╌>

12 Russians indicted in Mueller investigation

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  hal-a-lujah  •  6 years ago  •  283 comments

12 Russians indicted in Mueller investigation

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Source

Washington — The Justice Department announced indictments in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election against 12 Russian nationals and accused them of engaging in a "sustained effort to hack into the computer networks" of the DCCC, the DNC and "the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and release that information on the internet under the names DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 and through another entity."

All 12 defendants are members of the GRU, a Russian federation intelligence agency within the main intelligence directorate of the Russian military, who were acting in "their official capacities."

The indictment was announced at almost exactly the moment that President Trump rolled into the quadrangle of Windsor Castle to meet the awaiting Queen Elizabeth II in the symbolic highpoint of his visit to Britain.

It also emerged two days before Trump is due to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin — who has denied election meddling — in Helsinki for a summit that includes a one-on-one meeting with only interpreters present.

The unfolding drama on both sides of the Atlantic reflected how Trump's presidency has been overshadowed by the Mueller probe from its earliest moments and how the investigation frequently tramples the President's attempts to carve out favorable headlines.

Prosecutors from Mueller's office and the Justice Department's National Security Division visited the courtroom of a federal magistrate judge in Washington at 11:30 a.m. ET to return the grand jury indictment, according to an itinerary posted outside the courtroom.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1  seeder  Hal A. Lujah    6 years ago

Silly Mueller - didn't he hear?  Putin says he didn't have anything to do with this, which is good enough for our President*.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1    6 years ago

I think the key word in all of this is the "Russians"

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
1.1.1  Skrekk  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    6 years ago

I wonder if these are the Russians who tried to hack into Clinton's server after Trump urged them to do so?

Seems like Trump is nothing more than a traitor who wants to harm America and help Putin.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
1.1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Skrekk @1.1.1    6 years ago
Clinton's server after Trump urged them to do so?

You mean the server that was in possession of the fed and Hillaryious Hillary had already erased. That server?

At least try to have knowledge of what you are talking about if you are going to make shit up.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
1.1.3  Skrekk  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.2    6 years ago
You mean the server that was in possession of the fed and Hillaryious Hillary had already erased. That server?

Nope, another server used by Clinton.    It would help if you bothered to read the indictment since the Russians made their efforts very shortly after Trump asked them to do so, on the same day in fact.

According to the indictment, on the same day Trump made those comments, Russian hackers “attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provided and used by Clinton’s personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.”

.

It's rather funny how Putin & Trump apologists come out of the woodwork whenever new indictments are announced.   LOL.    It's almost like the GOP itself is on Putin's payroll.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
1.1.4  KDMichigan  replied to  Skrekk @1.1.3    6 years ago
t's rather funny how Putin & Trump apologists

Its rather funny how the snowflakes talk about President Trump calling out Russia to get Hillarious  Hillary 30,000 plus deleted emails after she erased them.

Totally changing the subject to a different matter because your fake news was called out might impress your friends.

Me? Not so much.

Think Progress? laughing dude

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
1.1.5  Skrekk  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.4    6 years ago
Think Progress?

Yeah......funny that they bothered to read the indictment but you didn't.   LOL.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Skrekk @1.1.3    6 years ago

Can you imagine how people would have reacted if GWB had met privately with OBL right after 9/11? This is no different, yet there is no outrage at all from the right wing. Pretty sad. 

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
1.1.7  Skrekk  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.6    6 years ago
Can you imagine how people would have reacted if GWB had met privately with OBL right after 9/11?

Or worse......it's almost like GWB had publicly implored: "Mr Bin Laden, tear down these buildings!"    And today the GOP would praise him for that traitorous speech.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Skrekk @1.1.7    6 years ago
And today the GOP would praise him for that traitorous speech.

Exactly, and that is what they are doing with trump.. Russia attacks us, (not disputed), and the trump followers praise him for not only doing nothing, but trying to stop the US from preventing Putin from doing it again....and still they cheer...really makes me sick. 

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
1.1.9  PJ  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.4    6 years ago

Dude - in a thread the other day you got upset and mentioned your father died in service.  He gave the ultimate sacrifice that has affected your family for all your lives.  The liberties that your father fought for and represented have been attacked.  How does that make you feel?   Get upset, but make sure you're getting upset over the right reasons and at the right people.  Are you a Republican, Democrat, Independent or an American?  I'm the latter and I'm hoping more will shed their political affiliation and put being an American and our country first.  

I'm not trying to disrespect you.  I recognize the sacrifice your father made and I am so very grateful to him.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.10  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.4    6 years ago
Its rather funny how the snowflakes talk about President Trump calling out Russia to get Hillarious Hillary 30,000 plus deleted emails after she erased them.

What's hilarious is that y'all don't seem to get the FACT that if it is illogical to ask for deleted email after they were erased, it was Trump who was being illogical. 

BTW, what if Trump thought that the Russians might have hacked Clinton BEFORE her private emails were erased? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.10    6 years ago

If Russia had already hacked Hillary, then Trump wouldn't be responsible for others' actions, now would he?

THAT'S why MOST people consider his quip about Russia FINDING the emails was a JOKE.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.10    6 years ago
mp thought that the Russians might have hacked Clinton BEFORE her private emails were erased?

I'm sure many people assumed the emails were stolen before she hired a tech goon to erase them.  Since as you say, Trump thought the Russians MIGHT have hacked Clinton a year before, then it's a non story.  It was not a crime, even in Obama's America, to think Russia might have done something wrong. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
1.1.13  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Dulay @1.1.10    6 years ago
BTW, what if Trump thought that the Russians might have hacked Clinton BEFORE her private emails were erased?

What is being missed in your statement is the fact that AFTER Trump made that comment on TV the Russians hacked Hillary's computers.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.13    6 years ago
AFTER Trump made that comment on TV the Russians hacked Hillary's computers

Mueller detailed they  were attacking Hillary's computers before his statement (that's what foreign powers do!)  and his joke concerned  emails that wouldn't exist in July 2016 on Hillary's computers. Unless she was lying to the FBI about having destroyed them in 2015. 

The conspiracy boils down to Trump asking the Russians to do something Mueller says they were already doing (hacking Hillary computers)  to find  emails that would have been impossible to find in 2016 (public knowledge they were destroyed in 2015).  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.12    6 years ago
Since as you say, Trump thought the Russians MIGHT have hacked Clinton a year before, then it's a non story.

Actually no, NO it isn't. It may behoove you to go check the date that Trump declared his candidacy. Hint: It was over a year before he publicly asked for Russia to help him even more. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @1.1.13    6 years ago
What is being missed in your statement is the fact that AFTER Trump made that comment on TV the Russians hacked Hillary's computers.

Different computers. Clinton had been out of office for 3 years when Trump asked Russia for more help in hacking Clinton's computers. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.15    6 years ago

Y'all REALLY need to make up your minds.

Either Trump was and is Putin's puppet, or Trump called the shots.

Which is it TODAY?

Finding the lost emails was a freaking joke, and it is really hard to believe that you can't see that.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
1.1.18  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Dulay @1.1.16    6 years ago
Different computers. Clinton had been out of office for 3 years when Trump asked Russia for more help in hacking Clinton's computers.

You're still missing the point, it is called conspiracy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.15    6 years ago

More?

Heck, you can't even prove Trump EVER asked Russia for help!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.15    6 years ago

't. It may behoove you to go check the date that Trump declared his candidacy.

It may behoove you to understand the timeline.

March 4, 2015 Clinton receives subpoena for her emails on private server

March 25, 2015 Clinton destroys server with 33,000 emails with bleach bit

Jun 2015, Trump declares his candidacy.

