Special Counsel Mueller Charges 12 Russian Intelligence Officers With Hacking Democrats During 2016 Election (cnbc.com)

Special counsel Robert Mueller has obtained a new indictment charging 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking Democrats to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, and with stealing information of about 500,000 American voters, the Justice Department announced Friday. From a report: The indictment lodged in Washington, D.C., accuses the Russian spies of hacking into the Democratic National Committee and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, and of releasing emails obtained from that cybersnooping with a a goal of influencing the election. The accused also hacked into state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and into companies that provided software used to administer elections, according to Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein. Rosenstein said he briefed President Donald Trump about the case earlier in the week.

Comments

As they say in Russia

[melted]

The mountain gave birth to a mouse.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Oswald McWeany]

The mountain gave birth to a mouse.

Perhaps they need basic biology lessons. They're sacrificing biology to teach hacking instead.

Re:As they say in Russia

[sjames]

You consider an unfriendly power hacking our election to be somehow mouselike?

So you won't mind if a bunch of hackers make sure Ficus wins every election for the next 10 years?

Re:As they say in Russia

[AmiMoJo]

Give it time, it's still early days. Watergate took 4 years, Iran Contra took over six.

Re:As they say in Russia

[PopeRatzo]

The mountain gave birth to a mouse.

Actually, the number of mice is now over 30, and the mountain is a long way from done. And never forget what a single mouse can do to an elephant, especially a big, wet, orange elephant with bone spurs.

Re:As they say in Russia

[aticus.finch]

The mountain gave birth to a mouse.

Actually, the number of mice is now over 30, and the mountain is a long way from done. And never forget what a single mouse can do to an elephant, especially a big, wet, orange elephant with bone spurs.

How awful does some have to be to lose to a big wet orange elephant with bone spurs?

Re:As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

Very awful, and highly disliked (you might even say the second most-disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling, after Trump himself).

But that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Russians are actively trying to influence elections and subvert democratic processes in the US and Europe.

And it's troubling that so many people in the US are trying to discredit an investigation into whether or not our democratic processes are being actively subverted.

Re:As they say in Russia

[aticus.finch]

Give it time, it's still early days. Watergate took 4 years, Iran Contra took over six.

And proving that 9/11 was an inside job is taking 17 years. What was your point?

Re:As they say in Russia

[butchersong]

I'm... withholding judgement until they provide some evidence. I don't think you can say they "hacked" the election unless you're using it in the loose "life hack" modern parlance... they allegedly hacked some DNC servers and exposed some (alleged) corruption. That doesn't really equal hacking the election.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Proving the United States never landed on the moon is taking 49 years. What was your point?

Re:As they say in Russia

[sjames]

Have you forgotten all the ads and fake media campaigns?

Re:As they say in Russia

[sjames]

Wow, that's a lot of cool aid!

Re:As they say in Russia

[XxtraLarGe]

Have you forgotten all the ads and fake media campaigns?

No, who could ever forget the Highly Effective fake media campaigns? Here Are 14 Russian Ads That Ran on Facebook During The 2016 Election

Re: As they say in Russia

[Millennium]

There's literally no reason to expect that this investigation should be over in a paltry 18 months. No credible investigation of a figure as public as the President has ever been over nearly that quickly, whether or not it found anything. These things take time.

Liberals generally do have some severe problems when it comes to holding their own to different standards than their opposition (or, when that isn't feasible, changing the standard in self-serving ways). But so far, this has not been one of those cases. The investigation has been fair and impartial thus far, to the point that it has withstood every attempt to "prove" that it was ever anything else.

Bottom line: go back to /pol/, creep.

Re:As they say in Russia

[fafalone]

Considering what comes out of peoples mouths when they explain why they voted for Trump or still support him, arguing that no one is stupid enough to have been influenced by something that dumb isn't very persuasive.

Re:As they say in Russia

[fatwilbur]

It has been proven that US organizations heavily influenced (attempted at least) the last Canadian federal election, mostly through radical environmental NGOs, many supported by billionaires who could care less about the environment and more about their own pockets. Should Canada be indicting and prosecuting US citizens?

I say the internet is free reign for opinions. Literally, we're talking a few memes and some facebook posts.. education is our only option to conquer that now that the technological cat is out of the bag, meaning we need to teach people to think critically. Long shot, I know.

Lastly, I generally support Trump as I think his decisions have demonstrably advanced his country's interests, often at the expense of mine. His personal faults aside, I wish we had such a strong leader many times, and not the usual fluff pieces we see from all leaders of the G7. His job is to advance US interests, not anyone else's, and he's doing that. We can clearly see how much foreign investment has shifted into the US from my country as a result of his policies. I'd put up with a blowhard for real results like that any day. Though I think personal attacks are fair game, most of it is pretty stupid and childish ("big wet orange elephant with bone spurs" - really??), but then again, in general I believe we should be pretty critical of any politician.

Re:As they say in Russia

[sjames]

That's the ads. Seperate from (but related to) fake media campaigns.

You'll never gain understanding if you studiously look away like a baby that doesn't want strained peas.

Re: As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

That is some pretty finely distilled idiocy you've managed to put in a single sentence.

I don't think anyone is surprised that Russia is attacking us. The question is how they are, and what are we going to do to protect ourselves. The answer is not to stop the investigation.

If you want to politicize the issue like a complete fuckhead, that's your choice.

Re:As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

Yeah, the polls hated him more than her, but the voters hated her more than him.

Well, the popular vote shows otherwise, but the major takeaway is that both major parties put up absolutely awful candidates and tried to convince everyone that voting for anyone else was pointless. 45% of the electorate decided to stay home because of that. The D-R system is actively damaging the US.

As the election demonstrated, it was the will of the voters, not the will of the pollsters.

It was the will of the electoral college, not the people who took the time to vote.

Their estimates of who was more hated is irrelevant because we have an objective measurement of who actually was hated more.

Right, the person with fewer votes, which also matches what the polls say. In a competition between the 2 most-hated candidates in the history of presidential polling, #1 got fewer votes than #2, which is what you would expect.

What's troubling is that even though no actual evidence has come to light in the 18 months since the allegations were made the conspiracy theories still abound.

I know exactly what you mean. We have a special investigator who is able to control his people and not leak information, and he has a ton of evidence that he is still collecting and occasionally issuing indictments around, but people want to claim that since he's not releasing all of his evidence, which would destroy his investigation if he hasn't completed it yet, that this means that there is in fact no evidence of the thing he's actively investigating. It's troubling, I agree. He's obviously working with the best interests of the country in mind, and it's troubling that so many people have these conspiracy theories around him and want to politicize his work.

Re: As they say in Russia

[kenh]

I'm more upset that a major political party can't figure out how to secure their email, especially Jon "password" Podesta, who thought it a good idea to send his password off to hackers as part of a phishing attack. (Extra embarrassment for the underling that forgot the word 'not' when he advised the email in question was legit, when he meant to say 'not legit.')

The minute we (USA) stop inter fearing in other country's elections the world will start to take note of our objection to Russian meddling.

Re: As they say in Russia

[kenh]

Were any of those 577 convictions over collusion with Russians?

So far, none have been.

Re: As they say in Russia

[kenh]

The mueller investigation is about finding evidence to substantiate the unverified claims that initiated the investigation.

The gov't never had any actual evidence of trump campaign collusion with the Russians.

Re:As they say in Russia

[superwiz]

Except in both of those case it was pretty obvious that a President was involved. No one seriously thinks that Trump colluded with Russia. They just think it's a good albatross to hang on his neck.

Re:As they say in Russia

[HermMunster]

They are, both internally and externally, but not how partisan hacks are attacking the problem. No matter what, it takes evidence provided in a court to prove someone's guilt. Let's have that first.

To say the least a lot of countries tried to interfere. The President of Mexico did. The Prime Ministers of the UK and Canada did. The UK Parliament also did. You can go back and find the media's coverage of the hostile rhetoric broadcast via American media companies that was certainly intended to interfere with the election process by influencing uncertain voters. It's the same thing as astroturfing and our American media partook in collusion with those countries on purpose knowing how the American people are influenced. Like Mika on MSLSD said, they are the ones who are to tell us what to think.

I'm sorry, but unless you have evidence to submit to the public so that we can hear and judge for ourselves then it is just more propaganda. I'm not going to just take it that these are secret matters and that we shouldn't be allowed to know it while accepting the judgment of some very questionable individuals some of whom are quite obviously deep state. Show us, let us hear the trial, let us see the evidence, and if we conclude they are guilty then so be it, otherwise it's just more propaganda. It's more like Mueller trying to extend his tenure. The last bit of indictments resulted in the accused fighting it and we are finding the weaknesses in the claims.

Re:As they say in Russia

[sarren1901]

No, she probably just went against established security policies for people with security clearance, which technically is not the law, but she did it on purpose and knowingly. Hillary is not stupid. She's pretty fucking intelligent actually. She's also really good at politics. She had a private email server so she could hide what she was doing from everyone. Why does an appointed official need to hide their communications from the government that she works for?

Whether or not her private email was safer is not the point and quite debatable. Government should be transparent. Her having a private email server is anything but transparent.

Re:As they say in Russia

[nnet]

So his claim Russia is a competitor, and not an enemy does what to bolster your argument?

Re: As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

Well, I don't know why that matters. Because Mueller is not investigating whether or not there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. He is investigating whether and how Russia tried to influence our elections. And, if someone's preferred party played a part in that influence, and that is the reason why that person opposes the investigation, then that person is an absolute partisan idiot who is putting their own preferred political party above the country.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Bing Tsher E]

Hillary lost because she wouldn't campaign in historically Democratic strongholds, because they were filled with the deplorable sort of Democrats.

Re: As they say in Russia

[Bing Tsher E]

No credible investigation of a figure as public as the President has ever been over nearly that quickly,

Mueller is on record saying that President Trump is not under investigation.

Re:As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

Why do you assume that we aren't going to get to see a lot of the evidence that has been gathered? Do you really expect any evidence at all to be released before the investigation is finished? Naturally, in an investigation of this scope, the judge is going to decide that certain things shouldn't be released, but I'm confident we're going to see a lot of what Mueller has found.

Show us, let us hear the trial, let us see the evidence, and if we conclude they are guilty then so be it

That's not exactly how the justice system works. We have a whole system set up for this, you know that right? Can we just follow the same rule-of-law process that we've been following for who knows how long? Is that so bad? Do we really need to continue to degrade the rule of law in this country to benefit Trump? We don't owe Trump shit.

I'm going to purposefully ignore your use of the absolutely idiotic term "deep state." This is a term completely manufactured by conspiracy theorists pushing their agenda, and I like how you mix that in with calling everything else propaganda. It has a real nice ring to it.

Re: As they say in Russia

[Bing Tsher E]

I don't think anyone is surprised that Russia is attacking us. The question is how they are, and what are we going to do to protect ourselves. The answer is not to stop the investigation.

They are attacking us the same way the US has historically, for many years, attacked elections in foreign countries.

Re: As they say in Russia

[datavirtue]

Yeah....total yawnfest. When its over heads are going to roll. Trump is going to go on a revenge spree. Hopefully the FBI will never be the same.

Re: As they say in Russia

[datavirtue]

It was not a failure. The point was to elect an outsider and disrupt the status quo. Mission accomplished. I dont think most of us had high hopes about what would transpire during his presidency. The man is a genius when it comes to playing the media. I will give him that.

The parties better pull thier head out of thier ass or he will win the next election.

Re:As they say in Russia

[benjfowler]

The evidence presented today is massive, incredibly detailed and irrefutable.

This increasingly-shopworn piece of Russia-shill stupidity -- the bad-faith demands for "evidence" -- needs to die.

And the shills themselves should be looking over their shoulders. Today has proven that Western intelligence knows EXACTLY who the shills and spies are, in EXTRAORDINARY detail. If you lot know what's good for you, you'll get off the internet and find a more honest line of work. Being grounded in Russia for the rest of your miserable lives will be bad enough -- life can get much worse. I understand that American jails are not nice places. Why tempt fate?

Re:As they say in Russia

[benjfowler]

Compared to Watergate, this is running at light speed.

Re: As they say in Russia

[datavirtue]

Most likely reason.

Re: As they say in Russia

[datavirtue]

If by attack you mean: wait for the chaos and then run fake news on facebook.

I guarantee every state/terrorist/drug lord/dictator is doing the same thing to many differrnt people.

For an election this isnt much of a threat to me...unless it makes my candidate lose...then it's gloves off.

Re: As they say in Russia

[datavirtue]

Relax dude....these countries cant afford to get all gaffy over these "attacks."

Re: As they say in Russia

[Dare nMc]

incorrect,

he is continuing to investigate the president but does not consider him a "criminal target" at this point.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Ol Olsoc]

The evidence presented today is massive, incredibly detailed and irrefutable.

This increasingly-shopworn piece of Russia-shill stupidity -- the bad-faith demands for "evidence" -- needs to die.

It was said best said by Macbeth:

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

Re: As they say in Russia

[Ol Olsoc]

The mueller investigation is about finding evidence to substantiate the unverified claims that initiated the investigation.

The gov't never had any actual evidence of trump campaign collusion with the Russians.

The only way there ius no evidence is if you have no intention of believing it. That's okay - there are people who believe there was no moon landing, that 9-11 was an inside job, that Ted Cruz'z father helped kill JFK, that the Kenyan Terror baby was born in Kenya, that Bill Clinton sent his Arkansas bodyguards to be killed at wake, the Clinton's have killed 50 plus people now, that FDR ignored the radar in Hawaii, and all manner of conspiracy theories.

You are just another member of that group. There is plenty of public information that show a whole lot of wrongdoing. Hard to believe there won't be more coming out very soon.

Re: As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

The only way there ius no evidence is if you have no intention of believing it. That's okay - there are people who believe there was no moon landing, that 9-11 was an inside job, that Ted Cruz'z father helped kill JFK, that the Kenyan Terror baby was born in Kenya, that Bill Clinton sent his Arkansas bodyguards to be killed at wake, the Clinton's have killed 50 plus people now, that FDR ignored the radar in Hawaii, and all manner of conspiracy theories.

That's nice, except for the fact you have that completely and utterly backwards. Russiagaters have as much evidence for their theories that the Birthers do that Obama was born in Kenya and is a muslim. Facts.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

Well, the popular vote shows otherwise

No such thing as popular vote in the United States. Trump didn't bother to campaign in New York and California - where Hillary's margin of "victory" comes from - because he knew he wouldn't win either state. Instead, he went to the Rust Belt - where Hillary didn't bother to campaign - to ask people for their vote. If presidential elections were decided by a popular vote (and they should be) it would have been a completely different race, with completely different results. Millions of Republicans stayed home in California and New York, or voted Libertarian. Same for Democrats in states like Texas and the Green Party.

So, talking about the popular vote is not just pointless, it's outright misleading.

Re: As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

I don't think anyone is surprised that Russia is attacking us.

You should be, given the fact that both parties have been openly and extremely anti-Russian for over a century. May as well suspect a gay person of trying to interfere in an election between a rabidly homophobic Mormon and a rabidly homophobic Catholic.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

Give it time, it's still early days. Watergate took 4 years, Iran Contra took over six.

Those investigations started in response to known crimes. Whereas this investigation is still in search of a crime....like Whitewater. This is nothing more than Democratic revenge for the years of horseshit investigations of Bill Clinton. You should go all out and hire Ken Starr to try and manufacturer a perjury charge on Stormy Daniels.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

Considering what comes out of peoples mouths when they explain why they voted for Trump or still support him

That entire line of argumentation is invalid, given the party Trump was running against. No one is better at stabbing their voters in the back than Democrats are, but you wouldn't see the incessant "just LOOK what the president has done, Hillary voters!!!!" if she had won.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

Accept it: Most people didn't want this clown.

Most people didn't want his equally atrocious opponent in the general election.

He has no popular mandate for his 'policy'.

Never said he did. You do know that having a functioning bullshit detector on the dumbest conspiracy theory of all time doesn't make one a Trump supporter, yes?

Lie about birth certificates all you want

Never have. I bring them up because Russigaters have as much evidence for their theories as the Birthers do for theirs.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

Indictments that have nothing whatsoever to do with Russiagate or Trump. You know that Whitewater produced 15 indictments, yes? Indictments that had nothing to do with Bill or Hillary Clinton? So, Dembot, call Ken Starr and see if he's available for another witch hunt.

Re: As they say in Russia

[reanjr]

What you describe is the hacking of the DNC, not the hacking of an election. That's where the language gets imprecise to the point of being intentionally disengenuous or incendiary.

Re: As they say in Russia

[reanjr]

Are you seriously that dumb to think no one believes there was collusion between Trump and Putin?

Re:As they say in Russia

[sjames]

You act as if you expect disagreement from me. I was opposed to the entire snipe hunt that was Iraq. Personally, I didn't want Clinton or Trump.

But I fail to see how rooting out some corruption is not better than leaving it all in place.

Re:As they say in Russia

[sjames]

First, the stuff served at Jonestown was an off brand, not the real thing.

Second, the paid ads were a minuscule part of it. Perhaps you missed the bit about all the sock puppets Twitter is purging and all the actually fake news on Facebook.

Re:As they say in Russia

[sjames]

Here, have another cup.

Re: As they say in Russia

[danskal]

If Trump is so squeaky clean (newsflash: he is not), why was he so incensed that his "fixer" was raided by the FBI?

Re: As they say in Russia

[danskal]

I know why you think that - and it's because you watch fox news. They are desperately saying lalallalala nothing to see here. But the truth is that lots of people have already been indicted - they are just working their way up the tree until they have enough canaries singing to impeach a president.

Fox news viewers are going to be a problem, though. The channel has hidden so much from them, and sent out so many lies, it's going to end up a bit like Japan after the war ended. There were many japanese that continued the war for years because they refused to believe that Japan had waved the white flag.

Re:As they say in Russia

[sjames]

I have no answer that will convince someone who would rather believe anything BUT the truth.

Re: As they say in Russia

[PopeRatzo]

They are attacking us the same way the US has historically, for many years, attacked elections in foreign countries.

The US has invaded Mexico on several occasions, so I assume you don't have a problem with Mexicans immigrating here without documents. I mean, if you're going to be consistent.

Re:As they say in Russia

[PopeRatzo]

Most people didn't want his equally atrocious opponent in the general election.

And yet, she got 3,000,000 more votes.

Never have. I bring them up because Russigaters have as much evidence for their theories as the Birthers do for theirs.

Except there are over 30 indictments and five guilty pleas and counting. Unlike the birthers, who had absolutely nothing, yet managed to get Obama elected twice for their troubles.

Re: As they say in Russia

[superwiz]

I am not dumb. So rethink your premises.

Re:As they say in Russia

[sjames]

You provided irrelevant references. Here is a picture of a duck.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

And yet, she got 3,000,000 more votes.

Which is an utterly worthless talking point at best, and outright sophistry at worst. There is no such thing as a popular vote for president in the United States. With the EC, millions of people stay home or vote third party because they live in a partisan state and the outcome is a foregone conclusion. If presidents were elected based on a popular vote (and they should be) races would be conducted entirely differently and voters would respond entirely differently. People who would ordinarily stay home would show up at polls because each and every vote would actually matter. People who would normally vote for Libertarians or Greens as a protest vote would instead cast their ballot for one of the main parties, because their vote would actually matter.

Trump didn't bother to campaign in CA and NY - where Hillary's margin of "victory" comes from - because he knew he had no chance at those electoral votes. Instead, he went to the Rust Belt and asked those voters to come out for him, states where Mrs. Nafta decided it would be a great idea to no-show.

Except there are over 30 indictments and five guilty pleas and counting.

None of which have anything to do with Trump or Russiagate in general. You know that the Whitewater investigation produced fifteen convictions - does that mean that the investigation wasn't a pile of partisan bulllllllshit crafted by opponents of a president they just didn't like?

Re: As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

I know why you think that - and it's because you watch fox news.

This is why you never go full partisan: it makes you say really stupid shit. I'm a socialist, you dumbass, and the last network I watch is Fox News. All you're doing is mindlessly repeating the 2003 trope that anyone who questioned the Iraq war was a Saddam Lover, with different variables.

But for the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration actually presented evidence. It was either shit evidence or faked, but it was actually presented. Now the public is being fed a similar tall tale by the same group of compulsive liars without any evidence whatsoever but you Charlie Browns are just eating that shit up. With a spoon.

Re:As they say in Russia

[PopeRatzo]

There is no such thing as a popular vote for president in the United States.

Of course there is. It may not be the deciding factor, but the vote is taken nonetheless, and it is the best metric we have for what percentage of people wanted a certain person to be president. They are actual votes cast by individuals.

None of which have anything to do with Trump or Russiagate in general.

Three of those convictions address Russiagate and Trump directly.

You know that the Whitewater investigation produced fifteen convictions

From an investigation that took 6 years. The Trump/Russia investigation has been going on for about 16 months.

does that mean that the investigation wasn't a pile of partisan bulllllllshit crafted by opponents of a president they just didn't like?

So, are you saying right here, right now, that the Whitewater investigations and all the subsequent investigations of Hillary Clinton were all "partisan bullshit crafted by opponents" of someone Republicans just didn't like? Is that your story now?

Re:As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

Of course there is.

There is no popular contest for president, so there is no popular vote. It's a meaningless number, as meaningless as talking about Hillary's popular vote "victory" in the primary when that ignores caucus states. And in Hillary's case her general election "victory" comes almost entirely from just two states, NY and CA. The only vote that matters is the one in the Electoral College, and candidates campaign accordingly - unless you're as incompetent as Hillary, and don't bother to show up in any of the states between Pennsylvania and Iowa. Hell, she even came within 50,000 votes of losing Minnesota, the only state to vote against Reagan in both of his elections.

