.
By attributing IRA's conduct to 'Russia' - as opposed to Russian individuals or entities - the Report suggests that the activities alleged in the indictment were undertaken on behalf of, if not at the direction of, the Russian government.
The Attorney General drew a link between the Russian government and this case during a press conference in which he stated that '[t]he Special Counsel's report outlines two main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.
' Mate's article, as I mentioned in a previous piece, does an excellent job of showing that the Mueller Report is based on heartfelt beliefs but devoid of corroborating evidence.
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/july/12/mueller-does-not-have-evidence-that-the-ira-was-part-of-russian-government-meddling/
No comments:
Post a Comment