Procurator-General of the Soviet Union Roman Rudenko, who presided over a wave of trials and executions during Stalin’s terror, used to say that “the most important thing during an investigation is not to implicate ourselves.”

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and special counsel Robert Mueller were obviously unaware of Rudenko’s professional dictum when they indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers. According to the indictment, the Russians had interfered in the 2016 presidential election by hacking Democratic political organizations and releasing troves of stolen files in an effort to aid the Donald Trump campaign. 

The indictment has no law enforcement value; it is strictly political move designed to offer evidence of Russian meddling in the elections and therefore provide more weight to the Mueller investigation based on the questionable anti-Trump dossier.

And yet, it would be absurd and impolitic for Putin to support Trump. The Clintons were in Putin’s pocket, they sold him 20% of American uranium production. In the process, according to the FBI, the Russian officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering and “routed” a hundred fifty million dollars to the Clinton Foundation in an attempt to influence the deal. During the same period, Bill Clinton was making obscene fees for speaking engagements in Moscow. The Clintons and Putin had been partners in business or crime, whichever one prefers, during her tenure as Secretary of State. So, why would Putin dump his reliable partner for Trump, whose chances to be elected were close to zero?

On July 2015, the Atlantic wrote, “Donald Trump will not be the 45th president of the United States. Nor the 46th, nor any other number you might name. The chance of his winning nomination and election is exactly zero.”

The Washington Post: “The election is in 15 days. And the electoral map just keeps looking grimmer and grimmer for Donald Trump.” No one expected Donald Trump to win, probably including Donald Trump.

Moreover, Hillary subordinated many of her policies to Russian interests. Contrary to Trump, who was a proponent of energy independence, Hillary was a strong opponent of hydrocarbons; she planned to shut down coal production and curb oil and gas production in this country. Those policies would result in the sharp rise of oil and gas prices, which would greatly benefit Russia.

Hillary was an architect of the “Reset Button Policy” which gave Putin a free ride as regards his international adventures. Trump, on the other hand, was going to substantially increase American military power to maintain its world dominant position. Hence, whether it is economically or geopolitically, Trump was not good news for Putin.

Against this background, the infamous anti-Trump dossier should be viewed as a political tool taken directly from the centuries-old manual of the Russian statecraft.

The Washington Post has confirmed this assertion: “the Fusion GPS dossier relied on senior Russian government officials for much of the dirt it compiled, including a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.”

Now the Russians who helped the Democrats cook up the anti-Trump phony dossier are accused of hacking DNC computers for the purpose of getting Trump elected. This contradiction should repudiate any accusation of the Russian hacking because those two actions serve mutually exclusive objectives. Putin could not be complicit in opposing and supporting Trump during the same election cycle.

Incidentally, this election hacking is not a new event. Foreigners have been regularly hacking U.S. government computers, stealing confidential information, personal data of government employees and other secret government documents. By virtue of the indictment, Mueller inadvertently exposed a pathetic frailty of the FBI, CIA and the other 16 intelligence agencies going back for decades.

Why it is different this time? This time the hackers have done CNN’s job -- “kept them honest” and exposed rampant corruption within the DNC and the U.S. government.

Mueller’s investigation became an effort to divert attention from the scope of corruption to the hackers. It also provides comfort to the Democrats -- blaming an outside influence as the only politically acceptable alibi for their defeat. Impelled by conviction, Mueller is neglecting logic and defies common sense in order to implement of what the FBI disgraced agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page called an “insurance policy” against Trump.

We probably will never know who hacked the DNC computers and whether the revelations of the DNC’s offenses affected the outcome of the elections. But what we do know is that the truth is a pillar of our democracy. The truest test of democracy is accepting the truth regardless of its origin. Whoever made the DNC emails public provided a great service to this nation, helping the electorate make an informed decision. This is the truth, which the Democrats cannot accept. 

Alexander Markovsky is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and author of Anatomy of a Bolshevik and Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It.