Zero of those convictions address Russiagate and Trump directly.

Again, fixed.

From an investigation that took 6 years. The Trump/Russia investigation has been going on for about 16 months.

Russiagaters keep saying that as if its supposed to mean something. It means nothing when Mueller hasn't even established probable suspicion of any Russian interference or collusion with Trump, much less probable cause.

So, are you saying right here, right now, that the Whitewater investigations and all the subsequent investigations of Hillary Clinton were all "partisan bullshit crafted by opponents" of someone Republicans just didn't like? Is that your story now?

You need a picture drawn with crayons? Whitewater was a bullshit partisan witch hunt - and so is Russiagate. Let's cut to the chase: Mueller has never bothered to examine the DNC servers, the alleged hacking of which is the entire foundation of Russiagate. And if he cared about election interference, he'd be going after Hillary for doing in fact what Trump has thus far been baselessly accused of: colluding with foreign intelligence agents to swing a general election (paying for Steele Dossier). Nor has he gone after Cambridge Analytics, when that foreign company has outright bragged about changing election results in the US. And he was caught completely unprepared when the Twitter troll farm actually sent lawyers to challenge his claims in court.

So either Mueller is so incompetent he couldn't find his ass with both hands and assistance from three interns, or this investigation was a farce from the very beginning. Pick one.

Re: As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

None of which has anything to do with Trump or Russiagate, moran. Fifteen convictions came out of the Whitewater investigation - but nothing was ever found on the Clintons. It doesn't matter if Mueller finds out that Kellyanne Conway is the real Golden State Killer - if there's no collusion between Trump and Russia, his investigation was nothing but a perversion of the American justice system where investigators need probable suspicion and aren't supposed to have general warrants.

Re: As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

Stop taking it, then. You guys have any tinglings of awareness when you start throwing out bullshit when challenged instead of facts?

Re: As they say in Russia

[Ol Olsoc]

Stop taking it, then. You guys have any tinglings of awareness when you start throwing out bullshit when challenged instead of facts?

No, Actually I'm ridiculing you. Find your own facts tovarisch. They are out there. Problem is, you are either a Russian shill, or a useful idiot who has no plans of paying attention to the facts. Eithr way, you are my playtoy.

You serve no purpose to me other than to make fun of you, and if I can get you into a spittle froth mouth rage, which you are always near to anyhow, then my work here is done, Ivan.

Now - continue entertainimg me.

Re:As they say in Russia

[PopeRatzo]

So either Mueller is so incompetent he couldn't find his ass with both hands and assistance from three interns, or this investigation was a farce from the very beginning. Pick one.

Five convictions so far. And counting. Not so incompetent.

If you really thought Mueller was incompetent, you wouldn't be so keen on seeing him fired and the investigation closed. Tick tock.

Re: As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

You mean where I point out you're the last village idiot insisting the Emperor is wearing the finest livery when it's obvious to everyone that he's wearing nothing but boxers? Someday you'll have the same response to Russiagate that you'll have when your grandkids ask you if you were one of those people running around smearing Iraq war skeptics as Saddam Lovers back in 2003. "Uh, no junior, I always knew Bush and Cheney were lying to us. I totally wasn't a gullible fool and an total asshole to anyone who actually knew better. Promise!"

And Cheney actually went through the trouble of presenting evidence. Fake or bullshit evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Who knew he could have skipped all that work and just made assertions without a shred of evidence, and people like you would just eat that shit up. With a spoon. Shit handed to you from the very same liars.

Re: As they say in Russia

[Ol Olsoc]

You mean where I point out you're the last village idiot insisting the Emperor is wearing the finest livery when it's obvious to everyone that he's wearing nothing but boxers? Someday you'll have the same response to Russiagate that you'll have when your grandkids ask you if you were one of those people running around smearing Iraq war skeptics as Saddam Lovers back in 2003. "Uh, no junior, I always knew Bush and Cheney were lying to us. I totally wasn't a gullible fool and an total asshole to anyone who actually knew better. Promise!"

And Cheney actually went through the trouble of presenting evidence. Fake or bullshit evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Who knew he could have skipped all that work and just made assertions without a shred of evidence, and people like you would just eat that shit up. With a spoon. Shit handed to you from the very same liars.

Excellent! That was tneertaining so keep it up. I love it! Thank you anyhow Alexi , but remember, I am a harsh taskmaster, so you'll have to up your game with every reply. Hugs and kisses, and word up! TTFN. Youre doing a hellava job so far.

Re:As they say in Russia

[strikethree]

But that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Russians are actively trying to influence elections and subvert democratic processes in the US and Europe.

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that every government everywhere tries to interfere with every government they have relations with. I have always assumed it was part and parcel of world politics.

Why is this suddenly a big deal now? Why isn't the NSA/CIA keeping the elections safe? I mean, ostensibly, that IS their job. To me, Mueller is an indictment against the Secret Apparatus behind government as failing to do their jobs appropriately. There is nothing new going on that hasn't been going on for centuries, other than specific methods like email hacking.

So why now? What changed? Why is the general population being recruited to deal with this shit? Something not normal is going on and I am fairly certain it has nothing to do with actual subversion of the elections.

Re: As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

Sounds like we would be A Number One at stopping those attacks then, so why haven't we?

Re: As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

No, that's not what I mean by attack. It's not what the nation's 17 intelligence agencies and congressional committees mean by attack either. Try again.

Re: As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

given the fact that both parties have been openly and extremely anti-Russian for over a century

Isn't it curious, then, that one party is actively trying to discredit or simply end the investigation?

Re:As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

No such thing as popular vote in the United States.

There is, actually. See, states report how many people vote for each candidate (it even goes finer than that, counties do this too!). When you total all of that up, that's called the "popular vote." Tune in next week for more Basic Facts, where we talk about how it's not possible to determine what information a special prosecutor does or does not have when his organization does not leak anything.

Trump didn't bother to campaign in New York and California - where Hillary's margin of "victory" comes from - because he knew he wouldn't win either state. Instead, he went to the Rust Belt - where Hillary didn't bother to campaign - to ask people for their vote.

OK, that's a complete non-sequitor from the previous statement, but OK, sure.

If presidential elections were decided by a popular vote (and they should be) it would have been a completely different race, with completely different results.

I know, and I'm not arguing against that.

So, talking about the popular vote is not just pointless, it's outright misleading.

It is literally the only metric we have. The electoral college results are directly derived from the popular vote in each state.

Re:As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

Forgive me, but I was under the impression that every government everywhere tries to interfere with every government they have relations with. I have always assumed it was part and parcel of world politics.

OK, you're forgiven.

Why is this suddenly a big deal now?

The question is whether or not laws were broken this time.

Why isn't the NSA/CIA keeping the elections safe?

That's a great question to ask, and hopefully the results of this investigation will give insight into that and also suggest additional ways we should be protecting ourselves.

Re:As they say in Russia

[strikethree]

OK, you're forgiven.

Thank you.

Are you saying that such interference does not happen any more?

The question is whether or not laws were broken this time.

I am pretty sure foreign entities do not much care if they break another entity's laws when it suits them.

That's a great question to ask, and hopefully the results of this investigation will give insight into that and also suggest additional ways we should be protecting ourselves.

I hope so too. It is not good to have anyone influencing elections discreetly, or, not so discreetly.

Re:As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

Are you saying that such interference does not happen any more?

No, I'm suggesting that all new kinds of interference are possible now that haven't been before. More to the point at hand though, the real question is whether or not the behavior of people on the Trump campaign or Russia broke any laws. If that is the case, then those people should be prosecuted, it's that simple. If any other interference breaks laws, those people should be prosecuted as well. I'm not suggesting that past evidence of interference should mean that current crimes do not get prosecuted.

I am pretty sure foreign entities do not much care if they break another entity's laws when it suits them.

That's fine. If, for example, Russian agents are shown to have committed crimes in the US, and Russia doesn't want to hand those people over, then we'll take that into consideration when dealing with Russia in the future. We can also stop those people from doing business with any American financial institution, for example. That's fine. If anyone in the US committed crimes, then they should be arrested and charged.

Re: As they say in Russia

[sysrammer]

"Liberals generally do have some severe problems when it comes to holding their own to different standards than their opposition".

Totally agree. And, I'd like to add, one can replace "Liberals" with "Conservatives" without being incorrect. In fact, I'd say one could simply replace it with "People" and be done with it.

Douglas Adams summed it up nicely: "People are a problem". Also, oblig. reference to XKCD (without the actual reference) regarding filing another bug report to God about human (lack of) thought processing.

Re: As they say in Russia

[sysrammer]

Trump is a master businessman and master entertainer. Putin is a master spy and a master politician. Trump misinterprets his role in the relationship.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

Five convictions so far. And counting. Not so incompetent.

Convictions that have nothing to do with Russia or Trump - but you knew this already. And you also dodged the fact that Mueller has never had the FBI examine the DNC servers. That the moment it became bloody obvious that the emperor had no clothes.

If you really thought Mueller was incompetent, you wouldn't be so keen on seeing him fired and the investigation closed. Tick tock.

There's as much justification for this investigation as if the FBI suspected Trump of plotting the attack on Pearl Harbor. This whole operation is nothing but a giant case of Swiftboating from butthurt Hillbots - Hillary's own campaign workers worried that Uranium One would be her biggest vulnerability - and deflection from who actually rigged an election in 2016.

Blind partisan tribalists reaaaaaaally need to get over this habit of finding deranged reasons to try and deny presidents of the opposing party any legitimacy. In the 90's, Republicans lost their freaking minds accusing Hillary of being a lesbian communist who had scores of people murdered as a part of the Clinton drug cartel in Arkansas. And then lost their damn minds again at the thought of a Kenyan-Muslim being president of the USA. They were complete whackjobs - but they had just as much evidence that you Russiagaters do of any collusion between Russia and Trump. Particularly when Trump has been WAY more confrontational with Russia than Obama ever was.

Re:As they say in Russia

[Uberbah]

Isn't it curious, then, that one party is actively trying to discredit or simply end the investigation?

Not when the probe has no justification for being, and is a grotesque perversion of our entire justice system. Needing probable suspicion for an investigation has been tossed out the window, but general warrants are brought back in after being banned for a few centuries, with the exception of the last bullshit partisan witch hunt - Ken Starr's obsession with the Clintons in the 90's. An obsession now mirrored in Russiagate Democrats, who have become exactly what they used to hate.

No such thing as popular vote in the United States.

There is, actually.

There is not. There is no popular contest for president in the United States, so there is no popular vote. It should be that way, but until the elitist Electoral College is disbanded, we are stuck with a system where candidates campaign in a handful of "battleground" states. Not across the country, so we're back to cross country vote totals being a meaningless statistic.

Trump didn't bother to campaign in New York and California - where Hillary's margin of "victory" comes from - because he knew he wouldn't win either state. Instead, he went to the Rust Belt - where Hillary didn't bother to campaign - to ask people for their vote.

OK, that's a complete non-sequitor from the previous statement, but OK, sure.

If by "non-sequitur" you mean "gosh, that means the popular vote really is a meaningless number", then yes.

The Electoral College is literally the only metric we have.

FTFY. With the EC, small states don't matter. Large states don't matter. Neither blue nor red states matter. Only "battleground" states matter, and candidates campaign accordingly. Unless you are as incompetent as Hillary Clinton, and spend all your time trying to run up your vote totals in two coastal states while flatly ignoring all the ones between Pennsylvania and Iowa.

Re:As they say in Russia

[amicusNYCL]

Not when the probe has no justification for being, and is a grotesque perversion of our entire justice system.

That's an interesting justification, I don't hear that from the party apparatus much. It sounds like they're trying to discredit the investigation completely on purely partisan grounds, as if the United States has not and is not currently being attacked by Russia, which it is.

Regardless of the motivation for beginning the investigation: considering the fact that the entire intelligence community, including the DNI appointed by Trump, agrees that Russia has been and is currently attacking us, do you think we should end the investigation and, what, just ignore what Russia has been and is doing? How about the spy trying to infiltrate the GOP and NRA, just let her go because some people have the personal opinion that the basis for the original warrant was incorrect? Would it maybe be a decent idea to have that warrant looked at by a judge instead of listening to TV hosts or whoever farts out an opinion on Twitter that day?

There is no popular contest for president in the United States, so there is no popular vote.

This is just an argument over terminology, not substance.

If by "non-sequitur" you mean "gosh, that means the popular vote really is a meaningless number", then yes.

No, that's not what I mean by non-sequitur.

so this...

[Anonymous Coward]

... is what cyber-war looks like

Now that they have established what was done, the next step is to identify who helped them to do it...

Re:so this...

[Rob Riggs]

I give you this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EZFBB-MntE

I've seen lesser crimes called treasonous by the same person.

Re:so this...

[TheFakeTimCook]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Hillary Clinton lost to an incompetent businessman who had (and has) no idea of how to be President of the United States. She's that bad.

...or the Russians are that good.

Re: so this...

[TheFakeTimCook]

This. A million times this. I would rather have Putin himself be our president than her.

Careful what you wish for!

Re:so this...

[amicusNYCL]

Really though, Hillary Clinton lost to the single most-disliked candidate in the history of presidential polling. The major reason she lost is probably because she's in second place on that list.

Re:so this...

[Darinbob]

I'll readily agree to that. But doesn't mean I have to bow and grovel to the moron in charge. We were given a choice of two awful people. The problem is with all the hypocrites saying "we won, so shut up and take it!" when during the Obama years they were bitching and moaning just as loudly. I'm really annoyed that people treat politics like it was a simple sports game. Modern political discussion is like listening to two drunk guys in a bar.

Re:so this...

[meglon]

Shes not that bad. Republicans abused their offices and drug her through the mud for years with the fake Bengazi bullshit and all of the conspiracy theories bullshit, just like the propagandists they are. They lied, and smeared her, and their half brain dead base ate it up. You think she's bad because you've heard so many complete fucking idiots parrot the same bullshit for so long. Goebbels came up with that playbook; not surprising that right-wingers are still using it.

Time spent by congress investigating these embassy murders: 0 seconds.

On 15 December 2001, gunmen killed a Nepalese security guard at the U.S. Embassy in Kathmandu.

On 22 January 2002, an attack on the American Center in Calcutta killed five policemen.

On 20 March 2002, a car bomb exploded across the street from the U.S. Consulate General in Lima, Peru killed nine Peruvians.

On 14 June 2002, a truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Consulate General in Karachi, Pakistan killed 12 people (one U.S. Marine was injured).

On 28 February 2003, a gunman killed two policemen at the U.S. Consulate General in Karachi, Pakistan.

On 30 June 2004, a suicide bomber killed two people (including himself) at the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

On 6 December 2004, Islamist militants attacked the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing nine security guards and staff.

On 29 January 2005, a rocket attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad killed two Americans working there.

On 2 March 2006, a car bomb exploded outside the U.S. Consulate General in Karachi, killing at least four, including a U.S. diplomat and his driver.

On 12 September 2006, Islamic militants attacked the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria, killing a Syrian security guard.

On 9 July 2008, gunmen attacked the U.S. consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing three policemen.

On 17 September 2008, members of al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen with vehicle bombs and rocket-propelled grenades, killing 12 Yemeni guards and civilians (including one U.S. civilian).

On 27 November 2008, a car bomb went off about 200 yards from the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing at least four.

Yet $14 million (or more, by the end) spent investigating Bengazi after 8 investigations had already shown there was none of the (stupid fucking conservative) conspiracy theories correct. http://www.politifact.com/trut...

You think Hillary is bad because of a partisan hack job by republicans abusing their power for years.

Re:so this...

[jwhyche]

Why its this world you silly goose. I suppose he is starting these trade wars like when he started that nuclear war with North Korea. Oh wait, no he didn't..

Don't worry, I'm sure they will come up with a pill for TDS soon.

Re: so this...

[greythax]

I'm guessing you missed his "Trade wars are good and easy to win" tweet. It's ok, try hard and you can rationalize it. Or just choose your eyes and ignore reality. Seems to have worked for you so far.

Re: so this...

[jwhyche]

People who live in reality don't have to rationalize anything. We just accept what is happening and truth. That truth being, Trump is doing a good job. No amount of "rationalization" by people with TDS will change that.

Of course by living in reality if Trump stops doing a good job we will accept that too.

As for his tweets, I don't see why anyone really pays attention to them. Well they are good at setting TDS people to frothing. When like the mythical nuclear war that didn't happen they have conquered up another boogie man when that didn't work out. They specter of a trade war. Which, to give them credit as a better chance of happening but not likely.

See here is what really happened. Trump stated that the trade deals between friends and allies was unfair. Like his NATO comments, that also pissed everyone off, he is of course correct. Like the nuclear comments this has sent the left off in a tizzy spouting 'Trade War! Trade War!" Which like the earlier nuclear war that didn't happen, this will probably not happen ether.

Would you like to know why? Sure you would. Because both sides, again like in the case of the nuclear war that didn't happen, know that a trade war would benefit no one. So here is what will happen. People that actually know what they are doing will get together. They will hammer out some agreements, then the politicians, like Trump will come in and take credit.

There. Is that all clear now? Now that, that is settled lets get on with more important conversations.

Re: so this...

[kenh]

That California, NewYork and Florida really, REALLY wanted HRC to be President doesn't 'trump' the will of the other 47 states.

Hillary was so confident she would win she flat-out ignored 3 states in the general election, only to lose them by the slimmest of margins... HRC made a decision to focus on fund-raisers at the end of the campaign, a campaign in which she put-spent her opponent 2:1, and lost.

BTW Trump won because he ran against Hillary, Hillary lost because she ran as Hillary. I dare say many/most trump supporters voted against Hillary as opposed to voting for Hillary.

Re: so this...

[greythax]

First of all, you are damn right i think what he tweets is important. He is the face of us diplomacy. You should care more as well.
Secondly, what exact about the us/ Canadian.steel and aluminum trade was so unfair? I'm sure, like him, you don't know. Why are you ok with him using a power only granted to him for the purpose of national defence on our allies? Or does Papa know best and it doesn't matter what he does, because you just know, deep down, he is a good guy.

The reason we get upset is because you folks, after years of manufactured outrage over Obama, refuse to hold his feet to the fire about absolutely anything he does. Just as long as he gives you a little smug upturned smile and calls all his ideas the best, you praise him. No matter how badly he fucks with the deficit. No matter how many dictators he snuggles up to. No matter how many times he publicly flaunts that he is a vile, mean little man. As he said, in his words, he could shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue and not lose any voters. That's how little he respects you. But still you worship him.

The man is a joke, and you are the punchline.

Re:so this...

[magzteel]

Shes not that bad. Republicans abused their offices and drug her through the mud for years with the fake Bengazi bullshit and all of the conspiracy theories bullshit, just like the propagandists they are.

Bengazi wasn't fake. Real people died there. I'm not blaming Clinton or the Obama administration for that, even though mistakes were made. These are dangerous places where stuff happens.

But I do blame all of them for the cover-up where they blamed it on some poor schmuck for making a YouTube video and ruined his life. They knew it was a lie but they pushed it anyway. It was a shitty thing to do.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/1...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...

Re: so this...

[kenh]

The vast majority of what you listed were examples of LOCALS being killed/attacked, not us citizens - some are, most are not.

Re: so this...

[jwhyche]

There is what I was waiting for..

Not only do those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) suffer from the ability to separate fantasy from reality, it also clouds their ability to carry on a rational discussion. This should be evident. The subject was incensed by by a factual statement but was unable to refute it. The subject continued to get more agitated as more facts where placed in front of him. Facts that while true, didn't fit with the subjects world view as viewed under the effect of TDS.

The final straw for the subject came when these facts where combined with a rational projection of what will probably happen. Unable to refute these facts and a rational projection that didn't fit with the subjects world view he was driven into a rage (frothing.) This is common result of trying to engage subjects under the effect of TDS.

As clearly seen by the subjects last post in this thread it should be clear that the subject has lost all contact with reality where it comes to a successful Trump presidency. At this point there is nothing more to be gained by continuing to engage such subjects. Medical intervention is usually required after this point.

Any questions?

Re: so this...

[greythax]

Sick burn dude.

Re: so this...

[jwhyche]

Truth hurts. You decided to get personal, I just decided to distance myself from you. You didn't come here to debate, you came to argue. If I can't educate you, I'll educate people that are reading.

Re: so this...

[datavirtue]

In the face of China Putin is weak. They are fucking us both over while we try to scratch eachothers eyes out.

Re: so this...

[datavirtue]

"Fake Benghazi bullshit"

Totally fuck you. What a piece of shit.

Re:so this...

[Uberbah]

...or the Russians are that good.

If they were that good, you'd have President Sanders right now. You don't.

Re: so this...

[danskal]

If 8-9 investigations failed to find anything, then perhaps there's a teensy chance that there was nothing to find?

Re: so this...

[danskal]

To be fair, by your definition, the whole world suffers from TDS. Fox-news-republicans are like the old man driving on the highway, leaning out of his window and shouting at the cars zipping by him: "YOU'RE ALL GOING THE WRONG WAY".

This has 0 to do with the election

[Anonymous Coward]

And by "hacking" we mean - sent a phishing email asking to verify passwords that somebody at the DNC responded to.
Note also the same "Russian Hackerz" tried this with the RNC too but nobody bit.

Re: This has 0 to do with the election

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that form of hacking is still a crime, and that includes other entities such as the aforementioned state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and companies that provided software used to administer elections. A real problem.

Unlike you know, the hysterics Republicans went into when it was the Georgia elections systems that they could find some way to blame on Obama. And they still think Obama ordered Trump to separate children from their parents.

