The Facebook “Russian” ad buys is the weakest, lamest claim of “Russian meddling” (with no…
Jack Albrecht

  1. There is no percentage threshold for foreign spending on US elections to be regarded as illegal. The question of whether there was illegality is answered.
  2. It’s not clear that we are seeing *all* of the evidence of illegality, but the public certainly can look at *some* of it.
  3. It has been reported, with multiple sources, that the Russians devoted *thousands* of agents to Russia’s efforts to elect Trump. You imply that the effort was small and insignificant. The opposite is true; the Russian effort, by far, dwarfed the Trump Campaign itself. Money spent on their salaries to aid Trump was *also* illegal, under US law, though we don’t know how much money was involved.
  4. You propose a standard of 18 months for catching criminals, and would let them off the hook if they aren’t caught by then. Needless to say, you are imagining US law rather than looking directly at it.
  5. So far as I am aware, no-one has asserted that Trump ‘led’ the Russian hacking effort. It’s very clear that he *benefited* from it. The open question was whether he or his campaign illegally colluded with the Russians. There is lots of smoke around that question but nothing that answers it is yet in the public eye. This is one of the two major questions that Mueller must settle.
  6. The other major question that Mueller must settle is whether Trump or anyone close to him obstructed justice. Considering the daily lies promoted by Trump and his cabal on that subject and the reason he gave for firing James Comey, that looks like a lock, from where I sit. Of course what you and I think matters not at all. Mueller has the keys to that car.

Jack, the only way to reach your logical position is to imagine that the law says things it does not and ignore evidence available to the public.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.