July 27 2016, Trump jokes about Russia having her destroyed emails. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.11    6 years ago
If Russia had already hacked Hillary, then Trump wouldn't be responsible for others' actions, now would he?

He sure as hell WOULD be responsible if he 'received' stolen goods from a foreign entity or coordinated their release to support his campaign. 

THAT'S why MOST people consider his quip about Russia FINDING the emails was a JOKE.

If you watch the whole exchange on July 27, 2016 with Katy Tur, you wouldn't posit that ridiculous conclusion. 

Oh and BTFW, per the indictments, the Russians didn't think it was a fucking JOKE since they acted on his request that same day. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.19    6 years ago
More? Heck, you can't even prove Trump EVER asked Russia for help!

Oh yes, that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to any thinking person. He did it LIVE on TV. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.21    6 years ago

Nice little conspiracy theory you have going there.

Got any real proof?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.22    6 years ago

he made a quip, and now somehow THAT is evidence of wrongdoing/

Whoo Boy!

That's a good one!

LMFAO!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.20    6 years ago
It may behoove you to understand the timeline.

I understand the timeline just fine. Y'all insisted that Clinton's email server was hacked despite all evidence to the contrary. This claim would only be relevant if it happened BEFORE it was scrubbed. 

BTW, we still don't know everything that Trump's Russian 'exploratory committee' did.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.26  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.24    6 years ago
he made a quip

He did a hell of a lot more than that. Go watch the video of the Katy Tur exchange with Trump on that date. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.25    6 years ago

I  understand the timeline just fine

Then why did you make the false claim that Trump declared his candidacy before the emails were destroyed?

Y'all insisted that Clinton's email server was hacked despite all evidence to the contrary. This claim would only be relevant if it happened BEFORE it was scrubbed.

The server containing the subpoenaed emails that Clinton deleted  could only have been hacked before it was scrubbed in March 2015. Trump (like the FBI) wanted to see these emails in July 2016.

It would have been impossible for the Russians to obtain these emails by hacking in July 2016. The alleged  conspiracy makes no sense. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.28  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.11    6 years ago

Yea, he would if he had asked Russia to "get those 30,000 emails". Oh wait, he DID ask that, and later that same day? The DNC was hacked. Weird coincidence? Not likely. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.29  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.27    6 years ago
Then why did you make the false claim that Trump declared his candidacy before the emails were destroyed?

I did? Where? 

The server containing the subpoenaed emails that Clinton deleted

I suggest you go READ the subpoena. 

It would have been impossible for the Russians to obtain these emails by hacking in July 2016. The alleged conspiracy makes no sense.

Then WHY did Trump ask Russia to find them? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.26    6 years ago

Trump has played y'all again, and the media, too.

O course, some lap up whatever the media feeds them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.28    6 years ago

Hmmmmm….why on God's green earth would Trump ask Russia to hack Hillary and they hacked the DNC????!!!?!?!?!

LMAO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.29    6 years ago

For the last time--it WAS A FREAKING JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Surely you've heard of them, right?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.33  cjcold  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.2    6 years ago

Yep, the republicans stole Hillary's server. Not that it will do them any good. Just read the Comey book. Am so glad I don't work in Washington DC in the Trump administration. Trump is the epitome of ignorant evil. He should not be POTUS!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.34  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.30    6 years ago
Trump has played y'all again, and the media, too. O course, some lap up whatever the media feeds them.

Bullshit. Trump has y'all accepting his every debacle as if he shits platinum.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.34    6 years ago

Okay, sure, whatever you say!

Still LMFAO!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.1.36  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.32    6 years ago

You don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. Trump is on video saying that he is means what he said. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.36    6 years ago

1.1.36 Dulay replied to Texan1211 @1.1.32 9 minutes ago
You don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. Trump is on video saying that he is means what he said.

You might want to write that differently. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.38  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    6 years ago

Hollow and pointless "Victory "(?) on Mueller's part, as all 12 of the defendants are conveniently in Russia and will never set foot in a U.S. jail!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1    6 years ago

The article fails to mention that the FBI didn't obtain the DNC computers or server. The DNC had a third party go through it and the FBI dealt with them. Funny that the FBI would allow all that.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
1.2.1  PJ  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    6 years ago

That's what you got out of the article........?  Okay  eek

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
1.2.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    6 years ago
The article fails to mention that the FBI didn't obtain the DNC computers or server. The DNC had a third party go through it and the FBI dealt with them. Funny that the FBI would allow all that.

Here's what I have taken away from this story, 500,000 voters information was stolen from key states, BY THE RUSSIANS BEFORE THE ELECTION, Trump won Michigan by about 10,000 votes, hmmmmm. Trump made an appeal to the Russians on camera to "find the 30,000 missing emails" on July 27, 2016, on that same day hours later Clintons computers were hacked by "Gucifer 2.0", now known to be part of the Russian spy complex and, a partner with Wikileaks, what did Trump say about Wikileaks, oh yeah, "I love Wikileaks". Roger Stone, a good friend of Donald Trumps, now admits that he has connections with Gucifer 2.0, aka, Russian spy's. What else do you need to make the connection?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    6 years ago
Funny that the FBI would allow all that.

What probable cause would the FBI have for demanding the DNC's server be turned over? You know the DNC is a PRIVATE entity right?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    6 years ago
The article fails to mention that the FBI didn't obtain the DNC computers or server. The DNC had a third party go through it and the FBI dealt with them. Funny that the FBI would allow all that.

Vic, a Dutch intelligence agency observed the Russians hacking the DNC.   Hang on to your conspiracies though, I expect no less. You probably still believe Seth Rich stole the emails and gave them to Assange. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.3    6 years ago

Evidence in a criminal case?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
1.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.5    6 years ago
Evidence in a criminal case?

So your posit is that the Federal government can confiscate property from a PRIVATE entity because they were a victim of a crime? I'd love to see where the hell you found that ridiculous concept documented in our jurisprudence. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.7  cjcold  replied to  Dulay @1.2.3    6 years ago
a PRIVATE entity right?

Just read the Comey book. Seems the FBI and the DOJ work a little different than I thought.

 
 
 
Silent_Hysteria
Freshman Silent
2  Silent_Hysteria    6 years ago

I was hoping for something bigger.  Surprised they didn't indict putin as well considering he is in charge.  Either way I think the investigation is coming to a close soon which is good

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @2    6 years ago

Putin would have loved an indictment. It would make meeting with Trump and future Presidents a source of great entertainment for the Russians. There would have to be long explanations to placate the left on why Putin wasn't arrested and held for trial.

Mueller knows none of the 12 indicted will ever set foot in the US to face trail.  Now he just has to hope the Russian government doesn't catch him again by hiring US lawyers to show up for the trial.  Last time it wasn't too pretty for Mueller and team.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.1    6 years ago
But, in reality, had the DNC and DCCC been a tad more helpful themselves, like handing over servers and such, this entire debacle with Mueller might have ended long ago.

Since the DNC was hacked, one has to wonder why Blabbermouth Debbie wouldn't turn over their server to the FBI?thinking

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  cjcold  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    6 years ago
Mueller and team.

Mueller and team are doing quite well sniffing out traitors and those foreign governments who pay them.

Do you suppose that is why Trump and crew are so eager to shut down all investigations?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Silent_Hysteria @2    6 years ago

At least the investigation is focused on what it was supposedly looking into - "Russian meddling in the election".  

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.2.1  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    6 years ago
"Russian meddling in the election".

Which is a given.

Why does Trump kiss Putin's ass while flipping off all of our allies?

What are really on those blackmail tapes and tax records that Putin has on Trump?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  cjcold @2.2.1    6 years ago
Why does Trump kiss Putin's ass while flipping off all of our allies?