Re: This has 0 to do with the election

[Reaper9889]

Well, citation needed, but frankly, the fact that we hear nothing from the Trump campaign suggests four possibilites:
(1) the russians tried and failed (but I think it is clear that Trump would tell everybody about this, if this was the case)
(2) the russians tried and succeded but found nothing of interest. In the words said to be by Cardinal Richelieu:
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
(On the other hand, I guess you might argue that Trump does not fit into the category of most honest of men)
(3) the russians tried, succeed and found something
(4) the russians did not try

I think the first two, as argued, are not likely to be the right one. The last 2 suggests something problematic.

Re: This has 0 to do with the election

[tsqr]

(3) the russians tried, succeed and found something (4) the russians did not try I think the first two, as argued, are not likely to be the right one. The last 2 suggests something problematic.

Wait, what? You think it's problematic if the Russians did not try?

Re: This has 0 to do with the election

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah just that he was the son of Democratic state representative Mike Kernell (a fact curiously omitted from the wikipedia page you're quoting from) at the time meant he was just a "wayward individual" and not trying to subvert an election the way those nasty foreign governments were.

Re: This has 0 to do with the election

[Reaper9889]

Yes, if there are 4 targets and you atrack 3, the obivous question is why not the 4th as well. I have not been able to come with more than 2 reasons: either it is too dangerous or you have an agreement. I can not see how in the concret case that hacking the Trump campaign (assuming no agreement) would be more dangerous for the russian goverment than hacking the other 3.
Therefore, this case suggests some agreement betwen Trump and the russian goverment, which I feel is problematic.

Re: This has 0 to do with the election

[Anonymous Coward]

You think Russian spies are actually going to be arrested or tried?

Are you fucking retarded?

Also, there is not, and has never been, a single piece of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Not even once. You're living in a fantasy.

Re: This has 0 to do with the election

[fatwilbur]

What I would read into that is that the Russians were just allocating limited resources, and like everyone else, assumed Trump wasn't going to be elected. There has been data showing they turned their efforts to delegitimizing Trump's presidency after he won.

Re: This has 0 to do with the election

[Talderas]

I'm not exactly sure which four targets you're referencing but I'm going to go on the assumption you're alluding to the three targets listed in the indictment (DNC, Clinton campaign, State Election board) along with Trump. Looking at only the targets listed in the indictment and tossing in Trump is your own bias showing. Russia did attempt to hack RNC assets, that much was admitted by Comey in Jan 2017. They were successful against state and local RNC groups as well as older RNC domains but did not succeed against RNC's main systems.

The most likely motivation behind Russia's activities was to sow discord by increasing uncertain and friction among the populace and not to specifically help a single candidate. By targeting faction neutral assets (election boards), both major political party campaigns, and Hillary Clinton the most likely answer to your set of four questions is actually point 1 or 2 rather than 3 or 4. The fact that Trump hasn't bragged about not being hacked or the Trump Campaign is silent about not being hacked is fairly in line with their method of operation. There's no evidence to support that assertion or can be misrepresented to support that assertion. I would actually lean strongly towards your second option being the real outcome. A bunch of nothing in emails would play along very well with the general discord objective. How better to rile up people against one particular person than by not releasing the pointless crap that you obtained about their opponent?

Re:This has 0 to do with the election

[quantaman]

And by "hacking" we mean - sent a phishing email asking to verify passwords that somebody at the DNC responded to.

If only there were a document with actual details:

Page 4 paragraphs 14-17 has several defendants changed with the development and deployment of their malware called "X-Agent" on the DNC servers.

Page 8, 23-24, they researched for vulnerabilities in the DCCC and DNC networks, which they seemingly used to install more malware and safely navigate the servers.

Sure, initial access seems to have been phishing, but stuff like screwing with server logs and installing keyloggers is definitely hacking.

Note also the same "Russian Hackerz" tried this with the RNC too but nobody bit.

Correction, the RNC was also hacked, they just didn't release any info.

Now, the RNC hack was of older email accounts so it wouldn't have been as damaging. It's also quite possible they didn't try as hard to hack the RNC because Clinton was their primary target.

Re:This has 0 to do with the election

[benjfowler]

Right. Spear-phishing and whaling, backed by extremely well-resourced nation-state level intelligence services, expertly searching for human vulnerabilities to exploit.

No, nothing to see here at all.

And Russia Shrugs

[Only Time Will Tell]

I'm sure Russia will be falling over themselves to round these guys up and turn them over to the U.S. We can hold a trial in absentia to help make us feel better, but these individuals will never see the inside of a courtroom unless they are paying a parking fine in Mother Russia.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[skids]

Yeah we might as well give up and just let these guys wander around the globe and use bank accounts anywhere they please since we can't lock them up. Heck just forget the whole thing happened, I'm sure they learned their lesson.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[PopeRatzo]

I'm sure Russia will be falling over themselves to round these guys up and turn them over to the U.S. We can hold a trial in absentia to help make us feel better, but these individuals will never see the inside of a courtroom unless they are paying a parking fine in Mother Russia.

The purpose of these new indictments is not to bring Russian intelligence operatives to justice. The purpose is to establish grounds for conspiracy charges against Americans. There's still a lot more to come from this investigation. Don't think for a second that this is some sort of conclusion. That mistake has been made every time new indictments are brought: "Is that all Mueller has?" is the cry from the Trump camp every time one of these new indictments is announced. You can tell from the unforced errors coming out of the Trump administration that the pressure is building.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[PopeRatzo]

This whole investigation was based on a false pretense.

That "false pretense" has already led to five convictions.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[bongey]

US hacked Russian networks that is the only way some of the evidence in this indictment could have been gathered. Russia just needs to turn around and indict some CIA/NSA agents. The whole indictment is nonsense.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[ody]

This whole investigation was based on a false pretense. Backed up by ZERO evidence. The whole investigation was 100% Clinton backed opposition research against Trump.

The conservative website "The Washington Free Beacon" already admitted eight months ago that it hired (funded by a "major Republican donor", no less) the research firm that produced the infamous dossier before it ever made it into the hands of the Democrats. But I guess even Republican admissions are Fake News when they don't agree with your agenda.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[PopeRatzo]

technicalities.

Here in the US, we refer to those technicalities as "felonies".

Anyone can be convicted if you financially drain them to where they either slip up or just say anything to make it go away.

With all the dark money floating around the GOP, you think any of these convicted felons were "drained"? No, the thing that shook them was the proposition of sitting in a jail cell, eating a baloney sandwich and crapping on a stainless steel toilet, like Paul Manafort is doing right this minute.

If I had the unlimited purse of the US Federal Government to prosecute you, you'd be convicted too.

Um, what you call the "unlimited purse of the US Federal Government" is actually the limited budget of the United States Department of Justice, which is part of the Trump Administration. So, unless you believe that a Republican President and a Republican Congress are going to throw the entire US Federal budget into prosecuting their own leader for something he didn't do, you should probably rethink that whole line of thought.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[PopeRatzo]

US hacked Russian networks that is the only way some of the evidence in this indictment could have been gathered.

Nope, that would be inadmissible. More likely the information has come from one of the US co-conspirators who are or were part of the Trump campaign. The best guess is Roger Stone and/or Mike Flynn.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[phantomfive]

There's still a lot more to come from this investigation. Don't think for a second that this is some sort of conclusion. That mistake has been made every time new indictments are brought: "Is that all Mueller has?" is the cry from the Trump camp every time one of these new indictments is announced.

I kind of wish there would be less noise until the investigation finishes. But I guess noise is the new normal.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[bongey]

Nope idiot how would they know keystrokes entered on a Russian server. Ie NSA /cia malware was installed on it. Read the actual nonsense from the doj

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[Uberbah]

At a minimum, they've got 5 guilty pleas from people involved with the campaign, including the person appointed as the National Security Advisor!

Which are all:

1) Complete bullshit

2) Have nothing to do with Trump colluding with Russia. Which is the entire basis for Mueller's witch hunt.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[Uberbah]

Here in the US, we refer to those technicalities as "felonies".

Uh huh. You guys should go all out and hire Ken Starr to interrogate Trump on the Stormy Daniels affair, and then indict him for perjury at the first pretense.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[PopeRatzo]

Uh huh. You guys should go all out and hire Ken Starr to interrogate Trump on the Stormy Daniels affair, and then indict him for perjury at the first pretense.

Nah, Stormy's just a sideshow. Don Jr and Ivanka get brought in and offered deals and then Trump ends up naked on the White House lawn in a thunderstorm going full King Lear before being gently led off personally by Robert Mueller in a yellow DOJ slicker. Trump's confused face is framed in the window of the black van as it's being driven to the federal lockup. DIssolve to a shot of a smiling Michael Cohen driving the van. Fade to black. Benny Mardones singing "Into the Night" plays over the credits. But stay through all the credits for a bonus scene of unwigged Trump negotiating with the cashier at the prison infirmary for a bag of zoom zoom and wham whams.

The real action is on the treason front. Count on it.

#StormysComing
#TrustTheProcess
#Qanal
#FollowTheBlackPresident

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[Uberbah]

Muller is better than Starr: five convictions vs none.

None? Try FIFTEEN, kemosabe.

Investigations into Whitewater uncovered real wrongdoing. Fifteen people, in total, were convicted of various charges. The McDougals were convicted of fraud, as was Jim Guy Tucker, Clinton's successor as governor of Arkansas. Webster Hubbell, a law partner of Hillary's who served in the Clinton Justice Department, pleaded guilty to fraud charges. But ultimately, none of the many investigations into Whitewater â" including, most famously, one by independent counsel Kenneth Starr â" found that the Clintons did anything criminal. The conclusion was that it's likelier they were victims of Jim McDougal's malfeasance than that they were co-conspirators.

And none of Mueller's indictments have anything to do with Trump or Russiagate. So far you're 0 for 2, one more and you're out.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[Uberbah]

Uh huh. You meet for coffee on Tuesday's with some Birthers, who are also convinced that just any day now, proof will emerge that Obama really was born in Kenya?

Any day now...

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[ebvwfbw]

They may have poked the bear. I think if I were Putin I'd say - game on. Poke me and you're going to pay. Send his people over here, bring the Russian government to bear on this matter. Force Mueller to go through discovery and show it to be the bullshit that it is. Find all of the people involved, show that they are criminally liable and force the American government to put them in jail or risk an international incident. That could be Obama, Hillary, Clapper, Comey, etc. Most of what they need to put people in jail is already out there. The IG report, Judicial watche's material, etc. He could shut them down good.

This was a really stupid move on Mueller's part I think.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[sysrammer]

stop yelling. you are getting spittle all over your greybeard.

Re:And Russia Shrugs

[skids]

Judging from the amount of effort that Russia puts into fighting the Magnitsky Act it's quite a bigger inconvenience.

So

[AHuxley]

"Russia" used cryptocurrency? Something the USA can follow.
"Russia used the "internet"? A communications system the USA has some skill with...

Now the media is told of "how" "Russia" got caught so such skilled US investigative methods cant be used again...

US police methods never get told to the media in real time. Decades later the USA might declassify something about a project.

Re:So

[superwiz]

According to Wikipedia, Russian finance ministry considers transacting in all crypto-currencies illegal.

Re:So

[benjfowler]

Criminals always think they're too smart to get caught.

Doesn't surprise me that the Russian mafia-Chekist nexus thought that there were oh-so-clever, using Bitcoin, thinking that FinCEN couldn't follow the money. Unfortunately for them, the blockchain is a permanent, secure record of every transaction ever made. Whoops.

Re:So

[AHuxley]

The why would the US mil/gov tell the world that they can track in real time back to any person?
Thats one law enforcement method any advance nation will now totally avoid.
The USA just gave up on decades of easy collection ability.
When the US gov talks of how it collected information in real time, its fake news.
Read about a US collection project 30 to 50 years later, that might be true.

Don't worry America!

[Anonymous Coward]

Russian President Donald Trump has issued a pardon for these victims of law enforcement overreach so that they can go about their business as he praises the Great Putin who unlike his enemies is a strong and virile man.

Re:Don't worry America!

[Darinbob]

That's because Trump continues to campaign. Continuing to hold political rallies even in off years is rare to see in democratic republics.

Re:Don't worry America!

[Darinbob]

Politics is is all about being a socially acceptable means of being a hypocrite in public.

Your party in power: "He needs to be allowed to govern"
Your party out of power: "He's abusing his office"

Re:Don't worry America!

[benjfowler]

Continuous campaigning is a thing these days; Trump himself is too stupid and lazy to think of doing that himself -- he's just riding on the fact that the GOP is just incredibly good at winning elections.

Doomed

[sycodon]

If any part of this case relies on the examination of the DNC servers by Crowdstrike then any half competent attorney could take it apart.

1. The server will need to be provided for examination by defense experts.
2. The chain of custody is non-existent.

No server, no evidence. No evidence, no conviction. Even then the lack of any chain of custody calls into question the quality if any evidence found on it.

Re:Doomed

[AHuxley]

Re "Even then the lack of any chain of custody calls into question the quality if any evidence found on it."
The cyber currency will do that part.... ??? Now the world knows how the USA tracks it all.

Re:Doomed

[E-Rock]

Blockchain is the most trackable currency ever invented. No secret government anything needed.

Re:Doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

If any part of this case relies on the examination of the DNC servers by Crowdstrike then any half competent attorney could take it apart.

1. The server will need to be provided for examination by defense experts.
2. The chain of custody is non-existent.

No server, no evidence. No evidence, no conviction. Even then the lack of any chain of custody calls into question the quality if any evidence found on it.

And you law enforcement / computer investigation / first hand knowledge of the case is anything that didn't come from your ass?

This is no your local PD pissin around, these are people who have worked on this for their career.

Re:Doomed

[Orgasmatron]

Don't worry. It isn't like Russia is going to extradite a dozen of their GRU operatives to stand trial.

Re:Doomed

[Uberbah]

Right, because a grand jury is so easy to dupe. *eyeroll*

Of course it is, moran. The trope that a prosecutor could "indict a ham sandwich" exists for a reason.

Re:Doomed

[Uberbah]

If any part of this case relies on the examination of the DNC servers by Crowdstrike then any half competent attorney could take it apart.

Sounds like a variant of the old "ask to see the radar guns calibration certificate to get out of a speeding ticket" bullshit.

If you're completely incompetent and willfully clueless, I supposed you could see it that way.

Re:Doomed

[Uberbah]

This is no your local PD pissin around, these are people who have worked on this for their career.

People who have never bothered to examine the DNC servers first hand. Which either means they are too incompetent to be running this investigation, or this investigation was a farce from the beginning.

Pick one.

Re:Doomed

[AHuxley]

What will the USA do when real skilled lawyers show up and request discovery again?

Re:Doomed

[PopeRatzo]

No server, no evidence. No evidence, no conviction. Even then the lack of any chain of custody calls into question the quality if any evidence found on it.

You're completely wrong about the FBI "not having the server".

The DNC server was forensically imaged by incident response experts, those snapshots were cryptographically signed, cataloged, and turned over to the FBI. Copies reside at Quantico, Ft Meade, and the Bureau's DC office.

The FBI has the server. There is evidence. Look beneath the Fox News surface and learn these things for yourself.

Re:Comey Testimony

[AHuxley]

But the "cyber currency". The internet says so. No need to think about the server and any forensic analysis.

Vote count and election results not changed

[schwit1]

Rosenstien added details from the podium ...

There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
There is no allegation the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election results.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[sessamoid]

Rosenstien added details from the podium ...

There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election results.

He's already charged and obtained guilty pleas from Americans in this investigation, just not in this particular indictment.

Determining any effect on the election was never in the purview of the Mueller investigation, just actions taken and the underlying intent. If you think a concerted misinformation campaign had no effect at all on voters, you are free to believe so. You are also free to believe and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[penandpaper]

If you think a concerted misinformation campaign had no effect at all on voters

misinformation campaign as in targeting both sides with trolls and memes. Oh, and airing the dirty laundry of the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Hillary.

The dirty laundry wasn't misinformation. It probably persuaded some votes particularly Bernie supporters.

How many voters do you think changed their mind because a few trolls and memes that mostly occurred after the election? Methinks you are the one inclined to believe in fairy tales.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[bobbied]

He keeps saying that... Again and Again... He said it LAST time he charged a pile of Russians.

Honest brokers of the facts *should* include this disclaimer any time they start talking about what these charges mean. If they don't, they are ignorant of all the facts, or purposely being misleading. In the first case, they need to check their sources and use better ones. I the second case, they need to be dismissed as the partisan hacks they are.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Brett Buck]

That may well be technically true. However, the information that the DNC systematically conspired to rig the primary for The Chosen One, against Bernie, certainly seemed to have an effect. Additionally, the most damaging information came from Wikileaks, which got the information from a disgruntled DNC insider, not via "Russian Hacking"

    That's why they are so upset about it, they aren't concerned with the hacks per se, they are concerned with the fact that their own manipulations were laid bare while they themselves ran a sham primary process where the results were pre-ordained.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Anonymous Coward]

Your title:

Vote count and election results not changed

and the facts don't match:

There is no allegation the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election results.

The former does not follow from the latter at all, and it's not the FBI's job (nor will it ever be) to determine which factors were decisive in an election. Your post is not informative, it is actively disinformative.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[ole_timer]

if anyone changed their vote, or based it on whatever they read, that's an indictment of the education system...

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

Rosenstein did not claim that election results or vote counts were not affected. Let me bold the important part for you:

There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.

Every time Mueller puts anything in a court filing, people can't wait to jump up and conclude that this is all there is, and that this is all there ever will be. That's a bit premature. Mueller isn't finished yet.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

No evidence that you've seen, but who the hell are you? You're not the special counsel, right? You're not on his team? You have no idea what evidence they do or do not have or who their targets might be?

OK, I thought so.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

Is that the legal defense?

"Dude, I was totally being sarcastic."

I heard on the radio that, the day he said that, a new spear-phishing campaign against the Democrats started. That's stupid though, he was totally being sarcastic, dude!

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

So, what you're saying, is that we're fucked.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[ole_timer]

only to the extent you're relying on the education system to produce critical thinkers...

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Ichijo]

Is asymmetrical information better than misinformation?

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

They certainly don't produce themselves. You can tell based on how people vote.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Dread_ed]

From what he wrote I see he is saying exactly what he wrote and not what you added to it. Namely, that underhanded and dishonest tactics practiced by a political party had repercussions that contributed to that party's loss of an election.

Fruit of the poisoned tree is inadmissible in a court of law, but not in the court of public opinion.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[ole_timer]

or don't vote...

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[penandpaper]

Either way it describes same thing. One sounds scarier.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[penandpaper]

Moving goal posts? "we discover more and more ". We didn't discover anything new with this except for the names of some Russians that are alleged to do things we already knew about.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[penandpaper]

Because they would be critical thinkers if they voted just the way you vote. amirite? Get over yourself.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

Fuck off, come talk shit to me when 45% of the electorate doesn't decide to stay home because they're given 2 shit choices and a false narrative that voting for anyone else is worthless.

This isn't about me.

That being said, you want to go over how many people talking shit about "Obamacare" then defended the "ACA" because they had no idea the two were the same thing? Because that clearly shows a lack of critical thinking, and these people vote.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Jeremi]

Dude, he was totally being sarcastic, and if you can't see that, you're either brainwashed or part of the problem.

Or he's unable to receive tone-of-voice metadata over plain ASCII text, just like everyone else.

Sarcasm over a text-only medium is notoriously hard to classify reliably, especially when you have to sort out the sarcastic posts from the genuine idiots and the trolls who are genuinely posing as genuine idiots in order to get a rise out of people.

Hence Poe's Law.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

Yeah, that's a major problem. It's also a major problem that 45% of the electorate decided to stay home because of 2 shit choices and a false narrative that voting for anyone else was pointless.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[penandpaper]

Um, no. We are partly in this mess because some people like to push for a Pied Piper candidate for the opposing party to push their crappy candidate.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[penandpaper]

You complain about voting participation and then complain about the lack of informative voters (you can do the same thing with the recent GOP tax cut) and you think that is evidence of a lack of critical thinking? Get over yourself.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

Voting participation is directly related to the fact that the D-R system gives us shit choices every time. That is the system that needs to end, and when people feel like there is a candidate who actually represents them then they will vote. I would even contend that many of the people who do not vote are in fact informed, and that is specifically why they choose to not vote. I disagree with that choice, I think they should vote for the person who represents them the most, but whatever.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[GrumpySteen]

There's no allegation in the indictment that gravity exists, yet you aren't floating off into space even though you jumped to a conclusion with all your might.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[penandpaper]

The States decide their elections. If you don't like your current system then you can convince your fellow statesman to enact your idea and risk your political power. If it is a really good idea you can convince me with action instead of rhetoric to be enacted in my state. I don't think you are smart enough or persistent enough to do that so all you have is empty rhetoric. Womp womp.

What I find funny is that you are now completely off the topic of "critical thinking" and now sperging about tangential issues. Let me guess, if people think just like you about topics that would give you more of what you want they would be "critical thinkers".

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Attila Dimedici]

He's already charged and obtained guilty pleas from Americans in this investigation, just not in this particular indictment.

Interestingly enough, none of those indictments or guilty pleas have anything to do with the election or colluding with the Russians. As far as I am aware all of the guilty pleas are to "process crimes"...primarily, lying to the FBI about actions which were not crimes. Further, in one of those cases, the FBI agents who were supposedly lied to had concluded that the person had not lied.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

The States decide their elections.

Not presidential elections, they don't. Those are managed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which pimps out their exclusive televised debates to individual networks. That seems kind of weird for a democracy, doesn't it? That presidential debates are only allowed to be broadcast by one network at a time? I wonder why that is. Obviously, because of the exclusivity that means there are major advertising dollars at play here, there is a huge financial incentive to host a debate.

So, here are some questions for a critical thinker: why do you think access to these debate dollars is so tightly controlled?

Who do you think controls that access?

What do you think would happen if a network aired a debate featuring a candidate who is not a member of one of the 2 sacred parties?

