It really comes down to this. “There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result. The special counsel’s investigation is ongoing” Rod Rosenstein a.k.a. Mueller's Boss
In actual context: "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. The Special Counsel’s investigation is ongoing and there will be no comments from the Special Counsel at this time." a few sentences later "I want to caution you that people who speculate about federal investigations usually do not know all of the relevant facts. We do not try cases on television or in congressional hearings. Most anonymous leaks are not from the government officials who are actually conducting these investigations." http://time.com/5338451/rod-rosenstein-russian-indictment-transcript/ This ain't 1850 bro; you can't just write any bs and not get called out
I miss your point, 99% of the case against Trump presented so far is the media spouting leaks from god who knows who! There has been zero evidence cited thus far. I cited no anonymous leak. I cited Mueller's boss who went on record.
Have you missed something? It is established fact that Russian government cells acted on social media and particularly targeted people of certain socio economic status and political leaning. That is established fact. You can now argue that anyone who is heavily exposed to Facebook and other social media will never be influenced by content on social media. If you lean into that direction then you might be able to argue that Russians did not influence the election. I think such stance is at best naive but more likely stupid in that it has been proven that heavy social media exposure has highly addictive properties and that it very much shapes and can alter someone's perception, including political thought process.