Mueller Indictments for 13 Russian Nationals in US Election Meddling

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!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Whatevs. Soon as my dead uncle receives that thousand for wire transfer fees, I'm inheriting a half mil!

...Any day now.

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: 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.

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!

To OTHER crimes unrelated to the election.

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.

They've been moving the goalposts all along. They'll just keep claiming that this legitimizes Trump's victory, while purposefully ignoring that the Russians were staging anti-Trump rallies that the very same time.

a reply to: Jiggly

So far accused of being "Russian" by the #Resistance Left

Black Lives Matter, Antifa, anarchists, RefuseFascism, Jill Stien, Furgeson Riots, Baltimore Riots, Guns, Anthony Weiner being a pedophile, Brexit, The Alt-Right, Bernie Sanders...

Am I missing anything?

a reply to: aethertek

this also has nothing to do with the trump camp...

the desperation is real

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: 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~

It's an indictment for facilitating identity fraud. Sounds like it's connected to the Russian bots indictments.

originally posted by: Jiggly
a reply to: aethertek

this also has nothing to do with the trump camp...

the desperation is real

Its funny that you and a couple others claim this is Mueller's desperation, when I only see a calm/cool/collected Ace lining up the perfect shot before taking it. Every person with legal experience has expressed the same sentiment to me as well (and about half were Conservative voters). Perhaps you're projecting wishful thinking...

originally posted by: Jiggly
a reply to: aethertek

this also has nothing to do with the trump camp...

the desperation is real

Trump JNR met in person with Russians for Hillary dirt

Only desperate person here is you

a reply to: Wayfarer


if it didn't have an impact it, we should ignore it.

that's what the "patriots" on ats believe, apparently.

how weak is that?

So the question now becomes.

How is Never Trump going to leverage these indictments to get what they've been after all along?

Crowning their Cersei Lannister.

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.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

and hillarys camp paid for bogus dirt on trump using russians connections, which were than used for fisa warrants...

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Wayfarer


if it didn't have an impact it, we should ignore it.

that's what the "patriots" on ats believe, apparently.

how weak is that?

Yeah, and its not even '"didn't have an impact" its "measuring impact is so complicated we can't really tell".

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.

Simple, the crimes that the entities were charged with in the indictment are irrespective of result, just as intent to cause bodily injury is a crime even if the perpetrator fails to do so.

edit: I too am extremely disheartened that the Florida shooter slipped through obvious cracks as well...

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).

You're both missing the point. Billions of dollars was spent on the 2016 presidential elections. How can anyone seriously think that $100,000 of Facebook ads would even blip the radar in the face of that.

They are going after them for fraud which has nothing to with the election. Trump is cleared of any wrong doing but they are making it look like he won the Presidency because of the Russians, which is B.S.. The Uranium One deal is getting to close to their doorstep I'm guessing.
a reply to: theantediluvian