The investigation was sold on investigating Russian tampering in the 2016 Presidential election. The majority of the indictments were not related at all to tampering. The ones that were require no evidence to be presented and, in fact, no evidence has been presented that the indicted parties were agents of the Russian government or that they actually tampered with the Presidential election. Because they are foreign nationals, there is no reason for any of the 13 Russians to come face their day in court. If there is no trial for these people, no evidence the US Government has or doesn't have needs ever be presented. When one group came forward and demanded to see the evidence against them that led to the indictment, the USG did not present the evidence. These are all facts that provide context to my opinion that the indictments were all a political farce.
DaShuckster bringing them up as positive evidence that Donald Trump colluded with Russians to affect the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election is lunacy. There is not a scintilla of evidence that these troll farms were working at the behest of anyone on behalf of the Trump candidacy, nor is there any evidence that their actions benefited anyone, in fact, Deputy AG Rosenstein stated they did not affect anything. Aside from them, we have no actual evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to steal the election. Repeated claims of such with no evidence are lunacy.
In addition, the investigation into Russian tampering was laser-focused on the Trump campaign to the exclusion of all other evidence. There was no investigation into the opposition research that actually did collaborate with Russian agents to develop stories about a Presidential candidate; unverified and most likely false stories that were used both in the public media and in our own legal system as the basis for FISA warrants against a Presidential campaign. The Administration has been slandered for years by this investigation's existence and the media's constant narrative. Russia was absolutely involved in that side of the story, yet no investigation whatsoever into their role in those actions. It's like going to fight a fire and passing by the building with smoke pouring out of it to go to a building that is not burning on the next block. That is lunacy as well.
So you pivot to the obstruction angle. Still ignoring the huge elephant in the room, maybe that sticks. Except that people can talk about a crime all they want but if the crime never actually occurs, then there is no crime. Trump can say "I want to stop this investigation today" or "I want that guy fired" but unless that guy is fired, there is no obstruction. Trump was protected by the people around him that didn't allow him to follow up on illegal activities. This is common; it's why businesses have lawyers and contracts people. Every day in damn near every company, someone has an idea and the lawyer tells them you can't do that because it's illegal. You don't arrest that person. Now, if you enter into a contract with a hitman to kill your wife, there's a crime for that (solicitation of murder) and you will be arrested. But that is not the same as telling your lawyer that you want someone fired and the lawyer reminding you that the action would be obstruction. If you then forced your organization to fire that person without any other reason, then you would be guilty. But not for the conversation. So go find the talk actually motivated into provable action and then indict him. Otherwise, let the damn thing go and let's get on with the business of America.
![[cheers]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/5628.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
