Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced that the Department of Justice has indicted an additional 12 Russian agents for “hacking” the 2016 presidential race for the White House.
Rosenstein’s announcement comes as President Trump wraps up his two-day visit with British Prime Minister Theresa May and Queen Elizabeth II, heading to Helsinki next week to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Despite this, Rosenstein confirmed what we already knew… that the so-called Russian interference did not change the vote count nor did it affect the outcome of the election.
“There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result. The special counsel’s investigation is ongoing,” Rosenstein said.
Rosenstein also confirmed Russian interference did not affect the outcome of the election the last time the Special Counsel rolled out a junk indictment in February.
This means Republicans were also victims of the “spear phishing,” however in an effort to make Hillary and the Democrats the perpetual victims, Rosenstein purposely withheld the political affiliations with most of the ‘hacking’ victims.
— Fox News (@FoxNews) July 13, 2018
Can you call it interference if it had no effect? No, you can’t. This is like charging someone with murder but nobody died or was even harmed in any way.
However, Rosenstein’s Presser just strengthened President Trump – no collusion. This clears President Trump and everyone on his campaign. I guess, now it is perfect time to put Mueller out to pasture. It’s cost us, taxpayers, way too much already.
What do you think? Scroll down to leave a comment below!
Editor’s Note: This particular story was popular at the time it originally made the news and is circulating again a second time for the important and applicable message that’s relevant today.
Natalie D. is an American conservative writer who writes for Supreme Insider and Conservative US, ! Natalie has described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot,” and does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do,” drawing criticism from the left, and sometimes from the right. As a passionate journalist, she works relentlessly to uncover the corruption happening in Washington. She is a “constitutional conservative”.