Comment by the Information and Press Department on the conclusions of the report on the alleged Russian interference in US elections (source):
We have taken note of the summary of the main conclusions from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the “purity” of the 2016 US presidential election, submitted by the US Department of Justice. The main conclusion, which is that Donald Trump’s election staff did not conspire with Russia – was to be expected. It is surprising, though, that it took 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and other professional staff, issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses, nearly two years to come to this conclusion. In other words, it took huge efforts and, obviously, a great deal of the taxpayers’ money to overturn an obvious fabrication.
Since fake news about the alleged Russian interference was first published nearly three years ago, Moscow has pointed out more than once that it was a trumped up story. Over that period of time, Moscow has repeatedly asked for corroboration from the previous administration, which published this fabrication in the first place, and later from the Trump administration. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has not produced any proof of Moscow’s involvement in the infamous cyberattacks and other attempts to erode the American democracy, a charge that has been constantly brought against Russia.
As for the indictments against 25 Russian citizens announced last year to justify the ineffective performance of a huge investigative team, they are grotesque. The political bias of these cases is so glaring that they cannot be described as anything other than a disgrace to the US system of justice.
Moscow has long invited Washington to hold professional discussions on any complaints regarding the alleged interference in the elections. For example, we have more than once suggested relaunching the working group on cybersecurity, but the United States is evading the issue because it has no proof of its unsubstantiated complaints.
It is indicative in this context that the US special services have recently refused to disclose correspondence conducted between Russia and the United States via cyber threat alert channels from October 2016 to January 2017. The American and international public would have certainly appreciated the grotesque technical arguments of the Obama administration, which accused Russia of hacking attacks for no good reason in a bid to discredit Donald Trump.
We hope that Washington will eventually master the courage to officially admit that there was no collusion whatsoever, and that all the allegations about Russian interference are nothing more than a defamation attempt designed for use in US political infighting. This will likely end this never-ending story.