If you want to figure out those answers, look up the history of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Here's a hint: it used to be controlled by a non-partisan entity (not bi-partisan, mind you, which only means D-R, I mean non-partisan). That entity was the League Of Women Voters. Go figure out why they no longer control it, and who controls it, and why you are only ever shown 2 candidates in televised presidential debates.

Let me guess, if people think just like you about topics that would give you more of what you want they would be "critical thinkers".

If people actually thought critically about the election process then they would realize that it is a fraud, and they would demand more choices, and everyone could vote for someone who actually represents them instead of this bullshit lesser-of-evils crap that partisan idiots like yourself suck up. Womp womp.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[penandpaper]

why do you think access to these debate dollars is so tightly controlled?Who do you think controls that access?

Debates are not elections. Obviously the two major parties want to stay in power which is why they control the debates in their parties. Idiot. Are yous saying a private institution like a political party cannot set their own rules and agreements with other private institutions? Tell me more about super delegates of the democrats to shit on Sanders. I stand by my assessment that you are not smart enough for anything beyond your emotions and empty rhetoric.

they would realize that it is a fraud

Trump got in to the chagrin of Republicans and Democrats with zero political experience and formerly a registered democrat with magnitudes less money than his opponent. I don't know but that is a win in my book when a non politician can win against more seasoned and more moneyed politicians .

would demand more choices

Then change your state elections and risk your political power and see if your fellow statesmen agree with your empty rhetoric.

bullshit lesser-of-evils crap that partisan idiots like yourself suck up.

Lol, how have I even remotely been partisan in any of these comments? I think you are projecting but then again from a "critical thinker" like you I would expect as much.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Uberbah]

Mueller isn't finished yet.

People keep saying that as if it's supposed to mean something. Mueller hasn't found anything so much as probable suspicion that a crime was committed, much less that it was done by Russia, much less that Trump was involved. If he hasn't found something in 2 years....he's not going to find anything. Don't like it....go sit over there next to the Bushbot True Believers, who are holding out hope that any day now, proof will emerge that Saddam had WMD's and planned 911. You know, more than ten years after even the Bush Administration itself gave up any such claims.

This probe isn't to look for any wrongdoing, it's for the deep state to keep a leash on our game show host president. That fact is so blindingly fucking obvious that Ray Charles could see it with his naked eyes. And Ray Charles is blind.

And dead.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Uberbah]

No evidence that you've seen, but who the hell are you? You're not the special counsel, right? You're not on his team? You have no idea what evidence they do or do not have or who their targets might be?

Russiagate cultists keep repeating this as if it's supposed to mean something. It doesn't mean anything when the investigation has gone on for two fucking years and Mueller hasn't even come up with probable suspicion that a crime was committed, much less probable cause, much less that Trump was in on it.

You wankers are the village idiots screaming that the emperor is wearing the finest livery, when it's blindingly obvious he's got nothin on but his boxers.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Uberbah]

Does President Trump, calling out publicly for Russians to hack his political opponent, in front of an audience of thousands and broadcast around the world and saved for your viewing pleasure on Youtube constitute collusion?

No. Because unlike Russigaters, Russians aren't complete fucking idiots and know that both Democrats and Republicans have been virulently anti-Russian for over a century. Your baseless conspiracy theory makes as much sense as accusing a gay person of interfering in an election between an extremely homophobic Catholic and an extremely homophobic Mormon. Any more stupid questions?

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Uberbah]

But you've got to be intentionally deluding yourself if you think Trump wasn't in on it.

Because Trump is a fucking idiot. If he was "in on it", so was the FBI/NSA/CIA, who moled Trump's campaign and wiretapped it before they had any excuse for an investigation. Which means Mueller would have had this evidence, in which case he would have presented the evidence to Congress and you would have had articles of impeachment two fucking years ago. The rest of your post is the tired old Gish Gallop that proponents of weak or cultist ideas are prone to use:

The term Gish gallop refers to a fallacious debate tactic in which one barrages one's opposition with a deluge of individually weak arguments which take far too long to debunk individually in a way that sustains the audience's interest. This is all Russiagate amounts to. When Russiagaters tell you that there's "too much smoke for there not to be fire", they are unwittingly telling you "I've been won over by a Gish gallop fallacy." Every single aspect of their argument can be easily debunked without exception, but since there's so much of it and since pundits are assuring them of its reality so confidently, they believe.

Every few weeks there's some major new "bombshell" revelation which Russiagaters get all excited about, only to have people read the actual information in the "bombshell" and find out it's not actually anything incriminating or particularly remarkable. Take all those "bombshells" together, though, and you create the illusion of something real. That's all this nonsense is.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[ebvwfbw]

It's almost like - Hey everybody... look at us piss in the wind!

We're indicting people that didn't do anything and may not have been the people that even did it in the first place.

This could take an interesting turn if we look at the DNC's servers and Hillary's server. Obama's stuff seems to be missing now.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Uberbah]

Cheney must be kicking himself these days. He went through all that trouble to present evidence that Saddam had WMD's and was involved in 911. The evidence was either complete crap or faked, but evidence was presented. Who knew he could have skipped all that work and gone straight to having FBI officials make statements without any evidence whatsoever, and people would eat that shit up.

With a spoon.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

Debates are not elections.

Nice deflection.

Obviously the two major parties want to stay in power which is why they control the debates in their parties.

Yeah, obviously. But what about the debates between candidates of multiple parties? Do you have any idea what I'm talking about? Are you trying to deflect, or are you just that dumb?

Are yous saying a private institution like a political party cannot set their own rules and agreements with other private institutions?

No, I am not being nearly so abstract as that. I am saying that the two political parties in power are actively damaging the country by the fact that they hold television networks hostage in their quest to actively exclude every other political party from the national discussion.

I stand by my assessment that you are not smart enough for anything beyond your emotions and empty rhetoric.

Says the person who's not able to comprehend some pretty simple statements.

I don't know but that is a win in my book when a non politician can win against more seasoned and more moneyed politicians .

OK, I also believe that any "career politician" should be removed from office, but that statement you made is a complete non-sequitor. You really have no idea what I'm even referring to.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

Mueller hasn't found anything so much as probable suspicion that a crime was committed

People keep saying that like they know exactly what he has. Come on, obviously the only things we know from Mueller are what he files in court. We have no knowledge of what he has or has not found other than what he has told the courts, because he can actually stop his people from leaking until the investigation is finished and he has indicted everyone he's going to indict. Even Ray Charles could see that.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

Mueller hasn't even come up with probable suspicion that a crime was committed

I want you to prove that statement. I want you to show everything that Mueller has.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[penandpaper]

Good god you are thick in the head. Stating a simple fact is not a deflection.

But what about the debates between candidates of multiple parties?

Are yous saying a private institution like a political party cannot set their own rules and agreements with other private institutions?

What about them? Do you have any idea what I'm talking about? Are you just that dumb? Is it too "abstract" for you? Answer my question and you answer your question. I am being "abstract" because that's our laws currently. If you cannot even accurately describe the current system how in gods green earth do you think you can change it for the better? Idiot.

they hold television networks hostage in their quest to actively exclude every other political party from the national discussion.

You must have missed the Libertarian debates. I am sorry I can't hear you over hostage situation in the news room. It appears that An Allepo appeared to legalize medicinal meth and dissolve the FED.

Says the person who's not able to comprehend some pretty simple statements.

Tell me more about abstraction. Do me a favor and just answer my question honestly. It's very simple and from there you will understand how I sit on the issue and what must be done. But if you can't answer that question then we are at an impasse. (Here's a hint; congress shall make no law).

I also believe that any "career politician" should be removed from office

Good for you. Would you like a smiley sticker or a gold star? I guess you should be relieved that the Career Politician Clinton didn't get in.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

Stating a simple fact is not a deflection.

It kind of is when you're trying to state something which I'm not arguing. Yes, debates are not elections, congratulations. That doesn't address anything I said though.

This discussion is absurd, if you're bringing up the Libertarian party debate, or any other third-party debate, then you are completely missing the point about the Commission On Presidential Debates aiming to keep Ds and Rs in power by excluding any other party from participating in debates featuring their candidates. It's really not a difficult point to understand. Go read the Wikipedia article on the Commission On Presidential Debates if you want to understand, and pay special attention to the statement by the League Of Women Voters on why they could no longer sponsor presidential debates. It's obviously impossible to have any sort of rational or logical discussion with someone who makes so much of an effort to miss the point while lobbing out schoolyard insults.

I guess you should be relieved that the Career Politician Clinton didn't get in.

100%. That's why I didn't vote for her.

Take care.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[penandpaper]

Of course you have demonstrated your acumen in "critical thinking" because... something something private political parties and debates. Surely, if we change something something debates and something something elections we can a critical think.

Don't worry Betty. Not everyone can be a "critical thinker" like you. We should be so lucky.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[amicusNYCL]

Again, we do know exactly what he has: nothing.

Listen, I'm sorry you took the time to write that whole thing out but when you start out by asserting something that is objectively and demonstratively false, there's no point in my continuing to read.

It's a fact that the only person who knows what Mueller has is Mueller. If you can't even accept that then it's not worth having a conversation with you. Sorry.

Re:Vote count and election results not changed

[Uberbah]

The alleged hacking of the DNC servers is the entire foundation of Russiagate, but Mueller has never bothered to have the FBI examine them. Instead he's spent all his time farting around with people and events with no connection to Trump, Russia or the 2016 election.

Which either means his investigation was always a farce, or he's too incompetent to run the office Keurig machine by himself.

Pick one.

Cyrillic in the Guccifer 2.0 docs

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I remember downloading the Guccifer 2.0 doc cache and looking at the Office metadata (e.g., in the XML). Most of the metadata was wiped, but there were some odd Cyrillic additions and font references scattered about as if some Russian had opened the docs and copied them back.

It would be nice to know what else was used to follow the trail here...

Re:Cyrillic in the Guccifer 2.0 docs

[superwiz]

Stone claims that Guccifer is Romanian. Romanian alphabet uses Latin letters plus a few diacritics which are present in extended ASCII. However, I don't know if they the ASCII encoding is the most commonly used one in Romania. It maybe. But given that Romania was part of the Soviet block, it could be something else.

Wikia says that Windows-1250 is the recommended encoding for Romanian. It doesn't have Cyrillic, but it is not ASCII (Cyrillic is in Windows-1251).

I am not arguing, btw. I don't know quite know how meaningful it is. Just thinking "out loud" I guess. If you can point to the document on a more-or-less safe site, maybe I could make more sense of it.

He's got 5 convictions

[rsilvergun]

And counting. Seems to be going quite well to me. Let's not forget how long Watergate took, and that was just some schmucks at a hotel and not a hostile Foreign power run by ex KGB...

Re:He's got 5 convictions

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is no such thing as a former KGB man."
-Vladimir Putin

Re:He's got 5 convictions

[Thelasko]

...run by ex KGB...

I prefer KG-used-to-B

Re:He's got 5 convictions

[amicusNYCL]

Time to... MoveOn...

You'd really like that to happen, wouldn't you? Never mind that you have no idea what evidence Mueller has, or who his targets are, or the fact that no one around him leaks so the only information we have from his investigation is court filings. You want to just end everything, in an investigation primarily to determine whether or not a foreign power is actively influencing US democratic processes. You have no idea what he has, but you want the investigation to end. It almost sounds like you're worried about what he might have.

Re:He's got 5 convictions

[Uberbah]

Never mind that you have no idea what evidence Mueller has

We know exactly what Mueller has: jack and shit, and Jack left town. It's been two fucking years, and not one iota of probable suspicion has been presented, much less probable cause. None of Mueller's indictments have anything to do with Russian interference in the election or colluding with Trump to do so. He's never indicted Cambridge Analytics despite the foreign company outright bragging about interfering in American elections, or for Hillary paying foreign intelligence agents for dirt on an opponent (the Steele Dossier).

This is your Whtiewater investigation, your Benghazi. Just make the circle complete and hire Ken Starr to manufacturer a perjury charge against Trump for the Stormy Daniels affair.

Re:He's got 5 convictions

[amicusNYCL]

None of Mueller's indictments have anything to do with Russian interference in the election or colluding with Trump to do so.

That's simply factually incorrect.

Re:He's got 5 convictions

[Uberbah]

You can play the stubborn jackass card but that doesn't actually work. Mueller has shit, and that's a fact you Russiagaters will just have to deal with.

Re:He's got 5 convictions

[amicusNYCL]

You can pretend whatever you'd like, but it's simply a fact that one or more of his indictments are in fact relating to Russian interference and communication by Russian government officials and/or agents with the Trump campaign. That's just a simple fact. There's not a ton of indictments, so I'm sure you can find at least one example all by yourself.

If you want to act like it's perfectly fine that Trump is there to support Russia and Putin against the interests of the US, great. I'm not going to stop you. I'm also not going to act like I have any idea what information Mueller has or does not have and who he will or will not indict, because no one but him has that information.

Take care.

Re: Comey Testimony

[Millennium]

Comey's testimony was well over a year ago. It is entirely possible that what he said was true at the time -they really hadn't obtained the DNC server or performed forensic analysis- but that they have since done so. No need for anyone to be lying here.

Two movies

[Okian Warrior]

I've been wondering lately whether I'm the subject of cognitive dissonance.

If you follow Scott Adams, he talks about cognitive dissonance as two people watching the same movie and seeing different plots. When called to describe the plots, the two views are wildly different, sometimes polar opposite.

And so for many people Trump is a racist, blowing a dog whistle that racists and liberals can hear clearly. For others, Trump is a practical leader doing what's best for the nation.

Which is the correct view? At this point, probably no one knows - there's no unbiased source of information. Best we can do is get unbiased statistics and raw facts (such as immigration numbers, unemployment, reputable polling) and come to our own conclusions.

Which brings me to the Mueller investigation, which I have always believed to be based on nothing. It seems perfectly obvious that the *amount* of Russian involvement in the election is well into the noise - to the tune of something like $13 million over several months, compared to $3 billion (-ish, depends on what you count) spent by Clinton and Trump.

Am I (and half the country) dismissing something important because of cognitive dissonance?

We might just find out.

The Mueller indictments will be based on evidence which can be examined, and accuses specific Russians of hacking and leaking the DNC through wikileaks.

On the other side, Julian Assange has stated several times that the leaks didn't come from Russia. Julian never identified the actual leaks, speculation has it that it was Seth Rich.

Julian Assange is a sufficiently trustworthy source not to be dismissed out of hand, and the US justice system should allow the evidence to be combed through by the media.

This could turn out to be a good touch-stone for validating one side of the cognitive dissonance claim.

I look forward to the public investigations of the evidence.

It will be good to finally see which movie we're actually watching.

Re:Two movies

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mueller indictments will be based on evidence which can be examined

I'm rather doubtful this assumption of yours will turn out to be true. In the previous indictment of Russian nationals, their lawyers have asked for discovery, and the US government's response was to ask that hearing the case be deferred or that discovery not proceed at this time, arguing that "Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would “allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations". See this story. Since in this case, the defendents are less likely to have some attorney show up, it is possible no evidence will ever need to be disclosed - as the case may never be heard.

Re:Two movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't put too much stock in Assange saying it wasn't leaked from Russia. It's not that he's lying, but that I'm quite confident than any decent intelligence agency would be able to cover their tracks well enough to fool him.

Re:Two movies

[tsqr]

The Mueller indictments will be based on evidence which can be examined, and accuses specific Russians of hacking and leaking the DNC through wikileaks.

That would be great, but these indictments will never result in a trial, so the supposed evidence will never see the light of day.

Re:Two movies

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I too buy into Adam's theory of parallel movies but I am not convinced that looking at what we call evidence can make a person drop their movie. The choice of the movie is rooted in psychological forces few people can control. They would either need a long time to drop their habit of playing the movie -- unlikely to happen with Trump and media as they are! -- or an emotional shock. As the extreme example you have a paranoid person: no external evidence can convince him they are not out to get him.

Me, I think the anti-Trump side is an emotional wreck and they are the farthest from reality.

Re:Two movies

[Merk42]

This could turn out to be a good touch-stone for validating one side of the cognitive dissonance claim.

Lol, no. Whichever side doesn't get the answer they want will still claim they were right, and the result was due to corruption, conspiracy, etc.

Re:Two movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump was sued twice for repeatedly refusing to rent condos to black people, and to screen them out before even showing properties to them. This continued even after he signed agreements to stop the practice.

Explain to me how that is not racist?

Re:Two movies

[cascadingstylesheet]

Blah, blah, and here we have it: the group who jumps out at every Trump discussion and says he's *obviously* a racist in a runaround attempt to stifle debate. It's not obvious at all - I don't think he's a racist at all. Actually, I would agree he's a racist under the new modern definition of racism whereby anyone who doesn't constantly virtue signal to diversity is a racist. We're all racists, including Trump, under the new definition. I'm not even sure what you mean by the word anymore.. are you trying to convince me Trump hates black people and would never hire them? Clearly false.

Exactly. If everybody is a racist, then nobody is.

Every Republican candidate since Goldwater at least has been called a racist, loudly. Nobody listens anymore, except the left, who weren't going to vote for him anyway.

It's just irrelevant theater at this point. Even if a real no kidding racist did somehow run for the nomination, nobody would know, because everyone gets called a racist anyway and no Republican believes it anymore. (And who's fault would that be? Not Republicans'. It would be the boys who cried wolf ... and cried ... and cried ... for decades ... )

Re:Two movies

[jeff4747]

speculation has it that it was Seth Rich.

The problem with this speculation is Seth Rich was not an administrator of the DNC's email system, so he would not have access to the emails in order to leak them. And he definitely was not the administrator of Podesta's GMail account.

But he does serve a useful distraction when building "cognitive dissonance"....

Re:Two movies

[AmiMoJo]

It's a bit of it date now but there's a list: https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

Seems like a little more than failure to virtue signal. His companies discriminating against non-whites was proven in court, for example.

Re:Two movies

[amicusNYCL]

For others, Trump is a practical leader doing what's best for the nation.

Those people are fooling themselves if they think Trump is doing what he does because it's best for the nation. I'm not going to comment on whether his policies are good for the US or not, but his motivation should be crystal clear to anyone who has paid attention to Donald Trump at any point over the last 30 years or so. Everything he does, every decision he makes, is based upon whether or not it is good for him personally. I don't think he cares about the country beyond the fact that he lives in it and wants it to help him through tax breaks or whatever else. Absolutely everything he does is done because he thinks it will benefit him. Even the North Korea thing - the ink isn't even dry yet and he's on TV talking about how their beaches would look great with high-end condo and apartment buildings on them. I wonder what name he imagines on those buildings.

Like I said, I'm not commenting on whether or not his actions benefit the country, but if you think his motivation is anything other than his own personal self-interest, even if it hurts the country overall, then I think you're not paying attention.

Re:Two movies

[MobyDisk]

Racism can be subtle, and not even obvious to the individual. Let me give such an example. When Trump addressed the Jewish Coalition he said:

"I'm a negotiator like you folks, we are negotiators," Trump said, drawing laughter before pivoting to how he would renegotiate the Iran deal. "Is there anybody that doesn't renegotiate deals in this room? This room negotiates them -- perhaps more than any other room I've ever spoken in."

Trump was playing on a Jewish stereotype, one that is often used in a derogatory way. Trump likes to present himself as a dealmaker, so maybe in context it was funny and appropriate. In isolation, we could laugh this off. But we see a lot of statements like this from Trump, and together they create the impression that his view of races and cultures is based on stereotypes and hearsay. He sounds like one of those racists who doesn't even realize they are a racist.

We could stop there, but there are lots of clearer examples than that one. During his campaign, Trump tweeted a phony racist infographic blaming blacks for a large number of homicides. These phony facts are designed to fool people who already have racist stereotypes, and Trump fell for it. Maybe he is not a racist, and he is just dumb? Trump constantly suggested that Barack Obama was a Muslim, intending that to be deragatory. He suggested that Obama's birth certificate stated he is a "muslim" which is of course not something that would be on a birth cerfiticate... so that just feels weird, like how he sees race and religion as something immutable about a person, and something they would want to hide. There's just a lot of stuff like that he does that creates the impression of a racist. You don't have to put on a while hood and march in the streets to be a racist.

Re:Two movies

[drinkypoo]

I don't think Trump is particularity racist, he just wants the support of racists. Stupid racists that vote.

I think it's both. The things he's done to and said about brown people, especially recently, are utterly vile. The things he says could just be bullshit, except that they match the things he does, and actions are the most sensible way to judge people. After all, it doesn't matter what they claim to believe, only what they do to other people.

I don't think Trump is so racist that he would be a KKK member like his pappy was, even if he were destitute and had nothing better to do than hang out in a robe. I think he has more disdain for everyone who isn't him than he has for brown people specifically. But that doesn't make him non-racist.

Re:Two movies

[Darinbob]

When called to describe the plots, the two views are wildly different, sometimes polar opposite.

And so for many people Trump is a racist, blowing a dog whistle that racists and liberals can hear clearly. For others, Trump is a practical leader doing what's best for the nation.

Which is the correct view? At this point, probably no one knows - there's no unbiased source of information.

I'm not in either, or any, party, I didn't like Clinton or Trump. So when I see Trump and dislike what he's doing, it's not based out of any party loyalty or wanting my side to win the White House Bowl. There's just a whole lot of incompetence at the very top, and things are being run by those underneath.

Trump seems to be very easily influenced just by stroking his ego, which is way out of control Of course, Hillary also had an ego that needed reining in. He's making major diplomatic gaffs this week, embarrassing ones; he goes out of his way to insult our traditional allies and hug our adversaries. His day to day political views appear to change depending upon what alternative conspiracy theory news source he listened to that morning. He lets personal grudges get in the way of thinking clearly. He refuses to listen to advice and goes into meetings unprepared because he seems to think he's a good negotiator. And, OMG, the vast majority of Republicans are opposed to tarriffs and here he goes starting trade wars for no logical reason which will screw up any short term economic boost from the tax cuts - that's just plain old fashioned stupidity.

