The NYT reports, as I'm sure you already know. Sorry to take so long putting up a post, but I sense that you've begun the conversation in another thread. We were out running errands and walking on Picnic Point, but we listened to the news on the car radio [tuned to Fox News TV]. The newswoman exclaimed "Wow! Wow! Wow!" but I did not see the big wow. So there were some Russians trolling social media. Or is the "wow" that nobody on the Trump team is said to have done anything wrong?
“The nature of the scheme was the defendants took extraordinary steps to make it appear that they were ordinary American political activists,” Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing Mr. Mueller’s inquiry, said in a brief news conference on Friday afternoon at the Justice Department....
All were charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Three defendants were also charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants with aggravated identity theft....
The goal of the Russian operation, which was dubbed the “translator project” and began in 2014 with a monthly budget of $1.25 million, was “information warfare against the United States,” the indictment alleges.
"Information warfare." In other words: speech.
Some of the Russians, posing as Americans and seeking a coordinated effort, “communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump campaign and other political activists.” They communicated with members of the campaign, volunteers, supporters and grass-roots workers, court papers show.
"Unwitting" — none of the Trump people knew.
Individuals involved in the conspiracy traveled to and around the United States, visiting at least eight states, court papers show, and worked with an unidentified American. That person advised them to focus their efforts on what they viewed as “purple” election battleground states, including Colorado, Virginia and Florida, the indictment said.
Ha! The "person" forgot Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan — just like the Clinton campaign.
The indictment cites a series of political advertisements paid for by the Russians, all of them against Mrs. Clinton and in favor of Mr. Trump. “Hillary is a Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is,” one advertisement created by the Russians stated.
That's ludicrously unsophisticated. Doesn't even sound American. Who says "a Satan"? Either you are Satan — the one character — or you're one of his minions — and the word would be "demon" or "devil." Why did these people bother, and why should we care?
While the indictment does not directly accuse the Russian government of running the operation, American intelligence agencies have said that Russian President Vladimir V. Putin authorized a multipronged campaign to boost Mr. Trump’s political chances and damage Mrs. Clinton.
In other words, Putin is off the hook, according to the indictment, and the Times has to go back to "American intelligence agencies have said" to breathe life into the Putin monster.
Posts
230 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 230 of 230Did the Russian government try to interfere in a US election?
And now Mueller has sent out an engraved invitation for the Russian government to interfere in the US judicial system.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't advise any Americans to travel to Russia right now. Unless they want to be on the wrong side of payback.
So basically this reveals that the Russians like meddling in our affairs. Which they have pretty much been doing since there has been a United States. It's not a "nothingburger" per se, but this sort of thing has been going on since, I don't know, 1776 which was preceded by meddling in the colonial affairs. During the Cold War years, this would have been considered pathetic compared to the other operations going on and not worthy of mention. It would probably be a diversion for the real rabble rousing.
The most disturbing thing about this is supposedly well educated and well informed persons are shocked - shocked - by this revelation and think it means something significant.
I suspect that the law that prohibits a foreign national from openly buying a media ad and expounding for or against any political issue or candidate, identifying himself as a foreign national in the process, would be laughed out of court by any judge actually capable of reading the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Contributing money directly to a candidate is another issue- and even then a strong first amendment case can be made if the contribution is open and aboveboard and in line with other permissible donations. The fact that permissible donations are defined is another first amendment problem courts have wrestled with... but supported.
"I guess a whole lotta illegal aliens are eligible for indictment."
Legal ones too apparently.
"Did the Russian government try to interfere in a US election?"
Yes. And so have a lot of other governments through, I am sure, very similar means.
Such as through their state broadcasters which have some significant audience in the US, completely aboveboard, slanting coverage to their preferred outcome.
The BBC for one.
BBC World News America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_News_America
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/n13xtmgh
"It is not answered in the indictment but I can't figure out why Russia would support Trump when it was pretty clear that they had the Clintons in their pocket?"
Assuming Clinton was to be elected, Putin would still want her to be in as feeble a condition as possible. Also, Clinton claimed she became a particular target of Putin after she criticized the legitimacy of Russian elections as Secretary of State.
The real story, of course, is how we got from the Reset button and the 1980s calling to Russian attacks on our electoral system, and who was responsible for defending us from those attacks.
Radio Free Europe
univision
"In other words: speech"
Yes - political speech paid for by a foreign government intended to influence an election. In other words, a federal crime. I thought you were a lawyer. FFS, what has happened to you? I haven't read your blog in about 10 years, but I don't remember you being such a mouthpiece for the dumbest among us.
"Hillary is a Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is" is still a better campaign slogan than "I'm With Her" or "Stronger Together".
"Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
Fry the little fish first."
Do you seriously think those Russians are going to surrender ?
"The BBC for one."
Don't forget the New York Times, biggest stockholder: Mexican national Carlos Slim.
univision
An American company.
Univision Communications
605 Third Avenue, New York, New York
Broadcasting Media Partners, Inc.
(Madison Dearborn Partners, Providence Equity Partners, TPG Capital, Thomas H. Lee Partners, Saban Capital Group (each owning 20%) & Televisa (22%))
Mostly US owned - Haim Saban is the main man, but Televisa is a Mexican company.
"...political speech paid for by a foreign government intended to influence an election... a federal crime."
Odd that nobody was apparently charged with that crime, then.
P.S. avatar with backwards baseball cap makes you look like a real dumbass.
Jon Beneditc: Yes - political speech paid for by a foreign government intended to influence an election. In other words, a federal crime. I thought you were a lawyer. FFS, what has happened to you? I haven't read your blog in about 10 years...
