That's what grand juries, juries, and transparent trials are all about. The first set of Russians indicted months ago have had lawyers representing them in front of a judge this entire time, despite the fact that there is no Russia-US extradition treaty and zero chance of then facing trial. The Office of Special Counsel is fully aware of that fact and yet they keep going, despite the risk that a judge could force them to reveal evidence, sources, and methods that would undermine the entire investigation.
This isn't Iraq WMDs 2.0 where an administration pressured career civil servants until they found one who was partisan enough to back them up. This is an international counterintelligence operation stretching the Five Eyes, Dutch AIVD, and half a dozen other countries.
Indictments are not evidence. It is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that no actual evidence has been presented (yet) in the trial of the first batch of Russians. I'll maintain skepticism until after discovery and cross examination.
> This isn't Iraq WMDs 2.0 where an administration pressured career civil servants until they found one who was partisan enough to back them up. This is an international counterintelligence operation stretching the Five Eyes, Dutch AIVD, and half a dozen other countries.
I think this is a very kind way of describing the Iraq fiasco. The US intelligence agencies claimed there were WMDs, the UK intelligence services produced the Dodgy Dossier[1], and don't get me started about what the Israeli intelligence claimed (I was stupid enough to believe them and prepare the bomb shelter for a chemical attack).
The one thing I learned is that claims by intelligence agencies or anonymous sources in those agencies are meaningless until hard evidence is provided.
Indictments are not evidence. It is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that no actual evidence has been presented (yet) in the trial of the first batch of Russians.
Nor will any evidence be presented because there will not be a trial. Mueller purposely indicted all Russians who are physically in Russia, knowing that they could not and would not be extradited.
> according to six American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous.
It is clear the reporter was not shown any of the evidence or videos:
> It's unknown what exact information the hackers acquire about the Russians
So what we have is anonymous sources with no way to verify anything. It does not mean it's false, but some skepticism is in order.