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.

 

Mueller Indictments for 13 Russian Nationals in US Election Meddling

page: 11
67
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Jiggly


after a republican didn't need it anymore. lol




posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: knoxie

yeah, but the republican wasnt the ones who used russian connections



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

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.


Because proving that the Russians actually altered the outcome of the election isn't the end game. Mueller is going after any and all players that actively sought Russia's help or used Russia to aid them to the detriment of their opponents.
edit on 07pm18fpmFri, 16 Feb 2018 14:07:45 -0600America/ChicagoFri, 16 Feb 2018 14:07:45 -0600 by Wayfarer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




So when you said "Is this what all the fuss was about?"
You were thinking what?


You mean "when I asked..."

It's a question.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jiggly
a reply to: aethertek

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

the desperation is real


Yes, yes it is. LMAO

K~



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
not exactly... it's more like there are no implications any us citizen or republican/trump official knowing... IN THIS INDICTMENT. this one small little piece of the puzzle. it doesn't mean that higher up in the chain, there weren't american working with the russians with full knowledge of what they were doing...
just like if the top management of a company decided that they were gonna commit illegal acts, they would hide that fact from their lower level employees going about their business thinking that everything was legal and legit.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

or mark zuckerberg 24/7 my phone an computer would notify me that facebook had a either a story glorifying killary or vilifying trump and when i requested to stop that content they would send 10 times more. so if i understand it the ruskies posted on social media big whup. if this all they have found then this investigation needs to end.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan


but, it wasn't JUST facebook ads, not even close. it was a directed long attack.


Coats: “There should be no doubt that Russia perceives that its past efforts have been successful and views the 2018 midterm U.S. elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations.”

do you think we should ignore this threat? no biggie.. do nothing?

how is that strong?



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: wakeupstupid

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Wayfarer




Oh I see what you're getting at.

I meant more in the vein of the fact that its conclusive that Russian election meddling occurring, versus the talking point for the last year being, "Libs have no proof Russia did anything!"

Now that Mueller has shown he's got the proof, the question that (I imagine) is percolating in other players heads right now is, 'what else does Mueller know that he's not letting on', and 'perhaps I'm not as anonymous/safe in whatever potential malfeasance I may have been a part of'.


In my mind it's inconclusive. I'm not sure how posting on social media in favor of this or that candidate is considered meddling in an election, even if that was their intent. If that is the case then I am also guilty of meddling in the US election.


meddling - interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that is not one's concern.

Exactly, what is "meddling" anyway in terms of criminality? Define "interfere" because to me, it is not facebook. Maybe reveal some gunplay, some broken fingers, threats, etc.. then call me.



Ummm...there was no meddling...only middling...as in mediocre...

This is the ultimate dog and pony show...

We can ride the jackasses round the ring for a long time after this fiasco...

Spurs anyone...anyone...?









YouSir



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


When you weigh this against FISA warrants obtained by using solicited material from Russia by an American political party against another....it's just no contest.


See, this is the problem with losing nuance. Now it's "warrants?" And Steele's source is "Russia?" and there's the implication of the FISA warrant for Carter Page somehow benefiting Clinton and harming Trump?

1. There was one FISA warrant for Carter Page, obtained a month after he'd left the campaign.

2. The dossier was not used in the FISA warrant. Re-read the Grassley-Graham memo if you don't believe me. By the end of page 2, they were giving a much more accurate description of what was included. It was information from Steele which was summarized to some extent in the memos pertaining to Page that ended up in the dossier.

3. From what I recall, of the 3-4 sources cited in the portions of the dossier pertaining to Page, only 1 was a Kremlin official. One was an ethnic Russian associate of Trump's another was an associate of Sechin.

The alleged harm to Trump stemming from the Carter Page FISA warrant and more generally, the part of the Russian investigations dealing with potential collusion, are to a large extent self-inflicted wounds. Nobody has forced Trump to act suspiciously af. Evidence has come out that his campaign chief was trying to peddle influence to the Russians. Which is something that is continuously overlooked by Trump supporters. There's evidence that the SVR was trying to find an in to the Trump campaign through Papadopoulos. Another thing that doesn't seem to register.