Yup, that's the liberal line. They repeat the same nonsense no matter what. Trump could nuke Russia and you'd still be saying that.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
3  It Is ME    6 years ago

At least Meuller and his team are finding "Real" conspirators from time to time. The others....not so much.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1  cjcold  replied to  It Is ME @3    6 years ago

Problem being that Trump has been a criminal for so long it takes a while to catalogue it all.

Last I heard, Mueller is honest and thorough.

Which means Trump is thoroughly fucked (and about time he paid for his numerous crimes).

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
3.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  cjcold @3.1    6 years ago

Silly "Americans". You think the Russians indicted are actually going to be transferred to the U.S. for a U.S. trail ?

It's all just a show ! laughing dude

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    6 years ago

I wonder if Mueller is trying to be fired? Issuing meaningless indictments while the President is out the country is  an intentional  provocation if I've ever seen one. These are sham indictments that will never be acted on (at least Mueller hopes so,  given how he embarrassed  he was when he tried this last time), so there's no reason these couldn't be issued next week, or next month.   

Mueller's certainly strengthened the argument his whole investigation is just a politically motivated attack on Trump. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
4.1  seeder  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    6 years ago

If Obama were President and he had your attitude, you would be leading the charge of how reckless and traitorous it is to not indict Russian nationals working directly under Putin to undermine our democracy, regardless of any inability to act on a prosecution.

And are seriously going to bring up the word provocation?  Have you heard of Donald Trump?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1    6 years ago
, you would be leading the charge of how reckless and traitorous it

Don't make things up. These are meaningless indictments that don't have any real significance.  it's a nice press conference, and Mueller's cheerleaders can point to all the "indictments" he's gotten, but nothing's going to come from them. 

Trump will be pissed this will upstage his meeting with the Queen, and I guess that's the point, but Mueller doing his reputation no favors. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1    6 years ago

Yes, and if Obama were president the left would have had Mueller and teams heads on a platter long ago. 

If this is the best that Mueller has got; then he and his team need to be put under investigation and back charged for wasting tax payer money. 

I am sure Putin and the Russian nationals under indictment are laughing at the division they caused in this country by a propaganda campaign.  None of them will ever see a courtroom; unless the Russians set Mueller up to falsely indict someone. Then their defense will show up and catch Mueller flat footed again.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
4.1.3  seeder  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    6 years ago
Mueller doing his reputation no favors

Lol.  Trumpsters already hate him, and sensible people (aka non Trump supporters) like myself and not the least bit phased.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.3    6 years ago
and sensible people (aka non Trump supporters) like myself and not the least bit phased.

A majority of the public already thinks the investigation is politically motivated. This just is another piece of evidence to support that belief.  

A smart person who wants Trump removed from office would probably be thinking of a long term strategy that would result in a significant number of Republicans wanting him removed (which is the only way it can happen) and realize that a political stunt like today makes its that  much harder to achieve. But celebrate your little meaningless "victory" while you lose the war, I guess. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
4.1.5  seeder  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.2    6 years ago

crazy

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.4    6 years ago
A majority of the public already thinks the investigation is politically motivated. This just is another piece of evidence to support that belief.

Yup, they think that the investigation by the predominately Republican FBI, headed by a lifetime Republican , appointed by Trump's own appointed Republican acting AG, on a Republican POTUS, is politically motivated.

stunned

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.1.7  Greg Jones  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1    6 years ago

Yes, and Rosenstein said no Americans were involved in any crimes...yet again.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.7    6 years ago
Yes, and Rosenstein said no Americans were involved in any crimes...yet again.

I dare you to post his complete quote on that.  I double dog dare you. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.6    6 years ago
that the investigation by the predominately Republican FBI, headed by a lifetime Republican, appointed by Trump's own appointed Republican acting AG, on a Republican POTUS, is politically motivated

Reading a poll is a little hard for you, huh? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.9    6 years ago
Reading a poll is a little hard for you, huh?

What does a poll have to do with the truth?  Never denied the accuracy of the poll, just showed how utterly ridiculous the actual premise was.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. 

-Joseph Goebbels

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.1.11  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.7    6 years ago
Yes, and Rosenstein said no Americans were involved in any crimes...yet again.

So Manafort isn't sitting in jail right now, and Flynn never plead guilty? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
4.1.12  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.11    6 years ago

Which one of them have charges of collusion....

Wait...I will save you the embarrassment of you having to answer this yourself in front of your friends, so I will do it for you...

NONE!!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.1.13  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @4.1.12    6 years ago

Who said they were being investigated for collusion? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  bugsy @4.1.12    6 years ago
Which one of them have charges of collusion...

Is collusion illegal???

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.1.15  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @4.1.12    6 years ago

I'd love to know which legal illiterate first used collusion in relation to the Mueller investigation. Mueller's appointment used 'coordination' and that would include conspiracy. So Trump can say 'NO COLLUSION" all he wants and Mueller can agree, while prosecuting for conspiracy...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    6 years ago

The lengths you go to in defense of Trump and co. , in service of your ideology, is something to see.  

Personally, I'd be ashamed to death to defend a total asshole the way you defend this one. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2    6 years ago

If you think what I wrote is some sort of  defense of Trump, you are reading wrong. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2    6 years ago

No evidence of his having committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" Still waiting on evidence and proof...the old smoking gun if you will. Keep trying, but you're going to be disappointed.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
4.2.3  Skrekk  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.1    6 years ago
If you think what I wrote is some sort of  defense of Trump, you are reading wrong.

I assumed you were just doing what Trump does - defend Putin.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    6 years ago

The timing is always questionable - right after we heard from Strzok

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
4.4.1  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.4    6 years ago
The timing is always questionable - right after we heard from Strzok

This was planned before that disgusting political theater on Thursday, Trump knew earlier in week.    Speaking of timing, what did you think of the timing of Russian hacking activity?  RIGHT AFTER TRUMP ASKED THEM FOR HELP WITH DNC EMAILS?    Care to comment?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.4.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @4.4.1    6 years ago

He didn't ask them to hack the DNC nor anyone else for that matter. He asked them to see if they could find Hillary's destroyed e-mails. Something that may be possible but it would seem that just like everything else with the Clintons, the American public will never get to see what happened.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.4.5  MrFrost  replied to  NORMAN-D @4.4.4    6 years ago
He did absolutely NOTHING

You mean other than throw donny's friends out of the country? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.5  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    6 years ago
I wonder if Mueller is trying to be fired? Issuing meaningless indictments while the President is out the country is an intentional provocation if I've ever seen one.

Well since Trump was briefed on the indictments BEFORE he left the country, that posit fails miserably.

These are sham indictments that will never be acted on (at least Mueller hopes so, given how he embarrassed he was when he tried this last time), so there's no reason these couldn't be issued next week, or next month.  

Every one of those named are now limited from traveling to just about the entire western world. Undoubtedly, their bank accounts outside of Russia should they have any, will be frozen. Hell, some of them may own property here and elsewhere that can be frozen too. 

Secondly, these 'sham indictments' will be used as a template for indictments of their American co-conspirators. The 'Congressional candidate' better get himself a fucking lawyer...

Mueller's certainly strengthened the argument his whole investigation is just a politically motivated attack on Trump.

That's funny because Trump and his sycophants have insisted that these indictments prove that his hands are clean. It looks like y'all need to get on the same page. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.5.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4.5    6 years ago
Well since Trump was briefed on the indictments BEFORE he left the country

You know Mueller is an independent prosecutor right? Trump doesn't get to sign off on when indictments are announced and simply because they told him they were coming doesn't mean anything. 

Here you go:

President Donald Trump has accused special counsel Robert Mueller for months of running a politically driven “witch hunt” against him.

The lead Russia investigator has now given the president and his allies fresh ammunition for that claim...

Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, exposing the former FBI director to charges of playing politics with international diplomacy.

“It’s a big FU from Mueller,” a White House official said in an interview, speculating that it “wasn’t an accident” that the public rollout landed right before the Putin summit.

“This is just one more case of political malpractice,” added Barry Bennett, a former Trump campaign adviser who remains close to the White House. “These guys all deserve to be indicted and deserve to be convicted. But to do it the Friday before the Monday meeting? Not so smart.”

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
4.5.2  lib50  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.5.1    6 years ago

Lol, some butt-hurt in GOP circles that the circle is tightening around them. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
4.5.3  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.5.1    6 years ago

From your link;

“To me, this is what they ought to be doing,” he said. “It’s the absolute correct thing to do, and I’m sure the president will bring it up with Putin.”

John Dowd, a former personal lawyer for Trump

“Announcing indictments when they are done, regardless of the news swirl, is being apolitical and entirely appropriate,” he added.

Peter Zeidenberg, who served as a deputy to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald

Mueller couldn’t win either way with his latest move, said David Weinstein, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Miami. “Had the indictment been released after the Putin summit, there would have been allegations that by keeping this under wraps it undermined the president’s abilities to have a conversation about the probe,” he said.

Thanks for sharing...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.5.4  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.5.1    6 years ago
Barry Bennett, a former Trump campaign adviser who remains close to the White House

How many people are close to trump. I swear, different names just keep popping out of the woodwork.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    6 years ago

Let's see clips of all the times Trump talked about the hacking of the DNC either being a hoax or done by a 400 pounder sitting on his bed. 

Trump is between a rock and a hard place today. I hope it squeezes some sense into him. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5    6 years ago
Trump is between a rock and a hard place today.

Lol, that's funny.  He's about to appoint his second Supreme Court Justice.  Mueller better hurry up and find something about Trump!!!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6  Trout Giggles    6 years ago

This all well and fine but when is Mueller gonna indict Americans?

I know...I know....hold my britches on....

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1  Ronin2  replied to  Trout Giggles @6    6 years ago

You are assuming that he has evidence against Americans that he can make stick that is relevant to the collusion with the Russians.  Also, that his only evidence is against members of Trump's team; and none that worked for Clinton.

Mueller and Co are just enjoying an extended stay on the tax payer dime now. Wonder how much longer they will be allowed to enjoy it?

 
 
 
Fireryone
Freshman Silent
6.1.1  Fireryone  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    6 years ago
Mueller and Co are just enjoying an extended stay on the tax payer dime now. Wonder how much longer they will be allowed to enjoy it?

This is just unbelievable.  Mueller isn't a partisan hack.  That Trump has been successful in undermining his integrity is appalling. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
6.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    6 years ago

Trump has spent well over 100 million taxpayer dollars....GOLFING... And you want to complain about an investigation where a foreign enemy nation attacked us, which has cost in total, less than 10 million dollars? Really? Cry me a fucking river. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.2  Tacos!  replied to  Trout Giggles @6    6 years ago
This all well and fine but when is Mueller gonna indict Americans?

I doubt we'll see anything like that. Obviously it depends on the specific actions, but Americans are supposed to be involved in American elections. Yes, hacking is illegal, but newspapers couldn't care less where their information comes from, whether it's private or even classified. They will publish anything on behalf of "the people have a right to know." No one had any problem at all with the publishing of what appeared to be a private conversation between Donald Trump and Billy Bush. No one has any problem with the publishing of what are reasonably either private or confidential conversations between Trump and lawyers or advisors. So, the outrage over the Trump campaign - or anyone else in America - fishing around for dirt on a political opponent seems awfully hypocritical to me.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @6.2    6 years ago

It's not about fishing around for dirt...it's about colluding with a foreign government to influence an election. How many times does this have to be said?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.1    6 years ago
it's about colluding with a foreign government to influence an election

Except there's no evidence of that. The hacking happened long before Trump's people were looking for information, so they couldn't have been part of that. Trying get the information after the fact is not remotely illegal.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
7  Dismayed Patriot    6 years ago

Imagine if this wasn't Russia but another foreign country with about the same GDP as Russia, Mexico. Can you imagine how the Republicans would be reacting if there was a conspiracy to elect a Mexico friendly President and there was evidence Mexico hacked RNC servers and leaked Republican party emails showing all the infighting and sausage making of their political process which hurt their candidates numbers and helped the Mexico friendly candidate who said, during the campaign "Mexico, if you're listening, I hope you can find Trumps missing tax returns. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”. And then if the Mexico friendly candidate won, there was evidence of numerous campaign staff of the winner having dozens of contacts with Mexican government operatives, some having taken millions in the preceding few years from Mexico, and we found out that Mexico had been spending $1.25 million a month on subversive campaign ads on US social media sites. On top of that we find Mexico hacked at least 20 States election servers and gathered voter data. Then investigations gathered enough evidence to directly charge a dozen Mexican Intelligence operatives who hacked and disseminated stolen emails with the intent of hurting the Trump campaign which lost the electoral college by just 0.8%.

Does anyone think the Republican party wouldn't be demanding the Mexico friendly Presidents immediate impeachment? Would they not be screaming at the top of their lungs about the injustice? Would a steady economy be enough for them to look the other way? Would it matter to the Trump supporters how horrid others saw their candidate and voted for the Mexico friendly candidate because of all the bad things they'd heard about Trump, they'd seen his taxes and saw what kind of criminal he was, so they just couldn't vote for him, plus they'd heard he was running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor and may have murdered a staffer to keep it quiet, I mean, that's just what they heard from social media...

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
7.1  seeder  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7    6 years ago

Yeah, but they're brown, so of course there would conservative outrage.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  JohnRussell    6 years ago

Sen.s Schumer and Warner, and probably others, are demanding that Trump cancel the meeting with Putin UNLESS he makes this news the number one topic of the meeting and someone else is present at the "one on one" meeting. 

Very sensible demands. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8    6 years ago

The Senators can stuff it. They don't get to place demands on the President.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1    6 years ago

"President" Trump asked the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton and then they did. 

He was bordering on traitorous behavior.  The summit with Putin should be canceled and Trump told to go sit in the corner. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    6 years ago

That is an outright lie.

prove it--show us a quote where Trump asks Russia to hack Hillary.

Come on---prove it.

And gee, according to some "geniuses", if Trump was in bed with the Russians, why on earth would anyone be stupid enough to think Trump would have to ask publicly?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.3    6 years ago

Come on, don't take the fun out of it--let him do his OWN work!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.5    6 years ago

Well, in all fairness, at least he had the CHANCE to respond and chose not to.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
8.1.7  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.3    6 years ago

It really doesn't matter how hard conservatives try to protect Trump and try to pretend this very active and successful investigation is 'fake' or a 'witch hunt'.  Republicans look like morons after that political theater they entertained us with yesterday, especially after today's indictments.  Why the hell are they spending so much time and energy trying to damage our national security?  They are looking more complicit by the day.  What do they have to hide?  Because the closer we get to the end, the worse it looks for them.  Follow the money,  it leads to the RNC and the NRA and some dark money and help they've been getting.  Don't ask for proof,   that is presented at the proper time.  Plenty of information in those indictments to keep everybody busy.  I bet the GOP is feeling pretty puckered today. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
8.1.9  seeder  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.8    6 years ago

he's going to prison.

