• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Indicting 12 Russian officers of the GRU, but they are not US citizens?

Bullcack. It's called evidence gathering. They are NOT meaningless...just laser focused.
For russian 12 they are meaningless. In fact Putin would give them a raise :) So it is meaningful but in opposite way for them.
Why would Putin give his spies a raise for getting caught? Doesn't that send kind of a wrong message to the other spies?
Were they really caught?
 
With the CIA, NSA, plus numerous other Western intelligence agencies tacking Russian GRU efforts, I suspect that there is plentiful evidence in hand about the efforts of these 12 to hack political computer systems in the USA. Starting with this, it starts to unravel this whole ball of string. And the GOP cannot whine it is a political witch hunt. The optics there are not good.
Then having established that this hacking went on, Mueller will work on the obvious fact that the GOP efforts to elect Trump knew these were hacked documents and happily used them. The question here will be, were any laws broken and who by?
And last but not least, what did Trump do and know about any of this? And did Trump break any laws?

Since this all will be hotly attacked by the increasingly desperate GOP, Mueller must work carfully and systematically to get to the bottom of all of this.

This indictment came after a Grand Jury recommended, based on facts presented to that jury, that there was good evidence to support the charges. What exactly happened and who hacked what and how they streamlined it all into US politics is a basic first step in going on the what happened here in the USA when GOP operatives got their hands on what they knew was pilfered material.
 
Why would Putin give his spies a raise for getting caught? Doesn't that send kind of a wrong message to the other spies?
Were they really caught?

Perhaps you don't understand how this works.

If they are indicted by a court of law, then they left behind enough evidence to link a particular crime to certain individuals. Would it help if I showed you a dictionary definition of the word "spy"?
 
Why would Putin give his spies a raise for getting caught? Doesn't that send kind of a wrong message to the other spies?
Were they really caught?

Perhaps you don't understand how this works.

If they are indicted by a court of law, then they left behind enough evidence to link a particular crime to certain individuals. Would it help if I showed you a dictionary definition of the word "spy"?
Well, Russia can indict the whole CIA and NSA based on the definition.
 
Perhaps you don't understand how this works.

If they are indicted by a court of law, then they left behind enough evidence to link a particular crime to certain individuals. Would it help if I showed you a dictionary definition of the word "spy"?
Well, Russia can indict the whole CIA and NSA based on the definition.
OK

Perhaps you're not clear on what a spy is supposed to do.

If we can prove that a particular spy committed a particular crime, then they left behind far more evidence than a spy is supposed to leave behind. No one is supposed to know that a spy is a spy at all. If you talk to people who get involved in "humint," a great deal of effort is put into trying to figure out who are the spies for the other guy and making sure the other guy doesn't figure out who your spies are. As soon as the other guy figures out one of your spies, that spy becomes useless to you.

If someone just barges in and takes what they want in front of everyone, that person might count as "special forces," but not "spy." The whole subterfuge thing doesn't work without, well, the subterfuge part. I guess this aspect of statecraft is simply too subtle for you to grasp?

Wait.

Did you think that the James Bond movies were documentaries? Is that what you think spies do? It's not about barging in, guns blazing and stealing a folder that everyone can see you stealing. It's a lot of boring work analyzing photographs and field reports.
 
Perhaps you don't understand how this works.

If they are indicted by a court of law, then they left behind enough evidence to link a particular crime to certain individuals. Would it help if I showed you a dictionary definition of the word "spy"?
Well, Russia can indict the whole CIA and NSA based on the definition.
OK

Perhaps you're not clear on what a spy is supposed to do.

If we can prove that a particular spy committed a particular crime, then they left behind far more evidence than a spy is supposed to leave behind. No one is supposed to know that a spy is a spy at all. If you talk to people who get involved in "humint," a great deal of effort is put into trying to figure out who are the spies for the other guy and making sure the other guy doesn't figure out who your spies are. As soon as the other guy figures out one of your spies, that spy becomes useless to you.

If someone just barges in and takes what they want in front of everyone, that person might count as "special forces," but not "spy." The whole subterfuge thing doesn't work without, well, the subterfuge part. I guess this aspect of statecraft is simply too subtle for you to grasp?

Wait.

Did you think that the James Bond movies were documentaries? Is that what you think spies do? It's not about barging in, guns blazing and stealing a folder that everyone can see you stealing. It's a lot of boring work analyzing photographs and field reports.
I am not sure what are you trying to say here. Let me just repeat what I said - this indictment is not worth much.
 
I am not sure what are you trying to say here. Let me just repeat what I said - this indictment is not worth much.

In terms of actually getting those people to trial, you're right, it's practically worthless. But that's not the endgame, as many others have already pointed out. Everyone knows those Russians will never stand trial, and there's a good argument to be made that the grand jury system is a farce that doesn't really say anything about whether a person is likely to be convicted. The only thing a grand jury outcome can tell you with any certainty is that if a person isn't indicted following one, then they are surely not guilty.

What does matter though is that the case against Trump and his people is being built. Yeah, the Russians are bad actors, but that's their job. I think that some people are mad at Russia (so to speak), but the real anger is against Trump for being such an obvious goddamn shill. The same applies to those who are working so hard to cover for him, and obstructing Mueller's investigation at every turn.
 
I think it's a little more nuanced...a sane president would then think about diplomatic and trade consequences for Russia....but since putin is trumpo's boss, and trumpo is not sane, we could end up with war.

I am tired of this manufactured (by democrats) outrage over election meddling. I understand and support the will to remove Trump from presidency but these meaningless indictments and their timing are nothing but an obvious ploy to evoke a reaction from Trump and his people.

