3 ms·

What is your explanation of those ledger entries? Was Mueller setting up Russia before he was named Special Counsel? Also, I read the indictment (https://d3i6f

What is your explanation of those ledger entries? Was Mueller setting up Russia before he was named Special Counsel? Also, I read the indictment (https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/07/Muellerindictment.pdf https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/07/Mueller...) but I missed the part about, "these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GRU captain"". Please point me to it? I assumed they used stolen identities, like it seems to state in count 10's paragraph 59 and 60, and uses multiple accounts across multiple exchanges to obscure the money trail (paragraph 63). edit: It's common knowledge who Robert Mueller is. He's been a public figure for decades, and nobody ever made any effort conceal his background. Why are you providing me a wikipedia link?

uxp 8y ago
I don't think there has been any public release of information confirming the evidence revealed in the indictment. Indictments are supposed to be somewhat hyperbolic in appearance (not literally, but figuratively). They aren't supposed to lie, but at the same time they will omit key facts explaining how or why they know or suspect person X did action Y. Those facts will be revealed to the defense or during trial. Unfortunately, these indictments will never result in a trial or pre-trial discovery on part of the defense, so the public may never know the reasons. That said, the Dutch were able to watch[0] Unit 26165 (a/k/a Cozy Bear, APT29) on CCTV, so it doesn't seem entirely implausible that the NSA or some other FVEY group was capable of retrieving emails from whatever webmail provider Unit 26165 was using (appears to be yandex and mail.com in the indictment). 0: https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-...
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  Sure, I agree with you on all counts. My point was more that the poster I was replying to either has 1) something not in the indictment 2) some non-yet-public information, or 3) has made something up. I thought it might be 3, but wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt.
- matt4077 8y ago
  > information confirming the evidence People will never be satisfied. If/When the full emails quoted in the indictment are released, they will point out that e-mails are just UTF-8 characters in a file that anybody could have created. There simply is no evidence, nor is it even possible for there to be any evidence, that people could verify at home. Even if the official Russian "Certificate of Excellence in Hacking Democracy", printed on Russia's own polonium-laced paper, affixed with "Putin's Seal of Outrageous Heterosexuality" self-appointed sceptics will complain that all they can access is a photo, and the FBI isn't letting them stop by and inspect the original.
igivanov 8y ago
>I missed the part about, "these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GRU captain"". Please point me to it? that was sarcasm, sorry, I forgot it doesn't go well here. there is nothing in the indictment about how they were able to identify particular perpetrators including their full names. >I assumed they used stolen identities, No one in Russia uses their full names with patronymics spelled out in paper mail or e-mail or in official paperwork, except in e.g. a job application or similar i.e. where one must be fully identified. So unless it's a bad case of a Hollywood movie script, those could have come only from hacked internal databases. I am not sure a spy agency would thus reveal it has hacked those internal databases or had a mole in GRU. And on top of that they would be somehow able to match a record in that database with a hacker out there - a truly miraculous feat. On the other hand if those are stolen identities, there are no hints of that in the indictment. They are presented as true identities. And still, full patronymics just don't compute. >Why are you providing me a wikipedia link? What do you want me to provide to prove that he is not to be trusted? My own investigation?

uxp 8y ago

I don't think there has been any public release of information confirming the evidence revealed in the indictment. Indictments are supposed to be somewhat hyperbolic in appearance (not literally, but figuratively). They aren't supposed to lie, but at the same time they will omit key facts explaining how or why they know or suspect person X did action Y. Those facts will be revealed to the defense or during trial. Unfortunately, these indictments will never result in a trial or pre-trial discovery on part of the defense, so the public may never know the reasons. That said, the Dutch were able to watch[0] Unit 26165 (a/k/a Cozy Bear, APT29) on CCTV, so it doesn't seem entirely implausible that the NSA or some other FVEY group was capable of retrieving emails from whatever webmail provider Unit 26165 was using (appears to be yandex and mail.com in the indictment). 0: https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-...

throwaway5752 8y ago
Sure, I agree with you on all counts. My point was more that the poster I was replying to either has 1) something not in the indictment 2) some non-yet-public information, or 3) has made something up. I thought it might be 3, but wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt.
matt4077 8y ago
> information confirming the evidence People will never be satisfied. If/When the full emails quoted in the indictment are released, they will point out that e-mails are just UTF-8 characters in a file that anybody could have created. There simply is no evidence, nor is it even possible for there to be any evidence, that people could verify at home. Even if the official Russian "Certificate of Excellence in Hacking Democracy", printed on Russia's own polonium-laced paper, affixed with "Putin's Seal of Outrageous Heterosexuality" self-appointed sceptics will complain that all they can access is a photo, and the FBI isn't letting them stop by and inspect the original.

igivanov 8y ago

>I missed the part about, "these "operatives" signed their e-mails with their full names including patronymics and ranks like "GRU captain"". Please point me to it? that was sarcasm, sorry, I forgot it doesn't go well here. there is nothing in the indictment about how they were able to identify particular perpetrators including their full names. >I assumed they used stolen identities, No one in Russia uses their full names with patronymics spelled out in paper mail or e-mail or in official paperwork, except in e.g. a job application or similar i.e. where one must be fully identified. So unless it's a bad case of a Hollywood movie script, those could have come only from hacked internal databases. I am not sure a spy agency would thus reveal it has hacked those internal databases or had a mole in GRU. And on top of that they would be somehow able to match a record in that database with a hacker out there - a truly miraculous feat. On the other hand if those are stolen identities, there are no hints of that in the indictment. They are presented as true identities. And still, full patronymics just don't compute. >Why are you providing me a wikipedia link? What do you want me to provide to prove that he is not to be trusted? My own investigation?