Good, but I wish she had phrased this part diiferently:

#18: “ Mueller found no conspiracy” would be less ambiguous if it was “Mueller did not find a conspiracy.”

This may seem like a trivial point, but it can give ammo to our opponents, who are quick to say things like, “Mueller said no collusion!”

The first statement can be read as an authoritative finding (proving a negative), whereas the sacond is more circumspect, clear, and accurate.

If Mueller had been able to discover exactly what Kilimnik did with the sensitive internal campaign data Manafort gave him, he might have had a chance to prove conspiracy. But that's a huge ask for anyone with knowledge of Russia. However, we know the campaign data contained identifiable information on voters — that's the input.

The output was the Cambridge Analytical scandal, where the data on each voter was matched with their social media, and a psychological portrait created. This was then analyzed to estimate likeliness of voting, and for which candidate. They were then microtargeted cheaply by buying Facebook ads — weapons-grade psyops, built by Russian military intelligence personnel — to move them in a particular direction. So disaffected Bernie voters were shown fake articles on why it was pointless to vote, both parties are the same, etc. Republicans were shown inspiring messages or told how all the attacks on Trump wre “lies.”

The operation only had to move the needle a small percentage to have a big impact on the race. The results speak for themselves.

Manafort-Kilimnik is the beginning of a huge blind spot for U.S. investigators. We simply can't see what Russia did with the data, in order to prove conspiracy. But the input and output are evident.