It's to justify all the spending and nonsense of the Special Counsel. By indicting Russian nationals, there is no expectation that they will come to the U.S. or that there will be a trial. Hence, no need to actually disclose what evidence, if any, that the government actually has to support the indictments. What a surprise that no US citizens were name. No evidence of collusion? Look, a squirrel!

DiAJBAtVMAAuffr.jpg

15665660_10207555775708629_5951016969304582669_n.jpg
 
Russia doesn't hand over its own citizens to US. Period. The only inconvenience to these 12 people is that they probably should avoid traveling to any country that extradites to the US, but that's about it.

Is everyone really that confused by this?

Mueller has been indicting Russians all along. It's not some great mystery why he's doing it.

Trump and the other Republicans have made it clear that they are willing to stoop to anything to interfere with the investigation, including pardoning people. So Mueller indicts one Russian and one American together as much as possible. That way, even if Trump pardons the American, the investigation doesn't go away. The only way Trump can make the investigation stop through pardons is to pardon a whole bunch of Russian spies, which would make his treason obvious even to many Republican voters.

Trump got this far by convincing the Republican base that there was no treason and that the investigation is an unfair witch hunt just like they did to Hillary with the Benghazi investigations. But if Trump pardons a bunch of Russian spies in order to terminate the investigation, it will be a lot harder to convince Republican voters that he's not working with the Russians.

It's basically a measure to prevent obstruction of justice via pardon.

It's also how a thorough investigation works. A complicated large investigation is actually a series of smaller more focused investigations that refer to each other, much like the various footnotes in a scientific paper lead to other experiments. A lot of people don't seem to understand this or are conservatives purposefully misleading the public on how this works. Eventually, the other investigations are going to make allegations and leverage evidence against Americans, and it will be important to know who they were conspiring with, and what they did with Russians in those efforts, even if those Russians never come to trial. It's the chain of evidence. The investigations each tell a small part of the story, with all of them telling the entire story together, like chapters within a book. Just because the majority of your readers are only interested in certain characters, doesn't mean you leave the backstory out of the book.

It's kind of important that if you're conducting an investigation about conspiring with the Russians, that you may wish to include some Russians. This isn't difficult.

Mueller just hired even more prosecutors. This investigation will take a lot of time yet.

One of two things will happen when Mueller turns in his report to Congress concerning his investigation.

It will be non-specific, easily squirmed through with lots of holes.

It will be pretty airtight, making allegations with lots of supporting evidence, concerning many members of the administration which may or may not include Trump himself. If the evidence is so damning as to cause the GOP more political trouble than they would ever receive for simply impeaching Trump or watching half his administration end up in prison, then they will do so. Some of this will also rely on the American people and what they are willing to put up with as far as corruption is concerned. We know the Trump humpers will willingly fall off a cliff with Trump if given the opportunity, but what about the rest of us?

So far, if you make bets on the American public, you are losing, and badly.

To me, the best thing that could happen is if the investigation shows Trump to be a long-standing Russian resource that actively worked to defraud the US election, with enough evidence to send several major players in his administration to jail. Then, have the administration and the GOP at large voted out of office in a massive sweep. Personally, I think the Obama administration dropped the ball big time on this as well, but at least he attempted to make a bipartisan stand to warn of the problem to the public before the election. McConnell nixed it, the same McConnel that stole the Justice seat, and the same McConnel that has refused to pass legislation to protect the investigation. The same GOP that knows of all of this yet puts on a show like they did the other day, "questioning" the FBI. Sickening, really.
 
The bottom line is that Russia attacked America. They attacked our democracy and our sovereignty, and the Party of Treason is working very hard to make sure America doesn't do anything to prevent future attacks. Half of America wants to make sure America responds to the attacks by rolling over, submissively showing our belly, and inviting further attacks in the future by foreign rivals.
 
The other common "rebuttal" I'm now seeing from conservatives is along the lines of what idiot Rand Paul said recently.

[h=1]Rand Paul on Russian election meddling: 'We all do it'[/h]

So it's OK that Russia attacked us, and it's OK that America responds to this attack by rolling over and submitting because other people meddle with the sovereignty of other nations?

No. Not everyone does it, but even if every other nation did it, it still would not be right.

It's not just that the entire Republican party wants to surrender to the Russians, it's that they use such blatantly bad arguments to justify their surrender.
 
You can read the indictment here. It's quite detailed on what was done.
It is not detailed on how it was determined. Yeah, I know, US can not disclose their methods, which I am sure are completely different and 100% legal in accordance with russian laws :)
 
The other common "rebuttal" I'm now seeing from conservatives is along the lines of what idiot Rand Paul said recently.

[h=1]Rand Paul on Russian election meddling: 'We all do it'[/h]

So it's OK that Russia attacked us, and it's OK that America responds to this attack by rolling over and submitting because other people meddle with the sovereignty of other nations?

No. Not everyone does it, but even if every other nation did it, it still would not be right.
OK, Finland does not do that, does that help you?
 
The other common "rebuttal" I'm now seeing from conservatives is along the lines of what idiot Rand Paul said recently.

[h=1]Rand Paul on Russian election meddling: 'We all do it'[/h]

Yes, and this is bottom line.
Maybe that's the bottom for asking the rest of the world for sympathy, but that's no bottom line for whether any of our people fac e criminal charges for complicity.

If someone out there recognizes the name of their Russian conspirator on the lust, they should start preparing their defense or the deal they'll want for their cooperation.
 
The other common "rebuttal" I'm now seeing from conservatives is along the lines of what idiot Rand Paul said recently.

Rand Paul on Russian election meddling: 'We all do it'
Yeah, and when we do it, is there an expected quid quo pro with those that have benefited with said meddling? The meddling is Part I of a two Part plan. The honorable Sen. Rand Paul seems to be forgetting about Part II. And Trump has been publicly acting as if he is promoting Part II of Russia's plan.
 
Back
Top Bottom