You'd think that Trump would be as interested as anyone else in seeing the investigations conducted but he's not. He could have claimed no knowledge of anything untoward, taken the high road and supported the investigations but he didn't. To me, it comes down to Trump putting his ego over country and his now sworn duties.

Also, keep in mind that these indictments are about the influence campaign. Don't be surprised to see additional indictments involving Manafort and others which may or may not have anything to do with the election. And I would also be willing to bet that there were be indictments in the DNC/DCCC/etc hacking.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: proteus33

Only 13 of them supposedly.

Which is an effing joke.

What they've listed sounds more like Russian mob activity than electioneering,

Wire fraud,Identity theft etc.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: smurfy



All were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants were charged with aggravated identity theft.'

Some master of disinformation you are....
Next thing you'll be saying is that they only broke into a gum ball machine....and don't forget, this investigation is about Russian interference and collusion.


Yes, for doing the things I mentioned. How much more daft can you get?


Not as daft as you prefer I would be...it's not going to go away, Russia, Trump, Criminal Collusion, neoconservative 'deep state' conspiracy in Washington picking their man even before any election. Trump should have left Russia out of it and just let the neocons fix their own election through the ways and means committee....but, the damage is done yuh boyo.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: theantediluvian

Will take a look at the indictment when I have a chance. Very interesting to see how this is all playing out.

At first we heard that the Russians being involved was just a media propaganda lie. Now we have indictments for those involved.

Weird times we live in.


And it's being peddled by the same group that said, just weeks before the election, that election meddling is just an excuse for losing. Ironic times we live in, too.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Oh? Please do tell. Exactly what evidence have you seen in the *Russian state* involvement in the *authoring* of the Steele dossier?


The dossier explicitly mentions two sources, one a "top level intelligence officer still active within the Kremlin". Let me guess, that doesn't count?



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   

One defendant, Viktorovna Kaverzina, emailed her family: "We had a slight crisis here at work: the FBI busted our activity (not a joke). So, I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with colleagues." She added, "I created all these pictures and posts, and the Americans believed that it was written by their people."


www.cbsnews.com...

This is what they are trying to pass off as some Russian machination.

Get real.

Because this snip sure isn't.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
They may have tried to influence the election, but can anyone prove it actually had an effect? Trying to influence an American election is like trying to influence the path of a hurricane.
edit on 16-2-2018 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

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.


It did work and still is working, who do you think is behind all that Q rubbish?

It could be Roger stone and his Russian hacker friends for all we know and that is influencing people online now

The last presidential election in America was disgustingly dirty and one of the chief smear machines was Donald lying through his teeth to win the nomination of the Republican Party and then saying crooked Hillary and lock her up all the time to his fanatical gullible supporters

Donald’s team was working with the Russians to the extent his son went to meet them in person to get some dirt on Hillary

What did the Russians want in return? Follow the money and I’m expecting some joint oil deal with some team trump players and a big Russian oil company

It ain’t Donald’s day today, not only this but also on top of his bedroom gymnastics with stormy the adult entertainer the playboy model mentioned in the election and hushed up has come out and said she had a 9 month affair with him

Most politicians step down when scandal surrounds them, Donald has no Honer



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: knoxie

even if it didn't have an impact on the election...
did the identity fraud have an impact on those who had their identity stolen?
when the dnc server was hacked and all the personal financial information of their donors were dumped onto the web... ya think it may have made an impact on some of those donors lives??



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

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.


Because proving that the Russians actually altered the outcome of the election isn't the end game. Mueller is going after any and all players that actively sought Russia's help or used Russia to aid them to the detriment of their opponents.

So, does that mean he's going to indict Hillary's people? They deliberately purchased information (the Steele Dossier) from Russian intelligence sources, for the purpose of influencing the election. And they did so knowing full well who they were working with.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Has anyone "followed the money"? Who paid the "Russians"? I contend the same people and foundation that paid for the Steele Dossier and are screaming Russians Russians Russians! Clinton and the DNC screaming "Russians! (but, we paid for them)".

Hoo boy...



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join