LOL

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.3    6 years ago

Einstein Jr -  

I said Trump was bordering on traitorous. This is the definition of traitor 

NOUN
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc..
by asking Russia to hack Hillary Clinton for the purpose of benefiting his campaign, Trump was a traitor to American principles.   Russia is an adversary of the US,  particularly under Putin. 
The DAY AFTER Trump solicited the Russians help Russian hackers attempted to get into Hillary's private accounts. It is in the indictment. 
Don't try to lecture me, it is beyond your abilities. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.10    6 years ago

Still waiting for proof that Trump asked the Russians to hack Hillary.

patience

 
 
 
Fireryone
Freshman Silent
8.1.12  Fireryone  replied to  lib50 @8.1.7    6 years ago
They are looking more complicit by the day.  What do they have to hide?

I believe they are in fact complicit.  Why is anyone's guess, but I wouldn't rule out blackmail. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.13  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    6 years ago

John, this is an example of one of your accusatory posts of the President with no proof. Maybe CNN did not tell you this, but Hillary's server was sitting on an FBI shelf of a storeroom collecting dust for months when Trump simply stated that if the Russians knew where the emails were, to release them to the media.

What's funny is you complain about the President lying but, damn, you sure do enough of it yourself.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.14  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.10    6 years ago
by asking Russia to hack Hillary Clinton

See my response to you above. How do you hack a server that is sitting, unplugged, on a shelf collecting dust?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
8.1.15  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    6 years ago
President" Trump asked the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton and then they did.
liar

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
8.1.16  Greg Jones  replied to  lib50 @8.1.7    6 years ago

Didn't you get the memo that only some Russians were indicted? Did you miss Rosenstein's statement?

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.18  Skrekk  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.3    6 years ago
In other words, this is after John Podesta provided the world access to the DNC servers by falling for the "verify your username and password here" and Hillary Clinton ERASED everything.

So in an article about indictments on the Russians who hacked into the DNC you want to blame the naive user who was the victim of that hack as well as blame another target who was smart enough to keep her data secure?

Sounds like you're carrying water for Putin, Trump and mother Russia.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @8.1.13    6 years ago

Texan, whether or not Trump knew the technicalities of the Russians "obtaining" the emails is immaterial. I'm sure he knows next to nothing about it. Why was he excited about the idea of the Russians turning up Hillary's emails?  Because he knew the level of damage that the emails that had been hacked from the Democratic national Committee had caused Clinton. 

Trump's request came directly after leaks of the DNC material had been in the news for a few days. It was also in the news at the time that someone had illegally hacked the DNC. 

Does Trump say , for example, "everyone should protect their material" ? or something like that?   No he says "I hope the Russians can "find" more.   "Find"?  Trump knew that the DNC material had been hacked and stolen, not "found".  He was hoping the Russians would do the same to Hillary's email that they did to the DNC email. 

I don't know why you guys have to have every little thing explained to you in great detail.  Do none of you think for yourselves? 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
8.1.21  KDMichigan  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    6 years ago
President" Trump asked the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton and then they did.

Lmfao laughing dude

Yeah the commies hacked Hillaryious Hillary's server almost a year after she erased it and turned it over.

Keep em coming we love how informed you are.

Have any more fake news? 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
8.1.22  KDMichigan  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.20    6 years ago
See how that works John?

Its fun to play "Lets make shit up" laughing dude

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.23  Skrekk  replied to  KDMichigan @8.1.21    6 years ago
Yeah the commies hacked Hillaryious Hillary's server almost a year after she erased it and turned it over.

Yet more evidence of how truly uninformed you are.    Maybe you should actually read the indictment before you embarrass yourself again?

According to the indictment, on the same day Trump made those comments, Russian hackers “attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provided and used by Clinton’s personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.”

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
8.1.24  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.1    6 years ago
"President" Trump asked the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton and then they did.

Wait a minute. I thought you guys' talking point is that Trump does what Russia wants him to do. Now you are saying it is the other way around. You guys need to stop bullshitting and get your talking points straight.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.19    6 years ago

According to Democrats, Hillary was never hacked. So what are you complaining about? You stated something that was untrue, and now it looks like you are backpedaling as fast as your little legs can carry you!

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.28  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.27    6 years ago
According to Democrats, Hillary was never hacked. So what are you complaining about?

That doesn't mean the Russians didn't try, and apparently they did so in direct response to traitor Trump's request: "Russia, if you're listening....."

I think it's great that we've got a Russian mole in the WH and he doesn't even try to hide it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @8.1.28    6 years ago

Well, now, prove that outlandish statement.

Prove Russians tried to hack a server in government possession and not even plugged in.

Will this be like your last attempt to prove it--where you provided ZERO support for your statement?

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.30  Skrekk  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.25    6 years ago
Was that before or after Podesta provided his PASSWORD ('password') in a phishing scam a 5th grader would have enough intelligence to delete?

Sounds like you're trying to blame a crime on the target of that crime.   Are all Republicans today carrying water for Putin?    The GOP platform would indicate the answer is yes.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Skrekk @8.1.23    6 years ago
Yet more evidence of how truly uninformed you are.

That is putting it mildly. He's not the only one like that on this thread either. This is what happens when you get your daily talking points from Rudy Giuliani.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
8.1.32  Skrekk  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.26    6 years ago
Well, had that "user" not had her PERSONAL SERVER in her fucking basement and used the State Department provided servers and email addresses she never would have had an issue.

Actually it's an entirely different server which the indictment concerns.   Maybe you should read it before you comment?

However it's worth noting that Clinton's PERSONAL SERVER in her fucking basement was apparently never breached yet the State Dept's, DOD's and FBI's servers were all breached by hackers.    So it seems that Clinton was very wise to do what she did.    In fact don't you usually whine that it was too secure and you weren't able to make political hay out of her personal emails?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.33  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.26    6 years ago

You are confused. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
8.1.34  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.5    6 years ago

Who are you referring to? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
8.1.36  MrFrost  replied to  NORMAN-D @8.1.35    6 years ago

freebeacon? Really? FAIL!!!!!!!! LOL 

 
 
 
Freefaller
Professor Quiet
8.1.37  Freefaller  replied to  MrFrost @8.1.36    6 years ago

lol did someone say freebacon?  Cause I'm all for that

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
8.2  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @8    6 years ago
Sen.s Schumer and Warner, and probably others, are demanding that Trump cancel the meeting with Putin UNLESS he makes this news the number one topic of the meeting and someone else is present at the "one on one" meeting.

Schumer and Warner ……... Want. laughing dude

What did they ever want for 8 years of Pre-Trump on Russia ?

Redline, Redline, this redline, redline, maybe this redline, redline...….. redrum ?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
9  MrFrost    6 years ago

I am sure trump will stand with America and denounce Putin and his spies, I mean he has done it so many times in the past... LMAO!!!! Oh wait, trump has never said ANYTHING bad about putin....ever because putin is, "fine". SMFH

Trump will once again side with his butt buddy Putin and slam American's who are trying to protect and prosecute attacks on our great nation. The truly sad part? Trump supporters will cheer for trumps fat, orange, Anti-American ass, and continue to insist, blindly, that Russia has never attacked us and had nothing to do with any meddling in our election process. 

They will believe that the Clinton's were running a child sex ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor in DOWNTOWN Manhattan, that didn't even have a fucking basement, no proof whatsoever, not even a shred of evidence and they bought it completely...but every intel agency in the USA and Europe says that russia DID attack us? "Oh hell no, not possible!!!".. I swear, it's too stupid to make it up. 

Strange times we live in. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @9    6 years ago

 Clinton's were running a child sex ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor in DOWNTOWN Manhattan

Remember when liberals claim Trump colluded with Russia?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1    6 years ago

Trump and his reputation are irredeemable.   Save your breath Sean. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.1    6 years ago

Remember John, how liberals made up a lie about the President colluding with Russia to steal the DNC's emails? 