Re: Two movies

[cascadingstylesheet]

You make my point. That garbage only works with hardcore leftists. It turns off everyone else. But you can't stop doing it.

Re:Two movies

[superwiz]

They are still entitled to discovery. If they responded to the complaint against them, they are also entitled to a verdict. And before a verdict is rendered, they are entitled to examine the evidence against them.

Re:Two movies

[superwiz]

I think Adams is veering into lala land already. He started advocating for the simulation theory. And if that's not an atheist religion, it sure has all the signs of it.

Re:Two movies

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Sadly I agree with you. My judgement is he's had a difficult life, and in a way his professional success only made his life harder. He is very intelligent and observant but seems to be sliding into an unhealthy state of mind. It is my wild guess that deep inside he craves what true faith has to offer, but he has an outer shell of extreme rationality he's built for himself to survive and that shell is preventing him for relaxing into that depth his being craves so much. That friction is what is pushing him into that lala land.

Psychobabble I know. Still reminds me of Nietzsche's fate to a degree.

Re:Two movies

[benjfowler]

Julian Assange is a very pretty boy, and won't do well in general population. He'll probably end up with the kiddie fiddlers for his own safety.

It wouldn't surprise me at all, if the GRU or SVR had Seth Rich murdered ('mugging gone wrong'), as part of a cack-handed plan to construct an alibi for themselves. It fits with the motive -- Putin's extreme animus against the Democrats, and they certainly aren't shy about murdering people. The Russians certainly are quite fond of killing multiple birds with one stone when running their active measures.

Re:Two movies

[phantomfive]

Worth mentioning that Trump purposely says things that will engrage one side. Whether it's "I can shoot someone and people will still vote for me" or "Russia, please hack the DNC", these are careful phrases designed to act as a kind of reverse-dog whistle.

Re:Two movies

[iMadeGhostzilla]

I don't think there's anything carefully designed about it, Trump is a creature of instincts, but the rest I agree with. It's similar to the wife who enrages the husband by saying outrageous things about him that drive him crazy because they point to his flaws.

Re:Two movies

[ebvwfbw]

Not hard. Just ask them - why do you think he's a racist? Certainly your opinion is based on something, otherwise that's irrational.

They won't be able to say because there is nothing to show he's a racist and in fact Trump was held up in the black world as an example of what to be. How he's helped black people and so on. Listen to a black woman Obama voter -

https://www.westernjournal.com...

Re:Two movies

[Shotgun]

But following John Stewart, Trevor Noah, or Jimmy whats-his-face makes you informed. Right?

Re:Comey Testimony

[gtall]

Damn, you caught'em. Please relay your theory to Fox News, they love that sort of thing.

Re:Comey Testimony

[amicusNYCL]

How's the weather in St. Petersburg today? Do the people you work with still call it Leningrad?

Re:hmm

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Um, no. That's just a, what's that word? Oh, yeah, a LIE. In the course of "conducting espionage" against Russian intelligence operatives OPERATING IN THE US, the FBI recorded the Russians talking to Carter Page, Trump's foreign policy advisor, who they had previous evidence of collaborating with Russian Intelligence. But that's nothing to get suspicious about, right? No reason to follow up on that, right?

32 people charged

[goombah99]

32 people were charged. 12 of those were GRU (russian) agents. 3 were trump campaign personell. Article does not say who/what the others are.

Re:32 people charged

[sittingnut]

32 people were charged. 12 of those were GRU (russian) agents. 3 were trump campaign personell. Article does not say who/what the others are.

?! wrong.
from zerohedge with screen shot of indictment -
"... there is no indication that any American was a knowing participant in this activity, and no indication that these efforts altered the vote count in any way."
https://www.zerohedge.com/site...

Re:32 people charged

[goombah99]

Sigh, You read russian propaganda like zerohedge? you must be so misinformed. Just google the it.

Re:32 people charged

[mi]

No one indicted so far needed the Special Counsel to be indicted... None of the indictments implicate Trump in any wrong-doing either.

That you are biased is obvious. That you are so biased, the above truths aren't clear to you, is rare...

Re:32 people charged

[Talderas]

Get out of here with your facts. They are inconvenient to the rage machine.

Re:32 people charged

[Tulsa_Time]

No COLLUSION By Any US Citizen

Re:32 people charged

[sittingnut]

everything you disagree is russian propaganda? even when it says russians are indicted?
and googling is the way not to be "misinformed"? lol.
-
in any case i just pointed to what the indictment and rosenstein statement, with source. does indictment says anything different when it is in some other site?
did i use opinion of the site, whatever its bias?
-
you are free to engage in ad hominem logical fallacies, i stick to actual words and facts.

Re:32 people charged

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, You read russian propaganda like zerohedge? you must be so misinformed. Just google the it.

ad hominem :

a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Grow a brain. Your Russia! Russia! Russia!/Trump Derangement Syndrome is showing.

Read Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s remarks on the Russia indictments

there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charge conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.

Wow. Almost word-fucking-word for what the GP post says.

The sad thing is you probably believe your smarter than the GP poster.

Re:32 people charged

[sittingnut]

it is justice department press release about justice department's indictment of russian agents.

comment i was replying to, said there were "trump campaign personell" charged. that was wrong, as i said. do you agree i am right on that?

and justice department is specific "no indication that any American was a knowing participant in this activity,"
and could you point to pages in indictment where it names americans knowingly "working with those that committed crimes", as you imply it does.

you are free to speculate about future indictments with or (as in your case) without facts.
same way, someone else may speculate, you and i, will be indicted in future as russian saboteurs of slashdot threads. lol.

Re: 32 people charged

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Prigozhin's company, Concord Consulting? That's still proceeding to trial.

This is different and involves a bunch of GRU officers.

"Russian GRU officers hacked the website of a state election board and stole information about 500,000 voters," Rosenstein said. "They also hacked into computers of a company that supplied software used to verify voter registration information."
The defendants worked for two units of the GRU that "engaged in active cyber operations to interfere in the 2016 presidential elections," Rosenstein said. One unit stole information using spearfishing schemes and hacked into computer networks where they "installed malicious software that allowed them to spy on users and capture keystrokes, take screenshots and exfiltrate or remove data from those computers."

Re:32 people charged

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry the text is scanned and not copy-pastable

Pages 16 and 17, Paragraph 43

A candidate for Congress asked Guccifer 2.0 for stolen documents and recived them. The indictment names Russian operatives as the people behind the online persona Guccifer 2.0. This section also details other people working with and exchanging data with those indicted.

Page 16, Paragraph 44.

It's been widely suggested that this person is probably Roger Stone.

Re:32 people charged

[amicusNYCL]

Are you limiting your scope to the latest indictments? Because people like Manafort and Papadopoulos have already been indicted by Mueller, and some have pled guilty. The scope of his investigation is very large. It's also not over, and he's actually able to control his people so there aren't any leaks, we have no idea what evidence he has or who his other targets are. The only information we get from Mueller is when he files things in court. So it's probably premature for anyone to conclude anything other than what his filings say. Just because there has not been a filing charging someone with collusion, for example, does not mean that there is no collusion or that he's not investigating it or that he doesn't have evidence of it. He just hasn't filed that yet, so let's hold off on making conclusions about what people definitely did or did not do until he finishes his work.

Re:32 people charged

[multi io]

What have the FBI, the NSA, and the rest of our wonderful "intelligence" apparatus been doing, while this was going on?

Oh, yeah, they were busy trying to sabotage Trump

Strzok sat on evidence incriminating Trump campaign members in connection with Russian election interference -- and didn't publish it. And Comey basically threw the election to Trump by reopening the Clinton investigation in late October. That's some strange behaviour for people supposedly trying to "sabotage Trump".

Re:32 people charged

[mi]

Strzok sat on evidence incriminating Trump campaign members in connection with Russian election interference

Citation needed.

Where is that wonderful "evidence" — Mueller could certainly use it to do, what he was appointed to do: investigate Trump, instead of accusing Russian military of attacking American interests (duh!)...

Re:32 people charged

[Theaetetus]

And Comey basically threw the election to Trump by reopening the Clinton investigation in late October.

Whether or not it had a significant effect on undecided voters or voter turnout, consider what would have happened if he didn't reopen the investigation: he had just uncovered a huge number of allegedly "missing" Clinton emails, some of which included classified material, on the laptop of a guy about to be indicted for transmitting Weiner pictures to minors. It couldn't be kept hush-hush, since it was going to be in a publicly-available federal indictment of a major public figure that the media was following. If he tried to sit on it until after the election, then all of the "Obama officials aiding Clinton pedophile-ring" rumors would blow up even more.

Basically, his hands were tied. It was going to become public, and anything other than immediate release and re-opening the investigation would make it look even more like something shady was going on. This was his best attempt to get it back out of the news cycle by election day.

Re:32 people charged

[benjfowler]

You get your "facts" from Zero Hedge. That speaks for itself.

I read that bilge to stay abreast of Putin's lies du jour. I read it, knowing that ZH is a Russian information warfare operation, and partly for masochistic entertainment value. Certainly not to stay informed.

Re:32 people charged

[benjfowler]

This is what gets me. At the time, the FBI was Trumper central, and they were anti-Clinton. Clinton's entitled behavior wrt that mail server upset many people in the FBI. Quite a few people down there thought that Trump was the least-worst option (not that they would allow their politics to affect their professional judgement).

The idiocy of the Stupid Party's claim that the FBI were out to get Trump, is self-evident.

Re: 32 people charged

[benjfowler]

What makes my black heart glow, is knowing these fucking pricks, and everybody working for them, will be grounded for life, or looking over their shoulders for the rest of their lives. Half the world extradites to the United States, and fake identities won't save them.

Re: 32 people charged

[bestweasel]

"Mueller could certainly use it to do, what he was appointed to do: investigate Trump, instead of accusing Russian military of attacking American interests (duh!)..."

The point is, the Russian state still denies attacking American interests (duh!)...

You're wrong about what Mueller was appointed to do. What is odd is that after all your many posts on this subject you still appear not to have grasped the basics. I looked it up, it wasn't hard:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
ÂÂ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. Â 600.4(a).

28 C.F.R. Â 600.4(a) says, in part,

The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses;

Re: 32 people charged

[AHuxley]

AC GRU is the last group in Russia, the Soviet Union that would be allowed to do anything spy related outside Russia.
A spy in the UK was accepted by the GRU and the GRU was told to hand the spy over to people in the Soviet Union with the ability to protect such a spy.
The GRU wanted the glory and attempted to use the spy as a GRU spy.
The spy in the UK had access to a photocopy machine with no paper counter, no camera and could make unlimited photocopies of MI6/GCHQ level documents kept in a vault. The only limit was the weight of paper in a bag at any one time.
The spy was caught by the UK and the GRU lost the spy who could have advanced further up in the UK spy/mil sector for years.

Russia understood only its best experts would get to spy in the USA, UK and not get caught.
When the USA media talks of advanced spy methods and the GRU its domestic fiction.

Re: 32 people charged

[Uberbah]

The point is, the Russian state still denies attacking American interests (duh!)...

Because Russiagaters have as much evidence that Russia did squat as Chem Trailers do that the CIA is putting mind-controlling gas in jet fuel.

Re:32 people charged

[Uberbah]

And Comey basically threw the election to Trump by reopening the Clinton investigation in late October.

Comey covered for Hillary's criminal, hypocritical, incompetent ass by whitewashing her email server problem while at the same time the DOJ was prosecuting Kristian Saucier for taking unauthorized selfies on a sub. If her name was Hillary Smith she'd be looking at least a decade in prison for obstruction of justice charges alone, for destroying evidence while under investigation. Dembots shouldn't be throwing stones at Comey, they should be giving him daily blowjobs for the rest of his life for keeping their nominee out of a prison cell.

Re:32 people charged

[multi io]

I wasn't criticizing Comey's decision (I know about the conflict that he was in, and I think the man was an outstanding public employee), I was just refuting the parent poster's allegation that the FBI was trying to "sabotage Trump".

Re:32 people charged

[sittingnut]

Unfortunately, your "facts" have been proven wrong. .

where?

Re:32 people charged

[sittingnut]

again does indictment says anything different when it is in some other site? facts are facts, wherever it is on.
you are free to engage in absurd fact free ad hominem logical fallacies; they don't matter to anyone intelligent.

Re:32 people charged

[sittingnut]

that is all you got? lol. people receiving information after it was published? is that knowingly committing crimes?
what next? podesta working for russians because he was stupid enough to got phished?

Re:32 people charged

[sittingnut]

you know that manafort was charged with something totally unrelated to election, that happened years before election, right?
again, you are free to be so desperate as to think and say it is connected, engage in wild speculations and conspiracy theories, and basically live on nothing but airy hope. that is the fate of people who lose in game of life.
others, like me, who are no so situated, and live in reality, are free to place their trust on facts and reason.

Re:32 people charged

[slashdot_commentator]

The problem is not that he reads Zerohedge (which is not necessarily Russian propaganda). The problem is that he's a Trump fanboy stooge who alters what the Zerohedge text actually said. Your problem is that you rely on Google to formulate your opinions for you.

Re: 32 people charged

[bestweasel]

Ignoring your double negative, the feds have the evidence and it will be produced in court at the appropriate time. Here are just the first 6 pages of the indictments against the GRU agents - plenty of meat for the nothingburger there:

COUNT ONE
(Conspiracy to Commit an Offense Against the United States)

1. In or around 2016, the Russian Federation ("Russia") operated a military intelligence agency called the Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff The GRU had multiple units, including Units 26165 and 74455, engaged in cyber operations that involved the staged releases of documents stolen through computer intrusions. These units conducted large-scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 US. presidential election.

2. Defendants VIKT OR BORISOVICH BORIS ALEKSEYEVICH ANTONOV, DMITRIY SERGEYEVICH IVAN SERGEYEVICH YERMAKOV, ALEKSEY VIKTOROVICH LUKASHEV, SERGEY ALEKSANDROVICH MORGACHEV, NIKOLAY YURYEVICH KOZACHEK, PAVEL VYACHESLAVOVICH YERSHOV, ARTEM ANDREYEVICH ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH OSADCHUK, and ALEKSEY ALEKSANDROVICH POTENIKIN were GRU officers who knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other, and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury (collectively the "Conspirators"), to gain unauthorized access (to "hack") into the computers of U.S. persons and entities involved in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, steal documents from these computers, and stage releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

3. Starting in at least March 2016, the Conspirators used a variety of means to hack the email accounts of Volunteers and employees of the U.S. presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton (the "Clinton Campaign"), including the email account of the Clinton Campaign's chairman.

4. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators also hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee The Conspirators covertly monitored the computers of dozens of and DNC employees, implanted hundreds of files containing malicious computer code ("malware"), and stole emails and other documents from the and DNC.

5. By in or around April 2016, the Conspirators began to plan the release of materials stolen from the Clinton Campaign, and DNC.

6. Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0"

7. The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization 1") that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S. government. The Conspirators continued their U.S. election-interference operations through in or around November 2016.

8. To hide their connections to Russia and the Russian government, the Conspirators used false identities and made false statements about their identities. To further avoid detection, the Conspirators used a network of computers located across the world, including in the United States, and paid for this infrastructure using

Defendants

9. Defendant VIKTOR BORISOVICH was the Russian military officer in command of Unit 26165, located at 20 Komsomolskiy Prospekt, Moscow, Russia. Unit 26165 had primary responsibility for hacking the and DNC, as well as the email accounts of individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign.

10. Defendant BORIS ALEKSEYEVICH ANTONOV was a Maj or in the Russian military assigned to Unit 26165. ANTONOV oversaw a department within Unit 26165 dedicated to targeting military, political, governmental, and non-governmental organizations with spearphishing emails and other computer intrusion activity. ANTONOV held the title "Head of Department." In or around 2016, ANTONOV supervised other co-conspirators who targeted the DNC, and individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign.

Re: 32 people charged

[Uberbah]

Ignoring your double negative, the feds have the evidence and it will be produced in court at the appropriate time.

If the the Feds had shit, they would have presented it years ago. This investigation isn't about finding evidence for a crime, as there never was any probable suspicion of one in the first place - just a so-lame-it-wouldn't-have-passed-for-a-bad-80's-action-movie excuse from the DNC for losing the most winnable race in history. It's about the deep state reminding a game show host president who's boss.

Here are just the first 6 pages of the indictments against the GRU agents - plenty of meat for the nothingburger there

Good, I was running low on toilet paper. Look, clown shoes, Mueller has never bothered to have the FBI examine the DNC servers, the alleged hacking of which makes up the foundation of Russiagate. Which either means that Mueller is so unbelievably incompetent he shouldn't be left alone with the office Keurig machine least he burn the place down, or this was never a real investigation to begin with.

Pick. One.

Re: 32 people charged

[bestweasel]

I don't have to pick one of your false choices, I'm just enjoying the slow public unraveling of Putin's plots and Trump's sanity. I'm excited to see where that leads.

Re: 32 people charged

[Uberbah]

Yeah, the Chem Trailers and Antivaxxers are also in denial of how far they've planted their heads up their own conspiracy theories, too.

the slow public unraveling of Putin's plots

The plot where Putin was so diabolically clever that he knew years in advance that a bankrupt political novice game show host could be president, that Hillary wouldn't bother to campaign in the states between Pennsylvania and Iowa (and almost lost Minnesota) - yet at the same time such a fucking idiot that he didn't anticipate any blowback. And that a former KGB man would be so unbelievably stupid as to collude with someone as dumb as Trump, which means the FBI/CIA/NSA would know, as would President Elect Hillary as the race was hers to lose right up until the end. And that he would counter $9 billion in corporate propaganda (with $1.2 billion just from Hillary) with....a few thousand dollars for Facebook and Twitter memes. And all to interfere in a race where both parties are virulently anti-Russian and have been for over a hundred years.

Like I said the first time, this wouldn't even pass as the plot to a shitty 80's action movie.

Re:32 people charged

[amicusNYCL]

you know that manafort was charged with something totally unrelated to election, that happened years before election, right?

Yes. Now talk about Papadopoulos and his relation to reality.

Re: 32 people charged

[bestweasel]

Well, seeing as Trump believes Putin's denials, I guess I'll have to accept yours. No Russians it is. Not sure then who all these guys on Slashdot pretending to be Americans, Australians and Canadians are - must be Chinese or something.

Re: 32 people charged

[sysrammer]

Well, seeing as Trump believes Putin's denials, I guess I'll have to accept yours. No Russians it is. Not sure then who all these guys on Slashdot pretending to be Americans, Australians and Canadians are - must be Chinese or something.

Norks, natch.

Re: 32 people charged

[bestweasel]

North Koreans? Tricky to decide, what with their recent internet link with Russia, though the North Koreans' English is more flowery.

"Patriotic American workers pledge their lives and democratic votes to glorious leader Trump whose wise and happy face shines like the sun and whose unequalled political skills will cast down the hated Hillary to be trampled underfoot by the will of the people."

Oh hang on, Trump's been forced to correct himself. It is the Russians after all.

Re: 32 people charged

[sysrammer]

Da.

or...

[Anonymous Coward]

...or the server was analyzed by some other government agency (NSA, Homeland Security) or a private security firm. If Comey perjured himself he should face the consequences of that, but I highly doubt he did.

Re:or...

[atxlakeshore]

Failure to secure the server as evidence and subsequent analysis by a contractor would likely have violated chain of custody to the degree that any evidence derived couldn't be used. We also have the issue of needing a "second opinion" or analysis that can be peer-reviewed.

Re:hmm

[Oswald McWeany]

First of all, that sound you hear is Russia, quaking in it's boots, lol

Secondly, the US government conducted espionage against a U.S. presidential campaign, with the goal of either making it lose, or as a fallback to be an "insurance policy" in case that candidate won. Any charges going to filed in that? Anything? Beuller?

You know, for a long time it would have been the Republicans who were willing to stand up to Russia and prevent their abuses and they would have called the Democrats weak, or doormats in their handling of Russia. The roles seem to have switched. The Democrats are enraged at Russia and wanting to stand strong and the Republicans are now the doormats.

I wonder why?

No Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Muller charged 13 Russian companies a few months ago.

They showed up in court to defend themselves. Muller so far as REFUSED to let them see the evidence against them so they can make a defense. I believe he suggested they just plead guilty because the evidence, which they are not allowed to see, is overwhelming. BTW, one of the companies charged didn't exist during the election, so Muller appears to just randomly naming Russians at this point.

You will not be allowed to see any evidence Muller has against Russians. He will claim national security, because reasons.

Re:No Evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one company showed up, and all evidence is being shared with their US-based law firm, they just need approval to share it with foreign nationals. So the defense lawyers have everything, they just can't hand over potentially classified information to a foreign national without it being reviewed by the judge, which is just sensible.

Re:No Evidence

[DCFusor]

The Register is censoring comments that disagree with the official narrative. I tried 3 times...This is a full court press to regain control by whoever actually controls the press and the people who still uncritically agree with it when it supports their biases.
.

Frankly, I see more UK interference in the elections - where did that dossier come from? Steele worked for who? Oh, Skripal worked for who? Someone was poisoned with way different effects than a real nerve agent has, survived..and now needs to be kept from the public or any investigation of what REALLY happened?
.

The "we protesteth too much" behavior by congressional Democrats yesterday to prevent Strozk from answering questions...it's becoming obvious even to people who'd like to believe otherwise who's doing the interfering here.?
.

