5 ms·

The only problem is there is no way to prove that that address actually belongs to the GRU. They don't have to. This case isn't going to trial; it was basical

The only problem is there is no way to prove that that address actually belongs to the GRU. They don't have to. This case isn't going to trial; it was basically a PR stunt. It wouldn't survive a trial. The strategy is simple: Indict a bunch of people that you cannot extradite, and you get a PR win with just some broad strokes and have to prove nothing. You get to keep your unlimited budget to continue the investigation, and the press keeps listening to you.

civilitty 8y ago
That's idiotic and completely ignorant of how large scale criminal prosecutions work. Conspiracy and RICO charges necessitate many low level indictments to demonstrate to the court that there is probable cause to the indict the bigger fish and restrict them until trial. Since indictments have a lower threshold than convictions, they are easily challenged when they are brought up as relevant evidence. Mueller has already brought these charges in front of a judge and he decided that the evidence warrants serious consideration of the allegations. Until another judge says otherwise, you are doing nothing but spreading clearcut propaganda.
- throwawayou812 8y ago
  Conspiracy and RICO charges necessitate many low level indictments to demonstrate to the court that there is probable cause to the indict the bigger fish If you cannot arrest the people in the "low level indictments" or threaten them with prison then they aren't going to help you with the "bigger fish". Mueller has already brought these charges in front of a judge You're entirely wrong. This went in front of a grand jury, not a judge. That shows that your understanding of this whole process may not be what it needs to be to make the arguments you are making. Anger in no way makes up for lack of knowledge.
  - civilitty 8y ago
    > That shows that your understanding of this whole process may not be what it needs to be to make the arguments you are making. You don't even know that judges preside over grand jury proceedings. That's, like, the most fundamental aspect of the entire legal system: there is a judge deciding things. You have no business criticizing someone's understanding of the judicial system.
    - throwawayou812 8y ago
      Grand juries indict people, not judges.
      - civilitty 8y ago
        Grand juries follow the instructions of the judge presiding over the proceedings.
        throwawayou812 8y ago
        And then the grand jury, completely independent of any judge, makes a decision as to whether or not to indict. Your argument is like saying the referees decide who wins the Super Bowl.
        civilitty 8y ago
        Grand juries cannot even exist independent of a judge, let alone decide things of consequence like an indictment. What planet do you live on?
        throwawayou812 8y ago
        You're actually trying to argue that judges have an active decision making role in deciding whether or not a grand jury issues an indictment? You're really destroying your own credibility and making my point for me the deeper this conversation goes. There's an old saying: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
        civilitty 8y ago
        You're actually trying to argue that judges don't play an active role in the JUDICIAL SYSTEM. You're literally arguing that water isn't wet.
        8y ago
- downandout 8y ago
  Conspiracy and RICO charges necessitate many low level indictments to demonstrate to the court that there is probable cause to the indict the bigger fish and restrict them until trial. There will be no trial in this case, so your point is moot. The government gained no leverage with these indictments either, because the people it indicted are beyond the reach of the US government. That was the whole point of my comment. There is exactly one person that was affected in any way by this indictment - and that was Mueller himself, who was congratulated on a job well done by a press that is hungry for Russia-related headlines. The case itself will not be prosecuted unless one of these guys happens to come to the US on vacation or something, but that is extremely unlikely since they know they are under