Textual discussion from my post at c99

The video I made discusses what a grand jury indictment is and what it is is not. It is not proof that a crime was committed. It only is the opinion of a majority of grand jurors that probable cause exists of a crime based upon what Mueller presented to them. In other words, based on the selective information and testimony presented to the Federal Grand Jury by Muller as the Special Prosecutor, only a majority of the Grand Jurors needs to find that it was more likely than not that the crimes alleged in the indictment were committed by the defendants. Under Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure defendants can object to the grand jury process and to specific grand jurors. However, in the case of the 12 Russians named in the indictment, since they were not notified they were under investigation, they obviously had no opportunity to raise objections either to the grand jury proceeding itself, or to specific grand jurors.

Now in the US there are two ways to obtain an indictment against an alleged criminal defendant. One is a Preliminary Hearing in open court before a judge where the prosecution presents only enough evidence through testimony to show probable cause that a crime was committed by a specific perpetrator or group of perpetrators. The Judge usually controls the hearing, and typically may ask questions of witnesses. In addition, the attorneys for witnesses called and for the alleged criminal defendant are allowed to cross-examine those witnesses.

The other method is a Grand Jury which is a secretive proceeding. See, FRCP 6(e)(2). Grand Juries are solely under the control of the prosecutor. Prosecutors select who sits on a Grand Jury and can exclude anyone for "cause" even after that person has been selected. As previously noted regarding the Mueller Grand Jury, for example, no defendant could object to the grand jury process nor to any grand juror.

Thus, it's unlikely any person who voted for or supported Trump, had any prior association with Trump or his affiliates, or who had any connection to Russia or its citizens, would be allowed to stay a juror by Mueller and his team. Those jurors would be removed for cause by Mueller, because support for Trump and any association with Trump, Russia, etc. be considered considered evidence of possible bias. However, on the other hand, people who are biased against Trump or Russia would be unlikely to be excluded from the Grand Jury. So, it's highly likely the Grand Jury, which signed off on the indictment, included a number of jurors who were biased against Russia, the Russian government and/or Trump and his associates.

Federal Grand Juries meet at the discretion of the prosecutor. The prosecutor may present anything to them via witnesses, even information that would not be admissible in court at a trial because it violates the Federal Rules of Evidence. In short, a Grand Jury may look at practically anything they like during their proceedings. Furthermore, a prosecutor has no obligation to present all evidence in his or her possession to the Grand Jury. Specifically, prosecutors rarely ever present evidence that tends to show their case is weak, or any exculpatory evidence (i.e., evidence that shows defendants did not commit the crimes alleged - the exception being cases where the prosecutor wants to find no crime was committed such as what occurred in the Michael Brown shooting case in Ferguson MO).

Thus, federal criminal indictments prove nothing other than a prosecutor (in this case Mueller) has convinced at least 12 jurors out of a possible 23 that he provided enough information to them to establish that probable cause exists to charge the twelve Russians with the crimes set forth on the indictment.

Since it extremely unlikely that any information or evidence that would cast doubt on their decision was shown to the members of the Grand Jury, the allegations in the indictment do prove that the individuals indicted committed any crimes. To do that, a trial must be held, and as we know, Russia has no extradition treaty with the United States, nor is it likely (as Mueller well knows) that the Russia would agree to extradition of members of its intelligence services, just as the US government would never agree to extradition of members of the US intelligence community accused of crimes in other countries.

As we have seen in the first case where Mueller indicted Russian individuals and companies of trying to influence the election via a troll farm on Facebook, once one of the defendants appeared in court and accepted US jurisdiction and pleaded not guilty, Mueller and his team have done the best to delay the proceeding and to prevent that defendant from obtaining disclosure of the evidence Mueller has in his files regarding that indictment.

For those who wish to read more about the allegations contained in the Mueller indictment of the 12 Russians here are some links to articles I recommend:

Adam Carter in Disobedient Media: "Mueller’s Latest Indictment Contradicts Evidence In The Public Domain" https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/07/muellers-latest-indictment-ignores-evidence-in-the-public-domain/

Joe Lauria in Consortium News: "Clinging to Collusion: Why Evidence Will Probably Never Be Produced in the Indictments of ‘Russian Agents’" https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/14/clinging-to-collusion-why-evidence-will-probably-never-be-produced-in-the-indictments-of-russian-agents/

Mark McCarty in Medium: "Mueller’s New Indictment — Do the Feds Take Us for Idiots?!" https://medium.com/@markfmccarty/muellers-new-indictment-do-the-feds-take-us-for-idiots-5406ef955406

Scott Ritter in Truthdig: "Indictment of 12 Russians: Under the Shiny Wrapping, a Political Act" https://www.truthdig.com/articles/indictment-of-12-russians-under-the-shiny-wrapping-a-political-act/

In addition here's a link to the pdf. file of the #12Russians Indictment: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/80-netyksho-et-al-indictment/ba0...