Lots of similarities between the liberals who spread that rumor and the Alex Jones Pizzagate types.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
9.1.3  Skrekk  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1    6 years ago
Remember when liberals claim Trump colluded with Russia?

Isn't this article partly about the hack which that traitor encouraged Russia to commit?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
9.1.4  KDMichigan  replied to  Skrekk @9.1.3    6 years ago
that traitor encouraged Russia to commit?

laughing dude

Tell us oh enlightened one how they managed to do that after the Hillaryious Hillary had already wiped her server clean and turned it over?

LOL

 

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
9.1.5  Skrekk  replied to  KDMichigan @9.1.4    6 years ago
Tell us oh enlightened one how they managed to do that after the Hillaryious Hillary had already wiped her server clean and turned it over?

I've done so twice already.   The fact that you're uninformed and haven't read the indictment isn't an excuse for willful ignorance.

Or are you just carrying water for Putin?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
10  Tacos!    6 years ago

Don't hold your breath waiting for these guys to show up in court.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
10.1  bugsy  replied to  Tacos! @10    6 years ago

It would be hilarious if the same happened to Mueller when lawyers for the companies that were indicted showed up to defend those companies. I bet Mueller shit a brick thinking before that that would never happen. Now, all of a sudden, he is balking about going forward with the indictments because he knows he has to show everything he has....which is probably nothing.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
11  bugsy    6 years ago

Most of these libs still think, that any day now, Chris Christie will be indicted for Bridge gate.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
11.1  Skrekk  replied to  bugsy @11    6 years ago

Wasn't he an "unindicted coconspirator", or is that just a term for Presidents who a part of a criminal conspiracy to break into the DNC and undermine American democracy?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
11.1.1  bugsy  replied to  Skrekk @11.1    6 years ago
Wasn't he an "unindicted coconspirator"

In lay speak, that means he was innocent of accusations.

The rest of your post is just desperate blah blah.

 
 
 
96WS6
Junior Quiet
12  96WS6    6 years ago

I think it is pretty odd the Russians hacked the DNC server but not Hillary's personal one./s

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
12.1  Skrekk  replied to  96WS6 @12    6 years ago

Apparently Clinton is concerned about security and was very wise in how she went about it......unlike Trump who refuses to use a secure phone and was recently pwned by a comedian pretending to be Bob Menendez.    Heck, Trump is so utterly unconcerned about the issue that he pleaded with Russia to hack American networks and he doesn't seem to care at all that they interfered with our elections, quite possibly because he encouraged them to do so.   Is he a Russian mole or just a traitor?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
13  MrFrost    6 years ago

➡ CNN - 12 Russians indicted today

➡ MSNBC - 12 Russians indicted today

➡ ABC - 12 Russians indicted today

➡ FOX NEWS - Atlanta airport reveals it spent nearly $4M on dog bathrooms

Sooooooooooooooooooooooo shocking... LOL

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13.1  JohnRussell  replied to  MrFrost @13    6 years ago

LOL. Good work.

They kniow who they have to please. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
13.1.1  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @13.1    6 years ago

See my 13.2. Yours is related.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
13.2  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @13    6 years ago

Well, like most of your posts, that one was bullshit...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
13.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @13.2    6 years ago
Well, like most of your posts, that one was bullshit...

So you are saying they didn't run the story about the dog bathrooms? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @13.2.1    6 years ago

I believe any reasonable person can see that they wouldn't have run JUST that story--even though the little post what other networks carried is ridiculous!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @13.2.1    6 years ago

Of course, reasonable people wouldn't post anything as deceptive as your post is.

You wish to make it seem as though Fox didn't carry the story. otherwise, what was the freaking point of your little post of which network carried what story?

You were wrong, again.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
13.2.4  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @13.2.1    6 years ago

Sure they did. Who cares? You implied (lied) that Fox did not cover the indictment story. I, once again, proved you wrong.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
13.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @13.2.4    6 years ago

I didn't say they didn't run the story, (you lied). 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
13.2.6  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @13.2.5    6 years ago

Sigh....You listed 4 or 5 left wing media sources stating they ran the indictment story, then at the bottom, you list Fox as running some dog bathroom story. The implication ?(lie) was Fox did not run the indictment story.

Might as well quit while you are, well......behind.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @13.2.5    6 years ago

Digging a whole

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
13.2.8  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @13.2.6    6 years ago

Swing and a miss. YOU took it that way, but its not what i said. Thats YOUR problem, not mine. Lol

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @13.2.8    6 years ago

Why your post showing what other networks carried then?

Did you bother to look if any other network covered the Atlanta airport dog bathrooms?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
14  MrFrost    6 years ago

DiA7OauXUAIdpe1.jpg

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
14.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @14    6 years ago

You don't think we won't fuck them up (again) to get our President back?  We could do it with just what we already have in country with ease.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
14.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.1    6 years ago

*woosh* Right over your head... LOL

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
15  MrFrost    6 years ago

They must have had to milk a lot of hookers for that much piss...

DiBKWa1VQAAvNxX.jpg

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
16  MrFrost    6 years ago

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 [Clinton] emails that are missing.” - Donald Trump Later *that same day*: Russians made their first effort to break into the servers used by Hillary Clinton’s personal office.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @16    6 years ago

Oh, so now Trump is the one calling the shots?

Can't y'all get it together?

Either Trump is Putin's puppet or he masterminded everything. It can't be both when it is just a convenient argument for you.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
16.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @16.1    6 years ago

Are you denying trump said that? I mean, it's on video, he said in front of the entire nation, on live tv. Perhaps you should look up the word, "collusion", then you'll get it.. LOL 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
16.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @16.1    6 years ago
Either Trump is Putin's puppet or he masterminded everything.

So he can't be a coordinating conspirator asking the puppet master for help? He'd already been praising wikileaks for helping him out the day the Hollywood Access tape was released. "I love wikileaks" he said shortly after they rescued him by dumping the stolen DNC emails that took the wind out of the deplorable pussy grabber statement. Of course he was excited to ask for more help since it had worked so well already.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
16.1.3  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @16.1    6 years ago

You know, whoever it is that hired them to post on here need to get their wages back. I'm sure they are being provided the correct talking points, but for some reason, they refuse to use them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @16.1.2    6 years ago

Gee, I would love to indulge you in your conspiracy theories, but I have reached my quota for the week already.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @16.1.1    6 years ago

Did I ever deny he said it?

Yes, Trump said something along the line of "Hey, Russia, if you're listening, how about finding those 30,000 emails Hillary deleted?"

That is a far cry from saying "Hack Hillary".

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
16.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @16.1.5    6 years ago

How else would they fucking find them? Looking under rocks at the bottom of the ocean? ( deleted )

 
 
 
owlsview677
Freshman Silent
16.1.7  owlsview677  replied to  bugsy @16.1.3    6 years ago

The only Russian/Communist trolls/plants assigned to FB private groups are interns with little to no experience.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @16.1.6    6 years ago

Gee, I don't know.

Maybe ask Hillary where they all went?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
17  MrFrost    6 years ago

Dh3419V4AER4Q.jpg

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
18  MrFrost    6 years ago

Remember when 300,000 Londoner's showed up to protest Obama's visit? No? Neither does anyone else. Trump is a scumbag, hated the world over. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
18.1  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @18    6 years ago

Socialists and anarchists do not protest their own.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
18.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  bugsy @18.1    6 years ago
Socialists and anarchists do not protest their own.

I wasn't talking about trump. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
18.1.2  bugsy  replied to  MrFrost @18.1.1    6 years ago

Neither was I

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
19  Jeremy Retired in NC    6 years ago

Last I heard these 12 were Russian military officers.  Good luck getting them to trial.  