Not reading because you've been so distraught about all the foreign influence-peddling going unpunished in lo these many previous administrations, no doubt. It's nice to see that you've managed to master your distress and finally show up to register your disapproval of this behavior - but still, what took you long?
Jon Benedict:
Please explain the distinction between what is alleged in this indictment and the various state-run news agencies, e.g. BBC, ABC, CBC, and others.
They are funded by foreign governments.
They intend to influence U.S. elections.
Do you believe the distinction is the hidden (poorly) nature of the speech so that only blatant electioneering is legal? Is the lack of disclosure the only salient point?
Truthfully, I am willing to be convinced. But I have read nothing yet that convinces me Mueller's position makes sense.
Yes - political speech paid for by a foreign government intended to influence an election. In other words, a federal crime.
From what I understand of the indictment much of the alleged political speech paid for by a foreign government also was made in a foreign country, arriving here only via the Internet. U.S. law has no authority under the Constitution or international law to prohibit speech that happens in another country, just like Russia or China could not outlaw your comment here even if it is read in those countries.
Just to sum up the conversation here:
Why did our enemy pick Trump to back? or in that case anyone BUT Hillary?
There is no “hoax,” and Trump’s insistence that the Russia investigation is about nothing only reinforces the perception that he cannot concede that he received Russian help and/or that he’s been trying to disable the Russia investigation, precisely because he did not want this plot of interference to come through.
It will be exceptionally hard, if not impossible, for Trump now to fire Rosenstein or Mueller.
Mueller and his team are moving with remarkable speed, wrapping up witnesses and substantiating a conspiracy to influence the election. There is much more to this than “just” evidence of obstruction. There is an embarrassing scheme of influence that certainly could have been the motive for Trump’s effort to thwart the Russia investigation. Mueller has multiple witnesses: Michael Flynn, Richard Pinedo(the indicted American), George Papadopoulos and soon, we are told, Rick Gates). Trump and his legal team should be exceptionally worried about what else Mueller has.
The president’s failure to take action to protect the U.S. election system and prevent another assault on our democracy — a real and ongoing concern voiced by the unanimous testimony of his top intelligence officials — appears to be a gross dereliction of Trump’s duties and an abrogation of his oath.
The Russian plan was specifically aimed at helping Trump. “By February 2016, the suspects had decided whom they were supporting in the 2016 race. According to the indictment, Internet Research Agency specialists were instructed to ‘use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them),'” The Post reports. “Prosecutors say some Russian employees of the troll farm were chastised in September 2016 when they had a ‘low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton’ and were told it was ‘imperative to intensify criticizing’ the Democratic nominee in future posts.”
While Rosenstein said there was no evidence that the actions in the indictment affected the election outcome, such an assertion, he surely must know, is not a provable fact and is legally immaterial. No one can prove how many people were affected by what the Russians put out.
Forgot to mention the above from the internet...
The folks here should try to remember that this was not innocent having a different point of view expression.. this was an orchestrated campaign of mis information and meddling by a foreign adversary/enemy in an attempt to ELECT a candidate to the highest office in our country, in effect to subvert and take over your govt .... why are you so focused on excusing this intrusion by our enemies?
GWash:
I am glad you support posthumously indicting Peter Jennings for his crime of "Talking Politics whilst Canadian".
The world breathes a sign of relief that the criminal, who smoked!, will finally be brought to justive.
Birkel, don't think that Jennings actively sought to over throw the govt... if you have any evidence to that effect, you should bring it forward, albeit a little late... the Canadians are an ally not an enemy... once again, we should not confuse dissent or expressing differing opinions or reporting the events of the day with actively distorting and creating actual FAKE news to subvert the election process - unless of course your object is to obfuscate and confuse... why did the Russians select only trump to support? that doesn't seem to resonate here.. and at an elementary level this latest release from Mueller puts to a rest trump's attempt to discredit russian interference as some kind of made up democrat party excuse for losing... can we at least agree that the russians engaged in a serious attempt to influence the election with the help of our fellow citizens (4 indicted more to come) in order to NOT elect clinton .. because she was not disposed to their agenda and trump was more amenable if not actually working in their behalf...
GWash said...
Forgot to mention the above from the internet...
2/17/18, 7:14 AM
Funny, I was just going to ask you who you ripped off, because I didn't think you wrote that. Usual practice is a cite; l8nks to same are popular as well.
Meanwhile, keep shlonging that chicken!
GWash, if you're interested in discussing this, I'd suggest putting your comments on a more recent post; this comment thread is dead or dying at this point.
Aside from that, as I have other things to do today – I would suggest almost everything you have posted is either false or a tremendous distortion of the truth. I (and I assume many commenters here) don't agree with your premises, so it's no surprise we don't agree with your conclusions.
GWash still looking for that pony in a pile of shit. Poor comprehension skills apparently kept him from noticing Rosenstein explicitly said the goal was to “sow discord” and that various activities were pro-Bernie, or Pro-Trump held simultaneously with anti-Trump rallies. GWash is actually furthering the Russian plan by continuing to sow deceit.
Paco Wove - You do realize that this is the actual indictment that came down today right? That's the thing we're all here discussing. So i guess it's most odd that you didn't figure that out.
Sorry you didn't like my old profile pic. We can't all aspire to your nexus of obscure/douchy/offensive. But I'm sure it makes you feel like a daring but misunderstood truth-teller, so whatever let's you sleep at night...
Jon - nice pic. You said the indictment was for "political speech paid for by a foreign government". I've searched through the document, and found no reference to any foreign government paying for anything. So I was merely pointing out that you misrepresented what the indictment said.
Post a Comment