It's so funny how you're very quick to point out that the evidence would be denied, at the same time, we're still not even provided any evidence at all. The li

It's so funny how you're very quick to point out that the evidence would be denied, at the same time, we're still not even provided any evidence at all. The link is literally empty; there's nothing more at the link than the custom title we see here. So, basically, if it comes down to Russia being the defendant, the mere accusation alone should already be sufficient, because Russia always denies the validity of evidence, so, hence there's no need to provide any, because it'll only make it easier for the defendant to defend themselves, when all the evidence is on public display?! And this happens every single time? If Russia is the defendant, then they're surely guilty? So, we shouldn't even go into the trouble of bothering to collect or examine the evidence? I mean, can you even remember any time, any one single time, when Russia was accused merely for political gain, and we should have been smarter than taking the bait?