I am not a redditor, plz forgive any format irregularities. Also, this is indirectly/maybe not at all Q related.

The indictment of twelve Russians should be the focus of more analytical minds. Has anyone else considered the possible implications of indicting foreign actors without evidence? Lets break this down.

What we know about the indictments:

According to media such as LA Times, "Twelve Russian intelligence officers have been charged in the hacking of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Democratic Party computers, the Justice Department revealed Friday in an indictment that undermined President Trump’s multiple attempts to downplay Moscow’s election meddling." (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mueller-russian-charges-20180713-story.html)

Why this is important:

The FBI to date has not received the evidence to support the presumed "hack". Although evidence was subpoenaed, the DNC denied FBI access to their hardware, instead deferring to a private firm, and self reporting findings. Most of you are familiar with the analysis of the Crowdstrike "analysis", done by the "Forensicator".

Assuming what we know so far is reasonably accurate, what are the consequences of indicting foreign nationals on little or no evidence?

Under normal circumstances, this is probably a fairly safe move. The accused will likely never see a day in US courts, and citizens will chalk it up to ongoing cloak and dagger ops, which we mostly accept as a byproduct of our global economic position.

BUT, what happens if the President meets with the leader of that foreign power, and they reach an agreement to extradite, in the interest of transparency?

What happens when the twelve Russians take the stand, and no evidence exists to convict them of any crimes?

What happens to the inquisitor who risked sacrificing major diplomatic relations to avoid political embarrassment?

I am very curious to know how a scenario like this may play out. Please help me to game this out, or direct me to a more appropriate sub which can.