indictment. Mueller has already brought these charges in front of a judge I see that someone else already corrected you on this, but for the record, that person is correct. No judge has ruled on the merits of this case, and the standard that the grand jury uses to indict is very low relative to the standard used at trial. So, in closing, there are 2 undeniable facts at issue here: 1) All of those indicted are Russians residing in Russia; and 2) Russia does not extradite its citizens to the US. Therefore, it is not "clearcut propaganda" but rather an undeniable fact to say that this case has no chance of actually being prosecuted in the US, and that the only person affected by this indictment at all was Mueller himself. Mueller presumably knew that he was indicting only Russians that would never be extradited, and therefore knew that the case was not going to actually be prosecuted.
guelo 8y ago
You don't know if that is true, you are just recycling unsubstantiated conspiracy theory propaganda.
- duxup 8y ago
  Dude's profile: >HN used to be a place where thoughtful conversation could take place; now it's nothing more than a den of bullies attempting to spread misinformation that supports their political views. It's a hyper-liberal echo chamber. >I am going continue posting because I hate bullies and won't allow them to tell me what to do, but each and every one of my comments now gets auto-downvoted by GDPR zealots. I don't expect that any comment of mine will ever have a positive score again, but that's OK. I have karma to burn. >I win, you lose. I guess this means you lost.
  - downandout 8y ago
    > I guess this means you lost. How, exactly? And what is that you're saying signifies that I have "lost"? That yet another random HN poster (@guelo in this case) intentionally mischaracterized hard facts - the fact that all of the people indicted were Russian citizens, and that Russia does not extradite its citizens - as "unsubstantiated conspiracy theory propaganda" hardly surprises me, but it in no way makes me "lose". Such is the nature of HN these days, and it saddens me to see this place devolve into this. Many of the people here dismiss or ignore cold, hard facts when those facts are not favorable to their side in almost every comment thread on HN. @Guelo is the offender this time, but there are countless others. Facts cannot be argued with, and so in this case, he simply dismissed them because he didn't like those facts. It's wrong that people choose to do this, and that is the crux of the message on my profile page that you quoted, but they do it all the time and I will point it out whenever I see it. Your comment is even more bizarre to me. You essentially said "You got schooled!" when someone said that the facts I presented were unsubstantiated propaganda, even though they are simply undeniable facts. He presented no argument to support his comment, such as proof of some sort of new extradition treaty that would allow for Russian spies in Russia to be extradited to the US. That would certainly make me "lose" this argument, and I would be happy to concede at that point. Short of that, I can't see that I have "lost" anything based on his comment. You essentially jumped a on a bandwagon where there was no wagon - but rather just a band, making meaningless noises.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
Assets can be frozen. Their travel to countries who do extradite will be restricted. And evidence for levying sanctions has been produced by the executive and judicial branches, providing the legislative branch cover. These charges are far from pointless.
- downandout 8y ago
  Your reply is off topic. What does any of that have to do with the point of my comment? My point was that the indictment appears flimsy because prosecutors knew that they would never actually have to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. There is a reason that every single person indicted here happens to be beyond the reach of the US government. If you know that you will never have to try the case, you can make all the accusations you think are reasonable (even if you know you cannot prove them) and then drop the charges you can’t prove much later if one of these guys ever actually did wind up in custody (which is extremely unlikely).

