That's a bold theory, no?
Think of George Papadopoulos... reference the very first person covered on page 1, post 1 -- the links for the indictment, the plea agreement, and some extra resources are included.
What is Mueller claiming about Papadopoulos? I don't find it to be a bold theory outlined in that indictment. It details a charge for falsifying information and identifies a certain professor, and makes claims that he had visited some officials in Moscow, that he told George they had some dirt on Clinton, and so on:
- 'Claimed that his interactions with an overseas professor [Joseph Mifsud - MIA], who defendant understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials, occurred before defendant became a foreign policy advisor to the Campaign.'
- '... professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails," but stated multiple times that he learned that information prior to joining the Campaign.'
- '... further told investigating agents that the professor was "a nothing"... In truth and in fact, however, defendant understood that the professor had substantial connections to Russian government officials (and had met with some of those officials in Moscow immediately prior to telling defendant about the "thousands of emails" and, over a period of months, defendant repeatedly sought to use the professor's Russian connections in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.'
That's it. Mueller is not charging George with a conspiracy. He's not identifying collusion in this indictment. He's claiming that this man lied about certain things, and he states "in truth and in fact" what the reality of the situation was. He then references seized communications, and statements from the accused.
So that's one thing.
Where we can go with that situation between George and the professor as a theory beyond those charges is another, and we do not have the evidence the DOJ claims to have, so we can just sort of speculate at this point.
That's another thing.
& Assange, I think, is making the most bold claims of all. He's just not coming out with it directly.
If we see a larger conspiracy formally emerge involving Mifsud -- do we think that it will require a body of evidence? The investigators claim that George attempted to delete Facebook communications and destroy other evidence. We can be pretty sure, given what we know of PRISM and beyond, that they have access to all of that.
We don't have to treat Assange's claims with that level of scrutiny. But let's say we try to clearly write out what Assange is claiming happened between intelligence agencies (considering that there's an established and very legal coordination between these intelligence agencies in general), and try to meet some sort of burden of proof. What does that look like, and what will be the probability that it's the truth?