“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity.”
@seawulf575 From a legal perspective, the key phrase in that sentence is “in this indictment.” This is not the first indictment that has been generated by the investigation, and it may or may not be the last. The previous indictments did include Americans, and the next indictment—if there is one—may or may not include one or more Americans. So I agree with @BellaB that the statement was very carefully phrased.
And let us note that the careful phrasing worked exactly the way it was presumably meant to: the wording allows Trump’s supporters to fool themselves into thinking that Trump is off the hook while not saying anything blatantly false for Trump’s opponents to seize on (once again demonstrating that Rosenstein is one of the savvier members of the current administration).
“There is no allegation in the indictment that the charge conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.”
Again, this statement is very carefully phrased. You have chosen to read it as saying that the interference covered by the interference didn’t alter the outcome of the election, but the sentence in fact says no such thing. There’s a huge difference—both logically and legally—between a positive declaration that something did not alter the outcome of the election and a mere lack of any declaration one way or the other.
To give an example: nowhere in this answer have I made any declarations one way or another about the color of my wife’s eyes. But it cannot be concluded from that fact that I do not know the color of my wife’s eyes or that her eyes are colorless. It just means that I have refrained from saying anything one way or another about the matter. People have a tendency to hear more than what was said, however, and that tendency is something lawyers and politicians alike have been taking advantage of from time immemorial.