I notice this sturm und drang does not happen with candidates the un-elected got to vet before they ran - once that happens, the bureaucrats have no reason to care how a vote comes out.
Personally, I think things were rigged the other way - which is why there was so much distress when the riggers lost anyway. Look at who is acting silly, hysterical, obstructive, and even promoting violence in the streets. That's not those taking the high road.
Lots of people's rice bowls are filled by ever-increasing government and military industrial complex gimmies. We are seeing just who feels the most threatened at the prospect of peace breaking out - where's that WWIII the progressives assured us we'd be in by now? These jerks create fake enemies just to get a paycheck. We should shuck the schmucks.
.

You don't have to support Trump to see who is asserting their power here, wrongfully, and who the real enemies of the people are. Yeah, it's us...since the government became such a jobs program.

Re:Strategically...

[Oswald McWeany]

Ii there's any substance to this, it's more likely that the Kremlin didn't want Hillary as president than they wanted Donald. Hillary's an aggressive war mongerer who'll try to push NATO further east, while Donald's a buffoon who's reducing the USA's diplomatic credibility in the world. Sounds like the Kremlin, if they did do this, did the rest of the world a favour.

I'm sure you're pretty close to it. Russia saw Donald as a weak man they could easily manipulate by guiding his ego. Of all the candidates running for any party- Donald was the one most likely to destroy America's relationships with other countries and weaken America's position in the world.

It was really a smart move by Putin. For the many bad things you can say about Putin, you can't call him stupid.

Witch hunt!

[Locke2005]

Sure seems to be an awful lot of witches in the woods these days, eh?

Re:Witch hunt!

[ThinkNextTime]

Witchcraft is easy to prove. Hold them underwater for 5 minutes and if they live, they are witches.

Re: Comey Testimony

[bobbied]

So the DNC has now given up the server(s) for inspection that they once refused to let the FBI have and the FBI declined to force?

From this side of the Muller investigation, it's pretty hard to draw conclusions on this question. We don't know if it was surrendered to inspection under duress or willingly or if it was even looked at by Muller's team or not.

All we have is the charges which indicates that the grand jury has seen enough evidence to, in their judgment, believe that a crime MAY have been committed by the persons/entities being charged. We have no idea what that evidence is.

Re:hmm

[MikeMo]

Because they think that rage makes the Republicans look bad, and because they think it hurts Trump. No other reason.

Not News

[callahan2211]

Real news would have been that it has been revealed that at no time has Russia meddled in our election processes.

Re:Do they have H.Clintons job e-mails?

[greenwow]

> carry one phone.

That's a BS excuse. Even my old second generation iPhone from 2008 supported multiple email accounts.https://politics.slashdot.org/story/18/07/13/1629245/special-counsel-mueller-charges-12-russian-intelligence-officers-with-hacking-democrats-during-2016-election.

allowable espionage

[ole_timer]

what's ok for OPM is not for this?

Re:allowable espionage

[benjfowler]

Sure, because the Chinese made off with a bunch of personnel records (and who knows? Maybe Russia was in on it?), then this means that because of Russia's bullshit demands for "equality" and "fairness", we have to let ourselves get bent over, to indulge their pathetic demands to be seen as "equals" of the mighty United States.

Sorry -- but no.

Re:allowable espionage

[ole_timer]

you have no idea what you're talking about...

Huh.

[Alypius]

Deputy AG Rosenstein: "There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result."

This isn't an indictment. It's a press release.

Re:Huh.

[ole_timer]

yep. so what if Russians (or any nationality) broke US laws w/o an extradition treaty it's just PR.

Re:Huh.

[Alypius]

At least until the Russians call their bluff and demand discovery, like they did the last time.

Re:Huh.

[benjfowler]

Au contraire. It's a slam-dunk, and the individuals in question are burned as far as the GRU are concerned. They'll never be able to set foot outside Russia ever again.

The indictment is massive, and incredibly detailed. All the Russians making bad-faith demands for "evidence" can shut up now.

Re: Comey Testimony

[snapsnap]

The fact that the FBI didn't try to get the server shows they didn't think there was anything bad on it. Well, I hope so.

Re:hmm

[Alascom]

It is important to include all relevant facts.

Peter Strozk, the FBI boss in the news for saying he would "stop Trump" from becoming President, was the person who paid Stefan Halper as an FBI informant and placed him inside the Trump campaign.

Stefan Halper then used his influence inside the campaign to recommend and hire Carter Page, who is now accused of being a Russian spy.

So the trail of facts seems to show a very very different story.

1. FBI's boss (Peter Strozk) hires a mole
2. FBI place mole inside Trump campaign (due to fear of russia)
3. FBI Mole recommends and hires a Russian spy (Carter Page)
4. FBI gets warrants to spy on campaign based on Russian spy "infiltrating" the campaign - Peter Strozk (see 1) leads the investigation
5. Opponents claim Trump colluded with Russians and deny FBI bias.

If Occam's razor can provide a better way to interpret these facts, please share.

Absolutely

[Okian Warrior]

Are you a Russian spy?

Absolutely.

Non Russian Source citation

[Anonymous Coward]

illustrating ad hominem then? Or are you irony challenged?

Despite Zerohedge, here's what the NY times says

"Mr. Mueller has filed more than 100 criminal counts against 32 people and three companies. Among the people previously charged are fourteen Russians and three Trump associates who have already pleaded guilty."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... [nytimes.com]

Re: Non Russian Source citation

[kenh]

Plead guilty to crimes that pre-date the campaign by years and had nothing to do with collusion...

The just in, Michael Cohen just got a traffic ticket, add another trump associate charge to the list!

I just can't wait for this to be over

[TheDarkener]

And I can exhale and say, "Let's finally fucking move on now." It's so obvious what's going on here, it's been obvious since the debates, to me at least.

Re:I just can't wait for this to be over

[Darinbob]

Special investigations tend to keep going on year after year until they finally find the stained dress.

Re: hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You either don't know or don't care how the FBI works, much like the Republicans who interrogated Strzok. To suggest that he paid Halper is just stupid. From Strzok's testimony.

"At every step, at every investigative decision, there were multiple layers of people above me, assistant director, deputy director, director of the F.B.I., and multiple layers of people below me, section chiefs, unit chiefs and analysts, all of whom were involved in all of these decisions," he told Mr. Gowdy after the chairman pressed him. "They would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than I would tolerate it in them."

Re:foreigners?

[Talderas]

While your statement is factually correct the narrative to which the submitter is reference is the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative. People want it to be true to get rid of Trump. These are all publicly available in indictments.

Papadopoulos - Perjury
Flynn - Perjury
Manafort & Gates - Falsified income tax filings and bank fraud.
Pinedo - Identity Fraud
van der Zwaan - Perjury

Only Pinedo, has anything to do with Russian involvement and that has to do with him selling some of the fraud services to the Russians. Pinedo wasn't involved with Trump's campaign. Each of the indictments of individuals associated with the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians.

Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[shanen]

If I ever had a mod point to give, then I might give you one on the grounds that it's the only visible mention of "hackers" in this discussion.

In general, I was not made happy by the lack of "funny" comments, even though it's a serious topic with little room for humor. However, it was more saddening to see the dominance of the discussion by obvious trolls and sock puppets. Does it call for a review of the ontology of lies? Or a new ontology of trolls?

The so-called victory of #PresidentTweety was razor thin. What that actually means is that each and EVERY group that can plausibly claim to have influenced about 80,000 voters has an equally plausible claim to be the margin of Trump's residency in the "dump", as he described the White House. Actually, you could argue for 40,000 if they were voters swung away from Hillary and over to Trump.

There are strong and credible evaluations (including some bipartisan ones) that strongly indicate that the tactics of Putin's goons influenced at least that many suckers among the millions of voters they targeted. Ergo, it's rather hard to deny that Trump owes Putin, but it's only a question of degree. My assessment is that Trump is much more beholden to Mike Pence for delivering the votes of the religious lunatics.

Or perhaps it's more significant that the US government is almost surely more guilty of interfering in elections than the Russians? If money does translate into votes, then it would be a sure call. Do you know how much of the Marshall Plan funding was actually diverted to the CIA? And how much of that dark money was used for meddling in elections in places like Italy and Japan?

Still, it feels worse when our own ox has been gored. It might be worse in this case only because of the old KGB kompromat on Trump that Putin inherited. (I still think the Golden Shower rumor is a clever feint created by Putin to make his puppet feel safer.)

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[fat_mike]

Trump won 2600 counties to Clinton's 500. That's 84%. How is that razor thin? You can blame the Electoral College but it is there for a reason so that voters in the middle of Kansas or Montana or Nevada or Illinois have just as a loud a voice as everyone else.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[AutodidactLabrat]

Dirt doesn't vote, the EC violates the 14th Amendment, and Hillary won by 2.86 million votes to tRump's selective 70K.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[HermMunster]

You're saying the constitution is wrong because Hillary lost? We go by the constitution.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, people that own more land have more of a political voice than those that do not.

That was kind of the framers intent, to give the landed estates more power than the poor huddled masses.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[Ol Olsoc]

Trump won 2600 counties to Clinton's 500. That's 84%. How is that razor thin? You can blame the Electoral College but it is there for a reason so that voters in the middle of Kansas or Montana or Nevada or Illinois have just as a loud a voice as everyone else.

You need to up your math game. Trump won 100 percent of the votes for Trump.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[h33t l4x0r]

Trump won 2600 counties

That's how we know it was hacked!

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[Jane Q. Public]

You're delusional. The Electoral College doesn't violate the 14th Amendment. Somebody has been shovelling bullshit at you and you've been swallowing it.

Re: Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[reanjr]

"Famous person involved in embarrassing sex act" is the go-to for intelligence agencies around the world when they want to discredit someone. Add to that the tale of Trump renting the room Obama stayed in, and you've got a pretty snopesable scenario.

Re: Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[reanjr]

At no point in American history have we had any form of link between voting and land ownership. One (white) man, one vote.

Re: Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[reanjr]

Never proven? Which facts are you unsure of the evidence on?

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[danskal]

Obama did all that he could do: try to imagine how conservatives and fox news would have reacted if he had announced it. Republicans just aren't ready to hear the truth from anyone but right-wingers: Fox news is the culprit there.

He did warn Trump not to hire Flynn.

Re: Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[danskal]

It's much worse than that. Putin is ex KGB. He has access to all the psy-ops knowledge that exists in Russia, and he actually reads security briefings. He has meetings with Trump where Trump is alone. It is child's play for him to manipulate someone like Trump to do his bidding, especially if he has some leverage.

Re: Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[danskal]

> tard

using that word makes everyone ignore your comment.

People who watch fox news care about what fox news wants them to care about. You think I'm wrong about that? Think about it... list the things you care about, and see how well they match up with things fox news bangs on about.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[danskal]

You're missing the point entirely. The partisan circus is part of Putin's plan. They actually helped organize protests and counter-protests at the same time and place. For example.....

You are missing another point - Putin _really_ hates Hilary Clinton. She supports sanctions that are a pain in the arse for him, and has been talking tough on Russia the whole time. Trump is just a weak buffoon that he can control as he likes.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[Ol Olsoc]

Dirt doesn't vote,

i dunno - rides through the countryside show a lot of ramshackle 1960's mobile homes with a Trans-Camaro on cinder blocks and a yard full of junk.

With a Trump Maga sign prominently on display.

Its so strange that those folk think that the very embodiment of everything they claim to hate will not act in his self interests, not theirs.

Dirt doesn't vote, but Joe Dirt does.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[Ol Olsoc]

You're delusional. The Electoral College doesn't violate the 14th Amendment. Somebody has been shovelling bullshit at you and you've been swallowing it.

It depends on which party is getting elected while getting less votes. If a person is a card carrying Republican, the Electoral college is a true gift form Gawd.

Then again, we'll see how their love of the EC shifts if they lose a few elections.

And this to me is what it all boils down to. At this point, if someone claims that the EC is a problem, Republicans start screaming about how it is the law of the land.

It is the law of the land. And that isn't the point. Fact is, in the computer age, it is exceptionally easy to game and allow a candidate who received less votes overall to win the Electoral college.

It is codified and legal minority rule.

That's the problem, Jane Q. The concept of a minority winning over a majority.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[AutodidactLabrat]

Yeah, but the source argument was that tRump won because he took more counties.
Dirt doesn't vote. Joe Dirt didn't vote often enough to keep their god from losing by 2.86 million votes.
The EC violates the 14th Amendment. Time for the EC to go

Re: Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[AutodidactLabrat]

That Hillary was "Suspicious" DESPITE the reference from the FBI to not prosecute for lack of evidence

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[AutodidactLabrat]

That's my point.
The EC is not the law of the land, the Constitution which INCLUDES Amendment 14 is and it forbids unequal counting of votes, or any unequal right or privilege under the law.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[AutodidactLabrat]

No. I said the EC is in violation of the 14th Amendment
Just as the 3/5 compromise was dead the moment the 13th Amendment was ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[AutodidactLabrat]

No.
The EC has been abhorent at least since Rutherford B. Hayes.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah, but the source argument was that tRump won because he took more counties. Dirt doesn't vote. Joe Dirt didn't vote often enough to keep their god from losing by 2.86 million votes. The EC violates the 14th Amendment. Time for the EC to go

The Electoral College is an outdated system that is overdue for retirement. It is very susceptible to gaming, and does not have equl representation per capita.

And yes, people can bloviate about it being the law. And the selfsame people are ones who's party has benefited from that unequal representation. Make no mistake, they strut like cock-a-whoops nw, but if Mrs Clinton was elected with a marked minority of votes, we'd be in civil war 2 now.

The discussion that must be had is exactly how a candidate for president can lose while receiving almost 3 million more votes? This indicates a really bad systemic problem. This is the opposite of representative government.

Coupled with the ease with which the American voting system can be manipulated, that's a recipe for disaster.

Oh........ wait.......

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[AutodidactLabrat]

Agree in both principle and extension
I am of the opinion that the 14th Amendment vitiates the EC as completely as the 13th Amendment vitated the 3/5 compromise.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[Ol Olsoc]

How? Because the U.S. isn't and wasn't intended to be a National Democracy. The most votes isn't the only thing which determines decisions. Protection of minority and individual rights against a tyranny of the majority is built into our system of government.

There is a big difference between protecting the rights of minorities and rule by minorities.

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[AutodidactLabrat]

You're saying the constitution is wrong ...

No, I'm saying the Constitution is correct, and the EC is unconstitutional thanks to "Equal rights under the law"

Re:Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[AutodidactLabrat]

Wrong
The EC has been contrary to "equal rights under the law" since 1873

Re: Detecting trolls and sock puppets on Slashdot

[AutodidactLabrat]

Putin isn't just "ex KGB". He's x DIRECTOR KGB

Re:hmm

[cascadingstylesheet]

It is important to include all relevant facts.

Peter Strozk, the FBI boss in the news for saying he would "stop Trump" from becoming President, was the person who paid Stefan Halper as an FBI informant and placed him inside the Trump campaign.

Stefan Halper then used his influence inside the campaign to recommend and hire Carter Page, who is now accused of being a Russian spy.

So the trail of facts seems to show a very very different story.

1. FBI's boss (Peter Strozk) hires a mole 2. FBI place mole inside Trump campaign (due to fear of russia) 3. FBI Mole recommends and hires a Russian spy (Carter Page) 4. FBI gets warrants to spy on campaign based on Russian spy "infiltrating" the campaign - Peter Strozk (see 1) leads the investigation 5. Opponents claim Trump colluded with Russians and deny FBI bias.

If Occam's razor can provide a better way to interpret these facts, please share.

Exactly.

Re: hmm

[fatwilbur]

Oh please - if you buy his BS that a chief agent within the FBI doesn't have the pull to get what he wants done, I have some land in Florida to sell you.

Spies hacking

[nsaspook]

I'm shocked to hear that, shocked I tell you.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

No collusion...

[Karmashock]

notice, no americans in that indictment... and probably there is an expectation that this "accusation" won't be defended.

Foreign governments rarely show up to a US court to argue they were not guilty.

Thus a baseless accusation can stand because there is no due process because there is no trial generally.

I'd like the Russians to show up. Just send some lawyers to represent their clients. Force the Justice Department to actually argue their case in a court of law.

Already, the justice department was surprised when some Russian companies they accused sent lawyers. And the result was effectively a retraction of the accusations almost immediately.

Some people will accuse me of political bias... these people haven't been paying attention to this circus.

https://www.washingtonexaminer...

https://www.politico.com/story...

Effectively, an accusation was made where there was no belief that there would be a defense because there typically isn't one in these cases. Lawyers showed up unexpectedly... and it turns out that the Mueller team actually isn't ready to argue the case.

Which begs the question of why they would accuse someone.

Is that how the FBI normally works? Accusing people of things they can't prove in court?

Generally not especially when the accusations are formal legal charges.

So why is Mueller not following standard FBI protocol? Why in fact, has everything to do with this cloud of issues not been done according to standard protocol?

Because it is a political game. And its one that I'm actually pretty happy we're having because all the rats are coming out of the wood work. We know who most of the bad apples are in the justice department just by seeing whether or not they follow protocol. If they break protocol... why did they do that? To serve the interests of justice? Or to help grinding a political axe? Because if the former, then very well... but if the latter... they probably shouldn't be in that position.

Re:No collusion...

[DigiShaman]

The first round of Russians wanted a trial. One defendant DID show up. Mueller panicked and asked to delay.

Mueller's bluff was called. I'm going to guess his bluff will be called again!

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...

Re:No collusion...

[quantaman]

notice, no americans in that indictment... and probably there is an expectation that this "accusation" won't be defended.

Foreign governments rarely show up to a US court to argue they were not guilty.

Thus a baseless accusation can stand because there is no due process because there is no trial generally.

I'd like the Russians to show up. Just send some lawyers to represent their clients. Force the Justice Department to actually argue their case in a court of law.

Already, the justice department was surprised when some Russian companies they accused sent lawyers. And the result was effectively a retraction of the accusations almost immediately.

Some people will accuse me of political bias... these people haven't been paying attention to this circus.

Yes I will, because you're mischaracterizing what happened.

Mueller never expected to put any of the Russians in jail. I suspect the reason for the indictments were because a) to display via indictments that they do have actual evidence of Russian collusion, b) they're limited in their ability to travel because of extradition and c) you've got the evidence of a crime, why not indict?

The reason he's trying to delay proceedings is because the defendant in question has zero intention of actually exposing themselves to punishment so there's not a ton of benefit in winning a case against the company. But during a trial Mueller would have to disclose his evidence that supports the charges. And disclosing that evidence would jeopardize the rest of the investigation.

Re:No collusion...

[Karmashock]

if you've got evidence then why can't you go to trial?

Because people are running their mouths and actually don't have evidence.

I know I know... bluster and hummms and hahs... take it to court or its just hot air.

Re:No collusion...

[Karmashock]

Its been two years. You've got nothing but self delusion.

You've been trying to get something... anything for 2 years. And "this" is the best you've got so far.

I could say more but that's all you deserve. Two years and nothing. You're not scaring anyone with this stuff.

Re:No collusion...

[DCFusor]

So, you have super-sekrit info on how Mueller's plan is defined? You know what he expected and why he does things? Do enlighten us how you got ahold of those secrets and why you're not a traitor yourself for revealing them.

Re:No collusion...

[quantaman]

if you've got evidence then why can't you go to trial?

Because people are running their mouths and actually don't have evidence.

I know I know... bluster and hummms and hahs... take it to court or its just hot air.

Did you actually read my reply?

They have the evidence. They don't want to go to trial yet because exposing that evidence will make it easier for future targets of the investigation to evade justice.

Think of it this way. I was involved in X, Y, and Z. Individually, they look bad and raise suspicions but you'll probably be fine. But exposing all of them will land me in jail. Now Mueller comes along and asks me under oath if I had anything to do with X, Y, or Z so I say no.

Then Mueller say "aha! I have proof you were involved in X! You just committed perjury, now you're going to jail and it's time to cut a deal!"

That's what happened with Flynn, Panadopolous, and I think Manafort and Gates as well, they didn't know what Mueller knew so Mueller could catch them in a lie.

And that's why the Russians want to force the trial, because the more Mueller is forced to disclose what evidence he has the easier it is for the next subject to figure out what they can lie about and when they should tell the truth.

Re:No collusion...

[Uberbah]

Did you actually read my reply?

That's your problem, he did.

They have the evidence. They don't want to go to trial yet because exposing that evidence will make it easier for future targets of the investigation to evade justice.

Then he would have kept all the indictment sealed until he was ready to go trial, cultist. And though the current indictments are for DNC hacking - Mueller still hasn't bothered to have the FBI examine their servers. Don't bother brining up the CrowdStrike report as it isn't fit to be toilet paper, and would be tossed out of court as inadmissible.

So either 1) Mueller is too incompetent to be trusted to run the office Keurig machine by himself, least he burn the place down, or 2) this shitshow has been a farce from day one, and Russiagaters are the most gullible people in the history of the human race.

Pick one.

Re:No collusion...

[thegarbz]

Which begs the question of why they would accuse someone.

No it doesn't. The accusation and not expecting a defence are not at all related to it. That was a blunder to be sure but it certainly doesn't beg this question.

The question of why they would accuse someone who doesn't normally defend is that it has nothing to do with the people they are accusing. Their end game is not to go after some Russian meddling spies in another country. Their end game is to build a case against the American side, and having indictments against co-conspirators solidly helps this case when it comes to light.

Why in fact, has everything to do with this cloud of issues not been done according to standard protocol?

There's a standard protocol here? FBI has a : Do this in case off mass conspiracy for election fraud protocol? To answer your question: exceptional circumstances require exceptional approaches, and they are more than welcome to keep using those approaches. The only thing that ultimately matters is that the law is correctly upheld be it the courts find someone guilty, innocent, or throw out the resulting case due to a Mueller fuckup.

Because it is a political game.

