The truth shall set you free!

And it was the truth which set Hillary Clinton free of the burden of public office.

You have to go fairly far down in The Washington Post’s article on the Independent Counsel’s latest set of indictments to find the money line:

Mueller and a team of prosecutors have been working since May 2017 to determine whether any Trump associates conspired with Russia to interfere in the election. With the new indictment, his office has filed charges against 32 people on crimes including hacking, money laundering and lying to the FBI. Twenty-six of those charged are Russians who are unlikely to ever be put on trial in the United States.

Emphasis mine.

The Post noted, last March, that Robert Mueller’s investigation spent $16.7 million in little less than a year, and he’s busy indicting Russians who are not in the United States, not under American jurisdiction, and who will never be tried.

So, what did the GRU actually do? The indictment alleges that they “covertly monitored the computers, implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code, and stole emails and other documents,” and that they used false persona called DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0, along with a real organization, WikiLeaks, to try to sabotage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Well, wahhh! That’s not anything new; we knew before the election that DNC and Clinton campaign emails were hacked; WikiLeaks released them, in dribs and drabs, as a constant water torture against the Clinton campaign. Those those e-mails did not come from Mrs Clinton’s ridiculous private server, the one she had set up to evade State Department protocol and open records laws, the fact that her campaign e-mails were being rel;eased like that was a not-so-subtle reminder of her server problem.

Of course, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the man on the hot seat since Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III recused himself from the investigation, stated, as the indictments were announced, “The goal of the conspirators was to have an impact on the election. What impact they may have had . . . is a matter of speculation; that’s not our responsibility.”

White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters noted, “There is no allegation in this indictment that Americans knew that they were corresponding with Russians. There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result.”

That is the important point: there have been no credible claims that, whatever else the Russian hacking accomplished, the actual vote count was compromised. Perhaps the efforts of the Russians influenced how people cast their votes, but those votes cast were still the free choices of American citizens. Certainly the Clinton campaign, which spent twice as much on the 2016 campaign as did Mr Trump’s, put out as much propaganda as it could to influence voters negatively against the Republican candidate.

The real, rarely spoken difference? By exposing DNC and Clinton campaign e-mails, WikiLeaks, whether with Russian help or otherwise, exposed the truth about Mrs Clinton and her campaign. What no one on the left can seem to admit is that, regardless of how or by whom the e-mails were hacked, it was the content of the e-mails that was the problem. When you have Jen Palmieri, purportedly a Catholic herself, writing e-mails critical of evangelical Christians and Catholics, or suggesting that John Podesta needs to “sober her up some,” at 4:31 in the afternoon, the problem isn’t that the Russians, or someone else, hacked the e-mails, but what they told voters about Mrs Clinton.

That’s what the Mueller investigation has turned up so far, that someone, allegedly some twenty-six Russian hackers, exposed the truth about the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee.
Cross-posted on The First Street Journal.