These indictments are just like this investigation - A JOKE.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
19.1  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19    6 years ago

100+ criminal counts

35 total indictments

32 people indicted

3 companies indicted

5 guilty pleas

Paul Manafort in jail

Michael Flynn guilty

Trump told Russia to hack

Trump staff met with Russians Trump Jr. worked w/Wikileaks

This is not a witch hunt. It’s a criminal conspiracy.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
19.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @19.1    6 years ago

100+ criminal counts

35 total indictments

32 people indicted

3 companies indicted

5 guilty pleas

Paul Manafort in jail

Michael Flynn guilty

Trump told Russia to hack

Trump staff met with Russians Trump Jr. worked w/Wikileaks

This is not a witch hunt. It’s a criminal conspiracy.

All for bullshit that has nothing to do with what he was supposed to be investigating.  IT'S A JOKE.

 
 
 
Fireryone
Freshman Silent
19.1.2  Fireryone  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19.1.1    6 years ago
All for bullshit that has nothing to do with what he was supposed to be investigating.  IT'S A JOKE.

Na, that comment is a joke.

The investigation is legit.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
19.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19.1.1    6 years ago
All for bullshit that has nothing to do with what he was supposed to be investigating.

He is investigating criminal activity, that's what he is finding. Maybe you should actually read the scope of the investigation. Why are you so opposed to finding criminal activity? Getting a little too close to home? That would be my guess. Keep in mind, this is just ONE investigation. I bet you cheered for all NINE of the benghazi investigations and would happily support even more. But ONE investigation into the trump campaign and you are throwing a tantrum? Deal with it. 

...................

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and
management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as
follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI
Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
applicable to the Special Counsel

................

Now you know.... LOL

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
19.1.4  Skrekk  replied to  MrFrost @19.1.3    6 years ago

Something which hasn't been widely reported yet is that a number of American co-conspirators were mentioned in the indictment but were kept anonymous at least until charges are brought against them.    Congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida appears to be one of them.

In announcing the indictments, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was very careful to say that the charges don’t include any allegation that an American knowingly participated in the conspiracy. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t show Americans were involved. In fact, the indictments show that multiple Republicans were involved in requesting documents, communicating with Russian operatives, identifying documents of value, and coordinating the release of stolen information.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
19.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @19.1.3    6 years ago
He is investigating criminal activity,

No he's not.  If he were, he would have to look into the Obama administration, who knew there were problems with Russia a few years ago.  It's blatantly obvious that he isn't.  That would reveal more activity that Clinton doesn't want brought up.  

Now, like I said, the indictments are a joke just as this investigation is a joke.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
19.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Fireryone @19.1.2    6 years ago
The investigation is legit.

About as legit as MS-13.

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
19.1.7  lib50  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19.1.5    6 years ago
Now, like I said, the indictments are a joke just as this investigation is a joke.

Why the hell are so many republicans taking Russia's side and denigrating the USA?  Why is that your knee-jerk response to what Russia did to us?   I can't believe the same folks who couldn't get enough Benghazi are bitching about an investigation that has so very many indictments, pleas and jail.  WTF?  Is political ideology and protecting Trump more important than country?  Or is it more, perhaps the GOP is also complicit and has something to hide?  Because the same people think kneeling at a football game is disrespectful to us, but somehow treason is brushed aside.  One can only imagine what they'd say if this were a democrat. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
19.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19.1.5    6 years ago
If he were, he would have to look into the Obama administration

But..........But..........But................OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sad..

executivebranchcriminalactivitiesbypresidentialadministrationyearsincriminal12624831.png

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
19.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  lib50 @19.1.7    6 years ago
Why the hell are so many republicans taking Russia's side and denigrating the USA?

Why are the leftist ignoring that this whole thing started during the Obama administration?   Mueller and his joke team are looking at the wrong people all in a very feeble attempt to appease a temper tantrum, that the Democrats lost an election they rigged.

The indictments are garbage.  Why is Mueller (a federal government appointee) investigating the hacking of a PRIVATE organization?  And an organization that refused to cooperate the FIRST TIME this was looked at?  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
19.1.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  MrFrost @19.1.8    6 years ago

Source?  Or is this yet ANOTHER figment of your imagination.  You should work for CNN.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
19.1.14  MrFrost  replied to  NORMAN-D @19.1.11    6 years ago
Another masterpiece from Stink Progress? Perhaps, Raw Story, Mutha Jones, Koz or Media Matters?.

This coming from someone that posts nothing but conspiracy theory sites? Now that's funny. But hey, dispute it if you can. LOL

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
19.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19.1.1    6 years ago
All for bullshit that has nothing to do with what he was supposed to be investigating.

Actually, the indictments are targeted to EXACTLY what Mueller was appointed to investigate. From his appointment letter:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.
§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and
management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the
Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as
follows:

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
20  Skrekk    6 years ago

Here's a brief video by an undercover Russian journalist about Russia's "troll factory" in St Petersburg.   It sounds exactly like how Faux News is run with morning meetings about current talking points and how the news should be skewed that day.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
20.1  MrFrost  replied to  Skrekk @20    6 years ago

Everyone should watch that video...it explains a lot.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
22  Paula Bartholomew    6 years ago

Those indictments are worthless.  Putin will just scatter everyone to places where they won't be found.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
23  MrFrost    6 years ago

Benghazi: 8-9 investigations, 4.5 years, not one indictment, not one prison sentence, not one charge. And the right wing says it was not a witch hunt. 

Trump/Russia: One (1), investigation, just over one year. 191 indictments, 35 defendants, 5 guilty pleas, 3 companies indicted, one prison sentence. And the right wing claims it's a "witch hunt". 

....

It is seriously too stupid to make up. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
24  JohnRussell    6 years ago

Are you doing standup now Norman? 

By the way, is Trump going to demand extradition so the Russian criminals can face American justice? That is what a true and honorable American president would do. 

----------

No Collusion?

In response to the indictment, the White House released a statement saying ,

As Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said today:

  • There is no allegation in this indictment that Americans knew that they were corresponding with Russians.
  • There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
  • There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election result.

Today’s charges include no allegations of knowing involvement by anyone on the campaign and no allegations that the alleged hacking affected the election result. This is consistent with what we have been saying all along.

Leave aside the obvious falsity of the White House’s assertion that the indictment is “consistent” with the president’s prior statements, which have repeatedly questioned Russia’s involvement in election interference. Leave aside also the question of why the White House’s response to an indictment on this subject made no mention, at all, of the unprecedented attack by a foreign adversary on foundational elements of U.S. democracy and instead merely defended the president’s campaign as not having knowingly participated in it.

The statement is largely accurate, as is the Rosenstein statement on which it draws. This indictment does not charge or allege specific criminal misconduct by any American. And it is careful—as was the indictment in February—not to sweep broadly in its claims about people on this side of the Atlantic. That said, the indictment does not in any sense foreclose the possibility of substantial, knowing and even criminal involvement by Americans. And it actually moves the ball forward on possible collusion, which would likely take the legal form of criminal conspiracy, in important respects.

First, while the indictment does not charge any American with specific criminal conduct, it does describe conduct by Americans that, depending on further factual development, raises potentially serious questions. The most striking example of this occurs in paragraph 43(a): “On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request for stolen documents from a candidate for the U.S. Congress. The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate’s opponent.”

Soliciting stolen, hacked emails should be politically fatal to an aspiring—or possibly serving—member of Congress, particularly when the thief one petitions turns out to be an adversary foreign intelligence agency. It also raises questions about possible criminal liability for soliciting and receiving stolen information, at least to the extent that the government can prove that one knows the material is stolen. There is no indication that this American was involved with the Trump campaign. So to the extent that “collusion” is shorthand for collusion by individuals related to the Trump campaign, this incident many not meaningfully change the picture. The special counsel indictment announcement in February also named Americans unrelated to the Trump campaign as being dupes of the conspiracy, though those people were more clearly unwitting dupes.