Of course it is. Politicians are involved.

We know who most of the bad apples are in the justice department just by seeing whether or not they follow protocol.

No we don't. That is still dependent on the outcome. The method used to drag people in front of the court doesn't weed out bad apples unless that method is intentionally designed to hinder prosecution by way of declaring mistrial or mishandling of evidence.

Re:No collusion...

[Karmashock]

no, the blunders are consistent and form a larger pattern.

Just as the Hillary investigation not following protocol either.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Why would they be light on the Hillary investigation and then throw out all these baseless accusations that they can't defend in a court of law in the Trump investigation?

Is it a coincidence that they gave Hillary a pass and are exceeding their mandate with Trump?

Fairly consistent coincidence. Just keeps happening. Almost as if it isn't a coincidence.

And the foaming tribal political partisanship of those that want him to burn WITHOUT evidence of anything taints the credibility of those people to claim they are seeking justice.

That the FBI is not following protocol is something that has been remarked upon both by independent councils and by many FBI agents within the FBI that have expressed disgust at the situation. If you want to deny the obvious, then I don't really know what that accomplishes. It convinces no one and ultimately we are headed to a game of chicken here if people like you don't stop. You can't just change the rules whenever it is convenient for you. That might have worked when you were 4 and your mom didn't want to hear you cry when you lost at shoots and ladders... I'm not your mom... you're not four... and I really don't care if you cry. When you clearly apply two different standards based on whether it is in your political interest, your integrity regarding these matters is forfeit.

Apply a consistent standard. The "Russians colluded with Trump on the election" argument is stupid.

1. The allegation ultimately boils down to some facebook targeted marketing was placed. Literally.
2. Some facebook targeted marketing didn't move the needle remarkably.
3. Every american media source is saturated with political propaganda prior to elections further rendering the relevance of a few posts from the Russians that much more laughable.
4. There are a million NGOs engaging in political activism in elections and many of them are super national NGOs... that is non-domestic. They frequently draw funding from outside the country. Which means if you problem is external funding, you could show some interest in shutting down any of those. Ultimately any argument against the irrelevant contribution of the Russians would be one of paper work. If the activist group cited themselves as an NGO then you'd either have to ban Green Peace from participating as well let it happen.
5. Foreign government involve themselves in US elections all the time. The EU and China are doing as is Canada and Mexico. In fact, its quite a bit easier to find their involvement in that election than it is the Russians.
6. There's literally no evidence that there was collusion and the only source of that story is the Hillary Clinton campaign which is a very biased source of information regarding anything she's salty about.
7. A dirty tricks group that was placing violent protesters at BERNIE SANDERS and Trump rallies was unmasked towards the end of the campaign. That group's job was to create problems for rival campaigns. Frankly this Russia story reads as the last dumb gasp of a sad little smear campaign that got out of control.

And if you think I'm wrong... then why after TWO YEARS do you have NOTHING. You do realize it has been two whole fucking years right? And nothing.

The process is playing out. Its like watching a marathon between two runners... and one of them is slowly bleeding to death.

Your position has become a joke. Even SNL is laughing at you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:No collusion...

[Karmashock]

... You need to watch more of your grand mother's police procedural. Maybe go to see her and watch some Law and Order or CSI or something.

Your lack of understanding of how a police investigation unfolds is frankly baffling to me.

For your information, the police generally build a case and THEN accuse people of crimes. Not the other way around. If you're not ready to go to trial, then you don't accuse people.

This is why the FBI was taken to court and was made to look a fool by a judge and the opposing lawyers.

This happened.

That was reality.

Why is it that if the FBI is following protocol that they're confusing judges with why they would do things and being made to look foolish?

Because they're not following protocol. As much is obvious.

And why aren't they following protocol? Do they not know what it is? Are they badly trained? Maybe there is some reason why they're violating protocol? Some... agenda?

Its all transparently obvious. Don't embarrass yourself by defending this farce.

Re:No collusion...

[quantaman]

... You need to watch more of your grand mother's police procedural. Maybe go to see her and watch some Law and Order or CSI or something.

Your lack of understanding of how a police investigation unfolds is frankly baffling to me.

For your information, the police generally build a case and THEN accuse people of crimes. Not the other way around.

You're still ignoring the content of the reply. They HAVE a case, they HAVE the evidence, what they don't want to do is have a quick trial where the defendant isn't in the country and won't be subjected to any punishment if found guilty.

Why is it that if the FBI is following protocol that they're confusing judges with why they would do things and being made to look foolish?

Because they're not following protocol. As much is obvious.

And why aren't they following protocol? Do they not know what it is? Are they badly trained? Maybe there is some reason why they're violating protocol? Some... agenda?

Its all transparently obvious. Don't embarrass yourself by defending this farce.

They are following protocol, they just got hit by a clever legal manouver. The FBI expected to either get a defendant they could put in jail (and potentially turn with a deal), or a defendant who was a no-show and therefore there was never a trial.

Instead the defendant found a loophole where it looked like they could force a trial (exposing some of the FBIs evidence) without showing up and risking a punishment. It wasn't certain if the judge would let them use the loophole, but they did, so now the FBI is in a bind with that particular case.

Re:No collusion...

[Karmashock]

Until it has been presented to a court, that is hearsay and inadmissible in this discussion.

As the plaintiff has shown contempt for the discussion and has been unable to present any material evidence, this case is closed.

You are free to appeal, however you are advised to actually have evidence.

Re:No collusion...

[quantaman]

Until it has been presented to a court, that is hearsay and inadmissible in this discussion.

As the plaintiff has shown contempt for the discussion and has been unable to present any material evidence, this case is closed.

You are free to appeal, however you are advised to actually have evidence.

Accurate... yet once again completely missing the point. I have a suspicious you're fully aware why the FBI is trying to avoid a quick trial for this particular case, you're just looking for an excuse to push the "Fake Investigation" Trumpist narrative.

Re:No collusion...

[Karmashock]

I know why given members of the FBI are perverting the process... the political agendas are pretty clear.

Have you not been listening to the Text Messages that were read aloud in court from FBI agents clearly admitting they were biasing the case for political reasons?

Because... that's already a matter of record.

The jig is up. They were caught red handed. Which is why we're seeing a rather consistent purge of FBI agents and justice department officials WITH EVIDENCE and DUE PROCESS.

Protest as you will, but your dirty little cabal is getting fed feet first into a wood chipper of justice.

Re:No collusion...

[quantaman]

Have you not been listening to the Text Messages that were read aloud in court from FBI agents clearly admitting they were biasing the case for political reasons?

Biasing how? Point out a biased action that either of them took?

As has been pointed out, they very easily could have leaked the very damaging information of an active FBI investigation into members of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia, but they didn't.

Re:No collusion...

[Karmashock]

This is pathetic. The legs of your position were blown off and you're just crawling around. Just stop.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12...

"""I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . " Page does not appear to have responded, according to records reviewed by CNN.""

Re:No collusion...

[quantaman]

This is pathetic. The legs of your position were blown off and you're just crawling around. Just stop.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12...

"""I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . " Page does not appear to have responded, according to records reviewed by CNN.""

And if there were some Trump damaging FBI leak immediately after that message, or some official investigative action that didn't really make sense, then you'd have a point.

But you're still missing any evidence of an actual action containing bias, even assuming that text message means what you want it to mean and not what McCabe says, ie:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office [that we protect our source in the Russia investigation by proceeding more slowly since we know] that there’s no way he gets elected [and the result won't matter] - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 [so we need to be prepared to get to the bottom of any Russian connection before he win's the election and takes office]”

Re:No collusion...

[Karmashock]

The entire investigation is baseless.

On what evidence did you launch the investigation? A smear memo from the Clinton campaign. None of it verified.

What evidence of any corroboration do you have to validate your position outside of the REEEEing of the democrats losing an election and YET AGAIN saying that the system has to be changed because they lost.

It is pathetic. Just because you lose an election doesn't mean the system has to be changed or you were cheated.

Sometimes it means you just lost.

Grow up.

Re:hmm

[jeff4747]

If Occam's razor can provide a better way to interpret these facts, please share.

Ok:

FBI announces in late 2016 that they have an active investigation into the Trump campaign working with Russia to affect the election.

That would toss the election to Clinton, since it was pretty close. And it would be really, really easy for the FBI to do if they actually were out to sabotage Trump. Just a press release, like the multiple press releases they sent out for their investigation into Clinton.

Instead, the FBI announced the investigation into Clinton's emails, including a big announcement reviving it in October. The FBI didn't talk about the investigation into the Trump campaign, and actively turned the press away from it by claiming the investigation didn't involve the Trump campaign.

That would be a really bad idea if they were actually out to get Trump.....but it doesn't fit the narrative so the imbalance in press releases somehow doesn't get included when you talk about including all facts.

Re:Strategically...

[drinkypoo]

Hillary's an aggressive war mongerer who'll try to push NATO further east, while Donald's a buffoon who's reducing the USA's diplomatic credibility in the world. Sounds like the Kremlin, if they did do this, did the rest of the world a favour.

Putin's an aggressive war monger who feared pushback from another aggressive war monger. So he wanted Trump instead. Now who's going to oppose Putin? Answer, nobody.

Re: Do they have H.Clintons job e-mails?

[drinkypoo]

Hillary Clinton didn't use an iPhone at that time, so your remark is irrelevant noise.

It doesn't matter what she used, anything would let you have multiple email accounts. Early Android phones, Crackberries, old-assed Winmo phones, you name it.

You would do better to complain that government rules did not require the use of an official government operated messaging system. They still don't.

No, but they did require the use of an official server for official communications, and the use of a cellphone on the approved list for same. And still do.

Re:foreigners?

[amicusNYCL]

Each of the indictments of individuals associated with the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians.

You should probably re-read the Papadopoulos indictment. His perjury crimes were relating to his statements about which Russians he was talking to, about what, and whether they were before or during the campaign. It turns out that he was talking to Russians who he thought had ties to their government, trying to arrange meetings or get information from them, while he was working with and for the campaign.

I didn't read through the other indictments, but that one example makes your statement false.

Plenty of other reasons

[skam240]

Never mind that now there are actually plenty of good reasons for Americans to not like Russia. From interfering in our presidential election, to invading a European country for seaking to align with the West, to engaging directly in cyber warfare against us and our allies.

Go back a few years and there were far fewer reasons to hate the Russians

Re:He needed new patsys

[amicusNYCL]

I believe the correct spelling of your name should be Arkhangelsk. But, really, feel free to keep linking to a site actively trying to discredit an ongoing investigation into Russians trying to subvert the democratic processes of the US. Let's just act like that's not happening, because that's totally patriotic and in all of our best interests, right?

Really, it's becoming so tiresome that so many people in the US apparently don't want to know whether and how Russia is trying to influence our country at the highest levels. These people seem to love Donald Trump more than they love the US, and it's really weird to see.

Re: Debate tricks

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the money laundering.

Taking the politics out ...

[CaptainDork]

... the Bitcoin aspect may be a bigger story.

Mueller found that the Russian hacker scheme was dependent on bitcoin, and it may have gotten them caught

Re:foreigners?

[Talderas]

My apologies. I erred when crafting that sentence. I made the assumption that the sentence would be interpreted in the context of the Russian collusion narrative, which is that Trump owes his Presidency to the Russians.

Papadopolous's indictment features a number of false statements regarding attempting to reach out to Russian contacts. The indictment contains no evidence of Papadopolous's statements being much more than an indication that he attempted to arrange a meeting between Trump and the Russian government as well as obtain the alleged hacked Clinton emails. If anything, the indictment goes to prove just how little Papadopolous managed to accomplish. In the end he never got the emails and there was no meeting arranged between the Russians and Trump or his campaign.

Flynn, which I had accidently posted Manafort's indictment also spoke with Russians. Flynn did contact with Russians but contact was also tangential to the collusion narrative. The indictments don't contain specifics but Flynn may have done no more than communicated the preferences of the Trump Presidential Transition Team to the Russians or other nations and encourage them to keep in mind the incoming administration when voting on a UN resolution. Flynn's perjury charges almost certain arose out of a desire to avoid any potential Logan Act prosecution, something that would be a very interesting case to watch come through the pipes with regard to the authority that will be assumed and has been preemptived bestowed on the President-elect via an election.

Re:I heard a nation state hovered Hillarys server

[arbiter1]

A senator said that all Clintons email's were being forwarded to a 3rd party AKA server was hacked in to but key point he said. The location where emails were going "WASN'T" Russia.

Re:He needed new patsys

[ArhcAngel]

What's tiresome is people feigning ignorance that this has been happening for hundreds of years and the US is just as dirty as Russia or any other foreign power. What is also tiring is people denying facts because the source of those facts doesn't meet to their approval. The facts of this information is readily available from numerous sources.

Re:Until..

[arbiter1]

They will never release it, I mean first 12 people and 3 companies they charged got a lawyer and Mueller team tried to stall when said lawyer walked in to court and demanded to see the evidence they had. Thank god the judge wasn't having any of that stalling.

Re:foreigners?

[amicusNYCL]

I made the assumption that the sentence would be interpreted in the context of the Russian collusion narrative, which is that Trump owes his Presidency to the Russians.

I think that claim would be both irrelevant and counter-productive, and Mueller is not interested in answering that. We have no way to remove Trump if that were true, so it's a pointless exercise, it's not like that can even be quantified and, even if it could, there is not any constitutional way to remove Trump and install, for example, Clinton. It's a non-issue. If Trump actually worked with foreign governments to influence the election then he can and should be impeached and removed, but that's just going to follow the normal impeachment process and we'll end up with either Pence or Ryan (if it happened today).

What Mueller is investigating is if and how Russia is trying to influence US democratic processes, and that should be important to any American regardless of political preference. For some reason one political party is trying to discredit the investigation, but in a perfect world any political party should want that investigation to continue. In fact, it may not even be a bad idea to set up a department or agency who has the sole purpose of continuously monitoring our elections and other democratic processes for any signs of foreign interference.

If anything, the indictment goes to prove just how little Papadopolous managed to accomplish.

That's OK, a criminal's level of success doesn't change whether or not they were breaking the law to start with. Thankfully, it sounds like Papadopolous is cooperating with the investigation. All I'm interested in is the truth - what happened, and what are we going to do about it, how are we going to make the country stronger?

It would be very unfortunate if the country was left weaker because of political opposition towards an investigation into whether or not foreign governments are influencing our elections.

Re:foreigners?

[quantaman]

While your statement is factually correct the narrative to which the submitter is reference is the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative. People want it to be true to get rid of Trump. These are all publicly available in indictments.

Papadopoulos - Perjury

His perjury was about a meeting on Clinton's emails that he had with a man whom he knew to be connected to the Russian government.

Flynn - Perjury

Perjury about his phone conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Manafort & Gates - Falsified income tax filings and bank fraud.

Hiding income that they got working for a Russia-backed politician in Ukraine and other Russian interests.

Only Pinedo, has anything to do with Russian involvement and that has to do with him selling some of the fraud services to the Russians. Pinedo wasn't involved with Trump's campaign. Each of the indictments of individuals associated with the Trump campaign have nothing to do with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians.

It's surprising that you went to the trouble to link to the indictments that actually contradict your claims.

I mean Papadopoulous, while on the campaign, met with a Russian connected individual to get information on emails that would damage Clinton.

What possible definition of "with the operations of the Trump campaign or even involve the Russians" does that not satisfy?

Homophobic haters

[mi]

you treasonous red state faggot.

Khm, this is the second time in this thread that the homophobic slur is used by a faaaar-Left anonymous coward...

Gotta love Trump for triggering his haters into exposing their ugly inner thoughts like this...

Re: Debate tricks

[mi]

Any opposition to his greatness is from people who don't love the country

Citations?

there is documented history of sexist and racist criticism that you refuse to condemn

You lie, boy. Is that it?

Re:He needed new patsys

[amicusNYCL]

What's tiresome is people feigning ignorance that this has been happening for hundreds of years and the US is just as dirty as Russia or any other foreign power.

And, what, we should just let it continue? Really, what's your solution? Not investigate? Act like it's not happening? Or just try to shit all over the people trying to protect the country like you did in your original post?

I mean, you understand that we currently live in an age where it is possible to remotely attack infrastructure in ways that used to require a bomber fleet? The US has destroyed Iranian centrifuges. Russia has fucked up Ukrainian power grids. This is reality. But, what, since countries have been spying on each other for centuries, you want to.... what, ignore it? Not determine if we are defending ourselves as well as we could? What exactly? Please respond, this is not a rhetorical question.

If investigating foreign influencing of elections and cyber-attacks is not the thing we should be doing, what do you think we should be doing instead? Spell it out.

I mean, other than attacking the people doing the actual investigating, like you did in your original post. Other than attacking the people trying to make the country secure, what else should we be doing? How about just killing Mueller outright, would that help? Maybe Trump can pick up a little Novichok when he meets Putin, hmm?

What is also tiring is people denying facts because the source of those facts doesn't meet to their approval.

No shit, I agree completely. But what people have against Mueller to try to discredit him or deny what he's doing, I have no idea. He seems like someone genuinely trying to help the country in as apolitically a way as possible, but some people seem to have more love for Trump than for their own country, which is really strange, like I said.

The facts of this information is readily available from numerous sources.

The only source for any facts about the investigation is Mueller himself, and we only see what he gives to the courts. Obviously, if he operated transparently it would cause major problems for his investigation until he can file all of the indictments that he feels are appropriate, and then defend them. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that has any level of functionality at all that he will not want to release any evidence that will tip off anyone that he is actively investigating before he can indict those people. But some people apparently see that and want to politicize it. I have no idea what the agenda is of the people trying to politicize that, but the well-being of the United States is clearly not high on their list.

Re:Seriously?!

[Karmashock]

Two years of you people circle jerking and all you've done thus far is make a sweaty degenerate mess of each other.

At what point will you be able to do a trial?

Because it seems clear that you don't have evidence and simply want to draw out the process indefinitely to create problems.

Bad faith has been demonstrated repeatedly and several judges have directly said so in a court of law regarding this cloud of cases.

I'm not bewildered by the process. It is very clear what is going on here.

Don't blame the EC for failing to do its job

[shanen]

I don't think these attacks on the EC are well justified because the founders were quite clear that one of the main purposes of the EC was to prevent presidents like Trump, whose only campaign tactic is to make mobs angry. The entire notion of "faithless elector" would be anathema to them, because the electors were NOT supposed to be chained to the voters. If the EC was working as intended, Trump is EXACTLY the president they wanted to prevent.

Perhaps a secret ballot in the EC would help? I really think that a lot of the electors might have voted against Trump if they had been able to do so. Given the dislike of Hillary (regardless of whether that dislike was legitimate or ginned up), it is quite possible the EC would also have been unable to vote for her. In that case, they would have had to fall back on the other mechanisms for picking a president, and they certainly could not have found a worse president than #PresidentTweety.

Just a footnote, but don't forget that they wanted a system that would confer strong legitimacy, something like a mandate to lead, after strongly contested elections. I rather wish that they had been able to innovate all the way to a parliamentary system instead of creating such a winner-take-all system.

Re:Don't blame the EC for failing to do its job

[Trondheim]

How, exactly, do you know the founders created the electoral college to prevent presidents like Trump?

Re:Don't blame the EC for failing to do its job

[Uberbah]

I don't think these attacks on the EC are well justified because the founders were quite clear that one of the main purposes of the EC was to prevent presidents like Trump

The "Founders" created the EC for the same reason they had state governments elect Senators and only gave white male property owners the right to vote: they were elitist pricks who wanted to present the illusion of a representative democracy, while creating an oligarchy ruled by an aristocracy in all but inherited title. They were deathly afraid of "the mob" having any kind of say, otherwise known as poor and working people having input on their own governance or self-determination.

Re: Don't blame the EC for failing to do its job

[Dynedain]

Because Alexander Hamilton explicitly says so in the Federalist Papers? The process and arguments that resulted in the Constitution isnâ(TM)t lost to the mists of time.

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union"

Read it yourself, it isnâ(TM)t long:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18t...

Re: Don't blame the EC for failing to do its job

[c6gunner]

They were deathly afraid of "the mob" having any kind of say, otherwise known as poor and working people having input on their own governance or self-determination.

As well they should have been. Giving ignorant mobs the ability to dictate government policy is a recipe for disaster. In what other field of human endeavour would this be seen as a good idea? Instead of going to see a trained medical professional would you rather have the mob vote on what treatment you receive for your chest pains?

The political system is designed the way it is in order to provide everyone with an opportunity to have some input while at the same time preventing them from destroying everything (or at least slowing down the destruction).

Re: Don't blame the EC for failing to do its job

[shanen]

I think my Subject: for this branch is a typo... Actually the EC should be blamed for failing to do its job...

However, on the subject of Senators, I think their idea was that a separate basis of power would provide another check and balance. On that line of analysis, direct election of the Senators is a mistake, because it's relying on the same basis as the Representatives in the House.

If I got to rewrite the 17th Amendment, it would change the basis of the Senate to wealth, specifically in terms of taxes paid. Each Senator would represent 1% of the tax revenue of the federal government. That would have been difficult until recently, but now we have computers that can solve large knapsack problems fairly rapidly. We don't need perfect solutions, but basically need to start with large taxpayers distributed around the nation and add enough smaller voters to balance things out for each Senator. You'd know exactly who your senator was and exactly why he was ignoring you.

What about corporations? Darn good question and shows you're awake. The only question is whether to allocate certain senators to corporations or just mix them in as though they were actually human beings. Just depends on the federal taxes actually paid.

Re: Don't blame the EC for failing to do its job

[Uberbah]

As well they should have been. Giving ignorant mobs the ability to dictate government policy is a recipe for disaster

That's just more elitist bullshit in defense of elitist bullshit. You could write an encyclopedia of encyclopedias of encyclopedias of all the fuck-ups in human history caused by elites. Religious wars between Catholics and Protestants? Elites. Slavery? Elites. Either of the World Wars? Colonialism? The US spending more than the rest of the world combined on war pork? Elites, elites, elites.

