It's like looking at a local politician that you really despise.
You find that somebody offered him a bribe in 2017 and was indicted for attempted bribery.
Suddenly you know that the politician took the bribe, had taken other bribes, and you have an explanation for those votes you didn't like back in 2012-2016.
In the unlikely event of an actual video of the event with the politician saying no and walking away surfacing, the conclusion would still be hanging there in the air, believed as true as ever, a logical epiphyte struggling to grow a factual premise to anchor itself to.
Same for the consistency of the other side's ability to logic. People are people.
Rosenstein said *this* indictment gives no evidence that the outcome of the election was influenced. The intelligence consensus report said the same thing. Finding evidence would be tough--and, to be honest, most of the people who'd be willing to do the work to come up with the evidence probably know that they'd fail at it or use such shabby methods that they'd disgrace themselves. It's not even clear that the confused mess a congressperson spouted on the radio this morning, "preventing" this problem by "punishing those who did hacked our elections" and stopping the media influence that was the hacking of the DNC, is clear on the idea that an attempt is not the same as success. You don't prevent a murder by arresting the killer after the fact; influencing the media was different from a spear-phishing attempt on the DNC.
= new reply since forum marked as read
