4 ms·

Ummmm Mueller indicted many Russian nationals.

by dd36 8y ago

jessaustin 8y ago
Reading is fundamental. Said nationals will never see the inside of USA courtrooms. That being the case, standards for indictment were even lower than their usual ham-sandwich levels. FBI never saw the damn servers. They just believed Crowdstrike when he said "oh yeah those servers were just infested with Russkies. By the way we've melted down all the hard drives. We like to recycle!" Good grief, this wouldn't pass the laugh test even in the pathetic courts we have. Why did Mueller put on such a goofy show, when he knew all along he would indict no American for "Russian collusion"? He was throwing his friends in the media a bone. They've pushed this long enough to guarantee Trump's reelection, which is all they ever wanted. Ratings gold!
- dd36 8y ago
  Read the indictments not alt-right media.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Sorry to burst your stereotype, I'm getting this from such "alt-rightists" as Greenwald, Maté, Taibbi, Caitlin Johnstone, Jimmy Dore, etc. We don't want Trump reelected; we didn't want him elected in the first place. Unfortunately the self-interested news media have at this point made that inevitable. I've already donated to Tulsi. Have you?
    - dd36 8y ago
      Tulsi is another Russia-supported candidate per social media trackers. Odd coincidence. Your talking points don't stand up to reading the indictments.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        What are talking points? I thought the claim was that I am "alt-right", except now I find you don't support the only authentically pacifist candidate? Did you know that our blood and our taxes are being wasted at war in eight nations, right now? Which leaves out the dozens of nations where we have troops or spooks lurking in support of God-knows-what evil CIA plots? With Venezuela scheduled as soon as CNN can stage a convincing attack on a soi-disant humanitarian aid convoy? Meanwhile you're cheering on your best buddy Trump in persecuting Manning and Assange? Meanwhile you cling without evidence to a facially risible conspiracy theory about the Russians changing an election with a couple thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads, while most Trump voters aren't online but watch TV news for the entire 27 hours a day that Trump is on it? You're incoherent. I am skeptical, and I've always been skeptical. You seem instead to be credulous. The topic of the day is bullshit, so skepticism is more appropriate than credulity.
AsyncAwait 8y ago
Which means nada in terms of Assange and also none of them will see a courtroom.
- dd36 8y ago
  OP said they won’t go to prison because Trump wasn’t found colluding. It’s nonsensical. As though, Trump not telling Russia what to do means it didn’t happen. We know beyond a doubt Russia interfered. We also know Assange was one of their stooges. Read the indictments.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > We also know Assange was one of their stooges No we don't. Stop spreading propaganda. Even if they were the source, there's no evidence that Assange knew who the source was. > Read the indictments. Indictments != convictions.
    - dd36 8y ago
      Read the indictments. It’s not propaganda. It’s fact. Assange distributed emails stolen by the GRU.
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        Again, indictments != convictions. There's many things you can indict that you'll not win a case in court on. > Assange distributed emails stolen by the GRU. Let's say he did. That does not mean he knew where they came from, or even that he received them from the same/original source.
        dd36 8y ago
        I never said they were convicted. I said the factual evidence is laid out in the indictments. I said he was their stooge. That doesn't mean he knew he was their stooge.
      - 8y ago
cyphar 8y ago
Yes, but none of the charges are related to conspiracy with the Russian government. There are only a handful of conspiracy against the US charges, and they are all related to Ukrainian interests long before the 2016 election (which were related to pro-US Ukrainian interests). So yes, there are many Mueller indictments, but they do not fit the (now discredited) Russia-Gate narrative. Yes, Trump is surrounded by all kinds of criminals (and almost certainly is one himself) but this should be a shock to nobody -- he hired people directly related to mafias in several countries.
- dd36 8y ago
  What? You need to read more. Read the indictments yourself. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indicted-mueller-election-interference.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indi... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indic...
  - cyphar 8y ago
    I was referencing indictments of Americans (which is what almost everyone thinks of when you refer to Russia-related conspiracies). None of those were in relation to Russia-related conspiracies and the Mueller Report (or rather the Barr summary) confirms as much. The Barr summary has been disputed by some of Mueller's team but those disputes are in relation to the obstruction of justice questions. As for the Russian indictments, I'm not sure if there's much to say. Quite a few of the indictments are related to sockpuppet accounts and Facebook ads (illegal but not to the degree suggested by the tone of the media coverage). The ones related to Russia hacking the DNC were disputed by some research done by Bill Binney and a bunch if other intelligence veterans[1] -- showing some evidence that the information must have been leaked by an insider because the transfer speeds were too fast for exfiltration over the internet. Unfortunately all the people indicted are Russian nationals and thus won't face prosecution in the US, so we won't ever know what the truth of the matter is. [1]: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/ https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-r...