civilitty 8y ago

That's idiotic and completely ignorant of how large scale criminal prosecutions work. Conspiracy and RICO charges necessitate many low level indictments to demonstrate to the court that there is probable cause to the indict the bigger fish and restrict them until trial. Since indictments have a lower threshold than convictions, they are easily challenged when they are brought up as relevant evidence. Mueller has already brought these charges in front of a judge and he decided that the evidence warrants serious consideration of the allegations. Until another judge says otherwise, you are doing nothing but spreading clearcut propaganda.

throwawayou812 8y ago
Conspiracy and RICO charges necessitate many low level indictments to demonstrate to the court that there is probable cause to the indict the bigger fish If you cannot arrest the people in the "low level indictments" or threaten them with prison then they aren't going to help you with the "bigger fish". Mueller has already brought these charges in front of a judge You're entirely wrong. This went in front of a grand jury, not a judge. That shows that your understanding of this whole process may not be what it needs to be to make the arguments you are making. Anger in no way makes up for lack of knowledge.
- civilitty 8y ago
  > That shows that your understanding of this whole process may not be what it needs to be to make the arguments you are making. You don't even know that judges preside over grand jury proceedings. That's, like, the most fundamental aspect of the entire legal system: there is a judge deciding things. You have no business criticizing someone's understanding of the judicial system.
  - throwawayou812 8y ago
    Grand juries indict people, not judges.
    - civilitty 8y ago
      Grand juries follow the instructions of the judge presiding over the proceedings.
      - throwawayou812 8y ago
        And then the grand jury, completely independent of any judge, makes a decision as to whether or not to indict. Your argument is like saying the referees decide who wins the Super Bowl.
        civilitty 8y ago
        Grand juries cannot even exist independent of a judge, let alone decide things of consequence like an indictment. What planet do you live on?
        throwawayou812 8y ago
        You're actually trying to argue that judges have an active decision making role in deciding whether or not a grand jury issues an indictment? You're really destroying your own credibility and making my point for me the deeper this conversation goes. There's an old saying: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
        civilitty 8y ago
        You're actually trying to argue that judges don't play an active role in the JUDICIAL SYSTEM. You're literally arguing that water isn't wet.
        8y ago
downandout 8y ago
Conspiracy and RICO charges necessitate many low level indictments to demonstrate to the court that there is probable cause to the indict the bigger fish and restrict them until trial. There will be no trial in this case, so your point is moot. The government gained no leverage with these indictments either, because the people it indicted are beyond the reach of the US government. That was the whole point of my comment. There is exactly one person that was affected in any way by this indictment - and that was Mueller himself, who was congratulated on a job well done by a press that is hungry for Russia-related headlines. The case itself will not be prosecuted unless one of these guys happens to come to the US on vacation or something, but that is extremely unlikely since they know they are under indictment. Mueller has already brought these charges in front of a judge I see that someone else already corrected you on this, but for the record, that person is correct. No judge has ruled on the merits of this case, and the standard that the grand jury uses to indict is very low relative to the standard used at trial. So, in closing, there are 2 undeniable facts at issue here: 1) All of those indicted are Russians residing in Russia; and 2) Russia does not extradite its citizens to the US. Therefore, it is not "clearcut propaganda" but rather an undeniable fact to say that this case has no chance of actually being prosecuted in the US, and that the only person affected by this indictment at all was Mueller himself. Mueller presumably knew that he was indicting only Russians that would never be extradited, and therefore knew that the case was not going to actually be prosecuted.

guelo 8y ago

You don't know if that is true, you are just recycling unsubstantiated conspiracy theory propaganda.

duxup 8y ago
Dude's profile: >HN used to be a place where thoughtful conversation could take place; now it's nothing more than a den of bullies attempting to spread misinformation that supports their political views. It's a hyper-liberal echo chamber. >I am going continue posting because I hate bullies and won't allow them to tell me what to do, but each and every one of my comments now gets auto-downvoted by GDPR zealots. I don't expect that any comment of mine will ever have a positive score again, but that's OK. I have karma to burn. >I win, you lose. I guess this means you lost.
- downandout 8y ago
  > I guess this means you lost. How, exactly? And what is that you're saying signifies that I have "lost"? That yet another random HN poster (@guelo in this case) intentionally mischaracterized hard facts - the fact that all of the people indicted were Russian citizens, and that Russia does not extradite its citizens - as "unsubstantiated conspiracy theory propaganda" hardly surprises me, but it in no way makes me "lose". Such is the nature of HN these days, and it saddens me to see this place devolve into this. Many of the people here dismiss or ignore cold, hard facts when those facts are not favorable to their side in almost every comment thread on HN. @Guelo is the offender this time, but there are countless others. Facts cannot be argued with, and so in this case, he simply dismissed them because he didn't like those facts. It's wrong that people choose to do this, and that is the crux of the message on my profile page that you quoted, but they do it all the time and I will point it out whenever I see it. Your comment is even more bizarre to me. You essentially said "You got schooled!" when someone said that the facts I presented were unsubstantiated propaganda, even though they are simply undeniable facts. He presented no argument to support his comment, such as proof of some sort of new extradition treaty that would allow for Russian spies in Russia to be extradited to the US. That would certainly make me "lose" this argument, and I would be happy to concede at that point. Short of that, I can't see that I have "lost" anything based on his comment. You essentially jumped a on a bandwagon where there was no wagon - but rather just a band, making meaningless noises.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

Assets can be frozen. Their travel to countries who do extradite will be restricted. And evidence for levying sanctions has been produced by the executive and judicial branches, providing the legislative branch cover. These charges are far from pointless.

downandout 8y ago
Your reply is off topic. What does any of that have to do with the point of my comment? My point was that the indictment appears flimsy because prosecutors knew that they would never actually have to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. There is a reason that every single person indicted here happens to be beyond the reach of the US government. If you know that you will never have to try the case, you can make all the accusations you think are reasonable (even if you know you cannot prove them) and then drop the charges you can’t prove much later if one of these guys ever actually did wind up in custody (which is extremely unlikely).