It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
It's worth repeating, they are not claiming the Russian activity made any difference in the election. Rosenstein specificially said, "There is no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."
How could the FBI allege such a thing? Nobody could reasonably hope to quantify the effects of this influence campaign. That's not the same thing as saying that there was no effect at all.
Rosenstein could also have said, "there's no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct didn't alter the outcome of the 2016 election" and it would have equally true.
I'm not really interested in trying to argue either way (not least of which because it's a debate that's impossible for either side to win) but that statement is a pretty weak basis for dismissing the importance of burgeoning strategies for information warfare (and "information warfare" as it turns out is precisely how the Russians described it) exploiting inherent weaknesses of social media.
originally posted by: kurthall
Einstein, no Americans involved in THESE indictments were aware,
It does NOT say no Americans were involved, Flynn and Popodaplous have ALREADY been indicted in the Russia investigation ! D erp!
originally posted by: Xcathdra
Rosenstein press conference - about 8 minutes
At the end he takes questions. He states no US citizens / Trump officials any had knowledge of what the Russians were up to.
Sorry Democrats. Your russia narrative is done.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
It's worth repeating, they are not claiming the Russian activity made any difference in the election. Rosenstein specificially said, "There is no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."
How could the FBI allege such a thing? Nobody could reasonably hope to quantify the effects of this influence campaign. That's not the same thing as saying that there was no effect at all.
Rosenstein could also have said, "there's no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct didn't alter the outcome of the 2016 election" and it would have equally true.
I'm not really interested in trying to argue either way (not least of which because it's a debate that's impossible for either side to win) but that statement is a pretty weak basis for dismissing the importance of burgeoning strategies for information warfare (and "information warfare" as it turns out is precisely how the Russians described it) exploiting inherent weaknesses of social media.
Your post is the most amusing I have read all day.
I'm not interested in arguing either way, I instead started a thread about it.
That is rich.
It's an indictment for facilitating identity fraud. Sounds like it's connected to the Russian bots indictments.
originally posted by: aethertek
Another flip: Mueller announces indictment and guilty plea of bank frauder Richard Pinedo in Trump investigation.
www.rawstory.com... s
Kinda thin on the details indictment is sealed.
www.justice.gov...
Lets hope he has some stories to tell.
K~
originally posted by: Jiggly
a reply to: aethertek
this also has nothing to do with the trump camp...
the desperation is real
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
It's worth repeating, they are not claiming the Russian activity made any difference in the election. Rosenstein specificially said, "There is no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."
How could the FBI allege such a thing? Nobody could reasonably hope to quantify the effects of this influence campaign. That's not the same thing as saying that there was no effect at all.
Rosenstein could also have said, "there's no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct didn't alter the outcome of the 2016 election" and it would have equally true.
I'm not really interested in trying to argue either way (not least of which because it's a debate that's impossible for either side to win) but that statement is a pretty weak basis for dismissing the importance of burgeoning strategies for information warfare (and "information warfare" as it turns out is precisely how the Russians described it) exploiting inherent weaknesses of social media.
Your post is the most amusing I have read all day.
I'm not interested in arguing either way, I instead started a thread about it.
That is rich.
I thought his point was quite easy to understand. I myself am at a loss for how to conclusively prove that the interference had an impact (ergo why the FBI claimed they couldn't tell either).
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
It's worth repeating, they are not claiming the Russian activity made any difference in the election. Rosenstein specificially said, "There is no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."
How could the FBI allege such a thing? Nobody could reasonably hope to quantify the effects of this influence campaign. That's not the same thing as saying that there was no effect at all.
Rosenstein could also have said, "there's no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct didn't alter the outcome of the 2016 election" and it would have equally true.
I'm not really interested in trying to argue either way (not least of which because it's a debate that's impossible for either side to win) but that statement is a pretty weak basis for dismissing the importance of burgeoning strategies for information warfare (and "information warfare" as it turns out is precisely how the Russians described it) exploiting inherent weaknesses of social media.
Your post is the most amusing I have read all day.
I'm not interested in arguing either way, I instead started a thread about it.
That is rich.
I thought his point was quite easy to understand. I myself am at a loss for how to conclusively prove that the interference had an impact (ergo why the FBI claimed they couldn't tell either).
So how is there a crime to indict if there is no impact?
Attempting to have an impact?
This is bs of the highest order.
What really makes me sick about all this is while chasing social media ghosts the fbi did not chase the florida school shooter.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
It's worth repeating, they are not claiming the Russian activity made any difference in the election. Rosenstein specificially said, "There is no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."
How could the FBI allege such a thing? Nobody could reasonably hope to quantify the effects of this influence campaign. That's not the same thing as saying that there was no effect at all.
Rosenstein could also have said, "there's no allegation in the indictment that the [Russians'] conduct didn't alter the outcome of the 2016 election" and it would have equally true.
I'm not really interested in trying to argue either way (not least of which because it's a debate that's impossible for either side to win) but that statement is a pretty weak basis for dismissing the importance of burgeoning strategies for information warfare (and "information warfare" as it turns out is precisely how the Russians described it) exploiting inherent weaknesses of social media.
Your post is the most amusing I have read all day.
I'm not interested in arguing either way, I instead started a thread about it.
That is rich.
I thought his point was quite easy to understand. I myself am at a loss for how to conclusively prove that the interference had an impact (ergo why the FBI claimed they couldn't tell either).