Ummmm Mueller indicted many Russian nationals.

by dd36 8y ago

Ummmm Mueller indicted many Russian nationals.

Reading is fundamental. Said nationals will never see the inside of USA courtrooms. That being the case, standards for indictment were even lower than their usual ham-sandwich levels. FBI never saw the damn servers. They just believed Crowdstrike when he said "oh yeah those servers were just infested with Russkies. By the way we've melted down all the hard drives. We like to recycle!" Good grief, this wouldn't pass the laugh test even in the pathetic courts we have. Why did Mueller put on such a goofy show, when he knew all along he would indict no American for "Russian collusion"? He was throwing his friends in the media a bone. They've pushed this long enough to guarantee Trump's reelection, which is all they ever wanted. Ratings gold!

dd36 8y ago
Read the indictments not alt-right media.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Sorry to burst your stereotype, I'm getting this from such "alt-rightists" as Greenwald, Maté, Taibbi, Caitlin Johnstone, Jimmy Dore, etc. We don't want Trump reelected; we didn't want him elected in the first place. Unfortunately the self-interested news media have at this point made that inevitable. I've already donated to Tulsi. Have you?
  - dd36 8y ago
    Tulsi is another Russia-supported candidate per social media trackers. Odd coincidence. Your talking points don't stand up to reading the indictments.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      What are talking points? I thought the claim was that I am "alt-right", except now I find you don't support the only authentically pacifist candidate? Did you know that our blood and our taxes are being wasted at war in eight nations, right now? Which leaves out the dozens of nations where we have troops or spooks lurking in support of God-knows-what evil CIA plots? With Venezuela scheduled as soon as CNN can stage a convincing attack on a soi-disant humanitarian aid convoy? Meanwhile you're cheering on your best buddy Trump in persecuting Manning and Assange? Meanwhile you cling without evidence to a facially risible conspiracy theory about the Russians changing an election with a couple thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads, while most Trump voters aren't online but watch TV news for the entire 27 hours a day that Trump is on it? You're incoherent. I am skeptical, and I've always been skeptical. You seem instead to be credulous. The topic of the day is bullshit, so skepticism is more appropriate than credulity.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

Which means nada in terms of Assange and also none of them will see a courtroom.

dd36 8y ago
OP said they won’t go to prison because Trump wasn’t found colluding. It’s nonsensical. As though, Trump not telling Russia what to do means it didn’t happen. We know beyond a doubt Russia interfered. We also know Assange was one of their stooges. Read the indictments.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > We also know Assange was one of their stooges No we don't. Stop spreading propaganda. Even if they were the source, there's no evidence that Assange knew who the source was. > Read the indictments. Indictments != convictions.
  - dd36 8y ago
    Read the indictments. It’s not propaganda. It’s fact. Assange distributed emails stolen by the GRU.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      Again, indictments != convictions. There's many things you can indict that you'll not win a case in court on. > Assange distributed emails stolen by the GRU. Let's say he did. That does not mean he knew where they came from, or even that he received them from the same/original source.
      - dd36 8y ago
        I never said they were convicted. I said the factual evidence is laid out in the indictments. I said he was their stooge. That doesn't mean he knew he was their stooge.
    - 8y ago

cyphar 8y ago

Yes, but none of the charges are related to conspiracy with the Russian government. There are only a handful of conspiracy against the US charges, and they are all related to Ukrainian interests long before the 2016 election (which were related to pro-US Ukrainian interests). So yes, there are many Mueller indictments, but they do not fit the (now discredited) Russia-Gate narrative. Yes, Trump is surrounded by all kinds of criminals (and almost certainly is one himself) but this should be a shock to nobody -- he hired people directly related to mafias in several countries.

dd36 8y ago
What? You need to read more. Read the indictments yourself. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indicted-mueller-election-interference.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indi... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indictment-russian-intelligence-hacking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/mueller-indic...
- cyphar 8y ago
  I was referencing indictments of Americans (which is what almost everyone thinks of when you refer to Russia-related conspiracies). None of those were in relation to Russia-related conspiracies and the Mueller Report (or rather the Barr summary) confirms as much. The Barr summary has been disputed by some of Mueller's team but those disputes are in relation to the obstruction of justice questions. As for the Russian indictments, I'm not sure if there's much to say. Quite a few of the indictments are related to sockpuppet accounts and Facebook ads (illegal but not to the degree suggested by the tone of the media coverage). The ones related to Russia hacking the DNC were disputed by some research done by Bill Binney and a bunch if other intelligence veterans[1] -- showing some evidence that the information must have been leaked by an insider because the transfer speeds were too fast for exfiltration over the internet. Unfortunately all the people indicted are Russian nationals and thus won't face prosecution in the US, so we won't ever know what the truth of the matter is. [1]: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/ https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-r...