But go ahead and name one by fuck up by "the mob" that wasn't a directly backlash to elites fucking things up in the first place. French Terror? Wouldn't have happened without the aristocracy keeping boots on the necks of peasants for a thousand years. Cuban Revolution? Wouldn't have happened without colonialism and the US backing the brutal dictatorship of Batista.

The political system is designed the way it is in order to provide everyone with an opportunity to have some input

Not unless you were a white male who owned property. The Founding Pricks were happy enough to apply taxes to people who couldn't vote, though - taxation without representation.

Re: Don't blame the EC for failing to do its job

[AutodidactLabrat]

Nope. Read the 14th. Not one word about State's rights

Re: Don't blame the EC for failing to do its job

[AutodidactLabrat]

The EC is a holdover from the effort to get Slave States to sign the Constitution.
No other cause

Re:You suck at diversion

[Karmashock]

Really, so did I forget who you are? Mr AC?

See, all you're doing is making baseless character assassinations whilst posting under an AC tag. You could and likely are any number of well known asshats on this board that would laughed out of the channel if you made that accusation.

Which is why you post under AC. Because it helps you lie.

Everyone knows. ;)

Is the GOP afraid? The proof is in the crickets

[ody]

... on http://www.foxnews.com./

Re:hmm

[BrianMarshall]

If Occam's razor can provide a better way to interpret these facts, please shave.

FTFY

Re:Who didn't tamper with the last election?

[superwiz]

It's a said day when the only person making sense is an AC.

Re:Strategically...

[Dread_ed]

If this is the actual case, "Russia saw Donald as a weak man they could easily manipulate by guiding his ego," (and I believe it is) then you can say many things about Democrats, but you can't call them smart, effective, or mature.

Controlling someone who has their over-inflated ego attached to a very specific self image, and is incredibly eager to present that self image in public, is easy. You appeal to that nature, couch your desires in terms of how it will reinforce the image they want to portray. Play to their ego, mention their legacy, compliment them on possessing those positive traits, and show them how a specific course of action will prove to everyone they possess those positive traits Imply or present scenarios where inaction or action other than what you desire would be detrimental to the image they want to portray or even better, would be seen as evidence their desired image is a fraud. If you are successful, which is incredibly easy if you are mature enough to focus on results rather than your own childish impotent rage, your enemy will bend over backward and crab-walk over fire to show everyone who they are and in the process do exactly what you want.

Democrats have really overdone the second part, impugning his character, saying he's a fraud, a racist, a sexist, a NAZI, a traitor, a heartless ignoramus, etc. They missed the whole first part though, and as such have missed every opportunity to manipulate this man into doing their bidding. They are so emotionally overwrought they have become completely ineffective at politics. It is they, not Trump, who are their own worst enemy. By definition this makes them, as a group, not as intelligent as Trump.

It also makes Putin their political, emotional, and intellectual superior by a huge margin. No wonder they fear him so much. They are incapable of following where his mind goes, impotent to control their actions the way he does, and so helplessly addicted to outbursts of infantile outrage they can't stop, even if doing so meant they could control the White House after a lost election.

If that's not an indictment of the negative effects of partisanship and how it destroys the minds, power, and agency of those who continue to practice it, I don't know what is.

Re:Campaign help from Russians bad, Saudis ok?

[amicusNYCL]

There are specific laws which we have based on foreign powers influencing our elections. If those laws were broken, people should be prosecuted. Why the fuck is that so difficult to understand?

Political affiliations, or which foreign government it is, have absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not those laws were broken.

The "12 charges" is a farce and here is why

[Ulfilas2000]

Since the Chargees to the Charges are in Russian, and are unlikely to appear in court, then it is similarly unlikely that they will defend themselves against the charges. Which means that whatever Rosenstain stuck out there is just a floater for public news and comment. He could claim space aliens hacked the DNC server with the Russians and there is no one to argue otherwise. Hence, it is a farce.

Re:Strategically...

[benjfowler]

Don't confuse intelligence and wisdom, with low animal cunning.

If Putin were intelligent and wise, we wouldn't be in this situation.

Re:hmm

[Orestesx]

Your trail of "facts" would be compelling if they were true, but they are not. Carter Page was part of the Trump team since at least March 2016 when he was identified by Trump as a foreign policy consultant. Halper was never part of the Trump team and didn't meet Page until July 2016. So I don't know how you think Halper was responsible for Page getting hired by Trump.

Re:Comey Testimony

[Uberbah]

How's the weather in St. Petersburg today? Do the people you work with still call it Leningrad?

You recycle that line from 2003, when you were running around calling skeptics of Iraqi WMD's supporters of Saddam?

Re:Strategically...

[Uberbah]

It was really a smart move by Putin. For the many bad things you can say about Putin, you can't call him stupid.

Right - but I can sure call you stupid, you and every other Russiagater. How is it that Putin was so clever and crafty that he knew years in advance that a failed businessman and WWE character could be president, but yet dumb enough not to predict any blowback, and dumb enough to collude with someone as dumb as Trump. Which means the FBI/CIA/NSA would also know of said collusion in real time, which would mean so would President Hillary, as the election was hers to lose until Mrs. Nafta decided it would be a brilliant idea to no-show in the Rust Belt. The same Hillary that campaigned on shooting down Russian jets over Syria.

Then there's the fact that both parties have been extremely anti-Russian for over a century. It's like a conspiracy theory of a gay person interfering in an election between an extremely homophobic Mormon and an extremely homophobic Catholic.

Re:Seriously?!

[thegarbz]

At what point will you be able to do a trial?

When it's ready. 2 years? Laughably short time span for a case like this.

Re: Do they have H.Clintons job e-mails?

[drinkypoo]

In the fashion that Hillary Clinton wanted it to operate?

It does not matter even slightly if it worked the way she wanted it to work, as long as it would do the job. She needed to work with it the way it worked.

As for the server, you're right; she wasn't required to use an official server. I misspoke. What she was required to do was retain all records relating to official business. But we know that they purged substantial quantities of email from the server before handing it over, and we know that Clinton got her own server on the advice of Colin Powell who suggested it specifically for the purpose of destroying evidence. Since the purpose of the server was to circumvent the law, the server was illegal.

I would rather have had Clinton as president than Trump, but don't pretend Clinton isn't a criminal.

Re: Do they have H.Clintons job e-mails?

[drinkypoo]

Given the history of wild and spurious accusations against Hillary Clinton, and the Trump defenders continual cries that he didn't do the thing or something(including Trump himself), you will have to recognize that I won't let you pretend your complaints are effective and demonstrating integrity.

I'm not a Trump supporter or Trump defender, so that's a nothing sandwich.

Re: Strategically...

[Dread_ed]

Understood. What you are experiencing is not uncommon. You are so put off by someone that given the choice to A) get what you want from them, or B) complain about/antagonize/obstruct/frustrate/attack them, you will pull lever B. Repeatedly. Even until it kills you.

One could appeal to Machiavelli, where the ends justify the means, as a remedy for such a self destructive mindset. The application is, in this context, apropos as we are looking at the political landscape. All that is required is a reorganization of priorities and viewpoint from the model of taking personal offense and returning personal offence toward a model where you have the end result in mind and work backward to the actions that will create that result. Of course, implicit in this is that you must sacrifice your infantile desire to punish and attack the object of your distaste.

Since this is the price of entry, and so few are willing to pay that particular toll, one could easily come to the conclusion that for most people who habitually yank lever B they have no deeper agenda than that. They aren't really concerned with anything other than venting, attacking, obstructing, and whinging. Dr. Phil would say they already have their payoff. Their complaints aren't really about ends, their complaints are personal. That's a question you would have to answer for yourself. From what you posted, it looks as if you already did, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Re:Seriously?!

[Karmashock]

Just remember, the wheel turns. See yourself asking people to be reasonable when you weren't.

The shoe will be on the other foot and actions will be remembered.

Re:foreigners?

[quantaman]

> Hiding income that they got working for a Russia-backed politician in Ukraine and other Russian interests.

That occurred before Manafort was ever on the Trump campaign, so it really has nothing to do with anything.

He worked for a (notoriously corrupt) Russia-linked politician and has a lot of connections with Kremlin linked Russians. It doesn't seem like a weird coincidence that he ended up on Trump's campaign?

> I mean Papadopoulous, while on the campaign, met with a Russian connected individual to get information on emails that would damage Clinton.

Yeah, why would someone working on a political campaign work to find dirt on their political opponent? Next you'll be wondering why Jeri Ryan's divorce records were unsealed.

Getting illegally gained intel from a foreign government?

So are you now working towards the theory that it would be perfectly OK for Trump to have colluded with the Russian government?

Re:Strategically...

[shanen]

I think you're oversimplifying and largely misdirecting your analysis. I think that Putin's goals evolved over time. Initially the Russians only wanted to prevent Hillary from winning too strongly and believed that they could weaken her enough so that she would not have a strong mandate to lead in bothersome dimensions. (Much of their clandestine support of Sanders was dedicated to that goal.)

When Putin realized that Trump was a serious contender, he was amazed, and when Trump actually "won" he was happier than Bin Laden when the towers collapsed. Putin knows just how much kompromat the Russians have on Trump. It's not so much that Trump is weak, though that's true, too, but that Trump is a colossal fool and has been owned for decades.

In the form of an elevator pitch, you aren't bankrupt until your creditors pull the plug, and they pulled Trump's plug long ago. The ONLY thing that saved Trump was a pile of dirty money that needed laundering, and the KGB was killing two birds with the one stone. (1) Clean(ish) dollars for filthy rubles. (2) Trump on a leash if they ever needed to jerk it.

At this point, I don't think Putin needs to pull Trump's strings much. I think he has a computer model of Trump that's better than most weather prediction systems. He knows what inputs Trump is getting from FAUX, and he even knows most of the Twitter-based inputs based on when Trump tweets. He probably has sources inside the White House that give him accurate assessments for how little attention Trump pays to such sources as General Kelly and the CIA. From the inputs Putin gets a highly accurate prediction of what Trump is going to do, and if he likes it, then he does nothing. If he doesn't like it, then Putin tweaks the inputs or even the situation until Trump's behavior is back in the "acceptable" range.

Re: Do they have H.Clintons job e-mails?

[drinkypoo]

Thus I point out the nature of your own complaints about Clinton, or other things as I see them.

It's similar to how I can point out my opposition to the Electoral college preceded Bush/Gore in 2000 so I'm not concerned about the current election, my objections preceded it.
I was calling Clinton a warhawk before the election. Checkmate, troll.

Re: Debate tricks

[mi]

Donald Trump himself.

No links... Khm... Probably, because it never happened.

Re:Seriously?!

[thegarbz]

See yourself asking people to be reasonable when you weren't.

As a matter of interest, what are you talking about? You think it's unreasonable for a case that involves the highest level of government to go for 2 years? Maybe look into how long watergate went for. While you're at it look how long some cases if disputes with local developers go for.

We are well within the bounds of normal at this point.

Re:Seriously?!

[Karmashock]

Watergate?

They had actionable court evidence INSTANTLY in the watergate investigation. They literally arrested people that they could red fucking handed.

And you want to compare that to "this".

You have nothing you can take to court after two years. In watergate there was something to take to court ON DAY ONE.

On. Day. One.

And you compare that to a case that has NOTHING after two years?

Do you want me to go through the watergate investigation in embarressing detail to show all the ways in which that was an absolutely horrible example?

or do you want to concede that one too?

Stay down.

https://youtu.be/s35rVw1zskA?t...

Re:Seriously?!

[Karmashock]

How many of them are about Russian collusion?

Name one.

Re:Seriously?!

[thegarbz]

They had actionable court evidence INSTANTLY in the watergate investigation.

Yep. Took 4 years though.

You have nothing you can take to court after two years.

Nope. You believe there's nothing you can take to court after two years. Very few people know what anyone has. That's how it works when you don't run a leaky ship. What we have seen however is that everyone who has seen anything that this has has so far instantly pleaded guilty.

Do you want me to go through the watergate investigation in embarressing detail to show all the ways in which that was an absolutely horrible example?

No. I think we've had enough nonsensical blathering from you for one day.

Re:Seriously?!

[Karmashock]

Your concession that the two situations are not similar happened here:
""Yep.""

They had actionable evidence on day one in the watergate investigation. Two years into this shit you have not ONE incident of Russian collusion with Americans to bias the election. Nothing.

As it stands there is literally ZERO evidence of collusion between not only the Trump Administration but ANY AMERICAN and the Russians regarding election fraud.

And to make matters even dumber, the Russian interference in the election amounted to some Facebook ads which only a blithering idiot would think were relevant in the fucking unending blizzard of propaganda that bombards voters during an election.

What was in any of those facebook ads that swayed anyone?

Keep in mind, the argument is that it changed votes. Examine the literal facebook memes... they were more memes than ads... name one of those memes that actually changed a vote or was even remotely unique?

Here is a New York Times article where they link a bunch of them:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...

Do you HONESTLY think that did anything? Because there is no way that someone that was going to vote for hillary or bernie looked at those fucking things and then said "I have decided to change my vote". They're shit posting at best.

You think a 2 year FBI investigation is worth sustaining over some facebook shit posting. That isn't a question. That is an obvious fact. Feel shame.

I went through them all. They were ignorable because there was a shit load of obviously not russian inspired memes saying the exact same thing that were dramatically more common.

And let us also not forget that the REAL scandal was that Hillary perverted the the DNC against Bernie.

SHE EVEN WROTE A FUCKING BOOK ABOUT IT:
https://www.amazon.com/Hacks-I...

This woman was head of the DNC during the end of the presidential election. She details in there what went wrong.

1. Obama f'ed up the Democratic party by focusing on his own political machine to the exclusion of the party leaving it starved of resources and organization.

2. DWS who was head of the DNC was a best incompetent and possibly corrupt and also ran up a lot of debt leaving the DNC in debt to the tune of 20ish million dollars going INTO the presidential election. Going into that election the Republicans had a cash surplus and the Democrats after 8 years in power were 20 million in debt going into the election. Rather than blaming boogiemen for your failure maybe clean your own house?

3. Hillary bailed the DNC out on condition that she would control it PRIOR to winning nomination from her party. Which meant that the primary was a farce.

It goes on and on and on. And no, it isn't controversial... there is empirical evidence for pretty much all of that. Unlike the Russian collusion circus which has no empirical evidence of Russian collusion.

And all you chuckleheads want to talk about is Russian collusion of when there is more evidence of Obama colluding with the Russians. Or did you forget this:
https://youtu.be/keXx0zxTarE?t...

Imagine if you had a video clip of Trump saying that? You would cream your degenerate pants.

But here's the thing. Everything you're doing is predicated on the assumption that people are dumb enough to not follow along. And sure, there are a lot of stupid people for you to prey upon. But you've painted yourself into a corner. Your economic policy. Your political tactics. Your reliance on heavy handed false morality.

You have no credibility, no integrity, and there's no possibly of extending you even common courtesy in this environment so absurdly egregious is this behavior. This political faction you've married yourself to is out of control. And carrying their water in the face of overwhelming evidence is only making it worse.

You're running out of floor, machacho.

Putting on a brave face isn't going to stop this.

Re:Seriously?!

[Karmashock]

George Papdopoulos was convicted of lying to the FBI not of colluding with the Russians. What is more, the incident doesn't stretch beyond him thus rendering that a nothing burger.

You need to show collusion. You don't have it and Mueller is signaling that he's going to wrap up that portion of the investigation as there really is no evidence of it.

It is a political circus. Everyone sees it. Deny as you will... its denying the Sun at this point.

Re:Seriously?!

[Karmashock]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

""On October 5, 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to making false statements to FBI agents relating to contacts he had with agents of the Russian government while working for the Trump campaign.""

He plead guilty to making false statements... not colluding... and the false statements don't even matter because nothing he was lying about ultimately was relevant.

Mueller has done this a couple times. Someone gives an interview, says something wrong... and he charges them with false statements to the FBI. Which is part of the reason no one is talking to him anymore.

If he were throwing the book at people that colluded or committed some criminal act that is more than a technicality, then that would be something. But your example here is pretty typical of his investigation. The best he's got is some people making false statements that don't matter.

The guy said he didn't talk to some people when he did... So what? Its not collusion or election fraud. Its just some of his people saying they didn't do something they did. But if they had admitted they did that thing rather than lie... there would be no charges. You're literally just nailing him for making a misstatement/lie. But what he lied about didn't matter.

So for example if I ate pancakes but told Mueller I ate eggs... he could basically charge me with the same crime and it would have about the same significance.

That you feel THIS is something to be proud of is frankly pretty sad.

You've got nothing. Unless a guy lying about breakfast cereal gets you hot.

Re:Seriously?!

[Karmashock]

Its interesting that you criticize my literacy whilst yourself using a word at the center of your argument that you do not know the definition of in the first place.

Collusion... read the definition:
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...

"Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement"

You said:
""that collusion right there. he had contacts with agents of the russian government and lied to the fbi about it.""

Now, look at the definition and look at what you said.

Collusion would require some sort of illegal intent. The only illegality was in making false statements to the FBI. But that is merely as already patiently explained to you a false statement... and a false statement is not itself collusion. Collusion would require some sort of conspiratorial effort to obtain something that is itself illegal.

Having a contact in the Russian government is not illegal. Assuming for a moment that Trump wins his election to be president which... as we do not live in the past we know he did... it is prudent for a head of state to have such contacts. Every president from the first to the last has had agents that make contact with agents of other governments. That is not illegal.

Talking to Russians is not illegal. It would have to be for you to have a case and since that isn't the case you have no case.

In the future, you may avoid looking like an ass if you avoid insulting people that are better educated and more intelligent than yourself. I know I know... this statement offends you. But you have no right to be offended. You criticized my grasp of the English language whilst proving that your own grasp is quite poor... and in the same post.

This is merely you mindlessly parroting tribalistic political hyperbole from the dying Clinton political machine.

Trump is Hitler
Trump is worse than Hitler
Trump is a traitor
Blah blah blah... its just sputtering REEEEEing from you people at this point. You've made it very clear that you have no integrity, have lost control over yourselves, and will literally stoop to anything to clutch on to power.

And to make all of that all the sadder, YOU personally have nothing to gain from their webs of corruption and nepotism. You're fighting for an aristocrasy that sees people like you as cannon fodder. You're basically a Neo-Peasant. Ignorant, confused, conditioned to charge mindlessly at whatever banner or crest your lords and ladies tell you to.

You're pathetic. You can be more than you are. Be an individual. Have an idea of your own. Don't just be their peon.

Re:Seriously?!

[Karmashock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ... So YOU throw insults, I provide evidence to show that the insults in question are actually more appropriately labeled upon you... and now you just hypocritically shift to whining about being insulted? You started the insults, you comical internet worm.

Further, unlike your insults, mine were NOT baseless. You insulted ME by saying that I had a poor grasp of the English language and then demonstrated a lack of understanding of a legal term at the core of your argument.

Far from my position being baseless, I provided citations as I have done so throughout this discussion to show you were in error.

Once substanciating my position, I did follow through with "judging" you. But my judgements were based on your statements and citations which justified them.

Now if you have been sufficiently humilitated that you feel you can no longer sustain your arrogant position, then that is progress.

You should have started off respectfully with me. You did not. I am not a stupid man and unlike your positions, mine can supported with evidence and defended.

Next time you engage with me, don't use the AC tag please and treat me with common courtesy at a bare minimum. If you use AC there is a high likelihood that I will ignore your post without reading it. And if you open your discussion with hostility then I'll treat you in kind. As I've demonstrated myself to be more formidable than yourself, this will just lead to you getting wrecked again.

As you appear to not like getting wrecked consider not provoking me. Just an idea.

Re:Seriously?!

[Karmashock]

""

Re:Seriously?! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19, 2018 @10:55AM (#56975502)

how are you capable of typing when your literacy level is that tragically low? in your own words:""

You're an idiot.

And if you think your insult wasn't an insult, then by that same standard, neither was mine.

You're either a very stupid hypocrite or you're so baffled by logic that you think you can create a situation where by a single standard two people that did similar things are not mutually guilty or innocent.

Either way, you're impressively stupid. I mean that sincerely. There are a lot of stupid people on the internet but you're actually doing a pretty stellar job of competing for the 99th percentile of idiocy.

And whilst I'm sure you find your transparently fallacious appeal for civilized argument as a solid chance of winning a moral high ground... The attempt is utterly annihilated by the fact that I've provided links, complete arguments, and only became offensive in RESPONSE to offensive statements from people like you.

Now since you illiterate on top of everything else I doubt this is going to be absorb with any competency by you. You did just challenge me to cite one incident of me being insulted when actually I've received very little from you specifically besides insults.

IF you then say "I'm not THAT AC"... Yes you are. I have no ability to tell you apart. You've gone out of your way to make it impossible for me to tell you apart so I've no choice but to treat you like a singular personality especially when your writing styles are identical and your arguments are identical. I literally cannot tell you apart and you've make proactive efforts to create that situation. You've made your bed. Continue to lie in it.

Re:Seriously?!

[Karmashock]

Stubborn denial is not an argument.

If that's all you've got, then I'm going to have accept your complete surrender before your own towering stupidity.

That's right. I'm not claiming a win here. This is a full self own on your part.

I provided detailed self consistent arguments and all you're vote is "nah uh"... which wasn't convincing in first grade and the quality of that argument hasn't improved over time.

I'm done wasting my time with you. Here you'll probably try to bait with some silly remark but the pathetic display you've put on here is irredeemable. If my posts were as stupid as yours, I'd also post under AC.