Second, the indictment leaves open the possibility of conduct by Americans not described in this document. While the document does not allege any American who corresponded with these entities knew that they were part of the Russian conspiracy, it also does not say that they did not know or suspect these entities were part of a Russian operation. It leaves that question, about these actors and others, for another day. This document alleges that Americans—including at least one individual who was closely connected to the Trump campaign—had contact with the charged conspirators. Whether they did so with sufficient knowledge or criminal intent, and whether they took the necessary affirmative steps to create legal liability, is simply not addressed in this indictment. It clears no one, and it actually places publicly reported conduct in a more sinister light by clarifying that the individuals in question were, in fact, in contact with Russian conspirators, knowingly or otherwise.

Finally, the factual allegations in this document significantly improve the possibility of criminal conspiracy charges involving Americans. Until this action, there was little indication in the public record that the hacking operation persisted beyond the date the documents were released. While there were questions about whether the Trump campaign participated in some way in coordinating the release of these documents, the presumption based on public evidence was that the hacking scheme—that is, the violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which constituted the most obvious criminal offense—was complete. This left a bit of a puzzle for “collusion” purposes. If the crime was completed at the time the hacking and theft were done, what crime could constitute conspiracy? One year ago to the day, Helen Murillo and Susan Hennessey analyzed the possibility of conspiracy to violate the CFAA. At the time, they noted a stumbling block to the analysis even if individuals in the Trump campaign encouraged the release of documents or coordinated timing:

While the precedent isn’t entirely clear on the matter, it is possible prosecutors here would need to prove not just that a member of the Trump team was aware of the CFAA scheme when he or she took steps to support the tortious act or violation of another state or federal law, but also that the Russians had the intention of publishing the emails at the time they obtained the information in the first instance. It isn’t at all clear from the public record that the Russians initially obtained the emails for the purpose of publishing them. Indeed, there is some suspicion the original intrusion was just in furtherance or ordinary espionage and the plan to release the emails came later.

The Internet Research Agency indictment, in February, offered a potential legal solution to that puzzle .

This indictment, by contrast, offers a potential factual breakthrough. It tells us that the prior factual premise was wrong: the alleged conduct violating the CFAA continued to occur throughout the summer of 2016. That affects the earlier analysis in two ways. First, it makes clear that the Russians did intend to release the information at the time the hacking occured. Second, and perhaps more important, the indictment alleges that the criminal hacking conspiracy was ongoing at the time individuals in the Trump campaign were in contact with charged and uncharged Russian conspirators, raising the possibility of more straightforward aiding and abetting liability.

In other words, stay tuned. This indictment represents a tightening of the ring in the story of criminal prosecution for the 2016 election hacking. The government has now alleged that the social media manipulations by Russian actors constituted a criminal conspiracy. It has alleged as well that the hacking of Democratic Party and Clinton campaign emails were crimes conducted by officers of the Russian state. The question remains: Who, if anyone, helped?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
25  Jeremy Retired in NC    6 years ago

Will Bobby take Putin up on his offer that US investigators can be present while the Russians question these officers?  I doubt it.  

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
25.1  PJ  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25    6 years ago
Will Bobby take Putin up on his offer that US investigators can be present while the Russians question these officers?  I doubt it.

Of course Mr. Mueller wouldn't take Putin up on his offer.  I swear I think you say the oddest things for someone who is retired military......Face Palm

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
25.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  PJ @25.1    6 years ago
Of course Mr. Mueller wouldn't take Putin up on his offer. 

That would be further evidence that the indictments are merely to justify his existance.  Kind of like the last indictments for Russians.  No evidence.

I swear I think you say the oddest things for someone who is retired military.....

You could have just moved along but, here you are.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
25.1.2  PJ  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25.1.1    6 years ago

Yeah.....well you're like an anomaly to me.  I'm trying to dissect you.  

lucy.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
25.2  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25    6 years ago
Will Bobby take Putin up on his offer that US investigators can be present while the Russians question these officers?

You wouldn't ask that question without knowing what Putin wants in return right? Should be make that trade? 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
25.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @25.2    6 years ago

What he's asking for only makes sense.  US investigators are present during the questioning of Russian officers and Russian investigators present while the US questions officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States, whom we believe are—who have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
25.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25.2.1    6 years ago
What he's asking for only makes sense.

So after Putin said unequivocally that none of those indicted would be extradited, WTF is the point of interviewing them? Oh and BTFW, is it against the laws of the Russian Federation to lie to investigators? It sure and hell is here. 

So Putin's military officers can lie their asses off with NO consequences while our citizens could be prosecuted for lying. 

Still want to make that trade? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
25.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25.2.1    6 years ago

crickets.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
25.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @25.2.2    6 years ago
So after Putin said unequivocally that none of those indicted would be extradited

Did you honestly think that Mueller would request extradition?  He knew as soon as he drew up the documents that nothing would come of it.  But then again, he thought the same thing on the last round of indictments on Russians.  They showed up with lawyers and ask for the evidence, and Mueller had NOT A DAMN THING.  

WTF is the point of interviewing them?

Further prove what everybody but the left knows.  That the investigation is a joke.

So Putin's military officers can lie their asses off with NO consequences while our citizens could be prosecuted for lying.

Or not lying (i.e. General Flynn)

Still want to make that trade?

Why not?  What does Muellers team have to hide?  Oh wait...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
25.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25.2.4    6 years ago

Flynn admitted he lied, was fired for lying and Pence said he lied. Dude, he LIED. Deal with it. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
25.2.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25.2.4    6 years ago
Or not lying (i.e. General Flynn)

So, you think he pled guilty to something he didn't do?  What kind of moron does that?

What does Muellers team have to hide?

Oh, Jer, you're really going to regret asking that.  Every new indictment gets closer and closer to ScumbagTrump.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
25.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25.2.4    6 years ago
Did you honestly think that Mueller would request extradition?

That didn't answer my question. 

Further prove what everybody but the left knows. That the investigation is a joke.

Nor did that deflection. 

Or not lying (i.e. General Flynn)

Flynn lied. Flynn admitted to lying. Even Trump said he lied.

Why not? What does Muellers team have to hide? Oh wait...

That comment is utterly obtuse. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
25.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @25.2.7    6 years ago
Yeah he might be the only person ever in the history of the US government to get fired for lying

Actually, Flynn resigned...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
25.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @25.2.10    6 years ago
You know that’s bullshit so why even try throwing it out there.

Nope. It's a FACT. 

You're welcome. Always happy to help y'all with FACTS. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
26  Galen Marvin Ross    6 years ago

Well, it would seem that one of the Russians involved will be seeing the inside of a U.S. jail.

Hours after President Donald Trump publicly sided with Vladimir Putin over questions of Russian interference in the 2016 elections, the Justice Department announced the arrest of 29 year old Maria Butina, alleging that the Russian citizen violated U.S. law by engaging in a series of political activities involving members of one major political party and a U.S. gun rights organization.
“Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government,” the Justice Department said in a statement, charging she was tasked with “developing relationships with U.S. persons and infiltrating organizations having influence in American politics, for the purpose of advancing the interests of the Russian Federation.”
“The filings allege that she undertook her activities without officially disclosing the fact that she was acting as an agent of Russian government, as required by law,” the DOJ stated.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
26.1  Dulay  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @26    6 years ago

And Wayne Lapierre just alerted his attorneys...

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
Sophomore Participates
26.1.1  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Dulay @26.1    6 years ago
And Wayne Lapierre just alerted his attorneys...

I hope he get arrested under the espionage act.

 
 

Who is online





88 visitors